The name is absent



the next period is E[Xt+1] = c + r = 2 [ B]. Note that when there is certainty whether the
additional pollutant input term r is present or not, the expected stock in the next period is
2 [ B]
in each case, which we call the
target stock. Furthermore, let the precautionary reduction in next
period’s expected state variable be
E[Xtarget Xt+1], i.e. the drop in the state variable below the
level that is desirable if the manager knows whether the system is below or above the threshold X
c.
Figure 1 shows both the optimal combined loading
c (left panel) and the expected state variable in
the next period (right panel). Each graph displays the solution for various values of σ
v, while all
other parameters are taken from [25].

Second, if the variances of the error terms u1 and u2 are the same, then they do not enter the
results at all, and have no influence on optimal loading. This is the case because we model a
reversible system and hence any arbitrary shock to the system can be completely counterbalanced
in the next period (and u does not impact whether the threshold X is crossed or not). As mentioned
before, if the additional loading r is not deterministic but itself random, then σ
u22 > σu21, which
further reduces
c.

Third, uncertainty in the form of the error term v influences the optimal loading. Recall that the
error term
v is partially responsible in determining whether the additional input r is present or not:
switching to the undesirable state occurs if
BXt + lt + b + vt Xc . Uncertainty about whether
the threshold has been crossed and the additional input
r is present induces the decisionmaker to
become more cautious so that the following period’s expected state variable is below
Xtarget in
the right panel of Figure 1. We briefly establish that the precautionary reduction in next period’s
expected pollutant stock
E[Xtarget Xt+1] is nonnegative.

Proposition 4 A sufficient condition for the precautionary reduction E[Xtarget Xt+1] to be non-
negative is X
c > 0

Proof: Follows directly from Xtarget = k [| - B] and E[Xt+1] = c + r
the solution for c in Proposition 3 we get

1


φ (⅛c) ]∙ Using


2
σu1


0


E[Xtarget - Xt+1] = ~--φ (------^ [Bkr + 2Xcr + r2 + σ22

2σv      σv

We now consider the relationship between uncertainty in pollutant loading and precautionary
behavior in more detail.



More intriguing information

1. TRADE NEGOTIATIONS AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURE
2. Strategic Policy Options to Improve Irrigation Water Allocation Efficiency: Analysis on Egypt and Morocco
3. The name is absent
4. Regulation of the Electricity Industry in Bolivia: Its Impact on Access to the Poor, Prices and Quality
5. The Advantage of Cooperatives under Asymmetric Cost Information
6. The name is absent
7. The name is absent
8. Strengthening civil society from the outside? Donor driven consultation and participation processes in Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSP): the Bolivian case
9. The name is absent
10. THE MEXICAN HOG INDUSTRY: MOVING BEYOND 2003
11. Plasmid-Encoded Multidrug Resistance of Salmonella typhi and some Enteric Bacteria in and around Kolkata, India: A Preliminary Study
12. The Role of area-yield crop insurance program face to the Mid-term Review of Common Agricultural Policy
13. The Impact of Optimal Tariffs and Taxes on Agglomeration
14. Optimal Private and Public Harvesting under Spatial and Temporal Interdependence
15. The name is absent
16. Credit Markets and the Propagation of Monetary Policy Shocks
17. The name is absent
18. Healthy state, worried workers: North Carolina in the world economy
19. Trade Openness and Volatility
20. Placenta ingestion by rats enhances y- and n-opioid antinociception, but suppresses A-opioid antinociception