Social and Cultural Dynamics of Non-Native Invasive Species 269
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. The findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy. Social and Cultural Dynamics of Non- native Invasive Species 12 John Schelhas, Janice Alexander, Mark Brunson, Tommy Cabe, Alycia Crall, Michael J. Dockry, Marla R. Emery, Susan J. Frankel, Nina Hapner, Caleb R. Hickman, Rebecca Jordan, Michael J. LaVoie, Zhao Ma, Joe Starinchak, and Jelena Vukomanovic 12.1 Introduction In this chapter, we present a broad survey of social science research across a diversity of ecosystems and stakeholders in Invasive species and their management represent a complex order to provide a foundation for understanding the social issue spanning social and ecological systems. Invasive spe- and cultural dimensions of invasive species and plan more cies present existing and potential threats to the nature of effective management approaches. This chapter also ecosystems and the products and services that people receive addresses tribal perspectives on invasive species, including from them. Humans can both cause and address problems traditional ecological knowledge, unique cultural dimen- through their complex interactions with ecosystems. Yet, sions for tribes, and issues critical to engaging tribes as part- public awareness of invasive species and their impact is ners and leaders in invasive species management. highly uneven, and public support for management and con- Recognizing that natural resource managers often seek to trol of invasive species can be variable. Public perceptions change people’s perceptions and behaviors, we present and often differ markedly from the perspectives of concerned sci- discuss some promising approaches that are being used to entists, and perceptions and support for management are engage human communities in ways that empower and enlist infuenced by a wide range of social and ecological values. stakeholders as partners in management. J. Schelhas (*) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Athens, GA, USA S. J. Frankel e-mail: [email protected] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacifc Southwest J. Alexander Research Station, Albany, CA, USA University of California Cooperative Extension, Marin County, N. Hapner Novato, CA, USA Kashia Department of Environmental Planning, Kashia Band of M. Brunson Pomo Indians, Santa Rosa, CA, USA Department of Environment and Society, Utah State University, R. Jordan Logan, UT, USA Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State T. Cabe · C. R. Hickman · M. J. LaVoie University, East Lansing, MI, USA Natural Resource Department, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Z. Ma Cherokee, NC, USA Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, A. Crall West Lafayette, IN, USA National Ecological Observatory Network, J. Starinchak Boulder, CO, USA U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – M. J. Dockry Headquarters, Fish and Aquatic Conservation Program, Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, Saint Falls Church, VA, USA Paul, MN, USA J. Vukomanovic M. R. Emery Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Faculty Fellow in the Center for Geospatial Analytics, North Station, Burlington, VT, USA Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA © The Author(s) 2021 267 T. M. Poland et al. (eds.), Invasive Species in Forests and Rangelands of the United States, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45367-1_12 268 J. Schelhas et al. Humans are a fundamental component of invasive species issue (Bremner and Park 2007; Epanchin-Niell et al. 2010; issues (McNeely 2011). People have long transported species Gobster 2011; Kueffer 2010; Reaser 2001). Invasive species across biogeographic boundaries, both accidentally and impose huge conservation or economic costs on society intentionally, and this has increased with globalization of the (Pimentel et al. 2005; Wilcove et al. 1998). However, when economy and society (McNeely 2011). Humans modify citizens consider the full range of environmental risks, inva- landscapes in ways that precipitate, facilitate, and exacerbate sive species often do not rank very high. Slimak and Dietz invasions (Rotherham and Lambert 2011). As a result, non- (2006) surveyed members of the public as well as selected native species, some of which are invasive, are deeply woven U.S. environmental professionals, asking them to rank 24 into the fabric of modern life (McNeely 2011). Yet, public ecological risk items from climate change to hazardous awareness and knowledge of invasive species remain low wastes to sport hunting and fshing. Among the lay public, even where they are a signifcant ecological threat (see, for invasive species ranked 19th, just behind overgrazing and example, Dodds et al. 2014). Only a few invasive species ahead of damming rivers but well below the greatest per- with signifcant economic and cultural impacts have gar- ceived risks: hazardous waste sites and persistent organic nered broad levels of public concern and widespread man- pesticides. Professional risk assessors ranked invasive spe- agement attention across different ownership types at the cies ninth, suggesting that beliefs about the threat of invasive landscape level (Keller et al. 2015; McNeely 2001, 2011; species are highly infuenced by knowledge and experience. Mooney and Hobbs 2000). Management actions themselves Yet, while general public awareness and concern may be low, can cause public reactions and objections for a variety of rea- there clearly are locations where public interest and knowl- sons ranging from lack of public acceptance of chemical edge are greater. For example, a survey in Hawai’i found that control methods, to animal rights issues, objections to costs, 96% of respondents were aware of invasion by the coqui frog and cultural preferences for invasive species themselves (Eleutherodactylus spp.), and 82% held negative views (McNeely 2011). toward the frogs (Kalnicky 2012). Despite this strong human connection, invasive species Geographically, more research has been conducted in are not often studied by social scientists, and the existing Australia, New Zealand, and parts of Europe to assess public studies, which generally have examined the issue through attitudes toward invasive species and potential management particular disciplinary lenses, have produced a fragmented options using interviews, focus groups, and surveys (e.g., body of knowledge. Anthropologists, historians, and others Bardsley and Edwards-Jones 2006; Barr et al. 2002; Bremner have analyzed narratives and discourses about non-native and Park 2007; Coates 2015; Fraser 2001; Fischer and van species and the ways in which they have affected public der Wal 2007; Fitzgerald et al. 2007; García-Llorente et al. opinion in general. Some researchers, using methods of 2008; Johnston and Marks 1997; Manchester and Bullock social psychology, have explored the relationships among 2000; Meech 2005; Nimmo and Miller 2007; Selge et al. individuals’ knowledge, attitudes, and personal behaviors 2011; Shine 2015a, b; Veitch and Clout 2001). In contrast, related to invasive species. Studies of the impacts of educa- fewer studies have been conducted in the United States to tional programs have examined the effectiveness of efforts to examine public perceptions and behaviors toward invasive raise awareness, increase knowledge, and motivate behavior species. change. Sociologists have offered insights into social norms regarding invasive species, and have addressed the collective action and institutional challenges that are required for com- 12.2.1 Broad Issues and Narratives munities and society to address invasive species manage- ment. Policy scientists help us understand how invasive People view and relate to the general issue of invasive spe- species laws and regulations are formed and implemented by cies in diverse and complicated ways that refect their under- governmental bodies, and why environmental and industry lying values across a range of environmental and social groups respond as they do to invasive species management issues. These underlying values, and the narratives in which proposals. Ultimately, sustained and interdisciplinary efforts they are situated, play an important role in shaping percep- are required to generate the necessary social science under- tions, attitudes, and responses to specifc invasive species standing to address this issue. and their management. Understanding these general issues and the ways they are often discussed, which differ signif- cantly from the ways scientists talk about invasive species, is 12.2 Understanding the Human important for scientists, managers, and policymakers, and Dimensions can help them avoid major pitfalls, understand why stake- holders may hold different ideas and desires about invasive A growing community of researchers has recognized that species and their management, identify mutually acceptable managing invasive species is as much a social issue involv- solutions, and determine how to encourage stakeholders to ing various human factors as it is an ecological or technical get more involved in control and prevention. 12 Social and Cultural Dynamics of Non-native Invasive Species 269 General Attitudes and Stakeholders Relatively few mem- dominant native coastal scrub and dune ecosystems