Week 6

Class Exercise: Environmental Assessment

Answers

V = 10,000 – 100C

where

V = Annual visitors (in thousands)
V = 年游客量（单位：千人）

C = Generalised cost of travelling to the National Park (£)
C = 前往国家公园的一般费用（英镑）

(a. Using the Travel Cost Method, calculate the theoretical maximum valuation of the National Park and the value of the National Park if the mean generalised cost is £20.
(a) 使用 "旅行成本法"，计算国家公园的理论最大估值，以及如果平均通用成本为 20 英镑，国家公园的价值。

At C=0, V = 10,000 and C=100, V = 0. Hence the maximum WTP is ½ (10,000) (100) = £500,000 (in thousands – hence £500 million per year).
因此，最大 WTP 为 ½ (10,000) (100) = 500,000 英镑（单位：千，即每年 5 亿英镑）。

At C=20, V= 8,000. Total User Costs = 8,000 (20) = £160,000. Consumer Surplus = ½ 8,000 (100 -20) = £320,000. WTP = £480,000 (in thousands) Hence £480 million, £20 million less than the maximum (1/2 (2,000) (20) = 20,000 (thousand)).
C=20 时，V=8,000。用户总成本 = 8,000 (20) = 160,000 英镑。消费者盈余 = ½ 8,000 (100 -20) = 32 万英镑。因此，4.8 亿英镑比最大值（1/2 (2,000) (20) = 20,000（千））少 2,000 万英镑。

(Note Willingness to Pay is the area under the demand curve (blue curve) to the left of the quantity demand (8,000 when Generalised Cost is £20 – red vertical line)
(注意：支付意愿是需求量曲线（蓝色曲线）左侧的面积（当通用成本为 20 英镑时为 8,000 - 红色垂直线）。

(b. Outline the key advantages and disadvantages of the Travel Cost method of valuing the environment.
(b) 概述 "旅行成本 "环境估值法的主要优缺点。

Associated with Marion Clawson in the late 1950s. Revealed preference method based on travel data to measure the value of National Parks etc. If data available on number of visitors, where they travelled from and how they travelled , relatively easy to calculate. Needs value of time (a non-market price) and faces difficulties where trips are multi-purpose, several sites visited in one trip or a site has multiple attractions. Only measures use value. May need to take into the environmental costs of the trips generated.
20 世纪 50 年代末与 Marion Clawson 合作。基于旅行数据的显性偏好法，用于衡量国家公园等的价值。如果有关于游客数量、游客从哪里来以及如何旅行的数据，则相对容易计算。需要时间价值（非市场价格），在旅行具有多种目的、一次旅行游览多个景点或一个景点具有多个吸引点的情况下会遇到困难。只能衡量使用价值。可能需要考虑旅行产生的环境成本。

It has also been estimated that residents of the New Forest face a mean anthropogenic concentration of PM2.5 of 8.5 μgm-3 and that the relative risk in terms of adult fatalities per year of 10 μgm-3 concentration of PM2.5 is 1.06.
另据估计，新森林居民面临的人为 PM2.5 平均浓度为 8.5 μgm-3，PM2.5 浓度为 10 μgm-3 时，每年成人死亡的相对风险为 1.06。

(c. Calculate the fraction of adult deaths in the New Forest that might be attributed to air pollution and outline how this dose-response relationship might be used to determine the environmental cost of road transport.
(c) 计算新森林成人死亡人数中可能由空气污染造成的部分，并概述如何利用这种剂量-反应关系来确定公路运输的环境成本。

AF = [(RR-1)/RR] x 100%

= [(1.068.5/10-1)/ 1.068.5/10] = 4.83%

AF = Attributable fraction, RR = Relative Risk

Dose is PM2.5 anthropogenic (human induced) concentration. Response is number of adult deaths.
剂量是 PM2.5 的人为（人类引起的）浓度。响应为成人死亡人数。

Apply the AF to the number of adult deaths in the New Forest. There are around 2,000 adult deaths in the New Forest per annum. This would suggest around 97 deaths per annum are due to air pollution. Road transport likely to be the main source of air pollution in the New Forest. Mean years lost per life around 12. Would then need to multiply this by the value of life – in excess of £1 million per fatality.
将 AF 应用于新森林的成人死亡人数。新森林每年约有 2000 名成人死亡。这表明每年约有 97 人死于空气污染。道路交通可能是新森林空气污染的主要来源。每条生命损失的平均年数约为 12 年。然后需要乘以生命价值--每起死亡事故超过 100 万英镑。

(d. What other methods might be used to value the impact of transport on the environment in the New Forest and what are their advantages and disadvantages?
(d) 还有哪些方法可以用来评估交通对新森林环境的影响，它们的优缺点是什么？

Distinguish between welfare methods and risk-based approaches. Travel cost and dose-response both revealed preference (RP) welfare approaches, along with hedonic pricing (HP), where other goods used as environmental proxies (e.g. houses, jobs, cars). HP widely used in noise studies – but can be plagued by multicollinearity issues and problems with market imperfections. More generally RP can only determine use values and has various limitations related to data on existing behaviour. Contingent valuation (CV) and conjoint analysis are stated preference (SP) methods than can assess non-use values but also affected by policy response, instrument and non-commitment biases. CV widely used for valuing biodiversity impacts. Welfare approaches value the environment based on marginal avoided damage (=social costs). Risk based approaches adopt the precautionary principle and focus on marginal abatement costs to achieve a specified environmental standard. They include shadow opportunity costs, shadow mitigation costs and shadow projects. Assumes the environmental standard has been appropriately specified.
区分福利方法和基于风险的方法。旅行成本法和剂量反应法都是揭示偏好（RP）福利方法，还有享乐定价法（HP），即用其他商品作为环境替代品（如房屋、工作、汽车）。HP广泛应用于噪声研究，但可能存在多重共线性问题和市场不完善问题。一般来说，RP 只能确定使用价值，在现有行为数据方面存在各种限制。或有估值（CV）和联合分析是陈述偏好（SP）方法，可以评估非使用价值，但也会受到政策反应、工具和非承诺偏差的影响。CV 广泛用于评估生物多样性的影响。福利法根据避免的边际损害（=社会成本）对环境进行估值。基于风险的方法采用预防原则，侧重于实现特定环境标准的边际减排成本。它们包括影子机会成本、影子减缓成本和影子项目。假定环境标准已适当指定。

2. Suppose you have been asked to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment of the proposed expansion of the Port of Southampton at Dibden Bay on the edge of the New Forest.
2.假设有人要求您对南安普顿港在新森林边缘的迪布登湾的扩建计划进行环境影响评估。

(a) Outline the key steps in the Environmental Impact Assessment process that you would implement.
(a) 概述你将实施的环境影响评估过程的关键步骤。

Note ABP’s original planning application rejected in 2004 – but another application is in process.
请注意 ABP 最初的规划申请于 2004 年被驳回，但另一项申请正在处理中。

Major project. Importance of Directive 85/337/EEC (and subsequent updates e.g. 2014/52/EU). 10 steps (after Peter Guthrie) 1. Scoping 2. Screening 3. Baseline Studies 4. Alternatives 5. Impact Prediction 6. Impact Assessment 7. Mitigation 8. EIS Preparation 9. Consultation 10.Monitoring. Given previous rejections may focus on Mitigation (e.g. to minimise disturbance to marine fauna) and Consultation (stakeholder management). Mitigation might be based on the Avoid - Reduce - Remedy - Compensate - Enhance hierarchy. Importance of international designations e.g. Ramsar sites –Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially Waterfowl Habitat
主要项目。第 85/337/EEC 号指令（及随后的更新，如 2014/52/EU）的重要性。10 个步骤（在 Peter Guthrie 之后） 1. 范围界定 2.筛选 3.基线研究 4.替代方案 5.影响预测 6.影响评估 7.缓解 8.环境影响评估报告的编制 9.咨询 10.监测。鉴于之前的拒绝，可将重点放在缓解（例如，尽量减少对海洋动物的干扰）和咨询（利益相关者管理）上。缓解措施可能基于 "避免-减少-补救-补偿-加强 "的层次结构。国际指定的重要性，例如拉姆萨尔湿地--《关于特别是水禽栖息地的国际重要湿地公约》。

(b) Critically assess the different methods you could use to measure and value the impact of the proposal on (i) Greenhouse Gases, (ii) Noise and (iii) Air Quality.
(b) 批判性地评估您可用于衡量和评价该提案对 (i) 温室气体、(ii) 噪音和 (iii) 空气质量影响的不同方法。

Would need life cycle assessment of impacts. (i) GHG would include embedded carbon in construction as well as the carbon emission during operation – related to vehicle type, fuel type and speeds (both land and maritime transport and related operations). Values from WebTAG based on non-traded values related to marginal abatements costs to achieve reduction targets (Data Book Table A3.4). (ii) Noise. Would require 24 hour measurement (in terms of dB) and assessment of number of persons affected. WebTAG values based on public health effects (Data Book Table A3.1). Could also be disturbance to fauna. (iii) Air quality. Focus would be on nitrogen oxides and particulate matter during construction and operations, with the latter determined by emissions factors. Values based on marginal damage costs (damage to human health, buildings, agricultural production) unless public health thresholds exceeded and an Air Quality Management Area is required, in which case based on marginal abatement costs (Data Book Table A3.2).
需要对影响进行生命周期评估。(i) 温室气体将包括建造过程中的内含碳以及运营过程中的碳排放--与车辆类型、燃料类型和速度有关（陆运和海运以及相关运营）。来自 WebTAG 的数值基于与实现减排目标的边际减排成本相关的非交易值（数据手册表 A3.4）。(ii) 噪音。需要进行 24 小时测量（分贝）并评估受影响人数。基于公众健康影响的 WebTAG 值（数据手册表 A3.1）。也可能对动物造成干扰。(iii) 空气质量。重点是施工和运营期间的氮氧化物和颗粒物，后者由排放因子决定。数值基于边际损害成本（对人类健康、建筑物、农业生产的损害），除非超过了公共健康阈值，需要建立空气质量管理区，在这种情况下，数值基于边际减排成本（数据手册表 A3.2）。

(c) What other environmental impacts should be assessed?
(c) 应评估哪些其他环境影响？

Could use WebTAG categories (See Table over). Impact on biodiversity and water courses (Southampton Water and River Test) particularly important. If using DMRB classification would add Geology & Soils; Material Assets and Waste; and Population & Human Health.
可使用 WebTAG 类别（见表 1）。对生物多样性和水道（南安普顿水道和 Test 河）的影响尤为重要。如果使用 DMRB 分类，则应添加地质与土壤、物质资产与废物以及人口与人类健康。

Cost-Benefit Analysis can be combined with Environmental Impact Assessment as in the New Approach to Appraisal. Could be seen as a move towards sustainability assessment, with consideration of economic and social impacts as well as environmental. Could be formalised in forms of Multi-Criteria Analysis. Danger that the economic benefits of trade may be overstated given Brexit.
成本效益分析可与环境影响评估相结合，如新评估方法。可视为向可持续性评估迈进的一步，在考虑环境影响的同时也考虑经济和社会影响。可正式采用多重标准分析法。鉴于英国脱欧，贸易的经济效益可能被夸大。

3. Compare and contrast the welfare-based and the risk-based approaches to determining economic values of the environment. Illustrate your answer with examples of both revealed and stated preference methods.
3.比较和对比基于福利的方法和基于风险的方法来确定环境的经济价值。请举例说明揭示偏好法和陈述偏好法。

Welfare – emphasis on marginal benefits and costs of amount of pollution and Pigouvian taxes (after Arthur Pigou). Based on the polluter pays principle. Example: David Newbery. Estimates of UK road transport marginal external costs.
福利--强调污染量的边际效益和成本以及 Pigouvian 税（继 Arthur Pigou 之后）。基于污染者付费原则。举例说明：David Newbery。英国公路运输边际外部成本估算。

Risk – emphasis on standards and the precautionary principle (after Ulrich Beck). Use marginal abatement costs and marginal avoided damage to determine the level of pollution reductions. Use of Coasian permits (after Ronald Coase).
风险--强调标准和预防原则（继 Ulrich Beck 之后）。使用边际减排成本和边际避免损害来确定污染减排水平。使用科斯许可（继罗纳德-科斯之后）。

Example: Werner Rothengatter (Germany). External costs of the EU transport system.
范例：Werner Rothengatter（德国）。欧盟运输系统的外部成本。

Can categorise methods as follows:

Risk-based values often double those based on welfare approaches, in part due to emphasis on Marginal Abatement Costs to achieve a reduction target rather than on Marginal Avoided Damage.
基于风险的价值往往是基于福利方法的价值的两倍，部分原因是强调了实现减排目标的边际减排成本，而不是边际避免损失。