scale and topology in the ecological economics sustainability paradigm

6
Ecological Economics 41 (2002) 361 – 366 ANALYSIS Scale and topology in the ecological economics sustainability paradigm Geraldine J. Jordan a, *, Marie-Jose ´e Fortin b a School of Resource and Enironmental Management, Simon Fraser Uniersity, 8888 Uniersity Drie, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6 b Department of Zoology, Uniersity of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3G5 Received 17 April 2001; received in revised form 22 October 2001; accepted 15 February 2002 Abstract An ecologically sustainable scale of the economic system requires inclusion of spatial-temporal dimensions and topological relationships. While Herman E. Daly and Marcus Stewen have deliberated some of the issues surrounding economic scale in their papers (‘‘Allocation, distribution and scale: Towards an economics that is efficient, just and sustainable’’ [Ecol. Econ. 6 (1992) 185], ‘‘The interdependence of allocation, distribution, scale and stability — A comment on Herman E. Daly’s vision of an economics that is efficient, just and sustainable’’ [Ecol. Econ. 27 (1998) 119] and letters to the editor [Ecol. Econ. 30 (1999) 1], [Ecol. Econ. 30 (1999) 2], they do not address spatio-temporal constraints on ecological processes. Although Daly frames the scale of the economy based on sustainable throughput of resources relative to the environment, the pragmatic approach to defining this sustainable scale must incorporate other dimensions of scale. While Daly [Ecol. Econ. 6 (1992) 185], [Ecol. Econ. 30 (1999) 1] correctly promotes a logical sequence of policy instruments, scale should indeed elicit dependence from allocation and distribution decisions. Stewen’s [Ecol. Econ. 27 (1998) 119], [Ecol. Econ. 30 (1999) 2] arguments included that these instruments have co-evolutionary interdependencies, but such arguments do not guarantee economic nor ecological sustainability. A more useful definition of sustainable economic scale includes spatial and temporal dimensions, scale constraints and topological relationships as they are framed by ecological components and processes. The spatial scale of the global economy is large, but temporally the global economy is diminutive: two characteristics that typically define catastrophic events in ecological parlance. Using a spatio-temporal framework, Daly’s boat analogy can be extended to real-world linkages and possible solutions through supplementing the current view of economic scale with spatio-temporal distance and topology. © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Sustainability; Scale; Spatio-temporal; Topology This article is also available online at: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon 1. Introduction The debate between Daly (1992, 1999) and Stewen (1998, 1999) continues to improve how a sustainable scale of economic structures and sys- * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-604-291-4659; fax: +1- 604-291-4968. E-mail address: [email protected] (G.J. Jordan). 0921-8009/02/$ - see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII:S0921-8009(02)00035-6

Upload: geraldine-j-jordan

Post on 17-Sep-2016

226 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Scale and topology in the ecological economics sustainability paradigm

Ecological Economics 41 (2002) 361–366

ANALYSIS

Scale and topology in the ecological economicssustainability paradigm

Geraldine J. Jordan a,*, Marie-Josee Fortin b

a School of Resource and En�ironmental Management, Simon Fraser Uni�ersity, 8888 Uni�ersity Dri�e, Burnaby,BC, Canada V5A 1S6

b Department of Zoology, Uni�ersity of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3G5

Received 17 April 2001; received in revised form 22 October 2001; accepted 15 February 2002

Abstract

An ecologically sustainable scale of the economic system requires inclusion of spatial-temporal dimensions andtopological relationships. While Herman E. Daly and Marcus Stewen have deliberated some of the issues surroundingeconomic scale in their papers (‘‘Allocation, distribution and scale: Towards an economics that is efficient, just andsustainable’’ [Ecol. Econ. 6 (1992) 185], ‘‘The interdependence of allocation, distribution, scale and stability—Acomment on Herman E. Daly’s vision of an economics that is efficient, just and sustainable’’ [Ecol. Econ. 27 (1998)119] and letters to the editor [Ecol. Econ. 30 (1999) 1], [Ecol. Econ. 30 (1999) 2], they do not address spatio-temporalconstraints on ecological processes. Although Daly frames the scale of the economy based on sustainable throughputof resources relative to the environment, the pragmatic approach to defining this sustainable scale must incorporateother dimensions of scale. While Daly [Ecol. Econ. 6 (1992) 185], [Ecol. Econ. 30 (1999) 1] correctly promotes alogical sequence of policy instruments, scale should indeed elicit dependence from allocation and distributiondecisions. Stewen’s [Ecol. Econ. 27 (1998) 119], [Ecol. Econ. 30 (1999) 2] arguments included that these instrumentshave co-evolutionary interdependencies, but such arguments do not guarantee economic nor ecological sustainability.A more useful definition of sustainable economic scale includes spatial and temporal dimensions, scale constraints andtopological relationships as they are framed by ecological components and processes. The spatial scale of the globaleconomy is large, but temporally the global economy is diminutive: two characteristics that typically definecatastrophic events in ecological parlance. Using a spatio-temporal framework, Daly’s boat analogy can be extendedto real-world linkages and possible solutions through supplementing the current view of economic scale withspatio-temporal distance and topology. © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sustainability; Scale; Spatio-temporal; Topology

This article is also available online at:www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

1. Introduction

The debate between Daly (1992, 1999) andStewen (1998, 1999) continues to improve how asustainable scale of economic structures and sys-

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-604-291-4659; fax: +1-604-291-4968.

E-mail address: [email protected] (G.J. Jordan).

0921-8009/02/$ - see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII: S0 921 -8009 (02 )00035 -6

Page 2: Scale and topology in the ecological economics sustainability paradigm

G.J. Jordan, M.-J. Fortin / Ecological Economics 41 (2002) 361–366362

tems is defined. In this commentary, we argue thatecological and economic sustainability imply bothintragenerational spatio-temporal distribution andallocation issues as well as relations of tradeformed between units and framed by topologicallinkages. Since there is a need to incorporatespace over which economic activity is undertaken,we elaborate Daly’s (1992) definition of economicscale based on comprehensive scale definitions(such as Csillag et al., 2000; Gibson et al., 2000).We agree with Daly’s (1992, 1999) premise of alogical sequence of economic policy instrumentsthat promotes scale to be the primary instrumentrequired in decision-making for sustainability.Stewen’s (1998, 1999) view of interdependencecontributes to the idea of mutual reliance of pol-icy tools. However, according to hierarchical scal-ing paradigms (for ecological context see Allenand Hoekstra, 1992), allocation and distributionmust be dependent on scale, although these for-mer policy instruments may indeed be mutuallyinterdependent. While containment of economicinstruments can be determined, the idea of sus-tainable dependence remains insufficient withoutunderstanding constraints of ecological systemsand topological relationships. We, therefore, ar-gue that a sustainable scale of economic systemsrequires applied knowledge of the spatio-temporalconstraints of ecological systems and linkages.

2. Review of the scale debate

Daly (1992) stated in his seminal paper, ‘‘Allo-cation, distribution and scale: Towards an eco-nomics that is efficient, just and sustainable’’, thatscale ‘‘has not been formally recognized and hasno corresponding policy instrument’’ (p. 186). Hesuggested that a third policy instrument, relatedto scale, is required. This instrument would con-tribute to sustainability as ‘‘a good scale is onethat is at least sustainable, that does not erodeenvironmental carrying capacity over time’’(Daly, 1992, pp. 186–187). He elaborated thedefinition of an ‘‘optimal scale’’ as being onewhich does not erode the services of the ecosystemwhich, marginally compared, are worth more thanthe production benefits which we may derive from

them. Daly (1992) stated that the typical way thateconomists deal with scale is ‘‘to subsume it underallocation’’ p. 189. Since the protection of ecolog-ical services requires that we maintain economicactivities within ecological capacity, Daly sug-gested a logical sequence of policy instruments,illustrated with tradable permits, of scale, alloca-tion and distribution. He stated furthermore thatscale must be a social decision based on ecologicalcarrying capacity.

In a commentary on Daly’s paper, Stewen(1998) criticized Daly’s ‘‘independence’’ of policygoals as deceptive, since they can be misinter-preted as a hierarchy, as well as removing the goalof stabilization. Stewen (1998) stated that ‘‘it isnot necessarily Daly’s intention to suggest thatallocation, distribution and scale are indepen-dent’’ (although Daly (1992) indeed stated this).Stewen (1998) considered it dangerous (‘‘possiblyfatal’’) to interpret ‘‘independence’’ as the ‘‘possi-bility of dealing with scale issues isolated fromother goals’’ and criticized the fact that Dalyargued in neo-classical parlance with rhetoricrather than operational remarks. Stewen appearedto interpret Daly’s use of independent goals as‘‘isolated goals’’. Moreover, ‘‘… if the generalscale should be limited or reduced, the effectsdepend on the chosen instruments’’ (p. 125).Stewen preferred a ‘‘magical triangle of alloca-tion, distribution, and scale, with societal stabilityand sustainability as ‘meta level’ goals’’ (p. 128).

Daly’s (1999) reply to Stewen’s (1998) commen-tary was a clarification of independence, wherebyDaly provided the mathematical analogy of threeequations with three unknowns, aiming to solvescale, allocation and distribution. Furthermore,Daly stated that his independent goals are a ‘‘log-ical sequence’’, not a ‘‘normative hierarchy’’ asStewen (1998) had (mis)interpreted. To this,Stewen (1999) replied that in real life ‘‘politicaldecisions are not made in sequence of mathemati-cal equations…. allocative, distributive and scaledecisions are mixed together in political process’’p. 2. Stewen’s view is indeed positivist, and doesnot lead to mitigating the sustainability problem,which exists because of this ‘‘mixed together’’process, i.e. no prescriptive constraints are placedin economic activity. Daly’s view of scale policy is

Page 3: Scale and topology in the ecological economics sustainability paradigm

G.J. Jordan, M.-J. Fortin / Ecological Economics 41 (2002) 361–366 363

clearly one of independence, not isolation, and iscloser to achieving a sustainable system. WhileStewen’s (1998) aim was to complement and clar-ify Daly’s original statements (1992), Stewen per-haps derailed the correct track of sustainable scaleparadigms by suggesting interdependence betweenscale, allocation and distribution, rather than con-straint by scale. In this commentary, we do notcomment on the interdependence of allocationand distribution, but rather argue that scale, inparticular spatio-temporal ecological scale and to-pological linkages, indeed must constrain alloca-tive and distributive activities in order to achievesustainability.

3. Sustainability

The widely accepted definition of sustainabilitypertains to maintaining the needs of today’s gen-eration without compromising those of futuregenerations (WCED, 1987). Thus, to meet today’sneeds, economics seeks to meet scarcity with sup-ply. The dimensions of scarcity and supply are aresult of spatial heterogeneity from local to globallevels. Meeting the needs of future generationsrequires acknowledgement of temporal hetero-geneity at short and long terms. Moreover, thetemporal dimension of resources behooves incor-poration of natural variation and cycles in sus-tainable economic systems. This cycling timeconstrains resource allocation such that we clas-sify those with long turnover times as non-renew-ables and those with shorter turnover times asrenewables. These space and time dimensions di-rectly relate to scale issues, in particular, to con-straints imposed by hierarchy (Allen andHoekstra, 1992). However, when Daly (1992) re-ferred to scale of the economy, it is obvious thathis definition refers to ‘‘quantitative’’ scale: thesize of the economy, albeit aspatially and atempo-rally.

4. Scale

Daly (1992) stated that scale of the economy iscalculated as resource use per capita by popula-

tion. He argued that at a given level of resourcethroughput, many individuals can consume asmall proportion of resources, or, alternatively, afew can consume proportionately more. However,aspatial and atemporal sizing precludes any usefuldefinition of sustainable economic size since ourworld’s resources and environment exist dynami-cally and heterogeneously over space. Our currentglobal economic systems alter heterogeneity at theglobal scale (increasing differences among re-gions) and also at the local scale (decreasing thedifferences within a region (e.g. monoculture,monopoly, etc). Ecological (e.g. agricultural) andeconomic (e.g. dominant chain-retail) homogene-ity at regional and local scales, can create depen-dencies that erode diversity which may be neededfor resiliency to, and recovery from, system dis-turbances (e.g. blight, bankruptcy). While Daly(1992) referred to the fact that there may beunknown environmental thresholds, he does notstate how these exist in spatial or temporal eco-logical dimensions. In some cases, too large aperturbation in an ecological system can causereduction in ecosystem services, or more critically,to change states, perhaps irreversibly. Moreover,the juxtaposition of regions experiencing resourceextraction or waste assimilation is of paramountimportance. Ecological sustainability necessitatescertain spatial configurations of habitat (e.g. inte-rior forest area and connectivity), thus, the requi-site spatial and temporal relationships betweenecological entities cannot be disregarded.

Thus argued, the aggregate throughput of re-sources by population is a poor calculator of whatought to be managed, and how, locally or region-ally for sustainability. Economic scale, from asustainability paradigm, should, therefore, incor-porate spatial and temporal dimensions as theyare constrained by geophysical and ecosystemprocesses. In turn, the space-time constraints onnatural systems generally specify that spatiallylarge processes turn over more slowly than thosecovering less space. Catastrophes, or extreme dis-turbances, are considered to be events that hap-pen with larger than ‘‘normal’’ frequency or overtoo large a space, or too intensely in an area, or acombination of these. Hurricanes, global warm-ing, earthquakes, desertification, oil spills, andsmog are examples of such events occurring too

Page 4: Scale and topology in the ecological economics sustainability paradigm

G.J. Jordan, M.-J. Fortin / Ecological Economics 41 (2002) 361–366364

quickly, too broadly, too intensely, or a combina-tion of these. When occurring at very local scales,over short periods of time, such events as smallstorms, microclimate alteration, or emissions fromone vehicle are not considered to be severe events(provided that the correct scale is considered).Indeed, one tree falling in a forest under naturalregimes is a locally stable event (Allen and Hoek-stra, 1992), although combined local effects mightcreate ecological instability at broader scales. Inter-estingly, global economic trends create increasedlinkages over more space, in less time throughtechnological advances resulting in temporaldiminution but spatial expansion of economic ex-changes.

The traditional space– time relationships of pre-industrial economies were positioned closer to theconstraints imposed by ecological systems. Theseeconomies included bartering and local trade oversmall areas of products closely linked with ecolog-ical space and turnover times. Indeed, the declineof some classic cultures is often ascribed to over-ex-traction of ecological systems (e.g. Easter Islandand Mayan civilizations). Although early interna-tional trade (i.e. that which begot our contempo-rary economic system, such as the Hudson BayCompany and East India Company) attenuated alarge amount of space, it also comprised a longcycle on the temporal scale. In today’s world,instant communications creates the ‘death of dis-tance’ (The Economist, 1995). Is there a space– timethreshold, that is, the rate of spatial change withrespect to turnover times, which cannot be ex-ceeded? In contemporary society with globalsourcing and instantaneous digital communica-tions (The Economist, 1995; Melody, 1999), multi-national enterprises can make spatially extensiveand temporally expedient decisions, extracting nat-ural resources to meet large demand elsewhere, ormoving wastes to environmental sinks, at speedsand spaces for which ecosystems themselves cannotcompensate. This may indeed change the resilienceand health of an ecosystem, leading to a non-renew-able state by precluding rehabilitation. For exam-ple, large clearcuts created by fellerbunchers, lowfish stock recruitment, and industrial atmosphericpollutants are by-production externalities of trade-related processes which operate in more space and

in less time than is allowed by the natural variabilityof ecosystems. Technology has smitten us with theglossiness of increased efficiency, and has stepped,or is stepping over the ecological space– timethresholds.

To consider scale as independent or decoupledfrom processes or limits that it defines is counter-intuitive to current studies in the science of scale(see Meentenmeyer, 1989; Levin, 1992; Goodchildand Quattrochi, 1997; Marceau, 1999; Csillag et al.,2000; Gibson et al., 2000). Daly’s argument thatscale, allocation and distribution are independent,and Stewen’s view of interdependency, should beblended together so that scale constrains (creates adependency of) economic activity, according toecological thresholds. Such an approach is sup-ported by current ecological paradigms of upperlevels constraining and contextualizing the pro-cesses and phenomena which they contain (Allenand Hoekstra, 1992). Regardless of how controlledan economy is, scale (which Daly considers anindependent policy instrument) will always sub-sume allocation and distribution (thus creates de-pendence rather than independence of otherinstruments). If scale is allowed to ‘float’ (i.e. it isnot a predetermined control on the economy), thenscale will expand and contract in response to spatialand temporal fluxes in allocation and distribution.Thus, in Daly’s tradable permit example, allocationand distribution are directly controlled by sustain-able scale. While tradable permit allocation anddistribution may or may not be independent of eachother, they are definitely dependent when sustain-able scale is imposed, and thus supervene scale inthe logical sequence. Sequencing should indeed bea prescribed method to overcome the fact thatpractices are ‘‘mixed together’’ (in Stewen’s terms,see above), and thus unsustainable when scale issubsumed or ignored.

5. Topology

Daly (1992, 1999) referred to the aggregateallocation as a loaded boat afloat with a plimsollline. The boat analogy Daly provides is appropri-ate, though in actuality, allocation is not onehomogeneous entity, but is composed of many

Page 5: Scale and topology in the ecological economics sustainability paradigm

G.J. Jordan, M.-J. Fortin / Ecological Economics 41 (2002) 361–366 365

interlinked ‘‘boats’’ (perhaps with boardwalks andsatellite communications, rapid loading and un-loading transactions, and a general malaise oneach boat). This boat network is indeed where theissue of topology finds its place: topology, in thecontext of spatial information system theory,refers ‘‘to the continuity of space and spatialproperties, such as connectivity, that are unaf-fected by continuous distortion’’ (Burrough andMcDonnell, 1998, p. 306). In applying the topo-logical concept of connectivity and linkages to oureconomic and ecological systems, we demonstratethat while economic links can become distorted,connected parts of ecological systems do not havethe same resiliency to distortion over space andtime. The analogy of the boat network, represent-ing groups of regions or of continents, can thus besupplemented with an understanding of Euclideanand topological economic distances and two cor-responding sustainability issues: stretched andbroken linkages.

While the Euclidean distance of economic sys-tems increases with globalization, the topology, orgeometric linkages, between the new ‘‘stretched’’distances over which trade occurs might not besustainable. Instead of supply meeting demandlocally, economic equilibrium now occurs overmuch larger distances, and is not necessarilyreflective of natural systems. Indeed, Allen andHoekstra (1992) aptly argued that humans createleakiness in ecosystems (that is, inputting, out-putting and through-putting materials and energythrough an ecosystem that would not likely occurwithout anthropogenic influence). They provideda quotidian example of Spanish-grown oranges,processed into marmalade in the UK and appear-ing on breakfast tables in New York (Allen andHoekstra, 1992). We illustrate the downside ofsuch leakiness by the changing relationship be-tween costs and benefits in fruit transport as thespatial scale increases. While the costs may ini-tially decrease with purchase of fruit from tropicalareas and shipped for consumption to temperatezones (rather than growing and consuming localfruits), costs, both economic and ecological, maychange erratically with the alteration in Euclideandistance. Indeed, this may occur when unripe fruitis transported over longer distances, requiring

more energy for storage and transport. Whileeconomic pricing may find a new equilibriumpoint under a shifted cost curve, ecological costsinclude increased potential for disease duringtransport, accompanied by loss of produce andpossible ramifications through the food chain.While fruit transport is used as a simple heuristicexample, serious current realities do indeed exist.It is increasingly disturbing to witness possibledamage to ecological linkages and natural geo-graphic safeguards with instances of trade-in-duced transported diseases (e.g. bovinespongiform encephalopathy and foot-and-mouthdisease in livestock) spreading between Europeancountries, if not globally. Would the diffusion ofsuch threats occur without global economic tradestretching ecological topological linkages.

The topology between ecological systems ischaracterized by natural linkages at both localscales (e.g. habitat of sessile organisms) defined byshort Euclidean distances, and broader scalesdefined by longer distances. Such broader spatialrelationships include longer distance associationsof seasonal migration and natural range shifts(Hunter, 1997). Anadromous fish, such as salmon,provide a clear illustration of topological linkagesmaintained at broader spatial scales, incorporat-ing different components of the species’ life his-tory. Birth and early life stages occur in inlandfreshwater streams, but individuals mature in theoceanic environment, returning to spawn in thefreshwater stream. Anthropogenic intervention,such as damming salmon-bearing streams, effec-tively disrupts natural linkages critical to life cy-cles. Thus, activities related to economic systems(such as dams for hydro-electric power) can incurenvironmental externalities when and where natu-ral linkages are truncated. Both stretches andbreaks in topological linkages of natural systemscan deteriorate, marginalize or annihilate support-ing ecological services.

6. Conclusions

That economists are considering economic scaleis heartening to spatial scientists who spend theircareers researching space and scale issues. Daly’s

Page 6: Scale and topology in the ecological economics sustainability paradigm

G.J. Jordan, M.-J. Fortin / Ecological Economics 41 (2002) 361–366366

concept of economic scale is a suitably parsimo-nious model, providing a best point of departurefor discussions regarding sustainability and in-deed, for enriching the model in order to apply it.However, it is essential to clarify the terminologyof scale in economics to bring it into line with thecurrent science of scale (see also Levin, 1992;Goodchild and Quattrochi, 1997; Marceau 1999).Some research, such as transforming the discountrate to spatial dimensions (Perrings and Hannon,1997; Steininger, 1999; Perrings and Hannon,2001) and the ecological footprint analysis (Wak-ernagel and Rees, 1996), does indeed incorporatethe value of the spatial dimension. Coupling thescale issue (both spatial and temporal) with eco-nomics is paramount for attaining a richer under-standing of sustainability and the distribution ofboth economic and ecological impacts.

Intragenerational issues of spatial scarcity andheterogeneity of allocation and distribution com-prise one of the two critical scale elements in aframework of sustainability. The other is tempo-ral scale with respect to ecological turnover timesand the rate at which we use resources and dis-pose of wastes, together with how future genera-tions will be affected by environmental lags.Inseparably alloyed to the scale issue are topolog-ical relationships in ecological systems, which re-quire respect for, and maintenance of, theirintegrity and services. Thus, sustainability is ascale and topology issue, requiring not just size ofthe economy in resource use per capita, but suchan ecological value linked over space and time.These issues, in general, emphasize the need forincreased multidisciplinary collaboration and inte-gration of research by ecologists and economists.It is encouraging to be further enlightened andchallenged by commentaries such as those pro-vided by Daly and Stewen in continued refining ofthe understanding of sustainability.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the valu-able comments and suggestions of the anonymousreviewers.

References

Allen, T.F., Hoekstra, T.W., 1992. Toward a Unified Ecology.Columbia University Press, New York, p. 384.

Burrough, P.A., McDonnell, R.A., 1998. Principles of Geo-graphic Information Systems. Oxford University Press,New York, p. 333.

Csillag, F., Fortin, M.-J., Dungan, J., 2000. On the limits andextensions of the definition of scale. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am.81, 230–232.

Daly, H., 1992. Allocation, distribution, and scale: Towardsan economics that is efficient, just and sustainable. Ecol.Econ. 6, 185–193.

Daly, H., 1999. Reply to Marcus Stewen. Ecol. Econ. 30, 1–2.Gibson, C.C., Ostrom, E., Ahn, T.K., 2000. The concept of

scale and the human dimensions of global change: Asurvey. Ecol. Econ. 32, 217–239.

Goodchild, M.F., Quattrochi, D.A., 1997. Introduction: Scale,multiscaling, remote sensing, and GIS. In: Quattrochi,D.A., Goodchild, M.F. (Eds.), Scale and Remote Sensingin GIS. CRC Press, Florida, pp. 1–11.

Hunter, M., 1997. The Biological Landscape. In: Kohm, K.A.,Franklin, J.F. (Eds.), Creating a Forestry for the 21stCentury. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 57–68.

Levin, S., 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology.Ecology 73, 1943–1967.

Marceau, D.J., 1999. The scale issue in social and naturalsciences. Canadian J. Remote Sensing 25, 347–356.

Meentenmeyer, V., 1989. Geographical perspectives of space,time, and scale. Landscape Ecol. 3, 163–173.

Melody, W.H., 1999. Mapping information societies. Telecom-mun. Policy 23, 681–682.

Perrings, C., Hannon, B., 1997. A sense of time and place: Anintroduction to spatial discounting. Department of Envi-ronmental Economics and Environmental Management,Discussion Papers in Environmental Economics and Envi-ronmental Management, Number 9702, Heslington, York,p. 19.

Perrings, C., Hannon, B., 2001. An introduction to spatialdiscounting. J. Regional Sci. 41, 23–38.

Steininger, K., 1999. Spatial discounting and the environment:An empirical investigation into human preferences. IndianJ. Appl. Econ. 7, 253–268.

Stewen, M., 1998. The interdependence of allocation, distribu-tion, scale and stability—A comment on Herman E.Daly’s vision on an economics that is efficient, just andsustainable. Ecol. Econ. 27, 119–130.

Stewen, M., 1999. Response to Herman Daly. Ecol. Econ. 30,2–3.

The Economist, 1995. The death of distance. September 30,pp. 5–8.

Wakernagel, M., Rees, W., 1996. Our Ecological Footprint.New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC, p. 160.

WCED, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press,Toronto, pp. 383.