Clarifying debates in invasion biology: A survey of invasion biologists

Young, Ashley; Larson, Brendon M. H.

doi:10.1016/j.envres.2011.06.006

Cited by 76 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our study was restricted to German-speaking experts of Switzerland and Southern Germany, and an even higher diversity of expert opinions might be expected if we had included a broader geographical range. Studies from other regions indicate that many of the relevant dimensions of expert thinking that we identified for German-speaking Europe might also be relevant elsewhere (Selge et al 2011, Young andLarson 2011). We suggest that the heterogeneity of expert judgments observed in our study is related to three major dimensions: (1) diverging understandings of basic concepts, (2) complexities and contingencies of biological invasions, and (3) valuation uncertainties with respect to the qualitative assessment of the effects of non-native, invasive plant species on ecosystems and their services.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Less is known about how individual experts or expert communities differ in their perception and assessment of invasion processes, but there are indications that opinions do vary (Young and Larson 2011) and may be influenced by factors other than scientific facts (Selge et al 2011). Indeed, it can be expected that in situations where facts and values are highly uncertain, as in the case of biological invasions, expert assessment also becomes highly dynamic and uncertain (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993), and the influence of intuitions, ideologies and values is more pronounced (Fischhoff et al 1982, Slovic 1999.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There has been some work on how stakeholders and the general public perceive the risks and consequences of biological invasions, and the appropriate management options to be taken (Bardsley and Edwards-Jones 2006, Binimelis et al 2007b, Bremner and Park 2007, Fischer and van der Wal 2007, Garcia-Llorente et al 2008, Andreu et al 2009, Selge and Fischer 2010, Rotherham and Lambert 2011, Selge et al 2011, Young and Larson 2011, Gozlan et al 2013, Kueffer 2013. These studies show that learning about scientific facts related to effects of NIS is just one factor determining attitudes and opinions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Understanding misunderstandings in invasion science: why experts don’t agree on common concepts and risk assessments

Humair¹,

Edwards²,

Siegrist³

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the diverging opinions of academic experts, stakeholders and the public is important for effective conservation management. This is especially so when a consensus is needed for action to minimize future risks but the knowledge upon which to base this action is uncertain or missing. How to manage non-native, invasive species (NIS) is an interesting case in point: the issue has long been controversial among stakeholders, but publicly visible, major disagreement among experts is recent.To characterize the multitude of experts' understanding and valuation of non-native, NIS we performed structured qualitative interviews with 26 academic experts, 13 of whom were invasion biologists and 13 landscape experts. Within both groups, thinking varied widely, not only about basic concepts (e.g., non-native, invasive) but also about their valuation of effects of NIS. The divergent opinions among experts, regarding both the overall severity of the problem in Europe and its importance for ecosystem services, contrasted strongly with the apparent consensus that emerges from scientific synthesis articles and policy documents. We postulate that the observed heterogeneity of expert judgments is related to three major factors: (1) diverging conceptual understandings, (2) lack of empirical information and high scientific uncertainties due to complexities and contingencies of invasion processes, and (3) missing deliberation of values. Based on theory from science studies, we interpret the notion of an NIS as a boundary object, i.e., concepts that have a similar but not identical meaning to different groups of experts and stakeholders. This interpretative flexibility of a concept can facilitate interaction across diverse groups but bears the risk of introducing misunderstandings. An alternative to seeking consensus on exact definitions and risk assessments would be for invasive species experts to acknowledge uncertainties and engage transparently with stakeholders and the public in deliberations about conflicting opinions, taking the role of honest brokers of policy alternatives rather than of issue advocates. NeoBiotaFranziska Humair et al. / NeoBiota 20: 1-30 (2014) 2

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding misunderstandings in invasion science: why experts don’t agree on common concepts and risk assessments

Humair¹,

Edwards²,

Siegrist³

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the debate so far has mainly focused on the use of metaphors in scholarly discourse, less attention has been given to the impact of current vocabularies in the policy domain. It is here that the debate has a broader relevance, as it may create ambiguities and uneasiness when it comes to implementing research findings into policy (Shaw, Wilson, & Richardson, 2010;Young & Larson, 2011). It has been argued that the use of value-laden, ambiguous terms endangers the credibility of policy (Warren, 2007) as well as the consistency of the decision making process (Hulme, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several authors have proposed a more objective approach and neutral terminology to describe invasive species (Brown & Sax, 2004;Colautti & MacIsaac, 2004). In response to these proposals, others claim that this mode of non-action of scientists is inconsistent with their conservation values (Larson, 2007;Young & Larson, 2011) or may even hamper the development of ecological knowledge which benefits from a wealth of terms and meanings (Hodges, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metaphors in Invasion Biology: Implications for Risk Assessment and Management of Non-Native Species

Verbrugge

Leuven

Zwart

2016

Ethics, Policy & Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metaphors for describing the introduction, impacts, and management of non-native species are numerous and often quite outspoken (e.g. invasional meltdown and explosive growth). Policy-makers have adopted increasingly disputed metaphorical terms from scientific discourse. We performed a critical analysis of the use of strong metaphors in reporting scientific findings to policy-makers. Our analysis shows that perceptions of harm, invasiveness or nativeness are dynamic and inevitably display multiple narratives in science, policy or management. Improving our awareness of multiple expert and stakeholder narratives that exist in the context of non-native species management, as well as metaphorical alternatives, is critical.

show abstract