Next Article in Journal
Woody Regeneration Response to Overstory Mortality Caused by the Hemlock Woolly Adelgid (Adelges tsugae) in the Southern Appalachian Mountains
Next Article in Special Issue
Using Q Methodology to Explore Risk Perception and Public Concern about Tree Pests and Diseases: The Case of Ash Dieback
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Stand Biomass Estimation Methods for Major Forest Types in the Eastern Da Xing’an Mountains, Northeast China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Biosecurity: Enabling Participatory-Design to Help Address Social Licence to Operate Issues
Open AccessArticle

Are We Defending the Indefensible? Reflecting on Policy and Practice Around ‘the Border’ in Plant Biosecurity for Tree Health

1
School of Geography and Sustainable Development, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland KY16 9AL, UK
2
Forest Research, Northern Research Station, Roslin, Scotland EH25 9SY, UK
3
Fera Science Ltd. National Agri-food Innovation Campus, Sand Hutton, York YO41 1LZ, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2019, 10(9), 716; https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090716
Received: 25 June 2019 / Revised: 12 August 2019 / Accepted: 15 August 2019 / Published: 21 August 2019
The challenges to forest health from climate change, globalization, contemporary trade practices and new recreational patterns require effective biosecurity. We asked: How is the biosecurity border for tree health understood and enacted by state and non-state actors? What are the consequences for tree health? Semi-structured interviews (N = 10) were conducted with scientists and other relevant actors (N = 21). The border was understood variously as: a biophysical boundary, often the coast; a geopolitical boundary, usually of the European Union; the points of main inspection focus; dispersed nodes of inspection; a ‘pre-border’ outside of UK; or by the location of detection activities. A wide range of state, non-state and hybrid groups are engaged in border practices. These practices have been altered due to trade and climate changes, are subject to cost and resource priorities and reflect particular knowledge flows and the biological nature of the agents. We suggest that there is an ‘everyone’ as well as ‘everywhere’ border that demands clarification of risks, roles and responsibilities, and we offer practical recommendations. We conclude that tree health border challenges are a manifestation of wider sustainability issues that enable us to explore human–nature relationships, democratic engagement and the pursuit of more sustainable futures. View Full-Text
Keywords: forest management; tree health; social science; biosecurity; borders; pest; pathogen; governance forest management; tree health; social science; biosecurity; borders; pest; pathogen; governance
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

White, R.M.; Marzano, M.; Leahy, S.; Jones, G. Are We Defending the Indefensible? Reflecting on Policy and Practice Around ‘the Border’ in Plant Biosecurity for Tree Health. Forests 2019, 10, 716. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090716

AMA Style

White RM, Marzano M, Leahy S, Jones G. Are We Defending the Indefensible? Reflecting on Policy and Practice Around ‘the Border’ in Plant Biosecurity for Tree Health. Forests. 2019; 10(9):716. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090716

Chicago/Turabian Style

White, Rehema M.; Marzano, Mariella; Leahy, Sharon; Jones, Glyn. 2019. "Are We Defending the Indefensible? Reflecting on Policy and Practice Around ‘the Border’ in Plant Biosecurity for Tree Health" Forests 10, no. 9: 716. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090716

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop