Which compensation for whom?
AbstractThis paper examines a situation where a decision-maker determines the appropriate compensation that should be implemented for a given ecological damage. The compensation can be either or both in monetary and environmental units to meet three goals : i) no aggregate welfare loss, ii) minimization of the cost associated with the compensation, iii) minimal environmental compensation requirement. The findings suggest that - in some cases - providing both monetary and environmental compensation can be the best option. We also emphasize the impact of implementing a minimal environmental compensation constraint especially in terms of equity and cost efficiency.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne in its series Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne with number 12080.
Length: 29 pages
Date of creation: Nov 2012
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 106-112 boulevard de l'Hôpital 75 647 PARIS CEDEX 13
Phone: + 33 44 07 81 00
Fax: + 33 1 44 07 83 01
Web page: http://centredeconomiesorbonne.univ-paris1.fr/
More information through EDIRC
Environmental damage; compensation; welfare; inequity.;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
- Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
- Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2012-12-22 (All new papers)
- NEP-ENV-2012-12-22 (Environmental Economics)
- NEP-REG-2012-12-22 (Regulation)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Knetsch, Jack L., 2007. "Biased valuations, damage assessments, and policy choices: The choice of measure matters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 684-689, September.
- Medin, Hege & Nyborg, Karine & Bateman, Ian, 2001.
"The assumption of equal marginal utility of income: how much does it matter?,"
Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 397-411, March.
- Hege Medin & Karine Nyborg & Ian Bateman, 1998. "The Assumption of Equal Marginal Utility of Income: How Much Does it Matter?," Discussion Papers 241, Research Department of Statistics Norway.
- Nicholas E. Flores & Jennifer Thacher, 2002. "Money, Who Needs It? Natural Resource Damage Assessment," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 20(2), pages 171-178, 04.
- Dunford, Richard W. & Ginn, Thomas C. & Desvousges, William H., 2004. "The use of habitat equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 49-70, January.
- Zafonte, Matthew & Hampton, Steve, 2007. "Exploring welfare implications of resource equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 134-145, February.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Lucie Label).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.