Article http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/jhass.2023.12.033

Choices from an Ecological Economics Perspective: Strong Sustainability V.S. Weak Sustainability


Xinya Pan

The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

*Corresponding author: Xinya Pan

Published: January 16,2024


The school of ecological economics has proposed the idea of 'resource substitution', in which natural resources are gradually replaced by man-made resources in order to gradually reduce human dependence on natural resources, in order to balance environmental protection and economic development, the two most important goals of humanity today. In order to prove the feasibility of this idea, academics have proposed two different perspectives: 'strong sustainability' and 'weak sustainability'. The main objective of this paper is to demonstrate the viability of the resource substitution theory and how to weigh the degree of substitution between man-made and natural resources. The paper first introduces the basic framework and analytical logic of ecological economics and the criteria for assessing the viability of the perspective, then presents regional, national, and global case studies of the positive and negative impacts of the substitution of natural resources by man-made resources in different contexts, and finally draws conclusions based on the assessment criteria.


Amazon Aid Foundation. Effects of Deforestation on the Amazon [EB]. Amazon Aid Foundation, 2021. 

Block, W. Natural Resources and Transgenerational Equity [M]. Economics and the Environment: A reconciliation. Fraser Institute, 1990: 95-117.

Brice, J. McDonald’s Linked to Amazon Deforestation in New Report [N]. Bloomberg.com, 2022.

Brundtland, G. H. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future [R]. Geneva: United Nations, 1987. 

Butler, R. How to save the Rainforest [EB]. Mongabay, 2020. 

Butler, R. The Amazon Rainforest [EB]. Mongabay, 2020. 

Costanza R. Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability [M]. Columbia University Press, 1992.

Daly H E. Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development [M]. Beacon Press, 2014.

Department of Energy. Clean Energy [EB]. Energy.gov.

Dincer, I. Renewable Energy and Sustainable Development: A Crucial Review [J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2000, 4(2): 157-175.

Filipe, M., Lomba, A., & Honrado, J., et al. City-Region Food Systems and Biodiversity Conservation: The Case Study of the Entre-Douro-e-Minho Agrarian Region [J]. Sustainability, 2023, 15(6): 5021-5021. 

Fisher, B., Bateman, I., & Turner, R.K. Valuing Ecosystem Services: Benefits, Values, Space And Time [M]. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2011. 

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., & Elmqvist, T., et al. Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in A World of Transformations [J]. AMBIO: A journal of the human environment, 2002, 31(5): 437-440.

GEE, C. Demanding Healthy, Sustainable And Just Food Environments [EB]. Alliance Magazine, 2021. 

González, N.C. & Kröger, M. The Potential of Amazon Indigenous Agroforestry Practices and Ontologies for Rethinking Global Forest Governance [J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2020, 118: 102257.

Hager, C. & Stefes, C. H. Germany’s Energy Transition: A Comparative Perspective [M]. Springer, 2016.

Hardwick, T. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations [M]. Earthscan Publications, 2010.

IEA. Germany 2020—Analysis- [EB]. IEA., 2020. 

IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [EB]. IPCC, 2022. 

Neumayer, E. Weak Versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms [M]. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2003.

Reijnders, L. Substitution, Natural Capital And Sustainability [J]. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 2021, 18(1): 115-142.

Ritchie, H., Roser, M. Environmental Impacts of Food Production [J]. Our World in Data, 2020.  

Ropke, I. The Early History of Modern Ecological Economics [J]. Ecological Economics, 2004, 50(3-4): 293-314. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. The Sources and Solutions: Fossil Fuels [EB]. US EPA, 2019.

How to cite this paper

Choices from an Ecological Economics Perspective: Strong Sustainability V.S. Weak Sustainability

How to cite this paper: Xinya Pan. (2023) Choices from an Ecological Economics Perspective: Strong Sustainability V.S. Weak SustainabilityJournal of Humanities, Arts and Social Science7(12), 2575-2580.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/jhass.2023.12.033