Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis

More options …

The need for multiple types of information to inform climate change assessment

Michael Toman
  • Corresponding author
  • Lead Economist, Development Research Group, World Bank, 1818 H St., NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2015-01-13 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jbca-2014-9005

Abstract

Many critics of economic analysis of climate change impacts and response options claim that information is needed on ecosystem characteristics as well as on economic values to fully inform decisions about how climate change affects human well-being. Information on the irreversibility of impacts also is important, critics argue, because it relates to how society evaluates implications for intergenerational equity. In addition, because climate change is subject to a large degree of Knightian uncertainty, it is useful to understand both the information available for assessing climate change risks, and how individuals themselves perceive and evaluate risks. The paper discusses rationales for using these types of information as important complements to benefit-cost analysis for evaluating climate change risks and responses. Ideally such information could be available in a “dashboard” for decision makers assessing social and economic impacts, although limits on currently available information are a significant barrier to using that approach.

Keywords: benefit-cost analysis; climate change; ecosystem valuation; intergenerational equity; safe minimum standard; sustainable development; uncertainty

References

  • Anthoff, D., Tol, R. S. J., & Yohe, G. W. (2009). Risk aversion, time preference, and the social cost of carbon. Environmental Research Letters, 4(2), 024002. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024002.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Batie, S. S. (2008). Wicked problems and applied economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(5), 1176–1191.Google Scholar

  • Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., Vaughan, N. E., & Lenton, T. M. (2013). “Opening up” geoengineering appraisal: Multi-Criteria Mapping of options for tackling climate change. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 926–937. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.011.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Berger, A., Brown, C., Kousky, C., & Zeckhauser, R. (2011). The challenge of degraded environments: How common biases impair effective policy. Risk Analysis, 31(9), 1423–1433. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01477.x.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bishop, R. C. (1978). Endangered species and uncertainty: The economics of a safe minimum standard. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 60(1), 10. doi:10.2307/1240156.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Böhringer, C., & Jochem, P. E. P. (2007). Measuring the immeasurable: A survey of sustainability indices. Ecological Economics, 63(1), 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.008.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V. (1952). Resources conservation: Economics and policies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

  • Ekins, P., Simon, S., Deutsch, L., Folke, C., & De Groot, R. (2003). A framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability. Ecological Economics, 44(2–3), 165–185.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fankhauser, S., Tol, R. S. J., & Pearce, D. W. (1997). The aggregation of climate change damages: A welfare theoretic approach. Environmental and Resource Economics, 10(3), 249–266. doi:10.1023/A:1026420425961.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fankhauser, S., Tol, R. S. J., & Pearce, D. W. (1998). Extensions and alternatives to climate change impact valuation: On the critique of IPCC Working Group III’s impact estimates. Environment and Development Economics, 3(01), 59–81. doi:10.1017/S1355770X98000047.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Faucheux, S., & Froger, G. (1995). Decision-making under environmental uncertainty. Ecological Economics, 15(1), 29–42. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(95)00018-5.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gerst, M. D., Howarth, R. B., & Borsuk, M. E. (2010). Accounting for the risk of extreme outcomes in an integrated assessment of climate change. Energy Policy, 38(8), 4540–4548. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.008.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gowdy, J. (2004). The revolution in welfare economics and its implications for environmental valuation and policy. Land Economics, 80(2), 239–257.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gowdy, J., & Manner, M. (2010). The evolution of social and moral behavior: Evolutionary insights for public policy. Ecological Economics, 69(4), 753–761. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.04.021.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gsottbauer, E., & Bergh, J. C. J. M. van den. (2011). Environmental policy theory given bounded rationality and other-regarding preferences. Environmental and Resource Economics, 49(2), 263–304. doi:10.1007/s10640-010-9433-y.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hammitt, J. K. (2013). Positive versus normative justifications for benefit-cost analysis: Implications for interpretation and policy. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 7(2), 199–218. doi:10.1093/reep/ret009.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hanley, N., & Barbier E. B. (2009). Pricing Nature: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

  • Howarth, R. B. (1997). Sustainability as opportunity. Land Economics, 73(4), 569. doi:10.2307/3147246.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Howarth, R. B. (2007). Towards an operational sustainability criterion. Ecological Economics, 63(4), 656–663. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.009.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Howarth, R. B., & Wilson, M. A. (2006). A theoretical approach to deliberative valuation: Aggregation by mutual consent. Land Economics, 82(1), 1–16.Google Scholar

  • IPCC. (2007). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (p. 104). Geneva, CH: IPCC.Google Scholar

  • IPCC. (2014). Summary for policymakers, in Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press: 1–32.Google Scholar

  • Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Library of Economics and Liberty. Retrieved from http://www.econlib.org/library/Knight/knRUP.html.

  • Kopits, E., Marten, A. L., & Wolverton, A. (2013). Moving forward with incorporating “catastrophic” climate change into policy analysis (Working Paper #2013-01). Washington, DC:.” National Center for Environment Economics. Retrieved from http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/WPNumber/2013-01?OpenDocument.

  • Kousky, C., Rostapshova, O., Toman, M., & Zeckhauser, R. (2009). Responding to threats of climate change mega-catastrophes. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Retrieved from http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/book/10.1596/1813-9450-5127.Crossref

  • Kunreuther, H., Heal, G., Allen, M., Edenhofer, O., Field, C. B., & Yohe, G. (2013). Risk management and climate change. Nature Climate Change, 3(5), 447–450. doi:10.1038/nclimate1740.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lempert, R. J., Groves, D. G., Popper, S. W., & Bankes, S. C. (2006). A general, analytic method for generating robust strategies and narrative scenarios. Management Science, 52(4), 514–528. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1050.0472.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lenton, T. M. (2011). Early warning of climate tipping points. Nature Climate Change, 1(4), 201–209. doi:10.1038/nclimate1143.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lenton, T. M., & Ciscar, J.-C. (2013). Integrating tipping points into climate impact assessments. Climatic Change, 117(3), 585–597. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0572-8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County almanac, and sketches here and there. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Masood, E. (1995). Developing countries dispute use of figures on climate change impacts. Nature, 376(6539), 374.Google Scholar

  • Nelson, J. A. (2013). Ethics and the economist: What climate change demands of us. Ecological Economics, 85, 145–154.Google Scholar

  • Neumann, J. E, & Strzepek, K. (2014). State of the literature on the economic impacts of climate change in the United States. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 5(3), 411–443.Google Scholar

  • Norton, B. G. (2005). Sustainability: A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Norton, B. G., & Noonan, D. S. (2007). Ecology and valuation: Big changes needed. Ecological Economics, 63, 664–675.Google Scholar

  • Norton, B. G., & Toman, M. A. (1997). Sustainability: ecological and economic perspectives. Land Economics, 73(4), 553. doi:10.2307/3147245.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pearce, D. W., Cline, W. R., Achanta, A. N., Fankhauser, S., Pachauri, R. K., Tol, R. S. J., & Vellinga, P. (1996). The social costs of climate change: Greenhouse damage and the benefits of control. In J. P. Bruce, H. Lee & E. F. Haites (Eds.), Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Pindyck, R. S. (2013). The climate policy dilemma. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 7(2), 219–237. doi:10.1093/reep/ret007.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ravallion, M. (2010). Mashup indices of development. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Retrieved from http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/book/10.1596/1813-9450-5432.Crossref

  • Sagoff, M. (2004). Price, principle, and the environment. Cambridge, UK; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S. R., Lenton, T. M., Bascompte, J., Brock, W., Dakos, V., & Vandermeer, J. (2012). Anticipating critical transitions. Science, 338(6105), 344–348. doi:10.1126/science.1225244.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Spash, C. L. (2008). Deliberative monetary valuation and the evidence for a new value theory. Land Economics, 84(3), 469–488. doi:10.3368/le.84.3.469.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Summers, L., & Zeckhauser, R. (2008). Policymaking for posterity. Springer Science and Business Media, 37, 115–140.Google Scholar

  • Sussman, F., Weaver, C., & Grambsch, (2014). Challenges in applying the paradigm of welfare economics to climate change. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 5(3), 347–376.Google Scholar

  • Toman, M. A. (1994). Economics and “sustainability”: Balancing trade-offs and imperatives. Land Economics, 70(4), 399–413.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Toman, M. A. (1999). Sustainable decision making: The state of the art. In M. O’Connor & C. Spash (Eds.), In Valuation and the Environment: Principles and Practices. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, Ltd.Google Scholar

  • U.S. EPA. (2014). Guidelines for preparing economic analyses. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0568-50.pdf/$file/EE-0568-50.pdf.

  • U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (2003). Circular A-4. Washington, DC: OMB. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4.

  • Van der Ploeg, F., & de Zeeuw, A. (2014). Climate tipping and economic growth: Precautionary saving and the social cost of carbon. Presented at the Fifth World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, Istanbul: Oxford Centre for the Analysis of Resource Rich Economies, University of Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Weyant, J. (2014). Integrated assessment of climate change: state of the literature. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 5(3), 377–409.Google Scholar

  • Woodward, R. T., & Bishop, R. C. (1997). How to decide when experts disagree: Uncertainty-based choice rules in environmental policy. Land Economics, 73(4), 492–507.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Yohe, G. (2009). Toward an integrated framework derived from a risk-management approach to climate change. Climatic Change, (95), 325–339.Google Scholar

  • Zeckhauser, R. J., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Overreaction to fearsome risks (Discussion Paper 2009-02). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Environmental Economics Program.Google Scholar

About the article

Corresponding author: Michael Toman, Lead Economist, Development Research Group, World Bank, 1818 H St., NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, e-mail:


Published Online: 2015-01-13

Published in Print: 2014-12-01


Citation Information: Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 469–485, ISSN (Online) 2152-2812, ISSN (Print) 2194-5888, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jbca-2014-9005.

Export Citation

©2014 by De Gruyter.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
John Weyant
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 2014, Volume 5, Number 03, Page 377
[2]
Robert J. Lempert
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 2014, Volume 5, Number 03, Page 487
[3]
Fran Sussman, Christopher P. Weaver, and Anne Grambsch
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 2014, Volume 5, Number 03, Page 347

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in