IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v15y2000i2p115-134.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk-Cost Analysis for the Regulation of Airborne Toxic Substances in a Developing Context: The Case of Arsenic in Chile

Author

Listed:
  • R. O'Ryan
  • M. Díaz

Abstract

Most developing countries are just beginning to takeenvironmental protection seriously. In some cases it is common tocopy regulations from developed countries; however, determininghow much protection is required is difficult, ideally requiringthat the costs and risks be considered to propose a realistic andeffective policy. Chile has serious problems with arsenicpollution associated to emissions from its copper smelters. Toregulate these emissions, a strict ambient concentrationstandard, applicable to the whole country, is being proposed thatreduces risks to an acceptable level. However, little is knownabout the exposure and health effects associated to currentemission levels, and the corresponding costs of reducingemissions. The results of a three-year project that combinesengineering, economics and health information sheds light onthese costs and risks for different values of ambient standards.These show that there are ``win--win'' options that obtainsignificant health improvements at low, even negative, costs.However, costs quickly increase as the concentration standardbecomes more stringent, with few additional health benefits. Inmany locations naturally high background levels of arsenic makeit very costly or even impossible to reach the desired goal.These results make it necessary to examine the use of a case-by-caseregulation for each source, rather than a general one basedon a unique ambient quality goal. They also suggest that copyingstandards or risk criteria used in developed contexts can beextremely expensive. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Suggested Citation

  • R. O'Ryan & M. Díaz, 2000. "Risk-Cost Analysis for the Regulation of Airborne Toxic Substances in a Developing Context: The Case of Arsenic in Chile," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 15(2), pages 115-134, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:15:y:2000:i:2:p:115-134
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1008300206313
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1008300206313
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1008300206313?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. Van Houtven, George & Cropper, Maureen L., 1996. "When is a Life Too Costly to Save? The Evidence from U.S. Environmental Regulations," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 348-368, May.
    2. O'Ryan, Raul E., 1996. "Cost-Effective Policies to Improve Urban Air Quality in Santiago, Chile," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 302-313, November.
    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. Coria, Jessica & Sterner, Thomas, 2008. "Tradable Permits in Developing Countries: Evidence from Air Pollution in Santiago, Chile," RFF Working Paper Series dp-08-51, Resources for the Future.
    2. Mardones, Cristian & Flores, Belén, 2018. "Effectiveness of a CO2 tax on industrial emissions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 370-382.
    3. Damian Tago & Henrik Andersson & Nicolas Treich, 2014. "Pesticides and Health: A Review of Evidence on Health Effects, Valuation of Risks, and Benefit-Cost Analysis," Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research, in: Preference Measurement in Health, volume 24, pages 203-295, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    4. Sébastien Dessus & David O'Connor, 2003. "Climate Policy without Tears CGE-Based Ancillary Benefits Estimates for Chile," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 287-317, July.
    5. Franz Hackl & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2000. "Braucht die Deutsche Umweltpolitik einen Exxon Valdez Tankerunfall?," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 1(1), pages 92-114, February.
    6. Zilberman, David & Hochman, Gal & Sexton, Steven E., 2008. "Food Safety, the Environment, and Trade," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper Series 48637, World Bank.
    7. Cropper, Maureen L. & Subramanian, Uma, 1995. "Public choices between lifesaving programs : how important are lives saved?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1497, The World Bank.
    8. Newell, Richard G & Stavins, Robert N, 2003. "Cost Heterogeneity and the Potential Savings from Market-Based Policies," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 43-59, January.
    9. Temirlan T. Moldogaziev & Rachel M. Krause & Gwen Arnold & Le Ahn Nguyen Long & Tatyana Ruseva & Chris Silvia & Christopher Witko, 2023. "Support for the environment post‐transition? Material concerns and policy tradeoffs," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(2), pages 186-206, March.
    10. Freeman, A. Myrick, III, 2001. "Environmental Policy Since Earth Day I: What Do We Know About the Benefits and Costs?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 31(1), pages 1-14, April.
    11. Andrew B. Whitford, 2007. "Competing Explanations for Bureaucratic Preferences," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 19(3), pages 219-247, July.
    12. Speir, Cameron & Stephenson, Kurt & Shabman, Leonard A., 2000. "Command-And-Control Or Effluent Allowance Markets: Roles Of Economic Analysis," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21869, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Bowland, Bradley J. & Beghin, John C., 2001. "Robust estimates of value of a statistical life for developing economies," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 385-396, May.
    14. Caplan, Arthur J. & Sasaki, Yuya, 2014. "Benchmarking an optimal pattern of pollution trading: The case of Cub River, Utah," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 502-510.
    15. Raúl O'Ryan & José Miguel Sánchez, 2002. "Comparing the Net Benefits of Incentive Based and Command and Control Regulations in a Developing Context: the Case of Santiago, Chile," Documentos de Trabajo 221, Instituto de Economia. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile..
    16. Raúl O'Ryan, 2002. "Factors that Determine the Efficiency Ranking of Second-Best Instruments for Environmental Regulation," Documentos de Trabajo 147, Centro de Economía Aplicada, Universidad de Chile.
    17. William S. Neilson & Geum Soo Kim, 2001. "A Standard‐Setting Agency and Environmental Enforcement," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 67(3), pages 757-763, January.
    18. Blackman, Allen & Harrington, Winston, 1998. "Using Alternative Regulatory Instruments to Control Fixed Point Air Pollution in Developing Countries: Lessons from International Experience," RFF Working Paper Series dp-98-21, Resources for the Future.
    19. Zivin, Joshua Graff & Zilberman, David, 2002. "Optimal Environmental Health Regulations with Heterogeneous Populations: Treatment versus "Tagging"," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 455-476, May.
    20. STÅLE Navrud & GERALD Pruckner, 1997. "Environmental Valuation – To Use or Not to Use? A Comparative Study of the United States and Europe," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(1), pages 1-26, July.

    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:kap:enreec:v:15:y:2000:i:2:p:115-134. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.