Biological Invasions

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 305–319 | Cite as

Estimating the financial costs of freshwater invasive species in Great Britain: a standardized approach to invasive species costing

Original Paper

Abstract

Both ecological and economic impacts factor into invasive alien species (IAS) management considerations; however, economic impacts are often difficult to assess, much less quantify. Studies frequently aggregate identified financial costs as a proxy for IAS economic impacts, but these aggregate figures are often generated in an ad hoc fashion. Such estimates typically sum disparate costs, which might vary with respect to precision, accuracy, and scope. A standardized approach for IAS costing would better enable the comparison of cost estimates between taxa and across studies by controlling for surveying and scaling inconsistencies. This study develops a simple, survey-based approach to generate economic cost estimates for non-native freshwater invasive species (FIS) in Great Britain. The approach scales an average cost for each species by a ratio of management effort, thereby estimating the actual, annual expenditures incurred by a variety of stakeholders. The Great Britain-wide cost of controlling FIS is estimated to be approximately £26.5 million year−1; however, the costs of control could total £43.5 million year−1 if management efforts were undertaken at all FIS infested locations. Cost estimates are highest for Canadian pondweed (Elodea canadensis), a particularly widespread species, and for the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), which adversely impacts both industrial water users and boaters. This assessment of the relative economic impacts between species provides policy-makers with a monetary basis for rank-ordering species’ economic impacts and prioritizing management efforts. In addition, the cost assessment approach developed in this study could serve as a model for IAS economic impact assessments elsewhere.

Keywords

Invasive alien species Nonindigenous species Economic impacts Environmental management Zebra mussel 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Numerous individuals contributed to this study. The authors specifically wish to thank Kevin Ackerman, Andrew Balmford, Olaf Booy, Brendan Fisher, Reuben Keller, Tony Pickup, Trevor Renals, Bill Sutherland, and Line zu Ermgassen. This research was made possible by funding from the Gates Cambridge Trust. The authors also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback.

Supplementary material

10530_2010_9807_MOESM1_ESM.doc (87 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 87 kb)
10530_2010_9807_MOESM2_ESM.doc (70 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 69 kb)
10530_2010_9807_MOESM3_ESM.doc (30 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOC 30 kb)
10530_2010_9807_MOESM4_ESM.doc (251 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOC 251 kb)

References

  1. Aldridge DC, Elliott P, Moggridge GD (2004) The recent and rapid spread of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in Great Britain. Biol Conserv 119(2):253–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreu J, Vilà M, Hulme PE (2009) An assessment of stakeholder perceptions and management of noxious alien plants in Spain. J Environ Manag 43:1244–1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. British Waterways (2008) British Waterways Annual Report and Accounts 2007/08. Annual Report presented to the UK Parliament by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and to the Scottish Parliament by Scottish Ministers in exercise of the powers conferred by section 24(3) and 27(8) of the Transport Act 1962Google Scholar
  4. Britton JR, Brazier M (2006) Eradicating the invasive topmouth gudgeon, Pseudorasbora parva, from a recreational fishery in northern England. Fish Manag Ecol 13(5):329–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Britton JR, Davies GD, Brazier M (2009) Towards the successful control of Pseudorasbora parva in the UK. Biol Invasions. doi: 10.1007/s10530-009-9436-1 Google Scholar
  6. CABI Bioscience (CABI) (2009) Azolla control: natures answer. http://194.203.77.76/AzollaControl/HTML/About.htm. Accessed 9 April 2009
  7. Carson RT (2000) Contingent valuation: a user’s guide. Environ Sci Technol 34(8):1413–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen AN, Carlton JT, Fountain MC (1995) Introduction, dispersal and potential impacts of the green crab Carcinus maenas in San Francisco Bay, California. Mar Biol 122:225–237Google Scholar
  9. Colautti RI, Bailey SA, van Overdijk CDA, Amundsen K, MacIsaac HJ (2006) Characterized and projected costs of nonindigenous species in Canada. Biol Invasions 8:45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cusack C, Harte M, Chan S (2009) The economics of invasive species. Prepared for the Oregon Invasive Species Council, Sea Grant Oregon, Corvallis, OR 11 ppGoogle Scholar
  11. Department for Environment, Food, Rural Affairs (Defra) (2003) Review of non-native species policy: report of the working group. Defra Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Department for Environment, Food, Rural Affairs (Defra) (2007) Consultation on: (1) The review of schedule 9 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and (2) the ban on sale of certain non-native species. Defra Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Department for Environment, Food, Rural Affairs (Defra) (2008) The invasive non-native species framework strategy for Great Britain: protecting our natural heritage from invasive species. The GB Non-native Species Secretariat, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Elliott P (2005) The zebra mussel in England: biology, impacts, and control using micro-encapsulated toxins. PhD thesis, University of CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Environment Agency (EA) (2006) “Top ten most wanted foreign species.” Environment Agency News Release 3 August 2006Google Scholar
  16. Environment Agency (EA) (2009) Freshwater crayfish in Britain and Ireland. The Environment Agency, BristolGoogle Scholar
  17. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2005) Economic impacts of aquatic invasive species workshop. Office of Water; Office of Policy; Economics and Innovation, Washington, DC 91 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. Gassman A, Cock MJW, Shaw R, Evans HC (2006) The potential for biological control of invasive alien aquatic weeds in Europe: a review. Hydrobiol 570:217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gozlan RE (2008) Introduction of non-native freshwater fish: is it all bad? Fish Fish 9:106–115Google Scholar
  20. Gren IM (2008) Economics of alien invasive species management—choices of targets and policies. Boreal Environ Res 13:17–32Google Scholar
  21. Herborg LM, Rushton SP, Clare AS, Bentley MG (2005) The invasion of the Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis) in the United Kingdom and its comparison to continental Europe. Biol Invasions 7:959–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hickley P, Chare S (2004) Fisheries for non-native species in England and Wales: angling or the environment? Fish Manag Ecol 11:203–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holdich DM (1993) A review of astaciculture: freshwater crayfish farming. Aquat Living Resour 6:307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Isom BG (1986) Historical review of Asiatic clam (Corbicula) invasion and biofouling of waters and industries in the Americas. Am Malacol Bull Spec 2:1–5Google Scholar
  25. Johanna GM, Galbreath S, Smith JE, Terry RS, Becnel JJ, Dunn AM (2003) Invasion success of Fibrillanosema crangonycis, n.sp., n.g.: a novel vertically transmitted microsporidian parasite from the invasive amphipod host Crangonyx pseudogracilis. Int J Parasitol 34(2):235–244Google Scholar
  26. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (2007) Tackling the threat of invasive non-native species. 28 February 2007. http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-3946. Accessed on 19 April 2009
  27. Keller RP, Frang K, Lodge DM (2008) Preventing the spread of invasive species: economic benefits of intervention guided by ecological principles. Conserv Biol 22(1):80–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Keller RP, zu Ermgassen PS, Aldridge DC (2009) Vectors and timing of freshwater invasions in Great Britain. Conserv Biol. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01249.x Google Scholar
  29. Kelly J (2003) Investigations into the application of Australian methods for the control and management of Carp (Cyprinus carpio) in New Zealand. Environment Waikato Technical Report TR04/03Google Scholar
  30. Kettunen M, Genovesi P, Gollasch S, Pagad S, Starfinger U, ten Brink P, Shine C (2008) Technical support to EU strategy on invasive species (IAS)–Assessment of the impacts of IAS in Europe and the EU (final module report for the European Commission). Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, Belgium, 43 pp + AnnexesGoogle Scholar
  31. Leung B, Lodge DM, Finnoff D, Shogren JF, Lewis MA, Lamberti G (2002) An ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. Proc R Soc Lond 269:2407–2413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lovell SJ, Stone SF, Fernandez L (2006) The economic impacts of aquatic invasive species: a review of the literature. Agric Resour Econ Rev 35(1):195–208Google Scholar
  33. Manchester SJ, Bullock JM (2000) The impacts of non-native species on UK biodiversity and the effectiveness of control. J Appl Ecol 37(5):845–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McConnachie AJ, de Wit MP, Hill MP, Byrne MJ (2003) Economic evaluation of the successful biocontrol of Azolla filiculoides in South Africa. Biol Control 28:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mediterranean European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) (2006) Data sheets on quarantine pests: Hydrocotyle ranunculoides. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 36:3–6Google Scholar
  36. Mediterranean European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) (2007) Data sheets on quarantine pests: Crassula helmsii. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 37:225–229Google Scholar
  37. Miller SA, Crowl TA (2006) Effects of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) on macrophyte and invertebrate communities in a shallow lake. Freshw Biol 51:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Minchin D, Rosenthal H (2002) Exotics for stocking and aquaculture, making correct decisions. In: Leppakoski E, Gollasch S, Olenin S (eds) Invasive aquatic species of europe: distribution, impacts and management. Springer, pp, pp 206–216Google Scholar
  39. National Biodiversity Network (2009a) Crayfish (Crustacea: Astacura) data for Britain and Ireland to 2003 http://www.nbn.org.uk/. Accessed on 1 June 2009
  40. National Biodiversity Network (2009b) Crayfish data update for Environment Agency Thames Region March 2009 (2009). http://www.nbn.org.uk/. Accessed on 1 June 2009
  41. National Biodiversity Network (2009c) Database for the Atlas of Freshwater Fishes (2009) http://www.nbn.org.uk/. Accessed on 1 June 2009
  42. National Biodiversity Network (2009d) Invertebrate Site Register – England (2009) http://www.nbn.org.uk/. Accessed on 1 June 2009
  43. National Biodiversity Network (2009e) Mollusc (non-marine) data for Great Britain and Ireland http://www.nbn.org.uk/. Accessed on 1 June 2009
  44. National Biodiversity Network (2009f) Seasearch Marine Surveys 2009 http://www.nbn.org.uk/. Accessed on 1 June 2009
  45. National Biodiversity Network (2009g) Vascular Plants Database 2009. http://www.nbn.org.uk/. Accessed on 1 June 2009
  46. National Biodiversity Network (2009h) Volunteer sightings data held by DASSH Data Archive Centre 2009. http://www.nbn.org.uk/. Accessed on 1 June 2009
  47. O’Neill CR (1997) Economic impact of zebra mussels–Results of the 1995 National Zebra Mussel information clearinghouse study. Gt Lakes Res Rev 3(1):35–44Google Scholar
  48. Park J, Hushak LJ (1999) Zebra mussel control costs in surface water using facilities. Technical summary No. OHSU-TS-028. Ohio Sea Grant College Program, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 15 ppGoogle Scholar
  49. Parker IM, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Goodell K, Wonham M, Kareiva PM, Williamson MH, Von Holle B, Moyle PB, Byers JE, Goldwasser L (1999) Impact: toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Biol Invasions 1:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) (2008) Invasive Non-native Species. POSTnote 303, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. Perrings C (2002) Biological invasions in aquatic systems: the economic problem. Bull Mar Sci 70(2):541–552Google Scholar
  52. Pimentel D (ed) (2002) Biological invasions: economic and environmental costs of alien plants, animals and microbe species. CRC Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  53. Pimentel D (2005) Aquatic nuissance species in the New York state canal and Hudson River systems and the great lakes basin: an economic and environmental assessment. J Environ Manag 35(5):692–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pimentel D, Lach L, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2000) Environmental and economic costs of non-indigenous species in the United States. Biosci 50(1):56–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pimentel D, McNair S, Janecka J, Wightman J, Simmonds C, O’Connell C, Wong E, Russel L, Zern J, Aquino T, Tsomondo T (2001) Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions. Agric Ecosyst Environ 84(1):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shaw D, Tanner R (2008) Weed like to see less of them. Biol 55(4):208–214Google Scholar
  58. Sheppard AW, Shaw RH, Sforza R (2005) Top 20 environmental weeds for classical biological control in Europe: a review of opportunities, regulations and other barriers to adoption. Weed Res 46(2):93–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. United Kingdom Technical Advisory Group (UKTAG) Alien Species Group (2004) Guidance on the assessment of alien species pressures. TAG 2004 7 g Guidance on assessment of alien species (PRI-16-03-04)Google Scholar
  60. United Kingdom Technical Advisory Group (UKTAG) Alien Species Group (2008) Alien Species Revised TAG Table http://www.wfduk.org/tag_guidance/Article_05/Folder.2004-02-16.5332/view. Accessed on 16 February 2009
  61. United States Government Accountability Office (USGAO) (2002) Invasive species: clearer focus and greater commitment needed to effectively manage the problems. Report to Executive Agency Officials, GAO-03-1, October 2001Google Scholar
  62. United States Office of Technology Assessment (USOTA) (1993) Harmful non-indigenous species in the United States. US Congress, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  63. Vilà M, Basnou C, Pysek P, Josefsson M, Genovesi P, Gollasch S, Nentwig W, Olenin S, Roques A, Roy D, Hulme PE, DAISIE partners (2009) How well do we understand the impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A pan-European cross-taxa assessment. Front Ecol Environ. doi: 10.1890/080083 Google Scholar
  64. Wade M, Fasham M, Booy O, White V (2007) Audit of responsibilities for non-native species within government departments, non-departmental public bodies, agencies, and local governments in England, Scotland and Wales. RPS. http://www.nonnativespecies.org/documents/ JPP1294%20Defra%20Audit%20Final.pdf. Accessed 24 March 2009
  65. Warren CR (2007) Perspectives on the ‘alien’ versus ‘native’ species debate: a critique of concepts, language and practice. Prog Hum Geogr 31(4):427–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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. Biol Invasions. doi: 10.1007/s10530-005-5841-2 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aquatic Ecology Group, Department of ZoologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations