Stakeholder Norms Toward Beaver Management in Massachusetts

Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management Article

Stakeholder Norms Toward Beaver Management in Massachusetts SANDRA A. JONKER,1,2 Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA JOHN F. ORGAN, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035, USA ROBERT M. MUTH, Department of Natural Resources Conservation, Holdsworth Hall, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA RODNEY R. ZWICK, Department of Recreation Resources, Lyndon State College, 1001 College Road, Lyndonville, VT 05851, USA WILLIAM F. SIEMER, Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA

ABSTRACT In Massachusetts, USA, both human and beaver (Castor canadensis) population levels are increasing, beaver damage complaints are escalating, and beaver management options are restricted by the 1996 Wildlife Protection Act. We looked at the public’s norms toward beavers in Massachusetts. In 2002 we sent a mail-back questionnaire to a random sample of 5,563 residents in 3 geographic regions in Massachusetts and to residents who submitted a beaver complaint to Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MassWildlife) in 1999– 2000 (47.3% overall response rate). Respondents supported some form of beaver management. As severity of beaver damage was perceived to increase, respondents were more willing to accept lethal management and control of beavers. These results emphasize the importance of how tolerance and acceptability of wildlife are influenced by the type of activity the animal is engaged in, the type of management action that is proposed, the positive or negative perception of a species in the eye of the public, and the public’s preference for future population levels. A full understanding of these 4 points will help tailor management accordingly, because this knowledge can define a threshold of acceptance by the public for anticipated management actions. Restoration of full beaver management authority to the cognizant wildlife management agency would facilitate application of normative information to determine appropriate management response for minimizing conflicts between humans and beavers. (JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 73(7):1158–1165; 2009)

DOI: 10.2193/2004-160 KEY WORDS beaver, Castor canadensis, damage, management, Massachusetts, norms, stakeholder.

Human–wildlife interactions can vary and have both social and biological consequences. Gaining an understanding of what is acceptable to the public in terms of management actions taken in response to wildlife damage is helpful in designing and implementing management strategies that integrate both wildlife acceptance capacity (WAC; Decker and Purdy 1988) and biological carrying capacity. This normative information can guide policies and programs for managing wildlife resources and can help anticipate and avoid conflicts among the many stakeholders of wildlife, as long as acceptable management actions can still provide stewardship of healthy, viable wildlife populations. Human dimensions insights will help define and manage an issue as well as gain perspective on public acceptance, understanding, and behavior toward wildlife (Manfredo et al. 1995). The cognitive hierarchy (Fulton et al. 1996, Manfredo et al. 1999, Vaske and Donnelly 1999), based on the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen and Fishbein 1977, 1980), can be used to address and understand people– wildlife conflicts and management by looking at values, attitudes, norms, and behavior of the public towards wildlife conservation and wildlife damage. Within this hierarchy, norms are founded on basic beliefs. Norms are higher order beliefs about what others think one should do or how one should behave, an evaluative standard with regard to behavior, and they are immediate antecedents to, and have influence on, behavior. Within the theoretical 1

E-mail: [email protected] Present address: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2108 Grand Boulevard, Vancouver, WA 98661, USA

2

1158

approach posited by the cognitive hierarchy, use of a normative model can illustrate the importance of norms with respect to the acceptability of wildlife management strategies by the public. Several past research efforts have used the normative model to illustrate the extent to which normative beliefs about wildlife management actions are influenced by specific situational variables, human values, and specifically, value orientations (Fulton et al. 1996, Wittman et al. 1998, Zinn et al. 1998, Manfredo et al. 1999, Whittaker 2000). Vaske et al. (1986) have substantially refined and enhanced the Return Potential Model ( Jackson 1965), which graphically describes the structural characteristics of norms through a return potential curve. Norms can be applied to this model and used to identify socially acceptable strategies for managing human–wildlife conflicts, contributing toward a greater understanding of the public’s norms with respect to wildlife conservation, tolerance, and acceptability in urban, suburban, and rural areas. Species such as beaver (Castor canadensis) are highly adaptable and have done well in proximity to human habitation (Organ et al. 1998), which is especially apparent in Massachusetts, USA, where the beaver population has continued to increase and spread (C. Henner, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife [MassWildlife], personal communication). In November 1996, Massachusetts’ voters approved a ballot initiative (55% in favor), commonly referred to as Question One, which established the Massachusetts Wildlife Protection Act (Deblinger et al. 1999). Perhaps most importantly, this law prohibits the use of traps designed to grip a furbearing animal’s body or body The Journal of Wildlife Management N 73(7)

part, such as steel-jaw foot-hold traps, padded foot-hold traps, body-gripping traps (e.g., conibear), and cablerestraint devices. The immediate effect of the initiative in Massachusetts was to restrict the ability of MassWildlife to manage populations of beaver and other furbearing species. By 2000 beaver populations had tripled, and beaver damage and associated complaints had increased substantially (Jonker 2003; C. Henner, personal communication). Trends indicate that the beaver population in Massachusetts is still increasing and complaints about nuisance beaver and beaver damage are on the rise (MassWildlife 2002). Human–beaver interactions and conflicts are inevitable as increasing populations of beavers and humans occupy similar habitat. Future management designed to sustain beavers and minimize impacts to people’s livelihood and quality of life will require an understanding of the dynamics of beaver populations at these increased population levels, what their impact is on the landscape, what their impact is on people, and what wildlife management actions people are willing to accept. An increasing beaver population can have multiple consequences for residents of states with limited management options. Management options and policies are impacted and often changed when social acceptance of a species has been exceeded due to decreased public tolerance. Therefore, it is important to effectively integrate WAC (Decker and Purdy 1988) with biological criteria in making management decisions. The increasing frequency and magnitude of this problem suggests that it is important to assess the acceptability of specific beaver management actions for possible future interventions. More effective development of future management strategies could be obtained by an understanding of the public’s acceptance of certain management practices for beavers at different levels of severity of human–beaver encounters. As the demand for public involvement increases (Decker et al. 1996, Zinn et al. 1998), knowledge of people’s normative beliefs can help managers assess the public’s acceptance of and reaction to management actions. Indicators and standards of acceptability can guide, endorse, or modify strategies to make them more acceptable. Our goal was to identify beaver-management preferences of residents of Massachusetts and to compare their preferences across regions as well as with preferences of people who had filed formal beaver-damage complaints with MassWildlife. To achieve this goal, our main objective was to identify the strength and direction of social norms related to the appropriate or inappropriate use of beaver management actions as they relate to potential encounters between humans and beavers. We hypothesized that the social norms of acceptability of wildlife management actions would be directly related to 1) the extremity or severity of potential incidents in which humans might encounter beavers (incident extremity), 2) the extremity (lethal vs. nonlethal) of management actions or responses to control beavers in certain situations (response extremity), and 3) respondents’ perceptions of beaver damage. Jonker et al. N Norms Toward Beavers in Massachusetts

METHODS We selected 2 study sites representative of central and northeast Massachusetts based on current monitoring of beaver populations by MassWildlife. We included a third study site representative of western Massachusetts. These study areas represented different demographic and geographic features as well as a representation of voting results on the Wildlife Protection Act ballot initiative (Deblinger et al. 1999 [Table 1; Fig. 1]). We labeled the 3 study areas on a rural–suburban gradient based on criteria set to delineate these areas. We selected a fourth study sample consisting of residents who submitted a documented beaver-related problem or complaint to MassWildlife in 1999 and 2000. We selected only private residents and we removed all records listed as town, railroad, and public works. This sample is important as a comparison of people who have specifically been affected by beavers to the random sample selection ( Jonker 2003). Data Collection Survey Sampling Inc. (Fairfield, CT) selected a simple random sample of 1,600 residents within each geographic study site. We compiled a sample of 763 residents representing the 1999–2000 MassWildlife beaver complaint database. The available sample frame restricted this sample’s size, because there were a limited number of people over a limited time frame that had actually called MassWildlife to document a beaver complaint. We developed a mail-back questionnaire and in January–February 2002 we implemented a pretest of 150 residents outside the designated study areas. We revised the questionnaire in response to feedback from the pretest and following a modified Dillman method (Dillman 1978), we sent the questionnaire, along with a cover letter and a postage-paid return envelope, to 5,563 residents on 1 April 2002. We included instructions in the cover letter asking the adult member of the household with the closest birthday to the receipt date to respond to the survey. We sent 3 follow-up thank-you and reminder letters or new cover letters with replacement questionnaires approximately every 10 days to all nonrespondents (Jonker 2003). We selected a random sample of 300 respondents from the 2,766 nonrespondents of the completed beaver survey and conducted a nonresponse telephone interview (n 5 100). We asked the respondent in the targeted household who had the closest birthday to answer the phone survey (Jonker 2003). We found some differences between the 2 samples using chi-square. We did not use findings to weight results, because the nonrespondent survey was essentially different from the original survey (telephone vs. mail survey and a reduced no. of questions) and the nonrespondent sample was small (Crompton and Tian-Cole 2001). Data Analysis There are 2 dimensions in the Return Potential Model (Vaske et al. 1986). A behavioral dimension is represented on the horizontal axis, and the vertical axis represents an evaluation of the behaviors on the horizontal axis or an 1159

Table 1. Geographic and demographic characteristics of study areas in Massachusetts, USA (2002). Characteristic

NE study area

Central study area

County No. of towns Elevation (m) % residential % agricultural % forest % water Road density (km2) Human density (persons/km2) Beaver density (2001; active colonies/km2) Ground-survey data availability since 1994 Vote on Question 1 of the Wildlife Protection Act (WPA) Classification

Middlesex, Worcester 18 36–207 38 9 44 6.34 0.83 336 0.70 Yes Residents voted yes on the WPA

Worcester 18 225–438 15 11 67 4.75 0.48 64 0.83 Yes Residents voted mixed, mostly no on WPA Light suburban

Heavy suburban

evaluation of a management strategy related to those behaviors as acceptable or unacceptable or favorable or unfavorable. Evaluations of acceptability can range in strength from high to low (very acceptable to very unacceptable). Data collected through social surveys can be used to identify a personal or social norm, illustrated by the line connecting an individual’s rating or the mean ratings for members of a group at each point along the axes. When data are plotted on the graph, they illustrate levels or standards regarding social acceptability or unacceptability of a specific

Hilltown study area Franklin, Hampshire, Berkshire 23 128–577 8 13 76 0.66 0.31 13 No Residents voted no on the WPA Rural

management action for dealing with a specific wildlife incident. We measured normative beliefs about acceptability of certain management actions toward beavers in different incident situations. We asked respondents to respond to 4 levels of incident extremity (severity of an encounter with beavers): 1) a beaver seen in my yard, 2) a beaver floods a public road, 3) a beaver damages my private property (e.g., trees, well), and 4) a beaver carries a disease that is harmful to humans. Respondents rated acceptability of 3 levels of

Figure 1. Study areas in Massachusetts, USA (2002), with suburban and rural categorization and voting results of Q-1 ballot initiative Wildlife Protection Act. 1160

The Journal of Wildlife Management N 73(7)

RESULTS Of the 5,563 surveys sent out across all sample strata, 311 surveys were nondeliverable or nonuseable (e.g., returned but not filled out). Thus, we obtained 2,486 useable surveys, a 47.3% overall response rate. After adjusting for nondeliverable or nonuseable questionnaires, the useable response rate for the Northeast (NE), Central (C), and Hilltown (HT) study sites combined was 43.5% (4,800 sent out, 222 nondeliverable, 1,990 useable). Adjusted response rate for the statewide sample of beaver damage complainants (BC) was 73.6% (763 sent out, 89 nondeliverable, 496 useable). Response rates were different and we ran statistical analyses for each sample, between each, and across the 4

Figure 2. Respondents’ acceptability of taking no action in response to beaver incident extremity across 4 study samples in Massachusetts, USA (2002).

robust samples to determine individual sample characteristics as well as among and across sample differences. Social norms are reflected in the extent to which respondents feel that implementing specific management actions are justified in response to specific kinds of beaver problems or situations. Taking no action was acceptable to respondents only when beavers were seen in their yard (range 0 to +0.8; Fig. 2), the situation with the least severity. Acceptability of taking no action diminished as severity of situations increased (Fig. 2). All samples demonstrated the same trend; however, there were differences among samples. The BC respondents (range 0 to 21.4; Fig. 2) found it less acceptable to take no action across all beaver incidents than the NE, C, and HT respondents (range +0.8 to 21.2; Fig. 2). Even though norm curves looked similar for NE, C, and HT samples (taking no action is acceptable when a beaver is seen in a yard and taking no action is unacceptable when a beaver floods a road, damages private property, and carries a disease 0.05) in harmful to humans), there were differences (P the level of acceptance between C (2.49, agree less) and NE (2.23, agree more; Table 2) samples with respect to a beaver seen in a yard and between the NE (4.26, disagree more) and HT (4.06, disagree less) samples with respect to a beaver carrying a disease harmful to humans (Table 2). Tests of within-subject effects (between each level of incident extremity) showed differences in acceptability at each level of incident extremity across study samples (F3 5 2002.85, P , 0.05). M

management response (response extremity) for each level of incident extremity: 1) taking no immediate action, 2) installing drainage pipes to control water levels behind a beaver dam, and 3) lethal control of beavers. We did not provide trapping and relocation as a management response because this is not a legal option in Massachusetts. We measured acceptability with single item ratings on 5-point bipolar scales anchored by ‘strongly agree’ (+2) and ‘strongly disagree’ (22). We depicted central tendency for norms about these management preferences using the modified Jackson Return Potential model. We used repeatedmeasures tests and paired sample t-tests (within-subject effects) to elucidate relationships between acceptability of management actions and incident extremity and response extremity. We used repeated-measures methodology as we measured each response extremity (management action) at each level of incident extremity to obtain within-subject measures; we used paired t-tests to validate the repeatedmeasures findings of significance. Due to inflation of Type I error in the paired t-test, we divided alpha by the number of pairs to determine if, indeed, the relationship was significant (Jonker 2003). We measured perception of the extent to which respondents believed that beaver damage in Massachusetts increased over the past 5 years, decreased, or stayed about the same on a 5-point scale (where 1 5 greatly increased, 2 5 slightly increased, 3 5 remained the same, 4 5 slightly decreased, 5 5 greatly decreased). We measured WAC on a 9-point scale: 1 5 no beavers, 3 5 half as many beavers, 5 5 current number of beavers, 7 5 50% more beavers, 9 5 at least twice as many beavers. A preference for a reduction in beaver population numbers equates intolerance of beaver problems ( Jonker 2003).

Table 2. Respondents’ acceptability of taking no immediate action in response to beaver activity across 4 study samples in Massachusetts, USA (2002). Taking no immediate action would be justified when a beaver: Is seen in my yard Floods public road Damages my private property Carries disease harmful to humans a b c

Acceptability of taking no immediate actiona,b,c NE A

2.23 3.97A 3.88A 4.26BC

Central B

2.49 4.04A 4.00A 4.21AB

Hilltown AB

2.35 3.92A 3.85A 4.06A

Beaver complaint C

3.06 4.53B 4.49B 4.41C

F

P

42.92 39.90 40.05 8.46

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Variable coded on a 5-point scale from 1 5 strongly agree to 3 5 neutral to 5 5 strongly disagree. Cell entries are means. Any 2 means that do not have the same superscript are significantly different at P , 0.05. Df 5 3 for all analyses of variance.

Jonker et al. N Norms Toward Beavers in Massachusetts

1161

Norm curves for acceptability of installing drainage pipes to control water levels behind a beaver dam as a management response action showed an increase in acceptability as incident extremity increased (Fig. 3). For all study samples, acceptability increased from unacceptable to acceptable as the incident extremity moved from a beaver seen in a yard to a beaver flooding public roads (Table 3). However, as the incident extremity increased in severity, the norm did not reflect a parallel adjustment. Here the norm actually decreased (within an acceptable range) as severity increased and then tended to fluctuate for all study samples (Fig. 3). The BC sample was more accepting of drainage pipe installation when beavers were seen in a yard than the NE, 0.05, Table 3). The BC and the C, and HT samples (P HT samples were more accepting of drainage pipe installation than the NE and C sample areas in response 0.05, Table 3). We detected to the threat of disease (P no differences between samples for installation of drainage pipes with beavers flooding public roads (P 5 0.74) and beavers damaging private property (P 5 0.19; Table 3). There were differences among incident situations between each level of incident extremity across all study samples (F3 5 1,220.02, P , 0.05) except between incidents of a beaver damaging private property and a beaver carrying a disease harmful to humans (t 5 1.10, P 5 0.27). Acceptability of lethal control increased as level of incident severity increased (Fig. 4). There were study-sample differ-

M

Figure 3. Respondents’ acceptability of nonlethal control (water-flow devices) in response to beaver incident extremity across 4 study samples in Massachusetts, USA (2002).

ences across all incident levels. Responses of the BC sample were different from the 3 other study samples, showing significantly greater (P 5 0.00) acceptability of lethal control across all incident levels and barely finding it unacceptable to use lethal control when a beaver is seen in a yard (Table 4). The NE, C, and HT study areas showed a similar pattern yet at a lower level from the BC sample. When a beaver is seen in a yard, unacceptability of lethal control differed between the NE and C study areas but not with the HT area (Table 4). The C study respondents found it acceptable to use lethal control when a beaver floods a public road, which differed from the NE and HT samples, whose mean response indicated it was unacceptable to use lethal control when a beavers floods public roads (Table 4). With respect to beavers damaging private property, once again the C respondents (2.68 5 acceptable to use lethal 0.05) from both the NE (3.06 5 control) differed (P neutral in response to lethal control) and HT (2.97 5 acceptable to use lethal control; Table 4) respondents. In response to threat of disease, the C study respondents differed from the HT (Table 4; all study areas were accepting of lethal control but at different levels). There were differences between each level of incident extremity across all study samples for acceptability of lethal control (F3 5 2,153.94, P , 0.05). When we compared each incident extremity with each management response we found significant interaction effects. Differences existed across all management responses (i.e., no action, water-flow devices, and lethal control) for seeing a beaver in a yard (F2 5 488.07, P , 0.05), a beaver flooding public roads (F2 5 1,849.16, P , 0.05), a beaver damaging private property (F2 5 1,251.27, P , 0.05), and a beaver carrying a disease harmful to humans (F2 5 2,367.63, P , 0.05). Response extremity norms were related to the public’s perception of beaver damage in Massachusetts. When respondents perceived that beaver damage was increasing, acceptability of taking no action decreased across all incident extremities (Table 5). Respondents’ acceptance of installing water-flow devices appeared to decrease as perception of beaver damage increased. The distinguishable pattern noted earlier about the norm curve in response to installing waterflow devices is reflected here as can be seen by the fluctuation of the relationships (weak for some incident extremities yet strong for others [P 5 0.00–0.42; Table 5])

M

M

Table 3. Respondents’ acceptability of installing drainage pipes to control water levels behind a beaver dam in response to beaver activity across 4 study samples in Massachusetts, USA (2002). Installing water-flow devices would be justified when a beaver: Is seen in my yard Floods public road Damages my private property Carries disease harmful to humans a b c

Acceptability of installing water-flow devicesa,b,c NE A

3.58 1.90 2.22 2.07A

Central A

3.42 1.92 2.12 2.08A

Hilltown A

3.45 1.93 2.24 2.15AB

Beaver complaint B

3.12 1.87 2.11 2.34B

F

P

12.34 0.41 1.60 3.82

0.00 0.74 0.19 0.01


1162


Figure 4. Respondents’ acceptability of lethal control in response to beaver incident extremity across 4 study samples in Massachusetts, USA (2002).

and lack of detectable differences. However, there are relationships with respect to lethal control and perceived beaver damage. As perceived beaver damage increased, acceptability of lethal control increased across all incident extremities. In addition, respondents who preferred to see fewer beavers in Massachusetts (i.e., have a lower tolerance or lower wildlife acceptance capacity [Decker and Purdy 1988]) were more likely to accept taking action (lethal and nonlethal) in response to negative human–beaver interactions (Table 6).

DISCUSSION The results suggest relationships between respondent acceptability and the type of beaver interaction (incident extremity) and type of management response (response extremity). Respondents’ norms were directly related to the specific type of human–beaver interaction or situation as well as the type of management strategy taken in response to these situations. Our findings support the hypotheses that acceptability of management actions is related to beaver incident and human response extremity. Our results support the hypothesis that acceptability of wildlife management actions is related to perceived beaver damage with respect to taking no action and taking lethal control because acceptability of each management action is directly related to perception of the extent of beaver damage. Our results do not support the hypothesis that acceptability of wildlife management actions is related to perceived beaver damage with respect to acceptability of installing water-flow control devices.

Data pertaining to norms are generally easier to apply in wildlife management than values data because the former are linked more strongly to people’s behavior. Our data demonstrate how norms can vary based on perception of a species’ status and that norms can illustrate an acceptance capacity or threshold. Informing the public of the status of beavers can influence their reaction, acceptance, and attitude toward the animal. The importance of measuring norms at different levels of response extremity and incident extremity is supported by our findings that respondents differ at varying levels of each. The relationship and influence of incident and response extremity on norms can give tangible and concrete indicators for managers to use when implementing management plans. Respondents demonstrated that taking no action in response to beaver activity is unacceptable in all situations except for seeing a beaver in a yard. Beaver activity can have severe and detrimental consequences, which might explain the low level of tolerance as soon as beaver activity increases in severity from merely being seen in a yard. This norm suggests that presence of beaver may be acceptable to people, but any resulting activity that has negative consequences to or impacts on people is generally unacceptable. The pattern of the norm in response to installation of water-flow devices is interesting in that this perceived nonlethal option is seen as strongly acceptable in response to flooding of roads. However, the fact that this method does not increase in acceptability as incident extremity increases may imply that even though seen as an acceptable method, it is not perceived to be effective in resolving damage to private property or preventing disease to humans. Although not quantified, several respondents indicated water-flow devices do not work for property damage and especially disease, and that lethal control was more appropriate. The variability and weakness in this norm curve could be because respondents were not clear or did not understand what water-flow devices really were and how they worked. The perception of beaver damage is an important predictor of people’s attitudes. If people’s perception is that beaver damage is increasing, they are more likely to agree with some form of population control or management. This reinforces the influence of the public’s perception of a species (both its biological and social impact on the landscape) on the public’s willingness to accept and tolerate wildlife and wildlife management. The norms reflect this pattern of influence as well. Here, however, severity of the response extremity (lethal action) was more acceptable when

Table 4. Respondents’ acceptability of lethal control in response to beaver activity across 4 study samples in Massachusetts, USA (2002). Lethal control would be justified when a beaver: Is seen in my yard Floods public road Damages my private property Carries disease harmful to humans a b c

Acceptability of lethal controla,b,c NE A

4.06 3.18A 3.06A 1.88AB

Central B

3.75 2.78B 2.68B 1.78B

Hilltown AB

3.91 3.11A 2.97A 2.04A

Beaver complaint C

3.24 2.07C 1.90C 1.57C

F

P

45.01 73.53 79.20 17.13

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



1163

Table 5. Respondents’ acceptability of taking no immediate action in response to beaver activity by perceived extent of beaver damage for all 4 samples combined in Massachusetts, USA (2002). Perceived extent of beaver damagea,b,c d

Management action would be justified when a beaver: Is seen in my yard Floods public road Damages my private property Carries disease harmful to humans

Taking no immediate action 1 (increased)

2 (same)

2.70A F 5 47.75 4.29A F 5 61.35 4.24A F 5 63.00 4.35A F 5 20.56

1.95B 3.62B 3.54B 3.95B

3 (decreased) 2.03B P 5 0.00 3.79B P 5 0.00 3.60B P 5 0.00 3.82B P 5 0.00

Installing water-flow devicesd 1 (increased)

2 (same)

3.33A 3.69B F 5 14.58 1.90 1.95 F 5 0.87 2.16 2.32 F 5 3.60 2.22 2.10 F 5 1.39

Lethal controld

3 (decreased) 3.88B P 5 0.00 2.07 P 5 0.42 2.48 P 5 0.03 2.41 P 5 0.25

1 (increased)

2 (same)

3.54A F 5 57.03 2.43A F 5 150.60 2.29A F 5 154.54 1.63A F 5 83.75

4.32B 3.80B 3.66B 2.39B

3 (decreased) 4.19B P 5 0.00 3.43B P 5 0.00 3.38B P 5 0.00 2.61B P 5 0.00

a

Beliefs about extent of damage were measured on a 5-point scale from 1 5 greatly increased, 3 5 remained the same, 5 5 greatly decreased. Variable collapsed here from 1 5 increased, 2 5 remained the same, 3 5 decreased. b Cell entries are means. c Any 2 means that do not have the same superscript are significantly different at P , 0.05. Df 5 2 for all analyses of variance. d Variables coded on a 5-point scale from 1 5 strongly agree to 3 5 neutral to 5 5 strongly disagree.

perception of beaver damage was high, whereas acceptability of the minimal response extremity (taking no action) decreased. Tolerance and acceptability of beavers are influenced by the type of activity the animal is engaged in, the type of management action that is proposed, the positive or negative perception of the species in the eye of the public, and the public’s preference for future population levels of beavers. A full understanding of these 4 points will help tailor management accordingly, because this knowledge can define a threshold of acceptance by the public for anticipated management actions. Across all study samples respondents have demonstrated that taking no action is unacceptable when a beaver is engaged in any type of negative action while tolerating a beaver seen in a yard, revealing that respondents accept the species’ presence yet endorse management to some degree as soon as the animal impacts them. This conclusion is further reinforced with respon-

dents’ perception of beaver damage and tolerance of beaver. People’s norms will be influenced by their perception of whether beaver damage around them has increased, remained the same, or decreased (either from personal or second-hand experience) and whether they prefer to see more or fewer beavers in Massachusetts.

MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS Managers and policy makers can refine beaver management policy to be proactive and adaptive given public acceptance for management of beavers when at levels resulting in negative impacts. When social acceptance of a species has been exceeded, decreased public tolerance and acceptance could impact and change management options and policies, potentially resulting in broader conservation implications. Restoration of full beaver management authority to the cognizant wildlife management agency would facilitate application of normative information to determine appro-

Table 6. Respondents’ acceptability of taking no immediate action, installing water devices, and lethal control in response to beaver activity by wildlife acceptance capacity for all 4 samples combined in Massachusetts, USA (2002). Wildlife acceptance capacitya,b,c d

Management action would be justified when a beaver: Is seen in my yard Floods public road Damages my private property Carries disease harmful to humans

Taking no immediate action 1 (fewer) 2.98A F 5 199.60 4.40A F 5 113.39 4.40A F 5 162.55 4.43A F 5 38.06

Installing water-flow devicesd

2 (current)

3 (more)

1 (fewer)

2.06B

1.83C 0.00 3.67C 0.00 3.47C 0.00 3.91B 0.00

3.23A F 5 31.87 1.89 F 5 1.92 2.11A F 5 7.33 2.22A F 5 7.02

3.85B 3.76B 4.09B

P5 P5 P5 P5

Lethal controld

2 (current)

3 (more)

1 (fewer)

3.54B

3.74C 0.00 1.98 0.28 2.39B 0.00 2.22A 0.00

3.27A F 5 249.27 2.07A F 5 542.52 193A F 5 579.68 1.43A F 5 220.82

P5 1.88 2.15A 1.97B

P5 P5 P5

2 (current)

3 (more)

4.25B

4.41B 0.00 3.84C 0.00 3.75C 0.00 2.56C 0.00

3.56B 3.43B 2.13B

P5 P5 P5 P5

a

Variable coded on a 9-point scale from 1 5 no beavers, 3 5 half as many beavers, 5 5 current no. of beavers, 7 5 50% more beavers, 9 5 at least twice as many beavers. Variable collapsed here from 1 5 fewer beavers, 2 5 current no. of beavers, 3 5 more beavers. b Cell entries are means. c Any 2 means that do not have the same superscript are significantly different at P , 0.05. Df 5 2 for all analyses of variance. d Variables coded on a 5-point scale from 1 5 strongly agree to 3 5 neutral to 5 5 strongly disagree.

1164


priate management response for minimizing conflicts between humans and beavers. Use of stakeholder engagement, public outreach, and communication efforts as tools would enhance the use of normative information and allow for proactive and adaptive beaver management integrating biological and social science.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Northeast Wildlife Administrators Association, at the recommendation of the Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee, requested the Division of Federal Aid of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to develop this research project. The study has been a cooperative effort among the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Cornell University Human Dimensions Research Unit, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, MassWildlife, and the University of Massachusetts. The authors would like to thank C. Henner and S. Destefano for their assistance in the conceptualization and implementation of this project. In addition, we would like to thank the Editor in Chief, Associate Editor, and 2 anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions that have served to improve the article.

LITERATURE CITED Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1977. Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin 84:888– 918. Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA. Crompton, J. L., and S. Tian-Cole. 2001. An analysis of 13 tourism surveys: are three waves of data collection necessary? Journal of Travel Research 39:356–368. Deblinger, R. D., W. A. Woytek, and R. R. Zwick. 1999. Demographics of voting on the 1996 Massachusetts ballot referendum. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 4(2):40–55. Decker, D. J., C. C. Krueger, R. A. Baer, Jr., B. A. Knuth, and M. E. Richmond. 1996. From clients to stakeholders: a philosophical shift for fish and wildlife management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1(1):70– 82.


Decker, D. J., and K. G. Purdy. 1988. Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:53–57. Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, USA. Fulton, D. C., M. J. Manfredo, and J. Lipscomb. 1996. Wildlife value orientations: a conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1(2):22–47. Jackson, J. M. 1965. Structural characteristics of norms. Pages 301–309 in I. D. Steiner and M. Fishbein, editors. Current studies in social psychology. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York, New York, USA. Jonker, S. A. 2003. Values and attitudes of the public toward beaver conservation in Massachusetts. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA. Manfredo, M. J., C. L. Pierce, D. Fulton, J. Pate, and B. R. Gill. 1999. Public acceptance of wildlife trapping in Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:499–508. Manfredo, M. J., J. J. Vaske, and D. J. Decker. 1995. Human dimensions of wildlife management: basic concepts. Pages 17–31 in R. Knight and K. Gutwziller, editors. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. MassWildlife. 2002. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife home page: managing beaver. ,http://www.state.ma.us/dfwele/dfw/dfw_ toc.htm.. Accessed 5 Oct 2002. Organ, J. F., R. F. Gotie, T. A. Decker, and G. R. Batcheller. 1998. A case study in the sustained use of wildlife: the management of beaver in the northeastern United States. Pages 125–139 in H. A. V. d. Linde and M. H. Danskin, editors. Enhancing sustainability: resources for our future. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom. Vaske, J. J., and M. P. Donnelly. 1999. A value–attitude–behavior model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Society and Natural Resources 12:523–537. Vaske, J. J., B. Shelby, A. R. Graefe, and T. A. Heberlein. 1986. Backcountry encounter norms: theory, method and empirical evidence. Journal of Leisure Research 18:137–187. Whittaker, D. 2000. Evaluating urban wildlife management actions: an exploration of antecedent cognitive variables. Dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA. Wittman, K., J. J. Vaske, M. J. Manfredo, and H. C. Zinn. 1998. Standards for lethal response to problem urban wildlife. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 3(4):29–48. Zinn, H. C., M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, and K. Wittman. 1998. Using normative beliefs to determine the acceptability of wildlife management actions. Society and Natural Resources 11:649–662. Associate Editor: Brown.

1165