Environment Department Papers

52 items available

Permanent URI for this collection

These discussion papers are produced primarily by the Environment Department, on occasion jointly with other departments. Papers in this series are not formal publications of the World Bank. They are circulated to encourage thought and discussion. The use and citation of this paper should take this into account. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the World Bank.

Items in this collection

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Publication
    Methodology for Valuing the Health Impacts of Air Pollution: Discussion of Challenges and Proposed Solutions
    (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2016-06-23) Narain, Urvashi; Sall, Chris
    This report is meant to inform a joint publication by the World Bank and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) on the economic costs of air pollution. Air pollution is a global challenge and one that is acutely felt in developing countries. Illnesses caused by ambient and household air pollution claim the lives of nearly 6 million people each year. The goal of the joint World Bank-IHME report is to raise awareness about the severity of this challenge and to strengthen the business case for countries to take action on reducing air pollution. A secondary goal of the joint World Bank-IHME report is to further the development of a consistent framework for valuing the costs of air pollution in World Bank operations. This report serves as a background paper for the joint report and provides a detailed discussion of the key methodological choices that must be made in valuing the health impacts of pollution and makes recommendations on how these challenges can be addressed. While past efforts to value the health impacts of pollution have greatly contributed to the discussion of challenges and potential solutions, they have at the same time made a number of methodological choices on an ad hoc basis. The hope in developing this note is to bring greater clarity to what the issues are and to provide guidance on how they can be addressed consistently (the note provides clear recommendations where possible and a framing of issues where the literature or the context does not as yet provide clarity on potential solutions).
  • Publication
    Do They Do As They Say?: Stated versus Revealed Preferences and Take Up in an Incentives for Conservation Program
    (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2016-06) De Martino, Samantha; Kondylis, Florence; Pagiola, Stefano; Zwager, Astrid
    Use of conditional cash transfers has become widespread in development policy given their success in boosting health and education outcomes. Recently, conditional cash transfers are being used to promote pro-environmental behavior. While many of these Payments for Environment Services (PES) programs have been successful, it has been hypothesized that those with less favorable outcomes have been subject to low additionality, whereby landholders already conserving their land self-select into the program. Insights from the behavioral economics literature suggest that an external incentive, such as PES, has the potential to crowd in or crowd out individual behavior differentially across the initial distribution of intrinsic motivations (Frey, 1992). Thus, to increase the impact of PES, program administrators might gain from a better understanding of both the pre-existing motivations and existing baseline conservation behavior of potential participants. This paper contributes to the literature by disentangling and measuring intrinsic motivations, specifically: Pro-Environment, Pro-Social, Pro-Government, and Social Norms. Controlling for observable opportunity costs, we use these latent motivations to analyze behavioral determinants of take up for a conservation program in São Paulo, Brazil. The payments are an incentive to comply with the Brazil Forest Code. We find that Pro-Social and Pro-Environment landholders are both more likely to be conserving private land not under legal protection before the program is introduced, whereas only Pro-Social landholders are already conserving land under legal protection. With respect to enrollment in the PES program, we find Pro-Social landholders are less likely to enroll while Pro-Environment landholders are more likely to enroll. Thus we expect some level of additionality from the PES program. We discuss these findings in light of the theoretical framework on Self-Determination Theory (SDT).