Translator Disclaimer
1 February 2012 Economic Analysis of Emerald Ash Borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) Management Options
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis (Fairmaire) (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), plays a significant role in the health and extent of management of native North American ash species in urban forests. An economic analysis of management options was performed to aid decision makers in preparing for likely future infestations. Separate ash tree population valuations were derived from the i-Tree Streets program and the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) methodology. A relative economic analysis was used to compare a control option (do-nothing approach, only removing ash trees as they die) to three distinct management options: 1) preemptive removal of all ash trees over a 5 yr period, 2) preemptive removal of all ash trees and replacement with comparable nonash trees, or 3) treating the entire population of ash trees with insecticides to minimize mortality. For each valuation and management option, an annual analysis was performed for both the remaining ash tree population and those lost to emerald ash borer. Retention of ash trees using insecticide treatments typically retained greater urban forest value, followed by doing nothing (control), which was better than preemptive removal and replacement. Preemptive removal without tree replacement, which was the least expensive management option, also provided the lowest net urban forest value over the 20-yr simulation. A “no emerald ash borer” scenario was modeled to further serve as a benchmark for each management option and provide a level of economic justification for regulatory programs aimed at slowing the movement of emerald ash borer.

© 2012 Entomological Society of America
A. R. Vannatta, R. H. Hauer, and N. M. Schuettpelz "Economic Analysis of Emerald Ash Borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) Management Options," Journal of Economic Entomology 105(1), 196-206, (1 February 2012). https://doi.org/10.1603/EC11130
Received: 23 April 2011; Accepted: 1 October 2011; Published: 1 February 2012
JOURNAL ARTICLE
11 PAGES

This article is only available to subscribers.
It is not available for individual sale.
+ SAVE TO MY LIBRARY

SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top