Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T00:36:33.038Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forest Product Trade Impacts of an Invasive Species: Modeling Structure and Intervention Trade-Offs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Jeffrey P. Prestemon ,
Shushuai Zhu ,
James A. Turner ,
Joseph Buongiorno  and
Ruhong Li
Jeffrey P. Prestemon
Affiliation:
Southern Research Station of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service
Shushuai Zhu
Affiliation:
Department of Forest Ecology and Management at the University of Wisconsin, Madison
James A. Turner
Affiliation:
Scion (New Zealand Forest Research Institute, Ltd.) in Rotorua, New Zealand
Joseph Buongiorno
Affiliation:
Class of 1933 Bascom and John N. McGovern WARF Professor of Forest Economics and Management in the Department of Forest Ecology and Management at the University of Wisconsin, Madison
Ruhong Li
Affiliation:
Department of Forest Ecology and Management at the University of Wisconsin, Madison
Get access

Abstract

Asian gypsy and nun moth introductions into the United States, possibly arriving on imported Siberian coniferous logs, threaten domestic forests and product markets and could have global market consequences. We simulate, using the Global Forest Products Model (a spatial equilibrium model of the world forest sector), the consequences under current policies of a widespread, successful pest invasion, and of plausible trading partner responses to the successful invasion. We find that trade liberalization would have a negligible effect on U.S. imports of Siberian logs and, consequently, on the risk of a pest invasion. But, if it happened, possibly through trade in other commodities, a successful and widespread pest invasion would have large effects on producers and consumers over the period 2002 to 2030.

Keywords

Asian gypsy mothtradeinvasive specieswelfarespatial equilibrium model
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , April 2006 , pp. 128 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 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.)

References

Adams, D.M. and Haynes, R.W. 1980. “The 1980 Softwood Timber Assessment Market Model: Structure, Projections, and Policy Simulations.” Forest Science Monograph 22.Google Scholar
Barbier, E.B. 2001. “A Note on the Economics of Biological Invasions.” Ecological Economics 39(2): 197–202.Google Scholar
Barbier, E.B. and Shogren, J.F. 2004. “Growth with Endogenous Risk of Biological Invasion.” Economic Inquiry 42(4): 587–601.Google Scholar
Buongiorno, J. Zhu, S. Zhang, D. Turner, J.A. and Tomberlin, D. 2003. The Global Forest Products Model: Structure, Estimation and Applications. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Costello, C. and McAusland, C. 2003. “Protectionism, Trade, and Measures of Damage from Exotic Species Introductions.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(4): 964–975.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2001. “Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000: Main Report.” FAO Forestry Paper No. 140, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2005. FAO Yearbook of Forest Products, FAOSTAT statistics database. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Available at http://apps.fao.org/ (accessed May 16, 2005).Google Scholar
Han, H.-S. and Renzie, C. 2005. “Productivity and Cost of Partial Harvesting Method to Control Mountain Pine Beetle Infestations in British Columbia.” Western Journal of Applied Forestry 20(2): 128–133.Google Scholar
Hosking, G. 2005. Hosking Forestry (forest health consultants, Rotorua, New Zealand). Personal communication (May 26).Google Scholar
Howard, J.L. 2003. “U.S. Timber Production, Trade, Consumption, and Price Statistics 1965 to 2002.” Research Paper No. FPL-RP-615, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Jakus, P. and Smith, V.K. 1991. “Measuring Use and Nonuse Values for Landscape Amenities: A Contingent Behavior Analysis of Gypsy Moth Control.” Discussion Paper No. QE92-07. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. Undated. “Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Memo.” Department of Agricultural Chemistry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.Google Scholar
Keena, M.A. 2003. “Survival and Development of Lymantria monacha (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) on North American and Introduced Eurasian Tree Species.” Journal of Economic Entomology 96(1): 43–52.Google ScholarPubMed
Margolis, M. Shogren, J.F. and Fischer, C. 2005. “How Trade Politics Affect Invasive Species Control.” Ecological Economics 52(3): 305–313.Google Scholar
Mastro, V. 2005. USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Otis Pest Survey, Detection and Exclusion Laboratory, Otis ANGB, Massachusetts. Personal communication (February 14).Google Scholar
McAusland, C. and Costello, 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
Miller, J.D. and Lindsey, B.E. 1993. “Willingness to Pay for a State Gypsy Moth Control Program in New Hampshire: A Contingent Valuation Case Study.” Forest Entomology 86(3): 828–837.Google Scholar
Murray, B.C. and Wear, D.N. 1998. “Federal Timber Restrictions and Interregional Arbitrage in U.S. Lumber.” Land Economics 74(2): 76–91.Google Scholar
New Zealand Forest Research Institute. 1999. “Study of Non-Tariff Measures in the Forest Products Sector.” Report prepared for the APEC Secretariat by the New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd., Rotorua.Google Scholar
Payne, B.R. and Strom, S. 1975. “The Contribution of Trees to the Appraised Value of Unimproved Residential Land.” Valuation 22(2): 36–45.Google Scholar
Powell, M. 1997. “Science in Sanitary and Phytosanitary Dispute Resolution.” Discussion Paper No. 97-50, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Roberts, D. 1999. “Analyzing Technical Trade Barriers in Agricultural Markets: Challenges and Priorities.” Agribusiness 15(3): 335–354.Google Scholar
Roberts, D. Josling, T.E. and Orden, D. 1999. “A Framework for Analyzing Technical Trade Barriers in Agricultural Markets.” USDA Technical Bulletin No. 1876, Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Roughgarden, J. 1986. “Predicting Invasions and Rates of Spread.” In Mooney, H.A. and Drake, J.A. eds., Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P.A. 1952. “Spatial Price Equilibrium and Linear Programming.” American Economic Review 42(3): 283–303.Google Scholar
Sharov, A.A. and Liebhold, A.M. 1998. “Bioeconomics of Managing the Spread of Exotic Pest Species with Barrier Zones.” Ecological Applications 8(3): 833–845.Google Scholar
Sharov, A.A. Liebhold, A.M. and Roberts, E.A. 1998. “Optimizing the Use of Barrier Zones to Slow the Spread of Gypsy Moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) in North America.” Journal of Economic Entomology 91(1): 165–174.Google Scholar
Tkacz, B. et al. 1991. “Pest Risk Assessment of the Importation of Larch from Siberia and the Soviet Far East.” Miscellaneous Publication No. 1495, USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Turner, J.A. Buongiorno, J. and Zhu, S. 2006. “An Economic Model of International Wood Supply, Forest Stock, and Forest Area Change.” Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 21(1): 73–86.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Labor. 2006. “Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics Survey (National).” U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Available at http://www.bls.gov/data/ (accessed February 10, 2006).Google Scholar