Natural Resource Damage Assessment: Methods and Cases

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 3.2: Contingent Valuation Studies of Groundwater Values Location Cape Cod, MA Action evaluated Uses of water Protection from nitrates Drinking water Omitted health effects; included option values Dover, NH Increased water supply protection MI Protection from pesticides and nitrates Dougherty Increased water supply Co., GA protection from agricultural chemicals, nitrates and pesticides National Protection from landfill leachate GA Protection from nitrate contamination MA, NY, PA IN, NE, WA, Lower Susque- hanna Same as in above study Portage County, Wisconsin Portage County, Wisconsin Clark and Adam counties, Iowa Increased water supply protection (TCE contamination and diesel fuel) Protecting rural drinking water fro m contamination by agricultural chemical residues A filter that would reduce or completely eliminate nitrates from drinking water Groundwater protection program to ensure nitrate standard for drinking water after testing water Groundwater protection program to ensure nitrate standard for drinking water after testing water Delaying nitrate contamination of water supply by 10, 15 and 20 years and bequest values Current personal use values, option values and bequest values 67 Approximate WTP $1,623/HH/year to increase probability of supply from 0 to 1. $815/HH/year for a 25% reduction in risk Mean = $129/HH/year. Median = $40/HH/year. Reference Edwards, 1988 Shultz & Lindsay, 1990 Groundwater Rural: $43-46/HH/year. Caudill, Urban: $34-69/HH/year. 1992 Municipal public water Mean = $641/HH/year Sun, et. al., supplies and rural private wells; Included health effects 1992 Groundwater; Included health effects Drinking water; Included health effects Municipal public water supplies $84/HH/year McClelland et al., 1992 Public water: mean = $121/HH/year median = $66/HH/year Private water: mean = $149/HH/year median = $89/HH/year Jordan and Elnagheeb, 1993 Mean: $62/HH/year Powell, et. al., 1994 Drinking water Mean: $128-$639/HH/year Crutchfield et al., 1995 Municipal public water supplies; mentioned human health effects Private well drinking water quality Private well drinking water quality Private well drinking water quality WTP for safer water: $545- $661/HH/year (mean = $634). WTP for nitrate-free water: $580- $781/HH/year (mean = $654). $207/HH/year if subjective probability of exceeding nitrate standard is 0.5 and $516 if probability is one Crutchfield et al, 1997 Poe, 1998 $412/HH/year Poe and Bishop, 1999 $118/HH/year for 10 year delay $191/HH/year for 20 year delay NOTE: “HH” = household; WTP = willingness to pay. Values rounded off to the nearest dollar. Hurley, et al., 1999
Schultz and Lindsay (1990) estimated the willingness to pay for a hypothetical groundwater protection plan by households in Dover, New Hampshire. Dover was currently considering alternative plans to protect their groundwater supplies. Although Dover had not had any significant groundwater contamination incidents aside from some benzene contamination, neighboring towns had recent pollution problems involving toxic chemicals. Therefore, the study sought to quantify Dover’s willingness to pay for an increase in groundwater protection in comparison with the costs of the proposed protection policies, namely zoning near particular groundwater use areas. The payment vehicle was an annual increase in property taxes. They found that age of the respondent and the dollar amount of the bid presented to respondents had significant negative impacts on willingness to pay whereas income and land values had significant positive impacts. Other characteristics such as education and awareness of past water contamination did not have significant impacts on willingness to pay. In Michigan, Caudill (1992) estimated the option price of groundwater, or the maximum willingness to pay to remediate contamination from landfills to secure the option of using groundwater in the future. However, they did not specify the contaminants. Sun et al. (1992) estimated the benefits of protecting the currently “safe” groundwater from potential future contamination from agricultural chemicals in Dougherty County, Georgia. The groundwater in this area was considered safe at the time of the study by standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, due to the heavy use of pesticides and fertilizers in the area, groundwater in the study area was deemed at risk for contamination. This study sought to quantify the benefits of increased water supply protection measured in willingness to pay compared to the costs of new policies to reduce agricultural chemical use in the area. Groundwater provides the sole source of public and private water supplies in that county. The payment vehicle was a reduction in the amount of money available to spend on other goods and services. Income, own health concern, subjective contamination probability and probable length of future residence in the county had a significantly positive impact on willingness to pay whereas bid value and age had significant negative effects. McClelland et al. (1992) estimated nonuse values for groundwater. A review by EPA’s Science Advisory Board, however, concluded that the researchers did not develop reliable estimates of nonuse values for groundwater because they were unable to convey the characteristics of the resource, the nature of the contamination and the availability of substitutes to respondents successfully (Desvousges et. al., 1999). Powell et al. (1994) used the CV method to determine if households that received water from a municipal public water supply would be willing to pay for increased protection of their groundwater supply, and if so, how much. Respondents were selected from several towns in Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania. Some had past experience with water contamination, especially trichloroethylene (TCE), which is a volatile organic compound. The results of the mailed survey indicated that each household was willing to pay an average of $61.55 per year for an increase in water supply protection. They also found that willingness to pay increased $26.01 when the household had previous experience with water contamination. Willingness to pay also increased with income, perception of water supply safety, amount spent on bottled water and private water supply. Surprisingly, age and existence of children in the 68
Page 1 and 2:
WMRC Reports Waste Management and R
Page 3 and 4:
RR-108 Natural Resource Damage Asse
Page 5 and 6:
Acknowledgments Funding was provide
Page 7 and 8:
Chapter 1: Tables and Figures Table
Page 9 and 10:
staff of agencies that are just beg
Page 11 and 12:
All: 64 Nevada Division of Environm
Page 13 and 14:
Table 1.5 Number of Cases Settled b
Page 15 and 16:
Table 1.9 Number of Potentially Res
Page 17 and 18:
Table 1.14 Cost to Trustee of Perfo
Page 19 and 20:
Mean Settlement (million $) 90 80 7
Page 21 and 22: V. Conclusions Trustees have had re
Page 23 and 24: Appendix: Materials in Information-
Page 25 and 26: NRD: Natural resource damages. Guid
Page 27 and 28: Survey of State Natural Resource Da
Page 29 and 30: 19) Has this case been settled? (Ch
Page 31 and 32: I. Introduction Chapter 2 Simplifie
Page 33 and 34: Number of Spills 1,000 800 600 400
Page 35 and 36: damages not quantifiable at reasona
Page 37 and 38: (b) Columbia River Estuary: Bird, f
Page 39 and 40: Example of the Washington method in
Page 41 and 42: % of All Cases 35 30 25 20 15 10 5
Page 43 and 44: preventing excessive expenditures o
Page 45 and 46: Example of the Florida formula in u
Page 47 and 48: damages to natural resources at con
Page 49 and 50: discharge on receptors studied in t
Page 51 and 52: Information for this calculation is
Page 53 and 54: ased funding for the program was pr
Page 55 and 56: a spill occurs in a high income are
Page 57 and 58: References Cozine, M. H. 1999. “N
Page 59 and 60: Chapter 3: Tables and Figures Table
Page 61 and 62: This chapter will examine the exten
Page 63 and 64: Comprehensive Environmental Respons
Page 65 and 66: Output price P0 C D S0 is the suppl
Page 67 and 68: Travel-cost analysis can be used fo
Page 69 and 70: area B and computing willingness to
Page 71: Table 3.1: Summary of Studies Estim
Page 75 and 76: Table 3.3: Using Benefits Transfer
Page 77 and 78: Number of Cases 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Page 79 and 80: Table 3.4 Groundwater Case Studies
Page 81 and 82: and overall protection of the resou
Page 83 and 84: References Abdalla, C. W. 1991. “
Page 85 and 86: Nielson, E. G. and L.K. Lee. Octobe
Page 87 and 88: United States, adjoining shorelines
Page 89 and 90: Once there is a “release” of a
Page 91 and 92: 1997). Second, there can be no reco
Page 93 and 94: settlement of NRD claim prior to an
Page 95 and 96: egulations divide the assessment pr
Page 97 and 98: Damages: The trustees calculated th
Page 99 and 100: The State hired consultants (ARCADI
Page 101 and 102: C. Lake Barre/Texaco Site: The site
Page 103 and 104: would be inefficient and unnecessar
Page 105 and 106: Damages: The U.S. Coast Guard requi
Page 107 and 108: Creek and the cultural importance o
show all

Natural Resource Damage Assessment: Methods and Cases

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?