Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Knowledge, reason and emotion: using behavioral theories to understand people’s support for invasive animal management

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biological Invasions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bremner A, Park K (2007) Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biol Cons 139:306–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butchart SH et al (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164–1168

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clavero M, García-Berthou E (2005) Invasive species are a leading cause of animal extinctions. Trends Ecol Evol 20:110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crowley SL, Hinchliffe S, McDonald RA (2017) Conflict in invasive species management. Front Ecol Environ 15:133–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowley SL, Hinchliffe S, McDonald RA (2019) The parakeet protectors: understanding opposition to introduced species management. J Environ Manage 229:120–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Epanchin-Niell RS (2017) Economics of invasive species policy and management. Biol Invasions 19:3333–3354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Episcopio-Sturgeon DJ, Pienaar EF (2020) Investigating support for management of the pet trade invasion risk. J Wildl Manag 84:1196–1209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florida Fish Wildlife Conservation Commission [FWC] (2019) Florida’s wildlife legacy initiative: Florida’s state wildlife action plan. FWC, Tallahassee, Florida, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Floyd FJ, Widaman KF (1995) Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assess 7:286–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haimes YY (2009) On the complex definition of risk: a systems-based approach. Risk Anal Int J 29:1647–1654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellmann JJ, Byers JE, Bierwagen BG, Dukes JS (2008) Five potential consequences of climate change for invasive species. Conserv Biol 22:534–543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huang PH (2017) Asymptotics of AIC, BIC, and RMSEA for model selection in structural equation modeling. Psychometrika 82:407–426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarić I et al (2020) The role of species charisma in biological invasions. Front Ecol Environ 18:345–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauber TB, Anthony ML, Knuth BA (2001) Gender and ethical judgments about suburban deer management. Soc Nat Resour 14:571–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefcheck JS (2016) piecewiseSEM: piecewise structural equation modelling in r for ecology, evolution, and systematics. Methods Ecol Evol 7:573–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin LC, Huang PH, Weng LJ (2017) Selecting path models in SEM: A comparison of model selection criteria. Struct Equ Model 24:855–869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodge DM et al (2006) Biological invasions: recommendations for US policy and management. Ecol Appl 16:2035–2054

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moon K, Blackman DA, Brewer TD (2015) Understanding and integrating knowledge to improve invasive species management. Biol Invasions 17:2675–2689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyerson LA, Carlton JT, Simberloff D, Lodge DM (2019) The growing peril of biological invasions. Front Ecol Environ 17:191–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter SR, Whitcomb ME (2005) Non-response in student surveys: the role of demographics, engagement and personality. Res High Educ 46:127–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyšek P et al (2020) Scientists’ warning on invasive alien species. Biol Rev 95:1511–1534 

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ricciardi A, Ryan R (2018) The exponential growth of invasive species denialism. Biol Invasions 20:549–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos JRA (1999) Cronbach’s alpha: a tool for assessing the reliability of scales. J Ext 37:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz SH (1977) Normative influences on altruism. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 10:221–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shackleton RT et al (2019b) Explaining people’s perceptions of invasive alien species: a conceptual framework. J Environ Manage 229:10–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp RL, Larson LR, Green GT (2011) Factors influencing public preferences for invasive alien species management. Biol Cons 144:2097–2104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (1996) Impacts of introduced species in the United States. Consequences 2:13–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D et al (2013) Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol Evol 28:58–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (2014) Biological invasions: What’s worth fighting and what can be won? Ecol Eng 65:112–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slimak MW, Dietz T (2006) Personal values, beliefs, and ecological risk perception. Risk Anal 26:1689–1705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2007) The affect heuristic. Eur J Oper Res 177:1333–1352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110430, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    Zachary T. Steele

  2. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, 180 E. Green Street, Athens, GA, 30602, USA

    Elizabeth F. Pienaar

  3. Mammal Research Institute, University of Pretoria, Hatfield, Pretoria, South Africa

    Elizabeth F. Pienaar

Authors
  1. Zachary T. Steele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth F. Pienaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth F. Pienaar.

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.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 96 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-021-02594-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation