Abstract
Our paper compares the external effects of two municipal solid waste disposal technologies, (1) bioreactor or active landfill and (2) dry tomb landfills, in a 600-year time-horizon using two different discounting techniques: (a) constant conventional discounting and (b) generation adjusted discounting (GAD). The paper starts with a short description of the basic characteristics of the two landfill-types. To demonstrate the sustainability deficiencies of constant discounting sustainability gaps are defined and calculated. The reference case for these calculations is GAD which takes into account the basic requirements of sustainable development, especially intergenerational equity, as is demanded in the general Brundtland-definition of sustainable development. Our calculations show that constant discounting generally applies discount rates that are too high to be in accordance with the sustainability criterion leading to biased political suggestions. However, our analysis is not solely restricted to landfills. It could be used as a guideline to quickly check whether the results of social cost-benefit analyses of long-term public projects are in accordance with general sustainability criteria.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ayres, R., & Martinas, K. (1995). Waste potential entropy: the ultimate ecotoxic? Economie appliquée, XLVIII, 95–120.
Barbier, R., & Waechter, V. (2001). Débats autour d’une décharge. Annales des Ponts et Chaussées, 97, 48–53.
Barro, R. J., & Sala-i-Martin, X. (2004). Economic growth (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Baumgärtner, S., & De Swaan Arons, J. (2003). Necessity and inefficiency in the generation of waste. A thermodynamic analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 7, 112–123.
Bayer, S. (2000). Intergenerationelle Diskontierung am Beispiel des Klimaschutzes. Marburg: Metropolis.
Bayer, S. (2003). Generation adjusted discounting in long-term decision-making. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 6, 133–149.
Bayer, S. (2004). Nachhaltigkeitskonforme Diskontierung—Das Konzept des “generation adjusted discounting”. Vierteljahreshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, 73, 142–157.
COWI (2000). Economic valuation of environmental externalities from landfill disposal and incineration of waste. Report funded by the European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/waste/cowi_ext_from_landfill.pdf. Accessed 21 March 2007.
DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2003). A study to estimate the disamenity costs of landfill in Great Britain. Retrieved from http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/landfill/pdf/landfill_disamenity.pdf. Accessed 21 March 2007.
European Commission (1999). Council directive 1999/31/EC of April 1999 on the landfill of waste, Brussels.
Faber, S. (1998). Undesirable facilities and properties values: a summary of empirical studies. Ecological Economics, 24, 1–14.
Faucheux, S., & O’Connor, M. (1998). Valuation for sustainable development: Methods and policy indicators. Cheltenham et al.: Edward Elgar.
Ferrari, S. (2002). Equité intergénérationelle et environnement naturel: quelle place pour l’actualisation? CERESUR, Université de la Réunion.
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 351–401.
Hellweg, S., Hofstetter, T., & Hungerbühler, K. (2003). Discounting and the environment—should current impacts be weighed differently than impacts harming future generations? International Journal of Life cycle analysis, 8, 8–18.
INVS (2005). Stockage des déchets et santé publique. Institut National de Veille Sanitaire, Saint Maurice. Retrieved from http://www.invs.sante.fr/publications/2005/dechets/pdf/synthese.pdf. Accessed 21 March 2007.
Jonas, H. (1979). Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Frankfurt a.M., Insel Verlag.
Koopmans, T. C. (1960). Stationary ordinal utility and impatience. Econometrica, 28, 287–309.
Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 573–597.
Maddison, A. (2001). The world economy. A millenial perspective. Paris: OECD.
MEDD (2004). Consentement local à payer et localisation d’une décharge. Ministère de l’Environnement et du Développement Durable, Paris. Retrieved from http://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Etude_CET_rapport_final.pdf. Accessed 21 March 2007.
Méry, J. (2005). Contribution a une gestion durable du risque environnemental du stockage des déchets ménagers et assimilés: l’évaluation des coûts externes des fuites de lixiviat des décharges. Ph.D. thesis, University of Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines.
Méry, J., & Bayer, S. (2005). Comparison of external costs between dry tomb and bioreactor landfills: Taking intergenerational effects seriously. Waste Management and Research, 23, 514–526.
O’Connor, M. (1994). Entropy, liberty and catastrophe: the physics and metaphysics of waste disposal. In P. Burley, & J. Foster (Eds.), Economics and thermodynamics: New perspectives on economic analysis (pp. 119–182). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ott, K. (2003). Reflections on discounting: Some philosophical remarks. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 6, 7–24.
Page, T. (1988). Intergenerational equity and the social rate of discount. In V. K. Smith (Ed.), Environmental resources and applied welfare economics. Essays in honor of John V. Krutilla (pp. 71–89). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Pearce, D. W., & Ulph, D. (1995). A social discount rate for the United Kingdom. Working Paper GEC 95-01, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), London.
Pigou, A. C. (1912). Wealth and welfare. London: MacMillan.
Price, C. (1993). Time, discounting and value. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Rackwitz, R., Lentz, A., & Faber, M. (2005). Socio-economically sustainable civil engineering infrastructures by optimization. Structural safety, 27, 187–229.
Ramsey, F. P. (1928). A mathematical theory of saving. The Economic Journal, 28, 543–559.
Strotz, R. H. (1955/56). Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. Review of Economic Studies, 23, 165–180.
US EPA (1991). Resource conservation and recovery act, subtitle D—solid waste (Non Hazardous). Washington, DC: Environment Protection Agency.
Vigneron, V. (2005). Voies de réduction des oxydes d’azote lors de leur injection dans un massif de déchets ménagers et assimilés. Contribution à l’étude de la recirculation de lixiviat nitrifié dans une installation de stockage de déchets ménagers et assimilés bioactive. Ph.D. thesis, University of Paris XII-Val de Marne.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Acknowledgements
For helpful comments and suggestions we would like to thank two anonymous referees. We also would like to thank the DAAD (PKZ D/0333552) and EGIDE (No. 07657 NH) who provided welcome financial support. The views expressed in this paper are the author’s and not necessarily those of the organizations they are affiliated with.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Readers should send their comments on this paper to: BhaskarNath@aol.com within 3 months of publication of this issue.
Appendices: A, B, C and D
Appendices: A, B, C and D
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bayer, S., Méry, J. Sustainability gaps in municipal solid waste management: a case study for landfills. Environ Dev Sustain 11, 43–69 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-007-9097-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-007-9097-0