IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2205.05205.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An integrated debris environment assessment model

Author

Listed:
  • Akhil Rao
  • Francesca Letizia

Abstract

Launch behaviors are a key determinant of the orbital environment. Physical and economic forces such as fragmentations and changing launch costs, or policies like post-mission disposal (PMD) compliance requirements, will alter the relative attractiveness of different orbits and lead operators to adjust their launch behaviors. However, integrating models of adaptive launch behavior with models of the debris environment remains an open challenge. We present a statistical framework for integrating theoretically-grounded models of launch behavior with evolutionary models of the low-Earth orbit (LEO) environment. We implement this framework using data on satellite launches, the orbital environment, launch vehicle prices, sectoral revenues, and government budgets over 2007-2020. The data are combined with a multi-shell and multi-species Particle-in-a-Box (PIB) model of the debris environment and a two-stage budgeting model of commercial, civil government, and defense decisions to allocate new launches across orbital shells. We demonstrate the framework's capabilities in three counterfactual scenarios: unexpected fragmentation events in highly-used regions, a sharp decrease in the cost of accessing lower parts of LEO, and increasing compliance with 25-year PMD guidelines. Substitution across orbits based on their evolving characteristics and the behavior of other operators induces notable changes in the debris environment relative to models without behavioral channels.

Suggested Citation

  • Akhil Rao & Francesca Letizia, 2022. "An integrated debris environment assessment model," Papers 2205.05205, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2205.05205
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2205.05205
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timmins, Christopher & Murdock, Jennifer, 2007. "A revealed preference approach to the measurement of congestion in travel cost models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 230-249, March.
    2. Hausman, Jerry A. & Leonard, Gregory K. & McFadden, Daniel, 1995. "A utility-consistent, combined discrete choice and count data model Assessing recreational use losses due to natural resource damage," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 1-30, January.
    3. Kibria, B. M. Golam & Månsson, Kristofer & Shukur, Ghazi, 2011. "A Ridge Regression estimator for the zero-inflated Poisson model," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 257, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    5. Aviv Nevo, 2011. "Empirical Models of Consumer Behavior," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 3(1), pages 51-75, September.
    6. Bolduc, Denis & Fortin, Bernard & Fournier, Marc-Andre, 1996. "The Effect of Incentive Policies on the Practice Location of Doctors: A Multinomial Probit Analysis," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 14(4), pages 703-732, October.
    7. Arthur E. Hoerl & Robert W. Kennard & Roger W. Hoerl, 1985. "Practical Use of Ridge Regression: A Challenge Met," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 34(2), pages 114-120, June.
    8. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    9. Månsson, Kristofer & Shukur, Ghazi, 2011. "A Poisson ridge regression estimator," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 1475-1481, July.
    10. A. Colin Cameron & Pravin K. Trivedi, 1986. "Econometric models based on count data. Comparisons and applications of some estimators and tests," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 1(1), pages 29-53, January.
    11. Sébastien Rouillon, 2020. "A Physico-Economic Model of Low Earth Orbit Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(4), pages 695-723, December.
    12. Hausman, Jerry & Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi, 1984. "Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 909-938, July.
    13. Nodir Adilov & Peter Alexander & Brendan Cunningham, 2015. "An Economic Analysis of Earth Orbit Pollution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(1), pages 81-98, January.
    14. Jorgenson, Dale W & Slesnick, Daniel T & Stoker, Thomas M, 1988. "Two-Stage Budgeting and Exact Aggregation," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 6(3), pages 313-325, July.
    15. Deaton, Angus S & Muellbauer, John, 1980. "An Almost Ideal Demand System," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 312-326, June.
    16. Adilov, Nodir & Alexander, Peter J. & Cunningham, Brendan M., 2018. "An economic “Kessler Syndrome”: A dynamic model of earth orbit debris," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 79-82.
    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. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Riera Font, Antoni, 2010. "Estimating the aggregate value of forest recreation in a regional context," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 205-216, August.
    2. Domanski, Adam, 2009. "Estimating Mixed Logit Recreation Demand Models With Large Choice Sets," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49413, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Kidokoro, Yukihiro, 2016. "A micro foundation for discrete choice models with multiple categories of goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 54-72.
    4. Agimass, Fitalew & Lundhede, Thomas & Panduro, Toke Emil & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "The choice of forest site for recreation: A revealed preference analysis using spatial data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 445-454.
    5. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    6. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Font, Antoni Riera, 2009. "Environmental diversity in recreational choice modelling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2743-2750, September.
    7. Bongers, Anelí & Torres, José L., 2023. "Orbital debris and the market for satellites," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    8. Kajal Lahiri & Guibo Xing, 2002. "An Empirical Analysis of Medicare-eligible Veterans' Demand for Outpatient Health Care Services," Discussion Papers 02-01, University at Albany, SUNY, Department of Economics.
    9. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    10. Zhang Junjie, 2011. "Behavioral Response to Stock Abundance in Exploiting Common-Pool Resources," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-27, August.
    11. Yukihiro Kidokoro, 2015. "Discrete choice models for multicategory goods," GRIPS Discussion Papers 15-08, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies.
    12. Termansen, Mette & McClean, Colin J. & Jensen, Frank Søndergaard, 2013. "Modelling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 48-57.
    13. von Haefen, Roger H. & Domanski, Adam, 2018. "Estimation and welfare analysis from mixed logit models with large choice sets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 101-118.
    14. Carson, Richard T. & Eagle, Thomas C. & Islam, Towhidul & Louviere, Jordan J., 2022. "Volumetric choice experiments (VCEs)," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    15. Cristiano Franceschinis & Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & John Rose & Michele Moretto & Raffaele Cavalli, 2016. "Exploring the Spatial Heterogeneity of Individual Preferences for Ambient Heating Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-19, May.
    16. Eugenio-Martin, Juan L., 2011. "Assessing social carrying capacity of tourism destinations with random utility models/Evaluación de la capacidad de carga social de los destinos turísticos con modelos de utilidad aleatoria," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 29, pages 881-902, Diciembre.
    17. Bonnet, Céline & Bouamra-Mechemache, Zohra & Corre, Tifenn, 2018. "An Environmental Tax Towards More Sustainable Food: Empirical Evidence of the Consumption of Animal Products in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 48-61.
    18. Phaneuf, Daniel J. & Smith, V. Kerry, 2006. "Recreation Demand Models," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 671-761, Elsevier.
    19. T.R.L. Fry & R.D. Brooks & Br. Comley & J. Zhang, 1993. "Economic Motivations for Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variable Models," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 69(2), pages 193-205, June.
    20. Fosgerau, Mogens & Bierlaire, Michel, 2007. "A practical test for the choice of mixing distribution in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 784-794, August.

    More about this item

    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:arx:papers:2205.05205. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.