chapter_5_and_chapter_6_-2024[1].pptx eco

gjgghfgghrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj

1. Chapter Five Economics of Pollution Control and Environmental Policy Definition : Pollution may be defined as the presence/release of harmful environmental contaminants beyond the absorptive capacity of the environment. In economics, pollution is only significant when the utility of one or more individuals is reduced by the pollutants in question. 1

2. Most of substances that cause pollution are naturally present in the environment in low concentration , and are usually considered to be harmless . Thus, a particular substance is considered as pollutant only when its concentration is relatively high and causes adverse effects . Even relatively harmless products of human activity are liable to be regarded as pollutant if they cause negative effects later on . For example, nitrogen oxide produced by industry is often referred to as pollutant although the substance by itself is not harmful. In fact, it is solar energy ( sunlight) that converts this compound to smog. 2

3. 5.1. Pollutant Taxonomy The amount of waste products emitted determines the load upon the environment. The damage done by this load depends on the capacity of the environment to assimilate the waste products. We call this ability of the environment to absorb pollutants its absorptive capacity . If the emissions load exceeds the absorptive capacity, then the pollutant accumulates in the environment . 3

4. Relationship between Emissions and Pollution Damage 4

5. Stock, Fund and Flow pollutants Stock pollutants : are pollutants for which the environment has little or no absorptive capacity. Stock pollutants accumulate over time as emissions enter the environment. Examples: non-biodegradable bottles tossed by the roadside, heavy metals (such as lead) that accumulate in the soils near the emissions source, etc. Fund pollutants : are pollutants for which the environment has some absorptive capacity. 5

6. 6

7. For these pollutants, as long as the emissions rate does not exceed the absorptive capacity of the environment, the pollutants do not accumulate . Examples : carbon dioxide and organic pollutants. Carbon dioxide is absorbed by plant life and the oceans. However, this does not mean the mass of fund pollutants is destroyed. Rather, when fund pollutants are injected into the air or water, they may be transformed into harmless substances to people or to the ecological system, or they may be so diluted or dispersed that the resulting concentrations are harmless. 7

8. Flow pollutants : can be initially damaging, but are dissipated into environmental sinks with relative ease. Examples include light, noise, and heat pollution, biodegradable litter, and smog. Natural pollutants and Anthropogenic pollutants Natural pollutants: include harmful emissions from the Earth and its creatures . Volcanoes and bubbling springs emit large amounts of carbon dioxide. Decaying plants emit methane. Oceans and bacteria in soil release a third “ greenhouse gas,” nitrous oxide . 8

9. Animals emit carbon dioxide in the processes of breathing, eating, and digestion. Anthropogenic pollutants : are the undesired products of human activity . When humans manufacture goods, transport and consume them, they generate pollution. After goods are manufactured , transported, and consumed, their disposal creates further pollution . Garbage in landfills and waste in sewage treatment plants emit methane and nitrous oxide into the air, water, and soil. 9

10. Stationary source and m obile source pollutants Stationary source pollutants : pollution comes from a stationary source like a power plant. Mobile source pollutants : pollution comes from mobile sources like automobiles. Point source and non-point source pollutants P oint source is any identifiable source of pollution. Point source pollutant can be identified and targeted for cleanup. Non-point source(NPS ) pollution comes from many diffuse sources that are not identified. 10

11. Stationary source pollutant 11

12. Point source pollutant : This pipe in India flows directly into the Arabian Sea. 12

13. The degradation of water quality is generally associated with NPS pollution. Because of its unidentified sources, NPS pollution presents real challenges for policymakers. Uniformly distributed, concentrated and non-uniformly distributed pollutants A uniformly distributed pollutant (also called uniformly mixed) causes the same environmental damage regardless of its place of origin. For example, greenhouse gases(carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous 13

14. oxide, and hydro fluorocarbons) released anywhere on Earth act to trap heat in the atmosphere, causing the greenhouse effect. Similarly , chlorofluorocarbons erode the protective ozone layer and allow more solar radiation to penetrate the atmosphere. A concentrated pollutant causes damage primarily within a local area. Hot spots in the context of pollution are areas with high levels of concentrated pollutants . A non-uniformly distributed pollutant (also called non-uniformly mixed) causes some harm elsewhere, but has a relatively large effect on the local area. 14

15. 15

16. This taxonomy is useful in designing policy responses to these various types of pollution problems. Each type of pollutant requires a unique policy response. The failure to recognize these distinctions leads to counterproductive policy . 5.2. Eff icient(Optimal) Level of Pollution Control Pollutants are the residuals of production and consumption. Their presence in the environment decreases flows of environmental services. 16

17. T hese residuals must be reduced. An efficient allocation of resources must take cost of pollution into account. where is the flow of waste arising from the firm’s activity. Reductions in wastes means reductions in output for given levels of the other inputs. T he optimal level of pollution control depends on the nature of the pollutant .   17

18. Stock pollutants The optimal level of a stock pollutant must take into account the fact that the pollutant accumulates in the environment over time and that the damage caused by its presence increases and persists as the pollutant accumulates . Stock pollutants create an interdependency between the present and the future , since the damage imposed in the future depends on current actions . Suppose that the production of X involves generation of proportional amount of stock pollutant . 18

19. The amount of this pollution can be reduced, but that takes resources away from the production of X. The damage caused by the presence of this pollutant in the environment is assumed to be proportional to the size of the accumulated stock . As long as the stock of pollutants remains in the environment, the damage persists . In this case, the net benefit at any point in time, t, is equal to the benefit received from the consumption of X minus the cost of the damage caused by the presence of the stock 19

20. pollutant in the environment . Efficient level of the stock pollutant is the one that maximizes the present value of the net benefit . Fund Pollutants To the extent that the emission of fund pollutants exceeds the assimilative capacity of the environment, they accumulate and share some of the characteristics of stock pollutants. However, when the emissions rate is low enough, the discharges can be assimilated by the environment, the link 20

21. between present emissions and future damage may be broken. When this happens, current emissions cause current damage and future emissions cause future damage, but the level of future damage is independent of current emissions . This independence among time periods allows us to explore the efficient level of fund pollutants using the concept of static, rather than dynamic, efficiency . 21

22. Efficient level of the fund pollutant is the one that maximizes the net benefit. This involves equiv a lently minimization of two different types of costs: damage costs and control or avoidance costs. M arginal Damage Cost ( MDC) is the health or environmental damage caused by an extra unit of pollution. It is also known as the marginal pollution cost . 22

23. There is a positive relationship between MDC and the quantity of pollution. The higher the quantity of pollution, the higher the MDC, and vice versa . Graphically, the MDC doesn’t start at zero but at positive amount of pollution because of the ability of the environment to assimilate certain amount of pollution with out any damage . Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) is the cost of abating or controlling an extra unit of pollution . 23

24. It is also known as the marginal control cost . There is a negative relation ship between MAC and the quantity of pollution. The higher the MAC, the lower the quantity of pollution; and vice versa. Marginal control costs commonly increase with the amount controlled. Efficient pollution abatement occurs at the intersection of the MDC and the MCC/MAC curves , at point Q * in the graph below. 24

25. Efficient level of fund pollutant abatement 25

26. At points below Q *, MAC is greater MDC. Therefore , the incentive is to reduce the amount spent on controlling pollution, MAC, thereby raise the quantity of pollution and move towards Q*. At points above Q *, MDC is greater than MAC. Therefore, the incentive is to reduce the damage, MDC, by reducing the quantity of pollution, and move towards Q *. Equilibrium will occur at Q*,where MAC = MDC, there is no incentive to change. 26

27. The optimal level of pollution ( Q *) is not zero. At Q * , the damage cost is not zero , nor the amount be paid for controlling pollution is zero . Ecologists have zero tolerance for damage due to pollution. On the other hand, capitalists have no incentive to abate pollution. Unless we control the capitalists , they do not care about the adverse effect of pollution. 27

28. Cost-Effective Allocation of Pollution Cost-effective allocation of pollution involves allocating the smallest amount of resources to pollution control , conditional on a given target being achieved. A necessary condition for pollution abatement at least cost is that the marginal cost of abatement be equalized over all emitters . This result is known as the least-cost theorem of pollution control . One way to achieve this outcome is to impose a legal limit on the amount of pollution allowed by each emitter. 28

29. For example, assume that two emissions sources are currently emitting 15 units each for a total 30 units. In addition, assume that the control authority determines that the environment can assimilate is 15 units in total, so that a reduction of 15 units is necessary. How should 15 units reduction be allocated between the two sources in order to minimize the total cost of the reduction? The cost of achieving a given reduction in emissions will be minimized if and only if the marginal costs of control are equalized for all emitters. 29

30. Cost-effective allocation of a uniformly mixed pollutant 30

31. Numerical Example : Suppose that there are two firms, 1 and 2, where production gives rise to emissions M1 and M2 in the presence of regulation. In the absence of any regulation of their activities, the firms ’ profit- maximising emissions levels are 1000 and 7500 tonnes , respectively. The firms can abate emissions , but so doing is costly. A batement costs are a function of the level of abatement and vary between the two firms. 31

32. The abatement cost functions are where and are the levels of abatement Suppose the regulatory authority determines to reduce total emissions from 8500 = ( 1000 +7500) to 750 tonnes . How 750 tonnes should be allocated as between the two firms? That is, to find the levels of A1 and A2, or (of M1 and M2), which minimize given that .   32

33. Formally, using and as the control or choice variables , the problem is ( s ubject to Formulating the Lagrangian function, we have Using the necessary conditions , and . The corresponding abatement levels are 477.2728 and 7272.7273 .   33

34. . This is the shadow price of pollution . This shadow price gives the impact of a small change in the target regulated level of total emissions on the minimized total cost of abatement. We can achieve the same outcome by imposing on each firm a tax per unit emission equivalent to the shadow price. A cost-minimizing firm facing a tax on emissions will abate to the point where its marginal abatement cost is equal to the tax rate .   34

35. With t for the tax rate, and M* for the emissions level in the absence of any regulation or taxation, total costs are so that total cost minimization implies For firm 1, marginal abatement cost is given by . For firm 2, the marginal abatement cost is given   35

36. Substituting for equal to the shadow price of pollution , 19.5455 , and 5.3. Environmental Policy Instruments T he most important pollution control instruments are; Command and control instruments Economic incentive (market-based) instruments Command and control instruments is the use of direct controls over polluters. i s the dominant method of reducing pollution in most countries.   36

37. They operate by imposing mandatory obligations or restrictions on the behaviour of firms and individuals . These instruments include: Input controls : requirements/prohibitions to use particular inputs Technology controls : requirements to use particular methods or standards Output controls : non-transferable ceilings on product outputs Emission standards : non-transferable ceilings on emission quantities 37

38. Location controls : Regulations relating to admissible location of activities Incentive-based instruments work by creating incentives for individuals or firms to voluntarily change their behaviour . These instruments include: Emission charges/taxes : Direct charges based on quantity and/or quality of a pollutant Product charges/taxes : Applied to polluting products Marketable ( transferable) emissions permits 38

39. Liability payments : payments in compensation for damage An instrument that attains a pollution target at least cost is known as a cost-effective instrument . I ncentive-based instruments are more cost-effective than command and control instruments. Command and control instruments have the ability to get desired results very quickly . 39

40. 5.3.1. Non-Transferable Emission Standards An emission standard is a legal limit on the amount of pollutant an individual source is allowed to emit. Suppose that the EPA is committed to attain some overall emissions target for a particular kind of pollutant. Then, it creates licenses (permits or quotas) for that total allowable quantity . After adopting some criterion for allocating permits among the individual sources, the EPA distributes permits to emissions sources. 40

41. The licences cannot be transferred ( exchanged) between firms . Each firm’s initial allocation of pollution licences sets the maximum amount of emissions that it is allowed . Under special conditions, the use of such emissions licences will achieve an overall target at least cost (that is, be cost-efficient ). But it is highly questionable that these conditions would be satisfied . Cost-efficiency requires the marginal cost of emissions abatement to be equal over all abaters . 41

42. If the EPA knew each polluter’s abatement cost function , it could calculate which level of emissions of each firm would generate this equality and meet the overall target. It is very unlikely that the EPA would possess, or could acquire, sufficient information to set standards for each polluter in this way . The costs of collecting that information could be prohibitive, and may out-weigh the potential efficiency gains arising from intervention. 42

43. Moreover, there is a problem of information asymmetries. Those who possess the necessary information about abatement costs at the firm level (the polluters) do not have incentives to provide it in unbiased form to those who do not have it (the regulator ). 5.3.2. Emission charges An emissions charge is a fee, collected by the government, levied on each unit of pollutant emitted into the air or water. 43

44. The total payment any source would make to the government could be found by multiplying the fee times the amount of pollution emitted. Emissions charges reduce pollution because paying the fees costs the firm money. To save money, the source seeks ways to reduce its pollution . A profit-maximizing firm would control pollution whenever it is cheaper to do so. 44

45. For instance, the level of uncontrolled emission is 15 units and the emissions charge is T. If the firm decides not to control any emissions, it will have to pay T times 15, represented by area 0TBC . Is this the best the firm can do ? No. why? It can control some pollution at a lower cost than paying the emissions charge . The firm reduces emissions until the marginal cost of reduction is equal to the emissions charge . 45

46. C ost-minimizing control of pollution with an emissions charge The firm would minimize its cost by choosing to clean up ten units of pollution and to emit five units. 46

47. At this allocation the firm would pay control costs equal to area 0AD and total emissions charge payments equal to area ABCD for a total cost of 0ABC. This is clearly less than 0TBC, the amount the firm would pay if it chose not to clean up any pollution . As long as the control authority imposes the same emissions charge on all sources , the resulting outcome is automatically compatible with cost-minimizing control of pollution. 47

48. That is, if we levy the same emissions charge on all sources , each source will control its emissions until its marginal control cost is equal to the emissions charge. However, without having the necessary information on control costs, the control authority cannot establish the correct tax rate. The emission charge system stimulates technological progress in emissions reduction. 48

49. 5.3.3. Transferable emission permits ( Cap-and-Trade) Under this system, all sources face a limit on their emissions and they are allocated (or sold) allowances to emit. Each allowance authorizes a specific amount of emissions (commonly 1 ton). The control authority issues exactly the number of allowances needed to produce the desired emissions level. 49

50. These can be distributed among the firms either by auctioning them off to the highest bidder or by granting them directly to firms free of charge (an allocation referred to as “gifting ”). The allowances are freely transferable ; they can be bought and sold. Firms emitting more than their holdings can buy additional allowances from firms who are emitting less than authorized . 50

51. Any emissions by a source in excess of its allowances at the end of the year would cause the source to face severe monetary sanctions . 5.3.4. Liability rules Suppose that a general legal principle is established which makes any person or organization liable for the adverse external effects of their actions. Then any polluter knows that there is some probability of being identified and successfully prosecuted, and so made to pay for that pollution . 51

52. The liability principle is related to property rights . Where pollution is a private good, the polluter is liable for the pollution damage through civil law. But where the pollutant is a public good, the EPA acts as an agent of the public interest, enforcing the liability principle on behalf of affected parties. Using the liability principle is not without its problems. Damages may be seen only a long time after the relevant pollutants were discharged . 52

53. Finding those who are liable is very costly, and those responsible – individuals or firms – may no longer exist. Solution: establishing legal liability throughout the life cycle of a product, using the principle that producers are responsible for damage from ‘cradle to grave ’. 53

54. Chapter Six Valuation and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Resources 6.1.The Background for Environmental Valuation The notion of an efficient allocation of resources that has emerged from economic theory is a powerful idea. E conomists have developed empirical techniques for measuring whether and to what extent resources are being allocated efficiently. 54

55. Measurement allows the idea of efficiency to be applied to an array of resources, and it serves as the basis for decisions that can improve resource allocation. The role of measurement in the efficient allocation of resources is especially important in cases of public goods, resources with pervasive externalities, or r esources for which property rights are not well defined. 55

56. The principle that public goods and goods with externalities are not efficiently allocated by the market suggests the possibility of improvement by public action . But whether the public action yields net benefits require measurement of benefits and costs. To meet demands for measurement, economists developed a variety of empirical tools for estimating the benefits and costs of public actions. These tools are typically called valuation methods . 56

57. For public goods and pervasive externalities, implementation involves data collection, model specification and econometric estimation. Why environmental valuation and analysis ? The need to obtain values of environmental resources to identify (or at least approximate) a socially optimal decision (optimal pollution tax rate, project appraisal ) A greater part of environmental resources have no markets and, therefore, no market prices at which they are available to the consumers. 57

58. Environmental resources often have the characteristics of public goods and externalities are common; market prices cannot be relied on . The need to demonstrate the importance of environmental policy (many of the net gains from environmental policy do not show up as immediate monetary gains ) Inclusion of environmental impacts in cost benefit analysis of projects/policies Determination of targets for environmental quality standards 58

59. Accounting for environmental degradation and depletion of resources in measuring national economic performance The need to make polluters liable and pay compensation for environmental damage 6.2. The Concept of Economic Value Economic value is one of many possible ways to measure value of a resource. Measures of economic value are based on individual preferences. 59

60. Economists generally assume that individuals, not the government, are the best judges of what they want . People express their preferences through the choices and tradeoffs that they make, given certain constraints (such as income, available time, etc.). The economic value of a particular item is measured by the maximum amount of other things that a person is willing to give up to have one more of the item. For example, a person has only two goods to choose from (bread and pasta). T hus, the theory of economic valuation is based on individual preferences and choices . 60

61. Economic value of a loaf of bread is measured by the maximum amount of pasta that the person is willing to give up to have one more loaf of bread. The number of dollars (or birr) that a person is willing to pay for something tells how much of all other goods and services he/she is willing to give up to get that item. This is often referred to as “willingness to pay ”. Thus, the theory of economic valuation is based on individual preferences and choices . 61

62. It is often incorrectly believed that market price of a good or service measures its economic value . When people purchase a marketed good, they compare the amount they are willing to pay for that good with its market price. They will only purchase the good if their willingness to pay is equal to or greater than the price. Many people are actually willing to pay more than the market price for a good, and thus their values exceed the market price. 62

63. I n short, V alue and prices are separate ideas. Value is determined by people, not by either natural law or government. Value is determined by people’s willingness to pay for a good or service. 6.3. Dimensions of Value of N atural Resources Total economic value = use values + non-use values Direct use values : directly consumable output food, biomass , recreation , health 63

64. Indirect use values : functional benefits ecological functions, flood control, storm protection Option values : future direct and indirect use values b iodiversity, conserved habitats B equest values: values of leaving use and non-use to future generation h abitats, irreversible changes E xistence values : values from knowledge of the mere existence of a resource habitats, endangered species 64

65. 65

66. Components of economic value of natural resource Total economic value 66

67. The “Total Economic Value” is the sum of all benefits obtained from a resource. TEV = Direct Use Value + Indirect Use Value + Option Value + Bequest value + Existence Value 6.4. Valuation methods TEV of a good or service is obtained by calculating the total willingness to pay for the good or service in question . For a market good, TWP is the area under the demand curve up to the quantity consumed. 67

68. However , for non-market goods and services , estimation of TWP requires either; examining behavior drawing inferences from the demand for related goods through responses to surveys What valuation techniques are available to value the services that the environment provides? There are two types of valuation methods: 1 ) Revealed preference methods 2) Stated preference methods and 68

69. Revealed preference methods are based on actual observable behaviours that allow resource values to be directly inferred from those behaviours . For instance, calculating loss to fishermen from the oil spill The revealed preference method calculates how much the catch declined and the resulting diminished value of the catch. In this case, prices are directly observable, and they allow the direct calculation of the loss in value . These methods are also called behavioural methods. 69

70. Stated preference methods use survey techniques to elicit willingness to pay for a marginal improvement or for avoiding a marginal loss. They are used when the value is not directly observable. For instance, value of returning lake Wonci in its initial state We ask respondents what value they would place on returning lake Wonci in its initial state – contingent valuation This survey approach creates a hypothetical market and asks respondents to consider a willingness-to-pay question. 70

71. Economic Methods for Measuring Environmental and Resource Values Revealed preference (indirect) methods Stated preference (direct)methods Market price method Contingent valuation Productivity method Choice experiments Cost of illness approach Replacement cost approach Hedonic pricing method Travel cost method 71

72. M arket price method This method estimates economic values for environmental goods or services that are bought and sold in commercial markets . It estimates consumer’s surplus and producer’s surplus using market price and quantity data regarding the environmental goods/services (e.g. fish, timber ) traded in the market . The total net economic benefit, or economic surplus , is the sum of consumer surplus and producer surplus . 72

73. Environmental goods and services that generate larger economic surplus are more valuable . Limitations Limited coverage. O nly a few environmental goods/services are bought and sold in the markets Market imperfections distort prices and the efficacy of such prices in measuring the net benefits Estimation of net economic benefits is model dependent. 73

74. Productivity Method This method estimates economic values for environmental goods or services that contribute to the production of marketed goods. This method requires that data must be collected regarding how changes in the quantity or quality of the environmental resource affect; (i) costs of production of the final good ( ii) demand for and supply of the final good , and ( iii) demand for and supply of other factors of production. 74

75. This information is used to link effects of changes in the quantity or quality of the resource to changes in consumer’s surplus and/or producer’s surplus , and thus to estimate the economic benefits . Limitations Limited coverage Not all environmental goods/services are related to the production of marketed goods. It is not an easy task to specify and estimate a suitable production function 75

76. I t is difficult to apply if changes in the quantity and/or quality of environmental goods/services affect the market price of the final good, or the prices of any other inputs. Cost of illness approach Values health costs of water or air pollution based cost of illness (including cost of medicine, doctors visits, hospital stays, other incidental expenses, loss of earnings due to illness) . Dose-response function identifies the relationship between level of pollutant and degree of health effect. 76

77. Replacement cost approach Estimates the costs required to replace damaged resource or to restore damaged resource to original state. It is applicable when remedial action must be taken to meet a standard (air or water quality). Hedonic pricing method This method is used to value environmental amenities (aesthetic views, proximity to recreational sites, etc .) and environmental dis-amenities (air pollution , water pollution, noise pollution, etc.). These attributes directly affect prices of some marketed goods. 77

78. For example , marketed good = housing and environmental attribute = air quality It assumes that goods are a bundle of characteristics . It infers the marginal value of each characteristic ( Z i ) from the price of the combined bundle: Implied value of environmental quality( ) ( air quality) can be deduced from market price of good ( house price) using statistical analysis and econometric techniques.   78

79. Limitations It is applicable only to valuation of those environmental goods/services that are tied to a marketed goods/services and the prices of the latter respond to changes in the quality and /or quantity of the former. It assumes that nothing else modifies the relationship between them. It demands a rich data base and reliable estimation method. It is also vulnerable to the choice of model specification. 79

80. Travel Cost Method It estimates economic values of sites used for recreation. It infers the value of recreational sites ( recreational areas, parks, historic/cultural sites) by using information on how much the visitors spent (travel costs and price of admission) in getting to the sites. Contingent valuation method It is most widely used method that involves asking a sample of relevant population questions about their WTP or WTA. 80

81. Willingness to Pay (WTP) is the maximum amount of money an individual would give up in exchange for all the benefits associated with an environmental resource. Willingness to accept (WTA) is the minimum total amount of money an individual would accept to forego all the benefits associated with an environmental resource . WTP < = > WTA How much would you be WTP for an amenity? How much would you be WTA to forego an amenity? 81

82. This method is called 'contingent valuation' because the valuation is contingent on the hypothetical scenario put to respondents . It deal with both use and non-use values . S teps involved in applying the CVM Creating a survey instrument for the elicitation of individuals' WTP/WTA. ( a) designing the hypothetical scenario, (b) deciding whether to ask about WTP or WTA, 82

83. (c) Creating scenario about the means of payment or compensation . (2 ) Using the survey instrument with a sample of the population of interest . ( 3) Analysing the responses to the survey . using the sample data on WTP/WTA to estimate average WTP/WTA for the population , assessing the survey results so as to judge the accuracy of this estimate. 83

84. ( 4) Computing total WTP/WTA for the population of interest for use in an environmental cost-benefit analysis. Given average WTP, total WTP average times the size of the relevant population . ( 5 ) Evaluating the success of the CV exercise. Example: The protection of cultural monuments in Armenia: The Contingent Valuation Method 84

85. WTP to preserve cultural heritage monuments and its surrounding environment n=1,000 In-person interviews (household survey) mean WTP= 8 US $ 85

86. Choice experiments Respondents are presented with a number of discrete alternatives - in terms of a set of attributes - and asked to state which they prefer. Each alternatives is described in terms of a common set of attributes Alternatives are differentiated by levels of the attributes. It can measure both use and non-use values. It estimates implicit value without asking WTP question. 86

87. Example: It is proposed that a forested area currently subject to some timber harvesting and uncontrolled recreational access becomes a bird sanctuary with no logging and restricted recreational access. An ECBA is to be done. Is PV of WTP for environmental enhancement greater than foregone logging profits and lost recreational opportunities ? 87

88. 88