Ecological Economics Volume 66 Issue 4 2008 [Doi 10.1016%2Fj.ecolecon.2007.10.023] J.R. Siche; F....

8/10/2019 Ecological Economics Volume 66 Issue 4 2008 [Doi 10.1016%2Fj.ecolecon.2007.10.023] J.R. Siche; F. Agostinho; E. Ortega; A. Romeiro -- Sustainability of N

1/10

ANALYSIS

Sustainability of nations by indices: Comparative study

between environmental sustainability index, ecological

footprint and the emergy performance indices

J.R. Sichea, F. Agostinho b, E. Ortega b,, A. Romeiro c

a

Escuela de Ingeniera Agroindustrial, Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad Nacional de Trujillo, Av. Juan Pablo II s/n, CiudadUniversitaria, Trujillo, Perub Laboratory of Ecological Engineering, FEA (College of Food Eng), Unicamp, CP 6121, CEP 13083-862, Campinas, SP, Brazilc Ncleo de Economia Agrcola, NEA, UNICAMP, CP 6135, Campinas, SP, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history:

Received 24 July 2006

Received in revised form

26 August 2007

Accepted 27 October 2007

Available online 11 December 2007

The present work makes a comparison between the two most used environmental

sustainability indices of nations: ecological footprint and environmental sustainability

index, with two emergy ratios (renewability and emergy sustainability index). All of them

are gaining space within the scientific community and government officials. Despite the

efforts for obtaining an index that adequately represents the sustainability of a region,

according to the result of this research, nowadays there is not yet a completely satisfactoryindex. We consider that all of them need to be improved, but the results point out the

possibility of obtaining one better index of sustainability through the junction of ecological

footprint with renewability emergy index.

2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:

Ecological footprint

Emergy analysis

Environmental sustainability index

Sustainability of nations

1. Introduction

In the 60's decade, the book Silent Spring byCarson (1962)

became emblematic andcontributed decisively for a change of

perspective of the environmentalist movement, changing it

from conservationismto ecology activism. Ten years lateranother book caused great impact, The Limits to Growth

prepared by a group of researchers of The Massachusetts

Institute of Technology (Meadows et al., 1972). This book uses

modeling and simulation of ecological and economic systems

of the Earth at the end of 20th century and points out the

serious problems that humanity should solve, probably

through a new development model to overcome an ecological

and social disaster. Among the critical problems they cited

were: the intensive use of fossil energy with the consequent

end of reserves; reduction of supply of natural resources;

increment of the industrial activity and pollution; increase

and collapse of population; and, the limitation of the capacity

of food production.

The term sustainability was introduced as an interna-tional issue by the book The World Conservation Strategyin

1980 (IUCN et al., 1980). Since that date the term begin to be

used with increased frequency and its economic, social and

environmental dimensions were debated as well as its

importance in the search for a new form of development.

This concept was deeply discussed in a study prepared for the

World Commission on the Environment of the United Nations

known as the Brundtland Report(World Commission on the

E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 6 2 8 6 3 7

Corresponding author.Tel.: +55 19 35214035; fax: +55 19 3521 4027.E-mail address:[email protected](E. Ortega).

0921-8009/$ see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.10.023

a v a i l a b l e a t w w w . s c i e n c e d i r e c t . c o m

w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / e c o l e c o n
mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.10.023http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.10.023mailto:[email protected]


2/10

Environment and Development, 1987). This report, among

others things, concludes that it is necessary to make a big

change in the concept and approach of human development,

since all the ecological systems of the planet are suffering

serious and irreversible damage.

The idea of indicators to evaluate the sustainability

appeared in the World Conference on the Environment

Rio 92, in one of its final documents, Agenda 21 that registersin chapter 40: commonly used indicators such as the gross

national product (GNP) and measurements of individual

resource or pollution flows do not provide adequate indica-

tions of sustainability. Methods for assessing interactions

between different parameters (environmental, demographic,

social and developmental) are not sufficiently developed or

applied. Indicators of sustainable development need to be

developed to provide solid bases for decision-making at all

levels and to contribute to a self-regulating sustainability of

integrated environment and development systems (United

Nations, 1992). The proposal was to define sustainable

standards of development that considered ambient, eco-

nomic, social, ethical and cultural aspects; for this, it became

necessary to define indicators that could measure and

evaluate all the important aspects of the question.

Interesting studies about the development of indices to

evaluate the sustainability of countries had been published in

the journal Ecological Economics (Pearse and Atkinson, 1993;

Gilbert and Feenstra, 1994; Nilsson and Bergstrm, 1995; Azar

et al., 1996; Stockhammer et al., 1997; Bicknell et al., 1998;

Neumayer, 2001; Baloccoa et al., 2004) and other influential

jour nals (Steinborn and Svirezhev, 2000; Moser, 1996;

Krotscheck and Narodoslawsky, 1996; Barrera and Saldvar,

2002).

One of the most important contributions to the develop-

ment of a sustainability indicator was given by Rees (1992)

with the development of an index called ecological footprint

or EF. The original methodology consisted in the construction

of a matrix consumption/use of land. The objective of this

index is to calculatethe necessary land area for theproduction

and the maintenance of goods and services consumed by a

determined community (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996).

Another index considered of importance in the debate

on sustainability is the environmental sustainability index

or ESI (Samuel-Johnson and Esty, 2000). This index, when

proposed quickly originated discussions and controversies

at academy and political level (Jesinghaus, 2000; The Ecolo-

gist, 2001; Jha and Bhanu-Murthy, 2003; Morse and Fraser,

2005).

The scientificcommunityconsidersthesetwo indices (theEF

and ESI) as of bigger impact in the evaluation of the sustain-

ability of countries (Jha and Bhanu-Murthy, 2003; Sutton and

Costanza, 2002; Morse, 2004).

Finally, the emergy performance indices known as renew-

ability and emergy sustainability index (Brown and Ulgiati,

1997), which we will refer as EMPIs, that consider the eco-

nomic system as an open thermodynamic system within the

biosphere and account for all the flows in units of aggregate

energy. These indices are based on the emergy theory pro-

posed byOdum (1996).

The focus of this work was to compare all the indices above

cited (EF, ESI and EMPIs), analyzing its methodology and

application, in qualitative and quantitative form, identifying

the strengths and weakness of each of them.

2. Comparative analysis

2.1. Ecological footprint (EF)

The concept of the ecological footprintwas introduced by Rees

(1992) and elaborated byWackernagel and Rees (1996, 1997)

among others.

The EF can be compared with the productive biological

capacity of the available land and the sea to this population

(WWF, 2005). The EF measures the demand for natural

resources. For its creators, the EF is a measure of the impact

of thepopulationexpressed in terms of theappropriate area; it

is the surface of ecologically productive territory in the diverse

categories (arable lands, pastures, forests, sea and CO2absorption area), necessary to supply the resources of energy

and matter that a population consume and to absorb its

wastefulness considering its current technology (Wackernagel

and Rees, 1996).

One characteristic term of this methodology is the bioca-

pacity or interest from natural capital. Thus, the biocapacity

measures the bioproductivity or biological productivity in an

area. The average biological productivity of a hectare of the

earth's productive surface area is called global hectare(gha)

and is used as the common unit of comparison. Bioproductiv-

ity is the ability of a biome (e.g., arable land, pasture land,

forest land, productive sea) to produce biomass, which is

defined as the weight of organic matter, including animals,

plants and micro-organism (living and dead), above or below

the soil surface. Thus, the biomes have different levels of

bioproductivity. Some of it is built or degraded land. Biocapa-

city is dependent not only on natural conditions but also on

prevailing land use (e.g., farming use, forest use). The use of

bioproductive area as an aggregate unit is a powerful and

resonant means of measuring and communicating environ-

mental impact and sustainability. It is crucial to note that the

biocapacity represents the theoretical maximum sustainable

capacity for a year. While ecological overshoot by definition

reveals the degradation of natural capital, the ecological

remainder does not guarantee the sustainability of produc-

tion. Rather, as the Footprint of production approaches the

biocapacity and the ecological remainder narrows, the like-

lihood that the country will experience environmental stress

or degradation escalates, at least over longer periods of time.

In the EF, by comparing the demand with the available

supply it is possible to estimate the ecological sustainability

of territories or countries. A nation's ecological footprint cor-

respond to the aggregate land and water area in various

ecosystem categories to produce all the resources it con-

sumes, and to absorb all the waste it generates on a con-

tinuous basis, using prevailing technology.

The calculation of the EF for a country implies basically: (a)

Calculation of the footprint ( =Consumption Equivalence

Factor/Global Yield), considering categories of products (e.g.,

cropland, forest land, and fishing); (b) Calculation of the

Biocapacity (=bioproductive areaYield FactorEquivalence

Factor) for each category. Finally, it is possible to calculate the

629E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 6 2 8 6 3 7


3/10

Ecological Balance ( =BiocapacityFootprint). According to

Monfreda et al. (2004) a Footprint greater than total Biocapa-

city indicates that demands exceed the regenerative capacity

of existing natural capital. For example, the products from a

forest harvested at twice its natural regeneration rate have a

Footprint twice the size of the forest. They call the amount of

overuse ecological deficit. Ecological deficits are compen-

sated in two ways: (a) Either the deficit is balanced throughimports, resulting in ecological trade deficit or, as in this

forest product example; (b) The deficit is met through the

overuse of domestic resources, leading to natural capital de-

pletion (ecological overshoot).

A detailed description of this index can be found in

Wackernagel and Rees (1996, 1997) and Monfreda et al.

(2004), some recent modifications by the calculation in

Wiedmann et al. (2006), Venetoulis and Talberth (in press),

and the calculation for 149 countries in the Living Planet

Report 2006 (Hails et al., 2006).

2.2. Environmental sustainability index (ESI)

The ESI was developed by a group of researchers of the

universities of Yale and Columbia and presented formally in

2000 in World Economic Forum (Annual meeting 2000, Davos

Switzerland) for Kim Samuel-Johnson and Daniel C. Esty. The

ESI, first published in 2001 and subsequently in 2002 and 2005,

has seen increasing popularity at least in the popular media

(Morse, 2004; Morse and Fraser, 2005) and has been overtly

linked in the press to the rule of law (Economist, 2002). The

increasing popularity of the ESI is in part related to the fact

that it is promoted by the powerful World Economic Forum

(WEF), and its release coincides with high-profile WEF meet-

ings. ForSutton and Costanza (2002) the ESI is byno means the

only index or indicator of sustainability, and an approach also

gaining in interest is the estimation of Critical Natural Capital.

According to ESI, environmental sustainability is a funda-

mentally multi-dimensional concept. Environmental sustain-

ability is the ability to maintain valued environmental assets

over the next several decades and to manage problems that

emerge from changing environmental conditions (Esty et al.,

2005).

In the construction of the ESI-2005, 21 indicators and 76

variables have been used. It is important to say that the

ecological footprint is considered as a variable in the calcula-

tion of this index. Values of the ESI for each country vary

between 0 (most unsustainable) and 100 (most sustainable).

The ESI-2005 considers five dimensions: environmental

systems (air, water, land and biodiversity); stresses (situations

very critical of pollution or any excessive level of exploration

of natural resources); human vulnerability (nutritional situa-

tion and the illnesses related to environment); social and

institutional capacity (capacities that allows the dealing with

of problems and environmental challenges); and global

stewardship (efforts and representative projects of interna-

tional cooperation of the global responsibility).

The ESI is an index applied in the evaluation of nations'

sustainability, being its main objective to establish a way for

comparison of the sustainability of countries. To assist in the

comparisons across countries with similar profiles, a cluster

analysis is used. Cluster analysis provides a basis for identify-

ing similarities among countries across multiple dimensions.

The cluster analysis performed on the ESI-2005 data set reveal

seven groups of countries that had distinctive patterns of

results across the 20 indicators.

The method for the calculation of the ESI is the following

one: (a) Election of the countries (based in the country size,

variable coverage and indicator coverage); (b) Standardization

of the variables for cross-country comparisons; (c) Transfor-mation of the variables (for imputation and aggregation

procedures); (d) Substitution of missing data using the multi-

ple imputation algorithm; (e) Winsorization of the data; and,

(f) Aggregation of the data to indicator scores and the final ESI

score.

In the web site of ESI (http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/

ESI/) historical data, reports, methodology and detailed

descriptions of this index can be found.

2.3. Emergy performance indices (EMPIs)

We used the EMPIs nomenclature when referring to emergy

accounting indices used in the sustainability evaluation of

an economic system: renewability (REN) and emergy sustain-

ability index (EmSI), suggested by Brown and Ulgiati (1997).

Emergy analysis was formalized, after many studies, as a

method of ecosystem valuation from the point of view of

the biophysical economy. The bases are the works of Lotka

(1925), Bertalanffy (1968) and others. Odum (1986) used for

the first time the term emergy (written with m) with

the meaning of EMbodied enERGY, also called EnERGY

Memory(Scienceman, 1987).

In practice, emergy analysis includes geophysics to value

the amount of energy connected to the production and use of

natural and anthropic resources. The aim of this methodology

is to obtain a thermodynamical measure of the energy used to

produce a resource. It uses a common unit for all the

resources: the equivalent solar energy Joule (seJ). Solar emergy

is used to give value to natural resources that the economy

does not evaluate correctly (rain, raw materials from nature,

water from rivers, biodiversity) and also to resources provided

by human economy, mainly fossil fuels and their derivatives

(goods and services of industrial economies). Emergy analysis,

by this characteristic, is used to make studies of the environ-

mental inventory and human impact on them.

Emergy analysis consists of: (a) Identification of all the

materials and energy flows that participate in the processes

carried out within a system and calculation of emergy flows

through the use of the conversion factor named transfor-

mity. Transformity is the solar emergy required to make 1 J of

product or service (Odum, 1996). Thus, Energy flowTrans-

formity=Emergy flow; (b) Aggregation of flows of the same

kind, for example, emergy of the local renewable resources (R)

and total emergy used in the system (U).1 A sustainability

index can be calculated with these two aggregated flows, the

Renewability (REN=R/U); (c) Calculation of emergy yield ratio,

1 U = N0+ N1+ R + F+ G+ S. ( N0: dispersed rural non-renewableresources, mainly soil and forest; N1: concentrated non-renew-able resources urban, industrial uses; R: renewable resources; F:imported fuels and minerals; G: imported goods; S: services inimported goods and fuels.)

630 E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 6 2 8 6 3 7
http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/ESI/http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/ESI/http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/ESI/http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/ESI/


4/10


5/10

biocapacity, locating them between the more sustainable

countries on the planet.

Fig. 2 shows the ESI calculated for each country. In this

analysis, the countries of high ESI value are sustainable

countries and the countries of low value are unsustainable;

thus, Sweden, according to ESI-2005, has an ESI score of 71.7

(4th in the ESI rank), is one of the sustainable countries.

Mexico, with ESI score of 46.2 (95th in the ESI rank), is one of

the unsustainable countries. United States, with ESI score of

52.9 (45th in ESI rank), is considered an intermediate country

in the ESI scale. Argentina, Brazil and Peru, 9th, 11th and 16th

respectively in the ESI ranking are sustainable countries.

Fig. 3shows the EMPIs (EmSI and REN) for each country.

The countries that have high values of EmSI and REN are

sustainable and the countries with low values of EmSI and

REN are unsustainable. Thus, Denmark (EmSI= 0.14 and

REN= 0.09), Italy (EmSI=0.17 and REN= 0.10), Sweden

(EmSI= 0.19 and REN= 0.12) and United States (EmSI =0.48

and REN=0.11) are unsustainable countries. Countries such

as Argentina (EmSI= 8.20 and REN=0.56), Nicaragua

(EmSI= 13.86 and REN=0.77), Ecuador (EmSI= 15.48 and

REN=0.50) and Brazil (EmSI=16.50 and REN=0.70) are sustain-

able countries.

In Fig. 4, sustainability values of the three evaluated

methods are plotted in a scale from 0 to 100. Linear normal-

ization of data (UNDP, 2005) was used to convert the values of

the evaluated indices in comparable scales but conserve the

relative importance of its original measurement. In the case of

the EF that has a contrary trend to indices ESI and REN, its

complementary value to one was calculated (EFr=1EF) to

keep the consistency.

Fig.4 showsthe concentration of obtained data. At the right

side, Brazil and Argentina show consistency in results; the

values of sustainability obtained with the three methods are

similar. On the left, the discrepancies between the results of

each index are evident. Thus, meanwhile the ESI calculates

a good value of sustainability for Sweden, REN and EFr show

a low sustainability. In the opposite case, Mexico which

according to ESI has a low sustainability, while using the EF

shows a high sustainability.

InFig. 5the regressions between pairs of these indices are

presented. The correlation coefficient (R2) isusedhereas a tool

to define, beyond the similarity between the methods, also the

degree of dependence. AR2=0.0004 (Fig. 5a) indicates that the

comparative methods (ESI and EmSI) give very different

results, or that the ESI is explained in 0.04% for the EmSI, orvice versa, the EmSI is explained in 0.04% for the ESI. A

R2=0.5156 (Fig. 5e) indicates that the methods EF and REN give

similar results; EF is explained in 52% for the REN and vice

versa.

Finally, in order to compare the methods two tables were

prepared.Table 1shows the processing of raw data in each

method to achieve its final index.Table 2describes the main

characteristics of each method.

4. Discussion

The three methods studied show advantages and limitations,

they show different approaches, different levels of complexity

and they use different units in their calculations.

The EF is expressed in units easy to understand (land area).

TheESI doesn't have a specific dimension, itsvalue is obtained

from a complex expression that includes many concepts,each

one with different units, including land area, since this

methodology includes the EF as one of its 146 variables, thus,

ESI is the most complex index and the more laborious to

calculate. The EMPIs are obtained from equations that con-

sider only one unit of measure: solar emergy (equivalent solar

Joule or seJ).

As it can be seen inTable 1, the three indices give as final

result a numerical value that is a consequence of the ag-

gregation of other indicators.

The three indices can reveal critical situations of the

evaluated systems. Usually they are used as static methods;

they interpret a system's situation at the current moment.

Since the natureand the economy are dynamic systems, these

indices do not catch certain phenomena on course, as

technological or social systems changes. The emergy analy-

sis developed a specific method for dynamic modeling and

Fig. 3 Emergy performances indices: Renewability (REN) and

Emergy Sustainability Index (EmSI). Source: Own elaboration

based in the studies ofBrown and McClanahan (1996),

Cuadra (2005),Haden (2003),Lagerberg (1999),Siche and

Ortega (2007),Scatena et al. (2002).

Fig. 4 Comparative radar of the sustainability values.



6/10

simulation (Odum and Odum, 2000; Valyi and Ortega, 2004),

since this methodology considers the change of internal

stocks as a consequence of the alterations of the external

forces or the establishment of new internal arrangements.

This makes it possible to model and to simulate an ecosystem

or economies.

The creators of EF say that prediction never was their

intention. The EF can be seen as an ecological camera; each

analysis supplies a picture instantaneous of current demands

on nature, demands of dominant technology and social values

(Rees and Wackernagel, 1996). They reiteratein this paper that

ecological footprint is not a window of the future, but a skill to

evaluate the current reality and to construct scenarios in the

search of sustainability.

EF as EMPIs have been applied to make environmental

evaluations at all scales (Table 2), for example, the global

situation has been evaluated with the EF (WWF, 2005) and

with the EMPIs (Brown and Ulgiati, 1999). These two tools also

are being used to evaluate countries, regions and also small

enterprises. On the other hand, the ESI has been only used to

evaluate the sustainability of countries.

An important strength of the ESI is the presentation of all

this rich information alongside the final values of the index

(Jesinghaus, 2000), but asWelsch (2004)points out, in the ESI

there are concerns over the quality of the data that are

employed. Only single values for each variable are used for

each country and one can question whether this is realistic or

desirable. For some variables, such as membership of an

international agreement to protect the environment, the

values are likely to be both accurate and reasonable at

national level.

The EMPIs demand certain knowledge of emergy concepts

based on open system thermodynamics but are easy to

calculate. The EF is the more simple method because it does

not use sub-indicators (Table 1), but behind the apparent

simplicity of EF there is a complex calculation of land indices

Fig. 5 Correlations between the indices. (a) ESIEmSI; (b) ESIREN; (c) ESIEF; (d) EFEmSI; (e) EFEN.



7/10

for many human and natural activities. The ESI includes the

use of the multiple imputation algorithms to substitute

missing data and other statistical tools and assumptions

that make difficult the reproduction of their data.

Respect to wastes, emissions and recycling (IDER,Table 2),

EF accounts for the area to absorb the carbon dioxide formed

during the combustion of fossil fuels, but without considering

another kind of contamination, at least directly. Thus, the EF

fails when not considering or to underestimate important

factors such as waste emissions and recycling. In the EMPIs,

any flow or stock can be accounted for; however, in practice,

the emergy analysis of national systems does not account

atmospheric emissions and residue stocks.

In relation to the concept of how renewable is a resource

(DEFR, Table 2), only the emergy method makes this differ-

entiation. The EMPIs establish a clear differentiation between

finite power sources (non-renewable) and renewable contin-

uous sources. EF when considering biocapacity includes this

consideration, but not in other calculations. Therefore EF is

not able to explicit the degree of sustainability in the final

indicator. In the case of the ESI, this concept is used in an

indirect form, first, because in its calculations EF is considered

as a variable (maybe with low weight); and second, because

many other variables used in the calculation represent some-

how the use of renewable resources, as the variable hydro-

power and renewable energy production as percentage of total

energy consumption.

It can be said that, all of them obtain an estimative of

sustainability in a general way and in some cases the three

studied indices can supply similar results. But, it is necessary

to be careful when making conclusions and proposals. For

example, in accordance with the report Living Planet Report

2004 countries as Thailand, Peru, Nicaragua and Ecuador

register very good values of EF (Fig. 1a), that is, these regions

posses more area than is necessary to support the lifestyle of

its inhabitants. But this fact is connected with their situations

of poverty and underdevelopment. On the other hand, in

countries such as the United States, Denmark and Italy there

is an area deficit (Fig. 1b); because the lifestyle of its

inhabitants cannot be supported with the local resources. In

practice, the countries with high consumption survive withthe resources of other countries (oil of the Arab countries,

minerals, fuels and natural raw materials from Latin America

and Africa, etc.).

A similarity between EF and EMPIs is the fact that both

accept the hypothesis that the inhabitants of a region are not

isolated, they consume what it is produced plus imported

minus exported. The difference is that the EMPIs consider

imported and exported emergy as variables (Table 1) of the

evaluated system and insert them in some of its indicators;

this is not the case with EF which accounts them in indirect

form as part of the consumption calculation but is not re-

flected in the final index.

The mathematical analysis (Figs. 4 and 5) shows that EF

and EMPIs have similar behavior. One of the main results in

the mathematical analysis is that ESI obtains very good values

for some countries that have proven a big participation in the

pollution of the planet, such as the United States and

Denmark, in contrast to bad values of EF and EMPIs for these

countries (Fig. 4).

The indices with high relationships are EF and EMPIs

(R2=0.3148 for EFEmSI,Fig. 5d;R2=0.5156 for EFREN,Fig. 5e)

and those with worse relationships are ESI and EMPIs

(R2=0.0004 for ESIEmSI, Fig. 5a; R2=0.009 for ESIREN,

Fig. 5b). It can be said, that 32% of EF variation is explained

by EmSI and 52% of the EF variation is explained by REN.

Fig. 5c shows a low correlation of ESI with EF (R2=0.0768),

lesser value in comparison with the value calculated by Esty

et al. (2005) between the ESI and the EF (R2=0.15)and greater in

Table 1Aggregation of the data

Pyramid ofinformation:index

Ecologicalfootprint

(EF)

Environmentalsustainability

index (ESI)

Emergyperformance

indices: EmSI,REN

Sub-indices or

dimensions

Not use 5 dimensions Not use

Indicators Not use 21 indicators EYR and ELR

Variables or

added data

Not use 146 variables U (total

emergy),

Imported

emergy,

Exported

emergy

Organized

data

Consumption

and

biocapacity

Not use N, R, F, G, S, E

Primary data Flows of

materials and

energy of the

system under

analyze.

All available data

including other

indices or

indicators.

Flows of

materials,

energy and

money, that

enter, leave

and/or

recirculate.

N: Non-renewable resources; R: renewable resources; F: imported

fuels and minerals; G: imported goods; S: services in imported

goods and fuels; E: Value of Goods and Service Exports.

Table 2Main characteristics of the methods

Characteristic Methodology

EF ESI EMPIs

Unit of measure Land area Several Emergy

Level of

complexity

Low High Medium

Type Static Static Static and

dynamiteScalea G, N, SN, L,

B and P

N G, N, SN, L,

B and P

IDERb Only emission CO2 All All

EDES c Partial Complete Superficial

DEFRd Underestimation Indirect Direct

a Scales: it represents the geographic level in what the index is

being applied (G: Global; N: national; SN: sub-national; L: place; B:

businesses; P: products).b The method includes in its methodology: wastefulness,

emissions and recycling.c The method considers the effect of the emissions on the

ecosystem.d The method recognizes the difference between fossil and

renewable energy.



8/10


9/10

Brown, M.T., Ulgiati, S., 1999. Emergy evaluation of the biosphereand natural capital. Ambio 28, 468493.

Brown, M.T., Ulgiati, S., 2001. Emergy measures of carryingcapacity to evaluate economic investments. Popul. Environ.22, 471501.

Carson, R., 1962. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,USA.

Chen, B., Chen, G.Q., 2007. Modified ecological footprint

accounting and analysis based on embodied exergy a case study of the Chinese society 19812001. Ecol. Econ.61, 355376.

Cuadra, M., 2005. Assessment of the Natural Resource Base ofNicaragua and Case Studies of Its Use in AgriculturalProduction and Export. Dept. of Ecology and Crop ProductionScience, SLU. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae 25.

Economist, 2002. The Environmental Sustainability Index. 362(8264).

Esty, D., Levy, M., Srebotnjak, T., Sherbinin, A., 2005. 2005Environmental Sustainability Index: Benchmarking NationalEnvironmental Stewardship. New Haven: Yale Center forEnvironmental Law & Policy.

Gilbert, J.A., Feenstra, F.J., 1994. A sustainability indicator for theDutch environmental policy theme Diffusion: cadmium

accumulation in soil. Ecol. Econ. 9, 253265.Haden, A., 2003. Emergy Evaluation of Denmark and Danish

Agriculture Assessing the Limits of Agricultural Systems toPower Society. Centre for Sustainable Agriculture Sciences,Swedish University of Agric. Sciences, Uppsala. EcologicalAgriculture 37.

Hails, C., Loh, J., Goldfinger, S., 2006. Living Planet Report. 2006.World Wide Fund for Nature International (WWF), ZoologicalSociety of London (ZSL), Global Footprint Network, Gland,Switzerland.

IUCN, UNEP, WWF, 1980. The World Conservation Strategy. WWF,Gland, Switzerland.

Jesinghaus, J., 2000. The World Economic Forum's EnvironmentalSustainability Index: strong and weak points Ispra, Italy. JointResearch Centre of the European Commission, Brussels,

Belgium.Jha, R., Bhanu-Murthy, K.V., 2003. A Critique of the Environmental

Sustainability Index. Working Papers in Trade and Develop-ment, the Australian National University. Available athttp://rspas.anu.edu.au/economics/publications.php.

Krotscheck, C., Narodoslawsky, M., 1996. The sustainable processindex, a new dimension in ecological evaluation. Ecol. Eng. 6,241258.

Lagerberg, C., 1999. Emergy Analysis of the Resource Use inGreenhouse Crop Production and of the Resource Basis of theSwedish Economy. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae,Agraria 191.

Lotka, A.J., 1925. Elements of Physical Biology. Williams andWilkins, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Meadows, D.H., et al., 1972. The Limits to growth: A Report for theClub of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Man Kind.Universe Books, New York.

Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M., Deumling, D., 2004. Establishingnational natural capital accounts based on detailed ecologicalfootprint and biological capacity accounts. Land Use Policy 21,231246.

Moser, A., 1996. Ecotechnology in industrial practice: implemen-tation using sustainability indices and case Studies. Ecol. Eng.7, 117138.

Morse, S., 2004. Indices and Indicators in Development.An Unhealthy Obsession with Numbers? Earthscan, London,UK.

Morse, S., Fraser, E.D.G., 2005. Makingdirtynations look clean?The nation state and the problem of selecting and weightingindices as tools for measuring progress towards sustainability.Geoforum 36, 625640.

Morse, S., 2006. Is corruption bad for environmentalsustainability? A cross-national analysis. Ecology and Society11 (1), 22.

Neumayer, E., 2001. The human development index andsustainability a constructive proposal. Ecol. Econ. 39, 101114.

Nilsson, J., Bergstrm, S., 1995. Indicators for the assessment ofecological and economic consequences of municipal policiesfor resource use. Ecol. Econ. 14, 175184.

Odum, H.T., 1986. Emergy in ecosystems. In: Polunin, N. (Ed.),Environmental Monographs and Symposia. John Wiley,NY, pp. 337369.

Odum, H.T., 1996. Environmental accounting, emergy anddecision making. J. Wiley, NY.

Odum, H.T., Odum, E.C., 2000. Modeling for all scales. AcademicPress, New York.

Pearse, W.D., Atkinson, D.G., 1993. Capital theory and themeasurement of sustainable development: an indicator ofweaksustainability. Ecol. Econ. 8, 103108.

Rees, W., 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carryingcapacity: what urban economies leaves out. Environ. Urban.4, 121130.

Rees, W., Wackernagel, M., 1996. Urban ecological footprints: whycities cannot be sustainable and why they are a key to

sustainability. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 16, 223248.Samuel-Johnson, K., Esty, D.C., 2000. Pilot Environmental

Sustainability Index Report. World Economic Forum: AnnualMeeting, Davos, Switzerland.

Scatena, F., Doherty, S., Odum, H., Kharecha, P., 2002. An EmergyEvaluation of PuertoRico and theLuquillo Experimental Forest.Gen. Tech. Report IITF-GTR-9. Ro Piedras, PR: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, International Institute of Tropical Forestry.

Scienceman, D.M., 1987. Energy and Emergy. In: Pillet, G., Murota,T. (Eds.), Environmental Economics: The Analysis of a MajorInterface. Leimgruber, Geneva, pp. 257276.

Schaefer, B.D., Schavey, A., 2002. America's InternationalDevelopment Agenda. Backgrounder. Washington, D.C.:Heritage Foundation. Available athttp://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/BG1546.cfm.

Siche, J.R., Ortega, E., 2007. Emergy-based sustainability of thePeruvian economy. Proceedings of the IV Biennial EmergyAnalysis Conference, Gainesville, Florida, pp. 11.111.12.

Siche, J.R., Agostinho, F., Ortega, E., 2007. Emergy Net PrimaryProduction as basis for calculation of Ecological Footprint.International Ecological Footprint Conference, Cardiff, UK.Available athttp://www.brass.cf.ac.uk/uploads/Ortega_Siche_M54.pdf.

Steinborn, W., Svirezhev, Y., 2000. Entropy as an indicator ofsustainability in agro-ecosystems: North Germany case study.Ecol. Model. 133, 247257.

Stockhammer, E., Hochreiter, H., Obermayr, B., Steiner, K., 1997.The index of sustainable economic welfare (ISEW) as analternative to GDP in measuring economic welfare. The resultsof the Austrian (revised) ISEW calculation 19551992. Ecol.Econ. 21, 1934.

Sutton, P., Costanza, R., 2002. Global estimates of market and non-market values derived from nighttime satellite imagery,land cover,and ecosystem servicevaluation. Ecol.Econ. 41,509527.

The Ecologist, Friends of the Earth, 2001. Keeping score: whichcountries are the most sustainable? The Ecologist 31 (3), 44.

Ulgiati, S., Brown, M.T., 1998. Monitoring patterns of sustainabilityin natural and man-made ecosystems. Ecol. Model. 108, 2336.

UNDP, 2005. Human Development Report 2005. Washington, USA.Available athttp://hdr.undp.org.

United Nations, 1992. Conference on Environment& Development.Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Available athttp://www.sidsnet.org/docshare/other/Agenda21_UNCED.pdf.

Valyi, R., Ortega, E., 2004. Emergy simulator, an open sourcesimulation platform dedicated to systems ecology and emergystudies. In: Ortega, E., Ulgiati, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the IV

http://rspas.anu.edu.au/economics/publications.phphttp://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/BG1546.cfmhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/BG1546.cfmhttp://www.brass.cf.ac.uk/uploads/Ortega_Siche_M54.pdfhttp://www.brass.cf.ac.uk/uploads/Ortega_Siche_M54.pdfhttp://hdr.undp.org/http://www.sidsnet.org/docshare/other/Agenda21_UNCED.pdfhttp://www.sidsnet.org/docshare/other/Agenda21_UNCED.pdfhttp://www.sidsnet.org/docshare/other/Agenda21_UNCED.pdfhttp://www.sidsnet.org/docshare/other/Agenda21_UNCED.pdfhttp://hdr.undp.org/http://www.brass.cf.ac.uk/uploads/Ortega_Siche_M54.pdfhttp://www.brass.cf.ac.uk/uploads/Ortega_Siche_M54.pdfhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/BG1546.cfmhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/BG1546.cfmhttp://rspas.anu.edu.au/economics/publications.php


10/10

International Biennial Workshop Advances in Energy Studies.Brazil, pp. 349360.

Venetoulis, J., Talberth, J., in press. Refining the EcologicalFootprint. Environment, Development, and Sustainability.doi:10.1007/s10668-006-9074-z.

Wackernagel, M., Rees, W., 1996. Our Ecological Footprint:Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers,Gabriola Island, BC, and Philadelphia.

Wackernagel, M., Rees, W.E., 1997. Perceptual and structuralbarriers to investing in natural capital: economics from anecological footprint perspective. Ecol. Econ. 20, 324.

Welsch, H., 2004. Corruption, growth, and the environment: across-country analysis. Environment and DevelopmentEconomics 9, 663693.

Wiedmann,T., Minx, J., Barret, J.,Wackernagel, M., 2006. Allocatingecological footprints to final consumption categories withinputoutput analysis. Ecol. Econ. 56, 2848.

World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. OurCommon Future. Oxford University Press.

WWF The Global Conservation Organization, 2005. Humanity'sEcological Footprint. Available athttp://www.panda.org/news_facts/publications/living_planet_report/footprint/.

Zhao, S., Li, Z., Li, W., 2005. A modified method of ecologicalfootprint calculation and its application. Ecol. Model. 185,6575.

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1007/s10668-9074-http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1007/s10668-9074-http://www.panda.org/news_facts/publications/living_planet_report/footprint/http://www.panda.org/news_facts/publications/living_planet_report/footprint/http://www.panda.org/news_facts/publications/living_planet_report/footprint/http://www.panda.org/news_facts/publications/living_planet_report/footprint/http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1007/s10668-9074-http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1007/s10668-9074-

Ecological Economics Volume 66 Issue 4 2008 [Doi 10.1016%2Fj.ecolecon.2007.10.023] J.R. Siche; F....

Documents

Transcript of Ecological Economics Volume 66 Issue 4 2008 [Doi 10.1016%2Fj.ecolecon.2007.10.023] J.R. Siche; F....