Biological invasion costs reveal insufficient proactive management worldwide

Описание

Тип публикации: статья из журнала

Год издания: 2022

Идентификатор DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153404

Ключевые слова: biosecurity, delayed control and eradication, global trends, invacost, invasive alien species, socio-economic impacts

Аннотация: 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 quantificПоказать полностьюation 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. © 2022 The Authors 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. © 2022 The Authors

Ссылки на полный текст

Издание

Журнал: Science of the Total Environment

Выпуск журнала: Vol. 819

Номера страниц: 153404

ISSN журнала: 00489697

Издатель: Elsevier B.V.

Персоны

  • Cuthbert R.N. (GEOMAR Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung Kiel, Kiel, 24105, Germany, School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 5DL, United Kingdom)
  • Diagne C. (Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Orsay, 91405, France)
  • Hudgins E.J. (Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada)
  • Turbelin A. (Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Orsay, 91405, France)
  • Ahmed D.A. (Center for Applied Mathematics and Bioinformatics, Department of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Gulf University for Science and Technology, P.O. Box 7207, Hawally, 32093, Kuwait)
  • Albert C. (Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Orsay, 91405, France)
  • Bodey T.W. (School of Biological Sciences, King's College, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 3FX, United Kingdom)
  • Briski E. (GEOMAR Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung Kiel, Kiel, 24105, Germany)
  • Essl F. (BioInvasions, Global Change, Macroecology-Group, Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Vienna, Rennweg 14, Vienna, 1030, Austria)
  • Haubrock P.J. (University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, South Bohemian Research Center of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Zátiší 728/II, Vodňany, 389 25, Czech Republic, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Department of River Ecology and Conservation, Gelnhausen, Germany)
  • Gozlan R.E. (ISEM UMR226, Université de Montpellier, CNRS, IRD, EPHE, Montpellier, 34090, France)
  • Kirichenko N. (Sukachev Institute of Forest, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Federal Research Center “Krasnoyarsk Science Center SB RAS”, Krasnoyarsk, 660036, Russian Federation, Siberian Federal University, Krasnoyarsk, 660041, Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg State Forest Technical University, Saint Petersburg, 194021, Russian Federation)
  • Kourantidou M. (University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics, Degnevej 14, Esbjerg Ø, 6705, Denmark, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole, MA 02543, United States, Institute of Marine Biological Resources and Inland Waters, Hellenic Center for Marine Research, Athens, 164 52, Greece)
  • Kramer A.M. (Department of Integrative Biology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, United States)
  • Courchamp F. (Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Orsay, 91405, France)

Вхождение в базы данных