Economic Valuation of the Threat Posed by the Establishment of the Asian Tiger Mosquito in Australia

Environmental and Resource Economics volume 71, pages357–379(2018)Cite this article

Abstract

Invasive species policy could be better informed if we understood how much people value reductions in the risks posed by these organisms. This study investigates the public’s willingness to pay (WTP) for additional measures to reduce the risk of invasion of the Australian mainland by the Asian tiger mosquito (ATM). The study contributes to the literature by applying a stated preference method to estimate the public’s WTP to reduce the risk of an ATM invasion, expressed as a change in probability. It is the first ex ante invasive species analysis to test over two discrete invasion reduction probabilities based on management effort. Further, to overcome the challenges in valuing changes in probabilities, the study presented respondents with a well-defined discrete difference in the final probability, with one scenario reducing risk from 50 to 25% and the other from 50 to 5%. We find a significant difference in the mean WTP values between these two scenarios (A$67 vs. A$90). The overall conclusion is that estimated benefits of reducing the probability of an ATM incursion outweigh the costs.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

Data sources: postal areas: http://www.abs.gov.au/. State boundary: http://www.abs.gov.au/

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Data sources: postal areas: http://www.abs.gov.au/. State boundary: http://www.abs.gov.au/

Notes

  1. 1.

    Available at: http://www.issg.org/database/species/search.asp?st=100ss.

  2. 2.

    There are empirical data comparing CV responses and real referendum behaviour. For example, Schläpfer et al. (2004) compare the WTP for a hypothetical land conservation programme and respondents voting behaviour in an actual referendum in Switzerland. They found that WTP estimates from the CV are higher (biased) compared to values derived from voting data. Burkhardt and Chan (2017) show that in actual choices, California residents respond to cost per capita in the same way as WTP models predict, thereby strengthening the validity of the CV technique.

  3. 3.

    Ecological studies also indicate a high probability of eradication failure because of missed opportunities to reduce post-eradication susceptibility to re-invasion (for example, see Bertolino and Genovesi 2003).

  4. 4.

    The reader should note that incentive compatibility requires the stipulation of a provision rule (Bateman et al. 2002). In this study, respondents were informed that if 50% of participants agreed to pay, the proposed policy would be implemented.

  5. 5.

    The full survey instrument is available from the authors upon request.

  6. 6.

    The reader should also note that the probability estimates specified in the CV scenario were biologically vetted as possible through extensive literature review and expert consultation, and there was a high level of confidence that those reductions were feasible. The final CV questionnaire was pre-tested and approved by the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for Aedes albopictus eradication programme in Australia prior to release.

  7. 7.

    For the benefit of international readers, US$1 was equivalent to Australian dollar A$1.23 at the time of conducting the CV survey. The equivalent bid amounts in US$ were as follows: $0.81, $8, $16, $41, $81, $163 and $325.

  8. 8.

    Power Stats Pty Limited, 1075 Victoria Road, West Ryde, NSW, 2114, Australia.

  9. 9.

    Using the protest bid filter, we also tested for the problem of ‘free-riding’, given that mosquito control is a public good (being non-rivalrous and non-excludable). However, we found a small number of respondents (<3% of the total sample) who stated that they wanted the ‘benefits’ but did not want to pay the ‘costs’. We thank the anonymous reviewer for making this suggestion.

  10. 10.

    For example, Brisbane City Council has the largest mosquito control program in Australia with an estimated annual budget of A$3.5 million per annum while the annual budget of the Gold Coast Pest Management Unit is estimated to be A$2.35 million (Dale et al. 2008). Local councils in the other jurisdictions have relatively smaller budgets for mosquito control.

References

  1. ABS (2011) Arts and culture in Australia. http://www.abs.gov.au/. Accessed 5 May 2015

  2. ABS (2016) National statistics. http://www.abs.gov.au/. Accessed 5 May 2016

  3. Akter S, Kompas T, Ward MB (2015) Application of portfolio theory to asset-based biosecurity decision analysis. Ecol Econ 117:73–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alberini A, Khan JR (2006) Handbook on contingent valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer E, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58:4601–4614

    Google Scholar 

  6. Atkinson G, Mourato S (2015) Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. OECD environment working papers, no. 97, OECD Publishing, Paris

  7. Australian Sport Commission (2010) Participation in exercise, recreation and sport. Annual report 2010. http://www.ausport.gov.au/. Accessed 5 May 2016

  8. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann MW, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Ozdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Beebe NW, Cooper RD, Mottram P, Sweeney AW (2009) Australia’s dengue risk driven by human adaptation to climate change. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 3(5):e429. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0000429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Beebe NW, Ambrose L, Hill LA, Davis JB, Hapgood G, Cooper RD, Russell RC, Ritchie SA, Reimer LJ, Lobo NF, Syafruddin D, van den Hurk AF (2013) Tracing the tiger: population genetics provides valuable insights into the Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus invasion of the Australasian region. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 7(8):e2361.1–e2361.11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Benedict MQ, Levine RS, Hawley WA, Lounibos LP (2007) Spread of the tiger: global risk of invasion by the mosquito \(Aedes\) \(albopictus\). Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 7:76–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bertolino S, Genovesi P (2003) Spread and attempted eradication of the grey squirrel (\(Sciurus\) \(carolinensis\)) in Italy, and consequences for the red squirrel (\(Sciurus\) \(vulgaris\)) in Eurasia. Biol Conserv 109:351–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Blamey R, Bennett J, Morrison M (1999) Yea saying in contingent valuation surveys. Land Econ 75:126–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Boardman AE, Greenberg DH, Vining AR, Weimer DL (2006) Cost-benefit analysis: concepts and practice, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  15. Borgherini G, Poubeau P, Staikowsky F, Lory M, Le Moullec N, Becquart JP, Wengling C, Michault A, Paganin F (2007) Outbreak of chikungunya on Reunion Island: early clinical and laboratory features in 157 adult patients. Clin Infect Dis 44:1401–1407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Born W, Rauschmayer F, Brauer I (2005) Economic evaluation of biological invasions—a survey. Ecol Econ 55:321–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Boyle KJ, Desvousges WH, Johnson FR, Dunford RW, Hudson SP (1994) An investigation of part-whole biases in contingent valuation studies. J Environ Econ Manag 27:64–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Boyle KJ, Johnson FR, McCollum DW, Desvousges WH, Dunford RW, Hudson SP (1996) Valuing public goods: discrete versus continuous contingent-valuation responses. Land Econ 72:381–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Brouwer R, Langford IH, Bateman IJ, Turner RK (1999) A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies. Reg Environ Change 1(1):47–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Brown TC, Champ PA, Bishop RC, McCollum DW (1996) Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good? Land Econ 72:152–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Burkhardt J, Chan NW (2017) The dollars and sense of ballot propositions: estimating willingness to pay for public goods using aggregate voting data. J Assoc Environ Resour Econ 4(2):479–503

    Google Scholar 

  22. Burnett K, Kaiser B, Pitafi BA, Roumasset J (2006) Prevention, eradication, and containment of invasive species: illustrations from Hawaii. Agric Resour Econ Rev 35(1):63–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Burnett KM, D’evelyn S, Kaiser BA, Nantamanasikarn P, Roumasset JA (2008) Beyond the lamppost: optimal prevention and control of the Brown Tree Snake in Hawaii. Ecol Econ 67(1):66–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Caminade C, Medlock JM, Ducheyne E, McIntyre KM, Leach S, Baylis M, Morse AP (2012) Suitability of the European climate for the Asian tiger mosquito \(Aedes\) \(albopictus\): recent trends and future scenarios. J R Soc Interface 9:2708–2717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Carson RT (1997) Contingent valuation and tests of insensitivity to scope. In: Kopp RJ, Pommerhene W, Schwartz N (eds) Determining the value of nonmarketed goods: economic, psychological, and policy relevant aspects of contingent valuation methods. Kluwer, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  26. Carson RT (2012) Contingent valuation: a practical alternative when prices aren’t available. J Econ Perspect 26(4):27–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Carson RT, Groves T (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Resour Econ 37(1):181–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Carson R, Hanneman WM (2005) Contingent valuation. In: Mäler KG, Vincent JR (eds) Handbook of environmental economics, vol 2, chapter 17. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  29. Carson RT, Nicholas EF, Norman FM (2001) Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ Resour Econ 19(2):173–210

  30. CBD (1992) Convention on biological diversity. https://www.cbd.int/. Accessed 5 May 2016

  31. Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC (2003) The economics of non-market goods and resources: a primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Cooper JC (1993) Optimal bid selection for dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. J Environ Econ Manag 24:25–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dale PER, Carlson DB, Easton CS (2008) Four degrees of latitude: mosquito control on the right coasts of Australia and Florida, USA. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 24(3):427–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Desvousges W, Mathews K, Train K (2012) Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation. Ecol Econ 84:121–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Diamond PA, Hausman JA, Leonard GK, Denning MA (1993) Does contingent valuation measure preferences? Experimental evidence. In: Hausman JA (ed) Contingent valuation, a critical assessment. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 41–89

    Google Scholar 

  36. Dickinson K, Paskewitz S (2012) Willingness to pay for mosquito control: how important is West Nile virus risk compared to the nuisance of mosquitoes? Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 12(10):886–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Emerton L, Howard G (2008) A toolkit for the economic analysis of invasive species. Global Invasive Species Programme, Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  38. Evans EA (2003) Economic dimensions of invasive species. Choices (second quarter):5–9

  39. Fernandez L (2008) NAFTA and member country strategies for maritime trade and marine invasive species. J Environ Manag 89:308–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Finnoff D, Shogren JF, Leung B, Lodge D (2007) Take a risk: preferring prevention over control of biological invaders. Ecol Econ 62(2):216–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Freeman AM III, Herriges JA, Kling CL (2014) The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods, 3rd edn. Resources for the Future, Washington

    Book  Google Scholar 

  42. Grard G, Caron M, Mombo IM, Nkoghe D, Mboui Ondo S, Jiolle D, Leroy EM (2014) Zika virus in Gabon (Central Africa)—2007: a new threat from \(Aedes\) \(albopictus\)? PLoS Negl Trop Dis 8(2):e2681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Gratz NG (2004) Critical review of the vector status of \(Aedes\) \(albopictus\). Med Vet Entomol 18:215–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Green D, Jacowitz KE, Kahneman D, McFadden D (1998) Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring and willingness to pay for public goods. Resour Energy Econ 20:85–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Haab TC, McConnell KE (2002) Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. Halasa YA, Shepard DS, Wittenberg E, Fonseca DM, Farajollahi A, Healy S, Gaugler R, Strickman D, Clark G (2012) Willingness to pay for an area-wide integrated pest management program to control the Asian tiger mosquito in New Jersey. J Am Mosq Control Associ 28(3):225–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Halasa YA, Shepard DS, Fonseca DM, Farajollahi A, Healy S, Gaugler R, Bartlett-Healy K, Strickman D, Clark G (2014) Quantifying the impact of mosquitoes on quality of life and enjoyment of yard and porch activities in New Jersey. PLoS ONE 9(3):e89221.1–e89221.9

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hammitt JK, Graham JD (1999) Willingness to pay for health protection: inadequate sensitivity to probability? J Risk Uncertain 8:33–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data. Am J Agric Econ 66:332–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Hanemann WM (1989) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: reply. Am J Agric Econ 71(4):1057–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Hanley N, Barbier EB (2009) Pricing nature: cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  52. Hausman J (2012) Contingent valuation: from dubious to hopeless. J Econ Perspect 26(4):43–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Heberlein TA, Wilson MA, Bishop RC, Schaeffer NC (2005) Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 50(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Heikkila J (2011) Economics of biosecurity across levels of decision making: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 31:119–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hill MP, Axford JK, Hoffmann AA (2014) Predicting the spread of \(Aedes\) \(albopictus\) in Australia under current and future climates: multiple approaches and datasets to incorporate potential evolutionary divergence. Aust Ecol 39:469–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Hochedez P, Jaureguiberry S, Debruyne M, Bossi P, Hausfater P, Brucker G, Bricaire F, Caumes E (2006) Chikungunya infection in travellers. Emerg Infect Dis 12:1565–1567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Horan RD, Perrings C, Lupi F, Bulte EH (2002) Biological pollution prevention strategies under ignorance: the case of invasive species. Am J Agric Econ 84:1303–1310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL (1992) Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J Environ Econ Manag 22:57–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1973) On the psychology of prediction. Psychol Rev 80:237–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kling CL, Phaneuf DJ, Zhao J (2012) From Exxon to BP: has some number become better than no number? J Econ Perspect 26(4):3–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Kraemer MU, Sinka ME, Duda KA, Mylne AQ, Shearer FM, Barker CM et al (2015) The global distribution of the arbovirus vectors \(Aedes\) \(aegypti\) and \(Ae.\) \(albopictus\). eLife 4:e08347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Krinsky I, Robb AL (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68:715–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Lehrer D, Becker N, Kutiel PB (2013) The value of coastal sand dunes as a measure to plan an optimal policy for invasive plant species: the case of the \(Acacia saligna\) at the Nizzanim LTER coastal sand dune nature reserve, Israel. In: Martínez ML, Gallego-Fernández JB, Hesp PA (eds) Restoration of coastal dunes, chapter 17. Springer, Germany, pp 273–288

    Google Scholar 

  64. Leparc-Goffart I, Nougairede A, Cassadou S, Prat C, de Lamballerie X (2014) Chikungunya in the Americas. Lancet 383:514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Leung B, Lodge DM, Finnoff D, Shogren JF, Lewis MA, Lamberti G (2002) An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:2407–2413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Loomis J, Ekstrand E (1997) Economic benefits of critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl: a scope test using a multiple-bounded contingent valuation survey. J Agric Resour Econ 22(2):356–366

    Google Scholar 

  67. McIntosh CR, Shogren JF, Finnoff DC (2010) Invasive species and delaying the inevitable: valuation evidence from a national survey. Ecol Econ 69:632–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Metcalfe PJ, Baker W (2015) The sensitivity of willingness to pay to an economic downturn. J Environ Econ Policy 4(1):105–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Mitchell R, Carson R (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  70. Murphy JJ, Allen PG, Stevens TH, Weatherhead D (2005) A meta- analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ Resour Econ 30:313–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Muzari MO, Devine G, Davis J, Crunkhorn B, van den Hurk A, Whelan P et al (2017) Holding back the tiger: successful control program protects Australia from \(Aedes\) \(albopictus\) expansion. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 11(2):e0005286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Mwebaze P, MacLeod A, Tomlinson D, Barois H, Rijpma J (2010) Economic valuation of the influence of invasive alien species on the economy of the Seychelles islands. Ecol Econ 69:2614–2623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Nguyen H, Kurucz N, Whelan P (2009) Groote Eylandt remains dengue vector free. North Territ Dis Control Bull 16(1):14–19

    Google Scholar 

  74. Nicholson J, Ritchie SA, van den Hurk AF (2014) \(Aedes\) \(albopictus\) (Diptera: Culicidae) as a potential vector of endemic and exotic arboviruses in Australia. J Med Entomol 51:661–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Nunes PALD, Van den Bergh CJM (2004) Can people value protection against invasive marine species? Evidence from a joint TC-CV survey in the Netherlands. Environ Resour Econ 28:517–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Ojea E, Loureiro ML (2011) Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies. Resour Energy Econ 33(3):706–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Park T, Loomis JB, Creel M (1991) Confidence intervals for evaluating benefit estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. Land Econ 67:64–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Paupy C, Delatte H, Bagny L, Corbel V, Fontenille D (2009) \(Aedes\) \(albopictus\), an arbovirus vector: from the darkness to the light. Microbes Infect 11:1177–1185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Powe NA, Bateman IJ (2004) Investigating insensitivity to scope: a split-sample test of perceived scheme realism. Land Econ 80(2):258–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Reiter P, Sprenger D (1987) The used tire trade: a mechanism for the worldwide dispersal of container breeding mosquitoes. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 3:494–501

    Google Scholar 

  81. Rezza G (2012) \(Aedes\) \(albopictus\) and the re-emergence of Dengue. BMC Public Health 12:72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Rezza G, Nicoletti L, Angelini R, Romi R, Finarelli AC, Panning M, Cordioli P, Fortuna C, Boros S, Magurano F, Silvi G, Angelini P, Dottori M, Cuifolini MG, Majori GC, Cassone A (2007) Infection with chikungunya virus in Italy: an outbreak in a temperate region. Lancet 370:1840–1846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Ritchie S, Haseler B, Foley P, Montgomery B (2001) Exotic mosquitoes in north Queensland: the true Millennium bug? Arbovirus Res Aust 8:288–293

    Google Scholar 

  84. Ritchie SA, Moore P, Carruthers M, Williams C, Montgomery B, Foley P, Ahboo S, van den Hurk AF, Lindsay MD, Cooper B, Beebe N, Russell RC (2006) Discovery of a widespread infestation of \(Aedes\) \(albopictus\) in the Torres Strait, Australia. J Am Mosq Control Associ 22(3):358–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Rolfe J, Windle J (2014) Public preferences for controlling an invasive species in public and private spaces. Land Use Policy 41:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Rollins K, Lyke A (1998) The case for diminishing marginal existence values. J Environ Econ Manag 36(3):324–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Russell RC, Williams CR, Sutherst RW, Ritchie SA (2005) Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus-A dengue threat for southern Australia? Commun Dis Intell 29(3):296–298

    Google Scholar 

  88. Santagata W, Signorello G (2000) Contingent valuation of a cultural public good and policy design: the case of ‘Napoli Musei Aperti’. J Cult Econ 24:181–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Schenker N, Gentleman JE (2001) On judging the significance of differences by examining the overlap between confidence intervals. Am Stat 55:182–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Schläpfer F, Roschewitz A, Hanley N (2004) Validation of stated preferences for public goods: a comparison of contingent valuation survey response and voting behaviour. Ecol Econ 51:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Scholte EJ, Dijkstra E, Ruijs H, Jacobs F, Takken W, Hofhuis A, Reusken C, Koopmans M, de Boer A (2007) The Asian tiger mosquito in the Netherlands: should we worry? In: Proceedings of the section experimental and applied entomology—Netherlands entomological society, vol 18, pp 131–136

  92. Shepard DS, Halasa YA, Fonseca DM, Farajollahi A, Healy SP, Gaugler R, Bartlett-Healy K, Strickman D, Clark G (2014) Economic evaluation of an area-wide integrated pest management program to control the Asian tiger mosquito in New Jersey. PLoS ONE 9(10):e111014.1–e111014.11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Simmons CP, Farrar JJ, Chau NVV, Wills B (2012) Dengue. N Engl J Med 366:1423–1432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Van den Hurk AF, Nicholson J, Beebe NW, Davis J, Muzari OM, Russell RC, Devine GJ, Ritchie SA (2016) Ten years of the tiger: \(Aedes\) \(albopictus\) presence in Australia since its discovery in the Torres Strait in 2005. One Health 2:19–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Von Hirsch H, Becker B (2009) Cost-benefit analysis of mosquito control operations based on microbial control agents in the upper Rhine valley (Germany). Eur Mosq Bull 27:47–55

    Google Scholar 

  96. Whelan P, Pettit W, Krause V (2012) Dengue mosquito incursion into Tenant Creek 2011. North Territ Dis Control Bull 19(1):16–21

    Google Scholar 

  97. Williams CR (2012) The Asian tiger mosquito (\(Aedes\) \(albopictus\)) invasion into Australia: a review of likely geographic range and changes to vector borne disease risk. Trans R Soc S Aust 136:128–136

    Google Scholar 

  98. Wolfe R, Hanley J (2002) If we’re so different why do we keep overlapping? When 1 plus 1 doesn’t make 2. Can Med Assoc J 166:65–66

    Google Scholar 

  99. Wong PSJ, Li MI, Chong CS, Ng LC, Tan CH (2013) Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus (Skuse): a potential vector of Zika virus in Singapore. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 7(8):e2348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Wooldridge JM (2010) Econometric Analysis of cross section and panel data, 2nd edn. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  101. Worobey J, Fonseca DM, Espinosa C, Healy S, Gaugler R (2013) Child outdoor physical activity is reduced by prevalence of the Asian tiger mosquito, \(Aedes\) \(albopictus\). J Am Mosq Control Assoc 29(1):78–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the CSIRO Health & Biosecurity Business Unit. We thank the Aedes albopictus Technical Advisory Group (R. Russell, P. Whelan, S. Ritchie, G. Devine, A. van den Hurk, J. Walker) and the managers of the Cairns-based vector control team (J.Davis, O. Muzari) for providing valuable comments on the research proposal and survey instruments used in this study. Mike Muller and Martin Shivas (Brisbane City Council) provided technical information regarding mosquito control in Brisbane, and Swapan Paul (Sydney Olympic Park Authority) provided technical advice concerning mosquito control in Sydney. We thank Hazel Parry for helping with GIS data generation and map preparation.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), 41 Boggo Road, Dutton Park, Brisbane, QLD, 4102, Australia

    Paul Mwebaze, Nigel W. Beebe & Paul De Barro

  2. Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia

    Jeff Bennett

  3. School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia

    Nigel W. Beebe

  4. QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, 300 Herston Road, Herston, QLD, 4006, Australia

    Gregor J. Devine

Authors
  1. Paul Mwebaze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeff Bennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nigel W. Beebe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gregor J. Devine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paul De Barro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Mwebaze.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Optimal Sampling Scheme Under Four Distributional Assumptions, Assuming 10 Bids and 500 Surveys (Using Pre-test Data)

Bids (A$) Sample
Logistic  
$1 22
$12 54
$27 61
$40 59
$53 59
$66 61
$81 67
$99 81
$127 37
Total 501
Delta  
$6 13
$11 20
$18 30
$26 41
$37 59
$53 90
$80 161
$140 84
Total 498
Lognormal  
$2 1
$4 2
$10 6
$24 15
$67 50
$226 258
$1271 166
Total 498
  1. Due to rounding errors, the figures under sample may not sum up to exactly 500

Appendix 2: Socio-economic Characteristics of Respondents in the Survey

Respondent characteristics Sample Australia
Average age (years) 49 37
Gender (\(\hbox {male}=1\); \(\hbox {female}=0\)) 0.49 0.49
Average household size 2.7 2.6
Number of children 2.0 2.0
Education (%)
   Year 12 or below 30 43
   Certificate 32 32
   Bachelors or above 37 25
Employment (%)
   Employed 51 57
   Self-employed 8 –
   Student 3 –
   Retired 26 36
Household income (before taxes) ($’000) 74 69.8
Mean expenditure on mosquito prevention ($/year) 40 –
Sample size 3110  

Respondent characteristics Sample Australia
Average age (years) 49 37
Gender (\(\hbox {male}=1\); \(\hbox {female}=0\)) 0.49 0.49
Average household size 2.7 2.6
Number of children 2.0 2.0
Education (%)
   Year 12 or below 30 43
   Certificate 32 32
   Bachelors or above 37 25
Employment (%)
   Employed 51 57
   Self-employed 8 –
   Student 3 –
   Retired 26 36
Household income (before taxes) ($’000) 74 69.8
Mean expenditure on mosquito prevention ($/year) 40 –
Sample size 3110  

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mwebaze, P., Bennett, J., Beebe, N.W. et al. Economic Valuation of the Threat Posed by the Establishment of the Asian Tiger Mosquito in Australia. Environ Resource Econ 71, 357–379 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-017-0158-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Invasive species
  • Asian tiger mosquito
  • Willingness to pay
  • Contingent valuation