15 th stockholm water symposium ~ workshop 8 ~ the cost of non-action in controlling toxic water...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
214 views
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: 15 th Stockholm Water Symposium ~ Workshop 8 ~ The Cost of Non-Action in Controlling Toxic Water Pollution: An Economic Perspective by K. William Easter](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032704/56649d555503460f94a31d11/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
15th Stockholm Water Symposium
~ Workshop 8 ~
The Cost of Non-Action in Controlling Toxic Water Pollution:
An Economic Perspective
by K. William Easter
Professor of Applied EconomicsUniversity of Minnesota
![Page 2: 15 th Stockholm Water Symposium ~ Workshop 8 ~ The Cost of Non-Action in Controlling Toxic Water Pollution: An Economic Perspective by K. William Easter](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032704/56649d555503460f94a31d11/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
A. Objectives
1. Determine best methods for estimating cost
2. Discuss how information and behavior affects choice
3. Indicate what existing data shows concerning costs
4. Suggest strategies for reducing costs
![Page 3: 15 th Stockholm Water Symposium ~ Workshop 8 ~ The Cost of Non-Action in Controlling Toxic Water Pollution: An Economic Perspective by K. William Easter](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032704/56649d555503460f94a31d11/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
B. Three toxic contaminates
1. Arsenic – widespread in Bangladesh, China and NE India
2. Atrazine – heavily used in U. S. Midwestern agriculture
3. Mercury – emission from coal-fired plants and mining
C. Two country settings
1. Developed country – i.e., U.S. and Japan
2. Developing country – i.e., Bangladesh and India
![Page 4: 15 th Stockholm Water Symposium ~ Workshop 8 ~ The Cost of Non-Action in Controlling Toxic Water Pollution: An Economic Perspective by K. William Easter](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032704/56649d555503460f94a31d11/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
![Page 5: 15 th Stockholm Water Symposium ~ Workshop 8 ~ The Cost of Non-Action in Controlling Toxic Water Pollution: An Economic Perspective by K. William Easter](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032704/56649d555503460f94a31d11/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
D. Effects of three pollutants
1. Arsenic (inorganic) – acute/immediate and chronic health risks and death at high doses
2. Mercury (methylmercury) accumulates in fish and those who eat fish. Causes cancer, heart attacks, permanent brain damage, etc.
3. Atrazine – was classified as possible human carcinogen but is now listed as not a likely carcinogen by USEPA
![Page 6: 15 th Stockholm Water Symposium ~ Workshop 8 ~ The Cost of Non-Action in Controlling Toxic Water Pollution: An Economic Perspective by K. William Easter](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032704/56649d555503460f94a31d11/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
E. Methods for estimating cost
1. Avoidance cost – need information and options
2. Recreational choice – for nondomestic uses
3. Cost-of-illness or value of statistical life – when health is impaired
4. Contingent valuation (survey) – to measure cost of discomfort and suffering of illness
![Page 7: 15 th Stockholm Water Symposium ~ Workshop 8 ~ The Cost of Non-Action in Controlling Toxic Water Pollution: An Economic Perspective by K. William Easter](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032704/56649d555503460f94a31d11/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
F. What do past estimate show? (tables 1-3)
1. Avoidance cost for toxics $200 to $1,000 annually
2. Avoidance costs for nontoxics - $50 to $1,300
annually
G. Developing country cost estimation (table 4)
1. Limited information and options
2. Recreation low priority
H. Developed country cost estimation (table 5)
1. Have information and options
2. Recreation important
![Page 8: 15 th Stockholm Water Symposium ~ Workshop 8 ~ The Cost of Non-Action in Controlling Toxic Water Pollution: An Economic Perspective by K. William Easter](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032704/56649d555503460f94a31d11/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Table 1. Economic Cost of Drinking Water Quality Contamination
Study Area
Estimate Ranges
Avoidance Cost (per month)
Contingent Valuation
(per month)Cost of Illness
(per case)
Georgia, U.S. (2000) $4 - -
West Virginia, U.S. (1993) $27 & 30 - -
Milesburg, Pennsylvania, U.S. (1993)
$13-33 - -
Grande Vitoria, Brazil
(2000)
- $3-39 -
Kathmandu, Nepal (2005) $3 $17 $89-108
Pennsylvania, U.S. (1989) $34-108 - $858-1,255
![Page 9: 15 th Stockholm Water Symposium ~ Workshop 8 ~ The Cost of Non-Action in Controlling Toxic Water Pollution: An Economic Perspective by K. William Easter](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032704/56649d555503460f94a31d11/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Table 2. Economic Cost of Toxic Pollution of Drinking Water Supplies Per Household
Study Area
Estimate Ranges
Avoidance Cost (per month)
Contingent Valuation
(per season)
Perkasie, Pennsylvania, U.S. (1992)
$17
West Virginia, U.S. (1993) $91
Seoul, South Korea (1997) $3
![Page 10: 15 th Stockholm Water Symposium ~ Workshop 8 ~ The Cost of Non-Action in Controlling Toxic Water Pollution: An Economic Perspective by K. William Easter](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032704/56649d555503460f94a31d11/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Table 3. Economic Costs of Toxic Pollution of Water Used for Recreation
Study Area
Estimate Ranges
Recreational Choice (per user per season)
Cost of Illness (per case)
California, U.S. (coastal area) (2005)
$37-77
New York, U.S. (lakes) (1997)
$63
Wisconsin, U.S. (Great Lakes) (2000)
$89-108
![Page 11: 15 th Stockholm Water Symposium ~ Workshop 8 ~ The Cost of Non-Action in Controlling Toxic Water Pollution: An Economic Perspective by K. William Easter](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032704/56649d555503460f94a31d11/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Table 4. Best Method for Estimating Welfare Costs for a Developing Country with an Uninformed Population
Pollutant Best Measure of Cost of Non-Action
Arsenic Cost of illness and continent valuation
Mercury Cost of illness and contingent valuation
Atrazine Contingent valuation to estimate avoidance costs
![Page 12: 15 th Stockholm Water Symposium ~ Workshop 8 ~ The Cost of Non-Action in Controlling Toxic Water Pollution: An Economic Perspective by K. William Easter](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032704/56649d555503460f94a31d11/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Table 5. Best Method for Estimating Welfare Costs for a Developed Country with an Informed Population
Pollutant Best Measure of Cost of Non-Action
Arsenic Avoidance cost
Mercury All four methods
Atrazine Avoidance cost plus recreational choice
![Page 13: 15 th Stockholm Water Symposium ~ Workshop 8 ~ The Cost of Non-Action in Controlling Toxic Water Pollution: An Economic Perspective by K. William Easter](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032704/56649d555503460f94a31d11/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
I. Future costs (table 6)
1. Arsenic serious future costs for Asia
a. Bangladesh 60% of population affected
2. Mercury serious future costs for world
a. Increased emission of coal fired plants:
1,500 tons annually with 870 tons from Asia
b. High fish consumption – Asia and Pacific
c. Weakening the U.S. mercury emission
regulations impose a $190 million cost on
Minnesota
d. Japanese deaths from mercury just the
beginning for Asia?
3. Atrazine’s full impact still uncertain
![Page 14: 15 th Stockholm Water Symposium ~ Workshop 8 ~ The Cost of Non-Action in Controlling Toxic Water Pollution: An Economic Perspective by K. William Easter](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032704/56649d555503460f94a31d11/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Table 6. Future Cost of Not Controlling or Mitigating Toxic Pollution
Pollutant Developing Country Developed Country
Arsenic Large Small
Mercury Very large Large
Atrazine Uncertain but growing Insignificant to moderate
![Page 15: 15 th Stockholm Water Symposium ~ Workshop 8 ~ The Cost of Non-Action in Controlling Toxic Water Pollution: An Economic Perspective by K. William Easter](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032704/56649d555503460f94a31d11/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
J. Strategies for controlling the pollutants
1. Improve monitoring and detection efforts
2. Develop improved filters for arsenic
3. Strengthen and enforce mercury pollution emission standards
4. Develop improved substitutes for Atrazine.
![Page 16: 15 th Stockholm Water Symposium ~ Workshop 8 ~ The Cost of Non-Action in Controlling Toxic Water Pollution: An Economic Perspective by K. William Easter](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032704/56649d555503460f94a31d11/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Web page to access this paper.
http://www.apec.umn.edu/faculty/weaster/research.html
![Page 17: 15 th Stockholm Water Symposium ~ Workshop 8 ~ The Cost of Non-Action in Controlling Toxic Water Pollution: An Economic Perspective by K. William Easter](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032704/56649d555503460f94a31d11/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
St. Croix River in Interstate State Park, MNPhotographer: Robert Ashley Wilson, 1983
![Page 18: 15 th Stockholm Water Symposium ~ Workshop 8 ~ The Cost of Non-Action in Controlling Toxic Water Pollution: An Economic Perspective by K. William Easter](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032704/56649d555503460f94a31d11/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Lake Kabetogama, Voyageurs National Park, MN. White pine.Photographer: Donald L. Breneman, 1995
![Page 19: 15 th Stockholm Water Symposium ~ Workshop 8 ~ The Cost of Non-Action in Controlling Toxic Water Pollution: An Economic Perspective by K. William Easter](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032704/56649d555503460f94a31d11/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Lake Superior, North Shore, MN, Split Rock Lighthouse Photographer: Donald L. Breneman,1995
![Page 20: 15 th Stockholm Water Symposium ~ Workshop 8 ~ The Cost of Non-Action in Controlling Toxic Water Pollution: An Economic Perspective by K. William Easter](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032704/56649d555503460f94a31d11/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Lake Superior, North Shore, MN, Middle Falls, Pigeon River Photographer: Robert Ashley Wilson, 1982