IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/enviro/v2y2014i4p28-37n4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying and ascribing the relative significance of introduction pathways for non-native plants into Iceland

Author

Listed:
  • Wasowicz Pawel

    (Icelandic Institute of Natural History, Borgir vid Nordurslod, P.O. Box 180, 602 Akureyri, Iceland)

Abstract

The study is aimed at identifying pathways frequently used by non-native plant species, assessing their relative significance and development in time. Pathways were defined following NOBANIS framework (Madsen et al., 2014). Species assessments were based on HARMONIA scheme (Branquart, 2007). Four categories of environmental hazards were assessed plus two additional categories summarizing impacts on health and economy. Temporal development of pathways was assessed using cumulative per annum taxa records. To quantify the activity of investigated pathways over time an index (δ10) showing the number of new species introduced during the period of 10 years was calculated. The study shows that horticulture, landscaping and agriculture can be pointed out as pathways of concern in Iceland. A set of species of concern is also proposed. Two plant taxa are included in A list (high risk species): Anthriscus sylvestis and Lupinus nootkatensis. Three taxa are placed in B list (watch list): Heracleum mantegazzianum, Heracleum persicum and Pinus contorta. Results of the present study are compared with similar studies carried out in Denmark, Scandinavia and Baltic countries. Different measures to prevent introductions of new and potentially dangerous non-native species are also discussed including selection of good practices that may significantly reduce the threat from non-native species used in agriculture and horticulture.

Suggested Citation

  • Wasowicz Pawel, 2014. "Identifying and ascribing the relative significance of introduction pathways for non-native plants into Iceland," Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, Sciendo, vol. 2(4), pages 28-37, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:enviro:v:2:y:2014:i:4:p:28-37:n:4
    DOI: 10.1515/environ-2015-0047
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/environ-2015-0047
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/environ-2015-0047?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steven Brams & Michael Jones & D. Kilgour, 2005. "Forming stable coalitions: The process matters," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 125(1), pages 67-94, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Antonio Magaña & Francesc Carreras, 2018. "Coalition Formation and Stability," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 467-502, June.
    2. Annelies De Ridder & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2008. "On Some Procedures of Forming a Multipartner Alliance," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(2), pages 443-487, June.
    3. Steven Brams & D. Kilgour, 2013. "Kingmakers and leaders in coalition formation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(1), pages 1-18, June.
    4. Manfred Holler & Stefan Napel, 2004. "Monotonicity of power and power measures," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 93-111, April.
    5. Eligius M. T. Hendrix & Annelies Ridder & Agnieszka Rusinowska & M. Elena Sáiz, 2013. "Coalition Formation: The Role of Procedure and Policy Flexibility," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 407-427, May.
    6. Geir Asheim & Carl Claussen & Tore Nilssen, 2006. "Majority voting leads to unanimity," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 35(1), pages 91-110, December.
    7. Tom Blockmans & Marie-Anne Guerry, 2016. "Coalition Formation Procedures: The Impact of Issue Saliences and Consensus Estimation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 481-499, May.
    8. Eklund, Patrik & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & De Swart, Harrie, 2007. "Consensus reaching in committees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(1), pages 185-193, April.
    9. Mehmet S. Ismail, 2018. "The strategy of conflict and cooperation," Papers 1808.06750, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    10. Steven Brams & Gustavo Camilo & Alexandra Franz, 2014. "Coalition formation on the U.S. Supreme Court: 1969–2009," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 525-539, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vrs:enviro:v:2:y:2014:i:4:p:28-37:n:4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.