Back to Search Start Over

Stakeholder mapping to support invasive non-native species management in South America

Authors :
Manuela Erazo
Pablo García-Díaz
Bárbara Langdon
Karen Mustin
Mário Cava
Gabriella Damasceno
Magdalena F. Huerta
Eirini Linardaki
Jaime Moyano
Lía Montti
Priscila A. Powell
Thomas W. Bodey
David F. R. P. Burslem
Laura Fasola
Alessandra Fidelis
Xavier Lambin
Sofía Marinaro
Aníbal Pauchard
Euan Phimister
Eduardo Raffo
Ignacio Rodríguez-Jorquera
Ignacio Roesler
Jorge A. Tomasevic
J. Cristóbal Pizarro
Source :
NeoBiota, Vol 93, Iss , Pp 293-319 (2024)
Publication Year :
2024
Publisher :
Pensoft Publishers, 2024.

Abstract

Effective long-term management of invasive non-native species (INNS) in South America is a pressing yet complex task. Critically, the environmental, historical, cultural, and economic idiosyncrasies of the region call for the inclusion of a plurality of views from those sectors of society receiving the negative and positive impacts of INNS. This is a multifaceted, and often daunting, task that can be aided by an early identification of stakeholders – those affected by or with an interest in INNS and their management – accompanied by targeted stakeholder engagement. Here, we report the procedures and results of a stakeholder mapping activity aimed at identifying stakeholders and designing engagement strategies. Using expert knowledge procedures, we compiled comprehensive lists of stakeholders for six case-studies in South America: (i) invasive grasses (Urochloa spp.) in Brazil; (ii) glossy privet (Ligustrum lucidum) in Argentina; (iii) lodgepole and Monterey pines (Pinus contorta and P. radiata) in Argentina; (iv) American mink (Neogale vison) in Argentina and Chile; (v) lodgepole and Monterey pines in Chile; and (vi) German yellow-jacket (Vespula germanica) in Chile. Overall, we identified 250 stakeholders, which, based on their interest and influence, were classified into “context settlers” (2%), “key players” (47%), “crowd” (5%), and “subjects” (49%). We outlined strategies to engage with each of these four groups and for each of our six case-studies. Across case studies, communication with stakeholders was the most common engagement strategy proposed (27%; 19 of 70 strategies), followed by active involvement of stakeholders in INNS research and management (23%). Our results highlight the importance of considering power imbalances, as those stakeholders more likely to benefit from INNS were assessed to have more influence over INNS management relative to local and indigenous communities. Our work illustrates how to identify stakeholders in a rigorous and rapid manner, which should be complemented with the involvement of the stakeholders themselves.

Subjects

Subjects :
Biology (General)
QH301-705.5

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
13142488
Volume :
93
Issue :
293-319
Database :
Directory of Open Access Journals
Journal :
NeoBiota
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
edsdoj.33d371f5d428462096642d96b7c1b24e
Document Type :
article
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.93.121386