Attitudes, Involvement and Public Support for Pest Control Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article "Attitudes, involvement and public support for pest control methods" presented to me for review is a concise, informative and solid description of the research on a public attitudes and involvement providing predictions of public support for pest control methods. Nevertheless, I recommend two minor adjustments:

1. Both in the "Introduction" and "Discussion" sections, more attention should be paid to the problem of invasive non-indigenous species, which the article basically concerns, and to relate the problem of biological invasions to the context of the issues discussed in the article. The demarcation line between native and introduced weeds and pests should be indicated and explained (both the environmental and the socio-ethical context are different in both cases). It should be clearly noted that this does not mean that in ethical terms it is possible to evaluate the eradication of indigenous and non-indigenous species that are harmful to the economy, by defining one as more ethically justified than the other (based on the criterion of origin). This issue could also be noticed in the article and discussed to some extent.

2. Another, strictly ethical issue is the need to draw attention, in the text of the article, to the absolute need for a humane approach to the issue of eradication and control of weed and pest populations (regardless of their origin). This issue is omitted in the article, which, in the light of the issues raised by its Authors, is a considerable and somewhat disappointing oversight.

3. The readability of the "Results" chapter would be greatly enhanced by the use of graphs. Perhaps the Authors could consider replacing one of the tables with a graph.

Author Response

Both in the "Introduction" and "Discussion" sections, more attention should be paid to the problem of invasive non-indigenous species, which the article basically concerns, and to relate the problem of biological invasions to the context of the issues discussed in the article. The demarcation line between native and introduced weeds and pests should be indicated and explained (both the environmental and the socio-ethical context are different in both cases). It should be clearly noted that this does not mean that in ethical terms it is possible to evaluate the eradication of indigenous and non-indigenous species that are harmful to the economy, by defining one as more ethically justified than the other (based on the criterion of origin). This issue could also be noticed in the article and discussed to some extent.

We have added 'invasive, non-native' to the Abstract and the Introduction (lines 19, 37, 132) to be clear that rats and possums are commonly described as such in New Zealand with a supporting reference at line 132 to clarify this description is common (and so does not represent a demarcation judgement by us). Furthermore, as the focus of the paper is on a method for evaluating public acceptance (or not) of a pest control method, and not the ethics of pest control, it seems inappropriate for us to state a position on whether it is possible to evaluate the eradication of indigenous and non-indigenous species that are harmful to the economy, by defining one as more ethically justified than the other (based on the criterion of origin).

We have, however, added a paragraph to the Discussion (lines 684-697) referring to the validity of the native, non-native distinction and the ethics of pest control given most participants’ low to moderate involvement. We have kept this short because the focus of the paper is on testing a method for measuring public acceptance of pest control (that is novel because of the use of the involvement concept), not the ethics of pest control.

 

Another, strictly ethical issue is the need to draw attention, in the text of the article, to the absolute need for a humane approach to the issue of eradication and control of weed and pest populations (regardless of their origin). This issue is omitted in the article, which, in the light of the issues raised by its Authors, is a considerable and somewhat disappointing oversight.

 

Because the focus of the paper is on testing a novel method for measuring public acceptance of pest control and not the ethics of pest control, we feel it is inappropriate for us to take a position and suggest in this paper there is an absolute need for a humane approach to the issue of eradication and control of weed and pest populations (regardless of their origin). However, we did reiterate in the Discussion that most participants were concerned, to some degree, about the humanness of 1080 (lines 692-695).

The readability of the "Results" chapter would be greatly enhanced by the use of graphs. Perhaps the Authors could consider replacing one of the tables with a graph.

In principle, Tables 1-5 could be presented as figures. However, tables are much more convenient and compact, when the statistically significant differences across segments (columns) are not consistent across variables (rows) which is the case for Tables 1, 2, 3 and 5. In our experience the choice between graphs and tables is also a matter of personal preference.

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors presented an important topic. However, major revision are required

I am feeling this report is a review not article. 

I strongly recommended to make meta analysis about your data. Through the figures come from analysis, the result will become clearer. 

Please show the novelty in abstract

Please show the hypnosis in the end of introduction

Discussion needs more citations

 

Author Response

I am feeling this report is a review not article.

We disagree, we have reported the results of a statistical analysis of a single survey to test the usefulness in understanding public support for pest control methods of the novel combination of involvement and attitude. This report is not a general analysis of the literature on public support for pest control methods.

Please show the novelty in abstract

We have made a slight change to the Abstract to note the novel combination of involvement and attitude in understanding public support for pest control methods.

Please show the hypotheses in the end of introduction

An adequate theoretical context (which is presented in material and methods) is required to understand the hypotheses. Consequently, we believe shifting the hypotheses to the Introduction would be unhelpful unless the description of the theory was shifted to the introduction as well.

Discussion needs more citations

As we have expanded the Discussion to include consideration of matters raised by another reviewer, we have added some citations to the Discussion. We have struggled to identify more citations in the conservation and pest control literature to support our discussion of the implications of involvement for garnering community support for pest management precisely because the use of the involvement concept in this field is novel.

I strongly recommended to make meta-analysis about your data. Through the figures come from analysis, the result will become clearer.

We do not understand what is meant here. The research cannot be described as a meta-analysis as it reports on the results of the analysis of data from a single survey rather than an analysis of the data from a number of independent studies of the same subject. Consequently, we do not think it is necessary to revise the manuscript in this regard, unless we have completely misunderstood the reviewer’s meaning.

Reviewer 3 Report

no comments , very interesting article

Author Response

No response required. We appreciate the reviewer's comment.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

No comments