Abstract

Invasive alien species (IAS) are identified as a major threat to biodiversity and ecosystem services. While early detection and control programs to avoid establishments of new alien species can be very cost-effective, control costs for well-established species can be enormous. Many of these well-established species constitute severe or high ecological impact and are thus likely to be included in control programs. However, due to limited funds, we need to prioritize which species to control according to the gains in ecological status and human well-being compared to the costs. Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) provides such a tool but has been hampered by the difficulties in assessing the overall social benefits on the same monetary scale as the control costs. In order to overcome this obstacle, we combine a non-monetary benefit assessment tool with the ecosystem service framework to create a benefit assessment in line with the welfare economic underpinnings of BCA. Our simplified BCA prioritization tool enables us to conduct rapid and cheap appraisals of large numbers of invasive species that the Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre has found to cause negative ecological impacts. We demonstrate this application on 30 well-established invasive alien vascular plant species in Norway. Social benefits are calculated and aggregated on a benefit point scale for six impact categories: four types of ecosystem services (supporting, provisioning, regulating and cultural), human health and infrastructure impacts. Total benefit points are then compared to the total control costs of programs aiming at eradicating individual IAS across Norway or in selected vulnerable ecosystems. Although there are uncertainties with regards to IAS population size, benefits assessment and control program effectiveness and costs; our simplified BCA tool identified six species associated with robust low cost-benefit ratios in terms of control costs (in million USD) per benefit point. As a large share of public funds for eradication of IAS is currently spent on control programs for other plant species, we recommend that the environmental authorities at all levels use our BCA prioritization tool to increase the social benefits of their limited IAS control budgets. In order to maximize the net social benefits of IAS control programs, environmental valuation studies of their ecosystem service benefits are needed.

Highlights

  • The consequences of the overall threats and damages caused by invasive alien species (IAS) are growing (Vié et al 2009; Early et al 2016; Pyšek et al 2020)

  • This paper aims at closing this gap by combining a Generic Impact Scoring System (GISS)-inspired benefit point system with the ecosystem service framework (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005) into a non-monetary benefit assessment based on the contribution to human well-being underlying Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA)

  • Lupinus polyphyllus was considered a highly attractive choice for vegetation cover alongside new roads, and was often planted to prevent erosion, and for its ornamental value as it is both colorful and willing to germinate. This species has over 50,000 records within the map services of Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre (NBIC), making nationwide eradication highly unlikely. This is reflected in the calculated eradication costs of more than 20 million USD given that it is only eradicated in areas where it is a threat to red-listed ecosystems

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The consequences of the overall threats and damages caused by invasive alien species (IAS) are growing (Vié et al 2009; Early et al 2016; Pyšek et al 2020). The handling of such species is embedded in the United Nations sustainability goal number 15.8 committing to: “introduce measures to prevent the introduction and significantly reduce the impact of invasive alien species.... Many governments have aimed at minimizing current and future threats by IAS through directed control programs Such programs have been difficult to implement due to steep economic costs (Rejmánek and Pitcairn 2002) as well as other societal factors (Reaser et al 2020b). Several tools and recommendations have been proposed to help implement control programs (Genovesi and Carnevali 2011; Hulme et al 2018; Reaser et al 2020a, b; Verbrugge et al 2021)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.