A review of the U.S. invasive species policy mix: Questioning the prospect of an integrated regime

Abstract

By some accounts, invasive species pose the second greatest threat to global biodiversity after habitat destruction. In addition to their ecological impacts, invasive species cause a wide range of economic and social damages. In recent years, scholars and policy officials have called for recalibration of U.S. invasive species policy, with some advocating a tightly integrated policy regime addressing a broad spectrum of activity, including predictive assessment of invasion pathways, prevention of introduction and spread, control of established populations, eradication of selected populations, and establishment of high-level coordination bodies. In this paper, I draw upon the policy integration literature and apply a regime construct to review the proposition that the existing mix of U.S. invasive species policies can and should be more tightly integrated. By way of conclusion, I suggest that the current policy mix is not exhausted and recommend a program evaluation process framed to characterize and assess factors and conditions that might influence the comparative effectiveness of strategic alternatives to integration, such as coping and taming.

Climate Adaptation at the Local Scale: Using Federal Climate Adaptation Policy Regimes to Enhance Climate Services

“…Multi-dimensional, or wicked problems [6] such as urban renewal, health insurance reform, and global climate change tend to be addressed through multiple policies using a variety of tools, something that political scientists and scholars of international relations refer to as 'policy regimes'. Policy regimes are constructs that depict the mix of institutional mechanisms that make up the governing arrangements addressing a particular problem [7][8][9][10][11][12]. A regime may be comprised of multiple laws, rules, and administrative actions that together specify the contours of governance with respect to an issue or topic.…”

We Can Better Manage Ecosystems by Connecting Solutions to Constraints: Learning from Wetland Plant Invasions

“…Practitioners witnessing the urgent nature of impacts from invasive plants express frustration with the lack of agency agreement regarding management priorities (Tu and Robison, 2013). This disconnect is particularly problematic because institutions responsible for invader control and ecosystem restoration often operate separately (Herrick, 2019) in their own "silos" (Hodgson et al, 2019), as do agencies that manage invasive plants and wetlands (Endter-Wada et al, 2020). In fact, Herrick (2019) identified 30 policies spread across eight federal agencies, despite the fact that states bear primary responsibility for actually managing invasive plants (Environmental Law, 2012).…”