首页> 外文OA文献 >Conservation vs. equity: Can payments for environmental services achieve both?
【2h】

Conservation vs. equity: Can payments for environmental services achieve both?

机译:保护与公平:环境服务的支付可以同时实现吗?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

This paper investigates the trade-off between conservation and equity considerations in the use of payments for environmental services (PES) that implicitly incorporate different distributive justice principles. Using a public good experiment with heterogeneous participants, we compare the effects on additional area conserved and distribution of earnings of two PES schemes: an equal payment and a payment based on Rawls distributional principle, which we refer to as maxi-min payment scheme. The main findings of the framed field experiment conducted in Jambi province (Indonesia) indicate that the introduction of a maxi-min PES scheme can function as a multi-purpose instrument. It realigns the income distribution in favor of low-endowed participants and does not necessarily need to be compromised by lower environmental additionality at the group level.
机译:本文研究了在使用环境服务付款(PES)时在保护和公平考虑之间的权衡,这些服务隐含了不同的分配正义原则。通过对异类参与者进行的公共物品实验,我们比较了两种PES计划对额外节约的面积和收益分配的影响:等额付款和基于Rawls分配原则的付款,我们将其称为最大-最小付款方案。在占比省(印度尼西亚)进行的框架野外试验的主要结果表明,引入最大最小PES方案可以用作多功能仪器。它调整了收入分配,有利于低收入的参与者,并不一定需要通过降低团体级别的环境额外性来妥协。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号