Results

76 completed surveys were received between January 26, 2000 and April 12, 2000. 44 of those were received by mail, 32 were received electronically.  54 were received in response to my first email on January 26 and 22 were received in response to a follow up email, sent out on March 6, 2000. (See more details.)                                                                      

Themes

Most of my nursery industry respondents had a strong (self-reported) environmental ethic and quite a few understood the impacts of invasive plants on the ecosystem. Accordingly, most (76/77) of the nursery industry was willing to take some steps to prevent the spread of invasive plants. How far each business is willing to go depends on how much of a threat that they perceive from restriction of their plant sales, how much information they are able to gather on the issue, whether they have industry representatives informing the creation and supervision of programs, and whether they view the development of alternative species as an opportunity for their business. The following themes appeared in the responses to my survey.

Environmentalism

Most respondents had a strong environmental priority (Q14), which suggests that the industry in general views itself as environmentally friendly. Indeed, they work with plants, in the outdoors, and are likely to be quite aware of the ecosystems in their area because they are knowledgeable about the taxonomy and botany of their area – or at least that which relates to horticultural plants. Gardens and gardening in general is often viewed by Americans as an environmentally friendly activity. Smith and Hawken, a gardening catalog and store (not included in my survey) is based on the premise that gardening with their products helps their customers "affirm a real connection to their surroundings in an environmentally responsible way." Despite gardening’s sometimes heavy dependence on chemical fertilizers and pesticides, it is viewed as a way to be environmentally responsible (see the Garden Club of America website). Avoiding invasive plants, however, is not necessarily part of the nursery industry’s view of environmental responsibility.

Defining invasive plants: rapid, uncontrollable, undesirable & anthropocentric

Respondents felt that there were many shortcomings with the definition of invasive plants. Many respondents conceive of invasive plants in terms of their rate of spreading. When respondents were asked to define invasive plants in their own words (Q9), they often (22/72) described invasive plants in terms of particular modes of spreading, especially (by 8) highlighting "rapid" spread and growth. In Q29, when asked if they agreed with the ANLA definition, two mentioned the "time frame" for invasive plants to spread. Respondents who felt that in order to be invasive, plants must spread or grow "rapidly" overlook the fact that there is generally a time lag between a plant's introduction and its invasions. Plant also differ in the amount of time it takes for them to invade (Reichard 1997, Campbell 1997).

Respondents often (19/72, 26%) defined invasive plants as "undesirable" or "unwanted" – without making the connection to the potential harm that invasive plants can have on ecosystems (Q9). This indicates that the respondents may perceive invasive plants as an aesthetic problem rather than an ecological problem. This group of people does not see invasives as a real problem and will be hard-pressed to agree with sales restrictions. This may be because they perceive plant restrictions as merely a matter of taste for indigenous or noninvasive exotic plants. The respondents often also pointed out the difficulty of controlling the plants - suggesting that these nurseries and landscapers only see plants as invasive if they invade the gardens and nurseries that they manage. Yet later in the survey (Q29) 6 of the respondents disagreed with part two of the ANLA/Weed Science Society definition, which includes managed plant systems. These nurseries only defined invasive plants according to their ecological harm; however when nurseries view a plant as controllable or containable, they will be less likely to believe that it also might to invade ecological systems. To be convinced that a plant is worth restricting, the industry must believe that the invasive plant is ecologically harmful. Because most of my respondents reported that they put a high priority on the environment (Q14), most of them may be persuaded to change their behaviors – if they make the connection between the plants that they sell and ecological harm, they may be persuaded to change. Making this connection is the difficult part.

The definition of plants as undesirable and uncontrollable shows that the respondents often considered how invasive plants affected them rather than biodiversity or the ecosystem. When respondents feel that the plants are difficult to control, they are relating the impact to human systems, not natural systems. This view is anthropocentric. 13/73 respondents to Q9 defined invasive plants as those that are difficult to control or eradicate. In Q21, one respondent said that "the proof that a plant cannot be contained by other means" would convince them to stop selling an invasive plant. This illustrates that this and other respondents think in terms of human control over plants and the natural world. It also shows that there seems to be a threshold of control that some nurseries feel is appropriate. In this view, if a plant can be contained through physical or chemical means, then its tendency to escape is tolerable.

In Q13, respondents were asked if they had ever planted an invasive plant in their own garden. 25/76 (33%) admitted that they had. When asked their reason for planting the plant, 5/25 said that they felt that they could control the plant. One respondent felt that "a plant invasive by seed can be controlled with deadheading" and who "dug [the plant] up and composted it when I moved" said that they didn’t "know about the economic harm part" of the ANLA/WSSA definition of invasive plants because "native plants can do that" (Q29). While this respondent felt that they could control an invasive plant, they also felt that plants that require control on human-managed lands should not be included in definitions of "invasive." Unfortunately, not all gardeners know how to – or even care to – control invasive plants. Many invasive plants spread by means that are nearly impossible to contain within a garden, such as Celastrus orbiculatus (oriental bittersweet) whose berries are attractive to birds and may therefore spread easily beyond a garden and beyond a gardener’s control.

Fear of the Unknown: effects of regulation on the industry

Respondents (9/70) often brought up the idea of potential impact on their business and nursery industry (Q10). This points to the possibility that they currently are feeling very little impact (5/9 said that they were currently feeling little or no effect), yet they perceive the sensitivity of the issue and that it might effect them. One respondent said that "It’s a sensitive area that could hurt my business," but then later confessed (Q18) that "I don’t know what laws currently exist!"  These nurseries just perceive a threat by future plant restriction, but they don’t quite know what it will be. Proper education and government-industry alliances can diffuse this notion and demonstrate that plant restriction does not have to be a painful process.

One respondent did not feel that the potential effects would cause a significant change in the industry. "The nursery industry has been the biggest source of invasive plants, mainly exotic species. Sales may decrease for nurseries selling invasives, but many already limit their sales of invasives [in Q12, 37/76, 49%, had already discontinued an invasive plant]. Not much overall change in nursery industry if invasives were eliminated."

Scientific proof

The idea of proving and testing species' ability to invade was mentioned repeatedly by respondents. 24/77 (33%) of respondents brought up the need for more information and/or science on invasive plants (Q10, Q13, Q19, Q28, Q30). 4 respondents explained that they had planted an invasive plant in their own garden because they wanted to test whether the plant was invasive (Q13), while one more said that "no scientific data was available for that plant at that time." 3 of these five mentioned the need for science in Q28, which asked what sort of information they would like to receive on invasive plants in the future. (One wanted "information about the kind and level of damage done by invasives. Specifics. Not just how horrified the Sierra Club was to see a Nandina at their weenie roast.") 3 said more science was needed in current laws and regulations (Q19), 2 of whom also mentioned science in Q28. 58 respondents felt that scientific proof of a plant's ability to invade would persuade them to stop selling it (18/58 of whom brought it up on their own in another question) (Q21a). 6 who did not feel that scientific proof would persuade them to stop selling invasive plants did feel that more science was needed in some other aspect of the issue. 3 of these 6 felt that government decisions needed more science, others wanted information on why a plant is invasive, while one respondent felt that the ANLA/WSSA definition of invasive plants should contain the word "would" in place of "likely to" because it connoted "testing and accuracy". This particular response is a bit ironic considering that the very wording "have or are likely to" was chosen in order to indicate the use of scientific proof. In the "Invasives Roundtable" (1999), Craig Regelbrugge discusses the word choice in the definition, saying "the key concepts in that definition are the '... have, or are likely' which speaks to some burden of scientific proof."

All said that scientific proof would convince them to stop selling invasive plants (Q21a). These five respondents represent a segment of the nursery industry that is not willing to take claims of invasibility with blind faith They represent a challenge to those who wish to follow the precautionary principle.

Government efforts

Many (30% of my respondents) within the nursery industry – including ANLA (an organization whose goal is to represent the nursery industry's in the public policy arena) members – are ignorant of how invasive plants are regulated. In Q18, when participants were asked to say what they thought of government efforts regulating invasive plants ("on a scale of 1-5, do they go '1-too far' or '5-not far enough'") , 18/75 (24%) said that they did not know what they thought, while 26/75 (35%) chose "3", meaning that the respondent either felt that government efforts were sufficient or that they did not want to suggest that the government should increase or decrease its efforts, but did not really know what those efforts might be. Of those who chose "Don’t know", 4 also expressed that they didn’t know what problems there might be with current laws (Q19), 7 didn’t respond to Q19, and 3 expressed that laws should vary by regions. Of those who chose "3" in Q18, 2 said that they didn’t know what problems there might be with current laws (Q19). 3 more respondents (all ANLA) also said that they did not know what problems might exist with laws and regulations when asked in Q19, but chose either 2 or 4 in Q18, inn order to express their impression of the government efforts. Totaling up the respondents who expressed unfamiliarity with current government efforts, 23/77 (30%; 21/68, 31% ANLA) are not familiar with current government efforts, laws and regulations concerning invasive plants. The respondents' unfamiliarity with regulations of invasive plants may indicate that regulations have very little impact on their everyday operations. This presents an educational opportunity in informing nurseries about current and future regulations.

16/76 (21%) of the respondents felt that government efforts "do not go far enough". These people want more enforcement, stronger laws, screening, and more consistency among regulations. 13/76 (17%) of respondents felt that government regulations go too far (Q18). These respondents were dissatisfied with government bureaucracy, the vagueness of the laws, the heavy influence of "extremists" and "radicals" on regulations, the lack of information on invasive plants and the lack of regionally based regulations.

Throughout the survey there seemed to be a common sentiment (held by 7/77, 9%) that extremist groups were influencing invasive plant policies. Some complained (3/7) that there are radicals who blur the distinction between invasive and exotic species. According to one respondent, there are "some very liberal definitions of "invasive" which seem to want to do away with all nonindigenous plants." Others felt that invasive plant policies seem to be informed by irrational extremists. "Many [policies] seem to be of emotional base and not scientific - too many uneducated radicals outside of government" was how one representative of this opinion put it. The common fear may be summed up by saying that these respondents are "afraid that a lot of the people behind this movement have a hard ideological edge to their thinking and just don't like exotics."

In Q21, respondents reported their willingness to participate in various programs meant to percent the spread of invasive plants. 63% (45/71) of respondents said that government prohibition of a group of plants considered invasive would convince them to stop selling those plants. This leaves over one third (26/71, 37%) of respondents who said that they would not be persuaded by government prohibitions, despite what they think of government efforts (Q18, see discussion in Q21). This one third represents the part of the nursery industry unwilling to accept government agencies' opinions of plants as proof of invasiveness. Perhaps not all 33% would disobey the law, but by not choosing this option, they show that they do not respect government decisions and that they would prefer to make their own decisions according to scientific evidence (Q21a, 58/71, 82%) and industry-approved information (Q21b, 50/71, 70%).

Regionalism

One major problem with creating control and prevention programs for invasive plants is that invasions take place within ecological – not political – boundaries, but policies must be created taking political boundaries into account. Respondents brought this up frequently, complaining that state and national-level programs are inappropriate and too broad or that individual state programs are inconsistent and weak due to their lack of coordination with each other. At least 14/77 respondents feel that programs need to be more regionally sensitive.

Respondents put it a few different ways. "There are no bad plants, just poor placements of certain plants. Passing legislation to ban certain plants in all areas across the nation (or even a state) would be a mistake. We strongly feel that education is a better alternative than legislation."

Expressing their frustration with the inconsistencies between state regulations, one respondent said that "there are not any federal laws to deal with new introductions. At the state level each state is acting independently rather than regionally"

Other (at least four) respondents agreed that "invasive plants are area to area - not state to state or even county to county." One said, "If we have more regulations we'll need to establish regional acceptable planting zones even for native species. Otherwise we're just irrationally discriminating against exotic species." Another felt that "some rules may be too broad and do not consider the site or use on all sites. Evaluate the species in question over all sites that it might be used on, if it is too risky it should not be used, however if the risk on some sites or locations are minimal it should not be considered invasive on that site."

Involving the Nursery Industry in decision making

The nursery industry, according to my respondents, feels underrepresented in the policy decision making process. 9/77 (12%) respondents brought up the need for more industry involvement in the decision making process in an open-ended question (Q10, Q13, Q16, Q17, Q19), while 53/77 said that "nursery industry members on decision committees" would persuade them to stop selling invasive plants (Q21b).

One respondent stated their concern with industry representation this way. "Two of your questions that concern me the most concern who should be responsible for preventing invasive plants from entering the US and who should control them once they are here. I answered Federal and State governments respectively. I don't like this answer, but feel they are the only ones who could do it. I would prefer ANLA do this, but do not believe it can. I would expect that whatever branch of the government does this have ANLA on in an official advisory role."

Screening new introductions

Respondents often brought up the need for screening of plants entering the country in order to prevent future invasives. 5 respondents brought up prevention or screening on their own in an open-ended question, while in Q15d (52/76 – 68%) were pro-screening, while only 7/76 (9%) opposed screening it. One respondent who chose "3" on Q15d (meaning that they could neither agree or disagree that "Newly discovered nonindigenous plants should be screened to determine whether they are invasive before they are sold in the US.") said (in Q19) that there is "no good plan to screen new plants." Another, who agreed that new plants should be screened felt that "the invasives issue needs to be dealt with in two ways. One is new introductions which the federal government should handle. The other is plants that are already established here, these plants should be handled on a regional basis."

Alternatives plants

One theme that has come up throughout the survey has been that nurseries feel that many "good" plants are called invasive and are targeted for prohibition. In Q11, 2 respondents admitted that they sold cultivars of Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife) that they believed were not invasive. In Q20d, 89% of respondents were willing to suggest alternatives to invasive plants to their customers. In Q28, which asks what information the respondents are interested in about invasive plants, one expressed an interest in information on alternative plants – this same respondent also said that they saw a "tremendous opportunity" in selling alternative plants (Q10). In Q20b, which asked if survey participants are willing to "Distribute educational pamphlets describing invasive plants and how to deal with them in the garden, and suggesting alternatives to invasive plants," one respondent (who happens to sell hybrid Lythrum) underlined the word "alternatives". Q20f shows that many (38/65, 58%) respondents are willing to develop these alternatives.

One respondent said, in Q30, "many landscape plants, even natives in some areas can become invasive under the right circumstances. Besides banning or drastically limiting these plants, sterile cultivars could be introduced. The ornamental value of the plant would be preserved without worrying about it escaping and disrupting the ecosystem. Before all this happens, any suspect plant should be evaluated and action of no-action should [be] agreed upon by all regulatory groups before introduction or banning. I hope this movement does not end up in ‘witch hunt’ and ban all exotics. Any thoughts to cultivars of native plants that may displace the original species?"

Education

Another reason for the view of the industry as environmentally responsible (Q14) is its role in educating the public. Nurseries and garden centers are a source of information about plants and plant care – in fact, The Nature Conservancy suggests that gardeners who want more information about invasive plants in their area go to local nurseries. 13/77 respondents brought up education on their own in an open-ended question (Q10, Q19, Q30). 6/13 felt that professionals needed to be educated, including nurseries, landscapers, or the respondent him/herself. Others (7/13) felt that gardeners/customers should be educated, and some (2/13) felt that it was their role as nursery professionals to provide this education. Even more respondents said that they were willing to participate in programs designed to educate consumers (Q20). In questions asking what programs nurseries were willing to participate in, many (32/77) said that they already participate in an activity designed to educate consumers, while 70/77 said that they were willing to (or already do) participate in one (Q20b, Q20c, Q20d, Q20h, Q20i, Q20j). 39/77 respondents said that they were willing to participate in programs to educate themselves (Q20g).

Almost one third (25/77) of respondents were willing to take a very active role in educating their customers by conducting workshops on invasive plants. All of the 25 respondents who are willing to conduct workshops (Q20h) already suggest alternative plants to their customers (Q20d) and all but one (who chose "maybe") are willing to hand out educational pamphlets (Q20b). 23/25 said that they would participate in workshops (Q20g) – one did not answer the Q20g and one said Q20g was not applicable. These 25 nurseries are very willing to educate their customers.

26/72 respondents to Q22 said that they felt customers informed of a plants' invasiveness would not buy the plant, suggesting that they were confident in the efficacy of invasive plant education in changing behavior. 3 of those who felt the knowledge that a plant was invasive would not prevent a customer from buying it felt that those customers who would buy the plant "don't understand the problem" meaning that educating customers about the problem may cause them to change their behavior. Then again, this question does not predict customer behavior – it instead shows the confidence that nursery and landscape professionals have in their customers' purchasing decisions.

As I said above, 39/77 respondents were interested in educating themselves on invasive plants by attending workshops (Q20g), while 62/77 were interested in receiving more information on invasive plants (Q28). 66/77 (85%) total respondents were willing to educate themselves about invasive plants. 5 of these 66 expressed this need in other open-ended questions. Educating professionals is a crucial piece to creating effective control programs, as one respondent put it in (Q10), "some resentment from growers, retailers, and plant enthusiasts may exist on occasion, however, when problems are identified and explained properly there is little resistance."

See the results for individual survey questions Survey | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6-7 | Q8 | Q9 |Q10 | Q11 | Q12 | Q13 | Q14 |  Q15 | Q16 | Q17 | Q18 | Q19 | Q20 | Q21 | Q22 | Q23-24 | Q25 | Q26-27 | Q28 | Q29 | Q30