Prioritizing management actions for invasive populations using cost, efficacy, demography and expert opinion for 14 plant species world‐wide

1. Management of invasive populations is typically investigated case‐by‐case. Comparative approaches have been applied to single aspects of management, such as demography, with cost or efficacy rarely incorporated. 2. We present an analysis of the ranks of management actions for 14 species in five countries that extends beyond the use of demography alone to include multiple metrics for ranking management actions, which integrate cost, efficacy and demography (cost‐effectiveness) and managers’ expert opinion of ranks. We use content analysis of manager surveys to assess the multiple criteria managers use to rank management strategies. 3. Analysis of the matrix models for managed populations showed that all management actions led to reductions in population growth rate (λ), with a median 48% reduction in λ across all management units; however, only 66% of the actions led to declining populations (λ < 1). 4. Each management action ranked by cost‐effectiveness and cost had a unique rank; however, elasticity ranks were often tied, providing less discrimination among management actions. Ranking management actions by cost alone aligned well with cost‐effectiveness ranks and demographic elasticity ranks were also well aligned with cost‐effectiveness. In contrast, efficacy ranks were aligned with managers’ ranks and managers identified efficacy and demography as important. 80% of managers identified off‐target effects of management as important, which was not captured using any of the other metrics. 5. Synthesis and applications. A multidimensional view of the benefits and costs of management options provides a range of single and integrated metrics. These rankings, and the relationships between them, can be used to assess management actions for invasive plants. The integrated cost‐effectiveness approach goes well ‘beyond demography’ and provides additional information for managers; however, cost‐effectiveness needs to be augmented with information on off‐target effects and social impacts of management in order to provide greater benefits for on‐the‐ground management.