Skip to main content

Environmental Damage and Risk Assessment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Enterprise Risk Management Models

Part of the book series: Springer Texts in Business and Economics ((STBE))

  • 273 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. T. (2012). Contingent valuation: A practical alternative when prices aren’t available. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemen, R. T., & Reilly, T. (2001). Making Hard Decisions. Duxbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damigos, D. (2006). An overview of environmental valuation methods for the mining industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, 234–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Defancesco, E., Gatto, P., & Rosato, P. (2014). A ‘component-based’ approach to discounting for natural resource damage assessment. Ecological Economics, 99, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larichev, O. I. (1992). Cognitive validity in design of decision-aiding techniques. Journal of MultiCriteria Decision Analysis, 1(3), 127–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navrud and Pruckner (1997), op cit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D. L. (1996). Decision aids for selection problems. SpringerVerlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, G. R., & Kang, A. K. (2010). Compensatory restoration in a random utility model of recreation demand. Contemporary Economic Policy, 28(4), 453–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrolia, D. R., & Kim, T.-G. (2011). Contingent valuation with heterogeneous reasons for uncertainty. Resource and Energy Economics, 33, 515–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wen, Z., & Chen, J. (2008). A cost-benefit analysis for the economic growth in China. Ecological Economics, 65, 356–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zafonte, M., & Hamptom, S. (2007). Exploring welfare implications of resource equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments. Ecological Economics, 61, 134–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics