“…With human dimensions being a feature of all aspects of the invasion process (García‐Llorente, Martín‐López, González, Alcorlo, & Montes, ; Tassin & Kull, ), several studies have sought to explore variation and discord amongst stakeholder opinion with regard to INNS to assess implications for support of management practices (Bremner & Park, ; Fischer, Selge, van der Wal, & Larson, ; Gobster, ). Species attributes, level of knowledge, perceptions of threat, attitudes towards intervention and nature values have all been found to be subjective influences on stakeholder opinion (Ford‐Thompson, Snell, Saunders, & White, ; García‐Llorente et al., ; Gozlan, Burnard, Andreou, & Britton, ; Shackleton & Shackleton, ; Verbrugge, Van den Born, & Lenders, ). Indeed, the discourse surrounding issues of INNS appears to be beset not only by the inherent uncertainty that surrounds ecological knowledge of biological invasions, their management and environmental implications (García‐Llorente et al., ), but also by highly varied and subjective comprehension of emotive terms such as ‘non‐native’, ‘alien’, ‘exotic’, ‘pest’, ‘invasive species’, ‘ecological impact’ and the connotations that arise through social representation of these concepts as a whole (DEFRA., ; Essl et al., ; Tassin & Kull, ).…”