IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/apecpp/v43y2021i3p985-1002.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Problem of Feral Hogs and the Challenges of Providing a Weak‐Link Public Good

Author

Listed:
  • Sean F. Ellis
  • Mark Masters
  • Kent D. Messer
  • Collin Weigel
  • Paul J. Ferraro

Abstract

Feral hogs are an invasive species in the United States annually inflicting $1.5 billion in damages. Although interest in mitigating this grows, control spans properties and jurisdictions, creating challenges. Because landowners and local governments cannot capture the benefits of control that accrue beyond their boundaries, they generally underinvest. Worse, the weakest contributors constrain efforts. To offer insights into this problem, we synthesized studies on best management practices, invasive species, and weak‐link public goods. We also provide estimates of farmers' willingness‐to‐pay for control efforts, finding that they require financial assistance. Together, this suggests that more investment is necessary to manage feral hogs.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:apecpp:v:43:y:2021:i:3:p:985-1002
    DOI: 10.1002/aepp.13086
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13086
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/aepp.13086?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aaron Thompson & Adam Reimer & Linda Prokopy, 2015. "Farmers’ views of the environment: the influence of competing attitude frames on landscape conservation efforts," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 32(3), pages 385-399, September.
    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. Morteza Chalak & Maksym Polyakov & David J. Pannell, 2017. "Economics of Controlling Invasive Species: A Stochastic Optimization Model for a Spatial-dynamic Process," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(1), pages 123-139.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Burnett, Kimberly M., 2006. "Introductions of Invasive Species: Failure of the Weaker Link," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 35(1), pages 1-8, April.
    7. Nyaupane, Narayan P. & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Paudel, Krishna P., 2012. "Economic Impacts of Adoption of Best Management Practices by Crawfish Producers: The Role of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(2), pages 247-259, August.
    8. Eli Fenichel & Timothy Richards & David Shanafelt, 2014. "The Control of Invasive Species on Private Property with Neighbor-to-Neighbor Spillovers," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(2), pages 231-255, October.
    9. John Crespi & Richard Sexton, 2005. "A Multinomial Logit Framework to Estimate Bid Shading in Procurement Auctions: Application to Cattle Sales in the Texas Panhandle," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 27(3), pages 253-278, November.
    10. Paudel, Krishna P. & Gauthier, Wayne M. & Westra, John V. & Hall, Larry M., 2008. "Factors Influencing and Steps Leading to the Adoption of Best Management Practices by Louisiana Dairy Farmers," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(1), pages 1-20, April.
    11. 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.
    12. Czap, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J. & Banerjee, Simanti & Burbach, Mark E., 2019. "Encouraging farmers' participation in the Conservation Stewardship Program: A field experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 130-143.
    13. Erwin Wauters & Erik Mathijs, 2014. "The adoption of farm level soil conservation practices in developed countries: a meta-analytic review," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 78-102.
    14. Steven Wallander & Paul Ferraro & Nathaniel Higgins, 2017. "Addressing Participant Inattention in Federal Programs: A Field Experiment with The Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(4), pages 914-931.
    15. Ghazalian, Pascal L. & Larue, Bruno & West, Gale E., 2009. "Best Management Practices to Enhance Water Quality: Who is Adopting Them?," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-20, December.
    16. Knowler, Duncan & Bradshaw, Ben, 2007. "Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 25-48, February.
    17. Greiner, Romy & Patterson, Louisa & Miller, Owen, 2009. "Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 99(2-3), pages 86-104, February.
    18. Daniel Rondeau & Jon M. Conrad, 2003. "Managing Urban Deer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 266-281.
    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. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    2. Atallah, Shadi S. & Huang, Ju-Chin & Leahy, Jessica & Bennett, Karen, 2020. "Preference Heterogeneity and Neighborhood Effect in Invasive Species Control: The Case of Glossy Buckthorn in New Hampshire and Maine Forests," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304623, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Mohamed Ghali & Maha Ben Jaballah & Nejla Ben Arfa & Annie Sigwalt, 2022. "Analysis of factors that influence adoption of agroecological practices in viticulture," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 103(3), pages 179-209, September.
    4. Tingting Liu & Randall J. F. Bruins & Matthew T. Heberling, 2018. "Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of Best Management Practices: A Review and Synthesis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-26, February.
    5. Costello, Christopher & Quérou, Nicolas & Tomini, Agnes, 2017. "Private eradication of mobile public bads," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 23-44.
    6. Buckley, Cathal & Howley, Peter & Jordan, Phil, 2015. "The role of differing farming motivations on the adoption of nutrient management practices," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 4(4), July.
    7. Sergei Schaub & Jaboury Ghazoul & Robert Huber & Wei Zhang & Adelaide Sander & Charles Rees & Simanti Banerjee & Robert Finger, 2023. "The role of behavioural factors and opportunity costs in farmers' participation in voluntary agri‐environmental schemes: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 617-660, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Mohamed Ghali & Maha Ben Jaballah & Nejla Ben Arfa & Annie Sigwalt, 2022. "Analysis of factors that influence adoption of agroecological practices in viticulture," Post-Print hal-04071759, HAL.
    10. 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.
    11. Daniele Mozzato & Paola Gatto & Edi Defrancesco & Lucia Bortolini & Francesco Pirotti & Elena Pisani & Luigi Sartori, 2018. "The Role of Factors Affecting the Adoption of Environmentally Friendly Farming Practices: Can Geographical Context and Time Explain the Differences Emerging from Literature?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-23, August.
    12. 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).
    13. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    14. Oscar Montes de Oca Munguia & Rick Llewellyn, 2020. "The Adopters versus the Technology: Which Matters More when Predicting or Explaining Adoption?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 80-91, March.
    15. 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.
    16. Tamini, Lota D., 2011. "A nonparametric analysis of the impact of agri-environmental advisory activities on best management practice adoption: A case study of Québec," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1363-1374, May.
    17. Garini, C.S. & Vanwindekens, F. & Scholberg, J.M.S. & Wezel, A. & Groot, J.C.J., 2017. "Drivers of adoption of agroecological practices for winegrowers and influence from policies in the province of Trento, Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 200-211.
    18. Van Wyngaarden, Sarah & Anders, Sven M., 2021. "Canadian Farmer Policy and Agency Preferences in Agri-Environmental Best Management Practice Adoption," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313851, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Canales Medina, Elizabeth & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery R., 2017. "Modeling the factors affecting farmers’ timing of adoption of in-field conservation cropping practices," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258558, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Jessica Rudnick & Mark Lubell & Sat Darshan S. Khalsa & Stephanie Tatge & Liza Wood & Molly Sears & Patrick H. Brown, 2021. "A farm systems approach to the adoption of sustainable nitrogen management practices in California," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(3), pages 783-801, September.

    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:wly:apecpp:v:43:y:2021:i:3:p:985-1002. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2040-5804 .

    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.