Water‐quality trading: Can we get the prices of pollution right?
Water‐quality trading: Can we get the prices of pollution right?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/2014wr015560
复制
发表时间：
2015-05
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
Yoshifumi Konishi;J. Coggins;Bin Wang-
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Yoshifumi Konishi;J. Coggins;Bin Wang-
水质交易需要引入适当考虑空间明确损害关系的许可证价格。我们比较了 Hung 和 Shaw (2005) 以及 Farrow 等人的最新工作。 (2005) 对于表现出分支和非线性损坏的河流系统。 Hung-Shaw 方案对于非线性损伤具有鲁棒性，但对于两个分支汇合处出现的热点则不然。法罗等人。 (2005) 方案对于分支具有鲁棒性，但对于非线性损伤则不然。我们还将这两个方案进行了相互比较。从福利角度来看，两者都不占主导地位，但比较似乎倾向于法罗等人。方案。
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.