Linking to the rural-urban debate, people in urban areas were more interested and
emotionally attached to charismatic species whereas in natural areas perceptions
were more based on species utility. This is mirrored by Dickie et al. (2014) and
Gaertner et al. (2016) who highlight that, particularly in cities, people’s values relate
to aesthetic and recreational benefits, and often take precedent over economic ones.
In Cape Town, Potgieter et al. (2019) showed that whilst utilitarian and economic
factors play a role in shaping perceptions, cultural values (e.g. aesthetic appearance)
also helped to explain people’s perceptions—suggesting that multiple interacting
factors shape people’s attitudes. However, in more rural areas, Shackleton et al.
(2015) showed that for Prosopis invasions, personal values, whilst important, were
not of as much concern as those relating to economic and livelihood benefits and
costs. Furthermore, Novoa et al. (2017) indicated that promoting public awareness
can assist in changing perceptions and in increasing public support for control, but
individuals who are hostile to any invasive species management programs will
remain—based on their personal ethical values. Mukwada et al. (2016) discussed
how personal or professional values founded on various worldviews and means of
living can influence people’s perceptions; with park wardens wanting to manage
Acacia species around Golden Gate National Park and communal villagers having
different opinions on the matter as the trees provide utility value for them. Similar
socio-political factors relating to biological invasions and different actors’ social
anxieties are highlighted by Comaroff and Comaroff (2001).
These examples suggest that, overall, multiple factors might influence people’s
perceptions of biological invasions, including the landscape context, the stakeholder
group, their experiences and the species traits. In South Africa, we suspect that
people’s perceptions are more likely related to the economic and livelihood effects of
invasive species, although intrinsic and emotional aspects cannot be discounted, and
are likely to be more prominent in urban areas.
24.4 The Effects of Invasive Species on People
Invasive species can affect people positively or negatively in a variety of ways. For
instance, invasive species provide both ecosystem services and disservices, which
have different implications for livelihoods and human wellbeing (Shackleton et al.
2007; Vaz et al. 2017b; Shackleton et al. 2019c). Seminal works on the role of
invasive species on people’s livelihoods come from South Africa and have focused
on rural settings (de Neergaard et al. 2005; Shackleton et al. 2007).
24.4.1 Proposition 3a: Specific Social-Ecological Contexts
Mediate How Invasive Species Affect People
The local socioeconomic and ecological context can greatly influence how biological invasions affect people. For example, invasive Acacia species are extremely
712
R. T. Shackleton et al.
emotionally attached to charismatic species whereas in natural areas perceptions
were more based on species utility. This is mirrored by Dickie et al. (2014) and
Gaertner et al. (2016) who highlight that, particularly in cities, people’s values relate
to aesthetic and recreational benefits, and often take precedent over economic ones.
In Cape Town, Potgieter et al. (2019) showed that whilst utilitarian and economic
factors play a role in shaping perceptions, cultural values (e.g. aesthetic appearance)
also helped to explain people’s perceptions—suggesting that multiple interacting
factors shape people’s attitudes. However, in more rural areas, Shackleton et al.
(2015) showed that for Prosopis invasions, personal values, whilst important, were
not of as much concern as those relating to economic and livelihood benefits and
costs. Furthermore, Novoa et al. (2017) indicated that promoting public awareness
can assist in changing perceptions and in increasing public support for control, but
individuals who are hostile to any invasive species management programs will
remain—based on their personal ethical values. Mukwada et al. (2016) discussed
how personal or professional values founded on various worldviews and means of
living can influence people’s perceptions; with park wardens wanting to manage
Acacia species around Golden Gate National Park and communal villagers having
different opinions on the matter as the trees provide utility value for them. Similar
socio-political factors relating to biological invasions and different actors’ social
anxieties are highlighted by Comaroff and Comaroff (2001).
These examples suggest that, overall, multiple factors might influence people’s
perceptions of biological invasions, including the landscape context, the stakeholder
group, their experiences and the species traits. In South Africa, we suspect that
people’s perceptions are more likely related to the economic and livelihood effects of
invasive species, although intrinsic and emotional aspects cannot be discounted, and
are likely to be more prominent in urban areas.
24.4 The Effects of Invasive Species on People
Invasive species can affect people positively or negatively in a variety of ways. For
instance, invasive species provide both ecosystem services and disservices, which
have different implications for livelihoods and human wellbeing (Shackleton et al.
2007; Vaz et al. 2017b; Shackleton et al. 2019c). Seminal works on the role of
invasive species on people’s livelihoods come from South Africa and have focused
on rural settings (de Neergaard et al. 2005; Shackleton et al. 2007).
24.4.1 Proposition 3a: Specific Social-Ecological Contexts
Mediate How Invasive Species Affect People
The local socioeconomic and ecological context can greatly influence how biological invasions affect people. For example, invasive Acacia species are extremely
712
R. T. Shackleton et al.