Abstract
Simple SummaryInternational agreements commit nations to control or eradicate invasive alien species. The scale of this challenge exceeds available resources and so it is essential to prioritise the management of invasive alien species. Species prioritisation for management may consider the likelihood and scale of impact (risk assessment) and the feasibility, costs and effectiveness of management (risk management). Risk assessment processes are widely used, risk management less so. To assess the cost effectiveness of prioritisation, we considered 26 high-risk species considered for eradication from Great Britain (GB) with pre-existing risk assessment and risk management outputs. We used these to consider the relative reduction in risk per unit cost when managing prioritised species based on different criteria. We showed that the cost effectiveness of prioritisation within our sample using risk assessment scores alone performed no better than a random ranking of the species. In contrast, prioritisation including management feasibility produced nearly two orders of magnitude improvement compared to random ranking. We concluded that basing management actions on priorities based solely on risk assessment without considering management feasibility risks the inefficient use of limited resources. In this study, the cost effectiveness of species prioritisation action was greatly increased by the inclusion of a risk management assessment. International agreements commit nations to control or eradicate invasive alien species. The scale of this challenge exceeds available resources and so it is essential to prioritise the management of invasive alien species. Species prioritisation for management typically involves a hierarchy of processes that consider the likelihood and scale of impact (risk assessment) and the feasibility, costs and effectiveness of management (risk management). Risk assessment processes are widely used, risk management less so, but are a crucial component of resource decision making. To assess the cost-effectiveness of prioritisation, we considered 26 high-risk species considered for eradication from Great Britain (GB) with pre-existing risk assessment and risk management outputs. We extracted scores to reflect the overall risk to GB posed by the species, together with the estimated cost and the overall feasibility of eradication. We used these to consider the relative reduction in risk per unit cost when managing prioritised species based on different criteria. We showed that the cost-effectiveness of prioritisation within our sample using risk assessment scores alone, performed no better than a random ranking of the species. In contrast, prioritisation including management feasibility produced nearly two orders of magnitude improvement compared to random. We conclude that basing management actions on priorities based solely on risk assessment without considering management feasibility risks the inefficient use of limited resources. In this study, the cost-effectiveness of species prioritisation for action was greatly increased by the inclusion of risk management assessment.
Highlights
Managing the increasing risks and impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) is one of the great societal challenges of the 21st century [1,2,3,4,5]
The cost of eradicating the top ten species prioritised through the use of risk management (RM) or risk assessment (RA) + RM was two orders of magnitude lower than if it were based on RA alone, and the cost effectiveness of the prioritisation of management based on RA alone offered no improvement over selecting species in a random order
The efficient prioritisation of invasive alien species for management is important if limited resources are to be deployed effectively to reduce their impacts
Summary
Managing the increasing risks and impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) is one of the great societal challenges of the 21st century [1,2,3,4,5]. A number of ambitious international goals aim to reduce or halt the rising impacts of alien species. 9 of the Convention on Biological Diversity [6] aims to substantially reduce the loss of biodiversity and commits signatories to identify and prioritise IAS and their pathways and to control or eradicate priority species, a commitment that carries significant economic and social costs. The prioritisation of species, pathways and management is a key element of international targets and should support decision making to achieve the cost-effective management of IAS. An appropriate metric underpinning prioritisation is the greatest reduction in impact on biodiversity, ecosystem services and human interests per unit cost
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
