THE SOCIAL EFFICIENCY OF PAY-AS-YOU-THROW SCHEMES FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE REDUCTION: A COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF FOUR FINANCIAL INCENTIVE SCHEMES APPLIED IN SWITZERLAND

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (01) ◽  
pp. 1450001 ◽  
Author(s):  
LORIS ALEXANDER MANNI ◽  
HENS A. C. RUNHAAR

The efficient management of waste is important in order to reduce negative externalities, such as air, water and soil pollution. A major challenge is the increasing amount of municipal solid waste (MSW) produced by households. Municipalities around the world have implemented pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) schemes in order to incentivise the reduction of MSW. Although the literature has shown that these financial incentive schemes are often effective, they are criticised in practice for raising costs to society. This paper aims to assess whether or not this criticism is correct. A social cost-benefit analysis was conducted in order to take into account economic, environmental and social costs and benefits. Our results show that PAYT schemes reduce overall social costs and therefore positively contribute to the social efficiency of a municipality. The above criticism is not supported by empirical evidence, but in practice forms a barrier to the implementation of PAYT schemes. In order to remove this barrier, we encourage the readers of JEAPM to disseminate our findings to a wider audience.

1998 ◽  
Vol 19 (12) ◽  
pp. 1163-1175 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. P. Butt ◽  
G. K. Morse ◽  
J. A. Guy ◽  
J. N. Lester

Author(s):  
Andrea Bastianin

Abstract This note summarizes the results of a social Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) of the High Luminosity upgrade of the Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC). The social CBA methodology is well-suited to assess social costs and benefits of the HL-LHC up to 2038. The analysis shows that the ratio between incremental benefits and incremental costs of the HL-LHC with respect to operating the LHC under normal consolidation (i.e. without high-luminosity upgrade) is slightly over 1.7, meaning that each Swiss Franc invested in the HL-LHC upgrade project pays back approximately 1.7 CHF in societal benefits. The rest of the note is organized as follows. We first discuss the merits of CBA; next, we present the methodology and discuss the results.


2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (4-3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ai-Jiun Chua ◽  
Weng-Wai Choong

There is increasing concern on how public projects are being evaluated especially for public projects that bring impacts towards the economic, social and environmental of the nation in the long-term, for example infrastructural, environmental protection, energy efficiency, healthcare, education expenditures and others. Thus, the federal government and state government recommend project assessors to adopt cost-benefit analysis for major infrastructure and social investment as well as for regulatory initiatives. Cost benefit analysis has been widely used as a tool to enable stakeholders to make a better decision for projects by systematically comparing the social costs and benefits with the emphasis on valuing them in monetary term. One of the most significant parameters for cost benefit analysis is the social discount rate. It is a rate that used to convert the future social costs and benefits into present value. However, there is a long-time debate on how to construct appropriate social discount rate. Literature reveals that there are various popular approaches to construct social discount rate, such as Social Time Preference (STP) approach, Social Opportunity Cost of Capital (SOC), and Shadow Price of Capital (SPC). The selection of approaches is a significant process to construct an appropriate social discount rate for the project. In this paper, author examines theoretical for each approach and procedures to construct social discount rate. A framework will be developed to guide the assessor in selecting the approaches to construct social discount rate. This paper intends to review social discount rate construction approaches and the pros and cons of each approach. The paper would provide insight to assessor in selecting the approach in construction social discount rate. 


1995 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aung May Tin ◽  
Donald L. Wise ◽  
Wei-Han Su ◽  
Lars Reutergardh ◽  
Seong-Key Lee

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document