Diese wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Doktorarbeit bündelt sieben Forschungsarbeiten zur Ökonomie des Natur- und Umweltschutzes. Dabei untersuche ich, wie der ökonomische Wert, den die Gesellschaft der Natur beimisst, von der Verteilung des Einkommens oder der Ausstattung mit Umweltgütern, innerhalb oder über Generationen hinweg, abhängt. Dazu werden drei neue umweltökonomische Modelle zum Einfluss der Verteilung auf die aggregierte Zahlungsbereitschaft für den Erhalt reiner öffentliche Umweltgüter, lokaler Umweltgüter oder Naturkapital entworfen. Es zeigt sich, dass für viele Umweltgüter der ökonomische Wert umso größer ist, je gleichmäßiger das Einkommen oder die Ausstattung mit dem Umweltgut verteilt sind. Auf dieser Grundlage werden modellgestützte Methoden zur Berücksichtigung von Verteilungsaspekten in ökonomischen Analysen von Projekten und Politiken mit Umweltauswirkungen entwickelt. Insbesondere werden Korrekturfaktoren hergeleitet, mit denen ökonomische Naturbewertungen hinsichtlich einer gesellschaftlichen Zielverteilung angepasst und gesellschaftliche Zahlungsbereitschaften geschätzt werden können. Anhand einer Reihe von Anwendungsbeispielen -- zum globalen Biodiversitätsschutz, Walderhaltung in Polen oder einer Wasserqualitätsverbesserung in der Ostsee -- werden die Ungleichheitskorrekturen beziffert und empirisch getestet. Schließlich weist eine Fallstudie für das Weserästuar nach, dass eine Berücksichtigung von Umweltfolgen die Ergebnisse von Kosten-Nutzen-Analysen in der Verkehrswegeplanung erheblich verändern kann. Insgesamt zeigt diese Dissertation, dass die Verteilung von wirtschaftlichen und natürlichen Ressourcen innerhalb und zwischen Generationen den ökonomischen Wert, den die Gesellschaft der Natur beimisst, wesentlich beeinflusst. Sie trägt damit zur Entwicklung volkswirtschaftlicher Methoden bei, die nicht nur auf Effizienz, sondern auch auf Gerechtigkeit und Verteilung zielen, und damit dem Leitbild einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung folgen. / This doctoral thesis presents seven research papers in environmental and resource economics. I study how the economic value that society attaches to nature depends on the distribution of income or the provision of environmental goods, within or across generations. To this end, three novel environmental economic models are developed on how the distribution affects aggregated willingness to pay for pure public environmental goods, local environmental goods or natural capital. The analyses show that for many environmental goods the economic value is the higher the more equal incomes or environmental good endowment are distributed. For practical applications theory-based adjustment factors are derived. These allow to estimate societal willingness to pays from secondary data or to conduct inequality-adjustments in cost-benefit analysis. In a series of applications -- to global biodiversity conservation, forest protection in Poland or water quality improvement in the Baltic Sea -- inequality adjustments are quantified and empirically tested. Turning to international environmental agreements, a simulation study shows that uncertainties about the regional distribution of climate change damages can increase the stability of climate coalitions if transfer schemes are implemented. Finally, a case study on the deepening of the Weser estuary highlights that accounting for environmental costs can substantially change the results of cost-benefit analyses in transportation infrastructure planning. Overall, this dissertation shows that the distribution of economic and natural resources within and across generations substantially affects the economic value that society attaches to nature. I thus contribute to the development of economic methods that aim not only at efficiency, but also at equity and distribution, and thus follow the vision of a sustainable development.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Universiẗat, Diss.--Hannover, 2007.

Despite measures on the European level to increase the compatibility between the HE sectors of the member states, the recent literature exposes variations in their efficiencies. To gain insights into these differences we split the efficiency term according to the two management levels each university is confronted with. Utilizing a recent advancement in the method to measure efficiency, we separate short-term (transient) and long-term (persistent) efficiency, while controlling for unobserved institution specific heterogeneity. While the first term reflects the efficiency of the individual universities working within the country, the second term echoes the influence of the country specific overall HE structure. The cross-country comparison displays if the overall efficiency difference between countries is related to individual performance of their universities or their HE structure. This allows more purposeful policy recommendation and expands the literature regarding the efficiency of universities in a fundamental way. Choosing Italy and Germany as two important illustrative examples we can take advantage of a novel dataset including characteristics of institutions in both countries for an exceptional long period of time from 2001 to 2011. We show that the Italian universities exhibit a higher overall efficiency value than their German counterparts. With the individual universities working at the upper bound of efficiency in both countries, the overall inefficiency as well as the gap between the countries is caused by persistent, structural inefficiency. To expedite a true European Area of Higher Education future measures should hence aim at the country specific structure, not solely at affecting the activities of single universities.

This paper constructs a model of a supply chain to examine how demand volatility is passed upstream through the chain. In particular, we seek to determine how likely it is that the chain experiences a bullwhip effect, where the variance of the upstream firm’s production exceeds the variance of the downstream firm’s sales. We show that the bullwhip effect is more likely to occur and is greater in size in supply chains in which inventory control is centralized rather than decentralized, that is, exercised by the downstream firm.