IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/coecpo/v20y2002i2p171-178.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Money, Who Needs It? Natural Resource Damage Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas E. Flores
  • Jennifer Thacher

Abstract

A new natural resource damage assessment paradigm has been suggested that emphasizes direct analysis of compensatory restoration rather than analysis of compensating variation for damages. This article considers whether money can be avoided in damage assessment. The analysis of compensatory restoration leads to the conclusion that money should be considered when measuring preferences. Failure to consider money leaves trustees unable to judge the adequacy of compensatory restoration. The problem stems from heterogeneity over restoration scale. Copyright 2002 Western Economic Association International.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas E. Flores & Jennifer Thacher, 2002. "Money, Who Needs It? Natural Resource Damage Assessment," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 20(2), pages 171-178, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:coecpo:v:20:y:2002:i:2:p:171-178
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1093/cep/20.2.171
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alan Randall, 1997. "Whose Losses Count? Examining Some Claims About Aggregation Rules For Natural Resources Damages," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 15(4), pages 88-97, October.
    2. Brekke, Kjell Arne, 1997. "The numeraire matters in cost-benefit analysis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 117-123, April.
    3. Carol A. Jones & Katherine A. Pease, 1997. "Restoration-Based Compensation Measures In Natural Resource Liability Statutes," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 15(4), pages 111-122, October.
    4. Ian H. Langford & Ian J. Bateman & Andrew P. Jones & Hugh D. Langford & Stavros Georgiou, 1998. "Improved Estimation of Willingness to Pay in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(1), pages 65-75.
    5. Brownstone, David & Train, Kenneth, 1998. "Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 109-129, November.
    6. John B. Loomis, 2000. "Vertically Summing Public Good Demand Curves: An Empirical Comparison of Economic versus Political Jurisdictions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(2), pages 312-321.
    7. Unsworth, Robert E. & Bishop, Richard C., 1994. "Assessing natural resource damages using environmental annuities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 35-41, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kyriazi, Zacharoula & Lejano, Raul & Maes, Frank & Degraer, Steven, 2015. "Bargaining a net gain compensation agreement between a marine renewable energy developer and a marine protected area manager," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 40-48.
    2. Johansson, Per-Olov & Kriström, Bengt, 2012. "On a New Approach to Social Evaluations of Environmental Projects," CERE Working Papers 2012:4, CERE - the Center for Environmental and Resource Economics.
    3. Alvarez, Sergio & Larkin, Sherry L. & Whitehead, John C. & Haab, Timothy C., 2012. "Substitution, Damages, and Compensation for Anglers due to Oil Spills:The case of the Deepwater Horizon," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124779, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    5. Jessica Coria & Thomas Sterner, 2011. "Natural Resource Management: Challenges and Policy Options," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 3(1), pages 203-230, October.
    6. Pascal Gastineau & Emmanuelle Taugourdeau, 2012. "Which compensation for whom ?," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00768884, HAL.
    7. Caplan, Arthur & Grijalva, Therese & Jackson-Smith, Douglas, 2007. "Using choice question formats to determine compensable values: The case of a landfill-siting process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 834-846, February.
    8. 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.
    9. repec:eee:ecolec:v:143:y:2018:i:c:p:74-89 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Defrancesco, Edi & Gatto, Paola & Rosato, Paolo, 2014. "A ‘component-based’ approach to discounting for natural resource damage assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 1-9.
    11. Douglas J. MacNair & William H. Desvousges, 2007. "The Economics of Fish Consumption Advisories: Insights from Revealed and Stated Preference Data," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 600-616.
    12. George R. Parsons & Ami K. Kang, 2010. "Compensatory Restoration In A Random Utility Model Of Recreation Demand," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 28(4), pages 453-463, October.
    13. Pascal Gastineau & Emmanuelle Taugourdeau, 2013. "Compensating for environmental damages," EconomiX Working Papers 2013-21, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    14. Marc D. Davidson, 2017. "Equity and the Conservation of Global Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(3), pages 1-15, February.
    15. Gastineau, Pascal & Taugourdeau, Emmanuelle, 2014. "Compensating for environmental damages," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 150-161.
    16. 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.
    17. Amy W. Ando & Madhu Khanna, 2004. "Natural Resource Damage Assessment Methods: Lessons in Simplicity from State Trustees," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 22(4), pages 504-519, October.
    18. Zafonte, Matthew & Hampton, Steve, 2007. "Exploring welfare implications of resource equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 134-145, February.
    19. Roach, Brian & Wade, William W., 2006. "Policy evaluation of natural resource injuries using habitat equivalency analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 421-433, June.
    20. Kontogianni, Areti & Luck, Gary W. & Skourtos, Michalis, 2010. "Valuing ecosystem services on the basis of service-providing units: A potential approach to address the 'endpoint problem' and improve stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1479-1487, May.
    21. repec:hal:journl:halshs-00768884 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    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:bla:coecpo:v:20:y:2002:i:2:p:171-178. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/weaaaea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.