IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enscpo/v59y2016icp18-25.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public acceptance of tree health management: Results of a national survey in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Fuller, Lauren
  • Marzano, Mariella
  • Peace, Andrew
  • Quine, Christopher P.
  • Dandy, Norman

Abstract

Assumptions about public stakeholder attitudes to pest and disease management can influence the decisions of forest managers and NGOs involved in responding to pests and diseases; however, they are rarely assessed directly. Evidence on the social acceptability of tree health management methods is required to inform government led policy and management. A nationally representative survey of 2000 members of the UK public was used to address two research questions: (1) How acceptable are tree health management methods to the public? (2) How do opinions about woodland functions, concern and awareness of tree pests and diseases, and demographics influence acceptance of management methods? We found that public stakeholders are highly supportive of tree health management; however, knowledge about tree pests, diseases, and management options is low. Methods seen as more targeted and ‘natural’ were preferred, e.g. felling and burning only affected trees and using biological control rather than chemical control. There were demographic differences in attitudes: men and older people are more likely to support management interventions and stronger management methods than females and younger people. Acceptance of management can also differ according to location and local context (e.g. management is less supported when it may impact on wildlife) and values (e.g. those with economic values are more supportive of management). These findings provide evidence to support current government initiatives on tree health and should improve confidence amongst managers tasked with carrying out tree pest and disease management. However, there is a need for in-depth qualitative studies to explain the beliefs which influence demographic variations in acceptance and the influence of concepts such as ‘nativeness’ and ‘naturalness’.

Suggested Citation

  • Fuller, Lauren & Marzano, Mariella & Peace, Andrew & Quine, Christopher P. & Dandy, Norman, 2016. "Public acceptance of tree health management: Results of a national survey in the UK," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 18-25.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:59:y:2016:i:c:p:18-25
    DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.02.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901116300314
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.02.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Oleg Sheremet & John R. Healey & Christopher P. Quine & Nick Hanley, 2017. "Public Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Forest Disease Control in the UK," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 781-800, September.
    2. Jepson, Paul R & Arakelyan, Irina, 2017. "Developing publicly acceptable tree health policy: public perceptions of tree-breeding solutions to ash dieback among interested publics in the UK," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 167-177.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:59:y:2016:i:c:p:18-25. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/environmental-science-and-policy/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.