Different arguments, same conclusions: how is action against invasive alien species justified in the context of European policy?

Heink, Ulrich; Herzele, Ann Van; Bela, Györgyi; Kalóczkai, Ágnes; Jax, Kurt

doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1170-2

Cited by 18 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Views on non-native species and their management starkly differ among and within groups of the public, scientists and different stakeholders (e.g., Fischer et al 2014;Lindemann-Matthies 2016;Novoa et al 2016;Heink et al 2018;Luna et al 2019;Cordeiro et al 2020;Gbedomon et al 2020). Thus, transparency of values, beliefs and attitudes that underlie the assessment of non-native species is required to make impact assessments and related strategies traceable (Estévez et al 2015;Bartz and Kowarik 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between approval and disapproval: Citizens’ views on the invasive tree Ailanthus altissima and its management

Kowarik¹,

Straka²,

Lehmann³

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While cities are invasion hotspots, the view of urban residents on non-native species is critically understudied – an important knowledge gap since strategies on biological invasions could gain power by integrating human values, attitudes and perceptions. How citizens perceive the non-native tree Ailanthus altissima (tree of heaven) is unknown despite its abundance in many cities globally and its classification as invasive in many countries. In a quantitative survey with closed questions, we analysed (i) whether residents of Berlin, Germany knew the widespread species, (ii) how they perceived it in different urban situations, (iii) how they accepted different management strategies of it, and (iv) how the sociodemographic background of respondents predicted their preference and acceptability ratings. In total, we surveyed 196 respondents. Most respondents recognized the tree in a photograph, but few provided its correct name. Citizens’ preferences differed significantly among four urban contexts in which the species was shown, with prevailing approval for trees as a component of designed green spaces and less pronounced preferences for wild-grown trees in other urban spaces. When respondents were asked to indicate how the tree should be managed (three options), we found the most support for removal in problematic cases (‘adaptive on-site’ strategy); some support was found for the ‘leave alone’ strategy and least support for the ‘complete removal’ management strategy. Practitioners with expertise in urban landscaping were more critical of Ailanthus than laypeople. Ordinal logistic regression analyses showed that respondents with a ‘close to nature’ behaviour and attitude had a more positive view on Ailanthus and expressed more support for ‘leave alone’ management. Results demonstrate the importance of citizens’ context dependent views about a widespread invasive species, spanning from approval to disapproval in different situations. We conclude that urban management strategies concerning Ailanthus would gain support from citizens when combining multiple approaches: (i) to control the species in case of realized negative impacts; (ii) to prevent the invasion of the species in areas of conservation concern; and (iii) to develop novel approaches of integrating wild Ailanthus trees into urban green spaces. These insights could support management measures that need to be established due to the EU-Regulation on Invasive Alien Species.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between approval and disapproval: Citizens’ views on the invasive tree Ailanthus altissima and its management

Kowarik¹,

Straka²,

Lehmann³

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But this does not appear to be so. Alien species are conceptualized as an environmental problem in themselves, regardless of their impacts (Guerin et al, 2018;Heink et al, 2018), and many invasion biologists believe that alien species are inherently undesirable (Young & Larson, 2011). The advocacy of a precautionary approach -because of the difficulty of predicting the long-term impacts of alien introductions (Frank et al, 2019;Simberloff, 2013) -unavoidably treats all alien species as potentially harmful.…”

Section: Reframing a Polarized Debate?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whereas change can be scientifically quantified, harm is socially constructed and value-laden (Verbrugge et al, 2016). The questions of what constitutes harm to ecosystems, and whether altered ecosystems are degraded or just different, are disputed (Heink et al, 2018;Hobbs, 2016;Sagoff, 2009), highlighting the crucial distinction between description (positive science) and prescription (normative policy choices). In theory, a clear distinction can (and should) be drawn between the two.…”

Section: The Unbearable Tension Between Description and Prescriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whereas Elton himself saw a place for 'exotic forms', most ecologists today regard all aliens as inherently undesirable (Humair et al, 2014;Simberloff, 2012;Young & Larson, 2011). Their unnaturalness renders them unwelcome in principle (Hettinger, 2021) such that their presence is used as an indicator of ecosystem degradation (Guerin et al, 2018;Heink et al, 2018). They constitute 'bad biodiversity' (Prévot-Julliard et al, 2011), 'biological pollution' (Guiasu, 2016), 'ecological tumours' (G. Hamilton, 2011), 'unwanted nature' (Qvenild, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beyond ‘Native V. Alien’: Critiques of the Native/alien Paradigm in the Anthropocene, and Their Implications

Warren

2021

Ethics, Policy & Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Classifying species as 'native' or 'alien' carries prescriptive force in the valuation and management of 'nature'. But the classification itself and its application are contested, raising philosophical and geographical questions about place, space, rights, identity and belonging. This paper discusses leading critiques of the native/ alien paradigm, including its conceptual fluidity, dichotomous rigidity and ethical difficulties, as well as the incendiary charge of xenophobia. It argues that valorizing 'native nature' as inherently the 'best nature' is not only obsolete but impracticable in the Anthropocene, and that the preeminence of biogeographic origins should be replaced with a pragmatic focus on species' behavior. KEYWORDSAlien; native; species; invasion; nature Introduction: Biogeographies of Belonging and ExclusionClassifying species as either native or alien is central to nature conservation practice, with natives cherished and aliens resisted, but both the distinction itself and policy prescriptions based on it have been extensively critiqued. This paper explores the fractious, longstanding debates between those who champion 'native nature' and those who advocate a more inclusive, cosmopolitan approach (Keulartz & van der Weele, 2009; Stanescu, 2017), one which embraces new arrivals and the novel assemblages of the Anthropocene. It adopts a geographical lens because distinguishing between native and alien species is an essentially geographical categorization, hinging on questions of scale, place, space, culture and environment which lie at the heart of geography (Antonsich, 2020;Warren, 2007). The distinction creates geographies of spatial inclusion and exclusion, defining where species belong (Cresswell, 1997). Curiously, given that such geographical questions are central to native/alien debates and that the arguments turn on questions of spatial and temporal scale, geographers -with relatively few exceptions (notably Head (2012(notably Head ( , 2014(notably Head ( , 2017) -have only engaged sporadically.By contrast, environmental philosophers have developed a rich and nuanced seam of discussion of the contested ethics and values concerning native and alien species (e.g.

show abstract

“…An answer to these questions requires an understanding of what is meant by the term ‘invasive alien species’. Several definitions have been proposed (reviewed by Heger et al, ; Pereyra, ), but two groups of definitions prevail in scientific literature: the ‘ecological definitions’ and the ‘policy definitions’ (Heink, Van Herzele, Bela, Kalóczkai, & Jax, ). Both groups include establishment and spread as necessary criteria of invasiveness but differ over whether ecological or other impacts (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does rainbow trout justify its high rank among alien invasive species? Insights from a nationwide survey in Greece

Koutsikos

Vardakas

Zogaris

et al. 2019

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Rainbow trout is ranked as one of the world's worst alien invasive species; in Europe, however, the extent of established populations remains localized and poorly reported. This study aims to assess rainbow trout establishment in Greece and explores the factors affecting the success or failure of establishment. 2. Fish samples and site-specific environmental attributes collected during the past 17 years (2001-2017) were analysed. All available literature on the distribution patterns of rainbow trout were reviewed in parallel to those of the Greek native Salmo trout species and demographic criteria were applied to infer potential establishment. 3. Data indicating poor persistence of populations and population structure support the argument that recruitment of rainbow trout is extremely limited in Greece. Lack of suitable environmental conditions is not the main factor leading to the failure of rainbow trout to become established. Genetic factors affecting reproduction, possibly through a combination of outbreeding depression resulting from the admixture of unrelated intraspecific lineages, and maladaptive behaviour resulting from domestication in captivity, remain probable causes of poor establishment for the Greek populations of rainbow trout.4. Overall, the threat of rainbow trout as a highly invasive species in Greece is lower than suggested by recent risk assessments.

show abstract

Different arguments, same conclusions: how is action against invasive alien species justified in the context of European policy?

Cited by 18 publications

References 58 publications

Between approval and disapproval: Citizens’ views on the invasive tree Ailanthus altissima and its management

Between approval and disapproval: Citizens’ views on the invasive tree Ailanthus altissima and its management

Beyond ‘Native V. Alien’: Critiques of the Native/alien Paradigm in the Anthropocene, and Their Implications

Does rainbow trout justify its high rank among alien invasive species? Insights from a nationwide survey in Greece

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About