IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/87615.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Environmental valuation and benefit-cost analysis in U.K. policy

Author

Listed:
  • Atkinson, Giles
  • Groom, Ben
  • Hanley, Nicholas
  • Mourato, Susana

Abstract

This paper presents an evaluation of the use of environmental valuation – techniques to assign monetary values to environmental impacts of policies and projects, especially nonmarket impacts – in U.K. policy. In doing so, we seek to contribute to the debate, more generally, of the use and influence of benefit-cost analysis (BCA) in national policy processes such as Impact Assessment. Specifically, our contribution in this paper is two-fold. First, we identify a number of trends that have characterized U.K. policy use of environmental valuation over the past two or so decades. While this has notably involved development of “sharable values” allowing more widespread uptake, it also seems that different branches of government have developed different traditions of use adding nuance to what, on the face of it, is otherwise a shared endeavor. Second, we evaluate the extent to which the use of environmental valuation can be said to have influenced policy decisions and the degree to which this is embedded by evolving policy processes. As such, we discuss two areas of environmental policy – water quality improvements and natural capital – which have entailed either substantial use of environmental valuation either in determining specific policy and investment project options or where this has helped shape the broader policy agenda. Our evaluation is not exhaustive; nor do our findings suggest that environmental valuation and BCA are necessarily the dominant driver of decisions, as we discuss. However, in recognizing this, we argue it is also important to consider a number of established or evolving cultural and legal institutional processes which broadly appear to support our assessment of such cases.

Suggested Citation

  • Atkinson, Giles & Groom, Ben & Hanley, Nicholas & Mourato, Susana, 2018. "Environmental valuation and benefit-cost analysis in U.K. policy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 87615, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:87615
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/87615/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Georgiou, Stavros & Rheinberger, Christoph M. & Vainio, Matti, 2018. "Benefit-Cost Analysis in EU Chemicals Legislation: Experiences from over 100 REACH Applications for Authorisation," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 181-204, April.
    2. Dolan, Paul & Laffan, Kate, 2016. "Bad Air Days: The Effects of Air Quality on Different Measures of Subjective Well-Being," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 147-195, April.
    3. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    4. Pearce, David, 1998. "Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(4), pages 84-100, Winter.
    5. Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell & Bernard M.S. van Praag, 2002. "The Subjective Costs of Health Losses due to Chronic Diseases," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 02-023/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    6. Willis, K G, 1991. "The Recreational Value of the Forestry Commission Estate in Great Britain: A Clawson-Snetsch Travel Cost Analysis," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 38(1), pages 58-75, February.
    7. N. D. Hanley & R. J. Ruffell, 1993. "The Contingent Valuation Of Forest Characteristics: Two Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 218-229, May.
    8. Ellig, Jerry & Fike, Rosemarie, 2016. "Regulatory Process, Regulatory Reform, and the Quality of Regulatory Impact Analysis 1," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 523-559, October.
    9. Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Hanley, Nicholas & LaRiviere, Jacob, 2013. "The Effects of Experience on Preference Uncertainty: Theory and Empirics for Public and Quasi-Public Environmental Goods," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2013-11, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    10. Christie, Michael & Hanley, Nick & Hynes, Stephen, 2007. "Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 75-102, August.
    11. Julii S. Brainard & Andrew P. Jones & Ian J. Bateman, 2006. "Exposure to Environmental Urban Noise Pollution in Birmingham, UK," Chapters, in: Ysé Serret & Nick Johnstone (ed.), The Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Bruno S. Frey & Simon Luechinger & Alois Stutzer, 2010. "The Life Satisfaction Approach to Environmental Valuation," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 139-160, October.
    13. Stephen Gibbons & Susana Mourato & Guilherme Resende, 2014. "The Amenity Value of English Nature: A Hedonic Price Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(2), pages 175-196, February.
    14. Brookshire, David S. & Ives, Berry C. & Schulze, William D., 1976. "The valuation of aesthetic preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 325-346, December.
    15. Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo & Pamela Mason & Helen Johns, 2007. "The Reform of Support Mechanisms for Upland Farming: Paying for Public Goods in the Severely Disadvantaged Areas of England," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 433-453, September.
    16. Robert W. Hahn & Paul C. Tetlock, 2008. "Has Economic Analysis Improved Regulatory Decisions?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 22(1), pages 67-84, Winter.
    17. Welsch, Heinz, 2009. "Implications of happiness research for environmental economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2735-2742, September.
    18. K. G. Willis & G. D. Garrod, 1991. "An Individual Travel‐Cost Method Of Evaluating Forest Recreation," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(1), pages 33-42, January.
    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. Carolus, Johannes Friedrich & Hanley, Nick & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Pedersen, Søren Marcus, 2018. "A Bottom-up Approach to Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 282-295.
    2. Roman Inderst & Eftichios Sartzetakis & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2021. "Technical Report on Sustainability and Competition," DEOS Working Papers 2103, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    3. Daniel R. Petrolia & Dennis Guignet & John C. Whitehead & Cannon Kent & Clay Caulder & Kelvin Amon, 2020. "Nonmarket Valuation in the Environmental Protection Agency's Regulatory Process," Working Papers 20-11, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Japelj, Anže & Mavsar, Robert & Hodges, Donald & Kovač, Marko & Juvančič, Luka, 2016. "Latent preferences of residents regarding an urban forest recreation setting in Ljubljana, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 71-79.
    2. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    3. K. Willis & J. Snowball & C. Wymer & José Grisolía, 2012. "A count data travel cost model of theatre demand using aggregate theatre booking data," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 36(2), pages 91-112, May.
    4. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "The role of urban green space for human well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 139-152.
    5. Elena Ojea & Paulo Nunes & Maria Loureiro, 2010. "Mapping Biodiversity Indicators and Assessing Biodiversity Values in Global Forests," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 329-347, November.
    6. O'Donnell, Gus & Oswald, Andrew J., 2015. "National well-being policy and a weighted approach to human feelings," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 59-70.
    7. Rambonilaza, Mbolatiana, 2004. "Évaluation de la demande de paysage : état de l’art et réflexions sur la méthode du transfert des benefices," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 70.
    8. Zandersen, Marianne & Tol, Richard S.J., 2009. "A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 109-130, January.
    9. Lakhani, Raksha & Doluweera, Ganesh & Bergerson, Joule, 2014. "Internalizing land use impacts for life cycle cost analysis of energy systems: A case of California’s photovoltaic implementation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 253-259.
    10. Paulo A.L.D. Nunes & Elena Ojea & Maria Loureiro, 2009. "Mapping of Forest Biodiversity Values: A Plural Perspective," Working Papers 2009.4, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    11. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    12. Richards, Daniel R. & Warren, Philip H. & Moggridge, Helen L. & Maltby, Lorraine, 2015. "Spatial variation in the impact of dragonflies and debris on recreational ecosystem services in a floodplain wetland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 113-121.
    13. Vidale, E & Pettenella, D & Gatto, P & Secco, L, 23. "What can we sell behind timber production?," Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, issue 44, May.
    14. Oswald, Andrew J., 2012. "The Value to the Environmental Movement of the New Literature on the Economics of Happiness," Economic Research Papers 270625, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    15. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    16. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian & Binner, Amy & Ferrini, Silvia & Fezzi, Carlo, 2019. "Structurally-consistent estimation of use and nonuse values for landscape-wide environmental change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    17. Ambrey, Christopher L. & Fleming, Christopher M. & Manning, Matthew, 2016. "The hedonistic cost of the Black Saturday bushfires," 2016 Conference (60th), February 2-5, 2016, Canberra, Australia 235236, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    18. Chowdhury, Shyamal & Krause-Pilatus, Annabelle & Zimmermann, Klaus F., 2015. "Arsenic Contamination of Drinking Water and Mental Health," IZA Discussion Papers 9400, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa & Susan M. Chilton & T. McCallion, 2001. "Parametric and Non‐Parametric Estimates of Willingness to Pay for Forest Recreation in Northern Ireland: A Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Study with Follow‐Ups," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 104-122, January.
    20. Fedrigotti Valérie Bossi & Troiano Stefania & Fischer Christian & Marangon Francesco, 2020. "Public Preferences for Farmed Landscapes: the Case of Traditional Chestnut Orchards in South Tyrol," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 99-118, March.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ehl:lserod:87615. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.