Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A multidimensional framework to inform stakeholder engagement in the science and management of invasive and pest animal species

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biological Invasions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Beyond measurement of the ecological and economic impacts of invasive species and pest control on conservation, agricultural productivity and ecosystem services, there are multiple social and human dimensions which influence how stakeholders perceive and respond to research and management strategies. Given the increasing global attention on interdisciplinarity to enhance conservation research and management outcomes, we present a multidimensional framework to inform stakeholder engagement which consolidates current social sciences contributions to invasion science. Beyond unpacking the multiple drivers for considering the social dimensions of knowledge, emotions, trust and risk, we identify the ethical considerations for including social perspectives in research planning and decision-making. The framework captures the multiple personal, individual, institutional and governance dimensions of invasive species control and demonstrates how these dimensions relate. The paper concludes by discussing the implications for invasion science, policy and practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For example, with the exception of the recent special edition on human and social dimensions of invasion science and management, published in the Journal of Environmental Management, Vol 229, pp. 1–192, there is a dearth of literature which connects invasion science with social science scholarship.

  2. We use Eilenberg et al., (2001) definition of biological control (or biocontrol) to refer to “the use of living organisms to suppress the population density or impact of a specific pest organism, making it less abundant of less damaging than it otherwise would be.” (Eilenberg et al., pg. 390).

References

  • Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behaviour. TheorCognitSelf Regulation 50(2):179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alhakami AS, Slovic P (1994) A psychological study of attitudes. Risk Anal 14:1085–1096

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beedell J, Rehman T (2000) Using social-psychology frameworks to understand farmers’ conservation behaviour. J Rural Stud 16(1):117–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Besley JC (2010) Public engagement and the impact of fairness perceptions on decision favorability and acceptance. SciCommun 32(2):256–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhm G, Pfister H (2008) Anticipated and experienced emotions in environmental risk perception Affective forecasting: The accuracy of anticipated emotions. JudgmDecisMak 3:73–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Boonman-Berson S, Turnhout E, van Tatenhove J (2014) Invasive species: the categorization of wildlife in science, policy and wildlife management. Land Use Policy 38:204–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Botterill, L. and Mazur, N. (2004) Risk and risk perception a literature review a report for the rural industries research and development corporation, RIRDC Publication

  • Bremner A, Park K (2007) Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biol Cons 139(3):306–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Brondum MC et al (2017) Selection of invasive wild pig countermeasures using multicriteria decision analysis. Sci Total Environ Elsevier B.V., 574:1164–1173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.155

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Broom, D. M. (1999). The welfare of vertebrate pests in relation to their management. In Advances in vertebrate pest management (pp. 309–329).

  • Carballo-Cárdenas EC (2015) Controversies and consensus on the lionfish invasion in the western Atlantic Ocean controversies and consensus on the lionfish invasion in the Western Atlantic. EcolSoc 20(3):24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07726-200324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catano CP et al (2014) Using scenario planning to evaluate the impacts of climate change on wildlife populations and communities in the Florida everglades. Environ Manage 55(4):807–823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0397-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini RB (1988) Influence: science and practice, 2nd edn. Scott, foresman, Glenview

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA (1990) A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J PersSocPsychol 58(6):1015–1026

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowley SL, Hinchcliffe S, McDonald RA (2017) Invasive species management will benefit from social impact assessment. J ApplEcol 54:351–357

    Google Scholar 

  • Delfosse ES (2005) Risk and ethics in biological control. Biol Control 35:319–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Doherty TS, Ritchie EG (2016) Stop jumping the gun: A call for evidence-based invasive predator management. ConservLett 10(1):15–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn M, Marzano M, Forster J, Gill RMA (2018) Public attitudes towards “pest” management: perceptions on squirrel management strategies in the UK. Biol Cons 222:52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.03.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunstan PK, Bax NJ (2008) Management of an invasive marine species: defining and testing the effectiveness of ballast-water management options using management strategy evaluation. ICES J Mar Sci 65(6):841–850. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsn069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman P (1992) An argument for basic emotions. CognEmot 6:169–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939208411068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eilenberg J, Hajek A, Lomer C (2001) Suggestions for unifying the terminology in biological control. Biocontrol 46:387–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Essl F, Hulme PE, Jeschke JM, Keller R, Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Saul W, Bacher S, Dullinger S, Estévez RE, Kueffer C, Roy HE, Seebans H, Rabitsch W (2016) Scientific and normative foundations for the valuation of alien-species impacts: thirteen core principles. Bioscience 67:166–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Estévez RA et al (2014) Clarifying values, risk perceptions and attitudes to resolve or avoid social conflicts in invasive species management. ConservBiol 29(1):19–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fielding K, Gardner J, Leviston Z, Price J (2015) Comparing public perceptions of alternative water sources for potable use: The case of rainwater, stormwater, desalinated water and recycled water. WaterResour Manage 29(12):4501–4518

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske ST, Taylor SE (1984) Social cognition. Addison-Wesley, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske ST, Dupree C (2014) Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. ProcNatlAcadSci USA 111:13593–13597

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, G., Fitzgerald, N., Davidson, C., (2007). Public attitudes towards invasive animals and their impacts. A summary and review of Australasian and selected international research. Invasive animals cooperative research centre, Canberra

  • Ford-Thompson AES, Snell C, Saunders G, White PCL (2015) Dimensions of local public attitudes towards invasive species management in protected areas. Wildlife Res 42(1):60–74. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR14122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser A (2006) Public attitudes to pest control: A literature review. Science and technical publishing, department of conservation, Wellington

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman TE, Charudattan R (1985) Conflicts in the use of plant pathogens as biocontrol agents for weeds. In: Delfosse ES (ed) Proc VI intsymbiol control of weeds agric Canada. Canadian govtpubl centre, Ottawa, pp 351–357

    Google Scholar 

  • Frewer LJ, Howard C, Shepherd R (1998) Development of a scale to assess attitudes towards technology. J Risk Res 1:221–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Frewer L (1999) Risk perception, social trust and public participation in strategic decision making: implications for emerging technologies. Ambio 28(6):569–574

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia Lliorente M, Martin-López B, González JA, Alcorio P, Montes C (2008) Social perceptions of the impacts and benefits of invasive alien species: implications for management. Biol Cons 141(12):2969–2983

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie N, Dietz G (2009) Trust repair after an organization-level failure. AcadManag Rev 34(1):127–145. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2009.35713319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grafton RQ, Pendleton LH, Nelson HW (eds) (2001) A Dictionary of environmental economics, science and policy. University of California, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Haider S, Jax K (2007) The application of environmental ethics in biological conservation: a case study from the southernmost tip of the Americas. BiodiversConserv 16(9):2559–2573

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampton JO, Fisher PM, Warburton B (2020) Reconsidering humaneness. ConservBiol 34(5):1107–1113. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heink U, Herzele A, Bela G, Kalóczkai Á, Kurt J (2018) Different arguments, same conclusions: how is action against invasive alien species justified in the context of European policy? BiodiversConserv 27(7):1659–1677

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang IB, Keisler J, Linkov I (2011) ‘Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Sci Total Environ 409(19):3578–3594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.06.022

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Humair F, Edwards P, Siegrist M, Kueffer C (2014) Understanding misunderstandings in invasion sicence: why experts don’t agree on common concepts and risks assessments. Neo Biota 20:1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Ineichen C, Biller-Andorno N, Deplazes-Zemp A (2017) Image of synthetic biology and nanotechnology: A survey among university students. Frontiers Genet 8:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2017.00122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston RJ, Scicchitano MJ (2000) Uncertainty, risk, trust and information: Public perceptions of environmental issues and willingness to take action. Policy Stud J 28(3):633–647. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2000.tb02052.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirk N, Kannemeyer R, Greenaway A, MacDonald E, Stronge D (2019) Understanding attitudes on new technologies to manage invasive species. Pacific ConservBiol. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC18080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koltko-Rivera ME (2004) The psychology of worldviews. Rev General Psychol 8(1):3–58

    Google Scholar 

  • van Kooten GC, Eiswerth ME, Yen ST (2011) Factors determining awareness and knowledge of aquatic invasive species. Ecol Econ 70(9):1672–1679

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey J, Howden M, Cvitanovic C, Colvin RM (2018) Understanding and managing trust at the climate science-policy interface. Nat Clim Change 8:22–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0010-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latham ADM, Warburton B, Byrom AE, Pech RP (2017) The ecology and management of mammal invasions in forests. Biol Invasions 19:3121–3139

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavery JV, Tinadana PO, Scott TW, Harrington LC, Ramsey JR, Ytuarte-Nunez C, James AA (2010) Towards a framework for community engagement in global health research. Trends Parasitol 26(6):279–283

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leiserowitz A (2006) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery and values. Clim Change 77:45–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leppanen C, Frank DM, Lockyer JJ, Fellhoelter CJ, Cameron AK, Hardy BA, Smith LJ, Clevenger MR, Simberloff D (2019) Media representation of hemlock woolly adelgid management risks: a case study of science communication and invasive species control. Biol Invasions 21:615–624

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Piggott MP, Wintle BA (2013) Counting the books while the library burns: why conservation monitoring programs need a plan for action. Front Ecol Environ 11(10):549–555. https://doi.org/10.1890/120220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N (2001) Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull 127(2):267–286

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loyd KAT, Hernandez SM (2012) Public perceptions of domestic cats and preferences for feral cat management in the southeastern United States. Anthrozoos 25(3):337–351. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303712X13403555186299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundhede T et al (2015) Incorporating outcome uncertainty and prior outcome beliefs in stated preferences. Land Econ 91(2):296–316. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.91.2.296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macer D (2005) Ethical, legal and social issues of genetically modifying insect vectors for public health. Insect BiochemMolBiol 35:649–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibmb.2005.02.010

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. PublUnderstSci 15:221–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Mankad A (2016) Psychological influences on biosecurity control and farmer decision-making. A rev Agron Sustainable Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0375-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mankad A, Loechel B, Measham PF (2017) Psychosocial barriers and facilitators for area-wide management of fruit fly in south eastern Australia. Agron Sustain Dev 37:67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0477-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mankad A, Kennedy U, Carter L (2019) Biological control of pests and a social framework of animal welfare. J Environ Manage 247:313–322

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mankad A, Zhang A, Curnock M (2019) Motivational drivers of action in response to an environmental biosecurity incursion. J Environ Manage 232:851–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marzano M, Allen W, Haight RG, Holmes TP, Keskitalo ECH, Langer ERL, Shadbolt M, Urquhart J, Dandy N (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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1503-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milner-Gulland EJ, Shea K (2017) Embracing uncertainty in applied ecology. J Appl Ecol 54(6):2. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moffat K, Zhang A (2014) The paths to social licence to operate: an integrative framework explaining community acceptance of mining. Resour Policy 39:61–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon K, Blackman DA, Brewer TD (2015) Understanding and integrating knowledge to improve invasive species management. Biol Invasions 17(9):2675–2689

    Google Scholar 

  • Nancarrow BE, Leviston Z, Po M, Porter NB, Tucker DI (2008) What drives communties’ decisions and behaviorus in the reuse of wastewater. Water SciTechnol 57(4):485–491

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Novoa A, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Fried J, Vimercati G (2017) Does public awareness increase support for invasive species management? Biol Invasions 19(12):3691–3705

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuno A, Bunnefeld N, Milner-Gulland EJ (2014) Managing social—ecological systems under uncertainty: implementation in the real world. Ecol Soc. 19(2):1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Olszańska A, Solarz W, Najberek K (2016) To kill or not to kill-Practitioners’ opinions on invasive alien species management as a step towards enhancing control of biological invasions. Environ Sci Policy 58(February):107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oteros-Rozas E et al (2015) Participatory scenario-planning in place-based social-ecological research: insights and experiences from 23 case studies. EcolSoc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07985-200432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otieno C et al (2014) Informing about climate change and invasive species: how the presentation of information affects perception of risk, emotions and learning. Environ Educ Res Routledge 20(5):612–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.833589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J (2012) Responsible research and innvoation: From sciecne in society to science for society, with society. SciPubl Policy 39:751–760

    Google Scholar 

  • Pe’er, G. et al (2014) Towards a different attitude to uncertainty. Nat Conserv 8:95–114. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.8.8388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Po, M., Kaercher, JD. and Nancarrow, BE. (2003). Literature review of factors influencing public perceptions of water use. Technical Report, 54, CSIRO land and water.

  • Redpath SM et al (2013) Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol Evol 28(2):100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Cons 141:2417–2431

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2004) Evaluating public-participation exercises: a research agenda. SciTechnol Human Values 29(4):512–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243903259197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. SciTechnol Human Values 30(2):251–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozell DJ (2018) The ethical foundations of risk analysis. Risk Anal 38(8):1529–1533. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12971

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan RM and Deci EL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11392867

  • Santo AR, Sorice MG, Donlan CJ, Franck CT, Anderson CB (2015) A human-centered approach to designing invasive species eradication programs on human-inhabited islands. Global Environ Change Elsevier Ltd 35:289–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santo AR, Guillozet K, Sorice MG, Baird TD, Gray S, Donlan CJ, Anderson CB (2017) Examining private landowners’ knowledge systems for an invasive species. Human Ecol 45:449–462

    Google Scholar 

  • Schüttler E, Rozzi R, Jax K (2011) Towards a societal discourse on invasive species management: a case study of public perceptions of mink and beavers in Cape Horn. J Nat Conserv 19(3):175–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Connor M, Keller C (2012) Trust, confidence, procedural fairness, outcome fairness, moral conviction and the acceptance of gm field experiments. Risk Anal 32:1394–2103

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Selge S, Fischer A, van der Wal R (2011) Public and professional views on invasive non-native species—a qualitative social scientific investigation. Biol Cons 144:3089–3097

    Google Scholar 

  • Shackleton RT, Larson BMH, Novoa A, Richardson DM, Kull CA (2019) The human and social dimensions of invasion science and management. J Environ Manage 229:1–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shackleton RT, Adriaens T, Brundu G, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Estévez RA, Fried J, Larson BMH, Liu S, Marchante E, Marchante H, Moshobane MC, Novoa A, Reed M, Richardson DB (2019) Stakeholder engagement in the study and management of invasive alien species. J Eviron Manage 229:88–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Shackleton RT, Richardson DM, Shackelton CM, Bennett B, Crowley SL, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Estévez RA, Fischer A, Kueffer C, Kull CA, Marchante E, Novoa A, Potgieter LJ, Vass J, Vaz AS, Larson BMH (2019) Explaining people’s perceptions of invasive alien species: a conceptual framework. J Environ Manage 229:10–26

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe LM (2014) Public perspectives on genetic biocontrol technologies for controlling invasive fish. Biol Invasions 16(6):1241–1256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-013-0545-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (2003) Confronting introduced species: A form of xenophobia? Biol Invasions 5:179–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Simis MJ, Madden H, Cacciatore MA, Yeo SK (2016) The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit framework persist in science communication? PublUnderstSci 25(4):400–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Flynn JH, Layman M (1991) Perceived risk, trust and the politics of nuclear waste. Science 254:1603–1607

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 19:689–701

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder H (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 104:333–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Steg L, Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol 29(3):309–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern MJ, Baird T (2015) Trust ecology and the resilience of natural resource management institutions. EcolSoc 20(2):14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07248-200214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern MJ, Coleman KJ (2015) The multidimensionality of trust: applications in collaborative natural resource management. Soc Nat Res 28:117–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Thizy D, Emerson C, Gibbs J, Hartely S, Kapiriri L, Lavery J, Lunshof J, Ransey J, Shapiro J, Singh JA, Toe LP, Coche I, Robinson B (2019) Guidance on stakeholder engagemetn practices to inform the development of area-wide vector control methods. PlosNegl Trop Dis 13(4):e0007286. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thresher RE, Kuris AM (2004) Options for managing invasive marine species. Biol Invasions 6(3):295–300. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BINV.0000034598.28718.2e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trumbo CW, McComas KA (2003) The function of credibility in information processing for risk perception. Risk Anal 23(2):343–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Dooren T (2011) Invasive species in penguin worlds: an ethical taxonomy of killing for conservation. ConservSoc 9(4):286–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Vane M, Runhaar HAC (2016) Public support for invasive alien species eradication programs: insights from the Netherlands. RestorEcol 24(6):743–748

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbrugge LN, Van den Born RJ, Lenders HR (2013) Exploring public perception of non-native species from a visions of nature perspective. Environ Manage 52(6):1562–1573

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vining J, Ebreo A (1992) Predicting recycling behavior from global and specific environmental attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities. J ApplSocPsychol 22(20):1580–1607. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-816.1992.tb01758.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wald DM, Nelson KA, Gawel AM, Rogers HS (2019) The role of trust in public attitudes toward invasive species management on Guam: a case study. J Environ Manage 229:133–144

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Warner KD (2012) Fighting pathophobia: how to construct constructive public engagement with biocontrol for nature without augmenting public fears. Biocontrol 57:307–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner KD, Kinslow F (2011) Manipulating risk communication: Value predispositions shape public understandings of invasive species science in Hawaii. PublUnderstSci 22:203–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu Z, McKay J, Keremane G (2012) Issues affecting community attitudes and intended behaviours in stormwater reuse: A case study of Salisbury. S Aust Water 4(4):835–847

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (2001) Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Sci Culture 10(4):445–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430120093586

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Young JC et al (2010) The emergence of biodiversity conflicts from biodiversity impacts: characteristics and management strategies. BiodiversConserv 19(14):3973–3990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9941-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young JC, Searle K, Butler A, Simmons P, Watt AD, Jordan A (2016) The role of trust in the resolution of conservation conflicts. Biol Cons 195:196–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Zengeya T et al (2017) Managing conflict-generating invasive species in South Africa: challenges and trade-offs. Bothalia 47:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang A, Moffat K, Lacey J, Wang J, Gonzalez R, Uribe K, Cui L, Dai Y (2015) Understanding the social licence to operate of mining at the national scale: a comparative study of Australia, China and Chile. J Clean Prod 108:1063–1072

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CSIRO Land and Water, Brisbane, Australia

    Lucy Carter & Aditi Mankad

  2. CSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Brisbane, Australia

    Airong Zhang

  3. CSIRO Land and Water, Townsville, Australia

    Matthew I. Curnock

  4. Biological and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK

    Chris R. J. Pollard

  5. Forest Research, Northern Research Station, Roslin, UK

    Chris R. J. Pollard

Authors
  1. Lucy Carter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aditi Mankad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Airong Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthew I. Curnock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chris R. J. Pollard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucy Carter.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carter, L., Mankad, A., Zhang, A. et al. A multidimensional framework to inform stakeholder engagement in the science and management of invasive and pest animal species. Biol Invasions 23, 625–640 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-020-02391-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-020-02391-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation