Abstract
The purpose of this short note is to open an exploration regarding the use of non market valuation to help guide the selection of economically efficient pollution control instruments. As long as non market valuation techniques can correctly estimate the slope of the marginal benefit of abatement curve, this information along with engineering cost estimates of the unit costs or slope of the marginal abatement cost will provide useful information to policy makers in choosing between fees and permits. An illustrative review of the literature suggests that both stated and revealed preference methods have estimated slopes of marginal benefit functions for reducing several pollutants. To investigate the efficiency of permits versus fees, an illustrative review of corresponding marginal abatement costs is also made. For air pollutants affecting visibility, the slope of the marginal benefit curve is far greater than the slope of the marginal abatement costs, suggesting permits as the efficient instrument. For nitrates in groundwater used for drinking, the marginal benefit curve is flatter than the rather steep marginal abatement cost, suggesting fees/taxes would be a more efficient economic instrument. We hope this note stimulates more emphasis in non market valuation on estimating the slope of the marginal benefit function to enhance environmental economists ability to make policy recommendations regarding the choice of pollution instruments for specific pollutants.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adar A and Griffin JM (1976). Uncertainty and choice of pollution control instruments. J Environ Econ Manage 3: 178–188
Baumol W and Oates W (1988). The theory of environmental policy, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Begrstrom J, Boyle K and Poe G (2001). The economic value of water quality. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton
Boyle K, Poor J and Taylor L (1999). Estimating the demand for protecting freshwater lakes from eutrophication. Am J Agric Econ 81(5): 1118–1122
Brookshire D, Thayer M, Schulze W and d’Arge R (1982). Valuing public goods: a comparison of survey and hedonic approaches. Am Econ Rev 72(1): 165–177
Burtraw D, Mansur A, Austin D and Farrell D (1998). Costs and benefits of reducing air pollutants related to acid rain. Contemp Econ Policy 16: 379–400
Carson R, Flores N, Martin K and Wright J (1996). Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Econ 72(1): 80–99
Carson R and Mitchell R (1993). The value of clean water: the public’s willingness to pay for boatable, fishable and swimmable quality water. Water Resour Res 29(7): 2445–2454
Champ P, Bishop R, Brown T and McCollum D (1997). Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. J Environ Econ Manage 33(2): 151–162
Chay K and Greenstone M (2005). Does air quality matter? Evidence from the housing market. J Polit Econ 113(2): 376–424
Cummings R and Osborne L (1999). Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89(3): 649–665
Deck L (1997) Visibility at Grand Canyon and the Navajo generating station. In: Morgenstern R, (ed) Economic analyses at EPA: assessing regulatory impact resources for the future, Washington DC
Englin J, Lambert D and Shaw WD (1997). A structural equations approach to modeling consumptive recreation demand. J Environ Econ Manage 33(1): 33–43
Freeman M (2002). Environmental policy since Earth day: what have we gained. J Econ Perspect 16(1): 125–146
Harrington W, Morgenstern R and Nelson P (2000). On the accuracy of regulatory cost estimates. J Policy Analy Manage 19(2): 297–322
Hartman R, Wheeler D and Singh M (1997). The cost of air pollution abatement. Appl Econ 29: 759–774
Hazilla M and Kopp R (1990). Social cost of environmental quality regulations: a general equilibrium analysis. J Polit Econ 98: 853–873
Holmes T, Adamowicz W (2003) Attribute-based methods. In: Champ P, Boyle K, Brown T (eds) A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston
Muller N and Mendelsohn R (2007). Measuring damages of air pollution in the United States. J Environ Econ Manage 54(1): 1–14
Poe G, Bishop R (2001) Information and the valuation of nitrates in ground water, Portage County, Wisconsin. In: Begrstrom J, Boyle K, Poe G (eds) The economic value of water quality, Chap. 3. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton
Smith VK and Huang J-C (1995). Can markets value air quality? A meta-analysis of Hedonic property models. J Polit Econ 103(1): 209–227
Smith VK and Osborne L (1996). Do contingent valuation estimates pass a scope test? A meta analysis. J Environ Econ Manage 31: 287–301
Stavins R (1996). Correlated uncertainty and policy instrument choice. J Environ Econ Manage 30: 218–232
Watson W and Ridker R (1984). Losses from effluent taxes and quotas under uncertainty. J Environ Econ Manage 11: 310–326
Weitzman M (1974). Prices vs quantities. Rev Econ Stud 41: 477–491
Yiridoe E and Weersink A (1998). Marginal abatement costs of reducing groundwater-N pollution with intensive and extensive farm management choices. Agric Resour Econ Rev 27(2): 169–185
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Loomis, J.B., Allen, B. Using Non Market Valuation to Inform the Choice Between Permits and Fees in Environmental Regulation. Environ Resource Econ 40, 329–337 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9156-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9156-x