Economic Impact of the Potential Spread of Vampire Bats into South Texas

Rabies transmitted by the common vampire bat is a major public health concern in subtropical and tropical areas of Latin America, and there is some concern that the species will eventually spread into south Texas. The objective of this study was to estimate the total economic impact of the potential spread of vampire bats into south Texas. Data on livestock populations and values in the relevant counties was combined with expected mortality rates to calculate livestock losses. An IMPLAN model of the regional economy was then used to estimate the secondary impacts experienced by other businesses in the region. These impacts were combined with estimates of increased expenditures on post-exposure prophylaxis and animal tests to derive the total economic impact. We estimated the total economic impact would be $7 million to$9.2 million annually if vampire bats spread to south Texas

Impact of COVID-19 on the US and Texas Economy: A General Equilibrium Approach

This paper examines the impact of COVID-19 on the US and Texas economy using a computable general equilibrium model, REMI PI+. We consider three scenarios based on economic forecasts from various sources, including the University of Michigan’s RSQE (Research Seminar in Quantitative Economics), IMF, and the Wi orld Bank. We report a GDP loss of $106 million (a 6$996 billion (a 5% decline) with 11.5 million jobs lost (5.5%) in the same year. By 2026, the aggregate total GDP loss in Texas ranges from $378 to$629 million. The estimated unemployment rate in Texas in 2021 ranges from 5% to 7.7%, depending on modeling assumptions. The granularity of the CGE results allow examination of the most and least impacted industries. Health Care and Social Assistance, Construction, and Accommodation and Food Services incur the most job loss while State and Local Government and Farm will likely see an increase in jobs for 2020. These insights separate our work from most current impact studies

Potential Economic Damage from Introduction of Brown Tree Snakes, Boiga irregularis (Reptilia: Colubridae), to the Islands of Hawai‘i.

v. ill. 23 cm.QuarterlyThe Brown Tree Snake (Boiga irregularis) has caused ecological and economic damage to Guam, and the snake has the potential to colonize other islands in the Pacific Ocean. This study quantifies the potential economic damage if the snake were translocated, established in the state of Hawai‘i, and causing damage at levels similar to those on Guam. Damages modeled included costs of medical treatments due to snakebites, snake-caused power outages, and decreased tourism resulting from effects of the snake. Damage caused by presence of the Brown Tree Snake on Guam was used as a guide to estimate potential economic damage to Hawai‘i from both medical- and power outage–related damage. To predict tourism impact, a survey was administered to Hawaiian tourists that identified tourist responses to potential effects of the Brown Tree Snake. These results were then used in an input-output model to predict damage to the state economy. Summing these damages resulted in an estimated total potential annual damage to Hawai‘i of between $593 million and$2.14 billion. This economic analysis provides a range of potential damages that policy makers can use in evaluation of future prevention and control programs

Modeling Costs of Using Ovocontrol G for Managing Nuisance Canada Goose (Branta Canadensis) Populations

OvoControl G is a relatively new product that reduces the hatchability of Canada goose (Branta canadensis) eggs. However, little data is available on the cost of application. We present a model for estimating the cost of application of OvoControl G for managing nuisance Canada goose populations. We found that at low goose densities, fixed labor costs are responsible for a significant portion of the cost. As goose densities increase, these fixed costs become equivalent to, and eventually less than, the costs associated with the purchase of the product. We present several scenarios that managers may employ to further reduce the cost of application

Direct, Spillover, and Intangible Benefits of Predation Management

Predation management is a controversial and often misunderstood reality of livestock management. Few on either side of the argument would believe that some sort of management is not necessary to limit livestock losses. Opposition to the lethal removal of predators characterizes most debates. While most of the opposition reflects a moral opinion about the manner in which people relate to the natural world, opponents of lethal control often argue that control is not economically justified. Simple economic justification would require that benefits of predation management outweigh the costs. If the only goal of predation management were to be economically efficient, minimization of costs would be one of the primary objectives; however, current predation management philosophies focus on minimum disruption to natural processes. These include focusing lethal management of offending individuals and populations, and using methods (such as aerial hunting) that are expensive but highly selective and humane. Boardman et al. (1996) discuss that the objective of minimizing costs is the same as maximizing net benefits. The costs of management, while important, play a minor role in the selection of management strategies. Costs of management include direct expenditures by producers for management programs, governmental expenditures for management and compensation programs, producer and governmental costs associated with preventing predation, and societal values associated with the predators removed. Costs of predation management programs are usually easier to quantify, can have significant variance and typically are concentrated to a few individuals, while the benefits are dispersed among many. For this reason, the authors intend to focus on the benefits of predation management programs

Direct, Spillover, and Intangible Benefits of Predation Management

Predation management is a controversial and often misunderstood reality of livestock management. Few on either side of the argument would believe that some sort of management is not necessary to limit livestock losses. Opposition to the lethal removal of predators characterizes most debates. While most of the opposition reflects a moral opinion about the manner in which people relate to the natural world, opponents of lethal control often argue that control is not economically justified. Simple economic justification would require that benefits of predation management outweigh the costs. If the only goal of predation management were to be economically efficient, minimization of costs would be one of the primary objectives; however, current predation management philosophies focus on minimum disruption to natural processes. These include focusing lethal management of offending individuals and populations, and using methods (such as aerial hunting) that are expensive but highly selective and humane. Boardman et al. (1996) discuss that the objective of minimizing costs is the same as maximizing net benefits. The costs of management, while important, play a minor role in the selection of management strategies. Costs of management include direct expenditures by producers for management programs, governmental expenditures for management and compensation programs, producer and governmental costs associated with preventing predation, and societal values associated with the predators removed. Costs of predation management programs are usually easier to quantify, can have significant variance and typically are concentrated to a few individuals, while the benefits are dispersed among many. For this reason, the authors intend to focus on the benefits of predation management programs

An examination of ethical attitudes towards wild pig (Sus scrofa) toxicants in the United States

This research aims to understand ethical attitudes of the U.S. public towards the use of a toxicant to control wild pigs (Sus scrofa), a destructive invasive species whose population growth is proving difficult to control through conventional management methods. Using a nationwide self-administered survey with 2,186 completed and returned questionnaires, we found that among six different lethal control methods, toxicant usage was the only method that a majority of respondents (51%) found to be unethical, with no significant differences between rural and urban respondents or between respondents from counties with wild pigs and counties where the species is absent. The primary concerns of respondents were collateral harm to other animals (33%) and possible pain and suffering of wild pigs (13%). This research suggests that the introduction of a wild pig toxicant in the U.S. could face significant opposition, particularly if the public’s concerns highlighted in this study are not well understood and addressed in product development and outreach

Cost–benefit analysis of controlling rabies: placing economics at the heart of rabies control to focus political will

Rabies is an economically important zoonosis. This paper describes the extent of the economic impacts of the disease and some of the types of economic analyses used to understand those impacts, as well as the trade-offs between efforts to manage rabies and efforts to eliminate it. In many cases, the elimination of rabies proves more cost-effective over time than the continual administration of postexposure prophylaxis, animal testing and animal vaccination. Economic analyses are used to inform and drive policy decisions and focus political will, placing economics at the heart of rabies control

Economics of Invasive Species Damage and Damage Management

Annually, the estimated damage caused by invasive species in the United States has exceeded $100 billion, becoming one of the leading causes of environmental change and global biodiversity loss (Wilcove et al. 1998; Mack et al. 2000; Sala et al. 2000; Pimentel et al. 2005). Invasions by nonnative species highlight the undeniable link and feedback loops between ecological and economic systems (Perrings et al. 2002; Julia et al. 2007). Ecological systems determine if the conditions are suitable for invasion by nonnative species; however, economic systems help fuel the introduction of nonnative species and are themselves affected by invasive species when the ecosystem’s ability to provide services is diminished or when livestock or crops are made unmarketable (Julia et al. 2007). Invasive species have played an important role in U.S. agriculture. While some of the goods cultivated by the U.S. agricultural sector are indigenous plant and animal species, many are introduced; a minimum of 4542 species currently existing in the United States originated from outside its borders (Office of Technology Assessment 1993). Introduced species, such as corn, wheat, rice, as well as cattle, poultry, and other livestock, are all important commodities produced by the U.S. agricultural sector. Some introduced species have potential conservation values as well, providing food and shelter for native species, acting as catalysts for restoration, serving as substitutes for extinct species, and augmenting ecosystem services (Schlaepfer et al. 2011). A distinction can be drawn, then, between introduced species and invasive species. Like introduced species, invasive species are nonnative to that ecosystem; however, invasive species have the potential to cause harm, whether measured economically, environmentally, or as a human health hazard (The White House 1999)

Potential economic benefits of eliminating canine rabies

Contents 1. Introduction ...................352 2. Pathways to economic impacts .................353 3. Counting the costs of canine rabies ...........353 3.1. Direct costs ...............................353 3.2. Indirect costs ............................353 3.3. Comparing regions ...................353 4. Monetizing the impacts ..............354 5. Macroeconomic impacts ..................355 6. The value of global canine rabies elimination .........355 References ..............................35