Common approaches to introduced species management face widespread acceptance problems in the United States

Journal article

1.) Decisions on whether and how to manage introduced species can be controversial, but public attitudes towards introduced species management (ISM) are poorly understood. Despite potential disruptive impacts of such controversies to public relations and conservation goals, decision makers are currently left with little information on social acceptability of different management alternatives.

2.) To better understand social acceptability of core features of ISM in the United States, we conducted an online experiment with vignettes describing hypothetical but realistic ISM scenarios, varying targeted taxon (insect or plant), control method (mechanical, chemical, biological), risk severity (low, high), and type of non-target risk (to humans or native species).

3.) Not surprisingly, management with low risk was most acceptable, particularly for mechanical control. In high-risk scenarios, only mechanical control was acceptable but only by a slim majority of respondents. Overall, chemical and biological control showed low levels of acceptability.

4.) Surprisingly, there was no significant difference in how respondents ranked risks to people and risks to native species.

5.) Beyond differences in acceptability between management factors, we also find that acceptability of management and attitudes toward risk were associated with respondents’ demographic characteristics.

6.) Policy Implications: Overall, our findings indicate that widespread acceptability of introduced species management should not be assumed. While management activities representing low risk scenarios find some support in the public, our results highlight a disconnect between effectiveness of common management methods and their social acceptability. Our findings highlight the need for evidence-guided ISM, which includes evidence of harmful impacts of introduced species, as well as risks and benefits of management activities, as one potential way to increase social acceptability of non-native species management.

Authors: Simmons, W; Hare, DC; Dávalos, A; Blossey, B

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: Wiley
• Journal: People and Nature
• Volume: 7
• Issue: 6
• Pages: 1464-1476
• Publication date: 2025-05-13
• Acceptance date: 2025-04-30
• DOI: 10.1002/pan3.70053
• EISSN: 2575-8314
• Language: English
• Keywords: accountability; biological control; chemical control; experimental vignettes; introduced species; management; mechanical control; social acceptability