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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Daly H (1990) Towards some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecol Econ 2: 1–6
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
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
Neumayer E (2002) Weak versus strong sustainability: exploring the limits of two opposing paradigms, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton
Nordhaus WD (1992) An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases. Science 258: 1315–1319
Nordhaus WD (1998) New estimates of the economic impacts of climate change. Yale University, New Haven
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9518-2