Assessing Stakeholder Perspectives on Invasive Plants to Inform Risk Analysis

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.

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

“…Private crop or pest consultants were identified as information sources by only a few respondents. Most members of the Connecticut Nursery and Landscape Association informed themselves about invasive plants through trade journals and professional organisations (Gagliardi and Brand 2007), while a study in Iowa (Kapler et al 2012) among conservation professionals, master gardeners, professional horticulturalists and woodland landowners found that the most common sources of information about invasive plants were newspapers, magazines or books (82.3 %), educators or workshop/lectures (81.7 %), conservation professionals (74.8 %), colleagues (63.8 %), and the Internet (60.8 %); plant retailers or nurseries were the least common source of information.…”

Effective Weed Management, Collective Action, and Landownership Change in Western Montana

“…In contrast, 88% of residents in north central Colorado had heard or read about invasive plants, a high level of awareness that the authors attribute to the fact that weeds are a high-profile issue in this region (Daab and Flint 2010). Similarly, in Iowa, 87% of key stakeholders agreed that invasive plants are a problem and 88% agreed that we have a responsibility to manage them (Kapler et al 2012). In Montana, 76% of residents agreed that noxious weeds are a serious or very serious problem, but 67% reported that they knew little or nothing about noxious weeds; however, 80% could identify a specific problem associated with invasive plants (Sheley et al 1996).…”

A conceptual framework for prioritization of invasive alien species for management according to their impact

“…On the other hand, they benefitted from fuel wood and building timber (De Wit et al 2001). Such situations have led to the recognition of a need for a framework to document the different consequences of an IAS for different groups of stakeholders (Stoll-Kleemann and Welp 2006, Binimelis et al 2007, Kapler et al 2012 and recently a few attempts have been made to develop applications which incorporate stakeholders (Cook and Proctor 2007, Hurley et al 2010, Liu et al 2011, De Lange et al 2012. Parker et al (1999) developed a framework to assess the ecological effect of IAS, arguing that the total effect of an invader includes three fundamental dimensions: range, abundance, and the per-capita or per-biomass effect of the invader, i.e.…”