IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/coecpo/v22y2004i4p504-519.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Natural Resource Damage Assessment Methods: Lessons in Simplicity from State Trustees

Author

Listed:
  • Amy W. Ando
  • Madhu Khanna

Abstract

When natural resource damages are caused by releases of hazardous materials into the environment, government trustees must conduct Natural Resource Damage Assessments (NRDAs) to support claims to recover the value of lost or damaged resources. This article sets forth theoretical arguments that support efforts to develop unbiased simplified NRDA methods for use by government trustees and proposes a set of criteria that can be used to evaluate the quality of any such simplified method. The authors then describe the simplified methods being used by five states across the country, affording academic economists a rare view of the kinds of methods state agencies use in‐house. The article evaluates those methods against the criteria set forth and discusses the potential of other nonstate‐specific simplified NRDA methods (benefit transfer and Type A models) to do the job better. The new framework established can guide future research to design simplified methods that are less biased than the simplified methods currently in use by some states without compromising ease of implementation. (JEL Q5, K32)

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:coecpo:v:22:y:2004:i:4:p:504-519
    DOI: 10.1093/cep/byh037
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/cep/byh037
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1093/cep/byh037?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. 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. Gary S. Becker, 1974. "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach," NBER Chapters, in: Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, pages 1-54, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. John C. Bergstrom & Paul Civita, 1999. "Status of Benefits Transfer in the United States and Canada: A Review," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 47(1), pages 79-87, March.
    4. Kaplow, Louis & Shavell, Steven, 1996. "Accuracy in the Assessment of Damages," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(1), pages 191-210, April.
    5. Amy Whritenour Ando & Wallapak Polasub, 2006. "Envelope Backs or the Gold Standard? Choosing the Accuracy of Damage Assessment Methods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(3), pages 424-444.
    6. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    7. Richard W. Dunford & F. Reed Johnson & Emily S. West, 1997. "Whose Losses Count In Natural Resource Damages?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 15(4), pages 77-87, October.
    8. Brookshire, David S. & Scrogin, David O., 2000. "Reflections upon 25 Years of the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 249-263, May.
    9. 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.
    10. Loomis, John B. & White, Douglas S., 1996. "Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 197-206, September.
    11. Harrison, Glenn W. & Lesley, James C., 1996. "Must Contingent Valuation Surveys Cost So Much?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 79-95, July.
    12. John C. Bergstrom & Kevin J. Boyle & Gregory L. Poe (ed.), 2001. "The Economic Value of Water Quality," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1723, December.
    13. 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. Amy Ando & Wallapak Polasub, 2009. "The political economy of state-level adoption of natural resource damage programs," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 312-330, June.
    2. Amy Whritenour Ando & Wallapak Polasub, 2006. "Envelope Backs or the Gold Standard? Choosing the Accuracy of Damage Assessment Methods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(3), pages 424-444.
    3. Zhang, Lingye & Lu, Jing & Yang, Zaili, 2021. "Optimal scheduling of emergency resources for major maritime oil spills considering time-varying demand and transportation networks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(2), pages 529-546.
    4. Athanasios Kampas & Anna Vasilaki & Athanasios Petsakos & Angeliki Stefopoulou, 2013. "Irrigation Full Cost Assessment: The case of the Pinios Local Organization for Land Reclamation, Greece," Working Papers 2013-1, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    5. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    6. Mataria, Awad & Giacaman, Rita & Khatib, Rana & Moatti, Jean-Paul, 2006. "Impoverishment and patients' "willingness" and "ability" to pay for improving the quality of health care in Palestine: An assessment using the contingent valuation method," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 312-328, February.

    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. Amy Whritenour Ando & Wallapak Polasub, 2006. "Envelope Backs or the Gold Standard? Choosing the Accuracy of Damage Assessment Methods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(3), pages 424-444.
    2. 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.
    3. Bergstrom, John C. & Taylor, Laura O., 2006. "Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: Theory and practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 351-360, December.
    4. 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.
    5. John C. Whitehead & Timothy C. Haab & Ju‐Chin Huang, 1998. "Part‐Whole Bias in Contingent Valuation: Will Scope Effects Be Detected with Inexpensive Survey Methods?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 160-168, July.
    6. Joshua Schwartzstein & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "An Activity-Generating Theory of Regulation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(1), pages 1-38.
    7. Abbie A. Rogers & Fiona L. Dempster & Jacob I. Hawkins & Robert J. Johnston & Peter C. Boxall & John Rolfe & Marit E. Kragt & Michael P. Burton & David J. Pannell, 2019. "Valuing non-market economic impacts from natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 99(2), pages 1131-1161, November.
    8. Desvousges, William H. & Gard, Nicholas & Michael, Holly J. & Chance, Anne D., 2018. "Habitat and Resource Equivalency Analysis: A Critical Assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 74-89.
    9. Loomis, John B. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Reducing barriers in future benefit transfers: Needed improvements in primary study design and reporting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 343-350, December.
    10. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    11. Swinton, Scott M., 2004. "Assessing Economic Impacts Of Natural Resource Management Using Economic Surplus," Staff Paper Series 11668, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    12. Brander, Luke M. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Kuik, Onno & Markandya, Anil & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D. & Schaafsma, Marije & Wagtendonk, Alfred, 2010. "Scaling up Ecosystem Services Values: Methodology, Applicability and a Case Study," Sustainable Development Papers 60689, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    13. Ngugi, Daniel & Mullen, Jeffrey D. & Bergstrom, John C., 2008. "Land Use Change and Ecosystem Valuation in North Georgia," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6119, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Giovanni Immordino & Michele Polo, 2008. "Judicial Errors, Legal Standards and Innovative Activity," CSEF Working Papers 196, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy, revised 04 Jun 2010.
    15. Di Tella, Rafael & MacCulloch, Robert, 2008. "Gross national happiness as an answer to the Easterlin Paradox?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 22-42, April.
    16. Kathleen Segerson, 1997. "Government Regulation And Compensation: Implications For Environmental Quality And Natural Resource Use," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 15(4), pages 28-31, October.
    17. Jon Nelson & Peter Kennedy, 2009. "The Use (and Abuse) of Meta-Analysis in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: An Assessment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(3), pages 345-377, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Liu, Xuemin, 2008. "Valuing black-faced spoonbill conservation in Macao: A policy and contingent valuation study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 328-335, December.
    20. Van Houtven, George & Powers, John & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K., 2007. "Valuing water quality improvements in the United States using meta-analysis: Is the glass half-full or half-empty for national policy analysis?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 206-228, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • K32 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Energy, Environmental, Health, and Safety Law

    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:22:y:2004:i:4:p:504-519. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/weaaaea.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.