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

Cost Benefit Approaches to Valuing Nature: Case Studies in New Zealand

  • Wilson, Ross
Registered author(s):

    Section 32 of the Resource Management Act requires councils to evaluate the alternative options. Pure, fully monetised cost benefit analysis (“CBA”) is in theory the ideal preferred approach for evaluations, but it is at one extreme of a whole spectrum of related approaches based on the level of detail and quantification or monetisation. In practice, few if any s32 analyses are fully monetised, and in fact many if not most are either purely qualitative (descriptions or matrices) or a mix of qualitative and quantitative (numerical or scoring). However, there are other examples across the entire spectrum.

    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/136072
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society in its series 2012 Conference, August 31, 2012, Nelson, New Zealand with number 136072.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: Aug 2012
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:ags:nzar12:136072
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.nzares.org.nz/

    More information through EDIRC

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    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:nzar12:136072. 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.