Can we buy time? Evaluation of the Swedish government's grant to remediation of contaminated sites

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 92, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 1303-1313

  Vredin Johansson, Maria ^a   Forslund, Johanna ^a   Johansson, Per ^b   Samakovlis, Eva ^a  

^a Natl Institute of Economic Research   (Sweden)

^b Institute for Labour Market Policy Evaluation (IFAU)   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Contaminated sites; Discrete mixture model; Duration analysis; Policy evaluation; Remediation; Risk assessment

Indexed keywords

FINANCE; REMEDIATION;

CONTAMINATED SITES; DISCRETE MIXTURE; DISCRETE MIXTURE MODEL; DURATION ANALYSE; GOVERNMENT FUNDING; MIXTURE MODELING; POLICY EVALUATION; RISK CLASSIFICATION; RISKS ASSESSMENTS; SITE HETEROGENEITY;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBON;

CLEANUP; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; HETEROGENEITY; POLICY ANALYSIS; POLLUTION POLICY; REMEDIATION; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ARTICLE; BIOREMEDIATION; CONTAMINATION; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; GOVERNMENT; LAW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SWEDEN;

SWEDEN;

EID: 79251646482     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.12.017     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Alberini A., Tonin S., Turvani M., Chiabai A. Paying for permanence: public preferences for contaminated site cleanup. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2007, 34(2):155-178.
2. Auer M.R., Raukas A. Determinants of environmental clean-up in Estonia. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2002, 20(5):679-698.
3. Beider, P., 1994. Analyzing the duration of cleanup at sites on Superfund's national priorities list. Congressional Budget Office Memorandum.
4. Dahlberg M., Johansson E. On the vote-purchasing behaviour of incumbent governments. American Political Science Review 2002, 96(1):27-40.
5. Environmental Objectives Portal, (accessed 27.09.05.). http://www.miljomal.nu/english/objectives.php.
6. Färnkvist K. Personal Communication 2007-08-07, Enheten För Förorenade Områden 2007, Swedish EPA.
7. Forslund J. Insamling Och Bearbetning Av Data till Projektet Utvärdering Av Svensk Miljöpolitik: Sanering Av Förorenade Områden (In Swedish), Memo 2005: 17 2005, National Institute of Economic Research.
8. Forslund J., Samakovlis E., Vredin Johansson M. Does remediation save lives? On the cost of cleaning up arsenic contaminated sites in Sweden. Science of the Total Environment 2010, 408:3085-3091.
9. Forslund J., Samakovlis E., Vredin Johansson M. Is it wise to combine environmental and labour market policies? An analysis of a Swedish subsidy programme. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:547-558.
10. Gayer T., Hamilton J.T., Viscusi W.K. Private values of risk tradeoffs at superfund sites: housing market evidence on learning about risk. The Review of Economics and Statistics 2000, 82(3):439-451.
11. Gov. Bill 1969:387: Miljöskyddslagen (in Swedish).
12. Gov. Bill 1998:808: Miljöbalken (in Swedish).
13. Gov. Bill 2000/01:130: Svenska miljömål - delmål och åtgärdsstrategier (in Swedish).
14. Gov. Bill 2004/05:150: Svenska miljömål - ett gemensamt uppdrag (in Swedish).
15. Gov. Bill 2009/10:1: Budgetpropositionen för 2010.
16. Gov. Communication 2003/04:141: Sanering och återställning av förorenade områden resultatredovisning (in Swedish).
17. Gupta S., Van Houtven G., Cropper M.L. Paying for permanence: an economic analysis of EPA's cleanup decisions at superfund sites. RAND Journal of Economics 1996, 27:563-582.
18. Hamilton J.T., Viscusi W.K. Calculating Risks? The Spatial and Political Dimensions of Hazardous Waste Policy 1999, The MIT Press, Massachusetts.
19. Hamilton J.T., Viscusi W.K. How costly is clean? An analysis of the benefits and costs of superfund site remediations. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 1999, 18(1):2-27.
20. Heckman J., Singer B. A method for minimizing the impact of distributional assumptions in econometric models for duration data. Econometrica 1984, 52(2):271-320.
21. Ihlanfeldt K.R., Taylor L.O. Externality effects of small-scale hazardous waste sites. Evidence from urban commercial property markets. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2004, 47(1):117-139.
22. Kaufman D.A., Cloutier N.R. The impact of small brownfields and greenspaces on residential property values. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 2006, 33(1):19-30.
23. Kiefer N.M. Economic duration data and hazard functions. Journal of Economic Literature 1988, XXVI:646-679.
24. Meyer B.D. Unemployment insurance and unemployment spells. Econometrica 1990, 58(4):757-782.
25. Miljö-Eko, 1997:5. AMT Hedbergs Förlag AB, pp. 16-27.
26. Miljö-Eko, 1998:5. AMT Hedbergs Förlag AB, pp. 24-36.
27. Miljö-Eko, 2000:1. AMT Hedbergs Förlag AB, pp. 16-27.
28. Miljö-Eko, 2001:1. Ad. man; partner AB, pp. 24-33.
29. Miljö-Eko, 2003. Miljö-ekos kommunranking 2001 (in Swedish), (accessed 21.01.03.). http://www.miljo-eko.nu/.
30. Ordinance 2004:100, Förordning om statsbidrag till åtgärder för utredning och efterbehandling av förorenade områden (in Swedish).
31. Report 2004/05: MJU1, Miljö- och jordbruksutskottets betänkande (in Swedish).
32. Sigman H. Liability funding and superfund clean-up remedies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1998, 35:205-224.
33. Sigman H. The pace of progress at superfund sites: policy goals and interest group influence. Journal of Law and Economics 2001, 44(1):315-344.
34. Statistics Sweden, 2007., SCB (2007), Befolkningstäthet, folkmängd och landareal efter region, År 1995-2006 (in Swedish). http://www.scb.se.
35. Statistics Sweden, 2009. Stora skillnader mellan länens befolkningstäthet (in Swedish). (in Swedish). http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/LE0001_2009K01_TI_14_A05TI0901.pdf.
36. Swedish EPA, 1995. Branschkartläggningen (in Swedish), Rapport 4393.
37. Swedish EPA, 1999. Metodik för inventering av förorenade områden. Bedömningsgrunder för miljökvalitet. Vägleding för insamling av underlagsdata (in Swedish), Rapport 4918. Fälth & Hässler, Värnamo.
38. Swedish EPA, 2000. Swedish EPA's annual report 1999 (in Swedish).
39. Swedish EPA, 2001. Swedish EPA's annual report 2000 (in Swedish).
40. Swedish EPA, 2002a. Methods for inventories of contaminated sites. Environmental quality criteria. Guidance for data collection, Report 5053.
41. Swedish EPA, 2002b. Swedish EPA's annual report 2001 (in Swedish).
42. Swedish EPA, 2003. Swedish EPA's annual report 2002 (in Swedish).
43. Swedish EPA, 2004. Swedish EPA's annual report 2003 (in Swedish).
44. Swedish EPA, 2005. Swedish EPA's annual report 2004 (in Swedish).
45. Swedish EPA, 2006a. Efterbehandling och sanering av förorenade områden (in Swedish) (accessed 16.03.06) http://www.naturvardsverket.se/dokument/teknik/sanering/sanering.htm.
46. Swedish EPA, 2006b. Environmental quality criteria for contaminated sites, (accessed 24.02.06.). http://www.internat.environ.se/index.php3?main=documents/legal/assess/assedoc/cont.htm.
47. Swedish EPA, 2006d. Swedish EPA's annual report 2005 (in Swedish).
48. Swedish EPA, 2007. Swedish EPA's annual report 2006 (in Swedish).
49. Swedish EPA, 2008a. Lägesbeskrivning av efterbehandlingsarbetet i landet 2007. Skrivelse 2008-02-21. Dnr 642-516-08 Rf. (accessed 08.12.08.). http://www.naturvardsverket.se/sv/Verksamheter-med-miljopaverkan/Efterbehandling-av-fororenade-omraden/Laget-i-landet%e2-efterbehandling/Lagesbeskrivning-av-efterbehandlingsarbetet-i-landet-2007.
50. Swedish EPA, 2008b. (accessed 04.12.08.). http://www.naturvardsverket.se/sv/Verksamheter-med-miljopaverkan/Efterbehandling-av-fororenade-omraden/Riskbedomning/Nya-generella-riktvarden-for-fororenad-mark/Tabell-over-begransande-faktorer-for-riktvardena-for-fororenad-mark/.
51. Swedish EPA, 2008c. Swedish EPA's annual report 2007 (in Swedish).
52. Swedish EPA, 2008d. Environmental Objectives Council. Miljömålen - nu är det bråttom! Miljömålsrådets utvärdering av Sveriges miljömål 2008 (in Swedish).