The human and social dimensions of invasion science and management.

Biological invasions are a leading cause of global environmental change given their effects on both humans and biodiversity. Humans introduce invasive alien species and may facilitate their establishment and spread, which can alter ecosystem services, livelihoods, and human well-being. People perceive the benefits and costs of these species through the lens of diverse value systems; these perspectives influence decisions about when and where to manage them. Despite the entanglement of humans with invasive alien species, most research on the topic has focused on their ecological aspects. Only relatively recently have the human and social dimensions of invasions started to receive sustained attention in light of their importance for understanding and governing biological invasions. This editorial draws on contributions to a special issue on the "Human and Social Dimensions of Invasion Science" and other literature to elucidate major trends and current contributions in this research area. We examine the relation between humans and biological invasions in terms of four crosscutting themes: (1) how people cause biological invasions; (2) how people conceptualise and perceive them; (3) how people are affected - both positively and negatively - by them; and (4) how people respond to them. We also highlight several ways in which research on the human and social dimensions of invasion science improves understanding, stakeholder engagement, and management.

Explaining people's perceptions of invasive alien species: A conceptual framework.

Human perceptions of nature and the environment are increasingly being recognised as important for environmental management and conservation. Understanding people's perceptions is crucial for understanding behaviour and developing effective management strategies to maintain, preserve and improve biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. As an interdisciplinary team, we produced a synthesis of the key factors that influence people's perceptions of invasive alien species, and ordered them in a conceptual framework. In a context of considerable complexity and variation across time and space, we identified six broad-scale dimensions: (1) attributes of the individual perceiving the invasive alien species; (2) characteristics of the invasive alien species itself; (3) effects of the invasion (including negative and positive impacts, i.e. benefits and costs); (4) socio-cultural context; (5) landscape context; and (6) institutional and policy context. A number of underlying and facilitating aspects for each of these six overarching dimensions are also identified and discussed. Synthesising and understanding the main factors that influence people's perceptions is useful to guide future research, to facilitate dialogue and negotiation between actors, and to aid management and policy formulation and governance of invasive alien species. This can help to circumvent and mitigate conflicts, support prioritisation plans, improve stakeholder engagement platforms, and implement control measures.

Stakeholder engagement in the study and management of invasive alien species.

Invasive alien species are a major driver of global environmental change and a range of management interventions are needed to manage their effects on biodiversity, ecosystem services, human well-being and local livelihoods. Stakeholder engagement is widely advocated to integrate diverse knowledge and perspectives in the management of invasive species and to deal with potential conflicts of interest. We reviewed the literature in the ISI Web of Science on stakeholder engagement (the process of involving stakeholders (actors) in decision making, management actions and knowledge creation) in invasion science to assess and understand what has been done (looking at approaches and methodologies used, stakeholders involved, and outcomes from engagement) and to make recommendations for future work. Research on stakeholder engagement in invasion science has increased over the last decade, helping to improve scientific knowledge and contributing towards policy formulation and co-implementation of management. However, many challenges remain and engagement could be made more effective. For example, most studies engage only one stakeholder group passively using questionnaires, primarily for assessing local knowledge and perceptions. Although useful for management and policy planning, these stakeholders are not active participants and there is no two-way flow of knowledge. To make stakeholder involvement more useful, we encourage more integrative and collaborative engagement to (1) improve co-design, co-creation and co-implementation of research and management actions; (2) promote social learning and provide feedback to stakeholders; (3) enhance collaboration and partnerships beyond the natural sciences and academia (interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration); and (4) discuss some practical and policy suggestions for improving stakeholder engagement in invasion science research and management. This will help facilitate different stakeholders to work better together, allowing problems associated with biological invasions to be tackled more holistically and successfully.

The public and professionals reason similarly about the management of non-native invasive species: a quantitative investigation of the relationship between beliefs and attitudes.

Despite continued critique of the idea of clear boundaries between scientific and lay knowledge, the 'deficit-model' of public understanding of ecological issues still seems prevalent in discourses of biodiversity management. Prominent invasion biologists, for example, still argue that citizens need to be educated so that they accept scientists' views on the management of non-native invasive species. We conducted a questionnaire-based survey with members of the public and professionals in invasive species management (n = 732) in Canada and the UK to investigate commonalities and differences in their perceptions of species and, more importantly, how these perceptions were connected to attitudes towards species management. Both native and non-native mammal and tree species were included. Professionals tended to have more extreme views than the public, especially in relation to nativeness and abundance of a species. In both groups, species that were perceived to be more abundant, non-native, unattractive or harmful to nature and the economy were more likely to be regarded as in need of management. While perceptions of species and attitudes towards management thus often differed between public and professionals, these perceptions were linked to attitudes in very similar ways across the two groups. This suggests that ways of reasoning about invasive species employed by professionals and the public might be more compatible with each other than commonly thought. We recommend that managers and local people engage in open discussion about each other's beliefs and attitudes prior to an invasive species control programme. This could ultimately reduce conflict over invasive species control.

Clarifying debates in invasion biology: a survey of invasion biologists.

Invasion biology is a relatively new field, so there are ongoing debates about foundational issues regarding terminology and assessment of the causes and consequences of invasive species. These debates largely reflect differing views about the extent to which invasion biologists should advocate on behalf of native species. We surveyed reviewers of the journal Biological Invasions to obtain a better sense of how invasion biologists evaluate several foundational issues. We received 422 replies, which represented a very good response rate for an online survey of 42.5% of those contacted. Responses to several debates in the field were distributed bimodally, but respondents consistently indicated that contemporary biological invasions are unprecedented. Even still, this was not seen as justification for exaggerated language (hyperbole). In contrast to prevalent claims in the literature, only 27.3% of respondents ranked invasive species as the first or second greatest threat to biodiversity. The responses also highlighted the interaction of invasive species with other threats and the role of human activity in their spread. Finally, the respondents agreed that they need to be both more objective and better at communicating their results so that those results can be effectively integrated into management.