La compensación ambiental se refiere a la provisión adicional de recursos naturales, servicios ecológicos o de bienestar social a través de proyectos de reparación que son equivalentes en magnitud a las pérdidas producidas por daños ambientales. En la Unión Europea, la Directiva de Responsabilidad Medioambiental establece el marco legal para introducir responsabilidad ambiental debido a daños producidos al medio ambiente por actividades industriales. La responsabilidad ambiental establece que los recursos naturales dañados deben devolverse al estado que hubieran tenido de no producirse el daño en cuestión (restauración primaria) así como la provisión de una compensación por pérdidas acumuladas (o pérdidas provisionales) producidas desde el momento en que ha ocurrido el incidente hasta que el medio ambiente ha vuelto a su estado original (restauración compensatoria). Los Análisis de Equivalencia representan un instrumento que se utiliza para determinar la cuantía por daños al medio ambiente. Esta investigación aplica una metodología de análisis de equivalencia conocida como método valor-a-valor como una herramienta para escalar la cantidad de remediación requerida y de esta manera estimar la cantidad de reparación para compensar las pérdidas ambientales producidas tras un incendio forestal ocurrido en el noreste de España. Para efectos del Análisis de Equivalencia de Valor (AEV) se ha diseñado un ejercicio de Valoración Contingente (VC) que estima la media de la cantidad mínima de compensación física requerida para compensar los daños producidos según las preferencias sociales. A continuación, el estudio explora cuestiones que tienen que ver con la localización del proyecto de remediación cuando éste se sitúa a cierta distancia del sitio dañado. Intuitivamente, la idea de que la ubicación de un proyecto de restauración se encuentre alejado de la ubicación inicial (la zona dañada) podría implicar una mayor cantidad de compensación en comparación a un proyecto de reparación localizado más próximo al sitio del daño. Para este fin se ha diseñado un ejercicio adicional que utiliza modelos de elección que permite estimar la cantidad de compensación requerida cuando el proyecto de reparación se localiza en un sitio distinto al de la zona afectada. Finalmente, la última parte de esta investigación explora los efectos en la disposición a pagar de la información proporcionada en el cuestionario relacionada con los pagos de un programa de reparación; específicamente, cómo pagarán por el programa y si los pagos corresponden a valores nominales o reales. Con el fin de analizar este tema la pregunta de valoración toma una forma dicotómica simple en la cual los pagos deben hacerse anualmente, durante diez años, y con incrementos anuales de acuerdo a la inflación. / Environmental compensation implies the provision of additional natural resources, services or social welfare through restoration projects that are scaled to equal the losses due to environmental damage. The Environmental Liability Directive provides legal framework in the European Union for introducing environmental liability due to damages to the environment caused by industrial operators. Environmental liability requires that harmed natural resources be restored to baseline conditions (primary restoration) and compensated for the accumulated losses (interim losses) produced from the time of the incident until the environment reaches baseline conditions (compensatory restoration). Equivalency Analysis is a methodology used to determine compensation for environmental damage. This study uses an Equivalency Analysis (EA) approach namely the value-to-value approach as a tool to scale remediation and to estimate the amount of compensatory restoration to off-set an environmental damage following a wild forest fire in the northeast of Spain. Value Equivalency Analysis (VEA) is undertaken by a Contingent Valuation (CV) exercise to determine the welfare loss from the initial damage and interim loss and then a remediation project that can be established based on that information. The study elicits the minimum amount of compensation required to make individuals as well off as they would be in the baseline situation. After this the study explores remediation located at a geographical distance from the site of damage. In some cases displacement between damaged resources and restored resources is allowed, this study explores whether longer distance from the damaged site could imply a larger amount of compensation to offset the change in natural resource location. For this, an additional exercise was designed to estimate the trade-off rate for compensating in a farther away site using choice experiment techniques. Finally, the last section focuses on the information provided to respondents regarding payments in the survey instrument. This includes informing respondents how they would pay for the restoration program and whether payments correspond to nominal or real values. The survey instrument takes the form of a single bounded dichotomous choice where the payments are to be made every year over a ten year period and they would go up every year according to inflation.

Freshwater mussels are particularly susceptible to injury from exposure to hazardous substances due to their sessile nature and filter feeding biology. There have been various Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration (NRDAR) cases in the United States involving injury to freshwater mussels due to releases of hazardous substances into rivers and streams. Restoration of mussels in these cases typically involves propagation of mussels at a hatchery facility and their subsequent stocking or release at restoration sites. However, determination of the services lost due to injury to mussel populations and the appropriate level of restoration (and associated costs) to recover those losses has varied among NRDAR cases. Standardized methods would facilitate injury determination and restoration planning for future cases involving injury to mussels. The purpose of this research was to use two of the earliest and largest NRDAR cases (Certus, Inc. and Lone Mountain Processing, Inc. (LMPI)) involving injury to mussels to: 1) determine whether restoration for these cases was sufficient and 2) analyze restoration efforts for application in future NRDAR cases (i.e., lessons learned and development of standardized methods). This study represents the first evaluation of mussel restoration efforts in a NRDAR context. In general, 4.8% to 6.1% of juvenile mussels that excysted from host fishes in the hatchery survived to be eventually released at restoration sites. Further, based on expected survival and recruitment rates of released mussels, monitoring of restoration sites found 43% to 15% of the expected number of mussels. Understanding reasons for this discrepancy between expected and estimated survival is critical for determining the level of restoration success. If released mussels are either establishing and/or recruiting outside of monitoring area but otherwise alive and breeding, then they should count towards successful restoration. In contrast, if released mussels have either high mortality over time or are dying shortly after release, then expected gains from these mussels should not count towards successful restoration. I developed a mussel-specific Resource Equivalency Analysis (REA) for use in future NRDAR cases that compares the loss of services, using Discounted Mussel Years (DMYs) as units, to the expected gain in services from restoration. Applying this analysis to the Certus and LMPI NRDAR cases suggests that mussel restoration was successful (i.e., expected DMYs gained are greater than those lost), even when it was assumed that 75% of released mussels were dying after being released at restoration sites. Finally, a cost analysis of two mussel propagation facilities found that the yearly cost per mussel released at a restoration site ranged from $4.36 to $96.48. The suite of species propagated each year varied. As some species are more difficult to propagate than others, the cost per mussel varied widely. These data will facilitate the determination of restoration costs in future cases. Together, this information provides a starting point for consistently estimating restoration effort and costs for future NRDAR cases involving freshwater mussels. / Doctor of Philosophy / Freshwater mussels provide numerous ecosystem services. Most importantly, they purify large volumes of water, and provide habitat and food for other animals. However, they are highly vulnerable to chemical spills because they cannot move long distances quickly and they are directly exposed to toxic substances if they filter water. There have been many cases in past decades where vulnerable mussel populations were exposed to chemical spills. When these populations are injured, the services they provide are lost until the population can be restored to pre-spill conditions. Restoration of mussel populations usually involves raising juvenile mussels in hatchery facilities and then releasing them in areas where populations were injured. Determining the appropriate level of restoration needed to restore populations has varied widely among cases. A standardized approach would facilitate determination of restoration and restoration costs. I used data from two cases (Certus, Inc. and Lone Mountain Processing, Inc.) where mussel populations were injured due to a chemical spill to: 1) determine whether restoration for these two cases was successful and 2) develop tools and draw insights for use in future cases where mussels are injured. This study represents the first evaluation of restoration success of freshwater mussels in a NRDAR context. On average, 4.8% to 6.1% of juvenile mussels produced at two Virginia hatchery facilities survived to be released at restoration sites. Further, of the mussels released, only 43% to 15% of the expected mussels were found in later years. These "missing" mussels are either leaving and/or breeding outside of their release areas, or they are dying and failing to provide important ecosystem services. Further study is needed to determine the degree to which each of these is the case. I also developed a mussel-specific method of determining how much restoration is needed to provide the amount of ecosystem services as pre-spill conditions (called Resource Equivalency Analysis or REA). Application of REA to these two test cases (Certus, Inc. and Lone Mountain Processing, Inc.), I showed that restoration for these cases was successful, even if as much as 75% of released mussels are dying after being released at restoration sites. Finally, I found that the cost of successfully releasing a mussel ranged from $4.36 to $96.48 per mussel. This information is useful for estimating the cost of restoration plans in future chemical spills that injure freshwater mussels.

Abstract Not Available.