control or eradicate. The authors point out that decision making in response to
invasive species in cities has to be rapid, because of the spread rates and the rapidity
with which invasive species populations become unmanageable (Gaertner et al.
2016). Similarly, conflicts also have to be managed rapidly, so that management
can get off the ground as early as possible in the invasion process.
Participatory working groups, such as the three invasive species working groups
established in South Africa to date, can assist invasive species managers to rapidly
scope and initiate data gathering, stakeholder engagement and control operations.
Since these groups contain a greater range of stakeholders than would typically be
available for invasive species managers to consult, they broaden the debate and
create awareness of the range of different perspectives that are likely to come from
the public. Also, they allow other participants, for example, researchers, to understand the needs of managers and to target their research towards useful outcomes. A
good example of this is the study that was initiated by a researcher involved with the
CAPE IAAWG, who engaged a doctoral student to work on the Guttural Toad
invasion. The study revealed through demographic modelling that collecting eggs
and larvae of the toads has little impact on populations, and that management effort
would be better expended on collecting adults. The range of experience held by the
working group’s network can be quickly brought to bear on new problems where
there is initially very little definite information available (e.g. taxon-specific research
studies) and urgent action is needed.
Gaertner et al. (2016) state that although stakeholders may have an incomplete
understanding of the issues surrounding invasive species impacts and their interactions with native species and ecosystems, a wide range of views needs to be aired and
considered during the decision-making process. From a study using cognitive
hierarchy theory and risk perception frameworks, an expert group of assessors
concluded that more conflicts arose over intrinsic values than utilitarian ones
(Zengeya et al. 2017). This mirrors our findings, as the strongest conflicts experienced in South African cases (e.g. A. platyrhynchos, D. dama and H. jemlahicus)
have been related to the ethics and techniques of removing and killing the animals.
Alternative solutions such as leaving the animals where they are or translocating
them to another habitat (potentially even back to the native range) have been
endorsed by residents’ groups and concerned individuals. In contrast, when the
negative impacts of the species on humans were clearly recognised by stakeholders,
no opposition was experienced by managers. The V. germanica and P. dominula
projects have proceeded without strong public opposition.
In the context of the legislative requirement to manage invasive species
(e.g. through the NEM:BA Alien and Invasive Species Lists), the effective management of conflicts to produce acceptable and practicable solutions is essential, as
ultimately the control operation needs to proceed without excessive delays. Novoa
et al. (2018) devised four categories of stakeholders based on impact: context setters,
key players, crowd and subjects. These groups highlight the diversity that exists
among invasive species conflicts and how different groups can be approached. For
example, empowering stakeholders who currently have little influence or are ‘hidden’ from the public eye can build understanding, capacity and support for some
initiatives (Novoa et al. 2018). This perspective may go some way to explaining why
654
S. J. Davies et al.
invasive species in cities has to be rapid, because of the spread rates and the rapidity
with which invasive species populations become unmanageable (Gaertner et al.
2016). Similarly, conflicts also have to be managed rapidly, so that management
can get off the ground as early as possible in the invasion process.
Participatory working groups, such as the three invasive species working groups
established in South Africa to date, can assist invasive species managers to rapidly
scope and initiate data gathering, stakeholder engagement and control operations.
Since these groups contain a greater range of stakeholders than would typically be
available for invasive species managers to consult, they broaden the debate and
create awareness of the range of different perspectives that are likely to come from
the public. Also, they allow other participants, for example, researchers, to understand the needs of managers and to target their research towards useful outcomes. A
good example of this is the study that was initiated by a researcher involved with the
CAPE IAAWG, who engaged a doctoral student to work on the Guttural Toad
invasion. The study revealed through demographic modelling that collecting eggs
and larvae of the toads has little impact on populations, and that management effort
would be better expended on collecting adults. The range of experience held by the
working group’s network can be quickly brought to bear on new problems where
there is initially very little definite information available (e.g. taxon-specific research
studies) and urgent action is needed.
Gaertner et al. (2016) state that although stakeholders may have an incomplete
understanding of the issues surrounding invasive species impacts and their interactions with native species and ecosystems, a wide range of views needs to be aired and
considered during the decision-making process. From a study using cognitive
hierarchy theory and risk perception frameworks, an expert group of assessors
concluded that more conflicts arose over intrinsic values than utilitarian ones
(Zengeya et al. 2017). This mirrors our findings, as the strongest conflicts experienced in South African cases (e.g. A. platyrhynchos, D. dama and H. jemlahicus)
have been related to the ethics and techniques of removing and killing the animals.
Alternative solutions such as leaving the animals where they are or translocating
them to another habitat (potentially even back to the native range) have been
endorsed by residents’ groups and concerned individuals. In contrast, when the
negative impacts of the species on humans were clearly recognised by stakeholders,
no opposition was experienced by managers. The V. germanica and P. dominula
projects have proceeded without strong public opposition.
In the context of the legislative requirement to manage invasive species
(e.g. through the NEM:BA Alien and Invasive Species Lists), the effective management of conflicts to produce acceptable and practicable solutions is essential, as
ultimately the control operation needs to proceed without excessive delays. Novoa
et al. (2018) devised four categories of stakeholders based on impact: context setters,
key players, crowd and subjects. These groups highlight the diversity that exists
among invasive species conflicts and how different groups can be approached. For
example, empowering stakeholders who currently have little influence or are ‘hidden’ from the public eye can build understanding, capacity and support for some
initiatives (Novoa et al. 2018). This perspective may go some way to explaining why
654
S. J. Davies et al.