 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Opinion of tools
Name of the case study
Solid Waste in Copenhagen
Name of tool
Cost Benefit Analysis
Opinion of tool - argumentation for choosing the tool
The tool was, as mentioned above, used for comparing competing waste-handling systems. The economic dimension is important, especially for the waste handling company R98. The initiative to use the tool was R98.
In the R98 organization there are a number of persons knowing about other tools. The tool used was, however, much more simple to use than more complex tools. It could have been a full Cost Benefit Analysis with estimations of the economic value of all the different social and environmental values. Another possibility would have been using a multi-criteria model.
Opinion of tool - barriers for the tool implementation
There were no real barriers for implementing the tool in the form it was used. Time (and economy) would most likely have been a major barrier for developing a full Cost Benefit Analysis – What is for instance the monetary value of the increased public awareness concerning sustainability and waste sorting?
Opinion of tool - assessment by tool users
Not relevant.
Opinion of tool - reviewer\'s assessment
The case illustrates how difficult it is to incorporate benefits like:
• Creating new ways of collaborating
• Creating new local organisations
• Strengthening local social networks
- in a cost benefit analysis. It is difficult to put a price on these soft values (and they are hard to investigate in depth). The need for transparency is evident. There is no doubt that cost benefit analysis is a tool that has a potential. There is, however, a need of finding procedures to make the tool more transparent, and ways of discussing the benefits and costs that are left out of the analysis. Furthermore one could ask oneself if a cost benefit analysis is a good tool to use if it is mostly soft values that are in focus in the decision process.
What tools were used to assess sustainability?
More information