Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Socioeconomic Factors Affecting Local Support for Black Bear Recovery Strategies

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is global interest in recovering locally extirpated carnivore species. Successful efforts to recover Louisiana black bear in Louisiana have prompted interest in recovery throughout the species’ historical range. We evaluated support for three potential black bear recovery strategies prior to public release of a black bear conservation and management plan for eastern Texas, United States. Data were collected from 1,006 residents living in proximity to potential recovery locations, particularly Big Thicket National Preserve. In addition to traditional logistic regression analysis, we used conditional probability analysis to statistically and visually evaluate probabilities of public support for potential black bear recovery strategies based on socioeconomic characteristics. Allowing black bears to repopulate the region on their own (i.e., without active reintroduction) was the recovery strategy with the greatest probability of acceptance. Recovery strategy acceptance was influenced by many socioeconomic factors. Older and long-time local residents were most likely to want to exclude black bears from the area. Concern about the problems that black bears may cause was the only variable significantly related to support or non-support across all strategies. Lack of personal knowledge about black bears was the most frequent reason for uncertainty about preferred strategy. In order to reduce local uncertainty about possible recovery strategies, we suggest that wildlife managers focus outreach efforts on providing local residents with general information about black bears, as well as information pertinent to minimizing the potential for human–black bear conflict.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • An L, Linderman M, Shortridge A, Qi J, Liu J (2005) Exploring complexity in a human-environment system: an agent-based spatial model for multidisciplinary and multiscale integration. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95:54–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babbie E (1990) Survey research methods, 2nd edn. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, p 395

    Google Scholar 

  • Bath AJ (1989) The public and wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park. Society and Natural Resources 2:297–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bath AJ, Buchanan T (1989) Attitudes of interest groups in Wyoming toward wolf restoration in Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:519–525

    Google Scholar 

  • Black Bear Conservation Committee (BBCC) (1997) Black bear restoration plan. Baton Rouge, LA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowker B, Jacobson T (1995) Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) recovery plan. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman JL, Leopold BD, Vilella FJ, Gill DA, Jacobson HA (2001) Attitudes of landowners toward American black bear compared between areas of high and low bear populations. Ursus 12:153–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman JL, Leopold BD, Vilella FJ, Gill DA (2004) A spatially explicit model, derived from demographic variables, to predict attitudes toward black bear restoration. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:223–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breitenmoser U (1998) Large predators in the Alps: the fall and rise of man’s competitors. Biological Conservation 8:279–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bright AD, Manfredo MJ (1995) The quality of attitudinal information regarding natural resource issues: the role of attitude—strength, importance, and information. Society and Natural Resources 8:399–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks JJ, Warren RJ, Nelms MG, Tarrant MA (1999) Visitor attitudes and knowledge of restored bobcats on Cumberland Island National Seashore, Georgia. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:1089–1097

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark JD, Huber D, Servheen C (2002) Bear reintroductions: lessons and challenges. Ursus 13:335–345

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortina JM (1993) What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology 78:98–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramer D (2003) Advanced quantitative data analysis. Open University Press, Buckingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Decker DJ, Brown TL, Siemer WF (2001) Human dimensions of wildlife management in North America. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD, p 447

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman D (2000) Mail and Internet surveys: the Tailored Design Method. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, p 464

    Google Scholar 

  • Enck JW, Brown TL (2002) New Yorkers’ attitudes toward restoring wolves to the Adirondack Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:16–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ (1999) Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods 4:272–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritts SH, Bangs EE, Fontaine JA, Johnson MR, Phillips MK, Koch ED, Gunson JR (1997) Planning and implementing a reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. Restoration Ecology 5:7–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller TK, Sievert PR (2001) Carnivore demography and the consequences of change in prey availability. In: Gittleman JS, Funk M, Macdonald D, Wayne RK (eds) Carnivore conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp 163–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulton DC, Manfredo MJ, Lipscomb J (1996) Wildlife value orientations: a conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1:24–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner NP (1996) Suitability of habitats in east Texas for black bears. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX

    Google Scholar 

  • Harcourt AH, Parks SA, Woodroffe R (2001) Human density as an influence on species/area relationships: double jeopardy for small African reserves? Biodiversity and Conservation 10:1011–1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollister JW, Walker HA, Paul JF (2008) CProb: a computational tool for conducting conditional probability analysis. Journal of Environmental Quality 37:2392–2396

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jonker SA, Parkhurst JA, Field F, Fuller TK (1998) Black bear depredation on agricultural commodities in Massachusetts. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:318–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalton G (1983) Introduction to survey sampling. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, p 96

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellert SR (1985) Public perceptions of predators, particularly the wolf and coyote. Biological Conservation 31:167–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellert SR (1994) Public attitudes toward bears and their conservation. International Conference Bear Research and Management 9:43–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellert SR, Black M, Rush CR, Bath AJ (1996) Human culture and large carnivore conservation in North America. Conservation Biology 10:977–990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleiven J, Bjerke T, Kaltenborn BP (2004) Factors influencing the social acceptability of large carnivore behaviours. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:1647–1658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee ME, Miller R (2003) Managing elk in the wildland–urban interface: attitudes of Flagstaff, Arizona residents. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:185–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu J, Linderman M, Ouyang Z, An L, Yang J, Zhang H (2001) Ecological degradation in protected areas: the case of Wolong Nature Reserve for Giant Pandas. Science 292:98–101

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lohr C, Ballard WB, Bath A (1996) Attitudes toward gray wolf reintroduction to New Brunswick. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:414–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Maehr DS, Noss RF, Larkin JL (2001) Large mammal restoration. Island Press, Washington, DC, p 375

    Google Scholar 

  • Manley BFJ (2007) Randomization, bootstrap, and Monte Carlo methods in Biology, 3rd edition. Chapman Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, p 480

    Google Scholar 

  • Manni MF, Littlejohn M, Evans J, Gramann J, Hollenhorst SJ (2007) Yellowstone National Park Visitor Study, Summer 2006. University of Idaho Park Studies Unit, Visitor Services Project, Report 178

  • McFarlane BL, Stumpf–Allen RCG, Watson DO (2006) Public perceptions of natural disturbance in Canada’s national parks: the case of the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins). Biological Conservation 130:340–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mertig AG (2004) Attitudes about wolves in Michigan, 2002. Report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Wildlife Division, Lansing, MI

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller SM, Miller SD, McCollum DW (1998) Attitudes toward and relative value of Alaskan brown and black bears to resident voters, resident hunters, and nonresident hunters. Ursus 10:357–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills MGL, Freitag S, van–Jaarsveld AS (2001) Geographic priorities for carnivore conservation in Africa. In: Gittleman JS, Funk M, Macdonald D, Wayne RK (eds) carnivore conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp 467–483

    Google Scholar 

  • Montag JM, Patterson ME, Freimund WA (2005) The wolf viewing experience in the Lamar Valley of Yellowstone National Park. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10:273–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morzillo AT, Mertig AG, Garner N, Liu J (2007a) Resident attitudes toward black bears and population recovery in East Texas. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 12:417–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morzillo AT, Mertig AG, Garner N, Liu J (2007b) Spatial distribution of attitudes toward proposed management strategies for a wildlife recovery. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 12:15–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newmark WD (1996) Insularization of Tanzanian parks and the local extinction of large mammals. Conservation Biology 10:1549–1556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parks SA, Harcourt AH (2002) Reserve size, local human density, and mammalian extinctions in US protected areas. Conservation Biology 16:800–808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul JF, McDonald ME (2005) Development of empirical, geographically specific water quality criteria: a conditional probability analysis approach. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41:1211–1223

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peine JD (2001) Nuisance bears in communities: strategies to reduce conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 6:223–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelton M (2003) Black bear. In: Feldhamer GA, Thompson BC, Chapman JA (eds) Wild mammals of North America, 2nd edn. John Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, pp 547–555

    Google Scholar 

  • Peyton B, Bull P, Reis T, Visser L (2001) Public views on bear and bear management in the lower peninsula of Michigan. Report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Wildlife Division, Lansing, MI

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressey RL, Whish GL, Barrett TW, Watts ME (2002) Effectiveness of protected areas in north–eastern New South Wales: recent trends in six measures. Biological Conservation 106:57–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reading RP, Clark TW (1996) Carnivore reintroductions: and interdisciplinary examination. In: Gittleman JL (ed) Carnivore behavior, ecology, and evolution, volume 2. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 296–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Reading RP, Kellert SR (1993) Attitudes toward a proposed reintroduction of black–footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes). Conservation Biology 7:569–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ripple WJ, Beschta RL (2003) Wolf reintroduction, predation risk, and cottonwood recovery in Yellowstone National Park. Forest Ecology and Management 184:299–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivard DH, Poitevin J, Plasse D, Carleton M, Currie DJ (2000) Changing species richness and composition in Canadian National Parks. Conservation Biology 14:1099–1109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenecker KA, Shaw WW (1997) Attitudes toward a proposed reintroduction of Mexican gray wolves in Arizona. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 2:42–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheskin IM (1985) Survey research for geographers. Association of American Geographers, Washington, DC, p 112

    Google Scholar 

  • Siemer WF, Decker DJ (2003) 2002 New York State black bear management survey. New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Sillero–Zubiri C, Laurenson MK (2001) Interactions between carnivores and local communities: conflict or co–existence. In: Gittleman JS, Funk M, Macdonald D, Wayne RK (eds) Carnivore conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp 282–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. WH Freeman and Company, New York, NY, p 887

    Google Scholar 

  • Soulè ME, Sanjayan MA (1998) Ecology–conservation targets: do they help? Science 279:2060–2061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stynes DJ (2005) Economic significance of recreational use of national parks and other public lands. Social Science Research Review 5:1–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Stynes DJ, White EM (2005) Spending profiles of national forest visitors. NVUM four year report. USDA Forest Service Inventory and Monitoring Institute and Michigan State University Report, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Accessed online January 15, 2009: http://www.R-project.org

  • Texas Parks Wildlife Department (TPWD) (2005) East Texas black bear conservation and management plan. TPWD, Austin, TX

    Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Commerce (USDC), 2006. US Census Bureau data. Accessed September 20, 2006: http://www.census.gov

  • US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2007) 2006 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife–associated recreation; national overview. Accessed July 27, 2007: http://federalasst.fws.gov/surveys/surveys.html

  • Vucetich JA, Smith DW, Stahler DR (2005) Influence of harvest, climate, and wolf predation on Yellowstone elk, 1961–2004. Oikos 111:259–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodroffe R (2001) Strategies for carnivore conservation: lessons from contemporary Extinctions. In: Gittleman JS, Funk M, Macdonald D, Wayne RK (eds) carnivore conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp 61–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodroffe R, Ginsberg JR (1998) Edge effects and the extinction of populations inside protected areas. Science 280:2126–2128

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wright RG (1999) Wildlife management in the national parks: questions in search of answers. Ecological Applications 9:30–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding for this research was provided by Michigan State University, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Western National Parks Association, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, National Aeronautical Space Administration (NASA) Earth System Science (ESS) Fellowship Program, Canon-National Park Service Fellowship Program, and Safari Club International-Deep Pineywoods Chapter. In kind support was received from the National Park Service, Big Thicket Association, USDA Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and Black Bear Conservation Committee. We are grateful to K. Borland, J. Egeler, S. Panken, A. Stoddard, H. Wade, and E. White for assistance with survey implementation and data entry. We also thank H. Walker, five anonymous reviewers and, most importantly, the East Texas participants of this survey. The information in this document has been funded in part by the US Environmental Protection Agency. It has been subjected to review by the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents reflect the views of the Agency. This is contribution number WED-09-060 of the Western Ecology Division.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, OR, 97331, USA

    Anita T. Morzillo

  2. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability, Michigan State University, 13 Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI, 48824-1222, USA

    Anita T. Morzillo & Jianguo Liu

  3. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Middle Tennessee State University, MTSU Box 10, Murfreesboro, TN37132, USA

    Angela G. Mertig

  4. National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI, 02882, USA

    Jeffrey W. Hollister

  5. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 11942 FM 848, Tyler, TX, 75707, USA

    Nathan Garner

Authors
  1. Anita T. Morzillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angela G. Mertig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeffrey W. Hollister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nathan Garner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jianguo Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anita T. Morzillo.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(DOC 1111 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morzillo, A.T., Mertig, A.G., Hollister, J.W. et al. Socioeconomic Factors Affecting Local Support for Black Bear Recovery Strategies. Environmental Management 45, 1299–1311 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9485-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9485-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation