502
K. Yang
inter-generational equality, so a low discount rate is advised to give a large weighting
to long-term environmental damages. However, as Fisher and Krutilla (1975) pointed
out, a low discount rate may lead to a high investment rate, which gives rise to even
greater environmental damages. Another method (Fisher and Krutilla 1975) is appropriately underestimating irreplaceable environmental capital. If economic development endangers such resources, the long-term damage cost will quickly increase.
Syrah Waltb et al. proposed to analyze the “minimal security standard” decided by
experts to prevent irreversible damage to important resources.
3. Ecological sustainability
The maintenance of the environmental system depends on the magnitude and pace
of the flow of its material and energy input and output. Within a certain limit, human
activities can change this flow to meet the society’s demand for natural resources,
environmental comfort and waste disposal capability. But there is an upper and lower
limit to how much an environmental system can bear, and both the environment and
mankind would be endangered if the limit is exceeded. Therefore, protecting the
environment and maintaining a sound human ecology—ecological sustainability—is
a basic goal and principle of sustainable development.
The most important standards of ecological sustainability are as follows:
(1) Environmental parameters
In theory, the evaluation indicators of ecological sustainability can be the total natural
capital inventory of environmental system, or different segments of the system,
such as non-renewable resources, renewable resources and biodiversity. In practice,
however, the parameters selected for evaluation usually have to be revised based on
the time and place. The higher the overall level is, the harder it is, even impossible,
to determine the weighting of lower-level indicators. Therefore, as experience in
environmental impact assessment has proven, what’s critical is putting a few “environmental parameters” in the scope of evaluation. To do that, it is necessary to design
a set of procedures to help different social groups identify what they think are the
most important parameters, and create corresponding forums and consultation channels for them to discuss and agree on commonly concerned issues and important
environmental parameters.
(2) Critical level
As we all have a judgment of our responsibility for future generations and different
evaluation of risks and technology alternatives, our understanding of the sustainability of the selected environmental parameters is bound to differ. There is the
minimal security level, natural level or current level, the last one being the most
common reference. The strong sustainability strategy stresses the complementarity
between man-made capital and natural capital, while the weak sustainability strategy
is more optimistic about replacing environmental facilities with man-made products.
The former imposes stricter restrictions on to what extent can natural capital be used.
K. Yang
inter-generational equality, so a low discount rate is advised to give a large weighting
to long-term environmental damages. However, as Fisher and Krutilla (1975) pointed
out, a low discount rate may lead to a high investment rate, which gives rise to even
greater environmental damages. Another method (Fisher and Krutilla 1975) is appropriately underestimating irreplaceable environmental capital. If economic development endangers such resources, the long-term damage cost will quickly increase.
Syrah Waltb et al. proposed to analyze the “minimal security standard” decided by
experts to prevent irreversible damage to important resources.
3. Ecological sustainability
The maintenance of the environmental system depends on the magnitude and pace
of the flow of its material and energy input and output. Within a certain limit, human
activities can change this flow to meet the society’s demand for natural resources,
environmental comfort and waste disposal capability. But there is an upper and lower
limit to how much an environmental system can bear, and both the environment and
mankind would be endangered if the limit is exceeded. Therefore, protecting the
environment and maintaining a sound human ecology—ecological sustainability—is
a basic goal and principle of sustainable development.
The most important standards of ecological sustainability are as follows:
(1) Environmental parameters
In theory, the evaluation indicators of ecological sustainability can be the total natural
capital inventory of environmental system, or different segments of the system,
such as non-renewable resources, renewable resources and biodiversity. In practice,
however, the parameters selected for evaluation usually have to be revised based on
the time and place. The higher the overall level is, the harder it is, even impossible,
to determine the weighting of lower-level indicators. Therefore, as experience in
environmental impact assessment has proven, what’s critical is putting a few “environmental parameters” in the scope of evaluation. To do that, it is necessary to design
a set of procedures to help different social groups identify what they think are the
most important parameters, and create corresponding forums and consultation channels for them to discuss and agree on commonly concerned issues and important
environmental parameters.
(2) Critical level
As we all have a judgment of our responsibility for future generations and different
evaluation of risks and technology alternatives, our understanding of the sustainability of the selected environmental parameters is bound to differ. There is the
minimal security level, natural level or current level, the last one being the most
common reference. The strong sustainability strategy stresses the complementarity
between man-made capital and natural capital, while the weak sustainability strategy
is more optimistic about replacing environmental facilities with man-made products.
The former imposes stricter restrictions on to what extent can natural capital be used.