{"title":"Aligning Ocean Plastic Pollution and Human Health a Co-benefits Approach","authors":"Karyn Morrissey Dr","doi":"10.15351/2373-8456.1090","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15351/2373-8456.1090","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36763,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44617315","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Disease and overfishing have led to a dramatic decline in wild populations and subsequent harvests of the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica over the past few decades in Delaware and other states along the Atlantic Coast. However, in addition to their value as food to consumers, oysters, whether wild populations or cultured stocks, can provide ecosystem services such as nutrient removal, which may result in localized water quality improvements. Consequently, recent policies in Delaware have sought to establish and grow an oyster aquaculture industry. However, a key challenge to achieving efficient levels of industry growth and water quality improvements is that current market prices for oysters in other states and those projected for a Delaware market do not account for the value of these additional ecosystem services. In my analysis, I consider the projected market value of oysters harvested from the Delaware Inland Bays, estimate the additional value of their nutrient removal benefits, and propose a framework of financial incentives needed to increase the supply of oysters and therefore improved water quality. I then conclude with a brief discussion of how this incentive program could be structured as well addressing the regional differences in the oyster aquaculture industry and within the scientific literature. This review is available in Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: https://cbe.miis.edu/joce/vol6/iss1/4
{"title":"Evaluating Oyster Aquaculture’s Cost-Effectiveness as a Nitrogen Removal Best Management Practice – A Case Study of the Delaware Inland Bays","authors":"J. F. Flood","doi":"10.15351/2373-8456.1064","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15351/2373-8456.1064","url":null,"abstract":"Disease and overfishing have led to a dramatic decline in wild populations and subsequent harvests of the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica over the past few decades in Delaware and other states along the Atlantic Coast. However, in addition to their value as food to consumers, oysters, whether wild populations or cultured stocks, can provide ecosystem services such as nutrient removal, which may result in localized water quality improvements. Consequently, recent policies in Delaware have sought to establish and grow an oyster aquaculture industry. However, a key challenge to achieving efficient levels of industry growth and water quality improvements is that current market prices for oysters in other states and those projected for a Delaware market do not account for the value of these additional ecosystem services. In my analysis, I consider the projected market value of oysters harvested from the Delaware Inland Bays, estimate the additional value of their nutrient removal benefits, and propose a framework of financial incentives needed to increase the supply of oysters and therefore improved water quality. I then conclude with a brief discussion of how this incentive program could be structured as well addressing the regional differences in the oyster aquaculture industry and within the scientific literature. This review is available in Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: https://cbe.miis.edu/joce/vol6/iss1/4","PeriodicalId":36763,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42992287","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
G. Hosch, B. Soule, Max Schofield, T. Thomas, Charles Kilgour, T. Huntington
{"title":"Any Port in a Storm: Vessel Activity and the Risk of IUU-Caught Fish Passing through the World’s Most Important Fishing Ports","authors":"G. Hosch, B. Soule, Max Schofield, T. Thomas, Charles Kilgour, T. Huntington","doi":"10.15351/2373-8456.1097","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15351/2373-8456.1097","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36763,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47030668","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study combines a multi-method approach to structured expert judgment with market valuation to forecast fisheries damages from introduced invasive species. The method is applied to a case study of Alaska’s first submersed aquatic invasive plant, Elodea spp., threatening Alaska’s salmon fisheries. Assuming that Elodea spp. remains unmanaged, estimated mean damages to commercial sockeye fisheries aggregated across Alaska amount to a potential $159 million annually with a 5% chance of exceeding $577 million annually ($2015 USD). The associated mean loss of natural capital amounts to $5.1 billion cumulatively over the next 100 years reaching $400 million after 10 years. Results from the expert elicitation indicate that there is a 35% chance of positive net benefits associated with the believed positive effects of Elodea spp. on sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Despite the potential for positive net gains, the magnitude of the most probable damage estimate may justify substantial investment in keeping productive freshwater systems free of aquatic invasive species. The damage estimate for Alaska is significantly larger than similar estimates in the Great Lakes where ecosystems are already impaired by multiple aquatic invasive species, underscoring the value of keeping functioning ecosystems with global market value productive. This study is the first to estimate ecosystem service loss associated with introduction of an aquatic invasive species to freshwater habitat that supports the world’s most valuable wild sockeye salmon fisheries. Important policy implications related to natural resource management and efficient allocation of scarce resources are discussed This research article is available in Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: https://cbe.miis.edu/joce/vol6/iss1/2
{"title":"Aquatic Invasive Species Change Ecosystem Services from the World's Largest Wild Sockeye Salmon Fisheries in Alaska","authors":"T. Schwoerer, Joseph M. Little, M. Adkison","doi":"10.15351/2373-8456.1094","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15351/2373-8456.1094","url":null,"abstract":"This study combines a multi-method approach to structured expert judgment with market valuation to forecast fisheries damages from introduced invasive species. The method is applied to a case study of Alaska’s first submersed aquatic invasive plant, Elodea spp., threatening Alaska’s salmon fisheries. Assuming that Elodea spp. remains unmanaged, estimated mean damages to commercial sockeye fisheries aggregated across Alaska amount to a potential $159 million annually with a 5% chance of exceeding $577 million annually ($2015 USD). The associated mean loss of natural capital amounts to $5.1 billion cumulatively over the next 100 years reaching $400 million after 10 years. Results from the expert elicitation indicate that there is a 35% chance of positive net benefits associated with the believed positive effects of Elodea spp. on sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Despite the potential for positive net gains, the magnitude of the most probable damage estimate may justify substantial investment in keeping productive freshwater systems free of aquatic invasive species. The damage estimate for Alaska is significantly larger than similar estimates in the Great Lakes where ecosystems are already impaired by multiple aquatic invasive species, underscoring the value of keeping functioning ecosystems with global market value productive. This study is the first to estimate ecosystem service loss associated with introduction of an aquatic invasive species to freshwater habitat that supports the world’s most valuable wild sockeye salmon fisheries. Important policy implications related to natural resource management and efficient allocation of scarce resources are discussed This research article is available in Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: https://cbe.miis.edu/joce/vol6/iss1/2","PeriodicalId":36763,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44394492","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Owing to their diverse functionality, seaports as entities produce a mix of private and public goods that have significant welfare implications for the regions they serve. In effect, performance in seaports can be viewed as multi-dimensional. When forming policy that affects multiple stakeholders it is therefore desirable to measure performance across all relevant dimensions, as they are likely to have differing effects on concerned stakeholders. The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic literature review of published studies on seaport performance measurement to identify, critically evaluate and integrate the various dimensions of seaport performance measurement. A review of the literature was carried out focusing on key questions in performance measurement system design outlining what to measure and how to measure it. Our study finds that measuring port performance has been expanding rapidly leading to significant advancement in the development of methods to create different measures of port performance. However, there has been less progress in advancing means to define what constitutes performance as a construct particularly when performance is perceived as multidimensional. In this review, five dimensions of seaport performance were identified. In addition, a formative construct of performance was proposed for the design of performance measurement systems to address policy concerns when performance is of a multidimensional nature. This review is available in Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: https://cbe.miis.edu/joce/vol6/iss1/3
{"title":"Port Performance from A Policy Perspective – A Systematic Review of the Literature","authors":"Eamonn OConnor, N. Evers, Amaya Vega","doi":"10.15351/2373-8456.1093","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15351/2373-8456.1093","url":null,"abstract":"Owing to their diverse functionality, seaports as entities produce a mix of private and public goods that have significant welfare implications for the regions they serve. In effect, performance in seaports can be viewed as multi-dimensional. When forming policy that affects multiple stakeholders it is therefore desirable to measure performance across all relevant dimensions, as they are likely to have differing effects on concerned stakeholders. The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic literature review of published studies on seaport performance measurement to identify, critically evaluate and integrate the various dimensions of seaport performance measurement. A review of the literature was carried out focusing on key questions in performance measurement system design outlining what to measure and how to measure it. Our study finds that measuring port performance has been expanding rapidly leading to significant advancement in the development of methods to create different measures of port performance. However, there has been less progress in advancing means to define what constitutes performance as a construct particularly when performance is perceived as multidimensional. In this review, five dimensions of seaport performance were identified. In addition, a formative construct of performance was proposed for the design of performance measurement systems to address policy concerns when performance is of a multidimensional nature. This review is available in Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: https://cbe.miis.edu/joce/vol6/iss1/3","PeriodicalId":36763,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44332021","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Studies examining the costs of coastal habitat restoration have focused on the cost per acre of restoration or on cost efficiency of various restoration methods. On the other hand, studies examining the benefits of restoration have focused on various ecosystem services that more directly affect welfare including amenity value, storm protection, nutrient retention and biodiversity. We examine a set of 133 Gulf of Mexico coastal habitat restoration projects to estimate the cost of obtaining average annual habitat units (AAHUs), a measure which captures the quantity and, importantly, quality of habitat restored, which is one of the more direct ecosystem service benefits from coastal restoration. AAHUs are the environmental outcome considered during the assessment of proposed projects by decision-makers and therefore are a potential measurement unit that can more closely link costs and benefits of restoration. This research article is available in Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: https://cbe.miis.edu/joce/vol5/iss1/7
{"title":"The Costs of Obtaining Environmental Outcomes through Coastal Habitat Restoration","authors":"S. Gould, Matthew G. Interis","doi":"10.15351/2373-8456.1095","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15351/2373-8456.1095","url":null,"abstract":"Studies examining the costs of coastal habitat restoration have focused on the cost per acre of restoration or on cost efficiency of various restoration methods. On the other hand, studies examining the benefits of restoration have focused on various ecosystem services that more directly affect welfare including amenity value, storm protection, nutrient retention and biodiversity. We examine a set of 133 Gulf of Mexico coastal habitat restoration projects to estimate the cost of obtaining average annual habitat units (AAHUs), a measure which captures the quantity and, importantly, quality of habitat restored, which is one of the more direct ecosystem service benefits from coastal restoration. AAHUs are the environmental outcome considered during the assessment of proposed projects by decision-makers and therefore are a potential measurement unit that can more closely link costs and benefits of restoration. This research article is available in Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: https://cbe.miis.edu/joce/vol5/iss1/7","PeriodicalId":36763,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44155395","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
R. V. D. Veeren, Ann Kathrin Buchs, G. Hörmandinger, Soile Oinonen, Conceição Santos, Max Vretborn
The European Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which came into force in 2008, requires from Member States inter alia to perform various (types of) economic analyses. In order to help Member States to implement this directive, the European working group on Economic and Social Analysis was initiated in 2009. This working group has developed various guidance documents which have been very useful in helping each other to understand the Directive and its requirements, to develop one language, to understand the pros and cons of various approaches, and to share experiences. However, up until now, outside of this working group this information is hardly known. Therefore, the authors of this article, considered the tenth anniversary of this working group a good opportunity to make the accumulated grey literature more accessible and to share information on experiences and lessons learnt from applying environmental economic theory and analyses in a policy context to a broader community, to increase the awareness of marine and social scientists on the progress made and remaining knowledge gaps, to enhance interdisciplinary science-policy dialogue, and to increase the value added of forthcoming research for policy making processes. Authors Rob van der Veeren, Ann Kathrin Buchs, Günter Hörmandinger, Soile Oinonen, Conceição Santos, and Max Vretborn This review is available in Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: https://cbe.miis.edu/joce/vol5/iss1/5
2008年生效的《欧洲海洋战略框架指令》要求各成员国除其他外进行各种(类型)经济分析。为了帮助成员国实施这一指令，欧洲经济和社会分析工作组于2009年成立。该工作组制定了各种指导文件，这些文件在帮助彼此理解指令及其要求，开发一种语言，了解各种方法的优缺点以及分享经验方面非常有用。然而，到目前为止，在这个工作组之外，几乎不知道这些信息。因此，本文的作者认为，该工作组成立十周年是一个很好的机会，可以使积累的灰色文献更容易获得，并分享在政策背景下将环境经济理论和分析应用于更广泛社区的经验教训信息，提高海洋和社会科学家对取得的进展和仍然存在的知识差距的认识，加强跨学科的科学-政策对话。并为政策制定过程增加即将到来的研究的附加值。作者Rob van der Veeren, Ann Kathrin Buchs, g nter Hörmandinger, Soile Oinonen, concep o Santos和Max Vretborn这篇综述发表在海洋与沿海经济学杂志:https://cbe.miis.edu/joce/vol5/iss1/5上
{"title":"Ten years of economic analyses for the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Overview of experiences and lessons learned","authors":"R. V. D. Veeren, Ann Kathrin Buchs, G. Hörmandinger, Soile Oinonen, Conceição Santos, Max Vretborn","doi":"10.15351/2373-8456.1088","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15351/2373-8456.1088","url":null,"abstract":"The European Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which came into force in 2008, requires from Member States inter alia to perform various (types of) economic analyses. In order to help Member States to implement this directive, the European working group on Economic and Social Analysis was initiated in 2009. This working group has developed various guidance documents which have been very useful in helping each other to understand the Directive and its requirements, to develop one language, to understand the pros and cons of various approaches, and to share experiences. However, up until now, outside of this working group this information is hardly known. Therefore, the authors of this article, considered the tenth anniversary of this working group a good opportunity to make the accumulated grey literature more accessible and to share information on experiences and lessons learnt from applying environmental economic theory and analyses in a policy context to a broader community, to increase the awareness of marine and social scientists on the progress made and remaining knowledge gaps, to enhance interdisciplinary science-policy dialogue, and to increase the value added of forthcoming research for policy making processes. Authors Rob van der Veeren, Ann Kathrin Buchs, Günter Hörmandinger, Soile Oinonen, Conceição Santos, and Max Vretborn This review is available in Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: https://cbe.miis.edu/joce/vol5/iss1/5","PeriodicalId":36763,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43794891","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The problem of marine plastic debris impacts all of the world’s oceans and requires all nations to respond. However, developing States require funds to improve waste management infrastructure and services in order to reduce marine debris at source. Plastics manufacturers and retailers globally must be incentivised to design products for the environment as well as for the collection and end-of-life treatment facilities available within the intended markets. Given the oceans are a global common, we investigate the option of developing a global fund mechanism to progress the necessary actions to reduce plastic waste entering the world’s oceans. This requires consideration of what form a conceptual global fund could take, how contributions will be made to the fund and what the fund would pay for. In the short-term, remediation may be prioritised, but long-term preventive measures must also be considered. Both require funding. A global fund could assist in closing the disparity in available national funds for such activities. A conceptual model is proposed that would assess the discharge of solid waste into the global stock of marine plastic debris by each State to determine their contribution to the fund. Some nations will initially be large contributors to the fund, creating incentive to reduce waste entering the oceans in order to reduce these financial contributions. Such a model may be regarded as inherently unfair, presenting issues of capacity and equity. Many developing States would therefore be exempted from financial contributions and be assisted by the fund to address the mismanagement of plastic waste. Alternate methods of determining national contributions to the fund are provided from analogous mechanisms. It is suggested the model may still have merit for determining contributors to the global stock, stimulating policy development and measuring success of the proposed fund outputs. This research article is available in Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: https://cbe.miis.edu/joce/vol5/iss1/6
{"title":"Can a global fund help solve the global marine plastic debris problem?","authors":"Karen Raubenheimer, A. McIlgorm","doi":"10.15351/2373-8456.1078","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15351/2373-8456.1078","url":null,"abstract":"The problem of marine plastic debris impacts all of the world’s oceans and requires all nations to respond. However, developing States require funds to improve waste management infrastructure and services in order to reduce marine debris at source. Plastics manufacturers and retailers globally must be incentivised to design products for the environment as well as for the collection and end-of-life treatment facilities available within the intended markets. Given the oceans are a global common, we investigate the option of developing a global fund mechanism to progress the necessary actions to reduce plastic waste entering the world’s oceans. This requires consideration of what form a conceptual global fund could take, how contributions will be made to the fund and what the fund would pay for. In the short-term, remediation may be prioritised, but long-term preventive measures must also be considered. Both require funding. A global fund could assist in closing the disparity in available national funds for such activities. A conceptual model is proposed that would assess the discharge of solid waste into the global stock of marine plastic debris by each State to determine their contribution to the fund. Some nations will initially be large contributors to the fund, creating incentive to reduce waste entering the oceans in order to reduce these financial contributions. Such a model may be regarded as inherently unfair, presenting issues of capacity and equity. Many developing States would therefore be exempted from financial contributions and be assisted by the fund to address the mismanagement of plastic waste. Alternate methods of determining national contributions to the fund are provided from analogous mechanisms. It is suggested the model may still have merit for determining contributors to the global stock, stimulating policy development and measuring success of the proposed fund outputs. This research article is available in Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: https://cbe.miis.edu/joce/vol5/iss1/6","PeriodicalId":36763,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47083560","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Reductions in the rates of domestic allisions, collisions and groundings (ACGs) are the result of technological advances as well as implementation of best practices in the maritime industry. This study estimates long-term gross benefits derived from expanded implementation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System (PORTS®) with respect to reductions in ACG rates in the United States. Following PORTS® installations that provided expanded coverage of U.S. ports and adjoining areas, concomitant decreases in accident rates occurred. While previous estimates suggested that between twenty and sixty percent of grounding accident reductions were due to PORTS®, current research suggests that up to half of ACG rate reductions were due to such installations. Annual gross benefits resulting from lowered ACG rates at PORTS® locations installed through 2016 were estimated to approach $21 million. Over the estimated ten-year economic life of PORTS® instruments, present PORTS® installations could produce a present value saving of $180 million. If expanded to an additional 23 ports where economic justification might be made, up to $10 million could be saved. Over ten years this would equate to over $84 million. This research article is available in Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: https://cbe.miis.edu/joce/vol5/iss1/4
{"title":"Allisions, Collisions and Groundings: Estimating the Impact of the Physical Oceanographic Real Time System (PORTS(R)) on Accident Reduction","authors":"Eric Wolfe, K. Mitchell","doi":"10.15351/2373-8456.1091","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15351/2373-8456.1091","url":null,"abstract":"Reductions in the rates of domestic allisions, collisions and groundings (ACGs) are the result of technological advances as well as implementation of best practices in the maritime industry. This study estimates long-term gross benefits derived from expanded implementation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System (PORTS®) with respect to reductions in ACG rates in the United States. Following PORTS® installations that provided expanded coverage of U.S. ports and adjoining areas, concomitant decreases in accident rates occurred. While previous estimates suggested that between twenty and sixty percent of grounding accident reductions were due to PORTS®, current research suggests that up to half of ACG rate reductions were due to such installations. Annual gross benefits resulting from lowered ACG rates at PORTS® locations installed through 2016 were estimated to approach $21 million. Over the estimated ten-year economic life of PORTS® instruments, present PORTS® installations could produce a present value saving of $180 million. If expanded to an additional 23 ports where economic justification might be made, up to $10 million could be saved. Over ten years this would equate to over $84 million. This research article is available in Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: https://cbe.miis.edu/joce/vol5/iss1/4","PeriodicalId":36763,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49462357","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
T. Prime, Karyn Morrissey, Jennifer Brown, A. Plater
The coastal impacts of climate change, including flooding and erosion due to storms and sea-level rise, and the possible adaptation responses have been studied using very different approaches; from very detailed sitespecific, process-based investigations and interventions to global macroeconomic assessments of coastal zone vulnerability. This paper presents a flood defense real option analysis methodology that values potential investment decisions made in the building and maintaining of flood defenses around electricity infrastructure at local spatial scales for a large region. Real option analysis embraces uncertainty in future climate conditions and flexibility in the management of investment projects to produce a more precise optimal outcome than attained with traditional discount cash flow analysis alone. The method uses high-level analysis from flood inundation models to assess the cost of flooding for energy infrastructure at the present-day up to the highest plausible sea-level rise for the UK in 2100 known as the H++ scenario, which projects a sea-level rise of 1.8 m. These costs feed into a real option valuation model able to identify which energy infrastructure will benefit from investment, and when. This northwest UK study identifies two infrastructure sites that, today, would benefit from flood defence investment over discount cash flow analysis, increasing to an additional 14 in 2050. Using this method has identified 46 sites that would benefit from deferring flood defence investment now, reducing to 35 sites in 2050. This method of project valuation can be applied to any feature within the floodplain, e.g. infrastructure or residential housing, making it an adaptable and useful tool in identifying vulnerable features that require investment to ensure they stay resilient to extreme flood events in the future. This work is the result of an inter-disciplinary collaboration between hydrodynamic modelling, flood risk assessment and economics. The outputs of which are ideal to be fed into a decision-support tool, allowing stakeholders to interrogate and disseminate information about the spatial locations they are interested in. This review is available in Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: https://cbe.miis.edu/joce/vol5/iss1/3
{"title":"Protecting Energy Infrastructure against the Uncertainty of Future Climate Change: A Real Options Approach","authors":"T. Prime, Karyn Morrissey, Jennifer Brown, A. Plater","doi":"10.15351/2373-8456.1075","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15351/2373-8456.1075","url":null,"abstract":"The coastal impacts of climate change, including flooding and erosion due to storms and sea-level rise, and the possible adaptation responses have been studied using very different approaches; from very detailed sitespecific, process-based investigations and interventions to global macroeconomic assessments of coastal zone vulnerability. This paper presents a flood defense real option analysis methodology that values potential investment decisions made in the building and maintaining of flood defenses around electricity infrastructure at local spatial scales for a large region. Real option analysis embraces uncertainty in future climate conditions and flexibility in the management of investment projects to produce a more precise optimal outcome than attained with traditional discount cash flow analysis alone. The method uses high-level analysis from flood inundation models to assess the cost of flooding for energy infrastructure at the present-day up to the highest plausible sea-level rise for the UK in 2100 known as the H++ scenario, which projects a sea-level rise of 1.8 m. These costs feed into a real option valuation model able to identify which energy infrastructure will benefit from investment, and when. This northwest UK study identifies two infrastructure sites that, today, would benefit from flood defence investment over discount cash flow analysis, increasing to an additional 14 in 2050. Using this method has identified 46 sites that would benefit from deferring flood defence investment now, reducing to 35 sites in 2050. This method of project valuation can be applied to any feature within the floodplain, e.g. infrastructure or residential housing, making it an adaptable and useful tool in identifying vulnerable features that require investment to ensure they stay resilient to extreme flood events in the future. This work is the result of an inter-disciplinary collaboration between hydrodynamic modelling, flood risk assessment and economics. The outputs of which are ideal to be fed into a decision-support tool, allowing stakeholders to interrogate and disseminate information about the spatial locations they are interested in. This review is available in Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: https://cbe.miis.edu/joce/vol5/iss1/3","PeriodicalId":36763,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49606451","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：