A Spatially Explicit Model, Derived From Demographic Variables, to Predict Attitudes Toward Black Bear Restoration

Abstract

Understanding human attitudes often is vital to the success of restoration projects, especially those involving controversial species such as carnivores. Support for restoration activities may differ depending on residence location of the respondent; thus, understanding the spatial distribution of attitudes is important when selecting suitable restoration sites. We used black bear (Ursus americanus) restoration as an example of how to calculate and use a spatially explicit model of human attitudes based on demographic variables to select restoration sites in Mississippi, USA. We sampled 2 populations (5,975 landowners adjacent to 10 public land areas and a random sample of 490 Mississippians) to determine human attitudes toward black bear reintroduction in Mississippi. We chose a series of reintroduction and demographic questions to develop 2 logistic regression models to predict support for reintroduction, and we validated the models. One model was developed on all demographic variables (how many acres respondents owned in Mississippi and for how long, as well as their age, sex, education, income, community size, and race) to determine the relationship between support for reintroduction and demographic variables. The second model used only age, race, and sex demographic variables. Age, community size, race, sex, and number of years of landownership were significant predictors of support for bear restoration for the first model; and age, race, and sex were significant predictors for the second model. Using the second model and the U.S. Census Bureau (1990) block group data, we predicted the proportion of each block group supporting restoration. Most of Mississippi had block groups with <50% support for bear restoration. We were able to determine a statewide distribution of attitudes. Additionally, we documented that attitudes of landowners immediately adjacent to public land may differ from those of residents of the area surrounding the public land (both adjacent and not). We suggest using our approach for other restoration projects to better integrate human attitudes into the restoration program.

Urban resident attitudes toward rodents, rodent control products, and environmental effects

“…Among the stronger relationships, several studies have reported older (versus younger) individuals to have relatively negative attitudes toward wildlife (e.g., Bowman et al 2004;Morzillo et al 2007;Decker et al 2001), whereas attitude differences between sexes vary by situation. In addition, although more positive attitudes toward wildlife are typically more likely among individuals with more formal education (e.g., Bowman et al 2004;Decker et al 2001), this relationship was significant only for SAMO. As a result of factor analysis, we suspect that the weak (but significant) relationship between household size and attitudes toward rodents in SAMO is related to concern about household welfare as a result of rodent presence.…”

Human–Black Bear Conflict in Urban Areas: An Integrated Approach to Management Response

“…Topics covered have included general attitudes toward bears (Decker, Brown, Hustin, Clarke, & O'Pezio, 1981;Kellert, 1994), attitudes toward bear hunting and hunting methods (Loker & Decker, 1995;Teel, Krannich, & Schmidt, 2002), tolerance of human-bear conflict (Organ & Ellingwood, 2000;Seimer & Decker, 2003), and support for local recovery of extirpated or threatened bear populations (Bowman, Leopold, Vilella, & Gill, 2004;Morzillo, Mertig, Garner, & Liu, 2007;Rice, Ballard, Fish, Wester, & Holdermann, 2007). Recent studies have also examined the acceptability of specific management actions for addressing human-bear conflicts in urban areas Whittaker et al, 2006 Many of these studies have incorporated measures of attitudes toward bears and/ or their management.…”

Spatial Distribution of Attitudes Toward Proposed Management Strategies for a Wildlife Recovery

“…First, bear managers will likely be met with different opinions when outreach takes place in any location, which makes generalizing results to a larger area (e.g., census block groups; Bowman et al, 2004) and customizing outreach programs for specific locations difficult. Second, movement of urban residents into rural areas may result in amalgamation of urban versus rural wildlife values.…”