Valuing the preservation of rangelands: Tree clearing in the desert uplands region of Queensland.

2000 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 205 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Rolfe ◽  
R Blamey ◽  
J Bennett
Keyword(s):  
State Government ◽  
Choice Model ◽  
Economic Valuation ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Choice Modelling ◽  
Pasture Production ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Remnant Vegetation ◽  
Benefit Cost ◽  
Restrictive Policy

Tree clearing to improve pasture production for beef cattle is becoming more commonplace in the rangeland zone in Queensland. In parts of the Desert Uplands region of Central Queensland, current clearing rates are among the highest in Australia. The state government, in granting permits for clearing, has to balance the improved production benefits, accruing mostly to pastoralists, against the biodiversity losses, which are borne more widely by Australian society. In the current debate over clearing restrictions, little information exists about the values that society may hold for the preservation of rangelands. To address this deficiency, a choice modelling study was undertaken to provide estimates of the benefits of retaining remnant vegetation that are appropriate for inclusion in a benefit cost analysis of tighter clearing restrictions. Attributes included in the choice model were reductions in the population size of non-threatened species and unique ecosystems, the number of endangered species lost to the region, and changes in regional income and employment. The benefits estimated for individual attributes, and for some more restrictive policy settings are reported. Key words: remnant native vegetation, economic valuation, grazing industry, pasture development, choice modelling

scholarly journals Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa A. Robinson ◽  
James K. Hammitt
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Behavioral Economics ◽  
Economic Valuation ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Behavioral Research ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
The Status ◽  
Principles And Standards ◽  
Benefit Cost

As traditionally conducted, benefit-cost analysis is rooted in neoclassical welfare economics, which, in its most simplified form, assumes that individuals act rationally and are primarily motivated by self-interest, making decisions that maximize their welfare. Its conduct is evolving to reflect recent work in behavioral economics, which explores the psychological aspects of decisionmaking. We consider several implications for analyses of social programs, focusing largely on economic valuation. First, benefit-cost analysis often involves valuing nonmarket outcomes such as reductions in health and environmental risks. Behavioral research emphasizes the need to recognize that these values are affected by psychological as well as physical attributes. Second, benefit-cost analysis traditionally uses exponential discounting to reflect time preferences, while behavioral research suggests that individuals’ discounting may be hyperbolic. While the appropriate rates and functional form are uncertain, market rates best represent the opportunity costs associated with diverting funds to support a particular social policy or program. Such rates reflect the intersection between technological progress and individual preferences, regardless of whether these preferences fit the standard economic model or a behavioral alternative. Third, behavioral research emphasizes the need to consider the influence of other-regarding preferences on valuation. In addition to acting altruistically, individuals may act reciprocally to reward or punish others, or use the status of others as the baseline against which to assess their own well-being. Fourth, behavioral economics identifies factors that can help researchers develop valuation studies that provide well-informed, thoughtful preferences. Finally, while behavioral research has led some to argue for a more paternalistic approach to policy analysis, an alternative is to continue to focus on describing the preferences of those affected by the policy options while working to ensure that these preferences are based on knowledge and careful reflection. Benefit-cost analysis can be best viewed as a pragmatic framework for collecting, organizing, and evaluating relevant information.

Challenges in Including BCA in Planning Approval Processes: Coal Mine Projects in New South Wales, Australia

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 341-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Gillespie ◽  
Jeff Bennett
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Coal Mining ◽  
State Government ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
South Wales ◽  
The Government ◽  
Benefit Cost

A requirement for project proponents to include a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) as a component of their environmental impact assessments is implied in planning approval legislation in New South Wales, Australia. Fulfilling that requirement in the context of three large-scale expansions of coal mines has led to the application of choice modeling to estimate values for the main environmental, social, and heritage impacts. A number of particular issues have emerged in those applications: the framing of choice sets so that incentive-compatible willingness-to-pay questions are asked; the inclusion of “existence values” associated with employment opportunities provided by mines; and the incorporation of environmental offsets as part of the choice task given to respondents. The benefit-cost analyses of the coal mining projects have proven controversial. While the government agency responsible for administering the project approval process has used them as an input to decision-making, in some cases its recommendations have been “over-ridden” by the imposition of subjectively determined administrative rules. In one case, an appeal through legal channels against an approval was successful in part because the judge who heard the appeal dismissed the BCA findings because it was contrary to his own viewpoint of the merits of the case. In response, the state government has introduced legislation that requires greater “weight” to be given to the development benefits of coal mining. These responses have left the role of BCA and nonmarket valuation in the decision-making process in “limbo,” with practitioners and policy makers unsure as to the future of the methods in politically charged contexts.

scholarly journals Vaccination with vector type vaccines – is it worth the risk?

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Ale ◽  
David Slater ◽  
Des Hartford
Keyword(s):  
Population Data ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Vector Type ◽  
Societal Risk ◽  
Negative Side Effects ◽  
Bad Weather ◽  
Vaccine Debate ◽  
Benefit Cost

COVID-19 has the potential to re-frame the whole debate about individual and societal risk, risk balancing, benefit-cost analysis, individual rights, societal responsibilities of individuals and responsibilities of Governments within the overall context that there are limits to what can be achieved in particular instances, and in totality across society. There has been considerable discussion and debate globally about the real and perceived risks of having a vaccination against COVID-19. This might be interpreted as having contributed to the uncertainty in the vaccine debate and contributed to doubt and even erosion of trust in some of the population. Some of this has been due to an understandable demand for immediate answers, before the necessary and detailed data were available and verified. The recent publication of unexpected negative side effects from the Astra Zeneca version of the vector-type vaccine, “vaccine induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia” (VIPIT), has been the latest complicating development, which has caused further concerns, uncertainties and confusion. The risk figures that Governments use are derived from whole population data and processed to give a smeared out average “societal” risk. But to the individuals having to make the choice, these figures may, or may not, be relevant. The corresponding societal estimate of an individual’s chance of being stuck by lightning is the well-known 1 in a million. But individuals know intuitively that for someone who never goes out in bad weather, this is way too high. Conversely someone who goes out to fly a kite in a thunderstorm has an almost certain chance of being fried. In this paper we discuss the current arguments put forward, which accept the 1 in a 100,000 as acceptable collateral damage for societal exposure. It then contrasts them against the numbers that could be derived, if it is approached from the point of view of a particular individual’s risk benefit calculations. Subsequently we discuss how communication and information by policy makers and media may influence the decisions of individuals to have or not have themselves vaccinated. While the current debate about vaccinations provides data and the central focus of this paper, the issue is a general matter, it is symptomatic of a much wider risk question which the vaccine debate has brought into focus; and not just for other vaccines and medical interventions.

Public Investment Criteria: Benefit-Cost Analysis for Planned Economic Growth by Stephen A. Marglin. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1967. pp.103. 22s. 6d.********** Investments for Capacity Expansion: Size, Location and Time-Phasing edited by Alan S. Manne. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1967. pp.239. 45s.Investments for Capacity Expansion: Size, Location and Time-Phasing edited by Alan S. Manne. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1967. pp.239. 45s.

1967 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 416-420
Author(s):  
Arthur MacEwan
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Public Investment ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Capacity Expansion ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Systematic Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Many ◽  
Benefit Cost

These books are numbers 4 and 5, respectively, in the series "Studies in the Economic Development of India". The two books are interesting complements to one another, both being concerned with the analysis of projects within national plan formulation. However, they treat different sorts of problems and do so on very different levels. Marglin's Public Investment Criteria is a short treatise on the problems of cost-benefit analysis in an Indian type economy, i.e., a mixed economy in which the government accepts a large planning responsibility. The book, which is wholely theoretical, explains the many criteria needed for evaluation of projects. The work is aimed at beginning students and government officials with some training in economics. It is a clear and interesting "introduction to the special branch of economics that concerns itself with systematic analysis of investment alternatives from the point of view of a government".

Using Bayesian network models to incorporate uncertainty in the economic analysis of pollution abatement measures under the water framework directive

2005 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 95-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.N. Barton ◽  
T. Saloranta ◽  
T.H. Bakken ◽  
A. Lyche Solheim ◽  
J. Moe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Water Quality ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Economic Valuation ◽  
Pollution Abatement ◽  
Network Models ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Bayesian Belief Networks ◽  
Probabilistic Interpretation ◽  
Belief Networks ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis

The evaluation of water bodies “at risk” of not achieving the Water Framework Directive's (WFD) goal of “good status” begs the question of how big a risk is acceptable before a programme of measures should be implemented. Documentation of expert judgement and statistical uncertainty in pollution budgets and water quality modelling, combined with Monte Carlo simulation and Bayesian belief networks, make it possible to give a probabilistic interpretation of “at risk”. Combined with information on abatement costs, a cost-effective ranking of measures based on expected costs and effect can be undertaken. Combined with economic valuation of water quality, the definition of “disproportionate cost” of abatement measures compared to benefits of achieving “good status” can also be given a probabilistic interpretation. Explicit modelling of uncertainty helps visualize where research and consulting efforts are most critical for reducing uncertainty. Based on data from the Morsa catchment in South-Eastern Norway, this paper discusses the relative merits of using Bayesian belief networks when integrating biophysical modelling results in the benefit-cost analysis of derogations and cost-effectiveness ranking of abatement measures under the WFD.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document