Department of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, Università degli Studi di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Department of Biology, Unit Ecology & Evolution, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland; Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
J Environ Manage. 2021 Nov 1;297:113318. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113318. Epub 2021 Jul 31.
Biological invasions are one of the major drivers of global environmental change and there is a need to develop integrated strategies to counteract this phenomenon. Eradication is an effective management option to mitigate the deleterious impacts of invasive alien species (IAS). Eradication can be achieved if all reproductive individuals are removed and population recovery is prevented. However, individuals may survive removal operations in private areas if interventions are not allowed. Here, we present 1) three case studies in which restricted private property access prevented the local eradication of invasive alien populations, and 2) a list of reasons for denying access to private properties and a list of actions implemented or suggested by managers to facilitate access and reported in 29 reviewed papers. The restricted access affected the local eradication of three Eastern grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) populations in Italy. In Lombardy region, in one area a planned eradication did not start and in another area the implemented eradication failed due to the refusal from the owner of a large private property to grant access to managers. In Umbria region, the lack of collaboration from an Italian financial institution produced a delay of 15 months in the removal. In our case studies, therefore, a single person or institution denied access for a personal gain or presumed internal security. The reasons behind landowner opposition may be diverse and individual attitudes towards IAS management will depend on interactions with owners. According to our review, in many cases the denial of access takes place in a general perception of mistrust or opposition to the project as the results of a limited engagement of local people. Such opposition often jeopardizes control activities, with profound negative consequences on eradication, expecially at landscape scale. Bottom-up approaches aiming at involving stakeholders can increase the possibility to achieve IAS eradication, however appropriate legislation remains pivotal to enforce eradication in case of non-cooperative behaviour.
生物入侵是全球环境变化的主要驱动因素之一,因此需要制定综合战略来应对这一现象。根除是减轻外来入侵物种(IAS)有害影响的有效管理选择。如果所有繁殖个体都被移除并且防止种群恢复,那么就可以实现根除。然而,如果不允许干预,个体可能会在私人区域的移除操作中存活下来。在这里,我们提出了 1)三个案例研究,其中限制私人财产的进入阻止了入侵外来种群的本地根除,以及 2)拒绝进入私人财产的原因列表,以及管理人员为促进进入而实施或建议的行动列表,并在 29 篇综述论文中报告。受限的进入影响了意大利三个东部灰松鼠(Sciurus carolinensis)种群的本地根除。在伦巴第大区,一个计划的根除行动由于一个大型私人财产所有者拒绝允许管理人员进入而没有开始,在另一个地区,由于实施的根除行动遭到拒绝,根除行动失败。在翁布里亚大区,由于意大利一家金融机构缺乏合作,移除工作延误了 15 个月。因此,在我们的案例研究中,一个人或一个机构出于个人利益或假设的内部安全原因拒绝进入。土地所有者反对的原因可能多种多样,个人对 IAS 管理的态度将取决于与所有者的互动。根据我们的审查,在许多情况下,拒绝进入是由于对项目的不信任或反对的普遍看法,这是由于当地人民参与度有限造成的。这种反对往往会危及控制活动,对根除产生深远的负面影响,尤其是在景观尺度上。旨在让利益相关者参与的自下而上的方法可以增加根除 IAS 的可能性,但是适当的立法仍然是在不合作行为的情况下强制执行根除的关键。