Advancing methodological thinking and practice for development-compatible climate policy planning

  • S. Şerban ScrieciuEmail author
  • Valerie Belton
  • Zaid Chalabi
  • Reinhard Mechler
  • Daniel Puig
Special Issue


There are growing calls for identifying climate mitigation and adaptation policy packages that would also support human development objectives at the national and regional levels. The literature on climate policy analysis and impact assessment continues to be driven by standard economics with its body of competitive general equilibrium optimization models and cost-benefit analysis techniques of aggregation and monetization. However, its recommendations for climate action are often based on highly restrictive underlying assumptions, which have been increasingly criticized for being too prescriptive, not adequately capturing salient observed socioeconomic realities, and not acknowledging pluralism in values. The main aim of this paper is to put forward a new methodological approach that seeks to address these deficiencies. A generic but comprehensive framework eliciting mitigation-adaptation-development interactions, accounting for institutional barriers, and drawing on a combination of an emerging body of new climate economics and multi-criteria decision analysis is suggested. We purport that, by using this framework, multi-dimensional impacts and multi-stakeholder interests could be better represented when planning climate policy actions. We also argue that analytical tools drawing on economic thinking which embraces interdisciplinary analysis and deep uncertainty and avoids the fallacy of unique optimal solutions, may deliver more effective strategies for pushing economies onto the transformational pathways required.


Climate policy Development Impact assessment Planning Climate economics Multi-criteria decision analysis 



We would like to express our gratitude to UNEP’s Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (Energy Branch) who has been the convenor of the initial development stages of the MCA4climate project, and to the Government of Spain, who has financially supported the respective initiative during its inception phase. A large international, multi-disciplinary team has contributed to the initial overall shaping of the MCA4climate initiative. The roles and affiliations of all contributors are available online: We gratefully acknowledge their work. In addition, the authors would like to thank the valuable suggestions and comments provided by three anonymous reviewers.


  1. Ackerman F (2008) Critique of cost-benefit analysis, and alternative approaches to decision-making. A report to friends of the earth England, Wales & Northern IrelandGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackerman F, DeCanio SJ, Howarth R, Sheeran K (2009) Limitations of integrated assessment models of climate change. Clim Chang 95:297–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ackerman F, Chalabi, Z, Mechler R, Scrieciu S (2011) New climate economics: methodological choices and recommendations. UNEP report, additional guidance supporting UNEP’s MCA4climate initiative a practical framework for planning pro-development climate policies, United Nations Environment Programme, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  4. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (2009) Statement on Climate Change from 18 scientific associations. AAAE, October 21. Cited 21 June 2013
  5. Barker T (2008) The economics of avoiding dangerous climate change. An editorial essay on The Stern Review. Clim Chang 89:173–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barker T, Anger A, Chewpreecha U, Pollitt H (2012) A new economics approach to modelling policies to achieve global 2020 targets for climate stabilisation. Int Rev Appl Econ (Special issue: Economic Policies of the New Thinking in Economics) 26:205–211Google Scholar
  7. Beinhocker ED (2007) The origin of wealth: evolution, complexity, and the radical remaking of economics. Random House Business Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Bell ML, Hobbs BF, Elliot EM, Ellis H, Robinson Z (2001) An evaluation of multi-criteria methods in integrated assessment of climate policy. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 10:229–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bell ML, Hobbs BF, Ellis H (2003) The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in the integrated assessment of climate change: implications of IA practitioners. Socio Econ Plan Sci 37:289–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Belton V (1990) Multiple criteria decision analysis, practically the only way to choose. In: Hendry L, Eglese R (eds) Operational research tutorial papers 1990. Operational Research Society, BirminghamGoogle Scholar
  11. Belton V, Pictet J (1997) A framework for group decision using a MCDA model: sharing, aggregating, or comparing individual information? J Decis Syst Spec Issue Group Decis Negot 6:283–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Belton V, Stewart TJ (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Massachusetts-DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Belton V, Stewart TJ (2010) Problem Structuring and MCDA. In: Ehrgott M, Figueira J, Greco S (eds) Trends in multiple criteria decision analysis, international series in operations research and management science 142, Springer Science + Business: 209–239Google Scholar
  14. Boardman AE, Greenberg DH, Vining AR, Weimer DL (2010) Cost benefit analysis. Concepts and practice. The pearson series in economics. Prentice Hall (4th edition)Google Scholar
  15. Booth DE (1994) Ethics and the limits of environmental economics. Ecol Econ 9(3):241–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bosquet B (2000) Environmental tax reform: does it work? A survey of the empirical evidence. Ecol Econ 34(1):19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Boulding KE (1992) Towards a new economics: critical essays on ecology, distribution, and other themes. Edward Elgar PublishingGoogle Scholar
  18. Bouyssou D, Perny P, Pirlot M, Tsoukias A, Vincke PH (1993) A manifesto for the new MCDA era. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 2:125–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Broome J (2008) The ethics of climate change: pay now or pay more later? Sci Am Mag, May 19, 2008Google Scholar
  20. Bukowski M, Kowal P (2010) Large-scale, multi-sector DSGE model as a climate policy assessment tool. Macroeconomic Mitigation Options (MEMO) model for Poland. Warsaw, Poland: IBS working paper nr.3/2010, Institute for Structural ResearchGoogle Scholar
  21. Chambwera M, Baulcomb C, Lunduka R, de Bresser L, Chaudhury A, Wright H, Loga D, Dhakal A (2012) Stakeholder-focused cost-benefit analysis in the water sector. IIED Guidance Report. International Institute for Environment and Development, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Chichilnisky G (2000) An axiomatic approach to choice under uncertainty with catastrophic risks. Resour Energy Econ 22:221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chichilnisky G (2009) The topology of fear. J Math Econ 45:807–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Climate Policy Initiative (2013) The policy climate. CPI report, climate policy initiative. Cited 09 September 2013
  25. Conte A, Labat A, Varga J, Zarnic Z (2010) What is the growth potential of green innovation? An assessment of EU climate change policies, ECFIN economic paper 413. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  26. De Bruin K, Dellink RB, Ruijs A, Bolwidt L, van Buuren A, Graveland J, de Groot RS, Kuikman PJ, Reinhard S, Roetter RP, Tassone VC, Verhagen A, van Ierland EC (2009) Adapting to climate change in The Netherlands: an inventory of climate adaptation options and ranking of alternatives. Clim Chang 95(1–2):23–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dequech D (2008) Neoclassical, mainstream, orthodox, and heterodox economics. J Post Keynesian Econ 30(2):279–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dessler AE, Parson EA (2006) The science and politics of global climate change: a guide to the debate. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Dietz S, Hepburn C (2013) Benefit-cost analysis of non-marginal climate and energy projects. Energy Econ 40:61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dietz S, Morton A (2011) Strategic appraisal of environmental risks: a contrast between the United Kingdom’s Stern review on the economics of climate change and its committee on radioactive waste management. Risk Anal 31(1):129–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dietz S, Stern N (2008) Why economic analysis supports strong action on climate change: a response to the Stern Review’s critics. Rev Environ Econ Policy 2(1):94–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Durbach IN, Stewart TJ (2012) Modelling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res 223:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Edenhofer O, Knopf B, Barker T, Bauer N, Baumstark L, Criqui P, Held A, Isaac M, Jakob M, Jochem E, Kitous A, Kypreos S, Leimbach M, Magné B, Mima S, Schade W, Scrieciu S, Turton H, van Vuuren DP (2010) The economics of low stabilization: model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. Energy J 31(special issue 1 The Economics of Low Stabilization):11–48Google Scholar
  34. Egenhofer C, Jansen JC, Bakker SJA, Jussila Hammes J (2006) Revisiting EU policy options for tackling climate change: a social cost-benefit analysis of GHG emissions reductions strategies. CEPS studies. Centre for European Policy Studies, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  35. Ehrgott M, Figueira JR, Greco S (eds.) (2010) Trends in multiple criteria decision analysis. Int Ser Oper Res Manag Sci 142, Springer Science + Business Media, LLCGoogle Scholar
  36. Ehrgott M, Naujoks B, Stewart T, Wallenius J (eds) (2010a) Multiple criteria decision making for sustainable energy and transportation systems. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Auckland, New Zealand, 7th–12th January 2008. Ser Lect Notes Econ Math Syst 634Google Scholar
  37. European Commission (2008) Guide to cost-benefit analysis of investment projects. Structural funds, cohesion fund and instrument for pre-accession. Evaluation unit, DG Regional Policy, European Commission, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  38. Farber SC, Costanza R, Wilson MA (2002) Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol Econ Spec Issue Dyn Value Ecosyst Serv Integrating Econ Ecol Perspect 41(3):375–392Google Scholar
  39. Figueira J, Salvatore G, Ehrgott M (eds) (2005) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer Int Ser Oper Res Manag SciGoogle Scholar
  40. Gamper CD, Turcanu A (2007) On the governmental use of multi-criteria analysis. Ecol Econ 62:298–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gough C, Shackley S (2006) Towards a multi-criteria methodology for assessment of geological carbon storage options. Clim Chang 74:141–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Grafakos S, Flamos A, Oikonmou V, Zevgolis D (2010) Multi-criteria analysis weighting methodology to incorporate stakeholders’ preferences in energy and climate policy interactions. Int J Energy Sect Manag 4:434–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gregory R, Failing L, Harstone M, Long G, McDaniels T, Ohlson D (2012) Structured decision making. A practical guide to environmental management choices. Wiley-Blackwell, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  44. Haines A, McMichael AJ, Smith KR, Roberts I, Woodcock J, Markandya A, Armstrong BG, Campbell-Lendrum D, Dangour AD, Davies M, Bruce N, Tonne C, Barrett M, Wilkinson P (2009) Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: overview and implications for policy makers. Lancet 374(9707):2104–2114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hall JW, Lempert RJ, Keller K, Hackbarth A, Mijere C, McInerney DJ (2012) Robust climate polices under uncertainty: a comparison of robust decision making and info-gap methods. Risk Anal 32(10):1657–1672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hämäläinen RP, Alaja S (2008) The threat of weighting biases in environmental decision analysis. Ecol Econ 68(1–2):556–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hämäläinen RP, Mustajoki J, Marttunen M (2010) Web-based decision support: creating a culture of applying multi-criteria decision analysis and web-supported participation in environmental decision making. Chapter 10. In: Ríos Insua D, French S (eds) e-Democracy, advances in group decision and negotiation 5:201–221. Springer Science + Business Media B.V.Google Scholar
  48. Heal G (2009) Climate economics: a meta-review and some suggestions for future research. Rev Environ Econ Policy 3(1):4–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Huang IB, Keisler J, Linkov I (2011) Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Sci Total Environ 409(19):3578–3594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. IPCC (2012) Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A special report of working groups I and II. In: Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken DJ, Ebi KL, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner G-K, Allen SK, Tignor M, Midgley PM (eds) United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 582 ppGoogle Scholar
  51. IPCC (2013) Summary for policymakers. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. Jarrett J, Woodcock J, Griffiths UK, Chalabi Z, Edwards P, Roberts I, Haines A (2012) Effect of increasing active travel in urban England and Wales on costs to the National Health Service. Lancet 379:2198–2205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jochem E, Madlener R (2003) The forgotten benefits of climate change mitigation: innovation, technological leapfrogging, employment, and sustainable development. OECD paper ENV/EPOC/GSP(2003)16/FINAL as part of Workshop on the Benefits of Climate Policy: improving information for policy makers, working party on global and structural policies, organisation for economic co-operation and development, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  54. Kemfert C (2003) Applied economic-environment-energy modeling for quantitative impact assessment. In: Amelung B, Rotmans J, Valkering P (eds) Integrated assessment for policy modellingGoogle Scholar
  55. Khalili NR, Duecker S (2013) Application of multi-criteria decision analysis in design of sustainable environmental management system framework. J Clean Prod 47:188–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Varghese A, Seager TP, Linkov I (2005) Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag 1(2):95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Knight FH (1921) Risk, uncertainty and profit. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. Konidari P, Mavrakis D (2006) Multi-criteria evaluation of climate policy interactions. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 14(1–3):35–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Konidari P, Mavrakis D (2007) A multi-criteria evaluation method for climate change mitigation policy instruments. Energy Policy 35:6235–6257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lempert R (2012) Scenarios that illuminate vulnerabilities and robust responses. Clim Chang. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0574-6 Google Scholar
  61. Lempert R, Collins M (2007) Managing the risk of uncertain threshold responses: comparison of robust, optimum, and precautionary approaches. Risk Anal 27:1009–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Maréchal K (2007) The economics of climate change and the change of climate in economics. Energy Policy 35(10):5181–5194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mechler R (2013) Reviewing the economic efficiency of disaster risk management, paper for foresight project. Improving future disaster anticipation and resilience. UK Government Science OfficeGoogle Scholar
  64. Moomaw W, Papa M (2012) Creating a mutual gains climate regime through universal clean energy services. Clim Pol 12(4):505–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Munasinghe M (lead author), Douglas G (topic editor) (2007) Multi-criteria analysis in environmental decision-making. In: CJ Cleveland (ed) Encyclopedia of Earth. Washington, D.C., Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment. [Published in the Encyclopedia of Earth May 27, 2007; Retrieved October 9, 2009]. Cited 19 May 2013
  66. Nordhaus WD (2010) Economic aspects of global warming in a post-Copenhagen environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107(26):11721–11726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Panton S, Déqué M, Chauvin F, Terrray L (2008) Expected impacts of climate change on extreme events. Compt Rendus Geosci 340:564–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pearce D (1998) Cost benefit analysis and environmental policy. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 14(4):84–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pearce D, Atkinson G, Mourato S (2006) Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: recent developments. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  70. Pöyhönen M, Hämäläinen RP (1998) Notes on the weighting biases in value trees. J Behav Decis Mak 11(2):139–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Puig D, Søbygaard J, Holm S, Prag A, Bentsen U (2013) National greenhouse gas emission baseline scenarios: learning from experiences in developing countries. UNEP Risø Centre, Danish Energy Agency, Denmark and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), ParisGoogle Scholar
  72. Ranger N, Millner A, Dietz S, Fankhauser S, Lopez A, Ruta G (2010) Adaptation in the UK: a decision making process. Grantham/CCCEP Policy Brief funded by the Adaptation Sub CommitteeGoogle Scholar
  73. Rivera L, Belton V, Scrieciu S, Majano AM (2013) MCA4climate Initiative: Análisis Multicriterio de Proyectos de Adaptación de la Agricultura al Cambio Climático en Perú: el Caso de la Región Piura. Report for the United Nations Environment Programme. INCAE Business School, Costa RicaGoogle Scholar
  74. Rogelj J, McCollum D, Reisinger A, Meinshausen M, Riahi K (2013) Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation. Nature 493 doi: 10.1038/nature11787
  75. Rosenhead J (ed) (1989) Rational analysis for a problematic world. John Wiley & Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  76. Schenker O (2011) How uncertainty reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Research paper 2011/01. Universitat Bern: NCCR Climate, Swiss Climate Research, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  77. Scrieciu S, Rezai A, Mechler R (2013a) On the economic foundations of green growth discourses: the case of climate change mitigation and macroeconomic dynamics in economic modelling. WIREs Energy Environ 2(3):251–268. doi: 10.1002/wene.57 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Scrieciu S, Barker T, Ackerman F (2013b) Pushing the boundaries of climate change economics: critical issues to consider in climate policy analysis. Ecol Econ Special Sect New Clim Econ 85:155–165Google Scholar
  79. Sen AK (1988) The concept of development. In: Chenery H, Srinivasan TN (eds) Handbook of development economics, volume I, chapter 1. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.Google Scholar
  80. Sen AK (2000) The discipline of cost‐benefit analysis. J Leg Stud 29(S2):931–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Shapiro S, Morrall JF III (2012) The triumph of regulatory politics: benefit-cost analysis and political salience. Regul Gov 6(2):189–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Skott P, Davis L (2013) Distributional biases in the analysis of climate change. Ecol Econ 85:188–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Smith J, Hitz S (2003) Estimating global impacts from climate change. Background paper for the OECD workshop on “The Benefits of Climate Policy: Improving Information for Policy Makers”, Working Party on Global and Structural Policies, Environment Policy Committee, Environment Directorate, OECD, Paris (ENV/EPOC/GSP(2002)12/FINAL Cited 02 June 2013
  84. Söderholm P, Sundqvist T (2003) Pricing environmental externalities in the power sector: ethical limits and implications for social choice. Ecol Econ 46(3):333–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Solomon DS, Hughey KFD (2007) A proposed multi criteria decision support tool for international environmental policy issues: a pilot application to emissions control in the international aviation sector. Environ Sci Pol 10:645–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Stanton E, Ackerman F (2011) Developing baselines for climate policy analysis. UNEP report—additional Guidance supporting UNEP’s MCA4climate Initiative A practical framework for planning pro-development climate policies. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), ParisGoogle Scholar
  87. Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change: The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Stewart TJ, French S, Rios J (2013) Integrating multicriteria decision analysis and scenario planning- review and extension. Omega 31:679–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. UNEP (2010) The emissions gap report. Are the Copenhagen accord pledges sufficient to limit global warming to 2°C or 1.5°C? A preliminary assessment. UNEP report. In: Levin K, Ward M (lead authors), Gesteira C, Wagner F (contributing authors). United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  90. UNEP (2011) A practical framework for planning pro-development climate policy. UNEP report. In: Scrieciu S, Bristow S, Puig D (lead authors) United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Paris, France; url: Cited 18 April 2013
  91. UNEP (2012) The emissions gap report 2012. A UNEP synthesis report. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), NairobiGoogle Scholar
  92. UNEP (2013) The Emissions Gap Report 2013. A UNEP synthesis report. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), NairobiGoogle Scholar
  93. UNFCCC (2011) Assessing the costs and benefits of adaptation options: an overview of approaches. UNFCCC report. The Nairobi work programme on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. United Nations Framework for Climate Change (UNFCCC), BonnGoogle Scholar
  94. Verbruggen A (2013) Revocability and reversibility in societal decision-making. Ecol Econ 85:20–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Walker WE, Haasnoot M, Kwakkel JH (2013) Adapt or perish: a review of planning approaches for adaptation under deep uncertainty. Sustainability 5:955–979. doi: 10.3390/su5030955 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wang J-J, Jing Y-Y, Zhang C-F, Zhao J-H (2009) Review on multi-criteria decision analysis in sustainable energy decision-making. Renew Sust Energ Rev 13:2263–2278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Weaver CP, Lempert RJ, Brown C, Hall JA, Revell D, Sarewitz D (2013) Improving the contribution of climate model information to decision-making: the value and demands of robust decision frameworks. WIREs Clim Change 4:39–60. doi: 10.1002/wcc.202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Weitzman ML (1998) Why the far-distance future should be discounted at its lowest possible rate? J Environ Econ Manag 36:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Weitzman ML (2009) On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. Rev Econ Stat 91:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. World Bank (2013) In: Lempert R, Kalra N, Mao Z, Bach Tan S, Cira D, Lotsch A (eds) Ensuring robust flood risk management in Ho Chi Minh City. World Bank report. The World Bank’s Office of the Chief Economist, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  101. Wright EL, Erickson JD (2003) Incorporating catastrophes into integrated assessment: science, impacts, and adaptation. Clim Chang 57:265–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Yang JS, Chung ES, Kim SU, Kim TW (2012) Prioritization of water management under climate change and urbanization using multi-criteria decision making methods. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16(3):801–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Yilmaz B, Harmancioglu NB (2010) Multi-criteria decision making for water resource management: a case study of the Gediz River Basin, Turkey. Water SA Online 36(5):563–576Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Şerban Scrieciu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Valerie Belton
    • 2
  • Zaid Chalabi
    • 3
  • Reinhard Mechler
    • 4
  • Daniel Puig
    • 5
  1. 1.Natural Resources InstituteUniversity of GreenwichChatham MaritimeUK
  2. 2.Department of Management Science, Business SchoolUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgowUK
  3. 3.Department of Social and Environmental Health Research, Faculty of Public Health and PolicyLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLondonUK
  4. 4.Institute of Regional Development and EnvironmentVienna University of Economic and BusinessViennaAustria
  5. 5.DTU Management Engineering, UNEP Risø CentreTechnical University of DenmarkRoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations