IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/halshs-01591987.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Cost-Benefit Approach for Prioritizing Invasive Species

Author

Listed:
  • Pierre Courtois

    () (SAE2 - Département Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, LAMETA - Laboratoire Montpelliérain d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - UM1 - Université Montpellier 1 - UM3 - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - Montpellier SupAgro - Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques - UM - Université de Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier)

  • Charles Figuieres

    (GREQAM - Groupement de Recherche en Économie Quantitative d'Aix-Marseille - ECM - École Centrale de Marseille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - AMU - Aix Marseille Université - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales)

  • Chloe Mulier

    (Innovation - Innovation et Développement dans l'Agriculture et l'Agro-alimentaire - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - CNEARC - Centre national d'études agronomiques des régions chaudes - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - Montpellier SupAgro - Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques - CIHEAM-IAMM - Centre International de Hautes Etudes Agronomiques Méditerranéennes - Institut Agronomique Méditerranéen de Montpellier - CIHEAM - Centre International de Hautes Études Agronomiques Méditerranéennes - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier)

  • Joakim Weill

    (UC Davis - University of California [Davis] - University of California)

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 review 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 and operational method for the management of invasive species under a limited budget constraint. It takes the form of an algorithm for the prioritization of multiple biological invasions.

Suggested Citation

  • Pierre Courtois & Charles Figuieres & Chloe Mulier & Joakim Weill, 2017. "A Cost-Benefit Approach for Prioritizing Invasive Species," Working Papers halshs-01591987, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-01591987
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01591987
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01591987/document
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    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. Morteza Chalak & Maksym Polyakov & David J. Pannell, 2017. "Economics of Controlling Invasive Species: A Stochastic Optimization Model for a Spatial-dynamic Process," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(1), pages 123-139.
    3. Costello, Christopher & Quérou, Nicolas & Tomini, Agnes, 2017. "Private eradication of mobile public bads," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 23-44.
    4. Martin L. Weitzman, 1998. "The Noah's Ark Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(6), pages 1279-1298, November.
    5. Martin L. Weitzman, 1992. "On Diversity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 107(2), pages 363-405.
    6. Carrasco, L.R. & Mumford, J.D. & MacLeod, A. & Knight, J.D. & Baker, R.H.A., 2010. "Comprehensive bioeconomic modelling of multiple harmful non-indigenous species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1303-1312, April.
    7. Finnoff, David & Potapov, Alexei & Lewis, Mark A., 2010. "Control and the management of a spreading invader," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 534-550, November.
    8. Courtois, Pierre & Figuières, Charles & Mulier, Chloe, 2019. "A Tale of Two Diversities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 133-147.
    9. John A. C. Conybeare, 1992. "A Portfolio Diversification Model of Alliances," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(1), pages 53-85, March.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Simianer, H. & Marti, S. B. & Gibson, J. & Hanotte, O. & Rege, J. E. O., 2003. "An approach to the optimal allocation of conservation funds to minimize loss of genetic diversity between livestock breeds," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 377-392, July.
    13. van der Heide, C. Martijn & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2005. "Extending Weitzman's economic ranking of biodiversity protection: combining ecological and genetic considerations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 218-223, November.
    14. Liu, Shuang & Hurley, Michael & Lowell, Kim E. & Siddique, Abu-Baker M. & Diggle, Art & Cook, David C., 2011. "An integrated decision-support approach in prioritizing risks of non-indigenous species in the face of high uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1924-1930, September.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Weitzman, M.L., 1992. "Diversity Functions," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1610, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
    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. Courtois, Pierre & Figuières, Charles & Mulier, Chloe, 2019. "A Tale of Two Diversities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 133-147.
    2. Albers, Heidi J. & Hall, Kim Meyer & Lee, Katherine D. & Taleghan, Majid Alkaee & Dietterich, Thomas G., 2018. "The Role of Restoration and Key Ecological Invasion Mechanisms in Optimal Spatial-Dynamic Management of Invasive Species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 44-54.
    3. Delgado Castillo, Ángela & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M. & Savin, Ivan & Sarto i Monteys, Víctor, 2020. "Cost-benefit analysis of conservation policy: The red palm weevil in Catalonia, Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    cost/benefit; biological invasions; ioritization; 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:hal:wpaper:halshs-01591987. 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: (CCSD). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.