Search

Many species have been intentionally introduced to new regions for their benefits. Some of these alien species cause damage, others do not (or at least have not yet). There are several approaches to address this problem: prohibit taxa that will cause damage, try to limit damages while preserving benefits, or promote taxa that are safe. In the present article, we unpack the safe list approach, which we define as "a list of taxa alien to the region of interest that are considered of sufficiently low risk of invasion and impact that the taxa can be widely used without concerns of negative impacts." We discuss the potential use of safe lists in the management of biological invasions; disentangle aspects related to the purpose, development, implementation, and impact of safe lists; and provide guidance for those considering to develop and implement such lists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How do different stakeholder groups define credible science? Using original qualitative focus group data, this exploratory study suggests that while nuclear energy stakeholder groups consider the same factors when assessing credibility (specifically, knowledge source, research funding, research methods, publication, and replication), groups differ in their assessments of what constitutes expertise, what demonstrates (or reduces) trustworthiness, and the relative prioritization of expertise versus trustworthiness. Overall, these results suggest it is important for science communication to consider audience-specific credibility, and raise questions about the potential impact of both funding sources and predatory journals on the perceived credibility of scientists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Invasive alien species are a major driver of global environmental change and a range of management interventions are needed to manage their effects on biodiversity, ecosystem services, human well-being and local livelihoods. Stakeholder engagement is widely advocated to integrate diverse knowledge and perspectives in the management of invasive species and to deal with potential conflicts of interest. We reviewed the literature in the ISI Web of Science on stakeholder engagement (the process of involving stakeholders (actors) in decision making, management actions and knowledge creation) in invasion science to assess and understand what has been done (looking at approaches and methodologies used, stakeholders involved, and outcomes from engagement) and to make recommendations for future work. Research on stakeholder engagement in invasion science has increased over the last decade, helping to improve scientific knowledge and contributing towards policy formulation and co-implementation of management. However, many challenges remain and engagement could be made more effective. For example, most studies engage only one stakeholder group passively using questionnaires, primarily for assessing local knowledge and perceptions. Although useful for management and policy planning, these stakeholders are not active participants and there is no two-way flow of knowledge. To make stakeholder involvement more useful, we encourage more integrative and collaborative engagement to (1) improve co-design, co-creation and co-implementation of research and management actions; (2) promote social learning and provide feedback to stakeholders; (3) enhance collaboration and partnerships beyond the natural sciences and academia (interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration); and (4) discuss some practical and policy suggestions for improving stakeholder engagement in invasion science research and management. This will help facilitate different stakeholders to work better together, allowing problems associated with biological invasions to be tackled more holistically and successfully. Highlights • Stakeholder engagement and public participation is key in environmental management. • Engagement is growing but is still implemented in a top down fashion in invasion science. • Co-design, co-creation and co-implementation of research and management is needed. • Social learning and feedback to stakeholders also needs to be promoted. • Multidisciplinary collaboration and partnerships will also be highly beneficial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]