Trade-offs between efficiency, equality and equity in restoration for flood protection

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorVillarreal-Rosas, J.
dc.contributor.authorVogl, A.L.
dc.contributor.authorSonter, L.J.
dc.contributor.authorPossingham, H.P.
dc.contributor.authorRhodes, J.R.
dc.date.issued2022
dc.description.abstractConservation decision-makers and practitioners increasingly strive for efficient and equitable outcomes for people and nature. However, environmental management programs commonly benefit some groups of people more than others, and very little is known about how efforts to promote equality (i.e. even distributions) and equity (i.e. proportional distributions) trade-off against efficiency (i.e. total net outcome per dollar spent). Based on a case study in the Brigalow Belt Bioregion, Australia, we quantified trade-offs between equality, equity, and efficiency in planning for flood protection. We considered optimal restoration strategies that allocate a fixed budget (a) evenly among beneficiary sectors (i.e. seeking equality among urban residents, rural communities, and the food sector), (b) evenly among local government areas (LGAs) within the Brigalow Belt (i.e. seeking spatial equality), and (c) preferentially to areas of highest socioeconomic disadvantage (i.e. seeking equity). We assessed equality using the Gini coefficient, and equity using an index of socioeconomic disadvantage. At an AUD10M budget, evenly distributing the budget among beneficiary sectors was 80% less efficient than ignoring beneficiary groups, and did not improve equality in the distribution of flood protection among beneficiary sectors. Evenly distributing the budget among LGAs ensured restoration in four areas that were otherwise ignored, with a modest reduction in efficiency (12%–25%). Directing flood protection to areas of highest socioeconomic disadvantage did not result in additional reductions in efficiency, and captured areas of high disadvantage for the rural and urban sectors that were missed otherwise. We show here that different ways of targeting equity and equality lead to quite different trade-offs with efficiency. Our approach can be used to guide transparent negotiations between beneficiaries and other stakeholders involved in a planning process.
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityJaramar Villarreal-Rosas, Adrian L Vogl, Laura J Sonter, Hugh P Possingham, and Jonathan R Rhodes
dc.identifier.citationEnvironmental Research Letters, 2022; 17(1):014001-1-014001-16
dc.identifier.doi10.1088/1748-9326/ac3797
dc.identifier.issn1748-9318
dc.identifier.issn1748-9326
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2440/134722
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherIOP Publishing Ltd
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DE170100684
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/FL130100090
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/FT200100096
dc.rights© 2021 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd. Original content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac3797
dc.subjectdisaggregation of beneficiaries; ecosystem services; fair; spatial conservation prioritization
dc.titleTrade-offs between efficiency, equality and equity in restoration for flood protection
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
hdl_134722.pdf
Size:
2.74 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published version
Download

Collections

Earth and Environmental Sciences publications