Economic benefits of large-scale remediation of contaminated marine sediments-a literature review and an application to the Grenland fjords in Norway

Journal of Soils and Sediments

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 186-201

  Barton, David Nicholas ^a   Navrud, Ståle ^b   Bjørkeslett, Heid ^b   Lilleby, Ingrid ^b  

^a NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR NATURE RESEARCH   (Norway)

^b NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

Author keywords

Contaminated marine sediments; Contingent valuation; Cost benefit analysis; Remediation; Uncertainty

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; LITERATURE REVIEW; MAGNITUDE; MARINE SEDIMENT; REMEDIATION; RESEARCH WORK; SEDIMENT POLLUTION; STAKEHOLDER; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

NORWAY;

EID: 79957613324     PISSN: 14390108     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11368-009-0158-x     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Banerjee S, Murphy JH (2005) The scope test revisited. Appl Econ Lett 12(10):613-617
2. Barton DN (2008) Sedflex-uncertainty analysis of remediation cost for contaminated marine sediments. NIVA Report 5320-2008
3. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Özdemerioglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques. A Manual. Department for Transport, Local Governement and the Regions, Cheltenham, UK 445 pp
4. Bateman IJ, Cole M, Cooper P, Georgiou S, Hadley D, Poe GL (2004) On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity. J Environ Econ Manage 47:71-93
5. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Lake I (2006) The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol Econ 60(2):450-460
6. Bateman JI, Brouwer R, Ferrini S, Schaafsma M, Barton DN, Dubgaard A, Hasler B, Hime S, Liekens I, Navrud S, De Nocker L, Ščeponavičiute T, Semeniene D (2009) Making Benefit Transfers Work: Deriving and testing principles for value transfers for similar and dissimilar sites using a case study of the nonmarket benefits of water quality improvements across Europe. CSERGE Working Paper EDM 09-10
7. Bishop RC, Breffle WS, Lazo JK, Rowe RD, Wytinck SM (2000) Restoration scaling based on total value equivalency: Green Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment. Final Report. Stratus Consulting
8. Bjørkeslett HK, Lilleby IM (2006) What is a clean fjord worth? Social benefit of measures in polluted sediments in the Grenlandsfjords. M.Sc. thesis, Institute for Economics and Resources, University of Life Sciences (UMB), Norway
9. Carson RC (1997) Contingent valuation surveys and tests of insensitivity to scope. In: Kopp RJ, Pommerehne WW, Schwarz N (eds) Determining the value of non-marketed goods: economic, psychological, and policy relevant aspects of contingent valuation methods. Kluwer, Boston, MA
10. Carson R, Hanemann M, Kopp R, Krosnick J, Mitchell R, Presser S, Rudd P, Smith VK, Conaway M, Martin K (1996) Was the NOAA panel correct about contingent valuation? Discussion Paper 96-20. Resources for the Future, Washington DC
11. Ellen GJ, Duijn M, Sparrevik M (2009) Report on Work package 1: Oslo harbour sediment remediation project. Sediment and Society. TNO Report TNO-034-DMT-2009-02922. http://www.ngi.no/upload/25967/Final_report_WP1.pdf
12. FD (2005) Veileder i samfunnsøkonomiske analyser. Rapport nr. R-0603 B. Finansdepartementet, Oslo
13. Fylkesmanneni Hordaland (2002) Tiltaksplan for Bergen Havn. Fase I. NIVA. Interconsult, NGI
14. Heberlein TA, Wilson MA, Bishop RC, Schaeffer NC (2005) Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 50(1):1-22
15. Hydro (2005) Hydro's comments to Public hearing on 'Remediation measures for contaminated marine sediment in Telemark'-Phase 2 (in Norwegian)
16. Jakus P, McGuinness M, Krupnick A (2002) The Benefits and costs of fish consumption advisories for mercury. Discussion paper 02-55. Resources for the Future
17. Krieger DJ, Hoehn JP (1999) The economic value of reducing environmental health risks: contingent valuation estimates of the value of information. J Environ Manage 56:25-34
18. Laugesen J (2006) Kost-nytte vurdering for våtmekansik rensing av forurensede sedimenter. Pilotprosjektet i Trondheim havn. Rapport nr. 2006-023. Trondheim Havn. Skanska. Rambøll. DNV
19. Linkov I, Sahay S, Kiker G, Seager TP, Bridges T (2004) Multicriteria decision analysis: a framework for managing contaminated sediments. Strategic Management of Marine Ecosystems, Amsterdam, Kluwer, p 26
20. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Kiker G, Seager TP, Bridges T, Gardner KH, Rogers SH, Belluck DA, Meyer A (2006) Multicriteria decision analysis: a comprehensive decision approach for management of contaminated sediments. Risk Anal 26(1):61-78
21. Magnussen K, Bergland O (1996) Verdsetting av miljøgifter i vann. Stiftelsen Østfoldforskning. OR 51-96. Desember 1996. (in Norwegian: Valuation of contaminants in water)
22. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington D.C
23. Næs K, Persson J et al. (2004) Dioksiner i Grenlands-fjordene (DIG). Oppsummering av forskningsprosjektet. Rapport LNR 4876-2004., Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA)
24. Navrud S, Barton DN (2006) Nytte-kostnadsanalyse av 'Prosjekt Rein Fjord'. Rapport til prosjekt Rein fjord. Prosjekt Rein Fjord Tiltaksplan for forurenset sjøbunn i Telemark-Fase 2. Rev-01. Fylkesmannen i Telemark (in Norwegian: Benefit-cost analysis of 'Project Clean Fjord. Report to Project Clean Fjord Remediation plan for contaminated sediments in Telemark-Phase 2)
25. Økland TE (2005) En gjennomgang av kostholdsråd i norske havner og fjorder fra 1960-tallet til i dag. Kostholdsråd i norske havner og fjorder. November 2005, Mattilsynet, VKM, SFT (in Norwegian: 'A review of dietary health advisories i Norwegian ports and fjords from 1960 until today')
26. Slob A, Eenhoorn J, Ellen GJ, Gòmez CM, Kind J, van der Vries J (2008) Costs and Benefits of Sediment Management. In: Owens PN (ed) Sustainable Management of Sediment Resources: Sediment Management at the River Basin Scale. Elsevier 265
27. Sparrevik M, Breedveld GD (2009) From Ecological Risk Assessments to Risk Governance. Evaluation of the Norwegian Management System for Contaminated Sediments. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, doi:10.1897/IEAM_2009-049.1
28. Turvani M, Alberini A, Tonin S, Chiabai A (2009) Public policies for contaminated site cleanup: evidence from a survey of the Italian public. Int J Environ Technol Manag 11(1-3):68-87
29. VKM (2004) Comments on proposed maximum levels for dioxinlike PCBs in food Panel on Contaminants, Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety, Adopted 25 November 2004
30. von Stackelberg K, Hammit J (2009) Use of contingent valuation to elicitwillingness-to-pay for the benefits of developmental health risk reductions. Environ Resource Econ 43:45-61
31. Yatsalo BI, Iker GA, Kim J, Bridges TS, Saeger TP, Gardner K, Satterstrom FK, Linkov I (2007) Application of multicriteria decision analysis tools to two contaminated sediment case studies. Integr Environ Assess Manage 3(2):223-233