No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Social Cost of Marine Accidents and Marine Traffic Management Systems
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 November 2009
Extract
The benefits to society that would result from the introduction of a given marine traffic management system depend directly on the scale of the system introduced. Since the cost society would be required to pay for a marine traffic management system would also vary directly with its scale, by focusing on the cost of marine accidents both from cargo pollution as well as from loss of life, a direct cost-benefit comparison can be made, indicating the benefit to society attained through a reduction in cargo pollution and loss of life per thousand pounds expenditure on control systems.
Such an analysis implies confidence in the ability to assess in monetary terms the effect of pollution on such non-economic entities as the natural ecosystem as well as the value of such supra-economic items as a human life. In presenting our estimates we not only point out their shortcomings but also admit that past research has been unable to place an economic value on some of the dimensions of the environment, and that therefore any estimates for the social cost of pollution and loss of life should be considered a conservative estimate of the true social cost.
It is only when we have reliable estimates of the social cost of marine accidents that we can proceed to assess the net benefit of a given marine traffic management system. But then further research must be undertaken on the question of just what is the nature of the relationship of controls and social costs.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 1980
References
REFERENCES
1Benyon, L. R. (1967). The Torrey Canyon incident: A Review of Events, BP Co. Ltd., London. P. 15.Google Scholar
2Burrows, P., Rowley, C. and Owen, D. (1974). Torrey Canyon: A Cost Study in Accidental Pollution, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 21, 237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Department of the Environment (1976). Accidental Oil Pollution of the Sea, HMSO, London, p. 63.Google Scholar
5Department of Trade (1978). Report of the Working Croup on the Employment of Nondomiciled Seafarers. HMSO, London.Google Scholar
7Gardner, B. M., and Goss, R. M. (1977). Lifeboats versus inflatable rafts: a comparison of costs and benefits. In Goss, R. M. ed., Advances in Maritime Economics, CUP, Cambridge.Google Scholar
8General Council of British Shipping (1978). Fleet and Manpower Inquiry, 1976–81, GCBS, London.Google Scholar
10Goss, R. M., and Vanags, A. H. (1977). Costs and benefits of navigational aids in port approaches. In Goss, R. M., ed., Advances in Maritime Economics, CUP, Cambridge.Google Scholar
12Hayzelden, J. E. (1968). The value of human life. Public Administration, UK, 46, 437.Google Scholar
13Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (1973). The Environmental and Financial Consequences of Oil Pollution From Ships, Report of Study No. VI, Programs Analysis Unit. Didcot.Google Scholar
14Kemp, D. A., and Kemp, M. S. (1975). The Quantum of Damages, Vol. 2, Sweet and Maxwell, London.Google Scholar
16Mansfield, N. W. (1972). The value of recreational facilities. In Layard, R., ed. Cost Benefit Analysis, Penguin, London.Google Scholar
17Marine Pollution Bulletin, UK, Pergamon, various years.Google Scholar
18Mishan, E. J. (1972). The value of life. In Layard, R., ed. Cost Benefit Analysis, Penguin, London, p. 222.Google Scholar
20Sinclair, T. C. (1972). A Cost-Effectiveness Approach to Industrial Safety, Committee on Safety and Health at Work, HMSO, London.Google Scholar