Cost-benefit analysis blueprint for regional weed management:<i>Nassella neesiana</i>(Chilean needle grass) as a case study

Bourdôt, G. W.; Basse, Britta; Kriticos, Darren J.; Dodd, Mike

doi:10.1080/00288233.2015.1037460

Cited by 9 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The WRASP tool revealed significant subnational spatial variation in weed risk and the technically prudent management strategy for the case study weed. Given New Zealand's legislative mandate for Regional Councils to manage pests, the WRASP system provides an economical and effective means for Regional Councils to identify risks and technically appropriate management strategies, perhaps as an input into a further economic screening process (Bourdôt et al ., ). New Zealand presently has sixteen regional councils.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…10 = >80% of land use 8 = 60-80% of land use 6 = 40-60% of land use 4 = 20-40% of land use 2 = 10-20% of land use 1 = 5-10% of land use 0.5 = <5% of land use 0 = unsuited to land use ? = don't know (=0) management strategies, perhaps as an input into a further economic screening process (Bourdôt et al, 2015). New Zealand presently has sixteen regional councils.…”

Section: Potential Distributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because it combines consideration of the risks and the potential for management, WRASP provides a set of information products that can feed into the development of strategic weed management plans for each jurisdiction within the analysis area, complementing economic analyses of costs and benefits of specific management plans for each target species (e.g. Bourdôt et al, 2015).…”

Section: Potential Distributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

WRASP: A spatial strategic weed risk analysis tool reveals important subnational variations in weed risks

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The number and diversity of introduced invasive plants, coupled with limited weed management budgets, require biosecurity managers to employ systems to prioritise weeds for management attention. To assist this process, an analytical protocol and spreadsheet tool were previously developed for post‐border weed risk management (PBWRM). The popular PBWRM tool utilises a framework that ignores any spatial variation in risk factors within the geographical area of risk concern. However, invasive plants vary in risk factors such as invasiveness, potential impacts and feasibility of control as a function of spatially variable factors. Logically, the assessment of weed risks should also be spatially explicit, in order to best understand them and to target management appropriately. To address these concerns, we took the PBRWM logic and spatialised it, to allow weed managers to assess weed risks and management across geographical space. We illustrate this new spatial system using a case study of Senecio glastifolius in New Zealand, comparing the results of a spatial and an aspatial analysis of the risks it poses and the logical management options. The spatial view of risks revealed locations of higher and lower risk and suitability for management attention that were hidden by blanket, aspatial weed risk scores of the current PBWRM system. The national level risk was also significantly higher when considered in the light of the results from the spatial tool. The spatial tool, WRASP, takes its name from Weed Risk Assessment SPatial.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Potential Distributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Potential Distributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

WRASP: A spatial strategic weed risk analysis tool reveals important subnational variations in weed risks

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We thus calculate the total discounted costs under the two scenarios. Discounting costs and benefits is common practice in CBA (Bourdôt et al 2015;Daigneault and Brown 2013;Pearce, Atkinson & Mourato 2006). The yearly discount rate was set at 4% based on guidelines for valuing ecosystem services (Liekens et al 2013).…”

Section: Present Value and Sensitivity Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given the need for more efficient allocation of scarce conservation resources (Bottrill et al 2008), understanding the costs and benefits of IAS management informs decision making (Bourdôt et al 2015;Daigneault and Brown 2013;Panzacchi et al 2007). When preventive action or early warning mechanisms fail to prevent invasion, eradication is usually considered the preferred option as this avoids future damage costs (Wittenberg and Cock 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review #1 of "Cost-benefit analysis for invasive species control: the case of greater Canada goose Branta canadensis in Flanders (northern Belgium) (v0.1)"

Bos¹

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Sound decisions on control actions for established invasive alien species (IAS) require information on ecological as well as socioeconomic impact of the species and of its management. Costbenefit analysis provides part of this information, yet has received relatively little attention in the scientific literature on IAS. Methods. We apply a bio-economic model in a cost-benefit analysis framework to greater Canada goose Branta canadensis, an IAS with documented social, economic and ecological impacts in Flanders (northern Belgium). We compared a business as usual (BAU) scenario which involved non-coordinated hunting and egg destruction with an enhanced scenario based on a continuation of these activities but supplemented with coordinated capture of moulting birds. To assess population growth under the BAU scenario we fitted a logistic growth model to the observed pre-moult capture population. Projected damage costs included water eutrophication and damage to cultivated grasslands and were calculated for all scenarios. Management costs of the moult captures were based on a representative average of the actual cost of planning and executing moult captures. Results. Comparing the scenario's with different capture rates, different costs for eutrophication and various discount rates, showed avoided damage costs were in the range of 21,15 M€ to 45,82 M€ under the moult capture scenario. The lowest value for the avoided costs applied to the scenario where we lowered the capture rate by 10%. The highest value occurred in the scenario where we lowered the real discount rate from 4% to 2.5%. Discussion. The reduction in damage costs always outweighed the additional management costs of moult captures. Therefore, additional coordinated moult captures could be applied to limit the negative economic impact of greater Canada goose at a regional scale. We further discuss the strengths and weaknesses of our approach and its potential application to other IAS.

show abstract

The highs and the lows: a cost benefit analysis of classical weed biocontrol in New Zealand

Fowler,

Groenteman,

Paynter

2023

BioControl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cost-benefit analysis blueprint for regional weed management:Nassella neesiana(Chilean needle grass) as a case study

Cited by 9 publications

References 8 publications

WRASP: A spatial strategic weed risk analysis tool reveals important subnational variations in weed risks

WRASP: A spatial strategic weed risk analysis tool reveals important subnational variations in weed risks

Peer Review #1 of "Cost-benefit analysis for invasive species control: the case of greater Canada goose Branta canadensis in Flanders (northern Belgium) (v0.1)"

The highs and the lows: a cost benefit analysis of classical weed biocontrol in New Zealand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About