Photo credit: Wade Simmons
By Simmons, W., Hare, D., Dávalos, A., and Blossey, B.
When it comes to dealing with introduced (non-native) species, it’s not always clear how the public feels about different management approaches. Although disagreements about these efforts can affect public trust and slow down conservation progress, decision-makers currently have little information on what the public finds acceptable.
To understand these attitudes better, we created an online survey in the United States. We showed people short descriptions of realistic scenarios where release of natural enemies (other insects), mechanical, or chemical treatments controlled either an insect or a plant. We also varied the level of risk (low or high) or treatments to humans or native species to better understand how these typical components of management combine to influence their social acceptability.
Our results showed that people were most supportive of low-risk options, especially those that involved mechanical controls. When the risk was high, a slim majority still accepted mechanical controls, but chemical and biological means were much less acceptable to the survey group. Acceptability of managing plants and insects was similar, but we were surprised to find no difference in acceptability of treatments regardless of whether the risks were to human well-being or to native species.
These findings suggest that many forms of common management practices may be out of step with what the public finds acceptable, and public support for projects should not be assumed. We also find a disconnect between what the public finds acceptable and the potential effectiveness of various control methods. Better evidence on the impacts of introduced species and the risks and benefits associated with their management could reduce uncertainties about project outcomes and may lead to greater public support.
Relational Thinking 