IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v152y2018icp1-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prioritising Invasive Species Control Actions: Evaluating Effectiveness, Costs, Willingness to Pay and Social Acceptance

Author

Listed:
  • Roberts, Michaela
  • Cresswell, Will
  • Hanley, Nick

Abstract

Island ecosystems are recognised as high priority for biodiversity conservation, with invasive species a significant threat. To investigate prioritisation invasive species control, we conducted cost-effectiveness analysis of donkey control on Bonaire, Caribbean Netherlands. Successful prioritisation must take account of ecological, economic and social aspects of conservation. Further improvements are possible where impacts are measured across ecosystem boundaries, and management is tied to funding. We modelled the expected ecological impacts of control options, estimated costs, and connected this to the willingness of beneficiaries to fund such projects. Finally we surveyed experts to understand the social acceptability of donkey control. Of the control options, eradication is predicted to have the highest ecological impacts across two ecosystems, and to be cost-effective over the long term. Costs of all control options were within user willingness to pay. Social acceptability was highest for fencing, and lowest for lethal control. Though eradication offers the highest ecological benefits, we suggest that lower initial costs and higher social acceptability make fencing the better choice for Bonaire in the immediate future. In this way we illustrate the importance of considering economic and social impacts alongside the ecological in environmental conservation, and present an integrated application for prioritising conservation choices.

Suggested Citation

  • Roberts, Michaela & Cresswell, Will & Hanley, Nick, 2018. "Prioritising Invasive Species Control Actions: Evaluating Effectiveness, Costs, Willingness to Pay and Social Acceptance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 1-8.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:152:y:2018:i:c:p:1-8
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800917314349
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.027?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lynn A. Maguire, 2004. "What Can Decision Analysis Do for Invasive Species Management?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 859-868, August.
    2. Joseph Maina & Hans de Moel & Jens Zinke & Joshua Madin & Tim McClanahan & Jan E. Vermaat, 2013. "Human deforestation outweighs future climate change impacts of sedimentation on coral reefs," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 4(1), pages 1-7, October.
    3. Grafeld, Shanna & Oleson, Kirsten & Barnes, Michele & Peng, Marcus & Chan, Catherine & Weijerman, Mariska, 2016. "Divers' willingness to pay for improved coral reef conditions in Guam: An untapped source of funding for management and conservation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 202-213.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    5. Klein, Carissa J. & Jupiter, Stacy D. & Watts, Matthew & Possingham, Hugh P., 2014. "Evaluating the influence of candidate terrestrial protected areas on coral reef condition in Fiji," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 360-365.
    6. James Boyd & Rebecca Epanchin-Niell & Juha Siikamäki, 2015. "Conservation Planning: A Review of Return on Investment Analysis," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 9(1), pages 23-42.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Raven D. Blakeway & Ashley D. Ross & Glenn A. Jones, 2021. "Insights from a Survey of Texas Gulf Coast Residents on the Social Factors Contributing to Willingness to Consume and Purchase Lionfish," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-16, August.
    2. Hou, Gege & Bai, Lei & Si, Shubin, 2023. "Ecosystem resilience and stability analysis against alien species invasion patterns," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 619(C).
    3. Melina Kourantidou & Laura N H Verbrugge & Phillip J Haubrock & Ross N Cuthbert & Elena Angulo & Inkeri Ahonen & Michelle Cleary & Jannike Falk-Andersson & Lena Granhag & Sindri Gíslason & Brooks Kais, 2022. "The economic costs, management and regulation of biological invasions in the Nordic countries," Post-Print hal-03860518, HAL.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peng, Marcus & Oleson, Kirsten L.L., 2017. "Beach Recreationalists' Willingness to Pay and Economic Implications of Coastal Water Quality Problems in Hawaii," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 41-52.
    2. Renato Perez Loyola & Erda Wang & Nannan Kang, 2021. "Economic valuation of recreational attributes using a choice experiment approach: An application to the Galapagos Islands," Tourism Economics, , vol. 27(1), pages 86-104, February.
    3. Juan Carlos Martín & Concepción Román & Cira Mendoza, 2018. "Determinants for sun-and-beach self-catering accommodation selection," Tourism Economics, , vol. 24(3), pages 319-336, May.
    4. John Robinson, Peter & van Beukering, Pieter & Brander, Luke & Brouwer, Roy & Haider, W. & Taylor, Michael & Mau, Paulus, 2022. "Understanding the determinants of biodiversity non-use values in the context of climate change: Stated preferences for the Hawaiian coral reefs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    5. Rogers, Abbie A. & Burton, Michael P. & Cleland, Jonelle A. & Rolfe, John C. & Meeuwig, Jessica J. & Pannell, David J., 2020. "Expert judgements and community values: preference heterogeneity for protecting river ecology in Western Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(2), April.
    6. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    7. Cheng, Leilei & Yin, Changbin & Chien, Hsiaoping, 2015. "Demand for milk quantity and safety in urban China: evidence from Beijing and Harbin," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(2), April.
    8. Johannes Buggle & Thierry Mayer & Seyhun Orcan Sakalli & Mathias Thoenig, 2023. "The Refugee’s Dilemma: Evidence from Jewish Migration out of Nazi Germany," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(2), pages 1273-1345.
    9. Christelis, Dimitris & Dobrescu, Loretti I. & Motta, Alberto, 2020. "Early life conditions and financial risk-taking in older age," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    10. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    11. Doyle, Orla & Fidrmuc, Jan, 2006. "Who favors enlargement?: Determinants of support for EU membership in the candidate countries' referenda," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 520-543, June.
    12. Tovar, Jorge, 2012. "Consumers’ Welfare and Trade Liberalization: Evidence from the Car Industry in Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 808-820.
    13. Pereira, Pedro & Ribeiro, Tiago, 2011. "The impact on broadband access to the Internet of the dual ownership of telephone and cable networks," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 283-293, March.
    14. Simon P. Anderson & André de Palma, 2012. "Competition for attention in the Information (overload) Age," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(1), pages 1-25, March.
    15. Mtimet, Nadhem & Ujiie, Kiyokazu & Kashiwagi, Kenichi & Zaibet, Lokman & Nagaki, Masakazu, 2011. "The effects of Information and Country of Origin on Japanese Olive Oil Consumer Selection," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114642, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    17. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    18. Abdurrahman B. Aydemir & Erkan Duman, 2021. "Migrant Networks and Destination Choice: Evidence from Moves across Turkish Provinces," Koç University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum Working Papers 2109, Koc University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum.
    19. Brown, Sarah & Greene, William H. & Harris, Mark N. & Taylor, Karl, 2015. "An inverse hyperbolic sine heteroskedastic latent class panel tobit model: An application to modelling charitable donations," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 228-236.
    20. Divine Ikenwilo & Sebastian Heidenreich & Mandy Ryan & Colette Mankowski & Jameel Nazir & Verity Watson, 2018. "The Best of Both Worlds: An Example Mixed Methods Approach to Understand Men’s Preferences for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(1), pages 55-67, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:152:y:2018:i:c:p:1-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.