Economic costs of invasive non-native species in urban areas: an underexplored financial drain

• Autores: Heringer, Gustavo; Fernandez, Romina Daiana; Bang, Alok; Cordonnier, Marion; Novoa, Ana; Lenzner, Bernd; Capinha, César; Renault, David; Roiz, David; Moodley, Desika; Tricarico, Elena; Holenstein, Kathrin; Kourantidou, Melina; Kirichenko, Natalia I.; Adelino, José Ricardo Pires; Dimarco, Romina Daniela; Bodey, Thomas W.; Watari, Yuya; Courchamp, Franck
• Año de publicación: 2024
• Idioma: inglés
• Tipo de recurso: artículo
• Fuente: Science of The Total Environment 917 : 170336. (March 2024)
• Materia: Ecosistema; Zonas Urbanas; Análisis Económico; Impacto Económico; Urbanización; Ecosystems; Urban Areas; Economic Analysis; Economic Impact; Urbanization; Introduced Species; Especies Introducidas; Especies no Nativas; Non-native Species
• Institución: Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria

Urbanization is an important driver of global change associated with a set of environmental modifications that affect the introduction and distribution of invasive non-native species (species with populations transported by humans beyond their natural biogeographic range that established and are spreading in their introduced range; hereafter, invasive species). These species are recognized as a cause of large ecological and economic losses. Nevertheless, the economic impacts of these species in urban areas are still poorly understood. Here we present a synthesis of the reported economic costs of invasive species in urban areas using the global InvaCost database, and demonstrate that costs are likely underestimated. Sixty-one invasive species have been reported to cause a cumulative cost of US$ 326.7 billion in urban areas between 1965 and 2021 globally (average annual cost of US$ 5.7 billion). Class Insecta was responsible for >99 % of reported costs (US$ 324.4 billion), followed by Aves (US$ 1.4 billion), and Magnoliopsida (US$ 494 million). The reported costs were highly uneven with the sum of the five costliest species representing 80 % of reported costs. Most reported costs were a result of damage (77.3 %), principally impacting public and social welfare (77.9 %) and authorities-stakeholders (20.7 %), and were almost entirely in terrestrial environments (99.9 %). We found costs reported for 24 countries. Yet, there are 73 additional countries with no reported costs, but with occurrences of invasive species that have reported costs in other countries. Although covering a relatively small area of the Earth's surface, urban areas represent about 15 % of the total reported costs attributed to invasive species. These results highlight the conservative nature of the estimates and impacts, revealing important biases present in the evaluation and publication of reported data on costs. We emphasize the urgent need for more focused assessments of invasive species' economic impacts in urban areas.
EEA Bariloche
Fil: Heringer, Gustavo. Nürtingen-Geislingen University; Alemania
Fil: Heringer, Gustavo. Universidade Federal de Lavras. Instituto de Ciências Naturais. Departamento de Ecologia e Conservação. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia Aplicada; Brasil
Fil: Fernandez, Romina Daiana. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Instituto de Ecología Regional; Argentina
Fil: Bang, Alok. Society for Ecology Evolution and Development; India
Fil: Bang, Alok. Azim Premji University. School of Arts and Sciences. Biology Group; India
Fil: Cordonnier, Marion. University Regensburg. Lehrstuhl für Zoologie/Evolutionsbiologie; Alemania
Fil: Novoa, Ana. Czech Academy of Sciences. Institute of Botany. Department of Invasion Ecology; República Checa
Fil: Lenzner, Bernd. University of Vienna. Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research. Division of BioInvasions, Global Change & Macroecology; Austria
Fil: Capinha, César. University of Lisbon. Institute of Geography and Spatial Planning. Centre of Geographical Studies; Portugal
Fil: Capinha, César. Associate Laboratory Terra; Portugal
Fil: Renault, David. University of Rennes-CNRS. ECOBIO (Ecosystèmes, Biodiversité, Evolution); Francia
Fil: Renault, David. Institut Universitaire de France; Francia
Fil: Roiz, David. MIVEGEC, IRD, CNRS, Université Montpellier; Francia
Fil: Moodley, Desika. Czech Academy of Sciences. Institute of Botany. Department of Invasion Ecology; República Checa
Fil: Tricarico, Elena. University of Florence. Department of Biology; Italia
Fil: Holenstein, Kathrin. CEFE-Univ. Montpellier. CNRS. EPHE. IRD. Univ. Paul Valéry; Francia
Fil: Kourantidou, Melina. University of Southern Denmark. Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics; Dinamarca
Fil: Kourantidou, Melina. AMURE-Université de Bretagne Occidentale; Francia
Fil: Kirichenko, Natalia I. Federal Research Center «Krasnoyarsk Science Center SB RAS». Sukachev Institute of Forest Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences; Rusia
Fil: Kirichenko, Natalia I. Siberian Federal University; Rusia
Fil: Kirichenko, Natalia I. All-Russian Plant Quarantine Center. Krasnoyarsk branch; Rusia
Fil: Adelino, José Ricardo Pires. Universidade Estadual de Londrina. Departamento de Biologia Animal e Vegetal. Laboratório de Ecologia Evolutiva e Conservação; Brasil
Fil: Dimarco, Romina Daniela. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Bariloche. Instituto de Investigaciones Forestales y Agropecuarias Bariloche. Grupo de Ecología de Poblaciones de Insectos; Argentina
Fil: Dimarco, Romina Daniela. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones Forestales y Agropecuarias Bariloche. Grupo de Ecología de Poblaciones de Insectos; Argentina
Fil: Dimarco, Romina Daniela. University of Houston. Department of Biology and Biochemistry; Estados Unidos
Fil: Bodey, Thomas W. University of Aberdeen. King's College. School of Biological Sciences; Reino Unido
Fil: Watari, Yuya. Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute; Japón
Fil: Courchamp, Franck. Université Paris-Saclay-CNRS-AgroParisTech. Ecologie Systématique Evolution; Francia