Management of Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Land

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Abstract: Regulation of hazardous waste and cleanup of contaminated sites are two major components of modern public policy for environmental protection. We review the literature on these related areas, with emphasis on empirical analyses. Researchers have identified many behavioral responses to regulation of hazardous waste, including changes in the location of economic activity. However, the drivers behind compliance with these costly regulations remain a puzzle, as most research suggests a limited role for conventional enforcement. Increasingly sophisticated research examines the benefits of cleanup of contaminated sites, yet controversy remains about whether the benefits of cleanup in the U.S. exceed its costs. Finally, research focusing on the imposition of legal liability for damages from hazardous waste finds advantages and disadvantages of the U.S. reliance on legal liability to pay for cleanup, as opposed to the government-financed approaches more common in Europe. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor mayAcknowledgements: Prepared for the Annual Review of Resource Economics, vol 3., 2011. We are grateful to Erin Cochran for research assistance.

The Economics of the International Trade of Waste

“…There is a large and related literature on the economics of waste management more generally, but this review does not focus on this extensive literature, as it is worthy of a complete review on its own; some of this area is covered in Sigman & Stafford (2011). However, it is worth briefly mentioning some of these important papers for the reader who may be interested in international waste trade issues within the context of waste management more generally.…”

Econometric analysis of cleanup of illegal dumping sites in Japan: removal or remedial actions?

“…They indicated that the speeding up effect of funding was small compared with the amount of funding needed, although funding could accelerate the remediation process in two of the four different states. Sigman and Stafford (2010) reviewed the socioeconomic literature on regulation of hazardous waste and cleanup of contaminated sites, focusing on empirical analysis. Relatively more existing studies have examined property values before and after cleanup using stated preference approaches and hedonic price techniques (e.g., Alberini et al 2005;McCluskey and Rausser 2003;Greenstone and Gallagher 2008;US Environmental Protection Agency 2009).…”

“…This result indicates that full removal raises the cleanup costs by approximately 236 % and partial removal does so by approximately 180 %. As Sigman and Stafford (2010) noted, removal actions are more expensive than remedial actions. Significant effects for toxicity are similar to the results by Barth and McNichols (1994) that indicated significant effects of hazard score by the EPA and pollution of groundwater.…”

“…Environ Econ Policy Stud be more expensive than remedial actions (on-site cleanups) (Sigman and Stafford 2010). However, residents near the site often favor removal options because they perceive it to be a permanent solution to the problem, as mentioned by Gupta et al (1995).…”

“…The table shows that the incidents supported by the funds are larger than those without support, although the units of volume or weight are different. Recent average incomes in Japan are approximately 2950 thousand yen (a 3-year average of2000, 2005, and 2010, from Minryoku DVD 2014. Average incomes in the municipalities having contaminated sites supported by the funds are somewhat lower than the Japanese average.…”