Decoupling: a step toward sustainable development with reference to OECD countries

References

• Andreoni V, Galmarini S. 2012. Decoupling economic growth from carbon dioxide emissions: a decomposition analysis of Italian energy consumption. Energy. 44:682–691.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baykan BG. 2007. From limits to growth to degrowth within French green politics. Environ Polit. 16:513–517.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binswanger M. 2001. Technological progress and sustainable development: what about the rebound effect?. Ecol Econ. 36:119–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calwell C. 2010. Is efficient sufficient? The case for shifting our emphasis in energy specifications to progress efficiency and sufficiency [Internet; cited 2014 Aug 1]. Available from: http://www.eceee.org/policy-areas/sufficiency/eceee_Progressive_Efficiency.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Caviglia-Harris JL, Chambers D, Kahn JR. 2009. Taking the ‘U’ out of Kuznets: a comprehensive analysis of the EKC and environmental degradation. Ecol Econ. 68:1149–1159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conrad E, Cassar L. 2014. Decoupling economic growth and environmental degradation: reviewing progress to date in the small island state of Malta. Sustainability. open access journal. 6:6729–6750.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Freitas LC, Kaneko S. 2011. Decomposing the decoupling of CO2 emissions and economic growth in Brazil. Ecol Econ. 70:1459–1469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrlich P, Holdren J. 1971. The impact of population growth. Science. 171:1212–1217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giljum S, Behrens A, Hinterberger F, Lutz C, Meyer B. 2008. Modelling scenarios towards a sustainable use of natural resources in Europe. Environ Sci Policy. 11:204–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haberl H, Fischer-Kowalski M, Krausmann F, Weisz H, Winiwarter V. 2004. Progress towards sustainability? What the conceptual framework of material and energy flow accounting (MEFA) can offer. Land Use Policy. 21:199–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harbaugh WT, Levinson A, Wilson DM. 2002. Re-examining the empirical evidence for an environmental Kuznets curve. Rev Econ Stat. 84:541–551.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He J, Richard P. 2010. Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 in Canada. Ecol Econ. 69:1083–1093.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huppes G, Ishikawa M. 2009. Eco-efficiency guiding micro-level actions towards sustainability: ten basic steps for analysis. Ecol Econ. 68:1687–1700.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorgenson AK, Burns TJ. 2007. The political-economic causes of change in the ecological footprints of nations, 1991–2001: a quantitative investigation. Soc Sci Res. 36:834–853.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorgenson AK, Clark B. 2011. Societies consuming nature: a panel study of the ecological footprints of nations, 1960–2003. Soc Sci Res. 40:226–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight KW, Rosa EA, Schor JB. 2013. Could working less reduce pressures on the environment? A cross-national panel analysis of OECD countries, 1970–2007. Global Environ Change. 23:691–700.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krausmann F, Fischer-Kowalski M, Schandl H, Eisenmenger N. 2008. The global socio-metabolic transition: past and present metabolic profiles and their future trajectories. J Ind Ecol. 12:637–656.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuznets S. 1955. Economic growth and income inequality. Am Econ Rev. 45:1–28. Sustainability 2014, 6:6746.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee C, Chiu Y, Sun C. 2010. The environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for water pollution: do regions matter?. Energy Policy. 38:12–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leitão A. 2010. Corruption and the environmental Kuznets curve: empirical evidence for sulfur. Ecol Econ. 69:2191–2201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marchal V, Dellink R, Detlef van Vuuren, Christa C, Jean C, Eliza L, Bertrand M, Jasper van V. 2011. OECD Environment Out Look 2050 climate change chapter [Internet; cited 2014 Aug 9]. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/env/cc/49082173.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mattila T. 2012. Any sustainable decoupling in the Finnish economy? A comparison of the pathways and sensitivities of GDP and ecological footprint 2002–2005. Ecol Ind. 16:128–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mills Busa JH. 2013. Dynamite in the EKC tunnel? Inconsistencies in resource stock analysis under the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Ecol Econ. 94:116–126. Rev Econ Stat. 2002, 84, 541–551.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Statistics Office (NSO-Malta). 2006. Environment Statistics [Internet; cited 2014 Sep 12]. Available from: http://nso.gov.mt/metadata/ConceptDetails.aspx?id=685
   Google Scholar
• Norden (Nordic Council of Ministers). 2006. Measuring sustainability and decoupling: a survey of methodology and practice. Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordic Council of Ministers.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2002. Indicators to measure decoupling of environmental pressure from economic growth. SG/SD(2002)1/FINAL. Paris: OECD [Internet; cited 2014 Jun 3]. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=sg/sd(2002)1/final&doclanguage=en
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2012a. Environment Statistics [Internet]. ISSN: 1816–9465 [cited 2014 Jun 3]. Available from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/data/oecd-environment-statistics_env-data-en
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2012b. Stat [Internet; cited 2014 Jun 1]. Available from: https://stats.oecd.org/
   Google Scholar
• Priesnitz W. 2009. It’s not about growth. Nat Life. 126:62.
   Google Scholar
• Rockstrom J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin III FS, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber H, et al. 2009. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc. 14:32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ru X, Chen S, Dong H. 2012. An empirical study on relationship between economic growth and carbon emissions based on decoupling theory. J Sustain Dev. 5:43–51.
   Google Scholar
• Sephton P, Mann J. 2013. Further evidence of an environmental Kuznets curve in Spain. Energy Econ. 36:177–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steffen W, Rockström J, Costanza R. 2011. How defining planetary boundaries can transform our approach to growth. Solutions. 2:3 [Internet; cited 2014 Sep 5]. Available from: http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/935
   Google Scholar
• Steinberger JK, Krausmann F, Eisenmenger N. 2010. Global patterns of materials use: a socio-economic and geophysical analysis. Ecol Econ. 69:1148–1158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinberger JK, Roberts JT, Peters G. 2011. How much is enough? A sufficiency perspective on low-carbon development pathways [Internet]. Oxford [cited 2014 Aug 1]. Available: http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/news/podcast/energy2011/2f-steinberger.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Stern DI. 2004. The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev. 32:1419–1439.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tapio P. 2005. Towards a theory of decoupling: degrees of decoupling in the EU and the case of road traffic in Finland between 1970 and 2001. Transp. Policy. 12:137–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UNEP. 2011. Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth. A Report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel. Fischer-Kowalski M, Swilling M, von Weizsäckern U, Ren Y, Moriguchi Y, Crane W, Krausmann F, Eisenmenger, N, Giljum S, Hennicke P, et al. ISBN: 978-92-807-3167-5
   Google Scholar
• Van Caneghem J, Block C, Van Hooste H, Vandecasteele C. 2010. Eco-efficiency trends of the Flemish industry: decoupling of environmental impact from economic growth. J Clean Prod. 18:1349–1357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Bergh JCJM. 2011. Environment versus growth—a criticism of “degrowth” and a plea for “a-growth”. Ecol Econ. 70:881–890.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Voet E, Van Oers L, Moll S, Schutz H, Bringezu S, De Bruyn S, Sevenster M, Warringa G. 2014. Policy review on decoupling: development of indicators to assess decoupling of economic development and environmental pressure in the EU-25 and AC-3 countries [Internet; cited 2014 Sep 12]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/natres/pdf/fin_rep_natres.pdf. Sustainability, 6:6747.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Voet E, Van Oers L, Nikolic I. 2004. Dematerialization: not just a matter of weight. J Ind Ecol. 8:121–137.
   Google Scholar
• Vehmas J. 2009. Decomposition analysis of CO2 emissions from fuel combustion in selected countries. Int J Environ Technol Manag. 11:47–67.
   Google Scholar
• Verfaillie A, Bidwell R. 2000. Measuring eco-efficiency: a guide to reporting company performance. World Business Council for Sustainable Development [Internet; cited 2014 Aug 1]. Available from: http://oldwww.wbcsd.org/web/publications/measuring_eco_efficiency.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wang W, Kuang Y, Huang N, Daiqing Z. 2014. Empirical research on decoupling relationship between energy-related carbon emission and economic growth in Guangdong province based on extended kaya identity. Sci World J. 2014:11. doi:10.1155/2014/782750
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wursthorn S, Poganietz W, Schebek L. 2011. Economic–environmental monitoring indicators for European countries: a disaggregated sector-based approach for monitoring eco-efficiency. Ecol Econ. 70:487–496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• York R. 2006. Ecological paradoxes: William Stanley Jevons and the paperless office. Res Hum Ecol. 13:143–147.
   Google Scholar
• York R, Rosa EA. 2003. Key challenges to ecological modernization theory: institutional efficacy, case study evidence, units of analysis, and the pace of eco-efficiency. Org Environ. 16:273–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar