Click here for search results
Accounting for toxicity risks in pollution control : does it matter?, Volume 1
 
Author:Dasgupta, Susmita; Laplante, Benoit; Meisner, Craig; Country:Brazil;
Date Stored:2000/02/24Document Date:1998/11/30
Document Type:Policy Research Working PaperSubTopics:Environmental Economics & Policies; Water and Industry; Pollution Management & Control; Health Monitoring & Evaluation; TF030632-DANISH CTF - FY05 (DAC PART COUNTRIES GNP PER CAPITA BELOW USD 2,500/AL; Public Health Promotion; Sanitation and Sewerage
Language:EnglishMajor Sector:(Historic)Environment
Region:Latin America & CaribbeanReport Number:WPS2002
Sub Sectors:Pollution Control / Waste ManagementCollection Title:Policy, Research working paper ; no. WPS 2002
Volume No:1  

Summary: The accounting and public release of information about industrial toxic pollution emissions is meeting increasing criticism in that these listings typically do not account for the different toxicity risks associated with different pollutants. A firm emitting a large amount of relatively harmless substance is ranked as a heavier polluter than a firm emitting a small quantity of a potent substance. Such "unweighted" rankings of firms, it is argued, may lead to misallocation of resources and a wrong prioritization of efforts in pollution control. This is a particular problem in developing countries, where sources for pollution control are typically scarce. To account for varying toxicity risk, a number of organizations have developed thresholds or exposure limits for various pollutants. But many toxicity risk factors and methods are currently available, and different risk indicators yield different results and hence priorities. So the authors review seven risk methods and construct 10 sets of toxicity risk factors from those indicators. They apply those factors to the 3,426 industrial municipalities of Brazil and explore Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo in detail. After ranking states and municipalities for their pollution intensity, results indicate that at the state level, risk-weighted rankings remain largely the same across the 10 sets of toxicity risk factors used in this paper. By and large the result also holds true at the municipal level. Although at the state level the unweighted ranking is relatively similar to the risk-weighted ranking, at the municipal level significant differences were found between the risk-weighted and unweighted rankings. These findings suggest that it is important for environmental regulators to weight pollutants for their relative toxicity risk when developing priorities for pollution control efforts at the industrial or regional level. But at high levels of aggregation, the choice of indicator need not be the subject of immense debate.

Official Documents
Official, scanned versions of documents (may include signatures, etc.)
File TypeDescriptionFile Size (mb)
PDF 43 pagesOfficial version*3.01 (approx.)
TextText version**
How To Order
Light-Weight Documents
Lighter (less MB) documents which may or may not be the final, official version
File TypeDescriptionFile Size (mb)
PDF 41 pagesWPS20020.28

* The official version is derived from scanning the final, paper copy of the document and is the official,
archived version including all signatures, charts, etc.
** The text version is the OCR text of the final scanned version and is not an accurate representation of the final text.
It is provided solely to benefit users with slow connectivity.



Permanent URL for this page: http://go.worldbank.org/79MP6Y2H70