Environmental sustainability is not worth pursuing unless it is achieved for ethical reasons

This study conceptually characterizes and theoretically represents the four main sustainability paradigms (strong sustainability, weak sustainability, de-growth, and a-growth) in terms of equality and inequality. It then applies these conditions to developed and less-developed countries (OECD and non-OECD countries) and empirically shows that the change in production technology (∆θ) required by a-growth is impossible and the change in consumption preferences (∆α) required by de-growth is unfeasible. Finally, it combines a-growth and de-growth in a theoretical solution for the relationship between ∆α and ∆θ that meets the conditions required by both strong and weak sustainability (parameters are the world’s population, consumption preferences, and production technologies or concerns for nature and future generations in developed and less-developed countries) and empirically demonstrates that this solution is feasible. In particular, sustainability turns out to be an ethical issue more than a technological issue, and the ethical concern for nature turns out to be more favorable than the ethical concern for future generations. Ethical assumptions and implications of the four main sustainability paradigms are highlighted and ethical assumptions and implications of the combined theoretical model are discussed. In particular, intergenerational efficiency is achieved in terms of welfare, and intergenerational equity is achieved in terms of environmental status.

This paper develops an empirical methodology to consistently compare alternative sustainability paradigms (weak sustainability (WS), strong sustainability (SS), a-growth (AG), and de-growth (DG)) and different assessment approaches (LCA, CBA, and MCA) within alternative relationship frameworks (economic general equilibrium (EGE) and ecosystem services (ESS)). The goal is to suggest different environmental interventions (e.g., projects vs. policies) for environmental management at national, regional, or local levels. The top-down methodology is then applied to 30 interdependent industries in Italy for three pollutants and four resources during two periods. The industries were prioritized in terms of interventions to be taken to diminish pollution damage and resource depletion, whereas sustainability paradigms were 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.

This paper develops a theoretical framework for four sustainability paradigms (weak sustainability, a-growth, de-growth, strong sustainability) within cooperative and non-cooperative scenarios, and includes changes in four values (a sense of responsibility to nature and future generations; aversion to inequality for current and future generations). The model assesses the feasibility of sustainability solutions for a shared environment as a function of specific value changes in each country by interpreting these value changes as support for environmental policies. The solutions are defined in terms of consumption, use of the environment, and welfare of representative individuals in each country; they are characterised by efficiency and equality at both intra- and inter-generational levels; they are checked for internal consistency and consistency with alternative approaches such as utilitarianism, egalitarianism (i.e., Arneson, Dworkin, Sen), and contractarianism. Theoretical insights are obtained by comparing contextual stability and relative effectiveness of the environment’s use among countries in alternative scenarios. A case study of the Baltic Sea operationally suggests that the currently adopted strong sustainability (i.e., an ecosystem approach) in a non-cooperative scenario (i.e., countries attempt to maximize their own rather than overall welfare) is internally consistent, relatively efficient, and consistent with Dworkin egalitarianism. A-growth was never feasible, but de-growth in which Denmark, Finland, Germany, and Sweden increase environmental protection would increase intra-generational equality; de-growth or weak sustainability in which Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Russia increase environmental RD weak sustainability and de-growth consistent with Arneson and Dworkin egalitarianism would improve the environmental status.

Responsibility, inequality, efficiency, and equity in four sustainability paradigms: Policies for a shared sea from a multi-country analytical model

The present work is dedicated to theoretical aspects of long-term evaluation with a focus on time and uncertainty structure. Motivated along the lines of global warming, the analysis renders contributions to the fields of environmental economics, decision theory, the economics of sustainability and cost benefit analysis. The thesis is structured in three parts. The first part examines the relation between the concepts of weak and strong sustainability and the weight given to future consumption. The second part introduces a generalized evaluation model and a new concept of risk aversion. The latter concept, termed intertemporal risk aversion, takes up an important concern of the precautionary principle. The third part extends the underlying model and analyzes the interaction with other characteristics of intertemporal decision making. The latter include an implied preference for the timing of uncertainty resolution as well as different stationarity assumptions. The first part of the thesis relates to the sustainability debate and the concepts of weak versus strong sustainability. While the advocates of the weak sustainability concept consider man made goods and capital a fair substitute for environmental goods and capital, the advocates of the strong sustainability concept judge such substitutability as highly limited. I show in a stylized growth model, how social discount rates generally fall for a weak sustainability specification of welfare, while they grow for a strong sustainability specification. It turns out that under the given assumptions a strong sustainability specification of welfare implies a lower weight given to future consumption streams than a weak sustainability specification. The second part of the thesis introduces the concept of intertemporal risk aversion in a didactically simplified two period framework. The concept takes up an important concern of the precautionary principle regarding a higher willingness to undergo preventive measures in order to avoid a threat of harm. I show that the concern is substantiated as well by von Neumann Morgenstern’s widespread axioms for choice under uncertainty when carefully integrated into a temporal setting. In such a generalized framework, the standard model of intertemporally additive expected utility corresponds to intertemporal risk neutrality. In contrast to the classical concept of (atemporal) risk aversion, the concept of intertemporal risk aversion can be applied immediately to the multi-commodity setting. For the one commodity special case, the concept closely relates to the attempts of disentangling atemporal risk aversion from intertemporal substitutability. The third part of the thesis extends the model to an arbitrary finite time horizon with generalized preferences and elaborates the corresponding axiomatic and functional characterizations of intertemporal risk aversion. Moreover, I identify different assumptions that allow to simplify the model structure. On the one hand, these assumptions are concerned with a stationary evaluation of certain and uncertain consumption plans. On the other hand, they relate to a deduced preference for the timing of uncertainty resolution. The resulting simplifications allow to characterize intertemporal risk aversion in a single parameter, as well as to disentangle atemporal risk aversion from intertemporal substitutability in a non-recursive evaluation structure. Finally, I show that a normatively motivated combination of the assumptions implies that a time consistent, intertemporal risk averse decision maker has to choose a zero rate of pure time preference. Instead of devaluing the future for reasons of sheer impatience, such a decision maker is only allowed to give reduced weight to future welfare if uncertainty increases over time. The major implications of the present work can be divided into two fields. The first field relates to the sustainability debate and the evaluation of the long run. In this regard, the analysis in the first part of the thesis shows that the characterization of weak and strong sustainability through the degree of substitutability between environmental and produced goods stands in a surprising and possibly unwanted relation to the sustainability demand in the sense of a stronger commitment to future consumption streams. The analyses carried out in the last part of the thesis implies that a zero rate of pure time preference cannot only be founded on moral considerations, but also on assumptions concerning a time consistent evaluation of uncertainty. The second field of implications concerns the handling of uncertainty. In particular, the concept of intertemporal risk aversion mediates between the advocates and the opponents of the precautionary principle. On the one hand, it takes up the concern regarding a higher willingness to undergo preventive action than implied by the standard model. On the other hand, intertemporal risk aversion formalizes this concern and reconciles it with the standard assumptions underlying economic evaluation. That way, it encounters the critique of the precautionary principle as being vague, arbitrary and, thus, paralyzing.

Concepts of defining and measuring sustainable development can broadly be placed in two categories: weak and strong sustainability. The concept of weak sustainability is based on neo-classical economic theory and assumes that manufactured and natural capital are close substitutes. This means that costs of environmental deterioration (e.g., forest damage) can be compensated by benefits from manufactured capital (e.g., income). Thus, environmental damages are valued in monetary units. The concept of strong sustainability denies the degree of substitution that weak sustainability assumes, at least for some critical elements of natural capital. This paper pledges for strong sustainability indicators, especially for critical loads and critical levels. Nevertheless, the costs and benefits of avoiding critical impacts have to be taken into consideration. Hence, a combination of strong and weak sustainability indicators is suggested.

This paper develops a theoretical framework to assess the feasibility of global environmental sustainability solutions based on one or more value changes. The framework represents four sustainability paradigms (weak sustainability WS, a-growth AG, de-growth DG, strong sustainability SS) and five value changes (i.e. a sense of responsibility for nature, future generations, or the current generation in developing countries; aversion to inequality for the current generation or future generations). It defines solutions in terms of consumption, environment use, and welfare for representative individuals in both developed (OECD) and developing (non-OECD) countries. Solutions are characterised by efficiency (i.e. Pareto and Kaldor–Hicks) with respect to welfare and by intra- and inter-generational equality for consumption, environment use, and welfare, by confirming internal consistency and consistency with alternative equity approaches for utilitarianism (i.e. Harsanyi), egalitarianism (i.e. Arneson for welfare; Dworkin for consumption or environment use; Sen for consumption and environment use), and contractarianism (i.e. Rawls). Theoretical and operational insights are described for alternative sustainability paradigms and equity approaches. In terms of feasibility based on improved technology, decreased population, and modified consumption, the ordering is responsibility for future generations > responsibility for the current generation in developing countries > aversion to inequality for the current generation > aversion to inequality for future generations and AG > SS > DG > WS: responsibility for nature is unfeasible. In terms of internal consistency, responsibility for future generations > responsibility for the current generation in developing countries = aversion to inequality for the current generation = aversion to inequality for future generations and SS > AG > DG; WS is internally inconsistent. In terms of consistency with an equity approach, responsibility for future generations > responsibility for the current generation in developing countries = aversion to inequality for future generations > aversion to inequality for the current generation and SS > AG > DG > WS.

In this paper, we critically analyze how sustainability is considered in aquaculture policies and strategies using the Nordic countries as a case. The strong versus weak sustainability concepts are used to define and clarify what sustainability aspects are central to each state. To illustrate these concepts further, we draw on and modify four mainstream environmental discourses defined by John Dryzek and apply them to the strong and weak sustainability dichotomy to help categorize how environmental sustainability is portrayed in Nordic aquaculture policies and strategies. Subsequently we apply the characteristics of the concepts to aquaculture and sustainability in the Nordic countries. This allows us to identify each state's depiction of sustainable aquaculture, compare these to one another and assess where the Nordic states position themselves regarding sustainability and aquaculture. Our findings show that the policies emphasize technological advancements, intensification, and economic growth, which correlates with weak sustainability. Environmental sustainability receives a significant role in the documents too but does not seem to trump increased intensification or profitability. All policies are heavily focused on fed aquaculture and in order to reduce negative impacts from aquaculture there is a need to incorporate key elements of strong sustainability in policies, including measures to reduce impacts from pollution and the spread of pathogens, use of high-grade food resources and energy consumption. This to transform the industry to sustainability rather than just making it less unsustainable.

The concept of human development combines the production and distribution of goods. The use of income is as important as its generation. There are four components of human development: equity, productivity, competence and sustainability. The paper considers the sustainability paradigm as a component of human development. Sustainability, in short terms, signifies a responsible attitude toward future generations. Namely, future generations should have the same development opportunities as the present generation, that is, the opportunity to enjoy the level of well-being of the current generation should not be denied to them. Equal opportunities must be provided for intragenerational and intergenerational justice. Based on the nature of the answers about the substitutability of certain forms of capital in the process of generating economic growth, four versions of sustainability can be defined; very weak sustainability, weak sustainability, strong sustainability and very strong sustainability. The authors came to the conclusion that the concepts of very poor and poor sustainability are not in agreement with the basic idea and goals of the concept of human development that concerns expanding the possibility of choosing. On the contrary, the concept of strong and particularly very strong sustainability expresses a responsible attitude toward future generations and functions in expanding opportunities for people as well as maximizing the level of their well-being in the long run.

Eco-efficiency, being a matter of concern all over the world, is gaining increasing attention in the fields of economic and environment. This paper just investigates the relationship between economic development and environmental sustainability in Chinese provinces focused on the eco-efficiency calculation. In this paper, by the index of eco-efficiency into economic effect (er) and environment effect (ee), thus an effect matrix is framed; and a new method that can analyze the relationship between the economic development and environment sustainability is outlined and applied to evaluate the eco-efficiency change of 31 provinces of China during 2006-2010. Empirical results show that Beijing city is found to be the only one that has improved its eco-efficiency in the absolutely strong sustainability paradigm at all three environmental impacts; while most of other areas have taken on a paradigm of weak sustainability at some specific environmental impact; the country as a whole presents a weak sustainability paradigm for its solid waste production and the absolutely strong sustainability one both in its waste water and SO2 emission production. The effect matrix analysis constitutes a new way to assess the change of the eco-efficiency in an area, which seems very promising to judge the state of an area's eco-efficiency change toward sustainability and provides the sound foundation to support policy making.

In this paper, I develop an operational methodology to consistently compare alternative sustainability paradigms (weak sustainability [WS], strong sustainability [SS], a-growth [AG], and de-growth [DG]) and different assessment approaches (life-cycle assessment [LCA], cost-benefit analysis [CBA], and multi-criteria analysis [MCA]) within alternative relationship frameworks (economic general equilibrium [EGE] and ecosystem services [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.

In this paper, I develop an operational methodology to consistently compare alternative sustainability paradigms (weak sustainability [WS], strong sustainability [SS], a-growth [AG], and de-growth [DG]) and different assessment approaches (life-cycle assessment [LCA], cost-benefit analysis [CBA], and multi-criteria analysis [MCA]) within alternative relationship frameworks (economic general equilibrium [EGE] and ecosystem services [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.

We develop a model for four sustainability paradigms (weak sustainability, a-growth, de-growth, strong sustainability) within a single framework that accounts for responsibility for nature and future generations and for intra- and inter-generational equality. The model is applied in three case studies: the Baltic, the Adriatic and the Black Sea with the aim to identify feasible sustainability solutions for shared seas under alternative sources of environmental pressure and cooperation strategies. The Baltic Sea is analyzed as an example of pollution from agriculture, the Adriatic Sea as an example of over-exploitation of fish in fishery, and the Black Sea as an example of pollution from industry. Empirical results show that different cooperation strategies are feasible in each case and that they yield different results in different context. Also welfare implications vary between different cooperation strategies. The main policy implication of the analysis is two-fold. Environmental conservation must be preferred to environmental innovation, where both intra- and inter-generational equity concerns are unessential. The choice of a different sustainability approaches must be combined with the feasibility of the differently required management institutions, while considerations of the sectoral sources of environmental pressure are essential.

Suggestions for defining and measuring sustainable development can broadly be placed in two categories: weak and strong sustainability. The concept of weak sustainability assumes that manufactured and natural capital are close substitutes. This means that the costs of environmental deterioration (e.g. groundwater damage) can be compensated by benefits from manufactured capital (e.g. income). Thus, environmental damage is valued in monetary units. The concept of strong sustainability denies the degree of substitution that weak sustainability assumes, at least for some critical elements of natural capital. This paper endorses the use of strong sustainability indicators, especially for critical loads and critical levels. These have to be pointed out by environmental scientists and/or geologists. Nevertheless, the costs and benefits of avoiding critical impacts have to be taken into consideration. Hence, a combination of strong and weak sustainability indicators is suggested.

Steps towards indicators of sustainable development: Linking economic and ecological concepts