Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Municipal Waste Kuznets Curves: Evidence on Socio-Economic Drivers and Policy Effectiveness from the EU

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Waste generation and waste disposal are becoming increasingly prominent in the environmental arena, from a policy perspective and in the context of delinking analysis. In general, waste generation is still increasing proportionally with income, and economic and environmental costs associated to landfilling are also increasing. This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of waste generation, incineration and landfill dynamics based on panel data for the EU25, to assess the effects of different drivers (economic, structural, policy) and the eventual differences between Western and Eastern EU countries. We show that for waste generation there is still no Waste Kuznets Curve (WKC) trend, although elasticity to income drivers appears lower than in the past. Landfill and other policy effects do not seem to provide backward incentives for waste prevention, and in terms of landfill and incineration, as expected, they are respectively decreasing and increasing, with policy acting as a strong driver. Eastern countries appear to be performing generally quite well, thus benefiting from EU membership and related policies in terms of environmental performance. We can conclude that although absolute delinking is far from being achieved for waste generation, there are some first positive signs of an increasing relative delinking for waste generation and robust landfill diversion, and varying evidence of a significant role of the EU waste policies implemented in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Our evidence suggests that if while landfill diversion is currently associated to a delinking partly explained by EU policies, waste prevention must be the next objective of waste regulation efforts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alpay S, Caliskan A, Mahmud S (2006) Environmental policy performance, economic growth and trade liberalization: a cross country empirical analysis. Department of Economics, Bilkent University, mimeo

  • Andersen F, Larsen H, Skovgaard M, Moll S, Isoard S (2007) A European model for waste and material flows. Resour Conserv Recycl 49(4): 421–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • André F, Cerda E (2004) Landfill construction and capacity expansion. Environ Resour Econ 28: 409–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni J, Levinson A (2001) The simple analytics of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. J Public Econ 80(2): 269–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58: 277–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beede D, Bloom D (1995) Economics of the generation and management of MSW. NBER Working Paper 5116, Cambridge, Mass: NBER

  • Berglund C, Soderholm P (2003) An econometric analysis of global waste paper recovery and utilization. Environ Resour Econ 26: 429–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrens R, Bohara A, Gawande K, Wang P (1998) Testing the inverted U hypothesis for US hazardous waste an application of the generalized gamma model. Econ Lett 55(3): 435–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bluffstone R, Deshazo JR (2003) Upgrading municipal environmental services to EU level: a case study of household willingness to pay in Lithuania. Environ Dev Econ 8: 637–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brisson I, Pearce D (1995) Benefit transfer for disamenity from waste disposal. CSERGE working paper No 6, UCL, London

  • Brock W, Taylor S (2004) The green solow model. NBER working paper No 10557. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruno GSF (2005) Approximating the Bias of the LSDV estimator for dynamic unbalanced panel data models. Econ Lett 87(3): 361–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cagatay S, Mihci H (2003) Industrial pollution, environmental suffering and policy measures: an index of environmental sensitivity performance. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 5: 205–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cagatay S, Mihci H (2006) Degree of environmental stringency and the impact on trade patterns. J Econ Stud 33(1): 30–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callan J, Thomas S (1999) Adopting a unit pricing system for MSW: policy and socio-economic determinants. Environ Resour Econ 14: 503–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callan S, Thomas J (2006) Analyzing demand for disposal and recycling services: a systems approach. East Econ J 32(2): 221–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan A, Grijalva T, Jackson-Smith D (2007) Using choice question formats to determine compensable values: the case of a landfill-siting process. Ecol Econ 60: 834–846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chavas JP (2004) On impatience, economic growth and the EKC: a dynamic analysis of resource management. Environ Resour Econ 28(2): 123–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choe C, Fraser I (1999) An economic analysis of household waste management. J Environ Econ Manag 38: 234–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole M (2005) Re-examining the pollution-income relationship: a random coefficients approach. Econ Bull 14: 1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole M, Rayner A, Bates J (1997) The EKC: an empirical analysis. Environ Dev Econ 2: 401–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole M, Elliott R, Shimamoto K (2005) Industrial characteristics, environmental regulations and air pollution: an analysis of the UK manufacturing sector. J Environ Econ Manag 50: 121–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole M, Elliott R, Fredrikkson P (2006) Endogenous pollution haves: does FDI influence environmental regulations?. Scand J Econ 108(1): 157–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DEFRA (2005) A study to estimate the disamenity costs of landfill in Great Britain. DEFRA, London

    Google Scholar 

  • DEFRA/DTI (2003) Sustainable consumption and production indicators. DEFRA, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijkgraaf E, Vollebergh H (2004) Burn or bury? A social cost comparison of final waste disposal methods. Ecol Econ 50: 233–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinda S (2005) Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecol Econ 49: 431–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives. European Commission, Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  • EEA (2006) Market-based instruments for environmental policy in Europe (technical report No 8/2005). European Environment Agency, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • EEA (2007) The road from landfilling to recycling: common destination different routes. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • El-Fadel M, Findikakis A, Leckie J (1997) Environmental impacts of solid waste landfilling. J Environ Manag 50(1): 1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eliste P, Fredrikkson PG (1998) Does open trade result in a race to the bottom? Cross country evidence. The World Bank, mimeo

    Google Scholar 

  • Eshet T, Ayalon O, Shechter M (2004) A meta analysis of waste management externalities: a comparative study of economic and non economic valuation methods. University of Haifa, Israel, mimeo

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (EC) (2003a) Towards a thematic strategy for waste prevention and recycling, COM (2003) 301. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (EC) (2003b) Towards a thematic strategy on sustainable use of natural resources COM (2003) 572. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrara I, Missios P (2005) Recycling and waste diversion effectiveness: evidence from Canada. Environ Resour Econ 30: 221–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer-Kowalski M, Amann C (2001) Beyond IPAT and Kuznets Curves: globalization as a vital factor in analyzing the environmental impact of socio economic metabolism. Popul Environ 23: 7–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredriksson P (2000) The siting of hazardous waste facilities in federal systems. Environ Resour Econ 15: 75–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher L, Ferreira S, Convery F (2008) Host community attitudes towards solid waste infrastructures: comprehension before compensation. J Environ Plan manag 51(2): 233–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gawande K, Berrens R, Bohara A (2001) A consumption based theory of the EKC. Ecol Econ 37(1): 101–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glachant M (2004) Changing product characteristics to reduce waste generation. In: OECD (2004), Addressing the Economics of waste. OECD: Paris

  • Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1994) Economic growth and the environment. NBER Working papers 4634. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • Highfill J, McCasey M (2001) Landfilling versus backstop recycling when income is growing. Environ Resour Econ 19: 37–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtz-Eakin D, Selden TM (1992) Stoking the fires? CO2 emissions and economic growth. NBER working papers 4248. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • Huhtala A (1997) A post consumer waste management model for determining optimal levels of recycling and landfilling. Environ Resour Econ 10: 310–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen H, Mazzanti M, Moll S, Simeone MG, Pontoglio S, Zoboli R (2004) Methodology and indicators to measure decoupling, resource efficiency, and waste prevention. ETC/WMF, European topic centre on waste and material flows. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins R, Maguire K, Morgan C (2004) Host community compensation and municipal solid waste landfills. Land Econ 80: 513–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone N, Labonne J (2004) Generation of household solid waste in OECD countries. An empirical analysis using macroeconomic data. Land Econ 80(4): 529–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karousakis K (2009) MSW generation disposal and recycling: empirical evidence from OECD countries. In: Mazzanti M, Montini A (eds) Waste & environmental policy. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiviet JF (1995) On Bias inconsistency and efficiency of various estimators in dynamic panel data models. J Econom 68: 53–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang JC (2005) Zero landfill zero waste: the greening of industry in Singapore. Int J Environ Sustain Dev 4: 331–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieb CM (2004) The Environmental Kuznets Curve and flow versus stock pollution: the neglect of future damages. Environ Resour Econ 29(4): 483–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List JA, Gallet CA (1999) Does one size fits all?. Ecol Econ 31: 409–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin A, Scott I (2003) The effectiveness of the UK landfill tax. J Environ Plan Manag 46(5): 673–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzanti M (2008) Is waste generation de-linking from economic growth?. Appl Econ Lett 15(4): 287–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzanti M, Montini A (eds) (2009) Waste & environmental policy. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzanti M, Zoboli R (2005) Delinking and Environmental Kuznets Curves for waste indicators in Europe. Environ Sci 2(4): 409–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzanti M, Montini A, Zoboli R (2008) Municipal waste generation socio-economic drivers and waste management instruments. J Environ Dev 17: 51–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miranda ML, Miller J, Jacobs T (2000) Talking trash about landfills: using quantitative scoring schemes in landfill siting processes. J Policy Anal manag 19(1): 3–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozawa T (2005) Hotelling rule and the landfill exhaustion problem: case of Tokyo city. Stud Reg Sci 35: 215–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce DW (2004) Does European Union waste policy pass a cost benefit test?. World Econ 5(3): 115–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell J, Brisson I (1995) Benefit transfer for disamenity from waste disposal. CSERGE working paper. UCL, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond L (2004) Economic growth as environmental policy? Reconsidering the Environmental Kuznets Curve. J Public Policy 24: 27–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothman D (1998) EKC real progress or passing the buck? A case for consumption based approaches. Ecol Econ 25: 177–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seppala T, Haukioja T, Kaivo-Oja J (2001) The EKC hypothesis does not hold for direct material flows: EKC hypothesis tests for DMF in four industrial countries. Population and the environment 23(2): 217–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern D (1998) Progress on the Environmental Kuznets Curve?. Environ Dev Econ 3: 173–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern D (2004) The rise and fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World Dev 32(8): 1419–1438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterner T, Bartelings H (1999) Household waste management in a Swedish municipality: determinants of waste disposal, recycling and composting. Environ Resour Econ 13: 473–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swamy PA (1970) Efficient inference in a random coeffcient regression model. Econometrica 38: 311–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taseli B (2007) The impact of the European landfill directive on waste management strategy and current legislation in Turkey’s specially protected areas. Resour Conserv Recycl 52: 119–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang P, Bohara A, Berrens R, Gawande K (1998) A risk based Environmental Kuznets Curve for US hazardous waste sites. Appl Econ Lett 5: 761–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson M, Bulkeley H, Hudson R (2008) Unpicking environmental policy integration from tales of waste management. Environ Plan C 26: 481–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge J (2003) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. The MIT press, Cambridge Mass

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (1992) Development and the environment, World bank Report. Oxford University Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang HL, Innes R (2007) Economic incentives and residential waste management in Taiwan: an empirical investigation. Environ Resour Econ 37: 489–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics Institutions and Territory, University of Ferrara, Via Voltapaletto 11, 44100, Ferrara, Italy

    Massimiliano Mazzanti

  2. National Research Council CERIS-CNR, Milan, Italy

    Massimiliano Mazzanti

  3. National Research Council, CERIS-CNR Milan & Catholic University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Roberto Zoboli

Authors
  1. Massimiliano Mazzanti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roberto Zoboli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Massimiliano Mazzanti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mazzanti, M., Zoboli, R. Municipal Waste Kuznets Curves: Evidence on Socio-Economic Drivers and Policy Effectiveness from the EU. Environ Resource Econ 44, 203–230 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9280-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9280-x

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation