TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessing the assessments
T2 - evaluation of four impact assessment protocols for invasive alien species
AU - Turbé, Anne
AU - Strubbe, Diederik
AU - Mori, Emiliano
AU - Carrete, Martina
AU - Chiron, François
AU - Clergeau, Philippe
AU - González-Moreno, Pablo
AU - Le Louarn, Marine
AU - Luna, Alvaro
AU - Menchetti, Mattia
AU - Nentwig, Wolfgang
AU - Pârâu, Liviu G.
AU - Postigo, Jose Luis
AU - Rabitsch, Wolfgang
AU - Senar, Juan Carlos
AU - Tollington, Simon
AU - Vanderhoeven, Sonia
AU - Weiserbs, Anne
AU - Shwartz, Assaf
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
PY - 2017/3/1
Y1 - 2017/3/1
N2 - Aim: Effective policy and management responses to the multiple threats posed by invasive alien species (IAS) rely on the ability to assess their impacts before conclusive empirical evidence is available. A plethora of different IAS risk and/or impact assessment protocols have been proposed, but it remains unclear whether, how and why the outcomes of such assessment protocols may differ. Location: Europe. Methods: Here, we present an in-depth evaluation and informed assessment of the consistency of four prominent protocols for assessing IAS impacts (EICAT, GISS, Harmonia+ and NNRA), using two non-native parrots in Europe: the widespread ring-necked parakeet (Psittacula krameri) and the rapidly spreading monk parakeet (Myiopsitta monachus). Results: Our findings show that the procedures used to assess impacts may influence assessment outcomes. We find that robust IAS prioritization can be obtained by assessing species based on their most severe documented impacts, as all protocols yield consistent outcomes across impact categories. Additive impact scoring offers complementary, more subtle information that may be especially relevant for guiding management decisions regarding already established invasive alien species. Such management decisions will also strongly benefit from consensus approaches that reduce disagreement between experts, fostering the uptake of scientific advice into policy-making decisions. Main conclusions: Invasive alien species assessments should take advantage of the capacity of consensus assessments to consolidate discussion and agreement between experts. Our results suggest that decision-makers could use the assessment protocol most fit for their purpose, on the condition they apply a precautionary approach by considering the most severe impacts only. We also recommend that screening for high-impact IAS should be performed on a more robust basis than current ad hoc practices, at least using the easiest assessment protocols and reporting confidence scores.
AB - Aim: Effective policy and management responses to the multiple threats posed by invasive alien species (IAS) rely on the ability to assess their impacts before conclusive empirical evidence is available. A plethora of different IAS risk and/or impact assessment protocols have been proposed, but it remains unclear whether, how and why the outcomes of such assessment protocols may differ. Location: Europe. Methods: Here, we present an in-depth evaluation and informed assessment of the consistency of four prominent protocols for assessing IAS impacts (EICAT, GISS, Harmonia+ and NNRA), using two non-native parrots in Europe: the widespread ring-necked parakeet (Psittacula krameri) and the rapidly spreading monk parakeet (Myiopsitta monachus). Results: Our findings show that the procedures used to assess impacts may influence assessment outcomes. We find that robust IAS prioritization can be obtained by assessing species based on their most severe documented impacts, as all protocols yield consistent outcomes across impact categories. Additive impact scoring offers complementary, more subtle information that may be especially relevant for guiding management decisions regarding already established invasive alien species. Such management decisions will also strongly benefit from consensus approaches that reduce disagreement between experts, fostering the uptake of scientific advice into policy-making decisions. Main conclusions: Invasive alien species assessments should take advantage of the capacity of consensus assessments to consolidate discussion and agreement between experts. Our results suggest that decision-makers could use the assessment protocol most fit for their purpose, on the condition they apply a precautionary approach by considering the most severe impacts only. We also recommend that screening for high-impact IAS should be performed on a more robust basis than current ad hoc practices, at least using the easiest assessment protocols and reporting confidence scores.
KW - biological invasions
KW - confidence
KW - consensus assessment
KW - invasive alien species
KW - invasive species policy
KW - monk parakeet (Myiopsitta monachus)
KW - ring-necked parakeet (Psittacula krameri)
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85009756442&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/ddi.12528
DO - 10.1111/ddi.12528
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
AN - SCOPUS:85009756442
SN - 1366-9516
VL - 23
SP - 297
EP - 307
JO - Diversity and Distributions
JF - Diversity and Distributions
IS - 3
ER -