Attitudes, Involvement and Public Support for Pest Control Methods
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Involvement with the relevant policy outcome (e.g., reducing pest populations).
- Involvement with, and attitude towards, the policy measure itself (i.e., pest control methods).
- People’s attitudes towards the policy outcome will be a function of their beliefs about the outcome.
- People’s attitudes towards the policy measures will be a function of their beliefs about the policy measure.
- Involvement with policy measures depends on involvement with the policy outcome.
- The strength of attitudes regarding policy measures will be a function of involvement with the outcome, involvement with the measures, and active beliefs with respect to other subjects that are perceived to be highly relevant (such as social norms, and regulations and penalties that nominally apply).
- Responses to the policy outcome will be a function of involvement with the outcome, attitudes towards the outcome, and its personal relevance (in the sense that the individual perceives personal agency).
- Responses to the policy measures will be a function of involvement with, and attitudes to, the outcome, and involvement with, and attitudes to, the measures, and their personal relevance.
2. Materials and Methods
- People’s attitude towards reducing populations of possums and rats will depend on their beliefs about the consequences of the presence of significant populations of these pests.
- People’s attitudes towards ground baiting with 1080 will depend on their beliefs about 1080 and their beliefs about ground baiting. Correspondingly, people’s attitudes towards aerial baiting with 1080 will depend on their beliefs about 1080 and their beliefs about aerial baiting.
- Involvement with ground baiting will depend on involvement with reducing possum and rat populations and beliefs about 1080 (in the absence of data on involvement with the personal use of 1080 per se).
- Involvement with aerial baiting will depend on involvement with reducing possum and rat populations and beliefs about 1080.
- The strength of people’s attitudes towards ground baiting with 1080 will depend on involvement with reducing possum and rat populations, involvement with ground baiting, and beliefs about 1080.
- The strength of people’s attitudes towards aerial baiting will depend on involvement with reducing possum and rat populations, involvement with aerial baiting, and beliefs about 1080.
- People’s sense of responsibility for achieving the outcome of reducing populations of rats and possums will depend on their involvement with, and attitude towards, reducing pest populations, and the personal relevance of the outcome (specifically, eliminating rats and possums on their properties or in their area).
- People’s willingness to take action to achieve the outcome of reducing populations of rats and possums will depend on their involvement with, and attitude towards, reducing pest populations, and the personal relevance of the outcome.
- People’s willingness to make sacrifices to achieve the outcome of reducing populations of rats and possums will depend on their involvement with, and attitude towards, reducing pest populations, and the personal relevance of the outcome.
- People’s willingness to work together to achieve the outcome of reducing populations of rats and possums will depend on their involvement with, and attitude towards, reducing pest populations, and the personal relevance of the outcome.
3. Results
3.1. The Sample
3.2. Belief Segments
3.2.1. Belief Segments for Reducing Rat Populations
3.2.2. Belief Segments for Reducing Possum Populations
3.2.3. Belief Segments for 1080
3.2.4. Belief Segments for Ground Baiting with 1080
3.2.5. Belief Segments for Aerial Baiting with 1080
3.3. Predicting Support for Using 1080
Attitudes and Beliefs
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kareiva, P.; Marvier, M. What Is Conservation Science? BioScience 2012, 62, 962–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crowley, S.L.; Hinchliffe, S.; McDonald, R.A. Conflict in invasive species management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2017, 15, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Subroy, V.; Rogers, A.A.; Kragt, M.E. To bait or not to bait: A discrete choice experiment on public preferences for native wildlife and conservation management in Western Australia. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 147, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ferreira-Rodríguez, N.; Pavel, A.B.; Cogălniceanu, D. Integrating expert opinion and traditional ecological knowledge in invasive alien species management: Corbicula in Eastern Europe as a model. Biol. Invasions 2021, 23, 1087–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loss, S.R.; Boughton, B.; Cady, S.M.; Londe, D.W.; McKinney, C.; O'Connell, T.J.; Riggs, G.J.; Robertson, E.P. Review and synthesis of the global literature on domestic cat impacts on wildlife. J. Anim. Ecol. 2022, 91, 1361–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marshall, G.R.; Coleman, M.J.; Sindel, B.M.; Reeve, I.J.; Berney, P.J. Collective action in invasive species control, and prospects for community-based governance: The case of serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma) in New South Wales, Australia. Land Use Policy 2016, 56, 100–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slagle, K.; Bruskotter, J.T.; Singh, A.S.; Schmidt, R.H. Attitudes toward predator control in the United States: 1995 and 2014. J. Mammal. 2017, 98, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chand, R.R.; Cridge, B.J. Upscaling Pest Management From Parks to Countries: A New Zealand Case Study. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 2020, 11, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klapwijk, M.J.; Hopkins, A.J.M.; Eriksson, L.; Pettersson, M.; Schroeder, M.; Lindelöw, Å.; Rönnberg, J.; Keskitalo, E.C.H.; Kenis, M. Reducing the risk of invasive forest pests and pathogens: Combining legislation, targeted management and public awareness. Ambio 2016, 45, 223–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Parsons, M.H.; Banks, P.B.; Deutsch, M.A.; Corrigan, R.F.; Munshi-South, J. Trends in urban rat ecology: A framework to define the prevailing knowledge gaps and incentives for academia, pest management professionals (PMPs) and public health agencies to participate. J. Urban Ecol. 2017, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aley, J.P.; Milfont, T.L.; Russell, J.C. The pest-management attitude (PMA) scale: A unidimensional and versatile assessment tool. Wildl. Res. 2020, 47, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McLeod, L.J.; Hine, D.W. Using Audience Segmentation to Understand Nonparticipation in Invasive Mammal Management in Australia. Environ. Manag. 2019, 64, 213–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fitzgerald G Public Attitudes to Current and Proposed Forms of Pest Animal Control; Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre: Canberra, Australia, 2009.
- Russell, J. A comparison of attitudes towards introduced wildlife in New Zealand in 1994 and 2012. J. R. Soc. New Zealand 2014, 44, 136–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niemiec, R.M.; Pech, R.P.; Norbury, G.L.; Byrom, A.E. Landowners’ Perspectives on Coordinated, Landscape-Level Invasive Species Control: The Role of Social and Ecological Context. Environ. Manag. 2017, 59, 477–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldson, S.; Bourdôt, G.; Brockerhoff, E.G.; Byrom, A.; Clout, M.; McGlone, M.; Nelson, W.; Popay, A.; Suckling, D.; Templeton, M. New Zealand pest management: Current and future challenges. J. R. Soc. New Zealand 2015, 45, 31–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McLeod, L.J.; Hine, D.W.; Please, P.M.; Driver, A.B. Applying behavioral theories to invasive animal management: Towards an integrated framework. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 161, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- van Eeden, L.M.; Newsome, T.; Crowther, M.; Dickman, C.; Bruskotter, J. Social identity shapes support for management of wildlife and pests. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 231, 167–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fraser, A. Public Attitudes to Pest Control: A Literature Review; DOC Research & Development Series 227; Science & Technical Publishing; Department of Conservation: Wellington, New Zealand, 2006.
- Fitzgerald, G.P.; Fitzgerald, N.P.; Davidson, C. Public Attitudes Towards Invasive Animals and Their Impacts; Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre: Canberra, Australia, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Kannemeyer, R. A Systematic Literature Review of Attitudes to Pest Control Methods in New Zealand, LCR2789; Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research: Lincoln, New Zealand, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Schwarzer, R. (Ed.) Self-Efficacy in the Adoption and Maintenance of Health Behaviors: Theoretical Approaches and a New Model. In Self-efficacy: Thought Control of Action; Hemisphere: Washington, DC, USA, 1992; pp. 217–243. [Google Scholar]
- Witte, K. Putting fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Commun. Monogr. 1992, 59, 329–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T. The Effects of Involvement on Responses to Argument Quantity and Quality: Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1984, 46, 69–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Attitude-behaviour relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol. Bull. 1977, 84, 888–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychol. Rev. 1977, 84, 191–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kerlinger, F.N. Foundations of Behavioral Research, 2nd ed.; Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York, NY, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
- Priluck, R.; Till, B.D. The Role of Contingency Awareness, Involvement and Need for Cognition in Attitude Formation. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2004, 32, 329–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaine, G.; Murdoch, H.; Lourey, R.; Bewsell, D. A framework for understanding individual response to regulation. Food Policy 2010, 35, 531–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davies, A.; Kaine, G.; Lourey, R. Understanding factors leading to non-compliance with effluent regulations by dairy farmers. In Environment Waikato Technical Report 2007/37; Environment Waikato: Hamilton, New Zealand, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Kaine, G.; Tostovrsnik, N. Landholders and the management of weeds: Blackberry and serrated tussock. In Service Design Research Working Paper 03-11; Department of Primary Industries: Tatura, Victoria, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Lourey, R.; Kaine, G.; Davies, A.; Young, J. Landholder responses to incentives for wild dog control. In Service Design Research Working Paper 07-11; Department of Primary Industries: Tatura, Victoria, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Kaine, G. An application of the I3 framework to rat control in Hawke’s Bay. In Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research Report LC3646; Lincoln, New Zealand, 2019; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344730926_An_application_of_the_I_3_framework_to_rat_control_in_Hawke's_Bay (accessed on 24 August 2022).
- Kaine, G.; Kirk, N.; Kannemeyer, R.; Stronge, D.; Wiercinski, B. Predicting People’s Motivation to Engage in Urban Possum Control. Conservation 2021, 1, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaine, G.; Stronge, D. An application of the I3 framework to rat control in New Plymouth. In Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research Report LC3734; Lincoln, New Zealand, 2020; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344730675_An_application_of_the_I_3_framework_to_rat_control_in_New_Plymouth (accessed on 24 August 2022).
- Kaine, G.; Kannemeyer, R.; Stronge, D. Using 1080 to control possums and rats: An application of the I3 framework. In Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research Report LC3747; Manaaki Whenua Press: Lincoln, New Zealand, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Kaine, G.; Greenhalgh, S.; Wright, V. Compliance with COVID-19 measures: Evidence from New Zealand. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0263376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bewsell, D.; Bigsby, H.; Cullen, R. Using involvement to understand individual responses to an issue: The case of New Zealand biosecurity. New Zealand J. Agric. Res. 2011, 55, 73–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bewsell, D.; Brown, M. Involvement: A novel approach for understanding responses to nutrient budgeting. New Zealand J. Agric. Res. 2011, 54, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daigle, J.J.; Straub, C.L.; E Leahy, J.; De Urioste-Stone, S.M.; Ranco, D.J.; Siegert, N.W. How Campers’ Beliefs about Forest Pests Affect Firewood Transport Behavior: An Application of Involvement Theory. For. Sci. 2018, 65, 363–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howlett, M. The criteria for effective policy design: Character and context in policy instrument choice. J. Asian Public Policy 2017, 11, 245–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, R.W. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J. Psychol. 1975, 91, 93–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Department of Conservation (DOC). Towards a Predator free New Zealand: Predator Free 2050 Strategy; Department of Conservation: Wellington, New Zealand, 2020.
- Russell, J.; Innes, J.G.; Brown, P.H.; Byrom, A.E. Predator-Free New Zealand: Conservation Country. BioScience 2015, 65, 520–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Peltzer, D.A.; Bellingham, P.J.; Dickie, I.A.; Houliston, G.; Hulme, P.E.; Lyver, P.O.; McGlone, M.; Richardson, S.J.; Wood, J. Scale and complexity implications of making New Zealand predator-free by 2050. J. R. Soc. New Zealand 2019, 49, 412–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Green, W.; Rohan, M. Opposition to aerial 1080 poisoning for control of invasive mammals in New Zealand: Risk perceptions and agency responses. J. R. Soc. New Zealand 2012, 42, 185–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaine, G. A pilot application of the I3 framework to compliance behaviour in farming. In Landcare Research Contract Report LC3513; Manaaki Whenua Press: Hamilton, New Zealand, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Laurent, G.; Kapferer, J.N. Measuring consumer involvement profiles. J. Mark. Res. 1985, 22, 41–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olsen, S.O. Strength and conflicting valence in measurement of food attitudes and preferences. Food Qual. Prefer. 1999, 10, 483–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fraser, W. Introduced Wildlife in New Zealand: A Survey of General Public Views; Landcare Research Science Series No. 23; Manaaki Whenua Press: Lincoln, New Zealand, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Hughey, K.F.D.; Kerr, G.N.; Cullen, R. Public Perceptions of New Zealand’s Environment; EOS Ecology: Christchurch, New Zealand, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Aldenderfer, M.S.; Blashfield, R.K. Cluster Analysis; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 27.0; IBM Corp: Armonk, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Carmines, E.G.; Zeller, R.A. Reliability and Validity Assessment; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Tukey, J. Comparing Individual Means in the Analysis of Variance. Biometrics 1949, 5, 99–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaffee, S.H.; Roser, C. Involvement and the consistency of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours. Commun. Res. 1986, 13, 373–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bremner, A.; Park, K. Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 139, 306–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Niemiec, R.M.; Ardoin, N.M.; Wharton, C.B.; Asner, G.P. Motivating residents to combat invasive species on private lands: Social norms and community reciprocity. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dunn, M.; Marzano, M.; Forster, J.; Gill, R.M. Public attitudes towards “pest” management: Perceptions on squirrel management strategies in the UK. Biol. Conserv. 2018, 222, 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warburton, B.; Livingstone, P. Managing and eradicating wildlife tuberculosis in New Zealand. New Zealand Veter- J. 2015, 63 (Suppl. S1), 77–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Britt, S.H. Psychological Principles of Marketing and Consumer Behavior; Lexington Books: Lexington, MA, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Kunda, Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 1990, 108, 480–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hornsey, M.J.; Harris, E.A.; Fielding, K.S. The psychological roots of anti-vaccination attitudes: A 24-nation investigation. Health Psychol. 2018, 37, 307–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimmermann, F. The Dynamics of Motivated Beliefs. Am. Econ. Rev. 2020, 110, 337–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fitzgerald, G.; Wilkinson, R.; Saunders, L. Public Perceptions and Issues in Possum Control. In The Brushtail Possum: Biology, impact and management of an introduced marsupial; Monatgue, T.L., Ed.; Manaaki Whenua Press: Lincoln, New Zealand, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Sagoff, M. Do non-native species threaten the natural environment? J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2005, 18, 215–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simberloff, D. Nature, natives, nativism, and management: Worldviews underlying controversies in invasion biology. Environ. Ethics 2012, 34, 5–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morris, M.C. Predator Free New Zealand and the ‘War’on Pests: Is it a just War? J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2020, 33, 93–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morris, M.C. Primary school education resources on conservation in New Zealand over-emphasise killing of non-native mammals. Aust. J. Environ. Educ. 2022, 38, 168–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Statement (n = 464) | Segment 1 (39%) | Segment 2 (21%) | Segment 3 (3%) | Segment 4 (37%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
We need to reduce the number of rats to protect our native birds and wildlife | 3.91 | 4.99 a | 1.18 a,b | 4.98 a,c |
We need to reduce the number of rats to conserve our native plants and trees | 3.81 | 4.91 a | 1.09 a,b | 4.85 a,c |
We need rats because they suppress mice numbers | 2.83 | 3.48 a | 2.64 b | 1.67 a,b,c |
We need to reduce the number of rats because they compete with native wildlife for food sources | 3.74 | 4.96 a | 1.09 a,b | 4.83 a,c |
We need to reduce the number of rats because in high seed production (‘mast’) years rat numbers can reach plague levels in our native forests | 3.76 | 4.86 a | 2.09 a,b | 4.83 a,c |
We need to reduce the number of rats to prevent damage to orchards and gardens | 3.53 | 4.79 a | 2.00 a,b | 4.45 a,b,c |
Rats have just as much of a right to life as other animals | 2.95 | 2.87 a | 2.55 a,b | 1.47 a,b,c |
Statement (n = 454) | Segment 1 (27%) | Segment 2 (26%) | Segment 3 (29%) | Segment 4 (18%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
We need to reduce the number of possums to protect our native birds and wildlife | 4.26 | 3.26 a | 4.74 a,b | 4.86 a,b |
We need to reduce the number of possums to conserve our native plants and forests | 4.28 | 3.22 a | 4.69 a,b | 4.85 a,b |
We need to reduce the number of possums to eradicate bovine Tb | 4.11 | 2.95 a | 4.44 a,b | 4.14 b |
We need to reduce the number of possums to prevent damage to plant nurseries | 4.29 | 2.77 a | 4.41 b | 3.89 a,b,c |
We need to reduce the number of possums because they compete with livestock by eating pasture damage to pasture | 3.88 | 2.41 a | 3.95 b | 3.22 a,b,c |
We need to reduce the number of possums to prevent damage to orchards and gardens | 4.06 | 2.91 a | 4.63 a,b | 3.59 a,c |
Possums have just as much of a right to life as other animals | 3.60 | 3.62 | 2.38 a,b | 1.76 a,b,c |
We need possums because they compete with other pests | 3.48 | 2.77 a | 2.21 a,b | 1.40 a,b,c |
We need to have some possums to keep people employed in the fur industry | 3.99 | 2.84 a | 1.99 a,b | 1.79 a,b |
Statement (n = 918) | Segment 1 (17%) | Segment 2 (52%) | Segment 3 (23%) | Segment 4 (9%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1080 helps to control possums, rats and stoats | 4.22 | 3.67 a | 4.73 a,b | 2.30 a,b,c |
1080 is a cruel and inhumane way to kill animals such as stoats and rats | 3.73 | 3.12 a | 1.95 a,b | 4.75 a,b,c |
Independent scientific studies have proven that native bird populations increase in areas where 1080 poison is used | 4.03 | 3.13 a | 4.44 a,b | 1.87 a,b,c |
1080 poison is more effective in saving birdlife than trapping the predators | 3.98 | 2.86 a | 4.34 a,b | 1.61 a,b,c |
1080 poison is biodegradable and at most takes several months to break down | 3.88 | 3.05 a | 3.86 b | 2.18 a,b,c |
The benefits to bird populations from increased nesting success following 1080 predator eradication far outweigh any side effects | 4.21 | 2.97 a | 4.46 a,b | 1.63 a,b,c |
1080 kills as many birds, if not more, than it might save | 3.59 | 3.28 a | 1.83 a,b | 4.66 a,b,c |
The suffering of predators due to 1080 poisoning far outweighs the benefits of increasing nesting success and native bird numbers | 4.18 | 2.98 a | 2.43 a,b | 3.25 a,b,c |
1080 is a risk to farm animals and pets | 4.16 | 3.75 a | 2.95 a,b | 4.84 a,b,c |
1080 is a risk to people’s health | 4.01 | 3.53 a | 2.17 a,b | 4.64 a,b,c |
A benefit of using 1080 to reduce possum numbers is that stoats also can be killed if they feed on poisoned possums, rats, and mice | 4.22 | 3.40 a | 4.29 b | 2.52 a,b,c |
1080 rapidly becomes harmless if it gets into rivers and lakes | 3.80 | 2.75 a | 3.85 b | 1.39 a,b,c |
Tb can be eradicated from cattle in New Zealand by using 1080 to reduce possum numbers | 4.03 | 3.06 a | 3.91 b | 1.75 a,b,c |
1080 poison gets into our waterways | 4.07 | 3.62 a | 2.82 a,b | 4.78 a,b,c |
Statement (n = 918) | Segment 1 (50%) | Segment 2 (18%) | Segment 3 (32%) |
---|---|---|---|
Using bait stations with 1080 to reduce possum numbers is not cost effective | 3.09 | 3.30 a | 2.60 a,b |
Using bait stations with 1080 to reduce possum numbers is not practical in some areas | 3.69 | 4.28 a | 3.39 a,b |
Using bait stations with 1080 to reduce possum numbers is much safer where there are farms and water ways | 3.52 | 1.95 a | 3.86 a,b |
Using bait stations with 1080 to reduce possum numbers is a risk to people’s health | 3.25 | 4.42 a | 1.94 a,b |
Using bait stations with 1080 to reduce possum numbers is a danger to wild foods | 3.37 | 4.60 a | 2.08 a,b |
Using 1080 in bait stations helps save cattle and farmed deer from Tb | 3.50 | 2.62 a | 3.69 a,b |
Using 1080 in bait stations is bad for recreational hunting | 3.59 | 3.28 a | 1.83 a,b |
Statement (n = 918) | Segment 1 (29%) | Segment 2 (36%) | Segment 3 (20%) | Segment 4 (15%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Aerial baiting with 1080 kills as many birds, if not more, than it might save | 3.81 | 2.95 a | 1.68 a,b | 4.49 a,b,c |
Aerial baiting with 1080 is a risk to farm animals and pets | 4.24 | 3.21 a | 2.63 a,b | 4.96 a,b,c |
Aerial baiting with 1080 helps save cattle and farmed deer from Tb | 3.12 | 3.22 | 4.17 a,b | 1.98 a,b,c |
Aerial baiting with 1080 is a risk to people’s health | 4.16 | 2.97 a | 1.93 a,b | 4.89 a,b,c |
Aerial baiting with 1080 is cost effective | 3.27 | 3.17 | 4.40 a,b | 2.43 a,b,c |
Aerial baiting with 1080 is the only practical method of pest control in areas that are rugged and difficult to reach | 3.28 | 3.43 a | 4.69 a,b | 1.61 a,b,c |
Aerial baiting with 1080 contaminates waterways | 4.27 | 3.16 a | 2.32 a,b | 4.91 a,b,c |
Aerial baiting with 1080 is bad for recreational hunting | 3.96 | 3.05 a | 2.48 a,b | 4.78 a,b,c |
Aerial baiting with 1080 is a danger to wild foods | 4.20 | 3.05 a | 2.49 a,b | 4.88 a,b,c |
Belief Segments | Attitude towards Reducing Pest Numbers | Attitude towards Ground Baiting | Attitude towards Aerial Baiting |
---|---|---|---|
Possum segment one | –0.59 ** | –0.06 | –0.13 |
Possum segment two | –1.51 ** | –0.40 ** | –0.28 ** |
Possum segment three | –0.21 ** | –0.13 | 0.03 |
Rat segment one | –0.89 ** | –0.29 ** | –0.04 |
Rat segment two | –0.08 | –0.08 | –0.05 |
Rat segment three | –2.07 ** | –0.20 | 0.37 |
1080 segment one | 1.20 ** | 1.04 ** | |
1080 segment two | 0.86 ** | 0.38 ** | |
1080 segment three | 1.44 ** | 1.15 ** | |
Ground baiting segment one | –0.52 ** | ||
Ground baiting segment two | –1.64 ** | ||
Aerial baiting segment one | 0.89 ** | ||
Aerial baiting segment two | 1.60 ** | ||
Aerial baiting segment three | 2.43 ** | ||
Intercept | 4.70 ** | 3.11 * | 1.07 ** |
R | 0.61 | 0.76 | 0.81 |
Adjusted R2 | 0.37 | 0.57 | 0.65 |
F-Test significance | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Involvement with Ground Baiting | Involvement with Aerial Baiting | |
---|---|---|
Pest (outcome) involvement | 0.35 ** | 0.36 ** |
1080 segment one | 0.67 ** | 0.53 ** |
1080 segment two | 0.27 ** | 0.25 ** |
1080 segment three | 0.37 ** | 0.54 ** |
Intercept | 1.76 ** | 1.72 ** |
R | 0.58 | 0.59 |
Adjusted R2 | 0.33 | 0.34 |
F-Test significance | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Strength of Attitude towards Ground Baiting | Strength of Attitude towards Aerial Baiting | |
---|---|---|
Pest involvement | 0.29 ** | 0.15 ** |
Ground involvement | 0.09 | |
Aerial involvement | –0.07 | |
1080 segment one | –1.69 ** | –0.77 ** |
1080 segment two | –1.94 ** | –0.95 ** |
1080 segment three | –0.82 ** | –0.43 ** |
Intercept | 1.57 ** | 1.45 ** |
R | 0.46 | 0.44 |
Adjusted R2 | 0.21 | 0.19 |
F-Test significance | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Responsibility | Willing to Act | Willing to Sacrifice | Willing to Work Together | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Pest involvement | 0.65 ** | 0.55 ** | 0.64 ** | 0.37 ** |
Pest attitude | 0.29 ** | 0.44 ** | 0.34 ** | 0.53 ** |
Pest on property | 0.53 ** | 0.22 ** | 0.28 ** | 0.02 |
Pest in area | 0.10 ** | 0.28 ** | –0.03 | 0.07 |
Intercept | 0.23 | –0.21 | –0.12 | 0.44 |
R | 0.64 | 0.70 | 0.63 | 0.74 |
Adjusted R2 | 0.41 | 0.49 | 0.40 | 0.54 |
F-Test significance | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Tolerate Every Few Years | Tolerate Once-Off Aerial Baiting | Tolerate until a Replacement Is Found | Oppose Repeated Aerial Baiting | Oppose Completely | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pest involvement | 0.02 | 0.13 * | 0.07 | –0.02 | –0.08 |
Pest attitude | 0.08 * | 0.07 | 0.11 ** | –0.09 * | –0.17 ** |
Ground involvement | –0.03 | 0.10 | –0.06 | 0.25 ** | 0.37 ** |
Ground attitude | 0.13 ** | 0.15 ** | 0.13 ** | –0.14 ** | –0.21 ** |
Aerial involvement | 0.19 ** | 0.12 | 0.27 ** | 0.20 ** | 0.08 |
Aerial attitude | 0.71 ** | 0.49 ** | 0.66 ** | –0.79 ** | –0.76 ** |
Intercept | –0.36 | –0.24 | –0.51 | 4.83 ** | 5.29 ** |
R | 0.84 | 0.66 | 0.81 | 0.78 | 0.80 |
Adjusted R2 | 0.70 | 0.43 | 0.66 | 0.60 | 0.64 |
F-Test significance | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Possums (n = 454) | Rats (n = 464) | |
---|---|---|
Pest involvement | 0.01 | 0.09 ** |
Pest attitude | 0.06 ** | –0.04 |
Pest on property | 0.46 ** | 0.35 ** |
Pest in area | 0.11 ** | 0.22 ** |
Intercept | –0.26 ** | –0.02 ** |
R | 0.59 | 0.52 |
Adjusted R2 | 0.34 | 0.27 |
F-Test significance | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kaine, G.; Wright, V. Attitudes, Involvement and Public Support for Pest Control Methods. Conservation 2022, 2, 566-586. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation2040038
Kaine G, Wright V. Attitudes, Involvement and Public Support for Pest Control Methods. Conservation. 2022; 2(4):566-586. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation2040038
Chicago/Turabian StyleKaine, Geoff, and Vic Wright. 2022. "Attitudes, Involvement and Public Support for Pest Control Methods" Conservation 2, no. 4: 566-586. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation2040038