Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Economic effects and the efficacy of intervention: exploring unintended effects of management and policy on the spread of non-indigenous species

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biological Invasions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Models have been well developed describing human movements as vectors of the spread of non-indigenous species (NIS). However, to be maximally useful, predictions need to be integrated with management models of how different policies change human behaviour and lead to concurrent changes in invasion risk. Using the dispersal of freshwater organisms by recreational boaters as our study system and mandatory boat washing as our management strategy, we conducted a survey of recreational boaters (n = 580 respondents, t = 2354 boating trips) in Ontario, Canada, and performed counterfactual analysis of boater behavior across different management options. We developed a model to quantify three responses to mandatory boat washing policies: (1) the continued use of a policy lake; (2) switching to a non-policy lake (“trip redistribution”); or, (3) a reduction in boating trips (“trip loss”). We found that boater and locational traits did not have a significant effect, but even modest user fees at washing stations greatly influenced trip redistribution and loss, explaining 87% of the variation in boater choices. These results indicate that user fees can strongly reduce the effectiveness of boat washing programs to mitigate invasion risk and could have unintended local economic effects, supporting the need to minimize boater expense as a program goal. In contrast, only minor redistribution and loss occurred if users washed but did not pay, and when taken together with the lack of effect for boater and locational traits, suggest that simple human-mediated dispersal models would be sufficient to prioritize management actions under “zero fee” scenarios. Simulating management scenarios using an existing spread model for 10 aquatic NIS in Ontario further emphasized the benefit of zero fees. Although averted invasions increased monotonically with effort (number of lakes with washing stations), the relative effectiveness (number of invasions averted per unit effort) was high even with management of a single lake, given zero fees, but required washing stations at far more lakes to maximize relative effectiveness when user fees were imposed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson LG, Dunn AM, Rosewarne PJ, Stebbing PD (2015) Invaders in hot water: a simple decontamination method to prevent the accidental spread of aquatic invasive non-native species. Biol Invasions 17:2287–2297

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bacela-Spychalska K, Grabowski M, Rewicz T, Konopacka A, Wattier R (2013) The ‘killer shrimp’ Dikerogammarus villosus (Crustacea, Amphipoda) invading Apline lakes: overland transport by recreational boats and scuba-diving gear as potential entry vectors? Aquat Conserv 23:606–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyer J, Moy P, Stasio BD (2011) Acute upper thermal limits of three aquatic invasive invertebrates: hot water treatment to prevent upstream transport of invasive species. Environ Manag 47:67–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bossenbroek JM, Kraft CE, Nekola JC (2001) Prediction of long-distance dispersal using gravity models: zebra mussel invasion of inland lakes. Ecol Appl 11:1778–1788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bossenbroek JM, Johnson LE, Peters V, Lodge DM (2007) Forecasting the expansion of Zebra Mussels in the United States. Conserv Biol 21:800–810

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Calder C, Lavine M, Muller P, Clark J (2003) Incorporating multiple sources of stochasticity into dynamic population models. Ecology 84:1395–1402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Challen DW, Hagger AJ (1983) Counter-factual analysis. In: Challen DW, Hagger AJ (eds) Macroeconomic systems: construction, validation and applications. Springer, New York, pp 194–204

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chivers C, Leung B (2012) Predicting invasions: alternative models of human-mediated dispersal and interactions between dispersal network structure and Allee effects. J Appl Ecol 49:1113–1123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chivers C (2014) Predictive invasion ecology and decisions under uncertainty (Doctoral dissertation). McGill University, Montreal

  • Dillman DA (2000) Mail and Internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake DAR, Mandrak NE (2014) Bycatch, bait, anglers, and roads: quantifying vector activity and propagule introduction risk across lake ecosystems. Ecol Appl 24:877–894

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Drake DAR (2017) Overland spread of aquatic invasive species among freshwater ecosystems due to recreational boating in Canada. DFO Can Sci Advis Sec Res Doc. (in press)

  • Edwards PK, Leung B (2009) Re-evaluating eradication of nuisance species: invasion of the tunicate, Ciona intestinalis. Front Ecol Environ 7:326–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epanchin-Niell RS, Hastings A (2010) Controlling established invaders: integrating economics and spread dynamics to determine optimal management. Ecol Lett 13:528–541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gertzen EL, Leung B (2011) Predicting the spread of invasive species in an uncertain world: accommodating multiple vectors and gaps in temporal and spatial data for Bythotrephes longimanus. Biol Invasions 13:2433–2444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gertzen EL, Familiar O, Leung B (2008) Quantifying invasion pathways: fish introductions from the aquarium trade. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65:1265–1273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haider W (2002) Stated preference & choice models—a versatile alternative to traditional recreation research. In: Arnberger A, Brandenburg C, Muhar A (eds) Monitoring and management of visitor flows in recreational and protected areas conference proceedings. Bodenkultur University, Vienna, pp 115–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman JJ, Vytlacil EJ (2007) Econometric evaluation of social programs, part I: causal models, structural models and econometric policy evaluation. In: Heckman JJ, Leamer EE (eds) Handbook of econometrics, volume 6, part b. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 4779–4874

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen DA (2010) Assessing the effectiveness of aquatic invasive species outreach influencing boater behaviour in five states. Masters Thesis, University of Minnesota Duluth

  • Johnson LE, Carlton JT (1996) Post-establishment spread in large-scale invasions: dispersal mechanisms of the zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha. Ecology 77:1686–1690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson LE, Ricciardi A, Carlton JT (2001) Overland dispersal of aquatic invasive species: a risk assessment of transient recreational boating. Ecol Appl 11:1789–1799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch FH, Yemshanov D, Magarey RD, Smith WD (2012) Dispersal of invasive forest insects via recreational firewood: a quantitative analysis. J Econ Entomol 105:438–450

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leung B, Drake JM, Lodge DM (2004) Predicting invasions: propagule pressure and the gravity of Allee effects. Ecology 85:1651–1660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung B, Bossenbroek JM, Lodge DM (2006) Boats, pathways, and aquatic biological invasions: estimating dispersal potential with gravity models. Biol Invasions 8:241–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacIsaac HJ, Borbely JVM, Muirhead JR, Graniero PA (2004) Backcasting and forecasting biological invasions of inland lakes. Ecol Appl 14:773–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacPherson AJ, Moore R, Provencher B (2006) A dynamic principal-agent model of human-mediated aquatic species invasions. Agric Resour Econ Rev 35:144–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandrak NE, Cudmore B (2015) Risk assessment: cornerstone of an aquatic invasive species strategy. Aquat Ecosyst Health 18:312–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Morandi MJ, Manning NF, Bossenbroek JM, Jerde CL (2015) Assessing the influence of different inland lake management strategies on human-mediated invasive species spread. Manag Biol Invasions 6:57–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muirhead JR, MacIsaac HJ (2011) Evaluation of stochastic gravity model selection for use in estimating non-indigenous species dispersal and establishment. Biol Invasions 13:2445–2458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padilla DK, Williams SL (2004) Beyond ballast water: aquarium and ornamental trades as sources of invasive species in aquatic ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 2:131–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papenfuss JT, Phelps N, Fulton D, Venturelli PA (2015) Smartphones reveal angler behaviour: a case study of a popular mobile fishing application in Alberta, Canada. Fisheries 40:318–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parry H, Sadler R, Kriticos D (2013) Practical guidelines for modelling post-entry spread in invasion ecology. NeoBiota 18:41–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrings C, Williamson M, Barbier EB, Delfino D, Dalmazzone S, Shogren J, Simmons P, Watkinson A (2002) Biological invasion risks and the public good: an economic perspective. Conserv Ecol 6:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters JA, Lodge DM (2009) Invasive species policy at the regional level: a multiple weak links problem. Fisheries 34:373–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phaneuf DJ (2013) Heterogeneity in environmental demand. Annu Rev Resour Econ 5:227–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prasad AM, Iverson LR, Peters MP, Bossenbroek JM, Matthews SN, Davis Sydnor T, Schwartz MW (2010) Modeling the invasive emerald ash borer risk of spread using a spatially explicit cellular model. Landsc Ecol 25:353–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothlisberger JD, Chadderton WL, McNulty J, Lodge DM (2010) Aquatic invasive species transport via trailered boats: what is being moved, who is moving it, and what can be done. Fisheries 35:121–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D, Parker IM, Windle PN (2005) Introduced species policy, management, and future research needs. Front Ecol Environ 3:12–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohlgren TJ, Schnase JL (2006) Risk analysis for biological hazards: what we need to know about invasive species. Risk Anal 26:163–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Timar L, Phaneuf DJ (2009) Modeling the human-induced spread of an aquatic invasive: the case of the zebra mussel. Ecol Econ 68:3060–3071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vander Zanden MJ, Olden JD (2008) A management framework for preventing the secondary spread of aquatic invasive species. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65:1512–1522

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by funding through the Canadian Aquatic Invasive Species Network, a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Discovery Grant to BL, and a University of Toronto Scarborough Post-doctoral Fellowship to DARD. We thank the members of Canada’s National Aquatic Invasive Species Committee for supplying information about boat inspection and washing programs. CC and BL conducted social surveys, designed the experiment, and developed the analytical approach. CC, DARD, and BL wrote the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Corey Chivers

    Present address: University of Pennsylvania Health System, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, McGill University, 1205 Avenue du Docteur-Penfield, Montreal, QC, H3A 1B1, Canada

    Corey Chivers & Brian Leung

  2. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Toronto Scarborough, 1265 Military Trail, Toronto, ON, M1C 1A4, Canada

    D. Andrew R. Drake

  3. School of Environment, McGill University, 3534 University St., Montreal, QC, H3A 2A7, Canada

    Brian Leung

Authors
  1. Corey Chivers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Andrew R. Drake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brian Leung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian Leung.

Appendix

Appendix

Counterfactual survey administered to boaters in Ontario, Canada during January and February 2011: responses describe boating activity undertaken during 2010 season

Part 2: In order to reduce the spread of harmful invasive species, consider the following policy

Upon removing your boat from the lake, you would be required to pass your boat and trailer through a hull, trailer and gear cleaning station.

At this station, you would be required to:

  • Empty all bilges and live wells

  • Ensure that all ropes, fishing lines, propellers, and trailer parts are clear of any plants or animals

Time required to complete the cleaning process will vary depending on the size of your vessel, but it is estimated to take approximately 15 min.

The cost of this mandatory procedure is 2$.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chivers, C., Drake, D.A.R. & Leung, B. Economic effects and the efficacy of intervention: exploring unintended effects of management and policy on the spread of non-indigenous species. Biol Invasions 19, 1795–1810 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1391-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1391-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation