IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/coecpo/v15y1997i4p111-122.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Restoration‐Based Compensation Measures In Natural Resource Liability Statutes

Author

Listed:
  • CAROL A. JONES
  • KATHERINE A. PEASE

Abstract

In the past two decades, the U.S. Congress has passed several major environmental statutes that designate natural resource management agencies as trustees of the resources on behalf of the public and that allow the trustees to recover damages for injuries to public resources from releases of hazardous substances and discharges of oil. The standard measure of damages in the various statutes is the cost of restoring the resources to baseline conditions (“primary restoration”) plus the interim loss in alue from the time of the incident until full recovery from the injuries. However, trustees are allowed to spend their damage recoveries only on enhancing or creating (“restoring, rehabilitating, replacing or acquiring the equivalent of”) natural resources. The statutory restriction on the use of the recoveries has motivated the development of an alternative measure of damages for interim losses—the cost of “compensatory restoration” actions providing in‐kind compensation—which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) incorporated in its 1996 regulations implementing the natural resource liability provisions of the Oil Pollution Act (OPA). This analysis first identifies the statutory measure of damages and the traditional framing of damages for interim losses (monetary compensation). It then defines an alternative utility‐theoretic measure of resource compensation and identifies alter‐native methods of implementation.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:coecpo:v:15:y:1997:i:4:p:111-122
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1465-7287.1997.tb00494.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1997.tb00494.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1997.tb00494.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. John Mackenzie, 1993. "A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 593-603.
    2. Roe, Brian & Boyle, Kevin J. & Teisl, Mario F., 1996. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 145-159, September.
    3. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre & Boxall, Peter & Louviere, Jordan & Williams, Michael, 1997. "Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 65-84, January.
    4. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    5. Opaluch James J. & Swallow Stephen K. & Weaver Thomas & Wessells Christopher W. & Wichelns Dennis, 1993. "Evaluating Impacts from Noxious Facilities: Including Public Preferences in Current Siting Mechanisms," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 41-59, January.
    6. Gan, Christopher & Luzar, E. Jane, 1993. "A Conjoint Analysis of Waterfowl Hunting in Louisiana," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 36-45, December.
    7. Gan, Christopher E.C. & Luzar, E. Jane, 1993. "A Conjoint Analysis Of Waterfowl Hunting In Louisiana," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-10, December.
    8. Trudy Ann Cameron, 1992. "Combining Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Data for the Valuation of Nonmarket Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 302-317.
    9. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    10. 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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Berrens, Robert P. & McKee, Michael & Farmer, Michael C., 1999. "Incorporating distributional considerations in the safe minimum standard approach: endangered species and local impacts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 461-474, September.
    7. 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.
    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. Douglas J Bruggeman, 2015. "The Value of Learning about Natural History in Biodiversity Markets," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Brown, Thomas C. & Gregory, Robin, 1999. "Why the WTA-WTP disparity matters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 323-335, March.
    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. 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.
    14. Marc D. Davidson, 2017. "Equity and the Conservation of Global Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-15, February.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Duffield, John & Neher, Chris & Patterson, David, 2021. "Estimating compensation ratios for tribal resources within a habitat equivalency framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    18. Edward B. Barbier, 2013. "Valuing Ecosystem Services for Coastal Wetland Protection and Restoration: Progress and Challenges," Resources, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-18, August.

    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. F. Reed Johnson & Melissa Ruby Banzhaf & William H. Desvousges, 2000. "Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple‐format, stated‐preference approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 295-317, June.
    2. Haefele, Michelle A. & Loomis, John B., 1999. "A Comparison Of Conjoint Ratings And Rankings: An Application For Passive Use Values Of Forest Health," 1999 Annual Meeting, July 11-14, 1999, Fargo, ND 35729, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    3. Blamey, Russell K. & Gordon, Jenny & Chapman, Ross, 1999. "Choice modelling: assessing the environmental values of water supply options," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 43(3), pages 1-21, September.
    4. Johnson, F. Reed & Desvousges, William H., 1997. "Estimating Stated Preferences with Rated-Pair Data: Environmental, Health, and Employment Effects of Energy Programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 79-99, September.
    5. Mingie, James C. & Poudyal, Neelam C. & Bowker, J.M. & Mengak, Michael T. & Siry, Jacek P., 2017. "Big game hunter preferences for hunting club attributes: A choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 98-106.
    6. Stevens, T. H. & Belkner, R. & Dennis, D. & Kittredge, D. & Willis, C., 2000. "Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 63-74, January.
    7. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro & Ruiz-Gauna, Itziar & Campos, Pablo, 2016. "Testing convergent validity in choice experiments: Application to public recreation in Spanish stone pine and cork oak forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 130-148.
    8. Farber, Stephen & Griner, Brian, 2000. "Valuing watershed quality improvements using conjoint analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 63-76, July.
    9. Saelensminde, Kjartan, 2006. "Causes and consequences of lexicographic choices in stated choice studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 331-340, September.
    10. Harrison, R. Wes & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Fields, Deacue, 2001. "Theoretical And Empirical Considerations Of Eliciting Preferences And Model Estimation In Conjoint Analysis," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20680, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Swallow, Stephen K. & Opaluch, James J. & Weaver, Thomas F., 2001. "Strength-of-Preference Indicators and an Ordered-Response Model for Ordinarily Dichotomous, Discrete Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 70-93, January.
    12. Blamey, R. K. & Bennett, J. W. & Louviere, J. J. & Morrison, M. D. & Rolfe, J., 2000. "A test of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 269-286, February.
    13. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    14. Kjartan Sælensminde, 2002. "The Impact of Choice Inconsistencies in Stated Choice Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 403-420, December.
    15. David F. Layton & Gardner Brown & Mark L. Plummer, 1999. "Valuing Multiple Programs to Improve Fish Populations," Discussion Papers in Economics at the University of Washington 0042, Department of Economics at the University of Washington.
    16. Atallah, Shadi S. & Huang, Ju-Chin & Leahy, Jessica & Bennett, Karen, 2020. "Preference Heterogeneity and Neighborhood Effect in Invasive Species Control: The Case of Glossy Buckthorn in New Hampshire and Maine Forests," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304623, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri, 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy:A European Perspective," DEOS Working Papers 0801, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    19. Powe, N.A. & Garrod, G.D. & McMahon, P.L., 2005. "Mixing methods within stated preference environmental valuation: choice experiments and post-questionnaire qualitative analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 513-526, March.
    20. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.

    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:15:y:1997:i:4:p:111-122. 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.