What Every Conservation Biologist Should Know about Economic Theory

Abstract

The last century has seen the ascendance of a core economic model, which we will refer to as Walrasian economics. This model is driven by the psychological assumptions that humans act only in a self-referential and narrowly rational way and that production can be described as a self-contained circular flow between firms and households. These assumptions have critical implications for the way economics is used to inform conservation biology. Yet the Walrasian model is inconsistent with a large body of empirical evidence about actual human behavior, and it violates a number of basic physical laws. Research in behavioral science and neuroscience shows that humans are uniquely social animals and not self-centered rational economic beings. Economic production is subject to physical laws including the laws of thermodynamics and mass balance. In addition, some contemporary economic theory, spurred by exciting new research in human behavior and a wealth of data about the negative global impact of the human economy on natural systems, is moving toward a world view that places consumption and production squarely in its behavioral and biophysical context. We argue that abandoning the straightjacket of the Walrasian core is essential to further progress in understanding the complex, coupled interactions between the human economy and the natural world. We call for a new framework for economic theory and policy that is consistent with observed human behavior, recognizes the complex and frequently irreversible interaction between human and natural systems, and directly confronts the cumulative negative effects of the human economy on the Earth's life support systems. Biophysical economics and ecological economics are two emerging economic frameworks in this movement.

Not by science alone: why orangutan conservationists must think outside the box

“…How these social and ecological systems interact, however, remains poorly understood 88, 89 . The lack of progress is largely due to the traditional separation of ecological and social sciences 90–92 . Orangutan researchers who want to justify their work through its supposed positive impacts on orangutan conservation need to do a better job at identifying relevant questions for improving orangutan conservation.…”

Integration of ecological–biological thresholds in conservation decision making

“…Moreover, the disputable assumptions of valuation methods (e.g., rational individuals, substitutability, sufficient information, fixed preferences, the level of discount rate) impose certain constraints on the ability of individuals to capture the fundamental dependency of the economic process on natural systems (Gowdy et al. ). These phenomena indicate the inappropriateness of monetary values arising from hypothetical markets to capture the actual utility of ecosystem services and goods, especially in the intergenerational context.…”

Landgebruiksveranderingen waarderen in Vlaanderen

“…Dit uit zich in zoals de stikstof-en fosforcyclus, de klimaatverandering, ontbossing en een aantasting van de integriteit van de biosfeer (zie Figuur 11) (Rockström et al, 2009;Steffen et al, 2015). Gezien de complexiteit, de onzekerheid, de mogelijke onomkeerbaarheid en de sociale gevolgen van de ecosysteem-en klimaatveranderingen, die voortvloeien uit onze landgebruikskeuzen, is de keuze van een discontovoet meer een reflectie van persoonlijke, waardengebonden assumpties van de onderzoeker dan van wetenschappelijke expertise (Gowdy & Erickson, 2005;Gowdy et al, 2010a;Gowdy et al, 2010b Figuur 11: Voor negen planetaire grenzen werden controlevariabelen berekend om na te gaan in hoeverre onze samenleving op wereldschaal die grenzen benadert of overschrijdt. Het overschrijden van die grenzen is niet steeds lokaal of op korte termijn zichtbaar.…”