By Maura Possley

Staff writer

Everyone wants help save the environment and work to have clean air to breath, but, the problem is, not everyone can pay for it.

Issues concerning environmental protection were discussed Monday as to the relationship between size of income in relative households and national levels to the willingness to pay for protection.

Debra K. Israel, assistant professor of economics, spoke in Lumpkin Hall, to a crowd ranging from students to Charleston residents. Her speech touched upon several topics focusing the lecture to answer “how does the willingness to pay for environmental protection vary with relative household income and national income levels?”

Environmental protection includes preservation of land, maintaining clean air and water.

Israel conducted studies in 15 countries ranging from Africa, Asia, South America, Europe and the Middle East.

Through the research, she found correlation between below to above-average income countries and their willingness to pay extra taxes to protect the environment.

In most cases, as relative household income increases, people’s willingness to pay for more protection also increased. In contrast, as national income increases, the willingness to pay for more protection decreases.

Explanations for the decrease in protection on the national level have various explanations. Israel explained an Environmental Kuznets Curve that shows as national income increases pollution also increases. However, eventually pollution decreases. The decrease shows that the demand for environmental protection increases as income increases.

However, the curve also shows the “transition from industrial economy to service-based economy” Israel concluded.

A complicated issue, studying environment protection in relation to willingness to pay for it, brings about many glitches.

Problems pointed out by Israel are the variety of countries which make it difficult to include variables to narrow results. Also a factor is where people can get a clean environment. For example, a “house in the country,” can decrease willingness to pay for protection.

The final problem discussed concerning protection at a national level was the “free rider” problem. For example clean air is, of course, good for everyone. However, one person may pay the extra tax for cleaner air and another not, but both benefit from the better protection.

At both the national and relative household levels, the question at low income levels is determining whether the factor is willingness or ability to pay for environmental preservation. Low-income countries and households may want the extra protection, however, may not be able to afford it. This shows that perhaps measuring ability to pay in low income situations may be a better measurement, Israel said.

Israel is among the first year faculty and has studied environmental analysis, having done work in countries including Brazil and Bolivia.

Her studies have helped to shed light on the demand side of how willingness to pay varies with size of income.