Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 47–70 | Cite as

Joint Management of Wildlife and Livestock Disease

  • Richard D. Horan
  • Christopher A. Wolf
  • Eli P. Fenichel
  • Kenneth H. MathewsJr.


We analyze a bioeconomic model of a multiple-host disease problem involving wildlife and livestock. The social planner’s choices include targeted (i.e., infectious versus healthy) livestock harvests, non-targeted wildlife harvests, environmental habitat variables, and on-farm biosecurity to prevent cross-species contacts. The model is applied to bovine tuberculosis among Michigan white-tailed deer and cattle. We find optimal controls may target the livestock sector more stringently when the livestock sector exhibits low value relative to the wildlife sector. This is in contrast with the conventional wisdom on the issue that controls should primarily target wildlife species that serve as disease reservoirs.


Bioeconomics Infectious disease Ecosystem management White-tailed deer Optimal control 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arrow KJ (1968). Optimal capital policy with irreversible investment. In: Wolfe, JN (eds) Value, capital and growth: papers in honour of Sir John Hicks, pp. University Press Edinburgh, Edinburgh Google Scholar
  2. Barlow N (1991). A spatially aggregated disease/host model for bovine tb in New Zealand possum populations. J Appl Ecol 28: 777–793 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bicknell KB, Wilen JE and Howitt RE (1999). Public policy and private incentives for livestock disease control. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 43: 501–521 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (2002) Fencing factsheet: deer farm perimeter fenceGoogle Scholar
  5. Brock W and Xepapadeas A (2002). Optimal ecosystem management when species compete for limiting resources. J Environ Econ Manage 44: 189–220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ho YC and Bryson AE (1975). Applied optimal control: optimization, estimation and control. Hemisphere Publishing, New York Google Scholar
  7. Clark CW (1990). Mathematical bioeconomics. Wiley, New York Google Scholar
  8. Cleaveland S, Laurenson MK and Taylor LH (2001). Disease of humans and their domestic mammals: pathogen characteristics, host range and the risk of emergence. Philos Trans Roy Soc Lond Ser B 356: 991–9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conrad JW and Clark CW (1987). Natural resource economics: notes and problems. Cambridge University Press, New York Google Scholar
  10. Daszak P, Cunningham AA and Hyatt AD (2000). Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife-threats to biodiversity and human health. Science 287: 443–449 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diekmann O, Heesterbeek JAP and Metz JAJ (1990). On the definition and computation of the basic reproduction ratio R0 in models of infectious disease in heterogeneous populations. J Math Biol 28: 365–382 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dobson A (2004). Population dynamics of pathogens with multiple hosts species. Am Nat 164: s64–s78 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fenichel EP and Horan RD (2007). Jointly-determined thresholds and economic tradeoffs in wildlife disease management. Nat Resour Model 20: 511–547 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Finnoff D and Tschirhart J (2003). Harvesting in an eight species ecosystem. J Environ Econ Manage 45: 589–611 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Foster K and Burt O (1992). A dynamic model of investment in the US beef cattle industry. J Bus Econ Stat 10: 419–426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garner MS (2001) Movement patterns and behavior at winter feeding and fall baiting stations in a population of white-tailed deer infected with bovine tuberculosis in the northeastern lower peninsula of Michigan. Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, East LansingGoogle Scholar
  17. Gutierrez AP and Regev U (2005). The bioeconomics of tritrophic systems: applications to invasive species. Ecol Econ 52: 383–396 Google Scholar
  18. Hanley N, Shogren JF and White B (1997). Environmental economics: in theory and practice. Oxford University Press, New York Google Scholar
  19. Hicking GJ (2002) Dynamics of bovine tuberculosis in wild white-tailed deer in Michigan, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division Report No. 3363Google Scholar
  20. Horan RD and Wolf CA (2005). The economics of managing infectious wildlife disease. Am J Agric Econ 87: 537–551 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hogarth PJ, Hewinson RG and Vordermeier HM (2006). Development of vaccines against bovine tuberculosis. J Pharm Pharmacol 58: 749–757 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lanfranchi P, Ferroglio E, Poglayen G and Guberti V (2003). Wildlife vaccination, conservation and public health. Vet Res Commun 27: 567–574 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leefers L, Ferris J, Propst D (1998) Economic consequences associated with bovine tuberculosis in northeastern Michigan. A report to the Michigan Departments of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Community HealthGoogle Scholar
  24. Leighton F (2002). Foreign animal diseases and Canadian wildlife: reasons for concern and the elements of preparedness. Can Vet J 43: 265–267 Google Scholar
  25. McCallum H, Barlow N and Hone J (2001). How should pathogen transmission be modelled?. Trends Ecol Evol 16: 295–300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mesterton-Gibbons M (1987). On the optimal policy for combined harvesting of independent species. Nat Resour Model 2: 109–134 Google Scholar
  27. Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA), Michigan Bovine TB, (downloaded August 21, 2002)
  28. O’Brien DJ, Schmitt SM, Fierke JS, Hogle SA, Winterstein SR, Cooley TM, Moritz WE, Diegel KL, Fitzgerald SD, Berrry DE and Kaneene JB (2002). Epidemiology of Mycobacterium bovis in free-ranging white-tailed deer in Michigan. Prev Vet Med 54: 47–63 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Otter Research. An introduction to AD model builder, version 7.0, for use in nonlinear modeling and statistics. Otter Research, Ltd, NanaimoGoogle Scholar
  30. Regev U, Gutierrez AP, Schreiber SJ and Zilberman D (1998). Biological and economics foundations of renewable resource exploitation. Ecol Econ 26: 227–242 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roberts MG and Heesterbeek JAP (2003). A new method for estimating the effort required to control an infectious disease. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 270: 1359–1364 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rondeau D (2001). Along the way back from the brink. J Environ Econ Manage 42: 156–182 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosen S, Murphy KM and Scheinkman JM (1994). Cattle cycles. J Polit Econ 102: 468–492 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. The Economist (2005, Nov. 19). Infection: the usual suspects, pp 96–97Google Scholar
  35. The Royal Society (2002) Infectious diseases in livestock: scientific questions relating to the transmission, prevention and control of epidemic outbreaks of infectious disease in livestock in Great Britain. LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Schmitt SM, Fitzgerald SD, Cooley TM, Bruning-Fann CS, Sullivan L, Perrry D, Carlson T, Minnis RB, Payeur JB and Sikarskie J (1997). Bovine tuberculosis in free-ranging white-tailed deer in Michigan. J Wildl Dis 33: 749–758 Google Scholar
  37. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS). Foot-and-mouth disease, January 2002 (downloaded August 30 2002)
  38. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) (1996) Appendix C: simulation model of tuberculosis risk to cattle from infection in free-ranging white-tailed deer, assessing the risks associated with M. Bovis in Michigan free-ranging white-tailed deer. Center for Animal Disease Information and Analysis (CADIA) Technical Report No. 01–96Google Scholar
  39. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) (2002) Census of agricultureGoogle Scholar
  40. Vordermeier HM, Chambers MA, Buddle BM, Pollock JM and Hewinson RG (2006). Progress in the development of vaccines and diagnostic reagents to control tuberculosis in cattle. Vet J 171: 229–244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Walters S (2001). Landscape pattern and productivity effects on source-sink dynamics of deer populations. Ecol Modell 143: 17–32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wittenberg E, Black J (2004) Feeder steer business analysis summary. Michigan State University Agricultural Economics Staff Paper 05–15. November 2005Google Scholar
  43. Wittenberg E, Wolf C (2004) Michigan dairy farm business analysis summary. Michigan State University Agricultural Economics Staff Paper 05–10. October 2005Google Scholar
  44. Wolf CA, Ferris JN (2000) Economic consequences of bovine tuberculosis for Michigan livestock agriculture. A report to the Michigan Department of AgricultureGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard D. Horan
    • 1
  • Christopher A. Wolf
    • 1
  • Eli P. Fenichel
    • 2
  • Kenneth H. MathewsJr.
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Economics, Agriculture HallMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Department of Fisheries and WildlifeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  3. 3.Economic Research ServiceUSDAWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations