Table 4. Descriptives of variable perceived environmental threat if not handled correctly and point-biserial correlations between perceived importance and perceived environmental threat.

Plant name	% of Participants who Perceived Environmental Threat	Correlations: Importance Landscape Design in Switzerland vs. Environmental Threat	Correlations: Importance Own Business vs. Environmental Threat
Buddleja davidii	85	−0.35**	−0.26**
Prunus laurocerasus	70	−0.29**	−0.24**
Robinia pseudoaccacia	69	−0.28**	−0.28**
Lonicera japonica	54	−0.27**	−0.28**
Sedum spurium	37	−0.34**	−0.25**
Virburnum rhytidophyllum	46	−0.32**	−0.30**
Lupinus polyphyllus	45	−0.29**	−0.26**
Paulownia tomentosa	34	−0.28**	−0.21**
Mahonia aquifolium	33	−0.27**	−0.29**
Lonicera henryi	52	−0.26**	−0.27**
Cornus sericea	58	−0.24**	−0.15**
Trachycarpus fortunei	42	−0.22**	−0.18**
Fallopia baldschuanica	68	−0.35**	−0.36**
Syringa sp.	13	−0.16**	−0.17**
Wisteria sp.	11	−0.14**	−0.17**
Ilex aquifolium	15	−0.23**	−0.23**
Prunus spinosa	22	−0.19**	−0.22**
Euonymus europaeus	6	−0.11**	−0.16**

Note:

**p<.01;

Rating scales for perceived importance went from 1 = ‘absolutely unimportant’ to 6 = ‘very important’; perceived environmental threat: 0 = ‘no threat’ and 1 = ‘threat’; N varies between 569 and 610, reflecting missing values.