LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Touza, Julia; Pérez-Alonso, Alicia; Chas-Amil, María L.; Dehnen-Schmutz, Katharina (2014)
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
Debates surrounding the use of policies to avoid further spread of invasive species highlight the need to establish priorities in public resource allocations. We explore the consistency or discrepancy among stakeholder groups involved in the risk and control management of invasive species to identify the extent to which different factors influence stakeholder choices of major relevant plant invaders. Based on stakeholder ranking of invasive plants, we explore the reasons behind stakeholders' support for policy management. Data were collected in Galicia, Spain, where a catalogue of prohibited entry and trade of invasive species is currently under debate. We estimate a rank ordered logit model using information from semi-structured interviews conducted with respondents from four stakeholder groups: public administration sector, ornamental sector, research and social groups. The characteristics of plant invaders that provoke stakeholders to rank a species more highly are wide distribution of plant invaders, existence of public control programmes, use and sale of species in the ornamental sector and media coverage. The influence these aspects have in the selection of top-ranked invaders varies across different stakeholder groups and with stakeholders' level of knowledge, awareness and attitudes towards different potential policy measures. A small group of invaders are perceived as top rated by all stakeholder groups.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • (e.g. Vilella-Villa and Costa-Font, 2008; Donovan et al., 2011). For invasive species, all the respondents for their collaboration in the questionnaire. A special thank you is given to M. M‡–ez for her collaboration in the design and implementation of the questionnaire, M. Salvande and R. Mart’nez-Espi–eira for their useful comments and suggestions, and S. Gonz‡lez Nogueira for her technical support. The first draft of this paper was written when J. Touza was visiting the EcoServices Group at Arizona State University. She gratefully acknowledges their hospitality. Finally, we would like to thank Dennis Fok and Emmanouil Mentzakis for providing References Allison P.D., Christakis N.A., 1994. Logit Models for Sets of Ranked Items.
    • Sociological Methodology. 24, 199-228.
    • Andreu J., Vilˆ M., Hulme P.E., 2009. An assessment of stakeholder perceptions and management of noxious alien plant in Spain. Environmental Management. 43, 1244- 1255.
    • Bailey J.P., Conolly A.P., 2000. Prize-winners to pariahs - A history of Japanese Knotweed s. l. (Polygonaceae) in the British Isles. Watsonia. 23, 93-110.
    • Barbier E.B., Knowler D., Gwatipedza J., Reichard S.H., Ransom-Hodges A.R., 2013.
    • Implementing Policies to Control Invasive Plant Species. BioScience. 63, 132-138.
    • Barbier E., Knowler D., 2006. Commercialization decisions and the economics of introduction. Euphytica. 148, 151-164.
    • Bardsley D., Edward-Jones G., 2007. Invasive species policy and climate change: social perceptions of environmental change in the Mediterranean. Environmental Science and Policy. 10, 230Ð242.
    • Beggs S., Cardell S., Hausman J., 1981. Assessing the Potential Demand for Electric Cars. Journal of Econometrics. 16, 1-19.
    • Bradley B.A., Blumenthal D.M., Early R., Grosholz E.D., Lawler J.J., Miller L.P., Sorte C.J., D'Antonio C.M., Diez J.M., Dukes J.S., Ibanez I., Olden J.D., 2012. Global change, global trade, and the next wave of plant invasions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 10, 20-28.
    • Bremner A., Park K., 2007. Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biological Conservation. 139, 306Ð314.
    • Burt J.W., Muir A.A., Piovia-Scott J., Veblen K.E., Chang A.L., Grossman J.D., Weiskel H.W., 2007. Preventing horticultural introductions of invasive plants: potential efficacy of voluntary initiatives. Biological Invasions. 9, 909Ð923.
    • Butchart S.H.M., Walpole M., Collen B., van Strien A., Scharlemann J.P.W., et al., 2010. Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science. 328, 1164-1168.
    • Ca–o L., Campos J.A., Garc’a-Magro D., Herrera M., 2013. Replacement of estuarine communities by an exotic shrub: distribution and invasion history of Baccharis halimifolia in Europe. Biological Invasions. DOI 10.1007/s10530-012-0360-4.
    • Carrete M., Tella J.L., 2008. Wild-bird trade and exotic invasions: a new link of conservation concern? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 6, 207-211.
    • Carri—n J.S., Navarro C., Navarro J., Munuera M., 2000. The distribution of cluster pine (Pinus pinaster) in Spain as derived from palaeoecological data: relationships with phytosociological classification. The Holocene. 10, 243Ð252.
    • Cattell R.B., 1966. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1, 629-637.
    • Chapman R., Staelin R., 1982. Exploiting rank ordered choice set data within the stochastic utility model. Journal of Marketing Research. 19, 288-301.
    • Conservation. 135, 256-267.
    • Fok D., Paap R., Van Dijk B., 2012. A rank-ordered logit model with unobserved heterogeneity in ranking capabilities. Journal of Applied Econometrics. 27, 831-846.
    • Ford-Thompson A.E.S., Snell C., Saunders G., White P.C.L., 2012. Stakeholder participation in management of invasive vertebrates. Conservation Biology. 26, 345- 356.
    • Garc’a-Llorente M., Mart’nez L—pez B., Gonz‡lez J.A., Alcorlo P., Montes C., 2008.
    • Social perceptions of the impacts and benefits of invasive alien species: implications for management. Biological Conservation. 141, 2969-2983.
    • Gorsuch R.L., 1983. Factor Analysis, second ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
    • Gozlan R. E., Burnard D., Andreou D., Britton J. R., 2013. Understanding the threats posed by non-native species: public vs. conservation managers. PloS one. 8, e53200.
    • Guttman L., 1954. Some necessary conditions for common factor analysis.
    • Psychometrika. 19, 149-162.
    • Hajivassiliou V.A., Ruud P.A., 1994. Classical estimation methods for LDV models using simulation, in: Engle R.F., McFadden D.L. (Eds.), Handbook of Econometrics 4.
    • Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 2383-2441.
    • Hausman J.A., Ruud P.A., 1987. Specifying and testing econometric models for rank ordered data. Journal of Econometrics. 34, 83 104.
    • Hulme P.E., 2009. Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. Journal of Applied Ecology. 46, 10-18.
    • Hurley J., Mentzakis E., Grignon M., 2012. The interpretation of health care need among the general public: an empirical investigatgion using a discrete-choice approach.
    • CHEPA working paper series, paper 12-02.
    • Paudel K.P., Dunn M.A., Bhandari D., Vlosky R.P., Guidry K.M., 2007. Alternative methods to analyze the rank ordered data: a case of invasive species control. Natural Resource Modeling. 20, 451-471.
    • Pemberton, R.W., Liu, H., 2009. Marketing time predicts naturalization of horticultural plants. Ecology. 90, 69-80.
    • Perrings C., Dehnen-Schmutz K., Touza J., Williamson M., 2005. How to manage biological invasions under globalization. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 20, 212-215.
    • Perrings C., Naeem S., Ahrestani F., Bunker D.E., Burkill P., Canziani G., Elmqvist T., Ferrati R., Fuhrman J., Jaksic F., Kawabata Z., Kinzig A., Mace G.M., Milano F., Mooney H., Prieur-Richard A.H., Tschirhart J., Weisser W., 2010. Ecosystem services for 2020. Science. 330, 323-324.
    • Pimentel D., Zuniga R., Morrison D., 2005. Update on the environmental, economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics.
    • Punj G., Staelin R., 1978. The choice process for graduate business schools. Journal of Marketing Research. 15, 588-598.
    • Py!ek P., Sadlo J., Mandak B., 2002. Catalogue of alien plants of the Czech Republic.
    • Preslia. 74, 97-186.
    • Reed M.S., Graves A., Dandy N., Posthumus H., Hubacek K., Morris J., Prell C., Quinn C.H., Stringer L.C., 2009. WhoÕs in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management. 90, 1933Ð1949.
    • S‡nz-Elorza M., Dana S‡nchez E.D., Sobrino Vesperinas E., 2004. Atlas de las plantas al—ctonas invasoras de Espa–a. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Madrid.
    • Westphal M.I., Browne M., MacKinnon K., Noble I., 2008. The link between international trade and the global distribution of invasive alien species. Biological Invasions. 10, 391-398.
    • White P.C.L., Ward A.I., 2010. Interdisciplinary approaches for the management of existing and emerging humanÐwildlife conflicts. Wildlife Research. 37, 623-629.
    • Xu H., Ding H., Li M., Qiang S., Guo, J., Han Z., Huang Z., Sun H., He S., Wu H., Wan F., 2006. The distribution, economic losses of alien species invasion to China.
    • Biological Invasions. 8, 1495-1500.
    • Xunta de Galicia, 2007. Plantas invasoras de Galicia. Biolox’a, distribuci—n e mŽtodos de control, Santiago de Compostela.
    • Yanai H., Ichikawa M., 2007. Factor Analysis, in: Rao C.R., Sinharay S. (Eds.), Handbook of Statistics 26: Psychometrics. Elsevier, pp. 257-296.
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
    48
    48%
    58
    58%
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article