4.5 Article

Economic costs of invasive alien species in Spain

期刊

NEOBIOTA
卷 67, 期 -, 页码 267-297

出版社

PENSOFT PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.67.59181

关键词

Iberian Peninsula; InvaCost; management costs; monetary impacts; non-native species; prevention costs; socioecology; stakeholders

资金

  1. French National Research Agency [ANR-14-CE02-0021]
  2. AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology
  3. BiodivERsA
  4. Belmont-Forum Call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios
  5. AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology of University Paris Saclay
  6. BiodivERsA-Belmont Forum Project Alien Scenarios [BMBF/PT DLR 01LC1807C]
  7. EXPRO (Czech Science Foundation) [1928807X]
  8. Czech Academy of Sciences [RVO 67985939]
  9. BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Economic assessments of invasive alien species in Spain have shown a significant increase in costs in recent years, with a majority of the expenses allocated to management actions rather than damage. Regional and inter-regional administrations are responsible for the majority of these costs, highlighting the need for more focus on prevention rather than post-invasion management in line with international guidelines.
Economic assessments for invasive alien species (IAS) are an urgent requirement for informed decision making, coordinating and motivating the allocation of economic and human resources for the management of IAS. We searched for economic costs of IAS occurring in Spain, by using the InvaCost database and requesting data to regional governments and national authorities, which resulted in over 3,000 cost entries. Considering only robust data (i.e. excluding extrapolated, potential (not-incurred or expected) and low reliability costs), economic costs in Spain were estimated at US$ 261 million (euro 232 million) from 1997 to 2022. There was an increase from US$ 4 million per year before 2000 to US$ 15 million per year in the last years (from euro 4 to 13 million). Robust data showed that most reported costs of IAS in Spain (> 90%) corresponded to management costs, while damage costs were only found for 2 out of the 174 species with reported costs. Economic costs relied mostly on regional and inter-regional administrations that spent 66% of costs in post-invasion management actions, contrary to all international guidelines, which recommend investing more in prevention. Regional administrations unequally reported costs. Moreover, 36% of the invasive species, reported to incur management costs, were not included in national or European regulations (i.e. Black Lists), suggesting the need to review these policies; besides, neighbouring regions seem to manage different groups of species. We suggest the need of a national lead agency to effectively coordinate actions, facilitate communication and collaboration amongst regional governments, national agencies and neighbouring countries. This will motivate the continuity of long-lasting management actions and the increase in efforts to report IAS costs by regional and inter-regional managers which will adequately provide information for future budgets gaining management effectiveness.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据