IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/een/eenhrr/10105.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic consequences of biological invasions: the impacts of invasive species threats on Queensland's bioregional attributes

Author

Listed:
  • Sonia Akter

    (Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University)

  • Tom Kompas

    (Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University)

  • Michael Ward

    (Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University)

Abstract

This study aims to provide an estimate of non-consumptive use and non-use values for controlling invasive pest species in Queensland’s bioregions. Bioregions are geologically and ecologically distinct land areas. Bioregion specific values are estimated to assist the development of landscape specific biosecurity management plans that are consistent with the interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA) framework. Six out of 13 bioregions of Queensland, namely Cape York Peninsula, Wet Tropics, Bringalow Belt North, Central Queensland Coast, Southeast Queensland, Gulf Plain bioregion, were selected for this study. A public survey was conducted in January 2011 where about 600 households living in these six bioregions were interviewed using the choice experiment (CE) technique of nonmarket valuation. Three bioregional attributes were included in the CE study: (1) native plant and animal species, (2) landscape and water bodies and (3) backyard and outdoor recreation areas. Respondents were asked for their willingness to pay for enhanced biosecurity measures that aim to (1) save native plant and animal species from the threat posed by invasive species, (2) reduce the percentage of landscape and water bodies covered by invasive weeds and (3)reduce the chance of invasive ants and other biting insects being established in the backyard and outdoor recreation areas. Our results show that the sampled households have positive willingness to pay for the three bioregional attributes included in the choice experiment. The average implicit price to save native plant and animal species varied between A$22 and A$34. Average willingness to pay to eliminate weed cover from landscape and water bodies was A$7. Household willingness to pay to reduce the chances of ants and other biting insects ranged from A$232 to A$93. The standard Poe et al. (1994) test was employed to examine if the differences between the implicit prices obtained from all of Queensland sample and bioregion specific samples are statistically significant. The test results fail to provide sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis of equality between implicit prices. Compensating surplus welfare measures were estimated for three alternative biosecurity policies. The measures were obtained by subtracting indirect utility of the status quo from indirect utility to be obtained from a changed policy measure. On average, sampled households were willing to bear between A$100 to A$235 per year to support changes to the existing biosecurity measures. This is about 0.15 to 0.35 percent of the average yearly income of the sampled households. This result suggests that enhanced biosecurity measure is likely to improve household welfare by better protecting the bioregional attributes

Suggested Citation

  • Sonia Akter & Tom Kompas & Michael Ward, 2011. "Economic consequences of biological invasions: the impacts of invasive species threats on Queensland's bioregional attributes," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 10105, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
  • Handle: RePEc:een:eenhrr:10105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/pdf/EERH_RR105.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gillespie, Robert & Bennett, Jeff, 2017. "Costs and Benefits of Rodent Eradication on Lord Howe Island, Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 215-224.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:een:eenhrr:10105. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CAP Web Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/asanuau.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.