1. Benefit: Cost Ratio

2. Is the project worth doing?
How to judge?
Assume aim is to maximise the value of environmental outcomes
“Value” can include
Environmental, social and economic
Tangible and intangible

3. Resources are limited Not every good project can be funded
Best strategy is to choose highest ratio of benefits to costs
Dividing by costs is crucial
Reveals projects that give best value for money (benefits per dollar spent)
Works even if projects are of different sizes

4. Measuring benefits
For ranking to work, benefits need to be measured in a consistent way
Not necessarily in dollars
Our approach is to define a scoring system and apply it consistently

5. A  B A: adoption B: compliance
V  W V: asset value
W: effectiveness of works
A  B A: adoption B: compliance
F  P  G F: feasibility P: socio-political
G: long-term funding
1/(1 + r)L
L: time lag to benefits
r: discount rate
Potential project benefits
E(prop’n of required adoption)
Discount factor for time lags
Risk of failure 
 (1   )
BCR = ──────────────────────────────────────────────────
Project cost
C + PV(M+E)  G C: project cost
M: annual maintenance cost
E: polluter-pays compliance costs
PV: summed present value over 20 years
G: long-term funding

6. Simulations of other metrics
In terms of expected value of environmental benefits, the INFFER metric is about 100% better than commonly used metrics
Some add where they should multiply
Many ignore costs
Most omit one or more of the benefits factors (often feasibility and adoption)

7. Data quality Process uses best available data and knowledge
Can be based on expert opinion if necessary
Can update with improved science or modelling if it becomes available
Step 3 elicits
quality of information
data gaps
strategy to deal with data gaps

8. The asset and spin-offs
INFFER quantifies benefits that are directly related to the natural asset
Other benefits (e.g. increased social capital from doing the project) can be captured qualitatively and reported in Project Assessment Report
The asset can be defined more broadly to capture 2 or more sub-assets

9. Simplification
The current version of INFFER asks for only one response for each parameter
In reality, there might be heterogeneity within the asset
High feasibility to protect one part
Low feasibility for another part
Response should be an overall average
The price of simplicity

10. Simplification
Assumes overall benefits are proportional to level of adoption or compliance
Might be non-linear
Usually too little info to know

11. Information analysis
How do you use the information to make decisions (e.g. scoring/assessment processes)?
What works well? What doesn’t?

12. Improving the current approach
Imagine we could design a better approach …
… What would it look like?

13. How is it used?

14. How is it used?
Quantitative data is collected by completion of the Project Assessment Form (PAF)
Qualitative information provides context and helps select quantitative values
PAF is completed for multiple assets
Projects ranked on the basis of BCR

15. How is it used?
Would not expect mechanistic application of this ranking
Priorities also influenced by funder priorities, opportunities, quality of information, …
Project
BCR
Rank
Lake X 5 1
River Y
1.5 3
Park Z
2.2 2

16. Can also compare versions of the same project
Different scales
Different on-ground actions
Different policy mechanisms
Example: Gippsland Lakes

17. Frequently Asked Questions

18. How does INFFER compare projects for different types of assets?
On basis of overall value for money
The V score is not specific to a particular type of asset
The other elements of the benefit ratio are all proportions or probabilities
Allows consistent comparison across asset types

19. V seems subjective. Is that a problem?
It is subjective. Values are.
V makes explicit what we already do implicitly  transparency
Consistency in scoring is important
Relate it carefully to table of V examples
Have a group that reviews all V scores for consistency
V is usually not the most uncertain factor
Often W or A

20. How important is accuracy of the numbers
We rarely have highly accurate numbers
It matters, but great precision is not needed
W = 0.1 vs W = 0.8 makes a big difference
W = 0.11 vs W = 0.13 doesn’t
Missing out a variable matters a lot
The design of the BCR metric matters a lot
Data inaccuracy matters a bit

21. How does INFFER compare a one-year project with a five-year project?
On the basis of overall value for money. We ask, which of the two projects has the greatest environmental benefits per dollar spent?
In both cases, we ask for information about the need for ongoing expenditure (beyond the project) and factor that in.

22. How does INFFER compare large and small projects?
On the basis of overall value for money. We ask, which of the two projects has the greatest environmental benefits per dollar spent?

23. How does INFFER deal with projects that require investment over a long time frame?
In the Project Assessment Form, we ask for an estimate of ongoing annual maintenance costs, which are factored into the assessment of cost effectiveness. Maintenance costs are converted to a “present value” using standard discounting methods.

24. How does INFFER deal with projects where there is a long time frame until the benefits are generated?
It’s designed for a project of say 5 years, with benefits over longer time frame.
E.g. project may avert degradation that is not expected to happen for decades, or it may take years for current actions to repair an already-degraded asset.
We collect information about the likely time lag until benefits. Then, the BCR includes a discount factor. Projects with more immediate benefits get higher weight (other things equal).

25. See the BCR page and FAQs at
For more details
See the BCR page and FAQs at

26. Acknowledgements Affiliations of the INFFER team Other key funders
University of Western Australia
Department of Primary Industries, Victoria
North Central Catchment Management Authority
Future Farm Industries CRC
Other key funders
Australian Research Council (Federation Fellow Program)
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (CERF Program)
Department of Sustainability and Environment , Victoria