Environmental Benefit-Cost Analysis and the National Accounts

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Z. Muller
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
National Income ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Output Growth ◽  
National Accounts ◽  
Environmental Benefit ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost ◽  
Pollution Emissions ◽  
Rates Of Growth

This paper demonstrates a new connection between benefit-cost analysis (BCA) and the national income and product accounts. The article computes an augmented measure of output, which is defined as gross domestic product (GDP) less environmental pollution damage. Environmental policy BCA is incorporated directly into the adjusted measure of output in two ways. In a particular time period, damages from pollution emissions are deducted from market GDP in a standard with-and-without policy comparison. Second, secular changes in damages, output (GDP), and correspondingly, in the adjusted measure of output are employed to estimate augmented rates of growth. Comparison to a no-policy counterfactual then yields the effect of the policy on the augmented measure of environmentally adjusted value added (EVA) growth. The empirical results suggest that, in the 30 states that adopted flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) technology between 2005 and 2011, augmented output grew 0.12% more quickly than in a no-scrub counterfactual. Augmented output growth in four states was at least 0.20% more rapid because of the installation of scrubbers. The paper reports that benefits-per-capita from FGD were mildly progressive and that counties with relatively large African American populations incur large benefits from FGD installation.

scholarly journals Benefit-Cost Analysis of a Package of Early Childhood Interventions to Improve Nutrition in Haiti

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (S1) ◽  
pp. 154-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brad Wong ◽  
Mark Radin
Keyword(s):  
Early Childhood ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
National Income ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Cost Ratio ◽  
Case Scenario ◽  
Base Case Scenario ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost ◽  
Early Childhood Interventions

We conduct a benefit-cost analysis of a package of early childhood interventions that can improve nutrition outcomes in Haiti. Using the Lives Saved Tool, we expect that this package can prevent approximately 55,000 cases of child stunting, 7,600 low-weight births and 28,000 cases of maternal anemia annually, if coverage reaches 90% of the target population. In addition, we expect these nutrition improvements will avoid 1,830 under-five deaths, 80 maternal deaths and 900,000 episodes of child illness every year. Those who avoid stunting will experience lifetime productivity benefits equivalent to five times gross national income per capita in present value terms, at a 5% discount rate. While previous benefit-cost analyses of this specific package have only estimated the lifetime productivity benefits of avoided stunting, this paper also accounts for reductions in fatal and non-fatal health risks. In the base case scenario, the annualized net benefits of the intervention equal Haitian gourdes 13.4 billion (USD 211 million) and the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) is 5.2. Despite these substantial benefits, the package may not be the most efficient use of a marginal dollar, with alternative interventions to improve human capital yielding BCRs approximately three to four times higher than the base estimate.

Environmental Benefit-Cost Analysis: A Comparative Analysis Between the United States and the United Kingdom

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph E. Aldy ◽  
Giles Atkinson ◽  
Matthew J. Kotchen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Resource Economics ◽  
The United States ◽  
Annual Review ◽  
Publication Date ◽  
Environmental Benefit ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost

The United States and United Kingdom have long-standing traditions in the use of environmental benefit-cost analysis (E-BCA). While there are similarities between how E-BCA is utilized, there are significant differences too, many of which mirror ongoing debates and recent developments in the literature on environmental and natural resource economics. We review the use of E-BCA in both countries across three themes: ( a) the role of long-term discounting, ( b) the estimation and use of carbon valuation, and ( c) the estimation and use of the value of a statistical life. In each case, we discuss how academic developments are (and are not) translated into practical use and draw comparative lessons. We find that, in some cases, practical differences in E-BCA can be overstated, although in others these seem more substantive. Advances in the academic frontier also raise the question of when and how to update practical E-BCA, with very different answers across our themes. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Resource Economics, Volume 13 is October 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

scholarly journals A Benefit–Cost Analysis of Food and Biodegradable Waste Treatment Alternatives: The Case of Oita City, Japan

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 1916 ◽  
Author(s):  
Micky Babalola
Keyword(s):  
Anaerobic Digestion ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Waste Treatment ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Cost Ratio ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Biodegradable Waste ◽  
Benefit Cost

As the generation of food scrap, kitchen, and biodegradable wastes increases, the proper handling of these wastes is becoming an increasingly significant concern for most cities in Japan. A substantial fraction of food and biodegradable waste (FBW) ends up in the incinerator. Therefore, an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) benefit–cost analysis technique was employed in this study to compare different FBW treatment technologies and select the most appropriate FBW disposal technology for Oita City. The four FBW treatment options considered were those recommended by the Japanese Food Waste Recycling Law: anaerobic digestion, compost, landfill, and incineration, which is currently in use. The fundamental AHP was separated into two hierarchy structures for benefit analysis and cost analysis. The criteria used in these two analyses were value added, safety, efficiency, and social benefits for benefit analysis, and cost of energy, cost of operation and maintenance, environmental constraints, and disamenity for cost analysis. The results showed that anaerobic digestion had the highest overall benefit while composting had the least cost overall. The benefit–cost ratio result showed that anaerobic digestion is the most suitable treatment alternative, followed by composting and incineration, with landfill being the least favored. The study recommends that composting could be combined with anaerobic digestion as an optimal FBW management option in Oita City.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document