Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 633–652 | Cite as

In lakes but not in minds: stakeholder knowledge of invasive species in prairie lakes

  • Lushani Nanayakkara
  • Rozzet Jurdi-Hage
  • Peter R. Leavitt
  • Björn Wissel
Original Paper

Abstract

Humans are key vectors in the spread and establishment of aquatic invasive species (AIS), and human behavior can exacerbate or help prevent further spread of non-native species. Therefore, stakeholders’ knowledge is critical to preventing establishment of AIS. However, stakeholders’ AIS knowledge in prairie lakes remains poorly understood. We used a survey questionnaire in Saskatchewan, Canada, to assess the state of AIS knowledge, identify predictors of knowledge, and optimize management strategies. Statistical analyses of the responses of 440 participants indicated a generally low level of AIS knowledge, suggesting low communication success. Respondents were generally more aware of non-native fishes than plants. Of concern was the observation of substantial knowledge gaps regarding non-native mussels and important preventative behaviors that may have devastating ecological, social, and economic consequences if left unaddressed. Better understanding of AIS issues was significantly associated with several trans-situational (age, sex and education), situational (recreational purpose and using multiple lakes), and lake-related knowledge (awareness of eutrophication) predictors. Exploitation of these predictors is recommended to improve effectiveness of outreach and communication efforts. Specifically, we propose that management strategies focus on improving communications by streamlining outreach messages, targeting low-knowledge groups (e.g., swimmers, cabin owners), and expanding education campaigns.

Keywords

AIS knowledge Prairie lakes Survey research Knowledge predictors Outreach Communications strategy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Ron Hlasny at the SK Ministry of Environment and Kyle Hodder at the University of Regina for their assistance in this study. Fishing rods offered as prizes were generously donated by Cabela’s. Funding for this study was provided by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Grant to B. Wissel, and Teaching Assistance and Research scholarships from the University of Regina and the Government of Saskatchewan to L. Nanayakkara.

References

  1. Ansong M, Pickering C (2015) What’s a weed? Knowledge, attitude and behaviour of park visitors about weeds. PLoS ONE 10(8):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belk RW (1975) Situational variables and consumer behavior. J Consum Res 2(3):157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benson AJ, Richerson MM, Maynard E, Larson J, Fusaro A, Bogdanoff AK, Neilson M (2017) Dreissena rostriformis bugensis. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar
  4. Bremner A, Park K (2007) Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biol Conserv 139(3–4):306–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (2005) Microeconometrics: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Canadian Council for Public Private Partnerships (CCPPP) (2014) Regina wastewater treatment plant upgrade project, Saskatchewan: delivering clean and safe wastewater for a growing city. ReginaGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlson AK, Vondracek B (2014) Synthesis of ecology and human dimensions for predictive management of Bighead and Silver carp in the United States. Rev Fish Sci Aquac 22(4):284–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Connelly NA, Lauber TB, Stedman RC, Knuth BA (2016) The role of anglers in preventing the spread of aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes region. J Great Lakes Res 42(3):703–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dean AJ, Fielding KS, Newton FJ (2016) Community knowledge about water: who has better knowledge and is this associated with water-related behaviors and support for water-related policies? PLoS ONE 11(7):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dextrase AJ, Mandrake NE (2006) Impacts of alien invasive species on freshwater fauna at risk in Canada. Biol Invasions 8(1):13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drake DAR, Mercader R, Dobson T, Mandrak NE (2015) Can we predict risky human behaviour involving invasive species? A case study of the release of fishes to the wild. Biol Invasions 17(1):309–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edwards CJ, Heinen JT, Rehage JS (2016) Recreational angler perspectives of nonnative fishes. Hum Dimens Wildl 21(2):144–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eiswerth ME, Yen ST, van Kooten GC (2011) Factors determining awareness and knowledge of aquatic invasive species. Ecol Econ 70(9):1672–1679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Floyd MF, Jang H, Noe FP (1997) The relationship between environmental concern and acceptability of environmental impacts among visitors to two U.S. National Park settings. J Environ Manage 51:391–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ford-Thompson AES, Snell C, Saunders G, White PCL (2015) Dimensions of local public attitudes towards invasive species management in protected areas. Wildl Res 42:60–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. García-Llorente M, Martín-López B, González JA, Alcorlo P, Montes C (2008) Social perceptions of the impacts and benefits of invasive alien species: implications for management. Biol Conserv 141(12):2969–2983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gates KK, Guy CS, Zale AV, Horton TB (2009) Angler awareness of aquatic nuisance species and potential transport mechanisms. Fish Manag Ecol 16(6):448–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haag WR, Williams JD (2014) Biodiversity on the brink: an assessment of conservation strategies for North American freshwater mussels. Hydrobiologia 735:45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harvey RG, Perez L, Mazzotti FJ (2016) Not seeing is not believing: volunteer beliefs about Burmese pythons in Florida and implications for public participation in invasive species removal. J Environ Plan Manag 59(5):789–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heck N, Paytan A, Potts DC, Haddad B (2016) Coastal residents’ literacy about seawater desalination and its impacts on marine ecosystems in California. Mar Policy 68:178–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jetter K, Paine TD (2004) Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for biological control in the urban landscape. Biol Control 30(2):312–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koob M, McGuire C (2013) 2010 Survey of sport fishing in Saskatchewan. SK Ministry of Environment, Prince AlbertGoogle Scholar
  23. Leavitt PR, Brock CS, Ebel C, Patoine A (2006) Landscape-scale effects of urban nitrogen on a chain of freshwater lakes in central North America. Limnol Oceanogr 51:2262–2277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leung B, Lodge DM, Finnoff D, Shogren JF, Lewis MA, Lamberti G (2002) An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. Proc R Soc Lond (Biol) 269(1508):2407–2413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lindemann-Matthies P (2016) Beasts or beauties? Laypersons’ perception of invasive alien plant species in Switzerland and attitudes towards their management. NeoBiota 29:15–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lindgren C (2006) Angler awareness of aquatic invasive species in Manitoba. J Aquat Plant Manag 44:103–108Google Scholar
  27. Long JS (1997) Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Sage, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Long JS (2005) Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata, 2nd edn. Stata Press, College StationGoogle Scholar
  29. Lovell SJ, Stone SF, Fernandez L (2006) The economic impacts of aquatic invasive species: a review of the literature. Agric Resour Econ Rev 35(1):195–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Luo Y, Deng J (2008) The new environmental paradigm and nature-based tourism motivation. J Travel Res 46:392–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martín-López B, Montes C, Benayas J (2007) The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biol Cons 139:67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Matzek V, Covino J, Funk JL, Saunders M (2014) Closing the knowing-doing gap in invasive plant management: accessibility and interdisciplinarity of scientific research. Conserv Lett 7(3):208–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moon K, Blackman DA, Brewer TD (2015) Understanding and integrating knowledge to improve invasive species management. Biol Invasions 17(9):2675–2689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nanayakkara L, Wissel B (2017) Preliminary investigation of lake-use patterns in prairie lakes, stakeholder perceptions and resulting management implications. Lake Reserv Manag 33(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Neuman WL, Robson K (2011) Basics of social research: qualitative and quantitative approaches, 2nd edn. Pearson, BostonGoogle Scholar
  36. Otto S, Kaiser FG (2014) Ecological behavior across the lifespan: why environmentalism increases as people grow older. J Environ Psychol 40:331–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pan S, Ryan C (2007) Mountain areas and visitor usage-motivations and determinants of satisfaction: the case of Pirongia forest park, New Zealand. J Sustain Tour 15(3):288–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pierce JC, Steel BS, Warner RL (2010) Knowledge, culture, and public support for renewable-energy policy. Comp Technol Transf Soc 7(3):270–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Provincial Auditor of Saskatchewan (PA) (2016) Report—volume 1, chapter 7: Environment—preventing aquatic invasive species in Saskatchewan, ReginaGoogle Scholar
  41. Rawson DS, Moore JE (1944) The saline lakes of Saskatchewan. Can J Res 22:141–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141(10):2417–2431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Robinson DCE, Knowler D, Kyobe D, de la Cueva Bueno P (2013) Preliminary damage estimates for selected invasive fauna in B.C. Report prepared for Ecosystems Branch, B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, B.C. by ESSA Technologies Ltd., VancouverGoogle Scholar
  44. Seekamp E, McCreary A, Mayer J, Zack S, Charlebois P, Pasternak L (2016) Exploring the efficacy of an aquatic invasive species prevention campaign among water recreationists. Biol Invasions 18(6):1745–1758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shackleton CM, Shackleton RT (2016) Knowledge, perceptions and willingness to control designated invasive tree species in urban household gardens in South Africa. Biol Invasions 18(6):1599–1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sharp RL, Larson LR, Green GT (2011) Factors influencing public preferences for invasive alien species management. Biol Conserv 144(8):2097–2104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sharp RL, Cleckner LB, DePillo S (2017) The impact of on-site educational outreach on recreational users’ perceptions of aquatic invasive species and their management. Environ Educ Res 23(8):1200–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shu SB, Carlson KA (2014) When three charms but four alarms: identifying the optimal number of claims in persuasion settings. J Mark 78(1):127–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Statistics Canada (2011) 2011 Census: population, urban and rural, by province (Saskatchewan), CanadaGoogle Scholar
  50. Steel B, Lovrich N, Lach D, Fomenko V (2005a) Correlates and consequences of public knowledge concerning ocean fisheries management. Coast Manag 33(1):37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Steel B, Smith C, Opsommer L, Curiel S, Warner-Steel R (2005b) Public ocean literacy in the United States. Ocean Coast Manag 48:97–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Strayer DL (2009) Twenty years of zebra mussels: lessons from the mussel that made headlines. Front Ecol Environ 7(3):135–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2006) Using multivariate statistics, 5th edn. Pearson and AB, BostonGoogle Scholar
  54. Touza J, Pérez-Alonso A, Chas-Amil ML, Dehnen-Schmutz K (2014) Explaining the rank order of invasive plants by stakeholder groups. Ecol Econ 105:330–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Uysal M, Jurowski C, Noe FP, McDonald CD (1994) Environmental attitude by trip and visitor characteristics. Tour Manag 15(4):284–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vander Zanden MJ, Hansen GJA, Higgins SN, Kornis MS (2010) A pound of prevention, plus a pound of cure: early detection and eradication of invasive species in the Laurentian Great Lakes. J Great Lakes Res 36(1):199–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Water Security Agency (WSA) (2012) 25 year Saskatchewan water security plan. Moose JawGoogle Scholar
  58. White PCL, Ward AI (2010) Interdisciplinary approaches for the management of existing and emerging human–wildlife conflicts. Wildl Res 37:623–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wissel B, Cooper RN, Leavitt PR, Pham SV (2011) Hierarchical regulation of pelagic invertebrates in lakes of the northern Great Plains: a novel model for interdecadal effects of future climate change on lakes. Glob Change Biol 17(1):172–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Witzling L, Shaw B, Seiler D (2016) Segmenting boaters based on level of transience: outreach and policy implications for the prevention of aquatic invasive species. Biol Invasions 18:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wooldridge JM (2013) Introductory econometrics: a modern approach, 4th edn. Nelson Education, ScarboroughGoogle Scholar
  62. Zook B, Phillips S (2012) Uniform minimum protocols and standards for watercraft interceptions programs for Dreissenid mussels in the western United States. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, PortlandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ReginaReginaCanada

Personalised recommendations