[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea14/170274.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Point-Nonpoint Heresy?! An Endogenous Risk Explanation for Point-Nonpoint Trading Ratios Less than One

Author

Listed:
  • Horan, Richard
  • Shortle, James
Abstract
Extant point-nonpoint trading programs involve trades of relatively certain point source emissions reductions for highly uncertain estimates of nonpoint reductions. Trade ratios, or uncertainty ratios, define the rate at which these imperfect substitute commodities are traded. Economic research on optimal trade ratio design provides support for ratios greater than or less than one, depending on how nonpoint source emissions uncertainties respond to trading. While this implies optimal trade ratio magnitudes are an empirical issue, guidelines for extant programs universally call for ratios that exceed one. Such guidelines are implicitly based on a priori assumptions about risk that are akin to treating risk as a fixed, exogenous measure rather than as an endogenous one that responds to policy-induced behavioral changes. Perhaps this should not be surprising, as prior analyses do not clearly illustrate out-of-equilibrium tradeoffs involving abatement costs and environmental risks, obscuring the endogenous nature of risk. We develop a new approach that illustrates these tradeoffs explicitly. Unlike prior studies that only illustrate the unique, optimal equilibrium ratio, our approach allows us to examine economic tradeoffs and abatement outcomes associated with different trade ratios. Our results show that an optimally designed trading program reallocates abatement to nonpoint sources to reduce abatement costs or to reduce environmental risks from nonpoint sources, but not both. This outcome is in direct contrast to the stated goals of the EPA’s national trading rules. Our methodology is also useful for examining second-best program design. Here, we find theoretical support that smaller ratios may be optimal.

Suggested Citation

  • Horan, Richard & Shortle, James, 2014. "Point-Nonpoint Heresy?! An Endogenous Risk Explanation for Point-Nonpoint Trading Ratios Less than One," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170274, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea14:170274
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.170274
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/170274/files/AAEA%20paper.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.170274?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David A. Hennessy & Hongli Feng, 2008. "When Should Uncertain Nonpoint Emissions Be Penalized in a Trading Program?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(1), pages 249-255.
    2. Richard D. Horan & James S. Shortle, 2005. "When Two Wrongs Make a Right: Second-Best Point-Nonpoint Trading Ratios," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 340-352.
    3. Arun S. Malik & David Letson & Stephen R. Crutchfield, 1993. "Point/Nonpoint Source Trading of Pollution Abatement: Choosing the Right Trading Ratio," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(4), pages 959-967.
    4. Richard D. Horan, 2001. "Differences in Social and Public Risk Perceptions and Conflicting Impacts on Point/Nonpoint Trading Ratios," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(4), pages 934-941.
    5. Karen Fisher-Vanden & Sheila Olmstead, 2013. "Moving Pollution Trading from Air to Water: Potential, Problems, and Prognosis," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 147-172, Winter.
    6. Shortle, James S., 1987. "Allocative Implications Of Comparisons Between The Marginal Costs Of Point And Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 16(1), pages 1-7, April.
    7. Ronald C. Griffin & Daniel W. Bromley, 1982. "Agricultural Runoff as a Nonpoint Externality: A Theoretical Development," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 64(3), pages 547-552.
    8. James Shortle & Richard D. Horan, 2013. "Policy Instruments for Water Quality Protection," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 5(1), pages 111-138, June.
    9. James S. Shortle & James W. Dunn, 1986. "The Relative Efficiency of Agricultural Source Water Pollution Control Policies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(3), pages 668-677.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. James Shortle & Richard D. Horan, 2017. "Nutrient Pollution: A Wicked Challenge for Economic Instruments," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(02), pages 1-39, April.
    2. James Shortle & Richard D. Horan, 2013. "Policy Instruments for Water Quality Protection," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 5(1), pages 111-138, June.
    3. James Shortle, 2017. "Policy Nook: “Economic Incentives for Water Quality Protection”," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(02), pages 1-11, April.
    4. Hanson, James C. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 2008. "Simulated Trading for Maryland's Nitrogen Loadings in the Chesapeake Bay," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 1-16.
    5. Aaron M. Cook & James S. Shortle, 2022. "Pollutant Trading with Transport Time Lags," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(2), pages 355-382, June.
    6. Horowitz, John K. & Just, Richard E., 2013. "Economics of additionality for environmental services from agriculture," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 105-122.
    7. Ghosh, Gaurav & Shortle, James, 2012. "Managing Pollution Risk through Emissions Trading," FCN Working Papers 1/2012, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).
    8. Smith, Craig M. & Peterson, Jeffrey M. & Leatherman, John C. & Williams, Jeffery R., 2012. "A Simulation of Factors Impeding Water Quality Trading," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 42(2), pages 1-15.
    9. Fleming, Patrick & Lichtenberg, Erik & Newburn, David, 2018. "Water Quality Trading Program Design with Heterogeneous Behavioral Responses," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274429, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Lötjönen, Sanna & Ollikainen, Markku & Kotamäki, Niina & Huttunen, Markus & Huttunen, Inese, 2021. "Nutrient load compensation as a means of maintaining the good ecological status of surface waters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    11. Yusuke Kuwayama & Nicholas Brozović, 2017. "Optimal Management of Environmental Externalities with Time Lags and Uncertainty," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 473-499, November.
    12. Carson Reeling & Richard D. Horan & Cloé Garnache, 2020. "When the Levee Breaks: Can Multi‐Pollutant Markets Break the Dam on Point–Nonpoint Market Participation?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(2), pages 625-640, March.
    13. Valcu, Adriana Mihaela, 2013. "Agricultural nonpoint source pollution and water quality trading: empirical analysis under imperfect cost information and measurement error," ISU General Staff Papers 201301010800004451, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    14. Karen Fisher-Vanden & Sheila Olmstead, 2013. "Moving Pollution Trading from Air to Water: Potential, Problems, and Prognosis," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 147-172, Winter.
    15. Horan, Richard D. & Shortle, James S. & Abler, David G. & Ribaudo, Marc, 2001. "The Design And Comparative Economic Performance Of Alternative Second-Best Point/Nonpoint Trading Markets," Staff Paper Series 11595, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    16. Reeling, Carson & Garnache, Cloé & Horan, Richard, 2018. "Efficiency gains from integrated multipollutant trading," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 124-136.
    17. Woodward, Richard T., 2001. "The Environmentally Optimal Trading Ratio," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20491, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Shortle, James, 2013. "Economics and Environmental Markets: Lessons from Water-Quality Trading," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(1), pages 1-18, April.
    19. Catherine L. Kling, 2011. "Economic Incentives to Improve Water Quality in Agricultural Landscapes: Some New Variations on Old Ideas," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(2), pages 297-309.
    20. Hanson, James C. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 2007. "Nutrient Trading, the Flush Tax, and Maryland's Nitrogen Emissions to the Chesapeake Bay," Working Papers 7343, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy; Risk and Uncertainty;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea14:170274. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.