Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Valuation in the environmental policy process

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Expert valuation, a process used to determine how much stakeholders value eco-system aspects, places experts as intermediaries for public-preference input into the environmental policy process. While the rise and refinement of expert valuation might capture ecosystem values more comprehensively, two dilemmas are also worth of consideration: (1) will expert valuation and benefit cost analysis supplant democratic expression; and (2) will refinement of expert valuation still leave the ecosystem under valued? This article reorients the current problem from focusing on the need to refine methods to capture more ecosystem benefits to consider how valuation can contribute to a set of more democratic processes that allow the public to contribute to and consider a broader range of policy options.

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

  • Armytage, W. H. G. (1965). The Rise of the Technocrats: A Social History. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J., M. L. Cropper, G. C. Eads, R. W. Hahn, L. B. Lave, R. G. Noll, P. R. Portney, M. Russell, R. Schmalensee, V. K. Smith, and R. N. Stavins (1996). ‘Is there a role for benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health, and safety regulation?,’ Science 272: 221–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, I. J. and K. G. Willis (1999). Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, R. D. and W. Ascher (1992). ‘Science and social responsibility,’ Policy Sciences 25: 295–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, R. D. (1997). ‘Introduction to the policy sciences,’ Policy Sciences 30: 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullard, R. (1990). ‘Ecological inequities and the New South: Black communities under siege,’ Journal of Ethnic Studies 17: 101–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. T., T. Groves and M. J. Machina (2000). ‘Incentive and informational properties of preference questions,’ http://weber.ucsd.edu/∼rcarson/. Accessed August 29, 2005.

  • Carson, R. T., N. E. Flores and N. Meade (2001). ‘Contingent valuation: Controversies and evidence,’ Environmental and Resource Economics 19: 173–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christoforou, T. (2004). ‘The precautionary principle, risk assessment, and the comparative role of science in the European community and the US legal systems,’ in Norman J. Vig and Michael G. Gaure, eds., Green Giants? Environmental Policies of the United State and the European Union. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 17–52.

  • Deacon, R. and P. Shapiro (1975). ‘Private preference for public goods revealed through voting on referenda,’ American Economic Review 65: 943–955.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defenders of Wildlife (2005). ‘A bibliography of economic valuation literature,’ Conservation Economics Program http://64.233.187.104/search?q = cache:IuGeebgUn9AJ:www.biodiversitypartners.org/econ/images/Defenders%2520of%2520Wildlife%2520Economic%2520Valuation%2520Bibliography_03-05.pdf+bibliography+%22ecosystem+valuation%22&hl = en. Accessed on June 25, 2005.

  • Field, B. C. (1997). Environmental Economics: An Introduction, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (1990). Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2000). ‘Applications of the contingent valuation method in developing countries,’ Economic and Social Development Papers. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X8955E/x8955e01.htm. Accessed on June 25, 2005.

  • Freeman, A. M. (2003). The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values, 2nd edn. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, M. E. and J. G. Matsusaka (1997). ‘Demand for environmental goods: Evidence from voting patterns on california initiatives,’ Journal of Law and Economics 40: 137–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, S. (1981). ‘Cost-benefit analysis: An ethical critique,’ Regulation 10: 33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D. (1965). ‘The world revolution of our time,’ in Harold D. Lasswell and Daniel Lerner, eds., World Revolutionary Elites: Studies in Coercive Ideological Movements. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press, pp. 29–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D. and A. Kaplan (1950). Power and Society. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D. and M. McDougal (1992). Jurisprudence for a Free Society. New Haven: New Haven Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, H. B. and R. J. Zeckhauser (1986). ‘Cost-benefit analysis applied to risks: Its philosophy and legitimacy,’ in Douglas MacLean, ed., Values at Risk. Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield, pp. 31–48.

  • List, J. and C. Gallet (2001). ‘What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Evidence from a meta-analysis,’ Environmental and Resource Economics 20: 241–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List, J. and J. Shogren (2002). ‘Calibration of willingness-to-accept,’ Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43: 219–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, J. B. (2000). ‘Environmental valuation techniques in water resource decision making,’ Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 126: 339–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

  • Murphy, J., P. G. Allen, T. H. Stevens, and D. Weatherhead. (2003). A Meta-Analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation. University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Resource Economics, Working Paper No. 2003–8.

  • Navrud, S., ed. (1992). Pricing the European Environment, Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) (2003) ‘Regulatory analysis,’ Circular A-4, September 17, 2003, U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

  • Quarles and Brady, L.L.P. (2003). ‘EPA CAFO rule faces funding dilemma and legal challenges, Quarles and Brady Environmental Alert April. http://www.qblaw.com/up_env65.asp#Art4. Accessed on January 9, 2006.

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1993). Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Sagoff, M. (1994). ‘Should preferences count?,’ Land Economics 70: 127–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sagoff, M. (2004). Price, Principle, and the Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schläpfer, F., A. Roschewitz and N. Hanley (2004). ‘Validation of stated preferences for public goods: A comparison of contingent valuation survey response and voting behavior,’ Ecological Economics 51: 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shabman, L. and K. Stephenson (1996). ‘Searching for the correct benefit estimate: Empirical evidence for an alternative perspective,’ Land Economics 72: 433–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva, P. and S. Pagiola (2003). ‘A review of the valuation of environmental costs and benefits in world bank projects,’ World Bank Environment Department Paper No. 94, Washington, DC: World Bank.

  • Smith, V. K., ed. (1984). Environmental Policy Under Reagan's Executive Order: The Role of Benefit-Cost Analysis. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1998). Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Regional NOx SIP Call. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2000). Environmental and Economic Benefit Analysis of Final Revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Regulation and the Effluent Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation. December. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  • U.S. Federal Register (1993). ‘Regulatory planning and review,’ Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, U.S. Federal Register Volume 58, Number 190, October 4, 1993.

  • U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2000). Habitat Equivalency Analysis: An Overview. Revised October 4, 2000. http://www.osradp.lsu.edu/guide/Binder%20A/Tab%20B/AB3.pdf. Accessed on June 27, 2005.

  • Vossler, C. A., J. Kerkvliet, S. Polasky, and O. Gainutdinova (2003). ‘Externally validating contingent valuation: An open-space survey and referendum in corvallis, oregon,’ Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 51: 261–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, D. and D. MacRae, Jr. (1986). ‘The issue of standing in cost-benefit analysis,’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 5: 665–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, CA, USA

    William Ascher

  2. North Carolina State university, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA

    Toddi Steelman

Authors
  1. William Ascher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Toddi Steelman
    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

Ascher, W., Steelman, T. Valuation in the environmental policy process. Policy Sci 39, 73–90 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-006-9011-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-006-9011-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation