Back

The economic burden of protecting islands from invasive alien species

Bodey, T.; Angulo, E.; Bang, A.; Bellard, C.; Fantle-Lepczyk, J.; Lenzner, B.; Turbelin, A.; Watari, Y.; Courchamp, F.

2021-12-13 ecology
10.1101/2021.12.10.471372 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Biological invasions represent a key threat to island ecosystems, with pronounced impacts across environments and economies. The ecological impacts have received substantial focus, but the economic costs have lacked synthesis at spatial and temporal scales. Here we utilise the InvaCost database, the most comprehensive global assessment of published economic costs of invasive species, to assess reported spend by cost types and socioeconomic sectors, and to examine temporal trends in spending, across islands that differ in their political geography - nation states, overseas territories or offshore islands of continental countries. We based this assessment on 1473 unique cost entries comprising 2914 annual costs totalling almost US$100 million in area-corrected costs between 1965-2020. We find that offshore islands of continental countries incur the greatest total and management costs. However, nation states incurred the greatest damage costs whilst substantially financing management actions, and spent an overall greater proportion of their GDP. In contrast, spending within overseas territories was significantly lower in all respects. The most impacted sector was authorities and stakeholders, demonstrating the key role of government in addressing island invasions. Temporal trends revealed continual increases in spending across all island types. This likely reflects ongoing introduction rates globally alongside an increased recognition of the importance of islands as biodiversity hotspots, and an appetite to tackle invasive species at larger and more socially complex scales. However, the high economic costs of invasions on islands substantiates the need to prevent them in order to avoid this dire threat to biodiversity and its burden on limited conservation resources.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Conservation Science and Practice
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.7%
2
Conservation Biology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.7%
3
Conservation Letters
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.3%
4
Biological Conservation
46 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.6%
50% of probability mass above
5
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
6.0%
6
Ecological Applications
34 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
7
Journal of Applied Ecology
39 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.1%
8
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 39%
2.5%
9
Global Change Biology
78 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.3%
10
Global Ecology and Conservation
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
11
FACETS
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
12
Science of The Total Environment
186 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
13
Biodiversity and Conservation
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
14
Animal Conservation
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
15
Biological Invasions
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
16
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
17
Global Ecology and Biogeography
47 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
18
Ecography
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
19
Environmental Research Letters
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
20
Evolutionary Applications
108 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
Communications Earth & Environment
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
22
Sustainability
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
23
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
69 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
24
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.6%
25
PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET
27 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
26
Current Biology
665 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.6%