Abstract
Invasive alien species (IAS) require management to mitigate their impact on ecosystems. The success of management decisions often depends on whether they are socially acceptable and to what extent people are willing to be actively involved in an early warning and rapid response system (EWRR). We administered a nation-wide public poll to assess people’s knowledge on plant, insect and fungal IAS; their perception of IAS as an environmental problem; and their support for different IAS management measures. Most respondents (76%) knew the term IAS, and more than half (62%) provided a correct definition. Species with more media attention and those that are easily visible are more frequently identified correctly. Almost all respondents (97%) support an EWRR system; however, there is heterogeneity in terms of the types of actions people approve of. Non-lethal measures garner more support than lethal ones. Gender and previous knowledge also affect the level of agreement. The willingness-to-pay question largely confirmed this, as people were divided into four classes according to their preferences for either biological, mechanical or chemical measures to control IAS; completeness and location of removal; and having an EWRR established. Mechanical removal is the most preferred treatment in two of the four classes, and complete removal is preferred over partial removal in one of the four classes. Having an EWRR is consistently supported in all classes, and removal in urban areas is preferred over removal in forestland in only one class.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
TV, radio, internet, public talks, exhibitions, social media, etc.
References
Ansong M, Pickering C (2015) What’s a weed? Knowledge, attitude and behaviour of park visitors about weeds. PLoS ONE 10:e0135026
Bardsley D, Edwards-Jones G (2006) Stakeholders’ perceptions of the impacts of invasive exotic plant species in the Mediterranean region. GeoJournal 65:199–210
Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B et al (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Bertolino S, Genovesi P (2003) Spread and attempted eradication of the grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) in Italy, and consequences for the red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in Eurasia. Biol Cons 109:351–358
Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL (2002) Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environ Resour Econ 23:421–446
Bozdogan H (1987) Model selection and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC): the general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika 52:345–370
Bremner A, Park K (2007) Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biol Cons 139:306–314
Carlson AK, Vondracek B (2014) Synthesis of ecology and human dimensions for predictive management of bighead and silver carp in the United States. Rev Fish Sci Aquac 22:284–300
Carroll SP (2011) Conciliation biology: the eco-evolutionary management of permanently invaded biotic systems. Evol Appl 4:184–199
Chang W-Y, Lantz VA, MacLean DA (2009) Public attitudes about forest pest outbreaks and control: case studies in two Canadian provinces. For Ecol Manag 257:1333–1343
Cherry TL, Shogren JF, Frykblom P et al (2001) Valuing wildlife at risk from exotic invaders in Yellowstone Lake. The handbook of contingent valuation. Edward Elgar, Northampton, pp 307–323
Clout MN, Williams PA (2009) Invasive species management: a handbook of principles and techniques. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Courchamp F, Fournier A, Bellard C et al (2017) Invasion biology: specific problems and possible solutions. Trends Ecol Evol 32:13–22
Crosby AW (2015) Ecological imperialism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Crowley SL, Hinchliffe S, McDonald RA (2017a) Conflict in invasive species management. Front Ecol Environ 15:133–141
Crowley SL, Hinchliffe S, McDonald RA (2017b) Invasive species management will benefit from social impact assessment. J Appl Ecol 54:351–357
Domencich TA, McFadden D (1975) Urban travel demand—a behavioral analysis. North-Holland, Oxford
Dukes JS, Pontius J, Orwig D et al (2009) Responses of insect pests, pathogens, and invasive plant species to climate change in the forests of northeastern North America: What can we predict? This article is one of a selection of papers from NE Forests 2100: a synthesis of climate change impacts on forests of the Northeastern US and Eastern Canada. Can J For Res 39:231–248
European Commission (2015) Public opinion in the European Union. Stand Eurobarom 83(2015):220
Fischer AP, Charnley S (2012) Private forest owners and invasive plants: risk perception and management. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 5:375–389
Flint CG (2006) Community perspectives on spruce beetle impacts on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. For Ecol Manag 227:207–218
Ford-Thompson AES, Snell C, Saunders G et al (2015) Dimensions of local public attitudes towards invasive species management in protected areas. Wildl Res 42:60–74
Fuller L, Marzano M, Peace A et al (2016) Public acceptance of tree health management: results of a national survey in the UK. Environ Sci Policy 59:18–25
García-Llorente M, Martín-López B, González JA et al (2008) Social perceptions of the impacts and benefits of invasive alien species: implications for management. Biol Cons 141:2969–2983
García-Llorente M, Martín-López B, Nunes PA et al (2011) Analyzing the social factors that influence willingness to pay for invasive alien species management under two different strategies: eradication and prevention. Environ Manag 48:418–435
Hair JF (2010) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Hanley N, Mourato S, Wright RE (2001) Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? J Econ Surv 15:435–462
Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH (2005) Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press, New York
Hole AR (2007) A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Econ 16:827–840
Hufbauer RA, Facon B, Ravigné V et al (2012) Anthropogenically induced adaptation to invade (AIAI): contemporary adaptation to human-altered habitats within the native range can promote invasions. Evol Appl 5:89–101
Hulme PE, Pyšek P, Jarošík V et al (2013) Bias and error in understanding plant invasion impacts. Trends Ecol Evol 28:212–218
Jäger H, Kowarik I, Tye A (2009) Destruction without extinction: long-term impacts of an invasive tree species on Galápagos highland vegetation. J Ecol 97:1252–1263
Jeschke JM, Bacher S, Blackburn TM et al (2014) Defining the impact of non-native species. Conserv Biol 28:1188–1194
Jetter K, Paine TD (2004) Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for biological control in the urban landscape. Biol Control 30:312–322
Keller RP, Geist J, Jeschke JM et al (2011) Invasive species in Europe: ecology, status, and policy. Environ Sci Europe 23:23
Koo WW, Mattson JW (2004) Economics of detection and control of invasive species: workshop highlights. North Dakota State University, Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies
Kus Veenvliet J, Jogan N (2014) Awareness raising on alien species in Slovenia. EPPO Bull 44:243–247
Lancaster KJ (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 74:132–157
Lederach J (2015) Little book of conflict transformation: clear articulation of the guiding principles by a pioneer in the field. Skyhorse Publishing Inc, New York
Lindemann-Matthies P (2016) Beasts or beauties? Laypersons’ perception of invasive alien plant species in Switzerland and attitudes towards their management. NeoBiota 29:15–33
Liu S, Hurley M, Lowell KE et al (2011) An integrated decision-support approach in prioritizing risks of non-indigenous species in the face of high uncertainty. Ecol Econ 70:1924–1930
Lockwood JL, Hoopes MF, Marchetti MP (2013) Invasion ecology. Wiley, New York
Luce RD (1959) Individual choice behavior: a theoretical analysis. Wiley, New York
Mackenzie BF, Larson BMH (2010) Participation under time constraints: landowner perceptions of rapid response to the emerald ash borer. Soc Nat Resour 23:1013–1022
Madden F, McQuinn B (2014) Conservation’s blind spot: the case for conflict transformation in wildlife conservation. Biol Cons 178:97–106
Marzano M, Dandy N, Bayliss HR et al (2015) Part of the solution? Stakeholder awareness, information and engagement in tree health issues. Biol Invasions 17:1961–1977
Marzano M, Allen W, Haight RG et al (2017) The role of the social sciences and economics in understanding and informing tree biosecurity policy and planning: a global summary and synthesis. Biol Invasions 19:3317–3332
McDermott SM, Irwin RE, Taylor BW (2013) Using economic instruments to develop effective management of invasive species: insights from a bioeconomic model. Ecol Appl 23:1086–1100
McFadden D (1973) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New York, pp 105–142
Menard S (2010) Logistic regression: from introductory to advanced concepts and applications. Sage, London
Meyerson LA, Mooney HA (2007) Invasive alien species in an era of globalization. Front Ecol Environ 5:199–208
Milon JW, Scrogin D (2006) Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration. Ecol Econ 56:162–175
Mooney HA (2005) Invasive alien species: a new synthesis. Island Press, Washington
Nanayakkara L, Jurdi-Hage R, Leavitt PR et al (2018) In lakes but not in minds: stakeholder knowledge of invasive species in prairie lakes. Biol Invasions 20:633–652
Nimmo DG, Miller KK (2007) Ecological and human dimensions of management of feral horses in Australia: a review. Wildl Res 34:408–417
NLOGIT5 (2012) 5th ed. Econometric Software, Inc., New York
Novoa A, Shackleton R, Canavan S et al (2018) A framework for engaging stakeholders on the management of alien species. J Environ Manag 205:286–297
Owens S (2000) ‘Engaging the public’: information and deliberation in environmental policy. Environ Plan A 32:1141–1148
Perrings C, Williamson M, Barbier EB et al (2002) Biological invasion risks and the public good: an economic perspective. Conserv Ecol 6
Perrings C, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Touza J et al (2005) How to manage biological invasions under globalization. Trends Ecol Evol 20:212–215
Philip LJ, MacMillan DC (2005) Exploring values, context and perceptions in contingent valuation studies: the CV market stall technique and willingness to pay for wildlife conservation. J Environ Plan Manag 48:257–274
Pimentel D (2002) Biological invasions: economic and environmental costs of alien plant animal, and microbe species. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Pimentel D, Lach L, Zuniga R et al (2000) Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50:53–65
Porth EF, Dandy N, Marzano M (2015) “My garden is the one with no trees:” residential lived experiences of the 2012 Asian Longhorn Beetle Eradication Programme in Kent, England. Hum Ecol 43:669–679
Ridder B (2007) An exploration of the value of naturalness and wild nature. J Agric Environ Ethics 20:195–213
Robinson BS, Inger R, Gaston KJ (2017) Drivers of risk perceptions about the invasive non-native plant Japanese knotweed in domestic gardens. Biol Invasions 19:2927–2940
Rolfe J, Windle J (2014) Public preferences for controlling an invasive species in public and private spaces. Land Use Policy 41:1–10
Scarpa R, Thiene M (2005) Destination choice models for rock climbing in the Northeastern Alps: a latent-class approach based on intensity of preferences. Land Econ 81:426–444
Schwarz G (1978) Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 6:461–464
Shackleton CM, Shackleton RT (2016) Knowledge, perceptions and willingness to control designated invasive tree species in urban household gardens in South Africa. Biol Invasions 18:1599–1609
Shackleton SE, Shackleton RT (2018) Local knowledge regarding ecosystem services and disservices from invasive alien plants in the arid Kalahari, South Africa. J Arid Environ 159:22–33
Shackleton CM, McGarry D, Fourie S et al (2007) Assessing the effects of invasive alien species on rural livelihoods: case examples and a framework from South Africa. Hum Ecol 35:113–127
Shackleton RT, Richardson DM, Shackleton CM et al (2019a) Explaining people’s perceptions of invasive alien species: a conceptual framework. J Environ Manag 229:10–26
Shackleton RT, Shackleton CM, Kull CA (2019b) The role of invasive alien species in shaping local livelihoods and human well-being: a review. J Environ Manag 229:145–157
Sharp RL, Larson LR, Green GT (2011) Factors influencing public preferences for invasive alien species management. Biol Cons 144:2097–2104
Shrestha BB, Shrestha UB, Sharma KP et al (2019) Community perception and prioritization of invasive alien plants in Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape, Nepal. J Environ Manag 229:38–47
Simberloff D, Martin J-L, Genovesi P et al (2013) Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol Evol 28:58–66
SPSS (2008) SPSS statistics for windows, Version 17.0. SPSS Inc., Chicago
Subroy V, Rogers AA, Kragt ME (2018) To bait or not to bait: a discrete choice experiment on public preferences for native wildlife and conservation management in Western Australia. Ecol Econ 147:114–122
Swait J (1994) A structural equation model of latent segmentation and product choice for cross-sectional revealed preference choice data. J Retail Consum Serv 1:77–89
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2007) Using multivariate statistics. Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education, Boston
Taylor BW, Irwin RE (2004) Linking economic activities to the distribution of exotic plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci 101:17725–17730
Temple SA (1990) The nasty necessity: eradicating exotics. Conserv Biol 4:113–115
Vaz AS, Kueffer C, Kull CA et al (2017) Integrating ecosystem services and disservices: insights from plant invasions. Ecosyst Serv 23:94–107
Veblen TT, Mermoz M, Martin C et al (1992) Ecological impacts of introduced animals in Nahuel Huapi national park, Argentina. Conserv Biol 6:71–83
Verbrugge LN, Van den Born RJ, Lenders HR (2013) Exploring public perception of non-native species from a visions of nature perspective. Environ Manag 52:1562–1573
Vilà M, Espinar JL, Hejda M et al (2011) Ecological impacts of invasive alien plants: a meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems. Ecol Lett 14:702–708
Walther G-R, Roques A, Hulme PE et al (2009) Alien species in a warmer world: risks and opportunities. Trends Ecol Evol 24:686–693
White PCL, Ward AI (2010) Interdisciplinary approaches for the management of existing and emerging human–wildlife conflicts. Wildl Res 37:623–629
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by LIFE ARTEMIS (LIFE15 GIE/SI/000770).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1: The extended version of the questionnaire (the basic version had no discrete choice experiment part)
Appendix 2: Questions 1–8 comprising the first four parts of the questionnaire with basic descriptive statistics and statistical method used in the analysis of associated responses
Questionnaire part | Question (numbered) | Descriptive statistics | Statistical methods used in analysis | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
General awareness of IAS-related problems | 1. Have you already heard of the term IAS? | 76% (yes); 24% (no) | Binomial logistic regression | |||
2. Do you think IAS pose a problem? | 83% (yes); 17% (no) | |||||
Support for establishing an EWRR and willingness to act | 3. Do you support the establishment of an EWRR? | 97% (yes); 3% (no) | ||||
4. If IAS appeared on your land, would you be willing to remove it? | 96% (yes); 4% (no) | |||||
5. Would you be willing to report the finding of an IAS to the relevant institution? | 89% (yes); 11% (no) | |||||
Awareness of IAS and the layperson’s recognition | 6. Which IAS have you heard of? | Exploratory factor analysis (extraction by principal component analysis) and Binomial logistic regression | ||||
Chestnut gall wasp (Dryocosmus kuriphilus) | 47% (yes); 53% (no) | |||||
Western conifer seed bug (Leptoglossus occidentalis) | 9% (yes); 91% (no) | |||||
Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) | 47% (yes); 53% (no) | |||||
Goldenrods (Solidago spp.) | 49% (yes); 51% (no) | |||||
Eutypella canker (Eutypella parasitica) | 24% (yes); 76% (no) | |||||
Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) | 11% (yes); 89% (no) | |||||
Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) | 68% (yes); 32% (no) | |||||
Chalara ash dieback (Hymenoscyphus fraxineus) | 44% (yes); 56% (no) | |||||
7. Which IAS is in the photo? | ||||||
Chestnut gall wasp (Dryocosmus kuriphilus) | 35% (correct) | |||||
Western conifer seed bug (Leptoglossus occidentalis) | 35% (correct) | |||||
Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) | 17% (correct) | |||||
Goldenrods (Solidago spp.) | 36% (correct) | |||||
Eutypella canker (Eutypella parasitica) | 22% (correct) | |||||
Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) | 13% (correct) | |||||
Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) | 43% (correct) | |||||
Chalara ash dieback (Hymenoscyphus fraxineus) | 18% (correct) | |||||
Support for IAS-related management measures | 8. How strongly do you support different measures of control of IAS? | Do not | Partially | Mostly | Fully | Exploratory factor analysis (extraction by principal component analysis) and Cumulative ordinal logistic regression |
Using poison—animals | 52% | 29% | 12% | 6% | ||
Lethal injection—animals | 41% | 29% | 18% | 12% | ||
Hunting—animals | 19% | 34% | 29% | 19% | ||
Sterilization—animals | 8% | 19% | 34% | 39% | ||
Insecticides—animals | 31% | 33% | 22% | 14% | ||
Shooting—animals | 40% | 33% | 16% | 11% | ||
Transfer into shelters—animals | 18% | 27% | 28% | 26% | ||
Mowing/cutting—plants | 4% | 19% | 16% | 62% | ||
Excavation—plants | 2% | 16% | 11% | 71% | ||
Herbicides—plants | 37% | 20% | 27% | 18% | ||
Natural enemies—plants | 11% | 20% | 27% | 42% |
Appendix 3: Results of factor analysis (extraction by principal component analysis) for questions 6–8
Appendix 4: Theoretical framework of the choice experiment
Lancaster’s consumer theory (Lancaster 1966) provides grounding to the choice experiment technique by establishing that the utility of a good can be broken down into the utilities of its individual attributes. Furthermore, the random utility model (RUM) derived from the work of (Luce 1959) and (McFadden 1973) provides a basis for empirical modelling of respondents’ choices, indicating trade-offs among the attributes of the assessed good (Bateman et al. 2002; Hanley et al. 2001). Accordingly, the goods being investigated are described by bundles of attributes. Levels (quantitative or qualitative values) of those attributes can be varied, and by doing so, different combinations of attribute levels can be generated and grouped into so-called alternatives. Each respondent is presented with a set of alternatives, commonly organized into several consecutive choice sets, and asked to pick the ones he/she likes best (i.e. maximizes his/her utility) from each choice set. This is done via various survey formats. One of the alternatives in each choice set usually presents the current situation indicating a ‘scenario’ without any changes, which is commonly referred to as a business-as-usual (BAU) alternative. Other alternatives represent situations where the attribute levels are changed due to some hypothetical actions which we wish to investigate. Each alternative also has an additional cost attribute indicating the hypothetical amount of money needed to be allocated for implementing the changes of the attributes. Obviously, the BAU alternative has zero cost assigned. A respondent selecting among alternatives is implicitly making trade-offs between the levels of attributes across alternatives (Hensher et al. 2005). Having a cost attribute makes it possible to calculate the marginal values of the changes in attribute levels.
Empirical analysis of choices grounds on RUM, which states that utility U obtained by respondent i by choosing an alternative \(j \left( {j = 1, \ldots ,I} \right)\) and conditioned on being in class c can be modelled as a function (indirect utility function) of a deterministic component V, which can be observed by the researcher and related to attributes, and of a random component ε. The latter is an error term comprising non-observable features that affect choices of respondents and is of a type 1 extreme distribution:
where x is the vector of observed attributes, β is a parameter vector (Boxall and Adamowicz 2002).
The deterministic part of utility \(V_{ij|c}\) can be divided into two parts, one related to a respondent’s specific characteristics, such as socio-demographic characteristics, perceptions, attitudes etc., and the other two choices of alternatives with respect to levels of the attributes (Boxall and Adamowicz 2002; Swait 1994). The probability of respondent i choosing alternative j conditional on being in class c is:
where zi is a vector of respondent-specific characteristics and \(\theta_{c}^{\prime }\) are class-specific coefficients to be estimated. The first part of the right-hand side is the probability of a respondent being in class c, while the second part is the probability of choosing alternative j conditioned on membership in class c.
\(\theta_{c}^{\prime }\) and \(\beta_{c}^{\prime }\) in the LCLM are jointly estimated by employing the maximum likelihood estimation and are subsequently used to explain respondent choices. The number of classes needs to be determined prior to model estimation, which can be done through different approaches. Setting the number of classes is not straightforward, as there is no precise approach for choosing the optimal number of classes (Milon and Scrogin 2006). Some authors (Boxall and Adamowicz 2002; Scarpa and Thiene 2005) recommend using statistical information criteria such as Bayesian information criteria (BIC) (Schwarz 1978) and Bozdogan-Akaike information criteria (AIC3) (Bozdogan 1987) and also recommend accounting for the plausibility (signs of the parameters and their significance) of the results and the size of classes.
Appendix 5: A representative choice set
Appendix 6: Numerical estimation results of binomial and ordinal regression of questions 1–8
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Japelj, A., Kus Veenvliet, J., Malovrh, J. et al. Public preferences for the management of different invasive alien forest taxa. Biol Invasions 21, 3349–3382 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-02052-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-02052-3