Next Article in Journal
Study on the Characteristics and Evolution Trends of Global Uranium Resource Trade from the Perspective of a Complex Network
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable Water Resources Management Assessment Frameworks (SWRM-AF) for Arid and Semi-Arid Regions: A Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 22
10.3390/su142215294
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Linking Nevada to Doughnut Economics

by
Fortino Acosta
Howard R. Hughes College of Engineering, The University of Nevada in Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89119, USA
Sustainability 2022, 14(22), 15294; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215294
Submission received: 10 October 2022 / Revised: 11 November 2022 / Accepted: 14 November 2022 / Published: 17 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Social Ecology and Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Doughnut economics (DE) is an economic model that expresses the social and ecological dimensions of nexus designed by Dr. Kate Raworth in 2012. The concept, which is based on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), intends to rethink our economy for the twenty-first century to meet social demands within a safe environmental ceiling. The DE model’s parameters are achieved only through interconnections, but these links are not well-defined for integrated strategic decision-making. A deeper description of Nevada illustrates the relevance of a cross-disciplinary decision-making tool that could identify interconnectivity among diverse but essential sustainability indicators. The state surpasses the planet’s water demand boundaries, greenhouse gases emitted by nonrenewable energy sources, and chemical pollution; meanwhile, the state is falling short in food security, housing, gender equality, social equity, political voice, safety, and justice. The research brings a circular economic model to an American state-level context and introduces the model to dynamic thinking.

1. Introduction

The climate crisis, loss of biodiversity, ecological degradation, increasing demand for finite natural resources, social unrest, out-of-control consumerism, and other complex urban pathologies are limiting our knowledge capacities, budget, and time availability to make the right decisions in urban planning at the speed and reliability required to cope with these adversities [1,2,3,4,5]. The institutional capacity and common regulatory framework continue to be fragmented, impacting the daily quality of communication, implementation procedures, and coordination among the different domains [6,7]. Today, every sector is evaluating and developing initiatives to cope with this challenge. The silo thinking has continued over the last several decades, delivering short-sighted solutions that can eventually lead to scenarios that will be impossible to reverse. This study addresses the possibility of integrated governance and nexus thinking by defining interrelationships using doughnut economics (DE) indicators. This model aims to conceive and rethink the economy within two boundaries: a social foundation and an ecological ceiling, showing in a single graphic the scarcities and overshoots of a city, a region, a country, or the planet itself [8,9].
Interconnected complex systems consist of many variables, and simultaneous interactions can occur. These include a dynamic and mutable environment with direct and indirect feedback loops and nonlinear behaviors that cannot be simplified [10]. Decision-making in sustainable complex scenarios requires occurring through these dynamic interconnections [11].
This research study focuses on the state of Nevada in the United States as a case study, allowing for the collection of local data to understand its sustainability levels.
Recently, systematic approaches and participatory processes have been developed to enhance cross-sectoral collaboration [12]. Current models integrate mixed methods to link these resources to other crucial variables such as health, ecosystem services, social participation, circular economy, and urban planning [11,13].
The general problem is how citizens can integrate critical regenerative and distributive projects without undesired socio-ecological side effects for the region in a circular economy framework.
Given the lack of integrative and strategic methods regarding circular economy nexus complex systems, the research aims to elaborate a Doughnut Economics and a primary indicator interrelationship matrix to recognize the magnitude of decision-making.
The main objectives of the research are:
(1) To develop a Doughnut Economics model for Nevada, examining the social and environmental progress levels.
(2) To build a primary indicator interrelationship matrix for future system dynamics DE models.
This study is significant because it expands the contribution to interdisciplinary research and open innovation practice, specifically in the circular economy, by establishing a framework that can evolve and be enhanced, encompassing different approaches or data actualizations.
This innovative framework aims to ease the communication among stakeholders to develop integrative and articulated strategies that recognize ecological boundaries, socioeconomic thriving, and other well-being benefits [4,14].
Project manager’s and policy-makers decisions rely not only on reliable data but also on perceptions, interests, and personal dogmas that affect an objective balance among stakeholders. These frequent mismatches and lack of homogeneous assessment tools bring about poor policies and short-scale resource management [15,16]. For this reason, the model developed uses published data and remains closer to the DE original version.
Same as the SDGs, DE parameters are achieved only through the interconnection of individual goals, but these links are not well-defined for integrated strategic decision-making. For example, increasing demand for natural resources causes severe risks and tradeoffs to other human sectors and living systems [17,18]. Parallelly, the interrelationship between climate crisis, ecosystem degradation, and negative impact on people’s well-being is more evident every day [19]. Adequate cross-disciplinarity increases integration in decisions and actions taken for sustainable goals [19,20]. A second model that influenced DE framework is the circular economy systematic approach. Resourceful use of raw materials and zero waste practices is a revival of growth limits that defines the environmental ceiling [21]. Natural capital preservation, resource yield optimization, and minimizing negative externalities decouple resource consumption from economic growth [22]. A third similar model is the Green Urbanism Wheel by Dr. Steffen Lehmann, which is based on an urban approach using the circular economy to bring together spatial context-dependency solutions associated with energy, water, biodiversity, sociocultural features, urban planning, and transportation sustainable strategies [19,22]. As with these models, DE with holistic complex system thinking is oriented toward thriving rather than pursuing endless economic growth [1,23].
DE integrative framework consists of two concentric rings: an inner social foundation ring with twelve social indicators and an outer planetary ceiling ring with nine environmental indicators. Its scientific grounding has turned into a transdisciplinary model use reimagines a converging sustainable future [1]. In a single graphic, DE users can easily distinguish if citizens are short in crucial human needs or exceeding the planetary boundaries in a particular area or context. The social foundation includes food, health, education, income, sanitation, energy, networks, housing, gender equality, social equity, political voice, and peace and justice. Meanwhile, the ecological indicators to keep Earth’s life-supporting systems include climate crisis, ocean acidification, chemical pollution, nitrogen and phosphorus loading, freshwater withdrawals, land conversion, biodiversity loss, air pollution, and ozone layer depletion [2]. These indicators consist of one or more weighted variables that depend on the model’s authors, working as a socio-ecological compass that aids us in devising the big picture, where everyone could contribute to healthier and more sustainable living [1] (Figure 1).
DE, SDGs, and Green Urbanism Wheel are frameworks to rethink viable and intertwined strategies encompassing all biophysical processes and human aspirations [6,24].
On that account, the DE model is an accurate socio-ecological picture of a particular time that grasps the assets but also the risks and nexus pressures that provide a convening space for stakeholders to complement the socio-ecological nexus knowledge and to make shared strategic decisions required to achieve significant progress without leaving any stakeholder behind [1,21,22]. Nonetheless, one of the main refusals for this method is the loss of a centralized and controlled narrative. Narrative decentralization raises undisputable environmental justice demands regarding who gains or losses from sectorial decisions [18]. In the end, interlinked frameworks significantly redefine old economic models of prosperity, development, and unlimited growth [12,25].
This research explores the Nevada case study as a practical approach to understanding the model in a U.S. context.
Nevada is the seventh-largest state in the country, with 286,380 square kilometers. The Bureau of Land Management, a federal entity, owns nearly 85% of the territory [26].
The Paiute, Shoshone, Quoeech, Washoe, Hualapai, and other Southwestern Native American groups had inhabited Nevada for centuries before European and American colonization [27]. In the 1700s, horses were introduced to Southwest tribes, bringing commercial opportunities and deadly diseases [28]. After the Mexican–American War (1846–1848), Mexico ceded the present-day U.S. states of California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming to the United States [29]. In the 1850s, the discovery of gold and silver mines brought Mexican American migrants and immigrants to populate these lands massively. The state became the 36th in 1864 during the Civil War [26] and in 1869 was the first state to ratify the 15th Amendment, recognizing African American men’s vote [26]. Meanwhile, the Central Pacific Railroad crossed Nevada in 1868 [28]. As the most relevant infrastructure project in the American Southwest, the Hoover Dam was completed in 1935 and provides water to 40 million people today [30].
Nevada has 3,104,614 people, over 90% in urban space and 9.34% in rural lands. Race and ethnicity in the state consist of White alone, 61.6%; Black alone, 12.4%; Hispanic, 18.7%; Asian alone, 6%; American Indian and Alaska Native, alone 1.1%; native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander alone, 0.2%; some other race alone, 8.4%; two or more races, 10.2%. The population grew 15% in the last ten years [26].
Mining and tourism are the state’s most well-known economies; they represent 4.72% and 15.67% of Nevada’s gross domestic product (GDP), respectively. On the other hand, the financial economics, insurance, and real estate industry represent almost 30% of the state GDP. Meanwhile, professional business services are 17.27%, and the government is 15.9% [31]. The 2008 financial crisis and the 2020–2022 COVID-19 pandemic has shown economic volatility and rapid resilience in responding to these international challenges.

2. Material and Methods

The methods consist of the following:
Input: Twelve social and nine environmental indicators published by existing peer-reviewed data, government reports, or international organizations for Nevada.
Time frame: The latest and more complete information has been published in the last five years.
Process:
Step 1: Identify the most reliable and updated indicators based on the doughnut economics parameters.
Step 2: Identify an estimated sustainable target for each indicator.
Step 3: Identify general interrelationships between parameters in peer-reviewed journals and international organization reports from the last five years.
Step 4: Visualize those indicators in a doughnut economics model.
Step 5: Create a generic matrix showing positive, null, and negative interconnections.
Output:
1. Nevada’s doughnut economics model.
2. Generic doughnut economics interrelationships matrix.

3. Results

The social and environmental dimensions in Nevada’s doughnut economics uses four general categories for each indicator: unsustainable, marginally sustainable, moderately sustainable, and highly sustainable, established in this study. These categories aid in visualizing the sustainability ranking independently of the details and parameters used for each indicator.
To construct Nevada’s Doughnut Economics and the interrelationship matrix, the research study used sustainability parameters and peer-reviewed references to refer to the positive, mixed, negative, or unclear interlinkages between parameters.

3.1. Nevada’s Social Dimension

3.1.1. Food Indicator

This parameter comprises three indicators whose values will have an equal-weighted effect: self-sufficiency (34%), children’s nutrition levels (33%), and food productivity (33%).
The prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population (self-sufficiency) indicator: The category is based on the published worldwide values. The country’s prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity is between 68.3% and 7.8%, with an average of 30%. Values under 5% are considered on a sustainable track [32]. According to Governor Sisolak, 12% of Nevada citizens experience food insecurity [33].
Food sufficiency, children ages 0–17 whose households can always afford nutritious meals indicator: access to sufficient food is critical for children’s development [34]. The category is based on accomplishing the universal coverage required. The average in the country is 69.8%, and Nevada is under the national average at 64.5% [34].
The proportion of income per acre used for agriculture (Productivity): A limited amount of farming activities are required to keep water and land resources in Nevada. Currently, the average crop profit in Nevada is $129 per acre. However, increasing more sustainable and profitable crops without increasing water or land demands could improve rural communities’ livelihoods. The range of categories is based on an estimated $8561 annual return on berries production by one acre [35]. The region has five or more native berries that can be produced for consumption [28]. Another farm alternative for some crops is water-smart hydroponics; the profitability exceeds berries production, with an average revenue between $10 to $25 per square foot [36].
Interlinkages: A general perspective of food accessibility and production has mixed benefits and disbenefits according to health, income, energy generation, gender equality, and social equity. It shows a potential ecological trade-off if not managed carefully, especially with water quality and fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticide runoff, triggering ocean acidification. An unclear positive or negative balance remains with other ecological indicators. For example, a particular food strategy’s implementation, specificity, and magnitude can modify carbon capture and storage [37,38].

3.1.2. Health Indicator

Even though the health indicator is multifactorial, the research considers preventive healthcare and improving survival by using the number of infant deaths and life expectancy on an equal base to determine it.
The number of infant deaths (before age 1) per 1000 live births indicators: the category range is based on the lowest national levels. Nevada, with 5.8%, is above the national average rate of 5.7% [34].
The life expectancy category uses the average 70–80 age range worldwide to determine it. Nevada’s average life expectancy is 78 years, like the national average and above the world’s population’s average life expectancy of 72 years. Gender, genetics, hygiene, diet and exercise, access to quality health care, lifestyle, recreational opportunities, and crime rates influence this indicator [39].
Interlinkages: In general, better education, high income, access to sanitation facilities, energy, reliable internet, and housing increase health levels in the population [40,41]. Similarly, gender equality, social equity, and a state of peace positively affect health [42]. There is also a strong link between human well-being and environmental conditions, including the regulation of diseases. Land conversion has a mixed interrelationship with health [11].

3.1.3. Education Indicator

This indicator is composed of equal proportions by the percentage of the population able to read and write among persons aged 15 and older and the percentage of students who graduated within the regular time.
The percentage of the population who can read and write among persons aged 15 and older is an indicator of literacy. The categories are based on U.S. literacy ranges. Nevada is closer to the lower ranking with 83.9% [43].
The second indicator, the percentage of students who graduated within the regular time, relates to higher education achievements. The categories are based on the U.S. percentage of high school students graduating with a regular high school diploma within four years of starting ninth grade. Nevada has 80.9%, below the national level (84.6%).
Interlinkages: Educational attainment is associated with constructive citizens and well-being [34]. An increase in education increases the opportunities to fulfill most of the social needs, including political voice and lower insecurity [41]. However, in general, access to education is concentrated in urban areas. These circumstances can cause unclear interrelationships between greenhouse emissions, land conversion, and biodiversity loss [44].

3.1.4. Income Indicator

It is composed of equal proportion by the percentage of the population under the poverty line and the unemployment rate through the percentage of citizens without a job who are available for work and have been actively looking for a job in the prior four weeks. We found that 12.5% of Nevada’s citizens are under the poverty line. The categories are based on U.S. values between 20% and 7% [45]. The unemployment rate in Nevada is 4.2%, which is above the national average of 3.7% [46].
Interlinkages: Access to higher income can improve most social needs, such as governance. However, higher income might induce higher consumption of resources, increasing greenhouse emissions, freshwater demand, land conversion, biodiversity loss, air pollution, and use of ozone-depleting substances. Parallelly, the risks of poverty increase with the deterioration of environmental conditions [11]. Interrelations with ecological parameters are unclear.

3.1.5. Sanitation Indicator

Nevada’s population with access to safe sewage systems is 99.55% [47]. Wastewater treatment has a high energy demand; however, it positively correlates with ocean acidification prevention and the decrease of freshwater withdrawal by reusing treated water in different sectors [48].
Interlinkages: A mixed interrelationship exists between social equity, greenhouse emissions, chemical pollution, land conversion, biodiversity loss, and air pollution.

3.1.6. Energy Indicator

The measure is composed of equal proportions by the percentage of the population with access to electricity and the rate of energy from renewable sources.
Access to electricity in the U.S. is fully covered; however, other countries have less than 20% coverage [49]. World ranges conform to the target levels used.
The renewable energy indicator is based on electricity production and does not include fuel consumption for private or public transportation, including airplanes. Nevada’s renewable energy is 30.7%, with a strategic goal of 50% of its electricity from renewable resources by 2030 [50]. The target is based on 0 to 100% coverage from renewable resources.
Interlinkages: This parameter shows potential tradeoffs with other ecological indicators if not managed carefully, especially with water treatment and distribution and land conversion for urban and farming uses, food production, and distribution [16,37,38]. Internet access and social inequality improve with better access to reliable energy. Tradeoffs with greenhouse emissions, land conversion, air pollution, and the use of ozone-depleting substances depend on the characteristics of the strategy.

3.1.7. Networks Indicator

Accessibility to a reliable network is related to internet coverage and speed. For example, Nevada’s internet speed is 104.1 megabits per second (Mbps), which is already reasonable [51]. Category ranges use the world’s internet speed standards.
Interlinkages: A positive interrelationship exists with housing. Other social benefits remain unclear, including social equity [52]. Greenhouse emissions related to new logistics systems are under debate.

3.1.8. Housing Indicator

The indicator is composed of an equal proportion of homeless people per 10,000 individuals and the percentage of occupied housing units with at least one of the following problems: lack of complete kitchen facilities, lack of plumbing facilities, overcrowding, or severely cost-burdened occupants in a 5-year estimate [53].
Lack of housing is composed of multiple factors: house affordability, low income, health inequalities, drug abuse, domestic violence, and racial disparities, among others. The national average is 17.58 homeless people per 10,000 individuals. Nevada has 22.4 homeless people per 10,000 individuals. Category ranges correspond to the national average value [54].
Severe housing problems threaten well-being. In Nevada, 19.6% of occupied houses have at least one of the following problems: lack of complete kitchen facilities, plumbing facilities, overcrowding, or severely cost-burdened occupants. Category ranges correspond to the U.S. average of 17.3% [53].
Interlinkages: Homeownership and house affordability benefit social equality [55]. Building new housing considering ecological functions in previously impacted land, such as brownfields, might have minimal environmental tradeoffs, but environmental interrelations are mixed depending on building specificities [56].

3.1.9. Gender Equality Indicator

Higher education and income are critical indicators of gender equality. The percentage of women ages 25–44 with a college degree in Nevada is 24.9%, the lowest value in the country. The national average is 35.7% [57]. The category’s ranges use this U.S. average. The gender pay gap uses women’s median annual earnings as a percentage of men’s median annual earnings for full-time, year-round civilian workers ages 16 and older as an indicator. Nevada’s value is 85.6%, above the nation’s average value of 81% [58]. The category’s ranges use this U.S. average value.
Interlinkages: Improving gender equality also expands social equity, contributes to enhanced governance, and reduces acts of violence [59,60,61].

3.1.10. Social Equity Indicator

Nevada’s income inequality is 45%, close to the U.S. average of 48%. Gini Index ranges are between 0 to 1. The closer the value to 0, the community is equal. Meanwhile, values closer to 1 mean an unequal income distribution [62].
Interlinkages: This indicator positively correlates with governance and peacefulness [59,61].

3.1.11. Political Voice Indicator

The U.S. Prosperity Index Report includes a sector about governance. It measures political accountability, the rule of law, government integrity, and enabling more community involvement in the political system. Nevada occupies 37th place in the state rankings [63].
Interlinkages: Citizens’ participatory governance is critical for peace and for mitigating future conflicts [64].

3.1.12. Peace and Justice Indicator

It is composed of equal proportion by National Center for Access to Justice’s Justice Index and by homicide rate per 100,000 individuals.
The Justice Index measures attorney access, support for self-represented litigants, language access, and disability access. The category uses a 0 to 100 scale. Nevada’s score is 20.4 [65].
The homicide rate category uses a scale of 0 to 10. Scores above 10 are considered critical. The homicide rate in Nevada is 7.3 per 100,000 people. The national homicide rate is 7.5 per 100,000 [66].
Interlinkages: Higher health, education, income, gender equality, social equity, and political voice raise peace and justice levels [67]. However, access to the internet and ecological parameters’ interrelationship with this indicator remains unclear.
The following table summarizes Nevada’s social dimension parameters and values (Table 1):

3.2. Nevada’s Environmental Dimension

3.2.1. Climate Crisis Indicator

Total state carbon dioxide emissions are from direct fuel use across all sectors, including residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation [70]. The category is based on a safer limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, which means that every person on Earth would need to emit an average of just 2.3 metric tons of energy-related carbon dioxide per year by 2030 [71]. The U.S. average is 15.7 metric tons of energy-related carbon dioxide per capita per year. Meanwhile, Nevada is 13.5 metric tons of energy-related carbon dioxide per capita per year [70].
Interlinkages: Greenhouse emissions affect climate and precipitation patterns, water supply systems, energy and food operations, biodiversity loss, and human health and well-being [37,72]. Chemical fertilizers produce higher greenhouse gases in the atmosphere [73]. Climate alterations can trigger the use of refrigerants, air conditioning, and other devices with ozone-depleting substances [74].

3.2.2. Ocean Acidification Indicator

Even though Nevada contributes to the Colorado River delta’s revival or deterioration, the state’s contribution remains unclear.
Interlinkages: Air pollution, land pollution infiltration, ocean littering, and agricultural product runoff are responsible for ocean acidification, declining marine biodiversity, and adding more pressure on land resources for food production [75].

3.2.3. Chemical Pollution Indicator

The Toxics Release Inventory tracks toxic chemical releases and pollution prevention activities reported by industrial and federal facilities. The category’s units are a total of releases per square mile. Nevada’s total releases are 4204 lb/square mile, the highest score in the U.S. [76].
Interlinkages: Industrial pollution, including farms and hazardous pharmaceutical waste, can damage large areas of ecosystems that people depend on [77]. Chemical pollution has different forms, from plastic to mercury, threatening human well-being, freshwater reservoirs, and biodiversity.

3.2.4. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loading Indicator

The indicator comprises an equal proportion of impaired lakes and reservoirs by nitrogen and phosphorus loadings. Impaired water bodies do not achieve water quality standards [78].
The Bureau of Water Quality Planning assessed 383,486 acres of lakes and reservoirs in the last three years in Nevada. The total water impairment in lakes and reservoirs by nitrogen sources is 0.43% (1684 acres or 6.81 km2). Meanwhile, phosphorus sources are 16.32% (62,572 acres or 252.52 km2 [79]. The category provides a quartile ranking using the number of acres. The lowest and most unsustainable value is based on the current 28% or 106,391 acres of lakes and reservoirs with critical conditions to support aquatic [79].
Interlinkages: Nutrient over-enrichment leads to eutrophication and hypoxia in water bodies, including marine ecosystems, affecting biodiversity [80]. In addition, fertilizers export and mining practices contribute to air pollution.

3.2.5. Freshwater Withdrawals Indicator

Freshwater withdrawals ranking uses U.S. Census Bureau scores in domestic water use in gallons per capita per day [81]. The national level is 82 gallons per capita per day. Meanwhile, water demand in Nevada is 126 gallons per capita per day [82].
Interlinkages: The parameter shows a potential trade-off with other ecological indicators if not managed carefully, especially with land conversion, biodiversity loss, and ocean acidification [38]. Also, this factor is sensitive to energy and food production [37,83].

3.2.6. Land Conversion Indicator

Natural lands with minimal human alteration are critical for wildlife and biodiversity preservation. The state’s natural land cover percentage is 93.8% [84]. The category uses the lowest range of 30% as the minimal protected land for strategic wildlife preservation [85].
Interlinkages: Water, energy, and food systems conflict with ecosystem functions, including hydrological alteration, deforestation, and diminishing ecological integrity [37].

3.2.7. Biodiversity Loss Indicator

Species designated as threatened or endangered enlisted for Nevada are 46, the same as the national average score in a single state [86]. The category is aligned with the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework coordinated by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). This global biodiversity framework aims to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 and achieve recovery and restoration by 2050 [87].
Interlinkages: Biological loss can affect human health, food production, and ecosystem services that people rely on [37].

3.2.8. Air Pollution Indicator

The Air Quality Index (AQI) measures four major air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act: ground-level ozone, particle pollution, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide. Nevada has a score of 42.1 units. The category uses AQI ranking. Air values over 150 are considered unhealthy (World Population Review, 2021a) [88].
Interlinkages: Better air quality improves health. It prevents obesity, and diabetes, reduces stress and asthma attacks, enhancing cardiovascular systems, among other benefits [89].

3.2.9. Ozone Layer Depletion Indicator

An ozone-depleting substance (ODS) for the state of Nevada is not available. The late score for the country is 714 tons [90]. According to Nevada’s population and considering that most Americans consume similar equipment and materials with ODS, such as refrigerators, air conditioners, foam contained in buildings, fire protection systems, and fire extinguishers, the state consumes 6.72 tons, approximately [91]. The Nevada Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Projections, 1990–2040, report 1.536 tons of ODS substitutes [92]. The category uses cross-multiplication to calculate Nevada’s rankings based on the national score on the consumption of ozone-depleting substances map created by the United Nations Environment Program [90].
Interlinkages: Vulnerability and health problems arise when ozone-depleting substances are released, contributing to air pollution [74].
The following table summarizes environmental parameters and values for Nevada (Table 2):
Nevada’s Doughnut Economics model (Figure 2) uses social indicators to visualize the social foundation shortfalls at the center of the graphic-meanwhile, the ecological ceiling overshoots spread out of the doughnut.
To define strategic policies, projects, and programs, the model must consider possible trade-offs and synergies among the indicators. These interrelationships with benefits or disbenefits are not evident for every interrelationship, or they can differ depending on the strategic plan. These kinds of indirect or unclear interrelationships should be analyzed in more detail.
The IPCC’s latest climate change report [93] shows a table regarding the positive or negative relationships between climate responses and strategic adaptation options and their relation to sustainable development goals. In the same way, DE indicators must show the type of relationships for an integrated decision-making framework and managing externalities [19].
The following matrix (Figure 3) is based on this IPCC relational database and the critical connections published and reviewed for each DE parameter previously:

4. Discussion

Nevada’s doughnut economics model reframes social and environmental indicators in an integrated diagram that responds to sustainable social and ecological levels. The process of building it is flexible, but it requires certain groups of specialized data. Most of the selection of these indicators relies on official reports published periodically, contributing to showing how the model evolves. The state’s significant social and environmental challenges are food insecurity, limited access to justice, political apathy and opacity, social inequality combined with over-exceeded greenhouse gas emissions, chemical pollution, and unsustainable freshwater withdrawals. The Doughnuts Economics interrelationship table also includes existing and potential synergies among indicators contributing to further systematic analysis. The research compiled synergies and tradeoffs among these parameters, but strategy specificity is required to adjust interlinkages.
Global initiatives have utilized DE as a holistic self-portrait, a starting point for continual integrative thinking for cross-departmental collaboration and civil society. In 2020, in Amsterdam, they created a city and global supply chains model tailored by the participants organized and guided by the Doughnut Economic Action Lab and C40 cities [94]. Another DE is in New Zealand, operated by a charitable trust oriented toward motivating a sustainability-led economy over compelling communication and educational programs [95]. Unlike these two models, Nevada’s doughnut economics focuses on its internal interconnections and insights before opening to its interconnection worldwide, reducing the number of challenges the state must address inwardly. Nonetheless, Nevada’s DE model must be enriched by cross-collaboration and diffusion of the benefits related to the framework.

5. Recommendations

This study contributes dynamism to the DE model. The model requires more development toward a dynamic system that can be easily operated and shared with diverse regional sectors and stakeholders. DE parameters could be standardized for every state of the country, allowing the dissemination of this collaborative planning.
This integrative planning is translated into time and budget savings, by reducing redundant procedures. At the same time, policymakers should create a specific department or committee for monitoring risks, reporting opportunities, updating verified data, and producing science communication from the findings and achievements related to the interlinkages between existing and future policies.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Yue, Q.; Zhang, F.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Guo, P. Fuzzy Multi-Objective Modelling for Managing Water-Food-Energy-Climate Change-Land Nexus towards Sustainability. J. Hydrol. 2021, 596, 125704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Andrews-Speed, C.P.; Bleischwitz, R.; Boersma, T.; Johnson, C.; Kemp, G.; VanDeveer, S.D. Want, Waste or War? The Global Resource Nexus and the Struggle for Land, Energy, Food, Water and Minerals; Routledge: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  3. Pezzoli, K.; Hibbard, M.; Huntoon, L. Introduction to Symposium: Is Progressive Regionalism an Actionable Framework for Critical Planning Theory and Practice? J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2009, 28, 336–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. McHarg, I.L. Design with Nature, 1st ed.; American Museum of Natural History: New York, NY, 1969. [Google Scholar]
  5. Leck, H.; Conway, D.; Bradshaw, M.; Rees, J. Tracing the Water–Energy–Food Nexus: Description, Theory and Practice. Geogr. Compass 2015, 9, 445–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Williams, J. Circular Cities: Challenges to Implementing Looping Actions. Sustainability 2019, 11, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Future Earth. Water-Energy-Food Nexus Knowledge-Action Network. Available online: https://futureearth.org/networks/global-research-networks/water-energy-food-nexus/ (accessed on 4 May 2022).
  8. Raworth, K. Doughnut Economics Action Lab. Available online: https://Doughnuteconomics.Org/ (accessed on 30 April 2022).
  9. Raworth, K. Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think like a 21st Century Economist; Praded, J., Ed.; Chelsea Green Publishing: White River Junction, VT, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cilliers, P. Critical Complexity: Collected Essays; Preiser, R., Ed.; De Gruyter: Berlin, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hancock, J. The Case for an Ecosystem Service Approach to Decision-Making: An Overview. Biosci. Horiz. 2010, 3, 188–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Muthu, S.S. The Water–Energy–Food Nexus Concept and Assessments, 1st ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  13. Lehmann, S. Activating the Food-Water-Energy Nexus. In Urban Regeneration; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  14. Potschin, M.; Haines-Young, R. Landscapes, Sustainability, and the Place-Based Analysis of Ecosystem Services. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 1053–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cumming, G.S.; Cumming, D.H.M.; Redman, C.L. Scale Mismatches in Social-Ecological Systems: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Mroue, A.M.; Mohtar, R.H.; Pistikopoulos, E.N.; Holtzapple, M.T. Energy Portfolio Assessment Tool (EPAT): Sustainable Energy Planning Using the WEF Nexus Approach—Texas Case. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 648, 681–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pahl-Wostl, C. Governance of the Water-Energy-Food Security Nexus: A Multi-Level Coordination Challenge. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 92, 356–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Foran, T. Node and Regime: Interdisciplinary Analysis of Water-Energy-Food Nexus in the Mekong Region. Water Altern. 2015, 8, 655–674. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ghodsvali, M.; Krishnamurthy, S.; de Vries, B. Review of Transdisciplinary Approaches to Food-Water-Energy Nexus: A Guide towards Sustainable Development. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 101, 266–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Stoy, P.C.; Ahmed, S.; Jarchow, M.; Rashford, B.; Swanson, D.; Albeke, S.; Bromley, G.; Brookshire, E.N.J.; Dixon, M.D.; Haggerty, J.; et al. Opportunities and Trade-Offs among BECCS and the Food, Water, Energy, Biodiversity, and Social Systems Nexus at Regional Scales. Bioscience 2018, 68, 100–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Allouche, J. The Water-Food-Energy Nexus: Power, Politics and Justice; Middleton, C., Gyawali, D., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lehmann, S. Urban Regeneration. A Manifesto for Transforming UK Cities in the Age of Climate Change; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; Volume 12. [Google Scholar]
  23. Wiggering, H. The Geology—Land Use—Nexus. Environ. Earth Sci. 2014, 71, 5037–5044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Huckleberry, J.K.; Potts, M.D. Constraints to Implementing the Food-Energy-Water Nexus Concept: Governance in the Lower Colorado River Basin. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 92, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Venghaus, S.; Märker, C.; Dieken, S.; Siekmann, F. Linking Environmental Policy Integration and the Water-Energy-Land-(Food-)Nexus: A Review of the European Union’s Energy, Water, and Agricultural Policies. Energies 2019, 12, 4446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Nevada State. (21 C.E.). State of Nevada Joint Information Center. State of Nevada. 2021. Available online: https://jic.nv.gov/Nevada_Joint_Information_Center_(JIC)/ (accessed on 9 October 2022).
  27. Hulse, J. Nevada’s Environmental Legacy: Progress or Plunder; University of Nevada Press: Reno, NV, USA, 2010; Volume 41. [Google Scholar]
  28. Taylor, B. Celebrating Nevada Indians; Nevada Native American Education Association: Genoa, NV, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  29. Bradshaw, B.S.; Frisbie, W.P. Potential Labor Force Supply and Replacement in Mexico and the States of the Mexican Cession and Texas: 1980–2000. Int. Migr. Rev. 1983, 17, 394–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lustgarten, A. (31 August 2021) 40 million people rely on the Colorado River. It’s drying up fast. ProPublica. Available online: https://www.propublica.org/article/40-million-people-rely-on-the-colorado-river-its-drying-up-fast (accessed on 2 May 2022).
  31. Bureau of Economic Analysis Real Value Added to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Nevada in 2020, by Industry. Available online: https://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjJvtWd0bT7AhVxsFYBHcCuATMQFnoECAgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bea.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F2022-09%2Fstgdppi2q22-a2021.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1URJWOpjUnyG0qg5N4bPAB (accessed on 9 October 2022).
  32. FAO; IFAD; UNICEF; WFP; WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021; ISBN 978-92-5-134325-8.
  33. Sisolak, S. (27 July 2021). Hunger Action Month in Nevada. A Proclamation by the Governor. Available online: https://gov.nv.gov/News/Proclamations/2021/Hunger_Action_Month_in_Nevada/ (accessed on 28 April 2022).
  34. United Health Foundation. America’s Health Rankings; United Health Foundation: Minnetonka, MN, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  35. Center for Crop Diversification. Blueberry Cost and Return Estimates; University of Kentucky: Lexington, KY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  36. Treftz, C.; Omaye, S.T. Hydroponics: Potential for Augmenting Sustainable Food Production in Non-Arable Regions. Nutr. Food Sci. 2016, 46, 672–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Liu, Q. Interlinking Climate Change with Water-Energy-Food Nexus and Related Ecosystem Processes in California Case Studies. Ecol. Process. 2016, 5, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Masson-Delmotte, V.; Zhai, P.; Pirani, A.; Connors, S.L.; Péan, C.; Chen, Y.; Goldfarb, L.; Huang, M.; Yelekçi, O.; Rong, Y.; et al. (Eds.) Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Summary for Policy Makers; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  39. World Population Review Life Expectancy by State. 2022. Available online: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/life-expectancy-by-state (accessed on 17 May 2022).
  40. Dow-Fleisner, S.J.; Seaton, C.L.; Li, E.; Plamondon, K.; Oelke, N.; Kurtz, D.; Jones, C.; Currie, L.M.; Pesut, B.; Hasan, K.; et al. Internet Access Is a Necessity: A Latent Class Analysis of COVID-19 Related Challenges and the Role of Technology Use among Rural Community Residents. BMC Public Health 2022, 22, 845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Raghupathi, V.; Raghupathi, W. The Influence of Education on Health: An Empirical Assessment of OECD Countries for the Period 1995–2015. Arch. Public Health 2020, 78, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Milner, A.; Kavanagh, A.; Scovelle, A.J.; O’Neil, A.; Kalb, G.; Hewitt, B.; King, T.L. Gender Equality and Health in High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Within-Country Indicators of Gender Equality in Relation to Health Outcomes. Women’s Health Rep. 2021, 2, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. World Population Review, U.S. Literacy Rates by State 2022. Available online: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/us-literacy-rates-by-state (accessed on 16 May 2022).
  44. Beamer, L.; Steinbaum, M.; Unequal and Uneven: The Geography of Higher Education Access. Phenom. World 2019. Available online: https://www.phenomenalworld.org/analysis/the-geography-and-cost-of-higher-education-post-2008/ (accessed on 4 May 2022).
  45. Spotlight on Poverty & Opportunity. Nevada’s Spotlight on Poverty & Opportunity. 2022. Available online: https://spotlightonpoverty.org/states/nevada/ (accessed on 3 May 2022).
  46. The Prosperity Now Scorecard. Unemployment Rate. 2022. Available online: https://scorecard.prosperitynow.org/ (accessed on 8 May 2022).
  47. Capone, D.; Cumming, O.; Nichols, D.; Brown, J. Water and Sanitation in Urban America, 2017–2019. AJPH Open-Themed Res. 2020, 110, 1445–1578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Parkinson, S.; Krey, V.; Huppmann, D.; Kahil, T.; McCollum, D.; Fricko, O.; Byers, E.; Gidden, M.J.; Mayor, B.; Khan, Z.; et al. Balancing Clean Water-Climate Change Mitigation Trade-Offs. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 014009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. World Bank. Access to Electricity. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS (accessed on 29 April 2022).
  50. Nevada Energy. (22 C.E., April 28). NV Energy Exceeds Nevada’s Renewable Energy Requirement for 12th Straight Year. Available online: https://www.nvenergy.com/about-nvenergy/news/news-releases/nv-energy-exceeds-nevadas-renewable-energy-requirement (accessed on 6 May 2022).
  51. Wheelwright, T. The 10 Fastest and Slowest States for Internet Speeds in 2021. High Speed Internet. Available online: https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/10-fastest-and-slowest-states-for-internet-speeds-2021 (accessed on 29 April 2021).
  52. U.N. Economic Development. ‘Digital divide’ will worsen inequalities, without better global cooperation. UN News. Available online: https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/09/1045572 (accessed on 9 May 2022).
  53. United Health Foundation. Severe Housing Problems. America’s Health Rankings. 2021. Available online: https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/annual/measure/severe_housing_problems/state/ALL (accessed on 4 May 2022).
  54. National Alliance to End Homelessness. State of Homelessness: 2021 Edition. National Alliance to End Homelessness. 2021. Available online: https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness/ (accessed on 13 May 2022).
  55. Foster, T.B.; Kleit, R.G. The Changing Relationship Between Housing and Inequality, 1980–2010. Hous. Policy Debate 2015, 25, 16–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Washbourne, C.-L.; Goddard, M.A.; le Provost, G.; Manning, D.A.C.; Manning, P. Trade-Offs and Synergies in the Ecosystem Service Demand of Urban Brownfield Stakeholders. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 42, 101074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. United Health Foundation. College Graduate-Women; United Health Foundation: Minnetonka, MN, USA. Available online: https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/health-of-women-and-children/measure/college_women/state/ALL (accessed on 5 May 2022).
  58. United Health Foundation. Gender Pay Gap; United Health Foundation: Minnetonka, MN, USA. Available online: https://www.americashealthrankings.org/learn/reports/2022-health-of-women-and-children-report (accessed on 5 May 2022).
  59. Huber, L. When Civilians Are Attacked: Gender Equality and Terrorist Targeting. J. Confl. Resolut. 2019, 63, 2289–2318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jamil, B.; Yaping, S.; Ud Din, N.; Nazneen, S. Do Effective Public Governance and Gender (in)Equality Matter for Poverty? Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraživanja 2022, 35, 158–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cho, S.-Y. Does Gender Equality Promote Social Trust? An Empirical Analysis. World Dev. 2016, 88, 175–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. World Population Review. Income Inequality by State. 2021. Available online: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/income-inequality-by-state (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  63. Legatum Institute Foundation. The United States Prosperity Index 2021. 2021. Available online: https://li.com/reports/2021-united-states-prosperity-index/ (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  64. Elfversson, E. Peace from below: Governance and Peacebuilding in Kerio Valley, Kenya. J. Mod. Afr. Stud. 2016, 54, 469–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. National Center for Access to Justice. Justice Index; National Center for Access to Justice: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  66. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nevada’s Health Statistics; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2022.
  67. Ghazalian, P.L.; Hammoud, M. The Peace Level of Nations: An Empirical Investigation into the Determining Factors. Def. Peace Econ. 2021, 32, 509–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Nevada Department of Agriculture. Economic Analysis of the Food and Agriculture Sector in Nevada 2021; Nevada Department of Agriculture: Sparks, NV, USA, 2021.
  69. World Health Foundation. Sanitation; United Health Foundation: Minnetonka, MN, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  70. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Energy-Related CO2 Emission Data Tables; U.S. Energy Information Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2022.
  71. Oxfam Carbon Emissions of Richest 1% Set to Be 30 Times the 1.5 °C Limit in 2030. 2021. Available online: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-set-be-30-times-15degc-limit-2030 (accessed on 9 October 2022).
  72. Garfin, G.M.; Gonzalez, P.; Breshears, D.; Brooks, K.; Brown, H.E.; Elias, E.; Gunasekara, A.; Huntly, N.; Maldonado, J.K.; Mantua, N.J.; et al. Chapter 25: Southwest. Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: The Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II; U.S. Global Change Research Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
  73. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Greenhouse Gas Emissions; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2022.
  74. Chiodo, G.; Polvani, L.M. New Insights on the Radiative Impacts of Ozone-Depleting Substances. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2022, 49, e2021GL096783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Landrigan, P.J.; Stegeman, J.J.; Fleming, L.E.; Allemand, D.; Anderson, D.M.; Backer, L.C.; Brucker-Davis, F.; Chevalier, N.; Corra, L.; Czerucka, D.; et al. Human Health and Ocean Pollution. Ann. Glob. Health 2020, 86, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Toxic Release Inventory National Analysis; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2022.
  77. Carrington, D. Chemical Pollution Has Passed Safe Limit for Humanity, Say Scientist. The Guardian. 2022. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/18/chemical-pollution-has-passed-safe-limit-for-humanity-say-scientists (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  78. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Nevada Water Quality Assessment Report; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
  79. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection; Bureau of Water Quality Planning. Nevada 2020–2022 Water Quality Integrated Report; Nevada Division of Environmental Protection: Carson City, NV, USA, 2022.
  80. National Research Council; Committee on the Causes and Management of Coastal Eutrophication. Clean Coastal Waters: Understanding and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  81. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. How We Use Water. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/watersense/how-we-use-water (accessed on 14 May 2022).
  82. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Water Conservation (per Capita Daily Gallons of Domestic Water Usage); Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion: Rockville, MD, USA, 2022.
  83. Dale, V.H.; Efroymson, R.A.; Kline, K.L. The Land Use–Climate Change–Energy Nexus. Landsc. Ecol. 2011, 26, 755–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Nevada Division of Forestry. Nevada Forest, Range & Watershed Action Plan; Nevada Division of Forestry: Carson City, NV, USA, 2020.
  85. Thompson, A. How Conserving 30 Percent of U.S. Land by 2030 Could Work. Scientific American. 2022. Available online: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-conserving-30-percent-of-u-s-land-by-2030-could-work/ (accessed on 29 April 2022).
  86. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Listed Species Believed to or Known to Occur in Nevada. Available online: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/species-listings-by-state-totals?statusCategory=Listed (accessed on 14 May 2022).
  87. IUCN. Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework; IUCN: Bonn, Germany, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  88. World Population Review Air Quality by State 2021. Available online: https://www.iqair.com/world-most-polluted-cities/world-air-quality-report-2021-en.pdf (accessed on 9 October 2022).
  89. Kabisch, N.; Korn, H.; Stadler, J.; Bonn, A. Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas; Kabisch, N., Korn, H., Stadler, J., Bonn, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; ISBN 978-3-319-53750-4. [Google Scholar]
  90. Ritchie, H.; Roser, M. Ozone Layer. 2018. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/ozone-layer (accessed on 9 October 2022).
  91. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ODS Destruction in the United States and Abroad; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
  92. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Nevada Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Projections, 1990–2040; Nevada Division of Environmental Protection: Carson City, NV, USA, 2020.
  93. Pörtner, H.-O.; Roberts, D.C.; Poloczanska, E.S.; Mintenbeck, K.; Tignor, M.; Alegría, A.; Craig, M.; Langsdorf, S.; Löschke, S.; Möller, V. IPCC, 2022: Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  94. Doughnut Economics Action Lab (DEAL). The Amsterdam City Doughnut, a Tool for Transformative Action; Doughnut Economics Action Lab.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  95. DEANZ Doughnut Economics Advocates New Zealand. 2022. Available online: https://doughnuteconomicsnz.com/ (accessed on 9 October 2022).
Sustainability 14 15294 g001 550
Figure 1. Optimal Doughnut Economics scenario without social scarcities or negative externalities to the environment.
Figure 1. Optimal Doughnut Economics scenario without social scarcities or negative externalities to the environment.
Sustainability 14 15294 g001
Sustainability 14 15294 g002 550
Figure 2. Nevada’s Doughnuts Economics model. Unsustainable ecological ceiling overshoots and social foundation shortfalls are in red.
Figure 2. Nevada’s Doughnuts Economics model. Unsustainable ecological ceiling overshoots and social foundation shortfalls are in red.
Sustainability 14 15294 g002
Sustainability 14 15294 g003 550
Figure 3. Doughnut Economic interrelationships matrix. Positive and negative relationships amid DE indicators (based on H.-O. Pörtner et al., 2022). FO: Food, HE: Health, ED: Education, IN: Income, SA: Sanitation, EN: Energy, NE: Networks, HO: Housing, GE: Gender Equality, SE: Social Equality, PV: Political Voice, PJ: Peace and Justice, CC: Climate Crisis, OA: Ocean Acidification, CH: Chemical Pollution, NP: Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loading, FW: Freshwater Withdrawals, LC: Land Conversion, BL: Biodiversity Loss, AI: Air Pollution, OD: Ozone Layer Depletion. Interrelations with benefits or disadvantages occur among the indicators. Some of these interlinkages have mixed or unclear results. The indirect relationship on some levels remains unclear, so no significant data exists to confirm a specific interrelation.
Figure 3. Doughnut Economic interrelationships matrix. Positive and negative relationships amid DE indicators (based on H.-O. Pörtner et al., 2022). FO: Food, HE: Health, ED: Education, IN: Income, SA: Sanitation, EN: Energy, NE: Networks, HO: Housing, GE: Gender Equality, SE: Social Equality, PV: Political Voice, PJ: Peace and Justice, CC: Climate Crisis, OA: Ocean Acidification, CH: Chemical Pollution, NP: Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loading, FW: Freshwater Withdrawals, LC: Land Conversion, BL: Biodiversity Loss, AI: Air Pollution, OD: Ozone Layer Depletion. Interrelations with benefits or disadvantages occur among the indicators. Some of these interlinkages have mixed or unclear results. The indirect relationship on some levels remains unclear, so no significant data exists to confirm a specific interrelation.
Sustainability 14 15294 g003
Table
Table 1. Nevada’s social dimension.
Table 1. Nevada’s social dimension.
SectorIndicatorUnitsWeightUnsustainableMarginally SustainableModerately SustainableHighly SustainableNevadaReferences
1FoodPrevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population (Self-sufficiency)Percentage of
population		34%>3030–1414–5<512.0Nevada’s indicator: [33]
Categories: [68]
Food sufficiency, children ages 0–17 whose households could always afford nutritious mealsPercentage of population33%<7070–8080–95>9564.5[34]
The proportion of income per acre used for agriculture (Productivity)US$/acres33%<300300–5 k5 k–9 k>9 k129[69]
2HealthNumber of infant deaths
(Before age 1) per 1000 live births		per 1000 live births50%>77–66–4<45.8[34]
Life expectancyYears50%<7070–7575–80>8078[39]
3EducationLiteracyA50%<7575–8585–95>9583.9[43]
High School GraduationB50%<8080–8585–90>9080.9[57]
4IncomePoverty rate, population under the poverty lineC50%>2020–1212–5<512.5[45]
Unemployment rateD50%>55–44–3<34.2[46]
5SanitationPopulation with access to safe sewage systemsPercentage of population100%<8080–8989–95>9599.55Nevada’s indicator: [1,47]
Categories: [70]
6EnergyThe proportion of the
population with access to electricity (Accessibility)		Percentage of population50%<2020–5050–95>95100Nevada’s indicators and categories: [49]
Energy from renewable sourcesE50%<2020–5050–95>9530.7Nevada’s indicators and categories: [50]
7NetworksAverage download internet speedMbps100%<2525–6060–100>100104.1Nevada’s indicators and categories: [51]
8HousingHomelessnessPeople homeless per 10,00050%>3030–1515–2<222.4[54]
Severe housing problemsF50%>2020–1211–6<519.6[53]
9Gender EqualityCollege graduate—womenG50%<2828–4545–60>6024.9[57]
Gender pay gapH50%<7575–8585–95>9585.6[58]
10Social EquityIncome inequality (Gini Index)Percentage of income inequality100%>6060–4040–20<2045[62]
11Political VoiceGovernanceI100%>4040–2525–10<1037[63]
12Peace and JusticeJustice accessJustice Index50%<4040–6060–80>8020.4[65]
Homicide rateper 100,00050%>1010–55–2<27.3[66]
Sustainability 14 15294 i001
Notes: A. Percentage of the population able to both read and write among persons aged 15 and older; B. Percentage of students who graduated within a regular time; C. Percentage of the population under the poverty line; D. The percentage of citizens with an out job is available for work and have been actively looking for a job in the prior four weeks; E. Percentage of electricity generation; F. Percentage of occupied housing units with at least one of the following problems: lack of complete kitchen facilities, lack of plumbing facilities, overcrowding, or severely cost-burdened occupants (5-year estimate); G. Percentage of women ages 25–44 with a college degree; H. Women’s median annual earnings as a percentage of men’s median annual earnings for full-time, year-round civilian workers ages 16 and older; I. State ranking based on political accountability, the rule of law, and government integrity.
Table
Table 2. Nevada’s environmental dimension.
Table 2. Nevada’s environmental dimension.
SectorIndicatorUnitsPonderationUnsustainableMarginally SustainableModerately SustainableHighly SustainableNevadaReferences
13Climate crisisPer capita energy-related carbon dioxide emissionsA100%>99–66–2.3<2.313.5[71]
14Ocean acidificationAverage aragonite saturation stateB100%----NANA
15Chemical pollutionToxics
Release
Inventory		Lb/square mile100%>800799–401400–41<404204[76]
16Nitrogen and Phosphorus LoadingPercentage of assessed lakes and reservoirs impaired by nitrogen sourcesC50%>2828–2121–14<140.43[79]
Percentage of assessed lakes and reservoirs impaired by phosphorus sourcesC50%>2828–2121–14<1416.32[79]
17Freshwater withdrawalsWater demandGallons per capita per day100%>125125–100100–75<75126Nevada’s indicator: [82]
Categories: [73]
18Land conversionArea of natural land with low human alterationPercentage of natural land cover100%<3030–5050–70>7093.8Nevada’s indicator: [84]
Categories: [85]
19Biodiversity lossThreatened or endangered SpeciesD100%>7675–5150–25<2546Nevada’s indicator: [86]
Categories: [87]
20Air pollutionAir
Quality
Index		E100%>150150–100100–50<5042.1[88]
21Ozone layer depletionOzone-depleting substancesF100%>14.1114.11–9.49.4–4.7<4.76.72Nevada’s indicators and categories: [90]
Sustainability 14 15294 i002
Notes: A. Metric tons of energy-related carbon dioxide per person per year; B. Carbon ion concentration; C. Percentage of 383,486 acres of assessed lakes and reservoirs; D. Number of threatened or endangered species; E. Index calculated for four major air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act: ground-level ozone, particle pollution, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide; F. Ozone-depleting substances in tons.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Acosta, F. Linking Nevada to Doughnut Economics. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215294

AMA Style

Acosta F. Linking Nevada to Doughnut Economics. Sustainability. 2022; 14(22):15294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215294

Chicago/Turabian Style

Acosta, Fortino. 2022. "Linking Nevada to Doughnut Economics" Sustainability 14, no. 22: 15294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215294

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop