Advertisement

Agriculture as a Managed Ecosystem: Implications for Econometric Analysis of Production Risk

  • John M. Antle
  • Susan M. Capalbo
Chapter
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 23)

Abstract

Managed ecosystems are complex, dynamic systems with spatially varying inputs and outputs that are the result of interrelated physical, biological, and human decision making processes. There is a growing recognition by the scientific community that principles from the biological, physical, and social sciences must be integrated to understand and predict the behavior of complex biological and human systems such as managed ecosystems. This recognition is evidenced by recent federal government research initiatives on biocomplexity by the National Science Foundation, and on human dimensions of climate change by agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy. Agricultural ecosystems are arguably the most important and pervasive managed ecosystems. Understanding and predicting the behavior of agroecosystems is critically important for a number of leading public policy issues. These issues include the environmental and human health consequences of agroecosystems, and the impacts of climate change on the global food supply.

Keywords

Crop Growth Moment Function Manage Ecosystem Input Price Input Quantity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Antle, J.M. 1983a. “Incorporating Risk in Production Analysis.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 65: 1099–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antle, J.M. 1983b. “Sequential Decision Making in Production Models.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 65: 282–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antle, J.M. 1983c. “Testing the Stochastic Structure of Production: A Flexible Moment-Based Approach.” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 1: 192–201.Google Scholar
  4. Antle, J.M., and S.M. Capalbo. 2001. “Econometric-Process Models for Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Production Systems.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83: 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antle, J.M., S.M. Capalbo, and C.C. Crissman. 1994. “Econometric Production Models with Endogenous Input Timing: An Application to Ecuadorian Potato Production.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 19: 1–18.Google Scholar
  6. Antle, J.M., S.M. Capalbo, E.T. Elliott, H.W. Hunt, S. Mooney, and K.H. Paustian. 2001. “Research Needs for Understanding and Predicting the Behavior of Managed Ecosystems: Lessons from the Study of Agroecosystems.” Ecosystems (in press).Google Scholar
  7. Antle, J.M., S. Capalbo, J. Johnson, and D. Miljkovic. 1999. “The Kyoto Protocol: Economic Effects of Energy Prices on Northern Plains Dryland Grain Production.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 28: 96–105.Google Scholar
  8. Antle, J.M., and S.A. Hatchett. 1986. “Dynamic Input Decisions in Econometric Production Models.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68: 939–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Antle, J.M., and J.J. Stoorvogel. 2001. “Integrating Site-Specific Biophysical and Economic Models to Assess Trade-offs in Sustainable Land Use and Soil Quality.” In N. Heerink, H. van Keulen, and M. Kuiper, eds., Economic Policy and Sustainable Land Use: Recent Advances in Quantitative Analysis for Developing Countries. New York: Physica-Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Crissman, C.C., J.M. Antle, and S.M. Capalbo. 1998. Economic, Environmental and Health Tradeoffs in Agriculture: Pesticides and the Sustainability of Andean Potato Production. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huffman, W.E. 1988. “An Econometric Methodology for Multiple Output Agricultural Technology: An Application of Endogenous Switching Models.” In S.M. Capalbo and J.M. Antle, eds., Agricultural Productivity: Measurement and Explanation. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future Press.Google Scholar
  12. Just, R.E. 1974. “An Investigation of the Importance of Risk in Farmers’ Decisions.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 56: 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Just, R.E., and R.D. Pope. 1978. “Stochastic Specification of Production Functions and Economic Implications.” Journal of Econometrics 7: 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Love, H.A., and S.T. Buccola. 1991. “Joint Risk Preference-Technology Estimation with a Primal System.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73: 765–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Robertson, G.P., E.A. Paul, and R.R. Harwood. 2000. “Greenhouse Gases in Intensive Agriculture: Contributions of Individual Gases to the Radiative Forcing of the Atmosphere.” Science 289: 1922–1924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shankar B., and C.H. Nelson. 1999. “Joint Risk Preference-Technology Estimation with a Primal System: Comment.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81: 241–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Watson, R.T., I.R. Noble, B. Bolin, N.H. Ravindranath, D.J. Verardo, and D.J. Dokken. 2000. “Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry.” A special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • John M. Antle
    • 1
  • Susan M. Capalbo
    • 1
  1. 1.Montana State UniversityBozemanUSA

Personalised recommendations