Papers of the Regional Science Association

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 79–99 | Cite as

On the likage of socio-economic and ecologic systems

  • Walter Isard
  • Kenneth Bassett
  • Charles Choguill
  • John Furtado
  • Ronald Izumita
  • John Kissin
  • Eliahu Romanoff
  • Richard Seyfarth
  • Richard Tatlock
Systems, Integration, and Development

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    For full presentation of this system, see W. Isard, T. E. Smith, P. Isard, T. H. Tung, and M. Dacey,General Social and Regional Theory (Cambridge: The M. I. T. Press, 1968).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Also, for each region, at the end of its listing of behaving units there would be a major row for the economic market of that region.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    In this connection, see J. H. Cumberland, “A Regional Interindustry Model for Analysis of Development Objectives,”Papers of the Regional Science Association, XVII, 1966, pp. 65–94.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    For further discussion of ecologic systems, see Eugene P. Odum,Fundamentals of Ecology (2nd edition, Philadephia, London: W. B. Saunders Co., 1959).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Walter Isard, Thomas W. Langford, and Eliahu Romanoff,Philadelphia Region Input-Output Study. Department of Regional Science, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania (1959). Preliminary working papers and coefficient table are available from the Regional Science Research Institute, Philadelphia, I, II, III, mimeograph (1967).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A full statement on these materials is contained in, W. Isard and C. W. Harris,A Study of Relationships between Achieving High Levels of Economic Development Consistent with the Wise Use of Continental Shelf Resources, Regional Science and Landscape Analysis Project, Department of Landscape Architecture Research Office, Graduate School of Design, Harvard University (1967).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. V. Ciriacy-Wantrup, “The Role of Benefit-cost Analysis in Public Resource Development,”Water Resources and Economic Development of the West (Berkeley: Committee on the Economics of Water Resources Development of the Western Agricultural Economic Research Council, 1954), Report No. 3.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    The first complete model in this group is: E. M. Lofting and P. H. McGauhey, “Economic Evaluation of Water, Part III,”An Interindustry Analysis of the California Economy (Berkeley: University of California, Water Resources Center, 1963), Contribution No. 67.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    For a more detailed description of the approach undertaken see, Walter Isard and Eliahu Romanoff,Water Use and Water Pollution Coefficients: Preliminary Report (Cambridge: Regional Science Research Institute-Cambridge Office, November, 1967), Technical paper No. 6.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The development of this classificational procedure followed the measures of water pollution discussed in the sanitary engineering literature. See for example, N. L. Nemerow,Theories and Practices of Industrial Water Treatment (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1963) and W. Rudolfs, ed.,Industrial Waster (New York City: Reinhold Publishing Co., 1953). These measures were compared with data available for specific plants in the offices of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in Philadelphia and Boston. These sources, together with the suggestions of Harold A. Thomas, Professor of Civil and Sanitary Engineering of the Harvard Water Program, provided the framework upon which the classification was based.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    For a more detailed description on this subject see: Blair T. Bower, “Economics of Industrial Water Utilization,” in Allen V. Kneese and Stephen C. Smitt eds.,Water Research (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1966), pp. 143–73, and Blair T. Bower, “Industrial Water Utilization: Substitution Possibilites and Regional Water Resources Development,”Proceedings of Regional Science Association, Western Section, Urban Systems Report No. 1 (Tempe: Arizona State University, 1964).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Executive Office of the President, Bureau of the Budget,Standard Industrial Classification Manual (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1957).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Isard, Langford, and Romanoff,op. cit.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Isard and Romanoff,op. cit..Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,Delaware Estuary Comprehensive Study: Preliminary Report & Findings (Philadelphia: The Administration, July, 1966).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    The nonwater-related coefficients were taken from the files of the Philadelphia Input-Output Study and represent a revised set of coefficients superseding those already published.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    See Isard and Harris,op. cit.,A Study of Relationships between Achieving High Levels of Economic Developent Consistent with the Wise Use of Continental Shelf Resources, Regional Science and Landscape Analysis Project, Department of Landscape Architecture Research Office, Graduate School of Design, Harvard University (1967), pp. II-63.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Such a new town is being designed for the area south of Boston by the New Communities Project, Graduate School of Design, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    We have evaluted the total benefits from recreational fishing in the following way: 38,000 man-days of fishing lost mean that 12,000 fewer boat-days would be required. If each boat makes 60 trips per year, then 200 fewer boats would be needed. The Army Corps of Engineers values an outboard boat at $750 and estimates recreational benefits at 12 per cent per year, so that the benefits from one boat are estimated at $90 per year. Thus the benefits from 200 boats would be $18,000 per year. See publication by Army Corps of Engineers pertaining to improvements in Plymouth Harbor, Massachusetts, dated August, 25, 1962.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Regional Science Association 1968

Authors and Affiliations

  • Walter Isard
    • 1
  • Kenneth Bassett
    • 1
  • Charles Choguill
    • 1
  • John Furtado
    • 1
  • Ronald Izumita
    • 1
  • John Kissin
    • 1
  • Eliahu Romanoff
    • 1
  • Richard Seyfarth
    • 1
  • Richard Tatlock
    • 1
  1. 1.Regional Sciences research Institute and Harvard UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations