Biological Invasions

, 13:2323 | Cite as

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

  • Shuang Liu
  • Andy Sheppard
  • Darren Kriticos
  • David Cook
Original Paper

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 Multi-Criteria Evaluation (DMCE) to incorporate multiple social values and profound uncertainty into decision-making 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 post-border invader.

Keywords

Non-indigenous species (NIS) Biosecurity Multiple impacts Risk analysis Participatory decision-making Structured decision-making 

References

  1. Ajzen I, Brown TC, Rosenthal LH (1996) Information bias in contingent valuation: effects of personal relevance, quality of information, and motivational orientation. J Environ Econ Manag 30(1):43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen MC, Adams H, Hope B, Powell M (2004) Risk assessment for invasive species. Risk Anal 24(4):787–793PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Australian Department of Agriculture FaF (2005) Field guide to exotic pests and diseases: European house borer Google Scholar
  4. Bammer G, Smithson M (eds) (2008) Uncertainty and risk. Risk in society earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Beierle TC (2002) The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Anal 22(4):739–749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benke KK, Steel JL, Weiss JE (2011) Risk assessment models for invasive species: uncertainty in rankings from multi-criteria analysis. Biol Invasions 13(1):239–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biosecurity Australia (2006) Final import risk analysis report for apples from New Zealand. Part A. Biosecurity Australia, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  8. Bojorquez-Tapia LA, Sanchez-Colon S, Martinez AF (2005) Building consensus in environmental impact assessment through multicriteria modeling and sensitivity analysis. Environ Manag 36(3):469–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Born W, Rauschmayer F, Brauer I (2005) Economic evaluation of biological invasions—a survey. Ecol Econ 55(3):321–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bossenbroek JM, McNulty J, Keller RP (2005) Can ecologists heat up the discussion on invasive species risk? Risk Anal 25(6):1595–1597. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6925.2005.00697.x|ISSN1462-6063PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bradshaw GA, Borchers JG (2000) Uncertainty as information: narrowing the sciencepolicy gap. Conserv Ecol 4(1)Google Scholar
  12. Brouwer R, De Blois C (2008) Integrated modelling of risk and uncertainty underlying the cost and effectiveness of water quality measures. Environ Modell Softw 23(7):922–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burgman MA, Keith DA, Walshe TV (1999) Uncertainty in comparative risk analysis for threatened Australian plant species. Risk Anal 19(4):585–598Google Scholar
  14. Carey JM, Burgman MA (2008) Linguistic uncertainty in qualitative risk analysis and how to minimize it. Ann NY Acad Sci 1128:13–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carlsson F (2010) Design of stated preference surveys: is there more to learn from behavioral economics? Environ Resour Econ 46(2):167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Colautti RI, Bailey SA, van Overdijk CDA, Amundsen K, MacIsaac HJ (2006) Characterised and projected costs of nonindigenous species in Canada. Biol Invasions 8(1):45–59Google Scholar
  17. Cook DC, Proctor WL (2007) Assessing the threat of exotic plant pests. Ecol Econ 63(2–3):594–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cook DC, Thomas MB, Cunningham SA, Anderson DL, De Barro PJ (2007) Predicting the economic impact of an invasive species on an ecosystem service. Ecol Appl 17(6):1832–1840PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cook DC, Liu S, Murphy B, Lonsdale WM (2010) Adaptive approaches to biosecurity governance. Risk Anal 30(9):1303–1314. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01439.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Crowl TA, Crist TO, Parmenter RR, Belovsky G, Lugo AE (2008) The spread of invasive species and infectious disease as drivers of ecosystem change. Front Ecol Environ 6(5):238–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davis AS, Cousens RD, Hill J, Mack RN, Simberloff D, Raghu S (2010) Screening bioenergy feedstock crops to mitigate invasion risk. Front Ecol Environ 8(10):533–539. doi:10.1890/090030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. de Wit MP, Crookes DJ, van Wilgen BW (2001) Conflicts of interest in environmental management: estimating the costs and benefits of a tree invasion. Biol Invasions 3(2):167–178Google Scholar
  23. Doak DF, Estes JA, Halpern BS, Jacob U, Lindberg DR, Lovvorn J, Monson DH, Tinker MT, Williams TM, Wootton JT, Carroll I, Emmerson M, Micheli F, Novak M (2008) Understanding and predicting ecological dynamics: are major surprises inevitable? Ecology 89(4):952–961PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dryzek J (2000) Deliberative democracy and beyond: liberals, critics and contestations. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Ehrenfeld JG (2010) Ecosystem consequences of biological invasions. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41(1):59–80Google Scholar
  26. Failing L, Gregory R, Harstone M (2007) Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: a decision-focused approach. Ecol Econ 64(1):47–60Google Scholar
  27. Fischhoff B (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged—20 years of process. Risk Anal 15(2):137–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fischhoff B, Litchtenstein S, Slovic P, Derby SL, Keeney RL (1981) Acceptable risk. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Franklin J, Sisson SA, Burgman MA, Martin JK (2008) Evaluating extreme risks in invasion ecology: learning from banking compliance. Divers Distrib 14(4):581–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7):739–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goldston D (2008) Hazy reasoning behind clean air. Nature 452(7187):519. doi:10.1038/452519a PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gordon DR, Onderdonk DA, Fox AM, Stocker RK (2008) Consistent accuracy of the Australian weed risk assessment system across varied geographies. Divers Distrib 14(2):234–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gregory R, Failing L (2002) Using decision analysis to encourage sound deliberation: water use planning in British Columbia, Canada. J Policy Anal Manage 21(3):492–499Google Scholar
  34. Gregory R, Long G (2009) Using structured decision making to help implement a precautionary approach to endangered species management. Risk Anal 29(4):518–532Google Scholar
  35. Gregory R, Failing L, Ohlson D, McDaniels TL (2006) Some pitfalls of an overemphasis on science in environmental risk management decisions. J Risk Res 9(7):717–735. doi:10.1080/13669870600799895 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gren IM (2008) Economics of alien invasive species management—choices of targets and policies. Boreal Environ Res 13:17–32Google Scholar
  37. Groves RH (2006) Are some weeds sleeping? Some concepts and reasons. Euphytica 148(1–2):111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Haimes YY (2009) On the complex definition of risk: a systems-based approach. Risk Anal 29(12):1647–1654PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hajkowicz S, Collins K (2007) A review of multiple criteria analysis for water resource planning and management. Water Res Manag 21(9):1553–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Horan RD, Perrings C, Lupi F, Bulte EH (2002) Biological pollution prevention strategies under ignorance: the case of invasive species. Am J Agr Econ 84(5):1303–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hummel S, Donovan GH, Spies TA, Hemstrom MA (2009) Conserving biodiversity using risk management: hoax or hope. Front Ecol Environ 7(2):103–109. doi:10.1890/070111%U. http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/070111
  42. Hurley MV, Lowell KE, Cook DC, Liu SA, Siddique AB, Diggle A (2010) Prioritizing biosecurity risks using a participatory decision-making tool. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 16(6):1379–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Janis I (1982) Groupthink. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  44. Kahneman D, Knetsch J (1992) Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J Environ Econ Manag 22(1):57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kahraman C (ed) (2008) Multi-criteria decision making methods and fuzzy sets. In: Fuzzy multi-criteria decision making: theory and applications with recent developments. Springer, New York, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  46. Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives-preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. Keeney RL, Duke HR, Meyer RF (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. Kerr NL, Tindale RS (2004) Group performance and decision making. Annual Rev Psychol 55:623–655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Knight FH (1921) Risk, uncertainty and profit. Houghton Miffllin, Boston and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol Evol 16(4):199–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2002) Ecological predictions and risk assessment for alien fishes in North America. Science 298(5596):1233–1236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lahdelma R, Salminen P, Hokkanen J (2000) Using multicriteria methods in environmental planning and management. Environ Manage 26(6):595–605Google Scholar
  53. Larson BMH (2007) An alien approach to invasive species: objectivity and society in invasion biology. Biol Invasions 9(8):947–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Larson DL, Phillips-Mao L, Quiram G, Sharpe L, Stark R, Sugita S, Weiler A (2011) A framework for sustainable invasive species management environmental, social, and economic objectives. J Environ Manage 92(1):14–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Liu S, Cook D, Diggle A, Siddique A-B, Hurley M, Lowell K (2009) Using dynamic ecological-economic modeling to facilitate deliberative multicriteria evaluation (DMCE) in quantifying and communicating bio-invasion uncertainty In: Anderssen RS, Braddock RD, Newham LTH (eds) 18th World IMACS congress and MODSIM09 international congress on modelling and simulation. Cairns, Australia, 2009. Modelling and simulation society of Australia and New Zealand and international association for mathematics and computers in simulation, pp 4333–4338Google Scholar
  56. Liu S, Hurley M, Lowell K, Siddique AB, Diggle A, Cook D (in press) An integrated decision-support approach in prioritizing risks of non-indigenous species in the face of high uncertainty. Ecol Econ. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.05.021. URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800911002278
  57. Liu S, Proctor W, Cook D (2010) Using an integrated fuzzy set and deliberative multi-criteria evaluation approach to facilitate decision-making in invasive species management. Ecol Econ 69(12):2374–2382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lodge DM, Williams S, MacIsaac HJ, Hayes KR, Leung B, Reichard S, Mack RN, Moyle PB, Smith M, Andow DA, Carlton JT, McMichael A (2006) Biological invasions: recommendations for US policy and management. Ecol Appl 16(6):2035–2054PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10(3):689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mackenzie BF, Larson BMH (2010) Participation under time constraints: landowner perceptions of rapid response to the emerald ash borer. Soc Nat Res 23(10):1013–1022. doi:10.1080/08941920903339707 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Maguire LA (2004) What can decision analysis do for invasive species management? Risk Anal 24(4):859–868PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Marinoni O, Higgins A, Hajkowicz S, Collins K (2009) The multiple criteria analysis tool (MCAT): A new software tool to support environmental investment decision making. Environ Model Softw 24(2):153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Martinez-Alier J, Munda G, O’Neill J (1998) Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecol Econ 26(3):277–286Google Scholar
  64. Melbourne BA, Hastings A (2009) Highly variable spread rates in replicated biological invasions: fundamental limits to predictability. Science 325(5947):1536–1539PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Meyerson LA (2008) Biosecurity, biofuels, and biodiversity. Front Ecol Environ 6(6):291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  67. Millner A, Dietz S, Heal G (2010) Ambiguity and climate policy. NBER working paper no. w16050Google Scholar
  68. Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Lave L, Atman CJ (1992) Communicating risk to the public. Environ Sci Technol 26(11):2048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Munda G, Nijkamp P, Rietveld P (1995) Qualitative multicriteria methods for fuzzy-evaluation problems - an illustration of economic-ecological evaluation. Eur J Oper Res 82(1):79–97Google Scholar
  70. Norton BG (1998) Improving ecological communication: the role of ecologists in environmental policy formation. Ecol Appl 8(2):350–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Parker IM, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Goodell K, Wonham M, Kareiva PM, Williamson MH, Von Holle B, Moyle PB, Byers JE, Goldwasser L (1999) Impact: toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Biol Invasions 1(1):3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Penning-Rowsell E, Johnson C, Tunstall S (2006) ‘Signals’ from pre-crisis discourse: lessons from UK flooding for global environmental policy change? Global Environ Change-Hum Policy Dimens 16(4):323–339Google Scholar
  73. Peterson GD, Carpenter SR, Brock WA (2003) Uncertainty and the management of multistate ecosystems: an apparently rational route to collapse. Ecology 84(6):1403–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pheloung PC, Williams PA, Halloy SR (1999) A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. J Environ Manage 57(4):239–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pielke RA Jr (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  76. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52(3):273–288Google Scholar
  77. Proctor W, Drechsler M (2006) Deliberative multicriteria evaluation. Environ Plan C-Gov Policy 24(2):169–190Google Scholar
  78. Pyšek P, Richardson DM (2010) Invasive species, environmental change and management, and health. Ann Rev Environ Res 35(1):25–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pysek P, Richardson DM, Pergil J, Jarosik V, Sixtova Z, Weber E (2008) Geographical and taxonomic biases in invasion ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 23(5):237–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rauschmayer F, Wittmer H (2006) Evaluating deliberative and analytical methods for the resolution of environmental conflicts. Land Use Pol 23(1):108–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Redpath SA, Arroyo BE, Leckie EM, Bacon P, Bayfield N, Gutierrez RJ, Thirgood SJ (2004) Using decision modeling with stakeholders to reduce human-wildlife conflict: a raptor-grouse case study. Conserv Biol 18(2):350–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Regan HM, Colyvan M, Burgman MA (2002) A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Ecol Appl 12(2):618–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Regan HM, Ben-Haim Y, Langford B, Wilson WG, Lundberg P, Andelman SJ, Burgman MA (2005) Robust decision-making under severe uncertainty for conservation management. Ecol Appl 15(4):1471–1477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Renn O (1999) A model for an analytic-deliberative process in risk management. Environ Sci Technol 33(18):3049–3055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Renn O (2003) The challenge of integrating deliveration and expertise. In: McDaniels T, Small MJ (eds) Risk analysis and society: an interdisciplinary characterization of the field. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 289–366Google Scholar
  86. Robertson DP, Hull RB (2003) Public ecology: an environmental science and policy for global society. Environ Sci Policy 6(5):399–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Rodriguez-Labajos B, Binimelis R, Monterroso I (2009) Multi-level driving forces of biological invasions. Ecol Econ 69(1):63–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sarewitz D (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ Sci Policy 7(5):385–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Shea K, Possingham HP, Murdoch WW, Roush R (2002) Active adaptive management in insect pest and weed control: Intervention with a plan for learning. Ecol Appl 12(3):927–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Simberloff D (2005) The politics of assessing risk for biological invasions: the USA as a case study. Trends Ecol Evol 20(5):216–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Simberloff D (2006) Risk assessments, blacklists, and white lists for introduced species: are predictions good enough to be useful? Agric Res Econ Rev 35(1):1–10Google Scholar
  92. Simberloff D (2009) The role of propagule pressure in biological invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:81–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Simberloff D, Alexander M (1998) Assessing risks to ecological systems from biological introductions. In: Calow P (ed) Handbook of environmental risk assessment and management. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 147–176Google Scholar
  94. Simberloff D, Gibbons L (2004) Now you see them, now you don’t—population crashes of established introduced species. Biol Invasions 6(2):161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Simberloff D, Parker IM, Windle PN (2005) Introduced species policy, management, and future research needs. Front Ecol Environ 3(1):12–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Slovic P (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics, science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 19(4):689–701 (Reprinted from Environment, ethics, and behavior, pg 277–313, 1997)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Smith CS, Lonsdale WM, Fortune J (1999) When to ignore advice: invasion predictions and decision theory. Biol Invasions 1(1):89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Stirling A (2006) Analysis, participation and power: justification and closure in participatory multi-criteria analysis. Land Use Pol 23(1):95–107. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Strayer DL (2009) Twenty years of zebra mussels: lessons from the mollusk that made headlines. Front Ecol Environ 7(3):135–141. doi:10.1890/080020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Strayer DL, Eviner VT, Jeschke JM, Pace ML (2006) Understanding the long-term effects of species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 21(11):645–651PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Sunstein CR, Zeckhauser R (2008) Overreaction to fearsome risks. Harvard Law School Program on risk regulation research paper no. 08–17, HKS Working Paper No. RWP08-079, U of Chicago, Public Law working paper no. 446, U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin working paper no. 253Google Scholar
  102. The Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (2007) International standards for phytosanitary measures, ISPM No 5, glossary of phytosanitary terms. FAOGoogle Scholar
  103. US National Research Council (1996) Understanding risk: informating decisions in a democratic society. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  104. Valle D, Staudhammer CL, Cropper WP, van Gardingen PR (2009) The importance of multimodel projections to assess uncertainty in projections from simulation models. Ecol Appl 19(7):1680–1692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Vila M, Basnou C, Pysek P, Josefsson M, Genovesi P, Gollasch S, Nentwig W, Olenin S, Roques A, Roy D, Hulme PE (2010) How well do we understand the impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A pan-European, cross-taxa assessment. Front Ecol Environ 8(3):135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Waage JK, Mumford JD (2008) Agricultural biosecurity. Philos Trans R Soc B-Biol Sci 363(1492):863–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Walker B, Carpenter S, Anderies J, Abel N, Cumming G, Janssen M, Lebel L, Norberg J, Peterson GD, Pritchard R (2002) Resilience management in social-ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conserv Ecol 6(1)Google Scholar
  108. Webb TJ, Raffaelli D (2008) Conversations in conservation: revealing and dealing with language differences in environmental conflicts. J Appl Ecol 45(4):1198–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Williamson M (1999) Invasions. Ecography 22(1):5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Wilson RS (2008) Balancing emotion and cognition: a case for decision aiding in conservation efforts. Conserv Biol 22(6):1452–1460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wynne B (1992) Uncertainty and environmental learning—reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Glob Environ Change-Human Policy Dimens 2(2):111–127Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shuang Liu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andy Sheppard
    • 1
  • Darren Kriticos
    • 1
    • 2
  • David Cook
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.CSIRO Ecosystem SciencesCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.Cooperative Research Centre for National Plant BiosecurityCanberraAustralia
  3. 3.Fenner School of Environment and SocietyThe Australian National UniversityActonAustralia

Personalised recommendations