IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v188y2021ics0921800921001841.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Canadian efforts to slow the spread of Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire) are economically efficient

Author

Listed:
  • Hope, Emily S.
  • McKenney, Daniel W.
  • Pedlar, John H.
  • Lawrence, Kevin
  • MacDonald, Heather

Abstract

The Emerald Ash Borer (EAB), Agrilus plaipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) was introduced to North America more than two decades ago and has spread despite management efforts in both the United States and Canada. The insect kills most species of ash tree (Fraxinus sp.) and its management imposes costs to plant health protection agencies, forest industry, private landowners and municipalities. The United States Department of Agriculture – Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) has deemed existing regulation efforts in the United States to be ineffective and has removed federal regulations designed to limit the spread of EAB. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is also trying to determine if continued regulation of EAB in Canada is worthwhile. Here we show that the benefits of slowing the spread of EAB via regulation are likely greater than the costs of implementing regulation if it is minimally effective (i.e. more than 25% effective at preventing anthropogenic spread). To evaluate the economic efficiency of existing Canadian EAB regulations, we examined trade-offs between the monetary benefits of regulation and the costs of regulation. Specifically, we simulated the spread of EAB under various levels of regulation effectiveness and estimated the timing of EAB arrival and associated ash mortality in urban and rural settings. Delaying ash mortality via regulation also delays management costs, a benefit to ash tree owners/users. Our findings suggest that an economic justification to continue regulating the insect exists based on monetary costs alone. The net present value of regulation (benefits less costs) is estimated to range between $23 million to $240 million, depending on the level of regulation effectiveness. Additional environmental and social benefits not addressed here would likely increase the value of EAB regulation but appear unneeded to justify such efforts on allocative efficiency grounds.

Suggested Citation

  • Hope, Emily S. & McKenney, Daniel W. & Pedlar, John H. & Lawrence, Kevin & MacDonald, Heather, 2021. "Canadian efforts to slow the spread of Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire) are economically efficient," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:188:y:2021:i:c:s0921800921001841
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107126
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800921001841
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107126?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Epanchin-Niell, Rebecca S. & Liebhold, Andrew M., 2015. "Benefits of invasion prevention: Effect of time lags, spread rates, and damage persistence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 146-153.
    2. Jones, Benjamin A., 2016. "Work more and play less? Time use impacts of changing ecosystem services: The case of the invasive emerald ash borer," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 49-58.
    3. McDermott, Shana M. & Finnoff, David C. & Shogren, Jason F., 2013. "The welfare impacts of an invasive species: Endogenous vs. exogenous price models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 43-49.
    4. Kovacs, Kent F. & Haight, Robert G. & McCullough, Deborah G. & Mercader, Rodrigo J. & Siegert, Nathan W. & Liebhold, Andrew M., 2010. "Cost of potential emerald ash borer damage in U.S. communities, 2009-2019," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 569-578, January.
    5. Jones & McDermott, 2015. "Linking environmental management to health outcomes: a case study of the emerald ash borer," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(17), pages 1409-1414, November.
    6. Juliann E Aukema & Brian Leung & Kent Kovacs & Corey Chivers & Kerry O Britton & Jeffrey Englin & Susan J Frankel & Robert G Haight & Thomas P Holmes & Andrew M Liebhold & Deborah G McCullough & Betsy, 2011. "Economic Impacts of Non-Native Forest Insects in the Continental United States," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-7, September.
    7. Jones, Benjamin A. & Goodkind, Andrew L., 2019. "Urban afforestation and infant health: Evidence from MillionTreesNYC," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 26-44.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jones, Benjamin A., 2016. "Work more and play less? Time use impacts of changing ecosystem services: The case of the invasive emerald ash borer," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 49-58.
    2. McDermott, Shana M. & Finnoff, David C. & Shogren, Jason F. & Kennedy, Chris J., 2021. "When does natural science uncertainty translate into economic uncertainty?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    3. Yemshanov, Denys & Haight, Robert G. & Koch, Frank H. & Lu, Bo & Venette, Robert & Fournier, Ronald E. & Turgeon, Jean J., 2017. "Robust Surveillance and Control of Invasive Species Using a Scenario Optimization Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 86-98.
    4. Jones, Benjamin A., 2018. "Forest-attacking Invasive Species and Infant Health: Evidence From the Invasive Emerald Ash Borer," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 282-293.
    5. İ. Esra Büyüktahtakın & Robert G. Haight, 2018. "A review of operations research models in invasive species management: state of the art, challenges, and future directions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 271(2), pages 357-403, December.
    6. Andrew R. Tilman & Robert G. Haight, 2023. "Public policy for management of forest pests within an ownership mosaic," Papers 2312.05403, arXiv.org.
    7. McDermott, Shana M. & Finnoff, David C., 2016. "Impact of repeated human introductions and the Allee effect on invasive species spread," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 329(C), pages 100-111.
    8. Benjamin A. Jones & Shana M. McDermott, 2018. "Health Impacts of Invasive Species Through an Altered Natural Environment: Assessing Air Pollution Sinks as a Causal Pathway," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 23-43, September.
    9. Jones, Benjamin A., 2023. "Can invasive species lead to sedentary behavior? The time use and obesity impacts of a forest-attacking pest," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    10. Epanchin-Niell, Rebecca S. & Liebhold, Andrew M., 2015. "Benefits of invasion prevention: Effect of time lags, spread rates, and damage persistence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 146-153.
    11. Cuicui Chen & Rebecca S. Epanchin‐Niell & Robert G. Haight, 2018. "Optimal Inspection of Imports to Prevent Invasive Pest Introduction," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 603-619, March.
    12. Mysha K. Clarke & Lara A. Roman & Tenley M. Conway, 2020. "Communicating with the Public about Emerald Ash Borer: Militaristic and Fatalistic Framings in the News Media," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-16, June.
    13. Yao, Richard T. & Wallace, Lisa, 2024. "A systematic review of non-market ecosystem service values for biosecurity protection," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    14. Jones, Benjamin A. & Goodkind, Andrew L., 2019. "Urban afforestation and infant health: Evidence from MillionTreesNYC," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 26-44.
    15. Davide Rassati & Massimo Faccoli & Robert A Haack & Robert J Rabaglia & Edoardo Petrucco Toffolo & Andrea Battisti & Lorenzo Marini, 2016. "Bark and Ambrosia Beetles Show Different Invasion Patterns in the USA," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-17, July.
    16. Benjamin A. Jones & Shana McDermott, 2021. "The Local Labor Market Impacts of US Megafires," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-15, August.
    17. Ai, Hongshan & Zhou, Zhengqing, 2023. "Green growth: The impact of urban forest construction on economic growth in China," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    18. Jones, Benjamin A., 2021. "Planting urban trees to improve quality of life? The life satisfaction impacts of urban afforestation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    19. Denys Yemshanov & Robert G Haight & Cuicui Chen & Ning Liu & Christian J K MacQuarrie & Frank H Koch & Robert Venette & Krista Ryall, 2019. "Managing biological invasions in urban environments with the acceptance sampling approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-28, August.
    20. Frank Jensen & Niels Vestergaard & Hans Frost, 1999. "Asymmetrisk information og regulering af forurening," Working Papers 1/99, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.

    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:188:y:2021:i:c:s0921800921001841. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

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

    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.