Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:56:21.229Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DON’T FEED THE BEARS! ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSIVE EXPENDITURES AND SPECIES-TYPICAL BEHAVIOR IN AN OPTIMAL GROWTH MODEL

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2019

Angelo Antoci ,
Simone Borghesi  and
Paolo Russu
Angelo Antoci
Affiliation:
University of Sassari
Simone Borghesi*
Affiliation:
University of Siena
Paolo Russu
Affiliation:
University of Sassari
*
Address correspondence to: Simone Borghesi, Department of Political and International Sciences, University of Siena, via P.A. Mattioli 10 53100 Siena - Italy & FSR Climate, European University Institute, Florence, Italy. e-mail: [email protected]. Phone: +39 0577 233044.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many studies have stressed that human activities may cause the extinction of single species. Anthropogenic activities, however, may affect not only the number of individuals of single species, but also their behavior. To investigate this issue, we propose a growth model in which agents may care not only for the species’ survival but also for the typicality of their behavior. We assume that the environmental defensive expenditures can protect the species avoiding their extinction, but can induce the species to modify their behavior. Results emerging from the model suggest that if the social planner cares for typicality of species behavior, then an infinite growth process may no longer be optimal. Numerical simulations, moreover, show the possible existence of a trade-off between number and behavior of the species, leading the system to a high number of species’ members that behave in an atypical way or to few members behaving very typically.

Keywords

Bio-Economic ModelSpecies-Typical BehaviorEconomic GrowthEnvironmental Defensive Expenditures
Type
Articles
Information
Macroeconomic Dynamics , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , April 2021 , pp. 733 - 752
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Antoci, A., Borghesi, S. and Russu, P. (2005) Biodiversity and economic growth: trade-offs between stabilization of the ecological system and preservation of natural dynamics. Ecological Modelling 189, 333–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auman, H. J., Bond, A. L., Meathrel, C. E. and Richardson, A. M. (2011) Urbanization of the silver gull: evidence of anthropogenic feeding regimes from stable isotope analyses. Waterbirds 34(1), 70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbier, E. B. and Schulz, C. E. (1997) Wildlife, biodiversity and trade. Environment and Development Economics 2(2), 145–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barney, G. O. (1980) The global 2000 Report to the President of the US, vol. I. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Campo Duarte, D. E. and Vasilieva, O. (2011) Bioeconomic model with Gompertz population growth and species conservation. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics 72(1), 49–63.Google Scholar
Cruz-Rivera, E. and Vasilieva, O. (2013) Optimal policies aimed at stabilization of populations with logistic growth under human intervention. Theoretical Population Biology 83, 123–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cruz-Rivera, E. and Vasilieva, O. (2015) A control theory approach aimed at sustainable conservation of single species under human intervention. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics 102(4), 653–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hommes, C. H. and Rosser, J. B. Jr. (2001) Consistent expectations equilibria and complex dynamics in renewable resource markets. Macroeconomic Dynamics 5, 180–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huettmann, F. and Czech, B. (2006) The steady state economy for global shorebird and habitat conservation. Endangered Species Research 2, 89–92 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, R.J. and Sutinen, J. G. (1996) Uncertain biomass shift and collapse: implications for harvest policy in the fishery. Land Economics 72(4), 500–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, H. J (1964) A second variation test for singular extrema. AIAA Journal 2, 1380–1382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. Z. and Löfgren, K. G. (1998) A dynamics model of biodiversity preservation. Environment and Development Economics 3(2), 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oro, D., Genovart, M., Tavecchia, G., Fowler, M. S. and Martìnez-Abraìn, A. (2013) Ecological and evolutionary implications of food subsides from humans. Ecology Letters 16(12), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterback, A. M. K., Frechette, D. M., Hayes, S. A. and Moore, J. W. (2015) Long-term shifts in anthropogenic subsidies to gulls and implications for an imperiled fish. Biological Conservation 191, 606–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prandham, T. and Chaudhuri, K. S. (1999) A dynamic reaction model of a two-species fishery with taxation as a control instrument: a capital theoretic analysis. Ecological Modelling 121, 1–16.Google Scholar
Robbins, H. M. (1967) A generalized Legendre-Clebesh condition for the singular cases of optimal control. IBM Journal of Research and Development 11(4), 361–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosser, J. B. Jr. (2001) Complex ecological-economic dynamics and environmental policy. Ecological Economics 37, 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasilieva, O. (2015) From harvesting to nonharvesting utility: an optimal control approach to species conservation. Natural Resource Modeling 28(2), 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Togera, M., Benensonb, I., Wangc, Y., Czamanskia, D. and Malkinsond, D. (2018) Pigs in space: an agent-based model of wild boar (Sus scrofa) movement into cities. Landscape and Urban Planning 173, 70–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yorio, P. and Giaccardi, M. (2002) Urban and fishery waste tips as food sources for birds in northern coastal Patagonia, Argentina. Ornitologia Neotropical 13, 283–292.Google Scholar