284
A. Song and R. Chuenpagdee
Damage Schedules
The survey method highlighted in this chapter is the damage schedule (Gregory
et al. 1996 ; Chuenpagdee et al. 2001 ) . A damage schedule is envisioned as a set of
policy instruments similar to payments and sanctions that could be used to discourage damaging activities and compensate for resource losses. It collects public judgments on the relative importance of resource losses or the relative harmfulness of
certain activities causing the losses. The assessed preferences or judgments are
presented in the form of an interval ranking scale, which could work as a nonmonetary indicator of the severity of resource losses or the impacts of the damaging
activities. The result can aid policy makers in developing appropriate policy strategies to prevent certain activities, create a compensation scheme for resource damage, and deter incidents such as accidental oil spills and discharge pollution. Further,
the developed damage schedules offer policy makers a platform to involve local
communities in the management of resources and directly incorporate their inputs
in policy design, since the schedules are based on the knowledge of resource users
and on people’s preferences and judgments about resources and their importance, as
well as those of scientists and managers.
The damage schedule approach has been applied to several fi sheries and coastal
related studies over the years. An earlier application was to examine coastal development issues surrounding shrimp farming and tourism in Southern Thailand
(Chuenpagdee et al. 2001 ) . Chuenpagdee et al. ( 2002 ) surveyed community members
in Mexico to reveal local judgments about the severity of damages to coastal habitats and the impact of activities that may cause the damages. A more elaborated set
was developed to assess the relative severity of collateral impacts of the fi shing
gears commonly used in the United States (Chuenpagdee et al. 2003 ) . Environmental
damages in the urban coastal setting of Singapore were the subject of the study by
Quah et al. ( 2006 ) , who then used the resulting scale to derive willingness-to-accept
compensation amounts for relinquishing top environmental concerns. As demonstrated by these applications, this quantitative survey method affords fl exibility in
design that, we believe, will allow modi fi cations to be made to get at one’s underlying values and principles.
Paired Comparison
The damage schedule relies on the use of paired comparison, which is a simple
method frequently used to attain a ranking scale. Its basic unit is the comparison of
two objects, and the comparison is presented to one or more judges. The term
‘object’ is used to cover what is being compared such as treatment or stimuli, while
judges mean survey respondents (David 1988 ) . This method has proven useful in
situations where subjective judgments may play a role in people’s evaluation, such
as in taste tasting, personnel evaluation, or social values. It is particularly applicable
in situations “when it is impossible or impractical to make relevant measurements
A. Song and R. Chuenpagdee
Damage Schedules
The survey method highlighted in this chapter is the damage schedule (Gregory
et al. 1996 ; Chuenpagdee et al. 2001 ) . A damage schedule is envisioned as a set of
policy instruments similar to payments and sanctions that could be used to discourage damaging activities and compensate for resource losses. It collects public judgments on the relative importance of resource losses or the relative harmfulness of
certain activities causing the losses. The assessed preferences or judgments are
presented in the form of an interval ranking scale, which could work as a nonmonetary indicator of the severity of resource losses or the impacts of the damaging
activities. The result can aid policy makers in developing appropriate policy strategies to prevent certain activities, create a compensation scheme for resource damage, and deter incidents such as accidental oil spills and discharge pollution. Further,
the developed damage schedules offer policy makers a platform to involve local
communities in the management of resources and directly incorporate their inputs
in policy design, since the schedules are based on the knowledge of resource users
and on people’s preferences and judgments about resources and their importance, as
well as those of scientists and managers.
The damage schedule approach has been applied to several fi sheries and coastal
related studies over the years. An earlier application was to examine coastal development issues surrounding shrimp farming and tourism in Southern Thailand
(Chuenpagdee et al. 2001 ) . Chuenpagdee et al. ( 2002 ) surveyed community members
in Mexico to reveal local judgments about the severity of damages to coastal habitats and the impact of activities that may cause the damages. A more elaborated set
was developed to assess the relative severity of collateral impacts of the fi shing
gears commonly used in the United States (Chuenpagdee et al. 2003 ) . Environmental
damages in the urban coastal setting of Singapore were the subject of the study by
Quah et al. ( 2006 ) , who then used the resulting scale to derive willingness-to-accept
compensation amounts for relinquishing top environmental concerns. As demonstrated by these applications, this quantitative survey method affords fl exibility in
design that, we believe, will allow modi fi cations to be made to get at one’s underlying values and principles.
Paired Comparison
The damage schedule relies on the use of paired comparison, which is a simple
method frequently used to attain a ranking scale. Its basic unit is the comparison of
two objects, and the comparison is presented to one or more judges. The term
‘object’ is used to cover what is being compared such as treatment or stimuli, while
judges mean survey respondents (David 1988 ) . This method has proven useful in
situations where subjective judgments may play a role in people’s evaluation, such
as in taste tasting, personnel evaluation, or social values. It is particularly applicable
in situations “when it is impossible or impractical to make relevant measurements