Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae Brun. 2018, 66(6), 1543-1547 | DOI: 10.11118/actaun201866061543

Land Degradation in the Calorie Model: Dynamics of the Stationary State

Martin Machay
Department of Economics, Faculty of Business and Economics, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic

The environmental aspects play more and more important role in an economic life of the society. One aspect the Classics did not see clearly in the context of the stationary state. This paper explores implications of the introduction of the land degradation into the concept of the classical stationary state. The calorie model is used to model the dynamics of the stationary state. Several new theorems are derived in the paper. The variables of interest are interdependent. The dynamics of the stationary state is, hence, conditional. The stationary state is more sensitive to the land degradation under contemporary conditions than to the population growth. This explains its increasing role in economic policy and economic discussions.

Keywords: stationary state, food, population, calorie model, land degradation

Published: December 19, 2018  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Machay, M. (2018). Land Degradation in the Calorie Model: Dynamics of the Stationary State. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 66(6), 1543-1547. doi: 10.11118/actaun201866061543
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. BABE, R. E. 2006. Culture of Ecology: Reconciling Economics and Environment. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Go to original source...
    2. BERGER, S. and FORSTATER, M. 2007. Toward a Political Institutionalist Economics: Kapp's Social Costs, Lowe's Instrumental Analysis, and the European Institutionalist Approach to Environmental Policy. Journal of Economic Issues, 41(2): 539-546. DOI: 10.1080/00213624.2007.11507043 Go to original source...
    3. BOWERS, S., RYAN, C. and JONES, X. H. 2017. Understanding agricultural drivers of deforestation through remote sensing: Opportunities and limitations in sub-Saharan Africa. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
    4. CAMERON, T. A. 1997. Environmental Economics and Ecological Economics. Science, 277(5324): 300-301. DOI: 10.1126/science.277.5324.297d Go to original source...
    5. CARLSSON, F. and JOHANSSON-STENMAN, O. 2012. Behavioral Economics and Environmental Policy. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 4: 75-99. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-resource-110811-114547 Go to original source...
    6. CASTLE, E. N. 1999. Natural Resources and Environmental Economics: A Retrospective View. Review of Agricultural Economics, 21(2): 288-304. Go to original source...
    7. DIETZ, F. J. and VAN DER STRAATEN, J. 1992. Rethinking Environmental Economics: Missing Links between Economic Theory and Environmental Policy. Journal of Economic Issues, 26(1): 27-51. DOI: 10.1080/00213624.1992.11505261 Go to original source...
    8. GONZALEZ-JARAMILLO, V., FRIES, A., ROLLENBECK, R., PALADINES, J., ONATE-VALDIVIESO, F. and BENDIX, J. 2016. Assessment of Deforestation during the last decades in Ecuador Using NOAA-AVHRR Satellite Data. Erdkunde, 70(3): 217-235. DOI: 10.3112/erdkunde.2016.03.02 Go to original source...
    9. GOWDY, J. M. 2004. The Revolution in Welfare Economics and Its Implications for Environmental Valuation and Policy. Land Economics, 80(2): 239-257. DOI: 10.2307/3654741 Go to original source...
    10. KLING, C. L., SEGERSON, K. and SHOGREN, J. F. 2010. Environmental Economics: How Agricultural Economists Helped Advance the Field. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 92(2): 487-505. DOI: 10.1093/ajae/aaq012 Go to original source...
    11. MACHAY, M. 2012. The Principle of Population for the 21st Century: The Never Coming Stationary State. Review of Economic Perspectives - Národohospodářský obzor, 12(3): 168-184. DOI: 10.2478/v10135-012-0009-3 Go to original source...
    12. MACHAY, M. 2016. Death Rates in the Calorie Model. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 64(6): 2053-2058. DOI: 10.11118/actaun201664062053 Go to original source...
    13. MAYHEW, R. 2014. Malthus and the Making of Environmental Economics. In: Malthus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 103-127. Go to original source...
    14. NADEAU, R. L. 2006. The Environmental Endgame: Mainstream Economics, Econological Disaster, and Human Survival. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
    15. OATES, W. E. 1990. Economics, Economists, and Environmental Policy. Eastern Economic Journal, 16(4): 289-296.
    16. ROSA, I. M. D., SOUZA JR., C. and EWERS, R. M. 2012. Changes in Size of Deforested Patches in the Brazilian Amazon. Conservation Biology, 26(5): 932-934. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01901.x Go to original source...
    17. SODERBAUM, P. 1990. Neoclassical and Institutional Approaches to environmental Economics. Journal of Economic Issues, 24(2): 481-492. DOI: 10.1080/00213624.1990.11505047 Go to original source...
    18. TIMMINS, C. and SCHLENKER, W. 2009. Reduced-Form Versus Structural Modeling in Environmental and Resource Economics. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 1: 351-380. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.resource.050708.144119 Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content