Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T00:18:16.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing Stakeholder Perspectives on Invasive Plants to Inform Risk Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Emily J. Kapler ,
Janette R. Thompson  and
Mark P. Widrlechner
Emily J. Kapler
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
Janette R. Thompson*
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
Mark P. Widrlechner
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Horticulturist (North Central Regional Plant Introduction Station, retired) Departments of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology and Horticulture, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conservation and land management decisions often are based primarily on natural science, but could be more successful if human influences were effectively integrated into decision making. This is especially true for efforts to manage invasive plants, whose arrival is usually the product of deliberate human introduction. Risk-assessment models that predict the probability that a nonnative plant will naturalize or invade are useful tools for managing invasive plants. However, decisions based on such models could affect stakeholders differently. Careful assessment of risk-analysis methodologies should consider the importance of stakeholder participation. We surveyed the perceptions of four stakeholder groups (conservation professionals, master gardeners, professional horticulturists, and woodland landowners) in Iowa about invasive plants, general management approaches, and risk-assessment models. We also examined whether or not a stakeholder's nature relatedness plays a role in shaping his or her responses. Stakeholder perceptions varied less than expected across all four groups. Eighty-seven percent of respondents agreed invasive plants are a problem, and 88.4% agreed that we have a responsibility to manage them to protect natural areas. Support for the use of risk-assessment models also was high, with 78.7% of respondents agreeing that their use has potential to prevent plant invasions. Nature relatedness scores for all groups were correlated with respondent perspectives on invasive plants. Respondents believed biologically significant error rates (errors that might introduce a new invasive plant) should not exceed 5 to 10%. Respondents were more tolerant of horticulturally limiting errors (errors that restrict sale/use of a plant that would not have become invasive), reporting rates of 10 to 20% as acceptable. Researchers developing risk-assessment models might wish to aim for error rates within these bounds. General agreement among these stakeholder groups suggests potential support for future risk-management efforts related to invasive plants.

Keywords

Nature relatednessinvasive awarenessrisk-assessment modelssurvey
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 194 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

Andreu, J., Vilá, M., and Hulme, P. E. 2009. An assessment of stakeholder perceptions and management of noxious alien plants in Spain. Environ. Manag. 43:1244–1255.Google Scholar
Bardsley, D. and Edwards-Jones, G. 2006. Stakeholders' perceptions of the impacts of invasive exotic plant species in the Mediterranean region. GeoJournal 65:199–210.Google Scholar
Bremer, A. and Park, K. 2007. Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biol. Conserv. 139:306–314.Google Scholar
Brooks, M. L., D'Antonio, C. M., Richardson, D. M., Grace, J. B., Keeley, J. E., DiTomaso, J. M., Hobbs, R. J., Pellant, M., and Pyke, D. 2004. Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience 54:677–688.Google Scholar
Burt, J. W., Muir, A. A., Piovia-Scott, J., Veblen, K. E., Chang, A. L., Grossman, J. D., and Weiskel, H. W. 2007. Preventing horticultural introductions of invasive plants: potential efficacy of voluntary initiatives. Biol. Invasions 9:909–923.Google Scholar
Colton, T. F. and Alpert, P. 1998. Lack of public awareness of biological invasions by plants. Nat. Areas J. 18:262–266.Google Scholar
Daab, M. T. and Flint, C. G. 2010. Public reaction to invasive plant species in a disturbed Colorado landscape. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 3:390–401.Google Scholar
Daehler, C. D., Denslow, J. S., Ansari, S., and Kuo, H. 2004. A risk-assessment system for screening out invasive pest plants from Hawaii and other Pacific Islands. Conserv. Biol. 18:360–368.Google Scholar
Diamond, P. and Hausman, J. 1994. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? J. Econ. Perspect. 8:45–64.Google Scholar
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., and Jones, R. E. 2000. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 56:425–442.Google Scholar
Ehrenfeld, J. G. 2003. Effects of exotic plant invasions on soil nutrient cycling processes. Ecosystems 6:503–523.Google Scholar
Ford, B. L. 1983. An overview of hot-deck procedures. Pages 185–207 in Madow, W. G., Olkin, I., and Rubin, D. B., eds. Incomplete Data in Sample Surveys. New York Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fox, A. M. and Gordon, D. R. 2009. Approaches for assessing the status of nonnative plants: a comparative analysis. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 2:166–184.Google Scholar
García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., González, J. A., Alcorlo, P., and Montes, C. 2008. Social perceptions of the impacts and benefits of invasive alien species: implications for management. Biol. Conserv. 141:2969–2983.Google Scholar
Gassó, N., Basnou, C., and Vilá, M. 2010. Predicting invaders in the Mediterranean through a weed risk assessment system. Biol. Invasions 12:463–476.Google Scholar
Genovesi, P. and Bertolino, S. 2001. Human dimension aspects in invasive alien species issues: the case of the failing of the grey squirrel eradication project in Italy. Pages 113–119 in McNeely, J. A., ed. The Great Reshuffling: Human Dimensions of Invasive Alien Species. Cambridge, UK International Union for the Conservation of Nature.Google Scholar
Gordon, D. R. and Gantz, C. A. 2008. Screening new plant introductions for potential invasiveness: a test of impacts for the United States. Conserv. Lett. 1:227–235.Google Scholar
Gordon, D. R., Onderdonk, D. A., Fox, A. M., and Stocker, R. K. 2008. Consistent accuracy of the Australian weed risk assessment system across varied geographies. Divers. Distrib. 14:234–242.Google Scholar
Hall, C. A. S., Jones, P. W., Donovan, T. M., and Gibbs, J. P. 2000. The implications of mainstream economics for wildlife conservation. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 28:16–25.Google Scholar
Hejda, M., Pyšek, P., and Jaroˇsík, V. 2009. Impact of invasive plants on species richness, diversity and composition of invaded communities. J. Ecol. 97:393–403.Google Scholar
Hulme, P. E. 2006. Beyond control: wider implications for the management of biological invasions. J. Appl. Ecol. 43:835–847.Google Scholar
Jefferson, L., Havens, K., and Ault, J. 2004. Implementing invasive screening procedures: the Chicago Botanic Garden model. Weed Technol. 18:1434–1440.Google Scholar
Kelley, K. M., Conklin, J. R., Sellmer, J. C., and Bates, R. M. 2006. Invasive plant species: results of a consumer awareness, knowledge, and expectations survey conducted in Pennsylvania. J. Environ. Hort. 24:53–58.Google Scholar
Mack, R. N. and Erneberg, M. 2002. The United States naturalized flora: largely the product of deliberate introductions. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 89:176–189.Google Scholar
Magness, V. 2003. Economic values and corporate financial statements. Environ. Manag. 32:1–11.Google Scholar
Mayer, F. S. and Frantz, C. M. 2004. The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 24:503–515.Google Scholar
Microsoft, . 2007. Microsoft Excel 2008 for Mac 12.1.0. Redmond, WA Microsoft Corporation.Google Scholar
National Research Council—Committee on Improving Risk Analysis Approaches used by the U.S. EPA. 2009. Science and decisions: Advancing risk assessment. Washington, DC National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., and Murphy, S. A. 2009. The nature relatedness scale: linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environ. Behav. 41:715–739.Google Scholar
Parker, C., Caton, B. P., and Fowler, L. 2007. Ranking nonindigenous weed species by their potential to invade the United States. Weed Sci. 55:386–397.Google Scholar
Peters, W. L., Meyer, M. H., and Anderson, N. O. 2006. Minnesota horticultural industry survey on invasive plants. Euphytica 148:75–86.Google Scholar
Pheloung, P. C., Williams, P. A., and Halloy, S. R. 1999. A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introduction. J. Environ. Manag. 57:239–251.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol. Econ. 52:273–288.Google Scholar
Ranney, T. G. 2006. Polyploidy: from evolution to new plant development. Combined Proceedings of the International Plant Propagators' Society 56:137–142.Google Scholar
Reichard, S. H. and Hamilton, C. W. 1997. Predicting invasions of woody plants introduced into North America. Conserv. Biol. 11:193–203.Google Scholar
Reichard, S. H. and White, P. 2001. Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant introductions. BioScience 5:103–113.Google Scholar
Roszak, T. 1992. The Voice of the Earth: An Exploration of Ecopsychology. Grand Rapids, MI Phanes Press Inc. 382 p.Google Scholar
SAS. 2009. JMP 8.0.2. Cary, NC SAS Institute, Inc.Google Scholar
Schultz, P. W. 2000. Empathizing with nature: the effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. J. Soc. Issues 56:391–406.Google Scholar
Schultz, P. W. 2001. The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J. Environ. Psychol. 21:327–339.Google Scholar
Steele, J., Chandran, R. S., Grafton, W. N., Huebner, C. D., and McGill, D. W. 2006. Awareness and management of invasive plants among West Virginia woodland owners. J. For. 104:248–253.Google Scholar
SurveyMonkey, . 2011. Palo Alto, CA SurveyMonkey, LLC. http://www.surveymonkey.com. Accessed: April 10, 2011.Google Scholar
Weber, J., Panetta, F. D., Virtue, J., and Pheloung, P. C. 2008. An analysis of assessment outcomes from eight years' operation of the Australian border weed risk assessment system. J. Environ. Manag. 90:798–807.Google Scholar
White, P. S. and Schwartz, A. E. 1998. Where do we go from here? The challenge of risk assessment for invasive plants. Weed Technol. 12:744–751.Google Scholar
Widrlechner, M. P., Thompson, J. R., Iles, J., and Dixon, P. M. 2004. Models for predicting the risk of naturalization of non-native woody plants in Iowa. J. Environ. Hort. 22:23–31.Google Scholar
Widrlechner, M. P., Thompson, J. R., Kapler, E. J., Kordecki, K., Dixon, P. M., and Gates, G. 2009. A test of four models to predict the risk of naturalization of non-native woody plants in the Chicago region. J. Environ. Hort. 27:241–250.Google Scholar
Winter, D. D. N. and Kroger, S. M. 2004. The Psychology of Environmental Problems, 2nd Edition. Mahwah, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 287 p.Google Scholar
Worthy, K. 2008. Modern institutions, phenomenal dissociations, and destructiveness towards humans and the environment. Organ. Environ. 21:148–170.Google Scholar