Public perceptions of risk and acceptability of forest vegetation management alternatives in Ontario

Abstract

We examined public perceptions of risk and acceptability for 9 alternatives to controlling forest vegetation in Ontario (N = 2,301) in the fall of 1994. The proportion of respondents indicating whether an alternative was 1) difficult to control, 2) potentially catastrophic, 3) a problem for future generations, and 4) a personal worry determined perceptions of risk for each vegetation management alternative. Ranking of alternatives from highest to lowest perceived risk was: aerially-applied herbicides > biological control > ground-applied herbicides > mulches > prescribed fire > heavy equipment > cover cropping > manual cutting > grazing animals. Public acceptance was lowest for aerially-applied herbicides (18%) followed by ground-applied herbicides (37%), biological control (57%), prescribed fire (57%), mulches (65%), heavy equipment (72%), cover cropping (80%), grazing animals (82%), and manual cutting (89%). Public acceptability of various agents for biological control differed depending on the proposed agent. Natural plant toxins were viewed as most acceptable (73%) followed by microorganims (42%), genetically-engineered organisms (39%), and viruses (21%). We found a strong correlation between a risk perception index and acceptability of the alternatives for the general public (r2 = 0.84) and those in timber-dependent communities (r2 = 0.89). Our results suggest that stronger public support can probably be achieved for forest vegetation management programs that include non-herbicide alternatives. Key words: forest vegetation management, public opposition, risk perception, herbicides, biological control, prescribed fire, mulches, heavy equipment, cover cropping, grazing animals, manual cutting