The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Weak Versus Strong Sustainability – Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms
Abstract
In the debate about sustainable development, the key question is whether natural capital can be substituted by man-made capital. Proponents of weak sustainability maintain that man-made and natural capital are substitutable in the long term whilst followers of strong sustainability believe they are not. This insightful book assesses whether science can unambiguously endorse either paradigm and explores the extent to which, and at what cost, certain forms of natural capital should be preserved. The book explores the limits of the two opposing paradigms of sustainability in an accessible and illuminating way. The author begins by examining the availability of natural resources for the production of consumption goods and the environmental consequences of economic growth. He also identifies the critical forms of natural capital in need of preservation given risk, uncertainty and ignorance about the future, and addresses the important topic of sustainability indicators. In doing so, he analyses indicators of weak sustainability such as Genuine Savings and the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare, and indicators of strong sustainability including ecological footprints, material flows, sustainability gaps and other measures which combine the setting of environmental standards with monetary valuation. For the most part, requiring only a basic knowledge and understanding of economics, this accessible book will ensure the important theoretical and empirical debates surrounding sustainable development are available for a wide audience including undergraduate and postgraduate students of environmental and ecological economics. It will also be of interest to researchers and policymakers involved in the sustainable management of environmental resources.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Environment, economy and society: fitting them together into sustainable development
Giddings, B., Hopwood, B., & O'Brien, G. (2002) · Sustainable Development · doi:10.1002/sd.199 · Cited by 1,487
Principles for a sustainable circular economy
Velenturf, A. P. M., & Purnell, P. (2021) · Sustainable Production and Consumption · doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.018 · Cited by 1,350
Milne, M. J., & Gray, R. (2013) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1543-8 · Cited by 1,240
Conceptualising sustainability assessment
Pope, J., Annandale, D., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2004) · Environmental Impact Assessment Review · doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2004.03.001 · Cited by 1,092
Green, circular, bio economy: a comparative analysis of sustainability avenues
D'Amato, D., Droste, N., Allen, B., Kettunen, M., Lähtinen, K., Korhonen, J., Leskinen, P., Matthies, B. D., & Toppinen, A. (2017) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.053 · Cited by 1,077
Metadata
- Venue
- International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2013-09-13
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 4
- ISSN
- 1467-6370 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1516789877
- Cited by
- 1,135
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 271.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Weak Versus Strong Sustainability – Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/ijshe.2013.24914daa.009
- The paper
- Weak Versus Strong Sustainability – Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms. (2013). International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe.2013.24914daa.009
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.