IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal land conversion and growth with uncertain biodiversity costs


  • Leroux, Anke D.
  • Creedy, John


An important characteristic defining the threat of environmental crises is the uncertainty about their consequences for future welfare. Random processes governing ecosystem dynamics and adaptation to anthropogenic change are important sources of prevailing ecological uncertainty and contribute to the problem of how to balance economic development against natural resource conservation. The aim of this study is to examine optimal growth subject to non-linear dynamic environmental constraints. In a two-sector exogenous growth framework we model a stochastic environmental good, exhibiting uncertain ecological responses to environmental change, and describe the economic and environmental trade-offs that ensue for a risk-averse social planner. Allowing for ecological risk tends to slow economic growth if environmental impacts are assumed to increase exponentially as the rate of disturbance increases. Taken in isolation the effects of ecosystem resilience and ecological uncertainty on the rate of natural resource development are ambiguous and depend on normative parameters such as the social planner’s attitude to risk and rate of time preference.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Leroux, Anke D. & Creedy, John, 2007. "Optimal land conversion and growth with uncertain biodiversity costs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 542-549, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:61:y:2007:i:2-3:p:542-549

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Pierre Dubois & Tomislav Vukina, 2004. "Grower Risk Aversion and the Cost of Moral Hazard in Livestock Production Contracts," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(3), pages 835-841.
    2. Charles J. Cicchetti & A. Myrick Freeman III, 1971. "Option Demand and Consumer Surplus: Further Comment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 85(3), pages 528-539.
    3. Bernard M.S. van Praag & Adam S. Booij, 2003. "Risk Aversion and the Subjective Time Discount Rate: A Joint Approach," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 03-018/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    4. Barrett, Scott, 1992. "Economic growth and environmental preservation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 289-300, November.
    5. Swallow, Stephen K., 1990. "Depletion of the environmental basis for renewable resources: The economics of interdependent renewable and nonrenewable resources," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 281-296, November.
    6. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 110(1), pages 73-92.
    7. Rubio, Santiago J. & Goetz, Renan-U., 1998. "Optimal growth and land preservation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 345-372, December.
    8. N. Kaldor, 1971. "A Comment," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(1), pages 45-46.
    9. Swanson, Timothy M, 1994. "The Economics of Extinction Revisited and Revised: A Generalised Framework for the Analysis of the Problems of Endangered Species and Biodiversity Losses," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(0), pages 800-821, Supplemen.
    10. Hofkes, Marjan W., 1996. "Modelling sustainable development: An economy-ecology integrated model," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 333-353, July.
    11. Smulders, Sjak & van Soest, Daan & Withagen, Cees, 2004. "International trade, species diversity, and habitat conservation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 891-910, September.
    12. U Pascual & N P Russell & A A Omer, 2003. "Does Loss in Biodiversity Compromise Productivity in Intensive Agriculture?," The School of Economics Discussion Paper Series 0322, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    13. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Carlsson, Fredrik & Daruvala, Dinky, 2001. "Measuring Hypothetical Grandparents Preferences For Equality And Relative Standings," Working Papers in Economics 42, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    14. Raymond Gradus & Sjak Smulders, 1993. "The trade-off between environmental care and long-term growth—Pollution in three prototype growth models," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 25-51, February.
    15. Dietrich Earnhart, 2000. "Liability for Past Environmental Contamination and Privatization," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 302, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    16. repec:cdl:ucsdec:545419 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Earnhart, Dietrich, 2000. "Liability for Past Environmental Contamination and Privatization," CEPR Discussion Papers 2571, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Polasky, Stephen & Costello, Christopher & McAusland, Carol, 2004. "On trade, land-use, and biodiversity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 911-925, September.
    19. Jeffrey A. Krautkraemer, 1998. "Nonrenewable Resource Scarcity," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(4), pages 2065-2107, December.
    20. Richard T. Carson & Robert Cameron Mitchell, 2006. "Public Preferences Toward Environmental Risks: The Case of Trihalomethanes," Chapters,in: Handbook on Contingent Valuation, chapter 19 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    21. Charles Perrings, 1998. "Resilience in the Dynamics of Economy-Environment Systems," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 503-520, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. repec:eee:ecomod:v:272:y:2014:i:c:p:175-187 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:eee:ecomod:v:221:y:2010:i:10:p:1427-1439 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:61:y:2007:i:2-3:p:542-549. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.