Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 80–93 | Cite as

Invasive Alien Species in Switzerland: Awareness and Preferences of Experts and the Public

  • Xenia JungeEmail author
  • Marcel Hunziker
  • Nicole Bauer
  • Arne Arnberger
  • Roland Olschewski
Article

Abstract

Invasive alien species (IAS) can cause ecological and economic damages. To reduce or prevent these damages different management and prevention strategies aim to impede new establishments or a further spreading of IAS. However, for these measures to be successful, public knowledge of risks and threats of IAS as well as public support for eradication measures are important prerequisites. We conducted a survey to examine (i) public and experts’ awareness and knowledge of IAS, (ii) their preferences for six invasive plant species and (iii) their preferences for and trade-offs among management alternatives in Switzerland. In addition, a choice experiment was applied to analyse preferences concerning the intensity, priority and costs of interventions. Both, the Swiss public and the experts have a preference for intervening against invasive alien species. However, the public and the experts differ in their priorities of combatting particular species, resulting in a different ranking of intervention necessities. Further, differences were found in the willingness to pay for interventions between the German-, French- and Italian-speaking parts of Switzerland. The results suggest that a higher problem awareness increases the willingness to pay for countermeasures. We conclude that education programs or information campaigns are promising instruments to raise public awareness and to avoid conflicts concerning the management of invasive alien species.

Highlights “Invasive Alien Species in Switzerland: Awareness and Preferences of Experts and the Public”

  • The public and experts in Switzerland approve the management of invasive neophytes

  • Willingness to pay estimates for the management of invasive alien species (IAS) vary between 7 and 38 Mio. Swiss Francs (SFr.)/year

  • Ecological aspects in IAS management receive a higher priority than economic aspects

  • However, only 40% of the public know the term IAS

  • Providing information on the threats of IAS increases awareness and reduces aesthetic preferences for the respective species

Keywords

Choice experiment Willingness to pay Exotic species IAS Environmental management Attitudes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the Competence Center Environment and Sustainability of the ETH Domain CCES for financial support. In addition, we thank the experts for their support and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Adams D, Bwenge A, Lee D, Larkin S, Larkin SL (2011) Public preferences for controlling upland invasive plants in state parks: application of a choice model. For Policy Econ 13:465–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albers HJ, Fischer C, Sanchirico JN (2010) Invasive species management in a spatially heterogeneous world: effects of uniform policies. Resour Energy Econ 32:483–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barkmann J, Glenk K, Keil A, Leemhuis C, Dietrich N, Gerold G, Marggraf R (2008) Confronting unfamiliarity with ecosystem functions: the case for an ecosystem service approach to environmental valuation with stated preference methods. Ecol Econ 65:48–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateman IJ, Mawby J (2004) First impressions count: interviewer appearance and information effects in stated preference studies. Ecol Econ 49:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett J, Adamowicz V (2001) Some fundamentals of environmental choice modelling. In: Bennett J, Blamey R (eds.) The choice modeling approach to environmental valuation.. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, p 37–69Google Scholar
  6. Bierlaire M (2003) BIOGEME: A free package for the estimation of discrete choice models. 3rd Swiss Transportation Research Conference, Ascona, Switzerland. http://biogeme.epfl.ch/ Accessed 20 November2017
  7. Bierlaire M (2008) An introduction to BIOGEME Version 1.6. http://biogeme.epfl.ch/ Accessed 20 November 2017
  8. Bremner A, Park K (2007) Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biol Conserv 139:306–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buijs A, Arts BJM, Elands BHM, Lengkeek J (2011) Beyond environmental frames: the social representation and cultural resonance of nature in conflicts over a Dutch woodland. Geoforum 42:329–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christie M, Hanley N, Warren J, Murphy K, Wright R, Hyde T (2006) Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecol Econ 58:304–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ChoiceMetrix (2012) Ngene. The cutting edge in Experimental Design. User manual and reference guide. Version 1.1.1. Sydney, ChoiceMetrix, pp 248Google Scholar
  12. Colombo S, Hanley N (2008) How can we reduce the errors from benefits transfer? An investigation using the choice experiment method. Land Econ 84:128–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Czajkowski M, Hanley N (2009) Using labels to investigate scope effects in stated preference methods. Environ Resour Econ 44:521–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Groot WT, van den Born RJG (2003) Visions of nature and landscape type preferences: an exploration in The Netherlands. Landsc Urban Plan 63:127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dunlap RE, van Liere KD (1978) The “new environmental paradigm”: a proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. J Environ Educ 9:10–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AG, Jones RE (2000) New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J Soc Issues 56:425–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Epanchin-Niell RS, Wilen JE (2012) Optimal spatial control of biological invasions. Environ Econ Manag 63:260–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Federal statistical Office (2015) Die Bevölkerung der Schweiz 2014. Neuchâtel, pp 30Google Scholar
  19. Fischer A, van der Wal R (2007) Invasive plant suppresses charismatic seabird—he construction of attitudes towards biodiversity management options. Biol Conserv 135:256–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garcia Llorente M, Martin Lopez B, Gonzalez J, Alcorlo P, Montes C, García Llorente M, Martín López B, González J (2008) Social perceptions of the impacts and benefits of invasive alien species: Implications for management. Biol Conserv 141:2969–2983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. García-Llorente M, Martín-López B, Nunes PALD, González JA, Alcorlo P, Montes C (2011) Analyzing the social factors that influence willingness to pay for invasive alien species management under two different strategies: eradication and prevention. Environ Manag 48:418–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Genovesi P, Shine C (2004) European strategy on invasive alien species: Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Habitats (Bern Convention). Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France.Google Scholar
  23. Gren I-M (2008) Economics of alien invasive species management—choices of targets and policies. Boreal Environ Res 13:17–32Google Scholar
  24. Holmes TP, Aukema JE, Von Holle B, Liebhold A, Sills E (2009) Economic impacts of invasive species in forests past, present, and future. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1162:18–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huang D, Haack RA, Zhang R (2011) Does global warming increase establishment rates of invasive alien species? A centurial time series analysis. PLoS ONE 6:e24733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hulme PE (2006) Beyond control: wider implications for the management of biological invasions. J Appl Ecol 43:835–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Humair F, Edwards PJ, Siegrist M, Kueffer C (2014a) Understanding misunderstandings in invasion science: why experts don’t agree on common concepts and risk assessments. NeoBiota 20:1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Humair F, Siegrist M, Kueffer C (2014b) Working with the horticultural industry to limit invasion risks: the Swiss experience. EPPO Bull 44:232–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jacobsen JB, Boiesen JH, Thorsen BJ, Strange N (2008) What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘Iconised’species when valuing biodiversity. Environ Resour Econ 39:247–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindemann-Matthies P (2016) Beasts or beauties? Laypersons’ perception of invasive alien plant species in Switzerland and attitudes towards their management. NeoBiota 29:15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Louviere JJ (2001) Choice experiments: an overview of concepts and issues. In: Bennett J, Blamey R (eds) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar, Northhampton, p 13–36Google Scholar
  32. MAE (2005) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human wellbeing: Current Stade and Trends. Island Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. McFadden D (1973) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed.) Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New York, NY, p 105–142Google Scholar
  34. McNeely JA (2001) The great reshuffling: human dimensions of invasive alien species. IUCN, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  35. Nunes PALD, van den Bergh JCJM (2004) Can people value protection against invasive marine species? evidence from a joint TC–CV survey in the Netherlands. Environ Resour Econ 28:517–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Olschewski R (2013) How to value protection from natural hazards—a step-by-step discrete choice approach. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13:913–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pejchar L, Mooney HA (2009) Invasive species, ecosystem services and human well-being. Trends Ecol Evol 24:497–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Philip LJ, MacMillan DC (2005) Exploring values, context and perceptions in contingent valuation studies: the CV market stall technique and willingness to pay for wildlife conservation. J Environ Plan Manag 48:257–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schultz PW, Zelezny L (1999) Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: evidence for consistency across 14 countries. J Environ Psychol 19:255–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Selge S, Fischer A (2011) Public and professional views on invasive non-native species—qualitative social scientific investigation. Biol Conserv 144:3089–3097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sharp R, Larson L, Green G (2011) Factors influencing public preferences for invasive alien species management. Biol Conserv 144:2097–2104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sheremet O, Ruokamo E, Juutinen A, Svento R, Hanley N (2018) How best to pay landowners to control invasive species? Evidence from disease control programs in Finland. Paper presented at the 20. BIOECON conference 2018 ‘Land-use, Agriculture and Biodiversity: Spatial and Temporal Issues’ available at http://www.bioecon-network.org/pages/20th%202018/papers20.html
  43. Simberloff D, Martin J-L, Genovesi P, Maris V, Wardle DA, Aronson J, Courchamp F, Galil B, García-Berthou E, Pascal M (2013) Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol Evol 28:58–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Taramarcaz P, Lambelet C, Clot B, Keimer C, Hauser C (2005) Ragweed (Ambrosia) progression and its health risks: will Switzerland resist this invasion? Swiss Med Wkly 135:538–548Google Scholar
  45. Thompson K, Davis M (2011) Why research on traits of invasive plants tells us very little. Trends Ecol Evol 26:155–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Valéry L, Fritz H, Lefeuvre J-C (2013) Another call for the end of invasion biology. Oikos 122:1143–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van den Born CG, Lenders RHJ, de Groot W, Huijsman E (2001) The new biophilia: an exploration of visions of nature in western countries. Environ Conserv 28:65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van der Wal R, Fischer A, Selge S, Larson BMH (2015) Neither the public nor experts judge species primarily on their origins Environmental Conservation 42:349–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Veitch C, Clout M (2001) Human dimensions in the management of invasive species in New Zealand. The Great Reshuffling. Human Dimensions of Invasive Alien Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom, p 63–71Google Scholar
  50. Vilà M, Hulme PE (2016) Impact of Biological Invasions on Ecosystem Services. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  51. Vilà M, Espinar JL, Hejda M, Hulme PE, Jarošík V, Maron JL, Pergl J, Schaffner U, Sun Y, Pyšek P (2011) Ecological impacts of invasive alien plants: a meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems. Ecol Lett 14:702–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vilà M, Basnou C, Pysek P, Josefsson M, Genovesi P, Gollasch S, Nentwig W, Olenin S, Roques A, Roy D, Hulme PE, DAISIE partners (2010) How well do we understand the impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A pan-European, cross-taxa assessment. Front Ecol Environ 8(3):135–144.  https://doi.org/10.1890/080083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Walther GR, Gritti ES, Berger S, Hickler T, Tang Z, Sykes MT (2007) Palms tracking climate change. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:801–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Walther G-R, Roques A, Hulme PE, Sykes MT, Pyšek P, Kühn I, Zobel M, Bacher S, Botta-Dukát Z, Bugmann H, Czúcz B, Dauber J, Hickler T, Jarošík V, Kenis M, Klotz S, Minchin D, Moora M, Nentwig W, Ott J, Panov VE, Reineking B, Robinet C, Semenchenko V, Solarz W, Thuiller W, Vilà M, Vohland K, Settele J (2009) Alien species in a warmer world: risks and opportunities. Trends Ecol Evol 24:686–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wittenberg R, Kenis M, Blick T, Hänggi A, Gassmann A, Weber E (2005) An inventory of alien species and their threat to biodiversity and economy in Switzerland. CABI Bioscience Switzerland Centre report to the Swiss Agency for Environment, Forests and Landscape. The environment in practice no. 0629. Federal Office for the Environment, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xenia Junge
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Marcel Hunziker
    • 1
  • Nicole Bauer
    • 1
  • Arne Arnberger
    • 3
  • Roland Olschewski
    • 1
  1. 1.Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSLBirmensdorfSwitzerland
  2. 2.Dialog NUsterSwitzerland
  3. 3.Institute for Landscape Development, Recreation and Conservation Planning (ILEN)University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations