Continuation rights, precautionary principle, and global change

Robert Farrow and Benoit Morel

Risk, Decision and Policy, 2001, vol. 6, issue 3, 145-155

Abstract: Implementing a Precautionary Principle can mean different things to different people. Policy analysts may believe that finding a quantitative approach to the Principle would remove ambiguity over fundamental issues. We demonstrate that one approach to quantifying the Precautionary Principle does not necessarily solve what we call the ‘continuation framing problem’. That problem is based in the competing perspectives of stakeholders when they view their own activity as the status quo and a change in that activity as causing irreversible costs. Even a shared analytic framework, here that of real options analysis, does not remove the need for political decisions about property rights in differing uses of the atmosphere.

Date: 2001
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:rdepol:v:6:y:2001:i:03:p:145-155_00

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Risk, Decision and Policy from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().