IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i7p3737-d777125.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sharing the Burdens of Climate Mitigation and Adaptation: Incorporating Fairness Perspectives into Policy Optimization Models

Author

Listed:
  • Piotr Żebrowski

    (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria)

  • Ulf Dieckmann

    (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
    Complexity Science and Evolution Unit, Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University (OIST), Onna 904-0495, Japan
    Department of Evolutionary Studies of Biosystems, The Graduate University for Advanced Studies (Sokendai), Hayama 240-0193, Japan)

  • Åke Brännström

    (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
    Department of Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics, Umeå University, 90187 Umeå, Sweden)

  • Oskar Franklin

    (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria)

  • Elena Rovenskaya

    (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
    Faculty of Computational Mathematics and Cybernetics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, 119991 Moscow, Russia)

Abstract

Mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change can be addressed only through the collective action of multiple agents. The engagement of involved agents critically depends on their perception that the burdens and benefits of collective action are distributed fairly. Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs), which inform climate policies, focus on the minimization of costs and the maximization of overall utility, but they rarely pay sufficient attention to how costs and benefits are distributed among agents. Consequently, some agents may perceive the resultant model-based policy recommendations as unfair. In this paper, we propose how to adjust the objectives optimized within IAMs so as to derive policy recommendations that can plausibly be presented to agents as fair. We review approaches to aggregating the utilities of multiple agents into fairness-relevant social rankings of outcomes, analyze features of these rankings, and associate with them collections of properties that a model’s objective function must have to operationalize each of these rankings within the model. Moreover, for each considered ranking, we propose a selection of specific objective functions that can conveniently be used for generating this ranking in a model. Maximizing these objective functions within existing IAMs allows exploring and identifying climate polices to which multiple agents may be willing to commit.

Suggested Citation

  • Piotr Żebrowski & Ulf Dieckmann & Åke Brännström & Oskar Franklin & Elena Rovenskaya, 2022. "Sharing the Burdens of Climate Mitigation and Adaptation: Incorporating Fairness Perspectives into Policy Optimization Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-24, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:3737-:d:777125
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/3737/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/3737/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Greer Gosnell & Alessandro Tavoni, 2017. "A bargaining experiment on heterogeneity and side deals in climate negotiations," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 575-586, June.
    2. Ashish Goel & Adam Meyerson & Thomas Weber, 2009. "Fair welfare maximization," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 41(3), pages 465-494, December.
    3. Włodzimierz Ogryczak, 2009. "Inequality measures and equitable locations," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 167(1), pages 61-86, March.
    4. Elizabeth Stanton, 2011. "Negishi welfare weights in integrated assessment models: the mathematics of global inequality," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 107(3), pages 417-432, August.
    5. Malte Meinshausen & Louise Jeffery & Johannes Guetschow & Yann Robiou du Pont & Joeri Rogelj & Michiel Schaeffer & Niklas Höhne & Michel den Elzen & Sebastian Oberthür & Nicolai Meinshausen, 2015. "National post-2020 greenhouse gas targets and diversity-aware leadership," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(12), pages 1098-1106, December.
    6. Anthoff, David & Tol, Richard S.J., 2010. "On international equity weights and national decision making on climate change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 14-20, July.
    7. Atkinson, Anthony B., 1970. "On the measurement of inequality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 244-263, September.
    8. John Weyant, 2017. "Some Contributions of Integrated Assessment Models of Global Climate Change," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(1), pages 115-137.
    9. Shorrocks, A F, 1980. "The Class of Additively Decomposable Inequality Measures," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(3), pages 613-625, April.
    10. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    11. Scott Barrett & Astrid Dannenberg, 2016. "An experimental investigation into ‘pledge and review’ in climate negotiations," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 138(1), pages 339-351, September.
    12. Brilé Anderson & Thomas Bernauer & Stefano Balietti, 2017. "Effects of fairness principles on willingness to pay for climate change mitigation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 447-461, June.
    13. Kaneko, Mamoru & Nakamura, Kenjiro, 1979. "The Nash Social Welfare Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 423-435, March.
    14. Messner, Sabine & Schrattenholzer, Leo, 2000. "MESSAGE–MACRO: linking an energy supply model with a macroeconomic module and solving it iteratively," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 267-282.
    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. Berger, Loïc & Emmerling, Johannes, 2017. "Welfare as Simple(x) Equity Equivalents," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 254044, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    2. Ashish Goel & Reyna Hulett & Benjamin Plaut, 2018. "Markets Beyond Nash Welfare for Leontief Utilities," Papers 1807.05293, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2019.
    3. Andonie, Costel & Kuzmics, Christoph & Rogers, Brian W., 2019. "Efficiency-based measures of inequality," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 60-69.
    4. Casilda Lasso de la Vega & Ana Urrutia & Oscar Volij, 2011. "An Axiomatic Characterization Of The Theil Inequality Order," Working Papers 1103, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    5. Tugce, Cuhadaroglu, 2013. "My Group Beats Your Group: Evaluating Non-Income Inequalities," SIRE Discussion Papers 2013-49, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    6. Maria Cubel & Peter Lambert, 2002. "Progression-neutral income tax reforms and horizontal inequity," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 1-8, December.
    7. Teixidó Figueras, Jordi & Duro Moreno, Juan Antonio, 2012. "Ecological Footprint Inequality: A methodological review and some results," Working Papers 2072/203168, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    8. Hoy, Michael & Huang, Rachel J., 2017. "Measuring discrimination using principles of stochastic dominance," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 39-52.
    9. Nikhil Garg & Ashish Goel & Benjamin Plaut, 2021. "Markets for public decision-making," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 755-801, May.
    10. Frankel, David M. & Volij, Oscar, 2011. "Measuring school segregation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(1), pages 1-38, January.
    11. Sorger, Gerhard & Stark, Oded, 2013. "Income redistribution going awry: The reversal power of the concern for relative deprivation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1-9.
    12. Lorena Remuzgo & Jose Maria Sarabia, 2015. "A general factorial decomposition of the second Theil index of inequality with applications in environmental economics," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(2), pages 1369-1378.
    13. Nicole Palan, 2010. "Measurement of Specialization – The Choice of Indices," FIW Working Paper series 062, FIW.
    14. Kleiber, Christian, 1997. "The existence of population inequality measures," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 39-44, November.
    15. Ji-Won Park & Chae Un Kim, 2021. "Getting to a feasible income equality," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-16, March.
    16. Maria Ana Lugo & Esfandiar Maasoumi, 2008. "Multidimensional Poverty Measures from an Information Theory Perspective," Working Papers 85, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    17. Eva Camacho-Cuena & Tibor Neugebauer & Christian Seidl, 2007. "Leaky Buckets Versus Compensating Justice: An Experimental Investigation," Working Papers 74, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    18. Traub, Stefan & Seidl, Christian & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2003. "Lorenz, Pareto, Pigou: Who Scores Best? Experimental Evidence on Dominance Relations of Income Distributions," Economics Working Papers 2003-04, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
    19. Jacobs, Bas & van der Ploeg, Frederick, 2019. "Redistribution and pollution taxes with non-linear Engel curves," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 198-226.
    20. Mª Casilda Lasso de la Vega & Ana Marta Urrutia, 2003. "A new factorial decomposition for the atkinson measure," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(29), pages 1-12.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:3737-:d:777125. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.