No abstract

The primary objective of this study was to assist waste management researchers, decision-makers and waste managers at national, regional and local levels, in their decision-making processes, with most recent valuations on the environmental and social costs of externalities associated with various pollutants and disamenities related to landfilling and incineration of municipal solid waste. The aim was achieved by mapping, gathering, analysing, comparing and synthesizing various valuation estimates, based on a thorough review of existing literature. This study provides the first comprehensive review and analysis focused on primary and secondary valuation studies, conducted since 1990. The second objective was to assess the appropriateness and reliability of the valuation methods and techniques that were performed in the reviewed studies. The results of the review are summarized in tables, organized by topics and units of measure and in addition a classified list that describes the profile of the reviewed studies is provided. The results are then analysed and compared, and recommended ranges of the values are presented. The study reveals inconsistency in part of the estimates across the reviewed studies and provides reasonable explanations for the variations. Given the nature of uncertainty, and the difficulties associated with transferring values among different places and cases, these values should be considered mostly as an indication for the order of magnitude of the externalities. Nevertheless, these essential estimates of the external costs can beneficially be used with proper adjustment for each individual case to address important policy questions regarding landfilling and incineration of waste.

No abstract

No abstract

Abstract. The benefit transfer method was developed as an alternative way to value externalities using values from studies of similar circumstances, carried out at similar sites somewhere else, given the challenges and high costs inherent in assessing the actual cost. Specifically, in order to test the performance of the benefit transfer method, employing hedonic price models, this study focused on estimates of disamenities associated with waste transfer stations at four different cities in Israel. The sites were intentionally selected to represent a variety of circumstances. We transferred the estimated benefit function from a ''study site'' to a ''policy site''. The goodness of fit was examined by comparing the calculated value, with actual data from the policy site. To test the sensitivity of the benefit transfer function to socioeconomic and housing characteristics, it was repeatedly applied to different sets of observations. The findings suggest that a relatively large number of alternative benefit functions are transferable. Statistical inequality outcome regarding the degree of similarity between samples does not unequivocally rule out the appropriateness of transferring environmental values across studies. Transfer errors varied between )21% and +29%, and the absolute average error for all transfers was 15.4%. Errors were lower for transfer between relatively similar cities in terms of size and location and between sub-samples that were similar in socioeconomic characteristics and housing type. However, when a site with very dissimilar data was involved, the average absolute error rose to 19%.