- The Public View Of Rabbits
- Attitudes to the Control Technologies
- Issues in the Acceptability Of Biological Controls
- Attitudes to RCD
- Decision-making and public information
7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The Public View Of Rabbits
This study has confirmed that the vast majority of the New Zealand public recognise the problem of feral rabbits - especially the damage caused to the environment and to farm production. They also believe the problem is national in scope. However, this recognition of the problems is not translated into personal concern. Although recognised as a pest, rabbits are also thought of as "cute and furry", and as a useful resource that could generate significant economic benefits if exploited appropriately. Compared with possums, rabbits are less of a personal concern to members of the public and are considered more aesthetically appealing. Females, urban dwellers, and younger people show a degree of ambivalence in their views of rabbits.
Attitudes to the Control Technologies
Manpower technologies, particularly shooting and trapping, remain the most acceptable methods for controlling rabbits. However, the public and special interest groups recognise that such methods are more expensive and may not be as effective as other methods. Biological control methods, such as a naturally occurring or genetically modified rabbit disease, are the next most acceptable, with a GMO being more acceptable than an imported naturally-occurring virus. However the introduction of RCD, which is an exotic virus and believed to be humane and specific to rabbits, to kill rabbits in New Zealand is considered more acceptable than an unnamed virus. The acceptability of a GMO for controlling rabbits was confirmed in the acceptance of GMOs for controlling animal and insect pests in general. However the public have no experience of releases of GMOs or their products in New Zealand, although they may be aware of proposals for releases in the USA, Europe and Australia in recent years and the associated controversies. More research on the public's understanding of such organisms is indicated.
More of the public consider the aerial application of 1080 bait and the use of other poisons - currently our most-used and most effective forms of rabbit control - unacceptable than acceptable (respectively, 49% versus 33% for 1080, and 41% versus 28% for other poisons). Other studies have found higher levels of approval for the use of 1080, possibly because these studies referred to "controlling" rather than "killing rabbits". About equal proportions of the public find the use of imported natural viruses unacceptable as acceptable (41% versus 39%). More consider GMOs acceptable than unacceptable (48% versus 32%). Males are more accepting of all the control technologies than females.
The public is generally not comfortable with the idea of animals being killed, and if causing the death of animals is part of pest control, they would prefer it to not be visible and therefore confront their sensibilities. At the same time they are anxious that the controls do not cause pain or degrade the target animal. The "quality of the death" of the animal is therefore a key issue in the choice of rabbit control.
Issues in the Acceptability Of Biological Controls
Awareness of the concept of the "biological control of pests" is not strong determinant of people's level of acceptability of biological controls. However for the public, the acceptability of biological (and other) control technologies is tied up with practical, ethical, and equity issues. Practical issues raised by participants in the study include both technical and risk-related factors such as: need for the control technology, host specificity of the control organism and vector, whether an introduced vector is needed or not, potential for mutation and transfer to humans, level of available information and knowledge about the control organism and its effects and, related to this, the credibility of the experts involved. Ethical issues centre on humaneness, and the effects of decisions about biological controls on future human generations and other species. Equity issues were raised in the focus groups and largely related to the distribution of benefits, costs, and risks of introducing biological methods for controlling animal pests.
Many of these issues appear in Slovic's risk perception factors (Section 1.2). Their practical validity in the public's consideration of biological controls has already been demonstrated in New Zealand, most of the issues having featured in the public's opposition to myxomatosis in 1991.
Attitudes to RCD
As a first reaction, about half of the public might support the introduction of RCD to New Zealand, and the support of another 20% would be forthcoming if certain issues could be successfully addressed or guarantees given (see results in Section 6.1). However our research shows clearly that a person's attitudes to RCD or biological control cannot be fully ascertained from the response to a single question. For example, over half the respondents in the survey had a different position to the introduction of RCD from that on an unnamed rabbit virus. The number of respondents who favoured the introduction of a virus increased when it was named and its features explained.
When our respondents were asked to explain their position on introducing RCD - that is, they had to think more about the question - we found their position was multifaceted, and often different from what they initially said. The reasons people gave for their position closely reflected the technical/practical, risk, ethical, and equity issues outlined above, especially the perceived need for RCD and various practical issues. Equal proportions of the public (i.e., 15%) took firm and unqualified positions of support for, or opposition to, the introduction of RCD into New Zealand. Equal proportions of the remaining public fell into the three categories of "concerned supporters", "cautious", and "ethically concerned".
On the basis of these expanded positions, straight-forward support for introducing RCD would most likely come from only about one-third of the population - the "supporters" and the "concerned supporters" - compared with the apparent 51% obtained in the initial response. The remaining two-thirds of the population would need sufficient credible information put in front of them in order to decide whether the proposed biological control complies with their requirements, and to assess the various risks. Even with this information, people may oppose the introduction of RCD. We found, for example, that the "cautious" (i.e., the 19% who focused on the need for more information) closely resembled the "rejectors" in many of their attitudes to rabbit controls. Their request for more information may therefore have been a way of avoiding being seen to take an initial negative position.
Decision-making and public information
The risks perceived by the public can be overestimated or erroneous. Overestimation can especially occur when the technologies have been the subject of previous public concern, such as with 1080. Erroneous perceptions of risk by the public may also occur because lay people lack necessary information. This appears to be true for some of the control technologies examined in this study. In order for the public to understand the relative risks of a biological control for rabbits, it would therefore need to know the present and likely future impacts of rabbits (on the environment, farming productivity, and the ratepayer/taxpayer), the impacts and risks of current control technologies, and the potential risks of introducing the control organism.
However, although the lay public's perceptions may be technically incomplete, their conceptualisation of risk can be richer than that of experts. Formal or expert probability-based assessments alone are unlikely to meet the public's needs when it comes to making a decision on a biological control such as RCD. As Chess et al. (1989) advise in the resolution of risk problems, "merely hammering away at the scientific information will rarely help". A carefully devised two-way communication process and participatory decision-making approach would therefore be appropriate when the introduction of organisms for controlling rabbits is being proposed. Chess et al., (1989) and Slovic (1986) have provided useful guidelines for communication and decision making in situations in which questions of risk feature.
From our findings, a proposal to introduce RCD (or any other organism) for the control of rabbits should be accompanied by a public information and education programme, rather than public relations. The information should address the practical issues raised by the "concerned supporters" and the "cautious" and provide a credible foundation for understanding the rabbit problem and its impacts, as well as the potential impacts of introducing RCD. The development of a better understanding by the public of the types of good that may arise from controlling rabbits, possums or any other pest is a prerequisite for acceptance of a biological control technology which is seen as doing potential harm. This is particularly necessary for public acceptance of the main present control technology - 1080 poison. Such information should also aim to help the "ethically concerned" to resolve the dilemma of which kind of harm we should live with - harm to the target animal through the new technology or harm to the environment and people's wellbeing through the animal's impacts. Since the ethical questions are also tied up with risks (such as the issues of the potential harm to non target animals and ourselves) the credibility of information on the potential positive and negative effects and risks of the new technology will be crucial.
The uncontrolled spread of RCD from the research site on in South Australia to many parts of the Australian mainland provides the opportunity for scientists and decision-makers to understand more fully the features of the virus, including its humaneness, host specificity, and flow-on biophysical and social effects. The results of such research would be valuable for informing the public and decision-makers in New Zealand. However this outbreak represents a failure by scientists at a time when the public credibility of scientists is low. Despite their utility, the RCD research findings may therefore not be well accepted by the New Zealand public.
Media reporting could both help inform the public about RCD (thereby reducing some of the "unknown" risks), as well as amplify the perceived risks. At the time of writing, the New Zealand public had already been presented with a combination of graphic, negative television images (i.e., larger than life images of dead and dying animals) of a powerful and novel biotechnology at work, and commentary evoking the "unknown" and "dread" risks. Such media portrayals have the potential effect of overshadowing any images or information about the rabbit's current and future impact on the environment and the economy. The key risk issues which are already emerging in the media seem to be the apparent uncontrollability of the virus and the credibility of the scientists and experts providing the information on which the decisions will be made. The design of a public information and consultation programme will therefore need to be sensitive to these issues. However, the communication process itself is risky. As Morgan et al. (1992) have noted, "one should no more release an untested communication than an untested product". A communication programme on the biological control of rabbits should ideally be developed in participation with the public and key interest groups. This is still possible for RCD.
If reasoned and well-considered decisions on introducing biological controls for rabbits (or possums) are to be achieved, the process by which the technologies are assessed and introduced is crucial. The process should, among other things, aim to achieve agreement between all interested parties, including the lay public, on the harm and good to be assessed at the national and local level so that risk trade-offs can be made from an informed and agreed position. The key ethical and practical issues which bear on acceptance and which will need to be addressed in the process of decision making include the rabbit as a living being, the rabbit as a pest, the direct and indirect impacts of the rabbit, and the control technologies, their effects, and their associated uncertainties.
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
