Regional Agglomeration of Major Risky Activities and Environmental Policies/ L'agglomeration Regionale Des Activites Comportant Des Risuques Majeures et Les Politiques Environnementales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Major industrial accidents have occurred and do continue to occur world-wide. They show the importance of good management of industrial/environmental risks which are likely to be amplified by a concentration of risky activities. Can public environmental policy avoid such a concentration? This is the question addressed in this article. Using a two-region equilibrium model in a monopolistic competition framework, the most striking result obtained is that the common form of environmental regulations that impact on marginal costs exacerbate the concentration of such activities. It is then demonstrated that a regionally differentiated regulation, according to firms' location, is necessary in order to limit risky activities' agglomeration. Un peu partout dans le monde, des accidents industriels majeurs surviennent. Parmi bien d'autres, les catastrophes de Seveso et Bhopal demeurent des symboles. Les >, reponses institutionnelles de la Communaute Europeenne a ces desastres, comportent en particulier des recommandations sur le maintien de distances appropriees entre les etablissements a risque et les aires d'habitation. Curieusement, ces directives n'incluent aucune recommandation concernant l'agglomeration d'etablissements a risque. Pourtant la probabilite qu'une catastrophe industrielle majeure advienne augmente avec une telle concentration, ne serait-ce que par propagation d'une firme a une autre, notamment par explosion ou incendie. Or, il est facile de constater que de telles concentrations existent particulierement dans l'industrie chimique. Ceci est le resultat bien connu des effets d' externalites positives dues a la proximite. Une politique publique environnementale est-elle en mesure d'eviter une telle concentration ? C'est la question que nous posons dans cet article. Nous montrons dans un premier temps, en utilisant un modele >, que la concentration des activites peut etre reduite lorsque les individus prennent en compte dans leur fonction d'utilite les effets negatifs des emissions polluantes: leur propension a migrer vers la > region diminue avec la concentration d'activites a risque. Cependant, nous montrons aussi que des regulations environnementales classiques (comme les Directives Seveso) qui ne tiennent pas compte du risque lie a la concentration ont un effet pervers: elles renforcent la concentration regionale des activites et donc aggravent le risque d'accident majeur. Notre conclusion est que seule une politique environnementale differenciee, selon le degre de concentration regionale des firmes, permet de limiter l'agglomeration dans une meme region de firmes a risque majeur. ********** The recent AZF industrial catastrophe in Toulouse (1) and its long lasting consequences have shown, once again, the importance of good management of industrial/environmental risks. Several major industrial accidents have occurred world-wide; among others, Seveso became a symbol: In July 1976, the explosion of a chemical reactor of the company Icmesa, located in Lombardy (Italy) near the town of Seveso caused a throwing out of dioxins in the atmosphere. The European Community's institutional response to the Seveso disaster was given by Council Directive 82/501/EEC on the major accident hazards of certain industrial activities, the so-called Seveso Directive. (2) Both amendments to that directive, (3) after the Bhopal catastrophe (1984), included recommendations on the storage of dangerous substances. In particular, the new concept of 'land-use planning' was introduced, implying that policies should ensure that appropriate distances between risky establishments and residential areas are guaranteed. Oddly enough, the directive is not concerned with the agglomeration of such establishments even though its seems evident that a major industrial catastrophe is more likely to occur when there is a concentration of risky activities. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".