Advertisement

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

  • Melissa Kenney
  • Mark White

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.

Keywords

Ecosystem Service Discount Rate Contingent Valuation External Cost Superfund Site 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Bonnani, S. J. 2002. Personal communication.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Champ, P. A., T. C. Brown, and K. J. Boyle, eds. 2004. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Chichilnisky, G., and G. Heal. 1998. “Economic Returns from the Biosphere.” Nature 391 (12 February): 629–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clemen, R. T., and T. Reilly. 2001. Making Hard Decisions with Decision Tools. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  8. Costanza, R. 2000. “Social Goals and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services.” Ecosystems 3:4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Daily, G. C, ed. 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. E2 Inc. 2002. Superfund Benefits Analysis. Charlottesville, VA: E2 Inc.Google Scholar
  15. El Serafy, S. 1998. “Pricing the Invaluable: The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital.” Ecological Economics 25:25–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Environment Canada. 2005. Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory. http://www.evri.ca/english.Google Scholar
  17. Farber, S. 1998. “Undesirable Facilities and Property Values: A Summary of Empirical Studies.” Ecological Economics 24:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Farrow, S., and M. Toman. 1999. “Using Benefit-Cost Analysis to Improve Environmental Regulations.” Environment 41(2): 12–21.Google Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Forman, R. T. T., ed. 1979. Pine Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goulder, L. H., and R. N. Stavins. 2002. “Discounting-An Eye on the Future.” Nature 419 (6908): 673–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gund Institute for Ecological Economics. 2005. The Ecovalue Project. University of Vermont. http://ecovalue.uvm.edu/evp.Google Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heal, G. 2000. “Valuing Ecosystem Services.” Ecosystems 3:24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Herendeen, R. A. 1998. Ecological Numeracy: Quantitative Analysis of Environmental Issues. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ibbotson Associates. 2005. Stocks, Bonds, Bills and Inflation 2005 Yearbook. Chicago: Ibbotson Associates.Google Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. Johnson, B. L., and C. T. De Rosa. 1999. “Public Health Implications.” Environmental Research 80:S246–S248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keeney, R. L., and H. Raiffa. 1993. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Means Company, R. S. See R. S. Means Company.Google Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. National Research Council. 1999. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  45. National Research Council. 2005. Valuing Ecosystem Services. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  46. Neill, P. 2002. Personal communication.Google Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Pearce, D. W., and R. K. Turner. 1990. Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. Probst, K. N., and D. Sherman. 2004. Success for Superfund: A New Approach for Keeping Score. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  53. R. S. Means Company. 2002a. Environmental Remediation Cost Data-Assemblies (8th ed.). Kingston, MA: R. S. Means Company.Google Scholar
  54. R. S. Means Company. 2002b. Environmental Remediation Cost Data-Unit Price (8th ed.). Kingston, MA: R. S. Means Company.Google Scholar
  55. Rabl, A. 1996. “Discounting of Long-term Costs: What Would Future Generations Prefer Us to Do?” Ecological Economics 17(3): 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sagoff, M. 1997. “Can We Put a Price on Nature’s Services?” Philosophy and Public Policy 17(3): 13–17.Google Scholar
  58. 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
  59. Schneider, K. 1993. “EPA’s Superfund at 13: Stains on the White Hat.” New York Times, 6 September, 7.Google Scholar
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Toman, M. 1998. “Why Not to Calculate the Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital.” Ecological Economics 25:57–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. USEPA. 1994. Common Cleanup Methods at Superfund Sites (No. EPA 540/R-94/043). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  65. 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
  66. USEPA. 2003. Reusing Superfund Sites. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pdfs/reusingsites.pdf (accessed September 19, 2005).Google Scholar
  67. 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
  68. USEPA. 2005. Superfund Budget History. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/budgethistory.htm (accessed September 19, 2005).Google Scholar
  69. Viscusi, W. K., and J. T. Hamilton. 1999. “Are Regulators Rational? Evidence from Hazardous Waste Cleanup Decisions.” American Economic Review 89:1010–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Willis, K. G. 1989. “Option Value and Nonuser Benefits of Wildlife Conservation.” Journal of Rural Studies 5(3): 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melissa Kenney
    • 1
  • Mark White
    • 2
  1. 1.School of the EnvironmentDuke University NicholasUSA
  2. 2.McIntire School of CommerceUniversity of VirginiaUSA

Personalised recommendations