This paper develops a theoretical framework to assess the feasibility of environmental sustainability solutions, at local and global levels, based on the religious environmental ethics of several key religions: Hinduism (including Jainism), Buddhism (including Confucianism and Daoism), Judaism, Christianity (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism), and Islam. Solutions are defined in terms of consumption (measured by GDP), environment use (measured by the ecological footprint), and welfare for representative individuals. Empirical insights for alternative religious environmental ethics focus on the relative importance attached to the consumption of goods (α) vs. involvement in a (local/global) community, and on the importance attached to the environment within the (local/global) community (μ). In terms of feasibility for national environmental problems (i.e., pairs of α and μ achieving sustainability, in countries where the religion is a majority) and consistency (i.e., coherence with the religion's precepts) of policies for national environmental problems: Hinduism = Buddhism > Islam > Judaism. Christianity produced no feasible solutions. In terms of effectiveness for global environmental problems (i.e., pairs of α and μ achieving global sustainability, if inequalities among nations are reduced in the future) and replicability for local environmental problems (i.e., pairs of α and μ achieving sustainability in countries where the religion is a minority): Hinduism = Buddhism > Judaism > Islam.

Zagonari F. (2020). Comparing religious environmental ethics to support efforts to achieve local and global sustainability: Empirical insights based on a theoretical framework. SUSTAINABILITY, 12(7), 1-36 [10.3390/su12072590].

Comparing religious environmental ethics to support efforts to achieve local and global sustainability: Empirical insights based on a theoretical framework

Zagonari F.
2020

Abstract

This paper develops a theoretical framework to assess the feasibility of environmental sustainability solutions, at local and global levels, based on the religious environmental ethics of several key religions: Hinduism (including Jainism), Buddhism (including Confucianism and Daoism), Judaism, Christianity (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism), and Islam. Solutions are defined in terms of consumption (measured by GDP), environment use (measured by the ecological footprint), and welfare for representative individuals. Empirical insights for alternative religious environmental ethics focus on the relative importance attached to the consumption of goods (α) vs. involvement in a (local/global) community, and on the importance attached to the environment within the (local/global) community (μ). In terms of feasibility for national environmental problems (i.e., pairs of α and μ achieving sustainability, in countries where the religion is a majority) and consistency (i.e., coherence with the religion's precepts) of policies for national environmental problems: Hinduism = Buddhism > Islam > Judaism. Christianity produced no feasible solutions. In terms of effectiveness for global environmental problems (i.e., pairs of α and μ achieving global sustainability, if inequalities among nations are reduced in the future) and replicability for local environmental problems (i.e., pairs of α and μ achieving sustainability in countries where the religion is a minority): Hinduism = Buddhism > Judaism > Islam.
2020
Zagonari F. (2020). Comparing religious environmental ethics to support efforts to achieve local and global sustainability: Empirical insights based on a theoretical framework. SUSTAINABILITY, 12(7), 1-36 [10.3390/su12072590].
Zagonari F.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
sustainability-12-02590-v2.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipo: Versione (PDF) editoriale
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione (CCBY)
Dimensione 2.41 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.41 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/794671
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 23
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 13
social impact