READ ME

========================
General information
========================

Author:Calvin Sirs
Contact:C.sirs@newcastle.ac.uk
DOI:10.25405/data.ncl.19364927
License: CC BY 4.0
Last updated:
Related article:

========================
Introductory information
========================
Files included in the data deposit (include a short description of what data are contained): 

1)Table listing the Status and presence of 66 species listed as concerning to the European Union across european countries
2)A table with a Subjective ranking the managment of 66 species listed as concerning to the European Union
3)


Explain the relationship between multiple data sets, if required:



========================== 
Methodological information
==========================
A brief method description – what the data is, how and why it was collected or created, and how it was processed:The data used in table 1 and this review was obtained through the European Union’s CIRCABC, specifically the scientific forum on invasive alien species. 
With in this forum risk assessments of all the 66 species listed as concerning for the Union can be found with details including the status of the species, projected outcomes, and suggested actions. 
The table was constructed with this data and each species depending on the presence in each country was entered the phrases used to represent the status.
The terminology used to describe the IAS presence in a country was ; Introduced, Naturalised and Invasive. 

Table 2 ranked the management of each species on a scale of 1-5 cross referenced by the EU’s regulation measures of Invasive Alien Species. 
The scoring system implemented in table 2 was subjective and decided upon reviewing the overall assessment of risk section within each species risk assessment where it gave a rating for multiple categories; likelihood of entry, 
likelihood of establishment in managed and natural areas, magnitude of spread, impacts on biodiversity, ecosystem services and socio-economics. Other categories included potential for management and potential to survive eradication.  
When the risk assessment of the species was analysed, a ranking of 1 to 5 was issued for each of the measures.

Instruments, hardware and software used: 

Microsoft Excell

Date(s) of data collection: 



Geographic coverage of data:


Data validation (how was the data checked, proofed and cleaned):



Overview of secondary data, if used:



=========================
Data-specific information
=========================
Definitions of names, labels, acronyms or specialist terminology uses for variables, records and their values: 
	Prevention: a number of robust measures aimed at preventing the intentional or unintentional introduction of IAS of Union concern into the EU.
	Early detection and rapid eradication: Member States must put in place a surveillance system to detect the presence of IAS of Union concern as early as possible and take rapid eradication measures to prevent them from establishing.
	Management: some IAS of Union concern are already established in certain Member States. Concerted management action is needed to prevent them from spreading any further and to minimize the harm they cause.
Introduced : An introduced species is one that has been brought to a new location by humans either intentionally or
unintentionally.
Naturalised :A species that was originally introduced from a different country, a different bioregion, or a different geographical area, but now behaves like a native species in that it maintains itself without further human intervention and now grows and reproduces in native communities
Invasive: An alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health
Scaling of 1-5 management key

        1 = management of species is very unlikely to be effective
	2 = management is very difficult 
	3 = management can be effective but is difficult
	4 = management used and effective with some difficulties
	5 = management is used regularly and effective


Explanation of weighting and grossing variables: 

The scoring system implemented in table 2 was subjective and decided upon reviewing the overall assessment of risk section within each species risk assessment where it gave a rating for multiple categories; likelihood of entry, 
likelihood of establishment in managed and natural areas, magnitude of spread, impacts on biodiversity, ecosystem services and socio-economics. Other categories included potential for management and potential to survive eradication.  
When the risk assessment of the species was analysed, a ranking of 1 to 5 was issued for each of the measures.

Outline any missing data: