Sílvia Luís
Mariana Pinho
Marta L. Lopes
Bruna R. F. Oliveira3‡
Ana I. Sousa
Ana I. Lillebø- 1HEI-Lab: Digital Human-Environment Interaction Lab, Lusófona University, Lisboa, Portugal
- 2ECOMARE, CESAM - Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies, Department of Biology, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal
- 3Department of Environment and Planning, CESAM - Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal
Introduction: This study showcases how the end-users of Ria de Aveiro coastal lagoon (Portugal), perceive the threat of invasive alien species (IAS), as well as biodiversity loss, and how it relates to their local activities, environmental identity and risk perception. Previous studies in the region and elsewhere have demonstrated that invasive species might have an impact at the habitats and at the species levels, both with potential negative socio-economic implications for end-users, i.e., for citizens who rely on the ecosystem for their livelihoods. However, this relation is still not well understood.
Methods: Data drew on face-to-face questionnaires run in situ at the lagoon intertidal flats. Supported by maps, participants were invited to identify the presence of the habitat Zostera noltei (also known as Zostera noltii), and the species Diopatra neapolitana, Hediste diversicolor and Arenicola spp., as well as Ruditapes decussatus, Venerupis corrugata and Ruditapes philippinarum, and inquired about the extraction, preference, and preferred areas. Of the 174 participants, 83% were male, and 68% were private citizens. Their main reason to be in situ at the time of the questionnaire relates to local traditional activities. This study is driven by three main research questions focusing on the perspective of the Ria de Aveiro local community that rely on the lagoon for their livelihoods: i) How is the threat of IAS to native species perceived? ii) How are the relations between local activities and IAS perceived? iii) What is the impact of environmental perceptions on marine biological resources?
Results: The research questions that drove this study enabled us to conclude that the threat posed by IAS and biodiversity loss is moderate and individuals perceive that most of the species have decreased in the past and/or will decrease in the future. End-user’s evidence spatial-distinct preferences in the lagoon area for species-specific harvesting, including alien species, mainly related to market demand and financial gain.
Discussion: The impact of environmental perceptions on marine biological resources, indicate that the inter-relations between environmental identity and risk perception might have unexpected effects that need to be better understood.
Introduction
Invasive species can be defined as “alien species that sustain self-replacing populations over several life cycles; produce reproductive offspring, often in very large numbers at considerable distances from the parent and/or site of introduction; and have the potential to spread over long distances” (Richardson et al., 2000). Over the past several decades, a large body of research has been devoted to examining the phenomenon of invasive alien species (IAS), namely of marine IAS (e.g., Katsanevakis et al., 2023). While researchers have attempted to understand and explain the invasion process and IAS impact on ecosystems, studies have mainly focused on ecological and economic aspects (e.g., Bacher et al., 2018; Coelho et al., 2021; Vaz et al., 2017). Despite a recent increase on research exploring social dimensions of invasion management (Phillips et al., 2021; Shackleton et al., 2019a) and the impact of knowledge and attitudes on environmental behaviors (Connelly et al., 2016; Kemp et al., 2017), the role of social psychological mechanisms, particularly on the management and surveillance of invasive species remains largely unexplored. In more detail, previous research has documented the negative impact of IAS on native marine and coastal ecosystems and their associated biodiversity (e.g., Anton et al., 2019; Geraldi et al., 2020), their socio-economic effects and even consequences for human well-being (Kourantidou et al., 2021; Lazzaro et al., 2018). Relevant examples are the impact of IAS on human livelihood (abandoning of farming or fishing) and on quality of life through, for example, the spread of infectious diseases by alien pathogens. However, invasive species management remains a complex matter that requires involvement and input from scientists, decision-makers and stakeholders, to build effective and sustainable management solutions (Backstrom et al., 2018; Kueffer, 2017; Phillips et al., 2021; Shackleton et al., 2019a). It has been shown that public perceptions and attitudes towards invasive species do not always coincide with ones from decision-makers and scientists (Fischer et al., 2014; García-Llorente et al., 2008). Therefore, its neglection and misunderstanding can, on one hand, lead to refusal to engage or opposition to management measures from the community (e.g., Woodford et al., 2016). On the other hand, if correctly identified, local knowledge and perceptions can be used to effectively raise awareness, gain support, namely through environmental identity, and create education resources (e.g., García-Llorente et al., 2008; Novoa et al., 2018; Touza et al., 2014). Pertinent examples are how social perceptions are leveraged to increase support and willingness to pay for IAS eradication programs. Community engagement and awareness of IAS influences the willingness to contribute with labor and financial resources toward IAS management (Blakeway et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2022). Environmental identity is generally defined as the personal association or feeling of connection to a part of the nonhuman natural environment that has an impact on our perceptions and behaviors towards the world (Clayton, 2003, 2012). Environmental identity has been linked to pro-environmental behaviors, policy preferences, greater attention to environmental issues and placement of higher value for the natural environment (Ajibade and Boateng, 2021; Brick et al., 2017; Brick and Lai, 2018; Clayton et al., 2021; Mackay and Schmitt, 2019; Meis-Harris and Kashima, 2020). In this context, the current study aims to understand social perceptions and public experience with IAS, and the role of environmental identity on risk perceptions towards IAS, having the end-users of Ria de Aveiro coastal lagoon, located at the Atlantic coast of Portugal, as case study. Stakeholders include a diverse array of groups and individuals who have an interest in or are affected by management options and activities (e.g., government, regulatory agencies; associations, NGO’s, private sector, business, academia, residents, citizens). Residents that are part of the local community of end-users, are citizens who rely on the ecosystem for their livelihoods, and therefore the target group to understand local communities’ perceptions and experience with IAS in coastal ecosystems. Residents play a crucial role in the health and sustainability of the coastal ecosystem, namely the ones that depend upon the extraction of biological resources, and therefore, understanding their needs and behaviors is paramount for effective coastal management and conservation efforts.
As in other coastal ecosystems, research in Ria de Aveiro, a Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTsER) platform, has demonstrated that invasive species might have impact at the habitats level and at the species level, both with potential negative socio-economic implications. However, the relations between local activities and environmental perceptions on marine biological resources is still not understood. In the ecological-economics perspective, relevant examples are the dwarf eelgrass Zostera noltei (Hornemann, 1832) (also known as Zostera noltii Hornemann, 1832) meadows, well documented as nursery areas including economically valuable species, endangered by the lugworm Arenicola spp. (Lamarck, 1801), i.e., Arenicola marina (Linnaeus, 1758) and Arenicola defodiens (Cadman & Nelson-Smith, 1993) (e.g., Costa et al., 2022) and the replacement of the native species grooved carpet shell clam Ruditapes decussatus (Linnaeus, 1758) by the introduced IAS Manila clam Ruditapes philippinarum (Adams & Reeve, 1850) (Pires et al., 2015). Regarding genus Ruditapes currently occurring in sympatry in Ria, although the tested functional traits did not differ significantly (e.g., Lopes et al., 2018), the economic value of the IAS is much lower, while the harvesting effort is similar, meaning that new management models have been proposed (Coelho et al., 2021). In Ria, harvesting of seagrasses is part of the local heritage, specifically, until the 1970’s, a mixture locally known as ‘moliço’ including seagrasses (Zostera spp. – Zostera noltei (Hornemann, 1832) and Zostera marina (Linnaeus, 1753)) and seaweeds (Ulva sp. (Linnaeus, 1753) and Gracilaria sp. (Greville, 1830)) were traditionally harvested for agriculture purposes, but since then this practice has largely decreased namely due to the replacement of this natural fertilizer by industrial chemical fertilizers (see Sousa et al., 2019).
This study is driven by three main research questions focusing on the perspective of the Ria de Aveiro local community that rely on the lagoon for their livelihoods: i) How is the threat of IAS to native species perceived? ii) How are the relations between local activities and IAS perceived? iii) What is the impact of environmental perceptions on marine biological resources? By understanding how social psychological factors impact attitudes and perceptions of IAS, by a local community that social and economically depends on the system’s natural resources, this study aims to reveal how that can be leveraged and become part of the integrated management of the system. The study was supported by face-to-face questionnaires ran in situ (intertidal mud- and sandflats) while the local community members were actively extracting biological resources, namely seagrass, worms and/or shellfish. This study showcases how the local community perceives the threat of IAS and how it relates to their local activities, as well as their perception on risk and environmental identity.
Materials and methods
The case study context
The Ria de Aveiro watershed is located at the Portugal Centro Region (Figure 1) and is administratively organized in 11 municipalities and 74 parishes, with a population of 367,455 inhabitants (data from 2021 census by the national statistics of Portugal). According to Water Framework Directive (WFD), Ria de Aveiro is divided into 5 Water Bodies (WBs), all being classified as natural except for WB2 which is classified as highly modified, due to the location of the harbor and other infrastructures. As these WBs correspond to management units, the maps that supported the surveys follow this structure.
Figure 1. The location of Ria de Aveiro (Portugal) (a) and the map used for the in-situ data collection through questionnaires, with the identification of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) Water Bodies (WBs) and the EUNIS habitats (b). EUNIS habitats – littoral mud (MA6), salt marshes (MA2), intertidal halophytic communities (MA253) and Zostera spp. meadows (MA522).
In this study, the socio-ecological context of actively collecting biological resources by Ria local population include seagrass harvesting and traditional collection of bait worms and shellfish. Local communities engage in harvesting seagrass to be used as organic fertilizer in subsistence farming, and engage in collecting worms for bait, namely for recreational fisheries, and shellfish for human consumption. The collected worm species are the native solitary tube worm Diopatra neapolitana (Delle Chiaje, 1841) and the common ragworm Hediste diversicolor (O.F. Müller, 1776), and more recently the two lugworm species Arenicola defodiens and the alien lugworm Arenicola marina (from now on mentioned as Arenicola spp.). In mudflats the collected shellfish species are the native grooved carpet shell Ruditapes decussatus, the pullet carpet shell Venerupis corrugata and more recently the alien Manila clam Ruditapes philippinarum.
The structure of the questionnaire
The questionnaire was divided into four main sections: i) Activities taking place in Ria de Aveiro; ii) Spatialization of habitats and temporal perception of invasive alien species; iii) Environmental assets; and iv) Risk perceptions towards invasive alien species considering the next decade as time frame, and environmental identity. Regarding the activities in Ria de Aveiro, participants were inquired about the extraction, preference, and preferred areas, including other areas besides the one they were at the moment of the questionnaire: a) three species of worm bait; and b) three species of shellfish. In addition, they were asked if they considered it important to develop a fishing technique or gear that allowed the different species of clam to be caught selectively. Having the map of the Ria de Aveiro as reference for the spatialization of the target species, participants were invited to identify the presence of: a) Zostera noltei, b) Diopatra neapolitana, Hediste diversicolor and Arenicola spp., and c) Ruditapes decussatus, Venerupis corrugata and Ruditapes philippinarum. To facilitate this task, participants were presented colored maps with the five water bodies (according to the WFD) of Ria de Aveiro and with four EUNIS habitats – littoral mud (MA6), salt marshes (MA2), intertidal halophytic communities (MA253) and Zostera spp. meadows (MA522). Respondents were invited to mark the appropriate letter in tables below the map (Figure 1). The maps were generated using ArcGIS Pro 3.2.2, with the WGS 1984 geographic coordinate system. For the spatial distribution analysis, the Kernel Density function was used which calculates a magnitude per unit area from polyline features. To assess participants’ perception on the evolution of environmental assets in Ria de Aveiro, participants were asked in situ during their extraction activities how they perceive the distribution of seagrass in the last 20 years and, if appropriate, in the second half of the last century. For fauna species, including IAS, the time frame considered the last 5, 10, 20, and more than 20 years ago. They were also asked about their expectations regarding the decrease or increase of those species in the next 10 years. Responses were indicated on a 5-point scale that ranged from 1 = Decreased 50% to 5 = Increased 50%. Risk perception towards IAS was measured by evaluating the level of probability of appearance of IAS in the next 10 years, on a scale ranging from 1 = Unlikely, to 5 = Highly likely, and its impact on the ecosystems of Ria de Aveiro, on a scale ranging from 1 = Highly positive to 5 = Highly negative. Environmental identity was measured using a 5-items reduced measure of the Environmental Identity Scale (Clayton, 2003). Responses were rated on a scale ranging from 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree. Although this measure had been successfully used before (Lima and Branco, 2018; Lima et al., 2020), in this sample the internal consistency of the scale was not adequate (α = 0.46). Exploratory analyses suggested that the only solution with an adequate level of internal consistency had 2 items (Spearman-Brown = 0.68). The items used were “If I had enough resources such as time or money, I would spend some of them to protect the natural environment” and “I have a lot in common with environmentalists as a group”. These two items were retained because they both showed the strongest item-total correlations. These items reflect the dimension ‘Environmentalism’ of environmental identity, which refers to a style of behaving and committing to the environment that appeals to a moral code and an identification with ecologists (Olivos and Aragonés, 2011).
Procedure and measures
Participants were approached in situ, during their routine extraction of biological resources at the intertidal flat of the Ria de Aveiro by a trained researcher during weekends between August and February of the following year (seven months) and completed a face-to-face questionnaire. This approach aimed to capture insights from individuals directly engaged with the ecosystem services under study. Due to the in situ nature of the data collection, the sampling was non-probabilistic, Participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous, with all participants providing informed consent. The completion of the questionnaire took 20 minutes on average. Afterwards, participants were thanked and debriefed.
Statistical analysis
We conducted mediation analyses using the PROCESS macro for SPSS, Model 4, the standard model for testing simple mediation effects involving a single mediator. This choice aligns with our theoretical framework, which posited a direct and indirect pathway from the independent variable to the dependent variable through a single mediating construct. All continuous predictor and mediator variables were mean centered prior to analysis to reduce multicollinearity and facilitate interpretation of interaction terms where applicable. Standardized coefficients are reported to aid in comparison of effect sizes. Indirect effects were tested using 5,000 bias-corrected bootstrap samples with 95% confidence intervals, as recommended by Hayes (2018).
Results
Participants profile
Data were collected from 174 respondents of Ria de Aveiro lagoon watershed, who provided their informed consent to participate in the study. A valid response rate of 90.23% was obtained. Most respondents were male (83%) and their mean age was 55 years old (SD = 11). In this participatory study, individuals were from 60 out of 74 parishes in the lagoon watershed area, most of them resided in Gafanha da Nazaré (20%) and Gafanha da Encarnação (10%) (nearby WB1). The sample was comprised of mainly private citizens (68%), with 31% being part of the business sector, and 1% working in public administration. Regarding the main reason why these participants were in Ria at the time they were taking part in the study relates to traditional local activities, namely, 1.7% harvested ‘moliço’ for agricultural purposes, 66.7% caught worm bait for recreational fishing and 75.3% extract shellfish.
Activities in Ria de Aveiro
The activities carried out by respondents (end-users), as well as their preferences, are presented in Table 1. Concerning worm bait, most individuals reported picking and preferring the solitary tube Diopatra neapolitana and very few the lugworm Arenicola spp. The motives assigned for this preference were market demand and financial gain. Regarding shellfish, most individuals reported picking all three species, particularly the pullet carpet shell Venerupis corrugata. However, most of them reported a preference for the grooved carpet shell Ruditapes decussatus because of its financial gain and market demand. Indeed, 73.8% of participants agreed that it was important to develop a fishing technique that allows different species of clam to be caught selectively, against 10.5% that believe it was not (15.7% were undecided).
Table 1. Activities in Ria de Aveiro by the participant end-users of the local community who rely on the ecosystem for their livelihoods.
Spatialization of habitats and IAS as identified by participants
The results evidence the participants are mostly active in WBs 1, 2, and 3 of Ria de Aveiro. The perception of the location of the Zostera spp. meadows does not seem to be linked to the specific EUNIS habitat, being mostly identified in WB2 (Figure 2). Residents expressed their preference for Ílhavo Channel (WB3) to pick all species (worms and shellfish), except for lugworm Arenicola spp. for which they preferred the Mira Channel (WB1). Worm bait was identified and collected in WB1, 2, and 3 (Figure 3) having a higher frequency corresponding to EUNIS habitat MA6 – littoral mud – described as shores of fine particulate sediment, mostly in the silt and clay fraction (…). Littoral mud typically forms extensive mudflats, though dry compacted mud can form steep and even vertical structures, particularly at the top of the shore adjacent to saltmarshes (…) (https://eunis.eea.europa.eu). The end-users identified the presence of shellfish in WB1, 2, and 3, with higher frequency of Manila clam Ruditapes philippinarum in WB1, and grooved carpet shell Ruditapes decussatus and the pullet carpet shell Venerupis corrugata in WB2 (Figure 4). There was no clear correspondence between the presence of the shellfish species and the identified EUNIS habitats.
Figure 2. End-users’ perception of the location of the seagrass Zostera spp. meadows at Ria de Aveiro coastal lagoon at each WFD Water Body (WB) and EUNIS habitats.
Figure 3. End-users’ perception of the occurrence and preferred extraction location of worm bait (Arenicola spp., Diopatra neapolitana and Hediste diversicolor) at Ria de Aveiro coastal lagoon across WFD Water Bodies (WBs) and EUNIS habitats.
Figure 4. End-users’ perception of the occurrence and preferred extraction location of the target shellfish species [Ruditapes decussatus (a), Ruditapes philippinarum (b), Venerupis corrugata (c)] at Ria de Aveiro coastal lagoon across WFD Water Bodies (WBs) and EUNIS habitats.
Environmental assets
Data analysis illustrated that respondents perceived that all species decreased their area of distribution in the past and are expected to continue decreasing in the future, particularly the grooved carpet shell Ruditapes decussatus (approximately - 45%) and the pullet carpet shell Venerupis corrugata (approximately - 27%). There were two exceptions: the alien lugworm Arenicola spp. and the Manila clam Ruditapes philippinarum. Although respondents considered that the lugworm area of distribution was smaller in the past, they expect it to increase in its distribution area in the future. The Manila clam area of distribution was perceived to have been increasing in the past and to keep on increasing in the future, although at a slower pace (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Perceived evolution of the species occurrence in the past and in the future (next 10 years), in a scale ranging from -50% to 50% of the current area of distribution.
Risk perceptions towards invasive species and environmental identity
Central tendency measures and simple correlations between environmental identity and the risk perception towards invasive species are presented in Table 2. Residents of Ria de Aveiro watershed reported medium environmental identity and perceived probability of IAS and biodiversity loss, and relatively higher perceived impact of IAS and biodiversity loss. Higher environmental identity was correlated with lower perceived probability of IAS. It was also tendentially (non-significantly) correlated with lower perceived probability of biodiversity loss. Stronger environmental identity was not significantly correlated to higher perceived impact of IAS but was correlated to higher perceived impact of biodiversity loss. To further explore these results, we tested if the tendentially negative relation between environmental identity and perceived risk probabilities could be explained by the perceived impact of the risks. For individuals with higher environmental identity, estimating environmental risks with higher perceived impacts, such as IAS and biodiversity loss, might be threatening. Reducing the perceived likelihood of these risks may help individuals to better manage their heightened concerns about the potential impacts. These mediation models are presented in Figure 6. We found a significant mediation effect (indirect effect) of perceived impact in the biodiversity loss model, 0.06, (95% IC [0.01, 0.12]), but not in the IAS model, – 0.05, (95% IC [- 0.02, 0.12]).
Table 2. Descriptive analysis and correlations between environmental identity and risk perceptions (IAS stands for Invasive Alien Species).
Figure 6. Unstandardized regression coefficients (B) for the relationship between environmental identity and perceived probability of Invasive Alien Species (IAS) and Biodiversity Loss (BL), as mediated by the perceived impact of IAS and BL. The direct effects of environmental identity on impact are shown in parenthesis. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p <0.001.
Discussion
Having Ria de Aveiro coastal lagoon as case study, the local community of end-users was invited in situ at the intertidal flats to characterize the activities for the extraction of biological resources in mudflats (endogenous and exotic), the spatialization of habitats and invasive alien species (IAS), and share their perception of the lagoon environmental assets, and towards the risk of IAS, as well as their environmental identity.
Previous research shows that environmental attitudes and identity are among the most relevant drivers of pro-environmental behavior (e.g. Brick et al., 2017; Clayton and Czellar, 2023). However, the influence of these factors on the management and surveillance of IAS remains largely unexplored. Our study contributes to further exploration of social perceptions and public experience with IAS and begins to unravel the role of environmental identity on risk perceptions towards IAS and biodiversity loss. It innovates by 1) integrating spatialization of habitats with public perception data, 2) incorporates the perspectives of local community of end-users and 3) explores the role of social psychological mechanisms in a single comprehensive design. It further contributes to the growing literature on the importance of including social dimensions on IAS management.
Results indicated that, overall participants preferred the same location (WB) to pick all species, except for lugworm Arenicola spp. When using worm bait, participants picked and preferred Diopatra neapolitana, mainly for market demand and financial gain. Regarding shellfish, while most participants picket carpet shell Venerupis corrugata, they reported a preference for grooved carpet shell Ruditapes decussatus due to market demand and financial gain. Currently Diopatra neapolitana, Venerupis corrugata and Ruditapes decussatus have commercial values of €7 per kg, €29.99 per kg and €42.95 per kg, respectively. Interestingly, participants’ views on the importance of developing fishing techniques that allow different species of clam to be caught selectively are in line with new Portuguese legislation regarding fishing activity, fishing gear and measures for the conservation and sustainable exploitation of marine biological resources (Decree-Law N°. 73/2020, 23rd of September 2020). This has important implications as a higher degree of acceptance of the law aids to avoid conflicts with end-users, it’s likely to increase their responsibility towards the protection of biological resources and compliance with laws and regulations (Boonstra et al., 2017; Garza-Gil et al., 2015; Oyanedel et al., 2020). Additionally, local community end-users’ perception of fishing techniques provides valuable information on the exploitation status of different species and can be used to increase conservation and management of natural resources (Sordo et al., 2023; Sousa et al., 2022).
Generally, all species were perceived to have decreased their area of distribution in the past and were expected to continue decreasing over the next 10 years. Lugworm Arenicola spp. and the Manila clam Ruditapes philippinarum were exceptions as the first was perceived to have decreased over the last ten years but expected to increase at a similar rate in the future and the last was perceived to have been increasing in the past and to keep on increasing in the future. Information from local users represents a valuable source to track historical ecological data regarding species spatial and temporal distribution, specifically in areas where ecological and biological data is insufficient or non-existent (Barbosa-Filho et al., 2020; Braga et al., 2022; Kleespies et al., 2024).
Respondents of Ria de Aveiro reported medium/low perceived probability of IAS and biodiversity loss and medium/high perceived impact of IAS and biodiversity loss, consistent with previous studies conducted in Portugal and other countries (Cordeiro et al., 2020; Kleespies et al., 2024; Rodríguez-Rey et al., 2021).
Invasive species continue to be one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss across the globe (Bellard et al., 2022; IPBES, 2023). Previous research has demonstrated that environmental identity and attitudes are positively related and significant predictors of pro-environmental behavior (Mackay and Schmitt, 2019; Naiman et al., 2021; Whitburn et al., 2020), environmental concern (Lou and Li, 2021), risk and uncertainty perceptions (e.g. Bartczak et al., 2017; Faccioli et al., 2020). In our participatory study, environmental identity, particularly its environmentalism dimension, had unexpected correlations with risk perception. Environmental identity was related to lower perceived probability of IAS and, tendentially, of biodiversity loss, and to higher perceived impact of biodiversity loss and, tendentially, of IAS. This suggests that people with higher environmental identity, although perceiving high impacts of these risks, might estimate the probability of risk occurrence as lower. In the case of biodiversity loss, this was explained by a mediation effect of the perceived impact of biodiversity which increased with higher environmental identity and, therefore, would probability be threatening if one would believe that it would very probably occur in the future. However, in the case of IAS this ad hoc explanation did not fit the data, and more research is needed. For IAS, the mediating path of the perceived impact was not observed likely due to the non-significant relationship between these variables. This discrepancy could be explained by several factors. First, invasion of alien species may be less salient than biodiversity loss, even among those with strong environmental identity. Second, unmeasured variables such as positive personal experience with IAS or media exposure may influence probability judgments independently of perceived impact. It is important to consider that IAS can bring social and economic benefits to stakeholders, namely provision of resources through the harvest of those species as valuable food sources that they can eat and sell, making higher profit. Therefore, their risk assessment might be affected by it and lead to a misinterpretation of the magnitude and severity of the impact of invasive species (Kleespies et al., 2024; Waliczek et al., 2018). Greater attention needs to be given to those to whom the environment is an important part of who they are, as they are more likely to have a lower risk perception of invasion by alien species and, therefore, less likely to take protective actions. Our results expand current research that suggests that individuals with a strong environmental identity may not always perceive IAS as a significant threat, despite their environmental concern (Fischer and van der Wal, 2016; Kueffer, 2013; Shackleton et al., 2019b). According to environmental identity and risk perception theories, people with a more salient environmental identity often value naturalness and biodiversity (Clayton, 2003; Selge et al., 2011). However, many IAS do not immediately appear “unnatural” or threatening, especially if they have aesthetically pleasing characteristics (e.g., colorful plants, charismatic animals). This creates a naturalness heuristic, where the perceived “fit” of a species into a landscape can lower risk perception—even if ecologically harmful (Kueffer, 2013; Selge et al., 2011).
This is true in other systems as well, where IAS bring social and economic benefits to locals (e.g. recreation and spiritual value (sources of craft materials); provision of fuelwood, fodder, food products, timber and medicinal products; income through sales of those products; positive habitat modification) (Kelsch et al., 2020; Pienkowski et al., 2015; Sax et al., 2022; Shackleton et al., 2019c). For example, South Africa residents use Acacia dealbata for firewood, tools, fencing or feeding livestock (Ngorima and Shackleton, 2019), while in East Africa Nile Perch (Lates niloticus) is used to support industrial fisheries (Shackleton et al., 2018). As disagreements in risk perceptions are one of the factors that contribute to conflicts in invasive species management (Estévez et al., 2015), it is very important that those responsible for invasive species management are aware and try to address those disagreements by increasing participation of local stakeholders and make the decision process transparent. A low-risk perception of IAS significantly undermines the effectiveness of IAS management, as public lack of awareness can hinder public support for control measures and even opposition to government interventions, it can become significant barriers for effective management of IAS (Jubase et al., 2021; Roussos et al., 2021). Our questionnaire targeted residents when they were actively extracting biological resources, therefore the sample was characterized by an overrepresentation of middle-aged men who were private citizens, limiting more a general characterization and conclusions. Environmental attitudes, identity and perception of environmental risk in general change according to individuals’ socio-demographic characteristics. For example, women, younger people, people living in urban areas or who have higher education and income tend to express higher environmental attitudes, have more salient environmental identity and perceive higher environmental risk (Miao and Cagle, 2020; Pienaar et al., 2013; Subiza-Pérez et al., 2020). Nevertheless, these are representative of most local community members that actively extract biological resources, namely seagrass, worms and/or shellfish. The internal consistency reported for some of the measures are relatively low. Subsequent studies would gain from collecting a larger sample not only to potentially increase internal consistency of the measures but also strengthen the generalizability of the conclusions. Specifically, due to low internal consistency, the environmental identity measure in our study was limited to capturing only behavioral commitment and identification with environmentalist values. While these components are central to the construct, we recognize that this reduced version does not fully reflect the broader multidimensional nature of environmental identity. According to Clayton (2003) and Olivos and Aragonés (2011), environmental identity encompasses additional dimensions such as emotional connection to nature and cognitive inclusion of the natural environment in one’s self-concept. We acknowledge this limitation in the scope of measurement and its potential implications for construct validity.
Previous research has demonstrated that perceptions and attitudes towards IAS can be influenced by not only socio-demographic characteristics but other factors such as improved knowledge and understanding regarding IAS (Estévez et al., 2015; Nanayakkara et al., 2018; Shackleton et al., 2019d). Therefore, interventions or programs designed to increase literacy and knowledge of the targeted end-users regarding IAS, could change their perception of environmental risk, grow their involvement and support for IAS management.
The reliance on self-report measures represents a methodological issue as single-source self-reports could be affected by social desirability and are thus less reliable than observations or a combination of multiple sources of data. Despite these limitations, the findings from this study strengthen the accumulating evidence of the important role played by transdisciplinary studies, namely the acknowledgement of risk perception and the environmental identity of the local community who rely on the ecosystem for their livelihoods and their knowledge as a valuable tool to track historical ecological data regarding species spatial and temporal distribution, as well as, contributing to the integrated management of ecosystems.
The current study offers a deeper understanding of socio-psychological factors that relate and influence perceptions of IAS and reaffirm the importance of integrating ecological, social, economic information that derived from a diverse group of stakeholders, particularly those who are personally affected by invasive species. Stakeholder involvement plays an essential role in an effective sustainable management of IAS that will translate into socio-economic development and well-being of local communities.
Conclusions
Coming back to the three key research questions that drove this study, and focusing on the perspective of the Ria de Aveiro local community that rely on the lagoon biological resources for their livelihoods: i) How is the threat of IAS to native species perceived? ii) How are the relations between local activities and IAS perceived? iii) What is the impact of environmental perceptions on marine biological resources? We can conclude that end-users perceived that most of the species have decreased their area of distribution in the past and/or will decrease in the future, expect for Arenicola spp. and Ruditapes philippinarum, and perceived a moderate risk of IAS and biodiversity loss in the next 10 years. That they have spatial-distinct preferences in the lagoon area for species-specific harvesting, including IAS, mainly related to market demand and financial gain. Regarding the impact of environmental perceptions on marine biological resources, our results indicate that the inter-relations between environmental identity and risk perception might have unexpected effects that need to be better understood. In this vein, the present study begins to unravel the role of environmental identity on risk perceptions towards IAS and biodiversity loss conditions and contributes to a better understanding of sustainable management of invasive species.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by University of Aveiro - Portugal. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
Author contributions
SL: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Methodology. MP: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ML: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Funding aquisition. BO: Data curation, Writing – review & editing. AS: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Funding aquisition. AL: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. BioPradaRia project (MAR-01.04.02-FEAMP-0020) funded by “Programa Operacional MAR2020”, EMFF -European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, European Union and Portugal 2020, in collaboration with the A-AAGORA project (DOI: 10.3030/101093956) co-funded by the European Union under the Horizon Europe innovation action programme (Grant agreement ID: 101093956). This research has also received funding from the project RESTORE4Cs (DOI: 10.3030/101056782), co-funded by the European Union under the Horizon Europe research and innovation programme (Grant Agreement ID: 101056782). The views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the granting authority. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. AS was funded by national funds through the FCT-Foundation for Science and Technology,I.P., under the project/contract CEECIND/00962/2017 (DOI:10.54499/CEECIND/00962/2017/CP1459/CT0008).
Acknowledgments
To all stakeholders that took their time to share their knowledge and perception with us. Their valuable contribution as well as the efforts from the participants are much appreciated. This work is funded by national funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia I.P., under the project/grant UID/50006 + LA/P/0094/2020 and HEI-Lab (UIDB/05380/2020).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted without any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Ajibade I. and Boateng G. O. (2021). Predicting why people engage in pro-sustainable behaviors in Portland Oregon: The role of environmental self-identity, personal norm, and socio-demographics. J. Environ. Manage. 289, 112538. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112538, PMID: 33865024
Anton A., Geraldi N. R., Lovelock C. E., Apostolaki E. T., Bennett S., Cebrian J., et al. (2019). Global ecological impacts of marine exotic species. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 787–800. doi: 10.1038/s41559-019-0851-0, PMID: 30962561
Bacher S., Blackburn T. M., Essl F., Genovesi P., Heikkilä J., Jeschke J., et al. (2018). Socio-economic impact classification of alien taxa (SEICAT). Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 159–168. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12844
Backstrom A., Garrard G., Hobbs R., and Bekessy S. (2018). Grappling with the social dimensions of novel ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16, 109–117. doi: 10.1002/fee.1769
Barbosa-Filho M., Souza G., Lopes S., Siciliano S., Davis R., and Mourão J. (2020). Evidence of shifting baseline and Fisher judgment on lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris) management in a Brazilian marine protected area. Ocean Coast. Manage. 183, 105025. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.105025
Bartczak A., Chilton S., Czajkowski M., and Meyerhoff J. (2017). Gain and loss of money in a choice experiment. The impact of financial loss aversion and risk preferences on willingness to pay to avoid renewable energy externalities. Energy Economics 65, 326–334. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2017.04.020
Bellard C., Marino C., and Courchamp F. (2022). Ranking threats to biodiversity and why it doesn’t matter. Nat. Commun. 13, 2616. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-30339-y, PMID: 35577784
Blakeway R. D., Ross A. D., and Jones G. A. (2021). Insights from a survey of texas gulf coast residents on the social factors contributing to willingness to consume and purchase lionfish. Sustainability 13, 9621. doi: 10.3390/su13179621
Boonstra W. J., Birnbaum S., and Björkvik E. (2017). The quality of compliance: investigating fishers’ responses towards regulation and authorities. Fish Fish 18, 682–697. doi: 10.1111/faf.12197
Braga H., Azeiteiro U., Shiavetti A., and Magalhães L. (2022). Checking the changes over time and the impacts of COVID-19 on cockle (Cerastoderma edule) small-scale fisheries in Ria de Aveiro coastal lagoon, Portugal. Mar. Policy 135, 104843. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104843
Brick C. and Lai C. (2018). Explicit (but not implicit) environmentalist identity predicts pro-environmental behavior and policy preferences. J. Environ. Psychol. 58, 8–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.07.003
Brick C., Sherman D. K., and Kim H. (2017). Green to be seen” and “brown to keep down”: Visibility moderates the effect of identity on pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 51, 226–238. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.04.004
Clayton S. (2003). “Environmental identity: A conceptual and operational definition,” in Identity and the natural environment. The psychological significance of nature. Eds. Clayton S. and Opotow S. (The MIT Press, Cambridge), 45–65.
Clayton S. (2012). “Environment and identity,” in Oxford handbook of conservation and environmental psychology. Ed. Clayton S. (Oxford, New York), 164–180.
Clayton S. and Czellar S. (2023). “Chapter 14: Environmental identity as a motivator of pro-environmental behaviour,” in Handbook on Pro-Environmental Behaviour Change (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK). doi: 10.4337/9781800882133.00023
Clayton S., Czellar S., Nartova-Bochaver S., Skibins J. C., Salazar G., Tseng Y.-C., et al. (2021). Cross-cultural validation of a revised environmental identity scale. Sustainability 13, 2387. doi: 10.3390/su13042387
Coelho P., Carvalho F., Goulding T. A., Chainho P., and Guerreiro J. (2021). Management models of the manila clam (Ruditapes philippinarum) fisheries in invaded european coastal systems. Front. Mar. Sci. 8. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.685307
Connelly N. A., Lauber T. B., Stedman R. C., and Knuth B. A. (2016). The role of anglers in preventing the spread of aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes region. J. Great Lakes Res. 42, 703–707. doi: 10.1016/j.jglr.2016.03.016
Cordeiro B., Marchante H., Castro P., and Marchante E. (2020). Does public awareness about invasive plants pays off? An analysis of knowledge and perceptions of environmentally aware citizens in Portugal. Biol. Invasions 22, 2267–2281. doi: 10.1007/s10530-020-02247-z
Costa V., Flindt M. R., Lopes M., Coelho J. P., Costa A. F., Lillebø A. I., et al. (2022). Enhancing the resilience of Zostera noltei seagrass meadows against Arenicola spp. bio-invasion: A decision-making approach. J. Environ. Manage. 302, 113969. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113969, PMID: 34715611
Estévez R. A., Anderson C. B., Pizarro J. C., and Burgman M. A. (2015). Clarifying values, risk perceptions, and attitudes to resolve or avoid social conflicts in invasive species management. Conserv. Biol. 29, 19–30. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12359, PMID: 25155068
Faccioli M., Czajkowski M., Glenk K., and Martin-Ortega J. (2020). Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services. Ecol. Economics 174, 106600. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106600
Fischer A., Selge S., van der Wal R., and Larson B. (2014). The public and professionals reason similarly about the management of non-native invasive species: A quantitative investigation of the relationship between beliefs and attitudes. PLoS One 9 (8), e105495. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105495, PMID: 25170957
Fischer A. and van der Wal R. (2016). Explaining people’s perceptions of invasive alien species: A conceptual framework. J. Environ. Manage. 229, 10–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.045, PMID: 30077400
García-Llorente M., Martín-López B., González J. A., Alcorlo P., and Montes C. (2008). Social perceptions of the impacts and benefits of invasive alien species: implications for management. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2969–2983. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.09.003
Garza-Gil M., Amigo-Dobano L., Suris-Regueiro J., and Varela-Lafuente M. (2015). Perceptions on incentives for compliance with regulation. The case of Spanish fishermen in the Atlantic. Fisheries Res. 170, 30–38. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2015.05.012
Geraldi N. R., Anton A., Santana-Garcon J., Bennett S., Marbà N., Lovelock C., et al. (2020). Ecological effects of non-native species in marine ecosystems relate to co-occurring anthropogenic pressures. Global. Change Biol. 26, 1248–1258. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14930, PMID: 31758645
Hayes A. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monogr. 85, 4–40. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100
IPBES (2023). Summary for Policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on Invasive Alien Species and their Control of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Eds. Roy E., Pauchard A., Stoett P., Renard Troung T., Bacher S., Galil B., Hulme P., Ikeda T., Sankaran K., McGeoch M., Meyerson L., Nuñez M., Ordonez A., Rahlao S., Schwindt E., Seebens H., Sheppard A., and Vandvik V. (Bonn, Germany: IPBES secretariat), 56. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7430692
Jubase N., Shackleton R. T., and Measey J. (2021). Public awareness and perceptions of invasive alien species in small towns. Biology 10, 1322. doi: 10.3390/biology10121322, PMID: 34943237
Katsanevakis S., Olenin S., Puntila-Dodd R., Rilov G., Stæhr P., Teixeira H., et al. (2023). Marine invasive alien species in Europe: 9 years after the IAS Regulation. Front. Mar. Sci. 10. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2023.1271755
Kelsch A., Takahashi Y., Dasgupta R., Mader A., Johnson B., and Kumar P. (2020). Invasive alien species and local communities in socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes: A systematic review and analysis. Environ. Sci. Policy 112, 275–281. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.014
Kemp C., van Riper C. J., BouFajreldin L., Stewart W., Scheunemann J., and van den Born R. (2017). Connecting human–nature relationships to environmental behaviors that minimize the spread of aquatic invasive species. Biol. Invasions 19, 2059–2074. doi: 10.1007/s10530-017-1418-0
Kim J. H., Jin S. J., and Yoo S. H. (2022). Public willingness to pay for eradicating a harmful marine organism: the case of Aurelia aurita in South Korea. Environ. Sci. Polluiont Res. 29, 88839–88851. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-21944-x, PMID: 35841502
Kleespies M. W., Dörge D. D., Peter N., Schantz A., Skaljic A., Feucht V., et al. (2024). Identifying opportunities for invasive species management: an empirical study of stakeholder perceptions and interest in invasive species. Biol. Invasions. 26, 2561–2577. doi: 10.1007/s10530-024-03328-z
Kourantidou M., Cuthbert R., Haubrock P., Novoa A., Taylor N., Leroy B., et al. (2021). Economic costs of invasive alien species in the Mediterranean basin. NeoBiota 67, 427–458. doi: 10.3897/neobiota.67.58926
Kueffer C. (2013). Explaining people’s perceptions of invasive alien species: A conceptual framework. J. Environ. Manage. 229, 10–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.045, PMID: 30077400
Kueffer C. (2017). Plant invasions in the Anthropocene: Human activities not only facilitate plant invasions, but also shape invasion mechanisms. Science 358, 724–725. doi: 10.1126/science.aao6371, PMID: 29123053
Lazzaro L., Essl F., Lugliè A., Padedda B. M., Pyšek P., and Brundu G. (2018). “Invasive alien plant impacts on human health and well-being,” in Invasive Species and Human Health Pages. Eds. Mazzaand G. and Tricario E. (CAB International Publishing, Wallingford), 16–33.
Lima M. L. and Branco C. (2018). Recycling for my neighbourhood? Using place identity and social norms to promote pro-environmental behaviour/¿Reciclar para mi barrio? Empleando la identidad de lugar y las normas sociales para fomentar el comportamiento pro-ambiental. PsyEcology 9, 1–32. doi: 10.1080/21711976.2017.1412574
Lima M. L., Luís S., Poggio L., Aragonés J. I., Courtier A., Roig B., et al. (2020). The importance of household pharmaceutical products disposal and its risk management: Example from Southwestern Europe. Waste Manage. 104, 139–147. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2020.01.008, PMID: 31978832
Lopes M. L., Rodrigues J. P., Crespo D., Dolbeth M., Calado R., and Lillebø A. I. (2018). Functional traits of a native and an invasive clam of the genus Ruditapes occurring in sympatry in a coastal lagoon. Sci. Rep. 8, 16901. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-34556-8, PMID: 30442898
Lou X. and Li L. M. W. (2021). The relationship between identity and environmental concern: A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 76, 101653. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101653
Mackay C. M. L. and Schmitt M. T. (2019). Do people who feel connected to nature do more to protect it? A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 65, 101323. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101323
Meis-Harris J. and Kashima Y. (2020). Navigating sustainably within the urban environment: The role of environmental identity and attitudes on sign and object evaluation. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 23, 407–421. doi: 10.1111/ajsp.12411
Miao R. E. and Cagle N. L. (2020). The role of gender, race, and ethnicity in environmental identity development in undergraduate student narratives. Environ. Educ. Res. 26, 171–188. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2020.1717449
Naiman S. M., Allred S. B., and Stedman R. C. (2021). Protecting place, protecting nature: predicting place-protective behaviors among nature preserve visitors. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 11, 610–622. doi: 10.1007/s13412-021-00708-y
Nanayakkara L., Jurdi-Hage R., Leavitt P. R., and Wissel B. (2018). In lakes but not in minds: stakeholder knowledge of invasive species in prairie lakes. Biol. Invasions 20, 633–652. doi: 10.1007/s10530-017-1564-4
Ngorima A. and Shackleton C. (2019). Livelihood benefits and costs from an invasive alien tree (Acacia dealbata) to rural communities in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. J. Environ. Manage. 229, 158–165. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.077, PMID: 29861091
Novoa A., Shackleton R., Canavan S., Cybèle C., Davies S. J., Dehnen-Schmutz K., et al. (2018). A framework for engaging stakeholders on the management of alien species. J. Environ. Manage. 205, 286–297. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.09.059, PMID: 29024897
Olivos P. and Aragonés J. I. (2011). Propiedades psicométricas de la Escala de Identidad Ambiental (EID). Psyecology 2, 15–24. doi: 10.1174/217119711794394671
Oyanedel R., Gelcich S., and Milner-Gulland E. J. (2020). Motivations for (non-)compliance with conservation rules by small-scale resource users. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12725. doi: 10.1111/conl.12725
Phillips T., Bailey R., Martin V., Faulkner-Grant H., and Bonter D. (2021). The role of citizen science in management of invasive avian species: What people think, know, and do. J. Environ. Manage. 280, 111709. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.11170, PMID: 33298396
Pienaar E. F., Lew D. K., and Wallmo K. (2013). Are environmental attitudes influenced by survey context? An investigation of the context dependency of the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale. Soc. Sci. Res. 42, 1542–1554. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.07.001, PMID: 24090850
Pienkowski T., Williams S., McLaren K., Wilson B., and Hockley N. (2015). Alien invasions and livelihoods: economic benefits of invasive Australian Red Claw crayfish in Jamaica. Ecol. Economics 112, 68–77. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.02.012
Pires A., Martins R., Magalhães L., Soares A. M. V. M., Figueira E., Quintino V., et al. (2015). Expansion of lugworms towards southern European habitats and their identification using combined ecological, morphological and genetic approaches. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 533, 177–190. doi: 10.3354/meps11315
Richardson D. M., Pyšek P., Rejmánek M., Barbour M. G., Panetta F. D., and West C. J. (2000). Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Diversity Distributions 6, 93–107. doi: 10.1046/j.1472-4642.2000.00083.x
Rodríguez-Rey M., Borrell Y. J., Dopico E., Muha T. P., and Rolla M. (2021). Understanding public perceptions toward invasive species in different parts of Europe. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 65, 2257–2275. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2021.1969899
Roussos O., Kapetanopoulou C., and Petza D. (2021). Protecting biodiversity from invasive alien species by improving policy instruments in Greece: the INVALIS project action plan. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 9, 1205. doi: 10.3390/jmse9111205
Sax D., Schlaepfer M., and Olden J. (2022). Valuing the contributions of non-native species to people and nature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 37, 1058–1066. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2022.08.005, PMID: 36210286
Selge S., Fischer A., and van der Wal R. (2011). Public and professional views on invasive non-native species–A qualitative social scientific investigation. Biol. Conserv. 144, 3089–3097. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.09.014
Shackleton R. T., Biggs R., Richardson D., and Larson B. (2018). Social-ecological drivers and impacts of invasion-related regime shifts: consequences for ecosystem services and human wellbeing. Environ. Sci. Policy 89, 300–314. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.08.005
Shackleton R. T., Larson B. M., Novoa A., Richardson D. M., and Kull C. A. (2019a). The human and social dimensions of invasion science and management. J. Environ. Manage. 229, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.041, PMID: 30172420
Shackleton R. T., Richardson D. M., Shackleton C. M., Bennet B., Crowley S., Dehnen- Schmutz K., et al. (2019d). Explaining people’s perceptions of invasive alien species: A conceptual framework. J. Environ. Manage. 229, 10–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.045, PMID: 30077400
Shackleton R. T., Shackleton C., and Kull C. (2019c). The role of invasive alien species in shaping local livelihoods and human well-being: A review. J. Environ. Manage. 229, 145–157. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.007, PMID: 30049620
Shackleton C. M., Shackleton R. T., and Richardson D. M. (2019b). Does public awareness about invasive plants pay off? An analysis of knowledge and perceptions of environmentally aware citizens in Portugal. Biol. Invasions 22, 1241–1255. doi: 10.1007/s10530-020-02247-z
Sordo L., Vasconcelos P., Piló D., Carvalho A., Pereira F., and Gaspar M. (2023). Recreational harvesting of the wedge clam (Donax trunculus) in southern Portugal: Characterization of the activity based on harvesters’ perception and local ecological knowledge. Mar. Policy 155, 105694. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105694
Sousa A. I., da Silva J. F., Azevedo A., and Lillebø A. I. (2019). Blue Carbon stock in Zostera noltei meadows at Ria de Aveiro coastal lagoon (Portugal) over a decade. Sci. Rep. 9, 14387. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-50425-4, PMID: 31591415
Sousa W., Zacardi D., and Vieira T. (2022). Traditional ecological knowledge of fishermen: people contributing towards environmental preservation. Sustainability 14, 4899. doi: 10.3390/su14094899
Subiza-Pérez M., Santa Marina L., Irizar A., Gallastegi M., Anabitarte A., Urbieta N., et al. (2020). Who feels a greater environmental risk? Women, younger adults and pro-environmentally friendly people express higher concerns about a set of environmental exposures. Environ. Res. 181, 108918. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2019.108918, PMID: 31759645
Touza J., Pérez-Alonso A., Chas-Amil M. L., and Dehnen-Schmutz K. (2014). Explaining the rank order of invasive plants by stakeholder groups. Ecol. Economics 105, 330–341. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.06.019
Vaz A., Kueffer C., Kull C., Richardson D., Vicente J., Kühn I., et al. (2017). Integrating ecosystem services and disservices: insights from plant invasions. Ecosystem Serv. 23, 94–107. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.017
Waliczek T. M., Parsley K. M., Williamson P. S., and Oxley F. M. (2018). Curricula Influence College Student Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Invasive Species. HortTechnology 28(4), 548–556. doi: 10.21273/HORTTECH03979-18
Whitburn J., Linklater W., and Abrahamse W. (2020). Meta-analysis of human connection to nature and proenvironmental behavior. Conserv. Biol. 34, 180–193. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13381, PMID: 31251416
Keywords: invasive alien species, questionnaire methodology, environmental assets, environmental identity, risk perception
Citation: Luís S, Pinho M, Lopes ML, Oliveira BRF, Sousa AI and Lillebø AI (2025) Are native species of Ria de Aveiro under invasion? The relations between local activities and environmental perceptions on marine biological resources. Front. Mar. Sci. 12:1603724. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2025.1603724
Received: 31 March 2025; Accepted: 08 July 2025;
Published: 23 July 2025.
Edited by:
Lang Xu, Shanghai Maritime University, ChinaReviewed by:
Luis Amado Ayala-Pérez, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, MexicoJinpei Li, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, China
Guangnian Xiao, Shanghai Maritime University, China
Copyright © 2025 Luís, Pinho, Lopes, Oliveira, Sousa and Lillebø.. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Ana I. Lillebø, bGlsbGVib0B1YS5wdA==
†These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship
‡ORCID: Bruna R. F. Oliveira, orcid.org.0000-0001-5877-8614