The Role of Cost-benefit Analysis and Economic Impact Analysis in Environmental Assessment: The Case for Reform

References

• Adamowicz V. 2004. What’s it worth? An examination of historical trends and future directions in environmental valuation. Australian J Agric Resour Econ. 48(3):419–443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Almansa C, Martínez-Paz JM. 2011. What weight should be assigned to future environmental impacts? A probabilistic cost benefit analysis using recent advances on discounting. Sci Total Environ. 409(7):1305–1314. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.12.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anex RP, Focht W. 2002. Public participation in life cycle assessment and risk assessment: A shared need. Risk Anal. 22(5):861–877. doi:10.1111/1539-6924.00257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ascher W. 1993. The ambiguous nature of forecasts in project evaluation: diagnosing the over-optimism of rate-of-return analysis. Int J Forecast. 9(1):109–115. doi:10.1016/0169-2070(93)90058-U.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aslaksen I, Myhr AI. 2007. The worth of a wildflower”: precautionary perspectives on the environmental risk of GMOs. Ecol Econ. 60(3):489–497. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson G, Mourato S. 2008. Environmental cost-benefit analysis. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 33(1):317–344. doi:10.1146/annurev.environ.33.020107.112927.
   Google Scholar
• Ayres RU, van den Bergh J, Gowdy JM. 2001. Strong versus weak sustainability: economics, natural sciences, and “consilience”. Environ Ethics. 23(2):155–168. doi:10.5840/enviroethics200123225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbier EB, Markandya A, Pearce DW. 1990. Environmental sustainability and cost-benefit analysis. Environ Plan A. 22(9):1259–1266. doi:10.1068/a221259.
   Google Scholar
• Barget E, Gouguet -J-J. 2010. Hosting mega-sporting events: which decision-making rule? Int J Sport Finance. 5(2):141–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BC EAO (British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office). 2015. Application information requirements template. p. 60.
   Google Scholar
• Beukers E, Bertolini L, Te Brömmelstroet M. 2015. An assessment of interventions for improving communication and trust in cost benefit analysis processes. Impact Assessment Project Appraisal. 33(1):28–42. doi:10.1080/14615517.2014.941142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boardman AE, Greenberg DH, Vining AR, Weimer DL. 2018. Cost-benefit analysis: concepts and practice. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boardman AE, Vining AR, Waters WG II. 1993. Costs and Benefits through Bureaucratic Lenses: example of a Highway Project. J Policy Anal Manage. 12(3):532–555. doi:10.2307/3325305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broadbent S. 2014. Major project appraisal: evaluation of impact assessment methodologies in the regulatory review process for the northern gateway project. Doctor of Philosophy, Simon Fraser University; p. 392.
   Google Scholar
• Broome J. 2008. The Ethics of CLIMATE CHANGE. Sci Am. 298(6):96–102. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0608-96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browne D, Ryan L. 2011. Comparative analysis of evaluation techniques for transport policies. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 31(3):226–233. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.11.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brueckner M, Durey A, Pforr C, Mayes R. 2014. The civic virtue of developmentalism: on the mining industry’s political licence to develop Western Australia. Impact Assessment Project Appraisal. 32(4):315–326. doi:10.1080/14615517.2014.929784.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campen JT. 1986. Benefit, cost, and beyond: the political economy of benefit-cost analysis. Ballinger: New York.
   Google Scholar
• Canter LW. 1998. Methods for effective environmental impact assessment. In: Porter AL, Fittipaldi JJ, Fargo ND, editors. Environmental methods review: retooling impact assessment for the new century. The Press Club; p. 58–68.
   Google Scholar
• CER (Canada Energy Regulator). 2020. Filing manual. https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/bts/ctrg/gnnb/flngmnl/index-eng.html
   Google Scholar
• Chichilnisky G. 1997. The costs and benefits of benefit-cost analysis. Environ Dev Econ. 2(2):202–206. doi:10.1017/S1355770X97230160.
   Google Scholar
• Chicken JC. 1994. Managing risks and decisions in major projects. New York: Chapman and Hall. 203.
   Google Scholar
• Crookes D, de Wit M. 2002. Environmental economic valuation and its application in environmental assessment: an evaluation of the status quo with reference to South Africa. Impact Assessment Project Appraisal. 20(2):127–134. doi:10.3152/147154602781766753.
   Google Scholar
• Crookes DJ, Wit MPD. 2009. An evaluation of tools for an assessment of cumulative effects in socioeconomic impact studies. J Environ Assessment Policy Manage. 11(3):311–329. doi:10.1142/S1464333209003385.
   Google Scholar
• Davis HC. 1990. Regional economic impact analysis and project evaluation. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. 182pp.
   Google Scholar
• de Jong M, Geerlings H. 2003. Exposing weaknesses in interactive planning: the remarkable return of comprehensive policy analysis in The Netherlands. Impact Assessment Project Appraisal. 21(4):281–291. doi:10.3152/147154603781766149.
   Google Scholar
• Deakin M, Curwell S, Lombardi P. 2002. Sustainable urban development: the framework and directory of assessment methods. J Environ Assessment Policy Manage. 04(2):171–197. doi:10.1142/S1464333202000978.
   Google Scholar
• DeMuth CC, Ginsburg DH. 2010. Rationalism in regulation. Mich Law Rev. 108(6):877–912.
   Google Scholar
• Denniss R. 2012. The use and abuse of economic modelling in Australia: users’ guide to tricks of the trade. Australia Institute; p. 15.
   Google Scholar
• Diez MA. 2001. New approaches to evaluating regional policy: the potential of a theory-based approach. Greener Manage Int. 36(36):37–49. doi:10.9774/GLEAF.3062.2001.wi.00006.
   Google Scholar
• ERCB (Energy Resources Conservation Board). 1991. Directive 023: guidelines respecting an application for a commercial crude bitumen recovery and upgrading project. 60.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer TB. 2006. Strategic environmental assessment and transport planning: towards a generic framework for evaluating practice and developing guidance. Impact Assessment Project Appraisal. 24(3):183–197. doi:10.3152/147154606781765183.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg B. 2007. Megaproject policy and planning: problems, causes, cures. Doctor of Philosophy, Aalborg University; p. 64.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg B, Bruzelius N, Rothengatter W. 2003. Megaprojects and risk: an anatomy of ambition. New York: Cambridge University Press. 207.
   Google Scholar
• JRP Frontier (Joint Review Panel for the Teck Frontier Project). 2019. Report of the Joint Review Panel: Teck Resources Limited Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Fort McMurray area. Alberta Energy Regulator & Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency; p. 1295.
   Google Scholar
• Gasparatos A, El-Haram M, Horner M. 2008. A critical review of reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 28(4):286–311. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2007.09.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillespie R, Bennett J. 2015. Challenges in including BCA in planning approval processes: coal mine projects in new south wales. Australia J Benefit Cost Anal. 6(2):341–368. doi:10.1017/bca.2015.12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gowdy JM. 2004. The revolution in welfare economics and its implications for environmental valuation and policy. Land Econ. 80(2):239–257. doi:10.2307/3654741.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grady P, Muller RA. 1988. One the use and misuse of input-output based impact analysis in evaluation. Can J Program Eval. 3(2):49–61.
   Google Scholar
• Green TL. 1997. Accounting for natural capital in bc: forestry and conflict in the slocan valley. Master of Arts, University of Victoria; p. 402.
   Google Scholar
• Green TL. 2009. The efficient drowning of a nation: is economics education warping gifted minds and eroding human prospects? Ambrose D, Cross T editors. Morality, ethics, and gifted minds. Springer Science & Business Media LLC; p. 89–104.
   Google Scholar
• Gunton T, Vertinsky I. 1990. Methods of analysis for forest land use allocation in British Columbia: options and recommendations. Victoria (BC): 23pp. Prepared for the British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.
   Google Scholar
• Gunton TI. 1992. Evaluating land use tradeoffs: a review of selected techniques. Environments. 21(3):53–63.
   Google Scholar
• Gunton TI. 2003. Megaprojects and regional development: pathologies in project planning. Reg Stud. 37(5):505–519. doi:10.1080/0034340032000089068.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunton TI, Day JC, Calbick KS, Johnsen S, Joseph C, McNab J, Peter T-D, Silcox K, Van Hinte T. 2004. A review of offshore oil and gas development in British Columbia. Burnaby (BC): School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University. 189.
   Google Scholar
• Hahn RW, Dudley PM. 2007. How well does the us government do benefit-cost analysis? Rev Environ Econ Policy. 1(2):192–211. doi:10.1093/reep/rem012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanley N. 1992. Are there environmental limits to cost benefit analysis? Environ Resour Econ. 2(1):33–59. doi:10.1007/BF00324688.
   Google Scholar
• Hanley N. 2001. Cost-benefit analysis and environmental policymaking. Environ Plann C Gov Policy. 19(1):103–118. doi:10.1068/c3s.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanley N, Spash CL. 1993. Cost-benefit Analysis and the Environment. Northampton (MA): Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. 278pp.
   Google Scholar
• Hanna K. Ed. 2016. Environmental impact assessment: practice and participation. Toronto: Oxford University Press. 480pp.
   Google Scholar
• Hochschorner E, Finnveden G. 2003. Evaluation of two simplified life cycle assessment methods. Int J Life Cycle Assessment. 8(3):119–128. doi:10.1007/BF02978456.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollick M. 1981. Role of quantitative decision-making methods in environmental impact assessment. J Environ Manage. 12(1):65–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoogmartens R, Van Passel S, Van Acker K, Dubois M. 2014. Bridging the gap between LCA, LCC and CBA as sustainability assessment tools. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 48:27–33. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2014.05.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horowitz JK, McConnell KE. 2002. A review of WTA/WTP studies. J Environ Econ Manage. 44(3):426–447. doi:10.1006/jeem.2001.1215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howarth RB, Wilson MA. 2006. A Theoretical approach to deliberative valuation: aggregation by mutual consent. Land Econ. 82(1):1–16. doi:10.3368/le.82.1.1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett M, Lindquist E. 2007. Beyond formal policy analysis: governance context, analytical styles, and the policy analysis movement in canada. In: Policy analysis in canada: the state of the art. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; p. 86–115.
   Google Scholar
• Huszar PC. 1998. Overestimated benefits and underestimated costs: the case of the Paraguay—Paraná navigation study. Impact Assessment Project Appraisal. 16(4):295–304. doi:10.1080/14615517.1998.10600140.
   Google Scholar
• ICPGSIA. 2003. Principles and guidelines for social impact assessment in the USA. Impact Assessment Project Appraisal. 21(3): 231–250. doi:10.3152/147154603781766293.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs M. 1997. Environmental valuation, deliberative democracy and public decision-making institutions. In: Foster J, editor. Valuing nature? Economics, ethics and environment. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• James D. 1994. The application of economic techniques in environmental impact assessment. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers; p. 298.
   Google Scholar
• Joseph C. 2018. Teck Frontier Mine: Review of economic benefits and cost-benefit analysis. Submission to the Joint Review Panel of the Frontier Oil Sands Mining Project. Swift Creek Consulting; p. 66.
   Google Scholar
• Joseph C. 2013. Megaproject review in the megaprogram context: examining Alberta bitumen development. Doctor of Philosophy, Simon Fraser University; p. 507.
   Google Scholar
• Kammen DM, Pacca S. 2004. Assessing the costs of electricity. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 29(1):301–344. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105630.
   Google Scholar
• Kinnaman TC. 2011. The economic impact of shale gas extraction: A review of existing studies. Ecol Econ. 70(7):1243–1249. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.02.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knowler D. 2005. ‘Short cut’ techniques to incorporate environmental considerations into project appraisal: an exploration using case studies. J Environ Plann Manage. 48(5):747–770. doi:10.1080/09640560500183033.
   Google Scholar
• Kok R, Benders RMJ, Moll HC. 2006. Measuring the environmental load of household consumption using some methods based on input-output energy analysis: A comparison of methods and a discussion of results. Energy Policy. 34(17):2744–2761. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2005.04.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolosz B, Grant-Muller S. 2015. Extending cost–benefit analysis for the sustainability impact of inter-urban Intelligent Transport Systems. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 50:167–177. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2014.10.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laird FN. 1993. Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Sci Technol Human Values. 18(3):341. doi:10.1177/016224399301800305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lockie S, Franetovich M, Sharma S, Rolfe J. 2008. Democratisation versus engagement? Social and economic impact assessment and community participation in the coal mining industry of the Bowen Basin. Australia Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 26(3):177–187.
   Google Scholar
• Major DC, Frederick KD. 1997. Water resources planning and climate change assessment methods. Clim Change. 37(1):25–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005393109887.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manni LA, Runhaar HAC. 2014. The social efficiency of pay-as-you-throw schemes for municipal solid waste reduction: A cost-benefit analysis of four financial incentive schemes applied in Switzerland. J Environ Assessment Policy Manage. 16(1):1450001. doi:10.1142/S146433321450001X.
   Google Scholar
• Matthews WH. 1975. Objective and subjective judgements in environmental impact analysis. Environ Conserv. 2(2):121–131. doi:10.1017/S037689290000103X.
   Google Scholar
• McAllister DM. 1982. Evaluation in environmental planning. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. 352.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald G. 1990. Regional economic and social impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 10(1–2):25–36. doi:10.1016/0195-9255(90)90004-J.
   Google Scholar
• McLeod-Kilmurray HC, Smith G. 2010. Unsustainable development in canada: environmental assessment, cost-benefit analysis, and environmental justice in the tar sands. J Environ Law Pract. 21:65–105.
   Google Scholar
• Mohammed EY. 2009. Measuring the benefits of river quality improvement using the contingent valuation method: the case of the ping river, chiang mai, thailand. J Environ Assessment Policy Manage. 11(3):349–367. doi:10.1142/S1464333209003403.
   Google Scholar
• MVEIRB (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board). 2007. Socio-economic impact assessment guidelines. 104.
   Google Scholar
• Nardini A. 1997. A proposal for integrating environmental impact assessment, cost-benefit analysis and multicriteria analysis in decision-making. Project Appraisal. 12(3):173–184. doi:10.1080/02688867.1997.9727056.
   Google Scholar
• Nash C, Pearce D, Stanley J. 1975. Criteria for evaluating project evaluation techniques. J Am Inst Plann. 41(2):83–89. doi:10.1080/01944367508977522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Navrud S, Pruckner GJ. 1997. Environmental valuation – to use or not to use? A comparative study of the united states and europe. Environ Resour Econ. 10(1):1–26. doi:10.1023/A:1026449715284.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson RH. 2006. Valuing nature. Am J Econ Sociol. 65(3):525–557. doi:10.1111/j.1536-7150.2006.00465.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble B. 2014. Introduction to environmental impact assessment: a guide to principles and practice. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press; p. 360.
   Google Scholar
• Park PJ, Tahara K, Jeong IT, Lee KM. 2006. Comparison of four methods for integrating environmental and economic aspects in the end-of-life stage of a washing machine. Resour Conserv Recycl. 48(1):71–85. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.01.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearce DW. 1998. Cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy. Oxford Rev Econ Policy. 14(4):84–100. doi:10.1093/oxrep/14.4.84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearce DW, Atkinson G, Mourato S. 2006. Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Recent Developments, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
   Google Scholar
• Piper S. 2003. Estimating the regional economic impacts of retiring agricultural land: methodology and an application in California. Impact Assessment Project Appraisal. 21(4):293–302. doi:10.3152/147154603781766130.
   Google Scholar
• Prato T, Hamed M. 1999. Restoring natural habitats: economic impacts of the big muddy national fish and wildlife Refuge, Missouri USA. Impact Assessment Project Appraisal. 17(3):227–241. doi:10.3152/147154699781767765.
   Google Scholar
• Price C. 2000. Valuation of unpriced products: contingent valuation, cost-benefit analysis and participatory democracy. Land Use Policy. 17(3):187–196. doi:10.1016/S0264-8377(00)00020-X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revesz R, Livermore M. 2008. Retaking rationality: how cost benefit analysis can better protect the environment and our health. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roan PF, Martin WE. 1996. Optimal production and reclamation at a mine site with an ecosystem constraint. J Environ Econ Manage. 30(2):186–198. doi:10.1006/jeem.1996.0013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson SA, Blackwell BD, McFarlane JA. 2017. The viability of remote mining communities: insights from community perceptions and employment impact assessments. Impact Assessment Project Appraisal. 35(4):310–324. doi:10.1080/14615517.2017.1354640.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodrigo D. 2005. Regulatory impact analysis in OECD countries challenges for developing countries. Dhaka (Bangladesh): Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 33.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenhead J. 2005. Problem structuring methods as an aid to multiple-stakeholder evaluation. In:  D. Miller D, and Patassini D, editors. Beyond benefit cost analysis - accounting for non-market values in planning evaluation. Burlington (Vermont): Ashgate Publishing Company; p. 163–171.
   Google Scholar
• Sadar MH. 1996. Environmental impact assessment. 2nd ed. Ottawa (ON): Carleton University Press. 191pp.
   Google Scholar
• Sagoff M. 1988. The economy of the earth: philosophy, law, and the environment. New York: Cambridge University Press. 271pp.
   Google Scholar
• Sagoff M. 1998. Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: A look beyond contingent pricing. Ecol Econ. 24(2–3):213–230. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00144-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samset K. 2003. Project evaluation: making investments succeed. Trondheim (Norway): Tapir Academic Press. 233pp.
   Google Scholar
• Shaffer M. 2010. Multiple account benefit-cost analysis: a practical guide for the systematic evaluation of project and policy alternatives. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 152.
   Google Scholar
• Shaton K, Hervik A. 2018. Economic appraisal in the upstream gas transport sector. Impact Assessment Project Appraisal. 36(05):1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiftan Y, Shefer D. 2009. Evaluating the impact of transport projects: lessons for other disciplines. Eval Program Plann. 32(4):311–314. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.08.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinden A, Kysar DA, Driesen DM. 2009. Cost–benefit analysis: new foundations on shifting sand. Regul Governance. 3(1):48–71. doi:10.1111/j.1748-5991.2009.01044.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soderholm P, Sundqvist T. 2003. Pricing environmental externalities in the power sector: ethical limits and implications for social choice. Ecol Econ. 46(3):333–350. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00185-X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soumelis CG. 1977. Project evaluation methodologies and techniques. Paris: UNESCO. 137.
   Google Scholar
• Stirling A. 1997. Limits to the value of external costs. Energy Policy. 25(5):517–540. doi:10.1016/S0301-4215(97)00041-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tennøy A, Kværnner J, Gjerstad KI. 2006. Uncertainty in environmental impact assessment predictions: the need for better communication and more transparency. Impact Assessment Project Appraisal. 24(1):45–56. doi:10.3152/147154606781765345.
   Google Scholar
• Tiruta-Barna L, Benetto E, Perrodin Y. 2007. Environmental impact and risk assessment of mineral wastes reuse strategies: review and critical analysis of approaches and applications. Resour Conserv Recycl. 50(4):351–379. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2007.01.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vatn A. 2009. An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal. Ecol Econ. 68(8–9):2207–2215. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.04.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vatn A, Bromley DW. 1994. Choices without prices without apologies. J Environ Econ Manage. 26(2):129–148. doi:10.1006/jeem.1994.1008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vickerman R. 2007. Cost-benefit analysis and large-scale infrastructure projects: state of the art and challenges. Environ Plann B-Plann Des. 34(4):598–610. doi:10.1068/b32112.
   Google Scholar
• Vining AR, Boardman AE. 2007. The choice of formal policy analysis methods in Canada. In: Dobuzinskis AL, Howlett M, Laycock D, editors. Policy analysis in canada: the state of the. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; p. 48–85.
   Google Scholar
• Warner ML, Preston EH. 1974. A review of environmental impact assessment methodologies. Washington (DC): Government Printing Office. 27. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Weitzman ML. 1998. Why the far-distant future should be discounted at its lowest possible rate. J Environ Econ Manage. 36(3):201–208. doi:10.1006/jeem.1998.1052.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White D, VanLandingham G. 2015. Benefit-cost analysis in the states: status. Impact Challenges J Benefit Cost Anal. 6(2):369–399. doi:10.1017/bca.2015.39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams G. 2019. Future potential of economic impact assessment. Impact Assessment Project Appraisal. 1–6. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1684097.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood C. 2003. Environmental impact assessment: A comparative review. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall; p. 405.
   Google Scholar