dc.creatorO'Ryan Gallardo, Miguel
dc.date.accessioned2009-06-05T11:45:31Z
dc.date.accessioned2019-04-25T23:47:32Z
dc.date.available2009-06-05T11:45:31Z
dc.date.available2019-04-25T23:47:32Z
dc.date.created2009-06-05T11:45:31Z
dc.date.issued2006-08
dc.identifierJOURNAL OF REGULATORY ECONOMICS Volume: 30 Issue: 2 Pages: 179-198 Published: AUG 2006
dc.identifier0922-680X
dc.identifierhttp://www.repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/124956
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/2429284
dc.description.abstractThis paper develops a conceptual model to analyze how specific factors affect the compliance costs of three suboptimal policy instruments, when compared to the optimal ambient permit system (APS) benchmark. The model considers a nonuniformly mixed pollutant and explicitly incorporates the following factors: number of polluting sources; size, in terms of emissions, of each process; marginal abatement costs for each process; effluent concentrations; the transfer coefficient that relates emissions to environmental quality at the receptor; and the desired environmental quality target. APS is compared to a suboptimal emission permit system (EPS), and two Command and Control (CAC) policies-equal percentage reduction (PER) and a uniform effluent concentration standard (STD). The results show the importance of the different factors and their interactions in determining each policy instrument's cost-effectiveness ranking. Surprisingly, EPS performs well within the usual values of these factors and in specific cases STD and PER also perform similarly to APS.
dc.languageen
dc.publisherSPRINGER
dc.subjectAIR-POLLUTION
dc.titleFactors that determine the cost-effectiveness ranking of second-best instruments for environmental regulation
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución