Species invasion is a costly and complex problem affecting ecosystems worldwide. Despite the problems associated with the presence of invasive species, managers may face significant opposition that can delay or even prevent implementation of management plans. Such obstructions can have significant impacts on the ecosystem if spread of the invasive remains unchecked. Given this, managers must be thoughtful in their communications regarding the actions they plan to take and the goals they will achieve. These communications often contain both an attribute frame regarding the ecological or economic impacts associated with individual species and an outcome frame detailing the losses associated with the presence of the species or the benefits of removing the species. The prevailing rhetoric suggests that management should be framed in terms of the economic benefits that an management action can achieve. In this study we explore whether or not this rhetoric holds, by examining how attribute frames (economic or ecological) and outcome frames (gain or loss) can affect public support for invasive species management. We conducted an online panel survey of Californians (N=1077) using Qualtrics quota sampling to measure support for an invasive species management action. We used a two by two factorial format (ecological vs. economic x gain vs. loss) to test the impact of different attribute and outcome frames on support for management of invasive wild pigs in California.
Results/Conclusions
We find that ecological messages increase support for invasive species management significantly more than economic frames. We also find that people are more responsive to project goals when framed as preventing further losses, such as native habitat destruction, than when framed as offering potential gains, such as increasing native habitat. Further, responses to treatments differed significantly based on covariates such as political party identification, overall environmental concern, and prioritization of animal rights. Ecological messages were more effective among liberals, while ecological and economic messages were equally as effective among conservatives. Both frames were equally as effective as those who identified as non-environmentalists. Together, these results suggest that messages about invasive species policies that communicate the ecological losses associated with invasive species presence may result in more support for management policies, and that messages are most effective if they can be targeted to specific groups of people. Our findings will help both managers and policy makers to improve messaging to increase support for and reduce opposition to invasive species management projects.