Free-Response Prompts

Warm-Up

Explain in your own words the difference between weak sustainability and strong sustainability. Use the Hartwick-Solow rule and the Ecological Footprint as concrete operational examples of each.

Build-Up

Walk through the three-step Ecological Footprint calculation using the sample-exam numbers (A = 10,000 ha, YF = 2.4, EQF = 1.5 for biocapacity; EFp = 3.5, EFI = 1.5, EFE = 2.0 gha for consumption). Show your formulas, compute the deficit or surplus, and explain what each step measures.

Intermediate

Critically evaluate the Ecological Footprint as a sustainability indicator. Address at least three of the van den Bergh & Verbruggen (1999) criticisms. Does the professor's endorsement of EF as a "strong sustainability" tool adequately answer these criticisms, or do they undermine the indicator's policy usefulness?

Advanced

Japan and Gabon show dramatically different EF profiles (−4.1 vs. +27.9 gha/person). Use the EF framework and the income × biocapacity quadrant analysis to explain what drives these differences, then propose realistic policy interventions for each country.

Hard

A critic argues: "The EF's strong-sustainability framework is ideologically driven — it manufactures an artificial crisis by refusing to allow technological substitution, and its 1.6× overshoot figure is therefore meaningless as policy guidance." Construct the most rigorous defense of EF you can, then honestly identify the one valid element in the critique that defenders must concede.