Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The highs and the lows: a cost benefit analysis of classical weed biocontrol in New Zealand

  • Review
  • Published:
BioControl Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

A cost benefit analysis of all weed biocontrol in New Zealand (NZ) was undertaken, using available data, to support future funding decisions by stakeholders. The analysis showed that 2022 investment in weed biocontrol in the productive sector was NZ$0.69 million, yielding an annual benefit of NZ$85 million (potentially reducing to NZ$57 million to avoid double-counting where biocontrol suppressed a secondary invasive weed that only became a problem because an earlier weed was biologically controlled). In contrast, 2022 investment in environmental weed biocontrol was NZ$0.65 million, yielding a slightly negative economic return of NZ$0.56 million. Historically, from 1926 to 2022, the overall benefit–cost ratio for all weed biocontrol in NZ (calculated from present values, discount rate 4%) was strongly positive (155:1) for productive sector weeds (or 110:1 with secondary weed invasion). In contrast, for environmental weeds, the overall benefit–cost ratio (0.88:1) showed a negative return on investment (based on relatively easily quantifiable, market-based measurements). Conclusions were robust to sensitivity testing of key parameters. Benefits from weed biocontrol in the productive sector (increased pasture productivity, or reduced weed control costs) were relatively straightforward to calculate. In contrast, the economic benefits of weed biocontrol of environmental weeds were hard to quantify because data were difficult to source or did not exist, and intended benefits were environmental such as biodiversity conservation or restoration of ecosystem services, which remain a challenge to monetarise. Until an acceptable method for monetarising environmental benefits becomes available, strictly economic benefit–cost analyses, based on relatively easily quantifiable, market-based measurements, of environmental weed biocontrol programmes seem of questionable value.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bangsund DA, Leistritz L, Leitch JA (1999) Assessing economic impacts of biological control of weeds: the case of leafy spurge in the northern great plains of the United States. J Environ Manag 56:35–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton J, Fowler SV, Gianotti AF, Winks CJ, de Beurs M, Arnold GC (2007) Successful biological control of mist flower (Ageratina riparia) in New Zealand: agent establishment, impact and benefits to the native flora. Biol Control 40:370–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdôt G, Basse B, Kriticos D, Dodd M (2015) Cost-benefit analysis blueprint for regional weed management: Nassella neesiana (Chilean needle grass) as a case study. NZ J Agric Res 58:325–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron PJ, Hill RL, Bain J, Thomas WP (1989) A review of biological control of invertebrate pests and weeds in New Zealand 1874 to 1987. CAB International, Wallingford

    Google Scholar 

  • Culliney TW (2005) Benefits of classical biological control for managing invasive plants. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24:131–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Lange WJ, van Wilgen B (2010) An economic assessment of the contribution of biological control to the management of invasive alien plants and to the protection of ecosystem services in South Africa. Biol Invasions 12:4113–4124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodgson JS, Spackman M, Pearman A, Phillips LD (2009) Multi-criteria analysis: a manual. Department for Communities and Local Government, London https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/12761/1/Multi-criteria_Analysis.pdf accessed 7 July 2023

  • Ehlers GC, Caradus JR, Fowler SV (2020) The regulatory process and costs to seek approval for the development and release of new biological control agents in New Zealand. BioControl 65:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ERMA (1999) Import for release any new organism under section 34(1)(a) of the hazardous substances and new organisms (HSNO) act 1996: to import for release the mist flower gall fly, Procecidochares alani (Steyskal), for the purpose of biological control of mist flower (Ageratina riparia) https://www.epa.govt.nz/assets/FileAPI/hsno-ar/NOR99004/10224dd6d2/Application-NOR99004.pdf accessed 27 February 2023

  • Fowler S (2022) Comparing nodding thistle then and now. Weed Biocontrol 102:6–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler SV, Peterson P, Barrett DP, Forgie S, Gleeson DM, Harman H, Houliston GJ, Smith L (2015) Investigating the poor performance of heather beetle, Lochmaea suturalis (Thompson) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), as a weed biocontrol agent in New Zealand: has genetic bottlenecking resulted in small body size and poor winter survival? Biol Control 87:32–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler SV, Gourlay A, Hill R (2016) Biological control of ragwort in the New Zealand dairy sector: an ex-post economic analysis. NZ J Agric Res 59:205–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler SV, Barringer J, Groenteman R, Humphries G (2023) Biocontrol of St John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum) provides huge ongoing benefits to New Zealand agriculture. NZ J Agric Res. in press https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.2023.2232762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gale T, Richardson M, Hutchison M, Sullivan J, McCaughan H (2018) Impact assessment and cost benefit analysis for the greater Wellington proposed regional pest management plan 2019–2039. Report for Greater Wellington Regional Council

  • Greer G, Sheppard RL (1990) An economic evaluation of the benefits of research into biological control of Clematis vitalba. Research report no. 203, Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit, Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand

  • Hanley N, Roberts M (2019) The economic benefits of invasive species management. People Nat 1:124–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes L, Fowler S, Paynter Q, Groenteman R, Peterson P, Dodd S, Bellgard S (2013) Biocontrol of weeds: achievements to date and future outlook. In: Dymond JR (ed) Ecosystem services in New Zealand—conditions and trends. Manaaki Whenua, Lincoln, pp 375–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill R, Campbell D, Hayes L, Corin S, Fowler SV (2013) Why the New Zealand regulatory system for introducing new biological control agents works. In: Wu Y, Johnson T, Sing S, Raghu S, Wheeler G, Pratt P, Warner K, Center T, Goolsby J, Reardon R (eds) Proceedings of the XIII international symposium on biological control of weeds, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Scheme, USA. pp 11–16

  • Keys JRH, Syrett P (1995) Introduction of heather beetle, Lochmaea suturalis into New Zealand for biological control of Calluna vulgaris: an importation impact assessment. Unpublished Landcare Research report, Lincoln, New Zealand

  • Kompas T, Liu S (2013) Comparing multi-criteria analysis and cost benefit analysis for biosecurity: procedures, applications and the measurement of consequences. Final report for the Australian Centre of Excellence in Risk Analysis project 1002. https://cebra.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/2068688/ACERA_Final_Report_1102C_ID3.pdf accessed 7 July 2023

  • Lee K, McDermott S, Fernandez C (2023) Using economics to inform and assess biological control programs: opportunities, challenges, and recommendations for future research. BioControl, in prep

  • Liu S, Sheppard A, Kriticos D (2011) Incorporating uncertainty and social values in managing invasive alien species: a deliberative multi-criteria evaluation approach. Biol Invasions 13:2323–2337

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maluleke M, Fraser GCG, Hill MP (2021) Economic evaluation of chemical and biological control of four aquatic weeds in South Africa. Biocontrol Sci Technol 31:896–911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadyen R (2008) Return on investment: determining the economic impact of biological control programmes. In: Julien MH, Sforza R, Bon MC, Evans HC, Hatcher PE, Hinz HL, Rector BG (eds) Proceedings of the XII international symposium on biological control of weeds. CAB International Wallingford, UK, pp 67–74

  • Miller D (1970) Biological control of weeds in New Zealand 1927–1948. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Wellington, New Zealand

  • Mouttet R, Augustinus BA, Bonini M, Chauvel B, Desneux N, Gachet E, Le Bourgeois T, Müller-Schärer H, Thibaudon M, Schaffner U (2018) Estimating economic benefits of biological control of Ambrosia artemisiifolia by Ophraella communa in southeastern France. Basic Appl Ecol 33:14–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page AP, Lacey KL (2006) Economic impact assessment of Australian weed biological control. Technical series no.10, CRC for Australian Weed Management, Adelaide, Australia

  • Parliamentary Counsel Office 2023. Biosecurity act 1993. The NZ Government. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0095/latest/DLM314623.html accessed 7 July 2023

  • Paynter Q, Overton JM, Hill RL, Bellgard SE, Dawson MI (2012) Plant traits predict the success of weed biocontrol. J Appl Ecol 49:1140–1148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paynter Q, Fowler SV, Hayes L, Hill RL (2015) Factors affecting the cost of weed biocontrol programs in New Zealand. Biol Control 80:119–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson PG, Merrett MF, Fowler SV, Barrett DP, Paynter Q (2020) Comparing biocontrol and herbicide for managing an invasive non-native plant species: efficacy, non-target effects and secondary invasion. J Appl Ecol 57:1876–1884

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Philip B, Winks C, Joynt P, Sutherland O (1988) Current status of biological control of alligator weed in New Zealand. Proceedings 41st New Zealand weed and pest control conference. pp 61–65

  • Rohani M, Murray C (2018) Cost benefit analysis of the natural environment investment options for the Auckland Council long-term plan 2018–2028. Technical report 2018/005 for Auckland Council https://knowledgeauckland.org.nz/media/1108/tr2018-005-cost-benefit-analysis-natural-environment-investment.pdf accessed 4 Mar 2023

  • Schwarzländer M, Hinz HL, Winston RL, Day MD (2018) Biological control of weeds: an analysis of introductions, rates of establishment and estimates of success, worldwide. BioControl 63:319–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suckling DM (2013) Benefits from biological control of weeds in New Zealand range from negligible to massive: a retrospective analysis. Biol Control 66:27–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tozer K, James T, Ferguson C, Meikle A (2017) AgPest—a decision support tool for New Zealand’s pastoral industry. NZ Plant Prot 70:327–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Turpie J (2004) The role of resource economics in the control of invasive alien plants in South Africa: working for water. S Afr J Sci 100:87–93

    Google Scholar 

  • van Driesche RG, Carruthers RI, Center T, Hoddle MS, Hough-Goldstein J, Morin L, Smith L, Wagner DL, Blossey B, Brancatini V, Casagrande R, Causton CE, Coetzee JA, Cuda J, Ding J, Fowler SV, Frank JH, Fuester R, Goolsby J, Grodowitz M, Heard TA, Hill MP, Hoffmann JH, Huber J, Julien M, Kairo MTK, Kenis M, Mason P, Medal J, Messing R, Miller R, Moore A, Neuenschwander P, Newman R, Norambuena H, Palmer WA, Pemberton R, Perez Panduro A, Pratt PD, Rayamajhi M, Salom S, Sands D, Schooler S, Schwarzländer M, Sheppard A, Shaw R, Tipping PW, van Klinken RD (2010) Classical biological control for the protection of natural ecosystems. Biol Control 54:S2–S33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Wilgen BW, de Lange WJ (2011) The costs and benefits of biological control of invasive alien plants in South Africa. Afr Entomol 19:504–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Wilgen BW, Richardson DM, Le Maitre DC, Marais C, Magadlela D (2001) The economic consequences of alien plant invasions: examples of impacts and approaches to sustainable management in South Africa. Environ Dev Sustain 3:145–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Wilgen BW, de Wit MP, Anderson HJ, Le Maitre DC, Kotze IM, Ndala S, Brown B, Rapholo M (2004) Costs and benefits of biological control of invasive alien plants: case studies from South Africa. S Afr J Sci 100:113–122

    Google Scholar 

  • van Wilgen BW, Raghu S, Sheppard AW, Schaffner U (2020) Quantifying the social and economic benefits of the biological control of invasive alien plants in natural ecosystems. Curr Opin Insect Sci 38:1–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Winston RL, Schwarzländer M, Hinz HL, Day MD, Cock MJW, Julien MH (2023) Biological control of weeds: a world catalogue of agents and their target weeds. Based on FHTET-2014-04, USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team

  • Zavaleta E (2000) The economic value of controlling an invasive shrub. Ambio 29:462–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Simon Harris, Grant Humphries and James Barringer for inputs into the economic analysis of St John’s wort in NZ. Two anonymous referees provided comments and suggestions that improved the manuscript. The New Zealand Defence Force and Department of Conservation provided long term support and information for heather biocontrol research. Thanks also to Peter Mason and Mark Schwarzländer for organising the special issue for the ICE symposium papers.

Funding

Funding was from the Science and Innovation Group in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE, New Zealand Government) (Contracts CO9X0210, CO9X0504 and CO9X0905, and MBIE’s Strategic Science Investment Fund to Manaaki Whenua—Landcare Research).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Landcare Research, P.O. Box 69040, Lincoln, New Zealand

    Simon V. Fowler & Ronny Groenteman

  2. Landcare Research, Private Bag 92170, Auckland, New Zealand

    Quentin Paynter

Authors
  1. Simon V. Fowler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ronny Groenteman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Quentin Paynter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon V. Fowler.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

There are no ethical concerns regarding the weeds and biocontrol agents that are involved in the biocontrol programmes used in this research. Surveys of landowners were conducted with informed consent, and results will only be used with full anonymity in accordance with Landcare Research Social Ethics Approval (No. 2223/15) and the Code of Ethics of the Association of Social Science Research.

Additional information

Handling Editor: Mark Schwarzländer.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 11 KB)

Supplementary file2 (XLSX 16 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fowler, S.V., Groenteman, R. & Paynter, Q. The highs and the lows: a cost benefit analysis of classical weed biocontrol in New Zealand. BioControl 69, 253–267 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-023-10225-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-023-10225-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation