Social science role in tree and
plant health, and biosecurity
Clare Hall
SRUC Researcher in Rural Sustainability
Defra Social Science Research Fellow in Tree Health and
Plant Biosecurity
April 2013
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Why the interest in social science?
The role of the secondment.
Work carried out during secondment.
Scoping of projects.
Gap analysis: Broad themes prioritised.
Project ideas under each research theme.
(Some results from Chalara survey)
2
Why the interest in social science?
• Tree Health & Plant Biosecurity Action Plan (October 2011)
–
–
–
–
Theme A: Protecting the UK – import controls
Theme B: Practical actions
Theme C: Public and stakeholder engagement
Theme D: Research opportunities and evidence priorities
– Theme D notes the need for interdisciplinary research that integrates natural
sciences, social and economic evidence.
– This presents challenges as forest research has a very strong tradition in the
natural sciences and very little input from the social sciences.
• Biosecurity is primarily about behaviours – i.e. people
• Traditionally plant health policy concerned with P&Ds in
horticulture / agriculture – but increasingly about P&Ds in
wider environment.
3
The role of the secondment
• Text from the Defra call for the fellowship
• Social science research fellow supporting tree
health and plant biosecurity
• The role will provide social science input, advice and analysis
into the area of Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity and wider Plant
Health
• Analysis and knowledge transfer role
• The research fellow will undertake, advise on and support policyrelevant research
• Will facilitate the sharing of knowledge and expertise between
academia and government
• The role will require interaction across a range of bodies inc:
APHEA Team, Plant Health Policy Team, FC, FR.
4
Work carried out during secondment
• (Formal and informal) knowledge exchange
• Feeding in to various on-going processes and
publications
– E.g. OPAL, Chalara Management Plan England, Defra’s Tree
Health and Plant Biosecurity Evidence Plan
• Scoping of relevant social science research projects
(and stakeholder engagement work)
• Gap analysis relating to social science in the area of
tree and plant health and biosecurity
5
Scoping of projects
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Stakeholders: attitudes and behaviours
Defra: Stakeholder mapping in relation to four pests and diseases (Emerald Ash Borer, Chestnut
Blight, Great Spruce Bark Beetle, Asian Longhorn beetle).
Fera HSTI: Plants of cultural significance.
Bicton College: Student project – investigating public awareness of Chalara and stated willingness to
engage in biosecurity behaviours.
Defra: Future Proofing Plant Health: Management of Elms in Sussex and value of Elm trees.
Defra: Dothistroma needle blight: social and economic analyses.
EU Cost Action: PERMIT (Pathway evaluation & pest risk management in transport)
•
Governance projects
LWEC Phase 1: Pathways Into Policy: Biosecurity governance implications of different trajectories of
tree disease introductions and spread.
Defra: Analysis of the management of outbreaks of Oak Processionary Moth in the UK.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Projects relating to citizen science
Fera: Pestspotter app for smart phones (Asian Longhorn Beetle).
Fera HSTI: Non-native species Local Action Groups – structure and motivations.
Big Lottery: OPAL (Open air laboratories) - Citizen science tree health survey.
Defra: ObservaTree - Citizen science tree health early warning system.
Defra: Improved methods for the early detection of Oak Processionary Moth.
6
Gap analysis: broad themes
• Behaviours and the antecedents of those behaviours
• Risk: Social impact, risk indicators and risk perceptions
• Attitudes to new technologies for detection, surveillance,
monitoring and control
• Review of governance structures in plant health policy
• Research issues relating to citizen science
(Other ideas)
7
1) Behaviours and the antecedents of those
behaviours
• In the (interim) Task force report, in the Chief Scientific
Adviser’s foreword, it is noted that:
“the problems addressed in the report have most of their
solutions embedded fundamentally in the behavioural
choices made by people”.
• Lots of stakeholder groups, lots of behaviours of interest,
lots of possible antecedents of those behaviours.
8
Stakeholder groups are likely to encompass:
•
•
•
•
•
(Wood)land owners / (Wood)land managers
Plant nursery managers / owners / staff
Garden centre managers / owners / staff
Other industry: saw-millers, landscapers, stone masons, builders merchants
Plant importers
•
•
•
•
•
NGOs
Gardeners / Consumers / Public
Outdoor recreationists (inc. groups such as cyclists, walkers, birdwatchers)
Tourists, inc. UK, international
Media
•
•
•
•
•
•
Plant inspectors
Local authorities
Transport authorities (eg BAA, Port Authorities)
National government
Policy makers
Devolved administrations
9
Behaviours
• Relevant behaviours could encompass:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Adopting good biosecurity practice
Information seeking
Taking up training
Communicating with others
Complying with regulations
Adopting new technologies
Monitoring for pests/diseases
Reporting possible sightings
10
Antecedents of behaviours
• Relevant antecedents are likely to encompass:
– Values (beliefs)
– Attitudes (to diseases in general; to the specific pest or disease; to risk; to
trees; to authorities; to the environment; to technology, and so on)
– Social norms
– Personal norms
– Habit
– Personality
– Socio-demographics
– Perceived behavioural control
– Knowledge (self-reported and actual)
– Awareness
– Interest in the issue
– Prioritisation of issue relative to other personal / professional / social issues
– Previous experience of the issue or similar issue
11
Behaviours: Specific project ideas
• Industry attitudes to management of pests and diseases
– Study with industry stakeholders, e.g. nurseries, woodland managers,
sawmillers, retailers and landscapers.
• Comparative study of attitudes to biosecurity in New Zealand & UK
– Comparative study with a range of stakeholder groups, including public, plant
importers, border control staff, plant inspectors, private woodland managers
etc.
• (Why) are trees important to people?
– “Why are oak / ash / horse chestnut / pine / other trees important to you?”
– To understand why, and to what extent, public might (not) carry out
biosecurity measures, take part in citizen science projects, accept disease
control measures and management activities.
– To understand why social impact of some P&Ds might be greater.
12
2) Risk perceptions
• Perception of risk influences attitudes, decision-making, and
thus behaviour
• Investigate how industry stakeholders perceive the risks of
pests and diseases and how this relates to biosecurity
practices
• Investigate how the public, gardeners, consumers (of plants
etc), and outdoor recreationists perceive the risks of pests
and diseases and how this relates to biosecurity behaviours
13
3) Attitudes to new technology
• Disease surveillance, monitoring, detection & control are
becoming more technological & reliant on new technology
developments.
• There is scope for investigating attitudes to new detection
and surveillance technologies of those responsible for using
such technologies (e.g.):
• Inspectors;
• citizen scientists;
• (wood)land managers.
• Views of public towards disease control technologies
14
4) Review of governance
• Interim Task Force report recommendation: “Review, simplify and
strengthen governance and legislation”
•
An international review of governance
– Map bodies involved at different levels, from international, through EU,
to UK, DAs, LAs, NGOs, land managers and owners, supply chain
businesses and bodies, the public, gardeners, consumers and so on.
– Describe points of power, decision making and control, action,
communication, and relationships.
– Identify the blockages, pressure points, gaps, failures, and so on.
• Role of Defra’s Risk Management Work Stream; how
recommendations are communicated; how and when
stakeholders are involved in RA process.
• Review governance processes in relation to specific pest or
disease outbreaks (for example, Chalara, OPM, Pine tree
lappet moth) as part of a ‘lessons learned’ exercise.
15
5) Research issues: Citizen science
• Establish a ‘baseline’ of awareness, knowledge, capabilities,
interest, motivations etc. of ‘citizen scientists’
– Citizen science projects should be designed based on an
understanding (evidence base) of citizens’
• existing level of awareness,
• knowledge and skills,
• their interest and motivation for involvement in the issue, and
• perceptions of risk of tree and plant pests and diseases.
– These need investigating if aim is to ‘mobilise’ large sections of
public to provide scientifically valuable data on tree & plant pests &
diseases.
• Data verification of citizen science project
–
Need to design case study citizen science project to evaluate quality
of data and verify scientific value
16
Chalara survey
• Bicton College
• Student project
• Investigating public awareness of Chalara and
stated willingness to engage in biosecurity
behaviours.
• Online survey: Link distributed via Facebook
and Twitter, and through NT, RHS, Woodland
Trust, and email contacts
17
Chalara
survey
192
responses
36% from
Devon
18
Awareness of Chalara
Have you heard of Chalara dieback of ash?
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Yes
No
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.7917
0.2083
19
Knowledge of Chalara
Please indicate whether you think each of these statements are
true or false.
Chalara dieback of ash will attack any
species of ash
Young trees are particularly vulnerable
and succumb to the disease rapidly.
Chalara dieback of ash is not harmful
to the health of people or animals.
Chalara dieback of ash affects all
plants and trees.
There is now a ban on ash plant and
seed imports into the UK.
Chalara dieback of ash is spread by
insects.
Symptoms of Chalara dieback of ash
can be visible on leaves, shoots and
branches of affected trees.
True
False
Not sure
47.40%
13.02% 39.58%
58.85%
4.69%
60.73%
15.18% 24.08%
4.17%
72.92% 22.92%
66.32%
6.32%
15.10%
40.10% 44.79%
77.60%
2.08%
36.46%
27.37%
20.31%
20
Concern about Chalara
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following
statement?:
'The impact of Chalara dieback of ash is something that I am
worried about.'
21
Biosecurity behaviours
During or after your time spent in woodlands or wooded
areas do you do any of the below?
22
Conclusions
• A lot of biosecurity issues are about behaviours so
we need social science to help understand these
• There is scope for social science research to add
value to research and policy relating to tree
diseases and biosecurity
• It is suggested that the following areas may be
useful starting points:
–
–
–
–
–
Behaviours and antecedents of those behaviours
Risk
Attitudes to technology
Governance
Research issues related to citizen science
23
Thank you!
Clare.hall@sruc.ac.uk
24