Biological invasions continue to threaten the stability of ecosystems and societies that are dependent on their services. Whilst the ecological impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) have been widely reported in recent decades, there remains a paucity of information concerning their economic impacts. Europe has strong trade and transport links with the rest of the world, facilitating hundreds of IAS incursions, and largely centralised decision-making frameworks. The present study is the first comprehensive and detailed effort that quantifies the costs of IAS collectively across European countries and examines temporal trends in these data. In addition, the distributions of costs across countries, socioeconomic sectors and taxonomic groups are examined, as are socio-economic correlates of management and damage costs. Total costs of IAS in Europe summed to US$140.20 billion (or €116.61 billion) between 1960 and 2020, with the majority (60%) being damage-related and impacting multiple sectors. Costs were also geographically widespread but dominated by impacts in large western and central European countries, i.e. the UK, Spain, France, and Germany. Human population size, land area, GDP, and tourism were significant predictors of invasion costs, with management costs additionally predicted by numbers of introduced species, research effort and trade. Temporally, invasion costs have increased exponentially through time, with up to US$23.58 billion (€19.64 billion) in 2013, and US$139.56 billion (€116.24 billion) in impacts extrapolated in 2020. Importantly, although these costs are substantial, there remain knowledge gaps on several geographic and taxonomic scales, indicating that these costs are severely underestimated. We, thus, urge increased and improved cost reporting for economic impacts of IAS and coordinated international action to prevent further spread and mitigate impacts of IAS populations.

Human perceptions of nature and the environment are increasingly being recognised as important for environmental management and conservation. Understanding people's perceptions is crucial for understanding behaviour and developing effective management strategies to maintain, preserve and improve biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. As an interdisciplinary team, we produced a synthesis of the key factors that influence people's perceptions of invasive alien species, and ordered them in a conceptual framework. In a context of considerable complexity and variation across time and space, we identified six broad-scale dimensions: (1) attributes of the individual perceiving the invasive alien species; (2) characteristics of the invasive alien species itself; (3) effects of the invasion (including negative and positive impacts, i.e. benefits and costs); (4) socio-cultural context; (5) landscape context; and (6) institutional and policy context. A number of underlying and facilitating aspects for each of these six overarching dimensions are also identified and discussed. Synthesising and understanding the main factors that influence people's perceptions is useful to guide future research, to facilitate dialogue and negotiation between actors, and to aid management and policy formulation and governance of invasive alien species. This can help to circumvent and mitigate conflicts, support prioritisation plans, improve stakeholder engagement platforms, and implement control measures.

Background and aims: Since its emergence in the mid‐20th century, invasion biology has matured into a productive research field addressing questions of fundamental and applied importance. Not only has the number of empirical studies increased through time, but also has the number of competing, overlapping and, in some cases, contradictory hypotheses about biological invasions. To make these contradictions and redundancies explicit, and to gain insight into the field’s current theoretical structure, we developed and applied a Delphi approach to create a consensus network of 39 existing invasion hypotheses.Results: The resulting network was analysed with a link‐clustering algorithm that revealed five concept clusters (resource availability, biotic interaction, propagule, trait and Darwin’s clusters) representing complementary areas in the theory of invasion biology. The network also displays hypotheses that link two or more clusters, called connecting hypotheses, which are important in determining network structure. The network indicates hypotheses that are logically linked either positively (77 connections of support) or negatively (that is, they contradict each other; 6 connections).Significance: The network visually synthesizes how invasion biology’s predominant hypotheses are conceptually related to each other, and thus, reveals an emergent structure – a conceptual map – that can serve as a navigation tool for scholars, practitioners and students, both inside and outside of the field of invasion biology, and guide the development of a more coherent foundation of theory. Additionally, the outlined approach can be more widely applied to create a conceptual map for the larger fields of ecology and biogeography.

Alien species can have major ecological and socioeconomic impacts in their novel ranges and so effective management actions are needed. However, management can be contentious and create conflicts, especially when stakeholders who benefit from alien species are different from those who incur costs. Such conflicts of interests mean that management strategies can often not be implemented. There is, therefore, increasing interest in engaging stakeholders affected by alien species or by their management. Through a facilitated workshop and consultation process including academics and managers working on a variety of organisms and in different areas (urban and rural) and ecosystems (terrestrial and aquatic), we developed a framework for engaging stakeholders in the management of alien species. The proposed framework for stakeholder engagement consists of 12 steps: (1) identify stakeholders; (2) select key stakeholders for engagement; (3) explore key stakeholders' perceptions and develop initial aims for management; (4) engage key stakeholders in the development of a draft management strategy; (5) re-explore key stakeholders' perceptions and revise the aims of the strategy; (6) co-design general aims, management objectives and time frames with key stakeholders; (7) co-design a management strategy; (8) facilitate stakeholders' ownership of the strategy and adapt as required; and (9) implement the strategy and monitor management actions to evaluate the need for additional or future actions. In case additional management is needed after these actions take place, some extra steps should be taken: (10) identify any new stakeholders, benefits, and costs; (11) monitor engagement; and (12) revise management strategy. Overall, we believe that our framework provides an effective approach to minimize the impact of conflicts created by alien species management.