Abstract
Species invasions contribute to global environmental change and cause declines in populations of threatened and endangered species. Significant government funds are expended on invasive species management (ISM) actions each year. Public support and compliance are critical to the success of these actions. We conducted a study to assess determinants of the general public’s support for ISM actions to identify potential barriers to ISM. We administered an online questionnaire to the general public (n = 1,561) in Florida, a state severely affected by species invasions. We presented respondents with 12 different non-native animals from 4 different taxa (birds, rodents, herpetofauna, fish) to test whether their support for ISM actions depended on the animals to be managed or their perceptions of risk. We utilized structural equation models to explore how different variables directly and indirectly influenced support for management actions. Respondents tended to oppose management actions targeted towards birds and charismatic species. Respondents’ support for government-implemented ISM actions was positively correlated with their awareness of the risks associated with different animals and species invasions in general, their awareness of the consequences of species invasions, and their recognition of the importance of taking actions to mitigate invasion threats. Efforts to promote public support for ISM actions should emphasize the different risks associated with invasive species and the consequences of species invasions to offset opposition to ISM actions that target charismatic species.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data that support the findings of this study are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author, EFP. The data are not publicly available due to their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.
Code availability
The coding generated during the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Anderson CJ, Van De Kerk M, Pine WE, Hostetler ME, Heard DJ, Johnson SA (2019) Population estimate and management options for introduced rhesus macaques. J Wildl Manag 83:295–303
Bertolino S, Genovesi P (2003) Spread and attempted eradication of the grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) in Italy, and consequences for the red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in Eurasia. Biol Cons 109:351–358
Bremner A, Park K (2007) Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biol Cons 139:306–314
Butchart SH et al (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164–1168
Caplenor CA, Poudyal NC, Muller LI, Yoest C (2017) Assessing landowners’ attitudes toward wild hogs and support for control options. J Environ Manage 201:45–51
Clavero M, García-Berthou E (2005) Invasive species are a leading cause of animal extinctions. Trends Ecol Evol 20:110
Coon JJ, van Riper CJ, Morton LW, Miller JR (2020) What drives private landowner decisions? Exploring non-native grass management in the eastern Great Plains. J Environ Manage 276:111355
Crowley SL, Hinchliffe S, McDonald RA (2017) Conflict in invasive species management. Front Ecol Environ 15:133–141
Crowley SL, Hinchliffe S, McDonald RA (2019) The parakeet protectors: understanding opposition to introduced species management. J Environ Manage 229:120–132
De Groot JI, Steg L (2009) Morality and prosocial behavior: the role of awareness, responsibility, and norms in the norm activation model. J Soc Psychol 149:425–449
Dorcas ME et al (2012) Severe mammal declines coincide with proliferation of invasive Burmese pythons in Everglades National Park. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:2418–2422
Epanchin-Niell RS (2017) Economics of invasive species policy and management. Biol Invasions 19:3333–3354
Episcopio-Sturgeon DJ, Pienaar EF (2019) Understanding stakeholders’ opinions and preferences for non-native pet trade management in Florida. Hum Dimens Wildl 24:46–60
Episcopio-Sturgeon DJ, Pienaar EF (2020) Investigating support for management of the pet trade invasion risk. J Wildl Manag 84:1196–1209
Estévez RA, Anderson CB, Pizarro JC, Burgman MA (2015) Clarifying values, risk perceptions, and attitudes to resolve or avoid social conflicts in invasive species management. Conserv Biol 29:19–30
Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM (2000) The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Mak 13:1–17
Florida Fish Wildlife Conservation Commission [FWC] (2019) Florida’s wildlife legacy initiative: Florida’s state wildlife action plan. FWC, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Floyd FJ, Widaman KF (1995) Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assess 7:286–299
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 Cons 141:2969–2983
Genovesi P (2008) Limits and potentialities of eradication as a tool for addressing biological invasions. In: Nentwig W (ed) Biological Invasions: Ecological Studies (Analysis and Synthesis) 193. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 385–400
Gozlan RE, Burnard D, Andreou D, Britton JR (2013) Understanding the threats posed by non-native species: public vs conservation managers. PLoS ONE 8:0053200
Haimes YY (2009) On the complex definition of risk: a systems-based approach. Risk Anal Int J 29:1647–1654
Hardin S (2007) Managing non-native wildlife in Florida: State perspective, policy and practice. In: Witmer GW, Pitt WC, Fagerston KA (ed) Managing Vertebrate Invasive Species: Proceedings of an International Symposium. USDA/APHIS Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO, USA, pp 43–52
Harvey RG, Perez L, Mazzotti FJ (2016) Not seeing is not believing: volunteer beliefs about Burmese pythons in Florida and implications for public participation in invasive species removal. J Environ Planning Manage 59:789–807
Hellmann JJ, Byers JE, Bierwagen BG, Dukes JS (2008) Five potential consequences of climate change for invasive species. Conserv Biol 22:534–543
Huang PH (2017) Asymptotics of AIC, BIC, and RMSEA for model selection in structural equation modeling. Psychometrika 82:407–426
Hulme PE et al (2008) Grasping at the routes of biological invasions: a framework for integrating pathways into policy. J Appl Ecol 45:403–414
Jacobs MH, Vaske JJ, Dubois S, Fehres P (2014) More than fear: role of emotions in acceptability of lethal control of wolves. Eur J Wildl Res 60:589–598
Jarić I et al (2020) The role of species charisma in biological invasions. Front Ecol Environ 18:345–353
Krysko KL et al (2011) Verified nonindigenous amphibians and reptiles in Florida from 1863 through 2010: outlining the invasion process and identifying invasion pathways and stages. Zootaxa 3028:1–64
Krysko KL et al (2016) New verified nonindigenous amphibians and reptiles in Florida through 2015, with a summary of over 152 years of introductions. Rept Amphib 23:110–143
Lauber TB, Anthony ML, Knuth BA (2001) Gender and ethical judgments about suburban deer management. Soc Nat Resour 14:571–583
Lefcheck JS (2016) piecewiseSEM: piecewise structural equation modelling in r for ecology, evolution, and systematics. Methods Ecol Evol 7:573–579
Lin LC, Huang PH, Weng LJ (2017) Selecting path models in SEM: A comparison of model selection criteria. Struct Equ Model 24:855–869
Lodge DM et al (2006) Biological invasions: recommendations for US policy and management. Ecol Appl 16:2035–2054
Mayer J, Seekamp E, Casper J, Blank G (2015) An examination of behavior change theories to predict behavioral intentions of organisms-in-trade hobbyists. Hum Ecol Rev 21:65–92
McLeod LJ, Hine DW, Please PM, Driver AB (2015) Applying behavioral theories to invasive animal management: towards an integrated framework. J Environ Manage 161:63–71
Moon K, Blackman DA, Brewer TD (2015) Understanding and integrating knowledge to improve invasive species management. Biol Invasions 17:2675–2689
Meyerson LA, Carlton JT, Simberloff D, Lodge DM (2019) The growing peril of biological invasions. Front Ecol Environ 17:191–191
Orzechowski SC, Romagosa CM, Frederick PC (2019) Invasive Burmese pythons (Python bivittatus) are novel nest predators in wading bird colonies of the Florida Everglades. Biol Invasions 21:2333–2344
Osinski BL et al (2019) What’s the draw? Illustrating the impacts of cartoons versus photographs on attitudes and behavioral intentions for wildlife conservation. Hum Dimens Wildl 24:231–249
Padilla DK, Williams SL (2004) Beyond ballast water: aquarium and ornamental trades as sources of invasive species in aquatic ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 2:131–138
Porter SR, Whitcomb ME (2005) Non-response in student surveys: the role of demographics, engagement and personality. Res High Educ 46:127–152
Pyšek P et al (2020) Scientists’ warning on invasive alien species. Biol Rev 95:1511–1534
Ricciardi A, Ryan R (2018) The exponential growth of invasive species denialism. Biol Invasions 20:549–553
Santos JRA (1999) Cronbach’s alpha: a tool for assessing the reliability of scales. J Ext 37:1–5
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 19:175–184
Schwartz SH (1977) Normative influences on altruism. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 10:221–279
Shackleton RT, Larson BM, Novoa A, Richardson DM, Kull CA (2019a) The human and social dimensions of invasion science and management. J Environ Manage 229:1–9
Shackleton RT et al (2019b) Explaining people’s perceptions of invasive alien species: a conceptual framework. J Environ Manage 229:10–26
Sharp RL, Larson LR, Green GT (2011) Factors influencing public preferences for invasive alien species management. Biol Cons 144:2097–2104
Simberloff D (1996) Impacts of introduced species in the United States. Consequences 2:13–22
Simberloff D et al (2013) Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol Evol 28:58–66
Simberloff D (2014) Biological invasions: What’s worth fighting and what can be won? Ecol Eng 65:112–121
Slimak MW, Dietz T (2006) Personal values, beliefs, and ecological risk perception. Risk Anal 26:1689–1705
Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2007) The affect heuristic. Eur J Oper Res 177:1333–1352
Smith G (2008) Does gender influence online survey participation? A record-linkage analysis of university faculty online survey response behavior. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 501717.
Sovie AR, McCleery RA, Fletcher RJ, Hart KM (2016) Invasive pythons, not anthropogenic stressors, explain the distribution of a keystone species. Biol Invasions 18:3309–3318
Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L (1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev 6:81–97
U.S. Census Bureau (2012) 2010 Census of Population and Housing: Summary Population and Housing Characteristics (CPH-1–11). Florida U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., USA.
van Dam R, Walden D, Begg G (2002) A preliminary risk assessment for cane toads in Kakadu National Park. Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, Jabiru, Australia
van Riper CJ, Browning MH, Becker D, Stewart W, Suski CD, Browning L, Golebie E (2019) Human-nature relationships and normative beliefs influence behaviors that reduce the spread of aquatic invasive species. Environ Manage 63:69–79
van Riper CJ, Kyle GT (2014) Understanding the internal processes of behavioral engagement in a national park: a latent variable path analysis of the value-belief-norm theory. J Environ Psychol 38:288–297
Vaz AS, Kueffer C, Kull CA, Richardson DM, Schindler S, Muñoz-Pajares AJ, Vicente JR, Martins J, Hui C, Kühn I, Honrado JP (2017) The progress of interdisciplinarity in invasion science. Ambio 46:428–442
Yokomizo H, Possingham HP, Thomas MB, Buckley YM (2009) Managing the impact of invasive species: the value of knowing the density–impact curve. Ecol Appl 19:376–386
Acknowledgements
We thank C.M. Romagosa, M.E. Swisher, R.H. Robins, J. Colee, and B. Baiser for their contributions to this research and manuscript. We would also like to thank J.P. Reid, L.G. Nico, and J. Sowards for allowing us to use their photographs in the questionnaire. Finally, we would like to thank the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) for funding this project.
Funding
This research was funded by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
We have no conflicts of interest to report.
Ethics approval
This research was approved on April 10th, 2019 by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB protocol #201900993).
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Steele, Z.T., Pienaar, E.F. Knowledge, reason and emotion: using behavioral theories to understand people’s support for invasive animal management. Biol Invasions 23, 3513–3527 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-021-02594-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-021-02594-5