Valuing bioeconomic impacts of regulation on nutrient loads mediated by invasive mussels in Lake Michigan.

Current calls to correct the perturbed ecosystems and nutrient imbalances of the Laurentian Great Lakes focus on setting target nutrient levels that will be met by environmental and economic regulations to reduce the flow of excess nutrients into the lakes. While these standard types of regulations have been successful in the past, it is unclear whether they will achieve similar ecological and economic successes now amid possible ecosystem regime shifts triggered by invasive mussels. We compute the bioeconomic costs and benefits of hypothetical regulations designed to target nutrient loads in present-day Lake Michigan through agricultural operations, which are known to be nonpoint source polluters of the aquatic ecosystem network. Our results show how reducing nutrient loads may exacerbate spatially disparate ecosystem issues that generate overall economic losses. Conversely, and counterintuitively, allowing for more nutrient loading could generate economic gains over our assessment timeframe. We determine that implementation of standard nutrient target policies are costly and likely inadequate for current dreissenid-affected aquatic ecosystems experiencing nutrient imbalances because they disregard the interactive role of invasive mussels in nutrient cycling.

Challenges of integrating economics into epidemiological analysis of and policy responses to emerging infectious diseases.

COVID-19 has shown that the consequences of a pandemic are wider-reaching than cases and deaths. Morbidity and mortality are important direct costs, but infectious diseases generate other direct and indirect benefits and costs as the economy responds to these shocks: some people lose, others gain and people modify their behaviours in ways that redistribute these benefits and costs. These additional effects feedback on health outcomes to create a complicated interdependent system of health and non-health outcomes. As a result, interventions primarily intended to reduce the burden of disease can have wider societal and economic effects and more complicated and unintended, but possibly not anticipable, system-level influences on the epidemiological dynamics themselves. Capturing these effects requires a systems approach that encompasses more direct health outcomes. Towards this end, in this article we discuss the importance of integrating epidemiology and economic models, setting out the key challenges which such a merging of epidemiology and economics presents. We conclude that understanding people's behaviour in the context of interventions is key to developing a more complete and integrated economic-epidemiological approach; and a wider perspective on the benefits and costs of interventions (and who these fall upon) will help society better understand how to respond to future pandemics.

Investing to Both Prevent and Prepare for COVID-XX.

One cause of the high rate of COVID-19 cases in the USA is thought to be insufficient prior capital investment in national health programs to preemptively reduce the likelihood of an outbreak and in national capacity to reduce the severity of any outbreak that does occur. We analyze the choice of capital investments (e.g. testing capacity, stockpiles of PPE, and information sharing capacity) and find the economically efficient capital stock associated with mitigating pandemic risk should be dramatically expanded. Policymakers who fail to invest in public health forgo significant expected cost savings from being prepared.

Hesitancy Toward a COVID-19 Vaccine.

The scientific community has come together in a mass mobilization to combat the public health risks of COVID-19, including efforts to develop a vaccine. However, the success of any vaccine depends on the share of the population that gets vaccinated. We designed a survey experiment in which a nationally representative sample of 3,133 adults in the USA stated their intentions to vaccinate themselves and their children for COVID-19. The factors that we varied across treatments were: the stated severity and infectiousness of COVID-19 and the stated source of the risk information (White House or the Centers for Disease Control). We find that 20% of people in the USA intend to decline the vaccine. We find no statistically significant effect on vaccine intentions from the severity of COVID-19. In contrast, we find that the degree of infectiousness of the coronavirus influences vaccine intentions and that inconsistent risk messages from public health experts and elected officials may reduce vaccine uptake. However, the most important determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy seem to be distrust of the vaccine safety (including uncertainty due to vaccine novelty), as well as general vaccine avoidance, as implied by not having had a flu shot in the last two years.

Effects of Physical Distancing to Control COVID-19 on Public Health, the Economy, and the Environment.

Physical distancing measures are important tools to control disease spread, especially in the absence of treatments and vaccines. While distancing measures can safeguard public health, they also can profoundly impact the economy and may have important indirect effects on the environment. The extent to which physical distancing measures should be applied therefore depends on the trade-offs between their health benefits and their economic costs. We develop an epidemiological-economic model to examine the optimal duration and intensity of physical distancing measures aimed to control the spread of COVID-19. In an application to the United States, our model considers the trade-off between the lives saved by physical distancing-both directly from stemming the spread of the virus and indirectly from reductions in air pollution during the period of physical distancing-and the short- and long-run economic costs that ensue from such measures. We examine the effect of air pollution co-benefits on the optimal physical distancing policy and conduct sensitivity analyses to gauge the influence of several key parameters and uncertain model assumptions. Using recent estimates of the association between airborne particulate matter and the virulence of COVID-19, we find that accounting for air pollution co-benefits can significantly increase the intensity and duration of the optimal physical distancing policy. To conclude, we broaden our discussion to consider the possibility of durable changes in peoples' behavior that could alter local markets, the global economy, and our relationship to nature for years to come.

The Economic Case for a Pandemic Fund.

The rapid urban spread of Ebola virus in West Africa in 2014 and consequent breakdown of control measures led to a significant economic impact as well as the burden on public health and wellbeing. The US government appropriated $5.4 Billion for FY2015 and WHO proposed a $100 Million emergency fund largely to curtail the threat of future outbreaks. Using epidemiological analyses and economic modeling, we propose that the best use of these and similar funds would be to serve as global insurance against the continued threat of emerging infectious diseases. An effective strategy would involve the initial investment in strengthening mobile and adaptable capacity to deal with the threat and reality of disease emergence, coupled with repeated investment to maintain what is effectively a 'national guard' for pandemic prevention and response. This investment would create a capital stock that could also provide access to safe treatment during and between crises in developing countries, lowering risk to developed countries.

Impacts of Pathogen Introduction Risk on Importer Behavior and Gains from Trade in the Livestock Industry.

Trade eliminates geographic barriers, allowing for novel exchange of goods and services, but also creates pathways for the unintentional spread of infectious pathogens such as foot and mouth disease. In the absence of trade regulation, a producer's choice of import origin depends on relative prices and costs associated with trading partners. This paper develops a framework for exploring importer behavior in a non-regulated economy, allowing for price and risk heterogeneity among potential import sources. In the model, importers determine the risk of introducing foot and mouth disease to home soil and choose import volumes using risk and market data. When importers consider the possibility of unreported or undetected outbreaks, they choose to import from multiple sources to minimize risk and simultaneously create gains from trade over the regulated outcome. Our results have implications for the development of import and inspection policies that could be specifically designed to target highest risk imports of livestock.

Managing the Endogenous Risk of Disease Outbreaks with Non-Constant Background Risk.

There is a growing concern that risks of disease outbreak and pandemics are increasing over time. We consider optimal investments in prevention before an outbreak using an endogenous risk approach within an optimal control setting. Using the threat of pandemic influenza as an illustrative example, we demonstrate that prevention expenditures are relatively small in comparison to the potential losses facing the USA, and these expenditures need to be flexible and responsive to changes in background risk. Failure to adjust these expenditures to changes in background risk poses a significant threat to social welfare into the future.

Economic optimization of a global strategy to address the pandemic threat.

Emerging pandemics threaten global health and economies and are increasing in frequency. Globally coordinated strategies to combat pandemics, similar to current strategies that address climate change, are largely adaptive, in that they attempt to reduce the impact of a pathogen after it has emerged. However, like climate change, mitigation strategies have been developed that include programs to reduce the underlying drivers of pandemics, particularly animal-to-human disease transmission. Here, we use real options economic modeling of current globally coordinated adaptation strategies for pandemic prevention. We show that they would be optimally implemented within 27 y to reduce the annual rise of emerging infectious disease events by 50% at an estimated one-time cost of approximately $343.7 billion. We then analyze World Bank data on multilateral "One Health" pandemic mitigation programs. We find that, because most pandemics have animal origins, mitigation is a more cost-effective policy than business-as-usual adaptation programs, saving between $344.0.7 billion and $360.3 billion over the next 100 y if implemented today. We conclude that globally coordinated pandemic prevention policies need to be enacted urgently to be optimally effective and that strategies to mitigate pandemics by reducing the impact of their underlying drivers are likely to be more effective than business as usual.

Complementarity in the provision of ecosystem services reduces the cost of mitigating amplified natural disturbance events.

Climate change has been implicated as a root cause of the recent surge in natural disturbance events such as storms, wildfires, and insect outbreaks. This climate-based surge has led to a greater focus on disturbance-mitigating benefits of ecosystem management. Quantifying these benefits requires knowledge of the relationship between natural and anthropogenic disturbances, which is lacking at the temporal and spatial scales needed to inform ecosystem-based management. This study investigates a specific relationship between timber harvesting and climate-amplified outbreaks of mountain pine beetle. If harvesting is located to mitigate long-distance insect dispersal, there is potential for a win-win outcome in which both timber production and forest conservation can be increased. This spatially targeted harvesting strategy lowers the cost of providing disturbance-mitigating ecosystem services, because valuable timber products are also produced. Mitigating long-distance dispersal also produces net gains in forest conservation across various stakeholder groups. These results speak to ongoing federal efforts to encourage forest vegetation removal on public forestlands to improve forest health. These efforts will lower the cost of responding to climate-amplified natural disturbance events but only if vegetation removal efforts are spatially located to reduce disturbance risk. Otherwise, efforts to improve forest health may be converting forest conservation services to timber services.

Merging economics and epidemiology to improve the prediction and management of infectious disease.

Mathematical epidemiology, one of the oldest and richest areas in mathematical biology, has significantly enhanced our understanding of how pathogens emerge, evolve, and spread. Classical epidemiological models, the standard for predicting and managing the spread of infectious disease, assume that contacts between susceptible and infectious individuals depend on their relative frequency in the population. The behavioral factors that underpin contact rates are not generally addressed. There is, however, an emerging a class of models that addresses the feedbacks between infectious disease dynamics and the behavioral decisions driving host contact. Referred to as "economic epidemiology" or "epidemiological economics," the approach explores the determinants of decisions about the number and type of contacts made by individuals, using insights and methods from economics. We show how the approach has the potential both to improve predictions of the course of infectious disease, and to support development of novel approaches to infectious disease management.

Risk assessment for invasive species produces net bioeconomic benefits.

International commerce in live organisms presents a policy challenge for trade globalization; sales of live organisms create wealth, but some nonindigenous species cause harm. To reduce damage, some countries have implemented species screening to limit the introduction of damaging species. Adoption of new risk assessment (RA) technologies has been slowed, however, by concerns that RA accuracy remains insufficient to produce positive net economic benefits. This concern arises because only a small proportion of all introduced species escape, spread, and cause harm (i.e., become invasive), so a RA will exclude many noninvasive species (which provide a net economic benefit) for every invasive species correctly identified. Here, we develop a simple cost:benefit bioeconomic framework to quantify the net benefits from applying species prescreening. Because invasive species are rarely eradicated, and their damages must therefore be borne for long periods, we have projected the value of RA over a suitable range of policy time horizons (10-500 years). We apply the model to the Australian plant quarantine program and show that this RA program produces positive net economic benefits over the range of reasonable assumptions. Because we use low estimates of the financial damage caused by invasive species and high estimates of the value of species in the ornamental trade, our results underestimate the net benefit of the Australian plant quarantine program. In addition, because plants have relatively low rates of invasion, applying screening protocols to animals would likely demonstrate even greater benefits.