The Ecotourist Question

Wild Capital ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 38-67
Author(s):  
Barbara K. Jones
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Capital ◽  
Forest Ecosystem ◽  
Outdoor Recreation ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Natural World ◽  
Wildlife Habitat ◽  
Added Value ◽  
A Value

The ecosystem services model as a valuation tool for cultural capital relies on human well-being as the metric for assigning nature a value that makes sense in a world full of competing choices. If the entire added value of a forest that includes wildlife habitat, recreation, and carbon sequestration is calculated, its continued existence as an intact forest ecosystem can more effectively compete against alternative uses that could either destroy the forest or diminish its services to us. Without a measurable value determined through marginal cost-benefit analysis and the consumer’s willingness to pay, however, the forest ecosystem would be assigned a dollar value of zero, making development the easy default choice. Since outdoor recreation in nature contributes to our well-being, it becomes one of the tools we can use to assign nature value. Responsible travel as ecotourists involves taking visitors into natural areas to educate them about a region’s natural and cultural heritage, as well as to sustain the well-being of local people. Ecotourism can change our relationship with the natural world, as well as teach us how to be better tourists.

Book Reviews

2015 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 1033-1036
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Chicago School ◽  
Associate Professor ◽  
Law School ◽  
Hedonic Theory ◽  
The Law ◽  
Institute Of Technology

Matthew D. Adler of Duke University reviews “Happiness and the Law”, by John Bronsteen, Christopher Buccafusco, and Jonathan S. Masur. The Econlit abstract of this book begins: “Assesses how the law affects people's quality of life with a particular focus on criminal punishment and civil lawsuits. Discusses measuring happiness; well-being analysis; well-being analysis versus cost–benefit analysis; happiness and punishment; adaptation, affective forecasting, and civil litigation; some problems with preference theories and objective theories; a hedonic theory of well-being; addressing objections to the hedonic theory; and the future of happiness and the law. Bronsteen is a professor in the Loyola University Chicago School of Law. Buccafusco is an associate professor in the Chicago-Kent School of Law and Codirector of the Center for Empirical Studies of Intellectual Property at the Illinois Institute of Technology. Masur is John P. Wilson Professor of Law in the University of Chicago Law School.”

Age 21 Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Title I Chicago Child-Parent Centers

2002 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 267-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur J. Reynolds ◽  
Judy A. Temple ◽  
Dylan L. Robertson ◽  
Emily A. Mann
Keyword(s):  
Title I ◽  
Remedial Education ◽  
Program Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
School Age ◽  
Program Participation ◽  
Benefit Analysis

We conducted the first cost-benefit analysis of a federally financed, comprehensive early childhood program. The Title I Chicago Child-Parent Centers are located in public schools and provide educational and family support services to low-income children from ages 3 to 9. Using data from a cohort of 1,539 program and comparison-group children born in 1980 who participate in the Chicago Longitudinal Study, measures of program participation were significantly associated with greater school achievement, higher rates of high school completion, and with significantly lower rates of remedial education services, juvenile delinquency, and child maltreatment. Economic analyses indicated that the measured and projected economic benefits of preschool participation, school-age participation, and extended program participation exceeded costs. In present-value 1998 dollars, the preschool program provided a return to society of $7.14 per dollar invested by increasing economic well-being and tax revenues, and by reducing public expenditures for remedial education, criminal justice treatment, and crime victims. The extended intervention program (4 to 6 years of participation) provided a return to society of $6.11 per dollar invested while the school-age program yielded a return of $1.66 per dollar invested. Findings demonstrate that an established public program can provide benefits that far exceed costs. Key elements of CPC program effectiveness include an instructional focus on literacy, opportunities for intensive parent involvement, and implementation by well-trained staff within a single administrative system.

scholarly journals SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE TRAINING FOR CUSTODIAL GRANDMOTHER-ADOLESCENT GRANDCHILDREN DYADS

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S357-S357
Author(s):  
Britney A Webster ◽  
Greg Smith ◽  
Frank Infurna
Keyword(s):  
Social Intelligence ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Positive Outcomes ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Social Competencies ◽  
Mixed Methods Approach ◽  
Mental And Physical Health

Abstract Custodial grandmothers (CGMs) and adolescent custodial grandchildren (ACG) face risk of poorer social skills and competencies due to early life adversities which have downstream negative consequences for mental and physical health. We describe an RCT examining the efficacy of an online social intelligence intervention (SII) at improving the emotional, interpersonal, and physical well-being of CGM-ACG dyads through mutual enhancement of their social competencies. Our SII is particularly valuable for these dyads because it enhances their social competencies and relationships, thereby leading to positive outcomes. Additionally, adolescence is a critical period for developing social competencies, largely through interactions with female caregivers. Our longitudinal mixed-methods approach addresses four aims: (1) Investigating if SII improves social competencies and overall well-being through both actor and partner effects; (2) Exploring moderators of SII efficacy; (3) Studying qualitatively how dyads view SII as changing their lives; and (4) Conducting a SII cost-benefit analysis. [Funded by R01AG054571]

scholarly journals Systematically introducing the ‘health factor’ in decision-making is possible: The success case of Andalusia

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
F Rodríguez Rasero ◽  
L A Moya Ruano ◽  
E Madrid Verdugo ◽  
J Vela Ríos
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Public Policies ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Health Department ◽  
Health Impact ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
Environment And Health

Abstract Health Impact Assessment (HIA) as a stand-alone report integrated in environmental assessments has been compulsory for the last 5 years in Andalusia. In this time, it has been proven as a successful tool for implementing the Health in All Policies strategy, delivering consistently better outcomes for the examined projects. We will describe the tools and methods used to achieve these results through the presentation of three examples. In so doing, it will be shown how HIA allows us to consider issues often neglected in decision-making processes and how it provides with an added value over other assessments already being carried out. The first example deals with a food industry. HIA focused on the depiction of affected population, singling out vulnerable traits using geographic information systems and open social and demographic data. Combined with a study of air dispersion of pollutants, it enabled us to find inequities in the distribution of impacts, propitiating thus the inclusion of additional measures of emissions abatement. HIA also helps raising awareness in other sectors. The second case shows a big change of attitude experienced in the urban planning department of a big city. After some initial reserves, the municipality based the decision about the relocation of a social centre on the assessment of expected positive impacts on social determinants of health. Bringing together these outcomes and the results of public consultation, a new optimal location was chosen. Finally, HIA also allows for greater transparency and accountability in public policies. The report for the Andalusian Air Quality Strategy not only provided health outcomes (morbidity and mortality) but also turned them into monetary values, as experience has shown that policy-makers find it difficult to understand standard health measures. This approach makes possible to contribute to cost-benefit analysis and keeps in line with EC guidelines on Public Policies Assessment. Panelists: Bart Bautmans Environment and Health Department, Flemish Agency for Care and Health, Flanders, Belgium Contact: [email protected] Ana M Carriazo Health Department, Regional Ministry of Health of Andalusia, Seville, Spain Contact: [email protected] Odile Mekel NRW Centre for Health, North Rhine-Westphalia, Bochum, Germany Contact: [email protected]

Cost-Benefit Analysis and Social Welfare Functions

2019 ◽  
pp. 397-422
Author(s):  
Matthew D. Adler
Keyword(s):  
Social Welfare ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Social Welfare Function ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Important Policy ◽  
The Social

This chapter describes and compares the two most important policy-analysis methodologies in economics: cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and the social-welfare-function (SWF) framework. Both approaches are consequentialist and welfarist; both are typically combined with a preference-based view of well-being. Despite these similarities, the two methodologies differ in significant ways. CBA translates well-being impacts into monetary equivalents, and ranks outcomes according to the sum total of monetary equivalents. By contrast, the SWF framework relies upon an interpersonally comparable measure of well-being. Each possible outcome is mapped onto a list (vector) of these well-being numbers, one for each person in the population; the ranking of outcomes, then, is driven by some rule (the SWF) for ranking these well-being vectors. The utilitarian SWF and the prioritarian family of SWFs (each corresponding to well-developed positions in moral philosophy) are especially plausible. The case for using CBA rather than one of these SWFs is weak—or so the chapter argues.

Behavioral Economics, Happiness Surveys, and Public Policy

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 196-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew D. Adler
Keyword(s):  
Behavioral Economics ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Subjective Well Being ◽  
Policy Tool ◽  
System 1 ◽  
Limiting Case ◽  
Rational Preferences ◽  
Recent Policy

Two important developments in recent policy analysis are behavioral economics and subjective-well-being (SWB) surveys. What is the connection between them? Some have suggested that behavioral economics strengthens the case for SWB surveys as a central policy tool, e.g., in the form of SWB-based cost-benefit analysis. This article reaches a different conclusion. Behavioral economics shows that individuals in their day-to-day, “System 1” behavior are not expected utility (EU-) rational – that they often fail to comply with the norms of rationality set forth by EU theory. Consider now that the standard preference-based view of individual well-being looks to individuals’ rational preferences. If the findings of behavioral economics are correct, an individual’s answer to a question such as “How satisfied are you with your life?” is not going to tell us much about her rational (EU-compliant) preferences. Behavioral economics, by highlighting widespread failures of EU rationality, might actually argue for an objective-good (non-preference-based) view of well-being. However (except in the limiting case of an objective-good view positing a single mentalistic good, happiness), SWB surveys will not be strong evidence of well-being in the objective-good sense. In short, SWB surveys are no “magic cure” for the genuine difficulties in inferring rational preferences and measuring well-being underscored by behavioral economics.

scholarly journals Waste in Health Care

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 245
Author(s):  
De Micheli, A.
Keyword(s):  
Health Service ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Inappropriate Prescribing ◽  
Health Spending ◽  
Health Resources ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Quality Standards ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Public Health Spending

Waste in a health service is every activity, behavior, asset and service that, using resources, does not produce results in terms of health, well-being or quality of life. According to the OECD, in different countries, about 20% of health expenditure makes little or no contribution to improving people’s health. Avoiding waste is theoretically easy: health interventions delivered according to a principle of appropriateness are not wasting. However, there are multiple obstacles. Waste has, in fact, different causes: inappropriateness, use of ineffective health interventions, over- and under- use of health interventions, low quality standards, medical errors, lack of innovation, misplaced and unmotivated resource allocation, administrative complexity, incorrect management of equipments, assets and services, wasted time, non-compliance with quality standards, purchasing of technologies and assets at an excessive price, incomplete design or non-completion of works, fraud and corruption. In Italy, in 2017, waste in Health Service, even if calculated on indirect and inaccurate data, was estimated at 21.59 (±20%: 17.27 – 25.91) billion euros, 17-21% of public health spending. Strategies to reduce waste are essentially two: stop doing activities that do not generate value; use, if any, equal in effectiveness and safety, but less expensive, alternatives. The implementation goes through targeted research and the culture of continuous improvement rooted in the organization and owned and applied by decision makers and every health or administrative provider. KEY WORDS health resources; allocation of resources; cost-benefit analysis; health services misuse; inappropriate prescribing

scholarly journals Economic analysis of ecosystem based adaptation and engineering options: A case study from Udayapur, Nepal

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 35-42
Author(s):  
Dinesh Chandra Devkota ◽  
Kamal Thapa ◽  
Bhaskar Kharki
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
High Benefit ◽  
Adaptation Options

Ecosystem services are vital to our well-being as they directly or indirectly support our survival and quality of life. But, the growing impact of climate change diminishes the benefit from ecosystem services. Therefore, identifying possible applicable adaptation options are inevitable to reduce the effect of climate change. The present research is based on a case study of Ksedi River watershed, Ajgada Village in Udaypur district of Nepal. The study demonstrates the comparison between different options to deal with flood and make a sound decision, based on economic rationale for long-term benefits. The present study compares ecosystem based adaptation options with engineering options using cost benefit analysis in order to protect village from flooding. Through stakeholder and expert consultations, ecosystem based adaptation options and economic options that are feasible in the village and catchment to mitigate the floods were listed. Economic analysis of these options and the different combinations were done using cost benefit analysis. Analysis was carried out for each of the different combination of options. Focus on ecosystem based adaptation options provide high benefit to cost return in terms of avoided damages and considering engineering options efficient in flood and erosion control in initial stage in spite of its high cost. The study suggests that reforestation in upland forest areas; plantation along riverbed and management of rangeland should be prioritized. Similarly, preparation of flood model, flood height damage curve and flood vulnerable maps specific to the site will help decision makers to implement site specific adaptation options.

The Social Welfare Function

2021 ◽  
pp. 155-178
Author(s):  
Matthew D. Adler
Keyword(s):  
Social Welfare ◽  
Social Welfare Function ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Policy Recommendation ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Status ◽  
Significant Divergence ◽  
Policy Impacts

The social welfare function (‘SWF’) framework is a methodology for assessing governmental policies that originates in theoretical welfare economics and is now widely used in various economic literatures. The framework translates the possible outcomes of policy choice into patterns of well-being among the population of interest, represented by interpersonally comparable well-being numbers. Policies are then ranked in light of some rule for ordering these well-being patterns (such as a utilitarian or prioritarian rule), taking account of the probability that a given policy will lead to a given outcome. This chapter presents the SWF framework, illustrates how it can be used for regulatory policy analysis, and compares the methodology to cost-benefit analysis (‘CBA’), currently the dominant policy-analytic tool in governmental practice. CBA eschews interpersonal comparisons and, instead, translates policy impacts on each person into a monetary equivalent relative to the status quo; these monetary equivalents are then added up. While CBA and the SWF framework are broadly similar in being consequentialist and welfarist, and in adopting a preference view of well-being, they employ distinct analytic structures for integrating information about preferences and possible outcomes to arrive at an assessment of the various policies that government might adopt. As the chapter demonstrates, the structural differences between the SWF framework and CBA can yield significant divergence at the level of policy recommendation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document