Environmental Valuation – To Use or Not to Use? A Comparative Study of the United States and Europe
AbstractValuation methods have been used for five main purposes in environmental decision-making. Cost–benefit analysis (CBA) of projects, CBA of new regulations, natural resource damage assessment, environmental costing, and environmental accounting. The relatively lower importance attached to economic efficiency in environmental decision-making in most European countries compared to the U.S.A., both legally and in practice, might account for our general finding that there are very few valuation studies in Europe which have served as a decisive basis for environmental policy and regulations. However, with EU's goal to establish environmentally adjusted national accounts and to apply CBA to environmental policy and regulations, time seems ripe for an increased use of valuation techniques in Europe. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists in its journal Environmental and Resource Economics.
Volume (Year): 10 (1997)
Issue (Month): 1 (July)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100263
environmental valuation; contingent valuation; cost–benefit analysis;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Nick Hanley & Jacqui Knight, 1992. "Valuing the Environment: Recent UK Experience and an Application to Green Belt Land," Working Papers Series 92/11, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
- Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael & Kopp, Raymond J. & Krosnick, Jon A. & Mitchell, Robert C. & Presser, Stanley & Ruud, Paul A. & Smith, V. Kerry, 1996.
"Was the NOAA Panel Correct about Contingent Valuation?,"
96-21, Duke University, Department of Economics.
- Kopp, Raymond & Smith, V. Kerry & Mitchell, Robert & Presser, Stanley & Ruud, Paul & Hanemann, W. Michael & Krosnick, Jon & Conaway, Michael & Martin, Kerry & Carson, Richard, 1996. "Was the NOAA Panel Correct About Contingent Valuation?," Discussion Papers dp-96-20, Resources For the Future.
- Nick Hanley, 1990.
"Are There Environmental Limits to Cost Benefit Analysis?,"
Working Papers Series
90/6, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
- Nick Hanley, 1992. "Are there environmental limits to cost benefit analysis?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 33-59, January.
- Alan fnKrupnick & Kenneth fnHarrison & Eric fnNickell & Michael fnToman, 1996. "The value of health benefits from ambient air quality improvements in Central and Eastern Europe: An exercise in benefits transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(4), pages 307-332, June.
- Cropper, Maureen L & Oates, Wallace E, 1992. "Environmental Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 675-740, June.
- Charles Howe, 1993. "The U.S. Environmental policy experience: A critique with Suggestions for the European Community," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(4), pages 359-379, August.
- Karl-Göran Mäler, 1991. "National accounts and environmental resources," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 1(1), pages 1-15, March.
- Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2006. "Contingent Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 17, pages 821-936 Elsevier.
- Van Houtven, George L. & Cropper, Maureen L. & DEC, 1994. "When is a life too costly to save? : evidence from U.S. environmental regulations," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1260, The World Bank.
- Carlsen Arne J. & Strand Jon & Wenstop Fred, 1993. "Implicit Environmental Costs in Hydroelectric Development: An Analysis of the Norwegian Master Plan for Water Resources," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 201-211, November.
- Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Stale, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," MPRA Paper 35633, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- M. Morrison & R. Blamey & J. Bennett, 2000. "Minimising Payment Vehicle Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(4), pages 407-422, August.
- Richard Yao & Pamela Kaval, 2008. "Valuing Biodiversity Enhancement in New Zealand," Working Papers in Economics 08/07, University of Waikato, Department of Economics.
- Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2008. "Internet CV surveys – a cheap, fast way to get large samples of biased values?," MPRA Paper 11471, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Tyrvainen, Liisa & Miettinen, Antti, 2000. "Property Prices and Urban Forest Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 205-223, March.
- Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2004.
"What's it worth? An examination of historical trends and future directions in environmental valuation,"
Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics,
Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), September.
- Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2004. "What's it worth? An examination of historical trends and future directions in environmental valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), pages 419-443, 09.
- Xander Olsthoorn & Markus Amann & Alena Bartonova & Jocelyne Clench-Aas & Janusz Cofala & Kees Dorland & Cristina Guerreiro & Jan Henriksen & Huib Jansen & Steinar Larssen, 1999. "Cost Benefit Analysis of European Air Quality Targets for Sulphur Dioxide, Nitrogen Dioxide and Fine and Suspended Particulate Matter in Cities," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(3), pages 333-351, October.
- Utpal Kumar De & Amrita Devi, 2011. "Valuing Recreational and Conservational Benefits of a Natural Tourist Site: Case of Cherrapunjee," Journal of Quantitative Economics, The Indian Econometric Society, vol. 9(2), pages 154-172, July.
- Michael Ahlheim & Ulrike Lehr, 2002. "Nutzentransfer: Das Sparmodell der Umweltbewertung," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 3(1), pages 85-104, 02.
- Marjainé, Szerényi Zsuzsanna, 2001.
"A természeti erőforrások pénzbeli értékelése
[Monetary valuation of natural resources]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(2), pages 114-129.
- Franz Hackl & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2000. "Braucht die Deutsche Umweltpolitik einen Exxon Valdez Tankerunfall?," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 1(1), pages 92-114, 02.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.