IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

A Framework For The Economic Evaluation Of Environmental Science

  • Kutschukian, Jean-Marc
Registered author(s):

    Economists, especially agricultural economists, have undertaken extensive analysis of the gains of technological-based scientific research. This is in stark contrast to the efforts undertaken to understand the economic effects of environmental scientific research. Economic evaluation of environmental science is important because knowledge-based government agencies are regularly required to justify their research expenditure and set clear priorities for their research programmes. This paper addresses the gap in the literature by offering a general framework for evaluating environmental scientific research. The paper is structured around two themes central to appraisals of environmental research: (a) the non-market nature of environmental outcomes; and (b) the pathways to achieve these outcomes. Some of the more important and unique issues addressed include the links between the natural systems being researched, the benefits in terms of resulting goods and services, and their subsequent values, as well as the factors influencing the overall contribution research makes to environmental decision-making.

    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: http://purl.umn.edu/6026
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society in its series 2008 Conference (52nd), February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia with number 6026.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: 2008
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:ags:aare08:6026
    Contact details of provider: Postal: AARES Central Office Manager, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, Canberra ACT 0200
    Phone: 0409 032 338
    Web page: http://www.aares.info/
    Email:


    More information through EDIRC

    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. Kirchhoff, Stefanie & Colby, Bonnie G. & LaFrance, Jeffrey T., 1997. "Evaluating the Performance of Benefit Transfer: An Empirical Inquiry," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 75-93, May.
    2. George W. Norton & Jeffrey Alwang, 1997. "Measuring the Benefits of Policy Research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1534-1538.
    3. Sagoff, M., 1998. "Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods:: A look beyond contingent pricing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 213-230, February.
    4. Schimmelpfennig, David E. & Norton, George W., 2000. "What Value Is Agricultural Economics Research?," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21773, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Zvi Griliches, 1958. "Research Costs and Social Returns: Hybrid Corn and Related Innovations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 66, pages 419.
    6. Willig, Robert D, 1976. "Consumer's Surplus without Apology," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(4), pages 589-97, September.
    7. Robert W. Hahn & Richard L. Schmalensee & Roger Noll & Robert Stavins & Lester B. Lave & George C. Eads & Milton Russell & V. Kerry Smith & Maureen L. Cropper & Paul R. Portney & Kenneth J. Arrow, 1996. "Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 51790, 5.
    8. C. Peter Timmer, 1997. "Valuing Social Science Research and Policy Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1545-1550.
    9. Arrow, Kenneth J & Lind, Robert C, 1970. "Uncertainty and the Evaluation of Public Investment Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 60(3), pages 364-78, June.
    10. Bromley, Daniel W., 2007. "Environmental regulations and the problem of sustainability: Moving beyond "market failure"," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 676-683, September.
    11. Kilpatrick, Henry E., Jr., 1998. "Some useful methods for measuring the benefits of social science research:," Impact assessments 5, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    12. Hahn, Robert W., 2000. "The Impact of Economics on Environmental Policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 375-399, May.
    13. Vincent H. Smith & Philip G. Pardey, 1997. "Sizing Up Social Science Research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1530-1533.
    14. Tietenberg, T H, 1990. "Economic Instruments for Environmental Regulation," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 17-33, Spring.
    15. 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.
    16. David Zilberman & Amir Heiman, 1997. "The Value of Economic Research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1539-1544.
    17. David E. Schimmelpfennig & George W. Norton, 2003. "What is the Value of Agricultural Economics Research?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 81-94.
    18. repec:reg:rpubli:98 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Alston, Julian M. & Wyatt, T. J. & Pardey, Philip G. & Marra, Michele C. & Chan-Kang, Connie, 2000. "A meta-analysis of rates of return to agricultural R & D: ex pede Herculem?," Research reports 113, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    20. Norgaard, Richard B., 1989. "The case for methodological pluralism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 37-57, February.
    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:ags:aare08:6026. 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: (AgEcon Search)

    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.