Control of Invasive Control of Invasive Species: Species: Lessons from Miconia Lessons from Miconia in Hawaii in Hawaii Kimberly Burnett, Brooks Kaiser, Kimberly Burnett, Brooks Kaiser, Basharat A. Pitafi, James Roumasset Basharat A. Pitafi, James Roumasset University of Hawaii, Manoa, HI University of Hawaii, Manoa, HI Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, PA Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, PA
18
Embed
Control of Invasive Species: Lessons from Miconia in Hawaii Kimberly Burnett, Brooks Kaiser, Basharat A. Pitafi, James Roumasset University of Hawaii,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Control of Invasive Control of Invasive Species: Species: Lessons from Miconia Lessons from Miconia in Hawaiiin Hawaii
Kimberly Burnett, Brooks Kaiser, Kimberly Burnett, Brooks Kaiser, Basharat A. Pitafi, James RoumassetBasharat A. Pitafi, James Roumasset
University of Hawaii, Manoa, HIUniversity of Hawaii, Manoa, HIGettysburg College, Gettysburg, PAGettysburg College, Gettysburg, PA
ObjectivesObjectives
Inform public policy decisions for invasive Inform public policy decisions for invasive species using economic theory:species using economic theory: Optimal control of an existing invaderOptimal control of an existing invader
state population level state population level N*, corresponding to N*, corresponding to NN0.0.
N*N* minimizes costs and damages over time and:minimizes costs and damages over time and:
may be smaller (including zero) than the existing may be smaller (including zero) than the existing populationpopulation
or larger (including carrying capacity) than the existing or larger (including carrying capacity) than the existing populationpopulation
Is potentially dependent on the current invasion level Is potentially dependent on the current invasion level
Case StudyCase Study
Growth function g(N)Growth function g(N) Damage function D(N)Damage function D(N) Control cost function C(N,x)Control cost function C(N,x)
Miconia: GrowthMiconia: Growth
b, intrinsic growth rate: 0.3 b, intrinsic growth rate: 0.3 from analysis of the spread of the tree on from analysis of the spread of the tree on
Hawaii since 1960s introductionHawaii since 1960s introduction
K, carrying capacity: 100,000,000 K, carrying capacity: 100,000,000 (100 trees per acre over 1 million acres above (100 trees per acre over 1 million acres above
the 1800 mm/yr rainfall line)the 1800 mm/yr rainfall line)
Households willing to pay $31/ bird species /year to keep a species Households willing to pay $31/ bird species /year to keep a species from extinction (Loomis and White 1996) from extinction (Loomis and White 1996)
Full threat of loss in biodiversity on all islands equivalent to a loss of Full threat of loss in biodiversity on all islands equivalent to a loss of ½ the endangered bird species ½ the endangered bird species →→ $103-303 mill / year $103-303 mill / year
WatershedWatershed Groundwater recharge losses Groundwater recharge losses →→ $137 million /year (Kaiser and $137 million /year (Kaiser and
Roumasset 2002) Roumasset 2002) Increased sedimentation Increased sedimentation → → $33.9 million /year (Kaiser and $33.9 million /year (Kaiser and
Roumasset 2000) Roumasset 2000)
Total damagesTotal damages Estimated average of $377.4 million per year Estimated average of $377.4 million per year If any 1 tree equally responsible for its portion of damages, per-tree If any 1 tree equally responsible for its portion of damages, per-tree
damage rate of $3.77 damage rate of $3.77 ( ) 3.77D n n
Biodiversity
Ecosystem services
Miconia: Control costMiconia: Control cost
““Search” component Search” component ““Treatment” component Treatment” component 2003: total number of trees controlled on 4 islands: 2003: total number of trees controlled on 4 islands:
72,339 72,339 Annual control expenditures $1 million Annual control expenditures $1 million 72,339 trees removed thought to be less than ¼ of 72,339 trees removed thought to be less than ¼ of
Miconia policy: status quo vs. Miconia policy: status quo vs. optimal (win-win)optimal (win-win)
First period
removal cost
Annual removal
costPV costs
Annual damages
NPV damages
PV (losses)
Status quo
$1 m $1 m $50 m $369.5 m $12.35 b -$12.4 b
Optpolicy
$6.27 m $449,245 $28.7 m $117,982 $7.4 m -$36.1 m
SummarySummary
Status quo policy welfare equivalent of doing nothingStatus quo policy welfare equivalent of doing nothing Optimal control of invasive species requires integrated Optimal control of invasive species requires integrated
assessment of bio-economic threatassessment of bio-economic threat Growth pattern, control costs, and damages must be Growth pattern, control costs, and damages must be
estimated as functions of population and removalestimated as functions of population and removal Optimal policies dependent on initial population at time Optimal policies dependent on initial population at time
of actionof action Eradication, internal steady state, accommodation all viable Eradication, internal steady state, accommodation all viable
outcomesoutcomes Catastrophic damages from continuation of status quo Catastrophic damages from continuation of status quo
policies can be avoided at costs even lower than policies can be avoided at costs even lower than current spending trajectorycurrent spending trajectory
Limitations and direction Limitations and direction for further researchfor further research
Overall:Overall: Sophistication of growth, control cost Sophistication of growth, control cost
functionsfunctions Accurate anticipation of damages, Accurate anticipation of damages,
particularly ecologicalparticularly ecological Seed bank, spatial dimensions improvedSeed bank, spatial dimensions improved