Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement

Dietz, Simon; Neumayer, Eric

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.007

Cited by 356 publications

(207 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

183

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Strong sustainability requires that both natural and human-made capital have to be maintained, while weak sustainability holds that utility of the sum of all capitals has to be maintained for future generations. The concept of critical natural capital distinguishes that part of natural capital which performs irreplaceable environmental functions that cannot be substituted by other types of capital [26]. Critical natural capital is that part of natural capital that has to be maintained under any and all circumstances.…”

Section: Human Evolution and Sustainabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Capital and Sustainability

Jacobs¹,

Nagar²

2011

Sustainability

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A study of sustainability needs to consider the role of all forms of capital-natural, biological, social, technological, financial, cultural-and the complex ways in which they interact. All forms of capital derive their value, utility and application from human mental awareness, creativity and social innovation. This makes human capital, including social capital, the central determinant of resource productivity and sustainability. Humanity has entered the Anthropocene Epoch in which human changes have become the predominant factor in evolution. Humanity is itself evolving from animal physicality to social vitality to mental individuality. This transition has profound bearing on human productive capabilities, adaptability, creativity and values, the organization of economy, public policy, social awareness and life styles that determine sustainability. This article examines the linkages between population, economic development, employment, education, health, social equity, cultural values, energy intensity and sustainability in the context of evolving human consciousness. It concludes that development of human capital is the critical determinant of long-term sustainability and that efforts to accelerate the evolution of human consciousness and emergence of mentally self-conscious individuals will be the most effective approach for ensuring a sustainable future. Education is the primary lever. Human choice matters.

show abstract

Section: Human Evolution and Sustainabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Capital and Sustainability

Jacobs¹,

Nagar²

2011

Sustainability

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The main applications of SS are the following: ecological footprints, material-flow accounting, and hybrid indicators. For the relevant concepts, see Bartelmus (2013); for the related measurements, see Dietz & Neumayer (2007). The main assumptions behind ESS (e.g., De Jonge et al, 2012) can be summarised as follows:…”

Section: From Ss To Essmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main applications of WS are the following: environmentally adjusted GNP, genuine savings, and an index of sustainable economic welfare. For the relevant concepts, see Bartelmus (2013); for the related measurements, see Dietz & Neumayer (2007). A-growth (van den Bergh, 2010A-growth (van den Bergh, , 2011 can be represented as follows:…”

Section: From Ege To Wsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Economic General Equilibrium to Ecological System Services for Nature Conservation and Management: A Methodological Analysis and an Empirical Study Based on 30 Italian Industries

Zagonari

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I develop an operational methodology to consistently compare alternative sustainability paradigms (weak sustainability [WS] [ESS]). The goal is to suggest different environmental interventions (e.g., projects vs. policies) for nature management and guide decisions to achieve nature conservation, defined here as reducing environmental pressures to preserve the future environment and its functioning over time. I then apply the methodology to 30 interdependent industries in Italy for three pollutants (greenhouse-effect gases, polluted rain, and air pollution) and four resources (water, minerals, fossil fuels, biomass) during two periods (from 1990 to 2007 and from 1990 to 2012). The industries were prioritised in terms of interventions to be taken to diminish pollution damage and resource depletion (e.g., fishing and non-energy mining for any sustainability paradigm), whereas sustainability paradigms are compared in terms of their likelihood (i.e., WS > AG = DG > SS), robustness (i.e., AG > SS > DG > WS), effectiveness (i.e., SS > AG > DG > WS), and feasibility (i.e., SS > DG > WS > AG). Proper assessment approaches for projects are finally identified for situations when policies are infeasible (e.g., LCA in WS and SS, MCA in DG and SS within ESS, CBA in WS and AG within EGE), by suggesting MCA in WS within ESS once ecological services are linked to sustainability criteria.

show abstract

“…This led to the proposing of a specific test for weak sustainability by Pearce and Atkinson (1993) known as "Genuine Savings." 1 Whilst there are many competing indicators of sustainable development that are grounded in ideas of strong sustainability (Bohringer and Jochem, 2007;Dietz and Neumayer, 2007), and other indicators of weak sustainability (such as Green Net National Product or Green Net National Income: Pezzey, 2004;Pezzey et al, 2006;Chichilnisky et al, 1995;Mota et al, 2010), Genuine Savings appears to be the leading candidate for a macroeconomic sustainability indicator to emerge from economics (e.g. Arrow et al, 2012), and has been adopted by the World Bank as a preferred measure (World Bank, 2006, 2011.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%