IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/sojoae/30048.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating External Costs Of Municipal Landfill Siting Through Contingent Valuation Analysis: A Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Roberts, Roland K.
  • Douglas, Peggy V.
  • Park, William M.

Abstract

Much of the solid waste stream in the United States is generated by metropolitan areas, while associated landfills are often located in adjacent rural communities. Landfill disposal of municipal solid waste often creates external costs to nearby residents. Contingent valuation was used to estimate external costs of siting a landfill in the Carter community of Knox County, Tennessee. Estimates of annual external costs were $227 per household. Household income, size, years in the community, and distance from the proposed landfill and the respondent's education, sex, and perception of health risks were important in determining a household's willingness to pay to avoid having a landfill in the Carter community. Also, households whose drinking water supplies were at risk of contamination were willing to pay $141 more than those who used piped city water or bottled water.

Suggested Citation

  • Roberts, Roland K. & Douglas, Peggy V. & Park, William M., 1991. "Estimating External Costs Of Municipal Landfill Siting Through Contingent Valuation Analysis: A Case Study," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(2), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:sojoae:30048
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.30048
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/30048/files/23020155.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.30048?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maler, Karl-Goran, 1977. "A note on the use of property values in estimating marginal willingness to pay for environmental quality," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 355-369, December.
    2. Richard C. Bishop, 1982. "Option Value: An Exposition and Extension," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(1), pages 1-15.
    3. Randall, Alan & Ives, Berry & Eastman, Clyde, 1974. "Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 132-149, August.
    4. Smith, V Kerry & Desvousges, William H, 1986. "The Value of Avoiding a Lulu: Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(2), pages 293-299, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Toshiaki Sasao, 2004. "Analysis of the socioeconomic impact of landfill siting considering regional factors," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 6(2), pages 147-175, June.
    2. Peter A. Groothuis & George Van Houtven & John C. Whitehead, 1998. "Using Contingent Valuation to Measure the Compensation Required to Gain Community Acceptance of a Lulu: the Case of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility," Public Finance Review, , vol. 26(3), pages 231-249, May.
    3. Peter A. Groothuis & Gail Miller, 1994. "Locating Hazardous Waste Facilities: The Influence of NIMBY Beliefs," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 335-346, July.
    4. Bowker, James Michael & Didychuk, D.D., 1994. "Estimation Of The Nonmarket Benefits Of Agricultural Land Retention In Eastern Canada," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 23(2), pages 1-8, October.
    5. Barrett, Alan & Lawlor, John, 1995. "The Economics of Solid Waste Management in Ireland," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number PRS26.
    6. Thomas C. Kinnaman & Don Fullerton, 2002. "The Economics of Residential Solid Waste Management," Chapters, in: Don Fullerton & Thomas C. Kinnaman (ed.), The Economics of Household Garbage and Recycling Behavior, chapter 1, pages 1-48, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Caplan, Arthur & Grijalva, Therese & Jackson-Smith, Douglas, 2007. "Using choice question formats to determine compensable values: The case of a landfill-siting process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 834-846, February.
    8. Soliño, Mario & Farizo, Begoña A. & Campos, Pablo, 2009. "The influence of home-site factors on residents' willingness to pay: An application for power generation from scrubland in Galicia, Spain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 4055-4065, October.
    9. Lee, Joo Suk & Choi, Eun Chul, 2018. "CO2 leakage environmental damage cost – A CCS project in South Korea," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 753-758.
    10. Bowker, J. M. & MacDonald, H. F., 1992. "An Economic Analysis of Localized Pollution: Rendering Emissions in a Residential Setting," 1992 Annual Meeting, August 9-12, Baltimore, Maryland 271381, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Toshiaki Sasao, 2004. "Analysis of the socioeconomic impact of landfill siting considering regional factors," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 6(2), pages 147-175, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    2. Brookshire, David S, et al, 1982. "Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 165-177, March.
    3. Randall, Alan, 1982. "Economic Surplus Concepts and Their Use in Benefit Cost Analysis," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(02), pages 1-29, August.
    4. Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann, & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert C. Mitchell & Stanley Presser & Paul A. Rudd & V. Kerry Smith & Michael Conaway & Kerry Martin, 1997. "Temporal Reliability of Estimates from Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 151-163.
    5. Toshiaki Sasao, 2004. "Analysis of the socioeconomic impact of landfill siting considering regional factors," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 6(2), pages 147-175, June.
    6. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    7. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Bergstrom, John C. & Dillman, B.L. & Stoll, John R., 1985. "Public Environmental Amenity Benefits Of Private Land: The Case Of Prime Agricultural Land," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(1), pages 1-11, July.
    9. Daniel McFadden, 2009. "The human side of mechanism design: a tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacque Laffont," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(1), pages 77-100, April.
    10. repec:zib:zbseps:v:2:y:2022:2:1:p:44-52 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    12. Levinson, Arik, 1999. "NIMBY taxes matter: the case of state hazardous waste disposal taxes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 31-51, October.
    13. Coggins, Jay S. & Ramezani, Cyrus A., 1998. "An Arbitrage-Free Approach to Quasi-Option Value," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 103-125, March.
    14. Smith, V. Kerry, 1990. "Environmental Risk Perception and Valuation: Conventional versus Prospective Reference Theory," 1990 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Vancouver, Canada 270887, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Samples, Karl C. & Dixon, John A. & Gowen, Marcia M., 1985. "Information Disclosure And Endangered Species Valuation," 1985 Annual Meeting, August 4-7, Ames, Iowa 278634, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Ambrey, Christopher L. & Fleming, Christopher M., 2011. "Valuing scenic amenity using life satisfaction data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 106-115.
    17. Jean-Paul Chavas & Rulon D. Pope, 1984. "Information: Its Measurement and Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(5), pages 705-710.
    18. Pope, C. Arden III, 1989. "Alternative Opportunities for Allocating the Public Rangeland Resource," WAEA/ WFEA Conference Archive (1929-1995) 244844, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    19. Paul Dolan & Robert Metcalfe, 2008. "Comparing Willingness-to-Pay and Subjective Well-Being in the Context of Non-Market Goods," CEP Discussion Papers dp0890, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    20. Paul R. Portney, 1994. "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 3-17, Fall.
    21. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Public Economics;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:sojoae:30048. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/saeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.