Valuing environmental factors in cost-benefit analysis using data envelopment analysis
Environmental cost-benefit analysis (ECBA) refers to social evaluation of investment projects and policies that involve significant environmental impacts. Valuation of the environmental impacts in monetary terms forms one of the critical steps in ECBA. We propose a new approach for environmental valuation within ECBA framework that is based on data envelopment analysis (DEA) and does not demand any price estimation for environmental impacts using traditional revealed or stated preference methods. We show that DEA can be modified to the context of CBA by using absolute shadow prices instead of traditionally used relative prices. We also discuss how the approach can be used for sensitive analysis which is an important part of ECBA. We illustrate the application of the DEA approach to ECBA by means of a hypothetical numerical example where a household considers investment to a new sport utility vehicle.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
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.
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.
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.:
- Donald H. Rosenthal & Robert H. Nelson, 1992. "Why existence value should not be used in cost-benefit analysis," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 116-122.
- William L. Weber & Bruce Domazlicky, 2001. "Productivity Growth and Pollution in State Manufacturing," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(1), pages 195-199, February.
- Timo Kuosmanen & Mika Kortelainen, 2004. "Data Envelopment Analysis in Environmental Valuation: Environmental Performance, Eco-efficiency and Cost-Benefit Analysis," Others 0409004, EconWPA.
- Nash, Christopher A & Pearce, David W & Stanley, John K, 1975. "An Evaluation of Cost-Benefit Analysis Criteria," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 22(2), pages 121-134, June.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
- Fare, Rolf & Grosskopf, Shawna & Tyteca, Daniel, 1996. "An activity analysis model of the environmental performance of firms--application to fossil-fuel-fired electric utilities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 161-175, August.
- Mika Kortelainen & Timo Kuosmanen, 2007.
"Eco-efficiency analysis of consumer durables using absolute shadow prices,"
Journal of Productivity Analysis,
Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 57-69, October.
- Mika Kortelainen & Timo Kuosmanen, 2005. "Eco-Efficiency Analysis of Consumer Durables Using Absolute Shadow Prices," Public Economics 0511022, EconWPA.
- Charnes, A. & Cooper, W. W. & Rhodes, E., 1978. "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 2(6), pages 429-444, November.
- Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-266, March.
- N. Womer & M.-L. Bougnol & J. Dula & D. Retzlaff-Roberts, 2006. "Benefit-cost analysis using data envelopment analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 229-250, July.
- John Mackenzie, 1993. "A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 593-603.
- Bingham, Gail & Bishop, Richard & Brody, Michael & Bromley, Daniel & Clark, Edwin (Toby) & Cooper, William & Costanza, Robert & Hale, Thomas & Hayden, Gregory & Kellert, Stephen, 1995. "Issues in ecosystem valuation: improving information for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 73-90, August.
- Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
- Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
- Yaisawarng, Suthathip & Klein, J Douglass, 1994. "The Effects of Sulfur Dioxide Controls on Productivity Change in the U.S. Electric Power Industry," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(3), pages 447-460, August.
- Johansson,Per-Olov, 1993. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521447928, December.
- R. D. Banker & A. Charnes & W. W. Cooper, 1984. "Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(9), pages 1078-1092, September.
- 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. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)