The dynamics of landfill diversion: Economic drivers, policy factors and spatial issues Evidence from Italy using provincial panel data

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 53-61

  Mazzanti, Massimiliano ^a   Montini, Anna ^b   Nicolli, Francesco ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FERRARA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Delinking; Incineration; Landfill diversion; Landfill policies; Landfill tax; Policy effectiveness; Spatial effects; Waste management

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; ECONOMICS; INCINERATION; LAND FILL; POPULATION STATISTICS; WASTE DISPOSAL; WASTE INCINERATION;

DELINKING; LANDFILL DIVERSIONS; LANDFILL TAX; OPPORTUNITY COSTS; POPULATION DENSITIES; SPATIAL CORRELATIONS; SPATIAL EFFECT; WASTE MANAGEMENT TOOL;

WASTE MANAGEMENT;

EID: 79960497818     PISSN: 09213449     EISSN: 18790658     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.06.007     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Andersen F, Larsen H, Skovgaard M, Moll S, Isoard S. A European model for waste and material flows. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2007;49(4):421-35. (Pubitemid 46109587)
2. Andre F, Cerda E. Landfill construction and capacity expansion. Environmental & Resource Economics 2004;28:409-34. (Pubitemid 39058993)
3. APAT. Rapporto Rifiuti 2002. Rome: Ministry of the Environment; 2001.
4. APAT. Rapporto Rifiuti 2002. Rome: Ministry of the Environment; 2002.
5. APAT. Rapporto Rifiuti 2003. Rome: Ministry of the Environment; 2003.
6. APAT. Rapporto Rifiuti 2004. Rome: Ministry of the Environment; 2004.
7. APAT. Rapporto Rifiuti 2005. Rome: Ministry of the Environment; 2005.
8. APAT. Rapporto Rifiuti (Waste Report). Rome: Ministry of the Environment; 2006.
9. Arellano M, Bover O. Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of errorcomponents models. Journal of Econometrics 1995;68:29-51.
10. Atlas M. Few and far between? An environmental equity analysis of geographic distribution of hazardous waste generation. Social Science Quarterly 2002;83(1):365-78.
11. Burnley S. The impact of the European landfill directive on waste management in the United Kingdom. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2001;31:349-58. (Pubitemid 32492990)
12. Calcott P,Walls M.Waste, recycling and "design for the environment": roles formarket and policy instruments. Resource and Energy Economics 2005;27:287-305.
13. Caplan A, Grijalva T, Jackson-Smith D. Using choice question formats to determine compensable values: the case of a landfill-siting process. Ecological Economics 2006;60:834-46. (Pubitemid 46176590)
14. Cole M, Rayner A, Bates J. The EKC: an empirical analysis. Environment and Development Economics 1997;2:401-16.
15. Daskalopoulos E, Badr O, Probert D. An integrated approach tomunicipal solidwaste management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 1998;24:33-50. (Pubitemid 28556917)
16. Davies B, Doble M. The Development and Implementation of a Landfill Tax in the UK. In: Addressing the economics of waste. Paris, France: OECD; 2004. pp. 63-80.
17. DEFRA. A study to estimate the disamenity costs of landfill in Great Britain. London: DEFRA; 2005.
18. Dijkgraaf E, Gradus P. Cost savings in unit based pricing of householdwaste: the case of The Netherlands. Resource and Energy Economics 2004;26:353-71. (Pubitemid 39637530)
19. Dijkgraaf E, Vollebergh H. Burn or bury? A social cost comparison of final waste disposal methods. Ecological Economics 2004;50:233-47. (Pubitemid 39379447)
20. EC. Towards a thematic strategy forwaste prevention and recycling. COM(2003) 301, Brussels: European Commission; 2003.
21. EEA. Assessment of information related to waste and material flows. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency; 2003.
22. EEA. The road from landfilling to recycling: common destination different routes. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency; 2007.
23. Eshet T, Ayalon O, Shechter M. A meta-analysis of waste management externalities: a comparative study of economic and non-economic valuation methods, Haifa, Israel, mimeo; 2004.
24. Eurostat. Waste generated and treated in Europe. Data 1990-2001. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2003.
25. Fischer Kowalski M, Amann C. Beyond IPAT and Kuznets Curves: globalization as a vital factor in analyzing the environmental impact of socio-economic metabolism. Population and the Environment 2001;23.
26. Jenkins R, Maguire K,Morgan C. Host community compensation and municipal solid waste landfills. Land Economics 2004;80:513-28. (Pubitemid 39594382)
27. Lang JC. Zero landfill zerowaste: the greening of industry in Singapore. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development 2005;4:331-51. (Pubitemid 41527490)
28. Ley E, Mecauley MK, Salnt SW. Spatially and intertemporally efficient waste management: the costs of interstate trade restrictions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2002;43:188-218. (Pubitemid 34973742)
29. Martin A, Scott I. The effectiveness of the UK Landfill Tax. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2003;46(5):673-89. (Pubitemid 37436335)
30. Mazzanti M. Is waste generation delinking from economic growth? Applied Economics Letters 2008;15(4):287-91.
31. Mazzanti M, Zoboli R. Waste generation, waste disposal and environmental policy effectiveness. Empirical evidence from the EU. Resources, Recycling and Conservation 2008;52:1221-34.
32. Mazzanti M, Montini A, Zoboli R. Municipal waste generation, socio-economic drivers and waste management instruments. The Journal of Environment & Development 2008;17:51-69. (Pubitemid 351234426)
33. Miranda ML, Miller J, Jacobs T. Talking trash about landfills: using quantitative scoring schemes in landfill siting processes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2000;19(1):3-22.
34. Morris J, Read A. The UK landfill tax and the landfill tax credit scheme: operational weaknesses. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2001;32:375-87. (Pubitemid 32492992)
35. Morris J, Phillips P, Read A. The UK landfill tax: an analysis of its contribution to sustainable waste management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 1998;23:259-70. (Pubitemid 29046396)
36. OECD. Indicators to measure decoupling of environmental pressure from economic growth. Paris: OECD; 2002.
37. OECD. Response indicators forwaste prevention within the OECD area. Paris: OECD; 2003, ENV/EPOC/WGWPR/SE(2003)2.
38. Ozawa T. Hotelling rule and the landfill exhaustion problem: case of Tokyo city. Studies in Regional Science 2005;35:215-30.
39. Pearce DW. Does European Union waste policy pass a cost benefit test? World Economics 2004;5(3):115-37.
40. Phillips PS, Adams KT, Read AD, Green AE. Regional variations in waste minimizations in England: challenges and issues for policy development. Regional Studies 2007;34:297-302.
41. Seala T, Haukioja T, Kaivooja J. The EKC Hypothesis does not hold for direct material flows: environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis tests for direct material flows in five industrial countries. Population & Environment 2001;23(2): 217-38. (Pubitemid 34096535)
42. Seok Lim J, Missios P. Does size really matter? Landfill scale impacts on property values. Allied Economics Letters 2007;14:719-23. (Pubitemid 47343339)
43. Stern D. The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Development 2004;32(8):1419-38.
44. Taseli B. The impact of the European landfill directive onwastemanagement strategy and current legislation in Turkey's specially protected areas. Resource, Conservation and Recycling 2007;52. pp. 199-135.
45. World Bank. Development and the environment,World bank Report. Oxford University Press; 1992