Water-quality trading: Can we get the prices of pollution right?
Water‐quality trading requires inducing permit prices that account properly for spatially explicit damage relationships. We compare recent work by Hung and Shaw (2005) and Farrow et al. (2005) for river systems exhibiting branching and nonlinear damages. The Hung‐Shaw scheme is robust to nonlinear d...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Water resources research 2015-05, Vol.51 (5), p.3126-3144 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 3144 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 3126 |
| container_title | Water resources research |
| container_volume | 51 |
| creator | Konishi, Yoshifumi Coggins, Jay S. Wang, Bin |
| description | Water‐quality trading requires inducing permit prices that account properly for spatially explicit damage relationships. We compare recent work by Hung and Shaw (2005) and Farrow et al. (2005) for river systems exhibiting branching and nonlinear damages. The Hung‐Shaw scheme is robust to nonlinear damages, but not to hot spots occurring at the confluence of two branches. The Farrow et al. (2005) scheme is robust to branching, but not to nonlinear damages. We also compare the two schemes to each other. Neither dominates from a welfare perspective, but the comparison appears to tilt in favor of the Farrow et al. scheme.
Key Points:
Water‐quality trading is a useful policy approach to protecting water quality
Trading is hard, especially for branching rivers in which damages are nonlinear
Simulations show nonlinearity is the lesser problem, emissions limits critical |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/2014WR015560 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1701474664</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3723266661</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6504-a25c3b09635751ef976ce7ed17cf896986a54449d9159ea060d46cf5c8cdc1ed3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90MtKLDEQBuAgCo6XnQ8QOBsXpzXpXGpyNh4dvA8KgzLgJsR09djado9JGp23t2VExIWr2nxV_PUTssPZHmcs388Zl9MJ40pptkIG3EiZgQGxSgaMSZFxYWCdbMT4yHqpNAzI_6lLGLKXztVVWtAUXFE1s3905Br6inSGiaYHpPNQeYy0Lem8resuVW1DQzV7SAdbZK10dcTtz7lJbk-Ob0Zn2fj69Hx0OM68VkxmLlde3DOjhQLFsTSgPQIWHHw5NNoMtVNSSlMYrgw6plkhtS-VH_rCcyzEJtld3p2H9qXDmOxzFT3WtWuw7aLl0L8EUmvZ0z8_6GPbhaZPZ7nhAJJLAb8qbZiEHLjo1d-l8qGNMWBp-yqeXVhYzuxH6fZ76T0XS_5a1bj41drpZDTJ-ygfgbPlVhUTvn1tufBkNQhQdnp1au_GR_nl5fjCXoh3yjCPLQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1690472713</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Water-quality trading: Can we get the prices of pollution right?</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Konishi, Yoshifumi ; Coggins, Jay S. ; Wang, Bin</creator><creatorcontrib>Konishi, Yoshifumi ; Coggins, Jay S. ; Wang, Bin</creatorcontrib><description>Water‐quality trading requires inducing permit prices that account properly for spatially explicit damage relationships. We compare recent work by Hung and Shaw (2005) and Farrow et al. (2005) for river systems exhibiting branching and nonlinear damages. The Hung‐Shaw scheme is robust to nonlinear damages, but not to hot spots occurring at the confluence of two branches. The Farrow et al. (2005) scheme is robust to branching, but not to nonlinear damages. We also compare the two schemes to each other. Neither dominates from a welfare perspective, but the comparison appears to tilt in favor of the Farrow et al. scheme.
Key Points:
Water‐quality trading is a useful policy approach to protecting water quality
Trading is hard, especially for branching rivers in which damages are nonlinear
Simulations show nonlinearity is the lesser problem, emissions limits critical</description><identifier>ISSN: 0043-1397</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1944-7973</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/2014WR015560</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>branching ; Confluence ; Damage ; nonlinear damages ; Nonlinear systems ; Pollution ; Quality ; River systems ; Rivers ; spatially explicit prices ; trading ratios ; Water pollution ; Water quality ; water-quality trading</subject><ispartof>Water resources research, 2015-05, Vol.51 (5), p.3126-3144</ispartof><rights>2015. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6504-a25c3b09635751ef976ce7ed17cf896986a54449d9159ea060d46cf5c8cdc1ed3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6504-a25c3b09635751ef976ce7ed17cf896986a54449d9159ea060d46cf5c8cdc1ed3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2F2014WR015560$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2F2014WR015560$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,11514,27924,27925,45574,45575,46468,46892</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Konishi, Yoshifumi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coggins, Jay S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Bin</creatorcontrib><title>Water-quality trading: Can we get the prices of pollution right?</title><title>Water resources research</title><addtitle>Water Resour. Res</addtitle><description>Water‐quality trading requires inducing permit prices that account properly for spatially explicit damage relationships. We compare recent work by Hung and Shaw (2005) and Farrow et al. (2005) for river systems exhibiting branching and nonlinear damages. The Hung‐Shaw scheme is robust to nonlinear damages, but not to hot spots occurring at the confluence of two branches. The Farrow et al. (2005) scheme is robust to branching, but not to nonlinear damages. We also compare the two schemes to each other. Neither dominates from a welfare perspective, but the comparison appears to tilt in favor of the Farrow et al. scheme.
Key Points:
Water‐quality trading is a useful policy approach to protecting water quality
Trading is hard, especially for branching rivers in which damages are nonlinear
Simulations show nonlinearity is the lesser problem, emissions limits critical</description><subject>branching</subject><subject>Confluence</subject><subject>Damage</subject><subject>nonlinear damages</subject><subject>Nonlinear systems</subject><subject>Pollution</subject><subject>Quality</subject><subject>River systems</subject><subject>Rivers</subject><subject>spatially explicit prices</subject><subject>trading ratios</subject><subject>Water pollution</subject><subject>Water quality</subject><subject>water-quality trading</subject><issn>0043-1397</issn><issn>1944-7973</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp90MtKLDEQBuAgCo6XnQ8QOBsXpzXpXGpyNh4dvA8KgzLgJsR09djado9JGp23t2VExIWr2nxV_PUTssPZHmcs388Zl9MJ40pptkIG3EiZgQGxSgaMSZFxYWCdbMT4yHqpNAzI_6lLGLKXztVVWtAUXFE1s3905Br6inSGiaYHpPNQeYy0Lem8resuVW1DQzV7SAdbZK10dcTtz7lJbk-Ob0Zn2fj69Hx0OM68VkxmLlde3DOjhQLFsTSgPQIWHHw5NNoMtVNSSlMYrgw6plkhtS-VH_rCcyzEJtld3p2H9qXDmOxzFT3WtWuw7aLl0L8EUmvZ0z8_6GPbhaZPZ7nhAJJLAb8qbZiEHLjo1d-l8qGNMWBp-yqeXVhYzuxH6fZ76T0XS_5a1bj41drpZDTJ-ygfgbPlVhUTvn1tufBkNQhQdnp1au_GR_nl5fjCXoh3yjCPLQ</recordid><startdate>201505</startdate><enddate>201505</enddate><creator>Konishi, Yoshifumi</creator><creator>Coggins, Jay S.</creator><creator>Wang, Bin</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7TV</scope><scope>H97</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201505</creationdate><title>Water-quality trading: Can we get the prices of pollution right?</title><author>Konishi, Yoshifumi ; Coggins, Jay S. ; Wang, Bin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c6504-a25c3b09635751ef976ce7ed17cf896986a54449d9159ea060d46cf5c8cdc1ed3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>branching</topic><topic>Confluence</topic><topic>Damage</topic><topic>nonlinear damages</topic><topic>Nonlinear systems</topic><topic>Pollution</topic><topic>Quality</topic><topic>River systems</topic><topic>Rivers</topic><topic>spatially explicit prices</topic><topic>trading ratios</topic><topic>Water pollution</topic><topic>Water quality</topic><topic>water-quality trading</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Konishi, Yoshifumi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coggins, Jay S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Bin</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Pollution Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality</collection><jtitle>Water resources research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Konishi, Yoshifumi</au><au>Coggins, Jay S.</au><au>Wang, Bin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Water-quality trading: Can we get the prices of pollution right?</atitle><jtitle>Water resources research</jtitle><addtitle>Water Resour. Res</addtitle><date>2015-05</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>51</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>3126</spage><epage>3144</epage><pages>3126-3144</pages><issn>0043-1397</issn><eissn>1944-7973</eissn><abstract>Water‐quality trading requires inducing permit prices that account properly for spatially explicit damage relationships. We compare recent work by Hung and Shaw (2005) and Farrow et al. (2005) for river systems exhibiting branching and nonlinear damages. The Hung‐Shaw scheme is robust to nonlinear damages, but not to hot spots occurring at the confluence of two branches. The Farrow et al. (2005) scheme is robust to branching, but not to nonlinear damages. We also compare the two schemes to each other. Neither dominates from a welfare perspective, but the comparison appears to tilt in favor of the Farrow et al. scheme.
Key Points:
Water‐quality trading is a useful policy approach to protecting water quality
Trading is hard, especially for branching rivers in which damages are nonlinear
Simulations show nonlinearity is the lesser problem, emissions limits critical</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1002/2014WR015560</doi><tpages>19</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0043-1397 |
| ispartof | Water resources research, 2015-05, Vol.51 (5), p.3126-3144 |
| issn | 0043-1397 1944-7973 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1701474664 |
| source | Access via Wiley Online Library; Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
| subjects | branching Confluence Damage nonlinear damages Nonlinear systems Pollution Quality River systems Rivers spatially explicit prices trading ratios Water pollution Water quality water-quality trading |
| title | Water-quality trading: Can we get the prices of pollution right? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T19%3A33%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Water-quality%20trading:%20Can%20we%20get%20the%20prices%20of%20pollution%20right?&rft.jtitle=Water%20resources%20research&rft.au=Konishi,%20Yoshifumi&rft.date=2015-05&rft.volume=51&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=3126&rft.epage=3144&rft.pages=3126-3144&rft.issn=0043-1397&rft.eissn=1944-7973&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/2014WR015560&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3723266661%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1690472713&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |