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

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.

[1]  J. Pezzey,et al.  Sustainability and its economic interpretations , 2005 .

[2]  Rikard Forslid,et al.  An analytically solvable core-periphery model , 2003 .

[3]  M. Lenzen,et al.  A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia , 2001 .

[4]  Michael A. Toman,et al.  Economics and "Sustainability": Balancing Trade-offs and Imperatives , 1994 .

[5]  M. Thring.  World Energy Outlook , 1977 .

[6]  K. Small,et al.  URBAN SPATIAL STRUCTURE. , 1997 .

[7]  Robert Costanza,et al.  The dynamics of the ecological footprint concept , 2000 .

[8]  Jiun-Jiun Ferng,et al.  Toward a scenario analysis framework for energy footprints , 2002 .

[9]  Paul A. Samuelson,et al.  The Transfer Problem and Transport Costs: The Terms of Trade When Impediments are Absent , 1952 .

[10]  D. Vuuren,et al.  Exploring past and future changes in the ecological footprint for world regions , 2005 .

[11]  R. Eberts,et al.  Agglomeration Economies and Urban Public Infrastructure , 1999 .

[12]  R. Odingo.  Special Report on Land use, Land Use Change and Forestry - Review Editor and Scoping Team , 2001 .

[13]  H. Welsch,et al.  Meaningful environmental indices: a social choice approach , 2004 .

[14]  John M. Gowdy,et al.  Resource Use, Institutions, and Sustainability: A Tale of Two Pacific Island Cultures , 2000 .

[15]  J. Bergh,et al.  Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the ‘ecological footprint’ , 1999 .

[16]  Erwin H. Bulte,et al.  The ecological footprint: useful science or politics? , 2000 .

[17]  Patrick O'Sullivan,et al.  An Introduction to Geographical Economics: Trade, Location and Growth , 2004 .

[18]  M. Wackernagel,et al.  Our ecological footprint , 1996 .

[19]  P. Krugman.  Geography and Trade , 1992 .

[20]  Murray Patterson,et al.  Ecological Footprints and interdependencies of New Zealand regions , 2004 .

[21]  Steven Brakman,et al.  An Introduction to Geographical Economics , 2001 .

[22]  I. Muñiz,et al.  Urban form and the ecological footprint of commuting. The case of Barcelona , 2005 .

[23]  R. Levett.  Footprinting: A great step forward, but tread carefully — a response to Mathis Wackernagel , 1998 .

[24]  P. Krugman.  Increasing Returns and Economic Geography , 1991 .

[25]  G. Ottaviano.  Monopolistic competition, trade, and endogenous spatial fluctuations , 2001 .

[26]  A. Dixit,et al.  Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity , 1977 .