Balancing competing principles of environmental equity
Diverse and competing principles of equity are argued to be relevant to the burden-sharing problem for environmental improvement programmes. In this paper, a survey-based approach is used to reconcile this conflict, which is defined as sharing of the costs of an environmental programme among different individuals or groups. Respondents were asked to rank hypothetical individuals or groups on the basis of differences in relevant characteristic attributes. These attributes reflect the degree to which individuals are 'responsible' for the problem, 'benefit' from the policy change implemented, and are 'able to pay' for the programme. The econometric analysis of responses casts light on the magnitude of trade-offs between, for example, burden-sharing rules based on the polluter-pays principle and some of its alternatives. Our results indicate that these trade-offs do exist and, furthermore, are significant. Assessment of trade-offs in this way could be an important input into the design of mixed criteria rules for sharing burdens.
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pio:envira:v:32:y:2000:i:10:p:1791-1806. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Neil Hammond)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.