The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Environmental Sustainability and Cost-Benefit Analysis
Abstract
Efforts to ‘operationalize’ a concept of sustainability into appraisal methods for practical decisionmaking have been few and generally unpersuasive. In this paper it is argued that this need not be the case if a set of environmentally compensating, or ‘shadow’, projects within an overall portfolio are used to ensure a sustainability objective of setting a constraint on the depletion and degradation of the stock of natural capital. This can be achieved through both a ‘weak’ and a ‘strong’ sustainability criterion. In both cases the resulting optimum differs from the efficient optimum of the conventional cost-benefit criterion, but the basic cost-benefit model remains intact.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
IUCN (1980) · doi:10.2305/iucn.ch.1980.9.en · Cited by 724
Cited by
Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement
Dietz, S., & Neumayer, E. (2007) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.007 · Cited by 494
Metadata
- Authors
- Barbier, E. B., Markandya, A., & Pearce, D. W.
- Venue
- Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1990-09
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1259-1266
- ISSN
- 0308-518X (ISSN-L)
- 1472-3409
- OpenAlex
- W1980808598
- Cited by
- 165
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 25.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Environmental Sustainability and Cost-Benefit Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1068/a221259
- The paper
- Barbier, E. B., Markandya, A., & Pearce, D. W. (1990). Environmental Sustainability and Cost-Benefit Analysis. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. https://doi.org/10.1068/a221259
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
