IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2023i1p54-d1303844.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can a Water Bank Improve Groundwater Rights Market Efficiency?—A Study Based on Monte Carlo Simulations

Author

Listed:
  • Yiying Chen

    (Business School, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China)

  • Taolu Luo

    (Ningxia Shuifa Group Co., Ltd., Yinchuan 750000, China)

  • Guiliang Tian

    (Business School, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China)

  • Qiuya Zhao

    (Business School, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China)

Abstract

Groundwater possesses a natural advantage as a reservoir, making it well-suited for storage. Introducing a water bank to the groundwater market not only reduces storage costs but also revitalizes the groundwater rights market, achieving synergy between the economic and ecological values of regional water resources. This study combines the core functions of a water bank to establish a theoretical framework for mechanisms concerning value appreciation and risk prevention. Approaching the topic from the perspectives of transaction costs and market price mechanisms, we employ the Monte Carlo algorithm for simulation to study the mechanistic impact of a water bank on the efficiency of the water market. It reveals that a water bank, compared to direct transactions between parties, can effectively reduce the number of transactions in the fragmented water rights market. Additionally, it effectively utilizes market transaction information to provide accurate pricing. Furthermore, we alter model parameters to explore the relationship between the average number of transactions in the market and supply–demand equilibrium. We also investigate how changes in the acceptable price range in the supply–demand market affect the pricing strategies of a water bank and open market pricing. These findings substantiate the necessity of developing a water bank in practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Yiying Chen & Taolu Luo & Guiliang Tian & Qiuya Zhao, 2023. "Can a Water Bank Improve Groundwater Rights Market Efficiency?—A Study Based on Monte Carlo Simulations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-19, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2023:i:1:p:54-:d:1303844
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/1/54/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/1/54/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carmine Guerriero, 2023. "Property rights, transaction costs, and the limits of the market," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 143-176, June.
    2. Coggan, Anthea & Whitten, Stuart M. & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Influences of transaction costs in environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1777-1784, July.
    3. McCann, Laura, 2013. "Transaction costs and environmental policy design," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 253-262.
    4. Garrick, Dustin & Whitten, Stuart M. & Coggan, Anthea, 2013. "Understanding the evolution and performance of water markets and allocation policy: A transaction costs analysis framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 195-205.
    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. Coggan, Anthea & Buitelaar, Edwin & Whitten, Stuart & Bennett, Jeff, 2013. "Factors that influence transaction costs in development offsets: Who bears what and why?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 222-231.
    2. Fan, Shengyue & Yang, Jinfei & Liu, Wenwen & Wang, He, 2019. "Institutional Credibility Measurement Based on Structure of Transaction Costs: A Case Study of Ongniud Banner in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 212-225.
    3. Shahab, Sina & Clinch, J. Peter & O’Neill, Eoin, 2018. "Accounting for transaction costs in planning policy evaluation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 263-272.
    4. Phan, Thu-Ha Dang & Brouwer, Roy & Hoang, Long Phi & Davidson, Marc David, 2017. "A comparative study of transaction costs of payments for forest ecosystem services in Vietnam," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 141-149.
    5. Thiel, Andreas & Schleyer, Christian & Hinkel, Jochen & Schlüter, Maja & Hagedorn, Konrad & Bisaro, Sandy & Bobojonov, Ihtiyor & Hamidov, Ahmad, 2016. "Transferring Williamson's discriminating alignment to the analysis of environmental governance of social-ecological interdependence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 159-168.
    6. Georgina W. Njiraini & Djiby Racine Thiam & Anthea Coggan, 2017. "The Analysis of Transaction Costs in Water Policy Implementation in South Africa: Trends, Determinants and Economic Implications," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(01), pages 1-30, January.
    7. Baudry, Marc & Faure, Anouk & Quemin, Simon, 2021. "Emissions trading with transaction costs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    8. Lapeyre, Renaud & Froger, Géraldine & Hrabanski, Marie, 2015. "Biodiversity offsets as market-based instruments for ecosystem services? From discourses to practices," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 125-133.
    9. Phan, Thu-Ha Dang & Brouwer, Roy & Davidson, Marc David, 2017. "A Global Survey and Review of the Determinants of Transaction Costs of Forestry Carbon Projects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 1-10.
    10. Bellanger, Manuel & Fonner, Robert & Holland, Daniel S. & Libecap, Gary D. & Lipton, Douglas W. & Scemama, Pierre & Speir, Cameron & Thébaud, Olivier, 2021. "Cross-sectoral externalities related to natural resources and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    11. Valentová, Michaela & Horák, Martin & Dvořáček, Lukáš, 2020. "Why transaction costs do not decrease over time? A case study of energy efficiency programmes in Czechia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    12. Valentová, Michaela & Lízal, Lubomír & Knápek, Jaroslav, 2018. "Designing energy efficiency subsidy programmes: The factors of transaction costs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 382-391.
    13. Pérez-Blanco, C.D. & Gutiérrez-Martín, C., 2017. "Buy me a river: Use of multi-attribute non-linear utility functions to address overcompensation in agricultural water buyback," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 6-20.
    14. Moss, Jonathan & Cacho, Oscar J., 2014. "Farm-scale analysis of the potential uptake of carbon offset activities," 2014 Conference, August 28-29, 2014, Nelson, New Zealand 187402, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    15. Nantongo, Mary & Vatn, Arild, 2019. "Estimating Transaction Costs of REDD+," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 1-11.
    16. Pannell, David J. & Roberts, Anna M. & Park, Geoff & Alexander, Jennifer, 2013. "Improving environmental decisions: A transaction-costs story," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 244-252.
    17. Shahab, Sina & Clinch, J. Peter & O'Neill, Eoin, 2019. "An Analysis of the Factors Influencing Transaction Costs in Transferable Development Rights Programmes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 409-419.
    18. Marshall, Graham R., 2013. "Transaction Costs, Collective Action And Adaptation In Managing Social-Ecological Systems," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152166, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    19. McCann, Laura, 2013. "Transaction costs and environmental policy design," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 253-262.
    20. Krutilla, Kerry & Alexeev, Alexander, 2014. "The Political Transaction Costs and Uncertainties of Establishing Environmental Rights," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 299-309.

    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:16:y:2023:i:1:p:54-:d:1303844. 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.