Abstract Context Developing a new tool for wide-scale rat eradication is necessary for significant biodiversity gains. Underlying beliefs linked to public opinion can help guide policy makers to understand public concern and inform an effective discourse. Aims We investigated underlying beliefs linked to levels of support for a potentially disruptive tool, gene drive, compared with a traditional stepwise tool, aerial distribution of a new pest-specific toxin. Methods Using the theory of planned behaviour, we surveyed (n = 1200) a representative sample of New Zealanders to assess the level of support for the tool related to attitude, normative and control beliefs. Key results Attitude (e.g. gene drive is good/bad and gene drive is risky/safe) and two norms (e.g. people like me and people in my household) were key contributors to level of support for gene drive. Behavioural beliefs (if scientific evidence can prove it works, concern there are unknown consequences, a humane way to rid New Zealand of rats, and gene drive goes against natural way of life) were also significant. For aerial distribution of a new pest-specific toxin, the same attitudes and normative beliefs identified for gene drive also contributed significantly to the model. Four behavioural beliefs, namely, aerial delivery could affect areas outside the target zones, if there is scientific evidence, and it is impossible to make a pest-specific toxin that would not harm our native wildlife were also significant. The impact either tool may have on biodiversity was not significant in either model. Conclusions Decision making about both gene drive (a disruptive technology) and aerial distribution of a pest-specific toxin (a stepwise technology) is primarily influenced by attitudes, with a few beliefs also influencing decision making. Novelty of the tool does not affect the underlying beliefs that are influencing levels of support. Implications Public engagement that acknowledges and responds to these underlying beliefs, rather than a traditional campaign based on biodiversity and environmental gains, may be more effective at creating a constructive dialogue about if and how these tools should be used, and to avoid replicating the polarised debate about 1080.

中文翻译：

---

与关于基因驱动和害虫特定毒素用于害虫控制的公众舆论相关的潜在信念

摘要 背景 开发一种用于大规模消灭老鼠的新工具对于生物多样性的显着增益是必要的。与公众舆论相关的潜在信念可以帮助指导决策者理解公众的关注并为有效的话语提供信息。目标 我们调查了与潜在破坏性工具基因驱动的支持水平相关的潜在信念，与传统的逐步工具相比，新的害虫特定毒素的空中分布。方法 使用计划行为理论，我们调查了（n = 1200）新西兰人的代表性样本，以评估对与态度、规范和控制信念相关的工具的支持水平。主要结果 态度（例如基因驱动好/坏，基因驱动有风险/安全）和两个规范（例如 像我这样的人和我家里的人）是基因驱动支持水平的关键贡献者。行为信念（如果科学证据可以证明它有效，担心会有未知的后果，以人道的方式消除新西兰的老鼠，以及基因驱动违背自然生活方式）也很重要。对于一种新的特定害虫毒素的空中分布，为基因驱动确定的相同态度和规范信念也对模型做出了重大贡献。四种行为信念，即空投可能会影响目标区域以外的区域，如果有科学证据，并且不可能制造不会伤害我们本地野生动物的害虫特定毒素也很重要。任一工具可能对生物多样性产生的影响在任一模型中都不显着。结论 关于基因驱动（一种破坏性技术）和有害生物特定毒素的空中分布（一种逐步技术）的决策主要受态度的影响，一些信念也会影响决策。该工具的新颖性不会影响影响支持水平的潜在信念。影响 承认并回应这些基本信念的公众参与，而不是基于生物多样性和环境收益的传统运动，可能更有效地就是否以及如何使用这些工具进行建设性对话，并避免重复两极分化的辩论1080左右。一些信念也会影响决策。该工具的新颖性不会影响影响支持水平的潜在信念。影响 承认并回应这些基本信念的公众参与，而不是基于生物多样性和环境收益的传统运动，可能更有效地就是否以及如何使用这些工具进行建设性对话，并避免重复两极分化的辩论1080左右。一些信念也会影响决策。该工具的新颖性不会影响影响支持水平的潜在信念。影响 承认并回应这些基本信念的公众参与，而不是基于生物多样性和环境收益的传统运动，可能更有效地就是否以及如何使用这些工具进行建设性对话，并避免重复两极分化的辩论1080左右。