Review A framework for sustainable invasive species management: Environmental, social, and economic objectives q Diane L. Larson a, * , Laura Phillips-Mao b , Gina Quiram b , Leah Sharpe b , Rebecca Stark b,1 , Shinya Sugita b, c , Annie Weiler b, d a U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center,1561 Lindig St., St. Paul, MN 55108-6097, USA b University of Minnesota,1987 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108-6097, USA c Currently Ecology Institute, Tallinn University, Uus-Sadama 5,10120 Tallinn, Estonia d Currently University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd., Orlando, FL 32816-2368, USA article info Article history: Received 15 December 2009 Received in revised form 16 July 2010 Accepted 22 August 2010 Available online 15 September 2010 Keywords: Invasive species Management Objectives Sustainability abstract Applying the concept of sustainability to invasive species management (ISM) is challenging but neces- sary, given the increasing rates of invasion and the high costs of invasion impacts and control. To be sustainable, ISM must address environmental, social, and economic factors (or “pillars”) that influence the causes, impacts, and control of invasive species across multiple spatial and temporal scales. Although these pillars are generally acknowledged, their implementation is often limited by insufficient control options and significant economic and political constraints. In this paper, we outline specific objectives in each of these three “pillars” that, if incorporated into a management plan, will improve the plan’s likelihood of sustainability. We then examine three case studies that illustrate how these objectives can be effectively implemented. Each pillar reinforces the others, such that the inclusion of even a few of the outlined objectives will lead to more effective management that achieves ecological goals, while generating social support and long-term funding to maintain projects to completion. We encourage agency directors and policy-makers to consider sustainability principles when developing funding schemes, management agendas, and policy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 1. Introduction The prevention and control of invasive species has received considerable attention in recent years because of their demon- strated and potential ecological (Wilcove et al., 1998; Levine et al., 2003) and economic (Pimentel et al., 2005) impacts. However, our ability to effectively manage invasions is limited by the efficacy of available management tools and economic and political constraints (Hobbs and Humphries, 1995). Resource managers with limited funds and labor must often react to immediate threats, with few resources remaining for developing and implementing comprehensive long-term invasive species management plans. Funding for current invasive species management (ISM) is clearly insufficient, but given that rates of invasion are expected to accel- erate (Lodge et al., 2006; Hellmann et al., 2008), it is increasingly important that we ask the question: is effective invasive species management sustainable? The term “sustainable” has become something of a watchword for the 21st Century: more than 40,000 articles can be retrieved on Web of Science (a web-based bibliographic search application published by Thomson Reuters) using the keywords sustainable or sustainability, implying a rich literature surrounding the concept. Although The Oxford English Dictionary (1989) provides a decep- tively straightforward definition: “Capable of being maintained at a certain rate or level”, Meyer and Helfman (1993) note that the definition is context dependent. Often, the term is used in relation to extractive resource use and implies that natural resources should be used such that they remain available at comparable levels for future generations (Brundtland, 1987). However, sustainability can also be applied to resource management, including ISM. Given the high costs of ISM and increasing rates of invasion, we must aim to sustain management efforts into the future, without depleting financial and social capital. We base our discussion on the idea that sustainability depends on three “pillars” (e.g., Pope et al., 2004): environmental, social, and economic. While specific management goals will be unique to q All authors contributed equally to concepts in this manuscript; revisions were done by the first four authors. * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 651 649 5041. E-mail address: dlarson@usgs.gov (D.L. Larson). 1 Current address: University of Chicago, 920 East 58th St., Chicago, IL 60637, USA. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Environmental Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman 0301-4797/$ e see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.08.025 Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 14e22