Economic evaluation of chemical and biological control of four aquatic weeds in South Africa
- Maluleke, Mary, Fraser, Gavin C G, Hill, Martin P
- Authors: Maluleke, Mary , Fraser, Gavin C G , Hill, Martin P
- Date: 2021
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/453170 , vital:75228 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09583157.2021.1900783"
- Description: Invasive alien plants (IAPs) pose a threat to biodiversity and the economy of the countries they invade. In South Africa, the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries, Natural Resources Management Programmes, previously The Working for Water Programme (WfW) is tasked with controlling IAPs in a way that protects the environment, as well as producing maximum return to society through poverty alleviation. Biological control is one of the management tools used to control IAPs in South Africa. Four aquatic weeds, Pista stratiotes, Salvinia molesta, Azolla filiculoides and Myriophyllum aquaticum, are under complete biological control in South Africa. However, in the absence of biological agents, the WfW programme would have used herbicides to control these weeds. This paper presents a retrospective analysis of the relative herbicide cost-saving associated with the use of biological control instead of chemical control. The study used cost benefit analysis (CBA) framework with an 8% discount rate. The estimated cost of the biological control on all four aquatic weeds was about R7.8 million, while the estimated cost of chemical control to achieve the same level of control varied between R150 million and R1 billion, depending on the method of application and number of follow up operations. Benefit to cost ratios varied between 90:1 and 631:1, again depending on method of application and number of follow up sprays. The results remained robust under a 5% and 10% sensitivity test and show that biological control is the most cost-effective management option for aquatic weeds in South Africa.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2021
- Authors: Maluleke, Mary , Fraser, Gavin C G , Hill, Martin P
- Date: 2021
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/453170 , vital:75228 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09583157.2021.1900783"
- Description: Invasive alien plants (IAPs) pose a threat to biodiversity and the economy of the countries they invade. In South Africa, the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries, Natural Resources Management Programmes, previously The Working for Water Programme (WfW) is tasked with controlling IAPs in a way that protects the environment, as well as producing maximum return to society through poverty alleviation. Biological control is one of the management tools used to control IAPs in South Africa. Four aquatic weeds, Pista stratiotes, Salvinia molesta, Azolla filiculoides and Myriophyllum aquaticum, are under complete biological control in South Africa. However, in the absence of biological agents, the WfW programme would have used herbicides to control these weeds. This paper presents a retrospective analysis of the relative herbicide cost-saving associated with the use of biological control instead of chemical control. The study used cost benefit analysis (CBA) framework with an 8% discount rate. The estimated cost of the biological control on all four aquatic weeds was about R7.8 million, while the estimated cost of chemical control to achieve the same level of control varied between R150 million and R1 billion, depending on the method of application and number of follow up operations. Benefit to cost ratios varied between 90:1 and 631:1, again depending on method of application and number of follow up sprays. The results remained robust under a 5% and 10% sensitivity test and show that biological control is the most cost-effective management option for aquatic weeds in South Africa.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2021
Economic evaluation of water loss saving due to the biological control of water hyacinth at New Year’s Dam, Eastern Cape province, South Africa
- Fraser, Gavin C G, Hill, Martin P, Martin, J A
- Authors: Fraser, Gavin C G , Hill, Martin P , Martin, J A
- Date: 2016
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/69341 , vital:29502 , https://doi.org/10.2989/16085914.2016.1151765
- Description: Water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes is considered the most damaging aquatic weed in the world. However, few studies have quantified the impact of this weed economically and ecologically, and even fewer studies have quantified the benefits of its control. This paper focuses on water loss saving as the benefit derived from biological control of this plant between 1990 and 2013 at New Year’s Dam, Alicedale, Eastern Cape, South Africa. Estimates of water loss due to evapotranspiration from water hyacinth vary significantly; therefore, the study used three different rates, high, medium and low. A conservative raw agriculture value of R 0.26 per m3 was used to calculate the benefits derived by the water saved. The present benefit and cost values were determined using 10% and 5% discount rates. The benefit/cost ratio at the low evapotranspiration rate was less than one, implying that biological control was not economically viable but, at the higher evapotranspiration rates, the return justified the costs of biological control. However, at the marginal value product of water, the inclusion of the costs of damage to infrastructure, or the adverse effects of water hyacinth on biodiversity, would justify the use of biological control, even at the low transpiration rate.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2016
- Authors: Fraser, Gavin C G , Hill, Martin P , Martin, J A
- Date: 2016
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/69341 , vital:29502 , https://doi.org/10.2989/16085914.2016.1151765
- Description: Water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes is considered the most damaging aquatic weed in the world. However, few studies have quantified the impact of this weed economically and ecologically, and even fewer studies have quantified the benefits of its control. This paper focuses on water loss saving as the benefit derived from biological control of this plant between 1990 and 2013 at New Year’s Dam, Alicedale, Eastern Cape, South Africa. Estimates of water loss due to evapotranspiration from water hyacinth vary significantly; therefore, the study used three different rates, high, medium and low. A conservative raw agriculture value of R 0.26 per m3 was used to calculate the benefits derived by the water saved. The present benefit and cost values were determined using 10% and 5% discount rates. The benefit/cost ratio at the low evapotranspiration rate was less than one, implying that biological control was not economically viable but, at the higher evapotranspiration rates, the return justified the costs of biological control. However, at the marginal value product of water, the inclusion of the costs of damage to infrastructure, or the adverse effects of water hyacinth on biodiversity, would justify the use of biological control, even at the low transpiration rate.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2016
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »