Quantitative Uncertainty Analysis for a Weed Risk Assessment System

Caton, Barney P.; Koop, Anthony L.; Fowler, Larry; Newton, Leslie; Kohl, Lisa M.

doi:10.1111/risa.12979

Cited by 11 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thereafter, the relationship between the major axes produced (denoted as I, II, and III) and overall feasibility of control were tested via correlation analyses. We avoided weighting management criteria because the utility of such a methodology in risk ranking is debateable (see Heikkilä, 2011;Kumschick et al,2012;Vanderhoeven et al, 2017;Caton et al, 2018); rather we integrated the management components and estimated the return on investment (ROI) for each management option as a product of effectiveness and practicality standardized by cost (i.e. : ROI= (effectiveness*practicality)/cost) (Firn et al, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…communication). Confidence scores were also explicitly recorded for every response using a three point scale (Low-Medium-High) based on guidance provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Mastradrea et al, 2011;Caton et al, 2018).…”

Section: Risk Management Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence uncertainty in data inputs is intrinsically associated with assigned risk, and consideration of uncertainty is an important requirement to ensure that priorities are consistent and robust to variations in input information. Uncertainty in IAS listing processes can be associated with lack of information, conflicting evidence, context dependence or unclear formulations (Liu et al, 2011;Leung et al, 2012;McGeoch et al, 2012;Caton et al, 2018). Uncertainty complicates decisions (Caton et al, 2018) but it needs to be explicitly integrated in pest risk prioritization.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Management feasibility of established invasive plant species in Queensland, Australia: A stakeholders’ perspective

Osunkoya

Froese

Nicol

2019

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Managing and monitoring invasive alien species (IAS) is costly, and because resources are limited, prioritization decisions are required for planning and management. We present findings on plant pest prioritization for 63 established invader species of natural and grazing ecosystems of Queensland, Australia. We used an expert elicitation approach to assess risk (species occurrence, spread, and impact) and feasibility of control for each IAS. We elicit semi-quantitative responses from diverse expert stakeholders to score IAS on three management approaches (biocontrol, chemical and mechanical) in relation to cost, effectiveness and practicality, and incorporate uncertainty in expert inputs and model outputs. In the process, we look for promising management opportunities as well as seek general trends across species' ecological groups and management methods. Stakeholders were cautiously optimistic about the feasibility of managing IAS. Taking into consideration all factors, the overall feasibility of control was uncorrelated with the stakeholders' level of confidence. However, within individual management criterion, positive trend was observed for the same bivariate traits for chemical control, and negative trends for biocontrol and mechanical controls. Utility and confidence in IAS management options were in the order: chemical > biocontrol = mechanical, with practicality and effectiveness being the main driver components. Management feasibility differed significantly between IAS life forms but not between habitats invaded. Lastly, we combined IAS risk assessment and management feasibility scores to create a risk matrix to guide policy goals (i.e. eradication, spread containment, protection of sensitive sites, targeted control, site management, monitoring, and limited action). The matrix identifies promising species to target for each of these policy outcomes. Overall, our general approach illustrates (i) the importance of understanding the feasibility of IAS control actions and the factors that drive it, and (ii) demonstrates how quantifying management feasibility can be used to enhance traditional risk assessment rankings to improve policy outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk Management Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Management feasibility of established invasive plant species in Queensland, Australia: A stakeholders’ perspective

Osunkoya

Froese

Nicol

2019

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For additional information on the weed risk assessment or NAPPRA processes, go to www.aphis.usda.gov an analysis, which generates a range of other possible scores if some of the answers in the WRA were to change slightly. The higher the uncertainty surrounding the evidence considered in the WRA, the more likely the answers to the individual questions will vary (Caton et al 2018). The third component of the WRA process incorporates a climate-matching analysis to determine which US areas are suitable for species establishment (Magarey et al 2017).…”

Section: Aphis-ppq Tiered Weed Risk Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Instituting a national early detection and rapid response program: needs for building federal risk screening capacity

Meyers¹,

Reaser

Hoff

2019

Biol Invasions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The invasive species issue is inherently a matter of risk; what is the risk that an invasive species will adversely impact valued assets? The early detection of and rapid response to invasive species (EDRR) requires that an assessment of risk is conducted as rapidly as possible. We define risk screening as rapid characterization of the types and degree of risks posed by a population of non-native species in a particular spatio-temporal context. Risk screening is used to evaluate the degree to which various response measures are warranted and justifiable. In this paper, we evaluate the US government's risk screening programs with a view towards advancing national EDRR capacity. Our survey-based findings, consistent with prior analyses, indicate that risk evaluation by federal agencies has largely been a reactive, ad hoc process, and there is a need to improve information sharing, risk evaluation tools, and staff capacity for risk screening. We provide an overview of the US Department of Agriculture's Tiered Weed Risk Evaluation and US Fish and Wildlife Service's Ecological Risk Screening Summaries, two relatively new approaches to invasive species risk screening that hold promise as the basis for future work. We emphasize the need for a clearinghouse of risk evaluation protocols, tools, completed assessments and associated information; development of performance metrics and standardized protocols for risk screening; as well as support for complementary, science-based tools to facilitate and validate risk screening. Keywords Early detection and rapid response (EDRR) Á Invasive species Á Non-native species Á Risk analysis Á Risk assessment Á Risk screening Á Target analysis

show abstract

“…Impact assessments of alien species likewise should be accompanied by estimates of uncertainty (Roy et al 2018), although this does not always occur (Caton et al 2018). The environmental impact classification for alien taxa (EICAT), for example, requires assessors to provide a confidence rating (low, medium, high) for each piece of evidence used in the impact classification of each species (Hawkins et al 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing uncertainty in impact assessments for alien species

McGrannachan³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impact assessment is a widely used and cost-effective tool for prioritising invasive alien species.With the number of alien and invasive alien species expected to increase, reliance on impact assessment tools for the identification of species that pose the greatest threats will continue to grow. Given the importance of such assessments for management and resource allocation, it is critical to understand the uncertainty involved and what effect this may have on the outcome.Using an uncertainty typology and insects as a model taxon, we identified and classified the sources and types of uncertainty when performing impact assessments on alien species. We assessed 100 alien insect species across two rounds of assessments with each species independently assessed by two assessors. Agreement between assessors was relatively low for all three EICAT components (mechanism, severity, confidence) after the first round. For the second round, we revised guidelines and gave assessors access to each other's assessments which improved agreement by between 20-30%. Of the 12 potential reasons for assessment discrepancies identified a priori, 11 occurred. The most frequent sources (and types) of uncertainty (i.e. differences between assessment outcomes for the same species) were: incomplete information searches (systematic error), unclear mechanism and/or extent of impact (subjective judgment due to a lack of knowledge), and limitations of the assessment framework (context dependence). In response to these findings, we identify actions to reduce uncertainty in the impact assessment process, particularly for assessing speciose taxa with diverse life histories such as Insecta.Evidence of environmental impact was available for most insect species, and (of the non-random original subset of species assessed) 14 or 29% of those with evidence were identified as high impact species (with either 'Major' or 'Massive' impact). Although uncertainty in risk assessment, including impact assessments, can never be eliminated, identifying and communicating its source and variety is a first step toward its reduction and a more reliable assessment outcome, regardless of the taxa being assessed.

show abstract

Quantitative Uncertainty Analysis for a Weed Risk Assessment System

Cited by 11 publications

References 15 publications

Management feasibility of established invasive plant species in Queensland, Australia: A stakeholders’ perspective

Management feasibility of established invasive plant species in Queensland, Australia: A stakeholders’ perspective

Instituting a national early detection and rapid response program: needs for building federal risk screening capacity

Reducing uncertainty in impact assessments for alien species

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About