IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rom/mancon/v9y2015i1p321-332.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Overview Of Cost Benefit Analysis For Weee Recycling Projects

Author

Listed:
  • Mihaela PACESILA
  • Carmen Nadia CIOCOIU
  • Sofia Elena COLESCA
  • Stefan Gabriel BURCEA

Abstract

This paper aims at providing the characteristics of a cost - benefit analysis (CBA) in the field of waste electric and electronic equipment (WEEE) in order to simplify the completion of this analysis for recycling projects. The paper is structured into three parts. The first part of the paper summarizes the history of the method and its usefulness for both private and public sector. The literature review offers an insight into the relevant past literature in the field of CBA showing the connections across multiple studies. The third part describes the steps and components of cost-benefit analysis in the field of WEEE by means of a formal analysis, emphasizing the essential aspects regarding the economic and financial evaluation of an investment project.

Suggested Citation

  • Mihaela PACESILA & Carmen Nadia CIOCOIU & Sofia Elena COLESCA & Stefan Gabriel BURCEA, 2015. "An Overview Of Cost Benefit Analysis For Weee Recycling Projects," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 9(1), pages 321-332, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:rom:mancon:v:9:y:2015:i:1:p:321-332
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://conference.management.ase.ro/archives/2015/pdf/36.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dreze, Jean & Stern, Nicholas, 1987. "The theory of cost-benefit analysis," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 14, pages 909-989, Elsevier.
    2. Sugden, Robert & Williams, Alan, 1978. "The Principles of Practical Cost-Benefit Analysis," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198770411, Decembrie.
    3. Florio, Massimo, 1990. "Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Control of Public Expenditure: An Assessment of British Experience in the 1980s," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 103-131, April.
    4. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1993. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521447928.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Scarborough, Helen & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2006. "Estimating intergenerational utility distribution preferences," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 139899, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Marco Grasso, 2004. "Utilizzo e diffusione della valutazione economica dei beni," Others 0406002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Schmid, A. Allan, 2004. "Economic Analysis And Efficiency In Public Expenditure," Staff Paper Series 11776, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    4. Morisugi, Hisa & Ohno, Eiji, 1995. "Proposal of a benefit incidence matrix for urban development projects," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 461-481, August.
    5. Nyborg, Karine, 2014. "Project evaluation with democratic decision-making: What does cost–benefit analysis really measure?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 124-131.
    6. Jurgita Baranauskiene & Valdemaras Makutenas & Albina Novosinskiene, 2014. "What Are Left Underestimated Using Cost-Benefit Analysis For Public Project Evaluation?," Economy & Business Journal, International Scientific Publications, Bulgaria, vol. 8(1), pages 856-867.
    7. Samuel Fankhauser & Richard Tol & DAVID Pearce, 1997. "The Aggregation of Climate Change Damages: a Welfare Theoretic Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(3), pages 249-266, October.
    8. Harald Lang & Armin-D. Riess, 2019. "Shadow wages in cost-benefit rules for project and policy analyses: estimates for OECD countries," DEM Discussion Paper Series 19-05, Department of Economics at the University of Luxembourg.
    9. Rouwendal Jan, 2012. "Indirect Effects in Cost-Benefit Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-27, January.
    10. van Hulsen, Merel A.J. & Rohde, Kirsten I.M. & van Exel, Job, 2023. "Preferences for investment in and allocation of additional healthcare capacity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 320(C).
    11. Medin, Hege & Nyborg, Karine & Bateman, Ian, 2001. "The assumption of equal marginal utility of income: how much does it matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 397-411, March.
    12. Bente Halvorsen, 2009. "Conflicting Interests in Environmental Policy-making?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(2), pages 287-305, October.
    13. Rintaro Yamaguchi, 2019. "Intergenerational Discounting with Intragenerational Inequality in Consumption and the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(4), pages 957-972, August.
    14. Peter Mackie & John Nellthorp & James Laird, 2005. "Treatment of Induced Traffic," World Bank Publications - Reports 11796, The World Bank Group.
    15. Karine Nyborg & Inger Spangen, 2000. "Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Democratic Ideal," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 26, pages 83-93.
    16. Celia Bilbao-Terol, 2009. "Impacts of an Iron and Steel Plant on Residential Property Values," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(9), pages 1421-1436, September.
    17. Mark S. Thompson, 1983. "Health Versus Money," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 3(3), pages 285-297, August.
    18. Goswami, Indranil & Urminsky, Oleg, 2021. "Don’t fear the meter: How longer time limits bias managers to prefer hiring with flat fee compensation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 42-58.
    19. Lin, Tun & De Guzman, Franklin, 2007. "Tourism for pro-poor and sustainable growth: economic analysis of tourism projects," MPRA Paper 24994, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. James E. Anderson & Will Martin, 2011. "Costs of Taxation and Benefits of Public Goods with Multiple Taxes and Goods," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 13(2), pages 289-309, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rom:mancon:v:9:y:2015:i:1:p:321-332. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ciocoiu Nadia Carmen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mnasero.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.