IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v6y2014i8p4749-4771d38601.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Resource Use and Deprivation: Geographical Analysis of the Ecological Footprint and Townsend Index for England

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen Morse

    (Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK)

  • Ioannis N. Vogiatzakis

    (School of Pure and Applied Sciences, Open University of Cyprus, PO Box 12794, Nicosia 2252, Cyprus)

Abstract

The relationship between consumption and deprivation has been explored at various scales in the literature. It would be expected that increased deprivation leads to less consumption and vice versa. However, what is the form of that relationship? Evidence from international studies using the Human Development Index (HDI) and Ecological Footprint (EF) for nation states suggest that the relationship is curved such that an increase in HDI (decrease in deprivation) is linearly associated with an increase in EF (consumption and impact on the environment) up to a point but beyond that there can be widely different values for the EF for the same value of HDI. Given that deprivation and consumption within a single country can be expected to be more homogenous than that observed between countries does this result in a linear relationship between the two variables? We tested the relationship between the Townsend Index of Deprivation (TID) and EF for English regions, using fine scale data as derived from the UK Census and the Stockholm Environment Institute respectively. The results suggest that the relationship between the EF and deprivation for most English regions is markedly linear; with the level of deprivation declining with increasing EF. The picture is remarkably consistent across most of the regions and the only region where this simple picture becomes distorted is London. The paper discusses the relevance of this finding and implications for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Morse & Ioannis N. Vogiatzakis, 2014. "Resource Use and Deprivation: Geographical Analysis of the Ecological Footprint and Townsend Index for England," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(8), pages 1-23, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:6:y:2014:i:8:p:4749-4771:d:38601
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/8/4749/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/8/4749/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steve Vanderheiden, 2008. "Two Conceptions of Sustainability," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 56, pages 435-455, June.
    2. Kitzes, Justin & Galli, Alessandro & Bagliani, Marco & Barrett, John & Dige, Gorm & Ede, Sharon & Erb, Karlheinz & Giljum, Stefan & Haberl, Helmut & Hails, Chris & Jolia-Ferrier, Laurent & Jungwirth, , 2009. "A research agenda for improving national Ecological Footprint accounts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 1991-2007, May.
    3. Siche, J.R. & Agostinho, F. & Ortega, E. & Romeiro, A., 2008. "Sustainability of nations by indices: Comparative study between environmental sustainability index, ecological footprint and the emergy performance indices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 628-637, July.
    4. Michael Lettenmeier & Tuuli Hirvilammi & Senja Laakso & Satu Lähteenoja & Kristiina Aalto, 2012. "Material Footprint of Low-Income Households in Finland—Consequences for the Sustainability Debate," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(7), pages 1-22, June.
    5. van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M. & Verbruggen, Harmen, 1999. "Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the 'ecological footprint'," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 61-72, April.
    6. Briggs, David & Abellan, Juan J. & Fecht, Daniela, 2008. "Environmental inequity in England: Small area associations between socio-economic status and environmental pollution," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(10), pages 1612-1629, November.
    7. Steve Vanderheiden, 2008. "Two Conceptions of Sustainability," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 56(2), pages 435-455, June.
    8. Fiala, Nathan, 2008. "Measuring sustainability: Why the ecological footprint is bad economics and bad environmental science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 519-525, November.
    9. Pearce, Jamie R. & Richardson, Elizabeth A. & Mitchell, Richard J. & Shortt, Niamh K., 2011. "Environmental justice and health: A study of multiple environmental deprivation and geographical inequalities in health in New Zealand," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 410-420, August.
    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. Stephen Morse & Ioannis Vogiatzakis, 2014. "Special Edition: Environment in Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(11), pages 1-5, November.

    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. Stephen Morse, 2011. "Attracting Attention for the Cause. The Reporting of Three Indices in the UK National Press," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 101(1), pages 17-35, March.
    2. Syrovátka, Miroslav, 2020. "On sustainability interpretations of the Ecological Footprint," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    3. Teixidó Figueras, Jordi & Duro Moreno, Juan Antonio, 2012. "Ecological Footprint Inequality: A methodological review and some results," Working Papers 2072/203168, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    4. Simona Ioana Ghita & Andreea Simona Saseanu & Rodica-Manuela Gogonea & Catalin-Emilian Huidumac-Petrescu, 2018. "Perspectives of Ecological Footprint in European Context under the Impact of Information Society and Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    5. Ferng, Jiun-Jiun, 2014. "Nested open systems: An important concept for applying ecological footprint analysis to sustainable development assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 105-111.
    6. Mathis Wackernagel & Gemma Cranston & Juan Carlos Morales & Alessandro Galli, 2014. "Ecological Footprint accounts," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 24, pages 371-396, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. 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.
    8. Mindaugas Staniunas & Marija Burinskiene & Vida Maliene, 2012. "Ecology in Urban Planning: Mitigating the Environmental Damage of Municipal Solid Waste," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(9), pages 1-18, August.
    9. Bilbao-Terol, Amelia & Arenas-Parra, Mar & Cañal-Fernández, Verónica & Antomil-Ibias, José, 2014. "Using TOPSIS for assessing the sustainability of government bond funds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-17.
    10. Jóhannesson, S.E. & Davíðsdóttir, B. & Heinonen, J.T., 2018. "Standard Ecological Footprint Method for Small, Highly Specialized Economies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 370-380.
    11. Yao Lu & Xiaoshun Li & Heng Ni & Xin Chen & Chuyu Xia & Dongmei Jiang & Huiping Fan, 2019. "Temporal-Spatial Evolution of the Urban Ecological Footprint Based on Net Primary Productivity: A Case Study of Xuzhou Central Area, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-21, January.
    12. Blasi, E. & Passeri, N. & Franco, S. & Galli, A., 2016. "An ecological footprint approach to environmental–economic evaluation of farm results," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 76-82.
    13. Mduduzi Biyase & Tajul Ariffin Masron & Talent Zwane & Thomas Bilaliib Udimal & Frederich Kirsten, 2023. "Ecological Footprint and Population Health Outcomes: Evidence from E7 Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, May.
    14. Cameron Hepburn & Eric Beinhocker & J. Doyne Farmer & Alexander Teytelboym, 2014. "Resilient and Inclusive Prosperity within Planetary Boundaries," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 22(5), pages 76-92, September.
    15. Jin, Wei & Xu, Linyu & Yang, Zhifeng, 2009. "Modeling a policy making framework for urban sustainability: Incorporating system dynamics into the Ecological Footprint," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2938-2949, October.
    16. Olafsson, Snjolfur & Cook, David & Davidsdottir, Brynhildur & Johannsdottir, Lara, 2014. "Measuring countries׳ environmental sustainability performance – A review and case study of Iceland," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 934-948.
    17. Decun Wu & Jinping Liu, 2020. "Threshold Effects of Restraining Factors on China’s Provincial Ecological Footprint in the Process of Urbanization," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-19, April.
    18. Umberto Lucia & Debora Fino & Giulia Grisolia, 2022. "A thermoeconomic indicator for the sustainable development with social considerations," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 2022-2036, February.
    19. Teixidó-Figueras, Jordi & Duro, Juan Antonio, 2015. "The building blocks of International Ecological Footprint inequality: A Regression-Based Decomposition," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 30-39.
    20. Meijing Chen & Qian Zhou & Weili Duan & Qiang Xue & Cuibai Chen, 2023. "Using an improved ecological footprint model to analyze the sustainable utilization of water resources in Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 8517-8538, August.

    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:6:y:2014:i:8:p:4749-4771:d:38601. 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.