Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
J. Bergstrom, P. Civita (1999)
Status of Benefits Transfer in the United States and Canada: ReplyCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics-revue Canadienne D Agroeconomie, 49
D. Helton, T. Penn (1999)
Putting Response and Natural Resource Damage Costs in Perspective1, 1999
Nicholas Flores, J. Thacher (2002)
Money, Who Needs It? Natural Resource Damage AssessmentContemporary Economic Policy, 20
M. Mazzotta, J. Opaluch, T. Grigalunas (1994)
Natural Resource Damage Assessment: The Role of Resource RestorationNatural Resources Journal, 34
R. Unsworth, R. Bishop (1994)
Assessing natural resource damages using environmental annuitiesEcological Economics, 11
V. Smith (1992)
On separating defensible benefit transfers from “smoke and mirrors”Water Resources Research, 28
A. Randall (1997)
WHOSE LOSSES COUNT? EXAMINING SOME CLAIMS ABOUT AGGREGATION RULES FOR NATURAL RESOURCES DAMAGESContemporary Economic Policy, 15
W. Hanemann (1994)
Valuing the Environment through Contingent ValuationJournal of Economic Perspectives, 8
J. Loomis, D. White (1996)
Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysisEcological Economics, 18
G. Harrison, James Lesley (1996)
Must Contingent Valuation Surveys Cost So MuchJournal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31
T. Grigalunas, J. Opaluch, D. French, M. Reed (1988)
Measuring Damages to Marine Natural Resources from Pollution Incidents under CERCLA: Applications of an Integrated Ocean Systems/Economic ModelMarine Resource Economics, 5
(1968)
Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach
R. Dunford, F. Johnson, Emily West (1997)
WHOSE LOSSES COUNT IN NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGESContemporary Economic Policy, 15
D. Brookshire, David Scrogin (2000)
Reflections upon 25 Years of the Journal of Environmental Economics and ManagementJournal of Environmental Economics and Management, 39
L. Kaplow, S. Shavell (1993)
Accuracy in the Assessment of DamagesThe Journal of Law and Economics, 39
When natural resource damages are caused by releases of hazardous materials into the environment, government trustees must conduct Natural Resource Damage Assessments (NRDAs) to support claims to recover the value of lost or damaged resources. This article sets forth theoretical arguments that support efforts to develop unbiased simplified NRDA methods for use by government trustees and proposes a set of criteria that can be used to evaluate the quality of any such simplified method. The authors then describe the simplified methods being used by five states across the country, affording academic economists a rare view of the kinds of methods state agencies use in‐house. The article evaluates those methods against the criteria set forth and discusses the potential of other nonstate‐specific simplified NRDA methods (benefit transfer and Type A models) to do the job better. The new framework established can guide future research to design simplified methods that are less biased than the simplified methods currently in use by some states without compromising ease of implementation. (JEL Q5, K32)
Contemporary Economic Policy – Wiley
Published: Oct 1, 2004
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.