Biological Invasions

, Volume 17, Issue 7, pp 1961–1977 | Cite as

Part of the solution? Stakeholder awareness, information and engagement in tree health issues

  • Mariella Marzano
  • Norman Dandy
  • Helen R. Bayliss
  • Emily Porth
  • Clive Potter
Original Paper


The dangers posed to wooded environments from tree pests introduced by the expansion of international trade in live plants and the continued use of wood packaging in transporting materials have been widely accepted. A lack of awareness of the issues amongst key stakeholders involved in the movement of these materials can hamper an effective response as their unaltered behaviours continue to have unintended consequences. Better communication and engagement is needed to enrol this wider range of actors, such as plant buyers, traders and woodland owners, in preventative action or mitigation of tree pest impacts. However, as this review paper shows, current published evidence on awareness levels and effective engagement methods is limited, and lessons must be sought from research into other closely related issues such as invasive plants. We provide a summary of this available evidence, related to key stakeholder groupings, their levels of awareness and current modes of information provision and reception. It show what can at best be described as mediocre levels of awareness, and highlights the role of traditional media, such as television and newspapers, as sources of information. It further notes the urgent need for research to more fully map the tree health stakeholder landscape and to further our understanding of how to increase awareness and effect changes in behaviour.


Tree health Stakeholders Pests Knowledge Communication Awareness 



This paper is an output from the PERMIT COST Action FP1002 and was funded by the Forestry Commission Great Britain and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The authors would like to thank Trevor Fenning, Chris Quine, and two anonymous referees for comments provided on earlier drafts.


  1. Aipanjiguly S, Jacobson SK, Flamm R (2003) Conserving manatees: knowledge, attitudes, and intentions of boaters in Tampa Bay, Florida. Conserv Biol 17:1098–1105Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211Google Scholar
  3. Alpert P, Colton T (1999) Public unawareness of biological invasions by plants. Wildland Weeds, Spring: 4–7Google Scholar
  4. Alston DG, Reding ME (1998) Factors influencing adoption and educational outreach of integrated pest management. J Ext 36(3).
  5. Andreu J, Vilà M, Hulme PE (2009) An assessment of stakeholder perceptions and management of noxious alien plants in Spain. Environ Manag 43:1244–1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aukema JE, Leung B, Kovacs K, Chivers C, Britton KO, Englin J, Frankel SJ, Haight RG, Holmes TP, Liebhold AM, McCullough DG, Von Holle B (2011) Economic impacts of non-native forest insects in the continental United States. PLoS ONE 6(9):e24587PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bardsley D, Edwards-Jones G (2006) Stakeholders’ perceptions of the impacts of invasive exotic plant species in the Mediterranean region. GeoJournal 65:199–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bell S, Marzano M, Cent J, Kobierska H, Podjed D, Vandzinskaite D, Reinert H, Armaitiene A, Grodzinska-Jurczak M, Muršič R (2008) What counts? Volunteers and their organisations in the recording and monitoring of biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 17(14):3443–3454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berheide DW (2012) Factors influencing public support for managing the Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic. Master of Science thesis, University of British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  10. Boholm A (2003) The cultural nature of risk: can there be an anthropology of uncertainty? Ethnos 68(2):159–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boyd IL, Freer-Smith PH, Gilligan CA, Godfray HCJ (2013) The consequences of tree pests and diseases for ecosystem services. Science 342:1235773PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brasier CM (2008) The biosecurity threat to the UK and global environment from international trade in plants. Plant Pathol 57:792–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brockerhoff EG, Bain J, Kimberley M, Knížek M (2006) Interception frequency of exotic bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) and relationship with establishment in New Zealand and worldwide. Can J For Res 36:289–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brockerhoff EG, Liebhold AM, Richardson B, Suckling DM (2010) Eradication of invasive forest insects: concepts, methods, costs and benefits. NZ J For Sci 40(suppl):S117–S135Google Scholar
  15. Ciesla WM (2011) ‘Forest insect and human interactions’ in Ciesla, forest entomology: a global perspective. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clarke R, Aslin H, Kruger H, Bury A (2012) Volunteer monitoring in biosecurity: an issues paper. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and ForestryGoogle Scholar
  17. Cushman JH, Meentemeyer RK (2008) Multi-scale patterns of human activity and the incidence of an exotic forest pathogen. J Ecol 96:766–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Daab MT, Flint CG (2010) Public reaction to invasive plant species in a disturbed Colorado landscape. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 3:390–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dandy N, Porth EF, Marzano M, Potter C, Bayliss H, Maye D (2013) Working paper 2: tree health stakeholder analysis—identification and categorisation. Project report for Defra Projects TH0104 & TH0107 Mapping, analysis and improved understanding of stakeholders and the public to help protect tree healthGoogle Scholar
  20. Dehnen-Schmutz K, Chas-Amil ML, Touza J (2010) Stakeholders’ perceptions of plant invasions in Galicia, Spain. Asp Appl Biol 104:13–18Google Scholar
  21. Dwyer J, Mills J, Ingram J, Taylor J, Burton R, Blackstock K, Slee B, Brown K, Schwarz G, Matthews K, Dilley R (2007) Understanding and influencing positive behaviour change in farmers and land managers—a project for Defra. CCRI and The Macaulay InstituteGoogle Scholar
  22. EPPO (2012) Study on the risk of imports of plants for planting. EPPO technical Document No. 1061Google Scholar
  23. Everett RA (2000) Patterns and pathways of biological invasions. Tree 15(5):177–178Google Scholar
  24. Firewood Outreach Coordinating Initiative (FOCI) e-newsletter (2013). Accessed 15 May 2013
  25. Flint C (2006) Community perspectives on spruce beetle impacts on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. For Ecol Manag 227:207–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Flint C (2007) Changing forest disturbance regimes and risk perceptions in Homer, Alaska. Risk Anal 27(6):1597–1608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gagliardi JA, Brand MH (2007) Connecticut nursery and landscape industry preferences for solutions to the sale and use of invasive plants. HortTechnology 17(1):39–45Google Scholar
  28. García-Llorente M, Martín-López B, González JA, Alcorlo P, Montes C (2008) Social perceptions of the impacts and benefits of invasive alien species: implications for management. Biol Conserv 141:2969–2983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gilbert M, Fielding N, Evans HF, Grégoire J-C (2003) Spatial pattern of invading Dendroctonus micans (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) populations in the United Kingdom. Can J For Res 33:712–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gupta A (2010) Emerald ash borer first detector: a volunteer early detection programme. NZ J For Sci 40:123–132Google Scholar
  31. Haack RA (2001) Intercepted Scolytidae (Coleoptera) at U.S. ports of entry: 1985–2000. Integr Pest Manag Rev 6:253–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Haack RA (2006) Exotic bark- and wood-boring Coleoptera in the United States: recent establishments and interceptions. Can J For Res 36:269–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Halford M, Heemers L, Mathys C, Vanderhieven S, Mahy G (2011) Socio-economic survey on invasive ornamental plants in Beligum. Final report for Life + AlterIAS project. Accessed July 2012
  34. Hall CM (2005) Biosecurity and wine tourism. Tour Manag 26:931–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hathaway JM, Basman CM, Barro SC (2002) Assessing tree care professionals’ awareness and knowledge about the Asian Longhorned Beetle. In: Van Sambeek JW, Dawson JO, Ponder F, Jr Loewenstein EF, Fralish JS (eds) Proceedings, 13th central hardwood forest conference, April 1–3, Urbana IL. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-234. St Paul, MN: U.S. Department of agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research StationGoogle Scholar
  36. Holmes TP, Aukema JE, Von Holle B, Liebhold A, Sills E (2009) Economic impacts of invasive species in forests: past, present, and future. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1162:18–38Google Scholar
  37. Hulme PE (2009) Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. J Appl Ecol 46:10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hunter M (2011) Impact of ecological disturbance on awareness of urban nature and sense of environmental stewardship in residential neighbourhoods. Landsc Urb Plan 101:131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hurley BP, Slippers J, Wingfield MJ, Dyer C, Slippers B (2012) Perception and knowledge of the Sirex woodwasp and other forest pests in South Africa. Agric For Entomol 14:306–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnson DD, Davies KW, Schreder PT, Chamberlain A-M (2011) Perceptions of ranchers about medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski) management on sagebrush steppe rangelands. Environ Manag 48:400–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kapler EJ, Thompson JR, Widrlechner MP (2012) Assessing stakeholder perspectives on invasive plants to inform risk analysis. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 5:194–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kelley KM, Conklin JR, Sellmer JC, Bates RM (2006) Invasive plant species: results of a consumer awareness, knowledge and expectations survey conducted in Pennsylvania. J Environ Hortic 24(1):53–58Google Scholar
  43. Kruger H, Thompson L, Clarkey R, Stenekes N, Carr A (2009) Engaging in biosecurity: gap analysis. Australian Government: Bureau of Rural SciencesGoogle Scholar
  44. Kruger H, Stenekes N, Clarke R, Carr A (2010) Biosecurity engagement guidelines: practical advice for involving communities. Australian Government Bureau of Rural SciencesGoogle Scholar
  45. Kubeck G (2008) Exploring stakeholders’ attitudes and beliefs regarding behaviours that prevent the spread of invasive species. A focus group study. Msc thesis, Oregon State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  46. Liebhold AM, Brockerhoff EG, Garret LJ, Parke JL, Britton KO (2012) Live plant imports: the major pathway for forest insect and pathogen invasions of the US. Front Ecol Environ 10(3):135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McEntee MJ (2007) Participation and communication approaches that influence public and media response to scientific risk: a comparative study of two biosecurity events in New Zealand. Int J Inter Soc Sci 2(4):195–203Google Scholar
  48. McFarlane BL, Craig R, Stumpf-Allen G, Watson DO (2006) Public perceptions of natural disturbance in Canada’s national parks: the case of the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins). Biol Conserv 130:340–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McFarlane BL, Parking JR, Watson DOT (2012) Risk, knowledge, and trust in managing forest insect disturbance. Can J For Res 42:710–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Molnar JJ, Schelhas J, Holeski C (2003) Controlling the southern pine beetle: small landowner perceptions and practices. Bulletin 649, Auburn University, AlabamaGoogle Scholar
  51. Müller M, Job H (2009) Managing natural disturbance in protected areas: tourists’ attitudes towards the bark beetle in a German national park. Biol Conserv 142:375–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Niemiera AX, Von Holle B (2009) Invasive plant species and the ornamental horticulture industry. In: Inderjit A (ed) Management of invasive weeds. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  53. Parks JM, Theobald KS (2011) Public engagement with information on renewable energy developments: the case of single, semi-urban wind turbines. Public Underst Sci 22(1):49–64Google Scholar
  54. Perrings C, Burgiel S, Lonsdale M, Mooney H, Willianson M (2010) International cooperation in the solution to trade-related invasive species risks. Ann NY Acad Sci 1195:198–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Peters WL, Meyer MH, Anderson NO (2006) Minnesota horticultural industry survey on invasive plants. Euphytica 148:75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pocock M, Evans D (2013) Conker tree science: public engagement and real research. In: Bowater L, Yeoman K (eds) Science Communication: a practical guide for scientists. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  57. Potter C, Bayliss H, Tomlinson I, Leather S (2013) Oak Processionary Moth in the UK: lessons from the London outbreak. Report to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural AffairsGoogle Scholar
  58. Prinbeck G, Lach D, Chan S (2011) Exploring stakeholders’ attitudes and beliefs regarding behaviours that prevent the spread of invasive species. Environ Educ Res 17(3):341–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Putulan D, Sar S, Drew RAI, Raghu S, Clarke AR (2004) Fruit and vegetable movement on domestic flights in Papua New Guinea and the risk of spreading pest fruit-flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Int J Pest Manage 50:17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Quarles W (2008) Light brown apple moth: crises of trust. IPM Pract 3(4):1–13Google Scholar
  61. Reichard SH, White P (2001) Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant introductions in the United States. BioScience 51(2):103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Runberg DM (2011) Educating Pacific Northwest campers on the risk of spreading invasive forest pests through firewood: developing a Mental Model. Dissertation submitted for Master of Public Policy, Oregon State University. Accessed July 2013
  63. Sacco J (2004) The attach of the urban forest eaters: how a dedicated and educated group of volunteers is responding to the invasion of Asian long-horn beetles and gypsy moths in Chicago. In: Shaw I et al (eds) Proceedings 4th international urban wildlife symposium, pp 316–324Google Scholar
  64. Selge S, Fisher A, van der Wal R (2011) Public and professional views on invasive non-native species: a qualitative social scientific investigation. Biol Conserv 144:3089–3097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sharp RL, Larson LR, Green GT (2011) Factors influencing public preferences for invasive alien species management. Biol Conserv 144:2097–2104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sharp RL, Larson LR, Green GT, Tomek S (2012) Comparing interpretive methods targeting invasive species management at cumberland Island National Seashore. J Interpret Res 17:23–43Google Scholar
  67. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. Risk Anal 24(2):311–322PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Smith RM, Baker RHA, Malumphy CP, Hammon RP, Ostojá-Starzewski JC, Collins DW (2007) Recent non-native invertebrate plant pest establishments in Great Britain: origins, pathways, and trends. Agric For Entomol 9:307–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stenlid J, Oliva J, Boberg JB, Hopkins AJM (2011) Emerging diseases in European forest ecosystems and responses in society. Forests 2:486–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Surendra GC, Mehmood S, Schelhas J (2009) Segmenting landowners based on their information-seeking behaviour: a look at landowner education on the Red Oak Borer. J For 107:313–319Google Scholar
  71. Tomlinson I, Harwood T, Knight J, Potter C (2009) Review of joint inter-departmental emergency programme to contain and eradicate Pr and Pk. Defra, LondonGoogle Scholar
  72. United States Department of Agriculture (2005) Addressing the risks associated with the importation of plants for planting. A white paper (exec sum)Google Scholar
  73. Van Santen L, Govern J, Langer L (2004) The role of community involvement in future incursion responses. NZ J For 49(3):38Google Scholar
  74. Vanderhoeven S, Piqueray J, Halford M, Nulens G, Vinke J, Mahy G (2011) Perception and understanding of invasive alien species issues by nature conservation and horticulture professionals in Belgium. Environ Manag 47:425–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wachinger G, Renn O (2010) Risk perception and natural hazards. CapHaz-Net WP3 Report, DIALOGIK Non-profit Institute for Communications and Cooperative Research, Stuttgart. (
  76. Webber J (2010) Pest risk analysis and invasion pathways for plant pathogens. N Z J For Sci 40(suppl.):45–56Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Crown Copyright  2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mariella Marzano
    • 1
  • Norman Dandy
    • 2
  • Helen R. Bayliss
    • 3
  • Emily Porth
    • 2
  • Clive Potter
    • 3
  1. 1.Forest Research, Northern Research StationRoslinUK
  2. 2.Forest Research, Alice Holt LodgeFarnhamUK
  3. 3.Centre for Environmental Policy, Faculty of Natural SciencesImperial College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations