The economic costs, management and regulation of biological invasions in the Nordic countries.

A collective understanding of economic impacts and in particular of monetary costs of biological invasions is lacking for the Nordic region. This paper synthesizes findings from the literature on costs of invasions in the Nordic countries together with expert elicitation. The analysis of cost data has been made possible through the InvaCost database, a globally open repository of monetary costs that allows for the use of temporal, spatial, and taxonomic descriptors facilitating a better understanding of how costs are distributed. The total reported costs of invasive species across the Nordic countries were estimated at $8.35 billion (in 2017 US$ values) with damage costs significantly outweighing management costs. Norway incurred the highest costs ($3.23 billion), followed by Denmark ($2.20 billion), Sweden ($1.45 billion), Finland ($1.11 billion) and Iceland ($25.45 million). Costs from invasions in the Nordics appear to be largely underestimated. We conclude by highlighting such knowledge gaps, including gaps in policies and regulation stemming from expert judgment as well as avenues for an improved understanding of invasion costs and needs for future research.

Implementing participatory monitoring in river management: The role of stakeholders' perspectives and incentives.

Involving local stakeholders in monitoring has the potential to stimulate learning and improve management responses. However, there is limited understanding about factors which influence implementation and success. This paper reviews local stakeholders' perceptions with respect to the construction of longitudinal dams in the Dutch river Waal, and explores their incentives to be involved in monitoring the effects of this intervention. Interviews with key stakeholders showed that concerns and (dis)trust are important incentives for participating in monitoring. Surveys of local residents, recreational anglers and boaters, and shipping professionals mapped their level of trust, attachment to the river landscape and evaluation of the effects of the longitudinal dams. Our case study shows that incentives for participation differ between stakeholder groups, and that research into their perceptions of the local environment can inform water managers on how to involve these groups in participatory monitoring.

Exploring public perception of non-native species from a visions of nature perspective.

Not much is known about lay public perceptions of non-native species and their underlying values. Public awareness and engagement, however, are important aspects in invasive species management. In this study, we examined the relations between the lay public's visions of nature, their knowledge about non-native species, and their perceptions of non-native species and invasive species management with a survey administered in the Netherlands. Within this framework, we identified three measures for perception of non-native species: perceived risk, control and engagement. In general, respondents scored moderate values for perceived risk and personal engagement. However, in case of potential ecological or human health risks, control measures were supported. Respondents' images of the human-nature relationship proved to be relevant in engagement in problems caused by invasive species and in recognizing the need for control, while images of nature appeared to be most important in perceiving risks to the environment. We also found that eradication of non-native species was predominantly opposed for species with a high cuddliness factor such as mammals and bird species. We conclude that lay public perceptions of non-native species have to be put in a wider context of visions of nature, and we discuss the implications for public support for invasive species management.

Knowledge gaps in economic costs of invasive alien fish worldwide.

Invasive alien fishes have had pernicious ecological and economic impacts on both aquatic ecosystems and human societies. However, a comprehensive and collective assessment of their monetary costs is still lacking. In this study, we collected and reviewed reported data on the economic impacts of invasive alien fishes using InvaCost, the most comprehensive global database of invasion costs. We analysed how total (i.e. both observed and potential/predicted) and observed (i.e. empirically incurred only) costs of fish invasions are distributed geographically and temporally and assessed which socioeconomic sectors are most affected. Fish invasions have potentially caused the economic loss of at least US$37.08 billion (US2017 value) globally, from just 27 reported species. North America reported the highest costs (>85% of the total economic loss), followed by Europe, Oceania and Asia, with no costs yet reported from Africa or South America. Only 6.6% of the total reported costs were from invasive alien marine fish. The costs that were observed amounted to US$2.28 billion (6.1% of total costs), indicating that the costs of damage caused by invasive alien fishes are often extrapolated and/or difficult to quantify. Most of the observed costs were related to damage and resource losses (89%). Observed costs mainly affected public and social welfare (63%), with the remainder borne by fisheries, authorities and stakeholders through management actions, environmental, and mixed sectors. Total costs related to fish invasions have increased significantly over time, from

Non-English languages enrich scientific knowledge: The example of economic costs of biological invasions.

We 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.