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,
AgnieszkaSendek5, 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 2Uni 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 3Ecology, Depa men o Biology, Uni e si ä ss asse 10, Kons anz,
D 78464, Ge many 4MTT Ag i ood Resea ch Finland, Economic Resea ch, La oka anonkaa i 9, 00790
Helsinki, Finland 5UFZ, 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.
