TY - JOUR
T1 - Government intervention in wildlife damage management
T2 - a bioeconomic analysis of wildlife damage compensation and taxation policies
AU - Xie, Zijin
N1 - Funding Information:
Agricultural policies with simultaneous income taxation and wildlife damage compensation are implementing in the real world. For example, the Province of New Brunswick, Canada, has a wildlife damage compensation policy that compensates farmers who suffered income losses due to wildlife. Farmers who reported wildlife damage to the department of agriculture can receive a compensation payment, which is calculated based on the value of the actual agricultural loss. This wildlife damage compensation policy is funded by the government of Canada and the province. On the other hand, in Canada, even though the tax rates vary from province to province, farmers must pay income tax and property tax to the government. These taxes paid to the public agencies are funding for wildlife damage compensation programs (Nyhus et al., ). Therefore, the assumption that the compensation program is funded by the taxation revenue is reasonable.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2022/4
Y1 - 2022/4
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Agricultural tax
KW - Bioeconomic model
KW - Wildlife conservation
KW - Wildlife damage compensation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85103554762&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85103554762&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10818-021-09314-y
DO - 10.1007/s10818-021-09314-y
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85103554762
SN - 1387-6996
VL - 24
SP - 93
EP - 115
JO - Journal of Bioeconomics
JF - Journal of Bioeconomics
IS - 1
ER -