IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Allocating biosecurity resources between preventing, detecting, and eradicating island invasions

  • Rout, Tracy M.
  • Moore, Joslin L.
  • Possingham, Hugh P.
  • McCarthy, Michael A.
Registered author(s):

    Finding efficient ways to manage the threat of invasive species helps make the most of limited resources. Different management actions reduce the impact of invasions differently: preventing invasion eliminates impacts entirely, surveillance can facilitate early detection and eradication, and removing individuals can reduce future impact. Few studies have examined the trade-off between all three facets of invasion management. Using a simple model of island invasion, we find how resources should be allocated to each action to minimise the total cost of management and impact. We use a case study of black rat (Rattus rattus) invasion on Barrow Island, Western Australia. The optimal amount to invest in each management action depends on the effectiveness of each action, and the magnitude of impact caused by different stages of invasion. If the pest is currently absent, it is more cost-effective to prevent impacts through prevention or surveillance. If the pest is already widespread, it can sometimes be cost-effective to give up rather than attempting eradication. This model of invasion can provide useful decision support by identifying the trade-offs inherent in each candidate management strategy, the thresholds that alter optimal strategies, and the parameters for which we need more information.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.

    Volume (Year): 71 (2011)
    Issue (Month): C ()
    Pages: 54-62

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:71:y:2011:i:c:p:54-62
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:71:y:2011:i:c:p:54-62. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.