NATURE in the BALANCE OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/11/2013, Spi OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/11/2013, Spi

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

NATURE in the BALANCE OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/11/2013, Spi OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/11/2013, Spi OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/11/2013, SPi NATURE IN THE BALANCE OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/11/2013, SPi OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/11/2013, SPi Nature in the Balance The Economics of Biodiversity Edited by DIETER HELM AND CAMERON HEPBURN 1 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 28/11/2013, SPi 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Oxford University Press 2014 © Chapters 2, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Oxford Review of Economic Policy 2012 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First Edition published in 2014 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2013940861 ISBN 978–0–19–967688–0 Printed in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/11/2013, SPi Acknowledgements Chapters 2, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are revised articles originally published in Oxford Review of Economic Policy: volume 28, number 1, Spring 2012, ‘The Economics of Biodiversity’. Oxford Journals, Oxford University Press (<www. oxrep.oxfordjournals.org>). In addition to thanking all the authors who have contributed, we would like to express our thanks to Vicky Hibberd and Kerry Hughes who have worked very hard behind the scenes in gathering an enormous amount of material together and helping to turn it into this book. Dieter Helm and Cameron Hepburn OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/11/2013, SPi OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/11/2013, SPi Contents List of Figures ix List of Tables x List of Abbreviations xii List of Contributors xv 1. Introduction 1 Dieter Helm and Cameron Hepburn 2. The Economic Analysis of Biodiversity 7 Dieter Helm and Cameron Hepburn Part I Concepts and Measurement 3. Biodiversity: Its Meanings, Roles, and Status 35 Georgina M. Mace 4. Identifying and Mapping Biodiversity: Where Can We Damage? 57 Kathy J. Willis, Marc Macias-Fauria, Alexandros Gasparatos, and Peter Long 5. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Valuing Changes in Ecosystem Services 79 Ian J. Bateman, Grischa Perino et al. Part II Valuing Biodiversity 6. Valuing Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity 101 Giles Atkinson, Ian J. Bateman, and Susana Mourato 7. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): Challenges and Responses 135 Pavan Sukhdev, Heidi Wittmer, and Dustin Miller Part III Natural Capital and Accounting 8. Natural Capital 153 Edward B. Barbier 9. Biodiversity and National Accounting 177 Kirk Hamilton OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/11/2013, SPi viii Contents Part IV International and Development Aspects 10. Biodiversity, Poverty, and Development: A Review 201 Charles Palmer and Salvatore Di Falco 11. Regulating Global Biodiversity: What is the Problem? 224 Timothy Swanson and Ben Groom Part V Policy Instruments and Incentives 12. Do Biodiversity Policies Work? The Case for Conservation Evaluation 2.0 251 Daniela A. Miteva, Subhrendu K. Pattanayak, and Paul J. Ferraro 13. Are Investments to Promote Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Services Aligned? 285 Stephen Polasky, Kris Johnson et al. 14. Incentives, Private Ownership, and Biodiversity Conservation 315 Nick Hanley, Simanti Banerjee, Gareth D. Lennox, and Paul R. Armsworth 15. On the Potential for Speculation to Threaten Biodiversity Loss 341 Joanne C. Burgess, Chris J. Kennedy, and Charles (Chuck) Mason Bibliography 361 Index 409 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/11/2013, SPi List of Figures 3.1. Schematic representation of the role of biodiversity in supporting ecosystem functions and wider societal benefits from ecosystems 48 6.1. Recreational values arising from a change in land use from farming to multi-purpose open-access woodland in Wales 118 8.1. The capital approach to sustainable development 158 8.2. Weak and strong sustainability 160 8.3. Adjusting NDP for reproducible, human, and natural capital 163 8.4. Real GDP and ANDP per-capita trends for the USA, 1970–2008 (constant 2000 US$) 165 8.5. Real GDP and ANDP per-capita trends for Thailand, 1970–2009 (constant 2000 US$) 171 9.1. PA rents per capita vs. GDP per capita, 2005 187 9.2. Distribution of PA rents as a percentage of GDP, 2005 188 11.1. Global regulation of biodiversity: optimal land-use conversion 227 11.2. A bargaining game—defined by conflict point and cooperative frontier 230 13.1. Maps showing the location by sub-county unit of lands purchased for conservation under both ecosystem service and biodiversity conservation strategies for dynamic and static land-use scenarios 303 13.2. The difference in lands purchased for conservation under the biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services objective across static and dynamic land-use scenarios 304 14.1. Surplus obtained by landowner cooperatives and conservation outcomes 324 14.2. Relative change in density of four bird species on moorland sheep and beef farms under Foresight scenarios 333 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/11/2013, SPi List of Tables 3.1. Goals and targets agreed by the 10th meeting of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity 43 5.1. Summary statistics for FGM per hectare in the 2000 baseline and in the various 2060 scenarios (real values, £, 2010) 84 5.2. Change in the value from baseline year of annual GHG emissions from GB terrestrial ecosystems in 2060 under the high-emission variants of the NEA scenarios (£ million/yr); negative values represent increases in annual costs of GHG emissions 85 5.3. Summary statistics showing the predicted changes in bird diversity from the 2000 baseline to NEA high-emission scenarios for 2060 87 5.4. Summary statistics for the change in guild richness for 19 species of farmland birds from the baseline to 2060 under each of the NEA high-emission scenarios 88 5.5. Changes in total value (£ million) of predicted annual visits under the various scenarios (high-emissions versions) 89 5.6. Changes in urban characteristics from the 2000 baseline to 2060 for each of the NEA scenarios 91 5.7. Per-household and aggregated benefit changes of scenarios for Great Britain 91 5.8. Summary impacts for the change from the 2000 baseline to 2060 under each of the high-emission NEA scenarios: Great Britain (£ million per annum) 93 6.1. Summary of economic valuation methods used in ecosystem service valuation 110 8.1. Changes in real GDP and ANDP per capita for the USA, 1970–2008 (%) 166 8.2. Wealth accounting for mangrove capital, Thailand 1970–2009 170 8.3. Real GDP and ANDP per capita, Thailand, 1970–2009 170 9.1. Countries with PA rents > 1% of GDP, by income class, 2005 189 9.2. Protected area extent and land values by income class, 2005 190 A9.1. Selected low-income countries, 2005 (US$) 193 A9.2. Selected middle-income countries, 2005 (US$) 194 A9.3. Selected OECD countries, 2005 (US$) 196 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/11/2013, SPi List of Tables xi 11.1. Countries with greatest ‘species richness’ 226 11.2. GDP per capita in the diversity-rich states (PPP) 226 12.1. Protected area studies using rigorous empirical analysis 258 12.2. Decentralization studies using rigorous empirical analysis 261 12.3. PES studies using rigorous empirical analysis 264 13.1. Change in the value of ecosystem services and the biodiversity score with a static landscape under an ecosystem service objective and a biodiversity objective 296 13.2. Change in the value of ecosystem services (ES) and the biodiversity score between 2001 and 2026 for the State of Minnesota with a dynamic landscape 297 13.3. Average land-use change dynamics between 2001 and 2026 for Minnesota by land-use type 299 13.4. Average impacts of land-use change on the value of ecosystem services and the biodiversity score by land-use category 300 13.5. Hectares conserved between 2001 and 2026 by land-use category 302 13.6. Average impacts of conserving land on the value of ecosystem services and the biodiversity score by land-use category 302 13.7. Change in the value of ecosystem services (ES) and the biodiversity score between 2001 and 2026 for the State of Minnesota under various scenarios under low carbon, high carbon, and high water-quality value 305 14.1. Schematic of policy design attributes and responsibility for actions 334 15.1. Numerical analysis of banking on extinction for the case of rhino poaching 351 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/11/2013, SPi List of Abbreviations AB Agglomeration Bonus AES agri-environment schemes ALBA Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (Spanish: Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América) ANDP adjusted net domestic product BACI Before–After–Control–Impact BBS Birds Breeding Bird
Recommended publications
  • The Valuation of Biological Diversity for National Biodiversity Action Plans and Strategies
    The Valuation of Biological Diversity for National Biodiversity Action Plans and Strategies: A Guide for Trainers Dominic Moran Camille Bann March 2000 Prepared for the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge several colleagues who have contributed to our understanding of the issues, and to the delivery of relevant materials, on the economics of biodiversity. Specifically, we would like to thank David Pearce, Julie Richardson, Stavros Georgiou, Dale Whittington, Brett Day, Susana Mourato, Ivonne Higuero, Nalini Sharma and Jose Furtado. All these people have been valuable sources of information and we have freely borrowed and/or modified their ideas. Finally, both authors wish to thank the participants of two workshops organised by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) for their frank and illuminating comments on materials delivered during the workshops. 2 Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................4 2 FRAMEWORK FOR THE VALUATION OF BIODIVERSITY.....................7 2.1 Valuing biodiversity.............................................................................................................................7 2.2 Total Economic Value...........................................................................................................................7 2.3 Valuation Methodologies.....................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS and the ENVIRONMENT - ENVIRONMENT WORKING PAPER No
    OECD Environment Working Papers No. 97 Cost-Benefit Analysis Giles Atkinson, and the Environment Susana Mourato https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrp6w76tstg-en Unclassified ENV/WKP(2015)18 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 24-Nov-2015 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE Unclassified ENV/WKP(2015)18 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND THE ENVIRONMENT - ENVIRONMENT WORKING PAPER No. 97 by Giles Atkinson (1) and Susana Mourato (1) (1) London School of Economics and Political Science OECD Working Papers should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the author(s). Authorised for publication by Simon Upton, Director, Environment Directorate. JEL Classification: Q51, Q53, Q54, Q58, H43 Keywords: Cost-benefit analysis, policy appraisal, environmental policy OECD Environment Working Papers are available at www.oecd.org/environment/workingpapers.htm English JT03386807 Complete document available on OLIS in its original format - This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of Or. English international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. ENV/WKP(2015)18 OECD ENVIRONMENT WORKING PAPERS OECD Working Papers should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the author(s). OECD Working Papers describe preliminary results or research in progress by the author(s) and are published to stimulate discussion on a broad range of issues on which the OECD works.
    [Show full text]
  • Valuing the Environment in Developing Countries Case Studies
    Valuing the Environment in Developing Countries Case Studies Edited by David Pearce Professor of Environmental Economics, University College London and Honorary Professor of Environmental Science and Technology, Imperial College London, UK Corin Pearce Charles Palmer CSERGE, University College London, UK Edward Elgar Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA Contents List of contributors vii Acknowledgements ix List of abbreviations x 1 Introduction: valuing the developing world environment 1 David Pearce PART I AIR QUALITY, WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY 2 Quantifying and valuing life expectancy changes due to air pollution in developing countries 9 David Maddison and Marie Gaarder 3 Valuing river water quality in China 25 Brett Day and Susana Mourato "4 Valuing improvements to sanitation in Malaysia 67 Susana Mourato 5 Valuing dryland water supply in Zimbabwe 114 Dominic Waughray, Dominic Moran and Chris Lovell 6 Willingness to pay for improved water quality in Kathmandu 130 Dirgha N. Tiwari PART II VALUING BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 7 Conflicts in conservation: the many values of the black rhinoceros 169 Timothy Swanson, Susana Mourato, Joseph Swierzbinski and Andreas Kontoleon 8 Optimal ecotourism: the economic value of the giant panda in China 206 Andreas Kontoleon, Timothy Swanson, Qiwen Wang, Qiao Xuejun and Catherine Yang 9 Valuing visits to game parks in South Africa 236 Brett Day vi Contents 10 The economic returns to wildlife management in southern Africa 274 Jonathan I. Barnes 11 The economic value of pollution damage in the Pantanal 289 Dominic Moran and Andre Stejfens Moraes 12 Valuing a marine park in Malaysia 311 Bee Hong Yeo PART III VALUING FOREST FUNCTIONS 13 Tropical forest values in Mexico 329 W.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Analysis of Cultural Services
    UK NEA Economic Analysis Report Cultural services: Mourato et al. 2010 Economic Analysis of Cultural Services Final Report, December 2010 Susana Mourato, Giles Atkinson, Murray Collins, Steve Gibbons, George MacKerron and Guilherme Resende Department of Geography and Environment London School of Economics and Political Science Houghton Street London WC2A 2AE United Kingdom 1 UK NEA Economic Analysis Report Cultural services: Mourato et al. 2010 1. Introduction In this report we present an economic evaluation of key cultural benefits provided by ecosystem services in the UK. We estimate both an aggregate measure of cultural benefits (as embodied in nature’s amenity values) as well as selected individual cultural benefits (such as non-use values, education and ecological knowledge, and physical and mental health). Firstly, we present a new hedonic price analysis of the amenity value provided by broad habitats, designated areas, private gardens and other environmental resources in the UK and in England. We define amenity value as the increased well- being associated with living in or within close proximity to desirable natural areas and environmental resources. This increased well-being can potentially be derived from increased leisure and recreational opportunities, visual amenity, increased physical exercise opportunities and possibly mental or psychological well-being. Our analysis is based on actual observed market data, namely house transactions, and assumes that the choice of a house reflects an implicit choice over the nearby environmental amenities so that the value of marginal changes in proximity to these amenities is reflected in house prices. Secondly, we estimate the economic value of educational and ecological knowledge provided by ecosystem services based on the value of ecological knowledge acquired through school education in England.
    [Show full text]
  • Willingness to Pay for Climate Change Adaptation in Developing Countries
    Tanya O’Garra and Susana Mourato Are we willing to give what it takes? Willingness to pay for climate change adaptation in developing countries Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: O'Garra, Tanya and Mourato, Susana (2015) Are we willing to give what it takes? Willingness to pay for climate change adaptation in developing countries. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy. ISSN 2160-6544 DOI: 10.1080/21606544.2015.1100560 © 2015 Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy Ltd This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/64688/ Available in LSE Research Online: December 2015 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. Are we willing to give what it takes? Willingness to pay for climate change adaptation in developing countries Tanya O’Garraa
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis
    ANRV357-EG33-14 ARI 15 September 2008 16:26 ANNUAL Environmental Cost-Benefit REVIEWS Further Click here for quick links to Annual Reviews content online, Analysis including: • Other articles in this volume • Top cited articles Giles Atkinson and Susana Mourato • Top downloaded articles • Our comprehensive search Department of Geography and Environment and Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom, email: [email protected] Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2008. 33:317–44 Key Words First published online as a Review in Advance on environmental valuation, equity, uncertainty August 21, 2008 The Annual Review of Environment and Resources Abstract is online at environ.annualreviews.org Environmental cost-benefit analysis, or CBA, refers to the economic This article’s doi: appraisal of policies and projects that have the deliberate aim of im- 10.1146/annurev.environ.33.020107.112927 proving the provision of environmental services or actions that might af- Copyright c 2008 by Annual Reviews. fect (sometimes adversely) the environment as an indirect consequence. All rights reserved Vital advances have arisen in response to the challenges that environ- 1543-5938/08/1121-0317$20.00 mental problems and environmental policy pose for CBA. In this arti- cle, we review a number of these developments. Perhaps most notably this includes continuing progress in techniques to value environmen- tal changes. Growing experience of these methods has resulted in, on by London School of Economics and Political Science on 01/07/14. For personal use only. Annu. Rev. Environ.
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF (39.9
    Contributors W. Neil Adger, Lecturer in Environmental Economics in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and Senior Research Fellow in the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and at CSERGE, both at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Camille Bann, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, Economics Department, University College London, UK Jonathan I. Barnes, Senior Economist, Environmental Economics Unit, Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Windhoek, Namibia Katrina Brown, Reader in the School of Development Studies and Senior Research Fellow at CSERGE, both at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Raffaello Cervigni, Senior Economist, Unit for Evaluation of Public Investments, Ministry of Economy and Finance, Italy, Senior Natural Resource Economist, The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA and Honorary Research Associate, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), University College London, UK Brett Day, Senior Research Fellow, CSERGE, University of East Anglia, UK Marie Gaarder, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA Andreas Kontoleon, Research Fellow, CSERGE, University College London, UK Chris Lovell, Institute of Hydrology, Natural Environmental Research Council, Wallingford, UK David Maddison, Lecturer, University of Southern Denmark, Odense André Steffens Moraes, Resource Economist, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria, Centro de Pesquisa Agropecuaria do Pantanal,
    [Show full text]
  • Consortium Pour La Recherche Économique En Afrique Programme Collaboratif De Doctorat En Économie Pour L’Afrique Subsaharienne
    CONSORTIUM POUR LA RECHERCHE ÉCONOMIQUE EN AFRIQUE PROGRAMME COLLABORATIF DE DOCTORAT EN ÉCONOMIE POUR L’AFRIQUE SUBSAHARIENNE CENTRE COMMUN POUR LES STAGES FACULTATIFS ÉCONOMIE DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT PRÉSENTATION DU COURS (Révisé en juillet 2020) Facebook Twitter Site Web Courriel Droits d’auteur © 2017 Consortium pour la recherche économique en Afrique (CRÉA), tous droits réservés. Notre adresse postale : Consortium pour la recherche économique en Afrique (CRÉA) 3rd Floor-Middle East Bank Towers Building, Jakaya Kikwete Road P. O. Box 62882 00200 Nairobi Kenya Collaborative PhD Programme ÉCONOMIE DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT Objectifs du cours L’objectif général du présent cours est que les étudiants diplômés assimilent pleinement l’économie de l’environnement, de façon à ce qu’à la fin du cours, ils aient une connaissance approfondie de ce domaine particulier de l’économie jusqu’aux limites de la science et qu’ils puissent faire des contributions originales à la science à travers leur doctorat. Les objectifs spécifiques sont les suivants : i) Exposer les étudiants à des théories et des modèles de pointe de l’économie de l’environnement. ii) Permettre aux étudiants de comprendre et d’appréhender les liens entre l’environnement et l’économie. iii) Aider les étudiants à acquérir la capacité d’appliquer des modèles environnementaux à la recherche et aux questions de politiques économiques et environnementales, en particulier en Afrique subsaharienne. iv) Familiariser les étudiants avec la dynamique de l’environnement mondial et les implications pour le développement en Afrique subsaharienne. Conditions préalables Les cours fondamentaux du programme de doctorat collaboratif ou leur équivalent. Évaluation Dans chaque partie, les évaluations continues compteront pour 40 % et un examen final comptera pour 60 % de la note finale.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Carson, 5-24-21
    TO: Brian G. Morrison FROM: Richard T. Cars4J RE: Comments on Exposure of Recreational Anglers to South Fork Wind DATE: May 24, 2021 In response to your request, I have examined the three-page memo entitled "Estimated Exposure of Recreational Anglers to South Fork Wind" (hereafter SFW Memo) by Thomas Sproul dated March 26, 2021. My comments here pertain to the appropriateness of the use of my study (Carson, Hanemann, and Wegge, 2009) for the purpose of a benefit-transfer exercise.1 "Benefit-transfer is the adaptation of existing value information to a new context" (Rosenberger and Loomis, 2017).2 With any benefit-transfer exercise, an analyst should seek to identify situations where large well-executed studies have been done that are as "close" as possible with respect to (a) the natural resource of interest, (b) the change(s) involving that natural resource that are of interest, (c) the population using the resource, and (d) the time period when the study was conducted. In addition, it is important that the economic model upon which the analysis is based uses what are now considered to be appropriate techniques. The use of the 2009 Carson, Hanemann, and Wegge study (hereafter CHW) as the primary source of estimates in a situation involving the potential effect of offshore wind turbines on recreational fishing in Atlantic waters south of Rhode Island is incongruent with all these standard criteria for studies used in a benefit-transfer exercise. Let me take up each of these criteria in turn. The first involves substituting Alaskan Kenai king salmon caught from a riverbank for cod fish and other species, like shark or tuna, caught offshore using boats in an area known as Cox's Ledge.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques Summary Guide
    Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques Summary Guide David Pearce and Ece O¨ zdemiroglu et al. March 2002 Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions: London Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone 020 7944 3000 Web site www.dtlr.gov.uk © Queen’s Printer and Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 2002 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified. For any other use of this material, please write to HMSO, The Copyright Unit, St Clements House, 2–16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or e-mail: [email protected]. This is a value added publication which falls outside the scope of the HMSO Class Licence. Further copies of this publication are available from: Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions Publications Sales Centre Cambertown House Goldthorpe Industrial Estate Goldthorpe Rotherham S63 9BL Tel: 01709 891318 Fax: 01709 881673 or online via the Department’s web site. ISBN 1 85112569 8 Printed in Great Britain on material containing 100% post-consumer waste (text) and 75% post-consumer waste and 25% ECF pulp (cover). March 2002 Product Code 01 SCSG 1158 Acknowledgements This report was prepared by David Pearce and Ece O¨ zdemiroglu from work by a team consisting of Ian Bateman, Richard T.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Valuation and Benefit-Cost Analysis in U.K. Policy
    Giles Atkinson, Ben Groom, Nicholas Hanley and Susana Mourato Environmental valuation and benefit-cost analysis in U.K. policy Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Atkinson, Giles and Groom, Ben and Hanley, Nicholas and Mourato, Susana (2018) Environmental valuation and benefit-cost analysis in U.K. policy. Journal of Benefit Cost Analysis. ISSN 2194-5888 DOI: 10.1017/bca.2018.6 © 2018 Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/87615/ Available in LSE Research Online: April 2018 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. Environmental Valuation and Benefit-Cost Analysis in UK Policy Giles Atkinson1, Ben Groom1, Nicholas Hanley2 and Susana Mourato1 1 Department of Geography and Environment and Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science 2 Institute of Biodiversity Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow Version accepted for publication in the Journal of Benefit Cost Analysis, 2018 (doi:10.1017/bca.2018.6) Abstract This paper presents an evaluation of the use of environmental valuation – techniques to assign monetary values to environmental impacts of policies and projects, especially non-market impacts – in UK policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Economics
    AFRICAN ECONOMIC RESEARCH CONSORTIUM THE COLLABORATIVE PHD DEGREE PROGRAMME IN ECONOMICS FOR SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA JOINT FACILITY FOR ELECTIVES ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS COURSE OUTLINE (Revised: July, 2020) Facebook Twitter Website Email Copyright © 2017 African Economic Research Consortium (AERC), All Rights Reserved. Our mailing address is: African Economic Research Consortium (AERC) 3rd Floor-Middle East Bank Towers Building, Jakaya Kikwete Road P. O. Box 62882 00200 Nairobi Kenya Collaborative PhD Programme ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS Course Objectives The overall objective of this course is to provide graduate students with an understanding of environmental economics such that at the end of the course they will be thoroughly familiar with the frontier of science in this special area of Economics so that they can make original contributions to science through their PhD. The specific objectives are to: (i) Expose students to advanced theories and models of Environmental Economics. (ii) Enable students understand and appreciate the environment-economic linkages. (iii) Help students acquire the capacity to apply environmental models to research and policy issues in the area of environmental economics with specific reference to Sub- Saharan Africa (iv) Acquaint students with the dynamics of global environment and the implications for development in Sub-Saharan Africa Pre-requisites The core courses in the Collaborative PhD programme or their equivalent. Assessment The final course mark in each part will comprise of continuous assessments- 40%; and a final examination - 60%. Group Work/Class Presentations (By Students) 10 Marks Class Test 15 Marks Term Paper/Literature Review 15 Marks Final Examination 60 Marks Total 100 Marks Environmental Economics Course Outline Page 1 Collaborative PhD Programme TOPICS COVERED ECON 636: ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS I(60HOURS) 1.
    [Show full text]