Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 72, Issue 2, pp 539–558 | Cite as

The SEEA-Based Integrated Economic-Environmental Modelling Framework: An Illustration with Guatemala’s Forest and Fuelwood Sector

  • Onil BanerjeeEmail author
  • Martin Cicowiez
  • Renato Vargas
  • Mark Horridge
Article
  • 165 Downloads

Abstract

This paper develops and operationalizes the integrated economic-environmental modelling (IEEM) platform which integrates environmental data organized under the first international system of environmental economic accounting with a powerful dynamic economy-wide modelling approach. IEEM enables the ex-ante economic analysis of policies on the economy and the environment in a quantitative, comprehensive and consistent framework. IEEM elucidates the two-way interrelationships between the economy and environment, considering how economic activities depend on the environment as a source of inputs and as a sink for their outputs. In addition to standard economic impact indicators such as gross domestic product, income and employment, IEEM generates indicators that describe policy impacts on the use of environmental resources, wealth and environmental quality which together determine prospects for future economic growth and well-being. To illustrate the analytical capabilities of IEEM, the model is calibrated with Guatemala’s SEEA and applied to analysis of its forest and fuelwood sector where negative health and environmental impacts arise from inefficient fuelwood use.

Keywords

Ex-ante economic impact evaluation Evidence-based policy design System of environmental-economic accounting Dynamic computable general equilibrium model System of national accounting Economic and environmental indicators Wealth Natural capital Ecosystem services 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the BIO Program of the Inter-American Development Bank.

Supplementary material

10640_2017_205_MOESM1_ESM.docx (366 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (docx 365 KB)

References

  1. Ahmed K, Awe Y, Barnes DF, Cropper ML, Kojima M (2005) Environmental health and traditional fuel use in Guatemala. World Bank, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow K, Dasgupta P, Goulder L, Daily G, Ehrlich P, Heal G, Levin S, Mäler K-G, Schneider S, Starrett D, Walker B (2004) Are we consuming too much? J Econ Perspect 18:147–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrow KJ, Dasgupta P, Goulder LH, Mumford KJ, Oleson K (2012) Sustainability and the measurement of wealth. Environ Dev Econ 17:317–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banco de Guatemala & IARNA-URL (2009) Cuenta Integrada del Bosque: Bases Teóricas, Conceptuales y Metodológicas. Ciudad de Guatemala: Banco de Guatemala & IARNA-URLGoogle Scholar
  5. Banerjee O, Cicowiez M, Vargas R, Horridge M (2016a). The integrated economic-environmental modelling framework: an illustration with Guatemala’s forest and fuelwood sectors. IDB working paper series no. 757. Washington DC, Inter-American Development BankGoogle Scholar
  6. Banerjee O, Cicowiez M, Horridge JM, Vargas R (2016b) A conceptual framework for integrated economic-environmental modelling. J Environ Dev 25(3):276–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Banerjee O, Cicowiez M, Dudek S, Crossman N, Horridge M (2017a) The integrated economic-environmental modeling platform project. In Presented at the second forum on natural capital accounting for better policy, November 22 and 23, 2017. The Hague, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  8. Banerjee O, Cicowiez M, Dudek S, Masozera M, Alavalapati JRR (2017b) Economic and land use impacts of Rwanda’s green growth strategy: an application of the integrated economic-environmental modelling platform. In: GTAP (ed) GTAP 20th annual conference on global economic analysis. Purdue University, West LafayetteGoogle Scholar
  9. Bielecki C, Wingenbach G (2014) Rethinking improved cookstove diffusion programs: a case study of social perceptions and cooking choices in rural Guatemala. Energy Policy 66:350–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Breisinger C, Thomas M, Thurlow J (2009) Social accounting matrices and multiplier analysis: an introduction with exercises. IFPRI, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  11. Cicowiez M, Banerjee O, Vargas R, Horridge M (Forthcoming) Construction of an extended environmental and economic social accounting matrix from a practitioner’s perspective. IDB working paper. Inter-American Development Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  12. Conrad JM (2010) Resource economics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Duflo E, Greenstone M, Hanna R (2008) Indoor air pollution, health and economic well-being. Surv Perspect Integr Environ Soc 1:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EC, IMF, OECD, UN, WB (2009) System of National Accounts 2008. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. GAMS Development Corporation (2013) General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) Release 24.2.1. GAMS Development Corporation, Washington DC,Google Scholar
  16. García-Frapolli E, Schilmann A, Berrueta VM, Riojas-Rodríguez H, Edwards RD, Johnson M, Guevara-Sanginés A, Armendariz C, Masera O (2010) Beyond fuelwood savings: valuing the economic benefits of introducing improved biomass cookstoves in the Purépecha region of Mexico. Ecol Econ 69(12):2598–2605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giesecke JA, Madden JR (2013) Regional computable general equilibrium modeling. In: Dixon PB, Jorgenson DW (eds) Handbook of computable general equilibrium modeling, chapter 7. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 379–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (2014) Plan de Acción Nacional de Guatemala para Estufas y Combustibles Limpios. Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, Guatemala CityGoogle Scholar
  19. Habermehl H (2007) Economic evaluation of the improved household cooking stove dissemination programme in Uganda. GTZ, EschbornGoogle Scholar
  20. Harrison WJ, Pearson KR (1996) Computing solutions for large general equilibrium models using GEMPACK. Comput Econ 9: 83–127Google Scholar
  21. Hertel TW, Tyner WE, Birur DK (2010) The global impacts of biofuel mandates. Energy J 31(1):75–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. INAB, Instituto de Agricultura, Recursos Naturales y Ambiente de la Universidad Rafael Landívar [IARNA-URL] & Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] (2012) Oferta y Demanda de Lena en la República de Guatemala. INAB, IARNA-URL and FAO, Ciudad de GuatemalaGoogle Scholar
  23. Instituto Nacional de Bosques [INAB] (2015) Estrategia Nacional de Producción Sostenible y Uso Eficiente de Leña 2013–2014. INAB, Ciudad de GuatemalaGoogle Scholar
  24. Instituto Nacional de Estadística [INE] (2011) Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Vida, ENCOVI 2011. INE, Guatemela CityGoogle Scholar
  25. Jagger P, Shively G (2014) Land use change, fuel use and respiratory health in Uganda. Energy Policy 67:713–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. King B (1985) What is SAM? In: Pyatt G, Round JI (eds) Social accounting matrices: a basis for planning. World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  27. Lambe F, Ochieng C (2015) Improved cookstoves in Central America: health impacts and uptake. Stockholm Environment Institute, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  28. Lofgren H, Harris RL, Robinson S (2002) A standard computable general equilibrium (CGE) model in GAMS, microcomputers in policy research, vol 5. IFPRI, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  29. McCracken JP, Smith KR (1998) Emissions and efficiency of improved woodburning cookstoves in highland Guatemala. Environ Int 24(7):739–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment [MA] (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  31. Ministerio de Minas y Energía [MEM] (2013) Política Energética 2013-2027: Energía para el Desarrollo. Ministerio de Energía y Minas, Guatemala CityGoogle Scholar
  32. Narayanan B, Aguiar A, McDougall R (2015) Global trade, assistance and production: the GTAP 9 data base. GTAP, Purdue University, West LafayetteGoogle Scholar
  33. Obst C, Eigengraam M (2016) Using the SEEA experimental ecosystem accounting framework to advance I-O and CGE integrated environmental-economic modelling. In: Presented at the 19th annual conference on global economic analysis, Washington, DC, June 2016Google Scholar
  34. Pikitch EK, Santora C, Babcock EA, Bakun A, Bonfil R, Conover DO, Dayton P, Doukakis P, Fluharty D, Heneman B, Houde ED, Link J, Livingston PA, Mangel M, McAllister MK, Pope J, Sainsbury KJ (2004) Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science 305:346–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Polasky S, Bryant B, Hawthorne P, Johnson J, Keeler B, Pennington D (2015) Inclusive wealth as a metric of sustainable development. Ann Rev Environ Resour 40:445–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Round J (2003) Constructing SAMs for development policy analysis: lessons learned and challenges ahead. Econ Syst Res 15(2):161–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. SEGEPLAN (2010) Tercer Informe de Avances en el Cumplimiento de los Objetivos d Desarrollo del Milenio. SEGEPLAN, Guatemala CityGoogle Scholar
  38. Sharp R, Tallis HT, Ricketts T, Guerry AD, Wood SA, Chaplin-Kramer R, Nelson E, Ennaanay D, Wolny S, Olwero N, Vigerstol K, Pennington D, Mendoza G, Aukema J, Foster J, Forrest J, Cameron D, Arkema K, Lonsdorf E, Kennedy C, Verutes G, Kim CK, Guannel G, Papenfus M, Toft J, Marsik M, Bernhardt J, Griffin R, Glowinski K, Chaumont N, Perelman A, Lacayo M Mandle L, Hamel P, Vogl AL, Rogers L, Bierbower W, Denu D, Douglass J (2016) InVEST +VERSION+ User’s Guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, University of Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy, and World Wildlife FundGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith KR, McCracken JP, Weber MW, Hubbard A, Jenny A, Thompson LM et al (2011) Effect of reduction in household air pollution on childhood pneumonia in Guatemala (RESPIRE): a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 378(9804):1717–1726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith KR, Frumkin H, Balakrishnan K, Butler CD, Chafe ZA, Fairlie I et al (2013) Energy and human health. Ann Rev Public Health 34(1):159–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith-Sivertsen T, Díaz E, Pope D, Lie RT, Díaz A, McCracken J et al (2009) Effect of reducing indoor air pollution on women’s respiratory symptoms and lung function: the RESPIRE randomized trial, Guatemala. Am J Epidemiol 170(2):211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stiglitz JE, Sen AK, Fitoussi JP (2010) Mis-measuring our lives: why GDP doesn’t add up. New Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. United Nations Environment Program, United Nations Statistical Division & Convention on Bioological Diversity Project (2017) SEEA experimental ecosystem accounting: technical recommendations. Consultation Draft. UNEP, UNSD, CBD, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  45. United Nations, European Commission, Food and Agriculture Organization, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development & The World Bank (2014) System of environmental economic accounting 2012-central framework. UN, EC, FAO, IMF, OECD and the World Bank, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. United Nations, European Commission, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development & World Bank (2005) Handbook of national accounting: integrated environmental and economic accounting 2003. Studies in methods, series F, no. 61, rev. 1, Glossary. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Vardon M, Burnett P, Dovers S (2016) The accounting push and the policy pull: balancing environment and economic decisions. Ecol Econ 124:145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Verburg PH, Eickhout B, Van Meijl H (2008) A multi-scale, multi-model approach for analyzing the future dynamics of European land use. Ann Reg Sci 42:57–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. World Bank (2005) Where is the wealth of nations? Measuring capital for the 21st century. World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  50. World Bank (2011) The changing wealth of nations. Measuring sustainable development in the New Millennium. World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environment, Rural Development, Environment and Disaster Risk Management DivisionInter-American Development BankWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Facultad de Ciencias EconómicasUniversidad Nacional de la PlataLa PlataArgentina
  3. 3.Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES) ProgramGuatemala CityGuatemala
  4. 4.Victoria UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations