Private Landowners’ Willingness to Pay for Managing Feral Swine in the West Gulf Region-Journal of Sustainability Research-CSCIED科技核心评价数据库-手机版

Private Landowners’ Willingness to Pay for Managing Feral Swine in the West Gulf Region

Private Landowners’ Willingness to Pay for Managing Feral Swine in the West Gulf Region

ES评分 0 浏览量：165 下载量：0

DOI	10.20900/jsr20250070
刊名	Journal of Sustainability Research JSR
年，卷(期)	2025, 7(4)
作者	Junyeong Choi*,Nana Tian,Jianbang Gan,
作者单位	Research Institute of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea ; Arkansas Forest Resources Center, College of Forestry, Agriculture & Natural Resources, University of Arkansas at Monticello, Monticello, AR 71656, USA ; Department of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA ;
摘要	Feral swine (Sus scrofa) are posing a great ecological and economic threat by destructing crops, properties, and native ecosystems in the West Gulf Region (WGR) of the United States. As an invasive and mobile species, controlling feral swine shares the common challenges of public good management. Because most of the land in the region is privately owned, involving landowners in feral swine management is key to sustaining ecosystem services and protecting investments in natural resources and related industries. This study aims to quantify landowners’ willingness to pay (WTP) for feral swine management and to explore the possible influencing factors for their WTP. A structured mail survey was conducted among landowners in Arkansas (AR), Louisiana (LA), and East Texas (ETX). A contingent valuation (CV) method with a payment card (PC) was used to estimate WTP, and a two-part hurdle model was employed to account for censoring in responses and to examine the influencing factors. The results revealed considerable variations in average WTP across states, ranging from US$17.37/ha in AR, US$12.85/ha in LA, to US$36.37 /ha in ETX. The landowners’ WTP was positively related to their education level, experience with damage, involvement in local communities, environmental concerns, proactive attitudes, support for stricter policies, and perceived responsibility for feral swine management. The findings can provide guidelines for polices and program development that can incentivize private landowners to participate in feral swine management at the state and regional levels.
Abstract	Feral swine (Sus scrofa) are posing a great ecological and economic threat by destructing crops, properties, and native ecosystems in the West Gulf Region (WGR) of the United States. As an invasive and mobile species, controlling feral swine shares the common challenges of public good management. Because most of the land in the region is privately owned, involving landowners in feral swine management is key to sustaining ecosystem services and protecting investments in natural resources and related industries. This study aims to quantify landowners’ willingness to pay (WTP) for feral swine management and to explore the possible influencing factors for their WTP. A structured mail survey was conducted among landowners in Arkansas (AR), Louisiana (LA), and East Texas (ETX). A contingent valuation (CV) method with a payment card (PC) was used to estimate WTP, and a two-part hurdle model was employed to account for censoring in responses and to examine the influencing factors. The results revealed considerable variations in average WTP across states, ranging from US$17.37/ha in AR, US$12.85/ha in LA, to US$36.37 /ha in ETX. The landowners’ WTP was positively related to their education level, experience with damage, involvement in local communities, environmental concerns, proactive attitudes, support for stricter policies, and perceived responsibility for feral swine management. The findings can provide guidelines for polices and program development that can incentivize private landowners to participate in feral swine management at the state and regional levels.
关键词	feral swine; invasive species management; private landowners; willingness to pay; two-part hurdle model; West Gulf Region
KeyWord	feral swine; invasive species management; private landowners; willingness to pay; two-part hurdle model; West Gulf Region
基金项目
页码	-

参考文献
相关文献

1.Mineau A, Tian N, Gan J, Holley G, Pelkki M. Private Landowners’ Perspectives on Feral Swine and Regulation—Evidence from Arkansas, Louisiana, and East Texas. Environ. Manag. 2023;72(5):1061-71.

2.Tian N, Gan J, Holley G. Assessing feral swine damage in the western gulf region of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. Biol. Invasions. 2023;25(5):1527-40.

3.Bevins SN, Pedersen K, Lutman MW, Gidlewski T, Deliberto TJ. Consequences associated with the recent range expansion of nonnative feral swine. BioScience. 2014;64(4):291-9.

4.Adams CE, Higginbotham BJ, Rollins D, Taylor RB, Skiles R, Mapston M, et al. Regional perspectives and opportunities for feral hog management in Texas. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 2005;33(4):1312-20.

5.Fern MP, Armstrong JB, Barlow RJ, Kush JS. Ecological factors influencing wild pig damage to planted pine and hardwood seedlings. Hum. Wildl. Interact. 2020;14(2):228-38.

6.Mayer J. Wild pig damage: Overview of wild pig damage. In: Mayer JJ, Brisbin IL, Jr., editors. Wild pigs: Biology, damage, control techniques and management. Aiken (SC, US): Savannah River National Laboratory; 2009. p. 221-46.

7.Mayer JJ, Nelson EA, Wike LD. Selective depredation of planted hardwood seedlings by wild pigs in a wetland restoration area. Ecol. Eng. 2000;15:S79-S85.

8.Kaller MD, Hudson JD, Achberger EC, Kelso WE. Feral hog research in western Louisiana. Hum. Wildl. Conflicts. 2007;1(2):168-77.

9.Pimentel D, Lach L, Zuniga R, Morrison D. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. BioScience. 2000;50(1):53-65.

10.Wild Pig Info. Mississippi State (MS, US): Mississippi State University Extension; 2013.

11.Ford V, Kelley J, McKinney N. Arkansas corn and grain sorghum research studies 2020. Fayetteville (AR, US): Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station; 2021.

12.Kinsey J. Ecology and management of wild pigs. Austin (TX, USA): Texas Parks and Wildlife; 2020.

13.Feral hogs. Baton Rouge (LA, US): Louisiana Department of Wildlife Fisheries. 2022.

14.Ellis SF, Masters M, Messer KD, Weigel C, Ferraro PJ. The problem of feral hogs and the challenges of providing a weak-link public good. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy. 2021;43(3):985-1002.

15.Tian N, Mineau A, Gan J. Managing feral swine: thoughts of private landowners in the West Gulf Region. Forests. 2024;15(3):436.

16.García-Llorente M, Martín-López B, Nunes PALD, González JA, Alcorlo P, Montes C. Analyzing the social factors that influence willingness to pay for invasive alien species management under two different strategies: Eradication and prevention. Environ. Manag. 2011;48(3):418-35.

17.Levers LR, Pradhananga AK. Recreationist willingness to pay for aquatic invasive species management. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(4):e0246860.

18.Adams DC, Soto JR, Lai J, Escobedo FJ, Alvarez S, Kibria ASMG. Public preferences and willingness to pay for invasive forest pest prevention programs in urban areas. Forests. 2020;11(10):1056.

19.Shahzad T, Shah STH, Rais SI, Mansoor A, Zaman K. People’s attitude towards willingness-to-pay for environmental protection in Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022;29(35):52635-54.

20.Wang P-W, Jia J-B. Tourists’ willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation and environment protection, Dalai Lake protected area: Implications for entrance fee and sustainable management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2012;62:24-33.

21.Ofori RO, Rouleau MD. Willingness to pay for invasive seaweed management: Understanding how high and low income households differ in Ghana. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2020;192:105224.

22.Van Oijstaeijen W, Van Passel S, Cools J, Janssens de Bisthoven L, Hugé J, Berihun D, et al. Farmers’ preferences towards water hyacinth control: A contingent valuation study. J. Great Lakes Res. 2020;46(5):1459-68.

23.Nikodinoska N, Foxcroft Llewellyn C, Rouget M, Paletto A, Notaro S. Tourists' perceptions and willingness to pay for the control of Opuntia stricta invasion in protected areas: A case study from South Africa: Original research. Koedoe: Afr. Prot. Area Conserv. Sci. 2014;56(1):1-8.

24.Mwebaze P, Bennett J, Beebe NW, Devine GJ, De Barro P. Economic Valuation of the Threat Posed by the Establishment of the Asian Tiger Mosquito in Australia. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2018;71(2):357-79.

25.Tian N, Rubino EC, Gan J, Gutierrez-Castillo A, Pelkki M. Private landowners’ willingness-to-pay for certifying forestland and influencing factors: Evidence from Arkansas, United States. Environ. Challenges. 2022;9:100600.

26.Tian N, Pelkki M. Nonindustrial private forest landowner perspectives on forest certification: A look at awareness and barriers. For. Policy Econ. 2021;131:102552.

27.Ma Z, Butler BJ, Kittredge DB, Catanzaro P. Factors associated with landowner involvement in forest conservation programs in the U.S.: Implications for policy design and outreach. Land Use Policy. 2012;29(1):53-61.

28.Liu X, Tang Y, Ge J, Miranda MJ. Does experience with natural disasters affect willingness-to-pay for weather index insurance? Evidence from China. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019;33:33-43.

29.Atallah SS, Huang J-C, Leahy J, Bennett KP. Family forest landowner preferences for managing invasive species: Control methods, ecosystem services, and neighborhood effects. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. Assoc. 2023;2(2):318-33.

30.Fenichel EP, Richards TJ, Shanafelt DW. The control of invasive species on private property with neighbor-to-neighbor spillovers. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2014;59(2):231-55.

31.TuckerWilliams E, Lepczyk CA, Morse W, Smith M. Perceptions of wild pig impact, management, and policy in Alabama. Environ. Manag. 2024;73(5):1032-48.

32.Fern M, Barlow R, Slootmaker C, Kush J, Shwiff S, Teeter L, et al. Economic estimates of wild hog (Sus scrofa) damage and control among young forest plantations in Alabama. Small-Scale For. 2021;20(4):503-16.

33.U.S. Geological Survey. Annual NLCD Collection 1 Science Products (ver. 1.1, June 2025). Reston (VA, US): U.S. Geological Survey; 2024.

34.U.S. Geological Survey. USGS National Boundary Dataset (NBD) Downloadable Data Collection. Reston (VA, US): U.S. Geological Survey; 2025.

35.Olson Jr M. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, with a new preface and appendix. Cambridge (MA, US): Harvard University Press; 1971.

36.Ostrom E. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 1990.

37.Bowles S, Gintis H. Social Capital and Community Governance. Econ. J. 2002;112(483):F419-F36.

38.Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991;50(2):179-211.

39.Rekola EPM. The Theory of Planned Behavior in Predicting Willingness to Pay for Abatement of Forest Regeneration. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2001;14(2):93-106.

40.Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Indianapolis (IN, US): Center for Sociological Research; 2014.

41.Caplenor CA, Poudyal NC, Muller LI, Yoest C. Assessing landowners’ attitudes toward wild hogs and support for control options. J. Environ. Manag. 2017;201:45-51.

42.Nicosia K, Daaram S, Edelman B, Gedrich L, He E, McNeilly S, et al. Determining the willingness to pay for ecosystem service restoration in a degraded coastal watershed: A ninth grade investigation. Ecol. Econ. 2014;104:145-51.

43.Reaves DW, Kramer RA, Holmes TP. Does question format matter? Valuing an endangered species. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1999;14(3):365-83.

44.Withey P, Sullivan D, Lantz V. Willingness to pay for protection from storm surge damages under climate change in Halifax Regional Municipality. J. Environ. Manag. 2019;241:44-52.

45.Brander LM, Florax RJGM, Vermaat JE. The empirics of wetland valuation: A comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the literature. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2006;33(2):223-50.

46.Lindhjem H, Mitani Y. Forest owners’ willingness to accept compensation for voluntary conservation: A contingent valuation approach. J. For. Econ. 2012;18(4):290-302.

47.Martín-López B, Montes C, Benayas J. The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2007;139(1):67-82.

48.Cho S-H, Newman DH, Bowker JM. Measuring rural homeowners’ willingness to pay for land conservation easements. For Policy Econ. 2005;7(5):757-70.

49.Greene WH. Econometric analysis. London (UK): Pearson; 2018.

50.U. S. Geological Survey. Annual national land cover database (NLCD) collection 1 land cover conterminous United States. Sioux Falls (SD, US): U.S. Geological Survey; 2024.

51.Chatterjee S, Hadi AS. Regression analysis by example. Hoboken (NJ, US): John Wiley & Sons; 2015.

52.Thompson CG, Kim RS, Aloe AM, Becker BJ. Extracting the variance inflation factor and other multicollinearity diagnostics from typical regression results. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2017;39(2):81-90.

53.Hu P, Zhou Y, Zhou J, Wang G, Zhu G. Uncovering the willingness to pay for ecological red lines protection: Evidence from China. Ecol. Indic. 2022;134:108458.

54.Deng Y, Munn IA, Coble K, Yao H. Willingness to pay for potential standing timber insurance. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2015;47(4):510-38.

引用本文

Junyeong Choi*,Nana Tian,Jianbang Gan. Private Landowners’ Willingness to Pay for Managing Feral Swine in the West Gulf Region [J]. Journal of Sustainability Research. 2025; 7; (4). - .

文献评论

相关学者

相关机构