IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v4y1994i6p555-580.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dynamic economic analysis of marine pollution prevention technologies: An application to double hulls and electronic charts

Author

Listed:
  • Di Jin
  • Hauke Kite-Powell
  • James Broadus

Abstract

Marine pollution associated with shipping accidents has resulted in a Congressional mandate for double hulls on tankers in U.S. waters. In this paper, we formulate a social planner's problem using optimal control theory to examine the relative cost-effectiveness of double hulls and alternative pollution prevention technologies, and the optimal installation strategy for such technologies. The model encompasses the costs and benefits associated with shipping operations, damage to the marine environment, and investment in each technology. A computer simulation of the model is used to evaluate investment strategies for two technological options: double hulls and electronic chart systems. Results indicate that electronic charts may be a far more cost-effective approach to marine pollution control. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Suggested Citation

  • Di Jin & Hauke Kite-Powell & James Broadus, 1994. "Dynamic economic analysis of marine pollution prevention technologies: An application to double hulls and electronic charts," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(6), pages 555-580, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:4:y:1994:i:6:p:555-580
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00693046
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00693046
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00693046?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cohen, Mark A., 1986. "The costs and benefits of oil spill prevention and enforcement," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 167-188, June.
    2. Kip Viscusi, W., 1988. "Irreversible environmental investments with uncertain benefit levels," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 147-157, June.
    3. Kahnemant, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Contingent valuation and the value of public goods: Reply," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 90-94, January.
    4. James J. Opaluch & Thomas A. Grigalunas, 1984. "Controlling Stochastic Pollution Events through Liability Rules: Some Evidence from OCS Leasing," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(1), pages 142-151, Spring.
    5. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    6. Richard F. Hartl, 1992. "Optimal Acquisition of Pollution Control Equipment Under Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(5), pages 609-622, May.
    7. Pindyck, Robert S, 1991. "Irreversibility, Uncertainty, and Investment," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 29(3), pages 1110-1148, September.
    8. Goodstein, Eban, 1992. "Saturday effects in tanker oil spills," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 276-288, November.
    9. Karl C. Samples & John A. Dixon & KMarcia M. Gowen, 1986. "Information Disclosure and Endangered Species Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(3), pages 306-312.
    10. Opaluch, James J., 1984. "The Use Of Liability Rules In Controlling Hazardous Waste Accidents: Theory And Practice," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 13(2), pages 1-8, October.
    11. Harrison, Glenn W., 1992. "Valuing public goods with the contingent valuation method: A critique of kahneman and knetsch," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 248-257, November.
    12. Thomas D. Hopkins, 1992. "Oil Spill Reduction And Costs Of Ship Design Regulation," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 10(3), pages 59-70, July.
    13. George R. Parsons & Yangru Wu, 1991. "The Opportunity Cost of Coastal Land-Use Controls: An Empirical Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(3), pages 308-316.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ruud Hoevenagel, 1996. "The validity of the contingent valuation method: Perfect and regular embedding," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 57-78, January.
    2. Blamey, Russell K., 1998. "Decisiveness, attitude expression and symbolic responses in contingent valuation surveys," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 577-601, March.
    3. Daigee Shaw & Yu-Lan Chien & Yih-Ming Lin, 1999. "Alternative approach to combining revealed and stated preference data: evaluating water quality of a river system in Taipei," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 2(2), pages 97-112, June.
    4. Eline Jongmans & Alain Jolibert & Julie Irwin, 2014. "Toujours plus, toujours mieux ? Effet contre-intuitif de l'évaluation des attributs environnementaux du produit par le consommateur," Post-Print halshs-01185784, HAL.
    5. W. George Hutchinson & Susan M. Chilton & John Davis, 1995. "Measuring Non‐Use Value Of Environmental Goods Using The Contingent Valuation Method: Problems Of Information And Cognition And The Application Of Cognitive Questionnaire Design Methods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 97-112, January.
    6. Daigee Shaw & Yu-Lan Chien & Yih-Ming Lin, 1999. "Alternative approach to combining revealed and stated preference data: evaluating water quality of a river system in Taipei," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 2(2), pages 97-112, June.
    7. Stern, David I., 1997. "Limits to substitution and irreversibility in production and consumption: A neoclassical interpretation of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 197-215, June.
    8. Clark, Jeremy & Friesen, Lana, 2008. "The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: An experimental investigation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 195-206, September.
    9. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    10. Clive L Spash, 2009. "Social Ecological Economics," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-08, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    11. Sagoff, M., 1998. "Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods:: A look beyond contingent pricing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 213-230, February.
    12. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    13. Olof Johansson-Stenman, 1998. "The Importance of Ethics in Environmental Economics with a Focus on Existence Values," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 429-442, April.
    14. Kort, P.M., 1992. "The effects of marketable pollution permits on the firm's optimal investment policies," Other publications TiSEM 96ce33f2-2228-4e7a-86a5-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Bateman, Ian J. & Cole, Matthew & Cooper, Philip & Georgiou, Stavros & Hadley, David & Poe, Gregory L., 2004. "On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 71-93, January.
    16. Alaya Spencer‐Cotton & Marit E. Kragt & Michael Burton, 2018. "Spatial and Scope Effects: Valuations of Coastal Management Practices," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 833-851, September.
    17. Julia Martin‐Ortega & M. Azahara Mesa‐Jurado & Julio Berbel, 2015. "Revisiting the Impact of Order Effects on Sensitivity to Scope: A Contingent Valuation of a Common‐Pool Resource," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 705-726, September.
    18. Hitzhusen, Frederick J. & Abdul-Mohsen, Ashraf & Kruse, Sarah, 2004. "Toward Improved Economic Analysis Using Contingent Valuation: Some Methodological Considerations Applied To River Toxics And Dam Removal," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20326, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Morrison, Mark & Blamey, Russell K., 1998. "Testing the validity of responses to contingent valuation questioning," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(2), pages 1-18.
    20. Schlapfer, Felix, 2008. "Contingent valuation: A new perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 729-740, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:4:y:1994:i:6:p:555-580. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.