Risk-Cost Analysis for the Regulation of Airborne Toxic Substances in a Developing Context: The Case of Arsenic in Chile
AbstractMost 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
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists in its journal Environmental and Resource Economics.
Volume (Year): 15 (2000)
Issue (Month): 2 (February)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100263
developing countries; environmental management; pollution prevention; risk analysis;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- 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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.