IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v10y1997i1p1-26.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • 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

Suggested Citation

  • STÅLE Navrud & GERALD Pruckner, 1997. "Environmental Valuation – To Use or Not to Use? A Comparative Study of the United States and Europe," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(1), pages 1-26, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:10:y:1997:i:1:p:1-26 DOI: 10.1023/A:1026449715284
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489, April.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. 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, September.
    2. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    3. 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.
    4. Robert J. Johnston & Randall S. Rosenberger, 2010. "Methods, Trends And Controversies In Contemporary Benefit Transfer," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 479-510, July.
    5. Winkler, Ralph, 2006. "Valuation of ecosystem goods and services: Part 1: An integrated dynamic approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 82-93, August.
    6. M. Morrison & R. Blamey & J. Bennett, 2000. "Minimising Payment Vehicle Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(4), pages 407-422, August.
    7. 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.
    8. 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, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(3), pages 333-351, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Richard Yao & Pamela Kaval, 2008. "Valuing Biodiversity Enhancement in New Zealand," Working Papers in Economics 08/07, University of Waikato.
    11. Arfini, Filippo, 1999. "The value of typical products : the case of Prosciutto di Parma and Parmigiano Reggiano cheese," 67th Seminar, October 28-30, 1999, LeMans, France 241032, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Londoño, Luz M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2012. "Enhancing the reliability of benefit transfer over heterogeneous sites: A meta-analysis of international coral reef values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 80-89.
    13. 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, February.
    14. 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.
    15. Börger, Tobias & Beaumont, Nicola J. & Pendleton, Linwood & Boyle, Kevin J. & Cooper, Philip & Fletcher, Stephen & Haab, Tim & Hanemann, Michael & Hooper, Tara L. & Hussain, S. Salman & Portela, Rosim, 2014. "Incorporating ecosystem services in marine planning: The role of valuation," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 161-170.
    16. Michael Ahlheim & Ulrike Lehr, 2002. "Nutzentransfer: Das Sparmodell der Umweltbewertung," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 3(1), pages 85-104, February.

    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: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). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.