Natural Resource Damage Assessment: Methods and Cases

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Research Council study (NRC, 1997) concluded that it is hard to generalize about the validity or reliability of specific valuation approaches – the appropriateness of an approach depends on the valuation context and the groundwater services being valued. Different approaches may be needed to value different uses. The current empirical knowledge of the values of groundwater is fairly limited and is restricted to valuing a few uses such as the consumptive uses of drinking water. Indirect valuation methods (such as averting expenditure analysis, travel cost analysis, and hedonic price methods), when used correctly, can only estimate use values of groundwater. CV methods allow the estimation of the total value of groundwater. However, few if any, of the existing studies have met the stringent conditions set by the NOAA panel, to produce defensible estimates of nonuse values (NRC, 1997; Desvousges et al., 1999). The pervasiveness and magnitude of nonuse values for groundwater cannot be reliably ascertained from existing studies. Estimates of consumptive use value are more common and reliable, but may underestimate total value when groundwater has a strong connection with surface water and contamination will substantially alter surface water quality. Academic studies conducted thus far have focused on CV and averting expenditures methods. The results of these studies show that environmental values depend not only on the physical measures of the extent of contamination but also on the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the affected population. In practice, however, state agencies have relied primarily on compensation schedules, habitat equivalency analysis, and market price methods. These simplified methods disregard the characteristics and preferences of the affected population in estimating the value of damages. Alternative approaches that could be used for damage assessment while taking into account both the physical level of damages and characteristics of the affected population are benefits transfer methods. Benefits transfer and meta-analysis provide mechanisms which provide information about the benefits of groundwater quality without requiring analysts to gather extensive new data or conduct expensive and time consuming original studies. However, the quality of the benefits measures will depend on the quality of the original studies themselves and requires analysts to assume that individual preferences are the same at the new site and the site in the original study. Care needs to be taken before conducting a benefits transfer exercise to evaluate the quality and comprehensiveness of the published research and its suitability for obtaining estimates for a new site. Though appropriate for preliminary evaluations, benefits transfer may need to be supplemented with primary studies using new data when site-specific measures are required for determining compensation and liability for damages. 77
References Abdalla, C. W. 1991. “Measuring Economic Losses from Ground Water Contamination: An Investigation of Household Avoidance Costs.” Water Resources Bulletin 26(3): 451-63. Abdalla, C. W., B. A. Roach, and D. J. Epp. 1992. “Valuing Environmental Quality Changes Using Averting Expenditures: An Application to Groundwater Contamination.” Land Economics 68(2): 163-69. Abdalla, C.W. 1994. “Groundwater Values from Avoidance Cost Studies: Implications for Policy and Future Research.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76: 1062- 1067. Bergstron, J. C., K. J. Boyle, C. A. Job and M. J. Kealy. 1996. “Assessing the Economic Benefits of Groundwater for Environmental Policy Decisions.” Water Resources Bulletin 32(2): 279-291. Boyle, K. J. and J. C. Bergstrom. 1992. “Benefit Transfer Studies: Myths, Pragmatism and Idealism.” Water Resources Research 28(3): 657-64. Boyle, K. J., G. L. Poe and J. C. Bergstrom. 1994. “What do We Know about Groundwater Values? Preliminary Implications from a Meta Analysis of Contingent Valuation Studies.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76: 1055-1061. Collins, A. R. and S. Steinback. 1993. “Rural Household Response to Water Contamination in West Virginia.” Water Resource Bulletin 29: 199-209. Caudill, J. D. 1992. “The Valuation of Groundwater Pollution Policies: The Differential Impact of Prevention and Remediation.” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University. Crutchfield, S. R., J. C. Cooper and D. R. Hellerstein. 1997. Benefits of Safer Drinking Water: The Value of Nitrate Reduction. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report 752, Washington D.C. Crutchfield, S. R., P. M. Feather and D. R. Hellerstein. 1995. The Benefits of Protecting Rural Water Quality. Agricultural Economic Report 701. Washington DC: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Desvousges, W. H., R. W. Dunford, K.E. Mathews, C.L. Taylor and J. L. Teague. 1999. A Preliminary Economic Evaluation of New Jersey’s Proposed Groundwater Damage Assessment Process. Prepared for New Jersey Site Remediation Industry Network by Triangle Economic Research, Durham, NC. Diamond, P. A. and J. A. Hausman. 1994. “Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4): 45-64. 78
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 and 72: Table 3.1: Summary of Studies Estim
Page 73 and 74: Schultz and Lindsay (1990) estimate
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 overall protection of the resou
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?