Northwest Regional Practitioner Survey Results
This report shares the results of an online survey, adapted from others released by the Northeast and Pacific Islands RISCC Networks (see Beaury et al. 2020), to gather feedback from over 300 regional practitioners (e.g., scientists, conservation practitioners, field crew personnel, fire managers, agency leads, agricultural specialists) — primarily those with interest and/or experience in invasive species management and climate change adaptation — on:
The degree to which they are considering the nexus of climate change and invasive species;
Emerging practices and policies that may address the dual goals of reducing climate-related vulnerabilities and invasive species management efforts; and
Needs, opportunities, and limitations faced by practitioners in the region.
Key Takeaways
Respondent Background and Demographics
The majority of participants:
Work in project/program management (35%) or on-the-ground operations (30%) (e.g., land stewards, field technicians)
Have 10 or more years of experience in their current profession (57%)
Represent organizations focused on species and habitat conservation and restoration (38%) and general natural resources management (26%)
Operate in Washington (54%), Oregon (41%), and Idaho (16%)
Organization Type
The largest number of survey participants represented federal (28%), state or provincial (26%), or local (24%) government agencies. Local government entities included city and county government agencies as well as Soil and Water Conservation Districts and public utilities.
Management Priorities
The most common management priorities across all respondents included biodiversity (66%), rare species and habitats (58%), habitat connectivity (56%), freshwater resources (56%), and endangered species (54%).
Managing Invasive Species in a Changing Climate
Only three percent of respondents indicate that they are not knowledgeable about the impacts of climate change on invasive species.
Seventy-three percent (73%) of respondents indicate that their organizations integrate climate change into invasive species management at least some of the time.
The majority of respondents indicate that they/their organizations are very or somewhat concerned about the effects of climate change on invasive species management.
Invasive species that were most frequently mentioned as challenges both currently and within the next 10–20 years include: zebra mussels, reed canary grass, knotweeds, and scotch broom.
Time spent addressing invasive species
On average, respondents currently spend most of the time addressing existing invasive species (77%) and about a quarter of the time addressing potential new invasions.
Success in managing invasive species
Twenty-five percent (25%) of respondents indicated that they are losing ground against invasive species, while 49% are holding ground and 26% are gaining ground.
Priorities related to invasive species management in a changing climate
Respondents were asked to reflect on priorities for integrated climate change and invasive species management. The highest priorities across all respondents were native community resilience (62%) and environmental degradation (e.g., soil, air, water) (60%), while the lowest priorities were sleeper species (e.g., non-natives that may become invasive) (41%) and biocontrol efficacy (40%).
Management Limitations
Limitations that consistently affect practitioners’ ability to successfully manage invasive species and integrate climate change into management activities include staff capacity, funding, and other management priorities. Factors that become more of a challenge with climate change include technical expertise and the availability of and/or access to information, models, and data.
Challenges associated with successfully managing invasive species
Challenges associated with incorporating climate change into invasive species management
Decision-Making Needs: Knowledge, Products, and Services
Most respondents rely on best practices and lessons learned (91%) and knowledge from peers (91%) to make decisions. Fewer rely on land cover or use data (44%) and models (38%).
The majority of respondents indicated a strong desire for the following products and activities from the NW RISCC Network: case studies (59%), targeted guidance on integrated climate change and invasive species management (59%), workshops/webinars (54%), and peer-to-peer knowledge exchange (53%).
Participants were asked to reflect on the ideal temporal and spatial scales for climate projections to best manage invasive species. A timeframe of 10–25 years (47%) at the watershed scale (48%) was largely preferred by respondents. Over 65% of respondents indicated a preference for projections of at least 10 years and many respondents indicated that all four spatial scales are relevant depending on the invasive species and the affected ecosystem(s).
Some respondents indicated that temporal scales of agency management plans and climate projections do not line up:
“Almost everything I do is on a short-term timescale (1–5 years). I have to show results now…and have very few resources to work towards a 5–25 year timescale or longer nor agency patience to wait.”
“It would be ideal to have climate projections that match the temporal and spatial scales for agency strategic plans, and incorporate those projections as part of the strategic goals and annual work plans.”
“My agency has some institutional resistance to using timescales longer than 20–30 years.”
How is climate change being incorporated into Northwest invasive species management activities?
Monitoring stream temperatures and potential changes in the distribution of native and non-native species
Evaluating how non-native species affect the ability of habitats to recover from droughts and wildfires
Modeling to time pest survey and eradication activities
Choosing revegetation materials based on temperature and precipitation projections (e.g., using species expected to fare better in a hotter, drier future)
Investing in landscape-scale restoration rather than small-scale and/or isolated restoration projects to build habitat resistance and resilience
Prioritizing the protection and recovery of ecosystem functions rather than the management of specific species
Revegetating disturbed sites and using climate models to determine which species and in what configuration(s) will best survive
Collecting seed from various locations and aiming for high diversity (i.e. multiple species and phenotypes) in planting