1

Differences in Attitudes Towards Invasive Species Management

Across Varying Backgrounds

Prepared for

Dr. Zhao Ma
Purdue University

Prepared by

Madison Cundiff
Anna Downing
Jessie Elliott
Zeyu Guo
Korbin Smith

April 25, 2019

 2

Abstract

In this project, we were seeking to understand the population’s knowledge over invasive

species, how invasives affect the environment, how education background impacts the number of

people who support the usage of herbicide application on invasive species, determine the

percentage of the population that believes humans have had an impact on the spread of invasives,

the percentage of the population that believes natural areas should be protected, and to determine

whether the population would still visit areas where management was practiced. Data was

collected using a qualtrics survey posted on social media platforms. The population was

individuals 18 years and older that live in the greater Lafayette area. The results from the survey

show that the surveyed individuals believe humans have had an impact on the spread of

invasives, understand the importance of invasive species management, and are willing to visit

recreation sites where management is practiced. The implications of these results are that the

greater Lafayette area is aware of invasive species and is willing to remove them, and that

education on invasive species and their removal should focus on earlier education groups and on

people that prefer indoor hobbies.

Keywords: I​ nvasive species, herbicides, natural resources management

Word Count: ​2946

1. Introduction

There is a spectrum of views on resource management across all demographic levels and

from array of interests. The two extremes of this spectrum are those that believe that resources
 3

need to be managed so that they can flourish and be used to benefit humans in some way, and

those that believe that humans should not manage nature in any way and should let nature take

its course, even if the consequences lead to the extinction species. Previous studies have aimed to

evaluate which factors influence differences in attitude and behavior when it comes to the

management of wildlife on private land (Daley et al., 2004). Researchers in North Carolina

found that demographic information was particularly relevant when predicting how landowners

would react to management programs, and often one of the major reasons for interference in

natural systems is financially motivated. Many wish to improve habitat quality for declining

game species and believe that humans should be able to coexist as a member of the ecosystem

and play a role in altering the landscape.

Invasive species management has been a tool used on many different ecosystems with

varying degrees of success. It is not always guaranteed to work because detecting new invasives

can be difficult and uncertain (Mehta et al., 2007). People often have opposing views not only on

management, but also on the definition of what the definition ‘invasive species’ fully

encompasses. They have been defined as “non-native species that threaten ecosystems, habitat,

or species” by Trends in Ecology and Evolution (2009). This definition can lead to confusion

among landowners as to what exactly defines ‘non-native,’ what defines ‘threatens,’ and how

exactly to recognize these invasive species for what they are.

One of the first questions we felt it was important to ask was whether the population

surveyed knew what invasive species were and how they impacted the environment. This

question is crucial understanding the educational experience respondents have with the subject

matter. Some may have little to no knowledge of invasive species and the damage that it could
 4

cause, while others may understand the nuances of invasive species and their effect on native

species. Furthermore, we needed to determine the percentage of the survey population that

believes that humans have impacted the spread of these invasives.

It was also necessary to ask whether the population supported the management of natural

resources, or whether they would rather natural areas be left alone. This helped to enhance our

understanding of the value orientation of the study groups to create management plans that align

with common values. Another relevant question to ask was whether people believed that wildlife

would be better off without human intervention and management. More specifically, we also

wanted to investigate how educational background impacts the number of people who support

herbicide application on invasives species in order to protect native species. This allowed an

assessment of the public’s general attitudes towards invasive species. The final question we

asked was whether the survey responses indicated whether the population would still visit areas

in which management has been implemented, or whether they found fault with some of the

practices that could be used.

2. Methods

The data collection for this study is primarily focused on a population in the greater

Lafayette area that is over 18 years old. The study wants to discover how people that enjoy the

outdoors and people that do not enjoy the outdoors view human management of natural areas.

The data collection method is an online survey, using Purdue Qualtrics, to gather quantitative

data. This survey will be sent to people from different age groups, different hometowns, and

different education levels. The study utilized an online survey to gather data from a wide variety
 5

and a large number of people. Because an online survey gathers quantitative data, statistical

analyses can calculate any significant differences in among the people that do and do not enjoy

outdoor activities. By sending the survey out to such a wide variety of people with different

background, the potential bias is reduced. Also, ensuring a large number of respondents will

reduce bias.

There are a few topics we covered in the data collection instrument, we started with the

participant’s basic information such as gender, age, and education background. Next, we asked

about the participant’s preference between rural and urban, indoor and outdoor. This can help us

identify the importance of nature to the participant to a certain degree. Because being outside

may not necessarily mean access to environmental resources and natural areas, the survey asks

further questions on activities closely related to and provided by the natural resources, such as

fishing and hiking. Then we ask about the participants’ opinion on human managing the natural

resources. Examples are given to participants to help us narrow down the different types of

opinions. We also ask the participants to give their opinion on the example of applying herbicide

to manage vegetation. Combined with the previous topics, we can have an idea of how people

with different background will think of the human interfering with the natural system.

The participants will be divided into four groups, which are FNR GroupMe, Facebook

friends from all members with Facebook profiles, ROTC GroupMe, and House GroupMe. There

are potentially more than 200 participants, but based on different backgrounds the response rate

is expected to be different within each group. Due to the populations being associated with us

through GroupMe and other social media platforms, the survey may be somewhat biased.

However, for the purpose of this class, the survey will suffice.
 6

With every survey where participation is optional, the possibility of response and

nonresponse bias is a relevant and important issue that should be considered when constructing

questions and choosing one’s audience. Previous studies from the University of Michigan have

examined relationships between the organization conducting the survey and the rates of response

and have found that people are more likely to respond when the questionnaire was created by a

third party (Groves et al., 2012). It is postulated that the increase in response was because the

motives behind a university collecting the data were deemed to be more knowledge-oriented and

any surveys created by another organization that could have a personal interest in the results

were thought of as “advertising schemes” with possible ulterior motives. We find ourselves in a

unique situation to minimize bias by collecting information from a wide audience, as Purdue

University prides itself on its diversity and our survey aims to collect from a variety of

demographic backgrounds. Our position as students of the university gives us a degree of

credibility, which helps to reduce potential active nonresponse bias from those opposed the idea

of taking the survey.

Passive nonresponse bias has also been studied extensively and refers to members of an

audience who do not respond to a survey because they support the main idea and deem their

response unnecessary or are uninterested in the subject (Halbesleben et al., 2012). Our survey

aims to decrease this bias by making the survey convenient and concise to hold the audience’s

attention. A short summary of the importance of the research will be made available to motivate

readers to take the survey and stress the importance of their opinion to minimize this issue.

Another potential source of bias that is important to take into consideration relates to the

accessibility of the survey. As the survey is digital, one must be conscious of whether the sample
 7

will be influenced by whether or not respondents have a computer or smartphone. However,

taking the feasibility of other survey methods into account, our electronic survey offers

anonymity, convenience and more efficient methods of analysis and scope that would be

potentially limited by other traditional methods. The only requirement needed to participate is

internet access, which is now widespread and common across socioeconomic classes. We can

also evaluate gaps in our response with the information we collect on the demographic

information to determine whether it’s necessary to pursue further data collection.

By collecting our data digitally, we have the option of analyzing our results with software

like Microsoft Excel. The Purdue Qualtrics software allows us to determine the most common

answer for each of the questions and the distribution of the response. We conducted data analysis

by transferring the responses to excel and RStudio. RStudio allows us to test for relationships

between different response variables like demographic information and opinion on invasive

species. Both RStudio and Excel allow for the visualization of data with plots and graphs

(Appendix A).

3. Results

The demographic information gathered by our survey indicated that participants were

primarily female (46%), with a slightly lower response rate from males (35%) and those

identifying as other (19%). The highest level of education represented by half of the survey

respondents was “Some college credit”, which could represent those who terminated their studies

or those who are currently working to complete their degree. The next highest category of

educational experience was Bachelor’s degree, followed by “other”, high school degree or
 8

equivalent (GED), and Associate’s degree (B. Fig. 1). A significant majority of the participants

fell into the 18-25 years age range (95%) with 65+ years making up the remaining portion (5%).

Roughly two-thirds of these individuals stated that they lived in a rural area, as opposed to an

urban one.

We also felt it was important to gauge general attitudes towards natural areas in general,

which we were able to quantify with a question asking the respondents to rank how much they

enjoy experiencing nature on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 indicating the highest level of

enjoyment. There were no responses below 5, with the majority ranking their experience as 10

(B. Fig. 2). A majority of the sampled population was familiar (81%) or at least somewhat

familiar (14%) with what an invasive species is, with only a small portion (5%) answering that

they did not know. If the participants answered that they were familiar with invasives, we

followed up with another question asking whether they believed humans had played a role in

their spread, to which 76% answered yes and 24% answered maybe. On a scale of 1 to 10, the

highest number of respondents ranked the importance of human management in nature as 9 out

of 10 with 10 being the highest level of priority (B. Fig.3). Roughly a third (29%) answered that

their hobbies primarily took place outdoors, with a smaller portion (19%) answering that they

preferred indoors activities and a half (52%) enjoying both.

We compared groups of respondents based on specific characteristics, initially by

whether they enjoyed indoor or outdoor activities. Those who enjoyed outdoor activities were

more confident of humans’ role in the spread of invasives but less willing to visit an area where

vegetative herbicides had been used. Those who spent more time outdoors also were familiar

with a higher average number of invasive plants (3.3 species) compared to those who spent more
 9

time indoors (1 species). Outdoor hobbyists also supported a higher average number of removal

methods for vegetative invasives (3.2 methods) as compared to indoor hobbyists (1 method).

However, both groups answered that they enjoyed the outdoors at least “somewhat” and that

some degree of human management was needed to manage natural resources.

We also compared awareness across different levels of education, starting with the

number of known invasive species. Associate and Bachelor degree holders knew the highest

average number of invasive plant species compared to those with some college credit or a high

school degree (B. Fig. 4). We saw a similar trend in the number of management practices that

were supported by each group, although the contrast was not as apparent. Those with higher

levels of education supported a higher average number of invasive removal methods (B. Fig. 5).

We also ran a regression analysis to elucidate the relationship between the number of invasive

species participants knew and the number of removal methods they would be comfortable using

(B. Fig. 6). The analysis produced an R-squared value of 0.40 and a significant p-value of 0.016,

if one uses the standard 0.05 significance threshold. The most supported method of invasive

species removal was hand removal (24%), whereas brush/clearing saw was the least supported

(17%).

4. Discussion

The findings from our results indicated that a majority of the respondents adhere to

similar values, but not similar beliefs when it comes to the reasoning behind values. Our

explanation for this is due to the differences in education levels and experiences with invasive

species. When exploring higher education level respondents, it is plausible that invasive species
 10

management was included or briefly touched upon within their studies. Education plays a critical

role in the general public’s understanding of invasives and what removal methods are

appropriate to use. A college graduate or student who is specialized in forestry or botany would

have more knowledge on the topic, rather than a high school student who may have briefly

discussed it in biology class. Both awareness and knowledge about eradication programs will

increase public support for invasive species control (Bremner and Park, 2007), which is why

improvements in education are vital for improvements in understanding invasive species

removal. Improving education on herbicide removal is another factor that plays into the general

public’s knowledge of invasive species removal.

Outdoor hobbyists who answered that they were less willing to visit an area where

vegetative herbicides had been used, even if they were to remove invasive species, illustrated a

set of underlying beliefs about herbicides on human health. Many herbicides do pose risks to

health conditions due to contamination, and more people are becoming leery at the thought of

damaging their health in order to remove invasive species. This reasoning is highlighted in an

analysis of what removal method to use, with hand removal being the top result (24%).

Herbicide application tied with clear cutting (20%) in the same set of results, and shows that

respondents do not have a clear understanding of how herbicides affect health or invasive

removal.

Some questions that remain unanswered related to invasive species removal relate to

knowledge on maintenance methods. Many of the respondents have had some experiences with

invasive species removal, especially the respondents who had some sort of college education

background. Exploring why certain respondents feel strongly about one removal method over the
 11

other can help us outline how people’s beliefs influence their invasive species removal method of

choice. Another remaining question is whether the results were truly representative of the West

Lafayette and Lafayette area. Our survey could be biased due to the limited number of

respondents, and we would have a better analysis of results if we had a higher diversity of

respondents rather than the three areas we utilized (Facebook, GroupMe, and Snapchat).

Conclusively, the results indicate that a change in education standards would boost the

exploration on invasive species removal. In future management practices, a comprehensive

explanation of what invasive species are and what environmental impacts they have on the

ecosystem will help the general public to place more educated opinions first. Involving the

general public with invasive species education will help bolster inclusivity within management

practices and increase productivity with the removal of invasive species. Communication will be

one of the critical factors in progressing education. By exploring the potentials of introducing

invasive species education at an earlier age (high school students), we can plausibly present the

theory that invasive species management will become more widely known in tandem with public

knowledge of natural resources management.

5. Conclusion

This report focused on the attitudes of different groups of people in the greater Lafayette

area. Specially, we analyzed the correlations between opinions under various conditions, such as

the attitude of the participants towards natural areas, their choice between indoor and outdoor

activities, or their different levels of education or specialties. We also analyzed the various

groups of data using statistical methods. We conclude this work as below:

 12

(1) Overall, the majority of our survey respondents within the greater Lafayette area are open

to invasive species removal. This is possibly because the majority of the participants were

from Purdue University, which is a public research university in West Lafayette and has

played important roles in informing the community about the importance of controlling

invasive species.

(2) Additionally, we used a scale method to quantify the participants’ familiarity with some

topics. By using this method, we can better understand the distribution of the

participants’ answer such as the level of enjoyment of indoor and outdoor activities (B.

Fig. 2), and the importance of humans in managing natural resources (B. Fig. 3). From a

practical perspective, our results can provide a few helpful opinions for the design and

implementation of future natural resources management practices. The results already

show the positive relationship between higher education and more knowledge of invasive

species removal. We can use this information to our advantage and target earlier

educational groups, such as high school students. Also, we can try to strengthen and

expand the influence of natural resource education in the community, which faces

difficulties in controlling invasive species.

(3) Finally, there are some limitations to our study that may be improved upon in the future.

Due to the way our study was designed, it limited our ability to represent the opinion of

the whole population, since we are limited in our survey population and most of the

population is from 18 to 25 years old. If we can lengthen the survey collection period,

widen the survey area to central Indiana, and use more tools to distribute the survey, we

will be able to perform more statistical tests and have more credible results.
 13

References

Bremner, A., Park, K., 2007. Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native
species in Scotland. Biol. Conserv. 139, 306–314.

Daley, S., Cobb, D., Bromley, P., & Sorenson, C. (2004). Landowner Attitudes regarding
Wildlife Management on Private Land in North Carolina. Wildlife Society Bulletin
(1973-2006), 32(1), 209-219.

Groves, R., Presser, S., Tourangeau, R., West, B., Couper, M., Singer, E., & Toppe, C.
(2012). Support for the Survey Sponsor and Nonresponse Bias.​ Public Opinion
Quarterly,​ 76(3), 512-524.

Halbesleben, J. R., & Whitman, M. V. (2012). Evaluating Survey Quality in Health

Services Research: A Decision Framework for Assessing Nonresponse Bias. ​Health
Services Research,48​(3), 913-930.

Hayes, T. (2006). Parks, People, and Forest Protection: An Institutional Assessment of

the Effectiveness of Protected Areas. World Development, 34(12), 2064-2075.

Mehta, Haight, Homans, Polasky, & Venette. (2007). Optimal detection and control
strategies for invasive species management. ​Ecological Economics,​ ​61(​ 2), 237-245.

Pejchar, & Mooney. (2009). Invasive species, ecosystem services and human well-being.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(9), 497-504.
 14

Appendix A

Purdue University Information Technology. (n.d.). Qualtrics [Software]. Available from

https://www.itap.purdue.edu/learning/tools/qualtrics.html

Appendix B

B. Figure 1. Demographic information collected by the Purdue Qualtrics survey shows

the highest level of education obtained by study participants as of March 2019.

B. Figure 2. Respondents ranked their enjoyment of natural areas on a scale of 1 to 10,

with 10 indicating the highest level of enjoyment in a qualtrics survey collected in March
 15

2019. There is a trend towards the positive half of the spectrum, with those who feel less

strongly about nature poorly represented.

B. Figure 3. Participants ranked what they believed the importance of human

management in conserving nature was on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 indicating the

highest level of importance. This data was collected in a qualtrics survey taken from

March 2019.
 16

B. Figure 4. Participants chose the invasive species they were familiar with from a list of

common species of exotics in Indiana. Results were then sorted by the highest level of

education from previous information provided by the March 2019 qualtrics survey.
 17

B. Figure 5. Participants chose the invasive removal methods they were comfortable with

from a list of common methods used in Indiana. Results were then sorted by the highest

level of education from previous information provided by the March 2019 qualtrics

survey.

B. Figure 6. A regression analysis illustrates the relationship between the number of

known invasive species and the number of removal methods participants would be

willing to, using in a March 2019 qualtrics survey.