Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 135–153

Spatial welfare economics versus ecological footprint: modeling agglomeration, externalities and trade

  • Fabio Grazi
  • Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh
  • Piet Rietveld
Original Paper


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.


Agglomeration effects Negative externalities Population density Spatial configurations Trade advantages Transport 

JEL Classification

F12 F18 Q56 Q57 R12 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anas A, Arnott R, Small KA (1989) Urban spatial structure. J Econ Lit 36:1426–1464Google Scholar
  2. Ayres RU (2000) Commentary on the utility of the ecological footprint concept. Ecol Econ 32:347–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. van den Bergh JCJM, Verbruggen H (1999) Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the ecological footprint. Ecol Econ 29:61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brackman S, Garretsen H, van Marrewijk C (2001) An introduction to geographical economics—trade, location and growth. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Costanza R (2000) The dynamics of the ecological footprint concept. Ecol Econ 32:341–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dixit AK, Stiglitz JE (1977) Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity. Am Econ Rev 67:297–308Google Scholar
  7. Ebert U, Welsch H (2004) Meaningful environmental indices: a social choice approach. J Environ Econ Manage 47:270–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  9. Erickson J, Gowdy J (2000) Resource use, institutions and sustainability: a tale of two Pacific Islands cultures. Land Econ 76:345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. EU (2004) Employment in Europe. European Commission, Brussels FAOSTAT (2002) FAO database. Food and Agricultural Organization, RomeGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferng JJ (2002) Toward a scenario analysis framework for energy footprints. Ecol Econ 40:53–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forslid R, Ottaviano GIP (2003) An analytically solvable core–periphery model. J Econ Geogr 3:229–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. IEA (2002) World energy outlook 2002. International Energy Agency, OECD/IEA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  14. IPCC (2000) Special report on land use, land–use change and forestry. Cambridge University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. 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, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  16. van Kooten GC, Bulte EH (2000) The ecological footprint– useful science or politics?. Ecol Econ 32:385–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krugman P (1991a) Geography and trade. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  18. Krugman P (1991b) Increasing returns and economic geography. J Politi Econ 99:483–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lenzen M, Murray SA (2001) A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia. Ecol Econ 37:229–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levett R (1998) Footprinting: a great step forward, but tread carefully. Local Environ 3:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McDonald GW, Patterson MG (2004) Ecological footprints and interdependencies of new Zeland regions. Ecol Econ 50:49–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Muñiz I, Galindo A (2005) Urban form and the ecological footprint of commuting. The case of Barcelona. Ecol Econ 55:499–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. OECD (2006) OECD employment outlook. Organisation for Economic Co–operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  24. Opschoor H (2000) The ecological footprint: measuring rod or metaphor?. Ecol Econ 32:363–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ottaviano GIP (2001) Monopolistic competition, trade, and endogenous spatial fluctuations. Reg Sci Urban Econ 31:51–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  27. Samuelson PA (1954) The transfer problem and transport costs: the terms of trade when the impediments are absent. Econ J 62:278–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Toman MA (1994) Economics and sustainability: balancing trade–offs and imperatives. Land Econ 70:399–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. van Vuuren DP, Bouwman LF (2005) Exploring past and future changes in the ecological footprint for world regions. Ecol Econ 52:43–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wackernagel M, Rees W (1996) Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the hearth. New Society, Gabriola Island, BCGoogle Scholar
  31. World Bank (2004) World development indicators. The World Bank Group. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. WWF (2002) Living planet report. Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabio Grazi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh
    • 2
    • 3
  • Piet Rietveld
    • 2
  1. 1.School for Advanced Studies in Venice (SSAV)University Ca’ Foscari of VeniceVeniceItaly
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationFree UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM)Free UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations