Abstract
A welfare framework for the analysis of the spatial dimensions of sustainability is developed. It covers agglomeration effects, interregional trade, negative environmental externalities, and various land use categories. The model is used to compare rankings of spatial configurations according to evaluations based on social welfare and ecological footprint indicators. Five spatial configurations are considered for this purpose. The exercise is operationalized with the help of a two-region model of the economy, that is, in line with the ‘new economic geography.’ By generating a number of numerical ‘counter-examples,’ it is shown that the footprint method is inconsistent with an approach aimed at maximum social welfare. Unless environmental externalities are such a large problem that they overwhelm all other components of economic well-being, a ‘spatial welfare economic’ approach delivers totally different rankings of alternative land use configurations than the ecological footprint.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anas A, Arnott R, Small KA (1989) Urban spatial structure. J Econ Lit 36:1426–1464
Ayres RU (2000) Commentary on the utility of the ecological footprint concept. Ecol Econ 32:347–349
van den Bergh JCJM, Verbruggen H (1999) Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the ecological footprint. Ecol Econ 29:61–72
Brackman S, Garretsen H, van Marrewijk C (2001) An introduction to geographical economics—trade, location and growth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Costanza R (2000) The dynamics of the ecological footprint concept. Ecol Econ 32:341–345
Dixit AK, Stiglitz JE (1977) Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity. Am Econ Rev 67:297–308
Ebert U, Welsch H (2004) Meaningful environmental indices: a social choice approach. J Environ Econ Manage 47:270–283
Eberts RW, McMillen DP (1999) Agglomeration economies and urban public infrastructure. In: Cheshire P, Mills ES, (eds), Handbook of regional and urban economics. Elsevier Science Press, Amsterdam
Erickson J, Gowdy J (2000) Resource use, institutions and sustainability: a tale of two Pacific Islands cultures. Land Econ 76:345–354
EU (2004) Employment in Europe. European Commission, Brussels FAOSTAT (2002) FAO database. Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome
Ferng JJ (2002) Toward a scenario analysis framework for energy footprints. Ecol Econ 40:53–69
Forslid R, Ottaviano GIP (2003) An analytically solvable core–periphery model. J Econ Geogr 3:229–240
IEA (2002) World energy outlook 2002. International Energy Agency, OECD/IEA, Paris
IPCC (2000) Special report on land use, land–use change and forestry. Cambridge University Press, UK
Jorgensen AE, Vigsoe D, Krisoffersen A, Rubin O (2002) Assessing the ecological footprint. A look at the WWF’s Living Planet Report 2002. Institute for Miljovurdering, Kobenhavn, Denmark
van Kooten GC, Bulte EH (2000) The ecological footprint– useful science or politics?. Ecol Econ 32:385–389
Krugman P (1991a) Geography and trade. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Krugman P (1991b) Increasing returns and economic geography. J Politi Econ 99:483–499
Lenzen M, Murray SA (2001) A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia. Ecol Econ 37:229–255
Levett R (1998) Footprinting: a great step forward, but tread carefully. Local Environ 3:67–74
McDonald GW, Patterson MG (2004) Ecological footprints and interdependencies of new Zeland regions. Ecol Econ 50:49–67
Muñiz I, Galindo A (2005) Urban form and the ecological footprint of commuting. The case of Barcelona. Ecol Econ 55:499–514
OECD (2006) OECD employment outlook. Organisation for Economic Co–operation and Development, Paris
Opschoor H (2000) The ecological footprint: measuring rod or metaphor?. Ecol Econ 32:363–365
Ottaviano GIP (2001) Monopolistic competition, trade, and endogenous spatial fluctuations. Reg Sci Urban Econ 31:51–77
Pezzey JCV, Toman MA (2005) Sustainability and its economic interpretations. In: Ayres RU, Simpson RD, Toman MA, (eds), Scarcity and growth in the New Millennium. RFF Press, Washington
Samuelson PA (1954) The transfer problem and transport costs: the terms of trade when the impediments are absent. Econ J 62:278–304
Toman MA (1994) Economics and sustainability: balancing trade–offs and imperatives. Land Econ 70:399–413
van Vuuren DP, Bouwman LF (2005) Exploring past and future changes in the ecological footprint for world regions. Ecol Econ 52:43–62
Wackernagel M, Rees W (1996) Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the hearth. New Society, Gabriola Island, BC
World Bank (2004) World development indicators. The World Bank Group. Washington, DC
WWF (2002) Living planet report. Gland, Switzerland
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Grazi, F., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Rietveld, P. Spatial welfare economics versus ecological footprint: modeling agglomeration, externalities and trade. Environ Resource Econ 38, 135–153 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-006-9067-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-006-9067-2
Keywords
- Agglomeration effects
- Negative externalities
- Population density
- Spatial configurations
- Trade advantages
- Transport