IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fae/ppaper/2017.06.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A cost-benefit approach for prioritizing invasive species

Author

Listed:
  • Pierre Courtois

    () (CEEM ñ INRA)

  • Charles FiguiËres

    () (AMSE ñ Aix-Marseille University)

  • ChloÈ Mulier

    () (Innovation)

  • Joakim Weill

    () (Dept of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis)

Abstract

Biological invasions entail massive biodiversity losses and tremendous economic impacts that justify significant management efforts. Because the funds available to control biological invasions are limited, there is a need to identify priority species. This paper first reviews current invasive species prioritization methods and explicitly highlights their pitfalls. We then construct a cost-benefit optimization framework that incorporates species utility, ecological value, distinctiveness, and species interactions. This framework offers the theoretical foundations of a simple method for the management of multiple invasive species under a limited budget. We provide an algorithm to operationalize this framework and render explicit the assumptions required to satisfy the management objective.

Suggested Citation

  • Pierre Courtois & Charles FiguiËres & ChloÈ Mulier & Joakim Weill, 2017. "A cost-benefit approach for prioritizing invasive species," Policy Papers 2017.06, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:fae:ppaper:2017.06
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://faere.fr/pub/PolicyPapers/Courtois_Figui%C3%A8res_Mulier_Weill_FAERE_PP2017_06.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2017
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pierre Courtois & Charles Figuières & Chloé Mulier, 2014. "Conservation Priorities when Species Interact: the Noah's Ark Metaphor Revisited," Working Papers 2014.02, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    2. Costello, Christopher & Quérou, Nicolas & Tomini, Agnes, 2017. "Private eradication of mobile public bads," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 23-44.
    3. Martin L. Weitzman, 1998. "The Noah's Ark Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(6), pages 1279-1298, November.
    4. Courtois, Pierre & Figuières, Charles & Mulier, Chloe, 2019. "A Tale of Two Diversities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 133-147.
    5. Pimentel, David & Zuniga, Rodolfo & Morrison, Doug, 2005. "Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 273-288, February.
    6. Olson, Lars J., 2006. "The Economics of Terrestrial Invasive Species: A Review of the Literature," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 178-194, April.
    7. Khursheed Alam & Calvin Williams, 1993. "Relative difference in diversity between populations," Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Springer;The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, vol. 45(2), pages 383-399, June.
    8. Epanchin-Niell, Rebecca S. & Wilen, James E., 2012. "Optimal spatial control of biological invasions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 260-270.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Biological invasion; Prioritization; cost-benefit; optimization; Diversity;

    JEL classification:

    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:fae:ppaper:2017.06. 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: (Mireille Chiroleu-Assouline). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/faereea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.