IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i2p349-d129308.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the Strengths and Limits of Strong and Weak Sustainability Indicators: A Case Study of the Assessment of China’s Megacities with EF and GPI

Author

Listed:
  • Lu Huang

    (Smart City Research Center of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou 310012, China
    Institute of Ecological Planning and Landscape Design, College of Life Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

Abstract

The perspective of strong/weak sustainability has a great impact on sustainability assessment. In this study, two most widely used indices, Ecological Footprint (EF) and Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) for strong and weak sustainability assessment, were employed to evaluate the sustainability of China’s ten megacities between 1978 and 2015. The results showed that the ecological footprint had been enlarged in the past twenty years; while the genuine economic welfare started to increase since 2005. The cities of Xi’an, Chengdu, Chongqing, and Shanghai met the threshold of below 2.5 global hectares for EF/capita, and over 3000 dollars/capita (in 2010 US$) for GPI/capita. By analyzing and comparing the characteristics, the processes and results, and the complementary features of evaluation methods of EF and GPI, the research suggested that: (1) Strong and weak sustainability indicators, with their own pros/cons in sustainability assessment, should be used carefully; (2) Weak sustainability indicators could be analyzed from the perspective of strong sustainability; (3) Strong sustainability indicators need to be developed urgently. The results in this study could guide the selection of sustainability indicators, and help interpret the results of sustainability assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Lu Huang, 2018. "Exploring the Strengths and Limits of Strong and Weak Sustainability Indicators: A Case Study of the Assessment of China’s Megacities with EF and GPI," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-14, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:2:p:349-:d:129308
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/2/349/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/2/349/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wen, Zongguo & Zhang, Kunmin & Du, Bin & Li, Yadong & Li, Wei, 2007. "Case study on the use of genuine progress indicator to measure urban economic welfare in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 463-475, August.
    2. Costanza, Robert & Erickson, Jon & Fligger, Karen & Adams, Alan & Adams, Christian & Altschuler, Ben & Balter, Stephanie & Fisher, Brendan & Hike, Jessica & Kelly, Joe, 2004. "Estimates of the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) for Vermont, Chittenden County and Burlington, from 1950 to 2000," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 139-155, November.
    3. Pelenc, Jérôme & Ballet, Jérôme, 2015. "Strong sustainability, critical natural capital and the capability approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 36-44.
    4. Posner, Stephen M. & Costanza, Robert, 2011. "A summary of ISEW and GPI studies at multiple scales and new estimates for Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and the State of Maryland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1972-1980, September.
    5. Kubiszewski, Ida & Costanza, Robert & Franco, Carol & Lawn, Philip & Talberth, John & Jackson, Tim & Aylmer, Camille, 2013. "Beyond GDP: Measuring and achieving global genuine progress," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 57-68.
    6. Ekins, Paul & Simon, Sandrine & Deutsch, Lisa & Folke, Carl & De Groot, Rudolf, 2003. "A framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 165-185, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anna Martyka & Dorota Jopek & Izabela Skrzypczak, 2022. "Analysis of the Sustainable Development Index in the Communes of the Podkarpackie Voivodeship: A Polish Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-23, August.
    2. Enkhjargal Volodya & Min Ju Yeo & Yong Pyo Kim, 2018. "Trends of Ecological Footprints and Policy Direction for Sustainable Development in Mongolia: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.
    3. Zhicheng Lai & Lei Li & Zhuomin Tao & Tao Li & Xiaoting Shi & Jialing Li & Xin Li, 2023. "Spatio-Temporal Evolution and Influencing Factors of Ecological Well-Being Performance from the Perspective of Strong Sustainability: A Case Study of the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-25, January.
    4. Poelzer, Gregory & Yu, Stan, 2021. "All trust is local: Sustainable development, trust in government and legitimacy in northern mining projects," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    5. Jean Bonnet & Eva Coll-Martínez & Patricia Renou-Maissant, 2021. "Evaluating Sustainable Development by Composite Index: Evidence from French Departments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-23, January.
    6. Hongyan Shen & Fei Teng & Jinping Song, 2018. "Evaluation of Spatial Balance of China’s Regional Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-16, September.
    7. Zoe Garbis & Erin McCarthy & Robert W. Orttung & Gregory Poelzer & Melissa Shaiman & Jacob Tafrate, 2023. "Governing the green economy in the Arctic," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(4), pages 1-23, April.
    8. Pamela A. Mischen & George C. Homsy & Carl P. Lipo & Robert Holahan & Valerie Imbruce & Andreas Pape & Weixing Zhu & Joseph Graney & Ziang Zhang & Louisa M. Holmes & Manuel Reina, 2019. "A Foundation for Measuring Community Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-16, March.
    9. David Cook & Brynhildur Davíðsdóttir & Ingunn Gunnarsdóttir, 2022. "A Conceptual Exploration of How the Pursuit of Sustainable Energy Development Is Implicit in the Genuine Progress Indicator," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-23, March.
    10. Silvio Franco & Barbara Pancino & Angelo Martella, 2021. "Mapping National Environmental Sustainability Distribution by Ecological Footprint: The Case of Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-14, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Long, Xianling & Ji, Xi, 2019. "Economic Growth Quality, Environmental Sustainability, and Social Welfare in China - Provincial Assessment Based on Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 157-176.
    2. Cook, David & Davidsdottir, Brynhildur & Petursson, Jón Geir, 2015. "Accounting for the utilisation of geothermal energy resources within the genuine progress indicator—A methodological review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 211-220.
    3. Kubiszewski, Ida & Costanza, Robert & Gorko, Nicole E. & Weisdorf, Michael A. & Carnes, Austin W. & Collins, Cathrine E. & Franco, Carol & Gehres, Lillian R. & Knobloch, Jenna M. & Matson, Gayle E. & , 2015. "Estimates of the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) for Oregon from 1960–2010 and recommendations for a comprehensive shareholder's report," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 1-7.
    4. Kenny, Daniel C. & Costanza, Robert & Dowsley, Tom & Jackson, Nichelle & Josol, Jairus & Kubiszewski, Ida & Narulla, Harkiran & Sese, Saioa & Sutanto, Anna & Thompson, Jonathan, 2019. "Australia's Genuine Progress Indicator Revisited (1962–2013)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 1-10.
    5. Brent Bleys, 2013. "The Regional Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare for Flanders, Belgium," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-28, February.
    6. Fox, Mairi-Jane V. & Erickson, Jon D., 2018. "Genuine Economic Progress in the United States: A Fifty State Study and Comparative Assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 29-35.
    7. Ji, Xi & Wu, Guowei & Su, Pinyi & Luo, Xuanyuan & Long, Xianling, 2022. "Does legislation improvement alleviate the decoupling between welfare and wealth in China?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    8. Anders Hayden & Jeffrey Wilson, 2018. "Taking the First Steps beyond GDP: Maryland’s Experience in Measuring “Genuine Progress”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-24, February.
    9. Fox, Mairi-Jane V. & Erickson, Jon D., 2020. "Design and meaning of the genuine progress indicator: A statistical analysis of the U.S. fifty-state model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    10. Rugani, Benedetto & Marvuglia, Antonino & Pulselli, Federico Maria, 2018. "Predicting Sustainable Economic Welfare – Analysis and perspectives for Luxembourg based on energy policy scenarios," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 288-303.
    11. Daniel Francisco Pais & Tiago Lopes Afonso & Ant nio Cardoso Marques & Jos A Fuinhas, 2019. "Are Economic Growth and Sustainable Development Converging? Evidence from the Comparable Genuine Progress Indicator for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Countries," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 9(4), pages 202-213.
    12. Jeffrey Wilson & Peter Tyedmers, 2013. "Rethinking What Counts. Perspectives on Wellbeing and Genuine Progress Indicator Metrics from a Canadian Viewpoint," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-16, January.
    13. Sievers-Glotzbach, Stefanie & Tschersich, Julia, 2019. "Overcoming the process-structure divide in conceptions of Social-Ecological Transformation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Silvio Franco & Barbara Pancino & Angelo Martella, 2021. "Mapping National Environmental Sustainability Distribution by Ecological Footprint: The Case of Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-14, August.
    15. Man Liang & Shuwen Niu & Zhen Li & Wenli Qiang, 2019. "International Comparison of Human Development Index Corrected by Greenness and Fairness Indicators and Policy Implications for China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 1-24, February.
    16. Beça, Pedro & Santos, Rui, 2010. "Measuring sustainable welfare: A new approach to the ISEW," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 810-819, February.
    17. Zhicheng Lai & Lei Li & Zhuomin Tao & Tao Li & Xiaoting Shi & Jialing Li & Xin Li, 2023. "Spatio-Temporal Evolution and Influencing Factors of Ecological Well-Being Performance from the Perspective of Strong Sustainability: A Case Study of the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-25, January.
    18. Kubiszewski, Ida & Costanza, Robert & Franco, Carol & Lawn, Philip & Talberth, John & Jackson, Tim & Aylmer, Camille, 2013. "Beyond GDP: Measuring and achieving global genuine progress," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 57-68.
    19. Luiz Fernando Rodrigues Pinto & Glória de Fátima Pereira Venturini & Salvatore Digiesi & Francesco Facchini & Geraldo Cardoso de Oliveira Neto, 2020. "Sustainability Assessment in Manufacturing under a Strong Sustainability Perspective—An Ecological Neutrality Initiative," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-40, November.
    20. Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur, 2021. "An appraisal of interlinkages between macro-economic indicators of economic well-being and the sustainable development goals," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:2:p:349-:d:129308. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.