Should tourists care more about invasive species? International and domestic visitors’ perceptions of invasive plants and their control in New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tourism has been implicated in the spread of invasive species, not only through physical means but through invasive species being perpetuated in destinations as part of the tourism landscape. This study reports on a survey of 238 domestic and international tourists visiting the south of New Zealand, with a focus on their knowledge of and attitudes to the management of two invasive plants: wild conifers and Russell lupins. Both plants have profound ecological, economic and environmental impacts but are also increasingly a part of the tourist landscapes in the study region. The survey found significant differences between domestic and international visitors in their levels of ecological knowledge about the invasive plants, with domestic visitors having greater awareness. However, there were also significant differences between international visitors according to origin and ethnicity, with Asian visitors showing lower awareness and also lower willingness to support eradication of the invasives, even after being provided information on the ecological impact of the species. Participants also responded differently to the two species, being less willing to support eradication of the attractive Russell lupin, compared to wild conifers. There are implications for management in terms of the messaging that may be required for different visitor groups around invasive species control. The study also points to the challenge of developing support for the management of charismatic plant species such as Russell lupin that are now firmly located within the tourism domain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".