Economic Valuation for Equivalency Analysis



Economic analysis contributes to the implementation of the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) through the estimation of changes in the value (in monetary terms) of damaged resources from an incident. As noted in Annex II of the ELD, resource-to-resource and service-to-service approaches should be considered first (paragraph 1.2.2), however, if these methods are not possible or appropriate, then alternative valuation techniques shall be used (paragraph 1.2.3). This chapter provides an overview of the concept of economic value, how it can be estimated, and how it can help in determining compensation for damages to resources and services covered by the ELD.


Economic value Economic valuation Value equivalency analysis 


  1. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation.Google Scholar
  2. Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., et al. (2002). Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. London: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishop, R., Boyle, K., Carson, R., Chapman, D., Hanemann, W. M., Kanninen, B., et al. (2017). Science Policy Forum. 356(6335).Google Scholar
  4. Carson, R. T., Mitchell, R. C., Hanemann, W. M., Kopp, R. J., Presser, S. & Ruud, P. A. (1992). A Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting From the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, report to the Attorney General of the State of Alaska.Google Scholar
  5. Champ, P. A., Boyle, K. & Brown, T. C. (2017). A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation Second Edition, Kluwer Academic Publishers, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Damage Assessment Trustees (2016), Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Final Programmatic Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Retrieved from
  7. eftec (2010). Valuing Environmental Impacts: Practical Guidelines for the Use of Value Transfer in Policy and Project Appraisal. Report to the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London.Google Scholar
  8. Flores, N. E., & Thacher, J. (2002). Money, who needs it? Natural resource damage assessment. Contemporary Economic Policy, 20(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flores, N. E. (2003) Conceptual Framework for Nonmarket Valuation. In Champ, P. A., Boyle, K. and Brown, T. C. (2003). A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Freeman, A. M., III. (2003a). Economic valuation: What and Why. In Champ, P. A., Boyle, K. and Brown, T. C. (Eds.), A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Freeman, A. M., III. (2003b). Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values. Washington DC, USA: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  12. Johansson, P. O. (1991). An Introduction to Modern Welfare Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnston, R. J, Boyle, K. J, Adamowicz, W., Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T. A., et al. (2017) Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies, Journal of Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 4(2).Google Scholar
  14. Jones, C. A., & Pease, K. A. (1997). Restoration-based compensation measures in natural resource liability statutes. Contemporary Economic Policy, 15(4), 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future. New York, London.Google Scholar
  16. Tourangeau, R., English, E., McConnell, K., Chapman, D., Flores Cervantes, I., Horsch, E., et al. (2017). The Gulf Recreation Study: Assessing Lost Recreational Trips from the 2010 Gulf Oil Spill. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 5, 281–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Unsworth, R. E., & Bishop, R. C. (1994). Assessing natural resource damages using environmental annuities. Ecological Economics, 11(1), 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rocky Mountain Research StationUnited States Forest ServiceFort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.EnviroEconomics Sweden ConsultancyFrösönSweden
  3. 3.eftecLondonUK

Personalised recommendations