IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Limits to CBA in UK and European environmental policy: retrospects and future prospects

  • R. Turner


Registered author(s):

    This paper reviews the contemporary debate and the now long standing role of CBA in UK and European environmental policy appraisal (EPA) and looks forward to possible future applications. The position taken is that despite its limitations CBA still has an important part to play in EPA. However, with the increasingly ‘contested’ nature of environmental and related public policies and outcomes, its role will become less prescriptive and its findings more constrained by social justice and ethical imperatives. Future CBA is more likely to continue to flourish as a component in a wider policy analysis and decision support system. Whatever decision support system is eventually adopted, its value will be judged on how well it aids real policymakers operating iteratively in the non-linear real world political economy. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

    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:
    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.

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

    Volume (Year): 37 (2007)
    Issue (Month): 1 (May)
    Pages: 253-269

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:37:y:2007:i:1:p:253-269
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    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. E B Barbier & A Markandya & D W Pearce, 1990. "Environmental sustainability and cost - benefit analysis," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 22(9), pages 1259-1266, September.
    2. John M. Gowdy, 2003. "The Revolution in Welfare Economics and its Implications for Environmental Valuation and Policy," Rensselaer Working Papers in Economics 0315, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Economics.
    3. Crowards, Tom M., 1998. "Safe Minimum Standards: costs and opportunities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 303-314, June.
    4. Anil Markandya & Suzette Pedroso-Galinato, 2007. "How substitutable is natural capital?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 297-312, May.
    5. Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh & John M. Gowdy, 2003. "The microfoundations of macroeconomics: an evolutionary perspective," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 65-84, January.
    6. Roy Brouwer & Neil Powe & R. Kerry Turner & Ian J. Bateman & Ian H. Langford, 1999. "Public Attitudes to Contingent Valuation and Public Consultation," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 8(3), pages 325-347, August.
    7. John List, 2005. "Scientific Numerology, Preference Anomalies, and Environmental Policymaking," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 35-53, 09.
    8. Ben Groom & Cameron Hepburn & Phoebe Koundouri & David Pearce, 2005. "Declining Discount Rates: The Long and the Short of it," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(4), pages 445-493, December.
    9. Arrow, Kenneth J. & Cropper, Maureen L. & Eads, George C. & Hahn, Robert W. & Lave, Lester B. & Noll, Roger G. & Portney, Paul R. & Russell, Milson & Schmalensee, Richard & Smith, V. Kerry & Stavins, , 1997. "Is there a role for benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health, and safety regulation?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(02), pages 195-221, May.
    10. Nick Hanley & Jason Shogren, 2005. "Is Cost–Benefit Analysis Anomaly-Proof?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 13-24, 09.
    11. Olson, Mancur & Bailey, Martin J, 1981. "Positive Time Preference," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(1), pages 1-25, February.
    12. Heal, G., 1998. "Valuing the Future: Economic Theory and Sustainability," Papers 98-10, Columbia - Graduate School of Business.
    13. Nick Hanley, 2001. "Cost - benefit analysis and environmental policymaking," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 19(1), pages 103-118, February.
    14. Gollier, Christian, 2002. "Discounting an uncertain future," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 149-166, August.
    15. Carson, Richard T & Groves, Theodore, 2010. "Incentive and Information Properties of Preference Questions," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt88d8644g, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    16. Nick Hanley & Clive L Spash, 1993. "Preferences, Information and Biodiversity Preservation," Working Papers Series 93/12, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    17. Bromley, Daniel W., 1990. "The ideology of efficiency: Searching for a theory of policy analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 86-107, July.
    18. Shane Frederick & George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue, 2002. "Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 351-401, June.
    19. Kjell Arne Brekke & Richard B. Howarth, 2000. "The Social Contingency of Wants," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(4), pages 493-503.
    20. Jason Shogren & John List, 2002. "Calibration of willingness-to-accept," Framed Field Experiments 00182, The Field Experiments Website.
    21. Weitzman, Martin L., 1998. "Why the Far-Distant Future Should Be Discounted at Its Lowest Possible Rate," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 201-208, November.
    22. Roach, Brian & Wade, William W., 2006. "Policy evaluation of natural resource injuries using habitat equivalency analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 421-433, June.
    23. Macmillan, Douglas C. & Philip, Lorna & Hanley, Nick & Alvarez-Farizo, Begona, 2002. "Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group based approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 49-59, November.
    24. Burgess, Jacquelin & Clark, Judy & Harrison, Carolyn M., 2000. "Knowledges in action: an actor network analysis of a wetland agri-environment scheme," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 119-132, October.
    25. David Pearce, 1998. "Environmental Appraisal and Environmental Policy in the European Union," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 489-501, April.
    26. Giles Atkinson & Fernando Machado & Susana Mourato, 2000. "Balancing competing principles of environmental equity," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 32(10), pages 1791-1806, October.
    27. Turner, R. Kerry & Paavola, Jouni & Cooper, Philip & Farber, Stephen & Jessamy, Valma & Georgiou, Stavros, 2003. "Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 493-510, October.
    28. Henrich, Joseph, 2004. "Cultural group selection, coevolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 3-35, January.
    29. David Pearce, 2004. "Does European Union Environmental Policy Pass a Cost–Benefit Test?," World Economics, World Economics, Economic & Financial Publishing, 1 Ivory Square, Plantation Wharf, London, United Kingdom, SW11 3UE, vol. 5(3), pages 115-137, July.
    30. Ing-Marie Gren & Carl Folke & Kerry Turner & Ian Batemen, 1994. "Primary and secondary values of wetland ecosystems," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(1), pages 55-74, February.
    31. Derek Turner, 2004. "The Lack of Clarity in the Precautionary Principle," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 13(4), pages 449-460, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:37:y:2007:i:1:p:253-269. 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 (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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.