Data from: Common approaches to introduced species management face widespread acceptance problems in the United States

Decisions on whether and how to manage introduced species can be
controversial, but public attitudes towards introduced species management
(ISM) are poorly understood.  Despite potential disruptive
impacts of such controversies to public relations and conservation goals,
decision makers are currently left with little information on social
acceptability of different management alternatives.To better understand
social acceptability of core features of ISM in the United States, we
conducted an online experiment with vignettes describing hypothetical but
realistic ISM scenarios, varying targeted taxon (insect or plant), control
method (mechanical, chemical, biological), risk severity (low, high), and
type of non-target risk (to humans or native species). Not surprisingly,
management with low risk was most acceptable, particularly for mechanical
control. In high-risk scenarios, only mechanical control was acceptable
but only by a slim majority of respondents. Overall, chemical and
biological control showed low levels of
acceptability. Surprisingly, there was no significant difference
in how respondents ranked risks to people and risks to native
species.  Beyond differences in acceptability between management
factors, we also find that acceptability of management and attitudes
toward risk were associated with respondents’ demographic characteristics.