Technical ReportPDF Available

Weak versus Strong Sustainability

Authors:
Jérôme Pelenc at Université Toulouse - Jean Jaurès
Jérôme Pelenc
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract

The fundamental debate regarding sustainable development is whether we choose to adopt a strong or a weak conception of sustainability. Weak sustainability postulates the full substitutability of natural capital whereas the strong conception demonstrates that this substitutability should be severely seriously limited due to the existence of critical elements that natural capital provides for human existence and well-being. The following science digest provides an overview of scientific findings to support informed debate among decision-makers regarding the need to adopt a strong sustainability position for the discussion and implementation of the post-2015 sustainable development policies.
Content uploaded by Jérôme Pelenc
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jérôme Pelenc on Aug 15, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
*The views expressed in this brief are the authors’ and not those of the United Nations. Online publication
or dissemination does not imply endorsement by the United Nations.
Brief for GSDR 2015
Weak Sustainability versus Strong Sustainability
Jérôme Pelenc, Fund for Scientific Research (FRS-FNRS) and Free University of Brussels (ULB), Belgium
Jérôme Ballet, University of Bordeaux, GRETHA research unit, France
Tom Dedeurwaerdere, Fund for Scientific Research (FRS-FNRS) and Catholic University of Louvain
(UCL), Belgium*
The fundamental debate regarding
sustainable development is whether we
choose to adopt a strong or a weak
conception of sustainability. Weak
sustainability postulates the full
substitutability of natural capital whereas the
strong conception demonstrates that this
substitutability should be severely seriously
limited due to the existence of critical
elements that natural capital provides for
human existence and well-being. The
following science digest provides an overview
of scientific findings to support informed
debate among decision-makers regarding the
need to adopt a strong sustainability position
for the discussion and implementation of the
post-2015 sustainable development policies.
Introduction
Weak sustainability assumes that
natural capital and manufactured capital are
essentially substitutable and considers that
there are no essential differences between
the kinds of well-being they generate (Ekins et
al., 2003; Neumayer, 2003; Neumayer, 2012).
The only thing that matters is the total value
of the aggregate stock of capital, which should
be at least maintained or ideally increased for
the sake of future generations (Solow, 1993).
In such a perspective: “it does not matter
whether the current generation uses up non-
renewable resources or dumps CO
2
in the
atmosphere as long as enough machineries,
roads and ports are built in compensation”
(Neumayer, 2003, p1). Such a position leads to
maximising monetary compensations for
environmental degradations. In addition, from
a weak sustainability perspective,
technological progress is assumed to
continually generate technical solutions to the
environmental problems caused by the
increased production of goods and services
(Ekins et al., 2003).
Authors writing on strong
sustainability demonstrate that natural capital
cannot be viewed as a mere stock of
resources. Rather natural capital is a set of
complex systems consisting of evolving biotic
and abiotic elements that interact in ways that
determine the ecosystem’s capacity to
provide human society directly and/or
indirectly with a wide array of functions and
services (Noël and O’Connor, 1998; Ekins et al.,
2003; De Groot et al., 2003; Brand, 2009). The
proponents of strong sustainability invoke
several reasons to demonstrate the non-
substitutability of natural capital.
• Firstly, there is a qualitative difference
between manufactured capital and natural
capital. Manufactured capital is reproducible
and its destruction is rarely irreversible,
whereas the consumption of natural capital is
usually irreversible (for instance species
extinction is irreversible, whereas the
destruction of material goods or
infrastructures is not) (Ekins et al., 2003). In
addition, due to our lack of knowledge about
the functioning of natural systems we cannot
be sure of the effects on human well-being of
destroying natural capital (Dietz and
Neumayer, 2007). Acknowledging
irreversibility and uncertainties should lead us
to implementing a precautionary principle
regarding the use of natural capital.
• Secondly, since manufactured capital
requires natural capital for its production, it
can never be a complete substitute for the
biophysical structures of natural capital (Ekins
et al.). In addition, the contribution of natural
capital through the delivery of services to
human well-being is multidimensional. The
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)
captures these multiple linkages through the
2
*The views expressed in this brief are the authors’ and not those of the United Nations. Online publication
or dissemination does not imply endorsement by the United Nations.
identification of four types of contributions
that ecosystem services make to human well-
being: security, basic materials for a good life,
health, and good social relations. Therefore,
ecosystem services provided by natural capital
play an important role in determining the
freedom of choice and action for human
beings (ibid.). In this view, natural capital is
instead seen as being complementary to
manufactured capital and other forms of
capital (human and social capital, etc.) in
producing human well-being (Brand, 2009)
and so manufactured capital cannot be a
complete substitute for it.
• Thirdly, an increase of future
consumption is not an appropriate substitute
for losses of natural capital (see among others
see Toman, 1992; Dedeurwaerdere, 2013).
The following exemple helps to grasp our
point: “Today’s generation cannot ask future
generations to breathe polluted air in
exchange for a greater capacity to produce
goods and services. That would restrict the
freedom of future generations to choose clean
air over more goods and services” (UNDP,
2011, p.17). This raises the key issue of
conserving natural capital for the sake of
future generation, i.e., intergenerational
justice issue.
Thus strong sustainability holds that
certain elements of natural capital are
« critical » due to their unique contribution to
human well-being (Ekins et al., 2003;
Dedeurwaerdere, 2013). These potentially
“critical” elements for human existence and
well-being can be conceptualised as
ecosystem services provided by natural capital
(Brand, 2009). This leads us to defining the
notion of critical natural capital. Critical
natural capital highlights the need to maintain
the ecological functioning of natural systems
above certain thresholds of degradation in
order to conserve the capacity of natural
capital to provide the services which are
critical for human existence and well-being
(Noël and O’Connor, 1998; Ekins et al., 2003;
Chiesura and de Groot, 2003, de Groot et al.,
2003; Dietz and Neumayer, 2007; Brand,
2009). Therefore critical natural capital
corresponds to the particular configuration of
natural capital that provides a particular set of
critical ecosystem services.
Nevertheless, strong sustainability
does not state that all ecosystem services
everywhere have to be sustained exactly as
they are. Some assessments must be made of
those services that play a particularly
important role in supporting life and
generating human well-being. And so, policies
for sustainability must be geared accordingly
(Ekins et al. 2003). However, strong
sustainability proponents recognize that the
uncertain state of knowledge about
ecosystems and ecosystem services, makes
very difficult to judge which services are
critical and which are not.
Scientific debate
Brand (2009) identifies six domains in
which natural capital and so ecosystem
services can potentially be critical: socio-
cultural, ecological, sustainability, ethical,
economic and human survival. This intrinsic
multidimensionality makes it very difficult to
assess the level of criticality and
substitutability of natural capital. Indeed,
acknowledging that natural capital and human
well-being are both complex and
multidimensional, implies having to deal with
multiple meanings, and with measurements
that are not necessarily either comparable or
commensurable (Scheidel, 2013). Moreover, it
has to be noted that in addition to the
“objective” ecological criteria (safe minimum
standards, minimum ecosystem size,
maximum sustainable yield, ecological
footprint, etc.), societal values and
perceptions, ethics and attitude to risk, also
play important roles in the determination of
what aspects of natural capital can be
considered “critical” (Ekins et al., 2003; De
Groot et al., 2003; Chiesura and De Groot,
2003; Brand, 2009; Dedeurwaerdere, 2013).
Hence, the definition of critical natural capital
relies not only on our capacity to provide
factual knowledge about socio-ecological
systems but also implies discussing the
normative values that underline our use of the
natural capital (Dedeurwaerdere, 2013).
Therefore, the definition of what constitutes
an intolerable loss, and so what is critical and
3
*The views expressed in this brief are the authors’ and not those of the United Nations. Online publication
or dissemination does not imply endorsement by the United Nations.
for whom, requires both relevant factual
knowledge about the interactions between
natural capital and human well-being and a
normative basis to assess the sustainability of
these interactions. Consequently, there is a
need to move beyond the technical and
expert-based calculation of critical thresholds
of natural capital only (ibid.). As long as there
are multiple value involved in the definition of
critical natural capital and given the
irreducible uncertainties that characterise
complex socio-ecological systems, public
deliberation and stakeholders participation
(Van den Hove, 2000) seem to be required for
the definition of criticality of natural capital
(De Groot et al., 2003; Dedeurwaerdere,
2013).
In sum, implementing strong sustainability
requires a trans-disciplinary approach for
identifying and conserving critical natural
capital. The knowledge provided by natural
science constitutes crucial contributions for
identifying ecological thresholds and planetary
boundaries but they are not sufficient on their
own. Natural science research needs to be
combined with social sciences and their
interactions need to be embedded in a broad
societal debate about (i) levels of risk
acceptable to all populations (especially the
most vulnerable populations) and (ii) values
that underlie human development.
Issues for further consideration
• In terms of scientific methodology,
strong sustainability is to be greatly preferred
as the a priori position of full substitutability
of natural capital which appears improbable
for the aforementioned reasons.
• Improve multidimensional and
integrated assessment of the interactions
between the natural environment and human
well-being (e.g. improve the integrated
assessment of ecosystem services).
• Advance the construction of a
normative basis to assess the sustainability of
these interactions in a strong perspective.
Main differences between weak and strong
sustainability
Strong
sustainability
Weak
sustainability
Key idea The
substitutability of
natural capital by
other types of
capital is severely
limited
Natural capital and
other types of
capitals
(manufactured etc.)
are perfectly
substitutable
Consequences
Certain human
actions can entail
irreversible
consequences
Technological
innovation and
monetary
compensation for
environmental
degradation
Sustainability
issue
Conserving the
irreplaceable
« stocks » of
critical natural
capital for the
sake of future
generation
the aggregate stock
of capital should be
at least maintained
or ideally increased
for future
generation
Key concept Critical natural
capital
Optimal allocation
of scarce resources
Definition of
thresholds
and
environmenta
l norms
Scientific
knowledge as
input for public
deliberation
(procedural
rationality)
Technic/scientific
approach for
determining
thresholds and
norms
(instrumental
rationality)
Source: Adapted from Mancebo, 2013
4
*The views expressed in this brief are the authors’ and not those of the United Nations. Online publication
or dissemination does not imply endorsement by the United Nations.
References
Brand, F. (2009). Critical natural capital
revisited: Ecological resilience and
sustainable development. Ecological
Economics, 68, 605–612.
Chiesura, A., De Groot, R. (2003). Critical
natural capital: a socio-cultural
perspective. Ecological Economics, 44,
219–231.
Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2014). Sustainability
Science for Strong Sustainability.
Edward Elgar, Northampton.
De Groot, R., Van der Perk, J., Chiesura, A.,
van Vliet, A. (2003). Importance and
threat as determining factors for
criticality of natural capital’, Ecological
Economics, 44, 187–204.
Dietz, S., Neumayer, E. (2007). Weak and
strong sustainability in the SEEA:
Concepts and measurement. Ecological
Economics, 61, 617–626.
Ekins, P., Simon, S., Deutsch, L., Folke, C., De
Groot, R., 2003. A framework for the
practical application of the concepts of
critical natural capital and strong
sustainability. Ecological Economics, 44,
165–185.
Mancebo, F. (2013). Développement durable.
Arman Colin, 2
ème
édition, Paris.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005).
Ecosystem and Human Well-being: A
Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC.
Neumayer, E. (2003). Weak versus strong
sustainability: exploring the limits
of
two opposing paradigms. Edward
Elgar, Northampton.
Neumayer, E. (2012). Human
development and sustainability.
Journal of Human Development and
Capabilities, 13(4), 561–579.
Noël, J-F., O’connor, M. (1998). Strong
Sustainability and Critical Natural
Capital. In : Faucheux, S., O'Connor,
M., (Eds.), Valuation for Sustainable
Development: Methods and Policy
Indicators. Edward Elgar Publisher,
Cheltenham, pp. 75–99.
Scheidel, A. (2013). Flows, funds and the
complexity of deprivation: Using
concepts from ecological economics
for the study of poverty. Ecological
Economics, 86, 28–36.
Toman, M.A. (1992). The Difficulty in
defining Sustainability. In :
Darmstadter J. (Ed.), Global
Development and the Environment:
Perspectives on Sustainability.
Resources for the future,
Washington D.C.
UNDP. (2011). Human development
report 2011: Sustainability and
equity: A better future for all,
Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke,
[http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR
_2011_EN_Complete.pdf], accessed
25 April 2012.
Van den Hove, S. (2000). Participatory
approaches to environmental policy-
making: the European Commission
Climate Policy Process as a case
study. Ecological Economics, 33, 457
–472.
... This does not sound like a breakthrough. Environmental economics is the basis of so-called weak sustainability (Pelenc et al. 2015). ...
... As it can be seen, ecological economics, while remaining entirely anthropocentric, represents a step forward in terms of a more comprehensive and realistic valuation of the 'price' of biodiversity and the 'depreciation' of natural capital caused by human activities. Ecological economics seeks the application of strong sustainability guidelines (Pelenc et al. 2015). However, ecological economics do not integrate all the values of biodiversity, particularly non-use values, and remains largely an academic discipline, which has not had much impact on the enactment of legislation or the formulation of public policies aimed at greater consideration of biodiversity in the everyday practice of citizens, businesses and governments (Billé et al. 2012). ...
View
... Based on our analysis, the trajectory of China's 40 years of development across national, regional, and provincial scales is aligned with the concept of weak sustainability (i.e., allowing for substitution between natural and manufactured capital), making it difficult to adhere to the principles of strong sustainability (i.e., natural capital is not substitutable) about SJS (Neumayer 2003;Pelenc and Ballet, 2015;O'Neill et al. 2018). In the absence of domestic and international trade, the tradeoffs between environmental safety and social justice, as well as the preference for weak sustainability, are amplified in developed regions and urban landscapes in China compared to developing regions and rural/natural landscapes. ...
China’s safe and just space during 40 years of rapid urbanization and changing policies
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2024
  • LANDSCAPE ECOL
Context China’s high-speed economic development was accompanied by rapid urbanization for forty years, guided by a series of changing policies enacted by the central government. However, did China become more sustainable both economically and environmentally? Or more specifically, did it operate within or towards a safe and just space (SJS)? Although numerous relevant studies exist, these questions have not been adequately addressed, and a multi-scale landscape perspective is needed. Objectives The main objective of this study was to examine China’s urbanization trends, associated institutional changes, and their impacts on the nation’s sustainability trajectory during the past four decades. Specifically, we intended to analyze the impacts of urbanization and related policies on the spatial patterns, temporal trends, shortfalls, and complex nexus of the different dimensions of SJS across scales in China. Methods We apply the SJS framework, which integrates eight environmental ceilings and seven social justice foundations, to examine China’s urbanization, socioeconomic dynamics, and institutional changes, as well as their impacts on sustainability at multiple spatial scales. Segmented regression and correlation analysis were used to analyze the relationship of SJS with landscape urbanization and governance across China. Results Since the implementation of China’s Western Development Plan, China has faced increasing challenges of overshoots in CO2 emissions, phosphorus and nitrogen loading, ecological footprint, and material footprint on a per capita basis. However, our analysis showed that, by 2015, China met nearly all basic social justice needs. The pattern of SJS showed geospatial gradients of increasing social justice (except material footprint), multi-footprints, and CO2 from eastern to central, northeastern, and western regions, and from developed to developing provinces. The tradeoffs between social justice, environmental safety, and regional equality remain pronounced across heterogeneous landscapes with different levels of urbanization. The western region’s material footprint expanded enormously, but mainly for consumption in the eastern region of China. Conclusions China’s development in the past four decades is characterized by enormous economic growth, rapid urbanization, much improved living standards, highly fragmented landscapes, and increasing environmental problems. To promote sustainability, China should continue to implement the strategy of high-quality development and promote ecological civilization. Regional landscape-based approaches are needed to explicitly recognize geospatial heterogeneity and disparities, and better understand the urbanization-governance-landscape nexus for promoting a safer and more just China.
View
... The framework is closely linked to the ideas of just sustainability, spatial justice and just transition and can be associated with the concept of strong sustainability. Strong sustainability stipulates that without a functioning biosphere (environment), there will be no individual, society or economy (see [60,61,69]). The concept of kyōsei can be applied to interconnect telecoupling relationships in the waste value chain to promote mutual benefit. ...
Towards a Just Circular Economy Transition: the Case of European Plastic Waste Trade to Vietnam for Recycling
Article
Full-text available
  • Jan 2024
Exporting waste for recycling to destinations without sound recycling capacity raises questions of fairness and sustainability. Due to insufficient recycling infrastructure in Europe to manage the growing generation of plastic waste, there has been an increase in waste trade for recycling in a complex global value chain, with the stated goal of achieving sound resource recovery. However, such trade poses increasing governance and sustainability challenges. The EU has implemented policies and systems for plastic waste management, including separate collection to prevent potential harm and promote resource reuse. Nevertheless, waste handling is often outsourced without transparency to countries with cheaper operating and labour costs, which can cause harm to individuals, societies, and the environment. Fifty per cent of the collected European plastic waste for recycling is shipped for recycling outside the EU without accountability. This Vietnamese case study of the EU plastic waste exports for recycling aims to increase our understanding of waste governance and its circularity, sustainability and justice implications. We adopt a multidisciplinary perspective to understand the challenges of the EU’s plastic waste export practices for the broader socio-ecological system. We propose a multidisciplinary framework as an ecocentric ethical guide for just and circular future waste shipment practices with strong consideration for the social and ecological dimensions. We hope that this research and its outcomes can provide insights for forthcoming policies, such as the United Nations treaty on plastic waste pollution.
View
Inequities blocking the path to circular economies: A bio-inspired network-based approach for assessing the sustainability of the global trade of waste metals
Article
Full-text available
  • Oct 2024
  • RESOUR CONSERV RECY
Considering the importance of waste metals for the transition to circular economies, this study follows a bioinspired approach to evaluate their material and monetary global trade patterns for sustainability and equity. Between 2000 and 2022, the global trade grew by 5 % in trading countries, by 37 % in trade links, by 71 % in material flows, and by 569 % in economic flows. Driven by indirect effects, the average circulation of material and monetary flows ranged between 21.8–34.9 % depending on the demand or supply perspective but showed a declining trend. Due to homogenization, high network redundancy, and low network efficiency the trade remained robust yet outside the "window of vitality" characterizing natural ecosystems. A few, mostly high-income countries dominated the market, consolidating imports of high-value metal waste mostly from low- and middle income exporters. Policies should address circularity and trade inequities, accounting for environmental and social ramifications throughout the lifecycle of products and materials.
View
Integrating environmental, social and governance aspects into the mine planning process
Preprint
Full-text available
  • Jul 2024
Mining will continue to be a part of society, but it needs to be more in line with sustainable measures. A vital part for mining companies and mine valuation is linked to mine planning. The study focuses on an approach to integrate environmental, social and governance (ESG) aspects into the mine planning process. Several indices are defined and used to enhance the standard net present value (NPV) to a transformed value. Analysis and a case study examine whether such issues can be incorporated into mine blocks and how they influence the optimal mining sequence. The results show the importance of including ESGs in mine planning, as they have a significant impact on the optimal mining sequence. It is suggested that implementation should be flexible to allow for iterations between mine plans and the incorporation of guidelines and standards currently under development.
View
The Evolution of Responsible Sourcing
Chapter
Full-text available
  • Jul 2024
This chapter explores the evolution of responsible sourcing in mineral supply chains, given the precedence of negative environmental, social, and economic rights that have been part of our global extractive history. It tracks the evolution of concepts of sustainability from a siloed approach to the trade-offs involved in weak and strong sustainability approaches. The chapter introduces the RE-SOURCING Project’s definition of Responsible Sourcing, based on four years of research and consultations. Taking a rights-based approach, it addresses the responsibilities of duty-bearers to the rights-holders. The definition reflects the societal need to change behaviours within mineral supply chains, requiring a halt to negative impacts but also stressing the need to create positive outcomes from operations. The challenges within environmental, social, economic, and governance landscapes are outlined, and the efforts to address these challenges are summarised. The chapter sets out the analytical framework, explored in greater depth in other chapters, addressing how the need to secure a sustainable future translated into a need for changing codes of behaviour in governance, supply chains, financial valuation, and engineering and production methods. A host of guidelines, standards, and legislation have pushed for changes in how the private and public sectors operate, contributing to securing a sustainable future.
View
View
Legal Contours of Sustainable Development: Historical Tracker and Arguments Supporting Its NormativityDarnaus vystymosi teisiniai kontūrai: istorinės aplinkybės ir argumentai, pagrindžiantys jo normatyvumą
Article
  • May 2024
In the present paper the author overviews the historical tracking of sustainable development as such. Besides, in the article, the current legal nature of sustainable development and some aspects helping to enhance its legal contours are revealed. The concept of sustainable development has gradually evolved through different political forums and discussions. This process has been taking more than fifty years. The current legal contours of sustainable development are not stable, making scientists look for their proper outline. Therefore, the practice of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is analysed, together with the EU (supranational) policymaking and the current state of environmental emergency. Based on the methods from the qualitative approach, the output on the legal contours of sustainable development and sustainability is proposed. Outside of the general formula of the obligation of states to act in a way that can guarantee sustainable development, some novel aspects of its enhanced regulatory value have been identified, bringing a new interpretation of the legal contours of sustainable development. These news aspects revolve around the realm of ambient reality (the current state of environmental emergency that dictates putting sustainable development at the centre of policymaking on different levels), the realm of ICJ case law (since the current case law is outdated, prospect advisory opinions of ICJ are needed to clear out the current legal contour of sustainable development), and the realm of supranational policymaking of the EU (in which sustainable development has become quite unstable but imperative, being at the heart of the factual policymaking).
View
Evaluating the Sustainable Development of Inner and Marginalized Areas Through an Integrated Social-biophysical Assessment: Introducing the PAISDA Framework
Article
Full-text available
  • Jan 2024
The phenomenon of inner peripherality is on the rise in Europe. Inner peripheries can be defined as peripheral rural areas experiencing territorial disconnection and progressive marginalization given their distance to urban centres, where the supply of services is concentrated. Assessing and comparing the sustainable development of these areas according to an integrated social and biophysical framework is crucial to evaluate their long-term sustainability potential (territorial resilience). Moreover, it is key to ensure that socio-economic development in these areas does not take place at the expense of their extensive natural endowments. This leads to the design of more effective policy actions from a collective standpoint. To achieve these goals, this paper illustrates an innovative methodology to design a multi-criteria system of indicators to monitor the sustainable development of inner and marginalized areas according to a strong sustainability perspective. The evaluation tool (namely, PAISDA) will allow us to compare and rank areas of a selected cluster. It relies on an ecological economics’ theoretical background, which regards sustainable development as a complex phenomenon underscored by an integrated evolution of social and biophysical dimensions. The assessment process is as following: first, the values of lower order components are computed through a reflective measurement model, then aggregated to form the values of higher order components, which are used as criteria in the last phase of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). The choice of normalization and aggregation methods responds to methodological coherence. The paper describes a step-by step procedure for applying the PAISDA framework to the inner peripheries of any European country, and provides an illustrative case study of its use for the Italian inner areas. Suggested Reviewers: Antonio Boggia
View
View
Sustainability Science for Strong Sustainability
Book
Full-text available
  • Jun 2019
The dynamism of science has been catalytic for human prosperity in recent history. Conventional perspectives of the ivory tower model of modern science are, however, rivalled by the failure of humanity to tackle global crises of an economic, environmental and social nature. Operational solutions to these pressures have grown and exposed the pitfalls of modern science to date. Research institutions globally are eschewing traditional practice, converging around ideas of transdisciplinary sustainability science. New practice based on science-society research partnerships, experiential learning in higher education and iterative and participatory modelling has become manifest. Sustainability Science for Strong Sustainability investigates the core concepts, tools and institutional strategies of this evolving field. Prominent research programs within heterodox economics, the environmental sciences and transition theory are explored through diverse case studies, revealing challenges and advancements for transdisciplinary research. The need for reform of modern science is facilitated by consideration of action points to overcome the institutional barriers of putting sustainability science into practice.
View
View
Critical natural capital: A socio-cultural perspective
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2003
  • ECOL ECON
Critical natural capital (CNC) is commonly defined as that part of the natural environment, which performs important and irreplaceable functions. So far, the challenge to determine the criticality of natural capital (NC) has mainly been taken up by the natural sciences, and the critical functions of nature mainly associated with its life-support and ecological services. Little attention has been paid to the socio-cultural functions of NC and to their values for the health and well being of human societies. The aim of this paper is to encourage a more complete accounting of the critical functions of NC and its associated values, by highlighting the importance of the information functions (health, recreation, amenity, education, heritage, etc.) for the quality and sustainability of human life. It is argued that, despite their immaterial and often intangible nature, these functions provide many, socio–economic benefits, which might be assessed through both qualitative and quantitative valuation methodologies. Integration of ecology, sociology and economics is essential to operationalize the concept of CNC as a tool for more balanced environmental planning and decision making.
View
Flows, funds and the complexity of deprivation: Using concepts from ecological economics for the study of poverty
Article
  • Feb 2013
  • ECOL ECON
Poverty has been increasingly conceptualized as being multidimensional, involving deprivation in many dimensions of life. This paper discusses issues and implications of multidimensional poverty by adopting concepts commonly used in ecological economics. In particular, poverty is approached as an irreducible, complex phenomenon for which many legitimate, but non-equivalent descriptions exist. Issues of social and technical incommensurability are illustrated for different meanings and measurement types of poverty. Georgescu-Roegen's flow/fund framework is interpreted, informed by the capability approach of Amartya Sen. The paper argues that a predominant focus on flows as a proxy to analyze poverty represents rather a short-term perspective on access to satisfiers to fulfill particular needs. Contrary to that, focusing on valued funds may provide useful information for the analysis of capabilities that persons and societies might pursue in the long term. Furthermore, it is argued that strong poverty alleviation needs to adopt analytical tools that can deal with non-trade-off cases: improvements in one poverty dimension cannot always compensate for the deterioration of other poverties. This implies to rethink the usefulness of aggregate multidimensional poverty indices, as well as the predominant use of income measures.
View
The difficulty in defining sustainability
Article
  • Jan 1992
For ecologists [open quotes]sustainability[close quotes] connotes preservation of the status and function of ecological systems; for economists, the maintenance and improvement of human living standards. Disagreements about the salient elements of the concept hamper determination of appropriate responses for achieving sustainability. Key topics about which disagreement arises include intergenerational fairness, the substitutability of natural and other resources, and the carrying capacity of natural ecosystems. Disparate perspectives on these topics might be bridged through the concept of the safe minimum standard, which posits a socially determined demarcation between moral imperatives to preserve and enhance natural resource systems and the free play of resource tradeoffs.
View
View
View
Participatory approaches to environmental policy-making: The European Commission Climate Policy Process as a case study
Article
  • Feb 2000
  • ECOL ECON
The paper investigates the relevance of participatory approaches to environmental policy-making when sustainable development is taken as the encompassing normative basis for environmental governance. In the first section, we illustrate the frequent references to participatory approaches in environmental decision-making. We then look at environmental issue attributes as determinants of the problem-solving requirements for environmental decision-making. We conclude the section by investigating whether and how participatory approaches could answer some of these requirements. In the second section, an illustration is proposed with the presentation of a participatory process that took place in 1997, during the last phase of the international negotiations that led to the Kyoto Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and in 1998 in the preparation of the post-Kyoto phase. The process, organised by the European Commission, consisted of a series of workshops whose objective was to furnish timely inputs responding to the European Commission's information needs for climate policy formation in the pre- and post-Kyoto periods. This was to be achieved through the establishment of interfaces between: (i) the research community; (ii) the EC Climate negotiation team and through it the EU Member States representatives; (iii) other Commission interests (the ‘inside stakeholders’); (iv) a range of ‘outside’ stakeholders including industry, finance and commerce, employment, environment, consumer and citizen interests. We reflect on the participatory nature of the process and show how the process met some of the decision-making requirements identified in the first section.
View
Importance and threat as determining factors for criticality of natural capital
Article
  • Mar 2003
  • ECOL ECON
An important issue in the debate about the use and conservation of natural ecosystems is the degree to which these ecosystems and their functions should be considered ‘critical’. This paper presents some guidelines to determine the criticality of natural capital, based on two main criteria. The first criterion is the ‘importance’ of natural ecosystems (ecological, socio-cultural and economic) and the second is the degree of ‘threat’ based on the quantity and quality of the (remaining) natural areas in a given region. It is argued that the two criteria are complementary and need to be taken into account simultaneously when determining the criticality of natural capital. Finally, the paper presents and discusses some possibilities for the development of a (critical) natural capital index for Europe.
View
Critical natural capital revisited: Ecological resilience and sustainable development
Article
  • Jan 2009
  • ECOL ECON
The maintenance of critical natural capital is an important objective of sustainable development. Critical natural capital represents a multidimensional concept, as it mirrors the different frameworks of various scientific disciplines and social groups in valuing nature. This article revisits the concept of critical natural capital and examines its relation to the concept of ecological resilience. I propose that ecological resilience can help a great deal in specifying the ‘ecological criticality’ of specific renewable parts of the natural capital. More specifically, I suggest that the degree of ecological resilience is inversely related to the degree of threat ecosystems are prone to. The concept of ecological resilience may complement other measures, such as integrity or vulnerability, in estimating the degree of threat specific ecosystems are exposed to. The empirical estimates of ecological resilience add a further criterion in order to build a comprehensive and clear conception of critical natural capital.
View