Understanding the ways in which alien taxa threaten human well-being, beyond purely monetary costs, can be difficult as impacts differ vastly across social, cultural, and economic contexts. Failure to capture impacts outside of monetary costs means that impacts are unfairly weighted towards those that can be easily monetised, which is unlikely to be a realistic measure of how alien species truly affect human well-being. To address this issue, the Socio-Economic Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (SEICAT) was developed with the intention to facilitate standardised classifications and comparisons of the impacts of alien taxa on human well-being and livelihood. The framework measures impacts by assessing to what extent alien taxa have altered human activities, so has application across a broad range of reported impacts associated with different constituents of human well-being. Although in their original paper, Bacher et al. (2018) provided an overview of the SEICAT framework, comprehensive guidelines that enable assessors to overcome potential ambiguities were, until now, unavailable. This may be preventing the broad application of the framework due to reduced usability. Here, we provide clarification and guidance for the application of SEICAT to facilitate standardised, consistent assessments. In particular, we address uncertainties stemming from unclear definitions of impacted communities and activities, as well as the spatial and temporal scales of relevance. We clarify these key issues and give explicit recommendations, whilst encouraging the collection of additional contextual information to be recorded for each assessed impact report, to generate more practical information for end-users of SEICAT data. Further, we recommend adopting an alternative terminology for the impact categories to reduce the potential misuse of the current descriptors. The intended outcome of this work is to aid the broad application of the SEICAT framework in a consistent and transparent manner.
