Skip to main content

Step 4: Scaling Complementary and Compensatory Remediation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Equivalency Methods for Environmental Liability
  • 410 Accesses

Abstract

The purpose of the scaling step of the equivalency analysis is to determine the amount of remediation required to offset damages to natural resources or services. It involves calculating the benefits (credits) for relevant remediation options and determining how much of the selected remediation is required to generate sufficient credit to offset the damage (debit). The determination of how much of the selected remediation is required is called scaling. Estimating the costs of undertaking the necessary amount of remediation options is also discussed.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For purposes of simplicity of exposition, throughout this chapter we present the discussion as if one type of remediation project is being implemented that is scalable to offset debits. In practice, multiple different remediation actions may be under consideration for use, and not all remediation projects may be completely scalable. The fundamentals of the approach described in this chapter still apply, however.

  2. 2.

    This same process can be applied when credits are not calculated on a unit basis by summing remediation project credits until the full debit is satisfied (see BABE Forest Fire case study in Chap. 11).

  3. 3.

    How long the remediation benefits will last into the future is an important assumption to be made during an equivalency analysis.

  4. 4.

    Depending on the resource, the number of user days may represent fishing trips to a river, number of boating days in a lake, or number of beach visits to a recreational beach. Depending on the type of damage, other units such as health impacts, crop value etc. can also be used.

  5. 5.

    If the benefits would have been provided indefinitely, the present value factor would—after about 100 years—become less than 0.01. In practical terms, this means that benefits occurring 100 years from now and into the future are essentially zero. Thus, we can still estimate a finite per unit credit for remediation projects with perpetual benefits.

References

  • Diekmann, J. E., & Featherman, W. D. (1998). Assessing cost uncertainty: Lessons from environmental restoration projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(6), 445–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eftec. (2010). Scoping study on the economic (or Non-Market) valuation issues and the implementation of the water framework directive, report to European Commission DG Environment, Ref: ENV.D.1/ETU/2009/0102rI.

    Google Scholar 

  • GHK Consulting LTD in association with RPS Ecology. (2006). UK biodiversity action plan: Preparing costings for species and habitat action plans costings summary report. Report to Defra and partners, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • NOAA. (1999). Discounting and the treatment of uncertainty in natural resource damage assessment, Technical paper 99-1, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Syncera. (2005). Verkenning argumentatielijnen fasering en doelverlaging (derogaties) Kaderrichtlijn Water. Rijksinstituut voor Integraal Zoetwaterbeheer en Afvalwaterbehandeling. Arnhem: Syncera.

    Google Scholar 

  • WATECO. (2003). Common implementation strategy for the water framework directive (2000/60/EC), Guidance Document No 1: Economics and the Environment – The Implementation Challenge of the Water Framework Directive. Working Group 2.6, Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Chapman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Chapman, D., Lipton, J. (2018). Step 4: Scaling Complementary and Compensatory Remediation. In: Lipton, J., Özdemiroğlu, E., Chapman, D., Peers, J. (eds) Equivalency Methods for Environmental Liability. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9812-2_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics