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. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Koundouri, Phoebe & Roseta-Palma, Catarina & Englezos, Nikolaos, 2017. "Out of Sight, Not Out of Mind: Developments in Economic Models of Groundwater Management," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 11(1), pages 55-96, October.
    9. Jean-Daniel Rinaudo & Stéphanie Aulong, 2014. "Defining Groundwater Remediation Objectives with Cost-benefit Analysis: Does It Work?," Post-Print hal-00934930, HAL.
    10. Tonin, Stefania, 2018. "Citizens’ perspectives on marine protected areas as a governance strategy to effectively preserve marine ecosystem services and biodiversity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 189-200.
    11. Pascal Gastineau & Emmanuelle Taugourdeau, 2012. "Which compensation for whom?," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 12080, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    12. Hermine Vedogbeton & Robert J. Johnston, 2020. "Commodity Consistent Meta-Analysis of Wetland Values: An Illustration for Coastal Marsh Habitat," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(4), pages 835-865, April.
    13. Desbureaux, Sébastien & Brimont, Laura, 2015. "Between economic loss and social identity: The multi-dimensional cost of avoiding deforestation in Eastern Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 10-20.
    14. Wilson, Jeffrey J. & Lantz, Van A. & MacLean, David A., 2010. "A benefit-cost analysis of establishing protected natural areas in New Brunswick, Canada," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 94-103, February.
    15. Grischa Perino & Barnaby Andrews & Andreas Kontoleon & Ian Bateman, 2014. "The Value of Urban Green Space in Britain: A Methodological Framework for Spatially Referenced Benefit Transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(2), pages 251-272, February.
    16. 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.
    17. Loureiro, Maria L. & Ribas, Alfonso & Lopez, Edelmiro & Ojea, Elena, 2006. "Estimated costs and admissible claims linked to the Prestige oil spill," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 48-63, August.
    18. Schläpfer, Felix, 2016. "Democratic valuation (DV): Using majority voting principles to value public services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 36-42.
    19. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2015. "Spatial issues arising from a value transfer exercise for environmental quality of marine waters," 150th Seminar, October 22-23, 2015, Edinburgh, Scotland 212663, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill & Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Mazur, Kasia, 2013. "Calibration of values in benefit transfer to account for variations in geographic scale and scope: Comparing two choice modelling experiments," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152176, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    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.