scholarly journals Cost of groundwater protection: major groundwater basin protection zones in Poland

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ewa Krogulec ◽  
Jacek Gurwin ◽  
Mirosław Wąsik
Keyword(s):  
Urban Areas ◽  
Groundwater Protection ◽  
Social Economy ◽  
Land Development ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Protection Zones ◽  
Groundwater Basins ◽  
The Cost

AbstractThis paper describes the complex hydrogeological, legal framework and socioeconomic costs of the groundwater protection in major groundwater basins (MGBs) in Poland in accordance with European directives. The hydrogeological criteria developed in Poland for establishing MGBs and the principles of their protection provide more details to the directives that are in force in Europe, which define the general principles for groundwater protection. The procedure of establishing MGB protection zones is connected with a change in local plans and land development and requires an analysis of the cost–benefit relationship in the sphere of social economy in the sector of public economics. The cost assessment was performed on the basis of data from hydrogeological documentations, and the aggregation of subareas to which the same existing and planned development can be attributed. A legal analysis of bans, orders and restrictions together with the identification of the risk of claims in specific hydrogeological and development conditions was a fundamental issue of research. These costs depend on the acreage and land use of the protected area. The unit costs of MGB protection, calculated per 1 km2 of the protection area, for six sample basins were estimated at €120 to €208,000/2 years/1 km2. The highest costs are generated by establishing protection in urban areas, while the lowest costs are generated in forest areas.

Regulating Catastrophic Risks by Standards

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta Simoncini
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Specific Method ◽  
Catastrophic Events ◽  
Regulatory Decision ◽  
Related Risk ◽  
Catastrophic Risks ◽  
Low Probability ◽  
The Cost

This article analyses the role played by standards of protection in the regulation of catastrophic risks. It examines how to protect people against the occurrence of catastrophic events, considering that the related risk is highly uncertain and difficult to predict using rational methodologies. In this perspective, the article focuses on environmental risks and terrorist threats affecting common goods – namely environment and security – areas where any damage is susceptible to producing ruinous effects and huge casualties. Both natural and man-made disasters are capable of altering the normal legal relations that States are institutionally to ensure to their citizens. Therefore, the severity of the consequences of catastrophic events cannot be ignored, despite the low probability of their occurrence. However, in the absence of emergencies, exceptional measures may be adopted as a means of altering the legal framework, and thus the enjoyment, of fundamental freedoms and priorities in the allocation of public resources. No precautionary approach can escape from rational reflections about the opportunity-cost of any action, the cost-benefit analysis of countermeasures and the proportionality of every regulatory decision. In order to understand how to face those “low probability – high cost” risks, the article considers a specific method of regulating risks by resorting to standards of protection. By using thresholds of alarm, public administrations can decide upon best-fit countermeasures that will correspond to specific risk characterisations. To this end, the article analyses the administrative process of formulating standards and how they enable uncertain risks to be managed, thus promoting the development of a sound and accountable administration.

scholarly journals Sustainable Urban Land Development

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 186
Author(s):  
Ashima Banker
Keyword(s):  
Urban Areas ◽  
Land Development ◽  
Town Planning ◽  
Land Acquisition ◽  
World Population ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Infrastructure Development ◽  
Financial Pressure ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The City

Rapid Urbanisation trends worldwide has resulted in 54% of the world population living in urban areas, in 2014 from 39%, in 1980. As per 2014 Revision of World Population Prospects, UN, 2014, India & China are expected to be the largest contributors to the estimated increase in urban population till 2050. Most of the grunt of the population growth is going to be seen on big cities or mega-cities, with Asia to struggle most with estimated 60% of the megacities by 2025, most of them across India and China (13th annual edition of DemographiaWorld Urban Areas, 2017).Amongst the various challenges faced by these megacities, providing developed land (i.e. land with access toinfrastructure facilities) for future developments and city infrastructure within the limited funds available with the city & state governments, is a major one. Indian cities, due to limited funds often face delays in infrastructure development (due to high costs of land acquisition) resulting in haphazard development.Land acquisition for industrial, urban and infrastructure development has always been a contentious subject. For land development – land acquisition and land pooling are the two methods adopted in land acquisition process. Land acquisition is carried out under act (LAA), while land pooling is carried out using the provision of related town planning schemes like in the Gujarat. A public private partnership mode plays an important role in the land acquisition and in development of Land.This study attempts to analyse the mechanisms followed under the two methods and the benefits of each. It also recommends mechanism to provide for larger pockets of developed land to be used by the Urban Local Bodies for public purposes, generate revenue and provide for additional development provisions for the developers (for larger public good). The suggested tools & recommendations will in addition to cutting the cost of acquiring land will fetch capital to the project that would make the project self financed and self sustaining, releasing the financial pressure from the Urban Local Body.

Hostile Takeovers and Anti-takeover Defenses in the Russian Corporate Market

2007 ◽  
pp. 70-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Demidova
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Hostile Takeovers ◽  
Russian Market ◽  
Takeover Defenses ◽  
The Cost ◽  
European Markets

This article analyzes definitions and the role of hostile takeovers at the Russian and European markets for corporate control. It develops the methodology of assessing the efficiency of anti-takeover defenses adapted to the conditions of the Russian market. The paper uses the cost-benefit analysis, where the costs and benefits of the pre-bid and post-bid defenses are compared.

The Evolutionary Psychology of Scientific Publishing: Cost-Benefit Optimization of Players in the Game

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milind Watve
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Current System ◽  
Critical Mass ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Collective Goal ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Collective Goals ◽  
Innate Tendency

Peer reviewed scientific publishing is critical for communicating important findings, interpretations and theories in any branch of science. While the value of peer review is rarely doubted, much concern is being raised about the possible biases in the process. I argue here that most of the biases originate in the evolved innate tendency of every player to optimize one’s own cost benefits. Different players in the scientific publishing game have different cost-benefit optima. There are multiple conflicts between individual optima and collective goals. An analysis of the cost-benefit optima of every player in the scientific publishing game shows how and why biases originate. In the current system of publishing, by optimization considerations, the probability of publishing a ‘bad’ manuscript is relatively small but the probability of rejecting a ‘good’ manuscript is very high. By continuing with the current publishing structure, the global distribution of the scientific community would be increasingly clustered. Publication biases by gender, ethnicity, reputation, conformation and conformity will be increasingly common and revolutionary concepts increasingly difficult to publish. Ultimately, I explore the possibility of designing a peer review publishing system in which the conflicts between individual optimization and collective goal can be minimized. In such a system, if everyone behaves with maximum selfishness, biases would be minimized and the progress towards the collective goal would be faster and smoother. Changing towards such a system might prove difficult unless a critical mass of authors take an active role to revolutionize scientific publishing.

What's it Worth? Improving Surface Water Quality

1999 ◽  
Vol 40 (10) ◽  
pp. 153-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. H. Newsome ◽  
C. D. Stephen
Keyword(s):  
Water Quality ◽  
Surface Water ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Surface Water Quality ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Many countries are investing in measures to improve surface water quality, but the investment programmes for so doing are increasingly becoming subject to cost-benefit analysis. Whilst the cost of control measures can usually be determined for individual improvement schemes, there are currently no established procedures for valuing the benefits attributable to improved surface water quality. The paper describes a methodology that has been derived that now makes this possible.

The Mismatch between Expectations and Realities of AS4 Audits: A Post-Implementation Research Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanaz Aghazadeh ◽  
Marietta Peytcheva
Keyword(s):  
Implementation Research ◽  
Risk Premium ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Multiple Methods ◽  
Material Weakness ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Equilibrium Market ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Research Analysis

SUMMARY We conduct a post-implementation research analysis of AS4, a standard guiding voluntary audits of material weakness (MW) remediation disclosures, to understand the reasons for the scarcity of AS4 audits in practice. We use multiple methods (experiments, comment letter analysis, and surveys) to understand the perspectives of key stakeholders. We find that regulators' expectations of the use of the standard did not come to fruition because an equilibrium market for active use of the standard could not be achieved; that managers desire to engage in AS4 audits for the riskier MWs but do not expect the associated costs to be high; and that auditors are reluctant to audit riskier MWs and would charge a considerable risk premium. Finally, we find that investors value AS4 audits, especially for riskier MWs, and find value in an AS4 audit for those risky MWs beyond that of the year-end audit. The overall findings of our study indicate that a mismatch in the cost-benefit functions of the key stakeholders led to a lack of AS4 audits. Our findings are important given the high costs associated with auditing standards development and approval.

Governing the transboundary risks of offshore methane hydrate exploration in the seabed and ocean floor—an analysis on international provisions and Chinese law†

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-203
Author(s):  
Dong Yan ◽  
Paolo Davide Farah ◽  
Tivadar Ötvös ◽  
Ivana Gaskova
Keyword(s):  
Methane Hydrate ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Damage Control ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Environmental Harm ◽  
Methane Hydrates ◽  
International Role ◽  
Deep Seabed Mining ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Unclos

Abstract Considering the fact that its existence is abundant while maintaining the ability to generate freshwater while burning, methane hydrates have been classified as sources of sustainable energy. China currently maintains an international role in developing technology meant to explore offshore methane hydrates buried under the mud of the seabed, their primary laboratory being the South China Sea. However, such a process does not come without its hazards and fatal consequences, ranging from the destruction of the flora and fauna, the general environment, and—the greatest hazard of all—the cost of human life. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter ‘UNCLOS’), being an important international legal regime and instrument, has assigned damage control during the exploration of methane hydrates, as being the responsibilities and liability of individual sovereign states and corporations. China adopted the Deep Seabed Mining Law (hereinafter the DSM Law) on 26 February 2016, which came into force on the 1 of May 2016; a regulation providing the legal framework also for the Chinese government’s role in methane hydrate exploratory activities. This article examines the role of the DSM Law and its provisions, as well as several international documents intended to prevent transboundary environmental harm from arising, as a result of offshore methane hydrate extraction. Despite the obvious risk of harm to the environment, the DSM Law has made great strides in regulating exploratory activities so as to meet the criteria of the UNCLOS. However, this article argues that neither the UNCLOS nor the DSM Law are adequately prepared to address transboundary harm triggered by the exploitation of offshore methane hydrates. In particular, the technology of such extraction is still at an experimental stage, and potential risks remain uncertain—and even untraceable—for cross-jurisdictional claims. The article intends to seek available legal instruments or models, to overhaul the incapacity within the current governing framework, and offers suggestions supporting national and international legislative efforts towards protecting the environment during methane hydrate extraction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document