Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 51, Issue 4, pp 617–622 | Cite as

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

  • Kurt Kratena
  • Gerhard Streicher


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.


Ecological footprint Social welfare measures Weak and strong sustainability 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Daly H (1990) Towards some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecol Econ 2: 1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Grazi F, van den Bergh JCJM, Rietveld P (2007) Spatial welfare economics versus ecological footprint: modeling agglomeration, externalities and trade. Environ Res Econ 38: 135–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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): 467–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Neumayer E (2002) Weak versus strong sustainability: exploring the limits of two opposing paradigms, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  5. Nordhaus WD (1992) An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases. Science 258: 1315–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Nordhaus WD (1998) New estimates of the economic impacts of climate change. Yale University, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  7. Stern N (2006) Stern review: the economics of climate change. Report to the Prime Minister and Chancellor, UK HM Treasury, London 2006Google Scholar
  8. 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 (
  9. Wiedmann T, Barrett J (2010) A review of ecological footprint indicator-perceptions and methods. Sustainability 2: 1645–1693CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Austrian Institute of Economic ResearchViennaAustria
  2. 2.Joanneum Research, Centre for Economic and Innovation ResearchViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations