Abstract:The literature is replete with valuations of the costs and benefits of environmental change, yet the issue of where those impacts fall across society is rarely considered. This is a significant knowledge gap given clear evidence of social preferences regarding distributional effects reflected in both policy and protest. As an initial contribution, we examine preferences regarding projects designed to more than offset the biodiversity impacts of housing developments in England, as mandated under the UK's Net Gain legislation. Employing a nationally representative sample, a Discrete Choice Experiment values options for alternative characteristics and location of both development and offset sites, including their situation relative to both the respondent's home and neighborhoods of different socio‐economic status. This defines sets of "winners" and "losers" varying across wealth levels. Results show that respondents did not necessarily prefer that the communities losing biodiversity due to development must also be the beneficiaries of the biodiversity enhancement under Net Gain rules. This is particularly the case where the communities losing biodiversity are located far from the respondent and are high wealth. Instead, our findings show that respondents are willing to pay more for Net Gain policies delivering biodiversity improvements to low or average (rather than high) wealth communities. These results highlight the importance of considering distributional concerns when measuring the welfare impacts of environmental policies and the potential role of such policies as redistributive tools to reduce social inequalities.

Addressing Environmental Justice through In-Kind Court Settlements

Settlements Under Unequal Access to Justice

Environmental judicial reform and corporate investment behavior - Based on a quasi-natural experiment of environmental courts

Do environmental courts break collusion in environmental governance? Evidence from corporate green innovation in China

Effect of Environmental Courts on Pollution Abatement: A Spatial Difference-in-Differences Analysis

Can strengthening environmental justice promote carbon reduction? Evidence from environmental courts in China

Environmental judicial independence and corporate investment efficiency: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China

Socioeconomic Disparities in Privatized Pollution Remediation: Evidence from Toxic Chemical Spills

Environmental Justice Specialization and Corporate ESG Performance: Evidence from China Environmental Protection Court

Group Incentives for the Public Good: A Field Experiment on Improving the Urban Environment

Cumulative impacts in environmental justice: Insights from economics and policy

Payments for environmental services supported social capital while increasing land management

An Analysis of the “Path of Least Resistance” Argument in Three Environmental Justice Success Cases

Court Enforcement, Bank Loans, and Firm Investment: Evidence from a Bankruptcy Reform in Brazil

The Long-Term Impact of Matching and Rebate Subsidies When Public Goods are Impure: Field Experimental Evidence from the Carbon Offsetting Market

Environmental jurisdiction and energy efficiency: Evidence from China's establishment of environmental courts

Who should benefit from environmental policies? Social preferences and nonmarket values for the distribution of environmental improvements

Enhancing spatial coordination in payment for ecosystem services schemes with non-pecuniary preferences

The rule of law strengthening on corporate green innovation: a quasi-natural experiment based on the establishment of environmental courts in China

Information and Bargaining through Agents: Experimental Evidence from Mexico’s Labour Courts

Fair payments for effective environmental conservation