Advertisement

Environmental Modeling & Assessment

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 653–669 | Cite as

The Strategic Impact of Adaptation in a Transboundary Pollution Dynamic Game

  • Baris Vardar
  • Georges ZaccourEmail author
Article
  • 60 Downloads

Abstract

This work studies the strategic impact of a region’s investment in adaptation measures on the equilibrium outcomes of a transboundary pollution dynamic game played in finite horizon. We incorporate adaptation as a region-specific capital stock that decreases local damages and study the feedback (subgame perfect) equilibrium of the non-cooperative game between two regions. In order to discern the impact of adaptation, we compare the equilibrium solutions of three scenarios, which differ in the regions’ ability to invest in adaptation measures. The results show that investing in adaptation gives regions an incentive to increase their emissions, which causes an inverse strategic response in the other region. The anticipation of a rise in pollution makes the other region respond by cutting its emissions and investing more in adaptation. The equilibrium trajectories of the stocks of pollution and adaptation capital follow the highest path over time when both regions adapt. When there is an asymmetry between regions in their adaptation capabilities, the region that does not (or cannot) adapt becomes worse off due to lower emissions and higher damages, while the adapting region finishes the game better off than the no-adaptation case.

Keywords

Adaptation Transboundary pollution Dynamic game Non-cooperative solution Feedback-Nash equilibrium 

References

  1. 1.
    Agrawala, S., Bosello, F., Carraro, C., De Bruin, K., De Cian, E., Dellink, R., Lanzi, E. (2011). Plan or react? Analysis of adaptation costs and benefits using integrated assessment models. Climate Change Economics, 2(3), 175–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agrawala, S., Bosello, F., Carraro, C., De Cian, E., Lanzi, E. (2011). Adapting to climate change: costs, benefits, and modelling approaches. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 5(3), 245–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bréchet, T., Hritonenko, N., Yatsenko, Y. (2013). Adaptation and mitigation in long-term climate policy. Environmental and Resource Economics, 55(2), 217–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bréchet, T., Hritonenko, N., Yatsenko, Y. (2016). Domestic environmental policy and international cooperation for global commons. Resource and Energy Economics, 44, 183–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benchekroun, H., & Taherkhani, F. (2014). Adaptation and the allocation of pollution reduction costs. Dynamic Games and Applications, 4(1), 32–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benchekroun, H., Marrouch, W., Chaudhuri, A. R. (2017). Adaptation technology and free-riding incentives in international environmental agreements. In Kayalca, O., Cagatay, S., Mihci, H. (Eds.) Economics of International Environmental Agreements: A Critical Approach. Routledge U.K.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benchekroun, H., & Van Long, N. (2012). Collaborative environmental management: a review of the literature. International Game Theory Review, 14(04), 1240002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Breton, M., & Sbragia, L. (2016). Adaptation to climate change: commitment and timing issues. Environmental and Resource Economics, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Breton, M., & Sbragia, L. (2017). The impact of adaptation on the stability of international environmental agreements. Cahiers du GERAD G-2017-66.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buob, S., & Stephan, G. (2011). To mitigate or to adapt: how to confront global climate change. European Journal of Political Economy, 27(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Calvo, E., & Rubio, S. J. (2012). Dynamic models of international environmental agreements: a differential game approach. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 6(4), 289–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Bruin, K. C., Dellink, R. B., Tol, R. S. J. (2009). AD-DICE: an implementation of adaptation in the DICE model. Climatic Change, 95(1–2), 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Zeeuw, A. (2016). Dynamic games of international pollution control: a selective review. In Basar, T., & Zaccour, G. (Eds.) Handbook of Dynamic Game Theory (p. 26): Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dockner, E. J., & Van Long, N. (1993). International pollution control: cooperative versus noncooperative strategies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 25(1), 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ebert, U., & Welsch, H. (2011). Optimal response functions in global pollution problems can be upward-sloping: accounting for adaptation. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 13(2), 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ebert, U., & Welsch, H. (2012). Adaptation and mitigation in global pollution problems: economic impacts of productivity, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Environmental and Resource Economics, 52(1), 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Felgenhauer, T., & Webster, M. (2014). Modeling adaptation as a flow and stock decision with mitigation. Climatic Change, 122(4), 665–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Habla, W., & Roeder, K. (2017). The political economy of mitigation and adaptation. European Economic Review, 92, 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haurie, A., Krawczyk, J.B., Zaccour, G. (2012). Games and dynamic games. Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heuson, C., Peters, W., Schwarze, R., Topp, A. K. (2015). Investment and adaptation as commitment devices in climate politics. Environmental and Resource Economics, 62(4), 769–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hritonenko, N., & Yatsenko, Y. (2016). Mitigation vs. Adaptation: Analytic Models for Policy Assessment. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 21(5), 619–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ingham, A., Ma, J., Ulph, A. (2007). Climate change, mitigation and adaptation with uncertainty and learning. Energy Policy, 35(11), 5354–5369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ingham, A., Ma, J., Ulph, A. M. (2013). Can adaptation and mitigation be complements?. Climatic change, 120(1-2), 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jørgensen, S., Martín-herrán, G., Zaccour, G. (2010). Dynamic games in the economics and management of pollution. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 15(6), 433–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lazkano, I., Marrouch, W., Nkuiya, B. (2016). Adaptation to climate change: how does heterogeneity in adaptation costs affect climate coalitions?. Environment and Development Economics, 21(6), 812–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Long, N. V. (1992). Pollution control: a differential game approach. Annals of Operations Research, 37(1), 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Long, N. V. (2011). Dynamic games in the economics of natural resources: a survey. Dynamic Games and Applications, 1(1), 115–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Long, N. V. (2012). Applications of dynamic games to global and transboundary environmental issues: a review of the literature. Strategic Behavior and the Environment, 2(1), 1–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Masoudi, N., & Zaccour, G. (2016). Adaptation and international environmental agreements. Environmental and Resource Economics,  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-016-0080-9.
  30. 30.
    Masoudi, N., & Zaccour, G. (2017). Adapting to climate change: is cooperation good for the environment?. Economics Letters, 153, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Van der Ploeg, F., & de Zeeuw, A. J. (1992). International aspects of pollution control. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2(2), 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zehaie, F. (2009). The timing and strategic role of self-protection. Environmental and Resource Economics, 44(3), 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zemel, A. (2015). Adaptation, mitigation and risk: an analytic approach. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 51, 133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GERAD, HEC MontréalMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Chair in Game Theory ManagementGERAD, HEC MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations