Risk perception as a factor in Wildlife Stakeholder Acceptance Capacity for cougars in montana

Riley, Shawn J.; Decker, Daniel J.

doi:10.1080/10871200009359187

Cited by 122 publications

(170 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

161

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This idea was based on the findings of others at larger spatial scales. Riley and Decker (2002) found that residents of Montana perceived lower risk from cougars in the eastern part of the state (where few cougars persist) relative to the western part (where cougars are common). Similarly, Karlsson and Sjöström (2007) found that tolerance of wolves in Sweden increased when the nearest wolf territory was at least 150 km from residents.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…To test the effect of proximity to cougar activity on tolerance, we linked questionnaire responses to the relative probability that a cougar would select the area around a respondent's home, estimated using a resource selection function. We used this relationship to test the hypothesis that carnivore tolerance declines as overlap with people increases (Manfredo et al 1998, Riley and Decker 2002, Williams et al 2002, Karlsson and Sjöström 2007.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tolerance for cougars diminished by high perception of risk

Knopff¹,

Knopff²,

Clair³

2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. In North America, both human and cougar populations are expanding and increasingly sharing the same space, including modified landscapes viewed by people as their "backyard." Low tolerance for cougars in modified landscapes has been identified as a key factor that could restrict continued cougar range expansion in North America, or even reverse some of the gains made by cougar populations in recent decades. To better understand factors influencing tolerance and identify opportunities to improve conservation prospects for cougars, we implemented a questionnaire in west-central Alberta, where both human and cougar populations have increased over the past 20 years and where we had developed a resource selection function for cougars from telemetry data. Respondents overestimated risk from cougars, and more than half believed cougars posed the same or greater risk as driving a car, even though only one Albertan has been killed by a cougar in the last century and hundreds die in car accidents each year. Although respondents valued cougars highly, they indicated that cougars belonged in the wilderness and not near their homes. We predicted that tolerance for cougars would be negatively correlated with increased probability of cougar selection near the respondent's home, but our prediction was not supported. Although such correlations have been reported at broader spatial scales, we suggest they may break down at finer scales. Other factors, such as education, were important drivers of tolerance for cougars in Alberta. Our results suggest that education undertaken to improve large carnivore conservation should focus on accurately defining the risks and ecological benefits resulting from maintaining cougars on the landscape. Education may also need to focus on the importance of nonwilderness habitats (i.e., the rapidly expanding backyard) as an important part of long-term conservation and continued range expansion and repatriation of adaptable large carnivores, such as cougars.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tolerance for cougars diminished by high perception of risk

Knopff¹,

Knopff²,

Clair³

2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Acceptance capacity results from real or perceived consequences of positive or negative impacts caused by the presence of wildlife (Riley et al 2002). The concept has most frequently been applied to concerns related to the presence of large carnivores (Organ & Ellingwood 2000, Riley & Decker 2000 and ungulates (Lischka et al 2008), but it has the potential to be useful in other situations. In beach settings where habitat is limited and subject to crowding (De Ruyck et al 1997), acceptance capacity towards shorebirds may conflict with the implementation of management actions intended to protect shorebirds.…”

Section: Charadrius Melodusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wildlife is valued (Wagner & Seal 1992) and people generally support wildlife conservation, but their support is influenced, at least in part, by their own positive or negative experiences with wildlife (Harcourt et al 1986, Mankin et al 1999. Lack of support toward wildlife conservation and protection generally results from negative experiences, which fall into three categories (Wagner & Seal 1992, Riley & Decker 2000, Zinn et al 2000, Lischka et al 2008, Maguire et al 2013: physical harm, economic cost, and inconvenience. The relative importance of the three categories influencing acceptance capacity will differ based on the wildlife species and individuals involved (Zinn et al 2000, Riley et al 2002.…”

Section: Charadrius Melodusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact perceptions and acceptance capacity toward Piping Plovers Charadrius melodusamong visitors on a public beach in Nebraska, USA

Jorgensen¹,

Brown²

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…LC invasion of urban areas increases the likelihood of encounters with urban residents, thus also increasing the associated risk and fear of bear attacks. Although injury to people from human-carnivore interaction is rare in both rural and urban areas, even so, the high level of media involvement when such attacks do occur may raise the perception of wildlife-associated risks, making such events the focus of management considerations in urban areas (Riley and Decker 2000;Hudenko et al 2010). Urban HWC caused by invasion of urban areas via the corridors is thus threatening human safety and comfort in urban Sapporo.…”

Section: Development Of Sapporo Citymentioning

confidence: 99%