[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/aareaj/333789.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Budgeting and portfolio allocation for biosecurity measures

Author

Listed:
  • Kompas, Tom
  • Chu, Long
  • Ha, Pham Van
  • Spring, Daniel
Abstract
This paper presents a practical model for optimally allocating a budget across different biosecurity threats and measures (e.g. prevention or border quarantine, active surveillance for early detection, and containment and eradication measures) to ensure the highest rate of return. Our portfolio model differs from the common principle, which ranks alternative projects by their benefit cost ratios and picks the one that generates the highest average benefit cost ratio. The model we propose, instead, aims to allocate shares of the budget to the species where it is most cost-effective, and consequently determine the optimal scale of the control program for each threat under varying budget constraints. The cost-effectiveness of each block of budget spent on a threat is determined by minimising its expected total cost, including the damages it inflicts, and the control expenditures incurred in preventing or mitigating damages. As an illustration, the model is applied to the optimal allocation of a budget across four of Australia’s most dangerous pests and diseases: red imported fire ants; foot-andmouth disease; papaya fruit fly; and orange hawkweed. The model can readily be extended to consider more species and activities, and more complex settings including cases where detailed spatial and temporal information needs to be considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Kompas, Tom & Chu, Long & Ha, Pham Van & Spring, Daniel, 2019. "Budgeting and portfolio allocation for biosecurity measures," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(3), July.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aareaj:333789
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.333789
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/333789/files/ajar12305.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.333789?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yemshanov, Denys & Koch, Frank H. & Lu, Bo & Lyons, D. Barry & Prestemon, Jeffrey P. & Scarr, Taylor & Koehler, Klaus, 2014. "There is no silver bullet: The value of diversification in planning invasive species surveillance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 61-72.
    2. Tom Kompas & Pham Van Ha & Hoa Thi Minh Nguyen & Iain East & Sharon Roche & Graeme Garner, 2017. "Optimal surveillance against foot-and-mouth disease: the case of bulk milk testing in Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 61(4), pages 515-538, October.
    3. Mark C. Andersen & Heather Adams & Bruce Hope & Mark Powell, 2004. "Risk Analysis for Invasive Species: General Framework and Research Needs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 893-900, August.
    4. Daniel Spring & Tom Kompas, 2015. "Managing Risk and Increasing the Robustness of Invasive Species Eradication Programs," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 2(3), pages 485-493, September.
    5. Akter, Sonia & Kompas, Tom & Ward, Michael B., 2015. "Application of portfolio theory to asset-based biosecurity decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 73-85.
    6. Pannell, David J., 2013. "Ranking Environmental Projects," Working Papers 156482, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    7. Kompas, Tom & Chu, Long & Nguyen, Hoa Thi Minh, 2016. "A practical optimal surveillance policy for invasive weeds: An application to Hawkweed in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 156-165.
    8. Pimentel, David & Zuniga, Rodolfo & Morrison, Doug, 2005. "Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 273-288, February.
    9. Adams, Damian C. & Bwenge, Anafrida N. & Lee, Donna J. & Larkin, Sherry L. & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R., 2011. "Public preferences for controlling upland invasive plants in state parks: Application of a choice model," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 465-472, July.
    10. Wilson, Matthew A. & Hoehn, John P., 2006. "Valuing environmental goods and services using benefit transfer: The state-of-the art and science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 335-342, December.
    11. Schwab, Bernhard & Lusztig, Peter, 1969. "A Comparative Analysis of the Net Present Value and the Benefit-Cost Ratio as Measures of the Economic Desirability of Investment," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 24(3), pages 507-516, June.
    12. Rossi, Frederick J. & Adams, Damian C. & Lee, Donna J., 2004. "The Use Of Cost-Transfer Analysis To Estimate The Economic Impacts Of A Potential Zebra Mussel Infestation In Florida," 2004 Annual Meeting, February 14-18, 2004, Tulsa, Oklahoma 34774, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    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. Stoeckl, Natalie & Dodd, Aaron & Kompas, Tom, 2023. "The monetary value of 16 services protected by the Australian National Biosecurity System: Spatially explicit estimates and vulnerability to incursions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    2. Yao, Richard T. & Wallace, Lisa, 2024. "A systematic review of non-market ecosystem service values for biosecurity protection," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    3. Kompas, Tom & Chu, Long & McKirdy, Simon & Thomas, Melissa & Van Der Merwe, Johann, 2023. "Optimal post-border surveillance against invasive pests to protect a valuable nature reserve and island asset," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    4. Paulino Martinez-Fernandez & Fernando deLlano-Paz & Anxo Calvo-Silvosa & Isabel Soares, 2019. "Assessing Renewable Energy Sources for Electricity (RES-E) Potential Using a CAPM-Analogous Multi-Stage Model," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-20, September.
    5. Kompas, Tom & Chu, Long & Nguyen, Hoa Thi Minh, 2016. "A practical optimal surveillance policy for invasive weeds: An application to Hawkweed in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 156-165.
    6. Tom Kompas & Pham Van Ha & Hoa-Thi-Minh Nguyen & Graeme Garner & Sharon Roche & Iain East, 2020. "Optimal surveillance against foot-and-mouth disease: A sample average approximation approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-21, July.
    7. Andrew M. Deines & Valerie C. Chen & Wayne G. Landis, 2005. "Modeling the Risks of Nonindigenous Species Introductions Using a Patch‐Dynamics Approach Incorporating Contaminant Effects as a Disturbance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1637-1651, December.
    8. Haden Chomphosy, William & Manning, Dale T. & Shwiff, Stephanie & Weiler, Stephan, 2023. "Optimal R&D investment in the management of invasive species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    9. Denys Yemshanov & Frank H. Koch & Daniel W. McKenney & Marla C. Downing & Frank Sapio, 2009. "Mapping Invasive Species Risks with Stochastic Models: A Cross‐Border United States‐Canada Application for Sirex noctilio Fabricius," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(6), pages 868-884, June.
    10. Mostafa Esmaeili Shayan & Gholamhassan Najafi & Barat Ghobadian & Shiva Gorjian & Mohamed Mazlan & Mehdi Samami & Alireza Shabanzadeh, 2022. "Flexible Photovoltaic System on Non-Conventional Surfaces: A Techno-Economic Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-14, March.
    11. Meixler, Marcia S., 2017. "Assessment of Hurricane Sandy damage and resulting loss in ecosystem services in a coastal-urban setting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 28-46.
    12. Frank H. Koch & Denys Yemshanov & Daniel W. McKenney & William D. Smith, 2009. "Evaluating Critical Uncertainty Thresholds in a Spatial Model of Forest Pest Invasion Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9), pages 1227-1241, September.
    13. Ceddia, M.G. & Bardsley, N.O. & Goodwin, R. & Holloway, G.J. & Nocella, G. & Stasi, A., 2013. "A complex system perspective on the emergence and spread of infectious diseases: Integrating economic and ecological aspects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 124-131.
    14. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2008. "Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 1-20.
    15. Qenani-Petrela, Eivis & Noel, Jay E. & Mastin, Thomas, 2007. "A Benefit Transfer Approach to the Estimation of Agro-Ecosystems Services Benefits: A Case Study of Kern County, California," Research Project Reports 121605, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.
    16. Barnes, Belinda & Arthur, Anthony D. & Bloomfield, Nathaniel J., 2020. "A Stochastic Economic Framework for Partitioning Biosecurity Surveillance Resources," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    17. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    18. Travis Warziniack & David Finnoff & Jonathan Bossenbroek & Jason Shogren & David Lodge, 2011. "Stepping Stones for Biological Invasion: A Bioeconomic Model of Transferable Risk," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(4), pages 605-627, December.
    19. Xiaonan Wang & Licheng Wang & Jianping Chen & Shouting Zhang & Paolo Tarolli, 2020. "Assessment of the External Costs of Life Cycle of Coal: The Case Study of Southwestern China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-26, August.
    20. Paul Hudson & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Jennifer Poussin & Jeroen C. J. H. Aerts, 2019. "Impacts of Flooding and Flood Preparedness on Subjective Well-Being: A Monetisation of the Tangible and Intangible Impacts," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 665-682, February.

    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:aareaj:333789. 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.