Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T11:54:28.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Input–output modeling, outdoor recreation, and the economic impacts of weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Mark E. Eiswerth ,
Tim D. Darden ,
Wayne S. Johnson ,
Jeanmarie Agapoff  and
Thomas R. Harris
Tim D. Darden
Affiliation:
New Mexico Department of Agriculture, MSC 3189, Box 30005, Las Cruces, NM 88003
Wayne S. Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Resource Economics, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557
Jeanmarie Agapoff
Affiliation:
Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250
Thomas R. Harris
Affiliation:
Department of Resource Economics, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nonindigenous invasive weed species can have substantial negative impacts on the quantity and quality of outdoor recreational activities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, wildlife viewing, and water-based recreation. Despite the significance of impacts on recreation, very little research has been performed to estimate the corresponding economic losses at spatial scales such as regions, states, and watersheds. This is true primarily because in most jurisdictions the data necessary to estimate recreational impacts are scarce and incomplete. Because of the challenges involved in measuring recreational losses precisely, we illustrate a method that can provide indications of the ranges in which the true economic losses likely lie. To reflect underlying uncertainty in parameters such as the number of acres infested in a jurisdiction and the rate at which wildlife-related recreation decreases as a function of increasing weed infestation, we developed a range of estimates using lower, medium, and higher scenario combinations of parameter and variable values. Our case study jurisdiction is a western state (Nevada) in which nonindigenous weed infestations on public lands have expanded rapidly in recent years. Under conservative assumptions, the negative economic impacts stemming from the adverse influence of nonindigenous weeds on wildlife-related recreation in Nevada likely range from $6 million to $12 million per year. Using the most conservative findings for annual recreation losses, the predicted discounted stream of negative economic impacts over a future time horizon of 5 yr ranges from about $30 million to $40 million in Nevada, depending on actual future expansion rates of weeds.

Keywords

Economic impactsinput–output analysisinvasive weedsnonindigenous speciesrecreation
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , February 2005 , pp. 130 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

Bangsund, D. A., Leistritz, F. L., and Leitch, J. A. 1999. Assessing economic impacts of biological control of weeds: the case of leafy spurge in the northern Great Plains of the United States. J. Environ. Manag 56:35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, C. E. 1996. Saltcedar: A Non-native Invasive Plant in the Western U.S. Berkeley, California: University of California Cooperative Extension Service. Pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
Callihan, R. and Evans, J. 1991. Weed dynamics on rangeland. Pages 55–61 in James, L. F., Evans, J. O., Ralphs, M. E., and Childs, R. D. eds. Noxious Range Weeds. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
D'Antonio, C. M. and Vitousek, P. M. 1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 3:63–87.Google Scholar
Eiswerth, M. E., Donaldson, S., and Johnson, W. S. 2000. Potential environmental impacts and economic damages of Eurasian watermilfoil in western Nevada and northeastern California. Weed Technol 14:511–518.Google Scholar
Eiswerth, M. E. and Johnson, W. S. 2002. Managing nonindigenous invasive species: insights from dynamic analysis. Environ. Resour. Econ 23:319–342.Google Scholar
Eiswerth, M. E. and van Kooten, G. C. 2002. Uncertainty, economics, and the spread of an invasive plant species. Am. J. Agric. Econ 84:1317–1322.Google Scholar
Jones, R. E. and Medd, R. W. 2000. Economic thresholds and the case for longer term approaches to population management of weeds. Weed Technol 14:337–350.Google Scholar
Larson, L. L. and Sheley, R. L. 1994. Ecological relationships between yellow starthistle and cheatgrass. Pages 92–94 in Monsen, S. B. and Kitchen, S. G. eds. Proceedings of Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. INT-GTR-313.Google Scholar
Leistritz, F. L., Thompson, F., and Leitch, J. A. 1992. Economic impact of leafy spurge in North Dakota. Weed Sci 40:275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitch, J. A., Leistritz, F. L., and Bangsund, D. A. 1996. Economic effect of leafy spurge in the upper Great Plains: methods, models, and results. Impact Assessment 14:419–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, R. N. 1981. Invasion of Bromus tectorum L. into Western North America: an ecological chronicle. Agro-Ecosystems 7:145–165.Google Scholar
Madsen, J. D. 1997. Methods for management of nonindigenous aquatic plants. Pages 145–171 in Luken, J. O. and Thieret, J. W. eds. Assessment and Management of Plant Invasions. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Madsen, J. D., Sutherland, J. W., Bloomfield, J. A., Eichler, L. W., and Boylen, C. W. 1991. The decline of native vegetation under dense Eurasian watermilfoil canopies. J. Aquat. Plant Manag 29:94–99.Google Scholar
McKell, C. M., Robison, J. P., and Major, J. 1962. Ecotypic variation in medusahead, an introduced annual grass. Ecology 43:686–698.Google Scholar
Miller, R. and Blair, P. 1985. Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pp. 6–39.Google Scholar
Minnesota IMPLAN Group Inc. 2000. IMPLAN Professional™, Version 2.0, Social Accounting & Impact Analysis Software. Stillwater, MN: Minnesota IMPLAN Group. Pp. 1–418.Google Scholar
Newroth, P. R. 1985. A review of Eurasian water milfoil impacts and management in British Columbia. Pages 139–153 in Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and Related Haloragaceae Species, July 23–24, 1985, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Vicksburg, MS: Aquatic Plant Management Society.Google Scholar
Olson, B. E. 1999. Impacts of noxious weeds on ecologic and economic systems. Pages 4–18 in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Roche, B. F. Jr. and Roche, C. T. 1991. Identification, introduction, distribution, ecology, and economics of Centaurea species. Pages 274–291 in James, L. F., Evans, J. O., Ralphs, M. E., and Childs, R. D. eds. Noxious Range Weeds. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Roche, B. F. Jr. and Roche, C. T. 1999. Diffuse knapweed. Pages 217–230 in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Roche, C. T. and Thill, D. C. 2001. Biology of common crupina and yellow starthistle, two Mediterranean winter annual invaders in western North America. Weed Sci 49:439–447.Google Scholar
Rosentrater, R. 1994. Displacement of rare plants by exotic grasses. Pages 170–175 in Monsen, S. B. and Kitchen, S. G. eds. Proceedings of Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. INT-GTR-313.Google Scholar
Sala, A., Smith, S. D., and Devitt, D. A. 1996. Water use by Tamarix ramosissima and associated phreatophtyes in a Mojave Desert floodplain. Ecol. Appl 6:888–898.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Hudak, J. M., and Grubb, R. T. 1999a. Rush skeletonweed. Pages 308–314 in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Jacobs, J. S., and Carpinelli, M. L. 1999b. Spotted knapweed. Pages 350–361 in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Manoukian, M. E., and Marks, G. 1996. Preventing noxious weed invasion. Rangelands 18:100–101.Google Scholar
Smith, H. A., Johnson, W. S., Shonkwiler, J. S., and Swanson, S. R. 1999. The implications of variable or constant expansion rates in invasive weed infestations. Weed Sci 47:62–66.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2000. Annual Benchmark Report for Retail Trade, January 1990 to December 1999, Current Business Reports Series, BR/99-A. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 34 p.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. 2001. 2000 Personal Income, Industry Earnings, and Industry Employment for Nevada Counties. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System. Table SA25.Google Scholar
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Pp. 105–115.Google Scholar
Whitson, T. D. 1999. Russian knapweed. Pages 315–322 in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Young, J. A. and Longland, W. S. 1996. Impact of alien plants on Great Basin rangelands. Weed Technol 10:384–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. A., Martens, E., and West, N. E. 1992. Germination of bur buttercup seeds. J. Range Manag 45:358–362.Google Scholar