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

Are There Environmental Limits to Cost Benefit Analysis?

  • Nick Hanley

This paper considers the problem areas found in applying cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to projects involving environmental costs or benefits. This is particularly relevant given recent moves by the UK government to include environmental valuations in CBA exercises, and in other related appraisal activities, following the publication of the Pearce Report. The paper argues that a major problem lies in placing monetary values on non-market goods. The paper also addresses the problems of (i) differences between citizen and consumer values; (ii) complexity of ecosystems; (iii) irreversibility and uniqueness; and (iv) intergenerational equity and discounting. The extent to which CBA is an institution open to capture is also discussed. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Paper provided by University of Stirling, Division of Economics in its series Working Papers Series with number 90/6.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Sep 1990
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:stl:stlewp:90/6
Contact details of provider: Postal: Division of Economics, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland FK9 4LA
Phone: +44 (0)1786 467473
Fax: +44 (0)1786 467469
Web page: http://www.econ.stir.ac.uk/

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. Brookshire, David S, et al, 1982. "Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 165-77, March.
  2. Seip, K. & Strand, J., 1990. "Willingness To Pay For Environmental Goods In Norway: A Contingent Valuation Study With Real Payment," Memorandum 12/1990, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
  3. Hanley, Nick & Craig, Stephen, 1991. "Wilderness development decisions and the Krutilla-Fisher model: The case of Scotland's 'flow country'," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 145-164, November.
  4. John Hartwick, 1976. "Intergenerational Equity and the Investing of Rents from Exhaustible Resources," Working Papers 220, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
  5. Gregory, Robin, 1986. "Interpreting measures of economic loss: Evidence from contingent valuation and experimental studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 325-337, December.
  6. Smith, V. Kerry, 1990. "Valuing amenity resources under uncertainty: A skeptical view of recent resolutions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 193-202, September.
  7. Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Graham-Tomasi, Theodore, 1991. "Revealed preference tests of nonmarket goods valuation methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 29-45, January.
  8. Nick Hanley & Alistair Munro, 1991. "Design Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies: The Impact of Information," Working Papers Series 91/13, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
  9. Pope, C. III & Perry, Greg, 1989. "Individual versus social discount rates in allocating depletable natural resources over time," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 257-264.
  10. Kevin J. Boyle, 1989. "Commodity Specification and the Framing of Contingent-Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 65(1), pages 57-63.
  11. Timothy J. Bartik, 2008. "Evaluating the Benefits of Non-marginal Reductions in Pollution Using Information on Defensive Expenditures," Book chapters authored by Upjohn Institute researchers, in: Joseph Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.), Revealed Preference Approaches to Environmental Valuation, volume 0, pages 459-475 W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
  12. Prince, Raymond, 1985. "A note on environmental risk and the rate of discount: Comment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 179-180, June.
  13. Marvin Duncan & Ann Laing, 1980. "Western water resources: coming problems and the policy alternatives," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, issue Feb, pages 14-22.
  14. Porter, Richard C., 1982. "The new approach to wilderness preservation through benefit-cost analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 59-80, March.
  15. John C. Harsanyi, 1955. "Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 63, pages 309.
  16. Kling, Catherine L., 1988. "Comparing Welfare Estimates of Environmental Quality Changes from Recreation Demand Models," Staff General Research Papers 1584, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  17. Hartman, Robert W., 1990. "One thousand points of light seeking a Issue: A case study of CBO's search for a discount rate policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages S3-S7, March.
  18. Pearce, David, 1976. "The Limits of Cost-Benefit Analysis as a Guide to Environmental Policy," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 97-112.
  19. Lind, Robert C., 1990. "Reassessing the government's discount rate policy in light of new theory and data in a world economy with a high degree of capital mobility," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages S8-S28, March.
  20. Brown, S. P. A., 1983. "A note on environmental risk and the rate of discount," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 282-286, September.
  21. Hanley, Nick, 1990. "The Economics of Nitrate Pollution," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 17(2), pages 129-51.
  22. Costanza, Robert, 1989. "What is ecological economics?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 1-7, February.
  23. Hanley, N D, 1989. " Valuing Non-market Goods Using Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(3), pages 235-52.
  24. Karl C. Samples & John A. Dixon & KMarcia M. Gowen, 1986. "Information Disclosure and Endangered Species Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(3), pages 306-312.
  25. Nelson, Robert H, 1987. "The Economics Profession and the Making of Public Policy," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 25(1), pages 49-91, March.
  26. Alistair Munro & Nick Hanley, 1991. "Shadow Projects and the Stock of Natural Capital: A Cautionary Note," Working Papers Series 91/8, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
  27. Knetsch, Jack L., 1990. "Environmental policy implications of disparities between willingness to pay and compensation demanded measures of values," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 227-237, May.
  28. John M. Hartwick, 1990. "Natural Resources, National Accounting and Economic Depreciation," Working Papers 771, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
  29. Norgaard, Richard B., 1989. "The case for methodological pluralism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 37-57, February.
  30. Solow, Robert M, 1974. "The Economics of Resources or the Resources of Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(2), pages 1-14, May.
  31. Olson, Mancur & Bailey, Martin J, 1981. "Positive Time Preference," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(1), pages 1-25, February.
  32. 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.
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:stl:stlewp:90/6. 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: (Liam Delaney)

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.