6 ATTITUDES TO THE INTRODUCTION OF RABBIT CALICIVIRUS DISEASE (RCD)

In the focus groups, participants were asked to discuss the possible introduction of the RCD virus to New Zealand. This was preceded by a short briefing on RCD and the preliminary findings from the research that was underway in Australia. Participants in most groups were generally uncertain or neutral in their views of RCD, though were able to identify both benefits and possible problems of introducing the disease. Discussion largely focused on the trade-offs between rabbit damage, risks of introducing new organisms to New Zealand, the efficacy of the disease, and general uncertainties about the short-term and long-term effects. The issue of the humaneness and mode of action of RCD, and the unacceptability of myxomatosis, were raised in all groups. This discussion often included questions or concerns about the extent to which dead and dying rabbits would be seen by the public. Some participants in each group expressed a preference for using the existing control technologies rather than having further introductions of exotic organisms.

The focus group members were especially cautious in discussions about risks and acceptable levels of risk. The need for certainty among the public was high - expressed in terms of 98-99.9 % "guarantee" that the disease would be effective, specific to rabbits, and not able to mutate and migrate to other species. Even the sectoral interest focus groups felt that such levels of certainty would be required for the wider public to accept the use of biological control organisms. Risks and uncertainty were key factors in participants' considerations of RCD - for example, we found that the urban groups tended to move from a neutral to a more negative position on RCD after discussing the risks of introducing the virus.

The survey followed a similar process of questioning about RCD to that used in the focus groups. The brief introduction included the features of RCD: "kills rabbits" , "being tested in Australia", "a naturally occurring virus", "specific to rabbits", and "humane". Respondents were then asked if the virus should be introduced to New Zealand. In a follow-up question, the respondents were provided the opportunity to expand on their initial position by giving up to three reasons for their response.

6.1 Respondents' Positions on Introducing RCD

The introduction of the RCD virus was supported by 51% of the respondents and rejected by 24%. A substantial proportion of the sample (19%) gave a conditional response, and 6% said they did not know. This was a higher level of support than the level recorded in the 1995 Roy Morgan survey (43%) and that recorded by Sheppard & Urquhart in 1991.

There were no significant differences in the support for RCD between various demographic groups in our sample, and no correlations with the various perceptions and beliefs about rabbits. However, moderate but significant correlations were found between support for RCD and acceptance of aerial application of 1080, use of other poisons, importing a virus, and use of a GMO (Spearman Rank Order correlations: respectively, 0.22, 0.21, 0.39 and 0.44. - all significant at the p = 0.001 level).

The level of support for introducing RCD was higher than the level of acceptance of the unnamed "imported naturally occurring virus that is specific to rabbits" in the preceding question. The differences between the two descriptions of viral control were that in the RCD question the virus was given a name, was said to be under testing in Australia, and was said to be a humane form of rabbit control. A comparison of the two sets of responses showed that more than half the respondents shifted their initial position on a rabbit viral control when given the specific option of RCD. These shifts have been classified below (Table 6.1).

Table 6.1 : Shifts in Attitude Between Questions on the Introduction of an Unnamed Viral Rabbit Control and Introducing RCD
number % of total
no shift 534 47.4
became more in favour 347 30.9
became less in favour 131 11.7
became neutral or conditional 112 10.0
total 1124 100.0

Those who kept their position on an unnamed viral control when asked about RCD included the unaccepting, the accepting, and the "don't knows". Most of those who became more in favour went from saying a rabbit virus was unacceptable to a supportive or "depends" position on introducing RCD. Most of those who moved to a less favourable position went from acceptance of a rabbit virus to an unsupportive or "depends" position on RCD. Most of the remaining group moved to "don't know" with RCD, or from a neutral to a "depends" position. Based on what was found in the focus groups, the movement in the respondents' positions can be reasonably attributed to the provision of additional information, in particular the humaneness of RCD. Some may have also been influenced by the reference to scientific testing of RCD in Australia, with the inference that Australia could be the source for a virus for New Zealand.

There were significant differences in the shifting of attitudes between females and males: females were more likely to become more positive or to become neutral or conditional in their position, while males were more likely to not shift their position or to become more negative (Chi square: p = 0.004)

6.2 Reasons for Respondents' Positions on Introducing RCD

A total of 1597 statements were made by the respondents as reasons for their position on RCD (Table 6.2).

Table 6.2 Main Reasons Given for RCD Responses
Reason by Response Category % of responses in each answer category
1. RCD Should Be Introduced
Need something that works 18
If humane 15
Rabbit specific 12
As long as tested and proven 8
Eradicate rabbits 8
Serious problem 6
Too much rabbit damage 5
Other reasons 28
2. RCD Should Not Be Introduced
Don't believe itís specific 18
Don't believe in virus introductions 12
Not enough research/information 11
Don't trust it/scientists 10
Side effects 7
Worry about environment 6
Inhumane 5
Worry about effects on humans 5
Other reasons 26
3. RCD Introduction Depends
Need research/information 26
If specific 15
Effect on environment 8
Safeguards needed 7
Is it humane 7
Have trial/test 5
Public information 4
If transferable to humans 4
Other reasons 24

Within each category of response to the introduction of RCD, the types of reasons differed. Those in favour of introducing RCD supported their response with references to existing rabbit problems and the need for a solution. These were qualified by the ethical requirements that RCD should be specific to rabbits and humane. The statements for those who considered that RCD should not be introduced focused on the risks or problems of introducing a new virus. These respondents also required ethical standards but did not believe they could be met, and were distrusting of information provided by scientists. Those with a "depends" response raised the risk of new problems arising from the virus, required it to be specific and humane, and were seeking additional information. The list of reasons given by those who gave "no" and "depends" responses to RCD contains many examples of perceived "dread" risks and "unknown" risks.

The reasons used to explain responses to the introduction of RCD were able to be grouped into five categories (Table 6.3).

Table 6.3 Grouping of Reasons for Position on Introducing RCD
Type of Reason responses % of total responses % of respondents
Practical issues 485 30 46
RCD needed 409 26 38
Ethical issues 364 23 34
More information 284 18 27
RCD not needed 55 3 5
Total responses 1597 100

The reasons provided with their response to the introduction of RCD suggests that the "acceptors" were looking for a practical solution to overcome rabbit impacts, but "rejectors" expressed concern about additional impacts on the environment and human health. The "depends" group identified the potential for new problems to result from an introduction of the virus.

6.3 Segmentation of Respondents

Comparison of the respondents' initial position on introducing RCD and the reasons given for that position provided the opportunity to refine where the respondent actually stood on the RCD issue. Six new groupings (or segments) were developed, based on the nature and strength of the conditionality of the respondent's initial position (Table 6.4).

Those who said RCD should be introduced or should not be introduced were classified according to whether their responses were conditional or unconditional. The "unconditional supporters" and "unconditional rejectors" were then separated out. Those who said they did not know whether they supported the introduction of RCD and could not give a reason for their response were classified as "undecided". The remaining group of respondents consisted of "conditional supporters", "conditional rejectors", those who responded with "depends", and those who didn't know but were able to give a reason for their response. This group was split three ways according to the nature of the reasons provided. Those who raised ethical issues were classified as "ethically concerned". Those who were not ethically concerned but said that more research or information was required were classified as "cautious". The remaining respondents, almost all of whom raised practical issues about the introduction of RCD (and, by definition, did not raise ethical issues or said more information was required) were classified as "concerned supporters" .

Based on their positions on a rabbit virus and on introducing RCD, and the nature of the reasons given for their RCD response, equal numbers of respondents were staunch supporters and staunch rejectors of RCD (each group represented 15% of the total respondents).

Table 6.4 Position on Introducing RCD by Segment
Segment Accept
RCD* 		Reject
RCD*		 Depends
RCD*		 Don't Know* row
totals*		 % of sample
Supporters 100 100 22
Concerned Supporters 64 36 100 13
Cautious 32 20 44 4 100 19
Undecided 100 100 5
Ethically Concerned 65 7 26 2 100 22
Rejectors 100 100 19

* % of segment (rows)

Males were more commonly represented among the "supporters", "concerned supporters", or "cautious", than females, and females were more commonly represented among the "undecided", "ethically concerned" and the "rejectors" (Chi sq: p < 0.0001). Less significant differences were found between the members and non-members of environmental organisations. Compared with the non-members, the members were located more with the concerned supporters, cautious and ethically concerned, and much less with the undecided (Chi sq: p = 0.002).

The segments were relevant to the respondent's acceptance of some of the control technologies, in particular their acceptance of poisons and biological controls but not their acceptance of the manpower technologies (Table 6.5). This suggests that perceived risks and ethical issues - present in many of the explanations given for the respondents' positions on the biological control agent RCD, and used to derive the segments - were factors in people's evaluations of poisoning methods but were not part of their evaluations of the manpower technologies.

Table 6.5 Percentage of Respondents Accepting of Various Methods of Killing Rabbits by Segment
Segment trapping shooting aerial 1080 other poison rabbit virus rabbit GMO
Supporters 68 84 48 42 65 78
Concerned Supporters 65 82 40 36 53 64
Cautious 65 85 31 28 31 35
Undecided 60 75 20 11 29 29
Ethically Concerned 63 83 32 25 36 49
Rejectors 68 84 21 15 13 17
Kruskal-Wallis H: 4 3 58* 77* 176* 222*

* all significant at p < 0.0001 level

The segments were also ordered in a similar manner when applied to the acceptability of the methods for killing possums, suggesting that the segments were credible groupings of the respondents.

Previous Page TOC Next Page

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

 
Print this page Print this page