A global online survey analysed 20,420 valid adult responses from 54 countries across all inhabited continents. Awareness and understanding of invasive alien species were low and appeared to vary more with individual sociodemographic characteristics than national social-ecological context. More aware respondents expressed more negative IAS perceptions and greater support for management, yet a large majority did not support most proposed measures. Communication and engagement matter, but survey associations do not show that information alone will produce acceptance.
Key findings
- The cleaned dataset comprised 20,420 respondents in 54 countries, a 23-language questionnaire, and 20 proposed management actions.
- Overall awareness and understanding were low, and differences were associated more with individual sociodemographic characteristics than country social-ecological context.
- Greater awareness was associated with more negative IAS perceptions and more management support, but most respondents did not support most measures.
Why this matters globally
IAS control can involve measures perceived as harmful, risky, or unfair, so low trust and understanding can delay or derail action. This large dataset can inform audience- and method-specific engagement, but generating negative sentiment should not become the goal. Communication should transparently address impacts, alternatives, animal welfare, uncertainty, and decision processes.
Thai researcher contribution
Ratcha Chaichana of Kasetsart University's Faculty of Environment contributed to the international network and helped situate Thailand within a multilingual, multi-region survey. The role connects Thai environmental-management expertise with global questions about awareness, acceptance, and IAS governance.
Limitations to consider
A commercial online panel and roughly 400 respondents per country do not guarantee national representativeness; people without internet access and marginalized groups may be underrepresented. Species-name recall may undercount local knowledge, translations and management meanings can vary culturally, hypothetical support is not behaviour, and cross-sectional associations do not show that awareness causes support.