Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-31T22:37:00.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integration-Valuation Nexus in Invasive Species Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Jason F. Shogren ,
David Finnoff ,
Chris McIntosh  and
Chad Settle
Jason F. Shogren
Affiliation:
Natural Resource Conservation and Management
David Finnoff
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Finance at the University of Wyoming, Laramie
Chris McIntosh
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Finance at the University of Wyoming, Laramie
Chad Settle
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Tulsa University, Tulsa, Oklahoma
Get access

Abstract

This paper reviews recent work examining two topics of economic research vital for invasive species policy—integration and valuation. Integration requires bioeconomic models that blend invasive biology with economic circumstances and the feedback loops between the two systems. Valuation requires nonmarket valuation associated with human and environmental damages posed by invasive species. We argue for a second-level of integration in invasive species economics—valuation based on integration models. Policy prescriptions based on integration models need valuation work; valuation surveys need integration models—the two are complements. Valuation could be enhanced with integration in mind; integration could be made better with valuation in mind. An example from blending the two research areas is presented and its merits demonstrated.

Keywords

invasive speciesintegrated economic-ecological modelingnonmarket valuation
Type
Invited Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , April 2006 , pp. 11 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ayres, R. and Kneese, A. 1969. “Production, Consumption, and Externalities.” American Economic Review 59(3): 282–297.Google Scholar
Barbier, E. 2001. “A Note on the Economics of Biological Invasions.” Ecological Economics 39(2): 197–202.Google Scholar
Barbier, E. and Shogren, J. 2004. “Growth with Endogenous Risk of Biological Invasion.” Economic Inquiry 42(4): 587–601.Google Scholar
Brown, G. and Layton, D. 2001. “A Market Solution for Preserving Biodiversity: The Black Rhino.” In Shogren, J.F. and Tschirhart, J. eds., Protecting Endangered Species in the United States: Biological Needs, Political Realities, Economic Choices. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR). 1999. “Ecological Risk Assessment in the Federal Government.” National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), Executive Office of the President of the United States, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Cherry, T. Crocker, T. and Shogren, J. 2003. “Rationality Spillovers.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45(1): 63–84.Google Scholar
Costello, C. and McAusland, C. 2003. “Protectionism, Trade and Measures of Damage from Exotic Species Introduction.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(4): 964–975.Google Scholar
Crocker, T. and Tschirhart, J. 1992. “Ecosystems, Externalities, and Economies.” Environmental and Resource Economics 2(6): 551–567.Google Scholar
Daily, G. (ed.). 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW). 1998. “Invasive Plants: Changing the Landscape of America.” Fact Book, FICMNEW, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Finnoff, D. Strong, A. and Tschirhart, J. 2005. “Preventing the Spread of Multiple Herbaceous Invaders Across Rangeland.” Working paper, University of Wyoming.Google Scholar
Finnoff, D. and Tschirhart, J. 2003. “Protecting an Endangered Species While Harvesting Its Prey in a General Equilibrium Ecosystem Model.” Land Economics 79(2): 160–180.Google Scholar
Finnoff, D. and Tschirhart, J. 2005a. “Linking Dynamic Economic and Ecological General Equilibrium Models.” Working paper, University of Wyoming.Google Scholar
Finnoff, D. and Tschirhart, J. 2005b. “Identifying, Preventing and Controlling Successful Invasive Plant Species Using Their Physiological Traits.” Ecological Economics 52(3): 397–416.Google Scholar
Freeman, A.M. III 1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Horan, R. and Lupi, F. 2005. “Tradeable Risk Permits to Prevent Future Introductions of Alien Invasive Species into the Great Lakes.” Ecological Economics 52(3): 289–304.Google Scholar
Leung, B. Lodge, D. Finnoff, D. Shogren, J. Lewis, M. and Lamberti, G. 2002. “An Ounce of Prevention or a Pound of Cure: Bioeconomic Risk Analysis of Invasive Species.” Proceedings: Biology 269(1508): 2407–2413.Google ScholarPubMed
Mack, R. Simberloff, D. Lonsdale, W. Evans, H. Clout, M. and Bazzaz, F. 2000. “Biotic Invasions: Causes, Epidemiology, Global Consequences, and Control.” Ecological Applications 10(3): 689–710.Google Scholar
Mangel, M. and Clark, C. 1988. Dynamic Modeling in Behavioral Ecology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. Possingham, H. and Gill, A. 2001. “Using Stochastic Dynamic Programming to Determine Optimal Fire Management for Banksia ornata.” Journal of Applied Ecology 38(3): 585–592.Google Scholar
Mooney, H. and Hobbs, R. 2000. Invasive Species in a Changing World. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
National Invasive Species Council. 2001. Management Plan: Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge. National Invasive Species Council, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Olson, L. and Roy, S. 2002. “The Economics of Controlling a Stochastic Biological Invasion.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84(5): 1311–1316.Google Scholar
Perrings, C. 1998. “Resilience in the Dynamics of Economy-Environment Systems. Environmental and Resource Economics 11(3-4): 503–520.Google Scholar
Perrings, C. Williamson, M. and Dalmazzone, S. (eds.). 2000. The Economics of Biological Invasions. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D. Lach, L. Zuniga, R. and Morrison, D. 2000. “Environmental and Economic Costs of Nonindigenous Species in the United States.” BioScience 50(1): 53–65.Google Scholar
Rosen, S. 1988. “The Value of Changes in Life Expectancy.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1(3): 285–304.Google Scholar
Settle, C. Crocker, T. and Shogren, J. 2002. “On the Joint Determination of Biological and Economic Systems.” Ecological Economics 42(1-2): 301–311.Google Scholar
Settle, C. and Shogren, J. Forthcoming. “Does the Integration of Biology and Economics Matter for Policy? The Case of Yellowstone Lake.” Topics in Economic Analysis and Policy (in press).Google Scholar
Shea, K. and Possingham, H. 2000. “Optimal Release Strategies for Biological Control Agents: An Application of Stochastic Dynamic Programming to Population Management.” Journal of Applied Ecology 37(1): 77–86.Google Scholar
Shogren, J.F. 2000. “Risk Reductions Strategies Against the ‘Explosive Invader’.” In Perrings, C. Williamson, M. and Dalmazzone, S. eds., The Economics of Biological Invasions. Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Sohngen, B. and Mendelsohn, R. 1998. “Valuing the Impact of Large-Scale Ecological Change in a Market: The Effect of Climate Change on U.S. Timber.” American Economic Review 88(4): 686–710.Google Scholar
Swallow, S. 1996. “Resource Capital Theory and Ecosystem Economics: Developing Nonrenewable Habitats with Heterogeneous Quality.” Southern Economic Journal 63(1): 106–123.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. “Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States.” Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Vitousek, P.M. Mooney, H.A. Lubchenco, J. and Melillo, J.M. 1997. “Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems.” Science 277(5325): 494–499.Google Scholar