Keywords

Game theory, Entropy, Experimental economics, Modeling

Introduction

Game theory can enhance our understanding of the real world and provide valuable suggestions for policy development. However, the limitations of models must be carefully considered during interpretation and policy application because certain models are too simple to provide useful policy advice (Madani, 2013). In our opinion, the more accurate the model is, the more complicated is the resulting strategy. Therefore, an appropriate level of model accuracy is required. Several scholars, particularly in the field of ecological economics, have examined the relationship between energy consumption and economic activity (Cleveland et al., 1984). Biophysical economists contend that the laws of the physical sciences must constrain the choices of an economic agent (Dale et al., 2012). Since the publication of “The Entropy Law and the Economic Process” (Georgescu-Roegen, 1971), the question of whether physical laws, such as entropy or conservation of mass and energy, are relevant to economic analysis has been disputed (Krysiak, 2006). Herein, we aim to understand human society in the ecosystem using conceptual modeling, experimental economics, thermodynamics, and ecological theory.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the advisor for helpful suggestions. Any remaining errors are the authors’ alone.

References

Alcantara, V., Padilla, E., 2009. Input-output subsystems and pollution: An application to the service sector and CO2 emissions in Spain. Ecological Economics 68, 905-914.
Ayres, R.U., 1998. Eco-thermodynamics: economics and the second law. Ecological Economics 26, 189-209.
Ayres, R.U., 1999.The second law, the fourth law, recycling and limits to growth. Ecological Economics 29, 473-483.
Brown, L.R., 2008. PLAN B 3.0 Mobilizing to Save Civilization. New York: W. W. Norton.
Brown, M.T., Herendeen, R.A., 1996. Embodied energy analysis and EMERGY analysis: a comparative view. Ecological Economics 19, 219-235.
Busch, J., 2008. Gains from configuration: The transboundary protected area as a conservation tool. Ecological Economics 67, 394-404.
Costello, C.J., Kaffine, D., 2008. Natural resource use with limited-tenure property rights. Ecological Economics 55, 20-36.
Cleveland, C.J., Costanza, R., Hall, C.A.S., Kaufmann, R., 1984. Energy and the US economy: a biophysical perspective. Science 255, 890-897.
Costanza, R., 1980. Embodied Energy and Economic Valuation. Science 210, 1219-1224.
Costanza, R., 2004. Value theory and energy. Encyclopedia of Energy, vol. 6. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 337-346
Dale, M., Krumdieck, S., Bodger, P., 2012. Global energy modelling - A biophysical approach (GEMBA) part 1: An overview of biophysical economics. Ecological Economics 73, 152-157.
Dale, M., Krumdieck, S., Bodger, P., 2012. Global energy modelling - A biophysical approach (GEMBA) part 2: Methodology. Ecological Economics 73, 158-167.
Daly, H.E., 1996.Beyond growth: the economics of sustainable development. Boston: Beacon Press.
Daly, H., 2013. A further critique of growth economics. Ecological Economics 88, 20-24.
DeCanio, S.J., Fremstad, A., 2013. Game theory and climate diplomacy. Ecological Economics 85, 177-187.
Georgescu-Roegen, N., 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Faber, M., 2008. How to be an ecological economist. Ecological Economics 66, 1-7.
Gillett, S.L., 2006. Entropy and its misuse, 1. Energy, free and otherwise. Ecological Economics 56, 58-70.
Goerner, S.J., Lietaer, B., Ulanowicz, R.E., 2009. Quantifying economic sustainability: Implications for free-eneterprise theory, policy and practice. Ecological Economics 69, 76-81.
Krysuak, F.C., 2006. Entropy, limits to growth, and the prospects for weak sustainability. Ecological Economics 58, 182-191.
Liu, Z., Koerwer, J., Nemoto, J., Imura, H., 2008. Physical energy cost serves as the “Invisible hand” governing economic valuation: Direct evidence from biogeochemical data and the U.S. metal market. Ecological Economics 67, 104-108
Low, B., Costanza, R., Ostrom, E., Wilson, J., Simon, C.P., 1999. Human-ecosystem interactions: a dynamic integrated model. Ecological Economics 31, 227-242.
Lozada, G.A., 2006. Entropy, free energy, work, and other thermodynamic variables in economics. Ecological Economics 56, 71-78.
Madani, K., 2013. Modeling international climate change negotiations more responsibly:
Can highly simplified game theory models provide reliable policy insights? Ecological Economics 90, 68-76.
Meadows, Donella H., et al. 1992. Beyond the Limits: Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future. Post Mills, VY; Chelsea Green Publishing Co.
Prugh, T., 1999. Natural Capital and Human Economic Survival. CRC Press.
Roma, A., 2006. Energy, money, and pollution. Ecological Economics 56, 534-545.
Schumacher, E.F., 1974. Small is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered. New York: Harper & Row.
Sousa, T., Domingos, T., 2006. In neoclassical microeconomics formally valid? An approach based on an analogy with equilibrium thermodynamics. Ecological Economics 58, 160-169.
Suzuki, Y., Iwasa, Y., 2009. Conflict between groups of players in coupled socio-economic and ecological dynamics. Ecological Economics 68, 1106-1115.
Warr, B., Schandl, H., Ayres R.U., 2008. Long term trends in resource exergy consumption and useful work supplies in the UK, 1900 to 2000. Ecological Economics 68, 126-140.
Welch, E., Barnum, D., 2009. Joint environmental and cost efficiency analysis of electricity generation. Ecological Economics 68, 2336-2343.


For questions or comment, please send me an e-mail.
E-mail Address:tbtmd811@yahoo.co.jp
Copyright (C) 2013- Daisuke WAKI All Rights Reserved