- 4.1 Focus Group Findings
- 4.2 Survey Findings
- Table 4.1 Perception of Rabbits and Their Impacts (% of Respondents)
4. PERCEPTIONS OF RABBITS AND THEIR IMPACTS
4.1 Focus Group Findings
In the focus group discussions, participants expressed positive reactions to images of rabbits and almost unanimously separated the animal from the pest. As one participant, reported, "the animal in itself is not the pest, only the subsequent impacts of the rabbit are." References to rabbits as pests increased when the negative impacts were raised by group members. Participants in a variety of groups felt that the public were generally not aware of the impacts of the rabbit on the environment and on farming, and that increased awareness was required to counterbalance negative perceptions of control efforts. Such awareness was considered crucial for making a case for introducing any new control technology.
Rabbits were perceived as a source of meat by all groups. However, this perception was raised either in the context of individuals' experience of having eaten rabbit meat, or of having seen rabbit meat for sale. The concept of commercial harvesting of meat and fur tended to be raised by urban groups as a means of avoiding the risks associated with the poison and biological control options and as an employment option. However, there was also a recognition that commercial harvesting would be unlikely to control the rabbit problem.
Perceptions of the scale of the rabbit problem were not consistent in the groups. In most groups at least one participant believed rabbits to be a regional rather than a national problem. Rural and primary sector groups regularly claimed that the rabbit was being treated as a pest of national (rather than regional) significance and this was resulting in insufficient attention being given to possum control.
It was clearly demonstrated in the focus groups that the images used to promote discussion were crucial to the responses given. For example, a picture of a healthy resting rabbit superimposed on a lush farm landscape evoked largely positive responses. However, when the negative effects of the rabbit on the environment and on farm viability were raised, all groups acknowledged the importance of dealing with the pest problem.
4.2 Survey Findings
Most of the respondents knew that rabbits are not native to New Zealand, considered the animal to be harmful, and associated it with both environmental and farm damage. Most believed that rabbit problems occurred throughout New Zealand. Perceptions of the extent of rabbit problems were not matched by the levels of personal concern shown (Table 4.1). Group differences existed, with urban residents, females, and non-members of conservation organisations all reporting lower levels of concern about the rabbit problem.
Table 4.1 Perception of Rabbits and Their Impacts (% of Respondents)
| Rabbits .... | Agree | Disagree | Neither agree nor disagree | Don't
know/ No response |
Number of responses |
| Cause a loss in farm production | 95 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1125 |
| Cause environmental damage | 95 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1125 |
| Are a source of meat and fur | 73 | 13 | 12 | <1 | 1125 |
| Are a problem throughout NZ | 71 | 18 | 10 | 1 | 1124 |
| Are eaten by ferrets and wild cats | 70 | 6 | 6 | 18 | 1124 |
| Are cute and furry animals | 62 | 32 | 5 | <1 | 1124 |
| Are a problem in only some areas of NZ | 60 | 30 | 7 | 2 | 1125 |
| Are a concern to me | 49 | 41 | 9 | <1 | 1125 |
| Are basically harmless | 18 | 75 | 5 | <1 | 1125 |
| Are native to NZ | 9 | 80 | 1 | 9 | 1125 |
Rabbits were a personal concern for approximately 50 % of respondents, although the level of concern differed amongst groups within the sample. Males were significantly more concerned than females, rural residents were more concerned than urban residents, older people (i.e., aged over 40) were more concerned than younger people, and members of environmental groups were more concerned than non-members (Mann-Whitney U test: all p < 0.0001).
Most respondents (75%) considered rabbits to be harmful. Although half of the respondents had no direct personal concern about rabbits, almost all believed them to cause environmental damage and a loss of farm production. The only significant difference between various sections of the sample in terms of the perceived harmlessness of rabbits was between members and non-members of environmental organisations, with the latter more likely to agree that rabbits were basically harmless (Mann-Whitney U: p = 0.002). Those aged 40 and over were more likely than younger respondents to agree that rabbits cause losses in farm production and environmental damage (Mann-Whitney U: p < 0.005 and p < 0.001, respectively).
These results are similar to those from the 1991 survey, which showed that 93% considered rabbits a serious or very serious pest (Sheppard & Urquhart, 1991). The 1995 Roy Morgan Research Centre survey reported that 53% considered rabbits pests, vermin, or a nuisance, and when prompted, 86% indicated awareness of the impacts of rabbits on the environment and farming.
Seventy-one percent of our respondents agreed with the statement that the rabbit problem is New Zealand-wide. However, 60% of respondents also agreed that rabbits are a problem in only some parts of New Zealand. Just over one-third of respondents agreed to both statements. There was clearly some inconsistency in the perceptions of respondents, and this could not be ascribed to any particular groups within the sample. The cause of the inconsistency is not known but may be due to question interpretation bias. The clearest views belonged to those who accepted the notion that the rabbit problem was a national one and rejected that it was confined to only some areas (42%), and to those who held the complementary view (18%). Ignoring the issue of the extent of the rabbit problem, 89% of respondents indicated they considered there was a problem with rabbits (i.e., they agreed with one or other proposition).
Only 21% of respondents reported a rabbit problem where they lived and, as might be expected, local problems were more likely to be reported by rural residents than urban residents (42% compared with 17%). However, awareness of the effects of rabbits and being personally concerned about rabbits were not dependent on having the problems close at hand, although those who experienced a local problem were more likely to be personally concerned about rabbits (Mann-Whitney U: p < 0.001). The findings on the recognition of a rabbit problem in New Zealand are similar to those found in the 1995 Roy Morgan survey (i.e., 85%). However, the level of respondents reporting a problem where they live has increased from 12% to 21% since the 1991 survey of Sheppard & Urquhart.
Most respondents agreed with the proposition that rabbits are "cute and furry animals". Significantly higher proportions of females than males, urban than rural residents, and younger rather than older respondents agreed with this proposition (Mann-Whitney U: p < 0.001). Most of the respondents also recognised that the rabbit is not native to New Zealand. Even so, females and non-members of environmental organisations were more likely than males and members to think that rabbits were native animals (Mann-Whitney U: p = 0.001 and p = 0.006 respectively). The 1995 Roy Morgan survey did not have an equivalent question on the appeal of rabbits, though in answer to an unprompted open-ended question about what people thought of rabbits, 21% thought of them as cute or cuddly animals.
About three-quarters of the respondents considered rabbits to be a source of food and fur, with no significant differences between groups in the sample. Our survey results are similar to the findings of Sheppard & Urquhart (1991) on the suitability of commercial harvesting of rabbits. Although the Roy Morgan survey (1995) had no equivalent question, it found that 10% of the New Zealand respondents saw rabbits as a source of meat, in response to an unprompted question.
The proposition that cats and ferrets predate on rabbits was supported by 71% of the respondents, however a high proportion (17%) of respondents did not know if the statement was true or not. Urban and female respondents had the highest disagreement and "don't know" responses to this proposition.
Contact for Enquiries
Manager, Strategic Science Team
MAF Biosecurity New Zealand
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0115
Fax: +64 4 894 0731
Contact this person
