Segmenting Public Beliefs about Conflict with Coyotes in an Urban Recreation Setting
Keywords:value orientations, norms, attitudes, behavioral intentions, wildlife management, urban recreation settings, segmentation
AbstractRecognizing the diversity of opinions about wildlife, researchers have emphasized segmenting the public into homogeneous meaningful groups to understand potential responses to wildlife management strategies. This article segmented the public based on normative beliefs about lethal management of coyotes in an urban recreation setting. Data were obtained from a mail survey (n = 457) of residents in the South Suburban Park and Recreation District (SSPRD), which encompasses municipalities (e.g., Littleton, Englewood) in the Denver, Colorado metropolitan area. With extensive parks and open-space, this region provides prime habitat for coyotes, and SSPRD was concerned that the presence of coyotes would cause negative interactions with humans and domestic pets. Three groups of respondents were identified—those who believed that lethal coyote management was: (a) unacceptable (23 percent), (b) unacceptable except when coyotes injure or kill pets (42 percent), and (c) acceptable (35 percent). Compared to the other groups, respondents who felt that lethal management was unacceptable were more likely to have protectionist value orientations toward wildlife, positive general attitudes toward coyotes, negative specific attitudes toward lethal coyote management, and were less likely to support a vote in favor of killing coyotes. Segmenting the public helps managers identify different groups of people who make up an agency’s constituency and may or may not become involved in decision making regarding wildlife. Agencies can use information about norm-based segments to help predict the proportion of different publics who are likely to support, oppose, or be indifferent toward management actions. This information can also be used to target education efforts. The largest proportion of respondents agreed that lethal management was acceptable under certain conditions (e.g., injure or kill pets), but was unacceptable under other circumstances (e.g., coyote seen in residential area). Given that this segment of the public may not be firmly committed to either a positive or negative opinion about lethal The presence of wildlife in urban areas poses significant management challenges (Knuth, Siemer, Duda, Bissell, & Decker, 2001). Increases in deer populations, for example, have resulted in wildlife-related vehicular accidents (Conover, 1997), damage to ornamental vegetation (McCullough, Jennings, Gates, Elliott, & DiDonato, 1997), and transmission of Lyme disease to humans (Deblinger, Rimmer, Vaske, Vecellio, & Donnelly, 1993). Beavers cause destruction of trees and shrubs, and dams that they construct sometimes flood residential subdivisions (Enck, Connelly, & Brown, 1996; Ermer, 1988; Harbrecht, 1991). The presence of some species (e.g., mountain lions, coyotes) in urban areas can pose a safety risk to humans and domestic pets (Knuth et al., 2001; Wittmann, Vaske, Manfredo, & Zinn, 1998). Traditional management methods (e.g., hunting, lethal trapping) that can be effective in reducing problem wildlife populations, may not be feasible in areas of dense human population and may not be acceptable to some urban residents (McCullough et al., 1997; Zinn, Manfredo, Vaske, & Wittmann, 1998). Given demographic shifts (Cordell, Bergstrom, Betz, & Green, 2004; Manfredo & Zinn, 1996), changes in value orientations (Manfredo, Teel, & Bright, 2003), and increased effectiveness of interest groups and stakeholders (Campbell & MacKay, 2003; Decker, Brown, & Siemer, 2001), a broader spectrum of the public now management, they may be the most likely to be influenced by information and education aimed at attitudes and behavior related to this management action. Attempts to educate and inform individuals with protectionist wildlife value orientations to consider adopting favorable attitudes and vote in support of actions such as lethal trapping are less likely to be successful. Therefore, to have a large and supportive constituency, agencies may need to implement different strategies with different audiences to address conflicts with wildlife in urban recreation areas.
Sagamore Publishing LLC (hereinafter the “Copyright Owner”)
Journal Publishing Copyright Agreement for Authors
PLEASE REVIEW OUR POLICIES AND THE PUBLISHING AGREEMENT, AND INDICATE YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS BY CHECKING THE ‘AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS COPYRIGHT NOTICE’ CHECKBOX BELOW.
I understand that by submitting an article to Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, I am granting the copyright to the article submitted for consideration for publication in Journal of Park and Recreation Administration to the Copyright Owner. If after consideration of the Editor of the Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, the article is not accepted for publication, all copyright covered under this agreement will be automatically returned to the Author(s).
THE PUBLISHING AGREEMENT
Assignment of Copyright
I hereby assign to the Copyright Owner the copyright in the manuscript I am submitting in this online procedure and any tables, illustrations or other material submitted for publication as part of the manuscript in all forms and media (whether now known or later developed), throughout the world, in all languages, for the full term of copyright, effective when the article is accepted for publication.
Reversion of Rights
Articles may sometimes be accepted for publication but later be rejected in the publication process, even in some cases after public posting in “Articles in Press” form, in which case all rights will revert to the Author.
Retention of Rights for Scholarly Purposes
I understand that I retain or am hereby granted the Retained Rights. The Retained Rights include the right to use the Preprint, Accepted Manuscript, and the Published Journal Article for Personal Use and Internal Institutional Use.
All journal material is under a 12 month embargo. Authors who would like to have their articles available as open access should contact Sagamore-Venture for further information.
In the case of the Accepted Manuscript and the Published Journal Article, the Retained Rights exclude Commercial Use, other than use by the author in a subsequent compilation of the author’s works or to extend the Article to book length form or re-use by the author of portions or excerpts in other works.
Published Journal Article: the author may share a link to the formal publication through the relevant DOI.
- The Article I have submitted to the journal for review is original, has been written by the stated author(s) and has not been published elsewhere.
- The Article was not submitted for review to another journal while under review by this journal and will not be submitted to any other journal.
- The Article contains no libelous or other unlawful statements and does not contain any materials that violate any personal or proprietary rights of any other person or entity.
- I have obtained written permission from copyright owners for any excerpts from copyrighted works that are included and have credited the sources in the Article.
- If the Article was prepared jointly with other authors, I have informed the co-author(s) of the terms of this Journal Publishing Agreement and that I am signing on their behalf as their agent, and I am authorized to do so.