Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T17:27:48.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating External Costs of Municipal Landfill Siting Through Contingent Valuation Analysis: A Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2016

Roland K. Roberts ,
Peggy V. Douglas  and
William M. Park
Roland K. Roberts
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology at theUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville
Peggy V. Douglas
Affiliation:
Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville
William M. Park
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology at theUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Much of the solid waste stream in the United States is generated by metropolitan areas, while associated landfills are often located in adjacent rural communities. Landfill disposal of municipal solid waste often creates external costs to nearby residents. Contingent valuation was used to estimate external costs of siting a landfill in the Carter community of Knox County, Tennessee. Estimates of annual external costs were $227 per household. Household income, size, years in the community, and distance from the proposed landfill and the respondent's education, sex, and perception of health risks were important in determining a household's willingness to pay to avoid having a landfill in the Carter community. Also, households whose (drinking water supplies were at risk of contamination were willing to pay $141 more than those who used piped city water or bottled water.

Keywords

landfill sitingsolid waste disposalcontingent valuation
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , December 1991 , pp. 155 - 166
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, Brian. Land Values Surrounding Waste Disposal Facilities. Research Report, Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University. Ithaca, New York, 1982.Google Scholar
Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., and Welsch, R. E.. Regression Diagnostics, Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity. New York: John Wiley Sons, 1980.Google Scholar
Bishop, Richard C. “Option Value: An Exposition and Extension.” Land Econ., 58(1982): 1–15.Google Scholar
Davis, Robert K. “The Value of Outdoor Recreation: An Economic Study of the Maine Woods.” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1963.Google Scholar
Dillman, Don A. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978.Google Scholar
Fisher, Ann, and Raucher, Robert. “Intrinsic Benefits of Improved Water Quality: Conceptual and Empirical Perspectives.” Advances in Applied Economics, Kerry, V. Smith, ed. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1984.Google Scholar
Freemen, A. Myrick, III. “On Assessing the State of the Art of the Contingent Valuation Method of Valuing Environmental Changes.” Hiluing Environmental Goods: A State of the Arts Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method, Commings, Ronald G., Brookshire, David S., and Schulze, William D., eds., Totawa, New Jersey: Rowman and Allanheld, 1986.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W. Michael. “Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?” draft manuscript, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Berkeley, 1986.Google Scholar
Hansen, William. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, phone conversation, 1988.Google Scholar
Havlicek, Joseph Jr., Robert Richardson, and Lloyd Davies. “Measuring the Impacts of Solid Waste Disposal Site Location on Property Values. “Am. J. Agr. Econ., 53(1971):869.Google Scholar
Johnston, J. Econometric Methods. 3rd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984.Google Scholar
Kooyman, M. A. Dummy Variables in Econometrics. Rotterdam: Nijgh-Wolters-Noordhoff, Universitaire Unitgerers B.V., 1976.Google Scholar
Krutilla, John V. “Conservation Reconsidered.” Am. Econ. Rev., 57(1967):787–796.Google Scholar
Lave, L. G. “Air Pollution Damage: Some Difficulties in Estimating the Value of Abatement.” Environmental Quality Analysis, Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1972.Google Scholar
Maler, K. G. “A Note on the Use of Property Values in Estimating Marginal Willingness to Pay for Environmental Quality.” J. Envir. Econ. Manag., 4(1977):355–369.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Robert C, and Carson, Richard T.. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 1989.Google Scholar
Park, William M. “A Role for Incentives in Siting Landfills?” Proceedings of the Southern Natural Resource Economic Committee Regional Workshop, Southern Rural Development Center and the Farm Foundation, SNREC No. 22, 1986.Google Scholar
Randall, Alan. “Frontiers of Nonmarket Valuation.” Proceedings of the Southern Natural Resource Economic Committee Regional Workshop, Southern Rural Development Center and the Farm Foundation, SNREC No. 18,1983.Google Scholar
Randall, Alan, and Stoll, John R.. “Consumer's Surplus in Commodity Space.” Am. Econ. Rev., 70( 1980):449–455.Google Scholar
Randall, Alan, Ives, Berry C., and Clyde Eastman. “Bidding Games for Valuation of Aesthetic Environmental Improvements.” J. Envir. Econ. and Manag., 1(1974):132–149.Google Scholar
Raucher, Robert L. “A Conceptual Framework for Measuring the Benefits of Groundwater Protection.” Water Resources Res., 19(1984:320–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute, Inc. SAS/STAT™ User ‘s Guide. Release 6.03 Edition. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute, Inc., 1988.Google Scholar
Selman, Neil, and Perkins, Bill. “Designing the Waste Stream: A Working Paper on Source Reduction.” Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Washington, D. C, 1988.Google Scholar
Smith V., Kerry, Desvousges, William H. and Freeman, A. M. III. Valuing Changes in Hazardous Waste Risks: A Contingent Valuation Analysis. Draft Interim Report to U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Institute, N. C, 1985.Google Scholar
U. S. Water Resources Council. “Procedures for Evaluation of National Economic Development (NED) Benefits and Costs in Water Resources Planning.” Federal Register, 44:242 (December 14, 1979):72, 950–965.Google Scholar
Smith V., Kerry and Desvousges, William H.. “The Value of Avoiding a LULU: Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites.” Rev. Econ. and Stat., 68(1986):293–299.Google Scholar
Varian, H. R. Microeconomic Analysis. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1978.Google Scholar
Wallis, W. Allen, and Roberts, Harry V.. Statistics: A New Approach. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1956.Google Scholar