<%BANNER%>

Risk Perceptions of and Acceptance Capacity for the American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) in South Florida

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101129_AAAACA INGEST_TIME 2010-11-30T04:40:50Z PACKAGE UFE0011120_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 6267 DFID F20101129_AABGOV ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH smithem_j_Page_16thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
3633d0e41b568ac8843cabf6e9e47315
SHA-1
30e4a7ecf274980482c74698fe45cc0143661d20
32933 F20101129_AABGHA smithem_j_Page_42.pro
42abe3c177239ab264d08d420f5e237f
36b4ee5ac1718d724d745b5114849f338157b36e
1771 F20101129_AABGJY smithem_j_Page_41.txt
cdf6fa5bccc3be4d358d6e33bf1bec41
4ae3f2fa4fe0a54511d893837197d0a809165b97
68387 F20101129_AABGCD smithem_j_Page_67.jp2
ee8aa2455f42d3242a5162ed510ba205
5b757b3416f9e744cafc283d6bd6120533bf8dad
5378 F20101129_AABGOW smithem_j_Page_17.QC.jpg
a20543145b49955d7f8d9ad449561a9c
9f585e3739b0c956d4023cac7cf16c2c73ada77b
32520 F20101129_AABGHB smithem_j_Page_43.pro
77e0cb332bb9fe686f70b7ae72b9aead
9e415b15bc17fe8fc1b0f9f01857ed5e8742d332
1638 F20101129_AABGJZ smithem_j_Page_42.txt
851cf325d9a0c0e794590517703f76f4
044ad1e354e54f12b866a8f7fb09a4c0c4ba82af
794060 F20101129_AABGCE smithem_j_Page_68.jp2
f26d41a391ee4525fad7ef8c8dd6fbc6
6b8327607d02e8ddf40329565b1110e1d1228145
19947 F20101129_AABGOX smithem_j_Page_18.QC.jpg
7466e31b914ae489f19688a9f8561936
4f8c101936a92bf18d048d5c243387841d7b96d7
43570 F20101129_AABGHC smithem_j_Page_44.pro
5fc75e72993c725a6dd3f49984750f94
6a25457e8959673eab9c8228e994cc035d94b8c8
60685 F20101129_AABGCF smithem_j_Page_69.jp2
e507f1b03609ce62ae4ce8518b939af9
b42b47eda880776bbdf25ea1745c34991489e1b1
6809 F20101129_AABGOY smithem_j_Page_19thm.jpg
136a69db007b2f78940a5c9ed2025a39
d59f85a085a70275d4a1e5090fc857cdd59d7881
6452 F20101129_AABGMA smithem_j_Page_75thm.jpg
a176ad6caea0e3515448dd1894286826
602fa67a44f2a6c58ce9408a1e824a18abbc8186
38419 F20101129_AABGHD smithem_j_Page_45.pro
2a07c58684020f617d55572948a18eb7
fe8d5b70dd3dcd7f1d233d7d6bb2709ce5f6846a
72792 F20101129_AABGCG smithem_j_Page_70.jp2
8bf2c3bb41efc164ad3a99ce3c333b05
241eed84f0793f6d7583df6abad463f6275ec789
23056 F20101129_AABGOZ smithem_j_Page_21.QC.jpg
a5f70513c7bfde4ba05d7195e267d104
79fe09fa299abd891e27eea26076a5deab30b69f
16833 F20101129_AABGMB smithem_j_Page_08.QC.jpg
752b97d597edad38647f3f57f1d39645
061f2f75ac34a76806278f526dfe07eb5a6ab45e
46040 F20101129_AABGHE smithem_j_Page_46.pro
d1cfe6c3bbd9200f8cd578fc97e849ed
bddc0f1c0dcd1759df63614032c23254eca8480c
42041 F20101129_AABGCH smithem_j_Page_71.jp2
bb5fdde0427dc7e50d458f1861aea170
a6a2f3e09731c11bb92bcc7e04b01e580139ed14
4028 F20101129_AABGMC smithem_j_Page_69thm.jpg
2131e3995f8332260158348dc4c96612
483c11d3fa747bf3285767d9689e15b015aa3f92
42221 F20101129_AABGHF smithem_j_Page_47.pro
a19b2529b7fc0023e7b3159db68102f4
f9ef9fa654e496a567ddfd2a263355f8d97ae2c9
5452 F20101129_AABGRA smithem_j_Page_70thm.jpg
2e749491a93de6b35e179e2398baf2d2
27a9d88677dbb9b7bdcf17a4e6ceca4f1d2439f6
22000 F20101129_AABGMD smithem_j_Page_16.QC.jpg
25996c0467f40561e4983bdaa6c3ca43
db56a329e0a204179a645e01b6395da91d15d20d
29242 F20101129_AABGHG smithem_j_Page_48.pro
37c4e8b5d8ba1d5a9c8b562d3d4fd391
38b88cf5e6c0d59e0247c51f2a33684447562b85
112563 F20101129_AABGCI smithem_j_Page_72.jp2
1aecb88ff2923492fe71f01c14b61fb7
2ad50ce3a5f085606897b0dc255a999a7183fd5d
22493 F20101129_AABGRB smithem_j_Page_72.QC.jpg
f9186219efe5339fa619ecfa7a52e474
4dd3280cbf81b3c60c3fcc71f0f054db4d9af0ed
5867 F20101129_AABGME smithem_j_Page_22thm.jpg
599aab49f63e6c1707e3d2d692471b45
83b11740677e2adb2f3aab2fd2786821a93ddb7e
34999 F20101129_AABGHH smithem_j_Page_49.pro
20c2ad8ecd83641588629f665a4bde60
3c27a4070768bb4df8eb177c9129124d04db77c7
116824 F20101129_AABGCJ smithem_j_Page_73.jp2
61004e345fa425c398ea860423e4f199
8381401d7004e74c50d4a6504f851f977d6d79b9
6166 F20101129_AABGRC smithem_j_Page_72thm.jpg
6dc5b7abc2651f8f32fb933cfd0bbac2
658c1c47b43cbf7f0c1840b873eb4d1f882bd9e9
19764 F20101129_AABGMF smithem_j_Page_56.QC.jpg
d743d67f2b8319d6caa4c10f979bf442
8cbc23455e7256fe96ff6023a974aff67ca227c5
47204 F20101129_AABGHI smithem_j_Page_50.pro
2e044ada89c58510f9af50a0068d6245
8d06f8521c706957050b90efeab1bd6b3ba34081
121680 F20101129_AABGCK smithem_j_Page_74.jp2
2e66583e8074b7efa96d406e207e1b1a
32606a75b1d8a4406638d17c9795fa1b55e38461
23178 F20101129_AABGRD smithem_j_Page_73.QC.jpg
514e4ba9ef703959b46d74f4d556f35c
9833290e0a383edcf96371fb607ead0dc1eb6627
9733 F20101129_AABGMG smithem_j_Page_05.QC.jpg
cf1925f891b3730c694b856bfbff11d9
e090e07dad4f01f213471ce679858cb2966c326b
25212 F20101129_AABGHJ smithem_j_Page_51.pro
8113f8e0bdfdb7f67ffbe313c9447cdb
cb71dfd9d08df84db98f13c4db075ad0b2bb0914
120723 F20101129_AABGCL smithem_j_Page_75.jp2
c087c496e2e3deb9d63a66de8657ac05
c488684dee2ce8dc6fc4959e677eb4c1f739bb14
23790 F20101129_AABGRE smithem_j_Page_74.QC.jpg
304eb8261ee3477f6a8a85b793b9d920
14f64a18a5b78632bcac2db5f462fb8d9067a3d8
6576 F20101129_AABGMH smithem_j_Page_11thm.jpg
5dd4724c5b65fe3454fa9afec641e34c
e543786e0e61aa713242554de23ab1ffe2cf79fc
44904 F20101129_AABGHK smithem_j_Page_52.pro
fd737284fbc7aba53cb45b2cf06bf02e
13658b6467e4cfea015985e79574d5d7a14cf95d
66251 F20101129_AABGCM smithem_j_Page_76.jp2
fa8501089ba59035b583c409851c3896
95884f1f989697abd084292265cb0fe64b7003da
6455 F20101129_AABGRF smithem_j_Page_74thm.jpg
c934926524da113bff924b4c4c93bafb
8f656071a9c02239d1cea3f687ad2dab769ab7df
23297 F20101129_AABGMI smithem_j_Page_35.QC.jpg
e907a5b40fac8b4770707fb8fae6a7b7
e142342e692a889e59fe5dc326d6d904424ff71b
49508 F20101129_AABGHL smithem_j_Page_53.pro
728b6c46cfd623920e22c79fa6114979
70983156883f0b9bde3f54149865b53d2159cec8
37980 F20101129_AABGCN smithem_j_Page_77.jp2
d9cdad25b53d19d18d55d5d27a1a4b0c
0f063010f455a71b9060b1e20c7080e95934e536
23480 F20101129_AABGRG smithem_j_Page_75.QC.jpg
359342055143b75244560120f20e1616
2f8256bd99721b0421b38be12c2bac08c272d0de
23804 F20101129_AABGMJ smithem_j_Page_06.QC.jpg
24b29f106b2a9995f2844c89dc78b762
b7c2b86f35cfaa72283ebd6ac1c1b7c14084b576
51508 F20101129_AABGHM smithem_j_Page_54.pro
2db89cbacc7087dafa060d606fc45339
b8ae4a7f5fc98d531c5efc32d5a7dcac29456150
1053954 F20101129_AABGCO smithem_j_Page_01.tif
45f8d1f65309af6d90c42441ffd545ec
0dd438188d56900188915519e1630ac01d68a8ac
2963 F20101129_AABGRH smithem_j_Page_77thm.jpg
4f30215d5d88ebd35f01fcb911cb895d
507368d0c60e13ba062fbbeef102e9062c3ae02e
6543 F20101129_AABGMK smithem_j_Page_38thm.jpg
a98f0b24a1f4b3aabb8cfe1d2e65b311
44fc8728ea282bc3dec6bde4b016f7d61a19f748
F20101129_AABGCP smithem_j_Page_02.tif
c8548a8bb033a953f32bfe9d975d7cea
1dacb1e6477d96512fffd5b4e7860ff440814683
5662 F20101129_AABGML smithem_j_Page_10thm.jpg
a5634e3c4c00e8aeb933bb917043e5c3
fe7a4a4575f341f91272edd80fdce46541a88adb
52794 F20101129_AABGHN smithem_j_Page_55.pro
be73f6ed67e2a76db97d0b4b44bba433
d4345e66c7c21417960c921816c04425e13ba3e0
F20101129_AABGCQ smithem_j_Page_03.tif
6e5a81e4c6a300da1f7ed19dd4ea873b
f6581a60e849a93c66fcf5f50c1014693f885313
20577 F20101129_AABGMM smithem_j_Page_44.QC.jpg
0047ecb8a11c0ae7031e64eca3881049
961c3f7b85104c1207c6c898d35a8840c4d64dc2
41066 F20101129_AABGHO smithem_j_Page_56.pro
83d2d1ea2fcd808e4844cf51c169056c
55d22f713f348af947167d8e17b8b4f4d12a485d
25271604 F20101129_AABGCR smithem_j_Page_04.tif
bb6b785b469469b6e5970125e4ea44e3
551632febbdd082a3b1d95ba0d7b93b328c84560
6356 F20101129_AABGMN smithem_j_Page_73thm.jpg
4cc9e37aca2241ba61629cc9602ed68d
b6b9092a22d4df40847d339ad1a4d193f360e154
44770 F20101129_AABGHP smithem_j_Page_57.pro
70a48a556e3b92db3c91c06582d41d49
32b0fa7c55b215c0e5cdd247accd47c6956ac59e
F20101129_AABGCS smithem_j_Page_05.tif
e37f5c857ef9d59b1a774bef6291c499
c3fe9bf0b0155d04d77bba56dd00152e74f7b4a8
6347 F20101129_AABGMO smithem_j_Page_24thm.jpg
a4c5a15088e04fc4b8af746f5ab37452
ae70b951cda574e7c74cc8f2615a856600e7a681
39404 F20101129_AABGHQ smithem_j_Page_58.pro
b8d757f6fb6a826ed38c459ed90f881b
31cf91c8bd67cea1dad1204dbc19ee6eeeafc55a
F20101129_AABGCT smithem_j_Page_06.tif
5c4ade0971d76f7cf6bf4d8f585fb143
41d93b70073fc78fabb243b6f44dd959025fb492
21994 F20101129_AABGMP smithem_j_Page_20.QC.jpg
7364fa739f36eecbc07e768ec8de2742
c9b5f20f84d43dc70e4afa0f17d7eb404efe959b
6457 F20101129_AABGHR smithem_j_Page_59.pro
ed10451ac2642c75bf4d70c6e0d3a4a4
3fc8b055277f8eb7a76e3ac235131e20bb224ff1
F20101129_AABGCU smithem_j_Page_07.tif
061cbcb8a31aa1cae06be56bd545d4d8
3a49c0c3099bb8bf8f6e5f40902822b4dc08a2ef
9350 F20101129_AABGMQ smithem_j_Page_29.QC.jpg
ce8e63716644a46405fb6cc6f53b44fc
3d588e7715353b2ca1ff9d1403078da84ede67a7
15869 F20101129_AABGHS smithem_j_Page_60.pro
98773d5dcaa045c85a0f44a2e8d76926
52cb144805b377d52cb004c403e898a2060f884d
F20101129_AABGCV smithem_j_Page_08.tif
a6ba5d0ed423b8398bee8c43a442108f
6b352e8a8ed72438a79333d9f64fb5616adf56a7
3379 F20101129_AABGMR smithem_j_Page_71thm.jpg
5a605e4a7e116c66dc505a659b2b2f4e
18297fbec01a817f32a300c18cf7531956905f51
22880 F20101129_AABGHT smithem_j_Page_61.pro
d40b252be268e29a0d5ad828534a1398
cc15e24405fe390751e66cb75551a8c2aa7e2298
F20101129_AABGCW smithem_j_Page_09.tif
62f17aaf8c234f923a725e6b7ddf51bd
ad27362c1b0d70c4091c1b99ea851ccc205fae3f
47161 F20101129_AABGHU smithem_j_Page_62.pro
36bff1c342a49a906d56b94f9a0e8305
12bd7e7dc8dfd31167e42bcbc008afcc102f9bf0
F20101129_AABGCX smithem_j_Page_10.tif
15c7c80f6c3fc71955b04b05ff05884f
2fec635eb31e77436172747a29dfd5977d47d1c9
4371 F20101129_AABGMS smithem_j_Page_07thm.jpg
5bc0b90243309a8a50372d1832c81cae
a19e464c9f9ea5d86f5383b4282d6a4b6ef8a86d
27729 F20101129_AABGHV smithem_j_Page_63.pro
28a8e8be188e434e22a6aa0d316e8662
de2cdff666b916154ca3a8b629c9b2a141050317
106813 F20101129_AABGAA smithem_j_Page_12.jp2
039c8fb68715e7a3f8435bcd773038fd
38c5e747b95acfe989c39028aa92c6980976ed2c
F20101129_AABGCY smithem_j_Page_11.tif
35a041b7502698b9635558687d9dc26f
0ca0a146ba56fb1aa42ea634ea8afd2ac0b846ed
11987 F20101129_AABGMT smithem_j_Page_37.QC.jpg
b681bec494b30a1c59876bbd55aadc85
4425f031e4ee027c5e6c4d405613f1ce90d44a9e
43500 F20101129_AABGHW smithem_j_Page_64.pro
9cb28b48a2187fbc6102c10c00374b4d
f7531a3585c485b98b9a24edd679cba9dab26e33
39922 F20101129_AABFYA smithem_j_Page_37.jpg
5a3b0635f5164b4ea5a257680cacef41
59e504500da36d2469ea1d53fec27e1f8953522d
112745 F20101129_AABGAB smithem_j_Page_13.jp2
bdf386a2ac089ec687feb23a34ef3f7e
f98d5a769f18df7830f6b75159a34563baaa8962
F20101129_AABGCZ smithem_j_Page_12.tif
11d981652af6b07dda198930813b502d
0c38d57aa31cfbcb9eebc0cdf7eb6c9a4a793533
3298 F20101129_AABGMU smithem_j_Page_39thm.jpg
7f34ba7c37426af898ab40e3fc0a7618
60626222248978612f41ccfd4e9387c7af5be78d
42472 F20101129_AABGHX smithem_j_Page_65.pro
b30f07481741925da80c59db4dccc5ea
c941b329f7ab0028353c3d5b0d276cd309db2d50
69005 F20101129_AABFYB smithem_j_Page_38.jpg
021e00324422d410e47a7a532706c00f
877d12aabfb4ac88632805687858ae423d0da441
114793 F20101129_AABGAC smithem_j_Page_14.jp2
c19a2535c8ea1af8a946d37bea6dbf75
cfffee94a7426a25db31ed0f15a89ccf5a5d7110
11418 F20101129_AABGMV smithem_j_Page_39.QC.jpg
85349ad430709175d5b72b59ef222e45
7d1df3c0540fe985340bf4b0c9a6398dc122896d
52663 F20101129_AABGHY smithem_j_Page_66.pro
0ec749fbed841640482013146c0c92e8
e62dc79524e5efb8cd4b3e053f6c7f82e3096959
37271 F20101129_AABFYC smithem_j_Page_39.jpg
39b3b6be8cfd51bc08ad258a8aab141a
a27e90442a9ed73d2af6cbb174788b1ea1a5d526
109095 F20101129_AABGAD smithem_j_Page_15.jp2
fa5c7ba89636c4efd16667ed1d890cd8
bac130f8e441a66d9dd450fd7406f84f3e21eb2d
F20101129_AABGFA smithem_j_Page_67.tif
2982cfdb95fd3f0b257fd980e4562cc6
c40d5210bd00454af455b467560460b2fc6ae89f
21812 F20101129_AABGMW smithem_j_Page_46.QC.jpg
d905a2abd6f50efcb9356d7f0e7dfe69
e3698e908f9fb9b5d6fa22dd288811d08e2db7f5
36339 F20101129_AABGHZ smithem_j_Page_67.pro
fc3c51426c905375892e20aa60999726
e9192e7825ee67b5169a91d45f4117c43c7e2c81
69869 F20101129_AABFYD smithem_j_Page_40.jpg
97a352676b8e5c09daa6f6f373ca44b8
1f2c7b242d72a6fc8bfc96e3bae9a206d0009658
107778 F20101129_AABGAE smithem_j_Page_16.jp2
f70df28b2bb1846e8fd6260c438bbab6
17d30f3039ec1ee62f8f535b7a8c6b5411cb2d7a
8423998 F20101129_AABGFB smithem_j_Page_68.tif
e5d70d9d87d6b27ff937d4726329edd9
c4eee499c79139e510b61d64b61173b8f6de107f
5504 F20101129_AABGMX smithem_j_Page_56thm.jpg
d408022665e79925f9b07bb4402e17c2
2ce6edca7d02e98bdf2db6651a9c7d3e4f4e49e6
66681 F20101129_AABFYE smithem_j_Page_41.jpg
de0a430aa23a6107b9f5ae6cb82910e0
64cdb82a2e807c9da51cc79221c1fa473f5af18e
15698 F20101129_AABGAF smithem_j_Page_17.jp2
98f2bca6cbc2dd839dea31f40ce2ebfe
c2fce81a2ccb0be45a37cbc625f22c3753d27363
F20101129_AABGFC smithem_j_Page_69.tif
228440c35adf8ba8fa5af2fdea739e15
2823724acae4b45a9e73f2b89d7eee0b73a096ca
4236 F20101129_AABGMY smithem_j_Page_76thm.jpg
0fa7b5e753b96992f4d1fe1190822363
2e3edebe8b1d222dfdcb9732112577118225e476
72467 F20101129_AABFYF smithem_j_Page_42.jpg
dd92bf5dd44e435dab0af0941b32247b
b9f8507a9453c057209e23012723a1aa4a9bcf9f
1664 F20101129_AABGKA smithem_j_Page_43.txt
91662d76184e50300947a1d3d381adb0
55819fc944de59317bb5705ca465bed3d24eea96
F20101129_AABGFD smithem_j_Page_70.tif
f8c2aa834deaacf513e86b9d24de3ccc
2ce44d891077eaac14a18a7293d711b984577ac7
21051 F20101129_AABGMZ smithem_j_Page_41.QC.jpg
e583adaca9650c78d056416d9d6c239c
02cd256c3b341d0f2909082b8cf3bae5df30cf0c
64005 F20101129_AABFYG smithem_j_Page_43.jpg
479e2af15d93e8c9cd07f0ae1d9f954d
b817c57c221b310950499843e27a48c4955215e9
92324 F20101129_AABGAG smithem_j_Page_18.jp2
fcf23176309f6a975171303dcd4cc833
6dcb4a3042181949d6c02084a7844c9da8ece759
1737 F20101129_AABGKB smithem_j_Page_44.txt
7ca2f22a7369a63a4de0206a39178b60
b3233af60c4d4d75c6327a6230699cc66d85f0d9
F20101129_AABGFE smithem_j_Page_71.tif
4b2ea0823655841ef080c337dfd380e2
1dd248ce21fd9c3f406c4f75fd2992ac3d8acb3e
63474 F20101129_AABFYH smithem_j_Page_44.jpg
e1f367a8b5fcef6175d173635373b445
568258c89d2d8d2d6d824ce4e104c103d715fbd0
113749 F20101129_AABGAH smithem_j_Page_19.jp2
973f89fbfe2c03af1a059ec4918066d4
c8d77484723ed214177df22daed4db1bce39ef96
1834 F20101129_AABGKC smithem_j_Page_45.txt
c6b200b437c1ee39dea303f34a4948ec
9540b76bb0914081fb303512e61e59b20ac286a1
F20101129_AABGFF smithem_j_Page_72.tif
f502813a1e54dc1cbd8eaf0306557e7d
ed7834a532500e31b9d433799a67583c836834a5
6564 F20101129_AABGPA smithem_j_Page_21thm.jpg
1dc719e70f07725ba06394c927a5268c
19472d7a9552d2cdd0e4cf9ecce21f54777593e5
36008 F20101129_AABFYI smithem_j_Page_45.jpg
61b5e66a2aca9539c1df063c0d5957cd
3a7c694543751ec5880986a9230fd3666e329e87
104490 F20101129_AABGAI smithem_j_Page_20.jp2
8d1d01dc81dd18f5d197d062ac991bdc
d7340db679cb021959755358e93cae5ee6cd38dc
2070 F20101129_AABGKD smithem_j_Page_46.txt
7b1d30bf0e12d28d50f48fdb286f5df7
e9684b4e8bb5b108975ea441c9b1fabcd4ff8ad3
F20101129_AABGFG smithem_j_Page_73.tif
50f25765b7ea09a7a9c4da88c5ec4264
4899269d9134eb84af8d930fc95ae7953828ca9e
5917 F20101129_AABGPB smithem_j_Page_23thm.jpg
7a6ea55bb2a8fc3c58925563603c953c
bc2e31461ff164991491fe17446eb2b1b88279f1
67584 F20101129_AABFYJ smithem_j_Page_46.jpg
53fa72f39061a86dc5d6f766c71cdc53
49ca37ea31d684d1aad93a916ab8e9654b509da2
109002 F20101129_AABGAJ smithem_j_Page_21.jp2
f7daf1f73d0e922dec8fcc97b7d8c792
fe58d7512db55dd34d52d50d155a4e2f5124d474
1714 F20101129_AABGKE smithem_j_Page_47.txt
84e73edb2743172f5e5a8fdbbe949efa
61a69852ae54eb6c6b71a62b4324d0ed408f91ff
F20101129_AABGFH smithem_j_Page_74.tif
0604ab2a065d39dee1f344809f62e874
8e8f76091d1d4415bb3476515a1e4bfae8a6e714
24749 F20101129_AABGPC smithem_j_Page_25.QC.jpg
cf38ce1ac120b10dbf6b455cb3956b5a
98c5b47c15d58e9e600f61ec611971dcc4081ab4
63850 F20101129_AABFYK smithem_j_Page_47.jpg
07e8ba7e0ee9a10344d5ccb911cd00f2
c04cc320d48381f153a417b3b6ed2f1784a48144
983905 F20101129_AABGAK smithem_j_Page_22.jp2
4acc0c3c4b216fa1cc55dec79b51d7cb
8bb86f7f4f2f4e8f03de4fbcd9bce1240157e04b
1432 F20101129_AABGKF smithem_j_Page_48.txt
0e20dff2394f04aa917412a794f906e1
4dc2f3f36ec10c2a01c341386c92de01e518fc56
F20101129_AABGFI smithem_j_Page_75.tif
04185fec27d5d7a0cf024231fea06565
2ae187e5b4e57dfae87cc8f0401bac44c7c2b104
6845 F20101129_AABGPD smithem_j_Page_25thm.jpg
39f03ca76979df655a0819721c67ce7f
27802718f40701146f7d43d1e59fe5f6eaefd669
45910 F20101129_AABFYL smithem_j_Page_48.jpg
08f9f18ef9e1b135cdefc59e4aa9313e
8259631a436e16350c3aadf4a51d3eaed02b70a3
96210 F20101129_AABGAL smithem_j_Page_23.jp2
7ba7123d7340af839784ff37d0613e62
7c671c702ea4e804e03813221d458e65121a9e87
1808 F20101129_AABGKG smithem_j_Page_49.txt
aa5ea44a43c10cacc5a7fbdb5a051f89
cc9a3da63c793a732ae1b66988c6234d816aefc9
F20101129_AABGFJ smithem_j_Page_76.tif
1ebba925ad8ba39110c6599ce8f80685
3bc218e7c31ad0a166ccae41ad622beae1768ae1
6153 F20101129_AABGPE smithem_j_Page_26thm.jpg
b9436e1ee4136e803df93d36a8080be9
674885779aef5fab37ff4476f9c3e78f4669078c
70188 F20101129_AABFYM smithem_j_Page_49.jpg
b307dc87512508b37d2a755f3ade2184
2c463e6f27bf492330d125dc071225d04bcce623
108247 F20101129_AABGAM smithem_j_Page_24.jp2
b34803e99bcb3d33a6591ff7a49d4f97
3b9522b8628e1106d1cf98ab0ec87e346e09c96d
1876 F20101129_AABGKH smithem_j_Page_50.txt
357f75a5442b9ca56ca111c85d8a455b
9f5a08cd616c3dfff1a277c96fd8177bb372a1fa
F20101129_AABGFK smithem_j_Page_77.tif
fbb15c21d806875feaa0644d8b99c2bd
7744e6f926f0dd9fee8ce097382b5c85bd9b93c8
1577 F20101129_AABGPF smithem_j_Page_27thm.jpg
7425efefb0f4e40b9581e0567c0c033f
c1e40ad6588b1a05f6f639d8299c894c781d9b5f
68218 F20101129_AABFYN smithem_j_Page_50.jpg
b27dda33caeb9c0e5d8f66432eb2e40c
a9acff6dead909c16215b5bee38141b582da01bc
1051969 F20101129_AABGAN smithem_j_Page_25.jp2
dad1b59358a403c9dd1476b12565c578
5cfb4869bfd4e0ccabe522fd2ee3fa85627aafd2
1246 F20101129_AABGKI smithem_j_Page_51.txt
e27b86c4e81cd42d1e5b4021035cd4f8
f2e3ff4c1cbb0d5b0ae19c9758c3e88eab7b8336
5545 F20101129_AABGPG smithem_j_Page_28thm.jpg
c1d4cde4844a49acf57a696da6501807
fc79de8546fd2d503ea48a8d7a4a021f550ebdfe
37347 F20101129_AABFYO smithem_j_Page_51.jpg
1ee0c71d281c2baab3b4950a4ee45631
a6d40a26722023f65f23a873c74d1597cd964080
105280 F20101129_AABGAO smithem_j_Page_26.jp2
c4bb2c84449f88dd02ad2a06afd5df84
8b687e77e382d8f596d671d1503956aca978f9f3
1810 F20101129_AABGKJ smithem_j_Page_52.txt
dc08e82788ad52e06554fe5fd5e5af25
d781f61896ad94c8a757bf26394df19a3593a4e1
8749 F20101129_AABGFL smithem_j_Page_01.pro
e8613de144953301d5f0f6348214aeef
a4d3847f62c3bb9f97c939e9f7db24f3582d93b2
2875 F20101129_AABGPH smithem_j_Page_29thm.jpg
7b41749f246a868d472a714cbf6b5bd1
dcf0722715e08c0f739e90933e6421013488a5c4
65572 F20101129_AABFYP smithem_j_Page_52.jpg
b3cb9a431dd82c84937d7870dff28e45
3f61cde1741ef38576eb8d1a48745c0b91be716d
10269 F20101129_AABGAP smithem_j_Page_27.jp2
99de2b58aaaa9b529510395270e7c413
6a528d6b165d8d9bba3951fb94d94f953595c0d9
1950 F20101129_AABGKK smithem_j_Page_53.txt
30fa636b9692350e35fcf3cf70d3b934
66e88d64dd7298a7a514e3fe30e6fa577253cff8
1253 F20101129_AABGFM smithem_j_Page_02.pro
05bf12bd6dc16f9dcac6a6d5fe480528
6a20dceb48d8644ec7a7fdf6e85b86b4d5359c65
5895 F20101129_AABGPI smithem_j_Page_30thm.jpg
1870e0bf0dc9444b61509e0c6fb4d9b7
c7b272c118110190c7e02ecab5f69967913b1a81
71063 F20101129_AABFYQ smithem_j_Page_53.jpg
cd3d328377cfc1cafe2e84e18b7a2b8d
cfd0e7b28e08a104d4a4fc2dc18785d3e089aa52
88160 F20101129_AABGAQ smithem_j_Page_28.jp2
88e3f11add8dd8d9e5ccbe95f4e5cf26
4165df9f561a74fec9a94a74f772fcaed5aa0df4
2027 F20101129_AABGKL smithem_j_Page_54.txt
aa283e3277743ea0d4ff07cb9074a81d
ee9d5007bc445ef3b2a1ec9623247b50456b5359
35441 F20101129_AABGFN smithem_j_Page_03.pro
9310a81c2065f6de3ce70e1551b6fdce
c1e41521259e0f6b5c15db4e577aedfca1b3841d
7433 F20101129_AABGPJ smithem_j_Page_33.QC.jpg
e288a77fa4d5ed33e0fde91930f8b911
352ec51678ef4a4749dc1d3d9361b490c4a2d4ad
72775 F20101129_AABFYR smithem_j_Page_54.jpg
a7ac4fb7af4b5494e60157fd8c49dc27
6b38e03b395a464ea68525b9540edc22992e5955
60757 F20101129_AABGAR smithem_j_Page_29.jp2
11b97e4b0cf5be6c36620cbc2a98e3be
cc63d1f97075aec4cb15434c1c83fbb0dbf05a59
2076 F20101129_AABGKM smithem_j_Page_55.txt
334558c073b781474c6f765ff77be6f0
69109c23180dfca2c5a6dda6fba7b0427231ef05
78464 F20101129_AABGFO smithem_j_Page_04.pro
9dd03cde4f839ec3efe1ea19cd175956
ab7f40f988fb1aeed5a5acd19b43c5dc8eb5ae14
18229 F20101129_AABGPK smithem_j_Page_34.QC.jpg
036420ac36f41ea0a03cb635c2baf9ff
da74fb1abecac6e2278ef2ef22849a870c792929
74670 F20101129_AABFYS smithem_j_Page_55.jpg
341684a17ba73ad7edcfbe00e9fdeafd
7cc4795ebd097f9555c4749eb8eb20485cb921cd
94553 F20101129_AABGAS smithem_j_Page_30.jp2
c399bc6d2240d39fbbacdad22640a0d9
bc63839c4adb7d95c285efb3ad0eac1c9adf7e4b
1635 F20101129_AABGKN smithem_j_Page_56.txt
48705117d0e7ac63d832046ec729fcdf
8b5b0f965c9c9fc0bbed659d8a51d47032e37e5a
19063 F20101129_AABGFP smithem_j_Page_05.pro
395b9757fc3b8ccdf4bb1cb3bb0f105e
0db09341b9915eee11f43be19a794ed6a38ce4fe
6376 F20101129_AABGPL smithem_j_Page_35thm.jpg
cd89bb7feea8e866529fc17e15c0075c
1b47d440cd4098b3286de56ee2fa0c375d564e57
60720 F20101129_AABFYT smithem_j_Page_56.jpg
7eabd6cbd015554a1b150845759917ce
1e541bef9ab0bb4cf6ea2290d1dfb10cb37d6e56
73230 F20101129_AABGAT smithem_j_Page_31.jp2
7e7166d6374c7c3791e854ee21ffd249
2585a5b4509922b181ac56872d109119ecec3b85
1820 F20101129_AABGKO smithem_j_Page_57.txt
9fcb6b8bd3088ce9f0c4a279e7381ffe
8450ce11be4b383afbafa5edb52829ac35195483
64431 F20101129_AABGFQ smithem_j_Page_06.pro
6c27db08b660db035881cb86d718119e
f635f7d49f501178e32eab1b9ba4c05f8533f996
6367 F20101129_AABGPM smithem_j_Page_36thm.jpg
31450cfd22bd8c20ac2c396cbe99a6ec
7ec8d82c03b80280f495ba559e1e0e80b4307234
859824 F20101129_AABGAU smithem_j_Page_32.jp2
939df67eab68bbbd0da61b02d61d92f2
f5a769980f7f522a2830e8a23932a1c2ddef05a0
1633 F20101129_AABGKP smithem_j_Page_58.txt
f205e4336ae73383b204a8e92206e741
bd5ffcf927428ab4a72f66f7a081315f5c116350
45222 F20101129_AABGFR smithem_j_Page_07.pro
798305aefdb13b1bfcde236fd78630fb
630dc8a3a95a4768b197b73beda418f48e4f308c
67123 F20101129_AABFYU smithem_j_Page_57.jpg
c6ab7f03ff234c14c48625d4f627a1dc
7a02dc9899af01038cc4f830ad21de4208399791
3422 F20101129_AABGPN smithem_j_Page_37thm.jpg
8c2994a2875c527f8be4e5b03cfe50e8
d21bf4d9700787f9eb71336afa1d6d2f250fb068
46887 F20101129_AABGAV smithem_j_Page_33.jp2
6b7b34727bb2b8633321c66169841192
0f050ea6f71bfb86e97a69bca092ed04aa042cf4
35186 F20101129_AABGFS smithem_j_Page_08.pro
c3ae1bbba595dd5c78780cd5bfd25541
d078f36dc8d7595afe2a9fcbc682b9f1db804195
60155 F20101129_AABFYV smithem_j_Page_58.jpg
45a0b4066443864f2fc769a7dddda7c7
10eb377b42d4563cb7dd5b313a538555e0993514
22434 F20101129_AABGPO smithem_j_Page_38.QC.jpg
741af606001b081df1cd4e2396448c4a
3c80fcedadadc2692c67df284b689afe0eb19d63
86197 F20101129_AABGAW smithem_j_Page_34.jp2
e48b1dc53f6348ecaf2355352a0626ac
fa7fe88e56a6f4d62f58c89677daf5af192a6e2e
303 F20101129_AABGKQ smithem_j_Page_59.txt
54804503d60d59349aabdb4d9e7a0398
bd012155edd587a1ed4d2cbfbc3ae360a4240d3a
43232 F20101129_AABGFT smithem_j_Page_09.pro
ef396318fcba280a1c81d0048ab521ef
4dd4015d51a207b7757aeef14136634fab6f38d7
20922 F20101129_AABFYW smithem_j_Page_59.jpg
4888706c119ad59252019db40e5b1139
bb2e8a0a3bfa359053e07387d27a91482cc698de
22039 F20101129_AABGPP smithem_j_Page_40.QC.jpg
6e903eee582d5889e3dd099e7b5442d8
2a6d964fd2dfbcfd44edec115d38aa94db784a53
109393 F20101129_AABGAX smithem_j_Page_35.jp2
09b74c2ca811edc4929b2567401b19a7
5958650ea8294b897803763a84d97ad8e442bc30
875 F20101129_AABGKR smithem_j_Page_60.txt
5642adf62a0746b573837eadee5b4fa4
abf29ab2cfebf0c8d3c6c7168a694e11196f1fc7
42833 F20101129_AABGFU smithem_j_Page_10.pro
19f50551eb5493bdaa79a3e11421f71f
6193dc2b0612967b49dc8aecc73f6947e353a94f
42377 F20101129_AABFYX smithem_j_Page_60.jpg
7a71531a27a223254618fc5b551eb8c5
15c5c4f925b66edcfdda2cd69d2ad23c46b21721
6228 F20101129_AABGPQ smithem_j_Page_42thm.jpg
5cd49189872e2ae98f4cdad878472a05
e1623a654263c83e1a8c1c0925b6e698c8ab71cf
108181 F20101129_AABGAY smithem_j_Page_36.jp2
9289387d3cad117711def8f63a3d353c
695fe98dbe21edad4f19f25d38da1a40e5adbf47
1103 F20101129_AABGKS smithem_j_Page_61.txt
cb9ac9799addd27691ea67a9bb0bfc91
9767362a5e43106ae7164ec4f9967eafa4184525
51814 F20101129_AABGFV smithem_j_Page_11.pro
8ad15b14162eb52a3fc648893e32334a
c416876906c06da898821195d0048de2d9155f85
40969 F20101129_AABFYY smithem_j_Page_61.jpg
a7c5674b3c1f8ad87e541c2d86288730
7708150d8f2e271314192a3ecb79d6993f6f641f
19189 F20101129_AABGPR smithem_j_Page_43.QC.jpg
b2358f0e1d7257150395b4b3e06e9499
33e7ff11c25abba7c91976bbba3bbe41a5904fa9
82784 F20101129_AABGAZ smithem_j_Page_37.jp2
371e87b63b282f1d4d7b346f24145489
b57d2550c706ed03f6df4052f040a60d261c90d7
2055 F20101129_AABGKT smithem_j_Page_62.txt
e3ffe457624df6dc7211c5e41558ddc1
25c9f0ed53cb1ca0575d830d27f02e6dd6ceffa8
48173 F20101129_AABGFW smithem_j_Page_12.pro
86d8c5809b6d920af910484b4701f00f
51c15cfdccf1730afa55244205300ba6a8ef6d4f
62553 F20101129_AABFYZ smithem_j_Page_62.jpg
679cb7d404908620b4490df6e8026ca8
22eabc81fbccb4280084f3fd60f3828303f17d5e
5865 F20101129_AABGPS smithem_j_Page_44thm.jpg
22d3166f3beb9e6236f4b68283667146
8c14ad7d5bdf5695614eb8265a39bac4fab75ef8
1182 F20101129_AABGKU smithem_j_Page_63.txt
7187c76ddda699a95a507128f0634b47
5e7acd6a1b771fc581c102606261b5ba392a3fa1
51242 F20101129_AABGFX smithem_j_Page_13.pro
2d7a453932b925c3f107fe07c7846d64
9fb7a058576c8f5e8f5a1ff520cadba2aa81f790
11128 F20101129_AABGPT smithem_j_Page_45.QC.jpg
484d890fd84e231e114c065d486565bc
52969d7eafc32e8174677e2d1738fb4f2f070bc0
1964 F20101129_AABGKV smithem_j_Page_64.txt
9fca19a633f66751d3d9e5e909a71438
5b6f6bdaf10bc3c18da673975e8625fd82371a34
F20101129_AABGDA smithem_j_Page_13.tif
96a1fec75a2b64f3280637705ffe3ba8
b9d3630776b05ad9b48119251585d8ca8980209e
51696 F20101129_AABGFY smithem_j_Page_14.pro
1c2af5dd013f4a0650aba395acd1ac8b
94cbd2fa95afff82c8bfe65e2cbfd4630f2601da
3452 F20101129_AABGPU smithem_j_Page_45thm.jpg
445fad6aecc3b0418d17bb3aeb8f48fd
f33f438399ae0eb481985c2b7cbfd4631e3d4732
1878 F20101129_AABGKW smithem_j_Page_65.txt
f6c8e88a962e1618261275cfee47f796
60bf4ec2a1d3d291ffde4db43119b157d5086ed2
F20101129_AABGDB smithem_j_Page_14.tif
c1015122fac7363cdc0377de04303c2e
204ccf0e9a922f9b9141956d464b645872427839
49500 F20101129_AABGFZ smithem_j_Page_15.pro
1479c6beb6d3bd2b2a5719efbaac1724
ea9f292d4447423a914f40ed013c8c5320b54cb1
2376 F20101129_AABGKX smithem_j_Page_66.txt
1170466a759347608527dd8c6e4f740a
6e8f4c9c6074ec32b556ba97c4eca566665ae30e
F20101129_AABGDC smithem_j_Page_15.tif
ba2a4fcd46f5c877a436fdc6c7e5c1f2
9cb1708f92c652895db45a9f6a1e4c7c31e52135
6043 F20101129_AABGPV smithem_j_Page_46thm.jpg
f237320a30220011b48ae8ffd8b7aaab
d5d2c07878dc178f8e56f2e83498fa6ac9caa0db
1650 F20101129_AABGKY smithem_j_Page_67.txt
5b8c89332a3e8acc37ab595cb9a8fd56
96ef6bcafbc37596692e28bb6345195671870d3d
F20101129_AABGDD smithem_j_Page_16.tif
2f6a0f8ac2c370a5bd492471b3fc1c31
f3078903e531c161c62f8981c5ccb28d99dd13e7
45329 F20101129_AABGIA smithem_j_Page_68.pro
92230d9934ce060b7919f0d2ca3e6616
9b4d6896c51e4b443348b942e81ea11f0e616dda
20579 F20101129_AABGPW smithem_j_Page_47.QC.jpg
1ab105a41b29d6e2ebd9fecc949be81b
75d4d0fa94aae48fc3eea04d1e94b8cb09849fc8
2120 F20101129_AABGKZ smithem_j_Page_68.txt
c558cb5683e7f6d7e81362f220ab4405
1c7c8c2b79ab385a257b4648f9f846113232526a
F20101129_AABGDE smithem_j_Page_17.tif
870960049243523227f5d160f4c96d5f
788229fb1996a93eb273d89d43f24e62e6d8fd37
27821 F20101129_AABGIB smithem_j_Page_69.pro
eaaf91e8a35fb1d4d553c8e07e7f4277
617008144215006aad0ef54fecfbf063489a259e
5754 F20101129_AABGPX smithem_j_Page_47thm.jpg
26d83caab0dd522a87aa9034d3722c20
214623bfe9ac1ee8a8bbedd6cad509fde1dca040
F20101129_AABGDF smithem_j_Page_18.tif
de27983fc5ac240f7750380ed2c63973
a76ad6f1a52c230bf19da7399523e0b60ac8e837
34609 F20101129_AABGIC smithem_j_Page_70.pro
1dd42eec16f5bbd466ea1fa435c93556
809de06721b1f66e5ffeaf08689283eedac56487
14219 F20101129_AABGPY smithem_j_Page_48.QC.jpg
6713b7148c3948afa00c4278da9a6eea
adad99b6af3864f85df1b9d3733d07624798b165
21648 F20101129_AABGNA smithem_j_Page_42.QC.jpg
451d781dec8e4b0a0fd21f5562fa95e7
418dc7e7bac85661b8f95241bbdaa42206a2a160
F20101129_AABGDG smithem_j_Page_19.tif
49c78796b558d157aa39f7247b388723
8f7127d4e82871718a5d6ca41350776d9f576a05
17837 F20101129_AABGID smithem_j_Page_71.pro
22d62c491fc5030511bbcc581a488d7f
97f7eb860fdd5dee668a74b35b828584f9e198cb
20573 F20101129_AABGPZ smithem_j_Page_49.QC.jpg
5f3bd10682f6f0d5e2f13f708a6bb07b
64a273768ecf7bd70fd3716701a43916cca3a40c
23556 F20101129_AABGNB smithem_j_Page_24.QC.jpg
200471fbcf2956e77660c50e52a42622
32d7167ea749478056f685454003b7fdb87f5496
F20101129_AABGDH smithem_j_Page_20.tif
edacf861b5a151bc1ac2929909e13ade
1de6661bfd92a63cab1457bd6b1779c7661a70e7
54134 F20101129_AABGIE smithem_j_Page_72.pro
dc806fbd79f7e52aaf6ab5b600963e1a
6e7b6f9cbf40b26f909449a784ca2c4d696974e3
19009 F20101129_AABGNC smithem_j_Page_28.QC.jpg
0e1e92ad299112b50f29e1194b3ba48a
f24068064ea03bc976bc629bd9559cdb5d9d4827
F20101129_AABGDI smithem_j_Page_21.tif
70a85909a41b05147ff42b58c30c197c
40f6691b2a1527aac05d60b8304f865f51331282
24290 F20101129_AABFWK smithem_j_Page_19.QC.jpg
bdae3b06a831dccfc9bc131213e8dceb
49ca6c03c3a9916cf71df6adee4d48047ae610ab
54096 F20101129_AABGIF smithem_j_Page_73.pro
6e9069201738b0044be30bc40884bbfa
49b48705d05119e5a4be3c4e6350365493fc0822
16252 F20101129_AABGND smithem_j_Page_68.QC.jpg
eca5acfc80bf225b6348d81ba1839923
c86f6ecd7185d6275dc42a9cc41a287cf6ffef36
F20101129_AABFWL smithem_j_Page_27.tif
dcfb00a900acf14b96602ebc11108a33
55505ad293d10b29c6cb5cf0343cb544295a2f17
56936 F20101129_AABGIG smithem_j_Page_74.pro
845c289c7fa633c7432eb904dcaa2845
041b6ec644d8364da819cc93d03106a2d6f321f1
17883 F20101129_AABGNE smithem_j_Page_03.QC.jpg
4510242fc1b99b104add6ce0a5abb5ae
7adc3d987320f9cceed2f470dd98c6fc30136471
F20101129_AABGDJ smithem_j_Page_22.tif
c29f2dd11c49e5316323c6d11e1c9b9d
0af109eb2f320f93befa82451d27bdf5bf39077c
F20101129_AABFWM smithem_j_Page_51.tif
447a89495c9996927dca1cbb46bfa244
45f1b4216734d70c8f747839f4de912170de35ce
56159 F20101129_AABGIH smithem_j_Page_75.pro
83e5d6342511b15706a4b4bde4cc5f37
c84fd6ea84d4ed9274b335ee832a66d00a56ec00
6276 F20101129_AABGNF smithem_j_Page_12thm.jpg
9d3d3c9f97ad7934fd8a6dce3352d549
20c0d8df25f487e1ddbf5fafa2284c0bfc44356b
F20101129_AABGDK smithem_j_Page_23.tif
a2129d36c49cca0666ba5d7da3426ebe
bfe3665c816ffb673592883343a2251069ecbe03
90692 F20101129_AABFWN UFE0011120_00001.mets FULL
4784bfb40436c328e588ad65b63bef83
c8af5cd65bcaa4869231e29ef9bd80a13f17b4d3
28972 F20101129_AABGII smithem_j_Page_76.pro
4472906a409d5741ad181cd015de53a3
afec785892df594cade642e6f8b2069a6ebdbf75
5521 F20101129_AABGNG smithem_j_Page_18thm.jpg
9b67da5eaca994eba0ba6e7b18b3a2ca
1bee6a081fd078e38bb82430a929a53f4beddb9b
F20101129_AABGDL smithem_j_Page_24.tif
b8f6420c732bcac291342adc3b993b8b
bbe616e922527802d6f9e3f98aaa49a9713b7c31
15914 F20101129_AABGIJ smithem_j_Page_77.pro
665ad0b8bb22c1a83ff4b45378691668
cbce30f066459ebe67e74c7969d091ea05c0b77c
12381 F20101129_AABGNH smithem_j_Page_60.QC.jpg
3783aba695d022b0da02f257d6f587e9
77fe8b0222f9dc652a4ea0935c13a1962c1b6989
F20101129_AABGDM smithem_j_Page_25.tif
49d52d4869f984a6b93b090d27903bb9
003eaaaced568d4a2819e27e1621a0b10d15ecae
482 F20101129_AABGIK smithem_j_Page_01.txt
c4108ffe843c1c51c0c7983a22cef1da
004d56fe782e3f0b06edc6f709201eea2cc234a1
20374 F20101129_AABGNI smithem_j_Page_30.QC.jpg
464d277728166202932d3e1a6d6a7907
4d3b09bc176fdd3df71f091048023568955b73c5
F20101129_AABGDN smithem_j_Page_26.tif
e7648df17e60a704c27b0156eca6a0c5
88993f15ca6d0242c0f23a16fe0b41d955ed77a1
25058 F20101129_AABFWQ smithem_j_Page_01.jpg
928671a5fbfca5c46ac3672a6b7b41ea
b03f2c390eb84f622d90b0b715104b1f5eaf5453
117 F20101129_AABGIL smithem_j_Page_02.txt
988c7058a34181cf56c459e9e53e1d38
e54fd162ce41052a02617f9724f516ecfd8fab23
4809 F20101129_AABGNJ smithem_j_Page_64thm.jpg
2a9d5dc9cbdbb86ddab755499cef32f7
e8ea22b958c17a4c3b368ebe5f5df8d76df86858
F20101129_AABGDO smithem_j_Page_28.tif
1065075fe03f5af789ab5c0866b0a1d0
7aee1f6569976b8a3e984485c6d2481ac3cf2a45
10383 F20101129_AABFWR smithem_j_Page_02.jpg
d372f2e695b26d95493f9052b2ed4cf3
9db4ec521e5f4646cbcd5a18ebff231d82ac0642
1453 F20101129_AABGIM smithem_j_Page_03.txt
a963b4da114d02851ea3d7ee1eb21cc0
7d19712acba4c775a4710ea7361fd9d00f3d1f8c
4130 F20101129_AABGNK smithem_j_Page_48thm.jpg
edd80c3dd0a880a9ff408d0aec9dc63c
e895488aeebfe0cce41bcf2d716a79aff51bd787
1054428 F20101129_AABGDP smithem_j_Page_29.tif
06d75730b5138653373ee1d373e10865
0b0839e6776bf074d8c94b922a168f9e6772fd88
55074 F20101129_AABFWS smithem_j_Page_03.jpg
0d42307a4b37bf2c84becc8b590392ec
01d93ec86434a64c0d7e5804b84f3b50613bde02
3216 F20101129_AABGIN smithem_j_Page_04.txt
ac0615ca9f0819f8f7a1995c9cc709b9
96b05d3bdf14e82cd04aa5dcce4db519881ec5f0
24458 F20101129_AABGNL smithem_j_Page_14.QC.jpg
9121ae9488dbd963b9a464ac007534a5
cd71fb89cfe3d8624d2c24d76455d56c62ecec90
F20101129_AABGDQ smithem_j_Page_30.tif
a211709a55022f879d96e2c0eeb19532
1bcf51feb75156e43e0b6c656ffe6d1eb223c33f
66991 F20101129_AABFWT smithem_j_Page_04.jpg
0388c8f6ea351cc4b4f79a3e1f0d6f2e
f45ea45b9d628b6265ed3e2bec1c94bf7b770b0c
18272 F20101129_AABGNM smithem_j_Page_70.QC.jpg
20c446674dab590f57bb5f346ff42d7e
aeece205473c96e52d2ba90da584a9362c482882
F20101129_AABGDR smithem_j_Page_31.tif
4747c3dba9c06ba721183d3c87c8c5b7
bde0d1923719fe6a5dcef8fdb49270ff4e54ad05
34761 F20101129_AABFWU smithem_j_Page_05.jpg
0d2d54c20a5d4fcf8c28bb8ecf325370
bfb401a3876f8ca6d94155b2d4fa620f8bd491ca
767 F20101129_AABGIO smithem_j_Page_05.txt
be749ab84bf7bf65ed6e284480fec36b
326174289d9d83e1b1a48b92b6605833a6862e3c
21515 F20101129_AABGNN smithem_j_Page_22.QC.jpg
92cc289d5193e53b2616779962cd1927
00563338604cc23aba3d888accac26e081f265a9
F20101129_AABGDS smithem_j_Page_32.tif
640ae9b50f59d58e43a769143ad14b71
d0c7b0c73fe62f5987b312b9a350f37867989aa8
88445 F20101129_AABFWV smithem_j_Page_06.jpg
d0f89d1ee3d7cfa28c503dd6dfd0317e
ebb8c5c5250dd3d90e4fe78be17872ca103cafbe
2640 F20101129_AABGIP smithem_j_Page_06.txt
38a2a2ad786b358328257caef50fd320
4efa6a17cafe3fe3017537fcbef441d5f6c6a9eb
5426 F20101129_AABGNO smithem_j_Page_62thm.jpg
a5cf11f3daf5ce602aba0a73d8143a43
fe39ccbd28f16fbccf3cc693c6e036cd3ecdb3be
F20101129_AABGDT smithem_j_Page_33.tif
831dc102781b45918d02cdeb2ff5f865
c8163eaa4a7707e0f0843328f24d44343984a4ca
62956 F20101129_AABFWW smithem_j_Page_07.jpg
7cbd12720ec1a09e96b6e07f30c29f42
235d874df579ec0814fb6d7f3cffb504f9f34c96
1933 F20101129_AABGIQ smithem_j_Page_07.txt
ef93ac9d1e9b87181449bae070db9e1c
f338189d64e25d2293f648efae64754c3b220ae2
13078 F20101129_AABGNP smithem_j_Page_63.QC.jpg
8510e1f61cf6ede1118c7a6d21a7ab77
c68df5eab395d1e8b1514c58af97d76fa8131d9c
F20101129_AABGDU smithem_j_Page_34.tif
8f2c306515ab1969eac02528eb3d34a2
c40fd00ef16beb7015abcea3d61a2702b1011b37
54799 F20101129_AABFWX smithem_j_Page_08.jpg
564d96c6dab4c03432e136f3628b3d28
c54537f15c6c15a629bc2a333223684c38e4d5aa
1616 F20101129_AABGIR smithem_j_Page_08.txt
3be108fc26aa85d9295c86a219212f51
27c47e664514d7fd4609314d56d5f611ae3d7b38
5480 F20101129_AABGNQ smithem_j_Page_34thm.jpg
c50fc133ca8ae09df5a005e07e622630
7fa4839a8df7b226203254b3de7870bf0ee7d0cc
F20101129_AABGDV smithem_j_Page_35.tif
d3030076b7185396d5d3c27ad7e46860
7649732dc136ba63b37b48758065ac3b8f095f67
63626 F20101129_AABFWY smithem_j_Page_09.jpg
3c0d36fd1462c350bbaf7ea093bf94ed
8d33bf4b163b7bcd8944f2d1f7ff7df996219a29
1716 F20101129_AABGIS smithem_j_Page_09.txt
2c3305ba255ea6dffe9210903cfd4ad6
0609e3a7839d5ededffdc6b2ec5d356730a353c2
18788 F20101129_AABGNR smithem_j_Page_62.QC.jpg
26b26dafadbbb268009295e943ba69be
e95d3294bce13b1e6ca2d3ffc7ecf0a56dde79f3
F20101129_AABGDW smithem_j_Page_36.tif
5c2b3aad7a6f0cabb66bf3cc56a1c28f
598adfba568dd9ae637a63fc29f3495200bf6e4a
62406 F20101129_AABFWZ smithem_j_Page_10.jpg
a09d6b0deda1de96784106ebdb694aa4
4380a8fe184dc0b07558c0648db6466c5f52ac88
1734 F20101129_AABGIT smithem_j_Page_10.txt
69b0881675961d647905dfaab466ab9d
6e7dda0fbc69eec619488c1169468d1a0572eb01
4071 F20101129_AABGNS smithem_j_Page_27.QC.jpg
6d8a3c6f724c7119cb46448a383e57a8
de0a3144f4c71d293bc18ee447bd83b64795b4f9
2069 F20101129_AABGIU smithem_j_Page_11.txt
479ea834fb9a21365fdf2ce15627ee0a
dd7f5cb13817711a048d01b12f9d4b931409d816
F20101129_AABGDX smithem_j_Page_37.tif
6cc97a53c439047dc35b71a9e2629d37
54c223a905c2896417f7a809a9fcf0c1057a3ba1
1901 F20101129_AABGIV smithem_j_Page_12.txt
dd7e35f8bed9a9cc67125b107f818f0e
b0735641d25dddd3aeb518f6d7119ba5e07da7d1
105893 F20101129_AABGBA smithem_j_Page_38.jp2
31e670a033916f583ca166b4b42a3772
5cf581fe8a305353b158399e045fc0ad26ed8d63
F20101129_AABGDY smithem_j_Page_38.tif
48dcb0ceb8c77249556b7058474a8bbe
b7f09cda6317ae7e128efd0562066cd48e3f6a41
20380 F20101129_AABGNT smithem_j_Page_10.QC.jpg
63186f8c06d2b307eeb6d924c969dc00
87ddb9f4de290ca404996c34564e1e96827ae43e
2017 F20101129_AABGIW smithem_j_Page_13.txt
1aee605cb9e0c53f0ba69e0953637d2c
136ffc598275c95866a27d50450cec7c345f3ed5
42504 F20101129_AABFZA smithem_j_Page_63.jpg
78abab131713da39034fcc94ae449a54
9422a58f32741394f6893bb1f6844a57d52981c6
76604 F20101129_AABGBB smithem_j_Page_39.jp2
1c4c6e2f654baea8b24582bc8ff10690
aedf956dba13b8bcabc1a5f78f06eb46317e7408
F20101129_AABGDZ smithem_j_Page_39.tif
048620da978d87a97eba443d60e639a5
b8e198f93b67ca214a7402a9f8e20f2168b7a868
20480 F20101129_AABGNU smithem_j_Page_23.QC.jpg
11366e430428e9bf692621d74973dcf7
2335643e7fecc20cc666774a96621b207d2f1d9f
2062 F20101129_AABGIX smithem_j_Page_14.txt
fe73c7994557d4258d6928f06279a0e8
6c25adb146481f0933191744642eaadeacfc2a7f
55504 F20101129_AABFZB smithem_j_Page_64.jpg
74f4f963aff04c1863f8a33cd5b640f5
29a0ecfa18c36fa9741e54c3b5022cea4a875cfd
971148 F20101129_AABGBC smithem_j_Page_40.jp2
8d815f86aa19191d6e19ecf0fc04b605
89550e61935fda113a2286ddaba23a321025ecdf
18479 F20101129_AABGNV smithem_j_Page_32.QC.jpg
11726959f3614fce0368aa0dee3ac03a
2e71d0853cccd66c9a05c200aafe46e987f925a5
49013 F20101129_AABGGA smithem_j_Page_16.pro
19e18b99ca803d8abd7aa7628b6458e7
dcc13069c69573f50206ef0db6d645779d696a5d
F20101129_AABGIY smithem_j_Page_15.txt
42f94d2aceb583712b46ff199663288d
6cc5bc23285beef0f6b8d928633d5793dae5cf4b
56587 F20101129_AABFZC smithem_j_Page_65.jpg
a3d9ff9a5204960011de88d0a8a4c17e
82a91a4753134059983e2ae2469ff367def11837
894238 F20101129_AABGBD smithem_j_Page_41.jp2
58adeda8cca2c12f2ba9c8542dcb6eb6
3eb2cf530ce3bd87c2ac54779d14881834c87add
22295 F20101129_AABGNW smithem_j_Page_50.QC.jpg
165bc2223d3fe551773fc04d7bf6c4c2
77fb8f5fdd9eb31faafad7f5f95355c0fa94a70d
5683 F20101129_AABGGB smithem_j_Page_17.pro
8c52f9ca0de826989ff50a58766ab836
c93c263085647e10de516c6e0464bf9e4948989e
1968 F20101129_AABGIZ smithem_j_Page_16.txt
38880af680ed453789482cc170535f06
583ca992aee43e40f5b31edf70f40a310b2dba55
63536 F20101129_AABFZD smithem_j_Page_66.jpg
356018d776a95c4a065b837809c42f5f
6dfbd221c3f27b3e0c40c9a262872ccd031e40fb
1028061 F20101129_AABGBE smithem_j_Page_42.jp2
ade85736e2b995b64f06b109b635bbdc
45dacff36fd2455f2fa712508e915f0fa892c7c9
3946 F20101129_AABGNX smithem_j_Page_60thm.jpg
dd629f598da17d8a893b862e59f3004a
3a42791d46129f763f59a73006efa4b0370b1145
41783 F20101129_AABGGC smithem_j_Page_18.pro
0bbdefcd40ce6b142dd01736e917a98e
b8f4b8891cc1e3b2de5407e74a93605503395752
49986 F20101129_AABFZE smithem_j_Page_67.jpg
8764ff6b990eb95ad327c08193bd6253
7dfe1d5de2fcf2e80e19a6d47b8884a4779a2382
887229 F20101129_AABGBF smithem_j_Page_43.jp2
d5043ee396cf67dd756ee98f87f9b816
e131199994cbfe58c26c8c919b6948fc9ff844e0
5163 F20101129_AABGNY smithem_j_Page_03thm.jpg
1c54702c7aaa443c7515d442ca031257
6e6d4ce7ec291126d389aabf1cb11ca79414fc70
51910 F20101129_AABGGD smithem_j_Page_19.pro
217853a12ca5f443f1e0f83b1280a94e
20df3fe1f501e21045d30d1b41f8e3be29742c2e
55809 F20101129_AABFZF smithem_j_Page_68.jpg
6c5ebe365c8d3e7585a8c5eb5f42f8a0
9508e5fb30f3fb0185e45a9311f458b02b1a4a6a
96889 F20101129_AABGBG smithem_j_Page_44.jp2
0981fdb240f3249bbbdd289cfb321e0c
2206f9e58b742bcfc61967503a27cf77b41591a2
1138 F20101129_AABGLA smithem_j_Page_69.txt
ee0b982488f334f2e832d8b3e340c81a
de8b7471deddb7883b7f0eeb12f0773aeaff7351
3036 F20101129_AABGNZ smithem_j_Page_05thm.jpg
ccc4fcf4c603bcc0daac1abf493eb448
9725fcdeef9e00efd2e362b0257acb862324abda
47543 F20101129_AABGGE smithem_j_Page_20.pro
5f5109ef3a10cd3bc82822baef6ca391
8b9bf866d33bc65665c4cd1877eb6a1860588f48
44229 F20101129_AABFZG smithem_j_Page_69.jpg
3d607ecd76642ba866dd652084a97d85
0618de0d1ca9d04ee386f9051490b3f903930075
1539 F20101129_AABGLB smithem_j_Page_70.txt
53cd02b942bb1f1911ecf4fbea6b29d1
6230e85157d62bc0250b2c8ed4a881dc4e514ba9
49238 F20101129_AABGGF smithem_j_Page_21.pro
4f551c0e9b45ff66d0184e1996a541d9
b23028d90573954f0c7434341b474ed7e7c7a939
54518 F20101129_AABFZH smithem_j_Page_70.jpg
2c0053d8823082746c0a88bd3a9d8fa6
6eb54fde99cc9504ee9eb573baa0a733106fe6c1
73259 F20101129_AABGBH smithem_j_Page_45.jp2
6b004cbbc744a88a9db1d2249eb3c26a
5ede3764106e968b7721291f6fcfedfe45278436
775 F20101129_AABGLC smithem_j_Page_71.txt
5d9eb55c0eee156b76de460d20ae0be1
26daafca6d750fce92b2778e5810162841d02dd0
6316 F20101129_AABGQA smithem_j_Page_49thm.jpg
a55bd7fc60db4a75b6764d7677d505b8
b05bba4244afc4b7784d53d3b14ab6975eadd457
47131 F20101129_AABGGG smithem_j_Page_22.pro
824be04c59cc58153593375aac689e58
af9005ec78bfc35fec925bad85f0909d92b5abce
33086 F20101129_AABFZI smithem_j_Page_71.jpg
d530472d7f79a900501e985b99c01fff
0fd7b7659fd0ffef76f19556ae40c0250824af47
99064 F20101129_AABGBI smithem_j_Page_46.jp2
bc690b60f674f57d305cf3eb8a3267de
dc3a74abfe09f75fbd3bad9c453401587157023d
2228 F20101129_AABGLD smithem_j_Page_72.txt
20097648ca4646b25ef810c164bc67c9
e2731c3138a9f9f98cafd41121db2535f4b619d6
6448 F20101129_AABGQB smithem_j_Page_50thm.jpg
3222c58b374ad9e54985c509862a13fa
c72e04d0088c019668eca126fb20e65305341370
47142 F20101129_AABGGH smithem_j_Page_23.pro
dff9f1dc61aebc7426744cbc888b4508
5059d6fc4851e9f9f0fd1988a1309da8b81af4af
77507 F20101129_AABFZJ smithem_j_Page_72.jpg
d43494b766237c6c753cda3c6adacdc2
97dbfb9c726e3c3bcd78bd6a22a24f3ab1e8597d
95333 F20101129_AABGBJ smithem_j_Page_47.jp2
8be054db3e5ad6f70adc98c1a4b3a8d2
840d6d83b2c3ddbe8f62aacdd489ca5427b43423
F20101129_AABGLE smithem_j_Page_73.txt
d83abf6d5e94fedc52c968249c6fc3eb
156a22d9edbac4cb68a16f5505bad6eda3d2ad69
11489 F20101129_AABGQC smithem_j_Page_51.QC.jpg
67952aa8e0ad449a921e18034038f059
2c7ea9888c904080e6c7bf6f6c6dcaf66eb57e3f
50264 F20101129_AABGGI smithem_j_Page_24.pro
6e51c56cbe3a04baab6f18101076e29b
d8ad92aa264fa65b4bba518106ad86df674e58aa
78292 F20101129_AABFZK smithem_j_Page_73.jpg
d0c0b1cdc793587b64d181d9ef8b39c8
68a193cc9f8e40e15080f7abb301479929a8e368
57218 F20101129_AABGBK smithem_j_Page_48.jp2
35ed13a1ec51dc38c0333959fbbded30
72a1c3064bcfb1dddb5283d5e1c3650b9836e130
2351 F20101129_AABGLF smithem_j_Page_74.txt
91a65cee6685697934a7b693b4bc61b7
d7961c4adcd911076243ef5c20a11ba6722b485f
3465 F20101129_AABGQD smithem_j_Page_51thm.jpg
038ee9b799236a528be7d59915f9df29
38fa5b4d6b53e4d266070b2a4bad05ea895405ef
47655 F20101129_AABGGJ smithem_j_Page_25.pro
f3686e78b362f313e9150cd6335adcc5
242d6dcb38e637d52dffd7b40ce3ab133a5e6813
80865 F20101129_AABFZL smithem_j_Page_74.jpg
793a79466ceda039d35d23c8dda74aef
ed2fc4406c1fc862c0de93e442b21c3c71b27c58
983327 F20101129_AABGBL smithem_j_Page_49.jp2
3082f1a3a6d5e5ad935d01abb58921a9
b1e525896be929d83171e5379e05fa17a426e36f
2319 F20101129_AABGLG smithem_j_Page_75.txt
86bfa112d20dd2f8698f0e381cdb8737
a2ce10a554f204bebb320c951db74b67ac6304ea
21529 F20101129_AABGQE smithem_j_Page_52.QC.jpg
b6bd81542b88c137b070e3bc9cd56c87
f9c30dcc8355b0af4bb74c6e265b8ccba71ebe34
47320 F20101129_AABGGK smithem_j_Page_26.pro
32813501508d62915d754c0d657e75ea
9cbf94ad1a6b5bb9fea6f821855efbbbde24cb06
80383 F20101129_AABFZM smithem_j_Page_75.jpg
c29aeb864ed0cee6a4f52dbf0408fa78
62d206347c58a67954142ed34b86835f56ee51cb
104234 F20101129_AABGBM smithem_j_Page_50.jp2
2866148a652fc111eacb9392eb4d2486
42b3ed2d579015309a998962e3655b424854f458
1199 F20101129_AABGLH smithem_j_Page_76.txt
96e06c648443af574973ce982135da43
8d360e405707da83591cfa7cfdbbcbe133dc17aa
5985 F20101129_AABGQF smithem_j_Page_52thm.jpg
5862b14befa34248922a68f1a4dec928
78ad4b6d8425a29227a2934e6bbc7521b68c7b8b
3118 F20101129_AABGGL smithem_j_Page_27.pro
1443ef0bcac6e7977eb5943e2eb4aaa2
0c58000deb29a5faf5733177d1070b40731e24ed
46790 F20101129_AABFZN smithem_j_Page_76.jpg
401769d54d5e676d8cd8e834a226a9cc
9085fd10773b0fda6550767a7e319459811e62b4
47888 F20101129_AABGBN smithem_j_Page_51.jp2
be4c353d0afa765adf536dce4d286081
5f923de147977255e9e7f2c669c10db2460d4538
680 F20101129_AABGLI smithem_j_Page_77.txt
e87ddd6d07c334869a656cfb5dc1eb49
15f1903cf3e2360803566f7956c559e8a55f68df
23128 F20101129_AABGQG smithem_j_Page_53.QC.jpg
f26cd418be187feffba7f772b535100a
6a96ca8f32aaa5aff73e1f90b0ddfd17ea515e06
29788 F20101129_AABFZO smithem_j_Page_77.jpg
c054907180b132fd5b24baaec1485aed
4dbae5f87531f3b01aa423593023ffbb61fae589
99323 F20101129_AABGBO smithem_j_Page_52.jp2
f8ee2398c0630b2054b6c9c6ec916774
6d45f20b8c0991a14680151aaf3768bb8d7cd61d
642851 F20101129_AABGLJ smithem_j.pdf
1830f7e4dcd47710cff7576aad10cae4
11b3965023ac35a2f4900a25c2c043b7116bae55
6265 F20101129_AABGQH smithem_j_Page_53thm.jpg
acc118cc9c1b9f6cd0cf90586a77c29a
6ea7dcc831538f3fc10439d6e48bab4123ca238b
39021 F20101129_AABGGM smithem_j_Page_28.pro
454932eac03a01b70d64a1202f1b8f06
aaa2bf423133af18e3c43f2a3ac220796ab5c982
25287 F20101129_AABFZP smithem_j_Page_01.jp2
5cd0c3e035a1052adb5937ed9f5fe110
efb42bef3fc3b648cd0f4b78411de83a95f6dd0b
109003 F20101129_AABGBP smithem_j_Page_53.jp2
34919c9475033b6ff9aa2009de19cef3
df2307f22b6546d360eee2a1b1945610c75569b3
6663 F20101129_AABGLK smithem_j_Page_55thm.jpg
e550b9ef305b3530231d9980c028cc08
3497f4f6fc4363a287ada5936059350cc8d6008b
6530 F20101129_AABGQI smithem_j_Page_54thm.jpg
5127c012c0e8a17c8535f4c76a6d5e2a
cc90e7216560c16d5e5479bc8916f67e04c19232
36205 F20101129_AABGGN smithem_j_Page_29.pro
d7491d78422ae40453223f08a8ab79a8
0fea4766bb2d1cee8a5140967aebe6503389e71d
5851 F20101129_AABFZQ smithem_j_Page_02.jp2
835fe1c79844835a2c35a72eb59d54d7
8d17a98ffd4e4b706cfddf36b8c2c1666b51d8ad
113156 F20101129_AABGBQ smithem_j_Page_54.jp2
fe8cea71d1301b2507ad1f0bde8dee29
3f1cb314b4db2c82eb0a867801e52aff89fcbc90
6555 F20101129_AABGLL smithem_j_Page_13thm.jpg
8a75f0ff57b5607a05982342c91894bc
ad8ee1020ee7b207a35964a5bca5426d0ee9cbce
24112 F20101129_AABGQJ smithem_j_Page_55.QC.jpg
6b5dd6407e133ce3be719ffaf3f12415
714da83730acace8ea2314506b96ced0df290a99
42738 F20101129_AABGGO smithem_j_Page_30.pro
daa468d6f18f7681ec487c36945bf776
a0ddf9220339a9cd71b52748edfbcada21b465a0
78141 F20101129_AABFZR smithem_j_Page_03.jp2
3de57c1cb2f73aefd832b2727652424b
223a92f4ed5bfc54d2f0ec213190db4c374ede6b
116183 F20101129_AABGBR smithem_j_Page_55.jp2
5c942e3f8ed24a048be83d2e6ad83c0e
839f2bedd6f0011e107dd75cc7bb23777dc17fc8
5346 F20101129_AABGLM smithem_j_Page_32thm.jpg
202cd8fbeb402dd9ba9e350152bff045
b6e186e463901680b0bdc04dfa1c5dc22438d178
21491 F20101129_AABGQK smithem_j_Page_57.QC.jpg
7c43491401c6a5fb299de7415f3b4996
c96f20df77f52f243ea7f0ce07cd52b16fc4e468
39370 F20101129_AABGGP smithem_j_Page_31.pro
fc1cce1ee8bb044bb8a864e3301db9fb
b41ea49f35fb82bfe182f943417e3f0562d518ae
1051982 F20101129_AABFZS smithem_j_Page_04.jp2
634252e9cfc2079effdd747500434351
2ecbd5a7c70dfce822349e73008758e33f21511e
92239 F20101129_AABGBS smithem_j_Page_56.jp2
12130feec7a4582e4d3cac732fcca72f
c882acb7703e511b5d4267d4a0cb77c7fa3aeb99
6094 F20101129_AABGLN smithem_j_Page_40thm.jpg
2e09149dbd87f5f47e02265c0a575a7f
fb64734f01793f756a8d32532bd99963c6fc62aa
6144 F20101129_AABGQL smithem_j_Page_57thm.jpg
bca546dfdd57b6d7d36879badbc5ec5a
337340e42362bd7fb37b07392c9a2255b1e0af9a
30330 F20101129_AABGGQ smithem_j_Page_32.pro
ae5ba02f4e60d39695229dcb2c212dde
aca60a899f6f3f3d865a31156face1bd3fffa725
865581 F20101129_AABFZT smithem_j_Page_05.jp2
668be8b5d193e90e67a362685dd71d57
1b6384bafce04134e6f762694cb20d1d9f95fc54
97201 F20101129_AABGBT smithem_j_Page_57.jp2
1a3820eb8f9b2c7f969f4164bf515fb5
2c2a41fc79858ad45e995d97a7cd85dd09e30ae4
5935 F20101129_AABGLO smithem_j_Page_43thm.jpg
0986b4f9e87734f0bfba5104cd9e9889
e6355202a563d7c25990bbb062f89de131416fc6
19326 F20101129_AABGQM smithem_j_Page_58.QC.jpg
37917e0adb88db5e38ddaa500b7ed297
cd80f2ed9fc44a90c257608a96ad518fd38e49cc
19616 F20101129_AABGGR smithem_j_Page_33.pro
6e75c2885c475275f4aa6dd20712d1be
9a7a5ff25ee196ac855af9f80ac1818d020b11f9
1051950 F20101129_AABFZU smithem_j_Page_06.jp2
5eeff97d337c338021fd11e568faf8a5
04711b8483b7675cbbeaa41872203b7975b7c3cf
86552 F20101129_AABGBU smithem_j_Page_58.jp2
624fc4f05e7e0e2a63051b4d699a5a2f
2507ebed6c5ca9ccf80aa910242863c4735cf499
6315 F20101129_AABGLP smithem_j_Page_15thm.jpg
7f5bcdbe447f30675f72bcc137e7c251
62fe9970f61c8a5a38e21586f5699e572d8d3cfb
5485 F20101129_AABGQN smithem_j_Page_58thm.jpg
30aabf0d7429deb15d75b5c7696a347a
7a78fb368e416dd9b998d0c0213aa0065560da5e
40689 F20101129_AABGGS smithem_j_Page_34.pro
8f78c5d96fa46337f2b164b241f12895
21feff4c5a56d3ed1e1572e3c12fa58fb5779a1e
1051977 F20101129_AABFZV smithem_j_Page_07.jp2
be172a702f810dfc3fe208fec7c53d72
1b90d822399ea3ef4baeadecb91e0c6d66d2e2c8
19045 F20101129_AABGBV smithem_j_Page_59.jp2
af33c5cbc94494d55e2f02e7fdb18c9e
373d8ee69ad4bcfbee3076ce16d5ef32f2a4646c
6097 F20101129_AABGLQ smithem_j_Page_59.QC.jpg
7a4a276c5cf8ffb0218c2ce86b2188cb
2c27e38e6765fe3d45c0ce1f44479ae049bd9855
2029 F20101129_AABGQO smithem_j_Page_59thm.jpg
5752f51749bda766bea8e419a8ebcc98
fcd8f0197b0b366770f9f4986e953fda9c5de7ee
80264 F20101129_AABFZW smithem_j_Page_08.jp2
4044792f3f3014321342378845fd18bc
1379d33346ff37eac8eed77834fb366ce85c5ea1
646026 F20101129_AABGBW smithem_j_Page_60.jp2
d7d27db4c6b0bd76a16f69cec78cd442
6ac15a4693b68378db5828725d9b4a5e94fa16e1
49022 F20101129_AABGGT smithem_j_Page_35.pro
a9f345d442a19b40921e78ba4daafd84
408fba3f8af3a64ef7d7848ddb1e7776dbcc04a8
12192 F20101129_AABGQP smithem_j_Page_61.QC.jpg
4b44d247e34a5edd434ffba1226bc394
d073b787dcb5a803966cc5823e3ad5254f01e1f1
96847 F20101129_AABFZX smithem_j_Page_09.jp2
ed8931ab7e35ce6013010f6113638b9c
6f74113358353faa92a38e97dc6975e5825461f6
53527 F20101129_AABGBX smithem_j_Page_61.jp2
d9b28800a2175720cdefa2697323afb9
9b8e58b7708ec3a3c38f3c73fc907bdb15b54940
23090 F20101129_AABGLR smithem_j_Page_36.QC.jpg
ff93e07991efad1f497236151fd4f6b0
7cfb1d4dd4edbd74f52c96420bb8cb66a00b0653
49293 F20101129_AABGGU smithem_j_Page_36.pro
6b8a5d7ab31d7577288828982ec627e0
976cb36ff92cda3a65d0948aeee47f17d095d426
3825 F20101129_AABGQQ smithem_j_Page_61thm.jpg
681b14ee74d8c3eb3b94211f29b4a2a1
40277366a8af9fd402ab85f3fdee1629745f1940
95907 F20101129_AABFZY smithem_j_Page_10.jp2
5931d2d091a01cf30bacee7c2e694c3e
daa90d41480155185093d795de811cd98373c932
83759 F20101129_AABGBY smithem_j_Page_62.jp2
b27a64a831f600c97fcbe0b31722d2a0
86a562b819dd67e2bae4330c371c6351dbea6c5a
5961 F20101129_AABGLS smithem_j_Page_20thm.jpg
4a8a2dab9a46f7684443b64602344a93
f7b1c7659c6f956ae1709523ecd3ab581be75a27
39523 F20101129_AABGGV smithem_j_Page_37.pro
01fe6e160521f5063b4b4848de82d3f8
fb6eac1940de0662b487ad54783de23f23e8dc51
4198 F20101129_AABGQR smithem_j_Page_63thm.jpg
1028c0d1ad19b2a575ac6509afb02402
469ab614a05475b7562caa37b70157ca5fbed615
114709 F20101129_AABFZZ smithem_j_Page_11.jp2
e0be7242cf08434fc42bf938e6046523
08ccf7b387b141fecb4c44aa3ea10f9192d2de5e
57855 F20101129_AABGBZ smithem_j_Page_63.jp2
b533bdb62cae9a8e4629f7c2a0f456c6
6d66e7173b8b1c0a5eacf5164b8a97ff257b69da
11004 F20101129_AABGLT smithem_j_Page_71.QC.jpg
d91a69c6de2c9c907b9149346032c7d6
b58a2c5a412c35a892adf0b6888489b46d296d8a
47740 F20101129_AABGGW smithem_j_Page_38.pro
699fda2b71bc2fd9bc18485ed4e6e5ac
ee9c98598605d27e073f640801a3d991110f31d6
74996 F20101129_AABFXA smithem_j_Page_11.jpg
d364ecfcbc0b9bcb5d8aa056ae48a148
1803adc5d4f9903eb348e87a8a897356ed579a8a
16210 F20101129_AABGQS smithem_j_Page_64.QC.jpg
20c345493a9cba246069a423592a4b77
a4c542fdf1a89b18f7b3ef57f73d645612c17af3
3364 F20101129_AABGLU smithem_j_Page_31thm.jpg
2646d5ba80e79373208d3bf8057c41c1
6891f9aefaf90824b8f94204078a0426bc932dab
35458 F20101129_AABGGX smithem_j_Page_39.pro
941a6c8aba504fcc5de0601aab6045f4
9ac0e4cba40c08a9298364b7a00fc7a0ca9da13f
69003 F20101129_AABFXB smithem_j_Page_12.jpg
f23f7be5795bc71e8addf13f7bf117d3
b853da8ec9e6f183d05407fbcc6b66be2837eea4
17864 F20101129_AABGQT smithem_j_Page_65.QC.jpg
530cf803b75be6fc0446e3ca75bdd929
d54dbdc16a7bd9d1923f19183559d1d30c2a1eb5
9684 F20101129_AABGLV smithem_j_Page_77.QC.jpg
a16b9954076d2408f3eb8eb965db0c1c
d8c75b79aa58351fe626411f4f82a39839521346
F20101129_AABGEA smithem_j_Page_40.tif
164c58113bd31a8c96c0f9699f198516
3740d76c2d81de919eae581d5fae0806bd147e4d
42745 F20101129_AABGGY smithem_j_Page_40.pro
7c62839c498413cc1d0f69a63ad50a86
dfc1f4f66d8f4dfb8968aab2190d8aec55d69126
73765 F20101129_AABFXC smithem_j_Page_13.jpg
eeb44d5f3aa4050754f185f5e726b5e0
04d0053aa9bc9c72e93bcad3f0a8fb4aa016a8b6
5331 F20101129_AABGQU smithem_j_Page_65thm.jpg
7f0ce31101bfda2bb9cb509417a1c1b7
d87f1e57fa882a063e092f41f4c23b4c95f9953f
14097 F20101129_AABGLW smithem_j_Page_76.QC.jpg
5ab2e043520ff92092d0635cbad9555c
fc0c4883e7c7f6be3825cb29461dfbdc2e9427b9
F20101129_AABGEB smithem_j_Page_41.tif
7870a170350295239c9193807c9f9b5f
0a38aa6cd383dfb55412907fd5d046168f03e143
34099 F20101129_AABGGZ smithem_j_Page_41.pro
5400bedb38df7d8072b4452714104da0
0d36133a2a0c187a05bb1b6db06fd943f6625bfd
74561 F20101129_AABFXD smithem_j_Page_14.jpg
3e6c89130134e1ad3479512bb3440b42
369c25e47898db76911a8bb999eeb4db5b1900b3
20602 F20101129_AABGQV smithem_j_Page_66.QC.jpg
8915059b8ea61e5635363018856a6f75
6ad82d16da6505fb6fddaef1b4e957fad640fbb6
10282 F20101129_AABGLX smithem_j_Page_31.QC.jpg
580a5f591be465570f7626532ae36839
72bd9f67c415d9438532de37f0762d11ce368021
F20101129_AABGEC smithem_j_Page_42.tif
4581b3d5a4ce860f7e0db07c68f8c157
2d296d27ff9d4b1964179332db62638977dee6a8
71185 F20101129_AABFXE smithem_j_Page_15.jpg
d0b3bdc8cf32b84a4a048bd623fc66c3
e66bbe61240f0806b62e664a8919ecfc15cc03f3
21961 F20101129_AABGLY smithem_j_Page_26.QC.jpg
1e83a50d1cc7788cefff6ef292ff19da
9b4c03152ecd568e487c21ae291d39910cddd868
270 F20101129_AABGJA smithem_j_Page_17.txt
df66b1828f157d557fde13b7d6ac8c0a
14f050ddaedbb05e44e14b3df582874938952448
F20101129_AABGED smithem_j_Page_43.tif
04dd3708f45f774b0b5651cdf8e3333d
5d6bb3c150b2bbfeb7e3b1d31565f4d689aa67cf
69801 F20101129_AABFXF smithem_j_Page_16.jpg
7b432532f08c9d7d4d15207dc191bf9d
47c96f339cf2e0fbff20a19e2761f1a6bd1754a6
5759 F20101129_AABGQW smithem_j_Page_66thm.jpg
3303aaba58ba2fe42f8bea0be0dcfb73
6b217a620c9cfd9a1903b864fee4a226c2ceb2a1
5661 F20101129_AABGLZ smithem_j_Page_09thm.jpg
c3e7c0f49c1562a571ad4acd98d72f5a
682bef3fc8f31d61a20f2a0e82a8e8b757240949
1723 F20101129_AABGJB smithem_j_Page_18.txt
ee6f8c2ebbe0b522d58d5d03b1a70dea
63a7399725f451e6c05853e75dd622c652ce387b
F20101129_AABGEE smithem_j_Page_44.tif
b8d4e953083c028c7d05856a1221bf61
9f48ca623b81e4f12e1c2050de5288bac19661e0
15624 F20101129_AABFXG smithem_j_Page_17.jpg
9cfc00d0d2b70496eaa4e8eef3c29654
700e3bdf97b387edc9dc3a6338807d36434019dd
15215 F20101129_AABGQX smithem_j_Page_67.QC.jpg
14ffe65042c07824db1da433276d88d9
daff2dcc08deabe4551e20ff6fa872cf71959ded
2067 F20101129_AABGJC smithem_j_Page_19.txt
27125abd156a47e025b7a2be247b9a81
939d2809646e5d9493f00b4fcc01efbd506b38f1
F20101129_AABGEF smithem_j_Page_45.tif
c877d5314ce1e8481453c74808665105
07dc0e0afb74a4b321ccbae1ec77853fbcb9dd35
62179 F20101129_AABFXH smithem_j_Page_18.jpg
ed02a1ca984c04e52ea6064e1984f048
1881d0cc2cdd61abbbfee76c8ed7db8274eb3718
4772 F20101129_AABGQY smithem_j_Page_67thm.jpg
762de8214dc2ef11ac206152c0f513f3
40805df938c424990f00110281945f8366a2d6b8
2441 F20101129_AABGOA smithem_j_Page_01thm.jpg
f1ff3b12d743337ae837451a97f3ec64
897b0a47b4232851ec7eefa607c6e4b504a389eb
1922 F20101129_AABGJD smithem_j_Page_20.txt
b37321864a1c271278996a7ac78c1aef
ee7b855e644d0400356467b3c1665d1bdebdf0f2
F20101129_AABGEG smithem_j_Page_46.tif
4acb5c1440b0ed3009f86d410bb3188b
6a05f239317154f3b6b07e8f4a0b326910c91364
73692 F20101129_AABFXI smithem_j_Page_19.jpg
d6470149e28c37a5fae7bf96106bfeb4
3c6944666f31926f2650bb52df27360f79f87517
13518 F20101129_AABGQZ smithem_j_Page_69.QC.jpg
972b9b01a17a6b73c8cb5059b495dcfd
748b4f1ba464c39bb61c0ab0465c185bef13023f
6560 F20101129_AABGOB smithem_j_Page_41thm.jpg
6fa96617c84ffdce332c11102480c60b
b40b42181f0023e17ec18e1462ed62b5931fd08c
1945 F20101129_AABGJE smithem_j_Page_21.txt
8e71c4df356f0b82395bbe38a5aa6d84
0ad4e49186c4296c4885c830a3c331866e816e6b
F20101129_AABGEH smithem_j_Page_47.tif
a9da7b6c005a6a9893e8a6c9e8001d21
66ce0a2e8e929fe99a1b2a3e23be38c59e0e562a
69456 F20101129_AABFXJ smithem_j_Page_20.jpg
343047ef9cf3033e278c6bcfa8a8564e
091daf58e18c3611c1e95589a069a7e696646f8a
2418 F20101129_AABGOC smithem_j_Page_33thm.jpg
8a24bf251b56bd1361d9ab52eb8e3a63
eb476070a7f5748bf68a192914e7ced77a72c8ee
2147 F20101129_AABGJF smithem_j_Page_22.txt
51dd1c502785a2d33988e71661e37c9d
281605780837b65f8f4c51ef3d18e4357009112b
F20101129_AABGEI smithem_j_Page_48.tif
071ca7a8cae0ad9caf3db571bcc39d86
35e18754ba0721c0e5484a053ead62552bce9380
71627 F20101129_AABFXK smithem_j_Page_21.jpg
fa27985fb8d896329df3d499edba2e24
c86ab01b45e034d39f101e569d05966458104dcd
23703 F20101129_AABGOD smithem_j_Page_54.QC.jpg
b858cf688f92c7327230c59683820590
fbd370bb9cb0ddec2515d51eac661368e1166c5d
2121 F20101129_AABGJG smithem_j_Page_23.txt
7673587829f2d1361f1157f2c86068df
11120c0062b4ce9b3ae3a290e8148f9352ac226f
F20101129_AABGEJ smithem_j_Page_49.tif
259bc5dfdab09a6c370024d428cd409d
a7a4dcca07a00129c350ac4f7dcabd5fa7eee93e
73172 F20101129_AABFXL smithem_j_Page_22.jpg
c2d2ed3dafc320c49a2dff82fc7c018b
181f595a2369d606f621c6eaf64e1c4ea2b547ab
1913 F20101129_AABGOE smithem_j_Page_17thm.jpg
54f455ba4805a1fdc2d0978f97f4c0e7
b01a8957dd4733cef5ac1e2a6beb40e4a2bc74a0
1979 F20101129_AABGJH smithem_j_Page_24.txt
43053f5bf8d324ee0ff8c2d16142bbac
67df0c8156ac2e08039c57c930fd62fad3c53e79
64644 F20101129_AABFXM smithem_j_Page_23.jpg
7ea86927d4031acf1eb50907812888e0
765b4daaed016c5d4547f99ad992dffb0470c0f4
4466 F20101129_AABGOF smithem_j_Page_68thm.jpg
8839032626c1e5cf8f2ebe98e7a3055b
37a18c6612bea07e33725a1e3b29514a815d5f4c
1925 F20101129_AABGJI smithem_j_Page_25.txt
a7d1ba9afe7b0a92f55e6827cc412ce1
78c01b7541ebcf6589dc6da03d9b45dc597009ca
F20101129_AABGEK smithem_j_Page_50.tif
e8ec4926fbec4c8b1810fd4462713f95
4a68e890b17662aa96c731d95edb041f96e76740
72305 F20101129_AABFXN smithem_j_Page_24.jpg
cb4d20efe2d13472e7c09df34aad3776
680a07b4a36ca3c4ce1da73f4a8aaa711037a143
117332 F20101129_AABGOG UFE0011120_00001.xml
1f25cc58f9c0951e9d77d5d7f9f7c27b
d73c6b61f1eb188a9fc855db17e91111e333abbe
1875 F20101129_AABGJJ smithem_j_Page_26.txt
0d5e7dff797951693e599ad52ce12ff2
a77f10f7c7312f4deefc6e507c9081efc17d62dd
F20101129_AABGEL smithem_j_Page_52.tif
819327b8123d899a2e2766d4641decc6
5c0642938aa33b4e1c36ea01e328c75b715d3a26
78075 F20101129_AABFXO smithem_j_Page_25.jpg
48ba03e77435bffcd0c3d7f04f5d2fb2
09884a2d9054eeeb7ec61dc116ea14afbcb13078
7513 F20101129_AABGOH smithem_j_Page_01.QC.jpg
120e067277d83ea9eab77f55203f0ef6
a9281ed35e4d4f2c2ba54baed47e7fb90534c565
167 F20101129_AABGJK smithem_j_Page_27.txt
c861dda8b71ea3b38ec1d3e860aae782
5e23ae0d6474a70a98bd00a6ac7a71a383b9ce90
F20101129_AABGEM smithem_j_Page_53.tif
1c4bae900310738c64fa6da772cb1328
62cd82e1ec1e291fe3349e24e8b0a5fb30b75948
67817 F20101129_AABFXP smithem_j_Page_26.jpg
272b19813ca6946cb385cd6896ac8c90
d9410f3fb7d086ef1ced018127344db82cf0fad0
3333 F20101129_AABGOI smithem_j_Page_02.QC.jpg
c550f1cee5b9feb349c1a0ef2222c0e4
40a48cff4aface0725c5d2652f7e324dfb4b0125
1640 F20101129_AABGJL smithem_j_Page_28.txt
bfe7b50a54eb980dbb82fbf16d092c0c
03b4049e76133e4a7a6c83777a095e7573e0a6ff
F20101129_AABGEN smithem_j_Page_54.tif
2f2488326a8addbc6133a5a14627bd94
55d11ee4ecd21706f1579b3427fc76ab0efce1bf
12107 F20101129_AABFXQ smithem_j_Page_27.jpg
6951cc072ba81acdd836ad764ce13eac
bd7b1f35115b291c07a5b335fd701f6bb7565790
1382 F20101129_AABGOJ smithem_j_Page_02thm.jpg
1ddb63ee4152bde4bcc3459f1c98deaf
818141bacd4a1b9a04a3b79a5d624b9f562e05c7
1940 F20101129_AABGJM smithem_j_Page_29.txt
caaad0ae430a3e7501d6c2e7c4f765b4
2b4e2f91360c80f9f1986fd0e0d69b829ea7de3c
F20101129_AABGEO smithem_j_Page_55.tif
c46bf2ebc22347dc8a0814b9993f8721
be31f77f27446e8fe6f4d834b08b69092642be10
58479 F20101129_AABFXR smithem_j_Page_28.jpg
b0edb8da8cee95e017286ea47710c38b
53f2459c13e8c74b3849e796832344c73ff34f3a
17702 F20101129_AABGOK smithem_j_Page_04.QC.jpg
77e9bb507eabc7832abeb3b19c673e09
073c36582d8c15866c658668b7bb521bcf553a5f
1702 F20101129_AABGJN smithem_j_Page_30.txt
5f39d03fe852ef1db411323cd3188827
d6982a6be3adacf8e6acbcc655fc9de1101af377
F20101129_AABGEP smithem_j_Page_56.tif
aad4b1abcdfd592f81b178a0f9201728
3df49720725acdd08659b494687b712f4aca41c2
27946 F20101129_AABFXS smithem_j_Page_29.jpg
e47fe10368acbf9b1e1e4f30dcaecc1a
0b128ca2ea9060f88dbd945d41b282e0e59d623e
4567 F20101129_AABGOL smithem_j_Page_04thm.jpg
98b5792d2b8db2cec275df52172f7392
747f0bda4acf96d6f810cf2d4a33e6c11aeded7b
2023 F20101129_AABGJO smithem_j_Page_31.txt
a240253b451a045f7478e0eb29ebe25e
3696d817d65248a13d99858ca9128201c38bf0ef
F20101129_AABGEQ smithem_j_Page_57.tif
25b0953f8157adfe53e714326d9c1766
a775bb246a9a3cec9129577f4ed530409de4c15a
62957 F20101129_AABFXT smithem_j_Page_30.jpg
92846925b591dd22a17626a2d30a95c2
ef2e5c5ee5164c8387dee33a68f3a338a00670c8
6048 F20101129_AABGOM smithem_j_Page_06thm.jpg
26878d7f279114dd3b15f50e0abaf6da
b225876fcdfa6b98edceabcae5a4d19c1964679f
F20101129_AABGER smithem_j_Page_58.tif
975749862f2ce697cb54a93be3956be4
2a5afd383a5d66336982f522e481f6aeff70f6f5
34535 F20101129_AABFXU smithem_j_Page_31.jpg
05ab999970500bf3ec14fc49220f9b3d
77c46a160c76188a4347a7df44b0dc0f11ab629e
17065 F20101129_AABGON smithem_j_Page_07.QC.jpg
aba274ade33c90bf6ddbe47c933af15f
3c17fc2d407bb13548f2f8b3259236565e464688
F20101129_AABGES smithem_j_Page_59.tif
72ebe859cdff11f9c19c2b79977f790e
03eb8965ac13dac40fdd7bf29afb5c8f6a7d5bfa
62348 F20101129_AABFXV smithem_j_Page_32.jpg
4c3480229f12227f5c085157fcd7bae2
ff13c57e7ece9dac15e4e023fb438866d99e63c8
1652 F20101129_AABGJP smithem_j_Page_32.txt
bccafb6dea3f7f361265213c02e662a8
250427aef35aa19fb928b05af59901e2cda06075
4803 F20101129_AABGOO smithem_j_Page_08thm.jpg
6744b9d7efe97f9f9addecc048fac9c2
0928284755750d7554edf79dc29685885ad5d9a1
F20101129_AABGET smithem_j_Page_60.tif
105de4b9a5e1597700a0ade30e7c2644
f60479c5550daf73b890d8049ddd0734df51b679
23664 F20101129_AABFXW smithem_j_Page_33.jpg
8e0caf5a3d2a71604e8b9b89d8f7563b
58113e51cfe004c03ae8d46141ff287ee62d2517
852 F20101129_AABGJQ smithem_j_Page_33.txt
7b725452cb0ad2a3ab376447edea6e54
631f28bd3d2586ff9cc08c752f45354bf78ef52e
20674 F20101129_AABGOP smithem_j_Page_09.QC.jpg
b313be047a5b1f4d1019300040e05a5d
0ee8cd7aa58348f20a73348931cabb7a794db37b
F20101129_AABGEU smithem_j_Page_61.tif
0f3829488eeeb522825663d33b9b4d9d
38645d2b432d78abc14aea67a835f438fb2e2c6a
59734 F20101129_AABFXX smithem_j_Page_34.jpg
8830925b9cc44de27c91c3404848de95
9b75d901309ca46198bdb916b0ea3972f9a71ebb
1860 F20101129_AABGJR smithem_j_Page_34.txt
7ede021d681fcd0e100c1aaf1a4a206a
2e2c8c6fb36f4b204bb34ebbfac8352e8af1ea8e
24093 F20101129_AABGOQ smithem_j_Page_11.QC.jpg
b3f8fb33eec90fb6a92a710e1b16a528
e92d7dda98c0305ab1781c83636ba9aa46e9fd2d
F20101129_AABGEV smithem_j_Page_62.tif
8d3a07e4ed87cd7d6b43455715b09530
8376667d679660aa6872cffe5332d611599885af
70549 F20101129_AABFXY smithem_j_Page_35.jpg
de1bb8edbde70f0cf9269602ccc3b81a
ec8154c68fa4052b4b7f9bcc48060130200c002a
1970 F20101129_AABGJS smithem_j_Page_35.txt
ddfec425d41be64eec8a17ea6693bb36
f1bb90bcad897bf0c102f2aab13c5c3e3bbc8e1e
22175 F20101129_AABGOR smithem_j_Page_12.QC.jpg
9596927868c22e7bb7ad7e1c4801c219
9d7878ff48ffd27a7bbf1c37623f38224152dc76
F20101129_AABGEW smithem_j_Page_63.tif
ce9bb61b5335f1de33864c34166fb636
50353982747f880b5295af0c896bbf728e54e6e3
70672 F20101129_AABFXZ smithem_j_Page_36.jpg
eda1390be88f9754366bef131c2884ad
aa363e392451e035a772c8d19997e3b490bf87cb
1966 F20101129_AABGJT smithem_j_Page_36.txt
a250a1c2d25c91d92b9c50779073ee15
cecbce10c265d9002d7a3f8585b1c19e5249b538
F20101129_AABGOS smithem_j_Page_13.QC.jpg
939377dfc6129f05f793f779ca7e9b32
4b2c35ccb32124bb539dbaf816b34895535549d8
F20101129_AABGEX smithem_j_Page_64.tif
0ee6dabed8bdeb3a71be07114696a3d8
78fb46d50171378b8eb9878fee3f4939be905b38
1815 F20101129_AABGJU smithem_j_Page_37.txt
cf017cc7fa23ff923edb896a0190843c
666f7b12813ede7fb9b43bb9830d27a47f5b7cf7
6669 F20101129_AABGOT smithem_j_Page_14thm.jpg
bc503c733fd1db43f1f48063e1c139ba
3d94d02a159606030abe412b7f6325ad9f26e894
75502 F20101129_AABGCA smithem_j_Page_64.jp2
3c528e13a39d229c73fbdb226b726dcc
9919eb2633c41fcc179d1208c369472016b648eb
F20101129_AABGEY smithem_j_Page_65.tif
e0459c5b22bfb9a28c881bbcfb7418ba
08573f1646941ef5c254f683395aced75647f4f2
1886 F20101129_AABGJV smithem_j_Page_38.txt
b1dce0979a73c187cb1ea94ebce62442
f4c0a44b662fc08eadc947e98052270a2b57245d
82223 F20101129_AABGCB smithem_j_Page_65.jp2
bf9459eb8513806347e34a1701e6cfdd
5bbacff5fbb1979124c78b4e2244c05caa300f53
F20101129_AABGEZ smithem_j_Page_66.tif
fc256cfa3fa9fe1244beac40fd042570
de9c2180ccb7af259cf738fd8524eed5671a719b
1677 F20101129_AABGJW smithem_j_Page_39.txt
eb8018a26374caf7c900b597f8e2a877
f89eb0c4d6306e29ff94ee9d1bcab12685cf3746
22582 F20101129_AABGOU smithem_j_Page_15.QC.jpg
69af101db4e594f6277d0f36531abf1d
a385eac22c26a1790968e150e84537b15a843e51
86883 F20101129_AABGCC smithem_j_Page_66.jp2
79fe7b20d077ca455ef5b2a02f842839
c1e1023ace9a7eb3131a0e8de803a2fa6718985d
1729 F20101129_AABGJX smithem_j_Page_40.txt
b4753efc075a2734f81b514bde1710d0
fc0a548aea2d5eb4eeef5566c2e8d236dbd63679



PAGE 1

RISK PERCEPTIONS OF AND ACCEPTANCE CAPACITY FOR THE AMERICAN CROCODILE ( Crocodylus acutus) IN SOUTH FLORIDA By JODIE LYNN SMITHEM A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Jodie Lynn Smithem

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I first want to thank my committee members, Frank Mazzotti, Glenn Israel, and Janas Sinclair, for providing invaluable assistance and advice for this study. I would also like to acknowledge my friends in the Vero Beach office for their encouragement and support. I will forever be grateful to Shawn J. Riley for his human dimensions study on mountain lions. His study truly inspired and directed me to seek similar information for the American crocodile. I also have great respect for Stephen R. Kellert, Daniel J. Decker, and all the other pioneers of human dimensions work. Thanks go to Black Point Marina, Homestead Bayfront Park, and Ocean Reef Club for use of their property as study sites. Jocie Graham and Alicia Weinstein were instrumental in compiling the questionnaires used in this study. Alicia Dunne assisted with data collection at Black Point Marina and Valerie Morgan assisted with data collection at Homestead Bayfront Park. Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge provided housing during data collection at Ocean Reef Club. I thank the University of Florida and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for providing project support. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their love and support. I would also like to thank my dog, Casey, for being by my side and making me smile through it all. iii

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................vi LIST OF FIGURES ..........................................................................................................vii INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 Stakeholder Considerations ..........................................................................................2 Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................5 Study Purpose ...............................................................................................................7 METHODS ..........................................................................................................................9 Questionnaire Development .........................................................................................9 Questionnaire Content ................................................................................................10 Questionnaire Administration .....................................................................................14 Statistical Procedures ..................................................................................................16 RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................19 Survey Response .........................................................................................................19 Involvement with Wildlife and American Crocodiles ................................................19 Crocodile Knowledge .................................................................................................25 Information Avenues ..................................................................................................26 Attitudes Towards American Crocodiles ....................................................................27 Acceptance of Management Tools .............................................................................31 Perceptions of Recent American Crocodile Population Trends .................................32 Risk Beliefs about American Crocodiles ....................................................................34 Subjective Risk Perceptions of American Crocodiles ................................................37 Factors Affecting Risk Beliefs about American Crocodiles .......................................38 Preferences for Future American Crocodile Population Trends .................................38 Factors Affecting Preferences for American Crocodile Populations .........................41 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................43 iv

PAGE 5

APPENDIX A THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS USED FOR INDIVIDUALS PARTICIPATING IN THE PRELIMINARY INTERVIEWS .................................48 B THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS USED FOR INDIVIDUALS COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................49 C THE SELF-ADMINISTERED QUESTIONNAIRE USED FOR INQUIRY INTO THE BELIEFS, ATTITUDES, RISK PERCEPTIONS, AND CROCODILE POPULATION PREFERENCES OF STAKEHOLDERS IN SOUTH FLORIDA ..50 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................63 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................68 v

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 Principal component analysis for response of questionnaire participants to semantic differential items related to risks from American crocodiles in south Florida......................................................................................................................13 2 Principal component analysis for response of questionnaire participants to belief statements regarding American crocodiles in south Florida....................................14 3 Percent of questionnaire respondents who are permanent Florida residents, seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida that indicated they participate in various outdoor and wildlife-related activities.....................................................20 4 Percent of questionnaire respondents who are permanent Florida residents, seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida that indicated they had various involvement with American crocodiles in south Florida.........................................22 5 Pearson correlation coefficients for the six main questionnaire variables...............24 6 Pearson correlation coefficients between the six main questionnaire variables and age, education, income, and community involvement......................................25 7 Percent of questionnaire respondents that indicated they heard or saw various amounts of information about the American crocodile and American alligator from different sources..............................................................................................28 8 Response of questionnaire participants to belief statements regarding American crocodiles in south Florida.......................................................................................30 9 Response of questionnaire participants to semantic differential items related to risks from American crocodiles in south Florida.....................................................36 10 Response of questionnaire participants to the likelihood of experiencing various risks versus being attacked by an American crocodile............................................37 11 Regression model for prediction of risk perceptions of American crocodiles.........39 12 Logisitc regression model for prediction of desired future American crocodile population trends......................................................................................................42 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 Percent of questionnaire respondents who are permanent Florida residents, seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida with various levels of involvement with American crocodiles....................................................................23 2 Percent of questionnaire respondents that indicated relocation to be an acceptable or unacceptable management tool for American crocodiles involved in various scenarios..................................................................................................32 3 Percent of questionnaire respondents that indicated euthanasia to be an acceptable or unacceptable management tool for American crocodiles involved in various scenarios..................................................................................................33 4 Percent of questionnaire respondents who are permanent Florida residents, seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida that believed the American crocodile population in south Florida either increased, decreased, or remained the same during 1998-2003......................................................................................34 5 Path diagram for risk perceptions of American crocodiles (RBELIEF), with path coefficients added.....................................................................................................39 6 Percent of questionnaire respondents who are permanent Florida residents, seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida that revealed preferences for a smaller, larger, or similar American crocodile population in south Florida for 2004-2009.................................................................................................................40 vii

PAGE 8

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science RISK PERCEPTIONS OF AND ACCEPTANCE CAPACITY FOR THE AMERICAN CROCODILE (Crocodylus acutus) IN SOUTH FLORIDA By Jodie Lynn Smithem August 2005 Chair: Frank Mazzotti Major Department: Interdisciplinary Ecology The Florida population of the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) has been increasing in numbers since 1975. Human-crocodile interactions are also rising, which presents new challenges to wildlife managers and biologists working to recover this endangered species. This study investigated factors affecting stakeholders risk perceptions of and acceptance capacity for the American crocodile in south Florida to enhance conservation and recovery efforts for this species. Results from this study could also formulate strategy for an educational program to increase understanding of and acceptance for crocodiles and encourage positive, proactive attitudes about crocodile conservation. A self-administered questionnaire (n = 249) was used to measure stakeholder involvement with American crocodiles, knowledge of American crocodiles, risk beliefs associated with crocodiles, attitudes towards crocodiles, perceptions of current population viii

PAGE 9

trends, and preferences for future population trends. Attitudes toward crocodiles formed the most parsimonious model to predict risk perceptions of crocodiles in a model that explained 23.0% of the variance. People who expressed negative attitudes towards crocodiles had the greatest probability of considering crocodiles a high risk to humans. Knowledge of crocodiles is not a significant predictor of risk perceptions, but may have an indirect effect on risk perceptions of crocodiles through attitudes towards crocodiles. A 2-variable model including risk perceptions of crocodiles and attitudes toward crocodiles correctly predicted respondents desired future crocodile population trends 94.0% of the time. Respondents who believed crocodiles presented a low risk to humans and expressed positive attitudes towards crocodiles had the greatest probability of preferring a stable or increased future crocodile population. Demographic variables such as age, gender, level of formal education, income level, children in household, and community involvement did not significantly affect risk perceptions of or acceptance capacity for American crocodiles. This study suggests developing educational programs that teach appropriate behavior in the presence of crocodiles, address risks and benefits of crocodiles, increase knowledge of crocodiles, and reveal that south Florida residents, visitors, and experts perceive low risks from crocodiles. Programs that incorporate the above recommendations will be most effective for decreasing risk perceptions of and increasing positive attitudes towards and acceptance capacity for crocodiles. ix

PAGE 10

INTRODUCTION The Florida population of the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) was federally listed as endangered in 1975 (Federal Register 40: 44149) and has been increasing in numbers ever since (Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2003). The human population of south Florida has also been increasing during this time (United States Census Bureau 2003), and as crocodiles reoccupy parts of their historic range now inhabited by people, increased human-crocodile interactions are occurring. These interactions have led to an increase in crocodile-related complaints (T. Regan, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, personal communication 2002) and present new challenges to wildlife managers and biologists working to recover this endangered species. Managing endangered species can be difficult because of both real and perceived restrictions under the Endangered Species Act. Negative attitudes often result if the presence of an endangered species is believed to restrict private property rights (Drake and Jones 2002) or limit access to and use of natural resources (Reading and Kellert 1993). If anti-conservation attitudes prevail, measures to protect or enhance the species could become difficult. Socioeconomic considerations address these concerns and are crucial for effective recovery programs, yet are often ignored or insufficiently considered in endangered species management efforts (Kellert 1985a, Reading and Kellert 1993). This study seeks to understand public perceptions of and preferences for the American crocodile to enhance conservation and recovery efforts for this species. 1

PAGE 11

2 Stakeholder Considerations Wildlife management during most of the twentieth century was executed solely by wildlife biologists. Although management decisions typically used input from selected stakeholders (e.g., hunters, farmers, landowners), managers rarely sought participation from them or other members of the public in actual decision-making (Decker and Chase 1997). Towards the end of the twentieth century, the array of stakeholders in wildlife management diversified and their expectations for involvement in decisions increased (Riley et al. 2002). The use of biological knowledge for wildlife management will always be essential, but it may no longer be sufficient to use expert authority as the exclusive basis for practicing wildlife management. Many wildlife managers are increasingly integrating biological knowledge with information on human dimensions in management processes (Riley et al. 2002) as stakeholders become a central component of contemporary wildlife management (Decker et al. 1996). Decker and Purdy (1988) introduced the concept of wildlife acceptance capacity (WAC) to explain how human beliefs and preferences affect decisions on the management of wildlife population levels. Wildlife acceptance capacity is an estimate of the maximum wildlife population level that is acceptable to people in a given area. Unlike biological carrying capacity, which theoretically has one value for a specific wildlife population in a defined area at a defined moment in time, there can be many WAC levels for a particular wildlife population at a given point in time. This is due to different key constituency groups simultaneously possessing different acceptance levels. Carpenter et al. (2000) expanded the concept of wildlife acceptance capacity to describe wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity (WSAC). WSAC can describe peoples unwillingness to accept scarcity or extinction of important or popular species, as

PAGE 12

3 well as peoples unwillingness to accept overabundance or increases of nuisance or unpopular species. Determinants of WSAC are thought to include perceived positive and negative impacts of the species, characteristics of the species (e.g., aesthetic appeal, phylogenetic relatedness of the species to humans, economic value of the species), situational specifics (e.g., management actions, proximity of human populations and activities to animal populations), past experiences, beliefs and attitudes about the species, risk tolerance of stakeholders, and perceptions of population trends (Craven et al. 1992, Carpenter et al. 2000, Zinn et al. 2000). Understanding factors affecting acceptance capacity for the crocodile will help wildlife managers select standards for population levels and management actions that meet public approval, which may help avoid or reduce conflict over management decisions (Zinn et al. 2000). Risk perceptions of potentially dangerous wildlife are of great interest since such perceptions often influence management policy (Riley and Decker 2000a). Far less dread, fear, or worry is typically associated with risks accepted voluntarily, particularly those from familiar events, than risks that are new or for which persons do not have a sense of control (Slovic 1987). An encounter, or even the potential for an encounter, with an American crocodile could represent the type of low probability-high consequence event that leads to dread and elevated risk perceptions (Slovic 1987), which could subsequently lower WSAC for this species (Riley and Decker 2000a). Identifying factors that affect risk perceptions of crocodiles could help wildlife agencies design tailored educational programs to increase understanding of and acceptance for crocodiles among different stakeholder groups.

PAGE 13

4 Managers judgments about public perceptions of wildlife are not always accurate (Miller and McGee 2001), and managing risks should be guided by facts, not undisciplined speculation about the beliefs or motivations of other people (Fischhoff 1995, p. 144). Managers need to recognize and understand differences between objective and subjective risk perceptions and between experts and lay persons perceptions of risk (McClelland et al. 1990, Fischhoff 1995). Experts and lay people may agree about the number of fatalities associated with an action or hazard (i.e., objective risk), but disagree about its degree of risk (i.e., subjective risk). Lay people often place greater weight on catastrophic potential and unfamiliar risks (Fischhoff 1995, Slovic 1987), resulting in discrepancies between perceived risks and fatality estimates (von Winterfeldt et al. 1981). Researching public risk perceptions of crocodiles can confirm or reject assumptions about stakeholders (Butler et al. 2001) and result in better, more-informed management decisions (Decker 1994). Demographics can play a significant role in risk perceptions of large predators and beliefs and attitudes towards animals in general. Women (Kellert and Berry 1987, Miller and McGee 2000, Zinn and Pierce 2002), elderly individuals (Kellert 1985b, Kleiven et al. 2004), and people with limited education (Kellert et al. 1996, Riley and Decker 2000a) often exhibit greater risk perceptions of and more negative attitudes toward large predators. Zinn and Pierce (2002) found individuals with children under 18 years of age living in the home were more likely to fear attack by a mountain lion than those without young children at home, although Riley and Decker (2000b) discovered having children at home did not significantly affect acceptance capacity for the mountain lion. Understanding the influence of demographics on risk perceptions of and acceptance

PAGE 14

5 capacity for the American crocodile will enable wildlife managers and policy makers to more effectively target their audiences and make better management decisions. Conceptual Framework Since protecting endangered species such as the American crocodile often requires public participation and cooperation, an important question is: What factors affect public support for species conservation efforts, specifically acceptance capacity for potentially dangerous species? Kempton (1991) argues that citizens comprehension of scientific and environmental issues is significant to the decision-making process since the public often bears costs of environmental protection. In other words, stakeholders must possess knowledge about the issue to make informed decisions. Bord et al. (2000) corroborate this notion by showing accurate knowledge precedes concern for global warming and is the strongest predictor of intentions to behave in ways that might lessen climate change (e.g., drive less, choose vehicle with good gas mileage). In reference to species preservation, Tisdell and Wilson (2004) found support for conservation of tree-kangaroos (Dendrolagus sp.) in Australia increased with greater knowledge of the species. The connection between environmental knowledge and environmental concern is not always present, however. The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation (NEETF) rated the American public very high on attitudes toward environmental support, yet very low on level of environmental knowledge (NEETF 1999). Hunter and Rinner (2004) found that environmental perspectives, not environmental knowledge, are associated with support for local species preservation. Knowledge was suggested to supplement, not supplant, environmental perspectives for affecting interest in species preservation. Hunter and Rinner (2004) suggest incorporating importance of ecological integrity and biological diversity, not just

PAGE 15

6 information specific to certain species, into outreach efforts to increase public support for species diversity. Riley and Decker (2000b) discovered individuals who believed mountain lion populations had decreased, expressed positive attitudes toward mountain lions, and perceived low risk perceptions of mountain lions possessed higher acceptance capacities for the species. In addition, stakeholders with lower education levels had higher risk perceptions of mountain lions (Riley and Decker 2000a). Understanding the connection between stakeholders knowledge of, perceptions of, and preferences for other potentially dangerous animals, such as the American crocodile, will help identify effective means for communicating about and conserving such species. Several frameworks have been developed to measure the connection between attitudes and behaviors for environmental concern. The Environmental Concern Scale emerged as a brief, easy-to-use research tool . capable of examining the correlates and determinants of attitudinal concern about environmental quality, longitudinal change in public attitudes, and the attitudinal impact of environmentally oriented policies, legislation, and educational efforts (Weigel and Weigel 1978, p. 12). The New Environmental Paradigm (Dunlap and Van Liere 1978), now termed the New Ecological Paradigm to reflect a more sophisticated perspective toward human relationships to the natural world, has been used by researchers in a variety of arenas and cultural contexts (Dunlap et al. 2000). The New Ecological Paradigm scale is designed to assess values, attitudes, and beliefs toward ecological concepts such as balance of nature, limits to growth, and human domination of nature (Dunlap et al. 2000). Ideas from both the Environmental Concern Scale and New Ecological Paradigm can be used to test the link

PAGE 16

7 between stakeholders knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and acceptance capacity for the American crocodile. Study Purpose The goals for this study were to understand stakeholders risk perceptions of and acceptance capacity for the American crocodile in south Florida. Previous studies examining acceptance levels for wildlife have generally focused on large mammalian species, such as deer (Odocoileus virginianus, Stout et al. 1997), mountain lions (Puma concolor, Riley and Decker 2000b), and black bears (Ursus americanus, Siemer and Decker 2003). Researching perceptions of and acceptance capacities for large reptilian species, such as crocodiles, will broaden the information base available to wildlife managers and decision makers and advance the body of human dimensions research for wildlife management in general. Of particular interest for this study was whether variables that best predict risk perceptions of and preferences for crocodile populations would be similar to those for mammalian species. To achieve the goals for this study, the following research questions were investigated: 1. Does involvement with crocodiles, knowledge of crocodiles, attitudes towards crocodiles, perceptions of current crocodile population trends, or socioeconomic variables affect risk perceptions of crocodiles? 2. Does involvement with crocodiles, knowledge of crocodiles, risk perceptions of crocodiles, attitudes towards crocodiles, perceptions of current crocodile population trends, or socioeconomic variables affect preferences for future crocodile population trends? Results from this study could also formulate strategy for an educational program aimed at south Florida residents and visitors who live and recreate near crocodile habitat. Public education can provide the foundation for developing positive, proactive attitudes

PAGE 17

8 about crocodile conservation (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). An informed, supportive public is vital for the continued growth and recovery of south Floridas American crocodile population.

PAGE 18

METHODS Questionnaire Development Personal interviews were conducted during fall 2003 to obtain preliminary information on local perceptions and involvement regarding American crocodiles in south Florida. Three interviews were conducted on October 1, 2003 at Black Point Marina and three interviews were conducted on October 2, 2003 at Ocean Reef Club. Participants were asked permission to audio tape record the interview. Information regarding the surveyor, the surveyors connection to the University of Florida, and the scientific reason for conducting the study were given to the participant (Appendix A). Basic questions concerning the individuals interactions with crocodiles, knowledge of crocodiles, perceptions of crocodiles, and attitudes toward crocodiles were asked. Four males and two females participated in the interviews. The primary purpose of the interviews was to aid development of a questionnaire that could quantitatively assess factors affecting stakeholder perceptions of and preferences for crocodile populations in south Florida. Design of the questionnaire was adapted from Riley (1998) and reflected information gained from preliminary interviews. Pilot tests involving two draft versions of the questionnaire were conducted at Ocean Reef Club, Black Point Marina, and Everglades National Park (an initial study site) on October 28-30, 2003, respectively, to evaluate the survey design. Individuals at each of the three sites were informed of the research agenda, guaranteed privacy, invited to participate, and hand-delivered a 9

PAGE 19

10 questionnaire (Appendix B). Participants returned the questionnaire to the surveyor upon completion. Seven individuals participated in the pilot study at Ocean Reef Club, nine at Black Point Marina, and ten at Everglades National Park. The final version of the questionnaire was completed on December 11, 2003. Questionnaire Content The questionnaire formed a 12-page booklet and contained six primary subject areas: involvement with American crocodiles, knowledge of American crocodiles, risk beliefs associated with crocodiles, attitudes towards crocodiles, perceptions of current population trends, and preferences for future population trends (Appendix C). Questions about wildlife-related activities and information sources preceded questions regarding the topics of primary interest. Respondents were also asked to indicate acceptability of management tools, reveal subjective risk judgments regarding crocodiles, and provide information regarding resident status, age, gender, race, number of children and pets in household, level of formal education, income level, and community involvement. Space at the end of the questionnaire provided respondents the opportunity to make additional comments regarding crocodiles or the survey. Involvement with American crocodiles was assessed using a continuum of potential experiences for respondents that ranged from no interaction, to observing a crocodile in the wild, to knowing a friend or family member who had an encounter with a crocodile, to being personally threatened by a crocodile or having pets or livestock threatened. Five additional experiences were vicarious in that the respondent only read or heard about crocodiles being threatened or killed by people, about people or pets being threatened or attacked by a crocodile, or about crocodiles raiding fish or crab traps. Respondents were asked to indicate which type of interaction with American crocodiles they or members of

PAGE 20

11 their household had experienced. The experiences were classified into 5 levels (adapted from Riley and Decker 2000b): very high (respondent or family member personally threatened by a crocodile), high (respondent or family member had a friend, pet, or livestock threatened by a crocodile), moderate (respondent observed a crocodile in the wild or read/heard about people being threatened by a crocodile), low (family member observed a crocodile in the wild or read/heard about people being threatened by a crocodile, or participant or family member read/heard about crocodiles being threatened or killed by humans, about pets being threatened or attacked by a crocodile, or about crocodiles raiding fish or crab traps), and none (no experience with listed items). Very few respondents (3.6%) were classified as having a very high involvement level and were therefore grouped with respondents in the high involvement category to form the variable INVOLVE, which had 4 levels: high, moderate, low, and none. Five questions regarding the status, habitat, and behavior of crocodiles assessed respondents knowledge level. Respondents were asked to circle the answer they believed correct for each of the questions. A team of experts confirmed one correct answer for each of the five questions. The number of correct answers for the five questions was summed for each respondent (adapted from Sinclair et al. 2003). Very few respondents (1.2%) answered all questions correctly and were therefore grouped with respondents who answered 4 questions correctly to form the variable KNOWLEDGE, which had 5 levels: no questions answered correctly, 1 question answered correctly, 2 questions answered correctly, 3 questions answered correctly, and 4 or 5 questions answered correctly.

PAGE 21

12 Risk beliefs were measured using a 5-point semantic differential scale with adjective pairs as endpoints (Alreck and Settle 1995). The adjective pairs originated from Riley (1998), but were modified for relevance to crocodiles. A Dont Know option was provided for all questions. Factor analysis (Manly 1986) indicated two components with one main factor: beliefs related to risks (RBELIEF), which encompassed personal and community risk, ability to live with risks, and voluntariness of risk acceptance (Table 1). Responses to the four items were averaged to create the variable RBELIEF (adapted from Sinclair et al. 2003). Respondents who answered Dont Know to one or more of the six items (n = 61, 24%) did not receive a score for RBELIEF. A 5-point Likert scale (Alreck and Settle 1995) ranging from disagree strongly to agree strongly assessed respondents attitudes towards crocodiles. Participants were asked to circle the number that represented their level of agreement or disagreement to a series of nine belief statements concerning crocodiles. A No Opinion option was provided for all questions. No Opinion responses were believed comparable to neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the statement and were recoded to the mid-point value on the 5-point progressive scale. Factor analysis indicated statements regarding economic considerations of crocodiles did not relate to the remaining belief statements. Subsequent factor analysis, excluding economic statements, produced two components with one main factor: attitudes related to the symbolism, benefits, rights, and threats of crocodiles (ATTITUDE, Table 2). The second component was an artifact of reverse coded statements. Responses to the seven items were averaged (weighted using factor loadings) to create the variable ATTITUDE (adapted from Jacobson and Marynowski 1997).

PAGE 22

13 Table 1. Principal component analysis for response of questionnaire participants to semantic differential items related to risks from American crocodiles in south Florida. Component 1 Component 2 Eigenvalue 3.125 1.368 Percent Variance 40.181 17.104 Factor Loadings Do you believe the community is at no risk or great risk? 0.799 a -0.252 People will be able or unable to learn to live with the risks associated with crocodiles? 0.786 a -0.251 Do you believe that you are personally at no risk or great risk? 0.753 a -0.289 Risks from American crocodiles are accepted voluntarily or involuntarily? 0.749 a -0.110 The risks from having crocodiles in Florida are well or not well understood by experts? 0.556 0.202 The benefits and risks of American crocodiles to people are matched or mismatched? 0.541 0.217 Are encounters between American crocodiles and people a new event or an old event? 0.255 0.790 Are crocodile-human encounters increasing or decreasing in south Florida? 0.405 0.659 a Values for items used to form the variable RBELIEF. Perceptions of current American crocodile population trends and preferences for future crocodile population trends were measured on 5-point progressive scales that ranged from decrease(d) greatly to increase(d) greatly. A No Opinion option was provided for all questions. Variables were created from perceptions of American crocodile population trends during 1998-2003 (CPOP) and preferences for crocodile population trends during 2004-2009 (FPOP). Both variables treated decreasing responses and stable or increasing responses as two separate categories (Riley and Decker 2000b).

PAGE 23

14 Respondents who answered No Opinion did not receive a score for that variable (n = 72, 29% for CPOP and n = 49, 20% for FPOP). Table 2. Principal component analysis for response of questionnaire participants to belief statements regarding American crocodiles in south Florida. Component 1 Component 2 Eigenvalues 2.594 1.097 Percent Variance 37.053 15.668 Factor Loadings The presence of crocodiles in Florida increases my overall quality of life 0.749 a -0.128 The presence of crocodiles near my home increases my overall quality of life 0.692 a 0.047 The presence of crocodiles is a sign of a healthy environment 0.638 a -0.239 Crocodiles should have the right to exist wherever they may occur 0.561 a -0.265 I think the crocodile is a likable species 0.536 a -0.485 Crocodiles are an unacceptable threat to humans and pets 0.546 a 0.603 b Crocodiles threaten peoples livelihoods by raiding fish and crab traps 0.496 a 0.594 b a Values for items used to form the variable ATTITUDE. b Reverse coded items. Questionnaire Administration Three locations in south Florida were used for this study: Homestead Bayfront Park, Black Point Marina, and Ocean Reef Club. Homestead Bayfront Park and Black Point Marina provide recreational opportunities for permanent Florida residents, seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida. Ocean Reef Club is an affluent community comprised mainly of seasonal residents. These sites were chosen because results from this study intend to be applicable to south Florida residents and visitors who effect, are affected by, or are concerned with crocodile management or recovery efforts. Individuals

PAGE 24

15 who reside or recreate in the study areas have the potential to encounter an American crocodile and likely characterize the conceptual population for this study. Homestead Bayfront Park is a 97-acre Miami-Dade County Park adjacent to south Biscayne Bay in Homestead, Florida (25 27.8' N, 80 19.2' W). American crocodiles are occasionally spotted in the waters surrounding the park. Black Point Marina is a 52-acre Miami-Dade County Park located in Cutler Ridge, Florida (25 31.5' N, 80 17.9' W). A resident American crocodile inhabits the waters surrounding Black Point Marina and has been encountered by marina patrons. Ocean Reef Club is a private community located in north Key Largo, Florida. It was founded in 1945 as a private fishing club and has grown to include deluxe private homes, vacation rentals, and a private marina. Ocean Reef Club members and employees periodically observe American crocodiles on community grounds. A modified version of the hand-delivery method presented in Dillman et al. (1995) was utilized for adult patrons at Black Point Marina and Homestead Bayfront Park. Individuals over the age of 18 at each site were chosen indiscriminately to provide the best representative sample possible of adults visiting the area at the time of data collection. Upon the researchers arrival to each of the study sites, the first individual over the age of 18 encountered by the researcher was approached and informed of the research agenda, guaranteed privacy, and invited to participate in the study (Appendix B). If the individual rejected the invitation to participate, the researcher thanked the individual for his time and then asked the next adult encountered to participate in the study. If the individual accepted the invitation to participate, the researcher hand-delivered a self-administered questionnaire to the individual. Upon completion of the

PAGE 25

16 questionnaire, the researcher collected the survey from the participant and then asked the next adult encountered to participate in the study. Individuals over the age of 18 were approached as encountered, without regard to race, sex, or disabilities. A modified version of the drop-off/pick-up method (Steele et al. 2001) was utilized for residents of Ocean Reef Club. Residents were hand-delivered self-administered questionnaires at a town hall meeting and asked to return completed surveys to the main office within one week. Sampling periods consisted of at least one weekday and one weekend day at Black Point Marina and Homestead Bayfront Park. Sampling began in the morning and concluded early in the evening at each site on the days of data collection. Black Point Marina was sampled from December 27-31, 2003, and Homestead Bayfront Park was sampled from January 1-3, 16-18, and 23, 2004. Questionnaires were hand-delivered to Ocean Reef Club residents on January 16, 2004. Completed questionnaires were collected the following week from the main office. Questionnaires were presented to 213, 226, and 114 individuals at Black Point Marina, Homestead Bayfront Park, and Ocean Reef Club, respectively. The overall response rate was 45% (n = 249), with individual return rates equaling 50.2% (n = 107), 45.6% (n = 103), and 45% (n = 39) for Black Point Marina, Homestead Bayfront Park, and Ocean Reef Club, respectively. The most frequent explanations given by respondents for not participating in the survey included inability to speak English, leaving to go boating, and time constraints. Statistical Procedures All data were analyzed using SPSS Graduate Pack 12.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc. 2003). Missing data were excluded listwise for regression analyses and pairwise for all

PAGE 26

17 other analyses. Dont Know and No Opinion responses were excluded for descriptive statistics. Multiple regression was used to construct a model that best predicted risk perceptions of crocodiles (adapted from Sinclair et al. 2003). Independent variables selected a priori included involvement with crocodiles, knowledge of crocodiles, attitudes towards crocodiles, perceptions of current crocodile population trends, and six demographic variables: age, gender, formal education (6 levels ranging from some high school to graduate degree or beyond), income (6 levels ranging from under $20,000 to over $500,000), children in household (yes or no), and community involvement (4 levels ranging from participation in no local organizations to participation in 3 or 4 organizations). Logistic regression was used to construct a model that best predicted preferences for future crocodile population trends, a measure of wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for the American crocodile (Decker and Purdy 1988, Riley and Decker 2000b). Independent variables selected a priori included involvement with crocodiles, knowledge of crocodiles, attitudes towards crocodiles, perceptions of current crocodile population trends, risk perceptions of crocodiles, and six demographic variables: age, gender, formal education (6 levels ranging from some high school to graduate degree or beyond), income (6 levels ranging from under $20,000 to over $500,000), children in household (yes or no), and community involvement (4 levels ranging from participation in no local organizations to participation in 3 or 4 organizations). Chi-square statistics were used to test for differences in proportions between variables, Pearson product-moment correlations were used to measure relationships

PAGE 27

18 between variables, and differences between multiple means were tested using one-way Analysis of Variance.

PAGE 28

RESULTS Survey Response The majority of respondents were male (64.3%), white (88.8%), and permanent Florida residents (75.1%). Respondents of Hispanic or Latino origin (22.2%) were likely under-represented in the sample population. The proportions of seasonal Florida residents (13.7%) and visitors to Florida (11.2%) were approximately equal. Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 89, with a median age of 48. Formal education attainment was normally distributed, with 61.6% of respondents having completed some college or obtained a college degree. Most respondents did not have children at home (66.7%) and either had no pets (40.2%) or a dog (30.9%). More respondents belonged to religious (36.5%) or civic (21%) organizations than to environmental (14.9%) or school-based (12.9%) organizations. Involvement with Wildlife and American Crocodiles Wildlife-related TV programs, videos, or movies were reported as the most common activities that bring people into contact with wildlife (Table 3). Over half of respondents indicated they visit zoos or aquariums, boat or fish in south Florida natural areas, or read about wildlife. Most respondents who boat or fish in south Florida natural areas are permanent or seasonal Florida residents. Nearly half of respondents observe or study wildlife outdoors and less hike or bike in south Florida natural areas or bird watch. Snorkeling and scuba diving were the most common self-reported activities by permanent 19

PAGE 29

Table 3. Percent of questionnaire respondents who are permanent Florida residents, seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida that indicated they participate in various outdoor and wildlife-related activities. 20 Activity Permanent ( n = 187 ) Seasonal ( n = 34 ) Visitor ( n = 28 ) Combined ( n = 249 ) Watch wildlife TV programs, videos, or movies 80.7 82.4 75.0 80.3 Visit zoos or aquariums 69.0 76.5 53.6 68.3 Boat in south Florida natural areas 66.8 61.8 17.9 60.6 Fish in south Florida natural areas 65.8 55.9 7.1 57.8 Read about wildlife 55.1 61.8 60.7 56.6 Observe or study wildlife outdoors 46.0 44.1 50.0 46.2 Hike in south Florida natural areas 34.2 35.3 28.6 33.7 Birdwatch 31.0 35.3 39.3 32.5 Bike in south Florida natural areas 27.3 17.6 25.0 25.7 Work on a farm or ranch 3.7 11.8 14.3 6.0 Other activities a 9.6 14.7 4.6 9.6 a Includes golfing, sailing, horseback riding, drag racing, snorkeling, scuba diving, hunting, playing music, surfing, and creating art.

PAGE 30

21 Florida residents and golfing, snorkeling, and scuba diving were the most common self-reported activities by seasonal Florida residents. Observing a crocodile in the wild was the most common type of involvement with American crocodiles experienced by respondents (Table 4). Though 63.5% of respondents indicated they had observed a crocodile in the wild, fewer than 4% reported a threatening experience. Permanent and seasonal Florida residents were more likely to have read or heard about crocodile interactions with pets, people, and automobiles and were twice as likely to know a friend or family member who had an encounter with a crocodile than visitors to Florida. Few respondents indicated having pets or livestock threatened or attacked by a crocodile. The majority of respondents (53.4%) were classified as having a moderate level of involvement with American crocodiles (Figure 1). Visitors to Florida had a higher proportion of respondents in the no involvement category and a lower proportion of respondents in the moderate category than permanent or seasonal Florida residents. Visitors to Florida had no respondents in the very high category. Seasonal Florida residents had a greater proportion of respondents in the moderate and very high categories and a lower proportion of respondents in the no involvement and low categories than permanent Florida residents. Permanent Florida residents, seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida had approximately equal proportions of respondents in the high involvement category. The mean level of involvement for respondents was 1.71 (SE = 0.062).

PAGE 31

Table 4. Percent of questionnaire respondents who are permanent Florida residents, seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida that indicated they had various involvement with American crocodiles in south Florida. 22 Involvement Permanent Seasonal (n = 187) (n = 34) Visitor (n = 28) Combined (n = 249) Observed a crocodile in the wild 64.2 79.4 39.3 63.5 Read or heard of a crocodile being threatened or attacked by people 28.9 35.3 28.6 29.7 Read or heard about pets being threatened or attacked by a crocodile 24.1 32.4 21.4 24.9 Read or heard about other people being threatened or attacked by a crocodile 19.8 14.7 10.7 18.1 Read or heard about a crocodile being killed by an automobile 17.6 26.5 0.0 16.9 Know a friend, neighbor, or family member who had an encounter with a crocodile 14.4 14.7 7.1 13.7 Observed, read, or heard about fish or crab traps being raided by crocodiles 8.6 14.7 7.1 9.2 Have been personally threatened by a crocodile 3.7 5.9 0.0 3.6 Had a pet threatened or attacked by a crocodile 2.7 0.0 3.6 2.4 Had livestock threatened or attacked by a crocodile 2.1 2.9 3.6 2.4 Other types of experiences a 2.1 2.9 0.0 2.0 a Includes observing a crocodile on television or in captivity.

PAGE 32

23 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%PermanentSeasonalVisitorCombinedFlorida StatusPercent Very High High Moderate Low None Figure 1. Percent of questionnaire respondents who are permanent Florida residents, seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida with various levels of involvement with American crocodiles. Correlations among variables are presented in Table 5 and correlations between variables and demographics are presented in Table 6. Involvement with crocodiles had a significant positive correlation with risk perceptions of crocodiles, income, and community involvement. Permanent Florida residents (F 2,246 = 4.070, p = 0.040) and seasonal Florida residents (F 2,246 = 4.070, p = 0.029) had higher levels of involvement with crocodiles than visitors to Florida. Involvement with crocodiles did not differ significantly between permanent Florida residents and seasonal Florida residents, between males and females, or between respondents with and without children at home.

PAGE 33

Table 5. Pearson correlation coefficients for the six main questionnaire variables. 24 Variable a INVOLVE KNOWLEDGE RBELIEF ATTITUDE CPOP FPOP INVOLVE 1 0.043 0.147* -0.028 0.095 0.010 KNOWLEDGE 1 -0.160* 0.241** 0.157* 0.061 RBELIEF 1 -0.454** 0.104 -0.461** ATTITUDE 1 0.000 0.425** CPOP 1 -0.076 FPOP 1 a INVOLVE = involvement with crocodiles, KNOWLEDGE = knowledge of crocodiles, RBELIEF = risk perceptions of crocodiles, ATTITUDE = attitudes towards crocodiles, CPOP = perceptions of current crocodile population trends, and FPOP = preferences for future crocodile population trends. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

PAGE 34

25 Table 6. Pearson correlation coefficients between the six main questionnaire variables and age, education, income, and community involvement. a INVOLVE = involvement with crocodiles, KNOWLEDGE = knowledge of crocodiles, RBELIEF = risk perceptions of crocodiles, ATTITUDE = attitudes towards crocodiles, Variable a Age Education Income Community involvement INVOLVE 0.039 -0.023 0.139* 0.179** KNOWLEDGE 0.080 0.087 0.113 0.082 RBELIEF -0.011 -0.049 0.044 0.035 ATTITUDE -0.209** 0.087 -0.081* -0.061 CPOP 0.204** 0.040 0.022 -0.086 FPOP -0.067 0.045 -0.108 0.002 CPOP = perceptions of current crocodile population trends, and FPOP = preferences for future crocodile population trends. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Crocodile Knowledge Nearly all respondents (91.2%) knew American crocodiles existed in Florida and many (58.1%) were aware that the crocodile is federally-listed as endangered. Few respondents (14.9%) thought the American crocodile is neither a threatened nor endangered federally-listed species. Half of respondents (51.4%) believed the crocodile occurs in Florida, Central America, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Only 18.0% knew the crocodile occurs in both Florida and Central America. Most respondents (82.7%) correctly identified that American crocodiles are found in brackish or saltwater estuaries.

PAGE 35

26 Few (14.1%) thought crocodiles live in freshwater streams or lakes and almost none (0.8%) thought crocodiles live in the open ocean. The majority of respondents (60.2%) did not know if there has been a documented American crocodile attack on a human in south Florida. Nearly one-fourth (22.9%) believed there has been a documented attack and fewer (16.9%) proclaimed there has not been one. The greatest proportion of people (40.2%) believed American crocodiles are more aggressive than American alligators. One-fourth of respondents (24.4%) thought the crocodile is less aggressive than the alligator and one-third (35.4%) believed the two species to be equally aggressive. The majority of respondents answered 1 (27.3%) or 2 (39.8%) of the 5 questions regarding the status, habitat, and behavior of crocodiles correctly and 18.1% correctly answered 3 questions. Few respondents (9.2%) answered 4 or 5 questions correctly and less (5.6%) answered no questions correctly. The mean level of knowledge for respondents was 1.98 (SE = 0.065). Knowledge of crocodiles had a significant negative correlation with risk perceptions of crocodiles and a significant positive correlation with attitudes towards crocodiles and perceptions of current crocodile population trends. Knowledge of crocodiles did not differ significantly between permanent Florida residents, seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida, between males and females, or between respondents with and without children at home. Information Avenues Overall, more people reported receiving information regarding American crocodiles and American alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) from newspapers or television news stations than state or federal agencies, non-profit organizations, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during the six months prior to completing the

PAGE 36

27 questionnaire (Table 7). Respondents were mo re than twice as likely to have obtained a great deal of information regarding American crocodiles and American alligators from newspapers or TV news stations than federal or state government or non-profit organizations. The highest percentage of people indicated receivi ng a great amount of information about American crocodiles from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Over half of respondents reported hearing or seeing no information about the American crocodile or American alligator from federal and state government, non-profit organizations, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The mean level of information received by respondents from all sources was higher for the American alligator than American crocodile for the six month period prior to completing the questionnaire (Table 7). There is a significant differe nce in mean amount of information received for the two species from newspapers or TV news stations (t = 2.74, p = .006) and from the federal government (t = 2.4, p = .014). Most respondents indicated they woul d utilize wildlife television programs (71.5%), the internet (67.5%), and books, magazines, or journals (62.2%) to learn more about the American crocodile. A smaller number of respondents reported they would use newspaper articles (21.3%) to find informa tion on crocodiles and few indicated they would seek information from non-profit organizations (12.9%) or government agencies (12.4%). Attitudes Towards American Crocodiles Few respondents lacked an opinion on whether crocodiles could benefit the local economy (6.4%), should have the right to exis t wherever they may occur (4.4%), are an unacceptable threat (6.0%), or are a likable sp ecies (7.6%). More respondents lacked an opinion on whether the presence of crocodile s in Florida (18.5%) or near their home

PAGE 37

28 a Date presented in this table should be interpreted with caution, because accurate steps were not taken to ensure respondents clearly remembered or comprehended whether crocodiles or alligators (species similar in appearance) were represented in the media or other information avenues. Species a Source None Little Moderate Considerable Great Mean b SE Newspapers or TV news station 44.9 21.8 20.2 6.2 7.0 2.03 0.079 Federal government 66.7 17.0 6.5 3.0 1.3 1.44 0.056 State government 62.8 22.5 8.2 3.5 3.0 1.62 0.065 Non-profit organization 59.4 18.8 12.4 6.8 2.6 1.70 0.070 American crocodile U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 53.6 19.2 12.1 6.7 8.4 1.91 0.084 Newspapers or TV news station 31.1 24.6 25.4 11.1 7.8 2.34 0.080 Federal government 61.0 20.3 12.6 4.3 1.7 1.64 0.064 State government 57.8 19.1 13.5 7.0 2.6 1.77 0.072 Non-profit organization 56.2 18.9 14.6 6.9 3.4 1.80 0.074 American alligator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 50.6 18.7 17.0 5.8 7.9 1.94 0.082 Table 7. Percent of questionnaire respondents that indicated they heard or saw various amounts of information about the American crocodile and American alligator from different sources during the six months prior to completing the questionnaire. b Scores were derived from a 5-point progressive scale, with 1 indicating no information received to 5 indicating a great deal of information received.

PAGE 38

29 (11.6%) increased quality of life or whether the presence of crocodiles signals a healthy environment (10.8%) or decreases property valu e (13.7%). Nearly one-fourth (23.3%) of respondents had no opinion on whether croc odiles threaten peoples livelihoods by raiding fish and crab traps. Visitors to Florida were more likely to an swer No Opinion to 5 or more questions regarding attitudes towards cr ocodiles than permanent or seasonal Florida residents ( 2 2 = 20.099, p < .001). Age, gender, children in hou sehold, education level, income level, and community involvement did not affect the number of No Opinion responses to questions regarding attit udes towards crocodiles. Attitudes towards American crocodiles were generally favorable among respondents who offered an opi nion. Based upon a progressive scale from 1 to 5, where 1 was a very negative attitude and 5 was a very positive attitude, the mean score was greater than 3.0 for eight of nine belief statements regarding American crocodiles in south Florida (Table 8). Mo st respondents (72.5%) believed the presence of crocodiles signals a healthy environment and many indicated having croc odiles in Florida increased their quality of life. The ma jority of respondents (58.1%) di d not consider crocodiles an unacceptable threat to humans or pets and nearly half (46.7%) thought crocodiles should have the right to exist wherever they may o ccur. However, over half (53.2%) expressed concern about living close to crocodiles by di sagreeing with the idea that overall quality of life would increase if crocodiles resided near their home, and responses were divided on whether the crocodile is a likable species and whether the presence of crocodiles decreases property value. Mo st respondents (59.1%) did not believe crocodiles threaten

PAGE 39

30 a Scores were derived from a 5-point progressive scale, where 1 indicated strong disagreement, 5 strong agreement, and 3 neither agreement nor disagreement with the statement. %response Belief Statements a Disagree Neither Agree Mean SE The presence of crocodiles is a sign of a healthy environment 6.8 20.7 72.5 4.05 0.068 The presence of crocodiles in Florida increases my overall quality of life 19.2 36.9 43.9 3.37 0.083 The presence of crocodiles near my home increases my overall quality of life 53.2 31.4 15.4 2.38 0.083 The presence of crocodiles decreases property value 44.1 25.6 30.3 2.71 b 0.091 Crocodiles could benefit the local economy by being a tourism attraction 19.3 26.2 54.5 3.54 0.085 Crocodiles should have the right to exist wherever they may occur 29.4 23.9 46.7 3.32 0.091 Crocodiles are an unacceptable threat to humans and pets 58.1 21.4 20.5 2.41 c 0.087 I think the crocodile is a likable species 27.4 31.3 41.3 3.20 0.085 Crocodiles threaten peoples livelihoods by raiding fish and crab traps 59.1 26.2 14.7 2.24 d 0.092 Table 8. Response of questionnaire participants to belief statements regarding American crocodiles in south Florida. b,c,d Reverse coded values equal 3.29, 3.59, and 3.76, respectively.

PAGE 40

31 peoples livelihoods by raiding fish or crab traps and many (54.5%) supported the idea that crocodiles could benefit the local economy by being a tourism attraction. Attitudes towards crocodiles had a significant positive correlation with knowledge of crocodiles and preferences for future crocodile population trends and a significant negative correlation with risk perceptions of crocodiles, age, and income. Males (t 247 = 2.414, p = 0.016) had more positive attitudes than females. Permanent Florida residents had more positive attitudes towards crocodiles than seasonal Florida residents (F 2,246 = 3.529, p = 0.037). Attitudes towards crocodiles did not differ significantly between permanent Florida residents and visitors to Florida, between seasonal Florida residents and visitors to Florida, or between respondents with and without children at home. Acceptance of Management Tools Most respondents deemed it acceptable to relocate an American crocodile if discovered on a golf course (69.2%), on school property (80.5%), or in a swimming pool (81.3%), but only 31% indicated relocation as acceptable if a crocodile is found where people boat (Figure 2). Very few respondents considered euthanasia an acceptable management tool for an American crocodile found on a golf course (4.5%), on school property (11.4%), in a swimming pool (7.8%), or where people boat (6.1%, Figure 3). Over half of respondents believed relocating a crocodile to be acceptable if the crocodile kills or injures a pet or human, but fewer considered euthanasia an acceptable management tool for crocodiles that kill or injure humans or pets.

PAGE 41

32 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Golf CourseSchoolPoolBoatingAreaInjures PetInjuresHumanKills PetKills HumanScenarioPercent No Opinion Unacceptable Acceptable Figure 2. Percent of questionnaire respondents that indicated relocation to be an acceptable or unacceptable management tool for American crocodiles involved in various scenarios. Perceptions of Recent American Crocodile Population Trends The greatest proportion of respondents (38.6%) believed the American crocodile population in south Florida had increased during 1998-2003 (Figure 4). Over one-fourth of respondents (28.9%) indicated they did not know what the population trend had been over the previous 5 years and 22.1% believed the population had decreased. Few respondents (10.4%) thought the American crocodile population had remained the same from 1998-2003. An equal proportion of permanent Florida residents and visitors to Florida believed the American crocodile population had remained stable during the previous 5 years. Visitors to Florida had nearly twice the proportion of respondents who did not know what the population trend had been during 1998-2003 and approximately half the proportion of

PAGE 42

33 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Golf CourseSchoolPoolBoatingAreaInjures PetInjuresHumanKills PetKills HumanScenarioPercent No Opinion Unacceptable Acceptable Figure 3. Percent of questionnaire respondents that indicated euthanasia to be an acceptable or unacceptable management tool for American crocodiles involved in various scenarios. respondents who believed the crocodile population had increased than permanent and seasonal Florida residents. Permanent Florida residents and seasonal Florida residents had roughly equal proportions of respondents who did not know what the population trend had been or believed the population had increased over the previous five years. Fewer proportion of visitors believed the American crocodile population had decreased during 1998-2203 than permanent or seasonal Florida residents. Perceptions of current crocodile population trends had a significant positive correlation with knowledge of crocodiles and age and a significant association with gender ( 2 1 = 5.829, p = 0.016). There was no significant association between perceptions of current crocodile population trends and permanent Florida residents,

PAGE 43

34 seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida or between perceptions of current crocodile population trends and respondents with and without children at home. 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%PermanentSeasonalVisitorCombinedFlorida StatusPercent Don't Know Increased Remained the Same Decreased Figure 4. Percent of questionnaire respondents who are permanent Florida residents, seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida that believed the American crocodile population in south Florida either increased, decreased, or remained the same during 1998-2003. Risk Beliefs about American Crocodiles The proportions of respondents that answered Dont Know for questions about personal risk (9.7%), community risk (11.3%), ability to live with risk (12.1%), and voluntariness of risk (16.9%) were less than the proportions for questions regarding knowledge of experts (27.4%) and association of benefits and risks (37.5%) from American crocodiles. Some respondents were also unsure if encounters between American crocodiles and humans are a new or an old event (27.4%) or if encounters are increasing or decreasing (35.5%).

PAGE 44

35 Older individuals (r = .217, p = .001) and those engaged in low community involvement (r = -.137, p = .031) were more likel y to answer Dont Know to 5 or more questions regarding risk belie fs of crocodiles than younger respondents or those engaged in high community involvement. Residency status, gender, children in household, education level, and income level did not affect the number of Dont Know responses to questions regarding risk beliefs of crocodiles. The majority of respondents who answered along the progressive scale did not consider encounters between American croc odiles and people as something new, and many did not perceive encounters to be increasing (Table 9). Very few respondents believed they were personally at risk or that communities were at risk from American crocodiles. Most respondents indicated they could learn to live with the risks and that risks from crocodiles were generally accep ted voluntarily. Many respondents felt that experts adequately understood risks from crocodiles. A slight discrepancy existed concerning people who benefit from American crocodiles and those who are exposed to potential risks. Risk perceptions of crocodiles had a significant positive correlation with involvement with crocodiles and a significan t negative correlation with knowledge of crocodiles, attitudes towards crocodiles, and preferences for future crocodile population trends. Risk perceptions of crocodiles did not differ significantly between permanent Florida residents, seasonal Fl orida residents, and visitors to Florida, between males and females, or between respondents with and without children at home.

PAGE 45

36 Table 9. Response of questionnaire participants to semantic differential items related to risks from American crocodiles in sou th Florida. Semantic Differential Item a Scale b 1 2 3 4 5 Semantic Differential Item a Mean SE Encounters between American crocodiles and people are New 7.8 8.9 24.4 20.6 38.3 Old 3.73 0.095 The frequency of human-crocodile encounters are Increasing 17.5 28.1 23.8 9.4 21.3 Decreasing 2.89 0.110 You are personally at No Risk 63.8 15.6 14.3 4.0 2.2 Great Risk 1.65 0.068 The community is at. No Risk 40.9 35.0 17.3 3.6 3.2 Great Risk 1.93 0.068 You are Able to live with the risks associated with crocodiles 50.5 23.9 12.8 8.3 4.6 Unable to 1.93 0.079 The risks from American crocodiles are accepted Voluntarily 42.7 22.3 18.9 7.8 8.3 Involuntarily 2.17 0.090 The risks from crocodiles Are well understood by experts 34.4 25.6 21.1 10.0 8.9 Are not 2.33 0.096 The benefits and risks of American crocodiles to people are Matched 27.1 18.1 29.7 11.0 14.2 Mismatched 2.67 0.109 a Respondents indicated the number between two words that best represented their opinion. b Values given are percent response for each step along the progressive 1-5 scale.

PAGE 46

37 Subjective Risk Perceptions of American Crocodiles Subjective risk perceptions of American crocodiles were generally low. Nearly all respondents believed getting into a motorcycle accident (82.7%), getting into a car accident (81.1%), getting injured while working for a timber company (77.0%), and dying as a result of cancer (70.8%) were more likely to occur than being attacked by an American crocodile in south Florida (Table 10). Responses were divided on the possibility of being attacked by an alligator versus a crocodile and 46.5% of respondents felt getting attacked by a shark was more likely to occur than getting attacked by a crocodile. Most respondents felt the likelihood of having an accident while driving a tractor (69.1%) or becoming a murder victim (60.9%) was greater than being attacked by an American crocodile in south Florida, and nearly one-half of respondents (46.1%) considered getting into a commercial airline crash more likely to occur than being attacked by a crocodile. Table 10. Response of questionnaire participants to the likelihood of experiencing various risks versus being attacked by an American crocodile. % response Risk More Likely Less Likely Unsure Getting into an accident if you ride a motorcycle 82.7 13.2 4.1 Getting into a car accident 81.1 13.6 5.3 Getting injured if you work for a timber company 77.0 13.5 9.5 Dying as a result of cancer 70.8 16.4 12.8 Having an accident if you drive a tractor 69.1 18.6 12.3 Becoming a murder victim 60.9 19.3 19.8 Getting attacked by a shark 46.5 28.4 25.1 Getting into a commercial airline crash 46.1 34.1 19.8 Being attacked by an alligator 33.3 30.5 36.2

PAGE 47

38 Factors Affecting Risk Beliefs about American Crocodiles Regression analysis indicated attitudes toward crocodiles had a significant effect on risk perceptions of crocodiles, in a model that explained 26.0% of the variance (Table 11). Since knowledge of crocodiles is not a significant predictor of risk perceptions, but is negatively correlated with risk perceptions and is a significant predictor of attitudes towards crocodiles (B = .102, p < .001), knowledge of crocodiles may have an indirect effect on risk perceptions of crocodiles through attitudes towards crocodiles (Figure 5). Next, a stepwise regression (p < 0.05 cutoff value) was run to identify variables with maximum predictive power. Attitudes toward crocodiles formed the most parsimonious model to predict risk perceptions of crocodiles, in a model that explained 23.0% of the variance. The coefficients for the regression equation, with SE in parentheses, were RBELIEF (predicted) = 3.592 (0.301) 0.860 (0.142) ATTITUDE. People who expressed negative attitudes towards crocodiles had the greatest probability of considering crocodiles a high risk to humans. Preferences for Future American Crocodile Population Trends The greatest proportion of respondents (42.6%) indicated they wanted American crocodile populations to increase over the next five years (Figure 6). Only 8.8% expressed a preference for fewer crocodiles and over one-fourth of respondents (28.9%) wanted populations to remain the same. Nearly 20% of respondents did not care whether crocodile populations increased, decreased, or remained stable from 2004-2009.

PAGE 48

39 Table 11. Regression model for prediction of risk perceptions of American crocodiles (RBELIEF). Variable a (R 2 = .260, p < .001) B SE B INVOLVE 0.024 0.071 0.029 KNOWLEDGE 0.013 0.069 0.017 ATTITUDE -0.920 0.160 -0.513* CPOP 0.196 0.157 0.109 Age -0.008 0.005 -0.156 Gender -0.029 0.150 -0.016 Education -0.014 0.053 -0.022 Children -0.039 0.150 -0.022 Income 0.005 0.053 0.008 Community involvement 0.061 0.058 0.067 a INVOLVE = involvement with crocodiles, KNOWLEDGE = knowledge of crocodiles, ATTITUDE = attitudes towards crocodiles, and CPOP = perceptions of current crocodile population trends. p < .001. .454 .241 KNOWLEDGE ATTITUDE RBELIEF Figure 5. Path diagram for risk perceptions of American crocodiles (RBELIEF), with path coefficients added. KNOWLEDGE = knowledge of crocodiles and ATTITUDE = attitudes towards crocodiles.

PAGE 49

40 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%PermanentSeasonalVisitorCombinedFlorida StatusPercent Don't Know Increase Remain the Same Decrease Figure 6. Percent of questionnai re respondents who are permanent Florida residents, seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida that revealed preferences for a smaller, larger, or similar American crocodile population in south Florida for 2004-2009. Permanent Florida residents, seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida had nearly equal proportions of respondents who wanted American crocodile populations to remain the same over the next five years. The proportion of people who preferred a decrease in the crocodile population was greatest for seasonal Florida residents and least for visitors to Florida. A greater proportion of permanent Florida residents desired a larger crocodile population than seasonal Florida residents or visitors to Florida. Seasonal Florida residents and visitors to Florida were more than twice as likely to lack an opinion regarding future crocodile populations than permanent Florida residents. Overall, 44.5% of respondents indicated it was important to them personally that the actual American crocodile population trend match their expressed preference.

PAGE 50

41 Approximately equal proportions of respondents did not have an opinion (19.7%) or indicated it was unimportant (16.5%) to them that their preferences were not realized. Permanent Florida residents (46.6%) and seasonal Florida residents (44.1%) were more concerned that their preferred population trend matches the actual trend than visitors to Florida (32.1%). Factors Affecting Preferences for American Crocodile Populations Logistic regression analysis indicated risk perceptions of crocodiles and attitudes towards crocodiles had a significant effect on desired future crocodile population trends in a model that predicted 94.0% of respondents preference for future crocodile population trends (Table 12). A stepwise regression (p < 0.05 cutoff value) was run to identify variables with maximum predictive power. Risk perceptions of crocodiles and attitudes toward crocodiles formed the most parsimonious model to predict desired future crocodile population trends. The coefficients for the logistic regression equation, in stepwise order with SE in parentheses, were log(P i )/(1P i ) = -0.706 (2.499) 1.502 (0.453) RBELIEF + 3.184 (1.297) ATTITUDE, where P i = probability that a respondent will desire a stable or larger crocodile population. The equation correctly predicted the desired future population trend for 53.3% of respondents who chose a smaller crocodile population and 99.0% of respondents who chose a stable or larger crocodile population. Overall, the equation predicted 94.0% of respondents preference for future crocodile population trends. People who believed crocodiles presented a low risk to humans and expressed positive attitudes towards crocodiles had the greatest probability of preferring a stable or increased future crocodile population.

PAGE 51

42 Table 12. Logisitc regression model for prediction of desired future American crocodile population trends (FPOP). Variable a (Nagelkerke R 2 = .571, p < .001) B SE B Wald INVOLVE -0.357 0.478 0.556 KNOWLEDGE 0.423 0.510 0.688 RBELIEF -1.652 0.505 10.701** ATTITUDE 3.487 1.450 5.783* CPOP 0.647 0.946 0.468 Age 0.032 0.032 1.006 Gender 0.420 1.007 0.174 Education -0.102 0.297 0.118 Children -0.496 0.896 0.307 Income -0.278 0.317 0.765 Community involvement 0.217 0.496 0.191 a INVOLVE = involvement with crocodiles, KNOWLEDGE = knowledge of crocodiles, RBELIEF = risk perceptions of crocodiles, ATTITUDE = attitudes towards crocodiles, and CPOP = perceptions of current crocodile population trends. p < .05. ** p < .001.

PAGE 52

DISCUSSION South Florida residents and visitors generally have low risk perceptions of and favorable attitudes towards American crocodiles. Many people perceive benefits from crocodiles as indicated by the common response that crocodiles signify a healthy environment and increase overall quality of life in Florida. Although over half of respondents expressed concern about crocodiles living near their home, most did not feel personally threatened by crocodiles. The acceptance capacity for crocodiles expressed by many respondents was high. However, continued human population growth and residential development in south Florida will increase potential for human-crocodile encounters near human habitation. Effective methods for resolving these interactions, as well as crocodile-related complaints, need to be developed. Attitudes towards American crocodiles significantly influenced both risk perceptions of and acceptance capacity for crocodiles. Ability to influence attitudes is a complex and debated subject (Gardner and Stern 1996, Hines et al. 1986, Hungerford and Volk 1990, Trumbo 1999). Simply providing more facts will not necessarily result in more favorable attitudes (Reading and Kellert 1993). However, comprehensive knowledge is a necessary condition for stable beliefs (Fischhoff 1995). Results from this study indicate that high knowledge of crocodiles corresponds with positive attitudes towards crocodiles. People with positive attitudes towards crocodiles were more likely to have lower risk perceptions of and higher acceptance capacities for crocodiles. Overall knowledge of crocodiles and information received regarding crocodiles was rather low, 43

PAGE 53

44 indicating opportunity for outreach efforts to increase such knowledge. Most respondents revealed they would utilize internet sources to learn more about American crocodiles. The internet is very cost effective and likely the best method for presenting information regarding crocodiles to a large number of people. Communication targeted towards increasing knowledge of, and thus favorable attitudes towards, crocodiles will likely reduce risk perceptions of and increase acceptance capacity for the crocodile (Knuth et al. 1992). To further increase acceptance of American crocodiles, education campaigns need to address risks of crocodiles as well as benefits crocodiles provide (Fischhoff 1995, Knuth et al. 1992). Simply explaining that risks from crocodiles are low compared to other generally accepted high risk activities, such as driving automobiles, will be ineffective unless benefits from crocodiles are also represented (Fischhoff 1995). People accept risks from driving automobiles because benefits received from the act are high. To willingly accept low risks from crocodiles, people need to be aware of and appreciate benefits from crocodiles. Results from this study are encouraging because the majority of respondents consider risks from crocodiles to be low and benefits from crocodiles to be rather high. A base of conservation-oriented values exists on which to build more positive attitudes towards American crocodiles. A Not in my backyard! attitude was detected though when respondents were asked about quality of life regarding crocodiles near their home. Many respondents were unaware there has never been a documented American crocodile attack on a human in south Florida and believed crocodiles were more aggressive than alligators, which may have contributed to concern for crocodiles near their home. Wildlife management has

PAGE 54

45 traditionally used translocation to separate a potentially dangerous animal from situations that may result in heightened concern among stakeholders (Riley et al. 1994). Most respondents indicated translocation as an acceptable tool for American crocodiles found near human habitation. Given the potential for injury or distress during relocation, however, American crocodiles present a challenge to wildlife managers since federally-listed species cannot be harmed under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Florida residents, accustomed to having alligators promptly removed from private property, can become alarmed if similar procedures are not applied to crocodiles. Modification of human behaviors offers managers an alternative to direct removal or relocation of crocodiles. Appropriate personal decisions can reduce personal risk far greater than any government actions (Keeney 1995, Zeckhauser and Viscusi 1990). Just as life can never be risk free, risks from crocodiles can not be eliminated (Keeney 1995). There are, however, steps that can be taken to reduce personal risks from crocodiles (e.g., never feed crocodiles, do not discard fish scraps at boat ramps or near waters edge, do not swim where crocodiles live, fencing). Educational programs aimed at teaching appropriate behavior in the presence of crocodiles can lead to feelings of empowerment and a sense of security, subsequently reducing risk perceptions of crocodiles. Effort directed towards ameliorating voluntary risks (Zeckhauser and Viscusi 1990) can have more impact than removing or relocating crocodiles. Respondents indicated receiving more information regarding American crocodiles from newspapers or television news stations than any other information source provided. Mass media influence is an important consideration for forming attitudes and risk perceptions (Coleman 1993, Park et al. 2001). Television reports that convey negative or

PAGE 55

46 dangerous events can result in increased levels of fear among some audience members (Coleman 1993). Negative events carry greater weight, are more visible or noticeable, and are more likely to have a powerful effect than positive events (Slovic 1993). Given that most of what the media reports is negative (Slovic 1993), and that respondents obtained most of their information about crocodiles from mass media sources, concern for negative mass media messages producing negative attitudes towards crocodiles exists. The current study did not confirm if information received by respondents was positive or negative, however. Future studies clearly testing the effects of negative media messages on risk perceptions of crocodiles, or other potentially dangerous animals, would enhance findings of this study. Since some individuals use expert opinion and perceived social consensus to make risk judgments (Trumbo 1999), and respondents indicated a high level of trust in expert opinion, media reports and education campaigns that reveal south Florida residents, visitors, and experts low risk judgments of crocodiles could combat negative media messages and decrease risk perceptions of crocodiles. Findings from this study are consistent with Riley and Decker (2000b) who studied acceptance capacity for mountain lions. Risk perceptions and attitudes were significant predictors of desired future population trends in both studies. This study, however, did not find a correlation between perceptions of current population trends and acceptance capacity for the crocodile. Demographic variables can significantly affect perceptions of and attitudes towards large predators (Kellert 1985b, Kellert and Berry 1987, Kleiven et al. 2004). Riley and Decker (2000b), however, found children in household, gender, and level of formal education did not significantly contribute to acceptance capacity for mountain lions. Demographic variables did not affect risk perceptions of or acceptance

PAGE 56

47 capacity for the crocodile. Males, younger persons, and those with lower incomes expressed more positive attitudes towards crocodiles. This study provides initial insights into factors affecting risk perceptions of and acceptance capacity for the American crocodile in south Florida. Educational programs that teach appropriate behavior in the presence of crocodiles, address risks and benefits of crocodiles, increase knowledge of crocodiles, and reveal that south Florida residents, visitors, and experts perceive low risks from crocodiles will be most effective for increasing positive attitudes towards crocodiles. Individuals with favorable attitudes towards American crocodiles will more likely support measures to recover and protect this endangered species than those possessing negative attitudes (Hungerford and Volk 1990, Stern 2000). Education campaigns should be delivered not only to adults, but to children as well, since life-long attitudes and behaviors towards animals are largely based on childhood experiences (Kidd and Kidd 1985). Children must be better taught to value all life, especially wild animal life, if biodiversity is to be maintained and if endangered species are to be adequately protected (Kidd and Kidd 1996). An education campaign targeted at reducing risk perceptions of and increasing acceptance capacity for the American crocodile in south Florida needs to be designed, implemented, and assessed to better understand effects of communication and to further promote conservation and recovery of this endangered species.

PAGE 57

APPENDIX A THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS USED FOR INDIVIDUALS PARTICIPATING IN THE PRELIMINARY INTERVIEWS. Hello, my name is Jodie Smithem. I am a graduate student at the University of Florida working with Dr. Frank Mazzotti. We hope to understand public knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of the American crocodile in South Florida through information obtained by participants filling out a questionnaire. To aid in the questionnaire development, preliminary interviews will be conducted. The interview takes approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. You will not be compensated for participating in this study and we do not anticipate that you will benefit or be harmed directly by participating in this study. Your identity will be kept completely confidential. We do not ask for your name at any time during the interview and, therefore, your name will not be associated with your responses. If you have any questions regarding the study, you may contact Dr. Frank Mazzotti at the Ft. Lauderdale Research and Education Center, 3205 College Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33314, phone number 954-577-6304. If you have any questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant in the study, you may contact the University of Floridas Institutional Review Board at PO Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611, phone number 352-392-0433. Would you like to participate in the study by being interviewed? 48

PAGE 58

APPENDIX B THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS USED FOR INDIVIDUALS COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE. Hello, my name is Jodie Smithem. I am a graduate student at the University of Florida working with Dr. Frank Mazzotti. We hope to understand public knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of the American crocodile in South Florida through information obtained by participants filling out a questionnaire. The questionnaire takes approximately 15 minutes to complete. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. You will not be compensated for participating in this study and we do not anticipate that you will benefit or be harmed directly by participating in this study. Your identity will be kept completely confidential. We do not ask for your name anywhere on the questionnaire and, therefore, your name will not be associated with your responses. If you have any questions regarding the study, you may contact Dr. Frank Mazzotti at the address or phone number listed on the questionnaire. If you have any questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant in the study, you may contact the University of Floridas Institutional Review Board at the address or phone number listed on the questionnaire. Would you like to participate in the study by completing a questionnaire? 49

PAGE 59

APPENDIX C THE SELF-ADMINISTERED QUESTIONNAIRE USED FOR INQUIRY INTO THE BELIEFS, ATTITUDES, RISK PERCEPTIONS, AND CROCODILE POPULATION PREFERENCES OF STAKEHOLDERS IN SOUTH FLORIDA BY JODIE L. SMITHEM FOR HER 2003-2004 MASTERS THESIS.

PAGE 60

Interviewer ___________ Location ___________ Date ___________ American Crocodiles in South Florida: A Survey of Your Views American crocodile vs American alligator Your responses will remain anonymous and will never be associated with your name. This questionnaire is part of a study to assist biologists and wildlife managers with making decisions about American crocodiles in south Florida. Your views are very important to us and will contribute to how American crocodile management and recovery efforts are conducted. The questionnaire should take approximately 15 minutes to complete. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE! 51

PAGE 61

52 American Crocodiles in South Florida: A Survey of Your Views This survey is conducted by: University of Florida School of Natural Resources and Environment 103 Black Hall, PO Box 116455 Gainesville, FL 32611 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service South Florida Field Office 1339 20 th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Research Participant Rights If you have any questions regarding this survey, please write Frank J. Mazzotti, Associate Professor, University of Florida, Ft. Lauderdale Research and Education Center, 3205 College Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 33314, or call him at 954-577-6304. If you have any questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant in this study, please write the University of Floridas Institutional Review Board at PO Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611, or call 352-392-0433.

PAGE 62

53 WILDLIFE AND YOU: 1. The following is a list of some activities that bring people into contact with wildlife. Please indicate which of the following activities you, or members of your household, participate in regularly. (Please check [ ] ALL statements that apply.) Yourself Others in your household a. Bird watch [ ] [ ] b. Read about wildlife .. [ ] [ ] c. Watch wildlife TV programs, videos, or movies [ ] [ ] d. Visit zoos or aquariums [ ] [ ] e. Hike in south Florida natural areas ... [ ] [ ] f. Bike in south Florida natural areas .... [ ] [ ] g. Boat in south Florida natural areas [ ] [ ] h. Observe or study wildlife outdoors ... [ ] [ ] i. Work on a farm or ranch [ ] [ ] j. Fish in south Florida natural areas.. [ ] [ ] k. Other activities _____________________________ [ ] [ ] 2. How much information about the American crocodile have you seen or heard during the last six months from each of the following? (Please circle a number for each source.) Absolutely none A great deal Newspapers or TV news stations? 1 2 3 4 5 The federal government? 1 2 3 4 5 State government? 1 2 3 4 5 Non-profit organizations? 1 2 3 4 5 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1 2 3 4 5 3. How much information about the American alligator have you seen or heard during the last six months from each of the following? (Please circle a number for each source.) Absolutely none A great deal Newspapers or TV news stations? 1 2 3 4 5 The federal government? 1 2 3 4 5 State government? 1 2 3 4 5 Non-profit organizations? 1 2 3 4 5 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 63

54 4. If you wanted to learn more about the American crocodile which of the following sources would you utilize to find information? (Please check [ ] ALL that apply.) Books, magazines, or journals [ ] The internet [ ] Newspaper articles [ ] Government agencies .. [ ] Wildlife TV programs [ ] Non-profit organizations [ ] WILDLIFE KNOWLEDGE: 5. Before receiving this questionnaire, did you know that American crocodiles live in south Florida? [ ] Yes [ ] No 6. Please circle the answer that you believe is correct for each of the following questions. A. The American crocodile is a federally-listed: a) endangered species b) threatened species c) neither endangered nor threatened species B. The American crocodile occurs in Florida and: a) Central America b) Louisiana c) Mississippi d) all of the above e) none of the above C. Generally, American crocodiles are ________ American alligators. a) more aggressive than b) less aggressive than c) just as aggressive as

PAGE 64

55 D. Typically, American crocodiles are found in: a) the open ocean b) freshwater streams or lakes c) brackish or saltwater estuaries d) none of the above E. Has there been a documented American crocodile attack on a human in south Florida? a) Yes b) No c) Dont Know CROCODILES AND YOU: 7. Please indicate which, if any, of the following types of interactions with American crocodiles you or members of your household have experienced. (Please check [ ] ALL that apply.) Yourself Others in your household a. Observed a crocodile in the wild (i.e., anywhere other than captivity) [ ] [ ] b. Read or heard of a crocodile being threatened or attacked by people [ ] [ ] c. Had a pet threatened or attacked by a crocodile [ ] [ ] d. Had livestock threatened or attacked by a crocodile [ ] [ ] e. Have been personally threatened by a crocodile [ ] [ ] f. Read or heard about pets being threatened or attacked by a crocodile .. [ ] [ ] g. Observed, read, or heard about fish or crabs traps being raided by crocodiles [ ] [ ] h. Read or heard about other people being threatened or attacked by a crocodile [ ] [ ] i. Know a friend, neighbor, or family member who had an encounter with a crocodile [ ] [ ] j. Read or heard about a crocodile being killed by an automobile [ ] [ ] k. Other types of experiences: ____________________ [ ] [ ]

PAGE 65

56 8. Encounters between American crocodiles and people carry some level of risk to people, pets, or livestock. The following questions are designed to help us better understand your opinions about crocodile-human encounters in south Florida. On a scale from 1-to-5 please circle the number between the two words in each row that most closely represents your opinion DK = Dont Know a. Are encounters between American crocodiles and people a new event, or an old event that has been occurring for a long time in south Florida? A new event 1 2 3 4 5 An old event DK b. Are crocodile-human encounters increasing or decreasing in south Florida? Increasing 1 2 3 4 5 Decreasing DK c. To what extent do you believe that you are personally at risk from American crocodiles? I am at no risk 1 2 3 4 5 I am at great risk DK d. To what extent do you believe that American crocodiles pose a risk to communities? Community is at 1 2 3 4 5 Community is at DK no risk great risk e. Are the risks associated with American crocodiles something people will be able to learn to live with, or are the risks something people will be unable to learn to live with over time? Able to learn to 1 2 3 4 5 Unable to learn to DK live with the risks live with the risks f. Are the risks from American crocodiles generally accepted voluntarily that is, can people make choices about being exposed to the risks or are the risks accepted involuntarily? Risks accepted 1 2 3 4 5 Risks accepted DK voluntarily involuntarily

PAGE 66

57 g. To what extent are the risks associated with having crocodiles in Florida understood by experts? Not well 1 2 3 4 5 Well understood DK understood h. Are the people who benefit from American crocodiles the same people who are exposed to the potential risks of living with American crocodiles? Benefits and risks 1 2 3 4 5 Benefits and risks DK are matched are mismatched 9. For each of the following scenarios, please indicate if you believe relocating (i.e., moving) American crocodiles would be an acceptable or an unacceptable management tool. Acceptable Unacceptable No Tool Tool Opinion Crocodile is found on a golf course [ ] [ ] [ ] Crocodile is found on school property [ ] [ ] [ ] Crocodile is found in a swimming pool .. [ ] [ ] [ ] Crocodile is found where people boat [ ] [ ] [ ] Crocodile attacks and injures a pet .. [ ] [ ] [ ] Crocodile attacks and injures a human [ ] [ ] [ ] Crocodile attacks and kills a pet .. [ ] [ ] [ ] Crocodile attacks and kills a human [ ] [ ] [ ] 10. For each of the following scenarios, please indicate if you believe euthanizing (i.e., killing) American crocodiles would be an acceptable or an unacceptable management tool. Acceptable Unacceptable No Tool Tool Opinion Crocodile is found on a golf course [ ] [ ] [ ] Crocodile is found on school property [ ] [ ] [ ] Crocodile is found in a swimming pool .. [ ] [ ] [ ] Crocodile is found where people boat [ ] [ ] [ ] Crocodile attacks and injures a pet .. [ ] [ ] [ ] Crocodile attacks and injures a human [ ] [ ] [ ] Crocodile attacks and kills a pet .. [ ] [ ] [ ] Crocodile attacks and kills a human [ ] [ ] [ ]

PAGE 67

58 11. People in Florida have many different opinions about American crocodiles. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? (Please circle the number that best represents your response to each statement.) 1 = Disagree Strongly 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree 5 = Agree Strongly 2 = Disagree 4 = Agree 6 = No Opinion Disagree Agree No Strongly Strongly Opinion a. The presence of crocodiles is a sign of a healthy environment .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 b. The presence of crocodiles in Florida increases my overall quality of life .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 c. The presence of crocodiles near my home increases my overall quality of life 1 2 3 4 5 6 d. The presence of crocodiles decreases property value ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 e. Crocodiles could benefit the local economy by being a tourism attraction .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 f. Crocodiles should have the right to exist wherever they may occur 1 2 3 4 5 6 g. Crocodiles are an unacceptable threat to humans and pets 1 2 3 4 5 6 h. I think the crocodile is a likable species 1 2 3 4 5 6 i. Crocodiles threaten peoples livelihoods by raiding fish and crab traps 1 2 3 4 5 6

PAGE 68

59 12. This question is designed to help us better understand your perceptions about the possibility of you being attacked by an American crocodile while living in or visiting south Florida. Do you believe each of the following is more likely or less likely to occur to you than being attacked by an American crocodile in south Florida? (Please circle only ONE response for each item.) Example: A person was asked to indicate if she thought the possibility of getting struck by lightning was more or less likely to occur to her than being attacked by an American crocodile in south Florida. She thought the possibility of getting struck by lightning was more likely to occur to her than being attacked by an American crocodile, so she circled More Likely. The possibility of is Getting into a car accident More Likely Less Likely Unsure Getting injured if you work for a timber company More Likely Less Likely Unsure Getting into an accident if you ride a motorcycle More Likely Less Likely Unsure Being attacked by an alligator More Likely Less Likely Unsure Having an accident if you drive a tractor More Likely Less Likely Unsure Getting into a commercial airline crash More Likely Less Likely Unsure Getting attacked by a shark More Likely Less Likely Unsure Dying as a result of cancer More Likely Less Likely Unsure Becoming a murder victim More Likely Less Likely Unsure to occur to you than the possibility of being attacked by an American crocodile in south Florida.

PAGE 69

60 CROCODILE POPULATIONS: Please answer the following questions based on your opinion. 13. How has the American crocodile population in south Florida changed during the past five years? (Please check [ ] only ONE of the following statements.) [ ] Decreased Greatly [ ] Decreased Somewhat [ ] Remained the Same [ ] Increased Somewhat [ ] Increased Greatly [ ] No Opinion 14. Do you want the American crocodile population in south Florida to increase, decrease, or remain at its current level over the next five years? (Please check [ ] only ONE of the following statements.) [ ] Decrease Greatly [ ] Decrease Somewhat [ ] Remain at its Current Level [ ] Increase Somewhat [ ] Increase Greatly [ ] No Opinion 15. How important is it to you personally that the American crocodile population trend match your response to question 14? (Please check [ ] only ONE of the following statements.) [ ] Very Un important [ ] Somewhat Un important [ ] Neither Important nor Unimportant [ ] Somewhat Important [ ] Very Important [ ] No Opinion

PAGE 70

61 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 16a. Are you a: Permanent Florida resident [ ] Seasonal Florida resident [ ] Visitor to Florida [ ] 16b. If you are a permanent Florida resident, how many years have you lived in Florida? ____ years 16c. If you are a seasonal Florida resident or a visitor to Florida, what is your permanent residence? ______________ _______ __________ city state country 17. Are you: [ ] Male [ ] Female 18. What is your age? _______ 19. Are you Hispanic or Latino? (Please check [ ] only ONE.) ____ Yes Hispanic or Latino ____ No Not Hispanic or Latino 20. What is your race? (Please check [ ] one or more races to indicate what you consider yourself to be. Please leave blank if you feel none apply to you.) [ ] American Indian or Alaska Native [ ] Native Hawaiian or other Pacific [ ] Asian Islander [ ] Black or African American [ ] White 21. What is your highest level of formal education? (Please check [ ] only ONE.) [ ] Some high school [ ] College graduate [ ] High school diploma or equivalent [ ] Some graduate school [ ] Some college [ ] Graduate degree or beyond 22. How many children under the age of 18 currently live in your household? (Please indicate the age of each child.) ______________________________________________________________ 23. Do you have any pets at home? If yes, please list the number and type of pets. ______________________________________________________________

PAGE 71

62 24. Please indicate your household average income in 2003 before taxes. (Please check [ ] only ONE.) [ ] Under $20,000 [ ] $60,000 $99,999 [ ] $20,000 $39,999 [ ] $100,000 $500,000 [ ] $40,000 $59,999 [ ] Over $500,000 25. What is your occupation? _______________________ 26. What types of local organizations do you belong to? (Please check [ ] ALL that apply.) [ ] Civic or social (Example: Rotary Club) [ ] Church or religious [ ] Environmental (Example: Audubon Society) [ ] School-based (Example: PTA) 27. Please use the space below for any additional comments you wish to make regarding crocodiles or this survey. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND HELP!

PAGE 72

LIST OF REFERENCES Alreck, P.L. and R.B. Settle. 1995. The survey research handbook: Guidelines and strategies for conducting a survey. Second edition. Irwin, Chicago, Illinois. Bord, R.J., R.E. OConnor, and A. Fisher. 2000. In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change? Public Understanding of Science 9(3):205-218. Butler, J.S., J.E. Shanahan, and D.J. Decker. 2001. Wildlife attitudes and values: A trend analysis. Human Dimensions Research Unit, Series No. 01-4. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Carpenter, L.H., Decker, D.J., and J.F. Lipscomb. 2000. Stakeholder acceptance capacity in wildlife management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5:5-19. Coleman, C.L. 1993. The influence of mass media and interpersonal communication on societal and personal risk judgments. Communication Research 20(4):611-628. Craven, S.R., D.J. Decker, W.F. Siemer, and S.E. Hygnstrom. 1992. Survey use and landowner tolerance in wildlife damage management. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 57:75-88. Decker, D.J. 1994. What are we learning from human dimensions studies in controversial wildlife situations? Occasional Paper Series No. 21, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado. Decker, D.J. and K.G. Purdy. 1988. Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:53-57. Decker, D. J., C. C. Krueger, R. A. Baer Jr., B. A. Knuth, and M E. Richmond. 1996. From clients to stakeholders: a philosophical shift for fish and wildlife management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1:70-82. Decker, D.J. and L.C. Chase. 1997. Human dimensions of living with wildlife-a management challenge for the 21 st century. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(4):788-795. Dillman, D.A., D.E. Dolsen, and G.E. Machlis. 1995. Increasing response to personallydelivered mail-back questionnaires by combining foot-in-door and social exchange methods. Journal of Official Statistics 11(2):129-139. 63

PAGE 73

64 Drake, D. and E.J. Jones. 2002. Forest management decisions of North Carolina landowners relative to the red-cockaded woodpecker. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(1): 121-130. Dunlap, R.E. and K.D. Van Liere. 1978. The New Environmental Paradigm: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education 9(4):10-19. Dunlap, R.E., K.D. Van Liere, A.G. Mertig, and R.E. Jones. 2000. Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56(3):425-442. Fischhoff, B. 1995. Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis 15(2):137-145. Federal Register 40:44149. 1975. Lists of endangered and threatened fauna. Gardner, G.T. and P.C. Stern. 1996. Environmental problems and human behavior. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 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(2):1-8. Hungerford, H.R. and T.L. Volk. 1990. Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education 21(3):8-22. Hunter, L.M. and L. Rinner. 2004. The association between environmental perspective and knowledge and concern with species diversity. Society and Natural Resources 17:517-532. Jacobson, S.K. and S.B. Marynowski. 1997. Public attitudes and knowledge about ecosystem management on Department of Defense land in Florida. Conservation Biology 11(3):770-781. Keeney, R.L. 1995. Understanding life-threatening risks. Risk Analysis 15(6):627-637. Kellert, S.R. 1985a. Social and perceptual factors in endangered species management. Journal of Wildlife Management 49(2):528-536. Kellert, S.R. 1985b. Public perceptions of predators, particularly the wolf and coyote. Biological Conservation 31:167-189. Kellert, S.R. and J.K. Berry. 1987. Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife as affected by gender. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15:363-371.

PAGE 74

65 Kellert, S.R., Black, M., Rush, C.R., and A.J. Bath. 1996. Human culture and large carnivore conservation in North America. Conservation Biology 10(4):977-990. Kempton, W. 1991. Lay perspectives on global climate change. Global Environmental Change 1(3):183-209. Kidd, A.H. and R.M. Kidd. 1985. Childrens attitudes toward their pets. Psychological Reports 57:15-31. Kidd, A.H. and R.M. Kidd. 1996. Developmental factors leading to positive attitudes toward wildlife and conservation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 47:119-125. Kleiven, J., T. Bjerke, and B.P. Kaltenborn. 2004. Factors influencing the social acceptability of large carnivore behaviours. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:1647-1658. Knuth, B.A., R.J. Stout, W.F. Siemer, D.J. Decker, and R.C. Stedman. 1992. Risk management concepts for improving wildlife population decisions and public communication strategies. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 57:63-74. Manly, B.F.J. 1986. Multivariate statistical methods: A primer. Chapman and Hall, New York, New York. Mazzotti, F.J. and M.S. Cherkiss. 2003. Status and Conservation of the American Crocodile in Florida: Recovering an Endangered Species While Restoring an Endangered Ecosystem. Technical Report. 41 pp. McClelland, G.H., W.D. Schulze, and B. Hurd. 1990. The effect of risk beliefs on property values: A case study of a hazardous waste site. Risk Analysis 10(4):485-497. Miller, K.K. and T.K. McGee. 2000. Sex differences in values and knowledge of wildlife in Victoria, Australia. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5(2):54-68. Miller, K.K. and T.K. McGee. 2001. Toward incorporating human dimensions information into wildlife management decision-making. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 6:205-221. National Environmental Education and Training Foundation (NEETF). 1999. The eighth annual national report card on environmental attitudes, knowledge, and behavior. Roper-Starch Worldwide, Washington, D.C., USA. Park, E., C.W. Scherer, and C.J. Glynn. 2001. Community involvement and risk perception at personal and societal levels. Health, Risk, and Society 3(3):281-292.

PAGE 75

66 Reading, R.P. and S.R. Kellert. 1993. Attitudes toward a proposed reintroduction of black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes). Conservation Biology 7(3):569-580. Riley, S.J. 1998. Integration of environmental, biological, and human dimensions for management of cougars (Puma concolor) in Montana. PhD Dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Riley, S. J. and D.J. Decker. 2000a. Risk perception as a factor in wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for cougars in Montana. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5: 50-62. Riley, S. J. and D.J. Decker. 2000b. Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for cougars in Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):931-939. Riley, S.J., R.D. Mace, and M. Madel. 1994. Translocation of nuisance grizzly bears in northwestern Montana. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 9(1):567-573. Riley, S. J., D.J. Decker, L.H. Carpenter, J.F. Organ, W.F. Siemer, G.F. Mattfeld, and G. Parsons. 2002. The essence of wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(2):585-593. Siemer, W.F. and D.J. Decker. 2003. 2002 New York State black bear management survey: Study overview and findings highlight. Human Dimensions Research Unit, Series No. 03-6. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Sinclair, J., F. Mazzotti, and J. Graham. 2003. Motives to seek threatened and endangered species information for land-use decisions. Science Communication 25(1):39-55. Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236:280-285. Slovic, P. 1993. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis 13(6):675-682. Steele. J., L. Bourke, A.E. Luloff, P.S. Liao, G.L. Theodori, and R.S. Krannich. 2001. The drop-off/pick-up method for household survey research. Journal of the Community Development Society 32(2):238-250. Stern, P.C. 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56(3):407-424. Stout, R. J., B. A. Knuth, and P. D. Curtis. 1997. Preferences of suburban landowners for deer management techniques: a step towards better communication. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:348-359.

PAGE 76

67 Tisdell, C. and C. Wilson. 2004. The publics knowledge of and support for conservation of Australias tree-kangaroos and other animals. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:2339-2359. Trumbo, C.W. 1999. Heuristic-systematic information processing and risk judgment. Risk Analysis 19(3):391-400. U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. http://www.census.gov Last accessed March 2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. South Florida multi-species recovery plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 2172 pp. von Winterfeldt, D., R.S. John, and K. Borcherding. 1981. Cognitive components of risk ratings. Risk Analysis 1(4):277-287. Weigel, R. and J. Weigel. 1978. Environmental concern: The development of a measure. Environment and Behavior 10(1):3-15. Zeckhauser, R.J. and W.K. Viscusi. 1990. Risk within reason. Science 248:559-248. Zinn, H.C. and C.L. Pierce. 2002. Values, gender, and concern about potentially dangerous wildlife. Environment and Behavior 34(2): 239-256. Zinn, H.C., M.J. Manfredo, and J.J. Vaske. 2000. Social psychological bases for stakeholder acceptance capacity. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5:20-33.

PAGE 77

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jodie Lynn Smithem was born June 28, 1979, in Gaylord, Michigan, to Michael Craig Smithem and Beth Eileen Smithem. She spent her formative years in Naples, Florida, graduating from Barron Collier High School in 1997. Jodie earned her bachelors degree in wildlife ecology and conservation from the University of Florida in 2001. She then worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Vero Beach, Florida, until August 2002. After spending one semester at Florida Atlantic University, Jodie returned to the University of Florida in January of 2003 to pursue graduate studies. 68


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011120/00001

Material Information

Title: Risk Perceptions of and Acceptance Capacity for the American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) in South Florida
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: UFE0011120:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011120/00001

Material Information

Title: Risk Perceptions of and Acceptance Capacity for the American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) in South Florida
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: UFE0011120:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












RISK PERCEPTIONS OF AND ACCEPTANCE CAPACITY FOR
THE AMERICAN CROCODILE (Crocodylus acutus) IN
SOUTH FLORIDA














By

JODIE LYNN SMITHEM


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


2005

































Copyright 2005

by

Jodie Lynn Smithem















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I first want to thank my committee members, Frank Mazzotti, Glenn Israel, and

Janas Sinclair, for providing invaluable assistance and advice for this study. I would also

like to acknowledge my friends in the Vero Beach office for their encouragement and

support. I will forever be grateful to Shawn J. Riley for his human dimensions study on

mountain lions. His study truly inspired and directed me to seek similar information for

the American crocodile. I also have great respect for Stephen R. Kellert, Daniel J.

Decker, and all the other pioneers of human dimensions work. Thanks go to Black Point

Marina, Homestead Bayfront Park, and Ocean Reef Club for use of their property as

study sites. Jocie Graham and Alicia Weinstein were instrumental in compiling the

questionnaires used in this study. Alicia Dunne assisted with data collection at Black

Point Marina and Valerie Morgan assisted with data collection at Homestead Bayfront

Park. Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge provided housing during data collection

at Ocean Reef Club. I thank the University of Florida and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service for providing project support. Finally, I would like to thank my family and

friends for their love and support. I would also like to thank my dog, Casey, for being by

my side and making me smile through it all.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iii

LIST OF TABLES .................................. ........... ............................ vi

LIST OF FIGURES .. ................... ............ ......... .............. vii

INTRODUCTION ....................................... ........... ...............................

Stakeholder C considerations .................. ............................................................2......
C onceptual F ram ew ork ... ...................................................................... ...............5...
Study Purpose .............. .......................................................................................7

M E T H O D S ........................................................................... .................................... . 9

Q questionnaire D evelopm ent ......................................... ........................ ...............9...
Q questionnaire C ontent .. ...................................................................... ............... 10
Q questionnaire A dm inistration ....................................... ...................... ............... 14
Statistical Procedures ... .. ................................. ............................. ............ 16

R E SU L T S .......................................................................................................... ........ .. 19

S u rv ey R esp o n se ...................................................................... .............. .. ... ............ 19
Involvement with Wildlife and American Crocodiles.......................................... 19
C rocodile K now ledge .............. ................... ............................................... 25
Inform action A venues ................................................................................ ............ ... 26
Attitudes Towards American Crocodiles.................................................... 27
A acceptance of M anagem ent Tools ...................................................... .................. 31
Perceptions of Recent American Crocodile Population Trends ...............................32
Risk B eliefs about A m erican Crocodiles............................................... ................ 34
Subjective Risk Perceptions of American Crocodiles...........................................37
Factors Affecting Risk Beliefs about American Crocodiles ..................................... 38
Preferences for Future American Crocodile Population Trends...............................38
Factors Affecting Preferences for American Crocodile Populations ......................41

D IS C U S S IO N .................................................................................................................. .. 4 3









APPENDIX


A THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS USED FOR INDIVIDUALS
PARTICIPATING IN THE PRELIMINARY INTERVIEWS .................................48

B THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS USED FOR INDIVIDUALS
COM PLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................... ................ 49

C THE SELF-ADMINISTERED QUESTIONNAIRE USED FOR INQUIRY INTO
THE BELIEFS, ATTITUDES, RISK PERCEPTIONS, AND CROCODILE
POPULATION PREFERENCES OF STAKEHOLDERS IN SOUTH FLORIDA .. 50

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S .................................................. ........................................... 63

BIO GR APH ICAL SK ETCH .................................................................... ................ 68















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

1 Principal component analysis for response of questionnaire participants to
semantic differential items related to risks from American crocodiles in south
F lo rid a .................................................................. ............................................... ... 1 3

2 Principal component analysis for response of questionnaire participants to belief
statements regarding American crocodiles in south Florida ...............................14

3 Percent of questionnaire respondents who are permanent Florida residents,
seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida that indicated they participate
in various outdoor and wildlife-related activities................................ ................ 20

4 Percent of questionnaire respondents who are permanent Florida residents,
seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida that indicated they had various
involvement with American crocodiles in south Florida. ...................................22

5 Pearson correlation coefficients for the six main questionnaire variables ............24

6 Pearson correlation coefficients between the six main questionnaire variables
and age, education, income, and community involvement. ................................25

7 Percent of questionnaire respondents that indicated they heard or saw various
amounts of information about the American crocodile and American alligator
from different sources. .............. ............ .............................................. 28

8 Response of questionnaire participants to belief statements regarding American
crocodiles in south F lorida ....................................... ....................... ................ 30

9 Response of questionnaire participants to semantic differential items related to
risks from American crocodiles in south Florida................................ ................ 36

10 Response of questionnaire participants to the likelihood of experiencing various
risks versus being attacked by an American crocodile .......................................37

11 Regression model for prediction of risk perceptions of American crocodiles.........39

12 Logisitc regression model for prediction of desired future American crocodile
population trends ....................... ....................................... 42















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

1 Percent of questionnaire respondents who are permanent Florida residents,
seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida with various levels of
involved ent with Am erican crocodiles..................................................... 23

2 Percent of questionnaire respondents that indicated relocation to be an
acceptable or unacceptable management tool for American crocodiles involved
in various scenarios. ............................ ............................................ 32

3 Percent of questionnaire respondents that indicated euthanasia to be an
acceptable or unacceptable management tool for American crocodiles involved
in various scenarios. ............................ ............................................ 33

4 Percent of questionnaire respondents who are permanent Florida residents,
seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida that believed the American
crocodile population in south Florida either increased, decreased, or remained
the sam e during 1998-2003 ...................................... ....................... ................ 34

5 Path diagram for risk perceptions of American crocodiles (RBELIEF), with path
coefficients added ....................... ........... .........................39

6 Percent of questionnaire respondents who are permanent Florida residents,
seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida that revealed preferences for a
smaller, larger, or similar American crocodile population in south Florida for
2 0 0 4 -2 0 0 9 ............................................................................................................... .. 4 0















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

RISK PERCEPTIONS OF AND ACCEPTANCE CAPACITY FOR
THE AMERICAN CROCODILE (Crocodylus acutus) IN
SOUTH FLORIDA

By

Jodie Lynn Smithem

August 2005

Chair: Frank Mazzotti
Major Department: Interdisciplinary Ecology

The Florida population of the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) has been

increasing in numbers since 1975. Human-crocodile interactions are also rising, which

presents new challenges to wildlife managers and biologists working to recover this

endangered species. This study investigated factors affecting stakeholders' risk

perceptions of and acceptance capacity for the American crocodile in south Florida to

enhance conservation and recovery efforts for this species. Results from this study could

also formulate strategy for an educational program to increase understanding of and

acceptance for crocodiles and encourage positive, proactive attitudes about crocodile

conservation.

A self-administered questionnaire (n = 249) was used to measure stakeholder

involvement with American crocodiles, knowledge of American crocodiles, risk beliefs

associated with crocodiles, attitudes towards crocodiles, perceptions of current population









trends, and preferences for future population trends. Attitudes toward crocodiles formed

the most parsimonious model to predict risk perceptions of crocodiles in a model that

explained 23.0% of the variance. People who expressed negative attitudes towards

crocodiles had the greatest probability of considering crocodiles a high risk to humans.

Knowledge of crocodiles is not a significant predictor of risk perceptions, but may have

an indirect effect on risk perceptions of crocodiles through attitudes towards crocodiles.

A 2-variable model including risk perceptions of crocodiles and attitudes toward

crocodiles correctly predicted respondents' desired future crocodile population trends

94.0% of the time. Respondents who believed crocodiles presented a low risk to humans

and expressed positive attitudes towards crocodiles had the greatest probability of

preferring a stable or increased future crocodile population. Demographic variables such

as age, gender, level of formal education, income level, children in household, and

community involvement did not significantly affect risk perceptions of or acceptance

capacity for American crocodiles.

This study suggests developing educational programs that teach appropriate

behavior in the presence of crocodiles, address risks and benefits of crocodiles, increase

knowledge of crocodiles, and reveal that south Florida residents, visitors, and experts

perceive low risks from crocodiles. Programs that incorporate the above

recommendations will be most effective for decreasing risk perceptions of and increasing

positive attitudes towards and acceptance capacity for crocodiles.















INTRODUCTION

The Florida population of the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) was

federally listed as endangered in 1975 (Federal Register 40: 44149) and has been

increasing in numbers ever since (Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2003). The human population

of south Florida has also been increasing during this time (United States Census Bureau

2003), and as crocodiles reoccupy parts of their historic range now inhabited by people,

increased human-crocodile interactions are occurring. These interactions have led to an

increase in crocodile-related complaints (T. Regan, Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission, personal communication 2002) and present new challenges to

wildlife managers and biologists working to recover this endangered species.

Managing endangered species can be difficult because of both real and perceived

restrictions under the Endangered Species Act. Negative attitudes often result if the

presence of an endangered species is believed to restrict private property rights (Drake

and Jones 2002) or limit access to and use of natural resources (Reading and Kellert

1993). If anti-conservation attitudes prevail, measures to protect or enhance the species

could become difficult. Socioeconomic considerations address these concerns and are

crucial for effective recovery programs, yet are often ignored or insufficiently considered

in endangered species management efforts (Kellert 1985a, Reading and Kellert 1993).

This study seeks to understand public perceptions of and preferences for the American

crocodile to enhance conservation and recovery efforts for this species.









Stakeholder Considerations

Wildlife management during most of the twentieth century was executed solely by

wildlife biologists. Although management decisions typically used input from selected

stakeholders (e.g., hunters, farmers, landowners), managers rarely sought participation

from them or other members of the public in actual decision-making (Decker and Chase

1997). Towards the end of the twentieth century, the array of stakeholders in wildlife

management diversified and their expectations for involvement in decisions increased

(Riley et al. 2002). The use of biological knowledge for wildlife management will

always be essential, but it may no longer be sufficient to use expert authority as the

exclusive basis for practicing wildlife management. Many wildlife managers are

increasingly integrating biological knowledge with information on human dimensions in

management processes (Riley et al. 2002) as stakeholders become a central component of

contemporary wildlife management (Decker et al. 1996).

Decker and Purdy (1988) introduced the concept of wildlife acceptance capacity

(WAC) to explain how human beliefs and preferences affect decisions on the

management of wildlife population levels. Wildlife acceptance capacity is an estimate of

the maximum wildlife population level that is acceptable to people in a given area.

Unlike biological carrying capacity, which theoretically has one value for a specific

wildlife population in a defined area at a defined moment in time, there can be many

WAC levels for a particular wildlife population at a given point in time. This is due to

different key constituency groups simultaneously possessing different acceptance levels.

Carpenter et al. (2000) expanded the concept of wildlife acceptance capacity to

describe wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity (WSAC). WSAC can describe

people's unwillingness to accept scarcity or extinction of important or popular species, as









well as people's unwillingness to accept overabundance or increases of nuisance or

unpopular species. Determinants of WSAC are thought to include perceived positive and

negative impacts of the species, characteristics of the species (e.g., aesthetic appeal,

phylogenetic relatedness of the species to humans, economic value of the species),

situational specifics (e.g., management actions, proximity of human populations and

activities to animal populations), past experiences, beliefs and attitudes about the species,

risk tolerance of stakeholders, and perceptions of population trends (Craven et al. 1992,

Carpenter et al. 2000, Zinn et al. 2000). Understanding factors affecting acceptance

capacity for the crocodile will help wildlife managers select standards for population

levels and management actions that meet public approval, which may help avoid or

reduce conflict over management decisions (Zinn et al. 2000).

Risk perceptions of potentially dangerous wildlife are of great interest since such

perceptions often influence management policy (Riley and Decker 2000a). Far less

dread, fear, or worry is typically associated with risks accepted voluntarily, particularly

those from familiar events, than risks that are new or for which persons do not have a

sense of control (Slovic 1987). An encounter, or even the potential for an encounter, with

an American crocodile could represent the type of low probability-high consequence

event that leads to dread and elevated risk perceptions (Slovic 1987), which could

subsequently lower WSAC for this species (Riley and Decker 2000a). Identifying factors

that affect risk perceptions of crocodiles could help wildlife agencies design tailored

educational programs to increase understanding of and acceptance for crocodiles among

different stakeholder groups.









Managers' judgments about public perceptions of wildlife are not always accurate

(Miller and McGee 2001), and managing risks should be guided by facts, not

"undisciplined speculation about the beliefs or motivations of other people" (Fischhoff

1995, p. 144). Managers need to recognize and understand differences between objective

and subjective risk perceptions and between experts' and lay persons' perceptions of risk

(McClelland et al. 1990, Fischhoff 1995). Experts and lay people may agree about the

number of fatalities associated with an action or hazard (i.e., objective risk), but disagree

about its degree of risk (i.e., subjective risk). Lay people often place greater weight on

catastrophic potential and unfamiliar risks (Fischhoff 1995, Slovic 1987), resulting in

discrepancies between perceived risks and fatality estimates (von Winterfeldt et al. 1981).

Researching public risk perceptions of crocodiles can confirm or reject assumptions

about stakeholders (Butler et al. 2001) and result in better, more-informed management

decisions (Decker 1994).

Demographics can play a significant role in risk perceptions of large predators and

beliefs and attitudes towards animals in general. Women (Kellert and Berry 1987, Miller

and McGee 2000, Zinn and Pierce 2002), elderly individuals (Kellert 1985b, Kleiven et

al. 2004), and people with limited education (Kellert et al. 1996, Riley and Decker 2000a)

often exhibit greater risk perceptions of and more negative attitudes toward large

predators. Zinn and Pierce (2002) found individuals with children under 18 years of age

living in the home were more likely to fear attack by a mountain lion than those without

young children at home, although Riley and Decker (2000b) discovered having children

at home did not significantly affect acceptance capacity for the mountain lion.

Understanding the influence of demographics on risk perceptions of and acceptance









capacity for the American crocodile will enable wildlife managers and policy makers to

more effectively target their audiences and make better management decisions.

Conceptual Framework

Since protecting endangered species such as the American crocodile often requires

public participation and cooperation, an important question is: What factors affect public

support for species conservation efforts, specifically acceptance capacity for potentially

dangerous species? Kempton (1991) argues that citizens' comprehension of scientific

and environmental issues is significant to the decision-making process since the public

often bears costs of environmental protection. In other words, stakeholders must possess

knowledge about the issue to make informed decisions. Bord et al. (2000) corroborate

this notion by showing accurate knowledge precedes concern for global warming and is

the strongest predictor of intentions to behave in ways that might lessen climate change

(e.g., drive less, choose vehicle with good gas mileage). In reference to species

preservation, Tisdell and Wilson (2004) found support for conservation of tree-kangaroos

(Dendrolagus sp.) in Australia increased with greater knowledge of the species.

The connection between environmental knowledge and environmental concern is

not always present, however. The National Environmental Education and Training

Foundation (NEETF) rated the American public very high on attitudes toward

environmental support, yet very low on level of environmental knowledge (NEETF

1999). Hunter and Rinner (2004) found that environmental perspectives, not

environmental knowledge, are associated with support for local species preservation.

Knowledge was suggested to supplement, not supplant, environmental perspectives for

affecting interest in species preservation. Hunter and Rinner (2004) suggest

incorporating importance of ecological integrity and biological diversity, not just









information specific to certain species, into outreach efforts to increase public support for

species diversity.

Riley and Decker (2000b) discovered individuals who believed mountain lion

populations had decreased, expressed positive attitudes toward mountain lions, and

perceived low risk perceptions of mountain lions possessed higher acceptance capacities

for the species. In addition, stakeholders with lower education levels had higher risk

perceptions of mountain lions (Riley and Decker 2000a). Understanding the connection

between stakeholders' knowledge of, perceptions of, and preferences for other potentially

dangerous animals, such as the American crocodile, will help identify effective means for

communicating about and conserving such species.

Several frameworks have been developed to measure the connection between

attitudes and behaviors for environmental concern. The Environmental Concern Scale

emerged as a "brief, easy-to-use research tool capable of examining the correlates and

determinants of attitudinal concern about environmental quality, longitudinal change in

public attitudes, and the attitudinal impact of environmentally oriented policies,

legislation, and educational efforts" (Weigel and Weigel 1978, p. 12). The New

Environmental Paradigm (Dunlap and Van Liere 1978), now termed the New Ecological

Paradigm to reflect a more sophisticated perspective toward human relationships to the

natural world, has been used by researchers in a variety of arenas and cultural contexts

(Dunlap et al. 2000). The New Ecological Paradigm scale is designed to assess values,

attitudes, and beliefs toward ecological concepts such as balance of nature, limits to

growth, and human domination of nature (Dunlap et al. 2000). Ideas from both the

Environmental Concern Scale and New Ecological Paradigm can be used to test the link









between stakeholders' knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and acceptance capacity for the

American crocodile.

Study Purpose

The goals for this study were to understand stakeholders' risk perceptions of and

acceptance capacity for the American crocodile in south Florida. Previous studies

examining acceptance levels for wildlife have generally focused on large mammalian

species, such as deer (Odocoileus virginianus, Stout et al. 1997), mountain lions (Puma

concolor, Riley and Decker 2000b), and black bears (Ursus americanus, Siemer and

Decker 2003). Researching perceptions of and acceptance capacities for large reptilian

species, such as crocodiles, will broaden the information base available to wildlife

managers and decision makers and advance the body of human dimensions research for

wildlife management in general. Of particular interest for this study was whether

variables that best predict risk perceptions of and preferences for crocodile populations

would be similar to those for mammalian species.

To achieve the goals for this study, the following research questions were

investigated:

1. Does involvement with crocodiles, knowledge of crocodiles, attitudes towards
crocodiles, perceptions of current crocodile population trends, or socioeconomic
variables affect risk perceptions of crocodiles?

2. Does involvement with crocodiles, knowledge of crocodiles, risk perceptions of
crocodiles, attitudes towards crocodiles, perceptions of current crocodile population
trends, or socioeconomic variables affect preferences for future crocodile population
trends?

Results from this study could also formulate strategy for an educational program

aimed at south Florida residents and visitors who live and recreate near crocodile habitat.

Public education can provide the foundation for developing positive, proactive attitudes






8


about crocodile conservation (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). An

informed, supportive public is vital for the continued growth and recovery of south

Florida's American crocodile population.















METHODS

Questionnaire Development

Personal interviews were conducted during fall 2003 to obtain preliminary

information on local perceptions and involvement regarding American crocodiles in

south Florida. Three interviews were conducted on October 1, 2003 at Black Point

Marina and three interviews were conducted on October 2, 2003 at Ocean Reef Club.

Participants were asked permission to audio tape record the interview. Information

regarding the surveyor, the surveyor's connection to the University of Florida, and the

scientific reason for conducting the study were given to the participant (Appendix A).

Basic questions concerning the individual's interactions with crocodiles, knowledge of

crocodiles, perceptions of crocodiles, and attitudes toward crocodiles were asked. Four

males and two females participated in the interviews. The primary purpose of the

interviews was to aid development of a questionnaire that could quantitatively assess

factors affecting stakeholder perceptions of and preferences for crocodile populations in

south Florida.

Design of the questionnaire was adapted from Riley (1998) and reflected

information gained from preliminary interviews. Pilot tests involving two draft versions

of the questionnaire were conducted at Ocean Reef Club, Black Point Marina, and

Everglades National Park (an initial study site) on October 28-30, 2003, respectively, to

evaluate the survey design. Individuals at each of the three sites were informed of the

research agenda, guaranteed privacy, invited to participate, and hand-delivered a









questionnaire (Appendix B). Participants returned the questionnaire to the surveyor upon

completion. Seven individuals participated in the pilot study at Ocean Reef Club, nine at

Black Point Marina, and ten at Everglades National Park. The final version of the

questionnaire was completed on December 11, 2003.

Questionnaire Content

The questionnaire formed a 12-page booklet and contained six primary subject

areas: involvement with American crocodiles, knowledge of American crocodiles, risk

beliefs associated with crocodiles, attitudes towards crocodiles, perceptions of current

population trends, and preferences for future population trends (Appendix C). Questions

about wildlife-related activities and information sources preceded questions regarding the

topics of primary interest. Respondents were also asked to indicate acceptability of

management tools, reveal subjective risk judgments regarding crocodiles, and provide

information regarding resident status, age, gender, race, number of children and pets in

household, level of formal education, income level, and community involvement. Space

at the end of the questionnaire provided respondents the opportunity to make additional

comments regarding crocodiles or the survey.

Involvement with American crocodiles was assessed using a continuum of potential

experiences for respondents that ranged from no interaction, to observing a crocodile in

the wild, to knowing a friend or family member who had an encounter with a crocodile,

to being personally threatened by a crocodile or having pets or livestock threatened. Five

additional experiences were vicarious in that the respondent only read or heard about

crocodiles being threatened or killed by people, about people or pets being threatened or

attacked by a crocodile, or about crocodiles raiding fish or crab traps. Respondents were

asked to indicate which type of interaction with American crocodiles they or members of









their household had experienced. The experiences were classified into 5 levels (adapted

from Riley and Decker 2000b):

* very high (respondent or family member personally threatened by a crocodile),

* high (respondent or family member had a friend, pet, or livestock threatened by a
crocodile),

* moderate (respondent observed a crocodile in the wild or read/heard about people
being threatened by a crocodile),

* low (family member observed a crocodile in the wild or read/heard about people
being threatened by a crocodile, or participant or family member read/heard about
crocodiles being threatened or killed by humans, about pets being threatened or
attacked by a crocodile, or about crocodiles raiding fish or crab traps), and

* none (no experience with listed items).

Very few respondents (3.6%) were classified as having a very high involvement

level and were therefore grouped with respondents in the high involvement category to

form the variable INVOLVE, which had 4 levels: high, moderate, low, and none.

Five questions regarding the status, habitat, and behavior of crocodiles assessed

respondents' knowledge level. Respondents were asked to circle the answer they

believed correct for each of the questions. A team of experts confirmed one correct

answer for each of the five questions. The number of correct answers for the five

questions was summed for each respondent (adapted from Sinclair et al. 2003). Very few

respondents (1.2%) answered all questions correctly and were therefore grouped with

respondents who answered 4 questions correctly to form the variable KNOWLEDGE,

which had 5 levels: no questions answered correctly, 1 question answered correctly, 2

questions answered correctly, 3 questions answered correctly, and 4 or 5 questions

answered correctly.









Risk beliefs were measured using a 5-point semantic differential scale with

adjective pairs as endpoints (Alreck and Settle 1995). The adjective pairs originated from

Riley (1998), but were modified for relevance to crocodiles. A "Don't Know" option

was provided for all questions. Factor analysis (Manly 1986) indicated two components

with one main factor: beliefs related to risks (RBELIEF), which encompassed personal

and community risk, ability to live with risks, and voluntariness of risk acceptance (Table

1). Responses to the four items were averaged to create the variable RBELIEF (adapted

from Sinclair et al. 2003). Respondents who answered "Don't Know" to one or more of

the six items (n = 61, 24%) did not receive a score for RBELIEF.

A 5-point Likert scale (Alreck and Settle 1995) ranging from disagree strongly to

agree strongly assessed respondents' attitudes towards crocodiles. Participants were

asked to circle the number that represented their level of agreement or disagreement to a

series of nine belief statements concerning crocodiles. A "No Opinion" option was

provided for all questions. "No Opinion" responses were believed comparable to neither

agreeing nor disagreeing with the statement and were recorded to the mid-point value on

the 5-point progressive scale. Factor analysis indicated statements regarding economic

considerations of crocodiles did not relate to the remaining belief statements. Subsequent

factor analysis, excluding economic statements, produced two components with one main

factor: attitudes related to the symbolism, benefits, rights, and threats of crocodiles

(ATTITUDE, Table 2). The second component was an artifact of reverse coded

statements. Responses to the seven items were averaged (weighted using factor loadings)

to create the variable ATTITUDE (adapted from Jacobson and Marynowski 1997).









Table 1. Principal component analysis for response of questionnaire participants to
semantic differential items related to risks from American crocodiles in south
Florida.
Component 1 Component 2
Eigenvalue 3.125 1.368
Percent Variance 40.181 17.104
Factor Loadings
Do you believe the community is at no risk or
great risk? 0.799a -0.252
People will be able or unable to learn to live
with the risks associated with crocodiles? 0.786a -0.251
Do you believe that you are personally at no
risk or great risk? 0.753a -0.289
Risks from American crocodiles are accepted
voluntarily or involuntarily? 0.749a -0.110
The risks from having crocodiles in Florida are
well or not well understood by experts? 0.556 0.202
The benefits and risks of American crocodiles
to people are matched or mismatched? 0.541 0.217
Are encounters between American crocodiles
and people a new event or an old event? 0.255 0.790
Are crocodile-human encounters increasing or
decreasing in south Florida? 0.405 0.659
a Values for items used to form the variable RBELIEF.

Perceptions of current American crocodile population trends and preferences for

future crocodile population trends were measured on 5-point progressive scales that

ranged from decreased) greatly to increased) greatly. A "No Opinion" option was

provided for all questions. Variables were created from perceptions of American

crocodile population trends during 1998-2003 (CPOP) and preferences for crocodile

population trends during 2004-2009 (FPOP). Both variables treated decreasing responses

and stable or increasing responses as two separate categories (Riley and Decker 2000b).









Respondents who answered "No Opinion" did not receive a score for that variable (n =

72, 29% for CPOP and n = 49, 20% for FPOP).

Table 2. Principal component analysis for response of questionnaire participants to belief
statements regarding American crocodiles in south Florida.
Component 1 Component 2
Eigenvalues 2.594 1.097
Percent Variance 37.053 15.668
Factor Loadings
The presence of crocodiles in Florida
increases my overall quality of life 0.749a -0.128
The presence of crocodiles near my home
increases my overall quality of life 0.692a 0.047
The presence of crocodiles is a sign of a
healthy environment 0.638a -0.239
Crocodiles should have the right to exist
wherever they may occur 0.561a -0.265
I think the crocodile is a likable species 0.536a -0.485
Crocodiles are an unacceptable threat to
humans and pets 0.546a 0.603b
Crocodiles threaten people's livelihoods by
raiding fish and crab traps 0.496a 0.594b
a Values for items used to form the variable ATTITUDE.
b Reverse coded items.

Questionnaire Administration

Three locations in south Florida were used for this study: Homestead Bayfront

Park, Black Point Marina, and Ocean Reef Club. Homestead Bayfront Park and Black

Point Marina provide recreational opportunities for permanent Florida residents, seasonal

Florida residents, and visitors to Florida. Ocean Reef Club is an affluent community

comprised mainly of seasonal residents. These sites were chosen because results from

this study intend to be applicable to south Florida residents and visitors who effect, are

affected by, or are concerned with crocodile management or recovery efforts. Individuals









who reside or recreate in the study areas have the potential to encounter an American

crocodile and likely characterize the conceptual population for this study.

Homestead Bayfront Park is a 97-acre Miami-Dade County Park adjacent to south

Biscayne Bay in Homestead, Florida (250 27.8' N, 800 19.2' W). American crocodiles are

occasionally spotted in the waters surrounding the park. Black Point Marina is a 52-acre

Miami-Dade County Park located in Cutler Ridge, Florida (250 31.5' N, 800 17.9' W). A

resident American crocodile inhabits the waters surrounding Black Point Marina and has

been encountered by marina patrons. Ocean Reef Club is a private community located in

north Key Largo, Florida. It was founded in 1945 as a private fishing club and has grown

to include deluxe private homes, vacation rentals, and a private marina. Ocean Reef Club

members and employees periodically observe American crocodiles on community

grounds.

A modified version of the hand-delivery method presented in Dillman et al. (1995)

was utilized for adult patrons at Black Point Marina and Homestead Bayfront Park.

Individuals over the age of 18 at each site were chosen indiscriminately to provide the

best representative sample possible of adults visiting the area at the time of data

collection. Upon the researcher's arrival to each of the study sites, the first individual

over the age of 18 encountered by the researcher was approached and informed of the

research agenda, guaranteed privacy, and invited to participate in the study (Appendix B).

If the individual rejected the invitation to participate, the researcher thanked the

individual for his time and then asked the next adult encountered to participate in the

study. If the individual accepted the invitation to participate, the researcher hand-

delivered a self-administered questionnaire to the individual. Upon completion of the









questionnaire, the researcher collected the survey from the participant and then asked the

next adult encountered to participate in the study. Individuals over the age of 18 were

approached as encountered, without regard to race, sex, or disabilities.

A modified version of the drop-off/pick-up method (Steele et al. 2001) was utilized

for residents of Ocean Reef Club. Residents were hand-delivered self-administered

questionnaires at a town hall meeting and asked to return completed surveys to the main

office within one week.

Sampling periods consisted of at least one weekday and one weekend day at Black

Point Marina and Homestead Bayfront Park. Sampling began in the morning and

concluded early in the evening at each site on the days of data collection. Black Point

Marina was sampled from December 27-31, 2003, and Homestead Bayfront Park was

sampled from January 1-3, 16-18, and 23, 2004. Questionnaires were hand-delivered to

Ocean Reef Club residents on January 16, 2004. Completed questionnaires were

collected the following week from the main office.

Questionnaires were presented to 213, 226, and 114 individuals at Black Point

Marina, Homestead Bayfront Park, and Ocean Reef Club, respectively. The overall

response rate was 45% (n = 249), with individual return rates equaling 50.2% (n = 107),

45.6% (n = 103), and 45% (n = 39) for Black Point Marina, Homestead Bayfront Park,

and Ocean Reef Club, respectively. The most frequent explanations given by

respondents for not participating in the survey included inability to speak English,

leaving to go boating, and time constraints.

Statistical Procedures

All data were analyzed using SPSS Graduate Pack 12.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc.

2003). Missing data were excluded listwise for regression analyses and pairwise for all









other analyses. "Don't Know" and "No Opinion" responses were excluded for

descriptive statistics.

Multiple regression was used to construct a model that best predicted risk

perceptions of crocodiles (adapted from Sinclair et al. 2003). Independent variables

selected a priori included involvement with crocodiles, knowledge of crocodiles,

attitudes towards crocodiles, perceptions of current crocodile population trends, and six

demographic variables: age, gender, formal education (6 levels ranging from some high

school to graduate degree or beyond), income (6 levels ranging from under $20,000 to

over $500,000), children in household (yes or no), and community involvement (4 levels

ranging from participation in no local organizations to participation in 3 or 4

organizations).

Logistic regression was used to construct a model that best predicted preferences

for future crocodile population trends, a measure of wildlife stakeholder acceptance

capacity for the American crocodile (Decker and Purdy 1988, Riley and Decker 2000b).

Independent variables selected a priori included involvement with crocodiles, knowledge

of crocodiles, attitudes towards crocodiles, perceptions of current crocodile population

trends, risk perceptions of crocodiles, and six demographic variables: age, gender, formal

education (6 levels ranging from some high school to graduate degree or beyond), income

(6 levels ranging from under $20,000 to over $500,000), children in household (yes or

no), and community involvement (4 levels ranging from participation in no local

organizations to participation in 3 or 4 organizations).

Chi-square statistics were used to test for differences in proportions between

variables, Pearson product-moment correlations were used to measure relationships






18


between variables, and differences between multiple means were tested using one-way

Analysis of Variance.















RESULTS

Survey Response

The majority of respondents were male (64.3%), white (88.8%), and permanent

Florida residents (75.1%). Respondents of Hispanic or Latino origin (22.2%) were likely

under-represented in the sample population. The proportions of seasonal Florida

residents (13.7%) and visitors to Florida (11.2%) were approximately equal.

Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 89, with a median age of 48. Formal education

attainment was normally distributed, with 61.6% of respondents having completed some

college or obtained a college degree. Most respondents did not have children at home

(66.7%) and either had no pets (40.2%) or a dog (30.9%). More respondents belonged to

religious (36.5%) or civic (21%) organizations than to environmental (14.9%) or school-

based (12.9%) organizations.

Involvement with Wildlife and American Crocodiles

Wildlife-related TV programs, videos, or movies were reported as the most

common activities that bring people into contact with wildlife (Table 3). Over half of

respondents indicated they visit zoos or aquariums, boat or fish in south Florida natural

areas, or read about wildlife. Most respondents who boat or fish in south Florida natural

areas are permanent or seasonal Florida residents. Nearly half of respondents observe or

study wildlife outdoors and less hike or bike in south Florida natural areas or bird watch.

Snorkeling and scuba diving were the most common self-reported activities by permanent












Table 3. Percent of questionnaire respondents who are permanent Florida residents, seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida
that indicated they participate in various outdoor and wildlife-related activities.
Permanent Seasonal Visitor Combined
y (n = 187) (n = 34) (n = 28) (n = 249)
Watch wildlife TV programs, videos, or movies 80.7 82.4 75.0 80.3
Visit zoos or aquariums 69.0 76.5 53.6 68.3
Boat in south Florida natural areas 66.8 61.8 17.9 60.6
Fish in south Florida natural areas 65.8 55.9 7.1 57.8
Read about wildlife 55.1 61.8 60.7 56.6
Observe or study wildlife outdoors 46.0 44.1 50.0 46.2
Hike in south Florida natural areas 34.2 35.3 28.6 33.7
Bird watch 31.0 35.3 39.3 32.5
Bike in south Florida natural areas 27.3 17.6 25.0 25.7
Work on a farm or ranch 3.7 11.8 14.3 6.0
Other activities 9.6 14.7 4.6 9.6
a Includes golfing, sailing, horseback riding, drag racing, snorkeling, scuba diving, hunting, playing music, surfing, and creating art.









Florida residents and golfing, snorkeling, and scuba diving were the most common self-

reported activities by seasonal Florida residents.

Observing a crocodile in the wild was the most common type of involvement with

American crocodiles experienced by respondents (Table 4). Though 63.5% of

respondents indicated they had observed a crocodile in the wild, fewer than 4% reported

a threatening experience. Permanent and seasonal Florida residents were more likely to

have read or heard about crocodile interactions with pets, people, and automobiles and

were twice as likely to know a friend or family member who had an encounter with a

crocodile than visitors to Florida. Few respondents indicated having pets or livestock

threatened or attacked by a crocodile.

The majority of respondents (53.4%) were classified as having a moderate level of

involvement with American crocodiles (Figure 1). Visitors to Florida had a higher

proportion of respondents in the no involvement category and a lower proportion of

respondents in the moderate category than permanent or seasonal Florida residents.

Visitors to Florida had no respondents in the very high category. Seasonal Florida

residents had a greater proportion of respondents in the moderate and very high

categories and a lower proportion of respondents in the no involvement and low

categories than permanent Florida residents. Permanent Florida residents, seasonal

Florida residents, and visitors to Florida had approximately equal proportions of

respondents in the high involvement category. The mean level of involvement for

respondents was 1.71 (SE = 0.062).












Table 4. Percent of questionnaire respondents who are permanent Florida residents, seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida
that indicated they had various involvement with American crocodiles in south Florida.
Involvement Permanent Seasonal Visitor Combined
(n = 187) (n = 34) (n = 28) (n = 249)
Observed a crocodile in the wild 64.2 79.4 39.3 63.5
Read or heard of a crocodile being threatened or 28.9 35.3 28.6 29.7
attacked by people
Read or heard about pets being threatened or 24.1 32.4 21.4 24.9
attacked by a crocodile
Read or heard about other people being threatened 19.8 14.7 10.7 18.1
or attacked by a crocodile
Read or heard about a crocodile being killed by an 17.6 26.5 0.0 16.9
automobile
Know a friend, neighbor, or family member who 14.4 14.7 7.1 13.7
had an encounter with a crocodile
Observed, read, or heard about fish or crab traps 8.6 14.7 7.1 9.2
being raided by crocodiles
Have been personally threatened by a crocodile 3.7 5.9 0.0 3.6
Had a pet threatened or attacked by a crocodile 2.7 0.0 3.6 2.4
Had livestock threatened or attacked by a crocodile 2.1 2.9 3.6 2.4
Other types of experiences 2.1 2.9 0.0 2.0
a Includes observing a crocodile on television or in captivity.












10000-

9000%

80% -

70%-

60%0 [1ae Very High
0 High
50o% Moderate
2 Low
4000 O None

30O% -

20O%-

1000%

00%
Permanent Seasonal Visitor Combined
Florida Status


Figure 1. Percent of questionnaire respondents who are permanent Florida residents,
seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida with various levels of
involvement with American crocodiles.

Correlations among variables are presented in Table 5 and correlations between


variables and demographics are presented in Table 6. Involvement with crocodiles had a


significant positive correlation with risk perceptions of crocodiles, income, and


community involvement. Permanent Florida residents (F2,246 = 4.070, p = 0.040) and


seasonal Florida residents (F2,246 = 4.070, p = 0.029) had higher levels of involvement


with crocodiles than visitors to Florida. Involvement with crocodiles did not differ


significantly between permanent Florida residents and seasonal Florida residents,


between males and females, or between respondents with and without children at home.












Table 5. Pearson correlation coefficients for the six main questionnaire variables.


Variablea


INVOLVE


INVOLVE


KNOWLEDGE


RELIEF

ATTITUDE


CPOP


FPOP


KNOWLEDGE RELIEF


0.043


0.147*


-0.160*


ATTITUDE


-0.028


0.241**


-0.454**


a INVOLVE = involvement with crocodiles, KNOWLEDGE = knowledge of crocodiles, RBELIEF = risk perceptions of crocodiles,
ATTITUDE = attitudes towards crocodiles, CPOP = perceptions of current crocodile population trends, and FPOP = preferences for
future crocodile population trends.
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


CPOP

0.095


0.157*


0.104


0.000


FPOP


0.010


0.061


-0.461**


0.425**


-0.076









Table 6. Pearson correlation coefficients between the six main questionnaire variables
and age, education, income, and community involvement.

Community
Variablea Age Education Income involvement
INVOLVE 0.039 -0.023 0.139* 0.179**


KNOWLEDGE 0.080 0.087 0.113 0.082


RBELIEF -0.011 -0.049 0.044 0.035


ATTITUDE -0.209** 0.087 -0.081* -0.061


CPOP 0.204** 0.040 0.022 -0.086


FPOP -0.067 0.045 -0.108 0.002

a INVOLVE = involvement with crocodiles, KNOWLEDGE = knowledge of crocodiles,
RBELIEF = risk perceptions of crocodiles, ATTITUDE = attitudes towards crocodiles,
CPOP = perceptions of current crocodile population trends, and FPOP = preferences for
future crocodile population trends.
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Crocodile Knowledge

Nearly all respondents (91.2%) knew American crocodiles existed in Florida and

many (58.1%) were aware that the crocodile is federally-listed as endangered. Few

respondents (14.9%) thought the American crocodile is neither a threatened nor

endangered federally-listed species. Half of respondents (51.4%) believed the crocodile

occurs in Florida, Central America, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Only 18.0% knew the

crocodile occurs in both Florida and Central America. Most respondents (82.7%)

correctly identified that American crocodiles are found in brackish or saltwater estuaries.









Few (14.1%) thought crocodiles live in freshwater streams or lakes and almost none

(0.8%) thought crocodiles live in the open ocean.

The majority of respondents (60.2%) did not know if there has been a documented

American crocodile attack on a human in south Florida. Nearly one-fourth (22.9%)

believed there has been a documented attack and fewer (16.9%) proclaimed there has not

been one. The greatest proportion of people (40.2%) believed American crocodiles are

more aggressive than American alligators. One-fourth of respondents (24.4%) thought

the crocodile is less aggressive than the alligator and one-third (35.4%) believed the two

species to be equally aggressive.

The majority of respondents answered 1 (27.3%) or 2 (39.8%) of the 5 questions

regarding the status, habitat, and behavior of crocodiles correctly and 18.1% correctly

answered 3 questions. Few respondents (9.2%) answered 4 or 5 questions correctly and

less (5.6%) answered no questions correctly. The mean level of knowledge for

respondents was 1.98 (SE = 0.065). Knowledge of crocodiles had a significant negative

correlation with risk perceptions of crocodiles and a significant positive correlation with

attitudes towards crocodiles and perceptions of current crocodile population trends.

Knowledge of crocodiles did not differ significantly between permanent Florida

residents, seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida, between males and females,

or between respondents with and without children at home.

Information Avenues

Overall, more people reported receiving information regarding American

crocodiles and American alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) from newspapers or

television news stations than state or federal agencies, non-profit organizations, or the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during the six months prior to completing the









questionnaire (Table 7). Respondents were more than twice as likely to have obtained a

great deal of information regarding American crocodiles and American alligators from

newspapers or TV news stations than federal or state government or non-profit

organizations. The highest percentage of people indicated receiving a great amount of

information about American crocodiles from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Over

half of respondents reported hearing or seeing no information about the American

crocodile or American alligator from federal and state government, non-profit

organizations, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The mean level of information received by respondents from all sources was higher

for the American alligator than American crocodile for the six month period prior to

completing the questionnaire (Table 7). There is a significant difference in mean amount

of information received for the two species from newspapers or TV news stations (t =

2.74, p = .006) and from the federal government (t = 2.4, p = .014).

Most respondents indicated they would utilize wildlife television programs

(71.5%), the internet (67.5%), and books, magazines, or journals (62.2%) to learn more

about the American crocodile. A smaller number of respondents reported they would use

newspaper articles (21.3%) to find information on crocodiles and few indicated they

would seek information from non-profit organizations (12.9%) or government agencies

(12.4%).

Attitudes Towards American Crocodiles

Few respondents lacked an opinion on whether crocodiles could benefit the local

economy (6.4%), should have the right to exist wherever they may occur (4.4%), are an

unacceptable threat (6.0%), or are a likable species (7.6%). More respondents lacked an

opinion on whether the presence of crocodiles in Florida (18.5%) or near their home












Table 7. Percent of questionnaire respondents that indicated they heard or saw various amounts of information about the American
crocodile and American alligator from different sources during the six months prior to completing the questionnaire.

Species Source None Little Moderate Considerable Great Meanb SE

Newspapers or TV news station 44.9 21.8 20.2 6.2 7.0 2.03 0.079
Federal government 66.7 17.0 6.5 3.0 1.3 1.44 0.056
American crocodile State government 62.8 22.5 8.2 3.5 3.0 1.62 0.065

Non-profit organization 59.4 18.8 12.4 6.8 2.6 1.70 0.070
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 53.6 19.2 12.1 6.7 8.4 1.91 0.084


American alligator


Newspapers or TV news station
Federal government
State government
Non-profit organization
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


31.1 24.6
61.0 20.3
57.8 19.1
56.2 18.9
50.6 18.7


25.4
12.6
13.5
14.6
17.0


2.34 0.080
1.64 0.064
1.77 0.072 0


1.80 0.074
1.94 0.082


a Date presented in this table should be interpreted with caution, because accurate steps were not taken to ensure respondents clearly
remembered or comprehended whether crocodiles or alligators (species similar in appearance) were represented in the media or other
information avenues.
b Scores were derived from a 5-point progressive scale, with 1 indicating no information received to 5 indicating a great deal of
information received.









(11.6%) increased quality of life or whether the presence of crocodiles signals a healthy

environment (10.8%) or decreases property value (13.7%). Nearly one-fourth (23.3%) of

respondents had no opinion on whether crocodiles threaten people's livelihoods by

raiding fish and crab traps.

Visitors to Florida were more likely to answer "No Opinion" to 5 or more questions

regarding attitudes towards crocodiles than permanent or seasonal Florida residents (X22

= 20.099, p < .001). Age, gender, children in household, education level, income level,

and community involvement did not affect the number of "No Opinion" responses to

questions regarding attitudes towards crocodiles.

Attitudes towards American crocodiles were generally favorable among

respondents who offered an opinion. Based upon a progressive scale from 1 to 5, where

1 was a very negative attitude and 5 was a very positive attitude, the mean score was

greater than 3.0 for eight of nine belief statements regarding American crocodiles in

south Florida (Table 8). Most respondents (72.5%) believed the presence of crocodiles

signals a healthy environment and many indicated having crocodiles in Florida increased

their quality of life. The majority of respondents (58.1%) did not consider crocodiles an

unacceptable threat to humans or pets and nearly half (46.7%) thought crocodiles should

have the right to exist wherever they may occur. However, over half (53.2%) expressed

concern about living close to crocodiles by disagreeing with the idea that overall quality

of life would increase if crocodiles resided near their home, and responses were divided

on whether the crocodile is a likable species and whether the presence of crocodiles

decreases property value. Most respondents (59.1%) did not believe crocodiles threaten












Table 8. Response of questionnaire participants to belief statements regarding American crocodiles in south Florida.
% response
Belief Statementsa Disagree Neither Agree Mean SE
The presence of crocodiles is a sign of a healthy environment 6.8 20.7 72.5 4.05 0.068
The presence of crocodiles in Florida increases my overall quality 19.2 36.9 43.9 3.37 0.083
of life
The presence of crocodiles near my home increases my overall
quality of life
The presence of crocodiles decreases property value 44.1 25.6 30.3 2.71b 0.091
Crocodiles could benefit the local economy by being a tourism 19.3 26.2 54.5 3.54 0.085
attraction
Crocodiles should have the right to exist wherever they may occur 29.4 23.9 46.7 3.32 0.091
Crocodiles are an unacceptable threat to humans and pets 58.1 21.4 20.5 2.41c 0.087
I think the crocodile is a likable species 27.4 31.3 41.3 3.20 0.085
Crocodiles threaten people's livelihoods by raiding fish and crab 59.1 26.2 14.7 d 0.092
traps
a Scores were derived from a 5-point progressive scale, where 1 indicated strong disagreement, 5 strong agreement, and 3 neither
agreement nor disagreement with the statement.
b,c,d Reverse coded values equal 3.29, 3.59, and 3.76, respectively.









people's livelihoods by raiding fish or crab traps and many (54.5%) supported the idea

that crocodiles could benefit the local economy by being a tourism attraction.

Attitudes towards crocodiles had a significant positive correlation with knowledge

of crocodiles and preferences for future crocodile population trends and a significant

negative correlation with risk perceptions of crocodiles, age, and income. Males (t247

2.414, p = 0.016) had more positive attitudes than females. Permanent Florida residents

had more positive attitudes towards crocodiles than seasonal Florida residents (F2,246

3.529, p = 0.037). Attitudes towards crocodiles did not differ significantly between

permanent Florida residents and visitors to Florida, between seasonal Florida residents

and visitors to Florida, or between respondents with and without children at home.

Acceptance of Management Tools

Most respondents deemed it acceptable to relocate an American crocodile if

discovered on a golf course (69.2%), on school property (80.5%), or in a swimming pool

(81.3%), but only 31% indicated relocation as acceptable if a crocodile is found where

people boat (Figure 2). Very few respondents considered euthanasia an acceptable

management tool for an American crocodile found on a golf course (4.5%), on school

property (11.4%), in a swimming pool (7.8%), or where people boat (6.1%, Figure 3).

Over half of respondents believed relocating a crocodile to be acceptable if the crocodile

kills or injures a pet or human, but fewer considered euthanasia an acceptable

management tool for crocodiles that kill or injure humans or pets.












10000

9000% -

8000% -

7000 -

6000% -
0 No Opinion
a 50%0 Unacceptable
U Acceptable
4000% -

3000% -

2000% -

1000% -

0%
Golf Course School Pool Boating Injures Pet Injures Kills Pet Kills Human
Area Human
Scenario

Figure 2. Percent of questionnaire respondents that indicated relocation to be an
acceptable or unacceptable management tool for American crocodiles
involved in various scenarios.

Perceptions of Recent American Crocodile Population Trends

The greatest proportion of respondents (38.6%) believed the American crocodile


population in south Florida had increased during 1998-2003 (Figure 4). Over one-fourth


of respondents (28.9%) indicated they did not know what the population trend had been


over the previous 5 years and 22.1% believed the population had decreased. Few


respondents (10.4%) thought the American crocodile population had remained the same


from 1998-2003.


An equal proportion of permanent Florida residents and visitors to Florida believed


the American crocodile population had remained stable during the previous 5 years.


Visitors to Florida had nearly twice the proportion of respondents who did not know what


the population trend had been during 1998-2003 and approximately half the proportion of











100% -

900% -

800% -

7000% -

600o
O 0 No Opinion
50b% Unacceptable
Acceptable
400% -

300% -

20% -

10% -


Golf Course School Pool Boating Injures Pet Injures Kills Pet Kills Human
Area Human
Scenario

Figure 3. Percent of questionnaire respondents that indicated euthanasia to be an
acceptable or unacceptable management tool for American crocodiles
involved in various scenarios.

respondents who believed the crocodile population had increased than permanent and


seasonal Florida residents. Permanent Florida residents and seasonal Florida residents


had roughly equal proportions of respondents who did not know what the population


trend had been or believed the population had increased over the previous five years.


Fewer proportion of visitors believed the American crocodile population had decreased


during 1998-2203 than permanent or seasonal Florida residents.


Perceptions of current crocodile population trends had a significant positive


correlation with knowledge of crocodiles and age and a significant association with


gender (21 = 5.829, p = 0.016). There was no significant association between


perceptions of current crocodile population trends and permanent Florida residents,











seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida or between perceptions of current


crocodile population trends and respondents with and without children at home.


1000%

9000%

8000%

70%

6000%
E Don't Know
P a S Increased
50% -
S0 Remained the Same
0 Decreased
4000% -

3000% -

2000 -

10% -


Permanent Seasonal Visitor Combined
Florida Status

Figure 4. Percent of questionnaire respondents who are permanent Florida residents,
seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida that believed the American
crocodile population in south Florida either increased, decreased, or remained
the same during 1998-2003.

Risk Beliefs about American Crocodiles

The proportions of respondents that answered "Don't Know" for questions about


personal risk (9.7%), community risk (11.3%), ability to live with risk (12.1%), and


voluntariness of risk (16.9%) were less than the proportions for questions regarding


knowledge of experts (27.4%) and association of benefits and risks (37.5%) from


American crocodiles. Some respondents were also unsure if encounters between


American crocodiles and humans are a new or an old event (27.4%) or if encounters are


increasing or decreasing (35.5%).









Older individuals (r = .217, p = .001) and those engaged in low community

involvement (r = -. 137, p = .031) were more likely to answer "Don't Know" to 5 or more

questions regarding risk beliefs of crocodiles than younger respondents or those engaged

in high community involvement. Residency status, gender, children in household,

education level, and income level did not affect the number of "Don't Know" responses

to questions regarding risk beliefs of crocodiles.

The majority of respondents who answered along the progressive scale did not

consider encounters between American crocodiles and people as something new, and

many did not perceive encounters to be increasing (Table 9). Very few respondents

believed they were personally at risk or that communities were at risk from American

crocodiles. Most respondents indicated they could learn to live with the risks and that

risks from crocodiles were generally accepted voluntarily. Many respondents felt that

experts adequately understood risks from crocodiles. A slight discrepancy existed

concerning people who benefit from American crocodiles and those who are exposed to

potential risks.

Risk perceptions of crocodiles had a significant positive correlation with

involvement with crocodiles and a significant negative correlation with knowledge of

crocodiles, attitudes towards crocodiles, and preferences for future crocodile population

trends. Risk perceptions of crocodiles did not differ significantly between permanent

Florida residents, seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida, between males and

females, or between respondents with and without children at home.












Table 9. Response of questionnaire participants to semantic differential items related to risks from American crocodiles in south
Florida.
a Scaleb Semantic
Semantic Differential Item 1 2 3 4 5 Differential Itema Mean SE
1 2 3 4 5 Differential Itema Mean SE


Encounters between American crocodiles and
people are... New
The frequency of human-crocodile encounters
are... Increasing
You are personally at... No Risk
The community is at.... No Risk
You are... Able to
live with the risks associated with crocodiles
The risks from American crocodiles are
accepted... Voluntarily
The risks from crocodiles... Are
well understood by experts
The benefits and risks of American crocodiles to
people are... Matched


7.8 8.9 24.4 20.6 38.3


17.5
63.8
40.9
50.5



42.7
34.4


28.1
15.6
35.0
23.9



22.3
25.6


23.8
14.3
17.3
12.8



18.9
21.1


21.3
2.2
3.2
4.6


7.8 8.3
10.0 8.9


27.1 18.1 29.7 11.0 14.2


Old


3.73 0.095


Decreasing
Great Risk
Great Risk
Unable to


2.89
1.65
1.93
1.93


Involuntarily
Are not



Mismatched


2.17
2.33


0.110
0.068
0.068
0.079



0.090
0.096


2.67 0.109


a Respondents indicated the number between two words that best represented their opinion.
b Values given are percent response for each step along the progressive 1-5 scale.









Subjective Risk Perceptions of American Crocodiles

Subjective risk perceptions of American crocodiles were generally low. Nearly all

respondents believed getting into a motorcycle accident (82.7%), getting into a car

accident (81.1%), getting injured while working for a timber company (77.0%), and

dying as a result of cancer (70.8%) were more likely to occur than being attacked by an

American crocodile in south Florida (Table 10). Responses were divided on the

possibility of being attacked by an alligator versus a crocodile and 46.5% of respondents

felt getting attacked by a shark was more likely to occur than getting attacked by a

crocodile. Most respondents felt the likelihood of having an accident while driving a

tractor (69.1%) or becoming a murder victim (60.9%) was greater than being attacked by

an American crocodile in south Florida, and nearly one-half of respondents (46.1%)

considered getting into a commercial airline crash more likely to occur than being

attacked by a crocodile.

Table 10. Response of questionnaire participants to the likelihood of experiencing
various risks versus being attacked by an American crocodile.
% response
Risk More Likely Less Likely Unsure
Getting into an accident if you ride a
motorcycle
Getting into a car accident 81.1 13.6 5.3
Getting injured if you work for a timber
company
Dying as a result of cancer 70.8 16.4 12.8

Having an accident if you drive a tractor 69.1 18.6 12.3
Becoming a murder victim 60.9 19.3 19.8
Getting attacked by a shark 46.5 28.4 25.1

Getting into a commercial airline crash 46.1 34.1 19.8
Being attacked by an alligator 33.3 30.5 36.2









Factors Affecting Risk Beliefs about American Crocodiles

Regression analysis indicated attitudes toward crocodiles had a significant effect on

risk perceptions of crocodiles, in a model that explained 26.0% of the variance (Table

11). Since knowledge of crocodiles is not a significant predictor of risk perceptions, but

is negatively correlated with risk perceptions and is a significant predictor of attitudes

towards crocodiles (B = .102, p < .001), knowledge of crocodiles may have an indirect

effect on risk perceptions of crocodiles through attitudes towards crocodiles (Figure 5).

Next, a stepwise regression (p < 0.05 cutoff value) was run to identify variables

with maximum predictive power. Attitudes toward crocodiles formed the most

parsimonious model to predict risk perceptions of crocodiles, in a model that explained

23.0% of the variance. The coefficients for the regression equation, with SE in

parentheses, were RBELIEF(predicted) = 3.592 (0.301) 0.860 (0.142) ATTITUDE. People

who expressed negative attitudes towards crocodiles had the greatest probability of

considering crocodiles a high risk to humans.

Preferences for Future American Crocodile Population Trends

The greatest proportion of respondents (42.6%) indicated they wanted American

crocodile populations to increase over the next five years (Figure 6). Only 8.8%

expressed a preference for fewer crocodiles and over one-fourth of respondents (28.9%)

wanted populations to remain the same. Nearly 20% of respondents did not care whether

crocodile populations increased, decreased, or remained stable from 2004-2009.










Table 11. Regression model for prediction of risk perceptions of American crocodiles
RELIEFEF.
Variablea (R2 = .260, p< .001) B SEB p
INVOLVE 0.024 0.071 0.029
KNOWLEDGE 0.013 0.069 0.017
ATTITUDE -0.920 0.160 -0.513*
CPOP 0.196 0.157 0.109
Age -0.008 0.005 -0.156
Gender -0.029 0.150 -0.016
Education -0.014 0.053 -0.022
Children -0.039 0.150 -0.022
Income 0.005 0.053 0.008
Community involvement 0.061 0.058 0.067
a INVOLVE = involvement with crocodiles, KNOWLEDGE = knowledge of crocodiles,
ATTITUDE = attitudes towards crocodiles, and CPOP = perceptions of current crocodile
population trends.
p < .001.














.241 -.454
KNOWLEDGE .4 ATTITUDE -44 RELIEFF





Figure 5. Path diagram for risk perceptions of American crocodiles (RBELIEF), with
path coefficients added. KNOWLEDGE = knowledge of crocodiles and
ATTITUDE = attitudes towards crocodiles.







40



100%

9000% -

8000% -

7000% -

6000 -
El Don't Know
5 Increase
rEl Remain the Same
0 Decrease
4000

3000% -

2000% -

1000% -

00%
Permanent Seasonal Visitor Combined
Florida Status

Figure 6. Percent of questionnaire respondents who are permanent Florida residents,
seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida that revealed preferences for
a smaller, larger, or similar American crocodile population in south Florida
for 2004-2009.

Permanent Florida residents, seasonal Florida residents, and visitors to Florida had


nearly equal proportions of respondents who wanted American crocodile populations to


remain the same over the next five years. The proportion of people who preferred a


decrease in the crocodile population was greatest for seasonal Florida residents and least


for visitors to Florida. A greater proportion of permanent Florida residents desired a


larger crocodile population than seasonal Florida residents or visitors to Florida.


Seasonal Florida residents and visitors to Florida were more than twice as likely to lack


an opinion regarding future crocodile populations than permanent Florida residents.


Overall, 44.5% of respondents indicated it was important to them personally that


the actual American crocodile population trend match their expressed preference.









Approximately equal proportions of respondents did not have an opinion (19.7%) or

indicated it was unimportant (16.5%) to them that their preferences were not realized.

Permanent Florida residents (46.6%) and seasonal Florida residents (44.1%) were more

concerned that their preferred population trend matches the actual trend than visitors to

Florida (32.1%).

Factors Affecting Preferences for American Crocodile Populations

Logistic regression analysis indicated risk perceptions of crocodiles and attitudes

towards crocodiles had a significant effect on desired future crocodile population trends

in a model that predicted 94.0% of respondents' preference for future crocodile

population trends (Table 12). A stepwise regression (p < 0.05 cutoff value) was run to

identify variables with maximum predictive power. Risk perceptions of crocodiles and

attitudes toward crocodiles formed the most parsimonious model to predict desired future

crocodile population trends. The coefficients for the logistic regression equation, in

stepwise order with SE in parentheses, were log(P,)/(1- P,) = -0.706 (2.499) 1.502

(0.453) RBELIEF + 3.184 (1.297) ATTITUDE, where P, = probability that a respondent

will desire a stable or larger crocodile population.

The equation correctly predicted the desired future population trend for 53.3% of

respondents who chose a smaller crocodile population and 99.0% of respondents who

chose a stable or larger crocodile population. Overall, the equation predicted 94.0% of

respondents' preference for future crocodile population trends. People who believed

crocodiles presented a low risk to humans and expressed positive attitudes towards

crocodiles had the greatest probability of preferring a stable or increased future crocodile

population.









Table 12. Logisitc regression model for prediction of desired future American crocodile
population trends (FPOP).
Variablea (Nagelkerke R2 =.571, p < .001) B SE B Wald
INVOLVE -0.357 0.478 0.556
KNOWLEDGE 0.423 0.510 0.688
RBELIEF -1.652 0.505 10.701**
ATTITUDE 3.487 1.450 5.783*
CPOP 0.647 0.946 0.468
Age 0.032 0.032 1.006
Gender 0.420 1.007 0.174
Education -0.102 0.297 0.118
Children -0.496 0.896 0.307
Income -0.278 0.317 0.765
Community involvement 0.217 0.496 0.191
a INVOLVE = involvement with crocodiles, KNOWLEDGE = knowledge of crocodiles,
RBELIEF = risk perceptions of crocodiles, ATTITUDE = attitudes towards crocodiles,
and CPOP = perceptions of current crocodile population trends.
* p< .05. ** p .001.















DISCUSSION

South Florida residents and visitors generally have low risk perceptions of and

favorable attitudes towards American crocodiles. Many people perceive benefits from

crocodiles as indicated by the common response that crocodiles signify a healthy

environment and increase overall quality of life in Florida. Although over half of

respondents expressed concern about crocodiles living near their home, most did not feel

personally threatened by crocodiles. The acceptance capacity for crocodiles expressed by

many respondents was high. However, continued human population growth and

residential development in south Florida will increase potential for human-crocodile

encounters near human habitation. Effective methods for resolving these interactions, as

well as crocodile-related complaints, need to be developed.

Attitudes towards American crocodiles significantly influenced both risk

perceptions of and acceptance capacity for crocodiles. Ability to influence attitudes is a

complex and debated subject (Gardner and Stern 1996, Hines et al. 1986, Hungerford and

Volk 1990, Trumbo 1999). Simply providing more facts will not necessarily result in

more favorable attitudes (Reading and Kellert 1993). However, comprehensive

knowledge is a necessary condition for stable beliefs (Fischhoff 1995). Results from this

study indicate that high knowledge of crocodiles corresponds with positive attitudes

towards crocodiles. People with positive attitudes towards crocodiles were more likely to

have lower risk perceptions of and higher acceptance capacities for crocodiles. Overall

knowledge of crocodiles and information received regarding crocodiles was rather low,









indicating opportunity for outreach efforts to increase such knowledge. Most respondents

revealed they would utilize internet sources to learn more about American crocodiles.

The internet is very cost effective and likely the best method for presenting information

regarding crocodiles to a large number of people. Communication targeted towards

increasing knowledge of, and thus favorable attitudes towards, crocodiles will likely

reduce risk perceptions of and increase acceptance capacity for the crocodile (Knuth et al.

1992).

To further increase acceptance of American crocodiles, education campaigns need

to address risks of crocodiles as well as benefits crocodiles provide (Fischhoff 1995,

Knuth et al. 1992). Simply explaining that risks from crocodiles are low compared to

other generally accepted high risk activities, such as driving automobiles, will be

ineffective unless benefits from crocodiles are also represented (Fischhoff 1995). People

accept risks from driving automobiles because benefits received from the act are high.

To willingly accept low risks from crocodiles, people need to be aware of and appreciate

benefits from crocodiles. Results from this study are encouraging because the majority of

respondents consider risks from crocodiles to be low and benefits from crocodiles to be

rather high. A base of conservation-oriented values exists on which to build more

positive attitudes towards American crocodiles.

A "Not in my backyard!" attitude was detected though when respondents were

asked about quality of life regarding crocodiles near their home. Many respondents were

unaware there has never been a documented American crocodile attack on a human in

south Florida and believed crocodiles were more aggressive than alligators, which may

have contributed to concern for crocodiles near their home. Wildlife management has









traditionally used translocation to separate a potentially dangerous animal from situations

that may result in heightened concern among stakeholders (Riley et al. 1994). Most

respondents indicated translocation as an acceptable tool for American crocodiles found

near human habitation. Given the potential for injury or distress during relocation,

however, American crocodiles present a challenge to wildlife managers since federally-

listed species cannot be harmed under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Florida

residents, accustomed to having alligators promptly removed from private property, can

become alarmed if similar procedures are not applied to crocodiles.

Modification of human behaviors offers managers an alternative to direct removal

or relocation of crocodiles. Appropriate personal decisions can reduce personal risk far

greater than any government actions (Keeney 1995, Zeckhauser and Viscusi 1990). Just

as life can never be risk free, risks from crocodiles can not be eliminated (Keeney 1995).

There are, however, steps that can be taken to reduce personal risks from crocodiles (e.g.,

never feed crocodiles, do not discard fish scraps at boat ramps or near water's edge, do

not swim where crocodiles live, fencing). Educational programs aimed at teaching

appropriate behavior in the presence of crocodiles can lead to feelings of empowerment

and a sense of security, subsequently reducing risk perceptions of crocodiles. Effort

directed towards ameliorating voluntary risks (Zeckhauser and Viscusi 1990) can have

more impact than removing or relocating crocodiles.

Respondents indicated receiving more information regarding American crocodiles

from newspapers or television news stations than any other information source provided.

Mass media influence is an important consideration for forming attitudes and risk

perceptions (Coleman 1993, Park et al. 2001). Television reports that convey negative or









dangerous events can result in increased levels of fear among some audience members

(Coleman 1993). Negative events carry greater weight, are more visible or noticeable,

and are more likely to have a powerful effect than positive events (Slovic 1993). Given

that most of what the media reports is negative (Slovic 1993), and that respondents

obtained most of their information about crocodiles from mass media sources, concern

for negative mass media messages producing negative attitudes towards crocodiles exists.

The current study did not confirm if information received by respondents was

positive or negative, however. Future studies clearly testing the effects of negative media

messages on risk perceptions of crocodiles, or other potentially dangerous animals, would

enhance findings of this study. Since some individuals use expert opinion and perceived

social consensus to make risk judgments (Trumbo 1999), and respondents indicated a

high level of trust in expert opinion, media reports and education campaigns that reveal

south Florida residents, visitors, and experts low risk judgments of crocodiles could

combat negative media messages and decrease risk perceptions of crocodiles.

Findings from this study are consistent with Riley and Decker (2000b) who studied

acceptance capacity for mountain lions. Risk perceptions and attitudes were significant

predictors of desired future population trends in both studies. This study, however, did

not find a correlation between perceptions of current population trends and acceptance

capacity for the crocodile. Demographic variables can significantly affect perceptions of

and attitudes towards large predators (Kellert 1985b, Kellert and Berry 1987, Kleiven et

al. 2004). Riley and Decker (2000b), however, found children in household, gender, and

level of formal education did not significantly contribute to acceptance capacity for

mountain lions. Demographic variables did not affect risk perceptions of or acceptance









capacity for the crocodile. Males, younger persons, and those with lower incomes

expressed more positive attitudes towards crocodiles.

This study provides initial insights into factors affecting risk perceptions of and

acceptance capacity for the American crocodile in south Florida. Educational programs

that teach appropriate behavior in the presence of crocodiles, address risks and benefits of

crocodiles, increase knowledge of crocodiles, and reveal that south Florida residents,

visitors, and experts perceive low risks from crocodiles will be most effective for

increasing positive attitudes towards crocodiles. Individuals with favorable attitudes

towards American crocodiles will more likely support measures to recover and protect

this endangered species than those possessing negative attitudes (Hungerford and Volk

1990, Stern 2000). Education campaigns should be delivered not only to adults, but to

children as well, since life-long attitudes and behaviors towards animals are largely based

on childhood experiences (Kidd and Kidd 1985). Children must be better taught to value

all life, especially wild animal life, if biodiversity is to be maintained and if endangered

species are to be adequately protected (Kidd and Kidd 1996). An education campaign

targeted at reducing risk perceptions of and increasing acceptance capacity for the

American crocodile in south Florida needs to be designed, implemented, and assessed to

better understand effects of communication and to further promote conservation and

recovery of this endangered species.














APPENDIX A
THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS USED FOR INDIVIDUALS
PARTICIPATING IN THE PRELIMINARY INTERVIEWS.

Hello, my name is Jodie Smithem. I am a graduate student at the University of

Florida working with Dr. Frank Mazzotti. We hope to understand public knowledge,

attitudes, and perceptions of the American crocodile in South Florida through information

obtained by participants filling out a questionnaire. To aid in the questionnaire

development, preliminary interviews will be conducted. The interview takes

approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. Your participation in this study is completely

voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. You have the right to withdraw from

the study at any time without consequence. You do not have to answer any question you

do not wish to answer. You will not be compensated for participating in this study and

we do not anticipate that you will benefit or be harmed directly by participating in this

study. Your identity will be kept completely confidential. We do not ask for your name

at any time during the interview and, therefore, your name will not be associated with

your responses. If you have any questions regarding the study, you may contact Dr.

Frank Mazzotti at the Ft. Lauderdale Research and Education Center, 3205 College

Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33314, phone number 954-577-6304. If you have any

questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant in the study, you may

contact the University of Florida's Institutional Review Board at PO Box 112250,

University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611, phone number 352-392-0433. Would you

like to participate in the study by being interviewed?














APPENDIX B
THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS USED FOR INDIVIDUALS
COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE.

Hello, my name is Jodie Smithem. I am a graduate student at the University of

Florida working with Dr. Frank Mazzotti. We hope to understand public knowledge,

attitudes, and perceptions of the American crocodile in South Florida through information

obtained by participants filling out a questionnaire. The questionnaire takes

approximately 15 minutes to complete. Your participation in this study is completely

voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. You have the right to withdraw from

the study at any time without consequence. You do not have to answer any question you

do not wish to answer. You will not be compensated for participating in this study and

we do not anticipate that you will benefit or be harmed directly by participating in this

study. Your identity will be kept completely confidential. We do not ask for your name

anywhere on the questionnaire and, therefore, your name will not be associated with your

responses. If you have any questions regarding the study, you may contact Dr. Frank

Mazzotti at the address or phone number listed on the questionnaire. If you have any

questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant in the study, you may

contact the University of Florida's Institutional Review Board at the address or phone

number listed on the questionnaire. Would you like to participate in the study by

completing a questionnaire?














APPENDIX C
THE SELF-ADMINISTERED QUESTIONNAIRE USED FOR INQUIRY INTO THE
BELIEFS, ATTITUDES, RISK PERCEPTIONS, AND CROCODILE POPULATION
PREFERENCES OF STAKEHOLDERS IN SOUTH FLORIDA BY JODIE L.
SMITHEM FOR HER 2003-2004 MASTER'S THESIS.









Interviewer
Location
Date



American Crocodiles in South Florida:


A Survey of Your Views


American crocodile


American alligator


Your responses will remain anonymous
and will never be associated with your name.



This questionnaire is part of a study to assist biologists and wildlife managers with
making decisions about American crocodiles in south Florida. Your views are very
important to us and will contribute to how American crocodile management and recovery
efforts are conducted. The questionnaire should take approximately 15 minutes to complete.




THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE!













American Crocodiles in South Florida:


A Survey of Your Views



This survey is conducted by:


University of Florida
School of Natural Resources and Environment
103 Black Hall, PO Box 116455
Gainesville, FL 32611

and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
South Florida Field Office
1339 20th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960


Research Participant Rights

If you have any questions regarding this survey, please write Frank J. Mazzotti, Associate
Professor, University of Florida, Ft. Lauderdale Research and Education Center, 3205
College Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 33314, or call him at 954-577-6304.

If you have any questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant in this
study, please write the University of Florida's Institutional Review Board at PO Box
112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611, or call 352-392-0433.









WILDLIFE AND YOU:

1. The following is a list of some activities that bring people into contact with
wildlife. Please indicate which of the following activities you, or members of your
household, participate in regularly. (Please check [/] ALL statements that apply.)


Yourself


a. B ird w atch .................................................
b. Read about wildlife ..................... .................
c. Watch wildlife TV programs, videos, or movies ....
d. Visit zoos or aquariums ...... .. .......
e. Hike in south Florida natural areas ............
f. Bike in south Florida natural areas ...............
g. Boat in south Florida natural areas ...............
h. Observe or study wildlife outdoors ............
i. Work on a farm or ranch ...... .. .......
j. Fish in south Florida natural areas ........... ...
k. Other activities


Others in your
household
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]


2. How much information about the American crocodile have you seen or heard
during the last six months from each of the following? (Please circle a number for
each source.)


Newspapers or TV news stations?
The federal government?
State government?
Non-profit organizations?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?


Absolutely none
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3


A great deal
5
5
5
5
5


3. How much information about the American alligator have you seen or heard
during the last six months from each of the following? (Please circle a number for
each source.)


Newspapers or TV news stations?
The federal government?
State government?
Non-profit organizations?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?


Absolutely none
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3


A great deal
5
5
5
5
5









4. If you wanted to learn more about the American crocodile, which of the following
sources would you utilize to find information? (Please check [/] ALL that apply.)


Books, magazines, or journals ...... [ ]
Newspaper articles ................. [ ]
Wildlife TV programs ............. [ ]


The internet ................. [ ]
Government agencies ........ [ ]
Non-profit organizations .... [ ]


WILDLIFE KNOWLEDGE:

5. Before receiving this questionnaire, did you know that American crocodiles live
in south Florida?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No


6. Please circle the answer that you believe is correct for each of the following
questions.

A. The American crocodile is a federally-listed:
a) endangered species
b) threatened species
c) neither endangered nor threatened species

B. The American crocodile occurs in Florida and:
a) Central America
b) Louisiana
c) Mississippi
d) all of the above
e) none of the above


C. Generally, American crocodiles are
a) more aggressive than
b) less aggressive than
c) just as aggressive as


American alligators.









D. Typically, American crocodiles are found in:
a) the open ocean
b) freshwater streams or lakes
c) brackish or saltwater estuaries
d) none of the above


E. Has there been a documented American crocodile attack on a human in south Florida?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Don't Know


CROCODILES AND YOU:

7. Please indicate which, if any, of the following types of interactions with American
crocodiles you or members of your household have experienced. (Please check [/]
ALL that apply.)

Yourself Others in your
household
a. Observed a crocodile in the wild (i.e., anywhere
other than captivity) ...................... [ ] [ ]
b. Read or heard of a crocodile being threatened or
attacked by people ....................................... .[ ] [ ]
c. Had a pet threatened or attacked by a crocodile ...... [ ] [ ]
d. Had livestock threatened or attacked by a
crocodile ................. . ..... ........ .[ ] [ ]
e. Have been personally threatened by a crocodile ...... [ ] [ ]
f. Read or heard about pets being threatened or
attacked by a crocodile ......................... ........ [ ] [ ]
g. Observed, read, or heard about fish or crabs traps
being raided by crocodiles ............ ... ....... [ ] [ ]
h. Read or heard about other people being threatened
or attacked by a crocodile .............................. [ ] [ ]
i. Know a friend, neighbor, or family member who
had an encounter with a crocodile ........... ...... [ ] [ ]
j. Read or heard about a crocodile being killed by
an autom obile ............... ......... ........ [ ] [ ]
k. Other types of experiences: [ ] [ ]










8. Encounters between American crocodiles and people carry some level of risk to
people, pets, or livestock. The following questions are designed to help us better
understand your opinions about crocodile-human encounters in south Florida.


On a scale from 1-to-5 please circle the number between the two words in each row that
most closely represents your opinion. DK = Don't Know

a. Are encounters between American crocodiles and people a new event, or an old event
that has been occurring for a long time in south Florida?


A new event


1 2 3 4 5 An old event


b. Are crocodile-human encounters increasing or decreasing in south Florida?


Increasing


1 2 3 4 5 Decreasing


c. To what extent do you believe that you are personally at risk from American
crocodiles?


I am at no risk


1 2 3 4 5 I am at great risk


d. To what extent do you believe that American crocodiles pose a risk to communities?


Community is at
no risk


1 2 3 4 5 Community is at
great risk


e. Are the risks associated with American crocodiles something people will be able to
learn to live with, or are the risks something people will be unable to learn to live with
over time?


Able to learn to
live with the risks


1 2 3 4 5 Unable to learn to
live with the risks


f. Are the risks from American crocodiles generally accepted voluntarily that is, can
people make choices about being exposed to the risks or are the risks accepted
involuntarily?


Risks accepted
voluntarily


1 2 3 4 5 Risks accepted
involuntarily









g. To what extent are the risks associated with having crocodiles in Florida understood
by experts?


Not well
understood


1 2 3 4 5 Well understood


h. Are the people who benefit from American crocodiles the same people who are
exposed to the potential risks of living with American crocodiles?


Benefits and risks
are matched


1 2 3 4 5 Benefits and risks
are mismatched


9. For each of the following scenarios, please indicate if you believe relocating
(i.e., moving) American crocodiles would be an acceptable or an unacceptable
management tool. Acceptable Unacceptable No
Tool Tool Opinion
Crocodile is found on a golf course .......... [ ] [ ] [ ]
Crocodile is found on school property ...... [ ] [ ] [ ]
Crocodile is found in a swimming pool ..... [ ] [ ] [ ]
Crocodile is found where people boat....... [ ] [ ] [ ]
Crocodile attacks and injures a pet .......... [ ] [ ] [ ]
Crocodile attacks and injures a human ...... [ ] [ ] [ ]
Crocodile attacks and kills a pet ............ [ ] [ ] [ ]
Crocodile attacks and kills a human ......... [ ] [ ] [ ]


10. For each of the following scenarios, please indicate if you believe euthanizing
(i.e., killing) American crocodiles would be an acceptable or an unacceptable
management tool. Acceptable Unacceptable No
Tool Tool Opinion
Crocodile is found on a golf course .......... [ ] [ ] [ ]
Crocodile is found on school property ...... [ ] [ ] [ ]
Crocodile is found in a swimming pool ..... [ ] [ ] [ ]
Crocodile is found where people boat...... [ ] [ ] [ ]
Crocodile attacks and injures a pet .......... [ ] [ ] [ ]
Crocodile attacks and injures a human ...... [ ] [ ] [ ]
Crocodile attacks and kills a pet ............ [ ] [ ] [ ]
Crocodile attacks and kills a human ......... [ ] [ ] [ ]






58



11. People in Florida have many different opinions about American crocodiles. To
what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? (Please
circle the number that best represents your response to each statement.)


1 = Disagree Strongly
2 = Disagree


3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree
4 = Agree


5 = Agree Strongly
6 = No Opinion


a. The presence of crocodiles is a sign
of a healthy environment ................

b. The presence of crocodiles in Florida
increases my overall quality of life .....

c. The presence of crocodiles near my
home increases my overall quality
of life ............................. ........

d. The presence of crocodiles decreases
property value .............................

e. Crocodiles could benefit the local
economy by being a tourism attraction ..

f. Crocodiles should have the right to
exist wherever they may occur .........

g. Crocodiles are an unacceptable threat
to humans and pets ................. ...

h. I think the crocodile is a likable
species ............................ .......

i. Crocodiles threaten people's
livelihoods by raiding fish and
crab traps ...............................


Disagree Agree
Strongly Strongly

1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


No
Opinion











12. This question is designed to help us better understand your perceptions about
the possibility of you being attacked by an American crocodile while living in or
visiting south Florida. Do you believe each of the following is more likely or less
likely to occur to you than being attacked by an American crocodile in south
Florida? (Please circle only ONE response for each item.)



Example: A person was asked to indicate if she thought the possibility of getting struck by lightning was
more or less likely to occur to her than being attacked by an American crocodile in south Florida. She
thought the possibility of getting struck by lightning was more likely to occur to her than being attacked by
an American crocodile, so she circled "More Likely."


The possibility of..


... is...


Getting into a car accident Likely Likely Unsure

Getting injured if you work for a timber More Less
company Likely Likely Unsure

Getting into an accident if you ride a More Less
motorcycle Likely Likely Unsure

More Less
Being attacked by an alligator Likely Likely Unsure

More Less
Having an accident if you drive a tractor Likely Likely Unsure
LkMore Less

Getting into a commercial airline crash Likre Likelyss Unsure
More Less
Getting attacked by a shark Likely Likely Unsure

SMore Less Unsure
Dying as a result of cancer Likely Likely Unsure


Becoming a murder victim Unsure


More
Likely


Less
Likely


... to occur to you than the
possibility of being attacked by
an American crocodile in
south Florida.


Becoming a murder victim


Unsure








CROCODILE POPULATIONS:

Please answer the following questions based on your opinion.

13. How has the American crocodile population in south Florida changed during
the past five years? (Please check [/] only ONE of the following statements.)

[ ] Decreased Greatly
[ ] Decreased Somewhat
[ ] Remained the Same
[ ] Increased Somewhat
[ ] Increased Greatly
[ ] No Opinion


14. Do you want the American crocodile population in south Florida to increase,
decrease, or remain at its current level over the next five years? (Please check [V]
only ONE of the following statements.)

[ ] Decrease Greatly
[ ] Decrease Somewhat
[ ] Remain at its Current Level
[ ] Increase Somewhat
[ ] Increase Greatly
[ ] No Opinion


15. How important is it to you personally that the American crocodile population
trend match your response to question 14? (Please check [/] only ONE of the
following statements.)

[ ] Very Unimportant
[ ] Somewhat Unimportant
[ ] Neither Important nor Unimportant
[ ] Somewhat Important
[ ] Very Important
[ ] No Opinion










BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

16a. Are you a: Permanent Florida resident [ ]
Seasonal Florida resident [ ]
Visitor to Florida [ ]

16b. If you are a permanent Florida resident, how many years have you lived in
Florida? __ years

16c. If you are a seasonal Florida resident or a visitor to Florida, what is your
permanent residence?
city state country
17. Are you: [ ] Male
[ ] Female

18. What is your age?

19. Are you Hispanic or Latino? (Please check [/] only ONE.)
Yes Hispanic or Latino
No Not Hispanic or Latino

20. What is your race? (Please check [V] one or more races to indicate what you
consider yourself to be. Please leave blank if you feel none apply to you.)
[ ] American Indian or Alaska Native [ ] Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
[ ] Asian Islander
[ ] Black or African American [ ] White

21. What is your highest level of formal education? (Please check [/] only ONE.)
[ ] Some high school [ ] College graduate
[ ] High school diploma or equivalent [ ] Some graduate school
[ ] Some college [ ] Graduate degree or beyond


22. How many children under the age of 18 currently live in your household?
(Please indicate the age of each child.)


23. Do you have any pets at home? If yes, please list the number and type of pets.








24. Please indicate your household average income in 2003 before taxes. (Please
check [V] only ONE.)
[ ] Under $20,000 [ ] $60,000 $99,999
[ ] $20,000 $39,999 [ ] $100,000 $500,000
[ ] $40,000 $59,999 [ ] Over $500,000


25. What is your occupation?


26. What types of local organizations do you belong to? (Please check [/] ALL that
apply.)
[ ] Civic or social (Example: Rotary Club)
[ ] Church or religious
[ ] Environmental (Example: Audubon Society)
[ ] School-based (Example: PTA)

27. Please use the space below for any additional comments you wish to make
regarding crocodiles or this survey.


THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND HELP!















LIST OF REFERENCES


Alreck, P.L. and R.B. Settle. 1995. The survey research handbook: Guidelines and
strategies for conducting a survey. Second edition. Irwin, Chicago, Illinois.

Bord, R.J., R.E. O'Connor, and A. Fisher. 2000. In what sense does the public need to
understand global climate change? Public Understanding of Science 9(3):205-
218.

Butler, J.S., J.E. Shanahan, and D.J. Decker. 2001. Wildlife attitudes and values: A
trend analysis. Human Dimensions Research Unit, Series No. 01-4. Department
of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

Carpenter, L.H., Decker, D.J., and J.F. Lipscomb. 2000. Stakeholder acceptance
capacity in wildlife management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5:5-19.

Coleman, C.L. 1993. The influence of mass media and interpersonal communication on
societal and personal risk judgments. Communication Research 20(4):611-628.

Craven, S.R., D.J. Decker, W.F. Siemer, and S.E. Hygnstrom. 1992. Survey use and
landowner tolerance in wildlife damage management. Transactions of the North
American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 57:75-88.

Decker, D.J. 1994. What are we learning from human dimensions studies in
controversial wildlife situations? Occasional Paper Series No. 21, Colorado
Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado.

Decker, D.J. and K.G. Purdy. 1988. Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in
wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:53-57.

Decker, D. J., C. C. Krueger, R. A. Baer Jr., B. A. Knuth, and M E. Richmond. 1996.
From clients to stakeholders: a philosophical shift for fish and wildlife
management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1:70-82.

Decker, D.J. and L.C. Chase. 1997. Human dimensions of living with wildlife-a
management challenge for the 21st century. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(4):788-
795.

Dillman, D.A., D.E. Dolsen, and G.E. Machlis. 1995. Increasing response to personally-
delivered mail-back questionnaires by combining foot-in-door and social
exchange methods. Journal of Official Statistics 11(2): 129-139.









Drake, D. and E.J. Jones. 2002. Forest management decisions of North Carolina
landowners relative to the red-cockaded woodpecker. Wildlife Society Bulletin
30(1): 121-130.

Dunlap, R.E. and K.D. Van Liere. 1978. The New Environmental Paradigm: A
proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of
Environmental Education 9(4): 10-19.

Dunlap, R.E., K.D. Van Liere, A.G. Mertig, and R.E. Jones. 2000. Measuring
endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of
Social Issues 56(3):425-442.

Fischhoff, B. 1995. Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of
process. Risk Analysis 15(2):137-145.

Federal Register 40:44149. 1975. Lists of endangered and threatened fauna.

Gardner, G.T. and P.C. Stern. 1996. Environmental problems and human behavior.
Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

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(2): 1-8.

Hungerford, H.R. and T.L. Volk. 1990. Changing learner behavior through
environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education 21(3): 8-22.

Hunter, L.M. and L. Rinner. 2004. The association between environmental perspective
and knowledge and concern with species diversity. Society and Natural
Resources 17:517-532.

Jacobson, S.K. and S.B. Marynowski. 1997. Public attitudes and knowledge about
ecosystem management on Department of Defense land in Florida. Conservation
Biology 11(3):770-781.

Keeney, R.L. 1995. Understanding life-threatening risks. Risk Analysis 15(6):627-637.

Kellert, S.R. 1985a. Social and perceptual factors in endangered species management.
Journal of Wildlife Management 49(2):528-536.

Kellert, S.R. 1985b. Public perceptions of predators, particularly the wolf and coyote.
Biological Conservation 31:167-189.

Kellert, S.R. and J.K. Berry. 1987. Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife
as affected by gender. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15:363-371.









Kellert, S.R., Black, M., Rush, C.R., and A.J. Bath. 1996. Human culture and large
carnivore conservation in North America. Conservation Biology 10(4):977-990.

Kempton, W. 1991. Lay perspectives on global climate change. Global Environmental
Change 1(3):183-209.

Kidd, A.H. and R.M. Kidd. 1985. Children's attitudes toward their pets. Psychological
Reports 57:15-31.

Kidd, A.H. and R.M. Kidd. 1996. Developmental factors leading to positive attitudes
toward wildlife and conservation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 47:119-125.

Kleiven, J., T. Bjerke, and B.P. Kaltenborn. 2004. Factors influencing the social
acceptability of large carnivore behaviours. Biodiversity and Conservation
13:1647-1658.

Knuth, B.A., R.J. Stout, W.F. Siemer, D.J. Decker, and R.C. Stedman. 1992. Risk
management concepts for improving wildlife population decisions and public
communication strategies. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference 57:63-74.

Manly, B.F.J. 1986. Multivariate statistical methods: A primer. Chapman and Hall,
New York, New York.

Mazzotti, F.J. and M.S. Cherkiss. 2003. Status and Conservation of the American
Crocodile in Florida: Recovering an Endangered Species While Restoring an
Endangered Ecosystem. Technical Report. 41 pp.

McClelland, G.H., W.D. Schulze, and B. Hurd. 1990. The effect of risk beliefs on
property values: A case study of a hazardous waste site. Risk Analysis 10(4):485-
497.

Miller, K.K. and T.K. McGee. 2000. Sex differences in values and knowledge of
wildlife in Victoria, Australia. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5(2):54-68.

Miller, K.K. and T.K. McGee. 2001. Toward incorporating human dimensions
information into wildlife management decision-making. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife 6:205-221.

National Environmental Education and Training Foundation (NEETF). 1999. The eighth
annual national report card on environmental attitudes, knowledge, and behavior.
Roper-Starch Worldwide, Washington, D.C., USA.

Park, E., C.W. Scherer, and C.J. Glynn. 2001. Community involvement and risk
perception at personal and societal levels. Health, Risk, and Society 3(3):281-
292.









Reading, R.P. and S.R. Kellert. 1993. Attitudes toward a proposed reintroduction of
black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes). Conservation Biology 7(3):569-580.

Riley, S.J. 1998. Integration of environmental, biological, and human dimensions for
management of cougars (Puma concolor) in Montana. PhD Dissertation, Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York.

Riley, S. J. and D.J. Decker. 2000a. Risk perception as a factor in wildlife stakeholder
acceptance capacity for cougars in Montana. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5:
50-62.

Riley, S. J. and D.J. Decker. 2000b. Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for
cougars in Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):931-939.

Riley, S.J., R.D. Mace, and M. Madel. 1994. Translocation of nuisance grizzly bears in
northwestern Montana. International Conference on Bear Research and
Management 9(1):567-573.

Riley, S. J., D.J. Decker, L.H. Carpenter, J.F. Organ, W.F. Siemer, G.F. Mattfeld, and G.
Parsons. 2002. The essence of wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin
30(2):585-593.

Siemer, W.F. and D.J. Decker. 2003. 2002 New York State black bear management
survey: Study overview and findings highlight. Human Dimensions Research
Unit, Series No. 03-6. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York.

Sinclair, J., F. Mazzotti, and J. Graham. 2003. Motives to seek threatened and
endangered species information for land-use decisions. Science Communication
25(1):39-55.

Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236:280-285.

Slovic, P. 1993. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis 13(6):675-682.

Steele. J., L. Bourke, A.E. Luloff, P.S. Liao, G.L. Theodori, and R.S. Krannich. 2001.
The drop-off/pick-up method for household survey research. Journal of the
Community Development Society 32(2):238-250.

Stern, P.C. 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior.
Journal of Social Issues 56(3):407-424.

Stout, R. J., B. A. Knuth, and P. D. Curtis. 1997. Preferences of suburban landowners
for deer management techniques: a step towards better communication. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 25:348-359.









Tisdell, C. and C. Wilson. 2004. The public's knowledge of and support for
conservation of Australia's tree-kangaroos and other animals. Biodiversity and
Conservation 13:2339-2359.

Trumbo, C.W. 1999. Heuristic-systematic information processing and risk judgment.
Risk Analysis 19(3):391-400.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. http://www.census.gov. Last accessed March 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. South Florida multi-species recovery plan.
Atlanta, Georgia. 2172 pp.

von Winterfeldt, D., R.S. John, and K. Borcherding. 1981. Cognitive components of risk
ratings. Risk Analysis 1(4):277-287.

Weigel, R. and J. Weigel. 1978. Environmental concern: The development of a measure.
Environment and Behavior 10(1):3-15.

Zeckhauser, R.J. and W.K. Viscusi. 1990. Risk within reason. Science 248:559-248.

Zinn, H.C. and C.L. Pierce. 2002. Values, gender, and concern about potentially
dangerous wildlife. Environment and Behavior 34(2): 239-256.

Zinn, H.C., M.J. Manfredo, and J.J. Vaske. 2000. Social psychological bases for
stakeholder acceptance capacity. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5:20-33.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Jodie Lynn Smithem was born June 28, 1979, in Gaylord, Michigan, to Michael

Craig Smithem and Beth Eileen Smithem. She spent her formative years in Naples,

Florida, graduating from Barron Collier High School in 1997. Jodie earned her

bachelor's degree in wildlife ecology and conservation from the University of Florida in

2001. She then worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Vero Beach, Florida,

until August 2002. After spending one semester at Florida Atlantic University, Jodie

returned to the University of Florida in January of 2003 to pursue graduate studies.