English   español  
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/180285
Share/Impact:
Statistics
logo share SHARE logo core CORE   Add this article to your Mendeley library MendeleyBASE

Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL
Exportar a otros formatos:
Title

Consistency of impact assessment protocols for non-native species

AuthorsGonzález-Moreno, Pablo ; Lazzaro, Lorenzo; Vilà, Montserrat ; Preda, Cristina; Adriaens, Tim; Bacher, Sven; Brundu, Giuseppe; Copp, Gordon H.; Essl, Franz; García-Berthou, Emili; Katsanevakis, Stelios
KeywordsEnvironmental impact
Expert judgement
Invasive alien species policy
Management prioritization
Risk assessment
Socio-economic impact
Issue Date2019
PublisherPensoft Publishers
CitationNeobiota, 44: 1–25 (2019)
AbstractStandardized tools are needed to identify and prioritize the most harmful non-native species (NNS). A plethora of assessment protocols have been developed to evaluate the current and potential impacts of non-native species, but consistency among them has received limited attention. To estimate the consistency across impact assessment protocols, 89 specialists in biological invasions used 11 protocols to screen 57 NNS (2614 assessments). We tested if the consistency in the impact scoring across assessors, quantified as the coefficient of variation (CV), was dependent on the characteristics of the protocol, the taxonomic group and the expertise of the assessor. Mean CV across assessors was 40%, with a maximum of 223%. CV was lower for protocols with a low number of score levels, which demanded high levels of expertise, and when the assessors had greater expertise on the assessed species. The similarity among protocols with respect to the final scores was higher when the protocols considered the same impact types. We conclude that all protocols led to considerable inconsistency among assessors. In order to improve consistency, we highlight the importance of selecting assessors with high expertise, providing clear guidelines and adequate training but also deriving final decisions collaboratively by consensus
Publisher version (URL)http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.44.31650
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/180285
DOI10.3897/neobiota.44.31650
Appears in Collections:(EBD) Artículos
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
NB_article_31650_en_1.pdf1,58 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
Show full item record
Review this work
 

Related articles:


WARNING: Items in Digital.CSIC are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.