Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 60–68 | Cite as

Predictors of Participation in Invasive Species Control Activities Depend on Prior Experience with the Species

  • Emily A. Kalnicky
  • Mark W. BrunsonEmail author
  • Karen H. Beard
Article
  • 73 Downloads

Abstract

The increasing worldwide spread of non-native species is both a component and a consequence of environmental change, and islands are especially vulnerable to negative effects. Efforts to control non-native species often include public education intended to promote behaviors designed to reduce or reverse their spread. To inform the use of information strategies to control the invasive, non-native frog Eleutherodactylus coqui in Hawaii, USA, we surveyed over 700 property owners about their attitudes and behaviors regarding the species. Included were residents of the island of Hawaii, where the species is common and management emphasizes prevention of further spread, and three other islands where the species is largely absent and management emphasizes detection and eradication. Where frogs are present, 61% of respondents reported taking actions to reduce their population, typically clearing vegetation or hand-capturing individual frogs. For these individuals, intentions to engage in future control activities were not significantly related to reports of past behavior. Intentions to participate in future control efforts on the island of Hawaii were best predicted by attitudes toward practices. On the other islands, behavioral intentions were best predicted by subjective norms (i.e., beliefs about others’ expectations that they should manage frogs). Thus, intentions to engage in non-native species management behaviors appear to be influenced by prior exposure to, and experience with, that species. Understanding the predictors of behavioral intentions at different stages of invasion have implications for the design of information strategies that can promote participation in control activities.

Keywords

Behavior change Biological invasions Eleutherodactylus coqui Pro-environmental behavior Public education 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The lead author was supported during this research by a Quinney Foundation research fellowship at Utah State University. Research also was supported by a Utah State University Research Catalyst grant and by the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station (UAES) and is approved as journal paper number 9049. Irina Chobanyan provided survey administration assistance.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards, and was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Utah State University, protocol number 2427

Supplementary material

267_2018_1126_MOESM1_ESM.docx (134 kb)
Appendix A and B

References

  1. Ajzen I (1991) Theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Dec 50:179–211.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen I (2006) Constructing a TPB questionnaire: conceptual and methodological considerations. Working Paper, University of Massachusetts Amherst. http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf. Retrieved 22 Aug 2017
  3. Ajzen I, Brown TC, Carvajal F (2004) Explaining the discrepancy between intentions and actions: the case of hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Pers Soc Psychol B 30:1108–1121.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ajzen I, Cote GN (2008) Attitudes and the prediction of behavior. In: Crano WD, Prislin R (eds) Attitudes and attitude change. Psychology Press, New York, p 289–311Google Scholar
  5. Ajzen I, Czasch C, Flood MG (2009) From intentions to behavior: implementation intention, commitment, and conscientiousness. J Appl Soc Psychol 39:1356–1372.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00485.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Armitage CJ, Christian J (eds) (2004) Planned behavior: the relationship between human thought and action. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJGoogle Scholar
  7. Beard KH, Al-Chokhachy R, Tuttle NC, O’Neill EM (2008) Population density and growth rates of Eleutherodactylus coqui in Hawaii. J Herpetol 42:626–636.  https://doi.org/10.1670/07-314R1.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beard KH, Johnson SA, Shiels A (2017) Frogs (coqui frogs, greenhouse frogs, Cuban tree frogs, and cane toads). In: Pitt W, Beasley JC, Witmer GW (eds) Ecology and management of terrestrial vertebrate invasive species in the United States. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, Florida, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. Beard KH, Pitt WC (2005) Potential consequences of the coqui frog invasion in Hawaii. Divers Distrib 11:427–433.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1366-9516.2005.00178.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beard KH, Price EA, Pitt WC (2009) Biology and impacts of Pacific Island invasive species: 5. Eleutherodactylus coqui, the Coqui frog (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Pac Sci 63:297–316.  https://doi.org/10.2984/049.063.0301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Benning TL, LaPointe D, Atkinson CT, Vitousek PM (2002) Interactions of climate change with biological invasions and land use in the Hawaiian Islands: modeling the fate of endemic birds using a geographic information system. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:14246–14249.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.162372399 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bisrat SA, White MA, Beard KH, Cutler DR (2012) Predicting the distribution potential of an invasive Puerto Rican frog (Eleutherodactylus coqui) in Hawaii using remote sensing data. Divers Distrib 18:648–660.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00867.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bonnington C, Gaston KJ, Evans KL (2014) Squirrels in suburbia: influence of urbanization on the occurrence and distribution of a common exotic mammal. Urban Ecosyst 17:533–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bremner A, Park K (2007) Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biol Conserv 139:306–314.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Byrne BM (2001) Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications and programming. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Choi R, Beard KH (2012) Coqui frog invasions change invertebrate communities in Hawaii. Biol Invasions 14:939–948.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-0127-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coates P (2006) American perceptions of immigrant and invasive species: strangers on the land. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  18. Connelly NA, Brown TL, Decker DJ (2003) Factors affecting response rates to natural resource-focused mail surveys: empirical evidence of declining rates over time. Soc Natur Resour 16:541–549.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920309152 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Daehler CC (2008) Invasive plant problems in the Hawaiian Islands and beyond: Insights from history and psychology. In: Tokarska-Guzik JHBB, Brundu G, Child L, Daehler CC, Pyšek P (eds) Plant Invasions: human perception, ecological impacts and management. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, Netherlands, p 3–20Google Scholar
  20. D’Antonio CM, Dudley TL (1995) Biological invasions of agents of change on islands versus mainlands. In: Vitousek PM, Loope LL, Adsersen H (eds) Islands: biological diversity and ecosystem function. Springer, Berlin, p 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2014) Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Epanchin-Niell RS, Hufford MB, Aslan CE, Jason PS, Port JD, Waring TM (2010) Controlling invasive species in complex social landscapes. Front Ecol Environ 8:210–216.  https://doi.org/10.1890/090029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Estévez RA, Anderson CB, Pizarro JC, Burgman MA (2015) Clarifying values, risk perceptions, and attitudes to resolve or avoid social conflicts in invasive species management. Conserv Biol 29:19–30.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12359 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Everman E, Klawinski P (2013) Human-facilitated jump dispersal of a non-native frog species on Hawai’i Island. J Biogeogr 40:1961–1970.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12146 Google Scholar
  25. Fife-Schaw C, Sheeran P, Norman P (2007) Simulating behaviour change interventions based on the theory of planned behaviour: impacts on intention and action. Brit J Soc Psychol 46:43–68.  https://doi.org/10.1348/014466605X85906 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fraser A (2006) Public attitudes to pest control: a literature review. Science and Technical Publishing, Wellington, NZGoogle Scholar
  27. Fulton BR (2018) Organizations and survey research: implementing response enhancing strategies and conducting nonresponse analyses. Sociol Method Res 47:240–276.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115626169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. García-Llorente M, Martín-López B, Nunes P, González JA, Alcorlo P, Montes C (2008) Social perceptions of the impacts and benefits of invasive alien species: implications for management. Biol Conserv 141:2969–2983.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. García-Llorente M, Martín-López B, Nunes P, González J, 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 48:418–435.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9646-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Geller ES (2002) The challenge of increasing proenvironmental behavior. In: Bechtel RB, Churchman A (eds) Handbook of environmental psychology. Wiley, New York, p 525–540Google Scholar
  31. Gobster PH (2005) Invasive species as ecological threat: is restoration an alternative to fear-based resource management? Ecol Restor 23:261–270.  https://doi.org/10.3368/er.23.4.261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kalnicky EA, Brunson MW, Beard KH (2014) A social-ecological systems approach to non-native species: habituation and its impact on management. Biol Conserv 180:187–195.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.09.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaiser BA, Burnett K (2006) Economic impacts of E. Coqui frogs in Hawaii. Inter Environm Rev 8(2):1–12Google Scholar
  34. Kish L (1965) Survey sampling. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Kraus F, Campbell EW (2002) Human-mediated escalation of a formerly eradicable problem: the invasion of Caribbean frogs in the Hawaiian Islands. Biol Invasions 4:327–332.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020909205908 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale MW, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Applic 10:689–710. 0.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0689:BICEGC]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Madden TJ, Ellen PS (1992) A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Pers Soc Psychol B 18:3–9.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292181001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McGuire R, Hamilton R, Graves P, Rygh C (2010) Hawai’i’s coqui frog management, research and education plan. (ed DLNR-DOFAW, County of Hawaii, USDA/WS, BIISC, HDOA). [online]. http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/hisc/files/2013/02/20071217coquiplandraft.pdf
  39. McNeely JA (2001) The great reshuffling: human dimensions of invasive alien species. IUCN, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  40. Meyerson LA, Mooney HA (2007) Invasive alien species in an era of globalization. Front Ecol Environ 5:199–208.  https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[199:IASIAE]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Miller KK, Jones DN (2006) Gender differences in the perceptions of wildlife management objectives and priorities in Australasia. Wildl Res 33:155–159.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WR05036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Morgan M, Gramann JH (1989) Predicting effectiveness of wildlife education programs: a study of students’ attitudes and knowledge towards snakes. Wildl Soc B 17:501–509Google Scholar
  43. Reaser JK (2001) Invasive alien species prevention and control: the art and science of managing people. In: McNeely JA (ed.) The great reshuffling: human dimensions of invasive alien species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, p 89–104Google Scholar
  44. Reichard SH, White P (2001) Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant introductions in the United States. Bioscience 51:103–113.  https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0103:HAAPOI]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shackleton RT, Richardson DM, Shackleton CM, Bennett B, Crowley SL, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Estévez RA et al. (2018) Explaining people’s perceptions of invasive alien species: a conceptual framework. J Environ Manag 229:10–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envman.2018.04.045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sharp RL, Larson LR, Green GT (2011) Factors influencing public preferences for invasive alien species management. Biol Conserv 144:2097–2104.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.04.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sheail J (2003) Government and the management of an alien pest species: a British perspective. Landsc Res 28:101–111.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390306528 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shine R, Doody JS (2011) Invasive species control: understanding conflicts between researchers and the general community. Front Ecol Environ 9:400–406.  https://doi.org/10.1890/100090 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Simberloff D, Martin JL, Genovesi P, Maris V, Wardle DA, Aronson J, Courchamp F, Galil B, García-Berthou E, Pascal M, Pyšek P, Sousa R, Tabacchi E, Vila M (2013) Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol Evol 28:58–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.07.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sin H, Beard KH, Pitt WC (2008) An invasive frog, Eleutherodactylus coqui, increases new leaf production and leaf litter decomposition rates through nutrient cycling in Hawaii. Biol Invasions 10:335–345.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-007-9133-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith RL, Beard KH, Koons DN (2017) Invasive coqui frogs are associated with greater abundances of nonnative birds in Hawaii, USA Condor 120:16–29.  https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-17-109.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sorte CJB, Ibáñez I, Blumenthal DM, Molinari NA, Miller LP, Grosholz ED, Diez JM, D’Antonio CM, Olden JD, Jones SJ, Dukes JS (2013) Poised to prosper? A cross-system comparison of climate change effects on native and non-native species performance. Ecol Lett 16:261–270.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Steg L, Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol 29:309–317.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stokes KE, O’Neill KP, Montgomery WI, Dick JTA, Maggs CA, McDonald RA (2006) The importance of stakeholder engagement in invasive species management: a cross-jurisdictional perspective in Ireland. Biodivers Conserv 15:2829–2852.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-3137-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vanderhoeven S, Piqueray J, Halford M, Nulens G, Vincke J, Mahy G (2011) Perception and understanding of invasive alien species issues by nature conservation and horticulture professionals in Belgium. Environ Manag 47:425–442.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9621-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vitousek PM, D’Antonio CM, Loope LL, Westbrooks R (1996) Biological invasions as global environmental change. Am Sci 84:468Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Minnesota Zoological GardensApple ValleyUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environment and SocietyUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  3. 3.Department of Wildland ResourcesUtah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations