Controlling Rhododendron ponticum in the British Isles: an economic analysis
Introduction
Increasing attention has been paid recently to the economic consequences of invasive species (US OTA, 1993, Perrings et al., 2000, Pimentel et al., 2000, Pimentel, 2002). The economic consequences of invasive species include damage costs, such as biodiversity loss or habitat change, plus the costs of control or eradication net of any possible benefits. Whereas damage costs are not directly calculable, the costs of control and eradication are. The costs of control are a measure of the effort committed to the eradication or reduction of an invasive species. Since individual landowners will increase control effort up to the point where marginal benefits and costs are equal, this can be seen as an indicator of the marginal private damage due to the invasive species. Depending on the species, the private benefits of control may not be a good measure of the social benefits. Benefits can be widely dispersed across the different stakeholders concerned, and aggregate costs can be difficult to estimate.
The spread of any invasive species depends on the control efforts of all those affected. The control costs faced by each person accordingly depend partly on conditions on the invaded site, and partly on conditions in neighbouring sites. Put another way, the private damage costs of harmful invasive species may be expected to be strictly less than the social damage costs.
In this paper, we are interested in the determinants of private expenditure on the control of a particular invasive species (Rhododendron ponticum), and in the options open to induce private landowners to undertake socially optimal level of control. To do this we investigate the extent of the problem of the invasive non-native plant R. ponticum in the British Isles, both from an ecological and economic perspective. We consider the species in its entire synanthropic area thus including a wide spectrum of different natural and socio-economic conditions. We use a survey of potentially affected groups to generate data on control costs, the reasons why people control R. ponticum, and what control options they consider. Surveys are a standard way of generating such data in the social sciences. They have also been used by biologists. Perrins et al., 1992, Kowarik and Schepker, 1998, Williamson, 1998 have used questionnaire surveys before to get results on the perception of non-native species in general and their control in a certain areas. The taxonomy in the paper follows Stace (1997).
R. ponticum was introduced into Britain as an ornamental garden plant about 1763 (Curtis, 1803). Its native area is in the region of the Black Sea (Turkey, Georgia, Bulgaria) with disjunct occurrences in Lebanon, Spain and Portugal. The plants occurring in the British Isles today originate from Spain mostly (Milne and Abbott, 2000). First reports on its self-sowing abilities in Britain date back to the year 1849 (Hooker, 1849). Seeding may be one reason for its success as an ornamental plant in gardens and parks as well as for the use in extensive plantings for game cover, especially pheasants, in woodlands, particularly in the 19th Century (Elliott, 1996). Where conditions favoured establishment, it subsequently spread from these sites. R. ponticum was also used almost exclusively as the stock for grafted rhododendrons (Royal Horticulture Society, 1951), but it is so vigorous that it constantly sends up suckers which, if not removed, gradually take all the sap from the plant, eventually causing the grafted variety to die off (Cox, 1998). It is not known how far occurrences of R. ponticum go back to plantings of these grafted rootstocks. Today R. ponticum is widespread over the whole British Isles occurring in 2238 out of 3844 grid cells of (10 km)2 (Preston et al., 2002).
Naturalisation has taken place in natural and near natural vegetation like acid oak woods, heaths and bogs. R. ponticum causes ecological modifications such as changes in the species composition, light reduction, prevention of regeneration of native shrubs and trees, thus endangering native species (e.g. Cross, 1975, Fuller and Boorman, 1977, Shaw, 1984, Thomson et al., 1993, Compton et al., 2002). However, forestry plantations, both conifer and broadleaf, are also invaded causing problems for forest management (Brown, 1953, Robinson, 1980, Tabbush and Williamson, 1987, Edwards et al., 2000). Consequently, the first experiments on best eradication techniques took place in 1949. They were carried out by the Forestry Commission (Brown, 1953, Miller, 1954) later followed by control measures in nature reserves and on private estates ([15], Gritten, 1987, Becker, 1988, Searle, 1999, Singleton and Rawlins, 1999).
Today R. ponticum is probably the major alien environmental weed in the British Isles (Williamson, 2002).
The economic problem investigated is the following. Since each landowner incurs direct costs from the presence of R. ponticum they will control the species up to the point where the private marginal benefits of control (the private marginal damage avoided) is equal to the private marginal costs of control. But control of R. ponticum in any one site also reduces the probability that it will spread in other sites. So the social marginal benefit of control (the social damage avoided) includes the damage avoided on contiguous sites. Since landowners in general have no incentive to increase control effort up to the point where their private control costs equal the social damage avoided, if landowners are left to choose the level of control they exercise, there will be too little control from the perspective of society.
To see the problem consider the following simple model. Let output on the ith of n contiguous sites, Qi, depend on a vector of m inputs, and on the extent of R. ponticum on that site, Ri. Further, let the extent of R. ponticum on the ith site depend on the level of control undertaken in all sites,
That is
We can identify two problems: a private problem and a social problem.
The private decision problem takes the form:subject to Eq. (1), where
- Πi
profit on the ith site
- p
the price of output
- ci
costs on the ith site.
The first order necessary conditions for the solution of this problem include the following:
implying that private landowners will equate the private marginal benefits and costs of their control effort. The social decision problem takes the formsubject to Eq. (1) and the way in which private effort depends on the policy instruments, S. The first order necessary condition for the solution of this problem includes the following:
In which is the impact of control on the ith site on the value of output on all other contiguous sites. In the private decision problem the decision-maker has no incentive to take into account the effects of their actions on others. Solution of the social decision problem requires that they do. In the absence of intervention, there will be too little control. The implication of this is that it would be socially desirable to induce people, through choice of the policy instruments, S, to undertake the socially optimal level of control.
We have two problems to solve. The first is the estimation of the marginal external damage costs of R. ponticum in any one site—i.e. the value of the term The second is the specification and estimation of a control effort function in order to calculate the optimal value of S. We take the general form of such a control effort function to be where Z is a vector of control inputs.
In other words we wish to calculate (a) how far current control efforts may fall short of the socially optimal control effort, and (b) what policy, S, would induce the socially optimal level of control.
Section snippets
Description of the survey
Data were obtained by designing and administering a questionnaire to landowners and land managers. The questionnaire elicited information on three main topics: (a) general information about R. ponticum and its presence on sites, (b) the control regime, and (c) the costs (see Appendix A). Addressees were asked to give estimates if they did not know the exact numbers requested. The questions about the control regime and control costs relate to 2001. Figures for 2000 were also accepted if control
Model of the control effort
The next step is to identify the best mechanism for achieving the optimal level of control. To do this we specify a control effort function. This relates control effort to (a) the scale of the current problem, (b) the private control costs, (c) external funding of control inputs, (d) external labour support (volunteer labour). The area controlled in the reference year is taken to represent the control effort. We assume a Cobb-Douglas control effort function, implying an estimated function of
Discussion
R. ponticum has negative effects on nature conservation and forestry in the British Isles—a fact which respondents to the survey are highly aware of. R. ponticum imposes high costs on all groups, and many commit significant resources to control and restore land invaded by R. ponticum. Nevertheless, in an analysis designed to test the level of control effort relative to the social optimum, we find that this level of effort falls significantly short of what is needed. To be socially optimal,
Conclusion
The continued spread of R. ponticum imposes high costs in terms of habitat loss, production losses in forestry and agriculture in the British Isles. Taking these costs into account we find that current control levels are below the socially optimal level. This implies that there should be a significant increase in funding for R. ponticum control by central or local government, although the size of the increase varies between landscapes. We also find that a subsidy on the control costs would be
Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to all participants of the inquiry, too many to name here. We thank particularly John Everitt (Wildlife Trusts UK), John Harvey (National Trust), Scottish Natural Heritage, National Trust for Scotland, Colin Edwards (Forestry Commission), John Cross (Duchas), the Country Land and Business Association and the Scottish Landowner Federation who helped to improve and distribute the questionnaire. Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz had been supported by a fellowship of the Deutsche
References (39)
- et al.
The spread and development of Rhododendron ponticum L. on dunes at Winterton, Norfolk, in comparison with invasion by Hippophae rhanmnoides L. at Saltfleetby, Lincolnshire
Biological Conservation
(1977) - et al.
A survey of differing views of weed classification: implications for regulation of introductions
Biological Conservation
(1992) - et al.
Factors Affecting the Distribution and Spread of Rhododendron in North Wales
Journal of Environmental Management
(1993) - Barron, C. 2000. Groundwork Rhododendron clearance in Killarney National Park 1981–2000, a report after 20 years....
Control and removal of Rhododendron ponticum on RSPB reserves in England and Wales
(1988)The Rhododendron problem in the woodlands of southern England
Quarterly Journal of Forestry
(1953)- et al.
Life after Rhododendron. Managing rhododendron in Langley Wood NNR and the New Forest
Enact
(1999) - et al.
Conserving our little Galapagos-Lundy, Lundy Cabbage and its beetles
British Wildlife
(2002) Rhododendron and Azaleas
(1998)Biological flora of the British Isles: Rhododendron ponticum L
Journal of Ecology
(1975)
Rhododendron ponticum
Botanical Magazine
Stem treatment to control Rhododendron ponticum under woodland canopies
Aspects of Applied Biology
Rhododendrons in British gardens: a short history
The spread of Rhododendron ponticum-a national problem
The Rhododendrons of the Sikkim-Himalaya
A rhododendron eradication trial
Dynamics of the 2001 UK foot and mouth epidemic:stochastic dispersal in a heterogeneous landscape
Science
The Ancient Woodland Inventory in England and its Uses
Cited by (53)
Larger hardwood trees benefit from removing Rhododendron maximum following Tsuga canadensis mortality
2022, Forest Ecology and ManagementCitation Excerpt :Removal of the understory vegetation layer is one of the strategies that can be applied to restore forest vegetation structure and composition (Stanturf et al., 2014). Studies have attempted the removal of R. maximum in the eastern United States (Hooper, 1969; Romancier, 1971; Harrell, 2006), or similar species in Europe (Rhododendron ponticum, see Dehnen-Schmutz et al. (2004); Eşen and Zedaker (2004); Maclean et al. (2018b; 2018a)). However, only a few studies have examined the effects of removing R. maximum on ecosystem processes (Elliott and Miniat, 2018; Osburn, 2018).
Land use and climate change interaction triggers contrasting trajectories of biological invasion
2021, Ecological IndicatorsTidying up the cluttered understorey: Foraging strategy mediates bat activity responses to invasive rhododendron
2020, Forest Ecology and ManagementCitation Excerpt :Due to its ability to out-compete native plant species, suppress tree and shrub regeneration, and to act as a potential host for the fungal pathogens Phytophthora ramorum and Phytophthora kernoviae, rhododendron is being cleared using methods such as mechanical flailing, cutting and burning, and treatment with herbicides (Jackson, 2008; Parrott and MacKenzie, 2013). These removal projects are very time consuming and expensive; depending on site characteritics and the degree of infestation, they may take up to ten years (Edwards, 2006) and cost up to £10,000 per hectare in extreme cases (Dehnen-Schmutz et al., 2004; Parrott and MacKenzie, 2013). Due to its toxicity, rhododendron is not browsed by native mammals and grazing of young plants has little lasting effect (Cross, 1975).
Herbaceous-layer diversity and tree seedling recruitment are enhanced following Rhododendron maximum shrub removal
2018, Forest Ecology and ManagementBioeconomic model for optimal control of the invasive weed Zea mays subspp. (teosinte) in Spain
2018, Agricultural SystemsCitation Excerpt :The literature on invasive species management incorporating estimations of economic damages is relatively abundant since the 1990s in the United States, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand (see Born et al., 2005 and Pimentel et al., 2005 for a review of diverse species). Remarkably, however, with the exception of a few studies addressing the management of invasive species in natural ecosystems in Germany (Reinhardt et al., 2003; Nehring, 2005) and in the UK (Dehnen-Schmutz et al., 2004), research focusing on Europe is scarce. Even more surprising, little work has dealt with the impacts of invasive weeds in agroecosystems.
Integrating demographic data and a mechanistic dispersal model to predict invasion spread of Rhododendron ponticum in different habitats
2011, Ecological InformaticsCitation Excerpt :Therefore it may be in deciduous woodlands, particularly those with relatively low canopy cover, where the most problematic infestations of R. ponticum are likely to occur. Following a survey of landowners and managers, Dehnen-Schmutz et al. (2004) concluded that R. ponticum presence and invasion is of most concern to the forestry industry as woodland is the habitat most affected. However, there is little detail given about any perceived differences in the impact of R. ponticum on the different types of woodland habitats.