Environmental Valuation – To Use or Not to Use? A Comparative Study of the United States and Europe
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
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.
Volume (Year): 10 (1997)
Issue (Month): 1 (July)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
Postal:c/o EAERE Secretariat - Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei - Isola di San Giorgio Maggiore 8, I-30124 Venice, Italy
Web page: http://www.eaere.org/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/environmental/journal/10640/PS2|
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.:
- Karl-Göran Mäler, 1991. "National accounts and environmental resources," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 1(1), pages 1-15, March.
- Richard T. Carson, 2011.
Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489, March.
- Charles Howe, 1993. "The U.S. Environmental policy experience: A critique with Suggestions for the European Community," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(4), pages 359-379, August.
- 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.
- 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, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(4), pages 307-332, June.
- 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.
- 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, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 33-59, January.
- 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.
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: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
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.