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 eva...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Environmental & resource economics 2007-09, Vol.38 (1), p.135-153
Main Authors: Grazi, Fabio, van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M, Rietveld, Piet
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Agglomeration effects
Consumers
Costs
Ecological analysis
Ecological footprint
Economic activity
Economics
Environmental Sciences
Externalities
Externality
F12
F18
Geography
International
Land use
Negative externalities
Population density
Q56
Q57
R12
Regional trade
Regions
Social welfare
Spatial analysis
Spatial configurations
Studies
Sustainable development
Trade advantages
Transport
Urban agglomeration
Welfare economics
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c564t-e7c9dc796349abd7d2ca43d9512da277f72bd1b50a759c77798027f21062c8f13
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c564t-e7c9dc796349abd7d2ca43d9512da277f72bd1b50a759c77798027f21062c8f13
container_end_page 153
container_issue 1
container_start_page 135
container_title Environmental & resource economics
container_volume 38
creator Grazi, Fabio
van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M
Rietveld, Piet
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10640-006-9067-2
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_00783697v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>20303804</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c564t-e7c9dc796349abd7d2ca43d9512da277f72bd1b50a759c77798027f21062c8f13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1v1DAQhiMEEkvhB3Ai4oBUicDYTuyYW1UBBa3EofRszTqT1MWJg51d6L_HUVAPXDjMjDR63lfzURQvGbxjAOp9YiBrqABkpUGqij8qdqxRomIN8MfFDjSvK1lLeFo8S-kOALSq5a7or2dcHPryF_keI5VkwxRGZ1N5opiOaW34MDibmT6EZY5uWj6UY-jIu2kocRh8GClmlzC9Len3QnFC7xZHqcSpK5eIHT0vnvToE734W8-Km08fv19eVftvn79cXuwr28h6qUhZ3Vmlpag1HjrVcYu16HTDeIdcqV7xQ8cODaBqtFVK6Ra46nlentu2Z-KsON98b9GbPOqI8d4EdObqYm_WXr5VK6RWp5V9s7FzDD-PlBYzumTJe5woHJMRslUZbv8LchAgWqgz-Pof8C4c12tkhkObD97yDLENsjGkFKl_mJOBWX9ptl_mUaVZf2lWzddNE2km-yD4gTNNkXLnZASKNqf7HHw1EXlpgSzHvFbRGNYIc7uM2ezVZtZjMDhEl8zNNQcmskxzJbT4A6Sds88</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>220874682</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Spatial welfare economics versus ecological footprint: modeling agglomeration, externalities and trade</title><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>EBSCOhost Econlit with Full Text</source><source>ABI/INFORM Global</source><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>Grazi, Fabio ; van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M ; Rietveld, Piet</creator><creatorcontrib>Grazi, Fabio ; van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M ; Rietveld, Piet</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0924-6460</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-1502</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10640-006-9067-2</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Dordrecht : Kluwer Academic Publishers</publisher><subject>Agglomeration effects ; Consumers ; Costs ; Ecological analysis ; Ecological footprint ; Economic activity ; Economics ; Environmental Sciences ; Externalities ; Externality ; F12 ; F18 ; Geography ; International ; Land use ; Negative externalities ; Population density ; Q56 ; Q57 ; R12 ; Regional trade ; Regions ; Social welfare ; Spatial analysis ; Spatial configurations ; Studies ; Sustainable development ; Trade advantages ; Transport ; Urban agglomeration ; Welfare economics</subject><ispartof>Environmental &amp; resource economics, 2007-09, Vol.38 (1), p.135-153</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c564t-e7c9dc796349abd7d2ca43d9512da277f72bd1b50a759c77798027f21062c8f13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c564t-e7c9dc796349abd7d2ca43d9512da277f72bd1b50a759c77798027f21062c8f13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/220874682/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/220874682?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,11669,12828,27903,27904,33202,33203,36039,36040,44342,74641</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://econpapers.repec.org/article/kapenreec/v_3a38_3ay_3a2007_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a135-153.htm$$DView record in RePEc$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://enpc.hal.science/hal-00783697$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Grazi, Fabio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rietveld, Piet</creatorcontrib><title>Spatial welfare economics versus ecological footprint: modeling agglomeration, externalities and trade</title><title>Environmental &amp; resource economics</title><description>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.</description><subject>Agglomeration effects</subject><subject>Consumers</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Ecological analysis</subject><subject>Ecological footprint</subject><subject>Economic activity</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Environmental Sciences</subject><subject>Externalities</subject><subject>Externality</subject><subject>F12</subject><subject>F18</subject><subject>Geography</subject><subject>International</subject><subject>Land use</subject><subject>Negative externalities</subject><subject>Population density</subject><subject>Q56</subject><subject>Q57</subject><subject>R12</subject><subject>Regional trade</subject><subject>Regions</subject><subject>Social welfare</subject><subject>Spatial analysis</subject><subject>Spatial configurations</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Sustainable development</subject><subject>Trade advantages</subject><subject>Transport</subject><subject>Urban agglomeration</subject><subject>Welfare economics</subject><issn>0924-6460</issn><issn>1573-1502</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU1v1DAQhiMEEkvhB3Ai4oBUicDYTuyYW1UBBa3EofRszTqT1MWJg51d6L_HUVAPXDjMjDR63lfzURQvGbxjAOp9YiBrqABkpUGqij8qdqxRomIN8MfFDjSvK1lLeFo8S-kOALSq5a7or2dcHPryF_keI5VkwxRGZ1N5opiOaW34MDibmT6EZY5uWj6UY-jIu2kocRh8GClmlzC9Len3QnFC7xZHqcSpK5eIHT0vnvToE734W8-Km08fv19eVftvn79cXuwr28h6qUhZ3Vmlpag1HjrVcYu16HTDeIdcqV7xQ8cODaBqtFVK6Ra46nlentu2Z-KsON98b9GbPOqI8d4EdObqYm_WXr5VK6RWp5V9s7FzDD-PlBYzumTJe5woHJMRslUZbv8LchAgWqgz-Pof8C4c12tkhkObD97yDLENsjGkFKl_mJOBWX9ptl_mUaVZf2lWzddNE2km-yD4gTNNkXLnZASKNqf7HHw1EXlpgSzHvFbRGNYIc7uM2ezVZtZjMDhEl8zNNQcmskxzJbT4A6Sds88</recordid><startdate>20070901</startdate><enddate>20070901</enddate><creator>Grazi, Fabio</creator><creator>van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M</creator><creator>Rietveld, Piet</creator><general>Dordrecht : Kluwer Academic Publishers</general><general>European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><general>Springer</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>DKI</scope><scope>X2L</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>1XC</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20070901</creationdate><title>Spatial welfare economics versus ecological footprint: modeling agglomeration, externalities and trade</title><author>Grazi, Fabio ; van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M ; Rietveld, Piet</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c564t-e7c9dc796349abd7d2ca43d9512da277f72bd1b50a759c77798027f21062c8f13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Agglomeration effects</topic><topic>Consumers</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Ecological analysis</topic><topic>Ecological footprint</topic><topic>Economic activity</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Environmental Sciences</topic><topic>Externalities</topic><topic>Externality</topic><topic>F12</topic><topic>F18</topic><topic>Geography</topic><topic>International</topic><topic>Land use</topic><topic>Negative externalities</topic><topic>Population density</topic><topic>Q56</topic><topic>Q57</topic><topic>R12</topic><topic>Regional trade</topic><topic>Regions</topic><topic>Social welfare</topic><topic>Spatial analysis</topic><topic>Spatial configurations</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Sustainable development</topic><topic>Trade advantages</topic><topic>Transport</topic><topic>Urban agglomeration</topic><topic>Welfare economics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Grazi, Fabio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rietveld, Piet</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>RePEc IDEAS</collection><collection>RePEc</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Global News &amp; ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><jtitle>Environmental &amp; resource economics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Grazi, Fabio</au><au>van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M</au><au>Rietveld, Piet</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Spatial welfare economics versus ecological footprint: modeling agglomeration, externalities and trade</atitle><jtitle>Environmental &amp; resource economics</jtitle><date>2007-09-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>135</spage><epage>153</epage><pages>135-153</pages><issn>0924-6460</issn><eissn>1573-1502</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Dordrecht : Kluwer Academic Publishers</pub><doi>10.1007/s10640-006-9067-2</doi><tpages>19</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0924-6460
ispartof Environmental & resource economics, 2007-09, Vol.38 (1), p.135-153
issn 0924-6460
1573-1502
language eng
recordid cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_00783697v1
source International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); EBSCOhost Econlit with Full Text; ABI/INFORM Global; Springer Nature
subjects Agglomeration effects
Consumers
Costs
Ecological analysis
Ecological footprint
Economic activity
Economics
Environmental Sciences
Externalities
Externality
F12
F18
Geography
International
Land use
Negative externalities
Population density
Q56
Q57
R12
Regional trade
Regions
Social welfare
Spatial analysis
Spatial configurations
Studies
Sustainable development
Trade advantages
Transport
Urban agglomeration
Welfare economics
title Spatial welfare economics versus ecological footprint: modeling agglomeration, externalities and trade
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T23%3A59%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Spatial%20welfare%20economics%20versus%20ecological%20footprint:%20modeling%20agglomeration,%20externalities%20and%20trade&rft.jtitle=Environmental%20&%20resource%20economics&rft.au=Grazi,%20Fabio&rft.date=2007-09-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=135&rft.epage=153&rft.pages=135-153&rft.issn=0924-6460&rft.eissn=1573-1502&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10640-006-9067-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_hal_p%3E20303804%3C/proquest_hal_p%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c564t-e7c9dc796349abd7d2ca43d9512da277f72bd1b50a759c77798027f21062c8f13%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=220874682&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true