Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation

The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy

Editor-in-Chief: Jürges, Hendrik / Ludwig, Sandra

Ed. by Auriol , Emmanuelle / Brunner, Johann / Fleck, Robert / Friebel, Guido / Mendola, Mariapia / Requate, Till / Tsui, Kevin / Wichardt, Philipp / Zulehner, Christine

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2013: 0.432
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.710

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 0.956
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 0.734

VolumeIssuePage

Climate Change and Conservation in Brazil: CGE Evaluation of Health and Wealth Impacts

Subhrendu K. Pattanayak1 / Martin T. Ross2 / Brooks M. Depro3 / Simone C. Bauch4 / Christopher Timmins5 / Kelly J. Wendland6 / Keith Alger7

1Duke University,

2RTI International,

3RTI International,

4North Carolina State University,

5Duke University,

6University of Wisconsin, Madison,

7Rare Conservation,

Citation Information: The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy. Volume 9, Issue 2, ISSN (Online) 1935-1682, DOI: 10.2202/1935-1682.2096, September 2009

Publication History

Published Online:
2009-09-25

Abstract

Ecosystem services are public goods that frequently constitute the only source of capital for the poor, who lack political voice. As a result, provision of ecosystem services is sub-optimal and estimation of their values is complicated. We examine how econometric estimation can feed computable general equilibrium (CGE) modeling to estimate health-related ecosystem values. Against a back drop of climate change, we analyze the Brazilian policy to expand National Forests (FLONAS) by 50 million hectares. Because these major environmental changes can generate spillovers in other sectors, we develop and use a CGE model that focuses on land and labor markets. Compared to climate change and deforestation in the baseline, the FLONAS scenario suggests relatively small declines in GDP, output (including agriculture) and other macro indicators. Urban households will experience declines in their welfare because they own most of the capital and land, which allows them to capture most of the deforestation benefits. In contrast, even though rural households have fewer opportunities for subsistence agriculture and face additional competition with other rural agricultural workers for more limited employment, their welfare improves due to health benefits from conservation of nearby forests. The efficiency vs. equity tradeoffs implied by the FLONAS scenario suggests that health-related ecosystem services will be underprovided if the rural poor are politically weaker than the urban rich. In conclusion, we briefly discuss the pros and cons of the CGE strategy for valuing ecosystem-mediated health benefits and evaluating contemporary policies on climate change mitigation.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.