Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 44, Issue 4, pp 537–553 | Cite as

Economic Valuation of Environmental Damages due to the Prestige Oil Spill in Spain

  • Maria L. Loureiro
  • John B. Loomis
  • Maria Xosé Vázquez


This paper presents a parametric and non-parametric analysis of data from a contingent valuation study (CVM) conducted to estimate environmental use and passive use losses due to the Prestige oil spill. This is the first CVM study conducted in Europe after a large oil spill. The CVM survey was implemented using in person interviews. Mean willingness to pay (WTP) values were computed with both, a parametric and non-parametric approach. Parametric WTP estimation indicates that respondents in the sample are willing to pay about 40.51 € per household to avoid a similar future oil spill in Spain. This implies that on average, the Spanish society places a value of the environmental losses caused by the Prestige oil spill around 574 € million. Non-parametric estimates are slightly higher at 58.08 € per household. WTP results are similar to those obtained in the Exxon Valdez study.


Contingent valuation Wildlife losses Oil spills Passive use value 

JEL Classification

Q51 Q53 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer E, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel of contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58: 104602–104614Google Scholar
  2. Carson RT, Mitchell RC, Hanemann WM, Koop RJ, Presser S, Ruud PA (1992) A contingent valuation study of lost passive use values resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. A Report to the Attorney General of the State of Alaska, November 10Google Scholar
  3. Carson RT, Wilks L, Imber D (1994) Valuing the preservation of Australia’s Kakadu conservation zone. Oxford Econ Pap 46: 727–749Google Scholar
  4. Carson RT, Mitchell RC, Hanemann M, Koop RJ, Presser S, Ruud PA (2003) Contingent valuation and lost passive value: damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environ Resour Econ 25: 257–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carson RT, Conaway MB, Hanemann WM, Krosnick JA, Mitchell RC, Presser S (2004) Valuing oil spill prevention: a case study of California’s central coast. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  6. Champ P, Bishop R, Brown T, McCollum D (1997) Using donation mechanisms to value non-use benefits from public goods. J Environ Econ Manag 33: 151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cummings R, Taylor L (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89: 649–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grigalunas T, Anderson R, Brown G, Congar R, Meade N, Sorensen P (1986) Estimating the cost of oil spills: lessons from the Amoco Cadiz incident. Mar Resour Econ 2(3): 239–262Google Scholar
  9. Garza Gil MD, Prada-Blanco A, Vázquez MX (2006) Estimating the short-term economic damages from the Prestige oil spill in the Galician fisheries and tourism. Ecol Econ 58: 842–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haab T, McConnell K (1997) Referendum models and negative willingness to pay: alternative solutions. J Environ Econ Manag 32: 251–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hanemann M (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66(3): 332–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hutchinson G, Scarpa R, Chilton S, McCallion T (2001) Parametric and non-parametric estimates of willingness to pay for forest recreation in Northern Ireland: a discrete choice contingent valuation study with follow-ups. J Agric Econ 52(1): 104–122Google Scholar
  13. INE (2001) Censo de Población y Viviendas. Available in http://www.ine.es/censo/es
  14. INE (2005) Padrón Municipal. Available in http://www.ine.es/inebase
  15. Kriström B (1990) A non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies. Land Econ 66: 135–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Little J, Berrens R (2004) Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: further investigation using meta-analysis. Econ Bull 3(6): 1–13Google Scholar
  17. Loomis J (1988) Broadening the concept and measurement of existence value. Northeast J Agric Resour Econ 17(1): 23–29Google Scholar
  18. Loureiro ML, Ribas A, López E, Ojea E (2006) Estimated costs and admissible claims linked to the Prestige oil spill. Ecol Econ 59(1): 48–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2009) Purchasing Power Parities for GDP. Available at http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/Index.aspx?datasetcode=SNA_TABLE4
  20. Turnbull BW (1976) The empirical distribution function with arbitrarily grouped, censored and truncated data. J R Stat Soc Ser B 38: 290–295Google Scholar
  21. Van Biervliet K, Le Roy D, Nunes PALD (2005) A contingent valuation study on accidental oil spill along the Belgian coast. In: Maes F(eds) Marine resource damage assessment liability and compensation for environmental damages. Springer, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria L. Loureiro
    • 1
  • John B. Loomis
    • 2
  • Maria Xosé Vázquez
    • 3
  1. 1.Departamento de Fundamentos da Análise EconómicaUniversidade de Santiago de CompostelaSantiago de CompostelaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  3. 3.Departamento de Economía AplicadaUniversidade de VigoVigoSpain

Personalised recommendations