Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorRoberts, Michaela
dc.contributor.authorCresswell, Will
dc.contributor.authorHanley, Nick
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-30T23:38:26Z
dc.date.available2019-05-30T23:38:26Z
dc.date.issued2018-10
dc.identifier.citationRoberts , M , Cresswell , W & Hanley , N 2018 , ' Prioritising invasive species control actions : evaluating effectiveness, costs, willingness to pay and social acceptance ' , Ecological Economics , vol. 152 , pp. 1-8 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.027en
dc.identifier.issn0921-8009
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 253210129
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 69fb2c53-1f89-4d81-88bd-57bbcc9b9ef9
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85047761387
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0002-4684-7624/work/60426943
dc.identifier.otherWOS: 000440118700001
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10023/17785
dc.descriptionThis paper was funded by University of St Andrews, School of Geography and Geosciences; Van Eeden Foundation [Project number: 201505]; the Sophie Danforth Conservation Biology Fund; and the Rural & Environment Science &Analytical Services Division of the Scottish Government.en
dc.description.abstractIsland ecosystems are recognised as high priority for biodiversity conservation, with invasive species a significant threat. To investigate prioritisation invasive species control, we conducted cost-effectiveness analysis of donkey control on Bonaire, Caribbean Netherlands. Successful prioritisation must take account of ecological, economic and social aspects of conservation. Further improvements are possible where impacts are measured across ecosystem boundaries, and management is tied to funding. We modelled the expected ecological impacts of control options, estimated costs, and connected this to the willingness of beneficiaries to fund such projects. Finally we surveyed experts to understand the social acceptability of donkey control. Of the control options, eradication is predicted to have the highest ecological impacts across two ecosystems, and to be cost-effective over the long term. Costs of all control options were within user willingness to pay. Social acceptability was highest for fencing, and lowest for lethal control. Though eradication offers the highest ecological benefits, we suggest that lower initial costs and higher social acceptability make fencing the better choice for Bonaire in the immediate future. In this way we illustrate the importance of considering economic and social impacts alongside the ecological in environmental conservation, and present an integrated application for prioritising conservation choices.
dc.format.extent8
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofEcological Economicsen
dc.rights© 2018 Elsevier B. V. This work has been made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. This is the author created, accepted version manuscript following peer review and may differ slightly from the final published version. The final published version of this work is available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.027en
dc.subjectEnvironmental managementen
dc.subjectCost-effectiveness analysisen
dc.subjectInvasive speciesen
dc.subjectWillingness to payen
dc.subjectFundingen
dc.subjectIsland conservationen
dc.subjectGE Environmental Sciencesen
dc.subjectHB Economic Theoryen
dc.subjectQH301 Biologyen
dc.subjectNDASen
dc.subject.lccGEen
dc.subject.lccHBen
dc.subject.lccQH301en
dc.titlePrioritising invasive species control actions : evaluating effectiveness, costs, willingness to pay and social acceptanceen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.description.versionPostprinten
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.School of Biologyen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.Scottish Oceans Instituteen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.Institute of Behavioural and Neural Sciencesen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.St Andrews Sustainability Instituteen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.School of Geography & Sustainable Developmenten
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.Centre for Biological Diversityen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.027
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden
dc.date.embargoedUntil2019-05-31


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record