REECAP 7th Annual Meeting

Public Preferences for Risk of Pesticide Residue or Risk of Invasion to Combat Invasive Species in Agriculture

Not scheduled

20m

German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig

Using behavioral insights or economic psychology to improve food, agricultural, and agri-environmental policies Session Block

Speaker

Ashley Comma Roy (Brandenburgische Technische Universität Cottbus-Senftenberg)

Description

Invasive alien species (IAS) pose a significant threat to ecosystems, biodiversity, human well-being, and the economy. Effective IAS management requires balancing ecological, economic, and social dimensions. While biological control is often considered an environmentally friendly approach, it carries the risk of the control agent itself becoming invasive. Chemical insecticides, though effective, raise concerns about non-target effects and pesticide residues. This study investigates public preferences for these trade-offs using a case study of Halyomorpha halys (brown marmorated stink bug) in German apple orchards. Specifically, we explore how consumers weigh the risks of pesticide residues against the potential invasiveness of biological control agents and how socio-demographic and political factors shape these preferences.
To address this, we conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) with a representative sample of 1,173 German apple consumers. A multinomial logistic (MNL) regression was used to analyze preferences, willingness to pay (WTP), and the effects of information framing.
Results indicate a clear hierarchy in control method preferences, with a strong inclination toward biological control, followed by chemical control and a marked aversion to no control. Respondents were willing to pay €2.32 per kg of apples for biological control, while chemical control was less favored but still accepted with a WTP of €0.97 per kg. Socio-demographic analysis revealed that higher-income individuals supported biological and chemical control, while older respondents and rural residents were more likely to reject chemical control. Respondents with higher education and ties to nature organizations were more concerned about biological control agents becoming invasive and, therefore, opposed this method. Risk-tolerant individuals and East German respondents showed greater acceptance of biological control despite uncertainties. This study is the first to examine the influence of political orientation on IAS control preferences. The analysis indicates that conservative and liberal respondents favored chemical control, whereas ecologically oriented individuals rejected biological and chemical methods, preferring no intervention. Additionally, a comparison between respondents exposed to precise quantitative versus generalized qualitative information revealed that those given generalized descriptions exhibited more substantial support for biological control and had more homogeneous preferences, while those given detailed quantitative information showed preferences that varied more with demographic factors. The findings of this study add to the growing scientific literature of invasion science and offer insights into public preferences, helping policymakers design effective IAS management strategies that are both widely supported and sustainable.