IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/apjorx/v30y2013i02ns0217595912500492.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Dea-Based Approach For Evaluating The Opportunity Cost Of Environmental Regulations

Author

Listed:
  • CHIH-CHING YANG

    (Department of Marketing Management, Central Taiwan University of Science and Technology, No. 666, Pu-tzu Road, Taichung 406, Taiwan, ROC)

Abstract

Opportunity costs of environmental regulations (OCER) are an important consideration when governments make decisions on the formulation of environmental policies and when plants make decisions in response to environmental policies. Aimed at measuring OCER, the current paper proposes an approach in which the achievements of environmental control implemented by a production unit are considered. We quantify and define the achievements as "desirable" environmental outputs. In this way, for a production unit, producing normal desirable outputs and reaching environmental outputs is a tradeoff. OCER is measured by calculating a maximum amount of increasable normal outputs when production units do not need to produce any environmental outputs. Directional distance functions and data envelopment analysis (DEA) techniques are used to calculate OCER. The approach is applied to an empirical illustration based on Taiwan's port industry covering the period 2001–2007. It is found that the industry incurred opportunity costs due to environmental regulations equivalent to 1.8% of total revenue it creates. However, the OCER are significantly less than the economic losses due to productive inefficiency (PIE).

Suggested Citation

  • Chih-Ching Yang, 2013. "A Dea-Based Approach For Evaluating The Opportunity Cost Of Environmental Regulations," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 30(02), pages 1-17.
  • Handle: RePEc:wsi:apjorx:v:30:y:2013:i:02:n:s0217595912500492
    DOI: 10.1142/S0217595912500492
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217595912500492
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S0217595912500492?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. Pizer, William A. & Kopp, Raymond, 2005. "Calculating the Costs of Environmental Regulation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 25, pages 1307-1351, Elsevier.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Moawia Alghalith & Xu Guo & Cuizhen Niu & Wing-Keung Wong, 2017. "Input Demand Under Joint Energy and Output Prices Uncertainties," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 34(04), pages 1-12, August.
    2. Florian Jaehn & Raisa Juopperi, 2019. "A Description of Supply Chain Planning Problems in the Paper Industry with Literature Review," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 36(01), pages 1-39, February.
    3. Mrinal Kumar Dasgupta & Deepankar Sinha, 2016. "Impact of Privatization of Ports on Relative Efficiency of Major Ports of India," Foreign Trade Review, , vol. 51(3), pages 225-247, August.

    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. Pizer, William A. & Burtraw, Dallas & Harrington, Winston & Newell, Richard G. & Sanchirico, James N., 2005. "Modeling Economywide versus Sectoral Climate Policies Using Combined Aggregate-Sectoral Models," Discussion Papers 10502, Resources for the Future.
    2. Barbara Annicchiarico & Fabio Di Dio, 2014. "Ramsey Monetary Policy and GHG Emission Control," CEIS Research Paper 330, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 24 Sep 2014.
    3. David Maradan & Anatoli Vassiliev, 2005. "Marginal Costs of Carbon Dioxide Abatement: Empirical Evidence from Cross-Country Analysis," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 141(III), pages 377-410, September.
    4. Annicchiarico, Barbara & Di Dio, Fabio, 2015. "Environmental policy and macroeconomic dynamics in a new Keynesian model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-21.
    5. Francois Retief & Bennett Chabalala, 2009. "The Cost Of Environmental Impact Assessment (Eia) In South Africa," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 11(01), pages 51-68.
    6. Parry, Ian W.H., 2003. "On the implications of technological innovation for environmental policy," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 57-76, February.
    7. Shimshack, Jay P. & Ward, Michael B., 2022. "Costly sanctions and the treatment of frequent violators in regulatory settings," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    8. Isabelle Piot-Lepetit & Monique Moing, 2007. "Productivity and environmental regulation: the effect of the nitrates directive in the French pig sector," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(4), pages 433-446, December.
    9. Allen Blackman & Francisco Alpízar & Fredrik Carlsson & Marisol Rivera Planter, 2018. "A Contingent Valuation Approach to Estimating Regulatory Costs: Mexico’s Day without Driving Program," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 5(3), pages 607-641.
    10. Jared Woollacott, 2018. "The Economic Costs And Co-Benefits Of Carbon Taxation: A General Equilibrium Assessment," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(01), pages 1-22, February.
    11. Alix-Garcia, Jennifer M. & Sims, Katharine R.E. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2019. "Using referenda to improve targeting and decrease costs of conditional cash transfers," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 179-194.
    12. Parry, Ian W.H., 2002. "Adjusting Carbon Cost Analyses to Account for Prior Tax Distortions," Discussion Papers 10481, Resources for the Future.
    13. Ajay Gambhir & Tamaryn Napp & Adam Hawkes & Lena Höglund-Isaksson & Wilfried Winiwarter & Pallav Purohit & Fabian Wagner & Dan Bernie & Jason Lowe, 2017. "The Contribution of Non-CO 2 Greenhouse Gas Mitigation to Achieving Long-Term Temperature Goals," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-23, May.
    14. Wallander, Steven & Maguire, Kelly B., 2020. "The Costs of Environmental Regulation of the U.S. Agricultural Sector," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304400, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Lioui, Abraham & Sharma, Zenu, 2012. "Environmental corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Disentangling direct and indirect effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 100-111.
    16. Carl F. Cranor & Adam M. Finkel, 2018. "Toward the usable recognition of individual benefits and costs in regulatory analysis and governance," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 131-149, March.
    17. Rahman, Shaikh M. & Kirkman, Grant A., 2015. "Costs of certified emission reductions under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 129-141.
    18. Anwesha Banerjee & Stefano Barbieri & Kai A. Konrad, 2022. "Climate Policy, Irreversibilities and Global Economic Shocks," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2022-11, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.

    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:wsi:apjorx:v:30:y:2013:i:02:n:s0217595912500492. 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: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/apjor/apjor.shtml .

    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.