1
|
Henry M, Leung B, Cuthbert RN, Bodey TW, Ahmed DA, Angulo E, Balzani P, Briski E, Courchamp F, Hulme PE, Kouba A, Kourantidou M, Liu C, Macêdo RL, Oficialdegui FJ, Renault D, Soto I, Tarkan AS, Turbelin AJ, Bradshaw CJA, Haubrock PJ. Unveiling the hidden economic toll of biological invasions in the European Union. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES EUROPE 2023; 35:43. [PMID: 37325080 PMCID: PMC10249565 DOI: 10.1186/s12302-023-00750-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2023] [Accepted: 05/19/2023] [Indexed: 06/17/2023]
Abstract
Background Biological invasions threaten the functioning of ecosystems, biodiversity, and human well-being by degrading ecosystem services and eliciting massive economic costs. The European Union has historically been a hub for cultural development and global trade, and thus, has extensive opportunities for the introduction and spread of alien species. While reported costs of biological invasions to some member states have been recently assessed, ongoing knowledge gaps in taxonomic and spatio-temporal data suggest that these costs were considerably underestimated. Results We used the latest available cost data in InvaCost (v4.1)-the most comprehensive database on the costs of biological invasions-to assess the magnitude of this underestimation within the European Union via projections of current and future invasion costs. We used macroeconomic scaling and temporal modelling approaches to project available cost information over gaps in taxa, space, and time, thereby producing a more complete estimate for the European Union economy. We identified that only 259 out of 13,331 (~ 1%) known invasive alien species have reported costs in the European Union. Using a conservative subset of highly reliable, observed, country-level cost entries from 49 species (totalling US$4.7 billion; 2017 value), combined with the establishment data of alien species within European Union member states, we projected unreported cost data for all member states. Conclusions Our corrected estimate of observed costs was potentially 501% higher (US$28.0 billion) than currently recorded. Using future projections of current estimates, we also identified a substantial increase in costs and costly species (US$148.2 billion) by 2040. We urge that cost reporting be improved to clarify the economic impacts of greatest concern, concomitant with coordinated international action to prevent and mitigate the impacts of invasive alien species in the European Union and globally. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12302-023-00750-3.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Morgane Henry
- Department of Biology, McGill University, Montréal, QC Canada
| | - Brian Leung
- Department of Biology, McGill University, Montréal, QC Canada
| | - Ross N. Cuthbert
- Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 5DL UK
| | - Thomas W. Bodey
- School of Biological Sciences, King’s College, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 3FX UK
| | - Danish A. Ahmed
- Center for Applied Mathematics and Bioinformatics, Department of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Gulf University for Science and Technology, Hawally, Kuwait
| | - Elena Angulo
- Estación Biológica de Doñana, CSIC, Avda. Americo Vespucio 26, 41092 Seville, Spain
| | - Paride Balzani
- Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, South Bohemian Research Centre of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25 Vodňany, Czech Republic
| | - Elizabeta Briski
- GEOMAR Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung Kiel, Düsternbrooker Weg 20, 24105 Kiel, Germany
| | - Franck Courchamp
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Gif sur Yvette, France
| | - Philip E. Hulme
- Bioprotection Aotearoa, Lincoln University, Lincoln Canterbury, 7647 New Zealand
| | - Antonín Kouba
- Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, South Bohemian Research Centre of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25 Vodňany, Czech Republic
| | - Melina Kourantidou
- Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Degnevej 14, 6705 Esbjerg Ø, Denmark
- UMR 6308, AMURE, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, IUEM, rue Dumont d’Urville, 29280 Plouzané, France
- Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543 USA
| | - Chunlong Liu
- College of Fisheries, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, 266003 China
- Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, 430072 China
| | - Rafael L. Macêdo
- Graduate Program in Conservation and Ecotourism, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro State, Rio de Janeiro, RJ Brazil
- Neotropical Limnology Group (NEL), Federal University of Rio de Janeiro State, Av. Pasteur, 458, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22290-240 Brazil
| | - Francisco J. Oficialdegui
- Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, South Bohemian Research Centre of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25 Vodňany, Czech Republic
| | - David Renault
- University of Rennes, CNRS, ECOBIO (Ecosystèmes, Biodiversité, Evolution), UMR, 6553 Rennes, France
- Institut Universitaire de France, 1 rue Descartes, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France
| | - Ismael Soto
- Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, South Bohemian Research Centre of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25 Vodňany, Czech Republic
| | - Ali Serhan Tarkan
- Department of Basic Sciences, Faculty of Fisheries, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, 48000 Muğla, Turkey
- Department of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, Bournemouth University, Poole, Dorset UK
| | - Anna J. Turbelin
- Bioprotection Aotearoa, Lincoln University, Lincoln Canterbury, 7647 New Zealand
| | - Corey J. A. Bradshaw
- Global Ecology | Partuyarta Ngadluku Wardli Kuu, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA 5001 Australia
- ARC Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage (EpicAustralia.org.au), Wollongong, NSW Australia
| | - Phillip J. Haubrock
- Center for Applied Mathematics and Bioinformatics, Department of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Gulf University for Science and Technology, Hawally, Kuwait
- Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, South Bohemian Research Centre of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25 Vodňany, Czech Republic
- Department of River Ecology and Conservation, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Gelnhausen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bodey TW, Angulo E, Bang A, Bellard C, Fantle-Lepczyk J, Lenzner B, Turbelin A, Watari Y, Courchamp F. Economic costs of protecting islands from invasive alien species. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2023; 37:e14034. [PMID: 36349474 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2022] [Revised: 07/25/2022] [Accepted: 08/24/2022] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
Biological invasions represent a key threat to insular systems and have pronounced impacts across environments and economies. The ecological impacts have received substantial focus, but the socioeconomic impacts are poorly synthesized across spatial and temporal scales. We used the InvaCost database, the most comprehensive assessment of published economic costs of invasive species, to assess economic impacts on islands worldwide. We analyzed socioeconomic costs across differing expenditure types and examined temporal trends across islands that differ in their political geography-island nation states, overseas territories, and islands of continental countries. Over US$36 billion in total costs (including damages and management) has occurred on islands from 1965 to 2020 due to invasive species' impacts. Nation states incurred the greatest total and management costs, and islands of continental countries incurred costs of similar magnitude, both far higher than those in overseas territories. Damage-loss costs were significantly lower, but with qualitatively similar patterns across differing political geographies. The predominance of management spending differs from the pattern found for most countries examined and suggests important knowledge gaps in the extent of many damage-related socioeconomic impacts. Nation states spent the greatest proportion of their gross domestic products countering these costs, at least 1 order of magnitude higher than other locations. Most costs were borne by authorities and stakeholders, demonstrating the key role of governmental and nongovernmental bodies in addressing island invasions. Temporal trends revealed cost increases across all island types, potentially reflecting efforts to tackle invasive species at larger, more socially complex scales. Nevertheless, the already high total economic costs of island invasions substantiate the role of biosecurity in reducing and preventing invasive species arrivals to reduce strains on limited financial resources and avoid threats to sustainable development goals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas W Bodey
- School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, King's College, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Elena Angulo
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Orsay, France
| | - Alok Bang
- Society for Ecology Evolution and Development, Wardha, India
- School of Arts and Sciences, Azim Premji University, Bangalore, India
| | - Céline Bellard
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Orsay, France
| | - Jean Fantle-Lepczyk
- School of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA
| | - Bernd Lenzner
- Bioinvasions, Macroecology, Global Change Group, Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Anna Turbelin
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Orsay, France
| | - Yuya Watari
- Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan
| | - Franck Courchamp
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Orsay, France
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Bodey TW, Carter ZT, Haubrock PJ, Cuthbert RN, Welsh MJ, Diagne C, Courchamp F. Building a synthesis of economic costs of biological invasions in New Zealand. PeerJ 2022; 10:e13580. [PMID: 35990909 PMCID: PMC9387519 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.13580] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/17/2022] [Accepted: 05/22/2022] [Indexed: 01/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Biological invasions are a major component of anthropogenic environmental change, incurring substantial economic costs across all sectors of society and ecosystems. There have been recent syntheses of costs for a number of countries using the newly compiled InvaCost database, but New Zealand-a country renowned for its approach to invasive species management-has so far not been examined. Here we analyse reported economic damage and management costs incurred by biological invasions in New Zealand from 1968 to 2020. In total, US$69 billion (NZ$97 billion) is currently reported over this ∼50-year period, with approximately US$9 billion of this considered highly reliable, observed (c.f. projected) costs. Most (82%) of these observed economic costs are associated with damage, with comparatively little invested in management (18%). Reported costs are increasing over time, with damage averaging US$120 million per year and exceeding management expenditure in all decades. Where specified, most reported costs are from terrestrial plants and animals, with damages principally borne by primary industries such as agriculture and forestry. Management costs are more often associated with interventions by authorities and stakeholders. Relative to other countries present in the InvaCost database, New Zealand was found to spend considerably more than expected from its Gross Domestic Product on pre- and post-invasion management costs. However, some known ecologically (c.f. economically) impactful invasive species are notably absent from estimated damage costs, and management costs are not reported for a number of game animals and agricultural pathogens. Given these gaps for known and potentially damaging invaders, we urge improved cost reporting at the national scale, including improving public accessibility through increased access and digitisation of records, particularly in overlooked socioeconomic sectors and habitats. This also further highlights the importance of investment in management to curtail future damages across all sectors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas W. Bodey
- School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand,School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
| | - Zachary T. Carter
- School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Phillip J. Haubrock
- Department of River Ecology and Conservation, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Gelnhausen, Germany,Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
| | - Ross N. Cuthbert
- GEOMAR Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung Kiel, Kiel, Germany,School of Biological Sciences, The Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | | | - Christophe Diagne
- CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay, France
| | - Franck Courchamp
- CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay, France
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Spatz DR, Holmes ND, Will DJ, Hein S, Carter ZT, Fewster RM, Keitt B, Genovesi P, Samaniego A, Croll DA, Tershy BR, Russell JC. The global contribution of invasive vertebrate eradication as a key island restoration tool. Sci Rep 2022; 12:13391. [PMID: 35948555 PMCID: PMC9365850 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-14982-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2022] [Accepted: 06/15/2022] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Islands are global hotspots for biodiversity and extinction, representing ~ 5% of Earth's land area alongside 40% of globally threatened vertebrates and 61% of global extinctions since the 1500s. Invasive species are the primary driver of native biodiversity loss on islands, though eradication of invasive species from islands has been effective at halting or reversing these trends. A global compendium of this conservation tool is essential for scaling best-practices and enabling innovations to maximize biodiversity outcomes. Here, we synthesize over 100 years of invasive vertebrate eradications from islands, comprising 1550 eradication attempts on 998 islands, with an 88% success rate. We show a significant growth in eradication activity since the 1980s, primarily driven by rodent eradications. The annual number of eradications on islands peaked in the mid-2000s, but the annual area treated continues to rise dramatically. This trend reflects increases in removal efficacy and project complexity, generating increased conservation gains. Our synthesis demonstrates the collective contribution of national interventions towards global biodiversity outcomes. Further investment in invasive vertebrate eradications from islands will expand biodiversity conservation while strengthening biodiversity resilience to climate change and creating co-benefits for human societies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Stella Hein
- Island Conservation, Santa Cruz, CA, USA.,UC Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA
| | | | | | | | - Piero Genovesi
- Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA), Rome, Italy.,IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group, Rome, Italy
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Carter ZT, Bodey TW, Russell JC. Terrestrial vertebrate survey of Motukawanui. NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY 2021. [DOI: 10.1080/03014223.2021.1883680] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Zachary T. Carter
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Thomas W. Bodey
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - James C. Russell
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
- Department of Statistics, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|