Societal Cost–Benefit Analysis for Soil Remediation in The Netherlands

ABSTRACT There is a political demand on the efficiency of environmental policy. Cost–benefit analyses (CBAs) can play a role in answering that demand. This societal CBA for nationwide soil remediation operations in The Netherlands distinguishes 4 alternatives for future investments. In the zero alternative government funding will be terminated. Besides this, 3 policy alternatives are distinguished that are government financed. Soil remediation benefits human health, the drinking water supply, housing, perceptions, and the ecosystem. Soil remediation also answers the concerns of the Dutch population. The benefits to health (exposure to cadmium, lead, and carcinogens), drinking water supply, and housing are expressed in monetary terms. The extent that benefits equal the money spent depends partly on the value-loaded choice for the discount rate. Use of the current discount rate of 4% will mean a slightly negative balance whichever policy alternative is chosen. Focusing on nonmoneterized benefits, such as ecology, can cause the scales to tip in another direction. Using a lower discount rate will make future benefits, such as health and drinking water supply, more important. If the discount rate drops to 2% or less, all policy alternatives lead to a positive balance. Predominantly, the health benefits that are veiled in uncertainty can become a reason for applying a surcharge and, in turn, a higher discount rate. In that case, each of the alternatives will result in a net negative balance.

[1]  B. Brunekreef The relationship between air lead and blood lead in children: a critical review. , 1984, The Science of the total environment.

[2]  Jaco Vangronsveld,et al.  Environmental exposure to cadmium and risk of cancer: a prospective population-based study. , 2006, The Lancet. Oncology.

[3]  Robert Costanza,et al.  Thinking broadly about costs and benefits in ecological management. , 2006, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[4]  Rob Baltussen,et al.  Making Choices in Health: WHO Guide to Cost Effectiveness Analysis , 2003 .

[5]  Frank A. Swartjes,et al.  Risk-Based Assessment of Soil and Groundwater Quality in the Netherlands: Standards and Remediation Urgency , 1999, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[6]  G. Nordberg Lung cancer and exposure to environmental cadmium. , 2006, The Lancet. Oncology.

[7]  Zhao Jin-song Species Sensitivity Distribution and Its Application in Ecotoxicology , 2010 .

[8]  P. Rao Who Food Additives Series , 1973 .

[9]  A. Oomen,et al.  Effect of Bile Type on the Bioaccessibility of Soil Contaminants in an In Vitro Digestion Model , 2004, Archives of environmental contamination and toxicology.

[10]  Joseph E. Aldy,et al.  The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates Throughout the World , 2003 .

[11]  Richard J Wenning,et al.  Importance of implementation and residual risk analyses in sediment remediation. , 2006, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[12]  Roland W Scholz,et al.  Risk Perception of Heavy Metal Soil Contamination by High‐Exposed and Low‐Exposed Inhabitants: The Role of Knowledge and Emotional Concerns , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[13]  Frank A. Swartjes,et al.  Risk‐Based Assessment of Soil and Groundwater Quality in the Netherlands: Standards and Remediation Urgency , 1999 .

[14]  N. Weinstein,et al.  Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and Perception of Risk Three Simulation Experiments , 1993 .

[15]  M. Huijbregts,et al.  Human-Toxicological Effect and Damage Factors of Carcinogenic and Noncarcinogenic Chemicals for Life Cycle Impact Assessment , 2005, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[16]  Antonio Marcomini,et al.  DESYRE: Decision Support System for the Rehabilitation of Contaminated Megasites , 2007, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[17]  J. P. Grime Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function: The Debate Deepens , 1997, Science.

[18]  Pieter Jan M. Stallen,et al.  Public Concern About Industrial Hazards , 1988 .

[19]  R. Leuven,et al.  The Impact of Bioturbation by Small Mammals on Heavy Metal Redistribution in an Embanked Floodplain of the River Rhine , 2006 .

[20]  Janssen Pjcm,et al.  Re-evaluation of human-toxicological maximum permissible risk levels , 2001 .

[21]  P. Auinger,et al.  Cognitive deficits associated with blood lead concentrations <10 microg/dL in US children and adolescents. , 2000, Public health reports.

[22]  M. Davidson A Social Discount Rate for Climate Damage to Future Generations Based on Regulatory Law , 2006 .

[23]  Antonio Marcomini,et al.  Decision Support–Oriented Selection of Remediation Technologies to Rehabilitate Contaminated Sites , 2006, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[24]  O. Jolliet,et al.  Assessing Human Health Response in Life Cycle Assessment Using ED10s and DALYs: Part 1—Cancer Effects , 2002, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[25]  O Weber,et al.  Risk Perception of Heavy Metal Soil Contamination and Attitudes toward Decontamination Strategies , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[26]  I. Linkov,et al.  Multicriteria Decision Analysis: A Comprehensive Decision Approach for Management of Contaminated Sediments , 2006, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[27]  Peter Söderbaum,et al.  Democracy and Sustainable Development—What Is the Alternative to Cost–Benefit Analysis? , 2006, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[28]  Ari Rabl,et al.  Pathway Analysis for Population‐Total Health Impacts of Toxic Metal Emissions , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[29]  A. Wandersman,et al.  Are people acting irrationally? Understanding public concerns about environmental threats. , 1993 .