Abstract
Invasive species management can be a victim of its own success when decades of effective control cause memories of past harm to fade and raise questions of whether programs should continue. Economic analysis can be used to assess the efficiency of investing in invasive species control by comparing ecosystem service benefits to program costs, but only if appropriate data exist. We used a case study of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms), a nuisance floating aquatic plant, in Louisiana to demonstrate how comprehensive record-keeping supports economic analysis. Using long-term data sets, we developed empirical and spatio-temporal simulation models of intermediate complexity to project invasive species growth for control and no-control scenarios. For Louisiana, we estimated that peak plant cover would be 76% higher without the substantial growth rate suppression (84% reduction) that appeared due primarily to biological control agents. Our economic analysis revealed that combined biological and herbicide control programs, monitored over an unusually long time period (1975-2013), generated a benefit-cost ratio of about 34:1 derived from the relatively modest costs of $124 million ($2013) compared to the $4.2 billion ($2013) in benefits to anglers, waterfowl hunters, boating-dependent businesses, and water treatment facilities over the 38-year analysis period. This work adds to the literature by: (1) providing evidence of the effectiveness of water hyacinth biological control; (2) demonstrating use of parsimonious spatio-temporal models to estimate benefits of invasive species control; and (3) incorporating activity substitution into economic benefit transfer to avoid overstating benefits. Our study suggests that robust and cost-effective economic analysis is enabled by good record keeping and generalizable models that can demonstrate management effectiveness and promote social efficiency of invasive species control.