| |
Records |
Links |
|
Author |
Ang, F.; Van Passel, S. |
|
| |
Title |
Beyond the environmentalist's paradox and the debate on weak versus strong sustainability |
Type |
A1 Journal article |
| |
Year  |
2012 |
Publication |
Bioscience |
Abbreviated Journal |
Bioscience |
|
| |
Volume |
62 |
Issue |
3 |
Pages |
251-259 |
|
| |
Keywords |
A1 Journal article; Economics; Engineering Management (ENM) |
|
| |
Abstract |
Environmentalists generally argue that ecological damage will (eventually) lead to declines in human well-being. From this perspective, the recent introduction of the “environmentalist's paradox” in BioScience by Raudsepp-Hearne and colleagues (2010) is particularly significant. In essence, Raudsepp-Hearne and colleagues (2010) claimed that although ecosystem services have been degraded, human well-being-paradoxically-has increased. In this article, we show that this debate is in fact rooted in a broader discussion on weak sustainability versus strong sustainability (the substitutability of human-made capital for natural capital). We warn against the reductive nature of focusing only on a stock flow framework in which a natural-capital stock produces ecosystem services. Concretely, we recommend a holistic approach in which the complexity, irreversibility, uncertainty, and ethical predicaments intrinsic to the natural environment and its connections to humanity are also considered. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Wos |
000301561900008 |
Publication Date |
2012-03-07 |
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
0006-3568 |
ISBN |
|
Additional Links |
UA library record; WoS full record; WoS citing articles |
|
| |
Impact Factor |
5.378 |
Times cited |
17 |
Open Access |
|
|
| |
Notes |
; We thank three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This aiticle has benefited considerably from interesting discussions (especially with Liesbet Vranken) at the 13th Belgian PhD Symposium of Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics, Brussels, on 27 April 2011. We are grateful for the financial support of the European Fund for Regional Development project 475, Closing the Circle. ; |
Approved |
Most recent IF: 5.378; 2012 IF: 4.739 |
|
| |
Call Number |
UA @ admin @ c:irua:127559 |
Serial |
6160 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Ang, F.; Van Passel, S. |
|
| |
Title |
The sustainable value approach : a clarifying and constructive comment |
Type |
A1 Journal article |
| |
Year |
2010 |
Publication |
Ecological Economics |
Abbreviated Journal |
Ecol Econ |
|
| |
Volume |
69 |
Issue |
12 |
Pages |
2303-2306 |
|
| |
Keywords |
A1 Journal article; Economics |
|
| |
Abstract |
Recently, the original benchmarking methodology of the Sustainable Value approach became subjected to serious debate. While Kuosmanen and Kuosmanen (2009b) critically question its validity introducing productive efficiency theory, Figge and Hahn (2009) put forward that the implementation of productive efficiency theory severely conflicts with the original financial economics perspective of the Sustainable Value approach. We argue that the debate is very confusing because the original Sustainable Value approach presents two largely incompatible objectives. Nevertheless, we maintain that both ways of benchmarking could provide useful and moreover complementary insights. If one intends to present the overall resource efficiency of the firm from the investor's viewpoint, we recommend the original benchmarking methodology. If one on the other hand aspires to create a prescriptive tool setting up some sort of reallocation scheme, we advocate implementation of the productive efficiency theory. Although the discussion on benchmark application is certainly substantial, we should avoid the debate to become accordingly narrowed. Next to the benchmark concern, we see several other challenges considering the development of the Sustainable Value approach: (1) a more systematic resource selection, (2) the inclusion of the value chain and (3) additional analyses related to policy in order to increase interpretative power. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Wos |
000283700900001 |
Publication Date |
2010-07-30 |
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
0921-8009; 1873-6106 |
ISBN |
|
Additional Links |
UA library record; WoS full record; WoS citing articles; WoS full record; WoS citing articles |
|
| |
Impact Factor |
2.965 |
Times cited |
18 |
Open Access |
|
|
| |
Notes |
; ; |
Approved |
Most recent IF: 2.965; 2010 IF: 2.754 |
|
| |
Call Number |
UA @ admin @ c:irua:136760 |
Serial |
6258 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
