Environmental Ethics, Sustainability and Decisions: Literature Problems and Suggested Solutions

279 Pages·2023·4.68 MB·English

by  Fabio Zagonari

Fabio Zagonari
Environmental
Ethics,
Sustainability
and Decisions
Literature Problems and Suggested
Solutions
Environmental Ethics, Sustainability and Decisions
Fabio Zagonari
Environmental Ethics,
Sustainability and Decisions
Literature Problems and Suggested Solutions
Fabio Zagonari
University of Bologna
Rimini, Italy
ISBN 978-3-031-21181-2 ISBN 978-3-031-21182-9 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21182-9
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To Elena for her clever and tireless support.
Foreword
This book provides a summary of the main concepts involved in environmental
ethics, sustainability and the related decisions. It can be read to discover the main
cases and references for these three concepts, or as a consistent sequence of envi-
ronmental ethics, sustainability and decisions that reveals the tight linkages among
these three concepts. In particular, I focus on feasibility (whether realistic param-
eter values exist that would let a decision achieve its goal) rather than on reliability
(whether a tight statistical relationship exists between a decision and its goal). More-
over, I refer to real policies (taxes, standards, subsidies, permits, national laws and
regulations, bilateral and multilateral agreements) and projects (e.g., case studies)
rather than to experimental or hypothetical decisions. Finally, I use a quantitative
approach that analytically formalizes ethics, sustainability and the related decisions
and demonstrates the approach using numerical exercises. The approach can be
implemented either at an individual level or a country level if we assume rationality
(a consistent set of informed decisions) within a normative analysis (which decision
should be taken) rather than within a positive analysis (which decision has been
taken). Since environmental sustainability implies seeking a compromise between
economic and ecological criteria (environmental sustainability is an opportunity cost)
based on specified ethical principles, the suggested decisions will fall along a spec-
trum between a more economic and a more ecological decision. In particular, I
identify the main approaches applied to sustainable decisions (alternative objectives
and contexts for policies, alternative methodologies and contexts for projects) by
referring to more than 200 theoretical papers within the English-language sustain-
ability literature from the late 1980s to 2020 in the Scopus database. In addition, I
highlight the main mistakes (missed objectives) and concerns (inadequate policies
and methodologies) related to the application of these policies and methodologies,
by performing statistical analyses of more than 800 empirical studies. Moreover, I
suggest several approaches to avoid: these include applying marginal and monetary
assessments for social and ecological interdependencies; disregarding equity in the
case of environmental interactions; disregarding equity in the case of economic inef-
ficiency; and using monetary or non-monetary flow assessments to take decisions
vii
viii Foreword
about environmental stocks. Finally, I suggest what to do in principle: set priori-
ties, constraints, assumptions, objectives, scales, metrics and indicators, then choose
policy instruments or decision-making tools to measure and implement sustainability.
I also suggest what to do in practice: in the context of inefficiency or interactions
for policies, promote equity; in the context of environmental stocks for projects,
choose dynamic models. This analysis is based on my 25 English empirical arti-
cles in sustainability science. Thus, this book supports efforts to achieve consistency
between the chosen ethics, the adopted paradigm of sustainability, and the suggested
decisions; these include market-based policies and agreements in cost-benefit anal-
ysis for weak sustainability and command-and-control policies and agreements in
multi-criteria analysis for strong sustainability. I also consider the transparency of
the chosen ethics behind the adopted paradigm of sustainability and the suggested
decisions, such as substitution between forms of capital for weak sustainability or
efforts to maintain the environmental status quo for strong sustainability.
Fabio Zagonari
University of Bologna
Bologna, Italy
Preface
Environmental sustainability is an ethical issue (Zagonari, 20201 ), and secular and
religious ethics offer complementary strategies to achieve sustainability in the short
and long run, respectively (Zagonari, 20212 ).
To reduce the complexity of the analysis, in Chap. 2 of this book, I reasonably
exclude religious ethics and one’s perceived duty to nature, and instead highlight
two main environmental ethics based on one’s duty to future generations. First, the
goal will be to maximize total welfare from a representative individual perspec-
tive; second, the goal will be to minimize resource inequality from a per-capita
individual perspective. Tables 2.1 and 2.2 summarize the main teleological environ-
mental ethics (i.e., actions have a goal) and deontological environmental ethics (i.e.,
actions are performed for their own sake rather than based on their consequences),
respectively. The world population size is relevant for both the specified ethical
approaches, although its relative importance for the total welfare maximization and
the resource inequality minimization depends on the share of Earth resources among
developed vs. developing countries.
Chapter 3 identifies two main sustainability paradigms that lie on the spectrum
between a pure ecological model and a pure economic model, together with inter-
mediate paradigms based on the maximization of social-ecological continuity or the
minimization of social-ecological impacts (Table 3.1). This spectrum ranges from
weak sustainability as a pure economic model subject to considerations of intergen-
erational equity, and strong sustainability as a pure ecological model subject to a
resilient reference status. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 depict ecological and social equilibria,
respectively. Metrics are crucial for both sustainability paradigms, although indica-
tors consistent with either weak or strong sustainability paradigms should include
1 Zagonari, F. (2020) Environmental sustainability is not worth pursuing unless it is achieved for
ethical reasons, Nature—Palgrave Communications 6: Art. No. 108.
2 Zagonari, F. (2021) Religious and secular ethics offer complementary strategies to achieve envi-
ronmental sustainability, Nature—Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 8: Art. No.
124.
ix
x Preface
both biophysical and socioeconomic dimensions within an explicit ethical frame-
work to quantify progress towards environmental sustainability as an opportunity
cost.
For weak sustainability, the objective is assumed to be efficiency; for strong
sustainability, the objective is assumed to be equity.
In Chap. 4, I realistically exclude whether sustainability is achieved in terms
of resource use and pollution production for the current status of weak or strong
sustainability paradigms. Instead, I discuss policies and projects that are intended to
achieve future sustainability based on the efficiency and equity objectives.
For the relationship between efficiency and policies, I rely on the simplest models
to facilitate understanding by students and show that policies (taxes, standards, subsi-
dies, permits for pollution; taxes, conservation areas, subsidies, harvest rights for
resources) are not equivalent if some assumptions behind the pure economic model
do not hold. For example, an economic general equilibrium model may not apply
due to information asymmetry, uncertainty and imperfect competition. Disregarding
equity in these situations is the first mistake. Similarly, if either stocks (short-run
affects long-run) or interactions (some humans depend on other humans and vice
versa) or both are relevant, shadow prices (social economic values of the environ-
ment) differ from marginal utility, both for pollution and for resources. Disregarding
equity in these situations is the second mistake. Tables 4.1 and 4.3 summarize the
main references to complicated models for pollution and resources (renewable or
non-renewable), respectively.
For the relationship between equity and policies, I rely on the simplest models
to help students understand, and show that alternative measures of inequality (Gini,
Theil, and Shannon indexes) can be applied to national and international policies and
agreements for individuals or groups. Similarly, alternative equity criteria (Kalai-
Smorodinsky, Nash bargaining, Rawls and Harsanyi) can be applied to international
agreements for individual countries or groups of countries. Tables 4.6 and 4.7 summa-
rize the main references to the real impacts of policies and agreements for individuals
and countries, respectively.
For the relationship between efficiency and projects, I discuss how cost-benefit
analysis can properly deal with complicated contexts (time, space, uncertainty, link-
ages, inequalities) as well as to what extent this methodology can cope with its
weaknesses (monetary assessment of the social and environmental features). I show
that cost-benefit analysis is suitable for considering market distortions, but is inad-
equate for assessing environmental issues if stocks or interactions are crucial; the
only exceptions are when opportunity costs and preventive costs within production
approaches are applied to dynamic models with sensitivity analyses on monetary
assessments.
In other words, a short-run marginal evaluation based on real or simulated market
equilibrium prices is misleading: applying some production approaches (i.e., dose
responses, replacement costs) or utility approaches (hedonic prices, travel costs,
contingent valuation, choice experiments) in these situations is a third mistake.
For the relationship between equity and projects, I discuss how multi-criteria anal-
ysis can properly deal with complicated contexts (time, space, uncertainty, linkages,
Preface xi
inequalities) as well as to what extent this methodology can cope with its weaknesses
(assessment of relative weights). I show that multi-criteria analysis is inadequate for
assessing environmental issues if stocks are crucial, unless subjective methods (the
analytical hierarchy process, revised Simos’ procedure, linear regression, factor anal-
ysis) are applied to dynamic models with sensitivity analyses for the relative weights
of economic, social and environmental factors.
In other words, the relative weights based on the short-run perceptions could be
misleading: improper use of subjective methods for assessment of relative weights
within multi-criteria analysis in these situations is a fourth mistake. Participation
by the people who will be affected by policy decisions is high in the context of
efficiency and policies, but low in the context of equity and policies or agreements,
and is medium in projects with average decisions (decisions by a representative
individual) within cost-benefit analysis to depict weak sustainability and majority
decisions (decisions by a majority of stakeholders) within multi-criteria analysis to
depict strong sustainability.
Note that the improper application of methodologies in complicated contexts
(time, space, uncertainty, linkages, inequalities) within cost-benefit analysis or multi-
criteria analysis are concerns because they can lead to incorrect decisions regardless
of the efficiency or the equity objectives.
By referring to the four mistakes highlighted in Chap. 4, within an education
outlook, in Chap. 5, within a research outlook, I identified the 15 most important jour-
nals that empirically focus on sustainability and I sorted out these journals (with only
a few exceptions, the estimated dummy variables used to represent the frequency of
these mistakes with 1 = yes and 0 = no over the period from 1985 to 2020 confirmed
the estimated variables used to represent the dynamics of these mistakes as changes
over time in their frequency over time) into environmental economics journals (e.g.,
Environmental and Resource Economics, Journal of Environmental Management,
Environment, Development and Sustainability, Environmental Science and Policy,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Climate Policy), ecological economics journals (e.g.,
Ecological Economics, Environmental Management, Land Use Policy) and other
sustainability journals (Water Resources Management, Environmental Modelling
and Assessment, Science of the Total Environment, Sustainability, Water, Environ-
mental Policy) by performing panel data probit estimations on a representative dataset
of 835 empirical articles.
Remarkably, combining these overall results with the specific results obtained
from Environmental and Resource Economics (which is concerned with informa-
tion asymmetry, uncertainty, and imperfect competition, but does not apply multi-
criteria analysis), the specific results obtained from Ecological Economics (which is
not concerned with assumptions behind the general equilibrium model but applies
multi-criteria analysis), together with the specific results obtained from both Envi-
ronmental and Resource Economics and Ecological Economics (they both make
the mistakes of disregarding equity if either stocks or interactions or both are rele-
vant; they both make the mistakes of inappropriately applying production or utility
approaches in short-run marginal evaluations) confirms the insights suggested in