Declare or Dispose: Keeping Biosecurity Threats Out of New Zealand Using Behaviour Change

Sherring, Phill

doi:10.1007/978-981-15-8517-3_10

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Between us we have over 40 years' experience working as practitioners, Liz in marine conservation and Phill in marketing (both across commercial and then social marketing). We have different experiences in publishing as practitioners, with Liz not having published in peerreviewed journals, while Phill has seen three articles published in both journals and academic books (Sherring, 2019(Sherring, , 2021a(Sherring, , 2021b; all are case studies of social marketing programs, including one in SMQ.…”

Section: Our Own Experiences With Practitioner Publishing (Or Not)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Friends With Benefits: Practitioner Publishing as a Pathway to Collaboration in Social Marketing

Sherring¹,

Foote

2023

Social Marketing Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four years ago, the late Dr. Susan Kirby wrote an editorial for Social Marketing Quarterly (SMQ) entitled "Social Marketing Practitioners: Should you share your work in SMQ?" (Kirby, 2019). Spoiler alert-the answer was a resounding "yes," as she noted her focus in becoming associate editor for the journal was "to advocate for practitioners, their viewpoints, their needs, and ways to engage them more fully in the journal" (p. 179). Upon her passing soon after the piece was published, Susan's friends and colleagues described her devotion to social marketing and her passion for supporting practitioners (Jordan et al., 2020). In her editorial, Susan emphasized that throughout her career, her goal had been to "engage practitioners in using better and more science and research in their social marketing practice" (p. 179). She linked practitioner publishing to this goal, essentially pointing out that if practitioners don't publish their work, how will others be able to conduct effective formative literature research and avoid reinventing the wheel? She went on to detail how she and SMQ planned to encourage practitioners to publish, including surveys to readers of SMQ to find out the needs of practitioners, a mentoring webinar, shortened review timeframes for article submissions, and developing a co-creation model to bring academics and practitioners together.Some of these actions have happened (such as the readership survey and webinar), and some are still in the works with the current editorial team committed to carrying on Susan's work (McDivitt, 2020).Why do we think the work Susan started is so important? Practitioners publishing in journals like SMQ play an important part in bringing the academic world and practitioners closer together, or "closing the academic/practitioner gap" as many have called it (Gray et al., 2011;Tapp, 2004;Tucker & Lowe, 2014; to name but a few). From a literature review that we've conducted, the conversation appears to be somewhat missing in social marketing circles.So what is the academic/practitioner gap? It's been defined as a "large gap between science and practice" and has gone under the various guises of the science/practice gap, academic/practitioner

show abstract

Section: Our Own Experiences With Practitioner Publishing (Or Not)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Friends With Benefits: Practitioner Publishing as a Pathway to Collaboration in Social Marketing

Sherring¹,

Foote

2023

Social Marketing Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Not only were steps and behaviors detailed on the journey maps, but also barriers and motivators identified in the ethnographic research (Sherring, 2021).…”

Section: Interventions Through Customer Journey Mappingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Co-Design to Create Community Advocacy for Biosecurity Behavior Change

Sherring

2021

Social Marketing Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: New Zealand’s Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) manages the “declare or dispose” biosecurity border compliance social marketing program. Its aim is to protect the country’s important horticulture and agriculture industries from imported pests and diseases, and its environment. The program encourages visitors to New Zealand to leave potential biosecurity risk items at home or dispose in specially marked bins on arrival. An important part of this is having New Zealand ethnic communities advocate on MPI’s behalf to friends and family overseas to follow the biosecurity rules. To fully engage the community to be advocates, it was felt that the community should be involved in the creation of this aspect of the program. Focus of the article: The article is a case study explaining how MPI used co-design methodology to create an advocacy program with a local community to assist behavior change in overseas visitors. The article focusses on the process and planning (including following a six-step co-design model) from a practitioners’ perspective to develop a program co-created with the target audience, rather than the final interventions developed. Program design/approach: The “declare or dispose” program had been solely “expert led” and designed by social marketers and researchers. The program is heavily influenced by a mix of quantitative and ethnographic research. These feed into customer journey mapping where interventions are inserted to influence audiences’ behavior. To assist in advocacy from the New Zealand Indian community to friends and family overseas, a customer led co-design process was developed to create community engagement and advocacy. Methods: MPI ran three co-design sessions involving members of local Indian community groups. The sessions used a mixture of card sorting and open discussion within small groups. The card sorting was used to review, and rate current interventions used in the behavior change program (including interventions both overseas direct to visitors and locally to community members). The open discussion asked participants to generate new ideas for potential new interventions to reach visitors. Results: Through the ranking of existing tools and participant suggestions of new ideas—MPI has developed an advocacy program that spans expert-led and user-led interventions. As hoped, the user-led suggestions were at a community-based level, resulting in a stronger buy-in from the community to deliver advocacy messages to overseas friends and family. Recommendations for practice: The article is useful for practitioners by detailing how to not only use co-design for creating new ideas, but also to evaluate existing ones to create a program blending both expert- and user-led interventions. MPI followed a six-step co-design process to organize its co-design program. This ensured that the right preparation was followed, sessions were effective, and the desired results of the program were achieved.

show abstract

“…Ports of entry, as tourist's first physical point of contact with a destination; should have appropriate measures in place such as inspection; communication; cleaning and disinfection; and quarantine facilities to mitigate the level of biosecurity risk entering the destination (Martin and Boland, 2018;Sherring, 2021). However, such measures should be linked to an international biosecurity surveillance system that would ensure global coordination for rapid response to emerging biosecurity threats (WHO, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tourism ports of entry and biosecurity preparedness: lessons learned from Ireland

Melly¹,

Hanrahan²

2023

EJTR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study provides a unique vista of tourism biosecurity preparedness for a destinations’ tourist ports of entry. Existing tourism biosecurity research deals with organisational resilience and tourists’ biosecurity behaviour, however, has not explicitly examined tourism biosecurity preparedness at global or destinations tourist ports of entry levels. To fill this gap, this research utilises twenty-six tourism biosecurity criteria generated from a systematic international literature review to analyse international biosecurity instruments and Irish tourist ports of entry. A mixed-method approach was utilised through content analysis of international biosecurity instruments and Irish tourist ports of entry. A survey and semi-structured interviews were used to support the findings of the content analysis at Irish tourist ports of entry. Analysis determined the Irish tourist ports of entry sampled were severely lacking any provision for tourism biosecurity preparedness. International biosecurity instruments had a necessary level of biosecurity standards; however, a notable omission of tourism that adversely impacts tourism biosecurity preparedness. This research recommends international biosecurity instruments improve capacities for tourism- specific measures. Tourist ports of entry should integrate specific tourism biosecurity measures into passenger operations to ensure greater destination resilience.

show abstract

Declare or Dispose: Keeping Biosecurity Threats Out of New Zealand Using Behaviour Change

Cited by 4 publications

References 12 publications

Friends With Benefits: Practitioner Publishing as a Pathway to Collaboration in Social Marketing

Friends With Benefits: Practitioner Publishing as a Pathway to Collaboration in Social Marketing

Using Co-Design to Create Community Advocacy for Biosecurity Behavior Change

Tourism ports of entry and biosecurity preparedness: lessons learned from Ireland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About