Factors influencing public preferences for invasive alien species management

• Published in: Biological conservation 2011-08, Vol.144 (8), p.2097-2104
• Main Authors: Sharp, Ryan L., Larson, Lincoln R., Green, Gary T.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animal, plant and microbial ecology; Applied ecology; attitudes and opinions; biodiversity; Biological and medical sciences; cluster analysis; Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife; Cumberland Island; ecological invasion; ecosystems; Environmental attitudes; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; General aspects; Horses; humans; Invasive species; islands; National Parks; parks; Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking; Potential for Conflict Index; prediction; regression analysis; stakeholders
• ISSN: 0006-3207; 1873-2917
• DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.04.032

► We identify factors influencing public preferences for invasive species management. ► Identifying public attributes may reduce conflict over invasive species management. ► On-site control of invasive species is the most acceptable management response. ► We developed a means of assessing knowledge of and attitudes toward invasive species. ► We developed a means of evaluating support for management of invasive species. Invasive species research has traditionally focused on the ecological aspects of invasions and their threats to biodiversity. Few studies have incorporated social dimensions of invasive alien species (IAS) management. In this study, we surveyed visitors ( N = 1166) to Cumberland Island National Seashore, GA, USA, to measure their knowledge of, attitudes toward, and preferences for various IAS management options. Multinomial logistic regression, two-step cluster analysis, and the Potential for Conflict Index were used to determine factors that predict support for IAS control, identify subgroups of visitors with unique management preferences, and evaluate the level of consensus among these distinct groups. Results showed that, although knowledge and perceived threat scores were related to management preferences, environmental attitude orientations were the best indicators of support for IAS control. Absolute ecocentric visitors (typically younger, less educated individuals with less experience in parks) believed that all living things have a right to coexist without disruption and favored a hands-off management approach. Adaptive ecocentric visitors (typically older, more educated individuals with more experience in parks) believed that some degree of human interference is necessary to maintain ecosystem integrity and favored hands-on management. Despite these different perspectives, adaptive on-site control of invasive species was viewed as the most acceptable and least controversial management option across all visitor subgroups. This study may inform IAS management practices by providing a framework for identifying stakeholder characteristics and synthesizing public preferences to minimize conflict and highlight ecologically beneficial and socially acceptable outcomes.