Incorporating uncertainty and social values in managing invasive alien species: a deliberative multi-criteria evaluation approach

Abstract

The management of Invasive Alien Species (IAS) is stymied by complex social values and severe levels of uncertainty. However, these two challenges are often hidden in the conventional model of management by ''value-free'' analyses and probability-based estimates of risk. As a result, diverse social values and wide margins of error in risk assessment carry zero weights in the decision-making process, leaving IAS risk decisions to be made in the wake of political pressure and the crisis atmosphere of incursion. We propose to use a Deliberative MultiCriteria Evaluation (DMCE) to incorporate multiple social values and profound uncertainty into decisionmaking processes. The DMCE process combines the advantages of conventional multi-criteria decision analysis methods with the benefits of stakeholder participation to provide an analytical structure to assess complex multi-dimensional objectives. It, therefore, offers an opportunity for diverse views to enter the decision-making process, and for the negotiation of consensus positions. The DMCE process can also function as a platform for risk communication in which scientists, stakeholders, and decision-makers can interact and discuss the uncertainty associated with biological invasions. We examine two case studies that demonstrate how DMCE provides scientific rigor and transparency in the decision-making process of invasion risk management. The first case regards pre-border priority ranking for potential invasive species and the second relates to selecting the most desirable policy option for managing a postborder invader.

Understanding misunderstandings in invasion science: why experts don’t agree on common concepts and risk assessments

“…Many experts in our interviews stated that such extrapolation from a few, often poorly known case examples is problematic, thus echoing a strong critique of invasive species management by philosophers of science (Shrader-Frechette 2001, Sagoff 2005. Alternative approaches to biosecurity that might circumvent this problem include adaptive management processes, participatory methods, or risk assessments that are specific to particular habitats or introduction pathways (e.g., Kueffer and Hirsch Hadorn 2008, Liu et al 2011, Hulme 2012.…”

Prioritizing species, pathways, and sites to achieve conservation targets for biological invasion

“…Here we provide examples of some of the most common, recent and prioritization-relevant examples. Prioritization using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been widely used, especially for invasive plant species (Benke et al 2011;Liu et al 2011a). For example, the EPPO's action-focused scheme applies MCDA to lists of alien plants in Europe, or at risk of entering it.…”

Risk management to prioritise the eradication of new and emerging invasive non-native species

“…Auld 2012;Baker et al 2005;Drolet et al 2014;Firn et al 2015a, b;Hiebert and Stubbendieck 1993;Kehlenbeck et al 2012;Setterfield et al 2010;Sunley et al 2012;Virtue 2010), consider only specific aspects of risk management (e.g. Darin 2008; Hauser and McCarthy 2009;Darin et al 2011;Liu et al 2011) or being time and resource intensive (e.g. Darin et al 2011;Leung et al 2012;McGeoch et al 2016;Vander Zanden et al 2010).…”