@article{Abdul-Mohsen:21061,
      recid = {21061},
      author = {Abdul-Mohsen, Ashraf and Hitzhusen, Frederick J.},
      title = {Environmental Injustice: An Ohio Case Study},
      address = {2006},
      number = {379-2016-21764},
      series = {Selected Paper},
      pages = {35},
      year = {2006},
      abstract = {Valuation of environmental regulations and policy changes  is usually focused on the achievement of economic  efficiency or potential Pareto improvement (PPI): a  proposed change or policy is accepted if those who gain  from carrying out a specific project or policy could, in  principle, compensate those who lose from implementing that  policy so no one is worse off. Aggregate measures of value  such as aggregate willingness to pay are common measures of  economic efficiency. However, in reality, compensations by  the gainers to the losers of a policy seldom take place and  the disadvantaged must bear most if not all the cost of the  adverse effects of the policy change or environmental  degradation. Furthermore, willingness to pay is largely  dependent on the ability to pay and as such, environmental  resources are not shifted to those who only value them the  most, but to those who value and can afford them as well.  This article focuses on studying the distributional impacts  of river contamination and clean up including stated  preference evaluation of environmental improvements.  Particularly, the issue of concern is whether poor and  minority households in the study area have been unjustly  exposed to contamination in the river; and therefore,  whether the application of different weighting schemes to  the benefits (costs) of different demographic groups  (especially, minority and low-income) would be justified.},
      url = {http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/21061},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.21061},
}