This special issue on “Environmental Regulation and Innovation in Local Communities” came out of the 2019 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association's Post-Conference Workshop. The workshop sought to invite a conversation among researchers, think tanks, government agencies, and policy makers to enhance our understanding of (1) how local communities innovate when shaping and responding to environmental regulations, and (2) how these environmental regulations affect rural communities’ economic well-being and environmental quality. This resulting special issue includes two invited pieces from the workshop's keynote speakers, both leading scholars in the area of regulation or innovation and five manuscripts that deal with local environmental issues—issues that highlight geographically distinct environmental problems related to land use, water quality, and energy—each of which require different solutions. In various ways, these papers look at the linkages between economic and environmental objectives that define the location-specificity of the environmental issue at hand and the requisite policy solutions.

A number of issues arise when considering the positive and normative implications of local environmental policy making. This paper provides an overview of some of the issues and implications. These vary depending on whether local jurisdictions are charged with determining the stringency of policies or instead stringency is determined at a higher level of government and the local role focuses on implementation and the design of cost-effective measures for achieving the required goals. Key issues include both physical and economic spillovers across jurisdictions, and the extent to which stringency can be differentiated based on local conditions or preferences.

We analyze optimal budget allocations to acquire protected areas for carbon storage while balancing risk and return from protection under economic growth uncertainty in a local community. Our study is the first to explore how risk of uncertain economic growth affects cost of protected area acquisition using real estate values at the parcel level, enabling us to estimate the site-specific opportunity cost of carbon storage. The Pareto optimal trade-off frontier between the expected carbon storage benefit and its variance provides a continuum of risk-return combinations. The pattern of the trade-off relationship implies that risk mitigation is less costly in terms of foregone expected benefit when risk is higher than when it is lower. Our results also find that the difference in cluster-specific budget allocations between the strong economic growth scenario and the weak economic growth scenario subsequently decreases between the point of expected benefit maximization and the point of variance minimization. Our findings of optimal hectares of land for protected area acquisition for carbon storage and corresponding benefits and costs serve as an empirically informed knowledge base to help a local community prioritize acquisition of potential protected areas for carbon storage under economic growth uncertainty.

This paper investigates cost-share program attributes that would affect producers' willingness to enroll in a cost-share program to fund the adoption of best management practices to improve water quality and decrease water use. Through a survey administered to Florida agricultural producers, we conducted choice experiments to assess farmers’ preferences for cost-share programs using five attributes: contracting agency, length of contract, annual verification process, costs included, and percent of costs covered. Results suggest that producers prefer cost-share programs with shorter contract lengths, self-monitoring, and administration by agricultural (as opposed to environmental) agencies. Our findings suggest the importance of an existing trust between the local communities and the contracting agencies for higher enrollment rates in cost –share programs. Our results can inform policymakers on ways to increase enrollment rates that move towards long-term environmental goals.

Agricultural activities have imposed significant impacts on water resources, leading to hypoxic zones and harmful algal blooms all over the world. Government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and individuals have been making various efforts to reduce this non-point source pollution. Among those efforts, even the more cost-effective examples of performance-based environmental payment programs generally have low participation rates. We investigate the effects of externalities in farmers’ decisions on neighboring farms, incorporating both a knowledge spillover effect and a positive environmental outcome externality of farmers’ best-management practice (BMP) adoption decisions. Our focus is on how these effects may influence the outcome of performance-based payment programs and how policy makers might recognize these effects in the design of cost-effective policies to promote program participation and BMP adoption. Rather than imposing an assumption of profit-maximization or forward-looking behavior, we allow outcomes to emerge from interactions among neighboring farmers. We recommend cost-effective policies across communities depending on their composition. It is more cost-effective to target communities with fewer innovators and/or target the programs towards the least-innovative individuals.

The relative performance of public and private enterprises has been long debated. We construct a comprehensive violation dataset based on the EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System to empirically investigate the compliance behavior of publicly and privately owned Public Water Systems (PWSs). Our results show that publicly owned PWSs commit significantly more Maximum Contamination Level, Treatment Technique, and Health-Related violations but fewer Monitor and Reporting violations than privately owned PWSs. We also find that municipal-level heterogeneities explain a substantial amount of variation in violation behaviors among PWSs, suggesting water supply quality depends crucially on location-specific regulations and local economic conditions.

In this article, we present a model of the electricity sector where generation technologies are intermittent. The economic value of an electricity generation technology is given by integrating its production profile with the market price of electricity. We use estimates of the consumer's intertemporal elasticity of substitution for electricity consumption while parameterizing the model empirically to numerically calculate the elasticity between renewables and fossil energy. We find that there is a non-constant elasticity of substitution between renewable and fossil energy that depends on prices and intermittency. This suggests that the efficacy and welfare effects of carbon taxes and renewable subsidies vary geographically. Subsidizing research into battery technology and tailoring policy for local energy markets can mitigate these distributional side effects while complementing traditional policies used to promote renewable energy.

Innovation is an important part of energy policy, and encouraging clean energy innovation is often an explicit goal of policy makers. For local governments, promoting clean energy innovation is seen not only as a pathway to a cleaner economy but also as a tool for promoting the local economy. But is such optimism warranted? There is a substantial literature examining the relationships between innovation and environmental policy, but few studies focus explicitly on innovation at the state and local level. In this paper, I provide key lessons from research on clean energy innovation, focusing on lessons relevant for state and local governments. I then summarize the results of a recent working paper by Fu et al. (2018) that studied wind energy innovation across individual states in the United States. While state-level policies can promote clean energy innovation, it is overall market size that matters most. Thus, innovation need not occur in those states most actively promoting clean energy. I conclude with lessons for state and local governments drawn from both this work and the broader literature on energy innovation.