IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i24p13743-d701410.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Analytical Approach for Initial Allocation of Discharge Permits with Consideration of the Water Environmental Capacity and Industrial Technical Feasibility

Author

Listed:
  • Bo Peng

    (State Key Laboratory of Organic Geochemistry, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Environmental Protection and Resources Utilization, Guangzhou Insitute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510640, China
    CAS Center for Excellence in Deep Earth Science, Guangzhou 510640, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Kun Lei

    (Water Environment Institute, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China)

Abstract

The tradable discharge permit is an efficient marketing twist to deal with negative externality of water pollution, and initial allocation discharge permits (IADP) is a tough prerequisite for a health tradable discharge permit system. However, the allocation rules focusing on both water environment quality attainment and economic-technical feasibility have not been achieved. Therefore, a three-tier analytical framework including control units, industries, and enterprises has been established for satisfying the requirements of water environment quality attainment and technical feasibility. The framework includes three calculation modules and one justification module. A case study of the framework is carried out in the Changzhou City of Taihu Lake, China. Through comparison of the results of industry IADP, the technology-based initial allocation discharge permits scheme in control unit 7 is adopted as the final initial allocation discharge permits scheme, and the reduction plan chemical industry is carried out in control unit 8; finally, the initial allocation discharge permits results after reduction are employed as the final initial allocation discharge permits scheme. This three-tier analytical framework could ensure environmental protection, equality, efficiency, and make the scheme be more acceptable for enterprise stakeholders. In addition, it could support for optimization of industrial layouts and industrial structure upgrading to some degree.

Suggested Citation

  • Bo Peng & Kun Lei, 2021. "An Analytical Approach for Initial Allocation of Discharge Permits with Consideration of the Water Environmental Capacity and Industrial Technical Feasibility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:24:p:13743-:d:701410
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/24/13743/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/24/13743/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ian Mackenzie & Nick Hanley & Tatiana Kornienko, 2008. "The optimal initial allocation of pollution permits: a relative performance approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 265-282, March.
    2. Jensen, Jesper & Rasmussen, Tobias N., 2000. "Allocation of CO2 Emissions Permits: A General Equilibrium Analysis of Policy Instruments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 111-136, September.
    3. Mohammad Nikoo & Reza Kerachian & Hamed Poorsepahy-Samian, 2012. "An Interval Parameter Model for Cooperative Inter-Basin Water Resources Allocation Considering the Water Quality Issues," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(11), pages 3329-3343, September.
    4. Vera Danilina & Alexander Grigoriev, 2020. "Information Provision in Environmental Policy Design," Post-Print hal-02110860, HAL.
    5. Ian A. MacKenzie, & Nick Hanley & Tatiana Kornienko, 2008. "A Permit Allocation Contest for a Tradable Pollution Permit Market," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 08/82, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    6. Ahn, Jaekyun, 2014. "Assessment of initial emission allowance allocation methods in the Korean electricity market," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 244-255.
    7. Mr. John Norregaard & Ms. Valerie Reppelin, 2000. "Taxes and Tradable Permits As Instruments for Controlling Pollution: Theory and Practice," IMF Working Papers 2000/013, International Monetary Fund.
    8. Simone Borghesi, 2014. "Water tradable permits: a review of theoretical and case studies," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(9), pages 1305-1332, September.
    9. Jiasen Sun & Yelin Fu & Xiang Ji & Ray Y. Zhong, 2017. "Allocation of emission permits using DEA-game-theoretic model," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 867-884, October.
    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. Sun, Tao & Zhang, Hongwei & Wang, Yuan, 2013. "The application of information entropy in basin level water waste permits allocation in China," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 50-54.
    2. Sun, Tao & Zhang, Hongwei & Wang, Yuan & Meng, Xiangming & Wang, Chenwan, 2010. "The application of environmental Gini coefficient (EGC) in allocating wastewater discharge permit: The case study of watershed total mass control in Tianjin, China," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(9), pages 601-608.
    3. Zhou, P. & Wang, M., 2016. "Carbon dioxide emissions allocation: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 47-59.
    4. Ciardiello, F. & Genovese, A. & Simpson, A., 2019. "Pollution responsibility allocation in supply networks: A game-theoretic approach and a case study," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 211-217.
    5. Yuan, Qiang & McIntyre, Neil & Wu, Yipeng & Liu, Yichao & Liu, Yi, 2017. "Towards greater socio-economic equality in allocation of wastewater discharge permits in China based on the weighted Gini coefficient," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 196-205.
    6. MacKenzie, Ian A. & Hanley, Nick & Kornienko, Tatiana, 2009. "Using contests to allocate pollution rights," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2798-2806, July.
    7. Knut Rosendahl & Halvor Storrøsten, 2011. "Emissions Trading with Updated Allocation: Effects on Entry/Exit and Distribution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(2), pages 243-261, June.
    8. Jie Wu & Qingyuan Zhu & Junfei Chu & Qingxian An & Liang Liang, 2016. "A DEA-based approach for allocation of emission reduction tasks," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(18), pages 5618-5633, September.
    9. Leibbrandt, Andreas & Lynham, John, 2018. "Does the allocation of property rights matter in the commons?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 201-217.
    10. Bin Ye & Jingjing Jiang & Lixin Miao & Ji Li & Yang Peng, 2015. "Innovative Carbon Allowance Allocation Policy for the Shenzhen Emission Trading Scheme in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-23, December.
    11. Travis Warziniack & David Finnoff & Jonathan Bossenbroek & Jason Shogren & David Lodge, 2011. "Stepping Stones for Biological Invasion: A Bioeconomic Model of Transferable Risk," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(4), pages 605-627, December.
    12. Zhu, Bangzhu & Jiang, Mingxing & He, Kaijian & Chevallier, Julien & Xie, Rui, 2018. "Allocating CO2 allowances to emitters in China: A multi-objective decision approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 441-451.
    13. Meredith Fowlie & Mar Reguant & Stephen P. Ryan, 2016. "Market-Based Emissions Regulation and Industry Dynamics," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(1), pages 249-302.
    14. Rasmussen, Tobias N., 2001. "CO2 abatement policy with learning-by-doing in renewable energy," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 297-325, October.
    15. Minxing Jiang & Bangzhu Zhu & Julien Chevallier & Rui Xie, 2018. "Allocating provincial CO2 quotas for the Chinese national carbon program," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(3), pages 457-479, July.
    16. Kverndokk,S. & Rosendahl,E., 2000. "CO2 mitigation costs and ancillary benefits in the Nordic countries, the UK and Ireland : a survey," Memorandum 34/2000, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    17. Laura Rodríguez-Fernández & Ana Belén Fernández Carvajal & María Bujidos-Casado, 2020. "Allocation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Using the Fairness Principle: A Multi-Country Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-15, July.
    18. Hanley Nick & MacKenzie Ian A, 2010. "The Effects of Rent Seeking over Tradable Pollution Permits," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-26, July.
    19. Rupayan Pal, 2012. "Delegation And Emission Tax In A Differentiated Oligopoly," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 80(6), pages 650-670, December.
    20. Philippe Quirion, 2004. "Prices versus Quantities in a Second-Best Setting," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 337-360, November.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:24:p:13743-:d:701410. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.