IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pio/envirc/v19y2001i1p103-118.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost - benefit analysis and environmental policymaking

Author

Listed:
  • Nick Hanley

Abstract

The author's purpose is to review the use of cost - benefit analysis (CBA) in environmental policy appraisal, focusing on the United Kingdom. Examples of the use of CBA in this context are provided, and the recent historical background to its use explained. The main strengths and weaknesses of CBA from the viewpoint of users are then reviewed, and alternatives to CBA are considered. The author closes by exploring some possible ways forward for the methodology which would be consistent with it becoming more useful and more widely accepted.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:pio:envirc:v:19:y:2001:i:1:p:103-118
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.envplan.com/abstract.cgi?id=c3s
    File Function: abstract
    Download Restriction: Fulltext access restricted to subscribers, see http://www.envplan.co.uk/C.html for details

    File URL: http://www.envplan.com/epc/fulltext/c19/c3s.pdf
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: Fulltext access restricted to subscribers, see http://www.envplan.co.uk/C.html for details

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tertius Greyling & Jeff Bennett, 2010. "Revegetation of Regent Honeyeater habitat in the Capertee Valley: a Cost-Benefit Analysis," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1081, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    2. Greyling, Tertius & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2011. "Protecting the Booroolong Frog in the Namoi Catchment: A Cost-Benefit Analysis," Research Reports 107851, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    3. Lele, Sharachchandra & Srinivasan, Veena, 2013. "Disaggregated economic impact analysis incorporating ecological and social trade-offs and techno-institutional context: A case from the Western Ghats of India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 98-112.
    4. Tertius Greyling & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Protection of Malleefowl in the Lachlan Catchment," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1099, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    5. Pannell, David J. & Roberts, Anna M. & Park, Geoff & Alexander, Jennifer, 2013. "Improving environmental decisions: A transaction-costs story," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 244-252.
    6. Menegaki, Angeliki, 2008. "Valuation for renewable energy: A comparative review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 12(9), pages 2422-2437, December.
    7. Ian Bateman & Amii Harwood & David Abson & Barnaby Andrews & Andrew Crowe & Steve Dugdale & Carlo Fezzi & Jo Foden & David Hadley & Roy Haines-Young & Mark Hulme & Andreas Kontoleon & Paul Munday & Un, 2014. "Economic Analysis for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis and Scenario Valuation of Changes in Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(2), pages 273-297, February.
    8. Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Robert Wright, 2003. "Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 3-16.
    9. Måns Nilsson & Andrew Jordan & John Turnpenny & Julia Hertin & Björn Nykvist & Duncan Russel, 2008. "The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making: an analysis of three European countries and the European Union," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(4), pages 335-355, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pio:envirc:v:19:y:2001:i:1:p:103-118. 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: (Neil Hammond). General contact details of provider: http://www.pion.co.uk .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.