IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/stl/stlewp/90-6.html

Are There Environmental Limits to Cost Benefit Analysis?

Author

Listed:
  • Nick Hanley

Abstract

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.)

Suggested Citation

  • Nick Hanley, 1990. "Are There Environmental Limits to Cost Benefit Analysis?," Working Papers Series 90/6, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:stl:stlewp:90/6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below 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
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Delucchi, Mark A., 1997. "The Annualized Social Cost of Motor-Vehicle Use in the U.S., 1990-1991: Summary of Theory, Data, Methods, and Results," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt43s6n28v, University of California Transportation Center.
    2. Nick Hanley & Clive Spash & Lorna Walker, 1995. "Problems in valuing the benefits of biodiversity protection," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(3), pages 249-272, April.
    3. Nicolas Bouleau, 2012. "Limits To Growth And Stochastics," Post-Print halshs-00782948, HAL.
    4. Clem Tisdell, 2005. "Linking Policies For Biodiversity Conservation With Advances In Behavioral Economics," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 50(spec0), pages 449-462.
    5. D. Strijker & F. Sijtsma & D. Wiersma, 2000. "Evaluation of Nature Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(4), pages 363-378, August.
    6. Strijker, Dirk & Sijtsma, F.J. & Bettels, K., 2000. "Evaluating Nature Conservation: The Case of Meadow Birds in The Netherlands," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 1(2), pages 1-14, August.
    7. Delucchi, Mark A., 1998. "The Annualized Social Cost of Motor-Vehicle Use in the US: Summary of Theory, Data, Methods, and Results: Report #1 in the series: The Annualized Social Cost of Motor-Vehicle Use in the United States,," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt4tt4d75f, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    8. William J. Vaughan & Sergio Ardila, 1993. "Economic Analysis of the Environmental Aspects of Investment Projects," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 25438, Inter-American Development Bank.
    9. Zylicz, Tomasz, 2010. "Goals and Principles of Environmental Policy," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 3(4), pages 299-334, May.
    10. Yoram Krozer & Frans Coenen & Jenica Hanganu & Maia Lordkipanidze & Madalina Sbarcea, 2020. "Towards Innovative Governance of Nature Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-18, December.
    11. Andrea Baranzini & Giovanni Ferro Luzzi, 2001. "The Economic Value of Risks to Life: Evidence from the Swiss Labour Market," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 137(II), pages 149-170, June.
    12. Nicolas Bouleau, 2013. "The Environmental Violence of Volatility," Working Papers halshs-00835669, HAL.
    13. Martin Luckert & Wiktor Adamowicz, 1993. "Empirical measures of factors affecting social rates of discount," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(1), pages 1-21, February.
    14. Nicolas Bouleau, 2013. "The Environmental Violence of Volatility," CIRED Working Papers halshs-00835669, HAL.
    15. repec:ehu:biltok:5584 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Garcia, X. & Pargament, D., 2015. "Reusing wastewater to cope with water scarcity: Economic, social and environmental considerations for decision-making," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 154-166.
    17. Thomas Sterner, 1994. "Discounting in a world of limited growth," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(5), pages 527-534, October.
    18. Morimoto, Risako & Hope, Chris, 2005. "Making the case for developing a silent aircraft," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 165-174, March.
    19. Vaughan, William J. & Ardila, Sergio, 1993. "Economic Analysis of the Environmental Aspects of Investment Projects," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 6300, Inter-American Development Bank.
    20. STÅLE Navrud & GERALD Pruckner, 1997. "Environmental Valuation – To Use or Not to Use? A Comparative Study of the United States and Europe," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(1), pages 1-26, July.
    21. Richard Howarth & Richard Norgaard, 1993. "Intergenerational transfers and the social discount rate," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(4), pages 337-358, August.

    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:stl:stlewp:90/6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Liam Delaney The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Liam Delaney to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/destiuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.