IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/perwir/v6y2005i1p23-39.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Die Monetarisierung ökologischer Schäden in einer europäischen Haftungsregelung: Anmerkungen zur Schadensbewertung angesichts der Erfahrungen in den USA

Author

Listed:
  • Axel Klaphake
  • Volkmar Hartje
  • Jürgen Meyerhoff

Abstract

Because the existing environmental liability regimes in Europe do not deal with environmental damage as such, e.g. damages to biodiversity, the European Commission has recently proposed a Directive on Environmental Liability. One crucial aspect of the design of the directive is whether the damage should be compensated in monetary terms or based on natural restoration and how the size of the damage should be calculated. The current proposal is mainly based on the US Oil Pollution Act (OPA), which largely abandoned the concept of monetary compensation. Instead, it relies on a resource‐based compensation and mainly measures the cost of compensatory restoration. This article discusses whether this is acceptable from an economic point of view or whether monetary valuation should be used to a larger extent.

Suggested Citation

  • Axel Klaphake & Volkmar Hartje & Jürgen Meyerhoff, 2005. "Die Monetarisierung ökologischer Schäden in einer europäischen Haftungsregelung: Anmerkungen zur Schadensbewertung angesichts der Erfahrungen in den USA," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 6(1), pages 23-39, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:perwir:v:6:y:2005:i:1:p:23-39
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1465-6493.2005.00166.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-6493.2005.00166.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1465-6493.2005.00166.x?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. Boyd, James, 2001. "Financial Assurance Rules and Natural Resource Damage Liability: A Working Marriage?," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-11, Resources for the Future.
    2. Franz Hackl & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2000. "Braucht die Deutsche Umweltpolitik einen Exxon Valdez Tankerunfall?," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 1(1), pages 93-114, February.
    3. Raymond J. Kopp & V. Kerry Smith, 1989. "Benefit estimation goes to court: The case of natural resource damage assessments," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(4), pages 593-612.
    4. repec:bla:perwir:v:1:y:2000:i:1:p:92-114 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Paul R. Portney, 1994. "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 3-17, Fall.
    6. 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)

    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. 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.
    2. Marc D. Davidson, 2017. "Equity and the Conservation of Global Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-15, February.
    3. Jones, Carol Adaire & DiPinto, Lisa, 2018. "The role of ecosystem services in USA natural resource liability litigation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 333-351.
    4. Michael Ahlheim & Ulrike Lehr, 2002. "Nutzentransfer: Das Sparmodell der Umweltbewertung," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 3(1), pages 85-104, February.
    5. Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann, & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert C. Mitchell & Stanley Presser & Paul A. Rudd & V. Kerry Smith & Michael Conaway & Kerry Martin, 1997. "Temporal Reliability of Estimates from Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 151-163.
    6. Medin, Hege & Nyborg, Karine & Bateman, Ian, 2001. "The assumption of equal marginal utility of income: how much does it matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 397-411, March.
    7. Rolfe, John & Prayaga, Prabha, 2006. "Estimating Values for Recreational Fishing at Freshwater Dams in Queensland," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 139896, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. G.D. Carnegie & P.W. Wolnizer, 1997. "The Financial Reporting of Publicly-owned Collections: Whither Financial (market) Values and Contingent Valuation Estimates?," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 7(13), pages 44-50, May.
    9. John B. Loomis, 2013. "Incorporating distributional issues into benefit–cost analysis: why, how, and two empirical examples using non-market valuation," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 9, pages 294-316, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. 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.
    11. Birol, Ekin & Karousakis, Katia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2006. "Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 145-156, November.
    12. A. Myrick Freeman III, 2002. "Environmental Policy Since Earth Day I: What Have We Gained?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 125-146, Winter.
    13. Clarke, Philip M., 1998. "Cost-benefit analysis and mammographic screening: a travel cost approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 767-787, December.
    14. repec:sae:envval:v:24:y:2015:i:3:p:271-298 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. John Whitehead & Richard Aiken, 2007. "Temporal reliability of willingness to pay from the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(6), pages 777-786.
    16. Snyder, Lori & Stavins, Robert & Wagner, Alexander, 2003. "Private Options to Use Public Goods: Exploiting Revealed Preferences to Estimate Environmental Benefits," Working Paper Series rwp03-013, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    17. Yamaguchi, Shinichi & Oshima, Hidetaka & Saso, Hiroaki & Aoki, Shihoko, 2020. "How Do People Value Data Utilization?: An Empirical Analysis Using Contingent Valuation Method in Japan," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    18. Entorf, Horst, 2013. "Der Wert der Sicherheit: Anmerkungen zur Ökonomie der Sicherheit [The value of safety: Some remarks on the economics of safety]," MPRA Paper 49692, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Isabel Mendes & Idalina Dias Sardinha & Sérgio Milheiras, 2013. "Methodological Issues for Estimating the Total Value of the Rehabilitation of Mining Fields: the Case of S. Domingo’s Mine," International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, vol. 3(4), pages 593-593.
    20. W. Kip Viscusi, 1996. "Economic Foundations of the Current Regulatory Reform Efforts," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 119-134, Summer.
    21. Ahmet Tolunay & Çağlar Başsüllü, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, March.

    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:perwir:v:6:y:2005:i:1:p:23-39. 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/vfsocea.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.