Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tick-borne disease (TBD) risks to humans and livestock are increasing rapidly in temperate regions, including the UK, with severe impacts on human and animal health and livelihoods. These threats could be exacerbated by large-scale policy-driven changes to increase woodland area and connectivity, which might increase the abundance of the key tick vector, Ixodes ricinus, and its interactions with people, livestock and wildlife hosts. Environmental interventions have been suggested as potential ecologically friendly options with the propensity to mitigate risk from ticks and TBDs in woodland areas, which are often characterised by high tick-human contact rates. Yet the uptake of these interventions is dependent on their alignment with stakeholders’ land management priorities and attitudes. Effective co-production practices will ensure that the implementation of land-based tick control interventions aligns with stakeholder priorities and are acceptable to society. However, there is limited empirical understanding about the viability and acceptability of land-based interventions to reduce risk from ticks on the ground. METHODS: Three multi-stakeholder workshops (N = 40 participants), held in Aberdeenshire (Scotland) and New Forest (England) respectively, together with key-informant interviews (N = 18) were used to explore the stakeholders’ perceptions of, and attitudes towards, the potential implementation of land-based tick control interventions. RESULTS: Overall, while study participants expressed a general concern about the tick ‘problem’, there were varied perspectives towards implementing potential environmental interventions for tick and deer management. Of the potential interventions identified, deer exclusion measures (e.g. fencing) were perceived negatively as costly and ineffective at scale. Study participants highlighted there is no one-size-fits-all intervention for deer and/or tick management, noting that a combination of interventions is needed to reconcile differing stakeholder priorities and expectations about land management on a landscape scale. CONCLUSION: Altogether, the study highlights the importance of harmonising land-use policies and continuous dialogue between stakeholders to reconcile competing land management objectives. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-025-24500-7.