# Supplementary material 1

## HOMED stakeholder survey

Authors: Samantha Green, Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz, Jassy Drakulic, René Eschen, Christophe Orazio, Jacob C. Douma, Karl Lundén, Fernanda Colombari, Hervé Jactel
Data type: PDF file

Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.

Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.84.95761.suppl1

# Supplementary material 2

## Supplementary tables and figures

Authors: Samantha Green, Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz, Jassy Drakulic, René Eschen, Christophe Orazio, Jacob C. Douma, Karl Lundén, Fernanda Colombari, Hervé Jactel
Data type: tables and figures

Explanation note: fig. S1: Role types and group sizes represented within each of the six stakeholders' groups produced by cluster analysis; fig. S2: Respondent profiles regarding country, sector, focus and geographic range of work relating to PnPs; fig. S3: Tools and methods used by the 6 stakeholder groups for (A) detection and identification of PnPs and (B) for management of PnPs; fig. S4: Efficacy rating for methods to manage three PnP case studies: ALB = Asian longhorn beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis), OPM = Oak processionary moth (Thaumetopoea processionea), PRA = Phytophthora ramorum. table S1: Confusion matrix; table S2: All GLMM variables; table S3: Model including urban variable in first model shown in table S4; table S4: Factors explaining stakeholders' awareness of PNPs (model 1 a, b), i.e. if they scored a species or not and how correct (Knowledge) their scores were with regard to presence or absence of PNPs in their country (model 2a, b). Anova results of GLMMs. Both models are presented in two versions, with the second version replacing the PNP variable with the binary variables "insect" and "EU-priority" pest; table S5: Factors explaining individual respondents' proportion of PnPs scored correctly as present or absent in their country (model 3). Anova results of the GLMM model; table S6: Efficacy of three PnP methods (no urban/rural grouping); table S7: Linear model for efficacy rating of primary management methods used against 3 PnP case studies.

Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.

Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.84.95761.suppl2
# Supplementary material 1

## HOMED stakeholder survey

Authors: Samantha Green, Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz, Jassy Drakulic, René Eschen, Christophe Orazio, Jacob C. Douma, Karl Lundén, Fernanda Colombari, Hervé Jactel
Data type: PDF file

Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.

Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.84.95761.suppl1

# Supplementary material 2

## Supplementary tables and figures

Authors: Samantha Green, Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz, Jassy Drakulic, René Eschen, Christophe Orazio, Jacob C. Douma, Karl Lundén, Fernanda Colombari, Hervé Jactel
Data type: tables and figures

Explanation note: fig. S1: Role types and group sizes represented within each of the six stakeholders’ groups produced by cluster analysis; fig. S2: Respondent profiles regarding country, sector, focus and geographic range of work relating to PnPs; fig. S3: Tools and methods used by the 6 stakeholder groups for (A) detection and identification of PnPs and (B) for management of PnPs; fig. S4: Efficacy rating for methods to manage three PnP case studies: ALB = Asian longhorn beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis), OPM = Oak processionary moth (Thaumetopoea processionea), PRA = Phytophthora ramorum. table S1: Confusion matrix; table S2: All GLMM variables; table S3: Model including urban variable in first model shown in table S4; table S4: Factors explaining stakeholders’ awareness of PNPs (model 1 a, b), i.e. if they scored a species or not and how correct (Knowledge) their scores were with regard to presence or absence of PNPs in their country (model 2a, b). Anova results of GLMMs. Both models are presented in two versions, with the second version replacing the PNP variable with the binary variables “insect” and “EU-priority” pest; table S5: Factors explaining individual respondents’ proportion of PnPs scored correctly as present or absent in their country (model 3). Anova results of the GLMM model; table S6: Efficacy of three PnP methods (no urban/rural grouping); table S7: Linear model for efficacy rating of primary management methods used against 3 PnP case studies.

Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.

Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.84.95761.suppl2