The role of the social sciences and economics in understanding and informing tree biosecurity policy and planning: a global summary and synthesis

  • Mariella Marzano
  • W. Allen
  • R. G. Haight
  • T. P. Holmes
  • E. Carina H. Keskitalo
  • E. R. Lisa Langer
  • M. Shadbolt
  • J. Urquhart
  • N. Dandy
Forest Invasions

Abstract

Increased global biosecurity threats to trees, woods and forests have been strongly linked to the upsurge in worldwide trade and the expansion of tourism. A whole range of social, economic and political actors are implicated and affected by the movement of pests and diseases along these international pathways. A number of factors affect the actions of stakeholders, and wider public, including their values and motivations, how risks are perceived and acted upon, their ability to act, as well as the existing regulatory and economic environment. Understanding these factors is key to any future attempts to improve biosecurity policy and practice, and we present available evidence on six key dimension: (1) the role of different stakeholders and the broader public within tree health; (2) levels of knowledge and awareness of tree pests and diseases amongst the variety of end-user ‘stakeholder’ groups, and influences on their attitudes and practices; (3) social acceptability of management approaches; (4) the impact of formal and informal governance arrangements; (5) risk communication; (6) economic analyses on the impact of tree pests. We conclude by identifying evidence gaps and emphasising the need for better integration within the social sciences and between the social and natural sciences to promote effective interdisciplinary and policy-relevant contributions to tree health.

Keywords

Social science Tree pests Awareness Acceptability Governance Risk communication 

References

  1. Alexander JM, Frankel SJ, Hapner N, Phillips JL, Dupois V (2017) Working across cultures to protect Native American natural and cultural resources from invasive species in California. J For. doi:10.5849/jof.16-018 Google Scholar
  2. Allen W, Horn C (2009) Supporting collective action in pest management—aims and frameworks. Prepared for MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. Landcare Research Contract Report LC0910/031, Lincoln, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen W, Kilvington M (2010) Stakeholder analysis. In: Frame B, Gordon R, Mortimer C (eds) Hatched—the capacity for sustainable development. Landcare Research (Manaaki Whenua), Lincoln, pp 249–253Google Scholar
  4. Anonymous (2013) People’s Panel Kauri dieback survey. Auckland Council Research, Consultation and Engagement Team. http://www.kauridieback.co.nz/media/37909/kauri%20dieback%20people’s%20panel%20report.pdf. Accessed 6 May 2016
  5. Aukema JE, Leung B, Kovacs K, Chivers C, Britton KO, Englin J, Frankel SJ et al (2011) Economic impacts of non-native forest insects in the continental United States. PLoS ONE 6:e24587CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnes G, Pillatt T, Williamson T (2016) Rural tree populations in England: historic character and future planting policy. Br Wildl 27:393–401Google Scholar
  7. Bayliss H, Potter C (2013) Survey of public awareness and understanding of introduced tree pests and diseases in the United Kingdom. Working paper 4: Defra Projects TH0104 and TH0107 mapping, analysis and improved understanding of stakeholders and the public to help protect tree health. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett NJ, Roth R, Klain SC, Chan KMN, Christie P, Clark DA, Cullman G, Curran D, Durbin TJ, Epstein G, Greenberg A, Nelson MP, Sandlos J, Stedman REW, Teel TL, Thomas R, Verissimo D, Wyborn C (2017a) Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biol Conserv 205:93–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bennett NJ, Roth R, Klain SC, Chan KMN, Christie P, Clark DA, Cullman G, Epstein G, Nelson MP, Stedman R, Teel TL, Thomas REW, Wyborn C, Curran D, Greenberg A, Sandlos J, Verissimo D (2017b) Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation. Conserv Biol 31:56–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Berheide DW (2012) Factors influencing public support for managing the Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic. Master of Science thesis, University of British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  11. Born W, Rauschmayer F, Bräuer I (2005) Economic evaluation of biological invasions—a survey. Ecol Econ 55:321–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boyd IL, Freer-Smith PH, Gilligan CA, Godfray HCJ (2013) The consequences of tree pests and diseases for ecosystem services. Science 342:1235773. doi:10.1126/science.1235773 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Brasier CM (2008) The biosecurity threat to the UK and global environment from international trade in plants. Plant Pathol 57:792–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brockerhoff EG, Bain J, Kimberley M, Knížek M (2006) Interception frequency of exotic bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) and relationship with establishment in New Zealand and worldwide. Can J For Res 36:289–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chang WY, Lantz VA, MacLean DA (2009) Public attitudes about forest pest outbreaks and control: case studies in two Canadian provinces. For Ecol Manag 257:1333–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chase G (2008) Light brown apple moth (LBAM) in California. The true story: summary and references. http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2008/08/19/prof-2nd-report-cdfa-lbam-fraud_8_19_08.pdf/Accessed 30 June 2016
  17. Ciesla WM (2011) Forest Insect and Human Interactions. In: Ciesla (ed) Forest entomology: a global perspective. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Colautti RI, Bailey SA, van Overdijk CDA, Amundsen K, MacIsaac HJ (2006) Characterised and projected costs of nonindigenous species in Canada. Biol Invasions 8:45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Crowley SL, Hinchliffe S, McDonald RA (2017) Invasive species management will benefit from social impact assessment. J Appl Ecol 54:351–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dandy N (2010) Climate change and street trees project: the social and cultural values, and governance of street trees. Forest Research, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  21. Dandy N, Porth EF, Marzano M, Potter C, Bayliss H, Maye D (2013) Tree health stakeholder analysis—identification and categorisation. Working paper 2: Defra Projects TH0104 and TH0107 mapping, analysis and improved understanding of stakeholders and the public to help protect tree health. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Dandy D, Marzano M, Porth E, Urquhart J, Potter C (2017) Who has a stake in ash dieback? A conceptual framework for the identification and categorisation of tree health stakeholders. In: Vasaitis R, Enderle R (eds) Dieback of European Ash (Fraxinus spp.)—consequences and guidelines for sustainable management. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, pp 15–26Google Scholar
  23. De Bruin A, Pateman R, Dyke A, Conderby S, Jones G (2014) Social and cultural values of trees in the context of the threat and management of tree disease. Future Proofing Plant Health Programme, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Epanchin-Niell RS, Liebhold AM (2015) Benefits of invasion prevention: effect of time lags, spread rates, and damage persistence. Ecol Econ 116:146–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Epanchin-Niell RS, Hufford MB, Aslan CE, Sexton JP, Port JD, Waring TM (2010) Controlling invasive species in complex social landscapes. Front Ecol Environ 8:210–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eschen R, Britton K, Brockerhoff E, Burgess T, Dalley V, Epanchin-Niell RS, Gupta K, Hardy G, Huang Y, Kenis M, Kimani E, Li H-M, Olsen S, Ormrod R, Otieno W, Sadof C, Tadeu E, Theyse M (2015) International variation in phytosanitary legislation and regulations governing importation of plants for planting. Environ Sci Policy 51:228–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fellenor J, Barnett J, Potter C, Urquhart J, Mumford J, Quine C (2017) The social amplification of risk on twitter: the case of ash dieback in the United Kingdom. J Risk Res. doi:10.1080/13669877.2017.1281339 Google Scholar
  28. Finnoff D, McIntosh C, Shogren JF, Sims C, Warziniack T (2010) Invasive species and endogenous risk. Annu Rev Resour Econ 2:77–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fish R, Austin Z, Christley R, Haygarth PM, Heathwaite AL, Heathwaite LA, Latham S, Medd W, Mort M, Oliver DM, Pickup R, Wastling JM, Wynee B (2011) Uncertainties in the government of animal diseases: an interdisciplinary framework for analysis. Philos T R Soc B 366:2023–2034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Flint CG (2006) Community perspectives on spruce beetle impacts on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. For Ecol Manag 227:207–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Flint CG, McFarlane B, Müller M (2009) Human dimensions of forest disturbance by insects: an international synthesis. Environ Manage 43:1174–1186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Freer-Smith P, Webber J (2015) Tree pests and diseases: the threat to biodiversity and delivery of ecosystem services. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-015-1019-0 Google Scholar
  33. Fuller L, Marzano M, Peace A, Quine CP, Dandy N (2016) Public acceptance of tree health management: results of a national survey in the UK. Environ Sci Policy 59:18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gamble JC, Payne T, Small B (2010) Interviews with New Zealand community stakeholders regarding acceptability of current or potential pest eradication technologies. New Zeal J Crop Hortic 38:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gilmour J, Beilin R (2007) Stakeholder mapping for effective risk communication. University of Melbourne, Australian Centre for Excellence in Risk AnalysisGoogle Scholar
  36. Gustafsson K, Lidskog R (2012) Acknowledging risk, trusting expertise, and coping with uncertainty: citizens’ deliberations on spraying an insect population. Soc Nat Resour 25(6):587–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hajek AE, Tobin PC (2010) Micro-managing arthropod invasions: eradication and control of invasive arthropods with microbes. Biol Invasions 12:2895–2912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hantula J, Müller MM, Uusivuori J (2014) International plant trade associated risks: laissez-faire or novel solutions. Environ Sci Policy 37:158–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hathaway JM, Basman CM, Barro SC (2002) Assessing tree care professionals’ awareness and knowledge about the Asian longhorned Beetle. In: Van Sambeek JW, Dawson JO, Ponder F, Loewenstein Jr EF, Fralish JS (eds) Proceedings, 13th central hardwood forest conference, April 1–3; Urbana IL. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-234. St Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research StationGoogle Scholar
  40. Heuch J (2014) What lessons need to be learnt from the outbreak of Ash Dieback Disease, Chalara fraxinea in the United Kingdom? Arboric J 36:32–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hulme PE (2009) Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. J Appl Ecol 46:10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Holmes TP, Aukema J, Englin J et al (2014) Economic analysis of biological invasions in forests. In: Kant S, Alavalapati J (eds) Handbook of forest resource economics. Earthscan (Routledge), New York, pp 369–386Google Scholar
  43. Hurley BP, Slippers J, Wingfield MJ, Dyer C, Slippers B (2012) Perception and knowledge of the Sirex woodwasp and other forest pests in South Africa. Agric For Entomol 14:306–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jepson P, Arakelyan I (2017) Developing publicly acceptable tree health policy: public perceptions of tree-breeding solutions to ash dieback among interested publics in the UK. For Policy Econ 80:167–177CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Jetter K, Paine TD (2004) Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for biological control in the urban landscape. Biol Control 30:312–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Keskitalo ECH, Pettersson M, Ambjörnsson EL, Davies EJ (2016) Agenda-setting and framing of policy solutions for forest pests in Canada and Sweden: avoiding beetle outbreaks? For Policy Econ 65:59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Klapwijk MJ, Hopkins AJM, Eriksson L, Pettersson M, Schroeder M, Lindelöw Å, Rönnberg J, Keskitalo ECH, Kenis M (2016) Reducing the risk of invasive forest pests and pathogens: combining legislation, targeted management and public awareness. Ambio 45:223–234CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Knowler D, Barbier E (2005) Importing exotic plants and the risk of invasion: are market-based instruments adequate? Ecol Econ 52:341–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kovacs KF, Haight RG, McCullough DG, Mercader RJ, Siegert NW, Liebhold AM (2010) Cost of potential emerald ash borer damage in US communities, 2009–2019. Ecol Econ 69:569–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Liebhold AM, Brockerhoff EG, Garret LJ, Parke JL, O Britton K (2012) Live plant imports: the major pathway for forest insect and pathogen invasions of the US. Frontier Ecol Environ 10(3):135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mackay H, Keskitalo ECH, Pettersson M (2017) Getting invasive species on the political agenda: agenda-setting and policy formulation in the case of ash dieback in the UK. Biol Invasions. doi:10.1007/s10530-017-1415-3 Google Scholar
  52. Mackenzie BF, Larson BMH (2010) Participation under time constraints: landowner perceptions of rapid response to the Emerald Ash Borer. Soc Nat Resour 23:1013–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. MacLeod A, Pautasso M, Jeger MJ, Haines-Young R (2010) Evolution of the international regulation of plant pests and challenges for future plant health. Food Secur 2:49–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Marzano M, Dandy N, Bayliss HR, Porth E, Potter C (2015) Part of the solution? Stakeholder awareness, information and engagement in tree health issues. Biol Invasions 17:1961–1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Marzano M, Dandy N, Papazova-Anakieva I, Avtzis D, Connolly T, Eschen R, Glavendekić M, Hurley B, Lindelöw A, Matošević D, Tomov R, Vettraino AM (2016) Assessing awareness of tree pests and pathogens amongst tree professionals: a pan-European perspective. For Policy Econ 70:164–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McFarlane BL, Stumpf-Allen RCG, Watson DO (2006) Public perceptions of natural disturbance in Canada’s national parks: the case of the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins). Biol Conserv 130:340–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McFarlane BL, Parkins JR, Watson DOT (2012) Risk, knowledge and trust in managing forest insect disturbance. Can J For Res 42:710–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McLeod-Kilmurray H (2009) Proceeding with (pre) caution: environmental principles as interpretive tools in applications for pre-trial injunctions. Dalhous Law J 32:295Google Scholar
  59. Meitner M, Berheide D, Nelson J, Sheppard S (2008). Public perceptions of mountain pine beetle management alternatives. Mountain Pine Beetle working paper 2008-06, Natural Resources Canada, Victoria. http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/28326.pdf
  60. Molnar JJ, Schelhas J (2007) Nonindustrial private forest landowners and the southern pine beetle: factors affecting monitoring, preventing, and controlling infestations. South J Appl For 31:93–98Google Scholar
  61. Molnar JJ, Schelhas J, Holeski C (2003) Controlling the Southern Pine Beetle: small landowner perceptions and practices. Bulletin 649. Auburn University, AlabamaGoogle Scholar
  62. Montesclaros (2011) The Montesclaros declaration. Declaration from the participants of the International Union of Forest Research Organizations meeting held at the Montesclaros Monastery in Cantabria, Spain. May 23th–27th, 2011Google Scholar
  63. Müller M, Job H (2009) Managing natural disturbance in protected areas: tourists’ attitude towards the bark beetle in a German national park. Biol Conserv 142:375–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Nakashima DJ, Roué M (2002) Indigenous knowledge, peoples and sustainable practice. In: Timmerman P (ed) Encyclopaedia of global environmental change. 5: Social and economic dimensions of global environmental change. Wiley, Chichester, pp 314–324Google Scholar
  65. Nelson H (2007) Does a crises matter? Forest Policy responses to the Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic in British Columbia. Can J Agric Econ 55:459–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Nordlund A, Westin K (2011) Forest values and forest management attitudes among private forest owners in Sweden. Forests 2:30–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. O’Brien L, Morris J (2013) Wellbeing for all? The social distribution of benefits gained from woodlands and forests in Britain. Local Environ 19:356–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pejchar L, Mooney HH (2009) Invasive species, ecosystem services and human well-being. Trends Ecol Evol 24:498–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pettersson M, Keskitalo ECH (2012) Forest invasive species and climate change—EU and Swedish Regulatory Frameworks. Environ Policy Law 42:63–73Google Scholar
  70. Pettersson M, Strömberg C, Keskitalo ECH (2016) Possibility to implement invasive species control in Swedish forests. Ambio 45:214–222CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. Pidgeon N, Barnett J (2013) Chalara and the social amplification of risk. Report for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, LondonGoogle Scholar
  72. Porth EF, Dandy N, Marzano M (2015) “My garden is the one with no trees:” Residential Lived Experiences of the 2012 Asian Longhorn Beetle Eradication Programme in Kent, England. Hum Ecol 43:669–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Potter C (2013) A neoliberal biosecurity? The WTO, free trade and the governance of plant health. In: Dobson A, Barker K, Taylor SL (eds) Biosecurity: the socio-politics of invasive species and infectious diseases. Routledge, London and New York, pp 123–136Google Scholar
  74. Potter C, Urquhart J (2017) Tree disease and pest epidemics in the Anthropocene: a review of the drivers, impacts and policy responses in the UK. For Policy Econ 79:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Potter C, Harwood T, Knight J, Tomlinson I (2011) Learning from history, predicting the future: the UK Dutch elm disease outbreak in relation to contemporary disease threats. Philos T R Soc B 366:1966–1974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141:2417–2431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Reed MS, Curzon R (2015) Stakeholder mapping for the governance of biosecurity: a literature review. J Integr Environ Sci 12:15–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris C, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) ‘Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manage 90:1933–1949CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Rosenberger RS, Bell LA, Champ PA, Smith EL (2012) Nonmarket economic values of forest insect pests: an updated literature review. USDA Forest Service—general technical report RMRS-GTR-275WWWGoogle Scholar
  80. Roy BA, Alexander HM, Davidson J, Campbell FT, Burdon JJ, Sniezko R, Brasier C (2014) Increasing forest loss worldwide from invasive pests requires new trade regulations. Front Ecol Environ 12:457–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Runberg DM (2011) Educating Pacific Northwest campers on the risk of spreading invasive forest pests through firewood: developing a Mental Model. Dissertation, Oregon State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  82. Soliman T, Mourits MCM, van der Werf W, Hengeveld GM, Robinet C, Oude Lansink AGJM (2012) Framework for modelling economic impacts of invasive species, applied to pine wood nematode in Europe. PLoS ONE 7:e45505. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0045505 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. Suckling DM, Brockerhoff EG (2010) Invasion biology, ecology, and management of the light brown apple moth (Tortricidae). Annu Rev Entomol 55:285–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Surendra GC, Mehmood S, Schelhas J (2009) Segmenting landowners based on their information-seeking behaviour: a look at landowner education on the red oak borer. J For 107:313–319Google Scholar
  85. Tomlinson I (2016) The discovery of ash dieback in the UK: the making of a focussing event. Environ Polit 25:709–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tomlinson I, Potter C (2010) Too little, too late? Science, policy and Dutch elm disease in the UK. J Hist Geogr 36:121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tomlinson I, Potter C, Bayliss H (2015) Managing tree pests and diseases in urban settings: the case of Oak Processionary Moth in London, 2006–2012. Urban For Urban Green 14(2):286–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Urquhart J, Potter C, Barnett J, Fellenor J, Mumford J, Quine CP (2016) Survey of public concern about tree health risks in the UK, working paper 3: UNPICK Project. Imperial College, LondonGoogle Scholar
  89. Valatin G, Moseley D, Dandy N (2016) Insights from behavioural economics for forest economics and environmental policy: potential nudges to encourage woodland creation for climate change mitigation and adaptation? For Policy Econ 72:27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. van Santen L, Langer ERL, Goven J (2004) Forest pest incursions and the public. Forest Health News. No. 144. New Zealand Forest Research Institute (Scion), Rotoru Google Scholar
  91. Warren DM (1992) Indigenous knowledge, biodiversity conservation and development. Keynote address at the International conference on conservation of biodiversity in Africa: local initiatives and institutional roles, 30 August–3 September 1992, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  92. Webber J (2010) Pest risk analysis and invasion pathways for plant pathogens. New Z J For Sci 40(suppl.):45–56Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of United Kingdom 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mariella Marzano
    • 1
  • W. Allen
    • 2
  • R. G. Haight
    • 3
  • T. P. Holmes
    • 4
  • E. Carina H. Keskitalo
    • 5
  • E. R. Lisa Langer
    • 6
  • M. Shadbolt
    • 7
  • J. Urquhart
    • 8
  • N. Dandy
    • 9
  1. 1.Forest ResearchRoslin, MidlothianUK
  2. 2.Learning for SustainabilityChristchurchNew Zealand
  3. 3.Northern Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceSt. PaulUSA
  4. 4.Southern Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  5. 5.Umeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  6. 6.ScionChristchurchNew Zealand
  7. 7.Lincoln UniversityChristchurchNew Zealand
  8. 8.Imperial College LondonLondonUK
  9. 9.The Plunkett FoundationOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations