IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/erevae/v36y2009i3p295-320.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The optimal amount and allocation of sampling effort for plant health inspection

Author

Listed:
  • Ilya V. Surkov
  • Alfons G.J.M. Oude Lansink
  • Wopke van der Werf

Abstract

Plant import inspection can prevent the introduction of exotic pests and diseases, thereby averting economic losses. We explore the optimal allocation of a fixed budget, taking into account risk differentials, and the optimal-sized budget to minimise total pest costs. A partial-equilibrium market model is used to compute the economic consequences of pest invasion. An application to Dutch imports of chrysanthemum cuttings shows that the optimal allocation of a fixed inspection budget halves the cost of pest invasion compared to allocating the same budget equally over all imports. A budget increase that enables 42 per cent more inspection can reduce total societal costs by 81 per cent compared to smaller, constrained budget that ignores risk differentials. Oxford University Press and Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics 2009; all rights reserved. For permissions, please email journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Ilya V. Surkov & Alfons G.J.M. Oude Lansink & Wopke van der Werf, 2009. "The optimal amount and allocation of sampling effort for plant health inspection," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(3), pages 295-320, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:36:y:2009:i:3:p:295-320
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/erae/jbp030
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ferrier, Peyton, 2014. "The Effects of Phytosanitary Regulations on U.S. Imports of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables," Economic Research Report 176199, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. 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.
    3. Lansink, Alfons Oude, 2011. "Public and private roles in plant health management," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 166-170, April.
    4. Daeyoung Kwon & Soyoon Kim & Yongjoon Kim & Minsu Son & Kwansoo Kim & Donghwan An & Brian H. S. Kim, 2015. "An Empirical Assessment of the Economic Damage Caused by Apple Marssonina Blotch and Pear Scab Outbreaks in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-11, December.
    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. Schneider, Kevin & Mourits, Monique & van der Werf, Wopke & Lansink, Alfons Oude, 2021. "On consumer impact from Xylella fastidiosa subspecies pauca," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    7. Soliman, T. & Hengeveld, G.M. & Robinet, C. & Mourits, Monique & van der Werf, Wopke & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M., 2011. "A Risk Assessment Model on Pine Wood Nematode in the EU," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 116010, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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:oup:erevae:v:36:y:2009:i:3:p:295-320. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.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.