@article{Schilizzi:124547,
      recid = {124547},
      author = {Schilizzi, Steven},
      title = {Deciding between development and preservation of a natural  asset: a way out of the impasse?},
      address = {1999},
      number = {410-2016-25645},
      pages = {45},
      year = {1999},
      abstract = {Many environmental policy issues involve conflicts between  nature conservation and economic
development. The economic  rationale behind deciding among alternative options is  predicated on
some form of benefit-cost analysis (BCA). Key  issues to date have been non-market valuation,  the
effectiveness of the precautionary principle or safe  minimum standard, discounting, uncertainty,
and how the  decision making process implements BCA results. To date, no  satisfactory mechanism
seems to have been found that  reconciles conflicting interests with social welfare, the  Hicks-Kaldor
criterion falling short. This is because BCA  has been conceived of and implemented within a
technocratic  process, which impinges on all aspects of benefit-cost  definition and BCA results,
leading to economically  arbitrary and socially indeterminate outcomes. An  alternative model is
proposed, applied to discrete, partly  excludable, non-rival but congestible public goods. It is  based
on mechanism design theory, leading to a democratic,  rather than technocratic, social choice
mechanism. BCA and  optimal mechanism design are combined in a way that renews  provision and
distribution of information and revelation of  social preferences. The role of stated  preference
techniques, such as contingent valuation, is  radically redefined. The model is referred to an
Australian  case of mining in a National Park.},
      url = {http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/124547},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.124547},
}