Government intervention in wildlife damage management: a bioeconomic analysis of wildlife damage compensation and taxation policies

被引:1
作者
Xie Z. [1 ]
机构
[1] Graduate School of Economics, Keio University, 2-15-45 Mita, Minato-ku, Tokyo
关键词
Agricultural tax; Bioeconomic model; Wildlife conservation; Wildlife damage compensation;
D O I
10.1007/s10818-021-09314-y
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
This paper develops a bioeconomic model to investigate the effects of wildlife damage compensation programs, and income taxes, on both wildlife population and social welfare. Wildlife damage compensation programs generally compensate local people after wildlife damage occurred. In our model, the compensation program is financed by government tax revenue. We clarify how the production and consumption behaviors of local people change after introducing income taxes for the compensation program. Based on the steady-state analysis and numerical simulation, we conclude that with appropriate taxation policy under certain conditions, a self-financing wildlife damage compensation programs can both increase wildlife population and improve local social welfare, even under the circumstance where compensation programs financed by external resources lower them, which is obtained in the previous studies. © 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
引用
收藏
页码:93 / 115
页数:22
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]  
The regulation of hunting: A population tax (No. 2012/2). FOI Working Paper, Retrieved From, (2012)
[2]  
Atkinson A.B., Stiglitz J.E., Lectures on public economics, (1980)
[3]  
Barrett C.B., Arcese P., Are integrated conservation-development projects (ICDPs) sustainable? On the conservation of large mammals in sub-Saharan Africa, World Development, 23, 7, pp. 1073-1084, (1995)
[4]  
Barrett C.B., Arcese P., Wildlife harvest in integrated conservation and development projects: Linking harvest to household demand, agricultural production, and environmental shocks in the Serengeti, Land Economics, (1998)
[5]  
Bulte E.H., Van Kooten G.C., Economics of antipoaching enforcement and the ivory trade ban, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81, 2, pp. 453-466, (1999)
[6]  
Clayton L., Keeling M., Milner-Gulland E.J., Bringing home the bacon: A spatial model of wild pig hunting in Sulawesi, Indonesia, Ecological Applications, 7, 2, pp. 642-652, (1997)
[7]  
Damania R., Stringer R., Karanth K.U., Stith B., The economics of protecting tiger populations: Linking household behavior to poaching and prey depletion, Land Economics, 79, 2, pp. 198-216, (2003)
[8]  
Deodatus F., Wildlife damage in rural areas with emphasis on Malawi, Wildlife Conservation by Sustainable Use, pp. 115-140, (2000)
[9]  
Emerton L., Mfunda I., Making wildlife economically viable for communities living around the Western Serengeti, (1999)
[10]  
Harding E.K., Doak D.F., Albertson J.D., Evaluating the effectiveness of predator control: The non-native red fox as a case study, Conservation Biology, 15, 4, pp. 1114-1122, (2001)