New zealand community stakeholders and pest eradication technologies
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 31

New Zealand community stakeholders and pest eradication technologies PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 64 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

New Zealand community stakeholders and pest eradication technologies. Jo Gamble (HortResearch) and Tracy Payne (AgResearch). Agenda. 1. Why do this study? 2. What have we done so far? 3. What were our key findings? 4. Where to from here…?. Why do this study?.

Download Presentation

New Zealand community stakeholders and pest eradication technologies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


New zealand community stakeholders and pest eradication technologies

New Zealand community stakeholders and pest eradication technologies

Jo Gamble (HortResearch) and Tracy Payne (AgResearch)


Agenda

Agenda

  • 1. Why do this study?

  • 2. What have we done so far?

  • 3. What were our key findings?

  • 4. Where to from here…?


Why do this study

Why do this study?

  • At least two factors have put New Zealand’s border system under greater pressure:


Why do this study1

Why do this study?

  • At least two factors have put New Zealand’s border system under greater pressure:

    • Globalisation has resulted in an increase in trade, movement of goods, new trade partners


Why do this study2

Why do this study?

  • At least two factors have put New Zealand’s border system under greater pressure:

    • Globalisation has resulted in an increase in trade, movement of goods, new trade partners

    • Tourism has become a major industry and source of economic revenue for New Zealand


Why do this study3

Why do this study?

  • Many of the old technologies we used for border and post-border biosecurity are falling out of favour (e.g. pesticides, poisoned baits)

  • The search is on for technologies that can replace the old ones (e.g. more species-specific toxins, pheromones, sterile insect release)

  • Public opinion regarding these new options is either unknown or divided.


Why do this study4

Why do this study?

  • 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;

    • how do we balance the needs of economy, environment and people’s health (as specified in the definition of ‘Biosecurity’)?

    • how do we ensure consultation doesn’t slow down the rapid responses needed with pest incursions?


Why do this study5

Why do this study?

  • Opposition is a stronger motivation for people to become involved than is support, since acceptance of a proposal means they do not need to try to change the decision


Why do this study6

Why do this study?

Despite the need for quick decisions by experts, it is right that the public should become involved.

This should occur early in the process to reduce potential conflict and delay at a later stage, when timeliness in decision making is essential


What have we done so far

What have we done so far?

  • Aim: to gain some understanding of the range of responses from the community to three current or future technologies favoured by the experts in the FRST Better Border Biosecurity programme:

    • aerial spraying using biopesticides (BtK)

    • aerial spraying of pheromones

    • Sterile Insect Technology  (SIT)


What have we done so far1

What have we done so far?

  • Who:

    • General community (2 x focus groups: Auckland and Christchurch)


What have we done so far2

What have we done so far?

  • Who:

    • General community (2 x focus groups: Auckland and Christchurch)

    • Appropriate DoC personnel


What have we done so far3

What have we done so far?

  • Who:

    • General community (2 x focus groups: Auckland and Christchurch)

    • Appropriate DoC personnel

    • City and Regional councils (Waitakere, Auckland and Canterbury)


What have we done so far4

What have we done so far?

  • Who:

    • General community (2 x focus groups: Auckland and Christchurch)

    • Appropriate DoC personnel

    • City and Regional councils (Waitakere, Auckland and Canterbury)

  • How:

    • Utilised semi-structured interviews

    • Focus groups or one-on-one, depending on the stakeholder


What were our key findings

What were our key findings?

  • 1. Awareness of biosecurity issues

  • 2. Costs and Benefits

  • 3. Impact of perceptions of the consultation process on acceptability


What were our key findings1

What were our key findings?

Awareness of biosecurity issues:

  • General public

    • Good awareness at a general level and a high level of willingness to protect New Zealand,

      • Why is biosecurity important?

      • What personal actions should we all take?

    • But very poor in specifics:

      • Types of organisms and where they came from

      • What to look for in garden etc

      • Who to contact

      • No idea about future biosecurity risks

  • Councils/ DoC

    • Awareness much greater


What were our key findings2

What were our key findings?

Costs

  • Unknown long term impacts on health and environment:

    • Health:

      • Spray residue on foods

      • Inhalation of sprays

    • Economy

      • Trade barriers due to unacceptable technology

    • Environment:

      • Unknown impact on the food chain – ecosystem out of balance

      • Irradiation done away from the public – quarantine the breeding facilities

      • Development of resistance

      • Length of time residues in the environment


What were our key findings3

What were our key findings?

Benefits

  • If effective, could benefit everyone:

    • Health

      • No harmful insects

      • Fewer pesticides

    • Economy

      • Greater ability to export

      • Less damage to crops

    • Environment

      • Preserve our native environment

  • However, some concern that benefits might only accrue to industry.


What were our key findings4

What were our key findings?

  • Control:

    • Ability to avoid it: sprays were harder to avoid than the SIT

    • Ability to understand the technology (specifically, what tests have been conducted, alternative approaches, and the costs versus benefits of each alternative?)

    • Ability to have a say in the decision making process

    • Need a transparent decision making process

    • People’s Enquiry into the spraying of Painted Apple Moth = perceived as ineffectual consultation

    • Didymo incursion = effective consultation occurred to some extent – much lower profile


What were our key findings5

What were our key findings?

  • How to effectively consult?

    • Consultation ‘with’ rather than consultation ‘to’

    • General public suggested multi-media approaches or community meetings

    • 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.


What were our key findings6

What were our key findings?

  • Trust:

    • How does MAFBNZ rate?

    • Trust based on two distinctive foundations: cognitive and affective (Lewis and Wiegart (1985))


What were our key findings7

What were our key findings?

  • Trust:

    • How does MAFBNZ rate?

    • Trust based on two distinctive foundations: cognitive and affective (Lewis and Wiegart (1985))

    • Cognitive-based criteria for trust = the calculation of the evidence of trustworthiness (such as credentials, or reputation) = relates to competence.

      • On this criterion, MAFBNZ seen to be doing well.


What were our key findings8

What were our key findings?

  • Trust:

    • How does MAFBNZ rate?

    • Trust based on two distinctive foundations: cognitive and affective (Lewis and Wiegart (1985))

    • Cognitive-based criteria for trust = the calculation of the evidence of trustworthiness (such as credentials, or reputation) = relates to competence.

      • On this criterion, MAFBNZ seen to be doing well.

    • Affect-based trust = emotional investments in a relationship – the ability to demonstrate genuine caring and concern

      • On this criterion, MAFBNZ is still developing.


What were our key findings9

What were our key findings?

Department of Conservation

General community

City and Regional Councils


What were our key findings10

What were our key findings?

Department of Conservation

General community

MAFBNZ

City and Regional Councils


Where to from here

Where to from here…?

Quantification of results

We are starting to grasp the issues, but:

  • How many people actually feel this way?

  • What are the most important issues?

  • Given the limited ‘tool box’ available to MAFBNZ (they may only have one or two options) and the need to be able to respond quickly to an incursion, how important is it to genuinely consult with the public?


Where to from here1

Where to from here…?

Fishbein’s Multiattribute Attitude Model

  • States: A person’s attitude towards an object is determined by the sum of beliefs that the person has about the consequences or attributes of the object, weighted by how they are evaluated (Fishbein, 1963).


Where to from here2

Where to from here…?

Fishbein’s Multiattribute Attitude Model

  • States: A person’s attitude towards an object is determined by the sum of beliefs that the person has about the consequences or attributes of the object, weighted by how they are evaluated (Fishbein, 1963).

    Revisions we believe are required:

  • beliefs about consequences of an action should be extended from the self, to other groups in society, such as family, or future generations

  • inclusion of beliefs about risks and benefits of each technology since they tend to influence attitudes negatively and positively respectively

  • Inclusion of perceptions of personal control, trust, knowledge of the technology and general attitudes held by that person


Where to from here3

Where to from here…?

A revision of Fishbein’s Multiattribute Attitude Model

Perceived Benefits

Beliefs or belief factors weighted by empirically determined regression co-efficients

Attitudes to pest eradication technologies

Perceived Risks

General attitudes and knowledge domains

e.g. attitudes to technology, environment, perceptions of control


Where to from here4

Where to from here…?

  • How much influence do perceptions of control and trust have on attitudes towards the technology relative to other attitudes,

    • and is this in terms of a moderating or direct impact?

  • This could have strong implications on how decisions are made in the future.


New zealand community stakeholders and pest eradication technologies

www.hortresearch.co.nz

[email protected]


  • Login