This is an Open Access document downloaded from ORCA, Cardiff University's institutional repository:

Transcription

1 This is an Open Access document downloaded from ORCA, Cardiff Universitys institutional repository: This is the author s version of a work that was submitted to / accepted for publication. Citation for final published version: Enticott, Gareth Public attitudes to badger culling to control bovine tuberculosis in rural Wales. European Journal of Wildlife Research 61 (3), pp /s file Publishers page: < Please note: Changes made as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing, formatting and page numbers may not be reflected in this version. For the definitive version of this publication, please refer to the published source. You are advised to consult the publisher s version if you wish to cite this paper. This version is being made available in accordance with publisher policies. See for usage policies. Copyright and moral rights for publications made available in ORCA are retained by the copyright holders.

2 PublicAttitudestoBadgerCullingtoControlBovineTuberculosisinRuralWales DrGarethEnticott SchoolofPlanningandGeography CardiffUniversity GlamorganBuilding KingEdwardVIIAvenue Cardiff CF103WA Tel:+44(0) Acknowledgements:ThisresearchwasfundedaspartoftheESRCCentreforBusiness Relationships,Accountability,SustainabilityandSociety(RESX568X28X5001).Iamgratefulto EmmaGlendinning,KarolinaRucinska,LouiseObara,AndrewSpayde,SusannahMcWilliam forconductingthesurveysandjonradcliffemappingdeepruralareasinwales. Author spost>print.fullreference: Enticott G, 2015, Public attitudes to badger culling to control bovine tuberculosis in rural Wales European Journal of Wildlife Research

3 Introduction Themanagementofwildlifetopreventthetransmissionofdiseasetofarmedanimalshasbecomea matterofcontroversyamongstfarmers,thepublic,scientistsandpoliticians.bovinetuberculosis (btb)providesprobablythebestworldwideexampleofthis.asazoonoticdisease,btbcanbe passedfromanimalstohumansbyconsuminginfectedmeatormilk.humanhealthrisksarenow considered negligible thanks to meat hygiene regulations and mandatory milk pasteurisation. However,internationaltraderegulationsmeanthatcountriesexportingbeefand/ordairyproducts mustoperateabtbsurveillanceanderadicationprogramme. TominimisethespreadofbTBfromwildlifetocattleandtoprotectagriculturalexports,some countrieshaveinstigatedwildlifecullingpolicieswithoutsignificantpublicopposition.examples include:thecullingofferalwaterbuffalo(bubalusbubalis)inaustralia(lehane,1996);thebrushtail possum(trichosurusvulpecula)innewzealand(ryanetal.,2006);whitextaileddeer(odocoileus virginianus)inmichigan,usa(carstensenetal.,2011;obrienetal.,2011);badgers(melesmeles)in Ireland(Sheridan,2011);andwildboar(Susscrofa)inSpain(GarcíaXJiménezetal.,2013;Gortazaret al.,2011)however,ingreatbritain,policiestocullwildbadgersthatcantransmitbtbtocattlehave beenmiredincontroversyandpublicprotest.sincethe1970 s,variousgovernmentshavepursued tovaryingdegreesofenthusiasm policiesofbadgercullingasawayofreducingthespreadof diseasetocattle.theiconicstatusbadgersplaywithinbritishculture(cassidy,2012)hasmeantthat politicianshavebeenwaryofbadgercullingpolicies,preferringtoleavethedecisiontoscientists (Grant,2009).Nevertheless,scientifictrialstoevaluatetheeffectivenessofbadgercullingand subsequentpolicieshavebeendisruptedbyprotestors. DespitethesignificantlevelsofpublicoppositiontoabadgercullinGreatBritain,theonlyattempts toaccountforthesepublicattitudeshavebeenlimitedtopublicopinionpolling(black,2011;league AgainstCruelSports,2011;HumaneSocietyInternational,2012;BowGroup,2012;NationalFarmers Union,2011).Whilstallbutoneofthesepollssuggestthatamajorityofthepublicareagainsta 2

4 badgercull,theyfailtoexplainwhytheseattitudesareheldandhowattitudesvarybetweensociox spatialcontexts.bycontrast,academicstudiesofotherwildlifemanagementandanimaldisease controversiessuggestthatpublicattitudesandpolicypreferencesarelinkedtoarangeoffactors. Firstly,studieshavesuggestedthatspecificbeliefsaboutnatureshapetheacceptabilityofwildlife control methods. Research by Dandy et al (2011; 2012) explores public attitudes to different methodsofwilddeermanagementrevealingthatwhenitcomestoprioritisingwildlifemanagement options,lethalcontrol i.e.cullingdeer isrankedlowbythepublic.itisonlyonceothermethods havebeentriedandfailedthatthepublicbegintoacceptdeerculling.dandyetal.(2012)suggest thatattitudestowardscontrolmethodsarerelatedtounderlyingbeliefsaboutnatureingeneral. OnesuchbeliefisinoverXabundance:theideaisthatthereisa natural populationlevelfor wildlife.whentheseperceivedecologicallimitsareexceeded,beliefsinoverxabundanceprovide legitimategroundsforcullingdeer(seealsobruskotteretal.,2009).likewise,buller s(2008)work ontherexintroductionofwolvestothemercantourregioninthesouthernfrenchalps,revealshow theiracceptanceisconnectedtodifferentphilosophiesofnature.whilstthereintroductionof wolveschimedwiththevisceralrealityofnaturalism,freexrangingwolveschallengedbeliefsina pastoralnaturewherenatureiscarefullycraftedandbalanced. Secondly, wildlife control preferences are likely to vary according to demographic and social variablessuchasage(teeletal.,2002),gender(doughertyetal.,2003;loydandmiller,2010)and socioxeconomicposition.kendall(2006)arguesthatplaceandsocialstructurealsoimpactupon people sbeliefsaboutnatureandwildlifefromanearlyage.theeffectsofsocialisationleadthose connectedtofarmingtoacceptlethalcontrol,whilstpeoplefromlowersocioxeconomicgroupsto identifywithanimals marginalpositionassimilartotheirownsocialpositionandexpecthigher levelsofwellbeingforthem.beliefsaboutnaturearealsolikelytovaryaccordingtospatialcontexts. Debatesaboutwildlifemanagementareoftenframedaroundthedifferencesbetweenurbanand ruralwaysoflife(bell,1994).peoplelivinginruralareasmayhavedifferentattitudestowildlife controlbecauseoftheirexperienceandfamiliaritywithwildlifeandtheirimpacts(lokeretal.,1999; 3

5 Greenetal.,1997;HeberleinandEricsson,2005).Wherewildlifeposeanimmediatediseasethreat tohumanpopulations,fultonetal.(2004)showthatthepublicaremorelikelytoacceptlethal controltoavoidseverehumanconsequences.moreover,bothfultonetal.(2004)andlokeretal. (1999)suggestthatthoselivingclosertoanimaldiseasearemorelikelytoacceptwildlifeculling policies. However,broadersocioXspatialchanges,suchasurbanXruralmigrationandthedeclineoftraditional ruralindustriessuchasagriculturemaydiversifyandaccentuatedifferentviewsheldaboutwildlife managementpreferencesbyruralpopulations.geographerssuggestthatsocialchangehasledto thecountrysidebecomingincreasinglydifferentiated(marsdenetal.,1993)asaffluentmigrants seektoconsumeaparticularversionofruralliving(halfacree,1995).marsdenetal(1993)identify four different kinds of countryside to emerge from these social changes ranging from the paternalisticcountryside inwhichagriculturecontinuestoplayadominantsocialandeconomic function,throughtothe preservedcountryside whereagriculturehasdeclinedinsignificanceand thepopulationcomprisedofpeoplecommutingtojobsinnearbyurbansettlements.asaresult, geographicalproximitytonatureanddiseasemayprovidenoguidelinetopublicattitudestowards wildlifecontrol.forexample,inthemanagementofdeer,dandyetal.(2011)foundnosignificance difference between survey respondents who had frequent contact with deer and those with infrequentcontact.similarly,konig s(2008)studyofurbanfoxesinmunichgermany,suggeststhat thepublicarerelaxedovertheirpresencedespitethepotentialforthetransmissionofhydatid diseasetohumansandpetdogs.inthiscase,proposalsforcullingfoxeswererejectedonpractical groundsorseenasalastresort. Thirdly,attitudestowildlifecontrolarealsolikelytorelatetothepublic strustintheinstitutions andorganisationsproposingwildlifecontrolmeasures.trustingovernmentandsciencehasbeen showntobeacrucialfactorintheacceptanceofarangeofscientificandgovernmentadviceon environmental risks (Poortinga and Pidgeon, 2003). In studies of animal disease management, 4

6 research has highlighted how disputes between scientists over the most appropriate forms of expertise to use to manage animal disease outbreaks are settled by politicians preferences (BickerstaffandSimmons,2004).ForcasessuchastheFootandMouthDisease(FMD)outbreakin theunitedkingdom2001,theinvolvementofpoliticiansinscientificdebatesthreatenspublictrust inbothscienceandgovernment.forexample,poortingaetal.(2004)foundlowlevelsoftrust amongstmembersofthepublicinthegovernment shandlingofthefmdoutbreak.similarly, disputesoverthescientificadvicetomanagebtbhavebecomehighlypoliticised(grant,2009; Enticott,2001).Enticott(2008)arguesthatamongstfarmers,thepoliticisationofscienceandthe marginalisationoffarmersfromthescientificprocesshasledtoalossoftrustingovernmentand scientists.farmershavelowlevelsoftrustingovernment,andhavelowlevelsofconfidencein alternativemethodsofcontrollingbtbinbadgerssuchasvaccination(enticottetal.,2012). Drawingontheseunderstandingsofpublicattitudestowildlifecontrol,andintheabsenceofinX depthquantitativestudiesofthepublic sattitudestobadgercullingtocontrolbtb,theaimofthis paperistoquantifylevelsofsupportforabadgercullandexplorethereasonswhyabadgercullis supportedorrejectedbythepubliclivinginruralareasoftheunitedkingdom.indoingso,the paperexaminestheextenttowhichpublicattitudesvarybetweendifferentkindsofrurallocation, levelsofdiseaseandtheextenttowhichattitudestowardsabadgercullarerelatedtolevelsoftrust ingovernment,scienceandotherorganisationsassociatedthemanagementofbtb. MaterialsandMethods PolicyBackground InGreatBritain,bTBpolicyisdevolvedtotheGovernmentsofWales,ScotlandandNorthernIreland. PolicyinEnglandisledbytheDepartmentforEnvironment,FoodandRuralAffairs(Defra).Levelsof btbvaryineachofthesecountries,exceptforscotlandwhichisofficiallybtbxfree.inengland, 5

7 WalesandNorthernIrelandtherehavebeenonXgoingdebatesovertheneedtocullbadgersto preventthespreadofbtbincattle.scientificadvicesuggeststhatineffectivebadgercullsdisrupts badgers social territories, leading to surviving badgers spreading btb to cattle. This soxcalled perturbationeffect therebyoffsetsreductionsinbtbasaresultofbadgerculling(independent ScientificGroup(ISG).2007).Nevertheless,despitescientificadviceandintheabsenceofausable cattlevaccineagainstbtb,governmentsintheunitedkingdomhaveattemptedtopursuebadger culling policies. Moreover, devolution of animal disease policy has meant that different administrationshavepursueddifferentpoliciesbasedonthesameevidence(spencer,2011).in England,between2010X15apolicyofstateXsponsoredbadgervaccinationwasreplacedbyapolicy offarmerxledbadgerculling(mayeetal.,2014).intwoareas,licenceswereissuedbynatural England(agovernmentagency)tofarmerownedcompaniestoconductbadgerculling. InWales,theWelshGovernmentannouncedplansforabadgercullinwestWalesin2009.The policywaschallengedsuccessfullyinthecourtofappealbythebadgertrust.however,newbadger cullingpolicieswereannouncedin2010.followinganelectioninmay2011,theseplanswereputon holduntilmarch2012whenthewelshgovernmentannouncedthatbadgerswouldinsteadby vaccinatedagainstbtbratherthanculled.forthisstudy,researchtookplaceinfebruary2012ata timewhenthebadgercullplanswereinthepublicdomainbutpriortotheannouncementthatthey wouldnotproceed.choosingwalestoconducttheresearchthereforehadtheadvantageofbadger cullingbeinga live policytopictowhichmembersofthepublicwerelikelytohavebeenexposed. Despitethechangeinpolicy,resultsstillremainvalidgiventhatthehistoryofbTBpolicyshows frequentpoliticalvascillationinapproachestobadgerculling.itisthereforelikelythatbadgerculling mayreturntothepolicyagendainfuture.moreover,thefindingsarealsolikelytobeillustrativeof publicopinioninareasofenglandwherebadgercullinghasproceeded. StudySites 6

8 ResearchwasundertakeninfourdifferentareasofWales.Studysiteswerechosenthatwere characteristicofdifferentdegreesofruralityandincidenceofbtb.studylocationswereidentified using the Office for National Statistics urbanxrural classification scheme and the Welsh Government sclassificationofdeepruralareas(walesruralobservatory,2009) socalleddueto theirabsenceofservicesanddistancefromlargesettlements.twodeepruralareasandtworural fringeareaswerechosen.thedeepruralareascanbeconsideredtobepartofthe paternalistic countryside (Marsdenetal,1993)inwhichagriculturecontinuestoplayadominantsocialand economicfunction.thetworuralfringeareascanbeseentobecharacteristicofthesoxcalled preservedcountryside :areaswhereagriculturehasdeclinedinsignificanceandthepopulation comprised of people commuting to jobs in nearby urban settlements. Study areas were also identifiedusingdataofbtbincidence(animalhealthandveterinarylaboratoriesagency.,2011)to identifyareaswithhighandlowlevelsofbtb.highandlowlevelsofbtbweredefinedusingcounty levelbtbincidencedata.usingthesedata,fourareaswereidentifiedwhichreflecteddifferent combinationsofruralityanddiseaseincidence:onewasdeepruralwithhighbtb(crymych,in Pembrokeshire);onewasruralfringewithhighbTb(Usk,inMonmouthshire);onewasruralfringe with low btb (Cowbridge, in the Vale of Glamorgan); and one was deep rural with low btb (LlangammarchWells,inSouthPowys).Countyleveldatasuggeststhatthenumberofcattlefarmsis lowestinthecowbridgearea,withlandxusecomprisingcroppingandutility/recreation.beeffarms aremostcommonintheareasurroundingllangammarchwells,accountingfor95%ofcattleherds. Dairyherdsaccountedfor37%and23%ofherdsintheCrymychandUskareas(AnimalHealthand VeterinaryLaboratoriesAgency.,2011) Questionnaire Ineachofthefourareas,aquestionnairesurveywasconducted.Thequestionnairewasdeveloped containingquestionsrelatingtothemainthemesoftheresearch.intotalitcontained35questions 7

9 whichcouldbeansweredinapproximately10minutes.surveyingwascompletedbyfiveresearchers whohadattendedatrainingcoursetoensuresurveyingwasconductedconsistentlyandfamiliarity withthesubjectarea.astheaimoftheresearchwastocollectdatafromrespondentscharacteristic ofthetwotypesofruralclassification,atargetof250respondentsforeachruralclassificationwas set.infact,asshownintable1,moreresponseswereobtainedfromdeepruralareas(n=311)than ruralfringeareas(222).responseswerecollectedinfacextoxfaceinterviews,atdifferentlocationsin eachofthesurveylocations.priortosurveying,researcherswereallocatedseparateareasofeach location(e.g.differenthousingareasandshoppingareas).surveyswereconductedonweekdays andatweekends,andquestionnaireswithafreepostreturnenvelopewereleftathouseswhere therewasnoresponse.postalresponsesaccountedfor20%ofthesample. Thequestionnairewassplitintofoursectionswithmostquestionsrequiringaresponsealongafive pointscale(e.g.fromdisagreetoagree).thefirstsectionaskedaboutknowledgeandattitudes towardsbovinetbandabadgercull;asecondaskedaboutwhorespondentswouldtrusttotell themthetruthaboutabadgercull;athirdsectionaskedwhorespondentsthoughtwasresponsible forbovinetb;andafourthsectionaskedrespondentstoassesswhatwouldbeconsideredan acceptable benefit from a badger cull. The survey also collected demographic and economic characteristicsfromeachrespondent. Theissueofwhatcountsasanacceptablebenefitfromabadgercullhasbeencentraltodebates over a badger cull in Wales. Respondents were presented with a scientific estimate of the effectiveness of badger culling in reducing btb in cattle and asked if it they thought it was acceptable.respondentsreplying no werethenaskedwhatlevelofbadgercullingeffectiveness theyviewedasacceptable.toguardagainstanyanchoringeffects(tverskyandkahneman,1974), twoversionsofthequestionnairewereproduced.inone,respondentsweretoldthatthebenefit derivedfrombadgercullingwasa16%reductionininstancesofbovinetbover10yearsina300km 2 area.intheother,thebenefitwasa28%reduction.the16%figureisbasedonscientificdata 8

10 measuringtheeffectivenessofbadgerculling(departmentforenvironmentfoodandruralaffairs., 2011a),whilstthe28%figureisbasedonadvicefromepidemiologistsandveterinarianstothe WelshGovernment(NationalAssemblyforWales.,2011).Respondentswerealsoshownamapof theirlocalareamarkedwitha300km 2 areasotheycouldgaugethegeographicalscaleofanybadger cull and its benefit. Both versions of the survey were visually identical and were randomly distributedamongstthesurveysgiventotheresearchersbeforeeachday ssurveying. DataAnalysis ThedatafromeachquestionnairewascodedandinputtedmanuallyintoIBMSPSSStatisticsv.20by theauthor.questionsthatwereansweredincorrectlywerecodedasmissingdata.analysisof response differences between different questionnaires and types of rural classification were conducted using an independent samples TXtest and ChiXsquare. To explore the relationship between attitudinal and contextual variables upon public attitudes to badger culling, survey variableswereincludedinanolsregression.respondents answerstothequestion Ingeneral,I feelthatabadgercullisanacceptablewayofdealingwithbovinetbinwales actedasthe dependentvariable.independentvariablesincludeddegreeofrurality,gender,andlevelofdisease. Groups of variables were combined using Principal Components Analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation.questionsonwhichorganisationsandactivitiesweretoblameforbtbwerecombined usingaprincipalcomponentsanalysis(pca)withvarimaxrotation.twoclearcomponentswere identifiedexplaining73.29%ofvariance.thefirstgroupedtogethermodernfarmingmethods,illegal activitiesandconsumerdemandsforcheapfood(accountingfor37.73%ofvariance);thesecond grouped the Welsh and UK Governments (accounting for 35.56% of variance). Additionally, questionsonlegislationthatprotectsbadgersandnaturaltransmissionwereforcedintothemultix variateanalysisassingleitems.variablesontrustwerealsocombinedusingpca.thepcafound3 distinctcomponents,accountingforatotalof62.29%ofvariance.thefirstrelatedtotrustin 9

11 agriculturalinstitutions,andincludedvetsandfarmingunions(25.17%);thesecondrelatedtothe media(21.65%);andthethirdindependentscientists(15.46%).finally,totaprespondents levelof concernfortheimpactofbtb,variablesrelatingtorespondentsconcernforcattleandfarmerswere combinedusingpca.suitabilityforcombiningvariableswasassessedusingthekaiserxmeyerxolkin measureofsamplingadequacyandineachcasewasabovethe0.5acceptabilitylevel. Results RespondentCharacteristics Thesurveywasansweredbyatotalof533respondents.MostrespondentswereinterviewedfaceX toxface,with104surveysbeingreturnedbypost(aresponserateof10%).malerespondents accountedfor56%ofthesurveys.ofthesurveylocations,mostrespondentsweredrawnfromdeep rurallocations(58%).respondentstendedtobefromolderagegroups:18%ofrespondentswere under44,44%wereagedbetween45x64,and40%over65.most(67%)respondentsearnedless than Ingeneral,incomeswerelowerindeepruralareas,whilstrespondentswereolderin areasoflowbtb(seetable2).althoughthesamplewasmeanttobeillustrativeofthetwodifferent kindsofruralclassification,comparisonsofrespondentcharacteristicsforeachsurveylocationwith censusdatasuggestsimilardemographicprofilesintheusk,crymychandllanyrtydwellsareas.the Cowbridgeareahasagreaterproportionofrespondentsinthe16X44agegroupswhichmayreflect thetimeofdaysurveyswerecompleted. AwarenessofBovineTuberculosisandCauses Overall,respondentsdemonstratedahighlevelofawarenessofbTBandproposalsforabadgercull. Atotalof97%ofallrespondentswereawareofbTBwhilst87%hadheardofproposalstocull 10

12 badgers to manage the disease. There was no significant difference in awareness between respondentsfromdeepruralareasandruralfringeareas,orareaswithhighandlowlevelsofbtb Respondents demonstrated a concern for the impacts of the disease. Most believed that the GovernmentshoulderadicatebTB,andexpressedconcernforthewelfareofcattleandfarmers becauseofthedisease(seetable3). WhenaskedtoconsiderwhotheyblamedforthelevelofbTB,themostfrequentlycitedreasonwas thatdiseasewassimplya natural phenomena(seetable4).despitepublicconcernsoverthe government shandlingofpreviousfoodsafetyandagriculturalcrisessuchasbovinespongiform EncephalopathyandFootandMouthDisease,supportfortheGovernment sroleinmanagingbtb wasmixed:approximately27%ofrespondentsagreedtheukgovernmentweretoblameforthe spreadofbtb,whilst26%blamedthewelshgovernment.respondentsfromdeepruralareaswere morelikelytoblameeithergovernmentthanthosefromtheruralfringe.respondentsinareaswith highbtbincidencewerealsomorelikelytoblamethegovernmentthanrespondentsinareasoflow btb.therewasalsolessagreementamongstothercausesofbtb.whilstmanyrespondentsblamed farmers, consumers wanting cheap food or modern farming practices, similar numbers of respondentsdismissedtheseasvalidreasons.however,respondentsfromlowbtbareasweremore likelytoblamefarmers.whenitcametoassessingtheroleofthebadger,respondentswereevenly balancedontherolethatbadgerprotectionlegislationplaysindiseasetransmission.however,there wasacleardifferencebetweenthelocationofrespondents:respondentsweremorelikelytoblame badgerprotectionlegislationiftheywerefromdeepruralareasorfromareaswithhighlevelsofbtb (seetable4). AttitudestowardsaBadgerCull 11

13 Respondentswereaskedaseriesofquestionsabouttheacceptabilityofabadgercull,alternative managementsolutionsandwhotheytrustedtoprovideaccurateinformationaboutabadgercull.in assessingthegeneralacceptabilityofabadgercull,morerespondentswereinfavourthanagainst: approximately43%agreeditwasacceptablebut36%disagreed.supportwashigherindeeprural areas(46%)comparedtotheruralfringesurveylocations(38%).supportforabadgercullandwas highestinthoseruralareaswithhighlevelsofbtb(50%)andlowestinthoseareaswherethe diseasewaslow(33%). Therewerealsovariationsinrespondents attitudestopayingforabadgercull.mostrespondents saidthateitherthewelshgovernmentoracombinationofthegovernmentandfarmersshouldpay forthecull.only3%suggestedthatfarmersshouldpaytheentirecostofabadgercull.respondents indeepruralareas(44%)weremorelikelytosuggestthatthegovernmentshouldpayforabadger cullcomparedtorespondents(30%)intheruralfringesurveylocations. Supportforinterventionsotherthanbadgercullingwashighestintheruralfringe.Respondents wereaskedabouttheirattitudestovaccinatingbadgersagainstbtbandvaccinatingcattle.avaccine forbadgersiscurrentlyavailable,butacattlevaccineremainsunderdevelopment.overall,62% respondentsagreedthatitwouldbebettertovaccinatebadgersthancullthemwithsupporthighest intheruralfringe.similarly,67%ofrespondentspreferredcattlevaccinationtobadgerculling,with supporthighestintheruralfringe(72%)andlowestindeepruralareas(63%).therewasalsoa significantdifferenceofopinionbetweenrespondentsinhighbtbareasovertheroleofvaccination. Theserespondentsratedbothbadgerandcattlevaccinationsignificantlylowerthanrespondentsin lowbtbareas. Anacceptablecull?TheScienceofBadgerCulling 12

14 Independentscientistsandvetsweretrustedmostbyrespondentstoprovidetruthfulinformation aboutbtb.conservationgroupsweretrustedmorethanfarmingunions.aquarterofrespondents trustedthewelshgovernment,buttheleveloftrustwaslowerinareasoflowbtbincidence. Farmingunionsweretrustedmoreindeepruralareas,whilstsupportforconservationgroupswas higherinruralfringeareas.respondentsinareaswithhighlevelsofdiseaseweremoretrustingof practisingvets,farmingunionsandfriends.inallcases,theleasttrustedsourcesofinformationwere thenationalmediaandsocialmedia(seetable5). Whenrespondentswerepresentedwiththescientificestimatesofbadgercullingeffectiveness,the majoritysuggesteditwastoolowtobeacceptable.forthosepresentedwiththeevidenceofa28% reduction, 24%ofrespondentsfounditacceptable,whilstjust20%ofrespondentsfoundthe evidencefora16%reductionacceptable.forbothsetsofevidence,similarproportionsjudgeda badgercullnevertobeacceptable(23 28%),whilsttheremaindersuggestedthatitdependedon theeffectivenessofacull.levelsofacceptabilitydidnotvaryaccordingtoruralityorgender,butin areaswithhighlevelsofbtb,30%ofrespondentssaidthata28%reductionwasacceptable, comparedtoonly18%acceptabilityforareaswithlowbtb. Whenrespondentswereaskedtoassesswhatwouldbeanacceptableoutcomefromabadgercull, the average figures far exceeded those suggested by the current scientific evidence. Amongst respondentswhoindicatedthatabadgercullmightbeacceptable,theaveragelevelofeffectiveness suggestedwasbetweena57%reductioninbtbincidents(forthe16%reductionestimate)and68% (fora28%reduction.seetable6).overall,differencesbetweenmaleandfemalerespondents,those fromareasofhighandlowbtbincidence,anddeepruralandruralfringeareasweresmalland statisticallyinsignificant. MultiEvariateAnalysis 13

15 Toexploretherelationshipbetweenattitudinalandcontextualvariablesuponpublicattitudesto badgerculling,surveyvariableswereincludedinanolsregressionwithanswerstothequestion In general,ifeelthatabadgercullisanacceptablewayofdealingwithbovinetbinwales actingas thedependentvariable.resultsfromtheolsregressionshowthatthevariablesexplain59%ofthe variance (Adjusted R 2 =0.593, F=50.362, p=0.000) in the dependent variable. Five independent variablesweresignificantlycorrelated.thevariablewithmostexplanatorypowerwasthatwhich tappedrespondents viewsofnaturemanagement,thatiswhethertheprotectionofbadgerswasto blameforthespreadofbtb(t=8.021,p=0.000).respondentswhotrustedagriculturalinstitutions werealsomorelikelytoagreewithacull(t=7.070,p=0.000),butthosethattrustedindependent scientistsdidnot(t=x4.632,p=0.000).respondentswhoexpressedconcernforcattleandfarmers alsosupportedabadgercull(t=6.232,p=0.000),butnotthosewhoblamedfarmingpracticesfor spreadingbtb(t=x2.309,p=0.021).variablesthatwerenotstatisticallysignificantlyrelatedtothe acceptabilityofbadgercullingincludedgender,typeofrurallocationandlevelofdisease. DiscussionandConclusions ThesurveyreportedhererepresentsthefirstinXdepthquantitativeinvestigationofpublicattitudes towardsbtbbadgerculling.thissectiondiscussesanumberofthestudy sfindingsinrelationtothe existing literature on wildlife control, and the implications for policy makers attempting to communicatethebenefitsofwildlifecontrolforbtbtothepublic. Firstly,thesurveyresultsprovidedamixedpictureonthepublicacceptabilityofbadgerculling.For example,whilst43%ofrespondentsagreedinprincipletoabadgercull,just21%ratedthescientific evidenceofabadgercullasacceptable.moreover,whilstrespondentsgenerallyagreedthatbadger culling was an acceptable method of dealing with btb, they also set a much higher level of effectivenessforbadgercullingthancurrentscientificstudieswouldsuggestisfeasible.these differentresultsalertustothewaythatquestionsaboutabadgercullframedindifferentwayscan 14

16 elicitverydifferentresponses.theanalysisalsorevealedevidenceofananchoringeffectwhen presentingscientificdataonwildlifecontroltomembersofthepublic.onaverage,respondents presentedwithdatasuggestingbadgercullingleadstoa28%reductioninbtbcasessuggesteda minimum level of acceptability 11% greater than those respondents presented with the 16% reduction.thispatternwasrepeatedwhetherrespondentswereindeepruralorruralfringeareas, loworhighriskbtbareas,orweremaleorfemale.thereasonsforthesedifferencesarenotclear, otherthanthescientificdatapresentedtorespondentsactingasananchorfortheirsubsequent estimatesofminimumacceptableeffectiveness.thedifferencesthereforeraisemethodological challengesinresearchingthepublicacceptabilityofwildlifecontrols,particularlywherethereis scientificuncertaintyovertheireffectiveness. Secondly,akeyquestionforthisresearchwaswhetherrespondent sattitudestoabadgercullwere relatedtotheirsocioxspatialenvironments.thesurveyprovidedevidencebothtoconfirmand challengetherelationshipbetweenruralityandproximitytodisease,andattitudestobadgerculling. Therewerenosignificantdifferencesbetweenrespondents attitudestowardsbadgercullingin deepruralorruralfringelocations.however,respondentsindeepruralareaswerelesslikelyto agreethatbadgervaccinationorcattlevaccinationwereappropriatesolutionstobtb.forpolicy makers,theresultssuggestthatalternativebtbcontrolstrategiessuchasvaccinationwouldreceive morepublicsupport.supportforvaccinationismorepronouncedinruralfringeareasandareasof lowdiseaseincidence.policymakersmayfindthatbytargetingtheseareasorthosewithlower levelsofdisease,theymaybeabletoencouragegreaterenthusiasmforbadgervaccinationpolicies eitherthroughgovernmentxledorvoluntaryschemes. In terms of trust, deep rural respondents expressed low levels of confidence in independent scientiststotellthetruthaboutthebadgercull.respondentsfromruralfringelocations,meanwhile, werelesslikelytobeconcernedaboutbtbandplacelesstrustinfarmingunionsthanconservation groups.theseresultsreflectkeydifferencesinthedebateoverthebadgercull:cullingversus 15

17 vaccination,andtrustin rural organisations (such as Farming Unions) compared to extraxrural organisations(suchasconservationgroupsandscientists).whilstthekindsofsocialchangesindeep ruralandruralfringeareasdocumentedbymarsdenetal(1993)arenotreflectedintheoverall acceptabilityofbadgerculling,thesedifferencesarereflectedinthewayrespondentsformopinions aboutabadgercull.indeed,rurallocationwasnotasignificantfactorintheregressionanalysis,but thedifferencesintrustwere.theseresultsreflectbroaderresearchfindingsonthewaycertain kindsofanimaldiseaseexpertisearetrustedmorebysomesocialgroupsthanothers.veterinary practitionersandepidemiologistsresponsibleforconductingtrialsonbadgercullinghaveappeared dividedovertheroleofbadgerculling.inresearch,farmershaverevealedtheirdistrustforscientists butnotpracticingvetswhoseculturalandphysicalproximitymeanstheyareperceivedareseento beontheirside(enticott,2008;bickerstaffandsimmons,2004).thesurveyresultsprovidesome evidencetosupporttheseconcernsfurther.respondentsfromtheruralfringetrustedindependent scientistssignificantlymorethandeepruralrespondents.indeepruralareas,practicingvetswere also more trusted than independent scientists. It may be therefore that different cultures of evidence,suchaspreferencesforfieldbasedversusscientificexpertise,arenotlimitedtothose professions(inthiscasefarmers)directlyaffectedbysuchdisputes,butareconnectedtobroader spatialandsocialxenvironmentalcontexts. Asotherstudieshavefound,attitudestowardsbadgercullingdid,however,varyaccordingtothe levelofdisease.ofallsurveyrespondents,thoselivinginareaswithhighlevelsofdiseasewerethe mostlikelytosupportbadgercullingpolicies,reflectingfindingsbyfultonetal.(2004)andlokeret al.(1999).thesurveyshowsthatrespondentsinareasofhighbtbincidenceweremorelikelyto blamebadgersprotectionlegislationforbtb,suggestingthattheyconnecttheprotectionofbadgers withagrowthintheirpopulationandspreadofdisease.however,itisalsolikelythattheseresults reflectknowledgeofthesocialimpactsofbtb.recentresearchhashighlightedthesocialand emotionalimpactsofanimaldiseasefeltbyfarmersandtheirfamilies(farmcrisisnetwork,2009; Converyetal.,2008)whilstfarmingunionshaveconnectedsupportforabadgercullwiththe 16

18 emotionalandeconomicimpactsfacingfarmerswhoseherdshavebtb.thesurveyresultssupport thishypothesis:respondentslivinginareaswithhighlevelsofdiseasewerethemostconcerned aboutthesocialandeconomicimpactsofbtbthananyother.however,nodifferenceinthe acceptableeffectivenessofabadgercullwasrecordedbetweenareaswithdifferentlevelsof disease. Morebroadly,thesurveyfoundsimilaritieswithresearchonattitudestowardsthemanagementof other animal diseases, such as FMD. When it came to assessing the causes of btb, 66% of respondentsattributeditsspreadtothenaturalprocessesofdiseasetransmission.inrelationto FMD,Poortingaetal(2004)foundhigherlevelsofagreementduringtheFMDcrisis(88%citedthis reasonasacauseoffmd).inbothcases,thismaybeexplainedbytheculturalsignificancethat beliefsaboutchanceandluckplayinexplainingthespreadofdisease.suchbeliefsarealsofoundin publichealthresearch(davisonetal.,1991),andfeaturestronglyinfarmers understandingsofwhy theydoanddonotgetbtb(enticott,2008).thebeliefinluckandchancemayalsobebecausealack oftrustinscienceandgovernment.indeed,intheareaswithhighbtbincidence,vetsandfriends andfamilywereoneofthemosttrustedsourcesofadviceaboutbtb,ratherthanscientistsorthe Government.RespondentstrustintheGovernmentwasonaparwiththoseattitudesdisplayedin relationtofmd(poortingaetal,2004).nevertheless,lowlevelsofsupportinthegovernmentdid notmeanthatsurveyrespondentsbelievedthegovernmentshouldhavenoroleinmanagingbtb. RespondentswhodidnotunconditionallyruleoutabadgercullbelievedthatbTBcontrolsshouldbe fundedbygovernmentratherthanfarmers.thisisinterestingfortworeasons.firstly,despitelow levelsoftrustingovernment,thepubliccontinuetolooktothemtoresolveproblemsaffecting agricultureandwildlife.thistensionisalsoevidentamongstfarmerswhodespitelowlevelsoftrust ingovernmentbelievethatgovernmentshouldresolveanimaldiseaseproblems(heffernanetal., 2008).Forfarmers,thistensionmaybeexplainedbythefactthattheydonottrustotherfarmersto contributetocollectiveeffortstoeradicatediseases.forthepublicinruralareas,theseconflicting 17

19 attitudesmayrelatemoretosympathyforpoorsocioxeconomicconditionsthatfarmersfacein marginalagriculturalareas.secondly,thepreferenceforgovernmentfundingforbtbcontrolsisat oddswiththewaygovernmentsseethesolutiontoanimaldiseaseproblems.bypassingcostsand responsibilitiestofarmers,governmentsbelievethatfarmerswillbehavemoreresponsiblyand managethediseasemoreeffectively(departmentforenvironmentfoodandruralaffairs.,2013). Thesesurveyresultshowever,suggestthatthepublicbelievethatGovernmentsshouldremain responsibleforanimaldiseasecontrolandiffarmersaretocontributefinanciallytheyshoulddoso onlyinconjunctionwiththegovernment. Theseresultsraiseadilemmaforpolicymakersandstakeholders.Ontheonehand,theresults suggestthatpublicacceptabilityofabadgercullisalongwayawayfromcurrentscientificestimates ofitseffectiveness.ontheotherhand,intheabsenceofnewevidence,themostcommontacticfor Governmentofficialshasbeentorefertoscientificevidenceandclaimthat noothercountryhas successfullycontrolledthediseaseincattlewithouttacklingitspresenceinthenativewildlife (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs., 2011b: 4). Similarly, proxbadger cull organisations,suchasthenationalfarmers Union(NFU),havesoughttodisseminatescientific evidenceonbadgercullinginthebeliefthatthiswillengenderpublicsupport.inthisrespectthe distrustofsocialmediaisinterestingasmanyfarminggroupshavesuggesteditrepresentsawayto reconnectfarmingwiththepublicandpersuadethemoftheneedtosupportfarmingcauses,like thebadgercull.indeed,thenfuinenglandestablishedawebsitecalledwww.tbfreeengland.co.uk complete with videos on YouTube and social media Facebook and Twitter accounts problemsfacedbyfarmersasaresultofbtbandtoencouragesupportforthenfu scampaignfora badgercull.theresultsfromthesurvey,however,suggestthatsuchcampaignsmayfacealackof credibilityintheeyesofthepublic. 18

20 This strategy is also likely to be problematic for other reasons. Although about half of the respondentsthoughtabadgercullwasunacceptablebecauseoflowlevelsofeffectiveness,asin other studies (Fulton et al., 2004), improved effectiveness mediated views on acceptability. However,forasubstantialproportionofrespondents,cullingeffectivenessmakesnodifferenceto theirviewsonabadgercull.whilstsomerespondentssetathresholdunderwhichabadgercullwas notacceptable,asignificantproportionweremorallyopposedtoanykindofbadgercull,whetherit waseffectiveornot.assuggestedbybuller(2008),itislikelythesecontrastingopinionsarebased ondifferentphilosophiesofnature distinctsetsofmoralandethicalreasonings,orbeliefsabout fairness and nature. Frequently, these philosophical beliefs of nature invoke ideas of natural balance or equilibrium tojustifyparticularformsofnaturemanagement(bruskotteretal.,2009). ThismaytaketheformofcallsforhumaninterventiontorestoreaselfXregulatingnaturalbalance, orcriticismsofhumaninterventionforallowingnaturetofalloutofbalancebyprotectingcertain species(edenandbear,2011).thismayexplainwhyrespondentsformdeepruralareasandareasof highbtbincidencewereagainstbadgervaccinationandblamedthelegalprotectionaffordedto badgersforbtb.forthem,theproblemisoneofoverxpopulationwhichvaccinationcannotaddress. Given that such beliefs about nature are often deepxseated, mass deficit style forms of communicationaboutbadgercullsciencearelikelytohavealimitedeffect.indeed,theseconcerns arereflectedinexistingqualitativeresearchaboutbtb.interactiveworkshopsinvolvingthepublic andscientificexperts(departmentforenvironmentfoodandruralaffairs.,2006)revealedthat whenthepublichavetheopportunitytoexaminethescientificevidence,theuncertaintiesofthe scienceonoffermeantthatparticipantsfounditdifficulttomakeadecisionaboutthecull.when forcedtodecide,therewasmarginalsupportforacull,butthiswasreluctantandheavilycaveated withlittlemovementbetweenproxandantixbadgercullpositions(departmentforenvironment FoodandRuralAffairs.,2006:28).Thus,whenitcomestoconductingwildlifecontrols,attemptsto addressknowledgegapsamongstthepublicwillnotnecessarilyaffectpublicacceptance,ashas beenrecognisedinotherenvironmentalcontroversiessuchasclimatechange(kahanetal.,2010; 19

21 Kahanetal.,2012).Similarly,beliefsaboutbadgercullingarelikelytobetiedupinmoralbeliefs aboutnaturethatarelikelytobehardtochangethroughthecommunicationofscientificevidence ontheeffectivenessofcullingorreferencestotheexperiencesofothercountriesalone. How might policy makers resolve this dilemma? One response may be to consider whether generatingpublicsupportisworthwhileatall:doesresolvingananimaldiseaselikebtbneedpublic support,andaretheconsequencesofnotreceivingitlikelytoresultinpolicyfailure?historytellsus thatpoliticianshavethoughtabadgerculltobeapoliticalliabilitysincethe1970s(grant,2009), whilstscientifictrialsandbadgercullpolicieshaveconsistentlycomeupagainstpublicprotestthat havearguablyaffectedtheireffectiveness.ifpublicsupportisseenasdesirable,thenratherthan relyondeficitmodelsofscientificcommunication,seekingtoreframethewaysinwhichanimal diseasepolicyismadeandforwhatpurposesmightprovideawayroundthisimpasse.innew Zealand,possumcontrolisframedwithinattemptstoprotecttheagriculturaleconomy,native wildlifeandthepurityofnature,whichinturnislinkedtoattemptstodefineabiosecurityidentity for New Zealanders (see: Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, 2011). However, reframingthedebateiscomplicatedbythefactthatitisalreadyorganisedaroundsocial,economic andculturalvalues(cassidy,2012).theextenttowhichitispossibletoreframebadgerculling aroundthesedifferentnarrativesofnationalidentityandbiodiversityinenglandandwalesmay revealthelimitstowhichbadgercullingrepresentsarealisticpolicyoption.alternatively,itmaybe thatbyrefocusingtheobjectsofveterinaryregulationfromolddiseaseslikebtbtoneweranimal disease challenges may provide a different solution. Challenging the economic rationale for controlling bovine tuberculosis, and removing barriers to alternative solutions, such as cattle vaccination,mayprovideanopportunitytoquestionwhetherdiseaseslikebovinetuberculosis require eradication.suchadebate mayalsocontribute tobroaderthinkingabouttheroleof democraticrightsanddistributiveratherthanproceduraljusticeinthemanagementofanimal disease. 20

22 Inconclusion,thispaperhasexploredpublicattitudestoanimaldiseaseandmethodsofcontrolling itsspreadbetweenwildandfarmedanimals.infocussingonbovinetuberculosisandabadgercull,a keyaimhasbeentoexaminehowtheseattitudesvarybetweendifferenttypesofruralspace,and theextenttowhichthepublic sexpectationsofabadgercullcorrespondtothescientificevidence. Thepaperhasshownthatrespondentsin deeprural areasandthosefromareaswithhighlevelsof btbaremostinfavourofabadgercull,whilstrespondentsfromruralfringeand/orareaswithlow levelsofbtbfavourothercontrolmethodssuchasbadgervaccination.asignificantmajorityof respondents do not believe the current scientific evidence on the effectiveness of a cull is acceptable,andsuggestforittobeacceptableitwouldhavetobeoverthreetimesitscurrentlevel. Theresultsraiseinterestingquestionsforpolicymakersandstakeholderswhohavesoughtto persuadethepublictoacceptthecullbyreferringtothecurrentscientificevidence.thisstrategyis likelytofailnotjustbecausethereisavastdisparitybetweenpublicandscientificexpectations,but asotherresearchhasshown theseattitudesaredrawnfromdeepxseatedbeliefsaboutnature thatareunlikelytobeeasilychanged.ifpublicsupportiscentraltobadgercullpolicies,thenpolicy makersmaywishtoexplorealternativewaysofgoverninganimaldisease. 21

23 References AnimalHealthandVeterinaryLaboratoriesAgency.(2011)Epidemiologyofbovinetuberculosisin WalesAnnualsurveillancereportfortheperiodJanuarytoDecember2010.Cardiff:Welsh Government. BellMM.(1994)Childerley.NatureandMoralityinaCountryVillage,Chicago:ChicagoUniversity Press. BickerstaffKandSimmonsP.(2004)Therighttoolforthejob?Modeling,spatialrelationships,and stylesofscientificpracticeintheukfootandmouthcrisis.environmentandplanningd: SocietyandSpace22:393X412. Black R. (2011) UK public opposed to badger cull, opinion poll suggests. Available at: Bow Group. (2012) Bow Group urges Government to scrap badger cull plans. Available at: BruskotterJT,VaskeJJandSchmidtRH.(2009)SocialandCognitiveCorrelatesofUtahResidents AcceptanceoftheLethalControlofWolves.HumanDimensionsofWildlife14:119X132. BullerH.(2008)Safefromthewolf:biosecurity,biodiversity,andcompetingphilosophiesofnature. EnvironmentandPlanningA40:1583X1597. Carstensen M, OBrien DJ and Schmitt SM. (2011) Public acceptance as a determinant of managementstrategiesforbovinetuberculosisinfreexrangingu.s.wildlife.vetmicrobiol 151:200X204. CassidyA.(2012)Vermin,VictimsandDisease:UKFramingsofBadgersInandBeyondtheBovineTB Controversy.SociologiaRuralis52:192X214. Convery I, Mort M, Baxter J, et al. (2008) Animal Disease and Human Trauma: Emotional GeographiesofDisaster,London:PalgraveMacmillan. DandyN,BallantyneS,MoseleyD,etal.(2011)Preferencesforwildlifemanagementmethods amongtheperixurbanpublicinscotland.europeanjournalofwildliferesearch57:1213x DandyN,BallantyneS,MoseleyD,etal.(2012)Exploringbeliefsbehindsupportforandopposition towildlifemanagementmethods:aqualitativestudy.europeanjournalofwildliferesearch: 1X12. DavisonC,SmithGDandFrankelS.(1991)Layepidemiologyandthepreventionparadox:the implicationsofcoronarycandidacyforhealtheducation.sociologyofhealth&illness13:1x 19. DepartmentforEnvironmentFoodandRuralAffairs.(2006)PublicConsultationonControllingthe SpreadofBovineTuberculosisinCattleinHighIncidenceAreasinEngland:BadgerCulling.A ReportontheCitizens Panels.London:Defra. DepartmentforEnvironmentFoodandRuralAffairs.(2011a)BovineTBXKeyconclusionsfromthe meetingofscientificexpertsheldatdefraon4thapril2011.london:defra. DepartmentforEnvironmentFoodandRuralAffairs.(2011b)BovineTBEradicationProgrammefor England,London:Defra. DepartmentforEnvironmentFoodandRuralAffairs.(2013)DraftStrategyforAchieving Officially BovineTuberculosisXFree StatusforEngland.In:Defra(ed).London:Defra. DoughertyEM,FultonDCandAndersonDH.(2003)TheInfluenceofGenderontheRelationship BetweenWildlifeValueOrientations,Beliefs,andtheAcceptabilityofLethalDeerControlin CuyahogaValleyNationalPark.Society&NaturalResources16:603X623. EdenSandBearC.(2011)Modelsofequilibrium,naturalagencyandenvironmentalchange:lay ecologiesinukrecreationalangling.transactionsoftheinstituteofbritishgeographers36: 393X407. EnticottG.(2001)Calculatingnature:Thecaseofbadgers,bovinetuberculosisandcattle.Journalof RuralStudies17:149X

24 EnticottG.(2008)Theecologicalparadox:Socialandnaturalconsequencesofthegeographiesof animalhealthpromotion.transactionsoftheinstituteofbritishgeographers33:433x446. EnticottG,MayeD,IlberyB,etal.(2012)Farmersconfidenceinvaccinatingbadgersagainstbovine tuberculosis.veterinaryrecord170:204. FarmCrisisNetwork.(2009)StressandLoss:AreportontheimpactofbovineTBonfarmingfamilies. Northampton:FarmCrisisNetwork. FultonDC,SkerlK,ShankEM,etal.(2004)Beliefsandattitudestowardlethalmanagementofdeer incuyahogavalleynationalpark.wildlifesocietybulletin32:1166x1176. GarcíaXJiménezWL,FernándezXLlarioP,BenítezXMedinaJM,etal.(2013)ReducingEurasianwild boar(susscrofa)populationdensityasameasureforbovinetuberculosiscontrol:effectsin wildboarandasympatricfallowdeer(damadama)populationincentralspain.preventive VeterinaryMedicine110:435X446. GortazarC,VicenteJ,BoadellaM,etal.(2011)Progressinthecontrolofbovinetuberculosisin Spanishwildlife.VeterinaryMicrobiology151:170X178. GrantW.(2009)IntractablePolicyFailure:TheCaseofBovineTBandBadgers.BritishJournalof Politics&InternationalRelations11:557X573. GreenD,AskinsGRandWestPD.(1997)Publicopinion:obstacleoraidtosounddeermanagament. WildlifeSocietyBulletin25:367X370. HalfacreeKH.(1995)Talkingaboutrurality:Socialrepresentationsoftheruralasexpressedby residentsofsixenglishparishes.journalofruralstudies11:1x20. HeberleinTAandEricssonG.(2005)TiestotheCountryside:AccountingforUrbanitesAttitudes towardhunting,wolves,andwildlife.humandimensionsofwildlife10:213x227. HeffernanC,NielsenL,ThomsonK,etal.(2008)AnexplorationofthedriverstobioXsecurity collectiveactionamongasampleofukcattleandsheepfarmers.preventiveveterinary Medicine87:358X372. HumaneSocietyInternational.(2012)BillOddieandMPsSupportHSIsOfficialComplaintAgainst Badger Cull. Available at: t_ html, IndependentScientificGroup(ISG).(2007)BovineTuberculosis:TheScientificEvidence,London: Defra. KahanDM,JenkinsXSmithHandBramanD.(2010)Culturalcognitionofscientificconsensus.Journal ofriskresearch14:147x174. KahanDM,PetersE,WittlinM,etal.(2012)Thepolarizingimpactofscienceliteracyandnumeracy onperceivedclimatechangerisks.natureclim.changeadvanceonlinepublication. KendallHA,LobaoLMandSharpJS.(2006)PublicConcernwithAnimalWellXBeing:Place,Social StructuralLocation,andIndividualExperience.RuralSociology71:399X428. KönigA.(2008)Fears,attitudesandopinionsofsuburbanresidentswithregardstotheirurban foxes.europeanjournalofwildliferesearch54:101x109. LeagueAgainstCruelSports.(2011)MinisterhintsatuEturnonbadgercullaspollingshowspublic opposition. Available at: badgerxcullxasxpollingxshowsxpublicxopposition. LehaneR.(1996)Beatingtheoddsinabigcountry.Theeradicationofbovinebrucellosisand tuberculosisinaustralia,collingwood,australia:csiro. LokerCA,DeckerDJandSchwagerSJ.(1999)Socialacceptabilityofwildlifemanagementactionsin suburbanareas:3casesfromnewyork.wildlifesocietybulletin27:152x159. LoydKATandMillerCA.(2010)InfluenceofDemographics,ExperienceandValueOrientationson PreferencesforLethalManagementofFeralCats.HumanDimensionsofWildlife15:262X 273. MarsdenT,MurdochJ,LoweP,etal.(1993)ConstructingtheCountryside,London:UCLPress. 23

25 MayeD,EnticottG,NaylorR,etal.(2014)Animaldiseaseandnarrativesofnature:Farmers reactionstotheneoliberalgovernanceofbovinetuberculosis.journalofruralstudiesin press. NationalAssemblyforWales.(2011)ExplanatoryMemorandumtotheBadger(ControlArea)(Wales) Order2011.In:OfficerOotCV(ed).Cardiff:NationalAssemblyforWales. National Farmers Union. (2011) Majority of people back badger cull E survey. Available at: OBrienDJ,SchmittSM,FitzgeraldSD,etal.(2011)ManagementofbovinetuberculosisinMichigan wildlife:currentstatusandneartermprospects.vetmicrobiol151:179x187. ParliamentaryCommissionerfortheEnvironment.(2011)Evaluatingtheuseof1080:Predators, poisonsandsilentforests,wellington:parliamentarycommissionerfortheenvironment. PoortingaW,BickerstaffK,LangfordI,etal.(2004)TheBritish2001FootandMouthcrisis:A comparativestudyofpublicriskperceptions,trustandbeliefsaboutgovernmentpolicyin twocommunities.journalofriskresearch7:73x90. PoortingaWandPidgeonNF.(2003)Exploringthedimensionalityoftrustinriskregulation.Risk Analysis23:961X972. RyanTJ,LivingstonePG,RamseyDSL,etal.(2006)Advancesinunderstandingdiseaseepidemiology andimplicationsforcontrolanderadicationoftuberculosisinlivestock:theexperiencefrom NewZealand.VeterinaryMicrobiology112:211X219. SheridanM.(2011)ProgressintuberculosiseradicationinIreland.VeterinaryMicrobiology151:160X 169. SpencerA.(2011)OneBodyofEvidence,ThreeDifferentPolicies:BovineTuberculosisPolicyin Britain.Politics31:91X99. TeelTL,KrannichRSandSchmidtRH.(2002)Utahstakeholdersattitudestowardselectedcougar andblackbearmanagementpractices.wildlifesocietybulletin33. TverskyAandKahnemanD.(1974)JudgmentunderUncertainty:HeuristicsandBiases.Science185: 1124X1131. WalesRuralObservatory.(2009)DeepRuralLocalities,Cardiff:WalesRuralObservatory. 24

26 Tables Table1:RespondentCharacteristics(numberofrespondents) Survey Version Level of Disease Gender Type of survey location 16% 28% High Low Male Female Rural Deep Rural Fringe Crymych Area Cowbridge Area Llanyrtyd/Llangammarch Wells Area Usk/Raglan Area Total (N) Total (%) 48% 52% 54.8% 45.2% 44% 56% 41.7% 58.3% 25

27 Table2:RespondentCharacteristics Level of Disease Rurality High Low Rural Fringe Deep Rural % % % % less than Household Income ( ) Gender Age more than Male Female

28 Table 3: Attitudes to Bovine Tuberculosis and a Badger Management Options (Mean response to 5 point scale) 1. The Welsh Government should eradicate animal diseases like bovine TB 2. I am concerned about the impact bovine TB has on the health and welfare of cattle. 3. I am concerned about the social & economic impact to farmers when their cows are killed because of bovine TB 4. In general, I feel that a badger cull is an acceptable way of dealing with bovine TB in Wales 5. Badgers should be culled if there is a substantial risk of humans catching bovine TB 6. I would support a badger cull if it saved the Welsh Government money it spends on managing bovine TB 7. In general, I feel that it would be better to vaccinate badgers against TB rather than kill them. 8. In general, I feel that it would be better to vaccinate cattle against bovine TB rather than kill badgers Notes Levelsofstatisticalsignificance:*** <0.001, ** <0.01 * <0.05 All Respondents Deep Rural Rural Fringe Male Female High Disease Low Disease ** ** ** ** *** * *** * ** * *** ** * *** ** * ***