1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Resource Economics
  4. Volume 13, 2021
  5. Article

Annual Review of Resource Economics

Volume 13, 2021

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

Abstract

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: () the role of long-term discounting, () the estimation and use of carbon valuation, and () 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.

Keyword(s): benefit-cost analysis, JEL H43, JEL Q51, JEL Q54, JEL Q58, regulatory impact analysis, social cost of carbon, social discount rate, value of statistical life
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-040821-045913
2021-10-05
2024-04-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/resource/13/1/annurev-resource-040821-045913.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-040821-045913&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. ADB (Asian Dev. Bank) 2013. Cost-Benefit Analysis for Investment: A Practical Guide Manila: Asian Dev. Bank
  2. Alberini A, Cropper M, Krupnick A, Simon N. 2004. Does the value of statistical life vary with age and health status? Evidence from the US and Canada. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 48:769–92
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Aldy JE. 2014. Learning from experience: an assessment of the retrospective reviews of agency rules and the evidence for improving the design and implementation of regulatory policy Rep. to Admin. Conf. US Washington, DC: https://www.acus.gov/report/retrospective-review-report
  4. Aldy JE. 2019. Birds of a feather: estimating the value of statistical life from dual-earner families. J. Risk Uncertain. 58:2187–205
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Aldy JE, Auffhammer M, Cropper ML, Fraas A, Morgenstern R 2021a. Looking back at 50 years of the Clean Air Act. J. Econ. Lit. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Aldy JE, Kotchen M, Evans M, Fowlie M, Levinson A, Palmer K 2021b. Co-benefits and regulatory impact analysis: theory and evidence from federal air quality regulations. Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy, Vol. 2 M Kotchen, J Stock, C Wolfram 117–56 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Aldy JE, Smyth SJ. 2014. Heterogeneity in the value of life NBER Work. Pap 20206. https://www.nber.org/papers/w20206
  8. Aldy JE, Viscusi WK. 2007. Age differences in the value of statistical life: revealed preference evidence. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 12:241–60
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Aldy JE, Viscusi WK. 2008. Adjusting the value of a statistical life for age and cohort effects. Rev. Econ. Stat. 90:3573–81
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Andrews RM, McCrea P. 1999. UK Health and Safety Executive approach to exposure limit setting. Proceedings of the OECD Workshop on the Integration of Socio-Economic Analysis in Chemical Risk Management Decision Making193–202 Paris: OECD
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Arrow KJ, Cropper ML, Gollier C, Groom B, Heal GM et al. 2014. Should governments use a declining discount rate in project analysis?. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 8:145–63
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Arthur WB. 1981. The economics of risks to life. Am. Econ. Rev. 71:154–64
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Ashenfelter O, Greenstone M. 2004. Estimating the value of a statistical life: the importance of omitted variables and publication bias. Am. Econ. Rev. 94:2454–60
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Atkinson G, Braathan N-A, Groom B, Mourato S. 2018a. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Further Developments and Policy Uses Paris: OECD
  15. Atkinson G, Groom B, Hanley ND, Mourato S. 2018b. Environmental valuation and benefit-cost analysis in UK policy. J. Benefit-Cost Anal. 9:197–119
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Baker R, Bateman I, Donaldson C, Jones-Lee M, Lancsar E et al. 2010. Weighting and valuing quality adjusted life years: preliminary results from the social value of a QALY Project. Health Technol. Assess. 14:271–162
     [Google Scholar]
  17. BEIS (Dep. Bus. Entrepr. Ind. Strategy) 2019. Updated short-term traded carbon values used for UK policy appraisal (2018) Rep., Dep. Bus. Entrepr. Ind. Strategy London: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/updated-short-term-traded-carbon-values-used-for-uk-policy-appraisal-2018
  18. Black D, Knieser T. 2003. On the measurement of job risk in hedonic wage models. J. Risk Uncertain. 273:205–20
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Boardman AE, Greenberg DH, Vining AR, Weimer DL. 2018. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  20. Burke MS, Hsiang M, Miguel E 2015. Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production. Nature 527:235–39
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Cameron TA, DeShazo JR. 2013. Demand for health risk reductions. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 65:187–109
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Carleton TA, Jina A, Delgado MT, Greenstone M, Houser T et al. 2020. Valuing the global mortality consequences of climate change accounting for adaptation costs and benefits NBER Work. Pap. 27599. https://www.nber.org/papers/w27599
  23. Carson RT. 2012. Contingent valuation: a practical alternative when prices aren't available. J. Econ. Perspect. 26:427–42
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Carthy T, Chilton S, Covey J, Hopkins L, Jones-Lee M et al. 1999. On the contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation: part 2—the CV/SG ‘chained’ approach. J. Risk Uncertain. 17:3187–213
     [Google Scholar]
  25. CEA (Counc. Econ. Advis.) 2017. Discounting for public policy: theory and recent evidence on the merits of updating the discount rate Issue Brief, Counc. Econ. Advis Washington, DC: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/201701_cea_discounting_issue_brief.pdf
  26. Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC 2017. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation Dordrecht, Neth: Kluwer. , 2nd ed..
  27. Chilton S, Covey J, Hopkins L, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G et al. 1999. Annex 3: new research results on the valuation of preventing fatal road accident casualties. Health Costs Due to Road Traffic-Related Air Pollution. An Impact Assessment Project of Austria, France and Switzerland Synth. Rep. to WHO Minist. Conf. Environ. Health London, June 1999 Fed. Dep. Environ. Transp. Energy Commun., Bern Switz: https://www.ecoplan.ch/download/gks_sr_en.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Chilton S, Covey J, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Metcalf H et al. 2004. Valuation of health benefits associated with reductions in air pollution Final Rep., Dep. Environ. Food Rural Aff London: https://web.archive.org/web/20110311114829/http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/air/airquality/publications/healthbenefits/airpollution_reduction.pdf
  29. Clarkson R, Deyes K. 2002. Estimating the social cost of carbon emissions Gov. Econ. Serv. Work. Paper 140, HM Treas./DEFRA London:
  30. Coady D, Parry I, Le N-P, Shang B. 2019. Global fossil fuel subsidies remain large: an update based on country-level estimates IMF Work. Pap. 19/89, Int. Monet. Fund Washington, DC: https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WP/2019/WPIEA2019089.ashx
  31. Córdoba JC, Ripoll M. 2017. Risk aversion and the value of life. Rev. Econ. Stud. 84:41472–509
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Cropper ML, Fraas A, Morgenstern R. 2017. Looking backward to move regulations forward. Science 355:63321375–76
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Darmstadter J. 2016. Global benefit-cost analysis in US climate policy. Resources 191:34–39
     [Google Scholar]
  34. DECC (Dep. Energy Clim. Change) 2009. Carbon valuation in UK policy appraisal: a revised approach Policy Pap., Dep. Energy Clim. Change London: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carbon-valuation-in-uk-policy-appraisal-a-revised-approach
  35. DEFRA (Dep. Environ. Food Rural Aff.) 2020. Air quality appraisal: impact pathways approach Guidance, updated March 26, 2021. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assess-the-impact-of-air-quality/air-quality-appraisal-impact-pathways-approach
  36. Dell M, Jones BF, Olken BA 2014. What do we learn from the weather? The new climate-economy literature. J. Econ. Lit. 52:3740–98
     [Google Scholar]
  37. DFT (Dep. Transp.) 2018. TAG unit A1.1 cost-benefit analysis Transp. Anal. Guidance, Dep. Transp London: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/940962/tag-a1-1-cost-benefit-analysis.pdf
  38. Doucouliagos H, Stanley TD, Viscusi WK. 2014. Publication selection and the income elasticity of the value of a statistical life. J. Health Econ. 33:67–75
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Drupp M, Freeman MC, Groom B, Nesje F. 2018. Discounting disentangled: an expert survey on the components of the long term social discount rate. Am. Econ. J. Policy 10:4109–34
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Dudley SE, Mannix BF. 2014. The social cost of carbon. J. Fed. Soc. Pract. Groups 15:14–18
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Environ. Clim. Change Can 2016. Technical update to Environment and Climate Change Canada's social cost of greenhouse gas estimates Rep., Environ. Clim. Change Can Gatineau: https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/eccc/En14-202-2016-eng.pdf
  42. Eur. Chem. Agency 2016. Cost and benefit assessments in the REACH restriction dossiers Rep., Eur. Chem. Agency, Helsinki, Finl https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13630/cost_benefit_assessment_en.pdf
  43. Evans MF, Schaur G. 2010. A quantile estimation approach to identify income and age variation in the value of a statistical life. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 59:260–70
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Fraas A, Lutter R, Dudley S, Gayer T, Graham J et al. 2016. Should the federal regulatory agencies report benefits to Americans from mandated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions?. Resources Feb. 8. https://www.resources.org/common-resources/should-the-federal-regulatory-agencies-report-benefits-to-americans-from-mandated-reductions-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Freeman M, Groom B, Spackman M. 2018. Social discount rates for cost-benefit analysis: a report for HM Treasury Summ. Rep., HM Treas London: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/935551/Social_Discount_Rates_for_Cost-Benefit_Analysis_A_Report_for_HM_Treasury.pdf
  46. Gayer T, Viscusi WK. 2016. Determining the proper scope of climate change policy benefits in US regulatory analyses: domestic versus global approaches. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 10:245–63
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Gollier C. 2012. Pricing the Planet's Future: The Economics of Discounting in an Uncertain World Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  48. Gollier C, Hammitt JK. 2014. The long-run discount rate controversy. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 6:273–95
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Grab DA, Paul I, Fritz K 2019. Opportunities for valuing climate impacts in U.S. state electricity policy Rep., Inst. Policy Integr., NY Univ. Sch. Law https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Valuing_Climate_Impacts.pdf
  50. Greenstone M, Kopits E, Wolverton A. 2013. Developing a social cost of carbon for US regulatory analysis: a methodology and interpretation. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 7:123–46
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Groom B, Hepburn C. 2017. Looking back at social discount rates: the influence of papers, presentations and personalities on policy. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 11:2336–56
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Hahn RW, Dudley PM. 2007. How well does the U.S. government do benefit-cost analysis?. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 1:2192–211
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Hahn RW, Tetlock RC. 2008. Has economic analysis improved regulatory decisions?. J. Econ. Perspect. 22:167–84
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Hall RE, Jones CI. 2007. The value of life and the rise in health spending. Q. J. Econ. 122:139–72
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Hammitt JK, Robinson LA. 2011. The income elasticity of the value per statistical life: transferring estimates between high and low income populations. J. Benefit-Cost Anal. 2:11–29
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Hausman J. 2012. Contingent valuation: from dubious to hopeless. J. Econ. Perspect. 26:443–56
     [Google Scholar]
  57. HM Treas 2018. The Green Book: Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and Evaluation London: HM Treas.
  58. Howard P, Schwartz J. 2017. Think global: international reciprocity as justification for a global social cost of carbon. Columbia J. Environ. Law 42:S203–S294
     [Google Scholar]
  59. HSE (Health Saf. Exec.) 2016. Costs to Britain of work-related cancer Res. Rep. RR1074, Health Saf. Exec Bootle, UK: https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr1074.pdf
  60. HSE (Health Saf. Exec.) 2017. Post implementation review of the control of asbestos regulations 2012 Rep. S.I. 2012/632, Health Saf. Exec. Bootle, UK: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/598574/post-implementation-review-of-the-control-of-asbestos-regulations-2012.pdf
  61. IAWGSCC (Interag. Work. Group Soc. Cost Carbon) 2010. Social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under Executive Order 12866 Tech. Support Doc., Interag. Work. Group Soc. Cost Carbon, US Gov. Washington, DC: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-RIA.pdf
  62. IAWGSCC (Interag. Work. Group Soc. Cost Carbon) 2013. Technical update of the social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under Executive Order 12866. Tech. Support Doc., Interag. Work. Group Soc. Cost Carbon, US Gov Washington, DC: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  63. IAWGSCC (Interag. Work. Group Soc. Cost Carbon) 2015. Technical update of the social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under Executive Order 12866 Tech. Support Doc., Interag. Work. Group Soc. Cost Carbon, US Gov Washington, DC: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd-final-july-2015.pdf
  64. IAWGSCC (Interag. Work. Group Soc. Cost Carbon) 2016. Technical update of the social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under Executive Order 12866 Tech. Support Doc., Interag. Work. Group Soc. Cost Carbon, US Gov Washington, DC: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf
  65. IAWGSCC (Interag. Work. Group Soc. Cost Carbon) 2021. Social cost of carbon, methane, and nitrous oxide. Interim estimates under Executive Order 13990 Tech. Support Doc., Interag. Work. Group Soc. Cost Carbon, US Gov Washington, DC: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf
  66. Johansson PO. 2002. On the definition and age-dependency of the value of a statistical life. J. Risk Uncertain. 25:251–63
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Johnston R, Rolfe J, Rosenberger R, Brouwer R 2015. Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values: A Guide for Researchers and Practitioners Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
  68. Just RE, Hueth DL, Schmitz A. 1981. Applied Welfare Economics and Public Policy New York: Pearson
  69. Kahn ME, Mohaddes R, Ng RNC, Pesaran MH, Raissi M, Yang JC. 2019. Long-term macroeconomic effects of climate change: a cross-country analysis. NBER Work. Pap. 26167. https://www.nber.org/papers/w26167
  70. Kelly C. 2008. Survey of the value of life/health used in government departments. Summary of findings—report to the inter-departmental group on value of life and health Rep., Inst. Transp. Stud Univ. Leeds, UK:
  71. Kniesner TJ, Viscusi WK, Woock C, Ziliak JP. 2012. The value of a statistical life: evidence from panel data. Rev. Econ. Stat. 94:74–87
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Kniesner TJ, Viscusi WK, Ziliak JP. 2006. Life-cycle consumption and the age-adjusted value of life. BE J. Econ. Anal. Policy 5:11–36
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Kochi I, Hubbell B, Kramer R. 2006. An empirical Bayes approach to combining and comparing estimates of the value of a statistical life for environmental policy analysis. Environ. Resour. Econ. 34:385–406
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Kopp RE, Mignone BK. 2013. Circumspection, reciprocity, and optimal carbon prices. Clim. Change 1204:831–43
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Kotchen MJ. 2018. Which social cost of carbon? A theoretical perspective. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 5:3673–94
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Krupnick A. 2007. Mortality-risk valuation and age: stated preference evidence. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 12:261–82
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Lavetti K. 2020. The estimation of compensating wage differentials: lessons from the Deadliest Catch. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 38:1165–82
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Lee JM, Taylor LO. 2019. Randomized safety inspections and risk exposure on the job: quasi-experimental estimates of the value of a statistical life. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 11:4350–74
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Lind RC, Arrow KJ, Corey GR, Dasgupta P, Sen AK et al. 1982. Discounting for Time and Risk in Energy Policy Washington, DC: Resour. Future
  80. Liu JT, Hammitt JK, Liu JL. 1997. Estimated hedonic wage function and value of life in a developing country. Econ. Lett. 57:3353–58
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait J. 2000. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  82. Lowe J. 2008. Intergenerational wealth transfers and social discounting: Supplementary Green Book guidance Rep., Off. Public Sector Inf., HM Treas London: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/193938/Green_Book_supplementary_guidance_intergenerational_wealth_transfers_and_social_discounting.pdf
  83. Markandya AM, Pearce DW. 1991. Development, the environment, and the social rate of discount. World Bank Res. Obs. 6:2137–52
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Masterman CJ, Viscusi WK. 2018. The income elasticity of global values of a statistical life: stated preference evidence. J. Benefit-Cost Anal. 9:3407–34
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Metcalf GE, Stock JH. 2017. Integrated assessment models and the social cost of carbon: a review and assessment of US experience. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 11:180–99
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Mitchell RC, Carson RT. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method Washington, DC: Resour. Future
  87. Mrozek JR, Taylor LO. 2002. What determines the value of life? A meta-analysis. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 21:2253–70
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Murphy KM, Topel RH. 2006. The value of health and longevity. J. Political Econ. 114:871–904
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Natl. Acad. Sci. Eng. Med 2017. Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  90. O'Brien J. 2018. Age, autos, and the value of a statistical life. J. Risk Uncertain. 57:151–79
     [Google Scholar]
  91. OECD (Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev.) 2012. Mortality Risk Valuation in Environment, Health and Transport Policies Paris: OECD
  92. OMB (Off. Manag. Budget) 1992. Circular A-94: guidelines and discount rates for benefit-cost analysis of federal programs: appendix C. Rep., Off. Manag. Budget Washington, DC: updated Nov. 2015. https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/FED/OMB/OMB-Circular-A94.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  93. OMB (Off. Manag. Budget) 2003. Circular A-4: regulatory analysis Rep., Off. Manag. Budget Washington, DC: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf
  94. OXERA 2002. A social time preference rate for use in long-term discounting Rep. to Off. Deputy Prime Minist., Dep. Transp., Dep. Environ Food Rural Affairs, London, OXERA Consult Oxford, UK: https://www.oxera.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Social-time-preference-rate-for-use-in-long-term-discounting-3.pdf
  95. Paul I, Howard P, Schwartz JA. 2017. The Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases and State Policy: A Frequently Asked Questions Guide. New York: Inst. Policy Integr. NYU Sch. Law
  96. Pearce DW. 1998. Cost benefit analysis and environmental policy. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 14:484–100
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Pearce DW, Atkinson G, Mourato S. 2006. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments Paris: OECD
  98. Pindyck RS. 2013. Climate change policy: What do the models tell us?. J. Econ. Lit. 51:3860–72
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Pindyck RS. 2017. The use and misuse of models for climate policy. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 11:1100–14
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Pizer W, Adler J, Aldy JE, Anthoff D, Cropper M et al. 2014. Using and improving the social cost of carbon. Science 346:1189–90
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Revesz R, Greenstone M, Hanemann M, Livermore M, Sterner T et al. 2017. Best cost estimate of greenhouse gases. Science 357:655
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Rosen S. 1988. The value of changes in life expectancy. J. Risk Uncertain. 13:285–304
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Rowell A. 2015. Foreign impacts and climate change. Harv. Environ. Law Rev. 39:371–421
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Shepard DS, Zeckhauser RJ. 1984. Survival versus consumption. Manag. Sci. 30:396–531
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Simon NB, Dockins C, Maguire KB, Newbold SC, Krupnick AJ, Taylor LO. 2019. Policy brief—what's in a name? A search for alternatives to ‘VSL. .’ Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 13:1155–61
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Slovic P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236:4799280–85
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Smith S, Braathen NA. 2015. Monetary carbon values in policy appraisal: an overview of current practice and key issues OECD Environ. Work. Pap. 92, OECD Paris: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/monetary-carbon-values-in-policy-appraisal_5jrs8st3ngvh-en
  108. Smith VK, Evans MF, Kim H, Taylor DH Jr. 2004. Do the near-elderly value mortality risks differently?. Rev. Econ. Stat. 861:423–29
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Stern N. 2006. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  110. Sunstein CR. 2004. Valuing life: a plea for disaggregation. Duke Law J 54:385–445
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Treas. Board Can. Secr 2007. Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide: Regulatory Proposals Ottawa: HM Queen Right Can https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rtrap-parfa/analys/analys-eng.pdf
  112. US EPA (US Environ. Prot. Agency) 1997. The benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act 1970 to 1990. EPA Report to Congress Rep. EPA-410-R-97-002 US Environ. Prot. Agency Washington, DC: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-09/documents/ee-0295_all.pdf
  113. US EPA (US Environ. Prot. Agency) 2014. Guidelines for preparing economic analyses Rep., Natl. Cent. Environ. Econ., US Environ. Prot. Agency Washington, DC: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/ee-0568-50.pdf
  114. US EPA (US Environ. Prot. Agency) 2015. Regulatory impact analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule Rep. EPA-452/R-15-003, US Environ. Prot. Agency Washington, DC: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/docs/ria/utilities_ria_final-clean-power-plan-existing-units_2015-08.pdf
  115. US EPA (US Environ. Prot. Agency) 2019. Regulatory impact analysis for the repeal of the Clean Power Plan, and the emission guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions from existing electric utility generating units EPA-452/R-19-003, US Environ. Prot. Agency Washington, DC: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-06/documents/utilities_ria_final_cpp_repeal_and_ace_2019-06.pdf
  116. US EPA (US Environ. Prot. Agency) 2020. Guidelines for preparing economic analyses: review copy prepared for EPA's Science Advisory Board's Economic Guidelines Review Panel Draft Rep., US Environ. Prot. Agency Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Van Houtven G, Sullivan MB, Dockins C. 2008. Cancer premiums and latency effects: a risk tradeoff approach for valuing reductions in fatal cancer risks. J. Risk Uncertain. 36:2179–99
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Viscusi WK. 2004. The value of life: estimates with risks by occupation and industry. Econ. Inq. 42:129–48
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Viscusi WK. 2008. How to value a life. J. Econ. Finance 32:4311–23
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Viscusi WK. 2015. The role of publication selection bias in estimates of the value of a statistical life. Am. J. Health Econ. 1:127–52
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Viscusi WK. 2018. Pricing Lives: Guideposts for a Safer Society Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  122. Viscusi WK, Aldy JE. 2003. The value of statistical life: a critical review of market estimates throughout the world. J. Risk Uncertain. 27:15–76
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Viscusi WK, Masterman CJ. 2017. Income elasticities and global values of a statistical life. J. Benefit-Cost Anal. 8:2226–50
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Weible CM, Sabatier PA 2018. Theories of the Policy Process New York: Routledge. , 4th ed..
  125. Weitzman ML. 1998. Why the far-distant future should be discounted at its lowest possible rate. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 36:3201–8
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Weitzman ML. 2001. Gamma discounting. Am. Econ. Rev. 91:1260–71
     [Google Scholar]
  127. White House 2021. Modernizing regulatory review: memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies Brief, Jan. 20. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/modernizing-regulatory-review/
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-040821-045913
Loading
Environmental Benefit-Cost Analysis: A Comparative Analysis Between the United States and the United Kingdom
Annual Review of Resource Economics 13, 267 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-040821-045913
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-040821-045913
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-040821-045913
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error