Urabana, sick. – Many American forests are privately owned, especially in the eastern and north central part of the country. This makes the control of aggressive plants and insects challenging because efforts should be coordinated in landlords. A New study From University of Illinois Urabana-Shampain This suggests that how to control the difference in ownership motivation affects the desire to control, and how economic encouragement can be applied most efficiently.
“Some are the owners of the land for entertaining purposes, some near them because they want to produce wood, and some are a combination of both. If a landlord controls the aggressive species, but their neighbor is not for any reason, it can be problematic because the bioinavation will spread on space and time, ”the study author said. Shaadi AtalahIn Associate Professor Department of Agriculture and Consumer EconomicsPart of Agriculture, Consumer and Environmental Sciences College In Illinois.
Currently, the Protection Cost-Share programs reimburse forest landlords for up to 75% of the cost of controlling aggressive species. However, it is not necessarily the most efficient use of money, Athala said.
“When you are encouraging someone to do something, you would like to know that they were not going to do it without encouragement, or you have ruined your money. Does it understand who qualifies the effects for these payments that optimize the effect? ,
Athala employs the sports theory to find out these questions, using the example of bright deer in the American eastern white pine forests. Glossy Bakthorn is a rapidly growing shrub that is foreign and aggressive in North America. It can create a dense, consistent layer in the understanding of the forest, affecting the growth of young cedar trees and affect the housing of wildlife.
One in previous studyAthala surveyed the forest landlords of the main and the New Hampshire family, to understand how their desire to control the shiny deer was inspired by the effects of the bush to see wood, trail entertainment and wildlife. For the current study, he developed a theoretical modeling framework, which was estimated how each type of landlord would work and how their neighbors responded, gave various situations in a period of time.
“The model focuses on two cases: an entertainer who likes to increase and enjoy the land, but does not like that the aggressive bush will block their path and interfere with wildlife. Other wood manufacturers will intervene. Are those who get small amounts of wood if the aggressive bush prevents white pine from growing to maturity, ”they explained.
Athala also considered connectivity between the forests and how the bioinavation spreads to the surrounding areas.
“Some invasive species are mostly short distance spread, such as squirrels or other small mammals, while other species are spread through long distance spread, such as birds and waterparts, and the spread may be either sharp or slower Is. Another factor is that bioinavation appears first and whether it makes sense to prioritize control over the initial point, ”he said.
They found that in most of the scenarios, the entertainer would not control the aggressive shrub without cost-share payment, while wood owners would prefer to control regardless of subsidy.
“Control in case of rapid long distance spread only becomes so expensive that no one can do it without support. It is corresponding to what we are currently doing; Everyone is eligible for this. However, in all other cases in all other cases, long-range spreads, and slow or rapid short-disstage spread-it makes sense only to pay the entertainers, which acts as sources of bioinavation when avoiding control We do. ,
Athala said that it could not look appropriate; However, wooden landlords will still benefit, even though only the recreationals are subsidized, as the spread lies first and largely.
“We find that when you have cleaned neighboring flora, the cost of control for wooden producers decreases. Instead of partially reimbursement of both types of landlords, money can be used to cover 75% control for the entertainer, and as a result, the wood owner will have less aggressive species to deal with and reduced control Will be expensive. ,
The study provides an example of different zamindar motivations, but this does not mean that the same dynamic plays always plays, said Atalah.
“My conclusion is that we should provide subsidy to the weakest link, which is the unit that will not function otherwise and end acting as a source of externality. In this case it is entertaining, but you can imagine a situation where this was the second way. The model is compatible with any landscape, ”he said.
“This idea is to consider any two different motivations to be the owner of resources and can take different decisions in terms of controlling bioinavation, and thinking about giving priority to those people Can not control without subsidy. “
paper“STRATE BION GART with odd Bhuswami preferences. A two-agent bioconomic model,” is published in ” Land economics (Doi: 10.3368/Le.101.2.112024-0209,
,
