IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa98p19.html

Weak and strong sustainability indicators, and regional environmental resources

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Kosz

Abstract

Many attempts to operationalize the ecological concept of sustainability have been undertaken by the economics profession during recent years. It seems that many mainstream economists tend to focus their research on the assumption of substitutability between man-made (manufactured) capital and natural capital (natural resources, goods and services). The crucial points of this discussion can be seen especially in contributions by R. Solow (on a more theoretical level) and by R. Atkinson and D. Pearce (on an empirical level) who all plead for at least partial substitutability. As H. Daly has pointed out, the assumption of substitutability cannot be drawn in the search for an adequate treatment of natural resources in economic and ecological modeling and policy. The paper tries to clarify some questions regarding weak and strong sustainability indicators as well as sustainability rules for dealing with regional natural resources. In the first part of the paper, the assumption of substitutability is discussed in various aspects. Given weak sustainability indicators, calculating the ?sustainability" of a regional system (or national economy) becomes almost trivial. If the rate of depreciation of natural capital is at least offset by savings (accumulation) of man-made capital then the economy is on a sustainable development path. Besides the missing of the social ?branch" of sustainability, the depreciation-savings approach lacks understanding of the fundamental objections against monetizing natural resources (e. g. biodiversity). Some crucial aspects in this context are discussed in the paper (e. g. lexicographic preferences, ?consumer"-vs.-?citizen" approach). The strong sustainability indicators are in favor of different approaches, e. g. the save-minimum-approach. The second part of the paper deals with practical sustainability rules on a regional level regarding water resources. If sustainability as a concept for future ecological, economic and social development is taken seriously, only physical constraints (taking time as an additional factor of production into account) and an applied precautionary principle can indeed lead to sustainability. Congress topic: Environmental Management, Sustainability and Development Keywords: Weak/Strong Sustainability Indicators; Regional Indicators for Sustainable Development

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Kosz, 1998. "Weak and strong sustainability indicators, and regional environmental resources," ERSA conference papers ersa98p19, European Regional Science Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa98p19
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa98/papers/19.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Spash, Clive L. & Hanley, Nick, 1995. "Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 191-208, March.
    2. Victor, Peter A., 1991. "Indicators of sustainable development: some lessons from capital theory," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 191-213, December.
    3. Gowdy, John & O'Hara, Sabine, 1997. "Weak sustainability and viable technologies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 239-247, September.
    4. Pearce, David W. & Atkinson, Giles D., 1993. "Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: an indicator of "weak" sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 103-108, October.
    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. Gowdy, John M. & Ferreri Carbonell, Ada, 1999. "Toward consilience between biology and economics: the contribution of Ecological Economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 337-348, June.
    2. Figge, Frank & Hahn, Tobias, 2004. "Sustainable Value Added--measuring corporate contributions to sustainability beyond eco-efficiency," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 173-187, February.
    3. Harris, Michael & Fraser, Iain, 2002. "Natural resource accounting in theory and practice: A critical assessment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 46(2), pages 1-54.
    4. Rickels, Wilfried & Weigand, Christian & Grasse, Patricia & Schmidt, Jörn Oliver & Voss, Rüdiger, 2018. "Does the European Union achieve comprehensive blue growth? Progress of EU coastal states in the Baltic and North Sea, and the Atlantic Ocean against sustainable development Goal 14," Kiel Working Papers 2112, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    5. David Pearce & Giles Atkinson, 1998. "The concept of sustainable development: An evaluation of its usefulness ten years after Brundtland," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 134(3), pages 251-269, September.
    6. Aslanidis, Panagiotis-Stavros & Halkou, Panagiota & Halkos, George, 2025. "Towards an ethical consensus for sustainable development: the role of values, morals, and norms in shaping pro-environmental behaviour," MPRA Paper 124903, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Antoine Missemer, 2015. "La peur du déclin économique face à l’épuisement des ressources naturelles, de W. Stanley Jevons à Herbert S. Jevons (1865-1915)," Post-Print hal-01215291, HAL.
    8. Argentino Pessoa & Mário Rui Silva, 2009. "Environment Based Innovation: Policy Questions," FEP Working Papers 308, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
    9. Missemer, Antoine, 2012. "William Stanley Jevons' The Coal Question (1865), beyond the rebound effect," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 97-103.
    10. Soh Young In & Young Joon Lee & Robert G. Eccles, 2024. "Looking back and looking forward: A scientometric analysis of the evolution of corporate sustainability research over 47 years," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 2225-2259, May.
    11. Cabeza Gutes, Maite, 1996. "The concept of weak sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 147-156, June.
    12. Garmendia, E. & Prellezo, R. & Murillas, A. & Escapa, M. & Gallastegui, M., 2010. "Weak and strong sustainability assessment in fisheries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 96-106, November.
    13. Philip Lawn, 2007. "A Stock-Take of Green National Accounting Initiatives," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 427-460, January.
    14. Hubacek, Klaus & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2006. "Changing concepts of 'land' in economic theory: From single to multi-disciplinary approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 5-27, January.
    15. Basil M. H. Sharp, 2001. "Sustainable Development: Environment and Economic Framework Integration," Treasury Working Paper Series 01/27, New Zealand Treasury.
    16. Thomas S. Kakovitch & Sabine O’Hara, 2021. "Water and the Circular Economy: Learning from Nature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-19, November.
    17. Rammel, Christian & van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M., 2003. "Evolutionary policies for sustainable development: adaptive flexibility and risk minimising," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(2-3), pages 121-133, December.
    18. Hinterberger, Friedrich & Luks, Fred & Schmidt-Bleek, Friedrich, 1997. "Material flows vs. 'natural capital': What makes an economy sustainable?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-14, October.
    19. MacDonald, Daisy V. & Hanley, Nick & Moffatt, Ian, 1999. "Applying the concept of natural capital criticality to regional resource management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 73-87, April.
    20. David Pearce & Giles Atkinson, 1998. "Concept of sustainable development: An evaluation of its usefulness 10 years after Brundtland," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 1(2), pages 95-111, December.

    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:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa98p19. 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: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    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.