4.7 Article

Biological invasion costs reveal insufficient proactive management worldwide

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 819, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153404

Keywords

Biosecurity; Delayed control and eradication; Global trends; InvaCost; Invasive alien species; Socio-economic impacts

Funding

  1. French National Research Agency [ANR-14-CE02-0021]
  2. BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative
  3. AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology
  4. BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum
  5. Leverhulme Trust [ECF-2021-001]
  6. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  7. Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS) [PR1914SM-01]
  8. Gulf University for Science and Technology (GUST) internal seed funds [187092, 234597]
  9. French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS)
  10. European Union [747120]
  11. Belmont Forum
  12. Austrian Science Foundation FWF
  13. BiodivERsA under BiodivScen ERA-Net COFUND programme
  14. Sukachev Institute of Forest SB RAS, Russia
  15. Russian Science Foundation [I 4011-B32]
  16. [0287-2021-0011]
  17. [21-16-00050]
  18. Russian Science Foundation [21-16-00050] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation
  19. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [747120] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The global increase in biological invasions is putting pressure on ecological and economic systems. However, the lack of standardized measurements across spatial, taxonomic, and temporal scales makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of current management expenditures. Geographic distribution of management costs heavily favors North America and Oceania, with most expenditures directed towards invasive alien invertebrates in terrestrial environments.
The global increase in biological invasions is placing growing pressure on the management of ecological and economic systems. However, the effectiveness of current management expenditure is difficult to assess due to a lack of standardised measurement across spatial, taxonomic and temporal scales. Furthermore, there is no quantification of the spending difference between pre-invasion (e.g. prevention) and post-invasion (e.g. control) stages, although preventative measures are considered to be the most cost-effective. Here, we use a comprehensive database of invasive alien species economic costs (InvaCost) to synthesise and model the global management costs of biological invasions, in order to provide a better understanding of the stage at which these expenditures occur. Since 1960, reported management expenditures have totalled at least US$95.3 billion (in 2017 values), considering only highly reliable and actually observed costs - 12-times less than damage costs from invasions ($1130.6 billion). Pre-invasion management spending ($2.8 billion) was over 25-times lower than post-invasion expenditure ($72.7 billion). Management costs were heavily geographically skewed towards North America (54%) and Oceania (30%). The largest shares of expenditures were directed towards invasive alien invertebrates in terrestrial environments. Spending on invasive alien species management has grown by two orders of magnitude since 1960, reaching an estimated $4.2 billion per year globally (in 2017 values) in the 2010s, but remains 1-2 orders of magnitude lower than damages. National management spending increased with incurred damage costs, with management actions delayed on average by 11 years globally following damage reporting. These management delays on the global level have caused an additional invasion cost of approximately $1.2 trillion, compared to scenarios with immediate management. Our results indicate insufficient management - particularly pre-invasion - and urge better investment to prevent future invasions and to control established alien species. Recommendations to improve reported management cost comprehensiveness, resolution and terminology are also made.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available