IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/earnsa/94330.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Medida de la compensación del daño ambiental en la Directiva de Responsabilidad Ambiental: lecciones aprendidas del caso Aznalcóllar-Doñana

Author

Listed:
  • Martin-Ortega, Julia
  • Brouwer, Roy
  • Aiking, Harry

Abstract

El daño ambiental producido por el vertido tóxico de 1998 en las inmediaciones del Parque de Doñana es analizado bajo la óptica de la nueva Directiva de Responsabilidad Ambiental (DRA), que obliga al operador de la actividad contaminadora a compensar por las pérdidas provisionales. El objetivo es analizar el papel de la valoración económica en la medida de la compensación en el marco de la DRA y extraer algunas lecciones para futuras aplicaciones. Los resultados apuntan a que los servicios proporcionados por el Corredor Verde realizado tras el accidente no han compensado el daño. Se pone de manifiesto la necesidad de profundizar en el análisis de valores de no uso, el control de las respuestas protesta y el planteamiento de escenarios de valoración específicos para las pérdidas provisionales.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin-Ortega, Julia & Brouwer, Roy & Aiking, Harry, 2010. "Medida de la compensación del daño ambiental en la Directiva de Responsabilidad Ambiental: lecciones aprendidas del caso Aznalcóllar-Doñana," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(01), pages 1-18.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:earnsa:94330
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.94330
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/94330/files/02%20Martin-Ortega.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.94330?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Georgiou, Stavros & Lake, Iain, 2006. "The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 450-460, December.
    2. Bradley Jorgensen & Geoffrey Syme & Brian Bishop & Blair Nancarrow, 1999. "Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(1), pages 131-150, July.
    3. Dunford, Richard W. & Ginn, Thomas C. & Desvousges, William H., 2004. "The use of habitat equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 49-70, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brouwer, Roy & Martín-Ortega, Julia, 2012. "Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 151-166.
    2. Ian Bateman & Amii Harwood & David Abson & Barnaby Andrews & Andrew Crowe & Steve Dugdale & Carlo Fezzi & Jo Foden & David Hadley & Roy Haines-Young & Mark Hulme & Andreas Kontoleon & Paul Munday & Un, 2014. "Economic Analysis for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis and Scenario Valuation of Changes in Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(2), pages 273-297, February.
    3. Lázaro-Touza, Lara & Atkinson, Giles, 2013. "Nature, roads or hospitals? An empirical evaluation of ‘sustainable development preferences’," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 63-72.
    4. Duke, Joshua M. & Dundas, Steven J. & Johnston, Robert J. & Messer, Kent D., 2014. "Prioritizing payment for environmental services: Using nonmarket benefits and costs for optimal selection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 319-329.
    5. Jae Kim & Seung-Nam Kim & Soogwan Doh, 2015. "The distance decay of willingness to pay and the spatial distribution of benefits and costs for the ecological restoration of an urban branch stream in Ulsan, South Korea," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 54(3), pages 835-853, May.
    6. Marjainé, Szerényi Zsuzsanna & Harangozó, Gábor, 2014. "Mennyit ér a zajterhelés csökkenése?. Zajvédelmi intézkedések értékelése a haszonértékelések átvitelével [The value of silence. An application of benefit-transfer methodology for evaluating noise-c," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 68-91.
    7. Reynaud, Arnaud & Lanzanova, Denis, 2017. "A Global Meta-Analysis of the Value of Ecosystem Services Provided by Lakes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 184-194.
    8. Maria A Cunha-e-Sa & Livia Madureira & Luis Catela Nunes & Vladimir Otrachshenko, 2010. "Protesting or justifying? A latent class model for contingent valuation with attitudinal data," Nova SBE Working Paper Series wp547, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Nova School of Business and Economics.
    9. Emmanuelle Quillérou & Rob Fraser, 2010. "Adverse Selection in the Environmental Stewardship Scheme: Does the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme Design Reduce Adverse Selection?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 369-380, June.
    10. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    11. Joffre Swait & Cristiano Franceschinis & Mara Thiene, 2020. "Antecedent Volition and Spatial Effects: Can Multiple Goal Pursuit Mitigate Distance Decay?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 243-270, February.
    12. Mark J. Koetse & Erik T. Verhoef & Luke M. Brander, 2017. "A generic marginal value function for natural areas," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 58(1), pages 159-179, January.
    13. Asha Rajvanshi, 2015. "Biodiversity Offsets: Incentivizing Conservation for Managing Business Impacts," Emerging Economy Studies, International Management Institute, vol. 1(1), pages 22-36, May.
    14. Giles Atkinson & Sian Morse-Jones & Susana Mourato & Allan Provins, 2012. "‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 497-523, April.
    15. Upton, Vincent & Ryan, Mary & O’Donoghue, Cathal, 2014. "A spatially explicit national demand model for forest recreation in Ireland," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 170791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    16. Wolfson, Dirk J., 2014. "Who gets what in environmental policy?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 8-14.
    17. Tuan, Tran Huu & Navrud, Stale, 2009. "Applying the dissonance-minimising format to value cultural heritage in developing countries," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 1-17.
    18. Paul Raschky & Reimund Schwarze & Manijeh Schwindt & Ferdinand Zahn, 2013. "Uncertainty of Governmental Relief and the Crowding out of Flood Insurance," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 179-200, February.
    19. Perni, Ángel & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Martínez-Paz, José Miguel, 2021. "Contingent valuation estimates for environmental goods: Validity and reliability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    20. Cole, Scott, 2012. "Equity over Efficiency: A Problem of Credibility in Scaling Resource-Based Compensatory?," CERE Working Papers 2012:12, CERE - the Center for Environmental and Resource Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:earnsa:94330. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.