Consultative Workshop on Measuring Progress in Post-2015 Development Framework
Conceptual Idea for Developing
Environmental Welfare Indicator
10th. Dec. 2013
CHU, Jang Min
Korea Environment Institute
0
CONTENTS
Ⅰ
I. Changes in Circumstances and Necessities of Environmental Welfare
II. Definition of Environmental Welfare and its Scoping
Ⅱ
III. Development of Environmental Welfare Indicator
Ⅲ
IV. Case Study Result of Environmental Welfare Issue in Korea
1
2
Ⅰ. Changes in Circumstances and Necessities of Environmental welfare
A



Environmental Inequality and Environmental Welfare
Differences in environmental quality and services on the basis of socioeconomic conditions at
individual or regional levels has been maintained or widened.
Environmental inequality against socioeconomically vulnerable groups has been set up due to the
polarizing and elderly society
Environmental inequality becomes persist due to interrelations among various different dimensions
of socio-economic inequality.
Environment damages
•Environmentally damage
facilities
•Environmentally Obnoxious
Facilities
•Residential space
•Housing type
Environmental-exposure inequality
Environmental-damage inequality
Public policy of environmental resource distributions ,
biased of environment policy
and decision making process
Environment Benefits
• Friendly facilities
• Invest and services
(social level))
(personal level)
Market approaching capability to environmental resources
Environmental-cost inequality
Environmental-responsibility inequality
• Essential environmental goods
• Region social environment
Environmental-resource inequality
Environmental-benefit inequality
Increasing environmental inequality
Health difference
Socioeconomic difference
Social-Economy System
33
Ⅰ. Changes in Circumstances and Necessities of Environmental welfare
B
Increasing Environment Risk (Climate Change) and Environmental Welfare
Extreme Climate Change
Types of climate
events
Topicality
Recent effect/vulnerability
Casualties and damages caused by Land use/population in
typhoon, storm typhoon and wind
surge
Other process/stress
frequent flood region;
Economic loss; sightseeing, transit, Flood defense;
insurance
system capacity
Social infrastructure
Respect effect/vulnerability
increase in regional vulnerability
by frequent flood;
Influenced region, group
Coast region;
limit capacity and resources
Effect the house, health, tourism, region and population;
economy, construction, traffic
system, social infrastructure
Insurance;
stable social infrastructure
(energy, transit)
Floods and great Erosion/landslide; habitant; land
flows
Similar coast storm,
flooding;
Water drainage
Social infrastructure ; traffic
infrastructure
Similar coast storm,
Similar storm tsunami
water drainage infrastructure
infrastructure
Heat and cold
Health effect;
wave
Social stable;
design temperature
Resources supply-energy, water;
control;
infrastructure (ex: energy transit)
indoor and construct
Social environment;
Increase in vulnerability of
region/ population;
Effect to health;
Mid-latitude;
The ages, infant and low
income class
energy supply change
system capacity
Drought
Water utility;
Living;
Develop energy;
Move, transit water resources
Water resources
system;
Competition water
usage;
Energy supply;
Secure water resources;
Semi-arid and arid region;
Move population and economy
Poverty region and
region;
Additional investment to water
population;
Water shortage
resources
Stress on water supply
source: IPCC(2007)
Negative effects of climate change occurs mainly in the low socioeconomic group and region
44
Ⅰ. Changes in Circumstances and Necessities of Environmental welfare
C
Increasing Demand of Social welfare/Environmental Services and Environmental Welfare
◈ Increase in the demand of social welfare and enlarge on the area of welfare


Welfare expansion in society and discourse on concept of “Welfare Greenization”
Diffusion of social perception that safe clean water, air & ecosystem are essential
welfare factors to support human being
◈ Changes in Public Perception, Objects of Environment Policy and Demand
 Objects of environment policy are to enhance quality of life and happiness
 Demands on environmental service are increased in local communities due to changes
in residential and living conditions
Environment
Income
Health
Dwelling
Employment
Dwelling
Health
Inequality
Environment
risk
Well-fare
Greenization
Employment
Education
Education
Income
Existing well-fare area
Environment well-fare and enlarge the area
55
Ⅱ. Definition of
Environmental Welfare and
its Scoping
6
Ⅱ. Definition of Environmental Welfare and its Scoping
A
Definition of Environmental Welfare
 Environmental Welfare is constitutionally guaranteed universal welfare
 Every nation has the right to live under a healthy and pleasant environment
(Article 35 of the Constitution of Korea)
 Definition of Environmental Welfare
 To let every nation to live in a safe, healthy and pleasant environment
regardless of their social positions and residential areas
 Objective:
*To solve the problem of equal rights on having the responsibility
to protect and approach the environmental resources and services
*To enjoy the essential environmental resources through participating in
and meaningful involvement on the decision-making process
*To remove environmental inequality among social classes, regions and generations
77
Ⅱ. Definition of Environmental Welfare and its Scoping
A
A
Environmental Welfare Scope
Historical Change of Economic, Social, Environmental issue & relevant Policy and
Environmental welfare
Period
Main issue and relation
Main policy
Indicator(ex)
At the end of 19c~
end of 1960
Income inequality
Interrelations between
social and economic
factors
economic income
distribution and
social well-fare
Absolute/relative
poverty ratio
During 1970~2012
Worse environment
Interrelations between
environment and
economic factors
Sustainable
development and
environmental
achievements
Pollutant
emission amount
per Unit GDP
2012(Rio+20) ~
Environment inequality
Interrelations between
environment and social
factors
Distributions of
environmental
resource
Environment well-fare
Fresh Water and
Sewage Facility
dissemination
rates
98
Ⅱ. Definition of Environmental Welfare and its Scoping
B
Environmental welfare Scope
Environmental
Outcomes
Economy
Environment
Social welfare
Society
Environmental
welfare
Environmental Welfare Scoping
 Environment Scope
-natural environment, living environment, climate change
 Welfare Scope
- Minimum level of environmental services and environmental quality to all nations which
cover environment resources, service accessibility, environment status and environmental
safety
- Personal and region(spatial) welfare
- Issues of Social Exclusion and Regional Deprivation
9
10
Ⅱ. Definition of Environmental Welfare and its Scoping
C
Policy Measures of Environment Welfare
Regulative means to policies for rights and responsibilities
• Development and usage of environmental resources, introduction of
environmental policies through the democratic decision-making process,
guarantees the equality of individuals and regions
• Development of environmental resources, introduction of regulations on
pollutant discharge, enhancing responsibilities with respect to loss of
environmental resources and environmental damage
Preferable means to policies on expanse sharing and benefits
• Reasonable adjustment and equal share of environmental costs and benefits
with respect to environmental use and preservation among interested
parties
• Enhancing sustainability for the nation and society through capacity building
for socioeconomically vulnerable groups and regions
10
11
III. Development of
Environmental Welfare
Indicator
11
Ⅲ. Development of Environmental Welfare Indicator
A
Developing process of Indicator
Main Issue Selection
Source: Jae-kyung KO(2013:161), modified
12
13
Ⅲ. Development of Environmental Welfare Indicator
B
Main Issue and Task of Each Stage of Indicator Development Process
Purpose of developing the Environmental Welfare Indicator
• Indicator for evaluating welfare ? Indicator for reviewing relevant policy performance?
• Evaluation criteria which decides the level of environmental welfare or grade in terms of
field and region?
• Policy development of focal users based on the local community? Use as the guideline to
put public goods which focuses on Supplier(mainly officials)?
• Draw the comprehensive indicator for welfare level ? Identify individual indictors that does
not meet the minimum standard as the representative indicator of welfare level?
Selecting and surveying the main issue of the Environmental Welfare
• Survey on population, region(rural/city), environmental welfare by environmental resources
and services
• Survey on social exclusion at the individual and/or household level and socioeconomic
deprivation at the regional scale
• Survey on welfare issue spatially(i.e., national, regional, urban, or local scales)
• Set up Criteria for selecting the main issue, Areas and Issues under the minimum standard?
Issues for essential goods, Major concerns for social vulnerable Population etc.
13
14
Ⅲ. Development of Environmental Welfare Indicator
B
Main Issue and Task of Each Stage of Indicator Development Process
Review and make indicator list based on environmental welfare issues
• How to set up the criteria of indicator selection?
• Is it possible to use the existing representative indicator such as sustainability
and EPI?
Criteria for Indicator Selection
Criteria
Contents
Availability
Access to analyzable data, quality of data
Simplicity
Simple indicator which can be understood
Relevancy
Related with main environmental issues
Representative
Optimal indicator which is representative the relevant environmental welfare
Sustainability
Periodic monitoring capability in relevant environmental welfare issues
Receptivity
Capability to policy adoption
Source: Jae-kyung Ko(2013:163), Modified
14
24
Ⅲ. Development of Environmental Welfare Indicator
B
Main Issue and Task of Each Stage of Indicator Development Process
Evaluation of Indicator Suitability
• How do we assign the weighted value of indicator,
• How do we composite the indicator system,
• Is there an Environmental Welfare Indicator with individual social exclusion and
regional deprivation index? If yes, how should we reflect those?
Composition of Environmental Welfare Indicator system(example)
Area
Item
Indicator
Proxy variables(way of
measuring)
Policy object
Environment Service
water and sewage
Distribution rate
Distribution rate of water and
sewage
region
Environmental risk
exposure
Region
environment quality
Air pollution
PM2.5 concentration
·
Environment Safety
Risk exposure
natural disaster
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
15
26
III. Case Study Result of
Environmental Welfare
Issue
in Korea
16
Ⅳ. Case Study Result of Environmental Welfare Issue in Korea
A
Urban Spatial Structure and Environmental Facility
Spatial distributions of environmentally hazardous facilities
in the Seoul metropolitan area(2007)
 Because environmentally hazardous facilities are spatially concentrated, nearby residents are exposed to the
relatively high level of pollution
 Environmentally hazardous facilities are located in old sections in towns where ratios of impoverished population
tend to be disproportionately high compared to the ratio of the Seoul metropolitan area
 Conflicts arose due to issues pertaining to the procedural fairness such as site selections and participation
17
15
Ⅳ. Case Study Result of Environmental Welfare Issue in Korea
A
Urban Spatial Structure and Environmental Facility
Urban Spatial Structure and Spatial Distribution of Environment facilities (Bucheon city)
< Bucheon(new town/old town/ factory centered region)
Resident type(semi basement/rooftop house) >
< Environment facilities endangered
in Bucheon >
18
16
Ⅳ. Case Study Result of Environmental Welfare Issue in Korea
A
Urban Spatial Structure and Environmental Facility
Urban Spatial Structure and Spatial Distribution of Environment facilities (Bucheon city)
Semi-basement type house: total 7,583, or 58% of located in the
Northeastern part of Bucheon
Environmentally hazardous facilities: Concentrated in industrial
regions
Living environment is poor in old sections of towns and industrial
regions
 Dualiased urban spatial structures based on New and Old towns
 Old towns is in general exposed to a higher level of pollution risk
and poorer living condition compared with new town
19
17
Ⅳ. Case Study Result of Environmental Welfare Issue in Korea
B
Environment Pollution Exposure
Environment pollution exposure and socioeconomic condition of households

Pollution exposures of the impoverished population who are relatives low-income and low level of
educational attainment
 The average indoor concentration of PM10 for households whose headers have no high school
diplomas is 49% higher than the one for households whose headers have college degree or higher
 The average indoor concentration of PM10 for household whose monthly income is lower than
$1500 is 34.9% higher than their counterpart
 The average indoor concentration of PM10 for semi-basement houses is 41.9% higher than their
counterpart
Target
Number of
household
Average
29
52.9
Standard
deviation
Educational
attainment
(household)
Under high school
Over college
21
35.5
16.7
Mean
monthly
income
Under $150
22
52.6
21.0
p-value
21.0
0.003
0.021
Over $150
27
39.0
19.0
< Education and income classified household PM10 concentration (㎍/㎥)>
20
18
Ⅳ. Case Study Result of Environmental Welfare Issue in Korea
Environment Pollution Exposure
B
Pollution exposures for school-aged children in relative risks by household income level

Relative risk of asthma hospitalization in low-income class(health insurance grade under 16)
under 15 age
 When 10 ㎍/㎥ of PM10 increase, the risk for low-income class is 2.25 times higher than
comparison group
When 10ppb of O3 concentration increase, the risk for low-income class is 2.5 times higher
than comparison group
Pollutant
Social position
Relative risk
95% confidence interval
Low-income class*
1.018
1.008 ~ 1.028
comparison group
1.008
1.003 ~ 1.013
Low-income class*
1.045
1.008 ~ 1.083
comparison group
1.018
1.003 ~ 1.032
PM10
O₃
21
19
Ⅳ. Case Study Result of Environmental Welfare Issue in Korea
c
Environmental Goods supplied by Government or Municipality
Spatial Gap of Green Park Supply by City Type in Seoul Metropolitan

New towns tend to have a greater amount of daily park area than the Old towns
 Daily park area per person: New town 2.84 ㎡/person, Old town 0.88 ㎡/person (3times
difference]
 Daily park number per person[per hundred thousand]: Newtown 31, Old town 14 [About 2.2
times difference]
 Noticeable differences in investments in and distributions of environmental amenity
New-town
or not
Number of
administrative
Dong
(number)
Average
(㎡/number)
Daily park area
per person(㎡)
New-town
49
2.84
Not
113
0.88
Daily park area
per hundred
thousand
(number)
New-town
49
31
Not
113
14
22
20
Ⅳ. Case Study Result of Environmental Welfare Issue in Korea
D
Environmental Expenditure ratio in consumption expenditure
Household direct expenditure ratio for environment protection by income class
Income
class
Number of
household
1
78
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Variable
Average
Standard
deviation
Minimum
Maximum
Environmental protect expenditure
42,856
34,666
0
126,656
Environmental protect expenditure/consumption expenditures
17.14%
13.87%
0.00%
50.66%
Environmental protect expenditure
56,077
39,251
0
182,591
Environmental protect expenditure/consumption expenditures
7.48%
5.23%
0.00%
24.35%
Environmental protect expenditure
49,811
37,729
0
185,000
Environmental protect expenditure/consumption expenditures
3.98%
3.02%
0.00%
14.80%
Environmental protect expenditure
54,956
40,018
0
180,065
Environmental protect expenditure/consumption expenditures
3.14%
2.29%
0.00%
10.29%
Environmental protect expenditure
53,213
40,441
0
191,500
Environmental protect expenditure/consumption expenditures
2.37%
1.80%
0.00%
8.51%
Environmental protect expenditure
47,912
42,323
76
161,300
Environmental protect expenditure/consumption expenditures
1.74%
1.54%
0.00%
5.87%
Environmental protect expenditure
47,441
41,038
1,040
161,400
Environmental protect expenditure/consumption expenditures
1.46%
1.26%
0.03%
4.97%
Environmental protect expenditure
40,189
43,260
750
185,000
Environmental protect expenditure/consumption expenditures
1.07%
1.15%
0.02%
4.93%
Environmental protect expenditure
37,050
41,979
304
142,600
Environmental protect expenditure/consumption expenditures
0.82%
0.93%
0.01%
3.17%
Environmental protect expenditure
28,052
34,942
104
146,300
Environmental protect expenditure/consumption expenditures
0.37%
0.47%
0.00%
1.95%
289
368
360
320
251
157
122
92
68
23
21
Ⅳ. Case Study Result of Environmental Welfare Issue in Korea
D
Environmental Expenditure ratio in consumption expenditure
Household direct expenditure ratio for environment protection by income level
 Direct environmental protection expenditure share ratio is more burden to
low-income class than high-income class(income regressive phenomena in
environment protection)
 Low income class(3rd-Average share ratio compares monthly environmental
consumer expenditure is 3.87%) is 3.7 times higher than High income class(8th,
1.07%)
24
22
Thanks for your
attention!
[email protected]
25
23