Talk:Bioeconomics (fisheries)

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fisheries and Fishing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

No to merging

I see no reason to merge this article with Economics of biodiversity since it is hard to find any linkage. Bioeconomics was developed from fisheries economics in the 1950ies and a couple of seminal articles by Canadian economists could be mentioned. Biodiversity is a quite new term and the economics of biodiversity fairly unknown and quite vague. Will ‘Economics of biodiversity’ be within the area of economic theories in fifty years from now? ----Arnejohs 13:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why the clean up tag

artical needs headings bascally thats all tell me when it does i remove the tag just leave a meassage on my talk page okOo7565 21:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg

Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section on energy and thermodynamic

Added section on Thermoeconomics and energy accounting.. some interesting citations on ecological bio-economics skip sievert (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intro sentence is unclear

The second sentence of the intro is too long, too formal and unclear. I cannot copy-edit it because I do not know exactly what it is trying to say. -Pgan002 (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, makes no sense to me either. Nor do these recent additions about something called thermoeconomics, which seem, at best, rather fringe. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you do not understand what the article is about in regard to other aspects... This is a formatting discussion. There is more than fisheries connected things with this subject. The article is about this also. http://ecen.com/eee9/ecoterme.htm

ECONOMY AND THERMODYNAMICS , and http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics

Biophysical economics - Encyclopedia of Earth -- I am going to try and do some editing here in the next couple of days. skip sievert (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the sentence to: "It is an attempt to bridge the empirical culture of biology and the theoretical culture of economics, through interdisciplinary methodology such as environmental economics and ecological economics." I do not know these disciplines can be called interdisciplinary methodology. Also, are these disciplines are sub-fields (branches) of bioeconomics? -Pgan002 (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental economics

Here is a link that goes to this section... on Economics http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Economics#Environmental_economics Economics -

Environmental economics is concerned with issues related to degradation, enhancement, or preservation of the environment. In particular, public bads from production or consumption, such as air pollution, can lead to market failure. The subject considers how public policy can be used to correct such failures. Policy options include regulations that reflect cost-benefit analysis or market solutions that change incentives, such as emission fees or redefinition of property rights.^[1]^[2]

Environmental economics is related to ecological economics but there are differences.^[3] Most environmental economists have been trained as economists. They apply the tools of economics to address environmental problems, many of which are related to so-called market failures--circumstances wherein the "invisible hand" of economics is unreliable.^[4] Most ecological economists have been trained as ecologists, but have expanded the scope of their work to consider the impacts of humans and their economic activity on ecological systems and services, and vice-versa. This field takes as its premise that economics is a strict subfield of ecology. Ecological economics is sometimes described as taking a more pluralistic approach to environmental problems and focuses more explicitly on long-term environmental sustainability and issues of scale.

End

I will go through the edit you made now... and then check mine again please. skip sievert (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kneese, Allen K., and Clifford S. Russell (1987). "environmental economics," The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, v. 2, pp. 159-64.
^ Samuelson, Paul A., and William D. Nordhaus (2004). Economics, ch. 18, "Protecting the Environment." McGraw-Hill.
^ http://www.eoearth.org/by/Topic/Ecological%20economics
^ "Environmental Economics". NBER Working Group Descriptions. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved 2006-07-23.

History contradiction

The History section says that Gordon and Scott produced ideas in 1954-1955 that used ideas from 1957. -Pgan002 (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linkback to Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen

I came to this page via a link to bioeconomics from Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, but there's no mention here of it. I'm not strong enough to write content on this, but essentially think that something is missing. Daviding (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. See my comment below. Ledjazz (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bioeconomics isn't really ecological economics

Bioeconomics is typically using neoclassical economics models as applied to things like fisheries. Ecological economics is something quite different. Calling bioeconomics both ecological and normal econ is a little weird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.55.83 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In fact, there is an ambiguity with the term bioeconomics which can refer either to biological economics (article herein) and biophyscial economics (which is also confused with thermoeconomics, but this is another issue...). As a result, I suggest to make bioeconomics a disambiguation page and then redirect to bioeconomics (biology) and bioeconomics (biophysical) in an attempt to address the concerns. Ledjazz (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bioeconomics (fisheries). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212223148/http://lobsterconservation.com:80/fisherybioeconomics/ to http://lobsterconservation.com/fisherybioeconomics/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Kneese, Allen K., and Clifford S. Russell (1987). "environmental economics," The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, v. 2, pp. 159-64.

[2] Samuelson, Paul A., and William D. Nordhaus (2004). Economics, ch. 18, "Protecting the Environment." McGraw-Hill.

[3] ttp://www.eoearth.org/by/Topic/Ecological%20economics

[4] "Environmental Economics". NBER Working Group Descriptions. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved 2006-07-23.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]