Kirichenko
Natalia
Kirichenko
Natalia
No Thumbnail Available
Search Results
Now showing
1 - 3 of 3
-
ArticleEconomic costs of invasive alien species across Europe(Pensoft Publishers, 2021-06-29) Haubrock, Phillip J. ; Turbelin, Anna J. ; Cuthbert, Ross N. ; Novoa, Ana ; Taylor, Nigel G. ; Angulo, Elena ; Ballesteros-Mejia, Liliana ; Bodey, Thomas W. ; Capinha, César ; Diagne, Christophe ; Essl, Franz ; Golivets, Marina ; Kirichenko, Natalia ; Kourantidou, Melina ; Leroy, Boris ; Renault, David ; Verbrugge, Laura N.H. ; Courchamp, FranckBiological invasions continue to threaten the stability of ecosystems and societies that are dependent on their services. Whilst the ecological impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) have been widely reported in recent decades, there remains a paucity of information concerning their economic impacts. Europe has strong trade and transport links with the rest of the world, facilitating hundreds of IAS incursions, and largely centralised decision-making frameworks. The present study is the first comprehensive and detailed effort that quantifies the costs of IAS collectively across European countries and examines temporal trends in these data. In addition, the distributions of costs across countries, socioeconomic sectors and taxonomic groups are examined, as are socio-economic correlates of management and damage costs. Total costs of IAS in Europe summed to US$140.20 billion (or €116.61 billion) between 1960 and 2020, with the majority (60%) being damage-related and impacting multiple sectors. Costs were also geographically widespread but dominated by impacts in large western and central European countries, i.e. the UK, Spain, France, and Germany. Human population size, land area, GDP, and tourism were significant predictors of invasion costs, with management costs additionally predicted by numbers of introduced species, research effort and trade. Temporally, invasion costs have increased exponentially through time, with up to US$23.58 billion (€19.64 billion) in 2013, and US$139.56 billion (€116.24 billion) in impacts extrapolated in 2020. Importantly, although these costs are substantial, there remain knowledge gaps on several geographic and taxonomic scales, indicating that these costs are severely underestimated. We, thus, urge increased and improved cost reporting for economic impacts of IAS and coordinated international action to prevent further spread and mitigate impacts of IAS populations.
-
ArticleNon-English languages enrich scientific knowledge: the example of economic costs of biological invasions(Elsevier, 2021-03-10) Angulo, Elena ; Diagne, Christophe ; Ballesteros-Mejia, Liliana ; Adamjy, Tasnime ; Ahmed, Danish A. ; Akulov, Evgeny ; Banerjee, Achyut K. ; Capinha, César ; Dia, Cheikh A.K.M. ; Dobigny, Gauthier ; Duboscq-Carra, Virginia G. ; Golivets, Marina ; Haubrock, Phillip J. ; Heringer, Gustavo ; Kirichenko, Natalia ; Kourantidou, Melina ; Liu, Chunlong ; Nuñez, Martin A. ; Renault, David ; Roiz, David ; Taheri, Ahmed ; Verbrugge, Laura N.H. ; Watari, Yuya ; Xiong, Wen ; Courchamp, FranckWe contend that the exclusive focus on the English language in scientific research might hinder effective communication between scientists and practitioners or policy makers whose mother tongue is non-English. This barrier in scientific knowledge and data transfer likely leads to significant knowledge gaps and may create biases when providing global patterns in many fields of science. To demonstrate this, we compiled data on the global economic costs of invasive alien species reported in 15 non-English languages. We compared it with equivalent data from English documents (i.e., the InvaCost database, the most up-to-date repository of invasion costs globally). The comparison of both databases (~7500 entries in total) revealed that non-English sources: (i) capture a greater amount of data than English sources alone (2500 vs. 2396 cost entries respectively); (ii) add 249 invasive species and 15 countries to those reported by English literature, and (iii) increase the global cost estimate of invasions by 16.6% (i.e., US$ 214 billion added to 1.288 trillion estimated from the English database). Additionally, 2712 cost entries — not directly comparable to the English database — were directly obtained from practitioners, revealing the value of communication between scientists and practitioners. Moreover, we demonstrated how gaps caused by overlooking non-English data resulted in significant biases in the distribution of costs across space, taxonomic groups, types of cost, and impacted sectors. Specifically, costs from Europe, at the local scale, and particularly pertaining to management, were largely under-represented in the English database. Thus, combining scientific data from English and non-English sources proves fundamental and enhances data completeness. Considering non-English sources helps alleviate biases in understanding invasion costs at a global scale. Finally, it also holds strong potential for improving management performance, coordination among experts (scientists and practitioners), and collaborative actions across countries. Note: non-English versions of the abstract and figures are provided in Appendix S5 in 12 languages.
-
ArticleBiological invasion costs reveal insufficient proactive management worldwide(Elsevier, 2022-05-01) Cuthbert, Ross N. ; Diagne, Christophe ; Hudgins, Emma J. ; Turbelin, Anna J. ; Ahmed, Danish A. ; Albert, Céline ; Bodey, Thomas W. ; Briski, Elizabeta ; Essl, Franz ; Haubrock, Phillip J. ; Gozlan, Rodolphe E. ; Kirichenko, Natalia ; Kourantidou, Melina ; Kramer, Andrew M. ; Courchamp, FranckThe global increase in biological invasions is placing growing pressure on the management of ecological and economic systems. However, the effectiveness of current management expenditure is difficult to assess due to a lack of standardised measurement across spatial, taxonomic and temporal scales. Furthermore, there is no quantification of the spending difference between pre-invasion (e.g. prevention) and post-invasion (e.g. control) stages, although preventative measures are considered to be the most cost-effective. Here, we use a comprehensive database of invasive alien species economic costs (InvaCost) to synthesise and model the global management costs of biological invasions, in order to provide a better understanding of the stage at which these expenditures occur. Since 1960, reported management expenditures have totalled at least US$95.3 billion (in 2017 values), considering only highly reliable and actually observed costs — 12-times less than damage costs from invasions ($1130.6 billion). Pre-invasion management spending ($2.8 billion) was over 25-times lower than post-invasion expenditure ($72.7 billion). Management costs were heavily geographically skewed towards North America (54%) and Oceania (30%). The largest shares of expenditures were directed towards invasive alien invertebrates in terrestrial environments. Spending on invasive alien species management has grown by two orders of magnitude since 1960, reaching an estimated $4.2 billion per year globally (in 2017 values) in the 2010s, but remains 1–2 orders of magnitude lower than damages. National management spending increased with incurred damage costs, with management actions delayed on average by 11 years globally following damage reporting. These management delays on the global level have caused an additional invasion cost of approximately $1.2 trillion, compared to scenarios with immediate management. Our results indicate insufficient management — particularly pre-invasion — and urge better investment to prevent future invasions and to control established alien species. Recommendations to improve reported management cost comprehensiveness, resolution and terminology are also made.