IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-03658461.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cost-benefit analysis of nitrate abatement in the Souffel catchment (France): Sensitivity study of the damage and spatialization of the abatement effort

Author

Listed:
  • François Destandau

    (UMR GESTE - Gestion Territoriale de l'Eau et de l'environnement - ENGEES - École Nationale du Génie de l'Eau et de l'Environnement de Strasbourg - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Youssef Zaiter

    (UMR GESTE - Gestion Territoriale de l'Eau et de l'environnement - ENGEES - École Nationale du Génie de l'Eau et de l'Environnement de Strasbourg - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

Abstract

Nitrate transfer from agricultural sources via river networks remains a serious unresolved and complex issue. This article proposes an economic analysis of the optimal reduction of this nitrate. A linear transformation and transport model of nitrogen inputs from agricultural sources in the form of nitrate from five agricultural areas towards a hydrographic network in France is used to calculate the optimal effort to reduce nitrogen inputs on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis (CBA). A sensitivity study is implemented with different damage scenarios. In addition, efforts to reduce uniform and spatialized inputs are compared. In particular, our results show the determining role of the magnitude of the damage. The ratio of 1 to 3 between the low and high range of its estimation would make it possible to attain good status, as specified by the Water Framework Directive (WFD), without having to resort to the exemption procedure, decreasing the average optimal nitrate concentration from 47 mg/l to 42 mg/l. Moreover, this would increase the absolute and relative benefits of spatialization by a factor of 9 and 2, respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • François Destandau & Youssef Zaiter, 2022. "Cost-benefit analysis of nitrate abatement in the Souffel catchment (France): Sensitivity study of the damage and spatialization of the abatement effort," Post-Print hal-03658461, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03658461
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106791
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-03658461
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-03658461/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106791?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tietenberg, T. H., 1974. "Derived decision rules for pollution control in a general equilibrium space economy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 3-16, May.
    2. Krysiak, Frank C. & Schweitzer, Patrick, 2010. "The optimal size of a permit market," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 133-143, September.
    3. Raúl O’Ryan, 2006. "Factors that determine the cost-effectiveness ranking of second-best instruments for environmental regulation," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 179-198, August.
    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. Qiu, Zeyuan & Prato, Anthony A., 1999. "Accounting For Spatial Characteristics Of Watersheds In Evaluating Water Pollution Abatement Policies," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(1), pages 1-15, April.
    2. Mardones, Cristian & Saavedra, Andrés, 2016. "Comparison of economic instruments to reduce PM2.5 from industrial and residential sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 443-452.
    3. Yates, Andrew J. & Doyle, Martin W. & Rigby, J.R. & Schnier, Kurt E., 2013. "Market power, private information, and the optimal scale of pollution permit markets with application to North Carolina's Neuse River," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 256-276.
    4. Fleming, R. A. & Adams, R. M., 1997. "The Importance of Site-Specific Information in the Design of Policies to Control Pollution," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 347-358, July.
    5. Kyriakopoulou , Efthymia & Xepapadeas, Anastasios, 2014. "Atmospheric Pollution in Rapidly Growing Urban Centers: Spatial Policies and Land Use Patterns," Working Papers in Economics 601, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    6. Arnott, Richard & Hochman, Oded & Rausser, Gordon C., 2008. "Pollution and land use: Optimum and decentralization," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 390-407, September.
    7. Parker, Dawn Cassandra, 2007. "Revealing "space" in spatial externalities: Edge-effect externalities and spatial incentives," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 84-99, July.
    8. Estay, Manuel & Stranlund, John K., 2022. "Entry, location, and optimal environmental policies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    9. Vetter Henrik, 2005. "Pollution Taxes for Monopolistically Competitive Firms," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-25, May.
    10. Efthymia Kyriakopoulou & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2013. "Spatial Policies and Land Use Patterns: Optimal and Market Allocations," DEOS Working Papers 1328, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    11. Anna Lungarska & Pierre-Alain Jayet, 2018. "Impact of Spatial Differentiation of Nitrogen Taxes on French Farms’ Compliance Costs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(1), pages 1-21, January.
    12. Dawn C. Parker, 1999. "Landscape Outcomes in a Model of Edge Effect Externalities: A Computational Economics Approach," Working Papers 99-07-051, Santa Fe Institute.
    13. Chung, Sung H. & Weaver, Robert D. & Friesz, Terry L., 2012. "Oligopolies in pollution permit markets: A dynamic game approach," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 48-56.
    14. K Willett & R Sharda, 1988. "A Dynamic Multimarket Equilibrium Model for the Economic Analysis of Pollution Control Policies," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 20(3), pages 391-405, March.
    15. Cabe, Richard & Herriges, Joseph A., 1990. "The Regulation of Heterogenous Non-Point Sources of Pollution Under Imperfect Information," 1990 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Vancouver, Canada 271010, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Kampas, Athanasios & Melfou, Katerina & Aftab, Ashar, 2013. "Designing Regulatory Policies for Complex Externalities: The Case of Agricultural Pollution," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 14(2), pages 1-14.
    17. François DESTANDAU & Anne ROZAN & Sandrine SPAETER, 2014. "Supra-Regional vs. Regional Regulators in the Water Pollution Mitigation: Optimal Exemption Policies," Working Papers of BETA 2014-09, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    18. Lacroix, A. & Bel, F. & Mollard, A. & Sauboua, E., 2004. "Interest of site-specific pollution control policies," Working Papers 200424, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    19. Brozovic, Nicholas & Sunding, David L. & Zilberman, David, 2004. "Prices versus Quantities Reconsidered," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20257, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. Werner Antweiler, 2017. "Emission trading for air pollution hot spots: getting the permit market right," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(1), pages 35-58, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    cost-benefit analysis; nitrogen pollution; sensitivity analysis; environmental damage; abatement effort spatialization;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hal:journl:hal-03658461. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.