Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are there environmental limits to cost benefit analysis?

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adamowicz, W. L. and Graham-Tomasi, T. (1991), ‘Revealed Preference Tests of Non-Market Goods Valuation Methods’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 20, 29–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, G. and Bishop, R. (1986), ‘The Valuation Problem’, in D. Bromley (ed.), Natural Resource Economics, Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreasson, I. M. (1989), A Cost-Efficient Reduction of Nitrogen Load to the Laholm Bay’, in A. Dubgaard and A. Nielsen (ed.), Economic Aspects of Environmental Regulations in Agriculture, Kiel: Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk Kiel.

    Google Scholar 

  • d'Arge, R., Schulze, W., and Brookshire, D. (1982), ‘CO2 and Intergenerational Choice’, American Economic Review 72(2), 251–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • d'Arge, R. and Shogren, J. (1989), ‘Non-Market Asset Prices: A Comparison of Three Valuation Approaches’ in H. Folmer and E. van Ireland (eds.), Valuation Methods and Policy Making in Environmental Economics, Amsterdam, Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. and Lind, R. C. (1970), ‘Uncertainty and the Evaluation of Public Investment Decisions’, American Economic Review 60, 364–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartik, T. J. (1988), ‘Evaluating the Benefits of Non-Marginal Reductions in Pollution Using Information on Defensive Expenditures’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15, 111–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, R. and Heberlein, T. (1979), ‘Valuing Extra-Market Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61 (5), 926–930.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, J. K. (1988), ‘Cost-Benefit Analysis in Theory and Practice: Agricultural Land Drainage Projects’, in R. K. Turner (ed.), Sustainable Environmental Management: Principles and Practice, London: Bellhaven Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K. J. (1989), ‘Commodity Specification and the Framing of Contingent Valuation Questions’, Land Economics 65, 57–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, D. W. (1980), ‘The Benefit-Cost Dilemma’, Western Water Resources: Coming Problems and the Policy Alternatives. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookshire, D., Thayer, M., Schulze, W., and d'Arge, R. (1982), ‘Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches’, American Economic Review 71(1), 165–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. J. (1984), ‘Benefits of Outdoor Recreation and Some Ideas for Valuing Recreation Opportunities’, in A. Randall and G. Peterson (eds.), Valuation of Wildland Resources Benefits, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. P. (1983), ‘A Note on Environmental Risk and the Rate of Discount’, Journal Environmental Economics and Management 6, 10, 282–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza, R. (1989), ‘What is Ecological Economics?’, Ecological Economics 1(1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, R., Brookshire, D., and Schulze, W. (1986), Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method, Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allenheld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, H. E. (1989), ‘Toward a Measure of Sustainable Social Net National Product’, in Ahmed, Y. J., El Sarafy, S. and Lutz, E. (eds.), Environmental Accounting for Sustainable Development, World Bank: Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, P. (1982), ‘Resource Depletion, Research and Development and the Social Rate of Discount’, in R. C. Lind (ed.), Discounting for Time and Risk in Energy Policy, Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desvouges, W., Smith, V., and Fisher, A. (1987), ‘Option Price Estimates for Water Quality Improvements’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14, 249–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, G. M. and Fisher, A. C. (1987), Valuing the Environment as an Input’, Journal of Environmental Management 25, 149–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everett, R. (1979), ‘The Monetary Value of the Recreational Benefits of Wildlife’, Journal of Environmental Management 8, 202–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldstein, M. (1977), ‘Does the U.S. Save Too Little?’, Review of Economic Studies, 116–125.

  • Fisher, A. C. (1973), ‘Environmental Externalities and the Arrow-Lind Public Investment Theorem’, American Economic Review 63, 722–725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, A. C. (1981), Resource and Environmental Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, I. (1930), The Theory of Interest, London, Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R. (1986), ‘Interpreting measures of Economic Loss’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 13, 325–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grout, P. (1981), ‘Social Welfare and Exhaustible Resources’, in J. A. Butlin (ed.), Economics of the Environment and Natural Resource Policy, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, N. (1988), ‘Using Contingent Valuation to Value Environmental Improvements’, Applied Economics 20(4), 541–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, N. (1989a), ‘Valuing Rural Recreation Benefits: An Empirical Comparison of Two Approaches’, Journal of Agricultural Economics 40(3), 361–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, N. (1989b), ‘Valuing Non-Market Goods Using Contingent Valuation: A Survey and a Synthesis’, Journal of Economic Surveys 3(3), 234–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, N. (1990), ‘The Economics of Nitrate Pollution’, European Review of Agricultural Economics 17, 129–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, N. D. and Craig, S. H. (1991), ‘Wilderness Development Decisions and the Krutilla-Fisher Model: The Case of Scotland's “Flow Country”’, Ecological Economics, forthcoming.

  • Hanley, N. D. and Munro, A. (1991), ‘Design Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies: The Impact of Information’, mimeo, Department of Economics, University of Stirling.

  • Hanley, N., Hallett, S., and Moffatt, I. (1990), ‘Why is More Notice Not Taken of Economist’ Prescriptions for the Control of Pollution?, Environment and Planning A (22), 1421–1439.

  • Hanley, N. D., Munro, A., and Jamieson, D. (1991), Environmental Economics and Nature Conservation, report to Nature Conservancy Council.

  • Harrod, R. (1948), Towards a Dynamic Economy, London: St. Martin's Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harasanyi, J. (1955), ‘Cardinal Welfare Individualistic Ethics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility’, Journal of Political Economy, 63.

  • Hartman, R. W. (1990), ‘One Thousand Points of Light Seeking a Number: A Case Study of CBO's Search for a Discount Rate Policy’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18, 53–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartwick, J. A. (1977), ‘Intergenerational Equity and Investing Rents from Exhaustible Resources’, American Economic Review, 972–976

  • Hartwick, J. M. (1990), ‘Natural Resources, National Accounting and Economic Depreciation’, Discussion Paper 771, Institute for Economic Research, Queens University, Kingston, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heal, G. M. (1981), ‘Economics and Resources’, in R. Butlin (ed.), Economics of the Environmental and Natural Resource Policy, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heal, G. M. (1986), ‘The Intertemporal Problem’, in D. Bromley (ed.), Natural Resource Economics, Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungermann, H. and Fleischer, F. (1988), ‘As Time Goes By: Psychological Determinants of Time Preference’, in G. Kirsch, P. Nijkamp and K. Zimmerman (eds.), The Formulation of Time Preferences in Multidisciplinary Perspective, Berlin, WZB Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, J. R. (1991), ‘Attrazine Pollution and the Chesapeake Fisheries’, in N. Hanley (ed.), Farming and the Countryside: An Economic Analysis of External Costs and Benefits, Wallingford, Oxford: CAB International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, S. (1981), ‘Economists and the Environmental Muddle’, Public Interest 64, 106–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch, G. (1985), ‘Solidarity Between Generations’, in A. Schnaiberg, N. Watts, and K. Zimmerman (eds.), Distributional Aspects of Environmental and Natural Resource Policy, London: St. Martin's Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch, G. (1988), ‘Time Preference and Social Decision Making’, in G. Kirsch, P. Nijkamp and K. Zimmerman (eds.), The Formulation of Time Preferences in a Multidisciplinary Perspective, Berlin, WZB Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kling, C. (1988), ‘Comparing Welfare Estimates of Environmental Quality Changes from Recreation Demand Models’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15, 331–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knetsch, J. L. (1990), ‘Environmental Policy Implications of Disparities between Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded Measures of Value’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18, 227–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopmans, T. (1972), ‘Two Papers on the Representation of Preference Orderings’, Cowles Foundation Paper No. 366.

  • Krutilla, J. (1967), ‘Conservation Reconsidered’, American Economic Review 47, 777–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krutilla, J. and Fisher, A. C. (1985), The Economics of Natural Environments, Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kula, E. (1988), ‘Future Generations: The Modified Discounting Methods’, Project Appraisal 3(2), 85–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lid, R. C. (1982), ‘A Primer on the Major Issues Relating to the Discount Rate’, in R. C. Lind (ed.), Discounting for Time and Risk in Energy Policy, Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, R. 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 18, 58–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marglin, S. (1963), ‘The Social Rate of Discount and the Optimal Rate of Investment’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 77, 95–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miltz, D. (1988), ‘The Use of Benefits Estimation in Environmental Decision-Making’, Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. and Carson, R. (1989), Using Surverys to Value Public Goods, Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munro, A. and Hanley, N. D. (1991), ‘Shadow Projects and the Stock of Natural Capital: A Cautionary Note’, Discussion Paper NO. 91/7, Economics Department, University of Stirling.

  • Nelson, R. (1987), ‘The Economics Profession and the Making of Public Policy’, Journal of Economic Literature, March, 49–87.

  • Norgaard, R. (1989), ‘The Case for Methodological Pluralism’, Ecological Economics 1(1), 37–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M. and Bailey, M. (1981), ‘Positive Time Preference’, Journal of Political Economy 89(1), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oskram, A. (1989), ‘Decision Based Economic Theory’, Wageningen Economics Papers, University of Wageningen, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, T. (1977), Conservation and Economic Efficiency, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, T. (1983), ‘Intergenerational Justice as Opportunity’, in D. MacLean and P. Brown (eds.), Energy and the Future, Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allenheld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, T. (1988), ‘The Discount Rate and Intergenerational Equity’, in G. Kirsch, P. Nijkamp, and K. Zimmerman (eds.), The Formulation of Time Preferences in a Multidisciplinary Perspective, Berlin, WZB Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, D. (1976), ‘The Limits of Cost-Benefit Analysis as a Guide to Environmental Policy’, Kyklos 29(1), 97–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, D., Markandya, A., and Barbier, E. (1989), Blueprint for a Green Economy, London, Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pezzey, J. (1988), ‘Economic Analysis of Sustainable Growth and Sustainable Development’, draft paper to World Bank.

  • Pope, C. and Perry, G. (1989), Individual versus Social Discount Rates in Allocating Depletable Resources over Time Economic Letters 29, 257–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, R. (1982), ‘The New Approach to Wilderness Appraisal Through Cost Benefit Analysis’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 9, 59–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, C. (1989), ‘Equity, Consistency, Efficiency and New Rules for Discounting’, Project Appraisal 4(3), 58–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, R. (1985), ‘A Note on Environmental Risk and the Rate of Discount: A Comment’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 12, 179–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quirk, J. and Terasaura, K. (1991), ‘Choosing a Government Discount Rate: An Alternative Approach’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 20, 16–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, F. (1928), ‘A Mathematical Theory of Saving’, Economic Journal 38, 543–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall, A. (1986), ‘Valuation in a Policy Context’, in D. W. Bromley (ed.), Natural Resource Economics, Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Repetto, R., Magrath, W., Wells, M., Beer, C., and Rossini, F. (1989), Wasting Assets: Natural Resources in the National Income Accounts, World Resources Institute: Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagoff, M. (1988), The Economy of the Earth, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sample, K., Dixon, J., and Gower, M. (1986), ‘Information Disclosure and Endangered Species Evaluation’, Land Economics 62, 306–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulze, W., Brookshire, D., and Saddler, T. (1981), ‘The Social Rate of Discount for Nuclear Waste Storage’, Natural Resources Journal 21, 811–832.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scitovsky, T. (1976), The Joyless Economy: An Inquiry into Human Satisfaction, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seip, K. and Strand, J. (1990), ‘Willingness to Pay for Environmental Goods in Norway: A Contingent Valuation Study with Real Payment’, Memorandum 12, Department of Economics, University of Oslo.

  • Seller, C., Stoll, J., and Chevas, J.-P. (1985), ‘Validation of Empirical Measures of Welfare Change’, Land Economics 61(2), 156–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1982), ‘Approaches to the Choice of Discount Rate for Social Cost-Benefit Analysis’, in R. C. Lind (ed.), Discounting for Time and Risk in Energy Policy, Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siebert, H. (1987), Economics of the Environment, New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. K. and Desvouges, W. (1986), Measuring Water Quality Benefits, Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. K. (1987), ‘Non-Use Values in Cost-Benefit Analysis’, South Economic Journal 54, 19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. K. (1990), ‘Valuing Amenity Resources under Uncertainty: A Special View of Recent Resolutions’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 19, 193–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. K. and Kaoru, Y. (1990), ‘Signals or Noise? Explaining the Variation in Recreation Benefit Estimates’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, May, 419–433.

  • Soderbaum, P. (1987), ‘Environmental Management’, Journal of Economic Issues 21(1), 139–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sodal, D.-P. (1988), ‘The Recreational Value of Moose Hunting in Norway’, mimeo, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural University of Norway.

  • Solow, R. (1974), ‘The Economics of Resources or the Resources of Economics’, American Economic Review 64(2), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solow, R. (1986), ‘On the Integenerational Allocation of Natural Resources’, Scandinavian Journal of Economics 88(1), 141–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spash, C. L. (1987), ‘Measuring the Tangible Benefits of Environmental Improvements: An Economic Appraisal of Required Crop Damages Due to Ozone’, Department of Resource Management Science, University of British Columbia.

  • Thomson, K. (1988), ‘Future Generations: The Modified Discounting Method: A Reply’, Project Appraisal 3(3), 171–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, R., Loomis, J., and Cullman, R. (1984), ‘Valuing Option, Existence and Bequest Demands for Wilderness’, Land Economics 60(1), 14–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiling, R. (1976), ‘Consumers' Surplus without Apology’, American Economic Review 66, September, 589–597.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Economics Dept., Stirling University, FK9 4LA, Scotland

    Nick Hanley

Authors
  1. Nick Hanley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hanley, N. Are there environmental limits to cost benefit analysis?. Environ Resource Econ 2, 33–59 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00324688

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00324688

Key Words

Search

Navigation