IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aue/wpaper/0409.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Regulatory assessment for chemicals: a rapid appraisal cost-benefit approach

Author

Listed:
  • David Pearce
  • Phoebe Koundouri

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explore alternative 'rapid appraisal' methodologies for determining the costs and benefits of environmental legislation, the focus being the new Chemicals Policy in the European Union (EU) known as REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals). We show that a full and rigorous cost-benefit appraisal of this legislation is not possible because of informational deficiencies. Hence, some 'second best' approach is required. In addition, full cost-benefit appraisal is likely to be expensive and impossible to conduct in the near-term. We argue that it is possible to obtain some broad estimates of gains and losses by making reasonable assumptions and by pursuing different methodologies for estimating benefits. Two methodologies, both based on the notion of a disability-adjusted life year (DALY), are adopted. A DALYis a measure of health loss, enabling different forms of morbidity to be compared with premature mortality. We seek to 'monetise' DALYs in order to make a direct comparison with the costs of the policy measures. The first approach addresses health expenditure in the UK and EU, based on the presumption that this expenditure is incurred in order to avoid and treat the causes of DALYs. Health expenditure per DALY is thus a measure of the value of a DALYand this expenditure is avoided by reductions in DALYs due to environmental control. The second approach assigns a willingness-to-pay value to a DALY based on an 'anchor' estimate of the 'value of a statistical life' (VOSL) and an implied value of a 'life year' (VOLY). On the basis of these models we show that while the costs of REACH could be greater than benefits, the second approach reveals a strong probability that benefits exceed costs. Since our models explicitly exclude any environmental benefits, we regard our benefit estimates as minima. Overall, our own judgement is that we feel confident that REACH generates net benefits, a result consistent with other partial studies that have been carried out to date.

Suggested Citation

  • David Pearce & Phoebe Koundouri, 2004. "Regulatory assessment for chemicals: a rapid appraisal cost-benefit approach," DEOS Working Papers 0409, Athens University of Economics and Business.
  • Handle: RePEc:aue:wpaper:0409
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wpa.deos.aueb.gr/docs/2004.Regulatory.assessment.for.chemicals.pdf
    File Function: First version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anna Alberini & Maureen Cropper & Alan Krupnick & Nathalie Simon, 2006. "Willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions: Does latency matter?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 231-245, May.
    2. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2003. "Willingness to pay for a QALY," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1049-1060, December.
    3. Josephine A. Mauskopf & Michael T. French, 1991. "Estimating the Value of Avoiding Morbidity and Mortality from Foodborne Illnesses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 619-631, December.
    4. Morgenstern, Richard D. & Pizer, William A. & Shih, Jhih-Shyang, 2002. "Jobs Versus the Environment: An Industry-Level Perspective," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 412-436, May.
    5. N. Künzli & R. Kaiser & S. Medina & M. Studnicka & O. Chanel & P. Filliger & M. Herry & F. Horak & V. Puybonnieux-Texier & Philippe Quénel & Jodi Schneider & R. Seethaler & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud & , 2000. "Public health Impact of Outdoor and Traffic related Air Pollution," Post-Print halshs-00150955, HAL.
    6. A. Markandya, 2000. "Employment and Environmental Protection," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 15(4), pages 297-322, April.
    7. Wolfram Krewitt & Mike Holland & Alfred Trukenmüller & Thomas Heck & Rainer Friedrich, 1999. "Comparing costs and environmental benefits of strategies to combat acidification and ozone in Europe," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 2(4), pages 249-266, December.
    8. P. Filliger & M. Herry & F. Horak & V. Puybonnieux-Texier & P. Quenel & J. Schneider & R.K. Seethaler & J.C. Vernaud & H. Sommer & N. Künzli & R. Kaiser & S. Medina & M. Studnicka & Olivier Chanel, 2000. "Public-health impact of outdoor and traffic-related air pollution: a European assessment," Post-Print hal-01462907, HAL.
    9. Thomas Roediger-Schluga, 2004. "The Porter Hypothesis and the Economic Consequences of Environmental Regulation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3300.
    10. Anna Alberini & Maureen Cropper & Alan Krupnick & Nathalie Simon, 2006. "Willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions: Does latency matter?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 231-245, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kyriaki Remoundou & Phoebe Koundouri, 2009. "Environmental Effects on Public Health: An Economic Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 6(8), pages 1-19, July.

    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. Ami, Dominique & Aprahamian, Frédéric & Chanel, Olivier & Joulé, Robert-Vincent & Luchini, Stéphane, 2014. "Willingness to pay of committed citizens: A field experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 31-39.
    2. Meelan Thondoo & David Rojas-Rueda & Joyeeta Gupta & Daniel H. de Vries & Mark J. Nieuwenhuijsen, 2019. "Systematic Literature Review of Health Impact Assessments in Low and Middle-Income Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-21, June.
    3. Henrik Andersson & James Hammitt & Gunnar Lindberg & Kristian Sundström, 2013. "Erratum to: Willingness to Pay and Sensitivity to Time Framing: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application on Car Safety," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 457-457, November.
    4. Poudenx, Pascal, 2008. "The effect of transportation policies on energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission from urban passenger transportation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 901-909, July.
    5. Lars Hein & Pete Roberts & Lucia Gonzalez, 2016. "Valuing a Statistical Life Year in Relation to Clean Air," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(04), pages 1-24, December.
    6. Olivier Chanel & Pascale Scapecchi & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2006. "How to correctly assess mortality benefits in public policies," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(5), pages 759-776.
    7. Anna Alberini & Stefania Tonin & Margherita Turvani & Aline Chiabai, 2007. "Paying for permanence: Public preferences for contaminated site cleanup," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 155-178, April.
    8. Lin-Yu Xu & Hao Yin & Xiao-Dong Xie, 2014. "Health Risk Assessment of Inhalable Particulate Matter in Beijing Based on the Thermal Environment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-21, November.
    9. Samakovlis, Eva & Huhtala, Anni & Bellander, Tom & Svartengren, Magnus, 2005. "Valuing health effects of air pollution--Focus on concentration-response functions," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 230-249, September.
    10. Yun-Gi Lee & Pureun-Haneul Lee & Seon-Muk Choi & Min-Hyeok An & An-Soo Jang, 2021. "Effects of Air Pollutants on Airway Diseases," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-17, September.
    11. Pock, Markus, 2007. "Gasoline and Diesel Demand in Europe: New Insights," Economics Series 202, Institute for Advanced Studies.
    12. André de Palma & Néjia Zaouali, 2007. "Monétarisation des externalités de transport : un état de l'art," THEMA Working Papers 2007-08, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    13. Angelo Antoci & Simone Borghesi, 2010. "Environmental degradation, self-protection choices and coordination failures in a North–South evolutionary model," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 5(1), pages 89-107, June.
    14. Laura S. Fruhen & Patrick Benetti & Lisette Kanse & Isabel Rossen, 2023. "Why Not Pedal for the Planet? The Role of Perceived Norms for Driver Aggression as a Deterrent to Cycling," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-14, March.
    15. Budy P. Resosudarmo & Lucentezza Napitupulu, 2004. "Health and Economic Impact of Air Pollution in Jakarta," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 80(s1), pages 65-75, September.
    16. repec:gii:giihei:ciesrp:cies_rp_26 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Haitao Yin, 2013. "Insurance Approach for Financing Extreme Climate Event Losses in China: A Status Analysis," EEPSEA Research Report rr2013035, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Mar 2013.
    18. Jihwan Jang & Jonghui Choi & Hoseung Yi & Sungwook Park, 2020. "Effects of the Bore to Stroke Ratio on Combustion, Gaseous and Particulate Emissions in a Small Port Fuel Injection Engine Fueled with Ethanol Blended Gasoline," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, January.
    19. Henrik Andersson & James K. Hammitt & Kristian Sundström, 2015. "Willingness to Pay and QALYs: What Can We Learn about Valuing Foodborne Risk?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 727-752, September.
    20. Lu-Yi Qiu & Ling-Yun He, 2017. "Can Green Traffic Policies Affect Air Quality? Evidence from A Difference-in-Difference Estimation in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-10, June.
    21. Strand.J., 2001. "Public- and private-good values of statistical lives : results from a combined choice-experiment and contingent-valuation survey," Memorandum 31/2001, Oslo University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:aue:wpaper:0409. 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: Ekaterini Glynou (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diauegr.html .

    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.