Risk assessment is an important tool in invasive species prevention and management, providing a structured approach to identify and evaluate the risks posed by non-native species. Despite the widespread development of risk assessment and risk analysis (collectively referred to as RA here) methods, there is a lack of information on which methods are used in practice. We conducted a global survey of RA practitioners from diverse regional, professional, and taxonomic contexts to identify the tools and databases used, the qualifications and experience of assessors, and the implementation and accessibility of RA results. 107 responses were received from practitioners focussed on all continents except Antarctica, with the most from the United States and the United Kingdom. Respondents reported using more than 46 different RA tools, with the Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit and the USDA Plant Protection and Quarantine Weed Risk Assessment the most commonly mentioned tools, based on the number of users. Plants were the most frequently assessed taxonomic group and terrestrial species, though representation from all taxonomic groups and systems exist. Respondents listed 107 generally open-access databases that they frequently use to conduct RAs, with the most commonly used sources being the CABI Invasive Species Compendium, occurrence records from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), and taxonomic information from the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). Assessors typically had tertiary education, with the majority holding at least a master’s degree, though many did not believe that a post-graduate degree was necessary to be an effective assessor. After RAs were completed, assessments were predominantly reported to government agencies. Most finalized RAs included some measure of certainty and were usually publicly accessible, though few included a formal process for stakeholders to comment. Almost all respondents identified the importance of training and certification programs to standardize qualifications for assessors. Based on the views expressed in the surveys we discuss the importance of: (1) training and capacity building, (2) open access databases and FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) data standards, (3) incorporating stakeholders in the process, and (4) standardisation of tools; if these measures are implemented, they may enhance the consistency, transparency, and effectiveness of RAs of non-native species.
