A conceptual framework for prioritization of invasive alien species for management according to their impact

P io i iza ion ool o IAS managemen 69 A concep ual amewo k o p io i iza ion o in asi e alien species o managemen acco ding o hei impac Sab ina Kumschick1, S en Bache 2, Wayne Dawson3, Jaakko Heikkilä4, AgnieszkaSendek5, The ese Pluess2, Tama a B. Robinson1, Ingol Kühn5 1 Cen e o In asion Biology, Depa men o Bo any and Zoology, S ellenbosch Uni e si y, Ma ieland, 7602, Sou h A ica 2Uni e si y o F ibou g, Depa men o Biology, Ecology & E olu ion Uni , Ch. du Musée 10, 1700 F ibou g, Swi ze land 3Ecology, Depa men o Biology, Uni e si ä ss asse 10, Kons anz, D 78464, Ge many 4MTT Ag i ood Resea ch Finland, Economic Resea ch, La oka anonkaa i 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland 5UFZ, Helmhol z Cen e o En i onmen al Resea ch – UFZ, Dep . Communi y Eco- logy, Theodo -Liese -S . 4, 06120 Halle, Ge many Co esponding au ho : Sab ina Kumschick ([email p o ec ed]) Academic edi o : U. S a inge |Recei ed 7 Decembe 2012|Accep ed 11 Decembe 2012|Published 14 Decembe 2012 Ci a ion: Kumschick S, Bache S, Dawson W, Heikkilä J, Sendek A, Pluess T, Robinson TB, Kühn I (2012) A concep ual amewo k o p io i iza ion o in asi e alien species o managemen acco ding o hei impac . NeoBio a 15: 69–100. doi: 10.3897/neobio a.15.3323 Abs ac The numbe o in asi e alien species is inc easing and so a e he impac s hese species cause o he en i- onmen and economies. Ne e heless, esou ces o managemen a e limi ed, which makes p io i iza ion una oidable. We p esen a p io i iza ion amewo k which can be use ul o decision make s as i includes bo h a scien i ic impac assessmen and he e alua ion o impac impo ance by a ec ed s akeholde s. The amewo k is di ided in o i e s eps, namely 1) s akeholde selec ion and weigh ing o s akeholde im- po ance by he decision make , 2) ac ual desc ip ion and sco ing o changes by scien is s, 3) e alua ion o he impo ance o impac ca ego ies by s akeholde s, 4) calcula ion o weigh ed impac ca ego ies and 5) calcula ion o inal impac sco e and decision making. The amewo k could be used a di e en scales and by di e en au ho i ies. Fu he mo e, i would make he decision making p ocess anspa en and e aceable o all s akeholde s and he gene al public. Keywo ds s akeholde , decision make , exo ic, gene ic sco ing sys em, impac , alue Copy igh Sab ina Kumschick e al. This is an open access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion License 3.0 (CC-BY), which pe mi s un es ic ed use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal au ho and sou ce a e c edi ed. NeoBio a 15: 69–100 (2012) doi: 10.3897/neobio a.15.3323 www.penso .ne /jou nals/neobio a Re iew AR iCle Ad ancing esea ch on alien species and biological in asions A pee - e iewed open-access jou nal NeoBio a Sab ina Kumschick e al. / NeoBio a 15: 69–100 (2012) 70 in oduc ion Impac s o in asi e alien species (IAS) a ec di e en ecep o en i onmen s, and a e o en di ided in o en i onmen al and socio-economic impac s. Some o hese impac s can esul in subs an ial mone a y cos s and/o al e a ions o en i e ecosys ems and social sys ems (O’Dowd e al. 2003, Pimen el e al. 2005, Rease e al. 2007, Vilà e al. 2010). A an in e na ional le el he ecological impac s o IAS a e add essed by he Con en ion on Biological Di e si y (CBD 1992). Th ough his con en ion he need o p io i iza ion and managemen o p io i y species has been highligh ed in he S a- egic Plan o Biodi e si y 2011-2020 (COP 10 2010), al hough no guidance on how o achie e his ideal is p o ided. The e has been ecogni ion ha socie ies need o mi iga e nega i e impac s o IAS, i.e. ind app op ia e means o manage IAS in a way ha hei impac s a e a leas minimized, e.g. by e adica ion, educ ion below a speci ic h eshold, o con ainmen . Howe e , esou ces o manage IAS a e limi ed and wi h inc easing globaliza ion, he in lux o po en ially ha m ul o ganisms will likely con inue o inc ease (Pe ings e al. 2010, Essl e al. 2011). The e a e wo app oaches o his p oblem. Fi s ly, o limi new alien species om en e ing an a ea/coun y, o which pu pose bo de con ol isk assessmen s ha e been de eloped (e.g., Pheloung e al. 1999, Bom o d 2008, see Hulme 2012 and Leung e al. 2012 o e iews). Secondly, alien species ha escape bo de con ols (Bacon e al. 2012) o ha e ne e been subjec ed o bo de con ol isk assessmen , and which cause high impac mus be managed in hei new anges (see abo e). Hence, a sys em is needed ha acili a es he op imal alloca ion o limi ed esou ces o manage hose IAS ha a e mos ha m ul in a gi en a ea. Such a sys em would ideally in eg a e he se e i y o e ec s on he en i onmen , as well as on he economy and he socie y in ques ion, allowing decision make s o p io - i ize ce ain high impac species o managemen . Howe e , also cos -e ec i eness o managemen needs o be aken in o accoun . Alien species, howe e , do no ha e only nega i e e ec s. The majo i y o he alien plan s in Eu ope we e delibe a ely in oduced, e.g. as o namen al, ho icul u al, es o- a ion, ag icul u al o o es y species (Hoppe 2007, Lambdon e al. 2008, Pyšek e al. 2009) wi h hei espec i e social, economic and en i onmen al bene i s. Managemen o such species, which a e de imen al in some aspec s (e.g. o biodi e si y) and ben- e icial in o he s (e.g. o es y), can esul in con lic s among in ol ed s akeholde s. Fo example, he in oduc ion o Sou h A ica o alien Acacia species which subsequen ly became in asi e had di e en ial e ec s on local communi ies. On he one hand, com- muni ies su e ed om wa e sca ci y due o inc eased e apo anspi a ion by he aca- cias. On he o he hand, hey bene i ed om uel wood and building imbe (De Wi e al. 2001). Such si ua ions ha e led o he ecogni ion o a need o a amewo k o documen he di e en consequences o an IAS o di e en g oups o s akehold- e s (S oll-Kleemann and Welp 2006, Binimelis e al. 2007, Kaple e al. 2012) and ecen ly a ew a emp s ha e been made o de elop applica ions which inco po a e P io i iza ion ool o IAS managemen 71 s akeholde s (Cook and P oc o 2007, Hu ley e al. 2010, Liu e al. 2011, De Lange e al. 2012, Fo sy h e al. 2012). Pa ke e al. (1999) de eloped a amewo k o assess he ecological e ec o IAS, a guing ha he o al e ec o an in ade includes h ee undamen al dimen- sions: ange, abundance, and he pe -capi a o pe -biomass e ec o he in ade , i.e. he magni ude o ecological change i causes. Since hen p og ess has been made in sco ing he o e all nega i e e ec s o alien species (e.g., Nen wig e al. 2010, Kumschick and Nen wig 2010, Pluess 2011). A e y de ailed assessmen scheme o impac s o gene ically modi ied o ganisms was p esen ed by Kowa ik e al. (2008) which can easily be adap ed o in asi e species. Howe e , ew o hese impac sco ing app oaches explici ly add essed po en ially compe ing in e es s o s ake- holde s (i.e. a ious ecological, economic o social in e es s) wi hin he con ex o managemen o IAS. Fu he mo e, hese s udies igno e po en ial posi i e e ec s o IAS, which migh be c ucial o some species and s akeholde s (see e.g., Schlaep e e al. 2011 o a e iew). These poin s a e impo an because biological in asions ep esen a complex socie al issue o wo easons. Fi s , he scien i ic knowledge abou biological in asions and he ou come o di e en managemen op ions a e highly unce ain and second, bo h con lic s o in e es s and alues a e p ominen in a p oblem-sol ing con ex such as he managemen o IAS (Kue e and Hado n 2008). Thus, as in any en i onmen al decision making p ocess, IAS managemen has o minimize con lic s cha ac e ized by ecological, economic and social alue judgmen s o di e en s akeholde s (Liu e al. 2010, 2011). Fu he mo e, i all ypes o impac s o IAS a e o be assessed (i.e. ecological and socio-economic im- pac s), hen he di e en scien i ic disciplines and associa ed alue sys ems equi e a common cu ency wi h which o measu e impac . Ano he laye o complexi y is added by he ac ha di e en sec ions o adminis a ion and s akeholde g oups wi h di e ing agendas need o be in eg a ed, since plan s, animals and human heal h a e in he esponsibili y o di e en agencies and/o minis ies (e.g., IPPC - In e na ional Plan P o ec ion Con en ion, OIE - Wo ld O ganiza ion o Animal Heal h, WHO - Wo ld Heal h O ganiza ion). A p esen , se e al s udies ha e p oposed p io i iza ion me hods o he man- agemen o weeds (e.g., Skinne e al. 2000, Vi ue e al. 2001, Robe son e al. 2003, Tassin e al. 2006, Randall e al. 2008, B unel e al. 2010). Howe e , only ew schemes conside ed po en ial con lic s o in e es when e alua ing which weed species o p io i ize o con ol i s , mainly in Sou h A ica (Robe son e al. 2003, Fo sy h e al. 2012, De Lange e al. 2012). O he s udies ha speci ically ackled he com- plexi ies o con lic ing in e es s and alues in IAS managemen ha e usually ocused on pa icula ou b eak si ua ions o a single species (Magui e 2004, Liu e al. 2010, 2012). Based on a pa icipa o y app oach in Wes e n Aus alia, he p io i iza ion by an assessmen commi ee di e ed om cu en esou ce alloca ions in Wes e n Aus alia (Cook and P oc o 2007). A simila app oach was aken by Rou a-Pascual e al. (2010) o Sou h A ica. Howe e , such a po en ially ime-consuming and e- Sab ina Kumschick e al. / NeoBio a 15: 69–100 (2012) 72 sou ce-demanding app oach migh no always be possible. Hence, decision make s and especially go e nmen al bodies a e s ill in need o a gene ic decision making aid ha acili a es he iden i ica ion o p io i y species whils minimizing o econciling po en ial con lic s o in e es . The basic p oblem wi h many o he sys ems o da e is a undamen al one. De- cisions made o IAS managemen a e hea ily in luenced by judgemen s which a e p edominan ly based on inpu s om scien is s (Wilhe e 2008). In gene al, he ole unde aken by scien is s in decision making alls along a g adien (Lach e al. 2003). A one end o he con inuum, scien is s may simply epo esul s ha o he s use o make decisions. Al e na i ely, hey may in e p e hese esul s and wo k wi h deci- sion make s o in eg a e hese esul s in o he decision making p ocess. A he o he end o he con inuum, scien is s may be ac i ely in ol ed in decision making by ad oca ing o a speci ic decision o in he ex eme, making he decision hemsel es. While adi ionally scien is s la gely shied away om ac i e in ol emen in decision making (Lach e al. 2003), ecen yea s ha e seen inc easing ad ocacy (Ma is 2006, Sco e al. 2007). This has esul ed in a call o science inpu s in o decision making o be suppo i e o he p ocess bu dispassiona e owa ds policy ou comes (Lackey 2007), ecognising ha science is bu one i al elemen ha needs o be conside ed in decision making. Agains his backg ound we a gue ha he p ocess o objec i ely desc ibing wi h scien i ic me hods changes associa ed wi h an IAS has o be explici ly sepa a ed om he p oxima e subjec i e socie al e alua ion o impac , which is based on alues. Fo he ac ual decision making o managemen , howe e , ac s (e ec s on en i onmen and socio-economy) need o be connec ed o alues (judgemen o in ol ed s akeholde s). He e, we p opose a comp ehensi e amewo k which aims o explici ly sepa- a e he scien i ic desc ip ion o changes caused by IAS om he alue sys ems o a ec ed s akeholde s who may ha e di e ing in e es s. Fu he mo e, i add esses bo h nega i e and posi i e e ec s o IAS, since posi i e e ec s a e o en neglec ed in pu ely ecological impac s udies (Goodenough 2010, Da is e al. 2011, bu see Pyšek e al. 2012 o a global e iew). F amewo k o impac e alua ion o iAS The amewo k sugges ed he e is di ided in o i e s eps. The di e en s eps a e sho ly in oduced in his sec ion. We hen p esen mo e de ails abou he sco ings and alues in he ollowing sec ions and in Figu es 1 and 2. S ep 1: S akeholde selec ion and weigh ing o s akeholde impo ance. A call o s akeholde pa icipa ion is launched and hey a e encou aged o claim hei in- e es . The s akeholde g oup is o med such ha i is su icien ly ep esen a i e and P io i iza ion ool o IAS managemen 73 app op ia e o he ask a hand. The pa icipa ing s akeholde s a e hen ca ego ized acco ding o hei impo ance in ela ion o he issue ha is being e alua ed. This p ocess p oduces S akeholde Weigh s (SW), and should be conduc ed in a ans- pa en and logical way. S ep 2: Desc ip ion and sco ing o changes due o IAS. Fo his s ep we p opose a sco ing sys em, based on wo main impac classes (ecological, socio-economic) each wi h se e al ca ego ies (e.g., ag icul u e, heal h, in as uc u e, he bi o y, hyb idiza- ion). Nega i e and posi i e changes a e sepa a ely e alua ed o each IAS. The ou - come o his s ep is he ea e e e ed o as Change Assessmen Sco e (CAS). S ep 3: Valuing he ela i e impo ance o impac ca ego ies by s akeholde s. A e iden i ying a ec ed s akeholde s in s ep 1, each s akeholde alues he ela i e impo - ance o all impac ca ego ies. Nega i e and posi i e ca ego ies a e alued sepa a ely. When aluing he ca ego ies, he s akeholde s do no know he species assessed in s ep 2 and hei change assessmen sco es. This is called S akeholde Value Assessmen (SVA). A e selec ion o s akeholde s (s ep 1), he desc ip ion o changes (s ep 2) and he assessmen o s akeholde weigh s (s ep 3) can be conduc ed a he same ime as one does no depend on he ou come o he o he . The ollowing s eps in u n can only be pe o med i he ou comes o he o me s eps a e known. Figu e 1. Schema ic o e iew o he concep ual amewo k o assess change in di e en impac ca ego- ies o each species, cap u e s akeholde s’ in e es s and weigh s akeholde s and calcula e a inal impac sco e o each species, see chap e “ amewo k o impac e alua ion” o IAS o a b ie and he ollowing chap e s o de ailed explana ion. Sab ina Kumschick e al. / NeoBio a 15: 69–100 (2012) 74 S ep 4: Calcula ing weigh ed impac ca ego ies. This is done by combining he ou comes o s ep 1 and s ep 3, which p oduces Weigh ed Impac Ca ego ies (WIC). S ep 5: Final impac sco es. The Final Impac Sco es (FIS) o each species a e calcula ed by combining he CAS (s ep 2) wi h WIC (s ep 4). In he ollowing sec ions, he i e s eps a e desc ibed in de ail, and in he inal pa o he pape he use ulness o he scheme o di e en po en ial end-use s and ad an- ages and po en ial sho comings a e discussed. Figu e 2. Fic i ious example on how o calcula e he di e en alues o he p io i iza ion amewo k. Fo b e i y, we limi he numbe o ca ego ies om he scien i ic impac assessmen in S ep 2 o he ame- wo k o 3 (ou o 24). Species 2 has he highes social Change Assessmen Sco e (CAS), whils species 3 has he highes CAS o ecosys em changes. The decision make gi es s akeholde Y he g ea es weigh ing. In he S akeholde Value Assessmen (SVA), s akeholde X gi es he g ea es alue o ecosys em, whils Y alues he social ca ego y he highes , and s akeholde Z alues ag icul u e mos . Mul iplying hese alues by he s akeholde weigh s and summing he p oduc s gi es Weigh ed Impac Ca ego ies (WIC), and mul iplying hese alues by espec i e ca ego y CAS alues gi es he inal o e all impac sco es pe species. No e ha WIC alues o posi i e change need o be in e sed o nega i e alues upon calcula ion o inal impac sco es pe ca ego y and o e all. P io i iza ion ool o IAS managemen 75 S ep 1: S akeholde selec ion and weigh ing o s akeholde impo ance S akeholde s play a cen al ole in he p esen ed scheme, as hei opinions a e c ucial o e alua ing he subjec i e impac ca ego ies h ough o mal and s uc u ed analysis. The s akeholde p ocess needs o be ca e ully planned, s uc u ed and conduc ed, ac- coun ing o he aim and needs o he p oblem a hand (Renn and Schweize 2009). The e a e h ee main hings o conside : a) who should pa icipa e; b) wha is he o m o he pa icipa o y p ocess; and c) whose opinion coun s. Who should pa icipa e? A s akeholde is – pu simply – someone who can a ec o is a ec ed by he issue a s ake (F eeman 1984, ci ed in Mi chell e al. 1997). The e a e se e al me hods a ailable ha one could use o come up wi h a lis o s akeholde s (see, e.g. P e y 1995, Reed e al. 2009). Fo ins ance, an o en-applied me hod is he so called ‘snowball echnique’ which in ol es consul ing e e y s akeholde as long as no new ac o s a e indica ed. How ep esen a i e he s akeholde g oup should be depends on he aim o he p ocess (e.g. Rowe and F ewe 2005, Weble and Tule 2006, Reed 2008, Renn and Schweize 2009, Wesselink e al. 2011). Fo ins ance, he aim o he s akeholde p ocess may be o a oid missing in o ma ion and pe spec i es, o y o ind win-win si ua ions o compensa ions om winne s o lose s, o ep esen and discuss all ele an a gumen s, o ensu e ha less-p i ileged g oups a e gi en he oppo uni y o ha e hei oices hea d, o o enligh en policy p ocesses by illus a ing he di e si y o claims, opinions and alues (Renn and Schweize 2009). We sugges ha a leas all hose who a e po en ially a ec ed by he species should ha e a possibili y o pa icipa e o ha e hei oice hea d h ough some o he pa icipan (e.g. an o ganiza ion). In p ac ice, s akeholde s would consis o , o ins ance, ag icul u al and sil icul u al p o- duce s, en i onmen al o ganiza ions, ou is indus y, ci y/ own ep esen a i es, di e en ou doo associa ions (e.g. hun e s, bi d-wa che s, ec ea ionis s), and so o h. able 1. P io i izing scheme in i e s eps, desc ibing he ac ion aken a each s ep, iden i ying he ac o o each s ep and de ining he ou pu o each s ep. *) can be pe o med simul aneously. S ep Ac ion Ac o Ou pu 1) Decision make chooses he s akeholde s and decides on he o m and execu ion o he weigh ing p ocess Decision make SW = S akeholde Weigh s 2*) Assessmen o change: he change a species incu s o each ca ego y om App. A is sco ed Scien is s CAS = Change Assessmen Sco e 3*) S akeholde s alue each ca ego y om App. A, ega dless o he species and change a species incu ed S akeholde s SVA = S akeholde Value Assessmen 4) Calcula ion o weigh ed impac s by combining SVA × SW Decision make (o scien is s o consul an ) WIC = Weigh ed Impac Ca ego ies 5) Calcula ion o inal impac sco e WIC × CAS Decision make (o scien is s o consul an ) FIS = Final Impac Sco e Sab ina Kumschick e al. / NeoBio a 15: 69–100 (2012) 76 Wha is he o m o he pa icipa o y p ocess? One main issue ega ding he s akeholde p ocess is he o m o opinion- o ming: is he p ocess aiming a a consensus h ough delibe a ion, o a e he s akeholde s jus asked o hei indi idual opinion? I a consensus is sough o , he esul o he p ocess in ou case would be a single se o weigh s (see s ep 3) ha could di ec ly be used o weigh he species impac s ( esul ing om s ep 2). I each s akeholde is allowed o ha e hei own weigh s, hen hese need o be agg ega ed in some way unless he analysis is o be conduc ed sepa a ely o each s akeholde . A simple way is o a e age all he weigh s, in which case each s akeholde s’ opinion is alued equally. Howe e , i he decision make wishes o weigh he s akeholde opinions, speci ic weigh s o each s akeholde need o be p oduced. Whose opinion coun s? The e a e bo h e hical and p agma ic easons why he decision make should a end mo e closely o some s akeholde s han o he s (Col e e al. 1999). These include ai ea men o hose who a e mo e a ec ed by he decision, and ha some s akeholde s jus ha e a g ea e likelihood han o he s o a ec ing (and being a ec ed by) he issue a s ake. The e a e heo ies ha a emp o explain, o en in business con ex , which s akeholde s a e being paid mo e a en ion o (Reed e al. 2009). One such heo y is he heo y o s akeholde salience (Mi chell e al. 1997), acco ding o which s ake- holde s can be ca ego ized using h ee a ibu es: powe ( o a ec he decision make ), legi imacy ( o he issue a s ake), and u gency (o hei claims). The mo e o hese h ee p ope ies a s akeholde has, he highe is hei salience and hence hei impo ance in he eyes o he decision make . Ca ego iza ion p o ides he decision make wi h he possibili y o in luence he p io i iza ion p ocedu e by weigh ing each o he pa icipa ing s akeholde s. As his may be conside ed as a sou ce o bias, i should be anspa en and ideally based on objec i e and eliable analysis o s akeholde s’ a ibu es (Ma k and Sho land 1985, Musho e and Vogel 2005). Fo ins ance, Col e e al. (1999) sugges se en c i e ia by which o de ine he mos impo an s akeholde s in he case o o es managemen , sco e hem a a scale 1-3 o each c i e ion and ob ain a weigh o each s akeholde by a e aging o e he c i e ia. Al e na i ely he e exis o ins ance pai wise compa ison me hods (G a akos e al. 2010) ha may be used o p oduce he equi ed weigh s. Weigh ing is no a s aigh o wa d p ocess, especially when nume ous a ibu es o he s akeholde s a e aken in o conside a ion, and when s akeholde s’ ex e nal en- i onmen and in e ac ions a e complex (de Reynie e al. 2010, Aal onen 2011). The decision make unde aking he ca ego iza ion (“ op-down app oach”) is by no means he only way o a ibu ing a weigh o s akeholde s. The e a e also me hods h ough which he s akeholde s hemsel es come up wi h a anking o de o hei impo ance (see, o ins ance, P e y 1995, Mi chell e al. 1997, Reed 2008, Reed e al. 2009). P io i iza ion ool o IAS managemen 77 Reed (2008) p o ides bes p ac ices o he s akeholde p ocess, including o in- s ance emphasis on empowe men and equi y, ep esen a ion and analysis o ele an s akeholde s, need o clea objec i es o he p ocess, choosing me hods depending on he con ex , and in eg a ion o scien i ic and local knowledge. Ou amewo k equi es he e alua ion and ca ego iza ion o s akeholde impo ance. Howe e , as o wha he p ecise o ma o he s akeholde p ocess should be, we do no speci y he e o easons o space. P ac ical examples in he con ex o in asi e alien species can be ound in Cook and P oc o (2007), Hu ley e al. (2010), Sku ka Da in e al. (2011) and De Lange e al. (2012). The desi ed ou come none heless is clea : he p ocess should p o- duce a se o weigh s o he di e en impac ca ego ies ha would b oadly e lec he alues p esen in he socie y. S ep 2: Desc ip ion and sco ing o changes The second s ep o he decision making p ocess aims a eco ding all changes an IAS causes in he in oduced ange. An impac o change in his case is de ined as any de i- a ion om he s a e o a sys em be o e he in asion happened. In o de o make com- pa ison be ween species, di e en loca ions and di e en measu emen s o impac , we sugges he use o a gene ic sco ing sys em (e.g., Nen wig e al. 2010, Kumschick and Nen wig 2010). Ne e heless, sco ing sys ems and o he p io i iza ion ools sugges ed so a o en only ocus on unwan ed changes and a ely ake in o accoun possible welcome changes which migh esul om species in oduc ions, as e.g. inc easing popula ion densi ies o h ea ened na i e species (Schlaep e e al. 2011) o economic bene i s (Leung e al. 2012). Fo a balanced iew, howe e , posi i e e ec s should no longe be neglec ed o e en igno ed, as many s akeholde s p o i om such IAS. When a decision is needed on how o deal wi h an IAS, all possible s akeholde in e es s need o be accoun ed o o ensu e wide accep ance and suppo o he decision (Mye s e al. 2000, Ga dene e al. 2010; see s ep 1 o mo e de ails). Howe e , whe he changes a e pe cei ed as “posi i e” o “nega i e” depends on he alue sys em o he s akehold- e s conce ned (Simbe lo e al. 2012). Fo example, he in asion o he weed Pa e - son’s Cu se (Echium plan agineum) in Aus alia was pe cei ed as de imen al by anch- e s because he plan is oxic o li es ock, bu beekeepe s p o i ed om i s p oli e ous honey p oduc ion (Ha is 1988). In he ollowing desc ip ion o impac (changes), we con inue o use he e ms “posi i e” and “nega i e”, bu aim o de ine hem in an objec i e, alue- ee way by desc ibing he di ec ion o change ela i e o p e-in asion s a e o he sys em. Based on p e iously published sco ing sys ems (e.g., Nen wig e al. 2010, Kum- schick and Nen wig 2010, Kumschick e al. 2011, Pluess 2011, Kumschick e al. 2012), we de e mined a wide ange o changes IAS could cause in he in oduced a ea (Appendix A). The sco ing sys em consis s o wo main classes o changes, socio- economic and en i onmen al, and each class has 6 ca ego ies. The ca ego ies o en- i onmen al changes a e hyb idiza ion, compe i ion, ansmission o diseases o wild- Sab ina Kumschick e al. / NeoBio a 15: 69–100 (2012) 84 applied and es ed, and we encou age he use o his amewo k o es whe he o no i can wo k in p ac ice as a use ul p io i iza ion and decision making ool in in asi e species managemen . Acknowledgemen s We hank he e iewe s o help ul commen s on an ea lie e sion o he manusc ip , A. Kempel and M. an Kleunen o co-o ganizing he wo kshop on “Biological In a- sions – Towa ds gene al ules ac oss axa” ha ini ia ed his collabo a ion, and he In e -Uni e si y Doc o al P og am in Ecology and E olu ion, Lausanne o he spon- so ship ha enabled us o a end. Re e ences Aal onen K (2011) P ojec s akeholde analysis as an en i onmen al in e p e a ion p o- cess. In e na ional Jou nal o P ojec Managemen 29: 165–183. doi: 10.1016/j.ijp o- man.2010.02.001 Bacon SJ, Bache S, Aebi A (2012) Gaps in bo de con ols a e ela ed o qua an ine alien insec in asions in Eu ope. PLoSOne 7(10): e47689. doi: 10.1371/jou nal.pone.0047689 Binimelis R, Bo n W, Mon e oso I, Rod íguez-Labajos B (2007) Socio-economic impac and assessmen o biological in asions. In Nen wig W (Ed.) Biological In asions. Sp inge (Be lin/Heidelbe g): 331–347. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-36920-2_19 Boesso G, Kuma , K (2009) S akeholde p io i iza ion and epo ing: E idence om I aly and he US. Accoun ing Fo um 33: 162–175 doi: 10.1016/j.acc o .2008.07.010 Bom o d M (2008) Risk assessmen models o es ablishmen o exo ic e eb a es in Aus alia and New Zealand. In asi e Animals Coope a i e Resea ch Cen e (Canbe a). Bo n W, Rauschmaye F, B aue , I (2005) Economic e alua ion o biological in asions - a su ey. Ecological Economics 55: 321–336. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.08.014 B i on JR, Copp GH, B azie M, Da ies GD (2011) A modula assessmen ool o managing in oduced ishes acco ding o isk o species and hei popula ions, and impac s o man- agemen ac ions. Biological In asions 13: 2847–2860. doi: 10.1007/s10530-011-9967-0 B unel S, B anqua E, F ied G, an Valkenbu g J, B undu G, S a inge U, Buholze S, Ul- udag A, Jose son M & Bake R (2010) The EPPO p io i iza ion p ocess o in asi e alien plan s. Bulle in OEPP/EPPO Bulle in 40: 407–422. B yson JM, Pa on MQ, Bowman RA (2011) Wo king wi h e alua ion s akeholde s: A a io- nale, s ep-wise app oach and oolki . E alua ion and P og am Planning 34: 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.e alp ogplan.2010.07.001 Céspedes-Lo en e J, de Bu gos-Jiménez J, Ál a ez-Gil MJ (2003) S akeholde s’ en i onmen al in luence. An empi ical analysis in he Spanish ho el indus y. Scandina ian Jou nal o Managemen 19: 333–358. doi: 10.1016/S0956-5221(02)00034-9 P io i iza ion ool o IAS managemen 85 Che alie JM, Buckles DJ (2008) SAS2: A guide o collabo a i e inqui y and social engage- men . (Sage Publica ions). 305 pages. Col e CJP, P abhu R, Gün e M, McDougall C, Po o NM, Po o R (1999) Who coun s mos ? Assessing human well-being in sus ainable o es managemen . The C i e ia and Indica o s Toolbox Se ies 8. Cen e o In e na ional Fo es y Resea ch. Washing on D.C., USA. Cook D, P oc o W (2007) Assessing he h ea o exo ic plan pes s. Ecological Economics 63:594–604. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.12.021 Con en ion on Biological Di e si y (1992) 31 ILM 818. COP 10 (2010) S a egic plan o biodi e si y. Adop ed a he Con e ence o he Pa ies, Nagoya, Japan. Da is MA, Chew MK, Hobbs RJ, Lugo AE, Ewel JJ, Ve meij GJ, B own JH, Rosenzweig ML, Ga dene MR, Ca oll SP, Thompson K, Picke STA, S ombe g JC, Del T edici P, Sud- ing KN, Eh en eld JG, G ime JP, Masca o J, B iggs JC (2011) Don’ judge species on hei o igin. Na u e 474: 153–154. doi: 10.1038/474153a De Lange WJ, S a o d WHL, Fo sy h GG, Le Mai e DC (2012) Inco po a ing s akeholde p e e ences in he selec ion o echnologies o using in asi e alien plan s as a bio-ene gy eeds ock: Applying he analy ical hie a chy p ocess. Jou nal o En i onmen al Manage- men 99: 76–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jen man.2012.01.014 de Reynie YL, Le in PS, Shoji NL (2010) B inging s akeholde s, scien is s, and manage s oge he h ough an in eg a ed ecosys em assessmen p ocess. Ma ine Policy 34: 534–540. doi: 10.1016/j.ma pol.2009.10.010 de Wi MP, C ookes DJ, an Wilgen BW (2001) Con lic s o in e es in en i onmen al man- agemen : Es ima ing he cos s and bene i s o a ee in asion. Biological In asions 3: 167– 178. doi: 10.1023/A:1014563702261 Essl F, Dullinge S, Rabi sch W, Hulme PE, Huelbe K, Ja ošíkV, Kleinbaue I, K ausmann F, Kühn I, Nen wig W, Vilà M, Geno esi P, Ghe a di F, Desp ez-Lous au ML, Roques A, Pyšek P (2011) Socio-economic legacy yields an in asion deb . P oceedings o he Na ional Academy o Sciences 108: 203–207. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1011728108 Fo sy h GG, Le Mai e DC, O’Fa ell PJ, an Wilgen BW (2012) The p io i isa ion o in a- si e alien plan con ol p ojec s using a mul i-c i e ia decision model in o med by s ake- holde inpu and spa ial da a. Jou nal o En i onmen al Managemen 103: 51–57. doi: 10.1016/j.jen man.2012.01.034 Ga dene M, A kinson R, Ren e ía J (2010) E adica ions and people: lessons om he plan e adica ion p og am in Galapagos. Res o a ion Ecology 18: 20–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1526- 100X.2009.00614.x Goodenough A (2010) A e he ecological impac s o alien species mis ep esen ed? A e iew o he “na i e good, alien bad” philosophy. Communi y Ecology 11: 13–21. doi: 10.1556/ ComEc.11.2010.1.3 G a akos S, Flamos A, Oikonomou V, Ze golis D (2010) Mul i-c i e ia analysis weigh- ing me hodology o inco po a e s akeholde s’ p e e ences in ene gy and clima e poli- cy in e ac ions. In e na ional Jou nal o Ene gy Sec o Managemen 4: 434–461. doi: 10.1108/17506221011073851 Sab ina Kumschick e al. / NeoBio a 15: 69–100 (2012) 86 G imble R, Chan MK (1995) S akeholde analysis o na u al esou ce managemen in de eloping coun ies. Na u al Resou ces Fo um 19: 113–124. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-8947.1995. b00599.x Ha e M, Pahl-Wos l C (2002) S akeholde ca ego isa ion in pa icipa o y in eg a ed asses- smen . In eg a ed Assessmen 3: 50–62. doi: 10.1076/iaij.3.1.50.7408 Ha is P (1988) En i onmen al impac o weed-con ol insec s. BioScience 38: 542–548. doi: 10.2307/1310762 Hoppe LJ (2007) Landscape a chi ec u al g aphic s anda ds. Wiley. 576 pages. Hulme PE (2012) Weed isk assessmen : a way o wa d o a was e o ime? Jou nal o Applied Ecology 49: 10–19. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02069.x Hu ley MV, Lowell KE, Cook DC, Liu S, Siddique A-B, Diggle A (2010) P io i izing biosecu- i y isks using a pa icipa o y decision-making ool. Human and Ecological Risk Assess- men 16: 1379–1394. doi: 10.1080/10807039.2010.526506 Kaple EJ, Thompson JR, Wid lechne MP (2012) Assessing s akeholde pe spec i es on in- asi e plan s o in o m isk analysis. In asi e Plan Science and Managemen 5: 194–208. doi: 10.1614/IPSM-D-11-00067.1 Kowa ik I, Ba z R, Heink U (2008) Bewe ung «ökologische Schäden» in olge des Anbaus gen echnisch e ände e O ganismen (GVO) in de Landwi scha . Na u schu z und Biologische Viel al 56: 1–248. Kue e C, Hi sch Hado n G (2008) How o achie e e ec i eness in p oblem-o ien ed land- scape esea ch: The example o esea ch on bio ic in asions. Li ing Re iews in Landscape Resea ch 2: 2. S able URL: h p://www.li ing e iews.o g/l l -2008-2 Kumschick S, Nen wig W (2010) Some alien bi ds ha e as se e e an impac as he mos e ec- ual alien mammals in Eu ope. Biological Conse a ion 134: 2757–2762. doi: 10.1016/j. biocon.2010.07.023 Kumschick S, Alba C, Hu baue RA, Nen wig W (2011) Weak o s ong in ade s? A compa i- son o impac be ween he na i e and in aded anges o mammals and bi ds alien o Eu- ope. Di e si y and Dis ibu ions 17: 663–672. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00775.x Kumschick S, Bache S, Blackbu n TM (2012) Wha de e mines he impac o alien bi ds and mammals in Eu ope? Biological In asions: in p ess. doi: 10.1007/s10530-012-0326-6 Lach D, Lis P, S eel B, Shindle B (2003) Ad ocacy and c edibili y o ecological scien is s in esou ce decisionmaking: A egional s udy. BioScience 53(2): 170–178. S able URL: h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol1/iss1/a 9/ Lackey RT (2007) Science, scien is s, and policy ad ocacy. Conse a ion Biology 21: 12–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00639.x Lambdon P, Pyšek P, Basnou C, A ianou sou M, Essl F, Hejda M, Ja ošík V, Pe gl J, Win e M, Anas asiu P, And iopoulos P, Bazos I, B undu G, Celes i-G apow L, Chasso P, Deli- pe ou P, Jose sson M, Ka k S, Klo z S, Kokko is Y, Kühn I, Ma chan e H, Pe glo á I, Pino J, Vilà M, Zikos A, Roy D, Hulme P (2008) Alien lo a o Eu ope: species di e si y, empo al ends, geog aphical pa e ns and esea ch needs. P eslia 80: 101–149. URL: h p://www.ibo .cas.cz/p eslia/P082Lam.pd Leung B, Rou a-Pascual N, Bache S, Heikkilä J, B o ons L, Bu gman MA, Dehnen-Schmu z K, Essl F, Hulme PE, Richa dson DM, Sol D, Vilà M (2012) Assessmen o isk assess- men s o in asi e alien species. Ecology Le e s 15: 1475–1493. doi: 10.1111/ele.12003 P io i iza ion ool o IAS managemen 87 Liu S, W P oc o , Cook D (2010) Using an in eg a ed uzzy se and delibe a i e mul i-c i e ia e alua ion app oach o acili a e decision-making in in asi e species managemen . Eco- logical Economics 69: 2374–2382. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.07.004 Liu S, Sheppa d A, K i icos D, Cook D (2011) Inco po a ing unce ain y and social alues in managing in asi e alien species: a delibe a i e mul i-c i e ia e alua ion app oach. Biologi- cal In asions 13: 2323–2337. doi: 10.1007/s10530-011-0045-4 Liu S, Walshe T, Long G, Cook D (2012) E alua ion o po en ial esponses o in asi e non- na i e species wi h s uc u ed decision making. Conse a ion Biology 26: 539–546. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01843.x Magui e LA (2004) Wha can decision analysis do o in asi e species managemen ? Risk Anal- ysis 24: 859–868. doi: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00484.x Ma k M, Sho land L (1985) S akeholde -based e alua ion and alue judgemen s. E alua ion Re iew 9(5): 605–626. doi: 10.1177/0193841X8500900504 Ma is E (2006) Should conse a ion biologis s push policies? Na u e 442: 13. doi: 10.1038/442013a Mi chell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Towa d a heo y o s akeholde iden i ica ion and salience: de ining he p inciple o who and wha eally coun s. Academy o Managemen Re iew 22: 853–886. URL: h p://www.js o .o g/s able/259247 Musho e P, Vogel C (2005) Heads o ails? S akeholde analysis as a ool o conse a ion a ea managemen . Global En i onmen al Change 15: 184–198. doi: 10.1016/j.glo- en cha.2004.12.008 Mye s JH, Simbe lo D, Ku is AM, Ca ey JR (2000) E adica ion e isi ed: dealing wi h exo ic species. T ends in Ecology & E olu ion 15: 316–320. doi: 10.1016/S0169- 5347(00)01914-5 Nen wig W, Kühnel E, Bache S (2010) A gene ic impac -sco ing sys em applied o al- ien mammals in Eu ope. Conse a ion Biology 24: 302–311. doi: 10.1111/j.1523- 1739.2009.01289.x O’Dowd DJ, G een PT, Lake PS (2003) In asional mel down on an oceanic island. Ecology Le e s 6: 812–817. doi: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00512.x Ou J, Lu C, O’Toole DK (2008) A isk assessmen sys em o alien plan bio-in asion in Xiamen, China. Jou nal o En i onmen al Sciences 20: 989–997. doi: 10.1016/S1001- 0742(08)62198-1 Pa ke IM, Simbe lo D, Lonsdale WM, Goodell K, Wonham M, Ka ei a PM, Williamson MH, Von Holle B, Moyle PB, Bye s JE, Goldwasse L (1999) Impac : owa d a amewo k o unde s anding he ecological e ec s o in ade s. Biological In asions 1: 3–19. doi: 10.1023/A:1010034312781 Pe ings C, Fenichel E, Kinzig A (2010) Globaliza ion and in asi e alien species: ade, pes s, and pa hogens. In Pe ings C, Mooney HA, Williamson M (Eds.) Bioin asions and glo- baliza ion: ecology, economics, managemen and policy. Ox o d Uni e si y P ess (New Yo k): 42–55. Pheloung PC, Williams PA, Halloy SR (1999) A weed isk assessmen model o use as a biosecu i y ool e alua ing plan in oduc ions. Jou nal o En i onmen al Managemen 57:239–252. doi: 10.1006/jema.1999.0297 Sab ina Kumschick e al. / NeoBio a 15: 69–100 (2012) 88 Pimen el D, Zuniga R, Mo ison D (2005) Upda e on he en i onmen al and economic cos s associa ed wi h alien-in asi e species in he Uni ed S a es. Ecological Economics 52: 273– 288. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.10.002 Pluess T (2011) Enhancemen o pes isk analysis echniques. PhD disse a ion no. 1708, Uni e si y o F ibou g, Swi ze land. Pluess T, Cannon R, Ja ošík V, Pe gl J, Pyšek P, Bache S (2012a) When a e e adica ion cam- paigns success ul? A es o common assump ions. Biological In asions 14: 1365–1378. doi: 10.1007/s10530-011-0160-2 Pluess T, Ja ošík V, Pyšek P, Cannon R, Pe gl J, B euke s A, Bache S (2012b) Which ac o s a ec he success o ailu e o e adica ion campaigns agains alien species? PLoSOne, 7(10): e48157. doi: 10.1371/jou nal.pone.0048157 P e y JN (1995) Pa icipa o y lea ning o sus ainable ag icul u e. Wo ld De elopmen 23:1247–1263. doi: 10.1016/0305-750X(95)00046-F Pyšek P, Lambdon PW, A ianou sou M, Kühn I, Pino J, Win e M (2009) Aliens ascula plan s o Eu ope. In DAISIE (Eds.) The handbook o alien species in Eu ope. Sp inge (Do d ech ): 43–61. Pyšek P, Ja osik V, Hulme PE, Pe gl J, Hejda M, Scha ne U, Vilà M (2012) A global as- sessmen o in asi e plan impac s on esiden species, communi ies and ecosys ems: he in e ac ion o impac measu es, in asi e species‘ ai s and en i onmen . Global Change Biology 19: 1725–1737. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02636.x Randall JM, Mo se LE, Ben on N, Hiebe R, Lu S, Kille e T (2008) The in asi e species assessmen p o ocol: A ool o c ea ing egional and na ional lis s o in asi e nonna i e plan s ha nega i ely impac biodi e si y. In asi e Plan Science and Managemen 1: 36– 49. doi: 10.1614/IPSM-07-0201 Rease JK, Meye son LA, C onk Q, De Poo e M, Eld ege LG, G een E, Kai o M, La asi P, Mack RN, Mau emoo oo J, O’Dowd D, O apa W, Sas ou omo S, Saunde s A, Shi- ne C, Th ainsson S, Vaiu u L (2007) Ecological and socioeconomic impac s o in asi e alien species in island ecosys ems. En i onmen al Conse a ion 34: 98–111. doi: 10.1017/ S0376892907003815 Reed MS (2008) S akeholde pa icipa ion o en i onmen al managemen : a li e a u e e iew. Biological Conse a ion 141: 2417–2431. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014 Reed MS, G a es A, Dandy N, Pos humus H, Hubacek K, Mo is J, P ell C, Quinn CH, S inge LC (2010) Who’s in and why? A ypology o s akeholde analysis me hods o na u al esou ce managemen . Biological Conse a ion 143: 2956–2964. doi: 10.1016/j. jen man.2009.01.001 Renn O, Schweize P-J (2009) Inclusi e isk go e nance: concep s and applica ion o en i onmen- al policy making. En i onmen al Policy and Go e nance 19: 174–185. doi: 10.1002/ee .507 Robe son M, Ville M, Fai banks D, Hende son L, Higgins S, Ho mann J, Le Mai e D, Palm- e A, Riggs I, Shackle on C, Zimme mann HG (2003) P oposed p io i iza ion sys em o he managemen o in asi e alien plan s in Sou h A ica. Sou h A ican Jou nal o Science 99: 37–43. Rou a-Pascual N, K ug RM, Richa dson DM, Hui C (2010) Spa ially-explici sensi i i y analysis o conse a ion managemen : explo ing he in luence o decisions in in asi e al- P io i iza ion ool o IAS managemen 89 ien plan managemen . Di e si y and Dis ibu ions 16: 426–438. doi: 10.1111/j.1472- 4642.2010.00659.x Rowe G, F ewe LJ (2005) A ypology o public engagemen mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values 30: 251–290. doi: 10.1177/0162243904271724 Sago M (2011) The quan i ica ion and alua ion o ecosys em se ices. Ecological Economics 70: 497–502. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.10.006 Schlaep e MA, Sax DF, Olden DO (2011) The po en ial conse a ion alue o non-na i e species. Conse a ion Biology 25(3): 428-437. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01646.x Sco JM, Rachlow JL, Lackey RT, Pidgo na AB, Ayc igg JL, Feldman GR, S anca a LK, Rupp DA, S anish DI (2007) Policy ad ocacy in science: p e alence, pe spec i es, and implica- ions o conse a ion biologis s. Conse a ion Biology 21: 29–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1523- 1739.2006.00641.x Simbe lo D, Ma in JL, Geno esi P, Ma is V, Wa dle DA, A onson J, Cou champ F, Galil B, Ga cía-Be hou E, Pascal M, Pyšek P, Sousa R, Tabacchi E, Vilà M (2012) Impac s o biological in asions: wha ’s wha and he way o wa d. T ends in Ecology and E olu ion: in p ess. doi: 10.1016/j. ee.2012.07.013 Skinne K, Smi h L, Rice P (2000) Using noxious weed lis s o p io i ize a ge s o de eloping weed managemen s a egies. Weed Science 48: 640–644. doi: 10.1614/0043-1745(2000)048[0640:UNWLTP]2.0.CO;2 Sku ka Da in GM, Schoenig S, Ba ney JN, Pane a FD, DiTomaso JM (2011) WHIPPET: A no el ool o p io i izing in asi e plan popula ions o egional e adica ion. Jou nal o En i onmen al Managemen 92: 131-139. doi: 10.1016/j.jen man.2010.08.013 S oll-Kleemann S, Welp M (2006) S akeholde dialogues in na u al esou ces managemen : heo- y and p ac ice. Sp inge (Be lin/Heidelbe g). 386 pages. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-36917-2 Tassin J, Ri iè e J-N, Cazano e M, B uzzese E (2006) Ranking o in asi e woody plan spe- cies o managemen on Rè Island. Weed Resea ch 46: 388–403. doi: 10.1111/j.1365- 3180.2006.00522.x Tau S (2007) S udying sel -e alua ion capaci y building in a la ge in e na ional de- elopmen o ganiza ion. Ame ican Jou nal o E alua ion 28(1): 45–59. doi: 10.1177/1098214006296430 Un uh D (2005) Using p ima y and seconda y s akeholde s o de ine acili y- o-communi y ansi ion needs o adjudica ed you h wi h disabili ies. E alua ion and P og am Planning 28: 413–422. doi: 10.1016/j.e alp ogplan.2005.07.005 Vilà M, Basnou C, Pyšek P, Jose sson M, Geno esi P, Gollasch S, Nen wig W, Olenin S, Roques A, Roy D, Hulme PE, DAISIE Pa ne s (2010) How well do we unde s and he impac s o alien species on ecosys em se ices? A pan-Eu opean, c oss- axa assessmen . F on ie s in Ecology and he En i onmen 8: 135–144. doi: 10.1890/080083 Vi ue JG, G o es RH, Pane a FD (2001) Towa ds a sys em o de e mine he na ional sig- ni icance o weeds in Aus alia. In G o es RH, Pane a FD, Vi ue JG (Eds.) Weed Risk Assessmen . CSIRO Publishing (Collingwood, Aus alia): 124–152. Webe J, Pane a FD, Vi ue J, Pheloung P (2009) An analysis o assessmen ou comes om eigh yea s’ ope a ion o he Aus alian bo de weed isk assessmen sys em. Jou nal o En i onmen al Managemen 90: 798–807. doi: 10.1016/j.jen man.2008.01.012 Sab ina Kumschick e al. / NeoBio a 15: 69–100 (2012) 90 Weble T, Tule S (2006) Fou pe spec i es on public pa icipa ion p ocess in en i onmen al assessmen and decision making: combined esul s om 10 case s udies. The Policy S udies Jou nal 34: 699–722. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2006.00198.x Wesselink A, Paa ola J, F i sch O, Renn O (2011) Ra ionales o public pa icipa ion in en i- onmen al policy and go e nance: p ac i ione s’ pe spec i es. En i onmen and Planning A 43: 2688–2704. doi: 10.1068/a44161 Wilhe e GF (2008) The how-much-is-enough my h. Conse a ion Biology 22: 514-517. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00926.x Wilhe e GF, Magui e LA, Sco JM, Rachlow JL, Goble DD, S anca a LK (2012) Con la ion o alues and science: Response o Noss e al.. Conse a ion Biology 26: 943–944. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01900.x Appendix A De ini ions o change assessmen (impac ) sco es o IAS. E ec s we e di ided in o wo main classes wi h six ca ego ies each. 1. En i onmen al impac 1.1.1 He bi o y/ oxici y nega i e 0 No impac known o de ec able. 1 Ve y low le el o he bi o y (animals) o oxici y (plan s o animals) on a leas one na i e species, no majo damage epo ed. 2 He bi o y o oxici y a ec ing se e al na i e species, wi hou la ge impac on a ec ed species o decline o hei popula ions. 3 He bi o y o oxici y a ec ing se e al na i e species, a leas one na i e species declining. 4 He bi o y o oxici y a ec ing many na i e species, se e al declining in popula ion size, eco ded communi y change e e sible. 5 He bi o y o oxici y a ec ing na i e species lis ed as ulne able, endan- ge ed o c i ically endange ed by IUCN, decline o hese species, eplace- men o e en ex inc ion o species, eco ded communi y change i e e sible. 1.1.2 He bi o y/ oxici y posi i e 0 No impac known o de ec able. +1 Ve y low le el o he bi o y o oxici y a ec ing a leas one species deg ad- ing he ecosys em, no impac on pe o mance o a ec ed species eco ded. +2 He bi o y o oxici y a ec ing one o se e al species deg ading he ecosys- em, wi hou la ge impac on a ec ed species o decline o hei popula ions. +3 He bi o y o oxici y a ec ing one o se e al species deg ading he ecosys- em, a leas one species declining, some/ i s indica ions ha he ecosys- em changes owa ds i s his o ical unc ional s a e. P io i iza ion ool o IAS managemen 91 +4 He bi o y o oxici y a ec ing one o many species deg ading he ecosys- em, declining in popula ion size, s ong indica ions ha he ecosys em changes owa ds i s his o ical unc ional s a e. +5 Comple e e-es ablishmen o unc ional s a e o his o ical ecosys em ha was deg aded be o e in asion o alien species. 1.2.1 Compe i ion nega i e 0 No impac known o de ec able. 1 Fo animals, e y low le el o compe i ion wi h a leas one na i e species, exploi a ion compe i ion; o plan s, low abundance, na i e species ich- ness no declining. 2 Fo animals, compe i ion wi h se e al na i e species by exploi a ion com- pe i ion, wi hou la ge impac on a ec ed species o decline o hei popu- la ions; o plan s, mode a e abundance, dec ease in na i e species abun- dance bu no ichness. 3 Fo animals, compe i ion wi h se e al species, in e e ence compe i ion, a leas one na i e species declining; o plan s, high abundance, dec ease in na i e abundance, a leas one na i e species los . 4 Fo animals, compe i ion wi h many na i e species, se e al declining in popula ion size, compe i ion o ood and/o space, beha iou al changes in ou -compe ed species; o plan s, high abundance, s ong decline in bo h abundance and ichness o na i e species, na i e species s ill able o ec ui . 5 Fo animals, compe es wi h species lis ed as ulne able, endange ed o c i ically endange ed by IUCN, decline o hese species, eplacemen o e en ex inc ion o species; o plan s, mono-dominan /nea mono-domi- nan , wi h no o e y ew na i e species emaining; limi ing na i e species ec ui men op ions. 1.2.2 Compe i ion posi i e 0 No impac known o de ec able. +1 Fo animals, e y low le el o compe i ion wi h a leas one na i e species deg ading he ecosys em, exploi a ion compe i ion, no impac on pe o - mance o a ec ed species eco ded; o plan s, no loss in abundance o ichness o na i e species. +2 Fo animals, compe i ion wi h one o se e al na i e species deg ading he ecosys em by exploi a ion compe i ion, wi hou la ge impac on a ec ed species o decline o hei popula ions; o plan s, small inc ease in abun- dance o na i e species, no inc ease in species ichness. +3 Fo animals, compe i ion wi h one o se e al species deg ading he ecosys em, in e e ence compe i ion, a leas one species declining, some indica ions ha he ecosys em changes owa ds i s his o ical unc ional s a e; o plan s, in- c ease in abundance o na i e species, small inc ease in species di e si y. Sab ina Kumschick e al. / NeoBio a 15: 69–100 (2012) 92 +4 Fo animals, compe i ion wi h one o many species deg ading he ecosys- em, declining in popula ion size, s ong indica ions ha he ecosys em changes owa ds i s his o ical unc ional s a e; o plan s, inc ease in abun- dance o na i e species and in species di e si y. +5 Fo animals, comple ely e-es ablish unc ional s a e o his o ical ecosys- em ha was deg aded be o e in asion o alien species; o plan s, inc ease in abundance o na i e species and in species di e si y, including h ea - ened na i e species. 1.3.1 P eda ion nega i e (no ele an o plan s) 0 No impac known o de ec able. 1 P eda ion known bu negligible, no decline o na i e species. 2 P eda ion on se e al abundan species, wi hou la ge impac on a ec ed species o decline o hei popula ions. 3 Decline o one o se e al na i e species ecognized, mino change in ood web s uc u e epo ed. 4 Decline o many species, indi ec impac by mesop eda o elease, clea changes in he ood web. 5 P eys also on endemic o species lis ed as ulne able, endange ed o c i i- cally endange ed by IUCN, local ex inc ion. 1.3.2 P eda ion posi i e (no ele an o plan s) 0 No impac known o de ec able. +1 P eda ion on species deg ading he ecosys em known bu negligible, no decline o species. +2 P eda ion on one o se e al species deg ading he ecosys em, wi hou la ge impac on a ec ed species o decline o hei popula ions. +3 Decline o one o se e al na i e species deg ading he ecosys em ecog- nized, mino change in ood web s uc u e epo ed, some indica ions ha he ecosys em changes owa ds i s his o ical unc ional s a e. +4 Decline o one o many species deg ading he ecosys em, clea changes in he ood web, s ong indica ions ha he ecosys em changes owa ds i s his o ical unc ional s a e. +5 Comple ely e-es ablish unc ional s a e o his o ical ecosys em ha was deg aded be o e in asion o alien species. 1.4.1 T ansmission o diseases o wildli e nega i e 0 No impac known o de ec able. 1 Hos (plan o animal) o non-speci ic pa asi es, occasional ansmission o mo e o less ha mless diseases o one na i e species. No popula ion decline in na i e species. I a plan , species is no a b eeding g ound o wildli e disease ec o s. P io i iza ion ool o IAS managemen 93 2 Occasional ansmission o mo e o less ha mless diseases, se e al na i e species a ec ed. No o only mino popula ion decline in na i e species. I a plan , species may be a b eeding g ound o wildli e disease ec o s, bu no mo e so han na i e plan species. 3 Many na i e species a ec ed, equen ansmission o mo e o less ha m- less diseases o ha m ul diseases ansmi ed o one na i e species. Mino popula ion decline in na i e species. I a plan , may be a mo e signi ican b eeding g ound o wildli e disease ec o s han na i e plan species. 4 T ansmi s ha m ul diseases o se e al na i e species o mo e o less ha m- less diseases o endemic o species lis ed as ulne able, endange ed o c i i- cally endange ed by IUCN. Mode a e popula ion decline in na i e species. I a plan , a majo b eeding g ound o wildli e disease ec o s, ou b eaks due o species p esence unce ain. 5 T ansmi s ha m ul diseases o many species and/o species lis ed as ulne - able, endange ed o c i ically endange ed by IUCN by di ec ansmission, decline o hese species o ex inc ion. I a plan , a majo b eeding g ound o wildli e disease, ou b eaks due o species p esence ce ain. 1.4.2 T ansmission o diseases o wildli e posi i e 0 No impac known o de ec able. +1 Occasional ansmission o mo e o less ha mless diseases o one species deg ading he ecosys em; no popula ion decline in species. Po en ial posi- i e e ec on heal h o wildli e (di ec : e.g. po en ial medicinal species; indi ec : e.g. an agonis o a heal h h ea ), bu no ye epo ed. +2 Occasional ansmission o mo e o less ha mless diseases, one o se e al species deg ading he ecosys em a ec ed. No o only mino popula ion decline in species. Occasional, small posi i e e ec on heal h o wildli e. +3 One o many species deg ading he ecosys em a ec ed, equen ansmis- sion o mo e o less ha mless diseases o ha m ul diseases ansmi ed o one species deg ading he ecosys em. Mino popula ion decline in spe- cies, some indica ions ha he ecosys em changes owa ds i s his o ical unc ional s a e. Regula ly small posi i e e ec on heal h o wildli e, o occasional, la ge posi i e e ec on heal h o wildli e. +4 T ansmi s ha m ul diseases o one o se e al species deg ading he ecosys- em. Mode a e popula ion decline in species, s ong indica ions ha he ecosys em changes owa ds i s his o ical unc ional s a e. Regula ly leading o la ge posi i e e ec on heal h o wildli e. +5 Comple ely e-es ablish unc ional s a e o his o ical ecosys em ha was deg aded be o e in asion o alien species. Massi e posi i e e ec on heal h o wildli e caused by species. Sab ina Kumschick e al. / NeoBio a 15: 69–100 (2012) 100 2.6.2 On human social li e posi i e 0 No impac known o de ec able. +1 Biological ai s and li e-s yle sugges po en ial posi i e e ec o ec ea- ional o esidence a eas (e.g. cha isma ic o deco a i e species, species ame- lio a ing he en i onmen by p o iding e.g. shade, o ha ing edible pa s, o species po en ially used o angling o hun ing), bu no epo ed so a . +2 Occasional small posi i e e ec o ec ea ional o esidence a eas, only small pe cen age o human popula ion a ec ed. +3 Regula small posi i e e ec o ec ea ional o esidence a eas, o occa- sional la ge posi i e e ec o ec ea ional o esidence a eas. +4 Regula la ge posi i e e ec o ec ea ional o esidence a eas. Rec ea- ional alue o a habi a o a landscape s ongly inc eased. +5 Massi e posi i e e ec o ec ea ional o esidence a eas. Massi e gain o ec ea ional alue o a habi a o a landscape.