IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-05312281.html

Bioeconomic models for terrestrial social-ecological system management: a review
[Modèles bioéconomiques pour la gestion des socio-écosystèmes terrestres : une revue de la littérature]

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Jean

    (CIRED - Centre International de Recherche sur l'Environnement et le Développement - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AgroParisTech - Université Paris-Saclay - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - IP Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris)

  • Lauriane Mouysset

    (CIRED - Centre International de Recherche sur l'Environnement et le Développement - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AgroParisTech - Université Paris-Saclay - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - IP Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris)

Abstract

We provide a cartography of 319 bioeconomic models applied to terrestrial habitats, by combining a quantitative analysis of methodological criteria and of the narratives underlying the equations. Based on a Multiple Correspondence Analysis and clustering techniques, our cartography is organized in 4 groups. Two of them adopt a conservation perspective: while the first one focuses on how to efficiently preserve species given a limited budget through a cost-effectiveness approach without any biodiversity monetarization, the second one stands for a second generation of models tackling habitat-based conservation measures with specific applications in agriculture and forestry. The last two groups are concerned with the notion of harvesting. Biodiversity is here monetized and the problem is framed as the maximization of the utility of agents derived from the flow of the biodiversity variable raising thus a cost-benefit problem. While the notion of harvesting is mostly applied to endangered species and invasive species in one group, a specific interest for forestry characterizes the second one. The temporal analysis of the database shows that bioeconomic models applied to terrestrial social-ecological systems exhibit an overall recent and on-going decline. We discuss this result regarding the neighbouring methods, especially the correlative and data-driven models. Since a diversity of modeling frameworks is needed to investigate the management of social-ecological systems, especially to embrace different understandings and decrease uncertainty, we provide some challenges for the future of the mathematically-based bioeconomic models.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Jean & Lauriane Mouysset, 2022. "Bioeconomic models for terrestrial social-ecological system management: a review [Modèles bioéconomiques pour la gestion des socio-écosystèmes terrestres : une revue de la littérature]," Post-Print hal-05312281, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05312281
    DOI: 10.1561/101.00000131
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-05312281v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-05312281v1/document
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1561/101.00000131?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emmanuelle Augeraud-Véron & Giorgio Fabbri & Katheline Schubert, 2019. "The Value of Biodiversity as an Insurance Device," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1068-1081.
    2. Pierre Courtois & Charles Figuieres & Chloé Mulier, 2014. "Conservation Priorities when Species Interact: The Noah's Ark Metaphor Revisited," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-8, September.
    3. Bulte, Erwin H. & van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 1999. "Metapopulation dynamics and stochastic bioeconomic modeling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 293-299, August.
    4. Feder, G. & Regev, U., 1975. "Biological interactions and environmental effects in the economics of pest control," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 75-91, December.
    5. Alexander, Robert R., 2000. "Modelling species extinction: the case for non-consumptive values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 259-269, November.
    6. Luz Maria Castro & Fabian Härtl & Santiago Ochoa & Baltazar Calvas & Leonardo Izquierdo & Thomas Knoke, 2018. "Integrated bio-economic models as tools to support land-use decision making: a review of potential and limitations," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 183-211, July.
    7. Emmanuelle Augeraud-Véron & Giorgio Fabbri & Katheline Schubert, 2019. "The Value of Biodiversity as an Insurance Device," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1068-1081.
    8. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    9. Costello, Christopher & Polasky, Stephen, 2004. "Dynamic reserve site selection," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 157-174, June.
    10. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2019. "The Environmental Turn In Natural Resource Economics: John Krutilla And “Conservation Reconsidered”," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 27-46, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eppink, Florian V. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2007. "Ecological theories and indicators in economic models of biodiversity loss and conservation: A critical review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 284-293, March.
    2. Augeraud-Véron, Emmanuelle & Fabbri, Giorgio & Schubert, Katheline, 2021. "Volatility-reducing biodiversity conservation under strategic interactions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    3. Augeraud-Véron, Emmanuelle & Fabbri, Giorgio & Schubert, Katheline, 2021. "Prevention and mitigation of epidemics: Biodiversity conservation and confinement policies," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    4. H. Spencer Banzhaf, 2017. "Constructing Markets: Environmental Economics and the Contingent Valuation Controversy," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 213-239, Supplemen.
    5. Marielle Brunette & Marc Hanewinkel, 2021. "Assurance financière et assurance naturelle : une application à la forêt," Working Papers of BETA 2021-28, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    6. Thomas Knoke & Carola Paul & Elizabeth Gosling & Isabelle Jarisch & Johannes Mohr & Rupert Seidl, 2023. "Assessing the Economic Resilience of Different Management Systems to Severe Forest Disturbance," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(2), pages 343-381, February.
    7. Smith, Martin D. & Sanchirico, James N. & Wilen, James E., 2009. "The economics of spatial-dynamic processes: Applications to renewable resources," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 104-121, January.
    8. Augeraud-Véron, Emmanuelle & Fabbri, Giorgio & Schubert, Katheline, 2021. "Prevention and mitigation of epidemics: Biodiversity conservation and confinement policies," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    9. Unterberger, Christian & Olschewski, Roland, 2021. "Determining the insurance value of ecosystems: A discrete choice study on natural hazard protection by forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    10. Vredin Johansson, Maria & Heldt, Tobias & Johansson, Per, 2006. "The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 507-525, July.
    11. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    12. John List, 2025. "Valuing Non-Marketed Goods and Services Using a List Field Experiment," Framed Field Experiments 00809, The Field Experiments Website.
    13. Smith, Martin D. & Wilen, James E., 2000. "Analysis Of A Spatial Rotation Plan For The Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21847, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Luttmer, Erzo F. P. & Zeckhauser, Richard & Kousky, Carolyn, 2006. "Permits to Elicit Information," Working Paper Series rwp06-049, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    15. Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann, & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert C. Mitchell & Stanley Presser & Paul A. Rudd & V. Kerry Smith & Michael Conaway & Kerry Martin, 1997. "Temporal Reliability of Estimates from Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 151-163.
    16. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    17. Dow, W.H., 1995. "Welfare Impacts of Health Case User Fees : A Health- Valuation Approach to Analysis with Imperfect Markets," Papers 95-21, RAND - Labor and Population Program.
    18. John A. List, 2001. "Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1498-1507, December.
    19. Wolfers, Justin & Stevenson, Betsey & Sacks, Dan, 2010. "Subjective Well-Being, Income, Economic Development and Growth," CEPR Discussion Papers 8048, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. Hajkowicz, Stefan, 2006. "Taking a closer look at multiple criteria analysis and economic evaluation," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 139785, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    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:hal:journl:hal-05312281. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.