The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit Cost Test
Abstract
Making the Environment Count brings together, in one accessible volume, an outstanding selection of Alan Randall’s essays published over the past 30 years. It explores ideas on making the environment count from a conceptual perspective and addresses a range of topics pertinent to the study of environmental economics including:
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
Cited by
Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?
Diamond, P. A., & Hausman, J. A. (1994) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.8.4.45 · Cited by 1,894
Valuing the Environment Through Contingent Valuation
Hanemann, W. M. (1994) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.8.4.19 · Cited by 1,640
Loomis, J., Kent, P., Strange, L., Fausch, K., & Covich, A. (2000) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/s0921-8009(99)00131-7 · Cited by 789
Many objective robust decision making for complex environmental systems undergoing change
Kasprzyk, J. R., Nataraj, S., Reed, P. M., & Lempert, R. J. (2013) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.12.007 · Cited by 508
Metadata
- Authors
- Hoehn, J. P., & Randall, A.
- Venue
- Making the Environment Count
- Publisher
- Edward Elgar Publishing
- Published
- 1999-08-26
- Pages
- 60-68
- OpenAlex
- W1575147782
- Cited by
- 221
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 89.30
- Type
- book chapter
- 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: Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit Cost Test. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4337/9781035303946.00014
- The paper
- Hoehn, J. P., & Randall, A. (1999). Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit Cost Test. Making the Environment Count. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035303946.00014
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.
