Managing Risk and Increasing the Robustness of Invasive Species Eradication Programs

Abstract

Invasive species eradication programs can fail by applying management strategies that are not robust to potentially large but nonquantified risks. A more robust strategy can succeed over a larger range of possible values for non-quantified risk. This form of robustness analysis is often not undertaken in eradication program evaluations. The main nonquantified risk initially facing Australia's fire ant eradication program was that the invasion had spread further than expected. Earlier consideration of this risk could have led to a more robust strategy involving a larger area managed in the program's early stages. This strategy could potentially have achieved eradication at relatively low cost without significantly increasing known and quantified risks. Our findings demonstrate that focusing on known and quantifiable risks can increase the vulnerability of eradication programs to known but non-quantified risks. This highlights the importance of including robustness to potentially large but non-quantified risks as a mandatory criterion in evaluations of invasive species eradication programs.

Budgeting and portfolio allocation for biosecurity measures

“…The eradication program originally involved extensive areas of broadcast pesticide application, with much smaller areas actively searched. The recent introduction of a low‐cost active surveillance method based on remote sensing will allow for larger areas to be searched in the future (Spring and Cacho ; Spring and Kompas ).…”

“…Hafi et al . () and Spring and Kompas () provide information to calibrate RIFA parameters, while Kompas et al . () and Kompas and Che () provide spatial modelling measures and model context for PFF and its potential pathway through the Torres Strait Islands.…”