Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Environmental Valuation – To Use or Not to Use? A Comparative Study of the United States and Europe

Contents:

Author Info

  • STÅLE Navrud
  • GERALD Pruckner

    ()

Abstract

Valuation 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 Info

If 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.
File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1026449715284
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists in its journal Environmental and Resource Economics.

Volume (Year): 10 (1997)
Issue (Month): 1 (July)
Pages: 1-26

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:10:y:1997:i:1:p:1-26

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100263

Related research

Keywords: environmental valuation; contingent valuation; cost–benefit analysis;

References

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
as in new window
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Nick Hanley, 1990. "Are There Environmental Limits to Cost Benefit Analysis?," Working Papers Series 90/6, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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?," Working Papers 96-21, Duke University, Department of Economics.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Richard Yao & Pamela Kaval, 2008. "Valuing Biodiversity Enhancement in New Zealand," Working Papers in Economics 08/07, University of Waikato, Department of Economics.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:10:y:1997:i:1:p:1-26. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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 you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.