Document [original]

People and Nature. 2022;4:1485–1499.

|

1485wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pan3

Received: 6 April 2022

|

Accepted: 31 July 2022

DOI: 10.1002/pan3.10398

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Beyond values: How emotions, anthropomorphism, beliefs and

knowledge relate to the acceptability of native and non- native

species management in cities

Tanja M. Straka1,2 | Luise Bach1 | Ulrike Klisch1 | Monika H. Egerer3 |

Leonie K. Fischer2,4 | Ingo Kowarik1,2

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,

provided the original work is properly cited.

1Technische Universität Berlin, Institute of

Ecology, Berlin, Germany

2Berlin- Brandenburg Institute of

Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB),

Berlin, Germany

3Technical University of Munich, School of

Life Sciences, Freising, Germany

4University of Stuttgart, Institute

of Landscape Planning and Ecology,

Stuttgart, Germany

Correspondence

Tanja M. Straka

Email: tanja.str[email protected]

Handling Editor: Peter Bridgewater

Abstract

1. Managing non- native species in cities is often controversial because these spe-

cies can support both ecosystem services and disservices. Yet, how the ac-

ceptability of non- native species management by the general public differs in

relation to native species, to distance (i.e. close to residence and elsewhere) and

among plants and animals is understudied. Furthermore, while values, beliefs

and knowledge are often considered in this context, psychometric factors such

as emotions and anthropomorphic views have received little attention.

2. We surveyed 658 residents in Berlin, Germany, to assess (i) the acceptability of

management actions differing in their severity for non- native plants and animals

compared to native species with similar traits, (ii) the influence of perceived dis-

tance of species (i.e. close to residence and elsewhere) and (iii) the predictive po-

tential of psychometric (i.e. values, beliefs, self- assessed knowledge, emotions

and anthropomorphism) and socio- demographic factors for this acceptability.

3. Eradication (i.e. lethal control/removal) was generally the least accepted man-

agement action, but more accepted for non- native than native species. Distance

mattered for the acceptability of non- native plant management with unspecified

control action the most accepted management action close to residence.

4. While values (self- transcendence and conservation) mostly explained the ac-

ceptability of doing nothing and eradication, emotions related strongly to all

management actions. Beliefs were more important than self- assessed knowl-

edge in relation to non- native species management and beliefs about non- native

plants and animals were rated almost similar. Anthropomorphic views had pre-

dictive potential for plants and animals; that is, the stronger people held anthro-

pomorphic views, the less they accepted eradication. Participants with a garden

supported doing nothing with plants (native and non- native) more than without.

5. Results highlight the complexity of factors underlying the acceptability of man-

agement actions on species in cities. While values, beliefs and self- assessed

25758314, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10398 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

1486

|

People and Nature

STRAKA et al.

1 | INTRODUCTION

The majority of people live in cities today (UN, 2018) and are ex-

posed to biological invasions (Aronson et al., 2014; Gaertner, Wilson,

et al., 2017; Kowarik, 2008). Cities are hotspots for non- native

species that are often associated with an array of both ecosystem

services and ecosystem disservices in urban contexts (Potgieter

et al., 2017; Schlaepfer et al., 2020). This can result in conflicts about

adequate management approaches among stakeholders including

among the general public (Crowley et al., 2017; Dickie et al., 2014;

Gaertner, Wilson, et al., 2017; Williams et al., 2019). Understanding

the different relationships that people have with non- native animal

and plant species is key to develop strategies in managing biologi-

cal invasions (Novoa et al., 2017; Potgieter et al., 2019; Shackleton

et al., 2019). The public can support or oppose certain manage-

ment actions, which can hinder at the worst management efforts

(McNeely, 2011). Thus, the different views and concerns of people

in non- native management processes should be acknowledged and

integrated to support collaboration and foster trust among stake-

holders (Shackleton et al., 2019; Young et al., 2016).

Shackleton et al. (2019) developed a framework to understand

people's perception towards non- native species. This framework

includes a wide range of factors that interact with one other rang-

ing from the context (e.g. landscape, socio- cultural or institutional,

governance and policy), to the species (e.g. taxonomic group, spe-

cies traits) and to the individual level of people (e.g. demographic

variables, knowledge and value systems of people; Shackleton

et al., 2019). Yet, despite the potential of this framework to link per-

ceptions to downstream management actions, it has still received

little attention in empirical work.

Conflicts around non- native species management are context

dependent for several reasons. First, the impact of non- native spe-

cies depends on species identity. Only a small proportion of intro-

duced species are classified as invasive and thereby conflicts with

biodiversity conservation or interests of people. In Germany, for

example, only about 4% of 864 introduced plant species are classi-

fied as invasive (Nehring et al., 2013). Second, the biogeographical

and landscape contexts matter. Biological invasions in South African

cities, for example, are a major threat to biodiversity and are associ-

ated with severe economic problems (Gaertner, Novoa, et al., 2017),

different from Central European cities such as Geneva where non-

native and native trees provide similarly both ecosystem services

and disservices (Schlaepfer et al., 2020). Non- native species can be

also perceived as more problematic in rural farmlands compared to

highly transformed and urban landscapes (e.g. Prosopis [mesquite]

in South Africa; Shackleton et al., 2015). Furthermore, non- native

species can also be perceived differently among different urban con-

texts. In Berlin, the non- native tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) is

more preferred in designed green spaces such as parks compared to

other urban spaces such as streetscapes (Kowarik et al., 2021).

Species traits such as body size, feeding type and size of flowers

can influence how people perceive a species (Shackleton et al., 2019).

People often like ‘beautiful’ plants (Lindemann- Matthies, 2016) or

‘cute or charismatic’ animals, for example, with neotenic features

(big eyes and large heads), that are colourful, small and fluffy or

that are large and majestic (Estévez et al., 2015; Jarić et al., 2020;

Shackleton et al., 2019; Verbrugge et al., 2013). Moreover, people's

socio- demographic background (e.g. age, gender, urban or rural res-

idence) and psychometric factors (e.g. values and beliefs) can relate

to the perception and management of non- native plants and ani-

mals (Estévez et al., 2015; Fischer et al., 2014, Kapitza et al., 2019,

Shackleton et al., 2019).

In particular, values are guiding principles in people's lives

(Rokeach, 1973) that influence people's thought processes and their

beliefs, attitudes, norms and behaviour (Fulton et al., 1996). Thus,

values are central to the practice and science of conservation (Ives

& Kendal, 2014; Latombe et al., 2022). While values are more stable

and slower to change, they are also more abstract compared to be-

liefs, which are object focused and situation focused (Fulton et al.,

1996). Aside from prior knowledge, beliefs are key factors when it

comes to the individual's perception of non- native species (Bremner

& Park, 2007; Fischer et al., 2014; Shackleton et al., 2019; Verbrugge

et al., 2013). For instance, beliefs about the negative consequences

of non- native species to the economy or the environment were

found to be stronger compared to beliefs about the negative con-

sequences of native species and influenced attitudes towards their

knowledge are important in the context of species management, other psy-

chometric factors add to our understanding of acceptability. We conclude that

awareness about different acceptability patterns related to species management

can support environmental policies on biological invasions in cities. Tailoring and

implementing adequate management actions can benefit from incorporating

cognitive but also affective factors of the public.

KEYWORDS

Alien species, invasion biology, native species, NIMBY, urban ecosystems, urban wildlife

management, values

25758314, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10398 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

|

1487

People and Nature

STRAKA et al.

management (Fischer et al., 2014). Evidentially, considering people's

existing values, beliefs or knowledge can increase the effectiveness

of approaches towards non- native species (Estévez et al., 2015;

Novoa et al., 2017; Potgieter et al., 2019) or even conservation out-

comes in general (Manfredo et al., 2017).

Yet, we do not know whether the acceptance of species man-

agement in urban areas is spatially contingent, for example, lower

or higher species acceptance in one's own backyard compared to a

park further away. Usually, people tolerate unwanted objects or or-

ganisms when they are further away (i.e. outside of one's residence),

but not necessarily close to or within one's residence or property—

the NIMBY phenomenon (‘not in my backyard’; Scott et al., 2016).

The influence of distance has been investigated in relation to wanted

and unwanted wildlife in the UK (Baker et al., 2020) but not yet in

relation to non- native plants and animals in urban areas, despite

the negative connotation of non- native compared to native species

(Höbart et al., 2020). Furthermore, it is unclear whether acceptance

of species management differs between animal and plant species

and whether respondent characteristics predict acceptance of man-

agement in the same way for both groups of organisms. It is also

uncertain whether values, beliefs (specific, object- focused) or other

psychometric factors have a better predictive potential on the per-

ception of non- native species.

Emotions and anthropomorphic views of people can also strongly

predict species management action acceptance (Jacobs et al., 2014;

Jacobs & Vaske, 2019; Manfredo et al., 2020; Straka et al., 2020),

but are largely understudied in relation to non- native species man-

agement. Anthropomorphism is the tendency of people to attribute

intentionality and mental states to non- human entities, particularly

animals (Urquiza- Haas & Kotrschal, 2015). People tend to attribute

higher cognitive abilities to non- human species that are perceived as

more human- like, likely as a derivate of our ability to infer the mental

states of conspecies— an ability that evolved as a consequence of

the need to consider the experience and intentions of others (Eddy

et al., 1993).

We developed our theoretical framework around this back-

ground. Yet, while Shackleton et al. (2019) referred to ‘perception’ as

an interdisciplinary umbrella for other, more specific constructs, we

were particularly interested in the construct ‘acceptability of man-

agement actions’. Management actions can range from unspecified

control actions and prevention to eradication including manual re-

moval or herbicide use for invasive plants in a person's own backyard

to methods such as insecticide- treated prey or trap- neuter- release

methods for, for example, domestic cats (Potgieter et al., 2022).

Management actions can also simply imply leaving species at their

location without doing anything. In any case, people can support or

oppose such management actions; information that is crucial and

often at the centre of discussions in the case of non- native species

since public opposition can cause delay of or hinder management

efforts (McNeely, 2011; Selge et al., 2011).

In this study, we investigate factors driving the acceptability of

management actions of non- native species that are linked to peo-

ple's socio- demographic and psychometric factors (e.g. values,

beliefs, anthropomorphism and emotions), including the spatial dis-

tance of the perceived animal or plant (Figure 1). Here we use com-

parative analyses including pairs of non- native and native animal and

plant species to test how species' origin matters for species percep-

tion (Höbart et al., 2020). In doing so, we use a control component

(i.e. native species with similar traits) to determine whether factors

relate only to non- native species. Specifically, we ask the following

questions:

1. How does the acceptability of management actions that vary in

severity differ between native and non- native plants and animals?

2. How do patterns of the acceptability of management actions for

native and non- native animals and plants differ with regard to the

‘NIMBY’ phenomenon (i.e. species either close to residence or

elsewhere)?

3. What is the predictive potential of psychometric factors, spe-

cifically values, beliefs, self- assessed knowledge, emotions, an-

thropomorphism, for the acceptability of different management

actions for native and non- native animals and plants?

First, we predicted that people would accept more severe

management actions (e.g. eradication) for non- native compared

to native species, irrespective of whether it is a plant or animal

given the negative connotation of non- native species (Höbart

et al., 2020). Second, we predicted that the acceptability of se-

vere management actions (e.g. eradication) for non- native species

is more accepted close to residence assuming that they are less

wanted close- by according to the NIMBY phenomenon. Lastly, we

predicted that values are important given their anticipated role in

the management of ecological systems, but that more situation-

and object- specific antecedents at higher- order cognitive levels

in the cognitive hierarchy (e.g. beliefs, Fulton et al., 1996) would

show stronger predictive potential. We also predicted that be-

liefs about the negative effects of non- native species would be

stronger predictors for both animals and plants than self- assessed

knowledge and that people would hold higher anthropomorphic

views in relation to animals than to plants given they would con-

sider them as more human- like. An improved understanding about

the acceptability of non- native urban species management of cit-

izens can translate to adjusted decision- making and dialogue be-

tween stakeholders (e.g. in nature conservation, urban planning,

research) and the public, and contributes to our understanding

of what drives acceptability in non- native species management

in cities.

2 | METHODS

2.1 | Sample

An online questionnaire was distributed in German using Lamapoll

(https://app.lamap oll.de) to people living in Berlin, Germany

(Table S1). The survey was separated in two sub- surveys, one for

25758314, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10398 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

1488

|

People and Nature

STRAKA et al.

plants and one for animals to guarantee a shorter time to fill in a sur-

vey; however, items to measure the different concepts (e.g. values,

emotions) and socio- demographic questions were similar in each

survey to enable a comparison between taxa. Participants could

decide to fill in either a survey on plants or on animals. While this

survey approach (i.e. participants filled out either a plant or animal

survey) limits a direct and statistical comparison between animals

and plants, it allows us to discuss patterns that are shared or differ

between animals and plants. Socio-demographic factors were simi-

lar between participants from the plant and animal survey (see 3.1.

Survey respondents). The survey was open for 2 months from 24th

May 2020 to 24th July 2020. We used a snowball sampling approach,

a non- random sampling method that uses a few cases (in our case

contact persons of different institutions) to distribute the survey

and to increase the sample size (Taherdoost, 2016). The invitation

was sent to 925 email addresses of different institutions in Berlin to

reach the broad public from differing socioeconomic backgrounds.

Institutions ranged from sports, retirement villages, kindergardens,

etc. (adapted from Fischer et al., 2018). In an invitation letter, we

introduced the survey and asked whether recipients could distrib-

ute the survey in their professional and private circles. In addition,

social media channels such as Facebook (posting in groups focusing

on online research, e.g. ‘Umfragen für Studienarbeiten’, ‘Umfragen &

Online- Experimente’), Twitter and SurveyCircle (a platform for on-

line research and to find study participants: www.surve ycirc le.com)

were used to distribute the survey with an emphasis that only Berlin

residents should participate. Reminders were sent out via email to

the institutions and posted on social media channels 2 weeks after

the first call. Respondents who did not live in Berlin (based on their

postal code) were excluded from further analyses. Participants were

asked for the migration background as a socio- demographic factors

since we assumed that responses will differ among cultures (Buijs

et al., 2009 and see Fischer et al., 2018 for measures that we used;

Table S1). Yet, data on migration background were too small to be

included in the analyses.

There were no institutional requirements for ethical clear-

ance. However, the survey was undertaken in accordance with

the General Data Protection Regulation of the European Union. A

written consent form was provided on the online platform to par-

ticipants ensuring their anonymity, information about the general

aim of the study, data that will be collected, contact and that there

would be no disadvantages for participants if they resign from

the study at any stage of their participation. Participants had to

agree to this consent form before they could start the survey on

Lamapoll.

2.2 | Development of survey instrument and

measured concepts

In each of the two sub- surveys, we had the same parts that were

adjusted for animals or plants, respectively. These parts included

items to assess the psychometric factors: (a) values, (b) beliefs and

self- assessed knowledge, (c) emotions, (d) anthropomorphism and

(e) acceptability of management actions differing in their severity.

Lastly, we also asked questions related to (g) socio- demographic

factors (including age, gender, owning a garden and whether peo-

ple grew up in urban or rural areas). Photo stimuli were prepared

FIGURE 1 Conceptual framework showing the underlying key factors (respondents' psychometric and socio- demographic factors,

distance ‘NIMBY’) for the acceptability of management actions of native species vs. non- native species in cities. On the species level,

paired animal and plant species with native and non- native origin were used as stimuli in the questionnaire to assess people's thoughts and

emotions towards non- native species in urban areas. Paired species were selected based on similar species traits. The origin of the species

was introduced as whether ‘native’ or the specific geographical origin was given in the questionnaire text.

25758314, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10398 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

|

1489

People and Nature

STRAKA et al.

to present the different species supplemented with information

about their origin.

2.3 | Pre- test of survey instrument

We conducted a pre- test for the questionnaires in semi- structured

interviews (n = 12 participants for survey on animals; n = 12 partici-

pants for survey on plants). Wording was adjusted where necessary

(i.e. meaning of words not directly clear to participants).

2.3.1 | Values

Value statements included a subset of the Short Schwartz'sche

values (SSV; Lindeman & Verkasalo, 2005; Schwartz, 1992).

Conservation values are focusing on preserving the status quo and

the certainty that conformity to norms provide and include scales

measuring tradition (respect for tradition, humbleness, accepting

one's portion in life, devotion, modesty), conformity (obedience,

honouring parents and elders, self- discipline, politeness) and se-

curity (national security, family security, social order, cleanliness,

reciprocation of favours). Self- Transcendence values are focusing

on the welfare of others and include scales measuring universal-

ism (broad- mindedness, beauty of nature and arts, social justice,

a world at peace, equality, wisdom, unity with nature and envi-

ronmental protection) and benevolence (helpfulness, honesty,

forgiveness, loyalty and responsibility). While Openness to Change

(including values hedonism, self- direction and stimulation) and

Self- Enhancement (including values achievement and power) are

also part of the original SSV framework, we did not include these

values since we considered them to be less relevant in this con-

text. Respondents could rate on a 5- point scale how important

they considered Conservation and Self- Transcendence values in

their life (ranging from 1 = not important at all to 5 = very impor-

tant) including an explanation of what each value dimension in-

volves (Table S1).

2.3.2 | Beliefs and self- assessed knowledge

about non- native species

Six belief items were selected based on semantic differen-

tials adapted from Fischer et al. (2014). People could rate on

5- point bipolar scales that included the opposite ends of a spec-

trum: (a) detrimental– beneficial to humans, (b) detrimental–

beneficial to the economy, (c) detrimental– beneficial to nature,

(d) uncontrollable– controllable, (e) overabundant– rare and (f)

problematic– unproblematic. People could rate on a 5- point scale

their level of agreement/disagreement with each belief. We re-

versed that scale ranging from positive to negative, with higher

values indicating more negative beliefs about the consequences

of non- native species. Cronbach's alpha to measure the internal

consistency of items was acceptable for beliefs (animals α = 0.70;

plants α = 0.84); hence, their mean scores used as latent construct

for further analyses. For knowledge, people were asked to rate

on a 5- point scale (from 1 = not at all to 5 = completely) their self-

assessed knowledge with the item ‘I think that I know a lot about

non- native […] in Germany with the ‘animals' in the animal and

‘plants' in the plant survey, respectively.

2.3.3 | Emotions (valence)

To measure participants' emotions towards each species, we used

four items to measure valence which is a frequently used dimension

to classify emotions on bipolar scales (do not like– like, unpleasant–

pleasant, negative– positive, not enjoyable– enjoyable; Jacobs et al.,

2014). Respondents were asked to rate on a 5- point scale (−2 (‘not at

all’) to +2 (‘very strong’)) how they felt about each species in relation

to the specific item. Cronbach's alpha was acceptable for valence

(native animals α = 0.90, non- native animals α = 0.92, native plants

α = 0.89, non- native plants α = 0.94) and hence, mean scores were

also used in further analyses.

2.3.4 | Anthropomorphism

Items to assess the extent to which participants agreed that ani-

mals or plants in general possess mental state attributes asso-

ciated with humans (having intentions, experiencing emotions,

having consciousness) were drawn from the study by Manfredo

et al. (2020). In addition, we added ‘sensory experiences’ which

came up to be important in our pre- test. Respondents could rate

the extent to which they agreed on a 5- point scale (from 1 = not

at all to 5 = completely) to the question: ‘Do you think that [ani-

mals, in the animal sub- survey or plants, in the plant sub- survey]

have (i) consciousness, (ii) intentions, (iii) experience emotions

and (iv) have sensory experiences. Cronbach's alpha was accept-

able for anthropomorphic views in both groups (animals α = 0.80;

plants α = 0.84) and hence, items were averaged over the total

number of items to create a mean index score that was used to

assess anthropomorphism to animals and plants, with high val-

ues indicating high anthropomorphic views to animals or plants,

respectively.

2.3.5 | Acceptability of management actions

For each animal and plant species, we presented three different man-

agement actions that differed in their severity, that is, doing nothing,

population control through ‘unspecified control action’ and popula-

tion control through eradication such as lethal control for animals

or complete removal for plants. Participants could rate on a 5- point

scale (from 1 = not at all to 5 = completely) how much they agreed

with each management action in regard to distance to residence,

25758314, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10398 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

1490

|

People and Nature

STRAKA et al.

that is, whether it would take place in ‘close to residence’ (i.e. own

backyard as hypothetical question) or further away and ‘elsewhere’

(i.e. next urban park). We based wording and presentation of items

on Kowarik et al. (2021).

2.4 | Photo stimuli and information

about the origin of the species

A core part of the questionnaire was a photo stimuli supplemented

with the origin of the species (Figure 1). Photo stimuli showed for

animal or plant species a pair of mammals, birds, trees or herbs,

respectively, that were selected on similar characteristics focus-

ing on more or less similar size, feeding or growth types. We did

not select our species based on their charisma, but that they fre-

quently occur throughout the study area and that we were able to

set up pairs of non- native and native species sharing similar traits

for comparability. In relation to animals, we decided for mammals

and birds (pairs: fox [Vulpes vulpes] and raccoon [Procyon lotor],

mallard [Anas platyrhynchos] and mandarin duck [Aix galericu-

lata]). As for plants, we decided for deciduous trees and smaller

herbaceous plants (pairs: tree of heaven [Ailanthus altissima] and

Eurasian aspen [Populus tremula], Indian [Impatiens glandulifera]

and Touch- me- not balsam [Impatiens noli- tangere]). Our aim was

to keep these photos as neutral as possible, that is, showing each

animal or plant from a similar angle on a white background. Each

native and non- native animal and plant species was introduced

with ‘This native [mammal/bird/tree/herb] is… ‘or’ This from [geo-

graphical origin] originated [mammal/bird/tree/herb] is …’ to in-

form participants about the origin of the animal or plant even they

would not be familiar with the origin of the species.

2.5 | Data analyses

Of the 443 people who started the animal survey, 342 people

(77.2%) and of the 538 people who started that plant survey, 316

(58.7%) fully completed it. Only fully completed surveys were

included in the analysis, leading into a total number of n = 658

participants. All analyses were undertaken in R (4.0.2) with the

package ‘psych’ (Revelle, 2021) to calculate the internal reli-

ability (Cronbach's alpha) of the items measuring emotions (four

items), anthropomorphism (four items) and beliefs (six items). Since

Cronbach's alpha was acceptably for emotions, anthropomorphism

and beliefs, we calculated average scores for each latent construct.

Since our main focus was on the acceptability of native versus non-

native species control, we combined responses in relation to the ac-

ceptability management actions of raccoons and mandarin ducks;

hereafter as non- native animals as well as tree of heaven and Indian

balsam, hereafter as non- native plants. Similarly, we combined re-

sponses to the acceptability of management actions of foxes and

mallard ducks; hereafter as native animals as well as Eurasian aspen

and Touch- me- not balsam; hereafter as native plants.

To compare how origin (native/non- native) interacts with ac-

ceptability of management actions, we first applied a two- way

ANOVA with an interaction effect between the acceptability of

management action and origin. We applied this separately for an-

imals and plants because although the socio- demographic back-

grounds of participants were generally similar, we considered

responses from the animal and plant sub- survey as two different

surveys. Consequently, we decided to analyse animals and plant

separately and to compare patterns. Furthermore, we applied the

two- way ANOVA on responses ‘close to residence’ and similarly on

responses ‘elsewhere’ since we were mainly interested in whether

patterns were similar or different rather than a direct comparison

between both distances.

To calculate the predictive potential of psychometric and socio-

demographic factors on the acceptability of the three management

actions (doing nothing, unspecified control action and lethal con-

trol/removal) for native and non- native animals and plants, we ran

different model sets using ordinal logistic regression using the

package ‘MASS’ (Venables & Ripley, 2002). In the first set of mod-

els, we focused on the psychometric factors as explanatory vari-

ables, that is, values, emotions and anthropomorphism for native

and non- native species and beliefs and self- assessed knowledge in

addition for non- native species (since only assessed for non- native

species). We used the acceptability of the three different manage-

ment actions ‘close to residence’ as response variables. We ran

these models only for the scenario ‘close to residence’ since pat-

terns of acceptance (except for control of non- native plants) were

largely similar and we considered this scenario as more relevant in

this context. To compare between models focusing only on values

and models focusing on values and other psychometric factors, we

used log- likelihood values to measure the goodness of fit between

models using the package ‘pscl’ (Jackman, 2020). We decided for

this approach to validate whether models with values as only ex-

planatory variables performed better compared to models with

values and other psychometric factors. In the last set of models,

we assessed only socio- demographic factors (gender, age, owning

a garden and place of childhood, i.e. whether urban or rural) as

explanatory variables.

Lastly, we applied Wilcoxon tests to test for significant differ-

ences in relation to emotions between native and non- native animals

as well as between native and non- native plants to account for the

different affective responses towards native and non- native species.

Effect sizes were based on Cohen (1988) with weak (≤0.1), moderate

(≤0.3) and strong (≤0.5).

3 | RESULTS

3.1 | Survey respondents

The socio- demographic background of respondents from both

surveys (n = 342 participants animal and n = 316 plant survey) was

mostly comparable. Individuals in the animal survey sample were

25758314, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10398 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

|

1491

People and Nature

STRAKA et al.

equal in age (mean = 40.7 years ±15.0) as in the plant survey sam-

ple (mean = 40.0 years ±15.1). Similarly, more females participated

in both, the animal (60%) and plant (64.6%) survey compared to

male participants (animal survey = 36.0%; plant survey = 30.4%;

with remaining participants identified as diverse or no information

given).

3.2 | Severity of management

Overall, lethal control was the least accepted management ac-

tion for native and non- native animals, irrespective of distance

(Figure 2; Table S2). Nevertheless, lethal and unspecified con-

trol actions were more accepted for non- native than for native

animals, whereas the opposite was true for the management ac-

tion doing nothing. Doing nothing was more accepted for native

than for non- native animals. For plants, we found that patterns

were generally similar to animals and that removal was the least

accepted management action for native and non- native species,

irrespective of distance (Figure 2; Table S2). We similarly found

that removal and unspecified control actions were more accepted

for non- native than for native plants. However, the acceptability of

doing nothing and unspecified control actions of non- native plants

differed with perceived distance.

3.3 | NIMBY

A NIMBY effect was found for the acceptability of non- native plant

management (Figure 2). Unspecified control actions were most ac-

cepted for non- native plants when described as ‘close to residence’.

This was not found for the scenario ‘elsewhere’ nor for native plants.

In the scenario ‘elsewhere’, here, unspecified control actions were

similarly accepted as doing nothing. As for native and non- native

animals, patterns were similar; irrespective of distance. Hence, no

NIMBY effect could be identified in relation to animals.

FIGURE 2 Mean and standard deviation of ratings for the acceptability of the three different management actions differing in their

severity for native (blue) and non- native (red) animals (left) and plants (right) in relation to distance (close to residence; top and ‘elsewhere’,

bottom) to assess an indication of the NIMBY phenomenon as indicated on a 5- point scale (1 = not at all to 5 = completely).

25758314, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10398 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

1492

|

People and Nature

STRAKA et al.

3.4 | Predictive potential of psychometric and

socio- demographic factors

Overall, all models improved when the variables emotions, beliefs,

anthropomorphism and self- assessed knowledge were included be-

sides the variable on values in the models (Table 1). This is indicating

that factors beyond values are crucial for the acceptability of species

management in urban areas.

3.5 | Values

Self- transcendence (mean = 4.54, SD = 0.49) and conservation val-

ues (mean = 3.45, SD = 0.71) of respondents were similar in the ani-

mal and plant survey (self- transcendence: mean = 4.55, SD = 0.50,

conservation: mean = 3.49, SD = 0.73), with self- transcendence

values overall predicting higher conservation values. Both self-

transcendence and conservation had predictive potential for the ac-

ceptability of management actions on either of the extremes: doing

nothing and lethal control/removal of animals and plants. High self-

transcendence values were a positive predictor (‘support’) on doing

nothing with native and non- native animals and plants, whereas

high conservation values showed negative predictive potential

(‘opposition’; Table 1). In relation to lethal control/removal, values

showed only predictive potential for native species. Here, high self-

transcendence values were a negative predictor (‘opposition’) for the

eradication of native animals and plants whereas high conservation

values showed positive potential (‘support’) on the eradication of na-

tive plants.

3.6 | Anthropomorphism

Overall, average anthropomorphic views for animals were high

(mean across all four items = 4.30, SD = 0.64) and for plants moder-

ate (mean across all four items = 2.81, SD = 0.96). For animals, peo-

ple rated highest that animals have sensory experiences and lowest

that animals have consciousness (Figure 3). As for plants, people

rated highest that plants have sensory experiences and intentions

and lowest that plants experience emotions. Anthropomorphism

was a significant negative predictor (‘opposition’) for lethal control of

native and non- native animals and removal and unspecified control

actions of native plants (Table 1).

3.7 | Self- assessed knowledge and beliefs

Self- assessed knowledge and beliefs were only assessed for non-

native animals and plants. Overall, participants in the animal sur-

vey rated their self- assessed knowledge about non- native animals

(mean = 3.21, SD = 1.10) higher compared to participants in the

plant survey and their self- assessed knowledge about non- native

plants (mean = 2.76, SD = 1.29). In contrast, beliefs about the

negative consequences of animals (mean across all six items = 3.18,

SD = 0.70) were similar as for plants (mean across all six items = 3.18,

SD = 0.73). Comparing between single items, problematic in general

and detrimental to nature were the two items that were rated high-

est for non- native animals and plants, whereas detrimental to hu-

mans lowest (Figure 4).

Self- assessed knowledge and beliefs showed predictive potential

for all management actions in relation to non- native plants and par-

tially for non- native animals. Highly held beliefs about the negative

effects of non- native plants was a positive predictor (‘support’) for

complete removal and unspecified control actions; whereas a negative

predictor (‘opposition’) of doing nothing. While similar effects were

found for self- assessed knowledge about non- native plants, beliefs

had higher effect sizes on the acceptability of management actions

than self- assessed knowledge (Table 1). For animals, beliefs were only

predictors for both extreme management actions (doing nothing and

lethal control) and self- assessed knowledge only for lethal control.

However, patterns were similar and highly held beliefs about the neg-

ative effects of non- native animals was a positive predictor (‘support’)

for lethal control and a negative predictor (‘opposition’) for doing noth-

ing and beliefs had higher effect sizes than self- assessed knowledge.

3.8 | Emotions

Emotions towards native animals and plants were significantly higher

(mean = 4.5, SD = 0.6 and mean = 4.3, SD = 0.7, respectively) com-

pared to non- native animals and plants (mean = 4.1, SD = 0.8 and

mean = 3.9, SD = 0.9, respectively; z = −5.72, r = 0.31, p < 0.001 and

z = −4.70, r = 0.27, p < 0.001, respectively). Emotions showed pre-

dictive potential for all management actions (except for removal of

native plants). Generally, positively held emotions (valence) towards

species supported doing nothing but less unspecified control actions

and eradication of species, irrespective of taxa and origin of species.

3.9 | Socio- demographic factors

Socio- demographic factors showed less predictive potential on the

acceptability of management actions compared to the psychometric

factors (Table 1). Owning a garden had only predictive potential in

the case of plants. Here, owning a garden predicted the acceptability

of doing nothing with native and non- native plants in the own back-

yard. Owning a garden was also a negative predictor (‘opposition’)

for unspecified control actions and complete removal of non- native

plants in the own backyard. Gender was only a predictor in the case

of animals, with men were more supportive of lethal control of na-

tive and non- native animals than women. As for age, older people

were less supportive (‘opposition’) of doing nothing with non- native

animals and plants, but also native plants. Furthermore, older people

were more in support of the complete removal of non- native plants.

Whether people grew up in urban or rural areas did not have any

predictive potential on the acceptability of any management action.

25758314, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10398 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

|

1493

People and Nature

STRAKA et al.

TABLE 1 Predictive potential of underlying psychometric and socio- demographic factors on the acceptability of native and non-native animals and plants close to residence

Native

Animals Plants

Doing nothing

mean ± SE (p- value)

Pop. control

mean ± SE (p- value)

Lethal control

mean ± SE (p- value)

Doing nothing

mean ± SE (p- value)

Pop. control

mean ± SE (p- value)

Removal

mean ± SE (p- value)

Psychometric factors

Pseudo R2; logLIK (df) 0.03; −584.55 (10) 0.003, −690.47 (10) 0.03, −343.55 (8) 0.03, −577.71 (10) 0.007, −588.85 (10) 0.01, −630.30 (10)

Value: Self- Transcendence 0.52 ± 0.21* (0.02) −0.12 ± 0.21 (0.55) −0.59 ± 0.26* (0.02) 0.54 ± 0.21** (<0.009) −0.05 ± 0.21 (0.84) −0.45 ± 0.21* (0.03)

Value: Conservation −0.64 ± 0.14*** (<0.001) 0.17 ± 0.13 (0.21) 0.27 ± 0.18 (0.12) −0.64 ± 0.15*** (<0.001) 0.09 ± 0.15 (0.54) 0.29 ± 0.15* (0.04)

Pseudo R2; logLIK (df) 0.07; −559.92 (12) 0.01, −683.25 (12) 0.06, −330.23 (10) 0.08, −549.29 (12) 0.02, −580.16 (12) 0.03, −614.35 (12)

Anthropomorphism 0.16 ± 0.16 (0.32) −0.10 ± 0.15 (0.51) −0.59 ± 0.19** (0.002) −0.05 ± 0.11 (0.71) −0.38 ± 0.11** (0.0003) −0.31 ± 0.11** (0.003)

Emotions 1.23 ± 0.18*** (<0.001) −0.59 ± 0.17*** (<0.001) −0.68 ± 0.20*** (<0.001) 1.22 ± 0.17*** (<0.001) −0.28 ± 0.16 (0.08) −0.73 ± 0.16*** (<0.001)

Socio- demographic factors

Gender (men compared to

women)

0.18 ± 0.17 (0.29) 0.22 ± 0.16 (0.16) 0.59 ± 0.19** (0.002) 0.15 ± 0.15 (0.34) −0.19 ± 0.15 (0.21) 0.17 ± 0.15 (0.26)

Age −0.01 ± 0.007 (0.10) −0.001 ± 0.01 (0.14) 0.02 ± 0.01 (0.07) −1.51 ± 0.51* (0.003) 0.76 ± 0.48 (0.11) 0.45 ± 0.51 (0.38)

Garden (no = 0, yes = 1) 0.02 ± 0.21 (0.91) −0.002 ± 0.21 (0.99) −0.36 ± 0.26 (0.16) 0.52 ± 0.19** (0.006) −0.29 ± 0.19 (0.13) −0.32 ± 0.19 (0.09)

Place childhood 0.01 ± 0.19 (0.96) 0.07 ± 0.19 (0.71) −0.17 ± 0.23 (0.46) 0.15 ± 0.21 (0.45) −0.05 ± 0.21 (0.80) −0.24 ± 0.21 (0.25)

Non- native

Animals Plants

Doing nothing

mean ± SE (p- value)

Pop. control

mean ± SE (p- value)

Lethal control

mean ± SE (p- value)

Doing nothing

mean ± SE (p- value)

Pop. control

mean ± SE (p- value)

Removal

mean ± SE (p- value)

Psychometric factors

Pseudo R2, logLIK (df) 0.02; −663.47 (10) 0.0001; −661.87 (10) 0.008; −471.17 (9) 0.008; −648.15 (10) 0.003; −635.48 (10) 0.001; −664.75 (10)

Value: Self- Transcendence 0.51 ± 0.21* (0.01) 0.16 ± 0.21 (0.40) −0.07 ± 0.25 (0.79) 0.47 ± 0.21* (0.03) −0.29 ± 0.21 (0.16) −0.25 ± 0.21 (0.23)

Value: Conservation −0.40 ± 0.14** (0.005) 0.03 ± 0.14 (0.81) 0.04 ± 0.16 (0.82) −0.39 ± 0.15** (0.008) −0.0003 ± 0.14 (1.00) 0.04 ± 0.15 (0.79)

Pseudo R2, logLIK (df) 0.09; −615.49 (14) 0.01; −653.65 (14) 0.15; −401.63 (13) 0.16; −545.41 (14) 0.11; −569.61 (14) 0.11; −592.15 (14)

Anthropomorphism 0.15 ± 0.16 (0.35) −0.003 ± 0.15 (0.98) −0.61 ± 0.17*** (<0.001) −0.03 ± 0.11 (0.80) −0.18 ± 0.11 (0.09) −0.16 ± 0.11 (0.15)

Emotions 0.95 ± 0.14*** (<0.001) −0.39 ± 0.13** (0.004) −1.02 ± 0.16*** (<0.001) 1.35 ± 0.14*** (<0.001) −0.54 ± 0.12*** (<0.001) −0.70 ± 0.13*** (<0.001)

Beliefs −0.65 ± 0.17*** (<0.001) 0.21 ± 0.16 (0.19) 1.06 ± 0.21*** (<0.001) −0.81 ± 0.17*** (<0.001) 1.06 ± 0.17*** (<0.001) 1.09 ± 0.17*** (<0.001)

Self- assessed knowledge 0.05 ± 0.09 (0.59) −0.15 ± 0.09 (0.11) 0.40 ± 0.11*** (0.0004) −0.23 ± 0.09** (0.009) 0.31 ± 0.09*** (<0.001) 0.23 ± 0.09** (<0.001)

Socio- demographic factors

Gender (men compared to

women)

0.06 ± 0.16 (0.71) −0.22 ± 0.16 (0.17) 0.54 ± 0.17** (0.002) −0.19 ± 0.15 (0.19) 0.19 ± 0.15 (0.21) 0.17 ± 0.15 (0.27)

Age −0.02 ± 0.01* (0.02) −0.01 ± 0.01 (0.22) −0.02 ± 0.01* (0.02) −1.33 ± 0.52* (0.01) 0.92 ± 0.49 (0.06) 1.09 ± 0.48* (0.03)

Garden (no = 0, yes = 1) −0.07 ± 0.21 (0.75) 0.19 ± 0.21 (0.37) −0.28 ± 0.23 (0.23) 0.67 ± 0.19*** (0.0005) −0.40 ± 0.19* (0.04) −0.42 ± 0.19* (0.03)

Place childhood 0.05 ± 0.18 (0.80) 0.05 ± 0.19 (0.81) −0.30 ± 0.21 (0.15) 0.07 ± 0.21 (0.75) 0.11 ± 0.20 (0.59) −0.21 ± 0.21 (0.30)

Mean and standard error (SE). Significant results (in bold) are shown by *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001.

25758314, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10398 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

1494

|

People and Nature

STRAKA et al.

FIGURE 3 Mean rating and standard deviation for each of the four anthropomorphism items. Responses to the questions ‘Do you

think that [animals (animal survey)/plants (plant survey)] have … ?’, are depicted on a 5- point Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘not at all’ to

5 = ‘completely’.

FIGURE 4 Mean rating for each of the six belief items. Responses to question ‘Do you believe that [non- native animals (animal survey)/

non- native plants (plant survey) are […]? While semantic differentials were used, scales ranged here from 1 to 5 to measure either extreme.

25758314, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10398 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

|

1495

People and Nature

STRAKA et al.

4 | DISCUSSION

The acceptability of non- native species management in urban en-

vironments often produces conflicts between decision- makers and

the public (Dickie et al., 2014, Crowley et al., 2017; Gaertner, Wilson,

et al., 2017; Williams et al., 2019). Here, we contribute to our un-

derstanding of factors that underlie the acceptability of native and

non- native species management actions among residents in Berlin,

Germany. Previous studies have investigated different factors in

this context (e.g. context of species, values, knowledge and beliefs,

Bremner & Park, 2007; Estevez et al., 2015; Fisher et al., 2014). This

study simultaneously investigated the role of distance to the spe-

cies, that is, the NIMBY phenomenon, and psychometric factors

of respondents (values, emotions, beliefs, self- assessed knowledge

and anthropomorphism) in species management in urban areas. The

choice of these variables was based on the framework of Shackleton

et al. (2019) and on acceptance research with animals and plants

(Kowarik et al., 2021; Straka et al., 2020). The major insights of our

work are as follows: (1) eradication (i.e. lethal control/removal), the

most severe management action, was the least accepted manage-

ment action; irrespective of taxa or origin of species; (2) the accept-

ability for management actions differed significantly between native

and non- native species; (3) patterns were similar for the distance

scenario ‘close to residence’ and ‘elsewhere’ with the exception for

non- native plants; and (4) psychometric and socio- demographic fac-

tors showed predictive potential and demonstrate the complexity in

which species management in urban areas is embedded.

4.1 | Severe management actions are more

accepted for non- native than native species

The acceptability of management actions within the public can in-

form how people support or oppose non- native species management

(Selge et al., 2011), relevant because public opposition can hinder

management efforts (McNeely, 2011). Overall, we found that eradi-

cation was the least accepted management action for animals (lethal

control) and plants (removal) in the urban context, irrespective of the

species' origin (native or non- native). The low acceptance for eradica-

tion compared to less severe management actions such as unspecified

control actions or doing nothing adds evidence to previous studies on

animals (Dheer et al., 2021; Jacobs et al., 2014) and plants (Kowarik

et al., 2021). However, we show that eradication and unspecified

control actions were more accepted for non- native compared to na-

tive species, irrespective of whether they are plants or animals. Thus,

compared to native species, people prefer active management ac-

tions for non- native species in urban areas. The preference for active

management actions of non- native species such as eradication and

unspecified control actions may be due to the negative connotation of

non- native compared to native species (Höbart et al., 2020). Indeed,

we also found in our study that people expressed lower emotions (va-

lence) towards non- native compared to native species.

4.2 | Indication of Nimby?

We used the ‘NIMBY’ concept to assess whether the acceptabil-

ity of management actions differed with perceived distance. In

the case of non- native plants, we found that unspecified control

actions were the most accepted management action compared to

doing nothing ‘close to residence’ but not ‘elsewhere’— a potential

indication of NIMBY for non- native species. Home gardens are

places where dichotomies between native or non- native are gener-

ally blurred, and conservation recommendations around ecologi-

cally ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ controversial (Head & Muir, 2006; Kendal

et al., 2010). Most plants in backyards are already non- native cul-

tivated and ornamental plants that result from gardening activity

(Kendal et al., 2012; Loram et al., 2008; van Heezik et al., 2013),

which is related to people's demographics, experience and moti-

vations (Philpott et al., 2020). However, in the case of non- native

plants, we showed participants the two species tree of heaven

(Ailanthus altissima) and the Indian balsam (Impatiens glandulifera),

which have a rapid growth and spread that may not be desired by

gardeners. Rather, garden plant species are often selected based

on aesthetic (e.g. flower size, leaf width, foliage cover), but also

non- visual traits such as nativeness (Kendal et al., 2012). As our

native and non- native plant pairs shared similar traits, the origin

of the plant likely explains the acceptance of management actions

in our study. While this adds to our knowledge that the accept-

ance of non- native plants is context specific (differing for example

between different urban situations; Kowarik et al., 2021), we did

not find this pattern for non- native animals. In both scenarios of

‘close to residence’ and ‘elsewhere’, unspecified control actions of

non- native animals were similarly accepted as doing nothing. There

are two possible explanations for this. First, given that animals are

more anthropomorphized than plants (as our study shows), par-

ticipants did not consider it as ethical to control for populations of

non- native animals close to their residence, whereas this is more

acceptable for plants. Second, plants are possibly considered easier

to control compared to animals.

Xenophobia (i.e. hostility towards anything that is foreign such

as non- native species) is controversially discussed in invasion

studies (Richardson & Ricciardi, 2013; Simberloff, 2003), includ-

ing the role of people for the spread of non- native species (Selge

et al., 2011). While we cannot clearly state that people held xeno-

phobic views in relation to non- native plants because we did not

compare them in our survey to native species, it is noteworthy

that beliefs about the consequences of non- native species did not

largely differ between plants and animals. Both beliefs about the

consequences of non- native animals and non- native plants were

moderate in our study, that is, they were not considered as exten-

sively detrimental nor beneficial (Figure 4). While this contrasts

to a study in South Africa in which participants considered non-

native plants as problematic (Potgieter et al., 2019), it also con-

firms the biogeographical context that needs to be considered in

studies on non- native species management.

25758314, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10398 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

1496

|

People and Nature

STRAKA et al.

4.3 | Values matter, but other psychometric factors

add to our understanding of acceptability

Throughout the literature, people's values largely determine non-

native species management (Bartz & Kowarik, 2019; Estévez

et al., 2015; Shackleton et al., 2019). In our urban study, values had

predictive potential for both extremes of management— doing noth-

ing and eradication— but not for the moderate management (unspeci-

fied control actions). People with high self- transcendence values (i.e.

the welfare of others is important) were in support of doing nothing,

that is, leaving animals and plants alone, irrespective of their origin.

People with high self- transcendence values were also more in opposi-

tion of lethal management of animals or removal of plants. However,

only in the case for native and not for non- native species. The influ-

ence of self- transcendence values on harming other species was also

shown in a study by Hrubes et al. (2001). Here, researchers showed

how self- transcendence values were negatively correlated to hunt-

ing behaviour among outdoor recreationists (Hrubes et al., 2001). The

second value system in our survey, ‘conservation’ (i.e. preserving the

status quo is important) predicted the opposite to self- transcendence

values. People with high conservation values were more in opposition

of doing nothing, that is, to not manage animals and plants, irrespec-

tive of their origin. Hence, understanding whether people are more

on a ‘self- transcendence’ or ‘conservation’ value spectrum might be

useful for urban planners and managers if they want acceptance for

not managing animals and plants, also native species.

Our models improved when including other psychometric fac-

tors (emotions, anthropomorphism, self- assessed knowledge and

beliefs). Particularly, emotions had predictive potential on all man-

agement actions, underpinning their important role in relation to

the acceptability of management actions (Jacobs et al., 2014; Straka

et al., 2020). We used in our survey emotions based on valence

that was measured as the ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ character of an

emotion or of its aspects (Colombetti, 2005), in our case whether

people felt for instance more positive or negative when they were

thinking about native or non- native species (see Table S1). While

emotions towards non- native species was lower compared to native

species, they were generally high towards plants and animals, and

also for non- native ones. Thus, the more positive people felt about

a species, the more they supported doing nothing, but the less they

supported unspecified control actions and eradication.

In support of our predictions, people held higher anthropomor-

phic views in relation to animals than plants, aligning with the theory

that people attribute higher cognitive abilities to other species that

are perceived as more human- like (Eddy et al., 1993). In the case of

animals, anthropomorphism, that is, the ability to attribute cognitive

and emotional abilities to others, had only predictive potential for

the opposition of lethal control to animals as also shown in a study

on wolf management (Manfredo et al., 2020). We show in addition

that anthropomorphism does not reflect species' origin. If people held

high anthropomorphic views towards animals, they did not differ-

entiate whether it is a native or non- native animal in the urban con-

text. Interestingly, anthropomorphism was also a negative predictor

for control management actions (unspecified control actions and

removal) of native plants. One possible explanation could be the at-

tachment that people form with plants in their backyards. Owning a

garden had only predictive potential when it came to plants, suggest-

ing ties of garden owners to their plants (Hands et al., 2018; Head &

Muir, 2006). For example, through gardening activity, people interact

with and care for plants in their backyards, ultimately forming emo-

tional bonds to their plants (Cerda et al., 2022; Freeman et al., 2012).

In relation to knowledge and beliefs, earlier studies found that bet-

ter knowledge of non- native species increases the acceptance of con-

trol measures (Bremner & Park, 2007; Lewis et al., 2019). In our study,

self- assessed knowledge was important for the acceptance of control

measures (unspecified control actions and eradication). Yet, beliefs

were even more important in relation to non- native species than self-

assessed knowledge, confirming again the importance to consider

beliefs in non- native species management (Fischer et al., 2014). In

detail, the more people believed that non- native species have neg-

ative consequences, the more they supported their eradication and

control and the less of doing nothing. Beliefs are fundamental parts of

cognitive processes (Fulton et al., 1996) and similar as suggested for

values (Manfredo et al., 2017), they need to be understood to work

effectively with people involved in conservation issues.

Older people were less supportive of doing nothing and more

supportive of eradication of non- native plants. Previous studies

showed that older people tended to perceive invasive plants more

negatively than younger respondents (Nguyen et al., 2020; Potgieter

et al., 2019). According to the ‘shifting baseline syndrome’ theory,

environmental changes are more noticed and questioned by the

older generations, whereas they are less so by younger people, who

have experienced different states of nature (Soga & Gaston, 2016).

Yet, contrasting results for the acceptance of eradication of tree of

heaven in another study (Kowarik et al., 2021) suggest that attitudes

of respondents towards non- native species may depend on the ad-

dressed species.

We did not find an effect of where people grew up on the

acceptability of the different management actions. However,

males were more supportive of eradication than females. This

is also supported by other studies, particularly on animals. For

instance, women were found to show more empathy towards

animals than men and were more opposed to killing and more sup-

portive of wildlife conservation as shown for instance in the case

of whales among U.S. college students (Hamazaki & Tanno, 2002;

Kellert, 1984). In relation to plants, women were more likely to

enjoy aesthetically pleasing plants than men in a study investigat-

ing attractiveness of plant species in Zurich, Geneva and Lugano

(Lindemann- Matthies, 2016).

Limitations of this study are that many participants may not

be landholders and not be confronted with these management

decisions, as a large proportion of people in cities in Germany are

renters of apartments without garden access. Hence, many people

may not have their own backyard or garden but rather use that of

a property- owner. We did not account for these factors and while

non- landholders can also be opposed to management actions,

25758314, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10398 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

|

1497

People and Nature

STRAKA et al.

scenarios are more assumptive in this context. Furthermore, since

we only surveyed self- assessed knowledge, how much people really

knew about non- native species remains a question.

5 | CONCLUSION

Our study contributes to a better understanding of people's views

on management options towards non- native and native plants and

animals in an urban context. Such insights can enhance management

feasibility and the effectiveness of management activities because

controlling native animals or plants can similarly conflict with people's

views as non- native species. This comparative study on pairs of native

and non- native plants and animals shows that management accept-

ability differs between species' origin with active management actions

as eradication and unspecified control actions more accepted for non-

native compared to native species. Furthermore, socio- demographic

factors, but more importantly psychometric factors of respondents

strongly predict acceptability of management actions. While values

are important, emotions and anthropomorphism can play equally or

even more important roles. The latter is particularly true for severe

management actions for animals and native plants.

Our results indicate opportunities for managers to work and

communicate with the public on several levels, ranging from values

(e.g. value- congruent information, Boomsma & Steg, 2014) to an-

thropomorphic views and emotions. In relation to non- native spe-

cies, beliefs about the negative consequences of a species is more

important than self- assessed knowledge of non- native species.

Thus, education programmes should openly address beliefs related

to non- native species; particularly because evidence about the det-

rimental effect of non- native species is not always clear and benefits

of these species may be strongly underestimated. People's values

but also other psychometric factors can, however, also help to adjust

environmental policies on introduced species that are usually based

on both, scientific information about invasion impacts and related

societal values. There is no one- size fits all action for management

acceptability; transdisciplinary approaches should be implemented

to address the complexity of native and non- native species manage-

ment in urban areas.

Future research should test other concepts from the Shackleton

et al. (2019) framework such as species' introduction status or partic-

ipants' sense of place. Comparative studies in different cultural con-

texts would be a decisive step forward since both invasion patterns

and people's views on these likely differ in cities around the globe.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

All authors were involved in the idea development; Tanja M. Straka,

Luise Bach, Ulrike Klisch and Ingo Kowarik designed the survey in-

strument; Luise Bach and Ulrike Klisch collected the data; Tanja M.

Straka, Luise Bach and Ulrike Klisch analysed the data; Leonie K.

Fischer created the figures; Tanja M. Straka and Ingo Kowarik led

the writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed critically to

the drafts and gave final approval for publication.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many thanks to all participants of the surveys. We also thank Mirijam

Gaertner, Ana Novoa and an anonymous reviewer for very constructive

comments on a previous version of the text. Open Access funding ena-

bled and organized by Projekt DEAL. WOA Institution: TECHNISCHE

UNIVERSITAET BERLIN Consortia Name : Projekt DEAL

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data are available in Dryad (https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.

p8cz8 w9t7).

ORCID

Tanja M. Straka https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4118-4056

Monika H. Egerer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3304-0725

Leonie K. Fischer https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4282-7201

Ingo Kowarik https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8251-7163

REFERENCES

Aronson, M. F., La Sorte, F. A., Nilon, C. H., & Katti, M. (2014). A global

analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity

reveals key anthropogenic drivers. Proceedings of the Royal Society

B: Biological Sciences, 281(1780), 20133330.

Baker, S. E., Maw, S. M., Johnson, P. J., & Macdonald, D. W. (2020). Not

in my backyard: Public perceptions of wildlife and ‘pest control’ in

and around UK homes, and Local Authority ‘pest control’. Animals,

10(2), 222.

Bartz, R., & Kowarik, I. (2019). Assessing the environmental impacts of

invasive alien plants: A review of assessment approaches. NeoBiota,

43, 69– 99.

Boomsma, C., & Steg, L. (2014). The effect of information and values on

acceptability of reduced street lighting. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 39, 22– 31.

Bremner, A., & Park, K. (2007). Public attitudes to the management of

invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biological conservation,

139(3– 4), 306– 314.

Buijs, A. E., Elands, B. H., & Langers, F. (2009). No wilderness for im-

migrants: Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape

preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(3), 113– 123.

Cerda, C., Guenat, S., Egerer, M., & Fischer, L. K. (2022). Home food

gardening: Benefits and barriers during the COVID- 19 pandemic

in Santiago, Chile. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6, 1– 13.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.841386

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (pp.

20– 26). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Colombetti, G. (2005). Appraising valence. Journal of Consciousness

Studies, 12(8– 9), 103– 126.

Crowley, S. L., Hinchliffe, S., & McDonald, R. A. (2017). Conflict in inva-

sive species management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,

15(3), 133– 141.

Dheer, A., Davidian, E., Jacobs, M. H., Ndorosa, J., Straka, T. M., & Höner,

O. P. (2021). Emotions and cultural importance predict the accep-

tance of large carnivore management strategies by maasai pastoral-

ists. Frontiers in Conservation Science, 23, 1– 13.

Dickie, I. A., Bennett, B. M., Burrows, L. E., Nuñez, M. A., Peltzer, D. A.,

Porté, A., Richardson, D. M., Rejmánek, M., Rundel, P. W., & van

Wilgen, B. W. (2014). Conflicting values: Ecosystem services and

invasive tree management. Biological Invasions, 16(3), 705– 719.

25758314, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10398 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

1498

|

People and Nature

STRAKA et al.

Eddy, T. J., Gallup, G. G., & Povinelli, D. J. (1993). Attribution of cognitive

states to animals: Anthropomorphism in comparative perspective.

Journal of Social Issues, 49, 87– 101.

Estévez, R. A., Anderson, C. B., Pizarro, J. C., & Burgman, M. A. (2015).

Clarifying values, risk perceptions, and attitudes to resolve or

avoid social conflicts in invasive species management. Conservation

Biology, 29, 19– 30.

Fischer, A., Selge, S., Van Der Wal, R., & Larson, B. M. (2014). The public

and professionals reason similarly about the management of non-

native invasive species: A quantitative investigation of the relation-

ship between beliefs and attitudes. PLoS ONE, 9(8), e105495.

Fischer, L. K., Honold, J., Cvejić, R., Delshammar, T., Hilbert, S., Lafortezza,

R., Nastran, M., Nielsen, A. B., Pintar, M., van der Jagt, A. P. N., &

Kowarik, I. (2018). Beyond green: Broad support for biodiversity in

multicultural European cities. Global Environmental Change, 49, 35– 45.

Freeman, C., Dickinson, K. J. M., Porter, S., & van Heezik, Y. (2012). “My

garden is an expression of me”: Exploring householders' relation-

ships with their gardens. Journal Environmental Psychology, 32,

135– 143.

Fulton, D. C., Manfredo, M. J., & Lipscomb, J. (1996). Wildlife value ori-

entations: A conceptual and measurement approach. Human dimen-

sions of wildlife, 1(2), 24– 47.

Gaertner, M., Novoa, A., Fried, J., & Richardson, D. M. (2017). Managing

invasive species in cities: A decision support framework applied to

Cape Town. Biological Invasions, 19, 3707– 3723.

Gaertner, M., Wilson, J. R., Cadotte, M. W., MacIvor, J. S., Zenni, R. D.,

& Richardson, D. M. (2017). Non- native species in urban envi-

ronments: Patterns, processes, impacts and challenges. Biological

Invasions, 19(12), 3461– 3469.

Hamazaki, T., & Tanno, D. (2002). Totemization of wildlife and NIMBY

among US college students. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 7(2),

107– 121.

Hands, T., Shaw, A., Gibson, M., & Miller, K. (2018). People and their

plants: The effect of an educational comic on gardening intentions.

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 30, 132– 137.

Head, L., & Muir, P. (2006). Suburban life and the boundaries of nature:

Resilience and rupture in Australian backyard gardens. Transactions

of the Institute of British Geographers, 31, 505– 524.

Höbart, R., Schindler, S., & Essl, F. (2020). Perceptions of alien plants and

animals and acceptance of control methods among different socie-

tal groups. NeoBiota, 58, 33– 54.

Hrubes, D., Ajzen, I., & Daigle, J. (2001). Predicting hunting intentions

and behavior: An application of the theory of planned behavior.

Leisure Sciences, 23(3), 165– 178.

Ives, C. D., & Kendal, D. (2014). The role of social values in the manage-

ment of ecological systems. Journal of Environmental Management,

144, 67– 72.

Jackman, S. (2020). pscl: Classes and methods for R developed in the

political science computational laboratory. R package version 1.5.5.

United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney.

Jacobs, M. H., & Vaske, J. J. (2019). Understanding emotions as oppor-

tunities for and barriers to coexistence with wildlife. In B. Frank, J.

Glikman, & S. Marchini (Eds.), Human– wildlife interactions: Turning

conflict into coexistence (pp. 65– 84). Cambridge University Press.

Jacobs, M. H., Vaske, J. J., Dubois, S., & Fehres, P. (2014). More than

fear: Role of emotions in acceptability of lethal control of wolves.

European Journal of Wildlife Research, 60(4), 589– 598.

Jarić, I., Courchamp, F., Correia, R. A., Crowley, S. L., Essl, F., Fischer, A.,

González- Moreno, P., Kalinkat, G., Lambin, X., Lenzner, B., Meinard,

Y., Mill, A., Musseau, C., Novoa, A., Pergl, J., Pyšek, P., Pyšková, K.,

Robertson, P., Schmalensee, M., … Jeschke, J. M. (2020). The role of

species charisma in biological invasions. Frontiers in Ecology and the

Environment, 18(6), 345– 353.

Kapitza, K., Zimmermann, H., Martin- Lopez, B., & von Wehrden, H.

(2019). Factors driving social perceptions of invasive species: A sys-

tematic literature review. NeoBiota, 43, 47– 63.

Kellert, S. R. (1984). Urban American perceptions of animals and the nat-

ural environment. Urban ecology, 8(3), 209– 228.

Kendal, D., Williams, K. J. H., & Williams, N. S. G. (2012). Plant traits link

people's plant preferences to the composition of their gardens.

Landscape and Urban Planning, 105( 1 – 2 ) , 3 4 – 4 2 .

Kendal, D., Williams, N. S. G., & Williams, K. J. H. (2010). Harnessing

diversity in gardens through individual decision makers. Trends

in Ecology & Evolution, 25(4), 200– 201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

tree.2009.11.006

Kowarik, I. (2008). On the role of alien species in urban flora and vegeta-

tion. In Urban ecology (pp. 321– 338). Springer.

Kowarik, I., Straka, T. M., Lehmann, M., Studnitzky, R., & Fischer, L. K.

(2021). Between approval and disapproval: Citizens' views on the

invasive tree Ailanthus altissima and its management. NeoBiota, 66,

1– 30.

Latombe, G., Lenzner, B., Schertler, A., Dullinger, S., Glaser, M., Jarić,

I., Pauchard, A., Wilson, J. R. U., & Essl, F. (2022). What is valued

in conservation? A framework to compare ethical perspectives.

NeoBiota, 72, 45– 80.

Lewis, C. L., Granek, E. F., & Nielsen-Pincus, M. (2019). Assessing local

attitudes and perceptions of non-native species to inform manage-

ment of novel ecosystems. Biological Invasions, 21(3), 961– 982.

Lindeman, M., & Verkasalo, M. (2005). Measuring values with the Short

Schwartz's Value Survey. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85,

170– 178.

Lindemann- Matthies, P. (2016). Beasts or beauties? Laypersons' percep-

tion of invasive alien plant species in Switzerland and attitudes to-

wards their management. NeoBiota, 29, 15– 33.

Loram, A., Thompson, K., Warren, P. H., & Gaston, K. J. (2008). Urban

domestic gardens (XII): the richness and composition of the flora in

five UK cities. Journal of Vegetation Science, 19, 321– 330.

Manfredo, M. J., Bruskotter, J. T., Teel, T. L., Fulton, D., Schwartz, S. H.,

Arlinghaus, R., Arlinghaus, R., Oishi, S., Uskul, A. K., Redford, K.,

Kitayama, S., & Sullivan, L. (2017). Why social values cannot be

changed for the sake of conservation. Conservation Biology, 31(4),

772– 780.

Manfredo, M. J., Urquiza- Haas, E. G., Carlos, A. W. D., Bruskotter, J.

T., & Dietsch, A. M. (2020). How anthropomorphism is chang-

ing the social context of modern wildlife conservation. Biological

Conservation, 241, 108297.

McNeely, J. A. (2011). Xenophobia or conservation: Some human di-

mensions. In I. D. Rotherham & R. A. Lambert (Eds.), Invasive and

introduced plants and animals – human perceptions, attitudes and ap-

proaches to management (pp. 19– 36). Earthscan.

Nehring, S., Kowarik, I., Rabitsch, W., & Essl, F. (2013). Naturschutzfachliche

Invasivitätsbewertungen für in Deutschland wild lebende gebiets-

fremde Gefäßpflanzen. BfN- Skripten, 352, 1– 202.

Nguyen, N. A., Eskelson, B. N. I., Meitner, M. J., & Murray, T. (2020).

People's knowledge and risk perceptions of invasive plants in Metro

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Environmental Management,

66, 985– 996.

Novoa, A., Dehnen- Schmutz, K., Fried, J., & Vimercati, G. (2017). Does

public awareness increase support for invasive species man-

agement? Promising evidence across taxa and landscape types.

Biological Invasions, 19(12), 3691– 3705.

Philpott, S. M., Egerer, M. H., Bichier, P., Cohen, H., Cohen, R., Liere, H.,

Jha, S., & Lin, B. B. (2020). Gardener demographics, experience, and

motivations drive differences in plant species richness and compo-

sition in urban gardens. Ecology and Society, 25(4), art8.

Potgieter, L. J., Gaertner, M., Kueffer, C., Larson, B. M., Livingstone, S.

W., O'Farrell, P. J., & Richardson, D. M. (2017). Alien plants as me-

diators of ecosystem services and disservices in urban systems: A

global review. Biological Invasions, 19(12), 3571– 3588.

Potgieter, L. J., Gaertner, M., O'Farrell, P. J., & Richardson, D. M. (2019).

Perceptions of impact: Invasive alien plants in the urban environ-

ment. Journal of Environmental Management, 229, 76– 87.

25758314, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10398 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

|

1499

People and Nature

STRAKA et al.

Potgieter, L. J., Shrestha, N., & Cadotte, M. W. (2022). Prioritizing terres-

trial invasive alien plant species for management in urban ecosys-

tems. Journal of Applied Ecology, 59, 872– 883.

Revelle, W. (2021). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and

personality research. Northwestern University.

Richardson, D. M., & Ricciardi, A. (2013). Misleading criticisms of invasion

science: A field guide. Diversity and Distributions, 19(12), 1461– 1467.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Free press.

Schlaepfer, M. A., Guinaudeau, B. P., Martin, P., & Wyler, N. (2020).

Quantifying the contributions of native and non- native trees to a

city's biodiversity and ecosystem services. Urban Forestry & Urban

Greening, 56, 126861.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of val-

ues: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries.

In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1– 65).

Academic Press.

Scott, J., Kikken, M., Rose, M., & Colyer, P. (2016). Nimbyism and na-

ture: Whose backyard is it anyway? In Balanced urban development:

Options and strategies for liveable cities (pp. 29– 43). Springer, Cham.

Shackleton, R. T., Le Maitre, D. C., & Richardson, D. M. (2015). Stakeholder

perceptions and practices regarding Prosopis (mesquite) invasions

and management in South Africa. Ambio, 44(6), 569– 581.

Shackleton, R. T., Richardson, D. M., Shackleton, C. M., Bennett, B.,

Crowley, S. L., Dehnen- Schmutz, K., Estévez, R. A., Fischer, A.,

Kueffer, C., Kull, C. A., Marchante, E., Novoa, A., Potgieter, L. J.,

Vaas, J., Vaz, A. S., & Larson, B. M. H. (2019). Explaining people's

perceptions of invasive alien species: A conceptual framework.

Journal of Environmental Management, 229, 10– 26.

Simberloff, D. (2003). Confronting introduced species: A form of xeno-

phobia? Biological Invasions, 5(3), 179– 192.

Straka, T. M., Miller, K. K., & Jacobs, M. H. (2020). Understanding the

acceptability of wolf management actions: Roles of cognition and

emotion. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 25(1), 33– 46.

Soga, M., & Gaston, K. J. (2016). Extinction of experience: The loss of

human– nature interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,

14(2), 94– 101.

Taherdoost, H. (2016). Sampling methods in research methodology; How

to choose a sampling technique for research. https://ssrn.com/abstr

act=3205035 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3205035

United Nations (Hrsg.). (2018). World urbanization prospects: The 2018 re-

vision. Key facts. https://www.un.org/devel opmen t/desa/publi catio

n s / 2 0 1 8 - r e v i s i o n - o f - w o r l d

Urquiza- Haas, E. G., & Kotrschal, K. (2015). The mind behind anthropo-

morphic thinking: Attribution of mental states to other species.

Animal Behaviour, 109, 167– 176.

van Heezik, Y., Freeman, C., Porter, S., & Dickinson, K. J. M. (2013).

Garden size, householder knowledge, and socio- economic status

influence plant and bird diversity at the scale of individual gardens.

Ecosystems, 16(8), 1442– 1454.

Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. (2002). Modern applied statistics with S

(4th ed.). Springer. ISBN 0- 387- 95457- 0

Verbrugge, L. N., Van den Born, R. J., & Lenders, H. R. (2013). Exploring

public perception of non- native species from a visions of nature

perspective. Environmental Management, 52(6), 1562– 1573.

Williams, R. J., Dunn, A. M., Quinn, C. H., & Hassall, C. (2019). Stakeholder

discourse and opinion towards a charismatic non- native lizard spe-

cies: Potential invasive problem or a welcome addition? People and

Nature, 1(2), 152– 166.

Young, J. C., Searle, K., Butler, A., Simmons, P., Watt, A. D., & Jordan, A.

(2016). The role of trust in the resolution of conservation conflicts.

Biological Conservation, 195, 196– 202.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional supporting information can be found online in the

Supporting Information section at the end of this article.

How to cite this article: Straka, T. M., Bach, L., Klisch, U.,

Egerer, M. H., Fischer, L. K., & Kowarik, I. (2022). Beyond

values: How emotions, anthropomorphism, beliefs and

knowledge relate to the acceptability of native and non-

native species management in cities. People and Nature, 4,

1485–1499. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10398

25758314, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10398 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License