Measuring externalities of waste transfer stations in Israel using hedonic pricing

Eshet, Tzipi; Baron, Mira G.; Shechter, Mordechai; Ayalon, Ofira

doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2006.03.021

Cited by 54 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Scenario 1: Transferability was tested on the basic survey sample that included all (uncontrolled) observations (regression results in Eshet et al 2006). This scenario was divided into two parts:…”

Section: Benefit Transfer Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The case study involves four transfer stations in Israel. The examination was based on data and results from a comprehensive HPM valuation study we had recently carried out that estimated the impacts of disamenities associated with transfer stations, on property values, in four cities in Israel (Eshet et al 2006). That HPM study seemed a priori appropriate for BT exercises as it fits the basic criteria for successful BT, including an identical survey instrument to evaluate the same good in all compared sites and adequate data in the analysis as well as the same statistical techniques.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring Benefit Transfer: Disamenities of Waste Transfer Stations

Eshet

Baron

Shechter

2006

Environ Resource Econ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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%.

show abstract

Section: Benefit Transfer Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring Benefit Transfer: Disamenities of Waste Transfer Stations

Eshet

Baron

Shechter

2006

Environ Resource Econ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…MSW transshipment stations are defined by [9] as a logistical facility that interconnects the solid waste collected to thelandfill, where the MSW is consolidated from multiple vehicles to vehicles of greater capacity, in order to obtain transportation savings for final disposal in a landfill. In [10], a similar concept is adopted.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The transshipment stations allow reducing transportation costs through freight consolidation, with consequent reduction of fuel consumption, maintenance costs, urban traffic, and pollution [9], [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Calcutta (India), a transshipment station to consolidate MSW in vehicles of greater capacity is used [11]. In Israel, there are 30 transshipment stations and the largest one is in the Tel Aviv Metropolitan Region, with an operational capacity of 3,000 tons of MSW per day [10]. In Urmia (Iran), the transshipment station is located 8 km south of the city, and the landfill is located 17 km to the north [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Transshipment Station for Urban Solid Waste: An Analysis Considering City Logistics Concepts

Oliveira

Rueda

2017

WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we analyze the impact of a transshipment station on the urban solid waste management, considering the trade-off among (i) transportation and operational costs of the transshipment; (ii) operational costs of the trips considering the transshipment station; and (iii) costs for the collection trips from the districts directly to the landfill. The study was carried out in the city of Belo Horizonte (Brazil), which produces 1,730 tons of urban solid waste per day. We have evaluated three scenarios: (i) baseline scenario, in which part of the solid waste is consolidated on a transshipment station and the other part is destined directly to the landfill; (ii) transport direct to the landfill; and (iii) consolidation of all solid waste on the transshipment station. We have evaluated these scenarios considering the cost of collecting and transporting the solid waste. We then analyzed the correlation between cost and distances: distance and total transportation cost have a positive correlation, and distance has a negative correlation with the unitary transportation cost (R$/km), i.e., when the distance increases, the cost of transportation per kilometer decreases. Our results indicate that the transshipment station has economic advantages for consolidating and transporting solid waste to a landfill. However, direct transport to a landfill is more profitable if the transportation cost (R$/km) increases up to 9.28%. If the transportation cost increases more than 15%, the operation cost of a transshipment station can increase up to 62%. However, an efficient operation in the transshipment station is critical to ensure this level of profit. Finally, the location of the transshipment station is imperative, and baseline scenario presents a better network for the urban solid waste logistics management.

show abstract

Waste Collection and Transport

Everett¹

2012

Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measuring externalities of waste transfer stations in Israel using hedonic pricing

Cited by 54 publications

References 10 publications

Exploring Benefit Transfer: Disamenities of Waste Transfer Stations

Exploring Benefit Transfer: Disamenities of Waste Transfer Stations

Transshipment Station for Urban Solid Waste: An Analysis Considering City Logistics Concepts

Waste Collection and Transport

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About