IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/slucer/2012_018.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy in Swedish Coastal Environments – A Walk along different Socio-economic Dimensions

Author

Listed:

Abstract

This paper studies distributional effects of environmental policies in Swedish coastal environments, in monetary and environmental quality terms, for different socio-economic groups. The study area is widely used for different recreational activities and has a mix of different visitors. Data comes from a choice experiment study. Some results confirm limited existing knowledge from previous research, although the ethnical dimension to a certain extent contradicts conventional perceptions. Based on previous research from other countries, the hypothesis would be that native Swedes would benefit more from environmental improvements than respondents with a non-Swedish background. Interestingly results differ, depending on the environmental amenity. For example, respondents with a non-Swedish origin benefit more, both in monetary and environmental quality terms, from reduced noise and littering compared to respondents with a Swedish origin. Also, independent of ethnical background, people use the area in a similar manner.

Suggested Citation

  • Håkansson, Cecilia & Östberg, Katarina & Bostedt, Göran, 2012. "Estimating Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy in Swedish Coastal Environments – A Walk along different Socio-economic Dimensions," CERE Working Papers 2012:18, CERE - the Center for Environmental and Resource Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:slucer:2012_018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-sekon.slu.se/~gbost/CERE_WP2012-18.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jay, Marion & Peters, Karin & Buijs, Arjen E. & Gentin, Sandra & Kloek, Marjolein E. & O'Brien, Liz, 2012. "Towards access for all? Policy and research on access of ethnic minority groups to natural areas in four European countries," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 4-11.
    2. Östberg, Katarina & Hasselström, Linus & Håkansson, Cecilia, 2010. "Non-market valuation of the coastal environment - uniting political aims, ecological and economic knowledge," CERE Working Papers 2010:10, CERE - the Center for Environmental and Resource Economics.
    3. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    4. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    5. John B. Loomis, 2013. "Incorporating distributional issues into benefit–cost analysis: why, how, and two empirical examples using non-market valuation," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 9, pages 294-316, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Aidan R. Vining & David L. Weimer, 2013. "An assessment of important issues concerning the application of benefit–cost analysis to social policy," Chapters,in: Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 1, pages 25-62 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Mark Morrison & Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey & Jordan Louviere, 2002. "Choice Modeling and Tests of Benefit Transfer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 161-170.
    8. Loomis, John B., 2011. "Incorporating Distributional Issues into Benefit Cost Analysis: Why, How, and Two Empirical Examples Using Non-market Valuation," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(1), pages 1-24, January.
    9. Kinell, Gerda & Söderqvist, Tore & Elmgren, Ragnar & Walve, Jacob & Franzén, Frida, 2012. "Cost-Benefit Analysis in a Framework of Stakeholder Involvement and Integrated Coastal Zone Modeling," CERE Working Papers 2012:1, CERE - the Center for Environmental and Resource Economics.
    10. Anni Huhtala & Eija Pouta, 2009. "Benefit Incidence of Public Recreation Areas—Have the Winners Taken Almost All?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(1), pages 63-79, May.
    11. Aidan R. Vining & David L. Weimer, 2013. "An assessment of important issues concerning the application of benefit–cost analysis to social policy," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 1, pages 25-62, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Stephan Klasen, 2008. "The Efficiency of Equity," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 257-274.
    13. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    14. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    15. Ysé Serret & Nick Johnstone (ed.), 2006. "The Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3800, March.
    16. McGuire, Martin C & Aaron, Henry J, 1969. "Efficiency and Equity in the Optimal Supply of a Public Good," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 51(1), pages 31-39, February.
    17. Loomis, John B., 2011. "Incorporating Distributional Issues into Benefit Cost Analysis: Why, How, and Two Empirical Examples Using Non-market Valuation," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(1), pages 1-24, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cecilia Håkansson & Katarina Östberg & Göran Bostedt, 2016. "Estimating distributional effects of environmental policy in Swedish coastal environments - a walk along different dimensions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 49-78, March.
    2. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376, March.
    3. Karoly Lynn A., 2012. "Toward Standardization of Benefit-Cost Analysis of Early Childhood Interventions," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-45, January.
    4. Kataria, Mitesh, 2009. "Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 69-76, January.
    5. Mavra Stithou & Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Danny Campbell, 2012. "Estimating the Value of Achieving “Good Ecological Status”in the Boyne River Catchmentin Ireland Using Choice Experiments," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 43(3), pages 397-422.
    6. Zhao, Xiaoli & Cai, Qiong & Ma, Chunbo & Hu, Yanan & Luo, Kaiyan & Li, William, 2017. "Economic evaluation of environmental externalities in China’s coal-fired power generation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 307-317.
    7. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    8. Gillespie Rob & Kragt Marit E., 2012. "Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-29, May.
    9. Lin, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2022. "Green identity labeling, environmental information, and pro-environmental food choices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    10. Craig D. Broadbent, 2014. "Evaluating mitigation and calibration techniques for hypothetical bias in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(12), pages 1831-1848, December.
    11. Tavárez, Héctor & Álamo, Carmen & Cortés,Mildred, 2020. "Differentiated coffees and their potential markets in Puerto Rico: An economic valuation approach," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 20(02), December.
    12. Samnaliev, Mihail & Stevens, Thomas H. & More, Thomas, 2003. "A Comparison Of Cheap Talk And Alternative Certainty Calibration Techniques In Contingent Valuation," Working Paper Series 14517, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Department of Resource Economics.
    13. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Johnston, Robert J. & Duke, Joshua M. & Kukielka, Jessica B., 2008. "Optimizing Farmland Preservation Choices Across Communities and Jurisdictional Scales: To What Extent are Amenity Values and Selection Criteria Transferable?," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6243, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Lisa A. Robinson & James K. Hammitt, 2013. "Behavioral economics and the conduct of benefit–cost analysis: towards principles and standards," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 10, pages 317-363, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. McKenzie Thomas & Kimberly L. Jensen & Dayton M. Lambert & Burton C. English & Christopher D. Clark & Forbes R. Walker, 2021. "Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Potting Mix with Biochar," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-16, June.
    17. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    18. Susaeta, Andres & Lal, Pankaj & Alavalapati, Janaki & Mercer, Evan, 2011. "Random preferences towards bioenergy environmental externalities: A case study of woody biomass based electricity in the Southern United States," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1111-1118.
    19. Johnston, Robert J., 2006. "Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 469-481, July.
    20. Huynh Khai & Mitsuyasu Yabe, 2014. "The demand of urban residents for the biodiversity conservation in U Minh Thuong National Park, Vietnam," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 2(1), pages 1-13, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Distributional effects in monetary and environmental quality terms; Non-market valuation; Marine policy; Ethnicity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:slucer:2012_018. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Mona Bonta Bergman (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.cere.se .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.