Embedding Landfill Diversion in Economic, Geographical and Policy Settings Panel based evidence from Italy
This paper analyses the process of delinking for landfilling trends embedding the dynamics in a frame where economic, geographical and policy variables enter the arena We aim at investigating in depth what main drivers may be responsible for such a phenomenon, and whether differences may be observed focusing the lens on a decentralised provincial based setting. We exploit a rich panel dataset stemming from Official sources (APAT, Italian environmental agency) merged with other provincial and regional based information, covering all the 103 Italian provinces over 1999-2005. The case study on Italy is worth being considered given that Italy is a main country in the EU. Thus it offers important pieces on information on the evaluation of policies. Evidence shows that the observed decoupling between economic growth and landfilling is driven by a mix of structural factors, as population density and other waste management opportunity: local opportunity costs and landfill externalities matter in shaping waste policies and local commitment to landfill diversion. But not only structural factors are relevant. If on the one hand landfill taxation is a significant driver of the phenomenon, even at the more coherent regional level, where the tax is implemented, waste management instruments, when we exploit the provincial dataset, are associated to high significant negative effect on landfilled waste. A good performance on managing waste according to economic rationales helps reducing the amount that is landfilled. In association to the features of the tariff system, we also underline the key role played by the share of separated collection. Both the evolution of collection and tariff system are joint factors that may drive a wedge between the comparative waste performances of northern and southern regions. We finally note that lock in effects linked to the intensity of incinerator sites in the area are relevant for landfilling: past investments in incineration lock in the region in this technological path, which may be associated to less opportunity cost and lower external effects. Summing up, landfill diversion is stronger where the economic cost deriving from high population density, a structural factor, are higher, and waste management collection systems and economic instruments are associated with higher performances.
|Date of creation:||Sep 2008|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Corso Magenta, 63 - 20123 Milan|
Web page: http://www.feem.it/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Robin R. Jenkins & Kelly B. Maguire & Cynthia L. Morgan, 2004.
"Host Community Compensation and Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,"
University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(4).
- Cynthia Morgan & Kelly B. Maguire & Robin R. Jenkins, 2002. "Host Community Compensation and Municipal Solid Waste Landfills," NCEE Working Paper Series 200204, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Aug 2002.
- Stern, David I., 2004. "The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1419-1439, August.
- David I. Stern, 2003. "The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve," Rensselaer Working Papers in Economics 0302, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Economics.
- Dijkgraaf, E. & Gradus, R. H. J. M., 2004. "Cost savings in unit-based pricing of household waste: The case of The Netherlands," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 353-371, December.
- Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus, 2004. "Cost savings of unit-based pricing of household waste: The case of the Netherlands," Public Economics 0409001, EconWPA.
- Stern , David I., 1998. "Progress on the environmental Kuznets curve?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(02), pages 173-196, May.
- Francisco André & Emilio Cerdá, 2004. "Landfill Construction and Capacity Expansion," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(4), pages 409-434, August.
- Andre, F.J. & Cerda, E., 2003. "Landfill Construction and Capacity Expansion," Discussion Paper 2003-115, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Jong Seok Lim & Paul Missios, 2007. "Does size really matter? Landfill scale impacts on property values," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(10), pages 719-723.
- Lim, Jong Seok & Missios, Paul, 2005. "Does Size Really Matter? Landfill Scale Impacts on Property Values," MPRA Paper 70809, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Caplan, Arthur & Grijalva, Therese & Jackson-Smith, Douglas, 2007. "Using choice question formats to determine compensable values: The case of a landfill-siting process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 834-846, February.
- Selim Cagatay & Hakan Mihci, 2006. "Degree of environmental stringency and the impact on trade patterns," Journal of Economic Studies, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 33(1), pages 30-51, January.
- Dijkgraaf, Elbert & Vollebergh, Herman R.J., 2004. "Burn or bury? A social cost comparison of final waste disposal methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(3-4), pages 233-247, October.
- Elbert Dijkgraaf & Herman R.J. Vollebergh, 2003. "Burn or Bury? A Social Cost Comparison of Final Waste Disposal Methods," Working Papers 2003.46, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
- Dinda, Soumyananda, 2004. "Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 431-455, August.
- Christer Berglund & Patrik Söderholm, 2003. "An Econometric Analysis of Global Waste Paper Recovery and Utilization," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(3), pages 429-456, November.
- David Pearce, 2004. "Does European Union Environmental Policy Pass a Costâ€“Benefit Test?," World Economics, World Economics, Economic & Financial Publishing, 1 Ivory Square, Plantation Wharf, London, United Kingdom, SW11 3UE, vol. 5(3), pages 115-137, July. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:2008.71. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (barbara racah)
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.