Abstarct
Methods to assess and evaluate environmental damage are presented, to include cost-benefit analysis, contingent evaluation, conjoint analysis, and habitat equivalency analysis. Methods are demonstrated with risk management contexts.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
http://www.fairewinds.org/nuclear-energy-education/arnie-gundersen-and- helen-caldicott-discuss-the-fukushima-daiichi-meltdowns
Burlington, L. B. (2002). An update on implementation of natural resource damage assessment and restoration under OPA. Spill Science and Technology Bulletin, 7(1–2), 23–29.
Butler, J., & Olson, D. L. (1999). Comparison of Centroid and Simulation Approaches for Selection Sensitivity Analysis. Journal of Multicriteria Decision Analysis, 8(3), 146–161.
Carson, R. T. (2012). Contingent valuation: A practical alternative when prices aren’t available. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 27–42.
Clemen, R. T., & Reilly, T. (2001). Making Hard Decisions. Duxbury.
Damigos, D. (2006). An overview of environmental valuation methods for the mining industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, 234–247.
Defancesco, E., Gatto, P., & Rosato, P. (2014). A ‘component-based’ approach to discounting for natural resource damage assessment. Ecological Economics, 99, 1–9.
Dunford, R. W., Ginn, T. C., & Desvousges, W. H. (2004). The use of habitat equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments. Ecological Economics, 48, 49–70.
Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing Science, 54(4), 3–19.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.
Larichev, O. I. (1992). Cognitive validity in design of decision-aiding techniques. Journal of MultiCriteria Decision Analysis, 1(3), 127–138.
Lemly, A. D., & Skorupa, J. P. (2012). Wildlife and the coal waste policy debate: Proposed rules for coal waste disposal ignore lessons from 45 years of wildlife poisoning. Environmental Science and Technology, 46, 8595–8600.
Navrud, S., & Pruckner, G. J. (1997). Environmental valuation–To use or not to use? A comparative study of the United States and Europe. Environmental and Resource Economics, 10, 1–26.
Navrud and Pruckner (1997), op cit.
Olson, D. L. (1996). Decision aids for selection problems. SpringerVerlag.
Parsons, G. R., & Kang, A. K. (2010). Compensatory restoration in a random utility model of recreation demand. Contemporary Economic Policy, 28(4), 453–463.
Petrolia, D. R., & Kim, T.-G. (2011). Contingent valuation with heterogeneous reasons for uncertainty. Resource and Energy Economics, 33, 515–526.
Scotton, C. R., & Taylor, L. O. (2011). Valuing risk reductions: Incorporating risk heterogeneity into a revealed preference framework. Resource and Energy Economics, 33, 381–397.
Shin, J., Woo, J. R., Huh, S.-Y., Lee, J., & Jeong, G. (2014). Analyzing public preferences and increasing acceptability for the renewable portfolio standard in Korea. Energy Economics, 42, 17–26.
Smith, L. C., Jr., Smith, L. M., & Ashcroft, P. A. (2011). Analysis of environmental and economic damages from British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Albany Law Review, 74(1), 563–585.
Wen, Z., & Chen, J. (2008). A cost-benefit analysis for the economic growth in China. Ecological Economics, 65, 356–366.
Yang, T. (2015). Dynamic assessment of environmental damage based on the optimal clustering criterion–Taking oil spill damage to marine ecological environment as an example. Ecological Indicators, 51, 53–58.
Zafonte, M., & Hamptom, S. (2007). Exploring welfare implications of resource equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments. Ecological Economics, 61, 134–145.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Olson, D.L., Wu, D. (2023). Environmental Damage and Risk Assessment. In: Enterprise Risk Management Models. Springer Texts in Business and Economics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-68038-4_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-68038-4_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-68037-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-68038-4
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)