Enabling assessment of distributive justice through models for climate change planning: A review of recent advances and a research agenda

Abstract

Models for supporting climate adaptation and mitigation planning, mostly in the form of Integrated Assessment Models, are poorly equipped for aiding questions related to fairness of adaptation and mitigation strategies, because they often disregard distributional outcomes. When evaluating policies using such models, the costs and benefits are typically aggregated across all actors in the system, and over the entire planning horizon. While a policy may be beneficial when considering the aggregate outcome, it can be harmful to some people, somewhere, at some point in time. The practice of aggregating over all actors and over time thus gives rise to problems of justice; it could also exacerbate existing injustices. While the literature discusses some of these injustices in ad‐hoc and case specific manner, a systematic approach for considering distributive justice in model‐based climate change planning is lacking. This study aims to fill this gap by proposing 11 requirements that an Integrated Assessment Model should meet in order to enable the assessment of distributive justice in climate mitigation and adaptation policies. We derive the requirements from various ethical imperatives stemming from the theory of distributive justice. More specifically, we consider both intra‐generational (among people within one generation) and intergenerational (between generations) distributive justice. We investigate to what extent the 11 requirements are being met in recent model‐based climate planning studies, and highlight several directions for future research to advance the accounting for distributive justice in model‐based support for climate change planning. This article is categorized under: Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Climate Change and Global Justice

Resilient California Water Portfolios Require Infrastructure Investment Partnerships That Are Viable for All Partners

“…Additionally, future work should consider whether supply and financial portfolios in water‐scarce regions can be made more resilient using infrastructure real options and adaptive pathways (Fletcher et al., 2019; Haasnoot et al., 2013; Herman et al., 2020), flexible partnership design (Gorelick et al., 2019), or novel financial tools such as environmental impact bonds or index insurance contracts (Brand et al., 2021; Maestro et al., 2016; Zeff & Characklis, 2013). Lastly, this work has focused primarily on equality at the water district level (i.e., whether costs are equally distributed across partners) as opposed to equity and justice (Jafino et al., 2021; Osman & Faust, 2021), i.e., whether different water districts and their customers have differing access to water and differing ability to pay for infrastructure, and how these differences intersect with economic and political power, racial injustice, and responsibility for historical groundwater overdraft and subsidence (Dobbin & Lubell, 2021; Fernandez‐Bou et al., 2021; Pauloo et al., 2020). Explicit consideration of these issues in direct co‐production with disadvantaged communities (Lemos et al., 2018; Minkler et al., 2008) will be an important extension of this study in light of the WRPI's stated goal of alleviating the growing water affordability challenge.…”

“…Recent water portfolio planning studies (San Joaquin River Restoration Program, 2011; Sunding, 2015; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2017, 2020) have focused on expected costs/benefits at highly aggregated levels, typically under minimal uncertainty, while vulnerability assessments under broader uncertainty have focused on individual water districts (Groves et al., 2015; Lempert & Groves, 2010; Tariq et al., 2017) or aggregate regional outcomes (Connell‐Buck et al., 2011; Schwarz et al., 2018, 2019; Selmon et al., 2019). There is little research to date on disaggregating costs, benefits, and risks to design robust partnerships that are broadly satisfactory to all partners (Herman et al., 2015; Jafino et al., 2021).…”

Does the Discourse on the Increase of Value Added Tax Have any legitimacy? Utilitarian Point of View

“…Although this principle has been criticized for being more inclined to John Rawls's principle of distributive justice, which is, of course, different from the direction of utilitarianism, or example, distinguish between the two principles by arguing that the utilitarian principle is more about the distribution that can maximize the utility of all, while the Rawlsian distribution model will aim to help the least able (Jafino et al, 2021;Witztum & Young, 2013). The welfare and utilitarian economists support a principle that he thinks is justified to the point where net social benefits are maximized as much as possible (Anomaly, 2015;Byskov, 2020).…”

Identifying Minimum Information Requirements to Improve Integrated Modeling Capabilities: Lessons Learned From Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways

“…Monte Carlo, Latin Hypercube) or optimization approaches may be needed to adequately explore achievable performance. Scale of performance metrics can also be problematic (Jafino et al, 2021), and in our case was tackled by disaggregating results by state and using sparklines in addition to average values. This type of visualization tool is often advocated as an information dense representation of time series information but may be challenging to use without prior training in an applied context involving stakeholders.…”