Policy design and technological substitution: Investigating the reach regulation in an agent-based model

Ecological Economics

Volumn 107, Issue , 2014, Pages 347-365

  Arfaoui, Nabila ^a   Brouillat, Eric ^b   Saint Jean, Maïder ^b  

^a GREDEG CNRS   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE BORDEAUX   (France)

Author keywords

Agent based model; Policy design; REACH; Technological substitution

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; INCENTIVE; INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE; INDUSTRIAL REGULATION; INNOVATION; MARKET CONDITIONS; NUMERICAL MODEL; POLICY MAKING; TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION;

EUROPE;

EID: 84907854682     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.013     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. ADEME Alcimed Marché actuel et prospectif des bioproduits industriels et des biocarburants en France 2007, ADEME, Alcimed.
2. Arrow K. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for innovation. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity 1962, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. R. Nelson (Ed.).
3. Ashford N.A., Ayers C., Stone R. Using regulation to change the market for innovation. Harvard Environ. Law Rev. 1985, 9(2):419-466.
4. Béal S., Deschamps M., Ravix J.-T., Sautel O. Les effets d'une réglementation sur la concurrence et l'innovation: première analyse de la réglementation européenne REACH. Econ. Prévision 2013, 197-198:63-79.
5. Belis-Bergouignan M.C., Oltra V., Saint-Jean M. Trajectories towards clean technology: the example of volatile organic compounds (VOC) emission reductions. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 48(2):201-220.
6. Berkhout F., Ilzuka M., Nightingale P., Voss G. Innovation in the Chemicals Sector and the New European Chemicals Regulation - A Report for WWF-UK 2003, WWF-UK, Godalming, UK.
7. Bewa H., Le Ravalec V. Le contexte: reconversion de la chimie vers la chimie verte. OCL 2012, 19(1):1-5.
8. Brouillat E., Oltra V. Extended producer responsibility instruments and innovation in eco-design: an exploration through a simulation model. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 83:236-245.
9. Chiaromonte F., Dosi G. Heterogeneity, competition and macroeconomic dynamics. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 1993, 4(1):39-46.
10. Cowan R., Cowan W., Swann P. A model of demand with interactions among consumers. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 1997, 15(6):711-732.
11. CSES Interim evaluation: impact of the REACH regulation on the innovativeness of the EU chemical industry. Final Report, June 14, Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services, United Kingdom 2012.
12. Dosi G. Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. J. Econ. Lit. 1988, 26(3):1120-1171.
13. EEA EEA Technical Report. Environmental Tax Reform in Europe: Opportunities for Eco-innovation 17 2011, Publications Office of the EU, Copenhagen.
14. Eppstein M.J., Grover D.K., Marshall J.S., Rizzo D.M. An agent-based model to study market penetration of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Energy Policy 2011, 39(6):3789-3802.
15. European Commission General report on REACH. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2013.
16. Eurostat The REACH baseline study. Methodologies and Working Papers 2009, European Communities, Luxembourg.
17. Faber A., Valente M., Janssen P. Exploring domestic micro-cogeneration in the Netherlands: an agent-based demand model for technology diffusion. Energy Policy 2010, 38(6):2763-2775.
18. Filatova T., Verburg P.H., Parker D.C., Stannard C.A. Spatial agent-based models for socio-ecological systems: challenges and prospects. Environ. Model. Softw. 2013, 45:1-7.
19. Fuchs O. REACH: a new paradigm for the management of chemical risks. Health and Environment Report 4 2011, Institut Français des Relations Internationales (IFRI), Paris.
20. Grimm V., Berger U., Bastiansen F., Eliassen S., Ginot V., Giske J., Goss-Custard J., Grand T., Heinz S., Huse G., Huth A., Jepsen J.U., Jørgensen C., Mooij W.M., Müller B., Peter G., Piou C., Railsback S.F., Robbins A.M., Robbins M.M., Rossmanith E., Rüger N., Strand E., Souissi S., Stillman R.A., Vabø R., Visser U., DeAngelis D.L. A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecol. Model. 2006, 198:115-126.
21. Grimm V., Berger U., DeAngelis D.L., Polhill J.G., Giske J., Railsback S.F. The ODD protocol: a review and first update. Ecol. Model. 2010, 221:2760-2768.
22. Hahn R.W. Economic prescriptions for environmental problems: how the patient followed the doctor's orders. J. Econ. Perspect. 1989, 3(2):95-114.
23. Hanley N., Mourato S., Wright R.E. Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation?. J. Econ. Surv. 2001, 15:435-462.
24. Hoyos D. The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiment. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1595-1603.
25. INERIS Dichlorométhane. INERIS Données technico-économiques sur les substances chimiques en France 2005, http://www.ineris.fr/rsde/fiches/fiche_dichloromethane_2005.pdf.
26. IRSST La substitution des solvants par les esters méthyliques d'acides gras d'huiles végétales. RAPPORT B-079 2010, Bilans de connaissances Institut de Recherche en Santé et en Travail, Montréal.
27. Jaffe A., Palmer K. Environmental regulation and innovation: a panel data study. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1997, 79:610-619.
28. Jaffe A.B., Newell R.G., Stavins R.N. Technological change and the environment. Handbook of Environmental Economics 2003, vol. 1:461-516. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.
29. Jänicke M. Dynamic governance of clean-energy markets: how technical innovation could accelerate climate policies. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 22(1):50-59.
30. Jänicke M., Lindemann S. Governing environmental innovations. Environ. Polit. 2010, 19(1):127-141.
31. Environmental Policy and Corporate Behaviour 2007, OECD, Paris. N. Johnstone (Ed.).
32. Johnstone N., Haščič I., Poirier J., Hemar M., Michel C. Environmental policy stringency and technological innovation: evidence from survey data and patent counts. Appl. Econ. 2012, 44(17):2157-2170.
33. Kemp R., Pontoglio S. The innovation effects of environmental policy instruments - A typical case of the blind men and the elephant?. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 72:28-36.
34. Lancaster K. Consumer demand: a new approach. Columbia Studies in Economics 1971, 5. Columbia University Press, New York.
35. Lanjouw J., Mody A. Innovation and the international diffusion of environmentally responsive technology. Res. Policy 1996, 25:549-571.
36. Leibenstein H. Bandwagon, snob, and Veblen effects in the theory of consumers' demand. Q. J. Econ. 1950, 64(2):183-207.
37. Malerba F., Nelson R., Orsenigo L., Winter S. "History-friendly" models of industry evolution: the computer industry. Ind. Corp. Chang. 1999, 8(1):3-40.
38. MEI Report Measuring Eco-innovation 2007, UM MERIT, The Netherlands.
39. Müller B., Bohn F., Dreßler G., Groeneveld J., Klassert C., Martin R., Schlüter M., Schulze J., Weise H., Schwarz N. Describing human decisions in agent-based models - ODD D, an extension of the ODD protocol. Environ. Model. Softw. 2013, 48:37-48.
40. Nelson R.R., Winter S.G. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. 1982, The Belknap Press of Harvard University, London.
41. Nordbeck R., Faust M. European chemicals regulation and its effect on innovation: an assessment of the EU's white paper on the strategy for a future chemicals policy. Eur. Environ. 2003, 13(2):79-99.
42. OECD Impacts of environmental policy instruments on technological change. COM/ENV/EPOC/CTPA/CFA(2006)36/FINAL 2007, OECD, Paris.
43. Pearce D.W., Turner R.K. Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment 1990, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
44. Popp D. Lessons from patents: using patents to measure technological change in environmental models. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 54:209-226.
45. Porter M., van der Linde C. Toward a new conception of the environment - Competitiveness relationship. J. Econ. Perspect. 1995, 9:97-118.
46. Rennings K. Redefining innovation - Eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32:319-332.
47. Time Strategies: Innovation and Environmental Policy 2005, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. C. Sartorius, S. Zundel (Eds.).
48. Schwarz N., Ernst A. Agent-based modeling of the diffusion of environmental innovations - An empirical approach. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2009, 76(4):497-511.
49. Schwoon M. Stimulating the adoption of fuel cell vehicles. J. Evol. Econ. 2006, 16(4):435-472.
50. Scott J., Trubek D. Mind the gap: Law and new approaches to governance in the European Union. Eur. Law J. 2002, 8(1):1-18.
51. Sopha B.M., Klöckner C.A., Hertwich E.G. Exploring policy options for a transition to sustainable heating system diffusion using an agent-based simulation. Energy Policy 2011, 39(5):2722-2729.
52. Sopha B.M., Klöckner C.A., Hertwich E.G. Adoption and diffusion of heating systems in Norway: coupling agent-based modeling with empirical research. Environ. Innov. Societal Transit. 2013, 8:42-61.
53. Valente M. Laboratory for simulation development. LEM Working Paper Series 2008/12 2008.
54. Valente M. Evolutionary demand: a model for boundedly rational consumers. J. Evol. Econ. 2012, 22(5):1029-1080.
55. 2 reduction policy mixes in the automotive sector. Environ. Innov. Societal Transit. 2013, 10.1016/j.eist.2013.10.001.
56. Venables W., Ripley B.D. Modern Applied Statistics with S-PLUS 1999, Springer, New York. 3rd ed.
57. Wolf O., Delgado L. The impact of REACH on innovation in the chemical industry. Technical Report Series. EC-JRC, EUR 20999 EN 2003.