IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/coecpo/v15y1997i4p88-97.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Whose Losses Count? Examining Some Claims About Aggregation Rules For Natural Resources Damages

Author

Listed:
  • ALAN RANDALL

Abstract

Compensation for natural resources damage may be provided, in principle, by a payment equal to the value of damage, a compensating restoration project, or partial restoration plus a compensating payment. Applicable laws have a pronounced tilt toward restoration. When determining the value of damage, no welfare‐economic reason exists to count as an offsetting benefit any utility enjoyed by rubberneckers; nor should damages be excluded when incurred by those unaware of the injury, those whose motivations are thought “non‐economic,” those who are resource‐loving passive users, or those who are parentalistic altruists. Money compensation required on behalf of nonparentalistic altruists drops to zero as active users are fully compensated. However, if (for whatever reason) active users cannot sustain a claim for full compensation, nonparentalistic altruists will suffer compensable losses.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:coecpo:v:15:y:1997:i:4:p:88-97
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1465-7287.1997.tb00492.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1997.tb00492.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1997.tb00492.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. McConnell, K. E., 1997. "Does Altruism Undermine Existence Value?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 22-37, January.
    2. Diamond, Peter, 1996. "Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 337-347, May.
    3. Goodspeed, Timothy J & Schwab, Robert M, 1993. "Public Economics and the Theory of Rationing," Public Finance = Finances publiques, , vol. 48(2), pages 225-242.
    4. Mark Sagoff, 1994. "Should Preferences Count?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 127-144.
    5. 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 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.
    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. 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.

    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. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489, December.
    3. Chilton, S. M. & Hutchinson, W. G., 2003. "A qualitative examination of how respondents in a contingent valuation study rationalise their WTP responses to an increase in the quantity of the environmental good," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 65-75, February.
    4. 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.
    5. Menon Martina & Perali Federico & Veronesi Marcella, 2017. "“Leaving No Child Behind:” Preferences for Social Inclusion and Altruism," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 17(3), pages 1-19, July.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Catherine Chambers & John Whitehead, 2003. "A Contingent Valuation Estimate of the Benefits of Wolves in Minnesota," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(2), pages 249-267, October.
    9. Simpson, R. David, 2002. "Definitions of Biodiversity and Measures of Its Value," RFF Working Paper Series dp-02-62, Resources for the Future.
    10. Mulderij, Lisanne S. & Hernández, José Ignacio & Mouter, Niek & Verkooijen, Kirsten T. & Wagemakers, Annemarie, 2021. "Citizen preferences regarding the public funding of projects promoting a healthy body weight among people with a low income," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    11. Bjorner, Thomas Bue & Hansen, L.G.Lars Garn & Russell, Clifford S., 2004. "Environmental labeling and consumers' choice--an empirical analysis of the effect of the Nordic Swan," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 411-434, May.
    12. Newbold, Stephen C. & Johnston, Robert J., 2020. "Valuing non-market valuation studies using meta-analysis: A demonstration using estimates of willingness-to-pay for water quality improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    13. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2011. "Do EPA Administrators Recommend Environmental Policies That Citizens Want?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(1), pages 60-74.
    14. 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.
    15. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2007. "Altruistic, egoistic and biospheric values in willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 807-814, September.
    16. Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael & Kopp, Raymond J. & Krosnick, Jon A. & Mitchell, Robert C. & Presser, Stanley & Ruud, Paul A. & Smith, V. Kerry & Conaway, Michael & Martin, Kerry, 1996. "Was the NOAA Panel Correct about Contingent Valuation?," Discussion Papers 10503, Resources for the Future.
    17. Gregory Poe & Richard Bishop, 1999. "Valuing the Incremental Benefits of Groundwater Protection when Exposure Levels are Known," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(3), pages 341-367, April.
    18. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    19. 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.
    20. Eggert, Håkan & Kataria, Mitesh & Lampi, Elina, 2018. "Difference in Preferences or Multiple Preference Orderings? Comparing Choices of Environmental Bureaucrats, Recreational Anglers, and the Public," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 131-141.

    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:88-97. 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-Blackwell Digital Licensing or Christopher F. Baum (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.