Degree | Type | Year | Semester |
---|---|---|---|
4313784 Interdisciplinary Studies in Environmental, Economic and Social Sustainability | OT | 0 | 1 |
No aplica.
The course will introduce the field of ecological economics, paying attention to theoretical, methodological and empirical issues. Classic themes, important debates and recent research foci will receive attention. Valuation methods that cut across ecological and environmental economics will also be explored.
At the end of the course the student is expected to have a good understanding of:
Sub-Module 1: Foundations (JvdB)
1. Principles of ecological economics and comparison with environmental economics
2. Welfare, markets, externalities and public goods
3. Environmental policy instruments
Sub-Module 2: Institutional economics and environmental applications (SV)
7. Introduction institutional economics
8. Basics of game theory and coordination problems
9. Property rights and the theory of the commons
10. Environmental governance: Markets, governments and communities
Sub-Module 3: Methods for integrated assessment (JR)
11 Social multi-criteria evaluation – SMCE
12 SMCE in practice
13 Analysis of the metabolism of societies
14 Case studies of metabolism of societies
15 Environmental valuation and ecosystem services
Sub-Module 4: From steady-state economics to degrowth (JR)
16. Ecological macroeconomics and system dynamics
17. Political ecological economics
18. Alternative economic practices
Sub-Module 5: Policy & Innovation (SD)
19. Theories and methods of environmental valuation
20. Economics of climate policy
21. The environment-versus-growth debate
Lecturers will present a given topic and students will be expected to prepare for the class reading in advance the compulsory readings suggested in the bibliography. Lectures will involve time for questions and answers and for discussion; they might also involve role-play exercises and video-material. In class participation and essays preparation will involve group and individual work, respectively.
Annotation: Within the schedule set by the centre or degree programme, 15 minutes of one class will be reserved for students to evaluate their lecturers and their courses or modules through questionnaires.
Title | Hours | ECTS | Learning Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|
Type: Directed | |||
In-class activities and discussion in class | 8 | 0.32 | 3, 6, 2, 4, 9 |
Lectures | 54 | 2.16 | 6, 4 |
Type: Autonomous | |||
Reading articles, books and studying for each of the given lectures and the final exam | 100 | 4 | 7, 1, 5, 6, 4, 9 |
Three short essays which involve reading the necessary literature to write the essays | 60 | 2.4 | 8, 6, 4, 9 |
Students will be assessed on the basis of a closed-book exam and several essays:
An exam contributes to 50% of the final mark. It will cover aspects of each module of the course. Students will have limited space to answer each of these questions and will have to show that they have understood and mastered key concepts and ideas introduced during the course. The contributing
teachers will evaluate the exam together.
Essays
1) A 500-words personal statement corresponding to the last lecture of the course, focused on the
environment-versus-growth debate, and to be submitted in class to Jeroen van den Bergh, contributing to 10% of the final mark.
2) A 1000-words argumentative essay discussing critically a statement related to the sessions 7-10, to be submitted by email to Sergio Villamayor, and contributing to 20% of the final mark; the question (the statement to be discussed will be formulated in session 10)
3) A 1000-words argumentative essay discussing critically The European Green Deal strategy from a biophysical perspective, to be submitted by email to Jesús Ramos, and contributing to 20% of the final mark.
Title | Weighting | Hours | ECTS | Learning Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|
3 short essays | 50% | 0 | 0 | 8, 3, 7, 5, 6, 2, 4, 9 |
Final Exam | 50% | 3 | 0.12 | 8, 3, 7, 1, 5, 6, 2, 4, 9 |
The literature marked with (*) is obligatory and must be read prior to each lecture since it will be the basis for the respective class. The other literature mentioned is voluntary background reading but students are encouraged to read as much as they can.
1. Principles of ecological economics and comparison with environmental economics
(*) van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. 2000. Ecological Economics: Themes, Approaches, and Differences with
Environmental Economics. Regional Environmental Change, 3(1): 13-23.
Martinez-Alier, J., Roca Jusmet, J. 2000. Economía Ecológica y Política Ambiental. PNUMA y Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Røpke, I. 2005. Trends in the development of ecological economics from the late 1980s to the early 2000s. Ecological Economics, 55: 262- 290.
2. Welfare, markets, externalities and public goods
(*) Kahn, J.R. 2004. The Economic Approach to Environmental and Natural Resources. 3rd edition,
Thomson/South-Western, Fort Worth, Mason, Ohio. ch. 2; & ch. 4, section "What is Value".
(*) Verhoef, E.T. 1999. Externalities. Chapter 13 in: J.C. J.M. van den Bergh (ed.). Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 197-214.
3. Theories and methods of environmental valuation
(*) Perman et al., Valuing the Environment, Chapter 4 in Natural Resource and Environmental Economics
Hanley, N., Spash, C.L. 1993. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Edward Elgar Publishers, Aldershot.
Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, J., O'Neill, J. 1998. Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecological Economics,26: 277-286.
4. Introduction institutional economics
(*) Paavola, J., and W. N. Adger (2005), Institutional ecological economics, Ecological Economics, 53(3), 353-368.
(*) Vatn, A., (2007), 1. Institutions the web of human life, in Vatn, A. Institutions and the Environment: Edward Elgar Publishing (pp. 1-20)
Hodgson, G. M. (1998), The Approach of Institutional Economics, Journal of Economic Literature, 36(1), 166-192.
Ostrom, E. (1998), A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action: Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 1997, The American Political Science Review, 92(1), 1-22.
Hall, P. A., and R. C. R. Taylor (1996), Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms*, Political Studies, 44(5), 936-957.
5. Basics of game theory and coordination problems
(*) Bowles, S., (2009), Social interactions and institutional design, in Bowles, S., Microeconomics: behavior, institutions, and evolution: Princeton University Press (pp. 23-56).
Varian, H. R., and J. Repcheck, (2010), Chapter 28, in Varian, H.R., and J. Repcheck, Intermediate
microeconomics: a modern approach, (Vol. 6): WW Norton & Company New York, NY (pp. 505-519)
Varian, H. R., and J. Repcheck, (2010), Chapter 29, in Varian, H.R., and J. Repcheck, Intermediate
microeconomics: a modern approach, (Vol. 6): WW Norton & Company New York, NY (pp. 505-519)
6. Property rights and the theory of the commons
(*) Cole, D. H., G. Epstein,and M. D. McGinnis (2014), Digging deeperinto Hardin's pasture: the complex institutional structure of 'the tragedy of the commons', Journal of Institutional Economics, 10(3), 353-369.
(*) Bromley, D. W., & Hodge, I. (1990). Private property rights and presumptive policy entitlements: reconsidering the premises of rural policy. European Review of agricultural economics, 17(2), 197-214.
Schlager, E., and E. Ostrom (1992), Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis, Land Economics, 68(3), 249-262.
7. Environmental governance: Markets, governments and communities
(*) Vatn, A. (2010), An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services, Ecological Economics, 69 (6), 1245-1252.
(*) Ostrom, E. (2010), Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change, Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 550-557.
Acheson, J. M. (2006), Institutional Failure in Resource Management, Annual Review of Anthropology, 35, 117-134.
Lemos, M. C., and A. Agrawal (2006), Environmental governance, Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 31, 297-325.
Muradian, R. (2013), Payments for ecosystem services as incentives for collective action, Society & Natural Resources, 26(10), 1155-1169.
8. Social multi-criteria evaluation – SMCE
(*) Cattaneo, C., and Baulcomb, C. (2016): Social Multi-Criteria Analysis. Tutorial Booklet. Will be uploaded to the platform.
(*) Munda, G. (2004): “Social multi-criteria evaluation: methodological foundations and operational consequences”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol 158(3): Pp 662-677.
Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., O'Neill, J. (1998): “Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics”, Ecological Economics, 26 (3): 277-286
Munda, G. (2006): “Social multi-criteria evaluation for urban sustainability policies”, Land Use Policy, 23 (1): 86-94.
9. SMCE in practice
(*) Gamboa, G. (2006): “Social multi-criteria evaluation of different development scenarios of the Aysén region, Chile”, Ecological Economics, 59(1): 157-170.
Walter, M., Latorre Tomás, S., Munda, G., Larrea, C. (2016): “A social-multicriteria evaluation approach to assess extractive and non-extractive scenarios in Ecuador: Intag case study”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 57: 444-458.
Zepharovich, E., Graziano Ceddia, M., Rist, S. (2021): “Social multi-criteria evaluation of land-use scenarios in the Chaco Salteño: Complementing the three pillar sustainability approach with environmental justice”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 101: 105171.
10. Analysis of the metabolism of societies
(*) Giampietro, M., Mayumi, K., Ramos-Martin, J. (2009): “Multi-scale integrated analysis of societal and ecosystem metabolism (MuSIASEM): Theoretical concepts and basic rationale”, Energy 34(3): 313-322.
(*) Gerber, J.F. and Scheidel, A. (2017): “In search of substantive economics: comparing today's two major socio-metabolic approaches to the Economy - MEFA and MuSIASEM”, Ecological Economics, 144: 186-194
Haberl, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Krausmann, F., Weisz, H., Winiwarter, V. (2004): “Progress towards sustainability? What the conceptual framework of material and energy flow accounting (MEFA) can offer”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 21 (3): 199-213.
11. Case studies of metabolism of societies
(*) Pérez-Sánchez, L., Giampietro, M., Velasco-Fernández, R., Ripa, M. (2019): “Characterizing the metabolic pattern of urban systems using MuSIASEM: The case of Barcelona”, Energy Policy, Vol. 124: 13-22.
(*) Samaniego, P., Vallejo, M.C., Martínez-Alier, J. (2017): “Commercial and biophysical déficits in South America, 1990-2013”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 133: 62-73.
Parra, R., Di Felice, L.J., Giampietro, M., Ramos-Martin, J. (2018): “The metabolismo f oil extraction: A bottom-up approach applied to the case of Ecuador”, Energy Policy, Vol. 122: 63-74.
Ramos-Martín J., Cañellas-Boltà S., Giampetro M., Gamboa G., (2009): “Catalonia's energy metabolism: Using the MuSIASEM approach at different scales”, Energy Policy, vol 37: 4658-4671.
Serrano-Tovar, T., Giampietro, M. (2014): “Multi-scale integrated análisis of rural Laos: Studying metabolic patterns of land uses across different levels and scales”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 36: 155-170.
12 Environmental valuation and ecosystem services
(*) Muradian, R. et al. (2013): “Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions”, Conservation Letters, Vol. 6(4): 274-279.
(*) Kosoy, N., and Corbera, E. (2010): “Payment for ecosystem services as commodity fetichism”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 69(1): 1228-1236.
Costanza, R., et al. (2014): “Changes in the global value of ecosystem services”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 26: 152-158.
Pascual et al. (2017): “Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach”, Current Opinions in Environmental Sustainability”, Vol-26-27:- 7-16.
Lliso, B., Pascual, U., Engel, S., Mariel, P. (2020): “Payment for ecosystem services or collective stewardship of Mother Earth? Applying deliberative valuation in an indigenous community in Colombia”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 169: 106499.
13. Ecological macroeconomics and system dynamics
(*) Hardt, L. and O'Neill, D. (2017): "Ecological Macroeconomic Models: Assessing Current Developments", Ecological Economics, 123, 198-211.
(*) Jackson, T., Victor, P. (2020): “The transition to a sustainable Prosperity-A-Stock-Flow- Consistent ecological macroeconomic model for Canada”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 177: 106787.
Nieto, J., Carpintero, O., Lpbejón, L.F., Miguel, L.J. (2020): “An ecological macroeconomics model: The energy transition in the EU”, Energy Policy, Vol. 145: 111726.
14. Political ecological economics
(*) Martínez-Alier, J., Kallis, G., Veuthey, S., Walter, M., Temper, L. (2010): “Social metabolism, ecological distribution conflicts, and valuation languages”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 70(2): 153-158.
(*) Svarstad, H., Benjaminsen, T.A. (2020): “Reading radical environmental justice through a political ecology lens”, Geoforum, Vol. 108: 1-11.
Martinez-Alier, J. (2021): “Mapping ecological distribution conflicts: The EJAtlas”, The Extractive Industries and Society, in press.
15. Alternative economic practices
(*) Demaria, F., Schneider, F., Sekulova, F. and Martinez-Alier, J., 2013. What is degrowth? From an activist slogan to a social movement. Environmental Values, 22 pp.:191-215.
(*) Odum, H.T., Odum, E.C. (2006): “The prosperous way down”, Energy, Vol. 31 (1): 21-32.
Jackson, T. (2019): “The post-growth challenge: Secular stagnation, inequality and the limits to growth”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 156: 236-246.
16. Environmental policy instruments
(*) Russell, C.S., Powell, P.T. 1999. Practical considerations and comparison of instruments of environmental policy. Chapter 21 in: J.C.J.M. van den Bergh (ed.). Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 307-328.
Sterner, T. 2003. Policy Instruments for Environmental and Natural Resource Management. Resources for the Future (RFF Press), Washington D.C., USA, 504 pages.
17. Economics of climate policy
(*) Executive summary of The Stern review: The Economics of Climate Change (2006).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_10_06_exec_sum.pdf
(*) McKibbin, W.J., Wilcoxen, P.J. 2002. The role of economics in climate change policy. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16(2): 107-129.
J.C.J.M. van den Bergh (2010). Safe climate policy is affordable - 12 reasons. Climatic Change 101(3): 339-385.
Responses to / debate on the Stern review (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/6520.htm).
Tol, R.S.J. (2009). The economic effects of climate change. Journal of Economic Perspectives 23(2): 29-51.
18. The environment-versus-growth debate
(*) Beckerman, W. 1992. Economic growth and the environment. World Development, 20(4): 481-496.
(*) Daly, H.E. 2005. Economics in a full world. Scientific American 293(3).
(*) van den Bergh, J., de Mooij, R. 2002. Growth and the environment in Europe: a guide to the debate. Empirica, 29: 79-91.
Kallis, G. 2011. In defence of degrowth. Ecological Economics, 70(5): 873-880.
van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. 2009. The GDP Paradox. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(2): 117-135.
van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. 2011. Environment versus growth - A criticism of "degrowth" and a plea for "a-growth? Ecological Economics, 70(5): 881-890.
None