Diversity 2014, 6, 500-523; doi:10.3390/d6030500
OPEN ACCESS
diversity
ISSN 1424-2818
www.mdpi.com/journal/diversity
Review
Economics of Harmful Invasive Species: A Review
George Marbuah 1,*, Ing-Marie Gren 1 and Brendan McKie 2
1
2
Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7013, 750 07
Uppsala, Sweden; E-Mail: Ing-Marie.Gren@slu.se
Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessments, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,
P.O. Box 7050, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden; E-Mail: Brendan.Mckie@slu.se
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: george.marbuah@slu.se;
Tel.: +46720436153.
Received: 5 May 2014; in revised form: 26 June 2014 / Accepted: 3 July 2014 /
Published: 15 July 2014
Abstract: The purpose of this study is to review theoretical and empirical findings in
economics with respect to the challenging question of how to manage invasive species. The
review revealed a relatively large body of literature on the assessment of damage costs of
invasive species; single species and groups of species at different geographical scales.
However, the estimated damage costs show large variation, from less than 1 million USD
to costs corresponding to 12% of gross domestic product, depending on the methods
employed, geographical scale, and scope with respect to inclusion of different species.
Decisions regarding optimal management strategies, when to act in the invasion chain and
which policy to choose, have received much less attention in earlier years, but have been
subject to increasing research during the last decade. More difficult, but also more relevant
policy issues have been raised, which concern the targeting in time and space of strategies
under conditions of uncertainty. In particular, the weighting of costs and benefits from
early detection and mitigation against the uncertain avoidance of damage with later control,
when the precision in targeting species is typically greater is identified as a key challenge.
The role of improved monitoring for detecting species and their spread and damage has
been emphasized, but questions remain on how to achieve this in practice. This is in
contrast to the relatively large body of literature on policies for mitigating dispersal by
trade, which is regarded as one of the most important vectors for the spread of invasive
species. On the other hand, the literature on how to mitigate established species, by control
or adaptation, is much more scant. Studies evaluating causes for success or failure of
policies against invasive in practice are in principal non-existing.
Diversity 2014, 6
501
Keywords: alien invasive species; economics; management; literature review
1. Introduction
Intentional and unintentional introductions of invasive species into new environments have had,
and continue to have profound ecological, human, social and economic effects at national, regional
and global scales. Natural habitats of indigenous species have been disturbed, ecosystem
functioning degraded, and aesthetics of natural environments impaired due to biological invasions.
This worrying phenomenon has received recognition from ecologists, economists and public
entities with environmental protection and management oversight. For example, [1] estimates
damage costs of 79 harmful invasive species (HIS) to be some $185 billion at the maximum, which
corresponds to 1.4% of GDP (gross domestic product) of the US in 1993. Later studies also
indicate large damage costs as related to GDP, up to 12% (see review in [2] and Table 1 in Section 3).
The damages and their causes are much explained by economic activities; as vectors of HIS
through international trade and as drivers increasing ecosystem vulnerability through changes in
land uses and environmental pollution. This, in turn, implies that strategies for managing HIS can
be found in economic solutions to these causes and their effects. Non-economic factors that
influence HIS introduction include among others activities undertaken for the purposes of deriving
non-material benefits from species’ introduction for aesthetics, educational (e.g., ornamental plants for
horticultural studies; invasive fish for aquaculture experiments, etc.) and cultural heritage (e.g.,
religious values).
However studies on the economics of biological invasive species and their associated problems
were scarce in the mainstream economic literature, until recently. In the last few decades, the
economic field has been witnessing a relative explosion of both theoretical and empirical
expositions aimed at shedding light on the economic problem of invasive species. In principle, we
can identify three main questions addressed in this literature; (i) what is the damage cost of HIS?
(ii) which is the best management strategy? and (iii) which policy instruments should be used in
order to affect peoples’ behavior? The literature on the first question arose relatively early, some
studies are found in 1980s, and have been subject to reviews in mid 2000s [3–5]. These reviews
showed large differences in estimated damage costs of single species, which is explained by
differences in methods applied, and the spatial and dynamic scale of the studies. The two other
questions started to be addressed and analyzed in the economic literature approximately 20 years
later. Some of this literature is reviewed in [6], who concluded that much of the literature so far
was theoretical and in its infancy. Nevertheless, [6] pointed out important lessons that were
already apparent, such as the need to use tariffs on trade or inspections of cargos with care, given
they can be counter-productive and even increase the risk of HIS, as well as the trade-off between
early detection and response and risk of spending large resource on invasive species that would not
cause any harm.
Here, we provide an updated review of the literature on the economics of invasive species
management. In particular we provide an overview of recent developments in economics, and which
Diversity 2014, 6
502
challenges remain. We review both theoretical and empirical studies addressing various management
strategies and using different methodological approaches. The biological invasion chain, commonly
applied on the ecological literature, serves as a point of departure for the review, which is discussed in
the next section. The remaining part of the study is structured around the three main questions raised in
the economic literature. Section 3 then contains brief review of studies on estimates of damage costs of
HIS, and the subsequent sections review studies on efficient HIS management and choice of policy
instruments. The paper ends with a discussion and concluding remarks.
2. Invasion Chain and Management Strategy
Biological invasions as an uncertain or stochastic process comprise four stages—introduction,
establishment, naturalization and spread/dispersal, and damage creation. In the first stage, species
are conveyed from their previous range by some means and routes, called the “vector” and
“pathway” respectively. They are consequently transported and introduced into a new environment
either intentionally (e.g., importation of exotic plants for aquaculture or horticultural production)
or unintentionally (e.g., organisms found in ballast water of ships or soil of potted plants;
pests/viruses carried by humans). The number of individuals surviving after their release or escape
into the novel environment depends both on the species-specific traits (e.g., environmental tolerances),
and the length and harshness of the pathway [7]. Next in the process is the establishment of the
species population in their new location, when growth and reproduction gathers pace. With an
increase in population, the species then spreads both within and then beyond the system it
originally invaded, and, in the final stage, may cause considerable ecological, human health or
economy-wide damage. Nevertheless, typically only 10 percent of imported (accidentally brought
into the country) and/or introduced (those found in the wild) species are likely to become
successful invaders or established (found outside control or captivity as a potentially self-sustaining
population) [8,9]. This is the much publicized tens rule quoted “…the statistical rule holds that 1 in
10 of those imported appear in the wild (introduced or casual), 1 in 10 of those introduced become
established, and that 1 in 10 of those established become a pest” [8]. The caution here is that the
interpretation of the tens rule is dependent on the precision with respect definition of “imported”,
“introduced”, “established” and “pest” or HIS. Notable exceptions to the tens rule have, in recent
times been established. A review by [10] reveal that mean invasion success of animals from one of
step of the invasion chain to another is about five times more than what is suggested by the tens
rule. This is further corroborated by [11] in a study of introduced mammals and birds.
Once established, invasive species are notable for their capacity to rapidly transform both structural
and functional properties of ecosystems over remarkably short time scales [12,13]. While newly
colonized alien species may spend decades present with low abundances and minimum ecological
impact, once they enter the invasive phase, they can rapidly induce changes in the abundance and
distribution of native species, causing local extinctions and large shifts in community structure [14].
Such impacts are relatively well-studied. However, it is also recognized that HIS also alter the
magnitude and stability of ecosystem functioning, and delivery of supporting, provisioning,
regulating and recreational/cultural ecosystem services [12,15]. Furthermore, evidence has
recently emerged that dramatic ecological changes can occur as a result of interactions between
Diversity 2014, 6
503
species invasions and other agents of global change, including changes to climate and nutrient
cycles [16–18]. Many HIS are tolerant species with rapid growth rates, allowing them to rapidly
exploit excess nutrients and outcompete native species, particularly in systems subjected to
additional abiotic or biotic disturbances [16,18]. HIS also often carry new pathogens into the
invaded areas, which can act as drivers of disease epidemics, representing a substantial threat to
the biodiversity of native organisms [12,19], and destabilizing ecosystem functioning, and
ecosystem service delivery [20,21]. Finally, when reaching the final stage, the impact of invasive
species on ecosystem services can be large [22].
Management strategies available to the decision-maker along the invasions chain include prevention,
early detection, rapid response and eradication, control/mitigation and adaptation (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Stages common to all invasions by nonindigenous species (left column), and
major policy and management options (right column) associated with each stage of
invasion. From the top to the bottom of the left column, each arrow is thinner than the
preceding one because the proportion of species that proceeds from one step to the next is
less than the previous one. Nevertheless, because the number of species entering pathways
is increasing as global trade increases, the number of species causing harmful impacts is
increasing with time.
Invasion Process
General Policy and Management Options
Species in vector/pathway
Prevention
Transported and released alive
Early detection, rapid response, and eradication
Population established
Control and slow the spread
Spread/dispersal
Ecological, human health, or
economic impact
Human adaptation (change behavior, bear the
costs) or Restoration
Source: Adapted and modified from [7,23].
Diversity 2014, 6
504
Prevention involves measures, such as inspection of ships and containers at the port of entry, which
aim at reducing the likelihood of a species entering a new host region. Action in the second stage, early
detection and rapid response (EDRR), encompasses timely response management strategies aimed at
detected species (in small populations) that slip through prevention efforts. Mitigation and control
involve actions that reduce the growth and spread of an established species, such as construction of
physical barriers in streams to prevent the spread of invasive crayfish. The final option is adaptation
in situ to the invader which can involve chemical application (e.g., use of pesticides) and harvesting of
the invasive species [6,24].
Generally, invasive species management along the invasion chain is thought of as the “weakest
link” public good in the sense that it is nonexclusive and non-rivalrous [25]. Its provision benefits
everyone in terms of enhanced protection to human, animal and plant health and the consequent effect
on productivity improvements in agriculture, forestry, aquaculture and fisheries [26]. Given its public
good characteristics, invasive species control will be undersupplied if left to the market to produce,
given the incentive to “free ride”, hence creating market inefficiencies—this justifies the need for some
(public) policy to correct the externality thus created. A classical example of the “public good” element
in the prevention of biological invasions in the case of a national quarantine policy to protect against
some invasive pathogens is exemplified by [25]. The quarantine program reduces the risk to everybody in
the country—the benefits of which are neither rival nor exclusive. Provision of the quarantine service and
the benefits to all people does not affect the cost of quarantine not reduce the benefits of quarantine to
others. Now, given the nonexclusive nature of public goods, economic agents have a rather strong
incentive to free-ride on the efforts of others. The prevention of these potentially noxious invasive species,
if left to the market, would be undersupplied—a case of socially sub-optimal control, [25] conclude that
although the providers of the quarantine service may be private, the quarantine of nonindigenous
species is typically a public service.
A common theoretical approach in economics for answering the three questions, i.e., estimating
damage costs of HIS and for identifying optimal control strategies, is to use bio-economic modeling.
This implies an integration of models describing biological processes with those presenting economic
behavior. An evaluation of the optimal management objective requires that given control costs
(depends on amount being controlled and size of invasion being controlled), the decision-maker
chooses control at each point in time minimize expected discounted control costs and invasion
damages over time (both costs and damages must be measured in similar unit currency so they can be
summed) to a biological transition function for invasion constraint. Alternative objectives such as
minimization of costs of eradication or adaptation (containment) of an invasion or maximization of
amount of control subject to a budget constraint have also been used in other studies [27].
3. Damage Costs of Invasive Species
The magnitude of damage costs of an invasive species depends on the probabilities of passing each
of the stages in the invasion chain in Figure 1, and on impacts on different ecosystem services. The
costs of the impacts are then measured as the difference in the value of ecosystem services with and
without the invader under study. This requires information and data not only on the invader as such,
but also on alternative developments of the ecosystems under study. For example, an invasive aquatic
Diversity 2014, 6
505
weed causing impaired bathing water quality could be replaced by an endemic weed with the same
effects. In this case, there would not be any costs of invader. The information is needed irrespective of
ex-ante or ex-post estimates. In case of ex-ante estimates, the status without the invader is known, but
the effects are unknown, and vice versa for ex-post studies. However, although relatively simple in
theory, it is very difficult to obtain necessary data on the invasion chain, and environmental impacts
under different scenarios, and on the probable development of the invaded systems had the invasion
not occurred.
Most of the studies reviewed in this section are ex-post evaluation where damage costs of
established HIS are calculated. Starting in early 1960s there is now a large body of literature in
environmental economics on methods for assessing values on environmental impacts in monetary
terms (see review in [28]). Monetary values are assigned to the impacts perceived by humans, such as
harvest losses, or impacts on health and biodiversity. Some of these values can be traded on the
market, such as losses in crop and timber harvests, and values are then obtained by means of market
prices. Other values, such as improved health and biodiversity, are not traded, and their assessments
need to be obtained in other ways. In principle, we identify two types of approaches: preferences
obtained directly from hypothetical markets and revealed, directly or indirectly, through real markets.
Both these methods have their pros and cons, which are related to the two types of values of a single
non-market service, such as biodiversity, that are usually estimated; use and non-use values. Use
values refer to the utility experienced by actually using a service, where recreational values of fishing
provide one example. Non-use values refer to values assigned to have the option to use a resource in
the future, or simply to the pure existence of the service as such. The method resting on hypothetical
market has the ability to estimate both these types of values, which the revealed preference method
does not have. Both types of methods share two types of difficulties: One is how to find measurement
on a continuum of environmental changes, and not only one or few, and the other is how to derive
estimates for several simultaneous changes at an ecosystem, such as improved fishing and bathing
opportunities. Furthermore, it is well known that calculations of effects can be made only under
conditions of risk and uncertainty, which requires assessment of monetary values under these
conditions. Methods have been developed in order to resolve this problem, such as the choice
experiment methods, but the issue of measuring preference formation under stochastic and long term
conditions remains.
The application of the two methods for measuring preferences requires quantification of the
environmental or ecological impacts of the invasive species, which may be difficult or even impossible
to achieve. In this case, a common approach used is the so-called cost based method. This method
measures costs for measures along the invasion chain to control the invader and its damages. The
underlying justification for the method is that society would not bear these costs unless they are
covered by perceived values. This method has quite often been applied to the estimation of damage
cost of invasive species, the literature of which started in the 1980s. Today, there is large variation in
studies and assessments with respect to both methods, scale and scope of species and regions. Here, we
distinguish between large scale and scope studies which include several groups of species and
sometimes regions, and studies focused on single species. Starting with the large scale studies, there is
considerable variation in the estimates (Table 1).
Diversity 2014, 6
506
Table 1. Studies with national scale and estimates of damage costs of invasive species
(billion USD per year in 2008 prices and % of GDP).
US
Billion
USD/year
% of
GDP
131–185 1;
121 2; 220 3
1.0–1.4;
0.9; 1.7
Aust
ralia
South
Africa
India
Brazil
UK
Ireland
Germany
Sweden
Canada
7.7 2
3.9 2
117 2
47 2
15 2
0.4 4
1.9 5
3.3 6
15 7
1.0
1.4
12
4.5
0.4;
<0.001
0.01
0.1
0.9
1
[1], 2 [29], 3 [30], 4 [31], 5 [32], 6 [2], 7 [33].
The results presented in Table 1 show a large variation in estimated costs, ranging between less than
0.001% of GDP to 12%. The relatively large values are obtained for species causing production losses
in agriculture as calculated by [29]. [1] also show relatively high damage costs and provides one of the
first large scale and scope study and reports both ecological and economic impacts of 79 noxious
species over the period 1906–1991. In a worst-case scenario for 15 potential high-impact
nonindigenous invasive species, they report a future economic loss of another $134 billion. For
noxious aquatic weeds, a cumulative increase of only three harmful fish species and aquatic
invertebrates would cause a total of $631 million and $1.6 billion, respectively to the US (see [1] for
detailed estimates).
Environmental and economic costs associated with nonindigenous invasive species in the US are
estimated [30,34,35]. Out of the 50,000 introduced nonindigenous species into the US, only 5,000 are
considered harmful [34]. Their results show that if they had been successful at assigning monetary
value to species extinctions and losses in biodiversity, ecosystem services and aesthetic impairment,
the actual costs of destructions from nonindigenous species would be several times higher than $137
billion per annum. In an updated study of the US, [30] considered 6000 harmful alien species, and
estimated annual environmental damages and losses of approximately most $120 billion. Invasive
mammals and birds (wild horses and burros, feral pigs, mongooses, rats, cats, dogs, pigeons, starlings,
brown snake, and fish) would cause major environmental and economic losses of $46 billion per
annum in damage and control costs per annum in the US. Further, economic damages from
nonindigenous species invasions in the US, UK, Australia, South Africa, India and Brazil amounts to
more than $336 billion [29]. The study by [30] and others have been critiqued for assuming no
adjustment of economic behavior to changing market conditions from HIS. This assumption is often
premised on fixed or exogenous prices to the economic system which is deemed unrealistic since there
are often behavioral adjustments (to income, output and substitution effects) by people and markets to
biological conditions such as HIS with the resultant feedbacks making prices endogenous [36]. The
result is that these “fixed-prices” models typically overestimate damages costs or financial impacts
from HIS. By accounting for people’s adaption to invasive emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) in
their model for Ohio, [36] estimate annual damages caused by the beetle to be $70 million compared to
exogenous price models with estimated damages within the range of $377–$967 million.
The total costs of 13 alien invasive species in Sweden has been estimated, with an average cost of
$3.3 billion [2]. Another study estimates economic impacts on various sectors (agriculture, forestry,
Diversity 2014, 6
507
aquaculture and fisheries, tourism, construction, transport, human health) of both invasive and
non-native species to total $0.4 in total for Ireland and Northern Ireland [31].
However, these large scale and scope studies apply relatively simple methods for assessing damage
costs, where actual costs of control or production losses have been the main sources of damage.
Results from [1] and [29] have been heavily criticized for failing to incorporate impacts on ecosystem
services or explicit consideration of potential benefits provided by some of the invasive species. Also,
failure to use systematic empirical cost estimation methods and the anecdotal nature of their estimates
are seen as major flaws [37].
Studies that are more focused in scope and/or scale, which calculate damage costs of only one
species or group of species, were carried out first in the 1980s, and there exist today several reviews of
such single species studies [3–5]. Two of them, [3,5], review studies on damage costs of aquatic alien
species, and [4] provide a survey of studies on damage and mitigation costs of alien species in general.
In Table 2 we present results of these reviews and give some examples of single species studies. For
each study, we also inform on species and region under study, type of cost, and result.
Table 2. Reviews and examples of studies on damage costs of single species or group
of species.
Species and region
Type of damage costs
Cost in billion USD/year
or per person/year
Aquatic weed, US
Fynbos, South Africa
Weeds, Australia, New
Zealand,
Sea Lamprey, US
Production losses, recreational values
Production losses, recreational values
production losses in agriculture,
forestry and fishery
Production losses in fishery,
restoration costs, recreational values
Losses to sport fishery, control costs
Destruction cost on facilities (power
plants etc)
1–10
0.07–12
0.2–1
Production loss from anchovy fishery
Production loss from fishery
0.02
6.0
8/person
Yellow floating heart, lake in
Sweden
US
Production loss in endemic noble
crayfish
Recreational values
Estate market value
Zebra mussel in Great lakes,
US Canada
Aquaculture, sport fishery, boats,
aesthetic
0.0002 marginal cost of an
infested lake
3.5
Surveys
[3]
[4]
[4]
[5]
[5]
[5]
Ruffe, US
Zebra mussel, US and
Canada
0.03–5
0.01–0.6
0.1–5
Examples of nonsurvey studies:
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
Comb jelly in Black Sea
Aquatic plants, 13 Florida
lakes, US
Signal crayfish, in Sweden
90/person
Diversity 2014, 6
508
Table 2. Cont.
Species and region
Type of damage costs
Cost in billion USD/year
or per person/year
[44]
Zebra mussel in Lake
Okeechobee, Florida, US
0.24
[45]
Invasive upland plants,
Florida, US
Wood and phloem boring
insects (borer species),
continental US
Aquatic plants, UK
Consumptive water uses, recreational
angling and wetland ecosystem
services
Reduce flow of forestland benefits
Loss in forest and urban trees
2.5
Control cost
0.1
Examples of nonsurvey studies:
[46]
[47]
0.87
The surveys reveal considerable damage costs of a specific species, in particular for aquatic weeds
in US and fynbos in South Africa. [3] focused on damage costs of aquatic weeds in US and included
relatively few studies, less than 10 studies, but with equal proportions on estimates of costs as
reduction in recreational values or as control costs. [4] reviews more studies, approximately 30, and
distinguish between ex-ante and ex-post studies, evaluate the methods used, and also discuss if and
how uncertainty in the estimates were considered. They conclude that the majority of studies make
ex-post valuations, use mainly control cost as a measure of damage costs or assess impacts on
agriculture and sylvicultural sectors, and do not explicitly address uncertainty in effects or damages.
[5] covered approximately 30 studies on aquatic HIS in addition to species specific studies, where
most of the studies calculate costs of the zebra mussel (12), Sea lamprey (8), and aquatic weeds (8).
The vast majority of studies estimate costs in terms of expenses for control of the species or as losses
in profits or benefits for different production sectors, mainly fishery.
Except for [38], we present non-survey studies not included in any previous survey. The reason for
including [38] is the early innovative approach with bio-economic modeling where the dynamics of the
invader, comb jelly, was modelled together with resident species, anchovy, in order to calculate damage
costs as losses in the fishery. A similar approach was applied by [39,40]. Econometric estimates of the
dynamics of the invader, signal crayfish, and the endemic species, noble crayfish have been made [40].
Damage costs were then estimated as losses in the value of harvests of the noble crayfish. A
bio-economic model of invasive aquatic plants (hydrilla, water hyacinth and water lettuce) is developed
and applied to 13 large Florida lakes in the US [39]. Similarly, [44] estimates the potential economic
impact of zebra mussel on consumptive water uses, recreational angling and wetland ecosystem
services by using a probabilistic bio-economic simulation model under alternate policy scenarios. The
model is then applied to Lake Okeechobee in Florida. Under the do nothing scenario (i.e., no public
management), zebra mussels yield an adverse expected net economic impact of $244.1 million.
However, with public management (i.e., investment in prevention and eradication), we expect a net
gain of $188.7 million over a 20-year planning horizon. Still in the state of Florida, [45] suggest that a
state program being implemented beginning in the late 1990s to control invasive upland plants are very
effective and could yield as much as $865.1 million in present value net benefits through 2016.
Diversity 2014, 6
509
Non-native forest insects have also been found to cause substantial costs to forests and urban trees.
Suggestions are made that wood- and phloem-boring insects to both homeowners and municipal
governments in excess of $2.5 billion annually, with the largest economic cost imposed on local
governments ($1.7 billion) [46].
Two of the studies, [41,42], apply choice experiment and hedonic methodologies, respectively, in
assessing damage costs of aquatic invasive species. Costs of Yellow Floating Heart with respect to
recreational values (bathing, boating and scenic beauty) were calculated for a small lake, Väringen, in mid
Sweden, and found that recreational values of boating were most strongly affected by the weed [41]. The
hedonic method was used by [42] by estimating the effects of aquatic invasive species, Eurosian
Watermilfoil (milfoil), on property values across an extensive system of over 170 lakes in the northern
forest region of Wisconsin. Based, on a spatial difference-in-differences specification, the results show
that lakes invaded with milfoil experienced an average 13% decline in land values after invasion, and
that the cost of an additional infested lake can be 0.0002 billion USD/year.
The use of control costs as a measure of damage costs has been used also in later studies,
where [47] estimates that the Great Britain-wide cost of controlling is approximately 0.1 billion USD
per annum. They also find cost estimates to be highest for Canadian pondweed (Elodea Canadensis)
and zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha).
4. Optimal Management of HIS
While almost all studies presented in Section 3 calculate costs of species that have managed to pass
all the stages in the invasions chain, several other studies instead focus on which stage to act against
HIS. A general principle is that a certain amount of resources should be allocated where the give the
greatest effect. This effect, in turn, depends on included time perspective, spatial connectivity, and
uncertainty. A longer time perspective implies that actions today generate outcomes for a relatively
long time, which is, however, counter acted by a positive discount rate which reduces the net value of
future outcomes in present terms. The spatial dimension generates search for “hot spots”, i.e.,
mitigation of HIS with relatively large potential of dispersal of damages. The consideration of
uncertainty and existence of risk aversions in society favors actions that affect both expected and
variability in damages. Most studies focus on one of these aspects, some of which are presented in
the following.
4.1. Optimal Prevention, Control and Adaptation Strategies
A relatively large body of the literature on optimal management investigates the trade-offs between
prevention, control, and adaptation strategies (e.g., [48–52]) or focus on the best practice within one of
these stages by exploring dynamics of the invasive species and its interaction with resident species
(e.g., [53–58]). The advantage of prevention measures is the avoidance of future damage costs in case
of successful establishment and spread of the species under study. Disadvantages are that relatively
more resources need to be spent on implementation of measures, such as inspection of vessels, at all
possible entrance points, and that resources may be spent on prevention of harmless species. The
relative advantage of control and adaptation measures is that they are directed towards definite
invasions or damage (e.g., [50]). On the other hand, associated control costs can be large because of
Diversity 2014, 6
510
the difficulty of reducing the size and spread of the population since the risk of irreversible damage
from potentially harmful species increases with time. The relative magnitude of these counteracting
forces is, however, determined by the choice of discount rate, population sizes, and the rate of growth
of the detected species. For example, the relatively high costs of complete eradication of an invader
can be justified for relatively small population sizes with high growth rates [48]. Similar conclusions
are obtained by [51] but in another setting where the role of cooperation between two countries,
Canada and US is investigated. The results showed that it is economically efficient to allocate
resources toward prevention in a cooperative strategy with a lower steady state stock of invasive
species and damages to both countries, and that reactive and non-cooperative strategies imply that US
and Canada are worse off than under any other scenario with the highest steady state stock of invasive
species and damages.
Finnoff et al. [49] developed a bio-economic model to analyze the cost-effective management of
invasions by accounting for feedbacks matter in the management of zebra mussels. Firms affected by
zebra mussels, such as power plants and water treatment facilities, can apply control and adaptation
measures as long as marginal benefits from control are higher than marginal costs. By introducing
prevention and control, the policy maker can reduce the firm’s incentives to implement control and
adaptation measures. Escape of farmed salmon is treated as biological invasions by [52] and they show
how the demand, recreational anglers, for salmon, wild and farmed, and cross breading affecting the
growth rate and stock of salmon affects optimal control. When the anglers don not have specific
preferences for wild salmon, a release may increase the overall net surplus of fishing, and a policy
controlling the invasion would lead to a net loss for society.
Another class of studies investigates the implication of interactions between invader and resident
species, and/or different age-classes of the invader and/or the resident species [53–58]. the An early
study is provided by [53] on this topic, and he developed an economic model based on two
principles—that the economic impacts imposed by the invader will depend on the exact nature of the
interaction with the resident species in the host region. Explicit modeling of weed dynamics and
interaction with grain production can improve precision in herbicide application and increase profits
over time [54]. The optimal management of an invader, lake trout, in Yellow Stone lake which
threatens the native cutthroat trout was analyzed by [55]. They pointed out the importance of
hyperbolic discounting (where the discount rate is reduced over time) as compared to a constant rate.
The hyperbolic discount rate favors relatively early prevention and control measures.
Buhle et al. [56] combined biological data on the population dynamics with control costs options to
determine the minimum cost of a set of strategies for control of an established invader. They show by
applying their model to oyster drills (Ocinebrellus inornatus) that the effective control strategies are
sensitive to both life history and rate of population growth of the species. A contribution was made by [57]
in the demonstrating the relative advantage of optimal control strategies based on removal rather than
change of life histories for invasive species. With specific application to specific invasive species
Spartina alterniflora in Willapa Bay, WA, they showed that the optimal strategy in any time period is
prioritization of removal of a single age or stage class. Further, a numerical model is developed to
analyze the role of species life history and age structure for optimal adaptation strategy by harvesting
of a commercial resident species which compete for food and resource with the invader [59]. Using
a bio-economic model of invader and resident species, they show the relevance of reproduction
Diversity 2014, 6
511
and mortality traits of both species and the age structure of the invader at the time of invasion.
They also demonstrated that commercially harvested species with low juvenile survival and high
reproduction are economically robust against invasions; and that species with such life-history are
the most damaging.
4.2. Spatial Dimension
There is significant variation across spatially differentiated landscapes with respect to expected
economic damages of invasive species to assets and expected costs of successful prevention and/or
removal of the species. The key spatial concern is whether an ecosystem has a physical niche that can
be exploited spatially by a new species, since establishment success and invasion magnitude are often
created where resilience of an ecosystem is weak, for example due to environmental degradation
(e.g., ([16,18,60]). A review was carried out by [61] who observed that economic studies so far were
either relatively simple either with respect to number of potential invasion sites, usually distinguishing
between invaded and non-invaded regions, or with respect to assumption on heterogeneity among cites
where many sites are included but assumed homogenous. They therefore developed a static model
accounting for both heterogeneity and a large number of potential sites, and show that targeting of
habitats affects cost effective control of the invader.
Subsequent studies explored the importance of heterogeneity and number of habitats
(e.g., [60,62,63]). A spatial-dynamic model of optimal early detection and rapid response (EDRR)
policies was developed by [60] and applied to Brown treesnake (Boiga irregularis) in Oahu, Hawaii.
They found that myopic strategy where search only occurs when and where current expected net
returns are positive is attractive to managers, and that early search of high priority areas can reduce
control costs. The policy implication from their model is that extensive or non-targeted search is an
ill-advised option. A spatially explicit two-dimensional model of species spread was developed by [62]
that allows for differentiated control across space and time. They found that strategies targeted to slow
or prevent spread of an invasion should be in the direction of greatest potential long-term damages.
The importance of public attention was posited by [63] who showed that soliciting/enlisting the help of
the public through “passive surveillance” enhances search effort in the face of resource constraint.
Using a spatially explicit simulation model of spread of a hypothetical invasive species, the roles of
active and passive surveillance and their interaction are investigated. Sensitivity analysis revealed that
it is generally optimal to allocate more funds during the first few years of a program, resulting in early
eradication leading to smaller overall expenditures over the program cycle.
4.3. Management under Uncertainty
Several studies account for uncertainty when investigating the optimal choice of prevention,
control, and adaptation [24,48,64–72]. In principle, these studies address similar questions as those
presented in Section 3, i.e., the optimal combination of prevention, control and adaptation policies, but
add the dimension of risk. This, in turn, makes it necessary to account for society’s risk attitudes,
which in general are guided by risk aversion. Available options are then to avoid outcomes with
relatively large risks and/or to affect the risk by improving techniques for monitoring of HIS at the
different stages in the invasion chain.
Diversity 2014, 6
512
Studies focusing on avoiding risk treat it as exogenous, and identify the best management
strategy [48,64,70,72]. A relatively early contribution was provided by [64] where risk is assigned as a
restriction in the decision problem. They present a quantitative bio-economic model to analyze risks
from alien invasive species and apply it to the aquatic invasive species zebra mussels (Dreissena
polymorphia) in US lakes. By applying stochastic dynamic programming, they identify the optimal
allocation of resources to prevention as against control, acceptable invasion risks and effects of optimal
allocation for investment purposes.
Other studies insert risk in the objective function [48,70,72]. It was shown by [48] that an increase
in the likelihood of a larger introduction of invasive species leads to an increase in the absolute amount
of prevention because of risk aversion. The previous modeling frameworks was extended by [70] by
examining optimal allocation of prevention efforts as well as mitigation of impact of arrival of an
invasion in an ecosystem hosting a renewable resource faced with threat of invasion. They showed that
uncertainty in the timing and nature of an invasion are important for optimal management strategy for
the native ecosystem. A more recent study was carried out by [72] who developed a bioeconomic
model and used stochastic dynamic programming techniques to investigate when and to what extent to
act in the invasion chain. Parameterizing the model framework for a potential Asian clam (Corbicula
fluminea) invasion in the warm water discharge area of a nuclear plant on the northern shores of the
Baltic sea, they found that choice of optimal strategy is highly sensitive to the unit costs and
effectiveness of the required measures, level of externalities and the post detected invasion clam
population size.
The studies that add the possibility of affecting risk focus mainly on improvements in monitoring
efforts [68,69,73–77]. However, [68], who provided an early contribution to the treatment of risk as
endogenous, showed how risk can be affected by prevention and control measures. The role of
detection was addressed by [69] who argued that increasing resources to detection of invasive species
increase managers’ chances of finding a species at a smaller population level—lessening damages and
control less costly and more effective. By capturing both stochastic and dynamic aspects, they
illustrated that optimal detection strategy depends mainly on ‘detectability’ (ease of detection) and the
biological relations of each distinct species.
A similar problem is modeled by [73] for controlling an invasive species in the presence of
imperfect information about the extent of infestation. Modeling for optimal management as a function
of beliefs about the level of infestation, they showed that the optimal policy involves choosing no
action in the presence of a sufficiently large probability of no infestation and, with costless and perfect
monitoring, expected costs change as the cost or quality of information from monitoring changes. The
complementary role of passive surveillance by members of the public (i.e., enlist help of the public to
detect infested sites) was explored by [75], and the results showed that increasing passive surveillance
can reduce total cost and increase the probability of eradication.
Other studies investigate the effects of and possible adjustment to insufficient detection. A
mathematical bio-economic model of zebra mussel invasion was developed by [77], which showed
that slow response as a result of poor detection methods or inadequate control efforts would lead to a
moderate probability of a significant infestation but that rapid reaction upon detection will reduce the
probability of zebra mussels infecting a lake and generate much higher expected net benefits. A similar
framework was used by [74] and the results indicate that spending time improving knowledge about a
Diversity 2014, 6
513
pest’s habitat preferences before searching for it is optimal. Adaptation by chemical control was
suggested by [76] as a substitute for poor detection equipment. They developed a bioeconomic model
of integrated pest management strategies utilizing chemical and biological controls under uncertainty
and irreversibility. Solving the general stochastic optimal control framework, they found that the
introduction of natural predators is sufficient to manage infestation albeit chemical is considered
effective when detection of infestation is delayed or when biological control agent fails to increase
mortality of the invasive species.
5. Choice of Policy Instruments
The literature addressing the third main question posed by economic studies, optimal choice of
policy instrument, analyses effects of policies at different stages in the invasion chain. However, the
focus of most studies has been on prevention of species entrance into new regions by regulation of
trade. The underlying premise for this focus on trade is perception of trade as an important vector of
HIS. We therefore review studies that have attempted to estimate the explanatory power of trade in
relation to other factors such as vulnerability of ecosystems or institutional aspects before presenting
studies on prevention policies. In principle they can involve tariffs on trade and/or command and
control policies, such as import bans or quarantine of contraband goods from entering certain
geographical territories.
5.1. International Trade as a Vector of HIS
Increased globalization and the consequent effect on expanding world trade are recognized as the
primary source of introduction of aquatic invasive species [1,24–26,78,79]. Aquarium fish trade is the
source of at least 27 nonindigenous fish species established in continental U.S [1]. It is also estimated
that 81 percent of invasive weeds entered the U.S. through commodity transport ([1,5]). It was also
observed that increased rate of new invasions is also driven by human activities which creates diverse
channels of transfer mechanisms (vectors) for movement of invasive organisms throughout the world [78].
In particular, ships are a leading source or dominant vector for biological invasions in coastal areas
mainly through ballast water discharge (BWD) [79].
In analyzing the nexus between globalization, trade and the incidence of biological invasions, it is
important to note that free trade serves an important springboard for increased specialization in
production which also promotes specialization in ecosystems and biodiversity as well as improved
standards of living [5,80–82]. For instance, [80] shows by combining a simple trade model with a
species-area curve to derive the effect of trade on biodiversity conservation that when trading partners
contain similar species in autarky, trade has little impact on global biodiversity but lowers local
biodiversity. Conversely, specialization causes significant declines in both local and global
biodiversity; but overall utility may decline with a move toward free trade in the absence of corrective
conservation policy. Similarly, [82] study the linkage between protection from damages from invasive
species within the context of two-way trade and trade integration. They conclude that invasive species
damages induced by trade integration are most likely to increase because production does not fall as
imports increase.
Diversity 2014, 6
514
It is well noted that quantifying a definitive link between trade and non-indigenous invasive species is
very challenging and complicated [37,83] (see [84] for a synthesis of the trade and environment nexus).
However, a number studies have attempted to estimate the explanatory power of trade for the
occurrences of invasive species in different countries by the use of econometric tools [83,85–90].
Common to all studies is the inclusion of explanatory variables on openness of the economies to
trade and on economics prosperity measured by GDP. It was found by [85] that both merchandize
imports and import duties were of the expected signs (positive and negative respectively) albeit the
former failing the test of statistical significance. In related and recent study, [87] modeled total number
of biological invasions as dependent on openness to international trade and the health of the receiving
ecosystem (induced by the level of anthropogenic disturbance due to local economic activities). Their
results confirm theoretical prior by showing that trade, agricultural imports, factors of disturbance to
local ecosystems are important drivers of biological invasion. A regression analysis was conducted
by [86] of the density of alien plants in 28 European and North African countries using several
land-use and socio-economic parameters as determinants, and established significant and positive
impact of import trade as well as Human Development Index as key drivers of alien invasion plants.
Historical data were used by [83] to parameterize species accumulation models by relating
international trade to the establishment rates of nonindigenous species in the U.S. over the past
century. The results show a relationship trade and exotic-species-accumulation curves similar to those
developed for ecological sampling. Significant effects of trade were found by [88] on the occurrence of
invasive species in countries, in particular on island nations. The importance of the combined effect of
economic development and institutional capabilities was pointed out by [89], measured by corruption
indexes, for the number of invasive species.
Another interesting discussion in the trade-HIS literature relates to how to design ideal policy
interventions with respect to preventing high risk species import as against the impact of its
establishment. Quantitative estimates were provided by [91] of the expected returns to a screening
program relative to an open-door policy for imported reptiles and amphibians into the U.S. They
estimate that the “…present value of expected net benefit per species assessed from implementing an
optimal screening system ranges approximately from $54K to $150K”. The results from their model
lend support to the rationality of the risk assessment approach to evaluating policy options for
preventing importation of HIS.
5.2. Tariffs on Trade
Thus, much evidence point to the important role of international trade as a vector of invasive
species. Quite a few studies have looked at optimal design and application of import tariffs in
general [82,92–97]. Several of these are reviewed in [6] where it is concluded that import tariffs on
invasions risks may give rise to counter-productive increases in HIS. This may occur from
economy wide adjustment where agriculture responds by increasing production and thereby
susceptibility to invasions [94], through firms’ speeding up of nursery sales of exotic plants before the tax
introduction [92], or through lobbying groups’ success in affecting the level and object of the tariff [93].
Studies comparing tariffs with a command and control type policy, namely port inspection, showed that
it can be optimal for a host country to increase its inspection and decrease the tariff [95]. This
Diversity 2014, 6
515
counteracts higher domestic prices, and thereby reductions in consumer welfare and changes in land
use, on rejected import goods. The focus in [97] was on how import tariffs can interact with other
policies, such as agricultural policies for commodities. In their empirical illustration of the model to
citrus canker, the authors revealed that an analysis that ignores the implications of import tariffs on other
polices, such as crop insurance, might be misleading. Another aspect was presented by [96] who looked at
existing tariff escalation in agro-forestry product markets and its implication for the risk invasive
species. They found win-win situations where reduction of tariff escalation through lowering of tariff
on processed goods increased allocative efficiency thereby reducing the invasive species externality.
5.3. Non-Tariff Policies
Despite the difficulties provided by WTO for introducing tariff policies for single countries, there
are relatively few studies analyzing policies that are not related to international trade of goods and
services [49,51,55,71,98–104]. A majority of these studies were reviewed by [6] and found that most
of the studies analysed policies for control of an established species within a country. The policies
investigated were compensation payments for control measures [105], trading market system and
charges on ballast water for vessels [100,101]. One study investigated policies directed towards
damage reduction by liability rules [98]. It was concluded that a main difficulty in designing policies is
to relate a certain firm, or a vessel, with its spread or damage of HIS.
Later studies developed the uncertainty and/or spatial-dynamic consideration of policy design in
order to improve the precision and effect on HIS and thereby the management cost (e.g., [71,103,104]).
The optimal design of liability rules was analyzed by [102] when there is uncertainty in terms of
asymmetric information, i.e., when the authority has less information than the regulated firm on, in this
case, costs of controlling marine invasive species in maritime shipping—ballast water inside the ship
and biofouling on the hulls outside the ship. The results showed that there is potential for a
combination of incentive policies (liability with subsidies or liability with taxes) that can avert marine
invasive species in cases of risk of damages and asymmetric information between ports and shippers.
A contribution was made by [71] by addressing policy design for improving detection of HIS. They
developed a spatially-explicit simulation model and demonstrated that mall increases in detection or
reporting rates substantially reduce eradication costs and increase the probability of eradication. They
surmised that the probability of passive detection is enhanced through awareness campaigns and
bounty schemes that provide incentives to members of the public to search for and report detections
(see [105] for details on the economics of monitoring versus incentives). Another perspective was used
by [104] who considered uncertain and endogenous development of control and adaptation
technologies, and found that it favors non-prevention policies.
6. Conclusions
The literature on the economics of invasive species management continues to engage the attention
of researchers in recent years. This rapid development of the literature and its associated dynamics
warrants an assessment of existing studies in the areas measurement of damages of invasive species,
and costs-benefits of various management options. This paper reviews and updates the economics of
invasive species management focusing on theories, models, impacts, measurements, uncertainty,
Diversity 2014, 6
516
spatial dynamics, international trade and the role of human behavior. The review shows that there is
relatively many studies on estimation of damages costs of invasive species, which also appeared
relatively early, in the 1980s. It is also evident that the estimated costs vary considerably among the
studies, from less than 1 million USD per year to costs corresponding to 12% of gross domestic
product for affected countries. This is explained by differences in methods, regional scale, and number
of species included in the studies. Because of the sometimes very simplified methods there is a risk of
overestimating the damage costs. On the other hand, the studies include only a fraction of the total
number of invasive species which instead result in an underestimation of the costs of all HIS.
With respect to optimal choice of optimal management strategy, which involves decisions on when
in the invasion chain to act and which policy instrument to use, there has been a rapid and interesting
development during the last decade. In particular, with respect to the targeting of invasive species
when they interact with other species, differ in survival and reproduction among age classes, and show
uncertain spread in time and space in the landscape. During the last years, uncertainty has been tackled
by search of information from improved monitoring techniques and efforts, which show that society
could be better off from delayed mitigation action and instead invest in gaining more information on
potential harms of the species under study. This contradicts to some extent the old finding of early
detection and rapid response by eradication of (small) populations because of their potentially large
damage and control costs of delayed action.
However, some urgent issues remain to be solved, which mainly involves design and evaluation of
policies in practice. There has been much focus on theoretical optimal design of strategies, with
relatively few empirical applications, although they are increasing. The policy studies have, to a large
extent, investigated properties of different types of barriers to international trade, which is regarded as
an important vector of HIS. Studies on which policies to use for mitigating established HIS by control
or adaptation are more scant, but has increased in urgency because of the increasing number of
established HIS in many countries. Another grey area of research in the literature on the economics of
HIS is the evaluation of funding gaps for implementing control programs. Empirical evidence
by [106,107] show from willingness-to-pay (WTP) studies for control of invasive species in the US
that current federal governments’ annual investments into control programs are much lower than
observed in WTP studies – a case for additional management to reduce or eradicate HIS. This could be
a potential area for future review studies as interest in the field grows.
Finally, many countries have introduced measures against HIS, such as measures to protect food
safety, plant or animal health, which are allowed by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) and the SPS, of the World Trade Organization (WTO). However, studies evaluating these
measures and policies in practice are lacking, which we otherwise find for other environmental policies
such as energy taxes or subsidies promoting renewable energy. In addition to learning from best policy
practice, evaluation studies may raise other type of issues prevalent in practice, such as transaction
costs and development of technologies for HIS mitigation, which remain to be addressed and analyzed.
Acknowledgements
We are much indebted to two anonymous referees for useful comments, and to the Swedish
Research Fund, Formas, for financial support for the Extreame project.
Diversity 2014, 6
517
Author Contributions
George Marbuah, Ing-Marie Gren and Brendan McKie have all contributed substantially to the
conceptualization and drafting of the paper. While George Marbuah and Ing-Marie Gren made inputs
mainly from the economic perspective with respect to HIS, Brendan McKie provided invaluable
contribution from the ecological perspective.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no known conflict of interest.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
OTA. Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States; Office of Technology Assessment,
U.S. Congress, OTA-F-565; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA; Available
online: http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ota/disk1/1993/9325_n.html (accessed on 1 August 2013).
Gren, I.-M.; Isacs, L.; Carlsson, M. Costs of alien invasive species in Sweden. Ambio 2009, 38,
135–140.
Rockwell, H.W., Jr. Summary of a survey of the literature on the economic impact of aquatic weeds.
Available online: http://www.aquatics.org/pubs/economics (accessed on 3 September 2013).
Born, W.; Rauschmayer, F.; Bräuer, I. Economic Evaluation of Biological Invasions—A Survey.
Ecol. Econ. 2005, 55, 321–336.
Lovell, S.J.; Stone, S. The Economic Impacts of Aquatic Invasive Species: A Review of the
Literature; Working Paper #05–02; National Center for Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
Gren, I.-M. Economics of alien invasive species management—Choices of targets and policies.
Boreal Environ. Res. 2008, 13, 17–32.
Lodge, D.M.; Lewis, M.A.; Shogren, J.F.; Keller, R.P. Introduction to Biological Invasions:
Biological, Economic and Social Perpectives. In Bioeconomics of Invasive Species; Keller, R.,
Lodge, D.M., Lewis, M.A., Shogren, J.F., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2009.
Williamson, M.; Fitter, A. The varying success of invaders. Ecology 1996, 77, 1661–1666.
Williamson, M.; Fitter, A. The characteristics of successful of invaders. Biol. Conservat. 1996,
78, 163–170.
Jeschke, J.M.; Strayer, D.L. Invasion success of invertebrates in Europe and North America.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA 2005, 102, 7198–7202.
Jeschke, J.M. Across islands and continents, mammals are more successful invaders than birds.
Divers. Distrib. 2008, 14, 913–916.
Crowl, T.A.; Crist, T.O.; Parmenter, R.R.; Belovsky, G.; Lugo, A.E.A. The spread of invasive
species and infectious disease as drivers of ecosystem change. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2008, 6,
238–246.
Strayer, D.L. Alien species in fresh waters: Ecological effects, interactions with other stressors,
and prospects for the future. Freshwat. Biol. 2010, 55, 152–174.
Diversity 2014, 6
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
518
Mack, R.N.; Simberloff, D.; Lonsdale, W.M.; Evans, H.; Clout, M.; Bazzaz, F.A. Biotic invasions:
Causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol. Appl. 2000, 10, 689–710.
Crooks, J.A. Characterizing ecosystem-level consequences of biological invasions: The role of
ecosystem engineers. Oikos 2002, 97, 153–166.
Hellmann, J.J.; Byers, J.E.; Bierwagen, B.G.; Dukes, J.S. Five potential consequences of climate
change for invasive species. Conservat. Biol. 2008, 22, 534–543.
Gonzalez, A.L.; Kominoski, J.S.; Danger, M.; Ishida, S.; Iwai, N.; Rubach, A. Can ecological
stoichiometry help explain patterns of biological invasions? Oikos 2010, 119, 779–790.
Schweiger, O.; Biesmeijer, J.C.; Bommarco, R.; Hickler, T.; Hulme, P.E.; Klotz, S.; Kühn, I.;
Moora, M.; Nielsen, A.; Ohlemüller, R.; et al. Multiple stressors on biotic interactions: How
climate change and alien species interact to affect pollination. Biol. Rev. 2010, 85, 777–795.
Prenter, J.; MacNeil, C.; Dick, J.T.A.; Dunn, A.M. Roles of parasites in animal invasions. Trends
Ecol. Evol. 2004, 19, 385–390.
Ellison, A.M.; Bank, M.S; Clinton, B.D; Colburn, E.A; Elliott, K.; Ford, C.R.; Foster, D.R.;
Kloeppel, B.D.; Knoepp, J.D.; Lovett, G.M.; et al. Loss of foundation species: Consequences for
the structure and dynamicsof forested ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ.2005, 3, 479–486.
Lovett, G.M.; Canham, C.D.; Arthur, M.A.; Weathers, K.C.; Fitzhugh, R.D. Forest ecosystem
responses to exotic pests and pathogens in eastern North America. Bioscience 2006, 56, 395–405.
Charles, H.; Dukes, J.S. Impacts of invasive species on ecosystem services. Ecol. Stud. 2007,
193, 217–237.
Lodge, D.M.; Williams, S.; MacIsaac, H.; Hayes, K.; Leung, B.; Reichard, S.; Mack, R.N.;
Moyle, P.B.; Smith, M.; Andow, D.A.; et al. Biological invasions: recommendations for U.S.
policy and management. Ecol. Appl. 2006, 16, 2035–2054.
Perrings, C. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for the control of biological invasions. Ecol.
Econ. 2005, 52, 315–325.
Perrings, C.; Williamson, M.; Barbier, E.B.; Delfino, D.; Dalmazzone, S.; Shogren, J.; Simmons, P.;
Watkinson, A. Biological invasion risks and the public good: An economic perspective.
Conservat. Ecol. 2002, 6, 1.
Perrings, C.; Fenichel, E.; Kinzig, A. Globalization and invasive alien species: Trade, pests, and
pathogens. In Bioinvasions and Globalization: Ecology, Economics, Management, and Policy;
Perrings, C., Mooney, H., Williamson, M., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2010.
Epanchin-Niell, R.S.; Hastings, A. Controlling established invaders: Integrating economics and
spread dynamics to determine optimal management. Ecol. Lett. 2010, 13, 528–541.
Turner, R.K.; Paavola, J.; Cooper, P.; Farber, S.; Jessamy, V.; Georgiou, S. Valuing nature:
Lessons learned and future research directions. Ecol. Econ. 2003, 46, 493–510.
Pimentel, D.; McNair, S.; Janecka, J.; Wightman, J.; Simmonds, C.; O’Connell, C.; Wong, E.;
Russel, L.; Zern, J.; Aquino, T.; et al. Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal,
and microbe invasions. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2001, 84, 1–20.
Pimentel, D.; Zuniga, R.; Morrison, D. Update on the environmental and economic costs
associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 52, 273–288.
Diversity 2014, 6
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
519
Kelly, J.; Tosh, D.; Dale, K.; Jackson, A. The Economic cost of invasive and non-native species
in Ireland and Northern Ireland; Invasive species Ireland: Belfast, Northern Ireland, 2013.
Available online: http://invasivespeciesireland.com/background/economic-impacts/ (accessed on 3
September 2013).
Reinhardt, F.; Herle, M.; Bastiansenn, F.; Streit, B. Economic Impact of The Spread of Alien
Species in Germany; Report No. UBA-FB; Federal Environmental Agency: Berlin, Germany, 2003.
Colautti, R.I.; Bailey, S.A.; van Overdijk, C.D.A.; Amundsen, K.; MacIsaac, H.J. Characterized
and projected costs of nonindigenous species in Canada. Biol. Inv. 2006, 8, 45–59.
Pimentel, D.; Lach, L.; Zuniga, R.; Morrison, D. Environmental and economic costs of
nonindigenous species in the United States. BioScience 2000, 50, 53–65.
Pimentel, D. Environmental and economic costs of vertebrate species invasions into the United
States.
Managing
Vertebrate
Invasive
Species;
University
of
Nebraska:
Lincoln,
NE,
USA,
2007.
Available
online:
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=nwrcinvasive (accessed on 12 August 2013).
McDermott, S.M.; Finnoff, D.C.; Shogren, J.F. The welfare impacts of an invasive species:
Endogenous vs. exogenous price models. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 85, 43–49.
Lovell, S.J.; Stone, S.F.; Fernandez, L. The economic impacts of aquatic invasive species: A
review of the literature. Agr. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2006, 35, 195–208.
Knowler, D.; Barbier, E. The economics of an invading species: A theoretical model and case
study application. In The Economics of Biological Invasions; Perrings, C., Williamson, M.
Dalmazzone, S., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2000; pp.70–93.
Adams, D.C.; Lee, D.J. Estimating the value of invasive aquatic plant control: A bioeconomic
analysis of 13 public lakes in Florida. J. Agr. Appl. Econ. 2007, 39, 97–109.
Kataria, M. A cost-benefit analysis of introducing a non-native species: The case of signal
crayfish in Sweden. Mar. Resour. Econ. 2007, 22, 15–28.
Carlsson, F.; Kataria, M. Assessing management options for weed control with demanders and
non-demander in a choice experiment. Land Econ. 2008, 84, 517–528.
Horsch, E.J.; Lewis, D.J. The effects of aquatic invasive species on property values: Evidence
from a quasi-random experiment. Land Econ. 2009, 85, 391–409.
Pejchar, L.; Mooney, H. The impact of invasive alien species on ecosystem services and human
well-being. In Bioinvasions & Globalization: Ecology, Economics, Management, and Policy;
Perrings, C., Mooney, H., Williamson, M., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2010.
Lee, D.J.; Adams, D.C.; Rossi, F. Optimal management of a potential Invader: The case of zebra
mussels in Florida. J. Agr. Appl. Econ. 2007, 39, 69–81.
Lee, D.J.; Adams, D.C.; Kim, C.S. Managing invasive plants on public conservation forestlands:
Application of a bio-economic model. Forest Pol. Econ. 2009, 11, 237–243.
Aukema, J.E.; Leung, B.; Kovacs, K.; Chivers, C.; Britton, K.O.; Englin, J.; Rrankel, S.J.;
Haight, R.G.; Holmes, T.P.; Liebhold, A.M.; et al. Economic impacts of non-native forest insects
in the continental United States. PLoS One 2011, 6, 1–7.
Diversity 2014, 6
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
520
Oreska, M.P.J.; Aldridge, D.C. Estimating the financial costs of freshwater invasive species in
Great Britain: A standardized approach to invasive species costing. Biol. Invasions 2011, 13,
305–319.
Olson, L.J.; Roy, S. On prevention and control of an uncertain biological invasion. Rev. Agr.
Econ. 2005, 27, 491–497.
Finnoff, D.; Shogren, J.F.; Leung, B.; Lodge, D. The importance of bioeconomic feedback in
invasive species management. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 52, 367–381.
Finnoff, D.; Shogren, J.; Leung, B.; Lodge, D. Take a risk: Preferring prevention over control of
biological invaders. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 62, 216–222.
Fernandez, L. Maritime trade and migratory species management to protect biodiversity.
Environ. Res. Econ. 2007, 38, 165–188.
Olaussen, J.O.; Skonhoft, A. On the economics of biological invasion: An application to
recreational fishing. Nat. Resour. Model. 2008, 21, 625–653.
Barbier, E.B. A note on the economics of biological invasions. Ecol. Econ. 2001, 39, 197–202.
Wu, J. Optimal weed control under static and dynamic decision rules. Agr. Econ. 2001, 25, 119–130.
Settle, C.; Shogren, J.F. Modeling native-exotic species within Yellowstone lake. Am. J. Agr.
Econ. 2002, 84, 1323–1328.
Buhle, E.R.; Margolis, M.; Ruesink, J.L. Bang for buck: Cost-effective control of invasive
species with different life histories. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 52, 355–366.
Hastings, A.; Hall, R.J.; Taylor, C.M. A simple approach to optimal control of invasive species.
Theor. Popul. Biol. 2006, 70, 431–435.
Elofsson, K.; Bengtsson, G.; Gren, I.-M. Optimal management of invasive species with different
reproduction and survival strategies. Nat. Resour. Model. 2012, 25, 599–628.
Elofsson, K.; Gren, I.-M. Control and adaptation strategies for invasive species with different life
history. In Proceedings of the EAERE 19th Annual Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, 27–30
June 2012.
Kaiser, B.A.; Burnett, K.M. Spatial economic analysis of early detection and rapid response
strategies for an invasive species. Resour. Energ. Econ. 2010, 32, 566–585.
Touza, J.; Drechsler, M.; Johst, K.; Dehnen-Schmutz, K. The role of space in invasive species
management. In Bioinvasions & Globalization: Ecology, Economics, Management, and Policy;
Perrings, C., Mooney, H., Williamson, M., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2010.
Epanchin-Neill, R.S.; Wilen, J.E. Optimal Control of Spatial-Dynamic Processes: The Case of
Biological Invasions; Discussion Paper # DP 11–07; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC,
USA, 2011.
Hester, S.; Cacho, O. Optimization of search strategies in managing biological invasions: A
simulation approach. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. An Int. J. 2012, 18, 181–199.
Leung, B.; Lodge, D.M.; Finnoff , D.; Shogren, J.F.; Lewis, M.A.; Lamberti, G. An ounce of
prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. P. Roy. Soc. Lond. B
2002, 269, 2407–2413.
Olson, L.J.; Roy, S. The economics of controlling a stochastic biological invasion. Am. J. Agric.
Econ. 2002, 84, 1311–1316.
Diversity 2014, 6
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
521
Olson, L.J.; Roy, S. The Economics of Controlling a Biological Invasion; Working Paper #03-06;
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland: College Park, MD,
USA, 2003.
Eiswerth, M.E.; Johnson, W.S. Managing nonindigenous invasive species: Insights from
dynamic analysis. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2002, 23, 319–342.
Finnoff, D.; Shogren, J.F. Endogenous risk as a tool for nonindigenous species management.
Weed Contr. 2004, 18, 1261–1265.
Mehta, S.V.; Haight, R.G.; Homans, F.R.; Polasky, S.; Venette, R.C. Optimal detection and
control strategies for invasive species management. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 61, 237–245.
Ranjan, R.; Marshall, E.; Shortle, J. Optimal renewable resource management in the presence of
endogenous risk of invasion. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 89, 273–283.
Cacho, O.J.; Spring, D.; Hester, S.; Nally, R.M. Allocating surveillance effort in the management
of invasive species: A spatially-explicit model. Environ. Model. Software. 2010, 25, 444–454.
Hyytiäinen, K.; Lehtniemi, M.; Niemi, J.K.; Tikka, K. An optimization framework for addressing
aquatic invasive species. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 91, 69–79.
Haight, R.G.; Polasky, S. Optimal control of an invasive species with imperfect information
about the level of infestation. Resour. Energ. Econ. 2010, 32, 519–533.
Baxter, P.W.J.; Possingham, H.P. Optimizing search strategies for invasive pests: Learn before
you leap. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48, 86–95.
Cacho, O.J.; Hester, S.M. Deriving efficient frontiers for the effort allocation in the management
of invasive species. Aust. J. Agr. Resour. Econ. 2011, 55, 72–89.
Marten, A.L.; Moore, C.C. An options based bioeconomic model for biological and chemical
control of invasive species. Ecol. Econ.2011, 70, 2050–2061.
Adams, D.C.; Lee, D.J. Technology adoption and mitigation of invasive species damage and risk:
Application to zebra mussels. J. Bioecon. 2012, 14, 21–40.
Ruiz, G.M.; Murphy, K.R.; Verling, E.; Smith, G.; Chaves, S.; Hines, A.H. Ballast water
exchange: Efficiency of treating ships’ ballast water to reduce marine species transfers and
invasion success? Smithsonian Environmental Research Center: Edgewater, MD, USA, 2005.
McGee, S.; Piorkowski, R.; Ruiz, G. Analysis of recent vessel arrivals and ballast water
discharge in Alaska: Toward assessing ship-mediated invasion risk. Mar. Pollut. Bull.2006, 52,
1634–1645.
Polasky, S.; Costello, C.; McAusland, C. On trade, land-use, and biodiversity. J. Environ. Econ.
Manag. 2004, 48, 911–925.
Jenkins, P.T. Free trade and exotic species introductions. Conservat. Biol. 1996, 10, 300–302.
Tu, A.; Beghin, J. Intra-Industry Trade, Multilateral Trade Integration, and Invasive Species
Risk; Working Paper # 06-WP 439; Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State
University: Ames, IA, USA, 2006.
Levine, J.M.; D’Antonio, C.M. Forecasting biological invasions with increasing international
trade. Conservat. Biol. 2003, 17, 322–326.
Copeland, B.R.; Taylor, M.S. Trade and the environment: A partial synthesis. Am. J. Agr. Econ.
1995, 77, 765–771.
Diversity 2014, 6
85.
522
Dalmazzone, S. Economic factors affecting the vulnerability of biological invasions. In The
Economics of Biological Invasions; Perrings, C., Williamson, M., Dalmazzone, S. Eds.; Edward
Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2000. pp. 17–30.
86. Vilà, M.; Pujadas, J. Land-use and socio-economic correlates of plant invasions in European and
North African countries. Biol. Conservat. 2001, 100, 397–401.
87. Giaccaria, S.; Dalmazzone, S. Socio-Economic Drivers of Biological Invasions. A World-Wide,
Bio-Geographical Analysis of Trade Flows and Local Environmental Quality; Working Paper #
03/2010; Department of Economics, Università di Torino: Torino, Italy, 2010.
88. Gren, I.-M.; Thierfelder, T.; Berglund, H. Country characteristics and non-indigenous Species.
Environ. Dev. Econ. 2010, 18, 51–70.
89. Gren, I.-M.; Campos, M. Development and non-indigenous species. Reg. Environ. Change.
2011, 11, 593–601.
90. Springborn, M.; Romagosa, C.M.; Keller, R.P. The value of nonindigenous species risk
assessment in international trade. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 2145–2153.
91. Dalmazzone, S.; Giaccaria, S. Economic drivers of biological invasions. A World-Wide,
Bio-Geographical Analysis; Working Paper # 15/2010; Department of Economics, Università di
Torino: Torino, Italy, 2012.
92. Knowler, D.; Barbier, E.B. Importing exotic plants and the risk of invasion: Are market-based
instruments adequate? Ecol. Econ. 2005, 52, 341–354.
93. Margolis, M.; Shogren, J.F.; Fischer, C. How trade politics affect invasive species control.
Ecol. Econ. 2005, 52, 305–313.
94. Costello, C.; McAusland, C. Protectionism, trade and measures of damage from exotic species
introductions. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 2003, 85, 964–975.
95. McAusland, C.; Costello, C. Avoiding invasives: Trade-Related policies for controlling
unintentional exotic species introductions. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2004, 48, 954–977.
96. Tu, A.; Beghin, J.; Gozlan, E. Tariff escalation and invasive species risk; Working Paper # 05WP 407, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University: Ames, IA,
USA, 2005.
97. Acquaye, A.K.A.; Alston, J.M.; Lee, H.; Sumner, D.A. Economic consequences of invasive
species policies of commodity programs: Theory and applications to citrus canker. Rev. Agr.
Econ. 2005, 27, 498–504.
98. Thomas, M.; Randall, A. Intentional introduction of nonindigenous species: a principal-agent
model and protocol for revocable decisions. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 34, 333–345.
99. Jetter, K.; DiTomaso, J.; Drake, L.; Klonsky, K.; Pitcairn, M.; Summer, D. Biological control of
yellow starthistle. In Exotic pests and diseases: biology and economics for biosecurity; Summer, D.,
Ed.; Iowa State University Press: Ames, IA, USA, 2003; pp. 225–241.
100. Horan, R.D.; Lupi, F. Economic incentives for controlling trade-related biological invasions in
the Great Lakes. Agr. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2005, 34, 75–89.
101. Jones, K.R.; Corona, J.P. An ambient tax approach to invasive species. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 64,
534–541.
102. Fernandez, L. NAFTA and member country strategies for maritime trade and marine invasive
species. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 89, 308–321.
Diversity 2014, 6
523
103. Cordell, J.R.; Lawrence, D.J.; Ferm, N.C.; Tear, L.M.; Smith, S.S.; Herwig, R.P. Factors
influencing densities of non-indigenous species in the ballast water of ships arriving at Ports in
Puget Sound, Washington, United States. Aquat. Conservat. Mar. Freshwat. Ecosyst. 2009, 19,
322–343.
104. Kim, C.S.; Ailllery, M.; Lewandrowski, J.; Kim, S.G. Optimal policies for managing invasive
species under uncertainty. Appl. Math. 2012, 3, 1388–1394.
105. Demougin, D.; Fluet, C. Monitoring versus incentives. European Economic Review 2001, 45,
1741–1764.
106. McIntosh, C.R.; Shogren, J.G.; Finnoff, D.C. Invasive species and delaying the inevitable:
Valuation evidence from a national survey. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 632–640.
107. Adams, D.C.; Bwenge, F.; Lee, D.J.; Larkin, S.; Alavalapati, J.R.R. Public preferences for
controlling upland invasive plants in state parks, Application of a choice model. Forest. Pol.
Econ. 2011, 13, 465–472.
© 2014 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).