IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v72y2011icp53-59.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using an adapted HEP to assess environmental cost

Author

Listed:
  • Dumax, Nathalie
  • Rozan, Anne

Abstract

The situation regarding the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services is now critical. Consequently, environmental targets have been determined and environmental legislations at every level tend to be more demanding. The result at local scale is that land planners have to take more rigorous account of the environmental damage stemming from their infrastructure development plans. Several economic valuation methods can be used to perform a monetary valuation of losses of natural areas. However, existing valuation methods have reached their limits when dealing with land planning in complex natural areas (i.e. unfamiliar goods). We propose to use a method based on the American Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) to assess the environmental cost of infrastructure development plans. The “adapted” HEP is an equivalence-based valuation method that bases the valuation of environmental cost on the environmental damage itself rather than willingness to pay. We find that compared to more conventional methods, the “adapted” HEP gives a higher value to lost environmental assets, which is rather promising.

Suggested Citation

  • Dumax, Nathalie & Rozan, Anne, 2011. "Using an adapted HEP to assess environmental cost," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 53-59.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:72:y:2011:i:c:p:53-59 DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091100396X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Buszko-Briggs, Malgorzata & Hanley, Nick, 2009. "Valuing changes in forest biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2910-2917, October.
    2. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    3. Olivier Beaumais & Dimitri Laroutis & Raja Chakir, 2008. "Conservation versus conversion des zones humides : une analyse comparative appliquée à l'estuaire de la Seine," Revue d'économie régionale et urbaine, Armand Colin, vol. 0(4), pages 565-590.
    4. Yang, Wu & Chang, Jie & Xu, Bin & Peng, Changhui & Ge, Ying, 2008. "Ecosystem service value assessment for constructed wetlands: A case study in Hangzhou, China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 116-125, December.
    5. Perry, Neil, 2010. "The ecological importance of species and the Noah's Ark problem," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 478-485, January.
    6. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    10. Konarska, Keri M. & Sutton, Paul C. & Castellon, Michael, 2002. "Evaluating scale dependence of ecosystem service valuation: a comparison of NOAA-AVHRR and Landsat TM datasets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 491-507, June.
    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. 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.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:72:y:2011:i:c:p:53-59. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.