Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

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

  • Published:
Urban Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rodent control in urban areas can result in the inadvertent mortality of non-target species (e.g., bobcats). However, there is little detailed information from urban residents about rodent control practices. We evaluated urban rodent control behaviors in two areas of California (southwestern Bakersfield and in proximity to Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area (SAMO)) where biologists have observed non-target mortality among carnivores resulting from exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides. Using a mail survey instrument, we asked residents about rodent control practices including products used and application, attitudes toward rodents, and concern about non-target mortality. Forty-one percent of Bakersfield (response rate = 20%) and 59% of SAMO (response rate = 31%) respondents reported rodent or other animal control on their property. Snap traps and anticoagulants were the most commonly used physical and chemical control products, respectively. Many respondents were unsure whether (12% Bakersfield; 17% SAMO) or which (39% Bakersfield; 46% SAMO) chemical products were used on their property. When told of possible non-target effects, a majority of respondents were either very or somewhat concerned. Attitudes toward rodents were relatively negative across all respondents. Respondents who applied control products themselves (as opposed to a third party) were most supportive of ensuring availability of rodent control products. Our results suggest that residents do not readily connect their personal or household activities with larger environmental effects, and highlight potential focal areas for policy evaluation related to wildlife management, such as providing explicit information about potential environmental effects of rodent control products.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from $39.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Canada)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, books and news in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • Alterio N (1996) Secondary poisoning of stoats (Mustela erminea), feral ferrets (Mustela furo), and feral house cats (Felis catus) by the anticoagulant poison, brodifacoum. N Z J Zool 23:331–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Amdur MO, Doull J, Klaassen CD (1991) Casarett and Doull’s toxicology: the basic science of poisons, 4th edn. Pergamon, New York

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker PJ, Bentley AJ, Ansell RJ, Harris S (2005) Impact of predation by domestic cats Felis catus in an urban area. Mammal Rev 35:302–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batt S (2009) Human attitudes toward animals in relation to species similarity to humans: a multivariate approach. Biosci Horiz 2:180–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berny PJ, Buronfosse T, Buronfosse F, Lamarque F, Lorgue G (1997) Field evidence of secondary poisoning of foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and buzzards (Buteo buteo) by bromadiolone, a 4-year survey. Chemosphere 35:1817–1829

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bjurlin CD, Cypher BL (2005) Encounter frequency with the urbanized San Joaquin Kit Fox correlates with public beliefs and attitudes toward the species. Endanger Species Update 22:107–115

    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. J Wildlife Manage 68:223–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brakes CR, Smith RH (2005) Exposure of non-target small mammals to rodenticides: short-term effects, recovery and implications for secondary poisoning. J Appl Ecol 42:118–128

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cortina JM (1993) What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol 78:98–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czech B, Krausman PR, Borkhataria R (1998) Social construction, political power, and the allocation of benefits to endangered species. Conserv Biol 12:1103–1112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decker DJ, Krueger CC, Baer RA Jr, Knuth BA, Richmond ME (1996) From clients to stakeholders: a philosophical shift for fish and wildlife management. Hum Dimens Wildl 1:70–83

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • DeStefano S, DeGraaf RM (2003) Exploring the ecology of suburban wildlife. Front Ecol Environ 1:95–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA (1978) Mail and internet surveys: the total design method. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowding JE, Murphy EC, Veitch CR (1999) Brodifacoum residues in target and non-target species following an aerial poisoning operation on Motuihe Island, Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand. N Z J Ecol 23:207–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Duckett JE (1984) Barn owls (Tyto alba) and the “second generation” rat-baits utilized in oil palm plantations in Peninsular Malaysia. Planter, Kuala Lumpur 60:3–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Eason CT, Spurr EB (1995) Review of the toxicity and impacts of brodifacoum on non-target wildlife in New Zealand. N Z J Zool 22:371–379

    Google Scholar 

  • Eason CT, Milne L, Potts M, Morriss G, Wright GRG, Sutherland ORW (1999) Secondary and tertiary poisoning risks associated with brodifacoum. N Z J Ecol 23:219–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Eason CT, Murphy EC, Wright GRG, Spurr EB (2002) Assessment of risks of brodifacoum to non-target birds and mammals in New Zealand. Ecotoxicology 11:35–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson W, Urban D (2004) Potential risks of nine rodenticides to bird and nontarget mammals: a comparative approach. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Flint ML (2003) Residential Pesticide use in California: a report of surveys taken in the Sacramento (Arcade Creek), Stockton (Five-Mile Slough), and San Francisco Bay areas with comparisons to the San diego Creek Watershed of Orange County. California. California Dept. Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  • Fournier-Chambrillon C, Berny PJ, Coiffier O, Barbedienne P, Dassé B, Delas G, Galineau H, Mazet M, Pouzenc P, Rosoux R, Fournier P (2004) Evidence of secondary poisoning of free-ranging riparian mustelids by anticoagulant rodenticides in France: implications for conservation of European mink (Mustela lutreola). J Wild Dis 40:688–695

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller RA, PH APR, Barbosa O, Gaston K (2008) Garden bird feeding predicts the structure of urban avian assemblages. Divers Distrib 14:131–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gliner JA, Vaske JJ, Morgan GA (2001) Null hypothesis significance testing: effect size matters. Hum Dimens Wildl 6:291–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm NB, Grove JM, Pickett STA, Redman CL (2000) Integrated approach to long-term studies of urban ecological systems. Bioscience 50:571–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai X, Briggs JM (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319:756–760

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Groves RM (1989) Survey errors and survey costs. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hill NJ, Carbery KA, Deane EM (2007) Human-possum conflict in urban Sydney, Australia: public perceptions and implications for species management. Hum Dimens Wildl 12:101–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinds J, Sparks P (2008) Engaging with the natural environment: the role of affective connection and identity. J Environ Psychol 28:109–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howald GR, Mineau P, Elliott JE, Cheng KM (1999) Brodifacoum poisoning of avian scavengers during rat control on a seabird colony. Ecotoxicology 8:431–447

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan R, Austin M, Kaplan S (2004) Open space communities: resident perception, nature benefits, and terminological problems. J Am Plann Assoc 70:300–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellert SR, Berry JK (1980) Phase III: knowledge, affection and basic attitudes toward animals in American society. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Koval MH (2002) Support for lethal wildlife management in Michigan: results from the 1999 and 2000 resource attitudes in Michigan surveys. Thesis, Michigan State University

  • Koval MH, Mertig AG (2004) Attitudes of the Michigan public and wildlife agency personnel toward lethal wildlife management. Wildlife Soc B 32:232–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krester HE, Sullivan PJ, Knuth BA (2008) Housing density as an indicator of spatial patterns of reported human-wildlife interactions in northern New York. Landscape Urban Plan 84:282–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepczyk CA, Mertig AG, Liu J (2004) Landowner and cat predation across rural-to-urban landscapes. Biol Conserv 115:191–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littrell EE (1988) Wild carnivore deaths due to anticoagulant intoxication. Calif Fish Game 74:183

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter S, Alberti M, Folke C, Moran E, Pell A, Deadman P, Kratz T, Lubchenco J, Ostrom E, Ouyang Z, Provencher W, Redman C, Schneider S, Taylor W (2007) Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317:1513–1516

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer FS, Frantz CM (2004) The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. J Environ Psychol 24:503–515

    Google Scholar 

  • McMillin SC, Hosea RC, Finlayson BF, Cypher BL, Mekebri A (2008) Anticoagulant rodenticide exposure in an urban population of San Joaquin kit fox. In: Timm RM, Madon MB (eds) Proc 23 rd Vertebr Pest Conf. University of California, Davis, pp 163–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Morzillo AT, Mertig AG, Garner N, Liu J (2007) Resident attitudes toward black bears and population recovery in East Texas. Hum Dimens Wildl 12:417–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng JW, Nielsen C, St. Clair CS (2008) Landscape and traffic factors influencing deer-vehicle collisions in an urban environment. Hum Wildl Confl 2:34–47

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell MA, DeNicola AJ (2006) Den site selection of lactating female raccoons following removal and exclusion from suburban residences. Wildlife Soc B 34:366–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radeloff VC, Hammer RB, Stewart SI, Holcomb SS, McKeefry JF (2005) The wildland-urban interface in the United States. Ecol Appl 15:799–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley SP, Sauvajot RM, Fuller RK, York EC, Kamradt DA, Bromley C, Wayne RK (2003) Effects of urbanization and habitat fragmentation on bobcats and coyotes in southern California. Conserv Biol 17:566–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley SPD, Bromley C, Poppenga RH, Uzal FA, Whited L, Sauvajot RM (2007) Anticoagulant exposure and notoedric mange in bobcats and mountain lions in urban southern California. J Wildlife Manage 71:1874–1884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritz B, Yu F (2000) Parkinson’s Disease mortality and pesticide exposure in California 1984–1994. Inter J Epidemiol 29:323–329

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shore RF, Birks JDS, Afsar A, Wienburg CL, Kitchener AC (2003) Spatial and temporal analysis of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide residues in polecats (Mustela putorius) from throughout their range in Britain, 1992–1999. Environ Pollut 122:183–193

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone WB, Okoniewski JC, Stedelin JR (1999) Poisoning of wildlife with anticoagulant rodenticides in New York. J Wildlife Dis 35:187–193

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Theobald DM, Miller JR, Hobbs NT (1997) Estimating the cumulative effects of development on wildlife habitat. Landscape Urban Plan 39:25–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC), Census Bureau (2010) Washington www.census.gov Accessed 24 Dec 2008, 9 Oct 2009, and 13 July 2010

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2008) Risk mitigation decision for ten rodenticides. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0955–0753. Available via www.regulations.gov Accessed 20 May 2008

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (1993) Effects of 16 vertebrate control agents on threatened and endangered species. US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion PB96–172671. Washington

  • Whitmore RW, Immerman FW, Camann DE, Bond AE, Lewis RG, Schaum JL (1994) Non-occupational exposures to pesticides for residents of two U.S. cities. Arch Environ Con Tox 26:47–59

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilen CA (2001) Survey of residential pesticide use and sales in the San Diego Creek Watershed of Orange County, California. California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, California Available via http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/sw/contracts/sdcrk.pdf Accessed 10 Jan 2002

  • Wittmann K, Vaske JJ, Manfredo MJ, Zinn HC (1998) Standards for lethal response to problem urban wildlife. Hum Dimens Wildl 3:29–48

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank A. Fairbrother, D. Olszyk, S.P.D. Riley, B. Cypher, C. Lepczyk, and 2 anonymous reviewers. 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, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. This is contribution number WED-10-017 of the Western Ecology Division.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Western Ecology Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, 200 SW 35th St., Corvallis, OR, 97330, USA

    Anita T. Morzillo

  2. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Middle Tennessee State University, MTSU Box 10, Murfreesboro, TN, 37132, USA

    Angela G. Mertig

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

    Anita T. Morzillo

Authors
  1. Anita T. Morzillo
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angela G. Mertig
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anita T. Morzillo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morzillo, A.T., Mertig, A.G. Urban resident attitudes toward rodents, rodent control products, and environmental effects. Urban Ecosyst 14, 243–260 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-010-0152-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-010-0152-5

Keywords