Twenty Key Challenges in Environmental and Resource Economics

Bretschger, Lucas; Pittel, Karen

doi:10.1007/s10640-020-00516-y

Cited by 38 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 153 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…But other challenges in environmental and resource economics are also likely to feature more prominently in future PRs. Bretschger and Pittel (2020) have outlined twenty key challenges for environmental economics, including carbon and climate neutrality; risk, uncertainty and resilience to environmental shocks (e.g. floods and droughts); behavioural environmental economics; equitable use of the environment (equity and fairness); loss of biodiversity and natural capital; valuing and paying for ecosystem services.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research on customers’ willingness-to-pay for service changes in UK water company price reviews 1994–2019

Willis

Sheldon

2021

Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water companies are regional monopolies in the UK, and subject to quinquennial price reviews to ensure customers receive value for money. This paper documents the application and evolution of stated preference methodology in the quinquennial price review research. Stated preference methods are used to assess customers' preferences for changes to water supply, waste-water, and environmental services; and customers' willingness-to-pay, or willingness-to-accept, water bill amounts for changes to these service levels. Recently revealed preference methods have been given more prominence in estimating values for some water services. The application of stated preference, and revealed preference, has seen continued attempts, in successive price reviews, to improve the accuracy and reliability of values for water services, as an input into the cost-benefit analysis of water projects, and water company business plans.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research on customers’ willingness-to-pay for service changes in UK water company price reviews 1994–2019

Willis

Sheldon

2021

Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In agreement with [57], in environmental economics, it is key to seek an adequate balance between disciplinary excellence, interdisciplinary collaboration, and political impact. In [58], the insufficiency of collaboration between economists and other disciplines is clearly demonstrated.…”

Section: Mismatches Between Monetary Values and Social Values Of Air Purification In The Present Casementioning

confidence: 99%

On the Mismatches between the Monetary and Social Values of Air Purification in the Colombian Andean Region: A Case Study

Suárez

Agudelo

Escobar

et al. 2021

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is growing interest in air quality and air purification, due to current high pollution levels, their effects on human health, and implications for urban economies. Since the improvement of air quality carries important economic value, air-related benefits have been evaluated monetarily from two perspectives: the first relates to air quality improvements, while the second values air purification as an ecosystem function. This research opted for the second perspective, given that the study area (two Colombian municipalities) does not suffer from poor air quality conditions, but stakeholders prioritized this function as highly important to them. Contingent valuation methods were applied in order to identify the population’s probability of willingness to maintain the air purification function. Although individuals (n = 245) attribute a yearly monetary value of USD 1.5 million to air purification, it was found that, despite the high level of social importance that respondents assigned to air purification (mean = 4.7/5), this had no correlation with payment values (rho = 0.0134, p = 0.8350); that is, households do not really recognize the monetary value of all the benefits they receive or the benefits they would lose if the service suffers changes. Hence, it is posed that monetary values do not necessarily reflect the social importance that individuals assign to ecosystem services, and attention is called to the need to integrate social and monetary values into decision-making processes, so as to encompass the complexity of ecosystem services and conciliate conflicting valuation language.

show abstract

“…In addition to economywide impacts, the analysis examines how the studied policy options differ with respect to their distributional impacts across production sectors and across domestic income groups. Overall costs as well as distributional consequences are important concerns with respect to public acceptance and political feasibility (Bretschger and Pittel, 2020). In many cases, there are potential trade-offs between them: Policy instruments chosen for overall cost-effectiveness can have distributional disadvantages and vice versa.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emission targets and coalition options for a small, ambitious country: An analysis of welfare costs and distributional impacts for Norway

Fæhn

Yonezawa

2021

Energy Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We theoretically and numerically analyse the impacts for a small, open country with carbon abatement ambitions of joining a coalition with allowance trading. Besides welfare impacts for both the coalition and the small, open economy joining the coalition, we scrutinise how the studied policy options differ with respect to their distributional impacts across domestic income groups. Our example is the EU 2030 policies and Norway's linking to it. In spite of theoretical ambiguity, the findings suggest that the tighter the links with the EU, the lower the abatement costs for Norway. The distributional profile of the welfare costs tends to be progressive, i.e., the relative (and absolute) incidence of the carbon policy falls more heavily on wealthy households than poor households, regardless of the choice of linking options. However, the less progressive, the lower the overall welfare cost. This indicates a trade-off between efficiency and distribution concerns. A national capand-trade system without linking to the EU is the least cost-effective option for Norway but also the most progressive as the higher income deciles face lower capital return and wages.

show abstract

Twenty Key Challenges in Environmental and Resource Economics

Cited by 38 publications

References 153 publications

Research on customers’ willingness-to-pay for service changes in UK water company price reviews 1994–2019

Research on customers’ willingness-to-pay for service changes in UK water company price reviews 1994–2019

On the Mismatches between the Monetary and Social Values of Air Purification in the Colombian Andean Region: A Case Study

Emission targets and coalition options for a small, ambitious country: An analysis of welfare costs and distributional impacts for Norway

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About