Abstract
<jats:p>Invasive plant impacts are commonly assessed through ecological, economic, and social or human health outcomes, yet these frameworks may overlook relationships that are central to Indigenous cultural landscapes. We combined a targeted review of academic and grey literature with autoethnographic reflections from community-engaged invasive plant research conducted with Metlakatla First Nation, Sts'ailes First Nation, Cowichan Tribes, and in St'át'imc territory in British Columbia, Canada. We compared the impact categories represented in existing assessment frameworks with the impacts and management considerations that emerged through place-based research. Conventional frameworks consistently emphasized biodiversity loss, altered ecosystem processes, management costs, and generalized social harms, while impacts to Indigenous food systems, culturally important plants, archaeological places, harvesting access, knowledge transmission, and stewardship responsibilities were comparatively underrepresented. Across the four case studies, invasive plant impacts were relational, cumulative, and shaped by place, colonial histories, governance, and Indigenous responsibilities to land. We further found that management action itself could generate cultural impacts through herbicide use, mechanical disturbance, or the absence of culturally acceptable treatment options. We argue that existing impact frameworks are not incorrect, but incomplete because they overlook relationships that shape both ecological outcomes and management priorities. Rather than proposing an additional impact category, we advocate for a values-first approach that begins by identifying the relationships and responsibilities that define a landscape before evaluating invasive plant impacts and management options. Indigenous cultural landscapes therefore reveal how broadening the values embedded within impact assessment can strengthen both ecological understanding and invasive plant management generally.</jats:p>