Search

A better understanding of farmers' energy-saving behaviors can help policy-makers to formulate effective energy policies to reduce energy consumption in rural areas. This study explores the impacts of livelihood capital on farmers' energy-saving behaviors in Diqing Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, China. A total of 471 questionnaires were obtained from randomly sampled households. The results show that there are differences between the implementation of different types of energy-saving behaviors. Farmers' livelihood capital plays a significant role in implementing energy-saving behaviors. Specifically, natural capital and human capital have a significantly negative effect on the implementation of energy-saving behaviors. Physical capital and social capital are conducive to implement energy-saving behaviors. The effect of financial capital varies with different energy-saving behaviors. The findings of this study can contribute to the existing body of knowledge about determinants of farmers' energy-saving behaviors by confirming the role of livelihood capital. The empirical results provide a reference for stakeholders involved in strengthening rural residents' energy-saving behaviors in developing countries like China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Models of economic growth are typically based on the use of one or more stocks of productive assets to create goods for utility-generating consumption. The roles played by man-made capital, natural capital, and human capital have been explored in the literature, and more recently the notion of social capital has been brought to the fore. This paper provides an attempt to construct an inclusive model of growth, analyzing externalities and distortions due to market failures linked with social capital and environmental problems. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Economics has been defined as the science of allocation of scarce resources towards alternative ends. This definition implies that the first step in economic analysis is to determine what ends are desirable for society. Most sectors of the society would agree that sustainability is a desirable end, but there is little agreement as to what a sustainable future would look like. The University of Maryland Institute for Ecological Economics sponsored a democratic future search process designed to create a relatively detailed, shared vision of a sustainable and desirable USA in the year 2100. This paper presents the vision developed at that conference, examines the resources required to achieve the vision, and assesses the suitability of market mechanisms for allocating the required resources towards the desired ends. We find that markets are not efficient mechanisms for allocation in this case, and propose the institutions of a ‘strong democracy’ as a promising alternative. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]