Highlights We explore the emission reduction potential of two environmental regulatory tools. In the long term, driving restrictions confronts the risk of policy failure. The benefit of subsidy takes effect until the fourth year after policy enforcement. Under budget constraints, subsidies are more cost-effective than restrictions.
Abstract Existing studies are mixed about whether two typical traffic regulation instruments, namely driving restrictions and new energy vehicle (NEVs) subsidies, reduce air pollution. Moreover, they focused on a single policy, neglecting the comparative analysis between different policies. Here, we apply the multistage difference-in-differences model to explore the environmental benefits of these two policies, and further compare their relative effectiveness. The results indicate that both restrictions and subsidies have positive effects on the overall air quality, but subsidies create more prominent benefits. From the dynamic effects perspective, the marginal benefit of restrictions is decreasing and eventually confronts the risk of failure, while subsidies have more effective long-term benefits. Furthermore, restrictions and subsidies reduce air pollution by alleviating congestion and stimulating the purchase of NEVs. Cost-benefit reveals that subsidies are more cost-effective under budget constraints. These findings are conducive to disentangling the emission-reduction capacity of different policies for effective pollution governance.
The impacts of heterogeneous traffic regulation on air pollution: Evidence from China
2022-01-01
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
Impacts of traffic heterogeneity on roadside air pollution concentration
Online Contents | 2006
|Impacts of traffic heterogeneity on roadside air pollution concentration
Elsevier | 2005
|