This article provides an introduction to the symposium on best practices for using revealed preference methods for nonmarket valuation. Nonmarket valuation is an essential tool in the benefit–cost analysis (BCA) of environmental goods and services. Here, we identify the role of BCA in several key U.S. Executive Orders, U.K. appraisals, and European Union Directives that inform decision-making concerning regulatory oversight. We describe the evolution of key mandates over the last three decades and discuss some examples of how the analyses performed under these mandates have impacted regulatory outcomes.
{"title":"Revealed Preference Methods for Nonmarket Valuation: An Introduction to Best Practices","authors":"I. Bateman, C. Kling","doi":"10.1093/reep/reaa009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/reaa009","url":null,"abstract":"This article provides an introduction to the symposium on best practices for using revealed preference methods for nonmarket valuation. Nonmarket valuation is an essential tool in the benefit–cost analysis (BCA) of environmental goods and services. Here, we identify the role of BCA in several key U.S. Executive Orders, U.K. appraisals, and European Union Directives that inform decision-making concerning regulatory oversight. We describe the evolution of key mandates over the last three decades and discuss some examples of how the analyses performed under these mandates have impacted regulatory outcomes.","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/reep/reaa009","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42621965","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
C. Pérez-Blanco, Arthur Hrast-Essenfelder, C. Perry
Farming accounts for approximately 70 percent of freshwater withdrawals worldwide, and it often constitutes the lowest value use of freshwater. Where water is scarce, advanced irrigation technologies such as drip and piped delivery systems have been promoted as “water conservation technologies” (WCTs) that reduce agricultural water consumption, thus releasing water to alternative uses (e.g., the environment). This article examines whether this is true, discussing how WCTs contribute, in theory and practice, to water conservation. Based on an extensive review of more than 230 theoretical and empirical papers, we argue that WCTs should not be viewed as a tool for achieving water conservation, but rather as a means for stabilizing and increasing agricultural water productivity and farmers’ income in places where water is scarce. We conclude that, if the ultimate objective is water conservation, it is essential to adopt water conservation policies—that is, governance instruments aimed at reallocating available resources among uses (e.g., from irrigation to the environment)
{"title":"Irrigation Technology and Water Conservation: A Review of the Theory and Evidence","authors":"C. Pérez-Blanco, Arthur Hrast-Essenfelder, C. Perry","doi":"10.1093/reep/reaa004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/reaa004","url":null,"abstract":"Farming accounts for approximately 70 percent of freshwater withdrawals worldwide, and it often constitutes the lowest value use of freshwater. Where water is scarce, advanced irrigation technologies such as drip and piped delivery systems have been promoted as “water conservation technologies” (WCTs) that reduce agricultural water consumption, thus releasing water to alternative uses (e.g., the environment). This article examines whether this is true, discussing how WCTs contribute, in theory and practice, to water conservation. Based on an extensive review of more than 230 theoretical and empirical papers, we argue that WCTs should not be viewed as a tool for achieving water conservation, but rather as a means for stabilizing and increasing agricultural water productivity and farmers’ income in places where water is scarce. We conclude that, if the ultimate objective is water conservation, it is essential to adopt water conservation policies—that is, governance instruments aimed at reallocating available resources among uses (e.g., from irrigation to the environment)","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/reep/reaa004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47520710","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Environmental and resource economists pride themselves on the credibility of their empirical research. In other disciplines, however, the credibility of empirical research is increasingly being debated by scholars. At the core of these debates are critiques of widespread practices, such as selectively reporting results or using designs with low statistical power, and critiques of the professional incentives that encourage these practices. These critiques have led to claims of a “replicability crisis” in science. We show that questionable research practices are also prevalent in the environmental and resource economics literature. We argue that the discipline needs to take the potential harm from these practices more seriously. To mitigate this harm, we recommend changes in the norms and practices of funders, editors, peer reviewers, and authors. (JEL: Q0, C0)
{"title":"Feature—Is a Replicability Crisis on the Horizon for Environmental and Resource Economics?","authors":"P. Ferraro, P. Shukla","doi":"10.1093/reep/reaa011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/reaa011","url":null,"abstract":"Environmental and resource economists pride themselves on the credibility of their empirical research. In other disciplines, however, the credibility of empirical research is increasingly being debated by scholars. At the core of these debates are critiques of widespread practices, such as selectively reporting results or using designs with low statistical power, and critiques of the professional incentives that encourage these practices. These critiques have led to claims of a “replicability crisis” in science. We show that questionable research practices are also prevalent in the environmental and resource economics literature. We argue that the discipline needs to take the potential harm from these practices more seriously. To mitigate this harm, we recommend changes in the norms and practices of funders, editors, peer reviewers, and authors. (JEL: Q0, C0)","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/reep/reaa011","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"61068774","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Simon Touboul, M. Glachant, Antoine Dechezleprêtre, Sam Fankhauser, Jana Stoever
In addition to greenhouse gas mitigation efforts, the global economy will need adaptation technology to function in a changing climate. In this article, we use patent data to describe the global pace of innovation in climate adaptation technology. We identify the leading countries, track technology diffusion across borders, and relate innovation trends to adaptation needs. We find that innovation in adaptation technology has developed less rapidly than innovation in low-carbon technologies since 2005. This seems mainly due to the fact that adaptation is more important in sectors where the overall pace of innovation is slower than average, such as agriculture. Moreover, innovation is highly concentrated, with China, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and the United States accounting for nearly two-thirds of global patented inventions that are relevant to climate adaptation. Other economies could benefit through international technology transfer, but we find only limited technology diffusion through the patent system. International diffusion is particularly low in agriculture and flood protection, and there is virtually no transfer of the relevant patented knowledge to low-income countries. As a result, we find a striking mismatch between countries’ adaptation needs and technological availability.
{"title":"Invention and Global Diffusion of Technologies for Climate Change Adaptation: A Patent Analysis","authors":"Simon Touboul, M. Glachant, Antoine Dechezleprêtre, Sam Fankhauser, Jana Stoever","doi":"10.1086/725365","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/725365","url":null,"abstract":"In addition to greenhouse gas mitigation efforts, the global economy will need adaptation technology to function in a changing climate. In this article, we use patent data to describe the global pace of innovation in climate adaptation technology. We identify the leading countries, track technology diffusion across borders, and relate innovation trends to adaptation needs. We find that innovation in adaptation technology has developed less rapidly than innovation in low-carbon technologies since 2005. This seems mainly due to the fact that adaptation is more important in sectors where the overall pace of innovation is slower than average, such as agriculture. Moreover, innovation is highly concentrated, with China, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and the United States accounting for nearly two-thirds of global patented inventions that are relevant to climate adaptation. Other economies could benefit through international technology transfer, but we find only limited technology diffusion through the patent system. International diffusion is particularly low in agriculture and flood protection, and there is virtually no transfer of the relevant patented knowledge to low-income countries. As a result, we find a striking mismatch between countries’ adaptation needs and technological availability.","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46386640","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kelly C. Bishop, N. Kuminoff, H. Banzhaf, K. Boyle, Kathrine von Gravenitz, Jaren C. Pope, V. Smith, C. Timmins
The hedonic property-value model has been refined over more than forty years to become one of the premier approaches to valuing environmental amenities. This article presents best practices for hedonic property-value modeling when the goal is to measure households’ willingness to pay (WTP) for a change in a spatially varying amenity. The starting point is a research design that identifies a source of exogenous variation in an amenity that is observable by prospective buyers (e.g., air quality). Data on the sales prices and physical attributes of houses, together with location-specific measures for amenities, are then used to estimate a housing-price function. Under ideal conditions, the derivative of this price function can be interpreted as indicating the amenity’s implicit price, which can then be used to calculate household marginal WTP for the amenity. In principle, this process is straightforward. In practice, modeling decisions must be made to define variables that measure sale prices and amenities and to select an econometric specification. Although the number of issues to address when developing a “best practices” study may seem daunting, the effort is both worthwhile and important for developing accurate measures of the WTP for environmental quality.
{"title":"Best Practices for Using Hedonic Property Value Models to Measure Willingness to Pay for Environmental Quality","authors":"Kelly C. Bishop, N. Kuminoff, H. Banzhaf, K. Boyle, Kathrine von Gravenitz, Jaren C. Pope, V. Smith, C. Timmins","doi":"10.1093/reep/reaa001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/reaa001","url":null,"abstract":"The hedonic property-value model has been refined over more than forty years to become one of the premier approaches to valuing environmental amenities. This article presents best practices for hedonic property-value modeling when the goal is to measure households’ willingness to pay (WTP) for a change in a spatially varying amenity. The starting point is a research design that identifies a source of exogenous variation in an amenity that is observable by prospective buyers (e.g., air quality). Data on the sales prices and physical attributes of houses, together with location-specific measures for amenities, are then used to estimate a housing-price function. Under ideal conditions, the derivative of this price function can be interpreted as indicating the amenity’s implicit price, which can then be used to calculate household marginal WTP for the amenity. In principle, this process is straightforward. In practice, modeling decisions must be made to define variables that measure sale prices and amenities and to select an econometric specification. Although the number of issues to address when developing a “best practices” study may seem daunting, the effort is both worthwhile and important for developing accurate measures of the WTP for environmental quality.","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/reep/reaa001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48296551","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The hedonic wage model provides a key input into benefit–cost analyses of public policies that are aimed at reducing mortality risks: an estimate of the value of reduced mortality risk (VRMR), also known as the value of a statistical life. Because a large majority of the benefits associated with policies that improve air quality stem from mortality risk reductions, estimates of the VRMR play an exceptionally important role. The use of VRMR estimates from hedonic wage studies in benefit–cost analyses of environmental policies is not without controversy. This article reviews the use and importance of the VRMR in environmental regulation and policy and summarizes the major shortcomings of existing VRMR estimates derived from hedonic wage models. We propose a set of best practices for estimating and reporting VRMR estimates using the hedonic wage framework
{"title":"Using Revealed Preference Methods to Estimate the Value of Reduced Mortality Risk: Best Practice Recommendations for the Hedonic Wage Model","authors":"Mary F. Evans, Laura O. Taylor","doi":"10.1093/reep/reaa006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/reaa006","url":null,"abstract":"The hedonic wage model provides a key input into benefit–cost analyses of public policies that are aimed at reducing mortality risks: an estimate of the value of reduced mortality risk (VRMR), also known as the value of a statistical life. Because a large majority of the benefits associated with policies that improve air quality stem from mortality risk reductions, estimates of the VRMR play an exceptionally important role. The use of VRMR estimates from hedonic wage studies in benefit–cost analyses of environmental policies is not without controversy. This article reviews the use and importance of the VRMR in environmental regulation and policy and summarizes the major shortcomings of existing VRMR estimates derived from hedonic wage models. We propose a set of best practices for estimating and reporting VRMR estimates using the hedonic wage framework","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/reep/reaa006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48800203","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
For the last four decades, benefit–cost analysis has been a mainstay of the U.S. federal regulatory process and, under Executive Orders in effect since 1981, such analysis must generally be used to justify significant federal regulations. While administrations of different parties have occasionally differed on the methodologies used to assess costs or benefits, these disagreements operated within the bounds of approaches that are supported by the economic and scientific literatures. In contrast, the Trump administration has been operating outside such bounds. In particular, as I discuss in this article, it has sought to justify important deregulatory measures by focusing on cost savings, but ignoring the resulting foregone benefits; placing substantial roadblocks in the way of regulatory agencies’ ability to rely on epidemiological studies; promoting discredited threshold models, under which significant air pollutants are assumed to have no adverse effects below a certain level; calling co-benefits into question; downplaying climate change damages; and counting transfer payments in inappropriate ways. I argue that these moves significantly threaten the health and safety of Americans.
{"title":"Editorial—The Trump Administration’s Attacks on Regulatory Benefits","authors":"Richard L. Revesz","doi":"10.1093/reep/reaa008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/reaa008","url":null,"abstract":"For the last four decades, benefit–cost analysis has been a mainstay of the U.S. federal regulatory process and, under Executive Orders in effect since 1981, such analysis must generally be used to justify significant federal regulations. While administrations of different parties have occasionally differed on the methodologies used to assess costs or benefits, these disagreements operated within the bounds of approaches that are supported by the economic and scientific literatures. In contrast, the Trump administration has been operating outside such bounds. In particular, as I discuss in this article, it has sought to justify important deregulatory measures by focusing on cost savings, but ignoring the resulting foregone benefits; placing substantial roadblocks in the way of regulatory agencies’ ability to rely on epidemiological studies; promoting discredited threshold models, under which significant air pollutants are assumed to have no adverse effects below a certain level; calling co-benefits into question; downplaying climate change damages; and counting transfer payments in inappropriate ways. I argue that these moves significantly threaten the health and safety of Americans.","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2020-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/reep/reaa008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42038284","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Policies to address environmental and natural resource management are often implemented at the group level. The defining feature of such policies is that penalties or rewards are based on group rather than individual performance, or rights are allocated to a group rather than to individuals. This article discusses how group-level policies have been applied and studied across a variety of contexts in the literature on environmental and natural resource management. The aim is to identify common theoretical and empirical insights and lessons learned about the design and implementation of these instruments. A general finding is that group-level policies are most likely to be effective when rewards and/or penalties are designed to provide strong incentives for groups to meet targets in a cost-effective way. Moreover, to the extent that this requires coordination within the group, the effectiveness of policies will depend on whether the group has or can create its own institutions or mechanisms to facilitate and enforce that coordination.
{"title":"The Use of Group-Level Approaches to Environmental and Natural Resource Policy","authors":"Matthew J. Kotchen, K. Segerson","doi":"10.1093/reep/reaa002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/reaa002","url":null,"abstract":"Policies to address environmental and natural resource management are often implemented at the group level. The defining feature of such policies is that penalties or rewards are based on group rather than individual performance, or rights are allocated to a group rather than to individuals. This article discusses how group-level policies have been applied and studied across a variety of contexts in the literature on environmental and natural resource management. The aim is to identify common theoretical and empirical insights and lessons learned about the design and implementation of these instruments. A general finding is that group-level policies are most likely to be effective when rewards and/or penalties are designed to provide strong incentives for groups to meet targets in a cost-effective way. Moreover, to the extent that this requires coordination within the group, the effectiveness of policies will depend on whether the group has or can create its own institutions or mechanisms to facilitate and enforce that coordination.","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49452082","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
James E Neumann, Jacqueline Willwerth, Jeremy Martinich, James McFarland, Marcus C Sarofim, Gary Yohe
Recent advancements in the availability of models and data to characterize the economic impacts of climate change have improved our ability to project both the physical impacts and economic effects of climate change across economic sectors of the United States. These advancements have in turn provided an opportunity to estimate these impacts across multiple economic sectors using a consistent set of damage functions. These functions can be used to inform decision making regarding the diversity and magnitude of future impacts and how adaptation and other actions can affect the risk of economic impacts. This article shows how damage functions can be developed from the results of detailed modeling studies and then used to estimate future economic impacts. We estimate damage functions based on 15 sectoral impact models that project the economic impacts of climate change on human health, infrastructure, and ecosystems and, with a focus on temperature, apply these functions to changes in economic impacts for seven U.S. regions through 2100. We also discuss the uncertainty of these results. We conclude that, although further research is needed, the methods presented here can be usefully applied to a range of alternative temperature trajectories to estimate the economic effects of climate change.
{"title":"Climate damage functions for estimating the economic impacts of climate change in the United States.","authors":"James E Neumann, Jacqueline Willwerth, Jeremy Martinich, James McFarland, Marcus C Sarofim, Gary Yohe","doi":"10.1093/reep/rez021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez021","url":null,"abstract":"Recent advancements in the availability of models and data to characterize the economic impacts of climate change have improved our ability to project both the physical impacts and economic effects of climate change across economic sectors of the United States. These advancements have in turn provided an opportunity to estimate these impacts across multiple economic sectors using a consistent set of damage functions. These functions can be used to inform decision making regarding the diversity and magnitude of future impacts and how adaptation and other actions can affect the risk of economic impacts. This article shows how damage functions can be developed from the results of detailed modeling studies and then used to estimate future economic impacts. We estimate damage functions based on 15 sectoral impact models that project the economic impacts of climate change on human health, infrastructure, and ecosystems and, with a focus on temperature, apply these functions to changes in economic impacts for seven U.S. regions through 2100. We also discuss the uncertainty of these results. We conclude that, although further research is needed, the methods presented here can be usefully applied to a range of alternative temperature trajectories to estimate the economic effects of climate change.","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/reep/rez021","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37826560","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Trump administration’s August 2018 proposed rollback of the 2020–2026 fuel economy standards has been the subject of great controversy in the policy community. The justification for the rollback was based on an analysis indicating that the previous fuel economy standards would be associated with more than 12,000 additional fatalities over the lifetime of the vehicles affected by the standards. The largest contributor to these estimated fatalities is the rebound effect assumed in the analysis, which was increased from 10 percent in the previous rule to 20 percent in the proposed rule. This article summarizes the current state of knowledge about the rebound effect as it relates specifically to fuel economy standards. A careful review of the recent literature supports a central estimate closer to 10 percent, thus undermining a key argument that has been used to support the rollback of the standards. However, there are wide bounds of uncertainty around this central estimate as well as several poorly understood factors not accounted for in the central estimates, which further increase our uncertainty about the rebound effect. This highlights the importance of sensitivity analysis and further research on this policy-relevant topic.
{"title":"The Rebound Effect and the Proposed Rollback of U.S. Fuel Economy Standards","authors":"K. Gillingham","doi":"10.1093/reep/rez015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez015","url":null,"abstract":"The Trump administration’s August 2018 proposed rollback of the 2020–2026 fuel economy standards has been the subject of great controversy in the policy community. The justification for the rollback was based on an analysis indicating that the previous fuel economy standards would be associated with more than 12,000 additional fatalities over the lifetime of the vehicles affected by the standards. The largest contributor to these estimated fatalities is the rebound effect assumed in the analysis, which was increased from 10 percent in the previous rule to 20 percent in the proposed rule. This article summarizes the current state of knowledge about the rebound effect as it relates specifically to fuel economy standards. A careful review of the recent literature supports a central estimate closer to 10 percent, thus undermining a key argument that has been used to support the rollback of the standards. However, there are wide bounds of uncertainty around this central estimate as well as several poorly understood factors not accounted for in the central estimates, which further increase our uncertainty about the rebound effect. This highlights the importance of sensitivity analysis and further research on this policy-relevant topic.","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/reep/rez015","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45722875","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：