IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ere/journl/v39y2020i1id142.html

La insostenibilidad del desarrollo en las entidades federativas de México

Author

Listed:
  • Lilian Albornoz Mendoza

    (Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán)

  • Rafael Ortiz Pech

    (Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán)

  • Rodolfo Canto Sáenz

    (Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán)

Abstract

El objetivo del trabajo es estimar la huella ecológica de las entidades federativas de México para el año 2013. La hipótesis en la que se sustenta el desarrollo del trabajo es que las entidades federativas tienen procesos de desarrollo particulares y que no necesariamente siguen el mismo patrón de desarrollo del país en su conjunto. Para alcanzar el objetivo, la metodología consiste en tomar como base la estimación oficial de la huella ecológica para el país y distribuirlo entre sus 32 entidades federativas. El método consiste en estimar los pesos o ponderadores para cada entidad con base en el análisis de componentes principales de las variables más correlacionadas con la intensidad del consumo y la generación de residuos en cada entidad. También se estima el superávit o déficit ecológico en cada una de las entidades federativas de México. Los resultados indican que Tlaxcala es la entidad con la huella ecológica más baja y la Ciudad de México con la más alta. El análisis de los resultados sugiere que el desarrollo económico, social y ambiental en México y en las entidades federativas es diverso, que tienen como común denominador que el desarrollo no está siendo sostenible en 29 entidades federativas y que el déficit ecológico es severo en la Ciudad de México. Este estudio pretende contribuir a la discusión sobre la (in)sostenibilidad del desarrollo económico en las distintas regiones en México y las acciones necesarias a emprender para poder revertir el eventual colapso ecológico producido por el sistema económico actualmente vigente en nuestro país.The Unsustainability of the Development in Mexican StatesABSTRACT The objective of this paper is to estimate the ecological footprint of the states in Mexico for the year 2013. The hypothesis of the work is based on the fact that the federative entities have particular development processes and that they do not necessarily follow the same pattern of development of the country as a whole. To achieve the objective of the work, the methodology consists of taking as its basis the official estimate of the ecological footprint for the country and distributing it among its 32 member states. The method consists in estimating the weights for each entity based on the analysis of the main components of the variables most correlated with the intensity of consumption and the generation of waste in each entity. The surplus and ecological deficit is also estimated. The results indicate that Tlaxcala is the entity with the lowest ecological footprint and Mexico City with the highest. The analysis of the results suggests that the economic, social and environmental development in Mexico and in the states is diverse, with the common denominator being that development is not sustainable in 29 states and that the ecological deficit is severe in Mexico City. This study aims to contribute to the discussion on the (in)sustainability of economic development in the different regions in Mexico and the necessary actions to be taken to reverse the eventual ecological collapse produced by the economic system currently in force in our country.

Suggested Citation

  • Lilian Albornoz Mendoza & Rafael Ortiz Pech & Rodolfo Canto Sáenz, 2020. "La insostenibilidad del desarrollo en las entidades federativas de México," Ensayos Revista de Economía, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, vol. 39(1), pages 59-86, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:ere:journl:v:39:y:2020:i:1:id:142
    DOI: 10.29105/ensayos39.1-3a
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ensayos.uanl.mx/index.php/ensayos/article/view/142
    File Function: Abstract page
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://ensayos.uanl.mx/index.php/ensayos/article/download/142/176
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.29105/ensayos39.1-3a?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bicknell, Kathryn B. & Ball, Richard J. & Cullen, Ross & Bigsby, Hugh R., 1998. "New methodology for the ecological footprint with an application to the New Zealand economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 149-160, November.
    2. Wackernagel, Mathis & Onisto, Larry & Bello, Patricia & Callejas Linares, Alejandro & Susana Lopez Falfan, Ina & Mendez Garcia, Jesus & Isabel Suarez Guerrero, Ana & Guadalupe Suarez Guerrero, Ma., 1999. "National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 375-390, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. repec:ere:journl:v:xxxix:y:2020:i:1:p:59-86 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. White, Thomas J., 2007. "Sharing resources: The global distribution of the Ecological Footprint," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 402-410, December.
    3. Lenzen, Manfred & Murray, Shauna A., 2001. "A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 229-255, May.
    4. Yue, Dongxia & Xu, Xiaofeng & Hui, Cang & Xiong, Youcai & Han, Xuemei & Ma, Jinhui, 2011. "Biocapacity supply and demand in Northwestern China: A spatial appraisal of sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(5), pages 988-994, March.
    5. Thomas Kuhn & Radomir Pestow & Anja Zenker, 2019. "An Axiomatic Characterization of a Generalized Ecological Footprint," Chemnitz Economic Papers 033, Department of Economics, Chemnitz University of Technology, revised Aug 2019.
    6. Gu, Qiwei & Wang, Hongqi & Zheng, Yinan & Zhu, Jingwen & Li, Xiaoke, 2015. "Ecological footprint analysis for urban agglomeration sustainability in the middle stream of the Yangtze River," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 318(C), pages 86-99.
    7. Thomas Kuhn & Radomir Pestow & Anja Zenker, 2018. "On the Axiomatic Foundation of Ecological Footprint Indices," Chemnitz Economic Papers 026, Department of Economics, Chemnitz University of Technology.
    8. Thomas Wiedmann & John Barrett, 2010. "A Review of the Ecological Footprint Indicator—Perceptions and Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(6), pages 1-49, June.
    9. Xingyuan Xiao & Minyue Hu & Minghong Tan & Xiubin Li & Wei Li, 2018. "Changes in the Ecological Footprint of Rural Populations in the Taihang Mountains, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-13, October.
    10. Huang, Qing & Wang, Ranghui & Ren, Zhiyuan & Li, Jing & Zhang, Huizhi, 2007. "Regional ecological security assessment based on long periods of ecological footprint analysis," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 24-41.
    11. Zhao, X. & Chen, B. & Yang, Z.F., 2009. "National water footprint in an input–output framework—A case study of China 2002," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(2), pages 245-253.
    12. Thomas Kuhn & Radomir Pestow & Anja Zenker, 2018. "An Axiomatic Foundation of the Ecological Footprint," Chemnitz Economic Papers 025, Department of Economics, Chemnitz University of Technology.
    13. Ferng, Jiun-Jiun, 2002. "Toward a scenario analysis framework for energy footprints," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 53-69, January.
    14. Ferng, Jiun-Jiun, 2001. "Using composition of land multiplier to estimate ecological footprints associated with production activity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 159-172, May.
    15. Ferng, Jiun-Jiun, 2009. "Applying input-output analysis to scenario analysis of ecological footprints," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 345-354, December.
    16. Beynon, Malcolm J. & Munday, Max, 2008. "Considering the effects of imprecision and uncertainty in ecological footprint estimation: An approach in a fuzzy environment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 373-383, October.
    17. McDonald, Garry W. & Patterson, Murray G., 2004. "Ecological Footprints and interdependencies of New Zealand regions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 49-67, September.
    18. Guo, Shan & Wang, Yao & Shen, Geoffrey Q.P. & Zhang, Bo & Wang, Hao, 2020. "Virtual built-up land transfers embodied in China’s interregional trade," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    19. Ferng, Jiun-Jiun, 2005. "Local sustainable yield and embodied resources in ecological footprint analysis--a case study on the required paddy field in Taiwan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 415-430, May.
    20. Gregory Ponthiere, 2009. "The ecological footprint: an exhibit at an intergenerational trial?," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 677-694, August.
    21. Andersson, Jan Otto & Lindroth, Mattias, 2001. "Ecologically unsustainable trade," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 113-122, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ere:journl:v:39:y:2020:i:1:id:142. 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: Revistas UANL (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ensayos.uanl.mx/index.php/ensayos .

    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.