Alaska Visitors’ Knowledge about Invasive Species in a Warming Arctic

Alaska Visitors’ Knowledge about Invasive Species in a Warming Arctic | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Alaska Visitors’ Knowledge about Invasive Species in a Warming Arctic Michele Remer, Izabella Block, Elizabeth Perry, Jennifer Schmidt, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7383932/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 29 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in Biological Invasions → Version 1 posted 5 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract As the climate warms and sea ice continues to melt, an increase in overall shipping traffic to the Arctic and to local communities is expected. Specifically, cruise ships have led to higher numbers of visitors to the Arctic. As a secondary effect of increased human activity in the Arctic, invasive species prevention and removal will become a priority, especially as species’ ranges continue to shift with the warming climate. Thus, it is important to have a baseline of visitor knowledge of invasive species in the region to promote robust monitoring. To evaluate visitor knowledge, we conducted visitor intercept surveys in three Alaskan towns that experience tourism. Results show that owning watercraft led to an increase in knowledge, but increased knowledge did not lead to any changes in behavior. Increased invasive species knowledge did not differ between traveler groups. Our research demonstrates the need to consider spillover effects from tourism and a potential need to focus on systemic policy changes instead of educational campaigns to encourage cleaning gear. Introduction Increased globalization and economic growth have led to a rapid increase in tourists traveling longer distances (Henok, 2021 ). Tourism is a large proportion of many countries’ GDP, making it economically important worldwide (Remer & Liu, 2022 ). The Arctic in particular has had a large increase in tourism, with summer tourism quadrupling and winter tourism increasing by over 600% between 2006 and 2016 (Runge et al., 2020 ). Despite the economic benefits of tourism, there can be detrimental ecological impacts that affect both Arctic communities and natural systems. One such ecological impact associated with travel is a concurrent increase in species invasion. Many studies have explored the connections between tourism and invasive species (Alsos et al., 2015 ; Huiskes et al., 2014 ). For example, Huiskes and colleagues ( 2014 ) found that scientists and research stations were the main drivers behind the spread of alien species that have become invasive in Antarctica, as they had traveled to areas with similar ecotypes. Antarctica has less human activity than the Arctic due to the absence of permanent human settlements, meaning that it is important to monitor the Arctic for invasives. Alien species are taxa not native to an area that have been introduced because of human activity and can also be called exotic, non-native or nonindigenous species (Richardson et al., 2000 ). Invasive species are taxa that have been introduced to an area and have the potential to spread to a larger area, crowding out native species (Richardson et al., 2000 ). In the Arctic, there are more introduction points compared to Antarctica due to higher human activity. Given the high number of introduction points, it can be difficult to trace where certain alien species originate. For example, Elodea Michx ., an invasive aquatic macrophyte, had multiple introduction pathways to Southcentral Alaska (Carey et al., 2016 ). The macrophyte originally reached Alaska through home aquarium dumping into water bodies and was suspected to have spread by floating along connected water bodies (Carey et al., 2016 ). From original introductions, Elodea continued spreading to other waters through floatplanes and boats not being cleaned before use in other water bodies. This is but one example of an invasive species causing ecological damage to Alaska’s lakes by increasing sedimentation, degrading fish habitat, and displacing native species, while also fouling floatplane and boat rudders (Larsen et al., 2020 ). Invasive species across Alaska also cause pronounced economic damage (average $ 5.8 million annually), while eradication costs $ 1.2 million annually from 2007–2011 (Schwörer et al., 2012 ). This number has likely increased with inflation, and during that time, 84% of the funding came from the federal government (Schwörer et al., 2012 ). Lastly, the majority of the spending on invasive species in Alaska was on terrestrial plants (41%), with land animals following closely behind (38%; mostly eradication of rats on the Aleutian Islands) (Schwörer et al., 2012 ). Because Arctic tourism is expected to continue increasing (Chen et al., 2021 ), it is important to study how this increase may contribute to the spread of alien species. Wasowicz et al. ( 2020 ) found that tourism was the third and fourth highest most active pathway for both naturalized (species with widespread dispersal that has become part of natural flora) (Richardson et al., 2000 ) and invasive taxa, respectively. However, the growth in Arctic shipping has long been predicted to increase the rate of marine and terrestrial invasives (M. Hall & Saarinen, 2010 ). Vectors include cruise ships, where in addition to hull fouling, ballast water exchange, and wastewater discharge (M. Hall & Saarinen, 2010 ), seeds can spread from visitors’ shoes and gear as they disembark. Other vectors related to tourism include angling equipment, hitchhikers in or on airplane, wood packaging, vehicles (including ATVs (all-terrain vehicles) and ORVs (off-road vehicles)), and other means of transport (Wasowicz et al., 2020 ). Due to the many introduction pathways and the ability to move them beyond conventional roads through floatplane and ATV/ORV movement, early detection and monitoring for invasive species is of the utmost importance in the Arctic. Given this physical spread of alien species via tourism, more understanding is needed about visitor knowledge of species invasion. If visitors are unaware of how they can potentially spread alien species, then more education may be a first step in prevention (Henok, 2021 ). A person’s knowledge of species invasion does not necessarily translate into better individual biosecurity measures, or pro-environmental behavior (Kalnicky et al., 2019 ), so this research can be used to inform future policy decisions and innovative tactics at a local level. Our primary objectives were to ascertain visitors' knowledge of invasive species and visitor travel history to assess transportation risk of invasive species. Thus, we investigated the following hypotheses: (H1) watercraft owners will be more knowledgeable about invasives than those who do not own a boat, (H2) cleaning gear (e.g., shoes, clothes, bags, walking poles) between uses/locations will result in higher knowledge of invasives, and (H3) highly-traveled visitors will have a higher knowledge of invasive species. To address our hypotheses, we distributed an intercept survey to Alaska tourists in Nome, Seward, and Anchorage. We focused survey efforts mostly on Nome, as the city plans to expand a deep-water port to accommodate larger ships (USACE - Alaska District, 2025 ). By studying tourism’s potential invasive species impacts before port construction, we can assist local communities in building preparedness because invasive species can impact this unique ecosystem and put local communities’ subsistence lifestyle at risk. We also selected Nome for its limited invasive species introduction points. Nome is only accessible by plane or boat; there are no roads connecting Nome to outside locations. Therefore, vehicles can only serve as a vector if shipped long-distance via a barge or aircraft, minimizing the distribution of invasive species from typical vehicles. In addition to conventional automobiles, rural Alaskan vehicles include ATVs and ORVs, meaning that new species can be introduced beyond the road system to more remote parts of the Arctic. As a control group and to increase responses in this inductive study, we also administered surveys in Seward and Anchorage. We collected data in June of 2024, at all three sites, and again in August 2024, primarily in Nome and Seward. Methods Researchers pre-tested the survey following Thiemer et al. (2023). We pre-tested surveys qualitatively, by sending the survey to other scientists to provide comments and feedback on the survey, and we also distributed the surveys to family and friends, specifically those who had been on cruises in the past. In total, we received feedback from 10 people on this version of the survey. Studies such as Johnston et al. (2017) advocate for quantitative pre-testing, but this was not feasible due to time and budget limits. This work examines a subset of the survey questions (Appendix 1). Responses were anonymous and voluntary and followed Institutional Review Board’s protocols. We primarily collected data using a stratified design to intercept visitors before they returned to their cruise ship. Some sites also captured airline passengers in the sample and analysis. Specifically, these were individuals who reached our intercept site by flying and did not cruise at all. Surveying was predominantly via hardcopy questionnaires, though an online version of the survey in German was available for this known visitor group. We provided a German version because a cruise line advertised that both English and German would be spoken aboard (Hurtigruten, 2025 ). Both forms of the questionnaire were distributed in-person near the harbor or at a local gathering spot (e.g., festival, conference centers). To minimize respondent burden on these visitors, we requested participation while they were waiting to board the bus for their next destination, or when they returned from their excursions. For those who stated they “didn’t have time” to answer, we provided the option of returning completed surveys through business reply mail. Once all responses were returned in-person or by mail, we input the data into a designated survey software program (Qualtrics XM). Each survey location underwent a 10% data entry re-check for enhanced validity. Next, the data were imported into R (version (4.4.2)) for statistical analysis using base R functions, the tidyverse, and the stats package (R Core Team, 2025 ). To qualify for inclusion, respondents had to answer at least two of the four knowledge questions. We calculated knowledge scores for respondents who answered through percentages of numbers of “yes” divided by the total number of valid answers (selection of “yes” or “no”). In total, 262 respondents answered at least two of the four questions and were included in the analysis. Because answering at least half of the questions showed engagement, we decided not to exclude participants for incomplete entry (i.e., one or two questions left unanswered). We also decided not to exclude based on skipping particular questions, instead making the inclusion criteria as a relative percentage correct. For the second hypothesis, we created a binary variable with 0 corresponding to a respondent reporting that they did not clean at least one item that they brought with them, and 1 corresponding to a respondent reporting that they cleaned all their gear. The four gear types that we asked about were shoes, clothing, bags, and walking poles. We measured traveler frequency via respondents’ listing the number of countries in which they had spent at least one day in the past twelve months. We then grouped visitors based on the data distribution into 4 groups: 1 (stayed in home country), 2 (1–4 other countries), 3 (5–9 other countries), and 4 (have traveled to 10 + countries). Highly-traveled visitors were those who had visited multiple countries in the past year, either by listing them or stating that they had visited too many countries to list. To understand whether watercraft or behavior impacted knowledge, we conducted t-tests with the percentage of correct knowledge questions as the dependent variable. Because traveler intensity had multiple categories, an ANOVA was used to test our hypothesis about traveler intensity. A Tukey post-hoc test was then completed as appropriate. Results The overall response rate was 51.4% (n = 275) and the response rate for surveys distributed in Nome, Seward, and Anchorage was 68.4% (n = 182), 41.4% (n = 52), and 21.0% (n = 41), respectively, meaning that we surpassed our minimum threshold of 30 responses each for statistical comparison. We also obtained convenience samples at an unstaffed station in the Nome Visitor’s Center (not included in response rate calculations; n = 23). In total, we collected 298 responses across all survey types. Visitor characteristics were as follows. The majority were traveling with family (61.7%), followed by solo (15%) or with friends (12%). Respondents identified as female (60.8%); male (37.9%); or non-binary, prefer to self-describe, or prefer not to say (1.3%). Two-thirds (64.7%) of respondents answered the household income question, with their most often noted income category being $ 100,001 - $ 150,000. Out of the 218 respondents who answered the education question, 89.9% held a Bachelor’s degree or higher. The percentages of knowledge questions answered correctly ranged from 0 to 100% and had an average of 25.6% correct. For the second hypothesis, we excluded those who did not answer at least one question about how they cleaned their gear. Because all gear was a potential pathway for invasive species, respondents had to clean all their gear to qualify as a “yes” for whether they cleaned their gear. Out of the 220 respondents who answered at least one gear cleaning question, 23.2% (n = 51) did not clean their bags, while 18.6% (n = 41) did not clean their shoes. The results from the t-tests, regression, and ANOVA showed differences for two of our hypotheses. We determined knowledge levels differed significantly with watercraft owners scoring higher on the knowledge tests than those who do not own a boat (Table 1 ). We found that knowledge did not result in a behavioral change, but the average knowledge score was higher for those who did not clean their gear than those who did (H2). We also did not find evidence of knowledge differing significantly based on travel frequency (H3). Table 1 Summary of results for our three hypotheses: (H1) watercraft owners will be more knowledgeable about invasives than those who do not own a boat, (H2) cleaning gear between uses/locations will result in higher knowledge of invasives, and (H3) highly-traveled visitors will have a higher knowledge of invasive species. Question Answer; N Average Knowledge Score Test; Value H1: Do you own a watercraft? N = 262 Yes; n = 47 52.8% T-Test; t(74) = -11.7, p < 0.001 No; n = 215 19.7% H2: Cleaned all gear? N = 220 Yes; n = 145 25.3% T-Test; t(151.2) = 1.4, p = 0.15 No; n = 75 29.9% H3: Number of Countries Visited N = 240 Home country; n = 33 30.3% ANOVA; F(3, 236) = 2.3, p = 0.078 1–4 countries; n = 135 24.8% 5–9 countries; n = 46 31.7% 10 + countries; n = 26 18.9% Discussion Our results were consistent with other studies that knowledge does not necessarily lead to a change in behavior (Kemp et al., 2017 ; Perry et al., 2014 ). We found that watercraft owners had higher knowledge scores than those who did not own watercraft. Previous studies found that cleaning watercraft through the “Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers” campaigns and other related outreach campaigns are often well-known by recreationists (Kemp et al., 2017 ), but not necessarily by the public. Therefore, future educational campaigns for tourists traveling to new areas should focus on non-recreationists. Additionally, some plant, bacterial, or fungal materials may survive the cleaning process (Huiskes et al., 2014 ), which would need special attention in knowledge and practice for visitors to ecologically fragile settings like the Arctic. Other behaviors may also lead to spreading invasive species, such as importing wood products with an alien insect (Hulme, 2009 ), or the dumping of an aquarium or landscaping plants and pets in a water body (Carey et al., 2016 ). However, further research should be completed on whether behavior established in this study (specifically cleaning of gear) can thwart the spread of invasives. Gear can include clothing and footwear but can also include personal watercraft and larger boats. Linking visitor movement beyond knowledge and to behavior is important for continued monitoring of Arctic invasive species, especially as a potentially more diverse and less traveled set of visitors engage in “last chance” tourism to places like the Arctic, facilitated by greater vessel traffic access. Those with lower knowledge of invasives, but who travel less, will be at a much lower risk for spreading an alien species compared to those who travel regularly to places with higher biodiversity (Huiskes et al., 2014 ). Additionally, travelers who spend more time in low-altitude, tropical locations will be less likely to introduce a species that can establish a viable population in the Arctic. Relating this back to tourism, cruise ships that travel to Antarctica often have suits maintained only for these pristine areas, to comply with strict biosecurity protocols (Huiskes et al., 2014 ). Some, but much fewer Alaskan cruises have similar uniform requirements (Remer, unpublished data). In Alaska, larger ships (1,000 + passengers) appeared to have fewer biosecurity protocols compared to smaller ships (Remer, unpublished data). However, further research on cruise ship biosecurity protocols on differing ship sizes is needed to determine the risk that cruise passengers may pose when traveling. We expected those who traveled the most frequently to have the most knowledge of invasive species due to more potential encounters at invasive species checkpoints. Even though our results showed no difference between our groupings, those who traveled to 5–9 other countries or those who stayed home had the highest amount of knowledge (Table 1 ), which could mean those who stay in their country have more time to learn about their local ecosystems. For those who travel to a relatively smaller number of countries, it could be that they travel to places with stricter biosecurity protocols. These results are limited by the lack of data available, as many respondents did not answer the full battery of knowledge questions, potentially suppressing the number of “most knowledgeable” visitors. Further research is needed to validate these results, with a focus on survey design to ensure participants answer the questions needed for analysis. Finally, we recognize that despite knowledge levels, there may be a perception about the Arctic as “inhospitable” that visitors may think negates need for behaviors to reduce introducing invasive species, as any species may have difficulty surviving Arctic conditions. This perception should also be probed further. For the Arctic, there is a large concern for alien species establishing populations and spreading from the point of introduction, leading to eventual invasion. Compared to other isolated places that have robust biosecurity measures, like New Zealand and Antarctica, the Arctic does not have an overarching policy in place to prevent invasives establishing via human vectors (C. M. Hall et al., 2010 ). Since permafrost cover is rapidly degrading (Druckenmiller et al., 2024 ), this will invoke a host of new research questions. After disturbance, alien species have the opportunity to colonize a new area through competition with native species (Theoharides & Dukes, 2007 ). However, species that rely on permafrost or other rare habitats endangered by warming temperatures (e.g., high-altitude species) are more threatened by indirect effects such as introduced southern species or range shifts further north, as many terrestrial and marine Arctic species will be able to adapt to increased temperature and radiation (Callaghan et al., 2004 ; Moore & Huntington, 2008 ). Therefore, species that move to occupy these areas may be considered alien, but some may naturally move north as their range becomes constricted and higher latitudes become increasingly more climate-conducive (Lenoir et al., 2024 ). These range shifts have implications outside the Arctic as managers consider how to prioritize invasive species removal with competing priorities and limited funds, while still acknowledging the longstanding and still growing tourism allure of both Arctic natural environments and the unique local communities hosting tourists. Increased instances of species invasions will continue to be an issue for tourism globally. Therefore, it is imperative to understand how to minimize the impact of invasive species, in addition to other negative environmental impacts of tourism. We found that visitor knowledge is not a good predictor of a change in behavior, so we must continue to explore both systemic biosecurity policies (e.g., shoe wash station when exiting a port, airport inspections) and other ways of promoting individual behavioral change to curb the introduction of potentially harmful species to Arctic ecosystems. Statements and Declarations Funding We gratefully acknowledge funding received from the National Science Foundation (Grant No. 2032786 & 2033507), as well as additional funding sources for MR (Fellow ID: 2023334941 & MSU University Distinguished Fellowship, Vera M. Wallach Fellowship, MSU College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Alumni Association Scholarship, John Peters and Marietta Peters Endowed Fellowship, MSU Research Enhancement Award). Competing interests The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. CRediT authorship contribution statement Michele Remer : Conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, software, validation, visualization, writing- original draft, writing – review and editing. Izabella Block : Data curation, investigation, software, visualization, writing -review and editing. Elizabeth Perry : conceptualization, methodology, supervision, writing – review and editing. Jennifer Schmidt : Funding acquisition, project administration, resources, supervision, writing - review and editing. Jianguo Liu : Funding acquisition, project administration, resources, supervision, writing - review and editing. Code availability Code is available upon request from the corresponding author. Compliance with Ethical Standards The study was reviewed by Michigan State University’s Institutional Review Board and was classified as exempt. All participants were provided with an informed consent document. Acknowledgements We are grateful to the participants sharing their time and perspectives, and to the research team members involved in the on-site data collections. We especially appreciate the time and energy Shauntel Bruner-Alvanna dedicated to assist in data collection. We also would like to acknowledge Nick Manning and Joris Van Zeghbroeck for their insightful comments on a previous version of this manuscript. References Alsos, I. G., Ware, C., & Elven, R. (2015). Past Arctic aliens have passed away, current ones may stay. Biological Invasions , 17 (11), 3113–3123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-0937-9 Callaghan, T. V., Björn, L. O., Chernov, Y., Chapin, T., Christensen, T. R., Huntley, B., Ims, R. A., Johansson, M., Jolly, D., Jonasson, S., Matveyeva, N., Panikov, N., Oechel, W., Shaver, G., Elster, J., Henttonen, H., Laine, K., Taulavuori, K., Taulavuori, E., & Zöckler, C. (2004). Biodiversity, Distributions and Adaptations of Arctic Species in the Context of Environmental Change. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment , 33 (7), 404–417. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-33.7.404 Carey, M. P., Sethi, S. A., Larsen, S. J., & Rich, C. F. (2016). A primer on potential impacts, management priorities, and future directions for Elodea spp. in high latitude systems: Learning from the Alaskan experience. Hydrobiologia , 777 (1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-016-2767-x Chen, J. S., Wang, W., Jensen, O., Kim, H., & Liu, W.-Y. (2021). Perceived impacts of tourism in the Arctic. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change , 19 (4), 494–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2020.1735403 Druckenmiller, M. L., Thoman, R. L., Moon, T. A., Andreassen, L. M., Ballinger, T. J., Berner, L. T., Bernhard, G. H., Bhatt, U. S., Bigalke, S., Bjerke, J. W., Box, J. E., Brettschneider, B., Brubaker, M., Burgess, D., Butler, A. H., Christiansen, H. H., Decharme, B., Derksen, C., Divine, D., … Yang, D. (2024). State of the Climate in 2023: The Arctic . https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-24-0101.1 Hall, C. M., James, M., & Wilson, S. (2010). Biodiversity, biosecurity, and cruising in the Arctic and sub-Arctic. Journal of Heritage Tourism , 5 (4), 351–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2010.517845 Hall, M., & Saarinen, J. (2010). Tourism and Change in Polar Regions: Climate, Environments and Experiences . Routledge & CRC Press. https://www.routledge.com/Tourism-and-Change-in-Polar-Regions-Climate-Environments-and-Experiences/Hall-Saarinen/p/book/9781138880665 Henok, B. G. (2021). Factors determining international tourist flow to tourism destinations: A systematic review. Journal of Hospitality Management and Tourism , 12 (1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.5897/JHMT2019.0276 Huiskes, A. H. L., Gremmen, N. J. M., Bergstrom, D. M., Frenot, Y., Hughes, K. A., Imura, S., Kiefer, K., Lebouvier, M., Lee, J. E., Tsujimoto, M., Ware, C., Van de Vijver, B., & Chown, S. L. (2014). Aliens in Antarctica: Assessing transfer of plant propagules by human visitors to reduce invasion risk. Biological Conservation , 171 , 278–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.01.038 Hulme, P. E. (2009). Trade, transport and trouble: Managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. Journal of Applied Ecology , 46 (1), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01600.x Hurtigruten. (2025). MS Trollfjord: Discover Norway’s Coastal Majesty . Hurtigruten. https://www.hurtigruten.com/en-us/ships/ms-trollfjord Kalnicky, E. A., Brunson, M. W., & Beard, K. H. (2019). Predictors of Participation in Invasive Species Control Activities Depend on Prior Experience with the Species. Environmental Management , 63 (1), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1126-2 Kemp, C., van Riper, C., BouFajreldin, L., Stewart, W., Scheunemann, J., & van den Born, R. (2017). Connecting human-nature relationships to environmental behaviors that minimize the spread of aquatic invasive species. Biological Invasions , 19 (7), 2059–2074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1418-0 Larsen, A., Schwöerer, T., Simmons, T., & Fulkerson, J. (2020). Elodea: Alaska’s first invasive aquatic plant continues to march across the state. Alaska Park Science , 19 (1), 92–99. https://www.nps.gov/articles/aps-19-1-14.htm Lenoir, J., Svenning, J.-C., & Sheffer, M. M. (2024). Latitudinal and Elevational Range Shifts Under Contemporary Climate Change. In S. M. Scheiner (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Biodiversity (Third Edition) (pp. 690–709). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822562-2.00386-8 Moore, S. E., & Huntington, H. P. (2008). Arctic Marine Mammals and Climate Change: Impacts and Resilience. Ecological Applications , 18 (sp2), S157–S165. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-0571.1 Perry, E. E., Needham, M. D., Cramer, L. A., & Rosenberger, R. S. (2014). Coastal resident knowledge of new marine reserves in Oregon: The impact of proximity and attachment. Ocean & Coastal Management , 95 , 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.04.011 R Core Team. (2025). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [R]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/ Remer, M., & Liu, J. (2022). International Tourism in the Arctic under COVID-19: A Telecoupling Analysis of Iceland. Sustainability , 14 (22), Article 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215237 Richardson, D. M., Pysek, P., Rejmanek, M., Barbour, M. G., Panetta, F. D., & West, C. J. (2000). Naturalization and Invasion of Alien Plants: Concepts and Definitions. Diversity and Distributions , 6 (2), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1472-4642.2000.00083.x Runge, C. A., Daigle, R. M., & Hausner, V. H. (2020). Quantifying tourism booms and the increasing footprint in the Arctic with social media data. PLOS ONE , 15 (1), e0227189. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227189 Schwörer, T., Federer, R., Ferren, H., & Center, A. S. (2012). Managing Invasive Species: How Much Do We Spend? Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage. http://hdl.handle.net/11122/3919 Theoharides, K. A., & Dukes, J. S. (2007). Plant invasion across space and time: Factors affecting nonindigenous species success during four stages of invasion. New Phytologist , 176 (2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02207.x USACE - Alaska District. (2025). USACE accepting bids for first phase of Port of Nome project construction . Pacific Ocean Division. https://www.pod.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/Article/4136382/usace-accepting-bids-for-first-phase-of-port-of-nome-project-construction/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pod.usace.army.mil%2FMedia%2FNews-Releases%2FArticle%2F4136382%2Fusace-accepting-bids-for-first-phase-of-port-of-nome-project-construction%2F Wasowicz, P., Sennikov, A. N., Westergaard, K. B., Spellman, K., Carlson, M., Gillespie, L. J., Saarela, J. M., Seefeldt, S. S., Bennett, B., Bay, C., Ickert-Bond, S., & Väre, H. (2020). Non-native vascular flora of the Arctic: Taxonomic richness, distribution and pathways. Ambio , 49 (3), 693–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01296-6 Supplementary Files SupplementaryMaterialRemer.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 29 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in Biological Invasions → Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Sep, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 08 Sep, 2025 Editor invited by journal 21 Aug, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 18 Aug, 2025 First submitted to journal 15 Aug, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7383932","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":512118434,"identity":"0ceb3ed6-7ad7-4a92-843c-5cb449ff74f4","order_by":0,"name":"Michele Remer","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3906-0492","institution":"Michigan State University College of Agriculture and Natural Resources","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Michele","middleName":"","lastName":"Remer","suffix":""},{"id":512118435,"identity":"f1a15d07-3c9c-47f3-b07a-26be79e715dc","order_by":1,"name":"Izabella Block","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Alaska Anchorage","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Izabella","middleName":"","lastName":"Block","suffix":""},{"id":512118436,"identity":"32712eed-1934-40db-92f5-516b4ea26bf4","order_by":2,"name":"Elizabeth Perry","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Michigan State University College of Agriculture and Natural Resources","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Elizabeth","middleName":"","lastName":"Perry","suffix":""},{"id":512118437,"identity":"28fb6a77-b723-4a50-9dda-aa1ef7ff6457","order_by":3,"name":"Jennifer Schmidt","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Alaska Anchorage","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jennifer","middleName":"","lastName":"Schmidt","suffix":""},{"id":512118438,"identity":"6c652b87-c4e0-4cad-858c-8228ba237044","order_by":4,"name":"Jianguo Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Michigan State University College of Agriculture and Natural Resources","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jianguo","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-08-15 20:56:26","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7383932/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7383932/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-026-03801-x","type":"published","date":"2026-04-29T15:58:23+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":108438957,"identity":"52cb1513-9c5a-4430-8583-b3dca6936ab5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-04 16:12:10","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":223743,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7383932/v1/6bd6002b-2c82-4ac4-9fab-5597558a08e6.pdf"},{"id":91445039,"identity":"0688c238-02ca-4b4a-9d88-60959de69443","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-16 14:36:00","extension":"docx","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":42556,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryMaterialRemer.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7383932/v1/31f60cf71e54f289970bdf75.docx"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"Alaska Visitors’ Knowledge about Invasive Species in a Warming Arctic","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIncreased globalization and economic growth have led to a rapid increase in tourists traveling longer distances (Henok, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Tourism is a large proportion of many countries\u0026rsquo; GDP, making it economically important worldwide (Remer \u0026amp; Liu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The Arctic in particular has had a large increase in tourism, with summer tourism quadrupling and winter tourism increasing by over 600% between 2006 and 2016 (Runge et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Despite the economic benefits of tourism, there can be detrimental ecological impacts that affect both Arctic communities and natural systems. One such ecological impact associated with travel is a concurrent increase in species invasion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMany studies have explored the connections between tourism and invasive species (Alsos et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Huiskes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). For example, Huiskes and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) found that scientists and research stations were the main drivers behind the spread of alien species that have become invasive in Antarctica, as they had traveled to areas with similar ecotypes. Antarctica has less human activity than the Arctic due to the absence of permanent human settlements, meaning that it is important to monitor the Arctic for invasives. Alien species are taxa not native to an area that have been introduced because of human activity and can also be called exotic, non-native or nonindigenous species (Richardson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Invasive species are taxa that have been introduced to an area and have the potential to spread to a larger area, crowding out native species (Richardson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). In the Arctic, there are more introduction points compared to Antarctica due to higher human activity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGiven the high number of introduction points, it can be difficult to trace where certain alien species originate. For example, \u003cem\u003eElodea Michx\u003c/em\u003e., an invasive aquatic macrophyte, had multiple introduction pathways to Southcentral Alaska (Carey et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The macrophyte originally reached Alaska through home aquarium dumping into water bodies and was suspected to have spread by floating along connected water bodies (Carey et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). From original introductions, \u003cem\u003eElodea\u003c/em\u003e continued spreading to other waters through floatplanes and boats not being cleaned before use in other water bodies. This is but one example of an invasive species causing ecological damage to Alaska\u0026rsquo;s lakes by increasing sedimentation, degrading fish habitat, and displacing native species, while also fouling floatplane and boat rudders (Larsen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Invasive species across Alaska also cause pronounced economic damage (average \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e5.8\u0026nbsp;million annually), while eradication costs \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e1.2\u0026nbsp;million annually from 2007\u0026ndash;2011 (Schw\u0026ouml;rer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). This number has likely increased with inflation, and during that time, 84% of the funding came from the federal government (Schw\u0026ouml;rer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Lastly, the majority of the spending on invasive species in Alaska was on terrestrial plants (41%), with land animals following closely behind (38%; mostly eradication of rats on the Aleutian Islands) (Schw\u0026ouml;rer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBecause Arctic tourism is expected to continue increasing (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), it is important to study how this increase may contribute to the spread of alien species. Wasowicz et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) found that tourism was the third and fourth highest most active pathway for both naturalized (species with widespread dispersal that has become part of natural flora) (Richardson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) and invasive taxa, respectively. However, the growth in Arctic shipping has long been predicted to increase the rate of marine and terrestrial invasives (M. Hall \u0026amp; Saarinen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Vectors include cruise ships, where in addition to hull fouling, ballast water exchange, and wastewater discharge (M. Hall \u0026amp; Saarinen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), seeds can spread from visitors\u0026rsquo; shoes and gear as they disembark. Other vectors related to tourism include angling equipment, hitchhikers in or on airplane, wood packaging, vehicles (including ATVs (all-terrain vehicles) and ORVs (off-road vehicles)), and other means of transport (Wasowicz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Due to the many introduction pathways and the ability to move them beyond conventional roads through floatplane and ATV/ORV movement, early detection and monitoring for invasive species is of the utmost importance in the Arctic.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGiven this physical spread of alien species via tourism, more understanding is needed about visitor knowledge of species invasion. If visitors are unaware of how they can potentially spread alien species, then more education may be a first step in prevention (Henok, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). A person\u0026rsquo;s knowledge of species invasion does not necessarily translate into better individual biosecurity measures, or pro-environmental behavior (Kalnicky et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), so this research can be used to inform future policy decisions and innovative tactics at a local level.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur primary objectives were to ascertain visitors' knowledge of invasive species and visitor travel history to assess transportation risk of invasive species. Thus, we investigated the following hypotheses: (H1) watercraft owners will be more knowledgeable about invasives than those who do not own a boat, (H2) cleaning gear (e.g., shoes, clothes, bags, walking poles) between uses/locations will result in higher knowledge of invasives, and (H3) highly-traveled visitors will have a higher knowledge of invasive species. To address our hypotheses, we distributed an intercept survey to Alaska tourists in Nome, Seward, and Anchorage. We focused survey efforts mostly on Nome, as the city plans to expand a deep-water port to accommodate larger ships (USACE - Alaska District, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). By studying tourism\u0026rsquo;s potential invasive species impacts before port construction, we can assist local communities in building preparedness because invasive species can impact this unique ecosystem and put local communities\u0026rsquo; subsistence lifestyle at risk. We also selected Nome for its limited invasive species introduction points. Nome is only accessible by plane or boat; there are no roads connecting Nome to outside locations. Therefore, vehicles can only serve as a vector if shipped long-distance via a barge or aircraft, minimizing the distribution of invasive species from typical vehicles. In addition to conventional automobiles, rural Alaskan vehicles include ATVs and ORVs, meaning that new species can be introduced beyond the road system to more remote parts of the Arctic. As a control group and to increase responses in this inductive study, we also administered surveys in Seward and Anchorage. We collected data in June of 2024, at all three sites, and again in August 2024, primarily in Nome and Seward.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eResearchers pre-tested the survey following Thiemer et al. (2023). We pre-tested surveys qualitatively, by sending the survey to other scientists to provide comments and feedback on the survey, and we also distributed the surveys to family and friends, specifically those who had been on cruises in the past. In total, we received feedback from 10 people on this version of the survey. Studies such as Johnston et al. (2017) advocate for quantitative pre-testing, but this was not feasible due to time and budget limits. This work examines a subset of the survey questions (Appendix 1). Responses were anonymous and voluntary and followed Institutional Review Board\u0026rsquo;s protocols.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe primarily collected data using a stratified design to intercept visitors before they returned to their cruise ship. Some sites also captured airline passengers in the sample and analysis. Specifically, these were individuals who reached our intercept site by flying and did not cruise at all. Surveying was predominantly via hardcopy questionnaires, though an online version of the survey in German was available for this known visitor group. We provided a German version because a cruise line advertised that both English and German would be spoken aboard (Hurtigruten, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Both forms of the questionnaire were distributed in-person near the harbor or at a local gathering spot (e.g., festival, conference centers). To minimize respondent burden on these visitors, we requested participation while they were waiting to board the bus for their next destination, or when they returned from their excursions. For those who stated they \u0026ldquo;didn\u0026rsquo;t have time\u0026rdquo; to answer, we provided the option of returning completed surveys through business reply mail. Once all responses were returned in-person or by mail, we input the data into a designated survey software program (Qualtrics XM). Each survey location underwent a 10% data entry re-check for enhanced validity. Next, the data were imported into R (version (4.4.2)) for statistical analysis using base R functions, the tidyverse, and the stats package (R Core Team, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo qualify for inclusion, respondents had to answer at least two of the four knowledge questions. We calculated knowledge scores for respondents who answered through percentages of numbers of \u0026ldquo;yes\u0026rdquo; divided by the total number of valid answers (selection of \u0026ldquo;yes\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;no\u0026rdquo;). In total, 262 respondents answered at least two of the four questions and were included in the analysis. Because answering at least half of the questions showed engagement, we decided not to exclude participants for incomplete entry (i.e., one or two questions left unanswered). We also decided not to exclude based on skipping particular questions, instead making the inclusion criteria as a relative percentage correct. For the second hypothesis, we created a binary variable with 0 corresponding to a respondent reporting that they did not clean at least one item that they brought with them, and 1 corresponding to a respondent reporting that they cleaned all their gear. The four gear types that we asked about were shoes, clothing, bags, and walking poles.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe measured traveler frequency via respondents\u0026rsquo; listing the number of countries in which they had spent at least one day in the past twelve months. We then grouped visitors based on the data distribution into 4 groups: 1 (stayed in home country), 2 (1\u0026ndash;4 other countries), 3 (5\u0026ndash;9 other countries), and 4 (have traveled to 10\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;countries). Highly-traveled visitors were those who had visited multiple countries in the past year, either by listing them or stating that they had visited too many countries to list. To understand whether watercraft or behavior impacted knowledge, we conducted t-tests with the percentage of correct knowledge questions as the dependent variable. Because traveler intensity had multiple categories, an ANOVA was used to test our hypothesis about traveler intensity. A Tukey post-hoc test was then completed as appropriate.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe overall response rate was 51.4% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;275) and the response rate for surveys distributed in Nome, Seward, and Anchorage was 68.4% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;182), 41.4% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;52), and 21.0% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;41), respectively, meaning that we surpassed our minimum threshold of 30 responses each for statistical comparison. We also obtained convenience samples at an unstaffed station in the Nome Visitor\u0026rsquo;s Center (not included in response rate calculations; n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23). In total, we collected 298 responses across all survey types.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eVisitor characteristics were as follows. The majority were traveling with family (61.7%), followed by solo (15%) or with friends (12%). Respondents identified as female (60.8%); male (37.9%); or non-binary, prefer to self-describe, or prefer not to say (1.3%). Two-thirds (64.7%) of respondents answered the household income question, with their most often noted income category being \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e100,001 - \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e150,000. Out of the 218 respondents who answered the education question, 89.9% held a Bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree or higher.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe percentages of knowledge questions answered correctly ranged from 0 to 100% and had an average of 25.6% correct. For the second hypothesis, we excluded those who did not answer at least one question about how they cleaned their gear. Because all gear was a potential pathway for invasive species, respondents had to clean all their gear to qualify as a \u0026ldquo;yes\u0026rdquo; for whether they cleaned their gear. Out of the 220 respondents who answered at least one gear cleaning question, 23.2% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;51) did not clean their bags, while 18.6% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;41) did not clean their shoes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results from the t-tests, regression, and ANOVA showed differences for two of our hypotheses. We determined knowledge levels differed significantly with watercraft owners scoring higher on the knowledge tests than those who do not own a boat (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). We found that knowledge did not result in a behavioral change, but the average knowledge score was higher for those who did not clean their gear than those who did (H2). We also did not find evidence of knowledge differing significantly based on travel frequency (H3).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSummary of results for our three hypotheses: (H1) watercraft owners will be more knowledgeable about invasives than those who do not own a boat, (H2) cleaning gear between uses/locations will result in higher knowledge of invasives, and (H3) highly-traveled visitors will have a higher knowledge of invasive species.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuestion\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnswer; N\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAverage Knowledge Score\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTest; Value\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eH1: Do you own a watercraft?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;262\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYes; n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;47\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e52.8%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eT-Test; t(74) = -11.7, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo; n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;215\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19.7%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eH2: Cleaned all gear?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;220\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYes; n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;145\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25.3%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eT-Test; t(151.2)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.4, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo; n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;75\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29.9%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eH3: Number of Countries Visited\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;240\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHome country; n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;33\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30.3%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eANOVA; F(3, 236)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.3, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.078\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;4 countries; n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;135\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24.8%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u0026ndash;9 countries; n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;46\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e31.7%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;countries; n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;26\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18.9%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur results were consistent with other studies that knowledge does not necessarily lead to a change in behavior (Kemp et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Perry et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). We found that watercraft owners had higher knowledge scores than those who did not own watercraft. Previous studies found that cleaning watercraft through the \u0026ldquo;Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers\u0026rdquo; campaigns and other related outreach campaigns are often well-known by recreationists (Kemp et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), but not necessarily by the public. Therefore, future educational campaigns for tourists traveling to new areas should focus on non-recreationists. Additionally, some plant, bacterial, or fungal materials may survive the cleaning process (Huiskes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), which would need special attention in knowledge and practice for visitors to ecologically fragile settings like the Arctic. Other behaviors may also lead to spreading invasive species, such as importing wood products with an alien insect (Hulme, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), or the dumping of an aquarium or landscaping plants and pets in a water body (Carey et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). However, further research should be completed on whether behavior established in this study (specifically cleaning of gear) can thwart the spread of invasives. Gear can include clothing and footwear but can also include personal watercraft and larger boats.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLinking visitor movement beyond knowledge and to behavior is important for continued monitoring of Arctic invasive species, especially as a potentially more diverse and less traveled set of visitors engage in \u0026ldquo;last chance\u0026rdquo; tourism to places like the Arctic, facilitated by greater vessel traffic access. Those with lower knowledge of invasives, but who travel less, will be at a much lower risk for spreading an alien species compared to those who travel regularly to places with higher biodiversity (Huiskes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, travelers who spend more time in low-altitude, tropical locations will be less likely to introduce a species that can establish a viable population in the Arctic. Relating this back to tourism, cruise ships that travel to Antarctica often have suits maintained only for these pristine areas, to comply with strict biosecurity protocols (Huiskes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Some, but much fewer Alaskan cruises have similar uniform requirements (Remer, unpublished data). In Alaska, larger ships (1,000\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;passengers) appeared to have fewer biosecurity protocols compared to smaller ships (Remer, unpublished data). However, further research on cruise ship biosecurity protocols on differing ship sizes is needed to determine the risk that cruise passengers may pose when traveling.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe expected those who traveled the most frequently to have the most knowledge of invasive species due to more potential encounters at invasive species checkpoints. Even though our results showed no difference between our groupings, those who traveled to 5\u0026ndash;9 other countries or those who stayed home had the highest amount of knowledge (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), which could mean those who stay in their country have more time to learn about their local ecosystems. For those who travel to a relatively smaller number of countries, it could be that they travel to places with stricter biosecurity protocols. These results are limited by the lack of data available, as many respondents did not answer the full battery of knowledge questions, potentially suppressing the number of \u0026ldquo;most knowledgeable\u0026rdquo; visitors. Further research is needed to validate these results, with a focus on survey design to ensure participants answer the questions needed for analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, we recognize that despite knowledge levels, there may be a perception about the Arctic as \u0026ldquo;inhospitable\u0026rdquo; that visitors may think negates need for behaviors to reduce introducing invasive species, as any species may have difficulty surviving Arctic conditions. This perception should also be probed further. For the Arctic, there is a large concern for alien species establishing populations and spreading from the point of introduction, leading to eventual invasion. Compared to other isolated places that have robust biosecurity measures, like New Zealand and Antarctica, the Arctic does not have an overarching policy in place to prevent invasives establishing via human vectors (C. M. Hall et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Since permafrost cover is rapidly degrading (Druckenmiller et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), this will invoke a host of new research questions. After disturbance, alien species have the opportunity to colonize a new area through competition with native species (Theoharides \u0026amp; Dukes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). However, species that rely on permafrost or other rare habitats endangered by warming temperatures (e.g., high-altitude species) are more threatened by indirect effects such as introduced southern species or range shifts further north, as many terrestrial and marine Arctic species will be able to adapt to increased temperature and radiation (Callaghan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Moore \u0026amp; Huntington, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, species that move to occupy these areas may be considered alien, but some may naturally move north as their range becomes constricted and higher latitudes become increasingly more climate-conducive (Lenoir et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These range shifts have implications outside the Arctic as managers consider how to prioritize invasive species removal with competing priorities and limited funds, while still acknowledging the longstanding and still growing tourism allure of both Arctic natural environments and the unique local communities hosting tourists.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIncreased instances of species invasions will continue to be an issue for tourism globally. Therefore, it is imperative to understand how to minimize the impact of invasive species, in addition to other negative environmental impacts of tourism. We found that visitor knowledge is not a good predictor of a change in behavior, so we must continue to explore both systemic biosecurity policies (e.g., shoe wash station when exiting a port, airport inspections) and other ways of promoting individual behavioral change to curb the introduction of potentially harmful species to Arctic ecosystems.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Statements and Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe gratefully acknowledge funding received from the National Science Foundation (Grant No. 2032786 \u0026amp; 2033507), as well as additional funding sources for MR (Fellow ID: 2023334941 \u0026amp; MSU University Distinguished Fellowship, Vera M. Wallach Fellowship, MSU College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Alumni Association Scholarship, John Peters and Marietta Peters Endowed Fellowship, MSU Research Enhancement Award).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCRediT authorship contribution statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMichele Remer\u003c/strong\u003e: Conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, software, validation, visualization, writing- original draft, writing – review and editing. \u003cstrong\u003eIzabella Block\u003c/strong\u003e: Data curation, investigation, software, visualization, writing -review and editing. \u003cstrong\u003eElizabeth Perry\u003c/strong\u003e: conceptualization, methodology, supervision, writing – review and editing. \u003cstrong\u003eJennifer Schmidt\u003c/strong\u003e: Funding acquisition, project administration, resources, supervision, writing - review and editing. \u003cstrong\u003eJianguo Liu\u003c/strong\u003e: Funding acquisition, project administration, resources, supervision, writing - review and editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCode availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCode is available upon request from the corresponding author.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompliance with Ethical Standards\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was reviewed by Michigan State University’s Institutional Review Board and was classified as exempt. All participants were provided with an informed consent document.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe are grateful to the participants sharing their time and perspectives, and to the research team members involved in the on-site data collections. We especially appreciate the time and energy Shauntel Bruner-Alvanna dedicated to assist in data collection. We also would like to acknowledge Nick Manning and Joris Van Zeghbroeck for their insightful comments on a previous version of this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAlsos, I. G., Ware, C., \u0026amp; Elven, R. (2015). Past Arctic aliens have passed away, current ones may stay. \u003cem\u003eBiological Invasions\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(11), 3113\u0026ndash;3123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-0937-9\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCallaghan, T. V., Bj\u0026ouml;rn, L. O., Chernov, Y., Chapin, T., Christensen, T. R., Huntley, B., Ims, R. A., Johansson, M., Jolly, D., Jonasson, S., Matveyeva, N., Panikov, N., Oechel, W., Shaver, G., Elster, J., Henttonen, H., Laine, K., Taulavuori, K., Taulavuori, E., \u0026amp; Z\u0026ouml;ckler, C. (2004). Biodiversity, Distributions and Adaptations of Arctic Species in the Context of Environmental Change. \u003cem\u003eAMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(7), 404\u0026ndash;417. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-33.7.404\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCarey, M. P., Sethi, S. A., Larsen, S. J., \u0026amp; Rich, C. F. (2016). A primer on potential impacts, management priorities, and future directions for Elodea spp. in high latitude systems: Learning from the Alaskan experience.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHydrobiologia\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e777\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-016-2767-x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChen, J. S., Wang, W., Jensen, O., Kim, H., \u0026amp; Liu, W.-Y. (2021). Perceived impacts of tourism in the Arctic. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Tourism and Cultural Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(4), 494\u0026ndash;508. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2020.1735403\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDruckenmiller, M. L., Thoman, R. L., Moon, T. A., Andreassen, L. M., Ballinger, T. J., Berner, L. T., Bernhard, G. H., Bhatt, U. S., Bigalke, S., Bjerke, J. W., Box, J. E., Brettschneider, B., Brubaker, M., Burgess, D., Butler, A. H., Christiansen, H. H., Decharme, B., Derksen, C., Divine, D., \u0026hellip; Yang, D. (2024). \u003cem\u003eState of the Climate in 2023: The Arctic\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-24-0101.1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHall, C. M., James, M., \u0026amp; Wilson, S. (2010). Biodiversity, biosecurity, and cruising in the Arctic and sub-Arctic. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Heritage Tourism\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(4), 351\u0026ndash;364. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2010.517845\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHall, M., \u0026amp; Saarinen, J. (2010). \u003cem\u003eTourism and Change in Polar Regions: Climate, Environments and Experiences\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge \u0026amp; CRC Press. https://www.routledge.com/Tourism-and-Change-in-Polar-Regions-Climate-Environments-and-Experiences/Hall-Saarinen/p/book/9781138880665\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHenok, B. G. (2021). Factors determining international tourist flow to tourism destinations: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Hospitality Management and Tourism\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 9\u0026ndash;17. https://doi.org/10.5897/JHMT2019.0276\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHuiskes, A. H. L., Gremmen, N. J. M., Bergstrom, D. M., Frenot, Y., Hughes, K. A., Imura, S., Kiefer, K., Lebouvier, M., Lee, J. E., Tsujimoto, M., Ware, C., Van de Vijver, B., \u0026amp; Chown, S. L. (2014). Aliens in Antarctica: Assessing transfer of plant propagules by human visitors to reduce invasion risk. \u003cem\u003eBiological Conservation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e171\u003c/em\u003e, 278\u0026ndash;284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.01.038\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHulme, P. E. (2009). Trade, transport and trouble: Managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Ecology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e(1), 10\u0026ndash;18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01600.x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHurtigruten. (2025). \u003cem\u003eMS Trollfjord: Discover Norway\u0026rsquo;s Coastal Majesty\u003c/em\u003e. Hurtigruten. https://www.hurtigruten.com/en-us/ships/ms-trollfjord\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKalnicky, E. A., Brunson, M. W., \u0026amp; Beard, K. H. (2019). Predictors of Participation in Invasive Species Control Activities Depend on Prior Experience with the Species. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e63\u003c/em\u003e(1), 60\u0026ndash;68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1126-2\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKemp, C., van Riper, C., BouFajreldin, L., Stewart, W., Scheunemann, J., \u0026amp; van den Born, R. (2017). Connecting human-nature relationships to environmental behaviors that minimize the spread of aquatic invasive species. \u003cem\u003eBiological Invasions\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(7), 2059\u0026ndash;2074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1418-0\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLarsen, A., Schw\u0026ouml;erer, T., Simmons, T., \u0026amp; Fulkerson, J. (2020). Elodea: Alaska\u0026rsquo;s first invasive aquatic plant continues to march across the state. \u003cem\u003eAlaska Park Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(1), 92\u0026ndash;99. https://www.nps.gov/articles/aps-19-1-14.htm\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLenoir, J., Svenning, J.-C., \u0026amp; Sheffer, M. M. (2024). Latitudinal and Elevational Range Shifts Under Contemporary Climate Change. In S. M. Scheiner (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eEncyclopedia of Biodiversity (Third Edition)\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 690\u0026ndash;709). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822562-2.00386-8\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMoore, S. E., \u0026amp; Huntington, H. P. (2008). Arctic Marine Mammals and Climate Change: Impacts and Resilience. \u003cem\u003eEcological Applications\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(sp2), S157\u0026ndash;S165. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-0571.1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePerry, E. E., Needham, M. D., Cramer, L. A., \u0026amp; Rosenberger, R. S. (2014). Coastal resident knowledge of new marine reserves in Oregon: The impact of proximity and attachment. \u003cem\u003eOcean \u0026amp; Coastal Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e95\u003c/em\u003e, 107\u0026ndash;116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.04.011\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eR Core Team. (2025). \u003cem\u003eR: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing\u003c/em\u003e [R]. R Foundation \u0026nbsp; for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRemer, M., \u0026amp; Liu, J. (2022). International Tourism in the Arctic under COVID-19: A Telecoupling Analysis of Iceland. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(22), Article 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215237\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRichardson, D. M., Pysek, P., Rejmanek, M., Barbour, M. G., Panetta, F. D., \u0026amp; West, C. J. (2000). Naturalization and Invasion of Alien Plants: Concepts and Definitions. \u003cem\u003eDiversity and Distributions\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(2), 93\u0026ndash;107. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1472-4642.2000.00083.x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRunge, C. A., Daigle, R. M., \u0026amp; Hausner, V. H. (2020). Quantifying tourism booms and the increasing footprint in the Arctic with social media data. \u003cem\u003ePLOS ONE\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), e0227189. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227189\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSchw\u0026ouml;rer, T., Federer, R., Ferren, H., \u0026amp; Center, A. S. (2012). \u003cem\u003eManaging Invasive Species: How Much Do We Spend?\u003c/em\u003e Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage. http://hdl.handle.net/11122/3919\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTheoharides, K. A., \u0026amp; Dukes, J. S. (2007). Plant invasion across space and time: Factors affecting nonindigenous species success during four stages of invasion. \u003cem\u003eNew Phytologist\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e176\u003c/em\u003e(2), 256\u0026ndash;273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02207.x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUSACE - Alaska District. (2025). \u003cem\u003eUSACE accepting bids for first phase of Port of Nome project construction\u003c/em\u003e. Pacific Ocean Division. https://www.pod.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/Article/4136382/usace-accepting-bids-for-first-phase-of-port-of-nome-project-construction/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pod.usace.army.mil%2FMedia%2FNews-Releases%2FArticle%2F4136382%2Fusace-accepting-bids-for-first-phase-of-port-of-nome-project-construction%2F\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWasowicz, P., Sennikov, A. N., Westergaard, K. B., Spellman, K., Carlson, M., Gillespie, L. J., Saarela, J. M., Seefeldt, S. S., Bennett, B., Bay, C., Ickert-Bond, S., \u0026amp; V\u0026auml;re, H. (2020). Non-native vascular flora of the Arctic: Taxonomic richness, distribution and pathways. \u003cem\u003eAmbio\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(3), 693\u0026ndash;703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01296-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":true,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"biological-invasions","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"binv","sideBox":"Learn more about [Biological Invasions](https://www.springer.com/journal/10530)","snPcode":"10530","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10530/3","title":"Biological Invasions","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7383932/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7383932/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eAs the climate warms and sea ice continues to melt, an increase in overall shipping traffic to the Arctic and to local communities is expected. Specifically, cruise ships have led to higher numbers of visitors to the Arctic. As a secondary effect of increased human activity in the Arctic, invasive species prevention and removal will become a priority, especially as species\u0026rsquo; ranges continue to shift with the warming climate. Thus, it is important to have a baseline of visitor knowledge of invasive species in the region to promote robust monitoring. To evaluate visitor knowledge, we conducted visitor intercept surveys in three Alaskan towns that experience tourism. Results show that owning watercraft led to an increase in knowledge, but increased knowledge did not lead to any changes in behavior. Increased invasive species knowledge did not differ between traveler groups. Our research demonstrates the need to consider spillover effects from tourism and a potential need to focus on systemic policy changes instead of educational campaigns to encourage cleaning gear.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Alaska Visitors’ Knowledge about Invasive Species in a Warming Arctic","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-16 14:35:56","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7383932/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2025-09-08T22:36:09+00:00","index":0,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-08T20:03:58+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"Biological Invasions","date":"2025-08-21T09:01:42+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-08-18T09:48:15+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Biological Invasions","date":"2025-08-15T16:55:28+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"biological-invasions","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"binv","sideBox":"Learn more about [Biological Invasions](https://www.springer.com/journal/10530)","snPcode":"10530","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10530/3","title":"Biological Invasions","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"e0401fb2-1b07-4665-b270-85df89c9ec43","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 16th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-04T16:12:05+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7383932","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-026-03801-x","journal":{"identity":"biological-invasions","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Biological Invasions"},"publishedOn":"2026-04-29 15:58:23","publishedOnDateReadable":"April 29th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-16 14:35:56","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s10530-026-03801-x","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-026-03801-x","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7383932","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7383932","identity":"rs-7383932","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}