Displaying 1 - 3 of 3
The question of how to measure sustainability remains vexing. We approach the problem by noting that most theories of environmental impact assume that exploitation of the environment provides benefits to human well-being. However, this assumption has not been subject to much empirical discipline. We propose a model of Efficient Well-Being (EWEB) inspired by the Stochastic Frontier Production Models commonly used in economics. EWEB assesses a nation-state's efficiency in enhancing human well-being through the use of economic, natural and human resources. This approach shifts attention from the elusive question of whether a nation is sustainable to the more tractable question of how efficient a nation is in producing human well-being. We model human well-being as a function of physical, natural and human capital. In a preliminary test of this approach here we operationalize human well-being as life expectancy, flows of physical capital as gross domestic product per capita, flows of natural capital as the ecological footprint, and human capital as education. Using data from 135 nations, we find that controlling for physical and human capital, exploitation of the environment has no net effect on well-being. This suggests that improvements in well-being may be attainable without adverse effects on the environment. We also find that many nations could substantially improve their efficiency in using human and natural resources to generate well-being.
Despite the pivotal role human factors (anthropogenic drivers) are presumed to play in global environmental change, substantial uncertainties and contradictory conclusions about them continue. We attempt to further discipline the human factors issue by estimating the effects of two anthropogenic drivers, population and affluence, on a wide variety of global environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions, emissions of ozone depleting substances, and the ecological footprint. Population proportionately increases all types of impacts examined. Affluence typically increases impacts, but the specific effect depends on the type of impact. These findings refocus attention on population and material affluence as principal threats to sustainability and challenge predictions of an ameliorating effect of rising affluence on impacts.
This article describes and presents initial empirical tests of a theory that links values, beliefs, attitudes, and behavior within a preference construction framework that emphasizes the activation of personal environmental norms. Environmental concern is related to egoistic, social-altruistic, and biospheric value orientations and also to beliefs about the consequences of environmental changes for valued objects. Two studies generally support the hypothesized relationships and demonstrate links to the broader theory of values. However, the biospheric value orientation postulated in the theoretical literature on environmentalism does not differentiate from social-altruism in a general population sample. Results are discussed in terms of value change, the role of social structural factors (including gender) in environmentalism, theories of risk perception, and the mobilization strategies of social movements, including environmental justice movements.