Review of risk assessment systems of IAS in Europe and introducing the German–Austrian Black List Information System (GABLIS)

Essl, Franz; Nehring, Stefan; Klingenstein, Frank; Milasowszky, Norbert; Nowack, Christelle; Rabitsch, Wolfgang

doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2011.08.005

Cited by 128 publications

(122 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

113

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To do this, a wealth of qualitative and semi-quantitative protocols have emerged in recent years (e.g. Baker et al 2008;Blackburn et al 2014;Bomford 2008;D'hondt et al 2015;Essl et al 2011; EFSA Panel on Plant Health 2011; Kenis et al 2012;Nentwig et al 2010;Sandvik et al 2013). These schemes range from classification systems to more elaborate scoring systems and are widely used in IAS management.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond protocols: improving the reliability of expert-based risk analysis underpinning invasive species policies

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk assessment tools for listing invasive alien species need to incorporate all available evidence and expertise. Beyond the wealth of protocols developed to date, we argue that the current way of performing risk analysis has several shortcomings. In particular, lack of data on ecological impacts, transparency and repeatability of assessments as well as the incorporation of uncertainty should all be explicitly considered. We recommend improved quality control of risk assessments through formalized peer review with clear feedback between assessors and reviewers.Alternatively, a consensus building process can be applied to better capture opinions of different experts, thereby maximizing the evidential basis. Elaborating on manageability of invasive species is further needed to fully answer all risk analysis requirements. Tackling the issue of invasive species urges better handling of the acquired information on risk and the exploration of improved methods for decision making on biodiversity management. This is crucial for efficient conservation resource allocation and uptake by stakeholders and the public.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond protocols: improving the reliability of expert-based risk analysis underpinning invasive species policies

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While all measure environmental impact, only 14 measure socio-economic impact. List derived from assessments reviewed by Essl et al (2011) and/or listed in Appendix S1 in Leung et al (2012) with recent additions…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The generic impact scoring system (GISS): a standardized tool to quantify the impacts of alien species

Nentwig

Bacher

Pyšek

et al. 2016

Environ Monit Assess

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alien species can exert negative environmental and socio-economic impacts. Therefore, administrations from different sectors are trying to prevent further introductions, stop the spread of established species, and apply or develop programs to mitigate their impact, to contain the most harmful species, or to eradicate them if possible. Often it is not clear which of the numerous alien species are most important in terms of damage, and therefore, impact scoring systems have been developed to allow a comparison and thus prioritization of species. Here, we present the generic impact scoring system (GISS), which relies on published evidence of environmental and socio-economic impact of alien species. We developed a system of 12 impact categories, for environmental and socio-economic impact, comprising all kinds of impacts that an alien species may exert. In each category, the intensity of impact is quantified by a sixlevel scale ranging from 0 (no impact detectable) to 5 (the highest impact possible). Such an approach, where impacts are grouped based on mechanisms for environmental impacts and receiving sectors for socio-economy, allows for cross-taxa comparisons and prioritization of the most damaging species. The GISS is simple and transparent, can be conducted with limited funds, and can be applied to a large number of alien species across taxa and environments. Meanwhile, the system was applied to 349 alien animal and plant species. In a comparison with 22 other impact assessment methods, the combination of environmental and socio-economic impact, as well as the possibility of weighting and

show abstract

“…A closer examination of the listed methods, however, shows that Leung et al (2012) consider only five methods to be really generic in the sense that they apply to a wide range of taxa. These are the UK non-native species risk assessment template (Baker et al 2008), the German-Austrian Black List Information System (Essl et al 2011), the Fig. 2 The mathematical backbone of the Pandora protocol.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It consisted of a simple scheme to address the spread capacity and environmental impacts of alien species based on invasion histories in Belgium and neighbouring areas (instead of a life history approach, thereby classifying as a prioritization rather than a predictive system sensu Randall et al 2008;Essl et al 2011). It was subsequently applied by an expert panel to reach consensus scores for the risk that 100 species from different taxonomic groups pose to the Belgian territory.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Harmonia + and Pandora +: risk screening tools for potentially invasive plants, animals and their pathogens

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the large number of alien species that may potentially develop into invasives, there is a clear need for robust schemes that allow to screen species for such risks. The Harmonia ? framework presented here brings together 30 questions that refer to distinct components of invasion. Together, they cover the stages of introduction, establishment, spread, and multiple kinds of impacts, viz. referring to the health of the environment (including wild species), cultivated plants, domesticated animals and man. In a complete assessment, input is provided by choosing among predefined ordinal answers and by supplementing these with textual clarification. Uncertainty is covered by indicating levels of confidence. By converting answers into scores, which are then condensed into summary statistics, Harmonia ? allows for quantitative output on stage-specific and general risks. Test assessments on five species emerging in Belgium showed the perceived environmental risks of Procambarus clarkii to be highest (0.72), and that of Threskiornis aethiopicus to be lowest (0.13). Given the considerable parallels that exist between invasive alien species and emerging infectious diseases, we additionally created Pandora, which is a risk analysis scheme for pathogens and parasites. It consists of 13 key questions and has the same structure as Harmonia ? . Since diseases play a paramount role in biological invasions, results of Pandora assessments may feed into Harmonia ? through a slightly adapted, hostspecific version named Pandora ? . Harmonia ? , Pandora and Pandora ? may be used both for prioritization purposes and for underpinning detailed risk analyses, and can be consulted online through http://ias. biodiversity.be.

show abstract

Review of risk assessment systems of IAS in Europe and introducing the German–Austrian Black List Information System (GABLIS)

Cited by 128 publications

References 50 publications

Beyond protocols: improving the reliability of expert-based risk analysis underpinning invasive species policies

Beyond protocols: improving the reliability of expert-based risk analysis underpinning invasive species policies

The generic impact scoring system (GISS): a standardized tool to quantify the impacts of alien species

Harmonia + and Pandora +: risk screening tools for potentially invasive plants, animals and their pathogens

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About