Abstract
When it is expected that different population levels will be associated with alternative land uses, cost—benefit analysts could adopt three treatments of benefit. (1) Only the benefit of population common to all land uses is considered. (2) The potential Pareto improvement criterion is adopted, requiring that gainers from any change can compensate losers. (3) Utility weights are used to interpret willingness-to-pay in terms of benefit. Despite the apparent feeling of economists that treatment (1) avoids difficult value judgements, all three treatments raise problems of ascribing preferences to the yet-unborn, and of estimating the total utility of life.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
