The minimum level of natural capital that must be preserved in order to ensure a basic level of ecosystem functioning and human survival.

The stocks of natural resources, habitats, and ecosystems. By defining environmental resources as ‘natural capital’, they are immediately brought within the realm of economic analysis and are given a status comparable to that of other forms of capital; thus they are regarded as valuable commodities that may either be used up in production processes or be conserved for possible use in the future

One point of confusion is that some people would divide the term ‘human-made capital’ even further, insisting that a distinction should be made between ‘physical capital’ (which means infrastructure such as buildings, machinery, equipment, tools etc) and ‘human capital’ (which refers strictly to the overall stock of human knowledge)

Does natural capital have a special role in contributing to human welfare in the future? Will they worse off if natural capital is depleted?

Depletion

In economic terms, the key issue is whether or not future generations of people can be compensated for the loss of ‘their’ natural capital. In principle, some economists argue, it might be possible to compensate future generations for the loss of natural capital by a corresponding increase in wealth, economic opportunities, social service provision, cultural heritage, new technologies etc. Those economists argue that, within the concept of sustainable development, there is room for a certain degree of substitutability between natural and human capital: natural capital may thus be drawn down and exchanged for human capital

Level of substitutability

Big question

Strong Sustainabililty

Weak sustainablility

Anthropocentrism and ecocentrism