Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T03:45:04.995Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wastewater pollution abatement across an international border

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2009

LINDA FERNANDEZ
LINDA FERNANDEZ*
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521. Tel: (951)827-2955. Fax: (951)827-3993. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A differential game model is developed to compare incentives for wastewater pollution abatement of upstream and downstream countries under cooperative and noncooperative strategies. The Tijuana River is the empirical setting of water flow from south (Mexico) to north (US) where pollution stock accumulates. Asymmetry between the upstream and downstream countries for costs, damages, and emissions influences incentives to abate pollution. Cost minimization is achieved as the US can finance pollution abatement in Mexico. Game sharing rules (Shapley value, Chander–Tulkens rule, Helsinki rule, egalitarian rule) are analyzed. Financial transfers from two North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) institutions are examined. In most cases of cooperation, transfer payments are positive from downstream to upstream for reductions in flow and stock of pollution. Transfer size varies according to the rule and sensitivity analysis of changes in abatement costs and damages. The two institutions follow a variation of the Helsinki rule.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 14 , Issue 1: GAME THEORY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT , February 2009 , pp. 67 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ambec, S. and Sprumont, Y. (2002), ‘Sharing a river’, Journal of Economic Theory 107: 453–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, S. (1994), ‘Conflict and cooperation in managing international water resources’, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 1303, World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Bayramoglu, B. (2006), ‘Transboundary pollution in the Black Sea: comparison of institutional arrangements’, Environmental and Resource Economics 35: 289–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beach, H., Hamner, J., Hewitt, J., Kaufman, E., Kurki, A., Oppenheimer, J., and Wolf, A. (2000), Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Resolution, New York: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
Bhaduri, A. and Barbier, E. (2006), ‘International water transfer and sharing: the case of the Ganges River’, University of Wyoming Working Paper, Laramie.Google Scholar
Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC) (2003), ‘Project list and financing status of BECC-certified projects’, available at http//:www.cocef.org.Google Scholar
Botteon, M. and Carraro, C. (1996), ‘Strategies for environmental negotiations: issue linkage with heterogeneous countries’, Nota di Lavoro, 81.96, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milan.Google Scholar
Cabelli, V., Dufour, A., Levin, M., and McCabe, L. (1983), ‘A marine recreational water quality criterion consistent with indicator concepts and risk analysis’, Water Pollution Control Federation Journal 55: 1306–1314.Google Scholar
Candel-Sanchez, F. (2006), ‘The externalities problem of transboundary and persistent pollution’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 52: 517–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carraro, C. and Siniscalco, D. (1994), ‘Environmental policy reconsidered: the role of technological cooperation’, European Economic Review 38: 545–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, P. E. and Jensen, R. A. (2002), ‘Transboundary air pollution, environmental aid and political uncertainty’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43: 93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chander, P. and Tulkens, H. (1992), ‘Theoretical foundations of negotiations and cost sharing in transfrontier pollution problems’, European Economic Review 36: 388–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CH2M Hill (1997), ‘Evaluation of secondary pond treatment systems for the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant’, Prepared for the International Boundary and Water Commission and Environmental Protection Agency, CH2MHill, San Diego.Google Scholar
CH2M Hill (1998a), ‘Appendix B3: Sludge quantity and quality’, in ‘Draft supplemental environmental impact statement for long-term treatment’, Prepared for the International Boundary and Water Commission and Environmental Protection Agency, CH2MHill, San Diego.Google Scholar
CH2M Hill (1998b), ‘Appendix B2: Present value cost estimate’, in ‘Draft supplemental environmental impact statement for long-term treatment’, Prepared for the International Boundary and Water Commission and Environmental Protection Agency, CH2MHill, San Diego.Google Scholar
Colegio de la Frontera del Norte (COLEF) (1997), ‘Expansion of the Ecoparque Wastewater Treatment Plant’, Proposal to Border Environmental Cooperation Commission, Step II Form, Border Environmental Cooperation Commission, Ciudad Juarez.Google Scholar
Dwight, R., Fernandez, L., Baker, D., Semenza, J., and Olson, B. (2005), ‘Estimating the economic burden from illnesses associated with recreational coastal water pollution – a case study in Orange County, California’, Journal of Environmental Management 76: 95–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Federal Reserve System (1999), Federal Reserve Bulletin Monthly, New York: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.Google Scholar
Fernandez, L. (2002), ‘Trade's dynamic solutions to transboundary pollution’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43: 386–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, L. (2005), ‘Coastal watershed management across an international border in the Tijuana River watershed’, Water Resources Research 41: 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischhendler, I. (2007), ‘Escaping the polluter pays trap’, Ecological Economics 63: 485–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folmer, H., Hanley, N., and Mibfeldt, F. (1998), ‘Game-theoretic modeling of environmental and resource problems: an introduction’, in Hanley, N. and Folmer, H. (eds), Game Theory and the Environment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
Folmer, H., Van Mouche, P., and Ragland, S. (1993), ‘Interconnected games and international environmental problems’, Environmental and Resource Economics 3: 313–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fong, P. and Zedler, J. (2000), ‘Sources, sinks, and fluxes of nutrients in a small highly modified estuary in southern California’, Urban Ecosystems 4: 125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisvold, G. and Caswell, M. (2000), ‘Transboundary water management: game theoretic lessons for projects on the US–Mexico border’, Agricultural Economics 24: 101–11.Google Scholar
Germain, M., Toint, Ph. L., and Tulkens, H. (1998), ‘Financial transfers to sustain cooperative international optimality in stock pollutant abatement’, in Faucheux, S., Goudy, J., and Nicolai, I. (eds), Sustainability and Firms: Technological Change and the Changing Regulatory Environment, Advances in Ecological Economics Series, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 205–19.Google Scholar
Gersberg, R., Brown, C., Zambrano, V., Worthington, K., and Weis, D. (2000), ‘Quality of urban runoff in the Tijuana River watershed’, in Ganster, P. (ed.), The US–Mexican Border Environment: Water Issues along the US–Mexican Border, San Diego: Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy, Monograph Series, No. 2, pp. 20–39.Google Scholar
Given, S., Pendleton, L., and Boehm, A. (2006), ‘Regional public health cost estimates of contaminated coastal waters: a case study of gastroenteritis at S. California beaches’, Environmental Science and Technology 40: 4951–4959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, D. and Sotir, R. (1996), Biotechnical and Soil Bioengineering Slope Stabilization, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Gren, I. (2001), ‘International versus national actions against nitrogen pollution of the Baltic Sea’, Environmental and Resource Economics 20: 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzman, S. (1998), ‘La contaminacion del acuifero del Rio Tijuana’, Master's thesis, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Tijuana.Google Scholar
Hanemann, M., Pendleton, L., Mohn, C., Hilger, J., Kurisawa, K., Layton, D., and Vasquez, F. (2004), ‘Using revealed preference models to estimate the effect of coastal water quality on beach choice in Southern California’, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; The California State Water Resources Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.Google Scholar
I.L.M. (1993), ‘Agreement Concerning the Establishment of a Border Environmental Cooperation Commission and a North American Development Bank’, signed 11 November 1993 entered into force on 1 January 1994 section 32 I.L.M. 1545.Google Scholar
Instituto Nacional deEstadistica, Geografia e Informatica (INEGI) (2000 and 2003), ‘XII Censo General de Poblacion y Vivienda’, available at http://www.Inegi.gob.mx/diffusion/espanol/poblacion/definitivos/iter/INITER02.pdfGoogle Scholar
International Boundary Water Commission (IBWC) (1990), ‘Conceptual Plan for the International Solution to the Border Sanitation Problem in San Diego, CA/Tijuana, Baja California’, Minute 283, El Paso.Google Scholar
International Law Association (1967), ‘The Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers’, Report of the Committee on the Use of the Waters of International Rivers, International Law Association, London.Google Scholar
Jorgenson, S. and Zaccour, G. (2001), ‘Time consistent side payments in a dynamic game of downstream pollution’, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 25: 1973–1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamien, M. and Schwartz, N. (1991), Dynamic Optimization: The Calculus of Variations and Optimal Control in Economics and Management, Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Kilgour, D. M. and Dinar, A. (2001), ‘Flexible water sharing with an international river basin’, Environmental and Resource Economics 18: 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krutilla, J. (1966), ‘The International Columbia River Treaty: a economic evaluation’, in Kneese, A. and Smith, S. (eds), Water Research, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 69–97.Google Scholar
Laussel, D. and Le Breton, M. (1998), ‘Efficient private production of public goods under common agency’, Games and Economic Behavior 25: 194–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linmooth, J. (1990), ‘The Danube River Basin: negotiating settlements to transboundary environmental issues’, Natural Resources Journal 30: 629–660.Google Scholar
List, J. A. and Mason, C. F. (2001), ‘Optimal institutional arrangement for transboundary pollution in a second best world’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 42: 277–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liverman, D., Varady, R., and Sanchez, O. (1999), ‘Environmental issues along the US–Mexico border: citizens and institutions’, Annual Review of Energy and Environment 24: 607–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moussiopoulos, N., Helmis, C. G., Flocas, H. A., Louka, P., Assimakopoulos, V. D., Naneris, C., and Sahm, P. (2004), ‘A modeling method for estimating transboundary air pollution in southeastern Europe’, Environmental Modelling and Software 19: 549–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mumme, S. (1993), ‘Innovation and reform in transboundary resource management: a critical look at the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico’, Natural Resources Journal 33: 93–120.Google Scholar
Nagase, Y. and Silva, E. (2007), ‘Acid rain in China and Japan: a game theoretic analysis’, Regional Science and Urban Economics 37: 100–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordenstam, B., Lambright, W., Berger, M., and Little, M. (1998), ‘A framework for analysis of transboundary institutions for air pollution policy in the US’, Environmental Science and Policy 1: 231–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North American Development Bank (NADBank) (1998), Border Environmental Infrastructure Fund, San Antonio: NADBank.Google Scholar
Pombo, O. (1998), ‘Sanitation and poverty in the Mexican borderlands: considerations of water and sanitation strategies used by the poor in Tijuana’, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Rogers, P. (1997), ‘International river basins: pervasive unidirectional externalities’, in Dasgupta, P., Maler, K.-G., and Vercelli, A. (eds), The Economics of Transnational Commons, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 35–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadoff, C. and Grey, D. (2002), ‘Beyond the river: the benefits of cooperation on international rivers’, Water Policy 4: 389–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) (2003), Data Services, Available at http://www.sandag.cog.ca.us/data_services/gis/Google Scholar
San Diego Wastewater Department (1997), ‘South Bay Reclamation Plant Proposal, Step II Form to BECC’, Border Environmental Cooperation Commission, Ciudad Juarez.Google Scholar
Schnoor, J. (1985), ‘Modeling chemical transport in lakes, rivers, and estuarine systems’, in Neely, W. and Blau, G. (eds), Environmental Exposure From Chemicals, Boca Raton: CRC Press, pp. 55–73.Google Scholar
Shapley, L. (1953), ‘A value for N-person games’, in Kuhn, H. W. and Tucker, A. W. (eds), Contributions to the Theory of Games, vol. II, in Annals of Mathematical Studies 28, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 307–317.Google Scholar
Southwest Wetlands Interpretive Association (1999), ‘Canon de Los Laureles Plan de Mejoramiento’, Imperial Beach.Google Scholar
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) (2006), ‘State of the marine environment – trends and processes’, United Nations Environment Program, Gland.Google Scholar
UN Wire, (17 August 2007).Google Scholar
US Census Bureau (2000), US Census 2000, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
US General Accounting Office (GAO) (2000), ‘US–Mexico border – despite some progress, environmental infrastructure challenges remain’, GAO/NSIAD-00-26, US General Accounting Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Vargas Aguilar, J. (2003), ‘Fundamentos Para El Desarrollo de Productos en Danos’, Asociacion Mexicana de Institutiones de Seguros, Mexico City.Google Scholar
Zedler, J. (1998), ‘Salt marsh community structure in the Tijuana estuary, California’, Estuarine and Coastal Marsh Science 5: 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zepeda, E. (1993), ‘El Gasto Publico en la Frontera Norte’, Frontera Norte 4: 36–48.Google Scholar