Less than half of the general public can name an invasive alien species occurring in their country, and public support for measures to manage invasive species is generally low. This is the conclusion of a survey of more than 20,000 people in 54 countries across the world, recently published under the leadership of Ana Novoa and Ross Shackleton in the journal iScience. The study also reveals that people who are aware of the issue of biological invasions tend to perceive invasive alien species more negatively and are more supportive of their control or eradication. Below I summarise and comment on this study, before using the blog to thank Ross Shackleton for a fruitful decade of collaboration.
Invasive alien species can drive biodiversity loss and may have substantial ecological, economic and societal impacts. Deciding what to do with them, and acting on those decisions, depends not only on scientific knowledge and effective practices, but also on public acceptance. To obtain a global picture of public knowledge, Ana and Ross put together an international team of researchers and carried out a standardized survey in 23 languages. Participants were asked whether they could name invasive alien species present in their country, how they perceived invasive species, and whether they would support different management measures.
People collectively mentioned 225 different invasive alien taxa. Most often named worldwide were mosquitoes, rats and water hyacinth. Older respondents and those with higher levels of education were more likely to name invasive alien species. People living in large cities also tended to have greater awareness than those from smaller towns or rural areas.
The study also revealed a consistent relationship between awareness, perceptions and attitudes towards what the paper calls ‘management’. (This is the standard term in the field of invasion science for things like prevention, control, and eradication; I don’t particularly like it because it presumes that invasives are negative – ‘management’ after all could theoretically also include introduction, propagation, and ‘living with‘). Respondents who could name at least one invasive were more likely to perceive invasives negatively. Awareness and negative perceptions were, in turn, associated with greater support for ‘management’ measures. Yet overall, most of the management measures considered in the survey were supported by fewer than half of respondents. Control of vertebrates (as opposed to plants and insects) was particularly unpopular. This may partly reflect the greater emotional appeal attached to some vertebrates, especially mammals.
It is easy to take from the article the message that we need more awareness-raising so that there is more public support for invasive species control measures. As Ross stated in an interview, “The answer is not simply to tell people that alien species are ‘bad’. Communication needs to explain which species cause problems, what those problems are, why particular management actions are proposed, and what the alternatives may be”. Fair enough. But that is based on a problematic model where scientists hold the right knowledge, and are blocked by popular ignorance, and people simply need to be made aware in order to support the right actions. I would suggest that reality is more complex. One line in the paper hints at this: “we may need to increasingly acknowledge the more nuanced cultural perspectives of IAS rather than them just being ‘good’ or ‘bad’“. Yes, some important invasion issues are invisible to the average person. However, sometimes people will have different priorities, or different values, that might produce different forms of knowledge about invasives, use different terms and categories, and prioritise other actions.
Thank you Ross
The research behind the paper was in part funded by a ‘Matterhorn Grant’ obtained by Ross when he was lecturer here at the University of Lausanne. Ross brought a tremendous energy to his work here, whether it was in diverse collaborative research efforts, in running classes on environmental livelihoods, or accompanying students on an annual fieldwork camp. When he left to take up a post at the Swiss Federal Research Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSL), I delayed making a ‘goodbye’ blog posting (as I do for my doctoral team members) as we had several collaborative papers en route that I wanted to include. And time passed, and I realised that we still weren’t finished. So, thank you Ross for your inspiration and collaborations over the years, may they continue long into the future!
References
- Shackleton, RT, BMH Larson, A Novoa, DM Richardson & CA Kull (2019) The human and social dimensions of invasion science and management. Journal of Environmental Management 229:1–9. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.041.
- Shackleton, RT, DM Richardson, CM Shackleton, B Bennett, SL Crowley, K Dehnen-Schmutz, RA Estévez, A Fischer, C Kueffer, CA Kull, E Marchante, A Novoa, LJ Potgieter, J Vaas, AS Vaz & BMH Larson (2019) Explaining people’s perceptions of invasive alien species: A conceptual framework. Journal of Environmental Management 229:10–26. .
- Shackleton, RT, CM Shackleton & CA Kull (2019) The role of invasive alien species in shaping local livelihoods and human well-being: A review. Journal of Environmental Management 229:145–157. .
- Shackleton, RT, A Novoa, CM Shackleton & CA Kull (2020) The social dimensions of biological invasions in South Africa. In Biological Invasions in South Africa, edited by van Wilgen, BW, J Measey, DM Richardson, JR Wilson & TA Zengeya: Springer, 701–729.
- Shackleton, RT, B Petitpierre, M Pajkovic, F Dessimoz, O Brönnimann, L Cattin, Š Čejková, CA Kull, J Pergl, P Pyšek, N Yoccoz & A Guisan (2020) Integrated Methods for Monitoring the Invasive Potential and Management of Heracleum mantegazzianum (giant hogweed) in Switzerland. Environmental Management 65:829–842. .
- Wood, LE, MZ Andriamahefazafy, J Guilder, CA Kull & RT Shackleton (2021) Lake users’ perceptions of environmental change and the ecosystem services and disservices of aquatic plants. Water 11 (13):1459.
- Shackleton, RT, G Vimercati, AF Probert, S Bacher, CA Kull & A Novoa (2022) Consensus and controversy in the discipline of invasion science. Conservation Biology 36 (5):e13931. .
- Kull, CA, VHT Nguyen, R Cochard, DT Ngo, TTP Pham, RT Shackleton, CQ Tran & TN Tran (2023) New forests and new forest people in central Vietnam: the acacia boom. In Wattles – Australian Acacia species around the world, edited by Richardson, DM, JJ Le Roux & E Marchante. Wallingford UK: CABI, 399–415.
- Shackleton, RT, G Walters, J Bluwstein, H Djoudi, L Fritz, F Lafaye de Micheaux, T Loloum, VTH Nguyen, SS Sithole, MR Andriamahefazafy & CA Kull (2023) Navigating power in conservation. Conservation Science and Practice 5 (3):e12877.
- Shackleton, RT, LR Fritz & CA Kull (2024) Power. In Elgar Encyclopedia of Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity, edited by Darbellay, F. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 394–398.
- Novoa, A, R Shackleton, S Bacher, P Pipek, R Chaichana, A El-Keblawy, B Galil, M Gioria, M Golivets, T D’Hertefeldt, M Ikegami, I Jarić, CA Kull, NP Mohanty, Z Pattison, A Pauchard, J Pergl, C Preda, K Pyšková, J Rodríguez, K Štajerová, T Hai van Nguyen, A Yazlık, RD Zenni & P Pyšek (2026) Limited global awareness of invasive alien species and little support for their management. iScience 29 (11).
Credit: Parts of the blog are a condensed version of a press release prepared by Ana Novoa.
