Urban pest management : decision making and social conflict
Creators: name: Czerwinski, Christoph
Publisher: name: University of British Columbia
Year: 2010

description: The purpose of this study is to dissect and understand the origin and nature of conflict between agricultural agencies and the urban public of western North America over Gypsy Moth control in the urban environment and, based on this understanding, to make recommendations for the reduction, or resolution, of conflict in future Gypsy Moth control programs. This is accomplished through an analysis of three case studies (Vancouver, Seattle and Santa Barbara) in which conflict occurred between the public and agricultural agencies over Gypsy Moth control. In each case the decision making process and control procedures implemented by the relevant public agencies, were compared to two sets of criteria to assess their social acceptability and scientific credibility. The social acceptability criterion is based on established standards for participation by affected interests and the treatment of relevant information by key actors in the process. Control methods were determined to be scientifically credible if proved out through prior testing and experience, and acceptable to relevant control authorities. It was found that: 1. In Seattle and Vancouver, the agricultural agencies did not adequately inform legitimate interests of the pest, its potential impact and the alternatives for dealing with the moth. In Seattle, some of this information was intentionally not made available. In Vancouver, it is not clear if the agencies had the required information. 2. In both Seattle and Vancouver, no attempt was made to make the agencies' information base available to legitimate interests for the purpose of developing their own interpretations of this information. In Santa Barbara this information was made available to all of the interests. In none of the case studies was, however, any effort made to assist the legitimate interests in developing their own positions on this data, nor were the interests supported (through funding or other means) in seeking other information or interpretations; 3. Only in Santa Barbara were legitimate interests consulted (through the EIS scoping process) concerning the information that would be used for decision-making. 4. In Seattle, neither bargaining nor negotiation took place between the agency and the legitimate interests in order to arrive at a decision. In Vancouver, the City Manager had to intervene between the opponents because of the rigid, inflexible stand that was taken by both sides. In Santa Barbara, bargaining and consultation between the Agricultural Commissioner and the opponents were used to reduce conflict and come to an acceptable solution; 5. The control methods decided upon in Seattle (aerial application of Bacillus thuringiensis) and Santa Barbara (aerial application of Bacillus thuringiensis and localized, ground application of Carbaryl) were based upon experience and precedent and on short- and long-term considerations. In Vancouver, the control method (the random application of insecticidal soap and Carbaryl) was not based on experience or precedent nor on short- and long-term considerations. All three control methods were acceptable to the local public health authorities. It is concluded that conflict arose in these case studies because: 1. With the exception of Santa Barbara, the agricultural agencies were unprepared and unwilling to consult with legitimate interests; 2. When legitimate interests demanded for clarification of the public health effects of the control methods, the agencies were not frank and open about this information (or lack thereof); 3. The agencies attempted to prevent the legitimate interests from participating in the decision-making process. Based on these conclusions, a step-by-step process is presented, which agricultural agencies can follow to reduce these sources of conflict while maintaining scientifically credible control methods. This informational and decision-making process is based on the life-cycle of the Gypsy Moth, so that the time factor does not become a constraint. Sources of conflict are reduced through the development of on-going forums between the agencies and the legitimate interests. Information availability and dialogue between the agencies and legitimate interests are the foundation for this process. Finally, an example is given of how some of these ideas are being applied in a new Gypsy Moth infestation area near Vancouver.