Reconciling resource economics and ecological economics: the economics of sustainability and resilience

Beard, Rodney (1995): Reconciling resource economics and ecological economics: the economics of sustainability and resilience.

Abstract

Cross disciplinary dialogue between economics and ecology has within economics centered on the two subdisciplines of bioeconomics and ecological economics. This division in economics re ects the division in ecology between population and sys- tems ecologists. Recent developments in ecology are aimed at a more integrated approach to ecologic al research. One example of such an approach is that of models based on thermodynamic reaction networks. By applying the \Law of Mass Action" to biochemical descriptions of ecological networks, it is possible to reformulate eco- logical systems models as population dynamic models, which can then be embedded within a bioeconomic model framework. Analysis of bioeconomic models far from thermodynamic equilibrium is then possible from within either a steady-state or ergodic framework. The Glansdorff-Prigogine or other related stability criteria from non-equilibrium thermodynamics may then be applied to the study of bioeconomic systems.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Ecological economics, bioeconomic modelling, resource economics
• Subjects: B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B4 - Economic Methodology > B49 - Other; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B5 - Current Heterodox Approaches > B59 - Other; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q57 - Ecological Economics: Ecosystem Services ; Biodiversity Conservation ; Bioeconomics ; Industrial Ecology

References

[1] Beard, R.M., 1994. Optimal Stochastic Control of Renewable but Irreversible Re- sources. Agricultural Economics Discussion Paper 2/94, University of Queensland, St. Lucia.

[2] Birkett, S.H., 1994. On the interconnection of ecological system models. Ecological Modelling, 72: 152-174.

[3] Brown, J.H., 1995. Organisms and species as complex adaptive systems: linking the biology of populations with the physics of ecosystems. In: Jones, C.G. and Lawton, J.H. (Editors). Linking Species and Ecosystems. Chapman and Hall, New York PP. 387.

[4] Common, M. and Perrings, C., 1992. Towards and ecological economics of sustain- ability. Ecological Economics 6: 7-34.

[5] Eigen, M., 1971. Selforganization of matter and the evolution of biological macro- molecules. Die Naturewissenschaften, 58: 465-523.

[6] Ellen, R., 1982. Environment, Subsistence and System: The Ecology of Small-Scale Social Formations. Cambridge University press, Cambridge, pp. 324.

[7] Georgescu-Roegen, N., 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 457.

[8] Glansdorff, P. and Prigogine, I., 1971. Thermodynamic Theory of Stucture, Stabil- ity and Fluctuations. Wiley, pp. 306.

[9] Ito, K., 1982. Diffusion Processes. In: Kotz, S., Johnson, M L and Read, C.B. (Editors), 1982. Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences. Wiley, New York.

[10] Jeffries, C., 1979. Stability of Holistic Ecosystem Models. In: Halfon, E. (Editor), 1979. Theoretical Systems Ecology: Advances and Case Studies. Academic Press, New York, pp. 516.

[11] Lavenda, B.H., 1978. Thermodynamics of Irreversible Processes. MacMillan, Lon- don, pp. 182.

[12] Lefschetz, S., 1965. Stability of Nonlinear Control Systems. Academic press, New York pp. 150.

[13] Lotka, A.J., 1956, Elements of Mathematical Biology. Dover, New York, pp. 465.

[14] Martinez-Alier, J., 1987. Ecological Economics: Energy, Envornment and Society. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 287.

[15] Mikulecky, D.C., 1984. Network thermodynamics: a simulation and modeling method based on the extension of thermodynamic thinking into the realm of highly organized systems. Mathematical Bilsciences 72: 157-179.

[16] Mikulecky, D.C., 1991. Network thermodynamics: a unifying approach to dynamic nonlinear living systems. In: Higashi, M. and Burns, T.P. (Editors), Theoreti- cal Studies of Ecosystems: The network Perspective. Cambridge university Press, Cambridge, pp. 364.

[17] Norgaard, R.B., 1989. The case for methodological pluralism. Ecological Economics, 1: 37-57.

[18] Odum, E.P., 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. Saunders College Publishing, Philadel- phia, pp. 574.

[19] Perko, L., 1991. Dierential Equations and Dynamical Systems. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 407.

[20] Reiners, W.A.. Complementary models for ecosystems. The American Naturalist, 127: 59-73.

[21] Rosenberg, A., 1994. Instrumental Biology or the Disunity of Science: University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 193.

[22] Scanlan, J.C., 1994. The use of state and transition models for predicting begetation change in rangelands. Tropical Grasslands, 28: 229-240.

[23] Schnakenberg, J., 1981. Thermodynamic Network Analysis of Biological Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 149.

[24] Siljak, D., 1978. Large-Scale Dynamic Systems. North-Holland, New York, pp. 416.

[25] Stadler, P.F., 1994. The In uence of Mutation on Autocatalytic Reaction Networks. Mathematical Biosciences, 122: 127-160.