Socio‐economic impact classification of alien taxa (<scp>SEICAT</scp>)

Bacher, Sven; Blackburn, Tim M.; Essl, Franz; Genovesi, Piero; Heikkilä, Jaakko; Jeschke, Jonathan M.; Jones, Glyn; Keller, Reuben P.; Kenis, Marc; Kueffer, Christoph; Martinou, Angeliki F.; Nentwig, Wolfgang; Pergl, Jan; Pyšek, Petr; Rabitsch, Wolfgang; Richardson, David M.; Roy, Helen E.; Saul, Wolf‐Christian; Scalerà, Riccardo; Vilà, Montserrat; Wilson, John R.; Kumschick, Sabrina

doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12844

Cited by 292 publications

(319 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

314

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…About half of the species on the final list were identified by only one of these two approaches. Depending on the stakeholders' aim for the prioritization, one or the other might be more appropriate, but both have their merits Blackburn et al 2014;Bacher et al 2017). Thus, we suggest applying either method or their combination depending on the specific needs of the stakeholders.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

More than “100 worst” alien species in Europe

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

''One hundred worst'' lists of alien species of the greatest concern proved useful for raising awareness of the risks and impacts of biological invasions amongst the general public, politicians and stakeholders. All lists so far have been based on expert opinion and primarily aimed at representativeness of the taxonomic and habitat diversity rather than at quantifying the harm the alien species cause. We used the generic impact scoring system (GISS) to rank 486 alien species established in Europe from a wide range of taxonomic groups to identify those with the highest environmental and socioeconomic impact. GISS assigns 12 categories of impact, each quantified on a scale from 0 (no impact detectable) to 5 (the highest impact possible). We ranked species by their total sum of scores and by the number of the highest impact scores. We also compared the listing based on GISS with other expert-based lists of the ''worst'' invaders. We propose a list of 149 alien species, comprising 54 plants, 49 invertebrates, 40 vertebrates and 6 fungi. Among the highest ranking species are one bird (Branta canadensis), four mammals (Rattus norvegicus, Ondatra zibethicus, Cervus nippon, Muntiacus reevesi), one crayfish (Procambarus clarkii), one miteThe original version of this article was revised: (The detailed corrections has been provided in the Correction article).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Blackburn et al 2014;Nentwig et al 2016;Bacher et al 2017). Specifically, Nentwig et al (2016) propose a tool that quantifies both environmental and socioeconomic impacts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

More than “100 worst” alien species in Europe

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our study provides a starting point for the inclusion of these relevant perspectives within risk assessments, but further interdisciplinary work is required to inform a more robust risk assessment framework. It is anticipated that such frameworks will emerge over the next few years, and SEICAT (Bacher et al., ) is an encouraging development in this regard.…”

Section: Conclusion and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a framework of minimum standards for the risk assessment of alien species

Roy

Rabitsch

Scalerà³

et al. 2017

Journal of Applied Ecology

Self Cite

172

163

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological invasions are a threat to biodiversity, society and the economy. There is an urgent need to provide evidence‐based assessments of the risks posed by invasive alien species (IAS) to prioritize action. Risk assessments underpin IAS policies in many ways: informing legislation; providing justification of restrictions in trade or consumer activities; prioritizing surveillance and rapid response. There are benefits to ensuring consistency in content of IAS risk assessments globally, and this can be achieved by providing a framework of minimum standards as a checklist for quality assurance. From a review of existing risk assessment protocols, and with reference to the requirements of the EU Regulation on IAS (1143/2014) and international agreements including the World Trade Organisation, Convention on Biological Diversity and International Plant Protection Convention, coupled with consensus methods, we identified and agreed upon 14 minimum standards (attributes) a risk‐assessment scheme should include. The agreed minimum standards were as follows: (1) basic species description; (2) likelihood of invasion; (3) distribution, spread and impacts; (4) assessment of introduction pathways; (5) assessment of impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems; (6) Assessment of impact on ecosystem services; (7) assessment of socio‐economic impacts; (8) consideration of status (threatened or protected) of species or habitat under threat; (9) assessment of effects of future climate change; (10) completion possible even when there is a lack of information; (11) documents information sources; (12) provides a summary in a consistent and interpretable form; (13) includes uncertainty; (14) includes quality assurance. In deriving these minimum standards, gaps in knowledge required for completing risk assessments and the scope of existing risk assessment protocols were revealed, most notably in relation to assessing benefits, socio‐economic impacts and impacts on ecosystem services but also inclusion of consideration of climate change. Policy implications. We provide a checklist of components that should be within invasive alien species risk assessments and recommendations to develop risk assessments to meet these proposed minimum standards. Although inspired by implementation of the European Union Regulation on invasive alien species, and as such developed specifically within a European context, the derived framework and minimum standards could be applied globally.

show abstract

“…Explanation note: Scoring differences for GISS, EICAT and SEICAT. This table was adapted from Kumschick et al (2016) and Bacher et al (2017). The numbers in the top column refer to the GISS scoring classifications, whereas the terms 'massive' to 'minimal concern' refer to EICAT and SEICAT scoring classifications.…”

Section: Supplementary Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relevance of using various scoring schemes revealed by an impact assessment of feral mammals

Hagen¹,

Kumschick²

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation: Hagen BL, Kumschick S (2018) The relevance of using various scoring schemes revealed by an impact assessment of feral mammals. NeoBiota 38: 37-75. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.38.23509 Abstract Impact scoring schemes are useful for identifying to what extent alien species cause damage. Quantifying the similarity and differences between impact scoring schemes can help determine how to optimally use these tools for policy decisions. Using feral mammals (including rats and mice) as a case study, environmental and socio-economic impacts were assessed using three schemes, namely the Generic Impact Scoring System (GISS), Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) and Socio-Economic Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (SEICAT). The results show that socio-economic impacts scores differ between the respective schemes (GISS and SEICAT) possibly because they assess different aspects of social life and economy. This suggests that both scoring schemes should ideally be applied in concert to get a complete picture of socio-economic impacts. In contrast, environmental impact scores are correlated between GISS and EICAT assessments and this similarity is consistent over most mechanisms except for predation and ecosystems, suggesting that one scoring scheme is sufficient to capture all the environmental impacts. Furthermore, we present evidence for the island susceptibility hypothesis as impacts of feral mammals were found to be higher on islands compared to mainlands.

show abstract

Socio‐economic impact classification of alien taxa (SEICAT)

Abstract: Abstract1. Many alien taxa are known to cause socio-economic impacts by affecting the different constituents of human well-being (security; material and non-material assets; health; social, spiritual and cultural relations; freedom of choice and action).

Cited by 292 publications

References 45 publications

More than “100 worst” alien species in Europe

More than “100 worst” alien species in Europe

Developing a framework of minimum standards for the risk assessment of alien species

The relevance of using various scoring schemes revealed by an impact assessment of feral mammals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About