Harvest policies and nonmarket valuation in a predator — prey system

Ragozin, David L.; Brown, Gregory A.

doi:10.1016/0095-0696(85)90025-7

Cited by 127 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous work by economists incorporating predator-prey relationships have focused on optimal harvesting of either the predator, prey, or both (Hannesson 1983;Ragozin and Brown 1985;Wilen and Brown 1986). Thus, predator and prey populations are largely determined by the market value of the population(s) being harvested.…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

A dynamic bioeconomic analysis of mountain pine beetle epidemics

Sims

Aadland

Finnoff

2010

Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

A dynamic bioeconomic analysis of mountain pine beetle epidemics

Sims

Aadland

Finnoff

2010

Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Bulte and Horan (2003) adopt a similar growth equation incorporating a habitat effect for a single species model. 4 See Hannesson (1983), Ragozin and Brown (1985), and Brown et al (2005) for bioeconomic applications making this assumption. 5 It is well documented that foxes, raccoons and other small mammalian predators have higher densities in human land-use areas (Riley et al 1998), reducing bird and amphibian populations (Engeman et al 2010).…”

Section: Ecological Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The growing literature on ecosystem management focuses on population controls (harvests) to manage species interactions (Tschirhart 2009). This work has shown the need to adjust harvest levels to account for the effects of stock-dependent species interactions (Brock and Xepapadeas 2002), including predator-prey relations (Ragozin and Brown 1985;Ströbele and Wacker 1995) and species competition (Chaudhuri 1986). However, prior work does not simultaneously address the issue of habitat loss, which can also affect species interactions (Moon et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interspecies Management and Land Use Strategies to Protect Endangered Species

Melstrom

Horan

2013

Environ Resource Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We consider an ecosystem management problem where managers can use habitat creation and predator removal to conserve an endangered species. Predator removal may become particularly important in the face of habitat loss, and ecosystem management strategies that ignore the influence of habitat are likely to be inefficient. Using a bioeconomic model, we show that the marginal impact of prey habitat on predators is a key factor in determining the substitutability or complementarity of habitat and removal controls. Applying the model to the case of the endangered Atlantic-Gaspésie Woodland Caribou (rangifer tarandus caribou), we find that the first-best strategy involves extensive caribou habitat protection and a large predator cull initially, and then substituting habitat investments for predator removal as both populations begin to recover, suggesting that habitat protection and predator removal are effectively substitute controls.3

show abstract

“…There are five components of predator population dynamics. The first three components follow Ragozin and Brown [27] and Wilen and Brown [28] and model logistic growth of each species separate from the Lotka-Volterra predator-prey interaction terms. These authors neither consider spatial differentiation of the resource nor explicit environmental effects on the resource.…”

Section: Model Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuing Ecosystem Services with Fishery Rents: A Lumped-Parameter Approach to Hypoxia in the Neuse River Estuary

Crowder

2005

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Valuing ecosystem services with microeconomic underpinnings presents challenges because these services typically constitute nonmarket values and contribute to human welfare indirectly through a series of ecological pathways that are dynamic, nonlinear, and difficult to quantify and link to appropriate economic spatial and temporal scales. This paper develops and demonstrates a method to value a portion of ecosystem services when a commercial fishery is dependent on the quality of estuarine habitat. Using a lumped-parameter, dynamic open access bioeconomic model that is spatially explicit and includes predator-prey interactions, this paper quantifies part of the value of improved ecosystem function in the Neuse River Estuary when nutrient pollution is reduced. Specifically, it traces the effects of nitrogen loading on the North Carolina commercial blue crab fishery by modeling the response of primary production and the subsequent impact on hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen). Hypoxia, in turn, affects blue crabs and their preferred prey. The discounted present value fishery rent increase from a 30% reduction in nitrogen loadings in the Neuse is $2.56 million, though this welfare estimate is fairly sensitive to some parameter values. Surprisingly, this number is not sensitive to initial conditions. OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2011, 3 2230

show abstract

Harvest policies and nonmarket valuation in a predator — prey system

Cited by 127 publications

References 4 publications

A dynamic bioeconomic analysis of mountain pine beetle epidemics

A dynamic bioeconomic analysis of mountain pine beetle epidemics

Interspecies Management and Land Use Strategies to Protect Endangered Species

Valuing Ecosystem Services with Fishery Rents: A Lumped-Parameter Approach to Hypoxia in the Neuse River Estuary

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About