Co-benefits rarely enter quantitative decision-support frameworks, often because the methodologies for their integration are lacking or not known. This review fills in this gap by providing comprehensive methodological guidance on the quantification of co-impacts and their integration into climate-related decision making based on the literature. The article first clarifies the confusion in the literature about related terms and makes a proposal for a more consistent terminological framework, then emphasizes the importance of working in a multiple-objective–multiple-impact framework. It creates a taxonomy of co-impacts and uses this to propose a methodological framework for the identification of the key co-impacts to be assessed for a given climate policy and to avoid double counting. It reviews the different methods available to quantify and monetize different co-impacts and introduces three methodological frameworks that can be used to integrate these results into decision making. On the basis of an initial assessment of selected studies, it also demonstrates that the incorporation of co-impacts can significantly change the outcome of economic assessments. Finally, the review calls for major new research and innovation toward simplified evaluation methods and streamlined tools for more widely applicable appraisals of co-impacts for decision making.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. 1. Intergov. Panel Clim. Change 2007. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  2. Banerjee R, Benson SM, Bouille DH, Brew-Hammond A, Cherp A. 2.  et al. 2012. Global Energy Assessment: Toward a Sustainable Future Cambridge, UK/Laxenburg, Austria: Cambridge Univ. Press/Int. Inst. Appl. Syst. Anal. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hamilton K, Akbar S. 3.  2010. Assessing the environmental co-benefits of climate change actions Anal. Backgr. Pap., World Bank Group [Google Scholar]
  4. Sathaye J, Shukla PR. 4.  2013. Methods and models for costing carbon mitigation. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 38:137–68 [Google Scholar]
  5. Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S. 5.  et al. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. IPCC Working Group III contribution to AR5. Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  6. Pearce DW. 6.  2000. Policy frameworks for the ancillary benefits of climate change policies. CSERGE Work. Pap. GEC 2000-11, Cent. Soc. Econ. Res. Glob. Environ., Univ. East Anglia, Norwich, Engl. [Google Scholar]
  7. Crutzen PJ, Graedel TE. 7.  1986. The role of atmospheric chemistry in environment-development interactions. Sustainable Development of the Biosphere WC Clark, RE Munn 213–51 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev. (OECD) 2000. Ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation. Proc. IPCC Co-Spons. Workshop, 27–29 March 2000, Washington, DC. Paris: OECD [Google Scholar]
  9. Krupnick A, Burtraw D, Markandya A. 9.  2000. The ancillary benefits and costs of climate change mitigation: a conceptual framework. Proc. IPCC Co-Spons. Workshop, 27–29 March 2000, Washington, DC53–94 Paris: OECD [Google Scholar]
  10. Turner RK. 10.  1993. Environmental Economics: An Elementary Introduction Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press328 [Google Scholar]
  11. Markandya A, Rübbelke DTG. 11.  2003. Ancillary benefits of climate policy. J. Econ. Stat. Jahrbücher Für Natl. Stat. 224:4488–503 [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. Eur. Comm 2011. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. A roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. Brussels, 8.3.2011. COM2011 112 final. Brussels: Eur. Comm. [Google Scholar]
  13. Hardin G. 13.  1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:38591243–48 [Google Scholar]
  14. Pittel K, Rübbelke DTG. 14.  2008. Climate policy and ancillary benefits: a survey and integration into the modelling of international negotiations on climate change. Ecol. Econ. 68:1–2210–20 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dolšak N. 15.  2009. Climate change policy implementation: a cross-sectional analysis. Rev. Policy Res. 26:5551–70 [Google Scholar]
  16. Held D, Roger C, Nag E-M. 16.  2013. Editors' introduction: climate governance in the developing world. Climate Governance in the Developing World D Held, C Roger, E-M Nag Cambridge, UK: John Wiley & Sons [Google Scholar]
  17. Kostka G, Hobbs W. 17.  2012. Local energy efficiency policy implementation in China: bridging the gap between national priorities and local interests. China Q. 211:765–85 [Google Scholar]
  18. Teng F, Gu A. 18.  2007. Climate change: national and local policy opportunities in China. Environ. Sci. 4:3183–94 [Google Scholar]
  19. Qi Y, Ma L, Zhang H, Li H. 19.  2008. Translating a global issue into local priority: China's local government response to climate change. J. Environ. Dev. 17:4379–400 [Google Scholar]
  20. Richerzhagen C, Scholz I. 20.  2008. China's capacities for mitigating climate change. Impact Asian Driv. Dev. World 36:2308–24 [Google Scholar]
  21. Tsang S, Kolk A. 21.  2010. The evolution of Chinese policies and governance structures on environment, energy and climate. Environ. Policy Gov. 20:3180–96 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dubash NK. 22.  2013. The politics of climate change in India: narratives of equity and cobenefits. WIREs 4:3191–201 [Google Scholar]
  23. Atteridge A, Shrivastava MK, Pahuja N, Upadhyay H. 23.  2012. Climate policy in India: What shapes international, national and state policy?. AMBIO 41:S168–77 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hochstetler K, Viola E. 24.  2011. Brazil and the multiscalar politics of climate change Presented at Colo. Conf. Earth Syst. Gov., Fort Collins, CO [Google Scholar]
  25. Hochstetler K, Viola E. 25.  2012. Brazil and the politics of climate change: beyond the global commons. Environ. Polit. 21:5753–71 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gore CD, Robinson PJ. 26.  2009. Local government responses to climate change: our last, best hope?. Changing Climates in North American Politics: Institutions, Policymaking and Multilevel Governance H Selin, SD VanDeveer 137–58 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  27. Streimikiene D, Balezentis T. 27.  2013. Multi-objective ranking of climate change mitigation policies and measures in Lithuania. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 18:144–53 [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. Intergov. Panel Clim. Change, Watson RT 2001. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press397 [Google Scholar]
  29. Jochem E, Madlener R. 29.  2003. The forgotten benefits of climate change mitigation: innovation, technological leapfrogging, employment, and sustainable development Presented at OECD Workshop Benefits Clim Policy: Improv. Inf. Policy Mak. ENV/EPOC/GSP(2003)16/FINAL, Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev., Paris [Google Scholar]
  30. Grubb M, Vrolijk C, Brack D. 30.  1999. The Kyoto Protocol: A Guide and Assessment London/Washington, DC: R. Inst. Int. Aff. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mundaca L, Mansoz M, Neij L, Timilsina GR. 31.  2013. Transaction costs analysis of low-carbon technologies. Clim. Policy 13:1–24 [Google Scholar]
  32. Mills E, Rosenfeld A. 32.  1996. Consumer non-energy benefits as a motivation for making energy-efficiency improvements. Energy 21:7–8707–20 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ürge-Vorsatz D, Novikova A, Köppel S, Boza-Kiss B. 33.  2009. Bottom-up assessment of potentials and costs of CO2 emission mitigation in the buildings sector: insights into the missing elements. Energy Effic. 2:4293–316 [Google Scholar]
  34. Ruth M. 34.  2011. Managing regional climate mitigation and adaptation co-benefits and co-costs. Resilient Cities K Otto-Zimmermann 205–11 Dordrecht, Neth: Springer [Google Scholar]
  35. Hosking J, Mudu P, Dora C. 35.  2011. Health Co-benefits of Climate Change Mitigation—Transport Sector: Health in the Green Economy Geneva: World Health Organ. [Google Scholar]
  36. Valin H, Havlík P, Mosnier A, Herrero M, Schmid E, Obersteiner M. 36.  2013. Agricultural productivity and greenhouse gas emissions: trade-offs or synergies between mitigation and food security?. Environ. Res. Lett. 8:3035019 [Google Scholar]
  37. Ryan L, Campbell N. 37.  2012. Spreading the Net: The Multiple Benefits of Energy Efficiency Improvements Insight Series 2012 Paris: Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev./Int. Energy Agency [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. UN Environ. Program. (UNEP) 2011. A practical framework for planning pro-development climate policy Paris: UNEP [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. Minist. Environ., Gov. Jpn 2009. Manual for Quantitative Evaluation of the Co-Benefits Approach to Climate Change Projects, Version 1.0 Tokyo: Kankyōshō [Google Scholar]
  40. Dubash K, Raghunandan D, Sant G, Sreenivas A. 40.  2013. Indian climate change policy: exploring a co-benefits based approach. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 48:2247–61 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ebeling J, Yasue M. 41.  2008. Generating carbon finance through avoided deforestation and its potential to create climatic, conservation and human development benefits. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 363:14981917–24 [Google Scholar]
  42. Van Vuuren DP, Cofala J, Eerens HE, Oostenrijk R, Heyes C. 42.  et al. 2006. Exploring the ancillary benefits of the Kyoto protocol for air pollution in Europe. Energy Policy 34:4444–60 [Google Scholar]
  43. Groosman B, Muller NZ, O'Neill-Toy E. 43.  2011. The ancillary benefits from climate policy in the United States. Environ. Resour. Econ. 50:4585–603 [Google Scholar]
  44. Garg A. 44.  2011. Pro-equity effects of ancillary benefits of climate change policies: a case study of human health impacts of outdoor air pollution in New Delhi. World Dev. 39:61002–25 [Google Scholar]
  45. Selvakkumaran S, Limmeechokchai B. 45.  2013. Energy security and co-benefits of energy efficiency improvement in three Asian countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 20:491–503 [Google Scholar]
  46. Grieshop AP, Marshall JD, Kandlikar M. 46.  2011. Health and climate benefits of cookstove replacement options. Energy Policy 39:127530–42 [Google Scholar]
  47. Dix-Cooper L, Eskenazi B, Romero C, Balmes J, Smith KR. 47.  2012. Neurodevelopmental performance among school age children in rural Guatemala is associated with prenatal and postnatal exposure to carbon monoxide, a marker for exposure to woodsmoke. Neurotoxicology 33:2246–54 [Google Scholar]
  48. Mestl HES, Edwards R. 48.  2011. Global burden of disease as a result of indoor air pollution in Shaanxi, Hubei and Zhejiang, China. Sci. Total Environ. 409:81391–98 [Google Scholar]
  49. Azuma K, Uchiyama I, Ikeda K. 49.  2008. The regulations for indoor air pollution in Japan: a public health perspective. J. Risk Res. 11:3301–14 [Google Scholar]
  50. Logue JM, McKone TE, Sherman MH, Singer BC. 50.  2011. Hazard assessment of chemical air contaminants measured in residences. Indoor Air 21:292–109 [Google Scholar]
  51. Persily AK, Emmerich SJ. 51.  2012. Indoor air quality in sustainable, energy efficient buildings. HVACR Res. 18:1–24–20 [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. Eurowinter Group 1997. Cold exposure and winter mortality from ischaemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, respiratory disease, and all causes in warm and cold regions of Europe. Lancet 349:90621341–46 [Google Scholar]
  53. Healy JD. 53.  2004. Housing, Fuel Poverty, and Health: A Pan-European Analysis Aldershot, UK/Burlington, VT: Ashgate.250 [Google Scholar]
  54. Ormandy D, Ezratty V. 54.  2012. Health and thermal comfort: from WHO guidance to housing strategies. Energy Policy 49:116–21 [Google Scholar]
  55. Liddell C, Morris C. 55.  2010. Fuel poverty and human health: a review of recent evidence. Energy Policy 38:62987–97 [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. Marmot Rev. Team 2011. The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty. London: Friends Earth/Marmot Rev. Team [Google Scholar]
  57. Neuhoff K, Bach S, Diekmann J, Beznoska M, El-Laboudy T. 57.  2013. Distributional effects of energy transition: impacts of renewable electricity support in Germany. Econ. Energy Environ. Policy 2:141–54 [Google Scholar]
  58. Passchier-Vermeer W, Passchier WF. 58.  2000. Noise exposure and public health. Environ. Health Perspect. 108:123–31 [Google Scholar]
  59. Bonnefoy XR, Annesi-Maesano I, Aznar LM, Braubach M, Croxford B. 59.  et al. 2004. Review of evidence on housing and health: background document Presented at Fourth Minist. Conf. Environ. Health, Budapest, Hungary 23–25 June Copenhagen: World Health Organ. [Google Scholar]
  60. Rojas-Rueda D, de Nazelle A, Tainio M, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ. 60.  2011. The health risks and benefits of cycling in urban environments compared with car use: health impact assessment study. BMJ 2011:343:d4521 [Google Scholar]
  61. Harlan SL, Ruddell DM. 61.  2011. Climate change and health in cities: impacts of heat and air pollution and potential co-benefits from mitigation and adaptation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 3:3126–34 [Google Scholar]
  62. Vandentorren S, Suzan F, Medina S, Pascal M, Maulpoix A. 62.  et al. 2004. Mortality in 13 French cities during the August 2003 heat wave. Am. J. Public Health 94:91518–20 [Google Scholar]
  63. Robine J-M, Cheung SLK, Le Roy S, Van Oyen H, Griffiths C. 63.  et al. 2008. Death toll exceeded 70,000 in Europe during the summer of 2003. C. R. Biol. 331:2171–78 [Google Scholar]
  64. Sagar AD. 64.  2005. Alleviating energy poverty for the world's poor. Energy Policy 33:111367–72 [Google Scholar]
  65. Birol F. 65.  2007. Energy economics: a place for energy poverty in the agenda?. Energy J. 28:31–6 [Google Scholar]
  66. Von Schirnding Y, Bruce N, Smith K, Ballard-Tremeer G, Ezzaty M, Lvovsky K. 66.  2000. Addressing the Impact of Household Energy and Indoor Air Pollution on the Health of the Poor: Implications for Policy Action and Intervention Measures Geneva: World Health Organ. [Google Scholar]
  67. Boardman B. 67.  1991. Fuel Poverty: From Cold Homes to Affordable Warmth London/New York: Belhaven267 [Google Scholar]
  68. Buzar S. 68.  2007. Energy Poverty in Eastern Europe: Hidden Geographies of Deprivation Burlington, VT: Ashgate [Google Scholar]
  69. Jakob M. 69.  2006. Marginal costs and co-benefits of energy efficiency investments. Energy Policy 34:2172–87 [Google Scholar]
  70. Griego D, Krarti M, Hernández-Guerrero A. 70.  2012. Optimization of energy efficiency and thermal comfort measures for residential buildings in Salamanca, Mexico. Energy Build. 54:540–49 [Google Scholar]
  71. Alberini A, Banfi S, Ramseier C. 71.  2013. Energy efficiency investments in the home: Swiss homeowners and expectations about future energy prices. Energy J. 34:149–86 [Google Scholar]
  72. King EA, Murphy E, Rice HJ. 72.  2011. Evaluating the impact on noise levels of a ban on private cars in Dublin city centre, Ireland. Transp. Res. Part D. 16:7532–39 [Google Scholar]
  73. Nissenbaum MA, Aramini JJ, Hanning CD. 73.  2012. Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health. Noise Health 14:60237–43 [Google Scholar]
  74. Bakker RH, Pedersen E, van den Berg GP, Stewart RE, Lok W, Bouma J. 74.  2012. Impact of wind turbine sound on annoyance, self-reported sleep disturbance and psychological distress. Sci. Total Environ. 425:42–51 [Google Scholar]
  75. Saidur R, Rahim NA, Islam MR, Solangi KH. 75.  2011. Environmental impact of wind energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15:52423–30 [Google Scholar]
  76. De Groot R, Brander L, van der Ploeg S, Costanza R, Bernard F. 76.  et al. 2012. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst. Serv. 1:150–61 [Google Scholar]
  77. Paoletti E, Schaub M, Matyssek R, Wieser G, Augustaitis A. 77.  et al. 2010. Advances of air pollution science: from forest decline to multiple-stress effects on forest ecosystem services. Environ. Pollut. 158:61986–89 [Google Scholar]
  78. Phelps J, Webb EL, Adams WM. 78.  2012. Biodiversity co-benefits of policies to reduce forest-carbon emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 2:497–503 [Google Scholar]
  79. Gasparatos A, Stromberg P, Takeuchi K. 79.  2011. Biofuels, ecosystem services and human wellbeing: putting biofuels in the ecosystem services narrative. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 142:3–4111–28 [Google Scholar]
  80. Butlin RN. 80.  1990. Effects of air pollutants on buildings and materials. Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. Sect. B 97:255–72 [Google Scholar]
  81. Brimblecombe P, Grossi C. 81.  2007. Damage to buildings from future climate and pollution. Am. Preserv. Technol. Bull. 38:13–19 [Google Scholar]
  82. Fisk WJ. 82.  2000. Health and productivity gains from better indoor environments and their relationship with building energy efficiency. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 25:1537–66 [Google Scholar]
  83. Wyon DP. 83.  2004. The effects of indoor air quality on performance and productivity. Indoor Air 14:Suppl. 792–101 [Google Scholar]
  84. Seppänen O, Fisk WJ, Lei QH. 84.  2006. Room temperature and productivity in office work Rep. LBNL-60952, Helsinki Univ. Technol., Helsinki, Finl./Lawrence Berkeley Natl. Lab, Berkeley, CA [Google Scholar]
  85. Zivin JG, Neidell M. 85.  2012. The impact of pollution on worker productivity. Am. Econ. Rev. 102:73652–73 [Google Scholar]
  86. Avnery S, Mauzerall DL, Liu J, Horowitz LW. 86.  2011. Global crop yield reductions due to surface ozone exposure: 1. Year 2000 crop production losses and economic damage. Atmos. Environ. 45:132284–96 [Google Scholar]
  87. Podlesna A. 87.  2002. Air pollution by sulfur dioxide in Poland—impact on agriculture. Phyton 42:3157–63 [Google Scholar]
  88. Maibach M, Schreyer C, Sutter D, van Essen HP, Boon BH. 88.  et al. 2007. Handbook on Estimation of External Cost in the Transport Sector Delft, Neth: CE Delft [Google Scholar]
  89. Ziegelmann A, Mohr M, Unger H. 89.  2000. Net employment effects of an extension of renewable-energy systems in the Federal Republic of Germany. Appl. Energy 65:1–4329–38 [Google Scholar]
  90. Scott MJ, Roop JM, Schultz RW, Anderson DM, Cort KA. 90.  2008. The impact of DOE building technology energy efficiency programs on U.S. employment, income, and investment. Energy Econ. 30:52283–301 [Google Scholar]
  91. Moreno B, López AJ. 91.  2008. The effect of renewable energy on employment. The case of Asturias (Spain). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 12:3732–51 [Google Scholar]
  92. Caldés N, Varela M, Santamaría M, Sáez R. 92.  2009. Economic impact of solar thermal electricity deployment in Spain. Energy Policy 37:51628–36 [Google Scholar]
  93. Tourkolias C, Mirasgedis S. 93.  2011. Quantification and monetization of employment benefits associated with renewable energy technologies in Greece. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15:62876–86 [Google Scholar]
  94. Openshaw K. 94.  2010. Biomass energy: employment generation and its contribution to poverty alleviation. Biomass Bioenergy 34:3365–78 [Google Scholar]
  95. Silalertruksa T, Gheewala SH, Hünecke K, Fritsche UR. 95.  2012. Biofuels and employment effects: implications for socio-economic development in Thailand. Biomass Bioenergy 46:409–18 [Google Scholar]
  96. Hillebrand B, Buttermann HG, Behringer JM, Bleuel M. 96.  2006. The expansion of renewable energies and employment effects in Germany. Energy Policy 34:183484–94 [Google Scholar]
  97. Tirado Herrero S, Ürge-Vorsatz D, Arena D, Telegdy Á. 97.  2011. Co-benefits quantified: employment, energy security and fuel poverty implications of the large-scale, deep retrofitting of the Hungarian building stock. Proc. Eur. Counc. Energy Effic. Econ. Summer Study, Belambra/Presqu'île de Giens, France, June 6–11 http://proceedings.eceee.org/visabstrakt.php?event=1&doc=5-250-11 [Google Scholar]
  98. Pearce D, Atkinson G, Mourato S. 98.  2006. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments Paris: Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev. [Google Scholar]
  99. Azqueta D. 99.  2007. Introducción a la economía ambiental Madrid, Spain: McGraw-Hill, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  100. Toman M. 100.  1998. Special section: forum on valuation of ecosystem services: why not to calculate the value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecol. Econ. 25:157–60 [Google Scholar]
  101. Luck GW, Chan KMA, Eser U, Gómez-Baggethun E, Matzdorf B. 101.  et al. 2012. Ethical considerations in on-ground applications of the ecosystem services concept. BioScience 62:121020–29 [Google Scholar]
  102. Miller TE. 102.  2000. Variation between countries in the values of statistical life. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 34:169–88 [Google Scholar]
  103. Stiglitz JE, Sen A, Fitoussi J-P. 103.  2009. Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress Comm. Meas. Econ. Perform. Soc. Prog., Paris. http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/en/index.htm [Google Scholar]
  104. Muller NZ, Mendelsohn R, Nordhaus W. 104.  2011. Environmental accounting for pollution in the United States economy. Am. Econ. Rev. 101:51649–75 [Google Scholar]
  105. Shih Y-H, Tseng C-H. 105.  2014. Cost-benefit analysis of sustainable energy development using life-cycle co-benefits assessment and the system dynamics approach. Appl. Energy 119:57–66 [Google Scholar]
  106. Tourkolias C, Mirasgedis S, Damigos D, Diakoulaki D. 106.  2009. Employment benefits of electricity generation: a comparative assessment of lignite and natural gas power plants in Greece. Energy Policy 37:104155–66 [Google Scholar]
  107. Bell ML, Davis DL, Cifuentes LA, Krupnick AJ, Morgenstern RD, Thurston GD. 107.  2008. Ancillary human health benefits of improved air quality resulting from climate change mitigation. Environ. Health 7:141 [Google Scholar]
  108. Burtraw D, Krupnick A, Palmer K, Paul A, Toman M, Bloyd C. 108.  2003. Ancillary benefits of reduced air pollution in the US from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 45:3650–73 [Google Scholar]
  109. Malla MB, Bruce N, Bates E, Rehfuess E. 109.  2011. Applying global cost-benefit analysis methods to indoor air pollution mitigation interventions in Nepal, Kenya and Sudan: insights and challenges. Energy Policy 39:127518–29 [Google Scholar]
  110. Clinch JP, Healy JD. 110.  2000. Cost-benefit analysis of domestic energy efficiency. Energy Policy 29:2113–24 [Google Scholar]
  111. Chapman R, Howden-Chapman P, Viggers H, O'Dea D, Kennedy M. 111.  2009. Retrofitting houses with insulation: a cost-benefit analysis of a randomised community trial. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 63:4271–77 [Google Scholar]
  112. Preval N, Chapman R, Pierse N, Howden-Chapman P. 112.  2010. Evaluating energy, health and carbon co-benefits from improved domestic space heating: a randomised community trial. Energy Policy 38:83965–72 [Google Scholar]
  113. 113. World Bank 2008. The Welfare Impact of Rural Electrification: A Reassessment of the Costs and Benefits; An IEG Impact Evaluation Washington, DC: World Bank [Google Scholar]
  114. 114. ESMAP 2002. Rural electrification and development in the Philippines: measuring the social and economic benefits ESMAP Rep. 255/02, Joint UNDP/World Bank Energy Sector Manag. Assist. Program. (ESMAP), Washington, DC [Google Scholar]
  115. Tirado Herrero S, Ürge-Vorsatz D, Petrichenko K. 115.  2013. Fuel poverty alleviation as a co-benefit of climate investments: evidence from Hungary. Proc. Eur. Counc. Energy Effic. Econ. Summer Study, Belambra/Presqu'île de Giens, France, June 3–8. http://proceedings.eceee.org/visabstrakt.php?event=3&doc=5B-485-1 [Google Scholar]
  116. Milne G, Boardman B. 116.  2000. Making cold homes warmer: the effect of energy efficiency improvements in low-income homes. a report to the Energy Action Grants Agency Charitable Trust. Energy Policy 28:6–7411–24 [Google Scholar]
  117. Bjørner TB. 117.  2004. Combining socio-acoustic and contingent valuation surveys to value noise reduction. Transp. Res. Part D 9:5341–56 [Google Scholar]
  118. Brounen D, Kok N. 118.  2011. On the economics of energy labels in the housing market. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 62:2166–79 [Google Scholar]
  119. Costanza R, d'Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M. 119.  et al. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:6630253–60 [Google Scholar]
  120. Pollicino M, Maddison D. 120.  2001. Valuing the benefits of cleaning Lincoln Cathedral. J. Cult. Econ. 25:2131–48 [Google Scholar]
  121. Wilkinson S, Mills G, Illidge R, Davies WJ. 121.  2011. How is ozone pollution reducing our food supply?. J. Exp. Bot. 63:2527–36 [Google Scholar]
  122. Hedenus F, Azar C, Johansson DJA. 122.  2010. Energy security policies in EU-25—the expected cost of oil supply disruptions. Energy Policy 38:31241–50 [Google Scholar]
  123. Damigos D, Tourkolias C, Diakoulaki D. 123.  2009. Households' willingness to pay for safeguarding security of natural gas supply in electricity generation. Energy Policy 37:52008–17 [Google Scholar]
  124. Böhringer C, Keller A, van der Werf E. 124.  2013. Are green hopes too rosy? Employment and welfare impacts of renewable energy promotion. Energy Econ. 36:277–85 [Google Scholar]
  125. Wianwiwat S, Asafu-Adjaye J. 125.  2013. Is there a role for biofuels in promoting energy self sufficiency and security? A CGE analysis of biofuel policy in Thailand. Energy Policy 55:543–55 [Google Scholar]
  126. Blanco MI, Rodrigues G. 126.  2009. Direct employment in the wind energy sector: an EU study. Energy Policy 37:82847–57 [Google Scholar]
  127. Lambert RJ, Silva PP. 127.  2012. The challenges of determining the employment effects of renewable energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16:74667–74 [Google Scholar]
  128. Soliño M. 128.  2010. External benefits of biomass-e in Spain: an economic valuation. Bioresour. Technol. 101:61992–97 [Google Scholar]
  129. 129. Eur. Comm 2008. Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects: Structural Funds, Cohesion Fund and Instrument for Pre-Accession. Brussels: Eur. Comm., Dir. Gen. Reg. Policy [Google Scholar]
  130. Copeland CW. 130.  2011. Cost-benefit and other analysis requirements in the rulemaking process CRS Rep. for Congr. 7–5700, Congr. Res. Serv., Washington, DC [Google Scholar]
  131. Shukla PR. 131.  2013. Review of linked modelling of low-carbon development, mitigation and its full costs and benefits Res. Pap., Issue 14, Mitig. Action Plans Scenar. (MAPS), Cape Town, S. Afr. [Google Scholar]
  132. Nguyen TB, Wagner F, Schoepp W. 132.  2011. GAINS—an interactive tool for assessing international GHG mitigation regimes. Information and Communication on Technology for the Fight against Global Warming D Kranzlmüller, AM Toja 124–35 Berlin/Heidelberg, Ger: Springer-Verlag [Google Scholar]
  133. McCollum DL, Krey V, Riahi K. 133.  2011. An integrated approach to energy sustainability. Nat. Clim. Change 1:9428–29 [Google Scholar]
  134. McCollum DL, Krey V, Riahi K, Kolp P, Grubler A. 134.  et al. 2013. Climate policies can help resolve energy security and air pollution challenges. Clim. Change 119:2479–94 [Google Scholar]
  135. Riahi K, Dentener F, Gielen D, Grubler A, Jewell J. 135.  et al. 2012. Energy pathways for sustainable development. See Ref. 2 1203–306
  136. 136. Dep. Communities Local Gov 2009. Multi-Criteria Analysis: A Manual. Wetherby, UK: Communities Local Gov. [Google Scholar]
  137. Munasinghe M. 137.  2007. Making Development More Sustainable: Sustainomics Framework and Practical Applications Colombo, Sri Lanka: Munasinghe Inst. Dev. [Google Scholar]
  138. Munda G. 138.  2004. Social multi-criteria evaluation: methodological foundations and operational consequences. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 158:3662–77 [Google Scholar]
  139. Ramanathan R. 139.  2001. A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 63:127–35 [Google Scholar]
  140. Brown K, Corbera E. 140.  2003. A multi-criteria assessment framework for carbon-mitigation projects: putting “development” in the centre of decision-making. Work. Pap. 29, Tyndall Cent. Clim. Change Res., Univ. East Anglia, Norwich, Engl. [Google Scholar]
  141. Brown K, Corbera E. 141.  2003. Exploring equity and sustainable development in the new carbon economy. Clim. Policy 3:S41–S56 [Google Scholar]
  142. Munda G. 142.  1995. Multicriteria Evaluation in a Fuzzy Environment: Theory and Applications in Ecological Economics Heidelberg, Ger: Physica-Verlag [Google Scholar]
  143. Ramanathan R. 143.  2006. ABC inventory classification with multiple-criteria using weighted linear optimization. Comput. Oper. Res. 33:3695–700 [Google Scholar]
  144. Stern N. 144.  2007. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  145. Arrow KJ, Dasgupta P, Goulder LH, Mumford KJ, Oleson K. 145.  2012. Sustainability and the measurement of wealth. Environ. Dev. Econ. 17:03317–53 [Google Scholar]
  146. Pearce D. 146.  1998. Can non-market values save the tropical forests?. Tropical Rain Forest: A Wider Perspective 10 FB Goldsmith 255–67 Dordrecht, Neth: Springer [Google Scholar]
  147. Plantinga AJ, Wu J. 147.  2003. Co-benefits from carbon sequestration in forests: evaluating reductions in agricultural externalities from an afforestation policy in Wisconsin. Land Econ. 79:174–85 [Google Scholar]
  148. Bergmann A, Hanley N. 148.  2012. The costs and benefits of renewable energy in Scotland Rep. to Expert Group Environ. Stud. 2012:5, Gov. Off. Swed., Minist. Financ., Stockholm, Swed. [Google Scholar]
  149. García-Frapolli E, Schilmann A, Berrueta VM, Riojas-Rodríguez H, Edwards RD. 149.  et al. 2010. Beyond fuelwood savings: valuing the economic benefits of introducing improved biomass cookstoves in the Purépecha region of Mexico. Ecol. Econ. 69:122598–605 [Google Scholar]
  150. Reichhuber A, Requate T. 150.  2012. Alternative use systems for the remaining Ethiopian cloud forest and the role of arabica coffee—a cost-benefit analysis. Ecol. Econ. 75:102–13 [Google Scholar]
  151. Sathirathai S. 151.  1998. Economic valuation of mangroves and the roles of local communities in the conservation of natural resources: case study of Surat Thani, south of Thailand Econ. EEPSEA Res. Rep. ARCHIV 108378, Environ. Program South East Asia (EEPSA), Singapore [Google Scholar]
  152. Turner RK, Paavola J, Cooper P, Farber S, Jessamy V, Georgiou S. 152.  2003. Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecol. Econ. 46:3493–510 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error