Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:16:47.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Earth Sciences and Economics, a productive and dynamic interface awaiting exploration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2014

J.E. Vermaat  and
M. Bokhorst
J.E. Vermaat*
Affiliation:
Section Earth Sciences and Economics, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University, De Boelelaan 1087, 1082 HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands
M. Bokhorst
Affiliation:
Section Earth Sciences and Economics, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University, De Boelelaan 1087, 1082 HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands
*
Email: [email protected].
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper sketches the historical common grounds of economics and earth sciences from their roots as scientific disciplines in the period of Enlightenment, and from a much earlier not necessarily scientifical commonality in the economic dependency of early societies on the prevalence of natural resources on the surface of the earth. It proceeds by stressing the commonality of the two disciplines in being empirical and positivistically mechanistic, without ignoring the major socio-cultural rift that occurs between their respective practitioners. The argument is put forward that societal problems, whether global or local, are often not straightforward and easily solved with the tools of a single discipline, and a plea is made for the combination of earth sciences and economics as candidates for a potent multi-disciplinary combination. Briefly, the BSc curriculum in Earth Sciences and Economics is justified and an accompanying research agenda is highlighted that starts from an empirical quantification of ecosystem services at the landscape scale of catchments.

Keywords

multi-disciplinarityinter-disciplinarityempiricismthe landscape scaleecosystem servicesnatural resources
Type
Research Article
Information
Netherlands Journal of Geosciences , Volume 91 , Issue 1-2 , September 2012 , pp. 271 - 277
Copyright
Copyright © Stichting Netherlands Journal of Geosciences 2012

References

Aiking, H., 2010. Future protein supply. Trends in Food Science and Technology 22: 112–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, P., 2004. Critical mass, how one thing leads to another. Random House (London).Google Scholar
Bateman, I.J., Mace, G.M., Fezzi, C., Atkinson, G. & Turner, R.K., 2010. Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Enviromental Resource Economics 48: 177–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berridge, V., 2007. Multidisciplinary public health: what sort of victory? Public Health 121: 404–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boersema, J.J., 2007. Principlesof environmental sciences Springer.Google Scholar
Brinton, C., Christopher, J.B. & Wolff, R.L., 1970. A history of civilization Part 2. Renaissance to Bismarck. Elseviers World History. Dutch Edition by Winkler, J. en S.J. de Vries, Elsevier (Amsterdam).Google Scholar
Brouwer, R., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: making money talk. Inaugural address VU University, Amsterdam, 15 04 2010.Google Scholar
Caputo, R. & Helly, B., 2008. The use of distinct disciplines to investigate past earth quakes. Tectonophysics 453: 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordell, D., Drangert, J.O. & White, S., 2009. The story of phosphorus: global food security and food for thought. Global Environmental Change 19: 292–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costanza, R., D'Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. & Van den Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, S., Vincent, & J.R., , 2009. Mangroves protected villages and reduced death toll during Indian super cyclone. Proceedings National Academy Sciences of the USA 106: 7357–7360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daily, G., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P., Mooney, H., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T., Salzman, J. & Shallenberger, R., 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easterly, W. & Levine, R., 2003. Tropics, germs, and crops: how endowments influence economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics 50: 3–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards-Jones, G., Davies, B. & Hussain, S., 2000. Ecological economics, an introduction. Blackwell (London).Google Scholar
Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, 2011. Self-evaluation Bachelor Curriculum Earth Sciences and Economics: VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 27 pp and 13 annexes. (In Dutch)Google Scholar
Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Zylstra, M., Brouwer, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Ferraro, P., Green, R., Hadley, D., Harlow, J., Jefferiss, P., Kirkby, C., Morling, P., Mowatt, S., Naidoo, R., Paavola, J., Strassburg, B. & Yu Balmford, A.D., 2008. Ecosystem services and economic theory: integration for policy-relevant research. Ecological Applications 18: 2050–2067.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fujita, M., Krugman, P. & Venables, A.J., 1999. The spatial economy: Cities, regions, and international trade. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, USA, 367 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gannon, F., 2005. Multidisciplinarity: by fiat or need? EMBO reports 6: 1105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, R.E. & Jones, C.I., 1999. Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others? Quarterly Journal of Economics 114: 83–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbs, D.A. & Olsson, O., 2004. Geography, biogeography, and why some countries are rich and others poor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 101: 3715–3720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IPCC, 2007. Climate change 2007: synthesis report. www.ipcc.orgGoogle Scholar
Jonkeren, O., Rietveld, P. & Ommeren, J., 2007. Climate change and inland waterway transport: welfare effects on low water levels on the river Rhine. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 41: 387–411.Google Scholar
Jordan, G.J. & Fortin, M.J., 2002. Scale and topology in the ecological economics sustainability paradigm. Ecological Economics 41, 361–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KNAW, 2011. Agenda 2020, a vision of the earth sciences as a discipline. KNAW, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. (In Dutch)Google Scholar
Liu, Y., Villalba, G., Ayres, R.U. & Schroder, H., 2008. Global Phosphorus flows and environmental impacts from a consumption perspective. Journal of Industrial Ecology 12: 229–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. & Behrens, W.W. III, 1972. The limits to growth. New York: Universe Books.Google Scholar
Nuijten, E., 2011. Combining research styles of the natural and social sciences in agricultural research. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Scinces 57: 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, O. & Hibbs, D.A., 2000. Biogeography and long-run economic development. Working Papers in Economics no 26, Department of Economics, Göteborg University, Sweden.Google Scholar
Rittel, H. & Webber, M., 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4: 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., De Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., Van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sorlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P. & Foley, J.A., 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461: 472–475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sjöberg, O. & Sjöholm, F., 2002. Common ground? Prospects for integrating the economic geography of geographers and economists. Environmental Planning A 34: 467–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tress, G., Tress, B. & Fry, G., 2004. Clarifying integrative research concepts in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 20: 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, G., 2008. A comparison of the limits to growth with thirty years of reality. CSIRO Working paper Series 2008-09, CSIRO (Canberra) Australia.Google Scholar
Van Saase, J.L.C.M., Noteboom, W.M.P. & Vandenbroucke, J.P., 1990. Longevity of men capable of prolonged vigorous physical exercise: a 32 year follow up of 2259 participants in the Dutch eleven cities ice skating tour. British Medical Journal 301: 1409–1411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verburg, P.H., Eickhout, B. & Van Meijl, H., 2008. A multi-scale, multi-model approach for analyzing the future dynamics of European land use. Annals of Regional Science 42: 57–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermaat, J.E., Eppink, F., Van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Barendregt, A. & Van Belle, J., 2005. Aggregation and the matching of scales in spatial economics and landscape ecology: empirical evidence and prospects for integration. Ecological Economics 52: 229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermaat, J.E., 2011. Solid earth, volatile economics, a boundary or a mixture? Inaugural address, 01 25, 2011, VU University, Amsterdam. (In Dutch)Google Scholar
Vermaat, J.E., Broekx, S., Van Eck, B., Engelen, G., Hellmann, F., De Kok, J.L., Van der Kwast, H., Maes, J., Salomons, W. & Van Deursen, W., in revision. Nitrogen source apportionment for the catchment, estuary and adjacent coastal waters of the Scheldt. Ecology & Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, K., 2007. Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biological Conservation 139: 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WWF, 2010. Living planet report 2010, biodiversity, biocapacity and development. Gland, Switzerland: www.footprintnetwork.org.Google Scholar
Zapata, F. & Roy, R.N., 2004. Use of phosphate rocks for sustainable agriculture. FAO Fertilizer and Plant Nutrition Bulletin 13, FAO (Rome): 1–148.Google Scholar