Environmental economics - Economic impacts of environmental change

Title

Environmental benefits of reclaimed water: an economic assessment in the context of the Water Framework Directive

Reference

Water Policy Vol 14 No 1 pp 148–159
doi:10.2166/wp.2011.001
EU funded

Author(s)

Francisco Alcon, J. Martin-Ortega, J. Berbel and M. D. de Miguel

Study type

Peer Review Journal    

Abstract

The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) prescribes that all water bodies in Europe should achieve ‘good ecological status’ (GES). Maintaining a certain water flow is a pre-condition for the achievement of GES in areas of water scarcity. In such areas, reclaimed waste water is seen as a promising measure to keep river flow at a sufficient level. The contingent valuation method is applied here to estimate the non-market environmental benefits of using reclaimed water to maintain river flow levels in the Segura River Basin in south-eastern Spain. The assessment of the economic benefits of specific measures gives policy makers more information than a cost-effectiveness analysis alone, which is currently the most commonly used tool to assess potential measures under the WFD. The results show that the implementation of this measure produces significant non-market benefits that are larger than the investment and operational costs of reclaimed water treatment plants.

Policy theme(s)

Environmental economics >> Economic impacts of environmental change
Water >> River basin management (WFD)
Water >> Water consumption >> Water reuse

Keywords

Contingent valuation; Good ecological status; Reclaimed water; River flow; Segura River Basin; Willingness to pay

Entry Source:

Selected for Science for Environment Policy News Alert

View this study at:

http://www.iwaponline.com/wp/01401/wp014010148.htm
There is a fee to view this study in full    

Contact the study author at:

francisco.alcon@upct.es

Title

Reference

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2011.632677

Author(s)

Doron Lavee

Study type

Peer Review Journal    

Abstract

This study examines the economic viability of relocating polluting industrial factories from densely populated residential areas to designated industrial zones. This solution requires a significant economic investment consisting of relocating and remediating costs. This solution has a direct financial benefit, due to the alternative value of the land on which the factory currently stands, as it can be converted to more attractive uses. In many cases, this direct benefit does not cover the costs, therefore it is not economically feasible to transfer the plant. However, it is possible that relocating a factory in these cases is economically feasible from a national perspective, as the factory's current location may cause a decline in nearby property values, while relocating it may result in an increase in property values. Nevertheless, in these cases, government intervention may be required. This paper presents a case study for such a situation – analysing the case of the Ta'as Magen factory, a severely polluted site located in the heart of Israel's main metropolitan area. This analysis reveals that the indirect benefits of relocating the factory and remediating the site are considerably greater than the direct benefits, and outweigh all required costs.

Policy theme(s)

Environmental economics >> Economic impacts of environmental change
Chemicals >> Management >> Remediation
Sustainable development and policy assessment >> Sustainable economic development >> Sustainable business and industry

Keywords

economic efficiency, direct and indirect benefits, remediation

Entry Source:

Shortlisted for Science for Environment Policy News Alert

View this study at:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09640568.2011.632677
There is a fee to view this study in full    

Contact the study author at:

doron@pareto.co.il

Title

The economic cost and control of marine debris damage in the Asia-Pacific region

Reference

Ocean & Coastal Management
Volume 54, Issue 9, September 2011, Pages 643-651

Author(s)

Alistair McIlgorm, Harry F. Campbell and Michael J. Rule

Study type

Peer Review Journal

Abstract

Oceans in the Asia-Pacific region are being impacted by increasing levels of marine debris, with many governments unaware of the extent that marine debris damages marine industries, the economy and the marine environment. We examine the economic costs associated with marine debris and present a simple marine debris cycle model to discuss the costs and benefits of prevention, clean-up and the benefits of using biodegradable materials. For the 21 economies of the Asia- Pacific rim we estimate that marine debris-related damage to marine industries costs US$1.26bn per annum in 2008 terms. Marine debris imposes an avoidable cost that can be reduced through policy implementation to economically optimal levels. Options to control debris, using regulations, technical intervention and market based instruments, may have a role. In this pollution policy area, additional economic cost data are required to inform governments on the most economical ways to control levels of marine debris.

Policy theme(s)

Environmental economics >> Economic impacts of environmental change
Marine ecosystems >> Marine pollution

Keywords

Entry Source:

Selected for Science for Environment Policy News Alert

Referred to in EC doc:

N/A

View this study at:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569111000688
There is a fee to view this study in full

Contact the study author at:

amcilgor@uow.edu.au

Title

The Economics of Natural Disasters: Concepts and Methods

Reference

Hallegatte S., Przyluski, V. (2010b)
Policy Research Working Paper 5507
The World Bank, Washington D.C

Author(s)

Stephanie Hallegatte, Valentin Przyluski

Study type

Report

Abstract

Large-scale disasters regularly affect societies over the globe, causing large destruction and damage. After each of these events, media, insurance companies, and international institutions publish numerous assessments of the "cost of the disaster." However these assessments are based on different methodologies and approaches, and they often reach different results. Besides methodological differences, these discrepancies are due to the multi-dimensionality in disaster impacts and their large redistributive effects, which make it unclear what is included in the estimates. But most importantly, the purpose of these assessments is rarely specified, although different purposes correspond to different perimeters of analysis and different definitions of what a cost is. To clarify this situation, this paper proposes a definition of the cost of a disaster, and emphasizes the most important mechanisms that explain and determine this cost. It does so by first explaining why the direct economic cost, that is, the value of what has been damaged or destroyed by the disaster, is not a sufficient indicator of disaster seriousness and why estimating indirect losses is crucial to assess the consequences on welfare. The paper describes the main indirect consequences of a disaster and the following reconstruction phase, and discusses the economic mechanisms at play. It proposes a review of available methodologies to assess indirect economic consequences, illustrated with examples from the literature. Finally, it highlights the need for a better understanding of the economics of natural disasters and suggests a few promising areas for research on this topic.

Policy theme(s)

Environmental economics >> Economic impacts of environmental change
Natural hazards >> Climatic hazards
Natural hazards >> Geological hazards

Keywords:

Entry Source:

Selected for Science for Environment Policy News Alert

Referred to in EC doc:

N/A

View this study at:

http://econ.worldbank.org/external/default/main?pagePK=64165259&piPK=64165421&theSitePK=469372&menuPK=64166093
&entityID=000158349_20101221155640

This study is free to view

Contact the study author at:

hallegatte@centre-cired.fr.

Title

Ban on night flights at Heathrow Airport : A quick scan Social Cost Benefit Analysis

Reference

Delft Report: January 2011

Author(s)

Jasper Faber, Maria Korteland

Study type

Report

Abstract

Night flights are often considered an essential element of airline networks. Long haul passengers who want to arrive in Europe at the beginning of the day often need to land during the night, especially when they arrive at a transfer airport such as Heathrow from where they take another flight to their final destination.
However, the noise they create is detrimental to human well-being as it causes sleep disturbance, increase in medicine use, stress and (environmental) insomnia. Around London Heathrow Airport, a large number of people are affected by aircraft noise during the night time.
As the UK Government reviews its limit on the number of night flights allowed at Heathrow, this report endeavours to quantify the costs and benefits to the UK of a ban on night flights at Heathrow before 6.00am. It uses social cost benefit analysis (SCBA) to do so. SCBA systematically identifies all the direct, indirect and external effects of a night flight ban and expresses them in monetary terms so that the net costs or benefits can be calculated. It uses the broad definition of welfare, in which all items that add to the well-being of the society are benefits, and all items that decrease well-being are costs. The boundaries of SCBA presented here are UK welfare effects. The presented SCBA is a quick scan SCBA, based on values from the literature.
We assess the costs and benefits of a night flight ban against a baseline scenario in which the current regime is continued. Airlines and passengers can respond in several ways to a night flight ban. We identify three extremes:
All flights and connections are rescheduled to daytime operations.
All flights are rescheduled to daytime operations but connections are lost, leading to a decrease in the number of transfer passengers.
All flights currently arriving or departing during the night are cancelled.
Most responses are likely to fall within these boundaries. Likewise, the costs and benefits of a night flight ban are likely to fall between the costs and benefits of these extremes.
This report finds that the impacts of a night flight ban on UK welfare are likely to range from an increase of £860 million to a decrease of £35 million over a period of ten years (2013-2023). The loss would occur if all current night time passengers stopped travelling to Heathrow once a night flight ban was introduced. That however is highly unlikely. The most likely scenario is that a proportion of them will continue to use the airport. If that is the case, a night flight ban before 6.00am will bring economic benefits to the overall economy. This is because there will be a significant decrease in the costs associated with sleep disturbance. The savings that will bring, in terms of improved health and well-being, are expected to offset the main costs of a ban - passengers' time and airline profits - by a wide margin. The results are sensitive, however, to the valuation of night noise, and we recommend studying the benefits of noise reductions in more detail. Other items that require more study are the impact on passenger choices, on airline networks and on tourism.

Policy theme(s)

Environment and health >> Health risks >> Noise pollution
Environmental economics >> Economic impacts of environmental change
Noise >> Health impacts
Noise >> Reduction measures

Keywords

Aviation, Night flights, Costs, Effects, Analysis

Entry Source:

Selected for Science for Environment Policy News Alert

Referred to in EC doc:

N/A

View this study at:

http://www.hacan.org.uk/resources/reports/night.flight.final.report.pdf
This study is free to view

Contact the study author at:

www.cedelft.eu

Title

Economic valuation of air pollution mortality: A 9-country contingent valuation survey of value of a life year (VOLY)

Reference

Ecological Indicators
Volume 11, Issue 3, May 2011, Pages 902-910

Author(s)

B. Desaigues et al

Study type

Peer Review Journal

Abstract

This paper provides a key element for the calculation of the damage costs of air pollution, namely the valuation of mortality, important because premature mortality makes by far the largest contribution.Whereas several studies have tried to quantify the cost of air pollution mortality by multiplying a number of deaths by the 'value of prevented fatality' (also known as 'value of statistical life'), we explain why such an approach is not correct and why one needs to evaluate the change in life expectancy due to air pollution. Therefore, an estimate for the monetary value of a life year (VOLY) is needed. The most appropriate method for determining VOLY is contingent valuation (CV). To determine VOLY for the EU, we have conducted a CV survey in 9 European countries: France, Spain, UK, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland with a total sample size of 1463 persons. Based on the results from this 9-country CV survey we recommend a VOLY estimate of 40,000 D for cost-benefit analysis of air pollution policies for the European Union. As for confidence intervals, we argue that VOLY is at least25,000 D and at the most 100,000 D

Policy theme(s)

Air pollution >> Impact of emissions >> Health impacts
Environment and health >> Health risks >> Air pollution
Environmental economics >> Economic impacts of environmental change

Keywords

Air pollution, Mortality valuation, Life expectancy, Life years lost, Contingent valuation, Environmental policy

Entry Source:

Shortlisted for Science for Environment Policy News Alert

Referred to in EC doc:

N/A

View this study at:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X10002116
There is a fee to view this study in full

Contact the study author at:

ari.rabl@gmail.com

Title

Partial costs of global climate change adaptation for the supply of raw industrial
and municipal water: a methodology and application

Reference

Environmental Research Letters 5 (2010) 044011 (10pp)
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/5/4/044011

Author(s)

Philip J Ward, KennethM Strzepek, W Pieter Pauw, Luke M Brander, Gordon A Hughes and Jeroen C J H Aerts

Study type

Peer Review Journal

Abstract

Despite growing recognition of the importance of climate change adaptation, few global estimates of the costs involved are available for the water supply sector. We present a methodology for estimating partial global and regional adaptation costs for raw industrial and domestic water supply, for a limited number of adaptation strategies, and apply the method using results of two climate models. In this paper, adaptation costs are defined as those for providing enough raw water to meet future industrial and municipal water demand, based on country-level demand projections to 2050. We first estimate costs for a baseline scenario excluding climate change, and then additional climate change adaptation costs. Increased demand is assumed to be met through a combination of increased reservoir yield and alternative backstop measures. Under such controversial measures, we project global adaptation costs of $12 bn p.a., with 83-90% in developing countries; the highest costs are in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Globally, adaptation costs are low compared to baseline costs ($73 bn p.a.), which supports the notion of mainstreaming climate change adaptation into broader policy aims. The method provides a tool for estimating broad costs at the global and regional scale; such information is of key importance in international negotiations.

Policy theme(s)

Climate change and energy >> Climate change adaptation >> Flooding and water management
Environmental economics >> Economic impacts of environmental change

Keywords

Adaptation, climate change, costs, global, hydrology, reservoirs, water supply

Entry Source:

Shortlisted for Science for Environment Policy News Alert

Referred to in EC doc:

N/A

View this study at:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/4/044011/pdf/1748-9326_5_4_044011.pdf This study is free to view

Contact the study author at:

philip.ward@ivm.vu.nl