Invasive alien species and local communities in socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes: A systematic review and analysis. Issue 112 (October 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kelsch, Alexander; Takahashi, Yasuo; Dasgupta, Rajarshi; Mader, André Derek; Johnson, Brian Alan; Kumar, Pankaj
• Is Part Of: Environmental science & policy. Issue 112(2020)
• Page Start: 275
• Page End: 281
• Publication Date: 2020-10
• Subjects: Ecosystem services -- Human-environment interactions -- Indigenous and local knowledge -- Nature's contributions to people -- Non-native species -- Livelihoods; Environmental policy -- Periodicals; Environmental sciences -- Periodicals; Environnement -- Politique gouvernementale -- Périodiques; Sciences de l'environnement -- Périodiques; Environmental policy; Environmental sciences; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 363.70561
• DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.014
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1462-9011

Abstract

Highlights: Many invasive alien species in production lands and seas are beneficial. Their instrumental values in people's livelihoods often constitute such benefits. Beneficial invasive alien species tend to invite conflicts over their management. A common short-term solution of such conflicts was identified. Abstract: Effective management of invasive alien species (IAS) requires comprehensive stakeholder engagement and a clear understanding of how people interact with these species. Such interactions are particularly complex in socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS), where local communities and their environment are highly inter-dependent. We reviewed the scientific literature to determine current views of the positive and negative effects of IAS on local communities in SEPLS, with the goals of better understanding interactions between people and IAS, and devising effective management strategies. Of the 105 IAS investigated in the 57 journal papers we found on the topic, 31 species were reported as being purely undesirable for the local communities, while 30 species were reported as purely desirable, and 44 species were both undesirable and desirable. We found that the instrumental value of IAS often constitutes these desirable effects, and that desirable IAS were likely to invite controversy among stakeholders over its management. A common compromise to address such conflicts was to work with stakeholders for the containment of the IAS, while at the same time to retain or amplify its desirable effects on people to ensure their involvement. In the long-run, however, IAS management in SEPLS cannot be exempted from the need for long-term goals and the strategy leading toward them. Such a strategy should devise practical tools, such as stringent risk assessment and black- and white-listing as well as an option to eradicate or replace highly invasive species that fully takes into account different perspectives about IAS.