Appendix B. Theoretical basis for measuring social costs
Because landfill disposal creates external costs to nearby residents, market failure often occurs. While benefits provided by a new landfill site are shared by all citizens, harms from a landfill (e.g., reduction in housing values) concentrate on nearby residents (Kunreuther and Kleindorfer 1986; Mitchell and Carson 1986). In order to measure the community’s social costs for each target site, the City determines to measure willingness tor pay (WTP) for avoiding external effects from the proposed landfill. Environmental policy usually focuses on improvements in environmental quality rather than deliberate degradation of the environment (Pearce et al. 2006)
In order to obtain the resident’s WTP for avoiding the landfill, the City considers the hypothetical situation: (i) pre policy (with the landfill); and (ii) post policy that removes the landfill). Following Mitchell and Carson (1989), the assumptions are that: (i) planners have a policy option to restrict the landfill on the target site; and (ii) the residents have a property right only to the initial situation Q^' (the level of environmental quality with the landfill). The residents do not have the property right to the benefits by the post policy that improves environmental quality. The value that a resident places on environmental quality (Q) with the landfill is defined as (pre policy) (for the theoretical background from equations B-1 to B-9, see Roberts et al. 1991; Freeman 2003):
U^0=U^0 (X,Q^0) (B-1)
where U^0 is the level of utility with a landfill nearby, X is a vector of quantities of private goods, and Q^0 is the level of environmental quality with a landfi...
... middle of paper ...
...ch is in between the SSUT and NSUT approaches. The WSTU approach approximately specifies the connection between explanatory variables and an underlying utility function. In the WSUT approach, study design variables can be included in order to explain different MWTP estimates that occur from different research designs. They suggested utilizing the SSUT and WSUT approaches for benefits transfer. The NSUT approach is not suitable for BT.
Following Bergstrom and Taylor (2006), this study utilizes the WSUT approach for BT (see Smith at al. 2002; Smith and Huang 1995; Walton et al. 2006). While core economic variables (e.g., Y and POP) based on economic theory are key factors for benefits transfer reflecting differences between target sites, study design variables (e.g., N, SE, and FUNCTION) can improve the meta-analysis function for BT by explaining different MWTP.
The Lowry Landfill Superfund Site is located in Arapahoe County, Colorado, approximately 2 miles east of Aurora. It consists of approximately 507 acres of waste disposal area and is operated by Waste Management of Colorado, Inc. The land surrounding the site consists of native prairie grass and a wetland located along a local creek. Sections around the site are zoned for agricultural use including cattle grazing and non-irrigated wheat farms. 1 The area is home to numerous endangered species including the bald eagle and peregrine falcon. Due to the large amounts of wastes disposed on the site between 1965 and 1980, it became extremely contaminated with a variety of inorganic and organic contaminants. From 1984 to 1993, the EPA oversaw remedial investigation and feasibility studies that were performed by all responsible parties. Since its listing as a superfund site in 1984, multiple remedial actions have been performed in order to rehabilitate the site. These include clay barrier walls around the site, a groundwater collection system, a soil cover for the main landfill, as well as a landfill gas collection system. Groundwater that is collected on the site is treated at an onsite water treatment facility. In 2007, construction began on an onsite gas to energy plant that utilizes the methane produced by the landfill site. The electricity produced by the plant is enough to power 3000 households. 1 Today, use of land and groundwater on and near the site is still restricted by the state of Colorado.1
The odor emitted from composting by Landfill is experienced and filed by multiple individuals as “a thousand complaints” in 1992. Since the odor affects the community and not just the Stewart's, it would be a public nuisance.
Harmful emissions from the landfills escape into the air we breathe. The soil and water are also contaminated from our
Environmental racism is the “targeting of minorities and low-income communities to bear a disproportionate share of environmental costs. It refers to any policy or practice that differently affects or disadvantages individuals, groups or communities based on race or skin color” (Schill & Austin 1991). Environmental racism focuses on race as the primary factor why poor minorities in the United States are bearing a disproportionate share of the nation’s waste. According to research done by The Commission of Racial Justice of the United Church of Christ, areas containing two or more waste facilities or one of the largest waste landfills in the nation had on average about 40% people of color (Mohai, Pellow & Timmons
Methods. Literature for this concept analysis was accessed from the TSU online library using CINAHL database, our textbook and literature found on the internet. The Walker and Avant’s (1995) concept analysis method was used to guide this concept analysis.
Government welfare was created to help people who were struggling get back on their feet again. People now abuse this privilege that was meant for good. People expect the government to give them food stamps, free health care, and other necessities of life. By doing this, tax dollars of the working class are taking care of people who will not work. To solve this problem, welfare should be temporary not permanent, prove you are looking for a job, have random drug screenings, and work in community service in exchange for welfare. Although government welfare can be a great resource to those in need, there needs to be restrictions and limits put on it so it will not be abused.
To implement a recycling program requires a collection process that includes the containers to gather the materials, the trucks to transport them to the processing site, and the manpower to manage the program. Unfortunately, recycling is more of a business than an attempt to save the environment. The value of the material being recycled overshadows the negative impact of dumping items into the landfill. At a point in time, the demand for recycled paper declined, so recyclers stored the material in hopes that values would increase. “The hope is that eventually the markets turn around and that the materials is sold, but I have heard of instances where it gets landfilled, because a community doesn’t have the demand or the space or the company to deal with it, “ says Gene Jones, the executive director of Southern Waste Information Exchange (Westervelt,
Landfills in America have taken many square miles of what used to be fertile land, forests and communities and that trend does not seem to have an end. The waste, we as Americans, dispose of each year is in the tons and that number rises annually. One of the reasons why this occurs is actually quite simple; population. Population in modern day America has soared to well above three hundred million, in 1915 that number was hundred million. Urbanization and industry has given way to deforestation and landfill creation. The need for more landfills has caused many health concerns, issues, and problems to not only those living near and
Parens, Erik. "Special Supplement: Is Better Always Good? The Enhancement Project." Hastings Center Report 28.1 (1998): s1-s17. Web. 1 Apr 2011. .
This book vividly discusses the trash problem in Staten Island, New York. Even with a well defined garbage collection, recycling, and landfill system, the management of Staten Island does loathes scrutiny, hence the reason they ignored Royte’s calls. It also shows how most New York residents are disinterested in making work easier for the garbage collection sector, eventually having a negative effect on the environment.
Importantly, when thinking about the cost-benefit approach, it should be borne in mind that its proponents are not strictly motivated to act ethically, unless the cost of not doing so is sufficiently high, or if acting ethically will result in economic profit. For example, a industrial company may know that dumping chemical waste into a nearby river is harmful to the environment, and by extension, human and non-human animals, although still decide to dispose of their waste in such a manner, as it is economically cheaper to do so, than to dispose of the waste in a safe but more costly manner. In coming to such a decision, they may have also weighed the potential fines and loss of business if they are exposed, although determined that such costs are not sufficiently high compared to the economic savings of cheaper, inappropriate dumping, so will maintain the current method of disposal.
Now within the rest of this paper you will be finding a few different things getting discussed. Staring it off we will be discussing the articles that we have found to make our arguments and hypotheses. After wrapping up the literature reviews we will be discussing the hypotheses thus continuing onto our variables and indicators. Once we discuss our hypotheses we will be moving onto the research design. The research design will have our general issues, sampling, and methods.
We all care for our planet even if it is a very tiny part inside of us. The less effort we have to put forward in helping our environment the more we are actually willing to help and the better we feel about ourselves. In fact, more people recycle than vote in the United States; according to Samantha MacBride in her book Recycling Reconsidered. (MacBride 9) But, what if the good is outweighed by the bad? What if the immediate results are just delaying worst problems? The city of Saint George has a great waste management program, a county landfill which is in city limits, but the right distance from residential areas, and many respectable recycling centers. The city also offers recycling “binnies” at multiple locations throughout the city (WC). Waste management is near perfect in Saint George. However, the newly elected Mayor Jon Pike is looking to implement a city-wide curbside recycling program. “. . . [Mayor Pike] wants to pursue a longtime goal of bringing curbside recycling service to the area, embracing a nation-wide trend toward sustainability and hoping to extend the life of the county landfill.” reports David DeMille from The Spectrum. Yes, curbside recycling does indeed come with its benefits, but those benefits may not as be as beneficial as they appear. The City of Saint George should not implement curbside recycling.
The organization is able to manage a high coverage of risks at relative low costs owing to the availability of highly skilled personnel in the company’s team of employees. This benefit also brings about another advantage of easing the financial burden of the organization (Johnson, 2016). Besides, effective employee benefit system offered by the organization could improve the general productivity. This benefit is attributed to the fact that employees tent to be more effective when they are given assurance of job security. In addition, workers become more productive when they and their families are given the desired security by the employer. The other benefit to the organization if it employs an effective compensation and benefits system entail benefits from premiums (Wayne, Shore, M., Bommer, & Tetrick, 2002). These premiums are typically tax deductibles as corporate expense. As such, a company that has an effective compensation and benefits system is likely save extra money for other
Policy is needed to regulate which course of action should be taken and how it should be implemented. Because of this, many plans and policies revolving around the management of solid waste have been put in place. Sometimes however, a particular policy can have its shortfalls, potentially resulting in its negative aspects outweighing the positive ones. According to the Conference Board of Canada Report, “Canadians dispose of more municipal solid waste per capita than any other country” (2013). Solid waste management in particular, involves many aspects, ranging from packaging waste, food waste, etc. (White & Franke 1999), hence, the following analysis revolves around household and commercial waste – referred to as Municipal Solid Waste (White & Franke. 1999) – in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Municipal waste is a major health and environmental concern as it contributes to numerous problems like habitat destruction, surface groundwater pollution, and other forms of air, soil, and water contamination. Waste disposal methods like incineration create toxic substances, and landfills emit methane, which contributes to global warming. According to the Zero Waste Objective Report, “The impact of climate change and the increasing awareness of the role of “waste” and “wasting” in the production of greenhouse gas emissions is a constant environmental pressure… (2009). This leads to an increasing limitation of government to prevent and control the volume and toxicity of products in the waste stream and a growing need to shift responsibility to the product manufacturer.