Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-hxdxx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T22:16:27.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neither the public nor experts judge species primarily on their origins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2015

RENÉ VAN DER WAL ,
ANKE FISCHER ,
SEBASTIAN SELGE  and
BRENDON M. H. LARSON
RENÉ VAN DER WAL*
Affiliation:
Aberdeen Centre for Environmental Sustainability (ACES), University of Aberdeen, School of Biological Sciences, Aberdeen AB24 3UU, UK
ANKE FISCHER
Affiliation:
Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences Group, James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK
SEBASTIAN SELGE
Affiliation:
Aberdeen Centre for Environmental Sustainability (ACES), University of Aberdeen, School of Biological Sciences, Aberdeen AB24 3UU, UK Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences Group, James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK Present address: Institute for Psychology, Otto-von-Guericke-University, Magdeburg, D-39106, Germany
BRENDON M. H. LARSON
Affiliation:
Department of Environment and Resource Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L3G1, Canada
*
*Correspondence: René van der Wal Tel : +44 1224 272256 e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In contemporary environmental conservation, species are judged in terms of their origin (‘nativeness’), as well as their behaviour and impacts (‘invasiveness’). In many instances, however, the term ‘non-native’ has been used as a proxy for harmfulness, implying the need for control. Some scientists have attempted to discourage this practice, on the grounds that it is inappropriate and counterproductive to judge species on their origin alone. However, to date, no empirical data exist on the degree to which nativeness in itself (that is, a species’ origin) shapes people's attitudes towards management interventions in practice. This study addresses this void, demonstrating empirically that both the public and invasive species professionals largely ignore a species’ origin when evaluating the need for conservation action. Through a questionnaire-based survey of the general public and invasive species experts in both Scotland and Canada, the study revealed that perceived abundance and damage to nature and the economy, rather than non-nativeness, informed attitudes towards species management, empirically substantiating the claim that a species’ perceived abundance and impact, and not its origin, is what really matters to most people. Natural resource management should thus focus explicitly on impact-related criteria, rather than on a species’ origin.

Keywords

attitudesimpact on economyimpact on natureinvasive speciesmanagementnon-nativeoriginprofessionalspublic
Type
Report
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 42 , Issue 4: Thematic section: Tradable Rights in Conservation , December 2015 , pp. 349 - 355
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arts, K., Fischer, A. & Van der Wal, R. (2012) Common stories of reintroduction: a discourse analysis of documents supporting animal reintroductions to Scotland. Land Use Policy 29: 911–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremner, A. & Park, K. (2007) Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biological Conservation 139: 306–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chew, M.K. & Hamilton, A.H. (2011) The rise and fall of biotic nativeness: a historical perspective. In: Fifty Years of Invasion Ecology, ed. Richardson, D.M., pp. 35–47. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Davis, M.A., Chew, M.K., Hobbs, R.J., Lugo, A.E., Ewel, J.J., Vermeij, G.J., Brown, J.H., Rosenzweig, M.L., Gardener, M.R., Carroll, S.P. et al. (2011) Don't judge species on their origins. Nature 474: 153–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, M.A. (2009) Invasion Biology. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DEFRA (2008) The invasive non-native species framework strategy for Great Britain. Report. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK Government, London, UK.Google Scholar
Environment Canada (2004) An invasive alien species strategy for Canada. Report. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
Fischer, A., Bednar-Friedl, B., Langers, F., Geamana, N., Skogen, K. & Dumortier, M. (2011) Universal criteria for species conservation priorities? Findings from a survey of public views across Europe. Biological Conservation 144: 998–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, A., Selge, S., Van der Wal, R. & Larson, B.M.H. (2014) The public and professionals reason similarly about the management of non-native invasive species: a quantitative investigation of the relationship between beliefs and attitudes. PLoS ONE 9 (8): e105495. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0105495 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Head, L. (2012) Decentring 1788: beyond biotic nativeness. Geographical Research 50: 166–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulme, P.E. (2009) Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humair, F, Edwards, P.J., Siegrist, M. & Kueffer, C. (2014) Understanding misunderstandings in invasion science: why experts don't agree on common concepts and risk assessments. Neobiota 20: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MA (2005) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Scenarios. Volume 2. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Meyerson, L.A. & Mooney, H.A. (2007) Invasive alien species in an era of globalization. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, C.A. (2002) Ranking the benefits of biodiversity: an exploration of relative values. Journal of Environmental Management 65: 313–326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paolucci, E.M., MacIsaac, H.J. & Ricciardi, A. (2013) Origin matters: alien consumers inflict greater damage on prey populations than do native consumers. Diversity and Distributions 19: 988–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pysek, P. & Richardson, D.M. (2010) Invasive species, environmental change and management, and health. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 35: 25–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, D.M. & Ricciardi, A. (2013) Misleading critisisms of invasion science: a field guide. Diversity and Distributions 19: 1461–1467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sala, O.E., Chapin, F.S.III, Armesto, J.J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., Huber-Sanwald, E., Huenneke, L.F., Jackson, R.B., Kinzig, A. et al. (2000) Biodiversity. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287: 1770–1774.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salo, P., Korpimäki, E., Banks, P.B., Nordström, M. & Dickman, C.R. (2007) Alien predators are more dangerous than native predators to prey populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 274: 1237–1243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schlaepfer, M.A., Sax, D.F. & Olden, J.D. (2011) The potential conservation value of non-native species. Conservation Biology 25: 428–437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Selge, S., Fischer, A. & Van der Wal, R. (2011) Public and professional views on invasive non-native species. A qualitative social scientific investigation. Biological Conservation 144: 3089–3097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shine, C., Kettunen, M., Genovesi, P., Essl, F., Gollasch, S., Rabitsch, W., Scalera, R., Starfinger, U. & Ten Brink, P. (2010) Assessment to support continued development of the EU Strategy to combat invasive alien species. Report. Institute for European Environmental Policy, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D., Souza, L., Nunez, M.A., Barrios-Garcia, M.N. & Bunn, W. (2012) The natives are restless, but not often and mostly when disturbed. Ecology 93: 598–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simberloff, D., Martin, J.L., Genovesi, P., Maris, V., Wardle, D.A., Aronson, J., Courchamp, F., Galil, B., Garcia-Berthou, E., Pascal, M., Pysek, P., Sousa, R., Tabacchi, E. & Vila, M. (2013) Impacts of biological invasions: what's what and the way forward. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 28: 58–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simberloff, D. (2011) Non-natives: 141 scientists object. Nature 475: 36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Urgenson, L.S., Prozesky, H.E. & Esler, K.J. (2013) Stakeholder perceptions of an ecosystem services approach to clearing invasive alien plants on private land. Ecology and Society 18: 26. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05259-180126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valéry, L., Fritz, H. & Lefeuvre, J.-C. (2013) Another call for the end of invasion biology. Oikos 122: 1143–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbrugge, L.N.H., Van den Born, R.J.G. & Lenders, H.J.R. (2013) Exploring public perception of non-native species from a visions of nature perspective. Environmental Management 52: 1562–1573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warren, C.R. (2007) Perspectives on the 'alien' versus 'native' species debate: a critique of concepts, language and practice. Progress in Human Geography 31: 427–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, A. & Larson, B.M.H. (2012) Clarifying debates in invasion biology: a survey of invasion biologists. Environmental Research 111: 893–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Van Der Wal supplementary material

Table S1

Download Van Der Wal supplementary material(File)
File 15.6 KB