|Table of Contents|
Front Cover 1
Front Cover 2
Title Page 1
Title Page 2
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Florida demographic characteristics and trends
Public opinion and human attitudes toward environmental protection and wildlife
Characteristics of nongame program contributors
Nonconsumptive wildlife use and characteristics of nonconsumptive wildlife enthusiasts
Consumptive wildlife use and characteristics of consumptive wildlife enthusiasts
Wildlife and the media
Social implications for wildlife conservation in Florida
Back Cover 1
Back Cover 2
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Nongame Wildlife Program
Technical Report No. 2
FLORIDIANS AND WILDLIFE Sociological Implications for Wildlife Conservation
FLORIDIANS AND WILDLIFE Sociological Implications for Wildlife Conservation
Mark Damian Duda
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 2 April 1987
Duda, M. D. 1987. Floridians and wildlife: Sociological implications for wildlife conservation in Florida. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 2. 130pp + xvi;i.
The conservation of Florida's wildlife ultimately depends on our knowledge, understanding and subsequent management of wildlife, habitat and people. Wildlife, habitat and people are all ecologically interrelated and a change in any one of them is apt to cause a change in the others.
Historically, wildlife managers have concentrated their conservation efforts on the study and management of wildlife and its habitat. Wildlife education efforts have largely centered on relaying this' information to the public. Human social behavior, socioeconomic, attitude and opinion data were not a major part of wildlife conservation efforts.
This report represents the initiation of the integration of these human dimensions into wildlife conservation efforts in Florida. It includes a review of Florida demographic characteristics and trends, a literature review of public opinion and human attitudes toward environmental protection and wildlife, and the characteristics of nongame program contributors, consumptive and nonconsumptive wildlife enthusiasts, and private landowners. An outline of wildlife use, and wildlife and the media are also included.
Florida is one of the largest and fastest growing states in the nation. Florida's population has increased from 9.7 million in 1980 to 11.7 million today. The population will grow to 12.5 million by 1990, representing a 28.5 percent increase in population over the decade.
The majority of Floridians live in a horseshoe-shaped area running from Miami north to Cape Canaveral, west to Orlando and the Tampa-St. Petersburg metropolitan area and south to Naples. More than half of Florida's residents live in six counties: Dade, Broward, Pinellas, Hillsborough, Palm Beach and Duval. The Tampa Bay area is Florida's most populous area with a population of 1.79 million residents. There are approximately 1.74 million in the Miami-Hialeah area and 1.1 million in the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood-Pompano Beach area.
Florida is steadily urbanizing. It is even more urbanized than the U.S. as a whole: about 84 percent of Floridians live in urban regions. The urbanization is concentrated in certain areas, ranging from highly urbanized Pinellas County (2,759 persons per square mile) to rural Liberty County (5.1 persons per square mile).
Florida has a significantly higher percentage of elderly citizens than does the nation as a whole and the fastest growing elderly population as a proportion of the total 'population. Currently, about 2.8 million individuals or 18 percent of the population are 65 years old or older. The elderly are concentrated in central and south Florida counties. In Charlotte, Pasco, Citrus and Sarasota counties, more than 29 percent of the population is composed of individuals over 65 years old.
Overall, Florida's population is getting older. By 1995, the 0- to 14-year age group will increase by 19 percent (this increase is due in part to an increasing young Black population); the 15- to 24-year age group will decrease by 6 percent, the 25- to 44-year age class will increase by 24 percent; the 45-to 64-year age class will increase by 28 percent and the 65 and older age class will increase by 37 percent.
By 1995, there will be 2.5 million individuals 0 to 14 years old, 1.6 million individuals 15 to 24 years old, 3.8 million individuals aged 25 to 44, 2.9 million 45 to 64 years old and 2.9 million individuals 65 years and older. The Black population is younger than that of whites: by 1995, 24 percent of the individuals aged 0 to 14 will be Black, while only 5.5 percent aged 65 and older will be Black.
The larger number of elderly in-migrants and increasing age of the average Floridian will have an interesting effect on the state's demography. By approximately 1995, the number of deaths will outnumber the number of births, leaving the state's growth completely to migration--Florida will be the first state in the nation to achieve this status.
Approximately 13.8 percent of Floridians are Black and 8.8 percent are Hispanic. Both of these segments of the population are expanding. For example, if present trends in the. Hispanic population continue, it could triple by the year 2000 to 2.2 million or approximately 15 percent of Florida's population. The Hispanic population is. concentrated in Dade, Broward, � Palm Beach, Hillsborough and Orange counties. The largest numbers of Blacks are located in Broward, Dade and Duval counties.
The average income in Florida in 1980 was $18,915. Per capita income during 1984 was $12,707. Collier, Indian River, Palm Beach, Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Clay, Collier, Dade, Martin, Nassau, Orange, Sarasota and Seminole counties are the wealthiest counties in Florida. On the other hand, several north Florida counties (Gadsden, Madison, Jeffers on and Franklin) are the poorest.
Florida's rapid growth within the next two decades will not be evenly distributed throughout the state. Most new residents will move to Dade, Broward, Pinellas, Hillsborough, Palm Beach, Duval and Orange counties.
The population will be concentrated in coastal communities. At present, more than 75 percent of Floridians live in a coastal county; this percentage is not expected to change in the next two decades.
Naples, West Palm Beach, Fort Myers, Fort Pierce, Boca Raton and Tampa-St. Petersburg are among Florida's fastest growing areas. As this suggests, most new residents will be moving into the larger, coastal, urban areas of the state.
Approximately 1,000 people per day are moving into Florida. For every two persons migrating into Florida, one person migrates out of Florida. In general, out-migrants are younger and better educated than in-migrants; more than half of the in-migrants do not work in the labor force.
There are clear patterns in terms of where new Floridians come from and where they settle. Most new Floridians are from the northeast, Ohio and Georgia. Persons moving to north Florida are primarily from Georgia and Texas, while Ohioans generally settle in southwest Florida and other Gulf Coast counties such as Pinellas and Pascq. New Yorkers overwhelmingly prefer to move to the Gold Coast area--Broward, Dade and Palm Beach counties.
It is clear.that wildlife conservation information and education efforts must target specific groups with specific messages. The days have passed when generic wildlife education messages are put forth to a "general public." If anything else, this study clearly reveals that varying subgroups of Floridians have very different wildlife informational and educational needs. By targeting specific groups with specific messages, wildlife information and education efforts will become more effective. Moreover, this customized approach will lend itself to effective evaluative measures. By clearly defining the message and influence informational and educational messages are supposed to have on a specific group, we can measure our success by comparing knowledge levels, perceptions, attitudes and public opinions before and after implementation of informational and educational campaigns.
Possibly the most outstanding result of this study is the overwhelming public support for wildlife conservation and environmental protection efforts nationally and in Florida. Floridians and the American public consistently indicated a significant willingness to protect wildlife and the environment despite substantial socioeconomic impacts.
Concerns over the loss of wildlife and its habitat and other environmental issues are not the concern of an esoteric and elitist minority, but an important concern among the majority. .In fact, a disregard for wildlife and other environmental values has certainly become a view of the minority.
Current trends point to a more Republican orientation in Florida in the future. This changing political orientation among Floridians may not have as great an impact on environmental attitudes as one might expect. There seems to be widespread support for increased spending for environmental protection among both Democrats and Republicans. According to the 1986 Florida Annual Policy Survey, 63 percent of Democrats support increased spending for environmental protection, while 57 percent of Republicans also support increased spending. In contrast, 56 percent of Democrats support increased spending for low-income families, whereas only 36 percent of Republicans support increased spending for this cause. Republican polls confirm this. According to one analyst, "The public remains committed to environmentalism, even if the issue is less important personally than other more immediate and pressing concerns."
Strong public support for wildlife conservation and environmental protection issues indicates that many citizens are at the "concern" stage of the conservation education process. The new challenge to wildlife professionals is to bring citizens from the "concern" stage to the "action" stage.
Placing more emphasis on education and research efforts that stress wildlife and environmental action-- teaching citizens specific actions they can
take, in order to further environmental protection and wildlife conservation-- is a relatively new and challenging aspect of information, education and research efforts. One challenge lies in motivating concerned citizens to act on behalf of wildlife conservation and environmental protection issues. Another challenge lies in determining the fine line between teaching citizens constructive ways in which to direct their concern far the good of wildlife and the natural environment within our constraints as public employees. Lobbying is a delicate matter with real constraints for federal and state employees. However, if wildlife and environmental professionals are mandated to protect the environment and wildlife resources and are additionally mandated to teach citizens the fundamentals of environmental and wildlife conservation, it is not unreasonable for them also to give citizens the tools with which to constructively act if they choose to do so.
The most common attitudes toward animals among the American population appear to be a humanistic orientation (primary concern for individual animals), neutralistic (passive avoidance, dislike or fear of animals), moralistic (concern for the right and wrong treatment of animals) and utilitarian (primarily interested in the practical value of animals). The fact that wildlife professionals are primarily concerned about wildlife populations and indirect impacts on wildlife (habitat loss, pollution), while a major part of the public think largely in terms of individual animals and direct impacts on wildlife signifies a major challenge to wildlife professionals.
By understanding the popularity of these attitudes among the American public we can understand why the public is sometimes so vehemently at odds with wildlife managers. The two groups hold attitudes that view the use of animals from opposite perspectives. The humanistic and moralistic attitudes of many citizens focus on individual animals and the right and wrong treatment of animals, while the utilitarian, scientific and ecologistic attitudes of the wildlife manager focuses on the practical value of animals, animal populations and habitat.
It is because of these attitudinal differences that pleas by wildlife professionals for many wildlife management efforts based on utilitarian, scientific and ecological principles often fall on deaf ears. Ecologistic and scientific attitudes, although common within the wildlife profession, are rare within American society. Widespread humanistic and moralistic attitudes explain the amazing success of emotionally-oriented campaigns to "save" animals such as the efforts to halt the clubbing of baby harp seals, efforts to stop the 1982 deer hunt in the Everglades and the prohibition of the leg-hold trap in New Jersey.
The management challenge lies in broadening public concern for the right and wrong treatment of individual animals t.o the right and wrong treatment of wildlife populations and wildlife habitats. The hate for direct impacts on wildlife must be transferred to a hate for the real threat to wildlife populations --the indirect impacts of habitat loss and degradation and pollution.
The management challenge among wildlife professionals is to first accept the fact that most Americans are humanistically and moralistically oriented toward animals. We must overcome our we-know-best attitude and "repugnance for,
and denial of the strength of, these attitudes. We must find creative ways to harness them for the sake of wildlife conservation and wildlife habitat protection efforts. Failure to do so will continue to isolate the wildlife profession from the mainstream of society.
In our society, gender variations appear to be one of the most important demographic factors affecting relationships toward animals. Women appear to view wildlife in very different ways than men, and tend to be more humanistic in their attitudes toward animals. Males are much more likely to participate in consumptive wildlife-related recreational activities while women are much more likely to object to these activities.
The wildlife management challenge, as Steve Kellert of Yale University
points out, "is to cultivate greater knowledge of animals and ecological
awareness among females, while developing in men a more empathetic and less emotionally detached concern for wildlife."
There are striking differences among varying age groups and their attitudes toward animals and the natural environment. In general, negative and utilitarian attitudes tend to increase as age increases. Concurrently, it appears that younger to middle-aged adults are more willing to incur diverse socioeconomic impacts for the sake of protecting wildlife, particularly threatened and endangered species, and the natural environment.
The stronghold for wildlife conservation appears to be within the 25 to 44-year age class. These people seem to be the most knowledgeable about wildlife issues and concerned enough to donate money, time and political support to conserve wildlife. Florida's changing demographics appear to be working in favor of those concerned about environmental and wildlife conservation. This age cohort will remain the largest cohort in Florida, increasing from 3,091,079 in 1985 to an estimated 3,832,216 by 1995, representing a 24 percent increase in this ten-year period.
The fact that the 65-year and older age cohort is the fastest growing cohort in Florida and will represent almost 20 percent of Florida's population by 1995 and that positive attitudes toward wildlife tend to decline with increasing age signifies some major wildlife education efforts must be geared toward this group.
Data from the Nongame Wildlife Program's 1986 survey suggest that the elderly may be very receptive to urban wildlife programs--programs that'"come to them." For example, in our survey,' older residents were more likely than younger residents to feed wildlife around their homes. Also, enjoyment of wildlife while doing other things around the home (secondary residential) increased as age increased. Eighty-nine percent of those over 65 years of age enjoyed wildlife around their homes while doing other things.
The childhood years appear to be crucial in the development of knowledge of and perceptions and attitudes toward wildlife. Since these childhood attitudes and perceptions lay important foundations for future commitment to wildlife conservation, an abundance of research pertaining to children's knowledge of, and perceptions and attitudes toward wildlife has been generated
within the past few years. Most research indicated that the childhood years are the most effective time to influence people.
Effectively designed educational programs must take into account the latest research regarding children's behavior, knowledge of and attitudes toward wildlife, and cognitive and childhood development theory.
Research indicates that there are varying stages in the evolution of children's perceptions of animals. A major increase in emotional concern and affection for animals characterize the period from second to fifth grade. An increase in the factual and cognitive understanding of animals characterize the years between the fifth and eighth grade. The years between the eighth and eleventh grade appear to be characterized by a major expansion in ethical and ecological concern for animals and the natural environment.
Each of the three periods offer different opportunities for wildlife education. The transition from second to fifth grade suggests educational efforts should focus on the affective realm, mainly emphasizing emotional concern and sympathy for animals. Between the fifth and eighth grades, efforts should concentrate on developing factual understanding of animals. The most appropriate time to foster ethical concern for animals and an understanding of ecology appears to be between the eighth and eleventh grades.
The humanistic attitude (primary interest and strong affection for individual animals) appears -to be the most common attitude toward animals among children. Although this attitude is very common among all children, females and urban children appear to be very strongly oriented toward this attitude.
Miriam Westervelt and Llyn Llewellyn of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service point out that the prevalence of the humanistic attitude among children represents an important challenge to wildlife professionals. This is especially true in Florida as the state becomes more urban and more females assume greater roles in wildlife conservation. They note that wildlife management and education programs that emphasize the importance of individual animals and attractive species may be necessary.
Research indicates that children who participate in wildlife-related activities know more about wildlife, appreciate wildlife more, are less fearful of wild animals and exhibit less anthropomorphic tendencies toward wildlife than children who do not participate in wildlife-related activities. This research indicates that positive attitudes toward and knowledge of wildlife can be enhanced in children by promoting wildlife-related activities such as identifying birds, watching wildlife, collecting bugs, fishing and hunting.
Although research indicates that positive attitudes toward the environment are formed during the childhood years, emphasizing environmental education programs toward this group, at the expense of other groups, must be carefully reviewed and considered in Florida.
First, the most likely individuals to leave Florida are younger ones under 44 years of age--those individuals most likely to have young children. It would be a shame to spend scarce resources on an individual who leaves the
state. Second, younger individuals are less likely to vote (35-year olds are twice as likely to vote as 18-year olds) . Third, persons under age 24 as a group represent the smallest segment of the total population in Florida and will continue to decline as a percentage of the total population in the future.
Current trends indicate that by the year 2000, approximately 30 percent of Florida's population will be Black or Hispanic. Research indicates that Blacks are much less knowledgeable of, and less ecologically and naturalistically oriented toward wildlife. Research suggests that urban wildlife programs offering wildlife-related experiences to urban Blacks may be very beneficial to this group. Research is needed on Hispanic Floridians' attitudes toward wildlife. These groups are an important component of the state's population and their concerns and attitudes toward wildlife must be taken into account. Hrograms that involve these minorities must be based on their values and presented in appropriate ways.
There appear to be some relationships between income and attitudes toward wildlife and the natural environment. In general, there seems to be a curvilinear relationship in which positive attitudes toward the environment and willingness to sacrifice many socioeconomic benefits for its protection increase with increasing income--up to a point. Utilitarian attitudes appear to increase with increasing income. Despite a high level of knowledge and awareness of environmental problems, persons with very high incomes appear to be less likely to be as positively oriented, toward protecting the natural environment as persons with middle incomes. Environmental and wildlife professionals must break the perceived inverse relationship between environmental quality and economic prosperity that appears to exist among this group.
Of all demographic variables, it appears as though the level of education is the most sensitive indicator of appreciation, concern, affection, knowledge and respect for animals and the natural environment. In general, the relationship of education to attitudes is strong and linear. As the level of education increases, so do appreciation, concern, knowledge, affection and respect for animals and the natural environment. There is evidence that as the level of education increases, interest in nonconsumptive wildlife-related recreational activities increases and participation in consumptive activities decreases. Additionally, persons with a high-school or higher education are much more likely to support stronger land-use controls in Florida.
Urban/rural differences appear to be playing an important role in the formation of attitudes toward, knowledge and perceptions of wildlife and participation in wildlife-related activities. In general, urban residents hold more humanistic, moralistic and negativistic attitudes. Rural residents tend to be more utilitarian and naturalistically oriented. Suburban and rural residents show a high degree of wildlife knowledge, particularly when contrasted to residents of large cities.
Suburban and urban residents are far less willing to sacrifice environmental and wildlife values for economic gain. Interestingly, this attitude is based on humanistic and moralistic grounds, not as many wildlife professionals might hope, on ecologistic, scientistic or even naturalistic grounds.
Traditionally, wildlife management efforts have been financially supported by hunters, most of whom had rural backgrounds. The high degree of support for wildlife conservation efforts expressed by urban dwellers represents a significant new support base for this activity in Florida. Currently, 84.3 percent of Floridians live in urban regions. The management challenge lies in capturing this support for the sake of wildlife conservation purposes. Utilizing present humanistic trends for this purpose, as previously discussed, is the route to take in order to capture this group. Since most conflicts between the traditional and new constituencies will involve the supposed right and wrong treatment of animals for sport or economic gain, wildlife professionals must emphasize ecologistic and naturalistic wildlife values. Emphasizing utilitarian or dominionistic values will alienate suburban and urban individuals.
The low knowledge levels of urban residents suggests some major wildlife
education programs need to be directed toward this group. Again, these
programs should utilize humanistic trends in attempts to move individuals to ecologistic orientations.
Wildlife-related recreational programs linked with education programs may be an important way of responding to young urban individuals. It appears as though among elderly urban residents, additional information on the practical value of healthy ecosystems is needed, as well as accessible wildlife-related recreational opportunities. Clearly, a variety of accessible, non-threatening, urban wildlife programs which blended wildlife recreational activities with informational programs, and are targeted at different urban groups would go a long way in addressing the needs of urban residents.
Overall, the public appears to possess limited factual knowledge of wildlife. Moreover, their knowledge is limited to particular species.
The public appears to strongly support wildlife habitat protection, although there seems to be some question concerning the public's knowledge of the vital link between habitat and wildlife. Creative ways of teaching the vital link between wildlife and habitat must be developed. It would be a tremendous asset to wildlife conservation efforts in Florida if the public enlarged its affection for wildlife to an affection for wildlife habitat. Eighty percent of the Florida public agrees that development of the state's fragile natural areas should be prohibited, even without a true understanding that habitat preservation is the most important aspect of wildlife conservation. The numbers would most likely be more staggering if it were understood.
The challenge of teaching the public the importance of wildlife habitat to wildlife conservation efforts is great. The public thinks largely in terms of individual animals, not in terms of wildlife populations. Therefore, the direct impacts on wildlife are visualized. It seems that the public's view of animals must first be broadened to viewing populations of animals. After this is accomplished, the importance of habitat can be emphasized.
Although the task is large and to some insurmountable, it must be remembered that the wildlife profession went through an evolution in their understanding of wildlife conservation from a focus on individual animals to a broader understanding of wildlife and habitat.
The apparent link between bird identifying and high wildlife knowledge levels suggests the importance in promoting active birdwatching as a means of increasing wildlife knowledge, especially habitat issues.
The importance of species preference is apparent when comparing the level of public support for the conservation of certain species, especially when there is a tradeoff of socioeconomic benefits. In the public's eye, all species are not created equal. Interest and concern for wild animals appear to be largely confined to "glamour species" such as the bald eagle, Florida panther and manatee.
Species preference lists should be used to guide decisions in attempts to garner public support for wildlife conservation efforts. For example, posters with owls, eagles, pelicans, manatees, panthers, bluebirds and cardinals will be more effective than posters with caracaras, smoothbilled ani, snakes or most invertebrates.
Fortunately, many of the larger glamour species are important environmental indicator species since they are high on the food chain. Appeals to conserve these species would thus carry with them appeals to save the system upon which the animal depends. Programs designed to garner public support for a small rodent could emphasize a popular raptor which depends on rodent populations as a food source. A group of 10 to 15 glamour species, representing the range of habitats throughout Florida should be emphasized. Each animal could be used as a starting point in which to launch discussions on concepts such as habitat, food chains and niches, etc.
Florida's total population is not only growing quickly, but several segments of the population are experiencing a tremendous turnover within the population. One implication is there is a large segment of the adult population living in Florida that was not raised or schooled in the state. Clearly, these people would not have been exposed to traditional Florida environmental education programs. Another implication is that because of the high citizen turnover rate, education programs that "build" upon one another may not be as effective in Florida as in other states.
There are other important policy implications as a result of Florida's large in- and out-migration. Individuals who have lived in Florida for a very long time have a better perspective on how much wildlife and habitat the state has really lost. New residents simply do not have this perspective because they are new to the state. Programs focusing on the magnitude of the wildlife lost to habitat destruction may be an effective means of garnering support from this group.
By approximately 1995, the number of deaths will outnumber the number of births, leaving the state's growth completely to migration. Florida will be the first state in the nation to achieve this status. This situation lends itself to fostering an attitude among Floridians to protect "their" state.
Florida is currently visited by about 30 million tourists annually. A large number of these tourists visit a few well-known attractions as well as
many of the state's natural areas and historic sites. This group, almost three times the state's permanent population, potentially can be tapped for financial and political support. Since tourists tend to concentrate in only a few places, educational opportunities such as those at EPCOT, Disney World or particular natural areas, seem almost unlimited. Additionally, because these attractions are popular among Florida residents, programs there would benefit this group as well. For example, nearly 50 percent of Floridans have been to Disney World and nearly 23 percent of Floridians have been to Epcot in the last two years.
Attempts at gathering public support for environmental protection and wildlife conservation in Florida among tourists and others outside the state should not be overlooked. One of the most far-reaching conservation efforts of all times--the Alaskan Lands Protection Act--was the result of national support. Because of Florida's abundant, diverse and unique wildlife resources and natural environments, and Florida's popularity among Americans, it is not unreasonable to speak of Florida, like Alaska, as a "national" state. Opportunities for partnerships with private businesses, especially the tourism industry, and the environmental community are necessary and possible to achieve this.
Although the popularity of Florida among vacationers offers many opportunities, it also presents a major challenge.- The challenge is to lessen the impacts of a variety of possible nonconsumptive impacts on Florida's wildlife. Additional research, management and information and education programs concerning these impacts are needed. Work by Stephen Boyle and Fred Samson of Colorado State University have provided excellent national research overviews. However, most research has focused on states other than Florida.
State parks and historic sites continue to be prime areas for wildlife information and education programs for residents and tourists alike. State park and historic site visitors tend to be young (under 45), employed full time and have middle to upper incomes. Increased opportunities for conducting and disseminating information on wildlife, natural habitats and the plight of Florida's wildlife appear to exist in state park and historic areas. Because elderly and retired residents are under-represented among state park and historic site users, programs designed to increase participation by this group may be needed. If it is determined that it is not feasible, we must be cognizant that programs conducted at state park and historic sites are not reaching large segments of elderly Floridians.
Many state agencies have studied the characteristics of their nongame program contributors. In general, donors tend to be male, educated, White, reside in urban areas, between the ages of 26 and 45, with a higher than average income and tend to be more involved than non-donors in wildlife-related recreational activities. Since these individuals are most likely to donate, efforts to increase donations to nongame programs should be directed toward these people.
Nonconsumptive wildlife activities such as bird and wildlife watching, feeding birds, identifying animals and taking trips to see wildlife are very popular recreational activities among Floridians and Americans. In Florida,
almost six million individuals in 1980 participated in some type of nonconsumptive wildlife activity. Almost one million people took trips for the primary purpose of seeing, hearing, photographing or feeding wildlife. Almost 2.5 million enjoyed wildlife by observing, feeding or photographing wildlife near their homes.
The large number of Floridians participating in nonconsumptive wildlife-related recreational activities has three major policy and management implications. The large number of Floridians participating in nonconsumptive wildlife activities and the relatively small amount of knowledge of the impacts of nonconsumptive users on wildlife supports the earlier premise that it is vitally important for more research to be generated on the topic. Moreover, given the large number of nonconsumptive enthusiasts and the possibilities of their impacts on wildlife, it is necessary for these activities to be more widely managed for the sake of wildlife conservation in ways similar to the management of hunting. The upshot, and third policy implication is that this group could represent a significant financial and political support base for wildlife conservation efforts in Florida.
Florida's rapid population growth has resulted in a dramatic loss of wildlife habitat. Moreover, the burgeoning population has so increased property values it is becoming even more difficult for the state to purchase the lands necessary to protect wildlife habitat. Because maintaining habitat for wildlife is the most important factor associated with wildlife conservation, the future of Florida's wildlife will depend heavily on habitat maintained by private landowners.
In the past, many assumptions have been made concerning landowner attitudes, perceptions and opinions about their role in providing and managing wildlife habitat in Florida. However, no information is .available on this subject in Florida. A baseline study is needed to determine the characteristics of private landowners, their attitudes toward wildlife habitat protection, and what amenities and wildlife values they associate with their land. The objective of the research would be to derive a better understanding of the factors that influence landowner attitudes, perceptions and relations to wildlife habitat protection efforts. The research would allow wildlife professionals in Florida to base wildlife habitat protection and management efforts on private lands upon a solid foundation of fact.
Television appears to be a very important source of wildlife information for the public. The pervasiveness, popularity and impact of wildlife television programs appear to be enormous. Creative ways of harnessing these impacts for wildlife conservation in Florida are needed.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary i
List of Tables xiv
List of Figures xvii
Florida Demographic Characteristics and Trends 4
General Population Characteristics 4
Population Growth and Trends 13
Characteristics of In- and Out-migrants 14
Other Important National Demographic Trends 16
The Voting Public 17
Tourists and Tourism in Florida 20
Public Opinion and Human Attitudes Toward Environmental Protection
and Wildlife 27
Public Opinion Toward Environmental Protection and Wildlife 27
Attitudes Toward Wildlife 32
Children and Wildlife 44
Knowledge of Wildlife 77
Religious Participation 79
Species Preference 80
Characteristics of Nongame Program Contributors 83
Nonconsumptive Wildlife Use and Characteristics of Nonconsumptive
Wildlife Enthusiasts 86
Consumptive Wildlife Use and Characteristics of Consumptive Wildlife
Wildlife and the Media
Sociological Implications for Wildlife Conservation Florida
List of Tables
Table 1: Table 2: Table 3:
Table 6: Table 7:
Florida's Rank by Population 1900-1990 Population by County (1980 Census) (Florida) Estimates of Population by County and Municipality
in Florida, April 1985 Rank of Counties by Population Size, April 1, 1985, by
County in Florida Florida Population Estimates and Projections by
County, Fy 1981-1999 Florida Population--Urban and Rural Population of Counties by Urban and Rural
Residence (Florida), 1980, 1970 Population Densities by County (Florida) (1980 Census) Florida Population Estimates and Projections by Age,
Race and Sex Age and Sex Composition (Florida): 1980 Florida Population Estimates and Projections by County,
April 1, 1980, April 1, 1990, and April 1, 2000 Age Distributions (Percentages) of the Population of
Florida and its Counties April 1, 1980 and
April 1, 1984 Social Security Recipients (Florida) (1980 Census) Florida Population by Age, Race and Sex (1980 and
1990 Projections) Percent Change of Population by Age (Florida)
Census Counts, April 1, 1980, and Estimates, April 1, 1984, by Age, Race and Sex in Florida, and April 1984 Estimates of Race Percentage by Age
Percent of Age Class by Race (Florida) (1985-1995)
Percent of Population by Age and Race (Florida) (1985-1995)
School Enrollment (Florida) 1983-84
Population by Race and County (Florida) (1980 Census) Household Income by County (Florida) (1980) Florida per Capita Personal Income by Metropolitan Area, 1982
Income and Poverty Status, 1969, 1979, 1980 (Florida) Families at Poverty Level (Florida), 1979 Educational Attainment: Persons Aged 25 and Over by
Years of School Completed (Florida), April 1, 1980 Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: Full-time
Equivalent Student County by Program in the
State and Counties of Florida, School Year
Pupil Membership in Grades Pre-kindergarten Through
Twelve by Race in the State and Counties of
Florida, Fall 1984 Labor Force: Estimates by Employment Status in
the State and Counties of Florida and in the
U.S., 1982, 1983 and 1984
Table Table 27: 28:
Table Table Table 30: 31: 32:
Table Table 34: 35:
Table Table 41: 42:
Table Table 45: 46:
Table Table 52 53
Table Table 54 55
Occupational Employment: Employed Persons Aged 16
and Over by Occupational Category in the State
and Counties of Florida, April 1, 1980 Migrants by Age: State of Florida, 1975-1980 Florida's 1975-1980 In- and Out-migrants 25 Years
Old and Over: Years df School Completed Florida's 1975-1980 In- and Out-migrants 16 Years
and Older: Labor Force Status and Occupations Registered Voters in Florida by County, January 198 5 Floridians' Attitudes on Growth Management Issues Floridians' Attitudes Toward Increased Program Funding (Top
Priority), 1980-1986 Floridians' Attitudes Toward Funding for
Environmental Protection, 1979-1986 Party Identification of Adult Floridians, 1979-1985 Party Identification of White Floridians by Length
of Residence, 1979-1985 Party Identification of White Floridians by Age of
Demographic Characteristics of Responses for Funding for
Environmental Protection (Florida) Demographic Characteristics of Responses for Funding for
Low Income Families With Children (Florida) Demographic Characteristics of 1985 Florida Air
Demographic Characteristics of 1985 Florida Automobile Visitors
Kellert Typology of Attitudes Toward Animals Postulated Attitudes Toward Animals Occurrence in
American Society Male/Female Participation in Selected Animal-related
Activities During a Two-year Period Ranking of Interest in Article Topics in Missouri
Conservationist by Missourians Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development Demographic Variables (New Smyrna Beach residents) by
Perceptions of Environmental Trends Demographic Variables (New Smyrna Beach residents) by
Positions on Regulation Demographic Variables (Monroe County residents) by
Perceptions of Environmental Trends Demographic Variables (Monroe County residents) by
Positions on Regulation Demographic Variables (Lee County residents) by
Perceptions of Environmental Trends Demographic Variables (Lee County residents) by
Positions on Regulation College Degree by Selected Attitude Scales Rank Order of Animal Preference Mean Scores in Children
and Adults Species Preference Tables
Rank Order of 55 Species of Florida Wildlife as Determined
by Floridians in Terms of Importance, *No Need to
Monitor and Unfamiliarity or No Opinion Table 56: Species Named by Floridians as Important to Monitor Table 57: Rank Order of Importance by Floridians of 55 Species of
Florida Wildlife Table 58: Demographic Characteristics of Virginia Nongame Fund
Contributors, Noncontributors and Hunters Table 59: Selected Characteristics of Wildlife Observers (Florida):
List of Figures
Figure 1: The Conservation Education Process
Figure 2: Florida Population 190.Q-1990
Figure 3: Projected Population (Florida), 2020
Figure 4: Percentage Change in Population (Florida), 1970 to 1980
Figure 5: Population Growth in Florida, April 1, 1980, to
April 1, 1985 (Percentage Change) Figure 6: The Urbanization of Florida, 1830-1970
Figure 7: Population Density in Florida Counties:
April 1, 1985
Figure 8: Distribution of Population by Region (Florida), 1900-1980
Figure 9: Aging of Florida's Population, 1940-1980
Figure 10: Percentage of Population Aged 65 and Over (Florida), 1980 Figure 11: Florida's Population by Race, Age and Sex, 1980, 1990 Figure 12: Percentage of Spanish Population by County (Florida), 1980 Figure 13: Percentage of Black Population by County (Florida), 1980 Figure 14: Per Capita Personal Income by County (Florida), 1983 Figure 15: Median Family Income by County (Florida), 1980
Figure 16: Percentage Change in County per Capita Income (Florida), 1972 to 1982
Figure.17: Percentage of Persons Aged 25 and Over who Have Completed
Four or More Years of College by County (Florida), 1980 Figure 18: Unemployment Percentages by County (Florida), 1984 Figure 19: Persons in the Labor Force by County (Florida), 1984
Figure 20; Percentage of Males Aged 16 and Older in the Labor
Force by County (Florida), 1980 Figure 21: Percentage of Females Aged 16 and Over in the. Labor
Force by County (Florida), 1980 Figure 22: Number of Manufacturing Establishments by County (Florida), 1982 Figure 23: Employment in Manufacturing by County (Florida), 1983 Figure 24: Manufacturing Employment as a Percent of Total
Employment by County (Florida), 1983 Figure 25: States Florida Gained and Lost Population to:
Figure 26: Most Important Problem Areas as Perceived by
Floridians in 1986 Figure 27: Party Identification of Black and White Floridians,
Figure 28: Relative Male and Female Scores on Attitude and Knowledge
Toward Animal Scales Figure 29: Age Groups by Selected Knowledge and Attitude Toward Animal
Figure 30: Naturalistic, Moralistic and Ecologistic Attitude Mean Scores of
Schoolchildren by Grade Figure 31: Negativistic, Dominionistic and Utilitarian Attitude Mean Scores
of Schoolchildren by Grade Figure 32: Attitude Toward Animal Development: Maturational Changes in
Children and Adults
Figure 33: Comparison of Children's Perceptions of the Natural World with Cognitive Stages of Development
Figure 34: Race Groups by Selected Knowledge and Attitude Toward Animal Scales
Figure 35: Income Groups by Selected Knowledge and Attitude Toward Animal Scales
Figure 36: Education Groups by Selected'knowledge and Attitude Toward Animal Scales
Figure 37: Education Characteristics of Selected Animal Activity Groups
Figure 38: Occupation by Selected Knowledge and Attitude Toward Animal Scales
Figure 39: Population of Present Residence by Selected Knowledge
and Attitude Toward Animal Scales Figure 40: Attendance at Religious Services by Selected Knowledge
and Attitude Toward Animal Scales Figure 41: Nonconsumptive Wildlife Use by Sex, Age and Income
The conservation of Florida's wildlife ultimately depends on our knowledge, understanding and subsequent management of wildlife, habitat and people. Wildlife, habitat and people are all ecologically interrelated and a change in any one of them is apt to cause a change in the others. For example. we have learned that unchecked deer populations will eventually destroy their habitat (living space). Likewise, the loss or degradation of habitat will result in the decline of wildlife populations. However, people decide whether to fill or preserve wetlands, control and manage growth, allocate funds for wildlife management and education purposes, and elect politicians who are sensitive to wildlife conservation issues.
Historically, wildlife managers have concentrated their conservation efforts on the study and managment of wildlife and its habitat. Wildlife education efforts have largely centered on relaying this information to the public. Human social behavior, socioeconomic, .attitude and opinion data were not a major part of wildlife conservation efforts.
But today, wildlife professionals are beginning to realize that the full integration of sociological tools into the wildlife management scenario is a necessary step in wildlife conservation. As Steve Kellert of Yale remarks, "With more and more citizens becoming involved in various wildlife issues, the success or failure of many programs depends on the wildlife manager's understanding of the public's attitudes toward, knowledge of, and concerns and values regarding wildlife."
This report represents the initiation of the integration of these human dimensions into wildlife conservation efforts in Florida. It includes a review of Florida demographic characteristics and trends, a literature review of public opinion and human attitudes toward environmental protection and wildlife, and the characteristics of nongame program contributors, consumptive and nonconsumptive wildlife enthusiasts, and private landowners. An outline of wildlife use, and wildlife and the media are also included.
Since there is no such entity as a "general public," our first task is to define the individuals who make up Florida's population--their distribution, region of residence, gender, age, race, income, education, occupation and political orientation. Additionally, because Floridians tend to be more transient than the nation as a whole, we must define the characteristics of the in- and out-migrants. We must also understand the trends of these demographic characteristics, since they can alert us to fundamental changes that are taking place within the population. Understanding the future demographic structure of Florida is crucial as we plan wildlife conservation and education efforts.
Assessing public opinion and human attitudes toward environmental protection, wildlife and wildlife conservation issues is the second step toward understanding humans within the context of wildlife conservation. Extrapolating from this data and combining this information with the results of a recently conducted public opinion poll by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission's Nongame Wildlife Program (also included in this report), we can determine the general distribution of attitudes toward wildlife and
wildlife-associated recreation among Floridians. The relative stage of conservation awareness of different .demographic groups can also be determined from this data.
The information presented within this report can be used in many wavs. Human dimensions data can facilitate our wildlife conservation efforts. For example, our education efforts can be enhanced by designing and customizing our activities, programs and messages based on specific needs, desires, attitudes, beliefs and values of different groups of Floridians. As Dennis Schenborn of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources states, "...Effective information and education programs that use diverse information channels and develop customized approaches to packaging information will be essential to agency survival... By tailoring our approaches to specific audiences, we can increase our effectiveness in educating and influencing the public."
One widely accepted model of environmental action developed by Carrol Henderson, Nongame Supervisor in Minnesota, presents the learning process necessary to achieve desired conservation actions as six developmental steps: (1) little or no awareness or concern, (2) awareness of a program/problem, (3) appreciation, (4) understanding, (5) concern, and (6) action. Henderson believes the best way to visualize these stages in a population is to imagine a "chocolate-chip-shaped" model (Figure 1). "Most of the people are in the wide basal portion, representing those unaware... The tip of the chocolate-chip represents those persons who are fully informed on an issue, and who are actively concerned and involved." One of our goals as wildlife managers and educators is to move Floridians to higher levels of this learning/action process.
Human dimensions data can also give wildlife managers an understanding of the public's need for greater awareness of wildlife and sound wildlife management practices. In many instances, public outcry against sound wildlife management efforts has been due to public misinformation and misunderstanding.
An understanding of public opinion and attitudes is also critical as private citizens are increasingly asked to finance wildlife programs, obey wildlife laws and sacrifice social and economic benefits for the sake of wildlife conservation. And as the wildlife constituency continues to expand and embrace new types of wildlife enthusiasts, the wildlife profession will need increasing amounts of "people knowledge" in order to deliver equitable and acceptable wildlife benefits.
Business managers have known for a long time that it is important to know their customers--who they are, where they live, how old they are, their needs, desires and concerns. In a popular book about successful businesses, In Search of Excellence." authors Thomas Peters and Robert Waterman, Jr., noted "Excellent companies are better listeners. Excellertt companies really are close to their customers. That's it. Other companies talk about it; the excellent companies do it."
The wildlife profession has come to realize the importance of understanding the attitudes, values, concerns and beliefs of its human constituency. This is not to say that public perceptions and attitudes should
dictate wildlife policy. Effective wildlife management practices must be based on sound biological and ecological principles and professional judgment. However, wildlife management is not a profession that practices in a vacuum, but one that is managing a public resource. The study of the human element offers wildlife managers and policymakers valuable insights into one aspect of the wildlife/habitat/people ecological triangle.
Victor Heller, Assistant Director, Division of Wildlife, providied initial support for this project; Susan Cerulean, Nongame Wildife Section Supervisor, provided guidance, advice, suggestions and valuable support throughout this project; Sylvia Bates, Nongame Wildlife Biologist, provided very useful comments on the manuscript; and Debbie Rericha, Nongame Wildlife Section, assisted in preparing the manuscript. Valuable insights were provided through conversations with Steve Kellert of Yale University, Bradley Gruver, David Cook, Sylvia Bates, Brian Millsap, Jim Cox, Jeff Gore and Judy Gillan of the Nongame Wildlife Program; Dave McElveen and Hugh Boyter, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission; and Joyce Berry of Yale.
I thank the following individuals for providing me with a wealth of valuable information for this project: Barry Pitegoff and Jennifer Davis, Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism; Steve Kellert, Bill Burch and Joyce Berry of Yale; Suzanne Parker, Florida State University; Lance deHaven-Smith, Florida Atlantic University; Leslie Hazlett, Florida State Data Center; Bureau of Economic and Business Research staff, University of Florida; and Jim Dean, Florida Public Service Commission. As with most who were educated at the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale, Steve Kellert and Bill Burch had a profound influence upon my attitudes about natural resource conservation.
FLORIDA DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND TRENDS
General Population Characteristics
Florida is one of the largest and fastest growing states in the nation. Florida's population has increased f rom"' 9 . 7 million in 1980 to 11.5 million today (Morris 1985). The Office of Planning and Budgeting (1986) projects that the population will grow to 12.5 million by 1990, representing a 28.5 percent increase in population over the decade (Figure 2).
Between 1980 and 1984, Florida's population grew faster than any other large U.S. state. During this four-year period, Florida's population grew bv
12.6 percent to 10.98 million people. Florida finished fourth (behind Alaska, Nevada and Utah) in percentage growth, and third (behind California and Texas, which grew by 1.96 million people and 1.76 million people, respectively) among all states in absolute terms (Florida Trend February 1986) .
In 1980, Florida was the seventh most populous state in the nation, following (in order of population) California, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Ohio. By 1990, Florida will have passed Ohio, Illinois and Pennsylvania, making it the fourth most populous state in the nation (Morris 1985) (Table 1).
The majority of Floridians live in a horseshoe-shaped area running from Miami north to Cape Canaveral, west to Orlando and the Tampa-St. Petersburg metropolitan area and south to Naples (Office of Planning and Budgeting 1986) . Over half of Florida's residents live in six counties: Dade, Broward, Pinellas, Hillsborough, Palm Beach and Duval (Tables 2-5, Figures 3-5). The Tampa Bay area is Florida's most populous area, with a population of 1.79 million residents. There are approximately-1.74 million in the Miami-Hialeah area, and 1.1 million in the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood-Pompano Beach area (Florida Trend February 1986).
Florida, like the rest of the United States, has been steadily urbanizing. In 1900, 20.3 percent of Floridians lived in an urban environment, while 79.7 percent lived in rural areas. In 1960, 73.9 percent lived in urban areas, and 26.1 percent lived in rural areas. In 1970, 80.5 percent lived in urban areas (Figure 6). In 1980, 84.3 percent of Floridians lived in urban regions and
15.7 percent lived in rural areas (Bureau of Business and Economic Research 1984) (Tables 6-7). Florida is thus slightly more urbanized than the U.S. as a whole, where 73.7 percent of the population lived in urban areas in 1980 (Bureau of Business and Economic Research 1984).
On a national scale, this trend has slowed within the past decade as people migrate from urban areas to small towns and rural areas. Nationally, small towns and rural areas have grown at a slightly larger percentage rate than the population as a whole. Although this is the trend for the West, Northeast and North-central regions of the nation, it does not hold for the South. Rural and small Southern towns grew by 17.1 percent during 1970 to 1980, but the overall population growth rate was 20 percent during this same period (Schenborn 1985).
This urbanization, coupled with the growth of certain counties, has had substantial impacts on the population densities of Florida counties. Pinellas County has a population density of 2,759.1 persons per square mile. Broward, Dade, Duval and Hillsborough fall behind Pinellas in population density with 832.5, 791.6, 734.9 and 622.1 persons per square mile, respectively. In contrast, Liberty, Lafayette, Glades and Dixie counties have 5.1, 7.4, 8.0 and 11.3 persons per square mile (Table 8, Figure 7).
The population distribution in Florida has shifted over the years from north Florida to central and south Florida. In 1900, 66 percent of Floridians lived in north Florida, 29 percent in central Florida, and 5 percent in south Florida. In 1980, 20 percent of Floridians lived in north Florida, 43 percent in central Florida, and 37 percent in south Florida (Figure 8). The Bureau of Economic and Business Research has found that this trend is reversing (Tallahassee Democrat 1986b). Stan Smith, the Bureau's Population Program Director, states, "The population center [again] is reversing direction...The central Florida area and increasingly north Florida, are projected areas of population growth."
� Over half of Florida's residents live in Dade, Broward, Pinellas, Hillsborough, Palm Beach and Duval counties.
� Tampa Bay, Miami-Hialeah and Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach are Florida's most populous regions.
� Florida continues to urbanize; over 84 percent of Floridians now live in urban environments.
� The most densely populated counties in Florida include Pinellas, Broward, Dade, Duval and Hillsborough.
� The central Florida area (especially Orange County) and increasingly north Florida, are projected areas of population growth.
Florida has slightly more female than male residents. Currently, Florida's population consists of approximately 6 million females and 5.5 million males (Table 9) .
Florida has a significantly higher percentage of elderly citizens than the nation as a whole (Office of Planning and Budgeting 1986). Florida also has the fastest growing elderly population as a proportion of the total population in the U.S. (Stutzman 1986). Between 1970 and 1980, the 65 and older population increased 71 percent. This figure is almost double the growth rate for
the state as a whole. This influx of senior citizens increased Florida's median age to 34.7 in 1980, the highest median age in the U.S. (Marth and Marth 1985). The average median age in the U.S. is 30.0.
In 1980, the 65 and older age class comprised 11.3 percent of the national population, compared to Florida's 17.3 percent (Figure 9). The state's population of persons aged 65 and older*'currently stands at 18 percent or 2.2 million individuals. By 1990, this percentage is expected to grow to 19.3 percent and stabilize at this point until the beginning of the next century (Office of Planning and Budgeting 1986).
In north Florida, nine counties have fewer than 10 percent of their population over 65 years of age. In central and south Florida (primarily the coastal counties), more than 20 percent of the population is over the age of 65. More than 29 percent of the population is over the age of 65 in Charlotte, Pasco, Citrus and Sarasota counties (Office of Planning and Budgeting 1986) (Figure 10, Tables 10-12).
In 1980, 24.2 percent of Florida's population was between the ages of 0 and 17 and 58.5 percent was between 18 and 64. In the United States, 28.1 percent of the population was between the ages of 0 and 17, while 60.6 percent was between 18 and 64 years of age. Thus, Florida has a significantly smaller percentage of citizens in the 0- to 17-year class than does the U.S. as a whole, and a slightly smaller percentage of 18- to 64-year-olds.
In 1980, 25 percent of the White population in Florida was under 20 years of age. In contrast, 42 percent of the Black population fell into this category (Hazlett 1984a) (Figure 11). Among both Blacks and Whites, approximately half of the population is 20 to 59 years of age. Hazlett (1984a: 3) reports that, while the remainder of the Black population is under 20 years old, the remainder of the White population is' about equally split between the 0- to 19- and 60 and over age groups. According to Hazlett:
"Between 1980 and 1990, the White population is expected to continue with a pattern of low birth rates, high in-migration and increasing life expectancy. By 1990, 9 percent of the White population will be over 75, compared with 3 percent of the Black population; there will be more Whites in absolute and relative terms over 60 years of age than under 20. Within the United States, this age structure is found only in Florida's White population" (Hazlett 1984a:3).
Within the White population, 17.4 percent are between 0 and 14 years of age, 14.3 percent are between 15 and 24, 26.7 percent are between 25 and 44, 22 percent are between 45 and 64, and 19.6 percent are over 65. Within the Black population, 30.3 percent are between 0 and 14, 19.4 percent are between 15 and 24, 27.5 percent are between 25 and 44, 14'.4 percent are between 45 and 64, and 8 percent are over 65 (Table 15) (Also see Tables 14-15b).
By 1990, there will be significant increases in Whites in the 25 to 29, 30 to 34, 35 to 39, 40 to 44, and 65 and over age classes. Significant increases in Blacks between the ages of 0 to 4, 5 to 9, 25 to 29, 30 to 34 and 35 to 39 year age classes will also occur by 1990 (Figure 11) (Tables 15a-b).
The age structure of Florida's population shows two additional trends: bv 1990, 10 percent of the White female population will be 75 years of age and older. There is also a growing population of young Blacks. Although the percentage of the total state population between the ages of 0 and 17 is declining, the percentage of Blacks, in this age group is rising.
Overall, Florida's population is getting older. By 1995, the 0- to 14-year age group will increase by 19 percent, the 15- to 24-year age group will decrease by 6 percent, the 25- to 44-year age class will increase by 24 percent, the 45- to 64-year age class will increase by 28 percent and the 65 and older age class will increase by 37 percent (Florida State Data Center, unpublished figures) (Table 14a). However, in sheer numbers, the 25- to 44-year age class will still be the largest cohort, increasing from 3.0 million in 1985 to 3.8 million in 1995. The 15- to 24-year age class will remain the smallest cohort, decreasing from 1.67 million in 1985 to 1.57 million in 1995 (Table 14a) .
The large number of elderly in-migrants and increasing age of the average Floridian will have an interesting effect on the state's demography. By approximately 1995, the number of deaths will outnumber the number of births, leaving the state's growth completely attributable to migration (Tallahassee Democrat 1986a). Although this phenomenon is currently taking place in the traditional retirement counties, Florida will most likely be the first state in the nation where the number of deaths exceeds the number of births.
The changing age class structure will change the total number of students enrolled in school. The impact of this demographic trend on student enrollment is expressed by the Office of Planning and Budgeting (1986):
"The number of public school students for the 1985-86 school year, expressed as full-time equivalents, currently is estimated by the Enrollment Estimating Conference at 1.6 million in kindergarten to 12th grade and 88,000 in adult programs. These figures are estimated to rise to 1.78 million for kindergarten through 12, and 99,000 for adult programs in 1990-91 school year. Furthermore, higher birth rates among Blacks and Hispanics will lead to an increase in the percentage of minority students... the state will experience enrollment increases from 30,000 to 50,000 per year. The size of...the age classes 22 to 29 will decline in the years after 1990 as enrollment in grades 7 through 12 increase-...Grades 7 to 12 enrollment is expected to rise by 20 percent from 1990 to 1995, and 17.5 percent from 1995 to 2000. In the meantime, the 22- to 29-year-old will be declining by 6 percent and 4.5 percent."
The number of students enrolled in public and private schools is shown in Table 16.
� Florida has a higher percentage of elderly citizens than the nation as a whole, as well as the fastest growing elderly population as a proportion of the total population.
Florida has the highest median age in the U.S.
Eighteen percent of Florida's population (2.2 million individuals) are persons aged 65 and older. This percentage will continue to increase in the future.
Persons aged 65 and older are concentrated in the central counties (particularly Polk, Seminole and Volusia Gulf Coast counties), Palm Beach and Dade counties.
By 1990, there will be more Whites in absolute and relative terms over 60 years of age than under 20.
There is a decreasing percentage of younger Whites and an increasing percentage of younger Blacks. This trend will continue in the future.
By 1990, 10 percent of the White female population will be 75 years of age and older.
Overall, Florida's population is getting older. By 1995, the following percent changes in age groups will occur: 0 to 14 will increase by 19 percent, 15 to 24 will decrease by 6 percent, 25 to 44 will increase by 24 percent, 45 to 64 will increase by 28 percent, and 65 and over will increase by 37 percent.
In absolute terms, by 1995, there will be 2.5 million individuals 0 to 14 years of age, 1.6 million aged 15 to 24, 3.8 million aged 25 to 44, 2.9 million aged 45 to 64, and 2.9 million aged 65 and over.
Around 1995, the number of deaths will outnumber the number of births, leaving the state's growth completely to migration.
With increased age, the percentage of Whites in each cohort increases. Seventy-seven percent of the 0- to 14-year olds are White and 21.8 percent are Black. In the 65+ age group, 93.9 percent are White and 5.8 percent are Black. This demographic characteristic will become slightly more pronounced in the future.
According to the 1980 Census, 13.8 percent of Floridians are Black and 8.8 percent are Hispanic (0.8 percent Mexican, 1.0 percent Puerto Rican, 4.8 percent Cuban and 2.8 percent other Spanish) and 2.2 percent consist of 19,316 American Indians, 56,756 Asians and Pacific Islanders, and 143,055 other races of residents (Table 17).
On a national scale, 6.4 percent of the U.S. population is of Hispanic origin, 11.7 percent is Black and 81 percent is White. Thus, Florida has slightly higher percentages of Blacks and Hispanics than the national average.
Currently, there are 858,000 Hispanics in Florida (Hazlett 1985b)"The Hispanic population is heavily concentrated in south Florida, especially in Dade County, which had 580,994 persons of Hispanic origin or 68 percent of the state's total. And fully, 86 percent of the state's Hispanics lived in either Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Hillsborough or Orange County" (Office of Planning and Budgeting 1986:3). The Hispanic population in Florida is characterized by "rapid growth resulting from both immigration and high fertility. According to the Population Revenue Bureau, if the present trend continues in Florida, the Hispanic population could triple by the year 2000 to 2.2 million or. approximately 15 percent of Florida's total population" (Hazlett 1985b:3). Counties with a high percentage of Hispanics include Dade, Monroe, Collier, Hardee, Hendry and Hillsborough (Figure 12).
There are substantial numbers of Blacks in Broward (113,582), Dade (280,379) and Duval (140,561) counties (Table 17). Blacks represent over 20 percent of the county population in Gulf, Jackson, Gadsden, Leon, Jefferson, Madison, Taylor, Duval, Putnam, Bradford and Union counties (Figure 13).
� 13.8 percent of Floridians are Black.
� 8.8 percent of Floridians are Hispanic.
� Except for the 2.2 percent that are American Indians, Asians and Pacific Islanders and other races, the remainder of Florida's population is White. The actual percentage of Whites may be higher; however, a White Hispanic may have classified himself as Hispanic during the 1980 census, thus increasing the Hispanic percentage and decreasing the White percentage. Overall, the White population stands at about 77 percent.
� The number of young Blacks is increasing.
� The Hispanic population is concentrated in south Florida, especially Dade County.
� The Hispanic population could potentially triple by the year 2000 to 2.2 million individuals or 15 percent of Florida's total population.
� The largest concentration of Blacks is in Broward, Dade and Duval counties.
The average household income in Florida in 1980 was $18,915 (Table 18). Per capita income during 1984 was $12,553. The average per capita income for the United States was $12,707. Collier (13.2 percent), Indian River (10.45 percent), Palm Beach (11.1 percent) and Dade (10.5 percent) counties had at least 10 percent of the population with incomes over $40,000. Gadsden,
Madison, Jefferson and Franklin counties (all in northern Florida) are the poorest counties in the state (Marth and Marth 1985). These counties have 45.8 percent, 49.3 percent, 51 percent and 52.9 percent of the population, respectively, with household incomes of less than $10,000.
In 1980, the average household income in Collier County (state high) was $24,060, while Madison County was $12,520^ (state low) (Table 18).
In 1981, Florida's per capita personal income ranked 27th among other U.S. states. In 1983, Florida was ranked 21. Leete (1986:6) reports that Florida's metropolitan areas ranged from among the wealthiest in the U.S. to some of the poorest (Table 19). Residents of Palm Beach County had the highest income with $14,150 per person in 1982 (Table 19), and ranked 11th among metropolitan areas in the country. Interestingly, the lowest per capita income in the state was neighboring Glades County with $5,019 per person (Leete 1986). Figure 16 highlights the counties with the largest percentage increases in per capita income between 1972 and 1982 (increases above 169.5 percent) and those with the smallest (below 132 percent) (Also see Figures 14-15).
The poverty rate for Floridians in 1979 (the last year in which Census Bureau data are available) was 13.5 percent. This is slightly below the national average which in 1983 was 15.2 percent. Almost 10 percent of Florida families were below the poverty level in 1979 (Tables 20-21).
"The rate among Hispanics and Blacks was 17.9 and 34.7-percent, respectively. The poverty rate for children is also higher than the state average. The highest poverty rate among any age group was for persons under 16 (19.3 percent) and persons aged 16 to 21 (17.8 percent). Once again, the figures for Blacks and Hispanics in these age groups were even higher. With Blacks and Hispanics, however, the poverty rate is more clearly tied to the elderly. Among Blacks, 47.4 percent of those over 75 were in poverty. For Hispanics, the rate for that age group was 29.2 percent. In each case, that was the highest poverty rate in the group. The statewide poverty rate for persons over 75 is 15.6 percent. The poverty rate was also high among female-headed families, 35 percent of whom fell below the poverty line. While this rate was higher for Black female-headed families, it was slightly lower (33 percent) for families headed by Hispanic women" (Office of Planning and Budgeting 1986:5).
� More than 10 percent of the households in Collier, Indian River, Dade and Palm Beach earn over $40,000 per year.
� The counties with the highest average household incomes in the state include Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Clay, Collier, Dade, Martin, Nassau, Okaloosa, Orange, Palm Beach, Sarasota and Seminole.
� The counties with the highest median family income (over $18,500) include Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Brevard, Seminole, Clay, Nassau and Leon.
� The counties with the highest per capita income include the West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Delray Beach metropolitan area, Sarasota and the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood-Pompano Beach area.
� 13.5 percent of Floridians fall below the poverty level; 17.9 percent of Hispanics and 34.7 percent of Blacks fall below the poverty level.
Of the 6,250,125 individuals aged 25 and over in Florida in 1980, 66.7 percent have completed high school and 14.9 percent have four or more years of college (Table 22). Alachua (75.5 percent), Brevard (75.4 percent), Broward (70.4 percent), Clay (73.7 percent), Collier (71.2 percent), Flagler (70.8 percent), Leon (78.8 percent), Orange (70.4 percent), Sarasota (73.4 percent), Seminole (76.2 percent), Martin (70.4 percent), Monroe (72.3 percent), Okaloosa (77.4- percent) and Palm Beach (70.7 percent) have the highest percentage of residents who completed high school.
Alachua (29.4 percent), Brevard (17.1 percent), Collier (18.5 percent), Clay (16.8 percent), Dade (16.8 percent), Leon (32 percent), Palm Beach (17.1 percent), Sarasota (17.7 percent) and Seminole (19.5 percent) have the highest percentage of residents having four or more years of college (Table 22, Figure 17) .
Dixie (49.4 percent), Calhoun (47 percent), Gadsden (47.1 percent), Hamilton (49.4 percent), Hardee (44.9 percent), Holmes (43.7 percent), Liberty (47.7 percent) and Madison (43.5 percent) have the lowest percentage of residents completing high school, while Baker (5.7 percent), Dixie (4.9 percent), Hamilton (5.9 percent), Okeechobee (5.7 percent) and Union (5.9 percent) have the lowest percentage of residents completing four or more years of college (Table 22, Figure 17).
Florida's high school graduation rate is among the nation's lowest. In 1980, the state tied for 47th place in the nation with New York. Florida also ranks low in Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores, with an average test score of 884, 22 points below the national average of 906. Florida is also one of the lower states in percentage of seniors taking the SAT--only 42.4 percent (Florida Trend April 1986).
The number of students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools varies widely by county, reflecting the overall population of the county (Table 23). For example, the number of students enrolled in kindergarten through third grade in Dade County is 63,731, while in Glades County there are 264 children in this range.
The composition of the pupil membership by race varies throughout the state. In Dade County, 39.98 percent of pupil membership in pre-kindergarten through grade 12 are Hispanic. In contrast, in Calhoun and Jefferson counties, there are no reported Hispanic students (Table 24).
67 percent of Floridians have graduated from high school.
15 percent of Floridians have four or more years of college.
Alachua, Brevard, Clay, Collier, Dade, Leon, Palm Beach, Sarasota and Seminole counties have the highest percentage of residents having four or more years of college.
In general, the coastal peninsula and the far western panhandle counties have higher percentages of persons aged 25 and over who have completed four or more years of college than do the panhandle and interior counties, with the exception of Leon and Alachua counties.
40 percent of pupil membership in pre-kindergarten through 12th grade in Dade County are Hispanic.
83 percent of Gadsden County, 66 percent of Jefferson County and 5 5 percent of Madison County's pupil membership in pre-kindergarten through 12th grade are Black.
Florida has had a slightly lower rate of unemployment than the U.S. as a whole since 1982 (Table 25). However, many counties had a higher percentage of unemployed citizens (Glades, Hendry, Lake, Okeechobee, Polk, St. Lucie, Sumter and others), while others had much lower unemployment rates (Alachua, Braden-ton, Bradford, Clay, Leon, Pinellas and others) (Figure 18).
Many different counties have vastly different percentages of citizens employed by different industries. In metropolitan regions, such as Dade, Duval and Palm Beach counties, many individuals are employed in managerial, professional, technical, sales and administrative support occupations. In rural areas, such as Franklin, Hardee, Lafayette and Okeechobee, a large percentage of citizens are employed in farming, forestry and fisheries occupations (Table 26).
The total number of persons in the labor force also varies by county (Figure 19) , as does the percentage of males and females in the labor force (Figures 20-21).
Manufacturing is an important component of many Florida counties. Figures 22-24 indicate, by county, the number of manufacturing establishments, total employment in manufacturing, and manufacturing employment as a percent of total employment.
� Glades, Hendry, Okeechobee, Polk, St. Lucie and Sumter counties have high state annual average unemployment rates.
� Alachua, Bradenton, Bradford, Clay, Leon, Pinellas and Sarasota counties have lower than average state unemployment rates.
� 23 percent of working Floridians are employed in managerial and professional specialties; 32 percent are employed in technical, sales and administrative support occupations, 15 percent are employed in service occupations, 13 percent are involved in precision production, craft and repair occupations and 14 percent are operators, fabricators and laborers, and 3 percent are employed in farming, fishing and forestry-related activities.
Population Growth and Trends
Florida's rapid growth in population within the next two decades will not be evenly distributed throughout the state. Currently, more than half of Florida's residents live in six counties: Dade, Broward, Pinellas, Hillsborough, Palm Beach and Duval. New residents will most likely move to these same counties, and Orange County. These seven counties will contain over 50 percent of Florida's population by the end of the century (Office of Planning and Budgeting 1986).
The population will also be concentrated in the coastal communities. More than 75 percent of Florida's residents live in a coastal county; this percentage is not expected to change in- the next two decades (Office of Planning and Budgeting 1986).
Naples is Florida's fastest growing area. Between 1970 and 1980, it posted a 126 percent population increase. Fort Myers was second with a 95 percent increase and Fort Pierce was third, with a 92 percent growth rate (Florida Trend January 1986).
By the turn of the century, the West Palm Beach-Boca Raton and Delray Beach areas are expected to be the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the nation. The area's population is expected to grow 61.3 percent to 1,063,000 individuals by the year 2000. The third highest growth projection in the nation is for Orlando with a growth rate of 50.5 percent. The Tampa-St. Petersburg metropolitan area is expected to grow 34.9 percent to 2,388,000 residents (Florida Trend January 1986).
During 1980 to 2000, Hernando, Osceola, Flagler, Citrus and Charlotte will be the five fastest growing counties in Florida. The Office of Planning and Budgeting (1986) predicts that this demographic trend will present special problems as the urban growth in the large counties spills over to their formerly rural neighbors. This trend suggests a continuation of the urban sprawl that has characterized Florida's growth. New residents will be moving into the larger urban areas of the state.
� Most new residents to Florida likely will move to Dade, Broward, Pinellas, Hillsborough, Palm Beach, Duval and Orange counties.
The Florida population will continue to concentrate in coastal communities.
The fastest growing areas between 1970 and 1980 were Naples, Fort Myers and Fort Pierce. ,
The fastest growing metropolitan areas by the turn of the century are expected to be the West Palm Beach-Delray Beach-Boca Raton region, Orlando and the Tampa-St. Petersburg metropolitan area.
The fastest growing counties in Florida are expected to be Hernando, Osceola, Flagler, Citrus and Charlotte.
Characteristics of In- and Out-migrants
For every two persons migrating to Florida, one person migrates from Florida. Between 1975-80, two million people moved to Florida, and one million left (Florida Trend, January 1986). Approximately 1,000 people a day are currently moving into Florida (Bureau of Economic and Business Research, pers. comm.).
Hazlett (January/February 1986) analyzed the characteristics of Florida's in- and out-migrants and found that, although Florida gained persons -in every age category, the largest number of out-migrants were persons in the 25- to 29-year-old category. Persons in the 20- to 24-year-old category were the second largest group to leave the state (Table 27).
The largest net migrations occurred in age classes above 34 years old. Between 1975 and 1980, the 35- to 44-year age class increased by 108,518 persons, the 45 to 54 group increased by 115,900 persons; the 55 to 64 increased by 224,149 individuals and the 65 and older age class increased by 230,789 persons (Table 27).
The age classes turning over most rapidly tend to include the younger labor force. As Florida Trend (January 1986:1) reports, "This group generally is more mobile, more agreeable to job transfers and most likely to be dissatisfied with the quality of life in Florida. Some are simply overwhelmed by all the growth and development being experienced by the major urban centers."
Hazlett (January 1986) found that most of Florida's new residents come from New York, Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Illinois. Between 1975 and 1980, more than 100,000 people moved to Florida from each of these states. In contrast, 104,000 Floridians moved to Georgia, 81,000 to Texas, 70,000 to California, 52,000 to North Carolina, and 49,000 to New York. Overall, Florida gains more residents from the northeast and upper midwest and loses more residents to western, southwestern and other southeastern states (Hazlett 1986) (Figure 25).
In another study, Hazlett (Tallahassee Democrat 1986b) found that the movement of people into and out of Florida is not random; "there are clean
patterns in terms of where people come from and where they settle." Between 1978-84, the chief sources of new Florida residents were New York, Ohio and Georgia. These states, plus Pennsylvania, Illinois, New Jersy and Michigan accounted for one third of the 2.4 million new residents.
Hazlett (Tallahassee Democrat 1986b) found that:
"Persons settling in north Florida are predominantly from Georgia and Texas, while Ohioans go primarily to southwest Florida and other Gulf Coast counties such as Pinellas and Pasco. A proportion of New Yorkers join the Ohio flow to Pinellas and Pasco, but they overwhelmingly prefer Broward, Dade and Palm Beach Counties."
Hazlett (Tallahassee Democrat 1986b) also found that the growth in the Tampa and Orlando areas is due in large part to Floridians moving in from other Florida counties, not from people moving in from other states. Between 1978-84, out-migrants moved most often to Georgia, New York, Texas, California and North Carolina.
Elabassi and Hazlett (1986) found that although Florida gains more individuals than it loses in all demographic classes, there are many disproportionate gains in each. For each person with eight years of elementary school education who moved from Florida, three persons moved in with the same level of education. A similar ratio holds true for persons with a high school education. However, for every Floridian with four years of college education who moved out of state, there were fewer than two persons with a college education who moved in. In relative terms, Florida is thus receiving proportionately fewer persons with college educations--only 37 percent of in-migrants have had some college education, while 44 percent of the out-migrants have had this level of education (Table 28). The authors speculate the statistics reflect an elderly composition of in-migrants: higher education was not as accessible when many of the elderly, the largest number of in-migrants, were growing up.
Elabassi and Hazlett (1986) also found that almost one-half of the in-migrants (46 percent) were not part of the labor force, again reflecting the high rate of in-migration by the elderly. Of the employed migrants, 25 percent of in-migrants were managers and professionals, while 27 percent of this same work group migrated out. Thirty-two percent who moved out were in the technical, sales and administrative support occupations, while 33 percent migrated in. Fifteen percent of in-migrants and 13 percent of out-migrants were in service occupations, 3 percent of in-migrants and 2 percent of out-migrants were in farming, forestry and fishery occupations, 12 percent of in- and out-migrants were in precision production, craft and repair occupations, while 13 percent of in-migrants and 14 percent out-migrants were laborers (Table 29).
� For every two persons moving to Florida, one person moves out of the state.
� Approximately 1,000 people a day are moving into Florida.
The largest group of out-migrants consists of persons aged 20 to 44.
The largest group of in-migrants consists of persons over 40 years old.
The largest net migration occurs in age groups 34 and older.
Florida gains more residents from the Northeast than it loses.
Florida loses more residents than it gains to other Southeastern states and the West.
Although Florida is gaining more individuals in all educational groups, it is receiving proportionately fewer persons with a college education.
Forty-six percent of in-migrants are not part of the labor force, reflecting the high rate of in-migration by the elderly.
Other Important National Demographic Trends
Burch (1983) identified another important national demographic trend: new households with solid growth rates. These households include young, professional couples without children--one-half of the nation's families are without children; households of unmarried adults, households with older parents and only one child, single person households (in Florida the average household is shrinking. In 1960, there were 3.11 persons per household. In 1970, the figure dropped to 2.9 and in 1980 to 2.55. Besides Washington, D.C., Florida has the smallest-sized households in the nation), gay and lesbian households and the fastest growing household type--single parent households. Burch comments that, "the typical young, suburban, White, adult male and female household with 2.5 children, a leave-it-to-Beaver image, is charming, but hardly describes America today, let alone 1990 and beyond."
Schenborn (1985:305) compiled several demographic, social, economic and political trends that will have impacts on resource management and environmental protection agencies identified by Naisbitt (1982), Toffler (1980), Yankelovich (1981) and the U.S. Census Bureau. Some of the greatest impacts include:
"1. Dramatic shifts in the demographic composition of our constituencies.
2. Changes in social values and the relationship of society to the resources we manage for the society.
3. Movement toward,a demassified society of narrowly defined and highly specialized resource users and non-users, each demanding a "fair share" of our limited natural resources.
4. A continued public demand for deregulation and down-sizing of
government agencies, and more direct public participation in decision making and program implementation.
5. Changes in the basic industrial and agricultural composition of the U.S. economy that will cause increased land and water use conflicts.
6. Widespread public demand for "quality" recreational experiences and a high quality contaminant-free natural environment (air, surface and ground water, fish and wildlife)."
� The average household size in Florida is shrinking-- in 1960 it was 3.11 persons per household; in 1980 it was 2.55
� Besides Washington, D.C., Florida has the smallest-sized household in the nation.
The Voting Public
As of January 1985, Florida had a total of 5,574,472 registered voters. Of these, 2,741,129 were White Democrats and 571,944 were Black Democrats (total--3,313,073); 1,876,722 were White Republicans and 19,215 were Black Republicans (total--1,895,937); 365,462 of Floridians belonged to other parties (Table 30).
Florida is often depicted as having deep regional and political cleavages between the traditional, "Old South" north and the urban, increasingly liberal central and southern regions. Recent findings by deHaven-Smith and Gatlin (1985) indicate that, although there are some clear differences in voting behavior between regions, public opinion is similar throughout the state on most issues, including those related to environmental protection. In a series of public opinion polls, deHaven-Smith found that the Florida voter, whether in the panhandle, peninsula or the Gold Coast, supports laws for managing growth and environmental issues. deHaven-Smith and Gatlin (1985:18) state:
"Overall, the Florida public is strongly supportive of the state's efforts to protect the environment and quality of life. The majority of respondents said that the natural environment is deteriorating and that land-use regulations should be strengthened. Respondents overwhelmingly supported stronger laws to prevent pollution and protect fish and wildlife from the hazards of construction, said that regulations for water conservation are needed and opposed economic growth if it means the environment will suffer.
The only regional variation in attitudes on these growth management issues is of degree, not direction. Respondents in the Gold Coast and peninsula were more likely than those in the panhandle to believe that Florida's environment is getting worse, that land-use regulations' should be-strengthened, and that water needs to be conserved. However, support for land-use controls and environmental protection is also very strong in the
panhandle, certainly much, much stronger than prevailing analyses of the Florida public assume" (see Table 31).
For our purposes, it is important to note Floridians' responses to the statement "Florida needs strong laws to protect fish and wildlife." Eighty-seven percent of panhandle residents agreed, 91 percent peninsula residents agreed and 89 percent Gold Coast residents agreed (Table 31) .
deHaven-Smith (1986:17) reports that opponents of stronger land-use controls are a:
"...Coalition of the young (18 to 24 year olds), the working poof and the relatively well off. For obvious reasons, people who are young or have low incomes are concerned with economic development of their communities and fear policies that threaten to limit employment opportunities and raise the cost of housing. The well off, on the other hand, probably oppose stronger land-use controls because such controls would interfere with their own activities, either in land speculation or in developing their coastal home estates." In contrast to this, he continues, "The stronghold for support of strict land-use planning and zoning is among middle-class adults. Individuals in this group usually have well-established careers and therefore do not see economic development as an important'objective. Instead, they are concerned about protecting their largest investment--their houses. Hence, they come out strongly in favor of policies that serve the integrity of single-family residential communities . "
deHaven-Smith believes the conflict will subside as a result of Florida's changing demography. The state's most rapidly growing cohort is the economically active adults who want and are willing to.pay for growth management. By the year 2000, almost one-third of Florida's citizens will be between the ages-of 35 and 54, up from one-fifth in 1980. In contrast, the percentage of cohorts in opposition to land-use regulations remain stable or is declining.
Hazlett (1984) analyzed the changing racial and partisan composition of Florida voters and found that shifts in the demographic structure of the state, in political preferences and in voter registration indicate the following:
� Increasing voter participation due to a gradual increase in the voting age of Floridians (As a population ages, voter participation usually increases: 35-year olds are twice as likely to vote as are 18-year olds) and an increase in Florida's voting age population relative to the state's total population (The voting age population has increased 12 percent since the 1980 presidential election and should increase another 13 percent by 1988. Florida's total population has grown about 11 percent every four years). As a result of these two factors, the percentage of Floridians registered to vote has increased from 65 to 67 percent.
� The number of new registrations varies substantially by race. White registered voters -increased 14 percent, while Black registration has
increased by 29 percent. Registration now stands at 63 percent for both races.
� The number of registered Democrats has increased 7 percent from the 1980 level of three million, whereas the number of registered Republicans has increased 33 percent.
However, as Hazlett points out, only half of Florida's voting age population actually votes, although more than three-quarters of Floridians who are of voting age are registered to vote.
Parker (1985:18) analyzed changing party loyalties in Florida and found some evidence that Florida residents are beginning to shift their party attachments from the Democratic to the Republican party. In 1979 and 1980, Democrats maintained a 2:1 edge over Republican identifiers. By 1983, the Democratic edge had slipped to 3:2 over Republicans^. By 1985, however, the Republicans had pulled even with the Democrats. It appears as though the Republicans' gain has come at the expense of the Democrats because the number of Independents remained virtually unchanged during this time (Table 34). Parker found that newer residents are considerably less Democratic in their identifications than native and long-term residents. Parker states, "This suggests that the influx of new residents has contributed to the diminution of Democratic identifiers in the state because new residents come to Florida with weaker ties to the Democratic party than natives with a greater tendency to identify with the Republican party." This change pushed Republican identifiers from 19-point underdogs in 1979 to parity with Democratic identifiers in 1985 (Table 34). However, this increase has been centered in the White electorate in Florida. Among Blacks, the Democrats still enjoy a 9:1 lead over Republicans. Among Whites, Republicans outnumbered Democrats (Figure 27).
These trends point to a more Republican orientation in Florida as older, more Democratic generations are replaced by younger, more Republican individuals in their party identification. Additionally, the influx of new residents will also increase Republican loyalties because these newer residents are less Democratic in their party identification than native residents (Parker 1985) (Tables 35-36).
How does the changing political orientation among Floridians affect future environmental attitudes? Although no one can predict with certainty, it appears as though it may not have that great of an impact. There seems to be widespread support for increased spending for environmental protection among both Democrats and Republicans. Whereas 63 percent of Democrats want increased spending for environmental protection, 57 percent of the Republicans also want increased spending (Table 37). In contrast, 56 percent of Democrats want increased spending for low-income families, whereas only 36 percent of Republicans want increased spending for this cause (Table 38). This contrast brings up an important point: Republicans as well as Democrats support environmental protection. Interestingly, support for environmental protection is evenly
1 There can be differences between the party one identifies with and the party with which one is registered.
spread throughout the varying demographic groups of Floridians, averaging around 60 percent in favor of increased spending for environmental protection (Table 37). Republican polls confirm this. According to Mitchell (1984), "The public remains committed to environmentalism, even if the issue is less important personally than other more immediate and pressing concerns."
� Although there are more registered Democrats than Republicans in Florida, there appear to be more Republican identifiers.
� Public opinion polls indicate the Florida voter supports laws for managing growth and environmental issues.
� Florida's changing demography appears to be working in favor of environmental support.
� It appears as though the state will become more oriented toward the Republican party in the future as a result of changing demographics.
� Public opinion polls indicate Republicans are as likely to support increased funding for environmental protection as Democrats.
� According to the Florida Annual Policy Survey, approximately 60 percent of the public (regardless of political party, age, educational level, income, gender, region or years of residence in Florida) want increased spending for environmental protection; approximately 30 percent believe spending should be kept at present levels.
Tourists and Tourism in Florida
Florida received approximately 39 million tourists in 1983, of which about 36.5 million came from the U.S. and Canada. About 2.4 million were international visitors. Of the visitors who arrived from the U.S. and Canada, 13.2 million arrived by air and 21.9 million arrived by automobile. About 1.4 million arrived by bus and rail (Bureau of Economic and Business Research 1985). A new methodology for estimating automobile visitors was applied in 1984 and 1985. These more accurate surveys estimated about 14.6 million automobile visitors in 1984 and 15.8 million in 1985. A methodology that estimates the number of air passengers arriving at major Florida airports and factors out resident travel estimated the number of 1984 air visitors at approximatley 13.9 million and the number of 1985 air visitors at 14.3 million. Using these new methods and estimates, Florida received about 28.1 million domestic air and automobile visitors in 1984 and 30.1 million domestic air and automobile visitors in 1985 (Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism 1985) .
Air Visitors. In 1984, Florida received more air tourists (1.74 million) from New York than from any other state. Ohio (995,000), Pennsylvania-(971,000), New Jersey (866,000), Massachusetts (643,000), Illinois (632,000),
Georgia (587,000), Michigan (579,000), California (553,000) and Texas (534,000) followed New York as the top tourist origins (Marth and Marth 1985).
Of the 9,000 visitors surveyed by the Division of Tourism in 1985, the top ten domestic visitor destinations included the Orange-Osceola-Walt Disney World region (16.3 percent), Dade County (16 percent), Broward County (14.1 percent), Palm Beach County (8.5 percent), Pinellas County (6.6 percent), Lee County (5.9 percent), Sarasota County (5.7 percent), Hillsborough County (5.1 percent), Duval County (4.9 percent) and Collier County (2.6 percent).
For 1985 air visitors surveyed, the main purpose of the trip was to visit friends and relatives (34.5 percent), vacation (24.8 percent) company/government business (23.9 percent), personal (4.9 percent), other (3.5 percent), convention/conference/trade show (3.0 percent) and to vacation on a cruise ship (1.8 percent) (Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism 1985).
The top ten reasons air visitors enjoy Florida included the climate (16.2 percent), beaches (15.6 percent), rest and relaxation (15.4 percent), visit friends and relatives (11.9 percent), Florida attractions (10 percent), other (4.9 percent), dancing and night life (4.8 percent), water sports (3.9 percent), golf (3.4 percent) and fishing (2.6 percent) (Florida Department of Commerce 1985). Marth and Marth (1985) report that in 1983 1.7 percent enjoyed "nature study" in Florida. This percentage ranked 18th among the top things people liked about Florida.
The top ten major attractions of air visitors surveyed in 1985 by the Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism, included Walt Disney World (22.9 percent), Epcot Center (21.7 percent), Sea World (9.5 percent), Busch Gardens (6.1 percent), Kennedy Space Center (3.7 percent), Cypress Gardens (2.5 percent), Church Street Station (1.9 percent), Wet 'N Wild (1.6 percent), Circus World (1.2 percent) and the Miami Seaquarium (1.1 percent) (Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism 1985). In 1984, the percentages were Epcot Center (24.1 percent), Walt Disney World (23.5 percent), Sea World (8.8 percent), Busch Gardens (5.6 percent), Kennedy Space Center (3.6 percent), Cypress Gardens (2.8 percent), Sightseeing (1.8 percent), Shell Factory (1.4 percent), Everglades National Park (1.3 percent) and the Miami Seaquarium (1.3 percent) (Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism 1984).
Lodging types used by domestic air visitors surveyed included hotel/motel (52 percent), friends/relatives (33.6 percent), condominium (7.5 percent), own home (3.1 percent), rental apartment (1.4 percent), trailer park (0.4 percent) and campground (0.3 percent) (Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism 1985).
Table 39 summarizes key demographic features of 1985 Florida air visitors surveyed. The largest percentage of visitors (20.7 percent) were 35 to 44 years old, followed by the 25- to 34-year age class (19.5 percent) followed by the 45- to 54-year age class (15.2 percent). Overall, 69 percent of visitors were aged 25 to 64. Twenty-five percent of air visitors surveyed had household incomes of over $60,000, 17 percent had incomes of $30,000 to $39,999, 16.5 percent had incomes of between $40,000 and $49,999, and 13.5 percent had incomes between $50,000 and $59,999. Forty-one percent of the male air
visitors were in professional/executive occupations, 29.8 percent were managers/white collar professionals, 11.1 percent were in blue collar professions and 11 percent were retired/semi-retired. Of the females surveyed, 32 percent were students/homemakers/military, 27.7 percent were in managerial/white collar professions, 19.7 percent were in professional/executive occupations 'and 12.4 percent were retired/semi-retired (Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism 1985).
Auto Visitors. In 1985, the top ten origins of automobile visitors surveyed by the Florida Department of Commerce (1985) were Georgia (13.9 percent), Ohio (6.7 percent), Tennessee (6.1 percent), Louisiana (5.1 percent), Pennsylvania (4.8 percent), Michigan (4.7 percent), North Carolina (4.5 percent), Illinois (4.4 percent), New York (4.3 percent) and Texas (4.2 percent).
The top ten destinations for automobile visitors surveyed in 1985 by the Flordia Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism (1985) were the Orange-Osceola-Walt Disney World region (16.6 percent), Volusia County (10.7 percent), Bay County (10.4 percent), Escambia County (4.8 percent), Okaloosa County (4.7 percent), Pinellas County (4.5 percent), Duval County (4.4 percent), Brevard County (4.3 percent), Broward County (3.9 percent) and Hillsborough County (3.4 percent).
The main purpose of the trips for automobile visitors surveyed was to vacation (44.2 percent), to visit friends/relatives (43.8 percent), for personal (3.8 percent), personal business (3.6 percent), company/government business (2.8 percent), for a convention (0.7 percent) and for a cruise (0.1 percent) (Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism, 1985).
The top ten reasons automobile visitors enjoyed Florida were beaches (18.7 percent), rest and relaxation (15.7 percent), climate (15.5 percent), Florida attractions (11.9 percent), visit friends/relatives (11.1 percent), water sports (5.2 percent), fishing (4.9 percent), golf (3.6 percent) and historical sites (1.9 percent) (Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism, 1985) .
In 1985, 46 percent of automobile visitors surveyed attended one or more of Florida's attractions. The top ten major attractions included Epcot Center (22.8 percent), Walt Disney World (22 percent), Sea World (7.9 percent), Kennedy Space Center (7.3 percent), Busch Gardens (5.9 percent), Cypress Gardens (4.0 percent), Silver Springs (3.3 percent), Marineland (1.4 percent), Weeki Wachee Springs (0.9 percent) and Gatorland' Zoo (0.8 percent) (Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism, 1985). In 1984, the top ten major attractions of automobile visitors surveyed were Epcot Center (25.5 percent), Walt Disney World (23.8 percent), Sea World (8.8 percent), Kennedy Space Center/Spaceport USA (7.5 percent), Busch Gardens (54.1 percent), Cypress Gardens (3.8 percent), Silver Springs (3.3 percent), Miracle Strip Amusement Park (2.0 percent), Gatorland Zoo (1.4 percent) and Weeki Wachee Springs (1.1 percent) (Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism 1985).
Lodging types used by 1985 automobile visitors surveyed were hotel/motel (41.2 percent), friend/relative (37 percent), condominum (6.4 percent),
campground (6 percent), own home (3 percent), trailer park (2.8 percent) and rental apartment (2.2 percent) (Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism, 1985).
Table 40 summarizes key demographic characteristics of Florida automobile visitors surveyed by the Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism (1985). The largest age groups for automobile visitors were the 65+ (20.4 percent) and the 55- to 64-year olds (20.4 percent). Falling behind these age classes were the 45- to 54-year age class (14.2 percent), 35- to 44-year age class (13.4 percent), 25- to 34-year class (11.8 percent) and the 0- to 12-year age class (10.6 percent).
The household income range of 1985 Florida automobile visitors surveyed included 24.7 percent with incomes between $20,000 and $29,999, 23.5 percent between $30,000 and $39,999, 14.7 percent between $10,000 and $19,999 and 13.9 percent between $40,000 and $49,999 (Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism 1985).
Of the male automobile visitors surveyed in 1985, 34.5 percent were retired/semi-retired, 20 percent were blue collar workers, 19.1 percent were managers/white collar workers and 18.4 percent were in professional/executive occupations. Of the female automobile visitors surveyed, 35 percent were in the student/homemaker/military category, 23.8 percent were retired/semi-retired, 20.6 were managers/white collar workers and 10.2 percent were in professional/executive occupations (Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism 1985).
Florida Trend (August 1986:1) profiles the typical Florida tourist as "a 45-year-old White male with two other members in his family and an annual household income of $31,200."
Overall, white-collar/managerial workers constitute 31.7 percent of the people who visit Florida's beaches, followed by professional executives (21.9 percent), retired people (18.6 percent) and blue-collar workers (15.1 percent). The remaining beach use is made up of students, homemakers and military personnel (Florida Trend August 1986).
Park Visitation. Florida's natural areas are included among tourists' destinations. In FY 1983-84, 14.9 million people visited Florida's state parks; 14.8 million visited in FY 1982-83. During FY 1983-84, Florida's most popular state parks were Anastasia (1,180,258 visits), Caladesi Island (718,585 visits), Honeymoon Island (1,767,819 visits), John Pennekamp Coral Reef (599,012 visits) Lloyd Beach (604,558 visits), St. Andrews (569,514 visits) and Sebastian Inlet (1,726,208 visits) (Bureau of Economic and Business Research 1985). In 1985, 1,176,342 visitors stayed overnight in Florida's state parks (Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism 1985).
The national park system in Florida also receives thousands of tourists. In 1984, approximately 8,165,000 people visited one or more of the following areas: Biscayne National Park, Canaveral National Seashore, Castille de San Marcos National Monument, DeSoto National Memorial, Everglades National Park, Fort Caroline National Memorial, Fort Jefferson National Monument, Fort
Matanzas National Monument and Gulf Islands National Seashore (Florida Bureau .of Economic and Business Research 1985).
In a survey on the vacation habits of Floridians, Response Analysis Corporation (1985:78-79) found that state and national parks have been used by one-third of Florida residents; the most popular destinations were the Everglades National Park and the Ocala National Forest. Among subgroup differences, Response Analysis Corporation found:
� Older residents with no children at home (18 percent) are less likely to visit state parks than are other residents with or without families (39 percent).
� Those individuals with higher incomes have a greater tendency to use Florida's state parks (43 percent of residents with incomes of $25,000 or more versus 27 percent of residents with incomes less than $25,000).
� Retired residents (19 percent) are less likely to visit state parks than are residents who work full or part time (about 38 percent).
� There is a tendency for residents who do not take overnight trips to use state parks less frequently than other residents (22 percent compared to 38 percent of those whose overnight trips are shorter than one week, 47 percent of those whose trips are one week or longer and 42 percent of those who take both long and short overnight trips).
� There is a decided relationship between day trip travel and use of Florida's state parks--21 percent of those who do take trips use state parks, compared to 47 percent of those who take one- to two-day trips per month, 42 percent of whose who take three- to five-day trips per month and 53 percent of those who take six- or more-day trips per month.
� Older residents (21 percent) are less likely to use Florida's state parks than are residents under age 55 (39 percent).
� The most popular park-forest areas were Everglades (6 percent), Ocala National Forest (6 percent), John Pennekamp State Park (3 percent), Myakka State Park (2 percent), Sebastian Inlet Recreational Area (1 percent), Anastasia Recreational Area (1 percent), Bill Bogs Cape Florida Recreational Area (1 percent), John Lloyd Beach Recreational Area (1 percent), Lake Talquin Recreational Area (1 percent), Merritt Island/Cape Canaveral National Seashore (1 percent), St. Andrews Recreational Area (1 percent) and Honeymoon Island State Park (0.3 percent).
� Approximately one-fourth of Floridians have visited an historical site in the last two years.
� Overall, parks and historic sites are appealing to middle and upper income vacationers.
� In-state travelers are likely to be young (under 45), employed full time and have middle-to-upper incomes.
Florida Vacationers. The Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism, publishes a guide to Florida's attractions entitled "The Florida Vacation Guide." The guide's stated purpose is to "tell you all you need to now about Florida's staggering diversity, its beautiful beaches, gardens, resorts and weather; its pulsating nightlife and plethora of sporting activities, both spectator and participatory; and its spectacular attractions, both man-made and natural." The guide is available to interested persons for $2.50, and is advertised in several national and regional magazines.
In 1983, students in MAM 4614, Advanced Marketing Research, Florida State University, conducted a study to determine the vacation habits, demographics and lifestyles of the people who requested "The Florida Vacation Guide." Among other conclusions, they found that "teamed with the findings from the age, education and occupation questions, strong evidence supports the belief that the young, high income, well-educated people are the ones who are sending for the guide" (Florida Department of Commerce 1983:31).
In 1983, the Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism, entered into a contract with the Government Research Divis ion of Tourism and the Government Research Division of Audits and Surveys, Inc., to conduct a new domestic market study. The objective of this qualitative research was to "explore ways of encouraging visitors from nontraditional domestic markets." Among other suggestions, the report suggested marketing many nontraditional aspects of Florida's assets. Zdep (1983:65), the primary author of the report, continuously suggests marketing Florida's natural beauty:
"It was pointed out that the Fountain of Youth, an airboat ride through the Everglades, fishing, diving and even the flora of the state could be capitalized upon for attracting visitors to Florida."
In another section, Zdep (1983:75) states:
"Another tour operator mentioned that people go to Peru or Kasmir for bird watching when there are just as many opportunities in Florida. Florida is simply not promoted as such."
For better or worse, if these professional suggestions point to the use of Florida's wildlife/natural resources to market Florida tourism, there are definite implications. First, increased "non-consumptive" use may impact Florida's wildlife populations. Second, the interest sparked by using wildlife as a marketing medium may increase financial and/or political support for wildlife management.
In a survey on the vacation habits of Floridians, Response Analysis Corporation (1985) found that:
� Nearly 50 percent of Florida residents have visited Disney World in the last two years.
� In the last two years, 23 percent of Floridians have visited Epcot, 22 percent have visited Busch Gardens and 20 percent have visited Sea World.
� Circus World, Cypress Gardens, zoo/animals, Silver Springs, Seaquarium, St. Augustine, Marineland and Weeki Wachee Springs were also very popular paid attractions visited by Florida vacationers in the last two years.
According to Florida Trend (August 1986:1), the average resident beach user is a 43-year-old White woman who has lived in Florida about 20 years and has an annual income of $26,045.
PUBLIC OPINION AND HUMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND WILDLIFE
Public Opinion Toward Environmental Protection and Wildlife
Cerulean (1986) found that 13.3 percent of a sample population of 1,000 Floridians ranked wildlife as the top priority for increased funding by the state government. Crime (48.3 percent) and low-income families (23.9 percent) were ranked by more individuals as a top priority, while the promotion of tourism (4.9 percent) was ranked by the least number of people as a top funding priority.
Cerulean also found that wildlife is very important to a majority of Floridians. Ninety-six and one-half percent of the sample population agreed that knowing wildlife exists in Florida is important (80.1 percent, very important; 16.4 percent, somewhat important); watching wildlife on trips was very important to 61.4 percent and somewhat important to 29.5 percent, and knowing that wildlife is around their homes was very important to 60.3 percent and somewhat important to 27.9 percent of the sample population.
Parker and Oppenheim (1986) found that environmental issues ranked fourth among Floridians as one of the most important perceived problem areas in 1986, following community development, crime and social problems (such as immigration, discrimination, problems of the elderly and health care) (Figure 26).
The percentage of the population that feels the environment should be the top priority for increased funding has increased since 1980, rising from 5.3 percent in 1980, 3.7 percent in 1981, 3.6 percent in 1982, 5.6 percent in 1983, 10.2 percent in 1984, 10.0 percent in 1985, and 11.2 percent in 1986 (Parker and Oppenheim 1986) (Table 32).
The percentage of Floridians who believe funding for environmental protection should be increased has also increased since 1980. In 1979, 59.9 percent of the sample population believed spending for the environment should be increased. In 1980, the figure dropped to 46.7 percent, dropping further in 1981 and 1982 to 43.6 percent and 41.3 percent, respectively. However, since 1983, the percentage has continued to rise. In 1983, 49.6 percent, in 1984, the figure rose to 54.2 percent, to 58.7 percent in 1985 and to 60.4 percent in 1986 (Parker and Oppenheim 1986) (Table 33). The decreases in percentage during 1980 to 1982 most likely reflects the initial strong support by citizens during the early Reagan years of a decrease in government spending, no matter what the social or environmental cost. However, this attitude appears to have reversed itself, reflecting pre-Reagan percentages since 1983.
In a study on public perceptions toward Florida's growth problems, Frank and Connerly (1985) asked Floridians whether they thought population growth had contributed to crime, air pollution, declining water quality in lakes, rivers or oceans, loss of natural areas, higher taxes, poor drainage and flooding or an increase in new people different from the respondent, and found that, although the proportion of respondents agreeing that population growth had contributed to all these problems was greater than 50 percent, the highest response was to "loss of natural areas" with 76.7 percent of the respondents
answering affirmatively. In response to several possible solutions to Florida's growth problems, 80.9 percent of those surveyed agreed that development in fragile natural areas such as floodplains, beaches, scenic areas or marshes should be prohibited (43.3 percent strongly agreed, 37.6 percent agreed, 13.7 percent disagreed and 2.4 percent strongly disagreed).
A recent Palm Beach Post-University of Florida poll indicated that the vast majority of Florida voters are worried that the state's environment is deteriorating. Seventy-seven percent of registered voters agreed that Florida's environmental quality is declining. However, Florida voters are split on how to curb the growth that is degrading environmental quality.^ Forty-three percent agreed that the government should control population growth, while 41 percent disagreed; 17 percent were neutral (Tallahassee Democrat 1986c).
deHave"n-Smith (1985) found strong public support for strong fish and wildlife laws. Eighty-seven percent of panhandle residents, 91 percent of peninsula residents and 89 percent Gold Coast residents agreed with the statement "Florida needs strong laws to protect fish and wildlife."
deHaven-Smith (1986b) found that a majority of residents in northeast Florida (52.2 percent) believe land-use regulations should be strengthened to reduce development or improve construction quality. Support for stronger controls was widespread, both across the region and across demographic cohorts. (Putnam County was the only county where most respondents felt land-use regulations should be left as is.) Overall deHaven-Smith found that the north Florida residents desired high-quality development. They were not opposed to growth but they wanted strong land-use controls, additional parks and more of the cost of growth paid for by developers.
Nationally, environmental protection appears to have strong public support. Harris (1985:68), after completing several studies on public perceptions, attitudes and desires of the public on natural resource management issues, concluded:
"Perhaps the most remarkable fact about environmental issues is that the establishment consistently both underestimates the seriousness of pollution problems and the depth of feeling of the public about cleaning up the mess...
[T]he common assumption is that the top priority of the country is to stimulate economic growth. Indeed, keeping the economy growing and prosperous is a top priority. But then, often the next step is to add, when environmental matters come up, that a cleanup should take place only when in consonance with economic growth. But bluntly, if the choice is between growth and a cleanup, then the cleanup must take a back seat. Well, I can report to you categorically that by a 63-33 percent, a solid majority of the American people reject that view."
^ This question was criticized for possibly leading people to believe the government should impose quotas on in-migration.
Schneider (1983) found similar results and stated, "...The public in recent months has shifted away from its preference for a balanced (between economic growth and environmental protection) policy and asserted a clear priority for environmental needs."
Harris found that the majority of Americans believe a variety of environmental issues (acid rain, air pollution, hazardous wastes) are serious problems, and "it's about time to do something about acid rain, as it is about time to do more about toxic waste dumps, and to do more about keeping the environment from continuing to be fouled." Furthermore, Harris found that the public feels little has been done to alleviate these problems. Harris (1985:70) concludes:
"[TJhe dynamic of change in recent years has always been in one direction: the American people get tougher and tougher and more adamant and more shocked about the state of environmental cleanup. And they are literally furious that there has been so much perceived foot-dragging on the part of those with the power to get things done. Thus, the majorities in any sound poll conducted on this subject are simply huge and staggering."
In a public opinion poll conducted by CBS news and the New York Times in 1983, 58 percent of those individuals sampled agreed that "environmental protection is so important that requirements and standards cannot be too high [and that] continuing environmental improvements must be made, regardless of cost." A similar poll in 1981 showed that 45 percent were of this opinion (New York Times. April 29, 1983).
In the most comprehensive national public opinion survey on wildlife and natural habitat issues, Kellert (1980c, 1980d, 1980e) found that, in general, Americans consider wildlife an important part of their culture and heritage, although they do not know much about wildlife or its needs. As Kellert (1980c:123) concluded:
"...[T]he majority of Americans appeared to strongly value wildlife and have expressed a willingness to make substantial social and economic sacrifices to protect this resource and associated habitat. Various findings consistently indicated wildlife was not just the concern of an esoteric and elitist minority, but instead, had broad appeal to many, if not most, Americans. The impression was that an abundant, diverse and healthy wildlife population contributes, in the minds of many, to a high standard and quality of life.
On the other hand, the wildlife views of most Americans appeared to be based on limited factual understanding and awareness. Moreover, interest and concern for animals were largely confined to attractive and emotionally appealing species. While substantial growth in wildlife appreciation is certainly a welcome development, inadequate knowledge and an inordinately narrow perspective must also be recognized and used to form the basis for more innovative public awareness efforts."
Kellert's national study of American attitudes, knowledge and behaviors toward wildlife was organized around critical wildlife issues, public knowledge
and attitudes toward animals, species preferences, characteristics of various activities involving animals, historical trends in wildlife use, and children's attitudes, knowledge and behaviors toward animals. This section focuses on results from the study of critical wildlife issues; results from the other major areas will be reviewed later.
Kellert's critical wildlife issues include public attitudes toward endangered species, predator control, wildlife habitat protection, hunting, species population control, trapping, harvesting furbearers and marine mammals, and funding wildlife management.
Kellert explored the endangered species issue in the context of impacts on diverse activities resulting from the protection of different species.
The first question explored the scenario of a costly modification to an energy development project in order to protect various endangered species. Eighty-nine percent of those surveyed were willing to incur a substantial increase in cost in order to protect the bald eagle, eastern mountain lion (73 percent), Agassiz trout (71 percent), American crocodile (70 percent) and the silverspot butterfly (64 percent). Less than a majority were willing to incur the cost in order to protect the Furbish lousewort, an endangered plant (48 percent in favor), the eastern indigo snake (43 percent in favor) or the Kauai wolf spider (24 percent in favor).
The next question weighed the protection of a little-known, rare fish against various types of "essential" and "non-essential" water uses. The public strongly opposed curtailing water use projects in order to protect the unknown fish for essential human benefits despite their adverse impacts--87 percent favored water diversions to increase human drinking supplies, 83 percent to irrigate agricultural crops and 72 percent to build a dam to provide hydroelectric energy power. When the relatively "non-essential" projects were compared to protecting the endangered fish, 60 percent opposed constructing a dam to make a lake for recreational purposes and 48 percent approved (46 percent opposed) diverting water to cool industrial plant machinery.
Fifty-six percent of those surveyed approved of preserving large areas for grizzly bears, even if a loss of jobs and building materials occurred; 39 percent opposed.such a measure.
The public also supported efforts to save marsh habitat for endangered birds. Fifty-five percent disapproved (38 percent approved) of building an industrial plant in a large coastal town which would employ 1,000 people in an area with an unemployment problem, if it destroyed a marsh needed by an endangered species.
Based on the endangered species questions, Kellert (1980c) found that college-educated, single, under 30 years of age and large city resident groups expressed a significantly greater willingness to protect endangered wildlife. In contrast, groups of individuals 76 years and older, with less than an eighth-grade education, farmers, residents of highly rural areas and Southerners obtained the lowest scores for willingness to protect endangered species, according to the analysis of variance results.
Kellert (1980c) identified six factors as critical to the public's willingness to protect endangered wildlife: aesthetics, phylogenetic related-ness to human beings, direct versus indirect causes of endangerment (overex-ploitation versus habitat loss), economic value of the species, socioeconomic impact of protection, and cultural and historical relationship to the species.
Kellert also explored wildlife habitat protection issues. He (1980c:113) states, "The national sample consistently indicated a moderate but significant willingness to protect wildlife habitat despite substantial socio-economic impacts." Specifically, a significant 51 percent opposed (44 percent approved of) natural resource development in wilderness even if it meant smaller wildlife populations; 57 percent disagreed (39 percent agreed) with the statement, "I approve of building on marshes that ducks and other non-endangered wildlife use if the marshes are needed for housing development;" 60 percent favored restricting livestock grazing on public lands to protect vegetation needed by wildlife despite higher meat costs (34 percent disagreed); 76 percent agreed (20 percent disagreed) that "cutting trees for lumber and paper should be done in ways that help wildlife even if this results in higher lumber prices," and 66 percent disapproved of development of oil resources that might be discovered in Yellowstone Park if it harmed the park's wildlife. The general public supported restrictions on off-road vehicles (ORV) use if it adversely affected wildlife populations. Eighty-six percent favored restrictions on ORV use if it harmed wildlife; 74 percent favored this restriction at a moderate "to'strong level and almost 80 percent of ORV users (11 days or more) also supported this restriction. A significant portion of the uninformed public approved of, while a significant proportion of the informed public opposed, pesticide use harmful to wildlife if needed to maintain current food production levels.3
Kellert (1980d) explored public attitudes toward possible wildlife management funding sources. Eighty-two percent supported an excise tax on fur clothing derived from wild furbearers, 71 percent supported an excise tax on ORV and 75 percent favored entrance fees to public wildlife areas, including wildlife refuges. Fifty-seven percent approved of a sales tax on camping and backpacking equipment, 54 percent on bird watching equipment and 57 percent favored increasing the amount of general tax revenues for wildlife management. The only funding possibility that received less than majority support (43 percent) was a sales tax on wildlife-related art and literature.
Kellert (198Qd:122) found that,' "The public overwhelmingly supported strict enforcement and severe penalties for illegal wildlife activities involving the killing of animals." Eighty-seven percent agreed (11 percent disagreed) that illegal killing of wildlife should result in stiff fines and, for repeat offenders, even prison sentences.
According to Kellert's (1980d) study, the public strongly supports wildlife-related educational activities. Seventy-three percent disagreed (24
3 The sample public was differentiated according to self-reported knowledge of this issue.
percent agreed) that the Federal Government should spend very little time and money on trying to educate the public about wildlife issues and problems.
On some miscellaneous wildlife issues, Kellert (1980d) found that 70 percent of the general public opposed increasing automobile, access to scenic public areas if this adversely affected the wildlife there, 72 percent disagreed that bird watching is a "waste of time"; 52 percent disagreed (36 percent agreed) that the goals of most environmentalists are a threat to the continued economic prosperity of our country (69 percent of those with a graduate education disagreed whereas 53 percent of those with less than a sixth-grade education agreed); 51 percent of the public agreed (44 percent disagreed) that more tax money should be spent on programs to increase wildlife in urban areas (60 percent of urban residents agreed and 36 percent disagreed, while 47 percent of rural residents agreed, and 50 percent disagreed).
Attitudes Toward Wildlife
Sociologists often survey behavior as a means of inferring what people think. Attitude studies survey people's thoughts in order to learn about their behavior or potential behavior.
Although there is controversy about the relationship between attitudes and behavior, attitudes can reflect "patterned feelings, ideas and beliefs and, in most cases, considerably influence individual action and activities" (Kellert 1980f:41).
Peters and Waterman (1982:73) characterize the ambiguous relationship between attitudes and behavior in this way:
"Intriguingly, this ambiguous area is a subject of heated long-term debate in psychology. There are two schools of thought. One says that attitudes (beliefs, policies, proclamations) precede actions � the "tell, then do" model. The other, clearly more dominant, reverses the logic. The Harvard psychologist Jerome Bruner captures the spirit when he says, 'You more likely act yourself into feeling than feel yourself into action.'"
Simon and Burstein (1985:170) also point out the difficulty in the relationship between attitudes and behavior:
"The justification given by many social psychologists for surveying attitudes about race relations is that we can infer something about people's behavior from their attitudes. Such inference is hazardous at best as advertising research tells us with great authority; there is a very tenuous relationship between what people say about a product and their actual purchasing. There must be some relationship between the contents of people's minds and what they do, but the relationship is very often not straightforward. Part of the trouble is that there is no one-to-one relationship between what is in a person's mind and what the person tells an interviewer."
Nevertheless, attitude studies are important because, as Kellert states,
"They reflect patterned feelings and underlying thoughts." Kellert (1980f:41) warns:
"It is important to recognize, however, that attitudes describe basic perceptions and not behaviors. Moreover, the attitudes should not be identified with individuals, people or groups--i.e., the attitudes often describe elements of a person's or group's perceptions of animals, but not all aspects. Instead, individuals and groups are usually characterized by a variety of attitudes, although in nearly all cases these attitudes are hierarchically evident in terms of primary, secondary and tertiary importance. �"
Kellert (1974, 1976) developed a typology of attitudes toward animals based on extensive open-ended and close-ended personal interviews with a variety of individuals nationwide. Kellert (1976:538) emphasizes that the findings are generalizations of large population groups and that "individual person differences cannot be inferred from such results, only the statistical likelihood that a particular attitude may occur in a particular group."
The nine basic attitudes toward animals were identified and labeled as the naturalistic, ecologistic, humanistic, moralistic, scientistic, aesthetic, utilitarian, dominionistic and negativistic (Table 41).
The naturalistic atti-tude is a primary interest and affection for wildlife and the outdoors in general. -Satisfaction is in direct, personal contact with natural settings; wildlife is valued for the opportunities it provides for natural setting activities. Kellert notes an occasional manifestation of this attitude in the reward derived from experiencing nature as an escape from the perceived pressures and deficiencies of modern industrial life.
The ecologistic attitude is primarily oriented toward wildlife and ecosystems in an intellectual and distant manner. This attitude focuses on the environment as a system and the interrelationships between wildlife species and natural habitats. Species of animals in their natural habitats are emphasized--not individual animals. This attitude is often marked by a considerable knowledge of animals, focusing on their behavioral and ecological relationships .
The humanistic attitude is manifested as a primary interest and strong affection for individual animals, typically pets. The pet is viewed as a companion, friend, even a member of the family. Although not specifically interested in wildlife, a humanistically oriented individual often extends his "love" for pets to the "love" of individual wild animals.
The primary concern of the moralistic attitude is for the "right" and "wrong" treatment of animals, with strong opposition to exploitation of or cruelty toward animals.
"Rather than deriving from strong affection for individual animals (the humanistic point of view) or from consideration of animal species (the ecologistic attitude), the moralistic attitude is typically more philosophical. It is based on ethical principles opposing the exploitation and
infliction of any harm, suffering, or death on animals" states Kellert (1976:535).
The scientistic attitude is "characterized by an objective, intellectual, somewhat circumscribed perspective of animals." Animals are regarded more as physical objects, studied for their physiological, biological and taxonomic characteristics.
The utilitarian attitude exhibits a primary concern for the practical, material and profitable value of animals and their habitats. Feelings toward the animal and habitat are usually subordinated to the more predominant interest in the usefulness of the animal.
The aesthetic attitude is characterized by a primary interest in the artistic and symbolic characteristics of animals, often manifested with an emotional detachment. "For the most part, they remain aloof from the living animal, enjoying it more as an object of beauty (in paintings, sculpture, movies) or of symbolic significance (in poetry, children's stories, cartoons)" (Kellert 1976:536).
The dominionistic attitude is characterized by a primary interest in the mastery and control of animals, typically in sporting situations. Animals are mainly regarded as providing opportunities for dominance, control, prowess and skill in competition, such as in rodeos, obedience training and trophy hunting.
Finally, the negativistic attitude is characterized by fear, dislike or indifference toward animals. This attitude is characterized by a sense of alienation and separation from the natural world (Table 41).
The postulated attitude occurrence, common behavioral expressions and most related benefits and values of the attitudes toward animals in American society are found in Table 42.
In a national survey, Kellert and Berry (1980) found the most common attitudes toward animals are the humanistic, neutralistic, moralistic and utilitarian attitudes. The least prevalent attitudes were the scientistic and dominionistic attitudes. At intervening levels were the naturalistic and ecologistic attitudes.
Kellert and Berry (1980) estimate that 35 percent of the American population is strongly oriented toward a neutralistic attitude, 35 percent toward the humanistic attitude, 20 percent toward the utilitarian attitude, another 20 percent toward the moralistic attitude, 15 percent toward the aesthetic attitude, 10 percent toward the naturalistic attitude, 7 percent toward the ecologistic attitude, 3 percent toward the doministic attitude, 2 percent toward the negativistic attitude and 1 percent toward the scientistic attitude. (These total more than 100 percent since persons can be strongly oriented toward more than one attitude.)
The humanistic, moralistic, utilitarian and negativistic attitudes were more frequently distributed throughout the population. The scientistic attitude was especially rare and appears to reflect the interests of a very
small segment of the American population, whereas the dominionistic attitude appears to be mildly present among a much larger group of people but fairly infrequent for the majority of Americans. The naturalistic attitude appears to be quite strong among a small segment ,of Americans but weakly evident in the rest of the population. The ecologistic attitude appears to be present at a modest level among a substantial portion of Americans but rarely in a highly committed fashion (Kellert and Berry 1980).
The attitude-based questions also revealed some valuable insights into the attitudes of the American public toward wildlife. Nearly 60 percent of the sample said they cared more about individual animals than species population levels; 63 percent of the public would prefer staying in a modern campground rather than in an isolated spot where there might be wild animals around; 58 percent of the public disagreed with the statement, "I find most insects fascinating;" 75 percent of the sample reported little concern for ecosystems or the population dynamics of wild animals. Two-thirds of the sample reported owning pets as dear to them as another person and 86 percent disagreed that love is an emotion people should feel for each other and not for animals. Almost two-thirds of the sample reported little interest in learning about the taxonomic characteristics of animals or in studying vertebrate zoology. Over 70 percent said they disliked most beetles and spiders; 60 percent said they were afraid to touch a snake and 80 percent thought rats and cockroaches should be eliminated.
The following sections are a compendium of human attitudes toward wildlife, habitat issues and wildlife-related activities among various demographic groups. The review begins with an abstract of Kellert's attitude topology in relation to the demographic variables, followed by key findings of other researchers in relation to the demographic variable. Finally, significant results from the 1986 Florida Wildlife Survey conducted by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission's Nongame Wildlife Program (identified as Cerulean 1986)^ are summarized.
Kellert and Berry (1984, 1980) found substantial differences in male-female attitudes, knowledge of and behaviors toward animals. Kellert and Berry concluded that gender variation is among the most important demographic factor in relationships with animals in our society.
A literature review conducted by Kellert and Berry (1984) revealed that most studies of male-female wildlife recreation have consistently found higher participation rates among males. The difference was especially striking when the activity resulted in either the physical dominance or death of the animal (hunting, trapping or fishing). Females tend to oppose hunting and trapping more than males and varying motivational patterns and satisfactions distinguish
^ Results from the 1986 Florida Wildlife Survey must be considered preliminary and tentative as data analysis is not complete. Also note the sample size for Hispanics in this survey was small.
female from male hunters. Other studies have shown that American men are more frequent participants in backpacking, wildlife photography and bird watching. Conversely, females are more likely to visit zoos and comprise a substantially larger proportion of humane and animal welfare organizations. Males, on the other hand, are more likely to be members of wildlife conservation and sportsmen-type organizations. Of the limited research that had been done prior to Kellert and Berry (1980), two relatively consistent results have been "significantly greater knowledge of wildlife among males and a much greater degree of anti-hunting and anti-trapping sentiment among females." Other studies reviewed by Kellert and Berry indicate that females are more likely to object to various activities involving presumed painful experiences to animals than are men. Gender studies of children indicate that, while boys possess greater factual knowledge of animals, girls are more aesthetically and anthropomor-phically oriented toward animals.
Based on Kellert"s national survey (1979a, 1980c, 1980d, 1980e) and results from a study of Connecticut children in the second, fifth, eighth and eleventh grades (Kellert and Westervelt 1983), Kellert and Berry (1984) reported the following:
Knowledge of Animals:
� Adult males had a significantly greater knowledge of animals than did adult females. The men's knowledge score ranked fifth among 60 demographic groups examined, while the female knowledge score ranked 53rd among the 60 groups.
� Male-female differences in knowledge were typically greatest when the questions concerned rare and endangered species or invertebrates.
� Significant knowledge scale differences were also found between male and female children in the study of second, fifth, eighth and eleventh graders. Boys achieved higher knowledge scores than girls. Differences were especially striking when comparing children 12 years and older.
� Non-significant sex differences were observed among children in the second grade. In fact, female children at this age had slightly higher knowledge scale scores than male children.
� Adult males were more aware of eight prominent wildlife issues. The only issue with insignificant male-female differences was the killing of juvenile harp seals for their furs.
Attitudes Toward Wildlife:
� "Male-female differences in attitudes toward animals were among the most dramatic in the national study of adult Americans. The strength and consistency of these differences were so pronounced as to suggest that this variable is among the most important demographic influences on attitudes toward animals in our society" (Kellert and Berry 1984:9).
Females had significantly higher humanistic attitude scale scores. Women tended to reveal far stronger emotional attachments for individual animals, particularly pets. Additionally, females were more likely to express anthropomorphic feelings toward animals, especially in relation to large and aesthetically attractive species.
Females obtained significantly higher scores than males on the moralistic scale, which indicates a greater concern for a variety of animal cruelty issues and less support for the exploitation and dominance of animals.
Women voiced significantly greater opposition to animal laboratory experimentation, rodeos, use of the leg-hold trap, killing non-endangered animals for their fur and hunting for recreational and meat-gathering purposes.
Males had significantly higher utilitarian and dominionistic attitude scales.
Although less pronounced, naturalistic and ecologistic scale differences were statistically significant. Men were more inclined to express a desire for direct contact with wildlife in the context of exposure to nature and the outdoors. Males appeared to be more concerned about species and habitat conservation, while females were more inclined to indicate opposition to presumably cruel and exploitative treatment of animals, especially toward aesthetically appealing and evolutionary higher animals.
Females also obtained significantly higher scores on the negativistic attitude scale. Despite strong emotional attachment to individual pet animals, women expressed substantially more fear and indifference toward all animals, particularly in relation to wildlife. Researchers note that the higher negativistic scores of females may provide some basis for also understanding their significantly lower knowledge of animals.
Significant differences occurred among all male and female children, irrespective of grade, on the dominionistic, humanistic, negativistic, ecologistic and knowledge of animals scales. Females had higher humanistic and negativistic scores; males had higher ecologistic and knowledge scores. Insignificant differences occurred on the naturalistic, moralistic and utilitarian scales.
Further analysis revealed insignificant differences at all grade levels on the utilitarian and naturalistic scales. Significant differences occurred among eleventh graders with females attaining substantially higher moralistic scores. This result suggests that the greater moralistic concern among women may emerge in late adolescence, then remain relatively stable throughout life.
� Among second grade children, insignificant male-female differences occurred on every scale except the negativistic. Second grade females were significantly more negativistic than second grade males. These results suggest that significant gender differences emerge after early childhood, except for moralistic variations which appear in late teenage years.
� Utilitarian attitude results suggested that greater concern for the practical value of animals occurs after early adulthood, typically during the period when job and family responsibilities become important.
Figure 28 displays relative male and female scores on attitude and knowledge toward animal scales.
Species Preference and Animal-related Activities:
� Women were far more likely than men to prefer likeable animals such as chipmunks or beautiful animals such as butterflies. Men were more inclined than women to prefer animals in the wild such as hawks or competitive animals such as bighorn sheep.
� Women gave significantly higher ratings on a species preference scale to domestic animals and "attractive" species such as a swan, ladybug, butterfly or robin. Men were more likely to award a positive rating to predatory animals (wolf, snake), invertebrates and game animals.
� Men reported far more participation in hunting, trapping and fishing than women (Table 43).
� Women were significantly more active in "casual" bird watching, feeding birds, zoological park visitation and animal-related photography. Men were more likely to participate in "committed" bird watching (the distinction of "casual" versus "committed" bird watching was based on the number of days of participation and the perceived number of bird species the individual could identify), natural history museum visitation and the amateur scientific study of animals.
� Men were more likely than women to belong to an animal-related organization and comprised a significantly greater proportion of members of sportsmen-type (89 percent of all members) and environmental protection-type organizations (62 percent male). Women were more likely than men to be members of humane and animal-welfare-type organizations (80 percent female).
Kellert and Berry (1984) elucidate their findings within the theoretical work of Carol Gilligan. Based on her research and the research of Kohlberg and Chodorow, Gilligan concluded that "varying socialization experiences produce major differences in male-female moral and ethical perceptions." Gilligan sees a tendency among women to stress the role of nurturer and caretaker, in contrast to the male role emphasizing work, assertiveness and competition. In
general, Gilligan1s theory suggests that "moral development for the male is defined largely in terms of fairness, logic, hierarchy, assertiveness and individual rights; whereas women appear to stress interpersonal responsibility, non-aggressiveness and caring for others."
Kellert and Berry (1984:29) remark:
"The postulate of a female moral emphasis on caring for intimates, non-aggressiveness and compassion is quite consistent with our findings that women tend to assert strong emotional attachments to individual domestic animals and object to a wide variety of activities involving the possible infliction of cruelty, harm and suffering on animals. Additionally, the apparent contradiction of females obtaining high scores on the humanistic and negativistic attitude scales may reflect a female disposition toward familiar animals, accompanied by a tendency to be relatively unconcerned about unfamiliar and remote wild animals."
Also consistent with Gilligan's model, males were characterized by a more cognitive and logically abstract perception of animals, reflected in substantially greater knowledge of animals and ecological concern for the relationship of wildlife to natural habitats. A further consistency was the tendency of males to derive greater satisfaction than females from competition and mastery over animals, as well as from their practical exploitation.
Male-female differences in perceptions and uses of animals were thus not only statistically dramatic but compatible with important theoretical and empirical work in the field of moral development and psychology."
Kellert and Berry (1984) note that women are much more concerned with the possible infliction of pain and suffering on individual animals (manifested in negative attitudes toward hunting, trapping and predator control) and constitute a larger proportion of those involved to halt such practices. Most wildlife managers (who are predominately male) view these activities from a perspective of whether or not populations can sustain particular rates of harvest or provide diverse practical and recreational benefits.
Kellert and Berry (1984:31) conclude:
"...[T]he relatively low knowledge and ecologistic and comparatively high negativistic scale scores of women suggest that compassion and empathetic concern for animals are not enough in the evolution of a sound female perspective on wildlife conservation. The management challenge is to cultivate greater knowledge of animals and ecological awareness among females, while developing in men a more empathetic and less emotionally detached concern for wildlife...."
Bammel and Bammel (1986) found that young females scored lower than young males on environmental knowledge pretests at an environmental youth camp in West Virginia. However, following a week of conservation education and awareness programs, the male/female knowledge differences were reduced on post-tests; females made significantly, greater gains between the two tests. In
fact, after the week-long program, there were no significant gender differences on the knowledge posttests (other tests revealed that attitudes had not been changed). The Bammel's blame societal factors as the cause of gender differences on environmental knowledge tests.
In Missouri, more females than males favored a one-eighth of 1 percent sales tax increase for conservation purposes. Interestingly, a 1982 survey of Missourians found that men were much more familiar than women with the Missouri Department of Conservation, which administers the conservation sales tax (Missouri Department of Conservation 1982).
Moss and Fraser (1984) found that Virginia females were significantly more likely than males to oppose sport hunting, favor wildlife rehabilitation and believe animals have souls like humans. Males were more likely than females to value wildlife's economic benefit of attracting tourism as well as wildlife's consumptive value.^
The Missouri Department of Conservation (1983) found that male subscribers to the Missouri Conservationist were more interested than females in articles about fishing, hunting, guns and other consumptive activities (except for trapping which was of least interest to both females and males). Females, on the other hand, were more interested than males in nongame wildlife, wildflowers , nostalgia and other activities more "aesthetic" in nature (Table 44).
Cerulean (1986) found that Floridians1 attitudes and behaviors toward wildlife varied by gender:
� Males were more likely (very important to 48.3 percent) to value wildlife around their homes than females (very important to 38 percent).
� Males were more likely (53 percent) than females (34 percent) to know that the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission is the state's wildlife management agency.
� When asked what the most important thing the Commission can do to help Florida wildlife, females were more likely to favor animal protection, whereas males were more likely to favor habitat protection.
5 Consumptive wildlife use refers to hunting, trapping and fishing. The term "nonconsumptive wildife use" refers to activities that do not involve the removal or intended removal of animals from their natural habitats. "Use of this term is not meant to imply that nonconsumptive activities have no effects on wildlife resources. The term is useful and a widely adopted means of categorizing an important group of human activities involving wildlife resources. Also, although the term "nonconsumptive" is used for describing certain categories of human behavior, it should not be confused with distinctions between game and nongame, which describe legal designations for kinds of wildlife" (Shaw and Magnum 1984:2).
Kellert and Berry (1980) found striking differences between varying age groups, particularly between the youngest and oldest respondents. Based on results from the national survey, they found:
� Persons under 25 appeared to be more appreciative and affectionately oriented toward animals, particularly wildlife, and more concerned about their protection and less utilitarian oriented than persons 76 years of age and older.
� Humanistic and naturalistic scale results generally proceeded from more to less affection for pets and wildlife with increasing age.
� Differences between persons under 25 and those over 76 on the humanistic scale were significant. Persons under 25 had the highest humanistic scores of any demographic group in the entire study, while those over 76 had among the lowest scores.
� There was a roughly linear trend toward higher negativistic scores with increasing age.
� Very high negativistic scores were particularly characteristic of respondents over 75. This group was exceeded on the negativistic scale only by adults with less than a sixth-grade education.
� Utilitarian attitudes increased with increasing age. Utilitarian results were especially great with respondents over 66, scoring only lower than farmers and persons with less than an eighth grade education among demographic groups. The authors state the likelihood of these age differences result more from a concern for the ethical treatment of animals, than for human impacts on natural habitats and wildlife. More impressive utilitarian and moralistic than ecologistic scale results bear this out.
� Those respondents under 25 years of age were far more willing to incur negative diverse socioeconomic impacts for the sake of protecting endangered and threatened wildlife.
� Participation in nearly all- animal-related activities was substantially higher among younger than older respondents, particularly backpacking, scientific study, zoo and natural history museum visitation, . off-road vehicle use, membership in environmental protection organizations, environmental activism and hunting.
� Naturalistic and ecologistic scores declined with increasing age, apparently reflecting less interest for outdoor wildlife experiences. This age dichotomy was especially evident among men.
� Knowledge scores of those respondents under 25 and over 76 were very
similar--both groups scored considerably below the general population mean.
The age groups in relation to selected knowledge and attitude scores can be reviewed in Figure 29.
Do these differences in attitudes by age groups reflect maturational shifts or changes in society over time? Kellert and Berry (1980:56) remark:
"Data collected at one point in time preclude confident statements about long-term trends because of the inability to determine if age group variations reflect maturational shifts as individuals progress through the life cycle or substantive changes in society over time. Regarding attitudes toward animals, one would suspect both forces have been at work, with a tendency toward an increasingly utilitarian perspective of animals as individuals assume greater family and work responsibilities while, at the same time, a more urbanized and affluent society stimulating increasing appreciation and concern for animals.
While certainly not a test of the historical change hypothesis, some insight can be obtained by examining the relationship between age, marital status and the attitude scales. For example, if marriage implies increasing responsibilities, one might expect greater utilitarian and, perhaps, less moralistic sentiments among married compared to single respondents after controlling for age. In fact, after controlling for. marital status, age variations remained highly significant on both the utilitarian and moralistic scales. While the value of this analysis is tenuous, it adds credibility to the proposition that age differences reflect real and substantive changes in our society's perceptions of animals."
In Virginia, Moss and Fraser (1984) found that older respondents were slightly less likely to think that wildlife's viewing values were important and more likely to value the economic benefits of wildlife, such as attracting tourism. Respondents 18 to 24 years old characterized themselves along with females, low income individuals and less educated individuals to value the wildlife resource because "animals have souls like humans." Younger respondents were also more likely to hold nontraditional attitudes and values toward wildlife and wildlife management as well as participate in non-consumptive wildlife-related activities. Younger respondents were more likely to travel and pay to observe wildlife and more likely to oppose recreational or sport hunting.
In Missouri, support for a 1976 one-eighth of 1 percent conservation sales tax dropped with an increase in age, while a 1982 survey of Missourians found that people 31 to 50 years old were more familiar with the Missouri Department of Conservation, which administers the sales tax (Missouri Department of Conservation 1982).
In a reader survey of the readers of its publication, the Conservationist. the Missouri Department of Conservation found that respondents under 20 preferred articles about reptiles, camping, dogs and guns. Less preference was shown by this age group for articles about wildlife, natural areas and law
enforcement. Interest in articles about wildflowers increased with age; wildflower and humorous articles were very important to those over 60 (Table 44) .
deHaven-Smith (1986b) found that persons aged 65 and over were the least likely (43.4 percent) of all age groups in northeast Florida to perceive the loss of natural areas as a local problem. In contrast, 57.3 percent of individuals 55 to 64 years old and 61.8 percent of individuals aged 25 to 34 believed the loss of natural areas is a problem in northeast Florida. Forty-five and one-half percent of indiviudals aged 35 to 44 believed the loss of natural areas is a problem. In the same study, deHaven-Smith found that concern with air pollution declined with age; additionally, persons between the ages of 25 and 34 were more likely than other groups to express support for stronger land-use controls.
Cerulean (1986) found that Floridians1 attitudes and behaviors toward wildlife varied with age:
� Support for funding wildlife conservation programs declined with increasing age (81 percent of 18- to 24-year olds supported increased funding, whereas 56 percent of those over 55 years of age supported increased funding for wildlife conservation programs).
� People between the ages of 18 and 64 were more likely than those over 65 to place wildlife conservation as a top priority for increased funding.
0 Knowing wildlife exists in Florida was rated as less important by those individuals over 65 years of age; however, a majority of all age classes felt it was very valuable to know wildlife exists in Florida.
� The importance of watching wildlife on trips was less likely to be rated as important by persons over 65 years of age. Watching wildlife on trips for anther purpose was very important to 63 percent of those respondents aged 18 to 24, 66 percent of those 25 to 34, 70 percent of those 35 to 44, 59 percent of those 45 to 64 and only 48 percent of those over 65 years of age.
� Although rated as very important by a majority in all age classes, the value of knowing wildlife was around one's home decreased as age increased.
� Older residents were more likely than younger residents to feed wildlife around their homes (79 percent of those aged 55 to 64 and 70 percent of those 65 and older fed wildlife around their homes; only 57 percent of those aged 18 to 24 participated in this activity).
� In general, enjoyment of wildlife while doing other things around the home increased as age increased, although a strong majority of all age classes enjoyed wildlife in this context. Eighty-nine percent of
those over 65 years of age enjoyed wildlife around their homes while doing other things.
Persons aged 25 to 44 were most likely (27 percent) to take a trip for the primary purpose of enjoying wildlife. Persons over 65 years of age were the least likely (8 percent) to take a trip for this purpose.
Persons aged 25 to 34 and 35 to 44 are more likely (69 percent and 72 percent, respectively) than other age groups to enjoy wildlife while on a trip for another purpose. Persons over 65 years of age were not as likely (31 percent) as other age groups to enjoy wildlife while on a trip for another purpose.
The percentage of individuals in each age class who wanted information on wildlife decreased as age increased. Only 31 percent of persons aged 65 and older were interested in more information on wildlife, whereas 76 percent of persons aged 25 to 34 desired more information.
Young individuals were more likely than older individuals to want more information on where to go and see wildlife (90 percent of those 18 to 44 years old wanted more information, while 76 percent of those 55 to 64 years old wanted more, 69 percent of those aged 65 and older desired more information).
Young individuals were more likely than older individuals to want more information about helping injured wildlife (88 percent of those aged 18 to 25 wanted more, 56 percent of those 65 and older wanted more).
Although a majority of persons in every age class wanted more wildlife identification information, a younger individual was' more likely to want it more than an older person (94 percent of those aged 25 to 33 wanted more information, while 84 percent of those 65 and over wanted more).
Although the media was the most important source of wildlife information for all age groups, the elderly were more likely to use the media as an information source than younger individuals.
Younger individuals were more likely to know the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission is the state's wildlife management agency.
Children and Wildlife
An abundance of research pertaining to children's attitudes, knowledge of and behaviors toward wildlife has been generated within the past few years, perhaps because, as Kellert and Westervelt (1983:192) state, "...the eventual condition of wildlife will, of course, depend on the future commitment of
today's children." Furthermore, research indicates that the childhood years are the most influential (Chemers and Altman 1977, Moore 1977, More 1977, Miller 1975, cited in Pomerantz 1984). For example, Miller (1975) found that environmental attitudes of eighth graders differed little from those of'adults. LaHart (1978), in a study of eighth graders in Broward County, Florida, concluded that attitudes toward consumptive and nonconsumptive uses of wildlife appeared to be well formed by the time young people reached the eighth grade. Dyar (1975) concluded that a critical period for teaching environmental studies is probably the seventh grade, since other attitudes appear to be formulated by high school. Giles (1959), in a study of the conservation knowledge of Virginia schoolchildren, also concluded that the seventh grade may be the best time to teach conservation education as marked increases in conservation knowledge were observed between seventh and ninth graders. Research by Kellert and Westervelt (1983) and Pomerantz (1977, 1985, 1986) indicate that children's knowledge and attitudes toward wildlife evolve through predictable development stages during childhood years.
Because the childhood years appear to be crucial in the development of knowledge, perceptions and attitudes toward wildlife and because these attitudes and perceptions of animals may lay important foundations for future orientations toward wildlife, a close look at the relevant literature follows.
Kellert and Westervelt (1983:4-12) reviewed a wide range of related investigations and some useful results emerged. Although lengthy, the results are important enough to warrant review here:
"...The focus of most research in this field has not been wildlife but attitudes toward other environmental issues such as air and water pollution, overpopulation, recycling and land use. Attitudes toward these issues seem to be influenced by sociodemographic characteristics such as age (George 1967, Graff 1962, Horvat 1974), ethnic background (Horvat 1974), sex (Collins 1976, Mortensen 1972), area of residence (Cauley 1974, Dyar 1975, Graff 1962, Horvat 1974, Mortensen 1972), scholastic ability (Horvat 1974, Mortensen 1972), socioeconomic status (Dyar 1975, Horvat 1974), parental occupation (Graff 1962), knowledge of the natural world (Cauley 1974, Giles 1959, Holloway 1972, Mittenthal 1974, Ramsey 1976, Shaw 1961, Towler 1972), active participation in nature-oriented activities (Baird 1982, Cauley 1974, Eastman 1974, George 1967, Shaw 1961) and a variety of cultural agents including books, television, school, family and friends (Burchett 1972, Graff 1962, Knapp 1972).
Relatively few efforts have considered the development of young people's attitudes toward wildlife. The few findings that are available seem to indicate an association between young people's attitudes toward animals and age (Badaracco 1973, Johnson 1974, Morris 1965, Pomerantz 1977, Sanders 1974), ethnic background (Giles 1959, Horvat 1974, LaHart 1978, Washington 1976), sex (Badaracco 1973, Baird 1982, Morris 1965, Pomerantz 1977, Rohlfing 1980, Sanders 1974, Shaw 1974), area of residence (Pomerantz 1977, Sanders 1974), knowledge of animals (LaHart 1978, Pomerantz 1977, Shaw 1961), symbolic perceptions of animals (Badaracco 1973, Bart 1972, Johnson 1974, LaHart 1974, Morris 1965, Morris 1967), participation in animal-related activities (Baird 1982, LaHart 1978,
Pomerantz 1977, Sanders 1974), instruction in animal-related courses (Baird 1982, Kress 1975), television (LaHart 1978, Pomerantz 1977, Washington 1976), parents and movies (Pomerantz 1977). Unfortunately, it is difficult to arrive at a comprehensive understanding of how these different variables influence young and growing children's perceptions of animals because of the variations in the size and characteristics of sample populations in these studies, their use of widely varying methodologies and the diversity of research focus.
Age: Insufficient data exist on the development of attitudes toward wildlife from childhood to adulthood because most research has focused on high school students or very young children. Systematic investigations of a wide age range have been carried out by Badaracco (1973) and Johnson (1974). When Badaracco examined grades one through twelve for preference in aspects of the natural environment, reptiles and insects dropped significantly in preference among older children. Age was also a crucial variable in Johnson's study on attitudes toward wolves. Children under ten years of age were the most negative toward the wolf, and views of people over 30 most closely resembled those of the under-ten age group.
LaHart (1978) , Pomerantz (1977) and Sanders (1974) have provided scattered, though valuable data on the attitudes of secondary school students toward animals. In LaHart's investigation of the relationship between knowledge and attitudes toward wildlife among eighth graders, nonconsumptive users (those who observed, photographed or fed wildlife) were more knowledgeable about animals than were consumptive users (those who fished or hunted wildlife), although the study by Pomerantz seemed to suggest the opposite. Pomerantz reported that a majority of seventh through twelfth grade students valued aesthetic more than utilitarian qualities of wildlife, were anxious to learn about wildlife, took part in a wide variety of animal-related activities and did not differ in terms of anthropomorphic feelings toward animals. Regarding concern for animal welfare problems, eighth graders appeared to care more than twelfth graders (Pomerantz 1974).
A more extensive understanding of how environmental attitudes develop in children has been reported by Dyar (1975). In her attempt to identify an age group when environmental education might be most influential, she relied on political socialization literature, building on the notion of critical developmental periods in life. She chose to study seventh grade students because, according to the political socialization literature, most political learning occurs at the pre-high school level, political interest peaks in the seventh or eighth grades and becomes firmly established around that time, and political attitudes about 'community' remain fairly constant from age 14 to high school.
In terms of attitudes toward the environment and animals, evidence exists to support Dyar's (1975) notion of a critical period around the junior high school years. An increase in the stability of environmental attitudes as children grow older has been reported by Horvat (1974) who found that environmental orientations of eighth graders were more stable and internally consistent than those of fifth graders. Giles (1959) reported
the most dramatic increases in conservation knowledge scores occurred between grades seven and nine, and concluded, 'Conservation can be most efficiently and effectively taught in grades seven, eight and nine. If one grade is to be considered, grade seven appears to present the greatest opportunities (p. 497).' Concerning attitudes toward wildlife, LaHart (1978) reported, 'Attitudes toward consumptive and nonconsumptive uses of wildlife appear to be well formed by the time young people reach eighth grade. This implies that programs designed to increase tolerance toward consumptive uses of wildlife should probably be directed at young children (p. 74).' Pomerantz (1977), however, found no significant difference between seventh through twelfth graders on the basis of interest in learning about wildlife, anthropomorphic feelings toward animals and participation in a majority of wildlife-oriented activities.
A speculative and theoretical model of how these attitudes develop over the course of one's lifetime has been proposed by Morris (1965). According to Morris there are seven stages of animal reactivity which progress from the 'infantile' phase, when big animals represent parent substitutes, to the 'senile' phase, when there is an intense interest in species struggling for survival. Between childhood and young adulthood, children pass through the 'infantile' phase (between ages four and eight) and the 'infantile-parental' phase (between ages 9 and 14), when children begin to react more strongly to smaller animals which are symbolic of infant figures. The 'objective pre-adult' phase follows, when bug hunting, microscopes and aquaria are the subjects of animal interest, and, when the young adult phase arrives, interest in animals is typically supplanted by a concentration on human relations. Although this theory is highly speculative, the research efforts previously described support the basis of Morris' model, that is, there seem to be progressive chronological stages in the development of children's attitudes toward the natural environment.
Sex: Most research suggests young females tend to express greater anti-hunting sentiment than do young males (1977, 1980, 1974). Female children also appear to be more sympathetic toward animals (Baird 1982), more concerned about animal welfare problems (Sanders 1974) and more anthropomorphic and aesthetically oriented to animals (Pomerantz 1977). A difference between sexes on specific animal preferences was one of Badaracco's (Badaracco 1973) most striking results. Mammals and birds were popular with both sexes but girls in grades one through twelve consistently ranked fish, reptiles, and biting and stinging invertebrates much lower than did boys. Morris (1965) also found that boys and girls between four and ten years of age dislike spiders equally as much, but as they approached their teens there was a dramatic increase in the girls' and not the boys' negative attitudes toward spiders.
Area of Residence: In our study of adult attitudes toward animals (Kellert and Berry 1980), persons raised in rural areas expressed stronger utilitarian sentiments toward animals, while those raised in cities of at least one million people were more likely to be moralistic. Pomerantz (1977) provides some supporting evidence for this effect in children. As population' size increased in her study of seventh through twelfth graders,
a decrease occurred in the number of hunters, and an increase in opposition to hunting. Sanders (1974), however, reported that inner city children expressed the least concern for animal welfare problems, and children from the suburbs expressed the most concern.
Ethnic Background: In a variety of resource-related recreational activities (e.g., camping, hiking, hunting), except for fishing, participation by young urban Blacks was "noticeably absent" according to Washington (1976) and understanding of wildlife was gained primarily from television shows. Additionally, knowledge of wildlife and the environment has been consistently found to be lower among young Blacks than whites (LaHart 1978, Giles 1959) and Horvat (1974) reported a lack of concern for environmental problems in urban Black students.
One reason, according to Washington, why "wildlife is little more than a vestigial component in the lives of many urban Blacks" (Washington 1976, p. 15) is the lack of opportunity for meaningful wildlife -related experiences during childhood.
Knowledge of Animals: According to LaHart (1978), a relationship exists between what young people know and feel about wildlife, but the association is not a particularly strong one. Knowledgeable eighth graders were more likely to recognize the importance of lower forms of animal life and preserving endangered species, to have greater tolerance for predators and to oppose the outlawing of hunting. As previously reported, LaHart also found that eighth graders who engaged in nonconsumptive wildlife activities were more knowledgeable about animals than consumptive users. Pomerantz (1977), however, reported the opposite effect. Among secondary school students she studied, more hunters than non-hunters had high knowledge scores and more non-hunters had high knowledge scores than anti-hunters.
LaHart (1978) obtained some interesting results on attitudes not related to knowledge. For instance, both high and low knowledge groups responded similarly to questions about the emotional capacities of animals and the health conditions of wild animals compared to pets. LaHart concluded that, despite varying levels of knowledge about wildlife, young people maintain anthropomorphic attitudes and have little understanding of the laws of natural selection.
Several investigators have demonstrated that males are more knowledgeable about animals than females (Kress 1975, Pomerantz 1977, Shaw 1961) and that Whites, children with parents who have a college education (1978) and rural children (Pomerantz 1977) receive comparatively higher scores on knowledge of animal tests.
Symbolic Perceptions of Animals: When familiar symbols (e.g., black-and-white line drawings of a squirrel, deer and coyote) were used to convey aspects of natural history to first through twelfth grade students, mammals were the most popular category, birds second and fish third (Badaracco 1973). Reptiles, harmless invertebrates, amphibians, and biting and stinging invertebrates were very unpopular but young children
seemed to have more of an affinity for these creatures than did older children.
Snakes were liked the least of all creatures by more than 25 percent of the children 4 to 14 years old who were studied by Morris (1965) . The greatest snake hatred occurred at age six. Children under ten also had the most negative perceptions of wolves, which were regarded as dangerous, bad,, destroyers of moose and deer populations and as having no value (Johnson 1974).
Morris (1966) identified 20 anthropomorphic characteristics to account for the popularity of animals like the panda, one of which was size. In childhood, he suggests, large-sized animals are preferred because they 'fit the role of the omnipotent parent,' whereas older children are more attracted to smaller animals, like pets, because they fulfill the role of infant figures.
Participation in Animal-oriented Activities: LaHart found that 'animal activities impact attitudes as much as knowledge and this supports encouraging wildife-oriented activities like camping, bird watching, and hunting and fishing as a means of educating young people' (pp. 73-74). Similar results were obtained by Baird (1982) who reported, 'If one were to try to change attitudes, education without an experiential component might not be very effective1 (p. 12).
Pomerantz (1977) found young hunters were more active than young non-hunters and anti-hunters in a wide variety of wildlife-oriented activities. Males outnumbered females in hunting, fishing and catching insects, and more females than males went horseback riding and visited zoos. Differences were also found between rural and urban children, with those from rural areas participating in more animal-related activities.
George (1967) maintains that membership in conservation clubs and nature camp experiences are strongly associated with conservation attitude change in high school students. Concerning domestic animals, owning a pet appears to exert a positive influence on animal welfare concerns among high school students (Bart 1972), to have therapeutic effects on emotionally disturbed children and to ease young people's anxieties about other animals and nature (Levinson 1969, 1975).
Activities that seem to be helpful to high school students in scoring well on wildlife knowledge tests include biology courses (Cauley 1974, Giles 1959, Shaw 1961), general science courses (Giles 1959, Shaw 1961), fishing (Giles 1959, Shaw 1961), hunting (Giles 1959, Pomerantz 1977), trapping (Giles 1959) and camping (Cauley 1974, Giles 1959).
Other Influences: 'Teachers' opinions play a role in the socialization of children's attitudes, even though evidence of the amount of such attitude transmission is neither readily available nor precise' (Hess 1967). Information is available, however, on the effects of teachers' instruction methods, television, parents and movies. Direct instruction methods in which children examined the anatomical and behavioral characteristics of
live spiders and snakes promoted positive attitudes toward these animals in nine- to twelve-year olds (Kress 1975) . Indirect instruction methods such as slides, movies and lectures about the anatomy and behaviors of spiders and snakes did not have as profound an influence. Also, the positive attitudes achieved through the direct instruction method generalized to other species of spiders and snakes, and were stable up to six months after instruction.
Television also appears to have a significant affect on how wildlife attitudes are developed. Pomerantz (1977) found that 87 percent of secondary schoolchildren felt that television influenced their interest in wildlife. According to Washington (1976), Black students who live in metropolitan areas consider wildlife television programs to be the most important factor contributing to their appreciation of wildlife. LaHart (1978) also determined that watching wildlife programs was more important to wildlife knowledge than hunting or fishing. Finally, parents and movies were chosen as major influences on attitudes toward wildlife by 75 percent of the children in Pomerantz1s (1977) study."
Kellert and Westervelt's (1983) research of Connecticut schoolchildren supports the idea that there are varying stages in the evolution of children's perceptions of animals. A major increase in the emotional concern and affection for animals characterizes the period from second to fifth grade. An increase in the factual and cognitive understanding of animals is evident between fifth and eighth grade. The years between the eighth and eleventh grade are characterized by a major expansion in ethical and ecological concern for animals and the natural environment.
Kellert (1984) notes that each of these three periods appears to offer varying opportunities for environmental education. The transition from second to fifth grade suggests educational efforts focusing on the affective realm, mainly emphasizing emotional concern and sympathy for animals. Between the fifth and eighth grade, possibilities exist for developing a cognitive and factual understanding of animals, an assertion consistent with the findings of Horvat (1974) , Dyar (1975) and Giles (1959) . The most appropriate time to foster ethical concern for animals and an understanding of ecology appears to be between the eighth and eleventh grades.
Kellert based his conclusions on the following findings:
� Knowledge scale differences among eighth and eleventh graders were substantially less divergent than between fifth and eighth graders, suggesting a decline in the effect of age. An absence of knowledge scale differences among adults oyer 18 years of age further suggested decreasing importance of age on knowledge of animals.
� Significant age differences were observed on every scale with the exception of the humanistic. Younger children consistently placed the needs of people over animals and expressed minimal concern for the rights and protection of animals.
� Younger children expressed far less interest in animals, particularly wildlife.
� The most profound shift between the fifth and eighth grade was a major increase in factual knowledge.
� Eleventh graders were far more ecologistic, moralistic and naturalistic toward animals than were eighth graders.
� The basic changes among children between the eighth and eleventh grade involved major increases in ethical concern for animals, a growing appreciation of wildlife and an ability to deal with abstract concepts such as ecosystem and biological diversity (Figures 30-31).
Kellert and Westerwelt's (1983) study found that:
� Most children possess a limited knowledge of animals.
� Most children interpret predation and nutrient cycling in anthropomorphic and negative terms, rarely appreciating or identifying the ecological values of these activiites.
� Children as a whole and eleventh graders in particular are significantly more knowledgeable than adults about invertebrates and the basic biological characteristics of animals. (Adults, however, are more knowledgeable than children about domestic animals and situations where animals injure people or property.)
� Relatively high knowledge scores occur among rural children and eighth graders. Relatively low knowledge scores occur among Black children and children residing in large cities.
� Black children have the lowest knowledge scores of any demographic group with the exception of second graders. The knowledge scale differences remained after considering the possible confounding effects of other demographic variables, especially urban/rural residence.
� Urban-rural differences are highly significant on the knowledge scale. Rural children have the second highest knowledge scale scores; children residing in large cities had the third lowest scores.
� Species preference results revealed a more negative view of predators among female children.
� The most common attitude among all children was the humanistic attitude. The authors note, "In general, strong, emotional attachment to individual animals and a tendency toward anthropomorphism were the most typical perceptions of animals among the children studied."
The second and third most frequent attitudes were the naturalistic and negativistic.
The moralistic attitude ranked fourth and the utilitarian attitude was fifth in overall frequency of occurrence.
The dominionistic attitude was" relatively uncommon, ranking sixth in frequency of occurrence. The least frequently occurring attitudes were the ecologistic and scientistic.
Kellert (1984:7) notes, "In the national study of adults, the humanistic attitude was also the most frequent perspective of animals, and the negativistic and moralistic attitudes were similarly popular. The most striking difference in attitudes toward animals among children and adults was the widely varying occurrence of the naturalistic and utilitarian perspectives. The naturalistic attitude was much more common among children, while a utilitarian view of animals was far more typical of adults."
There was a greater factual knowledge, awareness and concern for wildlife among male children.
Female children were more inclined to oppose subordination and dominance of animals, and evidenced a greater emotional concern for large, attractive, primarily domestic animals.
Black children expressed a greater willingness to subordinate animals, especially in the context of improving human material well-being. Black children also revealed less affection and general interest in animals, particularly wildlife, as suggested by significant humanistic, naturalistic and negativistic results.
Although few significant urban/rural differences were observed (with the exception of negativistic and knowledge scale results), rural children were more interested in and knowledgeable about animals, particularly in comparison with children living in large cities.
Few major changes occurred among residential groups when controlling for age except a marked increase in knowledge among suburban children.
The highest negativistic scores were found among second graders, non-Whites , females and urban children.
The lowest negativistic scores were obtained from eighth and eleventh graders, rural and male children.
Ecologistic scores were highest among older children, males and rural residents compared to low scores of second graders and non-Whites.
Second graders and non-Whites had the highest utilitarian scores,
while the lowest utilitarian scores occurred among eleventh graders and female children.
� Children who learned about animals in school or who visited zoos obtained relatively low knowledge scores. These two groups also had the highest negativistic scale scores. Kellert (1984:12) notes, "These activities, thusi appeared to exert little positive influence on children. Most zoological parks continue to fail to go beyond the superficial entertainment toward instilling greater appreciation among children, while most learning about animals in school appears to be so divorced from direct experience w.ith animals and the natural environment that little basic knowledge results."
� Children who bird watched, belonged to animal-related clubs and hunted were generally more appreciative, knowledgeable�and concerned about animals, suggesting the positive value of participative contact between children and animals.
[These findings support LaHart (1978) who found that participation in animal-related activities among eighth greaders showed the highest association with knowledge of any of the variables he examined. As LaHart (1978:73) concludes, "Animal activities impact attitudes as much as knowledge, and this supports encouraging wildlife-oriented activities like camping, bird watching, and hunting and fishing as a means of educating young people."] .
Following up on Kellert and Westervelt's (1983) study on Connecticut schoolchildren, Westervelt and Llewellyn (1985) studied the attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of fifth and sixth grade students toward wildlife on a national scale. The researchers studied the humanistic, moralistic, naturalistic and negativistic attitudes based on Kellert and Westervelt's conclusions that these were by far the most common attitudes toward animals among children.
Overall, Westervelt and Llewellyn (1985) found the respondents expressed more sentimental affection for "loveable" kinds of wildlife than naturalistic interests. The children demonstrated limited knowledge about wildlife and the majority disapproved of sport hunting, including rural residents, although attitudes were more favorable toward hunting for food. Children's wildlife-related activities frequently took the form of fishing, watching wildlife programs on television and going to the zoo. The authors additionally identified the positive influences of engaging in specific types of wildlife-oriented activities such as identifying birds, belonging to an animal club and hunting.
Westervelt and Llewellyn (1985) like Kellert and Westervelt (1983), found the humanistic attitude to be the most common attitude toward animals among children. The humanistic scale had the highest percentage of scores falling in the high-scoring range, the highest overall mean score, and the lowest standard deviation, indicating the wide prevalence of this attitude. Ninety percent of the children disagreed that "love is a feeling people should have only for other people, not for animals." The majority of children (56 percent) preferred "loveable animals" over "animals that live in the woods," "beautiful
animals" and "useful animals." The majority of the children agreed (43 percent, 31 percent disagreed) that wild animals get lonely in the wilderness."
Westervelt and Llewellyn (1985) found high humanistic scores for all demographic groups. Females and urban residents scored very high on this attitude scale. Kellert and Westervelt (1983) also found young females to have particularly high humanistic scale scores. However, they did not find significant differences between urban and rural children for the humanistic attitude.
The moralistic attitude was found to be the second most prevalent attitude among all children studied; however, these findings pertained specifically to hunting. Seventy-nine percent of the children sampled disapproved of hunting for sport, 58 percent of which disapproved strongly. Forty-two percent opposed hunting for food, while 46 percent supported this type of hunting. Females, urban residents and children living in Pacific Coast states, the highest scorers on the moralistic scale were most opposed. These results were similar to Kellert and Westervelt (1983) who found 81 percent of eleventh graders opposed to hunting for sport.
The naturalistic attitude was third in popularity, indicating a moderate level of interest in wildlife among children. Boys and rural residents distinguished themselves as the most wildlife-oriented, while children living in the South were the least wildlife-oriented. Kellert and Westervelt (1983) also found the naturalistic attitude to be the second most popular orientation toward animals. Kellert and Westervelt (1983) also found that eleventh grade males had the highest naturalistic scores of all demographic groups, and although rural children had consistently higher naturalistic scale scores than other population groups, the results were not significant.
The least frequently expressed attitude was the negativistic--the fear and avoidance of animals. This attitude had the lowest mean score and very few children scored high. Nine percent of the children said they did not like animals near them; 53 percent disagreed (36 percent agreed) that most wild animals are dangerous and 49 percent disagreed (42 percent agreed) they would be afraid to touch a snake.
Westervelt and Llewellyn (1985) compared their national findings with the findings of Kellert (1976, 1980c, 1980d, 1980e) and Kellert and Berry (1980):
� Sentimental affection for loveable kinds of animals was the most prevalent attitude among both children and adults, although children's humanistic orientation was even greater.
� Adults were slightly more tolerant of hunting for meat (42 percent of children disagreed, 14 percent of adults disagreed), but both groups were strongly against hunting for sport (80 percent of adults disapproved of hunting for a trophy, 79 percent of children disapproved of sport hunting). The authors (1985:29) note:
"Regarding the attitudes toward sport hunting, the stage of transition appears to be during the three years prior to the fifth grade (ages eight to ten) when opinions become negative
and remain so into young adulthood. Later in the three years
following the fifth grade (ages 11 to 13) , attitudes about
hunting for food become more positive and they r emain that way through adulthood."
Naturalistic scale results revealed that adults were less interested in wildlife, but the difference between the two groups was not great.
Both groups scored low on the negativistic scale and did not mind having most animals near them.
In Kellert and Westervelt's (1983) Connecticut study, interest in wildlife increased with age and peaked in the senior high school years (ages 15 to 17). In Kellert's national survey (1980c, 1980d, 1980e) of adults, naturalistic leanings were strongest from age 18 to 25 and they steadily declined thereafter.
Attitude changes in children and adults are depicted in Figure 32. Note that this information may not be a result of maturation but a reflection of recent societal changes; however, at this point, there is not enough time-line data available to draw definitive conclusions.
Westervelt and Llewellyn- (1986) also found:
� Females and children living in the South demonstrated the least knowledge about wildlife.
� Knowledge was positively associated with naturalistic interests, and knowledge and fears of animals were negatively related. Although a causative relationship between knowledge and attitudes was not demonstrated, a negative correlation between interest and fear of animals suggests the value of dispelling fears about wildlife before an interest in learning more about wildlife can develop.
� Respondents had a high regard for wild animals in general--males and children living in the Pacific states distinguished themselves as liking more types of wildlife species.
� The most popular wildlife-oriented activity was fishing (76 percent).
� Watching television shows (62 percent) and going to the zoo (60 percent) were also popular activities.
� Moderately frequent behavior (25 to 50 percent) among children included keeping live animals in class (40 percent), doing school experiments about animals (40 percent), going on a class trip to learn about animals (31 percent), bird watching (29 percent) and hunting (27 percent). The least frequent wildlife-related behaviors included belonging to an animal club (10 percent) and using a book while bird watching (9 percent). Only 6.5 percent of the children said they could identify more than 30 kinds of birds.
Casual bird watching (note the difference between casual bird watchers and bird identifiers) and going to the zoo were the only-activities in which more girls than boys participated.
The sample that hunted closely resembled the group that fished--boys, rural residents and those individuals living in the Rocky Mountains and north-central states.
Fishing, hunting and the expressed ability to identify more than 30 kinds of birds were related in identical ways to all four attitudes and knowledge. They were positively associated with knowledge and appreciation of wildlife, and negatively related to sentimental affection for individual animals, fear of wild animals and opposition to hunting.
Casual bird watching was the only behavior that was positively related to all four attitudes. No other behavior was positively related to the humanistic attitude.
� In general, children who did not participate in a wildlife-oriented activity had higher humanistic scores than the other behavior groups. Casual bird watchers, however, had relatively high humanistic scores. Bird identifiers had the lowest humanistic scores.
� The moralistic attitude (expressed as opposition to hunting) was more characteristic of respondents who did not engage in a wildlife-related behavior. Again, casual bird watchers were the exception.
� Most wildlife-oriented activity groups were oriented toward the naturalistic attitude. Bird identifers, animal club members and hunters had exceptionally high naturalistic scores.
� Children who watched wildlife television shows such as "Wild Kingdom," Jacques Cousteau and National Geographic specials on animals had high naturalistic scores.
� Children not participating in a wildlife-related activity expressed far more fear of wild animals than wildlife-activity participants. Bird identifiers had the least fear of animals of all behavior and activity groups.
� Bird identifiers demonstrated the most factual knowledge of wildlife. Frequent watchers of wildlife television shows also had high knowledge of animal scores. Children who had not watched a wildlife television show distinguished themselves as the least knowledgeable group.
Based on their findings and those by Kellert and Westervelt (1983), Westervelt and Llewellyn (1985:63-68) suggest specific ways in which educators and natural resource managers can utilize information on children's attitudes, behaviors and knowledge of wildlife in order to foster an identification with the natural world:
"Utilize Humanistic Trends
In general, it can be concluded that the perceptions of the children in this study toward wildlife were extremely diverse. The wildlife orientations of any one group of children were as different as those of adults, and demographic factors--particularly gender and urban/rural differences--had equally profound effects over their opinions, knowledge and behaviors. The predominance of the humanistic attitude toward animals in American society exerts considerable influence over the views of these young people but there was also a remarkably large group of children who were strongly oriented toward wildlife in a naturalistic way.
The popularity of the humanistic attitude in the children in this study signifies a major challenge to wildlife professionals. The humanistic orientation exerted a powerful and pervasive influence that knew no regional boundaries and seemed to be unaffected by how knowledgeable the children were about wildlife. Previous research has identified the pervasiveness of this attitude among adults, also (Kellert 1980e). Management activities may need to take into account a growing humanistic orientation that emphasizes the importance of individual animals and attractive species. If we are indeed witnessing a contemporary trend toward increased humanization, as the research suggests, this challenge to wildlife programs will become even more real as society becomes more urbanized and more young people and females assume policy-making positions .
There are several ways to view the humanistic trend in a positive sense. Creative teaching strategies can be developed that use this basic humanistic orientation toward animals to stimulate interest in wildlife and help young people identify with the natural world. Supplemented with objective information about how wildlife, people and the environment relate to each other, a broader base of knowledge can be instilled--one that emphasizes sound ecological principles without challenging strongly held humanistic perceptions. Children under 12 relate to animals and the world, in general, in very egocentric, anthropomorphic ways (Blanchard 1982, Bowd 1982, Piaget 1929, Sharefkin 1974). In order for them to understand a concept such as ecological interdependence, therefore, it should be related to what they feel, objects they see or phenomena they directly experience. In this way, anthropomorphic understandings of why animals behave the way they do should be utilized to achieve these broader conceptual understandings of the environment.
Using this positive humanistic approach, the learning process can also get started at ages earlier than do most environmental education programs about conservation, pollution and ecology. Unfortunately, involvement in environmental education programs is currently lowest in the early elementary grades and highest in grades 11 and 12 (Childress 1978) when orientations toward wildlife are already well established. whereas environmental education typically occurs in high school biology or geology class (Childress 1978), it also can take place earlier in a variety of other contexts. Because elementary school curricula are rigorously structured
around the development of basic skills, wildlife education materials that can be integrated into traditional subject areas may have more lasting impact than half-hour presentations, films or supplementary education packets. As Hamilton states (1982:248-251), 'Students can learn to calculate wildlife populations from data in math class as well as they can learn to add or multiply apples and baseballs. In the process they will indirectly learn some of the realities of wildlife population dynamics. Writing poems or songs about a favorite animal or tree can accomplish the requirements of a language arts or music class while subtly teaching appreciation and understanding of the resource (p. 249).'
Hunting: The Value of a Historical Perspective
Like the prevalence of humanistic sentiment, widespread concern about sport hunting among young people in this survey also signifies a very real challenge that needs to be recognized. There are two important factors to consider in meeting this challenge--young people clearly distinguish between hunting for food and hunting for sport, and, whereas opinions about food hunting may become more positive as they mature, their negative attitudes about sport hunting are established before they reach their teens. In a recent analysis of research on public attitudes toward hunting (Kellert and Westervelt 1981), it was concluded, "The American public is slowly shedding some of its traditional support of hunting activities" (p. 48). The current findings suggest the pace may quicken in the near future.
Balanced and objective information will become more valuable to education programs that address hunting. To avoid endangering the effectiveness of a wildlife education program with controversy over hunting, a learning atmosphere can be created with gathering information on the number of Americans who enjoy hunting, the main reasons they hunt, and how and why these numbers and reasons have changed in American history. Students can then reach their own conclusions based on the objective facts they gathered.
Future studies on children's attitudes toward hunting might consider using non-categorical scaling techniques such as the psychophysical magnitude scales used effectively by Bammel (1980:253-264) to measure hunting attitudes of adults. "The value of these magnitude scales is that they are created by the rater, they produce ratios, have inherent validity and parametric statistics are appropriate. The present authors also strongly recommend that hunting be carefully defined for respondents under the age of 15 to increase the accuracy of numbers of young hunters and to examine the reasons behind the noted differences in children's opinions about hunting for food and sport.
Fuel Naturalistic Interests at Younger Ages
Although naturalistic appreciation for wildlife was not as common as humanistic sentiments, there was a sizeable number of children in this study who clearly preferred wild animals over pets, derived great enjoyment from being near wildlife outdoors and engaged in activities that
required direct involvement with wildlife. If we assume adults are less wildlife-oriented because of a recent societal trend and not because of a maturational phonomenon, chances are that naturalistic interests will become more common and the demand to satisfy them will intensify. Keeping in mind the characteristics of the children in this survey, that future may look even more likely in light of earlier evidence that wildlife interests increase as children grow older (Kellert 1983). The opposing influence of expanding urbanization, however, will make it important for wildlife programs to reach more and more children. As this growing group of urban children come to rely more heavily on indirect sources of wildlife contact, such as wildlife television shows, books, schools and zoos, the accuracy and objectivity of the information they receive will become more crucial. Some of the more valuable opportunities that urban areas can provide, in terms of influencing wildlife knowledge and attitudes, are identifying birds, belonging to an animal club, watching wildlife television shows and bird watching. As Shaw and Mangun (1984) have noted, agencies interested in stimulating opportunities for non-consumptive wildlife activities would do well to put more emphasis on urban-based initiatives.
The inverse relationships found throughout the study between the naturalistic and negativistic attitudes suggest a need to allay children's fears of animals before an interest in wildlife can develop. Three demographic groups - females, urban residents and those living in the South demonstrated consistently low naturalistic and high negativistic scores, indicating a need for more wildlife education programs targeted at these specific populations.
Develop Conceptual Understandings at Younger Ages
Before drawing gloomy conclusions about the equally low knowledge levels of both young and adult Americans, we must consider the Connecticut study's report of a large gain in knowledge level after the grade levels examined here, that is between the fifth and eighth grades. Naturalistic interests also increased later on between the eighth and eleventh grades. Further study of older children might yield somewhat different results with more positive implications for the future.
Conclusions about the knowledge results should also consider the type of knowledge that was measured, that is factual knowledge about very specific characteristics of particular animals. There is evidence that conceptual knowledge is more positively related to positive environmental attitudes than factual knowledge (Richmond and Morgan 1977). This would suggest that young people who appreciate the concept of interdependence may have more positive beliefs about wildlife than those who know how animals are classified or that trout eat flies, for example. Without undermining the importance of teaching facts, perhaps greater benefits would be gained from developing basic concepts at ages earlier than most environmental education programs begin. This process could get started in the early elementary grades using the humanistic orientations discussed before in this chapter.
Introduced in an appropriate manner and supported with accurate background information, education materials on predator-prey relationships could be integrated into elementary school curricula and serve as the basis for ecological concept development. Despite teachers' uncertainties, young children from kindergarten to the third grade are able to accept the concept of predation (Powell 1982). The wildlife preference results of the present study indicate that animals such as the eagle, owl and bear could help to encourage the development of this concept.
Increase Opportunities for Direct Contact With Wildlife
Another key finding of this study was the important role played by wildlife-oriented activities in the development of knowledge. For example, we found that, in general, activities exerted stronger influences over knowledge than attitudes did. Active behaviors that required direct involvement with live animals, such as fishing, hunting and identifying birds, frequently had stronger and more consistent relationships with both attitudes and knowledge than did indirect wildlife-related behaviors such as various school activities and going to the zoo. The obvious implication is that new educational opportunities for direct contact and active involvement with wildlife will have far greater payoffs than continuing to rely on traditional sources of non-interactive contact. However, the value of particular indirect activities such as watching wildlife television shows and belonging to animal clubs was also clearly demonstrated and deserves further investigation. Feeding wildlife has been reported elsewhere as a popular activity of children (LaHart 1978, Piaget 1929) and should also be examined in future studies of this kind.
For resource managers, the activity results should be particularly insightful because childhood participation in wildlife activities is a significant determinant of adult participation (Sofranko and Nolan 1972, Yoesting and Burkhead 1973). Certainly, opportunities for fishing, as the most popular wildlife activity of American youth, will be in great demand in the future. The demographic profile of wildlife-oriented recreation-ists can be expected to shift if fishing remains as popular with urban and suburban youth, young female bird watchers continue to outnumber males and anti-sport hunting sentiment among rural youth is maintained at its present level. For the immediate future, public lands will feel the impact of young Americans' growing interest in wildlife. From 1983-84, for example, the number of visits to national wildlife refuges doubled for schoolchildren actively pursuing the study of ecology and environmental relationships (U.S. FWS 1984). Thus, resource managers can prepare for the approaching change in profile of wildlife enthusiasts--in number, demographic composition and form of recreation sought after."
The authors conclude:
� Wildlife education efforts are likely to have positive impacts if they utilize children's existing orientations toward animals.
� Concentrate harder on developing conceptual understandings in younger children of the interrelatedness of life-forms.
� Increase the number and quality of opportunities for very specific forms of wildlife interactions, as well as important indirect sources that increasing numbers of urban children can rely on (Westervelt and Llewellyn 1985:68).
The value of increasing opportunities for direct contact with wildlife for youth has also been supported by studies by LaHart and Barnes (1978b) . They believe it is important to assess the value of knowledge and animal-related activities on the basis of personal awareness and commitment to the preservation of wildlife because there is conflicting research about the interrelationships between knowledge and commitment (LaHart and Barnes 1978a). LaHart and Barnes (1978b) consequently studied the influence of knowledge and animal-related activities on consumptive and nonconsumptive resource orientations of eighth graders in Broward County, Florida. They concluded:
"While knowledge appears to have some association with resource orientations, knowledge alone is not a particularly important variable. In fact, the results indicate that the frequency of animal activities are more highly associated with consumptive and non-consumptive resource orientations than knowledge.
This association of frequency of animal activity with resource orientation has two implications for educational strategies. First, programs designed to increase knowledge about wildlife and endangered and threatened species may or may not result in attitude changes. The programs clearly must include strong affective components and not simply provide information. Secondly, programs that involve field trips and other types of outdoor activities are as important as cognitive knowledge; experience with the resource counts."
Kellert and Westervelt (1983) found striking correlations between wildlife-related activities and attitudes toward and knowledge of wildlife. They found the highest knowledge scores were obtained by children who hunted and belonged to an animal-related club or organization (the lowest knowledge scores were obtained by children who visited a zoological park and those who learned about animals in school). Hunters and animal club members had very high ecologistic scores (zoo visitors and children who learned about animals in school obtained the lowest ecologistic scores) and children who hunted, bird watched and belonged to animal clubs had the highest naturalistic scale scores. The lowest naturalistic scores occurred among children who owned pets and visited zoos.
Combining this recent research with research reviewed by Kellert and Westervelt (1983) (see page 49), there is strong evidence supporting a positive relationship between certain types of animal-related activities and an appreciation for the natural world.
Children have a way of making clear what adults sometimes find elusive. Pomerantz (1977) found that at the top of the list of the kinds of things young people thought there should be more of were areas for watching wildlife (78 percent wanted more), nature centers (73 percent wanted more) and guided nature
walks (70.7 percent wanted more). At the bottom of the list were booklets about wildlife (53 percent) and more areas for hunting (15 percent). Male-female differences were even more striking--over 80 percent of the females wanted more areas for watching wildlife (85 percent), nature centers (81 percent) and guided nature walks (83 percent).
Pomerantz (1985:6) recognized that i't is not possible for all children to get to recreation areas for participatory wildlife-related activities all of the time or even some of the time, "and for children to learn about wildlife and the environment, the schoolroom remains the one constant and most available source of information." Pomerantz examined the effectiveness of the Ranger Rick magazine in promoting environmental and wildlife concern. She found that children who read Ranger Rick had significantly higher positive conservation attitudes than those who did not. And although the magazine has been criticized by some for the story-like, potentially anthropomorphic nature of some of its features, the results did not support this claim. Ranger Rick readers, as well as the control group of short-term Ranger Rick readers, had significantly higher knowledge scores than did children who did not read it, indicating that, "the use of the magazine over a limited period of time in a classroom setting does increase children's knowledge of the natural world." Pomerantz concludes that the magazine is important because "children can be reached both at home and in school; and for many, it may be their only exposure to the outdoors. The magazine cannot replace hands-on experience with the natural world, but it can serve to open a child's mind to a world otherwise unknown."
Pomerantz (1985) concluded that when information about wildlife was presented in a popular, more colorful manner than a traditional textbook on the same topic, a magazine like Ranger Rick can have a greater impact on children's acquisition of information.
Armstrong and Odom (1982:765) categorized gifted Georgia students' (grades 4 through 12) responses to, "How can we best alleviate people's ignorance, misconceptions and fears that have resulted in the approaching extinction of many species of wildlife?" They found that their solutions overemphasized the impact of hunting on endangerment while demonstrating little knowledge on the impact of habitat degradation. Researchers concluded that attitudes expressed by students strongly suggest serious deficiencies in wildlife education in Georgia schools.
Armstong and Odom's (1982:767) results support Kellert and Westervelt's (1983) and Westervelt and Llewellyn's (1985) findings that most students think in terms of individual animals and not populations. As the authors note:
"They visualize direct harm to each animal (i.e. trapping) as being more detrimental than indirect factors (i.e. pollution) which may ultimately harm entire populations. It became apparent by viewpoints expressed in the essays that most students are not aware of the tremendous negative impact of habitat loss on wildlife populations, while the impact of sport hunting has been misrepresented."
Television appears to be playing an important role in the attitudes of children toward wildlife. Kellert and Westervelt's (1983) literature review
revealed that 77 percent of Pomerantz's (1977) study group felt that television influenced their interest in wildlife. Washington (1976), in a study on urban Blacks and wildlife, found that urban Blacks considered television shows about wildlife to be the most important factor contributing -to their appreciation of wildlife.
LaHart (1978) found that watching wildlife programs was more importantly linked to wildlife knowledge than hunting or fishing.
Kellert and Westervelt (1983) found that 28 percent of their sample often viewed "Wild Kingdom," 24 percent often viewed "National Geographic" specials on animals, and 21 percent often viewed "Jacques Cousteau." Sixty-two percent of Westervelt's and Llewellyn's (1985) study group frequently watched television shows about wildlife. Furthermore, they found a positive relationship between frequently watching wildlife television shows and the naturalistic attitude and knowledge scale scores. Negative relationships were found to exist between frequently watching wildlife television shows and the humanistic and negativistic attitudes.
Pomerantz (1986) recognized that the first step in developing a systematic and successful approach to wildlife education is learning about children's cognitive development and applying that information to children's acquisition of knowledge about wildlife and the natural environment.
Pomerantz (1986) compared children's perceptions of the natural world with the stages of cognitive and moral development. Based on developmental theory and educational practices by Jean Piaget (Ripple et al. 1982) , moral development by Kohlberg (1963) and Kohlberg and Gilligan (1971), synthesis work by Rejeski (1982) to understand the development of children's perceptions of the environment and research on children's knowledge, attitudes and behaviors toward animals by Pomerantz (1977, 1985), Kellert and Westervelt (1983) and Westervelt and Llewellyn (1985), Pomerantz found strong evidence in support of various developmental and cognitive stages in children's perceptions of wildlife and the natural world. In general, the evidence points to a gradual progression of children's attitudes toward animals from an egocentric to an appreciative perspective.
Piaget outlined four basic stages of childhood development. The first is the sensorimotor stage (0 to 2 years) where infants and toddlers acquire understanding primarily through their own senses. At this time, patterns of behavior and thought begin to develop. During the pre-operational stage (2 to 7 years), children concentrate on mastering symbols, center their attention on one characteristic at a time and cannot mentally reverse actions. Between the 7th and 11th years, the concrete operational stage takes over in which children can generalize from concrete experiences but are still unable to mentally manipulate unexperienced conditions. By the time the child reaches age 11, he is able to form hypotheses, deal with abstractions, engage in mental manipulations and systematically solve problems (Table 45).
Pomerantz (1986:6) notes that Rejeski (1982) used Piaget's theory of cognitive development to understand the development of children's perceptions of the environment:
"Rejeski outlined three stages of cognitive development in the acquisition of environmental knowledge and understanding of ecological concepts. In the first stage, literalism, which centered around ages 6 to 7, the child was interested in his immediate environment and had little ability to see himself removed from his physical surroundings. The tree, along with its inhabitants, their homes and their,tbehavior was an especially important symbol of nature during this stage. Ages 9 to 10 brought the second stage, organization, where children classified and systemtically reduced the complexity of the world through natural laws. Nature was seen as an enclosed space, i.e., a pond, forest or mountain, and children became aware that human intervention may produce deleterious effects on the environment. This is the stage that begins to provide a basis for the land ethic. At age 13 to 14, the moralism stage, children begin to understand basic ecosystem concepts and explored the link between humans and their natural environment. A sense of moralism is established at this time."
Combining the theoretical stages of Piaget, Kohlberg and Gilligan with the work of Rejeski, Kellert and Westervelt and her own work, Pomerantz was able to produce a comparison of children's perceptions of the natural world with cognitive stages of development (Figure 33). Pomerantz (1986:15) notes, "Once the developmental schemes used by children are acknowledged, the real challenge is to utilize that information in designing materials and methods for wildlife education."
Pomerantz (1986) notes that Project WILD currently gears its activities to the developmental stages of children and that this idea could be expanded to other wildlife curriculum and activities. As a result of concrete experiences, children in the elementary school years are forming ideas about their world. In order to incorporate the lesson into their operational thought, they need to experience an event directly. Pomerantz notes that, in addition to the realization of the evolutionary learning stages and direct wildlife experiences, utilization of nonstandard information sources, such as magazines, curriculum guides (Project WILD, Project Learning Tree, class projects, etc.) and television would enhance classroom presentations; and sound relationships between biologists and teachers would all help enhance children's understanding and ultimately concern for wildlife and the natural world.
Kellert and Berry (1980) found significant differences in attitudes toward wildlife among Whites and non-Whites. Kellert (1980c:120) reports, "Racial differences clearly revealed a relative lack of concern and affection for wildlife among non-Whites."
Kellert and Berry (1980) detected a number of important White/non-White differences, even after various attempts to account for the possibility of confounding effects of other factors. Blacks were less interested, knowledgeable and concerned for wildlife and natural habitats than were whites. Blacks
had exceptionally low naturalistic and knowledge scores and very high negativistic scores.
Three-way cross-tabulations corroborated the significance of race primarily at the middle and higher end of the socioeconomic spectrum. Black/White differences on the naturalistic and negativistic spectrum were highly significant for those at the middle and higher end of the socioeconomic spectrum.
"Race appeared to be a very important demographic factor on the naturalistic, negativistic and knowledge dimensions, although primarily among those of moderate to higher income and education. For reasons not yet clear, educated and higher income Blacks did not reveal anywhere as much interest, knowledge or involvement as did Whites of similar socioeconomic status" (Kellert and Berry 1980).
Major differences in attitudes appeared to be confined to issues involving the protection of wildlife and natural habitats rather than issues such as cruelty or treatment of pets. Blacks had much lower naturalistic, ecologistic and knowledge scores and higher negativistic scores; only slight differences were found on the humanistic and moralistic scales (Kellert and Berry 1980) (Figure 34).
Kellert and Westervelt (1983), as previously reviewed, found Black children to have the lowest knowledge scores of any demographic group with the exception of second graders. Black children also had significantly higher dominionistic, utilitarian and negativistic scores as well as significantly lower humanistic and naturalistic scores.
Washington (1976) surveyed 100 urban Blacks in Denver, Colorado, and found that, although many urban Blacks are familiar with the aesthetic and recreational rewards associated with the enjoyment of wildlife, the average urban Black had little understanding of or experience with wildlife resources, most likely because they have had little opportunity for any meaningful contact or experiences with wildlife. Washington's general impression was that wildlife was little more than a vestigial component in the lives of many urban Blacks. Specifically, he found:
� A majority (60 percent) indicated an interest in wildlife.
� Fifty-four percent would prefer to observe wild animals living freely in their natural environment.
� Eighty percent of Black college students and 67 percent of Black adults were dissatisfied with their current knowledge of wildlife; only 45 percent of Black high school students were satisfied.
� Televised wildlife programs were selected most often (42 percent) as an important contributing factor to their present knowledge and understanding of wildlife and its importance to man.
Sixty-eight percent of high school students, 90 percent of college
students and 93 percent of adults indicated an interest and concern for wildlife and natural resource conservation.
� Ninty-one percent believed Blacks, in general, should concern themselves with wildlife.
� Fifty-three percent would not (38 percent would) be interested in joining an environmental organization.
� Washington (1976:4) states:
"Reactions to the survey were mixed. Some people thought it important and overdue, others had no opinion and still others considered it a waste of time for all concerned. One comment made quite frequently by participants in all three groups was that the survey made them really stop and think about wildlife, something they hadn't really done before."
Washington (1976) believes that the lack of knowledge and experience with wildlife at an early age, as well as the preoccupation with the problems of city life and, many times, poverty, has left most Blacks at a very early stage of developmental growth with respect to their interest in and concern for wildlife.
Cerulean (1986) found Floridians' attitudes and behaviors toward wildlife varied with race:
� Whites were more likely (16 percent) than Blacks (8 percent) to rate wildlife conservation as a top priority for increased funding. Hispanics were also less likely to choose this as a top priority for funding.
� Blacks were more likely than Whites to be concerned that wildlife did not create a nuisance.
� Whites were more likely (69 percent) than Blacks (47 percent) to feed wildlife around their homes.
� whites were more likely (59 percent) than Blacks (37 percent) to enjoy wildlife while on a trip for another purpose.
� Hispanics were more likely (87 percent) than non-Hispanics (68 percent) to want more information on helping injured wildlife.
0 Hispanics were more likely (98 percent) than non-Hispanics (88 percent) to want more information on wildlife identification.
� Hispanics were more likely to get their wildlife information from the media and were less likely to use books than non-Hispanics.
Blacks were more likely than Whites to favor animal protection, while
Whites were more likely than Blacks to favor habitat protection as the most important action for wildlife conservation in Florida.
Kellert and Berry (1980) found significant relationships between income and attitudes; however, the relationship was not strong or consistent and a number of anomolies occurred (Figure 35).
Only respondents with incomes over $35,000 had significantly higher naturalistic attitudes after adjusting for other demographic factors.
Respondents earning between $20,000 to $35,000 had significantly higher humanistic scores. Persons with the highest and lowest incomes had nearly identical humanistic scale scores.
Although there were differences on the knowledge, scientistic, ecologistic and moralistic scales, income did not seem to exert important influences. Knowledge differences were significant but no income group ranked among the highest scoring demographic group. No significant differences occurred on the scientistic, ecologistic or moralistic scale scores. "Income did not appear to exert an important influence on concern for problems of natural habitats or the ethical treatment and welfare of animals" (Kellert and Berry 1980:81).
Significant differences were found among income groups on the utilitarian scale. Respondents earning greater than $35,000 scored higher on the utilitarian scale than those earning less than $10,000. The lowest utilitarian scores were obtained by those earning $10,000 to $14,999 (Kellert and Berry 1980).
Although income appeared to exert little influence on attitudes toward animals, greater affection and involvement with wildlife were observed among higher income groups. For example, participation rates in most animal-related activities were greater among higher income groups (Kellert and Berry 1980).
In Virginia, Moss and Fraser (1984) found that respondents with very high incomes were less likely to value wildlife simply because people enjoy knowing that it exists. Respondents with low incomes were most likely to value wildlife's economic benefit of attracting tourism, and more likely than other income groups to value wildlife's consumptive value. Paradoxically, low income persons were also more likely to value the wildlife resource because "they have souls like humans." However, they found no significant differences in income between noncontributors and contributors to the Nongame Wildlife Program through the tax checkoff.
In 1976 in Missouri, of the 10 counties ranking highest in median family incomes, only two counties voted in the minority against a one-eighth of 1 percent sales tax increase earmarked for conservation efforts. A 1982 survey of Missourians found that higher levels of income were related to a greater awareness of the Missouri Department of Conservation, administrators of the sales tax revenue (Missouri Department of Conservation 1982).
deHaven-Smith (1986b) found that persons earning between $10,000 and $40,000 a year were most likely to believe that the loss of natural areas is a problem in northeast Florida (X-55.7 percent believed the loss of natural areas is a problem). Individuals earning between $30,000 and $40,000 a year distinguished themselves as having the highest percentage who believed the loss of natural areas is a problem (57.5 percent). In contrast, 31.8 percent of respondents earning less than $10,000 a' year, and 41 percent of respondents making over $40,000 a year, believed the loss of natural areas was a problem in northeast Florida.
deHaven-Smith (1985b) found that, although there was very little overall support for relaxing land-use regulations in New Smyrna Beach, Florida, persons who earned more than $90,000 per year were more likely than other income levels to favor relaxing land-use regulations. A majority of residents earning between $10,000 and $40,000 supported strengthening land-use regulations; however, support dropped to less than a majority within groups earning over $40,000 per year (Tables 46-47).
In the Florida Keys, deHaven-Smith (1984:8-9) found that, except for the very well-off, income evidenced little influence on perceptions of environmental trends, "but is negatively related to support for stronger land-use controls. This means that as income rises, support for tighter regulation declines even though respondents continue to perceive environmental problems" (Tables 48-49).
In Lee County, Florida, deHaven-Smith (1985a) found that income had a curvilinear relationship both with perceptions of environmental problems and with support for stronger land-use controls: as income increases to $29,000 per year, the frequency of perceptions that the environment is deteriorating increases. Beyond the $29,000 mark, as income increases, the frequency of this percpetion declines. However, a majority of individuals who believed that land-use regulations should be increased was found among those earning between $20,000 and $90,000 per year (62 percent); only 40 percent of those earning over $90,000 per year believed land-use regulations should be strengthened (Tables 49-50) .
The Audubon Society found that the average subscriber to Audubon magazine earned in excess of $35,000 annually (Audubon 1977).
Of all demographic variables, Kellert and Berry (1980) found education to be the most sensitive indicator of appreciation, concern, affection, knowledge and respect for animals. The authors state (1980:71), "...the relationship of education to attitudes and knowledge was strong, direct and linear" (Figure 36). Attitudes often shifted in a positive or negative relation at the transition point from a high school to a college education. Important findings included:
� Persons with a graduate education had the highest naturalistic scale scores and the next to lowest negativistic scores.
� As the level of education declined, naturalistic scores declined and negativistic scores increased.
� Educational achievement had a direct impact on interest and affection for animals--the experience of a college education appeared to represent a particularly critical event.
� Significant knowledge scale differences occurred among graduate education respondents who scored higher than any other demographic group. In contrast, persons with less than an eleventh grade education had the lowest scores of all groups except non-Whites.
� No significant differences were found on the humanistic scale, which implies increased education affects interest, affection and knowledge of wildlife, but has minimal impact on emotional concern for individual animals and pets.
� College educated respondents, particularly individuals with a graduate education, had the highest ecologistic scores of any demographic group. Although, in general, the correlation was linear, respondents with a ninth to eleventh grade education had lower ecologistic scores than those with an eighth grade education or less.
� Respondents with a graduate education were only exceeded by Pacific Coast residents and clerical workers in the extent of moralistic concern for animals. Moralistic scores also increased with education.
� Utilitarian scores were linear in relation to education, decreasing as education increased. Individuals with less education were more willing to exploit animals and natural habitats for the sake of human advantage and material gain.
� Participation rates in most animal-related activities were higher among more educated groups (Figure 37).
� Higher-educated individuals were more concerned about endangered species protection.
� Physical science, social science and education majors had very different scores than liberal arts, business, law or medical students on the naturalistic, ecologistic, moralistic and negativistic scales (Table 52).
� In general, there was a relative lack of interest, affection and concern for animals among the least educated, with the possible exception of situations involving sporting satisfaction and material gain (Kellert 1980c).
Kellert (1980d) found that support for protecting endangered species varied with education. A majority of those individuals with a high school
education or less opposed protecting the eastern indigo snake if it meant foregoing socioeconomic benefits while nearly 70 percent of the individuals with some graduate education favored protecting this species.
deHaven-Smith (1986b) found that a majority of northeast Florida residents with a high school education or more (54, percent) believe the loss of natural areas is a problem in northeast Florida. In contrast, only 41.8 percent of individuals with less than a high school education believe the loss of natural areas is a problem. Concern over air pollution in northeast Florida also increased with education; additionally, persons with a college education were much more likely to express support for stronger land-use controls.
deHaven-Smith (1985b) found that New Smyrna Beach residents with a college education were more likley than other groups to express support for stronger land-use controls (Table 47).
In the Florida keys, residents with more education were more likely to believe that the Key's environment is deteriorating and were much more likely to support land-use regulations (deHaven-Smith 1984) (Tables 48-49).
In Lee County, Florida, residents with more education were more likely to believe the environment is getting worse (56 percent of persons with a graduate education compared to 43 percent of high school-educated persons). Similarly, the more education an individual had, the more likely he/she was to favor stronger land-use regulations (deHaven-Smith 1985a) (Tables 50-51).
In a survey of readers of Missouri's Conservationist. the Missouri Department of Conservation (1983) found that interest in endangered species, habitat management and herptile articles increased with education. On the other hand, hunting articles were "very important" to those with less than a high school education, "somewhat important" to those with a high school education and "not at all important" to most of the college-educated subscribers (Table 44).
Cerulean (1986) found Floridians' attitudes and behaviors toward wildlife varied with educational level:
Floridians with a college education tended to place wildlife conservation as a top priority for increased funding higher (17 percent) than those individuals without a college education (9 to 12 years of education, 13 percent; less than 8 years of education, 7 percent).
The importance of knowing that one can fish and/or hunt in Florida decreased as the level of education increased.
College-educated Floridians are more likely than those without a college education to take trips for the primary purpose of enjoying wildlife.
Persons with a college education were more likely (67 percent) than high school-educated (50 percent) or persons with less than an eighth
grade education (25 percent) to enjoy wildlife while on a trip for another purpose.
� The presence of wildlife while on a trip for another purpose was more important to a larger percentage of individuals with less than an eighth grade education (69 percent) than those with a college education (Caution: N-8" for this cross-tabulation) .
� College-educated Floridians were less likely (58 percent) to want information on helping injured wildlife than less educated individuals (77 percent of those individuals with eight or less years of education wanted more information).
� The more educated a Floridian, the more likely he/she was to favor habitat protection, information and education as tools for conserving Florida's wildlife; the less educated favored more animal protection for this purpose.
When considering other demographic factors, Kellert and Berry (1980) found that many of the proposed relationships between occupation and attitude toward animals were insignificant.
One occupational group that did stand out was farmers.
"This group was especially characterized by non-emotional pragmatism and mastery over nature attitudes, as refelcted in very high scores on the utilitarian and dominionistic scales (in fact, the highest utilitarian and second highest dominionistic scores of any demographic group). Additionally, a pronounced lack of sympathy for most cruelty and animal protection concerns among farmers was suggested by extremely low moralistic and endangered species protection scale scores (lower than 11 groups on these scales except respondents with less than an eighth grade education and over 76 years of age)" (Kellert and Berry 1980:108).
Farmers also had relatively low naturalistic and knowledge scores and high negativistic scores, indicating limited interest in wildlife, the outdoors and animals in general. Farmers' humanistic scores were lower than any other demographic group.
See Figure 38 for a graphic view of occupation by selected knowledge and attitude scales.
In the national survey, Kellert and Berry (1980) found several attitudinal and knowledge differences based on population of residence:
� Persons residing in highly rural areas of less than 500 had substantially higher naturalistic and-lower humanistic scores.
� Significantly higher naturalistic scores were characteristic of persons raised in small towns.
� Rural residents had higher participation rates in wildlife-related activities such as hunting, fishing, trapping and bird watching.
� Persons residing in towns of less than 500 had much lower negativistic scores.
� Rural respondents had significantly higher knowledge scores in particular contrast to those from areas of more than one million in population.
� Individuals from areas with over one million residents had very low knowledge scores, scoring only above respondents under 25 and over 76, persons with less than an eleventh grade education and Blacks.
� All population groups with greater than 50,000 people had knowledge scores below the general population mean.
� Residents of areas of less than 500 had the lowest moralistic scale scores of any demographic group.
� High moralistic scales were characteristic of those residing in large cities with a population greater than one million, although not characteristic of persons living in urban areas of any less population size.
� Respondents from large cities were far more opposed to hunting and predator control than those from small cities, towns and rural areas.
� Respondents residing in cities of more than one million had the sixth lowest utilitarian scores of all demographic groups.
� See Figure 39 for population of present residence by selected knowledge and attitude scales.
Kellert (in press h) studied urban American perceptions of animals and the natural environment, and found significant attitude and knowledge differences among varying urban population areas, although the major scale results were typically between different demographic groups.
"The social characteristics of the urban respondent appeared to be a more important predictor of animal-related interest and perception than was the
population of the person's urban residence. One important exception was the greater environmental knowledge of suburban residents, particularly in contrast to residents of cities of more than one million persons. Additionally, the suburbs and large cities were less willing than other urban areas to sacrifice environmental values for the practical advantage of human beings" (Kellert in press h:226).
Meaningful results included:
The humanistic attitude was by far the most frequently encountered attitude toward animals among urban residents. The moralistic, negativistic and utilitarian scores were the next most frequently encountered attitudes, respectively.
The comparative unimportance among urban residents of direct experiential contact with nature as well as systematic relationships to wildlife and habitat was suggested by the far less frequent occurrence of the ecologistic and naturalistic attitudes.
Suburban residents had significantly greater environmental and wildlife knowledge, particularly in comparison to residents of cities of more than one million in population.
Among suburban residents, persons 56 years and older were especially knowledgeable.
Blacks had much lower knowledge scores; suburban Blacks had the lowest knowledge scores of any urban demographic group.
Residents of suburban areas - had the highest naturalistic scores, indicating a strong personal interest in wildlife and the outdoors.
People living in cities of more than one million had the lowest naturalistic scores.
Suburban and large city residents had the lowest utilitarian and highest moralistic scale scores, suggesting greater concern for the rights of natural objects and less willingness to sacrifice environmental values for practical purposes.
Small city (50,000 to 100,000 population) residents had the highest utilitarian scores of all urban respondents.
The least . moralistic concern occurred among residents of cities 100,000 to one million in population.
In general, the greatest appreciation and knowledge of the natural environment occurred among residents of suburban areas.
Urban respondents 18 to 35 years of age expressed far greater affection and interest in the outdoors, wildlife and pets, as reflected in significantly higher naturalistic and humanistic and
lower negativistic scale scores. However, 18- to 35-year-olds in large cities had lower naturalistic scores.
� In general, younger respondents had higher moralistic and ecologistic and lower utilitarian scale scores than older respondents, reflecting greater concern for protecting,the natural environment and the rights of animals.
� Urban Blacks were substantially less knowledgeable, interested and concerned about the natural environment than urban whites.
� Rural background was highly related to urban whites' perceptions of animals. They tended to have higher knowledge and utilitarian scores than urban-raised Whites. Among urban Blacks, a rural childhood had little association with environmental attitudes and often reflected a move in the opposite direction. Kellert notes that Cleaver (1969:58) remarked that Blacks, as a consequence of slavery, "learned to hate the land and came to measure their own value according to the number of degrees they were away from the soil." Furthermore, Blacks who achieve greater economic success tend to associate this achievement with increasing distance from the land and the natural environment. Indeed, Kellert found that the greatest differences in attitudes toward wildlife and the natural world occurred among college-educated Whites and Blacks.
� Urban college-educated respondents consistently revealed significantly greater concern, appreciation, interest and understanding of the natural world.
� Very high naturalistic scores were characteristic of respondents of more than a $20,000 income in cities of greater than one million.
Based on the results of this study, Kellert (in press h) suggests some specific management possibilities:
"Knowledge results suggest the need to develop wildlife education programs in the large cities. Suburban areas might benefit from environmental awareness programs seeking to inform persons of the practical advantages associated with the use of renewable natural resources.
Age results clearly indicated the greater animal and outdoor recreational interests of younger than older urban respondents. Younger persons would appear to be receptive of additional opportunities for natural resource-related recreational experiences. The unexceptional animal knowledge of 18- to 35-year-old respondents (especially in large cities) would suggest that recreational ties be linked with educational programs designed to increase factual understanding of animals and the natural environment. Among elderly respondents, limited appreciation of ecological values recommends additional information on the practical value of healthy ecosystems. Additionally, the restricted mobility of elderly urban residents and their relative lack of naturalistic interests suggests
outdoor recreational opportunities for this group be provided in a convenient and accessible fashion.
Urban Blacks had significantly lower scores on every measure of knowledge, appreciation, interest and concern for wildlife and the natural environment. Moreover, these differences remained significant and sometimes even increased after controlling for socioeconomic status, rural background and farming occupation among the respondents' parents. When socioeconomic status was considered, the largest differences occurred among higher incomes and college-educated Blacks and Whites. These results suggest the need to increase outdoor recreational opportunities and wildlife education programs for urban Black residents. These programs should be designed, however, in relevant and non-threatening ways--i.e., provided in familiar and proximate locations seeking to minimize feelings of isolation and incompetence.
Educational group differences paralleled the ethnicity results and many recommendations offered for urban Blacks would apply to all urban groups with less than a high school education. Additionally, limited appreciation among the less educated of the need for environmental protection and a greater inclination to exploit animals suggest the value of public awareness programs emphasizing the practical benefits of natural resource conservation and preservation.
While income results were often positively correlated with educational findings, income group differences were generally far less impressive and significant. This finding suggests appreciation and understanding of animals and the natural environment are not just a consequence of higher socioeconomic status and more available leisure time."
In Virginia, Moss and Fraser (1984) found that rural and small town residents seemed to be more representative of traditional wildlife management constituencies, placing a high value on wildlife's consumptive benefits and participating in consumptive activities, while they are less likely to prefer direct manipulation of habitat, wildlife population and people for management purposes.
Moss and Fraser (1984) found urban and suburban dwellers were more likely to value the intangible benefits of wildlife, participate in nonconsumptive activities and to support habitat, population and people management. Urban and suburban residents were more willing to pay a fee to enter a refuge and more likely to donate to Virginia's nongame fund.
In Missouri, there was more support of a 1976 one-eighth of 1 percent conservation sales tax among urbanites than among rural people. In fact, it was the urban vote that carried the sales tax proposal to victory. The 1976 sales tax vote mirrored the 1936 vote that established the Missouri Conservation Commission by constitutional amendment; the urban vote was responsible for passage of the bill. Interestingly, a 1982 survey of Missourians found rural residents to be more familiar with the Missouri Department of Conservation, administrators of the conservation sales tax revenue (Missouri Department of Conservation 1982).
In a survey of Missouri Conservationist readers, the Missouri Department of Conservation found that hunting articles were very important to rural residents but not important to urban residents; otherwise, outdoor interests were fairly similar in importance (Missouri Department of Conservation 1983) (Table 44).
Cerulean (1986) found Floridians* attitudes and behaviors toward willdife varied with residence:
� It was more imporant to natives (57 percent) than nonnatives (39 percent) to know that they could hunt or fish in Florida.
� The value of knowing wildlife is around their homes was more important to rural residents (73 percent very important) than to town (61 percent very important) or urban residents (55 percent very important).
� Rural residents were more likely to feed wildlife (76 percent) than town (66 percent) or urban residents (62 percent), although a majority of all residents fed wildlife.
� Rural residents were slightly more likely to photograph wildlife around their homes.
� Rural residents were more likely (45 percent) to maintain plantings for wildlife around their homes than urban (32 percent) or town (36 percent) residents.
� Florida natives were more likely (65 percent) than nonnatives (54 percent) to enjoy wildlife while on a trip for another purpose.
� Rural residents were more likely (72 percent) to want more information on wildlife than urban (49 percent) or town (61 percent) residents.
� Rural residents (79 percent) were more likely to want information than urbanites (66 percent) on how wildlife live.
� Florida natives were more likely than nonnatives to want more information on helping injured wildlife.
� Rural residents were more likely (93 percent) than town (91 percent) or urban (85 percent) residents to want information on how to identify wildlife.
� Rural (27 percent) and town (25 percent) residents were more likely to get their information about wildlife from personal experiences, although a major proportion of Florida's residents received their wildlife information from the media (54 percent urban, 49 percent town, 45 percent rural).
Florida natives were more likely (31 percent) than nonnatives (20 percent) to use experience as a means of obtaining information about wildlife. However, the media was a much more .important source of information for both natives (38 percent) and nonnatives (54 percent).
More Florida natives than' non-natives knew that the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission was the state agency responsible for managing wildlife in Florida.
Rural residents were more likely than town or urban residents to rate the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission's performance as "poor."
Rural residents were more likely (93 percent) than town (90 percent) and urban residents (83.9 percent) to enjoy wildlife around their homes while doing other things.
Knowledge of Wildlife
Kellert (1980c) found that the American public possessed extremely limited knowledge of animals. Nationally, only 26 percent correctly identified as false the statement, "The manatee is an insect." Only 26 percent knew the coyote was not an endangered species, only 13 percent were aware that raptors were not small rodents and 43 percent identified as true the statement, "Most insects have backbones."
Kellert and Berry (1980) found that all animal-related activity groups had knowledge scores above the national sample mean. However, the scores of zoo visitors, pet owners, antihunters and large fish fishermen were not significantly higher than the national mean. The highest scores were obtained by bird watchers, members of conservation organizations (humane, wildlife preservation, environmental protection, sportsmen and general conservation groups), nature hunters and scientific study hobbyists. Although not statistically comparable, trappers, cattlemen and sheep producers also had very high scores.
The highest knowledge scores among demographic groups were the college-educated respondents (especially graduate education), professionals and high income individuals. The lowest knowledge scores were obtained by Blacks, individuals with less than a high school education, those under 25 years of age and those older than 75, and residents of large cities.
The knowledge questions were divided into a number of generic categories. The public was most knowledgeable about animals that inflict human injury, pet animals, basic characteristics of animals and domestic animals in general. The American public was least knowledgeable about predators, taxonomy and invertebrates (Kellert and Berry 1980).
The public was also questioned about their familiarity with eight wildlife issues (Kellert and Berry 1980). The three most recognized issues were the
killing of baby seals (43 percent very and moderately knowledgeable), the effect of pesticides on birds (42 percent) and the use of steel leg-hold traps (38 percent) . The use of steel versus lead shot by waterfowl hunters (14 percent knowledgeable) and the Tennessee Valley Authority/Telleco Dam/snail darter controvery (17 percent) were the least familiar issues. Kellert (1980c:115) notes, "The public appeared to be far more aware of relatively emotional issues involving specific, attractive and 'higher' animals than of more abstract issues involving indirect impacts on wildlife due to habitat loss or dealing with 'lower' animals."
Kellert and Westervelt (1983) found children's knowledge of animals quite limited. For example, less than 30 percent of the children questioned knew the spring peeper is a frog; only 26 percent knew a tern was not an insect and 52 percent knew the penguin was a bird. However, researchers did find that, in general, childrens' (especially eleventh graders) knowledge of animals was superior to adults (from the national survey) on questions involving invertebrates and basic biological characteristics. However, adults tended to be more knowledgeable on questions concerning domestic animals or situations with a strong practical significance (e.g., human injury inflicted by animals).
Relatively high knowledge scores were found among eleventh graders, eighth graders and rural children. Relatively low knowledge scores were
characteristic of Black children, second graders and children residing in large cities. The researchers found the greatest increase in knowledge by far occurred between the fifth and eighth grades (Kellert and Westervelt 1983).
Westervelt and Llewellyn (1985) found a moderate level of factual understanding among children concerning the physical and behavioral characteristics of wild animals. Facts about common animals and the foods wild animals eat were familiar to students, although classification and the food habits of trout were more difficult topics. Females and children living in the South demonstrated the least knowledge about animals.
Knowledge was positively associated with naturalistic interests, and knowledge and fears were negatively related. "Although a causitive
relationship between knowledge and attitudes was not demonstrated, the negative correlation between interest and fears of animals ... [suggested] the value of dispelling fears about animals before an interest in learning more about wildlife can develop" (Westervelt and Llewellyn 1985:33).
Pomerantz (1977) found most children (7th through 12th grades) correctly answered questions about the effect of air pollution on plants, the role of insects in an ecosystem, interspecific competition and human effects on the environment. Children were least knowledgeable on forest succession, transpiration, energy transference, forest fires, wildlife as a renewable resource and population dynamics. Each successive grade had more students who had higher knowledge scores. Hunters had higher scores than nonhunters and more nonhunters had higher scores than antihunters. Significantly more males scored higher on the knowledge questions and more rural residents also had high scores.