The Environmental Kuznets Curve and the production

of waste: an explanatory analysis

for the Italian industrial sector

Thesis presented by:

Alessandro Stanchi
to

The Class of Social Sciences

for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in the subject of

Management, competitiveness and development

Tutor: Prof. Marco Frey
Relatore: Prof. Marco Frey

Scuola Superiore SantAnna

A.Y. 2013-2014

Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita

mi ritrovai per una selva oscura,
ch la diritta via era smarrita.
Ahi quanto a dir qual era cosa dura
esta selva selvaggia e aspra e forte
che nel pensier rinova la paura!
Tant' amara che poco pi morte;
ma per trattar del ben ch'i' vi trovai,
dir de l'altre cose ch'i' v'ho scorte.
Io non so ben ridir com'i' v'intrai,
tant'era pien di sonno a quel punto
che la verace via abbandonai.
Dante Alighieri, Divina Commedia, Canto I, versi 1-12

O Fortuna
Velut luna
Statu variabilis
Sempre crescis
Aut decrescis
Vita detestabilis
Nunc obdurat
Et tunc curat
Ludo mentis aciem
Egestatem
Potestatem
Dissolvit ut glaciem...
O Fortuna, Carmina Burana

"In this phial...is caught the light of Erendils star...

It will shine still brighter when night is about you.
May it be a light to you in dark places, when all other lights go out"
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings

Ringraziamenti
La parte pi difficile di un lavoro di scrittura sempre quella dei ringraziamenti: non si sa mai se la propria onest intellettuale ha fatto s che si sia riusciti a ricordare tutti coloro che hanno contribuito ad aiutare lo scrivente nella sua impresa, cos come non si pu essere mai certi di aver espresso con parole chiare,
forti e sincere il senso di gratitudine che si prova nei confronti di coloro che vengono ricordati.
Nel mio caso, il compito davvero molto, ma molto, pi facile del solito.
Il debito di gratitudine che ho nei confronti delle persone che mi hanno accolto, accompagnato, guidato,
incoraggiato e supportato nel completare questo percorso umano, prima che accademico e professionale,
pu essere descritto mediante un unico termine: immenso.
E, anche cos, sbaglio per difetto.
Un primo ringraziamento va al mio relatore e guida, il Prof. Marco Frey, per la fiducia che mi ha sempre
dimostrato, per la sua disponibilit e cortesia sempre estreme, e per i preziosi consigli non solo in merito
alla ricerca, ma anche alla vita e all'ambiente accademico.
Un sentito grazie va al Direttore del corso di Ph.D., il Prof. Andrea Piccaluga, per il suo spirito energico e
motivante, per la sua cortesia nell'indirizzare gli studenti verso i loro obbiettivi, e per aver voluto in ogni
momento dar vita ad un ambiente sereno, produttivo e di collaborazione.
Per gli stessi motivi desidero ringraziare i docenti del Ph.D. che ho incontrato nel corso di questi anni: da
loro ho appreso in prima persona come si possa e si debba comunicare la passione per la ricerca a chi ci ascolta.
Un affettuoso ricordo, poi, lo rivolgo a tutti i colleghi Perfezionandi: a loro auguro una carriera piena di
soddisfazioni, e che li porti a mostrare all'esterno la vivacit della Scuola di cui siamo stati allievi.
Un'istituzione viva e pulsante non la semplice sommatoria delle persone che la popolano, e degli edifici
che la ospitano, ma ha un qualcosa in pi che la rende tale, e che la fa vivere di vita propria: ecco perch
desidero esprimere tutta la felicit intellettuale di essere stato accolto all'interno della Scuola Superiore
Sant'Anna di Studi Universitari e di Perfezionamento di Pisa (e, per il corso di Perfezionamento, nel suo
Istituto di Management), e di esserne stato membro in un momento molto burrascoso, travagliato e anche
doloroso della mia vita personale.
Un ringraziamento particolare va, poi, a mia madre e a mio padre, che, poco silenziosamente ma molto
stoicamente, mi supportano e mi sopportano da oramai parecchi anni, e che, da quel che vedo, non hanno
intenzione di perdere questa "brutta" abitudine: spero possano essere pi sereni nei tempi che verranno.
In una pagina di ringraziamenti come quella che intenderei continuare a scrivere, i "grazie" sarebbero ancora molti, ma non voglio che il senso di gratitudine che avverto come fortissimo in me possa venire scambiato dal lettore occasionale per un vuoto esercizio di retorica, come fosse un compito necessario cui si deve
adempiere per "cortesia istituzionale", per cos dire. Non cos: non sar mai abbstanza in grado di esprimere appieno quanto io sia debitore nei confronti della Scuola Sant'Anna.
Nel terminare, per, prendo immeritatamente come esempio di stile la struttura narrativa della versione di
Carl Orff dei Carmina Burana (1935-1936), dove l'invocazione alla Fortuna suonata come primo brano, e poi di nuovo come ultimo brano, perch la Fortuna una ruota che gira e che torna, prima o poi, al
luogo di partenza: allo stesso modo, desidero tornare a ringraziare il Prof. Marco Frey, verso il quale il mio
debito di gratitudine senza fine.

Table of contents
RINGRAZIAMENTI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

1. ECONOMIC GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT, AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL

KUZNETS CURVE FRAMEWORK
1.1. Introduction
1.2. Economic growth and environment: a classic dilemma
1.3. A deconstruction analysis: the IPAT framework
1.4. The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC)
1.4.1. Origins of the EKC framework
1.4.2. The basics of the Environmental Kuznets Curve
1.4.3. The main theoretical literature on the Environmental Kuznets Curve
1.4.4. A macroeconomic model for the EKC: the Green Solow Model
1.4.5. The empirical literature on the Environmental Kuznets Curve
1.4.5.1. Distribution of income, wealth and equity
1.4.5.2. Structural change in the economy and technological progress
1.4.5.3. International trade
1.4.5.4. Individual preferences
1.4.5.5. Energy demand, energy prices and energy intensity
1.4.6. A brief overview of some econometric issues related to the EKC estimation
1.5. The Waste Kuznets Curve (WKC)
1.6. Conclusions

10

2. THE PRODUCTION OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE IN THE MUD DATABASE,

DURING THE PERIOD 1998-2004
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Industry and its importance in the Italian economy (1998-2004)
2.3. The MUD database (1998-2004)
2.3.1. The production of industrial waste according to the MUD data (1998-2004)
2.4. Analysis of the coverage of the MUD database as regards the Industry in a Strict
Sense sector (1998-2004)
2.4.1. The overall context
2.4.2. Coverage in terms of economic activity (1998-2004)
2.4.3. Coverage in terms geographic divisions (1998-2004)
2.4.4. Methodological insights about the quality and the representativeness of the
MUD database (1998-2004)
2.5. The MUD database: quantitative analysis of the production of waste
2.5.1. The geographic dimension: a quantitative analysis
2.5.1.1. Italy and its macro-regions
2.5.1.2. Regions and provinces
2.5.2. Quantitative analysis from a sectorial point of view
2.5.3. Waste and economic activity
2.6. Conclusions
APPENDIX A2

61

10
10
13
16
16
17
21
28
33
34
36
37
39
40
42
45
59

61
62
66
66
70
70
72
77
80
82
82
82
94
97
99
100
102

3. ITALIAN WASTE PRODUCTION (1998-2004): A GENERAL FRAMEWORK

FOR THE ANALYSIS
3.1. Introduction
3.2. A note on the theoretical framework
3.3. The drivers of the model
3.3.1. Descriptive analysis
3.3.1.1. Value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense (1998-2004)
3.3.1.2. Energy consumption of Industry in a Strict Sense (1998-2004)
3.3.1.3. Sorted (and non sorted) urban waste collection (1998-2004)
3.3.1.4. Innovations and patents (1998-2004)
3.3.1.5. Exports (1998-2004)
3.3.1.6. Population density of the provinces, and density of the local units of Industry in a Strict Sense (1998-2004)
3.3.1.7. Share of the value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense and of Service Industry on the total 146value-added (1998-2004)
3.3.2. Relationship between industrial waste and socio-economic drivers
3.4. Conclusions
APPENDIX A3

124

4. MODEL SPECIFICATION AND ECONOMETRIC TESTING

4.1. Introduction
4.2. The specification of the model
4.3. The econometric tests
4.4. Main results
4.5. Conclusions
APPENDIX A4

175
175
175
182
198
201
202

5. THE PRODUCTION OF WASTE OF INDUSTRY IN A STRICT SENSE: A

SIMULATION
5.1. Introduction
5.2. The hypothesis of the simulation of a EKC relationship: growth rates of the Italian
local economies
5.3. The evolution of the production of waste: the simulation of the model
5.3.1. The results of the simulation: the five randomly selected provinces
5.4. Simulations results: a discussion
5.5. Conclusions
APPENDIX A5

219

CONCLUSIONS

253

ACRONIMI ACRONYMS

259

LIST OF FIGURES

260

LIST OF TABLES

263

REFERENCES

266

124
124
124
125
125
133
138
142
143
145
146
147
150
151

219
219
222
225
227
236
237

INTRODUCTION

Solid waste management is strictly linked to urbanization and economic development, and is the one
service that almost every national government provides for its citizens. While service levels, costs and
environmental impacts can dramatically vary among places and nations, solid waste management is
perhaps the most important public service that nevertheless must be set up in all countries, and municipal solid waste (MSW) management is the most relevant service a city government provides, together with the industrial solid waste (ISW) management. In low-income countries, as well as in many
developing countries, MSW is the largest single budget item for cities. The 2012 World Banks Urban
Development departments report (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012) estimates that the amount of
municipal solid waste (MSW) has risen in the past, and it will steadily rise in future: in 2002, 2,9 billion
urban residents have generated about 0,64 kg of MSW per person per day, which leads to a 0,68 billion
tonnes per year. In 2012, waste residuals in cities have increased: about 3 billion residents have generated 1,2 kg per person per day (1,3 billion tonnes per year). The estimates show that, by 2025, 4,3 billion urban residents will have produced about 1,42 kg per capita per day of municipal solid waste (that
is, 2,2 billion tonnes per year). Much of this increase will take place in rapidly growing cities of developing countries (Table I.1).

Table I.1 Waste generation projections for 2025, region by income

(from Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012)

World Bank estimates of 2005 GNI per capita:

High: $ 10.726 or above; Upper middle: $ 3.466-10.725; Lower middle: $ 876-3.465; and Lower: $ 875 or less.

Waste is mainly a by-product of the nowadays consumer-based lifestyles that drive much of the worlds
economies. As countries tend to urbanize, their economic wealth increases: their standards of living and
incomes increase, as well as consumption of goods and services, thus resulting in a corresponding increase in the amount of generated waste. There are remarkable differences in waste generation rates
across countries, among cities, and even within cities, but everywhere the global nature of solid waste
contributes to the increase of GHG emissions, and to all the global issues related to products, urban
practices, and the recycling industry. Waste generation have been seen to be much lower in rural areas
since, on average, residents are usually poorer, purchase fewer items (which results in less packaging),
and have higher levels of reuse and recycling. Anyway, in any place in the world, waste production is
strictly related to economic growth and social development, and the current debate is on whether such
an increase is sustainable in environmental and in social terms, being an economic issue in both developing and developed nations: the annual global cost of solid waste management is estimated to rise
from the current 205 billion dollars to 375 billion dollars in 2025, and such costs will increase most in
low-income countries.

Table I.2 Italian expenditure for waste management, 1997-2007

(millions of , current-prices; from CMCC, 2010)

Source: CMCC (2010) and Istat (2008).

The focus of the present research is on the Italian case, where waste is a major source of public concern and costs: according to Istat (2008), the national current-prices expenditure for waste management
in 2007 was about 21.000 millions of Euros, while in 1997 it was almost 11.000 millions of Euros,
6

showing an increase of +91% (Table I.2). In 1997, the waste management expenditure was about 1,1%
of the Italian GDP, but, after ten years, its weight has been increasing up to 1,4%: the most relevant
component of such an expense are the intermediate consumptions of firms, which have a weight bigger
than 55% of the total, while the second weighing voice, the final consumptions of both households and
public sector, amounts to more than 30% of the total. Investments of the waste management sector
(which is 10% of the total expenditure) have been mainly made by the private sector, with an increase
of +100% in the period 1997-2007 (CMCC, 2010), while public sector and other social institutions have
lowered their investments by one third. As regards the employment data, in 1997 there were more than
71.156 units working in the sector, while in 2007 this number has increased to more than 106.000
(CMCC, 2010): the whole sector has doubled its employees in ten years, and all of such an increase has
to be ascribed to the private sector, while the public sector has seen an almost zero increase in that period (+0,7%). Therefore, in line with the international experience, Italy too has seen an increase in the
expenditure of waste management costs, a growing privatizing process and a growing outsourcing one.
As waste seems to be the main social challenge that policy makers have to face every day hic et nunc,
abroad as well as in Italy, the general research question of the present work is to try to cast a light on
the relationship between waste (especially those residuals produced by firms), economic activity and the
socio-economic structure, in Italy. The vast majority of the available data and works deals with urban
waste data and its policy indications: the first idea for this research has been investigating the behaviour
of the productive sectors in producing waste, and whether such a behaviour could be defined as sustainable.
The Italian national law on waste and it subsequent modifications, considers two different kinds of
waste, which can be roughly detailed (for legal descriptions, see Italian waste laws) as:

urban waste (also called municipal waste): all the residuals produced by non-productive activities;

special waste (also called industrial waste): all residuals produced by productive activities.

The Legge n. 70/1994 has first introduced the obligation, for those institutions and firms which produce or manage waste, to yearly send to the Chambers of Commerce the Modello Unico di Dichiarazione (MUD) Ambientale, detailing those amounts of waste produced, collected or managed during the
previous year. The total quantity of waste produced in Italy is not equivalent to the mere summation of
urban and special waste, since there were many entities which were exempted by giving that statement:
such entities, however, had to give their waste to those subjects which could transport, recycle and dispose such residuals. Those last subjects had to declare the type and the quantity of waste that they were
collecting, and all the personal data of their partner. This resulted in a complex system of reports which
has been the first in EU to be so detailed, and it has provided a rich dataset of waste production.
7

The present research work deals with a provincial-level dataset of special waste, for the period 19972004. During those years, the Legge n. 70/1994 was in force, and therefore the categories subjected to
present the MUD were the same for the whole period: as a consequence, the descriptive and simulations results can be perfectly compared across those years. The same cannot be said for the subsequent
years: in 2006, the Decreto Legislativo n. 152/2006 was calling for different duties on different subjects, and therefore the data are not more perfectly comparable from that point on.
The first research question of the present work deals with the description of the framework of the
production of special waste in Italy, and tries to describe the context of the production of firms residuals in Italy, indicating whether it has been experienced an increase, and the trends of the period: the use
of original and disaggregated data gives new insights on an issue which is less known and even less described than urban waste.
The second research question investigates the possible relationships between special waste production and the several socio-economic aspects of the Italian society, and the signs of such a link: the target has been studying whether the industrial production of waste is sustainable in economic terms, and
what are the main drivers of that production. The Environmental Kuznets Curve framework of analysis
has been used, selecting those socio-economic drivers which, according to the main literature, could be
responsible for the increase or the decrease of (the measure of) special waste. The model has been
tested using a pooled OLS technique to find out whether an Environmental Kuznets Curve can be
found for special waste production, during the period 1997-2004, and what are the variables that can
lead towards, or away from, such a behaviour.
The third research question tries to simulate the model in the framework of a growing economy,
looking whether waste could decrease in the Italian socio-economic texture: using data coming from
periods of decrease in the economic variables (as the period 2006-2013) may lead to the result that the
feasible decrease in the waste production could be led by the relative decrease in the economic activity.
Therefore, we have been interested in simulating the behaviour of the special waste production in a
growing economy set.
The work is structured as follows. Chapter 1 presents a review of the main findings of the previous
studies concerning the links among economic growth, economic development and environmental degradation, choosing the quoted papers among a vast number of researches dealing with what is one of
the most studied subjects in the economic literature. The chapter introduces the classic dilemma between economic growth and environment, then it deals with the IPAT framework and its use in the
economic analysis of the environment; then the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis, with
its origins and its basic framework, the theory behind the EKC, the macroeconomic aspects of the
Green Solow Model, the main empirical studies on the EKC, and the main econometric issues related

to the use of the in EKC have been described. A special section deals with the application of the EKC
analysis to waste data, and the development of the so called Waste Kuznets Curve (WKC).
Chapter 2 gives the basics on the production of waste generated by firms of the sector of Industry in a
Strict Sense, based upon the information provided by the MUD database (excluding the database coming from the waste collectors), for the period which goes from the year 1998 (whose statements have
been given in the year 1999) to the year 2004 (whose statements have been give in the year 2005). A
short description about Industry in a Strict Sense is given, and its importance within the Italian economy during the period 1998-2004 is highlighted. Then the description of the database which has been
used in the analysis is provided, together with the explanation on why that precise period has been chosen: the importance of Industry in a Strict Sense to the framework of waste production in Italy has
been assessed, and the waste production of firms has been outlined under a geographical and a sectorial
point of view.
Chapter 3 gives an overview of the socio-economic variables which contribute to the waste production
and which have been used in the econometric test of the subsequent chapter. A brief description of
each of the drivers has been provided, in the span of time 1998-2004, at a provincial and at national
level, and how each of them might have influence on waste production is depicted.
Chapter 4 presents the specification of the model that has been tested: it has been tried to explain the
socio-economic causes behind the production of waste in the industrial sector, by the means of the
drivers described in the previous chapter. Some hypotheses about the model have been presented, as
well as its different functional forms and the econometric estimates. The statistical significance of the
variables has been tested, and the EKC behaviour of the dependent variable has been checked: the best
specification to be used in the following simulations section has been done by jointly using the information provided by the Bayesian/Schwartz Information Criterion (BIC), the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and the R-squared criterion (R2).
Chapter 5 presents the simulations of behaviour of the dependent variable of the model (waste) in a
hypothetically growing economy framework, in order to investigate whether the EKC trend can be observed, for the Italian provinces, also for the future as well as for the past. After the economic crisis
that has stricken the world since 2008, the performance of the Italian economy has gone down, with
negative growth rates across the years 2010, 2011 and 2012. Therefore, two different scenarios of fictional economic growth have been created, based on real and hypothetical growth estimates, for the period 2006-2010, and based on ad hoc hypothesis, and the model has been simulated.
In the end, the Conclusions session sums up the main results of the work, and it casts a light on new
research hypotheses that might arise within this context.

1. ECONOMIC GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT, AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL KUZNETS CURVE FRAMEWORK

1.1 Introduction
The present chapter presents a review of the main findings of the previous studies concerning the links
among economic growth, economic development and environmental degradation: it is not possible to
attempt to review or cite all of the rapidly growing number of studies, so it has been necessary to
choose among a vast number of researches dealing with what is one of the most studied subjects in the
economic literature.
The first section introduces the classic dilemma between economic growth and environment. Section 2
deals with the IPAT framework and its use in the economic analysis of the environment. Section 3 illustrates in depth the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis, highlighting in more detail its
origins and its basic framework, then the theory behind the EKC-style curve, the macroeconomic aspects of the Green Solow Model, the main empirical studies on the EKC, and finally the main econometric issues related to the use of the in EKC. Section 5 deals with the application of the EKC analysis
to waste data, and the development of the so called Waste Kuznets Curve (WKC). Last, Section 6
shows the concluding remarks of the review.

1.2 Economic growth and environment: a classic dilemma

The classical economic theory considers land, labour, capital and productivity (the first, so called Solow
residual, and all of its followers) as the primary factors of production. Land (and, since, environment) is
the physical capital which provides the resources that allow every economic activity to take place. However, the exhaustibility of the natural resources gave and still gives rise to concerns about its possible
effect on the productive capabilities (Tahvonen, 2000). The oil crises in the 1970s showed that the
world would have run out of oil and, consequently, of energy (Tahvonen, 2000), thus leading to a slowdown of productivity (Stern, 2004): the scientific research always pointed out the negative effects of
economic growth on the environment, highlighting how the over-accumulation of greenhouse gases,
the upsetting of air pollution and the significant increase in the generation of waste would have been
major concerns during all the human development path.
Since the beginning of the 1950s, the environmental effects of economy have been receiving increasing
attention by researchers. The worldwide worsening of environmental quality and the always increasing
10

ecological requirements of the national economies started involving the political actions and programs
of governments and of international institutions. The economic world is intrinsically linked to the natural environment (the physical and biological world): therefore, pollution and resources use have become
a variable for micro and macro economists since the early days (Daly, 1977).
Economic growth and its consequences are among the most controversial issues of the economic history of the world. Its beginnings might be seen as a nature-friendly development story, that started with
agriculture and that soon went to excessive use of natural resources after the industrial revolution,
which stimulated the exploitation of more and more natural resources. Across the centuries, scarcity
and pollution of natural resources made societies aware of the fact that the economy depends on energy and ecological services provided by nature (Ward, 2006).
Apart from Malthus's predictions which are not suitable for economic development, neoclassical
growth models focus on capital and labour by ignoring natural resources. Modern growth theory (endogenous growth theory) accepts human development, technological progress, and natural resources as
the forces behind economic growth. In this context, recent economic studies deal with optimality of the
growth process: how economic growth and environmental conservation are compatible in the long
term, sustainable development, and consequences of environmental policy for growth (Smulders, 1999).
A crucial issue for several decades has been the problem of identifying the correct relationship between
environmental emissions and economic growth (Stern, 2004; Azomahou et al., 2006; Kijima et al.,
2010), mainly because the ability to forecast emissions after an increase in economic growth may be
useful in estimating the potential magnitude of environmental problems (Riahi et al., 2011), and thus
leading to the capability to detect conditions under which economic growth leads to increased environmental burdens (Kuosmanen et al., 2009).
In the early 1970s, the so called "Limits to Growth" elaborated by the Club of Rome (Meadows et al.,
1972) were concerning the availability of natural resources on Earth: in that book the authors were
forecasting the possibility that pollution and scarcity would stop economic growth. Moreover, for some
social and physical scientists such as Georgescu-Roegen (1971, 1977), the biophysical limits of environment would be reached for soon, since the growing economic activities in the world would require
larger inputs of energy and material, and they would generate larger quantities of waste.
Starting from Malthus's studies, neoclassical growth models focussed on capital and labour, ignoring
natural resources, but modern growth theory (and the endogenous growth theory) has now filled the
gap, accepting human development, technological progress, and natural resources as the forces behind
economic growth. In this context, recent economic studies deal with how economic growth and environmental conservation are compatible in the long term in the context of a sustainable development,
and assessing which consequences might arise for environmental polices for growth (Smulders, 1999).

11

The neoclassical growth theory has tried to address the problem of the nature of the link between environment and economic growth (Solow, 1974a, b; Aghion and Howitt, 1998a, b), and a great number of
studies on that subject, both theoretical as well as empirical, has tried to investigate whether a steadily
increasing economic growth is compatible with environmental quality.
The accumulation of waste and the extraction of natural resources should overwhelm the carrying capacity of the biosphere, and result in the degradation of the environmental quality and human wellbeing (Daly, 1977). On the contrary, Malenbaum (1978) wrote a study which conflicts with the Club of
Romes predictions, showing that the ratio of consumption of some kind of metals to income was declining in developed economies: thanks to innovation, investment and technical progress, the material
input of economies is reduced directly by economic growth (Factor 10 Club, 1995; EUROSTAT,
2001).
Opposed to the biological vision stating that the bigger economy is, the bigger the pollution is, another
view suggests that economic growth may improve environmental quality through technological change,
economies of scale in pollution abatement, and increasing demand for environmental quality (Beckerman, 1992). The Sustainable Development theory tries to study since its beginning whether environmental pressures could slow down relative to economic growth at higher income levels, after an initial
increase at early stages of development. Born in 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and
Development, the Sustainable Development paradigm is based on dematerialization and de-pollution,
and considers economic growth and technological progress as the best way to improve environmental
quality, thanks to innovations, investments and technical progress, that will delink economy from its
biophysical constraint (Canas et al., 2003). In recent years, a lot of studies estimated this theoretical behaviour for a variety of pollutants (Cole, 2003; Copeland and Taylor, 2004; Dasgupta et al., 2002) and
other provided a quantification of the material input of an economy (Fisher-Kowalski and Amann,
2001; Cleveland and Ruth, 1999).
Recently, several authors try to assess the importance of another factor about environmental economics
issues, that is, human development. Anand and Sen (2000) attempt to explain the importance of human
development in all components of economic development, such as equity, sustainable development and
optimal growth, while Costantini and Monni (2008) state that environmental quality would not be negatively affected by the economic growth, if a human development perspective is adopted. Ranis et al.
(2000) assert that a strong connection between economic growth and human development exists, and
that economic growth provides resources to allow for sustained improvements in human development.
Economic growth itself will not be sustainable unless accompanied by improvements in human development, such as economic reforms. Gangadharan and Valenzuela (2001) state that investments in education and health produce new human capital. Noorbakshs (1998) discussed a modified human development index for measuring human development, considering the diminishing returns of the educa12

tional indicators. The papers mentioned so far do not measure the direct impacts of human development on economic growth. Recent study highlights the impacts of human development index (HDI) by
investigating industrial pollution in selected Mediterranean countries, which have different economic
backgrounds (Raghbendra and Murthy, 2003). Since first release by the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP), the HDI includes the impacts of social variables such as health effects, political
rights, civil liberties, and education level (Sagar and Najam, 1998). Education level positively affects
many other socio-economic variables, such as political rights and civil liberties, as well as population
density: as long as education level is increasing in a country, population increase rate, and its consequent pressures on the natural resources, decreases.

1.3 A deconstruction analysis: the IPAT framework

Indicators of "decoupling" or "delinking" have become increasingly popular in detecting and measuring
improvements in environmental and resource efficiency, with respect to economic activity. The general
relationship between economic activities, efficiency gains in the use of resources (or, decoupling) and
the scale of environmental impacts can be illustrated by referring to the IPAT model. Since its original
formulation by Ehrlich (1971), the model, in different versions, has been extensively used for the analysis of global resource problems. As a description of the relationship between economic driving forces
and environmental impact or pressure indicators, the model is very flexible.
Extensive research on decoupling indicators for policy-evaluation purposes have been carried out by
the OECD since more than a decade (OECD, 2002), as well as various decoupling or resourceefficiency indicators have been included in the European Environment Agencys reports (EEA, 2003).
A few European countries started to include such indicators in official reports on environmental performance (DEFRA/DTI, 2003), while some countries are experiencing the adoption of delinkingbased targets for major environmental policies.
The delinking approach can be better explained starting with the so called IPAT model. IPAT defines
total impact on the environment (I, such as atmospheric emissions, or waste production) as the (multiplicative) result of the impacts of population level (P), affluence (A), measured by wealth (usually,
GDP) per capita, and the impact per unit of economic activity representing the kind of technology of
the system (T):

I P A T P

GDP I

P GDP

13

This is an accounting identity, adopted to identify the relative role of A, P, and T for the observed
change of I over time, and possibly across countries: it is an indicator of intensity, and it measures how
many units of Impact (natural resources consumption) are required by an economic system to produce
one unit (one euro, dollar, etc.) of GDP. As a technical coefficient, it represents the resource-use efficiency of the system, or, if its reciprocal GDP/I is considered, it is represents the resource productivity
in terms of GDP: it is the most aggregated way of representing in economic terms the average state of
the technology of an economy, in terms of the Impact variable. Changes in T, for a given GDP, reflect
a combination of shifts towards sectors with a different resource intensity (as an example, from manufacturing to services) and the diffusion of techniques with different resource requirements (from fossil
fuels to solar power). If T decreases over time, there is a gain in environmental efficiency or resource
productivity, and T can be directly examined in the delinking analysis. T is the main control variable in
the system.
As an example, with respect to China, Zhang (2000) has decomposed past CO2 emissions along the
IPAT lines, and he has found that increasing income has been the main factor increasing emissions,
while changes in aggregate population size have had a much lesser impact. His estimates show that
changes in technology (whose proxy can be energy intensity) are between those of the income and
population effects, in terms of absolute magnitude, and work in the opposite direction.
Decoupling may be absolute ore relative: it is absolute decoupling when the percentage growth of the
socio-economic indicator goes together with a percentage decrease of the environmental pressure (be it,
in absolute value, bigger or smaller than the growth of the driver). There is a relative decoupling, instead, when the percentage increase of the environmental pressure is smaller than the increase of the
observed socio-economic driver, that is, when the environmental deterioration grows less than the respective variable.
In other terms, the elasticity of the environmental pressure with respect to its drivers can be written as:

I ,x

I
I %
,
I
x x%
x

where I is the measure of the pressure on the environment, and x is the driver.
Therefore, two interesting options may arise:

absolute decoupling, when the driver elasticity of the environmental pressure is negative (and it is
between 0 and -1), that is: 1 I , x 0 , and therefore I % x% . It means that the driver
grows by 1%, and the environmental pressure decreases by the amount of the elasticity, but less
than -1%;

14

 relative decoupling, when the driver elasticity of the environmental pressure is positive (and it is between 0 and +1), that is: 0 I , x 1 , and therefore I % x% . It means that the driver grows
by 1%, and the environmental pressure increases by the amount of the elasticity, but less than +1%.
Even if the IPAT framework is the basement for delinking analysis, it has to be noted that observation
of T on its own may produce ambiguous results. A decrease in the variable I over time is commonly defined as absolute decoupling, even though it is not a delinking process, as it says nothing about the role
of economic drivers per se. Moreover, an environmental impact (I) that is slower in growing (or slowly
diminishing) than the economic drivers (P, or A, or T) is generally described as relative delinking. Thus,
a relative delinking could be strong, while absolute delinking might not occur (i.e., if I is stable or increasing) if the increasing efficiency is not sufficient to compensate for the "scale effect" of other drivers. A delinking process, a decreasing of T, suggests that the economy is more efficient, but offers no
explanations of what is driving this process.
In its basic accounting formulation, the IPAT framework implicitly assumes that the drivers are all independent variables: however, the evidence on the dynamics of economic systems suggests that each
driver, as well as the impact, may be reciprocally interdependent through a network of direct/indirect
causality relationships. For example, the evidence (Dinda, 2004) suggests that population dynamics (P)
can depend on GDP per capita (A), and vice versa, to some extent. Those analyses interested in examining the impact of a particular driver on the environment use a modified version of the IPAT framework: so, if the target is looking at the impacts of population on the environment , it can be employed
the so called STIRPAT (Stochastic Impacts by Regression on Population, Affluence, and Technology)
framework, by Dietz and Rosa (1997), reviewed by Liddle (2013): they proposed a flexible, log-linear,
regression framework that allows for hypothesis testing, whose functional form is

log I it i t 1 log Pit 2 log Ait 3 log Tit it

where i is the cross-sectional unit, and t is time period. The constants i and t are, respectively, the
country's (or cross-sectional) and time-fixed effects, and it is the error term. Affluence (A) is typically
proxied by GDP per capita, and the T term is often treated like an intensity of use variable, and sometimes modelled as a combination of log-linear factors (like urbanization or density).
Similar relationships or inverse-causation effects are also relevant for T. Theory and evidence suggest
that, in general, T can depend on GDP or GDP/P, and the contrary happens, if T refers to a key resource such as energy. In addition, there might be an opposite relationship between changes in the dynamics among P and I and T (Zoboli, 1996): for example, in a dynamic setting, I can be a driver of T, as
the emergence of natural resource and environmental scarcity stimulates invention, innovation, and dif15

fusion of more efficient technologies through market mechanisms (changes in relative prices) and policy actions, including price and quantity-based economic instruments. Then, a decrease in T can be related to micro and macro non-deterministic processes, for which economics can propose an open set
of interpretations, each as good as the other.

1.4 The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC)

1.4.1 Origins of the EKC framework
During the 1970s and the 1980s, the debate on the relationship between the environment and economic growth had been largely influenced by the materials balance paradigm, which was asserting that
economic growth, ceteris paribus, would have led to a deterioration of the environment, and that an
economic system can only be environmentally sustainable if it is physically in a steady state, in which
the amount of resources available to the economy is constrained so that id does not overexploit its resources and nature's limits (Stagl, 1999; Smulders, 2000).
A real conceptual milestone about the relationship between economic growth and the environment was
the so called Bruntland Report, which recognized the complementarities that existed between the two,
with an emphasis on the need to mainstream environmental concerns into the planning process in order to ensure sustainable development (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987).
Grossman and Krueger (1991), in their path-breaking study on the potential environmental impacts of
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), had provided seminal evidence in support of an
inverted U-shaped relationship between economic growth (measured by increases in per capita income)
and some indicators of environmental quality. This relationship was called "Environmental Kuznets
Curve" (EKC) by Panayotou (1993).
The first influential studies of the EKC (Grossman and Krueger, 1991; Shafik and Bandyopadhyay,
1992) never referenced the IPAT framework or the Club of Rome debate, even if the question at the
heart of the EKC debate was almost identical to the one at the heart of the IPAT or the Club of Rome
debate. This is because the original concept of an EKC was first proposed by trade and development
economists in the context of an international trade agreement, rather than by environmental and resource economists in a pollution control context. The first main question of the research studies was
whether economic growth needs to be slowed, if not stopped, in order to avoid increasing damages to
the environment. Grossman and Krueger (1991 and 1995) provided an answer that seemed to contradict the arguments against joining the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which were
based on increasing environmental degradation, particularly in Mexico (Daly, 1993). Shafik and
16

Bandyopadhyay (1992) provided a justification for the World Bank (1992) position that increasing income would likely help improve a wide array of environmental indicators.

1.4.2 The basics of the Environmental Kuznets Curve

The basic proposition of an Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) states that data suggest that there is
an inverted U-shaped relationship between environmental degradation and economic growth: as income levels rise, pollution or some other measure of environmental degradation worsen, eventually falling once income crosses a precise threshold level. While much literature exists for many industrialized
countries on the EKC relationship for a number of pollutants (such as suspended particulate matter,
oxides of sulphur and nitrogen, carbon dioxide), the empirical literature has been relatively sparse for
developing countries (Dinda, 2004; Hilton, 2006; Ciegiset al., 2007), so that it is still questionable
whether EKC framework can be generalized, as it will be described later. If an EKC were a generalized
phenomenon, this would be anyway an indication, ceteris paribus, that environmental degradation
could fall, in the long term, as income becomes sufficiently high, and thus one solution to the problem
of environmental degradation would "simply" be to increase economic growth (Stern, 2004).
As regards the IPAT framework, the EKC is a natural IPAT extension, since its analysis addresses one
or two of the IPAT relationships, the first being the one between I and GDP, and the second between
T and GDP, or GDP/P. It may highlights empirical regularities that have some policy value, but some
argue (Galeotti, 2003) that it does not generally provide satisfactory economic explanations: the EKC
hypothesis is that the concentration or emission of a pollutant first increases with the economic driver,
then it starts to decrease, more or less proportionally, leading to a delinking from income, due to a
steady improvement in T, that is, the environmental income elasticity decreases monotonically with income, and its sign changes from positive to negative at the end, leading to a turning point for an inverted-U shaped relationship. When relying on GDP or GDP/P as the only explanatory variable for an
analysis, the existence of an EKC could be deterministically misleading, since it would suggest that
rapid growth towards high levels of GDP automatically produces greater environmental efficiency,
bringing the economy to an absolute or relative delinking, and thus that reducing environmental impact
could be the best policy strategy.
According to the EKC hypothesis, economic growth can improve environmental degradation, after an
economy has reached an adequate level of economic growth. In the early stages of economic development, when primary production dominates, there is an abundance of natural resource stock and a limited generation of waste, because of limited economic activity. In the course of development and
through industrialization, a significant depletion of natural resources occurs, and waste accumulates.
During this phase, there is a positive relationship between income, or economic wealth (per capita), and
17

environmental degradation (per capita). With further economic growth, services, improved technology
and information diffusion limit the material needs of an economy, and all things together result in reduced environmental degradation (Panayotou, 2003). Dasgupta et al. (2002) also noted that such an inverted U-shaped relationship can be explained in terms of weak environmental regulations, and of low
ability to pay for conservation during initial phases of economic development, followed by greater public concern for the environment leading to more stringent regulatory standards (a policy effect), and
greater ability to pay for environmental amenities as income rises (an income effect).

Figure 1.1 The relationship between environmental degradation and income: the Environmental
Kuznets Curve (from Kaika and Zervas, 2013)

The EKC has the form shown in Figure 1.1, where the dependent variable on the vertical axis is an indicator of environmental degradation, and the independent variable is income or an alternative measure
of economic growth: the relationship between environmental degradation and income is drawn as an
inverted U, and is similar to the original curve proposed by Simon Kuznets (Kuznets, 1955) concerning
the relationship between income inequality and economic growth. Indicators of environmental degradation can be anything that harms nature, from the emissions of a specific air pollutant, to the concentration of a particular pollutant in a river, or an alternative form of environmental degradation like deforestation. The turning point represents the level of income beyond which environmental degradation
can be delinked from the economic growth. For higher income levels, economic growth improves the
quality of environment.
18

Empirical studies test the EKC hypothesis using the following general reduced-form model (Dinda,
2004), or other modified functional forms:
EPit 0 1Yit 2Yit2 3Yit3 Zit i t it

Where EPit and Yit , respectively, represent a certain variable used as a proxy to the environmental pressure, and some wealth measure (e.g., income) in country i, at time t; denotes a row vector of coefficients containing other socio-economic (non-income) explanatory variables Zit ; i is an individualspecific effect (country or other geographical unit); t is a time-specific factor; and it is the usual error
term.
Different combinations of 1 , 2 and 3 can lead to distinct shapes and interpretations of the environmental pressureincome relationship, which can be described in the following cases:
1) 1 0 , and 2 3 0 : the environmental pressure tends to monotonically increase with economic
development. Thus, the shape of their relationship consists in a straight line with a positive slope, 1 .
2) 1 0 , and 2 3 0 : a decreasing trend of environmental pressure as income grows exists.
Thus, a straight line with a negative slope 1 can be drawn for the environmental pressure against income.
3) 1 0 , 2 0 , and 3 0 , where 1 2 0 : an inverted U-shaped quadratic relationship between EP and Y exists, which represents the EKC pattern.
The peak of this quadratic curve is reached at the turning point, where YTP

1
.
2 2

4) 1 0 , 2 0 , and 3 0 , where 1 2 0 : these values suggest a U-shaped curve for the relationship between EP and Y, with a turning point, where YTP

1
.
2 2

5) 1 0 , 2 0 , and 3 0 , where 1 2 3 0 : it suggests a cubic polynomial N-shaped relationship, in which the environmental pressure tends to decline after the economy reaches a certain level
of income, but climbs upwards after another higher level of income is achieved. So, environmental pollution increases as a country develops, decreases once the threshold wealth is reached, but then it begins increasing as national income continues to increase.
19

The two turning points are YTP

2 22 313
.
33

6) 1 0 , 2 0 , and 3 0 , where 1 2 3 0 : it is a cubic polynomial, but is an invertedN relationship between EP and Y, with two turning points, where

YTP

2 22 313
.
33

A negative relationship between income and environmental degradation is only a transitory phenomenon, because the U phase of the curve is followed by a phase where environmental degradation decreases.
7) 1 2 3 0 : it suggests an insignificant relationship between EP and Y.

Figure 1.2 Examples of different patterns between environmental pressure and economic wealth (income per capita), from Wang (2007)

1 0 , and 2 3 0 .
(2) A monotonically decreasing pattern, where 1 0 , and 2 3 0 .
(3) An inverted U-shaped EKC relationship, where 1 0 , 2 0 , and 3 0 .
(4) A U-shaped curve, where 1 0 , 2 0 , and 3 0 .
(5) An N-shaped pattern, where 1 0 , 2 0 , and 3 0 .
(6) An inverted N-shaped pattern, where 1 0 , 2 0 , and 3 0 .
(1) A monotonically increasing pattern, where

20

When estimating the reduced-form regression, pooled cross-section OLS and panel estimation are usually the most preferred econometric techniques in previous studies of the literature, as it will be further
seen.
As can be easily noted, the standard model varies, depending on the study. For instance, the cubic term
of the income variable is included in studies that try to examine an N-shaped rather than an inverted Urelationship between environmental degradation and income. Many studies work on a (natural) logarithmic transformation of the standard specification, in order to avoid zero or negative indicators
(Stern, 2004). In any case, the final choice of the functional form is done on the model that best fits the
available data and has the higher explanatory power inside the data range (Lieb, 2003).
The standard equation is the solution of a structural system of (unknown) equations that form the final
relationship between environmental degradation and income. Using a reduced-form model allows to
directly measure the impact of income on environmental degradation: one of the major disadvantages
of this approach is that one does not know the underlying structural functions of the (economic) system that led to such a relationship (Grossman and Krueger, 1995). Most empirical studies estimate the
model using time series-cross sectional data, or panel data (Shafik and Bandyopadhyay, 1992; Suri and
Chapman, 1998; Dinda et al., 2000; Richmond and Kauffmann, 2006). Only few empirical studies estimate the model using time-series data, due to the lack of available data over a long period of time (De
Bruyn et al., 1998; Asafu-Adjaye, 2000; Egli, 2002).

1.4.3 The main theoretical literature on the Environmental Kuznets Curve

As masterly outlined in Carson (2010), the most important theoretical contribution concerning the possibility of an EKC relationship was made quite early when Grossman and Krueger (1991) pointed out
three possible impacts of an increase in economic activity due to a trade agreement. The first was an increase in the scale of current production, which historically leads to more pollution; the second was a
change in the composition factors of the economy, which has ambiguous effects in any particular country, but could not result in a reduction in pollution everywhere, thus leading to the possibility of pollution havens and a race to the bottom that laid behind the debate on NAFTA creation; the third was a
shift in production techniques, the only factor that may lead to the possibility of lower pollution levels
associated with economic growth. Grossman and Krueger (1991 and 1995) argued that, during the initial stage of the developmental process, the typical economy is dominated by agriculture and similar activities, and thus pollution intensity is generally low. But, as the economy shifts to heavy industry, pollution will tend to increase, so as, when the economy shifts into high technology and services, pollution
intensity will tend to fall. Grossman and Krueger were not the first to address the influence of growth
and trade on pollution. In the late 1980s, a related literature emerged (Sutton, 1988) that focused largely
21

on agriculture, environment, and trade, in a computable general equilibrium (CGE) framework, whose
main difficulty was their embodiment of a constant-returns-to-scale assumption to make them mathematically tractable, and these works were forecasting an adverse environmental outcome. A highly influential article is Lpez (1994), who deals with both the production and utility sides of the picture as
an explanation for the emergence of an empirical EKC, without removing any of the need for the usual
tools for the pollution analysis: the author looked at stock externalities (e.g., soil erosion), and shows
that a key issue is whether producers internalize the externality, and he comes to the result that, if they
do, then growth in income (or trade) will be reflected in improved environmental quality. Lpez notes
that this internalization could happen via voluntary cooperative agreements, even if it might require
some corrective government action: he shows that, as the substitution elasticity between conventional
output and pollution falls, and the relative curvature of income in the utility function (the microeconomic relative risk-aversion coefficient) falls, then an inverse U-shaped incomepollution relationship
can emerge.
A number of factors are commonly reported as being the proximate determinants of the EKC relationship (Copeland and Taylor, 2004). The most important explanations relate to the scale, composition,
and technology effects, and all of them are connected with the production side of the economy: that is,
these explanations do not take directly into account the behaviour of consumers.
The scale effect is related to the overall dimensions of the economy. Scale is ultimately determined by
the total amount of material inputs into the process of producing goods and services, as well as the
volume of output that is consumed and fed into the environment by way of pollution and waste, and it
encapsulates two types of environmental pressure: one arising from increased use of resources (a depletion effect), and the other is the increased associated waste (a pollution effect). Hence, at higher levels
of output (and, so, of income), it becomes relatively cheaper to reduce pollution, and producers are
more easily able and willing to adopt pollution-reducing measures and technologies: the scale effect
works to reduce environmental degradation or pollution at higher levels, since pollution control measures may not be affordable at small scales of production.
The composition effect deals with the proportion of each type of productive activity in the volume of
the economys output. As noted by Stagl (1999), the common development of the societies goes from
subsistence agriculture to more material and energy-intensive modes of agricultural and light manufacturing production, that are relatively more pollution-intense. Pollution intensity is highest as the economy moves into the stage of heavy industry, then it eventually declines, as society shifts towards high
technology, knowledge, and service-based industries. Within this common historical transformation of
the economies, pollution per unit of output (pollution intensity) tends to rise as the economy progresses on the development stages, but eventually falls as structural changes take place over time. During the earlier stages of development, the composition effect tends to strengthen the environmental
22

pressures that arise from increasing scale, while it tends to counteract such a pressure at higher levels of
development: therefore, the composition effect works to reduce environmental degradation over time,
by reducing the relative weight of those sectors of the economy that produce large waste, and by expanding those sectors that produce relatively less residuals per unit of output.
The technological effect comes from the impact of improvements in the state of technology, which reduces pollution in two ways, indirectly by reducing the consumption of material inputs, and directly by
the fact that technological advancements make it possible to adopt better pollution control techniques.
Thus the technological effect affects both productivity and emissions: therefore, it is possible for a
naturally heavily polluting industry to record declining emissions, even as output rises, provided the increase in output comes from factories using less polluting production processes. The technological effect should improve environmental quality, as economic growth progresses, by reducing the residuals
intensity of production through the invention and adoption of new technologies and standards, and
through changes in input, substituting more environmentally damaging inputs with cleaner ones.
While actual changes in environmental quality could be due to changes in one or more of the factors
outlined above, these factors could also be influenced by changes in other underlying socio-economic
factors, such as new stringent environmental regulations, increasing environmental awareness, and
higher education; wealth, then, is only one of the several factors which help to determine the connections between growth and pollution (Khanna, 2002; Panayotou, 1997; Torras and Boyce, 1998).
The most critical theoretical issue that has been (and that is being) raised is to explain how environmental degradation relates to income, producing an inverted U-shape, and the theoretical literature took
a more abstract direction tied to macroeconomic work on optimal growth: within this path, Stokey
(1998), with her provocative title Are There Limits to Growth?, argues that the inverted U-shape of
the EKC could emerge from a situation in which pollution control efforts are not expended until a certain pollution threshold is reached, as income increases with economic growth. Beyond this threshold,
environmental degradation can begin to decline, as abatement efforts begin to increase with rising income. In this model, pollution linearly increases with economic growth, until the threshold is passed
and cleaner technologies can be used: the resulting pollution-income path is therefore inverse-Vshaped, with a sharp peak at the point where a continuum of cleaner technologies becomes available.
She shows that the key to inducing the EKC relationship is on the right capital accumulation path, with
respect to pollution control, and she also shows how a pollution tax of the right magnitude can help being this EKC path, rather than the usual command and control approach. Accordingly to this view,
Lieb (2001) argues that an EKC can only be generated when society reaches a certain point of satiation
in consumption, while Magnani (2001) asserts that, when the collective preferences of individuals for
better environmental quality are converted into public policy, the EKC path could come.

23

Other authors propose some similar explanations for the inverse-U relationship. Arrow et al. (1995) assert that it could be that the pattern reflects the natural progression of economic development, from
clean agrarian economies, to polluting industrial economies, to clean service economies. Suri and
Chapman (1998) show that this mechanism may be facilitated by advanced economies, when they export their pollution-intensive production processes to less-developed countries: they note that, if the
downward-sloping path of the relationship is due to the pollution exporting, then the process of environmental improvement will not be indefinitely replicable, since the worlds poorest countries will
never have even poorer countries which they can export their pollution to. Their pollution exporting
hypothesis implies that international trade and capital controls may be necessary. Others have suggested
that pollution stops increasing and then begins decreasing with income, because some constraint becomes non-binding with economic growth: Jaeger (1998) uses the assumption that, at low levels of pollution, consumer's taste for clean air is satiated, and that the marginal benefit of additional environmental quality is zero, and finds a reverse V-shaped pollution-income relationship, whose peak happens
when the optimum moves from a corner solution to an interior solution. John and Pecchenino (1994)
present an overlapping generations model, in which environmental quality is a stock resource that degrades over time, unless it is maintained by investing in the environment: in their view, an economy
which begins at the corner solution of zero environmental investment will face a decline in environmental quality with time and with economic growth, until the point at which positive environmental investment is demanded, being it the moment when environmental quality begins improving with economic growth. The pollution-income relationship of John and Pecchenino (1994) exhibits an inverse Vshape, whose top is when the dynamic equilibrium switches from a corner solution of zero environmental investment to an interior optimum, with positive environmental investments. Selden and Song
(1995) describe a variety of possible pollution-income paths in a dynamic growth model, while Chaudhuri and Pfaff (1998) expose a particular mechanism, bundled commodities, to explain the EKC. Kelly
(1999) focuses on the irreversible nature of many pollution problems as a driving force behind the
curve.
A number of the existing studies of the EKC also make different simplifying assumptions about the
economy, in terms of how preferences, technology and other factors interact to produce an inverted Ushaped curve, such as infinitely living agents, exogenous and (or) endogenous technological change, and
whether or not environmental degradation is a result of production activities or consumption (Selden
and Song, 1994). McConnell (1997) considers a model based on overlapping generations, in which pollution is assumed to be generated by consumption, rather than by production. Jones and Manuelli
(1995) helped move the debate away from the traditional view according which pollution would have
autonomously been corrected by wealth increases: they focus on the interaction between growth, the
environment, and collective decision-making, and, in their model, economic growth is determined by
24

market interactions, and pollution regulations are set through collective decision-making by the younger
generation, who can choose to tax the pollution that will exist when they are older. Therefore, the nature of collective decision-making influences the incomepollution path chosen, and, hence, societal
utility, showing that corruption does not preclude an EKC, but that the turning point would be higher
with it than without it: depending on the decision-making institution, the pollution-income relationship
can be an inverted-U, monotonically increasing, or even a "sideways-mirrored-S". The politicaleconomic model of Jones and Manuelli (1995) suggests that developing countries, unable to adopt efficient policies, could benefit from international assistance, setting up effective environmental institutions: from that, it can be seen that the various dynamic models, with multiple equilibria, imply that any
government policy which speeds the transition from one equilibrium to another (that is, encouraging
growth) would be beneficial for the environment.
The analysis of Andreoni and Levinson (2001) established itself as an instant classic due to its theoretical simplicity, the compelling intuition, and its easy-to-explain empirical evidence: their theoretical
framework is generic enough to encompass a variety of underlying forces that might give rise to increasing returns, such as the intuition about better institutions (as in Jones and Manuelli, 1995), and the
one concerning better technology which emerges as the scale of production increases (as in Stokey,
1998). Their model is worth further discussion, due to its importance in the theoretical literature of the
EKC.
They first illustrate their model using a familiar CobbDouglas framework, in which utility depends on
consumption and pollution, with pollution in turn dependent on both consumption levels and pollution
control efforts (which reduces consumption on their side): basically, they show that just increasing returns to scale in abatement are sufficient to generate the inverted U-shaped relationship between environmental degradation and income.
In its simplest formulation, their model can be summarized into five basic equations, each being a function of time (it will not be noted in the text of the formulas):
1.

a social utility function: U U C , P U zP , where

U
0 (consumption is a "good");
C
U
0 (pollution is a "bad");
P
2.

a pollution function: P P C , F , where

P
0 (consumption increases pollution);
C

25

P
0 (pollution is decreased by the efforts in cleaning the environment);
F
3.

a pollution function: P C A C C F ;

4.

an abatement function: A C F ;

5.

a constraint: Y C F .

In the model, U is the total social utility, C is the consumption, F is the effort expended in abating pollution, A is the total abatement, Y is the income, and and are parameters. In this simple model, the
elasticity of pollution with respect to consumption is necessarily constrained to unity, while clean-up
efforts abate pollution with a standard concave production function. Given that society has a total income (Y), which can be expended on either consumption (C), or on the effort to abate pollution (F), or
on both together; if the relative costs of C and F are normalized to unity (for simplicity of calculation),
then at any given time, C denotes the given aggregate consumption at time t, while F captures the
worth of any abatement effort in the given period t. Given these assumptions, the task faced by society
is how to allocate its monetary resources (income) between consumption and the effort to abate pollution, and, in the simplest case, where z=1, the model leads to derive the pollutionincome relationship
as:

P

*

,
Y

Y

the relative consumption-income optimal relationship as:

C*

Y ,

and the relative efforts-income optimal relationship as:

A*
Y .

The derivative of equation pollution-income represents the slope of the environmental Kuznets curve:

P*

,

Y
Y

whose sign depends on the parameters and .
When 1 , efforts spent abating pollution have constant returns to scale, and

P*
,
Y

which is a constant. If 0 and 1 , then P* rises with Y, and there is no downward sloping portion of the pollution-income curve, as depicted in Figure 1.3.A.
When 1 , the second derivative of the equation is:
26

2
2 P*
1
,

Y
2
Y

Thus, if 1 , the abatement exhibits diminishing returns to scale, and P*(Y) is convex, as in Figure 1.3.B.
But, if 1 , the abatement exhibits increasing returns to scale, then P*(Y) is concave, as in Figure
1.3.C. This is what has been described as an Environmental Kuznets Curve.
Therefore, for Andreoni and Levinson, an inverted U-shaped EKC relationship occurs if there are increasing returns to scale in terms of the pollution control effort, while a linear relationship exists if
there are constant returns to scale, and a U-shaped relationship occurs if there are decreasing returns to
scale.

Figure 1.3 Optimal pollution-income paths, from Andreoni and Levinson (2001)

A) Constant returns to scale

B) Decreasing returns to scale
C) Increasing returns to scale
Note: in the text, Y=M

Increasing returns to scale in pollution control are possible and likely to happen in many cases, even if
income growth does not necessarily have to be the driving force behind them: population growth,
technological change, or shifts in consumption and trade patterns may source of increasing returns to
scale for pollution control. Although the model appears plausible and conforms to the standard specifications of the EKC models, it is doubtful if economic agents, in the aggregate of a typical developing
country's economy, abate pollution through voluntary self efforts, in the way the model describes.
Another theoretical explanation of the EKC, particularly from the point of view of the typical developing country, is the one which is based on the willingness to pay for environmental quality and services.
As pointed out by Stagl (1999), poor people have little demand for environmental quality, and, consequently, they are constrained by their current income level and consumption needs, being able to do
27

nothing about improving the environment. But as society gets richer, its members have the capacity to
intensify the demand for a healthier and sustainable environment, leading to a typical EKC shape. The
pollutionincome curve could, however, in theory exhibit other shapes, as in the cases of environmental indicators characterized by unambiguous improvement (deterioration) as per capita income increases. Alstine and Neumayer (2010) have pointed out that some environmental indicators, such as access to clean water and adequate sanitation, belong to the first category, while global public goods (such
as carbon dioxide) belong to the second category, and they may exhibit conventional EKC shapes (if
they do at all) only at very high levels of per capita GDP. It is also theoretically possible to have a situation whereby income increases beyond a threshold, and environmental quality begins to deteriorate
thereafter (Martinez-Zarzoso and Bengochea-Morancho, 2003; Binder and Neumayer, 2005), depicting
a pollutionincome curve which exhibits an N-shape.
As incomes rises, due to economic growth, individuals are more able to exercise greater political pressure upon government to impose more stringent environmental control measures. Thus at higher levels
of income, the income elasticity of demand for environmental quality is higher, and economic agents
are not only willing and able to pay for a greener environment, but they are also able to successfully exert pressure on the authorities to enforce environmental regulations. Therefore, the EKC path may
show that, in some cases, institutional reforms following an income increase have forced private users
of environmental resources to internalize the social costs of their activities: but the extent to which they
can be forced to internalize such external costs of their polluting activities will depend critically on the
force of the policy authorities. Under this view, the relationship between environmental degradation
and income outlined by the EKC must be regarded as a long term relationship between environment
and income (Ciegis et al., 2007).

1.4.4 A macroeconomic model for the existence of the EKC: the Green Solow Model
As detailed above, for the last 20 years, a recent and very influential line of research has dominated the
way that economists and policymakers think about the growth and environment interactions: a broad
stream of papers have dealt with a reverse U-shaped behaviour of the measure of pollution, as wealth
increases over time, the EKC. Such a behaviour, as seen, is thought to be due to initial threshold effects
in abatement that delay the onset of policies, then to (increased) income driven policy changes that become stronger with income growth, to structural changes towards a service based economy, and increasing returns to abatement that drive down costs of pollution control. Theories relying on strong
compositional shifts or on increasing returns have shown some difficulties in matching with some datasets of aggregate data, as noted in Selden et al. (1999) and in Bruvoll and Medin (2003): their empirical
work has found that a changing composition of output plays at most a smaller part in the reduction of
28

emissions, since, while increasing returns to abatement may be important in some industries and for
some processes, a large portion of emissions come from small and sparse sources, such as vehicles,
houses and individual consumptive activities, where increasing returns to abatement seems unlikely to
happen. Moreover, increasing returns also presents strong incentives for mergers and the creation of
natural monopolies, and, unless the strength of increasing returns is carefully under control in the chosen model, increasing-returns-to-scale models can even predict negative pollution emissions at large
levels of output: in the simplest version of Andreoni and Levinson (2001) model discussed above, the
theory of increasing returns to abatement has the property that pollution becomes negative for some
large, but finite, levels of output, but this feature poses problems when dealing with dynamic models
where output grows exponentially.
A seminal model dealing with the time dynamics of income and environmental degradation is the one
called "Green Solow Model" by its very authors, Brock and Taylor (2004, then refined in 2010), in
which they argue that the EKC relationship might be well explained by a simple variant of the Solow
(1956) model, where leading roles are played by technological progress in abatement and diminishing
returns to capital: the authors show that the forces of diminishing returns and technological progress,
identified as fundamental to the growth process in the Solow model, may also be fundamental to the
theoretical finding of an Environmental Kuznets Curve. The Green Solow Model also bears resemblance to the work of Stokey (1998), even if Stokey does not consider technological progress in abatement, and to the new growth theory model of Bovenberg and Smulders (1995), because these authors
allow for a pollution augmenting technological progress, which is someway equivalent to our technological progress in abatement.
Here we present a simpler version of the Green Solow Model by Brock and Taylor, where some variables have been kept constant, for sake of simplicity. In Brock and Taylor (2005) is shown that, under
some circumstances, the abatement of polluting emissions subtracts resources to the production, and
therefore the growth rate of the economy is lower with abatement than without abatement. If the target
is abating the emissions without slowing the economy, it has to be counted on the technological progress in the environmental sector: that is, the introduction of new technologies that can reduce the
emissions coefficient per unit of output, without increasing the resources devoted to the reduction of
emissions.
All the variables of the model are function of time themselves, so it will be omitted for sake of clarity in
reading. If we denote the emissions' function as:
E e Y

where E is the quantity of emissions, e is the technological progress in the emissions sector, and Y is
the GDP, the percentage rate of variation in time can be written as:

29

E e Y
t t t
E
e
Y
or

E e Y

E e Y

that is,

g E g e gY
which states that the growth rate of emissions is due to the summation of the growth rate of the technological progress in the environmental sector (which reduces the polluting emissions per unit of output) and the growth rate of the GDP.
The aggregate production function, without expenses for emissions, is

Y K BL

B
where the productivity of labour (L), B, grows at a rate g B , which is the technological progress of
B

the sector that produces goods and services.

In this economy, therefore, there are two different types of technological progress: g B , which continuously increases the productivity of labour; and g e , which has the target of continuously reduce the
emissions per unit of product.

L
If the population (L) is kept constant, that is n 0 , the equation of the dynamics of the per effiL

ciency unit capital is:

k
g k sk 1 g B
k

where k

K
S
, the rate of savings is s , and the rate of destruction of aggregate capital with time is
BL
Y

, that is, the dynamics of the aggregate capital is:

Y sY K .

k
In steady state, where 0 , that is the growth rate of the per efficiency unit capital is zero, it is:
k

s k *

gB

which leads to the optimal stock of the per efficiency unit of capital:

30

1
s
k*

gB

whose transition towards the steady state is depicted in Figure 1.4.

The GDP per efficiency unit can be written as:
K BL
Y

y
BL
BL

k .
BL

The aggregate GDP can be written also in terms of capital per efficiency unit:

Y K BL

BL
K
BL

BLk

BL
BL

and its growth rate over time is:

Y B L
k

Y B L
k

which can be also written as:

gY g B n g k
and, if the population is constant, it is:

gY g B g k .
From the dynamic equation of the growth of emissions with time, it can be written:
g E g e gY g e g B g k .

In steady state, the capital grows at a zero rate, so the aggregate GDP growth rate is due only to the
technological progress in production, that is:

gY g B .
*

In steady state, the emissions grow at a rate:

g E g e gY
*

where, if society wants that emissions continuously decrease (i.e., having a negative value of the growth
rate in steady state) it must hold:
g E g e gY 0
*

and, substituting the steady state value of the growth rate of Y, it is:
g E g e gY g e g B 0
*

or
g E ge g B
*

leading to the condition:

g B ge .
31

Only if the technological progress in the environmental sector ( g e ) is bigger than the technological
progress of the goods production ( gY equal to g B , in steady state) a permanent reduction of emissions
can take place, without negatively affecting the growth rate of goods production ( gY ). The reason is
simple: the technological progress of goods production determines the growth rate of the economy,
and, therefore, the scale effect, which has alone a negative effect on the environmental sustainability.
The only way to compensate the negative effect on environment, so to have a reduction of emissions
with time, is having a technological progress in the environmental sector which could grow faster than
the technological progress of goods production, that is, g e gY g B . In other words, the "good"
technological progress, which reduces the coefficient of emissions per unit of product, must go faster
than the "bad" technological progress, which reduces the coefficient of labour per unit of product.
Using the emission relationship, it can be written:

g E ge g B gk
but
ge g B g E

so
g E g E gk
*

and it becomes:

g E g E sk 1 g B .
*

If the emissions growth rate should be negative, along the transition path it has to be necessarily
reached a level of capital per efficiency unit in correspondence to which the growth rate of the emissions is zero, and after which they start decreasing. The level of the capital per efficiency unit under
which the rate of the polluting emissions is zero ( g E 0 ), is:
1

1
s
k T
.
*
g B g E
Confronting the values of k * and k T , since g E 0 , it has found that k * k T : the capital per ef*

ficiency unit by which the growth rate of the emissions goes to zero is lower than the capital per efficiency unit in steady state. That is, k T is on a dynamic path towards the steady state value, k * .
Figure 1.4 shows how, as the capital per efficiency unit (and, so, the product per efficiency unit,

y k ) grows with time, the emissions first increase up to a certain maximum, and then decrease: this
is the behaviour of the EKC.

32

The evolution towards an economic growth which, at the end, becomes compatible with a continuous
decrease of the emissions is not automatic: this result is based on the hypothesis under which the rate
of growth of the technological change in the environmental sector is bigger than the growth rate of the
production of goods. But it can be like that, or it can not be like that. The dynamics of the system tell
only that, under precise conditions, the economy may exhibit an EKC behaviour. By this model, the
most important empirical regularity found in the environment literature (the EKC) and the most influential model employed in the growth literature (the Solow model) are intimately related: because of diminishing returns, development starts with rapid economic growth, emissions rise with output growth,
but fall with ongoing technological progress in abatement. Fast growth at first increase the emissions,
reducing the impact of the technological progress, and the emission levels rise. As countries mature and
approach their balanced growth path, the economic growth slows, and the impact of this slowed
growth on emissions is then overwhelmed by the impact of technological progress in abatement, so
that the emission levels decline. This interplay of diminishing returns and technological progress, which
are the key to the convergence properties of the Solow model, leads to a time profile of rising and then
falling emission levels, as income grows along a path of sustainable growth, bringing theoretical evidence for the EKC hypothesis.

Figure 1.4 The Green Solow Model and the EKC: the transitional dynamics towards the steady state
(from Brock and Taylor, 2010)

33

1.4.5 The empirical literature on the EKC

The EKC hypothesis actually summarizes an essentially dynamic process of change across time and
space, or a across one of them only. Most papers treat the EKC like a long run phenomenon, considering such a framework a development trajectory for a single economy that grows through different
stages over time, or different economies at the same time: that is, assuming that all countries follow an
EKC path, then, at any cross-section of time, some low income countries are shaping the initial stage of
the EKC, some developing countries are approaching towards its peak (or start declining), and other
rich ones are composing the falling stage of EKC. According to the EKC upholders, several factors are
considered being responsible to shape the EKC path.
The original works of Shafik and Bandyopadhyay (1992), Grossman and Krueger (1995) and Selden
and Song (1994) estimated that income (in general, wealth) has the most substantial effect on most indicators of environmental quality: their empirical findings imply that it is possible for a country to rid of
its environmental problems, although this process is not automatic. These studies started a massive
stream of works on the EKC hypothesis, both on theoretical and empirical basis, all of them focussed
to find some possible driving forces that may lead to an EKC relationship other than wealth. In the
vast EKC literature many thorough reviews exist, the most important being Stern (1998), the broadranging general review of Dinda (2004), again Stern (2004), Dasgupta et al. (2004) and Carson (2010):
the next session draws its structure from the conceptual classification of the EKC causes that can be
found in those excellent papers.

1.4.5.1 Distribution of income, wealth and equity

Similarly to the original work of Kuznets (1955), some works (Torras and Boyce, 1998; Magnani, 2000;
Bimonte, 2002) have examined whether income distribution may be an underlying factor beyond an
EKC path: if the economic growth process can lead to a more equitable income distribution that improves the relative position of the median agent, public awareness of environmental degradation rises
and suitable environmental regulations are imposed on the economy. The main research question is
whether economic growth increases income inequality or it could lead to a more equitable income distribution. In the model of Torras and Boyce (1998), pollution is abated, or generated, depending on the
gap of force between those agents who suffer from pollution, against those who benefit from environmental degradation, and such a power is a function of the distribution of wealth. Bimonte (2002) finds
that the demand for environmental protection is determined by the increased participation of the people who bear the burden of pollution, and such advancement comes from a more equitable income distribution, from better information access and from advanced education: therefore, if income inequality
worsens while income rises, the environment keeps deteriorating, because those who suffer from pollu34

tion do not have the sufficient economic power to impose environmental regulations on those who
benefit from pollution. The author observes a sample of countries which lay at the last stage of economic development, and he argues that the participation of the agents in the growth process (depending on income inequality, information access and education) acts as a key factor responsible for translating the entire respective EKC upward or downward: this can explain why some economies that are at
the same level of economic growth may show different levels of environmental degradation (Pezzey,
1989). Indeed, as income grows, people achieve a higher standard of living, and demand for better environment induces structural changes in economy that tends to reduce environmental degradation:
when a country achieves a sufficiently high standard of living, its people attach increasing value to environmental amenities (Selden and Song, 1994; Baldwin, 1995), and, after a particular level of wealth, the
willingness to pay for a clean environment rises more than proportionally than income (Roca, 2003):
therefore, it seems that the richer the people are, the bigger the value of a clean environment. Income
elasticity of environmental quality demand and resource goods is generally bigger than one, meaning
that clean environment and preservation are considered luxury goods. Many EKC models have emphasized the role of income elasticity of environmental quality demand (Beckerman, 1992; Carson et al.,
1997; Chaudhuri and Pfaff, 1998; McConnell, 1997) as the main reason to explain the reduction of
emission level: poor people have little demand for environmental quality, but, as a society becomes
richer, its members may intensify their demands for a more healthy and cleaner environment, so that
the consumers with higher incomes are willing to spend more for green products, and they also put
pressure for environmental protection and regulations (McConnell, 1997). In many cases where emissions have declined with rising income, the reductions have been due to local and national institutional
reforms, such as environmental legislation and market-based incentives to reduce environmental degradation (Shafik, 1994).
Empirical estimations confirm the existence of such a significant effect of income equality on pollution
abatement in certain countries or regions, even if a major limitation in examining the effect of income
distribution on environmental degradation is that there are few (if not poor) data of some quality that
measure or proxy income inequality, making it hard to examine whether the perception of environmental degradation by people is significantly affected by their relative private income (Torras and
Boyce, 1998). Magnani (2000) finds that the downward slope of an EKC may emerge in high-income
countries only if economic growth does not lead to a tough increase in income inequality: he uses data
on OECD countries from 1980 to 1991, and his results indicate that income equality significantly raises
expenditures on environmental protection. Coondoo and Dinda (2008) find a similar result: they estimate an EKC pattern for European countries, studying CO2 emissions and their relationship with income inequality among countries. Cantore and Padillia (2010) verify a robust correlation between in-

35

come inequality and emissions distribution: they argue that the differences in GDP per capita among
rich and poor regions may be significant determinants of emission distribution among countries.
Most of authors agree that environmental policies are key determinants of the path of income
environment relationship: public preferences are reflected through public policies related to environmental quality, since some demand-side characteristics not only influence the states environmental policy regime, but also they also explain the mechanism through which these preferences are manifested. A
government's willingness to impose environmental regulations is a crucial factor affecting environmental degradation (Bhattarai and Hammig, 2001). In a mature and growing economy, its government
is expected to properly respond to public awareness on environmental degradation, and to limit market
failures by imposing ad hoc regulations that prevent further pollution from increasing. Economic
growth is an essential condition to efficiently deal with pollution, but it is not the only condition:
Panayotou (1997) argues that, whether environmental quality improvements will take place, when, and
how, it depends on government policies, social institutions and the completeness and functioning of
markets as a whole.

1.4.5.2 Structural change in the economy and technological progress

One of the major common features of the pro EKC literature (Shafik and Bandyopadhyay, 1992; De
Bruyn et al., 1998; Dinda et al., 2000; Hettige et al., 2000) is that two fundamental driving forces of an
EKC-pattern are structural changes and technological progress. Structural changes include the transition of the production process from (the pollution-intensive) industry to (the information-based) service sector, which is considered as less-polluting (Panayotou, 2003), and any other qualitative reformation of the economic structure in the knowledge economy.
At early stages of development, pollution is generated as a result of increasing production and extraction of natural resources, and this is the scale effect of production on environment. As can be seen in
Figure 1.1, the scale effect generates the upward trend of an EKC when production shifts from primary
production to industrial production: then, economic development gives the opportunity of investing in
information-based industry and services as well as improving production techniques or adopting
cleaner technology. These are the called respectively the composition and technological (or technique)
effect, and they can overcome the scale effect and generate the downward trend of an EKC (Dinda,
2004). As a wealthy nation can afford to spend more on R&D (Komen et al., 1997), technological progress occurs with economic growth, and the dirty technologies are replaced by upgraded new and
cleaner ones, which improve environmental quality. This is the technique effect of economic growth:
the EKC theory suggests that, historically, the negative impact on environment of the scale effect that

36

tends to prevail in initial stages of growth, but it is eventually outweighed by positive impact of the
composition and technique effects, that tend to lower the emission level (Vukina et al., 1999).
The composition effect is associated with shifts in production from the more material and energyintensive manufacturing sector, towards more environmentally friendly sectors, such as services or
high-technology firms (Panayotou, 2003). The development of cleaner techniques is encouraged by investments in environmental R&D for which, a particular level of economic growth must be achieved
(Neumayer, 1998). Bouvier (2004) notes that both structural changes (composition effect) and technical
progress (technique effect) focus on the economic activity of production, rather than that of consumption, and that the scale effect may depend on business-cycle fluctuations, while the composition and
technique effect may operate with a slower rate.
Some authors indicate that the market mechanisms, based, as an example, upon the cost-criterion, determine eventually whether a new technology, not necessarily being the cleanest one, could be adopted
(Smulders et al., 2010). Unruh and Moomaw (1998) assert that the existence of endogenous selfregulatory market mechanisms, for those natural resources that are traded in markets, might prevent
environmental degradation from continuing to grow with income. Kadekodi and Agarwal (1999) note
that economic development may strengthen the market mechanisms, such that a developing economy
may gradually shift from non-market to market energy resources, that are considered less polluting by
free market economists.
Anyway, advances in technology over time seem to be the biggest cause of improved environmental
quality (Shafik and Bandyopadhyay, 1992). De Bruyn et al. (1998) use proper indicators, reflecting
changes in the composition and technology, and examine their effect on various indicators of emissions, concluding that emissions may have declined over time probably due to technological and structural changes, and not due to economic growth, which, alone, cannot assure sufficient technological
improvements. Indeed, as noted in Dinda et al. (2000), observed changes in pollution levels, over time
or across regions, can be attributed to shifts in production techniques and to sectorial composition,
with respect to pollutants like SPM and SO2. Concerning industrial water pollution, Hettige et al.
(2000) use as explanatory variables the share of industry in total output, the share of polluting sectors in
industrial output, and the pollution intensities per unit of output in the polluting sectors: they find that
only the share of industry in total output follows an EKC pattern. It is possible, however, that structural and technological changes may have only a transient effect on pollution abatement (Pasche, 2002).
Grossman and Krueger (1995) already pointed out that improvements in indicators of urban air quality
may result from technological innovation, but this outcome reflects specific technological, political and
economic conditions of the time under examination. For Dinda (2010), an EKC may reflect, in the
short run, the cycle of life of each new technology, but, in the long run, a nonlinear EKC envelops a
series of separate EKCs, each corresponding to different and subsequent technologies.
37

1.4.5.3 International trade

Many authors assess that an EKC pattern may happen due to the effects of international trade (Suri and
Chapman, 1998; Cole, 2004; Kearsley and Riddel, 2010): trade openness might help the expansion of an
economy through increased production of (polluting) goods to support its exports. Since with higher
production higher pollution comes, when income and environmental degradation rise substantially, severe environmental regulations are imposed on the economy, which results in a shift of its domestic
production of polluting goods to other (lower-income) countries, where usually a less strict environmental legislation exists. This is known as the "pollution haven hypothesis" (PHH, from Dinda, 2004):
the exports of goods in a developed country generate the upward slope of its EKC, while its imports of
goods from developing countries cause the downward slope of its EKC. Free trade can therefore be
good for environment (Antweiler et al., 2001; Liddle, 2001): trade raises income levels of people in developing countries, and, by raising real income, it will create demands for environment protection, because higher income individuals want a cleaner environment. The PHH argues that low environmental
standards become a source of comparative advantage, and thus shifts in trade patterns: but lower trade
barriers could hurt environment if heavy polluters move to countries with weaker regulations. Industrializing countries increase the consumption of energy required for the production of goods that are exported to industrialized countries, and industrialized countries lower their energy requirements, due to
imports of manufactured goods from the industrializing countries, pollution recipients. Suri and Chapman (1998) use a model that includes ratios of imports, exports and total manufacturing in GDP, as
additional independent explanatory variables other than income, in order to estimate CO2 emissions:
they show that the inclusion of trade variables raises substantially the turning point of an EKC. Under
certain circumstances, the force of the PHH hypothesis on the reduction of pollution is small: Cole
(2004) considers ten air and water pollutants, and four developed and developing trade-partners, and
they conclude that there is little evidence that pollution havens exist. Kearsley and Riddel (2010) extend
the model of Cole (2004), and they do not find sufficient evidence for the PHH as a strong explanation
of a possible EKC pattern. Panayotou et al. (2000) find that trade may help increasing emissions at a
decreasing rate, as income rises, but only for certain periods of time. Moreover, the statistical evidence
indicates significant differences among developing and developed countries: Stern (1998) notes that
heavily polluting industries are typical of the poorest States in USA, while high-income States are oriented towards services and high-tech industries: therefore, the trade-specialization between these States
may explain the variations in their emissions. If relatively high environmental standards in developed
economies impose high costs on polluters, polluting activities in high-income economies face higher
regulatory costs than their counterparts in developing countries (Jaffe et al., 1995). This creates an in38

centive for at least some highly polluting industries to relocate, and thereby international capital reallocations take place: rising capital outflows force governments in high-income countries to begin relaxing
environmental standards. This scenario has been called "race to bottom" (Mani and Wheeler, 1998).
Peters et al. (2011) report that the transfer of emissions through international trade often exceeds the
reduction of emissions at a single developed-country level: indeed, the net emissions transfers from developing to developed countries, from 1990 to 2008, have increased from the 0,4 Gt of CO2 emissions
to the 1,6 Gt of CO2 emissions. Levinson and Taylor (2004) estimate that a +1% increase in the cost
of pollution abatement in USA is associated with a +0,2% increase in net imports (or decrease in USA
net exports) from Mexico, and a +0,4% from Canada, due to imposed environmental regulations on
exports and imports. On the contrary, in Kahn (2003), the trends in international trade in USA, during
the period 19581994, show no evidence that pollution-intensive trade has increased, with the exception of the African nation's exports to the USA, which are mostly considered as energy-intensive rather
than pollution-intensive. Nahman and Antrobus (2005) conclude that the Southern Africa Customs
Union (SACU) may serve as a pollution haven over time for USA and UK, while, according to Ederington et al. (2004), USA have not substituted domestic pollution-intensive production for imports
over the 19781994 period, and the value-added in the domestic manufacturing industry increases as a
result of a rise in the number of less-polluting industries, and a reduction in tariff-barriers, which result
in a compositional change in favour of dirtier industries in the USA. In the European Union case, studied by Cave and Blomquist (2008), the empirical evidence provides mixed results: imports of energyintensive goods from poorer countries seem to increase when more stringent environmental standards
are applied in the EU, but this is not the case with respect to toxic-intensive imports.

1.4.5.4 Individual preferences

Examining the microeconomic implications of consumer preferences on the environment is a difficult
task: suitable preferences can always lead to an EKC pattern, but there is no guarantee that such suitable preferences exist (Plassmann and Khanna, 2006). Some EKC studies focus on the microeconomic
implications of consumers' preferences as a partial explanation of an inverted-U pattern (McConnell,
1997; Roca, 2003). The main question is how the consumers' preferences (as regards environmental
quality) are modified when their income changes: Pearce (2003) notes that changes in income alter the
elasticity of demand for environmental quality, being the latter the change in the demanded quantity of
environmental quality with respect to a change in income. It is difficult to measure the quantity of environmental good demanded, even if clean environment and preservation are seen more as luxury goods
(Dinda, 2004).

39

An alternative way is to measure the income elasticity of the Willingness to Pay (WTP), the change in
the willingness to pay for some environmental quality in response to a particular change in income.
Most studies report that, while the income elasticity of demand on environmental quality is marginally
over unit, the income elasticity of willingness to pay is less than unit (Pearce, 2003). Kander and Lindmark (2004) estimate that environment in Sweden started to be appreciated at a higher value after the
1970s, which leads to deliberate action to prevent further pollution and, as a result, pollutants decreased. As regards Italian household's consumption expenditures, the paper by Martini and Tiezzi
(2010) addresses the issue of whether environmental quality is a luxury good, meaning that its demand
increases more than proportionally with respect to income: they use demand analysis, combined with
household production, to estimate the marginal willingness to pay for improvements in air quality in Italy, and the corresponding income elasticity of willingness to pay. Studying data on Italian households
current consumption expenditures from 1999 to 2006, they consistently find that the income elasticity
of willingness to pay for environmental quality is very close to one across income groups, and that it
decreases as a percentage of income as income increases, with interesting implications for environmental policy: becoming richer does not necessarily leads to cleaner environments, but, if consumers
do not raise their environmental efforts as they get richer, even the most advanced and effective abatement technology cannot prevent from pollution increasing. Furthermore, it is difficult to predict the effect of a shift in consumers' preferences, because such shift may depend on various spatial and time
conditions (Plassmann and Khanna, 2006): inhabitants of a city may not be worried by the negative
health effects of a waste treatment installation located in a sparsely populated area, or across a great distance, or, in general, people are less aware of pollution dangers when the cost of such a pollution can
be transferred to a remote future. In such cases, the inhabitants have few incentives to alter their consumption patterns, unless they sincerely worry about the effects of environmental degradation to others
(Roca, 2003; Khanna and Plassmann, 2004). Different demand preferences shape different consumption patterns, leading to different abatement policies, while the recognition of an environmental problem takes a long time (Kander and Lindmark, 2004; Cantore, 2010). Even when a problem has to be
faced, the actions depend on the utility of the agents, their relative economic position, and their spatial
ability to separate themselves from the source of pollution (Roca, 2003). Most of all, the income
pollution link is a macroeconomic phenomenon, and any microeconomic foundations of this relationship are hard to be analyzed in a sufficient way, as the risk is that they cannot sufficiently encompass
aggregate variables (McConnell, 1997).

40

1.4.5.5 Energy demand, energy prices and energy intensity

Most studies have found statistically significant results, confirming the EKC hypothesis for many pollutants and other measures of environmental quality: when the GDP moves beyond the EKC turning
points, it is assumed that the transition to improving environmental quality takes place. The original
EKC analyses shows that the upward movement starts at the moment when low-income countries
move from agriculturally based economies to industrial economies, and that the downward shift takes
place as industrial countries move into the post-industrial phase, with services constituting the larger
part of the economy.
Energy intensity and energy conservation emerged as a crucial issues after the oil crises in the 1970s: as
a result, the structure of the oil-depending economies had to be transformed with the adoption of new
techniques that would have lowered the energy-intensity per unit of output, and the reinforcement of
lighter productive structure sectors, such as services, would have taken place (Lindmark, 2002; Kander,
2005; Tol et al., 2009). At its beginning, EKC theory and practice have not explicitly included the price
of energy as an independent variable, whose declining prices lead to an increased energy use, and to an
energy-based pollution, in both developed and developing countries: energy use, at all income levels, is
elastic to its price, especially in the long run, when declining real energy prices cause increased energy
use, even at low (but rising) levels of GDP. Furthermore, the long-run price model causes other factors
that were previously important to become insignificant: trade and energy prices are both important
variables, but trade variables become insignificant in a regression with both trade and energy prices, in
the work of Agras and Chapman (1999). The authors then argue that, for individual countries, economic growth may be linked to a lesser increase in energy when there is a rapid growth in service industries, or when imports of more pollution intensive goods take place, or when installing domestic pollution control devices have been set up, or when energy efficiency increases. The first two options domestically reduce the demand for energy, but they internationally increase the demand for energy. The
third option can increase demand for energy, while reducing specific pollutants, as many pollution control devices use more energy. The fourth, energy efficiency, at the same time, reduces demand for energy and reduces energy-based pollution, as shown in Figure 1.5, where it is shown that an increase in
energy prices is one of the few items that reduce overall global levels of energy-based pollution especially as regards the global pollutants as the CO2. As regards the oil shocks in the 1970s that led to
shifts in the energy mix, Agras and Chapman (1999) have found that energy prices played a significant
role affecting both CO2 emissions and energy consumption, even if no significant EKC-pattern arises
in their paper.

41

Figure 1.5 Conflicting dynamics of the EKC, from Agras and Chapman (1999)

Some studies emphasize the significant effect of technology and structural changes on CO2 emissions
over time, due to the evolution of energy intensity over time, and particularly to the shifts in energy mix
and in conversion efficiency (Lindmark, 2002; Kander, 2005; Lantz and Feng, 2006; Tol et al., 2009).
Even if a reduction in energy consumption, in order to reduce CO2 emissions, can have negative effects on economic growth (Chontanawat et al., 2008), empirical studies on EKC indicate a positive relationship among energy, CO2 emissions and economic growth, since modern economic growth depends
on energy (mostly) based on fossil fuels, the primary responsible of human-related CO2 emissions
(Richmond and Kauffmann, 2006; Luzzati and Orsini, 2009; Marrero, 2010). Energy intensity changes
over time, due to changes in energy prices and energy mix (Asafu-Adjaye, 2000). Changes in fuel-mix
are associated with technological innovations (Turner and Hanley, 2011). Stern (2004) estimates that
energy intensity per unit of output has declined over time, thanks to shifts from the use of fossil fuels,
to the use of higher quality fuels and electricity, although Hamilton and Turton (2002) show that
changes in energy intensity are not common in all countries: they estimate that the large fall in the energy intensity of OECD economies over 1982-1997 has been primarily driven by the fall of energy intensities in the services and industry sectors of the USA, and by the fall of energy intensities in the services sector of the EU, but the rising energy intensity of services in Japan played an offsetting role.

1.4.6 A brief overview of some econometric issues related to the EKC estimation
The econometric foundations of EKC models have been suspected to be technically fragile: here, a
short selection of the major technical concerns of EKC studies is presented, while excellent review papers have been published on this subject, as, one for all, Stern (2004).

42

A first example of the econometric problems within the EKC landscape is illustrated in Harbaugh et al.
(2002), who examine an extended version of the dataset originally used by Grossman and Krueger
(1991): their analysis concluded that the evidence for an inverted U is much less robust than previously
thought, since the location of the turning points, as well as their very existence, are sensitive to both
slight variation in the data, and to reasonable permutations of the econometric specification.
The EKC estimation debate is also considered by some authors part of the much larger debate about
the cross-country growth studies that took a central stage in economics in the late 1980s and early
1990s (Barro, 1991; Mankiw, Romer, and Weil, 1992): Levine and Renelt (1992) noted that a vast literature uses cross-country regressions to search for empirical linkages among long-run growth rates and a
variety of economic policy, political, and institutional indicators, and they examined whether the conclusions from existing studies are robust or fragile to small changes in the conditioning information set,
finding that almost all results were fragile.
The major econometric issue that has dominated the early EKC discussions was the representativeness
of the samples, and the comparability of the pollution measures used. Stern (2004) pointed out that the
strongest problem was that the statistical tests usually reject random effects specifications, due to the
correlation between the random effects and the included covariates: this implies that, while the fixedeffects model may be consistent for the sample on which the estimation ha been done, the parameter
estimates cannot be generalized to another sample. One important reason for including a homogeneous
set of geographical units in most EKC studies has been the availability of an indicator of interest measured in a somewhat comparable way: Auffhammer et al. (2009) note that, without a comprehensive
monitoring network, even measures of ambient quality across cities taken using compatible equipment
can be little comparable. As noted in Carson (2010), "Problems with data quality and non-random or incomplete
samples plague much of economics, so there is nothing unique about the EKC experience. Most good papers are upfront
about the problem". Similarly, Panayotou (1997) argues: "Data on environmental problems are notoriously patchy in
coverage and/or poor in quality. The only available data are not necessarily appropriate for testing the EKC hypothesis,
estimating its parameters, and drawing inferences about future trends".
Other critiques concern the validity of the data used, since data on environmental degradation are not
complete in coverage, and poor in quality (Stern et al., 1996), and since results usually depend strongly
on the techniques that have been used. Galeotti et al. (2006) estimate CO2 emissions using different
methods, which imply that real emissions may be well different from the estimated ones, leading to different outcomes in the relative studies. The existence of not sufficient data on all countries over a long
period seriously restricts any empirical comparison in attempting to find an income-pollution pattern
for all countries (De Bruyn et al., 1998), while the lack of detailed time-series data over a long period of
time forces authors to study the EKC concept with panel data (List and Gallet, 1999), with the assumption of homogeneity in cross countries comparisons: with panel data, an EKC pattern is usually ex43

pected for the whole sample, even though some poor countries do not provide such evidence yet (and
this will be one of the results of the estimation done in the present thesis). As De Bruyn et al. (1998)
point out, finding an EKC turning point for the whole sample does not imply that each country in the
sample will follow such an EKC path: the turning point of each geographical unit of the sample may be
well different from the turning point estimated for the whole sample. De Bruyn et al. (1998), but also
other researchers (List and Gallet, 1999; Dijkgraaf and Vollebergh, 2001 and 2005), assert that empirical
EKC studies should focus only on one precise geographical unit, using time-series data.
Another econometric issue concerns the (missing) tests that have been done in the observed papers
(Lieb, 2003): most of the early empirical EKC studies do not report any tests on heteroscedasticity
(Stern et al., 1996), or do not show some omitted variable test (Stern, 2004), by the means of the
Hausman test, which studies the differences between the parameters of the random-effects and fixedeffects models, or by the means of tests which examine the possible differences between the estimated
coefficients in different sub-samples, or by the means of the tests for serial correlation (such as the
BreuschGodfrey serial correlation Lagrange multiplier test, or the Durbin-Watson test).
Moreover, the early EKC estimations involved potentially non-stationary variables which must satisfy
the cointegration property: the presence of non-stationary data series invalidates the use of standard
unit root tests and cointegration techniques in a time-series or a panel context, so that any result obtained in such studies might be highly questionable (Wagner, 2008): as an example, Lee and Lee (2009)
estimate that the series of real GDP and CO2 emissions are composed by a mixture of stationary and
non-stationary series, so panel root tests can lead to misleading inferences.
Another important issue is the causality link, a problem which plagues most cross-country and reducedform models looking at growth, and thus this is not unique to the EKC framework: most EKC studies
state that pollution is generated by economic growth, but they ignore the fact that environmental degradation may reversely affect the process of economic development (Arrow et al., 1995). The definition
of causality is based on Granger (1980), and its aim is to investigate whether a change in one variable
occurs before changes in another variable, and helps to predict that variable. Some papers report tests
using the Granger definition of causality (Perman and Stern, 2003), but the results are problematic, as
key variables such as income can often be shown to be integrated (nonstationary), suggesting that EKC
regressions may produce spurious results. In Dinda (2009), the high GHG-intensive economic growth
in OECD countries adversely affects their climate, which, as a consequence, constrains their further
economic growth. In other recent empirical studies, many authors find various directions of causality
among the variables, and it depends on the sample and the time under examination. For instance, in the
seminal causality-based paper by Coondoo and Dinda (2002), with respect to the link between CO2
emissions and income, in North America and Western Europe causality runs from emissions to income, in Central and South America, Japan and Oceania the causality runs from income to emissions,
44

while in the country groups of Asia and Africa causality is found to be bi-directional. In Lee (2006), a
neutral relationship between energy consumption and income seems to be found in UK, Germany and
Sweden, a bi-directional causality exists in USA, an unidirectional causality from energy consumption to
income is in Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland, and a reverse unidirectional causality in
France, Italy and Japan. Similarly, in USA, income does not cause CO2 emissions in the long run, but
energy use does (Soytas et al., 2007). Ang (2007) shows that there is a long-run relationship among income, emissions and energy consumption in France, and a unidirectional causality running from energy
consumption to income. In Central America, emissions are caused by energy consumption and income
in the short-run, but in the long-run there is a bi-directional causality between energy consumption and
emissions (Apergis and Payne, 2009). As Perrings (1987) has noted since the beginning, economy and
environment are jointly determined, and each region follows a different and peculiar pattern of pollution-income relationship.
Last, many empirical EKC studies do not explicitly allow for a geographical dimension of the pollution
issue, and many scholars implicitly assume that emissions in a region are unaffected by emissions in adjoining regions: using spatial econometric techniques to test SO2, NOx, CO and other pollutants from
the year 1990 to 1995, Maddison (2006) argues that studies that do not take into account the spatial effects of emissions may present an incorrect interpretation of what the changes in emissions in some
countries over time can be, since his estimates show that changes in emissions can be transmitted from
one country to its adjoining countries.
To sum up, the current EKC statistical analysis is not robust enough (Stern, 2004), and the use of structural models instead of reduced-form models in the EKC literature, and the development of complete
theoretical models, may help to correctly define the income-pollution relationship from a technical
point of view, in order to provide suitable and useful policies.

1.5 The Waste Kuznets Curve (WKC)

Most economic literature regarding waste and sustainability focuses upon optimal management of
economy-wide resource flows, whose aim is the intergenerational equity and the degree to which natural and artificial capital may be substitutable across entire economies. The economics of sustainability
stream of literature, also, tends to address sustainability as an absolute concept: either the economy is
on a sustainable path or it is not. The economic literature regarding the EKC and the decoupling of
economic activity from waste impacts is relatively macroeconomic in nature, although it does consider
both absolute and relative decoupling, while the microeconomic approach to sustainability remains relatively unexplored (Wagner, 2011). Moreover, sustainable waste management actions are complicated by
45

uncertainties over many microeconomic aspects, such as waste quality, monitoring effort, the quality of
the natural endowment that private landfill managers complement with physical capital, and the liability
for harm that may arise in the management phases, but which is not automatically captured and whose
costs are not internalized by private actions: therefore, a useful step towards developing a theoretical
structure for sustainable waste management would be focussing upon how a private firm's strategic selection of inputs (as regards the landfilling process, foe example) may differ from the nonstrategic selection of inputs a social planner would make.
Waste in the environment accelerates environmental degradation, as well as leading to several diseases
and death in human beings and other organisms. It also contributes to global warming, as decomposition of waste produces huge amounts of CH4, one of the major greenhouse gases (Calabr, 2009). According to the IPCC, CH4 contributes with 14,3% of total greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC, 2007), and
the necessity of in depth studies on waste impact on the economic activity, and the opposite, is more
and more relevant.
Most economic literature regarding waste and sustainability focuses upon optimal management of
economy-wide resource flows, whose aim is the intergenerational equity and the degree to which natural and artificial capital may be substitutable across entire economies. The economics of sustainability
stream of literature, also, tends to address sustainability as an absolute concept: either the economy is
on a sustainable path or it is not. The economic literature regarding the EKC and the decoupling of
economic activity from waste impacts is relatively macroeconomic in nature, although it does consider
both absolute and relative decoupling, while the microeconomic approach to sustainability remains relatively unexplored (Wagner, 2011). Moreover, sustainable waste management actions are complicated by
uncertainties over many microeconomic aspects, such as waste quality, monitoring effort, the quality of
the natural endowment that private landfill managers complement with physical capital, and the liability
for harm that may arise in the management phases, but which is not automatically captured and whose
costs are not internalized by private actions: therefore, a useful step towards developing a theoretical
structure for sustainable waste management would be focussing upon how a private firm's strategic selection of inputs (as regards the landfilling process, for example) may differ from the nonstrategic selection of inputs a social planner would make.
As illustrated, EKC literature tries to capture both the macroeconomic and microeconomic level, since
it derives both from historical and empirical evidence, and from theoretical speculations. Among the
others, in Cole et al. (1997) and in Stern (2004), the empirical evidence coming from the first wave of
studies on the EKC testing was based on data from the 1980s and the 1990s, and they were showing
that an EKC generally existed only for those pollutants specific for air and water, and, most of all, for
those ones with a local dimension, while all those other indicators with a global nature were showing a
more or less increase with the growth of income. Nothing was clearly outlined as regards waste, be46

cause the weak reliability of the official sets of data. The data showed how the nature of the reversed Ushaped curve was more compatible with all those pollutants with a local character, rather than the ones
with a much more global character, as it is the CO2 (Cole et al., 1997; Bruvoll and Medin, 2003): Vollebergh and Kemfert (2005), indeed, find that the decoupling between income growth and CO2 emissions was not yet so strong in the industrialized countries, while Fisher-Kowalski and Amann (2001)
note that, even there where a delinking takes place, it is mostly a relative one, and not an absolute one.
This study, together with Matthews et al. (2000), shows a descriptive and a quantitative analysis about
solid materials, waste and emissions, under the point of view of the environmental accounting, based
upon input-output matrices, and it takes under examination the richest countries of the OECD area. As
regards the use of solid materials, the waste intensity with respect to the GDP shows a relative, but not
absolute, decoupling, and a growth of the use of such materials in the considered period, which goes
from 1975 to 1995. As concerns the emissions (solid and gaseous ones) too, a relative decoupling is
shown, but according to their geographical distribution: thus, local pollutants and landfilled waste exhibit an absolute delinking, but it does not happen with CO2. This confirms the theory according to
which the EKC hypothesis is much more valid for those local or regional externalities, rather than for
those with a national or international nature (Bruvoll and Medin, 2003).
Even though some recent works cast some doubts on the robustness of the EKC evidence, claiming
that such and evidence can be obtained only thanks to the specific empirical model and to the particular
functional specification (Harbaugh et al., 2002; Stern, 2004 and 1998), in general many authors are still
stating that the EKC scheme could provide with results useful to understand dynamic ecologicaleconomic phenomena, and to evaluate public policies (Copeland and Taylor, 2004).
As regards waste production, the empirical works are quite a few, in comparison with the great deal of
studies about other pollutants, and the majority of them highlights the fact that there is not effective
evidence of an EKC, due to the fact that waste is a stock pollutant by nature, and therefore cannot be
cleared up by natural processes. Most economic literature regarding sustainability focuses upon optimal
management of economy-wide resource flows, whose aim is the intergenerational equity and the degree
to which natural and artificial capital may be substitutable across entire economies. The economics of
sustainability stream of literature also tends to address sustainability as an absolute concept: either the
economy is on a sustainable path or it is not. The economic literature regarding the EKC and the decoupling of economic activity from waste impacts is relatively macroeconomic in nature, although it
does consider both absolute and relative decoupling, while the microeconomic approach to sustainability remains relatively unexplored (Wagner, 2011). Karousakis (2006) says that there is a difference between the decoupling that might arise with respect to waste production and the decoupling relative to
the disposal public policies: the first one is by far less feasible, due to the private nature of the contrasting action to be implemented against solid waste, where the second one is considered more likely, con47

sidering the environmentalist debate which influenced the environmental policies of the last twenty
years. In contrast with what might be expected, among all the polluting materials whose possible EKC
behaviour could have been verified, solid waste (and, even less, industrial solid waste) has been studied
less than the other pollutants in the specialized literature, even less than other less common subjects, as
deforestation and biodiversity loss. Few studies try to verify the relationship between waste (or solid
materials flows) and its socio-economic drivers, and fewer are the ones aiming at extrapolating a decoupling linkage among the variables under examination: in Karousakis (2006) has been noted how, in
most early studies, the drivers of waste production verified by the authors have been based on microeconomics studies on the various local communities of the USA. As an example, Table 1.1 shows some
results of early studies, in which the elasticities of waste production to income are reported.
All the data of those studies are at a micro-economic level (municipalities, families or individuals): the
income elasticity of waste production has been estimated around a range between 0,05 and 0,55, and
the characteristic common to all is given by the fact that these results have been come out from case
studies based on small datasets, and therefore they cannot be much generalized. Such an inelasticity can
be caused by a relative delinking, but it does not mean that its values will surely move to the value of 1
as the time goes on.
As regards the (so far) relatively few studies that have tried to insert solid waste (municipal or industrial)
into an EKC context, a first empirical evidence is presented in one of the seminal works of this stream
of the literature (Shafik e Bandyopadhyay, 1992), without then receiving the attention that waste production nowadays more and more deserves: in this study too, using cross-sectional data from the 1980s
in comparisons among countries, the authors have observed how an absolute decoupling has not taken
place as regards waste, but a relative one instead, given that income elasticity of waste production has a
value around 0,31, 0,38 and 0,42, depending on the adopted specification. Gawande et al. (2000) used a
generalized negative binomial model to estimate the EKC for toxic waste in 3.141 counties and 748
metropolitan statistical areas of the USA. They found an inverted U-shape EKC, with a turning point at
$ 19.375 for county samples and $ 19.145 for metropolitan statistical areas (Table 1.1).
Table 1.1 Estimated elasticity of urban waste production to income of some early studies
Reference
Wertz (1974)
Richardson and Havlicek (1978)
Hong et al. (1993)
Jenkins (1993)
Reschovsky and Stone (1994)
Kinnaman and Fullerton (1997)
Podolsky and Spiegel (1998)
Hong (1999)

Extension of the analysis

Estimated elasticity
Families in two suburbs in Detroit
0,27
Districts in Indianapolis
0,24
2300 families in Portland, Oregon
0,05
Municipalities in the USA
0,41
3040 families in the State of New York
0,22
756 municipalities in the USA
0,31
149 Municipalities in the State of New Jersey
0,55
3017 families of 20 cities in South Korea
0,10
48

Cole et al. (1997) worked with data from 1975 to 1990 for 13 OECD4 countries, and they found no
evidence for the conventional EKC for municipal waste or methane. Grossman and Krueger (1995)
used multi-country data with a quadratic-level functional model and found an inverted U-shape EKC
with a low income per capita of $ 5.047 at the turning point. That study concerned the presence of
toxic substances in water from waste. Shafik (1994) used data from 47 cities in 31 countries for the period 19721988, and, using a quadratic functional model, he also found an upward straight line EKC
for waste emission. Shafik and Bandyopadhyay (1992) studied municipal waste data from 39 countries
using a quadratic fixed effects model and also found an upward straight line. Wang et al. (1998) studied
hazardous waste at the US County level for 1992; using a probit estimation model, they found an inverted U-shape EKC with a turning point at $ 23.000 (1990 dollars). Though the emission of toxic
waste generally decreases with increasing income per capita, the trend for municipal waste emission
does not seem to follow the conventional EKC. This raises the scenario of abatement programs being
implemented only where immediate harm exists. Slowly but consistently increasing municipal waste
emission is effectively not being controlled by producers at all levels. Whether this type of pollution,
though slow, has a long term effect or not has not generally been studied yet. Grossman and Krueger
(1995), however, looked at municipal waste and estimated the turning point at $ 5.047, supporting the
conventional EKC. Rothman (1998) pointed out that, for municipal and packaging waste, the proper
economic driver/indicator is not GDP, but rather household consumption. This is a key issue on both
conceptual and statistical grounds.
In the research report that gave birth to the EKC literature (World Bank, 1992), there were already
signs of empirical evidence for an EKC, based on regressions on 1980s data among several countries.
Some other research reports (DEFRA, 2003) show that positive income elasticities to waste generation
must be a primary policy target, since waste production is typified by a strict increasing relationship
among pollution and the several socio-economic drivers. In a further paper, Shafik (1994), using new
data for the same period, finds that the quantity of per capita urban waste linearly increases with income, showing that the relative decoupling previously found (calculated again and now showing a value
of 0,38) is weak to generalize. Seppala et al. (2001), in a study about five industrialized countries such as
Japan, USA and Germany, during the period 1970-1994, has not found any trace of delinking. Cole,
Rayner and Bates (1997) analyze a dataset of 13 OECD countries, testing the hypothesis of a quadratic
relationship between income and urban waste, although without finding any evidence of an absolute
delinking: there is not any turning point, and, moreover, the found relationship forecasts a linear
growth of the indicator with the increase of income. Such a relation is considered one of the main
problems to face in the coming future, together with the reduction of the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere (DEFRA, 2003): moreover, some recent studies (see below and the following tables) together try to assess that a positive turning point in the relationship between CO2 and income can be
49

reached relatively soon, while there is not any empirical evidence that leads to think that an absolute
decoupling might happen between income and waste. Data shows that waste production is destined to
be increasing with income, even if such a relationship spreads from confrontations among different
countries, and not from national or regional level analyses. The governmental agencies reports and the
EKC literature on waste both converge on one point: as of now, a very weak evidence at a macroeconomic level exists, and so there is a great need of new studies and researches dealing with the local
level point of view, be it using national, regional or local (provincial and municipal) data. This is important not only from a descriptive point of view, but also and most of all in order to develop effective environmental policies: because of the local nature of solid waste, the different elasticity's values with respect to the socio-economic drivers should be calculated at the most decentralized possible level, since
only in such a way the benefits of the macro approach, with its confrontations among countries, and
the ones of the micro approach, which takes under examination only small and limited territorial entities, can be summed up together.
Some authors have then supposed that the double nature of waste as stock or flow, as well as its typology (hazardous and non-hazardous), could let different relationships with the socio-economic drivers
emerge: Leigh (2004) finds that non-hazardous waste and its flow in the considered time unit does not
seem to be associated with a negative income elasticity, showing an empirical evidence for EKC as regards the waste-consumption link (even if the time span is limited, looking at the data on the years 2001
and 2002 only). Similarly, in Wang et al. (1998), there is an empirical evidence of negative elasticity between waste and income, but the kind of waste that is taken into account is a measure of flow and not a
stock of waste, and the analysis is a cross-section among the different States of the USA.
Some works cast a light on the importance played by other socio-economic factors, such as those drivers (different from the usual measure of income) that might have influence over (and that must be decoupled from) the generation of waste: the most frequent of those drivers seems to be the demographic
variable. Beede and Bloom (1995) work on a cross-section of data from 36 countries, and they calculate
an income elasticity of urban solid waste of 0,34 (relative delinking), and a population elasticity of urban
solid waste of 1,04 (absence of delinking): the linkage with the population driver, anyway, does not provide significant results when, from a cross-section, the analysis shifts to a time-series study of the USA,
in the period 1970-1988, where the income elasticity of waste exhibits a value of 0,88, while the population driver becomes not significant anymore. On the same path, Johnston and Labonne (2004) work on
a microeconomic level study, in which they use a panel of 30 OECD nations, in the period 1980-2000,
that has been related to other variables, such as consumption, urbanization degree of a territory and
demographic growth. As far as concerns the economic activity and the housing density, the obtained
results are in line with the preceding studies: the per capita consumption elasticity of waste is 0,69, the

50

housing density one is 0,85, while the elasticity of waste with respect to the ratio of the population who
live in cities is 0,15, thus all these values indicate a relative decoupling.
On the contrary, the relationship of waste with the population age is negative, as seen in Gawande et al.
(2001): in this paper, the authors test the hypothesis under which the proximity to waste disposal sites
is determinant in the individuals' relocations decisions, and they find that the income level over which
the impact of waste starts declining (the turning point) is the same of the income level that determines
the relocation from polluting sites. Such a result leads to state that even the relocating decisions of the
individuals (and, therefore, the migratory flows of people, within a nation and outside their nation) have
to be considered as drivers for an EKC of waste.
The use of other variables as determinants of waste generation is the key concept of the "ecological
footprint" definition, invented by Rees (1992): the ecological footprint, according to the authors who
support such an indicator for environmental economics analysis, is a more homogeneous measure useful to calculate the environmental impact, and it is the area of land that is needed in order to produce
the resources that a nation consumes, and in order to absorb the waste that the nation generates. This
area is measured in global hectares (gha), that is, they are hectares of ecologically productive land according to the world average land productivity (Bagliani et al., 2006a). Since it is an indicator based on
consumptions units, rather than on productive units, some authors state that it is more appropriate
than other to measure the real impact of the economic activity, especially if it includes data on waste
production it a precise area. In Bagliani et al. (2006a), such an indicator is increasing with the increase
of population growth, there where in other studies the population driver seemed to be irrelevant to the
environmental impact. In Bagliani et al. (2006b), though, the growth rate of the ecological footprint
slowly diminishes with the increase of income, without signs of any stop.
A recent study where the author uses socio-economic variables to explain not only the production of
waste, but also the management implications for it, is Karousakis (2006), where the object of the analysis is, once again, urban solid waste. The observed sample consists of a panel of 30 OECD countries,
under the period 1980-2000, with 4 data per each year, and the aim is determining the drivers of the
production of waste, and the drivers that determine the value of the ratio of sorted glass waste and of
sorted paper waste with respect to the total amount of waste: as regards urban waste, it is shown how
they linearly grow with income, and that their income elasticity stays between a 0,42-0,45 range, while
the housing density variable is not significant, there where the total urban density is significant.
Some studies have investigated the policy choices at a level of single country, in order to exploit the
richness of the regional datasets, but this kind of researches does not allow their results to be generalized, due to the local level of the analysis. Mazzanti et al. (2008) have found some evidence of an EKC
for waste (Waste Kuznets Curve, WKC), and the signs of effectiveness of the adopted environmental
management instruments, analyzed in the paper, in reducing the waste in Italy. Their analyzed database
51

is a rich panel from APAT (the "Agenzia per la Protezione Ambientale", the environmental protection
agency), filled with data at a regional and provincial level, covering all the 103 Italian provinces in the
period 1999-2005. Among the results, it is shown how a decoupling between economic growth and
landfilling of waste is observed, and that this tendency is led by a mix of structural drivers, such as
population density and other drivers related to public management choices. However, they find that
not only structural factors are relevant. If, on one side, landfill taxes are not a significant driver of the
phenomenon, waste management tools, such as separated collection for recycling, and the tariff system
connected to waste services, have a significant effect on the amount of landfilled waste. Moreover, as
concerns the spatial interrelations across provinces, they note that the presence of incinerators in
nearby provinces increases landfill diversion, due probably to free riding behaviour or intra-provinces
agreements on waste management.
The economic literature about the (Environmental) Waste Kuznets Curve and the decoupling of economic activity from environmental and waste impacts is relatively macroeconomic in nature. Mazzanti
and Zoboli (2009) analyze waste generation and landfilling data for the European Union, and find that
while waste generation has not yet experienced absolute decoupling at a continental level (and is therefore not yet consistent with the WKC hypothesis), there is some evidence of relative decoupling. They
also find that landfilling in the EU is decoupling on an absolute basis, and that therefore the EU lies on
the negative slope of the supposed WKC. The authors state that this success in diverting waste from
landfills is gained by the EU thanks to the EU Landfill Directive and its related environmental policies.
They have observed that Eastern countries appear to be performing generally quite well, thus benefiting
from EU membership and related policies, in terms of environmental performance. Absolute delinking
is far from being achieved for waste generation in the EU, but there are some first positive signs of an
increasing relative delinking for waste generation, and for robust landfill diversion, suggesting that,
while landfill diversion is currently associated to a delinking which is partly explained by EU policies,
waste prevention must be the objective of waste regulation efforts.
Some studies deal directly with the valuation of the EU Landfill Directive, and of the UK landfill tax,
adopted in 1996, a real and rare example of an environmental tax calculated on the basis of the evaluation of marginal external costs. Studies taking into account the external costs are Ready and Ready
(1995), where they assume that external costs amount to $ 20 million over each landfill's lifecycle, basing their results upon the study by Nelson et al. (1992) about property value declines near landfilling
sites. Gaudet et al. (2001) conclude in their model that the constant marginal cost of disposal per landfill site perfectly captures any marginal external waste transportation and disposal costs. A UK specific
regional assessment on waste strategies is offered by Phillips et al. (2007), but regional based analyses
are still a rarity.

52

Morris et al. (1998) have raised some concern about the sustainable management of waste, while Morris
and Read (2001) and Burnley (2001) have then updated this analysis, highlighting some weak points.
Martin and Scott (2003) have noted that the tax, which was intended to contribute to the necessary
transition from the landfilling of waste to its recycling and reusing phase, has failed in significantly
changing the domestic behaviour of the producers of waste. They state that the available evidence
shows how this transition can be controlled and guided toward the recycling, but not towards the reutilization or the minimization of waste.
Historically, landfilling is the dominant method in (municipal, hazardous and radioactive) waste management, and it remains a key but contentious aspect of modern waste management, particularly in the
context of sustainability. Significant technological change has evolved in landfilling (of all waste types)
such that the landfill is a more significant method than at any time in its history. Pearce and Turner
(1993) argue that it is not always obvious on economic grounds that increasing recycling effort is
worthwhile. Palmer et al. (1997) find that the reduction in recyclable municipal solid waste flows in the
United States is economically modest (-7,5%). Kinnaman (2006) notes that recycling costs about twice
as much per ton as disposal: the data suggest a solid waste market intervention, with the imposition of a
relatively small tax on each ton of waste disposed, since "State mandates that require municipalities to implement unit-based pricing programs, and especially curbside recycling programs, could usefully be replaced by disposal taxes
levied at the landfill". Aadland and Caplan (2006) find in their study of recycling in 40 western US cities
that several seem to operate inefficiently, while Dijkgraaf and Vollebergh (2004) find in their analysis of
waste disposal options in the Netherlands that modern landfilling performs better than incinerating (including a waste-to-energy component) at the margin; they argue that their results can be generalized to
the wider European market, and to the US market as well.
While there is indeed an economic literature regarding solid waste management, there are only a few
papers that explore the microeconomics of optimally managing landfills as part of more general waste
management plans. Some of the key papers in the economic literature on a green design of waste management process are Dinan (1993), Palmer et al. (1997), Fullerton and Wu (1998), Choe and Fraser
(2001),Walls and Palmer (2001), and Eichner and Pethig (2001). The economic literature that focuses
on the microeconomics of waste disposal facilities has been inspired by the seminal work of Hotelling
(1931), and includes Keeler and Renkow (1994), Ready and Ready (1995), Highfill and McAsey (1997),
Gaudet et al. (2001), Ley et al. (2002), DeAngelo and Wagner (2005), and Benjamin and Wagner (2006).
Outside the EU countries, the analyses are not so many. Taseli (2007) has presented a valuation of the
EU Landfill Directive for Turkey, a potential EU country member that may be compared to some
newly entering Eastern European nation. The study shows the great difficulties that this kind of countries has to face in order to reach the long term goals, and it shows an analysis of the EU in general.
Outside the EU, the studies on landfill diversion and on waste generation are concentrated on the Far
53

East economies, there where urban land has a high price and value, since population density reaches
the highest values in the world (Lang, 2005, Ozawa, 2005; Yang and Innes, 2007). Population density
and public policies devoted to its control work as side drivers towards getting a strong decoupling both
in waste generation, and in waste landfilling.
The problem of the sustainability of the waste production with respect to the economic expansion is
not only important ex ante, but it is important ex post too, when waste has been generated, and it has
to be decided the best way to dispose of them, choosing between landfill and incineration: Dijkgraaf
and Vollebergh (2004), indeed, show that those tools, responsible for the future different stocks of
waste, are both convenient, but only when looking at different targets. Analyzing the case of the Netherlands, if the objective is the decrease of the environmental costs, the best choice is landfill, while if
the target is the maximization of the social benefit, then the best choice is incineration. Such management options are directly responsible for structural evolutions in the future production of waste, and
therefore an environmental policy aiming at waste reduction has to allow for both the drivers of waste
generation, and those factors influencing the subsequent management policies.
Notwithstanding, waste is one of the major problems that the EU tries to control (European Commission, 2003), still there is not a clear and robust empirical evidence concerning the possible decoupling
of the several different kinds of waste, but only few studies exist, as the one by Mazzanti and Zoboli
(2006), where the authors consider the EU policy on End-of-Life Vehicles (Directive 2000/53/EC on
ELVs) investigating whether interrelated sequences of single innovations in both upstream (car making)
and downstream (car recycling/recovery) should take place, and they conclude that the dynamic efficiency of the incentives in ELV-like problems depends both on where, along the production-to-waste
chain, and how, in terms of net costs of allocation, the specific incentive is introduced. The study by
Martin and Scott (2003) states that the quantity of waste exhibits, in general, a positive relation with
richness, thus excluding any decoupling possibility.
As regards the EU, Mazzanti and Zoboli (2005) analyze a panel dataset for 15 and 18 European countries, and the key studied variable is urban waste (for the period 1995-2000) and packaging waste (for
the period 1997-2000): their results on packaging and municipal waste show that decoupling seems to
occur only on a relative basis, while no significant evidence on an inverted U-shape is found for both
waste indicators. In the opinion of the authors, Europe appears still close the critical turning point,
concerning the relationship between waste and consumption indicators. The estimated elasticity of
waste production with respect to the consumptions levels of families is always close to 1, even in the
richest countries.
One of the possible external causes under which a WKC is not seen is the imperfect harmonization of
the several national bureaus of statistics of the different States not only of the EU, but also of the
world: Johnston and Labonne (2004) note that, until the 1990s, many statistics are to be considered
54

weakly reliable, due to the simple lack of ad hoc offices (responsible for environmental data) in some
countries before the 1990s, and also due to the different ways of registering the data and what kind of
data, so that the very first problem to face should have been the standardization of the several systems
of environmental accounting.
Hence it is important that the researchers could work on data "bureaucratically" homogeneous, other
than geographically related (regions confronted with regions, nations with nations). The study by Chen
and Lotspiech (1998) analyzes a cross-section dataset of 479 cities of China in the year 1991, showing
that aggregate industrial output measures and sector-specific shares perform well in explaining aggregate flows of industrial wastes. Cities with higher per capita GDP treat larger fractions of all residuals
classes, and show lower production of gaseous and solid residuals. The study states that population
density is positively correlated with three residual flows, and with efforts to control industrial dust, and
that treatment correlates strongly with the share of GDP arising from the industrial and construction
sectors, thus negating the existence of an EKC.
Mazzanti and Zoboli (2007) study a sample of European data of waste production from the EU25,
EU15 and EU10, taking into account both landfilled and incinerated waste. They show that, for waste
generation, there is still no absolute delinking trend, although elasticity to income drivers appears lower
than in the past (about 0,2). Landfill and other policy effects do not seem to provide backward incentives for waste prevention, and, as regards landfill and incineration, the two trends are respectively decreasing and increasing, with policy effects providing a strong driver, which demonstrates the effectiveness of policy even in the early stages of policy implementation. EU15 and EU10 groups of countries
show some different waste trends, and driving forces of waste generation and landfill, when analyzed
separately, leading to conclude that, although complete delinking is far from being achieved (especially
for waste generation), there are some signs of a quite significant role of the EU waste policies implemented in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Two other researches, similar to each other as regards the setting of the analysis, deal with Italian data,
and both take into account urban solid waste data (per capita and absolute level data). The first is the
one by Concu (2000), who tries to test the relationship between a proxy of private wealth (not the income, but the average taxable income over which the Imposta Comunale sugli Immobili, ICI, a house
tax, was calculated) and an environmental quality indicator (the quantity of the per capita urban solid
waste), using a database at a municipal level, with 322 municipalities of Sardegna island, for the year
1997. The paper also tries to validate the common assumption on the basis of the economic planning
claim which states that environmental preservation and touristic specialization are complementary. The
results of the econometric analysis confirm that the existence of an EKC is sensible to the kind of data
that have been used, other than to the functional specification: the model shows that for that particular
environmental indicator the EKC relation does not exist, and that, moreover, the link between waste
55

and wealth is exponential, while the supposed complementary link between tourism and environment is
rejected. The study is a cross-section, and therefore it does not embed the time dimension, but it is a
matter of fact that the result is, at a local level, similar to those at a national level. With more geographically disaggregated data it is possible to better exploit the greater heterogeneity of local level datasets in
comparison with international level datasets.
According this view, again Mazzanti et al. (2006) is the first paper that runs an analysis of a provincial
and regional level dataset for an EU country: it provides empirical evidence on delinking and on the
EKC for municipal waste production in Italy, using two disaggregated panel datasets on Italian Regions
and Provinces (1996-2004 data for the 20 regions, 2000-2004 data for the 103 provinces) to estimate
the extent to which delinking among waste production and economic drivers is taking place. The empirical analysis of different specifications shows mixed evidence in favour of an EKC relationship,
which significantly arises at a provincial level, there where a very high data heterogeneity exists. The
turning point, although, is at very high levels of value-added per capita (around 23.000-26.000), which
characterise a very limited number of wealthy (Northern) Italian provinces. Their analysis, on the contrary, does not reveal a similar evidence for the regional dataset, and they also note a positive relationship between waste production and the share of separated waste collection, which can be explained by
the sharp difference in income and waste-policy performance between Northern and Southern Italy.
Their test on some policy proxies (the diffusion of the new waste tariff regime at the local-level, and the
ability of utilities to recover waste service cost) leads to the conclusion that they are not yet having impact on waste production. Therefore, an EKC is seen at a provincial level, there where data have more
variability, while at a regional level the relationship seems to be linear an positive, and the households'
consumption elasticity of waste goes from 0,17 to 0,35, according to the functional specification that is
adopted, and from 0,45 to 1,31 when the GDP elasticity of waste is taken into account. These kind of
results lead to the idea that the validity of results strongly depends on the functional form that has been
used, and on the aggregation level of the data, since the local level datasets seem to provide more robust results than national level datasets. Among the socio-economic drivers, population density is associated with a negative effect, but it is never significant: this leads to think that the population's positive
and the negative effects on waste generation balance each other, and this is in line with the results of
the preceding studies. The authors run also an estimation using waste data whose values are expressed
in levels rather than using per capita values, and for both the geographical dimensions an EKC is not
observed: for the provinces, the income elasticity of waste is positive, and it reaches values around 0,28
and 0,34, while the housing density elasticity of waste is around 0,64 and 1,00; for the regions, the income elasticity of waste lays in the interval 0,37-0,60, while the population one is estimated as 1,22.
These results lead to state that the cross-sectional analysis among nations, even if based on countries
which are someway homogeneous, can be not fully reliable, because they measure only the average ef56

fects that the variables have on the production of waste, while a kind of analysis that use highly disaggregated data at a local level, for the same nation, is not only more homogeneous in economic terms,
but also it provides more robust estimations from the statistical point of view, thus being more useful
when designing public policies.
Ultimately, the literature concerning the drivers of the generation of waste and the check of the existence of an EKC (a WKC) is unanimous to assert that the waste indicators tend to generally increase
with income or with the other socio-economic drivers, and that a reversed U-shaped curve is generally
not yet the dominant relationship. In the most industrialized countries, such a relationship might evolve
towards a declining trend (negative elasticity) only there where the waste management and disposal
policies are more developed: in an analysis which takes into account both developed and developing
Countries, those trends leading to a bell-shaped curve might be associated with those few rich Countries or with richer regions.
Many could be the reasons of this empirical evidence: Lieb (2004) notes that the pollutants that can be
"collected" in stocks generally do not exhibit bell-shaped curves with income, but they show the tendency to with income. A structural reason that might explain the lack of empirical evidence for the reversed U-shaped curve of waste could be the fact that the change of sign that income elasticity should
exhibit (the turning point) should happen in correspondence to low levels of income, for those pollutants whose production and diffusion can be easily spatially separated, that is, as an example, exporting
those pollutants or re-localizing the productive activities that cause pollution (Khanna and Plassman,
2004).
The literature studying the drivers of the generation of waste and the WKC behaviour highlights that
waste tend to increase with income or with other economic drivers, such as population, and that, in
general, a bell-shaped curve does not well describe the data. A decreasing trend (negative elasticity) can
be found in the industrialized Countries, where the waste management processes and techniques are
more advanced. Nevertheless, the WKC trends (an absolute delinking) might be connected with few
rich Countries or with few developed areas. Another structural explanation concerning the lack of empirical evidence on waste might be the fact that the change in the sign of the elasticity of the relationship between environment and income could take place at relatively lower levels, for those pollutants
whose production and consumption could be easily spatially separated.
Although waste policies and management techniques have been in force for some time in the EU and
across the world, empirical evidence on WKC dynamics for waste is scarce. Research on delinking for
materials and waste is far less developed than research on air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

57

Table 1.2 - Main studies on the Waste Kuznets Curve hypothesis

References

Geographical
unit
Countries
EU15, EU10

Panel /
EKC result
Cross-section
Inverted Upanel
shape
cross-section MSW: straight
and time series line, upward
negative elasticcross-section ity, inverted Ushape

Turning
point

Time period

Type of waste

Andersen et al.
(2007)
Beede and Bloom
36 Countries
(1995)

Years before
2000
several periods

waste and material

flows

Berrens et al.
(1998)

US, counties
(3141)

1991

hazardous waste

Cole et al. (1997)

13 OECD
countries

19701992

urban waste

panel

Straight line

N/A

Countries OECD

1975-1995

landfilled waste

panel

absolute decoupling

1992

waste

cross-section

Inverted Ushaped

$ 19.375

1992

waste

cross-section

Inverted Ushaped

$ 19.145

Inverted Ushape

$ 5.047

Fischer-Kowalski
and Amann
(2001)
Gawande et al.
(2000)
Gawande et al.
(2000)

3,141 US counties
748 Metropolitan statistical
areas of USA

solid waste

$ 20.253
and
$ 17.679

Grossman and
Krueger (1995)

58 countries

19791990

waste

panel

Johnstone and
Labonne (2004)

Countries OECD

1980-2000

urban solid waste

panel

Karousakis (2006)

Countries OECD

4 years between 19802000

urban solid waste

panel

Mazzanti and ZoCountries EU

boli (2005)

1995-2000

urban waste and

packaging waste

panel

Mazzanti et al.
(2006)

1996-2004,
2000-2004

waste

panel

1999-2005

urban solid waste

panel

2001-2002

waste/consumption
indicators

cross-section

1975-1994

material flows

panel

no decoupling

N/A

19721988

waste

panel

Straight line,
upward

N/A

1985-1992

waste

panel

Straight line,
upward

N/A

1992

hazardous waste

cross-section

Inverted Ushape

$ 23.000
(1990 US
$)

123 regions

Mazzanti Montini Italy (103 provand Zoboli (2008) inces)

Raymond (2004)
Seppala et al.
(2001)
Shafik (1994)
Shafik and Bandyopadhyay
(1992)

International
data
five industrialized Countries
47 cities in 31
countries
39 countries

Wang et al. (1998) US, counties

positive elasticity, less than 1

MSW: straight
line, upward,
elasticity 0,420,45
no decoupling,
elasticity close
to 1
Inverted Ushaped
relative decoupling, absolute
decoupling for
some provinces
Inverted Ushape

N/A
23.00026.000
24.00027.000
-

58

1.6 Conclusions
After more than two decades of searching for EKC-style curves and patterns, it is useful to highlight
what has left among economists of the main message taken from Grossman and Kruegers work: there
the main message was that trade and higher income levels would operate to get a better environment,
but now the supporting evidence is mostly weak, since ever better empirical estimates has not revealed
a clear and definitive causal incomepollution relationship although, as Auffhammer and Carson (2008)
show, "there may be some short and medium term gain from using income in a forecasting equation". There is still little evidence that a stop in growth would improve pollution levels, while, instead, there is robust evidence that pollution levels typically fall at high-income levels. This does not mean that an EKC path is
a sure and inevitable pattern for countries, since the research is still finding a common underlying process which could link specific changes in income to specific changes in pollution, on the timescale of a
few years.
Dasgupta et al. (2002) have a positive, but realistic, view of what remains of the original EKC theory:
the EKC stated an inverted-U relationship between pollution and economic development, and its main
critics are that empirically estimated curves have their declining portions as a fake behaviour, either because they are cross-sectional snapshots that mask a long run race to the bottom in environmental
standards, or because industrial societies will always produce new pollutants. However, recent evidence
has raised an optimistic view by suggesting that the curve is actually flattening and shifting to the left:
the driving forces of such a change appear to be economic liberalization, clean technology diffusion,
and new approaches to pollution regulation in developing countries. But, according to Carson (2010),
"there was a lost decade or more during which environmental economists failed to focus on other potential driving forces behind changes in environmental quality within a country. The debate over the incomepollution relationship allowed us as a
profession to take our eye off what really mattered. First, and perhaps foremost, it made it easy to believe that developing
countries should be able to ignore their environmental problems until they develop and become wealthier. But we now know
that developing countries can take many actions (Dasgupta et al., 2002) to improve their environmental conditions and
that those actions can have enormously positive implications for societal welfare. Second, as a group, we largely ignored the
role of population and technology, the other two factors in the IPAT equation..."
Even if it is not a robust forecasting engine, the EKC has proved itself to be a useful tool to analyze the
relationship between wealth and pollution: basing the present analysis on the EKC literature's findings
and implications that have been briefly detailed above, the present work try to study the waste production of Italian industrial sector in the view of the issues of the EKC framework. The following chapters
deal with the descriptive and the estimation analysis of the relation between the industrial waste in Italy,
in the period 1998-2004, and the socio-economic factors that may have been responsible for its generation.

59

2. THE PRODUCTION OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE IN THE MUD

DATABASE, DURING THE PERIOD 1998-2004

2.1 Introduction
The analysis developed so far and in the following chapters has its focus on those productive sectors
which form the so called Italian Industria in Senso Stretto1 (Industry in a Strict Sense, Ind.S.S.), that
is, the sections concerning Estrazione di minerali (section C, Ateco 2002: mining and quarrying), Attivit manifatturiere (section D, Ateco 2002: manufacturing) and Produzione e distribuzione di energia elettrica, gas e acqua (section E, Ateco 2002: electricity, gas and water supply). Those activities, not
only play a major role in the Italian economy, but also come to be the most pollution-intensive ones.
Last, but not least, the information provided by MUD database is more complete for those industries,
rather than the others.
The aim of the present chapter is giving a basic view on the production of waste generated by firms of
the Industry in a Strict Sense, based upon the information provided by the MUD database (the one
coming directly from the statements of the waste producers, excluding therefore the database coming
from the waste collectors), for the period which goes from the year 1998 (whose statements have been
given in the year 1999) to the year 2004 (whose statements have been give in the year 2005). The chapter starts with a short description about Industry in a Strict Sense and its importance within the Italian
economy during the period 1998-2004. The following sections have been devoted to the description of
the database which has been used in the analysis: the importance of Industry in a Strict Sense to the
framework of waste production in Italy will be assessed, the coverage of the database in terms of percentage of the number of firms of the Registro delle Imprese (Public Register of Companies) will be
calculated, and the waste production of firms will be outlined under a geographical and a sectorial point
of view.
In all the present research paper, the section Industry in a Strict Sense will include divisions 10 to 36
(Ateco 2002), together with division 402.

The macro-sectors derived from the aggregation of the sections (A, B, etc.) of the Ateco 2002 Nace 1.1 classification are:
AGRICOLTURA (Agriculture): sections A and B, Ateco 2002;
INDUSTRIA IN SENSO STRETTO (Industry in a Strict Sense): sections C, D and E, Ateco 2002;
COSTRUZIONI (Construction): section F, Ateco 2002;
COMMERCIO (Commerce): section G, Ateco 2002;
SERVIZI (Services): sections H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P and Q, Ateco 2002.
In 2002, Istat released its Ateco 2002 classification, which corresponds to Nace Rev. 1.1 (January the 10th, 2002). In 2008,
Istat released its new Ateco 2007, which corresponds to Nace Rev. 2 (December the 20th, 2006).

60

2.2 Industry and its importance in the Italian economy (1998-2004)

Before the huge crisis that has stricken the world economy starting from the year 2008, Italian economy
was experiencing a path of little growth, with a GDP increase of +1,9% in 2006, and of +1,5% in 2007,
which came after a period of stagnation, started in 2001 and ended in 2005, when the GDP growth has
been registered around +0% (Centro Studi Confindustria, 2006). Unlike the period 2000-2004, the
most dynamic sector in 2006 has been Industry in a Strict Sense: its value-added increased by +2,5%,
while its production, after five successive years of contraction, came to increase by +2,3% compared to
the previous year. Such an increase in productivity, even if touching all sectors, has shown its biggest
intensity as regards the manufacturing sector (section D, Ateco 2002), which has increased by +2,5%,
more than the industrial sector average (Centro Studi Confindustria, 2007).

Figure 2.1 Value-added: Industry in a Strict Sense and Total, Italy, 1998-2004
(millions of euros of 1995)
Valore aggiunto Italia: Industria in senso stretto e totale Italia

1.200.000

1.000.000

800.000

Milioni di euro del 1995

600.000

VA INDSS
VA TOTALE

400.000

200.000

0
1998

1999

2000

2001
Anno

2002

2003

2004

In the period interested by the present study, 1998-2004, Italian Industry in a Strict Sense has faced a
declining path as concerns its value-added, going from the 220.000 millions of euros in 1998 (at constant prices of 1995), to the 225.407 in 2004, and experiencing negative growth rates in the years 2001,
2002 and 2003. The loss of market shares of the Italian goods on foreign markets has been the main
reason responsible for such a negative performance of the industrial production. Such a fall has been
bigger for some sectors rather than for others: in the period 2000-2005, the activities that have experi61

enced the major losses in their produced quantities have been the ones with a bigger export-propensity,
such as clothing and leather industries, and electrical and transportation equipment industries (Centro
Studi Confindustria, 2005).
Against a decrease in the industrial sectors, Italy has seen a weak increase in the tertiary sector: in the
same period, the value-added of the total Italian economy grows from about 932.000 millions of euros
in 1998, to almost 1.055.00 millions of euros of 2004, with positive growth rates every year (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.2 Value-added: share of the Industry in a Strict Sense on the total value-added,
Italy, 1998-2004
Valore aggiunto Italia: quota dell'Industria in senso stretto
30,00

25,00

percentuale

20,00

15,00

10,00

5,00

0,00
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Anno
VA INDSS / VA TOTALE (%)

Despite a stagnation scenario for the Italian Industry in a Strict Sense during the observed span of time,
that sector has been a strong pillar in the economy of the country. As regards the percentage composition of the value-added, the Industry in a Strict Sense was still playing a leading role, giving almost one
fifth of the value-added of the global Italian economy: from a 23,88% in 1998, it went to a 21,37% in
2004, with a small decrease of little more than -2%, in favour of the third sector (Figure 2.2).
As regards the provincial level (Table A2.1, in the Appendix), the share of the value-added of the Industry in a Strict Sense in the total value-added was varying a lot from region to region, and even across
provinces of the same region. In the North of Italy, Piemonte, Lombardia, Veneto and Emilia Romagna were recording a much higher value than the respective national annual average, while Liguria,
Trentino Alto Adige and Valle dAosta were showing their characteristic economy based upon the Ser62

vices sector. In the Centre of Italy, only Lazio was below the national average, while in the South all the
regions were showing a value below the national average, with Calabria being at the bottom of the ranking, and with the only exception of Abruzzo showing a higher value than the national average.
Concerning the provinces of Italy, looking a the value-added, those ones of Veneto and Lombardia
were the provinces which were showing a vocation for industrial activities bigger than the others in the
country, while Reggio Calabria was having the lowest share of value-added on the total of Italy, as regards the Industry in a Strict Sense.
The majority of the local units of the Industry in a Strict Sense were concentrated in the divisions
Fabbricazione e lavorazione dei prodotti in metallo, esclusi macchine e impianti (Manufacture of
machinery and equipment n.e.c., Ateco 28), and Industrie alimentari e delle bevande (Manufacture
of food products and beverages, Ateco 15), whose total sum was representing more than one third of
the local units of the whole sector (Table 2.1).
The global trend of those years has been a growing one, coming from roughly 726.000 local units in
1998, going to the almost 777.000 local units in 2004, with an increase of almost +7%. At a sectorial
level, a progressive increase of local units in the period 1998-2004 has been recorded, with some divisions, such as divisions Ateco 28 and Ateco 36 (Fabbricazione di mobili e altre industrie manifatturiere, that is Manufacture of furniture and other manufacturing), which were recording strong variations in their number, and some other divisions, such as division 30 (Fabbricazione macchine per ufficio, di elaboratori e sistemi informatici, i.e. Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products), which were showing high increases in the percentage rate (division Ateco 30, e.g., has risen almost +54%, in that period). On the contrary, other divisions, such as division Ateco 20 (Industria del
legno e dei prodotti in legno e sughero, esclusi mobili; fabbricazione di articoli in materiali da intreccio
il legno, i.e., Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except furniture; manufacture
of articles of straw and plaiting materials), were showing a huge fall, being forced to close many local
productive units. From the table, moreover, the small number of local units in Italy operating in the energy sector (divisions Ateco 10 to Ateco 14) can be seen, with a decrease in numbers as regards the division Ateco 10 (Estrazione di carbon fossile e lignite-estrazione di torba, i.e., Mining of coal and
lignite), and Ateco 11 (Estrazione di petrolio greggio e gas naturale, i.e., Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas).
At a global level, Table 2.2 shows that the local units of Industry in a Strict Sense which were operating
in Italy during the period 1998-2004 were always around 13% of the total local units, and that they were
producing a share of the total value-added of the economy which was going from a minimum of 21,4%
(in 2004), to a maximum of 23,9% (in 1998).

63

Table 2.1 MUD: number of local units (UL) in the Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy, 1998-2004
Description of the activity (division) Ateco
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Estraz.carbon fossile e lignite-estraz.torba
10
57
58
54
50
52
47
43
Estraz.petrolio greggio e gas naturale
11
189
186
194
178
175
164
167
Estraz.minerali di uranio e di torio
12
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
Estrazione di minerali metalliferi
13
99
93
87
80
81
77
74
Altre industrie estrattive
14
7.135
7.152
7.182
7.237
7.269
7.315
7.412
Industrie alimentari e delle bevande
15
91.657 93.908 98.211 103.293 107.620 111.627 115.897
Industria del tabacco
16
240
279
276
260
244
237
190
Industrie tessili
17
42.791 41.739 41.210 40.672 39.391 38.014 39.002
Confez.articoli vestiario-prep.pellicce
18
59.298 58.354 57.667 57.252 57.098 56.485 52.694
Prep.e concia cuoio-fabbr.artic.viaggio
19
30.332 29.697 29.370 29.424 29.262 28.702 27.894
Ind.legno,esclusi mobili-fabbr.in paglia
20
62.097 61.534 61.011 60.557 59.899 59.358 57.157
Fabbric.pasta-carta,carta e prod.di carta
21
6.435
6.500
6.515
6.512
6.564
6.622
6.638
Editoria,stampa e riprod.supp.registrati
22
33.569 34.517 35.525 36.369 36.878 37.303 37.590
Fabbric.coke,raffinerie,combust.nucleari
23
1.105
1.134
1.179
1.234
1.283
1.335
1.032
Fabbric.prodotti chimici e fibre sintetiche
24
11.596 11.434 11.460 11.466 11.423 11.486 11.246
Fabbric.artic.in gomma e mat.plastiche
25
15.731 16.009 16.536 17.030 17.328 17.466 17.598
Fabbric.prodotti lavoraz.min.non metallif.
26
35.791 36.190 36.840 37.467 38.160 38.472 39.373
Produzione di metalli e loro leghe
27
7.026
7.112
7.042
6.838
6.723
6.601
6.438
Fabbricaz.e lav.prod.metallo,escl.macchine
28 115.229 116.746 120.050 124.283 127.216 129.213 129.569
Fabbric.macchine ed appar.mecc.,instal.
29
53.731 54.537 55.653 56.767 57.436 57.961 60.279
Fabbric.macchine per uff.,elaboratori
30
2.508
2.878
3.330
3.858
4.158
4.386
4.652
Fabbric.di macchine ed appar.elettr.n.c.a.
31
24.059 24.254 24.823 25.316 25.428 25.474 24.082
Fabbric.appar.radiotel.e app.per comunic.
32
11.039 11.082 10.864 10.427 10.123
9.874
8.273
Fabbric.appar.medicali,precis.,strum.ottici
33
30.548 30.718 31.090 31.752 32.061 32.184 32.470
Fabbric.autoveicoli,rimorchi e semirim.
34
3.340
3.454
3.797
4.079
4.284
4.382
4.651
Fabbric.di altri mezzi di trasporto
35
6.163
6.324
6.655
7.044
7.456
7.918
8.514
Fabbric.mobili-altre industrie manifatturiere
36
71.493 72.428 74.020 76.002 76.977 77.299 78.603
Produz.energia elettr.,gas,acqua calda
40
3.077
3.461
3.693
4.043
4.261
4.780
5.176
Total UL
726.339 731.782 744.338 759.493 768.853 774.785 776.717

Table 2.2 Share of the local units of the Industry in a Strict Sense on the total number of the UL,
Italy, 1998-2004

Year

Total UL

UL
Ind.S.S.

Percentage
of UL

1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004

5.329.392
5.408.784
5.521.019
5.622.366
5.718.477
5.801.947
5.901.960

726.339
731.782
744.338
759.493
768.853
774.785
776.717

13,63
13,53
13,48
13,51
13,45
13,35
13,16

Percentage
of valueadded
23,88
23,36
23,00
22,65
22,01
21,52
21,37

64

2.3 The MUD database (1998-2004)

The Legge n.70/1994, introducing rules for environmental protection practices (Norme per la semplificazione degli adempimenti in materia ambientale), has introduced the legal obligation to provide,
every year, the so called Unique Model of Environmental Statement (MUD: Modello Unico di Dichiarazione ambientale): by such a statement, those firms which, because of their economic activity,
produce and/or manage waste, municipal (urbani) and industrial (speciali), must give the statement on
how much is the weigh of their produced disposable materials. Besides giving the opportunity to get
over the existing fragmentation concerning the competences of the several bodies delegated to collect
environmental data, such a legislation has therefore made possible both an uniform data management
countrywide, and the creation of the MUD database, which was representing the most complete and
structured source of information as regards produced and managed waste in Italy. In the present research, only the data coming from the production of waste will be used for the analysis (database produttori), while the data coming from the waste-management firms will not be taken into account3.

2.3.1 The production of industrial waste according to the MUD data (1998-2004)
The global production of special waste (the word special is used in the aforementioned law when
dealing with all those waste which are different from municipal waste, i.e., broadly speaking, waste produced in everyday life by people: for that special waste, the MUD statement has to be provided by
firms) in Italy has recorded a strong increase in the time span 1998-2004. In 1998 the total amount of
stated special waste added up to little less than 52 millions of tons, going then to 69 millions of tons in
the year 2000, to come up to 95 millions in 2004 (Figure 2.3 and 2.4). During the same period, wastes
generated by Industry in a Strict Sense sector have raised from little less than 31 millions of tons in
1998, to 40 millions in 2000, up to 48 millions in 2004. In this period of time, the share of dangerouslabelled waste on the total amount of waste produced by the single Ind.S.S. sector has reached the value
of 10%4.
The total amount of waste was continuously growing in time (see Figure 2.3, Figure 2.4 and Figure 3.5),
with an increase of more than +80% in the years 1998-2004, while the increase of the Ind.S.S. ones has

3 In the present paper, the several quantities of waste will be always related to those quantities, stated by their respective
producers, which can be found in the MUD. In order not to weigh down the reader, the indication of produced about
waste will be omitted.
4 The mere change in legislation, e.g. the transposition into national law of the new (for that period) waste CER classification (Commission Decision of 3 May 2000, replacing Decision 94/3/EC), does not seem sufficient to explain such pronounced trends. Moreover, from the data of Table 2.3 it can be seen that the MUD statements in that period have increased
in their number by less than +2%, as regards Ind.S.S. sector, while the total number of MUD statements (all sectors) has
decreased by -4%, even if a growth of +2% can be registered in the period 2000-2004. The total increase of the stated quantity of waste does not seem to be related to an increase in the number of firms which start adopting the new procedure, but
to a true increase in the amount of generated waste.

65

been of +56%. If one looked at two different periods, the one 1998-200, and the other 2000-2004, it
can be noticed that such an increase has been much faster in the first span of time, rather than the second one, during which it is high anyway, with an increase of +36%, as concerns the quantity of stated
total waste, and of +18%, as regards the quantity of Ind.S.S. waste.
Therefore, while the growth of total special waste, produced by all the sectors together, was continuously increasing over time, Ind.S.S. waste was exhibiting a less definite growth, with diminishing positive rates, showing a little increase in the last year only (2004): looking at Figure 2.4, it can be seen that a
waste production range was existing between all the sectors together and the Industry in a Strict Sense
only, and such a difference can suggest that the set of sectors different from Ind.S.S. was contributing
to the increase of generated waste over time more than Ind.S.S..
A detailed analysis of the production of waste for each sector (Table A2.2, in the Appendix) displays
how this growth in those sectors different from Industry in a Strict Sense was led mainly by the sector
Ateco 90 (Smaltimento dei rifiuti solidi, delle acque di scarico e simili, i.e., Sewage and refuse disposal, sanitation and similar activities), whose production of waste goes from the 10,3 millions of tons
of the year 1998, to the 22,6 millions of the year 2004, highlighting that waste treatment and environmental cleaning have played a growing role in the generation of waste in those years. At the second
place of the top producers, Ateco 45 sector can be found (Costruzioni, i.e., Construction), whose
more than 8 millions of tons in 1998 double its value of the year 1998. Third is Ateco 51 (Commercio
allingrosso e intermediari del commercio, autoveicoli e motocicli esclusi, i.e., Wholesale trade and
commission trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles), with more than 2,5 millions of tons in
2004.
Every analysis at a sectorial level has to take into account the several certification duties introduced by
Legge n.70/1994: in fact, the law was allowing some categories not to provide the MUD statement,
thus resulting in more or less detailed analysis, depending on the incidence of the exempted sectors on
the global amount of waste production5.
The manufacturing activities (section D, Ateco 2002, from division 15 to division 37 included) as a
whole were resulting to be the most waste-production intensive (Figure 2.5), going to the 30 millions of
tons of the year 1998, to the almost 48 ones of the year 2004, showing a continuous growth in those
seven years. The other most waste-production intense division was the Ateco 90, which concerns the
sewage and refuse disposal activities, followed by the Construction division (Ateco 45), and the whole
sector of Services (Ateco 50 to 74, and 91 to 95).

5 For a close examination of those firms which have the obligation to present a MUD statement, the reader might see the
past and the current regulations.

66

Figure 2.3 Special waste in Italy, for each type, MUD database, 1998-2004 (tons)
Rifiuti speciali: totale Italia da MUD per tipo 1998-2004

100.000.000
90.000.000
80.000.000
70.000.000
60.000.000
Tonnellate

Pericolosi
Non classificati
Non pericolosi

50.000.000
40.000.000
30.000.000
20.000.000
10.000.000
0
1998

1999

2000

2001
Anno

2002

2003

2004

Figure 2.4 Special waste production, Italy, MUD database, 1998-2004 (tons)
Rifiuti speciali e rifiuti industriali in Italia, anni 1998-2004: volumi
100.000.000
90.000.000
80.000.000
70.000.000

Tonnellate

60.000.000
50.000.000
40.000.000
30.000.000
20.000.000
10.000.000
0
1998

1999

Rifiuti industriali Non Pericolosi

2000

2001

Rifiuti industriali Pericolosi

2002

Rifiuti industriali totale

2003

2004

Totale rifiuti da MUD

67

Figure 2.5 Special waste production, for each macro-sector, Italy, 1998-2004 (tons)

Rifiuti speciali totali, per macro-settore, anni 1998-2004

Non classificate
Trattamento rifiuti
Pubblica amministrazione
Servizi

2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998

Costruzioni
Energia elettrica, acqua e gas
Attivit manifatturiere
Estrazione di minerali
Agricoltura, caccia e pesca
0

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000
Tonnellate

30.000

35.000

40.000

45.000

50.000

Migliaia

68

2.4 Analysis of the coverage of the MUD database as regards the Industry in a
Strict Sense sector (1998-2004)

2.4.1 The overall context

As it has been briefly describe above, the overall industrial sector (and, inside this, the manufacturing
sector) was still predominant in terms of (stated) waste production in Italy. Therefore, all the following
analysis, and the related model, will be focussed on those divisions which form the Industry in a Strict
Sense sector, that is Mining and quarrying (Ateco 2002, division C), Manufacturing (Ateco 2002,
division D), and Electricity, gas and water supply (Ateco 2002, division E): those divisions, besides
having a predominant role in the Italian economy, were resulting to be the most waste-production intense, and to benefit the most from the information included in the MUD database. In fact, the law
D.Lgs. 22/1997 (and its subsequent integrations and modifications) was providing, among the rest, for
several exemptions from the obligation to submit ones own waste-production statement: this implies a
reduced availability of data in the MUD for those types of wastes which are peculiar to those activities
that can be under such an exemption6 (e.g., waste from sanitation, or non-dangerous waste from construction and demolition, or waste from repair of electrical household goods, or maintenance and repair
of motor vehicles).

Table 2.3 Number of MUD statements in Industry in a Strict Sense, with respect to the total number
of statements of the economic activities, Italy, 1998-2004
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004

Ind.S.S.
147.390
149.167
148.951
150.521
150.467
150.626
150.119

Total
484.497
464.366
450.491
448.741
448.706
454.456
463.364

Those divisions included in that definition of Industry in a Strict Sense relevant to this research are detailed in Table 2.4: such divisions were going to number Ateco 10 to number 40, with the exception of
the mere division 37, Recycling, because such an activity is not related to a production of waste due
to an economic activity per se, but it concerns waste treatment on behalf of its real producers.

The reader might see the past and current regulations.

69

Table 2.4 Ateco divisions relevant to this study

Economic activities

ISTAT ATECO
code

Estrazione di carbon fossile, lignite, torba

10

Estrazione di petrolio greggio e di gas naturale e servizi connessi, esclusa la prospezione

11

Estrazione di.minerali di uranio e di torio

Estrazione di minerali metalliferi
Altre industrie estrattive
Industrie alimentari e delle bevande
Industria del tabacco
Industrie tessili

12
13
14
15
16
17

Confezione di articoli di abbigliamento; preparazione, tintura e confezione di pellicce

18

Preparazione e concia del cuoio; fabbricazione di articoli da viaggio, borse, marocchinerai,

selleria e calzature
Industria del legno e dei prodotti in legno e sughero, esclusi mobili; fabbricazione di articoli
in materiali da intreccio
Fabbricazione della pasta-carta, della carta e del cartone, dei prodotti di carta; stampa ed editoria
Editoria, stampa e riproduzione di supporti registrati
Fabbricazione di coke, raffinerie di petrolio, trattamento dei combustibili nucleari
Fabbricazione di prodotti chimici e di fibre sintetiche e artificiali
Fabbricazione di articoli in gomma e di materie plastiche
Fabbricazione di prodotti della lavorazione di minerali non metalliferi
Metallurgia
Fabbricazione e lavorazione dei prodotti in metallo, esclusi macchine e impianti
Fabbricazione macchine ed apparecchi meccanici
Fabbricazione macchine per ufficio, di elaboratori e sistemi informatici
Fabbricazione di macchine ed apparecchi elettrici n.c.a.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

Fabbricazione apparecchi radiotelevisivi e di apparecchiature per le comunicazioni

32

Fabbricazione apparecchi medicali, apparecchi di precisione, di strumenti ottici e di orologi

33

Fabbricazione di autoveicoli, rimorchi e semirimorchi

Fabbricazione di altri mezzi di trasporto
Fabbricazione di mobili; altre industrie manifatturiere
Produzione e distribuzione di energia elettrica, di gas, di calore

34
35
36
40

70

As regards the period 1998-2004, the above sectors have presented about 150.000 statements per year:
they were encompassing almost one third of the total number of the MUD statements, for each considered year (Table 2.3), and they were producing more than one half of the total amount of waste, declared by the means of the MUD statements7 (Figure 2.4).
As concerns the temporal dimension, the descriptive analysis, carried out so far, starts from the MUD
data (and statements) of the year 1999, which are related to the quantities of waste produced in the year
1998, and ends with the MUD data (and statements) of the year 2005, which are related to waste produced in the year 2004. The analysis on the quantity of produced waste has led to think about the possible existence of a structural break around the year 20008: such an hypothesis will be statistically tested.
In order to have a complete framework of the information included in the MUD database, a descriptive
analysis of MUD data (starting from the 1999 statement, related to the 1998 waste) will follow.

2.4.2 Coverage in terms of economic activity (1998-2004)

Before using MUD data in the econometric tests, their quality and their coverage rate, related to the
studied period, have to be observed.
Valuing the quality of the data and the coverage of the MUD database is not as easily direct: this is not
only because the several changes in the legislation, occurred during the years, but also and mainly because the set of economic players that produce waste, and the other set of players that are bound to
provide the MUD statement, do not coincide. In fact, many exemptions were given, resulting in many
firms which are not bound by law to give the MUD statement, even if they do produce waste9.
For the analyzed period, the law was not providing for the rules to follow in order to create a precise
registry for those firms bound to present the MUD statement: anyway, the Registry of Enterprises of
the Chambers of Commerce has been used to value the coverage of the database, since every firm had
the obligation by law to subscribe to that registry, in the province where such a firm operates. The coverage has been calculated by comparing the number of firms local units which give the MUD statement with the total number of (actively operating) local units registered in the Enterprises Registry10.

The share of waste from Industry in a Strict Sense on the total of waste, declared in the MUD database, in that period, has
gone from around 60% to around 50%.
7

Quite a big difference, both in the number of statements, and in the quantities of waste, during the years 1998 and 1999,
seemed to be in contrast with what has happened from the year 2000: it might have been due to the change in the CER
codes, and therefore the period 1998-1999 might be considered a sort of learning and updating period for firms.

9 Of course, another cause that might affect the coverage of the MUD database is the possible evasion, by some firms and
for some kind of waste, of the obligation to present the statement.
10 A comparison based on the number of local units seemed better than one based on the number of workers of those local
units.

71

The degree of coverage thus obtained is the percentage ratio between the single MUD data item and its
corresponding data item in the Registry of Enterprises: that is, the degree of coverage tells how many
local units give their MUD statement every hundred of local units operating in that given sector, or in
that given province, if the geographical dimension is considered. This coverage is reported in Table 2.5:
it shows that, on average, one fifth of those firms registered in the Registry of Enterprises11 have given
their MUD statement in the period 1998-2004. Such a coverage, then, varies across sectors and divisions, depending on the size of their average firm: it goes from the value of about 5% in all the considered time span for the division Manufacture of wearing apparel; dressing and dyeing of fur (Ateco
18), to values under 10% for some divisions such as Mining of metal ores (Ateco 13) or Manufacture of office machinery and computers (Ateco 30), and to values over 50% for the division Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas; service activities incidental to oil and gas extraction, excluding
surveying (Ateco 11). As much the variability of the database coverage among sectors is, as much variable the increase or decrease trend of the local units of sectors: there were not unique trends of growth
only or decrease only, but different behaviours according to the sector. Against a high sectorial dynamism, a certain stability of the global national data can be found (given by the ratio between all the local
units in the MUD and all the local units of the Register of Enterprises): as said before, that value lies
around 20%, with a maximum in 1999 (20,38%), and a minimum in 2004 (19,33%).
A possible explanation of such a variability among sectors might be represented by the different incidence of handcraft companies on the total number of companies12, and, particularly in this case, by the
massive presence, in the studied sectors, of handcraft companies that might not be bound to present
the MUD statement13: in fact, the predominant size among the Italian firms is the small enterprise, be it
a handcraft company or not. As an example, focussing on manufacturing sector, the data from Eurostat
for 2003 show how Italy had got an industrial fabric in which the productive units with less than 20
employees was around less than 93% of the total (Centro Studi Confindustria, 2006). This share goes
up to 99,7% if one considers the number of the productive units which are classified as SME (Small or
Medium Enterprises, PMI), that is with a number of workers lower than 250, thus showing how little
active is the big enterprise's dimension in Italy. Such an importance of those small manufacturing firms
in the Italian productive system was confirmed also by those data concerning their weight on both the
employment and the revenues of this sector. In the year 2003, e.g., almost 41% of the workers in this

Local units are distinct productive or administrative bodies of the company: see the Circolare del Ministero
dellIndustria, del Commercio e dellArtigianato n. 3202/C del 22 gennaio 1990.
11

12 In the studied period, handcraft companies (in accordance with the article 2083 of the Civil Code) with less than three
employees, and which do not produce dangerous-labelled waste, were not bound to present the MUD statement.

Handcraft companies are defined by Legge n.433/1985, which gives a broader definition of them than the one given by
the Civil Code. See the current regulations for the details.

13

72

sector (more than 4,7 millions of workers, in total) was employed in companies with less than 19 workers, and 78,8% was employed in firms with less than 250 workers.
The strong orientation of the national economy towards the small dimensions firms (whose category
the handcraft company is a member) may explain, therefore, the very low coverage of the MUD database in some sectors, as the very low coverage percentage in some regions or provinces might be suggested by the high or low presence of the small handcraft company, as well as by the prevailing presence of some other kind of companies which are exempted to submit the MUD statement14.

Summing up, in the period 1998-2004, according to Legge n. 70/1994, these categories were exempted to submit the
MUD statement (in Italian):

14

A) "Real" entrepreneurial activities:

a) le imprese agricole (da articolo 2135 del Codice Civile) con volumi daffari sotto i 15 milioni di Lire o 8 mila Euro, sia che producano
rifiuti pericolosi, sia che producano rifiuti non pericolosi;
b) le imprese artigiane (da articolo 2083 del Codice Civile) con meno di tre dipendenti che producono rifiuti non pericolosi
c) i produttori di rifiuti sanitari, che dovevano essere termo-distrutti in appositi centri;
d) i produttori di rifiuti derivanti da attivit di costruzione e demolizione, ma solo per i rifiuti non pericolosi;
e) i produttori di rifiuti di apparecchiature elettriche ed elettroniche;
f) i produttori di rifiuti derivanti da veicoli fuori uso;
g) i produttori di rifiuti che li conferivano al servizio pubblico di raccolta (in questo caso la comunicazione veniva effettuata dal gestore del
servizio, limitatamente alla quantit conferita).
B) A series of specific subjects, such as:
a) i rivenditori firmatari, tramite le proprie associazioni di categoria, di accordi di programma stipulati per favorire la restituzione di beni
durevoli, relativamente alle attivit di ritiro, trasporto e stoccaggio di tali beni;
b) i soggetti abilitati allo svolgimento delle attivit di raccolta e trasporto di rifiuti in forma ambulante, limitatamente ai rifiuti che formano oggetto del loro commercio;
c) i soggetti che svolgevano attivit di raccolta, trasporto, stoccaggio e pre-trattamento del materiale specifico a rischio, come disciplinate dal
D.M. 29/09/2000;
d) i soggetti che svolgevano attivit di raccolta, trasporto, stoccaggio e trasformazione dei materiali ad alto e basso rischio, disciplinati dal
D.Lgs. 508/1992;
e) i soggetti che svolgevano attivit di raccolta, trasporto, stoccaggio e trasformazione degli altri materiali e dei prodotti derivati, destinati
alla distruzione (ai sensi del D.L. 11 gennaio 2001, n. 1, come convertito in legge 9 marzo 2001 n. 49).

73

Table 2.5 Coverage (in % of local units of the Registro delle Imprese, RI) of the MUD database, Industry in a Strict Sense, 1998-2004

Ateco
10
11
13
14 + 12
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
40
Italy

Economic activity
Estraz.carbon fossile e lignite-estraz.torba
Estraz.petrolio greggio e gas naturale
Estrazione di minerali metalliferi
Altre industrie estrattive (inclusa l'estraz. di uranio e torio)
Industrie alimentari e delle bevande
Industria del tabacco
Industrie tessili
Confez.articoli vestiario-prep.pellicce
Prep.e concia cuoio-fabbr.artic.viaggio
Ind.legno,esclusi mobili-fabbr.in paglia
Fabbric.pasta-carta,carta e prod.di carta
Editoria,stampa e riprod.supp.registrati
Fabbric.coke,raffinerie,combust.nucleari
Fabbric.prodotti chimici e fibre sintetiche
Fabbric.artic.in gomma e mat.plastiche
Fabbric.prodotti lavoraz.min.non metallif.
Produzione di metalli e loro leghe
Fabbricaz.e lav.prod.metallo,escl.macchine
Fabbric.macchine ed appar.mecc.,instal.
Fabbric.macchine per uff.,elaboratori
Fabbric.di macchine ed appar.elettr.n.c.a.
Fabbric.appar.radiotel.e app.per comunic.
Fabbric.appar.medicali,precis.,strum.ottici
Fabbric.autoveicoli,rimorchi e semirim.
Fabbric.di altri mezzi di trasporto
Fabbric.mobili-altre industrie manifatturiere
Produz.energia elettr.,gas,acqua calda

UL MUD
14
123
8
2.209
9.627
62
5.678
2.990
8.254
10.676
2.366
11.946
359
3.557
6.591
10.221
2.746
28.627
13.598
193
3.442
930
5.693
1.289
1.791
12.997
1.403
147.390

1998
UL RI
57
189
99
7.139
91.657
240
42.791
59.298
30.332
62.097
6.435
33.569
1.105
11.596
15.731
35.791
7.026
115.229
53.731
2.508
24.059
11.039
30.548
3.340
6.163
71.493
3.077
726.339

Coverage %
24,56
65,08
8,08
30,94
10,50
25,83
13,27
5,04
27,21
17,19
36,77
35,59
32,49
30,67
41,90
28,56
39,08
24,84
25,31
7,70
14,31
8,42
18,64
38,59
29,06
18,18
45,60

UL MUD
9
129
5
2.278
9.807
84
5.696
3.213
7.911
10.486
2.419
12.043
400
3.627
6.740
10.239
2.853
29.824
14.160
201
3.647
937
4.910
1.372
1.831
12.671
1.675

20,29

149.167

1999
UL RI
58
186
93
7.156
93.908
279
41.739
58.354
29.697
61.534
6.500
34.517
1.134
11.434
16.009
36.190
7.112
116.746
54.537
2.878
24.254
11.082
30.718
3.454
6.324
72.428
3.461
731.782

Coverage %
15,52
69,35
5,38
31,83
10,44
30,11
13,65
5,51
26,64
17,04
37,22
34,89
35,27
31,72
42,10
28,29
40,12
25,55
25,96
6,98
15,04
8,46
15,98
39,72
28,95
17,49
48,40
20,38

UL MUD
6
147
7
2.280
9.792
64
5.678
3.069
7.716
10.325
2.396
11.771
376
3.635
6.859
10.356
2.877
30.473
14.529
218
3.768
931
4.434
1.424
1.947
12.402
1.471

2000
UL RI
54
194
87
7.186
98.211
276
41.210
57.667
29.370
61.011
6.515
35.525
1.179
11.460
16.536
36.840
7.042
120.050
55.653
3.330
24.823
10.864
31.090
3.797
6.655
74.020
3.693

148.951

744.338

Coverage %
11,11
75,77
8,05
31,73
9,97
23,19
13,78
5,32
26,27
16,92
36,78
33,13
31,89
31,72
41,48
28,11
40,85
25,38
26,11
6,55
15,18
8,57
14,26
37,50
29,26
16,75
39,83
20,01

74

Table 2.5 continued

2001
2002
2003
2004
Ateco UL MUD UL RI Coverage % UL MUD UL RI Coverage % UL MUD UL RI Coverage % UL da MUD UL RI Coverage %
10
7
50
14,00
6
52
11,54
7
47
14,89
6
43
13,95
11
148
178
83,15
91
175
52,00
128
164
78,05
92
167
55,09
13
8
80
10,00
5
81
6,17
3
77
3,90
7
74
9,46
14 + 12
2.307
7.240
31,86
2.256
7.272
31,02
2.304
7.318
31,48
2.319
7.415
31,27
15
9.859 103.293
9,54
9.752 107.620
9,06
9.960 111.627
8,92
9.947 115.897
8,58
16
64
260
24,62
58
244
23,77
70
237
29,54
48
190
25,26
17
5.587 40.672
13,74
5.408 39.391
13,73
5.173 38.014
13,61
4.931 39.002
12,64
18
3.179 57.252
5,55
3.072 57.098
5,38
2.989 56.485
5,29
2.930 52.694
5,56
19
7.706 29.424
26,19
7.391 29.262
25,26
7.282 28.702
25,37
6.873 27.894
24,64
20
10.472 60.557
17,29
10.596 59.899
17,69
10.643 59.358
17,93
10.645 57.157
18,62
21
2.403
6.512
36,90
2.418
6.564
36,84
2.441
6.622
36,86
2.462
6.638
37,09
22
11.641 36.369
32,01
11.544 36.878
31,30
11.297 37.303
30,28
11.074 37.590
29,46
23
392
1.234
31,77
392
1.283
30,55
405
1.335
30,34
427
1.032
41,38
24
3.699 11.466
32,26
3.771 11.423
33,01
3.794 11.486
33,03
3.989 11.246
35,47
25
6.922 17.030
40,65
6.846 17.328
39,51
6.838 17.466
39,15
6.828 17.598
38,80
26
10.513 37.467
28,06
10.572 38.160
27,70
10.749 38.472
27,94
10.849 39.373
27,55
27
2.933
6.838
42,89
2.901
6.723
43,15
2.915
6.601
44,16
2.874
6.438
44,64
28
31.139 124.283
25,05
31.569 127.216
24,82
31.861 129.213
24,66
32.024 129.569
24,72
29
14.779 56.767
26,03
14.925 57.436
25,99
14.986 57.961
25,86
15.236 60.279
25,28
30
237
3.858
6,14
227
4.158
5,46
239
4.386
5,45
224
4.652
4,82
31
3.815 25.316
15,07
3.864 25.428
15,20
3.859 25.474
15,15
3.869 24.082
16,07
32
967 10.427
9,27
944 10.123
9,33
934
9.874
9,46
907
8.273
10,96
33
4.257 31.752
13,41
4.302 32.061
13,42
4.264 32.184
13,25
4.237 32.470
13,05
34
1.438
4.079
35,25
1.461
4.284
34,10
1.465
4.382
33,43
1.492
4.651
32,08
35
1.934
7.044
27,46
1.983
7.456
26,60
2.039
7.918
25,75
2.125
8.514
24,96
36
12.578 76.002
16,55
12.431 76.977
16,15
12.237 77.299
15,83
11.974 78.603
15,23
40
1.537
4.043
38,02
1.682
4.261
39,47
1.744
4.780
36,49
1.730
5.176
33,42
Italy

150.521

759.493

19,82

150.467

768.853

19,57

150.626

774.785

19,44

150.119

776.717

19,33

75

2.4.3 Coverage in terms geographic divisions (1998-2004)

The MUD coverage shows a quite high variability also when taking the geographical partitions into account.
With reference to the 2004 data from MUD database (Table A2.4), it can be seen that the percentage of
enterprises which give the MUD statement is higher in the north of Italy, with the North-East showing
higher values due to its more widespread structure of firms: it goes from the 26,3% of Veneto region
(in which the province of Vicenza has the most representative value, around 33%), to the 24,6% of
Friuli Venezia Giulia (with Pordenone scoring a 32%), against the lower values of Piemonte (19,8%)
and Lombardia (21,9%). In the centre of Italy, the internal homogeneity of two regions stands out:
Marche, with its 27,4% (and all its provinces over the 26%), and Toscana (around 19%), with Pisa and
Siena at first places. In the South and in the Islands, all the percentages go down, mostly remaining under the 2004 Italian average value (19,3%): this is because their economic fabric sees the medium enterprise being lowly represented in those areas, while the big industrial groups (belonging to the inspected
sectors) have a strong presence in some provinces, when in some others (e.g., Brindisi.) they show a
small intervention. Moreover, within the same region different values can be observed, be it in the
North, or in the South: one need to think of the spread between the 17% of Rovigo and the 33% of
Vicenza (both in Veneto), or between the 11% of Prato and the 28% of Pisa (both in Toscana). In the
South, conversely, the differences in-between provinces are not as stressed as in the Centre and in the
North, as well as the spread between regions show their highest value concerning Calabria, with its 6%,
and Abruzzo, with its 16%.
In Figure 2.6 the geographical distribution of coverage rates for the year 1998, at provincial level, in Italy, are shown (details in Table A2.5), while in Figure 2.7 the same distribution stands for 2004, whilst
in Figure 2.8 the difference between the two years has been reported: in the last, one can see the
marked difference between the North and the South, with the North-East being the area with the provinces with the highest rates. The national average went down by half a percentage point, going from
19,39% to a 18,89%. Marche, Lombardia, Veneto, Friuli Venezia Giulia and Emilia Romagna exhibit
coverage rates over 20% during all that period, while in some regions like Calabria they were hardly
reaching 5%.
As a comparison, five provinces have been randomly selected15 (Table 2.6): among them, only Venezia
stays above the national coverage average (with a 21,85%), even if it is under the regional average of
Veneto (26,27%). Milano is a bit lower than the Italian average (19,16%), while Genova, Roma and
LAquila lay well below such an average (as well as their respective home regions ).

15

Such a sample will be widely used for illustration purposes in this research.

76

Table 2.6 Coverage (%) of the MUD local units with respect to the RE local units, as for Industry in a
Strict Sense, 2004: 5 randomly sampled provinces
MUD local RE local
MUD/RE 2004 %
units 2004 units 2004
11.602
60.557
19,16
Milano
2.338
10.702
21,85
Venezia
1.135
9.860
11,51
Genova
4.139
25.236
16,40
Roma
450
3.290
13,68
L'Aquila
150.119
776.717
19,33
Italy
Province

Figure 2.6 Coverage (%) of the MUD local units

with respect to the RE local units, as for Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: 1998

Legenda
Copertura
% 1998
inferiore a 10,00
10,00 - 14,99
15,00 - 19,99
20,00 - 24,99
25,00 - 29,99
30,00 e oltre

77

Figure 2.7 Coverage (%) of the MUD local units

with respect to the RE local units, as for Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: 2004

Legenda
Copertura
% 2004
inferiore a 10,00
10,00 - 14,99
15,00 - 19,99
20,00 - 24,99
25,00 - 29,99
30,00 e oltre

Figure 2.8 Coverage (%) of the MUD local units

with respect to the RE local units, as for Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy:
variations, 1998-2004

Legenda
Copertura
Variazione % 1998-2004
fino a 0%
1% - 5%
6% - 10%
11% - 15%
16% - 20%
21% - 25%
oltre 25%

78

2.4.4 Methodological insights about the quality and the representativeness of the MUD database (1998-2004)
The high variability of the coverage information, both at sectorial level, and at provincial level, has been
due to several legislative, institutional and structural factors.
First, the restrictions imposed by the legislation in force as of 1998, and up to 2004, have to be considered: the body of laws states who is bound to present the MUD statement, and how, and what its limitations and duties are; it can even exclude some actors who can effectively produce waste during their
economic activity. Taking briefly into account the MUD database and its regulations in the selected period, the first and most evident feature is that not all those who produce waste are legally bound to declare it: the subset of those individuals bound to give the statement is extremely heterogeneous, and
such a heterogeneity was being raised by the new regulations that were modifying the different duties
and who would have been the different actors bound to present that statement, with the result of creating some confusion for those who were originally forced to have that statement.
A voluntary, or not, error in accomplishing ones own duties join the legislative prescriptions, thus
modifying the coverage reliability of the MUD database. Concerning the first kind of error, it might be
the case in which some firms are bound to submit their MUD statement, but they do not do it simply
because they are not aware of such a requirement; or they do it, but they do it in a wrong way. As regards the second kind of error, instead, some firms could deliberately limit the quantities of their waste;
some of them could decide to stop producing waste at all; some of them might decide not to submit
that statement, although being bound by law (even if such a case cannot be estimated by available data).
The analysis of the coverage here presented takes exclusively into account the data found in the MUD
database, and it does not consider some modifications that might improve the information about the
coverage: such modifications have not been implemented in the present work because, in the analyzed
database, only data of waste directly produced by the firm who declares it are present, and not data of
collectors and managers of waste on behalf of other companies (the ones that produce that waste, and
then have other specialized firms collecting it).
As regards the improvement of the coverage (and its subsequent increase in the precision of the study),
the two main categories which were exempted to submit the statement have to be considered: the
handcraft companies with less than 3 employees (and only as regards their dangerous-labelled waste),
and the local units which were directly giving away their waste to the public waste collectors: both of
them would not be found in the set of MUD statements, being thus excluded from the numerator of
the ratio but not from the denominator, but one would be able to find them using the statements of
those waste-management firms. In fact, as regards the first category, its members might have given
away their waste to waste-collecting firms (which are thus bound to declare this amount and its producer): so, analyzing data of waste coming from waste-managing firms, it would have been possible to
79

trace the handcraft firms local units that, even if they had not presented that statement, have though
given away their waste to specialized companies.
Concerning the delivery of waste to the public system of waste collection, it was regarding those waste
quantities that could have been equated to the so called municipal waste. Aside from directly throwing
away waste into garbage bins (being not able to get any information about who threw it away), an
agreement between waste producers and waste-managing institutes might have been secured, by which
the seconds would have provided garbage bins: by collecting this waste, therefore, those institutes
would have had to provide all the data about the firms which they take garbage from. In such a way it is
possible to go back to the economic actors who really have produced that waste, and therefore to include them in the calculation of the coverage.

80

2.5 The MUD database: quantitative analysis of the production of waste

The following descriptive analysis wants to provide an overview of the production of waste of Industry
in a Strict Sense (here, Ateco divisions 10 to 36, plus 40), both from a geographical point of view, and
from a sectorial point of view. As regards the first, the analysis will be carried out taking into account
the macro-regions which Italy is usually divided into, and then its regions and provinces. Then the
analysis will cover the waste production of the different productive sectors.

2.5.1 The geographic dimension: a quantitative analysis

2.5.1.1 Italy and its macro-regions

The national-level data show how wastes from Industry in a Strict Sense are regularly growing in the
period 1998-2004 (Figure 2.4 and Table 2.7).

Figure 2.9 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: 1998-2004

50.000.000
45.000.000
40.000.000
35.000.000
30.000.000
Tonnellate 25.000.000
20.000.000
15.000.000
10.000.000
5.000.000
0
1998

1999

2000

Non pericolosi

2001

Pericolosi

2002

2003

2004

Non classificati

In such a span of time, indeed, the value goes from the 30.607.336 tons of waste produced in 1998, to
the 47.662.730 tons in 2004, with an increase of +56% in that period (Table 2.7). The year 1999 is the
one which records the highest increment with respect to the previous year, with a variation of 6 millions of tons, resulting in almost the 20% of the whole waste production in 1998.

81

Table 2.7 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy, by label: 1998-2004
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Non-dangerous 27.989.686 34.019.840 37.582.800 39.606.622 40.260.489 40.440.231 42.871.255
Dangerous
2.582.688 2.621.914 2.841.607 3.078.684 3.389.207 3.628.138 4.785.396
Not classified
34.962
9.733
3.577
9.374
8.021
4.516
6.079
Total

30.607.336 36.651.487 40.427.983 42.694.681 43.657.717 44.072.885 47.662.730

A first feasible explanation of such an increase might have been the fact that the quoted was period
corresponding to the beginning of the implementation of the new MUD regulations: it can be supposed that waste producers of those sectors had not yet become used to the new system of rules, which
became effective during the first year of that period, and thus it can be explained the strong increase of
the first year16.
By looking at the data concerning the different waste labels, it may be observed that this increase has
been due (in absolute value) mainly to the non-dangerous waste category (Table 2.8): in fact, these had
increased by +53% in the period, with a first jump of +22% between 1998 and 1999, and a second
lower jump of about +11%, with respect to the 1998 value, in 2004. On the other hand, even if less
important for the value of the total amount of waste, it is worth noting that dangerous waste had increased by roughly +85% between 1998 and 2004, with a peak in the last year, when it rose by +45%
(with respect to the 1998 value), that is, by more than a million of tons.

Table 2.8 Waste production, Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy, by label: indices, 1998-2004
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Non-dangerous 100 122 134 142 144 144 153
Dangerous
100 102 110 119 131 140 185
Not classified
100
28
10
27
23
13
17
Total

100

120

132

139

143

144

156

Besides peculiarities of the Italian economic and entrepreneurial development, it might be supposed
that, in some way, this increase has been caused by the transposition and the application of the new
European waste classification (Commission Decision 532, of May the 3rd 2000), becoming effective
from the 2003 statement. A change in codes, however, may explain some structural variations in the internal process of the statement declarations, but those changes that may appear as mere accounting
changes (due to the change in the regulations) are not sufficiently able to explain such a strong increasing trend. Moreover, a major change in the number of individuals presenting the statement has not

16

It may be that the years 1998 and 1999 were a sort of learning period for the new CER codifications.

82

taken place, neither in that year, nor during the entire period: in fact, the total number of local units of
Industry in a Strict Sense, presenting the MUD statement, has changed from about 147.000 to 150.000,
that is an increase of +1% (in the time span 1998-2004). Basically, the increase in the declared quantities was not seeming to be due to an increase of the number of statements, nor it is reasonable to think
that a simple change in codes could be responsible for such a rise: the conclusion is that this growth has
been due to a simple increase of the average quantity of produced waste, declared in each statement.

Table 2.9 Waste production, Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy, by label:

composition (%), 1998-2004
Non-dangerous
Dangerous
Not classified
Total

1998
91,45
8,44
0,11

1999
92,82
7,15
0,03

2000
92,96
7,03
0,01

2001
92,77
7,21
0,02

2002
92,22
7,76
0,02

2003
91,76
8,23
0,01

2004
89,95
10,04
0,01

100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00

Concerning the relative percentage composition of waste (Table 2.9), it can also be noticed how the
proportion between dangerous, non-dangerous and not classified waste exhibits mostly small percentage variations from year to year, with the share of dangerous waste over the total waste reaching its
maximum in 2004, being almost 10% of the total. An element that may confirm a kind of learning
process (and its influence over the stated quantities of waste, and over its own composition) by those
who provide the MUD statement is that the not classified waste has shown a strong decrease in 19982004, nearly -83%.
By taking into account the macro-regions (or macro-areas) which the Italian socio-economic fabric is
usually divided into, it can be seen how most of the production of waste in the country has been due to
firms in the North: as a whole, the North went from its almost 19 millions of tons in 1998, to more
than 29 millions of tons in 2004 (Table 2.10 and Figure 2.10), with an increase of about +53% in that
period.
Table 2.10 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy, by macro-regions: absolute value
and percentage variation, 1998-2004
North-West North-East Centre South and Islands
1998
9.043.104
9.856.496 5.387.939
6.319.798
1999
11.202.068 12.145.418 5.792.974
7.511.026
2000
12.956.504 13.050.103 6.351.980
8.069.397
2001
13.793.340 14.001.618 6.243.635
8.656.088
2002
14.818.952 14.105.717 6.448.037
8.285.011
2003
15.122.159 13.599.398 6.038.926
9.312.402
2004
15.617.303 13.462.208 6.182.547
12.400.671
1998 - 2004 +72,70%
+36,58% +14,75%
+96,22%

Italy
30.607.336
36.651.487
40.427.983
42.694.681
43.657.717
44.072.885
47.662.730
+55,72%

83

The North-East saw a production of waste bigger than the North-West, during the years 1998-2001,
while from 2002 the area recording the highest absolute values has become the North-West, with its
more than 15 millions of tons in 2004. In percentage terms, in this period, the North-East has increased its production by +37%, while the North-West exhibits a stronger increase, equal to +73%
(which is higher than the national average of that period, equal to +56%).
Within the year 2003, moreover, an increase in the production of dangerous-labelled waste can be seen
in the North-West (Figure 2.1), while in the North-East the same kind of production has grown, in
percentage terms, for all the period. Moreover, in the North-East a decrease in the production of waste
took place in the years 2003 and 2004, with the peak of its production in 2003: such a trend was not
registered for the North-West.
The Centre showed, instead, a much smaller momentum in comparison with the other macro-regions
(Figure 2.13), having a percentage increase of +15%, well below the national average: waste of the industries in the Centre went from almost 5,4 millions of tons to about 6,2 millions of tons, with a peak
in 2002.

Figure 2.10 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, North of Italy, by label: 1998-2004
Produzione di rifiuti speciali dell'industria in senso stretto (tonnellate): Nord Italia
35.000.000

30.000.000

tonnellate

25.000.000

20.000.000

Non pericolosi
Pericolosi
Non classificati
Totale

15.000.000

10.000.000

5.000.000

0
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

84

Figure 2.11 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, North-West of Italy, by label:
1998-2004
Produzione di rifiuti speciali dell'industria in senso stretto (tonnellate): Nord-Ovest
16.000.000

14.000.000

12.000.000

Tonnellate

10.000.000
Non pericolosi
Pericolosi
Non classificati
Totale

8.000.000

6.000.000

4.000.000

2.000.000

0
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Figure 2.12 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, North-East of Italy,
by label: 1998-2004
Produzione di rifiuti speciali dell'industria in senso stretto (tonnellate): Nord-Est
16.000.000

14.000.000

12.000.000

Tonnellate

10.000.000
Non pericolosi
Pericolosi
Non classificati
Totale

8.000.000

6.000.000

4.000.000

2.000.000

0
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

85

Figure 2.13 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Centre of Italy, by label: 1998-2004
Produzione di rifiuti speciali dell'industria in senso stretto (tonnellate): Centro
16.000.000

14.000.000

12.000.000

Tonnellate

10.000.000
Non pericolosi
Pericolosi
Non classificati
Totale

8.000.000

6.000.000

4.000.000

2.000.000

0
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Figure 2.14 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, South of Italy and Islands, by label:
1998-2004
Produzione di rifiuti speciali dell'industria in senso stretto (tonnellate): Sud e Isole
16.000.000

14.000.000

12.000.000

Tonnellate

10.000.000
Non pericolosi
Pericolosi
Non classificati
Totale

8.000.000

6.000.000

4.000.000

2.000.000

0
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Last, the South of Italy and its Islands showed a much more differentiated dynamics during time (Figure 2.14): after an increase in the years 1998-2001, a decrease in production took place in 2002, a recovery in 2003, and a sudden jump in 2004, when the amount of waste has risen by about 3 millions, equal
to an increase of roughly +33%, in terms of the previous year 2003. As a whole, the South and the Islands have seen their waste almost doubling in that period, with an increase of more than 6 millions of
86

tons, equal to +96%: from a label point of view, it can be seen an increase of the dangerous-labelled
waste in 2004, reaching the value of 1,9 millions of tons.

Table 2.11 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy:

per worker and per local unit values, 1998-2004

9,23
10,88
11,69
12,60
13,06
13,30
14,75

Variation %
Variation %
Per local unit waste
with respect the previous year
with respect the previous year
-217,30
-+17,93
255,43
+17,55
+7,40
279,90
+9,58
+7,77
292,30
+4,43
+3,68
297,65
+1,83
+1,89
299,43
+0,60
+10,84
324,81
+8,48

+59,81 %

+49,48 %

Per worker waste

1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1998 - 2004

Also from a productive unit point of view (Table 2.11), it can be recorded an increase in the production
of waste, both considering (Figure 2.15) waste per worker (and those workers are employees of those
firms local units which provide the MUD statement), and (Figure 2.16) waste per local unit (providing
the MUD statement). The amount of waste per worker has increased by almost +60% in the span
1998-2004, going from almost 9 tons per worker, to almost 15 per worker, with the most growing years
being 1999 and 2004 (respectively, +18% and +11%, with respect to the previous year). Similarly, the
quantities of waste produced by the local units have exhibited a strong rise: from the 217 tons per local
unit of the year 1998, to the almost 325 tons per local unit in 2004, with an increase of more than
+49%. As a whole, thus, the environmental efficiency of the productive units (be it workers or local
units) has worsened, and it has happened more as regards the per worker amount, rather than the per
local unit amount17.
Moreover, such an increase, per worker and per local unit, may indicate that: a) with a rise in the level
of waste, there has not been a similar growth in the number of firms and enterprises; b) the production
of waste has risen, on average, more than the environmental efficiency of each local unit (and each
worker).
This high growth rate in terms of productive local unit, still, does not take into account all the several
socio-economic components which have contributed to the rise of the numerator of the ratio (that is
the used indicator), but it briefly tells that a worsening in what can be considered an environmental efficiency of labour has occurred: nevertheless, the two per capita plots confirm the trend observed in the
previous graphs, being able to assert that in the considered period a generalized increase in waste pro17 This might have been due to the fact that the improvements in environmental protection are more easily done at a unit
level (e.g., some filters installed in a local unit), rather than a single worker level.

87

duction has taken place, which has not been combined with improvements in terms of per capita environmental efficiency, nor with better economic performances (see 3.3.1.1, about the value-added).
Also the analysis at a provincial level confirms the growth trend of the quantity of per local unit waste
(Figure 2.17, 2.18 and 2.19), and of per worker waste (Figure 2.20, 2.21 and 2.22): in the following plots
the provincial data for the indicator have been reported for 1998 and for 2004, and also its variation
during all the period has been shown.

Figure 2.15 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: per worker values, 1998-2004
Rifiuti dell'Industria in senso stretto per addetto (nelle UL che producono), in Italia: tonnellate per
addetto
16

14

tonnellate per addetto

12

10
Non pericolosi pro-addetto
Pericolosi pro-addetto
Totali pro-addetto

0
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Figure 2.16 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: per local unit values, 1998-2004
Rifiuti dell'Industria in senso stretto per UL che produce, in Italia: tonnellate per unit locale
350

300

tonnellate per UL

250

200
Non pericolosi pro-UL
Pericolosi pro-UL
Totali pro-UL
150

100

50

0
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

88

Figure 2.17 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: per local unit values, 1998

Legenda
Rif su UL, 1998
fino a 85
86 - 175
176 - 300
301 - 500
501 - 750
751 - 1.800
oltre 1.800

Figure 2.18 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: per local unit values, 2004

Legenda
Rif su UL, 2004
fino a 85
86 - 175
176 - 300
301 - 500
501 - 750
751 - 1.800
oltre 1.800

89

Figure 2.19 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy:

per local unit values, variations (%), 1998-2004

Legenda
Rif su UL
Variazione % 1998-2004
fino a 0%
1% - 5%
6% - 10%
11% - 15%
16% - 20%
21% - 25%
oltre 25%

Figure 2.20 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: per worker values, 1998

Legenda
Rif su ADD, 1998
fino a 5
6 - 10
11 - 15
16 - 20
21 - 25
26 - 30
oltre 30

90

Figure 2.21 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: per worker values, 2004

Legenda
Rif su ADD, 2004
fino a 5
6 - 10
11 - 15
16 - 20
21 - 25
26 - 30
oltre 30

Figure 2.22 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy:

per worker values, variations (%), 1998-2004

Legenda
Rif su ADD
Variazione % 1998-2004
fino a 0%
1% - 24%
25% - 49%
50% - 74%
75% - 99%
100% - 499%
500% e oltre

91

As regards the random sample of 5 provinces, Milano and Roma showed a per local unit production of
waste (Table 2.12) lower than the national average during all the period (both even below their own
home regional average), while Venezia, Genova and LAquila have always experienced values higher
than the Italian average, with Venezia and LAquila being even above their own home regional average.

Table 2.12 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, 5 provinces:

per local unit values, 1998-2004
Province 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Milano
107 132 145 147 149 157 184
Venezia
303 367 422 439 409 449 482
Genova
411 402 485 730 485 525 543
Roma
78 106 129
91
87
82
96
L'Aquila 322 387 437 355 312 283 303
Italy
217 255 280 292 298 299 325

Looking at the per worker values, Milano, Roma and LAquila showed values below the National average of that period, while Genova and Venezia were above it. In none of the provinces such an indicator
was about to decrease, even if Milano, Roma and Genova were showing a per worker value below their
own regional average. The industrial framework of Liguria is the one with the highest values as regards
both the indicators (per local unit and per capita).

Table 2.13 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, 5 provinces:

per worker values, 1998-2004
Province
Milano
Venezia
Genova
Roma
L'Aquila
Italy

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

4
5
5
5
6
6
7
14
17
20
20
19
21
23
15
14
17
26
17
20
23
4
5
7
5
5
5
6
7
10
11
9
9
9
10
9
11
12
13
13
13
15

92

2.5.1.2 Regions and provinces

Taking the regional dimension into account (Table 2.14), it can be observed that in 1998 only 7 regions
out of 20 were over the 1 million of tons of annual waste production. During the period 1998-2004,
however, this number has doubled: Friuli Venezia Giulia, Liguria, Umbria, Marche, Lazio, Campania
and Sicilia have added themselves to Piemonte, Lombardia, Veneto, Emilia Romagna, Toscana, Puglia
and Sardegna. In 2004, the biggest producer of waste is Lombardia (with more than 10 millions of
tons), followed by Veneto (more than 6,5 millions of tons) and Puglia (more than 4,5 millions of tons),
while the region with the smallest production of waste is Valle dAosta (125.000 tons).
In percentage terms, the regional growth has been much different (Table 2.15) across regions: Valle
dAosta, Toscana and Calabria have also experienced a decrease of 1998 waste levels (but, afterward,
the last two increasing that amount in the last year), and only Toscana has recorded a decrease of its industrial waste as regards the levels in 1998. Some regions with a strong industrial propensity such as
Piemonte, Lombardia, Veneto and Emilia Romagna have seen their waste production growing by less
than +100%, while other regions have showed a growth by more than +100%: Liguria and Campania
have had a growth rate of, respectively, +142% and +105%, while Sicilia has seen in 2004 an increase
of +316% with respect to 1998.

Table 2.14 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italian regions: 1998-2004
Region
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Piemonte
2.371.655 2.953.080 3.191.906 3.245.054 3.176.528 3.081.588 3.250.284
Valle d'Aosta
98.400
75.722
76.087
80.313
81.434
101.913
125.299
Lombardia
5.646.893 7.282.774 8.734.369 9.177.377 9.728.966 9.704.101 10.001.141
Trentino Alto Adige
409.840
463.309
536.383
591.922
596.835
608.491
644.397
Veneto
4.989.118 5.948.969 6.757.621 7.084.447 6.832.543 6.457.736 6.544.630
Friuli Venezia Giulia
948.651 1.405.445 1.540.360 1.716.220 1.849.935 1.654.899 1.797.297
Liguria
926.156
890.493
954.141 1.290.597 1.832.024 2.234.556 2.240.578
Emilia Romagna
3.508.887 4.327.695 4.215.739 4.609.028 4.826.404 4.878.272 4.475.885
Toscana
3.261.883 2.990.535 3.244.845 3.167.152 3.320.992 3.009.198 2.946.758
Umbria
741.875 1.034.480 1.103.966 1.081.708 1.140.832
983.015 1.090.263
Marche
643.733
786.957
837.290
897.563
975.783 1.017.353 1.098.854
Lazio
740.448
981.002 1.165.878 1.097.212 1.010.430 1.029.360 1.046.673
Abruzzo
440.840
535.304
562.630
646.150
619.603
612.092
675.099
Molise
157.391
277.409
304.299
313.917
303.820
335.968
258.071
Campania
566.484
837.215
943.911 1.084.911 1.125.913 1.135.279 1.160.884
Puglia
2.570.599 3.037.344 2.652.416 2.980.346 2.575.804 3.498.928 4.596.643
Basilicata
185.291
389.670
395.592
294.702
292.493
249.331
300.005
Calabria
157.815
62.414
66.017
69.461
68.576
139.524
226.552
Sicilia
586.180
713.557
883.039
862.907
880.976 1.041.341 2.438.450
Sardegna
1.655.199 1.658.113 2.261.494 2.403.694 2.417.826 2.299.939 2.744.968
Italy
30.607.336 36.651.487 40.427.983 42.694.681 43.657.717 44.072.885 47.662.730

93

In the studied period, some regions have seen their share over the total Italian waste lowering (Table
2.16): this has happened to Toscana, where in 1998 its waste production was 10,66% of the total in Italy, and then it has gone done to 6,18%; or it can be seen what happened in Veneto, where it went
from 16,30% to 13,73%. Some others, instead, have increased their share over the total, such as Sicilia,
going from 586.180 tons in 1998 (equal to 1,92% of Italy) to 2.438.450 tons in 2004 (equal to 5,12% of
Italy).
The regional scale analysis confirms the high variability among territories, in Italy, of the production of
waste, as regards the Industry in a Strict Sense: this has been due to the different economic conditions
of the regions, since in Italy the distribution of wealth is much variable both across regions, and especially across provinces, with some of them being much richer than others in the same home region. As
regards the production of waste, the same territorial dispersion can be observed, but with some other
complications in the background: waste production and its statement are activities strictly linked with
the place in which they are produced, while the creation of wealth is not always recorded according
geographical criteria, but in terms of ownership (juridical criteria). As an example, a firm based in Milano, which does not produce goods in Milano, is increasing the economic value of Milano by selling its
goods, but, at the same time, it is increasing the production of waste in that area where effectively it is
producing its goods, making that area a waste producer, but without the relative economic power that
one could be induced to think at by looking at the waste production data of the area.
Table 2.15 Waste production, Industry in a Strict Sense, Italian regions: indices, 1998-2004
Region
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Piemonte
100 125 135 137 134 130 137
Valle d'Aosta
100
77
77
82
83 104 127
Lombardia
100 129 155 163 172 172 177
Trentino Alto Adige 100 113 131 144 146 148 157
Veneto
100 119 135 142 137 129 131
Friuli Venezia Giulia 100 148 162 181 195 174 189
Liguria
100
96 103 139 198 241 242
Emilia Romagna
100 123 120 131 138 139 128
Toscana
100
92
99
97 102
92
90
Umbria
100 139 149 146 154 133 147
Marche
100 122 130 139 152 158 171
Lazio
100 132 157 148 136 139 141
Abruzzo
100 121 128 147 141 139 153
Molise
100 176 193 199 193 213 164
Campania
100 148 167 192 199 200 205
Puglia
100 118 103 116 100 136 179
Basilicata
100 210 213 159 158 135 162
Calabria
100
40
42
44
43
88 144
Sicilia
100 122 151 147 150 178 416
Sardegna
100 100 137 145 146 139 166
Italy
100 120 132 139 143 144 156

94

By increasing the disaggregation along the territorial dimension, it can be seen that the provincial level
variability is even higher, both between provinces of different regions, and between provinces of the
same home region (Table A2.3 and A2.5 in the Appendix). Thus, as an example, there are regions
where a single province works as the main driver for the production of waste of that region: for example, Cagliari in the year 2004, with its 80% of the waste of Sardegna, or Taranto and Bari, which were
producing almost the 74% of the waste of Puglia. In some other cases, instead, a group of provinces
can be seen as the main drivers of waste production: in Lombardia, in the year 2004, as many as 4 provinces (Brescia, Milano, Bergamo and Mantova) were producing more than 1 million of tons each, thus
making up almost the 73% of that region.

Table 2.16 Waste production, Industry in a Strict Sense, Italian regions:

percentage composition, 1998-2004
Region
Piemonte
Valle d'Aosta
Lombardia
Trentino Alto Adige
Veneto
Friuli Venezia Giulia
Liguria
Emilia Romagna
Toscana
Umbria
Marche
Lazio
Abruzzo
Molise
Campania
Puglia
Basilicata
Calabria
Sicilia
Sardegna
Italy

1998
7,75
0,32
18,45
1,34
16,30
3,10
3,03
11,46
10,66
2,42
2,10
2,42
1,44
0,51
1,85
8,40
0,61
0,52
1,92
5,41
100,00

1999
8,06
0,21
19,87
1,26
16,23
3,83
2,43
11,81
8,16
2,82
2,15
2,68
1,46
0,76
2,28
8,29
1,06
0,17
1,95
4,52
100,00

2000
7,90
0,19
21,60
1,33
16,72
3,81
2,36
10,43
8,03
2,73
2,07
2,88
1,39
0,75
2,33
6,56
0,98
0,16
2,18
5,59
100,00

2001
7,60
0,19
21,50
1,39
16,59
4,02
3,02
10,80
7,42
2,53
2,10
2,57
1,51
0,74
2,54
6,98
0,69
0,16
2,02
5,63
100,00

2002
7,28
0,19
22,28
1,37
15,65
4,24
4,20
11,06
7,61
2,61
2,24
2,31
1,42
0,70
2,58
5,90
0,67
0,16
2,02
5,54
100,00

2003
6,99
0,23
22,02
1,38
14,65
3,75
5,07
11,07
6,83
2,23
2,31
2,34
1,39
0,76
2,58
7,94
0,57
0,32
2,36
5,22
100,00

2004
6,82
0,26
20,98
1,35
13,73
3,77
4,70
9,39
6,18
2,29
2,31
2,20
1,42
0,54
2,44
9,64
0,63
0,48
5,12
5,76
100,00

Last, there are cases in which discrepancies and imbalances are inside the provinces themselves, with
some industrial sectors which are producing the most of waste of that province. As an example, in Table A2.6, in the Appendix, it can be seen some of such circumstances: Brescia, with its Manufacture of
basic metals (Ateco 27) being the 72% of the total; Cagliari, with its Manufacture of chemicals and
chemical products (Ateco 24) representing almost 73% of the total; or Taranto, with its Manufacture
of basic metals (Ateco 27) reaching as much as the 96% of the total production of waste.

95

Table 2.15 Waste production, Industry in a Strict Sense, 5 provinces: 1998-2004

Province
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Milano
1.233.678 1.554.325 1.730.845 1.729.241 1.746.565 1.808.873 2.083.000
Venezia
721.917
841.588
996.960 1.035.438
959.833 1.046.540 1.108.657
Genova
444.694
436.962
527.381
768.377
510.323
552.625
591.445
Roma
310.342
422.598
505.368
361.308
342.398
333.778
387.446
L'Aquila
111.566
140.534
152.565
136.176
131.360
124.841
131.162
Italy
30.607.336 36.651.487 40.427.983 42.694.681 43.657.717 44.072.885 47.662.730

As regards the sample of 5 provinces, Milano, which was producing almost one fifth of the waste of
Lombardia, has produced always more than 1 million of tons of waste, during the period 1998-2004,
exceeding 2 millions in 2004. Venezia went beyond 1 million in 2001, 2003 and 2004, while Genova,
Roma and LAquila were at lower levels in all that time span.

2.5.2 Quantitative analysis from a sectorial point of view

By looking at the different divisions which Industry in a Strict Sense is divided into, it can be seen how
a major role in waste production was being played by Manufacture of basic metals (Ateco 27), which
leads the set of sectors composing Industry in a Strict Sense, during all the period: this indicates that
such an activity is, so far, the one with the highest waste-intensity. In fact, in 1998, the division Ateco
27 was representing the 22% of the total of the waste from Industry in a Strict Sense, while in 2004 this
value had gone below 20,8%, because of the increase of waste produced by other divisions of that sector (Table 2.16). As the provincial level analysis says, so the sectorial level analysis shows the presence
of a polarization in waste production, with some divisions weighing more than others in that (Table
A2.2, in Appendix). Not only, but there is also the case that some firms are the sole responsible for the
production of waste in a single division: see, for example, the division Mining of uranium and thorium
ores (Ateco 12), with less than 4 operative local units.

96

Figure 2.23 Waste production, total of Manufacturing (Ateco 15 to 36), year 2004
Fabbric.appar.medicali,precis.,
strum.ottici
Fabbric.appar.radiotel.e
app.per comunic.
Fabbric.macchine per
uff.,elaboratori

Fabbric.di altri mezzi di Fabbric.mobili-altre industrie

Industrie alimentari e delle
manifatturiere
trasporto
bevande
Fabbric.autoveicoli,rimorchi e
semirim.

Industria del tabacco

Confez.articoli vestiarioprep.pellicce

Industrie tessili
Prep.e concia cuoiofabbr.artic.viaggio
Ind.legno,esclusi mobilifabbr.in paglia

Fabbric.di macchine ed
appar.elettr.n.c.a.
Fabbric.macchine ed
appar.mecc.,instal.

Fabbric.pasta-carta,carta e
prod.di carta
Editoria,stampa e
riprod.supp.registrati

Fabbricaz.e
lav.prod.metallo,escl.macchine

Fabbric.coke,raffinerie,combust
.nucleari

Produzione di metalli e loro

leghe

Fabbric.prodotti chimici e fibre

sintetiche
Fabbric.artic.in gomma e
mat.plastiche
Fabbric.prodotti
lavoraz.min.non metallif.

97

Considering the whole of Industry in a Strict Sense, the branch of mining activities (Ateco 10 to 14)
goes from 1,8% of the total, in 1998, to 3,7% in 2004, while in the same period the division Electricity, gas, steam and hot water supply (Ateco 40) accounts for 4,3% in the beginning, to 7,4% in the last
year: the two branches altogether were producing 6,1% of total waste on Industry in a Strict Sense in
1998, shifting then to 11,1% in 2004.
As already noted above, not all the dynamics have been regular in time, so that, together with some
more or less important changes in regulations, it can be said that the peaks in waste production (or,
similarly, its downfalls) might have been due to a sort of adaptation to the new regulations, by switching waste from one division to another one simply because a change in codes have been done: under
this assumption, there might have been a certain kind of waste, belonging to a certain activity due to its
code, which has been shifted to another code, thus determining a fake dynamics. As an example, the
division Manufacture of basic metals (Ateco 27) was showing some peaks in production in the year
2001 and in 2004: these peaks have later been shown that were due to the production of 10.02.02 unprocessed slag (CER 100202, that is EWC 10.02.02) by a steel mill in Taranto. Similarly, the division
Manufacture of food products and beverages (Ateco 15) has experienced a marked decrease in waste
production in 2003 and 2004, mainly due to two types of waste, soil from cleaning and washing beet
(CER-EWC 02.04.01) and off-specification calcium carbonate (CER-EWC 02.04.02), both of them
produced in sugar refineries: the closure of some plants in 2003 and 2004 has caused a reduction in
waste for those two years. From these two examples it can bee seen how, in such an analysis concerning special waste, what can be observed and positively considered at a macro level (as an example, a
decrease in waste due to an ex ante supposed advance in technology) may be then explained by a simple
reduction in the mere quantities of waste production.
During the quoted period, the weight of those predominant divisions as regards waste production in
Manufacturing activities (Ateco 15-36) has not changed (Figure 2.23): the divisions Manufacture of
chemicals and chemical products (Ateco 24), Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products
(Ateco 26), Manufacture of basic metals (Ateco 27), Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment (Ateco 28) and Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c. (Ateco 29) were producing, in 1998 as in 2004, more than the half of the waste production of Manufacturing activities, with the same proportion of dangerous and non-dangerous waste across time.
2.5.3 Waste and economic activity
Another way to consider the production of waste and to make comparisons between different sectors
and territorial realities is to relate such a production to the respective economic activity which has generated that waste: the key point is finding an economic variable which can sum up the power of the
economy where that waste come from, and in the following chapters this variable will be the value98

added, which will be used to build an indictor that will be equal to the ratio between the quantity of
waste in a province and its relative value-added.

2.6 Conclusions
Industrial waste was accounting for almost the half of special waste produced in Italy, during the period 1998-2004. Such a value has continuously risen in that period, against a gradual decrease of the
share of the value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense over the total value-added of Italy, together with a
stagnation in that sectors productivity in the same period. The territorial and sectorial analysis have
shown that the percentage of individuals that present the MUD statement (over the total of the individuals) is highly diverse, taking into account both a sectorial point of view, and a geographical point of
view. The analysis of the quantities has indicated that the production of waste was continuously growing, both in absolute terms, and in relative terms (per worker and per local unit), while an increase in
economic productivity was not taking place at all. Moreover, in Italy, waste intensity was increasing,
while in Europe has decreased within the period 1998-2004. Next chapter will illustrate some of the
drivers that were causing the increase of waste, and these variables will be used in the subsequent
model.

99

Table 2.16 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy, by Ateco divisions: 1998-2004
Divisions description
Estraz.carbon fossile e lignite-estraz.torba
Estraz.petrolio greggio e gas naturale
Estraz.minerali di uranio e di torio
Estrazione di minerali metalliferi
Altre industrie estrattive

Mining Total

Ateco
10
11
12
13
14

Industrie alimentari e delle bevande

Industria del tabacco
Industrie tessili
Confez.articoli vestiario-prep.pellicce
Prep.e concia cuoio-fabbr.artic.viaggio
Ind.legno,esclusi mobili-fabbr.in paglia
Fabbric.pasta-carta,carta e prod.di carta
Editoria,stampa e riprod.supp.registrati
Fabbric.coke,raffinerie,combust.nucleari
Fabbric.prodotti chimici e fibre sintetiche
Fabbric.artic.in gomma e mat.plastiche
Fabbric.prodotti lavoraz.min.non metallif.
Produzione di metalli e loro leghe
Fabbricaz.e lav.prod.metallo,escl.macchine
Fabbric.macchine ed appar.mecc.,instal.
Fabbric.macchine per uff.,elaboratori
Fabbric.di macchine ed appar.elettr.n.c.a.
Fabbric.appar.radiotel.e app.per comunic.
Fabbric.appar.medicali,precis.,strum.ottici
Fabbric.autoveicoli,rimorchi e semirim.
Fabbric.di altri mezzi di trasporto
Fabbric.mobili-altre industrie manifatturiere

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

Produz.energia elettr.,gas,acqua calda

40

Manufacturing Total

Energy, water and gas Total

Total

1998
603
184.641
0
338
363.883

1999
831
227.726
0
1.556
685.774

2000
504
191.338
0
1.369
703.802

2001
880
291.358
0
1.596
1.057.000

2002
419
345.174
0
244
1.073.127

2003
1.067
408.152
4
418
1.086.619

2004
303
350.335
0
2.343
1.420.669

549.466

915.888

897.013

1.350.834

1.418.965

1.496.259

1.773.650

4.471.574
26.450
462.916
85.007
608.447
793.446
1.342.789
432.960
257.694
3.274.126
574.359
5.174.904
6.816.101
1.890.581
854.138
15.667
212.683
96.721
45.060
603.568
201.316
494.247

4.964.159
24.807
621.136
105.892
754.135
1.045.542
1.660.520
638.653
272.614
3.573.345
681.909
5.711.847
7.765.846
2.650.979
1.074.774
16.023
293.164
112.718
54.425
1.009.261
251.137
549.839

4.525.414
28.487
710.119
117.134
906.609
1.274.653
1.853.001
718.001
391.251
4.398.549
759.701
6.154.460
8.605.796
3.168.771
1.215.769
17.248
302.664
128.270
59.483
1.085.462
252.571
655.128

4.704.972
30.990
760.048
122.181
887.762
1.587.662
1.995.263
781.502
361.365
4.274.697
822.804
6.280.087
9.401.859
3.371.108
1.217.011
18.519
316.507
96.615
64.626
1.014.165
299.908
701.683

4.921.436
30.653
801.660
117.584
890.147
2.069.354
1.939.459
745.474
502.141
4.995.876
870.685
6.355.295
8.190.728
3.445.274
1.231.760
14.152
301.466
85.309
70.421
943.361
276.778
738.803

4.393.957
29.563
664.851
105.729
716.458
2.079.908
1.785.876
759.754
571.847
5.399.269
828.248
6.612.277
8.779.170
3.472.243
1.220.545
11.731
292.089
82.064
69.254
822.528
293.271
732.276

3.722.273
23.753
515.570
100.842
653.253
2.167.434
1.827.984
772.075
1.579.040
5.865.435
906.415
7.000.107
9.913.606
3.675.475
1.266.741
9.194
303.407
86.506
68.500
879.682
295.534
727.145

1.323.115

1.902.870

2.202.430

2.232.512

2.700.937

2.853.728

3.529.110

28.734.756 33.832.727 37.328.541 39.111.334 39.537.816 39.722.908 42.359.972

1.323.115

1.902.870

2.202.430

2.232.512 2.700.937

2.853.728

3.529.110

30.607.337 36.651.485 40.427.984 42.694.680 43.657.718 44.072.895 47.662.731

100

APPENDIX A2
Table A2.1 Share of the Value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense on the total Value-added of the geographical unit (%)
Province and region
Torino
Vercelli
Novara
Cuneo
Asti
Alessandria
Biella
Verbano Cusio Ossola
Piemonte
Aosta
Valle d'Aosta
Varese
Como
Sondrio
Milano
Bergamo
Brescia
Pavia
Cremona
Mantova
Lecco
Lodi
Lombardia
Bolzano - Bozen
Trento
Trentino Alto Adige
Verona
Vicenza
Belluno
Treviso
Venezia
Padova
Rovigo
Veneto
Udine
Gorizia
Trieste
Pordenone
Friuli Venezia Giulia
Imperia
Savona
Genova
La Spezia
Liguria
Piacenza
Parma
Reggio Emilia
Modena

1998
30,82
29,35
36,14
31,18
24,37
29,69
40,77
26,85
31,14
13,49
13,49
37,37
34,79
21,80
30,27
38,86
33,53
25,14
30,97
33,92
41,09
28,78
32,32
14,96
19,59
17,13
27,04
39,66
35,87
36,89
22,52
26,37
24,54
30,44
23,94
22,53
13,47
34,18
24,11
6,98
14,89
15,57
16,65
14,47
27,05
31,38
37,72
37,45

1999
29,46
28,28
34,72
30,56
22,98
28,96
38,16
26,90
29,93
13,36
13,36
35,29
33,65
22,20
29,30
37,70
32,53
24,43
30,00
32,26
40,26
29,00
31,25
14,82
19,27
16,93
26,54
38,98
35,28
36,93
21,74
26,90
24,34
30,17
22,57
21,83
13,39
33,13
23,18
6,60
14,37
15,82
17,52
14,60
27,34
31,18
38,04
37,48

2000
28,46
28,30
36,52
30,31
23,13
28,78
38,21
26,85
29,52
13,00
13,00
35,80
33,54
20,39
28,09
36,74
32,89
24,55
29,15
32,40
41,23
27,90
30,60
14,34
18,63
16,34
26,87
38,32
33,43
36,00
19,31
26,86
23,55
29,36
22,25
20,43
12,77
32,95
22,58
7,27
14,04
17,13
18,00
15,44
26,01
30,03
38,16
37,43

2001
27,29
26,80
34,47
30,71
22,63
29,07
35,09
24,48
28,50
13,10
13,10
34,95
34,02
20,26
27,29
37,07
32,29
23,53
29,28
33,20
40,48
28,05
30,09
14,23
18,31
16,15
26,18
38,05
32,91
34,63
18,80
25,75
21,98
28,55
22,39
19,46
13,60
30,32
21,98
7,15
12,96
16,87
17,19
14,98
25,17
29,65
37,73
37,31

2002
25,85
26,13
34,89
28,50
20,60
27,25
33,41
22,03
27,05
14,41
14,41
34,30
34,03
20,54
26,97
34,35
30,64
22,57
29,51
31,54
40,19
27,45
29,35
13,53
18,43
15,78
26,24
36,70
31,65
32,50
18,39
25,37
20,78
27,65
21,93
18,74
12,49
29,15
21,28
7,54
12,87
15,02
17,90
14,04
23,90
28,05
36,28
34,77

2003
24,74
24,77
32,98
27,50
19,29
25,91
31,92
20,65
25,83
13,89
13,89
33,66
32,86
20,01
26,58
33,11
29,96
22,96
28,77
29,75
38,83
26,44
28,74
13,00
17,82
15,20
25,73
35,49
30,67
32,07
18,43
25,31
20,59
27,21
21,92
18,41
13,42
29,39
21,57
7,80
12,54
14,79
18,07
13,87
22,66
27,30
35,97
33,63

2004
25,15
23,67
32,47
26,27
18,84
24,33
31,85
20,57
25,62
13,95
13,95
34,53
34,26
20,42
27,60
32,32
29,80
23,44
28,31
30,24
39,36
26,34
29,35
12,44
18,33
15,12
25,77
35,63
30,61
31,77
18,64
24,57
20,72
27,10
20,71
17,35
12,93
28,92
20,65
7,42
12,38
14,49
17,23
13,51
22,27
27,03
34,48
32,82

101

Province and region

Bologna
Ferrara
Ravenna
Forl - Cesena
Rimini
Emilia Romagna
Massa Carrara
Lucca
Pistoia
Firenze
Livorno
Pisa
Arezzo
Siena
Grosseto
Prato
Toscana
Perugia
Terni
Umbria
Pesaro e Urbino
Ancona
Macerata
Ascoli Piceno
Marche
Viterbo
Rieti
Roma
Latina
Frosinone
Lazio
L'Aquila
Teramo
Pescara
Chieti
Abruzzo
Campobasso
Isernia
Molise
Caserta
Benevento
Napoli
Avellino
Salerno
Campania
Foggia
Bari
Taranto
Brindisi
Lecce
Puglia
Potenza
Matera
Basilicata

1998
27,20
21,40
21,72
22,61
16,10
28,64
19,50
27,27
25,83
25,80
17,70
29,26
31,51
19,69
10,40
36,20
25,36
21,86
24,56
22,54
25,26
28,37
26,77
28,42
27,34
14,05
14,82
11,55
24,11
25,97
13,75
19,21
27,71
19,21
27,12
23,55
18,82
21,71
19,67
17,28
10,96
15,63
20,04
14,40
15,72
11,12
16,65
24,60
18,54
14,92
16,82
21,50
13,56
18,89

1999
26,33
22,08
21,37
22,20
16,31
28,47
19,19
27,42
24,82
24,81
17,21
28,04
31,58
18,96
10,29
34,32
24,58
21,83
24,80
22,59
25,56
28,18
26,46
28,37
27,27
14,48
12,89
11,50
23,06
26,43
13,61
19,45
27,81
20,30
28,27
24,23
18,50
22,36
19,59
17,29
11,28
15,29
20,20
14,91
15,68
11,22
16,60
22,66
18,02
14,43
16,39
22,29
13,84
19,39

2000
25,85
23,14
20,26
22,02
16,22
28,11
19,65
26,95
24,52
24,70
17,03
27,98
29,94
19,34
10,03
37,68
24,62
21,76
25,95
22,80
25,01
26,99
26,09
26,41
26,21
14,28
12,91
11,30
24,85
25,66
13,51
20,29
29,43
21,27
28,81
25,26
17,46
23,48
19,24
17,39
11,11
14,50
22,04
15,40
15,54
11,01
16,04
23,52
15,93
14,04
16,00
22,45
15,54
20,12

2001
24,95
21,92
21,26
22,78
16,64
27,80
19,65
26,00
24,42
24,60
17,47
27,19
29,80
18,86
9,95
37,47
24,42
21,55
25,95
22,64
25,46
26,49
26,21
27,21
26,37
14,60
13,29
12,05
24,63
23,80
13,99
18,01
29,67
19,32
28,33
24,17
16,98
21,89
18,45
17,48
10,99
14,35
22,17
15,42
15,48
11,08
15,35
22,04
16,90
13,49
15,50
22,67
17,70
21,00

2002
26,04
20,13
22,97
22,82
16,31
27,19
17,81
24,94
23,71
23,06
17,36
26,82
29,32
18,41
9,38
34,75
23,29
21,43
28,00
23,08
25,08
25,89
25,74
27,30
26,01
13,26
13,59
11,92
24,95
23,58
13,88
18,09
28,29
18,03
28,03
23,46
17,82
21,50
18,90
17,25
11,10
14,14
21,59
15,38
15,29
10,36
16,37
21,12
14,20
13,15
15,33
24,17
18,03
22,18

2003
25,43
19,53
22,60
22,60
15,99
26,53
17,48
24,39
24,15
21,84
17,11
27,04
28,30
17,63
8,73
34,90
22,66
20,94
26,77
22,43
24,98
25,94
24,43
26,77
25,61
13,02
13,56
11,50
23,79
23,02
13,44
17,81
27,16
18,29
28,21
23,24
17,73
19,63
18,32
17,13
11,13
14,35
22,36
15,30
15,42
10,08
15,93
20,08
13,52
12,99
14,87
21,80
15,13
19,63

2004
24,37
19,16
21,82
22,27
15,77
25,79
16,61
23,86
24,09
21,62
16,59
26,80
27,76
17,44
8,73
35,19
22,36
19,87
25,46
21,30
25,30
25,82
25,54
27,39
26,03
12,80
13,06
11,36
23,45
23,06
13,29
17,95
27,30
18,47
27,70
23,24
17,00
18,55
17,49
16,27
10,10
13,96
20,92
14,75
14,82
9,96
15,75
19,43
13,29
12,69
14,61
21,36
14,56
19,12

102

Province and region

Cosenza
Catanzaro
Reggio di Calabria
Crotone
Vibo Valentia
Calabria
Trapani
Palermo
Messina
Agrigento
Caltanissetta
Enna
Catania
Ragusa
Siracusa
Sicilia
Sassari
Nuoro
Cagliari
Oristano
Sardegna
Italy

1998
9,90
10,33
7,47
13,02
9,13
9,45
8,71
12,13
8,68
7,57
20,90
8,33
12,06
8,78
23,37
12,22
12,64
12,20
15,69
8,76
13,63
23,88

1999
9,80
10,28
7,46
12,88
9,32
9,42
9,05
11,75
8,83
7,72
19,09
8,55
11,83
8,93
21,45
11,83
12,08
12,40
14,83
9,11
13,11
23,36

2000
10,25
10,01
7,21
14,54
9,84
9,66
9,50
10,55
8,52
7,67
17,75
9,09
11,62
9,12
19,14
11,21
11,57
12,12
15,51
9,42
13,25
23,00

2001
10,95
9,04
7,59
15,30
10,34
9,93
9,97
10,31
7,86
7,62
17,25
9,10
12,06
8,75
18,04
11,03
11,78
12,97
15,43
9,27
13,41
22,65

2002
11,32
9,83
7,90
14,16
11,33
10,31
9,64
10,36
8,50
7,63
19,51
8,88
10,60
8,97
17,95
10,86
12,28
14,24
15,43
9,75
13,82
22,01

2003
10,50
9,70
6,87
13,67
10,20
9,52
9,98
10,94
8,50
7,39
19,10
9,07
10,44
8,34
17,72
10,90
12,32
14,28
15,52
9,84
13,86
21,52

2004
10,71
9,79
6,61
13,47
10,61
9,52
9,64
10,31
7,86
7,08
17,53
8,69
9,96
7,70
16,27
10,26
12,11
13,33
15,06
10,25
13,51
21,37

103

Table A2.2 Waste production (tons), Italy, by Ateco divisions: 1998-2004

Divisions description
Ateco
Agricoltura, caccia e relativi servizi
01
Silvicoltura e utilizzaz.aree forestali
02
Pesca,piscicoltura e servizi connessi
05
Estraz.carbon fossile e lignite-estraz.torba
10
Estraz.petrolio greggio e gas naturale
11
Estraz.minerali di uranio e di torio
12
Estrazione di minerali metalliferi
13
Altre industrie estrattive
14
Industrie alimentari e delle bevande
15
Industria del tabacco
16
Industrie tessili
17
Confez.articoli vestiario-prep.pellicce
18
Prep.e concia cuoio-fabbr.artic.viaggio
19
Ind.legno,esclusi mobili-fabbr.in paglia
20
Fabbric.pasta-carta,carta e prod.di carta
21
Editoria,stampa e riprod.supp.registrati
22
Fabbric.coke,raffinerie,combust.nucleari
23
Fabbric.prodotti chimici e fibre sintetiche
24
Fabbric.artic.in gomma e mat.plastiche
25
Fabbric.prodotti lavoraz.min.non metallif.
26
Produzione di metalli e loro leghe
27
Fabbricaz.e lav.prod.metallo,escl.macchine
28
Fabbric.macchine ed appar.mecc.,instal.
29
Fabbric.macchine per uff.,elaboratori
30
Fabbric.di macchine ed appar.elettr.n.c.a.
31
Fabbric.appar.radiotel.e app.per comunic.
32
Fabbric.appar.medicali,precis.,strum.ottici
33
Fabbric.autoveicoli,rimorchi e semirim.
34
Fabbric.di altri mezzi di trasporto
35
Fabbric.mobili-altre industrie manifatturiere 36
Recupero e preparaz. per il riciclaggio
37
Produz.energia elettr.,gas,acqua calda
40
Raccolta,depurazione e distribuzione acqua
41
Costruzioni
45
Comm.manut.e rip.autov. e motocicli
50
Comm.ingr.e interm.del comm.escl.autov.
51
Comm.dett.escl.autov-rip.beni pers.
52
Alberghi e ristoranti
55
Trasporti terrestri-trasp.mediante condotta
60
Trasporti marittimi e per vie d'acqua
61
Trasporti aerei
62
Attivita' ausiliarie dei trasp.-ag.viaggi
63
Poste e telecomunicazioni
64
Interm.mon.e finanz.(escl.assic.e fondi p.)
65
Assic.e fondi pens.(escl.ass.soc.obbl.)
66
Attivita' ausil. intermediazione finanziaria
67
Attivita' immobiliari
70
Noleggio macc.e attrezz.senza operat.
71
Informatica e attivita' connesse
72
Ricerca e sviluppo
73
Altre attivita' professionali e imprendit.
74
Pubbl.amm.e difesa;assic.sociale obbligatoria 75

1998
211.622
4.673
9.701
603
184.641
0
338
363.883
4.471.574
26.450
462.916
85.007
608.447
793.446
1.342.789
432.960
257.694
3.274.126
574.359
5.174.904
6.816.101
1.890.581
854.138
15.667
212.683
96.721
45.060
603.568
201.316
494.247
1.676.421
1.323.115
565.705
3.621.525
655.975
1.583.458
270.000
77.119
632.766
16.468
2.839
174.813
32.837
17.369
1.970
241
26.941
2.237
3.742
9.154
313.114
803.981

1999
292.659
2.678
11.316
831
227.726
0
1.556
685.774
4.964.159
24.807
621.136
105.892
754.135
1.045.542
1.660.520
638.653
272.614
3.573.345
681.909
5.711.847
7.765.846
2.650.979
1.074.774
16.023
293.164
112.718
54.425
1.009.261
251.137
549.839
2.263.098
1.902.870
629.914
4.474.145
675.944
1.747.956
233.776
81.898
691.777
12.853
3.046
223.268
37.185
12.729
3.187
122
33.701
2.125
4.274
12.630
390.808
628.010

2000
343.685
2.848
1.680
504
191.338
0
1.369
703.802
4.525.414
28.487
710.119
117.134
906.609
1.274.653
1.853.001
718.001
391.251
4.398.549
759.701
6.154.460
8.605.796
3.168.771
1.215.769
17.248
302.664
128.270
59.483
1.085.462
252.571
655.128
2.972.821
2.202.430
671.239
5.575.453
879.844
2.354.453
246.017
84.521
820.061
21.104
2.946
286.854
45.025
9.655
6.511
149
60.753
5.629
6.482
9.744
447.573
567.329

2001
439.903
8.755
1.623
880
291.358
0
1.596
1.057.000
4.704.972
30.990
760.048
122.181
887.762
1.587.662
1.995.263
781.502
361.365
4.274.697
822.804
6.280.087
9.401.859
3.371.108
1.217.011
18.519
316.507
96.615
64.626
1.014.165
299.908
701.683
3.600.078
2.232.512
569.181
5.953.951
944.615
2.363.203
261.819
103.312
1.045.250
29.130
10.082
333.618
35.385
8.885
3.116
98
105.577
3.688
4.736
13.265
502.841
699.604

2002
448.610
14.172
1.368
419
345.174
0
244
1.073.127
4.921.436
30.653
801.660
117.584
890.147
2.069.354
1.939.459
745.474
502.141
4.995.876
870.685
6.355.295
8.190.728
3.445.274
1.231.760
14.152
301.466
85.309
70.421
943.361
276.778
738.803
4.222.210
2.700.937
512.675
6.594.297
1.026.632
2.480.792
279.966
109.946
1.103.450
47.491
15.066
402.404
30.674
10.294
2.801
141
107.813
5.024
8.835
14.133
422.088
718.840

2003
515.369
21.921
1.883
1.067
408.152
4
418
1.086.619
4.393.957
29.563
664.851
105.729
716.458
2.079.908
1.785.876
759.754
571.847
5.399.269
828.248
6.612.277
8.779.170
3.472.243
1.220.545
11.731
292.089
82.064
69.254
822.528
293.271
732.276
5.233.479
2.853.728
643.618
8.106.150
1.038.234
2.655.804
261.597
135.394
1.512.542
67.908
19.228
402.399
31.514
9.248
2.109
93
176.524
7.002
5.846
16.332
569.241
999.703

2004
472.287
16.525
5.254
303
350.335
0
2.343
1.420.669
3.722.273
23.753
515.570
100.842
653.253
2.167.434
1.827.984
772.075
1.579.040
5.865.435
906.415
7.000.107
9.913.606
3.675.475
1.266.741
9.194
303.407
86.506
68.500
879.682
295.534
727.145
5.931.670
3.529.110
713.579
8.825.679
1.025.343
2.573.331
295.117
162.469
1.370.367
43.676
2.829
432.713
28.660
9.018
2.445
133
518.271
10.138
8.229
328.150
501.418
523.054

104

Divisions description
Istruzione
Sanita' e altri servizi sociali
Smaltim.rifiuti solidi, acque scarico e sim.
Attivita' organizzazioni associative n.c.a.
Attivita' ricreative, culturali sportive
Altre attivita' dei servizi
Serv.domestici presso famiglie e conv.
Organizz. e organismi extraterritoriali
Non classificati
Italy

Ateco
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
80
10.325
12.830
6.633
5.663
6.648
5.827
6.816
85
277.571
294.661
255.287
227.088
202.347
200.306
218.616
90
10.303.393 11.781.498 13.139.261 15.661.638 18.777.216 20.802.255 22.611.977
91
7.164
8.629
4.796
5.963
6.411
10.061
15.350
92
26.377
18.745
21.835
30.205
25.394
28.417
36.320
93
90.225
110.306
116.398
124.619
126.565
312.694
207.435
95
0
0
0
0
0
69
0
99
1.145
1.083
1.499
1.435
1.280
1.775
1.409
NC
55.599
266.876
81.535
25.856
29.987
13.413
3.500
52.093.805 61.615.211 69.477.603 75.818.862 81.413.285 87.880.849 94.564.506

105

Table A2.3 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy, by provinces and regions:
1998-2004
Province and region
Torino
Vercelli
Novara
Cuneo
Asti
Alessandria
Biella
Verbano Cusio Ossola
Piemonte
Aosta
Valle d'Aosta
Varese
Como
Sondrio
Milano
Bergamo
Brescia
Pavia
Cremona
Mantova
Lecco
Lodi
Lombardia
Bolzano - Bozen
Trento
Trentino Alto Adige
Verona
Vicenza
Belluno
Treviso
Venezia
Padova
Rovigo
Veneto
Udine
Gorizia
Trieste
Pordenone
Friuli Venezia Giulia
Imperia
Savona
Genova
La Spezia
Liguria
Piacenza
Parma
Reggio Emilia
Modena
Bologna
Ferrara
Ravenna

1998
1.187.253
287.535
143.056
304.017
83.448
146.555
97.497
122.295
2.371.655
98.400
98.400
343.944
176.489
47.503
1.233.678
954.193
1.645.170
323.112
168.256
266.552
409.757
78.240
5.646.893
127.141
282.699
409.840
1.831.187
956.787
114.233
626.424
721.917
501.107
237.463
4.989.118
460.142
160.948
78.630
248.932
948.651
3.864
259.950
444.694
217.648
926.156
355.436
213.864
383.177
883.485
482.339
452.828
458.443

1999
1.520.927
343.050
187.312
400.494
109.609
156.556
128.491
106.643
2.953.080
75.722
75.722
463.973
309.811
44.751
1.554.325
1.123.586
1.905.982
439.579
544.869
354.086
428.642
113.170
7.282.774
184.198
279.111
463.309
1.996.339
1.261.118
153.511
812.972
841.588
584.781
298.659
5.948.969
748.972
258.351
89.273
308.850
1.405.445
4.323
229.314
436.962
219.894
890.493
322.905
304.067
499.911
1.102.519
619.712
515.911
598.336

2000
1.635.409
347.837
223.253
437.575
111.962
181.238
156.223
98.410
3.191.906
76.087
76.087
487.407
297.561
51.389
1.730.845
1.206.457
2.775.184
394.771
647.662
478.319
537.649
127.126
8.734.369
202.713
333.670
536.383
2.021.516
1.482.937
179.940
853.675
996.960
899.070
323.523
6.757.621
807.238
272.496
103.491
357.135
1.540.360
4.924
284.894
527.381
136.943
954.141
294.311
255.970
598.763
1.081.067
646.058
378.517
563.896

2001
1.576.893
347.471
231.520
448.647
99.176
224.948
186.228
130.171
3.245.054
80.313
80.313
510.078
287.879
53.548
1.729.241
1.321.556
2.991.882
438.252
559.417
584.794
553.240
147.488
9.177.377
195.215
396.707
591.922
1.937.493
1.621.988
151.069
928.852
1.035.438
809.537
600.071
7.084.447
878.682
253.286
199.326
384.926
1.716.220
5.122
280.531
768.377
236.566
1.290.597
248.380
302.053
626.883
1.173.040
740.764
428.660
699.027

2002
1.490.392
321.283
234.315
493.395
110.953
238.913
168.985
118.294
3.176.528
81.434
81.434
496.571
281.106
58.579
1.746.565
1.364.151
2.947.648
628.693
498.065
905.386
565.770
236.433
9.728.966
175.394
421.441
596.835
1.871.885
1.521.700
155.249
933.009
959.833
861.258
529.608
6.832.543
882.862
371.185
170.033
425.855
1.849.935
4.913
1.067.992
510.323
248.796
1.832.024
269.259
310.817
604.098
1.121.925
701.714
448.345
848.721

2003
1.455.251
319.374
226.999
444.367
112.789
242.737
169.537
110.535
3.081.588
101.913
101.913
495.279
325.649
67.493
1.808.873
1.334.914
2.820.041
577.352
488.457
942.422
612.639
230.981
9.704.101
154.852
453.639
608.491
1.789.696
1.520.707
138.224
935.138
1.046.540
765.210
262.222
6.457.736
841.664
269.477
99.676
444.082
1.654.899
5.369
1.428.556
552.625
248.006
2.234.556
145.163
331.036
610.884
1.150.535
734.856
413.731
768.131

2004
1.493.572
374.780
253.700
579.560
110.431
241.037
73.643
123.561
3.250.284
125.299
125.299
489.999
329.943
57.206
2.083.000
1.278.995
2.872.865
606.227
477.369
1.022.468
640.215
142.855
10.001.141
184.615
459.782
644.397
1.868.049
1.431.187
150.874
956.019
1.108.657
849.951
179.893
6.544.630
920.531
235.671
187.642
453.453
1.797.297
5.201
1.396.490
591.445
247.443
2.240.578
135.626
283.654
637.257
1.166.629
704.568
396.876
786.784

106

Province and region

Forl - Cesena
Rimini
Emilia Romagna
Massa Carrara
Lucca
Pistoia
Firenze
Livorno
Pisa
Arezzo
Siena
Grosseto
Prato
Toscana
Perugia
Terni
Umbria
Pesaro e Urbino
Ancona
Macerata
Ascoli Piceno
Marche
Viterbo
Rieti
Roma
Latina
Frosinone
Lazio
L'Aquila
Teramo
Pescara
Chieti
Abruzzo
Campobasso
Isernia
Molise
Caserta
Benevento
Napoli
Avellino
Salerno
Campania
Foggia
Bari
Taranto
Brindisi
Lecce
Puglia
Potenza
Matera
Basilicata
Cosenza
Catanzaro
Reggio di Calabria

1998
223.374
55.940
3.508.887
587.785
659.740
46.741
230.900
135.765
329.794
574.046
84.385
567.423
45.304
3.261.883
314.825
427.050
741.875
178.620
203.522
107.744
153.847
643.733
69.313
16.665
310.342
123.205
220.923
740.448
111.566
93.459
25.969
209.846
440.840
144.660
12.731
157.391
108.614
9.364
202.372
83.895
162.239
566.484
79.391
426.933
1.899.527
111.986
52.761
2.570.599
159.212
26.079
185.291
8.144
4.384
38.967

1999
301.610
62.723
4.327.695
580.843
676.131
54.363
278.914
153.340
392.113
241.565
96.585
464.081
52.601
2.990.535
357.745
676.735
1.034.480
168.195
303.266
148.481
167.015
786.957
87.383
24.872
422.598
162.286
283.863
981.002
140.534
109.584
29.856
255.331
535.304
242.792
34.617
277.409
183.150
12.322
293.158
114.096
234.488
837.215
78.496
556.740
1.687.972
628.870
85.266
3.037.344
356.766
32.904
389.670
11.081
11.433
5.433

2000
316.151
81.006
4.215.739
597.589
692.344
67.097
321.623
133.480
460.841
264.754
109.121
538.679
59.318
3.244.845
425.449
678.517
1.103.966
210.567
305.465
167.743
153.515
837.290
100.322
25.576
505.368
169.850
364.761
1.165.878
152.565
131.728
42.667
235.671
562.630
266.205
38.095
304.299
212.066
12.797
319.906
154.273
244.869
943.911
108.041
561.883
1.146.836
746.635
89.020
2.652.416
346.852
48.739
395.592
20.197
16.308
13.126

2001
305.383
84.838
4.609.028
623.737
723.462
65.444
309.660
221.718
447.238
185.190
135.724
392.590
62.389
3.167.152
490.512
591.196
1.081.708
239.082
321.096
161.890
175.496
897.563
90.832
57.348
361.308
168.052
419.672
1.097.212
136.176
189.351
77.651
242.972
646.150
280.887
33.031
313.917
248.300
18.760
400.758
184.971
232.123
1.084.911
193.945
606.205
1.230.728
848.210
101.257
2.980.346
223.451
71.252
294.702
30.175
12.729
9.506

2002
436.507
85.018
4.826.404
541.849
696.865
63.775
296.569
183.630
455.821
379.602
142.648
501.309
58.924
3.320.992
485.055
655.778
1.140.832
276.764
332.330
171.945
194.743
975.783
95.281
52.334
342.398
162.862
357.555
1.010.430
131.360
192.973
61.387
233.883
619.603
271.970
31.850
303.820
232.615
23.232
398.755
196.843
274.468
1.125.913
132.901
697.835
579.166
1.052.715
113.187
2.575.804
244.380
48.113
292.493
22.031
11.934
7.056

2003
647.441
76.495
4.878.272
470.102
687.790
72.626
309.293
228.754
297.433
251.778
186.527
450.323
54.571
3.009.198
398.895
584.120
983.015
310.586
336.292
174.485
195.990
1.017.353
94.966
50.286
333.778
171.934
378.397
1.029.360
124.841
193.981
58.914
234.355
612.092
294.774
41.194
335.968
249.777
24.042
368.758
167.684
325.018
1.135.279
190.727
681.597
1.379.701
1.134.671
112.233
3.498.928
214.079
35.251
249.331
65.041
12.822
8.851

2004
281.074
83.417
4.475.885
479.998
575.061
62.689
352.060
296.198
299.989
174.854
177.024
476.779
52.106
2.946.758
415.196
675.068
1.090.263
388.922
346.880
167.333
195.718
1.098.854
120.034
19.272
387.446
178.958
340.962
1.046.673
131.162
215.126
57.784
271.027
675.099
221.747
36.324
258.071
278.675
28.062
398.220
159.051
296.876
1.160.884
294.591
738.789
2.154.615
1.269.111
139.537
4.596.643
256.315
43.690
300.005
46.186
25.401
25.929

107

Province and region

Crotone
Vibo Valentia
Calabria
Trapani
Palermo
Messina
Agrigento
Caltanissetta
Enna
Catania
Ragusa
Siracusa
Sicilia
Sassari
Nuoro
Cagliari
Oristano
Sardegna
Italy

1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
102.258
30.817
12.162
13.177
23.545
46.302
123.353
4.062
3.650
4.224
3.874
4.011
6.508
5.683
157.815
62.414
66.017
69.461
68.576
139.524
226.552
56.806
69.799
76.555
96.163
134.578
132.873
195.459
302.580
278.603
331.697
345.878
256.252
213.600
337.124
47.768
21.819
52.285
95.959
133.223
174.422
208.161
5.282
19.263
20.627
3.997
4.829
10.815
9.806
36.098
45.734
63.429
33.629
36.157
62.035
952.292
1.006
2.068
3.713
5.010
3.222
6.948
6.990
14.847
106.115
90.915
91.771
107.574
150.327
114.627
8.815
18.915
20.984
33.028
17.327
15.201
24.575
112.978
151.241
222.835
157.473
187.814
275.121
589.415
586.180
713.557
883.039
862.907
880.976
1.041.341
2.438.450
176.601
232.271
271.150
245.948
273.061
256.716
453.878
112.998
96.412
62.752
42.207
24.827
63.750
87.544
1.361.140
1.323.007
1.922.020
2.105.706
2.108.957
1.964.608
2.186.140
4.460
6.423
5.572
9.833
10.982
14.865
17.407
1.655.199
1.658.113
2.261.494
2.403.694
2.417.826
2.299.939
2.744.968
30.607.336 36.651.487 40.427.983 42.694.681 43.657.717 44.072.885 47.662.730

108

Table A2.4 Local Units of MUD, Local Units of RI, and coverage (in % of local units of the Registro
delle Imprese, RI) of the MUD database, Industry in a Strict Sense, by provinces and regions: 2004
Local units, Local Units,
MUD/RI, 2004 %
MUD, 2004
RI, 2004
Torino
5.423
29.865
18,16
Vercelli
533
2.605
20,46
Novara
1.174
5.542
21,18
Cuneo
1.653
8.785
18,82
Asti
614
3.107
19,76
Alessandria
1.626
6.593
24,66
Biella
792
3.407
23,25
Verbano Cusio Ossola
533
2.585
20,62
Piemonte
12.348
62.489
19,76
Aosta
200
1.404
14,25
Valle d'Aosta
200
1.404
14,25
Varese
3.263
15.146
21,54
Como
2.420
10.849
22,31
Sondrio
400
2.352
17,01
Milano
11.602
60.557
19,16
Bergamo
4.433
17.018
26,05
Brescia
5.664
21.978
25,77
Pavia
1.577
7.336
21,50
Cremona
1.027
4.996
20,56
Mantova
1.396
6.598
21,16
Lecco
1.724
6.404
26,92
Lodi
530
2.604
20,35
Lombardia
34.036
155.838
21,84
Bolzano - Bozen
924
5.969
15,48
Trento
1.457
6.246
23,33
Trentino Alto Adige
2.381
12.215
19,49
Verona
3.459
13.974
24,75
Vicenza
6.029
18.199
33,13
Belluno
918
3.175
28,91
Treviso
4.673
16.302
28,67
Venezia
2.338
10.702
21,85
Padova
3.683
16.572
22,22
Rovigo
667
3.948
16,89
Veneto
21.767
82.872
26,27
Udine
1.882
7.948
23,68
Gorizia
327
1.651
19,81
Trieste
279
2.011
13,87
Pordenone
1.524
4.712
32,34
Friuli Venezia Giulia
4.012
16.322
24,58
Imperia
198
2.120
9,34
Savona
365
3.200
11,41
Genova
1.135
9.860
11,51
La Spezia
369
2.560
14,41
Liguria
2.067
17.740
11,65
Piacenza
810
4.072
19,89
Parma
1.658
7.599
21,82
Reggio Emilia
2.372
10.480
22,63
Modena
3.046
15.080
20,20
Bologna
3.679
14.993
24,54
Ferrara
762
4.285
17,78
Ravenna
1.052
4.833
21,77
Province and region

109

Province and region

Forl Cesena
Rimini
Emilia Romagna
Massa Carrara
Lucca
Pistoia
Firenze
Livorno
Pisa
Arezzo
Siena
Grosseto
Prato
Toscana
Perugia
Terni
Umbria
Pesaro e Urbino
Ancona
Macerata
Ascoli Piceno
Marche
Viterbo
Rieti
Roma
Latina
Frosinone
Lazio
L'Aquila
Teramo
Pescara
Chieti
Abruzzo
Campobasso
Isernia
Molise
Caserta
Benevento
Napoli
Avellino
Salerno
Campania
Foggia
Bari
Taranto
Brindisi
Lecce
Puglia
Potenza
Matera
Basilicata
Cosenza
Catanzaro
Reggio di Calabria

Local units, Local Units,

MUD/RI, 2004 %
MUD, 2004
RI, 2004
1.353
6.079
22,26
799
4.185
19,09
15.531
71.606
21,69
611
3.065
19,93
1.429
6.679
21,40
918
6.470
14,19
3.834
20.269
18,92
465
3.450
13,48
1.898
6.666
28,47
1.573
6.903
22,79
994
3.935
25,26
379
2.402
15,78
1.105
9.677
11,42
13.206
69.516
19,00
2.098
9.849
21,30
499
2.569
19,42
2.597
12.418
20,91
2.061
7.430
27,74
1.847
7.009
26,35
1.789
6.682
26,77
2.355
8.265
28,49
8.052
29.386
27,40
522
3.136
16,65
250
1.395
17,92
4.139
25.236
16,40
1.004
5.159
19,46
1.228
5.509
22,29
7.143
40.435
17,67
450
3.290
13,68
1.007
5.476
18,39
497
3.739
13,29
940
5.188
18,12
2.894
17.693
16,36
393
2.603
15,10
164
988
16,60
557
3.591
15,51
1.259
7.043
17,88
579
3.040
19,05
3.919
27.130
14,45
1.037
5.295
19,58
1.468
11.743
12,50
8.262
54.251
15,23
583
5.493
10,61
3.434
18.777
18,29
605
4.236
14,28
447
3.446
12,97
1.218
9.606
12,68
6.287
41.558
15,13
515
4.124
12,49
301
2.097
14,35
816
6.221
13,12
489
7.154
6,84
259
3.456
7,49
243
6.669
3,64

110

Province and region

Crotone
Vibo Valentia
Calabria
Trapani
Palermo
Messina
Agrigento
Caltanissetta
Enna
Catania
Ragusa
Siracusa
Sicilia
Sassari
Nuoro
Cagliari
Oristano
Sardegna
Italy

Local units, Local Units,

MUD/RI, 2004 %
MUD, 2004
RI, 2004
122
1.811
6,74
81
1.758
4,61
1.194
20.848
5,73
651
4.325
15,05
1.185
8.928
13,27
522
5.724
9,12
527
3.347
15,75
283
2.668
10,61
190
1.417
13,41
718
9.932
7,23
328
2.931
11,19
242
3.091
7,83
4.646
42.363
10,97
795
5.906
13,46
228
3.143
7,25
874
7.462
11,71
226
1.440
15,69
2.123
17.951
11,83
150.119
776.717
19,33

111

Table A2.5 Coverage (in % of local units of the Registro delle Imprese, RI) of the MUD database, Industry in a Strict Sense, by provinces and regions: 1998-2004
Province
Torino
Vercelli
Novara
Cuneo
Asti
Alessandria
Biella
Verbano Cusio Ossola
Piemonte
Aosta
Valle dAosta
Varese
Como
Sondrio
Milano
Bergamo
Brescia
Pavia
Cremona
Mantova
Lecco
Lodi
Lombardia
Bolzano - Bozen
Trento
Trentino Alto Adige
Verona
Vicenza
Belluno
Treviso
Venezia
Padova
Rovigo
Veneto
Udine
Gorizia
Trieste
Pordenone
Friuli Venezia Giulia
Imperia
Savona
Genova
La Spezia
Liguria
Piacenza
Parma
Reggio Emilia
Modena
Bologna
Ferrara
Ravenna

1998
20,28
18,61
21,46
18,15
22,31
29,98
26,22
19,13
21,45
11,27
11,27
20,00
20,82
17,94
18,32
27,64
26,80
21,19
19,43
22,55
26,69
20,19
21,41
17,05
18,41
17,72
27,98
33,81
30,95
28,80
24,35
22,23
17,95
27,46
23,14
18,89
13,22
33,37
24,18
9,65
12,63
12,67
14,45
12,55
20,70
20,65
22,44
18,87
24,79
19,86
22,94

1999
20,16
18,76
21,60
18,32
22,26
29,77
25,56
19,23
21,39
13,46
13,46
21,36
21,55
17,82
18,81
27,60
27,02
20,73
20,65
21,77
26,56
20,24
21,82
17,12
19,95
18,50
27,67
33,26
30,44
28,65
22,75
22,52
17,68
27,08
23,72
20,34
13,59
25,86
22,65
9,84
12,39
12,65
14,13
12,48
20,38
22,02
23,54
19,25
25,02
19,17
22,21

2000
19,76
19,33
21,23
18,22
21,61
29,03
25,27
18,92
21,03
11,65
11,65
21,40
22,02
17,18
19,03
27,20
27,08
21,24
21,22
21,21
26,34
19,80
21,93
16,58
19,99
18,27
27,20
33,59
29,42
28,53
22,87
22,32
17,49
26,95
23,43
20,46
13,11
32,39
24,32
9,18
11,60
12,45
13,93
12,11
20,53
21,73
23,64
19,33
24,82
18,44
22,96

2001
19,03
19,09
20,81
18,05
20,54
28,38
24,78
18,81
20,45
12,35
12,35
21,56
22,15
16,75
18,91
26,68
26,27
21,01
21,11
21,29
26,22
19,14
21,75
15,56
20,16
17,89
25,68
33,13
29,29
28,61
22,48
22,05
16,98
26,48
23,42
19,59
12,69
31,72
24,04
8,53
11,53
11,74
13,94
11,63
19,25
20,97
23,45
19,22
24,83
17,31
22,40

2002
18,79
18,97
20,55
17,94
20,13
24,76
23,69
19,60
19,85
12,34
12,34
21,61
22,09
17,27
19,11
26,40
26,14
20,83
21,01
20,89
26,22
19,53
21,80
15,54
20,70
18,15
24,79
32,76
28,98
28,54
22,09
22,00
16,31
26,14
22,55
19,27
13,21
31,92
23,72
8,63
11,24
11,47
13,58
11,38
18,64
21,30
22,87
19,28
24,32
17,43
22,39

2003
18,42
19,05
20,58
17,99
19,46
24,39
22,73
20,08
19,56
13,18
13,18
21,43
21,77
16,56
18,99
26,18
25,59
21,09
20,29
20,93
26,30
19,99
21,63
14,79
21,51
18,20
24,67
32,70
28,79
28,33
21,78
21,64
16,69
25,95
23,18
19,26
13,07
32,09
24,08
8,57
11,11
10,62
13,40
10,86
19,46
21,64
22,63
19,70
24,32
17,55
21,43

2004
17,87
19,85
20,61
17,89
19,18
23,54
22,66
20,31
19,23
13,96
13,96
21,23
21,88
16,84
18,66
25,69
24,88
21,01
20,22
20,70
26,44
19,93
21,34
14,98
21,92
18,53
24,45
32,73
28,47
28,29
21,50
21,78
16,57
25,89
23,04
19,26
13,43
31,88
24,02
8,77
11,03
11,04
14,14
11,22
19,60
20,88
22,07
19,68
24,20
17,50
21,52

112

Province
Forl - Cesena
Rimini
Emilia Romagna
Massa Carrara
Lucca
Pistoia
Firenze
Livorno
Pisa
Arezzo
Siena
Grosseto
Prato
Toscana
Perugia
Terni
Umbria
Pesaro e Urbino
Ancona
Macerata
Ascoli Piceno
Marche
Viterbo
Rieti
Roma
Latina
Frosinone
Lazio
L'Aquila
Teramo
Pescara
Chieti
Abruzzo
Campobasso
Isernia
Molise
Caserta
Benevento
Napoli
Avellino
Salerno
Campania
Foggia
Bari
Taranto
Brindisi
Lecce
Puglia
Potenza
Matera
Basilicata
Cosenza
Catanzaro
Reggio di Calabria

1998
22,50
18,97
21,57
22,91
22,86
14,54
20,51
15,30
31,20
26,99
25,45
31,76
11,61
20,86
19,21
17,01
18,77
29,30
27,37
28,43
32,56
29,65
20,13
18,06
17,05
18,68
22,66
18,24
11,99
18,37
13,14
15,86
15,31
16,38
18,69
17,02
14,57
10,36
11,31
19,63
9,37
11,98
7,73
13,62
6,92
8,06
12,64
11,48
9,12
10,35
9,53
4,86
5,68
4,04

1999
21,78
18,29
21,79
22,75
22,30
14,56
20,56
14,55
31,89
27,37
25,67
19,40
11,48
20,56
19,39
17,14
18,94
29,47
28,04
28,53
31,68
29,60
17,89
26,60
16,64
18,80
23,38
18,19
12,36
18,72
13,72
20,10
16,81
17,10
19,40
17,73
16,21
16,62
12,18
19,61
9,75
13,05
7,74
16,41
11,66
9,95
13,75
13,65
9,18
11,32
9,89
5,17
5,80
3,45

2000
22,04
19,22
21,84
22,08
21,93
14,15
20,36
14,96
31,22
15,13
25,30
18,36
11,50
19,14
19,00
17,29
18,66
29,16
27,73
28,18
31,03
29,16
16,79
20,80
15,86
18,48
23,16
17,35
11,57
18,91
13,66
20,11
16,70
17,66
19,24
18,10
15,84
16,62
11,93
19,46
10,57
13,07
7,93
17,11
12,21
10,41
13,30
13,96
9,71
12,82
10,75
4,94
6,58
3,24

2001
22,13
18,76
21,50
21,53
22,39
14,35
19,66
13,89
30,64
19,87
24,97
16,81
11,29
19,24
19,32
17,22
18,91
27,92
27,11
26,67
30,43
28,17
15,51
23,95
15,59
18,94
22,15
17,13
12,52
18,82
13,33
19,96
16,76
15,80
17,61
16,30
17,86
18,23
13,67
19,70
10,75
14,39
8,93
16,52
12,75
10,91
12,83
13,83
10,27
12,73
11,09
5,08
6,23
3,14

2002
21,99
19,08
21,35
20,63
21,88
13,56
19,09
13,95
29,56
25,31
24,44
17,63
11,54
19,41
20,14
18,30
19,77
27,43
26,54
25,89
28,29
27,12
15,96
20,46
15,71
18,41
21,97
17,07
13,31
18,16
13,02
18,23
16,17
14,99
16,89
15,52
17,28
19,18
13,82
19,26
11,13
14,50
9,30
17,52
13,31
11,79
11,79
14,20
11,65
13,64
12,31
5,22
6,19
3,23

2003
22,31
19,36
21,47
20,52
21,24
13,84
18,97
13,43
28,75
24,70
24,34
16,72
11,39
19,15
20,56
19,07
20,26
27,65
26,11
25,75
29,23
27,29
15,98
17,96
16,00
19,12
21,44
17,19
13,78
17,66
12,66
17,45
15,81
15,50
16,46
15,77
17,53
19,63
13,86
19,78
11,66
14,74
10,10
17,59
13,90
12,23
11,93
14,50
11,59
14,03
12,42
5,76
6,33
3,13

2004
21,99
18,76
21,24
19,77
20,77
13,77
18,67
13,16
28,10
22,38
24,93
15,40
11,07
18,65
21,05
19,07
20,64
27,62
25,97
26,46
28,09
27,09
16,17
17,78
16,03
19,17
21,75
17,28
13,16
17,99
13,13
17,73
15,99
14,52
16,50
15,07
17,52
18,82
14,10
19,23
12,16
14,89
10,40
18,10
14,07
12,48
12,61
14,93
12,29
13,88
12,83
6,09
6,31
3,27

113

Province
Crotone
Vibo Valentia
Calabria
Trapani
Palermo
Messina
Agrigento
Caltanissetta
Enna
Catania
Ragusa
Siracusa
Sicilia
Sassari
Nuoro
Cagliari
Oristano
Sardegna
Italy

1998
7,52
2,83
4,81
10,71
10,66
7,26
10,80
6,09
9,81
5,43
7,99
7,45
8,23
16,59
11,00
13,73
17,51
14,60
19,39

1999
8,36
2,63
4,82
11,55
10,90
7,35
13,27
6,76
8,04
6,11
11,43
7,45
8,97
15,32
9,33
13,32
16,91
13,66
19,61

2000
7,45
2,67
4,75
12,75
11,15
7,12
13,15
6,90
8,41
6,73
11,16
7,10
9,23
14,69
9,39
12,50
15,32
12,97
19,40

2001
6,83
2,87
4,65
13,27
11,66
7,98
13,82
7,48
9,19
6,32
10,75
6,70
9,47
14,49
9,75
12,74
14,78
13,00
19,23

2002
6,03
3,10
4,66
12,32
11,94
7,78
14,05
8,01
9,75
6,34
10,28
6,79
9,45
13,64
9,38
12,02
14,59
12,33
19,08

2003
5,94
3,18
4,82
12,76
12,02
8,26
14,97
7,92
11,67
6,68
10,92
6,58
9,80
13,71
7,52
11,41
14,93
11,80
19,00

2004
6,52
3,98
5,08
13,25
12,41
8,87
15,45
10,38
12,99
7,02
10,64
7,25
10,39
13,09
6,87
11,32
15,21
11,44
18,89

114

Table A2.6 Ranking of the most pollutant provinces, as regards waste production (tons), by Ateco divisions: 2004
Waste production of Industry in a Strict Sense: provinces over 1 million of tons in 2004
Ateco
Province
Brescia
Cagliari
Taranto
Milano
Verona
Torino
Vicenza
Savona
Bergamo
Brindisi
Modena
Venezia
Mantova

Province code Region

BS
CA
TA
MI
VR
TO
VI
SV
BG
BR
MO
VE
MN

10

11 12

Lombardia
0
8
Sardegna
267
0
Puglia
0
0
Lombardia
0 297
Veneto
14
0
Piemonte
0
0
Veneto
0
0
Liguria
0
0
Lombardia
0
0
Puglia
0 49
Emilia Romagna
0 575
Veneto
0
0
Lombardia
0
0

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

0
0 67.393 30.119
0 12.384 2.091
3.370 19.287 40.106 15.550 1.940
0 2.331 2.725 15.654
0
0
0
40
76
1.738
1.936 58.190
0
0 4.485 23.114
0
900
692
0
634
101
1.109 16.062
0
0 38.617 44.905
0 44.833 4.195
5.603 65.851 101.206 214.666 4.807
0
0 17.759 88.197 772 6.329 6.739 15.072 16.405 74.480 24.764
129
0
0 8.725 17.051
0 9.089
411
2.540 27.024 51.320 44.998 5.290
0
0 10.713 34.615 58 19.157 10.044 314.775
7.683 47.743 11.541
86
0
0
390
2.810
0
22
0
42
3.077 21.319
110 5.857
0
0 11.917 40.760 49 41.986 4.558
2.398 21.203 30.433 62.233
46
0
0 1.461
5.656
0
30
104
175
585
8
31 1.033
0
0 2.036 146.718
0 4.564 5.566
5.098 12.888 25.614 12.080
231
0
0
139 45.807
0 1.567 1.141
3.430 73.968
7.720
7.588 6.296
0
0 2.220 39.761
0 15.726 1.824
449 515.732 34.381 23.186 12.367

Waste production of Industry in a Strict Sense: provinces under 20.000 of tons in 2004
Ateco
Province
Rieti
Oristano
Agrigento
Enna
Vibo Valentia
Imperia

Province code Region

RI
OR
AG
EN
VV
IM

Lazio
Sardegna
Sicilia
Sicilia
Calabria
Liguria

10

11 12

0
0
0
0
0
0
0 380
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

0
988
0 11.859
0
176
0 2.280
0
12
0
109

2.180
3.468
3.337
2.932
2.950
1.842

0
0
0
0
0
0

4.361
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
4

0
0
0
0
0
0

465
16
97
5
1
3

116
100
104
141
0
11

44
10
18
115
0
54

32
224
0
2
25
3

115

Table A2.6 continued

Waste production of Industry in a Strict Sense: provinces over 1 million of tons in 2004

Province
Brescia
Cagliari
Taranto
Milano
Verona
Torino
Vicenza
Savona
Bergamo
Brindisi
Modena
Venezia
Mantova

24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
28.374 27.085 138.337 2.071.799 262.072 55.359 151 10.629
90 380 62.286 1.571
1.602.629
2.926
10.275 344.837
4.631 1.222
18 3.762
47 172
121 1.080
916
186
13.150 2.068.946
4.511 2.048
1
133
0 252
19 1.216
276.779 70.686 219.083 425.415 320.849 81.502 4.149 24.473 17.712 4.859 24.495 5.514
12.420
7.007 1.219.056 189.891 132.605 22.668 162 10.695
277 201
6.074 2.784
37.598 62.170
57.937 320.586 433.264 95.895 2.160 21.223 1.391 2.837 245.267 12.418
92.823 32.998 249.927 313.322 181.460 44.634
96 24.093 2.747 811
3.041 6.364
1.120.417
1.460
23.979
54
4.185 1.026
0 1.422
131
0
921 1.801
208.857 43.851 165.003 376.866 137.469 40.057 423 12.651 1.693 899 49.069 4.986
35.428
4.668
3.118
1.206
4.951 13.710
0
737
7
85
0 3.546
21.749
8.549 744.644
37.896 54.880 55.611
1 1.775
357 5.820 12.855
472
266.868 102.216
78.289
59.563 34.632 7.043
7 1.154
187 1.237
436 20.169
63.855
3.950
30.024
92.499 33.638 14.722
0 1.516
51 512
8.639
395

36
40 Total per province
5.321
17.164
2.872.865
10.443 121.020
2.186.139
564
15.576
2.154.615
40.843
41.663
2.083.000
10.858
2.693
1.868.049
5.730
28.649
1.493.572
21.289
1.167
1.431.187
241 207.226
1.396.490
10.146
11.445
1.278.995
149 1.192.372
1.269.111
5.060
1.589
1.166.629
15.406 373.793
1.108.657
8.563 118.456
1.022.468

Waste production of Industry in a Strict Sense: provinces under 20.000 of tons in 2004

Province
Rieti
Oristano
Agrigento
Enna
Vibo Valentia
Imperia

24
2.576
0
13
90
271
306

25
457
389
16
122
1
3

26
3.519
704
3.319
742
607
335

27
757
37
64
0
0
0

28
373
70
143
46
1.185
1.124

29
1.505
85
96
19
582
1.018

30
15
0
0
0
0
0

31
718
100
35
0
0
1

32
753
0
0
0
0
0

33
208
0
0
47
0
0

34
0
0
16
8
0
0

35
0
51
1
0
29
137

36
28
70
36
23
1
3

40 Total per province

176
19.272
222
17.407
2.336
9.806
38
6.990
18
5.683
248
5.201

116

Table A2.7 Waste production per local unit (tons per UL, t/UL), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy, by
provinces and regions: 1998-2004
Province
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Torino
210 269 289 282 267 265 280
Vercelli
607 727 704 694 641 643 725
Novara
120 156 187 198 203 197 222
Cuneo
208 269 286 292 318 282 369
Asti
134 176 182 165 187 194 185
Alessandria
78
83
95 120 144 151 155
Biella
107 145 179 217 207 217
95
Verbano Cusio Ossola 245 211 196 261 227 210 235
Piemonte
187 232 250 257 256 252 271
Aosta
660 421 479 481 479 551 639
Valle dAosta
660 421 479 481 479 551 639
Varese
109 138 145 151 149 150 152
Como
73 126 119 115 114 134 139
Sondrio
121 114 135 140 145 172 144
Milano
107 132 145 147 149 157 184
Bergamo
225 262 276 301 310 302 293
Brescia
303 346 499 538 525 507 525
Pavia
210 289 253 281 405 372 393
Cremona
187 569 645 552 484 485 473
Mantova
188 258 351 426 660 682 749
Lecco
242 259 325 329 333 360 378
Lodi
164 235 262 302 471 444 275
Lombardia
170 216 256 269 285 287 301
Bolzano - Bozen
129 186 209 213 190 175 207
Trento
280 252 291 326 336 342 336
Trentino Alto Adige
206 221 253 278 274 275 285
Verona
497 545 558 545 542 517 547
Vicenza
164 218 249 271 254 255 240
Belluno
105 148 180 153 162 148 167
Treviso
134 174 183 198 199 202 207
Venezia
303 367 422 439 409 449 482
Padova
137 158 242 219 233 211 235
Rovigo
369 466 492 908 820 399 275
Veneto
227 273 308 323 314 299 305
Udine
246 394 426 468 487 455 503
Gorizia
533 800 857 809 1.178 829 741
Trieste
283 311 379 758 627 376 695
Pordenone
171 270 244 263 286 295 302
Friuli Venezia Giulia 243 385 390 438 476 419 458
Imperia
21
23
27
29
27
30
28
Savona
749 665 814 786 3.034 4.047 3.956
Genova
411 402 485 730 485 525 543
La Spezia
654 658 412 692 734 732 684
Liguria
475 455 489 669 951 1.160 1.126
Piacenza
465 423 377 329 362 185 170
Parma
145 197 165 192 192 201 179
Reggio Emilia
179 221 260 268 261 263 276
Modena
319 390 374 402 380 384 393
Bologna
134 168 176 200 192 201 194
Ferrara
567 667 506 580 598 548 529
Ravenna
446 597 537 668 793 739 757

117

Province
Forl - Cesena
Rimini
Emilia Romagna
Massa Carrara
Lucca
Pistoia
Firenze
Livorno
Pisa
Arezzo
Siena
Grosseto
Prato
Toscana
Perugia
Terni
Umbria
Pesaro e Urbino
Ancona
Macerata
Ascoli Piceno
Marche
Viterbo
Rieti
Roma
Latina
Frosinone
Lazio
L'Aquila
Teramo
Pescara
Chieti
Abruzzo
Campobasso
Isernia
Molise
Caserta
Benevento
Napoli
Avellino
Salerno
Campania
Foggia
Bari
Taranto
Brindisi
Lecce
Puglia
Potenza
Matera
Basilicata
Cosenza
Catanzaro
Reggio di Calabria

1998
174
72
240
948
445
45
55
288
164
321
86
896
38
227
171
1.044
330
94
126
61
59
81
127
75
78
150
204
112
322
109
61
310
191
425
86
323
121
37
72
99
159
97
209
188
7.449
479
51
615
496
146
371
30
26
203

1999
241
83
291
929
460
53
67
336
193
131
97
1.175
45
211
191
1.631
452
87
181
84
66
100
180
76
106
193
253
145
387
125
66
292
208
663
222
531
183
30
95
131
223
130
203
200
3.880
2.103
73
599
1.075
162
728
38
65
32

2000
249
103
280
972
477
68
77
280
226
255
110
1.367
51
243
228
1.589
481
106
176
95
62
105
209
96
129
199
320
175
437
145
91
262
214
677
235
548
212
30
104
170
212
144
265
189
2.435
2.297
77
498
963
204
660
68
80
80

2001
235
107
304
1.013
493
66
76
470
220
134
137
1.030
54
234
252
1.375
456
121
182
93
71
113
191
183
91
186
359
161
355
201
166
265
238
739
204
579
218
37
118
194
193
151
415
203
2.394
2.376
88
544
561
291
458
91
63
53

2002
334
107
317
896
483
69
75
380
231
215
145
1.232
51
243
241
1.407
460
139
188
100
83
125
193
190
87
178
303
149
312
203
130
264
227
737
198
573
202
42
112
201
214
150
270
217
1.044
2.593
101
444
524
178
397
62
58
36

2003
484
95
318
756
489
78
80
492
155
147
191
1.149
49
224
194
1.204
387
153
189
100
81
128
190
204
82
176
322
148
283
204
126
267
223
752
256
608
209
42
98
163
241
144
353
205
2.371
2.715
99
583
453
120
325
162
60
44

2004
210
106
294
792
415
70
93
652
160
113
180
1.289
49
227
200
1.378
425
190
191
95
84
138
237
78
96
181
285
150
303
218
118
295
239
587
223
477
226
49
104
156
208
144
516
217
3.615
2.951
115
741
506
150
376
106
117
119

118

Province
Crotone
Vibo Valentia
Calabria
Trapani
Palermo
Messina
Agrigento
Caltanissetta
Enna
Catania
Ragusa
Siracusa
Sicilia
Sassari
Nuoro
Cagliari
Oristano
Sardegna
Italy

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

993 257 109 115 229 445
99
94 103
84
79 121
203
78
81
79
75 143
141 158 149 173 257 247
361 311 355 347 246 202
125
56 135 218 304 368
16
46
48
9
10
22
237 272 365 175 171 298
9
22
36
42
24
43
30 188 143 150 172 225
43
64
71 115
60
49
579 772 1.131 803 921 1.369
188 206 241 224 224 253
220 302 354 316 357 324
440 430 261 162
93 285
1.815 1.757 2.583 2.568 2.553 2.393
21
31
29
51
55
69
819 850 1.165 1.171 1.174 1.121
217 255 280 292 298 299

2004
1.045
81
214
341
304
410
19
3.438
38
164
79
2.631
554
587
405
2.587
79
1.337
325

119

Table A2.8 Waste production per worker (tons per worker, t/add), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy, by
provinces and regions: 1998-2004
Province
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Torino
5
7
7
8
8
7
8
Vercelli
17
21
20
20
19
19
21
Novara
4
5
6
6
7
6
7
Cuneo
6
8
8
9
10
9
12
Asti
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
Alessandria
4
5
5
6
7
7
7
Biella
3
5
5
7
7
7
3
Verbano Cusio Ossola
13
11
10
14
13
12
14
Piemonte
6
7
7
8
8
8
9
Aosta
20
14
15
17
18
22
28
Valle dAosta
20
14
15
17
18
22
28
Varese
4
5
5
6
6
6
6
Como
3
5
5
5
5
6
6
Sondrio
5
5
5
6
6
7
6
Milano
4
5
5
5
6
6
7
Bergamo
8
10
10
11
11
11
11
Brescia
13
16
22
24
24
23
24
Pavia
11
15
13
15
20
19
21
Cremona
7
21
24
21
18
18
18
Mantova
7
9
11
14
21
22
25
Lecco
9
10
12
13
13
15
16
Lodi
6
8
10
11
19
18
11
Lombardia
7
8
10
10
11
11
12
Bolzano - Bozen
5
7
8
8
7
7
8
Trento
10
10
12
14
15
16
16
Trentino Alto Adige
8
9
10
11
11
12
12
Verona
24
26
25
25
25
24
26
Vicenza
8
10
11
12
12
12
11
Belluno
4
6
6
5
6
5
6
Treviso
6
7
8
8
8
8
9
Venezia
14
17
20
20
19
21
23
Padova
7
8
12
11
11
10
11
Rovigo
16
20
22
40
37
18
14
Veneto
10
12
14
14
14
13
14
Udine
11
17
18
20
21
20
22
Gorizia
15
22
23
21
32
23
22
Trieste
8
9
10
20
16
11
20
Pordenone
6
8
9
9
10
10
11
Friuli Venezia Giulia
9
14
14
16
17
16
17
Imperia
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
Savona
26
21
28
28 110 151 152
Genova
15
14
17
26
17
20
23
La Spezia
30
29
20
30
43
36
33
Liguria
19
17
19
26
39
48
50
Piacenza
21
18
16
13
15
8
7
Parma
6
9
7
8
8
9
8
Reggio Emilia
7
9
10
10
10
10
11
Modena
11
14
13
14
14
14
14
Bologna
5
7
7
8
8
8
8
Ferrara
20
23
18
20
22
20
19
Ravenna
19
25
23
27
32
31
30

120

Province
Forl - Cesena
Rimini
Emilia Romagna
Massa Carrara
Lucca
Pistoia
Firenze
Livorno
Pisa
Arezzo
Siena
Grosseto
Prato
Toscana
Perugia
Terni
Umbria
Pesaro e Urbino
Ancona
Macerata
Ascoli Piceno
Marche
Viterbo
Rieti
Roma
Latina
Frosinone
Lazio
L'Aquila
Teramo
Pescara
Chieti
Abruzzo
Campobasso
Isernia
Molise
Caserta
Benevento
Napoli
Avellino
Salerno
Campania
Foggia
Bari
Taranto
Brindisi
Lecce
Puglia
Potenza
Matera
Basilicata
Cosenza
Catanzaro
Reggio di Calabria

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

8
10
10
10
14
20
9
4
5
5
6
6
5
6
10
12
11
12
13
13
12
71
67
75
78
69
59
64
25
25
26
27
28
28
24
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
3
4
5
5
4
5
6
9
10
10
17
13
18
23
10
12
13
13
15
10
10
21
8
12
8
13
9
7
6
7
7
9
9
12
12
113 105 121
85 112 106 111
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
14
13
14
14
15
14
14
9
10
11
13
13
10
11
39
62
63
55
59
50
60
16
22
23
22
23
20
22
5
5
6
7
8
8
10
4
7
7
7
7
7
7
4
5
5
5
5
6
5
4
5
4
5
6
6
6
4
5
6
6
6
7
7
8
11
13
12
12
13
15
4
5
6
15
12
12
5
4
5
7
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
8
6
8
10
12
11
13
12
5
6
8
8
8
8
8
7
10
11
9
9
9
10
4
5
5
8
8
8
8
4
4
5
9
6
6
6
9
8
8
8
7
8
9
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
17
28
20
34
44
36
28
3
8
9
7
8
10
8
13
21
17
24
29
28
21
5
8
9
10
9
11
12
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
3
5
5
6
7
6
7
5
6
9
10
11
9
9
6
9
9
9
11
13
11
4
6
7
8
8
9
9
9
9
13
23
14
20
30
12
12
12
13
15
14
15
94
78
51
54
26
53
93
15
75
88
96 114 112 150
3
4
4
6
7
7
10
28
29
24
28
24
32
44
10
21
20
13
13
12
15
5
6
8
11
6
5
6
9
17
17
12
11
10
12
2
3
4
6
4
12
9
3
5
7
5
5
6
12
17
3
5
4
3
3
9

121

Province
Crotone
Vibo Valentia
Calabria
Trapani
Palermo
Messina
Agrigento
Caltanissetta
Enna
Catania
Ragusa
Siracusa
Sicilia
Sassari
Nuoro
Cagliari
Oristano
Sardegna
Italy

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

67
23
9
11
16
32
88
5
4
4
5
4
7
5
15
6
6
6
5
11
18
20
20
19
21
31
34
50
23
21
21
29
22
19
31
10
4
9
16
23
31
33
3
9
9
2
2
4
4
9
12
17
8
9
17 259
1
3
6
5
3
7
6
2
9
7
8
8
11
8
4
6
7
11
5
5
7
16
18
28
22
25
41
83
13
14
16
16
17
20
46
20
25
28
27
30
29
53
26
21
14
9
6
16
25
82
73 119 124 134 118 149
3
4
4
6
6
8
9
52
50
72
74
79
73
96
9
11
12
13
13
13
15

122

3. ITALIAN WASTE PRODUCTION (1998-2004): A GENERAL

FRAMEWORK FOR THE ANALYSIS

3.1 Introduction
The present chapter gives an overview of the socio-economic variables which contribute to the waste
production and which will be used in the econometric test of Chapter 4. After a brief description of
each of them in the span of time 1998-2004, at a provincial and at national level, how each driver might
have influence on waste production, and the related hypothesis, will be outlined.

3.2 A note on the theoretical framework

The model used in Chapter 4 mixes the EKC literature with the IPAT frame work, which, as illustrated
in Chapter 1, is an identity where I stands for the impact of the pollutant (usually measured in terms of
emissions level, such as atmospheric emissions or waste production), which must be equal to the product of P, which is the populations level impact, A, which is the economic assessment of a social system
wealth (such as the per capita GDP), and T, which is the impact of the technological progress18: I =
P*A*T (Impact = population * affluence * technology). The IPAT framework suggests which kind of
variables should be included as potential drivers in the equation of the tested model, in addition to the
wellbeing indicators (GDP or value-added) which the EKC literature usually concentrates on, in order
to get more reliable relations between waste production and wellbeing indicators.
In the following sections the variables selected as potential drivers will be described, as regards the selected period 1998-2004.

3.3 The drivers of the model

The theoretical framework thus outlined has led to identify a set of variables to include in the econometric test, with particular reference to those economic indicators which determine the production of
waste at a provincial level and have influence on it across time. According to the main indications of
the literature, a set of variables have been selected, and then a set of drivers has been created and will
be used in the econometric test. The drivers used in the model are of socio-economic nature (value-

Among the research project which used such a framework, see Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2000). For
more details on the IPAT identity, see Ehrlich and Holdren (1971), and Holdren (2000), and Chapter 1.

18

123

added, population density, sectorial composition of the production, and citizens environmental sensibility), of technological nature (indicators of the innovative ability of the provinces), and of regulatory
nature.
The main driver of the waste production is the value-added of the productive activities: its use in the
econometric test has the aim of capturing not only the productive potential of the considered geographical unit, but also the quality of such a potential. The ratio of the value-added of the several divisions (industry, services, etc.) on the total has been added too, in order to get the effect that the change
in the productive morphology of the territory might have on waste generation. In addition to the valueadded, a measure of the population density has been included: on one hand, the growing delocalization
of the great industrial parks and citizens environmental sensibility might implicate a negative relationship between density and waste; on the other hand, highly populated territories can provide skilled
workers for industries, especially in those sectors known as traditional industry, whose production is
characterised by a high labour-intensity. An indicator of the ratio of the urban sorted waste collection
on the total of urban waste will lead to estimate the feasible impact that the environmental sensibility of
citizens (and, indirectly, of the local administrators elected by those citizens) might have on the production of waste. Moreover, and indicator on the energy consumption of firms will allow to capture the effect of the energy efficiency of that given production, and the ability of the territorys economic actors
to create economic value. As driver of technological innovation of a province, the number of patents of
the province will be used: even though patents are more a direct measure of the output of the research
and development sector, rather than a measure the investments in that field, they might explain the effect that the technological attitude of the provinces can have on waste production. Last, an index of infrastructures equipment will be used in order to evaluate the impact of the quality of the total of infrastructures of the province on the production of waste.

3.3.1 Descriptive analysis

With reference to the main literature outlined in Chapter 1, a set of drivers for Industry in a Strict Sense
has been selected, and from those variables the drivers used in the model will be created.

3.3.1 Value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense (1998-2004)

The value-added of the several productive activities represents the main driver of waste production,
and it is the main variable that the literature on EKC emissions relates to waste production, and that is
being used in this literature as the benchmark variable to be tested when searching for an EKC behaviour. The value-added, indeed, includes in itself the capability to create economic value of the economic
actor: since, in its simplest meaning, it is the difference between revenues and costs, the value-added

124

conveys the capability to create value thanks to a summation of several factors, from the management
ability, to the endowment of technology, to the skills of the employees, to the ability to exploit positive
developments, etc.
In Italy, the value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense has not experienced a strong variation in the considered period (Figure 3.1), and this is because the crisis that has stricken the industrial branch starting
from the year 200019: such a crisis has brought a stagnation to the whole economic performances of
that branch, with an increase of only +1,3% as regards the entire period 1998-200420.
In order to be able to compare the different provincial situations, a measure for the waste intensity has
been created, and it is defined by the ratio between the waste production of Industry in a Strict Sense in
that province, and the value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense in that same province21. The ratio between waste production in that province and its value-added measures the economic-environmental
competitiveness of the province, its capability to create value-added against the production of a certain
amount of waste. The values of that ratio show how many tons of waste in Industry in a Strict Sense
are needed to generate on million of euros of monetary (real) value: the lower that ratio, the more virtuous in environmental terms the province is, in relation with its own economy.

Figure 3.1 Value-added (millions of euros of 1995, ), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: 1998-2004
Valore Aggiunto dell'Industria in senso stretto, Italia, anni 1998-2004, ai prezzi base del 1995
250.000

milioni di euro del 1995

200.000

150.000

VA IndSS

100.000

50.000

0
1998

19

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Studi Confindustria (2006), Note Economiche n.1 2006.

20 The value-added which has been considered here is the real value-added, in terms of the year 1995, and it has been derived by dividing the nominal values by the base price index, the reference year being the year 1995 (value 100).
21

See Table A3.1 in the Appendix for details.

125

Table A3.1 in the Appendix shows the ratio between the quantity of waste produced and the valueadded (in 1995 euros), as regards Industry in a Strict Sense, for each province, while Figure 3.2, 3.3 and
3.4 show on a map that ratio for two years, 1998 and 2004, depicting its geographical distribution on
the national territory, for each year, and also the geographical description of the difference between the
values of that ratio during the considered span of time. Such a difference, as concerns the geographical
distribution, reflects the strong heterogeneity of the productive morphology of the Italian provinces.
The highest waste-producing (in absolute terms) regions in the North (Lombardia, Veneto and
Piemonte, as an example, with something like 10, 6,5 and 3,2 millions of tons in 2004, respectively) exhibit a low waste per unit of value-added ratio (respectively, 156, 255 and 144 tons per million of euros
in 2004), while their counterparts in the South, like Puglia, Sardegna or Sicilia, have a lower waste production in absolute terms (e.g., 4,6, 2,7 and 2,4 millions of tons in 2004, respectively), but a higher
waste per unit of value-added ratio (those three regions, in 2004, were showing a value of 650, 876 and
390 tons per million of euros, respectively).
The ratio between the quantity of waste and the value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense has experienced a steady growth everywhere, in the considered period: the average value for Italy, as an example,
has gone from 138 tons per million of euros in the year 1998, to 211 tons per million of euros in 2004,
with an increase of about +53% with respect to the start of the period.

126

Figure 3.2 Waste production per unit of value-added (tons per million of euros of 1995, t/),
Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: 1998

Legenda
RIF/VA 1998
sotto 50
50 - 100
101 - 200
201 - 500
501 - 1.000
1.001 - 1.500
oltre 1.500

127

Figure 3.3 Waste production per unit of value-added (tons per million of euros of 1995, t/), Industry
in a Strict Sense, Italy: 2004

Legenda
RIF/VA 2004
sotto 50
51 - 100
101 - 200
201 - 500
501 - 1000
1.001 - 1.500
oltre 1.500

128

Figure 3.4 Waste production per unit of value-added (tons per million of euros of 1995, t/), Industry
in a Strict Sense, Italy: difference between 2004 and 1998

Legenda
RIF/VA 1998-2004
sotto -200
tra -199 e -50
tra -49 e 50
tra 51 e 200
tra 201 e 500
tra 501 e 1.000
oltre 1.000

Such an increase shows how the value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense has grown in the considered
period, but in percentage terms it has grown less than the respective waste production (Figure 3.2): industries operating in Italy either are highly waste-intensive and low value-added firms22, or, among the
developed countries, they are the less performance-increasing industries in terms of joint economicenvironmental performances. In any case, the difference between the growth rate of the production of
waste and the growth rate of the value-added (which stands for economic wellbeing) is high: against an
increase of total special waste in Italy of more than +80% in 1998-2004, and an increase of waste of
Industry in a Strict Sense of little less than +60%, in the same years a small growth of the total value-

Italy was late as regards innovations in comparison with other European countries, and such a gap is the result of some
peculiarities of the Italian production system, which has always been oriented towards a productive structure too much unbalanced in favour of traditional productive sectors, and also as regards the average firms dimension.
22

129

added of Italy has taken place (around +10%), while small decrease in the value-added of Industry in a
Strict Sense has been experienced (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.5 Waste production and value-added, Industry in a Strict Sense and total, Italy:
1998-2004 indices
200

180

160

140

120

100

80
1998

1999

Rifiuti dell'Ind.S.S. da MUD

2000

2001

Rifiuti totali da MUD

2002

Valore Aggiunto dell'Ind.S.S

2003

2004

Valore Aggiunto totale

In Figure 2.5 the missing positive delinking between waste production and economic wellbeing can be
seen: the Italian production of waste has had growth rates values higher than the ones of the Italian
economy. In real terms, value-added has almost steadily increased by a total +10% only, in the whole
period 1998-2004.
Table 3.1 shows the high inter-temporal variability of the Industry in a Strict Sense waste-intensity indicator for the Italian provinces: there, it has been reported the ranking of the Italian provinces according
such indicator, for the year 1998, the year 2004, and also their difference in the ranking of that period.
Thus, for example, Savona, which is first in 2004, was eleventh in 1998, while Brindisi, second in 2004,
was forty-first in 1998, and Caltanissetta, third in 2004, was sixty-seventh in 1998, earning something
like 64 positions. At the lowest positions, in a decreasing order, are Vibo Valentia, Agrigento and Imperia, which all lose 10 positions with respect to 1998. Looking at the dynamic of the ranking, it can
be seen that some provinces worsen their indicators value in the studied period (e.g., Siracusa, Messina
and Mantova), while some others can improve their values (e.g., Piacenza, Arezzo e Nuoro), and some
others maintain the same rank in the list (Reggio Emilia and Lodi).

130

Table 3.1 Waste production per unit of value-added (in 1995 euros, ), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy:
ranking 2004, ranking 1998, and its difference
Province
Savona
Brindisi
Caltanissetta
Grosseto
Taranto
Cagliari
Massa Carrara
Terni
Siracusa
Sassari
Crotone
Gorizia
Ravenna
Vercelli
Campobasso
Verona
Trapani
Udine
Foggia
Brescia
Mantova
Venezia
Lucca
La Spezia
Aosta
Ferrara
Messina
Trieste
Pavia
Livorno
Pordenone
Pesaro e Urbino
Lecco
Potenza
Trento
Cremona
Genova
Vicenza
Bari
Palermo
Modena
Verbano Cusio Ossola
Viterbo
Rovigo
Siena
Perugia
Padova
Frosinone
Treviso
Reggio Emilia
Nuoro
Cuneo
Bergamo
Teramo
L'Aquila
Caserta

Position in 2004 Position in 1998

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
34
35
36
37
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
44
45
45
45
45
46
47
47
48
49

11
41
67
1
2
4
3
6
52
20
5
15
13
14
18
7
30
22
46
21
47
23
8
10
17
9
60
40
31
37
37
39
28
29
32
54
25
32
34
24
27
26
43
19
48
35
42
16
42
44
45
51
38
55
35
59

Variation in position,
2004-1998
10
39
64
-3
-3
-2
-4
-2
43
10
-6
3
0
0
3
-9
13
4
27
1
26
1
-15
-14
-8
-17
33
12
2
7
6
7
-5
-5
-2
19
-11
-5
-3
-14
-12
-14
2
-23
5
-9
-2
-29
-3
-1
0
5
-9
8
-13
10

131

Province
Chieti
Forl - Cesena
Ancona
Pisa
Asti
Salerno
Isernia
Avellino
Lodi
Torino
Lecce
Bologna
Macerata
Matera
Bolzano - Bozen
Piacenza
Parma
Belluno
Ascoli Piceno
Alessandria
Novara
Arezzo
Como
Rimini
Catania
Oristano
Varese
Sondrio
Napoli
Latina
Benevento
Ragusa
Milano
Firenze
Pescara
Rieti
Biella
Reggio di Calabria
Catanzaro
Pistoia
Cosenza
Enna
Roma
Prato
Vibo Valentia
Agrigento
Imperia

Position in 2004 Position in 1998

50
51
52
53
54
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
74
75
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92

33
36
50
29
47
49
71
53
57
54
73
55
54
55
57
18
56
58
50
65
66
12
70
63
84
68
79
61
75
64
79
78
74
72
77
69
62
52
84
75
83
86
76
80
80
81
82

Variation in position,
2004-1998
-17
-15
-2
-24
-7
-5
16
-3
0
-4
14
-5
-7
-7
-6
-46
-9
-8
-17
-3
-3
-58
-1
-9
11
-6
5
-14
0
-12
2
0
-5
-8
-4
-13
-21
-32
0
-10
-3
-1
-12
-9
-10
-10
-10

132

Table 3.2 Waste production per unit of value-added (tons per million of euros of 1995, t/),
Industry in a Strict Sense, 5 random provinces: 1998-2004
Province 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Milano
42
53
60
61
62
65
72
Venezia
206 244 312 331 310 336 355
Genova
185 173 184 265 197 214 235
Roma
35
47
55
36
34
34
38
L'Aquila 148 181 185 183 171 166 176
Italy
138 164 177 188 192 196 211

For every million of euros of value-added, Industry in a Strict Sense was producing 138 tons of waste in
1998, 177 in 2000, and even more in 2004, 211 tons. Table 3.2 allows comparing the Italian Industry in
a Strict Sense waste intensity with the randomly selected sample of provinces (Milano, Venezia,
Genova, Roma and LAquila): Milano and Rome were producing a quantity of waste per unit of valueadded below the national average, while Venezia was well above the national average23.

3.3.1.2 Energy consumption of Industry in a Strict Sense (1998-2004)

The energy input costs are a relevant component of the variable costs for industrial firms, as well as one
of the most volatile components of the total costs, since it is linked, to a great extent, to the trends of
the international quotations of the energy raw materials (petroleum, natural gas, coal). For the firm,
their prices are mainly exogenous, since it is determined in the international markets first, and then
on little competitive markets in the home country: firms, therefore, have not great margins to manoeuvre, and they can only adopt strategies which lead to less energy consumption, thanks to the implementation of more energy-efficient productive processes. Hence, the adoption of new technologies would
give not only a competitive advantage, which comes from the lesser use of energy resources, but also a
better environmental efficiency, which reduces the costs of the ex-post interventions24.

In 2004, the share of the value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense on the total of value-added of the province was 27,6%
in Milano, 18,6% in Venezia, 14,5% in Genova, 11,4% in Roma, and 18,0% in LAquila, against a national value of 21,4%
(Table A2.1).

23

24 The two main energy inputs for the whole of the Italian industrial complex are electricity and natural gas (methane), which
together have absorbed 80,7% of the energy inputs expenses of the industrial firms in 2004, resulting in an amount of 18,2
billions of euros (Centro Studi Confindustria, 2007). Other relevant energy inputs are two petroleum derivatives, that is diesel (which amounts at 8,9% of the total expenses in 2004) and fuel oil (2,6%), besides coal (2,5%): those three inputs together absorb 14% of the total costs in 2004. The sum of all the costs of the other energy products represents 5,3% only of
the total energy costs of the Italian industrial firms.

133

Figure 3.6 Energy consumption (millions of kWh), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy:
1998-2004
Consumo di Energia dell'Industria, Italia, anni 1998-2004, milioni di KWh
180.000

160.000

140.000

Milioni di KWh

120.000

100.000
Consumo di energia
80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000

0
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Given its high importance in the energy consumptions of the country (more than 52% in 2004, Centro
Studi Confindustria, 2007), the energy demand considered relevant in waste production is the electricity
demand, measured in kWh. When comparing provinces among each other, though, it has been used a
measure widely adopted in weighted comparisons between different productive realities as regards energy consumptions (Eurostat, 2006), that is the energy intensity, which is defined as the quantity of energy (measured in kWh) consumed by each sector per monetary unit (in euros), be it value-added or
GDP. According to this indicator, if a province becomes more efficient in the use of energy resources,
value-added or GDP being equal, the value of such intensity should decrease25.
In determining such a measure, though, an important role is played by the economic morphology of
the examined economy, and, in the case of the Italian provinces, a key role is played by the industrial
composition of the provinces themselves.
From 1998 to 2004, it can be observed that the energy intensity of Italy has increased little more than
+5%, going from 0,52 kWh per euro (kWh/) to 0,55. The aggregate value of the indicator does not
allow to outline its dynamics across regions and provinces, and, by disaggregating the analysis at a provincial level, strong positive and negative variations can be recorded, during the years: among all the
others, the high consumption with respect to the value-added of Sardegna stands out, with a value of
the indicator which is almost three times than the national average (Table A3.2). Notwithstanding a different growth among provinces, the energy per unit of value-added used was still lower than other de-

It has to be noted that the ratio of energy on value-added is a more appropriate indicator: in the ratio on GDP, indeed, in
the value in the denominator stays the same energy expense.
25

134

veloped countries in that period (Terna, 2006): while in other countries the energy intensity was steady
or weakly decreasing, in Italy it has shown a small increase during those years.

Figure 3.7 Energy intensity (kWh per euros of 1995, kWh/), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: 1998

Legenda
EnEl/VA 1998
sotto 35%
36% - 40%
41% - 45%
46% - 50%
oltre 50%

135

Figure 3.8 Energy intensity (kWh per euros of 1995, kWh/), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: 2004

Legenda
EnEl/VA 2004
sotto 35%
36% - 40%
41% - 45%
46% - 50%
oltre 50%

136

Figure 3.9 Energy intensity (kWh per euros of 1995, kWh/), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy:
difference 2004-1998

Legenda
EnEl/VA 1998-2004
fino a 0%
1% - 5%
6% - 10%
11% - 15%
16% - 20%
21% - 25%
oltre 25%

Table 3.3 Energy intensity (kWh per euros of 1995, kWh/), Industry in a Strict Sense,
5 random provinces: 1998-2004
Province
Milano
Venezia
Genova
Roma
L'Aquila
Italy

1998
0,25
0,83
0,39
0,17
0,93
0,52

1999
0,26
0,87
0,34
0,16
0,91
0,52

Indicator
2000 2001 2002
0,28 0,27 0,27
1,01 0,97 0,99
0,31 0,30 0,34
0,17 0,15 0,15
0,92 1,05 1,05
0,54 0,55 0,54

2003
0,27
0,99
0,33
0,16
1,11
0,55

2004
0,26
0,94
0,33
0,16
1,16
0,55

Variation (%) with respect to the previous year

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
4,0
7,5
-1,7
-1,0
1,2
-3,4
5,1
15,0
-3,8
2,6
-0,5
-4,6
-12,4
-7,8
-4,1
13,6
-2,4
-0,9
-5,6
2,9
-6,4
-3,7
6,5
2,9
-2,5
1,4 13,1
0,2
6,3
4,0
0,7
3,4
1,7
-0,4
1,3
-0,8

The situation of the five randomly selected provinces shows a decrease of the indicator, in the period
1998-2004, as regards Roma and Genova, and an increase in Milano, Venezia and LAquila, against an
increase of the total Italian value. Milano, Genova and Roma stood well below the national average,
while the other two provinces were above such value, with percentage increments higher than the increase of the national value.

3.3.1.3 Sorted (and non sorted) urban waste collection (1998-2004)

137

The degree of the environmental sensibility of the people and of the public institutions is given by the
quantity of waste that is sent to the recycling facilities of the municipalities, or to the consortia instituted by the municipal governments. The map of urban waste in Italy is highly variegated, with different characteristics from province to province. At a national level, the production of differentiated urban waste in 2004 has more than doubled with respect to 1998, while the total amount of non sorted
waste showed a peak in 2002, and then decreased up to 23 millions of tons in 2004, which is higher
than the 1998 value of about 1,4 millions of tons more, which amounts as a growth of +6% (Table
A3.3 in the Appendix).
In terms of ratios over the total, the total national value of the share of the urban waste on the total
waste has almost doubled, from 12,1% in 1998 to 23,6% in 2004. At a provincial level, the differentiated waste collection is highly different between the provinces of the same region, and between different regions: in the first place of the ranking of the most environmentally virtuous regions in 2004 is
Treviso, with a value of its sorted waste collection of about 61%, followed by Lecco, Padova, Vicenza
and Cremona, all of them with percentages higher than 50%. Almost all the southern provinces, on the
contrary, were standing below the average, while 29 are the Italian provinces with a percentage below
10% (all of them being in the Centre and in the South), thus demonstrating the inappropriateness of
the environmental policies of some Italian municipalities about the urban waste collection, during that
period.

Figure 3.10 Share (%) of the urban sorted waste over the total urban waste, Italy: 1998-2004
Quota dei rifiuti urbani differenziati in Italia: 1998-2004
25,0

20,0

Percentuale

15,0

10,0

5,0

0,0
1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Anno

138

Figure 3.11 Share (%) of the urban sorted waste over the total urban waste, provinces of Italy: 1998

Legenda
% RDIFF 1998
sotto 5%
5% - 10%
11% - 15%
16% - 20%
21% - 25%
26% - 30%
oltre 30%

139

Figure 3.12 Share (%) of the urban sorted waste over the total urban waste, provinces of Italy: 2004

Legenda
% RDIFF 2004
sotto 5%
5% - 10%
11% - 15%
16% - 20%
21% - 25%
26% - 30%
oltre 30%

140

Figure 3.13 Share (%) of the urban sorted waste over the total urban waste, provinces of Italy:
difference 2004-1998

Legenda
% RDIFF 1998-2004
fino a 0%
1% - 5%
6% - 10%
11% - 15%
16% - 20%
21% - 25%
oltre 25%

Table 3.4 Share (%) of the urban sorted waste over the total urban waste of the 5 random provinces:
1998-2004
Province
Milano
Venezia
Genova
Roma
L'Aquila
Italy

1998
39,88
14,66
8,20
6,15
13,22
12,15

1999
39,92
20,42
9,26
6,31
17,10
14,83

2000
40,73
23,75
12,56
4,63
13,90
16,57

2001
42,64
29,91
12,38
5,55
19,06
18,69

2002
40,49
29,49
15,48
5,77
9,46
19,46

2003
41,58
27,69
21,47
7,96
10,44
20,92

2004
42,71
30,60
17,35
13,31
10,06
23,63

All the 5 provinces were recording a share of the urban sorted waste over the total urban waste higher
than 10% in 2004, but a strong difference between the values of the northern provinces (Milano,
Venezia and Genova) and the values of the central ones were existing, with LAquila which sees its
share decreasing from a peak of 17,10% in 1999 to 10,06% in 2004.

141

3.3.1.4 Innovations and patents (1998-2004)

The main measure for the innovative capability of a country is expressed by the research and developments (R&D) expenses, borne by firms, universities and government. In the majority of the industrialized countries, firms bear around 60-70% of the total R&D expenses, while in Italy such a value stays
around 48% (and it is localized more in the North and in the Centre), while the rest of it has to be ascribed to the public sector: such a delay in the private sector is the result of some peculiarities of the
Italian productive system, which sees its productive structure too much unbalanced towards traditional
sectors, and towards an inadequate enterprises dimension26.
Figure 3.14 Total number of patents per thousand of inhabitants, Italy: 1998-2004
Numero di Brevetti totali in Italia: 1998-2004
65.000

60.000

Brevetti

55.000

50.000

45.000

40.000
1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Anno

Since the provincially disaggregated R&D statistics were not available, in the models specification a
proxy has been used, which is represented by the number of patents per province. The patents variable
can measure the technological advancements degree of the firms in the province, which also can determine the environmental impact that such a production causes. During the 7 examined years, the
number of patents registered in Italy has experienced an alternating behaviour, with a decrease in 1999,
a rise in 2000 and 2001, a weak reduction in 2002, a steady growth in 2003, and a reprise in 2004 (Figure 3.14).
At a provincial level, Milano is the top leading province as regards patents, with a number of registered
patents which is twice the number of the second province, Rome, followed by Torino, Bologna and
Firenze. During the 1998-2004 period, in those last five provinces has been recorded almost the whole
of the patents of Italy, thus showing a deep mismatch in the techno-scientific fabric of the Italian firms,

26

Centro Studi Confindustria, 2006.

142

with its core shifted towards those provinces where the big enterprise is concentrated (Milano, Torino,
Roma). In taking the number of patents per thousand of inhabitants into account, the ranking of the
provinces does not change, and it shows the low productivity of patents (per thousand of inhabitants)
of Italy as a whole, which stays on the level of 1 patent every 1000 inhabitants for the entire period
(Table A3.4 in the Appendix).
Table 3.5 Total number of patents per thousand of inhabitants, Italy,
5 randomly selected provinces: 1998-2004
Province
Milano
Venezia
Genova
Roma
L'Aquila
Italy

1998
4,66
0,46
0,72
2,13
0,11
0,94

1999
3,65
0,42
0,76
2,18
0,12
0,88

2000
4,94
0,45
0,71
2,15
0,19
0,92

2001
4,70
0,47
0,73
2,30
0,14
1,04

2002
4,53
0,41
0,63
2,09
0,18
0,99

2003
4,07
0,48
0,68
2,05
0,18
0,98

2004
4,24
0,45
0,74
2,15
0,21
1,04

Table 3.5 shows the values of the patents indicator for the selected provinces: in 2004, Milano has a
value three times bigger than the national average, Roma twice the national value, while the other cities
are well below that national datum, being always under the level of 1 patent every 1000 inhabitants.

3.3.1.5 Exports (1998-2004)

During the decade 1995-2005, Italian exports of goods and services, at constant prices, have grown
with a lower trend than the one of the world exports: while, indeed, the international commerce has
doubled during 1995-2005, the Italian exports27 have increased by only +9,2% (Centro Studi Confindustria, 2006).
From 1998 to 2004, the value of exports of Industry in a Strict Sense in Italy has grown from 201 millions of euros to 229 millions (Figure 3.15): at constant 1995 prices, these exports have been stable during 1998 and 1999, then they have increased by +1,5% during the year 2000, they have seen a weak increase in 2001, and then they have fallen in 2002 and 2003, ending up with a final increase in 2004.
At a provincial level, the dynamics has been different among provinces, with some provinces being stable in their exports (e.g., Torino), while others increasing their value in the entire period (Cuneo, Lodi
and Pavia), and others decreasing in some years (Bergamo, Vicenza and Catania in 2002 and 2003).

During 2004, the manufacturing exports of goods have increased their value by +6,4% (corresponding to +1,7% in terms
of quantities), while in 2003 those values were, respectively, -2,1% and -2,7%.
27

143

Figure 3.15 Exports (millions of euros of 1995, ), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: 1998-2004
Esportazioni totali dell'Industria in Senso Stretto dell'Italia, 1998-2004, milioni di Euro del 1995
250.000

Milioni di Euro del 1995

200.000

150.000

100.000

50.000

0
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Anno

By weighing the exports of Industry in a Strict Sense of every province with its relative provincial valueadded, it can be seen how such an indicator exhibits an increase of about +13% during the considered
period, thus showing that, the national value-added having been constant in this period, for every euro
of value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense, its overall value of exports has increased (Table A3.5 in the
Appendix).
Table 3.6 Ratio of exports over value-added, Industry in a Strict Sense,
5 randomly selected provinces: 1998-2004
Province
Milano
Venezia
Genova
Roma
L'Aquila
Italy

1998
0,93
0,85
0,54
0,56
0,82
0,90

1999
0,95
0,97
0,48
0,57
0,59
0,90

2000
1,12
1,28
0,62
0,58
1,14
1,02

2001
1,18
1,26
0,72
0,47
1,28
1,03

2002
1,13
1,35
0,70
0,52
1,30
1,01

2003
1,07
1,12
0,65
0,41
1,17
0,95

2004
1,04
1,14
0,63
0,44
1,33
1,02

Among the 5 provinces, LAquila is the one with the highest ratio in 2004, almost +30% above the national average, as well as the values of Milano and Venezia are, while Genova and Roma stay below the
national value during all the period.

144

3.3.1.6 Population density of the provinces, and density of the local units of Industry in a Strict
Sense (1998-2004)
The degree of crowding of a territory may be given by the population density, if inhabitants are taken
into account, or by the enterprise density, which is expressed by the number of local units operating in
the considered area, if firms are taken into account.
The population density is defined by the ratio between the inhabitants of a province and its extension
in Km2: such indicator, at a national level, has been constant at 189 residents per Km2 during the years
1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001, then it has increased to 190 in 2002, to 192 in 2003 and to 194 in 2004.
Such a density, then, has been much uneven across the Italian provinces (Table A3.6), with values going from 37 inhabitants per Km2 in Aosta and Nuoro in 2004, to 2.640 in Napoli, to 1.935 in Milano,
and to 1.124 in Trieste. Table 3.7 shows the details of the population density for the 5 provinces, where
it can be observed the marked difference between Milano and the other cities, with Rome having 78 inhabitants per Km2 in 2004, Venezia 336 and Genova 476, and with LAquila having only 60 inhabitants per Km2.
Table 3.7 Population density (inhabitants per Km2), the 5 randomly selected provinces: 1998-2004
Province 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Milano
1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.875 1.903 1.935
Venezia
328 328 329 329 330 334 336
Genova
487 484 480 477 475 474 476
Roma
694 693 692 692 692 698 708
L'Aquila
59
59
59
59
59
60
60
Italy
189 189 189 189 190 192 194

Table 3.8 Local units density (units per Km2), the 5 randomly selected provinces: 1998-2004
Province 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Milano
31,7 31,6 31,6 31,5 31,0 30,6 30,6
Venezia
4,0 4,1 4,2 4,3 4,3 4,3 4,3
Genova
4,7 4,7 4,8 4,9 5,0 5,4 5,4
Roma
4,3 4,5 4,6 4,8 4,7 4,7 4,7
L'Aquila
0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,7
Italy
2,4 2,4 2,5 2,5 2,6 2,6 2,6

The density of the entrepreneurial fabric of Industry in a Strict Sense has been calculated by the ratio
between the local units of the Register of Enterprises, run by the Chambers of Commerce, and the surface, in Km2, of that province (Table A3.7): even when taking the production level into account, notwithstanding an almost constant density in the considered period (the values go from 2,4 local units per
Km2 in 1998, to 2,6 in 2004), the Italian provinces exhibit a wide variety, with highly populated cities
145

having a low local units density (as an example, Torino and Palermo, respectively with 4,4 and 1,8 UL
per Km2 in 2004), against lowly populated cities having a strong concentration of local units (as Prato,
with 26,5 UL per Km2 in 2004, and Varese, with 12,6 UL per Km2).
Among the 5 provinces (Table 3.8), Milano had a strong concentration of local units during all the period (30,6 UL per Km2 in 2004), while all the others were staying around lower levels: as an example,
Venezia had the indicators value of 4,3 in 2004, Genova of 5,4, Roma of 4,7, and LAquila of 0,7 (well
below the national average).

3.3.1.7 Share of the value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense and of Service Industry on the total value-added (1998-2004)
The share of the value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense has experienced a decrease in the period
1998-2004, going from 23,88% to 21,37% at a national level (see also 2.2). Even at a more disaggregated level (provinces and regions), a decrease has been recorded too, which stands for a general decrease of the industrial activities in Italy. In some few cases, a light growth has taken place, as in Matera,
where the value has gone from 13,56% in 1998 to 14,56% in 2004. In general, many provinces have
seen a continuous fall of their share, in same cases with more than -7% (Biella, Brindisi and Siracusa, as
an example).
Figure 3.16 Share (%) of the value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense and of Service Industry on the
total value-added, Italy: 1998-2004
Valore aggiunto Italia, 1998-2004: quote
80

70

60

Percentuale

50

Servizi

40

Industria in Senso
Stretto
30

20

10

0
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Anno

While Industry in a Strict Sense was falling in percentage terms, Service Industry has grown in the same
terms, starting with a value of 68,35% in 1998, and going to a value of 70,90% in 2004 (Figure 3.16).
Many Italian provinces were exhibiting a share of 80% and more (in 2004, this was happening in Aosta,

146

Roma, Palermo, Catania and Messina, to mention a few), while the maximum level reached by Industry
in a Strict Sense is almost 55%, in Reggio Emilia and Modena.
Table 3.9 Share (%) of the value-added of Service Industry on the total value-added,
5 randomly selected provinces: 1998-2004
Province
Milano
Venezia
Genova
Roma
L'Aquila
Italy

1998
66,55
70,09
81,37
84,24
72,27
68,35

1999
67,51
71,93
81,42
84,34
72,23
68,89

2000
68,77
74,34
79,56
84,98
71,63
69,42

2001
69,77
74,74
79,27
84,57
74,39
69,81

2002
69,98
74,72
80,82
84,90
74,39
70,40

2003
69,93
74,72
81,29
85,32
74,01
70,90

2004
69,11
74,73
80,98
85,46
73,95
70,90

Among the selected provinces, Roma is the one which has seen the lowest variation in its sectorial
composition, while Milano and Venezia, against a decrease of about -4% in the quota of Industry in a
Strict Sense, have seen the value of their Service Industry rising by +3% (Table 3.9 and 3.10). Genova
seems to be the only one to have experienced a fall in the Services quota, which goes from 81,37% in
1998, to 80,98% in 2004, while LAquila was showing values above the national average in both sectors.
Table 3.10 Share (%) of the value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense on the total value-added,
5 randomly selected provinces: 1998-2004
Province
Milano
Venezia
Genova
Roma
L'Aquila
Italy

1998
30,27
22,52
15,57
11,55
19,21
23,88

1999
29,30
21,74
15,82
11,50
19,45
23,36

2000
28,09
19,31
17,13
11,30
20,29
23,00

2001
27,29
18,80
16,87
12,05
18,01
22,65

2002
26,97
18,39
15,02
11,92
18,09
22,01

2003
26,58
18,43
14,79
11,50
17,81
21,52

2004
27,60
18,64
14,49
11,36
17,95
21,37

3.3.2 Relationship between industrial waste and socio-economic drivers

The analysis of the main specialized literature has led to identify a series of socio-economic factors that
contribute to determine the production of pollution, and, therefore and with some modification, the
production of industrial solid waste (that is, not air pollution).
The main economic variable widely used in that literature is the measure of the economic performance,
measured by the value-added of the GDP. In using such indicator, it is taken into account not only the
production capability of a territory (usually measured by the GDP), but also the quality of this capability, and its modifications across time: in fact, going from a low value-added to a high value-added identifies an improvement (be it qualitative or quantitative) in production, other than a possible sectorial
147

modification. The aim of the incoming analysis is verifying whether the EKC behaviour can be valid as
regards waste too: that is, the research wants to check whether the conditions exist, for the Italian provinces, for a joint technological and environmental improvement of the production.
The population density (inhabitants per Km2) may have ambivalent effects, not detectable a priori. On
one hand, a negative relationship between density and industrial waste may be supposed for the industrialized countries like Italy, caused by the growing delocalization of the big industrial parks, and the
even more growing concern about the implementation of right and effective environmental policies by
local governments, guided by their citizens, whose demand for environmental goods and quality increases as they become richer. On the other hand, highly populated areas provide a valuable workforce
for industries, especially in those sectors of the so called traditional industry, whose productive activity is highly labour-intensive. Moreover, making use of the population density and of the local density,
the territorial dimension has come to be implicitly added to the variables of choice (the density is a ratio
where at denominator stays a surface measure).
The density of (polluting) local units (in UL per Km2) of Industry in a Strict Sense is an indicator for
the presence of productive units in the territory. As concerns air emissions, given their intrinsic nature
more global than the solid ones, the industrial density indicator has not been widely used in the literature: on the contrary, when dealing with emissions which are produced in a precise place, and which do
not move away unless moved by man, the industrial density might contribute to explain the dynamics
of solid waste, more than when dealing with air emissions. The density of the industrial fabric, moreover, may have also ambivalent effects of the production of waste: on one side, indeed, a bigger concentration may bring to higher production of waste, but, on the other side, feasible economies of scale
may reduce such a production, by creating a virtuous cycle of disposals.
The consumptions of energy, on one side, are a clear indicator of the economic activity in a territory,
while, on the other side, they help measuring the technological advancements of the industrial fabric of
that territory, by the means of the comparison with economic performance indicators, such as the
GDP or the value-added. The ratio between the physical quantity of the consumption of energy and
the value-added is a measure of the energy intensity of the industrial production, and it captures the efficiency of such production in terms of energy: the lower the ratio, the lower the quantity of energy
which has to be used to produce that specific (monetary) unit of value-added, and the more efficient
(ceteris paribus) is that industrial activity. This indicator is highly influenced by the industrial composition of the province, by the technological level of the firms, by their dimension, and by the interactions
of those factors inside the industrial context of the province.
The shares of the several economic activities (primary, secondary and tertiary sector) on the total of the
value-added of the province help measuring the contribution that such a sector has on the economy of
the territory, in productive terms. Another feasible alternative may be measuring the shares of the

148

workforce of each sector on the total workforce, but such a framework would be not correct in this instance, since the production of waste is linked to productive activities, rather than to workforce dynamics, which are themselves too a consequence of productive activities. When studying the production of
industrial waste, the most important shares to be considered are the share of the value-added of Services Industry and the one of Industry in a Strict Sense, due to the recursive empirical evidence according which developed countries have shifted from an industrial economy to a service economy: both the
shares can be seen as two measures of the deindustrialization of a territory, explaining how the change
in the industrial morphology can contribute to less or more waste production.
The ratio of sorted urban waste collection in the province (urban sorted waste over total urban waste)
allows to get two different information, linked together: on one hand, the possible effect that the environmental sensibility of citizens might have on the production of waste can be investigated, thus getting
a socially relevant piece of information; on the other hand, what the effects of a developed environmental conscience by the side of local administrators are on waste production can be measured, and of
an increase of treating facilities for such an environmental bad (waste). High values for such indicator
show the political will of the province to differentiate waste, and its focus on the waste problem: all in
all, it has to be expected that the higher the sorted waste collection is, the lower the production of
waste is.
The number of patents (every 1000 inhabitants) is a proxy for the technological development of the enterprises in the territory. Even though patents are a technological output measure, and not a technological input measure, that is they measure only the final product of the research activity, and not also
what investments have been done to come up with those final outputs. Even if this is not the most
precise measure for technological effects, it can anyway help explaining what effects technological advancements (already included in the value-added and in the energy intensity) have on waste production.
It has to be noted that, in that measure, a key role is played by the location of the patents registration,
rather than by the place where such patents (and technologies) have been really developed: this problem can be mitigated, in the forecasting stage, by using dummy variables to correct the results.
Exports and the relative degree of international openness (measured by the ratio between exports and
GDP) play a key role in the production of industrial waste: even in presence of low levels of domestic
consumptions, great levels of waste might be produced because the economic activity of the territory is
led by foreign demand. By weighing the value of exports with the value-added of the relative territorial
entity, it can be obtained a measure that links the degree of international openness of an area with its
economic competitiveness.

149

3.4 Conclusions
From the analysis of the specialized literature, some hypothesis have been done about the socioeconomic variables which are behind the production of polluting emissions, and those drivers which
are linked to the economic cycle directly responsible for the production of waste have been selected.
Together with the value-added, which is the main indicator of the economic power of a society, other
variables have been taken into account: energy consumption, urban waste production, the degree of innovation represented by the number of patents, the value of exports, population density and local units
density, the shares of value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense and of Service Industry over the total
value-added. For all the variables, a brief description has been provided, in order to use them in the
econometric tests of Chapter 4, and in the econometric simulations of Chapter 5.

150

APPENDIX A3
Table A3.1 Waste production per unit of value-added (tons per million of euros of 1995),
Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: 1998-2004

Province and region

Torino
Vercelli
Novara
Cuneo
Asti
Alessandria
Biella
Verbano Cusio Ossola
Piemonte
Aosta
Valle dAosta
Varese
Como
Sondrio
Milano
Bergamo
Brescia
Pavia
Cremona
Mantova
Lecco
Lodi
Lombardia
Bolzano Bozen
Trento
Trentino Alto Adige
Verona
Vicenza
Belluno
Treviso
Venezia
Padova
Rovigo
Veneto
Udine
Gorizia
Trieste
Pordenone
Friuli Venezia Giulia
Imperia
Savona
Genova
La Spezia
Liguria
Piacenza
Parma
Reggio Emilia

1998
89
312
64
94
101
66
70
178
95
294
294
60
51
71
42
132
229
154
89
101
170
80
89
80
153
119
442
153
78
116
206
122
245
193
207
298
129
138
183
15
349
185
350
230
274
81
111

1999
115
386
85
122
135
71
96
153
120
225
225
86
96
65
53
158
270
218
300
145
186
113
117
116
149
134
478
202
103
144
244
136
304
226
344
475
142
168
271
18
318
173
324
214
248
113
141

2000
125
365
89
131
133
78
110
138
127
229
229
87
88
81
60
171
374
198
358
191
220
130
139
121
176
150
454
229
122
150
312
195
337
252
361
516
160
191
292
17
392
184
185
207
230
95
159

Indicator
Variation (%) with respect to the previous year
2001 2002 2003 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
2004
127 124 128 131 29,7
8,2
1,6
-1,9
2,6
2,7
382 370 389 457 23,6
-5,2
4,7
-3,2
5,0
17,5
99
97
97 108 33,4
5,2 10,7
-2,4
0,1
11,6
131 148 138 181 30,2
7,2
-0,2 12,9
-6,4
30,5
117 143 149 146 33,1
-1,4 -12,1 22,7
3,9
-2,0
92 105 111 111
6,8 10,6 17,5 13,8
6,1
-0,7
145 136 140
61 37,1 13,6 32,3
-6,5
3,0
-56,4
199 194 190 212 -14,1
-9,9 44,0
-2,5
-2,0
11,9
133
135
137
144 25,8
5,6
5,2
1,3
1,4
5,5
234 209 272 332 -23,5
1,7
2,1 -10,5 30,1
21,9
234 209 272 332 -23,5
1,7
2,1 -10,5
30,1
21,9
94
89
89
85 41,9
1,9
7,3
-5,5
0,3
-4,2
82
80
94
93 88,0
-7,7
-6,7
-2,7 17,7
-1,9
83
89 100
82
-7,4 23,0
2,6
7,2 13,2
-17,9
61
62
65
72 26,6 13,2
1,3
1,7
4,5
11,6
183 194 192 178 20,2
7,7
7,3
6,0
-0,9
-7,2
391 410 388 382 18,1 38,4
4,6
4,8
-5,4
-1,3
219 302 278 283 41,9
-9,2 10,7 37,9
-8,0
1,7
310 254 249 236 236,5 19,6 -13,6 -18,0
-1,9
-5,3
222 338 352 370 43,0 31,5 16,6 52,1
4,1
5,0
228 231 249 252
9,4 17,9
4,0
1,0
8,1
1,2
142 224 226 135 40,7 15,5
9,1 57,7
0,7
-40,1
146
156
156
156
31,7
19,4
4,9
6,6
0,3
-0,2
118 106
96 118 44,6
4,6
-2,4 -10,4
-9,3
22,9
212 221 244 239
-2,6 18,3 20,0
4,3 10,4
-1,8
168
167
175
185
12,1
12,4
11,6
-0,3
4,6
5,6
443 421 401 417
8,0
-4,9
-2,5
-4,8
-4,9
4,0
252 247 250 234 31,6 13,6 10,2
-2,2
1,2
-6,2
105 114 105 114 32,8 17,6 -13,5
8,1
-7,5
8,7
169 177 179 182 24,3
4,5 12,4
5,0
0,8
1,8
331 310 336 355 18,4 27,6
6,1
-6,2
8,5
5,5
185 198 171 189 12,0 43,4
-5,4
6,9 -13,7
10,7
678 611 296 202 23,8 11,0 101,0
-9,9 -51,5
-31,7
271 267 252 255
17,2
11,3
7,7
-1,4
-5,6
1,0
389 378 347 396 65,9
4,9
7,9
-2,9
-8,1
14,1
505 737 519 474 59,5
8,7
-2,2 46,0 -29,5
-8,7
273 258 145 285 10,0 12,3 71,1
-5,5 -43,8
96,5
224 248 253 269 22,3 13,8 17,0 10,8
1,7
6,6
330 355 307 348 48,0
7,7
13,0
7,7 -13,5
13,4
18
16
16
16 15,4
-1,3
4,7 -12,1
1,1
-0,7
402 1.507 2.018 2.022
-8,8 23,3
2,5 275,0 33,9
0,2
265 197 214 235
-6,3
6,2 44,0 -25,7
9,0
9,6
343 336 335 342
-7,5 -42,9 85,8
-2,2
-0,3
2,2
282
421
513 527
-7,1
-3,3 36,7 49,2
21,8
2,7
197 218 122 116
-9,2
-7,4 -14,4 10,4 -44,0
-4,4
110 123 131 115 39,9 -16,1 16,1 11,9
6,3
-12,4
169 168 171 182 27,0 12,9
6,0
-0,4
1,4
6,7

151

Province and region 1998 1999

Modena
171 208
Bologna
87 111
Ferrara
367 397
Ravenna
334 433
Forl Cesena
147 197
Rimini
68
75
Emilia Romagna
152
185
Massa Carrara
1.116 1.090
Lucca
384 380
Pistoia
41
48
Firenze
47
57
Livorno
138 151
Pisa
165 200
Arezzo
344 140
Siena
98 111
Grosseto
1.768 1.388
Prato
28
34
Toscana
207
189
Perugia
148 161
Terni
533 786
Umbria
253 335
Pesaro e Urbino
131 116
Ancona
95 138
Macerata
88 117
Ascoli Piceno
95
99
Marche
101
119
Viterbo
119 149
Rieti
53
90
Roma
35
47
Latina
67
92
Frosinone
122 153
Lazio
55
73
L'Aquila
148 181
Teramo
87 100
Pescara
34
36
Chieti
151 172
Abruzzo
111
128
Campobasso
274 452
Isernia
50 135
Molise
202 349
Caserta
76 124
Benevento
29
36
Napoli
41
59
Avellino
91 118
Salerno
96 128
Campania
61
88
Foggia
106
99
Bari
149 184
Taranto
1.258 1.152
Brindisi
129 746
Lecce
46
74
Puglia
360
417
Potenza
165 345

Indicator
Variation (%) with respect to the previous year
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
2004
193 207 207 219 227 21,7
-7,4
7,7
-0,2
5,6
3,7
112 134 121 128 125 28,6
0,8 19,1
-9,5
5,5
-1,9
272 325 349 327 321
8,2 -31,4 19,4
7,3
-6,3
-1,9
400 459 501 449 470 29,5
-7,7 14,9
9,2 -10,5
4,7
201 191 256 377 167 33,6
2,0
-4,9 34,2 47,0
-55,6
89
87
88
81
90 10,7 18,2
-1,4
0,6
-8,0
11,5
173
190
199 204
191
21,4
-6,4
9,6
5,2
2,2
-6,2
1.070 1.109 991 891 899
-2,3
-1,9
3,6 -10,6 -10,1
1,0
379 401 408 418 347
-1,0
-0,3
5,9
1,8
2,3
-17,0
58
57
57
64
55 18,0 20,3
-2,7
0,5 12,3
-14,3
62
59
59
63
71 20,3 10,0
-5,0
0,5
5,8
13,1
130 210 176 219 281
9,5 -14,1 62,3 -16,5 24,6
28,5
234 230 233 148 149 21,1 17,3
-1,6
1,1 -36,4
0,2
157 106 221 153 106 -59,2 11,6 -32,0 107,7 -30,8
-31,0
119 152 162 214 201 13,4
7,0 28,0
6,6 31,7
-5,8
1.642 1.202 1.543 1.484 1.557 -21,5 18,3 -26,8 28,4
-3,8
4,9
33
34
36
33
32 20,0
-2,9
3,8
3,9
-6,4
-5,2
197
191 208
191
186
-8,8
4,4
-3,0
8,7
-8,2
-2,8
184 211 210 176 189
8,9 14,1 15,1
-0,5 -16,3
7,5
739 642 646 586 699 47,4
-5,9 -13,2
0,6
-9,3
19,3
341 334 343
301 345 32,6
1,8
-2,2
3,0 -12,3
14,5
145 158 184 209 255 -11,0 24,3
9,0 17,0 13,3
22,2
137 142 150 151 152 44,1
-0,5
4,1
5,3
1,0
0,6
129 121 129 132 123 33,0 11,0
-6,1
5,8
2,4
-6,5
96 105 114 115 112
4,2
-3,4
9,6
8,7
0,4
-2,6
127
133
144
151
159
17,4
6,7
4,3
8,9
4,5
5,3
175 158 166 166 205 24,9 17,6
-9,7
5,5
-0,2
23,5
93 205 178 168
63 71,0
2,7 121,3 -13,1
-5,5
-62,6
55
36
34
34
38 33,9 16,7 -33,9
-7,8
0,3
13,2
84
83
75
80
81 37,1
-8,4
-1,4 -10,3
7,0
1,6
201 243 199 207 182 25,5 31,4 20,8 -18,2
4,4
-12,1
84
75
67
70
69
31,7
15,3 -10,3 -11,1
3,8
-0,8
185 183 171 166 176 22,3
2,1
-1,0
-6,5
-3,2
6,1
106 144 155 158 178 15,4
6,1 35,4
7,7
2,1
12,1
46
88
74
68
68
5,2 28,7 92,3 -15,9
-8,0
-0,9
145 154 144 144 168 13,8 -15,7
6,3
-6,5
0,0
16,8
122
143
139
137
153
15,4
-4,6
17,5
-3,0
-1,4
11,4
512 554 495 550 433 64,8 13,1
8,3 -10,6 11,0
-21,1
130 118 115 151 140 167,9
-3,6
-9,0
-2,5 31,5
-7,4
374 399 368
416 335 73,3
7,0
6,7
-7,8
13,0
-19,4
135 153 138 148 171 63,8
8,4 13,6
-9,9
6,9
15,8
38
56
62
63
77 25,0
3,1 48,7 11,5
1,6
21,1
66
82
80
73
82 44,6 11,7 22,9
-1,4
-9,3
12,1
138 160 168 140 137 29,2 16,6 16,1
5,3 -17,0
-1,6
127 121 133 154 146 34,0
-0,9
-4,4
9,9 15,6
-5,2
96
109
110
109
115 43,9
10,0
13,1
0,7
-1,0
6,1
134 240 173 251 394
-6,2 34,6 79,7 -28,0 45,1
57,3
184 204 211 211 234 23,0
0,4 10,5
3,7
-0,1
10,9
702 801 387 954 1.524
-8,5 -39,1 14,2 -51,6 146,2
59,8
998 1.076 1.528 1.712 1.959 477,6 33,7
7,8 42,1 12,0
14,4
77
90
97
99 126 59,6
4,9 16,1
7,6
2,6
27,3
359
412 347 484 650
15,6 -13,9
14,8 -15,8 39,5
34,3
326 210 205 197 239 109,6
-5,6 -35,5
-2,3
-4,2
21,6

152

Province and region

Matera
Basilicata
Cosenza
Catanzaro
Reggio di Calabria
Crotone
Vibo Valentia
Calabria
Trapani
Palermo
Messina
Agrigento
Caltanissetta
Enna
Catania
Ragusa
Siracusa
Sicilia
Sassari
Nuoro
Cagliari
Oristano
Sardegna
Italy

1998
87
146
12
11
93
546
28
85
155
192
73
16
61
7
11
30
93
91
239
295
944
29
609
138

1999
98
285
15
28
12
155
24
32
179
183
32
58
87
15
80
62
138
113
320
237
958
37
617
164

Indicator
Variation (%) with respect to the previous year
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
2004
130 169 113
97 122 12,3 32,9 29,9 -33,0 -14,3
25,8
275
198
181
172
210 94,4
-3,4 -27,8
-8,8
-5,1
22,2
25
35
24
77
54 28,4 69,3 38,9 -31,3 219,9
-30,4
37
31
27
29
57 151,2 34,7 -17,5 -13,7
9,4
94,0
31
21
15
20
57 -86,6 147,7 -30,7 -32,0 36,0
187,1
50
51
93 191 497 -71,5 -67,5
1,0 82,5 105,6
160,1
25
22
19
34
29 -15,6
7,1 -14,8 -12,1 77,0
-14,4
32
32
30
64
102 -62,4
-0,6
1,0
-8,0 117,1
59,0
175 206 278 254 398 14,9
-2,0 17,9 34,6
-8,5
56,7
232 237 169 136 228
-4,7 26,6
2,0 -28,8 -19,6
68,0
76 150 182 240 306 -55,7 136,6 97,6 21,0 32,2
27,2
63
12
13
29
28 254,9
9,4 -80,9
9,1 119,1
-3,5
129
68
61 100 1.639 42,0 48,5 -47,2 -10,3 64,6 1534,8
23
31
19
40
43 101,0 56,8 34,3 -38,1 107,7
7,0
65
61
80 109
88 603,7 -18,6
-6,4 29,9 36,4
-18,8
63 103
49
44
76 106,4
0,9 63,9 -52,3
-9,9
72,1
220 167 198 293 673 48,8 58,6 -24,1 18,8 48,0
129,5
141
137
135
156 390 24,6 24,4
-3,0
-1,0
15,7
149,5
371 321 332 306 550 34,0 16,1 -13,7
3,4
-7,8
79,9
155
95
52 130 182 -19,9 -34,4 -38,6 -46,0 152,8
39,7
1.287 1.368 1.276 1.193 1.347
1,5 34,3
6,2
-6,7
-6,6
12,9
31
54
55
72
85 30,1 -17,6 76,8
1,8 29,5
19,1
805 820 766 722 876
1,4 30,5
1,9
-6,6
-5,7
21,3
177
188
192
196
211
19,4
7,8
5,8
2,6
2,0
7,8

153

Table A3.2 Energy intensity (kWh per euros of 1995), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: 1998-2004

Province and region

Torino
Vercelli
Novara
Cuneo
Asti
Alessandria
Biella
Verbano Cusio Ossola
Piemonte
Aosta
Valle dAosta
Varese
Como
Sondrio
Milano
Bergamo
Brescia
Pavia
Cremona
Mantova
Lecco
Lodi
Lombardia
Bolzano Bozen
Trento
Trentino Alto Adige
Verona
Vicenza
Belluno
Treviso
Venezia
Padova
Rovigo
Veneto
Udine
Gorizia
Trieste
Pordenone
Friuli Venezia Giulia
Imperia
Savona
Genova
La Spezia
Liguria
Piacenza
Parma
Reggio Emilia
Modena
Bologna
Ferrara
Ravenna

1998
0,44
0,58
0,56
0,63
0,44
0,61
0,77
0,87
0,53
0,82
0,82
0,49
0,39
0,45
0,25
0,59
1,02
0,66
0,68
0,67
0,50
0,36
0,47
0,35
0,60
0,47
0,56
0,47
0,37
0,35
0,83
0,46
0,54
0,50
1,02
0,62
1,48
0,55
0,87
0,24
0,62
0,39
0,29
0,41
0,38
0,45
0,41
0,41
0,28
0,83
0,74

1999
0,43
0,60
0,56
0,65
0,45
0,62
0,77
0,75
0,52
0,81
0,81
0,51
0,42
0,43
0,26
0,60
1,01
0,69
0,73
0,73
0,53
0,35
0,48
0,35
0,53
0,44
0,57
0,47
0,35
0,36
0,87
0,46
0,54
0,51
1,03
0,62
1,42
0,54
0,86
0,21
0,61
0,34
0,29
0,37
0,40
0,46
0,41
0,41
0,29
0,80
0,76

Indicator
2000 2001 2002
0,45 0,47 0,44
0,74 0,76 0,75
0,53 0,58 0,58
0,66 0,65 0,73
0,41 0,42 0,43
0,63 0,60 0,63
0,74 0,83 0,83
0,61 0,67 0,74
0,53 0,55 0,56
0,80 0,89 0,83
0,80 0,89 0,83
0,51 0,54 0,52
0,43 0,44 0,43
0,59 0,59 0,56
0,28 0,27 0,27
0,62 0,63 0,63
1,16 1,14 1,10
0,70 0,74 0,71
0,78 0,78 0,74
0,72 0,73 0,74
0,52 0,53 0,51
0,37 0,34 0,34
0,52 0,52 0,51
0,32 0,35 0,30
0,55 0,58 0,57
0,43 0,45 0,43
0,56 0,54 0,55
0,49 0,51 0,52
0,41 0,42 0,36
0,36 0,39 0,40
1,01 0,97 0,99
0,46 0,48 0,51
0,61 0,67 0,67
0,53 0,54 0,56
1,01 1,09 1,12
0,67 0,74 0,70
1,37 1,24 1,30
0,55 0,61 0,61
0,86 0,92 0,93
0,21 0,23 0,21
0,59 0,56 0,53
0,31 0,30 0,34
0,24 0,26 0,26
0,34 0,34 0,35
0,39 0,40 0,41
0,48 0,48 0,50
0,40 0,41 0,43
0,42 0,40 0,43
0,31 0,32 0,31
0,73 0,80 0,84
0,83 0,78 0,78

2003
0,46
0,77
0,61
0,78
0,43
0,64
0,82
0,76
0,58
0,95
0,95
0,55
0,43
0,58
0,27
0,64
1,09
0,72
0,75
0,77
0,54
0,37
0,52
0,31
0,61
0,45
0,54
0,52
0,35
0,40
0,99
0,50
0,65
0,55
1,11
0,69
1,20
0,58
0,90
0,22
0,52
0,33
0,23
0,34
0,42
0,50
0,46
0,44
0,32
0,79
0,85

2004
0,46
0,74
0,59
0,75
0,45
0,65
0,70
0,70
0,57
0,97
0,97
0,54
0,43
0,57
0,26
0,61
1,04
0,70
0,72
0,72
0,54
0,36
0,50
0,31
0,62
0,46
0,56
0,52
0,35
0,40
0,94
0,50
0,65
0,55
1,14
0,68
1,25
0,61
0,93
0,21
0,52
0,33
0,21
0,34
0,43
0,50
0,47
0,45
0,33
0,86
0,83

Variation (%) with respect to the previous year

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
-4,1
4,4
5,3
-5,3
3,5
1,2
3,2 24,0
3,2
-1,9
3,5
-4,6
0,1
-4,2
8,0
-0,4
6,0
-3,5
2,5
1,4
-0,8 12,4
6,3
-3,7
0,4
-8,0
2,4
1,5
1,6
3,8
1,8
1,0
-5,4
5,7
2,3
1,5
0,3
-3,9 12,1
-0,1
-1,1 -15,1
-14,1 -18,1 10,1 10,6
2,7
-8,5
-1,7
1,8
4,0
1,4
3,7
-1,4
-1,5
-0,6 11,1
-6,6 14,6
1,5
-1,5
-0,6
11,1
-6,6
14,6
1,5
4,4
0,6
6,1
-4,7
6,2
-1,3
8,0
4,5
0,3
-2,4
-0,2
0,5
-4,6 37,6
1,1
-5,9
3,7
-2,1
4,0
7,5
-1,7
-1,0
1,2
-3,4
2,3
3,9
1,5
-0,8
2,0
-5,3
-0,5 14,5
-1,8
-3,2
-0,7
-5,2
5,5
1,5
5,9
-5,1
1,9
-2,9
6,2
7,3
0,4
-4,8
1,3
-4,8
9,7
-2,0
2,7
0,8
3,3
-5,6
6,2
-2,4
3,7
-5,3
5,7
0,4
-2,9
5,6
-8,4
2,0
6,7
-1,4
2,7
8,0
1,3
-3,0
1,8
-3,5
2,3
-9,3
8,4 -12,4
0,7
2,0
-10,9
3,3
5,8
-1,9
7,1
1,8
-5,7
-3,0
6,4
-6,2
5,2
1,6
2,4
-1,2
-3,7
2,3
-2,3
2,7
0,9
5,1
4,4
1,5
-0,4
-0,4
-5,1 16,1
3,9 -15,1
-3,3
0,5
0,9
0,1
7,5
4,7
0,3
-0,1
5,1 15,0
-3,8
2,6
-0,5
-4,6
0,9
-0,8
6,0
5,2
-1,4
-0,1
-0,1 13,3
9,2
-0,1
-2,0
0,2
1,2
4,5
2,0
2,3
-1,0
-1,0
1,2
-2,0
8,2
2,9
-1,0
2,3
0,1
8,9 10,6
-5,3
-2,5
-1,0
-4,0
-3,3 -10,0
5,5
-8,3
4,2
-1,1
1,0 12,2
-0,6
-4,0
4,7
-0,9
-0,4
7,4
1,0
-2,9
3,3
-15,6
1,8
8,9
-8,4
5,8
-4,6
-0,7
-3,4
-4,9
-6,4
-0,5
0,0
-12,4
-7,8
-4,1 13,6
-2,4
-0,9
-0,3 -16,2
8,3
-2,4 -10,4 -10,3
-8,7
-8,0
-1,2
2,9
-2,1
-1,9
6,7
-2,6
0,4
4,7
1,1
3,6
3,8
4,3
-0,8
4,0
1,0
-0,5
1,0
-2,4
1,9
5,1
6,7
1,6
1,9
0,8
-3,3
7,3
1,9
1,2
2,2
6,9
4,4
-1,3
0,2
3,4
-3,7
-8,2
9,4
5,1
-6,4
8,7
3,6
8,2
-6,1
1,2
8,3
-1,9

154

Province and region

Forl Cesena
Rimini
Emilia Romagna
Massa Carrara
Lucca
Pistoia
Firenze
Livorno
Pisa
Arezzo
Siena
Grosseto
Prato
Toscana
Perugia
Terni
Umbria
Pesaro e Urbino
Ancona
Macerata
Ascoli Piceno
Marche
Viterbo
Rieti
Roma
Latina
Frosinone
Lazio
L'Aquila
Teramo
Pescara
Chieti
Abruzzo
Campobasso
Isernia
Molise
Caserta
Benevento
Napoli
Avellino
Salerno
Campania
Foggia
Bari
Taranto
Brindisi
Lecce
Puglia
Potenza
Matera
Basilicata
Cosenza
Catanzaro

1998
0,26
0,31
0,41
0,76
1,01
0,38
0,26
1,51
0,33
0,30
0,37
0,40
0,50
0,50
0,45
2,30
0,95
0,28
0,41
0,36
0,41
0,37
0,21
0,29
0,17
0,41
0,74
0,28
0,93
0,51
0,72
0,60
0,66
0,69
0,55
0,64
0,54
0,25
0,34
0,48
0,47
0,41
0,47
0,36
2,64
0,94
0,28
0,87
0,78
0,72
0,76
0,27
0,25

1999
0,27
0,33
0,42
0,75
1,04
0,38
0,26
1,62
0,34
0,30
0,37
0,40
0,52
0,51
0,45
2,18
0,92
0,27
0,44
0,35
0,40
0,37
0,24
0,30
0,16
0,42
0,80
0,29
0,91
0,50
0,70
0,60
0,65
0,64
0,63
0,64
0,53
0,28
0,32
0,45
0,46
0,40
0,44
0,35
2,62
0,98
0,29
0,85
0,78
0,62
0,73
0,26
0,23

Indicator
2000 2001 2002
0,29 0,29 0,26
0,32 0,32 0,33
0,43 0,43 0,44
0,78 0,80 0,83
1,03 1,03 1,04
0,42 0,42 0,42
0,25 0,26 0,27
1,67 1,76 1,80
0,36 0,36 0,35
0,31 0,31 0,32
0,34 0,36 0,40
0,44 0,44 0,45
0,50 0,52 0,51
0,51 0,52 0,54
0,44 0,45 0,47
2,12 2,13 2,03
0,91 0,90 0,90
0,30 0,30 0,33
0,51 0,55 0,55
0,37 0,35 0,38
0,42 0,41 0,42
0,41 0,42 0,43
0,27 0,27 0,24
0,34 0,33 0,31
0,17 0,15 0,15
0,39 0,40 0,37
0,86 0,90 0,85
0,29 0,29 0,27
0,92 1,05 1,05
0,50 0,49 0,51
0,64 0,68 0,70
0,61 0,66 0,63
0,64 0,68 0,68
0,69 0,70 0,78
0,58 0,70 0,73
0,65 0,70 0,76
0,50 0,51 0,45
0,33 0,37 0,35
0,32 0,32 0,33
0,42 0,42 0,44
0,43 0,44 0,43
0,39 0,39 0,39
0,42 0,46 0,50
0,37 0,37 0,35
2,44 2,55 2,45
1,05 1,12 1,04
0,28 0,29 0,29
0,85 0,87 0,84
0,84 0,82 0,79
0,51 0,62 0,63
0,73 0,76 0,74
0,32 0,27 0,26
0,24 0,27 0,27

2003
0,27
0,32
0,45
0,75
1,12
0,43
0,28
1,83
0,37
0,32
0,39
0,46
0,49
0,55
0,49
1,88
0,86
0,34
0,56
0,39
0,43
0,44
0,25
0,31
0,16
0,37
0,86
0,28
1,11
0,53
0,67
0,64
0,70
0,77
0,81
0,78
0,45
0,37
0,32
0,45
0,44
0,39
0,55
0,36
2,50
1,09
0,30
0,86
0,83
0,62
0,77
0,24
0,27

2004
0,29
0,33
0,46
0,70
1,08
0,42
0,27
1,86
0,36
0,30
0,39
0,41
0,46
0,54
0,49
1,89
0,87
0,34
0,62
0,38
0,41
0,46
0,25
0,32
0,16
0,36
0,83
0,28
1,16
0,55
0,68
0,67
0,73
0,77
0,86
0,80
0,45
0,41
0,31
0,45
0,45
0,39
0,55
0,36
2,57
1,01
0,31
0,88
0,88
0,59
0,80
0,24
0,28

Variation (%) with respect to the previous year

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2,5
6,1
2,3 -10,8
3,5
6,2
6,2
-1,1
-1,1
2,4
-1,6
1,3
2,1
1,7
0,8
3,1
1,9
2,2
-1,7
4,9
1,9
4,4 -10,3
-6,0
3,0
-1,0
0,5
0,9
7,8
-3,9
0,0
9,7
1,8
-2,1
3,9
-2,2
-0,4
-2,9
1,8
6,9
1,1
-3,4
7,3
2,7
5,4
2,5
1,8
1,5
2,7
5,6
0,5
-2,5
6,6
-3,4
-0,1
3,4
-1,2
1,7
1,1
-5,2
2,0
-7,9
5,7 10,2
-2,2
0,1
1,0
8,7
1,4
0,6
2,9 -11,3
2,8
-3,8
4,2
-2,2
-2,2
-7,4
3,0
0,1
1,9
3,6
2,3
-2,2
0,7
-1,0
0,4
5,1
3,6
0,8
-5,3
-2,9
0,7
-4,7
-7,2
0,5
-3,0
-1,3
-0,8
-0,4
-3,8
1,3
-3,7 11,0
1,8
8,3
2,7
2,2
6,5 15,7
7,9
0,4
2,6 10,4
-3,1
5,1
-4,2
7,1
5,3
-3,6
-1,8
3,9
-1,1
1,1
2,7
-4,8
0,7
10,0
2,4
3,0
2,8
3,4
14,5 12,4
-0,6
-8,4
1,5
-0,2
4,4 11,4
-2,2
-5,6
0,4
4,2
-5,6
2,9
-6,4
-3,7
6,5
2,9
2,4
-6,6
2,9
-8,9
-0,1
-0,7
8,5
7,5
4,7
-6,1
1,1
-3,6
1,4
2,2
-2,5
-4,2
2,7
-0,6
-2,5
1,4 13,1
0,2
6,3
4,0
-1,1
0,2
-2,9
5,2
3,1
4,3
-2,2
-8,9
6,8
2,6
-4,4
2,4
-0,8
2,4
7,3
-3,7
1,1
4,4
-1,6
-1,1
5,0
1,0
2,1
4,1
-7,6
7,7
2,1 10,8
-0,8
0,3
15,6
-9,0 21,1
4,2 11,2
6,2
-0,8
2,0
7,9
8,5
3,3
2,5
-1,8
-5,5
0,5 -11,3
0,5
-1,1
9,4 19,8 13,2
-6,5
7,5
8,3
-6,0
1,4
-0,9
2,3
-1,0
-4,9
-5,8
-6,8
0,3
3,9
3,6
-0,3
-2,7
-6,2
1,6
-1,1
0,4
3,3
-3,6
-1,6
0,8
-1,7
0,8
-0,5
-7,0
-3,8
9,4
8,5
9,3
0,7
-4,0
6,3
1,9
-5,4
1,1
-0,2
-0,9
-6,7
4,3
-3,9
2,1
2,7
3,6
7,3
6,6
-6,8
4,5
-7,2
1,2
-0,6
2,5
-0,8
5,4
2,6
-2,5
-0,3
2,8
-4,0
2,6
1,9
-0,1
7,6
-2,1
-3,2
5,0
6,1
-14,1 -17,2 22,1
0,5
-0,9
-5,8
-4,6
1,3
3,2
-1,8
3,7
3,2
-4,4 25,7 -17,1
-3,6
-6,6
-0,2
-7,8
3,2 11,7
0,1
1,5
3,4

155

Province and region

Reggio di Calabria
Crotone
Vibo Valentia
Calabria
Trapani
Palermo
Messina
Agrigento
Caltanissetta
Enna
Catania
Ragusa
Siracusa
Sicilia
Sassari
Nuoro
Cagliari
Oristano
Sardegna
Italy

1998
0,28
2,01
0,42
0,43
0,30
0,26
0,65
0,32
1,47
0,21
0,33
0,82
1,76
0,69
0,97
0,70
2,40
0,20
1,56
0,52

1999
0,26
0,47
0,38
0,28
0,30
0,29
0,69
0,32
1,70
0,20
0,39
0,69
2,18
0,78
0,98
0,66
2,56
0,18
1,60
0,52

Indicator
2000 2001 2002
0,28 0,30 0,30
0,28 0,26 0,26
0,47 0,49 0,50
0,30 0,29 0,29
0,29 0,29 0,27
0,31 0,30 0,31
0,71 0,80 0,79
0,33 0,37 0,34
1,92 1,81 1,60
0,20 0,21 0,20
0,42 0,41 0,46
0,63 0,61 0,62
2,52 2,65 2,50
0,82 0,82 0,81
0,91 0,85 0,69
0,75 0,77 0,73
2,68 2,68 2,55
0,17 0,19 0,18
1,67 1,67 1,57
0,54 0,55 0,54

2003
0,32
0,31
0,51
0,29
0,28
0,30
0,81
0,35
1,53
0,20
0,48
0,64
2,32
0,79
0,68
0,66
2,63
0,22
1,59
0,55

2004
0,31
0,30
0,50
0,29
0,26
0,29
0,80
0,33
1,64
0,21
0,49
0,67
2,26
0,78
0,66
0,68
2,67
0,21
1,60
0,55

Variation (%) with respect to the previous year

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
-7,2
7,5
7,3
2,8
4,6
-2,8
-76,8 -40,7
-4,5
-2,5 18,3
-2,7
-9,8 23,5
5,2
0,9
2,1
-1,5
-34,3
7,3
-3,9
-0,8
1,6
-0,5
-2,3
-2,1
0,2
-7,2
4,4
-7,6
8,7
8,5
-4,3
3,2
-2,7
-2,0
6,9
2,9 11,9
-0,7
1,9
-1,3
0,6
4,0 11,7
-9,5
5,0
-5,5
15,7 12,8
-5,7 -11,2
-4,4
6,8
-3,6
-1,7
5,6
-4,4
1,4
0,8
17,9
7,8
-2,3 12,0
2,8
2,9
-15,4
-9,0
-3,4
1,2
4,3
3,5
24,1 15,4
5,0
-5,4
-7,6
-2,3
11,7
6,2
-0,3
-1,6
-1,9
-1,2
1,5
-7,1
-7,4 -18,8
-1,3
-2,8
-5,5 12,7
3,0
-4,5 -10,0
2,4
6,6
4,5
0,2
-5,1
3,4
1,4
-7,2
-9,5 14,6
-2,9 17,0
-0,3
3,2
4,0
-0,1
-6,1
1,8
0,2
0,7
3,4
1,7
-0,4
1,3
-0,8

156

Table A3.3 Share (%) of the urban sorted waste over the total urban waste,
provinces of Italy: 1998-2004
Province and region
Torino
Vercelli
Novara
Cuneo
Asti
Alessandria
Biella
Verbano Cusio Ossola
Piemonte
Aosta
Valle dAosta
Varese
Como
Sondrio
Milano
Bergamo
Brescia
Pavia
Cremona
Mantova
Lecco
Lodi
Lombardia
Bolzano - Bozen
Trento
Trentino Alto Adige
Verona
Vicenza
Belluno
Treviso
Venezia
Padova
Rovigo
Veneto
Udine
Gorizia
Trieste
Pordenone
Friuli Venezia Giulia
Imperia
Savona
Genova
La Spezia
Liguria
Piacenza
Parma
Reggio Emilia
Modena
Bologna
Ferrara
Ravenna

1998
8,66
10,73
18,14
14,73
8,85
14,04
16,15
17,69
11,51
13,63
13,63
32,93
24,86
26,50
39,88
43,60
18,36
18,87
27,30
23,97
31,42
35,00
32,84
32,59
10,21
18,48
14,38
21,32
16,10
30,96
14,66
18,07
8,01
18,31
14,79
16,55
8,38
12,98
13,21
9,63
6,49
8,20
8,70
8,13
21,17
14,18
26,37
17,65
13,74
13,17
12,90

1999
16,18
11,80
24,48
14,31
12,57
17,09
18,48
21,24
16,62
14,90
14,90
36,17
26,90
29,34
39,92
48,71
22,10
21,33
33,24
25,93
41,18
38,05
35,29
37,72
11,43
21,51
18,96
29,95
17,50
38,00
20,42
25,85
11,89
24,62
20,67
21,15
9,57
15,51
17,28
12,05
8,62
9,26
8,99
9,47
23,84
17,23
31,60
19,07
16,93
18,91
16,78

2000
16,58
14,94
31,75
15,27
13,17
17,02
20,03
26,08
17,90
11,66
11,66
40,13
27,91
31,28
40,73
49,57
24,14
20,06
35,73
26,28
45,16
43,01
36,57
37,16
14,47
23,55
23,03
38,54
19,45
41,22
23,75
31,65
13,88
29,09
26,10
23,69
13,11
20,33
21,95
13,46
13,67
12,56
12,05
12,84
24,42
18,24
34,69
22,63
17,69
21,73
19,11

2001
18,39
15,98
39,41
20,09
16,51
19,35
20,85
36,27
20,96
19,33
19,33
41,87
31,16
32,91
42,64
51,26
26,88
24,72
42,00
28,23
48,83
42,90
38,91
35,34
15,16
22,80
30,39
45,57
24,57
46,09
29,91
38,98
23,08
35,81
26,91
29,85
13,18
24,41
23,98
15,28
14,26
12,38
12,92
13,23
23,54
21,53
36,96
24,94
17,58
20,65
24,95

2002
21,16
13,37
43,65
24,15
18,68
23,59
24,02
45,89
24,14
20,66
20,66
37,60
31,88
32,16
40,49
48,46
28,87
21,82
49,78
33,41
54,29
42,19
38,19
37,92
19,72
27,11
34,84
49,39
24,66
52,49
29,49
47,99
29,48
40,00
28,30
26,53
13,20
28,21
25,14
15,00
12,86
15,48
15,53
14,90
26,22
22,47
39,93
26,47
20,53
29,06
31,03

2003
23,06
16,72
47,45
27,68
26,31
31,27
31,13
46,03
27,48
24,45
24,45
45,20
35,29
33,09
41,58
48,39
30,49
22,23
49,65
34,88
55,82
45,63
39,89
40,55
21,06
29,58
35,25
51,07
28,44
58,73
27,69
52,89
39,74
42,40
29,56
25,17
14,88
33,19
26,84
15,45
15,24
21,47
18,01
18,95
27,16
25,50
40,02
28,46
17,46
30,34
30,19

2004
29,15
20,34
48,49
31,28
37,85
25,72
31,40
46,19
31,20
26,86
26,86
49,48
37,82
34,94
42,71
50,00
31,76
22,39
52,19
37,92
55,94
49,96
41,55
41,07
33,10
36,47
36,86
53,60
31,27
60,96
30,60
53,83
42,25
44,86
29,81
27,33
14,07
34,92
27,63
16,13
16,05
17,35
18,94
17,12
30,08
31,34
43,11
30,78
18,31
33,69
34,04

157

Province and region

Forl - Cesena
Rimini
Emilia Romagna
Massa Carrara
Lucca
Pistoia
Firenze
Livorno
Pisa
Arezzo
Siena
Grosseto
Prato
Toscana
Perugia
Terni
Umbria
Pesaro e Urbino
Ancona
Macerata
Ascoli Piceno
Marche
Viterbo
Rieti
Roma
Latina
Frosinone
Lazio
L'Aquila
Teramo
Pescara
Chieti
Abruzzo
Campobasso
Isernia
Molise
Caserta
Benevento
Napoli
Avellino
Salerno
Campania
Foggia
Bari
Taranto
Brindisi
Lecce
Puglia
Potenza
Matera
Basilicata
Cosenza
Catanzaro
Reggio di Calabria

1998
12,45
15,10
15,96
11,90
20,68
8,95
14,88
11,47
9,95
10,59
11,41
3,59
13,88
12,77
6,61
3,74
5,86
8,69
8,01
5,11
5,92
7,18
6,76
2,32
6,15
1,52
2,00
5,42
13,22
5,28
2,29
2,92
6,23
1,68
1,72
1,69
2,20
1,69
0,57
6,46
1,96
1,49
1,48
2,92
1,34
1,74
3,56
2,39
3,49
0,51
2,29
1,33
3,17
4,33

1999
20,17
16,44
19,59
19,04
28,43
13,77
17,51
13,32
12,08
12,58
16,31
6,08
21,12
16,74
7,84
6,92
7,61
11,42
13,02
5,64
3,93
9,22
6,02
3,97
6,31
1,98
3,24
5,71
17,10
8,05
3,80
4,17
8,30
2,30
1,87
2,21
1,01
1,76
4,31
4,31
2,63
3,54
3,26
5,18
2,35
2,62
4,35
4,04
3,73
0,95
2,77
2,04
2,13
0,47

2000
21,10
15,22
21,56
22,15
25,99
16,55
25,11
17,55
16,44
14,36
22,52
13,26
21,55
20,91
9,34
8,69
9,18
13,16
12,41
6,40
9,76
11,07
5,73
4,53
4,63
1,95
3,19
4,34
13,90
9,74
4,50
5,36
8,27
2,05
3,04
2,23
2,19
6,81
5,26
5,00
3,34
4,50
6,03
7,20
2,39
3,26
5,66
5,67
4,42
3,22
3,98
2,07
2,90
1,09

2001
18,61
27,40
23,87
24,55
26,06
18,24
27,71
19,58
21,40
17,07
27,15
15,99
26,98
23,60
10,64
12,24
11,05
16,29
13,99
16,37
9,35
13,88
5,37
7,71
5,55
2,29
3,11
5,12
19,06
14,97
6,07
9,07
12,33
2,81
3,26
2,91
3,60
8,64
9,19
7,54
11,23
8,33
6,80
9,04
3,35
4,05
7,15
7,01
5,43
5,22
5,35
4,13
2,90
0,48

2002
20,38
18,80
25,83
22,79
30,02
21,59
28,44
22,83
23,02
17,94
25,48
13,42
27,07
24,67
7,29
13,10
8,77
15,28
13,53
7,56
6,61
11,37
4,81
6,00
5,77
4,19
3,31
5,42
9,46
16,57
5,53
9,90
10,46
3,49
2,06
3,17
7,05
7,81
9,04
9,44
11,72
9,14
6,35
12,13
5,87
4,13
6,94
8,52
5,79
5,10
5,54
5,87
7,02
2,62

2003
18,05
16,45
25,54
26,45
30,76
27,98
29,94
25,74
26,09
18,59
26,62
17,92
30,52
27,07
12,60
17,86
13,92
18,57
14,67
20,97
8,14
15,27
5,26
4,59
7,96
5,83
3,42
7,27
10,44
17,86
7,28
13,60
12,44
2,77
2,79
2,78
10,60
7,99
7,35
10,13
15,03
9,36
6,98
10,49
7,80
4,02
7,45
8,26
6,03
5,11
5,69
5,87
8,75
4,82

2004
19,28
21,08
28,69
26,19
28,37
30,66
31,79
26,41
30,87
20,19
31,59
27,39
31,41
29,15
15,59
25,21
18,08
17,37
17,15
25,31
11,91
17,46
6,20
3,78
13,31
6,06
3,51
11,63
10,06
20,26
10,10
14,50
13,89
4,72
3,85
4,52
14,18
8,64
7,66
11,99
18,18
10,79
10,12
10,28
7,89
5,42
7,82
9,06
7,94
4,40
6,65
6,87
6,63
9,87

158

Province and region

Crotone
Vibo Valentia
Calabria
Trapani
Palermo
Messina
Agrigento
Caltanissetta
Enna
Catania
Ragusa
Siracusa
Sicilia
Sassari
Nuoro
Cagliari
Oristano
Sardegna
Italy

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

0,16
0,13
0,09
0,31
4,08
6,50
8,31
0,23
0,30
0,54
1,96
4,09
4,47
6,52
2,02
1,31
1,62
2,35
4,78
6,11
7,75
6,26
6,40
9,00
4,99
5,50
7,55 16,62
1,60
3,42
3,94
5,24
4,30
5,66
6,97
0,63
1,82
2,17
2,40
1,68
2,85
3,83
0,08
2,01
1,43
2,93
4,93
5,14
8,79
0,29
0,90
1,58
1,69
3,06
4,46
5,01
0,27
0,66
0,97
2,06
3,41
5,09
4,88
1,03
0,82
3,53
4,72
3,49
4,75
6,91
1,58
0,73
2,14
8,58 10,84 11,12 13,81
0,17
0,41
1,23
1,80
2,77
3,43
3,12
1,40
2,23
3,37
4,27
4,02
5,30
7,83
1,40
2,45
3,61
3,97
2,37
5,62
4,14
1,00
0,95
1,25
1,73
2,12
3,09
6,21
1,65
3,27
3,98
7,20
4,58
7,07
9,97
4,61
3,43
4,86
2,84
3,37
6,40
6,89
1,79
2,79
3,67
5,18
3,46
6,03
7,45
12,15 14,83 16,57 18,69 19,46 20,92 23,63

159

Table A3.4 Total number of patents per thousand of inhabitants, provinces of Italy: 1998-2004
Province and region
Torino
Vercelli
Novara
Cuneo
Asti
Alessandria
Biella
Verbano Cusio Ossola
Piemonte
Aosta
Valle dAosta
Varese
Como
Sondrio
Milano
Bergamo
Brescia
Pavia
Cremona
Mantova
Lecco
Lodi
Lombardia
Bolzano - Bozen
Trento
Trentino Alto Adige
Verona
Vicenza
Belluno
Treviso
Venezia
Padova
Rovigo
Veneto
Udine
Gorizia
Trieste
Pordenone
Friuli Venezia Giulia
Imperia
Savona
Genova
La Spezia
Liguria
Piacenza
Parma
Reggio Emilia
Modena
Bologna
Ferrara
Ravenna
Forl - Cesena

1998
2,61
0,25
0,22
0,32
0,75
0,33
0,10
0,08
1,49
0,09
0,09
0,26
0,23
0,09
4,66
0,37
0,61
0,16
0,52
0,40
0,12
0,00
2,13
0,66
0,63
0,65
1,01
1,13
0,54
1,09
0,46
1,55
0,27
0,98
1,58
0,24
0,62
1,18
1,13
0,19
0,50
0,72
0,21
0,54
0,05
0,85
0,93
1,30
2,25
1,05
0,35
0,58

1999
2,62
0,15
0,26
0,24
0,70
0,20
0,16
0,14
1,48
0,17
0,17
0,34
0,21
0,23
3,65
0,42
0,66
0,25
0,30
0,09
0,15
0,00
1,71
0,67
0,47
0,57
1,08
1,21
0,49
1,00
0,42
1,62
0,22
1,00
1,62
0,20
0,49
1,25
1,13
0,31
0,39
0,76
0,23
0,56
0,73
0,86
1,42
1,49
2,46
1,34
0,05
0,39

2000
1,43
0,20
0,29
0,43
0,00
0,01
0,22
0,14
0,84
0,00
0,00
0,35
0,26
0,34
4,94
0,53
0,44
0,28
0,56
0,01
0,00
0,00
2,23
0,72
0,58
0,65
1,28
1,35
0,63
1,37
0,45
1,80
0,23
1,17
1,83
0,11
0,65
1,15
1,22
0,25
0,55
0,71
0,08
0,54
0,93
1,01
0,03
1,17
2,04
1,32
0,00
0,90

2001
2,56
0,20
0,28
0,36
0,92
0,50
0,14
0,12
1,50
0,05
0,05
0,38
0,32
0,18
4,70
0,43
0,69
0,28
0,52
0,48
0,24
0,00
2,18
0,79
0,64
0,72
1,32
1,34
0,51
1,31
0,47
1,77
0,01
1,15
1,49
0,32
0,64
1,30
1,13
0,37
0,51
0,73
0,29
0,58
0,91
0,88
1,44
1,35
2,57
1,25
0,56
0,85

2002
1,58
0,39
0,25
0,40
0,86
0,49
0,30
0,19
1,01
0,14
0,14
0,44
0,31
0,24
4,53
0,41
0,74
0,27
0,49
0,40
0,27
0,00
2,11
0,67
0,58
0,63
1,14
1,21
0,52
1,29
0,41
1,87
0,00
1,10
1,65
0,32
0,69
1,41
1,24
0,39
0,51
0,63
0,28
0,53
0,88
0,80
1,20
1,03
2,70
1,10
0,69
1,05

2003
2,28
0,40
0,00
0,48
0,91
0,57
0,27
0,23
1,37
0,09
0,09
0,44
0,31
0,21
4,07
0,37
0,67
0,27
0,48
0,41
0,33
0,18
1,91
0,83
0,50
0,66
1,17
1,09
0,46
1,20
0,48
1,60
0,30
1,04
1,61
0,44
0,69
0,97
1,13
0,46
0,54
0,68
0,28
0,57
0,46
1,10
1,02
1,13
2,32
1,15
1,35
0,83

2004
2,26
0,24
0,41
0,41
0,70
0,50
0,38
0,22
1,37
0,10
0,10
0,44
0,40
0,15
4,24
0,49
0,60
0,34
0,49
0,41
0,37
0,31
2,00
0,70
0,53
0,61
1,24
1,34
0,61
1,20
0,45
1,71
0,43
1,13
1,45
0,43
0,71
1,04
1,08
0,48
0,56
0,74
0,28
0,61
0,94
0,90
1,43
1,56
2,36
1,35
1,32
0,67

160

Province and region

Rimini
Emilia Romagna
Massa Carrara
Lucca
Pistoia
Firenze
Livorno
Pisa
Arezzo
Siena
Grosseto
Prato
Toscana
Perugia
Terni
Umbria
Pesaro e Urbino
Ancona
Macerata
Ascoli Piceno
Marche
Viterbo
Rieti
Roma
Latina
Frosinone
Lazio
L'Aquila
Teramo
Pescara
Chieti
Abruzzo
Campobasso
Isernia
Molise
Caserta
Benevento
Napoli
Avellino
Salerno
Campania
Foggia
Bari
Taranto
Brindisi
Lecce
Puglia
Potenza
Matera
Basilicata
Cosenza
Catanzaro
Reggio di Calabria
Crotone

1998
0,89
1,15
0,21
0,39
0,63
2,08
0,20
0,76
1,02
0,30
0,29
0,48
0,92
0,50
0,41
0,48
0,49
1,02
1,43
0,24
0,78
0,21
0,06
2,13
0,18
0,13
1,58
0,11
0,39
0,84
0,14
0,35
0,09
0,21
0,13
0,09
0,17
0,26
0,16
0,11
0,19
0,09
0,31
0,02
0,06
0,11
0,17
0,09
0,13
0,10
0,10
0,15
0,11
0,00

1999
1,20
1,33
0,16
0,36
0,73
2,14
0,26
1,07
1,01
0,33
0,26
0,56
0,99
0,62
0,25
0,52
0,42
0,97
1,73
0,27
0,82
0,22
0,06
2,18
0,23
0,22
1,64
0,12
0,20
0,52
0,16
0,24
0,03
0,15
0,07
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,08
0,36
0,00
0,01
0,01
0,16
0,14
0,13
0,14
0,14
0,25
0,10
0,05

2000
1,48
1,12
0,20
0,49
1,00
2,35
0,35
1,10
1,16
0,03
0,33
0,77
1,10
0,82
0,38
0,70
0,59
0,75
1,86
0,05
0,76
0,40
0,12
2,15
0,25
0,26
1,63
0,19
0,00
0,90
0,22
0,32
0,01
0,00
0,01
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,10
0,01
0,00
0,00
0,17
0,05
0,11
0,15
0,12
0,11
0,20
0,15
0,10

2001
1,51
1,45
0,21
0,64
0,82
1,90
0,52
1,02
1,23
0,57
0,44
0,85
1,05
0,76
0,35
0,65
0,52
0,84
1,98
0,38
0,88
0,37
0,13
2,30
0,27
0,27
1,74
0,14
0,32
0,91
0,23
0,39
0,20
0,41
0,26
0,08
0,13
0,40
0,19
0,18
0,28
0,15
0,47
0,06
0,13
0,26
0,28
0,22
0,22
0,22
0,12
0,28
0,14
0,05

2002
1,45
1,41
0,30
0,55
0,89
2,06
0,33
0,82
1,07
0,58
0,54
0,94
1,05
0,99
0,32
0,81
0,43
0,94
1,64
0,42
0,83
0,37
0,11
2,09
0,25
0,34
1,59
0,18
0,44
0,91
0,35
0,47
0,23
0,27
0,24
0,09
0,15
0,43
0,23
0,19
0,30
0,20
0,53
0,09
0,15
0,31
0,33
0,30
0,29
0,29
0,16
0,30
0,18
0,07

2003
1,42
1,36
0,31
0,60
0,81
2,14
0,34
0,97
1,16
0,56
0,58
0,93
1,10
0,85
0,39
0,73
0,45
1,01
1,84
0,39
0,89
0,60
0,28
2,05
0,28
0,37
1,58
0,18
0,50
0,73
0,39
0,45
0,22
0,29
0,24
0,16
0,22
0,47
0,17
0,10
0,32
0,22
0,50
0,16
0,17
0,17
0,31
0,24
0,24
0,24
0,17
0,24
0,16
0,12

2004
1,49
1,50
0,34
0,68
0,86
2,12
0,40
1,14
1,04
0,67
0,80
1,15
1,16
0,90
0,59
0,81
0,51
0,95
2,34
0,60
1,05
0,43
0,22
2,15
0,32
0,35
1,65
0,21
0,58
0,80
0,52
0,52
0,24
0,19
0,23
0,10
0,26
0,51
0,14
0,18
0,34
0,16
0,49
0,16
0,16
0,38
0,34
0,26
0,16
0,23
0,24
0,29
0,13
0,19

161

Province and region

Vibo Valentia
Calabria
Trapani
Palermo
Messina
Agrigento
Caltanissetta
Enna
Catania
Ragusa
Siracusa
Sicilia
Sassari
Nuoro
Cagliari
Oristano
Sardegna
Italy

1998
0,01
0,10
0,11
0,16
0,10
0,06
0,12
0,04
0,21
0,16
0,05
0,13
0,08
0,10
0,20
0,10
0,14
0,94

1999
0,02
0,13
0,13
0,15
0,09
0,07
0,11
0,05
0,27
0,16
0,07
0,15
0,10
0,13
0,20
0,05
0,15
0,88

2000
0,04
0,13
0,18
0,23
0,10
0,12
0,28
0,09
0,30
0,20
0,09
0,20
0,16
0,14
0,32
0,04
0,22
0,92

2001
0,06
0,14
0,26
0,25
0,15
0,12
0,34
0,00
0,34
0,17
0,11
0,23
0,21
0,14
0,31
0,07
0,23
1,04

2002
0,05
0,18
0,26
0,24
0,14
0,13
0,51
0,00
0,36
0,23
0,09
0,24
0,20
0,00
0,32
0,01
0,21
0,99

2003
0,07
0,17
0,28
0,25
0,19
0,18
0,54
0,00
0,26
0,19
0,11
0,23
0,24
0,00
0,30
0,00
0,20
0,98

2004
0,17
0,21
0,31
0,27
0,24
0,22
0,45
0,00
0,34
0,18
0,12
0,26
0,19
0,00
0,29
0,06
0,19
1,04

162

Table A3.5 Ratio of exports over value-added, Industry in a Strict Sense, provinces of Italy: 1998-2004
Province and region
Torino
Vercelli
Novara
Cuneo
Asti
Alessandria
Biella
Verbano Cusio Ossola
Piemonte
Aosta
Valle dAosta
Varese
Como
Sondrio
Milano
Bergamo
Brescia
Pavia
Cremona
Mantova
Lecco
Lodi
Lombardia
Bolzano - Bozen
Trento
Trentino Alto Adige
Verona
Vicenza
Belluno
Treviso
Venezia
Padova
Rovigo
Veneto
Udine
Gorizia
Trieste
Pordenone
Friuli Venezia Giulia
Imperia
Savona
Genova
La Spezia
Liguria
Piacenza
Parma
Reggio Emilia
Modena
Bologna
Ferrara
Ravenna
Forl - Cesena

1998
1,02
1,16
1,07
1,00
0,85
0,99
0,82
0,60
1,00
0,81
0,81
0,92
1,15
0,53
0,93
1,01
1,02
0,88
0,65
1,05
0,85
0,44
0,94
1,02
0,89
0,95
1,16
1,33
0,83
1,16
0,85
1,01
0,55
1,09
1,29
2,56
1,67
1,26
1,46
0,58
0,67
0,54
0,39
0,54
0,77
0,86
1,13
1,11
1,02
1,06
0,93
0,85

1999
0,98
1,17
1,12
0,99
0,90
1,02
0,82
0,56
0,98
0,80
0,80
0,99
1,18
0,49
0,95
0,98
0,96
0,94
0,65
1,12
0,90
0,54
0,95
1,07
0,90
0,98
1,15
1,42
0,83
1,17
0,97
1,00
0,57
1,13
1,31
2,03
1,45
1,22
1,37
0,65
0,68
0,48
0,35
0,50
0,74
0,85
1,11
1,12
1,03
0,98
0,98
0,82

2000
1,12
1,27
1,10
1,05
0,94
1,11
0,96
0,66
1,08
1,11
1,11
1,08
1,27
0,60
1,12
1,09
0,92
1,03
0,73
1,27
0,96
0,59
1,07
1,10
1,01
1,05
1,16
1,56
0,96
1,29
1,28
1,08
0,62
1,25
1,34
3,03
1,65
1,37
1,56
0,52
0,70
0,62
0,45
0,60
0,80
0,93
1,21
1,22
1,13
0,98
1,08
0,97

2001
1,13
1,40
1,21
1,02
0,91
0,98
1,08
0,72
1,09
1,00
1,00
1,02
1,19
0,60
1,18
1,10
0,96
1,01
0,79
1,26
0,96
0,63
1,10
1,07
1,01
1,04
1,22
1,63
1,03
1,38
1,26
1,12
0,71
1,32
1,40
2,39
1,39
1,64
1,57
0,59
0,77
0,72
0,50
0,69
0,86
0,92
1,24
1,21
1,18
1,02
0,93
1,01

2002
1,11
1,39
1,13
1,08
1,04
1,00
1,05
0,69
1,09
0,84
0,84
1,00
1,13
0,56
1,13
1,05
0,92
1,04
0,73
1,24
0,90
0,64
1,05
1,08
0,94
1,00
1,21
1,65
1,12
1,37
1,35
1,11
0,74
1,33
1,27
3,01
1,21
1,50
1,51
0,61
0,76
0,70
0,39
0,65
0,86
1,02
1,29
1,26
1,13
0,96
0,84
0,93

2003
1,14
1,41
1,10
1,10
1,08
1,00
0,99
0,66
1,11
0,90
0,90
1,04
1,06
0,55
1,07
0,95
0,97
1,00
0,67
1,21
0,75
0,66
1,01
1,08
1,01
1,04
1,22
1,29
1,12
1,35
1,12
1,01
0,68
1,19
1,11
1,94
1,19
1,41
1,30
0,54
0,74
0,65
0,46
0,62
0,85
1,02
1,17
1,22
1,12
1,02
0,80
0,84

2004
1,15
1,46
1,16
1,21
1,02
1,11
0,99
0,73
1,14
1,06
1,06
1,03
1,06
0,53
1,04
1,12
1,09
1,03
0,77
1,18
0,84
0,73
1,03
1,22
1,04
1,12
1,19
1,63
1,15
1,37
1,14
1,10
0,68
1,29
1,33
3,29
1,40
1,55
1,60
0,64
0,76
0,63
0,50
0,63
0,94
1,15
1,38
1,35
1,25
1,12
0,89
0,94

163

Province and region

Rimini
Emilia Romagna
Massa Carrara
Lucca
Pistoia
Firenze
Livorno
Pisa
Arezzo
Siena
Grosseto
Prato
Toscana
Perugia
Terni
Umbria
Pesaro e Urbino
Ancona
Macerata
Ascoli Piceno
Marche
Viterbo
Rieti
Roma
Latina
Frosinone
Lazio
L'Aquila
Teramo
Pescara
Chieti
Abruzzo
Campobasso
Isernia
Molise
Caserta
Benevento
Napoli
Avellino
Salerno
Campania
Foggia
Bari
Taranto
Brindisi
Lecce
Puglia
Potenza
Matera
Basilicata
Cosenza
Catanzaro
Reggio di Calabria
Crotone

1998
0,85
1,00
1,69
1,17
0,98
0,96
0,51
0,76
1,37
0,79
0,32
1,45
1,03
0,50
0,83
0,59
0,94
1,16
0,84
0,92
0,99
0,35
0,70
0,56
0,73
0,80
0,61
0,82
0,67
0,34
1,67
0,99
0,32
1,08
0,56
0,56
0,12
0,63
0,74
0,64
0,62
0,50
0,62
0,71
0,28
0,61
0,58
0,67
0,57
0,64
0,05
0,06
0,15
0,07

1999
0,87
1,00
1,53
1,10
0,96
0,99
0,45
0,76
1,39
0,84
0,38
1,46
1,02
0,50
0,77
0,57
0,85
1,01
0,79
0,83
0,89
0,34
1,81
0,57
0,89
0,85
0,66
0,59
0,70
0,32
1,41
0,85
0,33
1,01
0,55
0,54
0,12
0,65
0,67
0,55
0,60
0,58
0,67
0,45
0,45
0,60
0,58
0,75
0,61
0,72
0,05
0,05
0,19
0,05

2000
0,95
1,10
1,58
1,26
1,04
1,10
0,73
0,89
1,93
0,90
0,45
1,49
1,18
0,55
0,88
0,64
0,98
1,15
0,92
1,03
1,04
0,39
2,38
0,58
0,90
1,61
0,79
1,14
0,68
0,35
1,55
1,00
0,35
0,89
0,54
0,63
0,15
0,80
0,75
0,53
0,69
0,61
0,79
0,49
0,74
0,62
0,67
0,62
0,76
0,65
0,06
0,05
0,21
0,04

2001
0,97
1,11
1,49
1,28
1,08
1,07
0,78
0,93
1,67
1,12
0,43
1,44
1,17
0,55
0,80
0,62
1,01
1,17
0,99
1,08
1,08
0,41
2,48
0,47
0,95
1,24
0,66
1,28
0,68
0,39
1,60
1,04
0,34
1,02
0,58
0,56
0,19
0,83
0,68
0,61
0,71
0,42
0,84
0,51
0,63
0,67
0,67
0,66
0,66
0,66
0,05
0,06
0,20
0,07

2002
0,95
1,11
1,53
1,35
1,05
1,08
0,75
0,90
1,58
1,09
0,43
1,35
1,15
0,54
0,83
0,63
0,97
1,29
0,96
1,01
1,08
0,42
2,08
0,52
0,91
1,15
0,68
1,30
0,71
0,40
1,54
1,06
0,33
1,04
0,57
0,48
0,18
0,78
0,51
0,61
0,64
0,34
0,74
0,52
0,73
0,57
0,62
0,81
0,68
0,78
0,05
0,05
0,18
0,09

2003
0,90
1,07
1,54
1,36
0,93
1,00
0,71
0,78
1,32
1,08
0,44
1,20
1,05
0,50
0,79
0,59
0,89
1,36
0,95
0,96
1,07
0,37
2,40
0,41
0,88
0,97
0,59
1,17
0,68
0,35
1,53
1,01
0,26
1,05
0,52
0,34
0,12
0,61
0,42
0,57
0,52
0,29
0,68
0,56
0,76
0,50
0,59
0,83
0,90
0,85
0,05
0,04
0,19
0,13

2004
0,95
1,20
2,18
1,42
0,90
1,08
0,76
0,89
1,31
1,13
0,46
1,20
1,12
0,54
1,00
0,68
0,91
1,42
0,87
0,87
1,06
0,40
2,12
0,44
0,95
0,90
0,60
1,33
0,71
0,35
1,78
1,13
0,26
1,16
0,56
0,38
0,15
0,65
0,57
0,59
0,57
0,30
0,74
0,91
0,90
0,49
0,70
0,62
0,94
0,70
0,05
0,05
0,21
0,15

164

Province and region

Vibo Valentia
Calabria
Trapani
Palermo
Messina
Agrigento
Caltanissetta
Enna
Catania
Ragusa
Siracusa
Sicilia
Sassari
Nuoro
Cagliari
Oristano
Sardegna
Italy

1998
0,39
0,10
0,36
0,48
0,38
0,07
0,19
0,07
0,30
0,12
1,00
0,45
0,48
0,16
0,62
0,39
0,50
0,90

1999
0,19
0,09
0,45
0,30
0,36
0,07
0,23
0,08
0,40
0,15
1,12
0,45
0,37
0,21
0,76
0,20
0,53
0,90

2000
0,43
0,12
0,41
0,30
0,61
0,06
0,62
0,08
0,58
0,18
2,32
0,73
0,40
0,13
1,23
0,26
0,80
1,02

2001
0,17
0,09
0,34
0,27
0,46
0,08
0,63
0,09
0,45
0,17
2,45
0,67
0,38
0,21
1,02
0,27
0,68
1,03

2002
0,19
0,09
0,35
0,26
0,42
0,10
0,34
0,08
0,55
0,20
2,22
0,62
0,36
0,14
0,90
0,23
0,60
1,01

2003
0,20
0,10
0,26
0,23
0,43
0,09
0,32
0,09
0,48
0,17
2,42
0,61
0,39
0,17
0,99
0,20
0,66
0,95

2004
0,17
0,11
0,27
0,23
0,71
0,11
0,33
0,08
0,54
0,21
2,72
0,70
0,41
0,36
1,15
0,12
0,77
1,02

165

Table A3.6 Population density (inhabitants per Km2), provinces of Italy: 1998-2004
Province and region 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Torino
319 318 318 317 318 321 328
Vercelli
86
85
85
85
85
85
85
Novara
253 254 255 256 259 262 264
Cuneo
80
80
80
81
81
82
83
Asti
138 138 138 138 138 140 141
Alessandria
119 119 118 117 117 119 121
Biella
206 206 205 205 205 205 205
Verbano Cusio Ossola
71
71
71
70
71
71
72
Piemonte
167 166 166 166 167 168 170
Aosta
36
36
37
37
37
37
38
Valle dAosta
36
36
37
37
37
37
38
Varese
672 674 676 678 683 692 703
Como
413 414 416 418 422 428 435
Sondrio
55
55
55
55
55
56
56
Milano
1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.875 1.903 1.935
Bergamo
349 352 355 358 362 369 376
Brescia
226 228 230 232 235 240 244
Pavia
166 166 166 167 168 170 172
Cremona
188 188 189 190 191 194 196
Mantova
160 160 161 162 163 165 167
Lecco
375 377 379 382 386 391 395
Lodi
247 249 251 253 258 263 267
Lombardia
375 376 377 379 382 387 394
Bolzano - Bozen
62
62
62
63
63
64
64
Trento
75
76
76
77
78
79
80
Trentino Alto Adige
68
68
69
69
70
71
72
Verona
259 261 263 265 269 272 276
Vicenza
285 287 290 292 296 301 305
Belluno
57
57
57
57
57
58
58
Treviso
314 316 319 321 326 333 339
Venezia
328 328 329 329 330 334 336
Padova
391 393 395 397 400 407 412
Rovigo
137 136 136 135 136 136 137
Veneto
243 244 245 246 249 252 255
Udine
105 105 106 106 106 107 108
Gorizia
292 292 293 293 297 299 302
Trieste
1.160 1.154 1.147 1.142 1.136 1.130 1.124
Pordenone
123 124 125 126 128 129 131
Friuli Venezia Giulia 150 150 150
151 152 152 153
Imperia
180 179 178 177 178 180 187
Savona
178 177 177 176 179 181 182
Genova
487 484 480 477 475 474 476
La Spezia
248 247 246 245 244 247 249
Liguria
295 293 291 290 290 291 294
Piacenza
102 102 102 102 103 105 106
Parma
113 113 114 114 115 116 120
Reggio Emilia
191 194 196 198 202 206 212
Modena
230 232 234 236 240 243 246
Bologna
244 245 246 247 250 253 255
Ferrara
132 132 131 131 131 132 133
Ravenna
186 186 187 187 189 191 197
Forl - Cesena
148 149 150 151 152 154 156

166

Province and region 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Rimini
499 504 508 510 518 528 538
Emilia Romagna
178 178 179 180 182 184 188
Massa Carrara
171 171 171 171 171 172 174
Lucca
210 210 210 210 211 213 214
Pistoia
276 277 277 278 281 284 287
Firenze
267 266 266 266 266 273 275
Livorno
270 269 270 269 270 271 273
Pisa
156 156 157 157 158 160 161
Arezzo
99
99 100 100 101 102 103
Siena
66
66
66
66
67
68
68
Grosseto
47
47
47
47
47
48
48
Prato
610 616 622 626 633 639 654
Toscana
152 152 152 152 153 155 156
Perugia
94
95
95
96
97
98 100
Terni
104 104 104 104 104 106 107
Umbria
97
97
97
98
99 100 102
Pesaro e Urbino
119 120 121 121 123 125 126
Ancona
228 229 230 231 233 236 238
Macerata
108 108 108 109 110 112 113
Ascoli Piceno
176 176 176 177 178 180 182
Marche
150 150
151 152 153 155 157
Viterbo
80
80
80
80
81
82
83
Rieti
53
54
54
54
54
55
56
Roma
694 693 692 692 692 698 708
Latina
218 218 218 218 221 228 231
Frosinone
149 149 149 149 150 150 151
Lazio
298 297 297 297 299 302 306
L'Aquila
59
59
59
59
59
60
60
Teramo
146 147 147 148 148 150 152
Pescara
240 240 241 241 255 257 259
Chieti
148 148 148 148 148 149 151
Abruzzo
117
117
117
117
118
119
121
Campobasso
80
80
80
79
79
80
80
Isernia
59
59
59
59
59
59
59
Molise
73
73
72
72
72
72
73
Caserta
322 323 323 323 324 329 333
Benevento
140 139 139 139 138 139 140
Napoli
2.622 2.620 2.615 2.613 2.626 2.635 2.641
Avellino
155 155 154 154 155 156 157
Salerno
219 219 219 218 219 220 222
Campania
421 421 420 420 421 424 426
Foggia
97
97
96
96
96
96
96
Bari
303 303 303 304 304 306 310
Taranto
240 240 239 238 239 239 239
Brindisi
222 220 220 219 218 218 218
Lecce
289 288 286 285 287 290 292
Puglia
209 208 208 208 208 209 210
Potenza
61
61
60
60
60
60
60
Matera
60
60
59
59
59
59
59
Basilicata
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Cosenza
112 111 111 110 110 110 110
Catanzaro
157 156 155 154 154 154 154
Reggio di Calabria
179 178 178 177 177 178 178
Crotone
102 102 101 101 101 101 101

167

Province and region 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Vibo Valentia
153 152 151 150 149 149 148
Calabria
135 134 134 133 133 133 133
Trapani
174 173 173 173 173 174 176
Palermo
249 249 248 247 248 248 248
Messina
203 203 204 204 203 203 203
Agrigento
152 150 149 147 148 150 150
Caltanissetta
130 130 129 129 128 130 129
Enna
71
70
70
69
69
68
68
Catania
297 297 297 297 298 300 302
Ragusa
183 183 183 183 184 189 190
Siracusa
190 189 188 188 188 188 189
Sicilia
195 194 194 193 193 195 195
Sassari
60
60
60
60
61
61
62
Nuoro
38
38
38
38
38
37
37
Cagliari
111 111 110 110 111 111 111
Oristano
59
59
58
58
58
58
59
Sardegna
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
Italy
189 189 189 189 190 192 194

168

Table A3.7 Local units density (units per Km2), provinces of Italy: 1998-2004
Province and region 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Torino
4,1 4,1 4,2 4,3 4,4 4,4 4,4
Vercelli
1,2 1,2 1,2 1,3 1,3 1,2 1,2
Novara
4,2 4,2 4,2 4,2 4,2 4,2 4,1
Cuneo
1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,3 1,3 1,3
Asti
1,8 1,9 1,9 1,9 2,0 2,0 2,1
Alessandria
1,8 1,8 1,8 1,9 1,9 1,9 1,9
Biella
3,8 3,8 3,8 3,8 3,8 3,8 3,7
Verbano Cusio Ossola 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,1
Piemonte
2,3 2,3 2,4 2,4 2,5 2,5 2,5
Aosta
0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4
Valle dAosta
0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4
Varese
13,2 13,1 13,1 13,0 12,9 12,8 12,6
Como
9,0 8,8 8,8 8,8 8,7 8,6 8,4
Sondrio
0,7 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,7
Milano
31,7 31,6 31,6 31,5 31,0 30,6 30,6
Bergamo
5,6 5,7 5,9 6,0 6,1 6,2 6,3
Brescia
4,2 4,3 4,3 4,4 4,5 4,5 4,6
Pavia
2,5 2,5 2,5 2,5 2,5 2,5 2,5
Cremona
2,6 2,6 2,7 2,7 2,8 2,8 2,8
Mantova
2,7 2,7 2,7 2,8 2,8 2,8 2,8
Lecco
7,8 7,6 7,7 7,9 7,9 7,9 7,8
Lodi
3,0 3,0 3,1 3,3 3,3 3,3 3,3
Lombardia
6,5 6,5 6,5 6,6 6,6 6,5 6,5
Bolzano - Bozen
0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8
Trento
0,9 0,9 0,9 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0
Trentino Alto Adige
0,8 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9
Verona
4,2 4,2 4,3 4,4 4,5 4,5 4,5
Vicenza
6,3 6,4 6,5 6,6 6,7 6,7 6,7
Belluno
1,0 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9
Treviso
6,5 6,6 6,6 6,6 6,6 6,6 6,6
Venezia
4,0 4,1 4,2 4,3 4,3 4,3 4,3
Padova
7,7 7,7 7,8 7,8 7,8 7,8 7,7
Rovigo
2,0 2,0 2,1 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,2
Veneto
4,3 4,4 4,4 4,5 4,5 4,5 4,5
Udine
1,6 1,6 1,6 1,6 1,6 1,6 1,6
Gorizia
3,4 3,4 3,3 3,4 3,5 3,6 3,5
Trieste
9,9 10,0 9,8 9,8 9,7 9,6 9,5
Pordenone
1,9 1,9 2,0 2,0 2,1 2,1 2,1
Friuli Venezia Giulia 2,1 2,1 2,1 2,1 2,1 2,1 2,1
Imperia
1,7 1,7 1,7 1,8 1,8 1,8 1,8
Savona
1,8 1,8 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,1 2,1
Genova
4,7 4,7 4,8 4,9 5,0 5,4 5,4
La Spezia
2,6 2,7 2,7 2,8 2,8 2,9 2,9
Liguria
2,9 2,9 3,0 3,1 3,1 3,3 3,3
Piacenza
1,4 1,4 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,6 1,6
Parma
2,1 2,0 2,1 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,2
Reggio Emilia
4,1 4,2 4,2 4,3 4,4 4,5 4,6
Modena
5,5 5,5 5,6 5,6 5,7 5,7 5,6
Bologna
3,9 4,0 4,0 4,0 4,1 4,1 4,0
Ferrara
1,5 1,5 1,5 1,6 1,6 1,6 1,6
Ravenna
2,4 2,4 2,5 2,5 2,6 2,6 2,6
Forl - Cesena
2,4 2,4 2,4 2,5 2,5 2,5 2,6

169

Province and region 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Rimini
7,7 7,7 7,7 7,9 7,8 7,8 7,8
Emilia Romagna
3,1 3,1 3,1 3,2 3,2 3,2 3,2
Massa Carrara
2,3 2,4 2,4 2,5 2,5 2,6 2,6
Lucca
3,7 3,7 3,7 3,7 3,7 3,7 3,8
Pistoia
7,4 7,2 7,2 7,1 7,0 6,9 6,7
Firenze
5,8 5,8 5,8 5,9 5,9 5,8 5,8
Livorno
2,5 2,6 2,6 2,8 2,8 2,8 2,8
Pisa
2,6 2,6 2,7 2,7 2,7 2,7 2,7
Arezzo
2,0 2,1 2,1 2,2 2,2 2,1 2,1
Siena
1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,1 1,0 1,0
Grosseto
0,4 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5
Prato
28,3 27,9 27,8 28,1 27,6 27,0 26,5
Toscana
3,0 3,0 3,0 3,1 3,1 3,0 3,0
Perugia
1,5 1,5 1,6 1,6 1,6 1,6 1,6
Terni
1,1 1,1 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2
Umbria
1,4 1,4 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,5
Pesaro e Urbino
2,3 2,3 2,4 2,5 2,5 2,5 2,6
Ancona
3,0 3,1 3,2 3,4 3,4 3,5 3,6
Macerata
2,2 2,2 2,3 2,4 2,4 2,4 2,4
Ascoli Piceno
3,8 3,8 3,8 3,9 4,0 4,0 4,0
Marche
2,7 2,8 2,8 2,9 3,0 3,0 3,0
Viterbo
0,7 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,9
Rieti
0,4 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5
Roma
4,3 4,5 4,6 4,8 4,7 4,7 4,7
Latina
1,9 2,0 2,1 2,1 2,2 2,3 2,3
Frosinone
1,5 1,5 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,7 1,7
Lazio
2,1 2,2 2,2 2,3 2,3 2,4 2,3
L'Aquila
0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,7
Teramo
2,4 2,4 2,5 2,6 2,7 2,8 2,8
Pescara
2,7 2,7 2,8 2,9 3,0 3,0 3,1
Chieti
1,6 1,7 1,7 1,8 1,9 1,9 2,0
Abruzzo
1,4 1,4 1,5 1,5 1,6 1,6 1,6
Campobasso
0,7 0,7 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,9 0,9
Isernia
0,5 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6
Molise
0,6 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,8 0,8 0,8
Caserta
2,3 2,3 2,4 2,4 2,5 2,6 2,7
Benevento
1,2 1,2 1,3 1,3 1,4 1,4 1,5
Napoli
21,1 21,6 21,9 21,2 21,9 23,1 23,2
Avellino
1,6 1,6 1,7 1,7 1,8 1,9 1,9
Salerno
2,2 2,2 2,2 2,3 2,3 2,4 2,4
Campania
3,6 3,6 3,7 3,7 3,8 3,9 4,0
Foggia
0,7 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,8
Bari
3,2 3,3 3,4 3,5 3,6 3,7 3,7
Taranto
1,5 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,7 1,7 1,7
Brindisi
1,6 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,9 1,9 1,9
Lecce
3,0 3,1 3,1 3,3 3,5 3,5 3,5
Puglia
1,9 1,9 2,0 2,0 2,1 2,1 2,1
Potenza
0,5 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6
Matera
0,5 0,5 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6
Basilicata
0,5 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6
Cosenza
0,8 0,9 0,9 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,1
Catanzaro
1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,4 1,4 1,4
Reggio di Calabria
1,5 1,6 1,6 1,8 1,9 2,0 2,1
Crotone
0,8 0,8 0,9 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,1

170

Province and region 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Vibo Valentia
1,3 1,3 1,3 1,4 1,4 1,5 1,5
Calabria
1,1 1,1
1,1 1,2 1,3 1,3 1,4
Trapani
1,5 1,6 1,6 1,7 1,7 1,7 1,8
Palermo
1,6 1,6 1,7 1,7 1,8 1,8 1,8
Messina
1,6 1,6 1,7 1,7 1,7 1,8 1,8
Agrigento
1,0 1,0 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1
Caltanissetta
1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,3
Enna
0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,6
Catania
2,6 2,6 2,7 2,7 2,8 2,8 2,8
Ragusa
1,6 1,6 1,6 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,8
Siracusa
1,2 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,5
Sicilia
1,5 1,5 1,5 1,6 1,6 1,6 1,6
Sassari
0,6 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,8 0,8
Nuoro
0,3 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4
Cagliari
0,8 0,8 0,9 0,9 1,0 1,0 1,1
Oristano
0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5
Sardegna
0,6 0,6 0,6 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,7
Italy
2,4 2,4 2,5 2,5 2,6 2,6 2,6

171

Table A3.8 Share (%) of the value-added of Service Industry on the total value-added,
provinces of Italy: 1998-2004
Province and region
Torino
Vercelli
Novara
Cuneo
Asti
Alessandria
Biella
Verbano Cusio Ossola
Piemonte
Aosta
Valle dAosta
Varese
Como
Sondrio
Milano
Bergamo
Brescia
Pavia
Cremona
Mantova
Lecco
Lodi
Lombardia
Bolzano - Bozen
Trento
Trentino Alto Adige
Verona
Vicenza
Belluno
Treviso
Venezia
Padova
Rovigo
Veneto
Udine
Gorizia
Trieste
Pordenone
Friuli Venezia Giulia
Imperia
Savona
Genova
La Spezia
Liguria
Piacenza
Parma
Reggio Emilia
Modena
Bologna
Ferrara
Ravenna

1998
65,00
59,55
55,35
55,66
64,91
61,80
55,36
67,41
62,18
78,76
78,76
58,41
60,13
69,45
66,55
53,49
57,05
65,42
56,16
52,42
53,92
60,14
61,96
72,36
71,90
72,14
63,01
52,35
57,25
53,61
70,09
65,32
61,75
60,80
67,73
70,28
83,57
56,97
68,69
79,53
76,14
81,37
75,34
79,38
62,00
59,73
52,95
54,55
66,75
67,35
67,84

1999
66,15
61,76
56,09
57,30
65,56
62,08
56,57
67,17
63,28
78,35
78,35
60,39
61,48
69,48
67,51
54,99
58,29
66,62
56,32
54,43
54,87
59,01
63,15
72,50
72,33
72,42
63,33
52,85
57,64
54,41
71,93
64,98
61,98
61,38
69,25
71,00
83,85
57,56
69,60
78,31
76,01
81,42
74,62
79,15
62,95
60,64
53,28
55,28
67,23
66,85
68,16

2000
67,07
62,97
55,72
58,26
65,76
63,22
57,19
67,15
64,00
79,94
79,94
59,64
61,72
70,92
68,77
55,17
58,37
66,15
56,66
53,95
53,80
59,50
63,74
71,94
72,60
72,25
63,25
54,12
60,12
55,85
74,34
65,52
62,85
62,56
69,27
72,23
84,51
57,74
70,10
78,25
75,80
79,56
73,57
77,94
63,40
61,43
52,57
55,09
67,78
64,84
69,09

2001
68,11
63,45
57,05
56,94
66,29
62,83
60,49
69,74
64,69
80,32
80,32
60,23
61,06
71,43
69,77
55,09
58,87
68,05
56,23
52,56
54,57
58,20
64,32
71,12
72,69
71,85
63,62
54,87
60,94
57,03
74,74
66,62
65,05
63,39
68,86
73,17
83,63
60,10
70,56
79,28
74,98
79,27
74,80
77,95
63,74
61,70
52,48
55,05
68,37
65,46
67,65

2002
70,00
64,37
56,98
58,16
65,66
64,50
59,63
69,04
65,93
79,83
79,83
61,91
61,90
73,04
69,98
56,74
60,91
68,58
58,38
55,33
55,58
60,44
65,19
70,35
70,80
70,56
64,57
55,74
63,58
57,62
74,72
66,20
65,05
63,89
69,20
73,33
84,38
59,47
70,55
80,05
77,76
80,82
75,40
79,48
64,07
61,10
53,06
56,83
67,82
67,13
68,57

2003
70,82
65,55
59,09
59,13
67,67
65,50
62,21
71,22
67,04
81,22
81,22
62,91
62,40
74,70
69,93
58,51
61,29
68,92
60,64
56,40
58,22
58,99
65,62
71,57
70,91
71,27
65,74
55,53
63,67
57,19
74,72
67,26
66,23
64,24
70,55
75,20
83,70
59,58
71,15
80,95
78,02
81,29
75,76
79,97
64,28
60,96
54,79
56,41
68,16
67,47
70,26

2004
70,83
65,77
58,53
58,85
69,41
65,31
61,71
70,55
66,86
81,15
81,15
62,87
62,03
73,85
69,11
58,52
61,86
68,30
60,76
55,38
58,09
59,71
65,12
71,91
71,25
71,61
65,63
56,02
64,09
57,08
74,73
67,21
64,45
64,20
70,65
76,15
84,27
59,61
71,49
81,83
77,61
80,98
75,74
79,84
64,64
61,07
55,45
56,36
68,89
66,99
70,18

172

Province and region

Forl - Cesena
Rimini
Emilia Romagna
Massa Carrara
Lucca
Pistoia
Firenze
Livorno
Pisa
Arezzo
Siena
Grosseto
Prato
Toscana
Perugia
Terni
Umbria
Pesaro e Urbino
Ancona
Macerata
Ascoli Piceno
Marche
Viterbo
Rieti
Roma
Latina
Frosinone
Lazio
L'Aquila
Teramo
Pescara
Chieti
Abruzzo
Campobasso
Isernia
Molise
Caserta
Benevento
Napoli
Avellino
Salerno
Campania
Foggia
Bari
Taranto
Brindisi
Lecce
Puglia
Potenza
Matera
Basilicata
Cosenza
Catanzaro
Reggio di Calabria

1998
67,85
75,97
62,88
75,59
67,35
65,55
69,93
76,93
63,86
61,35
71,05
75,94
57,34
68,31
69,70
67,32
69,10
65,33
63,76
65,53
63,86
64,50
67,90
71,37
84,24
62,84
63,74
80,11
72,27
61,28
73,01
61,92
66,79
71,22
64,79
69,33
67,12
71,56
80,02
65,96
75,02
75,71
70,22
73,53
65,27
70,05
75,89
71,85
67,01
66,43
66,82
77,75
77,60
82,62

1999
67,23
75,72
63,24
75,82
67,82
66,17
70,56
77,20
65,80
61,31
71,48
77,28
59,52
69,14
69,39
68,01
69,04
65,51
63,97
64,87
64,26
64,58
69,66
71,63
84,34
63,40
64,06
80,40
72,23
60,87
72,23
61,22
66,32
70,45
66,73
69,39
67,17
72,77
80,04
65,87
74,50
75,65
71,92
72,94
63,97
71,19
74,90
71,64
66,77
63,40
65,61
77,16
75,37
80,10

2000
67,65
76,85
63,45
75,93
68,69
65,87
70,68
77,60
65,65
62,33
71,05
77,85
57,21
69,18
69,74
66,61
68,96
66,76
65,50
65,59
66,09
65,95
70,76
72,66
84,98
63,41
66,36
81,18
71,63
59,99
71,16
61,78
65,85
71,58
66,48
70,07
67,06
74,51
81,02
65,34
74,21
76,08
72,15
74,44
64,37
73,41
75,33
72,62
68,09
66,29
67,49
78,27
77,67
81,20

2001
66,44
75,91
63,42
75,73
69,17
65,53
70,68
77,63
65,85
62,52
70,61
78,97
58,62
69,33
69,72
67,21
69,10
66,72
66,36
66,46
64,94
66,12
70,39
71,95
84,57
63,57
68,56
81,01
74,39
59,74
72,90
62,62
67,09
71,58
67,65
70,40
66,87
75,61
81,27
65,76
73,42
76,14
75,93
74,90
66,00
72,92
75,69
73,67
67,30
66,69
67,09
76,51
79,33
80,61

2002
68,23
77,59
64,08
77,80
69,18
67,35
72,45
76,41
65,10
63,11
72,26
79,43
60,88
70,33
69,55
66,89
68,89
66,86
66,62
66,89
66,07
66,60
70,33
72,98
84,90
62,96
67,90
81,12
74,39
60,25
72,41
64,69
67,72
73,08
66,82
71,24
65,48
75,18
81,23
67,27
74,34
76,13
75,48
75,05
66,71
75,27
78,13
74,48
66,85
67,99
67,22
77,25
78,53
80,89

2003
69,54
77,34
64,55
77,34
69,77
68,48
73,74
76,48
67,78
62,40
72,08
80,04
60,93
71,15
69,90
68,81
69,62
66,18
67,34
67,54
67,96
67,27
71,74
73,39
85,32
63,26
70,20
81,61
74,01
61,88
74,60
64,49
68,49
73,09
69,77
72,05
66,19
75,55
81,68
66,96
75,05
76,59
76,15
74,70
67,58
75,52
78,55
74,64
67,47
68,39
67,77
77,68
77,55
82,85

2004
69,69
77,58
64,82
78,05
69,59
68,00
73,31
76,13
67,01
63,34
72,50
79,04
61,48
71,00
70,23
68,75
69,85
66,36
67,35
67,51
68,62
67,46
70,64
73,44
85,46
63,29
70,34
81,70
73,95
63,15
74,87
65,41
69,09
73,77
70,46
72,72
66,12
77,04
82,27
67,51
75,06
76,94
75,63
75,28
66,83
75,49
78,45
74,65
67,82
68,51
68,05
78,75
78,64
79,81

173

Province and region

Crotone
Vibo Valentia
Calabria
Trapani
Palermo
Messina
Agrigento
Caltanissetta
Enna
Catania
Ragusa
Siracusa
Sicilia
Sassari
Nuoro
Cagliari
Oristano
Sardegna
Italy

1998
74,22
79,90
79,04
75,93
81,75
81,49
78,91
66,61
73,99
79,19
68,37
64,37
76,89
76,90
71,16
74,82
70,92
74,51
68,35

1999
72,21
76,58
77,23
76,37
82,93
81,17
78,88
70,26
74,12
80,20
70,39
66,30
77,94
77,84
72,76
75,95
71,11
75,55
68,89

2000
70,43
77,47
78,28
75,35
83,49
82,61
78,55
71,52
73,93
80,79
68,66
69,75
78,59
78,25
74,78
75,95
70,71
75,98
69,42

2001
68,34
77,72
77,68
75,97
84,16
84,35
79,82
70,48
75,36
79,75
70,05
71,49
79,23
77,00
76,09
75,77
71,62
75,81
69,81

2002
67,85
78,75
77,89
76,67
84,60
84,21
80,32
71,61
76,21
81,22
72,81
69,61
79,83
77,44
76,59
75,20
70,49
75,64
70,40

2003
70,09
78,40
78,61
77,95
85,04
83,43
79,81
71,32
74,77
80,63
69,25
67,47
79,21
78,16
75,16
75,39
70,98
75,76
70,90

2004
69,79
79,11
78,36
77,75
85,37
84,18
80,11
72,83
74,95
80,66
70,69
69,68
79,75
78,24
76,12
75,98
69,45
76,10
70,90

174

4. MODEL SPECIFICATION AND ECONOMETRIC TESTING

4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the specification of the model that will be tested, and its use in the econometric
tests. The aim of the chapter is trying to explain the socio-economic causes behind the production of
waste in the industrial sector, by the means of the drivers described in the past chapter. Some hypotheses about the model are presented, as well as its different functional forms and the econometric estimates. The statistical significance of the variables will be tested, and the EKC behaviour of the dependent variable will be checked.

4.2 The specification of the model

Starting from the main specialized literature, in order to select the most suitable model, a wide array of
specifications has been analyzed, and, following Auffhammer and Carson (2006), the best specification
has been found after some econometric tests. Initially, a general model has been considered, following
the mainstream indications of the EKC literature, while the following selection of the best specification
has been done by jointly using the information provided by the Bayesian/Schwartz Information Criterion (BIC), the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and the R-squared criterion (R2). More specifically,
when fitting models, it is possible to increase the likelihood by adding parameters, but doing so the result might be an overfitting: the BIC resolves this problem by introducing a penalty term for the number of parameters in the model. The penalty term is larger in BIC than in AIC, and that is why the BIC
indicator has been used as the tool to choose the best specification.
The general model, in its shorter form, can be written as:

(1)

Wit f Driver it , Fixed territorial effects i , it

where i (i=1, 2,, 103) is the specific province, t (t=1998, 1999,, 2004) is the year of the observation, Wit is a measure of the production of waste of Industry in a Strict Sense, in the i-th province, during the t-th year, (Driver)it is a vector containing a set of socio-economic variables, which should explain
the waste production differences among time and space, (Fixed territorial effects)i is a vector of indicators
which express the peculiarities of a province, it is the error term with the standard characteristics, and
f() is the functional form adopted according to the specification of the model.
As regards the dependent variable (Wit ), two different indicators have been used and tested:
175

1. the total quantity of waste produced by Industry in a Strict Sense, per number of workers in the
local units operating and giving the MUD statement: that is, the (Wit / workerit ) ratio;
2. the total quantity of waste produced by Industry in a Strict Sense, per unit of value-added of
Industry in a Strict Sense in the province: that is, the (Wit / value-addedit ) ratio28.
In Chapter 3 it has been discussed how both of those indicators are performance measures. While the
first measures the quantity of waste in terms of the number of workers that produce that waste, the
second measures the productive efficiency in the creation of industrial waste, that is it takes also into
account the technological relationship between waste production and value production, which is the
very aim of the production of waste.
As regards the set of independent variables, (Driver)it , the principle driver is the value-added of the productive activities. Some different transformations of the value-added have been considered:
1. the value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense in the province, per se;
2. the average value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense, measured as the value-added per local unit
of Industry in a Strict Sense;
3. the value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense per worker29 of Industry in a Strict Sense.
The average value-added of a province measures the average efficiency of the entrepreneurial fabric of
that area: it indicates the contribution to the economic performance of every local unit, considering
workers, technologies and management skills as a whole, but it does not take into account the real dimension of the local units operating in the territory, while the value-added per worker does.
Besides the value-added and the socio-economic drivers, other explanatory variables have been used in
the tests, in order to take into account also the territorial characteristics of the province, such as the
population density and the local units' density.
As regards the population density, on one hand, a negative relationship between density and industrial
waste may be supposed for the industrialized countries like Italy, caused by the growing delocalization
of the big industrial parks, and by the more growing demand for environmental goods and quality. On
the other hand, highly populated areas provide a valuable workforce for industries, especially in those
sectors of the so called traditional industry, whose productive activity is highly labour-intensive.
The density of the industrial fabric, expressed by the local units' density, may have also ambivalent effects of the production of waste: on one side, indeed, a bigger concentration may bring to higher production of waste, but, on the other side, feasible economies of scale may reduce such a production, by
creating a virtuous cycle of disposals.

28 All the monetary values have been expressed in real terms, on the basis of the prices of 1995, thanks to the tables of the
Istituto Tagliacarne.
29

Worker does not mean single employee, but refers to the units of labour: see www.istat.it for the definitions of worker.

176

Table 4.1 Variables and their descriptive statistics (1998-2004)

Description of the variable

Acronym

Waste of Industry in a Strict Sense per

unit of value-added of Industry in a
Strict Sense

RIF/VAI

Unit of
measurement
tons per million of euros of 1995

Waste of Industry in a Strict Sense per

tons per unit of labour
unit of labour of Industry in a Strict
RIF/ADD
(worker: addetto)
Sense
Value-added of Industry in a Strict
Sense

VAI

millions of euros of
1995

Value-added of Industry in a Strict

millions of euros of
Sense per unit of labour of Industry in VAI/ADD 1995 per unit of laa Strict Sense
bour (worker: addetto)
Value-added per local unit of Industry
in a Strict Sense

VAI/UL

millions of euros of
1995 per local unit

average minimum maximum

232,757

7,360

2.022,306

1,562

0,002

188,520

2.188,753

136,754

29.441,587

0,041

0,026

0,066

0,266

0,069

0,479

POPDENS

inhabitants per squared kilometre (Km2)

243,006

36,350

2.640,920

Density of local units of Industry in a

Strict Sense of the Register of Enterprises

ULDENS

local units per squared

kilometre (Km2)

3,411

0,332

31,708

Electrical energy intensity of Industry

in a Strict Sense

EN_CONS

kilowatt-hour per euro

of 1995

0,623

0,149

2,683

Share (%) of the value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense on the total

value-added

INDSS

percentage

21,247

5,743

41,233

Share (%) of the value-added of Service Industry on the total value-added

SERV

percentage

0,691

0,524

0,855

Number of registered patents per

thousand of inhabitants

B_AB

patents per 1000 inhabitants

0,568

0,000

4,944

Share (%) of the urban sorted waste

over the total urban waste

RDIFF

percentage

16,833

0,082

60,965

Ratio of the exports of Industry in a

Strict Sense over the value-added of
Industry in a Strict Sense

EXP/VA

Number without unit

of measurement (/)

0,847

0,040

3,285

Population density

177

The two density indicators are highly correlated among themselves, and they can be considered as two
alternative measures: both of them will be included in some preliminary specifications, but it has to be
thought that the local units' density might be more suitable to the present research30.
Among the technological drivers, energy consumptions has been included in the model specification, in
terms of energy intensity: the ratio between the quantity of the consumption of energy and the valueadded is a measure of the energy intensity of the industrial production, and it captures the efficiency of
such production in terms of energy: This indicator is highly influenced by the industrial composition of
the province, by the technological level of the firms, by their dimension, and by the interactions of
those factors inside the industrial context of the province.
Two measures of the sectorial composition of the industrial fabric of the province have been considered: the share of the value-added of Services Industry, and the share of the value-added of Industry in
a Strict Sense. The share of the value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense on the total value-added of the
province measures the direct effect that the industrial composition of the province might have on waste
production. On the other side, the share of the value-added of Services Industry measures the effect
that an increase in the province of the number of firms operating in the Services might have on the
production of waste of Industry in a Strict Sense. Both the shares can be seen as two measures of the
deindustrialization of a territory, explaining how the change in the industrial morphology can contribute
to less or more waste production. By definition, the two measures are correlated between themselves:
therefore, they have both been included in the first tests only, while only one of them has been kept in
the subsequent tests: the significance tests are in favour of the use of the share of the Services in the
model.
An indicator of the sorted urban waste collection in the province (urban sorted waste over total urban
waste) allows getting the possible effect that the environmental sensibility of citizens might have on the
production of waste, and that the local governments policies indirectly might have too.
Without a precise variable describing the technological innovation power, the number of patents (every
1000 inhabitants) is a proxy for the technological development of the enterprises in the territory. Patents are a technological output measure, and not a technological input measure, that is they measure
only the final product of the research activity, and not also what investments have been done to come
up with those final outputs: even if this is not the most precise measure for technological effects, it can
help anyway explaining what effects technological advancements (already included in the value-added
and in the energy intensity) have on waste production. As already note above, patents might be registered in a location where such patents (and technologies) have not been really developed: in order to
mitigate such a problem, a preliminary analysis has been done on patents data, and it has come out that

30

This hypothesis has been confirmed by the tests.

178

Milano is the city which polarizes all the patents in Italy, and therefore a dummy variable taking into account this polarization has been added to the model.
Another driver of the production of waste of Industry in a Strict Sense is represented by exports,
measured by the relative degree of international openness, that is, the ratio between exports of Industry
in a Strict Sense and GDP of the same Industry in a Strict Sense. By weighing the value of exports with
the value-added of the relative territorial entity, a measure that links the degree of international openness of an area with its economic competitiveness can be obtained.
Last, in order to capture the territorial specificities of the Italian industrial context, and of some provinces particularly, fixed territorial effects have been used in terms of indicators for macro-areas (NorthWest, North-East, Centre, South and Islands) and for specific provinces, because, in terms of waste
production, the preliminary descriptive analysis has confirmed the peculiarities of some provinces as
Milano, Savona, Brindisi, Caltanissetta and Cagliari31.
Once identified the feasible drivers, the most appropriate formal specification and functional form has
been tested, working on two separate samples of data, having selected two different time spans: one
sample contains data from 1998 to 2004, with a total of 721 observations (103 provinces and 7 years),
the other sample containing data from 2000 to 2004, with a total of 515 observations (103 provinces
and 5 years).
As in Dinda et al. (2000), some of the variables have been expressed in logarithmic form, as regards
both the dependent variable and the variables related to the value-added transformations. The logarithmic specification has the property to be able to let interpret the logarithms coefficients in terms of
elasticity of the dependent variable with respect the considered driver, that is, the coefficient of the
driver measures the percentage change in the dependent variable resulting in the considered percentage
change of the independent variable. Moreover, as in Galeotti et al. (2006), the use of logarithmic specification helps to minimize the problem of heteroscedasticity, and it mitigates the impact of nonlinear
relationships between waste measure and the explanatory variables.
In the set-up of the model, the square of the value of the variables (in logarithmic terms) concerning
the value-added has been used, in order to verify the existence of non linear relationships among the
dependent variable and the independent drivers, and to test the feasible presence of an EKC behaviour.
Following Aufhammer and Carson (2006), the following general specification has been tested:

Milano has the largest number of patents, and a polarizing force as regards the presence of huge economic activities.
Savona, in 2002 and 2003, has seen a strong increase of waste production, due to the remediation of polluted sites. Such a
remediation activity has caused in 2004 a peak of waste of Industry in a Strict Sense in Caltanissetta too. Brindisi has shown
an increase of production of waste in 1998 and 1999, due to industrial ashes produced in thermo-electrical power plants.
And Taranto has had peaks of waste in 2001 and 2004, caused by the activity of its steel mills.
31

179

(2)

log (RIFit/VAIit) = constant + 1 log(VAIit) + 2 [log(VAIit)]2 +

3 log(VAIit/ADDit) + 4 [log(VAIit/ADDit)]2 +
5 log(VAIit/ULit) + 6 [log(VAIit/ULit)]2 +
7 POPDENSit + 8 ULDENSit + 9 EN_CONSit + 8 INDSSit +
9SERVit + 10 B_ABit + 11 RDIFFit + 12 (EXP it/VA it) +
13 NORD_ESTi + 14 CENTROi + 15 SUDi + 16 ISOLEi +
17 MILANOi + 18 SAVONAi + 19 BRINDISIi +
20 TARANTOi + 21 CALTANISSETTAi + 22 CAGLIARIi +

it
where i and t respectively indicate the specific province and the year of the observation, log() is the
natural logarithmic function, RIFit is the quantity of waste of Industry in a Strict Sense, VAIit is the value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense, ADDit is the number of workers (units of labour) of Industry in
a Strict Sense, ULit is the number of local units of Industry in a Strict Sense, POPDENSit is the population density, ULDENSit is the local units density of Industry in a Strict Sense, EN_CONSit is the energy
intensity of Industry in a Strict Sense, INDSSit and SERVit are respectively the share of the value-added
of Industry in a Strict Sense and of Services on the total value-added, B_ABit is the number of patents
every thousand of inhabitants, RDIFFit is the share of urban sorted waste over total urban waste, EXPit
are the exports of Industry in a Strict Sense, NORD_ESTi, CENTROi, SUDi and ISOLEi are dummy
variables indicating that the i-th province may be either in the North-East, or in the Centre, or in the
South, or in the Islands, while MILANOi, SAVONAi, BRINDISIi, TARANTOi, CALTANISSETTAi
e CAGLIARIi are dummy variables related to the specific province.
Therefore, RIFit/VAIit denotes the quantity of waste of Industry in a Strict Sense on the value-added of
Industry in a Strict Sense, VAIit/ADDit is the value-added per worker of Industry in a Strict Sense,
VAIit/ULit is the value-added per local unit of Industry in a Strict Sense, EXPit/VAit is the ratio of exports of Industry in a Strict Sense over the value-added of Industry. Last, it is the usual error term.
Besides the specification (2), the following one has been also tested: it has the same explanatory variables, but with a different dependent variable, that is (the logarithm of) the quantity of waste per
worker, instead of (the logarithm of) the quantity of waste per value-added:

180

(3)

log (RIFit/ADDit) = constant + 1 log(VAIit) + 2 [log(VAIit)]2 +

3 log(VAIit/ADDit) + 4 [log(VAIit/ADDit)]2 +
5 log(VAIit/ULit) + 6 [log(VAIit/ULit)]2 +
7 POPDENSit + 8 ULDENSit + 9 EN_CONSit + 8 INDSSit +
9SERVit + 10 B_ABit + 11 RDIFFit + 12 (EXP it/VA it) +
13 NORD_ESTi + 14 CENTROi + 15 SUDi + 16 ISOLEi +
17 MILANOi + 18 SAVONAi + 19 BRINDISIi +
20 TARANTOi + 21 CALTANISSETTAi + 22 CAGLIARIi +

it
The careful examination of the data has confirmed that, during the 1998-2004 period, the considered
variables have shown a great variability among provinces, but a sort of stability inside every province.
These information have led to use the Pooled OLS estimation, since it is more suitable when dealing
with such data. Johnston and Di Nardo (1997) recall that the POLS estimators ignore the panel structure of the data, treat observations as being serially uncorrelated for a given individual, with homoscedastic errors across individuals, and time periods.
The specifications (2) and (3) are still sufficiently general to include a set of other possible specifications. Separately, for the set 1998-2004 and the set 2000-2004, the POLS method has been applied and
the functional forms have been tested: using the BIC, AIC and R-squared criterions, discarding those
particular specifications which were not statistically significant, a preferred final specification has been
found (see below). As a first step, two regressions have been run, omitting the population density in the
first, and the local units density in the second. By confronting the BIC scores, the one with the lower
value has been kept, which is the one with the local units density. The subsequent step has led to another double regression, one with the share of the value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense on the total
value-added as explanatory variable, and the other with the share of the value-added of Service Industry
on the total value-added as another (different) explanatory variable: the BIC confrontation has been is
in favour of the specification with the share of the value-added of Service Industry as explanatory variable32. By keeping on acting in such a way, from the more general to the particular, as in Aufhammer
and Carson (2006), both in model (2) and (3), a final set of more statistically significant specifications
have been found.

32

R-squared and AIC both lead to the same result.

181

4.3 The econometric tests

The most interesting results of the econometric tests are shown in the following Table 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and
4.5, while more results can be found in Table A4.1, A4.2, A4.3, A4.4, A4.5, A4.6, A4.7 and A4.8 in the
Appendix. Table 4.2 and 4.3 show the results of the most statistically significant specification, where
the main economic performance driver is the value-added per local unit (UL), and the tested periods
are 1998-2004 and 2000-2004. Table 4.4 and 4.5 give the results of the other valuable specification,
where the performance indicator is the value-added per worker (unit of labour), and again the two
separately tested sets are 1998-2004 and 2000-2004.
In Table 4.2, the specification under the column (1) has all the considered potential drivers, but its results are not all statistically significant: the value-added (in absolute terms) is not significant, neither the
structural composition of the province, nor some geographical variables. The subsequent specifications
are obtained by dropping along the way those less significant variables, such as the population density
or the share of the value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense on the total value-added of the province, or
some territorial variables such as the dummy for the South and the Islands. The specification under the
column (9) is the most significant in statistical terms, with only few territorial effects, the North-East,
and some provincial effects, such as Milano, Savona, Brindisi and Caltanissetta. Table 4.3 shows the estimates for the set 2000-2004, but substantial differences cannot be found with respect to the other set,
1998-2004, which explains that the year 2000 has not experienced that structural break that the new legislation, adopted in that period, might had induced, due to the time concerning its implementation, or,
moreover, that the supposed structural break has not produced relevant consequences. For the sake of
the good exposition of the analysis, the last column of Table 4.2 and Table 4.3, relating to the better
specification, has been reported in Table 4.6, while their counterparts in Table 4.4 and 4.5 have been
reported in Table 4.7.
Therefore, using the above mentioned performance indicators for econometric models, and, first of all,
according to the BIC value, the econometric specification that better explains the relationship between
waste of Industry in a Strict Sense and its drivers is the one given in Table 4.633, while Table 4.7 shows
the results of another, less significant, specification34.
Both the tables are referring to a model where the dependent variable is the same, that is (the logarithm
of) the quantity of waste of Industry in a Strict Sense per value-added, in the province35: in both tables,
the first column provides the results of the estimates of the 1998-2004 set, while the second gives the
results of the 2000-2004 set. The econometric specifications of Table 4.6, labelled S-1, and 4.7, labelled
33

Table A4.9 in the Appendix shows only the sign and statistical significance of the coefficients of Table 4.6.

34

From now onwards, the specification in Table 4.6 is labelled as S-1, while the one in Table 4.7 is labelled as S-2.

The results of the specifications using the quantity of waste per worker as the dependent variable have not been shown
here in the main text, but have been included in the Appendix, because the results in Table 4.6 and 4.7 are the most statistically significant of all.
35

182

S-2, are quite similar as regards many drivers: the difference among them is that in S-1, among the explanatory variables, the value-added per local unit (in logarithms) and its square have been used, while
those drivers have been substituted by the value-added per worker (in logarithms) and its square: both
of them are more significant with respect to specifications including (the logarithm of) the average
value-added and its square.
The specification shown in Table 4.6 is the one with the lowest BIC score, and, therefore, it is the
best among all the different specifications tested, as regards both the 1998-2004 set, and the 20002004 set.
Focusing the analysis on the results obtained for the set 2000-2004 in the specification S-1, in Table 4.6,
it can be seen that the majority of coefficients are statistically significant at the conventional levels of
confidence, and that they can provide useful insights for the economic analysis of the framework.
The estimates of the coefficient of the logarithms of the value-added and of the value-added per local
unit are significant, both in economic and in statistical terms. They imply a positive elasticity of the
measure of waste production (weighed by the value-added) on the value-added, but a negative elasticity
of that measure on the square of the value-added, and on both the terms representing the value-added
per local unit36. Values and signs are consistent with the hypothesis of a reversed-U path of the production of waste (per value-added) on Industry in a Strict Sense with respect to the value-added: initially
the production of waste rises up to a point of maximum, and then it decreases as the value-added increases. The turning point's value and its trend depend on the behaviour of the value-added per local
unit: these results are quite new for non-urban waste data, at such a disaggregation level, and they provide empirical evidence in favour of an Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) for non-urban waste,
sometimes called Waste Kuznets Curve37 (WKC).
The estimates of the coefficient of the density of local units has a negative sign in both the sets: this indicates that if the number of local units increases, a decrease in the production of waste might have
place, thus confirming the valuable effect of economies of scale.
The higher the energy intensity, the higher the value of what we can call as waste intensity: high levels
of waste intensity might be reached by firms that are not the most technological ones, and this is the
reason why the decrease in energy efficiency (a higher energy intensity) might lead to a decrease in
waste efficiency (a higher waste intensity).
The share of the value-added of Services has a positive coefficient, ma it is very little and nearly the
same in both the sets. This is the only coefficient not statistically significant in the specification S-1, and
so its precision is not reliable as the others one: it has to be noted, however, that it is significant in

36 The coefficient of the square of the logarithm of the value-added is the only coefficient statistically significant at 10%
only.
37

See Chapter 1 for the correspondent literature review.

183

other specification, S-2, in Table 4.7. The positive sign states that, as the Services of a province is growing, the quantity of waste (per value-added) in Industry in a Strict Sense grows as well: this result, even
if statistically weak, seems to suggest that the deindustrialization which has taken place in that period is
so that the companies of Industry in a Strict Sense surviving in the market are more waste-intensive.
All things being equal, the number of patents per thousand of inhabitants, that is the technological
proxy, is negatively correlated with the waste production per value-added: against an increase in registered patents in the province, the quantity of waste produced by Industry in a Strict Sense decreases,
thus indicating that the innovative fabric of the province can lead to better results in terms of less waste
production.
The share of sorted urban waste on the total urban waste has a positive relationship with the production of industrial waste: this result is a bit unexpected, since one would think that a stronger aptitude
towards sorted waste collection, and a more effective sorted waste collection of a province, would have
led to a lower amount of non-urban waste, and so that the relationship among the variables would have
been negative. Such a positive correlation, however, could be explained by the fact that a greater presence of industrial complexes may be possible there where the higher concentration of workers is. It has
to be noted, anyway, that the estimated coefficient is very little.
The estimates of the coefficient relating to the exports implies that the bigger the share of exports of
Industry in a Strict Sense on the value-added of a province is, the higher is the waste intensity of Industry in a Strict Sense in that area: if in the province the exports component takes a more prominent role
with respect to the other activities, then the waste produced by the industrial fabric tends to increase,
due to the major external demand of goods produced in that province.
The specification S-2 includes also some indicators related to territorial peculiarities: North-East, Centre, South and Islands. The specification S-1 in Table 4.6 shows only one of those macro-areas variables, that is the North-East dummy variable, since this is the only driver to be statistically significant in
the several specifications under examination. This variable captures the distinctive characteristics in the
productive structure of the North-East in comparison with the rest of the country: in the other areas of
Italy the industrial context is characterized by a stronger presence of big firms, and also by a polarization of the industrial activities in few provinces, a fact that has been captured by province specific indicators (Milano, Savona, etc.). On the contrary, in the North-East, the productive structure has a more
widespread distribution, and there are not provinces with a by far stronger presence of big industries
than the other provinces of that area. However, as the specification underlines, the North-East produces a significantly greater quantity of waste (intensity) per value-added with respect to the rest of Italy: all the other conditions being equal, a province situated the North-East produces +27% more
waste (intensity) than a province in another macro-area of Italy.
(the text continues after Tables 4.2 to Table 4.5)

184

Table 4.2 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per value-added. Specification S-1, 1998-2004

(1)
POLS 0
0,464
-0,376
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)]^2
-0,020
-0,026
Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per UL)
-4,000
(0,536)***
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per UL)]^2
-1,251
(0,164)***
Population density
0,034
(0,018)*
UL density of Industry in a S.S.
-0,095
(0,014)***
Energy consumption of Industry in a S.S. per unit of VA
0,777
(0,087)***
Share of the VA of Industry in a S.S. on total VA
0,018
-0,012
Share of the VA of Services on total VA
0,015
-0,010
Number of patents per thousand of inhabitants
-0,276
(0,074)***
Share of the urban sorted waste on the total urban waste
0,014
(0,003)***
Exports of Industry in a S.S. on total VA of Industry in a S.S.
0,188
(0,074)**
North-East
0,379
(0,089)***
Centre
0,212
(0,094)**
South
-0,126
-0,116
Islands
-0,095
-0,140
Explanatory variable
Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)

(2)
POLS 1a
0,420
-0,376
-0,016
-0,026
-3,849
(0,531)***
-1,237
(0,164)***

(3)
(4)
POLS 1b POLS 2a
0,908
0,552
(0,391)**
-0,370
-0,058
-0,024
(0,027)**
-0,026
-3,024
-3,895
(0,550)*** (0,531)***
-1,103
-1,253
(0,172)*** (0,164)***

(5)
(6)
(7)
POLS 2b POLS 3a POLS 3b
0,857
0,535
0,738
(0,387)**
-0,365
(0,384)*
-0,056
-0,023
-0,049
(0,027)**
-0,026
(0,027)*
-2,970
-3,789
-3,056
(0,546)*** (0,529)*** (0,551)***
-1,090
-1,230
-1,103
(0,171)*** (0,164)*** (0,172)***

-0,073
(0,008)***
0,763
(0,087)***
0,014
-0,011
0,018
(0,010)*
-0,303
(0,073)***
0,014
(0,003)***
0,187
(0,074)**
0,390
(0,089)***
0,208
(0,095)**
-0,089
-0,114
-0,078
-0,140

-0,068
(0,008)***
0,778
0,797
0,761
(0,092)*** (0,085)*** (0,090)***
-0,023
-0,005
-0,015
(0,011)**
-0,005 (0,006)***
-0,009
-0,010
-0,211
-0,277
-0,221
(0,076)*** (0,072)*** (0,075)***
0,012
0,013
0,012
(0,003)*** (0,003)*** (0,003)***
0,114
0,195
0,107
-0,077 (0,074)*** -0,077
0,333
0,352
0,351
(0,094)*** (0,087)*** (0,091)***
0,184
0,193
0,191
(0,100)* (0,094)** (0,099)*
-0,108
-0,127
-0,089
-0,120
-0,113
-0,118
-0,059
-0,130
-0,031
-0,147
-0,138
-0,144

(8)
POLS 4
0,803
(0,358)**
-0,043
(0,025)*
-3,864
(0,512)***
-1,276
(0,161)***

(9)
POLS 5
0,804
(0,359)**
-0,043
(0,025)*
-3,867
(0,507)***
-1,273
(0,161)***

-0,069
-0,068
-0,067
(0,008)***
(0,008)*** (0,008)***
0,774
0,758
0,744
0,842
(0,087)*** (0,091)*** (0,083)*** (0,064)***
0,008
0,009
0,008
0,007
(0,005)*
(0,005)* (0,005)*
-0,005
-0,291
-0,225
-0,188
-0,183
(0,073)*** (0,076)*** (0,067)*** (0,067)***
0,014
0,011
0,014
0,014
(0,003)*** (0,003)*** (0,003)*** (0,003)***
0,199
0,083
0,265
0,234
(0,073)*** -0,076 (0,071)*** (0,070)***
0,363
0,379
0,248
0,252
(0,086)*** (0,091)*** (0,073)*** (0,073)***
0,203
0,189
(0,095)** (0,100)*
-0,105
-0,079
-0,114
-0,120
-0,107
-0,002
-0,138
-0,145

185

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
POLS 0 POLS 1a POLS 1b POLS 2a POLS 2b
2,380
2,303
0,621
2,186
0,620
(0,413)*** (0,411)*** -0,382 (0,407)*** -0,382
Savona
1,637
1,619
1,515
1,586
1,528
(0,262)*** (0,262)*** (0,275)*** (0,262)*** (0,275)***
Brindisi
1,625
1,603
1,583
1,603
1,582
(0,257)*** (0,257)*** (0,270)*** (0,257)*** (0,270)***
Taranto
0,708
0,697
0,536
0,621
0,570
(0,300)** (0,301)** (0,316)* (0,298)** (0,313)*
Caltanisetta
-0,758
-0,737
-0,806
-0,755
-0,799
(0,277)*** (0,277)*** (0,292)*** (0,278)*** (0,291)***
Cagliari
0,389
0,370
0,460
0,342
0,478
-0,301
-0,301
-0,317
-0,301
-0,316
Constant coefficient
-2,243
-2,099
-0,035
-1,028
-0,523
-1,389
-1,389
-1,440
-1,273
-1,335
Number of observations (province * year)
721
721
721
721
721
R-squared
0,530
0,520
0,470
0,520
0,470
AIC
1.451,549 1.453,239 1.525,656 1.454,973 1.524,496
BIC
1.556,903 1.554,013 1.621,849 1.551,166 1.616,108
Dependent variable: logarithm of the quantity of waste of Industry in a S.S. per value-added of Industry in a S.S.
Standard error in brackets. The symbols *,**,*** show statistical significance at levels of 10%, 5% and 1%
Explanatory variable
Milano

(6)
POLS 3a
2,202
(0,403)***
1,584
(0,261)***
1,600
(0,257)***
0,658
(0,299)**
-0,726
(0,277)***
0,359
-0,301
-1,501
-1,303
721
0,520
1.452,817
1.549,010

(7)
POLS 3b
0,642
(0,383)*
1,571
(0,275)***
1,586
(0,271)***
0,596
(0,315)*
-0,833
(0,292)***
0,490
-0,317
-0,973
-1,372
721
0,470
1.528,158
1.619,771

(8)
POLS 4
1,928
(0,398)***
1,529
(0,254)***
1,511
(0,255)***
0,617
(0,297)**
-0,799
(0,272)***
0,288
-0,299
-2,447
(1,278)*
721
0,510
1.459,420
1.541,872

(9)
POLS 5
1,926
(0,399)***
1,532
(0,254)***
1,459
(0,254)***
-0,924
(0,264)***
-2,439
(1,278)*
721
0,510
1.460,025
1.533,315

186

Table 4.3 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per value-added. Specification S-1, 2000-2004

(1)
POLS 0
0,705
-0,437
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)]^2
-0,036
-0,031
Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per UL)
-3,707
(0,616)***
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per UL)]^2
-1,152
(0,186)***
Population density
0,044
(0,021)**
UL density of Industry in a S.S.
-0,097
(0,017)***
Energy consumption of Industry in a S.S. per unit of VA
0,732
(0,103)***
Share of the VA of Industry in a S.S. on total VA
0,017
-0,014
Share of the VA of Services on total VA
0,011
-0,011
Number of patents per thousand of inhabitants
-0,302
(0,086)***
Share of the urban sorted waste on the total urban waste
0,012
(0,004)***
Exports of Industry in a S.S. on total VA of Industry in a S.S.
0,130
-0,082
North-East
0,403
(0,104)***
Centre
0,214
(0,111)*
South
-0,129
-0,139
Islands
-0,092
-0,167
Explanatory variable
Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)

(2)
POLS 1a
0,667
-0,438
-0,032
-0,031
-3,501
(0,610)***
-1,130
(0,186)***

(3)
(4)
POLS 1b POLS 2a
1,070
0,762
(0,456)** (0,433)*
-0,068
-0,038
(0,032)**
-0,030
-2,782
-3,545
(0,631)*** (0,610)***
-1,014
-1,145
(0,194)*** (0,186)***

(5)
(6)
POLS 2b POLS 3a
1,013
0,754
(0,453)** (0,426)*
-0,065
-0,037
(0,032)**
-0,030
-2,707
-3,458
(0,627)*** (0,608)***
-0,996
-1,127
(0,193)*** (0,186)***

-0,068
(0,010)***
0,712
(0,103)***
0,011
-0,013
0,015
-0,011
-0,336
(0,085)***
0,012
(0,004)***
0,131
-0,082
0,415
(0,105)***
0,213
(0,111)*
-0,075
-0,137
-0,064
-0,167

-0,064
(0,009)***
0,742
0,742
0,718
(0,108)*** (0,101)*** (0,105)***
-0,024
-0,005
-0,013
(0,013)*
-0,007
(0,007)*
-0,011
-0,011
-0,267
-0,315
-0,280
(0,089)*** (0,084)*** (0,088)***
0,009
0,011
0,010
(0,004)** (0,004)*** (0,004)**
0,072
0,136
0,064
-0,086
(0,082)*
-0,086
0,364
0,382
0,389
(0,109)*** (0,102)*** (0,107)***
0,189
0,199
0,199
-0,116
(0,111)*
(0,116)*
-0,106
-0,108
-0,080
-0,144
-0,135
-0,142
-0,064
-0,111
-0,025
-0,175
-0,164
-0,171

(7)
POLS 3b
0,899
(0,448)**
-0,059
(0,031)*
-2,809
(0,632)***
-1,010
(0,195)***

(8)
POLS 4
1,023
(0,417)**
-0,058
(0,029)**
-3,513
(0,585)***
-1,160
(0,183)***

(9)
POLS 5
1,008
(0,417)**
-0,056
(0,029)*
-3,561
(0,578)***
-1,170
(0,182)***

-0,065
-0,064
-0,064
(0,009)***
(0,009)*** (0,009)***
0,721
0,723
0,692
0,787
(0,102)*** (0,108)*** (0,096)*** (0,074)***
0,007
0,006
0,008
0,007
-0,006
-0,006
-0,005
-0,005
-0,326
-0,285
-0,219
-0,215
(0,084)*** (0,088)*** (0,076)*** (0,076)***
0,012
0,008
0,013
0,012
(0,004)*** (0,004)** (0,003)*** (0,003)***
0,141
0,040
0,207
0,180
(0,082)*
-0,085 (0,078)*** (0,076)**
0,392
0,418
0,266
0,272
(0,101)*** (0,106)*** (0,085)*** (0,085)***
0,211
0,191
(0,111)*
-0,117
-0,083
-0,089
-0,137
-0,144
-0,084
-0,015
-0,166
-0,174

187

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
POLS 0 POLS 1a POLS 1b POLS 2a POLS 2b
2,532
2,440
0,916
2,339
0,920
(0,479)*** (0,479)*** (0,449)** (0,473)*** (0,449)**
Savona
1,918
1,900
1,800
1,864
1,824
(0,301)*** (0,302)*** (0,316)*** (0,301)*** (0,315)***
Brindisi
1,951
1,930
1,933
1,930
1,934
(0,294)*** (0,295)*** (0,309)*** (0,295)*** (0,309)***
Taranto
0,542
0,532
0,364
0,464
0,411
-0,345
-0,346
-0,362
-0,342
-0,359
Caltanisetta
-0,580
-0,550
-0,633
-0,572
-0,619
(0,318)* (0,319)*
(0,335)* (0,319)*
(0,334)*
Cagliari
0,462
0,445
0,521
0,419
0,546
-0,347
-0,348
-0,365
-0,348
-0,364
Constant coefficient
-2,511
-2,355
-0,182
-1,398
-0,859
-1,652
-1,656
-1,707
-1,501
-1,571
Number of observations (province * year)
515
515
515
515
515
R-squared
0,540
0,530
0,490
0,530
0,490
AIC
1.010,067 1.012,682 1.060,940 1.012,610 1.060,009
BIC
1.107,683 1.106,053 1.150,068 1.101,737 1.144,892
Dependent variable: logarithm of the quantity of waste of Industry in a S.S. per value-added of Industry in a S.S.
Standard error in brackets. The symbols *,**,*** show statistical significance at levels of 10%, 5% and 1%
Explanatory variable
Milano

(6)
POLS 3a
2,358
(0,469)***
1,869
(0,300)***
1,929
(0,295)***
0,500
-0,344
-0,545
(0,319)*
0,437
-0,348
-1,863
-1,550
515
0,530
1.011,425
1.100,552

(7)
POLS 3b
0,952
(0,450)**
1,866
(0,315)***
1,938
(0,310)***
0,423
-0,361
-0,654
(0,335)*
0,549
-0,365
-1,170
-1,627
515
0,480
1.062,561
1.147,444

(8)
POLS 4
2,066
(0,461)***
1,804
(0,291)***
1,852
(0,292)***
0,478
-0,341
-0,613
(0,314)*
0,373
-0,345
-2,838
(1,518)*
515
0,530
1.014,304
1.090,699

(9)
POLS 5
2,064
(0,461)***
1,809
(0,291)***
1,800
(0,291)***
-0,736
(0,303)**
-2,810
(1,516)*
515
0,520
1.012,883
1.080,790

188

Table 4.4 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per value-added. Specification S-2, 1998-2004

(1)
POLS 0
1,210
(0,375)***
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)]^2
-0,073
(0,026)***
Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per worker)
-18,263
(5,191)***
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per worker)]^2
-2,779
(0,810)***
Population density
0,030
(0,017)*
UL density of Industry in a S.S.
-0,088
(0,013)***
Energy consumption of Industry in a S.S. per unit of VA
0,752
(0,086)***
Share of the VA of Industry in a S.S. on total VA
0,011
-0,011
Share of the VA of Services on total VA
0,021
(0,010)**
Number of patents per thousand of inhabitants
-0,214
(0,077)***
Share of the urban sorted waste on the total urban waste
0,015
(0,003)***
Exports of Industry in a S.S. on total VA of Industry in a S.S.
0,234
(0,075)***
North-East
0,332
(0,093)***
Centre
0,328
(0,094)***
South
-0,052
-0,109
Islands
-0,155
-0,133
Explanatory variable
Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)

(2)
POLS 1a
1,163
(0,374)***
-0,068
(0,026)***
-17,732
(5,190)***
-2,698
(0,810)***

(3)
POLS 1b
1,658
(0,389)***
-0,108
(0,027)***
-18,031
(5,453)***
-2,796
(0,851)***

(4)
POLS 2a
1,368
(0,366)***
-0,081
(0,026)***
-17,875
(5,208)***
-2,731
(0,813)***

(5)
POLS 2b
1,613
(0,382)***
-0,106
(0,027)***
-17,999
(5,451)***
-2,790
(0,851)***

-0,071
(0,008)***
0,761
(0,086)***
0,010
-0,011
0,024
(0,010)**
-0,242
(0,075)***
0,014
(0,003)***
0,240
(0,075)***
0,342
(0,093)***
0,305
(0,094)***
-0,051
-0,109
-0,181
-0,132

-0,063
(0,008)***
0,850
0,799
0,842
(0,090)*** (0,085)*** (0,088)***
-0,022
-0,015
-0,016
(0,011)* (0,005)*** (0,005)***
-0,006
-0,010
-0,154
-0,205
-0,162
(0,079)** (0,074)*** (0,077)**
0,010
0,014
0,010
(0,003)*** (0,003)*** (0,003)***
0,189
0,254
0,183
(0,079)** (0,075)*** (0,078)**
0,290
0,296
0,302
(0,097)*** (0,091)*** (0,096)***
0,205
0,291
0,206
(0,098)** (0,094)*** (0,098)**
-0,193
-0,092
-0,185
(0,113)*
-0,108
-0,113
-0,315
-0,241
-0,302
(0,138)** (0,130)* (0,136)**

(6)
POLS 3a
1,242
(0,362)***
-0,072
(0,026)***
-18,016
(5,178)***
-2,743
(0,808)***

(7)
POLS 3b
1,493
(0,380)***
-0,100
(0,027)***
-17,322
(5,452)***
-2,688
(0,851)***

(8)
POLS 4
1,746
(0,352)***
-0,110
(0,025)***
-14,873
(5,209)***
-2,267
(0,813)***

(9)
POLS 5
1,736
(0,352)***
-0,108
(0,025)***
-15,087
(5,212)***
-2,294
(0,814)***

-0,068
-0,066
-0,066
(0,008)***
(0,008)*** (0,008)***
0,775
0,820
0,734
0,832
(0,084)*** (0,088)*** (0,084)*** (0,065)***
0,017
(0,004)***
-0,233
(0,075)***
0,014
(0,003)***
0,250
(0,074)***
0,322
(0,090)***
0,297
(0,093)***
-0,073
-0,106
-0,215
(0,126)*

0,011
(0,005)**
-0,168
(0,078)**
0,009
(0,003)***
0,159
(0,077)**
0,338
(0,095)***
0,219
(0,098)**
-0,150
-0,111
-0,240
(0,133)*

0,015
(0,004)***
-0,091
-0,069
0,015
(0,003)***
0,361
(0,070)***
0,166
(0,077)**

0,015
(0,004)***
-0,087
-0,069
0,014
(0,003)***
0,333
(0,068)***
0,166
(0,077)**

189

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
POLS 0 POLS 1a POLS 1b POLS 2a POLS 2b
2,262
2,252
0,706
2,084
0,708
(0,414)*** (0,414)*** (0,392)* (0,410)*** (0,392)*
Savona
1,919
1,896
1,720
1,849
1,729
(0,270)*** (0,270)*** (0,283)*** (0,270)*** (0,282)***
Brindisi
1,677
1,669
1,681
1,672
1,680
(0,263)*** (0,264)*** (0,277)*** (0,265)*** (0,277)***
Taranto
0,452
0,451
0,362
0,360
0,386
-0,310
-0,311
-0,326
-0,309
-0,324
Caltanisetta
-0,131
-0,123
-0,301
-0,156
-0,296
-0,290
-0,290
-0,304
-0,291
-0,304
Cagliari
0,680
0,641
0,621
0,610
0,629
(0,306)** (0,306)** (0,321)* (0,307)** (0,321)*
Constant coefficient
-32,218
-31,413
-30,178
-30,165
-30,502
(8,444)*** (8,444)*** (8,872)*** (8,459)*** (8,853)***
Number of observations (province * year)
721
721
721
721
721
R-squared
0,500
0,500
0,440
0,490
0,440
AIC
1.492,170 1.493,287 1.563,783 1.497,488 1.562,192
BIC
1.597,525 1.594,061 1.659,976 1.593,682 1.653,805
Dependent variable: logarithm of the quantity of waste of Industry in a S.S. per value-added of Industry in a S.S.
Standard error in brackets. The symbols *,**,*** show statistical significance at levels of 10%, 5% and 1%
Explanatory variable
Milano

(6)
POLS 3a
2,199
(0,410)***
1,870
(0,268)***
1,668
(0,264)***
0,425
-0,309
-0,114
-0,290
0,626
(0,305)**
-31,495
(8,442)***
721
0,500
1.492,012
1.588,205

(7)
POLS 3b
0,715
(0,393)*
1,772
(0,282)***
1,683
(0,278)***
0,424
-0,325
-0,337
-0,304
0,657
(0,321)**
-29,865
(8,888)***
721
0,440
1.565,673
1.657,286

(8)
POLS 4
1,829
(0,407)***
1,780
(0,265)***
1,631
(0,264)***
0,454
-0,309
-0,329
-0,286
0,448
-0,304
-27,968
(8,530)***
721
0,480
1.510,044
1.592,496

(9)
POLS 5
1,831
(0,408)***
1,787
(0,265)***
1,577
(0,262)***
-0,437
-0,280
-28,388
(8,535)***
721
0,480
1.509,501
1.582,791

190

Table 4.5 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per value-added. Specification S-2, 2000-2004

(1)
POLS 0
1,320
(0,441)***
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)]^2
-0,081
(0,031)***
Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per worker)
-15,538
(5,939)***
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per worker)]^2
-2,379
(0,931)**
Population density
0,040
(0,020)**
UL density of Industry in a S.S.
-0,090
(0,015)***
Energy consumption of Industry in a S.S. per unit of VA
0,686
(0,101)***
Share of the VA of Industry in a S.S. on total VA
0,013
-0,013
Share of the VA of Services on total VA
0,018
-0,012
Number of patents per thousand of inhabitants
-0,235
(0,089)***
Share of the urban sorted waste on the total urban waste
0,013
(0,004)***
Exports of Industry in a S.S. on total VA of Industry in a S.S.
0,175
(0,084)**
North-East
0,360
(0,109)***
Centre
0,327
(0,109)***
South
-0,038
-0,128
Islands
-0,109
-0,157
Explanatory variable
Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)

(2)
POLS 1a
1,266
(0,441)***
-0,075
(0,031)**
-14,620
(5,939)**
-2,238
(0,931)**

(3)
POLS 1b
1,666
(0,459)***
-0,108
(0,032)***
-13,627
(6,225)**
-2,122
(0,976)**

(4)
POLS 2a
1,429
(0,434)***
-0,085
(0,030)***
-14,375
(5,952)**
-2,207
(0,933)**

(5)
POLS 2b
1,615
(0,453)***
-0,105
(0,032)***
-13,688
(6,221)**
-2,130
(0,975)**

-0,067
(0,009)***
0,698
(0,101)***
0,010
-0,013
0,022
(0,012)*
-0,271
(0,088)***
0,012
(0,004)***
0,184
(0,084)**
0,374
(0,109)***
0,297
(0,108)***
-0,038
-0,129
-0,144
-0,156

-0,060
(0,009)***
0,801
0,737
0,789
(0,105)*** (0,099)*** (0,103)***
-0,021
-0,012
-0,012
-0,013
(0,006)** (0,006)*
-0,008
-0,011
-0,209
-0,240
-0,219
(0,092)** (0,086)*** (0,090)**
0,008
0,012
0,008
(0,004)** (0,004)*** (0,004)**
0,142
0,195
0,136
-0,088
(0,084)**
-0,087
0,329
0,329
0,346
(0,114)*** (0,107)*** (0,111)***
0,194
0,281
0,197
(0,113)* (0,108)*** (0,112)*
-0,192
-0,076
-0,183
-0,133
-0,127
-0,132
-0,293
-0,202
-0,275
(0,162)*
-0,153
(0,160)*

(6)
POLS 3a
1,345
(0,429)***
-0,079
(0,030)***
-14,785
(5,932)**
-2,264
(0,930)**

(7)
(8)
(9)
POLS 3b POLS 4 POLS 5
1,520
1,812
1,791
(0,450)*** (0,415)*** (0,415)***
-0,100
-0,114
-0,112
(0,032)*** (0,029)*** (0,029)***
-13,175
-11,468
-11,402
(6,227)** (5,932)*
(5,937)*
-2,053
-1,760
-1,744
(0,976)** (0,931)*
(0,931)*

-0,065
-0,063
-0,063
(0,009)***
(0,009)*** (0,009)***
0,714
0,774
0,673
0,775
(0,099)*** (0,103)*** (0,097)*** (0,075)***
0,014
0,007
0,013
0,013
(0,005)*** -0,005
(0,005)** (0,005)**
-0,262
-0,224
-0,122
-0,117
(0,087)*** (0,091)**
-0,079
-0,079
0,012
0,007
0,013
0,012
(0,004)*** (0,004)* (0,003)*** (0,003)***
0,194
0,114
0,298
0,269
(0,083)**
-0,086 (0,077)*** (0,074)***
0,351
0,378
0,192
0,194
(0,104)*** (0,110)*** (0,090)** (0,090)**
0,288
0,205
(0,108)*** (0,112)*
-0,057
-0,160
-0,126
-0,131
-0,178
-0,227
-0,149
-0,157

191

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
POLS 0 POLS 1a POLS 1b POLS 2a POLS 2b
2,329
2,316
0,887
2,158
0,895
(0,482)*** (0,483)*** (0,460)* (0,477)*** (0,460)*
Savona
2,184
2,154
1,975
2,100
1,990
(0,310)*** (0,310)*** (0,324)*** (0,310)*** (0,323)***
Brindisi
2,034
2,020
2,033
2,024
2,032
(0,302)*** (0,303)*** (0,318)*** (0,304)*** (0,318)***
Taranto
0,378
0,377
0,260
0,288
0,292
-0,356
-0,357
-0,374
-0,355
-0,371
Caltanisetta
-0,062
-0,050
-0,235
-0,091
-0,226
-0,334
-0,335
-0,350
-0,335
-0,349
Cagliari
0,759
0,708
0,670
0,675
0,682
(0,353)** (0,353)** (0,370)*
(0,353)*
(0,369)*
Constant coefficient
-27,643
-26,255
-22,818
-24,470
-23,417
(9,629)*** (9,633)*** (10,088)** (9,611)** (10,045)**
Number of observations (province * year)
515
515
515
515
515
R-squared
0,510
0,510
0,460
0,500
0,460
AIC
1.039,565 1.041,712 1.089,539 1.043,422 1.088,038
BIC
1.137,181 1.135,083 1.178,667 1.132,550 1.172,921
Dependent variable: logarithm of the quantity of waste of Industry in a S.S. per value-added of Industry in a S.S.
Standard error in brackets. The symbols *,**,*** show statistical significance at levels of 10%, 5% and 1%
Explanatory variable
Milano

(6)
POLS 3a
2,257
(0,477)***
2,123
(0,307)***
2,018
(0,303)***
0,349
-0,355
-0,046
-0,334
0,692
(0,352)**
-26,110
(9,627)***
515
0,510
1.040,308
1.129,435

(7)
POLS 3b
0,908
(0,461)**
2,032
(0,323)***
2,037
(0,318)***
0,315
-0,373
-0,260
-0,350
0,702
(0,370)*
-22,879
(10,101)**
515
0,450
1.090,012
1.174,895

(8)
POLS 4
1,864
(0,470)***
2,021
(0,304)***
1,987
(0,302)***
0,394
-0,355
-0,241
-0,329
0,541
-0,351
-22,220
(9,678)**
515
0,490
1.049,676
1.126,071

(9)
POLS 5
1,853
(0,470)***
2,028
(0,304)***
1,930
(0,300)***
-0,364
-0,320
-22,132
(9,687)**
515
0,490
1.048,640
1.116,547

192

As regards the other provincial dummy variables, all things being equal, the industries in Milano,
Savona and Brindisi produce much more industrial waste (intensity) than the average of the Italian
provinces, with Milano that, alone, generates a quantity of waste (intensity) greater by a factor equal to
2,064 times (the coefficient in S-1). On the contrary, Caltanissetta produces -74% of the average quantity of waste of the Italian provinces38.
After a comparison between the estimates in the two columns of Table 4.6, it is clear the results obtained with the two sets, 1998-2004 and 2000-2004, are statistically robust. In some cases the respective
estimates values are different from each other, but from a statistical point of view they are not different
by taking the standard errors into account. The statistical significance diminishes in a couple of coefficients (exports and Caltanissetta) by going from the set 1998-2004 to the set 2000-2004, but this is due
perhaps to the minor number of observations used in the smaller set, even if the statistical significance
remains at the conventional levels anyway.
These overview of the results has led to conclude that the relationship between the waste production
(intensity) of Industry in a Strict Sense and its drivers of the tested model has been stable in the two
analyzed sets, and it can be affirmed that there is no statistical evidence of that feared structural break
in the year 2000, induced by the new environmental legislation.
The results in the specification S-2 (Table 4.7) are very similar to those in the S-1, as regards the signs
of the coefficients, but some of the coefficients are less statistically significant. In particular, the number of patents per thousand inhabitants and the Caltanissetta indicator are not significant in neither of
the sets, and the driver representing the value-added per worker in the smaller set (2000-2004) is significant at the 10% level. By taking the standard errors into account, the estimates of the respective
common drivers are similar to each other, and they are not different in statistical terms.
As regards the coefficients of the logarithm of the value-added per worker and per local unit, and of its
square, both their estimates are negative, and, together with the estimates of the coefficients of the
value-added alone, imply a positive elasticity of the production of waste (intensity) to the value-added,
as was happening before. The coefficient of the squared terms of the value-added, however, is negative,
as well as the logarithms of the value-added per worker39 and per local unit, and their squared terms, are
negative. In this case too, signs and values are consistent with the existence of an Environmental
Kuznets Curve, whose turning point and curvature depend on the tendency of the value-added per
worker.

38

The dummy variable of Taranto has been omitted since it is not statistically significant.

The coefficient of the square of the logarithm of the value-added is the only one being statistically significant at 10% level
only.
39

193

Even in Table 4.7 the estimates of the coefficients of the two columns are not statistically different
from each others, thus confirming the stability of the models relationship between the waste production of Industry in a Strict Sense and its drivers.
As regards the 5 selected provinces, it is evident that Milano only shows a bundle of structural characteristics much different from the national average (its tendency about patents has already been noted
above, but it has also to be noted his peculiarity about high levels of value-added), while the others
(Genova, Venezia, LAquila and Roma) do not behave in a different way with respect to the other Italian provinces.
As final technical note, it has to be said that the usual EKC literature assumes that errors in the regressions are normally distributed when the studied sample comes from a large panel dataset (Dinda, 2004):
spherical errors occur when errors have both uniform variance (homoscedasticity) and are uncorrelated
with each other. As regards EKC studies (Carson, 2010), this assumption might be violated more with
small samples, rather than with large samples, as the one that has been used: moreover, the p-value of
the regressions outputs are always higher than the 0,05 value of significance, and so the residuals are
normally distributed (Gujarati and Porter, 2009).
As regards the homoscedasticity assumption, Gujarati and Porter (2009) explain that heteroscedasticity
does not cause ordinary least squares coefficient estimates to be biased, but that although it can cause
ordinary least squares estimates of the variance (and, thus, standard errors) of the coefficients to be biased, possibly above or below the true population variance. Thus, regression analysis using heteroscedastic data will still provide an unbiased estimate for the relationship between the predictor variables
and the outcome, but standard errors (and therefore inferences) obtained from data analysis are suspect: the OLS estimator is still consistent (unbiased), but is not more BLUE (best linear unbiased estimator). As regards EKC tests (Stern 2004), the homoscedasticity assumption holds for those data coming from local and solid pollutants (as waste), while it is much more probable that such an assumption
might be violated with those data concerning aerial and global pollutants (like GHG or CO2).
Last, the problem of multicollinearity among variables could constitute a major issue: multicollinearity
is a statistical phenomenon in which two or more predictor variables in a multiple regression model are
highly correlated, meaning that one can be linearly predicted from the others: in such a situation, the
coefficient estimates of the multiple regression may change erratically, in response to small changes in
the model or the data. It has to be noted that multicollinearity does not reduce the predictive power, or
reliability, of the model as a whole: it only affects calculations regarding individual predictors. That is, a
multiple regression model with correlated predictors can indicate how well the entire bundle of predictors can predict the outcome variable, but it may not give valid results about any individual predictor,
or about which predictors are redundant with respect to others. Therefore, so long as the underlying
specification is correct, multicollinearity does not actually bias the results, but it just produces large

194

standard errors in the related independent variables. In order to check the presence of multicollinearity,
a variance inflation factor (VIF) test has been done, and the values are all below the threshold value of
5, below which a multicollinearity problem does not exist (Aufhammer and Carson, 2008; Gujarati and
Porter, 2009)
To sum up quickly, the estimates obtained thanks to the model testing are quite stable, both as regards
sets from different periods of time (with the same specification), and as concerns the two different final
specifications. The present analysis has shown the existence of economically and statistically significant
correlations between the waste intensity of the Industry in a Strict Sense and the drivers of the model.

195

Table 4.6 Specification S-1: value-added per UL of Industry in a Strict Sense as performance driver

Explanatory variables

1998-2004

2000-2004

Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)

0,804
(0,359)**
-0,043
(0,025)*
-3,867
(0,507)***
-1,273
(0,161)***
-0,067
(0,008)***
0,842
(0,064)***
0,007
(0,005)
-0,183
(0,067)***
0,014
(0,003)***
0,234
(0,070)***

1,008
(0,417)**
-0,056
(0,029)*
-3,561
(0,578)***
-1,17
(0,182)***
-0,064
(0,009)***
0,787
(0,074)***
0,007
(0,005)
-0,215
(0,076)***
0,012
(0,003)***
0,18
(0,076)**

0,252
(0,073)***
1,926
(0,399)***
1,532
(0,254)***
1,459
(0,254)***
-0,924

0,272
(0,085)***
2,064
(0,461)***
1,809
(0,291)***
1,8
(0,291)***
-0,736

(0,264)***

(0,303)**

-2,439

-2,81

(1,278)*

(1,516)*

721

515

[Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)]^2

Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per UL)
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per UL)]^2
UL density of Industry in a S.S.
Energy consumption of Industry in a S.S. per unit of VA
Share of the VA of Services on total VA
Number of patents per thousand of inhabitants
Share of the urban sorted waste on the total urban waste
Exports of Industry in a S.S. on total VA of Industry in a S.S.
Geographical and provincial indicators
North-East
Milano
Savona
Brindisi
Caltanisetta
Constant coefficient

Number of observations (province * year)

R-squared
0,51
0,52
AIC
1460,025
1012,883
BIC
1533,315
1080,79
Dependent variable: logarithm of the quantity of waste of Industry in a S.S. per value-added of Industry in a S.S.
Standard error in brackets. The symbols *,**,*** show statistical significance at levels of 10%, 5% and 1%

196

Table 4.6 Specification S-2: value-added per worker of Industry in a Strict Sense as performance driver

Explanatory variables

1998-2004

2000-2004

Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)

1,736
(0,352)***
-0,108
(0,025)***
-15,087
(5,212)***
-2,294
(0,814)***
-0,066
(0,008)***
0,832
(0,065)***
0,015
(0,004)***
-0,087
(0,069)
0,014
(0,003)***
0,333
(0,068)***

1,791
(0,415)***
-0,112
(0,029)***
-11,402
(5,937)*
-1,744
(0,931)*
-0,063
(0,009)***
0,775
(0,075)***
0,013
(0,005)**
-0,117
(0,079)
0,012
(0,003)***
0,269
(0,074)***

0,166
(0,077)**
1,831
(0,408)***
1,787
(0,265)***
1,577
(0,262)***
-0,437

0,194
(0,090)**
1,853
(0,470)***
2,028
(0,304)***
1,93
(0,300)***
-0,364

(0,28)

(0,32)

-28,388

-22,132

(8,535)***

(9,687)**

721

515

[Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)]^2

Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per worker)
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per worker)]^2
UL density of Industry in a S.S.
Energy consumption of Industry in a S.S. per unit of VA
Share of the VA of Services on total VA
Number of patents per thousand of inhabitants
Share of the urban sorted waste on the total urban waste
Exports of Industry in a S.S. on total VA of Industry in a S.S.
Geographical and provincial indicators
North-East
Milano
Savona
Brindisi
Caltanisetta
Constant coefficient

Number of observations (province * year)

R-squared
0,48
0,49
AIC
1509,501
1048,64
BIC
1582,791
1116,547
Dependent variable: logarithm of the quantity of waste of Industry in a S.S. per value-added of Industry in a S.S.
Standard error in brackets. The symbols *,**,*** show statistical significance at levels of 10%, 5% and 1%

197

4.4. Main results

The goodness of fit of the model can be seen not only by the indicators in the tables, but also graphically as reported in Figure 4.1 and 4.3, where the historical (that is, real) values, for the years 1998-2004,
of the logarithm of the value-added (in millions of euros of 1995) have been reported on the x-axis,
while on the y-axis lie the historical (that is, real) data and the theoretical (that is, estimated by the
model) values of the logarithm of the quantity of waste (in tons) per unit of value-added (in millions of
euros of 1995). The same fit can be seen from Figure 4.2 and 4.4, where the same variables are not
more expressed in logarithms, but in absolute terms.
Figure 4.1 shows the plot of such relationship on the basis of the specification S-1 (whose values have
been calculated according to Table 4.6), while Figure 4.3 sows the same relationship on the basis of the
other specification, S-2 (whose values have been calculated according to Table 4.7): the only difference
of S-2 from S-1 is that, among the independent variables, the value-added per worker of S-1 has been
substituted by the value-added per unit of labour in S-2. The plots help showing the goodness of fit of
the model and they suggest an interesting new empirical evidence for the relationship between nonurban waste and economic development.
In the two figures, the two scatter plots for the period 1998-2004 has been reported: besides the scatter
plot of the historical data of the set (the blue points), the scatter plot of the estimated values for the
same years has been depicted. Both the shapes of the plots lead to suppose the existence of a reverse
U-shaped relationship among the variables, be it more or less pronounced: such relationship confirms
the hypothesis of a bell-shaped trend of the waste variable (here, waste intensity) with respect to its reference driver, the value-added. When trying to derive forecasts from the model, in the following chapter, this binary graphical relationship will be graphically tested again. The results obtained so far seem to
be interestingly new, as regards non-urban waste: the little bunch of research papers which have dealt
with testing the EKC behaviour for waste has mainly found that the relationship between waste and
economic performance is increasing. Mazzanti, Montini and Zoboli (2006) have found a bell-shaped
curve for urban waste, but with high levels of the turning points of the value-added (therefore, when an
area is very rich), and with a dataset relating to four years only (2000-2004).
The results here presented highlight for the first time the confirmation of the hypothesis according to
which the waste of Industry in a Strict Sense can have a reversed U-shaped behaviour with respect to
the value-added of the same sector, in the relative provinces, and, if such hypothesis will be confirmed
in the following simulations, it can be said that the production of waste of Industry in a Strict Sense in
Italy can be environmentally sustainable, since, after an initial growth due to the increase of economic
wealth, it can decrease thanks to the increase in environmental goods that such wealth tends to cause.

198

Figure 4.1 Goodness of fit: scatter plots, historical (blue) and estimated (red) values,
specification S-1, 1998-2004, logarithms.
Dependent variable: (logarithm of) waste per value-added (tons per millions of euros of 1995)
Independent variable: (logarithm of) value-added (millions of euros of 1995)
8,00

7,00

log (t / milioni di Euro del 1995)

6,00

5,00

4,00

3,00

2,00

1,00

0,00
4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

8,00

9,00

10,00

11,00

log (milioni di Euro del 1995)

Dati storici

Dati dalla Specificazione 1

Figure 4.2 Goodness of fit: scatter plots, historical (blue) and estimated (red) values,
specification S-1, 1998-2004, absolute levels.
Dependent variable: waste per value-added (tons per millions of euros of 1995)
Independent variable: value-added (millions of euros of 1995)
2.500

t / milioni di euro del 1995

2.000

1.500

1.000

500

0
0

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

30.000

milioni di euro del 1995

Dati storici

Dati dalla Specificazione 1

199

Figure 4.3 Goodness of fit: scatter plots, historical (blue) and estimated (red) values,
specification S-2, 1998-2004, logarithms.
Dependent variable: (logarithm of) waste per value-added (tons per millions of euros of 1995)
Independent variable: (logarithm of) value-added (millions of euros of 1995)
8,00

7,00

log (t / milioni di Euro del 1995)

6,00

5,00

4,00

3,00

2,00

1,00

0,00
4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

8,00

9,00

10,00

11,00

log (milioni di Euro del 1995)

Dati storici

Dati dalla Specificazione 2

Figure 4.2 Goodness of fit: scatter plots, historical (blue) and estimated (red) values,
specification S-2, 1998-2004, absolute levels.
Dependent variable: waste per value-added (tons per millions of euros of 1995)
Independent variable: value-added (millions of euros of 1995)
2.500

t / milioni di euro del 1995

2.000

1.500

1.000

500

0
0

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

30.000

milioni di euro del 1995

Dati storici

Dati dalla Specificazione 2

200

4.5 Conclusions
The stages of specification, estimation and analysis of the results of the model have been formulated
into three phases.
In the first stage, after having identified the variables to be included into the basic model, with particular reference to those economic indicators that contribute to determine the production of waste and
that can influence its trend in the course of time, and after having dealt with the correspondent data,
the econometric model to be estimated has been specified, according to the mainstream EKC literature.
Moreover, the more appropriate methodological tools have been chosen, in order to better develop the
informative content of the MUD database, and the choice has been driven to the use of the pooled
OLS estimator. In the second stage, the best formal specification for the model has been found by repeated tests and by discarding the less statistically significant variables, in order to come up with the
best quantitative relationship among the variables. In the third stage, the presence of a reverse Ushaped trend has been studied, both numerically and graphically.
The results here obtained are quite innovative in the relevant academic and non-academic literature on
industrial waste, and as regards their economic determinants too, both in terms of abundance of the
proposed model, and in terms of the contribution of the present research to the Environmental
Kuznets Curve literature: they show that the waste of Industry in a Strict Sense in the Italian provinces,
after an initial growth due to the increase of economic wealth, can decrease thanks to the increase in
environmental goods that such wealth tends to cause, and therefore waste of that sector can have a reversed U-shaped behaviour with respect to the value-added of the same sector, in the relative provinces. This hypothesis, for the non-urban waste, has not been studied yet in previous research papers in
the literature, nor has it been studied for any other country, leaving space for more research on these
topics.

201

APPENDIX A4

Table A4.1 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per worker. Specification S-1, 1998-2004
(1)
Explanatory variable
POLS 0
Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)
-0,059
-0,359
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)]^2
0,014
-0,025
Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per UL)
-2,025
(0,512)***
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per UL)]^2
-0,644
(0,157)***
Population density
0,005
-0,017
UL density of Industry in a S.S.
-0,060
(0,014)***
Energy consumption of Industry in a S.S. per unit of VA
0,814
(0,083)***
Share of the VA of Industry in a S.S. on total VA
0,001
-0,011
Share of the VA of Services on total VA
0,022
(0,009)**
Number of patents per thousand of inhabitants
-0,290
(0,071)***
Share of the urban sorted waste on the total urban waste
0,014
(0,003)***
Exports of Industry in a S.S. on total VA of Industry in a S.S. -0,007
-0,070
North-East
0,313
(0,085)***
Centre
0,212
(0,090)**

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
POLS 1a POLS 1b POLS 2a POLS 2b POLS 3a POLS 3b POLS 4 POLS 5
-0,066
0,314
0,096
0,323
-0,066
0,102
0,121
0,113
-0,358
-0,367
-0,353
-0,362
-0,347
-0,360
-0,341
-0,341
0,015
-0,018
0,006
-0,018
0,015
-0,007
0,001
0,002
-0,025
-0,026
-0,025
-0,025
-0,025
-0,025
-0,024
-0,024
-2,003
-1,362
-2,058
-1,371
-2,003
-1,401
-2,048
-2,126
(0,506)*** (0,515)*** (0,507)*** (0,512)*** (0,503)*** (0,517)*** (0,487)*** (0,482)***
-0,642
-0,538
-0,662
-0,540
-0,642
-0,538
-0,649
-0,666
(0,156)*** (0,161)*** (0,157)*** (0,160)*** (0,156)*** (0,162)*** (0,154)*** (0,153)***
-0,057
(0,008)***
0,812
(0,083)***
0,000
-0,011
0,022
(0,009)**
-0,294
(0,070)***
0,014
(0,003)***
-0,007
-0,070
0,315
(0,085)***
0,212
(0,090)**

-0,051
(0,008)***
0,824
0,853
0,827
(0,086)*** (0,082)*** (0,084)***
-0,029
-0,023
-0,030
(0,010)*** (0,005)*** (0,005)***
0,001
-0,009
-0,222
-0,262
-0,221
(0,071)*** (0,069)*** (0,071)***
0,013
0,014
0,013
(0,003)*** (0,003)*** (0,003)***
-0,064
0,003
-0,063
-0,072
-0,071
-0,072
0,271
0,269
0,268
(0,088)*** (0,083)*** (0,086)***
0,193
0,194
0,192
(0,093)** (0,090)** (0,093)**

-0,057
-0,057
-0,057
(0,007)***
(0,007)*** (0,007)***
0,812
0,798
0,826
0,915
(0,082)*** (0,086)*** (0,079)*** (0,061)***
0,022
(0,004)***
-0,294
(0,069)***
0,014
(0,003)***
-0,007
-0,070
0,315
(0,082)***
0,212
(0,090)**

0,023
(0,005)***
-0,240
(0,071)***
0,011
(0,003)***
-0,102
-0,071
0,328
(0,086)***
0,200
(0,094)**

0,022
(0,004)***
-0,207
(0,063)***
0,014
(0,002)***
0,048
-0,068
0,206
(0,070)***

0,022
(0,004)***
-0,205
(0,063)***
0,013
(0,002)***
0,028
-0,066
0,208
(0,070)***

202

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
POLS 0 POLS 1a POLS 1b POLS 2a
-0,073
-0,068
-0,083
-0,114
-0,110
-0,109
-0,113
-0,108
Islands
0,112
0,114
0,129
0,051
-0,134
-0,133
-0,138
-0,131
Milano
1,825
1,814
0,506
1,670
(0,394)*** (0,392)*** -0,358 (0,389)***
Savona
1,570
1,567
1,486
1,527
(0,250)*** (0,250)*** (0,258)*** (0,250)***
Brindisi
1,728
1,725
1,709
1,725
(0,245)*** (0,245)*** (0,253)*** (0,245)***
Taranto
0,463
0,461
0,336
0,368
-0,287
-0,286
-0,296
-0,285
Caltanisetta
-0,326
-0,323
-0,377
-0,346
-0,264
-0,264
-0,273
-0,265
Cagliari
0,441
0,438
0,508
0,404
-0,287
-0,287
(0,297)*
-0,287
Constant coefficient
-1,473
-1,452
0,152
-0,142
-1,326
-1,323
-1,349
-1,214
Number of observations (province * year)
721
721
721
721
R-squared
0,470
0,470
0,440
0,470
AIC
1.384,887 1.382,972 1.431,347 1.387,121
BIC
1.490,242 1.483,746 1.527,540 1.483,314
Dependent variable: logarithm of the quantity of waste of Industry in a S.S. per worker of Industry in a S.S.
Standard error in brackets. The symbols *,**,*** show statistical significance at levels of 10%, 5% and 1%
Explanatory variable
South

(5)
POLS 2b
-0,086
-0,111
0,124
-0,135
0,506
-0,358
1,484
(0,257)***
1,709
(0,253)***
0,330
-0,293
-0,378
-0,273
0,504
(0,296)*
0,233
-1,250
721
0,440
1.429,374
1.520,986

(6)
POLS 3a
-0,068
-0,108
0,114
-0,132
1,814
(0,384)***
1,567
(0,248)***
1,725
(0,244)***
0,461
-0,284
-0,323
-0,264
0,438
-0,286
-1,452
-1,239
721
0,470
1.380,972
1.477,166

(7)
POLS 3b
-0,047
-0,112
0,200
-0,136
0,533
-0,360
1,557
(0,258)***
1,713
(0,254)***
0,410
-0,296
-0,411
-0,274
0,545
(0,298)*
-1,018
-1,288
721
0,430
1.437,316
1.528,929

(8)
POLS 4

(9)
POLS 5

1,606
(0,379)***
1,484
(0,242)***
1,605
(0,243)***
0,350
-0,282
-0,276
-0,259
0,456
-0,285
-2,136
(1,217)*
721
0,460
1.388,651
1.471,103

1,618
(0,379)***
1,485
(0,242)***
1,558
(0,241)***
-0,387
-0,252
-2,204
(1,216)*
721
0,460
1.388,003
1.461,294

203

Table A4.2 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per worker. Specification S-1, 2000-2004

(1)
Explanatory variable
POLS 0
Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)
0,044
-0,416
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)]^2
0,007
-0,029
Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per UL)
-1,878
(0,586)***
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per UL)]^2
-0,606
(0,177)***
Population density
0,013
-0,02
UL density of Industry in a S.S.
-0,058
(0,016)***
Energy consumption of Industry in a S.S. per unit of VA
0,781
(0,098)***
Share of the VA of Industry in a S.S. on total VA
-0,005
-0,013
Share of the VA of Services on total VA
0,014
-0,011
Number of patents per thousand of inhabitants
-0,313
(0,082)***
Share of the urban sorted waste on the total urban waste
0,012
(0,003)***
Exports of Industry in a S.S. on total VA of Industry in a S.S. -0,062
-0,078
North-East
0,319
(0,099)***
Centre
0,222
(0,105)**
South
-0,086
-0,132
Islands
0,106
-0,159
Milano
1,885

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
POLS 1a POLS 1b POLS 2a POLS 2b POLS 3a POLS 3b POLS 4 POLS 5
0,033
0,327
0,13
0,308
-0,018
0,097
0,161
0,138
-0,416
-0,424
-0,411
-0,421
-0,404
-0,418
-0,396
-0,396
0,009
-0,017
0,003
-0,016
0,012
-0,005
-0,002
0,001
-0,029
-0,03
-0,029
-0,029
-0,028
-0,029
-0,028
-0,028
-1,818
-1,293
-1,863
-1,268
-1,843
-1,33
-1,902
-2,038
(0,579)*** (0,587)** (0,578)*** (0,582)** (0,576)*** (0,591)** (0,556)*** (0,550)***
-0,6
-0,516
-0,616
-0,509
-0,602
-0,509
-0,61
-0,641
(0,176)*** (0,181)*** (0,176)*** (0,180)*** (0,176)*** (0,182)*** (0,174)*** (0,173)***
-0,05
(0,009)***
0,776
(0,098)***
-0,007
-0,013
0,016
-0,011
-0,323
(0,081)***
0,012
(0,003)***
-0,062
-0,078
0,322
(0,099)***
0,222
(0,105)**
-0,07
-0,13
0,115
-0,159
1,858

-0,045
(0,009)***
0,798
0,807
0,79
(0,100)*** (0,095)*** (0,098)***
-0,033
-0,023
-0,029
(0,012)*** (0,006)*** (0,006)***
-0,004
-0,01
-0,273
-0,302
-0,278
(0,083)*** (0,080)*** (0,081)***
0,01
0,011
0,01
(0,003)*** (0,003)*** (0,003)***
-0,106
-0,057
-0,108
-0,08
-0,078
-0,08
0,285
0,288
0,293
(0,102)*** (0,096)*** (0,099)***
0,205
0,208
0,208
(0,108)* (0,105)** (0,108)*
-0,092
-0,103
-0,084
-0,134
-0,128
-0,132
0,115
0,067
0,128
-0,163
-0,155
-0,159
0,747
1,755
0,748

-0,051
-0,052
-0,053
(0,008)***
(0,008)*** (0,008)***
0,77
0,772
0,787
0,872
(0,097)*** (0,101)*** (0,092)*** (0,071)***
0,02
(0,005)***
-0,329
(0,080)***
0,011
(0,003)***
-0,068
-0,077
0,336
(0,095)***
0,223
(0,105)**
-0,065
-0,13
0,126
-0,157
1,907

0,02
(0,005)***
-0,297
(0,083)***
0,008
(0,003)**
-0,147
(0,079)*
0,357
(0,099)***
0,208
(0,109)*
-0,07
-0,134
0,18
-0,162
0,794

0,021
(0,005)***
-0,235
(0,072)***
0,011
(0,003)***
-0,008
-0,074
0,217
(0,081)***

0,02
(0,005)***
-0,232
(0,073)***
0,011
(0,003)***
-0,021
-0,072
0,219
(0,081)***

1,662

1,678

204

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
POLS 0 POLS 1a POLS 1b POLS 2a
(0,456)*** (0,454)*** (0,418)* (0,449)***
Savona
1,83
1,825
1,752
1,789
(0,287)*** (0,286)*** (0,294)*** (0,286)***
Brindisi
1,956
1,95
1,952
1,949
(0,280)*** (0,280)*** (0,288)*** (0,280)***
Taranto
0,242
0,239
0,116
0,17
-0,328
-0,328
-0,337
-0,325
Caltanisetta
-0,201
-0,193
-0,253
-0,215
-0,303
-0,303
-0,311
-0,303
Cagliari
0,565
0,56
0,615
0,534
(0,330)* (0,330)*
(0,339)*
-0,33
Constant coefficient
-0,932
-0,887
0,698
0,087
-1,573
-1,571
-1,588
-1,424
Number of observations (province * year)
515
515
515
515
R-squared
0,49
0,49
0,46
0,49
AIC
959,752
958,183
986,503
958,407
BIC
1.057,367 1.051,555 1.075,630 1.047,534
Dependent variable: logarithm of the quantity of waste of Industry in a S.S. per worker of Industry in a S.S.
Standard error in brackets. The symbols *,**,*** show statistical significance at levels of 10%, 5% and 1%
Explanatory variable

(5)
POLS 2b
(0,418)*
1,76
(0,293)***
1,953
(0,288)***
0,132
-0,333
-0,249
-0,311
0,624
(0,338)*
0,47
-1,46
515
0,46
984,643
1.069,526

(6)
POLS 3a
(0,445)***
1,844
(0,284)***
1,951
(0,280)***
0,257
-0,326
-0,195
-0,302
0,565
(0,329)*
-1,176
-1,469
515
0,49
956,470
1.045,598

(7)
POLS 3b
(0,420)*
1,841
(0,294)***
1,959
(0,290)***
0,196
-0,337
-0,281
-0,313
0,653
(0,341)*
-0,628
-1,52
515
0,45
992,011
1.076,894

(8)
POLS 4
(0,438)***
1,754
(0,276)***
1,823
(0,278)***
0,151
-0,324
-0,151
-0,298
0,579
(0,328)*
-1,873
-1,443
515
0,48
961,638
1.038,033

(9)
POLS 5
(0,438)***
1,754
(0,277)***
1,776
(0,276)***
-0,257
-0,289
-1,964
-1,442
515
0,48
960,858
1.028,765

205

Table A4.3 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per worker. Specification S-2, 1998-2004

(1)
Explanatory variable
POLS 0
Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)
0,497
-0,348
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)]^2
-0,026
-0,024
Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per worker)
-17,149
(4,819)***
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per worker)]^2
-2,737
(0,752)***
Population density
0,003
-0,016
UL density of Industry in a S.S.
-0,053
(0,012)***
Energy consumption of Industry in a S.S. per unit of VA
0,739
(0,080)***
Share of the VA of Industry in a S.S. on total VA
-0,004
-0,011
Share of the VA of Services on total VA
0,021
(0,009)**
Number of patents per thousand of inhabitants
-0,232
(0,071)***
Share of the urban sorted waste on the total urban waste
0,014
(0,003)***
Exports of Industry in a S.S. on total VA of Industry in a S.S.
0,027
-0,070
North-East
0,301
(0,086)***
Centre
0,325
(0,088)***
South
0,045
-0,101
Islands
0,161
-0,123
Milano
1,688

(2)
POLS 1a
0,492
-0,347
-0,026
-0,024
-17,091
(4,807)***
-2,728
(0,750)***

(3)
POLS 1b
0,847
(0,353)**
-0,054
(0,025)**
-17,306
(4,954)***
-2,799
(0,773)***

(4)
POLS 2a
0,671
(0,339)**
-0,037
-0,024
-17,216
(4,822)***
-2,757
(0,753)***

(5)
(6)
(7)
POLS 2b POLS 3a POLS 3b
0,843
0,455
0,644
(0,347)**
-0,335
(0,346)*
-0,054
-0,023
-0,044
(0,024)**
-0,024
(0,024)*
-17,303
-16,958
-16,432
(4,951)*** (4,794)*** (4,964)***
-2,798
-2,707
-2,665
(0,773)*** (0,748)*** (0,775)***

-0,051
(0,008)***
0,740
(0,079)***
-0,004
-0,011
0,021
(0,009)**
-0,236
(0,070)***
0,014
(0,003)***
0,028
-0,070
0,302
(0,086)***
0,323
(0,087)***
0,045
-0,101
0,158
-0,122
1,687

-0,044
(0,007)***
0,804
0,773
0,803
(0,081)*** (0,078)*** (0,080)***
-0,027
-0,026
-0,027
(0,010)*** (0,005)*** (0,005)***
-0,001
-0,009
-0,173
-0,204
-0,173
(0,071)** (0,069)*** (0,070)**
0,011
0,014
0,011
(0,003)*** (0,003)*** (0,003)***
-0,009
0,040
-0,009
-0,071
-0,070
-0,071
0,265
0,262
0,267
(0,089)*** (0,085)*** (0,087)***
0,251
0,310
0,251
(0,089)*** (0,087)*** (0,089)***
-0,057
0,010
-0,056
-0,103
-0,100
-0,102
0,061
0,105
0,063
-0,125
-0,121
-0,124
0,576
1,540
0,576

(8)
POLS 4
0,713
(0,324)**
-0,043
(0,023)*
-15,294
(4,804)***
-2,437
(0,750)***

(9)
POLS 5
0,704
(0,325)**
-0,042
(0,023)*
-15,467
(4,813)***
-2,458
(0,752)***

-0,052
-0,050
-0,050
(0,007)***
(0,007)*** (0,007)***
0,733
0,767
0,746
0,850
(0,078)*** (0,080)*** (0,077)*** (0,060)***
0,025
(0,004)***
-0,239
(0,069)***
0,014
(0,003)***
0,023
-0,069
0,312
(0,083)***
0,327
(0,086)***
0,055
-0,098
0,174
-0,117
1,711

0,020
(0,004)***
-0,190
(0,071)***
0,010
(0,003)***
-0,045
-0,070
0,324
(0,086)***
0,267
(0,089)***
-0,003
-0,101
0,155
-0,121
0,587

0,026
(0,004)***
-0,133
(0,064)**
0,012
(0,002)***
0,073
-0,065
0,144
(0,071)**

0,026
(0,004)***
-0,128
(0,064)**
0,012
(0,002)***
0,048
-0,063
0,143
(0,071)**

1,416

1,416

206

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
POLS 0 POLS 1a POLS 1b POLS 2a
(0,384)*** (0,384)*** -0,356 (0,380)***
Savona
1,659
1,657
1,530
1,615
(0,251)*** (0,250)*** (0,257)*** (0,250)***
Brindisi
1,739
1,738
1,747
1,741
(0,244)*** (0,244)*** (0,252)*** (0,245)***
Taranto
0,417
0,417
0,353
0,337
-0,288
-0,288
-0,296
-0,287
Caltanisetta
-0,079
-0,079
-0,206
-0,107
-0,269
-0,269
-0,276
-0,269
Cagliari
0,613
0,609
0,594
0,582
(0,284)** (0,283)** (0,292)** (0,284)**
Constant coefficient
-28,587
-28,498
-27,610
-27,406
(7,838)*** (7,821)*** (8,060)*** (7,832)***
Number of observations (province * year)
721
721
721
721
R-squared
0,470
0,470
0,440
0,470
AIC
1.384,803 1.382,847 1.425,401 1.386,392
BIC
1.490,158 1.483,621 1.521,594 1.482,585
Dependent variable: logarithm of the quantity of waste of Industry in a S.S. per worker of Industry in a S.S.
Standard error in brackets. The symbols *,**,*** show statistical significance at levels of 10%, 5% and 1%
Explanatory variable

(5)
POLS 2b
-0,356
1,531
(0,256)***
1,747
(0,251)***
0,355
-0,294
-0,206
-0,276
0,595
(0,291)**
-27,642
(8,041)***
721
0,440
1.423,405
1.515,018

(6)
POLS 3a
(0,379)***
1,669
(0,248)***
1,738
(0,244)***
0,429
-0,286
-0,083
-0,268
0,616
(0,283)**
-28,460
(7,816)***
721
0,470
1.381,030
1.477,224

(7)
POLS 3b
-0,358
1,594
(0,257)***
1,749
(0,253)***
0,429
-0,296
-0,251
-0,277
0,640
(0,293)**
-27,225
(8,093)***
721
0,430
1.430,543
1.522,155

(8)
POLS 4
(0,375)***
1,504
(0,245)***
1,653
(0,243)***
0,352
-0,285
-0,069
-0,263
0,619
(0,281)**
-26,710
(7,866)***
721
0,460
1.393,263
1.475,714

(9)
POLS 5
(0,376)***
1,508
(0,245)***
1,595
(0,242)***
-0,185
-0,258
-27,099
(7,881)***
721
0,460
1.394,646
1.467,937

207

Table A4.4 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per worker. Specification S-2, 2000-2004

(1)
Explanatory variable
POLS 0
Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)
0,590
-0,408
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)]^2
-0,033
-0,029
Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per worker)
-15,186
(5,489)***
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per worker)]^2
-2,458
(0,860)***
Population density
0,014
-0,018
UL density of Industry in a S.S.
-0,054
(0,014)***
Energy consumption of Industry in a S.S. per unit of VA
0,697
(0,093)***
Share of the VA of Industry in a S.S. on total VA
-0,007
-0,012
Share of the VA of Services on total VA
0,014
-0,011
Number of patents per thousand of inhabitants
-0,245
(0,083)***
Share of the urban sorted waste on the total urban waste
0,012
(0,003)***
Exports of Industry in a S.S. on total VA of Industry in a S.S. -0,022
-0,077
North-East
0,306
(0,101)***
Centre
0,327
(0,101)***
South
0,039
-0,118
Islands
0,183
-0,145
Milano
1,716

(2)
POLS 1a
0,571
-0,407
-0,031
-0,028
-14,868
(5,470)***
-2,409
(0,857)***

(3)
(4)
POLS 1b POLS 2a
0,845
0,688
(0,414)** (0,399)*
-0,053
-0,038
(0,029)*
-0,028
-14,187
-14,693
(5,614)** (5,475)***
-2,330
-2,387
(0,880)*** (0,858)***

(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
POLS 2b POLS 3a POLS 3b POLS 4
0,814
0,512
0,641
0,733
(0,408)**
-0,395
-0,407
(0,382)*
-0,052
-0,028
-0,043
-0,045
(0,029)*
-0,028
-0,029
(0,027)*
-14,224
-14,742
-13,555
-13,353
(5,609)** (5,463)*** (5,635)** (5,455)**
-2,334
-2,389
-2,233
-2,161
(0,879)*** (0,856)*** (0,883)** (0,856)**

-0,046
(0,009)***
0,701
(0,093)***
-0,008
-0,012
0,016
-0,011
-0,258
(0,081)***
0,012
(0,003)***
-0,019
-0,077
0,311
(0,100)***
0,316
(0,100)***
0,039
-0,118
0,171
-0,144
1,712

-0,041
(0,008)***
0,771
0,729
0,764
(0,094)*** (0,091)*** (0,093)***
-0,029
-0,024
-0,024
(0,012)** (0,006)*** (0,006)***
-0,005
-0,010
-0,215
-0,235
-0,221
(0,083)*** (0,079)*** (0,081)***
0,009
0,011
0,009
(0,003)*** (0,003)*** (0,003)***
-0,048
-0,012
-0,052
-0,079
-0,077
-0,079
0,281
0,279
0,291
(0,103)*** (0,098)*** (0,100)***
0,246
0,305
0,248
(0,102)** (0,100)*** (0,101)**
-0,067
0,012
-0,061
-0,120
-0,117
-0,119
0,069
0,130
0,080
-0,146
-0,141
-0,144
0,732
1,599
0,737

(9)
POLS 5
0,716
(0,383)*
-0,043
-0,027
-13,251
(5,473)**
-2,142
(0,859)**

-0,048
-0,046
-0,046
(0,008)***
(0,008)*** (0,008)***
0,689
0,733
0,705
0,807
(0,091)*** (0,093)*** (0,090)*** (0,069)***
0,022
(0,005)***
-0,264
(0,080)***
0,012
(0,003)***
-0,028
-0,076
0,328
(0,096)***
0,323
(0,099)***
0,054
-0,116
0,197
-0,138
1,756

0,017
0,023
0,023
(0,005)*** (0,005)*** (0,005)***
-0,236
-0,155
-0,149
(0,082)*** (0,073)** (0,073)**
0,008
0,010
0,009
(0,003)** (0,003)*** (0,003)***
-0,086
0,020
-0,002
-0,078
-0,071
-0,068
0,348
0,160
0,159
(0,099)*** (0,082)*
(0,083)*
0,262
(0,102)**
-0,022
-0,119
0,161
-0,142
0,762
1,426
1,412

208

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
POLS 0 POLS 1a POLS 1b POLS 2a
(0,445)*** (0,445)*** (0,415)* (0,439)***
Savona
1,897
1,887
1,764
1,848
(0,286)*** (0,286)*** (0,293)*** (0,285)***
Brindisi
2,017
2,012
2,021
2,015
(0,279)*** (0,279)*** (0,287)*** (0,279)***
Taranto
0,267
0,267
0,187
0,203
-0,329
-0,329
-0,338
-0,327
Caltanisetta
-0,033
-0,029
-0,155
-0,057
-0,308
-0,308
-0,315
-0,308
Cagliari
0,731
0,714
0,687
0,690
(0,326)** (0,325)** (0,334)** (0,325)**
Constant coefficient
-24,830
-24,349
-21,992
-23,072
(8,900)*** (8,873)*** (9,098)** (8,840)***
Number of observations (province * year)
515
515
515
515
R-squared
0,490
0,490
0,460
0,490
AIC
958,428
957,013
983,210
957,252
BIC
1.056,044 1.050,385 1.072,337 1.046,379
Dependent variable: logarithm of the quantity of waste of Industry in a S.S. per worker of Industry in a S.S.
Standard error in brackets. The symbols *,**,*** show statistical significance at levels of 10%, 5% and 1%
Explanatory variable

(5)
POLS 2b
(0,415)*
1,773
(0,292)***
2,020
(0,286)***
0,206
-0,335
-0,150
-0,315
0,695
(0,333)**
-22,354
(9,057)**
515
0,460
981,433
1.066,316

(6)
POLS 3a
(0,439)***
1,911
(0,283)***
2,013
(0,279)***
0,288
-0,327
-0,032
-0,308
0,725
(0,324)**
-24,460
(8,865)***
515
0,490
955,420
1.044,548

(7)
POLS 3b
(0,417)*
1,844
(0,292)***
2,027
(0,288)***
0,263
-0,338
-0,191
-0,317
0,732
(0,335)**
-22,077
(9,141)**
515
0,460
987,145
1.072,029

(8)
POLS 4
(0,432)***
1,747
(0,279)***
1,913
(0,278)***
0,203
-0,326
-0,012
-0,302
0,741
(0,323)**
-23,025
(8,901)***
515
0,480
963,445
1.039,840

(9)
POLS 5
(0,434)***
1,748
(0,280)***
1,856
(0,277)***
-0,135
-0,295
-22,927
(8,930)**
515
0,470
964,885
1.032,791

209

Table A4.5 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per worker. Specification S-3, 1998-2004
(1)
POLS 0
0,162
-0,359
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)]^2
-0,001
-0,025
Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per UL)
-2,459
(0,571)***
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per UL)]^2
-0,675
(0,162)***
Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per worker)
-11,519
(4,960)**
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per worker)]^2
-1,925
(0,769)**
Population density
0,019
-0,018
UL density of Industry in a S.S.
-0,069
(0,014)***
Energy consumption of Industry in a S.S. per unit of VA
0,798
(0,083)***
Share of the VA of Industry in a S.S. on total VA
0,005
-0,011
Share of the VA of Services on total VA
0,015
-0,009
Number of patents per thousand of inhabitants
-0,252
(0,071)***
Share of the urban sorted waste on the total urban waste
0,013
(0,003)***
Exports of Industry in a S.S. on total VA of Industry in a S.S.
0,020
-0,071
North-East
0,319
(0,085)***
Centre
0,233
(0,090)**
South
-0,077
Explanatory variable
Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)

(2)
POLS 1a
0,127
-0,357
0,002
-0,025
-2,311
(0,555)***
-0,656
(0,161)***
-11,748
(4,957)**
-1,949
(0,768)**

(3)
POLS 1b
0,504
-0,366
-0,030
-0,026
-1,512
(0,563)***
-0,520
(0,166)***
-14,713
(5,114)***
-2,393
(0,793)***

(4)
POLS 2a
0,262
-0,351
-0,006
-0,025
-2,419
(0,553)***
-0,682
(0,161)***
-11,553
(4,965)**
-1,931
(0,770)**

(5)
POLS 2b
0,489
-0,361
-0,030
-0,025
-1,487
(0,554)***
-0,515
(0,165)***
-14,776
(5,104)***
-2,401
(0,792)***

-0,057
(0,008)***
0,790
(0,082)***
0,002
-0,011
0,018
(0,009)*
-0,268
(0,070)***
0,013
(0,003)***
0,016
-0,071
0,321
(0,085)***
0,232
(0,090)**
-0,055

-0,052
(0,008)***
0,798
0,822
0,793
(0,085)*** (0,081)*** (0,083)***
-0,028
-0,015
-0,026
(0,010)*** (0,006)** (0,006)***
-0,002
-0,009
-0,192
-0,244
-0,195
(0,071)*** (0,068)*** (0,070)***
0,011
0,012
0,011
(0,003)*** (0,003)*** (0,003)***
-0,049
0,027
-0,051
-0,073
-0,071
-0,072
0,266
0,290
0,270
(0,088)*** (0,084)*** (0,087)***
0,224
0,216
0,226
(0,094)** (0,090)** (0,093)**
-0,063
-0,091
-0,057

(6)
POLS 3a
0,145
-0,347
0,001
-0,025
-2,292
(0,547)***
-0,653
(0,161)***
-11,880
(4,913)**
-1,969
(0,762)**

(7)
POLS 3b
0,315
-0,361
-0,021
-0,025
-1,658
(0,563)***
-0,540
(0,167)***
-13,307
(5,109)***
-2,190
(0,793)***

(8)
POLS 4
0,356
-0,342
-0,014
-0,024
-2,437
(0,526)***
-0,687
(0,157)***
-10,236
(4,875)**
-1,720
(0,756)**

(9)
POLS 5
0,345
-0,343
-0,013
-0,024
-2,462
(0,516)***
-0,693
(0,156)***
-10,390
(4,869)**
-1,738
(0,756)**

-0,056
-0,056
-0,056
(0,007)***
(0,007)*** (0,007)***
0,792
0,776
0,803
0,899
(0,082)*** (0,085)*** (0,078)*** (0,061)***
0,016
(0,005)***
-0,266
(0,069)***
0,013
(0,003)***
0,017
-0,070
0,316
(0,082)***
0,232
(0,090)**
-0,057

0,017
(0,005)***
-0,211
(0,071)***
0,010
(0,003)***
-0,079
-0,072
0,327
(0,086)***
0,225
(0,094)**
-0,033

0,015
(0,005)***
-0,175
(0,064)***
0,012
(0,002)***
0,079
-0,068
0,203
(0,072)***

0,015
(0,005)***
-0,172
(0,064)***
0,012
(0,002)***
0,052
-0,067
0,205
(0,072)***

210

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
POLS 0 POLS 1a POLS 1b POLS 2a
-0,110
-0,108
-0,112
-0,107
Islands
0,086
0,098
0,116
0,047
-0,133
-0,132
-0,137
-0,130
Milano
1,936
1,887
0,588
1,782
(0,390)*** (0,388)*** (0,355)* (0,385)***
Savona
1,502
1,502
1,451
1,460
(0,250)*** (0,250)*** (0,259)*** (0,250)***
Brindisi
1,735
1,720
1,691
1,723
(0,243)*** (0,243)*** (0,251)*** (0,243)***
Taranto
0,587
0,566
0,410
0,510
(0,288)** (0,288)**
-0,297
(0,287)*
Caltanisetta
-0,421
-0,387
-0,375
-0,427
-0,278
-0,277
-0,287
-0,277
Cagliari
0,417
0,412
0,498
0,379
-0,285
-0,285
(0,295)*
-0,285
Constant coefficient
-19,574
-19,889
-23,089
-18,537
(8,044)** (8,040)** (8,311)*** (8,025)**
Number of observations (province * year)
721
721
721
721
R-squared
0,490
0,490
0,450
0,480
AIC
1.369,783 1.369,050 1.418,092 1.370,885
BIC
1.484,299 1.478,985 1.523,447 1.476,240
Dependent variable: logarithm of the quantity of waste of Industry in a S.S. per worker of Industry in a S.S.
Standard error in brackets. The symbols *,**,*** show statistical significance at levels of 10%, 5% and 1%
Explanatory variable

(5)
POLS 2b
-0,110
0,124
-0,134
0,587
(0,355)*
1,456
(0,258)***
1,690
(0,251)***
0,416
-0,296
-0,369
-0,285
0,504
(0,293)*
-23,322
(8,255)***
721
0,450
1.416,160
1.516,934

(6)
POLS 3a
-0,108
0,094
-0,131
1,870
(0,380)***
1,499
(0,250)***
1,718
(0,242)***
0,558
(0,285)*
-0,382
-0,275
0,411
-0,285
-20,010
(8,014)**
721
0,490
1.367,095
1.472,450

(7)
POLS 3b
-0,112
0,180
-0,135
0,611
(0,356)*
1,496
(0,260)***
1,703
(0,252)***
0,502
(0,296)*
-0,450
-0,286
0,522
(0,296)*
-21,881
(8,335)***
721
0,440
1.423,418
1.524,192

(8)
POLS 4

(9)
POLS 5

1,643
(0,375)***
1,395
(0,242)***
1,611
(0,241)***
0,472
(0,283)*
-0,388
-0,270
0,403
-0,283
-18,098
(7,990)**
721
0,480
1.375,406
1.467,019

1,649
(0,375)***
1,402
(0,243)***
1,559
(0,240)***
-0,498
(0,264)*
-18,411
(7,983)**
721
0,470
1.375,370
1.457,821

211

Table A4.6 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per worker. Specification S-3, 2000-2004
(1)
POLS 0
0,295
-0,416
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)]^2
-0,010
-0,029
Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per UL)
-2,494
(0,655)***
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per UL)]^2
-0,674
(0,183)***
Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per worker)
-9,623
(5,646)*
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per worker)]^2
-1,653
(0,878)*
Population density
0,031
-0,020
UL density of Industry in a S.S.
-0,071
(0,016)***
Energy consumption of Industry in a S.S. per unit of VA
0,771
(0,098)***
Share of the VA of Industry in a S.S. on total VA
0,002
-0,013
Share of the VA of Services on total VA
0,008
-0,011
Number of patents per thousand of inhabitants
-0,269
(0,082)***
Share of the urban sorted waste on the total urban waste
0,010
(0,003)***
Exports of Industry in a S.S. on total VA of Industry in a S.S. -0,031
-0,079
North-East
0,326
(0,100)***
Centre
0,221
(0,106)**
South
-0,108
Explanatory variable
Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)

(2)
POLS 1a
0,247
-0,415
-0,006
-0,029
-2,247
(0,635)***
-0,642
(0,182)***
-9,904
(5,650)*
-1,679
(0,879)*

(3)
(4)
POLS 1b POLS 2a
0,532
0,325
-0,424
-0,409
-0,031
-0,010
-0,030
-0,029
-1,592
-2,324
(0,644)** (0,632)***
-0,534
-0,661
(0,186)*** (0,181)***
-11,581
-9,570
(5,815)** (5,643)*
-1,925
-1,633
(0,905)** (0,879)*

(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
POLS 2b POLS 3a POLS 3b POLS 4 POLS 5
0,491
0,231
0,346
0,428
0,410
-0,420
-0,405
-0,420
-0,398
-0,398
-0,029
-0,005
-0,021
-0,019
-0,017
-0,029
-0,028
-0,029
-0,028
-0,028
-1,512
-2,265
-1,739
-2,405
-2,523
(0,633)** (0,627)*** (0,644)*** (0,598)*** (0,586)***
-0,516
-0,645
-0,549
-0,672
-0,698
(0,185)*** (0,181)*** (0,187)*** (0,178)*** (0,176)***
-11,880
-9,795
-10,296
-8,203
-7,795
(5,796)** (5,615)*
(5,821)*
-5,556
-5,545
-1,967
-1,663
-1,741
-1,423
-1,362
(0,903)** (0,874)*
(0,907)*
-0,866
-0,865

-0,051
(0,009)***
0,756
(0,097)***
-0,002
-0,013
0,012
-0,011
-0,294
(0,081)***
0,010
(0,003)***
-0,036
-0,079
0,330
(0,100)***
0,225
(0,106)**
-0,067

-0,048
(0,009)***
0,774
0,779
0,758
(0,100)*** (0,095)*** (0,098)***
-0,030
-0,014
-0,023
(0,012)** (0,007)* (0,007)***
-0,007
-0,010
-0,241
-0,278
-0,249
(0,082)*** (0,079)*** (0,082)***
0,009
0,010
0,009
(0,003)** (0,003)*** (0,003)**
-0,087
-0,030
-0,093
-0,081
-0,079
-0,080
0,284
0,308
0,298
(0,102)*** (0,098)*** (0,100)***
0,216
0,212
0,224
(0,109)** (0,105)** (0,108)**
-0,085
-0,093
-0,067

-0,051
-0,052
-0,052
(0,008)***
(0,008)*** (0,008)***
0,754
0,754
0,769
0,861
(0,097)*** (0,100)*** (0,091)*** (0,071)***
0,013
(0,006)**
-0,296
(0,080)***
0,010
(0,003)***
-0,037
-0,078
0,336
(0,095)***
0,225
(0,106)**
-0,066

0,013
(0,006)**
-0,263
(0,082)***
0,007
(0,003)**
-0,118
-0,080
0,355
(0,099)***
0,211
(0,110)*
-0,070

0,013
(0,006)**
-0,202
(0,073)***
0,010
(0,003)***
0,028
-0,075
0,221
(0,083)***

0,012
(0,006)**
-0,200
(0,073)***
0,010
(0,003)***
0,010
-0,073
0,227
(0,083)***

212

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
POLS 0 POLS 1a POLS 1b POLS 2a
-0,132
-0,129
-0,133
-0,127
Islands
0,075
0,098
0,101
0,062
-0,157
-0,157
-0,162
-0,153
Milano
1,998
1,924
0,790
1,851
(0,451)*** (0,449)*** (0,414)* (0,445)***
Savona
1,716
1,723
1,671
1,688
(0,287)*** (0,288)*** (0,296)*** (0,286)***
Brindisi
1,986
1,966
1,961
1,968
(0,277)*** (0,277)*** (0,285)*** (0,277)***
Taranto
0,406
0,377
0,231
0,335
-0,328
-0,328
-0,337
-0,326
Caltanisetta
-0,360
-0,305
-0,320
-0,336
-0,318
-0,316
-0,326
-0,315
Cagliari
0,506
0,509
0,583
0,483
-0,328
-0,329
(0,338)*
-0,328
Constant coefficient
-16,134
-16,490
-17,567
-15,235
(9,111)* (9,120)*
(9,398)* (9,051)*
Number of observations (province * year)
515
515
515
515
R-squared
0,510
0,500
0,470
0,500
AIC
947,334
947,774
977,901
947,044
BIC
1.053,438 1.049,634 1.075,516 1.044,659
Dependent variable: logarithm of the quantity of waste of Industry in a S.S. per worker of Industry in a S.S.
Standard error in brackets. The symbols *,**,*** show statistical significance at levels of 10%, 5% and 1%
Explanatory variable

(5)
POLS 2b
-0,131
0,126
-0,157
0,792
(0,414)*
1,693
(0,294)***
1,959
(0,285)***
0,253
-0,336
-0,299
-0,324
0,604
(0,337)*
-18,471
(9,302)**
515
0,470
976,403
1.069,775

(6)
POLS 3a
-0,129
0,102
-0,155
1,941
(0,439)***
1,727
(0,286)***
1,967
(0,277)***
0,385
-0,325
-0,309
-0,315
0,509
-0,328
-16,415
(9,102)*
515
0,500
945,811
1.043,426

(7)
POLS 3b
-0,134
0,156
-0,161
0,834
(0,416)**
1,728
(0,297)***
1,973
(0,287)***
0,323
-0,337
-0,388
-0,326
0,599
(0,340)*
-16,671
(9,438)*
515
0,470
982,117
1.075,489

(8)
POLS 4

(9)
POLS 5

1,692
(0,432)***
1,625
(0,277)***
1,850
(0,275)***
0,301
-0,323
-0,311
-0,309
0,501
-0,326
-14,563
-9,056
515
0,490
950,789
1.035,672

1,701
(0,432)***
1,624
(0,277)***
1,801
(0,273)***
-0,435
-0,299
-13,938
-9,042
515
0,490
949,558
1.025,953

213

Table A4.7 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per value-added. Specification S-3, 1998-2004

(1)
POLS 0
0,481
-0,379
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)]^2
-0,022
-0,027
Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per UL)
-3,414
(0,603)***
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per UL)]^2
-1,130
(0,171)***
Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per worker)
-11,922
(5,241)**
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per worker)]^2
-1,805
(0,812)**
Population density
0,028
-0,019
UL density of Industry in a S.S.
-0,089
(0,015)***
Energy consumption of Industry in a S.S. per unit of VA
0,758
(0,087)***
Share of the VA of Industry in a S.S. on total VA
0,012
-0,012
Share of the VA of Services on total VA
0,018
(0,010)*
Number of patents per thousand of inhabitants
-0,261
(0,075)***
Share of the urban sorted waste on the total urban waste
0,015
(0,003)***
Exports of Industry in a S.S. on total VA of Industry in a S.S. 0,161
(0,075)**
North-East
0,340
(0,090)***
Centre
0,250
Explanatory variable
Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)

(2)
POLS 1a
0,432
-0,378
-0,017
-0,027
-3,203
(0,587)***
-1,103
(0,171)***
-12,250
(5,242)**
-1,841
(0,812)**

(3)
POLS 1b
0,901
(0,392)**
-0,058
(0,027)**
-2,206
(0,603)***
-0,934
(0,178)***
-15,947
(5,479)***
-2,394
(0,850)***

(4)
POLS 2a
0,591
-0,372
-0,027
-0,026
-3,331
(0,586)***
-1,134
(0,171)***
-12,019
(5,254)**
-1,819
(0,815)**

(5)
POLS 2b
0,875
(0,387)**
-0,057
(0,027)**
-2,163
(0,594)***
-0,925
(0,176)***
-16,056
(5,470)***
-2,407
(0,848)***

-0,071
(0,008)***
0,747
(0,087)***
0,008
-0,012
0,021
(0,010)**
-0,284
(0,074)***
0,014
(0,003)***
0,155
(0,075)**
0,343
(0,090)***
0,249

-0,065
(0,008)***
0,757
0,784
0,749
(0,091)*** (0,086)*** (0,089)***
-0,029
-0,012
-0,026
(0,011)*** (0,007)* (0,007)***
-0,004
-0,010
-0,189
-0,254
-0,194
(0,076)** (0,072)*** (0,075)**
0,013
0,014
0,013
(0,003)*** (0,003)*** (0,003)***
0,074
0,168
0,070
-0,078
(0,075)**
-0,077
0,275
0,306
0,281
(0,094)*** (0,089)*** (0,093)***
0,239
0,230
0,243

(6)
POLS 3a
0,495
-0,367
-0,021
-0,026
-3,133
(0,579)***
-1,093
(0,170)***
-12,726
(5,197)**
-1,910
(0,806)**

(7)
POLS 3b
0,702
(0,386)*
-0,048
(0,027)*
-2,360
(0,603)***
-0,955
(0,178)***
-14,466
(5,473)***
-2,180
(0,849)**

(8)
POLS 4
0,780
(0,362)**
-0,043
(0,025)*
-3,336
(0,557)***
-1,168
(0,167)***
-10,336
(5,158)**
-1,541
(0,800)*

(9)
POLS 5
0,770
(0,362)**
-0,042
-0,025
-3,328
(0,546)***
-1,166
(0,165)***
-10,593
(5,151)**
-1,574
(0,800)**

-0,069
-0,067
-0,067
(0,008)***
(0,008)*** (0,008)***
0,753
0,733
0,732
0,825
(0,087)*** (0,091)*** (0,083)*** (0,065)***

0,015
(0,005)***
-0,276
(0,073)***
0,015
(0,003)***
0,160
(0,075)**
0,326
(0,087)***
0,249

0,016
(0,006)***
-0,208
(0,076)***
0,011
(0,003)***
0,042
-0,077
0,338
(0,092)***
0,240

0,015
(0,005)***
-0,168
(0,067)**
0,015
(0,003)***
0,232
(0,072)***
0,198
(0,076)***

0,014
(0,005)***
-0,164
(0,068)**
0,014
(0,003)***
0,203
(0,071)***
0,199
(0,076)***

214

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
POLS 0 POLS 1a POLS 1b POLS 2a POLS 2b
(0,095)*** (0,096)*** (0,100)** (0,095)** (0,100)**
South
-0,094
-0,062
-0,072
-0,106
-0,063
-0,116
-0,114
-0,120
-0,113
-0,118
Islands
-0,079
-0,063
-0,039
-0,123
-0,026
-0,140
-0,140
-0,147
-0,137
-0,143
Milano
2,353
2,282
0,662
2,158
0,662
(0,413)*** (0,410)*** (0,380)* (0,407)*** (0,380)*
Savona
1,728
1,729
1,665
1,679
1,674
(0,265)*** (0,265)*** (0,278)*** (0,265)*** (0,277)***
Brindisi
1,573
1,550
1,515
1,555
1,513
(0,257)*** (0,257)*** (0,269)*** (0,257)*** (0,269)***
Taranto
0,602
0,572
0,378
0,506
0,389
(0,305)** (0,304)*
-0,318
(0,304)*
-0,317
Caltanisetta
-0,528
-0,479
-0,464
-0,526
-0,454
(0,294)*
-0,293
-0,307
(0,293)*
-0,306
Cagliari
0,444
0,437
0,543
0,398
0,553
-0,301
-0,301
(0,316)*
-0,301
(0,314)*
Constant coefficient
-21,408
-21,859
-25,850
-20,256
-26,250
(8,500)** (8,502)** (8,905)*** (8,492)** (8,846)***
Number of observations (province * year)
721
721
721
721
721
R-squared
0,530
0,530
0,480
0,530
0,480
AIC
1.449,275 1.449,599 1.517,639 1.452,417 1.515,813
BIC
1.563,791 1.559,535 1.622,994 1.557,771 1.616,587
Dependent variable: logarithm of the quantity of waste of Industry in a S.S. per value-added of Industry in a S.S.
Standard error in brackets. The symbols *,**,*** show statistical significance at levels of 10%, 5% and 1%
Explanatory variable

(6)
POLS 3a
(0,096)***
-0,070
-0,114
-0,078
-0,138
2,224
(0,402)***
1,716
(0,264)***
1,546
(0,256)***
0,543
(0,301)*
-0,460
-0,291
0,434
-0,301
-22,294
(8,477)***
721
0,530
1.448,127
1.553,482

(7)
POLS 3b
(0,101)**
-0,041
-0,120
0,028
-0,145
0,686
(0,382)*
1,712
(0,278)***
1,527
(0,270)***
0,475
-0,317
-0,543
(0,307)*
0,569
(0,317)*
-24,577
(8,929)***
721
0,480
1.522,722
1.623,496

(8)
POLS 4

(9)
POLS 5

1,928
(0,397)***
1,621
(0,257)***
1,466
(0,255)***
0,518
(0,300)*
-0,575
(0,286)**
0,343
-0,299
-19,474
(8,455)**
721
0,520
1.456,927
1.548,540

1,930
(0,397)***
1,631
(0,257)***
1,414
(0,253)***

-0,677
(0,279)**

-19,944
(8,445)**
721
0,520
1.456,549
1.539,000

215

Table A4.8 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per value-added. Specification S-3, 2000-2004

Explanatory variable
Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)]^2
Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per UL)
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per UL)]^2
Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per worker)
[Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per worker)]^2
Population density
UL density of Industry in a S.S.
Energy consumption of Industry in a S.S. per unit of VA
Share of the VA of Industry in a S.S. on total VA
Share of the VA of Services on total VA
Number of patents per thousand of inhabitants
Share of the urban sorted waste on the total urban waste
Exports of Industry in a S.S. on total VA of Industry in a
S.S.
North-East
Centre

(1)
POLS 0
0,710
-0,442
-0,037
-0,031
-3,292
(0,696)***
-1,065
(0,195)***
-9,717
-6,007
-1,490
-0,934
0,040
(0,022)*
-0,093
(0,017)***
0,708
(0,104)***
0,013
-0,014
0,013
-0,012
-0,288
(0,087)***
0,012
(0,004)***

(2)
POLS 1a
0,648
-0,442
-0,031
-0,031
-2,972
(0,677)***
-1,024
(0,194)***
-10,082
(6,018)*
-1,523
-0,937

(3)
(4)
POLS 1b POLS 2a
1,023
0,766
(0,459)** (0,436)*
-0,065
-0,038
(0,032)**
-0,031
-2,109
-3,089
(0,696)*** (0,673)***
-0,880
-1,052
(0,202)*** (0,193)***
-12,290
-9,574
(6,292)*
-6,019
-1,848
-1,454
(0,979)*
-0,937

-0,067
(0,010)***
0,689
(0,104)***
0,007
-0,014
0,018
-0,011
-0,320
(0,086)***
0,012
(0,004)***

-0,062
(0,009)***
0,713
0,725
0,698
(0,108)*** (0,101)*** (0,106)***
-0,029
-0,011
-0,023
(0,013)**
-0,008
(0,008)***
-0,007
-0,011
-0,250
-0,296
-0,258
(0,089)*** (0,085)*** (0,088)***
0,010
0,012
0,010
(0,004)*** (0,004)*** (0,004)***

0,109

0,103

0,036

0,112

(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
POLS 2b POLS 3a POLS 3b POLS 4 POLS 5
0,982
0,695
0,840
0,994
0,972
(0,454)**
-0,432
(0,454)* (0,423)** (0,423)**
-0,063
-0,034
-0,056
-0,057
-0,055
(0,032)**
-0,030
(0,032)*
(0,030)*
(0,030)*
-2,030
-2,919
-2,254
-3,130
-3,196
(0,685)*** (0,668)*** (0,696)*** (0,637)*** (0,624)***
-0,863
-1,017
-0,895
-1,084
-1,100
(0,200)*** (0,193)*** (0,202)*** (0,189)*** (0,187)***
-12,586
-10,396
-11,030
-7,711
-7,475
(6,271)** (5,982)*
(6,292)*
-5,917
-5,904
-1,889
-1,569
-1,667
-1,158
-1,119
(0,977)*
(0,932)*
(0,980)*
-0,922
-0,921

0,029

-0,065
-0,064
-0,064
(0,009)***
(0,009)*** (0,009)***
0,693
0,693
0,674
0,771
(0,103)*** (0,109)*** (0,097)*** (0,075)***
0,013
0,013
0,012
0,011
(0,007)** (0,007)*
(0,006)*
(0,006)*
-0,313
-0,271
-0,202
-0,198
(0,085)*** (0,089)*** (0,078)*** (0,078)**
0,013
0,009
0,013
0,012
(0,004)*** (0,004)** (0,003)*** (0,003)***
0,107

0,005

0,183

0,158

-0,084
-0,084
-0,087
-0,084
-0,087
-0,083
-0,087
(0,080)** (0,077)**
0,373
0,378
0,317
0,344
0,331
0,362
0,387
0,227
0,233
(0,106)*** (0,106)*** (0,111)*** (0,104)*** (0,109)*** (0,101)*** (0,107)*** (0,089)** (0,089)***
0,248
0,253
0,241
0,234
0,249
0,254
0,237
(0,112)** (0,113)** (0,118)** (0,112)** (0,117)** (0,113)** (0,118)**

216

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
POLS 0 POLS 1a POLS 1b POLS 2a POLS 2b
-0,102
-0,048
-0,071
-0,088
-0,055
-0,140
-0,138
-0,144
-0,136
-0,141
Islands
-0,082
-0,053
-0,049
-0,108
-0,024
-0,167
-0,167
-0,175
-0,164
-0,170
Milano
2,509
2,413
0,920
2,302
0,922
(0,480)*** (0,479)*** (0,448)** (0,474)*** (0,448)**
Savona
1,982
1,992
1,924
1,938
1,945
(0,306)*** (0,306)*** (0,321)*** (0,305)*** (0,318)***
Brindisi
1,923
1,897
1,890
1,900
1,889
(0,295)*** (0,295)*** (0,309)*** (0,295)*** (0,309)***
Taranto
0,487
0,449
0,256
0,385
0,278
-0,349
-0,350
-0,365
-0,348
-0,363
Caltanisetta
-0,417
-0,345
-0,365
-0,393
-0,344
-0,338
-0,337
-0,353
-0,336
-0,351
Cagliari
0,525
0,528
0,626
0,489
0,647
-0,349
-0,350
(0,366)*
-0,350
(0,364)*
Constant coefficient
-17,976
-18,437
-19,856
-16,528
-20,748
(9,693)*
(9,714)* (10,168)* (9,652)* (10,064)**
Number of observations (province * year)
515
515
515
515
515
R-squared
0,540
0,540
0,490
0,540
0,490
AIC
1.011,126 1.012,757 1.059,101 1.013,342 1.057,519
BIC
1.117,231 1.114,617 1.156,717 1.110,957 1.150,890
Dependent variable: logarithm of the quantity of waste of Industry in a S.S. per value-added of Industry in a S.S.
Standard error in brackets. The symbols *,**,*** show statistical significance at levels of 10%, 5% and 1%
Explanatory variable
South

(6)
POLS 3a
-0,052
-0,137
-0,064
-0,166
2,363
(0,468)***
1,979
(0,305)***
1,894
(0,295)***
0,425
-0,346
-0,332
-0,336
0,528
-0,350
-18,653
(9,697)*
515
0,540
1.011,024
1.108,639

(7)
POLS 3b
-0,057
-0,144
0,005
-0,174
0,962
(0,449)**
1,979
(0,321)***
1,903
(0,310)***
0,346
-0,364
-0,432
-0,353
0,642
(0,368)*
-18,977
(10,201)*
515
0,490
1.062,222
1.155,593

(8)
POLS 4

(9)
POLS 5

2,048
(0,460)***
1,872
(0,295)***
1,825
(0,293)***
0,422
-0,344
-0,457
-0,329
0,433
-0,347
-15,394
-9,644
515
0,530
1.015,616
1.100,499

2,050
(0,460)***
1,877
(0,295)***
1,773
(0,291)***
-0,580
(0,319)*
-15,018
-9,627
515
0,530
1.014,145
1.090,540

217

Table A4.9 Specification S-1: sign and statistical significance of the coefficients
Dependent variable:
logarithm of the quantity of waste of Industry in a S.S. per value-added of Industry in a S.S.
1998-2004

2000-2004

sign

significance
level

sign

significance
level

Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)

**

**

[Log(VA Industry in a S.S.)]^2

Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per UL)

***

***

[Log(VA Industry in a S.S. per UL)]^2

***

***

UL density of Industry in a S.S.

***

***

Energy consumption of Industry in a S.S.

per unit of VA

***

***

Share of the VA of Services on total VA

Number of patents per thousand of inhabitants

***

***

Share of the urban sorted waste on the total

urban waste

***

***

Exports of Industry in a S.S. on total VA of

Industry in a S.S.

***

**

North-East

***

***

Milano

***

***

Savona

***

***

Brindisi

***

***

Caltanisetta

***

**

Explanatory variable

Standard error in brackets. The symbols *,**,*** show statistical significance at levels of 10%, 5% and 1%

218

5. THE PRODUCTION OF WASTE OF INDUSTRY IN A STRICT

SENSE: A SIMULATION

5.1 Introduction
The econometric model previously tested is the basis on which the simulation of the current chapter
lies: the aim is simulating the behaviour of the dependent variable in a hypothetically growing economy
framework, in order to investigate whether the EKC trend can observed, for the Italian provinces, also
for the future. After the economic crisis that has stricken the world since 2008, the performance of the
Italian economy has gone down, with negative growth rates across the years 2010, 2011 and 201240.
Therefore, two different scenarios of economic growth have been created, based on real and hypothetical growth estimates, for the period 2006-2010, that were available in some reports of two different research centres (Centro Studi Unioncamere and Prometeia41), and based on ad hoc hypothesis. In the present chapter both the adopted scenarios will be detailed, and the model will be simulated according to
the two specifications given in Chapter 4.

5.2 The hypothesis of the simulation of a EKC relationship: growth rates of the
Italian local economies
The simulation of both the specifications covers a span of time of five years, 2006-2010, and the hypothesis of growth have been given at a regional level. A general framework of all the hypothesis has
been reported in Table 5.1, while in Table A5.1, A5.2, A5.3 and A5.4 in the Appendix the several
growth rates have been detailed for every province.
The adopted scenarios simulate the different dynamics of the Italian economy, as regards the variables
used in the model. Under the first scenario42 (called F-1), the Italian economy were going through a period of changes and transformations, and the main drivers of the economic growth were supposed to
be the exports and the investments: if, on one side, the exports were supposed to be increasing thanks
to an exogenous factor, the augmented world demand for goods and services, an endogenous factor as
the industrial complex restructuring , on the other side, were seen to be able to generate positive effects
on the export, other than to be able to produce wealth thanks to the investments on productive capital.

40

See www.istat.it for the details.

41 Centro Studi Unioncamere (a cura di), 2007, Scenari di Sviluppo delle Economie Locali Italiane 2007-2010, july 2007, Roma, and
Centro Studi Unioncamere (a cura di), 2007, Scenari di Sviluppo delle Economie Locali Italiane 2007-2010, november 2007, Roma.
42

Centro Studi Unioncamere (a cura di), 2007, Scenari di Sviluppo delle Economie Locali Italiane 2007-2010, july 2007, Roma.

219

Table 5.1 Scenarios for the simulations: percentage variations (%) with respect to the previous year
Scenario F-1

Scenario F-2

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

NORTH-WEST
Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

2,7
1,7
1,8
1,1
3,1

2,6
2,5
2,4
0,0
3,2

1,3
2,0
1,7
0,5
4,5

2,0
1,7
1,7
0,3
4,4

2,3
1,9
1,9
0,6
4,5

2,7
1,7
1,8
1,3
3,1

2,3
2,1
2,2
0,1
3,9

1,4
1,7
1,5
0,7
3,0

1,7
1,6
1,6
0,4
3,8

2,2
1,8
1,8
0,5
4,0

NORTH-EAST
Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

3,6
1,8
2,0
1,6
4,1

3,0
2,1
2,3
0,6
4,9

1,7
2,2
2,0
0,6
3,2

1,5
2,1
1,8
0,6
3,3

1,6
2,1
1,9
0,9
3,5

3,6
1,8
2,0
1,9
4,1

2,7
2,2
2,3
0,7
4,6

1,8
2,0
1,8
0,9
1,7

1,3
2,1
1,7
0,7
2,7

1,5
2,1
1,8
0,8
3,0

CENTRE
Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

1,4
1,5
1,6
0,6
7,7

2,5
1,5
1,8
0,2
4,2

1,1
1,9
1,8
0,0
4,0

1,8
1,7
1,7
0,0
4,0

2,1
1,8
1,8
0,4
4,2

1,3
1,5
1,6
0,8
7,7

1,6
1,6
1,7
0,3
2,3

1,1
1,7
1,6
0,3
2,5

1,6
1,6
1,6
0,1
3,4

2,0
1,7
1,7
0,4
3,6

SOUTH
Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

1,4
1,4
1,2
1,8
1,4

1,4
1,7
1,8
0,6
2,2

1,2
1,9
1,8
0,0
2,7

1,4
1,7
1,6
0,2
2,9

1,9
2,0
1,9
0,2
3,2

1,6
1,4
1,2
0,7
1,4

0,9
1,3
1,4
0,7
1,9

1,2
1,6
1,5
0,5
1,2

1,0
1,6
1,5
0,5
2,3

1,8
1,9
1,8
0,3
2,7

ITALY
Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

2,6
1,6
1,7
1,3
4,0

2,5
2,0
2,1
0,3
3,7

1,3
2,0
1,8
0,3
3,8

1,7
1,8
1,7
0,3
3,8

2,0
2,0
1,9
0,6
4,0

2,6
1,6
1,7
1,3
4,0

2,1
1,8
1,9
0,4
3,6

1,4
1,7
1,6
0,7
2,3

1,5
1,7
1,6
0,5
3,2

1,9
1,9
1,8
0,5
3,5

Note: under both the scenarios, in the same period, the UL density, the number of patents and the percentage of the sorted waste collection have been kept as constant; the energy consumptions per unit of value-added have been supposed to increase by +0,5 yearly
Source: Centro Studi Unioncamere Prometeia

220

The forecasts were foreseeing a nation GDP growth of +2,0% in 2007, mainly caused by exports,
which national increase was supposed to be by +3,7% (less than in 2006). In 2008, the Italian GDP was
supposed to rise by +1,7%, while the value-added was registering a decrease in its growth by -0,3%
with respect to the previous year, thus increasing by +1,8%. For the years 2009 and 2010, the supposed
growth of that scenario was about +1,7% and 1,8%: the world demand was supposed to push the Italian exports to values around +4,0% yearly, while the foreign investments would have driven the internal demand. As regards the total value-added of Italy, the forecasts were similar to those concerning the
GDP, a sign that the capability to create value would have been the same as the previous years, while
the sectorial growth rates were thought to be different: Industry would have experienced a higher
growth rate of +2,6% in 2007, while Services would have had an increase ranging from about +1,6% in
2006 to +2,0% in 2010. As concerns the employment, the scenario sees a growth rate of the unit of labour of +1,0%, against a slowdown in the three years after (2008-2010), where the rate is between
+0,8% and +0,9%. As regards the macro-regional data43, it can be noted that the main variable of the
waste analysis model, the value-added, has been supposed to be increasing in time and in all regions,
with a +2,4% peak in 2007 in the North-West regions, while the industrial value-added growing (to
quote the highest rates only) by +3,0% in the North-East in 2007, +2,5% in the Centre 2007, and
+1,9% in the South, in 2010.
To sum up, under the first scenario, F-1, the little economic recovery of Italy which started in 2006 has
not had a stop, thus being confirmed during the period 2007-2010: such recovery would be stronger in
the northern regions, and slower in the southern ones, where, at the beginning, the rate would be below
the national average, whence, during the years 2008-2010, the GDP growth would be as much as the
national rate.
The second scenario under examination44 foresees a slowdown of the entire Italian economy, thus reflecting the first bad consequences that the 2008 crisis would have caused, partly due to the crisis which
has been started by the US sub-prime mortgages affair, and partly to the reduced internal demand.
In the two years 2009-2010, the supposed growth of the Italian economy would have been around
+1,6% and 1,7% respectively, with the total value-added increasing by +1,8% in 2010. In the same period, a recovery of the Italian exports has been hypothesized, with growth rates of +3% and more for
the following years. The employment market has been supposed to raise its number of workers of
+0,7% in 2007, to decrease the same by -0,7% in 2008, and to increase it again by +0,8% in 2009 and
2010. At a macro-regional model, the industrial value-added grows more in the northern regions, with
the North-East topping the ranking in 2007 and 2008 (respectively, +2,7% and +2,8%), and the North43 For all the data forecasts: Centro Studi Unioncamere (a cura di), 2007, Scenari di Sviluppo delle Economie Locali Italiane 20072010, July 2007, Roma.

Centro Studi Unioncamere (a cura di), 2007, Scenari di Sviluppo delle Economie Locali Italiane 2007-2010, november 2007, Roma.
44

221

West in 2009 and 2010 (+1,7% and +2,2%). With reference to the industrial employment situation, it
has been supposed that the growth or workers would be stronger in the North-East (+0,9% in 2008),
while in the South the increment is little during all the period. The North-West, moreover, has the
highest growth rate for the exports, reaching +4,0% in 2010, followed by the +3,6% growth in the exports of the Centre.
As regards the second scenario called F-2, therefore, the hypothesis is consistent with a little economic
recovery in 2006, a slowdown in 2007 and 2008, and a new beginning of a recovery in 2009 and 2010.
The most dynamic area would be the northern one, while the exports sector would be the leading one.
Last, as concerns the energy variable, both the scenarios, F-1 and F-2, keeps the same hypotheses45: in
the period 2005-2016, along with these data, the estimates would have led to an increase in the demand
of energy, with an average growth rate of +1,5% yearly, corresponding to a demand of 389 TWh in
2016. In 2010, the intermediate year of this span of time, the demand of electricity was supposed to be
around 358,9 TWh, with an average growth rate of +1,7% in the period 2005-2010, and +1,3% in the
period 2010-2016. As regards the energy intensity, given by the ratio between Energy consumption and
value-added, an increase of +0,5% has been hypothesized, directly provided by the estimates of Terna
agency for the examined period.

5.3 The evolution of the production of waste: the simulation of the model
The model developed and tested in the previous sections, against the vast majority of past studies on
polluting emissions quoted in the literature review, has been able to exploit a rich database with panel
data disaggregated at a provincial level. In order to be able to present a simulation coherent with the detail level given in the database, but without having forecasts at a provincial level, the hypotheses collected at a regional level have been extended to a provincial level, having provinces growing at the same
growth rates in all the given regions. For some variables some ad hoc growth rates have been used,
based on the trends observed by the analysis of the historical data 1998-2004. Table 5.2 sums up the
rules used in the two scenarios for the simulations, and it provides the source of those estimated rates.
The results of the two simulations for each province have been reported in Table A5.5, A5.6, A5.7 and
A5.8 in the Appendix, whose main insights will be given here below.

45

Terna (a cura di, 2006), Previsioni della domanda elettrica in Italia e del fabbisogno di potenza necessario 2006 2016, Roma.

222

As regards the scenario F-1, the numbers of the simulation highlight a level of waste intensity generally
higher46 in the first specification, S-1, rather than in the second specification, S-2, but with a lot of exceptions: such a higher value in the Specification S-1 is clear for the North of Italy, where there are cities where it has been estimated higher for all the respective values of the Specification S-1, in comparison with the Specification S-2 (e.g., Torino, Milano, Bolzano and Venezia), while in some other provinces the indicator is higher in some years, and lower in others (Vercelli and Lecco), and in others its
value results higher with the Specification S-2 than with the S-1 (it is the case of all the cities of the
Emilia Romagna). As for the Centre and the South of Italy, such a greater value, there where it exists, is
more geographically scattered: thus, together with provinces where the indicator is greater in the second specification (it is the case of the Marche), some provinces exist where there is an alternation of
such a difference across the years (as an example, Taranto and Reggio Calabria), or provinces too where
the difference between the value according to S-1 and the one according to S-2 is always clearly positive
(Crotone, Caltanissetta and Sassari, for example). According to the fact that the ratio between the
value-added per local unit, or the value-added per worker, is considered as a measure of the economic
efficiency of a province, the simulation gives results that vary among the +30% and the -20%, with respect to the Specification S-1: that is, the Specification S-1 gives higher values of the indicator up to a
+30%, or lower values of it up to a -20%, in comparison with the Specification S-2.
As regards the production of waste in connection with the provinces own economic capability (the
waste and value-added ratio), both the specifications see a reduction in the indicator in some northern
provinces, in the period 2005-2010 (Torino, Milano and Bergamo, for example), while there is a general
increase in the central regions, and an even more marked increase in the southern ones, even if the differences do not disappear: according to Specification S-1, as an example, Imperia would have a growth
of the indicator of abut +22% in 2006, but the S-2 calculates a decrease of almost -1%, instead; the
same can be seen for Reggio Calabria (+33% under S-1, but -1,3% under S-2), or for Caltanissetta
(+5,17% under S-1, but -9,35 for S-2).
The Scenario F-2 gives similar results in terms of differences between Specification S-1 and S-2: some
provinces have higher values in all the years (Torino, Milano, Lodi and Massa Carrara, e.g.) some others
start from positive differences between S-1 and S-2, to end up with negative differences of the indicator
(Vercelli, Isernia and Taranto, as an example), while others show their values of the indicator under S-2
being higher than the values under S-1 (for example, Pordenone, Ferrara, Ravenna and Siracusa), but in
general the Specification S-1 gives higher results than the Specification S-247.

46 Such a result is justified by the total sum, year after year, of the differences of the indicator of every province between the
Specification S-1 and S-2, under the Scenario F-1.

Such a result is justified again by the total sum, year after year, of the differences of the indicator of every province between the Specification S-1 and S-2, but this time they are under the Scenario F-1.
47

223

Last, by doing a comparison between the values given by the scenarios, according to each specification,
it has to be noted how the Scenario F-1, which states a more dynamic economic growth than F-2, has
percentage variations of the waste-intensity indicator, for the period 2006-2010, higher in absolute values than those under the Scenario F-2: the values of the Specification S-1 under the Scenario F-1 vary
in percentage terms more than under F-2, both in positive, and in negative terms, and such variations
usually report the same signs under both scenarios. Analogously, the values of the Specification S-2
vary in a similar way across both the scenarios, F-1 and F-2, with the values under the Scenario F-1
varying, in percentage terms, more than those under the Scenario F-2, in the same period.

Table 5.2 Growth hypotheses of the variables for both the specifications (S-1 and S-2)
Variable
VA Industry in a Strict Sense
VA Industry in a Strict Sense per UL
VA Industry in a Strict Sense per
worker
Density of the UL of the RE
Consumptions of Electricity of Industry
in a Strict Sense per unit of VA

Specification S-1
Regional growth rates of the VA of
Industry
Source: Centro Studi Unioncamere
Regional growth rates of the VA of
Industry
Source: Centro Studi Unioncamere

Specification S-2
Regional growth rates of the VA of
Industry
Source: Centro Studi Unioncamere
---

---

Ratio between the regional growth

rates of the VA of Industry and
those of the workers of Industry
Source: Centro Studi Unioncamere

Constant

Constant

Constant +0,5% annual growth rate

for all the provinces

Ratio between the regional growth

Share of the VA of Services on the total rates of the total VA and those of the
VA
Services
Source: Centro Studi Unioncamere

Constant +0,5% annual growth rate for all the provinces

Ratio between the regional growth
rates of the total VA and those of
the Services
Source: Centro Studi Unioncamere

Number of patents per thousand of inhabitants

Constant

Constant

Share of the urban sorted waste collection on the total urban waste collection

Constant

Constant

Ratio between the regional growth

Ratio between the value of Exports of rates of the Exports of Industry in a
Industry in a Strict Sense and its VA
Strict Sense and those of its VA
Source: Centro Studi Unioncamere

Ratio between the regional growth

rates of the Exports of Industry in
a Strict Sense and those of its VA
Source: Centro Studi Unioncamere

224

5.3.1 The results of the simulation: the five randomly selected provinces
Just as an example, Table 5.3 reports the values of the waste intensity related to the five randomly selected provinces (LAquila, Genova, Milano, Roma and Venezia).
The simulation for this set of provinces shows (under both the scenarios, F-1 and F-2, and with both
the specifications, S-1 and S-2) that the provinces of Milano, Venezia and Roma all lie on the increasing
part of the curve, that is, for these provinces, the increase of the economic efficiency goes together with
a relative decrease of the waste intensity. Genova, on the other hand, sees its indicator going alternatively up and down in the various years, under all the scenarios, and according all the specifications:
considering the whole period, only with the Specification S-1 and under the Scenario F-1, the percentage variation has a positive value (+0,40%), while, according to the other specifications under the Scenario F-2, as well as according to the Specification S-2 under the Scenario F-2, it is negative. LAquila,
in the end, shows a little percentage growth of the indicator with the Specification S-1, under both the
scenarios (respectively, +1,62% and +0,92%), while in the Scenario S-2 the simulations gives a strong
decrease (-10,47% and -9,58%).
All the results of the simulation are given in the Table 5.3.

225

Table 5.3 Waste intensity of the five provinces, under both the scenarios, and according to both the specifications
Waste / value-added
Scenario F-1

Absolute variations

Percentage (%) variations

Variations (%) during all the period

Province
Milano
Venezia
Genova
Roma
L'Aquila

Region
Lombardia
Veneto
Liguria
Lazio
Abruzzo

2006
74,03
344,94
237,92
36,93
173,49

Specification S-1
2007
2008
2009
70,27
68,93
66,62
340,64 339,33 337,91
238,83 239,75 239,63
34,92
34,62
33,88
174,16 174,80 175,55

2010
63,72
336,50
238,87
33,02
176,30

2007
-3,76
-4,29
0,91
-2,01
0,67

2008
-1,34
-1,32
0,93
-0,30
0,64

2009 2010
-2,31 -2,90
-1,41 -1,41
-0,13 -0,76
-0,74 -0,86
0,76 0,74

2007
-5,08
-1,24
0,38
-5,43
0,39

2008
-1,91
-0,39
0,39
-0,87
0,37

2009
-3,35
-0,42
-0,05
-2,14
0,43

2010
-4,36
-0,42
-0,32
-2,55
0,42

2006-2010
-13,93
-2,45
+0,40
-10,59
+1,62

Province
Milano
Venezia
Genova
Roma
L'Aquila

Region
Lombardia
Veneto
Liguria
Lazio
Abruzzo

2006
65,81
328,85
236,60
37,16
157,56

Specification S-2
2007
2008
2009
61,70
60,42
58,18
323,88 323,07 322,23
235,81 236,65 234,44
33,63
33,02
31,88
156,25 150,68 146,92

2010
55,80
323,17
232,23
30,91
141,07

2007
-4,12
-4,97
-0,79
-3,54
-1,31

2008
-1,28
-0,81
0,84
-0,60
-5,57

2009 2010
-2,23 -2,38
-0,84 0,94
-2,20 -2,21
-1,15 -0,97
-3,76 -5,85

2007
-6,26
-1,51
-0,33
-9,51
-0,83

2008
-2,07
-0,25
0,35
-1,79
-3,56

2009
-3,70
-0,26
-0,93
-3,47
-2,49

2010
-4,10
0,29
-0,94
-3,05
-3,98

2006-2010
-15,22
-1,73
-1,85
-16,83
-10,47

Province
Milano
Venezia
Genova
Roma
L'Aquila

Region
Lombardia
Veneto
Liguria
Lazio
Abruzzo

2006
75,05
347,10
241,29
37,33
174,59

Specification S-1
2007
2008
2009
71,72
70,11
68,00
343,70 340,77 340,00
240,85 241,07 241,09
36,35
35,94
35,37
175,16 175,06 175,63

2010
65,14
338,51
240,28
34,55
176,19

2007
-3,32
-3,40
-0,44
-0,98
0,56

2008
-1,62
-2,93
0,21
-0,42
-0,09

2009 2010
-2,10 -2,86
-0,77 -1,48
0,02 -0,81
-0,57 -0,82
0,57 0,56

2007
-4,43
-0,98
-0,18
-2,62
0,32

2008
-2,26
-0,85
0,09
-1,14
-0,05

2009
-3,00
-0,23
0,01
-1,59
0,33

2010
-4,21
-0,44
-0,34
-2,31
0,32

2006-2010
-13,20
-2,47
-0,42
-7,45
+0,92

Province
Milano
Venezia
Genova
Roma
L'Aquila

Region
Lombardia
Veneto
Liguria
Lazio
Abruzzo

2006
67,37
332,49
241,77
37,65
155,73

Specification S-2
2007
2008
2009
63,61
62,39
60,23
327,74 326,27 326,00
240,35 241,91 240,06
34,33
33,92
32,87
154,57 149,70 146,60

2010
57,62
326,05
237,55
31,87
140,81

2007
-3,77
-4,74
-1,42
-3,31
-1,15

2008
-1,22
-1,48
1,56
-0,41
-4,87

2009 2010
-2,16 -2,62
-0,26 0,04
-1,85 -2,51
-1,06 -1,00
-3,10 -5,79

2007
-5,59
-1,43
-0,59
-8,80
-0,74

2008
-1,92
-0,45
0,65
-1,19
-3,15

2009
-3,45
-0,08
-0,77
-3,11
-2,07

2010
-4,34
0,01
-1,04
-3,03
-3,95

2006-2010
-14,48
-1,94
-1,74
-15,34
-9,58

Scenario F-2

226

5.4 Simulations results: a discussion

Besides the numerical values of the simulations on the provincial data reported in the Appendix, the
analysis of the simulated values, under both the scenarios, and according to both the specifications, by
the means of the assumptions, made in the previous sections, on the growth rates of the drivers of the
models, has casted a light on a very interesting qualitative element, which is quite new in the specialized
literature about waste.
Figure 5.1 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy.
Results of the simulation (2005-2010): Scenario F-1, Specification S-1 (VA/UL)
Simulated dependent variable: (logarithm of) waste per value-added (tons per millions of 1995 euros)
Simulated independent variable: (logarithm of) value-added per local unit (millions of 1995 euros per UL)
Log (Rif IndSS / VA IndSS) su log (VA IndSS / UL): previsioni 2005-2010, Scenario 1
8,00

log (t / milioni di euro del 1995)

7,00

6,00

2005
2006
2007

5,00
2008
2009
2010

4,00

3,00

2,00
4,00

4,50

5,00

5,50

6,00

6,50

log (migliaia di euro del 1995 / UL)

Particularly interesting are, indeed, the nature of the relationship between the measurement of pollution
(the waste intensity) simulated by the model and the measures of economic efficiency of the industrial
sector (waste per value-added, and waste per worker). By drawing a graph, in two dimensions only
(while the relationship is among a dependent variable and many drivers), for the data of the period
2005-2010, and putting on the y-axis the dependent variable measuring waste (waste per unit of valueadded, in logarithmic terms) and on the x-axis the respective measure of economic efficiency (in Figure
5.1 and 5.2, the value-added per local unit, in Figure 5.3 and 5.4, the value-added per worker, and all the
plots in logarithmic terms48), it can be said that, with relation to the estimated values, and according to

48

All the plots in this chapter reports the measures in logarithmic terms: i twill be not repeted in the course of the text.

227

the final specification of the model used in the simulation, an Environmental Kuznets Curve for the
Italian special waste of Industry in a Strict Sense can be observed. This claim is coherent under both
the adopted scenarios, and both by considering the (logarithm of the) value-added per local unit (Specification S-1, Figure 5.1 and 5.2) and the (logarithm of the) value-added per worker (Specification S-1,
Figure 5.3 and 5.4) as efficiency indicator.
In Figure 5.1 and 5.2, the relationship between the (logarithm of the) waste per value-added and the
value-added per local unit, all the other variables being constant, under the Scenario F-1, and according
the Specification S-1. In Figure 5.2, it can be seen how the scatter plot of the simulated values shows a
reverse U-shaped behaviour along with the value-added per local unit, thus confirming the classical
trend of an EKC: this indicates that the production of waste of Industry in a Strict Sense (weighed by
the economic value of the productive activities of the same sector, in the same province) increases with
the increase of the value-added, up to a point from where it starts to decrease with the increase of the
value-added of the local units of the province. Such a result means that the industrial fabric of Italy,
once it has reached a certain value of economic efficiency per local unit (the tuning point of the EKC),
shows a trend of decrease in production of waste, along an increase of the provinces economic performances.

Figure 5.2 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy.
The EKC for waste: Scenario F-1, Specification S-1 (VA/UL)
Log (Rif IndSS / VA IndSS) su log (VA IndSS / UL): previsioni 2005-2010, Scenario 1
8,00

log (t / milioni di euro del 1995)

7,00

6,00
2005-2010
Quadratica

5,00

Cubica
Quinto grado
4,00

3,00

2,00
4,00

4,50

5,00

5,50

6,00

6,50

log (migliaia di euro del 1995 / UL)

228

In Figure 5.3 and 5.4, related to the Specification S-2, a similar relationship can be seen: the scatter
plots resulting from the simulation of the waste production per value-added (the waste intensity) show
again, for the period 2005-2010, a bell-shaped curve with the increase of the variable on the x-axis,
which is the value-added per worker, and the graphs also report the interpolating curves (the curve fitting) inside the cloud of the data. Also in this case, there is the confirmation of the hypothesis under
which, after a first period of worsening of the environmental conditions due to the increase of wealth,
then the richer, in per worker terms (thus, the economic efficiency per worker is higher), the sector of
Industry of Strict Sense becomes in the province, the lower its waste intensity is, and the higher the environmental efficiency is.
Moreover, the analysis of the data of the separate years, for both the graphs, shows how non only such
bell-shaped fitting line exists for every year, but that line shifts more to the right of the plot along with
the passing of time: this means that the same value of environmental efficiency can be reached, on average and year after year, thanks to a higher degree of economic per local unit or per worker efficiency.

Figure 5.3 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy.
Results of the simulation (2005-2010): Scenario F-1, Specification S-2 (VA/worker)
Simulated dependent variable: (logarithm of) waste per value-added (tons per millions of 1995 euros)
Simulated independent variable: (logarithm of) value-added per worker (millions of 1995 euros per worker)
Log (Rif IndSS / VA IndSS) su log (VA IndSS / Unit di Lavoro): previsioni 2005-2010, Scenario 1
8,00

log (t / milioni di euro del 1995)

7,00

6,00
2005
2006
2007

5,00

2008
2009
2010

4,00

3,00

2,00
3,20

3,40

3,60

3,80

4,00

4,20

4,40

log (migliaia di euro del 1995 / Unit di Lavoro)

From Figure 5.3 and 5.4 it can also be noted that those reverse U-shaped curves keep the same bell
shape with the x-axis variables even if the fitting curve comes form a different polynomial specification
229

of the function: the results do not change if the fitting line is a third degree polynomial function, or a
fifth degree one, thanks to which it can be verified whether N-shaped curves can be found (the Nshaped curves lead to an novel increase of the waste pollution after a first phase of declining value for
it, while the per local unit or per worker value-added increases) instead of reverse U-shaped ones. Such
a result, related to the simulation years, shows that quick threshold effects cannot be achieved with
these data: threshold effects usually happen when, after a certain value of the measure of wealth, the reverse U-shaped curve has a new flex in its decreasing arm, and thus it rises again (the test is usually verified by using third degree and fifth degree polynomials), and such a case is not present here. It can be
said, therefore, that the general tendency of the industrial waste intensity of the Italian provinces, during the considered period, is a decreasing one, with the increase of the measure of its value-added.
Such qualitative (i.e., graphical) results do not change if both the specifications, S-1 and S-2, under the
Scenario F-2 are taken into account (as reported in Figure 5.5, 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8), thus confirming the robustness of the analysis to changes in the dependent variables.

Figure 5.4 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy.
The EKC for waste: Scenario F-1, Specification S-2 (VA/worker)
Log (Rif IndSS / VA IndSS) su log (VA IndSS / Unit di Lavoro): previsioni 2005-2010, Scenario 1
8,00

log (t / milioni di euro del 1995)

7,00

6,00
2005-2010
Quadratica

5,00

Cubica
Quinto grado
4,00

3,00

2,00
3,20

3,40

3,60

3,80

4,00

4,20

4,40

log (migliaia di euro del 1995 / Unit di Lavoro)

230

Figure 5.5 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy.
Results of the simulation (2005-2010): Scenario F-2, Specification S-1 (VA/UL)
Simulated dependent variable: (logarithm of) waste per value-added (tons per millions of 1995 euros)
Simulated independent variable: (logarithm of) value-added per local unit (millions of 1995 euros per UL)
Log (Rif IndSS / VA IndSS) su log (VA IndSS / UL): previsioni 2005-2010, Scenario 2
8,00

log (t / milioni di euro del 1995)

7,00

6,00
2005
2006
2007

5,00

2008
2009
2010

4,00

3,00

2,00
4,00

4,50

5,00

5,50

6,00

6,50

log (migliaia di euro del 1995 / UL)

Figure 5.6 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy.
The EKC for waste: Scenario F-2, Specification S-1 (VA/UL)
Log (Rif IndSS / VA IndSS) su log (VA IndSS / UL): previsioni 2005-2010, Scenario 2
8,00

log (t / milioni di euro del 1995)

7,00

6,00

2005-2010
Quadratica
Cubica
Quinto grado

5,00

4,00

3,00

2,00
4,00

4,50

5,00

5,50

6,00

6,50

log (migliaia di euro del 1995 / UL)

231

Figure 5.7 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy.
Results of the simulation (2005-2010): Scenario F-2, Specification S-2 (VA/worker)
Simulated dependent variable: (logarithm of) waste per value-added (tons per millions of 1995 euros)
Simulated independent variable: (logarithm of) value-added per worker (millions of 1995 euros per worker)
Log (Rif IndSS / VA IndSS) su log (VA IndSS / Unit di Lavoro): previsioni 2005-2010, Scenario 2
8,0

log (t / milioni di euro del 1995)

7,0

2005
6,0
2006
2007
5,0

2008
2009
2010

4,0

3,0

2,0
3,20

3,40

3,60

3,80

4,00

4,20

4,40

log (migliaia di euro del 1995 / Unit di Lavoro)

Figure 5.8 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy.
The EKC for waste: Scenario F-2, Specification S-2 (VA/worker)
Log (Rif IndSS / VA IndSS) su log (VA IndSS / Unit di Lavoro): previsioni 2005-2010, Scenario 2
8,0

log (t / milioni di euro del 1995)

7,0

6,0

2005-2010
Quadratica
Cubica
Quinto grado

5,0

4,0

3,0

2,0
3,20

3,40

3,60

3,80

4,00

4,20

4,40

log (migliaia di euro del 1995 / Unit di Lavoro)

232

The indication that can be gained from the qualitative analysis of the graphs is that Industry in a Strict
Sense in the Italian provinces shows a gradual decreasing tendency for its waste intensity, in the long
run. Indeed, some provinces lie on the increasing arm of the curve, while others have already passed
the turning point of this bell-shaped curve, and they lie on the decreasing arm: not only, but according
to the data from the various simulations49, it can be also observed that some provinces go from the
negative to the positive (in terms of judgment, and not in mathematical terms) side during the considered span of time (2005-2010). Such is the case, for example, of Ancona under the Scenario F-1 and
according to the Specification S-1, or of Terni under F-1 and according to S-2, which both see the year
2006 as the turning point years, when they reach the highest waste intensity value, and then they register a gradual decrease for this indicator.

Figure 5.9 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a Strict Sense,
Northern and Central Italy.
The EKC for waste: Scenario F-1, Specification S-1 (VA/UL)
Log (Rif IndSS / VA IndSS) su log (VA IndSS / UL): previsioni 2005-2010, Scenario 1 Centro-Nord
Italia
8,00

log (t / milioni di euro del 1995)

7,00

6,00
2005-2010
Quadratica

5,00

Cubica
Quinto grado
4,00

3,00

2,00
4,50

4,70

4,90

5,10

5,30

5,50

5,70

5,90

6,10

6,30

6,50

log (migliaia di euro del 1995 / UL)

Such an advantageous relationship of the evolution of the waste intensity is different if the analysis is
focussed separately on the Centre and the North of Italy together, and the South of Italy. Figure 5.9
and 5.10 report the simulated data of the model under the Scenario F-1 and according to the specification S-1, and they exhibit the strong difference between the two considered macro-regions: in Figure
49

See the tables in the Appendix.

233

5.9 the situation for the Centre-North shows provinces mostly having concluded, or being about to
conclude, the transition from the increasing stage of the Italian national reverse U-shaped curve to the
decreasing stage, thus going along a virtuous path in environmental terms50 other than in economic
ones. The Northern and Central provinces have, therefore, exceeded that point of their economic development that allow their citizens to take care of the environmental good (indicated by the diminishing of the pollution indicator), and, according to the simulations, their future economic development
do not appear as dangerous as their past development51.

Figure 5.10 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a Strict Sense,
Southern Italy.
The EKC for waste: Scenario F-1, Specification S-1 (VA/UL)
Log (Rif IndSS / VA IndSS) su log (VA IndSS / UL): previsioni 2005-2010, Scenario 1 Sud Italia
8,00

log (t / milioni di euro del 1995)

7,00

6,00
2005-2010
Quadratica

5,00

Cubica
Quinto grado
4,00

3,00

2,00
4,00

4,50

5,00

5,50

6,00

6,50

log (migliaia di euro del 1995 / UL)

A different situation appears, on the contrary, in the South and in the Islands. Figure 5.10 shows that
the Southern Italian provinces are mostly in the ascending stage of the reverse U-shaped curve: by the
observation of the cubic and the fifth degree interpolation, a more or less marked N-shaped relationship emerges for those provinces. This might bring to think about the existence of those dangerous

50

In terms of Figure 5.9, they are on the roof and on the downhill of the Italian national curve.

51 In terms of Figure 5.9, such relationship implies that the reverse U-shaped fitting curve interpolating the values of the
provinces of this macro-region only is more flattened than the Italian national fitting curve (which includes all the provinces, and not only the Northern-Central ones), that is its curvature is very little marked.

234

threshold effects that lead to a further growth of the quantity of waste with the increase of wealth (the
x-axis), after a little initial descending stage of this indicator.
The simulations, therefore, and their plots show the presence of a reverse U-shaped behaviour for Italy
as a whole, but the analysis of the two big macro-areas, Centre-North and South, leads to observe a
marked difference between the two areas, if not in terms of functional relationship, for sure in terms of
the position on the Italian national curve depicting this relationship: it can thus be noted that in the descending arm mostly lie the several provinces of the North and of the Centre, while the regions of the
South are mainly localized along the ascending arm, and this reveals a break between the two economic
realities. Such a situation can be explained by the difference of the economic development between the
two areas, and by their different industrial composition. The variable on the x-axis in the figures 5.1 up
to 5.10 (which is the adopted performance indicator) highlights the different degree of evolution of the
industrial sector of the several provinces: the main indication, deriving from it, for Italy as a whole is
that the background tendency is a future decrease of the waste intensity along with a growth of the performances of the economy, even if in the considered period some provinces still lie on the ascending
arm of the reverse U-shaped curve (and Figure 5.10 highlights that they are mostly southern provinces).
Summing up, depending on its own economic development and on the variables that influence it, Industry in a Strict Sense of the Italian provinces lies on a path which makes its respective waste intensity
increase and then decrease in time, thus bringing its waste production to be economically sustainable
during the years: the firms in the provinces grow, and the waste produced, after an initial period of
growth, tend to decline, thanks to the economic development too. The simulations, consistently with
the graphs of the historical values in Chapter 4, show a situation where for some provinces (mostly in
the South) the economic development goes with an even greater production of waste, and these provinces lie on the ascending arm of the Italian reverse U-shaped curve, while for other provinces (mostly
in the North and in the Centre) the development contributes to create less waste, and these provinces
lie on the decreasing arm of the same curve.
Such a measure of waste intensity, however, does not say anything about the effective environmental
sustainability of such a production: the simulated waste intensity indicates that the produced waste is
about to decrease, on the basis of the economic development that has produced it, and that they are
compatible with this development, while the goal of further analysis will be to state whether this
waste, even if compatible with the produced wealth, is compatible with the environment and with the
society that are forced to cope with such waste.

235

5.5 Conclusions
The simulations done by the tested model have been carried out on the basis of different scenarios of
growth of the independent variables. Depending on the scenario and the specification, the model gives
different estimates for the same province, but the background tendency is for an increase of the waste
intensity for those provinces which still have a low economic efficiency, and for a decrease of the waste
production there where the economic efficiency is quite high: such behaviour allows to state that the
waste intensity of Industry in a Strict Sense of the Italian provinces has a reverse U-shaped relationship
with the economic development (all the other variables being equal), and this result confirms for the
first time the existence of an Environmental Kuznets Curve for waste studies.

236

APPENDIX A5

Table A5.1 Simulation scenarios (F-1 and F-2): regional rates of variation, Italy, North-West

2006

Scenario F-1
2007 2008 2009

2010

2006

Scenario F-2
2007 2008 2009

2010

PIEMONTE
Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

2,3
1,3
1,5
2,5
3,0

2,2
2,0
2,2
-0,3
3,9

1,2
1,3
1,4
1,4
5,1

2,0
1,2
1,4
0,3
5,0

2,4
1,5
1,7
0,6
5,0

2,3
1,3
1,5
2,7
3,0

2,0
1,8
2,0
0,1
4,6

1,3
1,1
1,2
1,4
3,6

1,8
1,1
1,3
0,4
4,4

2,3
1,4
1,6
0,5
4,5

4,0
0,4
1,7
-2,9
13,5

3,5
1,4
2,5
0,7
-1,2

0,0
1,2
1,6
7,9
0,6

1,1
1,1
1,5
2,7
1,0

1,8
1,5
1,8
2,4
1,5

4,0
0,4
1,7
-2,7
13,5

3,2
1,2
2,3
0,0
-0,5

0,1
0,9
1,4
9,3
-0,9

0,8
1,1
1,5
2,8
0,4

1,7
1,4
1,7
2,2
0,9

2,8
2,0
2,0
0,3
3,6

2,6
2,8
2,6
0,0
2,7

1,3
2,3
1,8
0,1
4,1

1,9
2,0
1,8
0,2
4,1

2,3
2,2
2,1
0,6
4,2

2,8
1,9
1,9
0,5
3,6

2,4
2,4
2,3
0,1
3,5

1,3
2,1
1,7
0,4
2,6

1,7
2,0
1,8
0,3
3,5

2,2
2,1
2,0
0,5
3,7

4,5
0,9
1,2
6,5
-6,2

4,2
1,8
2,1
0,4
7,1

2,3
1,7
1,7
1,1
8,0

2,8
1,3
1,4
0,6
7,5

2,9
1,5
1,7
0,9
7,3

4,5
1,8
2,1
6,7
-6,2

3,9
1,2
1,6
0,2
7,8

2,3
0,9
1,1
1,7
6,4

2,4
0,8
1,0
0,7
6,9

2,7
1,1
1,3
0,8
6,7

VALLE D'AOSTA
Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

LOMBARDIA
Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

LIGURIA
Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

Note: under both the scenarios, in the same period, the UL density, the number of patents and the percentage of the sorted waste collection have been kept as constant; the energy consumptions per unit of value-added have been supposed to increase by +0,5 yearly

Source: Centro Studi Unioncamere Prometeia

237

Table A5.2 Simulation scenarios (F-1 and F-2): regional rates of variation, Italy, North-East

2006

Scenario F-1
2007 2008 2009

2010

2006

Scenario F-2
2007 2008 2009

2010

TRENTINO - ALTO ADIGE

Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

4,5
2,0
2,1
-1,9
3,4

3,7
2,3
2,0
0,6
6,0

0,3
2,1
1,4
0,2
4,2

1,4
1,9
1,5
0,1
4,2

2,1
2,2
2,0
0,4
4,3

4,5
1,5
1,8
-1,7
3,4

3,4
2,5
2,0
0,6
5,7

0,4
2,0
1,3
0,4
2,6

1,1
1,9
1,5
0,2
3,5

2,0
2,2
1,9
0,3
3,7

3,6
1,9
2,1
1,1
2,4

3,0
2,1
2,3
0,6
5,2

1,6
2,4
2,0
0,5
3,5

1,6
2,2
1,9
0,5
3,6

1,6
2,2
1,9
0,9
3,8

3,6
1,6
1,9
1,3
2,4

2,7
2,3
2,3
0,6
5,0

1,7
2,2
1,9
0,8
2,0

1,3
2,2
1,8
0,7
3,0

1,5
2,2
1,8
0,8
3,2

4,3
1,8
2,4
2,6
8,2

3,5
2,0
2,3
0,8
3,8

0,8
2,1
1,7
0,8
2,3

1,5
2,0
1,8
0,6
2,5

1,6
2,0
1,8
0,8
2,8

4,3
1,3
2,1
2,8
8,2

3,3
2,2
2,4
0,8
3,6

0,9
1,9
1,6
1,0
0,8

1,2
2,0
1,7
0,7
1,9

1,5
1,9
1,8
0,7
2,3

3,4
1,7
1,9
2,6
5,0

2,8
2,1
2,4
0,7
4,6

2,2
2,2
2,2
0,8
2,9

1,5
2,1
1,8
0,7
3,1

1,6
2,1
1,9
1,0
3,3

3,3
2,2
2,2
2,8
5,0

2,5
2,1
2,3
0,7
4,3

2,3
1,8
1,9
1,1
1,4

1,3
2,0
1,7
0,9
2,5

1,5
2,0
1,7
0,9
2,8

VENETO
Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

FRIULI - VENEZIA GIULIA

Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

EMILIA ROMAGNA
Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

Note: under both the scenarios, in the same period, the UL density, the number of patents and the percentage of the sorted waste collection have been kept as constant; the energy consumptions per unit of value-added have been supposed to increase by +0,5 yearly

Source: Centro Studi Unioncamere Prometeia

238

Table A5.3 Simulation scenarios (F-1 and F-2): regional rates of variation, Italy, Centre

2006

Scenario F-1
2007 2008 2009

2010

2006

Scenario F-2
2007 2008 2009

2010

TOSCANA
Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

0,5
2,1
1,7
-4,3
6,4

1,4
1,8
1,7
0,2
5,0

0,8
2,1
1,7
0,7
4,6

2,1
1,7
1,7
0,2
4,6

2,3
1,9
1,9
0,4
4,7

0,4
1,7
1,5
-4,1
6,4

1,1
1,7
1,5
0,2
3,1

0,9
1,9
1,6
1,0
3,1

1,8
1,7
1,7
0,3
4,0

2,2
1,8
1,9
0,3
4,1

2,9
0,9
1,6
5,1
8,0

4,0
0,8
1,6
0,1
3,2

2,5
1,7
1,8
-0,9
3,0

2,5
1,6
1,7
-0,4
3,2

2,6
1,7
1,9
0,2
3,4

2,7
1,7
2,2
5,3
8,0

2,4
1,2
1,5
0,2
1,4

2,6
1,3
1,5
-0,7
1,5

2,2
1,4
1,6
-0,3
2,6

2,5
1,5
1,7
0,2
2,8

1,2
1,1
0,9
2,3
15,0

2,5
1,2
1,7
0,5
1,8

1,4
1,8
1,6
-0,8
1,8

1,7
1,6
1,6
-0,3
2,1

2,3
1,7
1,8
0,3
2,4

1,6
2,6
2,0
2,6
15,0

1,9
1,4
1,7
0,7
0,0

1,4
1,3
1,3
-0,5
0,3

1,4
1,4
1,4
-0,1
1,5

2,2
1,5
1,6
0,2
1,9

2,4
1,4
1,6
6,0
4,0

3,6
1,5
1,8
0,1
5,1

0,8
1,9
1,9
0,0
4,9

1,5
1,7
1,7
0,2
4,8

1,7
1,8
1,8
0,6
4,8

1,9
1,2
1,4
6,3
4,0

1,8
1,6
1,8
0,2
3,2

0,9
1,7
1,6
0,3
3,3

1,2
1,7
1,7
0,3
4,2

1,6
1,7
1,7
0,6
4,3

UMBRIA
Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

MARCHE
Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

LAZIO
Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

Note: under both the scenarios, in the same period, the UL density, the number of patents and the percentage of the sorted waste collection have been kept as constant; the energy consumptions per unit of value-added have been supposed to increase by +0,5 yearly

Source: Centro Studi Unioncamere Prometeia

239

Table A5.4 Simulation scenarios (F-1 and F-2): regional rates of variation, Italy, South and Islands

2006

Scenario F-1
2007 2008 2009

2010

2006

Scenario F-2
2007 2008 2009

2010

0,4
0,9
0,7
-1,2
0,2

0,5
1,1
1,4
-0,1
-0,1

1,7
1,7
1,8
-0,3
0,6

1,6
1,7
1,7
0,1
1,0

1,9
1,9
1,9
-0,3
1,5

0,6
1,7
1,2
-2,2
0,2

0,5
0,6
1,1
0,0
-0,3

1,7
1,3
1,6
0,2
-0,8

1,3
1,5
1,5
0,4
0,4

1,8
1,7
1,7
-0,2
1,0

1,2
1,2
0,7
-0,9
-4,2

1,1
1,6
1,2
1,7
3,9

-0,1
1,9
1,2
0,5
4,2

0,8
1,4
1,1
0,6
4,2

1,5
2,0
1,7
0,9
4,3

1,5
2,5
2,0
-1,9
-4,2

1,1
1,0
0,7
1,7
3,7

-0,1
1,4
0,8
1,0
2,7

0,5
1,2
0,9
0,9
3,6

1,3
1,8
1,5
1,0
3,7

1,8
0,9
1,1
5,3
4,4

0,7
1,5
1,7
0,6
3,7

1,1
1,8
1,9
0,2
4,0

1,9
1,7
1,8
0,6
4,0

2,3
1,9
2,0
0,7
4,1

1,6
0,9
1,0
4,2
4,4

0,7
1,1
1,5
0,8
3,4

1,2
1,5
1,7
0,6
2,4

1,6
1,6
1,7
0,9
3,4

2,2
1,8
1,9
0,8
3,6

2,3
1,6
0,8
2,0
-6,5

0,4
2,1
1,5
0,5
5,8

1,2
1,9
1,5
0,0
5,8

1,6
1,5
1,3
0,2
5,6

2,3
2,1
1,9
0,7
5,6

3,0
1,6
1,1
0,9
-6,5

0,3
1,7
1,2
0,6
5,5

1,2
1,6
1,2
0,5
4,3

1,2
1,4
1,2
0,5
5,0

2,1
1,9
1,7
0,7
5,0

3,4
1,1
1,3
0,8
47,4

2,1
2,2
1,8
1,1
-9,1

0,3
1,6
1,3
0,0
-7,4

0,2
1,5
1,3
-0,2
-6,2

0,6
1,7
1,5
0,1
-4,9

1,1
2,5
1,7
-0,2
47,4

2,5
1,4
1,4
1,1
-9,3

0,7
1,0
1,0
0,3
-8,8

0,2
1,2
1,1
0,1
-6,7

0,7
1,5
1,4
0,1
-5,4

2,2
1,8
1,7
0,6
-2,9

4,0
1,7
1,5
1,7
5,1

0,1
1,8
1,5
0,2
5,3

0,2
1,5
1,3
0,0
5,1

2,0
1,7
1,7
0,1
5,1

0,8
1,8
1,3
-0,4
-2,9

4,2
1,2
1,3
1,9
4,9

0,3
1,5
1,3
0,5
3,7

0,1
1,4
1,3
0,2
4,5

2,0
1,6
1,6
0,2
4,6

ABRUZZO
Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

MOLISE
Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

CAMPANIA
Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

PUGLIA
Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

BASILICATA
Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

CALABRIA
Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

240

2006

Scenario F-1
2007 2008 2009

2010

2006

Scenario F-2
2007 2008 2009

2010

SICILIA
Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

0,7
1,7
1,5
1,3
-3,1

3,3
1,8
2,3
0,4
2,4

1,8
2,0
2,0
-0,6
2,9

0,6
1,8
1,6
-0,3
3,0

1,1
2,1
1,9
-0,9
3,3

1,5
1,3
1,2
0,2
-3,1

0,7
1,5
1,8
0,8
2,2

1,7
1,8
1,9
0,0
1,3

0,3
1,8
1,6
0,1
2,4

0,9
2,0
1,8
-0,9
2,7

0,1
1,7
1,2
-1,6
8,3

0,6
1,5
1,5
0,1
0,6

0,9
2,2
1,9
0,8
1,2

2,0
2,1
1,9
0,5
1,5

2,2
2,2
2,0
0,6
2,0

1,3
1,7
1,4
-2,6
8,3

0,4
1,1
1,2
0,0
0,3

0,7
1,9
1,7
1,3
-0,3

1,5
2,0
1,8
0,8
0,9

2,0
2,0
1,9
0,6
1,4

SARDEGNA
Value-added
Industry
Services
Total
Workers of industry
Exports

Note: under both the scenarios, in the same period, the UL density, the number of patents and the percentage of the sorted waste collection have been kept as constant; the energy consumptions per unit of value-added have been supposed to increase by +0,5 yearly

Source: Centro Studi Unioncamere Prometeia

241

Table A5.5 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy.
Results of the simulation (2006-2010): Scenario F-1, Specification S-1 (VA/UL)
Province
Torino
Vercelli
Novara
Cuneo
Asti
Alessandria
Biella
Verbano Cusio Ossola
Aosta
Varese
Como
Sondrio
Milano
Bergamo
Brescia
Pavia
Cremona
Mantova
Lecco
Lodi
Bolzano - Bozen
Trento
Verona
Vicenza
Belluno
Treviso
Venezia
Padova
Rovigo
Udine
Gorizia
Trieste
Pordenone
Imperia
Savona
Genova
La Spezia
Piacenza
Parma
Reggio Emilia
Modena
Bologna
Ferrara
Ravenna
Forl - Cesena
Rimini
Massa Carrara
Lucca
Pistoia
Firenze
Livorno

Region
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Piemonte
136,71 133,58 132,99 130,57 127,18
Piemonte
465,41 462,93 466,64 466,20 463,27
Piemonte
116,37 113,49 113,00 110,80 107,73
Piemonte
189,40 186,25 186,32 184,08 180,58
Piemonte
147,38 148,33 150,00 151,24 152,11
Piemonte
115,47 114,17 114,48 113,64 112,13
Piemonte
63,28
62,36
62,35
61,68
60,62
Piemonte
209,10 211,38 213,82 216,17 218,27
Valle d'Aosta
340,60 333,43 335,34 335,06 333,40
Lombardia
87,65
84,85
84,11
82,49
80,29
Lombardia
92,81
90,75
90,35
89,23
87,60
Lombardia
84,21
83,25
83,14
82,60
81,74
Lombardia
74,03
70,27
68,93
66,62
63,72
Lombardia
183,13 176,03 173,99 169,86 164,37
Lombardia
389,81 380,53 379,20 374,46 367,31
Lombardia
285,46 281,89 282,22 280,84 278,16
Lombardia
240,59 232,61 230,08 225,16 218,66
Lombardia
377,21 363,67 360,14 352,45 342,02
Lombardia
259,63 251,07 248,45 243,27 236,38
Lombardia
139,23 134,59 133,02 130,12 126,33
Trentino Alto Adige 116,70 115,96 117,26 117,63 117,34
Trentino Alto Adige 239,95 234,96 237,37 236,88 234,38
Veneto
405,56 396,89 393,19 389,43 385,71
Veneto
218,83 213,52 211,29 209,05 206,87
Veneto
111,00 106,78 104,78 102,80 100,85
Veneto
175,45 171,59 169,93 168,25 166,61
Veneto
344,94 340,64 339,33 337,91 336,50
Veneto
186,06 184,25 183,65 183,00 182,35
Veneto
205,31 206,80 207,94 208,99 210,01
Friuli Venezia Giulia 403,13 394,86 396,26 394,54 392,54
Friuli Venezia Giulia 344,01 337,08 338,37 336,92 335,35
Friuli Venezia Giulia 279,71 272,37 273,02 271,19 269,13
Friuli Venezia Giulia 260,06 249,97 249,43 246,07 242,47
Liguria
16,41
17,05
17,74
18,51
19,29
Liguria
2.033,90 2.070,88 2.110,54 2.146,58 2.178,59
Liguria
237,92 238,83 239,75 239,63 238,87
Liguria
340,70 339,86 338,80 336,16 332,64
Emilia Romagna
116,76 115,23 113,72 113,02 112,21
Emilia Romagna
107,72 105,22 103,00 101,82 100,50
Emilia Romagna
174,48 170,17 166,29 164,33 162,16
Emilia Romagna
212,30 206,47 201,32 198,60 195,61
Emilia Romagna
115,42 111,37 107,94 105,99 103,89
Emilia Romagna
322,40 318,70 314,97 313,68 312,05
Emilia Romagna
444,10 432,47 422,61 417,23 411,24
Emilia Romagna
164,95 162,89 160,83 159,83 158,66
Emilia Romagna
92,99
93,43
93,52
93,81
94,06
Toscana
768,03 788,42 806,30 828,59 851,49
Toscana
347,75 352,48 358,03 360,83 362,95
Toscana
53,79
54,77
55,55
56,66
57,78
Toscana
71,03
71,50
72,14
72,22
72,16
Toscana
285,58 286,98 289,70 288,90 287,30

242

Province
Pisa
Arezzo
Siena
Grosseto
Prato
Perugia
Terni
Pesaro e Urbino
Ancona
Macerata
Ascoli Piceno
Viterbo
Rieti
Roma
Latina
Frosinone
L'Aquila
Teramo
Pescara
Chieti
Campobasso
Isernia
Caserta
Benevento
Napoli
Avellino
Salerno
Foggia
Bari
Taranto
Brindisi
Lecce
Potenza
Matera
Cosenza
Catanzaro
Reggio di Calabria
Crotone
Vibo Valentia
Trapani
Palermo
Messina
Agrigento
Caltanissetta
Enna
Catania
Ragusa
Siracusa
Sassari
Nuoro
Cagliari
Oristano

Region
Toscana
Toscana
Toscana
Toscana
Toscana
Umbria
Umbria
Marche
Marche
Marche
Marche
Lazio
Lazio
Lazio
Lazio
Lazio
Abruzzo
Abruzzo
Abruzzo
Abruzzo
Molise
Molise
Campania
Campania
Campania
Campania
Campania
Puglia
Puglia
Puglia
Puglia
Puglia
Basilicata
Basilicata
Calabria
Calabria
Calabria
Calabria
Calabria
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sardegna
Sardegna
Sardegna
Sardegna

2006
149,13
109,75
204,66
1.577,80
31,31
191,40
709,96
266,03
156,71
127,49
120,20
206,97
55,37
36,93
81,87
175,65
173,49
178,85
67,91
172,49
438,44
143,87
170,52
68,78
79,35
140,41
137,28
386,34
225,69
1.625,76
1.948,45
120,54
247,67
130,22
50,10
53,07
49,55
468,27
26,30
396,82
226,84
300,65
27,69
1.663,95
42,47
87,59
76,98
946,82
626,38
192,17
1.609,05
96,76

2007
149,00
111,08
207,39
1.623,04
32,00
191,51
679,50
267,78
153,18
128,46
120,72
211,64
56,15
34,92
77,61
170,27
174,16
179,23
68,11
171,90
443,09
145,29
171,51
69,94
80,25
141,74
138,93
390,91
228,54
1.659,58
1.983,95
122,20
242,12
129,13
53,83
56,71
56,46
498,88
28,62
422,44
233,38
319,00
29,70
1.687,22
45,31
91,94
82,40
933,64
632,41
193,82
1.626,94
97,56

2008
149,60
112,61
210,15
1.653,58
32,58
191,59
663,31
269,29
151,73
129,24
121,27
213,52
57,14
34,62
77,50
170,67
174,80
179,72
68,33
169,39
443,81
148,39
172,60
71,67
81,38
143,24
141,07
399,93
232,66
1.679,78
2.027,82
125,64
239,82
127,49
54,01
56,90
56,83
501,23
28,79
437,34
237,09
330,43
30,87
1.705,64
46,92
94,58
85,63
943,37
640,78
196,03
1.646,66
98,72

2009
148,23
113,36
212,30
1.716,40
33,35
191,41
646,81
270,79
149,76
130,04
121,80
215,94
58,03
33,88
76,31
169,46
175,55
180,22
68,53
167,29
448,11
150,32
173,66
74,50
82,82
144,86
143,99
411,15
237,31
1.691,54
2.074,80
129,98
238,30
126,30
54,28
57,18
57,40
504,33
29,01
443,27
238,74
336,07
31,31
1.722,37
47,51
95,84
86,99
971,36
656,09
200,06
1.658,70
101,10

2010
146,45
113,92
214,19
1.784,73
34,13
190,90
628,98
272,09
146,59
130,76
122,14
218,42
58,89
33,02
74,80
167,73
176,30
180,67
68,70
164,83
453,68
151,78
174,54
77,91
84,36
146,41
147,23
426,15
242,80
1.688,12
2.126,50
135,92
236,89
125,84
56,23
59,09
61,32
520,70
30,29
453,19
241,23
344,47
32,07
1.739,86
48,54
97,72
89,20
995,68
672,62
204,32
1.670,66
103,66

243

Table A5.6 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy.
Results of the simulation (2006-2010): Scenario F-1, Specification S-2 (VA/worker)
Province
Torino
Vercelli
Novara
Cuneo
Asti
Alessandria
Biella
Verbano Cusio Ossola
Aosta
Varese
Como
Sondrio
Milano
Bergamo
Brescia
Pavia
Cremona
Mantova
Lecco
Lodi
Bolzano - Bozen
Trento
Verona
Vicenza
Belluno
Treviso
Venezia
Padova
Rovigo
Udine
Gorizia
Trieste
Pordenone
Imperia
Savona
Genova
La Spezia
Piacenza
Parma
Reggio Emilia
Modena
Bologna
Ferrara
Ravenna
Forl - Cesena
Rimini
Massa Carrara
Lucca
Pistoia
Firenze
Livorno

Region
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Piemonte
124,95 121,10 123,06 121,08 118,51
Piemonte
446,62 450,69 462,52 470,18 476,82
Piemonte
106,09 103,75 106,08 105,30 104,10
Piemonte
174,45 170,86 174,60 173,45 171,59
Piemonte
146,28 147,78 150,72 152,91 154,86
Piemonte
110,08 109,47 111,70 112,09 112,12
Piemonte
61,25
61,97
63,14
64,08
64,91
Piemonte
207,07 209,37 212,83 215,64 218,25
Valle d'Aosta
285,79 270,37 315,72 327,26 334,11
Lombardia
83,54
81,29
81,09
80,12
78,94
Lombardia
87,71
85,56
85,37
84,44
83,32
Lombardia
79,10
77,43
77,12
76,28
75,41
Lombardia
65,81
61,70
60,42
58,18
55,80
Lombardia
175,81 171,62 171,57 169,97 167,85
Lombardia
378,19 371,64 372,80 370,94 367,95
Lombardia
269,98 264,08 264,04 261,81 259,09
Lombardia
220,33 212,81 211,08 207,23 203,10
Lombardia
357,17 349,21 349,62 346,97 343,53
Lombardia
249,83 245,29 245,30 243,54 241,30
Lombardia
122,84 116,87 115,05 111,82 108,56
Trentino Alto Adige 106,99 104,70 106,41 106,18 105,14
Trentino Alto Adige 219,26 213,18 216,60 215,56 212,71
Veneto
393,96 387,84 386,49 385,13 385,76
Veneto
219,29 219,25 220,21 221,19 222,79
Veneto
115,29 115,74 116,41 117,09 118,13
Veneto
178,76 179,11 179,96 180,81 182,06
Veneto
328,85 323,88 323,07 322,23 323,17
Veneto
182,31 180,68 180,55 180,40 180,93
Veneto
207,58 210,09 211,96 213,80 215,94
Friuli Venezia Giulia 410,14 404,33 409,48 410,42 412,06
Friuli Venezia Giulia 312,28 313,25 318,28 321,32 325,06
Friuli Venezia Giulia 280,77 276,15 280,34 281,06 282,46
Friuli Venezia Giulia 274,14 272,78 275,95 277,20 278,87
Liguria
17,03
16,90
17,00
16,76
16,56
Liguria
2.038,12 2.025,46 2.036,64 2.010,08 1.986,76
Liguria
236,60 235,81 236,65 234,44 232,23
Liguria
332,18 324,19 320,84 310,12 300,60
Emilia Romagna
123,25 122,82 122,33 122,71 123,36
Emilia Romagna
113,60 112,69 111,84 111,93 112,28
Emilia Romagna
187,65 186,81 185,68 186,23 187,14
Emilia Romagna
226,77 225,13 223,32 223,58 224,23
Emilia Romagna
122,99 120,00 117,65 116,93 116,59
Emilia Romagna
349,74 356,00 359,74 364,38 369,29
Emilia Romagna
474,05 467,96 463,40 463,23 464,42
Emilia Romagna
175,03 176,94 177,87 179,22 180,66
Emilia Romagna
94,47
95,28
95,68
96,38
97,21
Toscana
590,09 593,39 607,27 601,74 595,56
Toscana
306,16 308,64 315,68 313,99 311,80
Toscana
53,49
54,06
54,78
55,12
55,39
Toscana
61,15
60,89
61,68
60,49
59,20
Toscana
218,67 217,16 221,01 215,58 210,02

244

Province
Pisa
Arezzo
Siena
Grosseto
Prato
Perugia
Terni
Pesaro e Urbino
Ancona
Macerata
Ascoli Piceno
Viterbo
Rieti
Roma
Latina
Frosinone
L'Aquila
Teramo
Pescara
Chieti
Campobasso
Isernia
Caserta
Benevento
Napoli
Avellino
Salerno
Foggia
Bari
Taranto
Brindisi
Lecce
Potenza
Matera
Cosenza
Catanzaro
Reggio di Calabria
Crotone
Vibo Valentia
Trapani
Palermo
Messina
Agrigento
Caltanissetta
Enna
Catania
Ragusa
Siracusa
Sassari
Nuoro
Cagliari
Oristano

Region
Toscana
Toscana
Toscana
Toscana
Toscana
Umbria
Umbria
Marche
Marche
Marche
Marche
Lazio
Lazio
Lazio
Lazio
Lazio
Abruzzo
Abruzzo
Abruzzo
Abruzzo
Molise
Molise
Campania
Campania
Campania
Campania
Campania
Puglia
Puglia
Puglia
Puglia
Puglia
Basilicata
Basilicata
Calabria
Calabria
Calabria
Calabria
Calabria
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sardegna
Sardegna
Sardegna
Sardegna

2006
127,12
113,45
195,99
1.421,93
30,37
192,12
718,47
275,18
160,14
133,24
126,72
204,95
52,22
37,16
84,69
176,22
157,56
180,72
64,67
172,54
422,17
139,24
165,01
78,27
83,51
141,54
141,17
390,33
225,51
1.604,53
1.933,55
132,23
239,57
130,43
50,09
53,74
51,02
415,93
27,14
401,88
222,72
299,08
27,89
1.603,87
42,84
87,78
78,85
1.073,76
565,24
165,17
1.613,51
86,98

2007
126,52
115,46
198,16
1.424,77
30,72
192,15
686,97
278,03
159,50
135,61
128,20
204,04
51,86
33,63
79,57
172,11
156,25
181,16
64,44
172,16
427,89
142,77
165,98
78,86
84,14
142,99
142,23
393,76
228,40
1.654,24
1.976,00
133,30
232,22
126,53
49,76
53,95
50,78
409,27
27,54
410,46
217,35
300,74
28,34
1.542,24
44,07
88,18
81,74
1.065,35
566,10
164,86
1.622,75
86,97

2008
128,13
117,94
201,84
1.439,61
31,24
191,43
658,46
281,19
159,23
138,18
129,93
204,81
52,80
33,02
79,56
173,21
150,68
181,84
63,24
170,56
433,24
147,20
165,90
80,06
84,64
144,12
142,86
396,95
230,61
1.696,25
2.013,13
136,55
228,40
123,78
49,91
54,12
51,07
411,86
27,69
415,78
212,33
301,66
28,54
1.487,83
44,75
88,41
83,78
1.080,50
568,98
165,70
1.643,81
87,43

2009
125,72
119,21
202,42
1.433,49
31,37
190,22
634,42
283,78
158,79
140,42
131,38
205,08
53,43
31,88
78,48
173,06
146,92
182,46
62,41
169,60
436,97
150,44
165,18
81,71
84,83
144,93
143,06
399,98
232,34
1.735,06
2.047,94
140,12
225,20
121,71
49,93
54,19
51,22
412,44
27,82
418,44
210,76
303,64
28,63
1.476,15
45,00
88,85
84,77
1.121,85
567,84
163,80
1.629,82
87,25

2010
123,15
120,29
202,72
1.426,27
31,45
188,86
615,55
285,78
157,86
142,41
132,51
205,63
54,18
30,91
77,70
173,19
141,07
182,86
60,96
168,04
440,75
153,55
163,87
83,60
84,79
145,43
142,89
402,96
233,40
1.769,43
2.080,35
144,02
222,56
120,30
49,40
53,99
50,72
403,74
27,92
421,69
206,19
304,18
28,68
1.430,15
45,36
88,96
86,26
1.153,45
566,26
161,66
1.615,29
87,00

245

Table A5.7 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy.
Results of the simulation (2006-2010): Scenario F-2, Specification S-1 (VA/UL)
Province
Torino
Vercelli
Novara
Cuneo
Asti
Alessandria
Biella
Verbano Cusio Ossola
Aosta
Varese
Como
Sondrio
Milano
Bergamo
Brescia
Pavia
Cremona
Mantova
Lecco
Lodi
Bolzano - Bozen
Trento
Verona
Vicenza
Belluno
Treviso
Venezia
Padova
Rovigo
Udine
Gorizia
Trieste
Pordenone
Imperia
Savona
Genova
La Spezia
Piacenza
Parma
Reggio Emilia
Modena
Bologna
Ferrara
Ravenna
Forl - Cesena
Rimini
Massa Carrara
Lucca
Pistoia
Firenze
Livorno

Region
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Piemonte
139,52 137,08 135,79 133,63 130,29
Piemonte
477,54 477,33 478,61 478,53 475,56
Piemonte
119,02 116,79 115,63 113,68 110,63
Piemonte
193,65 191,46 190,54 188,60 185,14
Piemonte
150,20 151,56 152,75 153,96 154,80
Piemonte
117,91 117,13 116,90 116,19 114,70
Piemonte
64,44
63,79
63,51
62,93
61,89
Piemonte
211,65 214,23 216,28 218,53 220,59
Valle d'Aosta
342,79 336,79 337,12 337,02 335,13
Lombardia
88,87
86,49
85,42
83,97
81,80
Lombardia
94,00
92,32
91,61
90,60
88,99
Lombardia
84,83
84,08
83,81
83,35
82,51
Lombardia
75,05
71,72
70,11
68,00
65,14
Lombardia
185,83 179,73 176,97 173,23 167,81
Lombardia
395,19 387,68 384,96 380,78 373,74
Lombardia
289,15 286,62 285,98 284,80 282,13
Lombardia
242,99 236,06 232,89 228,50 222,15
Lombardia
382,91 371,40 366,35 359,42 349,11
Lombardia
262,59 255,21 251,80 247,15 240,39
Lombardia
140,63 136,59 134,65 132,03 128,32
Trentino Alto Adige 118,24 117,67 118,41 118,84 118,48
Trentino Alto Adige 242,84 238,45 239,71 239,65 237,12
Veneto
408,36 401,02 395,18 392,42 388,66
Veneto
220,72 216,23 212,57 210,92 208,68
Veneto
111,79 108,10 105,44 103,88 101,96
Veneto
176,81 173,55 170,86 169,61 167,92
Veneto
347,10 343,70 340,77 340,00 338,51
Veneto
187,25 185,84 184,39 184,00 183,28
Veneto
206,16 207,71 208,32 209,35 210,26
Friuli Venezia Giulia 404,96 397,29 396,15 395,05 392,90
Friuli Venezia Giulia 346,11 339,64 338,14 337,04 335,15
Friuli Venezia Giulia 280,94 274,10 273,00 271,75 269,64
Friuli Venezia Giulia 261,33 251,83 249,45 246,81 243,20
Liguria
16,71
17,68
18,34
19,04
19,77
Liguria
2.069,24 2.113,28 2.146,39 2.179,94 2.209,50
Liguria
241,29 240,85 241,07 241,09 240,28
Liguria
343,85 340,37 338,54 336,28 332,81
Emilia Romagna
116,28 115,01 112,97 112,35 111,52
Emilia Romagna
107,30 105,15 102,40 101,37 100,08
Emilia Romagna
173,55 169,87 164,90 163,15 160,98
Emilia Romagna
211,29 206,26 199,86 197,44 194,49
Emilia Romagna
114,93 111,41 107,30 105,58 103,53
Emilia Romagna
320,82 317,86 312,45 311,31 309,60
Emilia Romagna
442,80 432,81 420,99 416,38 410,63
Emilia Romagna
164,33 162,60 159,85 158,95 157,77
Emilia Romagna
92,58
93,03
92,77
93,00
93,19
Toscana
766,27 782,20 797,56 819,32 842,72
Toscana
362,43 366,43 370,79 374,66 377,59
Toscana
52,99
53,78
54,51
55,60
56,80
Toscana
73,61
74,00
74,44
74,75
74,85
Toscana
299,36 301,10 303,28 303,73 302,93

246

Province
Pisa
Arezzo
Siena
Grosseto
Prato
Perugia
Terni
Pesaro e Urbino
Ancona
Macerata
Ascoli Piceno
Viterbo
Rieti
Roma
Latina
Frosinone
L'Aquila
Teramo
Pescara
Chieti
Campobasso
Isernia
Caserta
Benevento
Napoli
Avellino
Salerno
Foggia
Bari
Taranto
Brindisi
Lecce
Potenza
Matera
Cosenza
Catanzaro
Reggio di Calabria
Crotone
Vibo Valentia
Trapani
Palermo
Messina
Agrigento
Caltanissetta
Enna
Catania
Ragusa
Siracusa
Sassari
Nuoro
Cagliari
Oristano

Region
Toscana
Toscana
Toscana
Toscana
Toscana
Umbria
Umbria
Marche
Marche
Marche
Marche
Lazio
Lazio
Lazio
Lazio
Lazio
Abruzzo
Abruzzo
Abruzzo
Abruzzo
Molise
Molise
Campania
Campania
Campania
Campania
Campania
Puglia
Puglia
Puglia
Puglia
Puglia
Basilicata
Basilicata
Calabria
Calabria
Calabria
Calabria
Calabria
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sardegna
Sardegna
Sardegna
Sardegna

2006
157,14
114,16
209,06
1.476,98
31,03
192,12
717,06
267,41
157,08
128,13
120,83
206,92
55,91
37,33
83,17
177,50
174,59
179,54
68,04
173,84
439,66
144,64
172,12
68,84
80,66
142,89
138,92
391,49
228,57
1.635,87
1.977,40
122,63
251,50
129,34
48,86
51,87
47,49
459,42
25,60
403,53
228,68
305,94
28,18
1.670,40
43,16
88,87
78,34
963,82
629,58
193,75
1.558,50
97,92

2007
157,09
115,20
211,26
1.511,86
31,57
192,33
699,98
267,92
153,69
128,51
120,81
209,63
56,52
36,35
81,22
175,38
175,16
179,85
68,22
173,07
444,24
145,99
173,13
70,01
81,57
144,24
140,59
395,53
231,28
1.671,51
2.012,24
124,09
245,37
128,47
52,76
55,68
54,53
491,55
28,01
409,82
230,51
311,50
28,66
1.686,99
43,81
90,14
79,76
984,28
634,07
195,02
1.575,18
98,47

2008
157,29
116,32
213,48
1.542,24
32,08
192,21
680,38
268,46
151,42
128,86
120,89
211,39
57,21
35,94
80,66
175,15
175,06
179,90
68,36
169,47
446,32
147,81
174,00
71,83
82,56
145,44
142,60
404,22
234,93
1.685,76
2.050,41
127,39
241,92
126,66
53,11
56,04
55,22
495,13
28,27
423,45
234,01
321,68
29,73
1.704,49
45,31
92,51
82,72
981,84
640,06
196,75
1.586,12
99,35

2009
156,53
117,38
216,04
1.596,81
32,83
192,24
666,42
269,65
149,76
129,50
121,30
213,59
58,07
35,37
79,83
174,54
175,63
180,26
68,54
167,55
449,80
149,65
175,01
74,24
83,84
146,92
145,18
413,18
238,86
1.703,26
2.092,38
130,84
240,17
125,30
53,29
56,23
55,59
497,43
28,44
426,89
235,13
325,49
29,98
1.720,45
45,63
93,34
83,56
1.010,65
651,72
199,87
1.597,89
101,14

2010
155,10
118,16
218,35
1.662,01
33,65
191,90
649,00
270,72
146,59
130,12
121,55
216,10
58,91
34,55
78,39
173,01
176,19
180,60
68,69
164,96
454,71
150,93
175,89
77,51
85,33
148,43
148,31
427,00
243,92
1.701,57
2.140,58
136,30
238,49
124,80
55,23
58,13
59,41
513,80
29,70
435,02
237,32
332,55
30,60
1.737,97
46,47
94,94
85,38
1.034,23
666,47
203,74
1.607,45
103,45

247

Table A5.8 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy.
Results of the simulation (2006-2010): Scenario F-2, Specification S-2 (VA/worker)
Province
Torino
Vercelli
Novara
Cuneo
Asti
Alessandria
Biella
Verbano Cusio Ossola
Aosta
Varese
Como
Sondrio
Milano
Bergamo
Brescia
Pavia
Cremona
Mantova
Lecco
Lodi
Bolzano - Bozen
Trento
Verona
Vicenza
Belluno
Treviso
Venezia
Padova
Rovigo
Udine
Gorizia
Trieste
Pordenone
Imperia
Savona
Genova
La Spezia
Piacenza
Parma
Reggio Emilia
Modena
Bologna
Ferrara
Ravenna
Forl - Cesena
Rimini
Massa Carrara
Lucca
Pistoia
Firenze
Livorno

Region
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Piemonte
128,95 126,27 127,60 125,76 122,88
Piemonte
463,52 470,69 479,92 487,53 493,69
Piemonte
109,82 108,48 110,27 109,56 108,09
Piemonte
180,46 178,48 181,33 180,30 178,03
Piemonte
150,30 152,49 154,79 156,94 158,79
Piemonte
113,53 113,70 115,39 115,83 115,70
Piemonte
62,85
63,83
64,74
65,68
66,48
Piemonte
210,71 213,61 216,52 219,28 221,78
Valle d'Aosta
289,59 270,57 321,97 333,27 338,29
Lombardia
85,35
83,50
83,16
82,23
80,86
Lombardia
89,48
87,72
87,41
86,51
85,21
Lombardia
80,13
78,67
78,47
77,66
76,62
Lombardia
67,37
63,61
62,39
60,23
57,62
Lombardia
179,80 176,50 176,01 174,47 172,00
Lombardia
386,10 381,38 381,52 379,82 376,23
Lombardia
275,50 270,78 270,40 268,24 264,92
Lombardia
224,13 217,44 215,98 212,29 207,60
Lombardia
365,58 359,38 359,04 356,44 352,17
Lombardia
254,30 250,73 250,42 248,73 246,05
Lombardia
125,14 119,65 118,17 115,03 111,34
Trentino Alto Adige 109,26 106,96 108,30 108,05 106,66
Trentino Alto Adige 223,63 217,53 220,37 219,39 215,84
Veneto
398,57 392,81 390,29 389,58 389,13
Veneto
222,13 222,41 221,92 222,97 224,01
Veneto
116,55 117,05 117,21 117,87 118,61
Veneto
180,80 181,39 181,14 182,02 182,87
Veneto
332,49 327,74 326,27 326,00 326,05
Veneto
184,20 182,75 181,98 182,04 182,15
Veneto
208,83 211,33 212,64 214,35 216,17
Friuli Venezia Giulia 413,42 407,63 410,28 411,00 411,47
Friuli Venezia Giulia 315,29 316,13 318,28 320,58 323,15
Friuli Venezia Giulia 283,20 278,44 281,33 281,82 282,23
Friuli Venezia Giulia 276,29 274,93 276,07 276,99 277,90
Liguria
17,53
17,45
17,68
17,45
17,18
Liguria
2.094,76 2.082,52 2.107,31 2.082,58 2.053,69
Liguria
241,77 240,35 241,91 240,06 237,55
Liguria
337,92 329,75 330,12 319,66 309,01
Emilia Romagna
122,58 122,10 121,27 121,65 121,98
Emilia Romagna
112,98 112,07 110,89 111,03 111,09
Emilia Romagna
186,17 185,38 183,24 183,71 184,09
Emilia Romagna
225,14 223,61 220,68 220,92 220,99
Emilia Romagna
122,34 119,43 116,81 116,28 115,57
Emilia Romagna
346,83 352,89 354,28 358,14 362,24
Emilia Romagna
472,32 466,16 461,21 461,60 461,54
Emilia Romagna
173,89 175,75 175,80 176,89 178,04
Emilia Romagna
93,89
94,64
94,66
95,26
95,88
Toscana
613,70 612,58 625,98 620,67 612,28
Toscana
321,11 321,62 328,06 326,62 323,51
Toscana
54,53
54,89
55,48
55,83
56,04
Toscana
64,08
63,53
64,30
63,18
61,70
Toscana
223,69 221,27 225,96 220,85 214,52

248

Province
Pisa
Arezzo
Siena
Grosseto
Prato
Perugia
Terni
Pesaro e Urbino
Ancona
Macerata
Ascoli Piceno
Viterbo
Rieti
Roma
Latina
Frosinone
L'Aquila
Teramo
Pescara
Chieti
Campobasso
Isernia
Caserta
Benevento
Napoli
Avellino
Salerno
Foggia
Bari
Taranto
Brindisi
Lecce
Potenza
Matera
Cosenza
Catanzaro
Reggio di Calabria
Crotone
Vibo Valentia
Trapani
Palermo
Messina
Agrigento
Caltanissetta
Enna
Catania
Ragusa
Siracusa
Sassari
Nuoro
Cagliari
Oristano

Region
Toscana
Toscana
Toscana
Toscana
Toscana
Umbria
Umbria
Marche
Marche
Marche
Marche
Lazio
Lazio
Lazio
Lazio
Lazio
Abruzzo
Abruzzo
Abruzzo
Abruzzo
Molise
Molise
Campania
Campania
Campania
Campania
Campania
Puglia
Puglia
Puglia
Puglia
Puglia
Basilicata
Basilicata
Calabria
Calabria
Calabria
Calabria
Calabria
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sicilia
Sardegna
Sardegna
Sardegna
Sardegna

2006
131,31
119,07
202,42
1.415,48
31,47
193,15
727,95
276,56
161,61
133,75
127,37
205,67
53,04
37,65
86,10
177,99
155,73
181,86
64,08
174,27
420,71
139,56
165,74
79,32
85,54
144,60
143,25
392,08
227,45
1.627,73
1.959,70
134,98
238,75
131,29
49,56
53,18
50,50
407,73
26,90
405,37
220,89
300,64
28,03
1.578,50
43,21
88,21
79,89
1.103,59
557,02
162,84
1.525,76
86,45

2007
130,15
120,36
203,46
1.413,77
31,66
193,01
694,25
277,87
160,02
135,29
128,08
203,73
52,29
34,33
81,00
173,79
154,57
182,14
63,89
173,67
426,47
143,06
167,00
79,81
86,20
146,19
144,45
395,53
230,45
1.678,95
2.003,16
135,90
230,86
127,01
49,30
53,46
50,36
402,65
27,33
409,90
215,75
301,31
28,14
1.518,61
43,68
88,50
81,68
1.124,67
556,99
162,12
1.530,90
86,24

2008
131,85
122,20
206,59
1.430,62
32,09
191,95
664,46
279,47
158,77
137,01
129,00
204,58
52,99
33,92
81,05
174,77
149,70
182,10
62,97
170,79
433,83
147,29
167,15
80,74
86,42
147,02
144,91
398,52
232,11
1.715,96
2.035,10
138,12
226,94
123,68
49,60
53,77
50,82
407,58
27,55
413,99
211,96
301,75
28,32
1.480,37
44,26
88,57
83,29
1.121,46
560,14
163,88
1.549,05
86,94

2009
129,58
123,51
207,21
1.424,63
32,23
190,82
640,76
281,73
158,31
138,98
130,25
204,82
53,57
32,87
80,08
174,73
146,60
182,48
62,30
169,66
437,61
150,36
166,76
82,11
86,64
147,88
145,23
401,29
233,93
1.755,62
2.069,11
141,10
224,27
121,45
49,69
53,89
51,05
409,37
27,68
415,93
211,33
303,82
28,40
1.479,78
44,42
89,02
83,99
1.163,15
559,15
162,36
1.540,07
86,74

2010
126,65
124,41
207,12
1.415,40
32,26
189,42
620,92
283,58
157,13
140,94
131,32
205,29
54,21
31,87
79,19
174,74
140,81
182,69
60,89
167,76
441,09
153,11
165,50
83,91
86,56
148,31
145,04
403,86
234,81
1.787,47
2.098,11
144,88
221,36
119,85
49,20
53,72
50,59
401,35
27,80
418,86
206,71
304,05
28,43
1.432,58
44,73
89,08
85,39
1.189,98
556,86
160,04
1.522,53
86,36

249

Table A5.9 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy.
Average values and median values, 1998-2004
Province
Average 1998-2004 Median 1998-2004
Torino
120
125
Vercelli
380
382
Novara
91
97
Cuneo
135
131
Asti
132
135
Alessandria
91
92
Biella
108
110
Verbano Cusio Ossola
181
190
Piemonte
127
133
Aosta
256
234
Valle dAosta
256
234
Varese
84
87
Como
84
88
Sondrio
81
82
Milano
59
61
Bergamo
173
178
Brescia
349
382
Pavia
236
219
Cremona
257
254
Mantova
245
222
Lecco
220
228
Lodi
150
135
Lombardia
137
146
Bolzano - Bozen
108
116
Trento
199
212
Trentino Alto Adige
157
167
Verona
437
442
Vicenza
224
234
Belluno
106
105
Treviso
160
169
Venezia
299
312
Padova
171
185
Rovigo
382
304
Veneto
245
252
Udine
346
361
Gorizia
503
505
Trieste
199
160
Pordenone
213
224
Friuli Venezia Giulia
298
307
Imperia
17
16
Savona
1.001
402
Genova
207
197
La Spezia
316
336
Liguria
342
282
Piacenza
201
218
Parma
110
113
Reggio Emilia
157
168
Modena
204
207
Bologna
117
121
Ferrara
337
327
Ravenna
435
449

250

Province
Forl - Cesena
Rimini
Emilia Romagna
Massa Carrara
Lucca
Pistoia
Firenze
Livorno
Pisa
Arezzo
Siena
Grosseto
Prato
Toscana
Perugia
Terni
Umbria
Pesaro e Urbino
Ancona
Macerata
Ascoli Piceno
Marche
Viterbo
Rieti
Roma
Latina
Frosinone
Lazio
L'Aquila
Teramo
Pescara
Chieti
Abruzzo
Campobasso
Isernia
Molise
Caserta
Benevento
Napoli
Avellino
Salerno
Campania
Foggia
Bari
Taranto
Brindisi
Lecce
Puglia
Potenza
Matera
Basilicata
Cosenza
Catanzaro
Reggio di Calabria

Average 1998-2004 Median 1998-2004

220
197
83
87
185
190
1.024
1.070
388
384
54
57
60
59
186
176
194
200
175
153
151
152
1.512
1.543
33
33
196
191
183
184
661
646
322
335
171
158
138
142
120
123
105
105
133
133
162
166
121
93
40
36
80
81
187
199
71
70
173
176
133
144
59
68
154
151
133
137
467
495
120
130
349
368
135
138
52
56
69
73
136
138
129
128
98
109
199
173
197
204
968
954
1.164
1.076
87
90
433
412
241
210
117
113
210
198
35
25
31
29
35
21

251

Province
Crotone
Vibo Valentia
Calabria
Trapani
Palermo
Messina
Agrigento
Caltanissetta
Enna
Catania
Ragusa
Siracusa
Sicilia
Sassari
Nuoro
Cagliari
Oristano
Sardegna
Italy

Average 1998-2004 Median 1998-2004

226
155
26
25
54
32
235
206
197
192
151
150
31
28
306
87
26
23
71
80
61
62
255
198
166
137
348
321
164
155
1.196
1.276
52
54
745
766
181
188

252

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship between economic growth and the respective environmental conditions has been
deeply debated about at a local, national and world level.
The effect of economic growth on the environment has been usually shown to be caused by three factors: the growth of the scale of the economic activity, the changes in the productive structure of the
economy under exam, and the development of that technology by the means of which the different
productive activities have a certain impact. These remarks have led many economists to assert that the
relationship between economy and environment has first a positive sign, and then a negative one: in the
early stages of development, the environmental quality worsens because of the gradual industrialization,
but then, when economic growth reinforces and increases, it shows a higher tendency to improve environmental quality. Such a linkage has been named Environmental Kuznets Curve since the early work
of Grossman and Krueger (1991).
After more than two decades of searching for EKC-style curves and patterns, the main message taken
from Grossman and Kruegers work seems to be changed as regards specifications and causal relationships: there the main message was that trade and higher income levels would operate to get a better environment, but the recent supporting evidence about newer data is mostly weak, since ever better empirical estimates has not revealed a clear and definitive causal incomepollution relationship (Auffhammer and Carson, 2008). As detailed in Chapter 1, there is still little evidence that a stop in growth
would improve pollution levels, while, instead, there is robust evidence that pollution levels typically fall
at high-income levels. This does not mean that an EKC path is a sure and inevitable pattern for countries, since the research is still finding a common underlying process which could link specific changes
in income to specific changes in pollution, on the timescale of a few years. According to Dasgupta et al.
(2002), the EKC theory just describes an inverted-U relationship between pollution and economic development, and its main critics are that empirically estimated curves have their declining portions as a
fake behaviour, either because they are cross-sectional snapshots that mask a long-run race to the bottom in environmental standards, or because industrial societies will always produce new pollutants.
However, recent evidence has raised an optimistic view by suggesting that the curve is actually flattening and shifting to the right section of the curve: the driving forces of such a change appear to be economic liberalization, clean technology diffusion, and new approaches to pollution regulation in developing countries. Even if it is not a robust forecasting engine, the EKC has proved itself to be a useful
tool to analyze the relationship between wealth and pollution: having based the present analysis on the
EKC literature's findings and implications that have been briefly detailed in Chapter 1, the present

253

work has tried to study the waste production of Italian industrial sector in the view of the issues of the
EKC framework.
Chapter 2 has dealt with the descriptive and the estimation analysis of the relation between the industrial waste in Italy, in the period 1998-2004, and Chapter 3 with the socio-economic factors that may
have been responsible for its generation. Industrial waste was accounting for almost the half of special
waste produced in Italy, during the period 1998-2004. Such a value has continuously risen in that period, against a gradual decrease of the share of the value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense over the total value-added of Italy, together with a stagnation of that sectors productivity, in the same period. The
territorial and sectorial analysis have shown that the percentage of individuals that present the MUD
statement (over the total of the individuals) is highly diverse, taking into account both a sectorial point
of view, and a geographical point of view. The analysis of the quantities has indicated that the production of waste was continuously growing, both in absolute terms, and in relative terms (per worker and
per local unit), while an increase in economic productivity was not taking place at all. In Italy, waste intensity was increasing, while in Europe has decreased within the studied period, 1998-2004.
Chapter 3 has described the drivers that were causing the increase of waste, and these variables have
been used in the subsequent model. From the analysis of the specialized literature, some hypothesis
have been done about the socio-economic variables which are behind the production of polluting emissions, and those drivers which are linked to the economic cycle directly responsible for the production
of waste have been selected. Together with the value-added, which is the main indicator of the economic wealth of a society, other variables have been taken into account: energy consumption, urban
waste production, the degree of innovation represented by the number of patents, the value of exports,
population density and local units density, the shares of value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense and of
Service Industry over the total value-added.
For all the variables, a brief description has been provided, in order to be used in the econometric tests
of Chapter 4, where the stages of specification, estimation and analysis of the results of the model have
been formulated into three phases. In the first stage, after having identified the variables to be included
into the basic model, with particular reference to those economic indicators that contribute to determine the production of waste and that can influence its trend in the course of time, and after having
dealt with the correspondent data, the econometric model to be estimated has been specified, according
to the mainstream EKC literature outlined in Chapter 1. Moreover, the more appropriate methodological tools have been chosen, in order to better develop the informative content of the MUD database,
and, according to the literature, the choice has been driven to the use of the pooled OLS estimator. In
the second stage, the best formal specification for the model has been found by repeated tests and by
discarding the less statistically significant variables, in order to come up with the best quantitative re-

254

lationship among the variables to be used in the following simulation. In the third stage, the presence of
a reverse U-shaped trend has been studied, both numerically and graphically.
The results obtained in Chapter 4 are quite innovative in the relevant academic and non-academic literature on industrial waste, and as regards their economic determinants too, both in terms of abundance of the details in the proposed model, and in terms of the contribution of the present research to
the Environmental Kuznets Curve literature: they show that the waste of Industry in a Strict Sense in
the Italian provinces, after an initial growth due to the increase of economic wealth, can decrease,
thanks to the increase in environmental goods that such wealth tends to cause, and therefore waste of
that sector can have a reversed U-shaped behaviour with respect to the value-added of the same sector,
in the relative provinces. This hypothesis, for the non-urban waste, has not been studied yet in previous
research papers in the literature, nor has it been studied for any other country, leaving space for more
research on these topics.
In Chapter 5, the simulations done on the basis of the tested model of Chapter 4 have been carried out
according to different scenarios of growth of the independent variables. Depending on the scenario and
the specification, the model gives different estimates for the same province, but the background tendency is for an increase of the waste intensity for those provinces which still have a low economic efficiency, and for a decrease of the waste production there where the economic efficiency is quite high:
such behaviour allows to state that the waste intensity of Industry in a Strict Sense of the Italian provinces has a reverse U-shaped relationship with the economic development (all the other variables being
equal), and this result confirms for the first time for waste studies the existence of a (general) Environmental Kuznets Curve based upon special waste in Italy.
The research presented here shows that, as regards industrial waste at an aggregated level, an increasing
dynamics of the link between special waste and value-added can be observed in Italy, for the years
1998-2004. By reducing the territorial level of the analysis, results have been obtained that confirm the
hypothesis that, in presence of some structural factors, the relationship between waste and value-added
can decrease, after a first, unavoidable increase. The present work shows, for the first time for Italian
data on special waste, that this kind of link, indeed, can decrease because of three main reasons: first, if
the level of economic efficiency per local unit (represented by the value-added per local unit) overtakes
a certain threshold. Second, the quoted relationship decreases if the density of local units goes beyond a
certain level, showing the positive role of what can be a sort of true and effective industrial district
scheme. Third, the link decreases if the technological innovation capability (represented by the number
of registered patents) grows. The relation between waste and value-added, instead, increases with the
increase of the energy intensity, while a very weak role is played by the structural composition of the
economy, there where it is shown that, when the ratio of services sector on the economy increases, the
waste over value-added ratio does not decrease.
255

The results of the present work are in line with the recent data on waste production: according to the
recent Fondazione Symbola-Unioncamere report (2013), in the period 2008-2010, waste production has
experienced a decrease of -13,6% in Italy, while the average EU growth rate in that span of time is
lower in absolute terms (-2,7%). The most environmentally efficient sectors in 2008-2010 period, both
in emissions terms and in waste terms, have been the same ones studied in the present research: manufacturing industry and constructions respectively shows a -16,6% and -14,9% decrease rate in Italy,
while the same rates for the EU are -19,5% and +0,1% (Figure C.1). The present work was forecasting,
under the light of the estimated model, a decrease for the measure of the global special waste in Italy,
for the same period, and not in a generally decreasing economy, as Italy still is since 2008, but in a hypothetical framework of increasing economic drivers.

Figure C.1 Growth rates of waste production in EU, 2008-2010.

* Excluding Ireland, Croatia, Luxembourg and Malta

** Italy, Germany, France, Spain and United Kingdom
Source: Fondazione Symbola-Unioncamere (2013)

From the main results of this work, it can be concluded that, first, the production of industrial waste
per unit of value-added is not generally increasing, as it could have been inferred at a first glance, but it
shows a reverse U-shaped tendency: in other words, for some Italian provinces, an increase of the
value-added is coupled with a diminishing quantity of waste, while for some others the contrary holds.
The several provinces of the analysis shift from the increasing path of the EKC to the decreasing one,
together with the increase of the value-added that is produced within their boundaries, that is, with the
increase of wealth: therefore, those provinces with a higher degree of economic development are also
capable to slow down the production of waste.
The forecasts simulated on the basis of different scenarios do confirm the tendency of Italian provinces, and thus of the Italian economic system, to shift towards the decreasing path of the EKC, and
towards a decoupling between economic growth and waste production. Another conclusion is that a
256

sort of structural rift between North and South in Italy does exist, as regards waste production (per
value-added) too, because the dynamics of the link between waste and value-added is increasing mainly
for the South: therefore, tough and rigorous national environmental guidelines are needed, but they
must be adapted to the local and regional level, in order to overcome the local characteristics.
These results do confirm the hypothesis that the Environmental Kuznets Curve still holds, that, for the
first time, it has been found for Italian data of special waste (related to a quite long span of time), and
that the modernization of the existing industrial structure may help in reducing the negative effect of
the economic activity upon the environment. According to this view, this research work contributes
with an original light to that field of studies dealing with theoretical models and empirical evidence on
EKC, and tries to give an answer to the current debate, excluding an a priori acceptance of either the
idea that economic growth always leads to environmental unsustainable pollution, or the assumption
that a steady economic growth automatically leads to a future and unavoidable steady improvement of
environmental conditions per se.

257

ACRONIMI ACRONYMS
1) AIC: Akaike Information Criterion
2) Ateco: codici delle Attivit Economiche
3) BIC: Bayesian/Schwartz Information Criterion
4) CER: Catalogo Europeo dei Rifiuti (Direttiva 75/442/CEE)
5) DEFRA: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK)
6) DTI: Department of Trade Industry (UK)
7) EEA: European Environment Agency (Agenzia Europea per l'Ambiente)
8) EKC: Environmental Kuznets Curve (Curva di Kuznets Ambientale)
9) EWC: European Waste Code
10) GHG: greenhouse gas (gas serra)
11) Gt: gigatonnellata (1.000 kg)
12) HDI: Human Development Index (Indice di Sviluppo Umano)
13) Ind.S.S.: Industria in Senso Stretto (Industry in a Strict Sense)
14) IPAT: Impact, Population, Affluence, Technology model
15) Istat: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica
16) MSW: Municipal solid waste (rifiuti urbani)
17) MUD: Modulo di Dichiarazione Unica
18) Nace: European Classification of Economic Activities (Nomenclatura delle Atti
vit Economiche)
19) OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (Organizzazione per la Cooperazione e lo Sviluppo Economico, OCSE)
20) PHH: pollution heaven hypothesis (ipotesi dei paradisi d'inquinamento)
21) RE: Register of Enterprises
22) RI: Registro delle Imprese
23) UL: Unit locale (Local unit)
24) UNDP: United Nations Development Program
25) VA: Valore aggiunto (Value-added)
26) WKC: Waste Kuznets Curve (Curva di Kuznets dei Rifiuti)

258

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 The relationship between environmental degradation and income: the
Environmental Kuznets Curve (from Kaika and Zervas, 2013)
Figure 1.2 Examples of different patterns between environmental pressure and
economic wealth (income per capita), from Wang (2007)
Figure 1.3 Optimal pollution-income paths, from Andreoni and Levinson (2001)
Figure 1.4 The Green Solow Model and the EKC: the transitional dynamics towards the steady state (from Brock and Taylor, 2010)
Figure 1.5 Conflicting dynamics of the EKC, from Agras and Chapman (1999)
Figure 2.1 Value-added: Industry in a Strict Sense and Total, Italy, 1998-2004 (millions of euros of 1995)
Figure 2.2 Value-added: share of the Industry in a Strict Sense on the total valueadded, Italy, 1998-2004
Figure 2.3 Special waste in Italy, for each type, MUD database, 1998-2004 (tons)
Figure 2.4 Special waste production, Italy, MUD database, 1998-2004 (tons)
Figure 2.5 Special waste production, for each macro-sector, Italy, 1998-2004 (tons)
Figure 2.6 Coverage (%) of the MUD local units with respect to the RE local units,
as for Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: 1998
Figure 2.7 Coverage (%) of the MUD local units with respect to the RE local units,
as for Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: 2004
Figure 2.8 Coverage (%) of the MUD local units with respect to the RE local units,
as for Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: variations, 1998-2004
Figure 2.9 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: 1998-2004
Figure 2.10 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, North of Italy, by
label: 1998-2004
Figure 2.11 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, North-West of Italy,
by label: 1998-2004
Figure 2.12 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, North-East of Italy,
by label: 1998-2004
Figure 2.13 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Centre of Italy, by
label: 1998-2004
Figure 2.14 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, South of Italy and
Islands, by label: 1998-2004
Figure 2.15 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: per worker
values, 1998-2004
Figure 2.16 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: per local unit
values, 1998-2004
Figure 2.17 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: per local unit
values, 1998
Figure 2.18 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: per local unit
values, 2004
Figure 2.19 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: per local unit
values, variations (%), 1998-2004
Figure 2.20 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: per worker
values, 1998
Figure 2.21 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: per worker
values, 2004
Figure 2.22 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: per worker
values, variations (%), 1998-2004

18
20
27
33
42
61
62
67
67
68
77
78
78
81
84
85
85
86
86

88
89
89
90
90
91
91
259

Figure 2.23 Waste production, total of Manufacturing (Ateco 15 to 36), year 2004
Figure 3.1 Value-added (millions of euros of 1995, ), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: 1998-2004
Figure 3.2 Waste production per unit of value-added (tons per million of euros of
1995, t/), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: 1998
Figure 3.3 Waste production per unit of value-added (tons per million of euros of
1995, t/), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: 2004
Figure 3.4 Waste production per unit of value-added (tons per million of euros of
1995, t/), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: difference between 2004 and 1998
Figure 3.5 Waste production and value-added, Industry in a Strict Sense and total,
Italy: 1998-2004 indices
Figure 3.6 Energy consumption (millions of kWh), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy:
1998-2004
Figure 3.7 Energy intensity (kWh per euros of 1995, kWh/), Industry in a Strict
Sense, Italy: 1998
Figure 3.8 Energy intensity (kWh per euros of 1995, kWh/), Industry in a Strict
Sense, Italy: 2004
Figure 3.9 Energy intensity (kWh per euros of 1995, kWh/), Industry in a Strict
Sense, Italy: difference 2004-1998
Figure 3.10 Share (%) of the urban sorted waste over the total urban waste, Italy:
1998-2004
Figure 3.11 Share (%) of the urban sorted waste over the total urban waste, provinces of Italy: 1998
Figure 3.12 Share (%) of the urban sorted waste over the total urban waste, provinces of Italy: 2004
Figure 3.13 Share (%) of the urban sorted waste over the total urban waste, provinces of Italy: difference 2004-1998
Figure 3.14 Total number of patents per thousand of inhabitants, Italy: 1998-2004
Figure 3.15 Exports (millions of euros of 1995, ), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy:
1998-2004
Figure 3.16 Share (%) of the value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense and of Service Industry on the total value-added, Italy: 1998-2004
Figure 4.1 Goodness of fit: scatter plots, historical (blue) and estimated (red) values,
specification S-1, 1998-2004, logarithms.
Dependent variable: (logarithm of) waste per value-added (tons per millions of euros of 1995)
Independent variable: (logarithm of) value-added (millions of euros of 1995)
Figure 4.2 Goodness of fit: scatter plots, historical (blue) and estimated (red) values,
specification S-1, 1998-2004, absolute levels.
Dependent variable: waste per value-added (tons per millions of euros of 1995)
Independent variable: value-added (millions of euros of 1995)
Figure 4.2 Goodness of fit: scatter plots, historical (blue) and estimated (red) values,
specification S-2, 1998-2004, absolute levels.
Dependent variable: waste per value-added (tons per millions of euros of 1995)
Independent variable: value-added (millions of euros of 1995)
Figure 4.3 Goodness of fit: scatter plots, historical (blue) and estimated (red) values,
specification S-2, 1998-2004, logarithms.
Dependent variable: (logarithm of) waste per value-added (tons per millions of euros of 1995)
Independent variable: (logarithm of) value-added (millions of euros of 1995)
Figure 5.1 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a
Strict Sense, Italy.
Results of the simulation (2005-2010): Scenario F-1, Specification S-1 (VA/UL)
Simulated dependent variable: (logarithm of) waste per value-added (tons per millions of 1995 euros)

97
125
127
128
129
130
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
144
146
199

199

200

200

227

260

Simulated independent variable: (logarithm of) value-added per local unit (millions of 1995 euros per
UL)
Figure 5.2 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a
Strict Sense, Italy.
The EKC for waste: Scenario F-1, Specification S-1 (VA/UL)
Figure 5.3 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a
Strict Sense, Italy.
Results of the simulation (2005-2010): Scenario F-1, Specification S-2 (VA/worker)
Simulated dependent variable: (logarithm of) waste per value-added (tons per millions of 1995 euros)
Simulated independent variable: (logarithm of) value-added per worker (millions of 1995 euros per
worker)
Figure 5.4 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a
Strict Sense, Italy.
The EKC for waste: Scenario F-1, Specification S-2 (VA/worker)
Figure 5.5 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a
Strict Sense, Italy.
Results of the simulation (2005-2010): Scenario F-2, Specification S-1 (VA/UL)
Simulated dependent variable: (logarithm of) waste per value-added (tons per millions of 1995 euros)
Simulated independent variable: (logarithm of) value-added per local unit (millions of 1995 euros per
UL)
Figure 5.6 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a
Strict Sense, Italy.
The EKC for waste: Scenario F-2, Specification S-1 (VA/UL)
Figure 5.7 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a
Strict Sense, Italy.
Results of the simulation (2005-2010): Scenario F-2, Specification S-2 (VA/worker)
Simulated dependent variable: (logarithm of) waste per value-added (tons per millions of 1995 euros)
Simulated independent variable: (logarithm of) value-added per worker (millions of 1995 euros per
worker)
Figure 5.8 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a
Strict Sense, Italy.
The EKC for waste: Scenario F-2, Specification S-2 (VA/worker)
Figure 5.9 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a
Strict Sense, Northern and Central Italy.
The EKC for waste: Scenario F-1, Specification S-1 (VA/UL)
Figure 5.10 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a
Strict Sense, Southern Italy.
The EKC for waste: Scenario F-1, Specification S-1 (VA/UL)
Figure C.1 Growth rates of waste production in EU, 2008-2010

228
229

230
231

231
232

232
233
234
256

261

LIST OF TABLES

Table I.1 Waste generation projections for 2025, region by income (from Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012)
Table I.2 Italian expenditure for waste management, 1997-2007 (millions of , current-prices; from CMCC, 2010)
Table 1.1 Estimated elasticity of urban waste production to income of some early
studies
Table 1.2 - Main studies on the Waste Kuznets Curve hypothesis
Table 2.1 MUD: number of local units (UL) in the Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy,
1998-2004
Table 2.2 Share of the local units of the Industry in a Strict Sense on the total number of the UL, Italy, 1998-2004
Table 2.3 Number of MUD statements in Industry in a Strict Sense, with respect to
the total number of statements of the economic activities, Italy, 1998-2004
Table 2.4 Ateco divisions relevant to this study
Table 2.5 Coverage (in % of local units of the Registro delle Imprese, RI) of the
MUD database, Industry in a Strict Sense, 1998-2004
Table 2.6 Coverage (%) of the MUD local units with respect to the RE local units,
as for Industry in a Strict Sense, 2004: 5 randomly sampled provinces
Table 2.7 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy, by label: 19982004
Table 2.8 Waste production, Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy, by label: indices, 19982004
Table 2.10 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy, by macroregions: absolute value and percentage variation, 1998-2004
Table 2.9 Waste production, Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy, by label: composition
(%), 1998-2004
Table 2.11 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: per worker and
per local unit values, 1998-2004
Table 2.12 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, 5 provinces: per local
unit values, 1998-2004
Table 2.12 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, 5 provinces: per local
unit values, 1998-2004
Table 2.14 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italian regions: 19982004
Table 2.15 Waste production, Industry in a Strict Sense, Italian regions: indices,
1998-2004
Table 2.16 Waste production, Industry in a Strict Sense, Italian regions: percentage
composition, 1998-2004
Table 2.15 Waste production, Industry in a Strict Sense, 5 provinces: 1998-2004
Table 2.16 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy, by Ateco divisions: 1998-2004
Table A2.1 Share of the Value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense on the total
Value-added of the geographical unit (%)
Table A2.2 Waste production (tons), Italy, by Ateco divisions: 1998-2004
Table A2.3 Waste production (tons), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy, by provinces
and regions: 1998-2004
Table A2.4 Local Units of MUD, Local Units of RI, and coverage (in % of local
units of the Registro delle Imprese, RI) of the MUD database, Industry in a Strict

5
5
48
58
64
64
69
70
74
77
82
82
83
83
87
92
92
93
94
95
96
100
101
104
106
109
262

Sense, by provinces and regions: 2004

Table A2.5 Coverage (in % of local units of the Registro delle Imprese, RI) of the
MUD database, Industry in a Strict Sense, by provinces and regions: 1998-2004
Table A2.6 Ranking of the most pollutant provinces, as regards waste production
(tons), by Ateco divisions: 2004
Table A2.7 Waste production per local unit (tons per UL, t/UL), Industry in a Strict
Sense, Italy, by provinces and regions: 1998-2004
Table A2.8 Waste production per worker (tons per worker, t/add), Industry in a
Strict Sense, Italy, by provinces and regions: 1998-2004
Table 3.1 Waste production per unit of value-added (in 1995 euros, ), Industry in a
Strict Sense, Italy: ranking 2004, ranking 1998, and its difference
Table 3.2 Waste production per unit of value-added (tons per million of euros of
1995, t/), Industry in a Strict Sense, 5 random provinces: 1998-2004
Table 3.3 Energy intensity (kWh per euros of 1995, kWh/), Industry in a Strict
Sense, 5 random provinces: 1998-2004
Table 3.4 Share (%) of the urban sorted waste over the total urban waste of the 5
random provinces: 1998-2004
Table 3.5 Total number of patents per thousand of inhabitants, Italy, 5 randomly
selected provinces: 1998-2004
Table 3.6 Ratio of exports over value-added, Industry in a Strict Sense, 5 randomly
selected provinces: 1998-2004
Table 3.7 Population density (inhabitants per Km2), the 5 randomly selected provinces: 1998-2004
Table 3.8 Local units density (units per Km2), the 5 randomly selected provinces:
1998-2004
Table 3.10 Share (%) of the value-added of Industry in a Strict Sense on the total
value-added, 5 randomly selected provinces: 1998-2004
Table 3.9 Share (%) of the value-added of Service Industry on the total value-added,
5 randomly selected provinces: 1998-2004
Table A3.1 Waste production per unit of value-added (tons per million of euros of
1995), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: 1998-2004
Table A3.2 Energy intensity (kWh per euros of 1995), Industry in a Strict Sense, Italy: 1998-2004
Table A3.3 Share (%) of the urban sorted waste over the total urban waste, provinces of Italy: 1998-2004
Table A3.4 Total number of patents per thousand of inhabitants, provinces of Italy:
1998-2004
Table A3.5 Ratio of exports over value-added, Industry in a Strict Sense, provinces
of Italy: 1998-2004
Table A3.6 Population density (inhabitants per Km2), provinces of Italy: 1998-2004
Table A3.7 Local units density (units per Km2), provinces of Italy: 1998-2004
Table A3.8 Share (%) of the value-added of Service Industry on the total valueadded, provinces of Italy: 1998-2004
Table 4.1 Variables and their descriptive statistics (1998-2004)
Table 4.2 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per value-added. Specification S-1, 1998-2004
Table 4.3 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per value-added. Specification S-1, 2000-2004
Table 4.4 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per value-added. Specification S-2, 1998-2004
Table 4.5 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per value-added. Specification S-2, 2000-2004

112
115
117
120
131
133
137
141
143
144
145
145
147
147
151
154
157
160
163
166
169
172
177
185
187
189
191
263

Table 4.6 Specification S-1: value-added per UL of Industry in a Strict Sense as performance driver
Table 4.6 Specification S-2: value-added per worker of Industry in a Strict Sense as
performance driver
Table A4.1 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per worker. Specification
S-1, 1998-2004
Table A4.2 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per worker. Specification
S-1, 2000-2004
Table A4.3 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per worker. Specification
S-2, 1998-2004
Table A4.4 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per worker. Specification
S-2, 2000-2004
Table A4.5 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per worker. Specification
S-3, 1998-2004
Table A4.6 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per worker. Specification
S-3, 2000-2004
Table A4.7 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per value-added. Specification S-3, 1998-2004
Table A4.8 Regressions results. Dependent variable: waste per value-added. Specification S-3, 2000-2004
Table A4.9 Specification S-1: sign and statistical significance of the coefficients
Table 5.1 Scenarios for the simulations: percentage variations (%) with respect to
the previous year
Table 5.2 Growth hypotheses of the variables for both the specifications (S-1 and
S-2)
Table 5.3 Waste intensity of the five provinces, under both the scenarios, and according to both the specifications
Table A5.1 Simulation scenarios (F-1 and F-2): regional rates of variation, Italy,
North-West
Table A5.2 Simulation scenarios (F-1 and F-2): regional rates of variation, Italy,
North-East
Table A5.3 Simulation scenarios (F-1 and F-2): regional rates of variation, Italy,
Centre
Table A5.4 Simulation scenarios (F-1 and F-2): regional rates of variation, Italy,
South and Islands
Table A5.5 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a
Strict Sense, Italy.
Results of the simulation (2006-2010): Scenario F-1, Specification S-1 (VA/UL)
Table A5.6 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a
Strict Sense, Italy.
Results of the simulation (2006-2010): Scenario F-1, Specification S-2 (VA/worker)
Table A5.7 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a
Strict Sense, Italy.
Results of the simulation (2006-2010): Scenario F-2, Specification S-1 (VA/UL)
Table A5.8 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a
Strict Sense, Italy.
Results of the simulation (2006-2010): Scenario F-2, Specification S-2 (VA/worker)
Table A5.9 Waste per value-added (tons per million of 1995 euros), Industry in a
Strict Sense, Italy.
Average values and median values, 1998-2004

196
197
202
204
206
208
210
212
214
216
218
220
224
226
237
238
239
240
242
244
246
248
250

264

REFERENCES
1.

Aadland, D., Caplan, A.J., 2006. Curbside recycling: waste resource or waste of resources? J. Policy
Anal. Manage. 25, 855874.

2.

Aghion P, Howitt P (1998a). Market structure and the growth process. Rev Econ Dyn 1(1):276305

3.

Aghion P, Howitt P (1998b). Endogenous growth theory. The MIT Press, Cambridge

4.

Agras, J., Chapman, D., 1999. A dynamic approach to the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis.
Ecological Economics, 28 (2), 267 277.

5.

Aldy, J. E. (2006). Per capita carbon dioxide emissions: convergence or divergence? Environmental
and Natural Resource Economics , 33 (4), 533555.

6.

Anand, S., Sen, A., 2000. Human development and economic sustainability. World Development
28, 20292049.

7.

Andersen, F. M., Larsen, H., Moll, S., and Skovgaard, M., 2005. Outlook for waste and material flows:
Baseline and alternative scenarios. European Topic Centre on Resource and Waste Management
ETC/RWM Working Paper 2005/1, Copenhagen.

8.

Andersen, F., Larsen, H., Skovgaard, M., Isoard, S., & Moll, S. (2007). A European model for waste
and material flows. Resources, Conservation and Recycling , 49 (4), 421-35.

9.

Anderson, D., Cavandish, W., 2001. Dynamic simulation and environmental policy analysis: beyond
comparative statics and environmental Kuznets curve. Oxford Economic Papers, 53, 721 746.

10.

Andreoni, J., Levinson, A., 2001. The simple analytics of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Journal
of Public Economics, 80 (2), 269 286.

11.

Ang, J.B. (2007). CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and output in France. Energy Policy 35, 4772
4778.

12.

Ansuategi, A. and C. Perrings (2000), Transboundary Externalities in the Environmental Transition

Hypothesis, Environmental and Resource Economics 17 (4), 353373.

13.

Ansuategi, A., Barbier, E., Perrings, C., 1998. The Environmental Kuznets Curve. In: van den Bergh,
J.C.J.M., Hofkes, M.W. S. Dinda / Ecological Economics 49 (2004) 431455 (Eds.), Theory and Implementation of Sustainable Development Modelling. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.

14.

Antweiler, W., Copeland, B., & Taylor, M. S. (2001). Is Free Trade Good for the Environment? American Economic Review , 91 (4), 877-908.

15.

APAT. (1999). Rapporto rifiuti 1999. Roma: Ministero dell'ambiente.

16.

APAT. (2000). Rapporto rifiuti 2000. Roma: Ministero dell'ambiente.

17.

APAT. (2001). Rapporto rifiuti 2001. Roma: Ministero dell'ambiente.

18.

APAT. (2002). Rapporto rifiuti 2002. Roma: Ministero dell'ambiente.

19.

APAT. (2003). Rapporto rifiuti 2003. Roma: Ministero dell'ambiente.

20.

APAT. (2004). Rapporto rifiuti 2004. Roma: Ministero dell'ambiente.

21.

APAT. (2005). Rapporto rifiuti 2005. Roma: Ministero dell'ambiente.

22.

APAT. (2006). Rapporto rifiuti 2006. Roma: Ministero dell'ambiente.

23.

Apergis, N., Payne, J. (2009). CO2 emissions, energy usage, and output in Central America. Energy
Policy 37, 32823286.

24.

Arrow, K., B. Brolin, R. Costanza, P. Dasgupta, C. Folke, C.S. Holling, B.-O. Jansson, S. Levin, K.-G.
Maler, C. Perrings and D. Pimentel (1995), Economic Growth, Carrying Capacity, and the Environment, Ecological Economics 15, 9195. (Reprinted from Science 268, 520521.)

265

25.

Asafu-Adjaye, J. (2000). The relationship between energy consumption, energy prices and economic
growth: time series evidence from Asian developing countries. Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(6),
pages 615-625, December.

26.

Aslanidis, N. (2009). Environmental Kuznets Curves for Carbon Emissions: A Critical Survey. Documents de treball del Departament d'Economia; 2009-07.

27.

Atlas, M. (2002). Few and Far Between? An environmental equity analysis of geographic distribution
of hazardous waste generation. Social science quarterly , 83 (1), 365-378.

28.

Auffhammer, M., Bento, A. M., Lowe, S. E. (2009). Measuring the effects of environmental regulations: The critical importance of a spatially disaggregated analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 58: 1526.

29.

Auffhammer, M., Carson, R. T. and Garin Munoz, T.: 2002, Forecasting china's carbon dioxide emissions: A provincial approach, Second World congress of Environmental and Resource Economists,
Monterey, CA.

30.

Auffhammer, M., Carson, R., 2006. Offsetting reductions from Kyoto and then some: forecasts of
Chinas CO2 emissions using province level data. Mimeo.

31.

Auffhammer, M., Carson, R.T., 2008. Forecasting the path of Chinas CO2 emissions using provincelevel information. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 55, 229247.

32.

Ayomoh MKO, Oke SA, Adedeji WO, Charles-Owaba OE (2008) An approach to tackling the environmental and health impacts of municipal solid waste disposal in developing countries. J Environ
Manag 88:108114

33.

Ayres and Kneese, 1969 R.U. Ayres, R.U., e Kneese, A.V., 1969. Production, consumption and externalities. American Economic Review, 59, pp. 282297.

34.

Azad AK, Nashreen SW, Sultana J (2006) State of energy consumption and CO2 emission in Bangladesh. Ambio 35:8688

35.

Azomahou, T., Laisney, F., Nguyen-Van, P., 2006. Economic development and CO2 emissions: a
nonparametric panel approach. Journal of Public Economics 90, 13471363.

36.

Bagliani, M., Bravo, G. e Dalmazzone, S., 2006, a. A Consumption-based Approach to Environmental

Kuznets Curves Using the Ecological Footprint Indicator. Paper presented at the 3rd World congress of environmental and resource economists, Kyoto (Japan), July 37.

37.

Bagliani, M., Bravo, G., Dalmazzone, S., Silvia Golia, S., 2006, b. A worldwide time series analysis of
the relationship between economic growth and environmental pressure, DSS Papers Soc., 5-06, Universit di Brescia.

38.

Baldwin, R., 1995. Does sustainability require growth? In: Goldin, I., Winters, L.A. (Eds.), The Economics of Sustainable Development. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 1947.

39.

Barassi, M. R., Cole, M. A., & Elliot, R. J. (2007). Stochastic Divergence or Convergence of Per Capita
Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Re-examining the Evidence. Environmental Resource Economics , 40,
121137.

40.

Barbier, E. B., & Burgess, J. C. (2001). The Economics of Tropical Deforestation. Journal of Economic Surveys , 15, 413-433.

41.

Barrett, S. and K. Graddy (2000), Freedom, Growth, and the Environment, Environment and Development Economics 5, 433456.

42.

Barro, R. J., & Sala-i-Martin, X. (2003). Economic Growth. MIT Press.

43.

Barro, R. J., & Sala-i-Martin, X. (1991). Convergence across states and regions. Brookings Papers on
Economic Activity, 1, p. 107182.

44.

Beckerman, W., 1992. Economic growth and the environment: whose growth? Whose environment?.
World Development, 20, 481496.

45.

Beede, D., & Bloom, D. (1995). The economics of municipal solid waste. Land economics , 71, 5764.

266

46.

Beede, D., Bloome, D., 1995. Economics of the generation and management of MSW, NBER Working Papers 5116, Cambridge, MA.

47.

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, Economic Letters, vol.55, n.3, pp.43540.

48.

Berrens, R., Bohara, A., Wang, P., & Gawande, K. (1998). A risk based environmental Kuznets curve
for US hazardous waste sites. Applied Economics Letters , 5, 761-63.

49.

Bhagwati, J. (1993). The case for free trade. Scientific American , 42-49.

50.

Bhattarai M, Hammig M (2001) Institutions and the environmental Kuznets curve for deforestation: a
cross-country analysis for Latin America, Africa and Asia. World Dev 29:9951010

51.

Bimonte, S., 2002. Information access, income distribution, and the Environmental Kuznets Curve.
Ecological Economics, 41, 145156.

52.

Binder, S., Neumayer, E., 2005. Environmental pressure group strength and air pollution: an empirical analysis. Ecological Economics 55, 527538.

53.

Birdsall, N., Wheeler, D., 1993. Trade policy and industrial pollution in Latin America: where are the
pollution havens?. Journal of Environment and Development, 2, 137149.

54.

Borghesi, S. (2001). The Environmental Kuznets Curve: A Critical Survey. In M. Franzini, & A.
Nicita, Economic Institutions and Environmental Policy. London: Ashgate.

55.

Bouvier, R.A. (2004). Air Pollution and Per Capita Income: a Disaggregation of the Effects of Scale,
Sectorial Composition, and Technological Change. Political Economy Research Institute, Working
Paper Series, 84.

56.

Bovenberg, A. L., & Smulders, S. (1995). Environmental quality and pollution augmenting technological change in a two sector endogenous growth model. Journal of Public Economics, 57, 369391.

57.

Bringezu, S., Schtz, H., Moll. S., 2003. Rationale for and Interpretation of Economy-Wide Material
Flow Analysis and Derived Indicators. Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol.7(2), pp.43-64.

58.

Brisson, I., & Pearce, D. (1995). Benefit Transfer for Disamenity from Waste Disposal. CSERGE
Working Paper 6. London: University College London.

59.

Brock W., Taylor S. (2004), The Green Solow Model, NBER working paper n.10557, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, National Bureau of Economic Research.

60.

Brock, W., Taylor, M. S. (2005). Economic growth and the environment: A review of theory and empirics. In P. Aghion & S. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of economic growth (Vol. 1B). Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V.

61.

Brock, W., Taylor, M., 2010. "The Green Solow model," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol.
15(2), pages 127-153, June.

62.

Brunekreef B, Holgate ST (2002) Air pollution and health. Lancet 360:12331242

63.

Bruvoll, A., Medin, H., 2003. Factors behind the environmental Kuznets curve. A decomposition of
the changes in air pollution. Environmental and Resource Economics, vol.24, pp.27-48.

64.

Bulte, E.H., van Soest, D.P., 2001. Environmental degradation in developing countries: households
and the (reverse) environmental Kuznets curve. Journal of Development Economics, 65, 225235.

65.

Burnley S., (2001), The impact of the European landfill directive on waste management in the United
Kingdom, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 31, pp.349-58.

66.

Calabr, P.S. (2009). Greenhouse gases emission from municipal waste management: the role of separate collection. Waste Manag 29: 21782187

67.

Canas A, Ferrao P, Conceicao P (2003) A new Environmental Kuznets curve? Relationship between
direct material input and income per capita: evidence from industrialised countries. Ecol Econ 46:217
229

267

68.

Cantore, N., Padilla, E. (2010). Equality and CO2 emissions distribution in climate change integrated
assessment modelling. Energy 35, 298313.

69.

Caplan, A., Jackson-Smith, D., & Grijalva, T. (2007). Using choice question formats to determine
compensable values: the case of a landfill-siting process. Ecological Economics , 60, 834-46.

70.

Carraro C., Chiabai A., Croda E., Medoro M., Stanchi A., 2009. La produzione di rifiuti industriali in
Italia. Unanalisi a partire dal database MUD, DSE Note di Lavoro 07/NL/2009, Dipartimento di
Scienze Economiche, Universit Ca Foscari di Venezia.

71.

Carson, R. T. (2010.). The Environmental Kuznets Curve: Seeking Empirical Regularity and Theoretical Structure. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(1), pages 3-23, Winter.

72.

Carson, R.T., Jeon, Y., McCubbin, D.R., 1997. The relationship between air pollution emissions and
income : US data. Environment and Development Economics, 2, 433 450.

73.

Cave, L.A., Blomquist, G.C. (2008). Environmental policy in the European Union: fostering the development of pollution havens? Ecological Economics 65, 253261.

74.

Cavlovic, T.A., Baker, K.H., Berrens, R.P., Gawande, K., 2000. A meta-analysis of Environmental
Kuznets Curve studies. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 29 (1), 3242.

75.

Centro Studi Confindustria, 2005. Tendenze dellindustria italiana 2005.

76.

Centro Studi Confindustria, 2006. Note Economiche n.1 2006.

77.

Centro Studi Confindustria, 2007. Note Economiche n.2 2007.

78.

Centro Studi Unioncamere Prometeia (a cura di) (2007), Scenari di Sviluppo delle Economie Locali
Italiane 2007-2010, edizione luglio 2007, Roma.

79.

Centro Studi Unioncamere Prometeia (a cura di) (2007), Scenari di Sviluppo delle Economie Locali
Italiane 2007-2010, edizione novembre 2007, Roma.

80.

Centro Studi Unioncamere (a cura di) (2006), Rapporto Unioncamere 2006: Sintesi dei risultati principali, Roma.

81.

Centro Studi Unioncamere (a cura di) (2007), Rapporto Unioncamere 2007: Temi chiave e sintesi dei
principali risultati, Roma.

82.

Chaudhuri, S. and Pfaff, A. (March 1998) Does indoor air quality fall or rise as household incomes increase?, SIPA Working Paper No. 1, Columbia University.

83.

Chavas J.P. (2004), On Impatience, Economic Growth and the EKC: a Dynamic Analysis of Resource
Management, Environmental and Resource Economics, vol. 28, n. 2, pp. 123-52.

84.

Chen, A., Lotspeich, R, 1998. Determinants of industrial residuals: generation and treatment: evidence
from Chinese cities. Ecological Economics, 26, 97-108.

85.

Chimeli A., Braden J. (2005), Total factor productivity and the Environmental Kuznets curve. Journal
of Environmental Economics and Management, vol.49, pp.366-80.

86.

Choe, C., & Fraser, I. (1998). The economics of household waste management: a review. The Australian journal of Agricultural and resource economics , 42 (3), 269-302.

87.

Choe, C., & Fraser, I. M. (1997). An Economic Analysis of Household Waste Management. discussion
paper A97.11. School of Business, La Trobe University, Victoria.

88.

Chontanawat, J., Hunt, L.C., Pierse, R. (2008). Does energy consumption cause economic growth?
Evidence from a systematic study of over 100 countries. Journal of Policy Modelling 30, 209220.

89.

Cleveland CJ, Ruth M (1999) Indicators of dematerialization and the materials intensity of use. J Ind
Ecol 2(3):1550

90.

CMCC, 2010. Energia da rifiuti: potenzialit di generazione e contributo alle politiche di mitigazione
dei cambiamenti climatici.

268

91.

Cole M. (2005), Re-examining the pollution-income relationship: a random coefficients approach.

Economics Bulletin, vol.14, pp.1-7.

92.

Cole, M. A. (1999), Limits to Growth, Sustainable Development and Environmental Kuznets Curves:
An Examination of the Environmental Impact of Economic Development, Sustainable Development
7, 8797.

93.

Cole, M. A. (2000), Trade Liberalisation, Economic Growth and the Environment. Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.

94.

Cole, M. A. (2003). Development, trade, and the environment: how robust is the Environmental
Kuznets Curve? Environment and Development Economics , 8, 557-580.

95.

Cole, M. A., & Elliott, R. J. (2003). Determining the Trade-Environment Composition Effect. Journal
of Environmental Economics and Management , 46 (3), 363-83.

96.

Cole, M., Rayner, A., Bates J., 1997. The EKC: an empirical analysis. Environment and Development
Economics, vol.2, pp.401-16.

97.

Concu, N., 2000. La tirannia del trade off sconfitta? Turismo, ambiente naturale e rifiuti solidi urbani:
la ricerca di una EKC. CRENOS Working Papers, Cagliari.

98.

Confartigianato, 2002. Statistiche e analisi dellartigianato. I Quaderni di Impresa @rtigiana, 41, Roma.

99.

Confindustria, 2005. Tendenze dellindustria italiana.

100.

Convery, F., Ferreira, S., & Gallagher, L. (2008). Host Community attitudes towards solid waste infrastructures: comprehension before compensation. Journal of environmental planning and management
, 51 (2), 233-57.

101.

Coondoo, D., Dinda, S., 2002. Causality between income and emission: a country group-specific
econometric analysis. Ecological Economics, 40 (3), 351 367.

102.

Coondoo, D., Dinda, S., 2008. Carbon dioxide emissions and income: a temporal analysis of crosscountry distributional patterns. Ecological Economics 65, 375385.

103.

Copeland B.R., Taylor M.S. (2004), Trade, Growth and the Environment, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 42, n. 1, p. 7-71.

104.

Costantini, V., Monni, S., 2008. Environment, human development and economic growth. Ecological
Economics 64, 867880.

105.

Daly HE (1977) Steady-state economics. W.H. Freeman and Co, San Francisco

106.

Dasgupta, S., Hettige, H., Wheeler, D., 2000. What improves environmental compliance? Evidence
from Mexican industry. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 39, 39 66.

107.

Dasgupta, S., Laplante, B., Mamingi, N., 2001. Pollution and capital market in developing countries.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 42, 310 335.

108.

Dasgupta, S., Laplante, B., Wang, H., Wheeler, D., 2002. Confronting the Environmental Kuznets
Curve. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16 (1), 147168.

109.

Dasgupta, S., Mody, A., Roy, S., Wheeler, D., 2001. Environmental regulation and development: a
cross-country empirical analysis. Oxford Development Studies 29 (2), 173 187.

110.

De Bruyn, S. M. (1997). Explaining the Environmental Kuznets Curve: structural change and international agreements in reducing sulphur emissions. Environment and Development Economics , 2, 485
503.

111.

De Bruyn, S. M. (2000). Economic growth and the environment: An empirical analysis. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Press.

112.

De Bruyn, S. M., van den Bergh, J. C., & Opschoor, J. B. (1998). Economic Growth and Emissions:
Reconsidering the Empirical Basis of Environmental Kuznets Curves. Ecological Economics , 25,
161-175.

113.

De Tilly, 2004. Waste generation and related policies: broad trends over the last ten years, in OECD,
2004, Addressing the Economics of Waste, OECD.

269

114.

DEFRA/DTI, 2003, Sustainable Consumption and Production Indicators. London, DEFRA.

115.

Dessus, S., Bussolo, M., 1998. Is there a trade-off between trade liberalization and pollution abatement? A computable general equilibrium assessment applied to Costa Rica. Journal of Policy Modelling, 20 (1), 11 31.

116.

Devlin, R. A. and R. Q. Grafton (1994), Tradable Permits, Missing Markets, and Technology, Environmental and Resource Economics 4, 171186.

117.

Dietz, T., Rosa, E. A. (1997). Effects of population and affluence on CO2 emissions. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences USA, 94, 175179.

118.

Dijkgraaf, E., & Vollebergh, H. R. (1998). Environmental Kuznets Revisited - Time Series Versus
Panel Estimation: The CO2 Case. OCFEB Research Memorandum No.9806.

119.

Dijkgraaf, E., Vollebergh, H. R. J., 2004. Burn or bury? A social cost comparison of final waste disposal methods. Ecological Economics, Volume 50, 3-4, 233-247.

120.

Dijkgraaf, E., Vollebergh, H.R.J. (2005). A test for parameter homogeneity in CO2 panel EKC estimations. Environmental & Resource Economics 32, 229239.

121.

Dinan, T. M. (1993). Economic efficiency of alternative policies for reducing waste disposal. Journal
of Environmental Economics and Management , 25, 242-56.

122.

Dinda, S. (2001). A note on global EKC in case of CO2 emission. Economic Research Unit, Indian
Statistical Institute, Kolkata. Mimeo.

123.

Dinda, S. (2004). Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey. Ecological Economics , 49,
431-455.

124.

Dinda, S. (2009). Climate change and human insecurity. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 9, 103109. (1/2).

125.

Dinda, S., Coondoo, D., Pal, M., 2000. Air quality and economic growth: an empirical study. Ecological Economics, 34 (3), 409 423.

126.

Dobbs, I. (1991). Litter and waste management: disposal taxes versus user charges. Canadian Journal
of Economics , 24, 221-7.

127.

EEA&ETC/RWM. (2006). Market-based instruments for environmental policy in Europe (Technical

report No 8/2005). Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.

128.

EEA, 1999. Baseline projections of selected waste streams. Copenhagen, European Environment Agency.

129.

EEA, 2002. Hazardous waste generation in EEA member countries. Copenhagen, European Environment Agency.

130.

EEA, 2003. Europes environment: The third assessment. Copenhagen, European Environment Agency.

131.

EEA, 2005. The European environment. State and outlook 2005. Copenhagen, European Environment Agency.

132.

EEA. (2003). Assessment of information related to waste and material flows. Copenhagen: European
Environment Agency.

133.

EEA. (2003). Europes environment: The third assessment. Copenhagen: European Environmental
Agency.

134.

EEA. (2003). Evaluation analysis of the implementation of the packaging Directive. . Copenhagen:
European Environment Agency.

135.

EEA. (2007). The Road from Landfill to Recycling: Common Destination, Different Routes. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.

136.

Efaw, F., & Lanen, W. N. (1979). Impact of User Charges on Management of Household Solid Waste,
Cincinnati Municipal Environmental Research Lab, prepared by Mathtech, Inc. Princeton, NJ.

270

137.

Egli, H. (2002). Are Cross-Country Studies of the Environmental Kuznets Curve Misleading? New
Evidence from Time Series Data for Germany. FEEM Working Paper No. 25.

138.

Ehrlich, P. R., e Holdren, J. P., 1971. Impact of Population Growth, Science 171(3977), 1212.

139.

Ekins, P., 1997. The Kuznets Curve for the environment and economic growth: examining the evidence. Environment and Planning, 29, 805 830.

140.

Ekins, P., 1998. Economic Growth and Environmental Sustainability, 182 214 (chap. 7).

141.

El-Fadel, M., Findikakis, A., & Leckie, J. (1997). Environmental impacts of solid waste landfill. Journal
of Environmental Management , 50, 125.

142.

Eshet, T., Ayalon, O., & Shechter, M. (2004). A Meta-analysis of Waste Management Externalities: A
Comparative Study of Economic and Non-economic Valuation Methods. Haifa: Israel, Mimeo.

143.

ETC/RWM, 2005. Outlook for waste and material flows: Baseline and alternative scenarios. European
Topic Centre on Resource and Waste Management ETC/RWM Working Paper 2005/1, Copenhagen.

144.

ETC/RWM, 2007. Environmental Input-Output Analyses based on NAMEA data. European Topic
Centre on Resource and Waste Management Working Paper 2007/2, Copenhagen.

145.

European Commission, COM(1996) 399, 1996. Communication from the Commission on the Review
of the Community Strategy for Waste Management and Draft Council Resolution on Waste Policy.

146.

European Commission, COM(2001) 31, 2001. Ambiente 2010: il nostro futuro, la nostra scelta, Sesto
programma di azione per l'ambiente.

147.

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

148.

European Commission, COM(2005) 666, 2005. Taking sustainable use of resources forward: A Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste.

149.

European Commission. (2003). Towards a Thematic Strategy on Sustainable Use of Natural Resources. Brussels: European Commission.

150.

Eurostat, 2001. Economy-wide Material Flow Accounts and derived Indicators A Methodological
Guide, Methods and Nomenclature series. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

151.

Eurostat, 2002. Material use in the European Union 1980-2000: Indicators and analysis, Working Paper and Studies series. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

152.

Eurostat, 2003. Waste generated and treated in Europe. Data 1990-2001. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

153.

Eurostat, 2005. Waste generated and treated in Europe. Data 1995-2003. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

154.

Eurostat, 2006. Key figures on Europe - Statistical Pocketbook 2006. Luxembourg, Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities.

155.

Faber, M., F. Jost, R. Manstetten, G. Muller-Furstenberger and J.L.R. Proops (1996), Linking Ecology
and Economy: Joint Production in the Chemical Industry, in M. Faber, R. Manstetten, and J. L. R.
Proops, eds., Ecological Economics Concepts and Methods, (Chapter 13, pp. 263278). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

156.

Factor 10 Club (1995) Carnourles declaration. Wuppertal Institute, Wuppertal, Cited in Reijnders
(1998)

157.

Femia, A., Hinterberger, F., Luks, F., 2001. Ecological Economic Policy for Sustainable Development:
Potential and Domains of Intervention for Delinking Approaches. Population and Environment,
vol.23, pp.157-174.

158.

Fenton, R., & Hanley, N. (1995). Economic instruments and waste minimisation: the need for discardrelevant and purchase-relevant instruments. Environment and Planning A , 27, 1317-28.

271

159.

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. Population and the environment, vol.23.

160.

Fondazione Symbola - Unioncamere, 2013. Rapporto GreenItaly 2013. Milano.

161.

Forster, B. A. (1973), Optimal Capital Accumulation in a Polluted Environment, Southern Economic

Journal 39, 544547.

162.

Frey, R. L., E. Staehelin-Witt and H. Blochliger (1991), Mit Okonomie zur Okologie: Analyse and Losungen des Umweltproblems aus okonomischer Sicht. Basel, Switzerland: Helbling & Lichtenhahn.

163.

Friedl, B. and M. Getzner (2003), Determinants of CO2 Emissions in a Small Open Economy, Ecological Economics 45, 133148.

164.

Frits Mller Andersen, F. M., Fenhann, J., Larsen, H., and Schleisner, L., 1998. A Scenario Model for
the Generation of Waste, Ris National Laboratory, DK.

165.

Fullerton, D., & Kinnaman, T. C. (1995). Garbage, recycling, and illicit burning or dumping. Journal
of Environmental Economics and Management , 29, 78-91.

166.

Fullerton, D., & Kinnaman, T. C. (1996). Household response to pricing garbage by the bag. American Economic Review , 86, 971-84.

167.

Gajghate DG, Bhanarkar AD (2005) Characterisation of particulate matter for toxic metals in ambient
air of Kochi city, India. Environ Monit Assess 102:119129

168.

Galeotti, M., Manera, M., & Lanza, A. (2006). On the robustness of robustness checks of the environmental Kuznets Curve. Nota di lavoro 22.2006, fondazione enrico mattei, www.feem.it .

169.

Gangadharan, L., Valenzuela, M.R., 2001. Interrelationships between income, health and the environment: extending the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Ecological Economics 36, 513531.

170.

Gaudet, G., Moreaux, M., Salant, S.W. (2001). Intertemporal depletion of resource sites by spatially
distributed users. Am. Econ. Rev. 91, 11491159.

171.

Gawande K, Bohara AK, Berrens RP, Wang P (2000) Internal migration and the environmental
Kuznets curve for US hazardous waste sites. Ecol Econ 33:151166

172.

Gawande, K., Berrens, R., Bohara, A., 2001. A consumption based theory of the EKC. Ecological economics, vol.37, n.1, pp.101- 12.

173.

Georgescu-Roegen N (1977) Matter matters to. In: Wilson KD (ed) Prospects for growth: changing
expectations for the future. Praeger, New York, pp 293313

174.

Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971). The entropy law and the economic process. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

175.

Giusti L (2009) A review of waste management practices and their impact on human health. Waste
Manag 29:22272239

176.

Gradus, R. and S. Smulders (1993), The Trade-off Between Environmental Care and Longterm
Growth Pollution in Three Prototype Models, Journal of Economics 58(1), 2551.

177.

Granger, C. W. J. (1980). Testing for causality: A personal viewpoint. Journal of Economics Dynamics
2: 32952.

178.

Grether, J.-M., Melo, J. de., 2002. Globalization and dirty industries: do pollution havens matter? Department deconomie and Politique, Neuchatel, Switzerland. Mimeo.

179.

Grossman, G. M. (1995), Pollution and Growth: What do We Know?, in I. Goldin and L. A. Winters, eds., The economics of sustainable development. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.19
46.

180.

Grossman, G.M., Krueger, A.B., 1991. Environmental impacts of the North American Free Trade
Agreement. NBER Working papers, 3914.

272

181.

Grossman, G.M., Krueger, A.B., 1993. Environmental impacts of the North American Free Trade
Agreement. In: Garber, P. (Ed.), The U.S. Mexico Free Trade Agreement, MIT Press, Cambridge,
pp. 1356.

182.

Grossman, G.M., Krueger, A.B., 1994. Economic growth and the environment, NBER Working Papers, 4634.

183.

Grossman, G.M., Krueger, A.B., 1995. Economic growth and the environment. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 110 (2), 353 377.

184.

Grossman, G.M., Krueger, A.B., 1996. The inverted-U: what does it mean?. Environment and Development Economics, 1 (2), 119122.

185.

Gruver, G. W. (1976), Optimal Investment in Pollution Control Capital in a Neoclassical Growth

Context, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 3, 165177.

186.

Gujarati, D. N, Porter, D. C. (2009). Basic Econometrics (Fifth ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
ISBN 9780073375779.

187.

Gupta AK, Nag S, Mukhopadhyay UK (2006) Characterisation of PM10, PM2.5 and benzene soluble
organic fraction of particulate matter in an urban area of Kolkata, India. Environ Monit Assess
115:205222

188.

Gupta, S., Goldar, B., 2003. Do stock markets penalize environment-friendly behaviour. Evidence
from India, Institute of Economic Growth. Mimeo.

189.

Halkos, G. E. and E. G. Tsionas (2001), Environmental Kuznets Curves: Bayesian Evidence from
Switching Regime Models, Energy Economics 23, 191210.

190.

Hamilton, C., Turton, H. (2002). Determinants of emissions growth in OECD countries. Energy Policy 30, 6371.

191.

Hanley, N., & Fenton, R. (1995). `Economic instruments and waste minimisation: the need for discard-relevant and purchase-relevant instruments'. Environment and Planning , 27, 1317-28.

192.

Harbaugh, W., Levinson, A., Wilson, D.M., 2002. Re-examining the empirical evidence for an Environmental Kuznets Curve. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84 (3), 541 551.

193.

Heil, M. T. and T. M. Selden (2001), Carbon Emissions and Economic Development: Future Trajectories based on Historical Experience, Environment and Development Economics 6, 6383.

194.

Heil, M. T., & Selden, T. M. (1999). Panel stationarity with structural breaks: Carbon emissions and
GDP. Applied Economics Letters , 6, 223225.

195.

Herzog, H., B. Eliasson and O. Kaarstad (2000), Die Entsorgung von Treibhausgasen, Spektrum der
Wissenschaft May 2000, 4856.

196.

Hettige, H., Dasgupta, S., Wheeler, D., 2000a. What improves environmental compliance? Evidence
from Mexican industry. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 39 (1), 3966.

197.

Hettige, H., Mani, M., Wheeler, D., 2000b. Industrial pollution in economic development: the environmental Kuznets curve revisited. Journal of Development Economics, 62, 445 476.

198.

Hettige, H., Martin, P., Singh, M., Wheeler, D., 1995. The industrial pollution projection system.
World Bank Policy Research Department, working paper no. 1431.

199.

Highfill, J., & McAsey, M. (1997). Municipal Waste management: recycling and Landfilling Space constraints. journal of urban Economics , 41, 118-136.

200.

Highfill, J., & McAsey, M. (2001). Landfilling Versus Backstop Recycling when income is growing.
Environmental and resource economics , 19, 37-52.

201.

Hill, R. J., & Magnani, E. (2002). An Exploration of the Conceptual and Empirical Basis of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Australian Economic Papers , 41, 239-254.

202.

Hilton, F.G.H., Levinson, A., 1998. Factoring the Environmental Kuznets Curve: evidence from
automotive lead emissions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 35, 126141.

273

203.

Holdren, J. P., 2000. Commentary: Environmental Degradation: Population, Affluence, Technology,

and Socio-political Factors, Environment 42(6), 4.

204.

Holtz-Eakin, D., Selden, T.M., 1995. Stoking the fires?: CO2 emissions and economic growth. Journal
of Public Economics, 57, 85101.

205.

Hong, S., 1999. The Effect of Unit Pricing System upon Household Solid Waste: The Korean Experience. Journal of Environmental Management, 57 (1), 110.

206.

Hong, S., Richard M. A., e Alan H. L.. 1993. An Economic Analysis of Household Recycling of Solid
Wastes: The Case of Portland, Oregon. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 25
(2), 13646.

207.

Hoornweg, Daniel; Bhada-Tata, Perinaz. 2012. What a waste : a global review of solid waste management. Urban development series ; knowledge papers no. 15. Washington, DC: World Bank.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2012/03/16537275/waste-global-review-solid-wastemanagement

208.

Hotelling, H. (1931). The economics of exhaustible resources. Journal of political economics .

209.

Huesemann, M. H. (2001), Can Pollution Problems be Effectively solved by Environmental Science

and technology? An Analysis of Critical Limitations, Ecological Economics 37, 271287.

210.

Huhtala, A. (1997). A post-consumer waste management model for determining optimal levels of recycling and landflling. Environmental and Resource Economics , 10 (3), 301-14.

211.

IBRD. (1992). World Development Report 1992. Development and the Environment. New York:
Oxford University Press.

212.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (1996), Climate Change 1995: The Science of
Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

213.

IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation & Vulnerability, New York.

214.

IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L.
Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.

215.

Istat (2005), Indice della produzione industriale - Novembre 2004.

216.

Istat (2006a), Indice della produzione industriale - Novembre 2005.

217.

Istat (2006b), Statistica annuale della produzione industriale - Anno 2004.

218.

Istat (2006c), Struttura e competitivit del sistema delle imprese industriali e dei servizi - Anno 2004.

219.

Istat (2007a), Indici del fatturato e degli ordinativi dellindustria - Giugno e luglio 2007.

220.

Istat (2007b), Indice della produzione industriale - Novembre 2006.

221.

Istat (2007c), Indice della produzione industriale - Luglio 2007.

222.

Istat (2007d), Rapporto Annuale. La situazione del Paese nel 2006.

223.

Istat (2008), Rapporto Annuale. La situazione del Paese nel 2007.

224.

Jacobs, T. J., & Everett, J. W. (1992). Optimal scheduling of consecutive landfill operation with recycling. Journal of environmental engineering , 188, 420-429.

225.

Jaffe, A., Peterson, S., Portney, P., Stavins, R., 1995. Environmental regulation and the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing: what does the evidence tell us? Journal of Economic Literature, 33 (1),
132163.

226.

Jenkins, R. R. (1993). The Economics of Solid Waste Reduction: The Impact of User Fees. Hampshire: Edward Elgar Publishing.

227.

Jenkins, R., Maguire, K., & Morgan, C. (2004). Host Community Compensation and Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills. Land Economics , 80, 513-28.

274

228.

John, A. and R. Pecchenino (1994), An Overlapping Generations Model of Growth and the Environment, Economic Journal 104, 13931410.

229.

John, A., R. Pecchenino, D. Schimmelpfennig and S. Schreft (1995), Short-lived Agents and the
Long-lived Environment, Journal of Public Economics 58, 127141.

230.

Johnstone, N., Labonne, J., 2004. Generation of Household solid waste in OECD countries. An empirical analysis using macroeconomic data. Land Economics, vol.80, n.4, pp.529-38.

231.

Jones, L.E., Rodolfo, E.M., 1995. A positive model of growth and pollution controls. NBER Working
Papers, 5205.

232.

Kadekodi, G., Agarwal, S., 1999. Why an inverted U-shaped Environmental Kuznets Curve may not
exist? Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi. Mimeo.

233.

Kahn, M.E. (2003). The geography of US pollution intensive trade: evidence from 1958 to 1994. Regional Science and Urban Economics 33, 383400.

234.

Kaika, D., Zervas, E. (2013). The environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) theory. Part B: Critical issues.
Energy Policy 62, 1403-1411.

235.

Kaika, D., Zervas, E. (2013). The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) theoryPart A: Concept,
causes and the CO2 emissions case. Energy Policy 62, 13921402.

236.

Kander, A. (2005). Baumol's disease and dematerialization of the economy. Ecological Economics 55,
119130.

237.

Kander, A., Lindmark, M. (2004). Energy consumption, pollutant emissions and growth in the long
run: Sweden through 200 years. European Review of Economic History 8, 297335.

238.

Karousakis, K. (2006). MSW generation, disposal and recycling: a note on OECD intercountry differences, paper presented at envecon 2006: Applied Environmental Economics Conference, 24th March
2006. London: the Royal Society.

239.

Kaufmann, R. K., B. Davisdottir, S. Garnham and P. Pauly (1998), The Determinants of Atmospheric
SO2 Concentrations: Reconsidering the Environmental Kuznets Curve, Ecological Economics 25,
209220.

240.

Kearsley, A., Riddel, M. (2010). A further inquiry into the pollution haven hypothesis and the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Ecological Economics 69, 905919.

241.

Kelly, D., 1999. On Kuznets curves arising from stock externalities. University of Miami, Working paper.

242.

Kelly, D.L., 2003. On Environmental Kuznets Curves arising from stock externalities. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 27 (8), 1367 1390.

243.

Khanna, N., Plassmann, F., 2004. The demand for environmental quality and the environmental
Kuznets Curve hypothesis. Ecological Economics, vol.51, pp.225-36.

244.

Kijima, M., Nishide, K., Ohyama, A., 2010. Economic models for the environmental Kuznets curve: a
survey. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 34 (7), 11871201.

245.

Kinnaman, T. C., Fullerton, D., 1997. Garbage and Recycling in Communities with Curbside Recycling and Unit-Based Pricing. NBER Working Paper 6021, Cambridge Mass., National Bureau of
Economic Research (NBER).

246.

Komen, R., Gerking, S., Folmer, H., 1997. Income and environmental R&D: empirical evidence from
OECD countries. Environment and Development Economics, 2, 505515.

247.

Koop, G. and L. Tole (1999), Is there an Environmental Kuznets Curve for Deforestation?, Journal
of Development Economics 58, 231244.

248.

Kumar S, Gaikwad SA, Shekdar AV, Kshirsagar PS, Singh RN (2004) Estimation method for national
methane emission from solid waste landfills. Atmos Environ 38:34813487

275

249.

Kuosmanen, T., Bijsterbosch, N., Dellink, R., 2009. Environmental costbenefit analysis of alternative
timing strategies in greenhouse gas abatement: a data envelopment analysis approach. Ecological Economics 68 (6), 16331642.

250.

Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. American Economic Review , 49, 128.

251.

Lang J.C. (2005), Zero landfill zero waste: the greening of industry in Singapore, International journal
of environment and sustainable development, vol.4, pp.331-51

252.

Lanoie, P., Laplante, B., 1994. The market response to environmental incidents in Canada: a theoretical and empirical analysis. Southern Economic Journal, 60, 657672.

253.

Lanoie, P., Laplante, B., Roy, M., 1998. Can capital markets create incentives for pollution control?.
Ecological Economics, 26 (1), 31 41.

254.

Lantz, V., Feng, Q. (2006). Assessing income, population, and technology impacts on CO2 emissions
in Canada: Wheres the EKC? Ecological Economics 57, 229238.

255.

Lave, L. B., Seskin, E. P. (1977). Air pollution and human health. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.

256.

Lee, C.C. (2006). The causality relationship between energy consumption and GDP in G-11 countries
revisited. Energy Policy 34, 10861093.

257.

Lee, C.C., Lee, J.D. (2009). Income and CO2 emissions: evidence from panel unit root and cointegration tests. Energy Policy 37, 413423.

258.

Lee, H., Roland-Holst, D., 1997. The environment and welfare implications of trade and tax policy.
Journal of Development Economics, 52 (1), 65 82.

259.

Leigh, R., 2004, Economic growth as environmental policy? Reconsidering the Environmental
Kuznets Curve. Journal of Public Policy, vol.24, pp.27-48.

260.

Levine, R., Renelt, D. (1992). A sensitivity analysis of cross country growth equations. American Economic Review 82: 942963.

261.

Levinson, A., 1996. Environmental regulations and manufacturers location choices: evidence from
the census of manufactures. Journal of Public Economics, 62, 5 29.

262.

Levinson, A., Taylor, M.S. (2004). Unmasking the Pollution Haven Effect. NBER Working Paper Series, working paper 10629.

263.

Li, E. A. L. (1989), An Environmental Cooperation Agreement for the Asia-Pacific Region?, The
Australian Economic Review 32(2), 145156.

264.

Liddle, B. (2013). Impact of Population, Age Structure, and Urbanization on Carbon Emissions/Energy Consumption: Evidence from Macro-Level, Cross-Country Analyses. Population and
Environment.

265.

Liddle, B., 2001. Free trade and the environment development system. Ecological Economics, 39
(1), 21 36.

266.

Lieb, C. M., 2004. The environmental Kuznets Curve and flow versus stock pollution: the neglect of
future damages. Environmental and Resource Economics, vol.29, n.4, pp.483-506.

267.

Lieb, C.M. (2002), The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Satiation: A Simple Static Model, Environment and Development Economics 7, 429448.

268.

Lieb, C.M. (2003), The Environmental Kuznets Curve: A Survey of the Empirical Evidence and of
Possible Causes. University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics, Discussion Paper No. 391.

269.

Lim, J. (1997), The Effects of Economic Growth on Environmental Quality: Some Empirical Investigation for the Case of South Korea, Seoul Journal of Economics 10(3), 273292.

270.

Lindmark, M., 2002. An EKC-pattern in historical perspective: carbon dioxide emissions, technology,
fuel prices and growth in Sweden 1870 1997. Ecological Economics, 42, 333 347.

271.

List, J. A. (1999). Have air pollutant emissions converged amongst U.S. regions? Evidence from unitroot tests. Southern Economic Journal , 66, 144155.

276

272.

List, J. A. and C. A. Gallet (1999), The Environmental Kuznets Curve: Does One Size Fit All?, Ecological Economics 31, 409423.

273.

List, J.A. and S. Gerking (2000), Regulatory Federalism and Environmental Protection in the United
States, Journal of Regional Science 40(3), 453471.

274.

Liu, D. H. F. and B. G. Liptak (2000), Air Pollution. Boca Raton, Florida: Lewis publishers.

275.

Lpez, R. 1994. The environment as a factor of production: The effects of economic growth and
trade liberalization. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27: 16384.

276.

Lucas, R. E., Wheeler, D., & Hettige, H. (1992). Economic development, environmental regulation
and the international migration of toxic industrial pollution: 19601988. In P. Low, International
Trade and the Environment. World Bank Discussion Paper, Paper No. 159. Washington, DC: World
Bank.

277.

Lund, J. R. (1990). Least cost scheduling of solid waste recycling. Journal of environmental engineering , 116, 182-197.

278.

Lusky, R. (1976). A Model of Recycling and Pollution Control. The Canadian Journal of Economics /
Revue canadienne d'Economique , 9 (1), 91-101.

279.

Luzzati, T., Orsini, M. (2009). Investigating the energy-Environmental Kuznets Curve. Energy 34,
291300.

280.

Maddison, D. (2006). Environmental Kuznets curves: a spatial econometric approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 51, 218230.

281.

Malenbaum W (ed) (1978) World demand for raw materials in 1985 and 2000. MacGraw-Hill, New
York

282.

Malthus, T. (1953). Saggio sul principio della popolazione. Torino: Utet.

283.

Mani, M., Wheeler, D., 1998. In search of pollution havens? Dirty industry in the world economy:
1960 1995. Journal of Environment and Development, 7 (3), 215 247.

284.

Mankiw, N. G., Romer, D., & Weil, D. N. (1992). A contribution to the empirics of economic growth.
Quarterly Journal of economics , 107, 407437.

285.

Markandya, A., Pedroso, S., & Golub, A. (2004). Empirical analysis of national income and SO2 emissions in selected European country. Nota di lavoro 1.2004, fondazione enrico mattei, www.feem.it.

286.

Marrero, G.A. (2010). Greenhouse gases emissions, growth and the energy mix in Europe. Energy
Economics 32, 13561363.

287.

Martin, A., Scott, I., 2003. The effectiveness of the UK Landfill Tax. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Volume 46, Number 5, pp. 673-689(17).

288.

Martin, P., Wheeler, D., 1992. Price, policies and the international diffusion of clean technology: the
case of wood pulp production. In: Low, P. (Ed.), International Trade and the Environment. World
Bank, Washington, 197224.

289.

Martinez-Zarzoso, I., Bengochea-Morancho, A., 2003. Testing for an environmental Kuznets curve in
Latin American Countries. Revista de Analisis Economico 18 (1), 326 June.

290.

Martini, C., Tiezzi, S. (2010). Is the Environment a Luxury? An Empirical Investigation using Revealed Preferences and Household Production. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Economia Politica, n.
599 Agosto 2010.

291.

Matthews, E., Amann, C., Fischer Kowalski, M., Bringezu, S., Huttler, W., Klejin, R., Moriguchi, Y.,
Ottke, C., Rodenburg, E., Rogich, D., Schandl, H., Schutz, H., van der Voet, E., Weisz, H., 2000. The
weight of nations: material outflows from industrial economies, Washington, World resources institute.

292.

Mazzanti M., Montini A., Zoboli R. (2008), Municipal waste generation, socio-economic drivers and
waste management instruments, The Journal of Environment & Development, vol.17, pp.51-69.

277

293.

Mazzanti M., Zoboli R., 2007, Environmental efficiency, emission trends and labour productivity:
trade-off or complementary dynamics? Empirical evidence using NAMEA panel data. Nota di lavoro
40 FEEM, Milano, www.feem.it.

294.

Mazzanti, M., Montini, A., Zoboli, R., 2006. Economic dynamics, Emission trends and the EKC hypothesis. New evidence using NAMEA and provincial panel data for Italy. Quaderno di Dipartimento, Universit di Ferrara, Dipartimento Economia Istituzioni Territorio, n.19.

295.

Mazzanti, M., Zoboli, R., 2005, a. Delinking and Environmental Kuznets Curves for waste indicators
in Europe. Environmental Sciences, December 2(4), 409-425.

296.

Mazzanti, M., Zoboli, R., 2005, b. Waste indicators, economic drivers and environmental efficiency:
perspectives on delinking and empirical evidence for Europe. Environmental Sciences, n.3.

297.

Mazzanti, M., Zoboli, R., 2006. Economic Instruments and Induced Innovation. The European Policies on end of life vehicles. Ecological Economics, vol.58, n.2, pp.318-37.

298.

McConnell, K.E., 1997. Income and the demand for environmental quality. Environment and Development Economics, 2, 383 399.

299.

McFarland, J. M. (1972). Comprehensive Studies of Solid Waste Management. Comprehensive Studies

of Solid Waste Management, Final Report, Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, College of Egineering and School of Public Health, Report no. 72-3, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

300.

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Rand, J., Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth. New
York: Universe Books.

301.

Miah MD, Rashi HA, Shin MY (2009) Wood fuel use in the traditional cooking stoves in the rural
floodplain areas of Bangladesh: a socio-environmental perspective. Biomass Bioenergy 33:7078

302.

Millimet, D.L., List, J.A., Stengos, T., 2003. The Environmental Kuznets Curve: real progress or misspecified models?. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85, 1038 1047.

303.

Minliang, Z., C. A. Withagen and H. L. F. de Groot (2001), Dynamics of Chinas Regional Development and Pollution: An Investigation into the Existence of an Environmental

304.

Miranda, M., Miller, J., & Jacobs, T. (2000). Talking trash about landfills: using quantitative scoring
schemes in landfill siting processes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 19, 3-22.

305.

Mohamed LF, Ebrahim SA, Al-Thukair AA (2009) Hazardous healthcare waste management in the
Kingdom of Bahrain. Waste Manag 29:24042409

306.

Moll, S., Femia, A., Hinterberger, F., Bringezu, S., 1999. An Input-Output Approach to Analyse the
Total Material Requirement (TMR) of National Economies. In: Kleijn, R., Bringezu, S., FischerKowalski, M., Palm, V. (eds.), Ecologizing Societal Metabolism: Designing Scenarios for Sustainable
Materials Management, ConAccount workshop proceedings, 21 November 1998, Amsterdam, CML
report 148. Centre of Environmental Science (CML), Leiden, 39-46.

307.

Moomaw, W. R. and G. C. Unruh (1997), Are Environmental Kuznets Curves Misleading Us? The
Case of CO2 Emissions, Environment and Development Economics 2, 451463.

308.

Morris J., Phillips P., Read A. (1998), The UK landfill tax: an analysis of its contribution to sustainable
waste management, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol.23, pp.259-70.

309.

Morris J., Read A. (2001), The UK landfill tax and the landfill tax credit scheme: operational weaknesses, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol.32, pp.375-87.

310.

Morris, G. E., & Holthausen, D. M. (1994). The economics of household solid waste generation and
disposal. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 26, 215-34.

311.

Munasinghe M (1995) Making economic growth more sustainable. Ecol Econ 15:121124

312.

Nahman, A., Antrobus, G. (2005). Trade and the Environmental Kuznets Curve: is Southern Africa a
pollution haven? South African Journal of Economics 73 (4).

313.

Nentwig, W. (1995), Humanokologie: Fakten Argumente Ausblicke. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

278

314.

Neumayer, E. (1998), Is Economic Growth the Environments Best Friend?, Zeitschrift fur Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht 21(2), 161176.

315.

Noorbakshs, F., 1998. A modified human development index. World Development 26, 517528.

316.

Nordhaus, W. D. (1991), To Slow or not to Slow: The Economics of the Greenhouse Effect, The
Economic Journal 101, 920937.

317.

OECD, 2001. Environmental Strategy for the First Decade of the 21st Century. Paris, OECD.

318.

OECD, 2002. Indicators to measure decoupling of environmental pressure from economic growth.
Paris, OECD.

319.

OECD, 2004 (1). Addressing the Economics of Waste. Paris, OECD.

320.

OECD, 2004 (2). Environmental data, Compendium 2004. Paris, OECD.

321.

OECD, 2004 (3). Towards Waste Performance Indicators. Paris, OECD.

322.

OECD, 2007. Environmental data, Compendium 2006/2007.

323.

OECD. (2003). Response Indicators for Waste Prevention within the OECD Area. Paris: OECD.

324.

Ozawa T. (2005), Hotelling rule and the landfill exhaustion problem : case of Tokyo city, Studies in
Regional science, vol.35, pp.215-30.

325.

Palmer, K., Sigman, H., & Walls, M. (1997). The cost of reducing municipal solid waste. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management , 33, 128-50.

326.

Panayotou, T. (1995). Environmental Degradation at Different Stages of Economic Development,

Beyond Rio: the Environmental Crisis and Sustainable Livelihoods in the Third World. In I. Ahmed,
& J. Doeleman, Beyond Rio: The Environmental Crisis and Sustainable Livelihoods in the Third
World (p. 13-36). London: MacMillan.

327.

Panayotou, T., 1993. Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different
stages of economic development, ILO, Technology and Employment Programme, Geneva.

328.

Panayotou, T., 1997. Demystifying the environmental Kuznets curve: turning a black box into a policy
tool. Environment and Development Economics, 2, 465 484.

329.

Panayotou, T., 1999. The economics of environments in transition. Environment and Development
Economics, 4 (4), 401 412.

330.

Pargal, S., Wheeler, D., 1996. Informal regulation of industrial pollution in developing countries: evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Political Economy, 104 (6), 1314 1327.

331.

Pavitt, K., 1984. Sectorial Patterns of Technical Change: Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory. Research Policy, 13: 343-373.

332.

Pearce, D. W. (2004). Does European Union waste policy pass a costbenefit test? World Economics
, 15, 11537.

333.

Pearce, D.W., Turner, R.K., 1993. Market-based approaches to solid waste management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 8, 6390.

334.

Perman, R., & Stern, D. I. (2003). Evidence from panel unit root and cointegration tests that the environmental Kuznets curve does not exist. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics ,
47, 325347.

335.

Perrings, C. (1987). Economy and Environment: A Theoretical Essay on the Interdependence of

Economic and Environmental Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge [Cambridgeshire],
New York.

336.

Perrings, C. and A. Ansuategi (2000), Sustainability, Growth and Development, Journal of Economic
Studies 27(1/2), 1954.

337.

Peters, G.P., Minx, J.C., Weber, C.L., Edenhofer, O. (2011). Growth in Emission Transfers via International Trade from 1990 to 2008.

279

338.

Pezzey, J.C.V., 1989. Economic analysis of sustainable growth and sustainable development. Environment Department working paper, 15. World Bank.

339.

Plourde, C. G. (1972). A model of waste accumulation and disposal. The Canadian Journal of Economics / Revue canadienne d'Economique , 5, 119-25.

340.

Podolsky, M. J., e M. S., 1998. Municipal Waste Disposal. Public Works Management and Policy, 3 (1),
2739.

341.

Powell, J., & Brisson, I. (1995). Benefit transfer for disamenity from waste disposal. CSERGE working
paper. London: University College London.

342.

Raghbendra, J., Murthy, K.V.B., 2003. An inverse global environmental Kuznets curve Journal of
Comparative Economics 31, 352368.

343.

Ranis, G., Stewart, F., Ramirez, A., 2000. Economic growth and human development. World Development 28, 197219.

344.

Ready, J. M., & Ready, R. C. (1995). Optimal pricing of depletable, replaceable resources: The case of
landfilling Tipping fees. Journal of environmental economics and management , 28, 307-23.

345.

Rees, W. E., 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics
leaves out, Environ. Urban. 4 (1992), pp. 121130.

346.

Reppelin-Hill, V., 1999. Trade and environment: an empirical analysis of the technology effect in the
steel industry. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 38, 283 301.

347.

Reschovsky, J. D., e Stone, S. E., 1994. Market Incentives to Encourage HH Waste Recycling. Journal
of Policy Analysis and Management, 13 (1), 12039.

348.

Richardson, R. A., and Havlicek, J. Jr., 1978. Economic Analysis of the Composition of Household
Solid Waste. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 5 (1), 10311.

349.

Richmond, A. K., Kaufmann, R. K. (2006). Is there a turning point in the relationship between income and energy use and/or carbon emissions? Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 176189, February.

350.

Roberts, J. T. and P. E. Grimes (1997), Carbon Intensity and Economic Development 19621991: A
Brief Exploration of the Environmental Kuznets Curve, World Development 25(2), 191198.

351.

Robinson, D.H., 1988. Industrial pollution abatement: the impact on the balance of trade. Canadian
Journal of Economics, 21, 187 199.

352.

Roca, J., 2003. Do individual preferences explain Environmental Kuznets Curve? Ecological Economics, 45 (1), 3 10.

353.

Roca, J., E. Padilla, M. Farre and V. Galletto (2001), Economic Growth and Atmospheric Pollution
in Spain: Discussing the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis, Ecological Economics 39, 8599.

354.

Rostow, W. (1960). The Stages of Economic Growth. Cambridge: University Press.

355.

Sagar, A.D., Najam, A., 1998. The human development index: a critical review. Ecological Economics
25, 249264.

356.

Saint-Paul, G. (1995), Discussion of Pollution and Growth: What do We Know?, in I. Goldin and
L. A. Winters, eds., The Economics of Sustainable Development (pp. 4750). New York: Cambridge
University Press.

357.

Schmalensee, R., T. M. Stoker and R. A. Judson (1998), World Carbon Dioxide Emissions: 1950
2050. Review of Economics and Statistics 80, 1527.

358.

Scruggs, L. A. (1998), Political and Economic Inequality and the Environment, Ecological Economics 26, 259275.

359.

Selden, T., Forrest, A.S., Lockhart, J.E., 1999. Analyzing the reductions in US air pollution emissions:
1970 1999. Land Economics, 75 (1), 1 21.

360.

Selden, T., Song, D., 1994. Environmental quality and development: is there a Kuznets Curve for air
pollution emissions?. Journal of Environmental Economics and management, 27, 147 162.

280

361.

Selden, T., Song, D., 1995. Neoclassical growth, the J Curve for abatement, and the inverted-U Curve
for pollution. Journal of Environmental Economics and management, 29, 162 168.

362.

Sengupta, R.P., 1997. CO2 emissionincome relationship: policy approach for climate control. Pacific
Asia Journal of Energy, 7 (2), 207 229.

363.

Seok, Lim, J., & Missios, P. (2007). Does size really matter? Landfill scale impacts on property values.
Applied Economics Letters , 14, 71923.

364.

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).

365.

Shafik, N., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (1992). Economic Growth and Environmental Quality: Time Series
and Cross-country Evidence. Background Paper for the World Development Report 1992. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

366.

Shafik, N., 1994. Economic development and environmental quality: an econometric analysis. Oxford
Economic Papers, 46, 757 773.

367.

Shandilya KK, Khare M, Gupta AB (2007) Suspended particulate matter distribution in rural-industrial
Satna and in urban industrial South Delhi. Environ Monit Assess 128:431445

368.

Shekdar AV (2009) Sustainable solid waste management: an integrated approach for Asian countries.
Waste Manag 29:14381448

369.

Smith, L. V. (1972). Dynamics of Waste Accumulation: Disposal Versus Recycling. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics , 86 (4), 600-616.

370.

Smulders, S. (2000), Economic Growth and Environmental Quality, in H. Folmer and H.L. Gabel,
eds., Principles of Environmental and Resource Economics (pp. 602664), 2nd edn. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.

371.

Smulders, S. and R. Gradus (1996), Pollution Abatement and Long-term Growth, European Journal
of Political Economy 12, 505532.

372.

Smulders, S., 1999. Endogenous growth theory and the environment. In: van den Bergh, C.J.M. (Ed.),
Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.

373.

Smulders, S., Bretschger, L., Egli, H. (2010). Economic Growth and the Diffusion of Clean Technologies: Explaining Environmental Kuznets Curves. Environ Resource Econ.

374.

Solow RM (1974a) The economics of resources or the resources of economics. Am Econ Rev 64:1-14

375.

Solow RM (1974b) Intergenerational equity and exhaustible resources. Rev Econ Stud 67:2945

376.

Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70, 6594.

377.

Soytas, U., Sari, R., Ewing, B.T. (2007). Energy consumption, income, and carbon emissions in the
United States. Ecological Economics 62, 482489.

378.

Stern, D. I. and M. S. Common (2001), Is There an Environmental Kuznets Curve for Sulphur?,
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 41, 162178.

379.

Stern, D. I., Common, M. S., Barbier, E. B. (1996). Economic growth and environmental degradation:
The environmental Kuznets curve and sustainable development. World Development , 24, 1151
1160.

380.

Stern, D.I., 1998. Progress on the environmental Kuznets curve?. Environment and Development
Economics, 3, 175 198.

381.

Stern, D.I., 2002. Explaining changes in global sulphur emissions: an econometric decomposition approach. Ecological Economics, 42 (12), 201220.

382.

Stern, D.I., 2004. The rise and fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World Development, 32,
14191439.

383.

Stokey, N. L. (1998), Are There Limits to Growth?. International Economic Review 39, 131.

281

384.

Strathman, J. G., Rufolo, A. M., & Mildner, G. C. (1995). The demand for solid waste disposal. Land
Economics , 71 (1), 57-64.

385.

Strazicich, M. C., & List, J. A. (2003). Are CO2 emission levels converging among industrial countries?
Environmental and Natural Resource Economics , 24, 263271.

386.

Suri, V., Chapman, D., 1998. Economic growth, trade and the environment: implications for the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological Economics, 25, 195 208.

387.

Sutton, J. D., ed. 1988. Agricultural trade and natural resources: Discovering the critical linkages. London: Rieumer.

388.

Talyan V, Dahiya RP, Anand S, Sreekrishnan TR (2007) Quantification of methane emission from
municipal solid waste disposal in Delhi. Resour Conserv Recycl 50:240259

389.

Taseli B. (2007), The impact of the European landfill Directive on waste management strategy and
current legislation in Turkeys specially protected areas, Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
vol.52, pp.119-35.

390.

Terna (a cura di)(2006), Previsioni della domanda elettrica in Italia e del fabbisogno di potenza necessario 2006 2016, Roma.

391.

The Council of European Union, 1999. Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, 399L0031, Official Journal L 182 , 16/07/1999 p. 0001 0019.

392.

Tol, R.S.J, Pacala, S.W., Socolow, R.H. (2009). Understanding long-term energy use and carbon dioxide emissions in the USA. Journal of Policy Modelling 31, 425445.

393.

Torras, M., Boyce, J.K., 1998. Income, inequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the Environmental
Kuznets Curve. Ecological Economics, 25, 147 160.

394.

Troschinetz AM, Mihelcic JR (2009) Sustainable recycling of municipal solid waste in developing
countries. Waste Manag 29:915923

395.

Turner, K., Hanley, N. (2011). Energy efficiency, rebound effects and the Environmental Kuznets
Curve. Energy Economics 33, 709720.

396.

Ufficio Studi Confartigianato (a cura di) (2002), Statistiche e analisi dellartigianato. I quaderni di Impresa @artigiana, Roma.

397.

UNEP. (2002). Global status 2002: Sustainable Consumption and cleaner production. . Paris: UNEP
Division of technology, industry and Economics.

398.

Unruh, G.C., Moomaw, W.R., 1998. An alternative analysis of apparent EKC-type transitions. Ecological Economics, 25, 221229.

399.

Van Alstine, James and Neumayer, Eric (2010) The environmental Kuznets curve In: Gallagher,
Kevin P. , (ed.) Handbook on trade and the environment . Elgar original reference . Edward Elgar ,
Cheltenham, UK , 49-59. ISBN 9781847204547

400.

van Ewijk, C. and S. van Wijnbergen (1995), Can Abatement Overcome the Conflict Between Environment and Economic Growth?. De Economist 143(2), 197216.

401.

van Kooten, G. C. and E. H. Bulte (2000), The Ecological Footprint: Useful Science or Politics?,
Ecological Economics 32, 385389.

402.

Vincent, J. R. (1997). Testing for Environmental Kuznets Curves within a Developing Country. Environment and Development Economics , 2 (4), 417-432.

403.

Vogel, M. P. (1999), Environmental Kuznets Curves: A Study on the Economic Theory and Political
Economy of Environmental Quality Improvements in the Course of Economic Growth. Lecture
Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems 469. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

404.

Vollebergh, H., Kemfert, C., 2005. The role of technological change for a sustainable development.
Ecological Economics, vol.54, pp.133-147.

282

405.

Vukina, T., Beghin, J.C., Solakoglu, E.G., 1999. Transition to markets and the environment: effects of
the change in the composition of manufacturing output. Environment and Development Economics,
4 (4), 582 598.

406.

Wagner, M. (2008). The carbon Kuznets curve: a cloudy picture emitted by bad econometrics? Resource and Energy Economics 30, 388408.

407.

Wang, P., Bohara, A., Berrens, R., Gawande, K., 1998. A risk based environmental Kuznets curve for
US hazardous waste sites. Applied Economics Letters, vol.5, pp.761-63.

408.

Ward, F.A., 2006. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. Prentice-Hall.

409.

Wertz, K. L., 1976. Economic Factors Influencing Households Production of Refuse. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2 (3), 26372.

410.

Wilson DC, Velis C, Cheeseman C (2006) Role of informal sector recycling in waste management in
developing countries. Habitat Int 30:797808

411.

Winslow M (2005) The environmental Kuznets curve revisited once again. Forum Soc Econ 35:118

412.

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

413.

Wu, P. I. (1998), Economic Development and Environmental Quality: Evidence from Taiwan, Asian
Economic Journal 12 (4), 395412.

414.

Yandle, B., Bjattarai, M., Vijayaraghavan, M., 2004. Environmental Kuznets curves: a review of findings, methods, and policy implications. Research Study 02.1. Property and Environment Research
Center, Montana.

415.

Yang H.L., Innes R. (2007). Economic incentives and residential waste management in Taiwan: an
empirical investigation, Environmental & Resource Economics, vol.37, pp. 489-519.

416.

Yang, C., Schneider, S. H., 1998. Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions Scenarios: Sensitivity to Social
and Technological Factors in Three Regions. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change,
2, 373-404.

417.

Zhang, Z., 2000. Decoupling China's Carbon Emissions Increase from Economic Growth: An Economic Analysis and Policy Implications. World Development, 28(4), 739-752.

283