IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/inecol/v27y2023i1p155-169.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can cost‐effectiveness analysis of control measures for persistent chemicals be improved? A critical evaluation of approaches for assessing “effectiveness”

Author

Listed:
  • Silke Gabbert
  • Arianne de Blaeij
  • Joris T. K. Quik
  • Joost Bakker
  • Joop de Knecht
  • Eric Verbruggen
  • Richard Luit

Abstract

Persistence, that is the ability of a chemical to accumulate in the environment over time, is a core concern triggering regulatory action under the European chemicals legislation REACH. Due to lacking quantitative information about environmental impacts and damage costs, cost‐effectiveness analysis (CEA) has been applied for evaluating the performance of regulatory control measures. Different indicators for assessing the effectiveness of a control measure have been used, (i) the expected aggregate emission reduction, (ii) the change of the environmental mass at steady‐state, and (iii) the change of the cumulative environmental stock. This paper examines the conceptual characteristics of these indicators when being used in CEA. The analysis elaborates on an illustrative example of three persistent chemicals with different intrinsic properties. We find that estimates of aggregate emission reduction and of the change of steady‐state mass misrepresent the environmental pollution burden of persistent chemicals because they ignore the time path of pollution in the environment. This can induce misleading conclusions on the relative cost‐effectiveness of control measures and can lead to an erroneous prioritization of measures. Cumulative stock estimates, while not being equivalent to quantitative risk or impact assessment, capture the time path of pollution in environmental media and, therefore, provide an approximation of the environmental impact potential of persistent chemicals. This is a prerequisite for a concern‐driven evaluation of risk‐management measures for persistent chemicals.

Suggested Citation

  • Silke Gabbert & Arianne de Blaeij & Joris T. K. Quik & Joost Bakker & Joop de Knecht & Eric Verbruggen & Richard Luit, 2023. "Can cost‐effectiveness analysis of control measures for persistent chemicals be improved? A critical evaluation of approaches for assessing “effectiveness”," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(1), pages 155-169, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:27:y:2023:i:1:p:155-169
    DOI: 10.1111/jiec.13329
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13329
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jiec.13329?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. Kolstad, Charles D., 1996. "Learning and Stock Effects in Environmental Regulation: The Case of Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 1-18, July.
    2. Georgiou, Stavros & Rheinberger, Christoph M. & Vainio, Matti, 2018. "Benefit-Cost Analysis in EU Chemicals Legislation: Experiences from over 100 REACH Applications for Authorisation," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 181-204, April.
    3. Jon Conrad & Lars Olson, 1992. "The economics of a stock pollutant: Aldicarb on Long Island," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(3), pages 245-258, May.
    4. Pauli Lappi & Markku Ollikainen, 2019. "Optimal Environmental Policy for a Mine Under Polluting Waste Rocks and Stock Pollution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(1), pages 133-158, May.
    5. Falk Ita & Mendelsohn Robert, 1993. "The Economics of Controlling Stock Pollutants: An Efficient Strategy for Greenhouse Gases," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 76-88, July.
    6. William Nordhaus, 2014. "Estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon: Concepts and Results from the DICE-2013R Model and Alternative Approaches," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 000.
    7. Hediger, Werner, 2009. "Sustainable development with stock pollution," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(6), pages 759-780, December.
    8. Arthur E. Attema & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Karl Claxton, 2018. "Discounting in Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(7), pages 745-758, July.
    9. Silke Gabbert & Hans‐Peter Weikard, 2010. "A theory of chemicals regulation and testing," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 34(2), pages 155-164, May.
    10. Silke Gabbert & Hans‐Peter Weikard, 2010. "A theory of chemicals regulation and testing," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 34, pages 155-164, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Newell, Richard G. & Pizer, William A., 2003. "Regulating stock externalities under uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2, Supple), pages 416-432, March.
    2. Ahn, Kwangwon & Chu, Zhuang & Lee, Daeyong, 2021. "Effects of renewable energy use in the energy mix on social welfare," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    3. Heutel, Garth & Moreno-Cruz, Juan & Shayegh, Soheil, 2018. "Solar geoengineering, uncertainty, and the price of carbon," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 24-41.
    4. Aaron M. Cook & James S. Shortle, 2022. "Pollutant Trading with Transport Time Lags," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(2), pages 355-382, June.
    5. Michael Toman & Karen Palmer, 1997. "How should an accumulative toxic substance be banned?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 9(1), pages 83-102, January.
    6. Toman, Michael A. & Withagen, Cees, 2000. "Accumulative pollution, "clean technology," and policy design," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 367-384, October.
    7. Olli Tahvonen, 1995. "Dynamics of pollution control when damage is sensitive to the rate of pollution accumulation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(1), pages 9-27, January.
    8. Marc Baudry, 2000. "Joint Management of Emission Abatement and Technological Innovation for Stock Externalities," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(2), pages 161-183, June.
    9. Baudry, Marc, 1999. "Stock externalities and the diffusion of less polluting capital: an option approach," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3-4), pages 395-420, December.
    10. Richard S. J. Tol & In Chang Hwang & Frédéric Reynès, 2012. "The Effect of Learning on Climate Policy under Fat-tailed Uncertainty," Working Paper Series 5312, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    11. Ruiz Estrada, Mario Arturo, 2013. "The Macroeconomics evaluation of Climate Change Model (MECC-Model): The case Study of China," MPRA Paper 49158, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 18 Aug 2013.
    12. Proost, Stef & Van Dender, Kurt, 2012. "Energy and environment challenges in the transport sector," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 77-87.
    13. Baker, Erin, 2005. "Uncertainty and learning in a strategic environment: global climate change," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 19-40, January.
    14. Joseph E. Aldy & William A. Pizer, 2009. "Issues in Designing U.S. Climate Change Policy," The Energy Journal, , vol. 30(3), pages 179-210, July.
    15. Conrad, Klaus, 2001. "The Optimal Path of Energy and CO2 Taxes for Intertemporal Resource Allocation," Discussion Papers 602, Institut fuer Volkswirtschaftslehre und Statistik, Abteilung fuer Volkswirtschaftslehre.
    16. van der Ploeg, Frederick & Rezai, Armon, 2017. "Cumulative emissions, unburnable fossil fuel, and the optimal carbon tax," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 216-222.
    17. Francesco Lamperti & Giovanni Dosi & Mauro Napoletano & Andrea Roventini & Alessandro Sapio, 2018. "And then he wasn't a she : Climate change and green transitions in an agent-based integrated assessment model," Working Papers hal-03443464, HAL.
    18. Narain, Urvashi & Fisher, Anthony, 1998. "Irreversibility, Uncertainty, and Catastrophic Global Warming," CUDARE Working Papers 198662, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    19. Robert J. R. Elliott & Ingmar Schumacher & Cees Withagen, 2020. "Suggestions for a Covid-19 Post-Pandemic Research Agenda in Environmental Economics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(4), pages 1187-1213, August.
    20. Michael Finus & Pedro Pintassilgo & Alistair Ulph, 2014. "International Environmental Agreements with Uncertainty, Learning and Risk Aversion," Department of Economics Working Papers 19/14, University of Bath, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    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:bla:inecol:v:27:y:2023:i:1:p:155-169. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1088-1980 .

    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.