Abstract
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.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 3126-3144 |
| Number of pages | 19 |
| Journal | Water Resources Research |
| Volume | 51 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - May 1 2015 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2015. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 6 Clean Water and Sanitation
-
SDG 14 Life Below Water
Keywords
- branching
- nonlinear damages
- spatially explicit prices
- trading ratios
- water-quality trading
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Water-quality trading: Can we get the prices of pollution right?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS