|
EXHIBIT B
<br /> D.f.Lee et aL/Ecological Economics 111(2015)100-110 103
<br /> Here L;°`"°$e is the average economic damage at locations where where fi,.=1/(1 +r)t is the discount factor,r is the annual discount rate,
<br /> LFA has become established, N•rblish is the number of locations and i indexes the seven economic sectors:agriculture,nursery,resi-
<br /> where LFA has become established in sector i at the end of time t: dences,schools,lodging,parks,and all others.
<br /> N"1°"is the number of locations in sector i that are susceptible to LFA.
<br /> Thus,when sector i becomes fully infested,Ne
<br /> sttablah=N;"°"and annual 2.2.1.4.Social Impacts.LFA stings cause extreme pain,high anxiety,and
<br /> damage is emage N;"°'.4 itchy welts.While other species of fire ants nest solely outdoors and
<br /> For agricultural impacts we estimated yield loss to untreated crops. on the ground,LFA will enter houses,nest under kitchen counters and
<br /> Agricultural damages are$600 per farm.For nursery impacts we esti- in bedding,and crawl beneath clothing to sting people in their homes.
<br /> mated revenue losses due to banned exports.Nursery damages are Outdoors,LFA can nest in leaf litter,in bushes,and in trees dropping
<br /> $9000 per farm.For residential impacts we estimated reduced property onto people who happen to brush by.Each encounter with LFA may en-
<br /> values when the homes are sold.Residential damages are$1000 per tail multiple stings.Domestic animals and pets are particularly suscepti-
<br /> property.For lodging impacts we estimated revenue losses due to re- ble to LFA stings. In infested residential areas,LFAs have repeatedly
<br /> duced visitation and lowered rates.Lodging damages are$183,000 per stung cats and dogs in the eyes inevitably blinding the animals over
<br /> property.For park impacts we attempted to capture ecosystem produc- time.
<br /> tivity losses due to destruction of wild bee hives and increased chick We used Census data(DEBDT,2012a)and forecasts(DEBDT,2009)
<br /> mortality of ground nesting birds.Using cost transfer methods,park to estimate human population at home and at work(DEBDT,2012b)
<br /> damages are$2300 per acre.For"other"sector impacts we surveyed by sector.We used tourism authority data to estimate daily visitor
<br /> landowners and businesses to find out the most they would spend on counts(HTA,2012).We used U.S.pet statistics to estimate the popula-
<br /> LFA mitigation."Other"sector impacts are$500 per locations tion of domestic pets(cats and dogs)on the island of Hawaii(AVMA,
<br /> 2012).We combined human and pet population data with our spread
<br /> 2.2.1.2.Management Expenditures. Management cost parameters are model infestation rates to compute sting incidents to adults and chil-
<br /> based on current technology,best management practices,and current dren at home and at play,adults at work,children at school,and visitors
<br /> costs for materials and labor.Total management expenditure is a func- at lodging and at play.Using infestation in the residential sector,we es-
<br /> tion of management goals,management decisions,and size of the man- timated the number of sting incidents to domestic pets in homes.
<br /> aged area.Management activities include prevention,detection,and The number of LFA sting incidents per year Six is dependent on the
<br /> mitigation. N"7
<br /> Prevention expenditure is proportional to the number of infested human population Pop;1,the level of infestation, ,and the daily
<br /> locations.Prevention expenditure cPfeV `"is a function of unit cost probability of being stung in an infested area Arg,multiplied by the
<br /> „preve"` number of known infested locations N;`°°`"°and prevention ef- number days per year:
<br /> Ffort d?aeVPAf as follows:
<br /> establish
<br /> reventt = Pi Prevent Ni.knownt di.t Prevent (2) Shuman _AsnngNestablisht it .Ia0Pi.t)365. (7)
<br /> t t 117
<br /> Detection(monitoring)expenditure is proportional to the number
<br /> Over 35 years,total human sting incidents is:
<br /> of uninfested locations.Detection expenditure is a function of the unit
<br /> cost of detection per location paftect,number of uninfested locations 35 7
<br /> (N"'°"—Nk"°mn),and detection effort dfirct as follows: Total human sting incidents= E51,1.irtm. (8)
<br /> r=o i-1
<br /> detect detect/ max knownl detect ( )
<br /> Ci,t =Pit Nt Ni. t di.t (3)
<br /> conditions and land-use characteristics are all used to de-
<br /> termine the sting incident rate A;°ng.For example,nursery workers
<br /> expenditure c`"i°gatP is a function of unit cost of mitigation p"'i`ig°`e num—
<br /> ber of infested location N;O1°`',and mitigation effort dri7in$°`e as follows: quently than hotel workers.Sting incident frequency increases with the
<br /> extent of LFA infestation.We quantified LFA sting incidents to humans
<br /> Cmitigate= PmingateNknowndmingate (4) based on estimated number of human sting incidents that would
<br /> occur at homes,at work,in parks,at lodging,and at schools.We used
<br /> Expenditures for mitigation treatments,prevention,and detection population data on residents,work force,and visitors.
<br /> are summed to obtain total management expenditure in sector i at The number of pet sting incidents per year is dependent on the num-
<br /> time t as follows: ber of domestic dogs and cats Pop'3 ,pet sting incident frequency per
<br /> day AP'and level of infestation in the residential(homes)sector:
<br /> revent detect minga[e etablish
<br /> CAr +C11 + C;t (5) ger=hpetspoppetsNe`tablish("1.stmax •365. (9)
<br /> i )
<br /> 2.2.1.3.Total Cost.Economic damage D;,1 and management expenditure LFA human and pet stings are a major social concern.For this study,
<br /> M;,1 are discounted and summed over time t to obtain an expression of we enumerate the number of sting incidents without monetizing them
<br /> the present value future total cost associated with LFA infestation: to allow the frequency of stings to be considered separately from eco-
<br /> nomic impacts
<br /> 357
<br /> Total Cost =ESt(E D t+M;1 (6) 2.22,Management Decisions
<br /> t-0 \i-1 Based on level of infestation,management goals and constraints,we
<br /> use the model to determine investment in prevention,detection,and
<br /> mitigation by sector and time period.Investment in detection increases
<br /> 4 The form or this equation is similar to Mehta et al.(2007). the likelihood of finding LFA at newly introduced locations before the
<br /> s About 550/acre per year. infestation becomes established.Investment in prevention reduces the
<br />
|