|
on Resource Economics |
| By: | Pedro Henrique Batista de Barros; Ariaster Chimeli |
| Abstract: | Assessing the impact of economic development on the environment depends on a number of factors that have plagued the empirical literature for decades and led many economists to focus on more microeconometric and RCT studies on the underlying forces behind income and environmental quality. The micro-level literature has produced a number of insights on the growth-environment nexus, but its conclusions are viewed with caution in policy making due to the difficulty in accounting for general equilibrium effects that often evade these studies. We take advantage of the recent microeconometric literature on the determinants of environmental quality along the development path to revisit the aggregate relationship between income and deforestation with a focus on deforestation and ecosystem health of the Brazilian Amazon region. Our results indicate a significant, negative, and non-linear relationship that is mediated by factors such as urbanization, poverty, policies to combat extreme poverty, access to both local and national markets and more efficient production in the agricultural frontier. Heterogeneity tests shows that this relationship is significant only in middle- and high-income municipalities, aligning with the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis. |
| Keywords: | Economic Development; Deforestation; Amazon |
| JEL: | Q23 Q56 Q57 |
| Date: | 2025–02–17 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:spa:wpaper:2025wpecon2 |
| By: | Dorothée Brécard (LEAD - Laboratoire d'Économie Appliquée au Développement - UTLN - Université de Toulon); Mireille Chiroleu-Assouline (PJSE - Paris Jourdan Sciences Economiques - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement) |
| Abstract: | How do environmental information and awareness interact to improve environmental quality by changing consumer behavior and firm strategies? This article provides theoretical insights using an original differentiation model within a general framework whose specific cases have been studied previously. On the demand side, only informed consumers differentiate brown from green product quality, while uninformed consumers consider these perfect substitutes. Moreover, all informed consumers value the green product and devalue the brown product as a result of an aversion effect but are heterogeneous in their environmental awareness. On the supply side, two firms offer different environmental qualities and compete on price. We consider two types of environmental campaigns: one that increases the number of informed consumers and one that increases the environmental awareness of informed consumers. We show that these campaigns crucially determine three market configurations: segmented; fragmented, with a brown product that appeals to both uninformed consumers and a fraction of informed consumers; and covered. Assuming that the greenest consumer behavior is abstention, we find that both campaigns do not always lead to better environmental quality; that is, a situation in which all consumers are informed and some highly environmentally aware is not necessarily the greenest situation. Depending on the aversion effect, the budget of the campaign organizer, and their relative cost-effectiveness, information and awareness-raising campaigns must be carefully combined to achieve the best possible environmental quality. |
| Keywords: | Information campaign, NGO campaign, Environmental awareness, Environmental quality, Vertical product differentiation |
| Date: | 2025–01 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:psewpa:halshs-04883877 |
| By: | Wibbenmeyer, Matthew (Resources for the Future); Zhu, Yuqi (Resources for the Future); Wear, David N. (Resources for the Future) |
| Abstract: | Wildfires in California have become increasingly severe and costly, prompting a significant policy focus on reducing the risk through forest fuel treatments. We provide a novel spatially explicit analysis of the costs associated with achieving forest resilience in California. Our approach integrates empirical models of treatment choice and treatment costs, generating site-specific estimates of the costs of, and the likelihood that managers would choose, two treatment strategies.With data from the US Forest Service (USFS) Forest Activity Tracking System and landscape data from the Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools program, we use hierarchical clustering methods to aggregate USFS activities into two primary treatment types: mechanical thinning and prescribed burns. We then use a choice model to predict which treatment type is selected at each site based on site-specific landscape characteristics. Finally, we estimate per-acre treatment costs for each treatment type by linear regression. To address sample selection bias, we apply a Heckman two-step correction procedure to the cost models.Our results highlight variability in treatment costs across locations and landscape conditions. On average, mechanical thinning and prescribed burns cost $577 and $170 per acre, respectively. We find that mechanical thinning is more commonly applied in areas with higher slopes and elevation; prescribed burns are more likely in flatter areas farther from populated zones. Our cost models indicate that proximity to populated areas, vegetation type, and topography significantly influence treatment costs.We use our models to project statewide treatment costs for policy scenarios that vary in ambition and identify areas for treatment based on wildfire hazard potential (WHP) and proximity to the wildland–urban interface (WUI). Treating 17 million acres in high-WHP areas is projected to cost $9.7 billion, and treating only high-WHP areas near the WUI (8.7 million acres) is estimated to cost $5.0 billion. A hybrid scenario, which includes all moderate-WHP areas near the WUI and high-WHP areas elsewhere, would require treating 30.7 million acres at an estimated cost of $16.8 billion.Our analysis is subject to several important limitations. The cost data we use come from 2 USFS-administered projects, and although they are the most comprehensive available, they may not fully capture costs on private or state lands. Additionally, we do not account for permitting or environmental review costs, which are a major component of overall treatment costs. Moreover, as treatment capacity scales up, increased demand for labor and equipment could raise per-acre treatment costs.Despite these limitations, our study provides policymakers with critical insights into the spatial heterogeneity and key cost drivers of forest fuel treatments. By offering granular, site-specific cost projections, we aim to support more efficient and cost-effective wildfire mitigation strategies. Our findings suggest that current levels of state and federal funding may be sufficient to achieve the lowest-cost treatment goals, but more ambitious strategies would require substantial increases in funding. |
| Date: | 2025–02–11 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-25-03 |