<%BANNER%>

Evaluation of an Environmental Education Program for the Andean Bear in an Ecuadorian Protected Area


PAGE 1

EVALUATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR THE ANDEAN BEAR IN AN ECUADORIAN PROTECTED AREA By SANTIAGO ESPINOSA ANDRADE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004

PAGE 2

Copyright 2004 by Santiago Espinosa Andrade

PAGE 3

To Maiko, for 9 years of loyal company.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to first acknowledge the community of Oyacachi, whose warmth and collaboration were essential to the fulfillment of this study. Special thanks go to David Parin, President of the Cabildo in 2003; Teodoro Ascanta, Director of the school; Csar Aigaje, Nelly Isa, and Gustavo Parion (teachers at the school); and Patricio and Mara Aigaje. I consider all of them dear friends who gave me their help when I most needed it. Deep thanks go to Luis Surez, who first proposed that I conduct this evaluation and put me in contact with the Andean Bear Conservation Project team (Jaime Camacho, Francisco Cuesta, and Saskia Flores). I truly appreciated their collaboration, interest in my research, and willingness to share their extensive experience and knowledge. This research would not have been possible without the financial support of the Program for Studies in Tropical Conservation (PSTC) Compton Fellowship in Environment and Sustainable Development; along with the Jennings Scholarship, in the Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation. I am extremely grateful to my academic advisor, Susan Jacobson, whose unending support allowed me to pursue my goals, whose guidance helped me maintain focus in my research, and whose wisdom helped me clarify my ideas. I would also like to thank my supervisory committee, Janaki Alavalapati and Glenn Israel. They provided me with many thoughtful comments and suggestions, which vastly improved the quality of this work. iv

PAGE 5

I also extend my gratitude to my friends at the University of Florida, who helped create a wonderful environment in which I was able to develop my ideas and enjoy myself. Special thanks go to Rafael Reyna, Alejandro Paredes, and Ivan Daz who, in addition to their friendship, helped me revise portions of this thesis and provided me with positive feedback. I also would like to thank my Uncle Bruno, who has been like a brother to me and has always been willing to help me in everything that I have done. His logistical support made fieldwork for this research much easier. I extend special thanks to the woman who changed my life in Gainesville, Amy Duchelle. Amy brought me the peace, warmth, and happiness that made me feel at home, despite being so far away. Her constant love and support kept me going and lifted my spirits when I most needed it. She read this document several times, corrected my English, and provided me with thoughtful advice to improve this work. Finally, I want to express my love and gratitude to my parents for providing me with the values and principles that have guided me throughout my life. v

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................ix LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................xi ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................xii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Trends in the Conservation of the Andean Bear in Ecuador........................................2 The Andean Bear Conservation Project.......................................................................4 Theoretical Framework of Responsible Environmental Attitudes and Behavior.........6 Research Objectives and Hypothesis............................................................................9 2 DESIGN AND METHODS........................................................................................12 Site Description..........................................................................................................13 Sampling Design for Surveys.....................................................................................13 Structure of Surveys............................................................................................14 Survey for Adults................................................................................................14 Survey for Children at the Elementary School....................................................15 Focus Groups..............................................................................................................15 Focus Group with Authorities.............................................................................16 Focus Group with Para-Biologists.......................................................................16 Focus Group with Teachers.................................................................................16 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................16 Quantitative Data.................................................................................................16 Qualitative Data...................................................................................................17 3 RESULTS...................................................................................................................20 Survey Results............................................................................................................20 vi

PAGE 7

Evaluating the ABCP-EEP with Adults.....................................................................20 Sociodemographic and Economic Background...................................................21 Bear Interactions..................................................................................................22 Knowledge Indicators about the Environment and Conservation.......................23 Attitudes toward Bears and the Environment......................................................24 Factors Influencing Attitudes..............................................................................25 Behavioral Intentions toward Bears and the Environment..................................29 Factors Influencing Behavioral Intentions..........................................................32 ABCP -EEP Perceived Results by the Community.............................................33 Factors Related with Perception about ABCP-EEP Results...............................36 Evaluating the ABCP-EEP on Children.....................................................................37 Knowledge...........................................................................................................37 Attitudes..............................................................................................................37 Behavioral Intentions...........................................................................................38 School and Program Support...............................................................................39 Focus Group Responses..............................................................................................40 Focus Group with Authorities.............................................................................40 Focus Group with Teachers.................................................................................42 Focus Group with Para-Biologists.......................................................................44 Limitations of the Study.............................................................................................45 4 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................56 Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions in Oyacachi..................................57 Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions in Children.............................57 Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions in Adults................................58 Support for the ABCP Environmental Educational Program.....................................62 Variables Influencing Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions........................................65 Variables Influencing Support for the ABCP......................................................69 Comparison of the ABCP -EEP Strategy to other Environmental Education Efforts to Conserve Large Carnivores...................................................................70 Conclusion..................................................................................................................72 5 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................75 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ADULTS...........................................................................79 B QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CHILDREN AT THE SCHOOL......................................88 C FOCUS GROUPS GUIDES.......................................................................................94 D CHI-SQUARE TESTS...............................................................................................96 E FACTOR ANALYSIS..............................................................................................103 vii

PAGE 8

F PEARSON CORRELATIONS.................................................................................108 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................110 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................117 viii

PAGE 9

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Sociodemographic and economic indicators............................................................47 3-2 Education levels of survey respondents...................................................................47 3-3 Interaction/conflicts between the bear and participants...........................................47 3-4 Costs of damages caused by bear ............................................................................47 3-5 List of knowledge indicators, grouped in four domains...........................................48 3-6 Comparison between knowledge level of male and female participants.................48 3-7 Attitudes toward conservation of bears and the natural environment......................49 3-8 Attitudes toward bears..............................................................................................49 3-9 Questions grouped in indices...................................................................................50 3-11 Behavioral intentions toward environmental protection..........................................52 3-12 Reaction in hypothetical encounter with a cub and an adult bear............................52 3-13 Behavioral intentions toward a bear at different degrees of proximity....................52 3-14 Behavioral intentions toward bear management......................................................52 3-15 ABCP-EEP perceived achievements by the community..........................................53 3-16 Other important perceptions about ABCP...............................................................53 3-17 Questions for children compared between the years 2000 and 2003.......................54 3-18 Comparison between knowledge scores in 2000 and 2003......................................54 3-19 Attitudes of children at the school............................................................................54 3-20 Behavioral intentions of children at the school........................................................55 3-21 Childrens behavioral intentions toward a bear at varying degrees of proximity....55 ix

PAGE 10

3-22 Students awareness of ABCP-EEP and support of the school program..................55 D-1 Attitude toward bear protection................................................................................96 D-2 Attitudes about personal importance of bear............................................................96 D-3 Behavioral intentions when participant encounters an adult bear............................97 D-4 Behavioral intentions when participant encounters a bear cub................................97 D-5 Behavioral intentions to prevent bear damage to cattle and crops...........................98 D-6. Behavioral intentions of how participants would use the bear .................................98 D-7 Attitudes toward protecting nature...........................................................................99 D-8 Attitudes toward the RECAY...................................................................................99 D-9 Behavioral intentions toward helping conserve the environment............................99 D-10 Behavioral intentions toward burning pramos.....................................................100 D-11 Behavioral intentions toward collaborating with forest rangers............................100 D-12 Behavioral intentions in an encounter with a bear.................................................100 D-14 Children satisfaction with teachers........................................................................101 D-16 Place where children would like to attend high school..........................................102 x

PAGE 11

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus).....................................................................10 1-2 Distribution of the Spectacled Bear along the Andean Region ...............................11 2-1 National System of Protected Areas in Ecuador, Location of the community of Oyacachi at the Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve...............................................19 xi

PAGE 12

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master in Science EVALUATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR THE ANDEAN BEAR IN AN ECUADORIAN PROTECTED AREA By Santiago Espinosa Andrade August 2004 Chair: Susan K. Jacobson Major Department: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation This study evaluates the impact of an environmental education program to protect the Andean bear (Tremarctos ornatus) in the Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve in Ecuador. Andean bears are threatened by reduction and fragmentation of their habitat, hunting, and persecution by farmers. To help conserve this species, the Andean Bear Conservation Project, with an Environmental Education Program (EEP), were implemented in 1997 in the community of Oyacachi, located within the boundaries of the reserve. The EEPs objective was to stimulate local support toward conservation of the Andean bear and its habitat, targeting school children and adults. Methods to assess the EEPs impact on the community after 5 years of implementation include a personal survey with 146 adults; a written survey completed by 44 children; and three focus groups conducted with authorities, teachers and para-biologists. Baseline data were available from 1997 for adults and from 2000 for children. Program success was analyzed based on changes in levels of environmental knowledge, xii

PAGE 13

attitudes and behavioral intentions toward bear protection after program inception, along with support for the program. The evaluation revealed partial success of the ABCP-EEP in achieving its objectives. Childrens level of knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions did not change between 2000 and 2003, although the frequencies of positive responses were high in these two last indicators, ranging from 80-97% and 84-100% for both years, respectively. Adults positive attitudes toward bear protection, and behavioral intentions based on a conflictive situation with bears had a positive association with participants levels of knowledge and education. Positive attitudes toward bear presence in Oyacachi were negatively associated with respondents past experiences with livestock predation. Program support was positively associated with respondents participation in the Andean Bear Conservation Project. To increase program success recommendations include creating more continuity in project activities; reaching more sectors of the population; improving communication strategies for informing the public about activities conducted by the ABCP, along with the results of these activities; and planning future evaluations and monitoring of the ABCP-EEP. Because livestock predation was a factor that decreased community support for conservation of the Andean bear, our study suggests the importance of coordinating educational activities with development projects that shift dependence on cattle to other livelihoods and thereby reduce conflicts with bears. xiii

PAGE 14

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Since 1998, the Andean Bear Conservation Project has been conducting an Environmental Educational Program in the community of Oyacachi, Ecuador, with the objective of increasing community support for conservation of this endangered species. To date, the results obtained by the program have not been described. Have the inhabitants of Oyacachi gained more knowledge since the programs inception? Do they have positive attitudes toward conserving the environment and the Andean bear population? Do they support the activities conducted by the program? These and many other programmatic questions can be answered through an evaluation. Evaluation, in its broadest sense, is a process for determining the value or worth of something (Rossi & Freeman 1993). Program evaluations are important (Jacobson 1999) because they permit us to measure achievement of program objectives, assess secondary outcomes and unanticipated impacts, identify strengths and weaknesses in the program, analyze the program from a cost-benefit perspective, improve program effectiveness, collect evidence to promote future programs, and share experience and lessons learned with similar programs. Evaluations have been demonstrated to be essential components in educational programs, allowing for the collection of relevant information in order to identify failures and adapt programs to improve their probability of success (Pdua & Jacobson 1993, Gerakis 1998, Heffernan 1998, Archer 2002, Rovira 2002). In an analysis of 56 tropical conservation education programs conducted between 1975 and 1990, Norris and 1

PAGE 15

2 Jacobson (1998) found that fewer than the half of the programs had achieved their goals. One main attribute significantly correlated with program success was the use of either formative or long-term evaluation. Our study evaluated results of the Andean Bear Conservation Projects Environmental Education Program (ABCP-EEP) by measuring changes in individuals levels of environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. An increase in knowledge is considered an important indicator of the success of an environmental education program (McDonough & Lee 1990), along with public satisfaction with, and support for, a program (Rossi et al. 1999). Our study provides an assessment of the ABCP-EEP, with the goal of enhancing program success, which ultimately will contribute to the conservation of this endangered species. Trends in the Conservation of the Andean Bear in Ecuador The Andes are the home of the only species of bear occurring in South America, the Andean, or spectacled, bear (Tremarctos ornatus) (Figure 1-1). The spectacled bear is mainly distributed through Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia (Peyton 1999) (1-2), but has been occasionally reported in the Darien region of Panam (Jorgenson 1984) and in northwestern Argentina (Brown & Rumiz 1989). The Spectacled Bear Specialist Group (SBSG) has estimated a population of at least 18,250 individuals in the wilderness (Peyton 1999). In Ecuador, the spectacled bear population has been calculated to be around 2,500 individuals, with no subpopulation at more than 250 mature individuals (Cuesta & Surez 2001). An effort to protect this species at an international level is reflected in its inclusion in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, CITES (UNEP-WCMC 2004), and its classification as a vulnerable species in the Red List of

PAGE 16

3 Threatened Species of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, IUCN (IUCN 2003). In Ecuador, the spectacled bear inhabits a variety of Andean ecosystems (such as cloud forests and pramos) along an altitudinal range of 900-4,250m, on both western and eastern Andean slopes (Surez 1999). The main threat to the long-term survival of the spectacled bear is the loss and fragmentation of its habitat (Surez 1999). Montane [cloud] forests have been drastically reduced in the last decades, by deforestation and habitat conversion to other land uses. Dodson and Gentry (1991) point out that almost nothing is left from the original forest of the inter-Andean valleys, with only 4% of montane forests remaining on the western slopes. Valencia (1995) notes that montane forests are the most threatened ecosystems in Ecuador, with only 7% of their original distribution left. Although Ecuadorian law prohibited the hunting of the spectacled bear in 1970, poaching (for commercial sale of its parts, in local and international markets) currently constitutes a significant threat to bear populations (Cuesta & Surez 2001). Mazariegos and Adams (1994) reported 15 bears killed in 1993, in two communities neighboring protected areas in Ecuador (to obtain bear fat, considered by local people to have medicinal properties). They estimated 70-120 bears killed annually in Ecuador. The expansion of the agricultural frontier has increased human-bear conflicts. As their habitats are reduced, bears are forced to feed on crops, particularly corn (Surez 1999). Bear predation on livestock is reported in areas where cattle-ranching activities are conducted near bear habitats (Goldstein 1991). These negative interactions increase

PAGE 17

4 farmers willingness to participate in the extermination of this animal, which is considered by many to be a pest (Surez 1999). The Andean Bear Conservation Project As a response to the critical status of the spectacled bear population and its habitat, in 1997, the non-governmental Ecuadorian organization EcoCiencia, with the support of the World Conservation Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), created the Andean Bear Conservation Project (ABPC). This project consisted of the following two components: research on Andean bear ecology, and an environmental education program. The Environmental Education Programs (EEP) objective was to increase peoples level of knowledge about the environment, and to promote positive attitudes and behaviors toward conservation of the Andean bear and its habitat. The program began in 1997, in the Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve (RECAY), with an assessment of peoples attitudes toward bears in the communities of Sardinas and Oyacachi (Cuesta 1998). The EEP activities have continued in Oyacachi, addressing both children and adults. The activities for adults have included: (1) workshops dealing with local environmental issues, such as a campaign for solid waste management; (2) collaboration with SEC1, a high school long distance program for adults who are not able to conduct their studies in one of the cities closer to Oyacachi2; and (3) the training and recruitment 1 An important activity with students in their last year at the SEC, was the creation of environmental interpretative trails for tourists. This activity was worth as a final project for the students in order to obtain their high school diplomas. 2 The Training and Capacity Building System (SEC) was created by the Ministry of Environment as a initiative to provide education to the personnel who work in the National System of Protected Areas. This program has a strong environmental education component, and due to its success, was expanded to provide education to local communities established in and around protected areas.

PAGE 18

5 of community members to work as para-biologists in collaboration with research being conducted on Andean bear ecology. The EEPs efforts with children have been directed at collaborations with the local school. From June through October of 1998, a pilot program was developed by the ABCP, which included three primary components: (1) the insertion of environmental education in the curriculum of the school; (2) the design and elaboration of didactic materials for this school; and (3) the creation of a summer school program for the children of Oyacachi. One year later, the pilot program was improved by the ABCP-EEP, resulting in the School Plan for Environmental Education and Capacity Building (PECAE). From December 1999 to April 2000, the ABCP conducted a diagnosis of socio-pedagogic and educational needs of the school before designing the PECAE. The resulting PECAE consisted of four components: (1) a curricular program, which incorporated environmental education as a theoretical framework in the learning process of children; (2) a capacity building program, which was conducted with teachers at the school to improve their skills in environmental education; (3) an infrastructure program, to improve the learning platform for children; and (4) a communication program, to share acquired information and experiences with other people, both within and outside of the community (Flores et al. 2000). Tangible results of these activities include peoples personal accounts of the workshops, EEP publications, didactic materials produced with the teachers and students and even a radio program, narrated by local people, telling the story of an Andean bear. However, there has not been any monitoring or evaluation of the EEP. This study is the

PAGE 19

6 first attempt to evaluate the processes and results obtained by the Andean Bear Conservation Project and its Environmental Education Program. Theoretical Framework of Responsible Environmental Attitudes and Behavior There are several theories that attempt to elucidate pro-environmental behavior and are relevant to understanding peoples interactions with wildlife. Most notably, these theories suggest the importance of peoples attitudes as predictors of their behavior. Therefore, in understanding the interactions between people and bears in Oyacachi, it is important to first define the variables that influence attitudes toward wildlife. Kellert (1996) proposed four interacting variables that shape individuals attitudes toward wildlife: (1) individuals basic values toward animals and nature that inevitably affect their perceptions about a particular species; (2) physical and behavioral characteristics of an animal, such as its size, perceived intelligence, morphology, mode of locomotion, and cultural and historical associations; (3) knowledge and understanding about a particular species, including factual, conceptual and conservation awareness; and (4) past and present interactions with a particular species, including conflicts, recreational use, property relationships and management status. According to Ajzen and Fishbeins Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein 1980), a persons intention to perform a pro-environmental action is determined by a combination of two components: (1) his or her attitude toward the behavior, which is influenced by beliefs that are shaped by a persons experiences and knowledge, and (2) subjective norms, which refer to the social context in which a person acts. For example, if a person thinks that it is good to protect bears, and this sentiment is reinforced in their community, it is more likely this person will behave positively toward bears. This theory was extended by Ajzen (1985) in his theory of planned behavior, which added that even

PAGE 20

7 if individuals have the intention of performing a particular behavior, the behavior will only happen if an individual both perceives that he or she has the capability to perform it (perceived control) and also the necessary skills (actual control). These variables determine whether behaviors actually follow peoples intent to behave in a certain way and demonstrate the importance of capacity-building in reinforcing pro-environmental behavior. Hines et al. (1986/87) created a model of responsible environmental behavior based on six variables, observed to be the most influential in shaping individuals intentions to act and therefore their behavior 1. Knowledge of issues: In this case, a person needs to be aware of the issues surrounding conservation of the spectacled bear, in order to influence his or her intention to act. 2. Knowledge of action strategies: A person needs to know what his or her choices are for reducing human impact on the bear population; 3. Locus of control: The individual has to have the perception that his or her actions will make a difference in bear conservation; 4. Attitudes: A person must have a positive attitude toward the bear, in order to want to protect it; 5. Verbal commitment: If there is an expressed intention to collaborate with a bear conservation program, it is more likely that a person will adopt positive behaviors toward bears; and 6. Individuals sense of responsibility: A person with a stronger feeling of duty or obligation will be more likely to perform pro-environmental behaviors Other variables, or situational factors, such as economic constraints, social pressures and opportunities to choose multiple actions, are also aggregated in this model as directly influencing a persons behavior. Such situational factors are extremely relevant to conservation of the spectacled bear in Oyacachi.

PAGE 21

8 Hines et al. (1986/87) and Kellert (1996) highlight the importance of knowledge and attitudes in influencing positive behaviors toward nature and wildlife. These theories are essential in understanding the significance of environmental knowledge and attitudes, gained through the Andean Bear Conservation Projects Environmental Education Program, in promoting pro-environmental behavioral intentions of program participants toward the spectacled bear. Despite the fact that knowledge per se may not lead to an individuals performance of a pro-environmental action or behavior, it represents one important precondition for a behaviors development (Jensen 2002). This last assertion is supported by numerous studies focusing on environmentally responsible behavior, which have found positive correlations between knowledge and pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors (Infield 1988; Armstrong & Impara 1991; Lyons & Breakwell 1994; White & Jacobson 1994; Fiallo & Jacobson 1995; Kellert 1996; Zimmermann 1996; Tikka et al. 2000; Kasapolu & Ecevit 2002; Archer 2002; Caro et al. 2003). This study attempts to assess the importance of enhancing local knowledge and support, as fundamental to the Andean Bear Conservation Project-Environmental Education Program. Additionally, in order to evaluate this program more broadly, this research includes analysis of how peoples past and present interactions with spectacled bears have shaped their current attitudes toward the bear. Finally, it explores how other situational factors, such us income or dependence on natural resources, influence peoples attitudes toward the bear and toward the ABCP.

PAGE 22

9 Research Objectives and Hypothesis Objectives of this evaluation are as follows: Objective 1. Assess current levels of knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions toward the conservation of Andean bear and its habitat, and changes since the programs inception. Objective 2. Measure public support and satisfaction with the Andean Bear Conservation Project and its Environmental Education Program in the community of Oyacachi. Objective 3. Analyze the influence of participants level of environmental knowledge, sociodemographic and economic attributes, and interactions with the Andean bear on their attitudes, behavioral intentions and project support. Objective 4. Improve program delivery by identifying strengths and weaknesses and suggesting future modifications. Research hypotheses of this study are as follows: H1. Participants knowledge, positive attitudes and behavioral intentions will have increased since program inception. H2. Participants level of knowledge about the environment and socioeconomic situation will be positively correlated with their attitudes, behavioral intentions and program support. Objectives 1 and 2 attempt to determine whether the program was successful. Project success would be represented by a higher level of knowledge, positive attitudes and behavioral intentions toward the conservation of the spectacled bear, along with high levels of support and satisfaction with the project. Objective 3 attempts to contribute to an understanding of how peoples knowledge, socioeconomic conditions and interactions with the bear can influence their attitudes, behavioral intentions and, ultimately, behaviors. Understanding these associations is critical in facilitating improvement of the strategies of the Andean Bear Conservation

PAGE 23

10 Project, since peoples attitudes and behaviors may be influenced by their knowledge, livelihood systems and past experiences with the bear. Objective 4 is intended to contribute to the improvement of the Andean Bear Conservation Project and provide important insight for other programs directed toward conservation of the spectacled bear. The Andean Bear Conservation Project is still being conducted in Oyacachi. Furthermore, other countries in the Andean region are working toward the conservation of the spectacled bear and its habitat. Figure 1-1. Spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus) (Photo by Rafael Reyna)

PAGE 24

11 Figure 1-2. Distribution of the Spectacled Bear along the Andean Region (Figure 9.1., p 160, in Peyton, B. 1999. Spectacled Bear Action Plan. Pages 157-198 in C. Servheen, S. Herrero and B. Peyton, editors. Bears Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. UICN/SSC, Gland.)

PAGE 25

CHAPTER 2 DESIGN AND METHODS This systematic evaluation uses a variety of methods to collect information needed to assess local support of the Andean Bear Conservation Project and changes in knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions after implementation of the Environmental Education Program in the community of Oyacachi. Structured interviews were conducted to collect qualitative and quantitative information, which permitted statistical analyses on associations between attitudes and behavioral intentions and participant variables such as knowledge, sociodemographic and economic characteristics, and interactions with bears. Previous questionnaires conducted with adults (1997) and children (2000) are used as baseline information to look for changes in knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions, by comparing responses given to the same questions before and after EEP implementation. Focus groups were conducted with teachers, para-biologists and local authorities. Focus groups are planned, relaxed discussions among small groups of people about a specific topic, in order to obtain information more quickly than one-on-one interviews and allow individuals to use the ideas of others in the group as cues to elaborate more fully on their own points of view (Israel 1994). This technique was used to include the opinions of three different groups, composed of people who had participated in the program and who are key members in the decision-making processes in the community. 12

PAGE 26

13 Site Description The Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve (RECAY), created in 1970, is a national protected area located in the eastern branch of the northern Ecuadorian Andes (Figure 2-1). It has an area of 403,103 ha and ranges from 600 to 5790 m in altitude. Within the boundaries of the RECAY, the Quichua indigenous community of Oyacachi is located, having been established in the area since the pre-Hispanic period (Kohn 2002). Oyacachi is a small community, with approximately 550 inhabitants grouped into 105 households (Comuna de Oyacachi, Plan de Manejo Comunitario 2001-2004). Peoples livelihoods are dependent on livestock, handicrafts and subsistence agriculture. They have 44,500 ha available for these practices, however, the management of this territory is under the regulations of the Ecuadorian National System of Protected Areas. Sampling Design for Surveys Heads of households to be interviewed were chosen randomly from a list of 103 community households provided by local authorities. If possible, both male and female heads of each household were interviewed separately. It has been suggested that gender of interviewers can affect responses of interviewees (Bernard 2002). In order to reduce this effect, which is very important in this case due to the culture of the Oyacachi community, a previously trained female field assistant helped to conduct surveys with female interviewees. Retired heads of households (people over the age of 60) were omitted from the selection process after pre-testing the questionnaire. The reason for this decision was based on two main factors: (1) elderly people speak little Spanish, and (2) they had not received any formal education, making their understanding of the issues touched on by the questionnaire quite low.

PAGE 27

14 The survey evaluating the EEPs impacts on children at the elementary school program was delivered by the local teachers to all students in the three upper-level grades, 5 to 7 (children approximately between the ages of 9 and 12 years). Structure of Surveys Survey for Adults To evaluate the impacts of the ABCP-EEP, two surveys were developed. The first consisted of a face-to-face interview with adults, and the second consisted of a written questionnaire for children. Both surveys were reviewed by the ABCP-EEP coordinators and by teachers in the local community to ensure usefulness of the results. The surveys followed standard survey techniques (Salant & Dillman 1994). The survey for adults was pre-tested in the first 20 interviews to correct problematic questions. For adults, the questionnaire included 9 questions from the questionnaire conducted in 1997 with the general population (Questions 10, 11, 16, 19, 24, 31-34 in Appendix A), 12 questions from the questionnaire for children conducted in 2000 (Questions 1-6, 8, 14, 27-29), and 48 new questions. In total, the adult survey comprised 71 questions, which were organized into seven topical sections (Appendix A): 1. Knowledge: This section includes 14 questions (Q 1-13, Q 16), which measure peoples knowledge about bear behavior, local flora and fauna, concepts of ecology and conservation, and knowledge regarding environmental regulations and natural resource management. 2. Attitudes: 12 questions (Q 14, Q 15, Q 17-26) measure peoples attitudes toward the environment, and toward the bear and its protection. 3. Behavioral intentions: 10 questions (Q 27-36) measure the behavioral intentions of people in activities that affect bear conservation and in their personal interactions with the bear. 4. Interaction with bears: 3 questions (Q 37-39) were designed to provide information about conflicts between people and bears in Oyacachi.

PAGE 28

15 5. ABCP-EEP evaluation: 17 questions (Q 40-56) solicit information about program support, satisfaction and perceived results by the community, as well as information that will be useful to improve program delivery from the community perspective. 6. Sociodemographic and economic information: 13 questions (Q 57-69) were designed to address variables such as education level, income, family size, and other factors that could influence responses regarding the attitudes and behavioral intentions of interviewees toward the bear and their support of the ABCP. 7. Questions added as a request of local teachers: Two questions (Q 70 and Q 71) were added to the adult questionnaire as a request of local teachers. They wanted to know how much support the creation of a local radio for delivering educational programs would have in the community. Survey for Children at the Elementary School The questionnaire for children contained 44 questions, divided into the following 5 sections (Appendix B): 1. Knowledge: 14 questions (Q 1-13, Q 16), including 9 from the previous questionnaire conducted in 2000 (Q 1-7, Q 9, Q 16). 2. Attitudes: 10 questions (Q 14, Q 15, Q 17-24), including 2 from the previous questionnaire conducted in 2000 (Q 14, Q 17). 3. Behavioral intentions: 9 questions (Q 25-29, Q 32-35), 4 of which come from the previous questionnaire conducted in 2000 (Q 25, Q 26, Q 27, Q29). 4. Contact with bear: Questions 30 and 31 5. ABCP-EEP evaluation: 8 questions (Q 36-43), to measure childrens satisfaction with their school. Three of these questions were included in the survey conducted in 2000 (Q 38, Q 39, Q 42). Focus Groups Three focus groups were conducted for approximately a one-hour period with each group. Participants were invited and attended the meetings voluntarily. All sessions were tape recorded and notes were taken. Focus group guides are found in Appendix C. It is important to mention that 15 out of 16 participants in focus groups also participated in face-to-face interviews.

PAGE 29

16 Focus Group with Authorities A meeting was conducted with members of the Cabildo, the political organization of the community. A total of 6 out of 9 invited members attended the meeting and discussed their perceptions and support of the ABCP and its EEP. Focus Group with Para-Biologists A total of 7 out of the 8 invited para-biologists, the people trained by the ABCP to collect biological data for the Andean bear ecological study, participated in the second focus group. The discussion was focused on their perceptions about peoples support for the ABCP in the community, and about the results this project has had in changing the attitudes and behavioral intentions of people regarding the conservation of the Andean Bear and the environment. Focus Group with Teachers A third focus group meeting was conducted with 3 of the 5 teachers from the school to understand their perceptions regarding the success of project activities conducted with the school since the beginning of the program in 1998. Teachers thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of the EEP at the school were discussed, along with the ways in which program delivery could be improved in the future. Since teachers are important decision makers in the community, this focus group also discussed the role of the ABCP in influencing community development. Data Analysis Quantitative Data Statistical analysis was conducted with SPSS 11.5 software. Questionnaire responses were first analyzed with descriptive statistics to determine the overall pattern of responses. Differences between groups responses regarding knowledge, attitudes and

PAGE 30

17 behavioral intentions before and after program inception were tested using Chi-Square analyses (Appendix D) and T-tests. Some responses concerning economic data were inconsistent between the husband and wife of individual households. These data were household income, amount of cattle owned, and amount of trees and firewood used. In order to better estimate these variables, divergent responses given by husbands and wives were averaged in the case of income and amount of cattle. For number of trees used, the response of the male was determined to represent the household use, since men extract timber for the manufacture of handicrafts. In the case of firewood, the answer given by the female was determined to represent the use of this resource by the household, because it is women who more frequently collect firewood for use in cooking. Questions regarding knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions were grouped to form unidimensional indices through a factor analysis (Appendix E). The indices were tested with a reliability analysis using Cronbachs alpha coefficient. Linear multiple regression models were used to analyze the ways in which environmental knowledge, interactions with bears, and sociodemographic and economic variables influence participants responses on attitudes and behavioral intentions toward the bear and the environment, as well as their support for the ABCP. Bivariate Pearson correlation matrices were created to look for relationships between pairs of variables. For these analyses, statistical significance is reported as significant (alpha 0.05) and highly significant (alpha 0.01). Qualitative Data Qualitative data from the three focus groups conducted with local authorities, teachers and para-biologists were used to provide a deeper understanding of the ABCP

PAGE 31

18 results in the community of Oyacachi and contribute to the improvement of the EEP, based on suggestions from these key community members. Information from notes and recordings from these focus groups was transcribed and merged to summarize participants opinions of the program.

PAGE 32

19 Oyacachi Figure 2-1. National System of Protected Areas in Ecuador, Location of the community of Oyacachi at the Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve.

PAGE 33

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Survey Results In order to evaluate the Andean Bear Conservation Projects Environmental Education Program (EEP) with adults of the community, 147 interviews were conducted between May and August 2003 with 72 males and 75 females. These interviews represent 88% of possible participants (168 people) who were husband and wife of each household. A total of 84 out of 87 target households were covered by this study. This number (87) excluded households where both husband and wife were retired. In 64 cases, it was possible to interview both husband and wife; in 5 cases only single heads of household were found. People who were not interviewed (21 people) either did not want to participate (2 people) or were living outside of Oyacachi. In order to evaluate the results of the EEP at the elementary school, 44 surveys were conducted with children in the last three grades, 5 through 7. Their responses are compared to results obtained from 36 surveys, conducted in 2000, with children from the same grade level. Evaluating the ABCP-EEP with Adults The analysis for evaluating the effectiveness of the ABCP and its EEP with adults in the community focuses on their responses to questions regarding attitudes, behavioral intentions, project support, and peoples perceptions about the ABCP results. These responses can be explained by other factors, such as knowledge about the environment, interaction with bears, sociodemographic and economic conditions, and whether or not 20

PAGE 34

21 respondents have participated in project activities. Before and after program implementation comparisons have to be interpreted with caution for three reasons: (1) A limited sample size of interviewees in 1997 (n = 35); (2) the reduced amount of information useful for evaluation provided by the original questionnaire; and (3) general factors that jeopardize the validity of quasi-experimental designs (Campbell & Stanley 1963), especially history, maturation and instrumentation, which need to be considered in interpretation of the results. Sociodemographic and Economic Background Respondents had a mean age of 34 (SD = 11.20) and on average they had two children under the age of 15 (SD = 1.55) (Table 3-1). For further analysis, the age of 15 was chosen arbitrarily as a cutoff point for children, because it was observed that older than 15 years daughters or sons are considered more as contributors rather than dependents in the household economy. The income of households ranged from 18 to 400 US dollars per month, with a mean of 119 (SD = 73.10) (Table 3-1). In Ecuador, the minimum wage per month in May 2004 was US$ 166, and the minimum monthly amount of capital needed by a family to satisfy their basic needs was US$ 388 (INEC 2004). The main source of economic revenue comes from cattle ranching. An average of 8 head of cattle were owned per household (SD = 3.60) (Table 3-1). Timber is also important; an average of 4 small trees (SD = 5.10) were used monthly for handicrafts, which constitutes the second most important economic activity after cattle ranching, and for construction purposes. Ninety-four kilograms of firewood (SD = 64.85) were used per week (Table 3-1). Of the people interviewed, 8% had no education at all. Twenty-five percent had attended a few years of elementary school, with 32% having completed elementary

PAGE 35

22 education. Eighteen percent had attended some high school, with 14% having completed high school education. Only 4 participants (3%), had pursued further studies beyond high school (Table 3-2). This low level of education reflects normal patterns in rural Ecuador, where 61% of the population has completed elementary school, 15% high school and 13% has not received any sort of formal education (INEC 2001). The main reason for not attending a formal educational institution is lack of financial resources (INEC 2004). Bear Interactions The Andean bear is a very well-known animal in Oyacachi, where it is considered a beautiful, powerful and mythical animal. It is viewed with respect and also with fear by local people, due to its destruction of corn crops and occasional predation on cattle and sheep. Three-fifths of participants reported having seen a bear at least once in their lifetime (Table 3-3). Currently, corn production is not a common activity in Oyacachi, so the destruction of corn is not a widespread problem. However, 20% of participants mentioned having had their corn crops destroyed by a bear in the past (Table 3-3). This proportion represents 14 households, who reported a mean economic loss of US$ 67.50 (SD = 67.10) per corn crop (Table 3-4). Currently predation on cattle and sheep is the major problem that creates conflict between the community members and bears. One-fifth of participants reported having had their cattle or sheep attacked by a bear (Table 3-3). This proportion represents 16 households that had attacks to cattle and 4 that had attacks to sheep. The economic loss of each attack ranges from US$ 40 to 1000, with a mean of US$ 343 (SD = 308.87) (Table 3-4). This amount (US$ 343) represents one-quarter of the mean annual income of a household in Oyacachi.

PAGE 36

23 Knowledge Indicators about the Environment and Conservation Thirteen questions were used to measure peoples knowledge about the environment and bear conservation (Table 3-5). Knowledge scores varied on a scale from 0 to 13, with each question answered correctly counted as 1 point. The total knowledge score of participants had an average of 9.62 (SD = 2.48). The mean knowledge score for men, 11.14 (SD = 1.79), was significantly higher than that for women, 8.15 (SD = 2.144) (Table 3-6). In order to conduct further analyses of the relationship between knowledge and attitudes, behavioral intentions and program support, principal component analysis was used to group knowledge indicators (Appendix E). Four different indices were created, dividing knowledge into four domains: (1) knowledge about ecology and conservation (5 questions), (2) knowledge about local flora and fauna (2 questions), (3) knowledge about bear behavior (3 questions) and (4) knowledge about environmental regulations (3 questions) (Table 3-5). Men were more knowledgeable than women in each of these knowledge domains (Table 3-6). In order to test the consistency of the indices, a reliability analysis was conducted with the knowledge indicators comprising each index. Cronbachs alpha measure of inter-item correlation was used for this purpose. Usually, a Cronbachs alpha value higher than 0.7 is an acceptable reliability coefficient (Nunnaly 1978), whereas a value less than or equal to 0.30 indicates that items do not share a common theme (Witter 1978). The indices measuring ecology and conservation, local flora, bear behavior, and environmental regulations knowledge had Cronbachs alphas of 0.73, 0.58, 0.22 and 0.35, respectively. In spite of the lower alpha value of the bear behavior knowledge index, it

PAGE 37

24 was maintained because conceptually it is known to measure a common theme (as demonstrated by principal component analysis). Attitudes toward Bears and the Environment Participants had a positive response toward the conservation of natural resources and the bear. When asked about the need to conserve nature and the persistence of natural ecosystems such as forests and pramos, 99% and 100% of participants, respectively, answered positively to both questions (Table 3-7), mainly mentioning that those ecosystems were important for obtaining natural resources. The general attitude toward the natural reserve was also positive; 97% mentioned that it was either good or very good to have the RECAY present (Table 3-7). The principal explanation participants gave for this response was that the RECAY protects them against intruders and colonists. Also, 93% of participants thought that the RECAY is necessary for bear survival, and 81% mentioned that this animal needs to be protected (Table 3-7). The majority of respondents were supportive of laws to protect the bear and other animals (93%) (Table 3-7). When asked more specifically about the bear and its presence in the area, responses were more divided than in previous questions. People were asked to give names of animals that they consider beneficial and animals considered detrimental. The bear was named by 62% (Table 3-8) of the participants as one of the animals considered detrimental, along with others like the puma, which predates on small farm animals, and parrots, which destroy crops. Only 14% of participants included the bear with animals considered beneficial, such as the tapir and deer, which were frequently mentioned (Table 3-8). Most people, 88%, perceived that there are presently more bears than in previous years. The reason given by respondents for this increase is that nobody is hunting the

PAGE 38

25 bear in the reserve. When asked if they would prefer more or fewer bears in the vicinity of Oyacachi, 48% said fewer or much fewer, 39% said the same amount, and only 13% responded they would like to see more bears (Table 3-8). The increase of bear predation on cattle in the last few years was the reason provided for why people were reluctant to have more bears close to them. However, for 67% of participants the bear was important at a personal level, related to aesthetic, utilitarian, ecological or cultural values. Also, three-fifths of the participants thought that the bear could become extinct if it is not protected against hunting (Table 3-8). Two questions regarding attitudes toward bears can be compared with responses given in 1997, before program implementation. The first question concerns what people think about protecting the bear. No significant differences appear in this response before and after program implementation; 88% of participants in 1997 and 81% in 2003 said the bear should be protected (X2 = 0.873, p = 0.350) (Table D-1). The second question makes reference to whether the bear is important to the person being interviewed. In this case, a significant difference is observed. In 1997, 97% of participants said the bear was important for them, while in 2003 a lower proportion, 67%, gave the same response (X2 = 10.812, p = 0.001) (Table D-2). Factors Influencing Attitudes In order to explore the association of attitudes with other factors, such as knowledge, interactions with bears, and sociodemographic and economic variables, the first step consisted of aggregating attitude items by creating indices that represented common themes. Factor analysis was conducted with 10 attitude items (Appendix E), and three indices were created: (1) index about bear protection, grouping 4 questions; (2) index about bear presence, grouping 4 questions; and (3) index about the personal

PAGE 39

26 importance of the bear, grouping 2 questions (Table 3-9). The reliability of these indices was tested using Cronbachs alpha, which had a value of 0.63, 0.53 and 0.33 for indices 1, 2 and 3, respectively. A set of linear multiple regression models was elaborated, taking each attitude index as the response variable. The explanatory variables incorporated into each model included: 1. Knowledge indices: indices measuring knowledge about ecology and conservation, local flora and fauna, bear behavior and regulations. 2. Sociociodemographic and economic attributes: Gender, age of participants, number of children under age 15, education level, monthly income, amount of trees used per month, amount of firewood used per week and number of heads of cattle. 3. Interaction with bear: One indicator of these variables, whether the bear has predated on cattle or sheep of participants or not, was set aside for the linear multiple regression analysis. The reason for including only this indicator of interaction with the bear, and not including corn crop predation and bear sightings, was that livestock predation was a main issue in the community at the time of the study. The objective was to see the extent to which this conflict was affecting peoples support of the conservation of the bear. 4. Program participation: To assess program effectiveness, it is important to see if respondents participation in the ABPC-EEP influenced their attitudes. Their participation in the long distance high school program SEC was also included, as this program has had strong support from the ABCP. Statistical interaction can cause some predictors to appear unassociated with the response variable. A Bivariate Pearson correlation matrix was performed to detect if there was a significant association of each explanatory variable with the response variables, ignoring the rest of the predictors (Appendix F). Attitudes toward bear protection had a highly significant association with knowledge about ecology and conservation in the linear multiple regression model (Table 3-10). The standardized beta for this predictor was 0.436 (p < 0.001), indicating a positive association between this domain of knowledge and peoples attitude toward

PAGE 40

27 protecting bears. In contrast, knowledge of local flora and fauna was negatively associated with attitudes toward bear protection, (Std. beta = -0.232, p = 0.022) meaning that those who know more about local flora and fauna are less likely to have positive attitudes toward bear protection. The correlation matrix demonstrated that other predictors had an association with attitudes toward bear protection when compared independently. Respondents age and amount of trees used per month were negatively associated (Appendix F), indicating that elderly people and those who use more trees were more likely to have negative attitudes toward bear protection. Regardless of whether respondents had participated in the ABCP or in the SEC, their education level, knowledge about bear behavior and knowledge about regulations were positively associated with attitudes toward bear protection (Appendix F). This last result indicates that people who have participated in any of these programs, ABCP or SEC, and are therefore more educated and knowledgeable, are more likely to have improved attitudes toward bear protection. In this correlation matrix knowledge of local flora and fauna did not have a significant association with peoples attitudes toward bear protection, suggesting that this variable became significant due to statistical interaction with other variables in the multiple linear regression model. A correlation matrix between the explanatory variables (Appendix F) demonstrated a significant positive association between knowledge of local flora and fauna and age, which provides evidence of the interaction between these two variables in the model. Three factors were significantly associated with attitudes toward bear presence in the linear multiple regression model. Gender was negatively associated (Std. beta = -0.225, p = 0.038), as women are coded with 1 and men with 2; this indicates that women

PAGE 41

28 are more likely to have a more positive attitude towards bear presence than men. Cattle predation by bears had a negative association with peoples willingness to have bears in the area (Std. beta = -0.195, p = 0.034) (Table 3-10). The last significant variable was an unexpected relationship with the amount of harvested trees per month, which appeared to be positively associated (Std. beta = 0.241, p = 0.016). This could have been caused by the interaction of this variable with others, such as age and education level, while in a correlation matrix the amount of harvested trees per month appeared not to be associated with attitudes toward bear presence (r = 0.089, p = 0.330) (Appendix F). The correlation matrix, comparing the attitude toward bear presence with each predictor (Appendix F), demonstrated that two other variables were related. The number of children under 15 years of age in the household was negatively associated with peoples attitude toward the presence of the bear, indicating that people with younger children are more likely to hold negative attitudes. Participation in the SEC program was positively associated with respondents attitudes toward the bear. The index measuring the personal importance of the bear combines peoples perception of the bear, and their beliefs as to whether this animal can go extinct. The only variable significantly related to this index in the linear multiple regression model was education level (Std. beta = 0.326, p = 0.022) (Table 3-10); the bear was more important for people who had more formal education than for people who did not. However, many other factors appeared to be related to this attitude in the correlation matrix (Appendix F). As in the previous case of attitude toward bear protection, participants ages and the amount of trees used per month were negatively associated with their attitudes about the importance of the bear. The variables that proved to have a

PAGE 42

29 positive association with attitudes regarding bear importance were consistent with the previous analysis comparing attitudes toward bear protection. ABCP and SEC participation, education level, knowledge of bear behavior, knowledge of environmental regulations and knowledge about conservation were significantly associated with attitudes about the importance of the bear. Behavioral Intentions toward Bears and the Environment Participants behavioral intentions to protect and conserve the environment were very positive. Almost all of the respondents indicated something that they could do to help conserve their environment (Table 3-11), such as planting some trees instead of only harvesting them, or not hunting wildlife in the reserve. In Ecuador, a common practice that negatively impacts highland ecosystems is the burning of pramo to facilitate the germination of grasses for cattle grazing. Almost everyone interviewed knew that this practice had negative environmental impacts and was forbidden inside the RECAY, and they were willing to report this action to local authorities or forest rangers in order to impede it (Table 3-11). Also, 92% of participants said that they would like to collaborate with forest rangers (Table 3-11) in helping watch for illegal behaviors when they are ranching their cattle in the pramos, for instance inside the RECAY. Also, since the ABCP created workshops that addressed more local environmental problems, such as one with waste management, at the time of this evaluation, 99% of respondents managed their garbage correctly, differentiating between organic and inorganic waste (Table 3-11). When participants were asked about what to do in the case of an encounter with a bear, their intentions in general were good, but were quite strongly influenced by the context. For instance, peoples reactions would vary based on whether the encounter is with a cub or with an adult bear (Table 3-12). When faced with an adult bear, 17% of

PAGE 43

30 respondents said that they would run away because the animal could be dangerous. Five percent said the same if it were a cub. However, 18% responded that they would scare the adult bear using a stick or shooting in the air, while 65% said that they would just leave the animal alone. In front of a cub, only 4% responded that they would try to scare it. Most people would leave it alone (84%), but 7% responded that they would like to catch the animal either to keep as a pet or to play with for a while before releasing it. Respondents behavioral intentions in a hypothetical encounter with an adult bear or a cub were more negative before program implementation. In an encounter with an adult bear, the main difference appears to be due to an increase in the proportion of people who said that they would leave the bear alone (52% in 1997 vs. 65% in 2003) (X2 = 12.714, p = 0.013) (Table D-3). Also, none of the 2003 respondents said that they would catch or shoot the bear, while in 2000 two people mentioned that action. In the case of an encounter with a cub (X2 = 15.978, p = 0.001) (Table D-4), the difference was due to the increase in the number of participants who said that they would leave the cub alone (58% in 1997 vs. 84% in 2003) and in the reduction of people who said they would catch the cub (30% in 1997 vs. 7% in 2003). An interesting difference occurs when people see the bear at different distances from their property (Table 3-13). If participants encountered a bear in the forest, they would either let it go (88%) or scare it (12%). The situation changes when people see a bear in their crops. In this case, most participants would scare the bear (80%) or even shoot to kill it (7%). Only 14% said that they would leave it alone. If the bear were found close to respondents cattle, peoples behavioral intentions would be even more negative toward the animal. Three quarters of respondents said that they would scare the

PAGE 44

31 bear, and 16%, more than twice that of the previous scenario, said that they would shoot the bear. Only 8% responded that they would leave the bear alone if it was close to their cattle. When people were asked what they would do if a bear was close to their homes, behavioral intentions were more positive than in the two previous situations (crops and cattle). Half of respondents said that they would scare the bear, 47% would leave it alone and just 3% would shoot it. People in Oyacachi commonly believe that the bear can kill humans, so this last result shows the importance of crops and cattle in peoples lives, indicating that they seemingly value these resources more than their personal security. A significant proportion of the participants, 18% (Table 3-14), believed that their best recourse against avoiding bear damage to their cattle and crops would be to kill them. However the majority, 82%, thought that alternative actions could be taken to solve this problem. For example, participants suggested that they could watch over their cattle more vigilantly or build fences to keep bears away. This question was also asked in the 1997 survey, when 20% of participants responded that the best course of action would be to kill the bear. There was no significant difference between the responses to this question before and after program implementation (X2 = 0.038, p = 0.846) (Table D-5). Due to its location inside a natural reserve, tourism in Oyacachi is increasing as an important local economic activity. When asked about how people could best use the bear, in 1997, 67% of respondents indicated that it would be to use the bear as an attraction for tourists. In 2003, there was a significant increase to this response, with 84% (X2 = 4.554, p = 0.033) sharing this same idea (Table D-6). This can be considered a positive change, since people who see the bear as useful when it is alive could be more in favor of supporting its conservation. However, 60% of respondents also expressed an

PAGE 45

32 interest in having the opportunity to sell bear parts, which are very sought after in local and international markets (Table 3-14). Factors Influencing Behavioral Intentions The principal objective of this analysis is to explore what variables could be influencing peoples positive or negative behavioral intentions in conflict situations between humans and bears. Three indicators, which clearly measured the behavioral intentions of people in a conflict situation, were grouped and transformed into an index through factor analysis. The three indicators were: a) Action to avoid bear damage to crops and cattle; b) reaction of participants when a bear is close to their crops; and c) reaction when a bear is close to their cattle. The reliability of the index was a Cronbachs alpha coefficient of 0.58. A linear multiple regression model was conducted using the behavioral intention index as a response variable. As in the previous analysis, the explanatory variables were knowledge indices, sociodemographic and economic attributes, interaction with bears, and program participation. The model explained 23% of the variance on the response variable. Only two variables were significantly related to peoples responses when presented with a hypothetical conflict situation with a bear (Table 3-10). Gender had a negative beta coefficient (Std beta = -0.464, p < 0.001). This indicates more positive behavioral intentions of women, in an interaction with the bear, than of men. The second significant variable was a knowledge index about ecology and conservation, which had a beta coefficient of 0.243 (p = 0.044) This signifies that people who know more about these issues are more likely to express positive behavioral intentions toward the bear. Conversely, the correlation matrix showed knowledge about local flora and fauna to have a significant negative association with peoples behavioral intentions (Appendix F).

PAGE 46

33 ABCP -EEP Perceived Results by the Community In order to evaluate the achievements of the ABCP with the adult population, a set of questions covering multiple topics was posed to indicate project success (Table 3-15). For this purpose, the analysis started by identifying whether the project was known within Oyacachi. Almost all interviewees (97%) had heard about the project, and 91% could say what people working in the ABCP were doing in Oyacachi. However, participants mostly made reference to the research being conducted on bear ecology, rather than mentioning activities conducted with residents themselves. A total of 63 interviewees (43%) said that they had participated in at least one activity of the ABPC. When asked about how they felt about this experience, the response was generally positive, with respondents stating that they had had either a very good (36%) or good (52%) experience because they had learned new things. For the 10% who had participated but stated that the experience was neither good nor bad, these respondents said that they had learned very few things and that nothing was put into practice. Only one person thought the experience was bad, after attending one workshop that she considered a waste of time. Most adults also supported the activities conducted with children at the school. Although less than half of the respondents (41%) knew about the activities with children, after having the change in the curriculum that included environmental education explained to them, 82% supported this initiative. The ABCP seems to have reached a significant proportion of the population. Half of respondents mentioned that the project has provided them with increased knowledge about the environment. However, it is important to mention that other organizations and projects working in the RECAY were mentioned as sources of environmental education along with the ABCP. These included the Ministry of Environment, which is the national

PAGE 47

34 organization in charge of administrating protected areas, and the Ecuadorian NGOs, Fundacin Antisana and Fundacin Ecolgica Rumicocha. Despite the fact that the ABCP and other groups have been conducting different forms of environmental education in the RECAY, 92% of respondents said that they would like to learn more about the environment, and 88% would like to be enrolled in an activity for conserving natural resources in the area. The main topics in which participants mentioned having interest were related to the management of natural resources, particularly tourism, organic agriculture, and low impact cattle ranching. This positive result presents evidence of local peoples support for conservation programs, like the ABCP in Oyacachi, through the willingness of people to continue participating in it. Sixty-five percent of participants thought that a positive change in peoples attitudes toward the environment has occurred in Oyacachi since implementation of the ABCP. They mentioned that there is currently more local awareness about the environment than in previous years. A similar proportion of participants (66%) thought that the ABCP was also useful (56%) or very useful (10%) for the development of the community. They justified this response by saying that having more knowledge of the environment helps them to better manage their natural resources. However, people who thought that the project was not useful (16%) or only slightly useful (18%) for the community mentioned that they did not need more education, but rather more things to help them in their daily life, such as a project to improve their cattle ranching and agriculture systems. It is worth mentioning that before this study began, the Cabildo did not approve the ABCP to continue with its research on the bear in Oyacachi. This internal governance

PAGE 48

35 system of the community involves all community members over the age of 18. The reasons given by the Cabildo for their decision were discrepancies among community members opinions about project activities, which had become more negative following events of bear predation on cattle. The Cabildo also argued that the ABCP was not leaving any benefit for the community, such as contributing directly to their economy (David Parin, President of the Cabildo, pers. comm. 2003). In order to assess whether the ABCP was indeed causing conflicts between community members, a fact that would not be positive for further development of the project and the EEP, participants were asked their opinion on this matter. A significant proportion of the responses (41%) indicated that the project creates some (31%) or a lot of conflicts (10%). Another 41% of respondents said that it caused few (5%) or very few (36%) conflicts, while 18% indicated that the project was not a source of conflict (Table 3-16). The main source of conflict mentioned by respondents concerned the procedures that were being used to research the bear at that time. Respondents complained about the bait, which included cattle blood among other ingredients, to attract bears to hair traps planted in close proximity to the community. People thought that the use of this bait could likely be the cause of the increase in cattle predation by bears. Another source of conflict that would not favor EEP implementation would be if people felt that their culture was not being respected by an external intervention. This is particularly important in this context, since Oyacachi is made up of a group of indigenous people who have inhabited the area for more than five centuries, and have a strong culture and unique worldview. In regards to this topic, participants responded favorably to the ABCP, with 97% agreeing that the projects respect of their culture was either good

PAGE 49

36 (56%) or very good (41%) (Table 3-16). People mentioned that in addition to respecting their culture, the ABCP also encouraged the recovery of Oyacachi traditions. Factors Related with Perception about ABCP-EEP Results As in the case of attitudes and behavioral intentions, peoples perception of ABCP-EEP results could be related to multiple factors, so an index was created through factor analysis (Appendix E) to measure this. The index included three items: (1) whether the project was mentioned as a source of environmental learning; (2) if the project has resulted in changing attitudes that favor conservation in the community; and (3) the perceived usefulness of the project to development of the community. The index reliability was tested with Cronbachs alpha coefficient, which had a value of 0.47. After this procedure, a linear multiple regression model was conducted to look for associations between perceived results (response variable) and knowledge, bear interaction, sociodemographic and economic attributes, and program participation (explanatory variables). The explanatory variables included in the linear multiple regression model (Table 3-10) explained 31% of the variance in the response variable perceived program results. Three variables had a significant association with the perception of the ABCP-EEP results. Gender was negatively correlated (Std. beta = -0.233, p = 0.024), indicating that women had a better perception of the projects results than men. Participation in the ABCP (Std. beta = 0.255, p = 0.017) and in the SEC program (Std. beta = 0.204, p = 0.049) was positively associated with peoples responses that supported projects results. This indicates a positive experience and perception of the project after participation in it. Besides these three variables, the correlation matrix showed that income, education level,

PAGE 50

37 and knowledge about conservation were significant in their positive correlation with participants perceptions about program results (Appendix F). Evaluating the ABCP-EEP on Children To evaluate results with children, the following analysis was conducted: (a) Childrens knowledge level in 2000 and 2003 were compared; and (b) current attitudes, behavioral intentions and school/program support of children were described and compared to results obtained in 2000. This before-and-after comparison was possible through the analysis of 9 questions from the 2000 survey that could be repeated in 2003 (Table 3-17). Knowledge In order to examine a change in childrens knowledge level, the 9 knowledge questions conducted in 2000 and repeated in 2003 were summed to create a total knowledge score with a maximum value of 9. The results of comparing the knowledge score between these two years showed similar media, 5.62 in 2003 and 6.04 in 2000 (Table 3-18). A t-test confirmed that there was no statistical difference between these two means (t = 1.214, p = 0.229), indicating no significant change in childrens knowledge after PECAE implementation. Attitudes Children expressed a very positive attitude toward the environment. In 2003, 100% of them responded that the environment should be protected, and 85% thought that forests and pramos should persist in their environment. Most children (91%) believed that it is good for them to have the RECAY in the area, because it helps to protect plants and animals (Table 3-19). The first and third responses were compared with results from 2000. A Chi-Square test shows there is no significant difference between both years. In 2000, 97% (X2 = 1.245, p = 0.265) (Table D-7) of children were in favor of protecting the

PAGE 51

38 environment, and 86% (X2 = 0.362, p = 0.547) thought that the RECAY was positive (Table D-8). Childrens attitudes toward bear protection also were very positive. Ninety percent thought that this animal needs to be protected, and that the RECAY is essential for its survival (Table 3-19). However, similarly to the adult respondents, children also did not seem to favor having more bears around Oyacachi. Half of them mentioned they would prefer fewer or far fewer bears present in the area (Table 3-19), because the bear kills cattle. A smaller proportion (33%) of children said they would like to have more bears living around Oyacachi, so that they could see them more often. When asked if the bear was important to them for any reason, 48% responded positively, largely due to aesthetic values. Children also were aware of the possibility of the bears extinction, with 64 % of them responding that this could happen; the main reasons given by children were that if it is not protected, the bear would be hunted, and also that few bears remain in the forest. Behavioral Intentions Childrens behavioral intentions toward the environment also are positive. When asked about what they could do to help to conserve the environment, 86% of children mentioned ideas, such as planting trees or not hunting animals (Table 3-20). Children also were aware of damage caused by burning the pramo. When asked what they would do if they saw someone setting fires in this ecosystem, 84% of children responded that they would do something, such as call a forest ranger. Their intention to help take care of the environment is also reflected in the fact that 87% of children responded that they would like to help forest rangers with their work (Table 3-20). These same three questions were asked in 2000. The frequencies of positive responses between years 2000 and 2003 did not show statistical differences (Tables D-9. D-10 and D-11).

PAGE 52

39 When asked about what they would do in an encounter with a bear, 17% of children in 2000, and 7% in 2003, responded that they would call an adult to kill it. This difference may represent a positive trend in childrens attitudes toward the bear, despite the fact that it was not statistically significant (X2 = 1.823, p = 0.177) (Table D-12). Similarly to the adult respondents, childrens behavior would depend on the context where the encounter with a bear occurred. No children said that they would call an adult to kill the bear if the bear were seen in the forest, while 5, 12 and 26% of children would do so if they saw the bear in their crops, home or close to their cattle, respectively (Table 3-21). School and Program Support Sixty-one percent of children at the school have heard about the ABCP, and 47% of them could say something about the activities of the ABCP in the community. However, these answers primarily made reference to the ecological study of the bear (Table 3-22). When asked about their school, almost all the children responded they like it (98%) and are happy with their teachers (95%) (Table 3-22). In 2000, children had the same positive responses to these two questions, showing no significant difference when compared to 2003 (Tables D-13 and D-14). Also, almost all of the children supported the school curriculum. Most of them (98%) said that they like what they are currently learning, and when asked about environmental themes, 84% said that they enjoy learning about the environment (Table 3-22). The motivation of children to continue on to high school is very strong, with almost all of them (96%) wanting to enroll. When asked if they would like to continue studying in Oyacachi, 81% responded affirmatively (Table 3-22). Children in 2000 had the same feelings about continuing on to high school, with no significant difference in responses

PAGE 53

40 between the two years (Tables D-15 and D-16). In Oyacachi, it is possible to choose between two systems of high school, the Crecer and the SEC. The first is the traditional system, whereas the SEC, which is designed for people who live within or in the buffer zones of protected areas, has a strong environmental education component. When asked which program they would like to continue with for high school, most children (77%) chose the SEC, which might reflect their interest in learning about the environment. Focus Group Responses Focus groups were conducted with local authorities, teachers and para-biologists. The opinions of these community members were essential in understanding the project and in evaluating its success. The central topics of the focus group discussions were: (1) perceptions about the projects results or achievements in Oyacachi regarding education and capacity-building in conservation; (2) perceived problems or failures faced by the ABCP-EEP, and ways in which the project could be improved; and (3) views about the collaboration between the ABCP and EcoCiencia, the NGO that administrates the ABCP. Focus Group with Authorities Six members of the Cabildo, including its president, participated in this focus group. They expressed the belief that the ABCP increased community awareness toward protecting the environment, as people have more knowledge now than before the projects implementation. Authorities also thought that the project had contributed to a reduction of wildlife poaching and deforestation in Oyacachi. They indicated that the collaboration between the ABCP and SEC program was the most successful activity conducted with the adults, since its participants are the most motivated and supportive of conservation activities. The EEP (PECAE) with the elementary school was also well

PAGE 54

41 supported by these authorities, because they recognize its contribution to the development of childrens skills. The authorities recognized some failures that, they believe, hindered the success of the EEP conducted by the ABCP in Oyacachi. Their perception was that the project had not reached the entire population, but rather only those who had participated in the workshops or in the SEC, and those who had worked as para-biologists. Also, they mentioned a lack of continuity in the EEP activities conducted with children and adults, which had reduced the motivation of the participants. Finally, they viewed peoples lack of practicing what they had learned as a failure of the project. As an example, they gave the case of an ecotourism project, designed by the ABCP and students at the SEC, which never was implemented, leaving participants feeling as if their efforts were a waste of time. A general concern of the authorities was that the main problem of the ABCP-EEP, and other similar conservation initiatives, was a lack of community-based development projects in their agendas. They emphasized the importance of creating projects that can provide alternatives for peoples livelihoods, particularly since the management of natural resources in Oyacachi is restricted because they are located inside a natural reserve, hindering community development. Projects that they thought could contribute to community development, while achieving conservation goals, included improvements in dairy cattle, sale of handicrafts, ecotourism and organic agriculture. The need for development projects was a recurrent theme during the meeting. One participant even mentioned that people of Oyacachi already know what is good or bad for the environment, and what they really need is these kinds of projects. They spoke about

PAGE 55

42 being the ones who are forced to conserve nature at the expense of their own wealth and possibility for development, while researchers are the ones who can profit from this. The authorities also expressed concerns regarding bear predation on cattle. They noted that the ecological study of the bear, which had been conducted for more than four years in Oyacachi, had not resulted in finding useful information toward a solution for this problem. The ABCP had not made any suggestions to help them deal with this conflict. In this focus group, the authorities made it clear that the bear is a problem in the community. Without project-supported research toward finding a solution to this problem, it would be difficult for the community to support conservation of this species. Focus Group with Teachers Three teachers participated in this focus group. They believed that their collaboration with the ABCP had positive results. All teachers agreed that children have better attitudes and behaviors toward the environment since implementation of PECAE. Attendance in school was considered normal, and children were motivated to learn new things, particularly in the area of natural science, where themes regarding animals and plants highly interest them. However, teachers also mentioned difficulties with teaching children to take care of wildlife, especially the bear, because the children also perceive conflicts with this animal and ask their teachers how it is possible to conserve an animal that kills their cattle and sheep. The teachers mentioned two kinds of limitations in teaching children. The first was related to a lack of resources. Some themes could not be studied in depth, because the school did not have appropriate didactic materials, such as audiovisuals, microscopes or a library where children could sit and study. The second limitation was related to the teachers own training. They needed more capacity-building in areas like pedagogy, in

PAGE 56

43 order to develop methodological strategies to implement the program. They also thought that better language, arts and sports programs would complement the childrens education. Also, the teachers felt that they needed to develop a better evaluation system, to permit them to keep better track of the teaching and learning processes. They felt comfortable teaching themes related to the environment, where they thought that the capacitybuilding process had been successful. Aside from the previous limitations, the only problem teachers saw in the school was the apathy of some students; however, they thought that this problem could be resolved by talking with them. Teachers did not see any failures of the EEP conducted with children and wanted to continue collaborating with the ABCP. When asked about the results that the project had with the rest of the community, teachers mentioned changes since the projects implementation five years ago, namely that there had been an increase in environmental awareness. However, this change was not only attributed to the activities conducted by the ABCP, but also to the work of other entities, such as the NGOs Antisana and Rumicocha. Teachers believed that the project was not as fully supported as it should have been, largely because the community was waiting for more tangible results, such as an ecotourism project, which could bring economic benefits to the community. Teachers also mentioned that, in 2002, the Cabildo did not give the ABCP permission to continue with its research on the bear. The main reasons provided for this were that community members thought the project was not giving anything back to the community (e.g., development projects) and only those who worked directly on the project, such as para

PAGE 57

44 biologists, were gleaning any benefits. These last comments reflect the opinions gathered from the members of the Cabildo themselves. Focus Group with Para-Biologists Seven para-biologists participated in this focus group. They perceived no noticeable change in peoples attitudes or behaviors since implementation of the ABCP five years before. Before the project began, people in Oyacachi were already aware of the need to protect nature, since they are located within a natural reserve, although they thought that people had gained more knowledge about the environment. They also contrasted Oyacachi with communities located outside the RECAY, which had already devastated all their forests. The para-biologists thought the project had positive results in working with individuals, allowing them in particular to acquire a lot of experience. They saw the project as failing to involve the entire community in its activities. However, EcoCiencia was perceived by the community as the organization that has been working more continuously and for a relatively longer period of time (since 1997) than other NGOs, which was acknowledged as a positive trend for this organization and the ABCP. They recognized that the community had been supported by the ABCP in a variety of aspects, from the program with the school, to workshops with adults, to their collaboration with the SEC. Also, they appreciated the contribution of the ABCP in the elaboration of a map that demarcated the boundaries of Oyacachis territory within the RECAY. They supported the idea of conducting workshops in the community, although they thought that what was lacking was an application of the concepts learned. They would have liked to see more activities of the ABCP contributing to the economic development of the community, such as projects to improve cattle ranching and family crops. They

PAGE 58

45 felt that these activities would provide people with alternative livelihoods and, therefore, contribute to the conservation of ecosystems and animals like the bear. The para-biologists had positive attitudes toward the ABCPs research on the bear, which they thought would provide valuable information on its management and help the community in preventing bear attacks on cattle. Para-biologists mentioned the conflict that currently exists with this species, which had started in the preceding five years. The ABPC was currently being blamed for this increase in cattle predation, through the use of cattle blood in the bait for attracting the bear to hair traps. The para-biologists also mentioned that people in Oyacachi think that there is more concern for bear survival than for the social welfare of its people, since they are highly restricted by the reserve in the management of their natural resources. They believed that the problem with the bear needed to be resolved as soon as possible, in order to improve the support for the ABCP in the community. A plan to give economic compensation to people who had lost their cattle was suggested in the meantime. Limitations of the Study There are three main factors that limit the results of this evaluation: 1. The lack of baseline information for an appropriate measure of changes in knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions of the target population, before and after implementation of the ABCP. This was primarily a problem in evaluating program impacts on adults. Also, the differences of sample sizes between years 1997 and 2003 represent an important source of error in the results that needs to be considered in their interpretation. 2. Confounding factors are important to consider when interpreting the results of this evaluation. As mentioned previously, several governmental and non-governmental organizations have been performing activities related to environmental education in the community of Oyacachi. It was not possible to separate the potential influence of these other activities from results that could have been caused by the ABCP-EEP. 3. When evaluating EEP activities with children, the baseline information available for comparison was the response of students to a questionnaire conducted in 2000, before

PAGE 59

46 PECAE implementation. However, in 1998 a pilot EEP was performed at the school by the ABCP, which means the children and teachers had already received some environmental education when they performed the surveys in 2000, used as a baseline for the present evaluation.

PAGE 60

47 Table 3-1. Sociodemographic and economic indicators N Minimum Maximum Mean SE SD Age 147 17 60 34.367 0.924 11.198 Daughters and sons Under the age of 15 145 0 6 2.324 0.129 1.554 Monthly income ($US) 145 18 400 118.816 6.028 73.086 Trees harvested per month* 127 0 24 4.314 0.417 5.055 Firewood used (Kg/week) 101 7 345 94.050 5.349 64.851 Head of cattle 147 0 17 7.843 0.296 3.591 *(1 unit equals one small tree of approximately a DBH of 20 cm) Table 3-2. Education levels of survey respondents Frequency Percentage Cumulative percentage No formal education 12 8.2 8.2 Some elementary school 37 25.2 33.3 Completed elementary school 47 32.0 65.3 Some high school 27 18.4 83.7 Completed high school 20 13.6 97.3 More than high school 4 2.7 100.0 Total 147 100 Table 3-3. Interaction/conflicts between the bear and participants Percentage Frequency N Have ever seen a bear 59.9 88 147 Corn crops destroyed by bear 19.7 29 147 Cattle or sheep killed by bear 21.8 32 147 Table 3-4. Costs of damages caused by bear ($US) N* Minimum Maximum Mean ($US) SE. SD Corn crops 14 10 200 67.5 17.934 67.104 Cattle or sheep 20 40 1000 343 69.066 308.871 *N=participants that reported predation on crops or cattle and provided an estimated cost of those damages.

PAGE 61

48 Table 3-5. List of knowledge indicators, grouped in four domains Knowledge Indicators Domain 1. Knowledge about ecology/conservation Q 3.What is an ecosystem? Q 4.Where do we find a diversity of animals and plants? Q 6.What species are in danger of extinction? Q 7.Are there any animals in the forest or pramo that can go extinct? Q 8.Why is the bear important for the forest and the pramo? Domain 2. Knowledge about local flora and fauna Q 1.Which of these animals lives in the forest or the pramo? Q 2.Which of these plants is found in the forest or in the pramo? Domain 3. Knowledge about bear behavior Q 9.What does the bear eat? Q 10.How does the bear live? Q 11.Does the bear take care of its cubs? Domain 4. Knowledge about regulations Q 12.Is there a law that protects the spectacled bear? Q 13.Is there a management plan for Oyacachi? Q 16.Do you know what the RECAY is? Table 3-6. Comparison between knowledge level of male and female participants Gender N Mean SD SE T-test for Equality of Means t df P Male 72 2.390 1.124 .132 Conservation knowledge Female 75 1.516 1.071 .124 -4.828 145 .000 Male 72 1.589 .120 .014 Local flora and fauna knowledge Female 75 1.438 .1801 .021 -5.983 145 .000 Male 72 1.677 .298 .035 Bear behavior knowledge Female 75 1.328 .457 .053 -5.457 145 .000 Male 72 2.903 .298 .035 Regulations knowledge Female 75 2.667 .622 .072 -2.913 145 .004 Male 72 11.142 1.794 .211 Female 75 8.149 2.144 .248 -9.156 145 .000 Total knowledge score Total 147 9.615 2.480 .205

PAGE 62

49 Table 3-7. Attitudes toward conservation of bears and the natural environment Percent Frequency N The environment should be protected 99.3 146 147 Forest and pramos should persist 100 146 146 It is good to have the RECAY: Not good at all 0 0 138 Not good 1.4 2 138 Neither good nor bad 1.4 2 138 Good 64.5 89 138 Very good 32.6 45 138 The RECAY is needed for bear survival: Not necessary at all 0 0 132 Not necessary 6.0 8 132 Neither necessary nor unnecessary 0.8 1 132 Necessary 71.2 94 132 Very necessary 22.0 29 132 The bear needs to be protected 81.0 115 142 Laws to protect the bear and other animals are needed 92.7 127 137 Table 3-8. Attitudes toward bears Percent Frequency N Bears are mentioned as detrimental animals 61.9 91 147 Bears are mentioned as beneficial animals 14.3 21 147 Amount of bears participant would prefer to exist around Oyacachi: Much less bears 2.1 3 145 Less bears 45.5 66 145 Same amount 39.3 57 145 More bears 11.7 17 145 Many more bears 1.4 2 145 Amount of bears perceived at the present time compared with previous years: More 87.8 108 123 Same amount 6.5 8 123 Less 5.7 7 123 Thinks the bear has personal importance 67.1 98 146 Thinks the bear can go extinct 61.0 75 123

PAGE 63

50 Table 3-9. Questions grouped in indices Index 1: Bear protection (Mean = 4.886, SD = .902, N= 122) Q 17. Do you think it is good to have the RECAY? Q 18. How necessary do you think the RECAY is for bear survival? Q 19. Do you think the bear needs to be protected? Q 26. Do you think laws to protect the bear and other animals are needed? Index 2: Bear presence (Mean = 4.886, SD = .902, N= 122) Q 20. Do you think there are animals in the forest that are detrimental? Q 21. Do you think there are animals in the forest that are beneficial? Q 22. Are there currently more bears than in previous years? Q 23. Would you prefer more or fewer bears in the forest? Index 3: Bear persona importance (Mean = 2.018, SD = 1.141, N= 122) Q 24. Does the bear have any importance for you? Q 25. Do you think the bear is an animal that can disappear from the forest forever? Index 4: Behavioral intention in a conflict with a bear (Mean = 3.264, SD = .999, N= 146) Q 33. Take action to avoid bear damages Q 36. Reaction in front of a bear close to crops Q 36. Reaction in front of bear close to cattle Index 5: ABCP-EEP perceived results (Mean = 2.032, SD = .970, N= 115) Q 44. Is the project useful for the community? Q 45. Observed changes in people? Q 54. Project as a source of environmental learning?

PAGE 64

Table 3-10. Linear multiple regression models 51 Explanatory variables Attitudes toward bear protection Attitudes toward bear presence Bear personal importance Behavioral intention in a conflict with a bear ABCP-EEP perceived results Std. Beta Coefficient Sig. Std. BetaCoefficient Sig. Std. BetaCoefficient Sig. Std. BetaCoefficient Sig. Std. BetaCoefficient Sig. Gender .060 .540 -.225 .038 -.063 .550 -.464 .000 -.233 .024 Age -.037 .713 -.050 .653 -.022 .830 .113 .267 .078 .469 Education Level .044 .734 -.195 .195 .326 .022 .079 .560 .252 .089 Children under 15 yrs .030 .742 -.161 .107 -.015 .881 .050 .573 .064 .507 Monthly income -.101 .240 .021 .822 -.001 .989 -.023 .784 .145 .101 Trees harvested per month -.014 .873 .241 .016 .001 .993 -.056 .520 -.064 .496 Firewood used per month .031 .713 -.007 .942 .080 .374 -.076 .375 .087 .340 Heads of cattle -.108 .230 .197 .054 .019 .843 -.042 .640 .042 .652 Cow predation by bears -.105 .200 -.195 .034 .136 .126 .011 .890 .021 .810 SEC participation .075 .441 .126 .268 -.021 .837 -.013 .895 .204 .049 ABCP participation .083 .387 .184 .104 .061 .557 .030 .757 .255 .017 Conservation knowledge .436 .000 .225 .089 .150 .234 .243 .044 -.036 .772 Local flora and fauna knowledge -.232 .022 -.098 .343 -.058 .568 -.103 .273 -.088 .388 Bear behavior knowledge .107 .218 .090 .369 .154 .114 .019 .839 .030 .743 Regulations knowledge .099 .244 -.028 .778 .092 .333 -.051 .563 -.016 .861 R2 .364 .225 .302 .225 .361 Adjusted R2 .274 .115 .203 .135 .264 SE of the estimate .769 1.087 1.019 .929 .833

PAGE 65

52 Table 3-11. Behavioral intentions toward environmental protection Percent n N Would do something to help to protect the environment 99.3 139 140 Reacts positively if someone burns the pramo 97.9 138 141 Would collaborate with forest rangers 92.3 132 143 Manage their garbage correctly 99.3 145 146 Table 3-12. Reaction in hypothetical encounter with a cub and an adult bear Bear cub Adult bear Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Shoot it 0 0.0 0 0.0 Catch it 10 6.8 0 0.0 Scare it 6 4.1 27 18.4 Run 8 5.4 25 17.0 Leave it alone 123 83.7 95 64.6 Total 147 100.0 147 100.0 Table 3-13. Behavioral intentions toward a bear at different degrees of proximity Forest Your crops Your cattle Your home % n % n % n % n Shoot it 0.0 0 6.8 10 15.8 23 2.7 4 Catch it 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 1.4 2 Scare it 12.2 18 79.6 117 76.7 112 49.3 72 Leave it alone 87.8 129 13.6 20 7.5 11 46.6 68 Total 100.0 147 100.0 147 100.0 146 100.0 146 Table 3-14. Behavioral intentions toward bear management Percent Frequency N Think killing the bear is the best solution to avoid bear attacks on cattle 18.4 27 147 Think the bear can best be used as a tourism attraction: Response in year 1997 66.7 22 33 Response in year 2003 83.5 101 121 Would like to sell bear parts 59.9 81 137

PAGE 66

53 Table 3-15. ABCP-EEP perceived achievements by the community Abbreviated topic statement Percentage Frequency N Have heard of the ABCP 97 143 147 Know what ABCP is doing 91 131 144 Have participated in any ABPC activity 43 63 147 Felt the experience was: Very bad 0 0 63 Bad 1.6 1 63 Nor good nor bad 9.5 6 63 Good 52.4 33 63 Very good 36.5 23 63 Know about the change in the schools curriculum 41 58 142 Agree with new program at the school 82 121 147 Mentioned the ABCP as a source of environmental learning 49 71 145 Interested in learning more about the environment 92 134 145 Interested in participating in a conservation activity 88 121 138 See any positive change in peoples behavior toward the environment 65 80 123 Perceived usefulness of the ABCP for community development: Not useful 15.9 20 126 Somewhat useful 18.3 23 126 Useful 56.3 71 126 Very useful 9.5 12 126 Table 3-16. Other important perceptions about ABCP Abbreviated topic statement Percentage Frequency N ABCP as a source of conflict between community members: Creates a lot of conflicts 9.9 13 131 Creates some conflicts 31.3 41 131 Creates few conflicts 35.9 47 131 Creates very few conflicts 4.6 6 131 Creates no conflicts 18.3 24 131 Projects respect toward the culture of the community: Very bad 0 0 136 Bad 0.8 1 136 Neither good nor bad 1.5 2 136 Good 56.2 73 136 Very good 41.5 54 136

PAGE 67

54 Table 3-17. Questions for children compared between the years 2000 and 2003 Question Attitudes Q 14 Do you think the environment should be protected? Q 17 Do you think it is good to have the RECAY? Behaviors intentions Q 25 What would you do to help to conserve the environment? Q 26 What would you do if you see someone burning the pramo? Q 27 Would you like to collaborate with the work of forest rangers? Q 29 If you encountered a bear, what would you do? School evaluation Q 38 Do you like school? Q 39 Are you happy with your teachers? Q 42a Would you like to continue with high school? Q 42b Would you like to study in Oyacachi or in another place? Table 3-18. Comparison between knowledge scores in 2000 and 2003 Test Year N Mean SD SE T-test for Equality of Means t df P Knowledge score* 2000 36 6.04 1.625 .271 2003 44 5.62 1.509 .227 1.214 78 .229 *Maximum score = 9 Table 3-19. Attitudes of children at the school Percentage Frequency N The environment needs to be protected 100.0 43 43 Forests and pramos should exist 85.4 35 41 Having the RECAY is good 90.5 38 42 Bears need the reserve to live 89.5 34 38 Bears need to be protected 90.0 36 40 Amount of bears wanted in Oyacachi: Much less 10.0 4 40 Less 40.0 16 40 Same amount 15.0 6 40 More 17.5 7 40 Many more 17.5 7 40 Think bear has personal importance 47.6 20 42 Think bear can go extinct 64.3 27 42

PAGE 68

55 Table 3-20. Behavioral intentions of children at the school Percentage Frequency N Actions to conserve the environment 86.4 38 44 Would stop burning of pramos 84.1 37 44 Would like to help forest rangers 87.2 34 39 Reaction in an encounter with an adult bear: Shoot it 7.0 3 43 Take it home 2.3 1 43 Scare it 7.0 3 43 Get scared 9.3 4 43 Run away 16.3 7 43 Take a picture 25.6 11 43 Leave it alone 32.6 14 43 Table 3-21. Childrens behavioral intentions toward a bear at varying degrees of proximity A bear in: Forest Crops Cattle Home % n % n % n % n Call an adult to kill it 0.0 0 4.8 2 25.6 11 11.6 5 Scare it 15.9 7 42.9 18 48.8 21 51.2 22 Run away 13.6 6 9.5 4 16.3 7 16.3 7 Leave it alone 70.5 31 42.9 18 9.3 4 20.9 9 N 44 42 43 43 Table 3-22. Students awareness of ABCP-EEP and support of the school program Percentage Frequency N Have heard of ABCP 61.4 27 42 Know what ABCP is doing 47.4 18 38 Enjoy the school 97.7 42 43 Happy with teachers 95.3 41 43 Enjoy what s/he is learning 97.7 43 44 Enjoy what s/he is learning about environment 84.1 37 44 Would like to continue on to high school 95.5 42 44 Would like continue high school in Oyacachi 81.0 34 44 In what program would like to be Did not know 2.9 1 34 Crecer 17.6 6 34 SEC 76.5 26 34 Both programs 2.9 1 34

PAGE 69

CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION This study evaluates the Environmental Education Program of the Andean Bear Conservation Project (ABCP-EEP). The goal of the research is to provide information that will help the ABCP improve its future conservation strategies toward protecting the spectacled bear population inside the RECAY. The results of this evaluation demonstrate partial success of the ABCP-EEP. Environmental knowledge, socio-economic attributes, and conflicts with the bear, are highlighted as important variables in influencing participants positive attitudes and behavioral intentions toward conservation of the Andean bear and support for the ABCP. In order to address the four objectives proposed at the beginning of the study, the discussion is organized as follows: (1) I describe the results of the evaluation in regards to changes in environmental knowledge levels, attitudes, and behavioral intentions, before and after ABCP-EEP educational interventions; (2) I assess the influence of knowledge, socioeconomic variables, and previous interactions with the bear on these attitudes and behavioral intentions; (3) I discuss peoples perceptions of program results and support that they give to the ABCP, and how knowledge levels, socioeconomic variables and participants interaction with the bear influence this support; and finally (4) I compare the ABCP-EEP with other efforts to conserve large carnivores conducted in different parts of the world. 56

PAGE 70

57 Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions in Oyacachi The first objective of this study is to assess current levels of environmental knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions toward the conservation of the Andean bear, along with changes since program inception. This evaluation is essential for identifying whether or not the environmental education program has been successful. Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions in Children The questionnaires conducted with students at the elementary school provided little evidence of the EEP success in heightening their environmental knowledge. There was a slight decrease in the environmental knowledge of children from 2000, when the PECAE began to be implemented, to 2003. Additionally, children had moderate levels of environmental knowledge, with a mean of 66% and 62% of the total knowledge scores for the years 2000 and 2003, respectively. However, it is important to point out that the ABCP conducted educational activities with children, along with environmental capacity-building for teachers, at the school in 1998, before the collection of baseline information in 2000. This could explain the observed decrease in childrens level of environmental knowledge from 2000 to 2003, as teachers began to incorporate environmental education into the curriculum in 1998. Unfortunately, it was not possible to measure the impact of these previous activities on results obtained in 2003. The finding of no changes in childrens knowledge level, along with their overall low score, suggest that greater efforts are needed to increase childrens environmental knowledge. This result also provides evidence that does not support first hypothesis of this study, which anticipated an increase in knowledge, positive attitudes and behavioral intentions of children after the implementation of the ABCP-EEP.

PAGE 71

58 Although childrens level of knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions toward the environment and the bear, between 2000 and 2003, did not show a significant change, it is notable that attitudes and behavioral intention measurements were highly positive in both years. The minimum and maximum proportions of positive responses to questions regarding attitudes and behavioral intentions were 80-97% and 84-100% for the years 2000 and 2003 respectively. This positive response could be an effect of the ABCP, which, as described earlier, had been working with the local school on environmental education since 1998. Despite the fact that it was not possible to statistically test this change between 1998 and 2003, the teachers in the focus group reported that they saw children demonstrating more favorable attitudes and behaviors toward the environment than before their collaboration with the ABCP. The teachers opinion can be considered a positive and direct outcome of the ABCPs work with this subset of the community. Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions in Adults A difference in knowledge level before and after program implementation could not be tested in adults due to the lack of baseline data. However, in 2003, the overall environmental knowledge of the adult population in Oyacachi appeared to be relatively high. Men had greater average knowledge scores than women, following the general trends perceived in previous environmental education research (Chawala 1988, Tikka et al. 2000, Archer 2002). Both cultural and social factors could explain the difference in knowledge according to gender. For example, historically women have had the role of looking after the home and children, while men have been in charge of hunting and resource provision (Gilligan 1982). In much of Ecuador, this division of gender roles has been maintained, resulting in men being better educated than women to be able to financially support their families. The unintentional bias of the ABCP toward reaching

PAGE 72

59 mostly men in the adult population could also be related to women having lower environmental knowledge than men. Some examples of this bias are that the para-biologists are only men, four of the five teachers at the school are men, when the project collaborated with the SEC there were eight male students and only four females in the program. Men are more likely to attend workshops or meetings than women due to a community structure in which males are generally more involved in community relations and decision-making processes. Between the years 1997 and 2003, the attitudes and behavioral intentions of adults changed in both positive and negative ways toward the conservation of the spectacled bear. The significant increase in positive responses of participants (52% in 1997 to 65% in 2003) stating that they would leave the bear alone in a hypothetical encounter, along with the significant increase (67% in 1997 to 84% in 2003) in peoples perception of the bear as a tourist attraction can be considered indicators of success for the ABCP in promoting positive attitudes and behaviors toward the conservation of this species in Oyacachi. Limits to this success are seen in the following observations: (1) A significant decrease (97% in 1997 to 67% in 2003) in the perception of whether or not the bear is important for aesthetic, humanistic, symbolic, ecologistic or utilitarian reasons; (2) A downward trend (88% in 1997 to 81% in 2003), although not significant, in peoples responses toward bear protection; and (3) No significant change observed in the behavioral intentions of people toward avoiding damages caused by bears. In both years, nearly a fifth of the respondents said they would shoot a bear in order to kill it. These final unfavorable results for the ABCP reflect the problem of bear predation on livestock in Oyacachi at the time the study was conducted. Most participants

PAGE 73

60 expressed their concern about this conflict and stated that they were willing to collaborate in conservation of the Andean bear, under the condition that this problem be resolved. The necessity of solving human conflicts with bears, in order to assure community support for the ABCP, was also remarked upon in the focus groups conducted with local authorities, teachers and para-biologists. Due to the division of positive and negative results, along with the conditioning of positive responses by participants, it is difficult to show evidence in favor or disfavor of the first hypothesis of this study which expected an increase in positive attitudes and behavioral intentions after program implementation. Therefore, it can be said that the program had partial success in promoting positive attitudes and behavioral intentions among adults in Oyacachi, and that the future success of the ABCP-EEP depends on whether or not a solution is found to the problem of bear predation on livestock. The results of questions conducted only in 2003 show that community members unanimously supported the idea of conserving natural ecosystems, such as Andean forests and pramos. Also responses that supported taking action to protect the environment were nearly unanimous, with the most common being reducing deforestation, planting trees and not hunting animals inside the RECAY. Participants also mentioned their willingness to collaborate with forest rangers, such as calling attention to someone who is burning pramo illegally. Others demonstrated proper management of their garbage. These results are evidence of the high level of environmental awareness that currently exists in Oyacachi, due to educational outreach by the ABCP and other governmental and non-govermental organizations, such as the Ministry of Environment and the Antisana and Ecolgica Rumicocha foundations.

PAGE 74

61 Participants also demonstrated positive attitudes toward efforts for conserving the Andean bear. The majority (81%) mentioned that the bear needed protection and believed that the RECAY is necessary for ensuring the survival of this species (93%). The same proportion, 93%, favored laws to protect this animal. However, peoples opinions were more divided when behavioral intentions were measured based on varying contexts of bear proximity to their crops and livestock, two main sources of income in Oyacachi. The context in which an attitude or behavioral intention develops has been considered an important factor in determining whether these variables will be positive or negative (Hines 1986/87). These study results support this notion in that peoples attitudes and behavioral intentions toward the Andean bear are clearly related to previous conflicts with the animal. For instance, 62% of respondents perceived the bear as a detrimental animal and only 14% considered this animal as beneficial for any reason. This is likely due to the increase of bear predation on livestock at the time research was conducted For this same reason, the majority of participants (87%) were also opposed to the idea of having more bears in the vicinity of Oyacachi. The results obtained regarding peoples attitudes and behavioral intentions toward conservation of the environment and the Andean bear are puzzling. Hines et al. (1986/87) mention that situational factors can interfere in the gap that exists between an attitude or intention and its development into a behavior, particularly considering economic constraints or social pressures as factors that determine individuals final decision to perform or not perform an action. Also, Ajzen (1985) mentions that intentions will lead to particular behaviors only if a person perceives that he or she has the capability and the necessary skills to perform a behavior. Following this line of

PAGE 75

62 reasoning, participants in Oyacachi expressed positive attitudes and intentions toward protecting their natural ecosystems. This was expected, since forests and pramos provide them with many benefits, such as water, wood, food and medicine. Their attitudes toward bear conservation were also positive in a general context, such as the bear needs to be protected. However, when presented with the idea of conserving the bear in a conflictive scenario, such as what would you do if a bear is in your crops or close to your cattle? or would you like to see more bears close to Oyacachi?, responses were more divided, since these situations were related to the potential threat that the bear represents to their economic goods, especially livestock. Due to a fragile local economy, participants likely perceived their low capacity to deal with the costs of damage that the bear could inflict. Therefore, when this conflict was perceived, peoples intention to adopt behaviors favorable to bear conservation was a difficult issue to consider, which was reflected in more divided, positive vs. negative, responses. Support for the ABCP Environmental Educational Program The second objective of this evaluation was to measure public support and satisfaction with the Andean Bear Conservation Project and its Environmental Education Program in Oyacachi. The study demonstrated that the ABCP was well known within the community; almost all respondents (97%) had heard about the project and knew about its activities (91%). General public support for the ABCP and its activities was high. This was reflected in the high proportion of respondents who were willing to participate in a conservation activity (88%) or interested in learning more about the environment (92%). Also, the 88% of respondents who participated in at least one activity with the ABCP mentioned that their experience with the project was either good or very good. Further

PAGE 76

63 evidence of local support toward the project is that the ABCP is seen as an entity that respects and promotes the culture of the community. Opinions were more divided regarding the perceived results of the ABCP and peoples support for the project. The information collected through surveys revealed that a modest majority (65%) perceived that there had been an increase in positive behaviors toward the environment, after the programs inception in 1998, and that the ABCP had been useful for community development (66%). However, only 49 % of participants mentioned the ABCP as a source of environmental learning. In focus groups, this disparity in opinions was also expressed. While teachers and authorities perceived positive changes in the community since program implementation, the para-biologists, who worked most directly with the ABCP, thought that such changes had not occurred. They instead felt that the project had not reached the entire community through its concentration on specific groups of people, such as themselves. Additionally, they mentioned that people in Oyacachi had been aware of conservation issues before implementation of the ABCP, since they were living inside the RECAY and had received environmental information from other sources, such as the Ministry of Environment and Fundacin Antisana. A clear success of the ABPC was its collaboration with the local school. Teachers were very supportive of the ABCP activities and were motivated to continue their involvement with the project. Children also enjoyed both the program and their teachers and were interested in continuing with their education in Oyacachi. The ABCPs success with the school may be largely due to the fact that the ABCP encouraged participation of

PAGE 77

64 the teachers, supporting the importance of collaborating with local people to promote the success of conservation efforts (Wondolleck & Yaffee 2000, Schelhas et al. 2001). These results show evidence of the ABCP-EEPs partial success as the program is highly supported by the community, but the perceived results in promoting pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors in Oyacachi is not clear among community members. For instance, the project was viewed by a significant proportion of respondents (77%) as a source of conflict between community members. This perception was based on the fact that participants believed the bait, made of cattle blood, used to attract bears to traps, was teaching bears to feed on livestock. This result is not positive for the ABCP and indicates that such misunderstandings must be cleared up if the ABCP hopes to collaborate with the community in achieving its goal of improving the conservation status of the Andean bear in the RECAY. Unfortunately, local support for a conservation program alone will not determine its success. For instance, although support for the ABCP was high in Oyacachi, personal interviews and focus groups revealed there was a clear agreement among community members that they would like the project to include activities that promote community development. This would provide them with alternative choices for making a living, in attempting to cause less impact to the environment. This response was framed in the context of cattle predation by bears, which caused major economic losses for local people and encouraged local conflicts with the bear. When interviewed, peoples support for conservation of the Andean bear was frequently accompanied by statements that expressed their concern about finding a solution to the problem of depredation on livestock. Authorities, para-biologists and teachers also expressed the need to find a

PAGE 78

65 solution to the conflictive situation with the bear, in order to assure the support and collaboration of the community toward the protection of the Andean bear. Therefore, the future success of the project largely depends on whether or not a solution can be found for this problem. Variables Influencing Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions The third objective of this evaluation included analyzing the association between peoples level of knowledge, sociodemographic and economic attributes and previous interactions with the bear, with their attitudes and behavioral intentions toward bear conservation. The results of the linear multiple regression models demonstrated that the variables, which influenced peoples positive attitudes or behavioral intentions toward the Andean bear, were determined by their situational context. Indices that measured attitudes toward bear protection and the personal importance of the bear for respondents were consistently associated with participants knowledge, or variables correlated with knowledge, such as level of education or age. In these two indices, participants socioeconomic status was not associated with their attitudes and, surprisingly, neither was whether a person had experienced bear predation on their livestock. These results support the second hypothesis of this study, which expected knowledge to be positively associated with peoples attitudes toward bear protection. However, it is important to note that these two indices are comprised of items that do not make reference to a specific context, such as a conflictive situation. This could be the reason why other variables, such as the socioeconomic situation of participants and past conflictive experiences with the bear, did not appear to be associated with these two attitudes when all variables interacted in the linear multiple regression model.

PAGE 79

66 In contrast to these previous indices, measuring peoples attitudes toward bear conservation and the personal importance of this animal, the index that measured participants attitudes toward the presence of the bear in close proximity to Oyacachi, was associated with variables other than knowledge. Past experiences with bear predation on livestock had a negative association, indicating that participant attitudes toward the presence of bears was more negative if they had experienced livestock predation. Gender also had a negative association, demonstrating that women were more in favor of having bears in close proximity to Oyacachi. The last significant variable in the linear multiple regression model was the amount of trees harvested by respondents, which also had a negative association, suggesting that people who use more timber are less likely to want more bears in the area. The theories of Hines et al. (1986/87) and Ajzen (1985), help explain this lack of association between knowledge-related variables and attitude toward the presence of bears. The context in which this attitude develops involves participants reflecting on a possible personal conflict with the bear, based on its presence close to the community. Therefore, it is possible to predict that attitude toward the presence of bears will be more influenced by participants past and present experiences (Kellert 1996) with the bear, and their perceived lack of capacity to deal with a possible loss of livestock, than with their levels of environmental knowledge. This reflects how peoples attitudes can change when they perceive that bear conservation may increase the number of bears in Oyacachi and, ultimately, conflict with their own livelihood. This emphasizes the importance of understanding the context in which pro-environmental attitudes develop in order to determine which variables are influencing them (Hines et al. 1986/87). Understanding which variables are influencing

PAGE 80

67 peoples attitudes toward the Andean bear in Oyacachi, can contribute to the design of future ABCP conservation strategies in the RECAY. A surprising result arose from examining variables that appeared to influence peoples behavioral intentions toward bears in a conflict situation. Due to the problem of bear predation on livestock and the results obtained regarding peoples attitudes toward the presence of bears in Oyacachi, it was expected that participants previous experience with bear attacks on their livestock, along with economic variables, would have been significantly related to peoples behavioral intentions in a hypothetical conflict with a bear. However, only two variables, knowledge and gender, appeared to have a significant association with peoples behavioral intentions in the linear multiple regression model. Knowledge about conservation and ecology issues had a positive association, indicating that more knowledgeable people are more likely to have a positive behavioral intention when presented with a conflict situation with the bear. Gender appeared to have a negative association, which indicates that women despite having a lower level of environmental knowledge than men expressed significantly more positive behavioral intentions. This pattern has been observed in other studies, such as Tikka et al. (2000), who suggest that womens attitudes are partly independent of their knowledge levels, and that other factors, such as culture and evolutionary history, are often more relevant in explaining their behaviors. Mtt (1996 in Tikka et al. 2000, p.18) supports this in saying that benignity and universal responsibility are general guiding principles in womens lives. This may be reflected in their higher level of environmental responsibility in Oyacachi.

PAGE 81

68 These linear multiple regression analyses on attitudes and behavioral intentions provide evidence supporting the second hypothesis of this study, since they confirm the positive correlation of environmental knowledge with participants positive attitudes and behavioral intentions toward the environment and the Andean bear. This supports the importance of continuing with environmental educational activities in the ABCP, since they provide participants with relevant knowledge that contributes to the development of environmentally-responsible attitudes and behaviors toward the conservation of the Andean bear. However, the results also demonstrate the importance of finding a solution to the conflict created by livestock depredation, which negatively influences peoples attitudes toward the spectacled bear. We can observe that determining which variables are most relevant in explaining peoples attitudes and behaviors may depend on the threshold at which peoples willingness to behave in an environmentally-responsible way conflicts with their ability to satisfy their own livelihood needs. If conserving the Andean bear will lead to greater destruction of peoples livestock, and no alternatives to ameliorate this problem are presented, it is likely that attitudes and behaviors will not change in favor of conserving this threatened species. Finally, it is important to note that the proportion of the indices variance, explained by variables included in the linear multiple regression models, was relatively low in all cases (as little as 22% and as much as 36%) This suggests that other important variables, such as individuals values, beliefs, or situational factors, which are not considered in the models, could also be influencing respondents attitudes and behavioral intentions toward the conservation of the Andean bear.

PAGE 82

69 Variables Influencing Support for the ABCP An analysis of how respondents level of knowledge, sociodemographic and economic attributes, and previous interactions with bears relate to perceived achievements of the Andean Bear Conservation Projects Environmental Educational Program completes the analysis of the third objective of this study. Whether people have been involved in the ABPC strongly influenced both their perception and support of the program. The linear multiple regression model demonstrated that perceived results of the ABCP had a significant positive association with whether people had participated in any ABCP activity (e.g. attendance at a workshop) or had attended the SEC high school program. This suggests the importance for the ABCP to reach as many people as possible in order to increase support for this project in the community as a whole. Once again, gender appeared to be significantly associated with peoples perceptions of the project. Despite the fact that a lower proportion of female (32%) to male (51%) respondents had participated in any project activity, women were more likely to perceive positive results of the ABCP in the community. This result provides additional evidence that women support conservation activities more than men. The ABCP could use such information to design a program for women, since this segment of the population expresses more positive attitudes toward conservation and could be important allies to the project in helping foster environmental awareness in children, and also in adults.

PAGE 83

70 Comparison of the ABCP -EEP Strategy to other Environmental Education Efforts to Conserve Large Carnivores As livestock depredation signifies an economic loss to anyone who experiences it, particularly in developing countries3, many programs for the conservation of large carnivores have focused on either providing financial compensations for loss or economic incentives to discourage people from killing these animals (Mishra et al. 2003, Naughton-Treves 2003). Nevertheless, the importance of concomitantly providing education and outreach programs to increase public knowledge and promote positive attitudes has been proposed as essential for improving the conservation of these animals (Jhala 1991, Mech 1995, Mishra et al. 2003). Environmental education has been used worldwide as an effective strategy to alleviate conflicts with large carnivores. For example, in the United States of America, 21 states provide educational programs related to bears. These programs are designed to increase the knowledge of audiences about general bear ecology, hunter safety, prevention of human-bear interactions, and habitat protection (Peyton et al. 1999). Two examples of successful environmental education programs designed to promote public support of large carnivore conservation are conducted in Florida and the Wyoming region. In Florida, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and Defenders of Wildlife have implemented the Florida Black Bear Curriculum, which is part of FWCs Wild K-12 education program (FWC 2004). This project is designed to educate and stimulate teachers and students in grades 3-8 regarding the conservation of 3 Oli et al. (1994) found that in Nepal, livestock predation by the snow leopard represented a loss of one-quarter of the average annual income for local people, and another study on the snow leopard in India, estimated this lost to be as twice as great (Mishra 1997).

PAGE 84

71 the Florida black bear. The curriculum guide comprises subjects related to bear biology and ecology, conservation status of the Florida black bear, interaction and conflicts among bears and humans, and the future of the conservation of this species. Some factors considered to contribute to curriculum success are: the curriculum teaches students how, and not what, to think; it was reviewed by professionals in biology and education; a wide variety of instructional approaches are used to meet the needs of verbal learners, visual learners and kinesthetic learners; whole-class instruction and small group settings allow students to learn from each other; it offers guidance to teachers to continue increasing their knowledge and understanding of the black bear; lessons are flexible, they can be modified and may be taught in any order depending on students interests; lessons require minimal preparation time and use inexpensive, easy-to-obtain materials; an evaluative system is incorporated to assess how much students have learned. Another useful example is the environmental education and communications campaign for the gray wolf reintroduction to Yellowstone National Park (Jacobson 1999). This campaign was led by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) of the U.S. Department of Interior, in cooperation with the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and state fish and game agencies in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. The campaign succeeded by strategically identifying problems and selecting target audiences, which was followed by the selection of appropriate media, content areas and strategic messages to the public. Educational activities were conducted before, during and after wolf reintroduction. From 1988 to 1992, an intensive public education program was conducted by the USFWS, which included 260 presentations to more than 13,000 people,

PAGE 85

72 hundreds of printed materials, and integrative activities such as campfires and interpretive walks covering topics about wolf natural history and recovery. The education program was complemented with an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) conducted from 1991 to 1994, during which thousands of individuals participated in open house meetings and formal hearings. In this period, the EIS incorporated approximately 130 public meetings, distributed 750,000 documents, and received 170,000 comments from the public. This overwhelming campaign resulted in the success of the reintroduction of gray wolves in Yellowstone. However, agency representatives continue experiencing public opposition to reintroduction efforts, suggesting that future communication efforts still need to be conducted in order to have extensive public support. In spite of the fact that these examples are located in a different social context than the Andean Bear Conservation Project, they demonstrate that through education it is possible to increase the success of conservation efforts of large carnivores. This supports the need for the Andean Bear Conservation Project to continue environmental education activities in Oyacachi, in order to increase public support toward the conservation of the spectacled bear. However, as suggested by other studies (Mehta & Kellert 1998, Udaya-Sekhar 1998, Bauer 2003, Mishra et al. 2003), educational activities should be complemented with other interventions that pursue economic development in order to provide local people with alternatives that permit them to change livelihood systems that conflict with wildlife conservation. Conclusion The Andean Bear Conservation Project has been ongoing since 1998. Based on the results of this evaluation, the ABCP has had partial success in meeting its goals. Although there have been only slight changes in peoples knowledge, attitudes and

PAGE 86

73 behavioral intentions toward bear conservation during this time, the ABCP is well supported by the community of Oyacachi, which continues to be interested in participating in similar conservation activities in the future. The results of this evaluation provide evidence for the importance of including environmental educational programs in conservation strategies, since environmental knowledge of participants was positively correlated with positive attitudes and behavioral intentions toward the Andean bear. Additionally, this study supports the importance of complementing environmental education programs with other conservation and development initiatives. In this case, since the ABCP is being conducted in a rural region with a very fragile economy, environmental education must go hand in hand with efforts that promote sustainable economic development, providing individuals with both economic alternatives and the capacity to develop and perform environmentally-responsible behaviors. Bear predation on cattle is a significant problem that could cause major conflicts between the Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve and people in the community of Oyacachi. This could also upset local peoples support for the ABCP, threatening the achievements that the project has already obtained in Oyacachi toward conservation of the Andean bear. As cases of bear predation on cattle have increased in Oyacachi in the last five years, conflicts in the community have also arisen. Its inhabitants have had to assume the economic losses caused by this animal, without being compensated for damages to their property. Current policies for the management of protected areas in Ecuador, do not contribute to conflict resolution between humans and wildlife. In developing countries,

PAGE 87

74 the management of protected areas commonly includes restrictions on the use of natural resources by local people (Hough 1988, Machalis & Tichnell 1985, Wells et al. 1992). Such regulations are seen in protected areas management in Ecuador, where the hunting of wildlife is prohibited within reserve boundaries, particularly of species recognized as internationally endangered on the IUCN Red List and CITES, such as the spectacled bear. These regulations, which control the use of natural resources by communities inside the RECAY, have exacerbated conflicts between local people and the Andean bear, as people are given few options for improving their livelihoods. If people perceive only economic losses from wildlife conservation efforts, it is very likely that such efforts will not succeed (Metha and Kellert 1998). This reflects the need for governmental and non-governmental organizations, working toward conservation of Ecuadors biodiversity and natural resources, to consider the welfare of local people in developing conservation strategies. If such strategies are a collaborative process that includes both the education of local people and the development of projects designed to improve sustainable livelihoods, there may be a reduction in environmental conflicts and more long-term success of conservation efforts.

PAGE 88

CHAPTER 5 RECOMMENDATIONS The final objective of this evaluation was to contribute to the improvement of the Environmental Educational Program of Andean Bear Conservation Project delivery by identifying its strengths and weaknesses and suggesting future modifications. The strengths and weaknesses of the program were mainly identified in the focus group discussions. The principal strengths of the program are: (1) the relatively long-term work within the community, which has resulted in its recognition by the entire community; and (2) the collaborative process through which ABCP-EEP has conducted its activities with target audiences, based on the suggestions of local people in proposing activities to be conducted. The best example of this collaborative process is the work that the ABCP-EEP conducted with the teachers at the local school. The main weaknesses of the ABCP-EEP are: (1) a lack of continuum in activities, although the project has been working in the area for a long time; (2) the ABCP-EEPs lack of communication with the community about project activities and results; and (3) the little effort that has been put into monitoring and evaluating program activities. Based on the results obtained in this evaluation, the following recommendations are proposed to the ABCP in order to address its weaknesses and improve its strategy for the conservation of the Andean bear in collaboration with the community of Oyacachi in the Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve. (1) Create more continuity in project activities. Although EcoCiencia, the organization responsible for the ABCP, was positively viewed as an organization that had 75

PAGE 89

76 been working in the RECAY for a long time, participants also were discouraged by the lack of continuity in the ABCP activities. An important determinant of this interruption of activities was a limitation in project funding. However, it is recommended the ABCP design their programs toward maintaining a more continuous collaboration with the community. If financial limitations do not permit the implementation of new project activities, maintaining communication between the ABCP staff and local authorities and teachers through regular meetings would help promote community support for the ABCP. (2) Involve more sectors of the population. Many people felt that the project had focused on a select group of people, namely the para-biologists. A suggested future target group is women, who were less involved in project activities and had less environmental knowledge than men. Despite this, they showed more support for project results and demonstrated more positive attitudes than men toward bear conservation. As womens role in raising and educating children is more central than men, they are important actors in influencing the development of childrens values and beliefs toward nature, along with providing them with the relevant knowledge that in the future could shape their attitudes and ultimately behaviors toward the Andean bear. (3) Improve communication strategies for informing the public about activities conducted by the ABCP, along with the results of these activities. This would both help create increased awareness about the project in the community and avoid misunderstandings about the project activities by community members. Such misunderstandings could decrease the projects credibility and create negative feelings toward the project among local people. An example of such a misunderstanding was peoples negative feeling about the ABCPs use of cattle blood as bait in attracting bears

PAGE 90

77 to hair traps for ecological research. Despite the fact that this procedure was only used in the first six months of 2003, community members blamed the ABCP for attracting bears to the community and teaching them to feed on livestock, through the use of this procedure. This negative feeling could have been avoided if the project had clearly communicated with the community that the bait they were using to attract bears had not influenced bears feeding behavior in its four months of use. In Oyacachi, the leadership council, or Cabildo, organizes meetings regularly with all community members to discuss current issues and events. The ABCP could ask to use a portion of this meeting to present its results, obtain community feedback and resolve confusion regarding its activities. (4) Include future evaluations and monitoring of the ABCP. If the project continues in Oyacachi, or is expanded to other communities, it is essential that the ABCP create a set of specific goals, define indicators to measure the projects failure or success, and establish a solid baseline that permits the evaluation of program results. This research has provided the ABCP with baseline information for continued work in Oyacachi. However, as the program develops in other communities, it would be helpful to standardize evaluation methods in order to have a common, solid baseline that permits future evaluation of the ABCP and comparison of results between different communities involved in the project. Three more recommendations that may be outside the realm of the ABCP and its Environmental Educational Program, but could be addressed through partnerships with other governmental or non-governmental organizations, are suggested to improve the conservation of the Andean bear:

PAGE 91

78 (5) Create a system to alleviate the impact of livestock predation on the household economy. For example, introduce financial compensation for the damage caused by wildlife, which as mentioned earlier has been suggested as a positive alternative to this problem in similar cases inside protected areas where large carnivores prey on livestock (Mishra 1997, Mehta & Kellert 1998, Udaya Sekhar 1998, Bauer 2003). (6) Conduct applied research that can contribute to improved management of natural resources in the area. For instance, if the ABCPs research could contribute to solutions to the conflict caused by bear predation on livestock, community members will likely have greater support for the ABCP and for conservation of the Andean bear. (7) Link educational activities with development projects that promote the improvement of sustainable livelihood systems in the community. These projects could encourage a shift away from local dependence on cattle ranching, which currently is the most important source of income in Oyacachi. Activities could be promoted that foster fewer conflicts between humans and wildlife and are less detrimental to the ecosystems protected inside the RECAY. Some suggestions, provided by community members of Oyacachi, would include improving the marketing of local handicrafts, incorporating a better system of organic agriculture, and developing an ecotourism program.

PAGE 92

APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ADULTS (Present yourself) My name is SANTIAGO Espinosa, I am conducting an investigation to evaluate the environmental education program of the Andean Bear Conservation Project. I would like to ask you some questions regarding this project and also some questions about the environment. Your participation is voluntary and you may withdraw without penalty at any time you want. There is no compensation for participating in this study. It will take about 1 hour of your time. Answering this questions wont affect you either for better or worse. You do not need to answer any question you do not wish to answer; I have had people refuse before. You do not need to stop working to answer them. If you would prefer, I can come back at another time. The answers you provide will remain confidential. Do you have any questions? May I begin asking my questions? Remember you can stop me any time or we can schedule for another time or day. Date:__________________ Name: _________________ Age:_______ Section 1: Knowledge Q 1. Where do the following animals live, in the forest or the pramo? (Local names) lobo__ semicabra__ chucuri__ tucn__ pava__ guatusa__ curiquingue__ huaucu__ Q 2. Which plants are in the forest or in the pramo? (Local names) yagual__ pntag__ matachig__ urcu rosa__ canelo__ cedro__ pinan__ quishuar__ Q 3. What is an ecosystem? (Choose the right answer) A. All the animals and plants in a place that are related each other and with their environment. B. A science that studies animals and plants. C. A group of plants that live in a certain place. Q 4. Where do we find more kinds of animals and plants? (Choose the correct answer) 79

PAGE 93

80 A. Forest B. Pramo Q 5. Name 5 benefits obtained from the forest and 5 benefits obtained from the pramo_______ Q 6. What are species in danger of extinction? (Choose the correct answer) A. They are animals and plants that are very abundant in a place. B. They are animals and plants that can disappear because they have many threats. C. They are animals and plants similar to each other. Q 7. Do you know if there are some animals that are living close to Oyacachi that could disappear from the forest or the pramo forever? Name three of them. a)____________ b)_____________ c)______________ Dont know____ Q 8. Why is the bear important for the forest and the pramo? (Choose the correct answer) A. Because it is an animal that is very abundant, like the rabbit. B. Because it helps to carry the seeds of the plants from one place to another in the forest. C. Because it eats the achupallas that are destroying the soil of the pramo and the motiln that is bad for other animals. Q 9. What does the bear eat?____________ Q 10. How does the bear live? (Choose the correct answer) Mostly alone__ Mostly in families__ Mostly in groups__ Dont know__ Q 11. Does the bear take care of its cubs? Yes__ No__ Dont know__ Q 12. Is there a law that protects the spectacled bear? Yes__ No __ Dont know__ Q 13. Is there a management plan for Oyacachi? Yes__ No __ Dont know__ Q 16. Do you know what the RECAY is?

PAGE 94

81 Yes__ No__ (What is it?_______) Section 2: Attitudes Q 14. Do you think nature should be protected? Yes__ No__ (Why?___________) Q 15. Do you think forests and pramos need to exist? Yes __ No__ (Why?___________) Q 17. Do you think it is good to have the RECAY? Very good__ Good__ Nor good nor bad__ Not good__ Not good at all__ Dont know __ (Why?__________) Q 18. How necessary do you think the RECAY is for bear survival? Very necessary___ Necessary___ Neither necessary nor unnecessary___ Not necessary___ Not necessary at all___ Dont know___ (Why?___________) Q 19. Do you think the bear needs to be protected? Yes__ No__ (Why?_______) Q 20. Do you think there are animals in the forest that are detrimental? Yes__ No__ If yes, name the three most detrimental animals:________ Q 21. Do you think there are animals in the forest that are beneficial? Yes__ No__ If yes, name the three most beneficial animals:________ Q 22. Are there currently more bears than in previous years? There are more bears___ There are the same amount___ There are less bears___ Dont know___ If there are more or less, give one or two reasons you think are the cause:____ Q 23. Would you prefer more or less bears in the forest?

PAGE 95

82 Many more__ More__ Same__ Less__ Much less__ (Why?_____ ) Q 24. Does the bear have any importance for you? Yes__ No__ (Why?_____) Q 25. Do you think the bear is an animal that can disappear from the forest forever? Yes__ No__ (Why?_____) Q 26. Do you think laws to protect the bear and other animals are needed? Yes__ No__ (Why?_____) Section 3: Behavioral intentions Q 27. What would you do to help to conserve the environment?_____________ Q 28. What would you do if you see someone burning the pramo?_________ Q 29. Would you like to collaborate with the work of forest rangers? Yes__ No__ (Why and how?________) Q 30. What do you do with your garbage? How do you manage it? Organic:_______________ Inorganic: _____________ Q 31. If you encountered a bear cub, what would you do? (Choose the correct answer) Leave it alone __ Run away__ Scare it__ Catch it __ Shoot it __ Q 32. If you meet an adult bear, what you would you do? Leave it alone __ Run away__ Scare it__ Catch it __ Shoot it __ Q 33. What would you do to avoid bear attacks to your crops and cattle? Kill the bear ___ Scare the bear ___ Spend more time watching over the crops and cattle___ Not destroy the forest ___ Harvest earlier ____

PAGE 96

83 Build a fence___ Other? ___ Q 34. How can the bear be used? Food___ Tourism___ Hunting___ Medicinal___ Fur___ Other?___ Q 35. Would you like to be able to sell bear parts? Yes__ No__ (Why?______) Q 36. What would you do if you encounter an adult bear in: Leave it alone Scare it Catch it Shoot it Forest or pramo Your crops Close to your cattle Close to your home (Why?________ _) Section 4: Interaction with Bears Q 37. Have you ever seen a bear? Yes__ No__ (If yes, how long ago, where?________) Q 38. Have you ever had a bear or group of bears feeding on your crops? Yes__ No__ (If yes, how long ago?________) Could you estimate the cost of that damage? (USD)______ Q 39. Have you ever had a bear attack your cattle or sheep? Yes__ No__ (If yes, how long ago?________) Could you estimate the cost of this damage? (USD)______ Section 5: ABPC-EEP Evaluation Q 40. Have you heard about the Andean Bear Conservation Project conducted by EcoCiencia? Yes__ No__ Q 41. Do you know what the people of this Project are doing?

PAGE 97

84 Yes__ No__ (What are they doing?_________) Q 42. Have you ever participated in an activity of this Project? Yes__ In which one? _________ No__ Why not?________ If participated. How was his/her experience with the Project? Very good__ Good__ Neither good nor bad__ Not good__ Not good at all __ (Why?______) Q 43. Would you participate in other similar conservation activities? Yes__ No__ Dont know __ (Why?______) Q 44. Do you think the Project is useful for the development of your community? Very useful__ Useful__ Somewhat useful__ Not useful__ Dont know __ (Why?______) Q 45. Do you see any change in peoples behavior in Oyacachi since the Projects implementation? Yes__ No__ Dont know __ (What changes?______) Do you think these changes are: Positive__ Negative__ (Why?______) Q 46. How would you categorize the impacts that the Andean Bear Project has had so far in the conservation of the natural resources of your community? Very good__ Good__ Neither good nor bad__ Not good__ Not good at all __ Dont know__ (Why? Any difference between the past and the present?____) Q 47. What do you think about the Projects respect toward the culture of your community? Very good__ Good__ Neither good nor bad__ Bad__ Very bad __ Dont know__ (Why?_____) Q 48. Do you think the Project has created conflicts between community members? A lot of conflicts __ Some conflicts __ Few conflicts __ Very few conflicts __ No conflicts __ Dont know__ (Why?______) Q 49. Do you have children that are or were at the school as long as three years ago?

PAGE 98

85 Yes__ No__ Q 50. Do you know about the change in the schools program of study, conducted in collaboration with the Project? Yes__ No__ (What was this change? ______) Q 51. Do you agree with the new schools program of study? Yes__ No__ (Why?______) Q 52. Do you agree with the activities conducted by the Project with your children? Strongly agree __ Agree __ Neither agree nor disagree __ Disagree__ Strongly disagree__ Dont know__ (Why?______) Q 53. How would you categorize the experience of your children at the school? (Do they have enthusiasm? Speak about the environment?) Very good__ Good__ Neither good nor bad__ Not good__ Not good at all __ Dont know__ (Why?_____) Q 54. Where did you learn about the bear and the environment? (Do they mention the EcoCiencia-ABPC?) Observing nature___ Talking with family or friends___ Talking with researchers that visit the area___ In workshops or meetings? (With whom and where?___) At the school___ At the high school___ In radio programs___ In videotapes___ Reading in books or magazines___ Other?___ Q 55. Are you interested in learning more about the environment? Yes__ No__ Q 56. Which other things could be done by the Project, regarding education and natural resource management?______ Section 6: Sociodemographic and Economic Information

PAGE 99

86 Q 57. What is your education level? No formal education___ Some elementary school___ Elementary school___ Some high school___ High school___ More than high school ___ Q 58. What is your spouses education level? No formal education___ Some elementary school___ Elementary school___ Some high school___ High school___ More than high school ___ Q 59. Have you attended the distance SEC program? Yes__ No__ Q 60. How long have you been in Oyacachi? All my life___ / ___ years Where did you live before?_______ Q 61. What is your family size? Age Sons Daughters Q 62. What activities represent your main source of income? (In order of importance) Economic activities % percentage it represents/amount per month 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Q 63. What forest resource is most important to you?________

PAGE 100

87 Q 64. Could you estimate the value of this resource, or what amount of it you use per month or year? __________________ Monthly___ Annually___ Firewood:_________ Q 65. What is your income per month? (US$)____ Depending on the case, a rank option also was suggested: Less than 50___ 50-100___ 100-200___ 200-300___ More than 300___ Q 66. How much land do you own? _______ Q 67. How much maize do you harvest each season?_____ Q 68. How many cattle (or sheep) do you have, where is they located? (Map was shown to men) Q 69. Would you like the road continue to: Pueblo viejo__ Mangahuaico___ El Chaco __ Stay in present location __ Section 7: Questions added as a request of local teachers Q 70. Have you heard a radio program Enfoque Ambiental desde Oyacachi in Radio Mensaje? Yes__ No__ Which radio do you listen to?__________________ Q 71. Would you like a radio for Oyacachi where you can hear educative programs and issues relating to your community? Yes__ No__

PAGE 101

APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CHILDREN AT THE SCHOOL Date:____________ Level:___________Age:__________ Sex: Female___ Male___ Section 1: Knowledge Q 1. Do you know these animals (10 pictures were presented) A.____________ F._______________ B.____________ G._______________ C.____________ H._______________ D.____________ I.________________ E.____________ J._______________ Q 2. Where do the following animals live, in the forest or the pramo? (Local names) lobo__ semicabra__ chucuri__ tucn__ pava__ guatusa__ curiquingue__ huaucu__ Q 3. Which plants are in the forest or in the pramo? (Local names) yagual__ pntag__ matachig__ urcu rosa__ canelo__ cedro__ pinan__ quishuar__ Q 4. What is an ecosystem? (Choose the right answer) A. All the animals and plants in a place that are related each other and with their environment. B. A science that studies animals and plants. C. A group of plants that live in a certain place. Q 5. Where do we find more kinds of animals and plants? (Choose the correct answer) A. Forest B. Pramo Q 6. Name 5 benefits obtained from the forest and 5 benefits obtained from the pramo. Forest: Pramo 1._______________ 1. ______________ 88

PAGE 102

89 2. ______________ 2. ______________ 3. ______________ 3. ______________ 4. ______________ 4. ______________ 5. ______________ 5._______________ Q 7. What are species in danger of extinction? (Choose the correct answer) A. They are animals and plants very abundant in a place. B. They are animals and plants that can disappear because they have many threats. C. They are animals and plants similar to each other. Q 8. Do you think there are some animals that are living close to Oyacachi that can disappear from the forest or the pramo forever? Name three of them. a)______________ b)________________ c)______________ Dont know____ Q 9. Why is the bear important for the forest and the pramo? (Choose the correct answer) A. Because it is an animal that is very abundant, like the rabbit. B. Because it helps to carry the seeds of the plants from one place to another in the forest. C. Because it eats the achupallas that are destroying the soil of the pramo and the motiln that is bad for other animals. Q 10. What does the bear eat?____________ Q 11. How does the bear live? (Choose the correct answer) Mostly alone__ Mostly in families__ Mostly in groups__ Dont know__ Q 12. Does the bear take care of its cubs? Yes__ No__ Dont know__ Q 13. Is there a law that protects the spectacled bear? Yes__ No __ Dont know__ Q 16. Do you know what the RECAY is? Yes__ No___ (What is it?_______)

PAGE 103

90 Section 2: Attitudes Q 14. Do you think nature should be protected? Yes__ No__ (Why?:_______) Q 15. Do you think forests and pramos need to exist? Yes __ No__ (Why?________) Q 17. Do you think it is good to have the RECAY? Yes__ No___ (Why?______) Q 18. Do you think the bear needs the reserve to live? Yes__ No__ (Why?______) Q 19. Do you think the bear needs to be protected? Yes__ No__ (Why?______) Q 20. Do you think there are animals in the forest that are detrimental for humans? Yes__ No__ If yes, name the three most detrimental animals__________________ Q 21. Do you think there are animals in the forest that are beneficial for humans? Yes__ No__ If yes, name the three most beneficial animals___________________ Q 22. Would you prefer more or less bears in the forest? Many more__ More__ Same__ Less__ Much less__ (Why?______) Q 23. Does the bear have any importance for you? Yes__ No__ (Why?_______) Q 24. Do you think the bear is an animal that can disappear from the forest forever? Yes__ No__ (Why?_______)

PAGE 104

91 Section 3: Behavioral intentions Q 25. What would you do to help to conserve the environment?_______________ Q 26. What would you do if you see someone burning the pramo? Q 27. Would you like to collaborate with the work of forest rangers? Yes__ No__ (Why and how?________) Q 28. What do you do with garbage at home? With organic garbage (leaves, peals): Throw it far away__ Bury it__ Burn it__ Make compost __ Other?_________ With inorganic garbage (plastics, glass) Throw it far away__ Bury it__ Burn it__ Make compost __ Other?_________ Q 29. If you encountered a bear, what would you do? (Choose one answer) Get scared__ Take a picture__ Run away__ Leave it alone __ Scare it__ Take it home __ Shoot it __ Q 32. What would you do if you see an adult bear in the FOREST? Leave it alone __ Run away__ Scare it__ Call an adult to kill it __ Other?_______________ Q 33. What would you do if you see an adult bear in the CROPS? Leave it alone __ Run away__

PAGE 105

92 Scare it__ Call an adult to kill it __ Other?_______________ Q 34. What would you do if you see an adult bear close to the CATTLE? Leave it alone __ Run away__ Scare it__ Call an adult to kill it __ Other?_______________ Q 35. What would you do if you see an adult bear close to your HOUSE? Leave it alone __ Run away__ Scare it__ Call an adult to kill it __ Section 4: Interaction with Bears Q 30. Have you ever seen a bear? Yes___ No___ ( How long ago?________) Q 31. Has someone in your family ever had a problem with the bear? Yes___ No___ (What problem, how long ago?___________) Section 5: ABCPEE/School Program Evaluation Q 36. Have you heard about the Project for protecting the Bear conducted by EcoCiencia? Yes__ No__ Q 37. Do you know what the people in this Project are doing? Yes__ No__ (What?____) Q 38. Do you like school? Yes__ No__ (Why?_____)

PAGE 106

93 Q 39. Are you happy with your teachers? Yes__ No__ (Why?______) Q 40. Do you enjoy what you are learning in school? Yes__ No__ (Why?______) Q 41. Do you enjoy what you are learning about the natural environment? Yes__ No__ (Why?:_______) Q 42. Would you like to continue on to high school? Yes__ No__ Where?: In Oyacachi___ In another place ___ Q 43. If you would like to continue with high school, in which program would you like to be? Crecer___ SEC___

PAGE 107

APPENDIX C FOCUS GROUPS GUIDES Local authorities focus group guide Objective: (1) To understand the community authorities perception on results and problems of the ABCP in Oyacachi. (2) To receive their feedback on how to improve the ABCP. Participants: David Parin, Hector Parin, Ricardo Ascanta, Fausto Aguagallo, Jaime Aigaje, Abelardo Aigaje. Have you seen positive changes in peoples attitudes and behaviors toward the environment and bear conservation? Are there positive results coming from the project activities? Are more environmental educational activities needed with the community? How could environmental capacity-building in the community be improved? What other activities do you see as being needed to conserve and manage the natural resources of the community in a sustainable way? Do you think it is possible for people to have positive attitudes toward bear conservation activities? What do you think is needed to reach that objective? How do you see the collaboration between the project and the community? What has been successful and what has failed? How do you perceive the collaboration with the ABCP (EcoCiencia)? Do you have any other comments? Teachers focus group guide Objectives: (1) To understand teachers perceptions about the results and problems of the EEP with the elementary school. (2) To gain their perspective on the results and problems of the ABCP in the community. (3) To receive their feedback on how to improve the ABCP project Participants: Teodoro Ascanta (School Director), Csar Aigaje and Nelly Iza. Success of EE insertion in schools curriculum What results have been obtained? What problems have you had? Were they resolved? How? What problems do you have at the present time? 94

PAGE 108

95 How could these problems be resolved? Do you think the topics are appropriate for your social reality? Results with the children Are the children motivated at school? Are they interested in their environment? Have they improved in their knowledge regarding the environment? Can you observe any change in attitudes or behaviors of children, regarding the environment? (e.g. do not throw garbage everywhere, do not kill birds, do not destroy plants) Success of the project and collaboration with the community. How do you see the work of the ABCP (EcoCiencia) with the community? Is there enough collaboration between the ABCP and the community? Are there positive changes regarding the conservation of the environment and the protection of the Andean bear since the programs inception? How could the EEP with the community be improved? Do you have any other comments? Para-biologists focus group guide Objective: (1) To understand para-biologists perceptions on the results and problems of the ABCP in the community and of their own work with the project. (2) To receive their feedback on how to improve the ABCP project. Participants: Patricio Aigaje, Cristbal Ascanta, Wilson Ascanta, Mauricio Parin, Claudio Aigaje, Holger Aigaje, Luciano Aigaje. Have you seen positive changes in peoples attitudes and behaviors toward the environment and bear conservation? Are there positive results coming from project activities that benefit the community? Are more environmental educational activities needed with the community? How could environmental capacity-building in the community be improved? What other activities do you see as needed to conserve and manage the natural resources of the community in a sustainable way? Do you think it is possible for people to have positive attitudes toward bear conservation activities? What do you think is needed to reach that objective? How satisfied are you with your work as para-biologists with the project? How do you view the collaboration between the project and the community? What has been successful and what has failed? How could the projects collaboration with the community be improved? Do you have any other comments?

PAGE 109

APPENDIX D CHI-SQUARE TESTS Chi-Squares comparing adults attitudes and behavioral intentions between the years 1997 and 2003 Table D-1. Attitude toward bear protection YEAR 1997 2003 Total No Count 4 27 31 Bear needs to be protected % within year 12.1% 19.0% 17.7% Yes Count 29 115 144 % within year 87.9% 81.0% 82.3% Total Count 33 142 175 % within year 100% 100% 100% Pearson Chi-Square .873 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .350 Table D-2. Attitudes about personal importance of bear YEAR Total 1997 2003 No Count 1 48 49 Bear personal importance % within year 3.3% 32.9% 27.8% Yes Count 29 98 127 % within year 96.7% 67.1% 72.2% Total Count 30 146 176 % within year 100% 100% 100% Pearson Chi-Square 10.812 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .001 96

PAGE 110

97 Table D-3. Behavioral intentions when participant encounters an adult bear YEAR 1997 2003 Total Shoot it Count 1 0 1 % within year 3.0% .0% .6% Catch it Count 1 0 1 Reaction in encounter with an adult bear % within year 3.0% .0% .6% Scare it Count 4 27 31 % within year 12.1% 18.4% 17.2% Run away Count 10 25 35 % within year 30.3% 17.0% 19.4% Leave it alone Count 17 95 112 % within year 51.5% 64.6% 62.2% Total Count 33 147 180 % within year 100% 100% 100% Pearson Chi-Square .013 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) 12.714 Table D-4. Behavioral intentions when participant encounters a bear cub YEAR Total 1997 2003 Catch it Count 10 10 20 % within year 30.3% 6.8% 11.1% Reaction in encounter with a bear cub Scare it Count 2 6 8 % within year 6.1% 4.1% 4.4% Run away Count 2 8 10 % within year 6.1% 5.4% 5.6% Leave it alone Count 19 123 142 % within year 57.6% 83.7% 78.9% Total Count 33 147 180 % within year 100% 100% 100% Pearson Chi-Square 15.978 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .001

PAGE 111

98 Table D-5. Behavioral intentions to prevent bear damage to cattle and crops YEAR Total 1997 2003 Kill the bear Count 5 27 32 Action to avoid bear damage % within year 20.0% 18.4% 18.6% Take another action Count 20 120 140 % within year 80.0% 81.6% 81.4% Total Count 25 147 172 % within year 100% 100% 100% Pearson Chi-Square .038 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .846 Table D-6. Behavioral intentions of how participants would use the bear (as an attraction for tourists or other). YEAR Total 1997 2003 Other use Count 11 20 31 % within year 33.3% 16.5% 20.1% Bear as a tourist attraction Tourist attraction Count 22 101 123 % within year 66.7% 83.5% 79.9% Total Count 33 121 154 % within year 100% 100% 100% Pearson Chi-Square 4.554 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .033

PAGE 112

99 Chi-Squares comparing childrens attitudes and behavioral intentions between the years 2000 and 2003 Table D-7. Attitudes toward protecting nature Test Year Total 2000 2003 No Count 1 0 1 % within test year 2.9% .0% 1.3% Do you think nature needs to be protected? Yes Count 34 43 77 % within test year 97.1% 100.0% 98.7% Total Count 35 43 78 % within test year 100% 100% 100% Pearson Chi-Square 1.245 N of Valid Cases .265 Table D-8. Attitudes toward the RECAY Test Year Total 2000 2003 No Count 5 4 9 % within test year 13.9% 9.5% 11.5% Do you think it is good to have the RECAY? Yes Count 31 38 69 % within test year 86.1% 90.5% 88.5% Total Count 36 42 78 % within test year 100% 100% 100% Pearson Chi-Square .362 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .547 Table D-9. Behavioral intentions toward helping conserve the environment Test Year Total 2000 2003 Do not know Count 7 6 13 % within test year 19.4% 13.6% 16.3% What would you do to help to conserve the environment? Will do something Count 29 38 67 % within test year 80.6% 86.4% 83.8% Total Count 36 44 80 % within test year 100% 100% 100% Pearson Chi-Square .491 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .484

PAGE 113

100 Table D-10. Behavioral intentions toward burning pramos Test Year Total 2000 2003 Do nothing Count 4 7 11 % within test year 11.1% 15.9% 13.8% Reacts positively if sees someone burning the pramo? Do something positive Count 32 37 69 % within test year 88.9% 84.1% 86.3% Total Count 36 44 80 % within test year 100% 100% 100% Pearson Chi-Square .384 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .535 Table D-11. Behavioral intentions toward collaborating with forest rangers Test Year Total 2000 2003 No Count 2 5 7 % within test year 5.7% 12.8% 9.5% Would like to collaborate with forest rangers? Yes Count 33 34 67 % within test year 94.3% 87.2% 90.5% Total Count 35 39 74 % within test year 100% 100% 100% Pearson Chi-Square 1.088 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .297 Table D-12. Behavioral intentions in an encounter with a bear Test Year Total 2000 2003 Call an adult to kill it Count 6 3 9 % within test year 16.7% 7.0% 11.4% Reaction in encounter with an adult bear Other reaction Count 30 40 70 % within test year 83.3% 93.0% 88.6% Total Count 36 43 79 % within test year 100% 100% 100% Pearson Chi-Square 1.823 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .177

PAGE 114

101 Table D-13. Children satisfaction with school Test Year 2000 2003 Total No Count 0 1 1 % within test year .0% 2.3% 1.3% Do you like school? Yes Count 35 42 77 % within test year 100.0% 97.7% 98.7% Total Count 35 43 78 % within test year 100% 100% 100% Pearson Chi-Square .825 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .364 Table D-14. Children satisfaction with teachers Test Year Total 2000 2003 No Count 0 2 2 % within test year .0% 4.7% 2.6% Are you happy with your teachers? Yes Count 35 41 76 % within test year 100.0% 95.3% 97.4% Total Count 35 43 78 % within test year 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Pearson Chi-Square 1.671 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .196 Table D-15. Willingness to continue on to high school Crosstab Test Year Total 2000 2003 No Count 2 2 4 % within test year 5.7% 4.5% 5.1% Would you like to go to high school? Yes Count 33 42 75 % within test year 94.3% 95.5% 94.9% Total Count 35 44 79 % within test year 100% 100% 100% Pearson Chi-Square .055 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .814

PAGE 115

102 Table D-16. Place where children would like to attend high school Test Year Total 2000 2003 Outside Oyacachi Count 7 8 15 % within test year 21.9% 19.0% 20.3% Where would you like to attend high school? In Oyacachi Count 25 34 59 % within test year 78.1% 81.0% 79.7% Total Count 32 42 74 % within test year 100% 100% 100% Pearson Chi-Square .090 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .764

PAGE 116

APPENDIX E FACTOR ANALYSIS Factor Analysis for Know ledge Indicators a) Factor analysis grouping knowledge i ndicators about ecology and conservation Total Variance Explained Com ponent Initial Eigen values Extr action Sum s of Squared Loadings To tal % o f Varian ce Cu m u lativ e % Total % of Variance Cum u lative % 1 2 4 1 6 4 8 3 2 3 4 8 3 2 3 2 4 1 6 4 8 3 2 3 4 8 3 2 3 2 9 5 2 1 9 0 4 0 6 7 3 6 3 3 7 9 1 1 5 8 1 2 8 3 1 7 5 4 4 3 6 8 7 1 7 9 1 8 9 2 5 4 0 5 8 1 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 Ext r act i on M e t hod: Pri n ci pal C o m ponent Anal y s i s Factor Loadings Com ponent Com m unality K E C O S Y S 8 0 5 6 4 9 K B I O D I V 3 1 4 0 9 9 K E X T I N T 8 2 9 6 8 8 S P E X T 5 7 8 3 3 4 KBECO .804 .647 b) Factor analysis grouping knowledge i ndicators about local flora and fauna Total Variance Explained Com ponent Initial Eigen values Extr action Sum s of Squared Loadings To tal % o f Varian ce Cu m u lativ e % Total % of Variance Cum u lative % 1 1 4 1 0 7 0 5 1 2 7 0 5 1 2 1 4 1 0 7 0 5 1 2 7 0 5 1 2 2 5 9 0 2 9 4 8 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 Ext r act i on M e t hod: Pri n ci pal C o m ponent Anal y s i s 103

PAGE 117

104 Factor Loadings Component Communality KPLANT .840 .705 KANIM .840 .705 c) Factor analysis grouping knowledge indicators about bear behavior Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 1.220 40.658 40.658 1.220 40.658 40.658 2 .967 32.218 72.877 3 .814 27.123 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Factor Loadings Component Communality KBLIVE .548 .301 KNBDIET .600 .360 KNCUBS .748 .559 d) Factor analysis grouping knowledge indicators about regulations Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 1.458 48.610 48.610 1.458 48.610 48.610 2 .962 32.052 80.662 3 .580 19.338 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Factor Loadings Component Communality KNRECAY .834 .695 KPLAN .752 .565 KNLAW .446 .199

PAGE 118

105 Factor Analysis for Attitudes Indicators a) Factor analysis with attitudes toward bear protection Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 2.049 51.235 51.235 2.049 51.235 51.235 2 .893 22.329 73.564 3 .604 15.103 88.667 4 .453 11.333 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Factor Loadings ComponentCommunality Having the RECAY is good .742 .550 Bears need the reserve to live .737 .543 Bear needs protection .644 .415 Laws to protect bears are needed .736 .542 b) Factor analysis with attitudes toward bear presence Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 1.809 45.224 45.224 1.809 45.224 45.224 2 .848 21.190 66.414 3 .770 19.262 85.676 4 .573 14.324 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

PAGE 119

106 Factor Loadings Component Communality Bears are .670 .449 detrimental Bears are beneficial .604 .365 How many bears wanted .764 .583 Perception of bear abundance .642 .412 c) Factor analysis with attitudes toward bears personal importance Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 1.199 59.933 59.933 1.199 59.933 59.933 2 .801 40.067 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Factor loadings ComponentCommunality Bears personal importance .774 .599 Bear can go extinct .774 .599 Factor Analysis for Behavioral Intentions Indicators a) Factor analysis with 3 behavior indicators measuring participants reaction in a hypothetical conflict situation with a bear Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 1.755 58.493 58.493 1.755 58.493 58.493 2 .858 28.586 87.079 3 .388 12.921 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

PAGE 120

107 Factor Loadings Component Communality Take action to avoid bear damages .574 .330 A bear close to crops .806 .650 A bear close to cattle .881 .776 Factor Analysis for ABCP-EEP Results Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 1.516 50.522 50.522 1.516 50.522 50.522 2 .784 26.121 76.643 3 .701 23.357 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Factor Loadings Component Communality Is the project useful for the community? .740 .548 Observed changes in people? .717 .514 Project as a source of environmental learning? .673 .454

PAGE 121

APPENDIX F PEARSON CORRELATIONS Pearson Correlation Matrix between Response and Explanatory Variables Response variables Explanatory variables Attitudes toward bear protection Attitudes toward bear presence Bear personal importance Reaction in a hypothetical conflict with a bear ABCP-EEP Perceived results r .155 -.135 .141 -.388 -.143 Gender p .088 .138 .122 .000 .127 r -.240 -.062 -.218 -.091 .017 Age p .008 .499 .016 .273 .853 r .367 .154 .461 .077 .383 Education Level p .000 .090 .000 .357 .000 r -.115 -.181 -.120 -.026 -.104 Children under 15 yrs p .209 .046 .189 .755 .269 r -.076 .122 .066 -.025 .246 Monthly income p .403 .181 .470 .765 .008 r -.225 .089 -.184 -.078 -.130 Trees harvested per month p .013 .330 .043 .348 .165 r -.054 -.078 -.051 -.093 .034 Firewood used per month p .556 .390 .575 .263 .720 r -.054 .139 .143 -.007 .182 Heads of cattle p .557 .127 .117 .930 .052 r -.151 -.191 .102 -.006 .011 Cow predation by bears p .097 .035 .261 .956 .911 r .230 .211 .257 .061 .401 SEC participation p .011 .019 .004 .463 .000 r .229 .146 .299 .024 .397 ABCP participation p .011 .110 .001 .771 .000 r .500 .165 .414 .069 .198 Conservation knowledge p .000 .069 .000 .409 .034 r -.051 -.118 .028 -.211 -.101 Local flora and fauna knowledge p .576 .198 .764 .011 .284 r .202 .018 .260 -.115 -.006 Bear behavior knowledge p .026 .841 .004 .167 .946 r .160 .003 .306 -.044 .136 Regulations knowledge p .078 .978 .001 .600 .148 108

PAGE 122

knowledge p .006 109Pearson Correlation Matrix between Explanatory Variables Age Education Level Children under 15 yrs Monthly income Trees harvested per month Firewood used per month Heads of cattle Cow predation by bears SEC participation ABCP participation Conservation knowledge Local flora and fauna knowledge Bear behavior knowledge Regulations knowledge r .073 .255 -.009 .052 -.047 -.021 .057 -.055 .091 .224 .372 .449 .413 .199 Gender p .382 .002 .911 .533 .569 .800 .496 .507 .271 .006 .000 .000 .000 .016 r 1.000 -.341 .067 .101 .351 .280 -.029 -.023 -.117 .016 -.374 .231 -.081 -.191 Age p .000 .418 .223 .000 .001 .726 .780 .158 .849 .000 .005 .327 .021 r 1.000 -.331 .196 -.187 -.285 .191 -.132 .563 .502 .677 .113 .234 .349 Education Level p .000 .017 .023 .000 .020 .111 .000 .000 .000 .175 .004 .000 r 1.000 -.141 .080 .048 .207 .165 -.156 -.189 -.163 .085 -.010 -.117 Children under 15 yrs p .090 .338 .566 .012 .046 .059 .022 .049 .310 .907 .157 r 1.000 .054 .002 .251 -.061 .175 .130 .100 .073 .093 .037 Monthly income p .513 .983 .002 .465 .034 .117 .226 .380 .263 .660 r 1.000 .109 -.149 -.043 -.129 -.105 -.293 .040 -.193 -.235 Trees harvested per month p .189 .072 .604 .120 .205 .000 .632 .019 .004 r 1.000 -.099 .114 -.219 -.062 -.222 -.102 -.055 -.113 Firewood used per month p .234 .168 .008 .455 .007 .221 .511 .174 r 1.000 .120 .267 .056 .201 .098 .051 .201 Heads of cattle p .149 .001 .502 .015 .241 .538 .015 r 1.000 -.024 .010 -.076 .039 -.090 .088 Cow predation by bears p .773 .909 .357 .636 .278 .289 r 1.000 .387 .369 .090 .129 .219 SEC participation p .000 .000 .281 .119 .008 r 1.000 .381 .156 .088 .280 ABCP participation p .000 .061 .287 .001 r 1.000 .237 .344 .337 Conservation knowledge p .004 .000 .000 r 1.000 .284 .132 Local flora and fauna knowledge p .001 .112 r 1.000 .227 Bear behavior

PAGE 123

LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, N. M., and M. I. Mazariegos. 1994. The plight of the Andean bear of Ecuador: the Andean Bear Welfare and Conservation Issues Project. International Bear News 3:5-8. Archer, C. A. 2002. Long term evaluation of an environmental education program: Assessing the impacts of the golden lion tamarin education initiative in Brazil. M.S. thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville. Amstrong, J. B., and J. C. Impara. 1991. The impact of an environmental education program on knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Environmental Education 22:36-40 Ajzen, I. 1985. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. Pages 11-39 in J. Kuhl and J. Beckman, editors. Action control: From cognition to behavior. Springer-Verlag, New York. Ajzen, I. 1988. Attitudes, personality, and behavior. The Dorsey Press, Chicago, Illinois. Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Bauer, H. 2003. Local perceptions of Waza National Park, northern Cameroon. Environmental Conservation 30:175-181. Bernard, H. R. 2002. Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California. Brandon, K. E., and M. Wells. 1992. Planning for people and parks: Design dilemmas. World Development 20:557-570. Brown, A.D., and D. I. Rumiz. 1989. Habitat and distribution of the spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus) in the southern limit of its range. Pages 93 in M. Rosenthal, editor. First Int. Symp. Spectacled Bear, Lincoln Park Zoological Gardens. Chicago Park District Press, Chicago, Illinois. Campbell, D. T., and J. C. Stanley. 1963. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Rand McNally College Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois. Caro, T., M. Borgerhoff Mulder, and M. Moore. 2003. Effects of conservation education on reasons to conserve biological diversity. Biological Conservation 114:143-152. 110

PAGE 124

111 Chawala, L. 1988. Childrens concern for the natural environment. Childrens Environments Quarterly 5:13-20. Cuesta, F. 1998. Actitudes de las Comunidades de Oyacachi y Sardinas sobre el Oso Andino (Tremarctos ornatus), Reserva Ecolgica Cayambe-Coca, Ecuador. EcoCiencia. Quito. Cuesta, F., and L. Surez. 2001. Oso de Anteojos (Tremarctos ornatus). Pages 68-70 in D. Tirira, editor. Libro rojo de los mamferos del Ecuador. SIMBIOE/ EcoCiencia/ Ministerio del Ambiente/ UICN. Serie Libros Rojos del Ecuador, Tomo 1. Publicacin Especial sobre los Mamferos del Ecuador 4. Quito. Dodson, C., and A. H. Gentry. 1991. Biological extinction in western Ecuador. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 78:273295. Fiallo, E. A., and S. K. Jacobson. 1995. Local communities and protected areas: Attitudes of rural residents toward conservation and Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Environmental Conservation 22:241-249. Finsterbusch, K., and W. A. Van Wicklin. 1987. The contribution of beneficiary participation to development project effectiveness. Public Administration and Development 7:1-23. Flores, S., J. Camacho, T. Ascanta, P. Colango, G. Parin, and J. Campaa. 2000. Plan de educacin ambiental para la escuela Padre Rafael Ferrer, Comuna Quichua de Oyacachi. Proyecto Conservacin del Oso Andino/ EcoCiencia, Quito. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Comission. 2004. The black bear curriculum. Website: http://www.floridaconservation.org/educator/blkbear.htm (Last Viewed July 2004). Gerakis, A. 1998. Evaluating adult groundwater education. The Journal of Environmental Education 30:20-24. Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different voice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Goldstein, I. 1991. Spectacled bear predation and feeding behavior on livestock in Venezuela. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 26:231-235. Heffernan, B. M. 1998. Evaluation techniques for the Sandy Point Discovery Center, Great Bay National Estuarine Reserve. Journal of Environmental Education 30:25-33. Hilton-Taylor, C. 2000. 2000 UICN Red List of Threatened Species. The World Conservation Union (IUCN). Gland & Cambridge.

PAGE 125

112 Hines, J. M., H. R. Hungerford, and A. N. Tomera. 1986/87. Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education 18:1-8. Hoogesteijn, R., A. Hoogesteijn, and E. Mondolfi. 1993. Jaguar predation and conservation: Cattle mortality caused by felines on three ranches in the Venezuelan llanos. Pages 391-407 in N. Dunstone and M. L. Gorman, editors. Mammals as predators. Sixty-fifth symposium of the Zoological Society of London. Clarendon Press, London. Hough, J. L. 1988. Obstacles to effective management of conflicts between national parks and surrounding human communities in developing countries. Environmental Conservation 15:129-136. Israel, G. D. 1994. Using focus group interviews for evaluating extension programs. Fact Sheet PEOD-14, a series of the Program Evaluation and Organizational Development unit, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. INEC 2001. Instituto Ecuatoriano de Estadstica y Censos: Census 2001 Website: http://www.inec.gov.ec/ (Last viewed June 2004). INEC 2004. Instituto Ecuatoriano de Estadstica y Censos. Website: http://www.inec.gov.ec/. (Last viewed June 2004). Infield, M. 1988. Attitudes of a rural community toward conservation and a local conservation area in Natal, South Africa. Biological Conservation 45:21-46. IUCN. 2003. 2003 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Website: www.redlist.org (Last viewed June 2004). Jacobson, S. K. 1994. Evaluating conservation education programs at a South American zoo. Journal of Environmental Education 25:18-22. Jacobson, S. K. 1999. Communication skills for conservation professionals. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Jacobson, S. K., and M. D. McDuff. 1997. Success factors and evaluation in conservation education programs. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 6:1-18. Jensen, B. B. 2002. Knowledge, action and pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research. 8:326-334. Jhala, Y. V. 1991. The status and conservation of the wolf in Gujarat and Rajasthan, India. Conservation Biology 5:476-483. Jorgenson, J. P. 1984. Colombia. Spectacled Bear Specialist Group Newsletter 7:13.

PAGE 126

113 Karanth, K. U., and M D. Madhusudan. 2002. Mitigating human-wildlife conflicts in southern Asia. Pages 189-202 in J. Terborgh, C. P. van Schaik, M. Rao, and L. C. Davenport, editors. Making parks work: identifying key factors to implementing parks in the tropics. Island Press, Covelo, California. 24:338-343. Kasapolu, M. A., and M. C. Ecevit. 2002. Attitudes and behavior toward the environment: The case of Lake Burdur in Turkey. Environment and Behavior 34:363-377. Kellert, S. R. 1996. The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Kellert, S. R., M. Black, C. Reid Rush, and A. J. Bath. 1996. Human culture and large carnivore conservation in North America. Conservation Biology 10:977-990. Kohn, E. O. 2002. Infidels, virgins and the black-robed priest: A backwoods history of Ecuadors montaa region. Ethnohistory 49:3 545-582. Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research 8:239-260. Lyons, E., and G. M. Breakwell. 1994. Factors predicting environmental concern and indifference in 13-to 16-year-olds. Environmental Behavior 26:223-238. Mtt, Y. 1996. Ymristkysymysten rationaalinen arvottaminen. Suomen Ympristkeskusken Moniste 43. SuomenYmpristkeskus, Helsinki. Machalis, G. E., and D. L. Tichnell. 1985. The state of the worlds parks: An international assessment for resource management, policy and research. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. McDonough, M. H., and T. Lee. 1990. Evaluation of interpretive services: What do we know in 1990? Proceedings of the 1990 National Association of Interpreters workshop. Whats past is prologue: Our legacy, our future. Charleston, South Carolina. Mech, L. D. 1995. The challenge and opportunity of recovering wolf populations. Conservation Biology 9:270-278. Mehta, J. N., and S. R. Kellert. 1998. Local attitudes toward community-based conservation policy and programmes in Nepal: A case study in the Makalu-Barun Conservation Area. Environmental Conservation 25:320-333. Mishra, C. 1997. Livestock depredation by large carnivores in the Indian trans-Himalaya: Conflict perceptions and conservation prospects. Environmental Conservation

PAGE 127

114 Mishra, C., P. Allen, T. McCarthy, M. D. Madhusudan, A. Bayarjargal, and H. H. T. Prins. 2003. The role of incentive programs in conserving the snow leopard. Conservation Biology 17:1512-1520. Naughton-Treves, L., R. Grossberg, and A. Treves. 2003. Paying for tolerance: Rural citizens attitudes toward wolf depredation and compensation. Conservation Biology 17:1500-1511. Norris, K. S., and S. K. Jacobson. 1998. Content analysis of tropical conservation education programs: Elements of success. Journal of Environmental Education 30:38-44. Nunnaly, J. 1978. Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York. Oli, M. K., I. R. Taylor, and M. E. Rogers. 1994. Snow leopard Panthera uncia predation of livestock: an assessment of local perceptions in the Annapurna conservation area, Nepal. Biological Conservation 68:63-8. Pdua, S. M. 1994. Conservation awareness through an environmental education program in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil. Environmental Conservation 21:145-151. Pdua, S. M., and S. K. Jacobson. 1993. A comprehensive approach to an environmental education program in Brazil. Journal of Environmental Education 24:29-36. Peine, J. D. 2001. Nuisance bears in communities: Strategies to reduce conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 6:223-237. Peyton, B. 1999. Spectacled Bear Action Plan. Pages 157-198 in C. Servheen, S. Herrero and B. Peyton, editors. Bears Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. UICN/SSC, Gland. Poats, S. V., W. Ulfelder, J. Recharte, and C. Scurrah-Ehrhart. 2000. Construyendo la conservacin participativa en la reserva Ecolgica Cayambe-Coca, Ecuador: Participacin local en el manejo de reas protegidas (PALOMAP). The Nature Conservancy, Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Fundacin Ford. Quito. Polisar, J., I. Maxit, D. Scognamillo, L. Farrell, M. E. Sunquist, and J. F. Eisenberg. 2003. Jaguars, pumas, their prey base, and cattle ranching: Ecological interpretations of a management problem. Biological Conservation 109:297-310. Primm, S. A., and T. W. Clark. 1996. Making sense of the policy process for carnivore conservation. Conservation Biology 10:1036-1045. Rossi, P. H., and H. E. Freeman. 1993. Evaluation: A systematic approach. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.

PAGE 128

115 Rossi, P. H., H. E. Freeman, and M. W. Lipsey. 1999. Evaluation: A systematic approach. Sage Publications, Newberry Park, California. Rovira, M. 2002. Evaluating environmental education programmes: Some issues and Botanical Garden, New York. problems. Environmental Education Research 6:144-155. Rutman, L., and G. Mowbray. 1983. Understanding program evaluation. Sage Publications, London. Salant, P., and Dillman, D. A. 1994. How to conduct your own survey. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Schelhas, J., L. E. Buck, and C. C. Geisler. 2001. Introduction: The challenge of adaptive collaborative management. Pages xix-xxvii in L. E. Buck, L.E., C.C. Geisler, J. Schelhas and E. Wollenberg, editors. Biological diversity: Balancing interests through collaborative management. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida. Servheen, C. 1999. Brown bear conservation action plan for North America. Pages 39-54 in C. Servheen, S. Herrero and B. Peyton, editors. Bears Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. UICN/SSC, Gland. Smith, B. L. 1995. Education to promote male-selective harvest of grizzly bear in the Yukon. Pages 156-174 in S. K. Jacobson, editor. Conserving wildlife: International education and communication approaches. Columbia University Press, New York. Surez, L. 1999. Spectacled bear conservation action plan. Pages 179-182 in C. Servheen, S. Herrero and B. Peyton, editors. Bears status survey and conservation action plan. UICN/SSC, Gland. Tikka, P. M., M.T. Kuitunen, and S. M. Tynys. 2000. Effects of educational background on students attitudes, activity levels, and knowledge concerning the environment. Journal of Environmental Education 31:12-19. Treves, A., and K. Ullas Karanth. 2003. Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conservation Biology 17:1491-1499. Udaya Sekhar, N. 1998. Crop and livestock depredation caused by wild animals in protected areas: The case of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India. Environmental Conservation 25:160-171. UNEP-WCMC 2004. UNEP-WCMC Species database: CITES-Listed Species. Website: http://sea.unep.wcmc.org/isdb/CITES (Last viewed June 2004). Valencia, R. R. 1995. Composition and structure of an Andean forest fragment in eastern Ecuador. Pages 239249 in S. P. Churchil, H. Balslev, E. Forero, and J. L. Luteyn, editors. Biodiversity and conservation of neotropical cloud forests. The New York

PAGE 129

116 Wells, M., K. Brandon, and L. Hannah. 1992. People and parks: Linking protected areas management with local communities. World Bank/World Wildlife Fund/U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC. White, T. G., and S. K. Jacobson. 1994. Evaluating conservation education programs at a South American zoo. Journal of Environmental Education 25:18-22. Witter, D. J. 1978. Birth watchers, hunters, and wildlife professionals beliefs about the importance and management of wildlife. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Arizona, Tucson.

PAGE 130

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Santiago Espinosa is a wildlife biologist whose primary career goal is to contribute to the conservation of neotropical ecosystems, the sustainable management of Ecuadors natural resources, and the development of local communities. He believes that through a better understanding of how to integrate ecological, socioeconomic and political systems, this goal is possible. Santiagos higher education began with the pursuit of a bachelors degree in biology, at the Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Ecuador, Quito, with a focus on the ecology of Ecuadorian wildlife. Through conducting wildlife research in remote areas in Ecuador, he was exposed to rural communities, and became interested in understanding the human dimensions of conservation. After completing his BS, Santiago was hired by the Ecuadorian non-governmental organization, Salud, Infancia, Genero y Ambiente, where he primarily worked on environmental capacity-building with indigenous groups. In the fall of 2002, Santiago moved to Gainesville, to pursue his M.S. degree in the Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, at the University of Florida, with the support of a LASPAU-OAS scholarship. Santiago has received support from the Tropical Conservation and Development, and Wildlife Ecology and Conservation programs, in order to continue with his Ph.D. at the University of Florida. He will focus his doctoral research on the integration of ecological, socioeconomic, and political systems, with the goal of improving the management and success of protected areas in 117 Ecuador.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0006966/00001

Material Information

Title: Evaluation of an Environmental Education Program for the Andean Bear in an Ecuadorian Protected Area
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0006966:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0006966/00001

Material Information

Title: Evaluation of an Environmental Education Program for the Andean Bear in an Ecuadorian Protected Area
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0006966:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











EVALUATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR THE
ANDEAN BEAR INT AN ECUADORIAN PROTECTED AREA
















By

SANTIAGO ESPINOSA ANDRADE


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004
































Copyright 2004

by

Santiago Espinosa Andrade


































To Maiko, for 9 years of loyal company.
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to Birst acknowledge the community of Oyacachi, whose warmth and

collaboration were essential to the fulfillment of this study. Special thanks go to David

Pari6n, President of the Cabildo in 2003; Teodoro Ascanta, Director of the school; Cesar

Aigaj e, Nelly Isa, and Gustavo Parion (teachers at the school); and Patricio and Maria

Aigaj e. I consider all of them dear friends who gave me their help when I most needed it.

Deep thanks go to Luis Suarez, who Birst proposed that I conduct this evaluation

and put me in contact with the Andean Bear Conservation Proj ect team (Jaime Camacho,

Francisco Cuesta, and Saskia Flores). I truly appreciated their collaboration, interest in

my research, and willingness to share their extensive experience and knowledge.

This research would not have been possible without the Einancial support of the

Program for Studies in Tropical Conservation (PSTC) Compton Fellowship in

Environment and Sustainable Development; along with the Jennings Scholarship, in the

Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation.

I am extremely grateful to my academic advisor, Susan Jacobson, whose

unending support allowed me to pursue my goals, whose guidance helped me maintain

focus in my research, and whose wisdom helped me clarify my ideas. I would also like

to thank my supervisory committee, Janaki Alavalapati and Glenn Israel. They provided

me with many thoughtful comments and suggestions, which vastly improved the quality

of this work.









I also extend my gratitude to my friends at the University of Florida, who helped

create a wonderful environment in which I was able to develop my ideas and enj oy

myself. Special thanks go to Rafael Reyna, Alejandro Paredes, and Ivan Diaz who, in

addition to their friendship, helped me revise portions of this thesis and provided me with

positive feedback.

I also would like to thank my Uncle Bruno, who has been like a brother to me and

has always been willing to help me in everything that I have done. His logistical support

made fieldwork for this research much easier.

I extend special thanks to the woman who changed my life in Gainesville, Amy

Duchelle. Amy brought me the peace, warmth, and happiness that made me feel at home,

despite being so far away. Her constant love and support kept me going and lifted my

spirits when I most needed it. She read this document several times, corrected my

English, and provided me with thoughtful advice to improve this work.

Finally, I want to express my love and gratitude to my parents for providing me

with the values and principles that have guided me throughout my life.




















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page



ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. .................... iv


LI ST OF T ABLE S ............ ..... ._ .............. ix...


LI ST OF FIGURE S .............. .................... xi


AB STRAC T ................ .............. xii


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............1.......... ......


Trends in the Conservation of the Andean Bear in Ecuador ................. ................. .2
The Andean Bear Conservation Proj ect ................. ...... ............ .. ....... ......... ......4
Theoretical Framework of Responsible Environmental Attitudes and Behavior.........6
Research Objectives and Hypothesis............... ...............



2 DESIGN AND IVETHODS............... ...............12


Site Description .............. ...............13....
Sampling Design for Surveys ................ ...............13................
Structure of Survey s ................. ...............14................
Survey for Adults ................. .. .. ........... ........1
Survey for Children at the Elementary School ................. .........................15
Focus Groups ................... ......... ... ...............15......
Focus Group with Authorities .............. ...............16....
Focus Group with Para-Biologists............... ............1
Focus Group with Teachers ................. ...............16................
Data Analysis ................. ...............16.................
Quantitative Data ................. ...............16.................
Qualitative Data............... ...............17..



3 RE SULT S .............. ...............20....


Survey Results .............. ...............20....











Evaluating the ABCP-EEP with Adults .............. .. ...............20...
Sociodemographic and Economic Background............... ...............2
Bear Interactions.................. .. ................2
Knowledge Indicators about the Environment and Conservation ................... ....23
Attitudes toward Bears and the Environment............... ..............2
Factors Influencing Attitudes ................ ..... ........ ..........2
Behavioral Intentions toward Bears and the Environment .........._.... ...............29
Factors Influencing Behavioral Intentions .............. ...............32....
ABCP -EEP Perceived Results by the Community.............__ .........___.......33
Factors Related with Perception about ABCP-EEP Results .............. ................36
Evaluating the ABCP-EEP on Children .............. ...............37....
Knowl ed ge............ ..... ._ ...............37....
A attitudes .............. ...............37....
Behavioral Intentions............... ...............3
School and Program Support............... ...............39
Focus Group Responses............... ...............4
Focus Group with Authorities .............. ...............40....
Focus Group with Teachers .....__.....___ ..........._ ............4
Focus Group with Para-Biologists............... ............4
Limitations of the Study .............. ...............45....



4 DI SCUS SSION ............ ..... ._ ...............56...


Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions in Oyacachi .............. ..............57
Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions in Children ................... ..........57
Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions in Adults ............... ... ............58
Support for the AB CP Environmental Educational Program ................ ................. 62
Variables Influencing Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions ................. ................ ..65
Variables Influencing Support for the ABCP............... .... ....... .............6
Comparison of the ABCP -EEP Strategy to other Environmental Education
Efforts to Conserve Large Carnivores .............. ...............70....
Conclusion ............ ..... ._ ...............72...



5 RECOM1VENDATIONS ............ ..... ._ ...............75....

APPENDIX


A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ADULT S............... ...............79

B QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CHILDREN AT THE SCHOOL ............_.. ..............88

C F OCU S GROUP S GUIDE S .............. ...............94....


D CHI-SQUARE TESTS .............. ...............96....

E FACTOR ANALY SIS ............ ..... ._ ...............103...












F PEARSON CORRELATIONS .....__.....___ ..........._ ............10


LIST OF REFERENCES ............. ...... ._ ...............110..


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............. ...... ...............117...








































































V111


















LIST OF TABLES


Table pg

3-1 Sociodemographic and economic indicators ................. ............... ......... ...47

3-2 Education levels of survey respondents .............. ...............47....

3-3 Interaction/conflicts between the bear and participants .............. .....................4

3-4 Costs of damages caused by bear .............. ...............47....

3-5 List of knowledge indicators, grouped in four domains. ................ .............. .....48

3-6 Comparison between knowledge level of male and female participants .................48

3-7 Attitudes toward conservation of bears and the natural environment ................... ...49

3-8 Attitudes toward bears............... ...............49.

3-9 Questions grouped in indices .............. ...............50....

3-11 Behavioral intentions toward environmental protection .............. .....................5

3-12 Reaction in hypothetical encounter with a cub and an adult bear ................... .........52

3-13 Behavioral intentions toward a bear at different degrees of proximity ................... .52

3-14 Behavioral intentions toward bear management ................. .......... ...............52

3-15 ABCP-EEP perceived achievements by the community............... ...............5

3-16 Other important perceptions about ABCP .............. ...............53....

3-17 Questions for children compared between the years 2000 and 2003 .......................54

3-18 Comparison between knowledge scores in 2000 and 2003 ............... ..............54

3-19 Attitudes of children at the school ........... _.....__ ......__ .........5

3-20 Behavioral intentions of children at the school ......____ ... .... ...............55

3-21 Children' s behavioral intentions toward a bear at varying degrees of proximity ....55











3 -22 Students awareness of ABCP-EEP and support of the school program ................55

D-1 Attitude toward bear protection............... ...............9

D-2 Attitudes about personal importance of bear............... ...............96.

D-3 Behavioral intentions when participant encounters an adult bear ................... .........97

D-4 Behavioral intentions when participant encounters a bear cub ............... ...............97

D-5 Behavioral intentions to prevent bear damage to cattle and crops ................... ........98

D-6. Behavioral intentions of how participants would use the bear .........._.... .............98

D-7 Attitudes toward protecting nature ................. ...............99........... ...

D-8 Attitudes toward the RECAY............... ...............99.

D-9 Behavioral intentions toward helping conserve the environment ................... .........99

D-10 Behavioral intentions toward burning paramos .............. ...............100....

D-11 Behavioral intentions toward collaborating with forest rangers ............................100

D-12 Behavioral intentions in an encounter with a bear ................. ........... ...........100

D-14 Children satisfaction with teachers .............. ...............101....

D-16 Place where children would like to attend high school.........._.._.._ ......._.._.. ....102

















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure pg

1-1 Spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus) .............. ...............10....

1-2 Distribution of the Spectacled Bear along the Andean Region ............. ..............11

2-1 National System of Protected Areas in Ecuador, Location of the community of
Oyacachi at the Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve. ............. .....................1
















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master in Science

EVALUATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR THE
ANDEAN BEAR INT AN ECUADORIAN PROTECTED AREA

By

Santiago Espinosa Andrade

August 2004

Chair: Susan K. Jacobson
Major Department: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation

This study evaluates the impact of an environmental education program to protect

the Andean bear (Tremarctos ornatus) in the Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve in

Ecuador. Andean bears are threatened by reduction and fragmentation of their habitat,

hunting, and persecution by farmers. To help conserve this species, the Andean Bear

Conservation Proj ect, with an Environmental Education Program (EEP), were

implemented in 1997 in the community of Oyacachi, located within the boundaries of the

reserve. The EEP's objective was to stimulate local support toward conservation of the

Andean bear and its habitat, targeting school children and adults.

Methods to assess the EEP's impact on the community after 5 years of

implementation include a personal survey with 146 adults; a written survey completed by

44 children; and three focus groups conducted with authorities, teachers and para-

biologists. Baseline data were available from 1997 for adults and from 2000 for children.

Program success was analyzed based on changes in levels of environmental knowledge,









attitudes and behavioral intentions toward bear protection after program inception, along

with support for the program.

The evaluation revealed partial success of the ABCP-EEP in achieving its

obj ectives. Children' s level of knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions did not

change between 2000 and 2003, although the frequencies of positive responses were high

in these two last indicators, ranging from 80-97% and 84-100% for both years,

respectively. Adults' positive attitudes toward bear protection, and behavioral intentions

based on a conflictive situation with bears had a positive association with participants'

levels of knowledge and education. Positive attitudes toward bear presence in Oyacachi

were negatively associated with respondents' past experiences with livestock predation.

Program support was positively associated with respondents' participation in the Andean

Bear Conservation Proj ect.

To increase program success recommendations include creating more continuity in

project activities; reaching more sectors of the population; improving communication

strategies for informing the public about activities conducted by the ABCP, along with

the results of these activities; and planning future evaluations and monitoring of the

ABCP-EEP. Because livestock predation was a factor that decreased community support

for conservation of the Andean bear, our study suggests the importance of coordinating

educational activities with development proj ects that shift dependence on cattle to other

livelihoods and thereby reduce conflicts with bears.















CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Since 1998, the Andean Bear Conservation Proj ect has been conducting an

Environmental Educational Program in the community of Oyacachi, Ecuador, with the

obj ective of increasing community support for conservation of this endangered species.

To date, the results obtained by the program have not been described. Have the

inhabitants of Oyacachi gained more knowledge since the program's inception? Do they

have positive attitudes toward conserving the environment and the Andean bear

population? Do they support the activities conducted by the program? These and many

other programmatic questions can be answered through an evaluation.

Evaluation, in its broadest sense, is a process for determining the value or worth of

something (Rossi & Freeman 1993). Program evaluations are important (Jacobson 1999)

because they permit us to measure achievement of program obj ectives, assess secondary

outcomes and unanticipated impacts, identify strengths and weaknesses in the program,

analyze the program from a cost-benefit perspective, improve program effectiveness,

collect evidence to promote future programs, and share experience and lessons learned

with similar programs.

Evaluations have been demonstrated to be essential components in educational

programs, allowing for the collection of relevant information in order to identify failures

and adapt programs to improve their probability of success (Padua & Jacobson 1993,

Gerakis 1998, Heffernan 1998, Archer 2002, Rovira 2002). In an analysis of 56 tropical

conservation education programs conducted between 1975 and 1990, Norris and









Jacobson (1998) found that fewer than the half of the programs had achieved their goals.

One main attribute significantly correlated with program success was the use of either

formative or long-term evaluation.

Our study evaluated results of the Andean Bear Conservation Proj ect' s

Environmental Education Program (ABCP-EEP) by measuring changes in individuals'

levels of environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. An increase in

knowledge is considered an important indicator of the success of an environmental

education program (McDonough & Lee 1990), along with public satisfaction with, and

support for, a program (Rossi et al. 1999). Our study provides an assessment of the

ABCP-EEP, with the goal of enhancing program success, which ultimately will

contribute to the conservation of this endangered species.

Trends in the Conservation of the Andean Bear in Ecuador

The Andes are the home of the only species of bear occurring in South America,

the Andean, or spectacled, bear (Tremarctos ornatus) (Figure 1-1). The spectacled bear

is mainly distributed through Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia (Peyton

1999) (1-2), but has been occasionally reported in the Darien region of Panama

(Jorgenson 1984) and in northwestern Argentina (Brown & Rumiz 1989). The

Spectacled Bear Specialist Group (SBSG) has estimated a population of at least 18,250

individuals in the wilderness (Peyton 1999). In Ecuador, the spectacled bear population

has been calculated to be around 2,500 individuals, with no subpopulation at more than

250 mature individuals (Cuesta & Suarez 2001). An effort to protect this species at an

international level is reflected in its inclusion in Appendix I of the Convention on

International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, CITES

(UNEP-WCMC 2004), and its classification as a vulnerable species in the Red List of









Threatened Species of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural

Resources, IUCN (IUCN 2003).

In Ecuador, the spectacled bear inhabits a variety of Andean ecosystems (such as

cloud forests and piramos) along an altitudinal range of 900-4,250m, on both western

and eastern Andean slopes (Su~rez 1999). The main threat to the long-term survival of

the spectacled bear is the loss and fragmentation of its habitat (Su~rez 1999). Montane

[cloud] forests have been drastically reduced in the last decades, by deforestation and

habitat conversion to other land uses. Dodson and Gentry (1991) point out that almost

nothing is left from the original forest of the inter-Andean valleys, with only 4% of

montane forests remaining on the western slopes. Valencia (1995) notes that montane

forests are the most threatened ecosystems in Ecuador, with only 7% of their original

distribution left.

Although Ecuadorian law prohibited the hunting of the spectacled bear in 1970,

poaching (for commercial sale of its parts, in local and international markets) currently

constitutes a significant threat to bear populations (Cuesta & Su~rez 2001). Mazariegos

and Adams (1994) reported 15 bears killed in 1993, in two communities neighboring

protected areas in Ecuador (to obtain bear fat, considered by local people to have

medicinal properties). They estimated 70-120 bears killed annually in Ecuador. The

expansion of the agricultural frontier has increased human-bear conflicts. As their

habitats are reduced, bears are forced to feed on crops, particularly corn (Su~rez 1999).

Bear predation on livestock is reported in areas where cattle-ranching activities are

conducted near bear habitats (Goldstein 1991). These negative interactions increase










farmers' willingness to participate in the extermination of this animal, which is

considered by many to be a pest (Suarez 1999).

The Andean Bear Conservation Project

As a response to the critical status of the spectacled bear population and its habitat,

in 1997, the non-governmental Ecuadorian organization EcoCiencia, with the support of

the World Conservation Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), created the

Andean Bear Conservation Proj ect (ABPC). This proj ect consisted of the following two

components: research on Andean bear ecology, and an environmental education program.

The Environmental Education Program's (EEP) obj ective was to increase people's

level of knowledge about the environment, and to promote positive attitudes and

behaviors toward conservation of the Andean bear and its habitat. The program began in

1997, in the Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve (RECAY), with an assessment of

people's attitudes toward bears in the communities of Sardinas and Oyacachi (Cuesta

1998). The EEP activities have continued in Oyacachi, addressing both children and

adults .

The activities for adults have included: (1) workshops dealing with local

environmental issues, such as a campaign for solid waste management; (2) collaboration

with SEC a high school long distance program for adults who are not able to conduct

their studies in one of the cities closer to Oyacachi2, and (3) the training and recruitment



i An important activity with students in their last year at the SEC, was the creation of environmental
interpretative trails for tourists. This activity was worth as a final project for the students in order to obtain
their high school diplomas.

2 The Training and Capacity Building System (SEC) was created by the Ministry of Environment as a
initiative to provide education to the personnel who work in the National System of Protected Areas. This
program has a strong environmental education component, and due to its success, was expanded to provide
education to local communities established in and around protected areas.









of community members to work as "para-biologists" in collaboration with research being

conducted on Andean bear ecology.

The EEP's efforts with children have been directed at collaborations with the local

school. From June through October of 1998, a pilot program was developed by the

ABCP, which included three primary components: (1) the insertion of environmental

education in the curriculum of the school; (2) the design and elaboration of didactic

materials for this school; and (3) the creation of a summer school program for the

children of Oyacachi. One year later, the pilot program was improved by the ABCP-

EEP, resulting in the School Plan for Environmental Education and Capacity Building

(PECAE) .

From December 1999 to April 2000, the ABCP conducted a diagnosis of socio-

pedagogic and educational needs of the school before designing the PECAE. The

resulting PECAE consisted of four components: (1) a curricular program, which

incorporated environmental education as a theoretical framework in the learning process

of children; (2) a capacity building program, which was conducted with teachers at the

school to improve their skills in environmental education; (3) an infrastructure program,

to improve the learning platform for children; and (4) a communication program, to share

acquired information and experiences with other people, both within and outside of the

community (Flores et al. 2000).

Tangible results of these activities include people' s personal accounts of the

workshops, EEP publications, didactic materials produced with the teachers and students

and even a radio program, narrated by local people, telling the story of an Andean bear.

However, there has not been any monitoring or evaluation of the EEP. This study is the









first attempt to evaluate the processes and results obtained by the Andean Bear

Conservation Proj ect and its Environmental Education Program.

Theoretical Framework of Responsible Environmental Attitudes and Behavior

There are several theories that attempt to elucidate pro-environmental behavior and

are relevant to understanding people's interactions with wildlife. Most notably, these

theories suggest the importance of people' s attitudes as predictors of their behavior.

Therefore, in understanding the interactions between people and bears in Oyacachi, it is

important to first define the variables that influence attitudes toward wildlife.

Kellert (1996) proposed four interacting variables that shape individuals' attitudes

toward wildlife: (1) individuals' basic values toward animals and nature that inevitably

affect their perceptions about a particular species; (2) physical and behavioral

characteristics of an animal, such as its size, perceived intelligence, morphology, mode of

locomotion, and cultural and historical associations; (3) knowledge and understanding

about a particular species, including factual, conceptual and conservation awareness; and

(4) past and present interactions with a particular species, including conflicts, recreational

use, property relationships and management status.

According to Ajzen and Fishbein' s "Theory of Reasoned Action" (Ajzen &

Fishbein 1980), a person's intention to perform a pro-environmental action is determined

by a combination of two components: (1) his or her attitude toward the behavior, which is

influenced by beliefs that are shaped by a person's experiences and knowledge, and (2)

subj ective norms, which refer to the social context in which a person acts. For example,

if a person thinks that it is good to protect bears, and this sentiment is reinforced in their

community, it is more likely this person will behave positively toward bears. This theory

was extended by Ajzen (1985) in his theory of planned behavior, which added that even










if individuals have the intention of performing a particular behavior, the behavior will

only happen if an individual both perceives that he or she has the capability to perform it

(perceived control) and also the necessary skills (actual control). These variables

determine whether behaviors actually follow people's intent to behave in a certain way

and demonstrate the importance of capacity-building in reinforcing pro-environmental

behavior.

Hines et al. (1986/87) created a "model of responsible environmental behavior"

based on six variables, observed to be the most influential in shaping individuals'

intentions to act and therefore their behavior

1. Knowledge of issues: In this case, a person needs to be aware of the issues
surrounding conservation of the spectacled bear, in order to influence his or her
intention to act.

2. Knowledge of action strategies: A person needs to know what his or her choices
are for reducing human impact on the bear population;

3. Locus of control: The individual has to have the perception that his or her actions
will make a difference in bear conservation;

4. Attitudes: A person must have a positive attitude toward the bear, in order to want
to protect it;

5. Verbal commitment: If there is an expressed intention to collaborate with a bear
conservation program, it is more likely that a person will adopt positive behaviors
toward bears; and

6. Individual's sense of responsibility: A person with a stronger feeling of duty or
obligation will be more likely to perform pro-environmental behaviors

Other variables, or 'situational factors,' such as economic constraints, social

pressures and opportunities to choose multiple actions, are also aggregated in this model

as directly influencing a person's behavior. Such 'situational factors' are extremely

relevant to conservation of the spectacled bear in Oyacachi.









Hines et al. (1986/87) and Kellert (1996) highlight the importance of knowledge

and attitudes in influencing positive behaviors toward nature and wildlife. These

theories are essential in understanding the significance of environmental knowledge and

attitudes, gained through the Andean Bear Conservation Proj ect' s Environmental

Education Program, in promoting pro-environmental behavioral intentions of program

participants toward the spectacled bear. Despite the fact that knowledge per se may not

lead to an individual's performance of a pro-environmental action or behavior, it

represents one important precondition for a behavior' s development (Jensen 2002). This

last assertion is supported by numerous studies focusing on environmentally responsible

behavior, which have found positive correlations between knowledge and pro-

environmental attitudes and behaviors (Infield 1988; Armstrong & Impara 1991; Lyons

& Breakwell 1994; White & Jacobson 1994; Fiallo & Jacobson 1995; Kellert 1996;

Zimmermann 1996; Tikka et al. 2000; Kasapoglu & Ecevit 2002; Archer 2002; Caro et

al. 2003).

This study attempts to assess the importance of enhancing local knowledge and

support, as fundamental to the Andean Bear Conservation Proj ect-Environmental

Education Program. Additionally, in order to evaluate this program more broadly, this

research includes analysis of how people' s past and present interactions with spectacled

bears have shaped their current attitudes toward the bear. Finally, it explores how other

'situational factors', such us income or dependence on natural resources, influence

people's attitudes toward the bear and toward the ABCP.









Research Objectives and Hypothesis

Obj ectives of this evaluation are as follows:

* Objective 1. Assess current levels of knowledge, attitudes and behavioral
intentions toward the conservation of Andean bear and its habitat, and changes
since the program's inception.

* Objective 2. Measure public support and satisfaction with the Andean Bear
Conservation Proj ect and its Environmental Education Program in the community
of Oyacachi.

* Objective 3. Analyze the influence of participants' level of environmental
knowledge, sociodemographic and economic attributes, and interactions with the
Andean bear on their attitudes, behavioral intentions and proj ect support.

* Objective 4. Improve program delivery by identifying strengths and weaknesses
and suggesting future modifications.

Research hypotheses of this study are as follows:

* H1. Participant's knowledge, positive attitudes and behavioral intentions will have
increased since program inception.

* H2. Participants' level of knowledge about the environment and socioeconomic
situation will be positively correlated with their attitudes, behavioral intentions and
program support.


Obj ectives 1 and 2 attempt to determine whether the program was successful.

Proj ect success would be represented by a higher level of knowledge, positive attitudes

and behavioral intentions toward the conservation of the spectacled bear, along with high

levels of support and satisfaction with the proj ect.

Obj ective 3 attempts to contribute to an understanding of how people's knowledge,

socioeconomic conditions and interactions with the bear can influence their attitudes,

behavioral intentions and, ultimately, behaviors. Understanding these associations is

critical in facilitating improvement of the strategies of the Andean Bear Conservation










Proj ect, since people' s attitudes and behaviors may be influenced by their knowledge,

livelihood systems and past experiences with the bear.

Obj ective 4 is intended to contribute to the improvement of the Andean Bear

Conservation Proj ect and provide important insight for other programs directed toward

conservation of the spectacled bear. The Andean Bear Conservation Project is still being

conducted in Oyacachi. Furthermore, other countries in the Andean region are working

toward the conservation of the spectacled bear and its habitat.


I~pr~~ "r~t

I ..j ;r ,*:
:

Figure 1-1. Spectacled bear (Trem~rctos ornatus) (Photo by Rafael Reyna)


s-
rLt-~i

;:~SIS k-- I",
























































Figure 1-2. Distribution of the Spectacled Bear along the Andean Region (Figure 9.1i., p
160, in Peyton, B. 1999. Spectacled Bear Action Plan. Pages 157-198 in C.
Servheen, S. Herrero and B. Peyton, editors. Bears Status Survey and
Conservation Action Plan. UICN/SSC, Gland.)















CHAPTER 2
DESIGN AND METHODS

This systematic evaluation uses a variety of methods to collect information needed

to assess local support of the Andean Bear Conservation Proj ect and changes in

knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions after implementation of the Environmental

Education Program in the community of Oyacachi. Structured interviews were

conducted to collect qualitative and quantitative information, which permitted statistical

analyses on associations between attitudes and behavioral intentions and participant

variables such as knowledge, sociodemographic and economic characteristics, and

interactions with bears. Previous questionnaires conducted with adults (1997) and

children (2000) are used as baseline information to look for changes in knowledge,

attitudes and behavioral intentions, by comparing responses given to the same questions

before and after EEP implementation.

Focus groups were conducted with teachers, para-biologists and local authorities.

Focus groups are planned, relaxed discussions among small groups of people about a

specific topic, in order to obtain information more quickly than one-on-one interviews

and allow individuals to use the ideas of others in the group as cues to elaborate more

fully on their own points of view (Israel 1994). This technique was used to include the

opinions of three different groups, composed of people who had participated in the

program and who are key members in the decision-making processes in the community.









Site Description

The Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve (RECAY), created in 1970, is a national

protected area located in the eastern branch of the northern Ecuadorian Andes (Figure

2-1). It has an area of 403,103 ha and ranges from 600 to 5790 m in altitude. Within the

boundaries of the RECAY, the Quichua indigenous community of Oyacachi is located,

having been established in the area since the pre-Hispanic period (Kohn 2002). Oyacachi

is a small community, with approximately 550 inhabitants grouped into 105 households

(Comuna de Oyacachi, Plan de Manej o Comunitario 2001-2004). People' s livelihoods

are dependent on livestock, handicrafts and subsistence agriculture. They have 44,500 ha

available for these practices, however, the management of this territory is under the

regulations of the Ecuadorian National System of Protected Areas.

Sampling Design for Surveys

Heads of households to be interviewed were chosen randomly from a list of 103

community households provided by local authorities. If possible, both male and female

heads of each household were interviewed separately. It has been suggested that gender

of interviewers can affect responses of interviewees (Bernard 2002). In order to reduce

this effect, which is very important in this case due to the culture of the Oyacachi

community, a previously trained female field assistant helped to conduct surveys with

female interviewees.

Retired heads of households (people over the age of 60) were omitted from the

selection process after pre-testing the questionnaire. The reason for this decision was

based on two main factors: (1) elderly people speak little Spanish, and (2) they had not

received any formal education, making their understanding of the issues touched on by

the questionnaire quite low.









The survey evaluating the EEP's impacts on children at the elementary school

program was delivered by the local teachers to all students in the three upper-level

grades, 5 to 7 (children approximately between the ages of 9 and 12 years).

Structure of Surveys

Survey for Adults

To evaluate the impacts of the ABCP-EEP, two surveys were developed. The first

consisted of a face-to-face interview with adults, and the second consisted of a written

questionnaire for children. Both surveys were reviewed by the ABCP-EEP coordinators

and by teachers in the local community to ensure usefulness of the results. The surveys

followed standard survey techniques (Salant & Dillman 1994). The survey for adults was

pre-tested in the first 20 interviews to correct problematic questions.

For adults, the questionnaire included 9 questions from the questionnaire conducted

in 1997 with the general population (Questions 10, 11, 16, 19, 24, 31-34 in Appendix A),

12 questions from the questionnaire for children conducted in 2000 (Questions 1-6, 8, 14,

27-29), and 48 new questions. In total, the adult survey comprised 71 questions, which

were organized into seven topical sections (Appendix A):

1. Knowledge: This section includes 14 questions (Q 1-13, Q 16), which measure
people's knowledge about bear behavior, local flora and fauna, concepts of ecology
and conservation, and knowledge regarding environmental regulations and natural
resource management.

2. Attitudes: 12 questions (Q 14, Q 15, Q 17-26) measure people's attitudes toward the
environment, and toward the bear and its protection.

3. Behavioral intentions: 10 questions (Q 27-36) measure the behavioral intentions of
people in activities that affect bear conservation and in their personal interactions
with the bear.

4. Interaction with bears: 3 questions (Q 37-39) were designed to provide information
about conflicts between people and bears in Oyacachi.









5. ABCP-EEP evaluation: 17 questions (Q 40-56) solicit information about program
support, satisfaction and perceived results by the community, as well as information
that will be useful to improve program delivery from the community perspective.

6. Sociodemographic and economic information: 13 questions (Q 57-69) were
designed to address variables such as education level, income, family size, and other
factors that could influence responses regarding the attitudes and behavioral
intentions of interviewees toward the bear and their support of the ABCP.

7. Questions added as a request of local teachers: Two questions (Q 70 and Q 71)
were added to the adult questionnaire as a request of local teachers. They wanted to
know how much support the creation of a local radio for delivering educational
programs would have in the community.

Survey for Children at the Elementary School

The questionnaire for children contained 44 questions, divided into the following 5

sections (Appendix B):

1. Knowledge: 14 questions (Q 1-13, Q 16), including 9 from the previous
questionnaire conducted in 2000 (Q 1-7, Q 9, Q 16).

2. Attitudes: 10 questions (Q 14, Q 15, Q 17-24), including 2 from the previous
questionnaire conducted in 2000 (Q 14, Q 17).

3. Behavioral intentions: 9 questions (Q 25-29, Q 32-35), 4 of which come from the
previous questionnaire conducted in 2000 (Q 25, Q 26, Q 27, Q29).

4. Contact with bear: Questions 30 and 31

5. ABCP-EEP evaluation: 8 questions (Q 36-43), to measure children's satisfaction
with their school. Three of these questions were included in the survey conducted in
2000 (Q 38, Q 39, Q 42).

Focus Groups

Three focus groups were conducted for approximately a one-hour period with each

group. Participants were invited and attended the meetings voluntarily. All sessions

were tape recorded and notes were taken. Focus group guides are found in Appendix C.

It is important to mention that 15 out of 16 participants in focus groups also participated


in face-to-face interviews.









Focus Group with Authorities

A meeting was conducted with members of the Cabildo, the political organization

of the community. A total of 6 out of 9 invited members attended the meeting and

discussed their perceptions and support of the ABCP and its EEP.

Focus Group with Para-Biologists

A total of 7 out of the 8 invited para-biologists, the people trained by the ABCP to

collect biological data for the Andean bear ecological study, participated in the second

focus group. The discussion was focused on their perceptions about people's support for

the ABCP in the community, and about the results this proj ect has had in changing the

attitudes and behavioral intentions of people regarding the conservation of the Andean

Bear and the environment.

Focus Group with Teachers

A third focus group meeting was conducted with 3 of the 5 teachers from the

school to understand their perceptions regarding the success of proj ect activities

conducted with the school since the beginning of the program in 1998. Teachers'

thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of the EEP at the school were discussed, along

with the ways in which program delivery could be improved in the future. Since teachers

are important decision makers in the community, this focus group also discussed the role

of the ABCP in influencing community development.

Data Analysis

Quantitative Data

Statistical analysis was conducted with SPSS 11.5 software. Questionnaire

responses were first analyzed with descriptive statistics to determine the overall pattern of

responses. Differences between groups' responses regarding knowledge, attitudes and









behavioral intentions before and after program inception were tested using Chi-Square

analyses (Appendix D) and T-tests.

Some responses concerning economic data were inconsistent between the husband

and wife of individual households. These data were household income, amount of cattle

owned, and amount of trees and firewood used. In order to better estimate these

variables, divergent responses given by husbands and wives were averaged in the case of

income and amount of cattle. For number of trees used, the response of the male was

determined to represent the household use, since men extract timber for the manufacture

of handicrafts. In the case of firewood, the answer given by the female was determined

to represent the use of this resource by the household, because it is women who more

frequently collect firewood for use in cooking.

Questions regarding knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions were grouped

to form unidimensional indices through a factor analysis (Appendix E). The indices were

tested with a reliability analysis using Cronbach's alpha coefficient.

Linear multiple regression models were used to analyze the ways in which

environmental knowledge, interactions with bears, and sociodemographic and economic

variables influence participants' responses on attitudes and behavioral intentions toward

the bear and the environment, as well as their support for the ABCP. Bivariate Pearson

correlation matrices were created to look for relationships between pairs of variables. For

these analyses, statistical significance is reported as significant (alpha 0.05) and highly

significant (alpha 0.01).

Qualitative Data

Qualitative data from the three focus groups conducted with local authorities,

teachers and para-biologists were used to provide a deeper understanding of the ABCP









results in the community of Oyacachi and contribute to the improvement of the EEP,

based on suggestions from these key community members. Information from notes and

recordings from these focus groups was transcribed and merged to summarize

participant' s opinions of the program.







19





(RE) Manglares
Cayapas Matlaj

I ~i ~ el Oyacachi


(R E)_



(RB)



I-- R E)
j (PN) Yasunl
Machalila.




(RE) Manglares
Chrute (PN) Sang /,




(RVS) Isla Ecuador i
Santa Clara

A erica

(PN);


L v 0-300 m
i ~>300 m
~600 m
.~ 1200 m
r ~2000 m
'- ~i 3000 m
~ 4000 m

Figure 2-1. National System of Protected Areas in Ecuador, Location of the community
of Oyacachi at the Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve.















CHAPTER 3
RESULTS

Survey Results

In order to evaluate the Andean Bear Conservation Proj ect' s Environmental

Education Program (EEP) with adults of the community, 147 interviews were conducted

between May and August 2003 with 72 males and 75 females. These interviews

represent 88% of possible participants (168 people) who were husband and wife of each

household. A total of 84 out of 87 target households were covered by this study. This

number (87) excluded households where both husband and wife were retired. In 64

cases, it was possible to interview both husband and wife; in 5 cases only single heads of

household were found. People who were not interviewed (21 people) either did not want

to participate (2 people) or were living outside of Oyacachi.

In order to evaluate the results of the EEP at the elementary school, 44 surveys

were conducted with children in the last three grades, 5 through 7. Their responses are

compared to results obtained from 36 surveys, conducted in 2000, with children from the

same grade level.

Evaluating the ABCP-EEP with Adults

The analysis for evaluating the effectiveness of the ABCP and its EEP with adults

in the community focuses on their responses to questions regarding attitudes, behavioral

intentions, proj ect support, and people' s perceptions about the ABCP results. These

responses can be explained by other factors, such as knowledge about the environment,

interaction with bears, sociodemographic and economic conditions, and whether or not









respondents have participated in project activities. Before and after program

implementation comparisons have to be interpreted with caution for three reasons: (1) A

limited sample size of interviewees in 1997 (n = 35); (2) the reduced amount of

information useful for evaluation provided by the original questionnaire; and (3) general

factors that jeopardize the validity of quasi-experimental designs (Campbell & Stanley

1963), especially history, maturation and instrumentation, which need to be considered in

interpretation of the results.

Sociodemographic and Economic Background

Respondents had a mean age of 34 (SD = 1 1.20) and on average they had two

children under the age of 15 (SD = 1.55) (Table 3-1). For further analysis, the age of 15

was chosen arbitrarily as a cutoff point for children, because it was observed that older

than 15 years daughters or sons are considered more as contributors rather than

dependents in the household economy.

The income of households ranged from 18 to 400 US dollars per month, with a

mean of 119 (SD = 73.10) (Table 3-1). In Ecuador, the minimum wage per month in May

2004 was US$ 166, and the minimum monthly amount of capital needed by a family to

satisfy their basic needs was US$ 388 (INEC 2004). The main source of economic

revenue comes from cattle ranching. An average of 8 head of cattle were owned per

household (SD = 3.60) (Table 3-1). Timber is also important; an average of 4 small trees

(SD = 5.10) were used monthly for handicrafts, which constitutes the second most

important economic activity after cattle ranching, and for construction purposes. Ninety-

four kilograms of firewood (SD = 64.85) were used per week (Table 3-1).

Of the people interviewed, 8% had no education at all. Twenty-five percent had

attended a few years of elementary school, with 32% having completed elementary









education. Eighteen percent had attended some high school, with 14% having completed

high school education. Only 4 participants (3%), had pursued further studies beyond

high school (Table 3-2). This low level of education reflects normal patterns in rural

Ecuador, where 61% of the population has completed elementary school, 15% high

school and 13% has not received any sort of formal education (INTEC 2001). The main

reason for not attending a formal educational institution is lack of financial resources

(INEC 2004).

Bear Interactions

The Andean bear is a very well-known animal in Oyacachi, where it is considered a

beautiful, powerful and mythical animal. It is viewed with respect and also with fear by

local people, due to its destruction of corn crops and occasional predation on cattle and

sheep. Three-fifths of participants reported having seen a bear at least once in their

lifetime (Table 3-3). Currently, corn production is not a common activity in Oyacachi, so

the destruction of corn is not a widespread problem. However, 20% of participants

mentioned having had their corn crops destroyed by a bear in the past (Table 3-3). This

proportion represents 14 households, who reported a mean economic loss of US$ 67.50

(SD = 67.10) per corn crop (Table 3-4).

Currently predation on cattle and sheep is the maj or problem that creates conflict

between the community members and bears. One-fifth of participants reported having

had their cattle or sheep attacked by a bear (Table 3-3). This proportion represents 16

households that had attacks to cattle and 4 that had attacks to sheep. The economic loss of

each attack ranges from US$ 40 to 1000, with a mean of US$ 343 (SD = 308.87) (Table

3-4). This amount (US$ 343) represents one-quarter of the mean annual income of a

household in Oyacachi.









Knowledge Indicators about the Environment and Conservation

Thirteen questions were used to measure people's knowledge about the

environment and bear conservation (Table 3-5). Knowledge scores varied on a scale

from 0 to 13, with each question answered correctly counted as 1 point. The total

knowledge score of participants had an average of 9.62 (SD = 2.48). The mean

knowledge score for men, 11.14 (SD = 1.79), was significantly higher than that for

women, 8.15 (SD = 2.144) (Table 3-6).

In order to conduct further analyses of the relationship between knowledge and

attitudes, behavioral intentions and program support, principal component analysis was

used to group knowledge indicators (Appendix E). Four different indices were created,

dividing knowledge into four domains: (1) knowledge about ecology and conservation (5

questions), (2) knowledge about local flora and fauna (2 questions), (3) knowledge about

bear behavior (3 questions) and (4) knowledge about environmental regulations (3

questions) (Table 3-5). Men were more knowledgeable than women in each of these

knowledge domains (Table 3-6).

In order to test the consistency of the indices, a reliability analysis was conducted

with the knowledge indicators comprising each index. Cronbach's alpha measure of

inter-item correlation was used for this purpose. Usually, a Cronbach's alpha value

higher than 0.7 is an acceptable reliability coefficient (Nunnaly 1978), whereas a value

less than or equal to 0.30 indicates that items do not share a common theme (Witter

1978). The indices measuring ecology and conservation, local flora, bear behavior, and

environmental regulations knowledge had Cronbach's alphas of 0.73, 0.58, 0.22 and 0.35,

respectively. In spite of the lower alpha value of the bear behavior knowledge index, it









was maintained because conceptually it is known to measure a common theme (as

demonstrated by principal component analysis).

Attitudes toward Bears and the Environment

Participants had a positive response toward the conservation of natural resources

and the bear. When asked about the need to conserve nature and the persistence of

natural ecosystems such as forests and paramos, 99% and 100% of participants,

respectively, answered positively to both questions (Table 3-7), mainly mentioning that

those ecosystems were important for obtaining natural resources. The general attitude

toward the natural reserve was also positive; 97% mentioned that it was either good or

very good to have the RECAY present (Table 3-7). The principal explanation

participants gave for this response was that the RECAY protects them against intruders

and colonists. Also, 93% of participants thought that the RECAY is necessary for bear

survival, and 81% mentioned that this animal needs to be protected (Table 3-7). The

maj ority of respondents were supportive of laws to protect the bear and other animals

(93%) (Table 3-7).

When asked more specifically about the bear and its presence in the area, responses

were more divided than in previous questions. People were asked to give names of

animals that they consider beneficial and animals considered detrimental. The bear was

named by 62% (Table 3-8) of the participants as one of the animals considered

detrimental, along with others like the puma, which predates on small farm animals, and

parrots, which destroy crops. Only 14% of participants included the bear with animals

considered beneficial, such as the tapir and deer, which were frequently mentioned (Table

3-8). Most people, 88%, perceived that there are presently more bears than in previous

years. The reason given by respondents for this increase is that nobody is hunting the









bear in the reserve. When asked if they would prefer more or fewer bears in the vicinity

of Oyacachi, 48% said fewer or much fewer, 39% said the same amount, and only 13%

responded they would like to see more bears (Table 3-8). The increase of bear predation

on cattle in the last few years was the reason provided for why people were reluctant to

have more bears close to them. However, for 67% of participants the bear was important

at a personal level, related to aesthetic, utilitarian, ecological or cultural values. Also,

three-fifths of the participants thought that the bear could become extinct if it is not

protected against hunting (Table 3-8).

Two questions regarding attitudes toward bears can be compared with responses

given in 1997, before program implementation. The first question concerns what people

think about protecting the bear. No significant differences appear in this response before

and after program implementation; 88% of participants in 1997 and 81% in 2003 said the

bear should be protected (X2 = 0.873, p = 0.350) (Table D-1). The second question

makes reference to whether the bear is important to the person being interviewed. In this

case, a significant difference is observed. In 1997, 97% of participants said the bear was

important for them, while in 2003 a lower proportion, 67%, gave the same response (X2 =

10.812, p = 0.001) (Table D-2).

Factors Influencing Attitudes

In order to explore the association of attitudes with other factors, such as

knowledge, interactions with bears, and sociodemographic and economic variables, the

first step consisted of aggregating attitude items by creating indices that represented

common themes. Factor analysis was conducted with 10 attitude items (Appendix E), and

three indices were created: (1) index about bear protection, grouping 4 questions; (2)

index about bear presence, grouping 4 questions; and (3) index about the personal










importance of the bear, grouping 2 questions (Table 3-9). The reliability of these indices

was tested using Cronbach's alpha, which had a value of 0.63, 0.53 and 0.33 for indices

1, 2 and 3, respectively.

A set of linear multiple regression models was elaborated, taking each attitude

index as the response variable. The explanatory variables incorporated into each model

included:

1. Knowledge indices: indices measuring knowledge about ecology and conservation,
local flora and fauna, bear behavior and regulations.

2. Sociociodemographic and economic attributes: Gender, age of participants,
number of children under age 15, education level, monthly income, amount of trees
used per month, amount of firewood used per week and number of heads of cattle.

3. Interaction with bear: One indicator of these variables, whether the bear has
predated on cattle or sheep of participants or not, was set aside for the linear multiple
regression analysis. The reason for including only this indicator of interaction with
the bear, and not including corn crop predation and bear sightings, was that livestock
predation was a main issue in the community at the time of the study. The obj ective
was to see the extent to which this conflict was affecting people' s support of the
conservation of the bear.

4. Program participation: To assess program effectiveness, it is important to see if
respondents' participation in the ABPC-EEP influenced their attitudes. Their
participation in the long distance high school program "SEC" was also included, as
this program has had strong support from the ABCP.

Statistical interaction can cause some predictors to appear unassociated with the

response variable. A Bivariate Pearson correlation matrix was performed to detect if

there was a significant association of each explanatory variable with the response

variables, ignoring the rest of the predictors (Appendix F).

Attitudes toward bear protection had a highly significant association with

knowledge about ecology and conservation in the linear multiple regression model (Table

3-10). The standardized beta for this predictor was 0.436 (p < 0.001), indicating a

positive association between this domain of knowledge and people' s attitude toward










protecting bears. In contrast, knowledge of local flora and fauna was negatively

associated with attitudes toward bear protection, (Std. beta = -0.232, p = 0.022) meaning

that those who know more about local flora and fauna are less likely to have positive

attitudes toward bear protection.

The correlation matrix demonstrated that other predictors had an association with

attitudes toward bear protection when compared independently. Respondent' s age and

amount of trees used per month were negatively associated (Appendix F), indicating that

elderly people and those who use more trees were more likely to have negative attitudes

toward bear protection. Regardless of whether respondents had participated in the ABCP

or in the SEC, their education level, knowledge about bear behavior and knowledge about

regulations were positively associated with attitudes toward bear protection (Appendix

F). This last result indicates that people who have participated in any of these programs,

ABCP or SEC, and are therefore more educated and knowledgeable, are more likely to

have improved attitudes toward bear protection. In this correlation matrix knowledge of

local flora and fauna did not have a significant association with people's attitudes toward

bear protection, suggesting that this variable became significant due to statistical

interaction with other variables in the multiple linear regression model. A correlation

matrix between the explanatory variables (Appendix F) demonstrated a significant

positive association between knowledge of local flora and fauna and age, which provides

evidence of the interaction between these two variables in the model.

Three factors were significantly associated with attitudes toward bear presence in

the linear multiple regression model. Gender was negatively associated (Std. beta =

-0.225, p = 0.03 8), as women are coded with 1 and men with 2; this indicates that women









are more likely to have a more positive attitude towards bear presence than men. Cattle

predation by bears had a negative association with people's willingness to have bears in

the area (Std. beta = -0.195, p = 0.034) (Table 3-10). The last significant variable was an

unexpected relationship with the amount of harvested trees per month, which appeared to

be positively associated (Std. beta = 0.241, p = 0.016). This could have been caused by

the interaction of this variable with others, such as age and education level, while in a

correlation matrix the amount of harvested trees per month appeared not to be associated

with attitudes toward bear presence (r = 0.089, p = 0.330) (Appendix F).

The correlation matrix, comparing the attitude toward bear presence with each

predictor (Appendix F), demonstrated that two other variables were related. The number

of children under 15 years of age in the household was negatively associated with

people's attitude toward the presence of the bear, indicating that people with younger

children are more likely to hold negative attitudes. Participation in the SEC program was

positively associated with respondents' attitudes toward the bear.

The index measuring the personal importance of the bear combines people' s

perception of the bear, and their beliefs as to whether this animal can go extinct. The

only variable significantly related to this index in the linear multiple regression model

was education level (Std. beta = 0.326, p = 0.022) (Table 3-10); the bear was more

important for people who had more formal education than for people who did not.

However, many other factors appeared to be related to this attitude in the correlation

matrix (Appendix F). As in the previous case of attitude toward bear protection,

participants' ages and the amount of trees used per month were negatively associated

with their attitudes about the importance of the bear. The variables that proved to have a










positive association with attitudes regarding bear importance were consistent with the

previous analysis comparing attitudes toward bear protection. ABCP and SEC

participation, education level, knowledge of bear behavior, knowledge of environmental

regulations and knowledge about conservation were significantly associated with

attitudes about the importance of the bear.

Behavioral Intentions toward Bears and the Environment

Participants' behavioral intentions to protect and conserve the environment were

very positive. Almost all of the respondents indicated something that they could do to

help conserve their environment (Table 3-11), such as planting some trees instead of only

harvesting them, or not hunting wildlife in the reserve. In Ecuador, a common practice

that negatively impacts highland ecosystems is the burning of paramo to facilitate the

germination of grasses for cattle grazing. Almost everyone interviewed knew that this

practice had negative environmental impacts and was forbidden inside the RECAY, and

they were willing to report this action to local authorities or forest rangers in order to

impede it (Table 3-11). Also, 92% of participants said that they would like to collaborate

with forest rangers (Table 3-11) in helping watch for illegal behaviors when they are

ranching their cattle in the paramos, for instance inside the RECAY. Also, since the

ABCP created workshops that addressed more local environmental problems, such as one

with waste management, at the time of this evaluation, 99% of respondents managed their

garbage correctly, differentiating between organic and inorganic waste (Table 3-11).

When participants were asked about what to do in the case of an encounter with a

bear, their intentions in general were good, but were quite strongly influenced by the

context. For instance, people's reactions would vary based on whether the encounter is

with a cub or with an adult bear (Table 3-12). When faced with an adult bear, 17% of









respondents said that they would run away because the animal could be dangerous. Five

percent said the same if it were a cub. However, 18% responded that they would scare

the adult bear using a stick or shooting in the air, while 65% said that they would just

leave the animal alone. In front of a cub, only 4% responded that they would try to scare

it. Most people would leave it alone (84%), but 7% responded that they would like to

catch the animal either to keep as a pet or to play with for a while before releasing it.

Respondents' behavioral intentions in a hypothetical encounter with an adult bear

or a cub were more negative before program implementation. In an encounter with an

adult bear, the main difference appears to be due to an increase in the proportion of

people who said that they would leave the bear alone (52% in 1997 vs. 65% in 2003) (X2

= 12.714, p = 0.013) (Table D-3). Also, none of the 2003 respondents said that they

would catch or shoot the bear, while in 2000 two people mentioned that action. In the

case of an encounter with a cub (X2 = 15.978, p = 0.001) (Table D-4), the difference was

due to the increase in the number of participants who said that they would leave the cub

alone (58% in 1997 vs. 84% in 2003) and in the reduction of people who said they would

catch the cub (30% in 1997 vs. 7% in 2003).

An interesting difference occurs when people see the bear at different distances

from their property (Table 3-13). If participants encountered a bear in the forest, they

would either let it go (88%) or scare it (12%). The situation changes when people see a

bear in their crops. In this case, most participants would scare the bear (80%) or even

shoot to kill it (7%). Only 14% said that they would leave it alone. If the bear were

found close to respondents' cattle, people's behavioral intentions would be even more

negative toward the animal. Three quarters of respondents said that they would scare the









bear, and 16%, more than twice that of the previous scenario, said that they would shoot

the bear. Only 8% responded that they would leave the bear alone if it was close to their

cattle. When people were asked what they would do if a bear was close to their homes,

behavioral intentions were more positive than in the two previous situations (crops and

cattle). Half of respondents said that they would scare the bear, 47% would leave it alone

and just 3% would shoot it. People in Oyacachi commonly believe that the bear can kill

humans, so this last result shows the importance of crops and cattle in people's lives,

indicating that they seemingly value these resources more than their personal security. A

significant proportion of the participants, 18% (Table 3-14), believed that their best

recourse against avoiding bear damage to their cattle and crops would be to kill them.

However the maj ority, 82%, thought that alternative actions could be taken to solve this

problem. For example, participants suggested that they could watch over their cattle

more vigilantly or build fences to keep bears away. This question was also asked in the

1997 survey, when 20% of participants responded that the best course of action would be

to kill the bear. There was no significant difference between the responses to this

question before and after program implementation (X2 = 0.03 8, p = 0.846) (Table D-5).

Due to its location inside a natural reserve, tourism in Oyacachi is increasing as an

important local economic activity. When asked about how people could best use the

bear, in 1997, 67% of respondents indicated that it would be to use the bear as an

attraction for tourists. In 2003, there was a significant increase to this response, with

84% (X2 = 4.554, p = 0.033) sharing this same idea (Table D-6). This can be considered

a positive change, since people who see the bear as useful when it is alive could be more

in favor of supporting its conservation. However, 60% of respondents also expressed an









interest in having the opportunity to sell bear parts, which are very sought after in local

and international markets (Table 3-14).

Factors Influencing Behavioral Intentions

The principal obj ective of this analysis is to explore what variables could be

influencing people's positive or negative behavioral intentions in conflict situations

between humans and bears. Three indicators, which clearly measured the behavioral

intentions of people in a conflict situation, were grouped and transformed into an index

through factor analysis. The three indicators were: a) Action to avoid bear damage to

crops and cattle; b) reaction of participants when a bear is close to their crops; and c)

reaction when a bear is close to their cattle. The reliability of the index was a Cronbach' s

alpha coefficient of 0.58.

A linear multiple regression model was conducted using the behavioral intention

index as a response variable. As in the previous analysis, the explanatory variables were

knowledge indices, sociodemographic and economic attributes, interaction with bears,

and program participation. The model explained 23% of the variance on the response

variable. Only two variables were significantly related to people's responses when

presented with a hypothetical conflict situation with a bear (Table 3-10). Gender had a

negative beta coefficient (Std beta = -0.464, p < 0.001). This indicates more positive

behavioral intentions of women, in an interaction with the bear, than of men. The second

significant variable was a knowledge index about ecology and conservation, which had a

beta coefficient of 0.243 (p = 0.044) This signifies that people who know more about

these issues are more likely to express positive behavioral intentions toward the bear.

Conversely, the correlation matrix showed knowledge about local flora and fauna to have

a significant negative association with people's behavioral intentions (Appendix F).









ABCP -EEP Perceived Results by the Community

In order to evaluate the achievements of the ABCP with the adult population, a set

of questions covering multiple topics was posed to indicate proj ect success (Table 3-15).

For this purpose, the analysis started by identifying whether the proj ect was known

within Oyacachi. Almost all interviewees (97%) had heard about the project, and 91%

could say what people working in the ABCP were doing in Oyacachi. However,

participants mostly made reference to the research being conducted on bear ecology,

rather than mentioning activities conducted with residents themselves.

A total of 63 interviewees (43%) said that they had participated in at least one

activity of the ABPC. When asked about how they felt about this experience, the

response was generally positive, with respondents stating that they had had either a very

good (36%) or good (52%) experience because they had learned new things. For the 10%

who had participated but stated that the experience was neither good nor bad, these

respondents said that they had learned very few things and that nothing was put into

practice. Only one person thought the experience was bad, after attending one workshop

that she considered a waste of time. Most adults also supported the activities conducted

with children at the school. Although less than half of the respondents (41%) knew about

the activities with children, after having the change in the curriculum that included

environmental education explained to them, 82% supported this initiative.

The ABCP seems to have reached a significant proportion of the population. Half

of respondents mentioned that the proj ect has provided them with increased knowledge

about the environment. However, it is important to mention that other organizations and

proj ects working in the RECAY were mentioned as sources of environmental education

along with the ABCP. These included the Ministry of Environment, which is the national










organization in charge of administrating protected areas, and the Ecuadorian NGOs,

Fundaci6n Antisana and Fundaci6n Ecol6gica Rumicocha. Despite the fact that the

ABCP and other groups have been conducting different forms of environmental

education in the RECAY, 92% of respondents said that they would like to learn more

about the environment, and 88% would like to be enrolled in an activity for conserving

natural resources in the area. The main topics in which participants mentioned having

interest were related to the management of natural resources, particularly tourism,

organic agriculture, and low impact cattle ranching. This positive result presents

evidence of local people's support for conservation programs, like the ABCP in

Oyacachi, through the willingness of people to continue participating in it.

Sixty-five percent of participants thought that a positive change in people' s

attitudes toward the environment has occurred in Oyacachi since implementation of the

ABCP. They mentioned that there is currently more local awareness about the

environment than in previous years. A similar proportion of participants (66%) thought

that the ABCP was also useful (56%) or very useful (10%) for the development of the

community. They justified this response by saying that having more knowledge of the

environment helps them to better manage their natural resources. However, people who

thought that the proj ect was not useful (16%) or only slightly useful (18%) for the

community mentioned that they did not need more education, but rather more "things" to

help them in their daily life, such as a proj ect to improve their cattle ranching and

agriculture systems.

It is worth mentioning that before this study began, the Cabildo did not approve the

ABCP to continue with its research on the bear in Oyacachi. This internal governance









system of the community involves all community members over the age of 18. The

reasons given by the Cabildo for their decision were discrepancies among community

members' opinions about proj ect activities, which had become more negative following

events of bear predation on cattle. The Cabildo also argued that the ABCP was not

leaving any benefit for the community, such as contributing directly to their economy

(David Pari6n, President of the Cabildo, pers. comm. 2003). In order to assess whether

the ABCP was indeed causing conflicts between community members, a fact that would

not be positive for further development of the proj ect and the EEP, participants were

asked their opinion on this matter. A significant proportion of the responses (41%)

indicated that the project creates some (31%) or a lot of conflicts (10%). Another 41% of

respondents said that it caused few (5%) or very few (36%) conflicts, while 18%

indicated that the proj ect was not a source of conflict (Table 3-16). The main source of

conflict mentioned by respondents concerned the procedures that were being used to

research the bear at that time. Respondents complained about the bait, which included

cattle blood among other ingredients, to attract bears to hair traps planted in close

proximity to the community. People thought that the use of this bait could likely be the

cause of the increase in cattle predation by bears.

Another source of conflict that would not favor EEP implementation would be if

people felt that their culture was not being respected by an external intervention. This is

particularly important in this context, since Oyacachi is made up of a group of indigenous

people who have inhabited the area for more than five centuries, and have a strong

culture and unique worldview. In regards to this topic, participants responded favorably

to the ABCP, with 97% agreeing that the proj ect' s respect of their culture was either good









(56%) or very good (41%) (Table 3-16). People mentioned that in addition to respecting

their culture, the ABCP also encouraged the recovery of Oyacachi traditions.

Factors Related with Perception about ABCP-EEP Results

As in the case of attitudes and behavioral intentions, people's perception of

ABCP-EEP results could be related to multiple factors, so an index was created through

factor analysis (Appendix E) to measure this. The index included three items: (1)

whether the proj ect was mentioned as a source of environmental learning; (2) if the

proj ect has resulted in changing attitudes that favor conservation in the community; and

(3) the perceived usefulness of the project to development of the community. The index

reliability was tested with Cronbach's alpha coefficient, which had a value of 0.47. After

this procedure, a linear multiple regression model was conducted to look for associations

between perceived results (response variable) and knowledge, bear interaction,

sociodemographic and economic attributes, and program participation (explanatory

variables).

The explanatory variables included in the linear multiple regression model (Table

3-10) explained 3 1% of the variance in the response variable perceived program results.

Three variables had a significant association with the perception of the ABCP-EEP

results. Gender was negatively correlated (Std. beta = -0.233, p = 0.024), indicating that

women had a better perception of the proj ect' s results than men. Participation in the

ABCP (Std. beta = 0.255, p = 0.017) and in the SEC program (Std. beta = 0.204, p =

0.049) was positively associated with people' s responses that supported proj ect' s results.

This indicates a positive experience and perception of the proj ect after participation in it.

Besides these three variables, the correlation matrix showed that income, education level,









and knowledge about conservation were significant in their positive correlation with

participants' perceptions about program results (Appendix F).

Evaluating the ABCP-EEP on Children

To evaluate results with children, the following analysis was conducted: (a) Children's

knowledge level in 2000 and 2003 were compared; and (b) current attitudes, behavioral

intentions and school/program support of children were described and compared to

results obtained in 2000. This before-and-after comparison was possible through the

analysis of 9 questions from the 2000 survey that could be repeated in 2003 (Table 3-17).

Knowledge

In order to examine a change in children's knowledge level, the 9 knowledge

questions conducted in 2000 and repeated in 2003 were summed to create a total

knowledge score with a maximum value of 9. The results of comparing the knowledge

score between these two years showed similar media, 5.62 in 2003 and 6.04 in 2000

(Table 3-18). A t-test confirmed that there was no statistical difference between these

two means (t = 1.214, p = 0.229), indicating no significant change in children' s

knowledge after PECAE implementation.

Attitudes

Children expressed a very positive attitude toward the environment. In 2003, 100%

of them responded that the environment should be protected, and 85% thought that

forests and paramos should persist in their environment. Most children (91%) believed

that it is good for them to have the RECAY in the area, because it helps to protect plants

and animals (Table 3-19). The first and third responses were compared with results from

2000. A Chi-Square test shows there is no significant difference between both years. In

2000, 97% (X2 = 1.245, p = 0.265) (Table D-7) of children were in favor of protecting the









environment, and 86% (X2 = 0.362, p = 0.547) thought that the RECAY was positive

(Table D-8).

Children's attitudes toward bear protection also were very positive. Ninety percent

thought that this animal needs to be protected, and that the RECAY is essential for its

survival (Table 3-19). However, similarly to the adult respondents, children also did not

seem to favor having more bears around Oyacachi. Half of them mentioned they would

prefer fewer or far fewer bears present in the area (Table 3-19), because the bear kills

cattle. A smaller proportion (33%) of children said they would like to have more bears

living around Oyacachi, so that they could see them more often. When asked if the bear

was important to them for any reason, 48% responded positively, largely due to aesthetic

values. Children also were aware of the possibility of the bear' s extinction, with 64 % of

them responding that this could happen; the main reasons given by children were that if it

is not protected, the bear would be hunted, and also that few bears remain in the forest.

Behavioral Intentions

Children's behavioral intentions toward the environment also are positive. When

asked about what they could do to help to conserve the environment, 86% of children

mentioned ideas, such as planting trees or not hunting animals (Table 3-20). Children

also were aware of damage caused by burning the paramo. When asked what they would

do if they saw someone setting fires in this ecosystem, 84% of children responded that

they would do something, such as call a forest ranger. Their intention to help take care of

the environment is also reflected in the fact that 87% of children responded that they

would like to help forest rangers with their work (Table 3-20). These same three

questions were asked in 2000. The frequencies of positive responses between years 2000

and 2003 did not show statistical differences (Tables D-9. D-10 and D-11).









When asked about what they would do in an encounter with a bear, 17% of

children in 2000, and 7% in 2003, responded that they would call an adult to kill it. This

difference may represent a positive trend in children's attitudes toward the bear, despite

the fact that it was not statistically significant (X2 = 1.823, p = 0.177) (Table D-12).

Similarly to the adult respondents, children's behavior would depend on the context

where the encounter with a bear occurred. No children said that they would call an adult

to kill the bear if the bear were seen in the forest, while 5, 12 and 26% of children would

do so if they saw the bear in their crops, home or close to their cattle, respectively (Table

3-21).

School and Program Support

Sixty-one percent of children at the school have heard about the ABCP, and 47% of

them could say something about the activities of the ABCP in the community. However,

these answers primarily made reference to the ecological study of the bear (Table 3-22).

When asked about their school, almost all the children responded they like it (98%) and

are happy with their teachers (95%) (Table 3-22). In 2000, children had the same

positive responses to these two questions, showing no significant difference when

compared to 2003 (Tables D-13 and D-14). Also, almost all of the children supported the

school curriculum. Most of them (98%) said that they like what they are currently

learning, and when asked about environmental themes, 84% said that they enj oy learning

about the environment (Table 3-22).

The motivation of children to continue on to high school is very strong, with almost

all of them (96%) wanting to enroll. When asked if they would like to continue studying

in Oyacachi, 81% responded affirmatively (Table 3-22). Children in 2000 had the same

feelings about continuing on to high school, with no significant difference in responses









between the two years (Tables D-15 and D-16). In Oyacachi, it is possible to choose

between two systems of high school, the Crecera and the SEC. The first is the traditional

system, whereas the SEC, which is designed for people who live within or in the buffer

zones of protected areas, has a strong environmental education component. When asked

which program they would like to continue with for high school, most children (77%)

chose the SEC, which might reflect their interest in learning about the environment.

Focus Group Responses

Focus groups were conducted with local authorities, teachers and para-biologists.

The opinions of these community members were essential in understanding the proj ect

and in evaluating its success. The central topics of the focus group discussions were: (1)

perceptions about the proj ect' s results or achievements in Oyacachi regarding education

and capacity-building in conservation; (2) perceived problems or failures faced by the

ABCP-EEP, and ways in which the proj ect could be improved; and (3) views about the

collaboration between the ABCP and EcoCiencia, the NGO that administrates the ABCP.

Focus Group with Authorities

Six members of the Cabildo, including its president, participated in this focus

group. They expressed the belief that the ABCP increased community awareness toward

protecting the environment, as people have more knowledge now than before the

proj ect' s implementation. Authorities also thought that the proj ect had contributed to a

reduction of wildlife poaching and deforestation in Oyacachi. They indicated that the

collaboration between the ABCP and SEC program was the most successful activity

conducted with the adults, since its participants are the most motivated and supportive of

conservation activities. The EEP (PECAE) with the elementary school was also well










supported by these authorities, because they recognize its contribution to the development

of children' s skills.

The authorities recognized some failures that, they believe, hindered the success of

the EEP conducted by the ABCP in Oyacachi. Their perception was that the proj ect had

not reached the entire population, but rather only those who had participated in the

workshops or in the SEC, and those who had worked as para-biologists. Also, they

mentioned a lack of continuity in the EEP activities conducted with children and adults,

which had reduced the motivation of the participants. Finally, they viewed people's lack

of practicing what they had learned as a failure of the proj ect. As an example, they gave

the case of an ecotourism project, designed by the ABCP and students at the SEC, which

never was implemented, leaving participants feeling as if their efforts were a waste of

time.

A general concern of the authorities was that the main problem of the ABCP-EEP,

and other similar conservation initiatives, was a lack of community-based development

proj ects in their agendas. They emphasized the importance of creating proj ects that can

provide alternatives for people's livelihoods, particularly since the management of

natural resources in Oyacachi is restricted because they are located inside a natural

reserve, hindering community development. Projects that they thought could contribute

to community development, while achieving conservation goals, included improvements

in dairy cattle, sale of handicrafts, ecotourism and organic agriculture. The need for

development proj ects was a recurrent theme during the meeting. One participant even

mentioned that people of Oyacachi already know what is good or bad for the

environment, and what they really need is these kinds of projects. They spoke about










being the ones who are forced to conserve nature at the expense of their own wealth and

possibility for development, while researchers are the ones who can profit from this.

The authorities also expressed concerns regarding bear predation on cattle. They

noted that the ecological study of the bear, which had been conducted for more than four

years in Oyacachi, had not resulted in finding useful information toward a solution for

this problem. The ABCP had not made any suggestions to help them deal with this

conflict. In this focus group, the authorities made it clear that the bear is a problem in the

community. Without project-supported research toward Einding a solution to this

problem, it would be difficult for the community to support conservation of this species.

Focus Group with Teachers

Three teachers participated in this focus group. They believed that their

collaboration with the ABCP had positive results. All teachers agreed that children have

better attitudes and behaviors toward the environment since implementation of PECAE.

Attendance in school was considered normal, and children were motivated to learn new

things, particularly in the area of natural science, where themes regarding animals and

plants highly interest them. However, teachers also mentioned difficulties with teaching

children to take care of wildlife, especially the bear, because the children also perceive

conflicts with this animal and ask their teachers how it is possible to conserve an animal

that kills their cattle and sheep.

The teachers mentioned two kinds of limitations in teaching children. The first was

related to a lack of resources. Some themes could not be studied in depth, because the

school did not have appropriate didactic materials, such as audiovisuals, microscopes or a

library where children could sit and study. The second limitation was related to the

teachers' own training. They needed more capacity-building in areas like pedagogy, in









order to develop methodological strategies to implement the program. They also thought

that better language, arts and sports programs would complement the children's

education. Also, the teachers felt that they needed to develop a better evaluation system,

to permit them to keep better track of the teaching and learning processes. They felt

comfortable teaching themes related to the environment, where they thought that the

capacity- building process had been successful. Aside from the previous limitations, the

only problem teachers saw in the school was the apathy of some students; however, they

thought that this problem could be resolved by talking with them. Teachers did not see

any failures of the EEP conducted with children and wanted to continue collaborating

with the ABCP.

When asked about the results that the proj ect had with the rest of the community,

teachers mentioned changes since the proj ect' s implementation five years ago, namely

that there had been an increase in environmental awareness. However, this change was

not only attributed to the activities conducted by the ABCP, but also to the work of other

entities, such as the NGOs Antisana and Rumicocha.

Teachers believed that the proj ect was not as fully supported as it should have been,

largely because the community was waiting for more tangible results, such as an

ecotourism project, which could bring economic benefits to the community. Teachers

also mentioned that, in 2002, the Cabildo did not give the ABCP permission to continue

with its research on the bear. The main reasons provided for this were that community

members thought the proj ect was not giving anything back to the community (e.g.,

development proj ects) and only those who worked directly on the proj ect, such as para-









biologists, were gleaning any benefits. These last comments reflect the opinions gathered

from the members of the Cabildo themselves.

Focus Group with Para-Biologists

Seven para-biologists participated in this focus group. They perceived no

noticeable change in people' s attitudes or behaviors since implementation of the ABCP

five years before. Before the project began, people in Oyacachi were already aware of

the need to protect nature, since they are located within a natural reserve, although they

thought that people had gained more knowledge about the environment. They also

contrasted Oyacachi with communities located outside the RECAY, which had already

devastated all their forests.

The para-biologists thought the proj ect had positive results in working with

individuals, allowing them in particular to acquire a lot of experience. They saw the

project as failing to involve the entire community in its activities. However, EcoCiencia

was perceived by the community as the organization that has been working more

continuously and for a relatively longer period of time (since 1997) than other NGOs,

which was acknowledged as a positive trend for this organization and the ABCP. They

recognized that the community had been supported by the ABCP in a variety of aspects,

from the program with the school, to workshops with adults, to their collaboration with

the SEC. Also, they appreciated the contribution of the ABCP in the elaboration of a

map that demarcated the boundaries of Oyacachi's territory within the RECAY.

They supported the idea of conducting workshops in the community, although they

thought that what was lacking was an application of the concepts learned. They would

have liked to see more activities of the ABCP contributing to the economic development

of the community, such as proj ects to improve cattle ranching and family crops. They









felt that these activities would provide people with alternative livelihoods and, therefore,

contribute to the conservation of ecosystems and animals like the bear.

The para-biologists had positive attitudes toward the ABCP's research on the bear,

which they thought would provide valuable information on its management and help the

community in preventing bear attacks on cattle. Para-biologists mentioned the conflict

that currently exists with this species, which had started in the preceding five years. The

ABPC was currently being blamed for this increase in cattle predation, through the use of

cattle blood in the bait for attracting the bear to hair traps.

The para-biologists also mentioned that people in Oyacachi think that there is more

concern for bear survival than for the social welfare of its people, since they are highly

restricted by the reserve in the management of their natural resources. They believed that

the problem with the bear needed to be resolved as soon as possible, in order to improve

the support for the ABCP in the community. A plan to give economic compensation to

people who had lost their cattle was suggested in the meantime.

Limitations of the Study

There are three main factors that limit the results of this evaluation:

1. The lack of baseline information for an appropriate measure of changes in
knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions of the target population, before and
after implementation of the ABCP. This was primarily a problem in evaluating
program impacts on adults. Also, the differences of sample sizes between years 1997
and 2003 represent an important source of error in the results that needs to be
considered in their interpretation.

2. Confounding factors are important to consider when interpreting the results of this
evaluation. As mentioned previously, several governmental and non-governmental
organizations have been performing activities related to environmental education in
the community of Oyacachi. It was not possible to separate the potential influence of
these other activities from results that could have been caused by the ABCP-EEP.

3. When evaluating EEP activities with children, the baseline information available for
comparison was the response of students to a questionnaire conducted in 2000, before






46


PECAE implementation. However, in 1998 a pilot EEP was performed at the school
by the ABCP, which means the children and teachers had already received some
environmental education when they performed the surveys in 2000, used as a baseline
for the present evaluation.










Table 3-1. Sociodemographic and economic indicators


N Minimum


Maximum


Mean


SE
0.924
0.129

6.028

0.417

5.349

0.296


SD
11.198
1.554

73.086

5.055

64.851

3.591


Age 147 17 60 34.367
Daughters and sons 145 0 6 2.324
Under the age of 15
Monthly income 145 18 400 118.816
($US)
Trees harvested per 127 0 24 4.314
month*
Firewood used 101 7 345 94.050
(Kg/week)
Head of cattle 147 0 17 7.843
*(1 unit equals one small tree of approximately a DBH of 20 cm)


Table 3-2. Education levels of survey respondents


Cumulative
percentage
8.2
33.3
65.3
83.7
97.3
100.0


Frequency Percentage
12 8.2
37 25.2
47 32.0
27 18.4
20 13.6
4 2.7
147 100


No formal education
Some elementary school
Completed elementary school
Some high school
Completed high school
More than high school
Total


Table 3-3. Interaction/conflicts between the bear and participants

Percentage Frequency N
Have ever seen a bear 59.9 88 147
Corn crops destroyed by bear 19.7 29 147
Cattle or sheep killed by bear 21.8 32 147


Table 3-4. Costs of damages caused by bear ($US)


N* Minimum Maximum
Corn crops 14 10 200
Cattle or sheep 20 40 1000
*N=participants that reported predation on crops
cost of those damages.


Mean ($US) SE. SD
67.5 17.934 67.104
343 69.066 308.871
or cattle and provided an estimated







48


Table 3-5. List of knowledge indicators, grouped in four domains

Knowledge Indicators
Domain 1. Knowledge about ecology/conservation
Q 3.What is an ecosystem?
Q 4.Where do we find a diversity of animals and plants?
Q 6.What species are in danger of extinction?
Q 7.Are there any animals in the forest or piramo that can go extinct?
Q 8.Why is the bear important for the forest and the piramo?

Domain 2. Knowledge about local flora and fauna
Q 1.Which of these animals lives in the forest or the piramo?
Q 2.Which of these plants is found in the forest or in the piramo?

Domain 3. Knowledge about bear behavior
Q 9.What does the bear eat?
Q 10.How does the bear live?
Q 11.Does the bear take care of its cubs?

Domain 4. Knowledge about regulations
Q 12.Is there a law that protects the spectacled bear?
Q 13.Is there a management plan for Oyacachi?
Q 16.Do you know what the RECAY is?


Table 3-6. Comparison between knowledge level of male and female participants
Gender N Mean SD SE T-test for Equality of Means


t df
Conservation Male 72 2.390 1.124 .132
knolege Female 75 1.516 1.071 .124 -488 15 .0
Local flora and Male 72 1.589 .120 .014
fauna knowledge Feae 7 .3 10 01 -5.983 145 .000
Bear behavior Male 72 1.677 .298 .035
knolege Female 75 1.328 .457 .053 -547 15 .0
Regulations Male 72 2.903 .298 .035
knolege Female 75 2.667 .622 .072 -293 15 .0
Total knowledge Male 72 11.142 1.794 .211
scoreFemale 75 8.149 2.144 .248 -916 45 .0
Total 147 9.615 2.480 .205










Table 3-7. Attitudes toward conservation of bears and the natural environment

Percent Frequency N
The environment should be protected 99.3 146 147
Forest and paramos should persist 100 146 146
It is good to have the RECAY:
Not good at all 0 0 138
Not good 1.4 2 138
Neither good nor bad 1.4 2 138
Good 64.5 89 138
Very good 32.6 45 138
The RECAY is needed for bear survival:
Not necessary at all 0 0 132
Not necessary 6.0 8 132
Neither necessary nor 0.8 1 132
unnecessary
Necessary 71.2 94 132
Very necessary 22.0 29 132
The bear needs to be protected 81.0 115 142
Laws to protect the bear and other animals 92.7 127 137
are needed


Table 3-8. Attitudes toward bears

Percent Frequency N
Bears are mentioned as detrimental animals 61.9 91 147
Bears are mentioned as beneficial animals 14.3 21 147
Amount of bears participant would prefer
to exist around Oyacachi:
Much less bears 2.1 3 145
Less bears 45.5 66 145
Same amount 39.3 57 145
More bears 11.7 17 145
Many more bears 1.4 2 145
Amount of bears perceived at the present
time compared with previous years:
More 87.8 108 123
Same amount 6.5 8 123
Less 5.7 7 123
Thinks the bear has personal importance 67.1 98 146
Thinks the bear can go extinct 61.0 75 123










Table 3-9. Questions grouped in indices

Index 1: Bear protection
(Mean = 4.886, SD = .902, N= 122)
Q 17. Do you think it is good to have the RECAY?
Q 18. How necessary do you think the RECAY is for bear survival?
Q 19. Do you think the bear needs to be protected?
Q 26. Do you think laws to protect the bear and other animals are needed?

Index 2: Bear presence
(Mean = 4.886, SD = .902, N= 122)
Q 20. Do you think there are animals in the forest that are detrimental?
Q 21. Do you think there are animals in the forest that are beneficial?
Q 22. Are there currently more bears than in previous years?
Q 23. Would you prefer more or fewer bears in the forest?

Index 3: Bear persona importance
(Mean = 2.018, SD = 1.141, N= 122)
Q 24. Does the bear have any importance for you?
Q 25. Do you think the bear is an animal that can disappear from the forest
forever?

Index 4: Behavioral intention in a conflict with a bear
(Mean = 3.264, SD = .999, N= 146)
Q 33. Take action to avoid bear damages
Q 36. Reaction in front of a bear close to crops
Q 36. Reaction in front of bear close to cattle

Index 5: ABCP-EEP perceived results
(Mean = 2.032, SD = .970, N= 115)
Q 44. Is the proj ect useful for the community?
Q 45. Observed changes in people?
Q 54. Proj ect as a source of environmental learning?




















Explanatory Attitudes toward bear Attitudes toward bear Bear personal Behavioral intention in a ABCP-EEP perceived
variables protection presence importance conflict with a bear results


Table 3-10. Linear multiple regression models


Std. Beta Sig.
Coeffcient
.060 .540
-037 .713
.044 .734

.030 .742

-.101 .240

-014 .873

.031 .713

-108 .230

-105 .200

.075 .441

.083 .387

.436 .000


-.232 .022


.107 .218

.099 .244

.364
.274


Std. Beta Sig.
Coeffcient
-.225 .038
-.050 .653
-195 .195

-161 .107

.021 .822

.241 .016

-.007 .942

.197 .054

-195 .034

.126 .268

.184 .104

.225 .089


-.098 .343


.090 .369

-.028 .778

.225
.115
1.087


Std. Beta Sig.
Coefficient
-063 .550
-.022 .830
.326 .022

-015 .881

-001 .989

.001 .993

.080 .374

.019 .843

.136 .126

-021 .837

.061 .557

.150 .234


-.058 .568


.154 .114

.092 .333

.302
.203
1.019


Std. Beta
Coeffcient
-464
.113
.079

.050

-.023

-.056

-.076

-042

.011

-013

.030

.243


-.103


.019

-.051

.225
.135


Std. Beta
Coeffcient
-.233
.078
.252

.064

.145

-.064

.087

.042

.021

.204

.255

-036


-088


.030

-016

.361
.264


Gender

Age
Education Level
Children under 15
yrs
Monthly income
Trees harvested
per month
Firewood used
per month
Heads of cattle

Cow predation by
bears
SEC participation
ABCP
participation
Conservation
knowledge
Local fora and
fauna knowledge
Bear behavior
knowledge
Regulations
knowledge
R2

Adjusted R
SE of the estimate










Table 3-11. Behavioral intentions toward environmental protection


Percent
99.3

97.9

92.3
99.3


139 140

138 141

132 143
145 146


Would do something to help to protect the
environment
Reacts positively if someone burns the
paramo
Would collaborate with forest rangers
Manage their garbage correctly


Table 3-12. Reaction in hypothetical encounter with a cub and an adult bear


Bear cub
Frequency Percent
0 0.0
10 6.8
6 4.1
8 5.4
123 83.7
147 100.0


Adult bear
Frequency Percent
0 0.0
0 0.0
27 18.4
25 17.0
95 64.6
147 100.0


Shoot it
Catch it
Scare it
Run
Leave it alone
Total


Table 3-13. Behavioral intentions toward a bear at different degrees of proximity


Forest

% 0
0.0

12.2
87.8 1
100.0 1


Your crops
% n
6.8 10
0.0 0
79.6 117
13.6 20
100.0 147


Your cattle
% n
15.8 23
0.0 0
76.7 112
7.5 11
100.0 146


Your home
% n
2.7 4
1.4 2
49.3 72
46.6 68
100.0 146


Shoot it
Catch it
Scare it
Leave it alone
Total


Table 3-14. Behavioral intentions toward bear management


Percent Frequency
18.4 27


Think killing the bear is the best solution to
avoid bear attacks on cattle
Think the bear can best be used as a
tourism attraction:
Response in year 1997
Response in year 2003
Would like to sell bear parts


66.7
83.5
59.9










Table 3-15. ABCP-EEP perceived achievements by the community


Abbreviated topic statement
Have heard of the ABCP
Know what ABCP is doing
Have participated in any ABPC activity
Felt the experience was: Very bad
Bad
Nor good nor bad
Good
Very good
Know about the change in the school's curriculum
Agree with new program at the school
Mentioned the ABCP as a source of environmental
learning
Interested in learning more about the environment
Interested in participating in a conservation activity
See any positive change in people's behavior
toward the environment
Perceived usefulness of the ABCP for community
development:
Not useful
Somewhat useful
Useful
Very useful


Percentage
97
91
43
0
1.6
9.5
52.4
36.5
41
82
49

92
88
65



15.9
18.3
56.3
9.5


Frequency
143
131
63
0
1
6
33
23
58
121
71

134
121
80



20
23
71
12


N
147
144
147
63
63
63
63
63
142
147
145

145
138
123



126
126
126
126


Table 3-16. Other important perceptions about ABCP


Abbreviated topic statement
ABCP as a source of conflict between community
members :
Creates a lot of conflicts
Creates some conflicts
Creates few conflicts
Creates very few
conflicts
Creates no conflicts
Proj ect' s respect toward the culture of the
community :
Very bad
Bad
Neither good nor bad
Good
Very good


Percentage


Frequency


9.9
31.3
35.9
4.6

18.3


0
0.8
1.5
56.2
41.5


24 131










Table 3-17. Questions for children compared between the years 2000 and 2003

Question Attitudes
Q 14 Do you think the environment should be protected?
Q 17 Do you think it is good to have the RECAY?

Behaviors intentions
Q 25 What would you do to help to conserve the environment?
Q 26 What would you do if you see someone burning the paramo?
Q 27 Would you like to collaborate with the work of forest rangers?
Q 29 If you encountered a bear, what would you do?

School evaluation
Q 38 Do you like school?
Q 39 Are you happy with your teachers?
Q 42a Would you like to continue with high school?
Q 42b Would you like to study in Oyacachi or in another place?


Table 3-18. Comparison between knowledge scores in 2000 and 2003

Test N Mean SD SE T-test for Equality


Year


Means
t df P
214 78 .229


lof


Knowledge score*


2000 36
2003 44


6.04
5.62


1.625
1.509


.271 1.
.227


*Maximum score = 9


Table 3-19. Attitudes of children at the school


Percentage
100.0

85.4
90.5
89.5
90.0

10.0
40.0
15.0
17.5
17.5


Frequency
43

35
38
34
36

4
16
6
7
7


The environment needs to be
protected
Forests and paramos should exist
Having the RECAY is good
Bears need the reserve to live
Bears need to be protected
Amount of bears wanted in Oyacachi:
Much less
Less
Same amount
More
Many more

Think bear has personal importance
Think bear can go extinct


47.6
64.3










Table 3-20. Behavioral intentions of children at the school


Percentage
86.4
84.1
87.2


7.0
2.3
7.0
9.3
16.3
25.6
32.6


Frequency
38
37
34


3
1
3
4
7
11
14


Actions to conserve the environment
Would stop burning of paramos
Would like to help forest rangers
Reaction in an encounter with an
adult bear:
Shoot it
Take it home
Scare it
Get scared
Run away
Take a picture
Leave it alone


Table 3-21. Children's behavioral intentions toward a bear at varying degrees of

proximity
A bear in: Forest Crops Cattle Home
% n % n % n % n
Call an adult to kill it 0.0 0 4.8 2 25.6 11 11.6 5
Scare it 15.9 7 42.9 18 48.8 21 51.2 22
Run away 13.6 6 9.5 4 16.3 7 16.3 7
Leave it alone 70.5 31 42.9 18 9.3 4 20.9 9
N 44 42 43 43


Table 3-22. Students awareness of ABCP-EEP and support of the school program


Percentage
61.4
47.4
97.7
95.3
97.7
84.1
95.5
81.0

2.9
17.6
76.5
2.9


Frequency
27
18
42
41
43
37
42
34

1
6
26
1


Have heard of ABCP
Know what ABCP is doing
Enj oy the school
Happy with teachers
Enj oy what s/he is learning
Enj oy what s/he is learning about environment
Would like to continue on to high school
Would like continue high school in Oyacachi
In what program would like to be
Did not know
Crecera
SEC
Both programs















CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION

This study evaluates the Environmental Education Program of the Andean Bear

Conservation Project (ABCP-EEP). The goal of the research is to provide information

that will help the ABCP improve its future conservation strategies toward protecting the

spectacled bear population inside the RECAY. The results of this evaluation demonstrate

partial success of the ABCP-EEP. Environmental knowledge, socio-economic attributes,

and conflicts with the bear, are highlighted as important variables in influencing

participants' positive attitudes and behavioral intentions toward conservation of the

Andean bear and support for the ABCP.

In order to address the four obj ectives proposed at the beginning of the study, the

discussion is organized as follows: (1) I describe the results of the evaluation in regards

to changes in environmental knowledge levels, attitudes, and behavioral intentions,

before and after ABCP-EEP educational interventions; (2) I assess the influence of

knowledge, socioeconomic variables, and previous interactions with the bear on these

attitudes and behavioral intentions; (3) I discuss people's perceptions of program results

and support that they give to the ABCP, and how knowledge levels, socioeconomic

variables and participants' interaction with the bear influence this support; and finally (4)

I compare the ABCP-EEP with other efforts to conserve large carnivores conducted in

different parts of the world.









Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions in Oyacachi

The first obj ective of this study is to assess current levels of environmental

knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions toward the conservation of the Andean

bear, along with changes since program inception. This evaluation is essential for

identifying whether or not the environmental education program has been successful.

Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions in Children

The questionnaires conducted with students at the elementary school provided little

evidence of the EEP success in heightening their environmental knowledge. There was a

slight decrease in the environmental knowledge of children from 2000, when the PECAE

began to be implemented, to 2003. Additionally, children had moderate levels of

environmental knowledge, with a mean of 66% and 62% of the total knowledge scores

for the years 2000 and 2003, respectively. However, it is important to point out that the

ABCP conducted educational activities with children, along with environmental capacity-

building for teachers, at the school in 1998, before the collection of baseline information

in 2000. This could explain the observed decrease in children's level of environmental

knowledge from 2000 to 2003, as teachers began to incorporate environmental education

into the curriculum in 1998. Unfortunately, it was not possible to measure the impact of

these previous activities on results obtained in 2003. The finding of no changes in

children's knowledge level, along with their overall low score, suggest that greater efforts

are needed to increase children's environmental knowledge. This result also provides

evidence that does not support first hypothesis of this study, which anticipated an

increase in knowledge, positive attitudes and behavioral intentions of children after the

implementation of the ABCP-EEP.









Although children's level of knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions toward

the environment and the bear, between 2000 and 2003, did not show a significant change,

it is notable that attitudes and behavioral intention measurements were highly positive in

both years. The minimum and maximum proportions of positive responses to questions

regarding attitudes and behavioral intentions were 80-97% and 84-100% for the years

2000 and 2003 respectively. This positive response could be an effect of the ABCP,

which, as described earlier, had been working with the local school on environmental

education since 1998. Despite the fact that it was not possible to statistically test this

change between 1998 and 2003, the teachers in the focus group reported that they saw

children demonstrating more favorable attitudes and behaviors toward the environment

than before their collaboration with the ABCP. The teachers' opinion can be considered

a positive and direct outcome of the ABCP's work with this subset of the community.

Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions in Adults

A difference in knowledge level before and after program implementation could

not be tested in adults due to the lack of baseline data. However, in 2003, the overall

environmental knowledge of the adult population in Oyacachi appeared to be relatively

high. Men had greater average knowledge scores than women, following the general

trends perceived in previous environmental education research (Chawala 1988, Tikka et

al. 2000, Archer 2002). Both cultural and social factors could explain the difference in

knowledge according to gender. For example, historically women have had the role of

looking after the home and children, while men have been in charge of hunting and

resource provision (Gilligan 1982). In much of Ecuador, this division of gender roles has

been maintained, resulting in men being better educated than women to be able to

financially support their families. The unintentional bias of the ABCP toward reaching









mostly men in the adult population could also be related to women having lower

environmental knowledge than men. Some examples of this bias are that the para-

biologists are only men, four of the five teachers at the school are men, when the proj ect

collaborated with the SEC there were eight male students and only four females in the

program. Men are more likely to attend workshops or meetings than women due to a

community structure in which males are generally more involved in community relations

and decision-making processes.

Between the years 1997 and 2003, the attitudes and behavioral intentions of adults

changed in both positive and negative ways toward the conservation of the spectacled

bear. The significant increase in positive responses of participants (52% in 1997 to 65%

in 2003) stating that they would leave the bear alone in a hypothetical encounter, along

with the significant increase (67% in 1997 to 84% in 2003) in people' s perception of the

bear as a tourist attraction can be considered indicators of success for the ABCP in

promoting positive attitudes and behaviors toward the conservation of this species in

Oyacachi. Limits to this success are seen in the following observations: (1) A significant

decrease (97% in 1997 to 67% in 2003) in the perception of whether or not the bear is

important for aesthetic, humanistic, symbolic, ecologistic or utilitarian reasons; (2) A

downward trend (88% in 1997 to 81% in 2003), although not significant, in people's

responses toward bear protection; and (3) No significant change observed in the

behavioral intentions of people toward avoiding damages caused by bears. In both years,

nearly a fifth of the respondents said they would shoot a bear in order to kill it.

These final unfavorable results for the ABCP reflect the problem of bear predation

on livestock in Oyacachi at the time the study was conducted. Most participants










expressed their concern about this conflict and stated that they were willing to collaborate

in conservation of the Andean bear, under the condition that this problem be resolved.

The necessity of solving human conflicts with bears, in order to assure community

support for the ABCP, was also remarked upon in the focus groups conducted with local

authorities, teachers and para-biologists. Due to the division of positive and negative

results, along with the conditioning of positive responses by participants, it is difficult to

show evidence in favor or disfavor of the first hypothesis of this study which expected an

increase in positive attitudes and behavioral intentions after program implementation.

Therefore, it can be said that the program had partial success in promoting positive

attitudes and behavioral intentions among adults in Oyacachi, and that the future success

of the ABCP-EEP depends on whether or not a solution is found to the problem of bear

predation on livestock.

The results of questions conducted only in 2003 show that community members

unanimously supported the idea of conserving natural ecosystems, such as Andean forests

and paramos. Also responses that supported taking action to protect the environment

were nearly unanimous, with the most common being reducing deforestation, planting

trees and not hunting animals inside the RECAY. Participants also mentioned their

willingness to collaborate with forest rangers, such as calling attention to someone who is

burning paramo illegally. Others demonstrated proper management of their garbage.

These results are evidence of the high level of environmental awareness that currently

exists in Oyacachi, due to educational outreach by the ABCP and other governmental and

non-govermental organizations, such as the Ministry of Environment and the 'Antisana'

and 'Ecologica Rumicocha' foundations.









Participants also demonstrated positive attitudes toward efforts for conserving the

Andean bear. The maj ority (81%) mentioned that the bear needed protection and

believed that the RECAY is necessary for ensuring the survival of this species (93%).

The same proportion, 93%, favored laws to protect this animal. However, people's

opinions were more divided when behavioral intentions were measured based on varying

contexts of bear proximity to their crops and livestock, two main sources of income in

Oyacachi. The context in which an attitude or behavioral intention develops has been

considered an important factor in determining whether these variables will be positive or

negative (Hines 1986/87). These study results support this notion in that people's

attitudes and behavioral intentions toward the Andean bear are clearly related to previous

conflicts with the animal. For instance, 62% of respondents perceived the bear as a

detrimental animal and only 14% considered this animal as beneficial for any reason.

This is likely due to the increase of bear predation on livestock at the time research was

conducted For this same reason, the maj ority of participants (87%) were also opposed to

the idea of having more bears in the vicinity of Oyacachi.

The results obtained regarding people's attitudes and behavioral intentions toward

conservation of the environment and the Andean bear are puzzling. Hines et al.

(1986/87) mention that situational factors can interfere in the gap that exists between an

attitude or intention and its development into a behavior, particularly considering

economic constraints or social pressures as factors that determine individuals final

decision to perform or not perform an action. Also, Ajzen (1985) mentions that

intentions will lead to particular behaviors only if a person perceives that he or she has

the capability and the necessary skills to perform a behavior. Following this line of









reasoning, participants in Oyacachi expressed positive attitudes and intentions toward

protecting their natural ecosystems. This was expected, since forests and paramos

provide them with many benefits, such as water, wood, food and medicine. Their

attitudes toward bear conservation were also positive in a general context, such as 'the

bear needs to be protected.' However, when presented with the idea of conserving the

bear in a conflictive scenario, such as 'what would you do if a bear is in your crops or

close to your cattle?' or 'would you like to see more bears close to Oyacachi?,' responses

were more divided, since these situations were related to the potential threat that the bear

represents to their economic goods, especially livestock. Due to a fragile local economy,

participants likely perceived their low capacity to deal with the costs of damage that the

bear could inflict. Therefore, when this conflict was perceived, people's intention to

adopt behaviors favorable to bear conservation was a difficult issue to consider, which

was reflected in more divided, positive vs. negative, responses.

Support for the ABCP Environmental Educational Program

The second obj ective of this evaluation was to measure public support and

satisfaction with the Andean Bear Conservation Proj ect and its Environmental Education

Program in Oyacachi. The study demonstrated that the ABCP was well known within the

community; almost all respondents (97%) had heard about the project and knew about its

activities (91%). General public support for the ABCP and its activities was high. This

was reflected in the high proportion of respondents who were willing to participate in a

conservation activity (88%) or interested in learning more about the environment (92%).

Also, the 88% of respondents who participated in at least one activity with the ABCP

mentioned that their experience with the proj ect was either good or very good. Further









evidence of local support toward the proj ect is that the ABCP is seen as an entity that

respects and promotes the culture of the community.

Opinions were more divided regarding the perceived results of the ABCP and

people's support for the project. The information collected through surveys revealed that

a modest maj ority (65%) perceived that there had been an increase in positive behaviors

toward the environment, after the program's inception in 1998, and that the ABCP had

been useful for community development (66%). However, only 49 % of participants

mentioned the ABCP as a source of environmental learning. In focus groups, this

disparity in opinions was also expressed. While teachers and authorities perceived

positive changes in the community since program implementation, the para-biologists,

who worked most directly with the ABCP, thought that such changes had not occurred.

They instead felt that the proj ect had not reached the entire community through its

concentration on specific groups of people, such as themselves. Additionally, they

mentioned that people in Oyacachi had been aware of conservation issues before

implementation of the ABCP, since they were living inside the RECAY and had received

environmental information from other sources, such as the Ministry of Environment and

'Fundacion Antisana.'

A clear success of the ABPC was its collaboration with the local school. Teachers

were very supportive of the ABCP activities and were motivated to continue their

involvement with the proj ect. Children also enjoyed both the program and their teachers

and were interested in continuing with their education in Oyacachi. The ABCP's success

with the school may be largely due to the fact that the ABCP encouraged participation of









the teachers, supporting the importance of collaborating with local people to promote the

success of conservation efforts (Wondolleck & Yaffee 2000, Schelhas et al. 2001).

These results show evidence of the ABCP-EEP' s partial success as the program is

highly supported by the community, but the perceived results in promoting pro-

environmental attitudes and behaviors in Oyacachi is not clear among community

members. For instance, the proj ect was viewed by a significant proportion of

respondents (77%) as a source of conflict between community members. This perception

was based on the fact that participants believed the bait, made of cattle blood, used to

attract bears to traps, was 'teaching' bears to feed on livestock. This result is not positive

for the ABCP and indicates that such misunderstandings must be cleared up if the ABCP

hopes to collaborate with the community in achieving its goal of improving the

conservation status of the Andean bear in the RECAY.

Unfortunately, local support for a conservation program alone will not determine

its success. For instance, although support for the ABCP was high in Oyacachi, personal

interviews and focus groups revealed there was a clear agreement among community

members that they would like the proj ect to include activities that promote community

development. This would provide them with alternative choices for making a living, in

attempting to cause less impact to the environment. This response was framed in the

context of cattle predation by bears, which caused maj or economic losses for local people

and encouraged local conflicts with the bear. When interviewed, people's support for

conservation of the Andean bear was frequently accompanied by statements that

expressed their concern about Einding a solution to the problem of depredation on

livestock. Authorities, para-biologists and teachers also expressed the need to Eind a









solution to the conflictive situation with the bear, in order to assure the support and

collaboration of the community toward the protection of the Andean bear. Therefore, the

future success of the proj ect largely depends on whether or not a solution can be found

for this problem.

Variables Influencing Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions

The third obj ective of this evaluation included analyzing the association between

people' s level of knowledge, sociodemographic and economic attributes and previous

interactions with the bear, with their attitudes and behavioral intentions toward bear

conservation. The results of the linear multiple regression models demonstrated that the

variables, which influenced people's positive attitudes or behavioral intentions toward the

Andean bear, were determined by their situational context. Indices that measured

attitudes toward bear protection and the personal importance of the bear for respondents

were consistently associated with participants' knowledge, or variables correlated with

knowledge, such as level of education or age. In these two indices, participants'

socioeconomic status was not associated with their attitudes and, surprisingly, neither

was whether a person had experienced bear predation on their livestock. These results

support the second hypothesis of this study, which expected knowledge to be positively

associated with peoples' attitudes toward bear protection. However, it is important to

note that these two indices are comprised of items that do not make reference to a specific

context, such as a conflictive situation. This could be the reason why other variables,

such as the socioeconomic situation of participants and past conflictive experiences with

the bear, did not appear to be associated with these two attitudes when all variables

interacted in the linear multiple regression model.









In contrast to these previous indices, measuring people's attitudes toward bear

conservation and the personal importance of this animal, the index that measured

participants' attitudes toward the presence of the bear in close proximity to Oyacachi,

was associated with variables other than knowledge. Past experiences with bear

predation on livestock had a negative association, indicating that participant attitudes

toward the presence of bears was more negative if they had experienced livestock

predation. Gender also had a negative association, demonstrating that women were more

in favor of having bears in close proximity to Oyacachi. The last significant variable in

the linear multiple regression model was the amount of trees harvested by respondents,

which also had a negative association, suggesting that people who use more timber are

less likely to want more bears in the area. The theories of Hines et al. (1986/87) and

Ajzen (1985), help explain this lack of association between knowledge-related variables

and attitude toward the presence of bears. The context in which this attitude develops

involves participants reflecting on a possible personal conflict with the bear, based on its

presence close to the community. Therefore, it is possible to predict that attitude toward

the presence of bears will be more influenced by participants' past and present

experiences (Kellert 1996) with the bear, and their perceived lack of capacity to deal with

a possible loss of livestock, than with their levels of environmental knowledge.

This reflects how people's attitudes can change when they perceive that bear

conservation may increase the number of bears in Oyacachi and, ultimately, conflict with

their own livelihood. This emphasizes the importance of understanding the context in

which pro-environmental attitudes develop in order to determine which variables are

influencing them (Hines et al. 1986/87). Understanding which variables are influencing










people's attitudes toward the Andean bear in Oyacachi, can contribute to the design of

future ABCP conservation strategies in the RECAY.

A surprising result arose from examining variables that appeared to influence

people's behavioral intentions toward bears in a conflict situation. Due to the problem of

bear predation on livestock and the results obtained regarding people's attitudes toward

the presence of bears in Oyacachi, it was expected that participants' previous experience

with bear attacks on their livestock, along with economic variables, would have been

significantly related to people's behavioral intentions in a hypothetical conflict with a

bear. However, only two variables, knowledge and gender, appeared to have a

significant association with people's behavioral intentions in the linear multiple

regression model. Knowledge about conservation and ecology issues had a positive

association, indicating that more knowledgeable people are more likely to have a positive

behavioral intention when presented with a conflict situation with the bear. Gender

appeared to have a negative association, which indicates that women -despite having a

lower level of environmental knowledge than men- expressed significantly more positive

behavioral intentions. This pattern has been observed in other studies, such as Tikka et

al. (2000), who suggest that women' s attitudes are partly independent of their knowledge

levels, and that other factors, such as culture and evolutionary history, are often more

relevant in explaining their behaviors. Maaitta (1996 in Tikka et al. 2000, p.18) supports

this in saying that "benignity and universal responsibility are general guiding principles

in women's lives." This may be reflected in their higher level of environmental

responsibility in Oyacachi.









These linear multiple regression analyses on attitudes and behavioral intentions

provide evidence supporting the second hypothesis of this study, since they confirm the

positive correlation of environmental knowledge with participants' positive attitudes and

behavioral intentions toward the environment and the Andean bear. This supports the

importance of continuing with environmental educational activities in the ABCP, since

they provide participants with relevant knowledge that contributes to the development of

environmentally-responsible attitudes and behaviors toward the conservation of the

Andean bear.

However, the results also demonstrate the importance of finding a solution to the

conflict created by livestock depredation, which negatively influences people's attitudes

toward the spectacled bear. We can observe that determining which variables are most

relevant in explaining people's attitudes and behaviors may depend on the threshold at

which people's willingness to behave in an environmentally-responsible way conflicts

with their ability to satisfy their own livelihood needs. If conserving the Andean bear

will lead to greater destruction of people's livestock, and no alternatives to ameliorate

this problem are presented, it is likely that attitudes and behaviors will not change in

favor of conserving this threatened species.

Finally, it is important to note that the proportion of the indices' variance,

explained by variables included in the linear multiple regression models, was relatively

low in all cases (as little as 22% and as much as 36%) This suggests that other important

variables, such as individuals' values, beliefs, or situational factors, which are not

considered in the models, could also be influencing respondents' attitudes and behavioral

intentions toward the conservation of the Andean bear.









Variables Influencing Support for the ABCP

An analysis of how respondents' level of knowledge, sociodemographic and

economic attributes, and previous interactions with bears relate to perceived

achievements of the Andean Bear Conservation Proj ect' s Environmental Educational

Program completes the analysis of the third objective of this study.

Whether people have been involved in the ABPC strongly influenced both their

perception and support of the program. The linear multiple regression model

demonstrated that perceived results of the ABCP had a significant positive association

with whether people had participated in any ABCP activity (e.g. attendance at a

workshop) or had attended the SEC high school program. This suggests the importance

for the ABCP to reach as many people as possible in order to increase support for this

project in the community as a whole. Once again, gender appeared to be significantly

associated with people's perceptions of the proj ect. Despite the fact that a lower

proportion of female (32%) to male (51%) respondents had participated in any project

activity, women were more likely to perceive positive results of the ABCP in the

community. This result provides additional evidence that women support conservation

activities more than men. The ABCP could use such information to design a program for

women, since this segment of the population expresses more positive attitudes toward

conservation and could be important allies to the proj ect in helping foster environmental

awareness in children, and also in adults.










Comparison of the ABCP -EEP Strategy to other Environmental Education Efforts
to Conserve Large Carnivores

As livestock depredation signifies an economic loss to anyone who experiences it,

particularly in developing countries, many programs for the conservation of large

carnivores have focused on either providing financial compensations for loss or economic

incentives to discourage people from killing these animals (Mishra et al. 2003, Naughton-

Treves 2003). Nevertheless, the importance of concomitantly providing education and

outreach programs to increase public knowledge and promote positive attitudes has been

proposed as essential for improving the conservation of these animals (Jhala 1991, Mech

1995, Mishra et al. 2003).

Environmental education has been used worldwide as an effective strategy to

alleviate conflicts with large carnivores. For example, in the United States of America,

21 states provide educational programs related to bears. These programs are designed to

increase the knowledge of audiences about general bear ecology, hunter safety,

prevention of human-bear interactions, and habitat protection (Peyton et al. 1999). Two

examples of successful environmental education programs designed to promote public

support of large carnivore conservation are conducted in Florida and the Wyoming

region.

In Florida, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and

Defenders of Wildlife have implemented the Florida Black Bear Curriculum, which is

part of FWC's Wild K-12 education program (FWC 2004). This proj ect is designed to

educate and stimulate teachers and students in grades 3-8 regarding the conservation of


3 Oli et al. (1994) found that in Nepal, livestock predation by the snow leopard represented a loss of one-
quarter of the average annual income for local people, and another study on the snow leopard in India,
estimated this lost to be as twice as great (Mishra 1997).










the Florida black bear. The curriculum guide comprises subj ects related to bear biology

and ecology, conservation status of the Florida black bear, interaction and conflicts

among bears and humans, and the future of the conservation of this species.

Some factors considered to contribute to curriculum success are: the curriculum

teaches students how, and not what, to think; it was reviewed by professionals in biology

and education; a wide variety of instructional approaches are used to meet the needs of

verbal learners, visual learners and kinesthetic learners; whole-class instruction and small

group settings allow students to learn from each other; it offers guidance to teachers to

continue increasing their knowledge and understanding of the black bear; lessons are

flexible, they can be modified and may be taught in any order depending on students'

interests; lessons require minimal preparation time and use inexpensive, easy-to-obtain

materials; an evaluative system is incorporated to assess how much students have

learned.

Another useful example is the environmental education and communications

campaign for the gray wolf reintroduction to Yellowstone National Park (Jacobson 1999).

This campaign was led by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) of the U. S.

Department of Interior, in cooperation with the National Park Service, U. S. Forest

Service, and state fish and game agencies in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. The

campaign succeeded by strategically identifying problems and selecting target audiences,

which was followed by the selection of appropriate media, content areas and strategic

messages to the public. Educational activities were conducted before, during and after

wolf reintroduction. From 1988 to 1992, an intensive public education program was

conducted by the USFWS, which included 260 presentations to more than 13,000 people,









hundreds of printed materials, and integrative activities such as campfires and interpretive

walks covering topics about wolf natural history and recovery. The education program

was complemented with an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) conducted from 1991 to

1994, during which thousands of individuals participated in open house meetings and

formal hearings. In this period, the EIS incorporated approximately 130 public meetings,

distributed 750,000 documents, and received 170,000 comments from the public. This

overwhelming campaign resulted in the success of the reintroduction of gray wolves in

Yellowstone. However, agency representatives continue experiencing public opposition

to reintroduction efforts, suggesting that future communication efforts still need to be

conducted in order to have extensive public support.

In spite of the fact that these examples are located in a different social context than

the Andean Bear Conservation Proj ect, they demonstrate that through education it is

possible to increase the success of conservation efforts of large carnivores. This supports

the need for the Andean Bear Conservation Proj ect to continue environmental education

activities in Oyacachi, in order to increase public support toward the conservation of the

spectacled bear. However, as suggested by other studies (Mehta & Kellert 1998, Udaya-

Sekhar 1998, Bauer 2003, Mishra et al. 2003), educational activities should be

complemented with other interventions that pursue economic development in order to

provide local people with alternatives that permit them to change livelihood systems that

conflict with wildlife conservation.

Conclusion

The Andean Bear Conservation Proj ect has been ongoing since 1998. Based on the

results of this evaluation, the ABCP has had partial success in meeting its goals.

Although there have been only slight changes in people's knowledge, attitudes and









behavioral intentions toward bear conservation during this time, the ABCP is well

supported by the community of Oyacachi, which continues to be interested in

participating in similar conservation activities in the future.

The results of this evaluation provide evidence for the importance of including

environmental educational programs in conservation strategies, since environmental

knowledge of participants was positively correlated with positive attitudes and behavioral

intentions toward the Andean bear. Additionally, this study supports the importance of

complementing environmental education programs with other conservation and

development initiatives. In this case, since the ABCP is being conducted in a rural region

with a very fragile economy, environmental education must go hand in hand with efforts

that promote sustainable economic development, providing individuals with both

economic alternatives and the capacity to develop and perform environmentally-

responsible behaviors.

Bear predation on cattle is a significant problem that could cause major conflicts

between the Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve and people in the community of

Oyacachi. This could also upset local people's support for the ABCP, threatening the

achievements that the proj ect has already obtained in Oyacachi toward conservation of

the Andean bear. As cases of bear predation on cattle have increased in Oyacachi in the

last five years, conflicts in the community have also arisen. Its inhabitants have had to

assume the economic losses caused by this animal, without being compensated for

damages to their property.

Current policies for the management of protected areas in Ecuador, do not

contribute to conflict resolution between humans and wildlife. In developing countries,









the management of protected areas commonly includes restrictions on the use of natural

resources by local people (Hough 1988, Machalis & Tichnell 1985, Wells et al. 1992).

Such regulations are seen in protected areas management in Ecuador, where the hunting

of wildlife is prohibited within reserve boundaries, particularly of species recognized as

internationally endangered on the IUCN Red List and CITES, such as the spectacled

bear. These regulations, which control the use of natural resources by communities

inside the RECAY, have exacerbated conflicts between local people and the Andean

bear, as people are given few options for improving their livelihoods. If people perceive

only economic losses from wildlife conservation efforts, it is very likely that such efforts

will not succeed (Metha and Kellert 1998).

This reflects the need for governmental and non-governmental organizations,

working toward conservation of Ecuador' s biodiversity and natural resources, to consider

the welfare of local people in developing conservation strategies. If such strategies are a

collaborative process that includes both the education of local people and the

development of proj ects designed to improve sustainable livelihoods, there may be a

reduction in environmental conflicts and more long-term success of conservation efforts.















CHAPTER 5
RECOMMENDATIONS

The final obj ective of this evaluation was to contribute to the improvement of the

Environmental Educational Program of Andean Bear Conservation Proj ect delivery by

identifying its strengths and weaknesses and suggesting future modifications. The

strengths and weaknesses of the program were mainly identified in the focus group

discussions. The principal strengths of the program are: (1) the relatively long-term work

within the community, which has resulted in its recognition by the entire community; and

(2) the collaborative process through which ABCP-EEP has conducted its activities with

target audiences, based on the suggestions of local people in proposing activities to be

conducted. The best example of this collaborative process is the work that the ABCP-

EEP conducted with the teachers at the local school.

The main weaknesses of the ABCP-EEP are: (1) a lack of continuum in activities,

although the proj ect has been working in the area for a long time; (2) the ABCP-EEP's

lack of communication with the community about proj ect activities and results; and (3)

the little effort that has been put into monitoring and evaluating program activities.

Based on the results obtained in this evaluation, the following recommendations are

proposed to the ABCP in order to address its weaknesses and improve its strategy for the

conservation of the Andean bear in collaboration with the community of Oyacachi in the

Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve.

(1) Create more continuity in project activities. Although EcoCiencia, the

organization responsible for the ABCP, was positively viewed as an organization that had









been working in the RECAY for a long time, participants also were discouraged by the

lack of continuity in the ABCP activities. An important determinant of this interruption

of activities was a limitation in proj ect funding. However, it is recommended the ABCP

design their programs toward maintaining a more continuous collaboration with the

community. If financial limitations do not permit the implementation of new proj ect

activities, maintaining communication between the ABCP staff and local authorities and

teachers through regular meetings would help promote community support for the ABCP.

(2) Involve more sectors of the population. Many people felt that the proj ect had

focused on a select group of people, namely the para-biologists. A suggested future

target group is women, who were less involved in proj ect activities and had less

environmental knowledge than men. Despite this, they showed more support for project

results and demonstrated more positive attitudes than men toward bear conservation. As

women's role in raising and educating children is more central than men, they are

important actors in influencing the development of children' s values and beliefs toward

nature, along with providing them with the relevant knowledge that in the future could

shape their attitudes and ultimately behaviors toward the Andean bear.

(3) Improve communication strategies for informing the public about activities

conducted by the ABCP, along with the results of these activities. This would both help

create increased awareness about the project in the community and avoid

misunderstandings about the proj ect activities by community members. Such

misunderstandings could decrease the proj ect' s credibility and create negative feelings

toward the project among local people. An example of such a misunderstanding was

people's negative feeling about the ABCP's use of cattle blood as bait in attracting bears










to hair traps for ecological research. Despite the fact that this procedure was only used in

the first six months of 2003, community members blamed the ABCP for attracting bears

to the community and teaching them to feed on livestock, through the use of this

procedure. This negative feeling could have been avoided if the proj ect had clearly

communicated with the community that the bait they were using to attract bears had not

influenced bears' feeding behavior in its four months of use. In Oyacachi, the leadership

council, or Cabildo, organizes meetings regularly with all community members to discuss

current issues and events. The ABCP could ask to use a portion of this meeting to

present its results, obtain community feedback and resolve confusion regarding its

activities.

(4) Include future evaluations and monitoring of the ABCP. If the project

continues in Oyacachi, or is expanded to other communities, it is essential that the ABCP

create a set of specific goals, define indicators to measure the proj ect' s failure or success,

and establish a solid baseline that permits the evaluation of program results. This

research has provided the ABCP with baseline information for continued work in

Oyacachi. However, as the program develops in other communities, it would be helpful

to standardize evaluation methods in order to have a common, solid baseline that permits

future evaluation of the ABCP and comparison of results between different communities

involved in the proj ect.

Three more recommendations that may be outside the realm of the ABCP and its

Environmental Educational Program, but could be addressed through partnerships with

other governmental or non-governmental organizations, are suggested to improve the

conservation of the Andean bear:










(5) Create a system to alleviate the impact of livestock predation on the household

economy. For example, introduce financial compensation for the damage caused by

wildlife, which as mentioned earlier has been suggested as a positive alternative to this

problem in similar cases inside protected areas where large carnivores prey on livestock

(Mishra 1997, Mehta & Kellert 1998, Udaya Sekhar 1998, Bauer 2003).

(6) Conduct applied research that can contribute to improved management of

natural resources in the area. For instance, if the ABCP's research could contribute to

solutions to the conflict caused by bear predation on livestock, community members will

likely have greater support for the ABCP and for conservation of the Andean bear.

(7) Link educational activities with development projects that promote the

improvement of sustainable livelihood systems in the community. These proj ects could

encourage a shift away from local dependence on cattle ranching, which currently is the

most important source of income in Oyacachi. Activities could be promoted that foster

fewer conflicts between humans and wildlife and are less detrimental to the ecosystems

protected inside the RECAY. Some suggestions, provided by community members of

Oyacachi, would include improving the marketing of local handicrafts, incorporating a

better system of organic agriculture, and developing an ecotourism program.















APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ADULTS

(Present yourself) "My name is SANTIAGO Espinosa, I am conducting an investigation
to evaluate the environmental education program of the Andean Bear Conservation
Project. I would like to ask you some questions regarding this proj ect and also some
questions about the environment. Your participation is voluntary and you may withdraw
without penalty at any time you want. There is no compensation for participating in this
study. It will take about I hour of your time. Answering this questions won't affect you
either for better or worse. You do not need to answer any question you do not wish to
answer; I have had people refuse before. You do not need to stop working to answer them.
If you would prefer, I can come back at another time. The answers you provide will
remain confidential. Do you have any questions? May I begin asking my questions?
Remember you can stop me any time or we can schedule for another time or day."



Date:
Name:
Age:

Section 1: Knowledge

Q 1. Where do the following animals live, in the forest or the piramo? (Local names)

lobo_ semicabra~ chucuri_ tucin_ pava_ guatusa_ curiquingue
huaucu

Q 2. Which plants are in the forest or in the piramo? (Local names)

yagual_ pintag_ matachig_ urcu rosa_ canelo_ cedro_ pinan_
quishuar

Q 3. What is an ecosystem? (Choose the right answer)

A. All the animals and plants in a place that are related each other and with their
environment.
B. A science that studies animals and plants.
C. A group of plants that live in a certain place.

Q 4. Where do we find more kinds of animals and plants? (Choose the correct answer)










A. Forest B. Pgramo

Q 5. Name 5 benefits obtained from the forest and 5 benefits obtained from the
paramo

Q 6. What are species in danger of extinction? (Choose the correct answer)

A. They are animals and plants that are very abundant in a place.
B. They are animals and plants that can disappear because they have many threats.
C. They are animals and plants similar to each other.

Q 7. Do you know if there are some animals that are living close to Oyacachi that could
disappear from the forest or the piramo forever? Name three of them.

a) b) c) Don't know~

Q 8. Why is the bear important for the forest and the piramo? (Choose the correct
answer)

A. Because it is an animal that is very abundant, like the rabbit.
B. Because it helps to carry the seeds of the plants from one place to another in the
forest.
C. Because it eats the achupallas that are destroying the soil of the piramo and the
motil6n that is bad for other animals.

Q 9. What does the bear eat?

Q 10. How does the bear live? (Choose the correct answer)

Mostly alone_ Mostly in families_ Mostly in groups_ Don't know

Q 11. Does the bear take care of its cubs?

Yes No Don't know

Q 12. Is there a law that protects the spectacled bear?

Yes No Don't know

Q 13. Is there a management plan for Oyacachi?

Yes No Don't know


Q 16. Do you know what the RECAY is?











Yes No


(What is it?)


Section 2: Attitudes

Q 14. Do you think nature should be protected?

Yes_ No_ (Why?)

Q 15. Do you think forests and paramos need to exist?

Yes _No_ (Why?)

Q 17. Do you think it is good to have the RECAY?

Very good_ Good_ Nor good nor bad_ Not good_ Not good at all
Don't know _(Why?)

Q 18. How necessary do you think the RECAY is for bear survival?

Very necessary_ Necessary_ Neither necessary nor unnecessary
Not necessary_ Not necessary at all_ Don't know
(Why?)

Q 19. Do you think the bear needs to be protected?

Yes_ No_ (Why?)

Q 20. Do you think there are animals in the forest that are detrimental?

Yes_ No_ If yes, name the three most detrimental animals:

Q 21. Do you think there are animals in the forest that are beneficial?

Yes_ No_ If yes, name the three most beneficial animals:

Q 22. Are there currently more bears than in previous years?

There are more bears There are the same amount
There are less bears Don't know
If there are more or less, give one or two reasons you think are the cause:


Q 23. Would you prefer more or less bears in the forest?











Many more_ More_ Same_ Less_ Much less_ (Why?)

Q 24. Does the bear have any importance for you?

Yes_ No_ (Why?

Q 25. Do you think the bear is an animal that can disappear from the forest forever?

Yes_ No_ (Why?

Q 26. Do you think laws to protect the bear and other animals are needed?

Yes_ No_ (Why?


Section 3: Behavioral intentions

Q 27. What would you do to help to conserve the environment?

Q 28. What would you do if you see someone burning the paramo?

Q 29. Would you like to collaborate with the work of forest rangers?

Yes_ No_ (Why and how?)

Q 30. What do you do with your garbage? How do you manage it?

Organic:
Inorganic:

Q 3 1. If you encountered a bear cub, what would you do? (Choose the correct answer)

Leave it alone Run away_ Scare it_ Catch it_ Shoot it

Q 32. If you meet an adult bear, what you would you do?

Leave it alone Run away_ Scare it_ Catch it_ Shoot it

Q 33. What would you do to avoid bear attacks to your crops and cattle?

Kill the bear
Scare the bear
Spend more time watching over the crops and cattle
Not destroy the forest
Harvest earlier

























Leave it alone Scare it Catch it Shoot it
Forest or paao
Your crops
Close to your cattle
Close to your home
(Why? _


Section 4: Interaction with Bears

Q 37. Have you ever seen a bear?

Yes_ No_ (If yes, how long ago, where?)

Q 38. Have you ever had a bear or group of bears feeding on your crops?

Yes_ No_ (If yes, how long ago?)
Could you estimate the cost of that damage? (USD)

Q 39. Have you ever had a bear attack your cattle or sheep?

Yes_ No_ (If yes, how long ago?)
Could you estimate the cost of this damage? (USD)

Section 5: ABPC-EEP Evaluation

Q 40. Have you heard about the Andean Bear Conservation Proj ect conducted by
EcoCiencia?

Yes No


Build a fence
Other?

Q 34. How can the bear be used?

Food Touri sm Hunting_ Medicinal

Q 35. Would you like to be able to sell bear parts?

Yes_ No_ (Why?)

Q 36. What would you do if you encounter an adult bear in:


Fur Other?


Q 41. Do you know what the people of this Proj ect are doing?











Yes_ No_ (What are they doing?)

Q 42. Have you ever participated in an activity of this Proj ect?

Yes In which one?
No_ Why not?

If participated. How was his/her experience with the Proj ect?
Very good_ Good_ Neither good nor bad_ Not good_ Not good at all
(Why?)

Q 43. Would you participate in other similar conservation activities?

Yes_ No_ Don't know (Why?)

Q 44. Do you think the Proj ect is useful for the development of your community?

Very useful_ Useful_ Somewhat useful_ Not useful_ Don't know
(Why?)

Q 45. Do you see any change in people' s behavior in Oyacachi since the Proj ect' s
implementation?

Yes_ No_ Don't know (What changes?)
Do you think these changes are: Positive_ Negative_ (Why?)

Q 46. How would you categorize the impacts that the Andean Bear Proj ect has had so far
in the conservation of the natural resources of your community?

Very good_ Good_ Neither good nor bad_ Not good_ Not good at all
Don't know
(Why? Any difference between the past and the present?

Q 47. What do you think about the Proj ect' s respect toward the culture of your
community?

Very good_ Good_ Neither good nor bad_ Bad_ Very bad_
Don't know_ (Why?

Q 48. Do you think the Proj ect has created conflicts between community members?

A lot of conflicts_ Some conflicts Few conflicts Very few conflicts
No conflicts Don't know_ (Why?)

Q 49. Do you have children that are or were at the school as long as three years ago?











Yes No

Q 50. Do you know about the change in the school's program of study, conducted in
collaboration with the Proj ect?

Yes_ No_ (What was this change?)

Q 51. Do you agree with the new school's program of study?

Yes_ No_ (Why?)

Q 52. Do you agree with the activities conducted by the Proj ect with your children?

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree
Strongly disagree_ Don't know_ (Why?)

Q 53. How would you categorize the experience of your children at the school?
(Do they have enthusiasm? Speak about the environment?)

Very good_ Good_ Neither good nor bad_ Not good_ Not good at all
Don't know_ (Why?

Q 54. Where did you learn about the bear and the environment? (Do they mention the
EcoCiencia-ABPC?)

Observing nature
Talking with family or friends
Talking with researchers that visit the area
In workshops or meetings? (With whom and where? )
At the school
At the high school
In radio programs
In videotapes
Reading in books or magazines
Other?

Q 55. Are you interested in learning more about the environment?

Yes No

Q 56. Which other things could be done by the Proj ect, regarding education and natural
resource management?


Section 6: Sociodemographic and Economic Information











Q 57. What is your education level?

No formal education
Some elementary school
Elementary school
Some high school
High school
More than high school

Q 58. What is your spouse's education level?

No formal education
Some elementary school
Elementary school
Some high school
High school
More than high school

Q 59. Have you attended the distance SEC program?

Yes No

Q 60. How long have you been in Oyacachi?

All my life_ / years
Where did you live before?

Q 61. What is your family size?

Age
Sons
Dagters

Q 62. What activities represent your main source of income? (In order of importance)

Economic activities % percentage it
represents/amount
per month


Q 63. What forest resource is most important to you?











Q 64. Could you estimate the value of this resource, or what amount of it you use per
month or year?

Monthly_ Annually
Firewood :

Q 65. iWhat is your income per month? (US$)

Depending on the case, a rank option also was suggested:
Less than 50
50-100
100-200
200-300
More than 300

Q 66. How much land do you own?

Q 67. How much maize do you harvest each season?

Q 68. How many cattle (or sheep) do you have, where is they located? (Map was shown
to men)

Q 69. Would you like the road continue to:

Pueblo viej o
Mangahuaico
El Chaco
Stay in present location


Section 7: Questions added as a request of local teachers

Q 70. Have you heard a radio program "Enfoque Ambiental desde Oyacachi" in "Radio
Mensaj e"?

Yes No

Which radio do you listen to?

Q 71. Would you like a radio for Oyacachi where you can hear educative programs and
issues relating to your community?

Yes No