Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales OpenEdition Nos plateformes OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypothèses Calenda Bibliothèques OpenEdition Freemium Suivez-nous

Alternative Development Indicators and the Bioeconomy Paradigm

Abstract

This paper provides a brief examination of four critical development indicators—Ecological Footprint (EF), Gross National Happiness (GNH), Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and Human Development Index (HDI)—alongside an in-depth analysis of the bioeconomy as an emerging development paradigm. The analysis explores the methodological foundations, theoretical underpinnings, and practical applications of these indices while critically examining the bioeconomy’s potential to address contemporary sustainability challenges. Through systematic examination of scholarly literature and empirical evidence, this study demonstrates the complementary nature of these indicators in providing holistic assessments of societal progress and the bioeconomy’s role in fostering sustainable development, with particular attention to European and Portuguese contexts.

1. Introduction

The conventional paradigm of measuring societal progress through purely economic metrics has increasingly been challenged by scholars and policymakers who recognise the limitations of unidimensional approaches to development assessment. The emergence of alternative indicators reflects a growing understanding that sustainable development requires multifaceted measurement frameworks that encompass environmental, social, and economic dimensions simultaneously. This paradigmatic shift coincides with the development of new economic models, such as the bioeconomy, which seek to reconcile economic growth with environmental sustainability and social well-being.

The conceptualisation of development has evolved considerably since the post-World War II era, when economic growth was predominantly viewed as the primary pathway to societal advancement (Stiglitz, Sen & Fitoussi, 2009). Contemporary scholarship increasingly recognises that sustainable development necessitates comprehensive frameworks that integrate ecological limits, social equity, and human well-being alongside economic considerations. This recognition has catalysed the development of alternative indicators that capture different dimensions of human progress and environmental sustainability.

2. Critical Analysis of Development Indicators

2.1 Gross Domestic Product (GDP): Foundations and Limitations

Gross Domestic Product, conceptualised by Simon Kuznets in the 1930s and subsequently refined during the Bretton Woods era, represents the total monetary value of all finished goods and services produced within a country’s borders during a specific time period (Kuznets, 1934). The methodological framework of GDP encompasses three primary approaches: the production approach (sum of value added across sectors), the expenditure approach (consumption + investment + government spending + net exports), and the income approach (sum of factor incomes).

Despite its widespread adoption as the dominant metric of economic performance, GDP faces substantial theoretical and practical limitations that have been extensively documented in academic literature. Fioramonti (2013) argues that GDP’s exclusive focus on monetary transactions fails to capture crucial dimensions of societal well-being, including environmental degradation, income distribution, unpaid labour, and social capital. The indicator’s inability to distinguish between productive and destructive economic activities represents a fundamental flaw, as it treats natural disasters, crime, and pollution remediation as positive contributions to economic output.

Stiglitz, Sen, and Fitoussi (2009) in their seminal report commissioned by the French government, identify three critical deficiencies in GDP-based assessments: the disconnect between aggregate measures and household-level well-being, the inadequate treatment of sustainability concerns, and the failure to capture quality-of-life dimensions beyond material consumption. These limitations have prompted extensive scholarly debate regarding the need for complementary or alternative indicators that provide more holistic assessments of societal progress.

The ecological economist Herman Daly (1996) has been particularly critical of GDP’s treatment of natural capital, arguing that the indicator fails to account for the depletion of environmental resources and treats such depletion as income rather than capital consumption. This fundamental accounting error undermines GDP’s utility as a measure of sustainable economic performance and highlights the necessity for alternative frameworks that incorporate ecological considerations.

2.2 Ecological Footprint (EF): Biophysical Assessment of Human Impact

The Ecological Footprint, developed by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees in the 1990s, represents a comprehensive accounting methodology that measures human demand on nature relative to the planet’s ecological capacity to regenerate resources and absorb waste (Wackernagel & Rees, 1996). This biophysical indicator quantifies human consumption in terms of the biologically productive land and water area required to produce the resources consumed and absorb the wastes generated by a given population.

The methodological framework of the Ecological Footprint encompasses six primary categories of human demand: cropland footprint (food, fibre, oil crops, and rubber production), grazing footprint (livestock products), forest footprint (timber and paper products), fishing footprint (seafood consumption), built-up land footprint (infrastructure and settlements), and carbon footprint (fossil fuel emissions requiring forest area for sequestration). The aggregation of these components provides a comprehensive measure of human ecological demand expressed in global hectares per capita.

The theoretical foundation of the Ecological Footprint rests upon the concept of carrying capacity, derived from ecological science and adapted to human systems (Catton, 1980). The indicator’s strength lies in its ability to communicate complex sustainability challenges through an intuitive metric that compares human demand with planetary supply. When global human demand exceeds the Earth’s biocapacity, the resulting ecological deficit indicates unsustainable resource consumption patterns that compromise future generations’ ability to meet their needs.

However, the Ecological Footprint methodology faces several methodological criticisms that merit careful consideration. Van den Bergh and Verbruggen (1999) argue that the indicator’s aggregation methodology may obscure important substitution possibilities between different types of natural capital and fails to account for technological innovation’s potential to improve resource efficiency. Additionally, the carbon footprint component, which typically dominates developed countries’ footprints, relies upon contested assumptions regarding carbon sequestration rates and forest productivity.

Recent scholarship has expanded the Ecological Footprint framework to incorporate dynamic elements and regional specificities. Borucke et al. (2013) have refined the methodology to better reflect local ecological conditions and resource flows, while Galli et al. (2016) have developed approaches for calculating sub-national footprints that enable more targeted policy interventions. These methodological advances enhance the indicator’s utility for informing sustainable development strategies at multiple scales.

2.3 Human Development Index (HDI): Capabilities-Based Assessment

The Human Development Index, introduced by the United Nations Development Programme in 1990 under the intellectual leadership of economist Amartya Sen and development practitioner Mahbub ul Haq, represents a composite indicator designed to capture essential dimensions of human development beyond economic measures (UNDP, 1990). The HDI’s theoretical foundation rests upon Sen’s capabilities approach, which conceptualises development as the expansion of human freedoms and capabilities rather than merely the accumulation of material wealth (Sen, 1999).

The HDI methodology aggregates three fundamental dimensions of human development: health (measured by life expectancy at birth), education (assessed through mean years of schooling for adults and expected years of schooling for children), and standard of living (represented by gross national income per capita adjusted for purchasing power parity). The geometric mean of these normalised indices produces the composite HDI score, ranging from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating greater human development achievement.

The capabilities approach underlying the HDI represents a significant theoretical advance over purely utilitarian or resource-based conceptions of development. Sen (1999) argues that development should be evaluated in terms of people’s substantive freedoms—their capabilities to achieve the kind of lives they have reason to value. This perspective shifts focus from means (such as income) to ends (such as health, education, and political participation), providing a more comprehensive framework for assessing human progress.

Despite its widespread adoption and influence on development policy, the HDI faces several methodological and conceptual criticisms. Ravallion (2012) argues that the indicator’s aggregation methodology may mask important trade-offs between its constituent dimensions and questions whether the geometric mean provides an appropriate weighting scheme. Additionally, the HDI’s limited dimensional scope excludes important aspects of human development such as inequality, environmental sustainability, and political freedoms.

The UNDP has responded to these criticisms through the development of complementary indices that address specific limitations. The Inequality-adjusted HDI (IHDI) incorporates distributional concerns by discounting each dimension’s average value according to its level of inequality (Alkire & Foster, 2010). The Gender Development Index (GDI) and Gender Inequality Index (GII) address gender-based disparities, while the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) provides more nuanced assessments of deprivation (Alkire & Santos, 2014).

2.4 Gross National Happiness (GNH): Holistic Well-being Framework

Gross National Happiness, originating from Bhutan’s unique development philosophy articulated by King Jigme Singye Wangchuck in the 1970s, represents a comprehensive framework for assessing societal progress through the integration of material and spiritual dimensions of development (Ura et al., 2012). The GNH approach reflects Buddhist philosophical principles emphasising the interdependence of individual well-being, social harmony, and environmental sustainability.

The methodological framework of GNH encompasses four foundational pillars: sustainable and equitable socio-economic development, environmental conservation, preservation and promotion of cultural values, and good governance. These pillars are operationalised through nine domains: health, education, cultural diversity and resilience, time use and work-life balance, good governance, community vitality, ecological diversity and resilience, living standards, and psychological well-being (Ura et al., 2012).

The GNH methodology employs sophisticated measurement techniques that integrate objective indicators with subjective well-being assessments. The framework utilises a dual approach combining policy screening tools that evaluate proposed policies against GNH principles and comprehensive population surveys that assess citizen well-being across the nine domains. The aggregation methodology employs a multidimensional approach similar to poverty measurement techniques, identifying individuals as “happy” when they achieve sufficiency in at least six of the nine domains.

The theoretical significance of GNH extends beyond its specific methodology to encompass broader questions regarding the relationship between individual well-being and societal progress. Helliwell, Layard, and Sachs (2013) situate GNH within the growing field of well-being economics, which challenges the assumption that income maximisation necessarily leads to improved life satisfaction. The empirical literature on subjective well-being supports this perspective, demonstrating that beyond basic needs satisfaction, additional income produces diminishing returns in terms of happiness and life satisfaction (Easterlin, 2001).

However, the GNH framework faces several methodological and practical challenges that limit its universal applicability. Critics argue that the approach’s cultural specificity, rooted in Buddhist philosophy and Bhutanese social structures, may not translate effectively to different cultural contexts (Schroeder, 2018). Additionally, the complexity of the GNH measurement framework presents challenges for policy implementation and international comparability.

3. Synthesis and Comparative Analysis

The four indicators examined—GDP, EF, HDI, and GNH—represent different philosophical approaches to measuring societal progress, each capturing distinct dimensions of development while exhibiting complementary strengths and limitations. GDP’s strength in measuring economic activity and facilitating international comparisons must be balanced against its environmental and social blind spots. The Ecological Footprint’s biophysical perspective provides crucial insights into sustainability constraints but may underestimate technological adaptation possibilities. The HDI’s capabilities-based approach expands the development framework beyond economic measures while potentially oversimplifying complex multidimensional relationships. GNH’s holistic integration of material and spiritual dimensions offers valuable insights but faces challenges in terms of cultural transferability and methodological complexity.

Contemporary scholarship increasingly recognises that no single indicator can adequately capture the multifaceted nature of sustainable development (Stiglitz, Sen & Fitoussi, 2009). The emergence of dashboard approaches that present multiple indicators simultaneously reflects this understanding, providing policymakers and citizens with comprehensive information for decision-making while avoiding the reductionism inherent in composite indices.

4. The Bioeconomy Paradigm: Conceptual Foundations and Applications

4.1 Conceptual Development and Scope

The bioeconomy concept has emerged as a significant paradigm in sustainable development discourse, representing an economic model that derives its resources from biological materials and processes rather than fossil fuels and mineral extraction. The term “bioeconomy” was first articulated by economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen in the 1970s within the context of ecological economics, emphasising the thermodynamic constraints facing economic systems (Georgescu-Roegen, 1971). However, the contemporary understanding of bioeconomy has evolved to encompass a broader range of sectors and applications, integrating biotechnology, sustainable agriculture, and circular economy principles.

The European Commission (2012) defines the bioeconomy as “the production of renewable biological resources and their conversion into food, feed, bio-based products and bioenergy.” This definition encompasses three interconnected sectors: agriculture, forestry, and fisheries; food, pulp and paper industries; and biotechnology and biochemical industries. The scope extends beyond primary production to include the entire value chain of biological resource utilisation, from research and innovation to final consumption and waste management.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2009) provides a complementary perspective, emphasising the role of biotechnology in transforming biological resources into products and services that meet human needs. This technology-centred approach highlights the importance of innovation and knowledge creation in bioeconomy development, distinguishing contemporary bioeconomy strategies from traditional resource-based economic activities.

Recent scholarship has expanded the bioeconomy concept to incorporate sustainability considerations more explicitly. Pfau et al. (2014) argue that the bioeconomy should be understood as a comprehensive transformation of industrial systems toward greater sustainability, resource efficiency, and circularity. This perspective emphasises the bioeconomy’s potential to address multiple sustainability challenges simultaneously, including climate change mitigation, resource scarcity, and rural development.

4.2 Benefits and Impacts of the Bioeconomy Paradigm

The bioeconomy paradigm offers several potential benefits that address contemporary sustainability challenges. From an environmental perspective, the substitution of fossil-fuel-based products with bio-based alternatives can contribute to greenhouse gas emissions reduction and decreased dependence on non-renewable resources (de Besi & McCormick, 2015). The utilisation of biological waste streams and agricultural residues can enhance resource efficiency and support circular economy principles, reducing environmental pressures while creating economic value.

Economic benefits of bioeconomy development include job creation in rural areas, enhanced competitiveness of agricultural sectors, and opportunities for innovation-driven growth. The European Commission (2018) estimates that the bioeconomy contributes approximately €2.3 trillion to EU GDP and employs over 18 million people, demonstrating its significant economic importance. The knowledge-intensive nature of many bioeconomy sectors creates opportunities for high-skilled employment and technological innovation, potentially supporting economic diversification and resilience.

Social benefits encompass rural development, food security enhancement, and improved public health outcomes through the development of bio-based pharmaceuticals and materials. The bioeconomy’s emphasis on local resource utilisation can strengthen rural economies and reduce urban-rural disparities, contributing to more balanced regional development patterns (Coronado et al., 2020).

However, the bioeconomy paradigm also presents potential risks and challenges that require careful consideration. Land use competition between food production, bioenergy, and other bio-based applications may create tensions regarding food security and agricultural sustainability (Searchinger et al., 2008). The intensification of agricultural production to meet increased biomass demand could exacerbate environmental pressures, including biodiversity loss, soil degradation, and water resource depletion.

The sustainability of bioeconomy development depends critically on the implementation of appropriate governance frameworks and sustainability criteria. Life cycle assessment studies demonstrate that the environmental benefits of bio-based products are not automatic but depend on production methods, feedstock sources, and end-of-life management (Cherubini & Strømman, 2011). The risk of unintended consequences, such as indirect land use changes or the displacement of environmental problems across geographical boundaries, requires systematic monitoring and adaptive management approaches.

4.3 Bioeconomy Applications in Portugal

Portugal’s bioeconomy strategy reflects the country’s abundant biological resources, including extensive forest cover, diverse agricultural systems, and significant marine resources. The Portuguese government adopted its National Strategy for the Bioeconomy (Estratégia Nacional para a Bioeconomia) in 2017, establishing a comprehensive framework for bioeconomy development across multiple sectors (República Portuguesa, 2017).

The forest sector represents a cornerstone of Portugal’s bioeconomy, contributing significantly to national exports through pulp, paper, and wood products. Portugal’s eucalyptus plantations, covering approximately 740,000 hectares, provide feedstock for pulp production while supporting rural employment and landscape management. Recent initiatives have focused on expanding the utilisation of forest biomass for bioenergy production and the development of advanced bio-based materials, including nanocellulose and bio-composites.

Agricultural bioeconomy applications in Portugal encompass both traditional sectors and emerging biotechnology applications. The country’s wine industry exemplifies successful bioeconomy principles through the valorisation of grape pomace and other wine production residues for pharmaceutical and cosmetic applications. The olive oil sector similarly generates valuable by-products, including olive mill wastewater rich in antioxidants and biomass suitable for energy production.

Marine bioeconomy represents a significant opportunity for Portugal, given its extensive coastline and exclusive economic zone. The country has invested in algae cultivation for biofuel production, nutraceuticals, and cosmetics, with several pilot projects demonstrating commercial viability. The development of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture systems exemplifies innovative approaches to marine resource utilisation that combine food production with environmental sustainability.

Research and innovation initiatives support Portugal’s bioeconomy development through institutions such as the University of Aveiro’s Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies and the Institute of Chemical and Biological Technology. These institutions conduct fundamental and applied research in biotechnology, biomaterials, and bioprocessing, contributing to the scientific foundation for bioeconomy advancement.

However, Portugal’s bioeconomy development faces several challenges that require policy attention. Limited financing for bioeconomy start-ups and scale-up activities constrains commercial development of innovative bio-based products. Regulatory frameworks may not adequately support emerging biotechnology applications, creating uncertainty for investors and entrepreneurs. Additionally, the coordination between different policy sectors affecting bioeconomy development requires strengthening to ensure coherent and effective implementation.

4.4 European Bioeconomy Framework

The European Union has positioned bioeconomy development as a central component of its sustainability and competitiveness strategy, reflected in successive policy frameworks and funding programmes. The EU Bioeconomy Strategy, first adopted in 2012 and updated in 2018, establishes a comprehensive approach to bioeconomy development that integrates environmental sustainability, economic competitiveness, and social well-being objectives (European Commission, 2018).

The updated EU Bioeconomy Strategy identifies three key action areas: strengthening and scaling up the bio-based sectors, rapidly deploying bioeconomies across Europe, and protecting the ecosystem and understanding ecological boundaries. These action areas reflect lessons learned from initial implementation experiences and incorporate growing recognition of sustainability challenges associated with bioeconomy development.

European bioeconomy research and innovation support mechanisms include the Horizon 2020 programme’s Societal Challenge 2 (Food Security, Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry, Marine and Maritime and Inland Water Research, and the Bioeconomy), which has allocated substantial funding for bioeconomy research and demonstration projects. The Bio-Based Industries Joint Undertaking represents a public-private partnership supporting the development of innovative bio-based products and processes through large-scale demonstration and first commercial application projects.

Regional bioeconomy strategies across Europe demonstrate diverse approaches reflecting local resource endowments and economic structures. The Nordic countries have emphasised forest-based bioeconomy development, leveraging extensive forest resources and advanced wood processing industries. Germany has focused on agricultural bioeconomy applications, including biogas production and bio-based chemicals. The Netherlands has developed comprehensive circular bioeconomy approaches that integrate waste valorisation with bio-based production systems.

The European Bioeconomy Monitoring Framework, developed by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, provides systematic assessment of bioeconomy development across EU member states through a comprehensive set of indicators covering economic, environmental, innovation, and social dimensions (Ronzon & M’Barek, 2018). This monitoring system enables evidence-based policy development and adaptive management of bioeconomy strategies.

European bioeconomy development faces several systemic challenges that require coordinated policy responses. Market failures in bio-based product development, including high innovation costs and uncertain market acceptance, constrain private sector investment. Regulatory frameworks developed for conventional products may not adequately address bio-based alternatives, creating market access barriers. Additionally, the sustainability certification of bio-based products remains complex and fragmented, limiting consumer confidence and market development.

5. Synthesis and Future Directions

The analysis of alternative development indicators and the bioeconomy paradigm reveals complementary approaches to addressing contemporary sustainability challenges. The integration of multidimensional assessment frameworks with innovative economic models offers potential pathways toward more sustainable development patterns that reconcile environmental protection, social equity, and economic prosperity.

The bioeconomy’s emphasis on biological resource utilisation aligns with the sustainability concerns reflected in indicators such as the Ecological Footprint, while its potential contributions to rural development and innovation support objectives measured by the Human Development Index. The holistic perspective embodied in Gross National Happiness provides a valuable framework for evaluating bioeconomy development’s broader societal implications beyond economic metrics.

Future research should focus on developing integrated assessment frameworks that combine multidimensional indicator systems with sectoral analysis of bioeconomy development. The development of bioeconomy-specific indicators that capture sustainability performance across environmental, economic, and social dimensions would enhance policy evaluation and adaptive management capabilities.

The successful implementation of bioeconomy strategies requires governance frameworks that address sustainability concerns while supporting innovation and economic development. This necessitates the development of sophisticated policy instruments that can manage complex trade-offs and unintended consequences while maintaining stakeholder engagement and social license.

6. Conclusions

This comprehensive analysis demonstrates the complementary nature of alternative development indicators and the bioeconomy paradigm in addressing contemporary sustainability challenges. The limitations of conventional economic indicators such as GDP have catalysed the development of multidimensional assessment frameworks that capture environmental, social, and human development dimensions more effectively. The Ecological Footprint provides crucial insights into sustainability constraints, the Human Development Index expands development assessment beyond economic measures, and Gross National Happiness offers holistic perspectives on societal well-being.

The bioeconomy paradigm represents a significant opportunity for reconciling economic development with environmental sustainability through the utilisation of biological resources and processes. However, the realisation of bioeconomy benefits requires careful attention to sustainability criteria, governance frameworks, and potential unintended consequences. The experiences of Portugal and the European Union demonstrate both the potential and challenges associated with bioeconomy development, highlighting the importance of integrated policy approaches and systematic monitoring systems.

The synthesis of multidimensional indicator systems with innovative economic models such as the bioeconomy offers promising pathways toward more sustainable development patterns. Future research and policy development should focus on enhancing the integration of these approaches while addressing implementation challenges and ensuring that sustainability objectives remain central to bioeconomy development strategies.

References

Alkire, S., & Foster, J. (2010). Designing the inequality-adjusted human development index (HDI). OPHI Working Paper, 37, 1-54.

Alkire, S., & Santos, M. E. (2014). Measuring acute poverty in the developing world: Robustness and scope of the multidimensional poverty index. World Development, 59, 251-274.

Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Iha, K., Larson, J., … & Galli, A. (2013). Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework. Ecological Indicators, 24, 518-533.

Catton, W. R. (1980). Overshoot: The ecological basis of revolutionary change. University of Illinois Press.

Cherubini, F., & Strømman, A. H. (2011). Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: State of the art and future challenges. Bioresource Technology, 102(2), 437-451.

Coronado, S., Rodríguez, M., Lamelas, P., & Mora, C. (2020). Evaluation of the bioeconomy in the European Union countries through MCDA. Sustainability, 12(11), 4422.

Daly, H. E. (1996). Beyond growth: The economics of sustainable development. Beacon Press.

de Besi, M., & McCormick, K. (2015). Towards a bioeconomy in Europe: National, regional and industrial strategies. Sustainability, 7(8), 10461-10478.

Easterlin, R. A. (2001). Income and happiness: Towards a unified theory. The Economic Journal, 111(473), 465-484.

European Commission. (2012). Innovating for sustainable growth: A bioeconomy for Europe. Publications Office of the European Union.

European Commission. (2018). A sustainable bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment. Publications Office of the European Union.

Fioramonti, L. (2013). The world after GDP: Economics, politics and international relations in the post-growth era. Polity Press.

Galli, A., Weinzettel, J., Cranston, G., & Ercin, E. (2013). A footprint family extended MRIO model to support Europe’s transition to a one planet economy. Science of the Total Environment, 461, 813-818.

Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971). The entropy law and the economic process. Harvard University Press.

Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2013). World happiness report 2013. UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

Kuznets, S. (1934). National income, 1929-1932. 73rd US Congress, 2nd session, Senate document no. 124.

OECD. (2009). The bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a policy agenda. OECD Publishing.

Pfau, S. F., Hagens, J. E., Dankbaar, B., & Smits, A. J. (2014). Visions of sustainability in bioeconomy research. Sustainability, 6(3), 1222-1249.

Ravallion, M. (2012). Troubling tradeoffs in the Human Development Index. Journal of Development Economics, 99(2), 201-209.

República Portuguesa. (2017). Estratégia nacional para a bioeconomia. Ministério da Agricultura, Florestas e Desenvolvimento Rural.

Ronzon, T., & M’Barek, R. (2018). Socioeconomic indicators to monitor the EU’s bioeconomy in transition. Sustainability, 10(6), 1745.

Schroeder, P. (2018). Do global sustainable development goals matter for happiness? World Development, 109, 130-148.

Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R. A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., … & Yu, T. H. (2008). Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science, 319(5867), 1238-1240.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.

Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.

UNDP. (1990). Human development report 1990. Oxford University Press.

Ura, K., Alkire, S., Zangmo, T., & Wangdi, K. (2012). A short guide to gross national happiness index. Centre for Bhutan Studies & GNH Research.

Van den Bergh, J. C., & Verbruggen, H. (1999). Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: An evaluation of the ‘ecological footprint’. Ecological Economics, 29(1), 61-72.

Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers.


OpenEdition vous propose de citer ce billet de la manière suivante :
Marc Jacquinet (30 mai 2025). Alternative Development Indicators and the Bioeconomy Paradigm. Critique du management. Consulté le 10 mai 2026 à l’adresse https://doi.org/10.58079/14m1p


Vous aimerez aussi...

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse e-mail ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.