IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea16/235850.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Spatiotemporal management under heterogeneous damage and uncertain parameters. An agent-based approach

Author

Listed:
  • Holderieath, Jason

Abstract

Species are often viewed as either beneficial or detrimental. The determination of beneficial or detrimental depends on the evaluator, often with disagreement within disciplines such as agriculture or wildlife biology. One common argument against a species revolves around its status as native or non-native, with the latter as a negative characteristic. Defining native and non-native is highly subjective, with a common North American delineation as an introduction before and after Columbus, respectively (Nelson 2010). However, in the past, native species such as the American buffalo (Bison bison) have been targets of eradication campaigns and even today white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and Canadian geese (Branta Canadensis) populations are managed to limit the damage they inflict on agriculture. It is also acknowledged that these example species have intrinsic value in the ecosystem and value as a recreationally hunted species in the case of white-tailed deer and Canadian geese. Non-native species can be viewed beneficially, as most agricultural species are introduced, for recreational use, and even as a replacement for extirpated native species (Schlaepfer, Sax and Olden 2011; Zivin, Hueth and Zilberman 2000). In the US, one contentious species is feral swine (Sus scrofa). Federal removal and control efforts are underway as some private landowners encourage their growth on their property (Bevins et al. 2014; Bannerman and Cole 2014). Feral swine are a vector for diseases, cause ecosystem damage, and inflict physical losses to agriculture (Pimentel, Zuniga and Morrison 2005; Cozzens 2010; Seward et al. 2004). However, feral swine are a valuable recreational species. With benefits and costs often accruing to different people, conflict over management is inevitable. As in most externality problems, property lines do not inhibit damage. Unique to most externality problems is the way the damage causing agent can multiply and spread unaided once introduced. Stakeholders include agricultural landowners, recreational landowners, private conservationists, and government entities. Agriculturalists may be sensitive to crop damage and unwilling to sell hunting licenses on their property to offset the damage. Recreational users may enjoy the opportunity to hunt feral swine or may be sensitive to habitat damage and predation of other game species. Private individuals may also own land with the expressed purpose of native habitat conservation. This division between agriculturalist, recreationists, and conservationists is in reality too strong. Landowners are often a mix of the three. Landowners may also exhibit inconsistent preferences or a lack of information, implying a need to relax rationality assumptions. Rational choice theory, or the rationality assumptions, require that a consumer's actions exhibit completeness, transitivity, and perfect information. Finally, government entities are responsible for many goals including preservation of native species, maintenance of protective structures such as levees, and preventing outbreaks of dangerous diseases. These varying objectives can result in inconsistent policymaker actions (Karp et al. 2015). Management decisions by one stakeholder will affect the outcomes of all stakeholders. The variety of opinions and the interaction between landowners, government agencies, and the swine themselves make an optimal policy solution, here defined as the policy solution with the highest total welfare gain, hard to determine. Previous work has ignored interaction between people and swine, spatial issues, temporal characteristics of feral swine spread, or the variety of values held among stakeholders. To address these shortcomings, an agent-based modeling approach is used to determine the optimal management solution, as well as how varying stakeholder opinions and rationality can change the optimal solution. Agent-based modeling promises to be able to model a rich diversity in objectives across time and space (Heckbert, Baynes and Reeson 2010). Applications of agent-based modeling demonstrate its capabilities with interactive heterogeneous agents and spatiotemporally explicit modeling (Evans and Kelley 2004; Schreinemachers et al. 2009; Berger and Troost 2014). Agents can be modeled maintaining traditional compatibility with economic theory (e.g. utility maximizing rational agents), with varying degrees of rationality and awareness of their surroundings, and established tools such as linear programming can be used to help agents make decisions (Berger 2001; Schreinemachers et al. 2009). ABMs have been shown to be suited for analysis of policy intended to address previously unseen events such as the effects of climate change or a new trade agreement (Berger 2001; Berger and Troost 2014). This paper will demonstrate the importance of the interaction between individuals across time and space over management decisions in a way that has not previously been published. Management paths have been established for heterogeneous groups of agriculturalists, recreational land users, private conservationists and governmental entities with varying motivations. The setting for the simulations is a hypothetical rural environment with the potential for feral swine and damage to crops, livestock, and habitat. Results from these simulations are being compared to situations with individuals of heterogeneous preferences. Preliminary results indicate that both locality and individual characteristics matter in determining the optimal outcome. The code for the ABM is being written in a program that provides striking visuals in addition to the quantitative data needed for analysis. These visualizations, the research goals, and the subject matter of feral swine have not failed to generate substantial discussion when presented. The model, properly calibrated, can be used to simulate a potential management area to determine the best path forward. Results of the analysis are expected to inform policymakers to help guide hunting license protocol and public management efforts to manage feral swine in a humane, environmentally sustainable, and socially responsible manner.

Suggested Citation

  • Holderieath, Jason, 2016. "Spatiotemporal management under heterogeneous damage and uncertain parameters. An agent-based approach," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235850, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea16:235850
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.235850
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/235850/files/output.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.235850?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. Kathrin Happe & Hauke Schnicke & Christoph Sahrbacher & Konrad Kellermann, 2009. "Will They Stay or Will They Go? Simulating the Dynamics of Single‐Holder Farms in a Dualistic Farm Structure in Slovakia," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(4), pages 497-511, December.
    2. Berger, Thomas, 2001. "Agent-based spatial models applied to agriculture: a simulation tool for technology diffusion, resource use changes and policy analysis," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 245-260, September.
    3. Arnade, Carlos Anthony & Calvin, Linda & Kuchler, Fred, 2008. "Market Response to a Food Safety Shock: The 2006 Foodborne Illness Outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 Linked to Spinach," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6448, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Rollins, Kimberly & Briggs, Hugh III, 1996. "Moral Hazard, Externalities, and Compensation for Crop Damages from Wildlife," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 368-386, November.
    5. Witsanu Attavanich & Bruce A. McCarl & David Bessler, 2011. "The Effect of H1N1 (Swine Flu) Media Coverage on Agricultural Commodity Markets," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(2), pages 241-259.
    6. Holly A. Ameden & Peter C. Boxall & Sean B. Cash & D. Angele Vickers, 2009. "An Agent‐Based Model of Border Enforcement for Invasive Species Management," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(4), pages 481-496, December.
    7. R. Brent Ross & Randall E. Westgren, 2009. "An Agent‐Based Model of Entrepreneurial Behavior in Agri‐Food Markets," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(4), pages 459-480, December.
    8. Thomas Berger & Christian Troost, 2014. "Agent-based Modelling of Climate Adaptation and Mitigation Options in Agriculture," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(2), pages 323-348, June.
    9. Melstrom, Richard T., 2014. "Managing apparent competition between the feral pigs and native foxes of Santa Cruz Island," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 157-162.
    10. Tyler Freeman & James Nolan & Richard Schoney, 2009. "An Agent‐Based Simulation Model of Structural Change in Canadian Prairie Agriculture, 1960–2000," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(4), pages 537-554, December.
    11. Grechi, Isabelle & Chadès, Iadine & Buckley, Yvonne M. & Friedel, Margaret H. & Grice, Anthony C. & Possingham, Hugh P. & van Klinken, Rieks D. & Martin, Tara G., 2014. "A decision framework for management of conflicting production and biodiversity goals for a commercially valuable invasive species," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 1-11.
    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. Kremmydas, Dimitris & Athanasiadis, Ioannis N. & Rozakis, Stelios, 2018. "A review of Agent Based Modeling for agricultural policy evaluation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 95-106.
    2. James Nolan & Dawn Parker & G. Cornelis Van Kooten & Thomas Berger, 2009. "An Overview of Computational Modeling in Agricultural and Resource Economics," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(4), pages 417-429, December.
    3. Utomo, Dhanan Sarwo & Onggo, Bhakti Stephan & Eldridge, Stephen, 2018. "Applications of agent-based modelling and simulation in the agri-food supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(3), pages 794-805.
    4. Huang, Shiyang & Hu, Guiping, 2018. "Biomass supply contract pricing and environmental policy analysis: A simulation approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 557-566.
    5. Bert, Federico E. & Podestá, Guillermo P. & Rovere, Santiago L. & Menéndez, Ángel N. & North, Michael & Tatara, Eric & Laciana, Carlos E. & Weber, Elke & Toranzo, Fernando Ruiz, 2011. "An agent based model to simulate structural and land use changes in agricultural systems of the argentine pampas," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(19), pages 3486-3499.
    6. Rich, Karl M. & Ross, R. Brent & Baker, A. Derek & Negassa, Asfaw, 2011. "Quantifying value chain analysis in the context of livestock systems in developing countries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 214-222, April.
    7. Jason Wood & James Nolan, 2021. "Plant location decisions in the ethanol industry: a dynamic and spatial analysis," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 58(1), pages 103-132, June.
    8. Djanibekov, Utkur & Finger, Robert, 2018. "Agricultural risks and farm land consolidation process in transition countries: The case of cotton production in Uzbekistan," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 223-235.
    9. Thomas Berger & Christian Troost & Tesfamicheal Wossen & Evgeny Latynskiy & Kindie Tesfaye & Sika Gbegbelegbe, 2017. "Can smallholder farmers adapt to climate variability, and how effective are policy interventions? Agent-based simulation results for Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 48(6), pages 693-706, November.
    10. Berger, Thomas, 2015. "Adaptation of farm-households to increasing climate variability in Ethiopia: Bioeconomic modeling of innovation diffusion and policy interventions," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 229062, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Bert, Federico E. & Rovere, Santiago L. & Macal, Charles M. & North, Michael J. & Podestá, Guillermo P., 2014. "Lessons from a comprehensive validation of an agent based-model: The experience of the Pampas Model of Argentinean agricultural systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 273(C), pages 284-298.
    12. Wossen, Tesfamicheal & Berger, Thomas & Haile, Mekbib G. & Troost, Christian, 2018. "Impacts of climate variability and food price volatility on household income and food security of farm households in East and West Africa," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 7-15.
    13. Cho, Seojin & Antle, John M., 2019. "Impact of Domestic and Trade Policies on Adoption of a Biofuel Crop in Dryland Wheat-Based Farming Systems in U.S. Pacific Northwest," 2019 Annual Meeting, July 21-23, Atlanta, Georgia 290920, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Rianne Duinen & Tatiana Filatova & Wander Jager & Anne Veen, 2016. "Going beyond perfect rationality: drought risk, economic choices and the influence of social networks," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 57(2), pages 335-369, November.
    15. Evgeny Latynskiy & Thomas Berger, 2017. "Assessing the Income Effects of Group Certification for Smallholder Coffee Farmers: Agent-based Simulation in Uganda," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 727-748, September.
    16. Dimitris Kremmydas, 2012. "Agent based modeling for agricultural policy evaluation: A review," Working Papers 2012-3, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    17. Pudmenzky, Alexander, 2006. "On the advantages of non-cooperative behavior in agent populations," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 1-8.
    18. Bovay, John & Ferrier, Peyton & Zhen, Chen, 2018. "Estimated Costs for Fruit and Vegetable Producers To Comply With the Food Safety Modernization Act’s Produce Rule," Economic Information Bulletin 276220, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    19. Valentina G. Bruno & Bahattin Büyükşahin & Michel A. Robe, 2017. "The Financialization of Food?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(1), pages 243-264.
    20. Jiangfeng She & Zhongqing Guan & Fangfang Cai & Lijie Pu & Junzhong Tan & Tao Chen, 2017. "Simulation of Land Use Changes in a Coastal Reclaimed Area with Dynamic Shorelines," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(3), pages 1-19, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Environmental Economics and Policy; Institutional and Behavioral Economics; Land Economics/Use;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea16:235850. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.