Literature review worklog IV: time for conclusions

I sent an outline to my supervisor to review today, and here are some temporary conclusions. They are subject to change, of course, in the final report.

1. Most CEA or CBA studies still tend to focus on a single ecosystem service (Rockwell 2003) or a single step in the management process (Perrings, Williamson et al. 2000).
2. Indirect and non-markets costs are often omitted due to the “public-good” nature of invasive species.
3. ex-ante research that guides decisions on future control action is a lot less in comparison to ex-post studies.
4. The numbers generated by empirical research do not mean much by themselves but only indicate both the scale of the problem and the degree of uncertainty (Perrings, Dalmazzone et al. 2005). Even from these baseline estimates, however, a picture emerges of current and impending problems that require action.
5. Human action towards bio-invasion could be an important feedback to include in a bioeconomic model (Finnoff, Shogren et al. 2005).
6. Uncertainty is a pervasive feature of the business. How to communicate it to the public and incorporate it into policy making decision is a pressing question for every researcher.

References:

Finnoff, D., J. F. Shogren, et al. (2005). "The importance of bioeconomic feedback in invasive species management." Ecological Economics 52(3): 367-381.
Perrings, C., S. Dalmazzone, et al. (2005). The Economics of biological control. Invasive alien species: a new synthesis. H. A. Mooney, M. C. Mack, J. A. McNeelyet al. Washington, DC, Island Press: 16-35.
Perrings, C., M. Williamson, et al. (2000). Conclusion. The economics of biological invasions. C. Perrings, S. Dalmazzone and M. Williamson. Cheltenham, UK
Rockwell, J. H. W. (2003). Summary of a Survey of the Literature on the Economic Impact of Aquatic Weeds, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation.