ArticleBiological invasions2023
Science for social licence to arrest an ecosystem-transforming invasion.
Article in Biological invasions, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cost effectiveness of spread mitigation strategies for polyphagous shot hole borerFrontiers in insect science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The primary role for scientific information in addressing complex environmental problems, such as biological invasions, is generally assumed to be as a guide for management decisions. However, scientific information often plays a minor role in decision-making, with practitioners instead relying on professional experience and local knowledge. We explore alternative pathways by which scientific information could help reduce the spread and impacts of invasive species. Our study centred on attempts to understand the main motivations and constraints of three local governance bodies responsible for the management of invasive (wilding) conifer species in the southern South Island of New Zealand in achieving strategic and operational goals. We used a combination of workshop discussions, questionnaire responses and visits to field sites to elicit feedback from study participants. We applied a mixed inductive-deductive thematic analysis approach to derive themes from the feedback received. The three main themes identified were: (1) impacts of wilding conifers and goals for wilding conifer control, (2) barriers to achieving medium- and long-term goals, and (3) science needed to support wilding conifer control. Participants identified reversal and prevention of both instrumental (e.g. reduced water availability for agriculture) and intrinsic (e.g. loss of biodiversity and landscape values) impacts of wilding conifer invasions as primary motivators behind wilding conifer control. Barriers to achieving goals were overwhelmingly social, relating either to unwillingness of landowners to participate or poorly designed regulatory frameworks. Consequently, science needs related primarily to gaining social licence to remove wilding conifers from private land and for more appropriate regulations. Scientific information provided via spread and impacts forecasting models was viewed as a key source of scientific information in gaining social licence. International experience suggests that invasive species control programmes often face significant external social barriers. Thus, for many biological invasions, the primary role of science might be to achieve social licence and regulatory support for the long-term goals of invasive species control programmes and the management interventions required to achieve those goals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.