LUEM Project 1- 40046511.docx

Cover photo- Japanese Knotweed

50

Land Use and

Environment

al Management 2015

Final Year Project

Submitted: 15/05/2015Word count: 7,450

Daniel David Egerton

Queen’s University, Belfast Gibson Institute

BSc (Hons) Land Use and Environmental Management

Abstract

Invasive non-native species (INNS) have a markedly detrimental effect on

biodiversity and society throughout the United Kingdom, their presence and control

are both salient issues economically. Effective implementation of control programs is

increasingly difficult and expensive, with difference in public opinion inhibiting the

political and economic support of such programs. Influencing public opinion on the

social dimension within INNS management provides an opportunity to improve and

bring greater insight into the implementation of such programs. In order to better

understand the controversy and potential opportunities that arise from a social

dimension, this study was conducted alongside an eradication program in Scotland,

namely the Controlling Priority Invasive Non-native Riparian Plants and Restoring

Native Biodiversity (CIRB) program. A public questionnaire was conducted with 104

candidates in key river catchments controlled by the Rivers and Fisheries Trust of

Scotland and their regional partners. The study targeted frequent and casual river

users to analyse public aptitude and attitude towards INNS and their control. This

study found that there is relatively high support for eradication or control programs

associated with CIRB species, but a lack of recognition for the detrimental impacts

of INNS. In addition the value which river users associate with INNS varies, other

studies have found an integral link between value and risk perception. This study

argues that increased public support for INNS control is dependent on individual

value systems, as well as a higher awareness of the effect of human agency on the

risk perception of INNS.

1

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges Chris Horril for facilitating the project, Christine

Maggs for awarding the project to the author, Marco Boeri for supervision during

analysis and writing as well as all the questionnaire participants for their

contributions. Author acknowledges funding from School of Biological Sciences,

Queen’s University, Belfast.

2

ContentsAbstract...............................................................................................................................1

Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................2

Contents..............................................................................................................................3

1. Introduction................................................................................................................4

2. Review of previous work.............................................................................................5

3. Aim..............................................................................................................................8

4. Materials and methods................................................................................................9

4.1 Questionnaire design................................................................................................9

4.2 Data analysis............................................................................................................12

5. Results.......................................................................................................................14

5.1 Candidate statistics.................................................................................................14

5.2 Candidates aptitude of invasive species..................................................................15

5.3 Candidates aptitude of invasion control..................................................................18

5.4 Candidates attitude for species management options............................................20

5.5 Value systems and risk perception of INNS.............................................................24

6 Discussion..................................................................................................................27

6.1 Public aptitude of INNS...........................................................................................27

6.2 Value systems of INNS in relation to aptitude.........................................................29

6.3 Public attitude of INNS............................................................................................31

6.4 Value systems of INNS in terms of attitude.............................................................31

6.5 INNS value systems and risk perception..................................................................33

7 Conclusion.................................................................................................................36

8 Bibliography..............................................................................................................38

9 Figures.......................................................................................................................44

10 Appendices................................................................................................................45

10.1 Appendix A- Public Questionnaire..........................................................................45

3

10.2- Appendix B- Management preferences by user group.........................................50

1. Introduction

Invasive non-native species (INNS) management has been the subject of extensive

research as a result of its demonstrated impacts ecologically (Levine et al. 2003)

and economically (Pimentel et al. 2005). Environmental degradation is considered a

direct impact of INNS existence, through reduction of ecosystem services which

result in biodiversity loss through their subversive impact on national conservation

efforts (DEFRA, 2008). Although not all non-native species have hugely detrimental

impacts, a subset of non-native species are classified as invasive species based on

their potential for economic, ecological, or other types of damage (GISP, 2001).

Furthermore, the public are included in the debate as social aspects of INNS

management are increasingly key aspects in conservation management policy. This

study focuses on the conclusive elements of the CIRB project. CIRB facilitated

particular social agendas; enabling clarification of an INNS control projects social

benefit, as well as providing further insight into the inclusion of a social element in

future management policy. Prior to the conception of the CIRB project other

literature had anticipated the importance of a ‘social pillar’ within species

management, Larson et al. (2008) indicated that research and investment

concerning public outreach, education and involvement was a priority for enabling

best practice both politically and economically in the management of INNS.

1.

4

2. Review of previous work

There are several supportive studies on the social aspect of INNS management,

enabling pragmatic debate for the further integration of social science in control or

eradication programs. Studies have identified that funding is insufficient regarding

the expansive nature of INNS spread. It is becoming increasingly important to find

alternative and effective management options, particularly as rates of invasion are

expected to accelerate (Lodge et al. 2006; Hellman et al. 2008). It could be argued

that the integration of a social arm in INNS management and research would

correlate directly to improved public support and engagement. This may allow

political and economic restrictions to be alleviated. Public opposition has led to calls

from social scientists and policy makers to conduct research into how to increase

“public buy-in” for eradication and control programs. (Hulme, 2006, p. 845). In

addition, other studies have shown that exclusion of key stakeholders in the

development of management plans can make potential adversaries of stakeholders

who would otherwise be potential allies (Van Driesche and Van Driesche, 2004).

Furthermore, the absence of public support, which could be enhanced by inclusion

and transparency among stakeholders, presents an opportunity cost within

management programs. Increased public knowledge of the risks of INNS has the

potential to enhance prevention and control measures.

The labelling of species as invasive non-native has provoked debate over the

ambiguous nature of the terminology, often deemed inconsistent with public value

systems (Chivian and Bernstein, 2008; Raymond et al, 2011). In the absence of

clarity over terminology conflicts between the public and conservation agencies can

have a detrimental effect on the effectiveness of eradication and control programs.

In respect to CIRB, social objectives were clearly outlined in all relevant literature

(CIRB, 2011).

5

However, Anderson and Valenzuela (2014) found a gap between what scientist’s

state within research priorities (such as social policy, and management dimensions)

and their actual research output (often ecological studies are prioritised). In this

research two prominent scenarios were highlighted which allow for the

aforementioned discrepancy; first the time lag between study design and publication

making the findings obsolete by their release, or researchers lack of funding to fulfil

social priorities. For the purpose of evaluating the inclusion of social policy within the

CIRB project, it is a priority of this study to debate the extent social policy has

influenced CIRB.

To effectively evaluate the social dimension of INNS management it was crucial to

demonstrate public thought regarding INNS in controlled areas. This required insight

into the public’s perception and construction of values regarding INNS. It is argued

the status of a species is defined by a combination of ecology, mental

representation and social context (Fischer and van der Wal 2007). In addition,

Genovesi (2007) presented the constructs of public opinion as differences in

knowledge, public perception of benefits and costs of INNS, value systems and

distrust in conservation authorities. This furthers the claims that information

campaigns should account for diverging values as a means to enhance control or

eradication priorities.

Relating the findings of this study to relative social science theories provides clarity

of CIRB’s public interaction, outlining potential avenues for enhancement. Within

invasion biology studies it has been shown that public attitudes are constructs based

on a combination of an individual’s beliefs and personal reasoned analysis of

specific situations (Fulton et al. 1996; Montgomery, 2002; Fischer et al. 2011) Other

studies have associated values to risk perception. That Individuals form their risk

6

perceptions of INNS based on values they construct regarding a single or several

attributes, or experiences they associate with particular species (Kahan and Braman

2006; Selge et al. 2011). In order to clearly evaluate the social dimension of INNS

value systems and risk perceptions have been evaluated through a questionnaire of

the public, this assesses the public’s aptitude and attitude regarding invasive non-

native species.

7

3. Aim

The key aim of this project is to address the value systems and risk perceptions of

river users within controlled areas. This was conducted in order to evaluate the

effectiveness of public participation within the CIRB project. In addition use this

information to outline potential enhancements within social policy respective of

INNS. Although, it is appreciated that a public questionnaire has limitations with

regards to conclusiveness, for example, the reliance on the public to honest as to

their views.

The objectives of this study are to:

I. Assess public aptitude regarding invasive non-native species;

II. Address public attitudes regarding invasive non-native species;

III. Evaluate the value systems public river users associate with the CIRB targeted

invasive non-native species;

IV. Analyse the correlation between public value systems and risk perception;

V. Conclude and recommend future management programs and research.

4.

8

4. Materials and methods

4.1 Questionnaire design

The public questionnaires consisted of 4 pages with 21 questions (Appendix A).

Respondents were asked about their knowledge of INNS and the management

programs associated with them. They were also asked general questions about their

relationship with the waterways, outdoor activities, involvement in species

management and basic demographic information. This information was gathered in

order to assess the aptitude and general awareness candidates had of INNS. The

questionnaire focused specifically on the four species (see table 1 and figures 1-4)

the CIRB project managed within the study areas. These plants form dense single-

species stands that impact biodiversity. These INNS restrict access for fishing and

recreation, and reduce the amenity value of adjacent parks and roadsides. In

addition, the toxic sap of Giant Hogweed poses a health risk, particularly for children

(CIRB, 2011). Three of the four species were listed in the Scottish Natural Heritage’s

public consultation document for a framework of action on invasive non-native

species (SNH, 2006a). Moreover, from an audit of INNS in Scotland it was indicated

the species had either a potential moderate or high significant impact on the Scottish

economy or biodiversity (Welch et al. 2001).

Table 1- Species included in CIRB

Table 1. The common and Latin names, and type of organism, of the invasive non-

native species referred to in the questionnaire

Species Type

Rhododendron (Rhododendron ponticum) Terrestrial plant

Giant Hogweed (Heracleum

mantegazzianum)

Terrestrial plant

9

Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica) Terrestrial plant

Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) Terrestrial plant

Figures 1-4: Appearance of CIRB INNS

The survey was designed to progressively demand more specific information from

candidates to establish initial aptitude, whilst instilling a sense of confidence in

participating. Eventually the survey developed into control/ involvement preferences

to establish each candidate’s attitude to INNS species and assess public values

systems and risk perceptions.

The beginning of the questionnaire kept questions on knowledge to a minimum, this

was in order to discover the patterns in which the public use the river, as well as

how INNS may present issues with river use. This aspect included an assessment of

unprompted awareness of INNS within the area. Of particular importance was the

10

Figure 1- Japanese Knotweed Figure 2- Rhododendron

Figure 4- Giant Hogweed Figure 3- Himalayan Balsam

use of the river, as the questionnaire was conducted in association with the Rivers

and Fisheries Trust of Scotland. Although the process of selecting a candidate was

not restricted to recreational users only, achieving an even ratio of both frequent and

casual users was actioned in order to increase the scope of the dataset.

Following a comfortable introduction to the questionnaire candidates were read a

short paragraph that defined INNS and their potential detrimental impacts. Although

this may be considered an opportunity to attract favourable answers it could be

argued that those with prior concerns or experience with INNS would in fact indicate

the presence of INNS in the previous section. The purpose of this section was to

gauge user’s attitude towards INNS and management programs. Candidates were

shown photographs to select their favoured watercourse, including an aesthetically

pleasing Himalayan balsam invasion. In addition candidates were shown information

posters which had been promoted during CIRB to raise awareness of control

schemes. This aspect was included to assess an individual’s value system and

awareness respective CIRB specifically.

The questionnaire was structured to assess knowledge first and then challenge

attitudes. For example, Question 18 was, “Are you aware of how these plants

spread? If yes, how?” followed by question 19, “In your opinion which methods listed

below spread these plants the most: A, B, C, etc.” Having assessed the knowledge

the participants had of INNS and their presence, the questionnaire shifted focus to

the control of invasive species asking whether participants were aware of invasive

control and their preference of control methodology.

The questionnaire sample (n = 104) was conducted in 3 of the 4 priority catchments

of the CIRB project, including Ayrshire, Galloway and Tweed. The areas surveyed

during the summer of 2014 consisted of: Ayr, Dalbeattie, Gatehouse-of-Fleet,

Kilmarnock, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Coldstream, Kelso, and Catrine. The use of

11

physical questionnaires has certain limitations. However their use had the

advantage of engaging with key recreational groups, enabling a sample set which

reflects the CIRB project accurately.

4.2 Data analysis

Quantitative data from the surveys was analysed using MsExcel. The data was

collected and digitised and is demonstrated through graphs within the results

section. Answers to open-ended questions were qualitatively categorised and

grouped for easy interpretation and representation. Qualitative research was

included as a complementary element to the quantitative analysis. Qualitative

information allows for further clarification of the ambiguities which inform values and

risk perceptions (Selge et al. 2011).

Using the quantitative data, relationships were established by categorising certain

candidates. Attitudes and aptitudes were analysed to establish the relationships

certain qualities or attributes share with attitudes and behaviours. The latter section

of the questionnaire aimed to recognise the relationship between value systems and

risk perception, with the aptitude and attitude data comparatively review alongside to

study the relationship.

In order to aid a rural or urban comparison population sizes of the localities were

compared alongside the classification of each settlement, village, town, or city.

Using this methodology rural settlements are categorised as containing less than

3,000 inhabitants, and urban containing above 3,000 inhabitants. In addition, to be

classified as an inhabitant of a locality candidate’s had to live within 5 miles of the

study location. Those temporarily visiting rural locations but regularly lived further

distances were classified as urban. This was based on the majority of this group

visiting from larger settlements. Rural locations included Gatehouse-of-Fleet,

Catrine and Coldstream. Urban locations included, Dalbeattie, Kilmarnock, Ayr,

12

Kelso and Berwick-upon-Tweed. Whether there is a correlation between where a

candidate resided, or their river use, and their perceptions was analysed.

13

5. Results

5.1 Candidate statistics

As a result of using targeted areas, there was a disproportionate volume of urban

candidates (77%). In order to appropriately represent all groups percentages are

accordingly weighted to display proportionality. Chart 1.0 displays percentage

values of river users who participated in the questionnaire. Firstly the portion of

candidates involved in frequent angling activity is the chief response category

(37%), followed by those who used the banks of waterways to walk recreationally

(25%). The proportionality of these two groups is not uncommon, catchments

chosen for this survey were specially selected to gauge casual public use as well as

frequent recreational use; anglers and walkers are logically the most common

demographic.

Chart 1- Percentage values of river usage

swim

ming

walking

cyclin

gfish

ing

boating

photography

golf

dog walk

ing

runningwork

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2.8%

25%

4.8%

37%

1.9%

7.7%3.8%

9.6%5.7%

0.96%

Series1

Candidates use of waterways

14

Further user statistics include the distance each participant travelled in order to use

waterways recreationally. Using this data locality demographics were distinguished

as either rural or urban. Analysis of the data found that local participants

represented 70% of the sample, and non-local 30%, displayed in chart 2. Users

were categorised urban candidates (77%) or rural (23%) local using the distinction

of locality mentioned in the methodology.

Chart 2- Percentage values of local and non-local participants

<1

Between 1 and 2

between 2 and 3

between 3 and 4

between 4 and 5

between 5 and 10

between 10 and 20

between 20 and 50

between 50 and 100

between 100 and 150

over 150

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

34.8%

11.3%

10.4%

7.8%

5.2%

3.5%

1.7%

5.2%

8.7%

4.3%

7.0%

Percentage values for localand non-local participants

5.2 Candidates aptitude of invasive species

I. Awareness of INNS

The questionnaire asked candidates whether they had noticed, or were aware, of

any changes to the watercourse. Candidates were unaware of the specific nature of

the study at this stage. 28 candidates identified overgrown banks or specific species

sightings as negative impacts, which indicated awareness of the presence INNS

(27%). The split between urban and rural users who directly recognised the impact

15

of INNS was divided between 17 urban candidates (61%) and 11 rural candidates

(39%). Statistically there was greater urban recognition without prompt. However, in

light of the higher response rate from urban dwellers the rural representation is

proportionally larger, with 11 rural candidates representing 46% of all rural users,

and 17 urban users representing only 21% of all urban users. These figures show a

higher initial and unbiased awareness of INNS among rural users. With regards to

river users, anglers (46%) were the most aware of INNS on the watercourse,

followed, unsurprisingly, by the second largest activity, walking (29%).

The statistics changed dramatically once candidates were asked to select INNS they

recognised from photographs. Of the entire group 61% of candidates indicated

recognition of at least one of the four species, much higher than the initial 27% who

recognised the presence of INNS as a negative impact on the watercourse. There

are a number of implications resulting from this finding. This shows that there is a

distinction between recognition of the presence of INNS and associating negative

connotations with its presence.

Chart 3- Frequency of non-native species recognition

Giant hogweed

Japanese Knotweed

Rhododendron

Himalyan balsam

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

30 (32.61%)

13 (14.13%)

7 (7.61%)

42 (45.65%)

Frequency of non-native species recognition

16

Chart 3 above displays how many candidates proportionally recognised each

species. Himalayan Balsam was the most frequently selected (46%). As the study

was conducted during the growth period this particular species was abundant, had a

powerful odour and an aesthetic appearance in many of the study areas. However,

the abundant and vibrant Rhododendron was surprisingly undersubscribed. Many

users who recognised Rhododendron were unaware of its INNS status, ascertained

from qualitative comments I made during the survey.

ii. The spread of invasive species

Candidates were asked what they believed was the cause for the spread of INNS.

Of the study group the primary response was unsure (43%), with many declining to

answer through a simple lack of knowledge. However, of the remaining portion

opinion was divided between human (26%) and natural factors (31%). The next

query gave candidates a selection of causes, some natural and some human

related. When given a selection of mostly human agency choices (6 of 7) the

proportions altered dramatically, displayed in chart 4. Candidates were inclined to

admit that at least one human factor was responsible for the spread of INNS (65%).

Despite the volume of human related factors to choose from the most common

factor chosen was the natural cause of flooding (35%). This represents a mixed

opinion on humanities role in the spread of INNS. Suggesting at least a third of the

response group did not consider human introduction or spread to be a significant

factor. This analysis challenges the level of public awareness regarding human

agency as a leading contributor to the spread of INNS.

17

Chart 4- Once given options, human agency more responsive

9.6%

14.4%

2.9%

20.2%

18.3%

34.6%

walking

dog walking

kayaking/ canoeing

angling

movement of livestock

wheels/ slipstream of vehicles

natural flooding

Candidate's opinion what spread IAS most

For a comparison of knowledge or willingness to accept human agency, the two

main user groups were assessed. Originally anglers were either unsure or believed

that spread was most influenced by natural causes (69%). Once given a selection of

options this proportion grew (72%), ultimately rejecting human agency. By contrast

walkers were much more willing to accept that humanity had a significant role in the

spread of INNS, originally considering human agency (23%), and once given options

to choose from this dramatically increased (85%).

5.3 Candidates aptitude of invasion control

i. Awareness of invasion control

A significant portion of the questionnaire related to knowledge of the biosecurity

measures which the CIRB project conducted throughout the study area. Candidates

were asked whether they were aware of biosecurity measures that had taken place

in the area. A large segment (44%) was aware of the measures which were being

18

conducted. Analysis then focused exclusively on the portion of candidates who were

aware of biosecurity measures to develop any relevant patterns.

First proportions of locality were outlined; 23 (51%) of those who were aware of

biosecurity measures were urban candidates, compared with 22 (49%) of rural

candidates. Rural respondents again represented higher volumes proportionally.

Applying the same user analysis as the previous section, river use was compared

with the knowledge of these measures. Anglers represented the largest portion of

these users (56%), followed by walkers (10%), and then runners (10%). The portion

of the survey group that included walkers and anglers again showed the highest

awareness. However, the portion of walkers was much lower compared

proportionally to other groups, such as runners. To illustrate other groups that

represented awareness of biosecurity, refer to Chart 5.

Chart 5- Groups aware of biosecurity measures

Angler

Photographer

Business

RunnerBoate

r

Walker

Dogwalk

er

Swim

mer0

10

20

30

40

50

60 56%

7%4%

10%4%

10%5% 4%

Series1

Demographic groups aware of biosecurity

19

5.4 Candidates attitude for species management options

i. Preference for invasive control methods

The next section of results will apply the notion of value systems directly to

responses. Having established that several candidates exhibit experience or

knowledge INNS, the dynamic of the questionnaire altered slightly half way through.

Candidates were provided with a base statement on which they could express

further opinion. In this section of the questionnaire respondents were given a choice

of management techniques (chemical spray, mechanical removal, work parties and

grazing of livestock), the question included an option to reject any form of

management. However the entire study group (100%) chose at least one form of

control method. The most prominent response was that of work parties to remove

species with hand tools (49%) followed by the option of chemical spray to destroy

species (34.6%), displayed in chart 6.

Chart 6-Preferred management option

5.8%

34.6%

10.6%

49.0%

Preferred management options

MechanicallyChemical sprayGraze livestock Work parties hand tools

To elaborate further on value systems the data was analysed to represent the user

groups and their locality. Previous analysis focussed on level of knowledge each

20

user group possessed. The following analysis will delve deeper into the preferences

individual user groups’ exhibit in terms of eradication methods, refer to Appendix B.

The most popular management option for anglers was work parties (62%), with

chemical spray the second most popular (31%). Walkers responded differently with

work parties (42%), and chemical spray (26%). Many of the fellow user groups

chose similar preferences except that of runners with chemical spray being the

preferred option (67%), with work parties (17%). Cyclists favoured chemical spray

(60%), then work parties (40%). Golfers preferred chemical spray (75%) and grazing

of livestock (25%), expressing zero interest in the use of work parties. Further

analysis showed that anglers, boaters, cyclists and swimmers ignored grazing as an

option entirely.

Chart 7- Management preference by locality

chemical work party mechanical graze livestock0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

36.3

43.8

6.312.8

29.2

66.7

41.7 urbanrural

When the data analysis focussed on locality, a work party was the preferred option

of both urban (43%) and rural (67%) users. See chart 7. With rural users ignoring

the grazing option entirely. Favour for the use of chemical spray was significantly

21

Management preferences by locality

less among urban (36%) and rural (29%) user’s alike. Both groups displayed similar

views towards the use of a mechanical removal option, urban (6%) and rural (4%).

ii. Preference to get involved

In general the preferred way to get involved was to report sighting of invasive

species (46%) with non-involvement the secondary result (24%). Reporting sightings

was a passive option included to challenge risk perception, introduced in order to

include a group which would recognise the issue but not perceive inherent risk. Of

the study group just under a third (30%) wished to be actively involved in tackling

the issue of INNS, with options selected including monitor programs (8%),

volunteering (9%), and work parties (13%). The direct involvement of candidate’s

indicates an awareness of risk.

Further analysis again assessed the differences between user and locality groups;

individually and as part of the entire group.

The level of perceived risk posed by INNS among survey participants was gauged

using the level of active involvement preferred by user groups. Each preference was

categorised dependant on the level of commitment required by the participants. The

level of effort a participant is willing to exert, the greater their level of risk perception.

Levels of risk perception are defined as follows: very low (no involvement), low

(report sightings), medium (work parties), high (monitor program) and very high

(volunteer). Work parties were included as medium despite the similar effort exerted

as volunteer, this was due to the insinuation of work being paid. This section studied

which proportion of each user group fell under each definition, displayed in table 2.

Table 2- User groups percentage representation of risk perception

Volunteer Monitor

program

Work

Parties

Report

sightings

Nothing

22

Angling 0.444444 0.444444 0.642857 0.361702 0.16

Walking 0.222222 0.333333 0.071429 0.234043 0.36

Dog walking 0.111111 0.111111 0.106383 0.12

Running 0.142857 0.06383 0.04

Swimming 0.222222 0.042553

Boating 0.111111 0.071429

Golf 0.042553 0.08

Photography 0.148936 0.04

Cycling 0.2

Business 0.071429

The key findings were that walkers held the lowest risk perception, with a majority

stake in the very low category (36%) followed by cyclists (20%), anglers (16%) and

dog walkers (12%). In terms of proportions within the entire group the very low

definition represents cyclists (100%), golfers (50%), walkers (35%), runners (17%),

photographers (13%) and most interestingly anglers (11%). The proportion of

anglers displaying very low risk perception is surprising considering the perceived

value placed by them on INNS control in previous sections of the analysis.

Comparatively, very high risk perception is chiefly represented by anglers (44%),

with 4 candidates willing to volunteer. Anglers varied quite significantly. Portions of

anglers defined as very low (11%), low (45%), medium (24%), high (10%) and very

high (10%). In terms of the very high risk perception walkers and swimmers both

represented 22% each. Walkers value and risk perception varied as well by

proportionality of the group, very low (35%), low (42%), medium (4%), high (11%)

and very high (8%). It was clear that the majority of walkers had low representation

of risk perception regarding non-native species.

23

Chart 8- Risk perception by locality

report sight -ing

volunteer work party monitor none0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

urbanrural

Preferred way to get involved by locality

Analysis of risk perception then focussed on the locality of candidates and displayed

in chart 8. Urban users represented a larger volume of the very low category (29%),

in contrast to the rural portion (8%). When comparing high risk perception 5 rural

candidates selected volunteering as their preferred option, urban users was lower at

a total of 4. Statistically it was found that rural users were more inclined to perceive

risk (21%), with the urban group only 5% has a high risk perception.

5.5 Value systems and risk perception of INNS

i. Candidates preference to learn more Vs established programs

24

Candidates were given the opportunity to answer freely when asked how they would

like to learn more about INNS. This information was categorised and grouped for

analysis, the data is displayed in chart 9 below. There were candidates who were

not interested in learning more (9%), with the remaining study choosing at least one

option. The options candidates selected varied from use of online sources to public

forums. The highest recorded answer was the use of information boards (31%).

Throughout the CIRB project there were information campaigns that used

information boards as a means to increase awareness. In this campaign posters

were placed in existing information boards across the three study areas. When

asked whether they recognised either of the two most prominently distributed

posters, only 5% responded to have witnessed their existence. The researcher

would like to note that whilst conducting the questionnaire posters were frequently

sighted near study zones.

Chart 9- How candidates would like to learn more

.9%

30.8%

25%4.8%

19.2%

11.5&

.9% 4.8% .9% Wouldn't- N/Ainfo board

written information NGOFree ap

online materials

public meetingtraining on control techniquesangling clubkayak club

How candidates would like to learn about IAS

Anglers who would like to learn more about INNS selected options such as,

information from the angling club or permit authorities; this represented 4.8% of the

total study group, representing 10.9% of all anglers. Additional responses for the

25

entire group included written information (25%), online information (19.2%), and

public meetings (12%).

To further asses how INNS awareness programs might be enhanced, these results

were compared to the answers candidates gave earlier in the survey when asked

how they had heard of invasive species. The most prominent response was from

the media (33%), there has been significant publicity from news broadcasters and

papers concerning the detrimental impacts of invasive species. It was however the

use of their community that many learned about INNS. A significant portion had

heard from a family member (18%), or from a friend (17%). If combined a social

mechanism totals 35% of the study.

26

6 Discussion

6.1 Public aptitude of INNS

This study attempted to provide a wider view on the perceptions public river users

hold of INNS, aiming to provide an insight into aptitudes and attitudes regarding

INNS value systems and risk perceptions. Through the assessment of these

elements it is believed that the relationship INNS management plans share with the

public may be better understood. Fortunately for this investigation, the CIRB project

was a well-funded and executed program which made strides to engage with the

public. With an established platform to investigate, this study has had the

opportunity to research the aspects of social engagement in a project which already

appreciated social policy. It is important to note that all questionnaire based studies

have limitations as to how representative they are of the entire public (Sapsford,

1999). In addition, the proportionality of this study group was weighted toward a

specific type of user, namely anglers. However, with walkers being the second

largest user group surveyed, they are arguably an equal but opposite type of river.

As a targeted questionnaire conducted on prominent CIRB control sites, this survey

will be of greatest use for the development of future INNS management projects

within previous CIRB control sites. Other social studies in Scotland (Fischer and Van

der Wal, 2007; Bremmer 2007; Selge, 2011; Estévez, et al. 2014) provided a

broader view of public attitude. These studies used a stratified random sampling

procedure to minimise bias, an option unavailable to this study. Nevertheless the

targeted nature utilised here provided an opportunity to investigate demographics

that regularly decline responding, such as younger respondents and those with

fewer formal qualifications (Sapsford, 1999; White et al. 2003). Although not

specifically mentioned in the data, many candidates were of these respective

demographics. This was primarily a result of the questionnaire being conducted

27

during the regular working day throughout the months of July and August. This study

provides a complementary insight to previous studies. Conservation and permit

authorities may find the study useful when considering how to raise awareness

among frequent river users, particularly anglers.

In general, the candidates of this questionnaire responded well to questions on

aptitude, this enabled an analysis of public awareness to be reflective of how the

CIRB engaged with the public. Without any initial prompting towards the subject of

INNS a high proportion of respondents recognised the detrimental impacts of such

species. This portion of the public had an inherent support of control of INNS within

the test areas. This study discovered differing aptitudes regarding INNS among rural

and urban users. This is similar to the findings of other studies concerning the issue

INNS, which also established differences in aptitude among rural and urban users

(Fischer and Van der Wal, 2007). Aptitude among social groups has been indicated

as crucial in interpreting value systems toward INNS (Estévez, et al. 2014).

Specifically in this study, rural candidates had noticed INNS more frequently than

urban river users. In addition, the interpretation of INNS among the public varied in

this study, highlighting crucial differences among stakeholder awareness of INNS.

The numbers of respondents for whom such knowledge was absent corresponds

with the findings of other studies on aptitude among key stakeholders (Burt et al.

2007; Chang et al. 2009; Cohen et al. 2007). The public’s interpretation of INNS was

highlighted in this study to be misconceived among several stakeholders. This

misconception could damage public support through misinterpretation of the issue.

The language of invasion biology was found to be difficult for members of the public

to define. Furthermore, ambiguity over INNS terminology has been criticised within

other ecological studies of public participation (Chivian and Bernstein, 2008;

Raymond et al, 2011).

28

6.2 Value systems of INNS in relation to aptitude

Analysis found that the positive identification of INNS was significantly increased

with the aid of photographs. This indicated a portion of the public recognised the

species based on appearance without knowledge of it being an INNS. Not all

candidates found the presence of INNS to be negative, only the aforementioned

portion of negative responders deemed INNS presence in such a way. Mentioned

negative impacts included ecological or social issues. Potential negative impacts

described by Cox (2004) include the ability of INNS to alter the biotic structures of

ecosystems, effect the welling of other species, push other species to extinction or

pose threats to human health or wellbeing.

Respondents whose hobby was directly at risk or made difficult by the presence of

INNS, such as anglers and swimmers possessed a negative value of INNS. In other

questionnaires it was shown that hobbyists associated with biodiversity were more

inclined to care about the loss of native species, or ecological damage, with

surprisingly little mention of the economic impacts or a lack of access to waterways

(Verbrugge et al. 2014). As this study focussed primarily on waterways, it was found

that the overgrowth of species was a leading negative implication, particularly for

anglers. Quist and Hubert (2004) found that among anglers the driving point of

contention was sourced as an emotional limitation associated with the restriction of

a cultural or recreational activity. Those members of the public who are not directly

impacted by INNS are not likely to have similar levels of negativity towards INNS as

those hobbyists most directly affected. Generally speaking, angler’s perceptions of

INNS were well established with only a small number presenting little concern of

INNS. In terms of other users there was a considerable volume of candidates who

considered INNS presence to be benign or of benefit. This represented a potential

obstacle in raising social and political support from the public.

29

There were particularly large differences in the value respondents held with respect

to INNS. Previous research into the social element of invasion biology found that

attitudes towards species are based on attributes people associate with a species,

such as non-nativeness, harmfulness or attractiveness (Montgomery, 2002; Fischer

et al. 2011). With the aid of photographs this analysis found that an attractive plant

was the foremost recognised, namely Himalayan Balsam. Byers et al (2002) argue

that not all INNS exert a negative impact, as not all species behave the same.

Language supporting invasion biology may not be coherent among the public. The

definition a member of public exerts toward INNS may be based on ulterior

experiences of attributes they view favourably. Additional studies found that

nativeness only had a minor influence on people’s attitudes (Fischer et al. 2011).

For example Rhododendron had the lowest recognition in this study despite its

arguable attractiveness. Many respondents who did recognise Rhododendron were

surprised by its INNS classification. Furthermore, in the benefit cost analysis for the

CIRB project, Rhododendron’s existence was discovered to be benign among

several candidates (Gebben and Longo, 2014). Bremmer et al (2007) found

significantly less support for the eradication of Rhododendron among Scottish

respondents. How INNS are defined is critical for interpretation by members of this

study. Binimelis et al. 2007 argue that the terms native and invasive are in part

social constructs of the ways nature is understood and informed by scientific data or

by cultural norms. Numerous species are classified INNS in such a way, but not all

correspond clearly with the social value the public associate with them. The

definition of non-native or invasive is accurate in a geographical or scientific sense,

but differences in the way which species are understood to be non-native or invasive

can create a conflict of interest with members of the public. This conflict can result in

diluting the severity and urgency of INNS communications, ultimately complicating

the dialogue of invasion biology. In addition to ambiguous language, the unclear

30

position regarding human agency is a defining element of the perception key

stakeholders have of INNS (Warren, 2007; Borowy, 2011).

6.3 Public attitude of INNS

Simultaneously aptitude and attitude provide part of the answer for understanding

individual value systems within social invasion studies. Human related variables

correlate directly with recorded introductions of INNS, including size and proximity

factors of species in urban areas; human agency has a role within the debate

(Denhnen- Schmutz et al. 2007; Hussner et al. 2010). In contrast to other aspects of

invasion biology this study found human responsibility for the spread of INNS to be

an undersubscribed concept in public attitude. Although, as previously discussed a

general lack of dialogue between key stakeholders and those who control species

could be attributable to this issue. When allowed to answer freely about how INNS

spread a considerably low portion of this study considered human agency as a route

cause. However, when given the opportunity to choose from a list, perspective

changed dramatically in favour of human agency. Similar studies have shown

human agency to be a key topic among respondents (Selge, et al. 2011) and others

have shown that the notion of human agency is low amongst response groups

(Verbrugge et al. 2014). In terms of attitude, difficulty in grasping language and

human agency were shown to complicate the issue of INNS among the

respondents. A lack of recognition of the role of human agency in the spread of

INNS can be a central obstacle between control managers and the public.

Fundamentally creating further complexity in the relationship between the public and

achieving support for INNS programs.

6.4 Value systems of INNS in terms of attitude

Values candidates construct for themselves about INNS did not appear decisive

when supporting the control of the four subject species. Surprisingly control

31

methodologies were supported by the entire study group, despite a coherent

difference in value initially. Arguably this is attributable to a low aptitude of INNS

impacts or possibly the production of socially acceptable answers to suit the

surveyor (Sapsford, 1999). This section of the questionnaire followed a statement

outlining the various negative impacts of INNS. This was included to establish a

basis on which candidates would be able to comment. It could be argued that

candidate’s value systems were aligned with the statement in the latter stages of the

questionnaire.

In terms of specific management options, candidates generally preferred the use of

work parties with hand tools, followed by the use of chemical sprays. This presented

further differences in value systems. Several corresponding studies found the use of

chemicals highly favourable among candidates (Bremmer, 2007 Barr et al. 2002,

Sheail, 2003 and Fraser, 2006). The opposing values of differing groups

demonstrated further ambiguity in the interpretation of INNS management. Some

groups were favourable of chemical sprays and some inherently opposed. As the

preferred option of control by INNS managers it is often the only affordable option in

terms of economic constraints. A difference in values associated with chemicals

presented further difficulties when communicating the various limitations within INNS

control. Several candidates highlighted a conflict of value in this question by

choosing an opposing management option to their previously determined value. An

example of this was walkers who found INNS benign but were deeply opposed to

the use of chemical sprays. Van Tassell et al. (1999) found that the management of

species through pesticide application may not overlap the risk perceptions among

stakeholders concerned with the non-target effects spraying chemicals. This was

displayed in this study to be strongly linked with locality, as rural users were more

sceptical of applying chemicals.

32

6.5 INNS value systems and risk perception

Contention surrounding the interpretation of INNS value and control procedures

appeared within the results of this questionnaire. Often there were fundamental

differences among different user groups and locality classifications. This

demonstrated the arduous tasks of conservation agencies to illustrate the impacts of

species, as well as justifying the necessary mechanisms to control or eradicate

INNS. Conclusively this represents the difficulty which these agencies have

convincing policy makers to take action. Social scientists have found a small number

of core principals and cognitive structures, including value systems and risk

perception, to be indispensable elements which frame the attitudes and behaviours

the public exhibit toward INNS (Churchill et al. 2002). When appraising the concept

of risk perception among respondents, anglers had the largest volume of ‘high risk’

perception. Interestingly it was found that anglers also represented a significant

portion of the ‘low risk’ perception. Earlier in this study it was found that anglers had

the most negative value of INNS. For several respondents the attitude towards INNS

does not correlate between value and risk perception. Slimak and Dietz (2006)

argue that an individual’s values and beliefs explain how an individual perceives

risks. This concept did harmonise within a portion of the angling group, it was

however, not absolute among the entirety of this user group. Alternatively, the

majority of walkers represented a ‘low risk’ perception. This is conceivably related to

the value systems represented earlier in the study. In addition rural respondents

generally perceived an instinctive ‘high risk’ perception, again similar to the value

systems discovered in this study.

As discussed, value systems are coupled with factors such as an attribute which a

person associates with a species (nativeness or aesthetics), possibly a personal

experience (economic or social interaction), or human agency (human

responsibility). Although there is no single correlation amongst the entire group, or

33

individually recognised groups for that matter, this study argues that the value a

person associates may not directly transform into a corresponding risk perception.

The correlation of value and risk perception is a key theme in other social studies

(Slimak and Dietz, 2006; Estévez et al. 2014). The concept of value systems

correlating with risk perceptions is inconclusive within this study. With the aid of

value systems to enhance risk perceptions there is a coherent relationship which

INNS managers can use to enhance public support. In the absence of a defined link

between the two concepts the effectiveness of INNS management programs is

made more problematic.

However, there are established concepts which can complement the use of these

theories. Several include the notion of anchoring as a method to define the public’s

relationship with INNS comprehensively. The concept of anchoring argues that

social representations are built by means of drawing upon existing representations

to make the unfamiliar, familiar (Moscovici and Duveen, 2000). Selge et al (2011)

explored this concept further in term of INNS. Such research found that there are

three types of anchoring which inform the public on complex ecological concepts, (1)

comparison between a distinct source and target domain, (2) comparison of

elements within target domain and (3)application of overarching mental constructs

(such as moral standards or human agency).The appreciation of this concept has

the potential to overcome political and economic constraints to INNS management,

or provide a platform for INNS agencies to mobilise more voluntary support. This is

however dependant on invasive language coinciding accordingly (Selge et al. 2011).

In addition to the acknowledgement of human agency, an aspect found to be salient

among members of this study once it was coherently introduced.

When asked how respondents would like to learn more about INNS, the largest

response was that of information boards. As mentioned previously this method was

utilised throughout the CIRB project to raise awareness, but largely ignored by the

34

candidates of this study. Other research found information campaigns utilising

posters were not optimal as there are too many labels fighting for attention,

particularly with a message that may be too complex to comprehend (Verbrugge et

al. 2014).

As the division of values in this study show, there is an assortment of connotations

which define the understanding of invasion biology. It was found that complex or

inconsistent messages without the acknowledgment human agency are

counterproductive when aiming to enhance the support of the public. Furthermore,

Value systems and risk perception were found to have a significant role in

ascertaining public perception but not conclusive.

35

7 Conclusion

In order to enhance public support this study aimed to clarify the values and risk

perceptions public river users have of INNS. Through the investigation of

quantitative and qualitative forms of information a number of conclusions were

gathered. To summarise, information campaigns are not optimal for engaging public

support, value systems and risk perceptions often do not correlate, even among

consistently supportive public users. Deductions of this study include that the

aptitude of INNS is varied among differing user groups and localities. Divergent

awareness and competencies regarding INNS displays a level of confusion among

the public, supporting claims of other studies about the ambiguity of terminology.

Incoherence of the interpretation of INNS adds further complexity to the validity of

management programs. This is defined by the public whose support is increasingly

important. Recognition of INNS is inherently linked to the value an individual

associates on a personal basis, and there is no definitive concept which correlates

with the establishment of values. Without coherent communications, including

around the implications of human agency, values are derived without inclusion of the

integral damaging consequences of INNS. This creates further obstacles for species

managers. Finally, where other studies have concluded a comprehensive link

between value systems and risk perception, this study discloses that there are

crucial elements largely ignored within research and information campaigns which

dilute the message of INNS. In my view, the language used is neglectful of the

transparency the public require to understand complex ecological concepts, which

inhibits public persuasion. However, there is no straightforward methodology to

engage the social dimension of this debate. This study is by no means definitive in

concluding the social dimension for invasion biology. The impression presented in

this study is purely reflective of a small study group, in a concentrated geographical

area. It presents no conclusive authority on the subject; particularly, as the study

36

was conducted in an imperfect manner using a simplistic questionnaire. This

research however confirms findings of other studies and would be best suited as a

pilot study for INNS managers within the areas assessed. There is enormous scope

for further study in terms of public engagement. Further study should work to

engage the concept of human agency alongside the concept anchoring. As literature

assessing value systems and risk perception is well established, the inclusion of

complementary concepts would allow greater interpretation of public perception.

This research should be aimed at the messages presented to the public around

INNS in order to reduce the political and economic obstacles conservationists

contend with in INNS management.

37

8 Bibliography

Anderson, C.B., Valenzuela, A.E.J. (2014) 'Do what I say, not what I do. Are we

linking research and decision-making about invasive species in Patagonia?

', Ecología Austral., 24, pp. 193-202.

Barr, J.J.F., Lurz, P.W.W., Shirley, M.D.F., Rushton, S.P., (2002) 'Evaluation of

immunocontraception as a publicity acceptable form of vertebrate pest species

control: the introduced grey squirrel in Britain as an example', Environmental

management, 30, pp. 342-351.

Binimelis, A., Monterroso, E., Rodríguez-Labajos, B. (2007) 'A social analysis of

bioinvasions of Dreissena polymorpha in Spain', Environmental Management, 40,

pp. 555-566.

Boroway, I. (2011) The other side of bio-invasions: the example of acclimatization in

Germany, I.D. Rotherham, R.A. Lambert (Eds.), Invasive and Introduced Plants and

Animals – Human Perceptions, Attitudes and Approaches to Management edn,

London: Earthscan.

Bremmer, A., Park, K. (2007) 'Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-

native species in Scotland', Biological conservation, 139, pp. 306-314.

Burt, J.W., Muir, A.A., Piovita-Scott, J., Veblen, K.E., Chang, A.L., Grossman, J.D.,

Weiskel, H.W. (2007) 'Preventing horticultural introductions of invasive plants:

potential efficacy of voluntary initiatives', Biological invasions, 9, pp. 909-923.

Byers, J.E., Reichard, S., Randall, J.M., Parker, I.M., Smith, C.S., Lonsdale, W.M.,

Atkinson, I.A.E., Seastedt, T.R., williamson, M., Chornesky, E., Hayes, D. (2002)

38

'Directing research to reduce the impacts of non-indigenous species', Conservation

Biology , 16, pp. 630-640.

Chang, A.L., Grossman, J.D., Spezio, T.S., Weiskel, H.W., Blum, J.C., Burt, J.W.,

Muir, A.A., Piovia-Scott, J., Weblen, K.E., Grosholz, E.D. (2009) 'Tackling aquatic

invasions: risks and opportunities for the aquarium fish industry', Biological

invasions.,11, pp. 773-785.

Chivan, E., Berstein, A. (2008) Sustaining ife- how human health depends on

biodiversity, New York: Oxford University Press.

Churchill, T.N., Bettoli, P.W., Peterson, D.C., Reeves, W.C., Hodge, B. (2002)

'Fisheries management angler conflicts in fisheries management: a case study of

the striped bass controversy at Norris Reservoir, Tennessee', Fisheries, 27, pp. 10-

19.

CIRB (Controlling Priority Invasive Non-native Riparian Plants and Restoring Native

Biodiversity) (2011) What is CIRB?, Available at: Controlling Priority Invasive Non-

native Riparian Plants and Restoring Native Biodiversity (Accessed: April 2014).

Cohen, J., Mirotchnick, N., Leung, B. (2007) 'Thousands introduced annually: the

aquarium pathway for non-indigenous plants to the St. Lawrence Seaway', Frontiers

in Ecology, 5, pp. 528-532.

Cox, G.W. (2004) Alien species and evolution, Washington, USA: Island press.

DEFRA (2008) The Invasive Non-Native Species Framework Strategy for Great

Britain, London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Dehnen-Schmutz, K., Tourz, J., Perrings, C., Williamson, M. (2007) 'The

horticultural trade and ornamental plant invasions in Britain', Conservation

Biology, 21, pp. 224-231.

39

Estévez, R.A., anderson, C.B., Pizarro, J., Burgman, M.A. (2014) 'Clarifying values,

risk perceptions and attitudes to resolve or avoid social conflicts in invasive species

managment.' Conservation biology., 29(1), pp. 19-30.

Fischer, A., van der Wal, R. (2007) 'Invasive plant suppresses charismatic seabird -

the construction of attitudes towards biodiversity management options', Biological

conservation, 135(), pp. 256-267.

Fischer, A., Langers, F., Bednar-Friedl, B., Geamana, N., Skogen, K. (2011) 'Mental

representations of animal and plant species in their social contexts: results from a

survey across Europe', Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, pp. 118-128.

Fraser, W., (2001) Public attitudes to pest control: A literature review. , Wellington,

New Zealand: Department of conservation.

Fulton, D.C., Manfredo, M.J., Lipscom, J. (1996) 'Wildlife value orientations: a

conceptual and measurement approach', Human dimensions of wildlife, 1, pp. 24-

47.

Gebben, D.J., Longo, A. (2014) A benefit cost analysis of the management of non-

native species within the CIRB project, Belfast, UK: Queen's University.

Genovesi, P., (2007) Limits and potentialities or eradication as a tool for addressing

biological invasions., W. Nentwig (ed.), Biological invasions, edn., Berlin, Germany:

Springer- Verlag.

GISP (Global Invasive species programme) (2001) Global invasive alien species

program, Cambridge, UK: GISP.

Hellman, J.J., Byers, J.E., Bierwagen, B.G., Dukes, J.S. (2008) 'Five potential

consequences of climate change for invasive species', Conservation Biology, 22,

pp. 534-543.

40

Hulme, P.E. (2006) 'Beyond control: wider implications for the management of

biological invasions', Journal of Applied Ecology., 43, pp. 835-847.

Hussner, P.E. (2010) Biosecurity: the changing face of invasion biology. , In:

Richardson DM (ed), Fifty years of invasion Ecology edn, Oxford, UK: Wiley-

Blackwell.

Kahan, D.M., Braman, P., Slovic, J., Gastil., Cohen, G. (2009) 'Cultural cognition of

the risks and benefits of nanotechnology.', Nature and nanotechnology. , 4, pp. 87-

90.

Larson, B.M.H. (2008) Entangled biological, cultural and linguistic origins of the war

on invasive species. , In: Frank, R.M., Dirven, R., Ziemke, T., Bernardez, E. (Eds.),

Body, Language and mind: sociocultural situatedness. Cognitive linguistics research

35.2, vol. 2. edn., New York, USA: Mouton de Gruyter.

Levine, J.M., Vila, M., D'Antonio, C.M., Dukes, J.S., Grigulis, K., Lavorel, S. (2003)

'Mechanisms underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions.', Proceedings of the

Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 270, pp. 775-781.

Lodge, D.M., Williams, S., Macisaac, H.J., Hayes, K.R., Leung, B., Reichard, S.,

Mack, R.N., Moyle, P.B., Smith, M., Andow, D.A., Carlton, J.T., McMichael, A.

(2006) 'Biological invasions: recommendations for U.S. policy and management',

Ecological applications, 16, pp. 2035-2054.

Montgomery, C.A. (2002) 'Ranking the benefits of biodiversity: an exploration of

relative values. ', Journal of Environmental management, 65, pp. 313-326.

Moscovici, S., Duveen, G. (2000) Social representations, Cambridge, UK: Polity.

41

Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., Morrison, D. (2005) 'Update on the environmental and

economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United

States.',Ecological economics , 52, pp. 273-288.

Quist, M,C., and Hubert, W.A. (2004) 'Bioinvasive species and the preservation of

cutthroat trout in the western United States: ecological, social and economic

issues.',Environmental science and policy. , 7, pp. 303-313.

Raymond, B., McInnes, J., Damacher, J.M., Way, S., Vergstrom, D.M. (2011)

'Qualitative modelling of invasive species eradication on Subantarctic Macquarie

Island. ', Journal of Applied Ecology, 48, pp. 181-191.

Sapsford, R. (1999) Survey research, London: Sage publications.

Scottish Natural Heritage (2014) Making a difference for Scotland's species: a

framework for action, Available at: http://www.snh.org.uk/strategy/sr-

pc02.asp(Accessed: April 2014).

Selge, S., Fischer, A., van der Wal, R. (2011) 'Public and professional views on

invasive non-native species- A qualitative social scientific investigation', Biological

conservation, 144, pp. 3089-3097.

Selge, S., Fischer, A. (2011) 'How people familiarize themselves with complex

ecological concepts-Anchoring of social representations of invasive non-native

species', Journal of community and Applied social psychology, 21, pp. 297-311.

Sheil, J. (2003) 'Government and the management of an alien pest species: a British

perspective', Landscape research, 28, pp. 101-111.

Slimak, M.W., and Dietz, T. (2006) 'Personal values, beliefs and ecological risk

perception', Risk Analysis, 26, pp. 1689-1705.

42

Van Driesche, J., Van Driesche, R. (2004) From endemic to generic. , In:

Anonymous (Ed.), Nature out of place: Biological invasion in the global age. edn.,

Washington, D.C, USA: Island Press.

Van Tassell, L.W., Ferrell, M.A., Lang, B., Legg, D.E., Lloyd, J.E. (1999) 'Pesticide

practices and perceptions of Wyoming farmers and ranchers', Journal of soil and

water conservation, 54, pp. 410-415.

Verbrugge, L.N., Leuven, R.S., van Valkenburg, J.L., van den Born, R.J. (2014)

'Evaluating stakeholder awareness and involvement in risk prevention of aquatic

invasive plant species by national code of conduct', Aquatic invasions, 9(3), pp. 369-

381.

Warren, C.R. (2007) 'Perspectives on the 'alien' versus 'native' species debate: a

critique of concepts, Language and practice', Progress in Human Geography, 31,

pp. 427-446.

Welch, D., Carss, D.N., Gornall, J., Manchester, S.J., Marquiss, M., Preston, C.D.,

Telfer, M.G., Arnold, H., Holbrook, J. (2001) An audit of alien species in Scotland,

SNH Review series No. 139 edn., Battleby, UK: SNH.

White, P.C.L., Newton-Cross, G.A., Moberly, R.L., Smart, J.C.R., Baker, P.J., Harris,

S. (2003) 'The current and future management of wild mammals hunted with dogs in

England and Wales', Journal of environmental management, 67, pp. 187-197.

43

9 Figures

Cover photograph- Japanese knotweed-

http://www.tpknotweed.com/wp-Japanese

Figure 1- Japanese knotweed-

http://www.londonjapaneseknotweed.co.uk/Knotweed/images/JK02.jpg

Figure 2- Rhododendron- content/gallery/summer/img_1932.jpg

http://www.londonjapaneseknotweed.co.uk/Knotweed/images/JK02.jpg

Figure 3- Himalayan Balsam-

http://th05.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/2010/290/6/a/himalayan_balsam_by_davepuls-

d30y3hj.jpg

Figure 4- Giant hogweed-

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Rbk_dolde.jpg

44

10 Appendices

10.1 Appendix A- Public Questionnaire CIRB Public Questionnaire

1. Location:

2. What activities do you do in this area? E.g. dog walking, kayaking, angling

a. When did you start visiting this location/river?

b. How often do you visit this location/river?

c. How far do you travel to visit this location/river?

3. What do you like/enjoy about this location/the river and its surroundings?

4. Is there anything you dislike about this location/the river and its surroundings?

5. Overall, how important is the river to your everyday life (scoring from 0 not important to 5 very important)

6. For what aspects of your life is the river particularly important? (multiple choice, e.g. physical health, mental well-being, social life.)

7. Have you seen changes in the river/surroundings over the time you have been visiting it? Yes/No

a. What changes have you seen/experienced?

8. Have these changes affected your use of the river? Yes/Noa. If yes then how?

45

9. From 0 to 5, how would you score your level of knowledge of the river wildlife (0 = very low, 5=very high)

10. Have you heard of these plants before? (tick which plants you have heard of before)

Japanese Knotweed Himalayan Balsam Giant Hogweed Rhododendron

a. Where have you heard of them? (multiple choice: e.g. media, local charity, when volunteering, etc)

b. Which of these plants have you seen near this river?

c. Have you seen these plants in other areas? (yes/no)

“Invasive non-native species are not only an economic problem, they are also a well-known threat to our environment. From challenging the survival of our rarest species to damaging some of our most sensitive ecosystems, the biodiversity impacts of invasive non-native species are severe and growing. Their impact is now so significant that they are considered to be one of the greatest threats to biodiversity worldwide.

It's not just our wildlife that suffers; invasive non-native species can also have an impact on the way we live. For example, if invasive aquatic plants become established in the wild they can clog our waterways, exacerbate flooding, disrupt the navigation of boats, interfere with recreational activities (such as fishing), and remove oxygen from the water, which can harm fish.

It's also important to remember that the effect of an invasive non-native species is not a one off event. Once a species has been introduced they persist and escalate as the species

46

spreads further. If we don't act, the problem of invasive non-native species will continue to escalate at an ever increasing rate, causing us to feel more of the impacts and incur more cost every year.”

11. Having read the text above: in your view, what should be done about invasive non-native plants on this river? a. Nothing they are not a problem.b. Remove them all mechanically.c. Use chemical to kill them as long as it is safe to do so.d. Get wok parties to remove them by hand/hand tools.e. Use livestock to graze them where possible.

12. Which of these scenarios would you prefer to see on your local watercourse?(Photos below should be ranked in order of preference and comments as to why)

Photo 1: Accessible and manicured riverbank

Photo 2: Wild and overgrown

Photo 3: Native tree planting and willow bank

Photo 4: Invaded

47

13. Which of these signage and information materials have you seen before?

14. How would you like to learn more about invasive species? (e.g. written information, info boards, public meetings, online materials, free apps)

15. Are you currently involved in invasive species management? Yes/Noa. If yes: How?

16. Which activities would you be interested in joining? (multiple choices: e.g. work parties, monitoring programme, report sightings, Invasive Species control volunteer, mink raft volunteer)

17. What would help you to be more involved in the management of invasive species on this river? (e.g. information about volunteering opportunities, ID training, training on control techniques.)

18. Are you aware of how these plants are spread? Yes/Noa. If yes how?

19. In your opinion which methods listed below spread these plants the most:a. Walkingb. Dog walking/ horse ridingc. Kayaking/canoeingd. Anglinge. Movement of livestockf. On the wheels of vehicles/blown along in slipstream of vehiclesg. Natural causes such as flooding

48

20. Are you aware of biosecurity measures to stop the spread of Invasive Non Native plants in this area? Yes/No

a. Have you used any measures yourself? Yes/Nob. If yes which and how often (scoring 0 for never to 5 for every time you go out)?

21. What would help you carry out these measures more often? (written information, video demonstration, demonstration workshop, disinfection equipment available on site/brushes)

22. Any further comments:

49

10.2-AppendixB-Management_preferences_by_user_group

50

fishing

running

walking

photo

swim

cycle

boat

business

golf

dog walk

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

0.307692307692308

0.666666666666667

0.269230769230769

0.25

0.6

0.5

0.75

0.4

0.0769230769230769

0.115384615384615

0.615384615384615

0.166666666666667

0.423076923076923

0.5

1

0.4

0.5

1

0.4

0.166666666666667

0.192307692307692

0.25

0.25

0.2

graze work partymechanicalchemical

Managment preferences by user group

50