Advertisement

Environment, Development and Sustainability

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 43–69 | Cite as

Sustainability gaps in municipal solid waste management: a case study for landfills

  • Stefan Bayer
  • Jacques Méry
Article

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.

Keywords

Generation adjusted discounting (GAD) Constant discounting Sustainability gap External costs Bioreactor landfill Dry tomb landfill 

Notes

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.

References

  1. Ayres, R., & Martinas, K. (1995). Waste potential entropy: the ultimate ecotoxic? Economie appliquée, XLVIII, 95–120.Google Scholar
  2. Barbier, R., & Waechter, V. (2001). Débats autour d’une décharge. Annales des Ponts et Chaussées, 97, 48–53.Google Scholar
  3. Barro, R. J., & Sala-i-Martin, X. (2004). Economic growth (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bayer, S. (2000). Intergenerationelle Diskontierung am Beispiel des Klimaschutzes. Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
  6. Bayer, S. (2003). Generation adjusted discounting in long-term decision-making. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 6, 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bayer, S. (2004). Nachhaltigkeitskonforme Diskontierung—Das Konzept des “generation adjusted discounting”. Vierteljahreshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, 73, 142–157.Google Scholar
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. European Commission (1999). Council directive 1999/31/EC of April 1999 on the landfill of waste, Brussels.Google Scholar
  11. Faber, S. (1998). Undesirable facilities and properties values: a summary of empirical studies. Ecological Economics, 24, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Faucheux, S., & O’Connor, M. (1998). Valuation for sustainable development: Methods and policy indicators. Cheltenham et al.: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  13. Ferrari, S. (2002). Equité intergénérationelle et environnement naturel: quelle place pour l’actualisation? CERESUR, Université de la Réunion.Google Scholar
  14. Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 351–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. 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.
  17. Jonas, H. (1979). Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Frankfurt a.M., Insel Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Koopmans, T. C. (1960). Stationary ordinal utility and impatience. Econometrica, 28, 287–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 573–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maddison, A. (2001). The world economy. A millenial perspective. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  21. 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.
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. Ott, K. (2003). Reflections on discounting: Some philosophical remarks. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 6, 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. Pigou, A. C. (1912). Wealth and welfare. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  29. Price, C. (1993). Time, discounting and value. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Rackwitz, R., Lentz, A., & Faber, M. (2005). Socio-economically sustainable civil engineering infrastructures by optimization. Structural safety, 27, 187–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ramsey, F. P. (1928). A mathematical theory of saving. The Economic Journal, 28, 543–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Strotz, R. H. (1955/56). Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. Review of Economic Studies, 23, 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. US EPA (1991). Resource conservation and recovery act, subtitle D—solid waste (Non Hazardous). Washington, DC: Environment Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar
  35. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social SciencesStaff and Command College of the German Armed ForcesHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Hydrosystems and Bioprocesses Research UnitFrench Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering Research (Cemagref)AntonyFrance

Personalised recommendations