IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare00/123712.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic Issues Relating To Weed Management In Natural Ecosystems: The Case Of Scotch Broom On Barrington Tops, Nsw

Author

Listed:
  • Odom, Doreen I.S.
  • Griffith, Garry R.
  • Sinden, Jack A.

Abstract

The area of the imported weed Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius) is steadily expanding and eliminating natural ecosystems and their habitats of rare and endangered species in Barrington Tops National Park. A research project, funded by the CRC for Weeds Management Systems, has commenced to provide economic information to assist the management of this problem. To provide a focus for the project, the economic issues surrounding the broom problem are explored in this paper. The general economic characteristics of weeds in natural ecosystems are discussed first, and include externalities and public goods. The economic issues in weed management are addressed next, and include the problems of government management, choice of control measure, and sources of funding. In the case of broom on Barrington Tops, specific economic issues include the allocation of funds to protect rare and endangered species, and difficulties of guaranteed continuous funding. Other issues include; common boundaries and interactions with private landholders and with State Forests, the spread of broom through recreation activities, severe topography and landscape which restricts the range of possible control measures, the persistence of seed banks, and growth habits of broom that limit growth of natural species. The major questions to be resolved appear to include the specification of the utility functions of decision makers; the allocation of funds between containment of broom, preservation of biodiversity, and management of new forest areas; the estimation of a damage function (to show how the spread of broom and loss of habitats is affected by management and biophysical factors); and the choice of economically-efficient versus technically-effective methods of control.

Suggested Citation

  • Odom, Doreen I.S. & Griffith, Garry R. & Sinden, Jack A., 2000. "Economic Issues Relating To Weed Management In Natural Ecosystems: The Case Of Scotch Broom On Barrington Tops, Nsw," 2000 Conference (44th), January 23-25, 2000, Sydney, Australia 123712, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare00:123712
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.123712
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/123712/files/Odom.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.123712?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. Charles W. Abdalla, 1994. "Groundwater Values from Avoidance Cost Studies: Implications for Policy and Future Research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(5), pages 1062-1067.
    2. Miller, Jon R., 1978. "A simple economic model of endangered species preservation in the United States," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 292-300, September.
    3. Sohngen, Brent & Mendelsohn, Robert, 1998. "Valuing the Impact of Large-Scale Ecological Change in a Market: The Effect of Climate Change on U.S. Timber," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 686-710, September.
    4. Auld, Bruce A. & Tisdell, Clem A., 1987. "Economic thresholds and response to uncertainty in weed control," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 219-227.
    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. Ben Abdallah, Skander & Lasserre, Pierre, 2016. "Asset retirement with infinitely repeated alternative replacements: Harvest age and species choice in forestry," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 144-164.
    2. Jones, Randall E. & Cacho, Oscar J., 2000. "A Dynamic Optimisation Model of Weed Control," 2000 Conference (44th), January 23-25, 2000, Sydney, Australia 123685, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Sohngen, Brent & Mendelsohn, Robert & Sedjo, Roger A., 2001. "A Global Model Of Climate Change Impacts On Timber Markets," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-18, December.
    4. William D. Nordhaus & Robert Mendelsohn, 1999. "The Impact of Global Warming on Agriculture: A Ricardian Analysis: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1046-1048, September.
    5. Jean-Daniel Rinaudo & Stéphanie Aulong, 2014. "Defining Groundwater Remediation Objectives with Cost-benefit Analysis: Does It Work?," Post-Print hal-00934930, HAL.
    6. David J. Pannell, 1991. "Pests and pesticides, risk and risk aversion," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 5(4), pages 361-383, August.
    7. Dug Man Lee & Kenneth S. Lyon, 2004. "A Dynamic Analysis of the Global Timber Market under Global Warming: An Integrated Modeling Approach," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 70(3), pages 467-489, January.
    8. John C. Whitehead & Thomas J. Hoban & George Van Houtven, 1999. "Averting Behavior and Drinking Water Quality," Working Papers 9905, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    9. Mathieu, Valentin & Roda, Jean-Marc, 2023. "A meta-analysis on wood trade flow modeling concepts," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    10. Tenwalde, Tracy & Jones, Eugene & Hitzhusen, Frederick J., 2005. "An Economic Analysis of Consumer Expenditures for Safe Drinking Water: Addressing Nitrogen Risk with an Averting Cost Approach," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19431, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Sinden, John Alfred & Griffith, Garry, 2007. "Combining economic and ecological arguments to value the environmental gains from control of 35 weeds in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 396-408, March.
    12. D. J. Pannell, 1990. "Responses To Risk In Weed Control Decisions Under Expected Profit Maximisation," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 391-401, September.
    13. Sohngen, Brent & Tian, Xiaohui, 2016. "Global climate change impacts on forests and markets," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 18-26.
    14. Feng, Shuaizhang & Han, Yujie & Qiu, Huanguang, 2021. "Does crop insurance reduce pesticide usage? Evidence from China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    15. Popular Gentle & Rik Thwaites & Digby Race & Kim Alexander & Tek Maraseni, 2018. "Household and community responses to impacts of climate change in the rural hills of Nepal," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 267-282, March.
    16. Pablo C. Benítez & Timo Kuosmanen & Roland Olschewski & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2006. "Conservation Payments under Risk: A Stochastic Dominance Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(1), pages 1-15.
    17. Archer, David Walter, 1995. "Self-insurance and self-protection in weed control: implications for nonpoint source pollution," ISU General Staff Papers 1995010108000012033, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    18. Thilo W. Glebe, 2007. "The Environmental Impact of European Farming: How Legitimate Are Agri-Environmental Payments?," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 87-102.
    19. Hérivaux, Cécile & Grémont, Marine, 2019. "Valuing a diversity of ecosystem services: The way forward to protect strategic groundwater resources for the future?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 184-193.
    20. N. Traoré & N. Amara & R. Landry, 1999. "Households’ Response to Groundwater Quality Degradation Results from a Household Survey in Quebec," Post-Print hal-01200915, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crop Production/Industries;

    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:aare00:123712. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.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.