Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Spatial Welfare Economics Versus Ecological Footprint: A Sensitivity Analysis Introducing Strong Sustainability

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this paper is a sensitivity analysis with the core-periphery model of ‘new economic geography’ put forward in Grazi et al. (Environ Resour Econ 38:135–153, 2007). This model comprises interregional trade, agglomeration advantages and resource (land) use or environmental externalities. Grazi et al. (2007, GBR) compare a social welfare (SW) indicator with the ecological footprint (EF) indicator for measuring spatial sustainability of a set of land use configurations. Their main result is that the SW and the EF indicator can yield completely different rankings and only for extreme parameterizations of environmental externalities the rankings coincide. We adapt the model by interpreting total natural land as a resource constraint and differentiate between weak and strong sustainability. In a sensitivity analysis we show that the main results of GBR (2007) correspond to the case of weak sustainability in our adapted model version. In the case of strong sustainability our adapted model version shows the same welfare rankings for both indicators without the extreme parameterization that is necessary to obtain the same results in the original GBR (2007) model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Daly H (1990) Towards some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecol Econ 2: 1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grazi F, van den Bergh JCJM, Rietveld P (2007) Spatial welfare economics versus ecological footprint: modeling agglomeration, externalities and trade. Environ Res Econ 38: 135–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitzes J, Wackernagel M, Loh J, Peller A, Goldfinger S, Cheng D (2008) Shrink and share: humanity’s present and future ecological footprint. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 363(1491): 467–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumayer E (2002) Weak versus strong sustainability: exploring the limits of two opposing paradigms, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus WD (1992) An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases. Science 258: 1315–1319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus WD (1998) New estimates of the economic impacts of climate change. Yale University, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern N (2006) Stern review: the economics of climate change. Report to the Prime Minister and Chancellor, UK HM Treasury, London 2006

  • Wackernagel M, Monfreda C, Moran D, Goldfinger S, Deumling D, Murray M (2005) National footprint and biocapacity accounts 2004: the underlying calculation method. Global Footprint Network, Oakland, CA (http://www.footprintnetwork.org.)

  • Wiedmann T, Barrett J (2010) A review of ecological footprint indicator-perceptions and methods. Sustainability 2: 1645–1693

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kurt Kratena.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kratena, K., Streicher, G. Spatial Welfare Economics Versus Ecological Footprint: A Sensitivity Analysis Introducing Strong Sustainability. Environ Resource Econ 51, 617–622 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9518-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9518-2

Keywords

Navigation