Transient Alterations in Streamwater Quality Induced by Pollution Incidents: Interim Losses Calculations and Compensation Alternatives Based on Habitat Equivalency Analysis

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Domingues Pavanelli ◽  
Daniel Ferreira Domingues ◽  
Paulo Gustavo Hoch ◽  
Caio Tadao Joko ◽  
Marcus Vinicius de Oliveira Andrade ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Habitat Equivalency Analysis

Associating Ecosystem Service Losses with Indicators of Toxicity in Habitat Equivalency Analysis

2005 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 343-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dave Cacela ◽  
Joshua Lipton ◽  
Douglas Beltman ◽  
James Hansen ◽  
Robert Wolotira
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Service ◽  
Habitat Equivalency Analysis

An update of the Visual_HEA software to improve the implementation of the Habitat Equivalency Analysis method

2017 ◽  
Vol 105 ◽  
pp. 276-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvain Pioch ◽  
Matthew W. Johnston ◽  
Anne-Charlotte Vaissière ◽  
Fanny Berger ◽  
Céline Jacob ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Analysis Method ◽  
Habitat Equivalency Analysis

scholarly journals Restoration Scaling Approaches to Addressing Ecological Injury: The Habitat-Based Resource Equivalency Method

2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Baker ◽  
Adam Domanski ◽  
Terill Hollweg ◽  
Jason Murray ◽  
Diana Lane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Natural Resource ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Habitat Equivalency Analysis ◽  
Natural Resource Damage Assessment ◽  
As Species ◽  
Ecological Habitat ◽  
Multiple Species ◽  
Species Specific

AbstractNatural resource trustee agencies must determine how much, and what type of environmental restoration will compensate for injuries to natural resources that result from releases of hazardous substances or oil spills. To fulfill this need, trustees, and other natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) practitioners have relied on a variety of approaches, including habitat equivalency analysis (HEA) and resource equivalency analysis (REA). The purpose of this paper is to introduce the Habitat-Based Resource Equivalency Method (HaBREM), which integrates REA’s reproducible injury metrics and population modeling with HEA’s comprehensive habitat approach to restoration. HaBREM is intended to evaluate injury and restoration using organisms that use the habitat to represent ecological habitat functions. This paper seeks to expand and refine the use of organism-based metrics (biomass-based REA), providing an opportunity to integrate sublethal injuries to multiple species, as well as the potential to include error rates for injury and restoration parameters. Applied by NRDA practitioners in the appropriate context, this methodology can establish the relationship between benefits of compensatory restoration projects and injuries to plant or animal species within an affected habitat. HaBREM may be most effective where there are appropriate data supporting the linkage between habitat and species gains (particularly regionally specific habitat information), as well as species-specific monitoring data and predictions on the growth, density, productivity (i.e., rate of generation of biomass or individuals), and age distributions of indicator species.

Measuring Bahamian lionfish impacts to marine ecological services using habitat equivalency analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 162 (12) ◽  
pp. 2501-2512 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew W. Johnston ◽  
Sam J. Purkis ◽  
Richard E. Dodge
Keyword(s):  
Ecological Services ◽  
Habitat Equivalency Analysis

The use of habitat equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments

2004 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard W. Dunford ◽  
Thomas C. Ginn ◽  
William H. Desvousges
Keyword(s):  
Natural Resource ◽  
Habitat Equivalency Analysis

Ecological damage assessment of jiaozhou bay reclamation based on habitat equivalency analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (22) ◽  
pp. 7146-7155
Author(s):  
李京梅 LI Jingmei ◽  
刘铁鹰 LIU Tieying
Keyword(s):  
Damage Assessment ◽  
Jiaozhou Bay ◽  
Ecological Damage ◽  
Habitat Equivalency Analysis

The Cost of Certainty in Natural Resource Damage Assessment Under the Oil Pollution Act of 19901

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (1) ◽  
pp. 231-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Robert Greene
Keyword(s):  
Natural Resources ◽  
Natural Resource ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Hedonic Price ◽  
The Public ◽  
Hedonic Price Models ◽  
Habitat Equivalency Analysis ◽  
Natural Resource Damage Assessment ◽  
Scaling Methods ◽  
The Cost

ABSTRACT Pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), natural resource trustees are empowered to seek recovery for damages to natural resources caused by discharges of oil and/or certain threats of discharges of oil. To determine the proper amount of damages, trustees undertake the process of “scaling,” which is an attempt to calculate the size of restoration actions that would be required to expedite recovery of injured natural resources to baseline and compensate the public for interim lost resources and services. Trustees utilize various scaling methods, including service-to-service methods, such as habitat equivalency analysis, and value-to-value methods, such as hedonic price models and contingent valuation. Regardless of the method chosen, however, the scaling is directly dependent on the level of injury caused by a spill. Disputes between trustees and those parties designated as responsible for the spill (responsible parties or RPs) often occur in determining the level of injury. In many cases, as a result of either these disputes or the trustees' desire to determine the precise level of injury, trustees undertake costly and time-consuming injury studies. These studies oftentimes are inefficient because the resulting gains in certainty often are achieved through disproportionately expensive studies relative to the resulting gains in restoration. In certain instances, attempts to achieve greater certainty can destroy an otherwise efficient and cooperative restoration effort and run contrary to the OPA 90 regulations. Such attempts also can lead to costly litigation for both the public and the RP involved. Lastly, attempts to achieve greater certainty during injury assessment can unnecessarily increase the scale of compensatory restoration because of delays in implementing restoration actions. Both trustees and RPs must recognize those instances in which achieving greater certainty leads to increased costs to both the public and the RP. In such situations, stipulating to certain injury assumptions can lead to overall net gains for both the public and the RP. These stipulations can be used to induce RPs to increase other aspects of the restoration, thereby increasing overall gains for the public at less cost to the RP.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document