IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/marpmg/v33y2006i1p49-60.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Total oil spill costs and compensations

Author

Listed:
  • Xin Liu
  • Kai W. Wirtz

Abstract

Although counteracting environmental programmes and policies have been strengthened, large oil spills still occur at irregular intervals. The total oil spill costs and their compensations have attracted much interest from various parties, such as local stakeholders, and state and federal governments. This paper addresses five major cost categories whose aggregations are expected to cover the overall direct and indirect costs after the release of an oil spill. Among them, research costs should not be neglected, since they tend to be high if public attention has been drawn to the case. Through an examination of the relationship between the total oil spill costs and their admissible claims, we found that: 1. admissible claims do not cover the overall costs of the oil spill, and 2. admissible claims cannot be compensated in full in the case of large spills. Clearly, a sound oil spill contingency management aims to minimize both the environmental impacts of areas most at risk and the total oil spill costs. In this paper an economic model for measuring environmental damages following an oil spill is addressed and applied to the Prestige case which happened to be the worst oil pollution in the history of Spain. The model indicates how an ideally a priori economic evaluation may intuitively help managers to make informed as well as fast decisions in contingency cases.

Suggested Citation

  • Xin Liu & Kai W. Wirtz, 2006. "Total oil spill costs and compensations," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 49-60, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:marpmg:v:33:y:2006:i:1:p:49-60
    DOI: 10.1080/03088830500513352
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/03088830500513352
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/03088830500513352?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
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    2. Hanley, Nick & Shogren, Jason & White, Ben, 2013. "Introduction to Environmental Economics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780199568734.
    3. Richard Ready & Ståle Navrud & Brett Day & Richard Dubourg & Fernando Machado & Susana Mourato & Frank Spanninks & Maria Rodriquez, 2004. "Benefit Transfer in Europe: How Reliable Are Transfers between Countries?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(1), pages 67-82, September.
    4. Anne Rozan, 2004. "Benefit Transfer : A Comparison of WTP for Air Quality between France and Germany," Post-Print hal-00278980, HAL.
    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. Manuel Uche-Soria & Carlos Rodríguez-Monroy, 2019. "Solutions to Marine Pollution in Canary Islands’ Ports: Alternatives and Optimization of Energy Management," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Wenshuai Wu & Yi Peng, 2016. "Extension of grey relational analysis for facilitating group consensus to oil spill emergency management," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 238(1), pages 615-635, March.
    3. Wenshuai Wu & Yi Peng, 2016. "Extension of grey relational analysis for facilitating group consensus to oil spill emergency management," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 238(1), pages 615-635, March.
    4. Vanem, Erik & Endresen, Øyvind & Skjong, Rolf, 2008. "Cost-effectiveness criteria for marine oil spill preventive measures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 93(9), pages 1354-1368.
    5. Wirtz, Kai W. & Baumberger, Nick & Adam, Susanne & Liu, Xin, 2007. "Oil spill impact minimization under uncertainty: Evaluating contingency simulations of the Prestige accident," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 417-428, March.
    6. Knapp, S. & Heij, C., 2016. "Evaluation of total risk exposure and insurance premiums in the maritime industry," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI-1661, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    7. Di Vaio, Assunta & Varriale, Luisa & Trujillo, Lourdes, 2019. "Management Control Systems in port waste management: Evidence from Italy," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 127-135.
    8. Assunta Di Vaio & Luisa Varriale, 2018. "Management Innovation for Environmental Sustainability in Seaports: Managerial Accounting Instruments and Training for Competitive Green Ports beyond the Regulations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-35, March.

    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. Spash, Clive L. & Vatn, Arild, 2006. "Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 379-388, December.
    2. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Stanley, Tom D., 2006. "Measurement, generalization, and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 372-378, December.
    3. Black, Andrew & Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nick & Tinch, Dugald & Aftab, Ashar & Bergmann, E. Ariel, 2006. "Transferring the Benefits of Water Quality Enhancements in Small Catchments," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25790, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Brander, Luke M. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Kuik, Onno & Markandya, Anil & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D. & Schaafsma, Marije & Wagtendonk, Alfred, 2010. "Scaling up Ecosystem Services Values: Methodology, Applicability and a Case Study," Sustainable Development Papers 60689, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    5. Stephen Hynes & Daniel Norton & Nick Hanley, 2013. "Adjusting for Cultural Differences in International Benefit Transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(4), pages 499-519, December.
    6. Phaedra S. Corso & Justin B. Ingels & M. Isabel Roldos, 2013. "A Comparison of Willingness to Pay to Prevent Child Maltreatment Deaths in Ecuador and the United States," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, March.
    7. Genty, Aurélien, 2005. "Du concept à la fiabilité de la méthode du transfert en économie de l’environnement : un état de l’art," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 77.
    8. Colombo, Sergio & Calatrava-Requena, Javier & Conzalex-Roa, M.C., 2005. "Testing Choice Experiment for Benefit Transfer," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24747, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Tzipi Eshet & Mira Baron & Mordechai Shechter, 2007. "Exploring Benefit Transfer: Disamenities of Waste Transfer Stations," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(3), pages 521-547, July.
    10. Joko Mariyono, 2014. "Dead weight loss associated with economic efficiency use of pesticides in Indonesian rice production," Economic Journal of Emerging Markets, Universitas Islam Indonesia, vol. 6(2), pages 69-84, April.
    11. Hynes, Stephen & Norton, Daniel & Hanley, Nick, 2012. "Accounting for Cultural Dimensions in Estimating the Value of Coastal Zone Ecosystem Services using International Benefit Transfer," Working Papers 148828, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    12. Meya, Jasper N. & Drupp, Moritz A. & Hanley, Nick, 2021. "Testing structural benefit transfer: The role of income inequality," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    13. Elliott, Steven R., 2005. "Sustainability: an economic perspective," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 263-277.
    14. Kevin Boyle & Sapna Kaul & Ali Hashemi & Xiaoshu Li, 2015. "Applicability of benefit transfers for evaluation of homeland security counterterrorism measures," Chapters, in: Carol Mansfield & V. K. Smith (ed.), Benefit–Cost Analyses for Security Policies, chapter 10, pages 225-253, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. 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.
    16. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Romain Craste & Bengt Kriström & Pere Riera, 2014. "Non-market valuation in France: An overview of the research activity," Working Papers hal-01087365, HAL.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Ščasný, Milan & Máca, Vojtěch & Melichar, Jan & Rečka, Lukáš, 2015. "Kvantifikace environmentálních a zdravotních dopadů (externích nákladů) z povrchové těžby hnědého uhlí v Severočeské hnědouhelné pánvi v těžebních lokalitách velkolomů Bílina a ČSA a využití vydobytéh," MPRA Paper 66600, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Johnston, Robert J. & Duke, Joshua M., 2010. "Socioeconomic adjustments and choice experiment benefit function transfer: Evaluating the common wisdom," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 421-438, August.

    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:taf:marpmg:v:33:y:2006:i:1:p:49-60. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/TMPM20 .

    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.