Abstract
The exploratory study aimed to understand the range of community responses to three pest eradication technologies proposed for use in New Zealand and to examine community perceptions of past incursion responses, with the aim of improving future responses. Qualitative techniques were used to elicit information from a small group of people selected from the general public, the Department of Conservation and three government councils. Participants were fairly trusting of the basic information provided to them about the three technologies, and as a result were generally accepting of aerial spraying of pheromones and sterile insect technology. However, the use of aerial sprays presented some concerns. More in-depth information, the manner in which it was presented, and how the community was be included in the decision-making process were likely to be the significant influences in predicting the public response to eradication attempts in the future. Recommendations for future research are discussed.
Introduction
Biosecurity in New Zealand
Biosecurity in New Zealand is described as ‘protection of the economy, environment and people's health from the risks posed by unwanted exotic pests and diseases entering the country, and the control of endemic pests and diseases within the country’ (Auditor-General Citation2002). It covers the exclusion, eradication and management of risks created by such pests and diseases.
Globalization, along with the associated trade movement of goods and products and the development of tourism as a major industry and source of economic revenue for New Zealand, has put border systems under greater pressure. In 2005, it was estimated that more than 4 million travellers visited New Zealand, 45 million pieces of mail arrived and over half a million sea containers landed (Whyte Citation2006). Unfortunately, there is seldom much choice regarding what strategy to use to attempt to eradicate an insect pest that has managed to slip through the gap. For example, there are currently only a few species of butterflies and moths where it may be possible to use biopesticides plus pheromones plus sterile insects. For the majority of pests, only one or zero options are available.
In addition, there are often significant time constraints, which mean that decisions have to be made quickly, before the pest population becomes impossible to contain. For most mainland sites, control is generally the only option, but eradication is possible on islands (Craig et al. Citation2000) and in some cases on the mainland (for example, the white spotted tussock moth eradicated from Auckland in 1996–97, the painted apple moth eradicated from Auckland in 1999–2004, and the Asian gypsy moth eradicated from Hamilton in 2003–05).
High-profile examples of recent biosecurity incursions that have had the potential to be serious threats to New Zealand's biosecurity and have hence required eradication attempts include the painted apple moth and the Asian gypsy moth (Matthews Citation1996; McMillan Citation2001; Panckhurst Citation2001; Pickering Citation2002). In discussing these incursions, the articles have served to highlight the highly complex nature of community and stakeholder involvement in biosecurity responses in New Zealand.
Eradication methods
High costs, accumulation of toxins, non-target game mammal poisoning, declines in rare species and public wariness of poisons are substantial drawbacks to a number of existing methods for insect pest control (for example, the use of malathion sprays in containers at the border). As a consequence, some products are no longer available, or are subject to more stringent requirements for registration. In addition, there is a worldwide movement away from the spraying of broad-spectrum pesticides, indicating that overseas markets are also becoming more concerned about both the impact on beneficial and non-target species, and the contamination of produce (Duckworth et al. Citation2006). The search is therefore on for technologies to replace these older techniques.
As part of the New Zealand government-funded programme, Better Border Biosecurity (B3), experts in the programme identified a range of intervention technologies and strategies currently available or potentially available in the near future for the prevention, detection, identification, containment or eradication of biosecurity threats. Among a raft of potential technologies were some that were considered useful for biosecurity but about which New Zealand public reaction was unknown. These included the development of green fumigants, sterile insect release, biocontrol agents, insect viruses, organic insecticides, pheromones for mating disruption, and irradiation.
The public's opinion
It is important to consider public opinions and attitudes when it comes to conservation and biosecurity. Opinion is by no means unanimous, and varies according to the organisms to be excluded, the means of doing so, the costs (in terms of money, personal health effects and restrictions of freedom), who should bear them and indeed how the questions are phrased. It can be further complicated when an organism slips through border control, enters through some other means, or evolves to become something more serious. Important issues to consider include: how do we decide between management and control, or complete eradication; what costs (financial, health, personal freedoms) is society willing to endure; and how do we balance the needs of economy, environment and people's health (as specified in the definition of ‘biosecurity’)?
It has been suggested that opposition is a stronger motivation for people to become involved than is support, since of course, acceptance of a proposal means they do not need to try to change the decision (Cocklin et al. Citation1998). Thus the public should have the opportunity to become involved early in the process in order to reduce potential conflict and delay at a later stage, when timeliness in decision making is essential. Integrating community perspectives in the decision-making process will be enhanced by being proactive and discussing options and approaches before an incursion happens. Such anticipatory dialogue would also serve to raise the profile of biosecurity issues among the public (Santen et al. Citation2004). Of course, it is better to prevent an incursion in the first place, so community involvement in terms of having good awareness and understanding of the issues involved in prevention is an important goal. Education is preferable to regulation because it achieves commitment rather than just compliance, and can be less costly (Timmins & Blood Citation2003).
The aim of this preliminary study was to gain some understanding of the range of responses from the community to three current or future technologiesFootnote1 described in . The first—aerial spraying using biopesticides (BtK)—has been discussed in the public domain to a significant extent, following spraying operations in Auckland and Hamilton (Goven et al. Citation2006). The second—aerial spraying of pheromones—has been used overseas, for instance in California where some public resistance is apparent to bulking agents used to carry the pheromones in the spray (Rovella Citation2008), but public opinion in New Zealand is relatively unknown. The third—sterile insect release—has been in use overseas for many years and has been identified by leaders in the B3 programme as showing considerable promise in New Zealand. Public response is also relatively unknown, but overseas anecdotal evidence suggests that the technology is acceptable. This research utilizes qualitative research methods in order to understand the complexity of the issue in depth within the chosen sample areas. Future research will be required to determine prevalence of opinion in the broader New Zealand community and the relative importance of those issues to overall acceptability.
Table 1 Description of the three pest eradication technologies provided to the participants in the qualitative research
Methodology
It was intended that semi-structured discussions be conducted to allow for exploration of the issues surrounding biosecurity and the perceptions of people towards the three eradication technologies. Because the emphasis on this stage of the research was an in-depth understanding, rather than gauging prevalence of opinion, a qualitative methodology was employed. For topics where issues are poorly understood, it is important that qualitative research is conducted first to ensure quantitative studies are not based on the researchers' assumptions of what the issues might be. Qualitative studies are therefore important for ensuring that future (often costly) research with many people has a good initial grounding.
Following discussion with the experts in the B3 programme and a review of existing literature, it was decided to focus on three stakeholders in the community. These included the New Zealand general public (North and South Island), city/regional councils (Auckland Regional Council, Waitakere City Council, Environment Canterbury) and the Department of Conservation (DoC). There were a number of other groups who were likely to have specific interests in the technologies (for instance those people involved in the People's Inquiry regarding the spraying for painted apple moth, held in 2005), but we felt that such groups have already been heavily researched by other people involved in the B3 programme who have subsequently established good relationships with them (Santen et al. Citation2004). Interviews were conducted during April and May 2008.
A small number of the public were selected to obtain a sense of some of the underlying issues of society in general towards the technologies. The same recruitment company was used to enlist participants from its database in both Auckland and Christchurch. The criteria for participation were therefore fairly general, with males or females aged between 25 and 65 years old, who had travelled overseas at least once in the previous year (this was because we wanted people who had experienced recent biosecurity measures at international airports). The focus group held in Christchurch was made up of seven females and two males, aged between 22 and 59 years old, whereas in Auckland, the group consisted of four males and two females, aged between 21 and 46 years old.
We identified city/regional councils as potentially holding the unique perspective of an intermediary between the general public and various governmental agencies and ministries involved in New Zealand biosecurity (including MAFBNZ, the agency responsible for New Zealand biosecurity). Initial contact with these participants was through email and telephone by the researchers, using established relationships with people in the councils. Two participants were male and one was female.
Finally, the Department of Conservation was chosen as a governmental agency with a strong environmental perspective that had ongoing experience in pest management, and which had to work with the public, conservation groups, city/regional councils and MAFBNZ. Contact with this group was also made through email and telephone by the researchers. All three participants were male.
Two different methodologies were used to interview our selected groups. The general public and the DoC personnel were interviewed using focus groups as we were able to gather a number of people into one location, either in Auckland or Christchurch. The city/regional councillors needed to be interviewed as individuals, because their offices were spread across the country (Auckland, Waitakere City and Timaru). The greater privacy afforded by this method was also more appropriate for these participants since it was likely that underlying political issues would make discussions more sensitive. All interviews were conducted by the authors, both of whom were experienced moderators. All interviews were tape-recorded to allow for future transcription, and all respondents gave informed consent for this to occur.
Discussion guide
Specifically, discussion was designed to focus on: awareness and understanding of biosecurity; past experiences with pest incursions and predictions for the future; attitudes towards the three eradication technologies and any issues that may surround their use (including how to reduce conflict in the future).
A semi-structured discussion guide was developed by the research team (available on request from the authors). For the questions requiring accurate description of the technologies, an expert on the technologies was consulted regarding the phrasing. The descriptions of the three technologies are given in . While the discussion guides were similar for all the interviews, a slightly different emphasis was placed on the technologies for the city/regional councils compared with the general public and DoC personnel, focusing instead on their interactions with both the public and with MAFBNZ.
Analysis
All the interviews were transcribed verbatim. Themes and key ideas were developed independently by the two researchers involved in the interviewing. Analysis was initially on a question-by-question basis, but themes that occurred throughout the discussions were also identified. In accordance with existing literature, repeated discussions were held by both authors until the interpretation was agreed. Involvement of the interviewers in the data analysis process is considered desirable so as to enhance the quality of the interpretation, since the specific contexts can be considered (Bisogni et al. Citation2002).
Results and discussion
Awareness and understanding of New Zealand biosecurity
Consistent with research elsewhere (MAF Citation2003), the small number of public in our study were aware of what biosecurity is and understood the systems that are in place. Although existing biosecurity measures imposed restrictions on personal freedoms (such as not being able to bring certain items of food or plants into the country), these were generally seen as just an inconvenience they were willing to put up with in order to protect New Zealand's special environment. In this respect, the values involved in the preservation of the environment and national identity (e.g., Clean-Green New Zealand) outweighed values underlying the need to preserve personal liberties such as bringing their favourite foods back into the country.
However, they were unaware of the specifics: they may have known about organisms if there had been significant discussion in the media, particularly if there were threats to human health, but they seldom knew where organisms had come from, how they could be treated or the implications for New Zealand. In general, awareness of what to look for was very poor. In addition, they were unaware of any information that may have been distributed to provide information about plant or insect pests. The main request was that any information that was provided contained clear pictures, rather than just written descriptions.
‘I know I got a green bin in my last house to put green waste in and it said I couldn't put, well, it had a list of plants I couldn't put in… I had no idea what they looked like… just flung it in anyway.’
They were even less knowledgeable about future biosecurity risks, but were aware of some reasons why these risks may be becoming more likely—for instance, in terms of greater movement of people and goods from places we had not previously dealt with to any great extent. Awareness was likely to be greatest for issues that had direct relevance to the person, whether it was in terms of impact on health or restrictions on freedom, such as not being able to hang out their washing because it may get sprayed or having to stay indoors for a certain period. Issues that involved impacts on the environment or the economy (for example, the horticulture industry) were far less likely to be paid attention to.
From the perspective of the city/regional councils, there appeared to be some awareness of current/future risks (such as those from ants or the saltmarsh mosquito) and discussion generally focused on how they felt biosecurity responses should be handled. As a rule, councils felt it was appropriate that decisions regarding which technology to use should involve public opinion, efficacy and impact on the health of the environment, with financial cost as a secondary consideration.
‘I think decisions have to go hand in hand with health advice… even if the health effects are absolutely minimal and often mostly in people's heads, there still needs to be a discussion around health impacts and places for people to go for good quality and independent information around that.’
Unfortunately, there may be only one option available for consideration, and rejection based on such criteria may eliminate any option at all. Nevertheless, this may be appropriate if the health issues or damage to the environment resulting from that option are greater than the negative impacts of the pest.
When asked who should be responsible for incursion responses, the participants typically felt that the government should be responsible for both the administration of the biosecurity response and for the payment of it, since pest incursions are likely to affect all of New Zealand (albeit in different ways). This is therefore in line with the role that the government already plays.
‘It affects so many aspects of everyone, I think it should come from the government.’
‘It's got to be overseen by somebody that can deal with it on every level.’
While some felt that the localization of the risk would dictate whether it should be dealt with at a city/regional level or nationwide, others felt that there was always the potential for the risk to spread and subsequently affect the whole country, so everyone should contribute. There was also an expectation that industries likely to be affected would also make a substantial contribution, in addition to travellers entering the country (since travellers are seen as a major pathway for incoming pests and diseases).
‘Oh no, I think that it should be all of New Zealand, because if it affects our economy and our eco systems full stop then if we don't spray it, it's going to spread.’
‘I still think visitors to the country should be paying, if not all of it, at least some of it through a levy. I mean, even if it was $5 on everyone—it's nothing to a traveller—it's just a cost that you have to pay.’
The DoC personnel had a slightly different perspective, in that there was the acknowledgement that different groups—whether it be city/regional councils, interest groups or the Animal Health Board—all had different motives. So, in terms of who pays, it would depend on what it was being done for.
Response to the techniques
Acceptability of the technology depended on the costs of using it versus the damage caused by the pest, and to whom the costs and benefits would accrue. Sterile insect technology was frequently identified as the most acceptable, since the description of the technology indicated there were no health concerns, it sounded the most organic and did not require with the use of sprays. However, participants still needed reassurance that the irradiated flies would in no way affect the food chain. In addition, there was some confusion among the public regarding what irradiation actually entailed.
‘It seems to be very safe actually, because the actual chemical [sic] treatment of the flies is done in the laboratory without people getting into contact with it, so whatever is done to them is done before people get involved with any chemicals.’
‘I like that there's no health risks, there's no residue left anywhere. It's only affecting fruit flies and it's not affecting food or kids or waterways.’
While there was some confusion about the point of releasing millions of an organism they were trying to eradicate, it did not take long for the general public in this study to understand the concept that because the insect had a short lifespan, the population would soon die out. However, the DoC personnel raised concerns about both ensuring that all the insects were indeed sterile and that there was an appropriate quarantine facility to hold the insects while being bred. These issues have already been considered by MAFBNZ.
The use of sprays elicited a number of concerns, mainly because the participants did not feel they could get away from it—they did not like the idea of spray falling all over them, regardless of whether it contained biopesticide or pheromones. Acceptance was greater if they felt they were unlikely to affected—for instance, the South Island participants felt the spraying would be fine in the North Island, but acknowledged that they would think a bit harder about it if it were going to occur in their area. The same was true for the North Islanders. Concern was particularly apparent for those participants who had been in the spray zone for painted apple moth. Pheromones were better received than the use of bacteria which was seen as something that could mutate or change into something else.
‘It was a bit dodgy actually. Well, I mean they were drenching humans with this stuff, it wasn't just a mist. If you were going down the motorway, you'd turn your windscreen wipers on.’
‘As everybody was saying, you don't, we don't really know the health risks yet.’
‘I think it's [biopesticide sprays] good as long as it's not above my house.’
‘Sure, get rid of the bugs, but I don't want to have it on my vegetables in my garden that I'm going to eat.’
A large volume of literature indicates that the public place considerable emphasis on the need to know long-term and unknown effects of new technologies on health and the environment (Hamstra Citation1998; Cook et al. Citation2004; Gamble & Kassardjian Citation2008). Consistent with this, the general public in our research, and to some extent the DoC personnel, felt this was a significant consideration in determining acceptability of the three pest eradication techniques. Both the North and South Island participants mentioned Agent Orange, and the fact that it had initially been considered safe, but over time had been shown to be anything but, and this concern was directed particularly towards aerial spraying.
‘How do you know that there aren't any long-term effects? Have they studied it enough to know that? OK it might be temporary, but years down the track it's like asbestos.’
‘I think if you had children and they were spraying and even when it had dried and everything you wouldn't really want them to go and play outside. It would impact on you quite a bit I think.’
Embedded in this were concerns about how long the residue would be in the environment, the impact on the food chain, the specificity of the approach regarding non-target species, and the potential for the organism to develop resistance in the future. Thus the participants required information about the tests that had been conducted, alternative approaches, and the costs versus benefits of each alternative. Where there were scientific concerns about risks to health or the environment, these needed to be communicated in an open and honest way.
‘Agent Orange was supposed to be safe wasn't it… A lot of these things are brought in very quickly and it almost feels like it's to cover it up. I know this is nothing to do with biosecurity but the meningitis campaign—they brought that in very quickly and it was to do it [the vaccination] and there wasn't enough consultation, there wasn't enough information and people get nervous about it.’
‘If it's affecting the health of the general public then there needs to be good debate about it. If it's affecting some high country place where they just want to make sure it doesn't thrive… in those circumstances where there's minimal risk to the public, then quite honestly they could go ahead and get it done and we wouldn't even know about it. But where it affects people or cities or waterways and things then I think a bit more consultation is required.’
‘We need to be informed and nothing hidden because I think that's when they get the problems.’
‘That's where good information comes into play as well. If we're given the correct information it leaves less room for the stuff that's incorrect.’
Underlying the willingness to accept a technology was people's need to feel they had been consulted with, listened to and had in some way been able to control how the techniques are used.
‘There was no discussion was there? They said, “We've got to spray, we're spraying.” It sort of felt like there wasn't any control in that part of it.’
‘It also depends how much it's going to affect you. Like if they were going to be spraying me and it could probably have an effect on this and that, then yeah, I'd go to a meeting and stand up…’
‘I believe that they [the Government] need to be well informed and give the public the option of the risk to the person compared to the risk to the economy and the countryside.’
Indeed, in the context of the three techniques presented in this study, this represented a significant issue in terms of acceptance. Greatest resentment in the past has come about when biosecurity measures have been imposed on the community with no consultation (or with ‘tokenistic’ consultation that has been ignored), particularly if this has resulted in restrictions to freedoms, and perceived (and/or real) health impacts, such as the community backlash regarding the handling of the painted apple moth spraying (Santen et al. Citation2004). This therefore places significant responsibilities on the agencies involved in the management of the biosecurity responses to an incursion.
Participants were asked how best to reach the public to ensure that adequate consultation and dialogue occurred. Whereas the general public suggested multi-media approaches or community meetings, the city/regional council members felt it was more efficient and effective to target groups (and/or their spokespeople) that would be likely to voice dissenting opinions or concerns. They also felt it was their responsibility as guardians of the public's rights (since they are in charge of spending the rates paid by the public) to know who these groups would be.
Perceptions of biosecurity agencies
There was the perception among the public in our research that biosecurity agencies in New Zealand (specifically MAFBNZ) were slightly removed and inaccessible. For instance, agencies involved in biosecurity, either at the border or within New Zealand are typically referred to as ‘them’. At the border, this manifests itself in terms of fear of making a mistake and bringing something in by accident.
‘I said this isn't food and I sort of smiled at him and said, “You're not going to take them off me are you?” and he didn't but he was just kind of officious and I think those kind of people perhaps give that sort of thing a bad name.’
This of course is not necessarily a bad thing, since it encourages travellers to be extra vigilant. However, in terms of using the public as its ‘ears and eyes’ out in the environment, this distance means the public may not go directly to MAFBNZ if they find something they think may be a biosecurity risk, which may result in unnecessary and undesirable delays in appropriate responses. While MAFBNZ was one of the agencies people would contact, there was some doubt as to how easy it was to get hold of. This may have little to do with MAFBNZ specifically it may be more a reflection of the perceived difficulty of getting through to actual people when telephoning any big organization. Other places people would try to contact included councils, the DoC or museums. This may reflect the desire to deal with a person face to face. Reasons for not going to MAFBNZ included not knowing who to contact, fear of looking stupid or alarmist, and greater ease of going to someone in person, such as at museums or councils. Future research will be required to determine the prevalence of such opinions.
Our participants felt there was a paucity of information available to the interested or concerned public regarding biosecurity risks. The perceived distance of MAFBNZ together with the inability to obtain information easily may mean that vigilance for biosecurity risks may simply be placed in the ‘too hard’ basket by the ordinary public, which is certainly a barrier to effective participation in enhancing New Zealand's biosecurity.
The Biosecurity Act 1993 created a clear regulatory framework and formalized the division of responsibility between central and regional government, with the former retaining pre-border and biosecurity roles, and the latter taking responsibility for domestic weed and pest control. This has changed again with the advent of the Biosecurity Strategy for New Zealand when MAFBNZ became a single point of leadership (Biosecurity Council Citation2003). Among the DoC personnel and city/regional councillors we interviewed, the perception of MAFBNZ is of an agency that is well informed and good at operations, but considerably lacking in communication skills.
‘They're very operations focused and they're good at operations. I've got no problem with what they did, it's just the way they bloody communicated it to people.’
‘This is where MAF got offside with the community—they talked about coming in to consult [regarding the aerial spraying of biopesticide]. But it wasn't—it was to inform. Sometimes you need to say consulting is “we're actually listening to you and we'll do something about it” and informing is “we're just being honest and telling you”.’
Trust in authorities plays an important role in determining how well the public will accept various pest control technologies. For instance, it has been found in previous studies that people who expressed trust in public authorities tended also to have a more positive view about the concept of genetic modification (INRA, Citation2000). As noted by Baba (Citation1999), trust requires a shared system of values. According to Lewis & Wiegert (Citation1985), trust is based on two distinctive foundations, the cognitive and the affective. Cognitive-based criteria for trust involve the calculation of the evidence of trustworthiness (such as credentials or reputation) and could be seen as relating to competence (Baba Citation1999). On this criterion, MAFBNZ appears to be doing well. For instance, it was one of the places that the general public indicated they would go to for advice if they found something they thought may be a potential pest. Affect-based trust reflects the emotional investments in a relationship—the ability to demonstrate genuine caring and concern—a type of trust the city/regional councillors believe MAFBNZ is still developing.
‘I wasn't convinced with the way the operations were conducted or the way that MAF conducted its public relations. I thought they were brutal. They had a “push it through and see what happens” approach… I felt that MAF had a very cynical attitude towards how they treated the other stakeholders.’
As noted by Sutinen & Kuperan (Citation1999), regulatory compliance theory suggests that top-down, command and control-style policies are unlikely to be perceived as legitimate, resulting in policy that is ineffectual in achieving its goals and a programme that is costly and unsatisfactory to the public. In contrast, regulatory authorities that are seen as legitimate are likely to hold a greater sense of loyalty from the public, which it can draw on in times of crisis. Although cooperation appeared to be occurring to some extent with one council involved in the current study, the above quotes suggest the other two councils felt that MAF held a more dictatorial position that did not leave room for two-way dialogue with the councils or stakeholders.
The councils encouraged early consultation with MAFBNZ in order to determine who the likely stakeholders would be, so that the councils could include such groups (or at least their perspectives) in future discussions. This is particularly important given the role that the city/regional councils believe they have in terms of being advocates of their constituents' rights. One council member gave the recent incursion of didymo as an example of effective consultation resulting from early inclusion of community stakeholders.
‘I think the right role for us is to be a conduit for people's concerns and you know when things aren't happening, to go and rattle cages and make sure they do happen.’
‘I think [we should be involved] right from the beginning, because you know, again it is council who is kind of the layer closest to the people and we have a sense of our communities. We understand, you know, who the key community opinion leader shapers are and, you know, I think we can give really good advice about that.’
Indeed, previous research has indicated that co-management regimes that empower participants to play a prominent role in decision making may be a means of strengthening legitimacy and voluntary compliance (Hanna Citation1995). In addition, as suggested by Santen et al. (Citation2004), ongoing anticipatory dialogue that allows the discussion of options and approaches with community groups before an incursion helps to reduce the ever-present conflict between timely responses and informed community consent, and may serve to increase awareness and understanding of biosecurity issues.
It is imperative that MAFBNZ continues to improve its relationships with councils and community groups in a timely and effective way, rather than just dictating responses or delegating responsibilities for communication. Encouragingly, at least one of the city/regional councils felt that the handling of the recent didymo incursion was well managed, due of the early involvement of the relevant stakeholders and the amount of communication with the public.
‘I think didymo, despite the grumbles that we had initially and maybe still a few ongoing from affected parties, I thought that was pretty well managed. It was done on a big scale and I think that was a good example of something working well. They [MAFBNZ] liaised closely with us. They were very keen at the early stage to get the key stakeholders together to meet and to have input into decisions.’
In addition, while there was some frustration apparent with two of city/regional councils regarding their relationship with MAFBNZ, there was also the acknowledgement of the relative ‘youth’ of the agency and the need to be as supportive as possible of the agency's work. Thus it is also important that the councils be encouraged to become involved in the efforts that go on behind the scenes so as to improve their (sometimes limited) understanding of some of the other important issues involved in the consideration of a biosecurity response.
‘I'm very mindful of the fact that Biosecurity New Zealand is a relatively new business and they've got to come up to speed with things and it's in our interests to help them to be as good as they can be. They have to be as good as they can, because we're going to rely on them; the nation is going to rely on them being able to deliver the business when we have new incursions or emergency events or just carrying on with day-to-day stuff.’
Limitations of the research
This research utilizes qualitative research methods with a small number of participants in order to provide an initial exploration of some of the underlying issues regarding pest eradication technologies. One of the drawbacks of this type of research that can be mitigated only to some extent is the role that a particularly vocal participant may play in colouring the response of other members of the group and hence the relative emphasis of the messages that come out of the discussions. Although the study involved two focus groups to reduce the impact of such participants, ideally, more focus groups would have been conducted. Future research will need to build on the findings from this research by consulting a much broader section of the New Zealand community to determine the prevalence of the various beliefs and opinions.
Conclusions
The participants in this study appear to understand the importance of biosecurity in New Zealand and are supportive of the use of some eradication procedures from time to time in order to ensure the preservation of the New Zealand environment and economy. Acceptance of the various technologies proposed for the eradication of insect biosecurity risks is likely to depend on the trade-off between the real and perceived costs to the community and environment that would result from using the technology compared with the costs incurred to the community as a result of allowing the pest to exist. Personal freedoms and to some extent, even minor impacts on health may be tolerable if the negative impacts of the pest are judged to be significant and relevant to the public.
The use of aerial sprays present some concerns, because the public are unable to control exposure to them and because of the potential health concerns. In contrast, sterile insect release poses fewer concerns to the small number of participants in our research, despite being unfamiliar with the technology. While risk–benefit trade-offs are likely to be the primary consideration regarding acceptance of pest eradication technologies, how the relevant information is presented and how the community are included in the decision-making process should not be ignored as significant influences in predicting public response. Agencies that satisfy both the affect-based and cognitive-based criteria for trust are more likely to be perceived as legitimate and hence hold a greater sense of loyalty from the public, which it can draw on in times of crisis. To this end it is important that city/regional councils are actively involved with biosecurity management and strategy on a continual basis, since they possess valuable insights into the communities they are elected to serve and can therefore raise or address potential concerns or issues in a timely manner, without having to delay urgent responses.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by New Zealand's Foundation of Research, Science and Technology, through the Better Border Biosecurity (B3) Programme.
Notes
1. It is important to emphasize the fact that no attempt was made at this stage to determine prevalence of opinion, or to suggest that these responses were representative of the community at large.
References
- Auditor-General 2002 . Management of biosecurity risks. Report of the Controller and Auditor-General . Wellington , Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry .
- Baba , M. 1999 . Dangerous liaisons: Trust, distrust, and information technology in American work organisations . Human Organisation , 58 ( 3 ) : 331 – 345 .
- Biosecurity Council 2003 . Tiakina Aotearoa—Protect New Zealand . Wellington , Biosecurity Council .
- Bisogni , CA , Connors , M , Devine , CM and Sobal , J . 2002 . Who we are and how we eat: A qualitative study of identities in food choice . Journal of Nutrition Education and Behaviour , 34 ( 3 ) : 128 – 139 .
- Cocklin , C , Craw , M and McAuley , I . 1998 . Marine reserves in New Zealand: Use rights, public attitudes, and social impacts . Coastal Management , 26 ( 3 ) : 213 – 231 .
- Cook , A , Fairweather , JR , Satterfield , T and Hunt , LM . 2004 . New Zealand public acceptance of biotechnology. Research Report No 269 , Canterbury Plains : Lincoln University .
- Craig , J , Anderson , S , Clout , M , Creese , B , Mitchell , N and Ogden , J . 2000 . Conservation issues in New Zealand . Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics , 31 : 61 – 78 .
- Duckworth , JA , Byrom , AE , Fisher , P and Horn , C . 2006 . Pest control: Does the answer lie in new biotechnologies? . Ecological Studies , 186 : 421 – 434 .
- Gamble , J and Kassardjian , E . 2008 . The use of selected community groups to elicit and understand the values underlying attitudes towards biotechnology . Public Understanding of Science , 17 ( 2 ) : 245 – 259 .
- Goven , J , Kerns , T , Quijano , R and Wihongi , D . 2006 . Report of the 2006 people's inquiry into the impacts and effects of aerial spraying pesticide over urban areas of Auckland, October 2007 , St Heliers, Auckland : The People's Inquiry Inc .
- Hamstra , A . 1998 . Public opinion and biotechnology: A survey of surveys , The Hague : European Federation of Biotechnology, Task Group on Public Perceptions of Biotechnology .
- Hanna , S . 1995 . “ Efficiencies of user participation in natural resource management ” . In Property rights and the environment: Social and ecological issues , Edited by: Hanna , S and Munasinghe , M . Washington, DC : Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics and the World Bank .
- INRA (Europe) 2000 . Eurobameter 52.1: The Europeans and biotechnology. European commision, Citizen's Centre – Analysis of Public Opinion Unit (Directorate General for Education and Culture) . http://ec.europa.eu/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_134_en.pdf (accessed 6 May 2010) .
- Lewis , JD and Wiegert , A . 1985 . Trust as a social reality . Social Forces , 63 : 967 – 985 .
- MAF (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) 2003 . Biosecurity awareness and understanding . A report prepared by AC Nielsen for MAF , Wellington .
- Matthews , C . 1996 . Fruit fly gets multi-million treatment . Orchardist , 69 ( 9 ) : 44 – 45 .
- McMillan , N . 2001 . Govt cracking down on border bugbears . MG Business: Mercantile Gazette , 123 ( 5383 ) : 4 – 7 .
- Panckhurst P 2001 (244) . Moth beaten. Metro (Auckland) 56 63 .
- Pickering S 2002 . Biosecurity focus at city airport . Waikato Times, 3 July 2002, 2 .
- Rovella P 2008 . Court cases shut down aerial spraying . The Weekend Pinnacle Online 11 July 2008. http://www.pinnaclenews.com/business/contentview.asp?c=246576 (accessed 2 August 2008) .
- Santen L van , Goven J , Langer , L 2004 . The role of community involvement in future incursion responses . New Zealand Journal of Forestry 49 3 38 .
- Sutinen , JG and Kuperan , K . 1999 . A socio-economic theory of regulatory compliance . International Journal of Social Economics , 26 ( 1–3 ) : 174 – 193 .
- Timmins , SM and Blood , K . 2003 . Weed awareness in New Zealand , Wellington : Department of Conservation .
- Whyte , C . 2006 . Science and biosecurity—monitoring the effectiveness of biosecurity interventions at New Zealand's borders . Miscellaneous series (Royal Society of New Zealand) , 67 : 27 – 35 .