Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Limits to CBA in UK and European environmental policy: retrospects and future prospects

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

Abstract

This paper reviews the contemporary debate and the now long standing role of CBA in UK and European environmental policy appraisal (EPA) and looks forward to possible future applications. The position taken is that despite its limitations CBA still has an important part to play in EPA. However, with the increasingly ‘contested’ nature of environmental and related public policies and outcomes, its role will become less prescriptive and its findings more constrained by social justice and ethical imperatives. Future CBA is more likely to continue to flourish as a component in a wider policy analysis and decision support system. Whatever decision support system is eventually adopted, its value will be judged on how well it aids real policymakers operating iteratively in the non-linear real world political economy.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

  • Ackerman B (1974). The uncertain search for environmental quality. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Alder MD, Posner EA (eds) (2001). Cost–benefit analysis: economic, philosophical and legal perspectives. University of Chicago Press Journals, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldred J (2002). Cost–benefit analysis, incommensurability and rough equality. Environ Values 11: 27–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews J, Burgess D, Cave R, Coombes E, Jickells T, Parks D, Turner RK (2006) Biogeochemical value of managed realignment, Humber Estuary, UK. Sci Total Environ forthcoming

  • Arrow KJ, Cropper ML, Eads GC, Hahn RW, Lave LB, Noll RG, Portney PR, Russell M, Schmatensee VK, Smith RN and Stavins N (1998). Is there a role for benefit-cost analysis in environmental health and safety regulations?. Environ Develop Econo 2: 196–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson G, Hamilton K (2007) Progress along the path: evolving issues in the measurement of genuine saving. Environ Resour Econ 37(1):43–61 (this issue)

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson G, Machado F and Mourato S (2000). Balancing competing principles of environmental equity. Environ Plann A 32: 1791–1806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balmford A, Bruner A, Cooper P, Costanza R, Farber S, Green R, Jenkins M, Jefferiss P, Jessamy V, Madden J, Munro K, Myers N, Naeem S, Paavola J, Rayment M, Rosendo S, Roughgarden J, Trumper K and Turner RK (2002). Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Sci 297: 950–953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbier E (2007) Frontiers and sustainable economic development. Environ Resour Econ 37(1):271–295 (this issue)

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbier E, Markandya A and Pearce DW (1990). Environmental sustainability and cost benefit analysis. Environ Plan A 22: 1259–1266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blamey RK (1995) Citizens, consensus and contingent valuation. PhD thesis, Canberra, Australian National University

    Google Scholar 

  • Boadway RW (1974). The welfare foundations of cost–benefit analysis. Econo J 84: 926–939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bockstael N, Freeman AM, Kopp R, Porney P and Smith VK (2000). On valuing nature. Environ sci technol 34: 1384–1389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers J (1988). Cost–benefit analysis in theory and practice: agricultural land drainage projects. In: Turner, RK (eds) Sustainable environmental management: principles and practice, pp. Belhaven, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Brekke K and Howarth R (2000). The social contingency of wants. Land Econ 76: 493–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookes H (1976). Environmental decision making: analysis and values. In: Tribe, L, Schelling, CS and Voss, J (eds) When values conflict: essays in environmental analysis, discourse and decision, pp. Ballinger, Masachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromley DW (1990). The ideology of efficiency: searching for a theory of policy analysis. J Environ Econ Manage 19: 86–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromley DW (2004). Reconsidering environmental policy: prescriptive consequentialism and volitional pragmatism. Environ Resour Econ 28: 73–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broome J (1992). Counting the cost of global warming. White Horse Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer R, Powe N, Turner RK, Bateman IJ and Langford I (1999). Public attitudes to contingent valuation and public consultation. Environ Values 8: 325–347

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess J, Clark J and Harrison CM (2000). Knowledges in action: an actor network analysis of a wetland agri-environment scheme. Ecol Econ 35: 119–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson RT, Groves T (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Resour Econ 37(1):181–210 (this issue)

    Google Scholar 

  • Chipman JS and Moore JC (1978). The new welfare economics: 1939–1974. Int Econ Rev 19: 547–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, d’Arge R, deGroot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill R, Paruelo J, Raskin R, Sutton P and Vander Belt M (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowards TM (1998). Safe minimum standards: costs and opportunities. Ecol Econ 25: 303–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily GC (1997). Nature’s services. Island Press, Covelo, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta P and Maler KG (2003). The economics of non-convex ecosystems. Environ Resour Econ 4: 5–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Day B, Bateman IJ, Lake I (2007) Beyond implicit prices: recovering theoretically consistent and transferable welfare values for noise avoidance from a hedonic property price model. Environ Resour Econ 37(1):211–232 (this issue)

    Google Scholar 

  • Department for Transport (2004) Transport analysis guidance (www.webtag.org.uk). DFT, London

  • (1991). Policy appraisal and the environment. HMSO, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekeli K (2004). Environmental risks, uncertainty and intergenerational ethics. Environ Values 13: 421–448

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick S, Loewenstein G and O’Donoghue T (2002). Time discounting and time preference: a critical review. J Econ Literat XL: 351–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froehlick M, Hufford D and Hammett N (1991). The United States. In: Barde, JP and Pearce, D (eds) Valuing the Environment: six case studies, pp. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gintis H (1998). Beyond homo economics: evidence from experimental economics. Ecol Econ 35: 311–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gowdy JM (2004). The revolution in welfare economics and its implications for environmental valuation and policy. Land Econ 80: 239–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gren IM, Folke C, Turner RK and Bateman I (1994). Primary and secondary values of wetland ecosystems. Environ Resour Econ 4: 55–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groom B, Hepburn C, Kondouri P and Pearce D (2005). Declining discount rates: the long and short of it. Environ Resour Econ 32: 445–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gollier C (2002). Discounting an uncertain future. J Public Econ 85: 149–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N (2001). Cost–benefit analysis and environmental policy making. Environ Plan C 19: 103–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N (2002). Cost–benefit analysis. In: Folmer, H and Landis Gabel, H (eds) Principles of environmental and resource economics, pp. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N and Spash C (1994). Cost–benefit analysis and the environment. Aldershot, Edward Elgar

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N and Shogren JF (2005). Is cost–benefit analysis anomaly proof?. Environ Resour Econ 32: 13–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heal G (1998). Valuing the future: economic theory and sustainability. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson N and Bateman I (1995). Empirical and public choice evidence for hyperbolic social discount rates and the implications for intergenerational discounting. Environ Resour Econ 5: 413–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrick J (2004). Cultural group selection co-evolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation. J Econ Behav Org 53: 127–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HMT (2003). Green book: appraisal and evaluation in central government. HMSO, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan A (2002). The Europeanisation of British Environmental Policy. Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke

    Google Scholar 

  • Knetch K (2005). Gains, losses and the US-EPA economic analysis guidelines: a hazardous product?. Environ Resour Econ 32: 91–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristrom B (2005). Framework for assessing the distribution of financial effects of environmental policies. In: Serret, Y and Johnstone, N (eds) The distributional effects of environmental policy, pp. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriström B, Johansson P-O (2007) On a clear day, you might see the environmental Kuznet’s curve. Environ Resour Econ

  • Krutilla K (2005) Using the Kaldor–Hicks Tableau format for cost–benefit analysis. Public Poli Anal Manage Curriculum and Case Notes, 864–875

  • Lind R (1982). A primer on the major issues relating to the discount rate for evaluating national energy options. In: Lind, R (eds) Discounting for time and risk in energy policy, pp. Resources for the Future, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • List JA (2005). Scientific numerology, preference anomalies and environmental policy making. Environ Resour Econ 32: 35–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List JA and Shogren JF (2002). Calibration of willing-to-accept. J Environ Econ Manag 43: 219–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little IMD and Mirrless JA (1968). Manual of industrial project analysis for developing countries. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan D, Philip L, Hanley N and Alvarez-Farizo B (2003). Valuing non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group-based approaches. Ecol Econ 43: 49–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mäler K-G (2007) Wealth and sustainable development: the role of David Pearce. Environ Resour Econ 37(1):63–75 (this issue)

    Google Scholar 

  • Marglin S, Sen A and Dasgupta P (1972). Guidelines for project evaluation. United Nations, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Markandya A, Pedroso S (2007) How substitutable is natural capital?. Environ Resour Econ 37(1):297–311 (this issue)

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor M (2002). Social costs and sustainability. In: Bromley, D and Paavola, J (eds) Economics, ethics and environmental policy, pp. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson M and Bailey M (1981). Positive time preference. J Political Econ 89: 7–25

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neil J (1997). Managing without prices: the monetary valuation of biodiversity. Ambio 26: 546–550

    Google Scholar 

  • Owens S, Rayner T and Binna O (2004). New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory practice and research. Environ Plan A 36: 1943–1959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker DJ, Green CH and Thompson PM (1987). Urban flood protection benefits: a project appraisal guide. Gower, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce DW (1976) The limits of CBA as a guide to environmental policy. Kyklos 29:fasc. 1

  • Pearce DW (eds) (1979) Special issue on public sector decision making. Omega 7:379–479

  • Pearce DW (1998). Environmental appraisal and environment policy in the european union. Environ Resour Econ 11: 489–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce DW (2004). Does European Union Policy Pass a Cost Benefit Test?. World Econo 5: 115–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce DW and Nash CA (1981). The social appraisal of projects: a text in cost–benefit analysis. MacMillan, Basingstoke

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce DW, Markardya A and Barbier E (1989). Blueprint for a Green economy. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Penning-Rowsell EC and Chatterton JB (1977). The benefits of flood alleviation: manual of assessment techniques. Glower, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Penning-Rowell EC, Green CH, Thompson P, Coker A, Tunstall S, Richards C and Parker DJ (1992). The economics of coastal management: a manual of benefit assessment techniques. Glower, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Penning-Rowell EC, Johnson C, Tunstall S, Tapsell S, Morris J, Chatterton J and Green C (2005). The benefits of flood and coastal risk management: a handbook of assessment techniques. Middlesex University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrings C and Pearce DW (1994). Threshold effects and incentives for the conservation of biology. Environ Resour Econ 4: 13–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randall A (2002). B-C considerations should be decisive when there is nothing more important at stake. In: Bromley, D and Paavola, J (eds) Economies, ethics and environmental policy, pp. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rekola M (2003). Lexicographic preferences in contingent valuation. Land Econ 79: 277–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roach B and Wade WW (2006). Policy evaluation of natural resource injuries, using habitat equivalency analysis. Ecol Econ 58: 421–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes RAW (1997). Understanding governance: policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Open University Press, Buckingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowan H (1976). Policy analysis as heuristic aid: the design of means, ends and institutions. In: Tribe, L (eds) When values conflict, pp. Ballinger, Cambridge Mass

    Google Scholar 

  • Russel D, Jordan A (2006) Gearing-up governance for sustainable development: patterns of policy appraisal in UK central government. CSERGE Working Paper, EDM 06-02, Norwich, University of East Anglia

  • Sabatier PA (1998). The advocacy coalition framework: revisions and relevance for Europe. J Public Pol 83: 201–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagoff M (1988). The economy of the earth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen AK (1970). Collective choice and social welfare. Holden-Day, San Fransisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Scitovsky T (1941). Note on welfare propositions in economics. Rev Econ Stud 9: 77–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Self P (1972). Econocrats and the policy process. MacMillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Spash C and Hanley N (1995). Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation. Ecol Econ 12: 191–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens T, Echeverria R, Glass R, Hager T and Moore T (1991). Measuring the existence value of wildlife: what do CVM estimates show?. Land Econ 67: 390–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squire L and Vander Tak HG (1975). Economic analysis of projects. John S Hopkins, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugden R (2005a). Anomalies and stated preference techniques: a framework for a discussion of coping strategies. Environ Resour Econ 32: 1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugden R (2005b). Coping with preference anomalies in cost–benefit analysis: a market simulation approach. Environ Resour Econ 32: 129–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Susskind L, McKearnan S (eds) (1999). The consensus building handbook. Sage Publications, A Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Suzumura K (1987). Social welfare function. In: Eatwell, J, Milgate, M and Newman, P (eds) The new palgrave dictionary, pp 418–420. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Suzumura K (1999). Parentian welfare judgements and bergsonian social choice. Econ J 109: 204–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tribe L, Schelling CS, Voss J (eds) (1976). When values conflict: essays on environmental analysis, discourse and decision. Ballinger, Cambridge, mass

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner D and Hartzell L (2004). The lack of clarity in the precautionary principle. Environ Values 12: 449–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner RK (1999). The place of economic values in environmental valuation. In: Bateman, IJ and Willis, KG (eds) Valuing environmental preferences, pp. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner RK, Bateman IJ and Brooke JS (1992). Valuing the benefits of coastal defense: a case study of the Aldeburgh sea defense scheme. In: Coker, A and Richards, C (eds) Valuing the environment: economic approaches to environmental evaluation, pp. Belhaven Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner RK, Paavola J, Cooper P, Farber S, Jessamy V and Georgiou S (2003). Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecol Econ 46: 493–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A and Kahneman D (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Quart J Econ 106: 1039–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gowdy J and Bergh JCJM (2003). The microfoundations of macroeconomics: an evolutionary perspective. Cambridge J Econ 27: 65–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varian H (1992). Microeconomic analysis. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch C (1987) Utilitarianism. In: Eatwell J, Milgate M, Newman P (eds) The new palgrave dictionary of economics. Vol 4, pp 770–775

  • Weitzman M (1998). Why the far distant future should be discounted at its lowest possible rate. J Environ Econ Manage 26: 200–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson MA and Howarth RB (2002). Discourse-based valuation of ecosystems services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecol Econ 41: 431–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK

    R. Kerry Turner

Authors
  1. R. Kerry Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Kerry Turner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Turner, R.K. Limits to CBA in UK and European environmental policy: retrospects and future prospects. Environ Resource Econ 37, 253–269 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9119-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9119-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation