Public Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Forest Disease Control in the UK

Abstract

Invasive pests and diseases in trees impose a range of costs on society related to reductions in timber values, impacts on recreational opportunities and effects on forest biodiversity. These costs need to be considered when assessing control options and developing public policy. We investigate the preferences and willingness to pay of the UK general public for a range of forest disease control measures using a choice experiment with a sample of 605 people. Respondents were relatively well informed about general tree disease‐related issues, such as causes and general measures to minimise the risk of disease spread. They were less knowledgeable about specific tree diseases, with Dutch elm disease and chalara ash dieback being the most well known. We find that disease control programmes in publicly‐owned forests and forests owned by charitable trusts are more likely to be supported by the public than equivalent control programmes in privately‐owned and/or commercial forests. The nature of scientific uncertainty about diseases does not affect peoples’ preferences for disease control measures significantly. Higher respondent income, greater ex‐ante knowledge about tree diseases, and more frequent visits to forests are correlated with greater willingness to support publicly‐funded tree disease control programmes in forests. Better knowledge about tree diseases also improves the clarity of respondents’ choices. We find a negative sentiment against some disease control measures, such as clear felling of a forest, and chemical or biocide spraying. We conclude that there is significant public support for part‐financing forest disease control policies in the UK, but that this is conditional on forest ownership and the type of control measures used.

To Bait or Not to Bait: A Discrete Choice Experiment on Public Preferences for Native Wildlife and Conservation Management in Western Australia

“…Similarly, in a study on marine ecology conservation in Western Australia, Rogers (2013b) found that utility for the same conservation outcomes differed depending on the management process specified: respondents typically preferred processes that were less restrictive in terms of human use of the marine reserve. More recently, Sheremet et al (2017) also concluded that public support (for forest disease control) is conditional on the type of control measures used. On the other hand, Hanley et al (2010) found that respondents were largely indifferent to how conservation objectives (for raptors in Scottish moorlands) were achieved, implying that the benefits are roughly equal across management alternatives if the same level of environmental protection is achieved.…”

“…There are some studies that estimate households' willingness to pay (WTP) for the management of other invasive species in other parts of the world. For example, Florida residents' WTP to control invasive plants in state Parks (Adams et al, 2011); French households' WTP to reduce nuisance from invasive Asian ladybirds (Chakir et al, 2016); and UK households' WTP for tree disease control programs in UK forests (Sheremet et al, 2017).…”

Awareness, concern and willingness to adopt biosecure behaviours: public perceptions of invasive tree pests and pathogens in the UK

“…This attention often focuses on the potential impacts of the outbreaks, especially in terms of effects on biodiversity and landscape, and the effectiveness of the government in preventing new incursions or managing pests and diseases already established. As Sheremet et al (2017) indicate, when public funds are used for disease and pest control programmes, it is important to consider public attitudes towards trees and woodlands and their preferences for mitigation efforts. However, currently there is little empirical evidence for policy makers to refer to in order to characterise the nature of public attentiveness to tree pest and disease outbreaks, nor how publics might respond to evolving outbreaks and management actions (Flint 2007).…”

“…Alongside considering how public opinion affects management and policy-making, such as a lack of support for chemical pest control or clear-felling as control measures (Sheremet et al 2017), understanding how lay publics interpret and respond to risk events is important for risk communication. Raising awareness without triggering undue alarm (Timotijevic and Barnett 2006) may require tailoring notifications and information about risk to particular circumstances, interests and knowledge of a heterogeneous set of lay publics (Quine et al 2011).…”

Using Q Methodology to Explore Risk Perception and Public Concern about Tree Pests and Diseases: The Case of Ash Dieback

“…In the UK, such studies are predominantly associated with large-scale national surveys which identify moderate levels of public concern about tree pests and diseases, particularly in terms of impacts on woodlands and ecosystem services, but very low levels of awareness [33,34]. Other studies on the social acceptability of eradication and control measures provide a public mandate for management of outbreaks rather than a 'do nothing' course of action [35][36][37]. Such studies provide useful general indicators about the public mood and preferences for action, but their use of aggregated survey data provides little insight into the individual underlying subjective values and beliefs that influence the perceptions of respondents.…”