1 / 31

Integrated Bioeconomic Modeling of Invasive Species Management

Integrated Bioeconomic Modeling of Invasive Species Management. David Finnoff Jason Shogren John Tschirhart University of Wyoming Chad Settle University of Tulsa Brian Leung McGill University David Lodge University of Notre Dame Michael Roberts ERS/USDA August 2004 ERS.

sherry
Download Presentation

Integrated Bioeconomic Modeling of Invasive Species Management

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Integrated Bioeconomic Modeling of Invasive Species Management David FinnoffJason Shogren John Tschirhart University of Wyoming Chad Settle University of Tulsa Brian Leung McGill University David Lodge University of Notre Dame Michael Roberts ERS/USDA August 2004 ERS

  2. Progress—working toward integrating specific modeling approaches into one general framework • Application to leafy spurge

  3. Phase I: Endogenous Risk with discounting and risk aversion,

  4. Endogenous Risk • Captures risk-benefit tradeoffs • Stresses that management priorities depend crucially on: The tastes of the manager — over time and risk bearing The technology of risk reduction —prevention, control, and adaptation • Managers with different preferences will likely make different choices on the mix of prevention and control.

  5. Investigate how changes in a manager’s preferences over time and over risk affect the optimal strategy mix: • Explore comparative statics on how changing tastes affect the technology mix. 2. Implement the model to a specific application of managing zebra mussels in a lake.

  6. Schematic of the Invasion Process IH qH3 IH IL (1-qH3) q2 qL3 IH I IL p1 (1-q2) IL (1-qL3) IH (1-p1) I q3 p2 t=0 N IL (1-q3) (1-p2) t=1 p3 I N t=2 (1-p3) N t=3

  7. Dynamic Endogenous Risk Stage 1: Stage 2:

  8. Comparative Statics – Risk Aversion

  9. Simulation Results 1

  10. Simulation Results 2

  11. Leafy Spurge Application

  12. Conclusions • Explored how changes in a manager’s preferences for time and risk-bearing influence optimal strategy mix • Impacts are species-specific & rest on whether direct effects dominate the other through indirect effects • less risk averse managers who are far sighted, invest more in prevention, less in control, and require less private adaptation

  13. Reduced risk aversion on the part of the manager yields lower probabilities of invasion, lower invader populations, and increased welfare • Risk aversion induces a manager to want to avoid risk—both from the invader and from the input used - go with the safer bet—control • More exploration into the underlying preferences of managers may be worthwhile to better understand how such effects might influence invasives management

  14. Phase II:General Equilibrium, Competition, & the Influence of Fundamental Resources

  15. GEEM

  16. Temperature

  17. Predictions

  18. Invasion 1 Biomass, Plant 2 Biomass, Plant 1 Biomass, Plant 3

  19. Invasion 2 Biomass, Plant 6 Biomass, Plant 4 Biomass, Plant 5 (Invader)

  20. Humans Biomass Harvests Herbicide

  21. Conclusions • Theory of plant competition based in individual plant physiological parameters and maximizing behavior • Theory starts prior to the population dynamics and builds on a behavioral basis • Captures redundancy in the plant community • Species with max expected valued of SS SEL parabola(s) are only non-redundant species • If invading species is non-redundant – it will dominate • Limitations • Only addresses resource competition • Omits mutualism & only considers mature plants & lacks age structure

  22. Phase III: Optimal Control Model

  23. Optimal Control • Determines Paths to Steady State under different scenarios, with: • no action by ranchers/farmers & land managers • action taken only by ranchers/farmers • action taken by both • Accounts for the impact of actions taken by ranchers/farmers

  24. Flexibility to account for first-best path and welfare losses under second-best paths • Allows for economically viable and non-viable harvesting of invasive • Includes benefits/costs between steady states instead of simply a comparison of steady states

  25. Species Equations of Motion

  26. Representative Rancher/Farmer

  27. Land Manager as a Social Planner

  28. Conclusions • Illustrate how accounting for actions by ranchers/farmers and feedbacks affect predictions on species populations • Show how the various paths to a steady state are altered by activity/inactivity of each party • Explore optimal action by land managers given model assumptions

  29. Remaining tasks • Phase IV: Leafy spurge in Thunder Basin Grasslands • Phase V: Implications • Phase VI: “Supermodel” validation

More Related