Back in Nov 2016 (!), I was giving a lecture on institutions and regulation, and I wanted students to understand how (sometimes) markets or other negotiations are more efficient in resolving disputes over damages (from pollution or offense) between the offending and offended parties.
I made the following diagram:
...which looks much clearer here:
Now, these axes make it easier to think of regulatory solutions, i.e., prices and markets when damages are clear and transaction costs low (think car accident/insurance); command and control when transaction costs are higher (think car emissions or smoking regulations ); Coasian bargaining when costs are unclear (neighbors agreeing to "think over" the issue of burning rubbish); and, finally, the Good luck! square where damages are unclear and transactions costs high (think climate change).
Bottom line: Choose the "right means" if you want regulation to be as quick and cheap as possible!