Exploring welfare implications of resource equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments

Abstract

Resource equivalency analysis (REA) has become the dominant method for calculating natural resource damages for biological injuries from pollution incidents. This methodology compares resources lost as a result of an incident to benefits that can be gained from a habitat or wildlife restoration project. Compensation is evaluated in terms of resource services instead of market currency. Recently, this approach has been questioned regarding its ability to provide adequate compensation based on economic welfare principles. The following paper examines these critiques and develops a model to quantify the welfare implications of using REA when some of its implicit assumptions are violated. We focus on the situation where compensatory restoration projects provide services that are comparable to those lost as a result of an incident. We examine simulation scenarios where the public has heterogeneous preferences for resources and where resource values change over time. Using the Hicks–Kaldor criterion, we find that the traditional REA provides an acceptable approximation of aggregate compensation for a reasonably wide range of economic and biological parameter combinations.