Tourists’ (mis)understandings of nature: international and domestic visitors’ perceptions of invasive alien plants in New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tourism, one of the world largest economic sectors, moves a substantial body of individuals and materials about the world and is implicated in the spread of invasive plants and is itself impacted by biological invasions that can degrade touristic landscapes and affect destination communities. Tourists constitute not only an immediate biological threat, but through their landscape and biota preferences also constitute a substantial economic and ecological force that has implications for invasive plant management in destinations. Tourists and the tourism industry are therefore significant stakeholders in invasive plant introduction, spread, and management. This paper discusses an onsite survey ( n = 231) of domestic and international visitors in New Zealand, a destination where invasive species are an important ecological and economic issue. Findings show that visitors have a low understanding of the presence and level of threat of invasive plants and express preferences for some plants that are highly invasive. However, there were substantial variations across the international sample, with visitors from Asian and European ethnicities expressing significantly different attitudes toward a range of invasive plants. Asian visitors were more likely to show preferences for some plants that were seriously invasive and to be more accepting in general of invasive plants within landscapes and less supportive of invasive species eradication. These findings suggest that attitudes toward invasive plants and their management may be culturally determined, which poses challenges for managers aiming to generate awareness and support from across diverse tourist cohorts for invasive species control. There are also challenges for gaining support from the tourism industry for invasive plant control programs where particular “charismatic” or attractive invasive plants may contribute to touristic landscapes and visitor itineraries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".