IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/teepxx/v8y2019i2p209-230.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research agendas for profitable invasive species

Author

Listed:
  • Melina Kourantidou
  • Brooks A. Kaiser

Abstract

Management of natural resources with uncertain net benefits presents an interdisciplinary challenge; economists often must rely on other disciplines to advise and evaluate policies. Net benefits may be uncertain due to absent, inconclusive or contradictory scientific findings. Economics must interpret uncertainties and ground policy recommendations in this context. Understanding biases in primary research agendas and the roles of vertical and horizontal integration in knowledge production and management are essential to prevent sub-optimal allocations across time and space, including avoiding recommendations of excess or insufficient harvest. We empirically investigate these biases by comparing disparate scientific literature and management decisions across vested interests to uncover how economic incentives systematically vary across research investments. The Barents Sea Red King Crab, a simultaneously profitable and invasive species with different net benefits across stakeholders, provides the empirical evidence. We find that scientific consensus is harder to achieve even for primary research when economic incentives differ across research institutions and that research agendas shift over time in response to changes in relative trade-offs between ecological consequences and financial benefits from the resource's presence. Impacts on management are accentuated by integration of the scientific research programmes and management decisions; broadening research participation and agendas may alleviate bias.

Suggested Citation

  • Melina Kourantidou & Brooks A. Kaiser, 2019. "Research agendas for profitable invasive species," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 209-230, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:teepxx:v:8:y:2019:i:2:p:209-230
    DOI: 10.1080/21606544.2018.1548980
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/21606544.2018.1548980
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/21606544.2018.1548980?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karpoff, Jonathan M, 1987. "Suboptimal Controls in Common Resource Management: The Case of the Fishery," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(1), pages 179-194, February.
    2. Kaiser, Brooks A. & Burnett, Kimberly M., 2010. "Spatial economic analysis of early detection and rapid response strategies for an invasive species," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 566-585, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Ando, Amy Whritenour, 1999. "Waiting to Be Protected under the Endangered Species Act: The Political Economy of Regulatory Delay," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 29-60, April.
    5. Daniele Fanelli, 2010. "Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-7, April.
    6. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train (ed.), 2017. "Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 17527.
    7. Horrace, William C. & Oaxaca, Ronald L., 2006. "Results on the bias and inconsistency of ordinary least squares for the linear probability model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 321-327, March.
    8. John A. List & Michael Margolis & Daniel E. Osgood, 2006. "Is the Endangered Species Act Endangering Species?," NBER Working Papers 12777, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Lueck, Dean & Michael, Jeffrey A, 2003. "Preemptive Habitat Destruction under the Endangered Species Act," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 46(1), pages 27-60, April.
    10. Maira Bes-Rastrollo & Matthias B Schulze & Miguel Ruiz-Canela & Miguel A Martinez-Gonzalez, 2013. "Financial Conflicts of Interest and Reporting Bias Regarding the Association between Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-9, December.
    11. Kaiser, Brooks A., 2006. "The national environmental policy act's influence on USDA forest service decision-making, 1974-1996," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 109-130, June.
    12. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, January.
    13. Daniel McFadden, 1975. "The Revealed Preferences of a Government Bureaucracy: Theory," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 6(2), pages 401-416, Autumn.
    14. Robert J Warren II & Joshua R King & Charlene Tarsa & Brian Haas & Jeremy Henderson, 2017. "A systematic review of context bias in invasion biology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-12, August.
    15. Linda Fernandez, 2004. "Revealed Preferences of an International Trade and Environment Institution," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(2), pages 224-238.
    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. Melina Kourantidou & Laura N H Verbrugge & Phillip J Haubrock & Ross N Cuthbert & Elena Angulo & Inkeri Ahonen & Michelle Cleary & Jannike Falk-Andersson & Lena Granhag & Sindri Gíslason & Brooks Kais, 2022. "The economic costs, management and regulation of biological invasions in the Nordic countries," Post-Print hal-03860518, HAL.
    2. Benjamin Meadows & Charles Sims, 2023. "Can We Love Invasive Species to Death? Creating Efficient Markets for Invasive Species Harvests," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(2), pages 443-477, June.

    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. 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.
    2. Robert Innes & George Frisvold, 2009. "The Economics of Endangered Species," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 485-512, September.
    3. Kovacs, Kent F. & Haight, Robert G. & Mercader, Rodrigo J. & McCullough, Deborah G., 2014. "A bioeconomic analysis of an emerald ash borer invasion of an urban forest with multiple jurisdictions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 270-289.
    4. Di Maria, Corrado & Smulders, Sjak & van der Werf, Edwin, 2012. "Absolute abundance and relative scarcity: Environmental policy with implementation lags," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 104-119.
    5. Melstrom, Richard T., 2017. "The petroleum industry's response to an endangered species listing," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258281, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Melstrom, Richard T., 2017. "Where to drill? The petroleum industry's response to an endangered species listing," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 320-327.
    7. David Sunding, 2014. "Conserving Endangered Species through Regulation of Urban Development: The Case of California Vernal Pools," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 290-305.
    8. 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.
    9. Walls, Margaret & Riddle, Anne, 2012. "Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, and Land Use: Comparing Three Federal Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-08, Resources for the Future.
    10. Nelson, Erik J. & Withey, John C. & Pennington, Derric & Lawler, Joshua J., 2017. "Identifying the impacts of critical habitat designation on land cover change," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 89-125.
    11. Richard T. Melstrom, 2021. "The Effect of Land Use Restrictions Protecting Endangered Species on Agricultural Land Values," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 162-184, January.
    12. Langpap, Christian & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2002. "Success Or Failure? Ordered Probit Approaches To Measuring The Effectiveness Of The Endangered Species Act," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19713, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Langpap, Christian & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2012. "Endangered species conservation on private land: Assessing the effectiveness of habitat conservation plans," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 1-15.
    14. Ferraro, Paul J. & McIntosh, Craig & Ospina, Monica, 2007. "The effectiveness of the US endangered species act: An econometric analysis using matching methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 245-261, November.
    15. Christian Langpap & Joe Kerkvliet & Jason F Shogren, 2018. "The Economics of the U.S. Endangered Species Act: A Review of Recent Developments," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 69-91.
    16. Lange, Andreas & Liu, Xiangping, 2014. "Land Development Restrictions and Preemptive Action - On the Benefits of Differentiated Regulation," Strategic Behavior and the Environment, now publishers, vol. 4(4), pages 393-414, December.
    17. Bahar, Dany & Choudhury, Prithwiraj & Rapoport, Hillel, 2020. "Migrant inventors and the technological advantage of nations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(9).
    18. Yanju Luo & Jinyang Deng & Chad Pierskalla & Ju-hyoung Lee & Jiayao Tang, 2022. "New Ecological Paradigm, Leisure Motivation, and Wellbeing Satisfaction: A Comparative Analysis of Recreational Use of Urban Parks before and after the COVID-19 Outbreak," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-28, August.
    19. Bahar, Dany & Rosenow, Samuel & Stein, Ernesto & Wagner, Rodrigo, 2019. "Export take-offs and acceleration: Unpacking cross-sector linkages in the evolution of comparative advantage," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 48-60.
    20. Alejandro M. Bellon, 2019. "Does animal charisma influence conservation funding for vertebrate species under the US Endangered Species Act?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 21(3), pages 399-411, July.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q22 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Fishery
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation

    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:taf:teepxx:v:8:y:2019:i:2:p:209-230. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/teep20 .

    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.