IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v201y2022ics0921800922002452.html

Some searches may not work properly. We apologize for the inconvenience.

   My bibliography  Save this article

A discrete-time bioeconomic model of free-roaming cat management: A case study in Knox County, Tennessee

Author

Listed:
  • Thompson, Brielle K.
  • Sims, Charles
  • Fisher, Teresa
  • Brock, Sarah
  • Dai, Yi
  • Lenhart, Suzanne

Abstract

Unowned free-roaming cats are a global problem due to predation on wildlife and the spread of infectious diseases. Programs such as Trap, Neuter, and Return (TNR) and Trap-Euthanize (TE) have been used to manage cat populations. We present a bioeconomic model using data from Knox County, Tennessee, U.S., and some parameters from literature that weighs benefits and costs of free-roaming cat management programs. A benefit of a management program is the reduction in wildlife killed by free-roaming cats, illustrated in the model by placing a value on wildlife. The economic management costs include the costs of trapping and neutering, and the procedural and emotional costs of euthanasia. We highlight two key factors that determine which management strategy is most cost effective. The first is whether cat caretakers cooperate with management by decreasing food available for cat groups. The second is the value attributed to saving the lives of wildlife and free-roaming cats. Based on plausible cat and wildlife values, TNR was the most cost effective when caretakers cooperated, but TE was the most cost-effective when caretakers did not cooperate. When the model is adjusted for the local goals, effort, and information, it can be used as a tool for management.

Suggested Citation

  • Thompson, Brielle K. & Sims, Charles & Fisher, Teresa & Brock, Sarah & Dai, Yi & Lenhart, Suzanne, 2022. "A discrete-time bioeconomic model of free-roaming cat management: A case study in Knox County, Tennessee," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:201:y:2022:i:c:s0921800922002452
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107583
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800922002452
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107583?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. Scott R. Loss & Tom Will & Peter P. Marra, 2013. "The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 4(1), pages 1-8, June.
    2. Pimentel, David & Zuniga, Rodolfo & Morrison, Doug, 2005. "Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 273-288, February.
    3. Smith, V. Kerry, 1992. "Arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 71-89, January.
    4. Subroy, Vandana & Gunawardena, Asha & Polyakov, Maksym & Pandit, Ram & Pannell, David J., 2019. "The worth of wildlife: A meta-analysis of global non-market values of threatened species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    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. Le T P Nghiem & Tarek Soliman & Darren C J Yeo & Hugh T W Tan & Theodore A Evans & John D Mumford & Reuben P Keller & Richard H A Baker & Richard T Corlett & Luis R Carrasco, 2013. "Economic and Environmental Impacts of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in Southeast Asia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-9, August.
    2. Nghiem, Le T.P. & Soliman, Tarek & Yeo, Darren C. J. & Tan, Hugh T. W. & Evans, Theodore A. & Mumford, John D. & Keller, Reuben P. & Baker, Richard H. A. & Corlett, Richard T. & Carrasco, Luis R., 2013. "Economic and Environmental Impacts of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in Southeast Asia," MPRA Paper 57760, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Ruud Hoevenagel, 1996. "The validity of the contingent valuation method: Perfect and regular embedding," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 57-78, January.
    4. Ceddia, M.G. & Bardsley, N.O. & Goodwin, R. & Holloway, G.J. & Nocella, G. & Stasi, A., 2013. "A complex system perspective on the emergence and spread of infectious diseases: Integrating economic and ecological aspects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 124-131.
    5. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    6. Travis Warziniack & David Finnoff & Jonathan Bossenbroek & Jason Shogren & David Lodge, 2011. "Stepping Stones for Biological Invasion: A Bioeconomic Model of Transferable Risk," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(4), pages 605-627, December.
    7. Stern, David I., 1997. "Limits to substitution and irreversibility in production and consumption: A neoclassical interpretation of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 197-215, June.
    8. Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Carter, Marc, 1993. "Prospects For Contingent Valuation: Lessons From The South-East Forests," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 37(2), pages 1-15, August.
    9. John C. Whitehead & Timothy C. Haab & Ju‐Chin Huang, 1998. "Part‐Whole Bias in Contingent Valuation: Will Scope Effects Be Detected with Inexpensive Survey Methods?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 160-168, July.
    10. Blackwood, Julie & Hastings, Alan & Costello, Christopher, 2010. "Cost-effective management of invasive species using linear-quadratic control," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 519-527, January.
    11. Cook, David & Proctor, Wendy, 2007. "Assessing the threat of exotic plant pests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 594-604, August.
    12. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
    13. Mirko Di Febbraro & Peter W W Lurz & Piero Genovesi & Luigi Maiorano & Marco Girardello & Sandro Bertolino, 2013. "The Use of Climatic Niches in Screening Procedures for Introduced Species to Evaluate Risk of Spread: A Case with the American Eastern Grey Squirrel," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-10, July.
    14. Colvin, Michael E. & Pierce, Clay L. & Stewart, Timothy W., 2015. "A food web modeling analysis of a Midwestern, USA eutrophic lake dominated by non-native Common Carp and Zebra Mussels," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 312(C), pages 26-40.
    15. Beça, Pedro & Santos, Rui, 2010. "Measuring sustainable welfare: A new approach to the ISEW," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 810-819, February.
    16. Blamey, Russell K. & Common, Mick S. & Quiggin, John C., 1995. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 1-26, December.
    17. Prato, Tony, 1999. "Multiple attribute decision analysis for ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 207-222, August.
    18. Clark, Jeremy & Friesen, Lana, 2008. "The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: An experimental investigation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 195-206, September.
    19. Don Driscoll & Adam Felton & Philip Gibbons & Annika Felton & Nicola Munro & David Lindenmayer, 2012. "Priorities in policy and management when existing biodiversity stressors interact with climate-change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 111(3), pages 533-557, April.
    20. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.

    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:201:y:2022:i:c:s0921800922002452. 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.