The evolution and empirical estimation of ecological-economic production possibilities frontiers

This paper presents a graphical model of an ecological-economic production possibilities frontier (EEPPF) that explicitly considers the roles of market failure and technological asymmetry in the provision of ecosystem goods and services. An empirical example of a 6-dimensional EEPPF is provided using a watershed in Illinois where three provisioning ecosystem services (corn, soybeans, hay) and three regulating services (flood control, water quality, and carbon retention) are the objectives. When aggregated, provisioning and regulatory services form a linear-to-convex EEPPF, but regulatory services can be increased from 10 to over 90% of optimal with a reduction in provisioning services (crops) from 100 to 78% of optimal. While corn and soybeans are shown to form a trade-off with all other ecosystem services, hay is complementary with flood control, water quality and carbon retention. These three regulating services are complementary with one another, with water quality and carbon correlated at 0.80. These results demonstrate the use of GIS, distributed watershed models such as SWAT, and genetic algorithms as a valuable method to estimate empirical EEPPFs.

[1]  Jeffrey G. Arnold,et al.  Soil and Water Assessment Tool Theoretical Documentation Version 2009 , 2011 .

[2]  Taylor H. Ricketts,et al.  Protecting Natural Capital through Ecosystem Service Districts , 2001 .

[3]  Gary B. Lamont,et al.  Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Analyzing the State-of-the-Art , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[4]  E. G. Bekele,et al.  Multiobjective management of ecosystem services by integrative watershed modeling and evolutionary algorithms , 2005 .

[5]  R. G. D. Allen,et al.  A Comparison Between Different Definitions of Complementary and Competitive Goods , 1934 .

[6]  Millenium Ecosystem Assessment.  Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis , 2005 .

[7]  R. A. Riggs,et al.  Economic and biological compatibility of timber and wildlife production: an illustrative use of production possibilities frontier. , 2000 .

[8]  Claire A. Montgomery,et al.  Biodiversity and Timber in the Coast Range of Oregon: Inside the Production Possibility Frontier , 2003, Land Economics.

[9]  S. Polasky,et al.  Efficiency of incentives to jointly increase carbon sequestration and species conservation on a landscape , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  Torbjörn Rydberg,et al.  Impact of production intensity on the ability of the agricultural landscape to generate ecosystem services: an example from Sweden , 1999 .

[11]  J. Omernik.  Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States , 1987 .

[12]  Christopher L. Lant,et al.  The Law and Policy of Ecosystem Services , 2007 .

[13]  A. Wossink,et al.  Jointness in production and farmers' willingness to supply non-marketed ecosystem services , 2007 .

[14]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[15]  J. B. Ruhl,et al.  The Tragedy of Ecosystem Services , 2008 .

[16]  John W. Nicklow,et al.  Multi-objective automatic calibration of SWAT using NSGA-II , 2007 .

[17]  A. Haight.  Diagram for a small planet: The production and Ecosystem possibilities curve , 2007 .

[18]  Avi Ostfeld,et al.  State of the Art for Genetic Algorithms and Beyond in Water Resources Planning and Management , 2010 .

[19]  S. Polasky,et al.  Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices , 2002, Nature.

[20]  H. Steinfeld,et al.  Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options. , 2006 .

[21]  Jacob Viner,et al.  Studies in the Theory of International Trade. , 1937 .

[22]  John R. Williams,et al.  LARGE AREA HYDROLOGIC MODELING AND ASSESSMENT PART I: MODEL DEVELOPMENT 1 , 1998 .

[23]  J. Diamond.  Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed , 2005 .

[24]  William J. Parton,et al.  The CENTURY model , 1996 .