IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i3p1037-d315176.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biocapacity—Premise of Sustainable Development in the European Space

Author

Listed:
  • Rodica-Manuela Gogonea

    (Department of Statistics and Econometrics, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 010552 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Simona Ioana Ghita

    (Department of Statistics and Econometrics, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 010552 Bucharest, Romania
    Institute of National Economy, 050711 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Andreea Simona Saseanu

    (Department of Business, Consumer Sciences and Quality Management, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 010374 Bucharest, Romania)

Abstract

The contemporary lifestyle, based on unsustainable consumption patterns, leads to an orientation of the society towards the development and application of sustainable development strategies and policies. The comparative analysis of the ecological footprint and biocapacity allows one to study the interaction between human activities and environment, through the biocapacity reserve or deficit. In this context, this article carries out a complex analysis of the biocapacity reserve/deficit, as a latent variable that quantifies sustainability, viewed through a selection of determinants, from which three main components have been extracted: A component of education and social exclusion, a component of economic development, innovation, and environment, and a demographic component. These were transformed—through a multiple linear regression model—into exogenous variables with high explanatory power over the variation of the biocapacity reserve/deficit and constituted the tools in identifying behavioral patterns of the European countries and a set of measures leading to the sustainability of the ecological reserve.

Suggested Citation

  • Rodica-Manuela Gogonea & Simona Ioana Ghita & Andreea Simona Saseanu, 2020. "Biocapacity—Premise of Sustainable Development in the European Space," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-26, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:3:p:1037-:d:315176
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/3/1037/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/3/1037/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. M. Lenzen & D. Moran & K. Kanemoto & B. Foran & L. Lobefaro & A. Geschke, 2012. "International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations," Nature, Nature, vol. 486(7401), pages 109-112, June.
    2. Irmi Seidl & Clem A. Tisdell, 2003. "Carrying capacity reconsidered: from Malthus' population theory to cultural carrying capacity," Chapters, in: Ecological and Environmental Economics, chapter 13, pages 192-206, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Yue, Dongxia & Xu, Xiaofeng & Hui, Cang & Xiong, Youcai & Han, Xuemei & Ma, Jinhui, 2011. "Biocapacity supply and demand in Northwestern China: A spatial appraisal of sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(5), pages 988-994, March.
    4. Ivan Haščič & Nick Johnstone & Fleur Watson & Christopher Kaminker, 2010. "Climate Policy and Technological Innovation and Transfer: An Overview of Trends and Recent Empirical Results," OECD Environment Working Papers 30, OECD Publishing.
    5. De Marchi, Valentina, 2012. "Environmental innovation and R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 614-623.
    6. Barry Anderson & Corrado Di Maria, 2011. "Abatement and Allocation in the Pilot Phase of the EU ETS," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 83-103, January.
    7. Bel, Germà & Joseph, Stephan, 2018. "Climate change mitigation and the role of technological change: Impact on selected headline targets of Europe's 2020 climate and energy package," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3798-3807.
    8. Magdaléna Drastichová, 2016. "Sustainability Evaluation of the European Union based on the Ecological Footprint," Acta Universitatis Bohemiae Meridionales, University of South Bohemia in Ceske Budejovice, vol. 19(1), pages 30-40.
    9. Jia, Junsong & Deng, Hongbing & Duan, Jing & Zhao, Jingzhu, 2009. "Analysis of the major drivers of the ecological footprint using the STIRPAT model and the PLS method--A case study in Henan Province, China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2818-2824, September.
    10. Thomas L. Brewer, 2005. "Business perspectives on the EU emissions trading scheme," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 137-144, January.
    11. Marian Zaharia & Aurelia Pătrașcu & Manuela Rodica Gogonea & Ana Tănăsescu & Constanța Popescu, 2017. "A Cluster Design on the Influence of Energy Taxation in Shaping the New EU-28 Economic Paradigm," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-21, February.
    12. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2005. "A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 164-174, August.
    13. Adam Jaffe & Richard Newell & Robert Stavins, 2002. "Environmental Policy and Technological Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 41-70, June.
    14. Michael Grubb & Christian Azar & U. Martin Persson, 2005. "Allowance allocation in the European emissions trading system: a commentary," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 127-136, January.
    15. Silvia-Elena Cristache & Mariana Vuță & Erika Marin & Sorin-Iulian Cioacă & Mihai Vuţă, 2018. "Organic versus Conventional Farming—A Paradigm for the Sustainable Development of the European Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jiaxin Han & Enkhjargal Dalaibaatar, 2023. "A Study on the Influencing Factors of China’s Ecological Footprint Based on EEMD–GeoDetector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-15, April.
    2. Lichun Mo & Jiancheng Chen & Yi Xie, 2021. "Ecological Approach for the Evaluation of Structure and Sustainability in the Tourism Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Jose-Benito Perez-Lopez & Alfonso Orro & Margarita Novales, 2021. "Environmental Impact of Mobility in Higher-Education Institutions: The Case of the Ecological Footprint at the University of A Coruña (Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-18, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simona Ioana Ghita & Andreea Simona Saseanu & Rodica-Manuela Gogonea & Catalin-Emilian Huidumac-Petrescu, 2018. "Perspectives of Ecological Footprint in European Context under the Impact of Information Society and Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    2. Ren, Shenggang & Hu, Yucai & Zheng, Jingjing & Wang, Yangjie, 2020. "Emissions trading and firm innovation: Evidence from a natural experiment in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    3. Johan Lilliestam & Anthony Patt & Germán Bersalli, 2022. "On the quality of emission reductions: observed effects of carbon pricing on investments, innovation, and operational shifts. A response to van den Bergh and Savin (2021)," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 83(3), pages 733-758, November.
    4. Raphael Calel & Antoine Dechezleprêtre, 2016. "Environmental Policy and Directed Technological Change: Evidence from the European Carbon Market," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 98(1), pages 173-191, March.
    5. Tilmann Rave & Ursula Triebswetter & Johann Wackerbauer, 2013. "Koordination von Innovations-, Energie- und Umweltpolitik," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 61, September.
    6. Shi, Beibei & Feng, Chen & Qiu, Meng & Ekeland, Anders, 2018. "Innovation suppression and migration effect: The unintentional consequences of environmental regulation," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-23.
    7. Pinget, Amandine, 2016. "Spécificités des déterminants des innovations environnementales : une approche appliquée aux PME [Specificities of determinants for environmental innovation : an approach applied to SMEs]," MPRA Paper 80108, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Bönte, Werner & Dienes, Christian, 2012. "Energy and Material Efficiency Innovations: The Relevance of Innovation Strategies," Schumpeter Discussion Papers sdp12001, Universitätsbibliothek Wuppertal, University Library.
    9. Chen Feng & Beibei Shi & Rong Kang, 2017. "Does Environmental Policy Reduce Enterprise Innovation?—Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-24, May.
    10. Christoph P. Kiefer & Pablo Del Río González & Javier Carrillo‐Hermosilla, 2019. "Drivers and barriers of eco‐innovation types for sustainable transitions: A quantitative perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 155-172, January.
    11. Rogge, Karoline S. & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2009. "The impact of the EU ETS on the sectoral innovation system for power generation technologies: findings for Germany," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S2/2009, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    12. Donghong Li & Yi‐Chuan Liao & Pengcheng Ma, 2022. "Contingent view on the relationship between proactive environmental strategy and corporate performance: Toward stakeholder engagement," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 1605-1616, September.
    13. Martin Larsson, 2017. "EU Emissions Trading: Policy-Induced Innovation, or Business as Usual? Findings from Company Case Studies in the Republic of Croatia," Working Papers 1705, The Institute of Economics, Zagreb.
    14. Barbieri, Nicolò, 2015. "Investigating the impacts of technological position and European environmental regulation on green automotive patent activity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 140-152.
    15. Christoph Heinzel & Thomas Winkler, 2011. "Economic functioning and politically pragmatic justification of tradable green certificates in Poland," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 13(2), pages 157-175, June.
    16. Nuñez-Jimenez, Alejandro & Knoeri, Christof & Hoppmann, Joern & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2022. "Beyond innovation and deployment: Modeling the impact of technology-push and demand-pull policies in Germany's solar policy mix," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    17. Jianfeng Guo & Bin Su & Guang Yang & Lianyong Feng & Yinpeng Liu & Fu Gu, 2018. "How Do Verified Emissions Announcements Affect the Comoves between Trading Behaviors and Carbon Prices? Evidence from EU ETS," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-17, September.
    18. Taylor, Margaret, 2008. "Beyond technology-push and demand-pull: Lessons from California's solar policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2829-2854, November.
    19. Brian Chi-ang Lin & Siqi Zheng & Nicolò Barbieri & Claudia Ghisetti & Marianna Gilli & Giovanni Marin & Francesco Nicolli, 2016. "A Survey Of The Literature On Environmental Innovation Based On Main Path Analysis," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 596-623, July.
    20. Giovanni Marin & Antonello Zanfei, 2019. "Does host market regulation induce cross‐border environmental innovation?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(7), pages 2089-2119, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:3:p:1037-:d:315176. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.