Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards an Integration of the Ecological Space Paradigm and the Capabilities Approach

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In order to develop a model of equitable and sustainable distribution, this paper advocates integrating the ecological space paradigm and the capabilities approach. As the currency of distribution, this account proposes a hybrid of capabilities and ecological space. Although the goal of distributive justice should be to secure and promote people’s capabilities now and in the future, doing so requires acknowledging that these capabilities are dependent on the biophysical preconditions as well as inculcating the ethos of restraint. Both issues have been highlighted from the perspective of the ecological space paradigm. Concerning the scope of distributive justice, the integration can combine the advantages of the ecological space paradigm regarding the allocation of the responsibilities involved in environmental sustainability with the strength of the capabilities approach regarding people’s entitlements. The pattern of distribution starts from a capability threshold. In order to achieve this threshold, ecological space should be provided sufficiently, and the remaining ecological space budget could then be distributed according to the equal per capita principle.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Since climate change already affects people’s well-being and the climate will continue to change for the foreseeable future due to the accumulated GHGs and the inertia of the climate system, an equitable climate policy should also comprise adaptation and compensation measures (Caney 2009, pp. 126–27; Füssel 2007, p. 266; Jamieson 2005, p. 222; Klein et al. 2007, p. 750). Nonetheless, due to space constraints, we cannot address these aspects here.

  2. This focus on justice between contemporaries and between current and future people does not include historical responsibility. We cannot adequately address this issue here, although we believe that the historical record gives rise to crosscutting implications regarding social justice as well as environmental sustainability. In addition, issues of justice towards the environment also fall beyond the scope of this paper.

  3. Other operationalizations of the ESP include Environmental Utilization Space (Opschoor and van der Straaten 1993), Material Flow Analysis (Bringezu and Moriguchi 2002), Industrial Metabolism (Ayres 1997) and other indicators of environmental sustainability.

  4. Methodological issues have been predominantly discussed regarding the Ecological Footprint (e.g., van den Bergh & Grazi, 2010; van den Bergh & Verbruggen 1999; Fiala 2008), although Nature Reports Climate Change has dedicated a special issue to scrutiny of the SOSH framework (Vol. 3(10), October 2009; e.g. Allen 2009). A discussion of these methodological issues falls beyond the scope of this paper. Some of the most important normative issues are mentioned in the remainder of this section, although as yet, they arguably remain underdeveloped in the literature.

  5. The UNDP has used Sen’s capabilities approach as the conceptual basis in its analysis of contemporary development challenges in its annual Human Development Reports (Fukuda-Parr 2003, p. 302).

  6. Hayward (2009, pp. 290–293) mentions that the imperative of restraint is not only a matter of the right (through its focus on the harm principle and the universal right of access to the necessary means for a decent life, which include biophysical assets), but a matter of the good as well, since it gives rise to a ‘green’ conception of the good life and to ‘green’ virtues. However, the capabilities approach does not accept this latter interpretation, because it conflicts with the value the capabilities approach places on liberal neutrality between conceptions of the good life (Nussbaum 1998). Moreover, we would like to note that a reevaluation of the benefits people draw from their material consumption in our example can also be merely informative regarding the trade-offs they might experience between material prosperity and social participation—both of which they might value—without necessarily advocating a particular conception of the good life. However, since these latter issues need further analysis, we limit discussion here to the interpretation of the imperative of restraint as a matter of the right.

  7. Others have attempted to resolve the non-identity problem, without a satisfactory solution (see Davidson 2008). Here, we can only contend that future people, by virtue of being human, will all be entitled to human rights and capabilities that are threatened by inter alia climate change (Shue 2011, p. 293, 2013, p. 395). This contention affirms the moral intuition of duties towards future people, and provides the grounds for treating transgressions of the ecosphere’s biophysical constraints as a wrongful harm – not only to current, but also to future people (see also Davidson 2008, p. 482).

  8. In this section, we will focus on the distribution of GHG emissions entitlements, since the discussion about the pattern of distribution is most advanced in this literature. It should be clear, however, that we consider ecological space also to comprise other essential environmental assets.

References

  • Allen, M. (2009). Tangible targets are critical. Nature Reports Climate Change, 3(10), 114–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anand, S., & Sen, A. (2000). Human development and economic sustainability. World Development, 28(12), 2029–2049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AOSIS. (2012). Alliance of small island states leaders’ declaration. http://aosis.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2012-AOSIS-Leaders-Declaration.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2013.

  • Ayres, R. (1997). Industrial metabolism: Work in progress. http://flora.insead.edu/fichiersti_wp/inseadwp1997/97-09.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2013.

  • Banuri, T., Weyant, J., Akumu, G., Najam, A., Pinguelli, R., Rayner, S. et al. (2001). Setting the stage: Climate change and sustainable development. In B. Metz, O. Davidson, R. Swart, & J. Pan (eds.), Climate change 2001: Mitigation: Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 73–114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/pdf/1.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2013.

  • Biermann, F. (2012). Planetary boundaries and earth system governance: Exploring the links. Ecological Economics, 81, 4–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bringezu, S., & Moriguchi, Y. (2002). Material flow analysis. In R. Ayres & L. Ayres (Eds.), A handbook of industrial ecology (pp. 79–90). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caney, S. (2009). Justice and the distribution of greenhouse gas emissions. Journal of Global Ethics, 5(2), 125–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, N., Simmons, C., & Wackernagel, M. (2000). Sharing nature’s interest. Ecological footprints as an indicator of sustainability. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Confalonieri, U., Menne, B., Akhtar, R., Ebi, K., Hauengue, M., Kovats, S., et al. (2007). Human health. In M. Parry, O. Canziani, J. Palutikof, P. van der Linden, & C. Hanson (eds.), Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 391–431). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter8.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2013.

  • Costello, A., Abbas, M., Allen, A., Ball, S., Bell, S., Bellamy, R., et al. (2009). Managing the health effects of climate change. The Lancet, 373, 1693–1733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crabtree, A. (2010). Sustainable development, capabilities and the missing case of mental health. In K. Aagaard Nielsen, B. Elling, M. Figueroa, & E. Jelsøe (eds), A new agenda for sustainability (pp. 159–176). London: Sage.

  • Davidson, M. (2008). Wrongful harm to future generations: The case of climate change. Environmental Values, 17, 471–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deneulin, S. (2002). Perfectionism, paternalism and liberalism in Sen and Nussbaum’s capability approach. Review of Political Economy, 14(4), 497–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirix, J., Peeters, W., Eyckmans, J., Jones, P., & Sterckx, S. (2013). Strengthening bottom-up and top-down climate governance. Climate Policy, 13(3), 363–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, A. (1998). Justice and the environment: Conceptions of environmental sustainability and theories of distributive justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, A. (2003). Social justice and environmental sustainability: Ne’er the twain shall meet? In J. Agyeman, R. Bullard, & B. Evans (Eds.), Just sustainabilities: Development in an unequal world (pp. 83–95). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, A. (2006a). Ecological citizenship: A defence. Environmental Politics, 15(3), 447–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, A. (2006b). Thick cosmopolitanism. Political Studies, 54, 165–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiala, N. (2008). Measuring sustainability: Why the ecological footprint is bad economics and bad environmental science. Ecological Economics, 67(4), 519–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukuda-Parr, S. (2003). The human development paradigm: Operationalizing Sen’s ideas on capabilities. Feminist Economics, 9, 301–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Füssel, H. (2007). Adaptation planning for climate change: Concepts, assessment approaches, and key lessons. Sustainability Science, 2(2), 265–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner, S. (2004). Ethics and global climate change. Ethics, 114(3), 555–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner, S. (2006). A perfect moral storm: Climate change, intergenerational ethics and the problem of corruption. Environmental Values, 15, 397–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, T. (2006). Global justice and the distribution of natural resources. Political Studies, 54, 349–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, T. (2007). Human rights versus emissions rights: Climate justice and the equitable distribution of ecological space. Ethics and international affairs, 21(4), 431–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, T. (2009). International political theory and the global environment: Some critical questions for liberal cosmopolitans. Journal of Social Philosophy, 40(2), 276–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, B. (2008). Justice and the environment in Nussbaum’s “Capabilities Approach”: Why Sustainable Ecological Capacity is a meta-capability. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 319–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huesemann, M. (2004). The failure of eco-efficiency to guarantee sustainability: Future challenges for industrial ecology. Environmental Progress, 23(4), 264–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. (2013). Summary for policymakers. In T. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. Allen, J. Boschung, et al. (eds.), Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGI_AR5_SPM_brochure.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2013.

  • Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without growth: Economics for a finite planet. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, D. (1992). Ethics, public policy, and global warming. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17(2), 139–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, D. (2005). Adaptation, mitigation, and justice. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong & R. Howarth (Eds.), Perspectives on climate change: Science, economics, politics, ethics (pp. 217–248). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, D. (2006). The moral and political challenges of climate change. In S. Moser & L. Dilling (Eds.), Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change (pp. 475–482). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, R., Huq, S., Denton, F., Downing, T., Richels, R., Robinson, J., et al. (2007). Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. In M. Parry, O. Canziani, J. Palutikof, P. van der Linden, & C. Hanson (eds.), Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 745–777). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter18.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2013.

  • Le Quéré, C., Raupach, M., Canadell, J., & Marland, G. (2009). Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Nature Geoscience, 2, 831–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lessmann, O. (2011). Sustainability as a challenge to the capability approach. In F. Rauschmayer, I. Omann, & J. Frühmann (Eds.), Sustainable development: Capabilities, needs, and well-being (pp. 43–61). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessmann, O., & Rauschmayer, F. (2013). Re-conceptualizing sustainable development on the basis of the capability approach: A model and its difficulties. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 14(1), 95–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, A., & Lindgren, E. (2011). Climate change: Present and future risks to health, and necessary responses. Journal of Internal Medicine, 270(5), 401–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, A., Nyong, A., & Corvalan, C. (2008). Global environmental change and health: Impacts, inequalities, and the health sector. BMJ, 336, 191–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MEA. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, G., Stocker, T., Collins, W., Friedlingstein, P., Gaye, A., Gregory, J., et al. (2007). Global climate projections. In S. Solomon, M. Qin, Z. Manning, M. Chen, K. Marquis, M. Averyt, et al. (eds.), Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 747–845). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2013.

  • Meyer, A. (2000). Contraction and convergence: The global solution to climate change (Schumacher Briefing no. 5). Foxhole: Green Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mont, O., & Plepys, A. (2008). Sustainable consumption progress: Should we be proud or alarmed? Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 531–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. (1998). The good as discipline, the good as freedom. In D. Crocker & T. Linden (Eds.), Ethics of consumption: The good life, justice, and global stewardship (pp. 312–341). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. (2013). Climate change: Why theories of justice matter. Chicago Journal of International Law, 13(2), 469–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opschoor, H., & van der Straaten, J. (1993). Sustainable development: An institutional approach. Ecological Economics, 7, 203–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, E. (2007). Intergenerational justice of what: Welfare, resources or capabilities? Environmental Politics, 16(3), 453–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peeters, W., Dirix, J., & Sterckx, S. (2013). Putting sustainability into sustainable human development. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 14(1), 58–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelenc, J., Lompo, M., Ballet, J., & Dubois, J.-L. (2013). Sustainable human development and the capability approach: Integrating environment, responsibility and collective agency. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 14(1), 77–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauschmayer, F., Omann, I., & Frühmann, J. (2011). Needs, capabilities and quality of life: Refocusing sustainable development. In F. Rauschmayer, I. Omann, & J. Frühmann (Eds.), Sustainable development: Capabilities, needs, and well-being (pp. 1–24). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F., Lambin, E., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(24), 472–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogner, H., Zhou, D., Bradley, R., Crabbé, P., Edenhofer, O., Hare, B., et al. (2007). Introduction. In B. Metz, O. Davidson, P. Bosch, R. Dave & L. Meyer (eds.), Climate change 2007: Mitigation: Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 95–116). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter1.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2013.

  • Ross, A. (2009). Modern interpretations of sustainable development. Journal of Law and Society, 36(1), 32–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schellnhuber, H., Crutzen, P., Clarck, W., & Hunt, J. (2005). Earth system analysis for sustainability. Environment, 47(8), 10–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, E., Christen, M., Voget-Kleschin, L., & Burger, P. (2013). A sustainability-fitting interpretation of the capabilities approach: Integrating the natural dimension by employing feedback-loops. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 14(1), 115–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1979). Equality of what? In: S. McMurrin (ed.). The Tanner lecture on human values (vol. 1). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/s/sen80.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2013.

  • Sen, A. (1990). Justice: means versus freedoms. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 19(2), 111–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. London: Alan Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (2010). Sustainable development and our responsibilities. Notizie di Politeia, 26(98), 129–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (2013). The ends and means of sustainability. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 14(1), 6–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shue, H. (1993). Subsistence emissions and luxury emissions. Law and Policy, 15(1), 39–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shue, H. (1999). Global environment and international inequality. International Affairs, 75(3), 531–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shue, H. (2001). Climate. In D. Jamieson (Ed.), A companion to environmental philosophy (pp. 449–459). Malden: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shue, H. (2011). Human rights, climate change, and the trillionth ton. In D. Arnold (Ed.), The ethics of global climate change (pp. 292–314). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shue, H. (2013). Climate hope: Implementing the exit strategy. Chicago Journal of International Law, 13(2), 381–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffen, W., Persson, A., Deutsch, L., Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Richardson, K., et al. (2011). The anthropocene: From global change to planetary stewardship. Ambio, 40, 739–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNCED. (1992). Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm. Accessed November 14, 2013.

  • UNDP. (2007). Human Development Report 2007/2008. Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_EN_Complete.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2013.

  • UNDP. (2011). Human development report 2011. Sustainability and equity: A better future for all. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Complete.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2013.

  • UNDP. (2013). Human development report 2013. The rise of the South: Human Progress in a diverse world. http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR2013_EN_Summary.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2013.

  • UNFCCC. (2009). Draft Decision-/CP.15 (Copenhagen Accord). FCCC/CP/2009/L.7. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2013.

  • van den Bergh, J., & Grazi, F. (2010). On the policy relevance of ecological footprints. Environmental Science and Technology, 44, 4843–4844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Bergh, J., & Verbruggen, H. (1999). Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: An evaluation of the ‘ecological footprint’. Ecological Economics, 29(1), 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderheiden, S. (2008). Atmospheric justice. A political theory of climate change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderheiden, S. (2009). Allocating ecological space. Journal of Social Philosophy, 40(2), 257–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint. Reducing human impact on the earth. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • WCED (1987). Our Common Future [Brundtland Report]. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2013.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Thomas Potthast and Simon Meisch for inviting us to contribute to this special issue. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2012 EURSAFE Conference (Tübingen, 30 May–02 June). We are grateful to the audience for their critical comments. We would also like to thank Lieske Voget-Kleshin, Sebastian Oberthür and two anonymous reviewers for their extremely helpful suggestions, and Julian Cockbain for his language editing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Centre for Ethics and Humanism, Free University of Brussels (VUB), Room 5C444, Pleinlaan 2, 1050, Brussels, Belgium

    Wouter Peeters

  2. Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Centre for Ethics and Humanism, Free University of Brussels (VUB), Room 5C443, Pleinlaan 2, 1050, Brussel, Belgium

    Jo Dirix

  3. Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Bioethics Institute Ghent, Ghent University, Room 2.02, Blandijnberg 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Sigrid Sterckx

  4. Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Centre for Ethics and Humanism, Free University of Brussels (VUB), Room 5C444, Pleinlaan 2, 1050, Brussels, Belgium

    Sigrid Sterckx

Authors
  1. Wouter Peeters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jo Dirix
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sigrid Sterckx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wouter Peeters.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Peeters, W., Dirix, J. & Sterckx, S. Towards an Integration of the Ecological Space Paradigm and the Capabilities Approach. J Agric Environ Ethics 28, 479–496 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9498-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9498-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation