Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-r5d9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-31T08:17:22.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Valuing the Prevention of an Infestation: The Threat of the New Zealand Mud Snail in Northern Nevada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Alison Davis  and
Klaus Moeltner
Alison Davis
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, Kentucky
Klaus Moeltner
Affiliation:
Department of Resource Economics at the University of Nevada, Reno, in Reno, Nevada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Truckee/Carson/Walker River watershed in northern Nevada is under an imminent threat of infestation by the New Zealand mud snail, an aquatic nuisance species with the potential to harm recreational fisheries. We combine a utility-theoretic system-demand model of recreational angling with a Bayesian econometric framework to provide estimates of trip and welfare losses under different types of regulatory control policies. We find that such losses can be substantial, warranting immediate investments in preemptive strategies via public outreach and awareness campaigns.

Keywords

Bayesian simulationhierarchical modelingincomplete demand systemNew Zealand mud snail

Information

Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , February 2010 , pp. 56 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Cada, C.A. 2004. “Interactions between the Invasive New Zealand Mud Snail, potamopyrgus antipodarum, Baetid Mayflies, and Fish Predators.” Working paper. Department of Ecology, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. A copy of this paper is on file with the authors.Google Scholar
California Department of Fish and Game. 2004. “Putah Creek to Re-open to Fishing April 24.” Department of Fish and Game News Archive, April 16, 2004. Available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/news04/r2_04003.html (accessed May 2009).Google Scholar
Chib, S., Greenberg, E. and Winkelmann, R. 1998. “Posterior Simulation and Bayes Factors in Panel Count Data Models.” Journal of Econometrics 86(1): 33–54.Google Scholar
Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2005. “Aquatic Hitchhikers.” Available at http://wildlife.state.co.us/aquatic/nuisances/hitchhikers/NewZealandMudsnail.asp (accessed May 2009).Google Scholar
Costello, C. and McAusland, C. 2004. “Avoiding Invasives: Trade Related Policies for Controlling Unintentional Exotic Species Introductions.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 48(2): 954–977.Google Scholar
Costello, C., Springborn, M., Solow, A. and McAusland, C. 2007. “Unintended Biological Invasions: Does Risk Vary by Trading Partner?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 54(3): 262–276.Google Scholar
Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys—the Tailored Design Method (2nd Edition). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Department of Ecology, Montana State University. 2005. “New Zealand Mudsnails in the Western USA.” Available at http://www.esg.montana.edu/aim/mollusca/nzms/ (accessed May 2009).Google Scholar
Egan, K. and Herriges, J. 2006. “Multivariate Count Data Regression Models with Individual Panel Data from an On-site Sample.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 52(2): 567–581.Google Scholar
Englin, J., Boxall, P., and Watson, D. 1998. “Modeling Recreation Demand in a Poisson System of Equations: An Analysis of the Impact of International Exchange Rates.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(2): 255–263.Google Scholar
Finoff, D., Shogren, J.F., Leung, B., and Lodge, D. 2006. “Take a Risk: Preferring Prevention over Control of Biological Invaders.” Ecological Economics 62(2): 216–222.Google Scholar
Geweke, J. 1992. “Evaluating the Accuracy of Sampling-based Approaches to the Calculation of Posterior Moments.” In Bernardo, J.M., Berger, J.O., Dawid, A.P. and Smith, A.F.M., eds., Bayesian Statistics 4. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hagerty, D.K., and Moeltner, K. 2005. “Specification of Driving Costs in Models of Recreation Demand.” Land Economics 81(1): 127–143.Google Scholar
Hanemann, M., and Morey, E. 1992. “Separability, Partial Demand Systems, and Consumer's Surplus Measures.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22(3): 241–258.Google Scholar
Herriges, J.A., Phaneuf, D.J., and Tobias, J.L. 2008. “Estimating Demand Systems when Outcomes are Correlated Counts.” Journal of Econometrics 147(2): 282–289.Google Scholar
Jochmann, M. and Léon-González., R. 2004. “Estimating the Demand for Health Care with Panel Data: A Semiparametric Bayesian Approach.” Health Economics 13(10): 1003–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, B., Lodge, D.M., Finoff, D., Shogren, J.F., Lewis, M.A., and Lamberty, G. 2002. “An Ounce of Prevention or a Pound of Cure: Bioeconomic Risk Analysis of Invasive Species.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 269(1508): 2407–2413.Google Scholar
Lowell, S.J., Stone, S.F., and Fernandez, L. 2006. “The Economic Impacts of Aquatic invasive Species: A Review of the Literature.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 35(1): 195–208.Google Scholar
Lupi, F., Hoehn, J., and Christie, G. 2003. “Using an Economic Model of Recreational Fishing to Evaluate the Benefits of Sea Lamprey Control on the St. Mary's River.” Journal of Great Lakes Resources 29(1): 742–754.Google Scholar
Margolis, M., Shogren, J.F. and Fischer, C. 2005. “How Trade Politics Affect Invasive Species Control.” Ecological Economics 52(3): 305–313.Google Scholar
Moeltner, K. 2003. “Addressing Aggregation Bias in Zonal Recreation Models.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45(1): 128–144.Google Scholar
Moeltner, K. 2006. “Anglers’ Fishing Choices on the Truckee, Carson, and Walker Rivers and the Threat of the New Zealand Mud Snail.” Report prepared for the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, June 27, 2006. A copy of this report is on file with the authors.Google Scholar
Moeltner, K., Boyle, K.J., and Paterson, W. 2007. “Meta-analysis and Benefit-transfer for Resource Valuation: Addressing Classical Challenges with Bayesian Modeling.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 53(2): 250–269.Google Scholar
Moeltner, K., and Shonkwiler, J.S. 2005. “Correcting for On-site Sampling in Random Utility Models.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(2): 327–339.Google Scholar
Moeltner, K., and Shonkwiler, J.S. (Forthcoming). “Intercept and Recall: Examining Avidity Carryover in On-site Collected Trip Reports.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment.Google Scholar
Moeltner, K., and Woodward, R. 2009. “Meta-functional Benefit Transfer for Wetland Valuation: Making the Most of Small Samples.” Environmental and Resource Economics 42(1): 89–109.Google Scholar
Moore, R., Macpherson, A., and Provencher, B. 2006. “A Dynamic Principal-agent Model of Human-mediated Aquatic Species Invasions.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 35(1): 144–154.Google Scholar
National Park Service. 2003. “New Zealand Mud Snail, Baseline Distribution and Monitoring Study.” Yellowstone National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Available at http://www.nps.gov/yell/planvisit/todo/fishing/mudsnail.htm (accessed May 2009).Google Scholar
Nunes, P.A.L.D., and Bergh, J.C.J.M.v.d. 2004. “Can People Value Protection Against Invasive Marine Species? Evidence from a Joint TC-CV Survey in the Netherlands.” Environmental and Resource Economics 18(4): 517–532.Google Scholar
Olson, L.J., and Roy, S. 2003. “On Prevention and Control of an Uncertain Biological Invasion.” Review of Agricultural Economics 27(3): 491–497.Google Scholar
Proctor, T., Kerans, B., Clancey, P., Ryce, E., Dybdahl, M., Gustafson, D., Hall, R., Pickett, F., Richards, D., Draheim, R., Chapman, J., Wiltshire, R.H., Becker, D., Anderson, M., Pitman, B., Lassuy, D., Heimowitz, P., Dwyer, P., and Levri, E. 2007. “National Management and Control Plan for the New Zealand Mudsnail.” Report prepared by the New Zealand Mudsnail Management and Control Plan Working Group for the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, May 2007. A copy of this report is on file with the authors.Google Scholar
Richards, D.C. 2002. “The New Zealand Mud Snail Invades the Western United States.” Aquatic Nuisance Species Digest 4(4): 42–44.Google Scholar
Shonkwiler, J.S. 1999. “Recreation Demand Systems for Multiple Site Count Data Travel Cost Models.” In Herriges, J.A. and Kling, C.L., eds., Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice. Cheltenham, U.K., and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Shonkwiler, J.S., and Englin, J. 2005. “Welfare Losses due to Livestock Grazing on Public Lands: A Count Data System-wide Treatment.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(2): 302–313.Google Scholar
Timar, L., and Phaneuf, D. 2008. “Modeling the Human-induced Spread of an Aquatic Invasive: The Case of the Zebra Mussel.” Working paper, North Carolina State University. A copy of this paper is on file with the authors.Google Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. State & County QuickFacts: Nevada. Available at http://quickfacts.Census.Gov/qfd/states/32000.html (accessed May 2009).Google Scholar
Von Haefen, R.H. 2002. “A Complete Characterization of the Linear, Log-linear, and Semi-log Incomplete Demand System Models.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 27(2): 281–319.Google Scholar
Von Haefen, R.H. 2007. “Empirical Strategies for Incorporating Weak Complementarity into Consumer Demand Models.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 54(1): 15–31.Google Scholar