Invasive alien plants (IAPs) compromise the productive capability of a land parcel from both an economic and a biodiversity perspective. Given the magnitude of degradation and the benefits of landscape-scale restoration, a unified approach among stakeholders is required to upscale restoration efforts. Seeking such an approach, we compare the efficiencies of two restoration and land use models for the period 2014–2016. Model A is characterised by both mechanical and bioturbation as methods to control the IAPs combined with short duration, high-density rotational grazing. Model B uses mechanical and chemical methods to control IAPs, as well as a mixed rotational rest grazing system. We found that Model B’s unit cost was 47% higher than that of Model A (R13 747, compared with R9 327 ha−1). Model B is also less efficient with respect to the use of time and labour required to clear a hectare. We also note that seeking to simultaneously achieve dual objectives (e.g. ecological and social) using a single instrument, such as clearing IAPs, violates Tinbergen’s Golden Rule in Public Finance. By seeking efficiency on a single objective, e.g. with respect to ecological indicators, restoration will yield more benefits and impact more people for longer.

中文翻译：

---

南非东开普省使用放牧制度清除外来入侵植物的两种不同模型贡献的比较评估

从经济和生物多样性的角度来看，外来入侵植物 (IAP) 都会损害地块的生产能力。鉴于退化的严重程度和景观规模恢复的好处，利益相关者需要采取统一的方法来扩大恢复工作。为了寻求这种方法，我们比较了 2014-2016 年期间两种恢复和土地利用模型的效率。模型 A 的特点是机械和生物扰动作为控制 IAP 的方法与短持续时间、高密度旋转放牧相结合。B 型使用机械和化学方法来控制 IAP，以及混合旋转静止放牧系统。我们发现模型 B 的单位成本比模型 A 高 47%（R13 747，与 R9 327 ha-1 相比）。在清理一公顷所需的时间和劳动力方面，模型 B 的效率也较低。我们还注意到，寻求使用单一工具（例如清算 IAP）同时实现双重目标（例如生态和社会）违反了廷伯根的公共财政黄金法则。通过在单一目标上寻求效率，例如在生态指标方面，恢复将产生更多收益，并在更长时间内影响更多人。