E CO L O G I CA L EC O NO M IC S 6 8 (2 0 0 9) 1 14 9 1 15 9

a v a i l a b l e a t w w w. s c i e n c e d i r e c t . c o m

w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e c o l e c o n

ANALYSIS

Taking the U out of Kuznets

A comprehensive analysis of the EKC and

environmental degradation
Jill L. Caviglia-Harris a,, Dustin Chambers a , James R. Kahn b
a
b

Salisbury University, 1101 Camden Ave., Salisbury, MD 21804, United States

Washington and Lee University, Science AG-15, Lexington, VA 24450, United States

AR TIC LE D ATA

ABSTR ACT

Article history:

Unlike most Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) studies which focus on narrow measures

Received 13 August 2007

of pollution as proxies for environmental quality, we test the validity of the EKC using the

Received in revised form 5 August 2008

Ecological Footprint (EF), a more comprehensive measure of environmental degradation. We

Accepted 5 August 2008

find no empirical evidence of an EKC relationship between the EF and economic

Available online 12 September 2008

development, and only limited support for such a relationship among the components of
the EF. In addition, we discover that energy is largely responsible for the lack of an EKC

Keywords:

relationship, and that energy consumption levels would have to be cut by over 50% in order

Environmental Kuznets Curve

for a statistically significant EKC relationship to emerge from the data. Overall, these results

Ecological Footprint

suggest that growth alone will not lead to sustainable development.

Development

2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Growth
Sustainability
EKC
JEL classification:
Q0; Q01

1.

Introduction

If the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) is valid for all types

of environmental degradation, then sufficient economic
development alone will solve environmental problems in
both developed and underdeveloped nations. Not surprisingly,
this simple yet powerful implication has played an important
role in the ongoing debate regarding appropriate economic
growth and environmental policies (Ranjan and Shortle, 2007).
Unfortunately, most of the empirical investigations of the EKC
have focused on the narrow relationship between pollution
output (as an inversely proportional proxy for environmental

quality) and economic growth. These particular pollutants are

only a small part of environmental concerns at the global
level. Consequently, the analysis performed in this paper tests
the validity of the EKC using a much more comprehensive
measure of environmental degradation, the Ecological Footprint (EF).
Research on the validity, application, and measurement of
the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) has been prolific
(Azomahou et al., 2006). Adapted from Kuznets' (1955) original
study on the influences of economic development on income
inequality, the EKC reflects the relationship between environmental quality and per capita income. The EKC asserts that

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jlcaviglia-harris@salisbury.edu (J.L. Caviglia-Harris).
0921-8009/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.08.006

1150

E C O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 8 ( 2 0 09 ) 11 4 9 1 15 9

environmental quality first declines (traditionally measured

by an increase in pollution) in response to economic development, and improves (i.e. pollution levels decline) only after per
capita income surpasses a critical threshold. This combination
of falling then rising environmental quality (as measured by
pollution output) during the course of economic growth and
resulting development results in an inverted U shaped curve.
Research on the EKC began with the analysis of panel data
on 42 countries to identify an EKC effect for different
measurements of air quality (Grossman and Krueger, 1993).
In the same genre, Selden and Song (1994) found support for
an EKC for SO2, while Grossman and Krueger (1995) andShafik
and Banyopadhyay (1992) found water pollution to decline
monotonically with income per capita while carbon emissions
rise with income per capita. Since these initial studies, many
have followed, focusing specifically on air pollution (i.e. List
and Gallet, 1999; Heerink et al., 2001; Cole, 2003; Khanna, 2002;
Bruvoll et al., 2003; Deacon and Norman, 2006; Merlevede et al.,
2006; water pollution (Torras and Boyce, 1998; Paudel et al.,
2005), deforestation (i.e. Culas, 2007; Rodriguez-Meza et al.,
2003; Heerink et al., 2001; Barbier, 2001), hazardous waste and
toxins (i.e. Gawande et al., 2001; Rupasingha et al., 2004),
carbon dioxide (CO2) (Azomahou et al., 2006) among others
(see Cavlovic et al., 2000; Dasgupta et al., 2002; Copeland and
Taylor, 2004 for reviews). One result of this expansive
literature is that no simple, predictable relationship between
an aggregate measure of environmental quality and per capita
income has been identified; instead the EKC has been found to
hold only for a subset of environmental measures (Stern, 1998;
Plassmann and Khanna, 2006).
Several shortcomings along with inconsistencies in theoretical modeling have lead to strong criticisms of the EKC
(Mller-Frstenberger and Wagnerb, 2007; Perman and Stern,
2003). Critics have challenged both the findings (especially
those based on cross-sectional data) and policy implications of
these studies (Dasgupta et al., 2002); pointing out that the
results are often sensitive to the nations (or states) chosen, the
pollutant measurement (emissions versus ambient concentrations), trade effects, functional form, and methodological
choice (Harbaugh et al., 2002; also see Cavlovic et al., 2000).
And, since much of the analysis on the EKC is derived from
reduced-form models, a variety of (sometimes conflicting),
theoretical explanations can apply. For example, several
studies have proposed the new toxins scenario may exist
in which the traditional pollutants exhibit an inverted Ushape in relation to increases in income; however the
pollutants that replace these do not, leading to an overall
increase in environmental degradation (Stern, 2004). In
addition, an important conclusion that can be drawn from a
summary of the literature is that greenhouse gasses, in
particular CO2, exhibit an increasingand even U (not
inverted) shapedrelationship with growth (Galeotti et al.,
2006; Azomahou et al., 2006).
Perhaps the greatest limitation of earlier EKC studies is
their singular focus on one (or a small group of) pollutants as
their measure of environmental quality. While the implications of single pollutants on health and the environment are
important issues to address, the impact of individual decisions on the entire suite of pollutants along with potentially
irreversible damage to ecosystems is of equal or greater

importance since the substitution possibilities between different pollutants could negate any positive impacts on the
environment noted for a single source. Notable exceptions to
these studies on single pollutants include Rupasingha et al.
(2004), Jha and Murthy (2003), and Boutaud et al. (2006).
Recently, greater effort has been made to construct
comprehensive measures of environmental quality. For
example, Jha and Murthy (2003) estimate global environmental degradation with an environmental degradation index
(EDI) incorporating six environmental indicators: annual per
capita fresh water withdrawal, annual fresh water withdrawal
as a percentage of water resources, per capita paper consumption, per capita CO2 emissions, share of world CO2
emissions, and the average annual rate of deforestation.
While broader than a single pollutant, the EDI is limited as a
measurement of overall environmental quality by available
data. Strong arguments could be made for the inclusion of a
different or more inclusive set of environmental indicators.
Finally, Boutaud et al. (2006) exam the relationship between
the Ecological Footprint (EF) and Human Development Index
(HDI) and growth. While Boutaud et al. (2006) include
aggregate indices to test for an EKC, the authors rely on
cross-sectional data for a single year and graphical representation of the data, resulting in analysis that is not conducive to
hypothesis testing. This paper builds on this more inclusive
approach with the development of a theoretical framework
incorporating environmental capital into the carrying capacity
of a nation and an empirical model utilizing a time series of
40 years of data on GDP and an aggregate measurement of
environmental damage called the Ecological Footprint. More
specifically, the goal of the analysis is to determine whether
an EKC can be identified for this cumulative measurement of
environmental degradation.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section
2 discusses the Ecological Footprint; Section 3 derives necessary conditions if both strong sustainability and balanced
economic growth are to be achieved; Section 4 describes the
data used in the panel regressions; Section 5 describes the
various EKC panel models and their estimation results; and
Section 6 concludes.

2.

The Ecological Footprint

The Ecological Footprint (EF) was introduced by Rees (1992)

and further developed in Wackernagel and Rees (1996) to
determine how the environmental damage associated with
human consumption compares to the biosphere regenerative
capacity. The EF estimates the amount of natural capital
(measured in biologically productive area) needed to support
the resource demand and waste absorption requirements of a
population and is expressed in global hectares or hectares of
globally standardized bioproductivity (Wackernagel et al.,
2004a,b). Specifically, the EF measures the human demand
on nature by assessing how much biologically productive land
and sea area is necessary to maintain a given consumption
pattern (Wiedmann et al., 2006). In the basic calculation of the
EF, consumption (categorized by food, services, transportation, consumer goods, and housing) is divided by the
predetermined yield (biological productivity) by land type

E CO L O G I CA L EC O NO M IC S 6 8 (2 0 0 9) 1 14 9 1 15 9

including cropland, pasture, forest, built-up land, fisheries, and

energy land. The ability of these areas to supply ecological
goods and services (i.e. the predetermined yield) depends on
the biophysical characteristics of the land (such as soil type,
slope, and climate) in addition to socio-economic choices (such
as management decisions and technological inputs).
The EF requires that strong sustainability is maintained, as
it assesses physical utilization of environmental resources (i.e.
renewable factors of production and ecological services).
However, the measurement is not all inclusive as it neglects
atmospheric ozone levels, and does not account for pollutants
that are difficult to convert to land or water ecosystem
equivalents, such as methane and sulfur (Rees, 2000).
The measurement, use, and interpretation of the EF have
been extensively debated in the literature. A major strength of
the EF is that it condenses a large array of environmental data
into a single measure, which can be easily compared to a
region's corresponding carrying capacity (Costanza, 2000).
This is a relatively simple concept to understand and therefore
can be used to explain issues of sustainability to the general
public, and as a result of its rising notoriety has been
increasingly applied within the literature. For example, the
measurement has been used to evaluate resource use across
nations (White, 2007), methods have been developed to
improve its robustness across comparative means (Lenzen
et al., 2007; Wiedmann and Lenzen, 2007), and to evaluate the
impact of tourism and trade agreements (Hong et al., 2007;
Patterson et al., 2007).
While the ease of interpretation adds to the strengths of
the EF, the assumptions that are made to convert this
encompassing measurement into a single unit have lead to
much of its criticism. Noted weaknesses include the many
simplifying assumptions required to convert consumption
data into land area. Specifically, Ayres (2000) faults the energy
equivalence assumption used to convert energy flows into
land area, while Van Kooten and Bulte (2000) note several
weaknesses with aggregation, discounting, and sustainability,
and take the position that the authors of the EF never present a
clear and scientifically rigorous definition of the EF. Similar
criticism focuses on the conversion of energy into land used to
absorb CO2 emissions, as there are several ways to compensate for CO2 emissions outside of forest absorption. Finally, the
EF, despite its ability to pinpoint areas under environmental
pressure, provides no guidelines for environmental policy
(Nijkamp et al., 2004).
Despite these shortcomings, it is important to note that any
aggregate indicator of environmental quality will have both
strengths and weaknesses (as for example, measures of
aggregate economic output or the price level suffer from
specific problems). In this paper, we choose the EF as an
aggregate measure of environmental quality because its
limitations are well-known, it is a widely referenced measurement of sustainability (Nijkamp et al., 2004; Haberl et al., 2001),
and has been adopted by a growing number of government
authorities, agencies, and policy makers as a measure of
ecological performance (Wiedmann et al., 2006). An alternative approach would be to devise our own index of environmental quality, but in so doing, we would introduce a measure
that has not benefited from the normal scrutiny of the
properties and limitations of the indicator.

3.

1151

Necessary conditions for sustainability

One cannot analyze ecological degradation over time without

addressing the issue of sustainability and building a working
definition to incorporate in the analysis. The literature on
sustainability has defined two concepts: weak and strong
sustainability. Weak sustainability is an economic principle
requiring that productive capacity not decline over time. On
the other hand, strong sustainability, having evolved from the
ecological economics perspective, requires that the total stock
of natural capital not decline over time (Costanza and Daly,
1992; Hediger, 1999). The debate on whether weak or strong
sustainability should provide the foundation for public policy
reflects differences in opinion regarding the degree to which
natural capital can be substituted for human and physical
capital (Cabeza Gutes, 1996). Proponents of strong sustainability believe that natural capital is unique and plays an
important role in human welfare, and thus cannot be replaced
(Barbier, 2005). Furthermore, the concepts of growth and
development are clearly outlined within this literature.
Accordingly, time infinite growth cannot be sustainable on a
finite planet as it is accomplished through the use of natural
resources. On the other hand, development occurs through
improvements in efficiency and therefore can lead the
sustainable use of resources over time (Costanza and Daly,
1992).1
Regardless of one's preferred concept of sustainability, the
literature on sustainable development and growth theory
provides a number of interesting insights for the long-run
path of the EF. While the sustainability of long-run economic
growth subject to non-renewable resource constraints has
interested economists for more than two centuries (see for
example Malthus, 1789), it was not until the energy crises of
the 1970s that economists rigorously analyzed the affects of
natural resource scarcity on growth and development within
the context of dynamic, general equilibrium models (see
Solow, 1974; Stiglitz, 1974 among others). Their findings were
straightforward: so long as the reproducible factor of production (i.e. physical or man-made capital) is sufficiently substitutable for the non-renewable factor, long-run balanced
growth (i.e. per capita output growing en infinitum at a constant
rate) is possible. The major drawback with this research is that
it ignores the impact production has on the state of the
environment. Addressing this deficiency, Stokey (1998) builds
a model with pollution-generating output and a government
that imposes progressively stringent emission regulations
(achieved vis--vis costly abatement). She finds that even in
this context, sustainable balanced growth is possible providing a sufficiently high rate of return on capital, giving rise to an
output path of pollution that follows an inverted U shaped
pattern consistent with the EKC. These results, despite their
admittedly narrow focus, provide us with the key insight to
understanding the long-run trajectory of the EF if both strong

Francheschi and Kahn (2003) separate natural and environmental resources and link sustainability to the continued ability
of environmental resources to provide ecological services, for
which human capital and human-made capital are not good
substitutes.

1152

E C O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 8 ( 2 0 09 ) 11 4 9 1 15 9

Table 1 Average per capita GDP and footprint by country

Country
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Belarus
Belgium & Luxembourg
Benin
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Central African Rep.
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Congo, Republic of
Costa Rica
Cote d`Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia, The
Georgia
Germany

GDP

EF

Country

GDP

EF

Country

GDP

EF

1713
2967
4866
1975
9827
3444
18,419
18,219
3060
1544
9487
17,411
1125
2770
2415
4345
5743
7385
778
829
537
2364
18,860
968
892
7291
1508
4658
906
1842
6378
2044
8241
5014
13,064
20,097
4066
3968
2812
3970
606
9973
661
15,785
17,697
13,674
878
3601
19,626

0.22
1.26
1.28
0.82
2.81
0.98
6.85
3.92
1.53
0.51
3.40
4.71
0.99
1.23
1.69
1.44
1.88
3.07
1.03
0.88
0.74
0.99
6.78
0.94
1.12
1.66
1.19
1.25
0.72
0.91
1.88
1.02
2.23
1.57
4.95
5.15
1.22
1.28
1.15
0.98
0.77
5.07
1.30
5.37
4.49
1.34
1.13
1.14
4.90

Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
GuineaBissau
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Korea, Dem. Rep.
Korea, Rep. of
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Lithuania
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Moldova
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger

1071
10,641
3448
2488
623
2040
2142
9191
1606
2338
5378
2278
12,409
14,886
15,855
4243
16,201
4218
7197
1245
1222
7082
31,830
3154
1136
8370
5083
1155
1162
10,335
8737
4972
1072
662
5805
818
1330
8276
6320
2539
1456
3021
1043
5067
1033
18,468
16,595
4921
1041

0.93
3.19
1.03
1.09
0.84
0.69
1.34
3.88
0.74
0.95
1.63
0.91
3.98
3.81
3.17
1.65
3.64
1.46
3.59
0.91
1.99
2.17
6.32
1.40
0.91
2.99
2.50
1.00
0.92
3.28
3.88
2.35
0.91
0.74
1.80
1.01
1.23
1.24
2.04
1.52
3.50
0.89
0.71
1.18
0.69
3.92
4.60
1.36
1.38

Nigeria
Norway
Pakistan
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Sierra Leone
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Somalia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad &Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

1051
20,842
1735
5484
3671
4199
4308
2981
6412
10,618
4441
9321
1044
20,806
1472
2353
1131
9057
16,449
1033
7119
12,825
2233
1080
6188
18,696
23,621
1603
1697
586
3603
1048
10,421
4399
4009
6811
894
5449
29,267
16,992
23,351
7804
3475
7761
1905
998
1135
2985

1.23
4.69
0.64
1.74
1.71
1.98
0.98
0.97
4.26
2.94
2.92
4.48
0.87
3.80
1.42
2.38
0.92
3.03
2.85
0.57
2.60
3.20
0.82
1.04
1.20
5.25
4.56
1.42
0.73
0.85
1.06
0.99
2.40
1.31
1.97
2.85
1.34
2.94
7.92
4.91
8.16
2.80
1.83
2.44
0.69
0.77
0.85
1.06

Note: Footprints are measured in standardized global hectares (g ha); GDP in PPP-adjusted (2000) international dollars.

sustainability and balanced growth are be achieved: natural

capital currently used in production must be replaced (in the
long run) by reproducible factors of production. In order for
strong sustainability to hold, total demands placed on the
ecosystem or use of natural resources (N) in a given period
cannot exceed the planet's regenerative capacity or the total
stock of natural resources R(t) during the same period:

capital used in environmental services, including necessary

life support and ecological services, Nenv, and the natural
capital required to produce current output (expressed as the
product of NY (natural capital per real dollar of output) and Y(t)
(GDP)). In other words, at any time period, natural capital can
be divided as follows:

NtVRt

Nt Nenv t NY tdY t

3:1

Building on this necessary condition, assume that natural

capital can be partitioned into two components: natural

3:2

Holding natural capital used in non-production activities

constant, Nenv(t) = Nenv (which is consistent with strong

1153

E CO L O G I CA L EC O NO M IC S 6 8 (2 0 0 9) 1 14 9 1 15 9

Table 2 Global and income-specific footprint averages

Period

19611965
19661970
19711975
19761980
19811985
19861990
19911995
19962000

World

Poor nations

Middle income nations

Rich nations

Ecological
Footprint

Per Capita
GDP

Population

Ecological
Footprint

Per Capita
GDP

Ecological
Footprint

Per Capita
GDP

Ecological
Footprint

Per Capita
GDP

1.70
1.85
2.02
2.05
1.97
2.04
2.13
2.13

3414
4014
4670
5127
5344
5904
6340
7065

2.54
2.89
3.48
3.83
4.19
4.60
5.33
5.83

1.17
1.11
1.09
1.07
1.04
0.97
0.96
0.97

911
915
1,041
1064
986
982
1007
1067

1.23
1.22
1.23
1.28
1.25
1.26
1.29
1.31

2430
2739
3153
3600
3773
3984
4184
4597

3.84
4.60
5.36
5.51
5.21
5.73
5.83
6.14

10,320
12,701
14,895
16,622
17,810
20,337
21,944
24,656

Notes
1) Figures are period averages.
2) Ecological footprints are per capita g ha.
3) GDP is expressed in $I 2000.
4) Population is in billions.

sustainability), and expressing Eq. (3.2) in per capita terms

yields the following identity:


Nt
Yt
Nenv NY td
popt
popt

3:3

It is straightforward to demonstrate that a necessary

condition for strong sustainability and balanced economic
growth is that NY (t) 0 as t approaches infinity. Suppose

not, i.e. NY (t) N Y N 0 in the limit, then Eq.(3.3) becomes

unbounded:

lim

tYl




Nt
Y t
Nenv NY td lim
Yl
tYl popt
popt

3:4

Thus, strong sustainability and balanced growth require

that progressively less natural capital be used per unit of
output, a result which clearly echoes Solow (1974), Stiglitz
(1974), and Stokey (1998). The only way that the need for
natural capital in the production process could subside, of
course, is if it is replaced by some other factor of production.
While this finding is explicit in the Solow (1974), Stiglitz (1974),
and Stokey, it is only implicit in our simple derivation. If we
take it as given that natural capital usage has been historically
rising, then the required decline in natural capital (if both
strong sustainability and balanced growth are to be achieved)
gives rise to an inverted U shaped relationship between the
per capita levels of output and natural capital. The empirical
implications are clear: the Ecological Footprint (EF) must
follow an inverted U shaped pattern if both strong sustainability and sustained economic growth are being simultaneously achieved.2

Note, an empirical Kuznets Curve between EF and per capita

GDP is not a sufficient condition for sustainability (i.e. sustainability would require that EF shrink as fast as the population
grows and that the level of the EF at an given point in time be
below per capita biocapacity).

4.

Data

The data used in this analysis include a panel of the Ecological

Footprint (a proxy for environmental capital) for 146 countries
covering 40 year s (1961 to 2000)3 as defined in our theoretical
model, and real per capita GDP (expressed in chain-weighted,
PPP-adjusted 2000 international dollars (denoted $I 2000))
from the Penn World Tables v 6.2 (see Heston et al., 2006 for
more details).4 The list of countries included in the panel,
along with sample-average values of real per capita GDP and
the EF are provided in Table 1. The EF is measured in
standardized global hectares (g ha) per capita and is constructed by aggregating seven ecological components.5 The
first component, built-up land, measures the land area used
for buildings and permanent structures and/or eroded and
degraded land. The second measure, cropland, measures land
area used to cultivate crops consumed by the population, in
addition to those fed to poultry and pigs. The third component, fisheries, includes the ocean area used to generate
current marine harvests. The fourth component, pasture,
includes the land area used to maintain livestock. The fifth
and sixth components include, forest land (managed and
unmanaged forest), and land area used to produce timber, fuel
wood, charcoal, paper, and pulp. Finally, the seventh component captures the environmental consequences of consuming
fossil fuels, hydroelectricity, and other renewable energy
sources. Specifically, this measure includes the land area
required to absorb all CO2 emissions resulting from the direct
use of coal, oil, gas, and the indirect use of the consumption of
electricity, public transportation, manufactured goods or
other services, and is divided between 1) CO2the area used

3
Global Footprint Network (2006). As is common practice in
macroeconomic growth studies, we excluded major oil exporting
nations from the analysis as such nations' economies are not
driven by normal production sectors/industries, by rather by
commodity exports.
4
Complete data are available upon request from the authors.
5
Precise definitions of each of the foregoing can be found in
Haberl et al. (2001).

1154

E C O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 8 ( 2 0 09 ) 11 4 9 1 15 9

to sequester carbon dioxide emissions and 2) Nuclearthe

area needed to sequester carbon dioxide emissions from
nuclear power plants if they produced emissions at the same
rate (per KWH) as traditional fossil-fuel plants.6
The average global EF was 1.7 g ha per capita in the early
1960s, increasing to 2.13 g ha per capita by 2000. During the
same time period, average global GDP per capita grew from
$3414 to $7065 ($I 2000), and world population from 2.5 to
5.8 billion people (see Table 2). As clearly seen in Table 2, this
increase in the global EF over roughly the last half century is
the result of middle income and rich nations placing evergreater demands on the environment. Specifically, the EF
increased from 1.23 to 1.31 g ha per capita in middle income
nations, and ballooned from 3.84 to 6.14 g ha in wealthy
nations. In contrast, poor nations experienced a decline in
their ecological footprint (albeit small) over the same forty
year timeframe.

5.
Environmental Kuznets Curve model and
estimation
Following both the EKC and original Kuznets Curve literature,
we first estimate a variety of baseline quadratic EKC models
using OLS, and later re-estimate the same models using two
stage least squares (2SLS) to correct for any endogeneity. The
results are surprisingly robust, with only the agricultural
component of the EF exhibiting any signs of an inverted U
shaped relationship with output.7 Correcting for serial correlation in the baseline model's residuals, we next introduce and
estimate a dynamic panel version of the EKC model using the
Arellano and Bond (1991) estimation procedure (henceforth
AB). Our AB estimation results support the general finding that
there is little empirical evidence of an EKC in the ecological
footprint or its constituent components. Interestingly, we
discover that when energy is removed from the EF, a
statistically significant EKC emerges with a turning point of
$652 ($I 2000). To determine how much energy consumption
would have to be cut in order for the overall EF to be consistent
with sustainability, we conduct a sensitivity exercise whereby
the energy component of the EF is not completely eliminated
from the EF time series, but rather is scaled down by a
constant proportion. We find that energy consumption would

This is an odd component of the EF given that nuclear plants

produce no CO2 emissions. The justification commonly given for
this accounting rule is that nuclear energy produces radioactive
waste, and thus nuclear power production is penalized in the CO2
accounting measure.
7
Critics of the traditional empirical techniques used in the EKC
(see for exampleMller-Furstenberger and Wagnerb, 2007) point
out that specifying a quadratic relationship between pollution
and output imposes strong parametric restrictions and implies
that all nations in the panel possess the same turning point.
While we acknowledge these criticisms, the use of spline or
semiparametric methods would not eliminate the common
turning point problem. Moreover, the temporal dimension of
our dataset is too short to estimate separate, nation-specific
quadratic relationships between output and the EF. Thus, we
adopt the commonly accepted practice of estimating a single
quadratic relationship.

have to be cut by 50% in order for the EF to display a

statistically significant EKC relationship. Further details on
these findings follow below.

5.1.

Baseline panel model

To determine the functional form of our empirical model, we

draw from both the EKC and original Kuznets Curve literature
(e.g. Ahluwalia, 1976; Barro, 2000; among others). A majority of
the papers on the EKC follow the original Kuznets Curve
literature by including log GDP in quadratic form (see Bimonte,
2002; Mason and Swanson, 2003; Perman and Stern, 2003;
Halkos, 2003; Martinez-Zarzoso and Bengochea-Morancho,
2003; Harbaugh et al., 2002 for additional sources); while
others add cubic functions of log GDP to test for additional
threshold effects (Cole, 2003; List and Gallet, 1999; Rupasingha
et al., 2004); and still others add additional control factors such
as energy intensity (Agras and Chapman, 1999), population
density (Selden and Song, 1994), among others (Cavlovic et al.,
2000; Khanna, 2002; Hill and Magnani, 2002). Following the
traditional approach, we include log GDP in quadratic form in
the following fixed-effects panel model:
EFit b1 yit b2 y2it ai gt eit

5:1

where EFit is the per capita ecological footprint (g ha) in

country i during period t, yit is the log of real per capita GDP ($I
2000), i is a nation-specific fixed-effect, t is a period-specific
effect, and it is initially assumed to be an i.i.d. stochastic
shock.
The unbalanced panel consists of 146 nations spanning
eight, 5-year time periods (19611965, 19661970,, 1995
2000). Using standard, fixed-effect OLS estimation methods,
we estimate Eq. (3.1) using various measures of the EF and its
components (i.e. timber, pasture, etc.).8 One critical issue that
must be addressed is the possible bias resulting from
endogeneity between the EF and GDP. This stems from the
fact that GDP is a function of natural capital (and other
aggregate factors of production), and the EF is an imperfect
proxy for the use of natural capital. To address this issue, we
use two stage least squares (2SLS) estimation with lagged
regressors as instruments, which is acceptable given the
assumptions of our regression model (i.e. no lagged dependent
variables and i.i.d. stochastic errors).9
In order to construct a benchmark for later comparison, we
first estimate the EKC and its subcategories with OLS, with the
8

Alternative estimation techniques could have been employed

at this stage, including random effects estimation. Random
effects estimation may produce more efficient estimates, but
carries the cost of greater likelihood of bias/inconsistency (e.g. if
the country-specific effects are correlated with output (which
they almost surely are), random effect estimation is biased and
inconsistent). To demonstrate this, we conduct a Hausman
specification test (under the null that the common random and
fixed effects coefficient values are identical) and reject the null at
any standard level of significance (the chi-squared distributed
test statistic is 71.5). While not as efficient, fixed effect estimation
is unbiased, consistent, and generally more robust than random
effects.
9
In Section 5.2 we will relax this assumption and use a more
appropriate dynamic panel model.

1155

E CO L O G I CA L EC O NO M IC S 6 8 (2 0 0 9) 1 14 9 1 15 9

Table 3 Baseline Environmental Kuznets Curve estimates

Baseline EKC model (5.1) estimates
OLS coefficient estimates
Dependent footprint variable: regressors
log rgdp
log rgdp squared
Observations
R2
EKC
Turning point ($I 2000)

Total

Built

Crop

CO2

Fish

4.520
0.328
904
0.970
No

0.015
0.0003
904
0.982
No

0.711
0.044
904
0.932
Yes
3028

3.959
0.280
904
0.944
No

0.023
0.003
904
0.788
No

Fuelwood

Pasture

Timber

0.187
0.012
904
0.923
No

0.193
0.011
904
0.870
No

0.273
0.021
904
0.971
No

0.136
0.007
765
0.905
No

0.057
0.006
765
0.972
No

2SLS coefficient estimates

log rgdp
log rgdp squared
Observations
R2
EKC
Turning point ($I 2000)

4.190
0.302
765
0.978
No

0.015
0.001
765
0.986
No

0.875
0.056
765
0.948
Yes
2647

3.477
0.247
765
0.962
No

0.006
0.001
765
0.803
No

0.214
0.014
765
0.940
No

Notes
1) , , refer to 1%, 5%, and 10% levels of significance respectively.
2) Each regression included time and cross-section dummies.
3) The 2SLS instruments consist of dummies and one-period lags of the log rgdp and log rgdp squared.

results reported in Table 3. Empirical evidence only supports

the existence of an EF Kuznets Curve for agricultural land (i.e.
Crops), with a turning points of $3028 ($I 2000). Because
of potential endogeneity problems between GDP and the EF,
Eq.(5.1) is re-estimated using 2SLS.10 The results, also reported
in Table 3, change very little. The only EF series with a
statistically significant Kuznets Curve relationship is agricultural land (i.e. Crops), with a turning point of $2647 ($I 2000).
Thus, there is robust and strong empirical evidence that there
exists a Kuznets Curve relationship between crop land and per
capita output, but very little evidence in support of a broader
Kuznets Curve. A glance at the global production (tones) and
harvested area (ha) time series from United Nation's Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) provides insight into this
finding (see Fig. 1). Between 1961 and 2000, world agricultural
production grew by an astounding 127%, while harvested area
grew by only 20%.

5.2.

i.i.d. in order to use lagged regressors as instruments). In order

to overcome this problem, we introduce a dynamic panel
model which explicitly captures the autocorrelation in the EF
series:
EFit b1 EFit1 b2 yit1 b3 y2it1 ai gt eit

5:2

Following the estimation procedure of Arellano and Bond

(1991), unbiased and consistent estimates of the coefficients in
Eq.(5.2) are obtained and reported in Table 4. The results are
remarkably similar to both the OLS and 2SLS estimates,
finding a statistically significant EKC in neither the overall
EF series nor any of its components (save pasture and timber,

Dynamic panel model

The baseline model (Eq. (5.1) appears to possess serially

correlated residuals, as evidenced by Durbin Watson statistics
from the OLS regressions. The Durbin Watson statistics range
in value from a low of 0.35 (for the pasture component) to a
high of 1.65 (for the CO2 component), all of which lie below the
lower 5% critical value of 1.89. Endogeneity notwithstanding,
the OLS estimates of Eq. (5.1) are still unbiased and consistent
despite the presence of serial correlation, while the 2SLS
estimates are biased (as we must assume that the error term is

10
One-period lagged values of GDP and GDP squared and the
contemporaneous dummies serve as instruments. The lagged
regressors are good instruments because GDP is a highly persistent
process.

Fig. 1 FAO global production and harvested area time series.

1156

E C O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 8 ( 2 0 09 ) 11 4 9 1 15 9

Table 4 Dynamic Environmental Kuznets Curve estimates

Arellano and Bond coefficient estimates
Dependent footprint variable: lagged regressors
Footprint
log GDP
log GDP squared
Observations
EKC
Turning point ($I 2000)

Total

Built

Crop

CO2

Fish

0.568
0.452
0.029
628
No

0.415
0.075
0.004
628
No

0.755
0.057
0.007
628
No

0.332
1.577
0.108
628
No

0.448
0.124
0.002
628
No

Fuelwood Pasture Timber

0.769
0.046
0.004
628
No

0.779
0.075
0.004
628
Yes
8153

0.127
0.165
0.013
628
Yes
656

Notes
1) , , refer to 1%, 5%, and 10% levels of significance respectively.
2) GDP and GDP squared measured in real terms.
3) Each regression includes period dummies.

which have turning points of $8153 and $918 ($I 2000)

respectively).11
Returning to the Total EF series, it appears that most of
the growth in that series is due to energy consumption (CO2
accounts for up to 50% of the EF measurement). Interestingly,
log GDP and log GDP squared are found to be significant, but in
the opposite direction that the EKC would predict. In other
words, the EF is found to be increasing at an increasing rate
with growth and development. To illustrate this relationship,
Fig. 2 plots the overall Total EF series for rich, middle
income, and poor nations.12 Clearly, the overall EF
increased sharply in rich countries (by approximately 60%),
and increased more mildly in middle income nations (by
approximately 7%), while poor nations' actually experienced a
17% decline in total EF between 1961 and 2000. This contrasts
sharply with total EF when the energy series are removed, as
reported in Fig. 3. In this case, all three income groups
experienced a near continuous decline in the EF between
1961 and 2000. Rich nations total EF (less energy) declined 18%,
while middle income and poor nations experienced a 26% and
27% decline respectively. The growth in energy consumption
therefore explains the large increase in the ecological footprints in both rich and middle income countries. Consequently, the dynamic EKC model (Eq. (5.2)) is re-estimated
using total EF (less energy) as the dependent variable (Table 5).
According to the regression results, there is a EKC relationship
between total EF (less energy) and per capita GDP, with a
turning point of $652 ($I 2000). As of 2003, 176 of 182 (or 97%) of
nations had per capita GDP levels in excess of this threshold,
which is consistent with the overall downward trend over the
past 40 years in this series across all income groups.13

5.3.

interesting exercise would be to diminish the importance of

energy in the EF and see if doing so would generate a
traditionally shaped EKC. To accomplish this we, construct a
new counterfactual dependent variable, denoted EFit:
energy

EFkit uEFit

energy

kEFit

ka0; 1

5:3

where EFit energy is the total ecological footprint less the energy
components, and EFit energy consists of the energy components
of the ecological footprint. The scale factor, , is varied from
0.10 to 0.90, in increments of 0.10, producing nine footprint
0.20
0.90
series (i.e. EF0.10
it , EFit ,, EFit ). Employing each of the nine
foregoing EF series, model(5.2) is re-estimated using AB
methodology. According to the results, provided in Table 6,
energy consumption levels would have to be cut by 50% across
the board before a statistically significant EKC emerges from
the estimation process. In other words, even if the impact of
energy use was overstated in the EF by 100%, the EF would not
conform to the traditional EKC hypothesis. The estimated
turning points are also consistent, ranging from a low of $862
to $955 ($I 2000) of real per capita GDP. This is graphically
represented in Fig. 4, which plots the estimated relationship

Energy sensitivity analysis

It is clear that energy use dominates the measure of ecological

footprint, subjecting the measure to potential criticism. An
11
The Crop series was marginally significant, with a negative
and statistically significant coefficient on log GDP squared, but an
insignificant coefficient on log GDP.
12
The rich nations consist of those nations in the top third of
the global income distribution over the entire time span of the
panel. Likewise, the middle income and poor nations consist
of the nations in the middle-third and bottom third of the global
income distribution over the entire time span of the panel.
13
Based on Penn World v 6.2 data , see Heston et al. (2006).

Fig. 2 Total footprint by income group. Note: The periods are

5 years in length, beginning with period 1 which spans the
years 1961 to 1965, and continuing in this manner ends with
period 8, which spans the years 1996 to 2000.

1157

E CO L O G I CA L EC O NO M IC S 6 8 (2 0 0 9) 1 14 9 1 15 9

Table 6 Energy sensitivity analysis

Energy sensitivity analysis
Lamda ()

0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

Fig. 3 Total footprint net of energy consumption by income

group. Note: The periods are 5 years in length, beginning
with period 1 which spans the years 1961 to 1965, and
continuing in this manner ends with period 8, which spans
the years 1996 to 2000.

between EF0.10, EF0.50 and EF0.90 and log per capita output using
the coefficient estimates provided in Table 6.

6.

Conclusions

Departing from the current Environmental Kuznets Curve

literature which typically uses pollution as a measure of
environmental quality, this paper empirically investigates the
EKC using an aggregate index of environmental degradation
called the Ecological Footprint. We find no evidence of an EKC
relationship between per capita output and the EF or any of its
subcomponents, with the exception of land in agriculture, and
to a lesser extent land used in pasture or for timber. The EF is
found to increase at an increasing rate for both rich and poor
nations on average, with much of the increase attributed to
energy use (i.e. CO2). When the energy components of the EF
are removed, the resulting series yields a statistically signifi-

Arellano and Bond estimation

model (5.2) coefficients
log GDP

log GDP squared

0.251
0.270
0.266
0.245
0.203
0.129
0.021
0.115
0.262

0.019
0.020
0.019
0.018
0.015
0.010
0.002
0.007
0.016

EKC

Turning
point

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No

862
962
971
981
955

Notes
1) , , refer to 1%, 5%, and 10% levels of significance respectively.
2) Lagged dependent variable and period dummy estimates not reported.

cant EKC with a turning point of approximately $652 ($I 2000).

More importantly, we find that the energy use component
must be discounted by a full 50% before a traditional EKC is
found.
The literature has found evidence of an EKC relationship
between pollution and economic development, suggesting
that comprehensive environmental policy is not necessary for
developing nations, as growth is expected to improve environmental quality over time. Our empirical results show that if
a broader measure of the loss of environmental capital is used,
there is little evidence of an EKC. Going one step further, we
find that energy consumption is, by and large, the major
culprit behind this result, and that substantial cuts in CO2
emissions are necessary to bring about an EKC relationship
between the ecological footprint and economic growth.
Together these results suggest that growth alone will not
serve as a solution to environmental problems. Instead, the

Table 5 Kuznets Curve Estimates for EF less energy

components
Dependent variable: total EF less
energy components

Arellano and Bond

coefficient estimates

Regressors

Model 5.2

log GDP
log GDP squared
Observations
EKC
Turning point ($I 2000)

0.207
0.016
628
Yes
652

Notes
1) , , refer to 1%, 5%, and 10% levels of significance respectively.
2) GDP and GDP squared measured in real terms.
3) Model 5.2 uses one-period lags of the reported regressors.
4) Coefficient estimates of the lagged dependent variable not.

Fig. 4 Estimated relationship between the EF and log per

capita output.

1158

E C O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 8 ( 2 0 09 ) 11 4 9 1 15 9

impacts of energy usage must be included in development

policy if sustainability is to be achieved.

REFERENCES
Ahluwalia, M., 1976. Income distribution and development: some
stylized fact. American Economic Review 66, 128135.
Agras, Jean, Chapman, Duane, 1999. A dynamic approach to the
Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis. Ecological Economics
28, 267277.
Arellano, Manuel, Bond, Stephen, 1991. Some tests of specification
for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to
employment equations. Review of Economic Studies 58, 277297.
Ayres, Robert U., 2000. Commentary on the utility of the ecological
footprint concept. Ecological Economics 32, 347349.
Azomahou, Theophile, Laisney, Francois, Nguyen Van, Phu, 2006.
Economic development and CO2 emissions: a nonparametric
panel approach. Journal of Public Economics 90 (67), 13471363.
Barbier, Edward, 2005. Natural Resources and Economic
Development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Barbier, Edward B., 2001. The economics of tropical deforestation
and land use: an introduction to the special issue. Land
Economics 77 (2), 155171.
Barro, R., 2000. Inequality and growth in a panel of countries.
Journal of Economic Growth 5, 532.
Bimonte, Salvatore, 2002. Information access, income distribution,
and the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Ecological Economics 1,
145156.
Boutaud, Aurlien, Natacha, Gondran, Christian, Brodhag, 2006.
Local environmental quality versus (global) ecological carrying
capacity: what might alternative aggregated indicators bring to
the debates about Environmental Kunzites Curves and
sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable
Development 9 (3), 297310.
Bruvoll, Annegrete, Taran, Faehn, Birger, Strom, 2003. Quantifying
central hypotheses on Environmental Kuznets Curves for a
rich economy: a computable general equilibrium study.
Scottish Journal of Political Economy 50 (2).
Cabeza Gutes, Maite, 1996. The concept of weak sustainability.
Ecological Economics 17 (3), 147156.
Cavlovic, Therese A., Baker, Kenneth H., Berrens, Robert P.,
Gawande, Kishore, 2000. A meta-analysis of Environmental
Kuznets Curve studies. Agricultural and Resource Economics
Review 29 (1), 3242.
Cole, Matthew, 2003. Development, trade, and the environment:
how robust is the Environmental Kuznets Curve? Environmental
and Development Economics 8, 557580.
Copeland, Brain R., Taylor, M. Scott, 2004. Trade
growth and the environment. Journal of Economic Literature
42, 771.
Costanza, Robert, 2000. The dynamics of the ecological footprint
concept. Ecological Economics 32, 341345.
Costanza, R., Daly, H.E., 1992. Natural capital and sustainable
development. Conservation Biology 6 (1), 3746.
Culas, R.J., 2007. Deforestation and the environmental
Kuznets curve: an institutional perspective. Ecological Economics
61 (2), 429437.
Dasgupta, Susmita, Laplante, Beniot, Wang, Hua, Wheeler, David,
2002. Confronting the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Journal of
Economic Perspectives 16 (1), 147168.
Deacon, Robert T., Norman, Catherine S., 2006. Does the
Environmental Kuznets Curve describe how individual
countries behave? Land Economics 82 (2), 291315.
Francheschi, Dina, Kahn, James R., 2003. Beyond strong
sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable
Development and World Ecology 10, 211-200.

Galeotti, M., Lanza, A., Pauli, F., 2006. Reassessing the

environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a robustness
exercise. Ecological Economics 57 (1), 52163.
Gawande, Kishore, Berrens, Robert, Bohara, Alok, 2001. A
consumption based theory of the Environmental Kuznets
Curve. Ecological Economics 37, 101112.
Global Footprint Network (2006) National Footprint and Biocapacity
Accounts, URL: www.footprintnetwork.org, accessed May 2007.
Grossman, Gene M., Krueger, Alan B., 1993. Environmental
impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. In: Garber,
Peter M. (Ed.), The U.S.Mexico Free Trade Agreement. MIT
Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 1356.
Grossman, Gene M., Krueger, Alan B., 1995. Economic growth and the
environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics 110 (2), 353377.
Haberl, Helmut, Erb, Karl-Heinz, Krausmann, Fridolin, 2001. How to
calculate and interpret ecological footprints for long periods of time:
the case of Austria 19261995. Ecological Economics 38, 2545.
Halkos, Geroge, 2003. Environmental Kuznets Curve for sulfur:
evidence using GMM estimation and random coefficient panel data
models. Environment and Development Economics 8, 581601.
Harbaugh, William T., Levinson, Arik, Wilson, David Molloy, 2002.
Rethinking the empirical evidence for an Environmental Kuznets
Curve. Review of Economics and Statistics 84 (3), 541551.
Hediger, Werner, 1999. Reconciling weak and strong sustainability.
International Journal of Social Economics 26 (7/8/9), 11201143.
Heerink, Nico, Mulatu, Abay, Bulte, Erwin, 2001. Income inequality
and the environment: aggregation bias in Environmental
Kuznets Curves. Ecological Economics 38, 359367.
Heston, A., Summers, R., Aten, B., 2006. Penn World Table Version
6.2, Center for International Comparisons of Production,
Income and Prices at the University of Pennsylvania. URL:
http://pwt.econ.upenn.edu/, accessed May 2007.
Hill, Robert, and Magnani, Elisabetta (2002) An Exploration of the
Conceptual and Empirical Basis of the Environmental Kuznets
Curve, Blackwell Publishers Ltd/ University of Adelaide and
Flinders Univeristy of South Australia.
Hong, Li, Pei Dong, Z., Chunyu, H., Gang, Wang, 2007. Evaluating the
effects of embodied energy in international trade on ecological
footprint in China. Ecological Economics 62 (1), 136148.
Jha, Raghbendra, Murthy, K.V. Bhanu, 2003. An Inverse Global
Environmental Kuznets Curve. Journal of Comparative Economics
31, 352368.
Khanna, Neha, 2002. The income elasticity of non point source air
pollutants: revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve. Economic
Letters 77, 387392.
Kuznets, S., 1955. Economic growth and income inequality.
American Economic Review 45, 128.
Lenzen, Manfred, Borgstrom Hansson, Carina, Bond, Stuart, 2007.
On the bioproductivity and land-disturbance metrics of the
Ecological Footprint. Ecological Economics 61 (1), 610.
List, John, Gallet, Craig, 1999. The Environmental Kuznets Curve:
does one size fit all. Ecological Economics 31, 409423.
Malthus, T.R., 1789. An Essay on the Principle of Population. J. Johnson.
URL: http://www.econlib.org/library/Malthus/malPop1.html,
accessed May 2007.
Martinez-Zarzoso, Inmaculada, Bengochea-Morancho, Aurelia,
2003. Testing for an Environmental Kuznets Curve in Latin
American countries. Revista De Analisis Economico 18, 326.
Mason, Robin, Swanson, Timothy, 2003. A Kuznets Curve analysis
of ozone-depleting substances and the impact of the Montreal
Protocol. Oxford Economic Papers 55, 124.
Merlevede, B., Verbeke, T., De Clercq, M., 2006. The EKC for SO2:
does firm size matter? Ecological Economics 59 (4), 451461.
Mller-Frstenberger, Georg, Wagnerb, Martin, 2007. Exploring the
environmental Kuznets hypothesis: theoretical and
econometric problems. Ecological Economics 62 (34), 648660.
Nijkamp, Peter, Rossi, Emilia, Vindigni, Gabriella, 2004. Ecological
footprints in plural: a mete-analytic comparison of empirical
results. Regional Studies 38 (7), 747765.

E CO L O G I CA L EC O NO M IC S 6 8 (2 0 0 9) 1 14 9 1 15 9

Patterson, T.M., Niccolucci, V., Bastianoni, S., 2007. Beyond more

is better: ecological footprint accounting for tourism and
consumption in Val di Merse, Italy. Ecological Economics 62 (3),
747756.
Paudel, Krishna P., Zapata, Hector, Susanto, Dwi, 2005. An
empirical test of Environmental Kuznets Curve for water
pollution. Environmental and Resource Economics 31 (3),
325348.
Perman, Roger, Stern, David I., 2003. Evidence from panel unit root
and cointegration tests that the Environmental Kuznets Curve
does not exist. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource
Economics 47 (3), 325347.
Plassmann, Florenz, Khanna, Neha, 2006. Household income and
pollution: implications for the debate about the Environmental
Kuznets Curve hypothesis. Journal of Environment and
Development 15 (1), 2241.
Ranjan, R., Shortle, J., 2007. The environmental Kuznets curve
when the environment exhibits hysteresis. Ecological
Economics 64 (1), 204215.
Rees, W.E., 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying
capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environment and
Urbanization 4, 121130.
Rees, W.E., 2000. Eco-footprint analysis: merit and brickbats.
Ecological Economics 32, 371374.
Rodriguez-Meza, Jorge, Southgate, Douglas, Gonzalez-Vega, Claudio,
2003. Rural poverty, household response to shocks, and
agricultural land use: panel results for El Salvador. Department of
Agriculture, Environmental and Developmental Economics,
Ohio State University. Sept. 2003.
Rupasingha, Anil, Goetz, Stephan J., Debertin, David L., Pagoulatos,
Angelos, 2004. The Environmental Kuznets Curve for US
counties: a spatial economic analysis with extensions. Papers
in Regional Science 83, 407424.
Selden, Thomas M., Song, Daqing, 1994. Environmental quality
and development: is these a Kuznets Curve for air pollution
emissions. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 27 (2), 147162.
Shafik, Nemut, Banyopadhyay, Sushenjit, 1992. Economic growth
and environmental quality: time series and cross sectional
evidence. Work Bank Paper, vol. 904.

1159

Solow, R.M., 1974. Intergenerational equity and exhaustible

resources. Review of Economic Studies 41, 2945.
Stern, David I., 1998. Progress on the Environmental Kuznets Curve?
Environment and Development Economics 3 (2), 173196.
Stern, David I., 2004. The rise and fall of the Environmental
Kuznets Curve. World Development 32 (8), 14191439.
Stiglitz, J., 1974. Growth with exhaustible natural resources:
efficient and optimal growth paths. Review of Economic
Studies 41, 123137.
Stokey, N.L., 1998. Are there limits to growth. International
Economic Review 39, 131.
Torras, M., Boyce, J.K., 1998. Income, inequality, and pollution: a
reassessment of the environmental Kuznets Curve. Ecological
Economics 25 (2), 147160.
Van Kooten, G.C., Bulte, E.H., 2000. The ecological foot print: useful
science or politics? Ecological Economics 32, 385389.
Wackernagel, Mathis, Rees, William, 1996. Our Ecological
Footprint, Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society
Publishers, Gabriola Island, Philadelphia.
Wackernagel, Mathis, Monfreda, Chad, Schulz, Niels B., Erb, Karl-Heinz,
Haberl, Helmut, Krausmann, Fridolin, 2004a. Calculating
national and global ecological footprint time series: resolving
conceptual challenges. Land Use Policy 21, 271278.
Wackernagel, Mathis, Monfreda, Chad, Erb, Karl-Heinz, Haberl,
Helmut, Schulz, Niels B., 2004b. Ecological footprint time series
of Austria, the Philippines and South Korea for 19611999:
comparing the conventional approach to an actual land area
approach. Land Use Policy 21, 261269.
White, T.J., 2007. Sharing resources: the global distribution of the
Ecological Footprint. Ecological Economics 64 (2), 402410.
Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., 2007. On the conversion between local
and global hectares in Ecological Footprint analysis. Ecological
Economics 60 (4), 673677.
Wiedman, Thomas, Minx, Jan, Barrett, John, Wackernagel, Mathis,
2006. Allocating ecological footprints to final consumption
categories with inputoutput analysis. Ecological Economics 56
(1), 2848.