Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Cost-Benefit Model for Evaluating Remediation Alternatives at Superfund Sites Incorporating the Value of Ecosystem Services

  • Chapter
Reclaiming the Land

  • 685 Accesses

Abstract

In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in response to a particularly unfortunate incident in the Love Canal area of Niagara Falls, New York, in which numerous schoolchildren were exposed to toxic chemicals from an abandoned waste disposal site. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was charged with establishing, administering, and enforcing policies and procedures through which the nation’s worst hazardous waste sites (i.e., those posing the greatest risks to human health) might be identified, remediated, and returned to productive use. Further, the Act established an endowment, nicknamed “Superfund,” to assist with cleanup costs and imposed substantial liability on owners, transporters, and generators of hazardous waste materials.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Arrow, K. R., R. Solow, P. Portney, E. E. Learner, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. 1993. “Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation.” Federal Register 58(10): 4602–4614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, I. J., and K. G. Willis, eds. 2001. Valuing Enviranmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU and Developing

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnani, S. J. 2002. Personal communication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannon, Jonathan Z. 2006. “Adaptive Management in Superfund: Thinking Like a Contaminated Site.” In Reclaiming the Land, Gregg P. Macey and Jonathan Z. Cannon, eds., 47–85. Amsterdam: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Champ, P. A., T. C. Brown, and K. J. Boyle, eds. 2004. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chichilnisky, G., and G. Heal. 1998. “Economic Returns from the Biosphere.” Nature 391 (12 February): 629–630.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clemen, R. T., and T. Reilly. 2001. Making Hard Decisions with Decision Tools. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Thomson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza, R. 2000. “Social Goals and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services.” Ecosystems 3:4–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, and B. Hannon. 1997. “The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital.” Nature 387:253–260.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, R. G., D. S. Brookshire, and W. D. Schulze. 1986. Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily, G. C, ed. 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Groot, R. S., M. A. Wilson, and R. M. J. Boumans. 2002. “A Typology for the Classification, Description and Valuation of Ecosystem Functions, Goods and Services.” Ecological Economics 41:393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolman, A. J., E. J. Moors, and J. A. Elbers. 2002. “The Carbon Uptake of a Mid-latitude Pine Forest Growing on Sandy Soil.” Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 111(3): 157–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E2 Inc. 2002. Superfund Benefits Analysis. Charlottesville, VA: E2 Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Serafy, S. 1998. “Pricing the Invaluable: The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital.” Ecological Economics 25:25–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Environment Canada. 2005. Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory. http://www.evri.ca/english.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farber, S. 1998. “Undesirable Facilities and Property Values: A Summary of Empirical Studies.” Ecological Economics 24:1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrow, S., and M. Toman. 1999. “Using Benefit-Cost Analysis to Improve Environmental Regulations.” Environment 41(2): 12–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, R. A., and R. M. Adams. 1997. “The Importance of Site-specific Information in the Design of Policies to Control Pollution.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33(3): 347–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, R. T. T., ed. 1979. Pine Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fountain, J. C. 1997. “Removal of Nonaqueous Phase Liquids Using Surfactants.” In Subsurface Restoration, C. H. Ward, J. A. Cherry, and M. R. Scalf, eds., 199–207. Chelsea, Michigan: Ann Arbor Press, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geschwind, S. A., J. A. J. Stolwijk, M. Bracken, E. Fitzgerald, A. Stark, and C. Olsen. 1992. “Risk of Congenital-Malformations Associated with Proximity to Hazardous-Waste Sites.” American Journal of Epidemiology 135(11): 1197–1207.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, B. K., L. A. Offenbach, T. T. Cable, and P. S. Cook. 1993. “Discrete-Continuous Contingent Valuation of Private Hunting Access in Kansas.” Journal of Environmental Management 39(1): 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goulder, L. H., and R. N. Stavins. 2002. “Discounting-An Eye on the Future.” Nature 419 (6908): 673–674.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gund Institute for Ecological Economics. 2005. The Ecovalue Project. University of Vermont. http://ecovalue.uvm.edu/evp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, J. T., and W. K. Viscusi. 1999. “How Costly is ‘Clean’? An Analysis of the Benefits and Costs of Superfund Site Remediations.” Journal of Analysis and Management 18(1): 2–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heal, G. 2000. “Valuing Ecosystem Services.” Ecosystems 3:24–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herendeen, R. A. 1998. Ecological Numeracy: Quantitative Analysis of Environmental Issues. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, C. H., and G. D. Konrad. 2001. “The Cost of Sequestering Carbon on Private Forest Lands.” Forest Policy and Economics 2(2): 133–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibbotson Associates. 2005. Stocks, Bonds, Bills and Inflation 2005 Yearbook. Chicago: Ibbotson Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. L., and C. T. De Rosa. 1997. “The Toxicologic Hazard of Superfund Hazardous Waste Sites.” Reviews on Environmental Health 12(4): 235–251.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. L., and C. T. De Rosa. 1999. “Public Health Implications.” Environmental Research 80:S246–S248.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. W., K. S. Redus, and D. J. Bjornstad. 2000. “The Consequences of Alternative Management Goals: A Non-linear Programming Analysis of Nuclear Weapons Legacy Clean-up at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.” Environmental Modeling and Assessment 5:1–17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L., and H. Raiffa. 1993. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiel, K., and J. Zabel. 2001. “Estimating the Economic Benefits of Cleaning Up Superfund Sites: The Case of Woburn, Massachusetts.” Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 22(2/3): 163–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange, D., and S. McNeil. 2004. “Clean It and They Will Come? Defining Successful Brownfield Development.” Journal of Urban Planning and Development 130: 101–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lybarger, J. A., R. Lee, D. P. Vogt, R. M. Perhac, Jr., R. F. Spengler, and D. R. Brown. 1998. “Medical Costs and Lost Productivity from Health Conditions at Volatile Organic Compound-Contaminated Superfund Sites.” Environmental Research 79: 9–19.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McCluskey, J. J., and G. C. Rausser. 2003. “Stigmatized Asset Value: Is It Temporary or Long-term?” Review of Economics and Statistics 85(2): 276–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Means Company, R. S. See R. S. Means Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merkhofer, M. W., R. Conway, and R. G. Anderson. 1997. “Multiattribute Utility Analysis as a Framework for Public Participation in Siting a Hazardous Waste Management Facility.” Environmental Management 21(6): 831–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, P. B., and T. S. Lyons. 2000. “Lessons from Private Sector Brownfield Redevelopers: Planning Public Support for Urban Regeneration.” Journal of the American Planning Association 66(1): 46–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, M. G., and M. Henrion. 1990. “Analytical A Software Tool for Uncertainty Analysis and Model Communication.” In Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty, 257–286. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. 1999. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. 2005. Valuing Ecosystem Services. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neill, P. 2002. Personal communication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, R. G., and R. N. Stavins. 2000. “Climate Change and Forest Sinks: Factors Affecting the Costs of Carbon Sequestration.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 40(3): 211–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, D. W. 1998. “Auditing the Earth: The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital.” Environment 40(2): 23–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, D. W., and R. K. Turner. 1990. Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Probst, K. N., D. Fullerton, R. E. Litan, and P. R. Portney. 1995. Footing the Bill for Superfund Cleanups: Who Pays and How? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution and Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Probst, K. N., D. M. Konisky, R. Hersh, M. B. Batz, and K. D. Walker. 2001. Superfund’s Future: What Will It Cost? Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Probst, K. N., and D. Sherman. 2004. Success for Superfund: A New Approach for Keeping Score. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. S. Means Company. 2002a. Environmental Remediation Cost Data-Assemblies (8th ed.). Kingston, MA: R. S. Means Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. S. Means Company. 2002b. Environmental Remediation Cost Data-Unit Price (8th ed.). Kingston, MA: R. S. Means Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabl, A. 1996. “Discounting of Long-term Costs: What Would Future Generations Prefer Us to Do?” Ecological Economics 17(3): 137–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rausser, G. C, L. K. Simon, and J. H. Zhao. 1998. “Information Asymmetries, Uncertainties, and Cleanup Delays at Superfund Sites.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 35(1): 48–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sagoff, M. 1997. “Can We Put a Price on Nature’s Services?” Philosophy and Public Policy 17(3): 13–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salzman, J., B. H. Thompson, Jr., and G. C. Daily. 2001. “Protecting Ecosystem Services: Science, Economics, and Law.” Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20:309–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, K. 1993. “EPA’s Superfund at 13: Stains on the White Hat.” New York Times, 6 September, 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smedes, H. W., N. Spycher, and R. L. Allen. 1993. “Case History of One of the Few Successful Superfund Remediation Sites: A Site at Salinas, California, USA.” Engineering Geology 34(3/4): 189–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sosniak, W. A., W. E. Kaye, and T. M. Gomez. 1994. “Data Linkage to Explore the Risk of Low-Birth-Weight Associated with Maternal Proximity to Hazardous-Waste Sites from the National-Priorities List.” Archives of Environmental Health 49(4): 251–255.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Toland, R. J., J. M. Kloeber, Jr., and J. A. Jackson. 1998. “A Comparative Analysis of Hazardous Waste Remediation Alternatives.” Interfaces 28(5): 70–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toman, M. 1998. “Why Not to Calculate the Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital.” Ecological Economics 25:57–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USEPA. 1994. Common Cleanup Methods at Superfund Sites (No. EPA 540/R-94/043). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • USEPA. 1999. NPL Site Narrative for Emmell’s Septic Landfill. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/narl549.htm (accessed September 19, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • USEPA. 2003. Reusing Superfund Sites. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pdfs/reusingsites.pdf (accessed September 19, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • USEPA. 2004. Superfund: Building on the Past, Looking to the Future. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/120day/pdfs/study/120daystudy.pdf (accessed September 19, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • USEPA. 2005. Superfund Budget History. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/budgethistory.htm (accessed September 19, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi, W. K., and J. T. Hamilton. 1999. “Are Regulators Rational? Evidence from Hazardous Waste Cleanup Decisions.” American Economic Review 89:1010–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi, W. K., J. T. Hamilton, and P. C. Dockins. 1997. “Conservative versus Mean Risk Assessments: Implications for Superfund Policies.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34(3): 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis, K. G. 1989. “Option Value and Nonuser Benefits of Wildlife Conservation.” Journal of Rural Studies 5(3): 245–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of the Environment, Duke University Nicholas, USA

    Melissa Kenney

  2. McIntire School of Commerce, University of Virginia, USA

    Mark White

Authors
  1. Melissa Kenney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urban and Environmental Planning, University of Virginia, USA

    Gregg P. Macey

  2. University of Virginia School of Law, USA

    Jonathan Z. Cannon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kenney, M., White, M. (2007). A Cost-Benefit Model for Evaluating Remediation Alternatives at Superfund Sites Incorporating the Value of Ecosystem Services. In: Macey, G.P., Cannon, J.Z. (eds) Reclaiming the Land. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-48857-8_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation