Enforcement of pollution regulations in a declining industry

Deily, Mary E.; Gray, Wayne B.

doi:10.1016/0095-0696(91)90030-m

Cited by 155 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, our data raises the possibility that the actual requirements for projects can be lower than the regulatory standards criticized by Shoup (2005). This is similar to the common finding in the environmental regulatory literature that local regulators adjust regulations for the costs and benefits of pollution control at a particular facility (Gray and Deily (1991)). Our indirect method avoids the pitfall of assuming that MPRs apply uniformly and tests whether parking requirements, as they are actually applied, result in economic distortions.…”

Section: Minimum Parking Requirementssupporting

confidence: 64%

The Uneasy Case for Lower Parking Standards

Cutter

Franco

2012

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Minimum parking requirements are the norm for urban and suburban development in the United States (Davidson and Dolnick (2002)). The justification for parking space requirements is that overflow parking will occupy nearby street or off-street parking. and Willson (1995) provides cases where there is reason to believe that parking space requirements have forced parcel developers to place more parking than they would in the absence of parking requirements. If the effect of parking minimums is to significantly increase the land area devoted to parking, then the increase in impervious surfaces would likely cause water quality degradation, increased flooding, and decreased groundwater recharge. However, to our knowledge the existing literature does not test the effect of parking minimums on the amount of lot space devoted to parking beyond a few case studies. This paper tests the hypothesis that parking space requirements cause an oversupply of parking by examining the implicit marginal value of land allocated to parking spaces. This is an indirect test of the effects of parking requirements that is similar to Glaeser and Gyourko (2003). A simple theoretical model shows that the marginal value of additional parking to the sale price should be equal to the cost of land plus the cost of parking construction. We estimate the marginal values of parking and lot area with spatial methods using a large data set from the Los Angeles area non-residential property sales and find that for most of the property types the marginal value of parking is significantly below that of the parcel area. This evidence supports the contention that minimum parking requirements significantly increase the amount of parcel area devoted to parking. JEL Codes: R52, H23.

show abstract

Section: Minimum Parking Requirementssupporting

confidence: 64%

The Uneasy Case for Lower Parking Standards

Cutter

Franco

2012

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An analysis of steel plant closing decisions (Deily and Gray (1991) found that steel mills facing more air pollution enforcement were more likely to be closed. A state-level analysis of new plant openings (Gray (1997) There are a set of available technologies (j) among which the firm will choose.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental Regulation, Investment Timing, and Technology Choice

Gray¹,

Shadbegian²

1998

The J Industrial Economics

279

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We test several hypotheses related to technology choice in the paper industry and the investment decision for existing plants, based on conversations with people and visits to paper mills. Our analysis uses technology choice data for 686 paper mills and annual investment data for 116 mills.Technology choice is influenced by environmental regulation. New mills in states with strict environmental regulations tend not to employ more polluting technologies involving pulping. Differences between air and water pollution regulations also emerge, with the dirtiest technology in each medium avoiding states with the strictest regulations. The impacts are sizable: a one standard deviation increase in stringency is associated with several percentage point reductions in the probability of choosing a dirty technology.State regulatory stringency and plant technology have little or no effect on annual investment spending at existing plants. However, pollution abatement investment is significantly related to productive (non-abatement) investment. Plants with high abatement investment spend less on productive capital. The magnitude of the impact corresponds to nearly complete crowding out of productive investment by abatement investment. Examining investment timing, we find that abatement and productive investment occurs in the same years, consistent with the high cost of shutting down a paper mill for renovations.

show abstract

“…Deily & Gray (1991) analyze data from 1977-1986 on EPA enforcement activity, finding that steel mills facing the likelihood of stringent regulatory enforcement (i.e., those with higher predicted probabilities of future 13 inspections) were more likely to close. However, the authors also find that inspectors are more likely to bypass mills with a higher likelihood of closing if inspected.…”

Section: Production Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%