Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

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

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.

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

Fig. 1

References

  1. Aguayo M, Ayala J (2002) Siguen muriendo cercetas pardillas en nasas para pescar cangrejo rojo. Quercus 199:48–49

  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 25–31

  3. Andreu J, Vilà M (2007) Análisis de la gestión de las plantas exóticas en los espacios naturales españoles. Ecosistemas 16:109–124

  4. Andreu J, Vilà M, Hulme PE (2009) An assessment of stakeholder perceptions and management of noxious alien plants in Spain. Environmental Management 43:1244–1255

  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 1069

  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 233–235

  7. Bardsley D, Edward-Jones G (2006) Stakeholders′ perceptions of the impacts of invasive exotic plant species in the Mediterranean region. GeoJournal 65:199–210

  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 458

  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 109:351–358

  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 331–347

  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, Andalucía

  12. Bonesi L, Palazon S (2007) The American mink in Europe: status, impacts and control. Biological Conservation 134:470–483

  13. Born W, Rauschmayer F, Bräuer I (2005) Economic evaluation of biological invasions: a survey. Ecological Economics 55:321–336

  14. Bremner A, Park K (2007) Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biological Conservation 139:306–314

  15. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (1998) Model selection and inference: an information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York

  16. Cano E, Ocete ME (1997) Population biology of Red Swamp Crayfish, Procambarus clarkii (GIRARD, 1852) in the Guadalquivir river marshes, Spain. Crustaceana 70:553–561

  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 106:1305–1312

  18. Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF (2001) Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics 19:173–210

  19. Ceddia MG, Heikkilä J, Peltola J (2009) Managing invasive alien species with professional and hobby farmers: insights from ecological-economic modelling. Ecological Economics 68:1366–1374

  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 217–237

  21. Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca (CPA)-Junta de Andalucía (2001) Estudio sobre el impacto económico del sector de cangrejo de río en Andalucía, Andalucía

  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 4.1

  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 2002

  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 17:1832–1840

  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 233

  26. de Macalel M, Vlek P (2004) The role of Azolla cover in improving the nitrogen use efficiency of lowland rice. Plant and Soil 263:311–321

  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 3:167–178

  28. Doadrio I (2001) Atlas y libro rojo de los peces continentales de España. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Madrid, p 374

  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 49:619–630

  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 534–541

  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 272

  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 31:191–195

  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 7:667–675

  34. Field SA, Tyre AJ, Possingham HP (2005) Optimizing allocation of monitoring effort under economic and observational constraints. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:473–482

  35. Figueroa-Clemente ME (2003) Diversidad genética y diversidad ecológica. Revista Medio Ambiente. Consejería de Medio Ambiente-Junta de Andalucía 42

  36. Finnoff D, Shogren JF, Leung B, Lodge D (2007) Take a risk: Preferring prevention over control of biological invaders. Ecological Economics 62:216–222

  37. Fraser A (2006) Public attitudes to pest control. A literature review. Science and Technical Publishing, Wellington, New Zealand, p 36

  38. García-Berhou E, Moreno-Amich R (2000) Introduction of exotic fish into a Mediterranean lake over a 90-year period. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 149:271–284

  39. García-Berthou E (2002) Ontogenetic diet shifts and interrupted piscivory in introduced largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). International Review of Hydrobiology 87:353–363

  40. García-Berthou E (2007) The characteristics of invasive fishes: what has been learned so far? Journal of Fish Biology 71:33–55

  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 141:2969–2983

  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 30:235–236

  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 353

  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, Spain

  45. GEIB (2006) TOP 20: Las 20 especies exóticas invasoras más dañinas presentes en España. GEIB, Serie Técnica N 2, León

  46. Geiger W, Alcorlo P, Baltanás A, Montes C (2005) Impact of an introduced Crustacean on the trophic webs of Mediterranean wetlands. Biological Invasions 7:49–73

  47. Gómez-Caruana F, Díaz-Luna JL (1991) Guía de los peces continentales de la Península Ibérica. Acción Divulgativa, S.L, Madrid, p 216

  48. Gratwicke B, Marshal BE (2001) The impact of Azolla filiculoides Lam. on animal biodiversity in streams in Zimbabwe. African Journal of Ecology 39:216–218

  49. Gren IM (2008) Economics of alien invasive species management-choices of targets and policies. Boreal Environment Research 13:17–32

  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 10:685–696

  51. Habsburgo-Lorena AS (1983) Socioeconomic aspects of the crawfish industry in Spain. Freshwater Crayfish 5:552–554

  52. Hanley N, Milne J (1996) Ethical beliefs and behaviour in contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 39:255–272

  53. Heckman JJ (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 1:153–161

  54. Heikkilä J, Peltola J (2004) Analysis of the Colorado potato beetle protection system in Finland. Agricultural Economics 31:343–352

  55. Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 57:209–228

  56. Hulme PE (2006) Beyond control: wider implications for the management of biological invasions. Journal of Applied Ecology 43:835–847

  57. Jetter K, Paine TD (2004) Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for biological control in the urban landscape. Biological Control 30:312–322

  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 439

  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 78:23–33

  60. Keller RP, Frang K, Lodge DM (2007) Preventing the spread of invasive species, economic benefits and intervention guided by ecological predictions. Conservation Biology 22:80–88

  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 26:1–10

  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 269:2407–2413

  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 270:775–781

  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 36:86–92

  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 Zealand

  66. Madroño A, González C, Atienza JC (2004) Libro Rojo de las aves de España. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, SEO/BirdLife, Madrid, Spain, p 452

  67. Martín-López B, Montes C, Benayas J (2007a) The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 139:67–82

  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 34:215–224

  69. Martín-López B, Montes C, Ramírez L, Benayas J (2009a) What drives policy decision-making related to species conservation? Biological Conservation 142:1370–1380

  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 90:1050–1059

  71. McIntosh CR, Shogren JF, Finnoff DC (2010) Invasive species and delaying the inevitable: Valuation evidence from national survey. Ecological Economics 69:632–640

  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 13:12–22

  73. Miller SA, Crowl TA (2006) Effects on common carp (Cyprinus carpio) on macrophytes and invertebrate communities in a shallow lake. Freshwater Biology 51:85–94

  74. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using Survey to Value Public Goods. The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, p 470

  75. Mooney HA, Mack RN, McNeely JA, Neville LE, Schei PJ, Waage JK (2005) Invasive alien species. A new synthesis. Island Press, Washington, p 368

  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, Italy

  77. Myers JH, Simberloff D, Kuris AM, Carey JR (2000) Eradication revisited: dealing with exotic species. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 15:316–320

  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 65:775–780

  79. Nunes PALD, Schokkaert E (2003) Identifying the warm glow effect in contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45:231–245

  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 28:517–532

  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 48:257–274

  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 52:273–288

  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 584

  84. Prescott-Allen R, Prescott-Allen E (1990) How many plants feed the world? Conservation Biology 4:365–374

  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 89–104

  86. Richardson DM (1998) Forestry tres as invading aliens. Conservation Biology 12:18–26

  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 142:1595–1604

  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 287:1770–1774

  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 202:247–256

  90. Scalera R (2010) How much is Europe spending on invasive alien species. Biological Invasions 12:173–177

  91. Secretariat to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2001) Handbook of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, UK

  92. Shine C, Williams N, Gündling L (2000) A guide to designing legal and institutional frameworks on alien invasive species. IUCN, Gland

  93. Sigelman L, Zeng L (1999) Analyzing censored and sample selected data with Tobit and Heckit models. Political Analysis 8:167–182

  94. Simberloff D (2009) We can eliminate invasions or live with them. Successful management projects. Biological Invasions 11:149–157

  95. Smith KG, Darwall WRT (2006) The status and distribution of freshwater fish endemic to the Mediterranean Basin. IUCN, Gland, p 34

  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 15:2829–2852

  97. Veall MR, Zimmermann KF (1992) Pseudo-R2s in the Ordinal Probit model. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 16:333–342

  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 63–74

  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 8:1495–1500

  100. Zaradic PA, Pergams ORW, Kareiva P (2009) The impact of nature experience on willingness to support conservation. Plos One 4:e7367

  101. Zhang W, Ricketts TH, Kremen C, Carney K, Swinton SM (2007) Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecological Economics 64:253–260

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge Doñana National and Natural Park staff, Department of Environment of Andalusian Government staff, and Fundación Doñana for providing facilities to obtain data, especially M.D. Cobo, M.J. Conde, G. Ceballos, A. Villalva, and B. Ceballos. We thank R. Mangas and J.L. Nicolau for their helpful comments on the Heckman model. Sincere thanks are due to three anonymous reviewers for their pertinent suggestions and recommendations, which have enabled us to greatly improve our manuscript. We also thank tourists, local users and researchers who took their time to respond to the questionnaire. Map was made by Ignacio Palomo. This research was partially supported by a grant from the Madrid Regional Government of Education, which is co-founded by the Social European Fund (F.S.E.), the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science (Project CGL2006-14121/BOS), and the Biodiversity Foundation of the Spanish Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs, through the project Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of Spain.

Author information

Correspondence to Marina García-Llorente.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Supplementary Material: Questionnaire Structure and Content

Section One: Addressing the Public’s Knowledge and Perception of IAS Social-Ecological Impacts and Attitudes Toward IAS Introduction

These questions included:

  • The definition of the term invasive alien species.

  • The willingness to introduce non-native species if the respondent obtained an economic or recreational benefit from this action.

  • The knowledge of any non-native species in Doñana, and the perception of the role of IAS: (1) threatening ecosystems in the Doñana area; (2) having a positive or negative effect on the local economy; (3) affecting disease transmission; and (4) affecting cultural identity.

This first section also comprised questions regarding the respondent’s active interest in nature:

  • If the respondent hold a membership in an environmental non-governmental organization (NGO).

  • The number of natural protected areas (NPAs) that the respondent had visited during the previous year.

We also included socio-demographic inquiries regarding the distance from their place of residence to the interview site, education level, gender, age, household size, and monthly family income.

Finally, the interviewer answered two follow-up questions to summarize the respondent’s attitude and understanding of the interview and its intent.

Section Two: The Economic Valuation Exercise

Under the eradication regime, the question was asked as follows:

‘With the knowledge that you have about the impacts generated by the presence of these species, if you think that the IAS of Doñana are generating ecological and socio-economic impacts, would you be willing to make an annual economic contribution to a fund created by the Environmental authorities to eradicate these species in Doñana?’ Your economic contribution would comprise part of an annual donation to a trust fund that would be managed by the Environmental authorities in order to eradicate these species from Doñana and ensure the biodiversity conservation in the area.

Original question as was asked in Spanish: Con el conocimiento que has adquirido acerca de los impactos generados por la presencia de estas especies y en el caso de que consideres que las especies exóticas invasoras presentes en Doñana estén generando impactos a nivel ecológico y socio-económico, ¿estarías dispuesto a realizar una contribución económica anual a un fondo creado por las instituciones ambientales para erradicar estas especies en Doñana? Tu contribución económica entrará a formar parte de un donativo anual en un fondo fiable que será gestionado por las autoridades ambientales con el objetivo de erradicar estas especies en Doñana y así asegurar la conservación de la biodiversidad en esta zona.

Finally, following an information summary of IAS impacts, and to evaluate public awareness of the importance of prevention as a tool for IAS management, each respondent was asked the following:

‘With the knowledge that you have about the impacts generated by IAS, would you be willing to make an annual economic contribution to a fund created by the Environmental authorities to prevent the introduction of new IAS in Doñana?’ Your economic contribution would comprise part of an annual donation to a trust fund that would be managed by the Environmental authorities in order to develop strategies to promote prevention policies to avoid new introductions and ensure biodiversity conservation in the area.

Original question as was asked in Spanish: Con el conocimiento que has adquirido acerca de los impactos generados por la presencia de estas especies, ¿estarías dispuesto a realizar una contribución económica anual a un fondo creado por las instituciones ambientales para prevenir el establecimiento de nuevas especies exóticas invasoras en Doñana? Tu contribución económica entrará a formar parte de un donativo anual en un fondo fiable que será gestionado por las autoridades ambientales con el objetivo de desarrollar estrategias que fomenten las políticas de prevención y eviten nuevos establecimientos y así asegurar la conservación de la biodiversidad en esta zona.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Nunes, P.A.L.D. et al. Analyzing the Social Factors That Influence Willingness to Pay for Invasive Alien Species Management Under Two Different Strategies: Eradication and Prevention. Environmental Management 48, 418–435 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9646-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Contingent valuation
  • Doñana
  • Eradication
  • Invasive alien species
  • Prevention
  • Willingness to pay