2015a). The impacts of tree invasions on fynbos biodiversity were considered by
rural communities on the Agulhas Plain as a key threat, because it hampered the
collection of wild flowers, with impacts on fire and water viewed as an issue only by
a minority of the respondents (de la Fontaine 2013). However, in the same area,
farmers considered the impacts of invasive trees on water as a major issue, followed
by their impacts on livestock health, and grazing and crop land. In Cape Town,
people were mainly concerned about the negative effects of invasive species on
native biodiversity, followed by impacts on water supply, fire risk, human health and
safety (Potgieter et al. 2019).
In summary, it appears that the literature is quite divergent. In some areas and for
some social groups, loss of biodiversity is considered as one of the main impacts of
invasive species, while in other areas or for other social groups it is hardly considered at all. Therefore, this proposition is not strongly supported. These differences
might also be partly caused by the analytical frameworks used, researcher bias, the
methods used and the kinds of questions asked. The findings also suggest that in
some cases the concern over biological impacts are a manifestation of social values
and therefore in reality biodiversity impacts are a threat to social concepts relating to
human values and systems (e.g. preservation, heritage, stewardship, protected areas)
(Carruthers 1995). Similarly, biodiversity might underpin many social related services or practices, e.g. flower collection or grazing potential.
24.5 People’s Response to Invasive Species
24.5.1 Proposition 4a: People are Less Willing to Manage
Species Regarded as ‘Charismatic’
Many instances of resistance to invasive species management have arisen within
South Africa. Whilst this is undoubtedly a function of the interplay of species traits,
stakeholder values and local contexts, resistance is often met due to the charisma of
certain species. By “charisma” we mean species that are linked to emotional values
such as plants with large, bright flowers or unique growth forms, animals with
neoteric features (big eyes and large heads), those that are entertaining and quirky,
cute, colourful or those that are majestic, as opposed to less charismatic species
which are often thorny, drab, do not have fur, and may sting or bite (Shackleton et al.
2019b). Characteristics that relate to charisma can overwhelm many other considerations, and can hinder or derail proposed management strategies (Dickie et al. 2014;
Gaertner et al. 2016).
Control of the charismatic Anas platyrhynchos (Mallards) was met with significant resistance from local residents in Cape Town (Gaertner et al. 2016). Residents
enjoyed these colourful and friendly ducks that provided them with entertainment
and pleasure. In particular, they enjoyed feeding them which is not as easy with
native ducks. Also, in Cape Town, there was controversy over the control of
Hemitragus jemlahicus (Himalayan Tahr), which many residents viewed as majestic
716
R. T. Shackleton et al.
rural communities on the Agulhas Plain as a key threat, because it hampered the
collection of wild flowers, with impacts on fire and water viewed as an issue only by
a minority of the respondents (de la Fontaine 2013). However, in the same area,
farmers considered the impacts of invasive trees on water as a major issue, followed
by their impacts on livestock health, and grazing and crop land. In Cape Town,
people were mainly concerned about the negative effects of invasive species on
native biodiversity, followed by impacts on water supply, fire risk, human health and
safety (Potgieter et al. 2019).
In summary, it appears that the literature is quite divergent. In some areas and for
some social groups, loss of biodiversity is considered as one of the main impacts of
invasive species, while in other areas or for other social groups it is hardly considered at all. Therefore, this proposition is not strongly supported. These differences
might also be partly caused by the analytical frameworks used, researcher bias, the
methods used and the kinds of questions asked. The findings also suggest that in
some cases the concern over biological impacts are a manifestation of social values
and therefore in reality biodiversity impacts are a threat to social concepts relating to
human values and systems (e.g. preservation, heritage, stewardship, protected areas)
(Carruthers 1995). Similarly, biodiversity might underpin many social related services or practices, e.g. flower collection or grazing potential.
24.5 People’s Response to Invasive Species
24.5.1 Proposition 4a: People are Less Willing to Manage
Species Regarded as ‘Charismatic’
Many instances of resistance to invasive species management have arisen within
South Africa. Whilst this is undoubtedly a function of the interplay of species traits,
stakeholder values and local contexts, resistance is often met due to the charisma of
certain species. By “charisma” we mean species that are linked to emotional values
such as plants with large, bright flowers or unique growth forms, animals with
neoteric features (big eyes and large heads), those that are entertaining and quirky,
cute, colourful or those that are majestic, as opposed to less charismatic species
which are often thorny, drab, do not have fur, and may sting or bite (Shackleton et al.
2019b). Characteristics that relate to charisma can overwhelm many other considerations, and can hinder or derail proposed management strategies (Dickie et al. 2014;
Gaertner et al. 2016).
Control of the charismatic Anas platyrhynchos (Mallards) was met with significant resistance from local residents in Cape Town (Gaertner et al. 2016). Residents
enjoyed these colourful and friendly ducks that provided them with entertainment
and pleasure. In particular, they enjoyed feeding them which is not as easy with
native ducks. Also, in Cape Town, there was controversy over the control of
Hemitragus jemlahicus (Himalayan Tahr), which many residents viewed as majestic
716
R. T. Shackleton et al.