IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jageco/v52y2001i2p92-109.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating alternative “countermeasures” against food contamination resulting from nuclear accidents

Author

Listed:
  • Nick Hanley
  • Carol A. Salt
  • Mike Wilson
  • Meara Culligan‐Dunsmore

Abstract

Nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl have far reaching impacts on ecological systems. Likewise they have major implications for agricultural systems, since crops and livestock can become contaminated and rendered unfit for human consumption. A range of “countermeasures” exists, however, which can mitigate these impacts and allow food products to be saved. The CESER project has been concerned with the development of a system to assess the environmental side‐effects of such countermeasures. Estimates of the economic costs of these environmental side‐effects have been made for a number of case study sites in the UK, using environmental models and an original contingent valuation study. Estimates of farm level (private) costs are also included.

Suggested Citation

  • Nick Hanley & Carol A. Salt & Mike Wilson & Meara Culligan‐Dunsmore, 2001. "Evaluating alternative “countermeasures” against food contamination resulting from nuclear accidents," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 92-109, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jageco:v:52:y:2001:i:2:p:92-109
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2001.tb00927.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2001.tb00927.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2001.tb00927.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. Schulze, William D. & McClelland, Gary H. & Lazo, Jeffrey K. & Rowe, Robert D., 1998. "Embedding and calibration in measuring non-use values," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 163-178, June.
    2. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    3. Ribaudo, Marc O., 1986. "Reducing Soil Erosion: Offsite Benefits," Agricultural Economic Reports 308013, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. 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.
    5. Blomquist, Glenn C. & Whitehead, John C., 1998. "Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 179-196, June.
    6. Loomis, John B. & White, Douglas S., 1996. "Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 197-206, September.
    7. Dominic Moran, 1999. "Benefits Transfer and Low Flow Alleviation: What Lessons for Environmental Valuation in the UK?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(3), pages 425-436.
    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. Kwadwo Owusu & Paul W. K. Yankson & Alex B. Asiedu & Peter B. Obour, 2017. "Resource utilization conflict in downstream non‐resettled communities of the Bui Dam in Ghana," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 41(4), pages 234-243, November.
    2. Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Robert Wright, 2003. "Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 3-16, January.
    3. Alistair Munro, 2012. "Fukushima Dai-Ichi and the Economics of Nuclear Decontamination," GRIPS Discussion Papers 12-01, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies.

    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. Jette Jacobsen & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Are There Income Effects on Global Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(2), pages 137-160, June.
    2. Michael Brock & Grischa Perino & Robert Sugden, 2017. "The Warden Attitude: An Investigation of the Value of Interaction with Everyday Wildlife," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(1), pages 127-155, May.
    3. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    4. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Ran, Shenghong, 2006. "Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 430-441, May.
    5. 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.
    6. Rambonilaza, Mbolatiana, 2004. "Évaluation de la demande de paysage : état de l’art et réflexions sur la méthode du transfert des benefices," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 70.
    7. Lakhani, Raksha & Doluweera, Ganesh & Bergerson, Joule, 2014. "Internalizing land use impacts for life cycle cost analysis of energy systems: A case of California’s photovoltaic implementation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 253-259.
    8. José Miguel Sánchez U., 2013. "Contingent valuation and choice experiments applied to the Sierra Nevada National Park in Venezuela," Economía, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales (IIES). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales. Universidad de Los Andes. Mérida, Venezuela, vol. 38(35), pages 57-100, January-J.
    9. Joan Mogas & Pere Riera & Raul Brey, 2009. "Combining Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments. A Forestry Application in Spain," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(4), pages 535-551, August.
    10. Sundt, Swantje & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "Consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity: A meta-analysis of the literature," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-8.
    11. Christoph-Schulz, Inken & Weible, Daniela & Salamon, Petra, 2018. "Youths’ Preferences for Milk Products at School: How Product Attributes and Perceived Body Image Affect Choices," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 9(2), March.
    12. Oliver Froer, 2003. "Using Stated Preference Methods for Biodiversity Valuation. A critical analysis," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 217/2003, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    13. Longo, Alberto & Markandya, Anil & Petrucci, Marta, 2008. "The internalization of externalities in the production of electricity: Willingness to pay for the attributes of a policy for renewable energy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 140-152, August.
    14. Sayadi, Samir & Gonzalez Roa, M. Carmen & Calatrava Requena, Javier, 2005. "Ranking versus scale rating in conjoint analysis: Evaluating landscapes in mountainous regions in southeastern Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 539-550, December.
    15. Poe, Gregory L. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Bergstrom, John C., 2000. "A Meta Analysis Of Contingent Values For Groundwater Quality In The United States," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21871, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Antoni Riera Font, 2009. "Defining environmental attributes as external costs in choice experiments: A discussion," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2009/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    17. Xuan Thi Dan Huynh & Tien Dung Khong & Adam Loch & Huynh Viet Khai, 2023. "Solid waste management program in developing countries: contingent valuation methodology versus choice experiment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(11), pages 12395-12417, November.
    18. Haitao Yin, 2013. "Insurance Approach for Financing Extreme Climate Event Losses in China: A Status Analysis," EEPSEA Research Report rr2013035, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Mar 2013.
    19. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2015. "Information and visual attention in contingent valuation and choice modeling: field and eye-tracking experiments applied to reforestations in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 185-204.
    20. Niroomand, Naghmeh & Jenkins, Glenn P., 2018. "A comparison of stated preference methods for the valuation of improvement in road safety," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 138-149.

    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:jageco:v:52:y:2001:i:2:p:92-109. 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: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-857X .

    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.