What Determines the Acceptability of Wildlife ...

UHDW #727523, VOL 18, ISS 2

What Determines the Acceptability of Wildlife Control Methods? A Case of Feral Pig Management in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, Australia KANA KOICHI, ALISON COTTRELL, KAMALJIT K. SANGHA, AND IAIN J. GORDON QUERY SHEET This page lists questions we have about your paper. The numbers displayed at left can be found in the text of the paper for reference. In addition, please review your paper as a whole for correctness.

Q1: Q2: Q3: Q4:

Au: This just goes to Jerry Vaske’s bio site. Do we need a new link here? Au: Please provide chapter page numbers for Brunson 1997. Au: Please provide chapter page numbers for Hill & Gough 2009. Au: Please provide chapter page numbers for Sandlund, Schei, & Viken 1999.

TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTING The table of contents for the journal will list your paper exactly as it appears below: What Determines the Acceptability of Wildlife Control Methods? A Case of Feral Pig Management in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, Australia Kana Koichi, Alison Cottrell, Kamaljit K. Sangha, and Iain J. Gordon

Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 18:1–12, 2013 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1087-1209 print / 1533-158X online DOI: 10.1080/10871209.2013.727523

What Determines the Acceptability of Wildlife Control Methods? A Case of Feral Pig Management in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, Australia KANA KOICHI,1 ALISON COTTRELL,1 KAMALJIT K. SANGHA,2 AND IAIN J. GORDON3

5

1

School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia 2 School of Tropical and Marine Biology, James Cook University, Townville, Queensland, Australia 3 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Townsville, Queensland, Australia Understanding public acceptability of wildlife control methods is key to successful wildlife management. The existing literature, however, pays little attention to alien invasive species. We evaluated the acceptability of methods used to control feral pigs (Sus scrofa) (trapping, hunting, fencing, and poison baiting) in Australia’s Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (WTWHA) across local residents of and tourists to the area, using household surveys and tourist surveys. We predicted that the level of acceptability of a control method would differ across stakeholder groups (i.e., resident, tourist) and methods considered inhumane and/or unsafe would be less supported. Local residents expressed more support for feral pig control than tourists. Both groups identified similar factors, such as humaneness, as being important, but local residents also considered effectiveness and direct social and/or economic benefits from control. We conclude that the types of stakeholder groups determine the acceptability of the methods, but factors considered important in supporting methods can be case-specific.

10

15

20

pest management, lethal control, acceptability, feral pigs, alien invasive

25

Controversies often arise as to how to control problem wildlife (Woodroffe, Thirgood, & Robinowitz, 2005). Wildlife managers often justify lethal control as cost-effective based on the assumption that conflicts between humans and wildlife decline as the animal is removed from the environment (Sanborn & Schmidt, 1995). Public attitudes as to what is “acceptable” vary, however, especially where control involves lethal methods (Fraser, 2006;

30

Keywords species

Introduction

Kana Koichi is now at the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. Iain J. Gordon is now Chief Executive at the James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen, U.K. This research was funded by the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra, Australia. Address correspondence to Kana Koichi, the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, 48 Oxford Terrace, Unley, SA 5061, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

1

2

K. Koichi et al.

Miller, 2009). Human dimensions researchers generally define acceptability as a “judgment or decision regarding the ‘appropriateness’ of a particular action or policy” (Bruskotter, Vaske, & Schmidt, 2009, p. 121). Subjectivity regarding what constitutes an “appropriate” control method has been discussed in the scientific literature in the United States, particularly in relation to the management of “native” species, such as cougars (Puma concolor), black bears (Ursus americanus), grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), gray wolves (Canis lupus), coyotes (Canis latrans) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) (Decker, Jacobson, & Brown, 2006; Dougherty, Fulton, & Anderson, 2003; Teel, Krannich, & Schmidt, 2002; Zinn, Manfredo, Vaske, & Wittmann, 1998). However, research on the acceptability of management practices to control “non-native” or “alien” invasive animals is lacking. “Alien” or “introduced” animals refer to any animal that has been established after introduction by humans to new areas. Such species become “invasive” if regarded as a threat to “native” biological diversity (Sandlund, Schei, & Viken, 1999). Alien invasive animals can be a “pest” if they cause damage to valued resources or conflicts with human interests (Olsen, 1998). Although their removal is often considered desirable in the name of biodiversity conservation, it is important for managers to identify the potential level of conflict in pest management programs and ways in which pest control programs can be tailored to be acceptable to the public (Fitzgerald, Fitzgerald, & Davidson, 2007; Fraser, 2006; Kaltenborn, Bjerke, Nyahongo, & Williams, 2006; Nimmo & Miller, 2007). In an exploratory study, we investigated the acceptability of methods used to control feral pigs (Sus scrofa) in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (WTWHA), north Queensland, Australia. At present, feral pigs are regarded as a “Key Threatening Process” to endangered species and ecological communities in Australia under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999. In the WTWHA, control methods such as trapping, hunting, fencing, and 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) poison baiting are used for biodiversity conservation as well as agricultural protection. The local and state governments have collaborated on a pig trapping program on both private and public properties (i.e., national parks) through a professional pig trapper in the northern part of the WTWHA, the Daintree region north of Daintree River, since 2005. Landholders are required to keep their properties free of pest animals under the Queensland’s Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002, and they often use hunting (using dogs and/or rifles) as a control measure, particularly on farming land (Mitchell & Dorney, 2002). In this article, we determined support/opposition to four control techniques used in pig management among two stakeholder groups in the WTWHA (i.e., local residents and tourists) and examined how stakeholders justified their support/opposition. Tourists are important users of the WTWHA; Mossman Gorge in Daintree National Park (WTWHA) accommodates more than 400,000 visitors annually (Bentrupperbaumer, 2002). Our hypotheses about the acceptability of the pig control methods and factors considered important in supporting and/or opposing methods were based on two previous studies: Bruskotter et al. (2009) and Reiter, Brunson, and Schmidt (1999). According to the theoretical framework proposed by Bruskotter et al. (2009), social, cognitive, and contextual factors primarily determine acceptability. In this framework, social factors refer to stakeholder group identification. Cognitive factors refer to the mental processes that precede judgment (e.g., beliefs about the severity of the impacts of the pest animal). Contextual factors relate to the species in question, the location and/or purposes of the control action. Based on Bruskotter et al. (2009), we hypothesize that social factors, such as stakeholder group

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Acceptability of Wildlife Control Methods

3

identification (i.e., residents vs. tourists), would influence the acceptability of the control methods used for feral pig management. Tourists were likely to hold different attitudes toward the control methods from local residents because the majority of the tourists visiting the WTWHA were unaware of the presence of feral pigs (Koichi, Cottrell, Sangha, & Gordon, 2012). Thus, tourists are less likely to be aware that pigs are a problem. In contrast, the local communities regarded pigs as one of the most serious threats and disadvantages to living within the WTWHA and expressed that the threat was not adequately addressed (Bentrupperbaumer & Reser, 2006; Carmody & Prideaux, 2008). We also hypothesized that, regardless of the type of stakeholder groups, the acceptability would vary depending on a particular feature of the control methods used. Reiter et al. (1999) argued that human safety and animal welfare were the most important factors in selecting wildlife management methods. We hypothesized that the control methods considered inhumane and unsafe would be less supported. We tested these hypotheses by surveying local residents and tourists in the northern part of the WTWHA.

85

90

95

Method To investigate local residents’ perceptions of the pig control methods, we conducted household surveys using systematic random sampling (Bernard, 2006). We conducted household surveys in four townships in the northern part of the WTWHA: Mossman, Daintree/Cape Tribulation (north of Daintree River), and Cooktown. The surveys were distributed by the drop-off and pick-up technique (Steele et al., 2001). Surveys were dropped off on Saturdays to those who lived at every odd numbered house in every third street in Mossman and the second street in Daintree, Cape Tribulation, and Cooktown with the starting point being the most southern street of the township. This approach allowed the researcher to explain the purpose of the research and thereby increase the response rate from the small number of households1 in the region (Steele et al., 2001). Those who agreed to participate were advised that the researcher would return on the following day to collect the survey; if residents were to be absent on the following day, they were requested to leave the survey in the mailbox or at the door for collection. The questionnaire was put in the mailbox or at the door for those absent during the distribution. Each questionnaire package contained a note asking the resident to complete the survey by the following day. Only one adult in the household, regardless of gender, was asked to respond to the survey. Tourists were surveyed using a systematic random sampling approach. They were approached at the two entry/exit points of the walking tracks at Mossman Gorge in the Mossman section of Daintree National Park. The next-to-pass method (Lynn & B rown, 2003) was used to sample the tourist population and to reduce the bias respondent selection. The questionnaires were administered on-site both on weekdays and weekends, to reduce day-based bias. The bias of seasonality was eliminated by conducting surveys during the low (March), medium (November), and peak (July) tourism seasons. Site biases were reduced by conducting surveys at Mossman Gorge and a boardwalk in Cape Tribulation called Marrdja Botanical Walk during the peak season.2 Acceptability of the control methods was investigated, using 5-point scales. Respondents indicated whether they “strongly supported” “supported,” “opposed,” “strongly opposed,” or were “neutral” about, each of the four pig control methods. Respondents were also asked to freely express their views about “why” they supported or opposed the methods in an open-ended question.

100

105

110

115

120

125

4

K. Koichi et al.

Data Analysis The two stakeholder groups were compared, using independent-samples t-test with 95% confidence interval. Bi-polar numerical ratings were assigned in ordinal fashion with “neutral” receiving a value of 0. In this study, the 5 point scale was: strongly oppose (−2), oppose (−1), neutral (0), support (1), and strongly support (2). To visually describe and display the central tendency (i.e., mean), dispersion (i.e., standard deviation), and form (i.e., skewness) of the acceptability of the control techniques across the two stakeholder groups, the second generation of the “Potential for Conflict Index2 ” (PCI2 ) was used (Vaske, Beaman, Barreto, & Shelby, 2010). The results are displayed as bubble graphs (Manfredo, Vaske, & Teel, 2003; Vaske, Needham, Newman, Manfredo, & Petchenik, 2006). The PCI2 is based on the assumption that the greatest possibility for conflict occurs when there is a bimodal distribution between the two extreme values of the response scale (Vaske et al., 2010). The index ranges from 0 (minimal, or zero potential for conflict) to 1 (maximum potential for conflict) and indicates the ratio of scoring on either side of the center point (e.g., “neutral”) on a rating scale. The same bi-polar numerical ratings used for the t-test (−2 to +2) were assigned. The PCI2 was calculated by the program from http://welcome. warnercnr.colostate.edu/~jerryv. The central tendency, or the mean acceptance of a control method, is displayed by the center of the bubble in a graph plotted on the Y-axis. The size of the bubble in a graph depicts the magnitude of the PCI2 and indicates degree of dispersion. Information about skewness within a distribution is evident by the position of the bubble relative to the neutral point. The PCI2 values of each control method for residents and tourists were compared using the PCI2 difference test based on the standard deviations of simulated PCI2 distribution (calculated by the above program). The open-ended question was subject to thematic analysis based on the systematic identification and categorization of meaningful high frequency themes from the written responses (Seale, 2004). Responses were coded manually according to commonly used words, concepts, or phrases. Three coders coded independently and then compared coding. Interrater reliability was high due to high agreement on codes. Frequency counts of the codes were also produced using NVivo version 7.

130

135

140

Q1 145

150

155

Results We surveyed 162 households, or adult local residents, with the total response rate of 56%. The ideal sample size was 226 households, using a confidence level of 90% and conservative (50%) expected response distribution. Accordingly, the margin of error was 7.2%, 160 and therefore, any generalizations must be made with care. The majority (60%) of those surveyed were male, and approximately 70% were between 30 and 59 years of age, similar to the Australian Bureau Statistics 2006 census data (ABS, 2007). Approximately 70% of those surveyed were also long-term residents, residing for more than 10 years; 43% had lived there for more than 20 years. We also surveyed 276 tourists, representing 70% of those 165 approached to participate. Gender of tourist respondents was equally distributed. Most tourists surveyed were between 18–29 years old (40%). Almost half (46%) were either from countries other than Australia (e.g., Germany, United States, United Kingdom, France, and New Zealand) while 40% were domestic tourists from states other than Queensland. Local tourists from within the WTWHA comprised 8% of respondents, and Queensland 170 tourists 6%. Most of the tourists surveyed were self-driving with flexible time schedules. Tourists on buses could not be surveyed easily because of “tight schedules,” and this may have resulted in some bias. Previous tourist surveys in the Daintree rainforests offered


5

similar results of visitor profile to this study (Bentrupperbaumer, 2002; Hill & Gough, 2009). Residents most favored trapping (90%), followed by hunting (68%), fencing (55%), and poisoning (32%), which was the least favored of the four control options provided (Table 1). Tourists supported trapping (64%) and fencing (60%) more than hunting (38%) and poisoning (22%) (Table 1). The mean value of acceptability of each control method was significantly different across the two stakeholder groups (Table 2). Among tourists, hunting and poisoning scored mid-range PCI2 values, .33 and .49, respectively (Table 3, Figure 1). The PCI2 value for trapping was the lowest among residents, scoring .08 (i.e., closest to 0) while that for poisoning was the highest, reaching .63 (Table 3, Figure 1). The differences in PCI2 values of all the four methods between the tourists and residents were statistically significant (Table 4). The level of support for control in general was higher among residents compared to tourists; however, analysis of open-ended responses revealed that residents and tourists provided similar justifications for their support for and opposition to control methods (Table 5). For example, both stakeholder groups considered humaneness to be an important factor in supporting trapping (residents = 21%, tourists = 57%), fencing (residents = 20%, tourists = 79%), and hunting (residents = 17%, tourists = 27%), and in opposing hunting (residents = 55%, tourists = 62%) and poisoning (residents = 13%, tourists = 39%). Across both groups, individuals who opposed fencing generally believed that it was not environmentally friendly (residents = 63%, tourists = 53%) nor cost-effective (residents = 37%, tourists = 47%); likewise, those who opposed poisoning cited a lack of target specificity (residents = 75%, tourists = 53%). However, although they had broadly similar preferences for control methods, the two groups were different in expressing the factor that was considered most important in supporting control methods. Humaneness was relatively the most important factor for tourists in supporting trapping, fencing, and poisoning. Conversely, residents regarded direct social and/or economic benefits that could be gained from control as being more important in supporting trapping and hunting. Effectiveness was one of the important considerations for all the four control methods for local residents, but tourists did not mention effectiveness as an important factor in supporting the methods although they opposed fencing based on its lack of cost-effectiveness.

175

180

185

190

195

200

205

Discussion Similar to Bruskotter et al. (2009), our findings suggest that social factors, such as stakeholder group identification, can influence the acceptability of wildlife control methods. The general acceptability of all the methods used to control feral pigs in the WTWHA differed significantly across the two stakeholder groups (Figure 1, Table 2). Local residents 210 supported feral pig control more than tourists, most likely as a result of different degrees of familiarity with, and concern about, feral pig problems and management methods. Recent community surveys within the same area found that local residents regarded pigs as one of the most serious threats and disadvantages to living within the WTWHA but that the threat was not adequately addressed (Bentrupperbaumer & Reser, 2006; Carmody & Prideaux, 215 2008); thus, the residents may have been more amenable to pig control based on their awareness and perception of the severity of the problems caused by the animal (Fraser, 2006). Moreover, given that nearly half of the residents surveyed had lived in the area for more than 20 years, they were likely to be more familiar with the detrimental impacts associated with feral pigs (e.g., Koval & Mertig, 2004). In addition, residents’ greater support 220

6

19 20 34 75 95 243

Strongly oppose Oppose Neutral Support Strongly support Total

8 8 14 31 39 100

% 3 1 8 46 93 151

n 2 1 5 30 62 100

%

Residents

53 59 35 44 55 246

n 22 24 14 18 22 100

%

Tourists

18 14 17 45 62 156

n 12 9 11 29 40 100

%

Residents

Hunting

9 22 50 80 71 232

n 4 9 22 34 31 100

%

Tourists

20 15 23 38 42 138

n

14 11 17 28 30 100

%

Residents

Fencing

96 61 23 26 29 235

n

41 26 10 11 12 100

%

Tourists

47 38 11 17 31 144

n

33 26 8 12 22 100

%

Residents

Poisoning

a

The response categories in the survey refer to the following numbers used for PCI: −2 = strongly oppose, −1 = oppose, 0 = neutral, 1 = support, 2 = strongly support.

n

Response scalea

Tourists

Trapping

Table 1 Acceptability of four techniques used to control feral pigs, rated by tourists and local residents in the WTWHA


7

Table 2 Mean differences between tourists and local residents for acceptability of the four methods used to control feral pigs in the WTWHA Level of acceptabilitya Control method

Tourists

Residents

t

P

.852 .435 .974 −.719

1.49 .942 .703 −.368

5.622 5.501 −2.28 2.259