The Axford Debate Revisited: A Case Study Illustrating Different Approaches to the Aggregation of Benefits Data

Ian Bateman, Ian Langford, Naohito Nishikawa and Iain Lake

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2000, vol. 43, issue 2, 291-302

Abstract: Recent debate following the rejection of the Environment Agency case regarding an application for water abstraction at Axford on the River Kennet has focused upon the benefits procedure employed for aggregating non-user benefits which underpinned the economic case put forward by the Agency (although this was not the reason cited by the inquiry for rejection of the case). Commentators have seen this case as setting an unfortunate precedent for the use of economic assessments in such resource management issues. The paper presents a number of highly tractable alternative methods for the aggregation of benefits estimates designed to address the central problems of the definition of a relevant aggregation population and a potential decay of values with increasing distance from a given valuation site. These methods are tested using data obtained from a national survey of non-users of a specific natural area. Results from this application indicate that simpler approaches such as that used at the Axford inquiry may result in aggregate benefits estimates which are very substantially larger than those produced by our proposed alternative approaches to aggregation.

Date: 2000
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (31)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09640560010720 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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:taf:jenpmg:v:43:y:2000:i:2:p:291-302

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/CJEP20

DOI: 10.1080/09640560010720

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management is currently edited by Dr Neil Powe, Dr Ken Willis and George Bill Page

More articles in Journal of Environmental Planning and Management from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().