Differences in Social and Public Risk Perceptions and Conflicting Impacts on Point/Nonpoint Trading Ratios
用公共选择模型解释为何实际非点源污染交易比率上调（风险溢价）而经济最优比率下调（风险奖励），源于监管者关注减排而非减损，导致社会与公共风险认知分歧。
Abstract If stochastic nonpoint pollution loads create socially costly risk, then an economically optimal point/nonpoint trading ratio—the rate point source controls trade for nonpoint controls—is adjusted downward (a risk reward for nonpoint controls), encouraging more nonpoint controls. However, in actual trading programs, ratios are adjusted upward in response to nonpoint uncertainties (a risk premium for nonpoint controls). This contradiction is explained using a public choice model in which regulators focus on encouraging abatement instead of reducing damages. The result is a divergence of public and social risk perceptions, and a trading market that encourages economically suboptimal nonpoint controls.