Interviews with New Zealand community stakeholders regarding acceptability of current or potential pest eradication technologies

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.

Communication Disruption of <I>Epiphyas postvittana</I> (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) By Using Two Formulations at Four Point Source Densities in Vineyards

“…The apparent social sensitivity of urban Californians to aerial application of pheromone (Suckling and Brockerhoff 2010) led to investigation of the sterile insect technique (Kean et al 2011, Soopaya et al 2011, Suckling et al 2011c, because it appears that the release of sterile insects attracts less societal opposition than aerial sprays (Gamble et al 2010). Because of a need for less obtrusive tactics, a new technique called "mobile mating disruption" (Suckling et al 2011b) has been developed and tested in an urban environment.…”

Management and eradication options for Queensland fruit fly

“…An issue with urban eradications is the ability to use all tools available. Some tools are less accepted by the public than others (Gamble et al 2010), and placement of the approved tools may not be optimal in heterogeneous environments. The systematic spacing of lure and kill devices, reducing free space between devices or excessive overlap of the active space of devices is one of these issues.…”

“…The systematic spacing of lure and kill devices, reducing free space between devices or excessive overlap of the active space of devices is one of these issues. SIT can support these urban eradications as they are perceived to be a more acceptable control tool than tools that use an insecticide (Gamble et al 2010). If SIT lies are physically it, they are likely to be suiciently mobile so as to access areas that baits or MAT cannot .…”

“…The way in which eradication tools can be used is determined by the context of the eradication, and this can afect the feasibility of eradication. In an urban area, fewer tools may be available for use than in a forest or agricultural landscape due to perceived risks posed to people (Gamble et al 2010). Population management tools can be combined in various ways resulting in additive or synergistic efects on population growth (Berec et al 2007).…”

Can we replace toxicants, achieve biosecurity, and generate market position with semiochemicals?

“…In part, this may be due to the greater familiarity of rural people with the pragmatic aspects of pest management (and consequences of its failure on food supply). However, in urban and other sensitive ecosystems such as national parks, there appears likely to be a preference seen for tactics involving lower environmental and personal impact, such as sterile insect release (Gamble et al, 2010). To an extent this may depend on the extent to which people feel directly threatened by the pest also.…”