© 2018 Elsevier Ltd Human perceptions of nature and the environment are increasingly being recognised as important for environmental management and conservation. Understanding people's perceptions is crucial for understanding behaviour and developing effective management strategies to maintain, preserve and improve biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. As an interdisciplinary team, we produced a synthesis of the key factors that influence people's perceptions of invasive alien species, and ordered them in a conceptual framework. In a context of considerable complexity and variation across time and space, we identified six broad-scale dimensions: (1) attributes of the individual perceiving the invasive alien species; (2) characteristics of the invasive alien species itself; (3) effects of the invasion (including negative and positive impacts, i.e. benefits and costs); (4) socio-cultural context; (5) landscape context; and (6) institutional and policy context. A number of underlying and facilitating aspects for each of these six overarching dimensions are also identified and discussed. Synthesising and understanding the main factors that influence people's perceptions is useful to guide future research, to facilitate dialogue and negotiation between actors, and to aid management and policy formulation and governance of invasive alien species. This can help to circumvent and mitigate conflicts, support prioritisation plans, improve stakeholder engagement platforms, and implement control measures.

© the Ecological Society of America Introduced species can have important effects on the component species and processes of native ecosystems. However, effective introduced species management can be complicated by technical and social challenges. We identify “social–ecological mismatches” (that is, differences between the scales and functioning of interacting social and ecological systems) as one such challenge. We present three case studies in which mismatches between the organization and functioning of key social and ecological systems have contributed to controversies and debates surrounding introduced species management and policy. We identify three common issues: social systems and cultures may adapt to a new species’ arrival at a different rate than ecosystems; ecological impacts can arise at one spatial scale while social impacts occur at another; and the effects of introduced species can spread widely, whereas management actions are constrained by organizational and/or political boundaries. We propose strategies for collaborative knowledge building and adaptive management that may help address these challenges.

© 2017 Elsevier Ltd the surveillance and control of introduced and invasive species has become an increasingly important component of environmental management. However, initiatives targeting ‘charismatic’ wildlife can be controversial. Opposition to management, and the subsequent emergence of social conflict, present significant challenges for would-be managers. Understanding the substance and development of these disputes is therefore vital for improving the legitimacy and effectiveness of wildlife management. It also provides important insights into human-wildlife relations and the 'social dimensions’ of wildlife management. Here, we examine how the attempted eradication of small populations of introduced monk parakeets (Myiopsitta monachus) from England has been challenged and delayed by opposition from interested and affected communities. We consider how and why the UK Government's eradication initiative was opposed, focusing on three key themes: disagreements about justifying management, the development of affective attachments between people and parakeets, and the influence of distrustful and antagonistic relationships between proponents and opponents of management. We draw connections between our UK case and previous management disputes, primarily in the USA, and suggest that the resistance encountered in the UK might readily have been foreseen. We conclude by considering how management of this and other introduced species could be made less conflict-prone, and potentially more effective, by reconfiguring management approaches to be more anticipatory, flexible, sensitive, and inclusive.

© ISAZ 2014. The deserts of the Australian outback are ideal territories for dromedary camels, Camelus dromedarius. Dromedaries' flexible adaptations allow them to eat 80% of Australian plant species and they obtain much of their water through ingesting vegetation; they thrive where other species perish. In many ways, the dromedary could be said to "belong" in this harsh environment. Yet for numerous Australians, particularly ranchers, conservation managers, and increasingly local and national governments, camels are perceived as pests and unwelcome invaders. Anthropologists studying human classifications of non-human animals have suggested that those species or populations that fail to fit neatly into existing classification systems come to be considered "out of place," particularly when they enter human domains or disturb existing perceptual boundaries of environmental order. Through exploring and analyzing academic, government, and media publications, this review proposes that today's Australian dromedaries exemplify "animals out of place" and discusses how and why they have developed this status. It is further suggested that in addition to being classified as "out of place" in Australia, the dromedary has also become "out of time," as its classification has transformed with temporal shifts in human circumstances, cultural values, and worldviews.