Inequality and the Value of Public Natural Capital

Meya, Jasper N.; Baumgärtner, Stefan; Drupp, Moritz A.; Quaas, Martin F.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3748952

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…What impact would a change in income inequality have on the assessment of a project? Baumgärtner et al (2017a) and Meya et al (2020) show that, depending on whether the non-market good is a substitute or a complement for manufactured goods, increased inequality can either decrease or increase mean WTP. Once non-market values are involved in decision-making, we need to be on the lookout for any potential plutocratic partiality or ranking reversal effect that may not be accounted for ex post by distributional weightings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for subsistence needs in non-market valuation: a simple proposal

Champonnois

Chanel

2022

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Revealed and stated preference techniques are widely used to assess willingness to pay (WTP) for non-market goods as input to public and private decision-making. However, individuals first have to satisfy subsistence needs through market good consumption, which affects their ability to pay. We provide a methodological framework and derive a simple ex post adjustment factor to account for this effect. We quantify its impacts on the WTP for non-market goods and the ranking of projects theoretically, numerically and empirically. This confirms that non-adjusted WTP tends to be plutocratic: the views of the richest -whatever they are -are more likely to impact decision-making, potentially leading to ranking reversal between projects. We also suggest that the subsistence needs-based adjustment factor we propose has a role to play in value transfer procedures.The overall goal is a better representation of the entire population's preferences with regard to non-market goods.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for subsistence needs in non-market valuation: a simple proposal

Champonnois

Chanel

2022

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Optimizing agri-environment schemes for cost-effectiveness, fairness or both?

Markova‐Nenova

Wätzold

Sturm

2023

Q Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate empirically trade-offs between improving the cost-effectiveness of an agri-environment scheme (AES) and its distributional impacts applying the criteria of equality (equal payments), equity (equal producer surplus) and the Rawlsian maximin criterion (here understood as maximizing the producer surplus in the poorest region). Using an ecological-economic modelling procedure we simulate an existing grassland AES in Saxony, Germany and design two cost-effective alternatives—one AES with spatially homogeneous payments and one with regionally differentiated payments—and compare the distributional impacts of the three schemes. For spatially homogeneous payments we find a trade-off between cost-effectiveness and equality but not equity and the Rawlsian’ maximin criterion. This suggests that cost-effectiveness improvements do not necessarily go against distributional concerns. However, the substantial cost-effectiveness improvements which can be achieved with regionally differentiated AES come at the expense of distributional setbacks according to all applied fairness criteria.

show abstract

Inequality and the Value of Public Natural Capital

Cited by 2 publications

References 53 publications

Accounting for subsistence needs in non-market valuation: a simple proposal

Accounting for subsistence needs in non-market valuation: a simple proposal

Optimizing agri-environment schemes for cost-effectiveness, fairness or both?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About