IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v117y2015icp73-85.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of portfolio theory to asset-based biosecurity decision analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Akter, Sonia
  • Kompas, Tom
  • Ward, Michael B.

Abstract

A key challenge for biosecurity decision-making is how best to allocate scarce resources across multiple environmental assets. The allocation of funds for the best return from investment requires a careful assessment of expected return and uncertainty. In this paper, we applied a portfolio theory-based decision support tool that helps determine resource allocation in a way that maximizes expected return and minimizes uncertainty. Our framework offers three advancements to the literature. First, it helps in making resource allocation decisions across multiple pests that affect multiple environmental assets. Second, it incorporates multiple sources of uncertainty in the decision analysis including economic value uncertainty. Finally, it demonstrates a generic approach to design a choice experiment study to estimate monetary values of a broad group of environmental assets. We find that a portfolio-based framework applied in conjunction with a choice experiment study can be a useful tool to guide biosecurity resource allocation decisions. Our results show that disregarding value uncertainty may cause bias by underestimating true uncertainty in the opportunity set. The choice experiment study revealed substantial positive non-market values generated by environmental biosecurity in Australia. However, significant preference heterogeneity across respondents with regards to different biosecurity outcomes was observed.

Suggested Citation

  • Akter, Sonia & Kompas, Tom & Ward, Michael B., 2015. "Application of portfolio theory to asset-based biosecurity decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 73-85.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:117:y:2015:i:c:p:73-85
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.06.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915002670
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "Portfolio Selection," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 7(1), pages 77-91, March.
    2. Yemshanov, Denys & Koch, Frank H. & Lu, Bo & Lyons, D. Barry & Prestemon, Jeffrey P. & Scarr, Taylor & Koehler, Klaus, 2014. "There is no silver bullet: The value of diversification in planning invasive species surveillance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 61-72.
    3. Sonia Akter & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Household perceptions of climate change and preferences for mitigation action: the case of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 109(3), pages 417-436, December.
    4. van Bueren, Martin & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2004. "Towards the development of a transferable set of value estimates for environmental attributes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(1), March.
    5. Brouwer, Roy & Martín-Ortega, Julia, 2012. "Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 151-166.
    6. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    7. Christie, Mike & Hanley, Nick & Warren, John & Murphy, Kevin & Wright, Robert & Hyde, Tony, 2006. "Valuing the diversity of biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 304-317, June.
    8. Beville, Stephen T. & Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Hughey, Kenneth F.D., 2012. "Valuing impacts of the invasive alga Didymosphenia geminata on recreational angling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 1-10.
    9. Perrings, Charles, 2005. "Mitigation and adaptation strategies for the control of biological invasions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 315-325, February.
    10. Meyerhoff, Jurgen & Liebe, Ulf, 2006. "Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: Explaining their motivation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 583-594, June.
    11. Mwebaze, Paul & Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Beebe, Nigel & Devine, Greg & Muller, Mike & DeBarro, Paul, 2014. "Economic analysis of the threat posed by the Asian Tiger Mosquito in Australia," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Maquarie, Australia 165863, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    12. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim D. & Rose, John M. & Palma, João H.N. & Harrison, Duncan R., 2014. "Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 90-101.
    13. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2003. "Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 95-103, November.
    14. McFadden, Daniel, 1974. "The measurement of urban travel demand," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328, November.
    15. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    16. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John, 2009. "The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1535-1548, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kompas, Tom & Chu, Long & Nguyen, Hoa Thi Minh, 2016. "A practical optimal surveillance policy for invasive weeds: An application to Hawkweed in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 156-165.
    2. repec:eee:rensus:v:82:y:2018:i:p3:p:3808-3823 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:eee:ecolec:v:117:y:2015:i:c:p:73-85. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.