Discounting in Natural Resource Damage Assessment

IF 2 4区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis Pub Date : 2022-11-22 DOI:10.1017/bca.2022.24
Eric J. Horsch, D. Phaneuf, C. Giguere, Jason H. Murray, Cameron Duff, Cole Kroninger
{"title":"Discounting in Natural Resource Damage Assessment","authors":"Eric J. Horsch, D. Phaneuf, C. Giguere, Jason H. Murray, Cameron Duff, Cole Kroninger","doi":"10.1017/bca.2022.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The goal of natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) is to compensate the public for losses to natural resources from past or ongoing hazardous releases, including losses that may persist into the future. Compensation is delivered in the form of restoration projects. Resolving NRDA liability requires balancing losses and restoration benefits over multiple decades and converting them into a present value for calculating appropriate damages. For the past two decades, NRDA practitioners have used a real discount rate of 3 % to convert losses and benefits to a present value equivalent. That rate was based, in part, on real historical yields on risk-free debt (e.g., the real rate of return on 3-month Treasury bills). Declining interest rates on risk-free debt in recent years has led to suggestions to reexamine the historical consensus discount rate. This paper reviews two alternative conceptual paradigms for selecting a discount rate in NRDA cases: the social rate of time preference and discount rates for tort cases. We summarize historical data for empirically implementing the two paradigms and discuss the ramifications of the different options. Based on our review, we suggest maintaining the 3 % consensus as a practical solution to a range of empirical candidates within the two conceptual paradigms.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"26 1","pages":"141 - 161"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2022.24","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract The goal of natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) is to compensate the public for losses to natural resources from past or ongoing hazardous releases, including losses that may persist into the future. Compensation is delivered in the form of restoration projects. Resolving NRDA liability requires balancing losses and restoration benefits over multiple decades and converting them into a present value for calculating appropriate damages. For the past two decades, NRDA practitioners have used a real discount rate of 3 % to convert losses and benefits to a present value equivalent. That rate was based, in part, on real historical yields on risk-free debt (e.g., the real rate of return on 3-month Treasury bills). Declining interest rates on risk-free debt in recent years has led to suggestions to reexamine the historical consensus discount rate. This paper reviews two alternative conceptual paradigms for selecting a discount rate in NRDA cases: the social rate of time preference and discount rates for tort cases. We summarize historical data for empirically implementing the two paradigms and discuss the ramifications of the different options. Based on our review, we suggest maintaining the 3 % consensus as a practical solution to a range of empirical candidates within the two conceptual paradigms.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
自然资源损害评估中的贴现
自然资源损害评估(NRDA)的目标是补偿公众因过去或正在进行的危险释放而对自然资源造成的损失,包括可能持续到未来的损失。补偿以修复工程的形式进行。解决NRDA责任需要平衡数十年的损失和恢复收益,并将其转换为计算适当损害的现值。在过去的二十年里,NRDA从业者使用3%的实际贴现率将损失和收益转换为现值等价物。该利率部分基于无风险债券的实际历史收益率(例如,3个月期国库券的实际收益率)。近年来,无风险债券的利率不断下降,导致有人建议重新审视历史共识贴现率。本文回顾了两种选择NRDA案件折现率的概念范式:社会时间偏好率和侵权案件折现率。我们总结了经验上实现这两种范式的历史数据,并讨论了不同选择的后果。基于我们的回顾,我们建议将3%的共识作为两个概念范式中一系列经验候选者的实际解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
2.90%
发文量
22
期刊最新文献
An Investment Case for the Scale-up and Use of Insecticide-Treated Nets Halfway into the SDG Targets Sustainable Development Goal Halftime Project: Benefit-Cost Analysis Using Methods from the Decade of Vaccine Economics Model–CORRIGENDUM Best Investments in Chronic, Noncommunicable Disease Prevention and Control in Low- and Lower–Middle-Income Countries – CORRIGENDUM Save 4.2 Million Lives and Generate $1.1 Trillion in Economic Benefits for Only $41 Billion: Introduction to the Special Issue on the Most Efficient Policies for the Sustainable Development Goals Cost–Benefit Analysis of an “Average” Professional Sports Team or Stadium in the United States
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1