Rg. Wagner et al., PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF RISK AND ACCEPTABILITY OF FOREST VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES IN ONTARIO, Forestry Chronicle, 74(5), 1998, pp. 720-727
We examined public perceptions of risk and acceptability for 9 alterna
tives to controlling forest vegetation in Ontario (N = 2,301) in the f
all of 1994. The proportion of respondents indicating whether an alter
native was 1) difficult to control, 2) potentially catastrophic, 3) a
problem for future generations, and 4) a personal worry determined per
ceptions of risk for each vegetation management alternative. Ranking o
f alternatives from highest to lowest perceived risk was: aerially-app
lied herbicides > biological control > ground-applied herbicides > mul
ches > prescribed fire > heavy equipment > cover cropping > manual cut
ting > grazing animals. Public acceptance was lowest for serially-appl
ied herbicides (18%) followed by ground-applied herbicides (37%), biol
ogical control (57%), prescribed fire (57%), mulches (65%), heavy equi
pment (72%), cover cropping (80%), grazing animals (82%), and manual c
utting (89%). Public acceptability of various agents for biological co
ntrol differed depending on the proposed agent. Natural plant toxins w
ere viewed as most acceptable (73%) followed by microorganims (42%), g
enetically-engineered organisms (39%), and viruses (21%). We found a s
trong correlation between a risk perception index and acceptability of
the alternatives for the general public (r(2) = 0.84) and those in ti
mber-dependent communities (r(2) = 0.89). Our results suggest that str
onger public support can probably be achieved for forest vegetation ma
nagement programs that include non-herbicide alternatives.