Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34943234›Full record

ArticleBiology2021

Risk Management Assessment Improves the Cost-Effectiveness of Invasive Species Prioritisation.

Peter A Robertson, Aileen C Mill, Tim Adriaens, Niall Moore, Sonia Vanderhoeven, Franz Essl, Olaf Booy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The impacts of biological invasions.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Peter A RobertsonModelling, Evidence and Policy Group, Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK.
Aileen C MillModelling, Evidence and Policy Group, Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK.
Tim AdriaensResearch Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Havenlaan 88 Bus 73, B-1000 Brussel, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-7268-4200
Niall MooreGB Non-Native Species Secretariat, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Sand Hutton, York YO41 1JW, UK.
Sonia VanderhoevenBelgian Biodiversity Platform, Walloon Research Department for Nature and Agricultural Area (DEMNA), Service Public de Wallonie, Avenue Maréchal Juin, 23, B-5030 Gembloux, Belgium.
Franz EsslBioinvasions Global Change, Macroecology-Group, Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Vienna, Rennweg 14, 1030 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-8253-2112
Olaf BooyModelling, Evidence and Policy Group, Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Aichi Target 9Europeinvasive alien species of Union Concernmanagement costmanagement feasibilityprioritisationrisk assessmentrisk management

Identifiers

PMID34943234
PMCPMC8698869

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.