More Questions to Work Out

There are some questions I have about the fight in Minnesota against the Emerald Ash Borer. I tend to take a lot of pride in the state of MN, and I think the people who live here feel strongly about trees (generally). The progression of this bug has been called "inevitable" and the campaign is not to eradicate them (like some campaigns of the 1960s); instead, it is only to slow the spread.

It seems as though the communication system from the middle of the century is completely converted. At one time, the government was secretive about the way they conducted battles against invasive species. Now, the amount of information sent to the public is vast in scope.

For the Emerald Ash Borer battle, the DNR cannot work alone. A committee is established with members from the Department of Agriculture, the DNR and the federal communications group (I think, I need to check). So this group will be responsible for the communication to the public.

So how effective has their communications campaign been? How does the public respond to the information the DNR has put? What makes Minnesotans listen; what do they tune out and why? If I studied these questions, I could answer this with a study of participants' knowledge of EAB and their willingness to participate in the DNR's campaign by (a) not moving firewood, (b) agreeing to chemical treatments, and (c) educating themselves with more information about the bug. This would take lots of social research, but could involve causal research as well (for instance, how has audience engagement slowed the advance of EAB?).