IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i21p9046-d437707.html

Economic Costs of Sharing the Harvester in the Control of an Invasive Weed

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriel Pardo

    (Unidad de Protección Vegetal, Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón (CITA), Avda. Montañana 930, 50059 Zaragoza, Spain
    Instituto Agroalimentario de Aragón—IA2 (CITA-Universidad de Zaragoza), 50013 Zaragoza, Spain)

  • Miguel I. Gómez

    (Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics & Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA)

  • Alicia Cirujeda

    (Unidad de Protección Vegetal, Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón (CITA), Avda. Montañana 930, 50059 Zaragoza, Spain
    Instituto Agroalimentario de Aragón—IA2 (CITA-Universidad de Zaragoza), 50013 Zaragoza, Spain)

  • Yolanda Martínez

    (Instituto Agroalimentario de Aragón—IA2 (CITA-Universidad de Zaragoza), 50013 Zaragoza, Spain
    Department of Economic Analysis, University of Zaragoza, Gran Vía 2–4, 50004 Zaragoza, Spain)

Abstract

Spatial externalities, such as the sharing of harvesting equipment by many farmers, have an impact on the control of invasive species in the agricultural environment. In these cases, the regulator must design a set of measures to promote coordinated control by affected parties. We aim to analyze the determinants of private versus collective control efforts in the case of a particular invasive species (teosinte) occurring as a weed in corn fields throughout North-Eastern Spain. Using a simple discrete space-dynamic framework, we model the effect of the decisions made by the farmer of an infested plot on a noninfested plot, with the harvester being the only potential pathway for the invader to spread and assuming a one-way invasion. The results reveal that failure to adopt optimal cooperative strategies causes losses to other plots if they become infested amounting to an annual average of EUR 322/ha, when the infestation is low, and EUR 364/ha, when it is high. Results suggest that cleaning the harvester, a measure currently recommended by the regulatory agency in low-infestation cases but that does not guarantee that the machine is completely clean, is not socially optimal if monocropping practices are permitted in the region.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriel Pardo & Miguel I. Gómez & Alicia Cirujeda & Yolanda Martínez, 2020. "Economic Costs of Sharing the Harvester in the Control of an Invasive Weed," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-20, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:21:p:9046-:d:437707
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/9046/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/9046/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James E. Wilen, 2007. "Economics of Spatial-Dynamic Processes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1134-1144.
    2. Liu, Yanxu & Sims, Charles, 2016. "Spatial-dynamic externalities and coordination in invasive species control," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 23-38.
    3. Ileana Iocola & Frederique Angevin & Christian Bockstaller & Rui Catarino & Michael Curran & Antoine Messéan & Christian Schader & Didier Stilmant & Florence Van Stappen & Paul Vanhove & Hauke Ahneman, 2020. "An Actor-Oriented Multi-Criteria Assessment Framework to Support a Transition towards Sustainable Agricultural Systems Based on Crop Diversification," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-29, July.
    4. Rebecca S. Epanchin-Niell & James E. Wilen, 2015. "Individual and Cooperative Management of Invasive Species in Human-mediated Landscapes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(1), pages 180-198.
    5. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    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. Josefa López-Marín & Miriam Romero & Amparo Gálvez & Francisco Moisés del Amor & Maria Carmen Piñero & José Manuel Brotons-Martínez, 2021. "The Use of Hydromulching as an Alternative to Plastic Films in an Artichoke ( Cynara cardunculus cv. Symphony) Crop: A Study of the Economic Viability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-17, May.

    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. Siriwardena, Shyamani D. & Cobourn, Kelly M. & Amacher, Gregory S. & Haight, Robert G., 2018. "Cooperative bargaining to manage invasive species in jurisdictions with public and private lands," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 72-83.
    2. Kelly M. Cobourn & Gregory S. Amacher & Robert G. Haight, 2019. "Cooperative Management of Invasive Species: A Dynamic Nash Bargaining Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(4), pages 1041-1068, April.
    3. Meyer, Stefan & Santos, Paulo & Kousonsavath, Chitpasong, 2022. "Using contests to promote coordinated control of invasive species: An experimental evaluation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    4. Simon Levin & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2021. "On the Coevolution of Economic and Ecological Systems," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 13(1), pages 355-377, October.
    5. Tilman, Andrew R. & Haight, Robert G., 2025. "Public policy for management of forest pests within an ownership mosaic," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    6. Tom Kompas & Pham Van Ha & Hoa-Thi-Minh Nguyen & Graeme Garner & Sharon Roche & Iain East, 2020. "Optimal surveillance against foot-and-mouth disease: A sample average approximation approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-21, July.
    7. Gabriel S. Sampson & James N. Sanchirico, 2019. "Exploitation of a Mobile Resource with Costly Cooperation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(4), pages 1135-1163, August.
    8. Grogan, Kelly A. & Chakravarty, Shourish, "undated". "The Feasibility of Area-wide Pest Management under Heterogeneity and Uncertainty: The Case of Citrus Health Management Areas," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259188, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Shady S. Atallah & Miguel I. Gómez & Jon M. Conrad, 2017. "Specification of Spatial-Dynamic Externalities and Implications for Strategic Behavior in Disease Control," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 93(2), pages 209-229.
    10. Tom Kompas & Pham Van Ha & Hoa Thi Minh Nguyen & Iain East & Sharon Roche & Graeme Garner, 2017. "Optimal surveillance against foot-and-mouth disease: the case of bulk milk testing in Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 61(4), pages 515-538, October.
    11. Sean F. Ellis & Mark Masters & Kent D. Messer & Collin Weigel & Paul J. Ferraro, 2021. "The Problem of Feral Hogs and the Challenges of Providing a Weak‐Link Public Good," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(3), pages 985-1002, September.
    12. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    13. Qiuyue Xia & Lu Li & Jie Dong & Bin Zhang, 2021. "Reduction Effect and Mechanism Analysis of Carbon Trading Policy on Carbon Emissions from Land Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-22, August.
    14. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    15. Usher, Dan, 2001. "Personal goods, efficiency and the law," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 673-703, November.
    16. George Tridimas & Stanley L. Winer, 2018. "On the Definition and Nature of Fiscal Coercion," Carleton Economic Papers 18-09, Carleton University, Department of Economics.
    17. Stephanie Rosenkranz & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2007. "Can Coasean Bargaining Justify Pigouvian Taxation?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(296), pages 573-585, November.
    18. Stefan Ambec & Yann Kervinio, 2016. "Cooperative decision-making for the provision of a locally undesirable facility," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(1), pages 119-155, January.
    19. Liu, Duan & Yu, Nizhou & Wan, Hong, 2022. "Does water rights trading affect corporate investment? The role of resource allocation and risk mitigation channels," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    20. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:21:p:9046-:d:437707. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.