Environmental Management

, Volume 48, Issue 3, pp 418–435 | Cite as

Analyzing the Social Factors That Influence Willingness to Pay for Invasive Alien Species Management Under Two Different Strategies: Eradication and Prevention

  • Marina García-Llorente
  • Berta Martín-López
  • Paulo A. L. D. Nunes
  • José A. González
  • Paloma Alcorlo
  • Carlos Montes
Article

Abstract

Biological invasions occur worldwide, and have been the object of ecological and socio-economic research for decades. However, the manner in which different stakeholder groups identify the problems associated with invasive species and confront invasive species management under different policies remains poorly understood. In this study, we conducted an econometric analysis of the social factors influencing willingness to pay for invasive alien species management under two different regimes: eradication and prevention in the Doñana Natural Protected Area (SW Spain). Controlling for the participation of local residents, tourists and conservationists, email and face-to-face questionnaires were conducted. Results indicated that respondents were more willing to pay for eradication than prevention; and public support for invasive alien species management was influenced by an individual’s knowledge and perception of invasive alien species, active interest in nature, and socio-demographic attributes. We concluded that invasive alien species management research should confront the challenges to engage stakeholders and accept any tradeoffs necessary to modify different conservation policies to ensure effective management is implemented. Finally, our willingness to pay estimates suggest the Department of Environment of Andalusian Government has suitable social support to meet the budgetary expenditures required for invasive alien species plans and adequate resources to justify an increase in the invasive alien species management budget.

Keywords

Contingent valuation Doñana Eradication Invasive alien species Prevention Willingness to pay 

References

  1. Aguayo M, Ayala J (2002) Siguen muriendo cercetas pardillas en nasas para pescar cangrejo rojo. Quercus 199:48–49Google Scholar
  2. Algarín S (1980) Problemática y perspectiva de la introducción de los cangrejos americanos en las Marismas del Bajo Guadalquivir. In: de Andalucía Junta (ed) Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca. El cangrejo rojo de las Marismas, Spain, pp 25–31Google Scholar
  3. Andreu J, Vilà M (2007) Análisis de la gestión de las plantas exóticas en los espacios naturales españoles. Ecosistemas 16:109–124Google Scholar
  4. Andreu J, Vilà M, Hulme PE (2009) An assessment of stakeholder perceptions and management of noxious alien plants in Spain. Environmental Management 43:1244–1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bañares A, Blanca G, Güemes J, Moreno JC, Ortiz S (2004) Atlas y Libro Rojo de la Flora Vascular Amenazada de España. Dirección General de Conservación de la Naturaleza, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Madrid, Spain, p 1069Google Scholar
  6. Baoia M, Carrapico F (1998) The Azolla bloom in the Mertola region: a sociological approach. In: Proceedings of the 10th EWRS International Symposium on Aquatic Weeds-Management and Ecology of Aquatic Plants, pp 233–235Google Scholar
  7. Bardsley D, Edward-Jones G (2006) Stakeholders′ perceptions of the impacts of invasive exotic plant species in the Mediterranean region. GeoJournal 65:199–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Özdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual. Edward Elgar, Northampton, p 458Google Scholar
  9. Bertolino S, Genovesi P (2003) Spread and attempted eradication of the grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) in Italy, and consequences for the red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in Eurasia. Biological Conservation 109:351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Binimelis R, Born W, Monterroso I, Rodríguez-Labajos B (2007) Socio-economic impact and assessment of biological invasions. In: Nentwing W (ed) Biological Invasions. Ecological Studies, vol 193. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 331–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blanca G, Cabezudo B, Hernández-Bermejo JE, Herrera CM, Muñoz J, Valdés B (2000) Libro Rojo de la Flora Amenazada de Andalucía (Tomo I y II). Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Andalucía, AndalucíaGoogle Scholar
  12. Bonesi L, Palazon S (2007) The American mink in Europe: status, impacts and control. Biological Conservation 134:470–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Born W, Rauschmayer F, Bräuer I (2005) Economic evaluation of biological invasions: a survey. Ecological Economics 55:321–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bremner A, Park K (2007) Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biological Conservation 139:306–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (1998) Model selection and inference: an information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Cano E, Ocete ME (1997) Population biology of Red Swamp Crayfish, Procambarus clarkii (GIRARD, 1852) in the Guadalquivir river marshes, Spain. Crustaceana 70:553–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries FS, Diaz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira HM, Perrings C, Reid WV, Sarukhan J, Scholes RJ, Whyte A (2009) Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106:1305–1312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF (2001) Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics 19:173–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ceddia MG, Heikkilä J, Peltola J (2009) Managing invasive alien species with professional and hobby farmers: insights from ecological-economic modelling. Ecological Economics 68:1366–1374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Charles H, Dukes JS (2007) Impacts of invasive species on ecosystem services. In: Nentwing W (ed) Biological Invasions. Ecological Studies, vol 193. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 217–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca (CPA)-Junta de Andalucía (2001) Estudio sobre el impacto económico del sector de cangrejo de río en Andalucía, AndalucíaGoogle Scholar
  22. Consejería de Medio Ambiente (CMA)-Junta de Andalucía (2003) Medio ambiente invierte un millón de euros en un plan de recuperación del enebro costero. Boletín 4.1Google Scholar
  23. Convention on Biological Diversity (2002) Decision VI/23, Alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species to which is annexed Guiding principles for the prevention, introduction and mitigation of impacts of alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species. In: Sixth Conference of the Parties, The Hague, 7–19 April 2002Google Scholar
  24. Cook DC, Thomas MB, Cunningham SA, Anderson DL, De Baro PJ (2007) Predicting the economic impact of an invasive species on an ecosystem service. Ecological Applications 17:1832–1840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dana ED, Sanz M, Vivas S, Sobrino E (2005) Especies vegetales invasoras en Andalucía. Dirección General de la Red de Espacios Naturales Protegidos y Servicios Ambientales. Consejería de Medio Ambiente-Junta de Andalucía, Spain, p 233Google Scholar
  26. de Macalel M, Vlek P (2004) The role of Azolla cover in improving the nitrogen use efficiency of lowland rice. Plant and Soil 263:311–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. de Wit MP, Crookes DJ, van Wilgen BW (2001) Conflicts of interest in environmental management, estimating the cost and benefits of a tree invasion. Biological Invasions 3:167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Doadrio I (2001) Atlas y libro rojo de los peces continentales de España. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Madrid, p 374Google Scholar
  29. Ewel JJ, O’Dowd DJ, Bergelson J, Daehler CC, D’Antonio CM, Gómez LD, Gordon DR, Hobbs RJ, Holt A, Hopper KR, Hughes CE, LaHart M, Leakey RRB, Lee WG, Loope LL, Lorence DH, Louda SM, Lugo AE, McEvoy PB, Richardson DM, Vitousek PM (1999) Deliberate introductions of species: research needs. Benefits can be repeated, but risks are high. Bioscience 49:619–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Férnandez-Delgado C (2006) Conservation management of a European Natural Area. Doñana National Park, Spain. In: Groom MJ, Meffe GK, Carrol CR (eds) Principles of conservation biology, 3rd edn. Sinauer Associates Inc, Sunderland, pp 534–541Google Scholar
  31. Fernández-Delgado C, Drake P, Arias AM, García-González D (2000) Peces de Doñana y su entorno. Organismo Autónomo de Parques Nacionales. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Madrid, Spain, p 272Google Scholar
  32. Fernández-Zamudio R, Cirujano S, Nieto Gil I, Cobo MD, Sousa-Martín A, García-Murillo P (2006) Novedades florísticas en el Parque Nacional de Doñana (SW España). Acta Botanica Malacitana 31:191–195Google Scholar
  33. Field SA, Tyre AJ, Jonzén N, Rhodes JR, Possingham HP (2004) Minimizing the cost of environmental management decision by optimizing statistical thresholds. Ecology Letters 7:667–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Field SA, Tyre AJ, Possingham HP (2005) Optimizing allocation of monitoring effort under economic and observational constraints. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:473–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Figueroa-Clemente ME (2003) Diversidad genética y diversidad ecológica. Revista Medio Ambiente. Consejería de Medio Ambiente-Junta de Andalucía 42Google Scholar
  36. Finnoff D, Shogren JF, Leung B, Lodge D (2007) Take a risk: Preferring prevention over control of biological invaders. Ecological Economics 62:216–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fraser A (2006) Public attitudes to pest control. A literature review. Science and Technical Publishing, Wellington, New Zealand, p 36Google Scholar
  38. García-Berhou E, Moreno-Amich R (2000) Introduction of exotic fish into a Mediterranean lake over a 90-year period. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 149:271–284Google Scholar
  39. García-Berthou E (2002) Ontogenetic diet shifts and interrupted piscivory in introduced largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). International Review of Hydrobiology 87:353–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. García-Berthou E (2007) The characteristics of invasive fishes: what has been learned so far? Journal of Fish Biology 71:33–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. García-Llorente M, Martín-López B, González JA, Alcorlo P, Montes C (2008) Social perceptions of the impacts and benefits of invasive alien species: Implications for management. Biological Conservation 141:2969–2983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. García-Murillo P, Dana-Sánchez E, Rodríguez-Hiraldo C (2005) Pistia stratiotes, L. (Araceae) una planta acuática exótica en las proximidades del Parque Nacional de Doñana (SW España). Acta Botanica Malacitana 30:235–236Google Scholar
  43. García-Novo F, Marín-Cabrera C (2005) Doñana. Water and biosphere. Doñana 005 Confederación Hidrográfica del Guadalquivir. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Madrid, Spain, p 353Google Scholar
  44. Garrido H, Saénz de Buruaga M (2002) Introducción de especies alóctonas: la malvasía en el Mediterráneo occidental. U. T. E CRN Sylvatica. Almonte, Huelva, SpainGoogle Scholar
  45. GEIB (2006) TOP 20: Las 20 especies exóticas invasoras más dañinas presentes en España. GEIB, Serie Técnica N 2, LeónGoogle Scholar
  46. Geiger W, Alcorlo P, Baltanás A, Montes C (2005) Impact of an introduced Crustacean on the trophic webs of Mediterranean wetlands. Biological Invasions 7:49–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gómez-Caruana F, Díaz-Luna JL (1991) Guía de los peces continentales de la Península Ibérica. Acción Divulgativa, S.L, Madrid, p 216Google Scholar
  48. Gratwicke B, Marshal BE (2001) The impact of Azolla filiculoides Lam. on animal biodiversity in streams in Zimbabwe. African Journal of Ecology 39:216–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Gren IM (2008) Economics of alien invasive species management-choices of targets and policies. Boreal Environment Research 13:17–32Google Scholar
  50. Gutrich JJ, VanGelder E, Loope L (2007) Potential economic impact of introduction and spread of the red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta, in Hawaii. Environmental Science and Policy 10:685–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Habsburgo-Lorena AS (1983) Socioeconomic aspects of the crawfish industry in Spain. Freshwater Crayfish 5:552–554Google Scholar
  52. Hanley N, Milne J (1996) Ethical beliefs and behaviour in contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 39:255–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Heckman JJ (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 1:153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Heikkilä J, Peltola J (2004) Analysis of the Colorado potato beetle protection system in Finland. Agricultural Economics 31:343–352Google Scholar
  55. Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 57:209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hulme PE (2006) Beyond control: wider implications for the management of biological invasions. Journal of Applied Ecology 43:835–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Jetter K, Paine TD (2004) Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for biological control in the urban landscape. Biological Control 30:312–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Jiménez-Pérez I, Delibes de Castro M (2005) Al borde de la extinción, Una visión integral de la recuperación de fauna amenazada en España. EVREN, Evaluación de Recursos Naturales, Valencia, Spain, p 439Google Scholar
  59. Johnson LE, Padilla DK (1996) Geographic spread of exotic species. Ecological lessons and opportunities from the invasion of the zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha. Biological Conservation 78:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Keller RP, Frang K, Lodge DM (2007) Preventing the spread of invasive species, economic benefits and intervention guided by ecological predictions. Conservation Biology 22:80–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lee LF, Maddala GS (1985) The common structure of tests for selective bias, serial correlation, heterodasticity and nonnormality in the Tobit model. International Economic Review 26:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Leung B, Lodge DM, Finnoff D, Shogren JF, Lewis MA, Lamberti G (2002) An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure, bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269:2407–2413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Levine JM, Vilà M, D’Antonio CM, Dukes JS, Grigulis K, Lavorel S (2003) Mechanism underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 270:775–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Limburg KE, Luzadis VA, Ramsey M, Schulz KL, Mayer CM (2010) The good, the bad and the algae: perceiving ecosystem services and disservices generated by zebra and quagga mussels. Journal of Great Lakes Research 36:86–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lowe S, Browne M, Boudjelas S, De Poorter M (2004) 100 of the World′s Worst Invasive Alien Species. A selection from the Global Invasive Species Database. The Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG), a specialist group of the Species survival Commission (SSC) of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) (eds), Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  66. Madroño A, González C, Atienza JC (2004) Libro Rojo de las aves de España. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, SEO/BirdLife, Madrid, Spain, p 452Google Scholar
  67. Martín-López B, Montes C, Benayas J (2007a) The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 139:67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Martín-López B, Montes C, Benayas J (2007b) Influence of user characteristics on valuation of ecosystem services in Doñana natural protected area (south-west Spain). Environmental Conservation 34:215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Martín-López B, Montes C, Ramírez L, Benayas J (2009a) What drives policy decision-making related to species conservation? Biological Conservation 142:1370–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E, Lomas PL, Montes C (2009b) Effects of spatial and temporal scales on cultural services valuation. Journal of Environmental Management 90:1050–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. McIntosh CR, Shogren JF, Finnoff DC (2010) Invasive species and delaying the inevitable: Valuation evidence from national survey. Ecological Economics 69:632–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Meerhoff M, Mazzeo N (2004) Importancia de las plantas flotantes libres de gran porte en la conservación y rehabilitación de lagos someros de Sudamérica. Ecosistemas 13:12–22Google Scholar
  73. Miller SA, Crowl TA (2006) Effects on common carp (Cyprinus carpio) on macrophytes and invertebrate communities in a shallow lake. Freshwater Biology 51:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using Survey to Value Public Goods. The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, p 470Google Scholar
  75. Mooney HA, Mack RN, McNeely JA, Neville LE, Schei PJ, Waage JK (2005) Invasive alien species. A new synthesis. Island Press, Washington, p 368Google Scholar
  76. Mwebaze P, MacLeod A, Tomlinson D, Barois, H, Rijpma J (2009) Economic valuation of the influence of invasive alien species on the national economy of the Seychelles. In: Proceedings of the 11th Annual BIOECON Conference Economic instruments to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, Venice, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  77. Myers JH, Simberloff D, Kuris AM, Carey JR (2000) Eradication revisited: dealing with exotic species. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 15:316–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Nunes PALD, Markandya A (2008) Economic value of damage caused by marine bio-invasions: lessons from two European case studies. ICES Journal of Marine Science 65:775–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Nunes PALD, Schokkaert E (2003) Identifying the warm glow effect in contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45:231–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Nunes PALD, Van Den Bergh CJM (2004) Can people value protection against invasive marine species? Evidence from a Joint TC-CV survey in the Netherlands. Environmental and Resource Economics 28:517–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Philip LJ, Macmillan DC (2005) Exploring values, context and perceptions in contingent valuation studies, the CV Market Stall Technique and willingness to pay for wildlife conservation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 48:257–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics 52:273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Pleguezuelos JM, Márquez R, Lizana ME (2002) Atlas y Libro Rojo de los Anfibios y Reptiles de España. Dirección General de Conservación de la Naturaleza-Asociación Herpetológica Española, Madrid, Spain, p 584Google Scholar
  84. Prescott-Allen R, Prescott-Allen E (1990) How many plants feed the world? Conservation Biology 4:365–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Reaser JK (2001) Invasive alien species prevention and control: the art and science of managing people. In: McNeely JA (ed) The Great reshuffling: human dimensions of invasive alien species. IUCN, Gland, pp 89–104Google Scholar
  86. Richardson DM (1998) Forestry tres as invading aliens. Conservation Biology 12:18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Roura-Pascual N, Richardson DM, Krug RM, Brown A, Chapman RA, Forsyth GG, Le Maitre DC, Robertson MP, Stafford L, Van Wilgen BW, Wannenburgh A, Wessels N (2009) Ecology and management of alien plant invasions in South African fynbos: accommodating key complexities in objective decision making. Biological Conservation 142:1595–1604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sala O, Chapin S, Armesto J, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huenneke L, Jackson R, Kinzig A, Leemans R, Lodge D, Mooney H, Oesterheld M, Leroy Poff N, Sykes M, Walker B, Walker M, Wall D (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sanz-Elorza M, Mateo RG, González-Bernardo F (2009) The historical role of agriculture and gardening in the introduction of alien plants in the western Mediterranean. Plant Ecology 202:247–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Scalera R (2010) How much is Europe spending on invasive alien species. Biological Invasions 12:173–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Secretariat to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2001) Handbook of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  92. Shine C, Williams N, Gündling L (2000) A guide to designing legal and institutional frameworks on alien invasive species. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  93. Sigelman L, Zeng L (1999) Analyzing censored and sample selected data with Tobit and Heckit models. Political Analysis 8:167–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Simberloff D (2009) We can eliminate invasions or live with them. Successful management projects. Biological Invasions 11:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Smith KG, Darwall WRT (2006) The status and distribution of freshwater fish endemic to the Mediterranean Basin. IUCN, Gland, p 34Google Scholar
  96. Stokes KE, O′Neill KP, Montgomery WI, Dick JTA, Maggs CA, Mcdonald RA (2006) The importance of stakeholder engagement in invasive species management: a cross-jurisdictional perspective in Ireland. Biodiversity and Conservation 15:2829–2852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Veall MR, Zimmermann KF (1992) Pseudo-R2s in the Ordinal Probit model. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 16:333–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Veitch CR, Clout MN (2001) Human dimensions in the management of invasive species in New Zealand. In: McNeely JA (ed) The Great Reshuffling: human dimensions of invasive alien species. IUCN, Gland, pp 63–74Google Scholar
  99. Xu H, Ding H, Li M, Qiang S, Guo J, Han Z, Huang Z, Sun H, He S, Wu H, Wan F (2006) The distribution and economic losses of alien species invasion to China. Biological Invasions 8:1495–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Zaradic PA, Pergams ORW, Kareiva P (2009) The impact of nature experience on willingness to support conservation. Plos One 4:e7367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Zhang W, Ricketts TH, Kremen C, Carney K, Swinton SM (2007) Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecological Economics 64:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marina García-Llorente
    • 1
  • Berta Martín-López
    • 1
  • Paulo A. L. D. Nunes
    • 2
  • José A. González
    • 1
  • Paloma Alcorlo
    • 1
  • Carlos Montes
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Social-Ecological Systems LaboratoryUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.The Mediterranean Science Commission - CIESMMonacoMonaco

Personalised recommendations