IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i14p7718-d591959.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Non-Market Valuation Approach to Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis for Sanitary Landfill Project Appraisal

Author

Listed:
  • Nik Nor Rahimah Nik Ab Rahim

    (Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, UKM, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia)

  • Jamal Othman

    (Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, UKM, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia)

  • Norlida Hanim Mohd Salleh

    (Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, UKM, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia)

  • Norshamliza Chamhuri

    (Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, UKM, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia)

Abstract

Extensive non-engineered landfilling practice in developing countries has raised environmental concerns, but operating a sanitary landfill appears infeasible due to financial incapability. This study aims to determine the feasibility of a sanitary landfill project by including its environmental values into the project appraisal while simultaneously applying three policy-relevant methods—non-market valuation, benefits transfer, and cost-benefit analysis—in two study areas in Peninsular Malaysia. The non-market valuation study used choice modeling, a questionnaire-based technique, to elicit willingness to pay among 624 households toward the environmental attributes of the sanitary landfill. Their responses resulted in the monetary values of the environmental attributes by referring to implicit prices of leachate discharge, bad odor, disease vector and view. The implicit prices of bad odor (RM2.29 per month) and view (RM3.59 per month) in the two study areas were transferable and used as a proxy of additional solid waste disposal payment in environmental cost-benefit analysis. Positive net present value offers empirical evidence of the feasibility of the sanitary landfill project. The findings show that the inclusion of environmental values in project appraisals increases the chances of implementing sanitary landfills, providing a new approach to address the environmental concerns in developing countries. Future research should consider the external costs along with the external benefits to allow for a comprehensive comparison between environmental values in environmental cost-benefit analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Nik Nor Rahimah Nik Ab Rahim & Jamal Othman & Norlida Hanim Mohd Salleh & Norshamliza Chamhuri, 2021. "A Non-Market Valuation Approach to Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis for Sanitary Landfill Project Appraisal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-18, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:14:p:7718-:d:591959
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/14/7718/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/14/7718/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark Morrison & Jeff Bennett, 2004. "Valuing New South Wales rivers for use in benefit transfer," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(4), pages 591-611, December.
    2. Carolus, Johannes Friedrich & Hanley, Nick & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Pedersen, Søren Marcus, 2018. "A Bottom-up Approach to Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 282-295.
    3. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    4. Jeanty, Pierre Wilner & Haab, Timothy C. & Hitzhusen, Frederick J., 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Biodiesel in Diesel Engines: A Stochastic Double Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon 9868, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Korhonen, Jouni & Honkasalo, Antero & Seppälä, Jyri, 2018. "Circular Economy: The Concept and its Limitations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 37-46.
    6. Wright, Stuart A.L. & Fritsch, Oliver, 2011. "Operationalising active involvement in the EU Water Framework Directive: Why, when and how?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2268-2274.
    7. Willi Haas & Fridolin Krausmann & Dominik Wiedenhofer & Markus Heinz, 2015. "How Circular is the Global Economy?: An Assessment of Material Flows, Waste Production, and Recycling in the European Union and the World in 2005," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 19(5), pages 765-777, October.
    8. António Miguel Martins & Susana Cró, 2021. "The Impact of Tourism on Solid Waste Generation and Management Cost in Madeira Island for the Period 1996–2018," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-16, May.
    9. Ms. Thornton Matheson, 2019. "Disposal is Not Free: Fiscal Instruments to Internalize the Environmental Costs of Solid Waste," IMF Working Papers 2019/283, International Monetary Fund.
    10. Mark Morrison & Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey & Jordan Louviere, 2002. "Choice Modeling and Tests of Benefit Transfer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 161-170.
    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. Ukrit Suksanguan & Somsak Siwadamrongpong & Thanapong Champahom & Sajjakaj Jomnonkwao & Tassana Boonyoo & Vatanavongs Ratanavaraha, 2022. "Structural Equation Model of Factors Influencing the Selection of Industrial Waste Disposal Service in Cement Kilns," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-19, March.
    2. Georgios Giakoumakis & Dorothea Politi & Dimitrios Sidiras, 2021. "Medical Waste Treatment Technologies for Energy, Fuels, and Materials Production: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-30, December.

    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. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Liekens, Inge & De Nocker, Leo, 2014. "Temporal stability of preferences and willingness to pay for natural areas in choice experiments: A test–retest," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 243-260.
    2. Robert Johnston, 2007. "Choice experiments, site similarity and benefits transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(3), pages 331-351, November.
    3. Klaus Glenk & Julia Martin-Ortega & Manuel Pulido-Velazquez & Jacqueline Potts, 2015. "Inferring Attribute Non-attendance from Discrete Choice Experiments: Implications for Benefit Transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(4), pages 497-520, April.
    4. Millar, Neal & McLaughlin, Eoin & Börger, Tobias, 2019. "The Circular Economy: Swings and Roundabouts?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 11-19.
    5. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2008. "Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 1-20.
    6. D. D’Amato, 2021. "Sustainability Narratives as Transformative Solution Pathways: Zooming in on the Circular Economy," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 231-242, June.
    7. Johnston, Robert J. & Duke, Joshua M., 2010. "Socioeconomic adjustments and choice experiment benefit function transfer: Evaluating the common wisdom," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 421-438, August.
    8. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2013. "The limitations of applying benefit transfer to assess the value of ecosystem services in a “generic” peri-urban, coastal town in Australia," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152183, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. Johnston, Robert J. & Ramachandran, Mahesh & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y., 2011. "Characterizing Spatial Pattern in Ecosystem Service Values when Distance Decay Doesn’t Apply: Choice Experiments and Local Indicators of Spatial Association," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103374, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. O'Donovan, Nick, 2024. "Turning less into more: Measuring real GDP growth in the green transition," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    11. Concepción Garcés-Ayerbe & Pilar Rivera-Torres & Inés Suárez-Perales & Dante I. Leyva-de la Hiz, 2019. "Is It Possible to Change from a Linear to a Circular Economy? An Overview of Opportunities and Barriers for European Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise Companies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-15, March.
    12. Javeed, Sohail Ahmad & Akram, Umair, 2024. "The factors behind block-chain technology that boost the circular economy: An organizational perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    13. Chembessi Chedrak & Gohoungodji Paulin & Juste Rajaonson, 2023. "“A fine wine, better with age”: Circular economy historical roots and influential publications: A bibliometric analysis using Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy (RPYS)," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(6), pages 1593-1612, December.
    14. Rolfe, John & Brouwer, Roy, 2011. "Testing for value stability with a meta-analysis of choice experiments: River health in Australia," Research Reports 107744, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    15. Georgios Lanaras-Mamounis & Anastasios Kipritsis & Thomas A. Tsalis & Konstantinos Ι. Vatalis & Ioannis E. Nikolaou, 2022. "A Framework for Assessing the Contribution of Firms to Circular Economy: a Triple-Level Approach," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 883-902, September.
    16. Dominik Noll & Christian Lauk & Willi Haas & Simron Jit Singh & Panos Petridis & Dominik Wiedenhofer, 2022. "The sociometabolic transition of a small Greek island: Assessing stock dynamics, resource flows, and material circularity from 1929 to 2019," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(2), pages 577-591, April.
    17. Arru, Brunella & Furesi, Roberto & Pulina, Pietro & Sau, Paola & Madau, Fabio A., 2022. "The Circular Economy in the Agri-food system: A Performance Measurement of European Countries," Economia agro-alimentare / Food Economy, Italian Society of Agri-food Economics/Società Italiana di Economia Agro-Alimentare (SIEA), vol. 24(2), September.
    18. Håkansson, Cecilia & Östberg, Katarina & Bostedt, Göran, 2012. "Estimating Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy in Swedish Coastal Environments – A Walk along different Socio-economic Dimensions," CERE Working Papers 2012:18, CERE - the Center for Environmental and Resource Economics.
    19. Pappalardo, Gioacchino & West, Grant Howard & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Toscano, Sabrina & Pecorino, Biagio, 2022. "The effect of a UNESCO world heritage site designation on willingness to pay to preserve an agri-environmental good: The case of the dry stone walls in Mt. Etna," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    20. Ewa Mazur-Wierzbicka, 2021. "Towards Circular Economy—A Comparative Analysis of the Countries of the European Union," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-25, May.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:14:p:7718-:d:591959. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.