DOI: 10.5061/dryad.ncjsxkt4k
title: Data from: Urban residents impressions of Invasive Alien Plants in South African towns

description: Invasive alien species are considered a major contributor to biodiversity
 loss. Yet many are favoured for particular ecosystem services that they
 provide. This is often so in urban environments experiencing rapid
 environmental and social change and land transformation. Public support is
 viewed as critical for invasive alien species prevention and management.
 Furthermore, it is assumed that local citizens are more likely to be
 willing and ready to engage if they are informed about the costs and
 benefits associated with invasive alien species. However, the use of, and
 attitudes towards, invasive alien species in urban areas is poorly
 understood, especially regarding urban gardens under private ownership and
 control. This lack of understanding is likely to compromise potential
 management interventions. Here we report on a survey of 240 people across
 12 small towns in the Eastern Cape province of South Africa to determine
 their knowledge and perceptions regarding woody invasive alien plants
 (IAPs), their willingness to engage in control, and how these vary in
 relation to respondent attributes. The findings indicated that respondents
 have low levels of knowledge about woody IAPs despite 84 % of them having
 at least one woody IAP species in their garden. Nineteen different woody
 IAPs were noted across the sample of 240 households. A wide range of
 ecosystem services and disservices from woody IAPs were mentioned. Because
 of the benefits provided, or the effort required to remove them, only 56 %
 of respondents were willing to have the woody IAPs removed from their
 gardens, with most considering it the responsibility of government
 agencies to do so. There was a positive association between the levels of
 education, income, and the impression that woody IAPs pose a problem and
 being aware of the term, but not willingness to remove them. 
 Synthesis & implications: These results reveal the complex
 relationship that urban citizens have with IAPs in gardens settings, and
 for authorities to consider appropriate and targeted awareness campaigns
 if control strategies are to be successful.
description: In each of the 12 study towns, 20 residential households were
 randomly selected using Google Earth. To randomly select households in
 each town, each household was identified on Google Earth, assigned a
 unique number, and then a random sample drawn, using Microsoft Excel.
 Randomly selected households were then approached for face-to-face 
 interviewers and in situations where there was nobody available or willing
 in a randomly selected household, the next available household was
 sampled. Permission was asked from the owner to survey their garden and
 list any woody Invasive Alien Plants (IAP) present. Within the selected
 households, a willing adult respondent was interviewed to gather
 information on knowledge, perceptions and willingness to control woody
 IAPs. The interviews were conducted either in IsiXhosa, English,
 Afrikaans, or according to the respondent’s preference. If the preference
 was another language, then a translator was hired to assist and recorded
 the responses which were later translated. The interviews were conducted
 between 10 am and 5 pm on weekdays and weekends, during February 2021 and
 March 2021. The structured questionnaire was divided
 into three sections and took approximately 30-40 minutes to complete. The
 first section covered topics on knowledge and perceptions of woody IAPs.
 Participants were also asked to rate their knowledge of woody IAPs on a
 five-point scale (1 having no knowledge and 5 being highly knowledgeable).
 The second section of the questionnaire captured information about the
 willingness to have IAPs removed from their garden. The demographic
 profile of respondents was recorded in the last section, including age,
 gender, and level of education (see Appendix 1). The research protocol and
 questionnaire were approved by the Rhodes University Ethics Committee
 (reference number 2020-1638-4758). A copy of the questionnaire is provided
 as supplementary materials to the published paper.  The
 data from the interviews were analysed in Statistica Version 13, after
 classifying nominal answers into numerical codes. The potential
 relationships were assessed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with
 variables scaled between zero and one against the highest value, mainly
 demographics and knowledge of IAP, the identification of IAP, willingness
 to remove IAP from garden and willingness to participate in an
 environmental initiative. Particular associations of interest were tested
 via correlation analysis. We used a Chi-squared test to examine if there
 was any association between the proportion of respondents mentioning
 particular IAPs and their corresponding proportional contribution to the
 total number of IAP individuals reported by Seboko et al.
 (2024).
description: # Data from: Urban residents impressions of Invasive Alien Plants in South
 African towns
 [https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.ncjsxkt4k](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.ncjsxkt4k) The data set provides data from the interview sample of urban respondents in 12 towns in South Africa, with 20 interviews per town, providing a total of 240 samples. Thereafter, the columns of data follow the questions posed in the interview questionnaire provided in supplementary materials. Data codes are provided. Not all respondents answered every question of the survey; thus blank responses are indicated using n/a. The number of indirect identifiers was reduced and limited to three (town, age, gender). Column A: name of town. Column B: Had the respondent heard of Invasive Alien Plants (IAP) before (1=yes; 2=no). Column C: if a respondent answered yes to the previous question, then what was the source the information? Column D: self-rating of the extent of the their knowledge about IAP (1=none; 2=poor; 3=neutral; 4=high; 5= very high) Column E: did the respondent know if they had any IAP species in their garden (1=yes; 2=no; 3=don't know). Columns F: if a respondent answered yes to the previous question, then they were asked if they count point it out and name it (=yes; 2=no). Columns G: the IAP name provided by the respondent Columns H: whether or not the a respondent viewed IAPs as problems to the environment generally (yes; no; don't know). Columns I: if they said yes to the previous question, then list the problems caused by IAPs. Columns J: does the IAP provided any benefits (1=yes; 2=no; 3=don't know). Column K: if they said yes to the previous question, then list the benefits provided by the IAP. Column L: had the respondent seen any awareness campaigns about IAPs (1=yes; 2=no). Columns M-Q: if yes to the previous question, then indicate the medium used by the campaign (answering 1=yes or 2=no for each option). Column R: what sort of information would the respondent like to know about IAPs?. Columns S-W: if yes to the previous question, then indicate the type of information required(answering 1=yes or 2=no for each option). Column X: Had respondents ever participated in an environmental (1=yes; 2=no). Column Y: if yes to the previous question, then state what sort of activity. Column Z: is the respondent willing to participate in the control of IAPs (1=yes; 2=no). Column AA: If they were unwilling, why were they unwilling (reason) Column AB: who do they think should be responsible for controlling IAPs. Column AC-AI: options for who the respondent thinks should be responsible (1=yes or 2=no for each option)  Column AJ: We informed the respondent of any IAP in their garden and asked if they could name it. (1=yes; 2=no). Column AK: was the respondent willing to report the presence of the IAP in their garden to the relevant authorities (1yes; 2=no). Column AL: If they answer no to the previous question, they they were asked to provide reasons. Column AM: was the respondent willing to have the IAP in their garden removed (1=yes; 2=no). Column AN: the reasons for the answer to the previous question. Column AO: the age of the respondent into decadal age classes (1=18-30 yrs; 2= 31-40 yrs; 3= 41-50 yrs; 4= 51-60 yrs; 5=61-70 yrs; 6=&gt;70 yrs). Column AP: gender of the respondent (1=male; 2=female).