|
on Resource Economics |
|
Issue of 2005‒10‒29
four papers chosen by |
| By: | Rob F.T. Aalbers (SEO Economic Research, Amsterdam); Herman R.J. Vollebergh (Faculty of Economics, Erasmus Universiteit) |
| Abstract: | Using a general equilibrium model with heterogeneous waste, this paper studies optimal waste policy when households have to exert separation effort to produce near-homogeneous waste streams suitable for recycling. Our model explicitly allows for changes in the composition (quality) of waste streams depending on how much effort households are willing to spend on separating different types of waste. Accordingly, we are able to generalize some earlier contributions to the waste management literature and demonstrate that with both mixing and effort included, a first-best optimum is feasible under reasonable conditions. In particular, we find that a (modified) deposit-refund system still provides the optimal incentives to guide recycling as well as legal disposal (landfilling) and illegal dumping. Both the number and level of taxes and subsidies needed to reach the first-best depend crucially on the socially optimal level of dumping as well as the socially optimal composition of the mix. |
| Keywords: | Economics of Waste; Recycling; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies; General Equilibrium Theory |
| JEL: | H21 H23 Q53 |
| Date: | 2005–10–14 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:dgr:uvatin:20050094&r=res |
| By: | Kling, Catherine L.; Feng, Hongli; Kurkalova, Lyubov; Gassman, Philip W. |
| Abstract: | This study investigates the carbon sequestration potential and co-benefits from policies aimed at retiring agricultural land in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, a large, heavily agricultural area. We extend the empirical measurement of co-benefits from the previous focus on environmental benenfits to include economic transfers. These transfers have often been mentioned as a co-benenfit, but little empirical work measruring the potential magnitude of these transfers has previously been undertaken. We compare and contrast five targeting schemes, each based on maximizing different physical environmental measures, including carbon sequestration, soil erosion, nitrogen runoff, nitrogen leaching, as well as the area enrolled in the program. In each case, the other environmental benefits and economic transfers are computed. We find that the geographic distribution of co-benefits (including economic transfers) varies significantly with the benefit targeted, implying that policy design related to targeting can have very important implications for both environmental condition and income distributions in sub-regions. |
| Keywords: | carbon sequestration, co-benefits, co-effects, economic transfers, environmental benefits targeting, Upper Mississippi River Basin |
| Date: | 2005–10–17 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:isu:genres:12439&r=res |
| By: | Tu, Anh; Beghin, John C.; Gozlan, Estelle |
| Abstract: | We investigate the interface between trade and invasive species (IS) risk, focusing on the existing tariff escalation in agro-forestry product markets and its implication for IS risk. Tariff escalation in processed agro-forestry products exacerbates the risk of IS by biasing trade flows toward increased trade of primary commodity flows and against processed-product trade. We show that reducing tariff escalation by lowering the tariff on processed goods increases allocative efficiency and reduces the IS externality, a win-win situation. We also identify policy menus for trade reforms involving tariffs on both raw input and processed goods, leading to win-win situations. |
| Keywords: | agro-forestry products, exotic pest, international trade, invasive species, tariff escalation, trade flows. |
| Date: | 2005–10–18 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:isu:genres:12442&r=res |
| By: | Anne Borge Johannesen (Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology) |
| Abstract: | The establishment and expansion of protected areas in Africa have been motivated by the aspiration of increased wildlife abundance. During the past decades, however, this practise has been subject to a massive debate. While some claim that protected areas have failed in preserving African wildlife, others claim that existing protected areas are successful. This paper adds to this debate by presenting a bio-economic analysis of protected area expansion. The model considers a hunter-agrarian community located on the border of a protected area. An expansion of the protected area means less land for agricultural cultivation and hunting. Depending on the economic conditions in these activities, it is demonstrated that protected area expansion may reduce the degree of wildlife conservation. In addition, it may reduce the welfare of the local people. |
| Keywords: | protected areas; wildlife conservation; hunting; agriculture; local welfare |
| Date: | 2005–10–10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nst:samfok:6005&r=res |