IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v108y2021ics0264837721004075.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk-informed land-use planning in the Indian context: A social cost-benefit analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Roy, Sandip

Abstract

Major chemical process accidents over the recent past decades have led to the formulation and enforcement of land-use planning (LUP) practices across many countries, so as to mitigate the public risk emanating from major chemical hazard installations. The present paper presents an approach to deciding land-use policy founded on integrated local risk-acceptance criteria and an attendant societal cost-benefit analysis. The application of the proposed approach is demonstrated by a case study of an example greenfield industrial facility for which the adjoining land is subject to strictures of LUP policy. The context is chosen to be that of India, which is an emergent economy that is beset with unique challenges for balancing land-use between agrarian and industrial use. The societal costs and benefits are computed employing macro-economic indicators; the former comprise opportunity cost of land restricted for development, while the benefit is comprised of the cumulative wealth generation due to economic development of the jurisdiction over the facility life time. The value of the benefit to cost ratio is found to be highest corresponding to a LUP based on a relatively relaxed risk acceptance criterion with As Low as Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) limits of 10−6–10−4/yr for public individual risk. The primary reason for this outcome is that, in comparison to a developed economy, land prices in India are relatively high vis-à-vis labour productivity and wages. This shifts the LUP choice towards the policy which involves least land-use restrictions against non-agrarian, commercial developments in the vicinity of major hazard installations. It is also demonstrated that if the per capita GDP values corresponded to those of developed economies, a LUP policy based on a more stringent risk acceptance criterion may be affordable for the society. An additional significant finding of the study is that the Value of Statistical Life of humans makes a relatively minor contribution to the societal cost-benefit analysis. Thus, its value as a determinant to LUP decision may be relatively limited. This essentially underscores the idea that the broader objective of LUP need be to simultaneously foster economic development and minimise human and other critical losses.

Suggested Citation

  • Roy, Sandip, 2021. "Risk-informed land-use planning in the Indian context: A social cost-benefit analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:108:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721004075
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105684
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721004075
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105684?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Todaro, Michael P, 1969. "A Model for Labor Migration and Urban Unemployment in Less Developed Countries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(1), pages 138-148, March.
    2. Kala Seetharam Sridhar, 1996. "Tax Costs and Employment Benefits of Enterprise Zones," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 10(1), pages 69-90, February.
    3. Viscusi, W. Kip & Masterman, Clayton J., 2017. "Income Elasticities and Global Values of a Statistical Life," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 226-250, July.
    4. Timothy J. Bartik, 1999. "The Market Failure Approach to Regional Economic Development Policy," Book chapters authored by Upjohn Institute researchers, in: John P. Blair & Laura A. Reese (ed.),Readings in Urban Economics: Issues and Public Policy, pages 14-24, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    5. Chetan Vaidya, 2009. "Urban Issues, Reforms and Way Forward in India," Working Papers id:2311, eSocialSciences.
    6. Agamoni Majumder & S Madheswaran, 2018. "Value of statistical life in India: A hedonic wage approach," Working Papers 407, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore.
    7. John F. McDonald, 2001. "Cost‐Benefit Analysis of Local Land Use Allocation Decisions," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 277-299, May.
    8. Balmford, Ben & Bateman, Ian J. & Bolt, Katherine & Day, Brett & Ferrini, Silvia, 2019. "The value of statistical life for adults and children: Comparisons of the contingent valuation and chained approaches," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 68-84.
    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. Felsenstein, Daniel & Fleischer, Aliza, 1999. "Capital Assistance and Small Firm Growth: Implications for Regional Economic Welfare," ERSA conference papers ersa99pa395, European Regional Science Association.
    2. Fernando-Ignacio Sánchez-Martínez & Jorge-Eduardo Martínez-Pérez & José-María Abellán-Perpiñán & José-Luis Pinto-Prades, 2021. "The value of statistical life in the context of road safety: new evidence on the contingent valuation/standard gamble chained approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(2), pages 203-228, October.
    3. repec:ilo:ilowps:361718 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Mohamed Amara & Hatem Jemmali, 2018. "Deciphering the Relationship Between Internal Migration and Regional Disparities in Tunisia," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 135(1), pages 313-331, January.
    5. Ather Maqsood Ahmed & Ismail Sirageldin, 1993. "Socio-economic Determinants of Labour Mobility in Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 32(2), pages 139-157.
    6. David P. Lindstrom & Silvia E. Giorguli-Saucedo, 2007. "The interrelationship of fertility, family maintenance and Mexico-U.S. Migration," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 17(28), pages 821-858.
    7. Albertini, Julien & Terriau, Anthony, 2019. "Informality over the life-cycle," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 182-202.
    8. Fidrmuc, Jan, 2001. "Migration and adjustment to shocks in transition economies," ZEI Working Papers B 23-2001, University of Bonn, ZEI - Center for European Integration Studies.
    9. Atsede Desta Tegegne & Marianne Penker, 2016. "Determinants of rural out-migration in Ethiopia: Who stays and who goes?," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 35(34), pages 1011-1044.
    10. Timo Mitze, 2012. "Testing the Neoclassical Migration Model: Overall and Age-Group Specific Results for German Regions," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, in: Empirical Modelling in Regional Science, edition 127, chapter 0, pages 53-82, Springer.
    11. Tineke Fokkema & Eralba Cela & Elena Ambrosetti, 2013. "Giving from the Heart or from the Ego? Motives behind Remittances of the Second Generation in Europe," International Migration Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(3), pages 539-572, September.
    12. Fidrmuc, Jan & Horvath, Julius & Fidrmuc, Jarko, 1999. "The Stability of Monetary Unions: Lessons from the Breakup of Czechoslovakia," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 753-781, December.
    13. Stark, Oded, 2021. "Reexamining the influence of conditional cash transfers on migration from a gendered lens: Comment," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 58(1), pages 379-381.
    14. Seksiri Niwattisaiwong & Komsan Suriya, 2018. "Margin of luck and value of information in lottery purchases in Thailand," RAIS Journal for Social Sciences, Research Association for Interdisciplinary Studies, vol. 2(2), pages 1-11, December.
    15. Gopal K. Basak & Chandramauli Chakraborty & Pranab Kumar Das, 2021. "Optimal Lockdown Strategy in a Pandemic: An Exploratory Analysis for Covid-19," Papers 2109.02512, arXiv.org.
    16. Darin Wohlgemuth & Maureen Kilkenny, 1998. "Firm Relocation Threats and Copy Cat Costs," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 21(2), pages 139-162, August.
    17. Raymond Riezman & Ping Wang & Eric Bond, 2012. "Trade, Urbanization and Capital Accumulation in a Labor Surplus Economy," 2012 Meeting Papers 776, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    18. R. A. Dolzhenko & S. V. Lobova, 2021. "Factors of Youth Migration Behavior. Case Studies of the Siberian Federal District and Altai Krai," Regional Research of Russia, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 40-47, January.
    19. Wei-Bin Zhang, 2008. "A Two-Sector Growth Model with Endogenous Human Capital and Amenities," Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems - scientific journal, Croatian Interdisciplinary Society Provider Homepage: http://indecs.eu, vol. 6(2), pages 95-116.
    20. Ziesemer, Thomas, 2009. "Remittances, lagged dependent variables and migration stocks as determinants of migration from developing countries," MERIT Working Papers 2009-007, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    21. Zhen Yang & Jun Lei & Jian-Gang Li, 2019. "Identifying the Determinants of Urbanization in Prefecture-Level Cities in China: A Quantitative Analysis Based on Spatial Production Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, February.

    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:eee:lauspo:v:108:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721004075. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.