Neither the public nor experts judge species primarily on their origins

Rene Van Der Wal, Anke Fischer, Sebastian Selge, Brendon M. H. Larson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In contemporary environmental conservation, species are judged in terms of their origin ('nativeness'), as well as their behaviour and impacts ('invasiveness'). In many instances, however, the term 'non-native' has been used as a proxy for harmfulness, implying the need for control. Some scientists have attempted to discourage this practice, on the grounds that it is inappropriate and counterproductive to judge species on their origin alone. However, to date, no empirical data exist on the degree to which nativeness in itself (that is, a species' origin) shapes people's attitudes towards management interventions in practice. This study addresses this void, demonstrating empirically that both the public and invasive species professionals largely ignore a species' origin when evaluating the need for conservation action. Through a questionnaire-based survey of the general public and invasive species experts in both Scotland and Canada, the study revealed that perceived abundance and damage to nature and the economy, rather than non-nativeness, informed attitudes towards species management, empirically substantiating the claim that a species' perceived abundance and impact, and not its origin, is what really matters to most people. Natural resource management should thus focus explicitly on impact-related criteria, rather than on a species' origin.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)349-355
Number of pages7
JournalEnvironmental Conservation
Volume42
Issue number4
Early online date24 Feb 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2015

Keywords

  • attitudes
  • impact on economy
  • impact on nature
  • invasive species
  • management
  • non-native
  • origin
  • professionals
  • public
  • prey populations
  • alien
  • globalization
  • biodiversity
  • Scotland
  • natives
  • views
  • era

Cite this

Neither the public nor experts judge species primarily on their origins. / Van Der Wal, Rene; Fischer, Anke; Selge, Sebastian; Larson, Brendon M. H.

In: Environmental Conservation, Vol. 42, No. 4, 12.2015, p. 349-355.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Van Der Wal, Rene ; Fischer, Anke ; Selge, Sebastian ; Larson, Brendon M. H. / Neither the public nor experts judge species primarily on their origins. In: Environmental Conservation. 2015 ; Vol. 42, No. 4. pp. 349-355.
@article{179f164bba724caf9fdff6f58044e9f6,
title = "Neither the public nor experts judge species primarily on their origins",
abstract = "In contemporary environmental conservation, species are judged in terms of their origin ('nativeness'), as well as their behaviour and impacts ('invasiveness'). In many instances, however, the term 'non-native' has been used as a proxy for harmfulness, implying the need for control. Some scientists have attempted to discourage this practice, on the grounds that it is inappropriate and counterproductive to judge species on their origin alone. However, to date, no empirical data exist on the degree to which nativeness in itself (that is, a species' origin) shapes people's attitudes towards management interventions in practice. This study addresses this void, demonstrating empirically that both the public and invasive species professionals largely ignore a species' origin when evaluating the need for conservation action. Through a questionnaire-based survey of the general public and invasive species experts in both Scotland and Canada, the study revealed that perceived abundance and damage to nature and the economy, rather than non-nativeness, informed attitudes towards species management, empirically substantiating the claim that a species' perceived abundance and impact, and not its origin, is what really matters to most people. Natural resource management should thus focus explicitly on impact-related criteria, rather than on a species' origin.",
keywords = "attitudes, impact on economy, impact on nature, invasive species, management, non-native, origin, professionals, public, prey populations, alien, globalization, biodiversity, Scotland, natives, views, era",
author = "{Van Der Wal}, Rene and Anke Fischer and Sebastian Selge and Larson, {Brendon M. H.}",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1017/S0376892915000053",
language = "English",
volume = "42",
pages = "349--355",
journal = "Environmental Conservation",
issn = "0376-8929",
publisher = "Cambridge Univ. Press.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Neither the public nor experts judge species primarily on their origins

AU - Van Der Wal, Rene

AU - Fischer, Anke

AU - Selge, Sebastian

AU - Larson, Brendon M. H.

PY - 2015/12

Y1 - 2015/12

N2 - In contemporary environmental conservation, species are judged in terms of their origin ('nativeness'), as well as their behaviour and impacts ('invasiveness'). In many instances, however, the term 'non-native' has been used as a proxy for harmfulness, implying the need for control. Some scientists have attempted to discourage this practice, on the grounds that it is inappropriate and counterproductive to judge species on their origin alone. However, to date, no empirical data exist on the degree to which nativeness in itself (that is, a species' origin) shapes people's attitudes towards management interventions in practice. This study addresses this void, demonstrating empirically that both the public and invasive species professionals largely ignore a species' origin when evaluating the need for conservation action. Through a questionnaire-based survey of the general public and invasive species experts in both Scotland and Canada, the study revealed that perceived abundance and damage to nature and the economy, rather than non-nativeness, informed attitudes towards species management, empirically substantiating the claim that a species' perceived abundance and impact, and not its origin, is what really matters to most people. Natural resource management should thus focus explicitly on impact-related criteria, rather than on a species' origin.

AB - In contemporary environmental conservation, species are judged in terms of their origin ('nativeness'), as well as their behaviour and impacts ('invasiveness'). In many instances, however, the term 'non-native' has been used as a proxy for harmfulness, implying the need for control. Some scientists have attempted to discourage this practice, on the grounds that it is inappropriate and counterproductive to judge species on their origin alone. However, to date, no empirical data exist on the degree to which nativeness in itself (that is, a species' origin) shapes people's attitudes towards management interventions in practice. This study addresses this void, demonstrating empirically that both the public and invasive species professionals largely ignore a species' origin when evaluating the need for conservation action. Through a questionnaire-based survey of the general public and invasive species experts in both Scotland and Canada, the study revealed that perceived abundance and damage to nature and the economy, rather than non-nativeness, informed attitudes towards species management, empirically substantiating the claim that a species' perceived abundance and impact, and not its origin, is what really matters to most people. Natural resource management should thus focus explicitly on impact-related criteria, rather than on a species' origin.

KW - attitudes

KW - impact on economy

KW - impact on nature

KW - invasive species

KW - management

KW - non-native

KW - origin

KW - professionals

KW - public

KW - prey populations

KW - alien

KW - globalization

KW - biodiversity

KW - Scotland

KW - natives

KW - views

KW - era

U2 - 10.1017/S0376892915000053

DO - 10.1017/S0376892915000053

M3 - Article

VL - 42

SP - 349

EP - 355

JO - Environmental Conservation

JF - Environmental Conservation

SN - 0376-8929

IS - 4

ER -