IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v80y2017icp167-177.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing publicly acceptable tree health policy: public perceptions of tree-breeding solutions to ash dieback among interested publics in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Jepson, Paul R
  • Arakelyan, Irina

Abstract

The UK needs to develop effective policy responses to the spread of tree pathogens and pests. This has been given the political urgency following the media and other commentary associated with the arrival of a disease that causes ‘dieback’ of European Ash (Fraxinus excelsior) - a tree species with deep cultural associations. In 2014 the UK government published a plant biosecurity strategy and linked to this invested in research to inform policy. This paper reports the findings of a survey of informed UK publics on the acceptability of various potential strategies to deal with ash dieback, including “no action”. During the summer of 2015, we conducted a face-to-face survey of 1152 respondents attending three major countryside events that attract distinct publics interested in the countryside: landowners & land managers; naturalists and gardeners.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:80:y:2017:i:c:p:167-177
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934116302167
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.002?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sedjo, Roger, 2004. "Transgenic Trees: Implementation and Outcomes of the Plant Protection Act," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-10, Resources for the Future.
    2. Thomas Koetz & Katharine Farrell & Peter Bridgewater, 2012. "Building better science-policy interfaces for international environmental governance: assessing potential within the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Sedjo, Roger A., 2004. "Transgenic Trees: Implementation and Outcomes of the Plant Protection Act," Discussion Papers 10629, Resources for the Future.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    2. Petit, Joshua D. & Needham, Mark D. & Howe, Glenn T., 2021. "Cognitive and demographic drivers of attitudes toward using genetic engineering to restore American chestnut trees," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Belinda McFadgen & Dave Huitema, 2018. "Experimentation at the interface of science and policy: a multi-case analysis of how policy experiments influence political decision-makers," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(2), pages 161-187, June.
    2. Jennifer Garard & Martin Kowarsch, 2017. "Objectives for Stakeholder Engagement in Global Environmental Assessments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-21, September.
    3. George Atisa, 2020. "Policy adoption, legislative developments, and implementation: the resulting global differences among countries in the management of biological resources," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 141-159, March.
    4. Karin M. Gustafsson, 2019. "Learning from the Experiences of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Balancing Science and Policy to Enable Trustworthy Knowledge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-14, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Matilda Petersson & Peter Stoett, 2022. "Lessons learnt in global biodiversity governance," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 333-352, June.
    7. Ria Dunkley & Susan Baker & Natasha Constant & Angelina Sanderson-Bellamy, 2018. "Enabling the IPBES conceptual framework to work across knowledge boundaries," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 779-799, December.
    8. Carmen, Esther & Watt, Allan & Carvalho, Laurence & Dick, Jan & Fazey, Ioan & Garcia-Blanco, Gemma & Grizzetti, Bruna & Hauck, Jennifer & Izakovicova, Zita & Kopperoinen, Leena & Liquete, Camino & Ode, 2018. "Knowledge needs for the operationalisation of the concept of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 441-451.

    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:forpol:v:80:y:2017:i:c:p:167-177. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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.