Author
Listed:
- BOLZONI, LUCA
- DE LEO, GIULIO A.
Abstract
In the epidemiological literature, the eradication of a wildlife disease through culling is usually described in terms of a constant hunting rate to simulate the selective removal of animals from the population. By using simple SI (susceptible–infected) models, it is easy to prove that, if the hunting rate is high enough, the population eventually drops below a critical threshold level under which the pathogen is deemed to be extinct. However, hunting costs as well as the monetary benefits of disease control are almost systematically neglected. Moreover, the hunting rate is usually assumed to be constant over time, while in reality health authorities can implement more flexible culling policies. In this work we examine a class of more realistic time-variant culling strategies in a cost–benefit framework. Culling strategies differ in the way decisions are made about when and how much to cull; that is, whether hunting occurs when disease prevalence, host population density, or the number of carcasses exceeds (or is below) a given threshold. For each culling strategy, the optimal value of the control parameters and the hunting rate are those that minimize the sum of the culling costs and the sanitary costs associated with infection over a specific period of time. Classical swine fever (CSF) in wild boar populations has been taken as a reference example because of its potential economic impact on industrialized and developing countries.We show that the optimal time-flexible culling strategy is invariably more efficient than the best traditional strategy in which the hunting rate is held constant through time. We also show that the type of hunting strategy that is selected as optimal depends on the shape of the cost functions.
Suggested Citation
Bolzoni, Luca & De Leo, Giulio A., 2007.
"A cost analysis of alternative culling strategies for the eradication of classical swine fever in wildlife,"
Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(5), pages 653-671, October.
Handle:
RePEc:cup:endeec:v:12:y:2007:i:05:p:653-671_00
Download full text from publisher
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:cup:endeec:v:12:y:2007:i:05:p:653-671_00. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ede .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.