A Regional Analysis of the Life Cycle Environmental and Economic Tradeoffs of Different Economic Growth Paths

Weiwei Mo, Darline Balen, Marianna Moura and Kevin H. Gardner
Additional contact information
Weiwei Mo: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA
Darline Balen: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA
Marianna Moura: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA
Kevin H. Gardner: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA

Sustainability, 2018, vol. 10, issue 2, 1-16

Abstract: Different economic development strategies may result in varied socioeconomic and environmental synergies or tradeoffs, suggesting an opportunity for environmentally conscious planning. To understand such synergies or tradeoffs, a dynamic environmental life cycle assessment was conducted for eleven groups of New Hampshire industries. Historical state level Gross Domestic Product (GDP)-by-industry data was combined with economic input-output analysis to calculate the direct and life cycle energy use, freshwater use, greenhouse gas emissions, and eutrophication potential of each industry on a yearly basis for the period of 1997–2012. The future development of agriculture, traditional manufacturing, high tech, and tourism industries were investigated based on government projections. Total life cycle impacts of the 11 industries were found to represent around three to seven times those of direct impacts, indicating the significance of the supply chain impacts. Traditional manufacturing has the highest life cycle impacts even though it contributes to less than 10% of the state GDP. Future development of high tech was found to be the best strategy to increase GDP while imposing the least additional environmental impacts. Tourism presents relatively high impacts in terms of freshwater use and eutrophication potential, and a change in recreational style might be able to reduce its impacts.

Keywords: economic development; industrial GDP; state-level economic planning; economic input-output life cycle assessment; energy and greenhouse gas emissions; freshwater use (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/2/542/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/2/542/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:2:p:542-:d:132374

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().