<%BANNER%>

Quantitative Study of Public Support for Florida Panther (Puma concolor coryi) Recovery

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021517/00001

Material Information

Title: Quantitative Study of Public Support for Florida Panther (Puma concolor coryi) Recovery
Physical Description: 1 online resource (125 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Langin, Cynthia P
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Fewer than 100 panthers remain in the state of Florida, and this small population is increasingly threatened by habitat loss and degradation resulting from continued human expansion into core panther habitat in Southwest Florida. Human dimensions research is critical for addressing the social obstacles to panther recovery. To better understand intention to act in support of or opposition to panther recovery efforts, a telephone survey was conducted during March 2007 on a stratified random sample of 802 Florida residents. Strata were defined based on (1) location in core panther habitat (Southwest Florida) or a potential translocation site (South Central Florida) and (2) rural/urban setting. Two hundred residents were surveyed within each strata to enable comparisons of behavioral intentions, management preferences, attitudes, subjective norms, risk perception, knowledge levels and demographics. The weighted mean score on the behavioral intention scale was 3.33 on a 5-point scale, indicating a moderate intention to act in support of recovery. Fifty-two percent of respondents were willing both to write a letter to a political official and to pay a small additional tax in support of recovery. Seventy-five percent would not vote for a political official who favored development over panther recovery. Respondents expressed greater support for panther management practices targeting recovery (3.43) and expressed very positive attitudes toward panthers and panther protection (3.89). The perceived risk from panthers was low (2.30). Regression analysis of all response variables showed that behavioral intentions were directly predicted by management preferences, attitudes and subjective norm, and indirectly affected by risk perception, knowledge, and demographic characteristics. Statistically significant differences in demographic variables found between urban and rural residents included landownership, livestock ownership, pet ownership and ethnicity, and between Southwest and South Central residents included landownership, livestock ownership, children in the household, duration of Florida residence, pet ownership, education, race and income. Urban residents in Southwest Florida had a higher average knowledge score on the 10-point index (5.33) than urban residents in South Central Florida (4.86). The sample was divided into proponents (n=297), undecideds (n=387) and opponents (n=117) of panther recovery according to mean scores on the behavioral intention scale, to compare specific beliefs, knowledge items and management preferences and examine how these groups differed ideologically. According to mean scores n a 3-point scale, opponents, unlike proponents, tended to agree that panther protection leads to land use restrictions (2.19), that panthers compete with hunters for game species (2.09), and to oppose translocation of panthers into their home county (1.86). These findings suggest the following communications recommendations for outreach to the public: (1) use positive consequences of panther protection to design effective messages for a broad audience, (2) address knowledge gaps (e.g., the number of panthers remaining); (3) develop a strategy to inform new Florida residents about panthers; (4) tie panther recovery to a broader campaign to protect natural lands; and (5) foster trust through consistent, transparent communication with those likely to be affected by any panther management intervention.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Cynthia P Langin.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Jacobson, Susan K.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2009-12-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021517:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021517/00001

Material Information

Title: Quantitative Study of Public Support for Florida Panther (Puma concolor coryi) Recovery
Physical Description: 1 online resource (125 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Langin, Cynthia P
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Fewer than 100 panthers remain in the state of Florida, and this small population is increasingly threatened by habitat loss and degradation resulting from continued human expansion into core panther habitat in Southwest Florida. Human dimensions research is critical for addressing the social obstacles to panther recovery. To better understand intention to act in support of or opposition to panther recovery efforts, a telephone survey was conducted during March 2007 on a stratified random sample of 802 Florida residents. Strata were defined based on (1) location in core panther habitat (Southwest Florida) or a potential translocation site (South Central Florida) and (2) rural/urban setting. Two hundred residents were surveyed within each strata to enable comparisons of behavioral intentions, management preferences, attitudes, subjective norms, risk perception, knowledge levels and demographics. The weighted mean score on the behavioral intention scale was 3.33 on a 5-point scale, indicating a moderate intention to act in support of recovery. Fifty-two percent of respondents were willing both to write a letter to a political official and to pay a small additional tax in support of recovery. Seventy-five percent would not vote for a political official who favored development over panther recovery. Respondents expressed greater support for panther management practices targeting recovery (3.43) and expressed very positive attitudes toward panthers and panther protection (3.89). The perceived risk from panthers was low (2.30). Regression analysis of all response variables showed that behavioral intentions were directly predicted by management preferences, attitudes and subjective norm, and indirectly affected by risk perception, knowledge, and demographic characteristics. Statistically significant differences in demographic variables found between urban and rural residents included landownership, livestock ownership, pet ownership and ethnicity, and between Southwest and South Central residents included landownership, livestock ownership, children in the household, duration of Florida residence, pet ownership, education, race and income. Urban residents in Southwest Florida had a higher average knowledge score on the 10-point index (5.33) than urban residents in South Central Florida (4.86). The sample was divided into proponents (n=297), undecideds (n=387) and opponents (n=117) of panther recovery according to mean scores on the behavioral intention scale, to compare specific beliefs, knowledge items and management preferences and examine how these groups differed ideologically. According to mean scores n a 3-point scale, opponents, unlike proponents, tended to agree that panther protection leads to land use restrictions (2.19), that panthers compete with hunters for game species (2.09), and to oppose translocation of panthers into their home county (1.86). These findings suggest the following communications recommendations for outreach to the public: (1) use positive consequences of panther protection to design effective messages for a broad audience, (2) address knowledge gaps (e.g., the number of panthers remaining); (3) develop a strategy to inform new Florida residents about panthers; (4) tie panther recovery to a broader campaign to protect natural lands; and (5) foster trust through consistent, transparent communication with those likely to be affected by any panther management intervention.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Cynthia P Langin.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Jacobson, Susan K.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2009-12-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021517:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR FLORIDA PANTHER ( Puma concolor coryi ) RECOVERY By CYNTHIA LANGIN 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 2007 1

PAGE 2

2007 Cynthia Langin 2

PAGE 3

To my parents 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many thanks to Chris Belden and Cindy Schulz of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife for funding this proposal. Without the dedica tion of all the many people involve d in panther recovery for the past three decades, panthers would have undoubted ly vanished long before this study began. I thank Susan Jacobson for her unwavering support and steady guidance, her vigilance in maintaining my focus, and her dedication both to wildlife conservation and to the professional development of her students. Thank you also to Ken Wald and Marty Main for serving on my committee, and contributing their invaluable perspective and insi ght. Im grateful too for the patience and enthusiasm of Machelle Wilson of IFAS Statistics, without whom I might have given up on my data analysis. And finally, I thank my friends and fellow graduate students for making me laugh and listening to me whine, my parents for giving me more opportunities than I know how to list, and to Shawn, for supporting and encour aging me through the many days apart. Im coming home. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7 LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................9 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... .............10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 12 Literature Review ...................................................................................................................14 Theoretical Framework ...........................................................................................................23 2 METHODS ..................................................................................................................... ........30 Study Site Description ............................................................................................................30 Southwest Florida Core Panther Habitat .......................................................................30 South Central Florida Pote ntial Translocation Site ......................................................30 Stakeholder Interviews ........................................................................................................ ...31 Survey Instrument ............................................................................................................. ......32 Sampling Strategy and Survey Administration ......................................................................34 Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................................36 3 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... ..........42 Response Rate .........................................................................................................................42 Urban-Rural and Southwest-South Central Comparisons ......................................................42 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample ...................................................................42 Behavioral Intention to Support Panther Recovery .........................................................44 Management Preferences for Panthers ............................................................................45 Attitudes toward Panthers and Protection of Panthers ....................................................46 Risk Perceptions about Panthers .....................................................................................48 Subjective Norm to Support Panther Recovery ...............................................................48 Knowledge about Panthers ..............................................................................................49 Media Preferences ...........................................................................................................51 Interest in Wildlife and Ou tdoor User Demographics .....................................................52 Relationships between Factors Influencing Public Support ...................................................53 Proponent-Undecided-Opponent Comparisons ......................................................................54 Management Preferences and Overall Support ...............................................................55 Attitudes toward Panthers and Recovery ........................................................................55 Knowledge about Panthers ..............................................................................................56 Media Preferences ...........................................................................................................56 5

PAGE 6

6 Interest in Wildlife and Demographic Variables .............................................................57 4 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. .......85 Southwest-South Central and Urban-Rural Comparisons ......................................................85 Factors Influencing Public S upport for Panther Recovery .....................................................87 Proponent-Undecided-Opponent Comparisons ......................................................................89 Limitations of the Study ...................................................................................................... ...91 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... ....91 APPENDIX A DISCUSSION QUESTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW .................................103 B SURVEY INSTRUMENT....................................................................................................105 LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................117 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................125

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Scale reliability evaluation. ............................................................................................. ...39 3-1 Means and comparisons of demographi c variables between southwest and south central Florida strata. .........................................................................................................58 3-2 Means and comparisons of demographic variables between rural and urban Florida strata. ....................................................................................................................... ...........61 3-3 Means and comparisons for response vari ables between southwest and south central Florida strata. .....................................................................................................................64 3-4 Means and comparisons for response vari ables between rural and urban strata. ..............65 3-5 Regression model for prediction of behavior al intention to support panther recovery. ....66 3-6 Regression model for prediction of panther management preferences. .............................67 3-7 Regression model for prediction of atti tudes toward panthers and recovery. ....................68 3-8 Regression model for pred iction of risk perception. ..........................................................69 3-9 Regression model for prediction of subjective norm. ........................................................70 3-10 Regression model for pred iction of knowledge level. .......................................................71 3-11 Effect size on behavioral intention of all predictor variables calculated from standardized regression coefficients ().............................................................................72 3-12 Means and comparisons for media variab les between southwest and south central Florida strata. .....................................................................................................................73 3-14 Pearson correlation coefficien ts for response variables. ....................................................77 3-15 Pearson correlation coefficients for response variables and demographics. ......................78 3-16 Mean comparisons for management preferences between pr oponents-undecidedopponents. .................................................................................................................... ......79 3-17 Mean comparisons for attitudes between proponents-unde cided-opponents. ...................80 3-18 Mean comparisons for knowledge questions between proponents-undecidedopponents. .................................................................................................................... ......81 3-19 Comparisons of media preferences between proponentsundecided-opponents ...............82 7

PAGE 8

8 3-20 Comparisons of demographic variab les between proponentsundecided-opponents ........83 4-1 Comparisons with other attit udinal studies on mountain lions. .........................................98

PAGE 9

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Conceptual diagram of factors influenci ng intention to act in support of or opposition to panther recovery. ...........................................................................................................29 2-1 Distribution of telemetry location of panthers in south Florida, USA, 1991-2001 ...........41 3-1 Perceived adequacy of panther media coverage by stratum ..............................................84 4-1 Path diagram showing unstandardized re gression coefficients (B) and explained variance (R) for regressions on all theoretical variables influencing intention to act in support of or opposition to panther recovery.. .............................................................102 9

PAGE 10

Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR FLORIDA PANTHER ( Puma concolor coryi ) RECOVERY By Cynthia Langin December 2007 Chair: Susan Jacobson Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology Less than 100 panthers remain in the state of Florida, and th is small population is increasingly threatened by habitat loss and degradation resulting from continued human expansion into core panther habita t in Southwest Florida. Human di mensions research is critical for addressing the social obstacles to panther re covery. To better understa nd intention to act in support of or opposition to panthe r recovery efforts, a telephone survey was conducted during March 2007 on a stratified random sample of 802 Flor ida residents. Strata were defined based on (1) location in core panther habitat (Southwest Fl orida) or a potential tr anslocation site (South Central Florida) and (2) rural/urban setting. Tw o hundred residents were surveyed within each strata to enable comparisons of behavioral intentions, management preferences, attitudes, subjective norms, risk perception, k nowledge levels and demographics. The weighted mean score on the behavioral intention scale was 3.33 on a 5-point scale, indicating a moderate intention to act in support of recovery. Fifty-two percent of respondents were willing both to write a letter to a political official and to pay a small additional tax in support of recovery. Seventy-five percent would not vote for a political official who favored development over panther recovery. Respondents expressed greater support for panther management practices targeting recovery (3.43) and expressed very positive attitudes toward 10

PAGE 11

11 panthers and panther protecti on (3.89). The perceived risk fr om panthers was low (2.30). Regression analysis of all response variables show ed that behavioral intentions were directly predicted by management preferen ces, attitudes and s ubjective norm, and indirectly affected by risk perception, knowledge, and demographic charac teristics. Statistically significant diffe rences in demographic variables found between urban and rural residents included landownership, livestock ownership, pet owners hip and ethnicity, and between Southwest and South Central residents included landownership, livestock ownership, children in the household, duration of Florida residence, pet ownership, education, race and income. Urban residents in S outhwest Florida had a higher av erage knowledge score on the 10point index (5.33) than urban resident s in South Central Florida (4.86). The sample was divided into proponents (n=297), undecideds (n=387) and opponents (n=117) of panther recovery according to mean scores on the behavioral intention scale, to compare specific beliefs, knowledge items and ma nagement preferences and examine how these groups differed ideologically. According to mean scores n a 3-point scale, opponents, unlike proponents, tended to agree that panther protection lead s to land use restrictions (2.19), that panthers compete with hunters fo r game species (2.09), and to oppose translocation of panthers into their home county (1.86). These findings suggest the following communi cations recommendations for outreach to the public: (1) use positive consequences of panthe r protection to design e ffective messages for a broad audience, (2) address knowledge gaps (e .g., the number of panthers remaining), (3) develop a strategy to inform new Florida residents about panthers, (4) tie panther recovery to a broader campaign to protect natural lands, and (5 ) foster trust through consistent, transparent communication with those likely to be affected by any panther management intervention.

PAGE 12

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION At the time that it was federally listed as endangered in 1967 (Federal Register 32:4001), scientists had yet to confirm that the Florida panther ( Puma concolor coryi) still existed in the wild (Alvarez 1993). The combined effects of de liberate extermination and loss of habitat had driven panthers to the brink of extinction, eliminating them from 95% of their historic range in the southeastern United States by 1900. In 1982, c oncurrent with the release of the first panther recovery plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 198 1), the panther was designated as the Florida state animal, signifying a positive shift in public attitudes toward panthers. Despite protection from hunting, in the ensuing decade scientists estimated that the effective population size may have dropped to as few as 10 individuals (Hedri ck 1995). Today biologists estimate that the population size has increased to 80100 panthers which occupy the matrix of public and private lands in Florida, south of the Caloosahatchee River (U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service 2006b). The current rate of loss, degradation and fr agmentation of panther habitat presents the greatest challenge to panther recovery efforts (Mai n et al. 1999; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). Between 1991 and 2003, 11,000 miles of public roads were built to accommodate the influx of people into southwest Fl orida (Gross 2005), much of whic h has been identified as core habitat for panthers (Kautz et al. 2006). From 2005 to 2006, the number of Florida residents is estimated to have increased by over 300,000, and Collier, Lee and Hendry Counties alone increased by nearly 35,000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). Florida lost over 700,000 ha of forest between 1935 and 1995 (Gross 2005), and biologists estimate that public lands in southwest Florida can only support up to 22 panthers in the wild (Logan et al. 1993). The remaining panther population inhabits private lands which are subject to the impacts of urban sprawl, residential development, conversion to agri culture and silviculture, mining and mineral 12

PAGE 13

exploration (Main et al. 1999) Development in Southwest Florida continues with the construction of Ave Maria University, as well as a town to accommodate it, in known panther habitat immediately north of the Flor ida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. As panther populations become more concen trated in smaller areas, increased contact between individuals exacerba tes intraspecific aggression and epidemiological hazards (Cunningham 2005). Successful recovery of this e ndangered subspecies, which exists at low population densities in habitat high ly prized by development interests, will require understanding the variables that predict levels of support for panther recovery efforts among the stakeholders who directly or indirectly affect panthers. Widespread, active public support for collective environmental actions such as habitat conservation will be essential to successful recovery. Furthermore, as both human and panther populations continue to expand, so does the potential for human-panther encounters (Couga r Management Guidelines Working Group 2005). Public opinion on panthers in Florida, unlike co ugars in the western Un ited States, may be positively influenced by a relative lack of direct human-panther conflict because of the small number of panthers currently occupying the state. However, the perceptions could change rapidly as the potential for human-panther interaction increases. Wildlife agencies and concerned public officials have taken steps to maintain low hu man-panther interaction through public education and have prepared an interagency response plan for dealing with enc ounters (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006a). The perceived threat that panthers present to humans, pets and livestock, the root cause of extirpa tion policies at the turn of the century (Cla rk et al. 1996), still has the potential to negatively influence public attitudes. The purpose of this study was to examine va riables which predict support for panther recovery and provide wildlife ag encies with data about knowledge levels and attitudes toward 13

PAGE 14

panthers among Florida residents in panther habitat and pote ntial translocation si tes. This type of baseline information can be used to help evalua te the success of outreach and education efforts. Identifying target audiences, current attitude s, knowledge gaps and preferred information channels and sources improves the likelihood that outreach and education efforts will have their intended effect of reducing ne gative human-panther encounte rs and increasing support for panther recovery. By understandi ng the predictive variables that contribute to negative or positive attitudes toward panthers and panther management, agencies can identify groups or subsets of the population likely to be concer ned by specific management actions, and can communicate with and involve specific audi ences in management more effectively. Literature Review Biologists and social scientists alike have of ten cited social and po litical factors as the most formidable challenge to large carnivore ma nagement and restoration in the United States (Fritts & Carbyn 1995; Belden & McCown 1996; Clark et al. 1996; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006b). Research in human dimensions of wildlife management treats people as an essential part of effective management by seeki ng to achieve a scientific ally-based understanding of human behavior and motiva tions (Decker & Chase 1997). By formally and scientifically measuring peoples perceptions of wildlife, thei r management preference s for wildlife, and the manner in which they affect or are affected by wildlife and wildlife management decisions, wildlife managers are able to incorporate this information into the decision-making processes (Decker et al. 2001; Miller & McGee 2001). Ideally, a solution to a people-wildlife problem is largely process-driven, and requires that the full array of stakeholders be involved throughout. It also requires constant reexamination and evaluation, since stakeholder beliefs and attitudes can change with increased exposure to a situati on or to accommodate new information (Decker & Chase 1997). Failure to involve the public, or to take appropriate action to ensure that agency 14

PAGE 15

goals are aligned with stakeholde r preferences, is likely to erode stakeholder trust and investment in any decisions made (Slovic 1993 ). Concerns for local stakeholders might include such issues as awareness of the large carnivores presence, appropriate human behavi or to avoid unnecessary human-wildlife conflicts, and protocols for dealin g with individual animal s that threaten human safety or liveli hoods (Primm 1996). The ongoing effort to engage and involve stakeholders in the Yellowstone wolf ( Canis lupus ) reintroduction has been credite d with establishing trust betw een recovery team members and historically opposed stakeholder groups, su ch as hunters and lives tock owners. A key interaction between recovery te am members and livestock owners was the development of a protocol for dealing with problem wolves wh ich included a short res ponse time and immediate removal (Fritts & Carbyn 1995; Jacobson 1999). Without social research and continuous interaction, this need might not have been identified and addressed. A promising study on large carnivores found that conservation is possible at high human densities provided that management policy is favorable (Linnell et al 2001). Since the 1970s, predator control methods such as bounties a nd poisoning have decreased or ceased throughout North America. Today, state wildlife agencies trea t cougars as a harvestabl e game species rather than a pest, with the exception of the southeastern states where panthers are listed as endangered. Human dimensions research can promote favorab le carnivore management policies, such as maintenance of a prey base, by encouraging and maintaining a supportive and informed constituency for the panther as the human population of Florida continues to grow. Predicting Support for Large Carnivore Conservation: Although the reversal of predator extirpation policies in the U.S. reflects a positive change in public attitudes toward large carnivores at the national level, it is important that wildlife managers understand the complex set 15

PAGE 16

of interacting variables that contribute to attitude formation. These include an individuals values toward animals and nature; the physical an d behavioral characterist ics of the species; an individuals knowledge and understa nding of a species; and past a nd present interactions with the species (Kellert et al. 1996) By understanding these inter acting variables and carefully measuring attitudes and levels of support among i ndirectly and directly affected stakeholders, wildlife agencies can avoid such pitfalls as overestimating support among local residents. In the context of Grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) reintroduction in the Rockies, for example, in spite of national support, local hostility made human-caused mortality, such as illegal shooting, the main limiting factor for Grizzl y bear populations (Primm 1996). Attitudes toward a single species exist within a larger context of how an individual values nature and animals. It may be more likely for pe ople who value nature and express interest in wildlife generally to be concerned about the we lfare of panthers than those who do not. For example, respondents identified as protectionist on a wildlife valu e orientation index are likely to be less willing to destroy a mountain lion than those identified as util itarian (Zinn & Pierce 2002). Similarly, Florida residents w ho are interested in wildlife fo r non-utilitarian purposes such as wildlife-viewing may be more supportive of recovery efforts. It has been suggested that cougars/panthers do not have the same historical and cultural presence in North America as wolves and bear s because of their secretive nature, lack of vocalizations, and the fact that European settlers had no prior experience with them in Europe (Kellert 1996). Still, American society uses cougars as totems for sports teams to invoke guardianship in inherently uncertain contexts and in car culture to symbolize agility, youthfulness, and speed (Neal 1985). In Florida, the panther serves as the mascot for numerous sports teams, including a prof essional hockey team in St. Pete rsburg and Florida International 16

PAGE 17

University athletics. Other characteristics releva nt to the context of panthers which affect attitudes are its large body si ze, perceived intelligence, mo rphology, mode of locomotion and behavior (Kellert & Berry 1980; C oursey 1998; Ward et al 1998). A ccording to these criteria, the panther is generally classified as charismatic me gafauna, as reflected by its status as Floridas state animal. As large carnivores, the perceived risk th at panthers pose to human safety plays a significant role in wildlife management decisi ons and can influence attitudes toward a given species (Riley & Decker 2000; Smithem 2005). Between 1890 and 2003, 16 fatal and 92 nonfatal cougar attacks on humans t ook place in the United States and Canada (Fitzhugh et al. 2003). Seven highly publicized fatal attacks have taken place since 1991 (Cougar Management Guidelines Working Group 2005), and widespread me dia coverage may be cueing the public that encounters between cougars and humans in the West are becoming more frequent (Riley & Decker 2000). This makes risk perception an impo rtant aspect of predicting support for panther recovery. Risk perception studies attempt to understand the judgments people make when they are asked to characterize and evaluate hazardous activities (Slovic 1987). Although there are currently no recorded incidences of a panther attacking a human in Florida (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2006), risk percep tion of panthers likely falls in the category of a low probability/high consequence familiar risk (Slovic 1987). Familiar risks include those which receive greater exposure in the media. The lay persons reaction to risk, unlike most experts, focuses on the magnitude of the undesi rable outcome rather than its probability (Margolis 1996). Social acceptability of perceive d risk from large carnivores may also be contextually specific (Kleiven et al. 2004). A panther in the wilderness may be acceptable to local communities, whereas a panther found near a residential community may not. 17

PAGE 18

Alternatively, a panther which ha s attacked a pet may be tolerated, whereas a panther that has attacked a human may not. Demographic variables, such as location, level of education and gender, can also influence perceived risk and consequent attitude forma tion (Kellert 1985; Rile y & Decker 2000; Zinn & Pierce 2002). Urban residents have expressed more positive attit udes toward predators, while rural landowners often have the most negative a ttitudes (Kellert 1985; Tucker & Pletscher 1989; Thompson 1992). These attitudes may be the resu lt of disputes over resource use and rural development, and may be a surrogate for land us e conflicts with central political authorities (Bjerke et al. 2000). Predicting at titudes may not be as simple as identifying an individuals current location, however. A study in Sweden demons trated that urbanites with rural origins had more positive attitudes toward wolves than mu lti-generational urbanites (Heberlein et al. 2005). Risk tolerance among urban residents for wolves a nd bears has been found to be greater than that of rural residents (Kleiven et al. 2004). These results, a lthough seemingly contradictory, highlight the importance of understanding the in teracting variables which predict attitudes toward predators within their specific social context. Studies have shown conflicting results regarding the effects of gender and parental status on perceived risk from cougars (Riley & Deck er 2000; Zinn & Pierce 20 02). Zinn and Pierce (2002) found that women expressed greater concern than men about being attacked by a cougar, but were less willing to accept destroying it than were men. Furthermore, respondents who had children perceived greater risk th an those without. The gender difference may be related to the tendency of women to favor management practices that prevent or reduce animal suffering (Richards & Krannich 1991). Riley and Decker (2000), however, found that neither gender nor parental status affected risk perception of couga rs in Montana residents. Demographic variables 18

PAGE 19

also have been known to exert a collinear effect on attitudes or behavior One study showed that women were significantly more likely than men to participate in environmentally protective behaviors and policy issues, and that the gender difference in behavior was greatest among older adults (Steel 1996). Knowledge about an animal, how it relates to humans and how it is managed may influence attitudes in a variety of ways. People in the United States have been shown to generally know more about species that can inflict harm and injury to humans than those that cannot (Kellert & Berry 1980). Based on this finding, one might logically conclude that those living in cougar habitat would know more about couga rs, and have correspondingly more negative attitudes. Residents in Arizona, however, simu ltaneously exhibited low knowledge levels about mountain lions, and high levels of support for their conservation in all land scapes (Casey et al. 2005). Studies of attitudes toward wolves, howev er, have shown that lack of knowledge about human-wolf interactions is often associated with greater fear of the threat that wolves represent to humans (Bath & Buchanan 1989; Tucker & Plet scher 1989). A study of f our special interest groups regarding wolves and a proposed reintrodu ction in New Brunswick found differences in attitudes despite similarly low knowledge leve ls (Lohr et al. 1996). The process by which information on carnivores is obtained also may in fluence attitudes. By enlisting biologists, managers and local hunters to condu ct field work together, the lynx ( Lynx lynx) registration program in Norway has succeeded in establishi ng a rapport between traditionally conflicting stakeholder groups (Skogen 2003). This type of collaboration may make the information acquired more credible to stakeholders in contro versial settings, highlight ing the importance of a credible source in the communication of information. 19

PAGE 20

The perceived threat that federally-listed carnivores potentially pose to economically important livestock, game species, and altern ative land uses may negatively influence stakeholder perceptions (Clark et al. 1996). A lthough few Florida residents will ever have a chance to interact directly with panthers because of the panthers small population size, panthers are a wide-ranging species whose habitat requirements may conflict with certain land uses such as off road vehicle use or development. Outdoor use demographics, such as whether or not an individual hunts, can be associated with support for wildlife management decisions, such as bag limits to increase prey abundance for panthers Willingness to support wolf reintroduction was negatively correlated with participation in big game hunting, possibly because hunters anticipated that wolves would compete with them for large game (Lohr et al. 1996). Rural landowners and livestock producers have also been found to have more negative attitudes toward wolves, a result of real or perceived effect s of wolves on livestock husbandry and game management (Kellert 1985; Williams et al. 2002; Anderson and Ozolins 2004). In fact, the listing of a species may actually motivate landowners to make their land less habitable for that species, depending on factors such as land use, recreatio n activity and distrust of government (Brook et al. 2003). Indeed, social identity and occupation of rural residents may be a stronger predictor of attitudes than actual encount ers with a species (Naughton-Treves et al. 2003). The Technical/Agency Draft Florida Panthe r Recovery Plan Third Revision lists translocation of panthers north of the Caloosahatchee River and in to their former range in the southeastern United States as objectives (U.S Fish and Wildlife Service 2006b). A successful translocation is likely to produce more vocal or physical opposition than current attitudes toward a species might suggest (Clark et al. 1996; Lohr et al. 1996). Additionally, attitudes may differ based on an individuals proximity to a proposed reintroduc tion site (Enck & Brown 2002). This 20

PAGE 21

phenomenon has been attributed to local community perceptions that large carnivore reintroduction imposes the conservation ethic of wealthy, urban populations on poorer, rural populations, distrust of the government, and perceptio ns of what is at stak e (Kellert et al. 1996; Riley & Decker 2000). Past studies have s hown that even overwhelmingly positive public attitudes can be reduced by incr eased interactions with wildli fe a condition which will be exacerbated by successful reintroductions as anim al populations increase (Williams et al. 2002). Even in the absence of reintroductions, researchers measuring attitudes toward cougars in Montana anticipate that, as expa nding human populations encroach further into cougar habitat, increasing numbers and intensity of enc ounters will correspondingly reduce stakeholder tolerance of the animals (Riley & Decker 2000). With panther popula tions in Florida currently so low, however, this is not likely to be a concern in the immediate future. Length of residence and conseque nt level of involvement with a particular species are also likely to be important in determ ining attitudes toward that speci es. A study of Utah residents attitudes toward cougar and black bear ( Ursus americana) management practices found that longtime residents were less lik ely to disapprove of cougar hun ting and the use of hounds than newcomers to the area (Teel et al. 2002). Longtim e residents living in core panther habitat may have different attitudes than local residents who have only recently moved to the area. The presence and direction of a relationship between length of residence and attitudes may depend on a persons level of involvement and the nature of the human-panther interactions in the area (Manfredo et al. 1998). Involvement with a sp ecies can include anything from personal or second-hand encounters to widely publicized en counters of third partie s in the press. The absence of a link between length of residence and attitudes toward cougars found in some studies may reflect a lack of involvement with the an imal (Riley & Decker 2000; Casey et al. 2005). 21

PAGE 22

Currently, Florida residents are far more likely to hear about any humanpanther encounters from local media than have a personal, or even s econd-hand, encounter with a panther. However, relaying of encounters through the media may serve a similar social function as firstor secondhand sources with regard to attitudes toward pa nthers (McClelland et al. 1990; Riley & Decker 2000). Specific predator management interventi ons also provoke diffe rent responses among different subsets of the population. For example, the majority of Utah residents sampled in a study of cougar and black bear management prac tices disapproved of recreational hunting to manage black bears, using hounds to hunt the two species and the practice of bear baiting (Teel et al. 2002). Degree of disapproval, however, was greatest among urbanites, women, respondents with more education, those over the age of 25, those who had lived in Utah for more than 10 years, and those who participated in noncons umptive outdoor recreation. Public acceptance of cougar management interventions in Colorado de pended on the specific circumstances of the encounter, such as whether the panther was merely seen, or had attacked a human. Additionally, residents differed in their prefer ences depending on proximity to cougar habitat, with those living closer finding hunting and trapping more acceptabl e (Manfredo et al. 1998). Given the protected status and small population size of panthers, management practices do not include lethal control unless a panther has attacked a person. However, 2 panthers have recently been removed from the wild for nuisance behavior such as repeated livestock depredations. To that end, it is important that wildlife managers understand Floridians thres hold for calling authorities to remove a panther. Beyond reducing human-panthe r conflict, the Technica l/Agency Draft Florida Panther Recovery Plan Third Revision seeks to increase the current panther population and establish 2 additional populations in order to eventually de-list the panther. Therefore it is also 22

PAGE 23

important to understand Florida re sidents attitudes toward management interventions such as translocation and habitat protecti on, which the recovery plan lists as cornerstones to restoring viable panther populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006b). Theoretical Framework A cognitive approach in social psychology examines endogenous components underlying the process that leads from human thought to action and the relationship between those [components] (Decker et al. 2001, p. 40-41). One frequently validated theory in social psychology is the Theory of Reasoned Acti on (TRA), which provides a framework for understanding how people decide whether or not to engage in a specific behavior. A behavior refers to an observable response to a given target within a specific situation such as voting for a ballot initiative or speeding on a highway. The TRA is based on the assumption that people use the information on hand and take into account conse quences of their actions in order to decide whether or not to engage in a particul ar behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein 1980). Intention, the best predictor of behavior, is the cognitive representation of a person's readiness to perform a given behavior or willin gness to act, and is considered the immediate antecedent of behavior. A meta-analysis of 113 studies found a mean correlation of 0.62 for the intention-behavior relationship (van den Putte 1991 cited in Routhe et al. 2005). According to the TRA, a behavioral intention is determined by two components: (1) th e individuals attitude toward the specific behavior, and (2) their subjective norms (i.e., how their actions will be perceived within their community). Attitudes toward a behavior refer to a persons negative or positive evaluation of the attitude object, which can be a person, object concept or action. Attitu des are determined by behavioral beliefs and an evaluative component. Be havioral beliefs are an individuals beliefs about the most likely consequences of an action, which he or sh e then evaluates as good or bad. 23

PAGE 24

The power of an attitude to pred ict a behavior depends on specifici ty and salience of the attitude (Fishbein & Ajzen 1975). A relevant attitude for predicting whethe r or not an individual will recycle might be composed of the belief that recycling improves the environment for future generations, and the evaluation th at improving the environment fo r future generations is good. Salience refers to the ease with which thoughts come to mind when confronted with the attitude object. The more experience a person has with the attitude object, the more accessible the link is between attitudes and behaviors (F azio 1990; McCleery et al. 2006). Subjective norm is the social pressure that an individual feels to engage or not to engage in a behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein 1980). Subjective norm is determined by an underlying set of normative beliefs about the expectations of impor tant others. Examples of important others, called normative referents, are a persons spouse, family and friends. Referent motivation describes the degree to which a person feels compelled to comply with the perceived expectations of these important others (Routhe et al. 2005). Ge nerally, the more favorable the attitude and subjective norm are toward a behavior the stronger should a pe rsons intention be to perform that behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein 1980) Provided that research ers do not overstep the bounds of the theory, strong predictive utility has been found for the model (Sheppard et al. 1988). The TRA and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) have been used to predict and explain behaviors regarding a va riety of environmental topics, including wildlife management. Among them are voter intentions regarding wolf reintroduction (Bright & Manfredo 1996; Pate et al. 1996) voter intentions on a ballot initia tive on wildlife trapping (Manfredo et al. 1997), boater intentions to speed in manatee ( Trichechus manatus) zones (Aipanjiguly et al. 2003) and support for hunting as a wildlife management strategy (Campbell & MacKay 2003). As 24

PAGE 25

described in the previous section, socioeconomic and demographic variables have also been known to influence environmental behaviors, although the effects of demographic variables on environmental behavior may have less predicti ve ability than psychogr aphic criteria when it comes to particular environmental behaviors su ch as green consumeris m (Straughan & Roberts 1999). Routhe et. al. (2005) tested a conceptual model which extended the boundaries of the TRA to encompass a collective environmental action namely building a dam to understand and predict public support for or opposition to collective actions that can significantly impact the environment. Using behavioral intentions such as attending a local mee ting as expressions of support or opposition, they found that the pos tulated linkages between subjective norms, attitudes and behavioral intenti ons were similarly robust as thos e found in studies of specific individual behavioral inten tions (Routhe et al. 2005). Panther recovery, for the purposes of this study, refers to management interventions targeting the eventual downlisting and delisting of the panther, including such action as increasing the number of panthers in the wild, ha bitat protection, and translocation of panthers north of the Caloosahatchee River. Panther endange rment is the aggregate of a series of social phenomena, such as selling land for uses incompa tible with panthers and deciding to speed in designated panther zones, brought about by variety of human motiv ations. It follows that any potential management interventions must target the wide variety of threats to panthers resulting from these social phenomena, and that intention to act in support of recovery is likely to be based in part on opinions about any and all proposed actions. Manfredo et al. (1998) state that a basic challenge of human dimensions research is to measure attitudes toward a range of manage ment scenariosspecific enough to ensure predictive validity butalso generic enough to be appl ied across a wide variety of situations. In 25

PAGE 26

the interests of meeting both objectives, this study proposes a moderating variable between intention to act, on the one hand, and subjectiv e norms/attitudes toward panthers and the consequences of their protection on the other. This variable, panther management preferences is specific to this study and is composed of the degree to which a respondent supports or opposes specific panther management practices from the Technical/Agency Draft Florida Panther Recovery Plan Third Revision, the degree of prot ection which they believe panthers should be afforded, and an overall level of support for incr easing the number of panthers in the wild. I propose that support for specific management inte rventions may help to explain willingness (or unwillingness) to take individual action to influe nce collective actions to help save panthers. Many respondents may be supportive of panther r ecovery in the abstract but these attitudes may lack salience or constraint due to an absence of previous experience with what panther recovery entails. Indeed, panther experts have expressed concern about this type of passive, widespread support in the past (Belden & McCown 1996). Partic ipants in surveys have also been known to change their attitudes based on the thoughts which are most immediate at the time of questioning (Zaller & Feldman 1992). By exposing respondents to actual or proposed rec overy efforts, this study attempts to ensure greater salience in attitude s, thereby strengthen ing the link between attitudes and intentions. Risk perception is an additional social facet important to large carnivore conservation. It plays a large part in studies ex amining attitudes toward cougars and other large predators using the Wildlife Acceptance Cap acity (WAC) model (Riley & Decker 2000; Smithem 2005). According to the WAC model, greater perceive d risk reduces stakeholder acceptance capacity for a given species by influenci ng attitude formation. Risks to pe rsonal safety reduce acceptance capacity to a larger degree than risks to property. Although the small population of panthers 26

PAGE 27

makes applying the WAC model premature at the current time, the physic al characteristics of panthers make risk perception immediately releva nt. Perceived risk from panthers likely has a similar relationship to attitude s and support for panther recovery as in the WAC model when applied to larger populations of cougars in the western United St ates. The effect of knowledge on attitudes and risk perception, however, is ambiguous in the literature. Some studies of cougars have shown respondents to have positive attitudes in spite of low levels of knowledge overall (Casey et al. 2005), while wolf reintroduction studies have shown that a lack of knowledge of human-wolf relationships was associated with gr eater fear of wolves (Tucker & Pletscher 1989). Study Description and Research Questions: This study proposes that panther management preferences directly influence an in dividuals willingness to act in support of or opposition to panther recovery, and that these pref erences are, in turn, influenced by cognitive and evaluative components in the form of attitudes (both toward panthers and their protection) and generalized social pressure to support recovery (Figure 1-1) Specifically, individuals who support panther management efforts targeting pa nther recovery, have positive attitudes toward panthers and perceive a generalized social pressure to support rec overy are more likely to act in support of recovery. Similarly, those who oppos e panther management interventions, have negative attitudes toward panthers and their protection, and percei ve a social pressure to oppose recovery are more likely to act in opposition to recovery. Fact ors which this study proposes indirectly influence behavioral intentions include risk perception, knowle dge about panthers, and demographic characteristics. Acco rding to this model, perceived risk has a negative relationship with attitudes, support for management efforts to recover panthers, and subjective norms. My review of the literature also suggested th at demographic variable s including location of residence (urban or rural) and proximity to panther habitat were likely to be associated with 27

PAGE 28

28 attitude formation in the context of panthers. By comparing attitudes of South Florida residents currently living in core panther habitat to thos e of South Central Flor ida residents living in potential translocation sites this study examines relationships between proximity to panthers and public support for recovery. Urban and rural populations in Florida are likely to focus on different potential consequences of panther recovery (e.g., rural residents may be more concerned about land use restric tions because they are more likely to own land in panther habitat). Therefore, to ensure that the rura l samples would be larg e enough to allow for comparisons with the urban samples, I separate d both sites into urban and rural strata, and explored the nature of thei r relationships to other fact ors influencing support. This study examines and explores the relati onships between factor s influencing public support for panther recovery by answer ing the following research questions: 1) Do behavioral intentions, support for recovery, attitudes, risk perception, subjective norms and knowledge levels differ between residents of Southwest (core panther habitat) and South Central (potential transl ocation site) Florida? 2) Do behavioral intentions, support for recovery, attitudes, risk perception, subjective norms and knowledge levels differ between urban and rural residents? 3) Are the postulated linkages among factors infl uencing public support fo r panther recovery significant, and, if so, what is the strength and direct ion of the relationships? 4) Which variables are associated with behavioral intentions, su pport for recovery, attitudes, risk perception, subj ective norms and knowledge levels, and how do those who support recovery differ from those who do not in terms of specific management preferences, beliefs, knowledge items, media pref erences and demographics?

PAGE 29

Knowledge about panthers Subjective norm to support/oppose recovery Behavioral intention to support/oppose recovery Attitudes toward panthers and their protection Panther management preferences Perceived risk from panthers Demographics Hunt/Fish Hike/Camp Interest in wildlife Landownership Livestock ownership Current residence Past residence Duration of FL residence Children in home Pet ownership Education Race Ethnicity Age Income Gender Southwest/South Central FL Rural/Urban 29 Figure 1-1. Conceptual diagram of fact ors influencing intention to act in s upport of or opposition to panther recovery.

PAGE 30

CHAPTER 2 METHODS Study Site Description Southwest Florida Core Panther Habitat Radio telemetry locations show heavy use by pa nthers of both privat e and public lands in Collier, Lee and Hendry Counties (Thatcher et al. 2006, Figure 2-1). Federal and state lands within this area include Big Cypress National Preserve, the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve a nd Picayune Strand State Forest. Both Lee and Collier Counties have experienced heavy popula tion growth and development over the last decade, with the population of Lee increas ing by 11.64% and Collier by 14.03% between 2000 and 2003 (U.S. Department of Agriculture Ec onomic Research Serv ice 2004). The three Counties occupy 6,411 km, much of which is desi gnated core panther ha bitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006b). As of the last census, the total human population of Southwest Florida south of the Caloosahatchee River was 562,556 (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). Lee and Collier Counties are both classified as metropolitan, a nd Hendry as non-metropolitan based on location and commuting rates to metropolitan areas (U.S. De partment of Agriculture Economic Research Service 2004). Panther recovery efforts have been underway in Southwes t Florida for close to three decades (U.S. Fish Wildlife Service 1981). Speed limits are posted in designated panther zones, and signage about panthers and educationa l materials such as brochures are provided to park visitors. South Central Florida Pote ntial Translocation Site Based on findings regarding poten tial panther translocation sites within Florida (Thatcher et al. 2006) and objectives of the Technical/Agency Draft Flor ida Panther Recovery Plan Third Revision (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006b), South Central Florida refers to the area 30

PAGE 31

bounded at the south by the Caloosahatchee River and at the north by Interstate 4. Thatcher et al. (2006) ranked three potentia l panther habitat areas within South Central Florida as the best potential sites for translocation: Avon Park Bombing Range, Fisheating Creek/Babcock Ranch, and Duette Park. Radio telemetry locations sh ow that panthers use these habitats, although no breeding populations are known to have been esta blished. In order to be included in the study, counties had to be immediately adjacent to or wi thin a potential translocation site. The counties which met these criteria were Charlotte, De Soto, Glades, Hardee, Highlands, Manatee, Okeechobee, Osceola, Sarasota, the portion of Po lk and Hillsborough south of Interstate 4, and the portion of Lee County north of the Caloos ahatchee River. Hardee, DeSoto, Highlands, Okeechobee and Glades Counties are classified as non-metropolitan, and the remainder as metropolitan (U.S. Department of Agricultu re Economic Research Service 2004). The population for this region as of the most recent census was 2,034,071 (US Census Bureau 2007). Stakeholder Interviews From July 13-21, 2006, I conducted 17 telephon e interviews with wildlife and land managers from federal, state and municipal agenci es in both sites in order to identify relevant stakeholder groups likely to be concerned with panthers a nd panther management. I then conducted 22 semi-structured telephone inte rviews (Leech 2002) between August 9 and December 1, 2006 in order to obtain detail ed, in-depth qualitative information from representatives of the following key stakeholde r groups about the social context of panther recovery in Southwest and Sout h Central Florida: large landowners (including ranchers), environmental groups, sportsmen, developers, co unty commissioners, and media representatives. Whenever possible, multiple respondents were included from a stakeholder group to check the validity of responses by comparison (Meyer 200 1). All interviewees were asked to report perceived impacts of panthers and/ or panther recovery on them, th eir family or their community, 31

PAGE 32

and to evaluate these impacts as positive, ne gative or neutral (see A ppendix A for landowner discussion questions). I incorporat ed the results of the intervie ws into a survey instrument designed to quantitatively describe and compare the individual fact ors which contribute to level of support for or opposition to pant her recovery in urban and rura l residents living in primary panther habitat (Southwest Florida) and potential translocation s ites (South Central Florida). Survey Instrument The telephone survey instrument included 78 items measuring six main subject areas: behavioral intention to support recovery, manage ment preferences, attitudes, risk perception, knowledge levels and demographics (see Appendix B for survey instrument). I employed a 5point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree/strongly oppose to 5 = str ongly agree/strongly support) with a central neutral category throughout most of the surv ey to avoid increasing measurement error by confusing respondents. The reliability of all scales was tested by calculating the Cronbachs coefficient alpha (Table 2-1). All scales, with the exception of the behavioral intention scale, had an alpha of greater than 0.70, indicating a high level of internal consistency. The lower alpha of the behavioral intention scale (0.50) indicates an acceptable level of internal consistency for a low item, multi-dime nsional scale (Helms et al. 2006). The behavioral intention scale included 3-items, with a sc ore above 3 on a 5-point scale reflecting intention to act in suppor t of recovery, and a score below 3 reflecting intention to act in opposition to recovery. Questions were adapted from Routhe et al. (2005), and included writing a letter to an elected official, pa ying a small additional tax in suppor t of recovery, or voting for an official who favors developm ent over panther recovery. The panther management preferences scale incl uded 6 items, with a higher mean reflecting greater overall support for recovery efforts. Res pondents were asked to re port their general level of support for or opposition to increasing the number of panthers in the wild in Florida, as well 32

PAGE 33

as their opinion on translocation, protecting pant her habitat, sensitivity level for removal of nuisance panthers, and the extent of protection which should be give n to panthers. This suite of potential management interventions was selected according to two criteria: (1) relevance to the current panther recovery plan, and (2 ) relevance to a Florida resident. The risk perception scale included 10 ite ms, with a higher mean indicating greater perceived risk from panthers. The scale measured perceived risk panthers pose to pets, children and livestock, relative to other animals and to personal safety in specific situations (neighborhood versus natural area). Respondents were also asked whethe r or not they judged encounters with panthers to be increasing in frequency, and whether or not the risks from panthers were accepted vol untarily (Slovic 1987). The attitude scale included 15 items, with a higher mean reflecting more positive attitudes toward panthers and recovery. The scale measur ed attitudes toward consequences of panther management and characteristics of panthers identified and evaluated both in the stakeholder interviews and open-ended questions included in a previous panther survey (Duda & Young 1995). Participants were asked to report their le vel of agreement or disagreement with fifteen positive and negative belief statements concerning panthers. The knowledge index included 10 true-false st atements about panther biology and humanpanther interactions. Each question included in the index was shown to a panther biologist to ensure that there was only one correct answer An additional question was included in the knowledge section asking that respondents select what they consid ered to be the primary reason that panthers were endangered. This question was not included in the knowledge index because more than one answer could arguably be considered at least partially correct. Reliability for the index was not evaluated because items were se lected to measure the external concept of 33

PAGE 34

knowledge about panthers, rather than because the individual items were assumed to be interrelated (Helms et al. 2006). The media preference section included 6 ite ms. Respondents were asked whether or not and from where they had recently seen or heard a bout panthers in the media, their opinion on the veracity and extent of media coverage of panthers, their preferred source for information about panthers (wildlife agencies; pol iticians; environmental groups; or sportsmen), and their primary source for general news (telev ision; newspaper; radio; internet; or magazine). The demographic section of the survey was made up of 17 items, including interest in wildlife, outdoor user demographics, belief that panthers lived in the respondents home county, race, ethnicity, level of education, income, ge nder, landownership, pet ownership, presence of children under 18 in the household, lo cation of current and past resi dence, and length of Florida residence. Interest in wildlife was measured by an index of four activitie s that respondents could engage in: watching television, vi deos or movies about wildlife reading about wildlife, and residential/nonresidential wildli fe viewing. Respondents were as ked whether they had engaged in any of these activities within the past 2 years, and were assigned a score based on their response. Higher scores reflected greater intere st in wildlife. Locati on of current and past residence was measured with a 4point bipolar scale ranging from city to rural farm. Intermediate responses included suburbs and rural non-farm. Sampling Strategy and Survey Administration Based on the U.S. Census Bureaus designation, I classified all census tracts included in the study as either urban or rural. Urban designation is given to block groups with a density of 1,000 people or greater and block groups with a density of 500 or more people immediately adjacent to a block group with 1,000 people or more (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). I then used disproportionate stratification to allocate 200 completions to each of the 4 strata, to remain 34

PAGE 35

within budget while ensuring with 0.95 probability that the margin of error would not exceed 0.07. I purchased simple random samples of listed te lephone records from each of the four strata taken from a listed household database last updated January 29, 2007. A listed sample was chosen over random digit dialing (RDD) both for cost reasons and to avoid bleed over between urban and rural strata which might limit th e generalizability of findings for each group. The survey was reviewed by a panel of social sc ientists at the University of Florida, state and federal panther specialists and pre-tested on undergraduates at the University of Florida. In March 2007, trained interviewers with the Univ ersity of Florida Bureau of Business and Economic Research administered the survey. Ini tial interviews were m onitored and the first 150 completions were examined for problems in ad ministration, but none were identified. Each survey took approximately 20 minutes to complete. Calls were made with computer-aided dialing during both weekdays and weekends, as well as in the evenings, to increase the likelihood of reaching currently employed individuals (Keeter et al. 2000). Respondents were called a total of 10 times unless a terminal dispos ition (i.e., hang up or adamant refusal) occurred before the tenth call, in which case substitution was employed. In order to ensure random selection of respondents within hous eholds, interviewers asked to sp eak with the current resident, 18 years or older, who had celebrated the most recent birthday (Gaziano 2005). Potential Sources of Bias Resulting from Mode and Listed Sample: Nonrespondents in telephone surveys are likely to be poorer, less ed ucated, African American, and rent rather than own homes (Assael & Keon 1982). Those who do not own telephones are, by necessity, excluded from the sampling frame of a telephone survey. Respondents are therefore likely to be wealthier than those without a telephone, meaning that affl uent individuals tend to be overrepresented in telephone surveys (Cordell et al. 2002). Younger people, who tend to adopt 35

PAGE 36

technology more quickly than older ones, are mo re likely to use cell phones exclusively and therefore not have a land line (Groves et al. 2004), meaning th at older people are likely to be overrepresented in telephone surveys. People who have definite opinions about a subject are more likely to participate in a survey about that topic. A study of acceptance capacity for cougars in Montana found that nonrespondents tended to be more ambivalent towa rd cougars than respondents (Riley & Decker 2000). As such, our sample may be biased toward those with greater intere st in the issue, and more practiced opinions. Listed samples exclude from the sampling frame people with unlisted telephone numbers, which is the primary just ification for using the more costly practice of random digit dialing. A comparison of demographic and attitudinal results using a listed sample and RDD found that both methods underrepresented African American s and younger people, but that the listed sample underrepresented them to a greater de gree (R.W. Oldendick & D. N. Lambries, unpublished data, Differences in an RDD and list sample: an experimental comparison). Data Analysis I analyzed data using both SPSS (SPSS, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey) and SAS statistical software (SAS Inst itute, 1998). Ordinal data from scales and indices measuring behavioral intentions, support for recovery, atti tudes, risk perception, and knowledge was treated as interval level data (Agresti & Finlay 1997). I used 2-tailed t-tests to identify significant differences in mean scores between urban and rural pairs (Southwest Ru ral-Southwest Urban and South Central Rural-South Central Urban), as well as Southwest and South Central pairs (Southwest Urban-South Central Urban or Southwest Rural-South Central Rural). To isolate effects of living in an urban or rural setting, or living within or outside of primary panther habitat, I only compared one of the two strata characteristics at a time The Pearson correlation 36

PAGE 37

coefficient was used to measure strength and di rection of postulated linkages between the components of the model, as well as between components of the model and demographic variables. Chi-squared statistics were used to te st for differences in proportions between nominal data, including single 5-point Likert scale questi ons. I used multiple regression on all theoretical variables in the conceptual model (behaviora l intention to support recovery, management preferences, attitudes, subject ive norm, risk perception, and know ledge) with single simultaneous entry of all predicto r variables to constr uct a model that best predicted intention to act in support of or opposition to panther recover y. Independent variables selected a priori included components of the conceptual model selected in keeping with the logic of its construction (i.e., behavioral intention was not included in the regression for attitude), as well as demographic variables identified in the literature. Effect size of each variable was calculated by summing the direct and indirect effects of each statistically significant (p<0.05) variab le in the regressions. Direct effects for a variable consisted of the stan dardized coefficient () from the regression with behavioral intention as the dependent variable. Us ing a path diagram, indirect effects were then calculated by multiplying the standardized coefficients for each link in each path which eventually led from the predictor variable to be havioral intentions, and adding the totals of all paths (Bryman & Cramer 1990). Post-stratification weighting (Holt & Smith 1979) was used to combine the 4 strata and calculate means or proportions for the total sample This type of weightin g is used to adjust sample proportions to reflect population distributions (Zhang, 2000; Cordell et al. 2002). Weights were calculated using th e actual population proportions for counties included in each of the four strata to ensure that each stratum was sampled at the same rate as its proportion of the population (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). Weights were adjusted to avoid artificially inflating the 37

PAGE 38

sample size to control for the tendency of larger samples to show significance in even small departures of the sample mean from the valu e in the null hypothesis (Agresti & Finlay 1997). Using the weighted data, I divided the sample into groups based on their mean score on the behavioral intention and knowledge scales in order to explore their attitudes, knowledge, demographics and media preferences in grea ter detail with chisquared and t-tests. To explore differences in specific manageme nt preferences, attitudes, risk perception, knowledge and demographic variables, I divided th e total weighted sample \into 3 groups based on their score on the behavioral inte ntion scale. Those with scores greater than 3 were classified as proponents, those with scor es of 3 as undecided and t hose with scores below 3 as opponents. As such, these groups are based on an individuals stated intention to act in support of or opposition to increasing the nu mber of panthers in the wild, rather than their intention to support or oppose management interven tions (such as translocation). Mean scores for single 5-point Likert scal e questions were collapsed into 3 levels (Agree/Support=3, Undecided=2, Disa gree/Oppose=1) for this part of the analysis. A mean score of less than 2 indicated that a group tended to di sagree with or oppose an at titude statement, and a mean score of greater than 2 indicated that a group tended to agree with or support an attitude statement. Missing data were excluded listwise for regressi on analyses and pairwi se for all others. A dont know option was given for nearly all questions. Prior to analysis, dont know responses were grouped with neither agree nor disagree responses in the central neutral category of the 5-point Likert scale. For the knowledge scale, dont know responses were counted as an incorrect answer and given a score of 38

PAGE 39

Table 2-1. Scale re liability evaluation. Scales and question wording Cronbachs al p h a Behavioral Intentions (PROBEHAVIOR) 0.50 I would write a letter to an elected official to support increasing the number of panthers in the wild. pay a small additional amount of state tax to fund increasing the number of panthers in the wild. vote for an elected official that fa vors development over panthers. Panther Management Preferences (PROMANAGE) 0.73 Overall, do you support or oppose efforts to help the panther population in Florida by increasing the number of panthers in the wild? If, in order to increase th e number of panthers in the wild panthers would have to be moved into your county it would be necessary to protect natural lands in your county to what extent would you support or oppose this action? Panthers should be removed from the wild anywhere they are found close to peoples home. Panthers should not be removed from the wild under any circumstances. Please tell me which of the following three statements comes closest to your point of view. Panthers should be protected everywhere in Florida. be protected ONLY within national pa rks and other nature reserves, NOT on private lands. not be protected anywhere. Risk Perception from Pa nthers (HIGHRISK) 0.80 I am concerned about the safety of pets livestock children because panthers may live nearby I am comfortable visiting natural areas being outdoors in my neighborhood where panthers may live nearby 39

PAGE 40

Table 2-1. Continued. Scales and question wording Cronbachs al p h a I am more concerned about bei ng injured by a panther than being injured by a dog. being injured by an alligator. being bitten by a snake. Panther-human encounters ar e becoming more frequent. People can generally make choices about being exposed to the risks from panthers. Attitudes toward Panthers and Protec tion of Panthers (PROATTITUDE) 0.84 Positive aspects of panther protection it helps to save the natural lands where they live in Florida. although I never see Florida panthers in the wild, it is important to know that they exist in Florida. they are one of the worlds most endangered animals. panthers help maintain deer and sm all animals in balance with their environment. panthers have a right to live wherever they are. our grandchildren and future generations should be able to see Florida panthers in the wild. panthers are beautiful animals. panthers are intelligent animals. it keeps a healthy environment. Negative aspects of panther protection it is a waste of money. it restricts access to public lands. maintaining panther populations in the wild is a threat to the economic prosperity of Florida. it restricts how private landowne rs can manage their land. panthers are vicious murderers. panthers compete with hunters for game animals such as deer. Question was reverse-coded for inclusion in scale. 40

PAGE 41

Figure 2-1. Distribution of te lemetry location of panthers in south Florida, USA, 1991-2001 [Reprinted with permission from Thatcher, C. A., F. T. V. Manen, and J. D. Clark. 2006. Identifying Suitable Sites for Florida Panther Reintroduction. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:752-763. (Page 754, Figure 1)] 41

PAGE 42

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Response Rate To complete 802 surveys, 7,770 phone numbers were attempted. Of those attempted, 3,534 resulted in actual contact with an eligible respondent for a cont act rate of 45%, and a cooperation rate of 23%. (The remaining numbers resulted in ineligible respondents, non-working numbers, language difficulties and other tec hnical difficulties.) Cooperation rate s in each of the four strata were within 3 percentage points of each other. Sample sizes within each of the 4 strata (n=200) ensured with 0.95 probability that the ma rgin of error would not exceed 0.07. Urban-Rural and Southwest-South Central Comparisons Demographic Characteristics of the Sample After post-stratification weighting, 19% owne d no land; 59% owned less than 1 acre; 16% owned 1 to 5 acres; and 5% owned more than 6 acres (Table 3-1). Most respondents (62%) identified their current reside nce as suburban, followed by rural non-farm (23%), city (12%) and farm (1%). However, less than half of res pondents (42%) reported growing up in the suburbs, followed by rural non-farm areas (26%), cities (18%) and farms (15%). Only 3 % of the sample owned livestock. The mean length of Florida resi dence was 22 years, and the median age was 60 years. Only 19% of respondents lived in households with children, but half (51%) owned dogs or cats. The sample was highly educated, with 22% having attended graduate or professional school, 52% college, 24% high school, and only 3% elementary school. Only 9% of respondents were Latino, and only 7% reported being a race other than white. The majority of respondents (66%) reported a household income of over $50,000 in 2006 before taxes. A minority (20%) earned less than $30,000. 42

PAGE 43

The median age of the sample may be higher than the actual population parameter because, as described previously, younger people tend to be underreprese nted in telephone surveys a situation likely exacerbate d by the use of a listed sample which tends to oversample older people. However, according to the Consumer Confidence Index for March of 2007, a statewide survey of Florida residents also conducted by the Bureau of Economic Business and Research which uses RDD, the average age for respondents was 54 year s, which is only 3 years lower than the 57 mean age found in this study (Bureau of Econo mic Business and Research, unpublished data). Also contributing to the high median age in this study is the fact that southern Florida has a high seasonal influx of part-year reti rees. The top ten county destin ations for temporary Florida residents, a much larger propor tion of whom than permanent re sidents are 55 years or older, include 5 of the counties included in this study : Lee, Collier, Polk, Sarasota and Hillsborough. Furthermore, the rate of immigra tion for temporary residents is greatest from December to April (S.K. Smith & M. House, unpublished data, Snowbi rds and other temporary residents: Florida 2004). Given these circumstances, the median age observed in this study is reasonable for southern Florida at the time of year that the survey was administered. Statistically significant differences between urban-rural strata a nd/or Southwest-South Central strata were found in landownership, livesto ck ownership, duration of Florida residence, presence of children under 18 in the household, pet ownership, leve l of education, ethnicity, and income. Rural residents of Southwest and South Central Florida generally owned more land that their urban counterparts (Table 3-2). However, rural residents of South Central Florida also owned more land than rural reside nts of Southwest Florida (Table 3-1). Rural residents of South Central Florida were also more likely to own lives tock than residents in either rural Southwest Florida or urban South Central Florida. Residents of South Central Florida had generally lived in 43

PAGE 44

Florida longer than those in Southwest Florida. (The average difference was 7.69 between the rural strata and 5.23 years between the urban strata.) South Cent ral residents were more likely than Southwest residents to have children under the age of 18 in the household. Rural residents in South Central were more likely to own pets than those in Southwest Florida, and rural residents in both locations were more likely to own pets than th eir urban counterparts. The level of education was higher for rural residents of S outhwest Florida than for South Central Florida. The proportion of urban South Central residents who were Latino was twice that of rural South Central residents. A greater pr oportion of urban residents in Southwest Florida were white compared to urban residents of South Central Florida. Southwest Florida residents were generally wealthier than those in So uth Central Florida. Behavioral Intention to Support Panther Recovery In Southwest Florida, the mean score on the behavioral inten tion scale for the rural stratum was 3.37 (SD=0.85) and for the urban stratum was 3.32 (SD=0.83). In South Central Florida, the mean score for the rural stratum was 3.35 (SD=0.74) and for the urban stratum was 3.32 (SD=0.76). All 4 groups were moderately willing to act in support of pant her recovery. There were no statistically significant differences either between Sout hwest and South Central pairs (Table 3-3), or between urban and rural pairs (Tables 3-4). Fifty-two percent of the total sample was willing to write a letter to a political official in support of panther recovery, and 52% was willi ng to pay a small additional tax in support of panther recovery. Fifty-nine percen t were not willing to vote for a political official who favored development over panther recovery. In each ca se, a small proportion of respondents (16%, 11% and 16% respectively) were uncertain about whether or not they would partic ipate in any of these activities. The intention scale had low internal consistency, and respondents may have been 44

PAGE 45

confused by the question which asked about intent ion to vote for a political official who favored development over panthers. Statistically significant (p 0.05) predictor variables in the regression model for behavioral intentions included management prefer ences, attitudes, and subjective norm (Table 35). The model explained 43% of the variance (n = 473, p < 0.01). Respondents who approved of management preferences targeting panther recovery, held positive attitudes toward panthers, and felt a generalized social pressure to support recovery were more likely to take action in support of panther recovery. Management Preferences for Panthers Mean scores on the panther management preferences scale were 3.67 (SD=0.74) for Southwest rural; 3.67 (SD=0.65) for Southwest urban; 3.74 (SD=0.64) for South Central rural; and 3.67 (SD=0.62) for South Central urban. All means reflected high levels of support for panther management practices which promote recovery. No differences were found between Southwest and South Central pairs (Table 3-3), or between urban and ru ral pairs (Tables 3-4). However, urban strata in Sout hwest and South Central Florida differed in preferences for the extent of panther protection ( =7.99, p 0.05). Among urban residents of Southwest Florida, 56% felt that panthers should be protected everywhere, 40% felt they should be protected only on public lands, and 3% felt they should be prot ected nowhere. Among urban residents of South Central Florida, a larger proportion (68%) felt that they should be protected everywhere, a smaller proportion felt they should be protecte d on public lands only (27%), and only 5% felt that they should be protected nowhere. A majority (71%) of the total sample s upported efforts overall to help the panther population in Florida by increasing the number of panthers in the wild, while 19% were undecided and a small proportion (11%) opposed. A large proportion of respondents (64%) also 45

PAGE 46

supported translocation into their county, and protection of natural lands in their county (78%). A minority of respondents opposed translocation (17 %) and protection of natu ral lands (7%). Most respondents disagreed that pant hers should be removed anywhe re they were found close to peoples homes (67%). Almost half (47%) of re spondents agreed that panthers should not be removed from the wild under any circumstances. Regarding the extent to which panthers should be protected, most respondents concurred that panthers should be protected everywhere in Florida (66%), although 30% beli eved that panthers should onl y be protected on public lands. Only 4% felt that panthers s hould not be protected anywhere. Statistically significant (p 0.05) predictor variables in th e regression model for panther management preferences included at titudes, risk perception, subjectiv e norm, interest in wildlife, presence of children under 18 in the household and age (Table 36). The model explained 51% of the variance in management preferences (n = 477, p < 0.01). Younger respondents without children under 18 in the household, who held positiv e attitudes toward panthers, perceived lower levels of risk from panthers, felt a generalized social pressure to support recovery and had greater interest in wildlife were more likely to prefer management actions to help panther populations recover. Conversely, older respondents with children in the household who held negative attitudes toward panthers perceived a higher level of risk fr om panthers, did not feel social pressure to support recovery and were less interested in wildlife were less likely to support panther recovery. Attitudes toward Panthers a nd Protection of Panthers Mean scores on the attitude scale were 3.92 (SD=0.49) for Southwest rural; 3.83 (SD=0.51) for Southwest urban; 3.95 (SD=0.43) for South Central rural; and 3.90 (SD=0.49) for South Central urban. All means show that beli efs about panthers and the consequences of 46

PAGE 47

protecting panthers are very pos itive, and did not differ between Southwest and South Central pairs (Table 3-3), or between urba n and rural pairs (Table 3-4). Most respondents (88%) in the total sample believed that protecting panthers was good because it helped to protect natural lands in Fl orida. Most respondents (90%) also agreed that although they may never see panthers in Florida, it is important to know that they exist. Most (85%) disagreed that protecting pa nthers was a waste of money. Solid majorities agreed that it is good or important to protect panthers because th ey are one of the worlds most endangered animals (80%), they help maintain prey species in balance with their environment (79%), they have a right to live wherever they are (75%), fu ture generations have a right to see them in Florida (92%), and because they are beautifu l (94%) and intelligent (80%) animals. Although most respondents (80%) disagreed that panthers were a threat to the economic prosperity of Florida, similar proportions of respondents ag reed (40%) and disagreed (38%) that panther protection restricts how privat e landowners can manage their land. Half of respondents (51%) disagreed that protecting panthers restricts access to public lands, while a quarter of respondents (26%) agreed. Equal proportions of respondents ( 40% each) agreed and disagreed that panthers compete with hunters for game animals such as deer, while 20% remained undecided. Statistically significant (p 0.05) predictor variables in th e regression model for attitudes included risk perception, knowledge, interest in wildlife, whether or not a respondent hunted or fished, and age (Table 3-7). The model explained 39% of the variance in attitudes (n = 495, p < 0.01). Younger respondents who perceived le ss risk, had greater knowledge, did not participate in hunting or fishing were more likel y to have positive attitudes about panthers and panther recovery. 47

PAGE 48

Risk Perceptions about Panthers Mean scores on the risk pe rception scale were 2.26 (SD= 0.57) for Southwest rural; 2.37 (SD=0.47) for Southwest urban; 2.21 (SD=0.59) for South Central rural; and 2.30 (SD=0.55) for South Central urban. Perceived risk from panthers in all 4 strata was low, and means did not differ between Southwest and South Central pairs (Table 3-3), or between urban and rural pairs (Tables 3-4). A majority of respondents (60%) in the total sa mple were not concerned about the safety of children, pets (63%), or livestock (62%) because panthers may live in the area. However, more respondents were concerned about the safety of children (33%) than ei ther pets (23%) or livestock (23%). The majority of respondents reported being comfortable outdoors in either their neighborhood (76%) or natural ar eas (80%) although panthers ma y live nearby. More than 80% of respondents in each case were not more c oncerned about being injured by a panther than a dog, an alligator, or a snake. Forty-five pe rcent of respondents felt that human-panther encounters were not becoming more frequent, 34% were undecided, and 21% felt that they were. Most respondents (82%) believed that people could make choices about being exposed to the risks from panthers. Statistically significant (p 0.05) predictor variables in the regression model for risk perception included knowledge, interest in wildli fe, pet ownership, ethnicity and race (Table 38). The model explained 28% of the variance in risk perception (n = 506, p < 0.01). Those who knew less about panthers, participated in less wild life-related activities, did not own pets, were nonwhite and Latino were likely to percei ve greater risk fr om panthers. Subjective Norm to Support Panther Recovery Mean scores regarding perceived generalized so cial pressure for supporting recovery were 3.28 (SD=0.91) for Southwest rural; 3.33 (SD=0.90) for Southwest urban; 3.51 (SD=0.84) for 48

PAGE 49

South Central rural; and 3.35 (SD=0.84) for South Central urban, reflecting a moderate perceived social pressure to support incr easing the number of panthers in the wild. No differences were found between urban and rural pairs (Table 3-4), or between urban strata in Southwest and South Central locations (Table 3-3). However, between ru ral strata, perceived soci al pressure to support recovery was slightly greater in South Central Florida than Southwest Florida ( =11.31, p<0.05). Slightly less than half of all respondents (45%) agreed with the st atement Most people who are important to me think I should support in creasing the number of pa nthers in Florida., while a similar proportion of respondents (39 %) was undecided, and 17% disagreed with the statement. Statistically significant (p 0.05) predictor variables in th e regression model for subjective norm included risk perception, knowledge, interest in wildlife, part icipation in hunting or fishing, and race (Table 3-9). The model explained 21% of the variance in subjective norm (n= 503, p < 0.01). White respondents who perceived less ri sk, had greater knowledge about panthers, participated in more wildlife-related activities, and had not hunted or fished within the last 2 years were more likely to perceive soci al pressure to suppor t panther recovery. Knowledge about Panthers Mean scores on the knowledge index we re 5.45 (SD=2.08) for Southwest rural; 5.33 (SD=2.02) for Southwest urban; 5.35 (SD=2.16) for South Central rural; and 4.86 (SD=1.93) for South Central urban. Urban residents of Southwest Florida knew more about panthers than urban residents of South Central Florida ( =2.39, p<0.05), although rural residents in Southwest and South Central Florida did not differ (Table 3-3). In South Central Florid a, rural residents knew more about panthers than did urban residents ( =2.38, p<0.05) (Table 3-4). No urban-rural 49

PAGE 50

differences were found in Southwest Florida, ho wever. Rural residents in Southwest Florida knew the most about panthers, and urban residents in South Ce ntral Florida knew the least. The vast majority of respondents (93%) in the total sample knew that panthers still lived in Florida. A majority of respondents (65%) also be lieved that panthers lived in their home county. Only 32% of respondents knew that less than 100 pa nthers remained in Florida, and about half (53%) knew that the panther population did not number more than 1,000. Furthermore, 62% of respondents were aware that panthe rs are endangered. A majority of respondents (64%) did not know the correct weight of a male panther, and about half (51%) did not know that deer were a primary prey species of panthe rs. Most respondents (73%) knew that panthers were not only active during the day, and recogni zed that the terms panther and mountain lion referred to the same animal (60%). A very small minority (14%) was aware that there had never been attack on a human by a panther in Florida. When aske d to identify the primary cause of panther endangerment, most respondents (66%) selected loss of habitat or natural lands, while the second largest proportion (15%) identified car accidents. Statistically significant (p 0.05) predictor variables in the regression model for knowledge included interest in w ildlife, ethnicity, gender, and whether a respondent lived in Southwest or South Central Florida (Table 3-10). The model explained 19% of the variance in knowledge levels (n = 575, p < 0.01). Non-Latino, male residents of Southwest Florida who participated in more wildlife-re lated activities were likely to k now more about panthers. Effect sizes for all predictive variables on behavioral intentions were calculated using standardized regression coefficients () from regression anal yses of behavioral intentions, management preferences, attitudes, subj ective norm, risk perception a nd knowledge (Table 3-11). 50

PAGE 51

Media Preferences In Southwest Florida, a major ity of respondents in both urban (61%) and rural strata (62%) had seen something about panthers in the news in the last six months, whereas in South Central Florida, fewer respondents in both urban (28%) a nd rural (29%) strata had seen panthers in the news. The differences were highly significant between both urban Southwest and South Central strata ( =43.40, p<0.01) and rural Southwes t and South Central strata ( =43.43, p<0.01). Respondents who had seen panthers in the news were also asked where they had heard this information. Neither panther news source nor general news source differed between Southwest and South Central pairs (Table 3-12), or urban and rural pairs (Tables 3-13). When asked whether media coverage of pa nthers was not enough, adequate or too much, a larger proportion of respondents in Sout h Central Florida than Southwest Florida felt that there was not enough coverage of panthers in the press. More re spondents in Southwest Florida than South Central Florida felt that media coverage was adequate (Figure 3-1). Differences were statistically significant betwee n rural Southwest and South Central strata and urban Southwest and South Central strata. With in Southwest Florida, a greater proportion of rural than urban respondents fe lt that coverage was not enough. Over 80% of respondents in each of the 4 strata believed that coverage was either usually true or sometimes true, with nearly half of respondents within each stratum selecting one of the two options. Similarly, no differences were found between Southwest and South Central pairs, or urban and rural pairs which was the best source for information about panthers: wildlife agencies, politicians, environmental groups or sportsmen. In all four st rata, the majority of respondents (63-72%) felt that wild life agencies were the best source, followed by environmental groups (21-28%) and sportsmen (5-8%). Very fe w respondents (0-2%) believed that politicians were the best source of information. 51

PAGE 52

Approximately a third of the to tal sample (35%) had seen some thing about panthers in the news within the last sixth months. Of the res pondents who had seen something about panthers, most read it in the newspaper (51%) or saw it on television (39%). The in ternet, radio, magazines and other sources were used by the remaining 10% of respondents. The majority of respondents (65%) felt that there was not enough coverage of panthers in the press, 34% felt that it was adequate, and a very small minority (1%) felt that there was too much. Just under half of all respondents (46%) felt that coverage in the pr ess was usually true, wi th a similar proportion (44%) believing that it was sometimes true. Sma ll minorities of responde nts felt that coverage was rarely true (7%) or untrue (3%). Out of the choices given, the majority of respondents (70%) felt that wildlife agencies were the best sour ce of information about panthers, followed by environmental groups (23%), sportsmen (6%), and politicians (1%). Most respondents (50%) preferred to get their general news from televi sion, followed by the newspaper (29%), internet (13%), radio (6%) and magazines (2%). Interest in Wildlife and Outdoor User Demographics Mean scores for interest in wildlife were 2.95 (SD=1.05) for Southwest rural; 2.72 (SD=1.24) for Southwest urban; 2.94 (SD=1.07) for South Central rural; and 2.70 (SD=1.13) for South Central urban. Respondents in all strata tended to engage in at least 2 activities that demonstrated interest in wildlife. In South Centra l Florida, rural residents showed greater interest in wildlife than urban residents ( =10.89, p<0.05), and were more likely to engage in both consumptive ( =4.38, p<0.05) and non-consumptive ( =6.34, p<0.05) outdoor activities (Table 3-2). The total sample mean score for interest in wildlife was 2.74, reflecting an overall moderate interest in wildlife. Most respondent s (90%) watched television programs, videos or films about wildlife. A majority of respondent s (77%) also read about wildlife. A slightly 52

PAGE 53

smaller majority (69%) participated in reside ntial wildlife viewing. However, a minority of respondents (38%) participated in nonresidential wildlife viewing. Relationships between Factors Influencing Public Support All correlations between indivi dual factors influencing public support for panther recovery were significant at p<0.01 (Table 3-14). Risk perception was negatively correlated with all of the other response variables, although its strongest re lationships were with attitudes and management preferences. Attitudes were positively correlate d with behavioral intentions, management preferences and subjective norms. Management preferences were posi tively correlated with behavioral intentions. Knowledge was positively corr elated with all of the factors except for risk perception with which it had a negative relati onship, although the relati onships were weak. The strength of the relationship between management preferences and beha vioral intention (r=0.60, p<0.01), along with the results of the regression analysis for behavi oral intentions (Table 3-5), suggests that this factor does have a place in a model predicti ng intention to support recovery. Attitudes and subjective norms had similar predictive power for support for recovery, but attitudes were relatively more im portant than subjective norm in pred icting behavioral intentions. These findings suggest that respondents who ar e more willing to act in support of recovery are more likely to favor recovery plan management practices, have more positive attitudes toward panthers and recovery, perceive a generalized social pressure to support recovery, perceive lower levels of risk from panthers, and have higher knowledge levels about panthers. Those who are more willing to act in opposition to panther rec overy are more likely to oppose panther recovery efforts, have more negative attitudes toward panthers and panther recovery, perceive a generalized social pressure to oppose recovery, perceive greater risk from panther, and know less about panthers. 53

PAGE 54

Behavioral intentions had significant positive corr elations with interest in wildlife, duration of Florida residence, and location of current residence (Table 3-15). Rural respondents showed greater intention to supp ort management practices than their urban counterparts. Greater support for management practices was positively correlat ed with interest in wildlife, landownership, education level, and income. Risk perception was ne gatively correlated with interest in wildlife, landownership, location of current residence, education level, and income. Age was negatively correlated with all of the respons e variables except risk perception, with which it was positively correlated. As age increased, respondents tended to be less supportive of panther recovery, and perceived greater risk from panthers. Generally, younger residents, ru ral residents, more educated residents, those more interested in wildlife, those who had lived in Florida for a longer time peri od, those who owned more land, and those with higher incomes tended to be more supportive of panther recovery and perceive less risk from panthers. Proponent-Undecided-Opponent Comparisons There is widespread support a nd little variation in level of support for panther recovery in both rural and urban residents of Southwest and South Central Florida. Results of these group comparisons and additional bivariate analysis suggest that those who intend to act in support of recovery (proponents), those who intend to oppose it (opponents), and those who remain uncertain about taking action (undecideds) may differ in their beliefs concerning the consequences of panther recovery, knowledge about panthers, and demographics. Further analysis compared specific be liefs, knowledge items and management preferences of these groups to better understand the social context of panther recovery. 54

PAGE 55

Management Preferences and Overall Support Proponents, opponents and undecided respondent s all generally supported efforts to increase the number of panthers in the wild (Table 3-16). Pro ponents tended to strongly support broader protection for panthers, not removing pant hers from the wild under any circumstances, protecting natural lands, and tran slocating panthers into their county. Undecided respondents and opponents both disagreed that panthers should be removed from the wild anywhere they were found close to peoples homes, but also both disagreed that they should not be removed from the wild under any circumstances. Although undecide d respondents supported bot h translocation and protecting natural lands, a larg er proportion of these responden ts (35%) than proponents (6%) felt that panthers should only be protected on public lands. The largest proportion of opponents opposed translocation (46%), while smaller proportions supported it (31%) or remained undecided (23%). Slightly more than half of opponents supported protecting natural lands (52%), although a similar proporti on (50%) felt that panthers s hould only be protected on public lands. Attitudes toward Panthers and Recovery All groups tended to feel positively about protecting panthers, a lthough level of support was highest for proponents, lower for undecided respondents and lowest for opponents (Table 317). For example, all 3 groups tended to agre e that protecting panthers was good because it protected natural lands where they lived in Florida, that it wa s important to know that they existed in Florida, that panthers had a right to live wherever they are, and that panthers were beautiful and intelligent animals. However, oppone nts tended to feel that protecting panthers restricted how private landowne rs can manage their land, wher eas proponents and undecided respondents did not. Additionally, both undecided respondents and opponents tended to feel that panthers competed with hunters fo r game animals such as deer. None of the groups tended to feel 55

PAGE 56

that protecting panthers was a waste of money, restricted access to public lands, threatened the economic prosperity of Florida, or th at panthers were vicious murderers. Knowledge about Panthers Proponents generally knew the most about panthers, followed by undecided respondents, and then by opponents (Table 3-18). A majority of all 3 groups id entified habitat loss as the primary cause of panther endangerment, and knew that panthers were no t only active during the day and that they were endangere d. Most respondents in all 3 gr oups knew that panthers still lived in Florida, although only half of proponents and sm aller proportions of undecided respondents and opponents were aware that less than 100 panthers remain. A majority of proponents and just under half of undecided respondents and opponents, however, knew that panther populations do not curren tly number more than 1000. Over half of all 3 groups were aware that panthers and mountai n lions were the same animal. The questions with the lowest proportions of correct answers fo r all 3 groups asked whether or not there had ever been a panther attack on a human in Florida, the weight of a male panther, and how to behave if approached by a panther. Media Preferences Undecided respondents were less likely than either proponents or opponents to have seen anything about panthers in the news within the last 6 months, although in all 3 groups less than half of respondents had recently seen news about panthers in the press (Table 3-19). The sources for this news were similarly distributed for th e groups, which generally ranked newspapers as the most prominent source, followed by televisi on. A majority of proponents and undecided respondents were interested in in creased media coverage of panthe rs, as were approximately half of opponents. Opponents and undecided respondents were more likely than proponents to feel that current coverage was ad equate. Proponents and undecided re spondents were evenly divided 56

PAGE 57

57 between believing that news about panthers was usually true and sometimes true, whereas the majority of opponents believed that news wa s sometimes true. The largest proportion of respondents in all 3 groups cons idered wildlife agencies the be st source of information about panthers, followed by environmental groups a nd sportsmen. Television was the primary news source for the largest proportion of respondents in all 3 groups, fo llowed by newspaper, internet, radio and finally magazines. However, a larger proportion of undecided re spondents than either proponents or opponents wa tched television. Interest in Wildlife and Demographic Variables Proponents engaged in more wildlife-related ac tivities than either undecided respondents or opponents, and were more likely to own pets (Table 3-20). Approxima tely a third of all 3 groups had hunted or fished within the last 2 years, but more proponents had gone hiking or camping than either undecided respondents or pr oponents. The majority of respondents in all 3 groups owned less than 1 acre of land, but a larger proportion of opponents th an either undecided respondents or proponents owned none. More than 60% of respondents in all 3 groups reported living in the suburbs. Proponents had generally lived in Florida longer than either undecided respondents or opponents, opponents tended to be older than respondents from the other 2 groups. Although the vast majority of all 3 gr oups were white, opponents were slightly more likely to be white than either proponents or undecided respondents. Among the 3 groups, undecided respondents included the highest proportion of Latinos (12%), followed by proponents (8%) and then opponents (4%), but only the difference between opponents and undecided respondents was statistically si gnificant. A greater proportion of opponents were from Southwest Florida than either opponents or proponents, but only the difference between opponents and undecided respondents was st atistically significant.

PAGE 58

Table 3-1. Means and compar isons of demographic variables between so uthwest and south cent ral Florida strata. Variable Total Samplea Rural Urban Southwestb South Central c Group comparisons Southwestb South Central c Group comparisons Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) tvalue p Mean (SD) Mean (SD) tvalue p Aware of panthers in county i 0.65 (0.48) 0.93 (0.26) 0.72 (0.45) 28.88 --0.00 0.92 (0.27) 0.54 (0.50) 66.60 --0.00 Interest in wildlifed 2.74 (1.14) 2.95 (1.05) 2.94 (1.07) 4.02 --0.40 2.72 (1.24) 2.70 (1.13) 3.36 --0.50 Hunt or Fish 0.32 (0.47) 0.36 (0.48) 0.40 (0.49) 0.62 --0.43 0.35 (0.48) 0.30 (0.46) 1.14 --0.29 Hike or camp 0.35 (0.48) 0.44 (0.50) 0.45 (0.50) 0.13 --0.72 0.35 (0.48) 0.33 (0.47) 0.10 --0.75 Park use 0.80 (0.40) 0.75 (0.44) 0.84 (0.37) 2.69 --0.10 0.84 (0.37) 0.84 (0.37) 0.77 --0.38 Landownership None 0.19 (0.39) 0.14 (0.35) 0.18 (0.38) 1.08 --0.30 0.26 (0.44) 0.18 (0.38) 3.92 --0.05 Less than 1 acreg i 0.59 (0.49) 0.57 (0.50) 0.38 (0.49) 14.91 --0.00 0.54 (0.50) 0.65 (0.48) 5.29 --0.02 1 to 5 acres 0.16 (0.37) 0.21 (0.41) 0.30 (0.46) 3.98 --0.05 0.15 (0.36) 0.14 (0.35) 0.03 --0.87 6 to 20acres 0.03 (0.18) 0.06 (0.23) 0.11 (0.31) 3.24 --0.07 0.03 (0.17) 0.02 (0.14) 0.42 --0.52 More than 20 acres 0.02 (0.13) 0.03 (0.16) 0.05 (0.21) 1.12 --0.29 0.03 (0.16) 0.01 (0.10) 1.32 --0.25 Livestock ownershipg 0.03 (0.17) 0.06 (0.23) 0.11 (0.32) 4.50 --0.03 0.04 (0.18) 0.02 (0.12) 1.64 --0.20 58

PAGE 59

Table 3-1. Continued Variable Total Samplea Rural Urban Southwestb South Central c Group comparisons Southwestb South Central c Group comparisons Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) tvalue p Mean (SD) Mean (SD) tvalue p Current residence City 0.12 (0.33) 0.02 (0.14) 0.02 (0.14) 0.00 --0.97 0.17 (0.38) 0.13 (0.34) 1.25 --0.26 Suburb h 0.64 (0.48) 0.44 (0.50) 0.30 (0.46) 8.46 --0.00 0.71 (0.45) 0.69 (0.46) 0.23 --0.63 Nonfarm g 0.23 (0.42) 0.51 (0.50) 0.64 (0.48) 6.03 --0.01 0.11 (0.32) 0.17 (0.38) 3.07 --0.08 Farm 0.01 (0.11) 0.03 (0.17) 0.05 (0.22) 0.94 --0.33 0.01 (0.07) 0.01 (0.07) 0.00 --01.00 Past residence City 0.18 (0.38) 0.14 (0.34) 0.18 (0.38) 1.32 --0.25 0.19 (0.39) 0.17 (0.38) 0.17 --0.68 Suburb 0.42 (0.49) 0.40 (0.49) 0.36 (0.48) 0.56 --0.45 0.38 (0.49) 0.44 (0.49) 1.18 --0.28 Nonfarm 0.26 (0.44) 0.33 (0.47) 0.26 (0.44) 2.19 --0.14 0.32 (0.47) 0.23 (0.42) 3.79 --0.05 Farm 0.15 (0.36) 0.14 (0.35) 0.20 (0.40) 2.71 --0.10 0.11 (0.31) 0.16 (0.37) 2.16 --0.14 Duration of FL residence (years) i 22.40 (17.94) 17.83 (16.50) 25.52 (18.27) ---4.39 0.00 18.05 (14.89) 23.28 (18.52) ---3.09 0.00 Children under 18 in household h 0.19 (0.40) 0.17 (0.37) 0.28 (0.45) 7.21 --0.01 0.11 (0.31) 0.21 (0.40) 7.64 --0.01 Pet ownership g 0.51 (0.50) 0.54 (0.50) 0.65 (0.48) 5.18 --0.02 0.42 (0.50) 0.51 (0.50) 3.26 --0.07 59

PAGE 60

60 Table 3-1. Continued. Variable Total Samplea Rural Urban Southwestb South Central c Group comparisons Southwestb South Central c Group comparisons Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) tvalue p Mean (SD) Mean (SD) tvalue p Education level e 2.93 (0.74) 2.97 (0.72) 2.78 (0.67) 12.92 --0.01 2.96 (0.74) 2.90 (0.79) 3.97 --0.27 Ethnicity (% Latino) 0.09 (0.29) 0.06 (0.23) 0.05 (0.22) 0.04 --0.84 0.07 (0.26) 0.11 (0.31) 1.46 --0.23 Race (% white) 0.93 (0.26) 0.95 (0.22) 0.95 (0.21) 0.067 --0.80 0.98 (0.15) 0.90 (0.29) 9.15 --0.00 Age 57.19 (16.48) 57.69 (16.33) 55.61 (17.89) --1.19 0.23 59.42 (17.42) 56.80 (15.94) --1.54 0.13 Income (annual) f 5.87 (2.46) 6.57 (2.54) 5.63 (2.40) 16.85 --0.05 6.49 (2.67) 5.72 (2.39) 17.16 --0.05 Gender (%male) 0.39 (0.49) 0.44 (0.50) 0.40 (0.49) 0.42 --0.52 0.46 (0.50) 0.37 (0.48) 3.11 --0.08 n=802. Means calculated using post-stratification weights. bn=200. c n=201. d Interest in wildlife was measur ed by four questions about wild life-related activities. The ra nge of responses was 0/4, with a higher response reflecting greater interest in wildlife. e Education levels: 0=None, 1=Elementary school, 2=Hi gh school, 3=College, 4=Gradua te or Professional school. f Income levels: 1) Less than $10,000; 2) $10-$19,000; 3) $20-29,000; 4) $30-$39,000; 5) $40-49,000; 6) $50-$59,000; 7) $60$79,000; 8) $80-$99,000; 9) $100$150,000; 10) Over $150,000. G Difference between one or more strata pairs is significant at p 0.05. h Difference between one or more strata pairs is significant at p 0.01. I Difference between one or more strata pairs is significant at p 0.001.

PAGE 61

Table 3-2. Means and comparisons of demographic variables between rural and urban Florida strata. Total Samplea Southwest b South Centralc Rural Urban Group comparisons Rural Urban Group comparisons Variable Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) tvalue pvalue Mean (SD) Mean (SD) tvalue pvalue Aware of panthers in county i 0.65 (0.48) 0.93 (0.26) 0.92 (0.27) 0.07 --0.80 0.72 (0.45) 0.54 (0.50) 11.82 --0.00 Interest in wildlife d h 2.74 (1.14) 2.95 (1.05) 2.72 (1.24) 7.21 --0.13 2.94 (1.07) 2.70 (1.13) 10.89 --0.03 Hunt or Fish g 0.32 (0.47) 0.36 (0.48) 0.35 (0.48) 0.06 --0.81 0.40 (0.49) 0.30 (0.46) 4.38 --0.04 Hike or camp 0.35 (0.48) 0.44 (0.50) 0.35 (0.48) 3.41 --0.07 0.45 (0.50) 0.33 (0.47) 6.34 --0.01 Park use 0.80 (0.40) 0.75 (0.44) 0.84 (0.37) 2.41 --0.12 0.84 (0.37) 0.84 (0.37) 0.84 --0.36 Landownership None 0.19 (0.39) 0.14 (0.35) 0.26 (0.44) 9.37 --0.00 0.18 (0.38) 0.18 (0.38) 0.00 --0.94 Less than 1 acre 0.59 (0.49) 0.57 (0.50) 0.54 (0.50) 0.57 --0.45 0.38 (0.49) 0.65 (0.48) 28.91 --0.00 1 to 5 acres 0.16 (0.37) 0.21 (0.41) 0.15 (0.36) 2.43 --0.12 0.30 (0.46) 0.14 (0.35) 13.55 --0.00 6 to 20acres 0.03 (0.18) 0.06 (0.23) 0.03 (0.17) 1.51 --0.22 0.11 (0.31) 0.02 (0.14) 12.06 --0.00 More than 20 acres 0.02 (0.13) 0.03 (0.16) 0.03 (0.16) 0.00 --0.99 0.05 (0.21) 0.01 (0.10) 4.47 --0.03 Livestock 0.03 (0.17) 0.06 (0.23) 0.04 (0.18) 0.95 --0.33 0.11 (0.32) 0.02 (0.12) 16.35 --0.00 61

PAGE 62

Table 3-2. Continued Total Samplea Southwest b South Centralc Rural Urban Group comparisons Rural Urban Group comparisons Variable Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) tvalue pvalue Mean (SD) Mean (SD) tvalue pvalue Current residence City 0.12 (0.33) 0.02 (0.14) 0.17 (0.38) 24.94 --0.00 0.02 (0.14) 0.13 (0.34) 16.99 --0.00 Suburb 0.64 (0.48) 0.44 (0.50) 0.71 (0.45) 31.01 --0.00 0.30 (0.46) 0.69 (0.46) 62.36 --0.00 Nonfarm 0.23 (0.42) 0.51 (0.50) 0.11 (0.32) 73.07 --0.000 0.64 (0.48) 0.17 (0.38) 86.77 --0.00 Farm 0.01 (0.11) e 0.03 (0.17) 0.01 (0.07) 3.66 --0.06 0.05 (0.22) 0.01 (0.07) 7.34 --0.01 Past resid en c City 0.18 (0.38) 0.14 (0.34) 0.19 (0.39) 2.05 --0.15 0.18 (0.38) 0.17 (0.38) 0.02 --0.89 Suburb 0.42 (0.49) 0.40 (0.49) 0.38 (0.49) 0.09 --0.77 0.36 (0.48) 0.44 (0.49) 2.38 --0.12 Nonfarm 0.26 (0.44) 0.33 (0.47) 0.32 (0.47) 0.01 --0.91 0.26 (0.44) 0.23 (0.42) 0.34 --0.56 Farm 0.15 (0.36) 0.14 (0.35) 0.11 (0.31) 1.02 --0.31 0.20 (0.40) 0.16 (0.37) 1.14 --0.24 Duration of FL residence (years) 22.40 (17.94) 17.83 (16.50) 18.05 (14.89) ---0.14 0.89 25.52 (18.27) 23.28 (18.52) --1.21 0.23 Children under 18 in household 0.19 (0.40) 0.17 (0.37) 0.11 (0.31) 3.23 --0.07 0.28 (0.45) 0.21 (0.40) 2.96 --0.09 Pet ownership 0.51 (0.50) 0.54 (0.50) 0.42 (0.50) 5.30 --0.02 0.65 (0.48) 0.51 (0.50) 7.70 --0.01 62

PAGE 63

Table 3-2. Continued. Total Samplea Southwest b South Centralc Rural Urban Group comparisons Rural Urban Group comparisons Variable Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) tvalue pvalue Mean (SD) Mean (SD) tvalue pvalue Education level e 2.93 (0.74) 2.97 (0.72) 2.96 (0.74) 10.44 --0.02 2.78 (0.67) 2.90 (0.79) 11.10 --0.01 Ethnicity (% Latino) 0.09 (0.29) 0.06 (0.23) 0.07 (0.26) 0.42 --0.52 0.05 (0.22) 0.11 (0.31) 4.11 --0.04 Race (% white) 0.93 (0.26) 0.95 (0.22) 0.98 (0.15) 2.45 --0.12 0.95 (0.21) 0.90 (0.29) 3.49 --0.06 Age 57.19 (16.48) 57.69 (16.33) 59.42 (17.42) ---0.14 0.89 55.61 (17.89) 56.80 (15.94) ---0.70 0.49 Income (annual) f 5.87 (2.46) 6.57 (2.54) 6.49 (2.67) 3.75 --0.93 5.63 (2.40) 5.72 (2.39) 6.92 --0.65 Gender (% male) 0.39 (0.49) 0.44 (0.50) 0.46 (0.50) 0.62 --0.25 0.40 (0.49) 0.37 (0.48) 0.38 --0.54 63 n=802. Weighted means used for total sample. bn=200. c n=201. dRange: 0/4. e Education levels: 0=None, 1=Elementary school, 2=High school, 3=College, 4=Grad uate or Professional school. f Income levels: 1) Less than $10,000; 2) $10-$19,000; 3) $20-29,000; 4) $30-$39,000; 5) $40-49,000; 6) $50-$59,000; 7) $60-$79,000; 8) $80$99,000; 9) $100-$150,000; 10) Over $150,000. g Difference between one or more st rata pairs is significant at p 0.05. h Difference between one or more strata pairs is significant at p 0.01. i Difference between one or more strata pairs is significant at p 0.001.

PAGE 64

Table 3-3. Means and comp arisons for response variables between sout hwest and south central Florida strata. Variable d Range Total Sample Rural Urban Southwest b South Centralc Group Comparisons Southwest b South Centralc Group comparisons Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) test statistic p Mean (SD) Mean (SD) test statistic p Behavioral intentions 1-5 3.33 (0.78) 3.37 (0.85) 3.35 (0.74) t =-0.30 0.76 3.32 (0.83) 3.32 (0.76) t =0.06 0.95 Management preferences 1-5 3.43 (0.18) 3.67 (0.74) 3.74 (0.64) t =0.96 0.34 3.67 (0.65) 3.67 (0.62) t =0.040 0.97 Risk perception 1-5 2.30 (0.20) 2.26 (0.57) 2.21 (0.47) t =1.00 0.32 2.37 (0.58) 2.30 (0.55) t =1.13 0.26 Attitudes 1-5 3.89 (0.49) 3.92 (0.49) 3.95 (0.43) t =-0.55 0.58 3.83 (0.51) 3.90 (0.49) t =-1.29 0.20 Social norm 1-5 3.36 (0.88) 3.28 (0.91) 3.51 (0.84) = 11.31 0.02 3.33 (0.90) 3.70 (0.82) =5.14 0.27 Knowledge 0-10 5.02 (1.99) 5.45 (2.08) 5.35 (2.16) t =0.49 0.63 5.33 (2.02) 4.86 (1.93) t =2.39 0.02 64 n=802. Means calculated using post-stratification weights. b n=200. c n=201. d Higher mean scores reflect greater intention to act in support of recovery, greater support for ma nagement practices, higher perceived risk from panthers, more pos itive attitudes tow ard panthers and recovery, greater perceived social pressure to support recovery, and higher know ledge levels about panthers, respectively.

PAGE 65

65 Table 3-4. Means and compar isons for response variables be tween rural and urban strata. Variable d Range Total Sample Southwest b South Centralc Rural Urban Group Comparisons Rural Urban Group comparisons Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) test statistic p Mean (SD) Mean (SD) test statistic p Behavioral intentions 1-5 3.33 (0.78) 3.37 (0.85) 3.32 (0.83) t =-0.61 0.55 3.35 (0.74) 3.32 (0.76) t =-0.29 0.77 Management preferences 1-5 3.43 (0.18) 3.67 (0.74) 3.67 (0.65) t =-0.02 0.98 3.74 (0.64) 3.67 (0.62) t =-1.03 0.30 Risk perception 1-5 2.30 (0.20) 2.26 (0.57) 2.37 (0.58) t =-1.77 0.08 2.21 (0.47) 2.30 (0.55) t =-1.75 0.08 Attitudes 1-5 3.89 (0.49) 3.92 (0.49) 3.83 (0.51) t =1.72 0.09 3.95 (0.43) 3.90 (0.49) t =1.03 0.31 Social norm 1-5 3.36 (0.88) 3.28 (0.91) 3.33 (0.90) =4.92 0.30 3.51 (0.84) 3.70 (0.82) =4.66 0.32 Knowledge 0-10 5.02 (1.99) 5.45 (2.08) 5.33 (2.02) t =0.58 0.56 5.35 (2.16) 4.86 (1.93) t =2.38 0.02 n=802. Means calculated using post-stratification weights. b n=200. c n=201. d Higher mean scores reflect gr eater intention to act in support of recovery, greater support for ma nagement practices, higher perceived risk from panthers, more pos itive attitudes tow ard panthers and recovery, greater perceived social pressure to support recovery, and higher know ledge levels about panthers.

PAGE 66

Table 3-5. Regression model for prediction of behavioral inten tion to support panther recovery. Variable (R=0.44, p<0.01, n=473) B SE B p-value Panther management preferences b 0.32 0.07 0.25 <0.01 Attitudes toward panthers and recovery b 0.59 0.09 0.33 <0.01 Risk perception -0.02 0.07 -0.01 0.80 Knowledge about panthers 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.06 Subjective norm for supporting recovery b 0.12 0.04 0.13 0.00 Interest in wildlife 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.26 Hunt or fish 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.70 Hike or camp 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.90 Believe that panthers live in county -0.01 0.08 -0.01 0.86 Landownership -0.07 0.04 -0.07 0.09 Livestock ownership 0.06 0.13 0.02 0.68 Current residence 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.31 Past residence -0.02 0.03 -0.02 0.57 Duration of Florida residence 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 Children under 18 in household -0.13 0.08 -0.07 0.10 Pet ownership (dogs or cats) -0.01 0.06 -0.01 0.88 Education 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.79 Ethnicity (1=Latino, 0=non-Latino) 0.07 0.13 0.02 0.59 Race (1=white, 0=nonwhite) -0.09 0.13 -0.03 0.48 Age 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.78 Income -0.01 0.01 -0.02 0.72 Gender (1=male, 0=female) -0.06 0.06 -0.04 0.33 Southwest/South Central (1=Southwest, 0=South Central) 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.13 Rural/Urban (1=rural, 0=urban) -0.03 0.07 -0.02 0.67 a Significant at p 0.05. b Significant at p 0.01. 66

PAGE 67

Table 3-6. Regression mode l for prediction of panther management preferences. Variable (R=0.53, p<0.01, n=477) B SE B p-value Attitudes toward panthers and recovery b 0.38 0.06 0.29 <0.01 Risk perception b -0.28 0.05 -0.25 <0.01 Knowledge about panthers 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.72 Subjective norm for supporting recovery b 0.20 0.03 0.29 <0.01 Interest in wildlife a 0.05 0.02 0.08 0.05 Hunt or fish -0.02 0.05 -0.02 0.61 Hike or camp 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.23 Believe that panthers live in county 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.62 Landownership -0.05 0.03 0.07 -0.07 Livestock ownership -0.14 0.09 0.06 0.14 Current residence -0.01 0.04 -0.01 0.78 Past residence -0.02 0.02 -0.03 0.44 Duration of Florida residence 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.09 Children under 18 in household a -0.12 0.06 -0.08 0.03 Pet ownership (dogs or cats) -0.00 0.05 -0.01 0.98 Education -0.00 0.01 -0.01 0.84 Ethnicity (1=Latino, 0=non-Latino) 0.02 0.09 0.01 0.81 Race (1=white, 0=nonwhite) 0.08 0.09 0.03 0.41 Age b -0.01 0.00 -0.15 0.00 Income -0.01 0.01 -0.03 0.49 Gender (1=male, 0=female) 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.92 Southwest/South Central (1=Southwest, 0=South Central) 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.72 Rural/Urban (1=rural, 0=urban) -0.01 0.05 -0.01 0.77 a Significant at p 0.05. b Significant at p 0.01. 67

PAGE 68

Table 3-7. Regression model for prediction of attitudes to ward panthers and recovery. Variable (R=0.39, p<0.01, n=495) B SE B p-value Risk perception b -0.38 0.04 -0.43 <0.01 Knowledge about panthers a 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.01 Interest in wildlife b 0.01 0.02 0.23 <0.01 Hunt or fish a -0.10 0.04 -0.10 0.02 Hike or camp -0.01 0.04 -0.01 0.86 Believe that panthers liv e in home county -0.03 0.05 -0.02 0.58 Landownership -0.00 0.02 -0.01 0.87 Livestock ownership -0.14 0.08 -0.07 0.09 Current residence 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.16 Past residence 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.99 Duration of Florida residence -0.00 0.00 -0.02 0.58 Children under 18 in household -0.05 0.05 -0.04 0.32 Pet ownership (dogs or cats) 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.23 Education 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.71 Ethnicity (1=Latino, 0=non-Latino) -0.08 0.08 -0.04 0.29 Race (1=white, 0=nonwhite) -0.07 0.08 -0.04 0.36 Age b -0.00 0.00 -0.13 0.01 Income -0.01 0.01 -0.07 0.10 Gender (1=male, 0=female) -0.06 0.04 -0.06 0.12 Southwest/South Central (1=Southwest, 0=South Central) -0.03 0.04 -0.03 0.43 Rural/Urban (1=rural, 0=urban) -0.04 0.04 -0.04 0.38 a Significant at p 0.05. b Significant at p 0.01. 68

PAGE 69

Table 3-8. Regression model fo r prediction of risk perception. Variable (R=0.28, p<0.01, n=506) B SE B p-value Knowledge about panthers b -0.05 0.01 -0.19 <0.01 Interest in wildlife b -0.10 0.02 -0.20 <0.01 Hunt or fish 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.25 Hike or camp -0.06 0.05 -0.06 0.22 Believe that panthers live in county -0.08 0.06 -0.06 0.16 Landownership -0.03 0.03 -0.05 0.31 Livestock ownership 0.16 0.10 0.07 0.09 Current residence -0.03 0.04 -0.04 0.44 Past residence -0.02 0.02 -0.03 0.47 Duration of Florida residence -0.00 0.00 -0.02 0.58 Children under 18 in household -0.01 0.06 -0.01 0.83 Pet ownership (dogs or cats) b -0.14 0.05 -0.13 0.00 Education -0.01 0.01 -0.03 0.44 Ethnicity (1=Latino, 0=non-Latino) b 0.34 0.10 0.15 0.00 Race (1=white, 0=nonwhite) b -0.27 0.09 -0.12 0.00 Age 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.11 Income -0.02 0.01 -0.08 0.07 Gender (1=male, 0=female) 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.66 Southwest/South Central 0.09 0.05 0.08 0.07 Rural/Urban (1=rural, 0=urban) -0.01 0.05 -0.01 0.85 a Significant at p 0.05. b Significant at p 0.01. 69

PAGE 70

Table 3-9. Regression model fo r prediction of subjective norm. Variable (R=0.21, p<0.01, n=503) B SE B p-value Risk perception b -0.40 0.08 -0.24 <0.01 Knowledge about panthers a 0.05 0.02 0.12 0.02 Interest in wildlife b 0.15 0.04 0.18 0.00 Hunt or fish b -0.23 0.08 -0.13 0.01 Hike or camp 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.13 Believe that panthers live in home county 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.92 Landownership 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.24 Livestock ownership 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.95 Current residence 0.44 0.07 0.03 0.54 Past residence 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.72 Duration of Florida residence 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.32 Children under 18 in household -0.05 0.10 -0.02 0.62 Pet ownership (dogs or cats) 0.14 0.08 0.08 0.10 Education 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.93 Ethnicity (1=Latino, 0=non-Latino) 0.21 0.17 0.06 0.21 Race (1=white, 0=nonwhite) a -0.34 0.17 -0.09 0.05 Age 0.00 0.00 -0.04 0.48 Income -0.03 0.02 -0.09 0.07 Gender (1=male, 0=female) 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.06 Southwest/South Central -0.03 0.08 -0.02 0.71 Rural/Urban (1=rural, 0=urban) -0.03 0.09 -0.02 0.74 a Significant at p 0.05. b Significant at p 0.01. 70

PAGE 71

Table 3-10. Regression model fo r prediction of knowledge level. Variable (R=0.19, p<0.01, n=575) B SE B p-value Interest in wildlife b 0.59 0.08 0.32 <0.01 Hunt or fish -0.02 0.18 -0.01 0.91 Hike or camp 0.19 0.18 0.05 0.29 Landownership -0.05 0.11 -0.02 0.64 Livestock ownership -0.01 0.37 0.00 0.97 Current residence 0.18 0.15 0.06 0.24 Past residence 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.46 Duration of Florida residence 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.09 Children under 18 in household 0.01 0.22 0.00 0.98 Pet ownership (dogs or cats) 0.12 0.17 0.03 0.49 Education 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.51 Ethnicity (1=Latino, 0=non-Latino) a -0.78 0.37 -0.09 0.03 Race (1=white, 0=nonwhite) 0.13 0.37 0.02 0.72 Age -0.01 0.01 -0.08 0.09 Income 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.39 Gender (1=male, 0=female) b 0.47 0.17 0.12 0.01 Southwest/South Central b (1=Southwest, 0=South Central) 0.43 0.16 0.11 0.01 Rural/Urban (1=rural, 0=urban) -0.19 0.18 -0.05 0.29 a Significant at p 0.05. b Significant at p 0.01. 71

PAGE 72

72 Table 3-11. Effect size on beha vioral intention of all pred ictor variables calculated from standardized regression coefficients (). Independent Variable Dependent variable: Be havioral intention Total Effect Coefficient Direct Effects Indirect Effects Panther management preferences 0.25 0.25 0.00 Attitudes toward panthers and recovery 0.40 0.33 0.07 Risk perception -0.24 0.00 -0.24 Knowledge about panthers 0.09 0.00 0.09 Subjective norm for s upporting recovery 0.21 0.13 0.07 Interest in wildlife 0.19 0.00 0.19 Hunt or fish -0.05 0.00 -0.05 Children under 18 in household -0.02 0.00 -0.02 Pet ownership (dogs or cats) 0.03 0.00 0.03 Ethnicity (1=Latino, 0=non-Latino) -0.04 0.00 -0.04 Race (1=white, 0=nonwhite) 0.01 0.00 0.01 Age -0.05 0.00 -0.05 Gender (1=male, 0=female) 0.01 0.00 0.01 Southwest/South Central (1=Southwest, 0=South Central) 0.01 0.00 0.01

PAGE 73

Table 3-12. Means and comparisons for media variable s between southwest and sout h central Florida strata. Variabled Total Samplea Rural Urban Southwest b South Centralc Group Comparisons Southwest b South Centralc Group Comparisons Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p Panther newse f 0.35 (0.48) 0.62 (0.49) 0.29 (0.45) 43.43 0.00 0.61 (0.49) 0.28 (0.45) 43.40 0.00 Panther news source Television 0.39 (0.49) 0.40 (0.49) 0.45 (0.50) 0.39 0.53 0.36 (0.48) 0.40 (0.49) 0.31 0.58 Internet 0.03 (0.17) 0.03 (0.18) 0.04 (0.19) 0.01 0.93 0.02 (0.13) 0.04 (0.19) 0.63 0.43 Newspaper 0.51 (0.50) 0.50 (0.50) 0.43 (0.50) 0.70 0.40 0.61 (0.49) 0.47 (0.50) 2.89 0.09 Radio 0.05 (0.21) 0.02 (0.16) 0.05 (0.23) 0.97 0.33 0.01 (0.09) 0.07 (0.26) 5.52 0.02 Magazine 0.01 (0.11) 0.01 (0.09) 0.02 (0.13) 0.32 0.57 0 (0) 0.02 (0.14) 2.16 0.14 Other 0.01 (0.08) 0.04 (0.20) 0.02 (0.13) 0.64 0.42 0.01 (0.09) 0 (0) 0.47 0.49 Adequacy of media coverage: Not enough f 0.65 (0.48) 0.61 (0.49) 0.73 (0.45) 5.23 0.02 0.50 (0.50) 0.68 (0.47) 11.16 0.00 Adequate f 0.34 (0.47) 0.38 (0.49) 0.27 (0.45) 4.23 0.04 0.49 (0.50) 0.31 (0.46) 11.26 0.00 Too much 0.01 (0.10) 0.01 (0.11) 0 (0) 2.19 0.14 0.01 (0.11) 0.01 (0.11) 0 0.99 Truth of media coverage: Usually true f 0.46 (0.50) 0.48 (0.50) 0.36 (0.48) 4.69 0.03 0.53 (0.50) 0.45 (0.50) 1.91 0.17 Sometimes true 0.44 (0.50) 0.42 (0.50) 0.48 (0.50) 1.33 0.25 0.41 (0.49) 0.45 (0.50) 0.52 0.47 Rarely true 0.07 (0.25) 0.08 (0.27) 0.11 (0.31) 0.64 0.42 0.05 (0.22) 0.07 (0.25) 0.52 0.47 Untrue 0.03 (0.17) 0.02 (0.14) 0.05 (0.21) 2.12 0.15 0.01 (0.11) 0.03 (0.17) 1.33 0.25 Best source for information Wildlife Agenciesf 0.70 (0.46) 0.63 (0.48) 0.69 (0.46) 1.51 0.22 0.63 (0.49) 0.72 (0.45) 4.20 0.04 Politicians 0.01 (0.11) 0.01 (0.07) 0 (0) 1.04 0.31 0.01 (0.10) 0.02 (0.12) 0.16 0.69 Environmental groups 0.23 (0.42) 0.28 (0.45) 0.26 (0.44) 0.32 0.57 0.28 (0.45) 0.21 (0.41) 2.81 0.09 73

PAGE 74

Table 3-12. Continued Variabled Total Samplea Rural Urban Southwest b South Centralc Group Comparisons Southwest b South Centralc Group Comparisons Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p Sportsmen 0.06 (0.23) 0.08 (0.27) 0.05 (0.22) 1.31 0.25 0.08 (0.27) 0.05 (0.22) 1.31 0.25 General news source Television 0.50 (0.50) 0.51 (0.50) 0.57 (0.49) 1.25 0.26 0.51 (0.50) 0.49 (0.50) 0.21 0.65 Newspaper 0.29 (0.45) 0.27 (0.45) 0.23 (0.43) 0.75 0.39 0.34 (0.47) 0.28 (0.45) 1.26 0.26 Radio 0.06 (0.24) 0.06 (0.24) 0.05 (0.21) 0.42 0.52 0.03 (0.17) 0.07 (0.26) 3.33 0.07 Internet 0.13 (0.33) 0.14 (0.34) 0.12 (0.33) 0.17 0.68 0.08 (0.27) 0.14 (0.35) 3.62 0.06 Magazine 0.02 (0.16) 0.02 (0.14) 0.03 (0.17) 0.43 0.51 0.04 (0.20) 0.02 (0.12) 2.36 0.12 a n=802. Means calculated using frequency weights to reflect the actual populations in each of the strata without inflating the sample size. b n=200. c n=201. d Range for all media variables is 0/1. eAsked whether respondent had heard about panthers in the past six months. f Difference between at least one strata pair si gnificant at p 0.05. 74

PAGE 75

Table 3-13. Means and comparis ons for media variables betw een rural and urban strata. Variabled Total Samplea Southwest b South Centralc Rural Urban Group Comparisons Rural Urban Group Comparisons Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p Panther newse 0.35 (0.48) 0.62 (0.49) 0.61 (0.49) 0.03 0.87 0.29 (0.45) 0.28 (0.45) 0.03 0.86 Source of panther news Television 0.39 (0.49) 0.40 (0.49) 0.36 (0.48) 0.42 0.52 0.45 (0.50) 0.40 (0.49) 0.25 0.62 Internet 0.03 (0.17) 0.03 (0.18) 0.02 (0.13) 0.63 0.43 0.04 (0.19) 0.04 (0.19) 0.00 0.99 Newspaper 0.51 (0.50) 0.50 (0.50) 0.61 (0.49) 3.16 0.08 0.43 (0.50) 0.47 (0.50) 0.22 0.64 Radio 0.05 (0.21) 0.02 (0.16) 0.01 (0.09) 0.97 0.33 0.05 (0.23) 0.07 (0.26) 0.17 0.68 Magazine 0.01 (0.11) 0.01 (0.10) 0 (0) 0.98 0.32 0.02 (0.13) 0.02 (0.14) 0.00 0.99 Other 0.01 (0.08) 0.04 (0.20) 0.01 (0.09) 2.63 0.10 0.02 (0.13) 0 (0) 0.99 0.32 Adequacy of media coverage Not enough f 0.65 (0.48) 0.61 (0.49) 0.50 (0.50) 4.06 0.04 0.73 (0.45) 0.68 (0.47) 0.55 0.46 Adequate f 0.34 (0.47) 0.38 (0.49) 0.49 (0.50) 4.06 0.04 0.27 (0.45) 0.31 (0.46) 2.12 0.15 Too much 0.01 (0.10) 0.01 (0.11) 0.01 (0.11) 0.00 0.97 0 (0) 0.01 (0.11) 0.96 0.33 Truth of media coverage Usually true 0.46 (0.50) 0.48 (0.50) 0.53 (0.50) 0.79 0.38 0.36 (0.48) 0.45 (0.50) 2.83 0.09 Sometimes true 0.44 (0.50) 0.42 (0.50) 0.41 (0.49) 0.03 0.85 0.48 (0.50) 0.45 (0.50) 0.39 0.53 Rarely true 0.07 (0.25) 0.08 (0.27) 0.05 (0.22) 1.41 0.24 0.11 (0.31) 0.07 (0.25) 1.63 0.20 Untrue 0.03 (0.17) 0.02 (0.14) 0.01 (0.11) 0.23 0.63 0.05 (0.21) 0.03 (0.17) 0.63 0.43 Best source for information Wildlife agencies 0.70 (0.46) 0.63 (0.48) 0.63 (0.49) 0.03 0.87 0.69 (0.46) 0.72 (0.45) 0.47 0.49 Politicians 0.01 (0.11) 0.01 (0.07) 0.01 (0.10) 0.36 0.55 0 (0) 0.02 (0.12) 3.07 0.80 Environmental groups 0.23 (0.42) 0.28 (0.45) 0.28 (0.45) 0.00 1.00 0.26 (0.44) 0.21 (0.41) 1.25 0.26 Sportsmen 0.06 (0.23) 0.08 (0.27) 0.08 (0.27) 0.00 0.95 0.05 (0.22) 0.05 (0.22) 0.00 0.97 75

PAGE 76

Table 3-13. Continued Variabled Total Samplea Southwest b South Centralc Rural Urban Group Comparisons Rural Urban Group Comparisons Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p General news source Television 0.50 (0.50) 0.51 (0.50) 0.51 (0.50) 0.00 0.96 0.57 (0.49) 0.49 (0.50) 2.31 0.13 Newspaper 0.29 (0.45) 0.27 (0.45) 0.34 (0.47) 1.81 0.18 0.23 (0.43) 0.28 (0.45) 1.19 0.28 Radio 0.06 (0.24) 0.06 (0.24) 0.03 (0.17) 2.06 0.15 0.05 (0.21) 0.07 (0.26) 1.10 0.29 Internet 0.13 (0.34) 0.14 (0.34) 0.08 (0.27) 3.10 0.08 0.12 (0.33) 0.14 (0.35) 0.31 0.58 Magazine 0.02 (0.15) 0.02 (0.14) 0.04 (0.20) 1.40 0.24 0.03 (0.17) 0.02 (0.12) 1.05 0.30 a n=802. Means calculated using post-stratification weights. b n=200. c n=201. d Range for all media variables is 0/1. e Asked whether respondent had heard about panthe rs in the past six months. f Difference between at least one strata pair significant at p 0.05. 76

PAGE 77

Table 3-14. Pearson correlation co efficients for response variables. Variable b PROBEHAVIOR PROMANAGE HIGHRISK PR OATTITUDE SOCIALNORM KNOWLEDGE PROBEHAVIOR 1 0.60 -0.39 0.58 0.49 0.31 PROMANAGE 1 -0.55 0.63 0.57 0.32 HIGHRISK 1 -0.54 -0.37 -0.35 PROATTITUDE 1 0.50 0.33 SOCIALNORM 1 0.25 KNOWLEDGE 1 All correlations sign ificant at p<0.01. b PROBEHAVIOR = behavioral intenti ons regarding panther recovery PROMANAGE = panther management preferences HIGHRISK = perception of risk from panthers PROATTITUDE = attitudes toward pa nthers and panther recovery SOCIALNORM = perceived social pressure to support panther recovery KNOWLEDGE = knowle dge of panthers 77

PAGE 78

Table 3-15. Pearson correla tion coefficients for response variables and demographics. Variable b PROBEHAVIOR PROMANAGE HIGHRISK PROATTITUDE SOCIALNORM KNOWLEDGE Interest in wildlife 0.31** 0.34** -0.35** 0.37** 0.27** 0.35** Landownership 0.02 0.07* -0.16** 0.06 0.10** 0.08* Current residence 0.07* 0.06 -0.12** 0.09** 0.09** 0.06 Past residence 0.05 0.01 -0.01 0.04 0.00 0.04 Length of Florida residence 0.07* 0.05 -0.09* 0.01 0.05 0.09* Education 0.05 0.11** -0.18** 0.14** 0.06 0.14** Age -0.13** -0.23** 0.14** -0.16** -0.15** -0.13** Income 0.05 0.12** -0.17** 0.05 0.03 0.16** p 0.05. ** p 0.01. b PROBEHAVIOR = behavioral inten tions regarding panther recovery PROMANAGE = panther management preferences HIGHRISK = perception of risk from panthers PROATTITUDE = attitudes toward panthers and panther recovery SOCIALNORM = perceived social pressure to support panther recovery 78 KNOWLEDGE = knowle dge of panthers

PAGE 79

Table 3-16. Mean comparisons for management preferences between pro ponents-undecided-opponents. Questions Proponents Undecided Opponents Group comparisonsc Mean (n=297) Mean (n=387) Mean (n=117) 1 2 3 1&3 1&2 2&3 Overall, do you support or oppose efforts to help the panther population in Florida by increasing the num ber of panthers in the wild? 2.89 2.53 2.08 ** ** ** Management preferences: Panthers should be removed from the wild anywhere they are found close to peoples home. b 1.38 1.68 1.67 ** ** ns not be removed from the w ild under any circumstances. b 2.21 1.94 1.95 ** ns To what extent would you support or oppose moving panthers into your county to increase the number of panthers in the wild? b 2.84 2.37 1.86 ** ** protecting natural lands in your county? b 2.92 2.69 2.26 ** ** ** Protecting people from panthers is the responsibility of homeowners. 0.17 0.11 0.09 ns ns the government. 0.04 0.11 0.16 ** ** ns both. 0.79 0.78 0.74 ns ns ns Panthers should be protected everywhere. 0.79 0.62 0.44 ** ** ** only on public lands. 0.06 0.35 0.50 ** ** ** nowhere. 0.04 0.04 0.06 ns ns ns 79 a Groups formed from mean scores on beha vioral intention scale after weighting. Proponents y > 3, Undecided y = 3 and Opponents y < 3. b Mean scores for single 5-point Likert scale questions collapsed into 3 levels (Agree/Support=3, Undecided=2, Disagree/Oppose = 1) for this analysis. c p 0.05. ** p 0.01. ns=not statistically significant.

PAGE 80

80 Table 3-17. Mean comparisons for atti tudes between proponents-undecided-opponents. Questions Proponents Undecided Opponents Group comparisons Mean (n=297) Mean (n=387) Mean (n=117) 1 2 3 1&3 1&2 2&3 Attitude statements: b Positive aspects of protecting panthers it saves natural lands where they live in Florida. 2.93 2.86 2.61 ** ** ** it is important to know that they exist in Florida. 2.91 2.88 2.65 ** ns ** panthers are one of the worlds most endangered animals. 2.86 2.74 2.40 ** ** panthers help maintain balance in prey species. 2.84 2.73 2.62 ** ** ** panthers have a right to live wherever they are. 2.71 2.58 2.26 ** ** future generations should be able to see panthers in Florida. 2.95 2.92 2.60 ** ns ** panthers are beautiful animals. 2.93 2.96 2.73 ** ** panthers are intelligent animals. 2.89 2.80 2.41 ** ** it helps keep a healthy environment. 2.90 2.84 2.50 ** ** Negative aspects of protecting panthers it is a waste of money. 1.07 1.24 1.57 ** ** ** it restricts access to public lands. 1.70 1.75 1.90 ns ns it is a threat to the economic prosperity of Florida. 1.25 1.28 1.57 ** ** ** it restricts how private land owners can manage their land. 1.89 1.98 2.19 ** ** panthers are vicious murderers. 1.11 1.26 1.31 ** ** panthers compete with hunters for game animals such as deer. 1.87 2.08 2.09 ** ** ns a Groups formed from mean scores on be havioral intention scale af ter weighting. Proponents y > 3, Undecided y = 3, and Opponents y < 3. b Mean scores for single 5-point Like rt scale questions collapsed into 3 levels (Agree/Support=3, Undecided=2, Disagree/Oppose=1) fo r this analysis. c p 0.05. ** p .001. ns=not statistically significant.

PAGE 81

Table 3-18. Mean comparisons for knowledge questions between proponents-undecided-opponents. Questions Proponents Percentage (n=297) Undecided Percentage (n=387) Opponents Percentage (n=117) Group comparisonsb 1 2 3 1&3 1&2 2&3 The greatest cause that panthers are endangered is hunting. 4 9 5 ns ** ns car accidents. 13 16 19 ns ns ns disease. 1 2 1 ns ns ns not enough natural land or habitat. 80 67 61 ** ** ns Knowledge index:c Do you believe that Florida panthers still live in Florida? 97 92 87 ** ** ns Less than 100 panthers live in Florida today. 52 29 19 ** ** A male panther weighs about 200 pounds. d 36 31 26 ns ns ns More than 1000 panthers live in Florida today. d 72 43 41 ** ** ns Deer are one of the main food ite ms of panthers. 49 51 43 ns ns ns Panthers are only active during the day. d 86 67 63 ** ** ns In the western United States, panthers are also known as mountain lions. 63 59 55 ns ns ns There has never been a panther attack on a human being in Florida. 22 10 5 ** ** What is the status of pant hers in Florida? 73 60 44 ** ** ** What is the best way to respond to a panther that is approaching you aggressively? 29 28 24 ns ns ns 81 a Groups formed from mean scores on beha vioral intention scale after weighting. Proponents y > 3, Undecided y=3 and Opponents y < 3. b* p 0.05. ** p 0.01. c Percentages reflect the proportion of the group that answered correctly. Correct answers: yes; yes; no; no; yes; no; yes; yes; endangered; shout a nd try to look as large as possible. d False statements: reverse-c oded before inclusion in the knowledge index.

PAGE 82

Table 3-19. Comparisons of media preferences between proponents-undecided-opponents Questions Proponents Percentage (n=297) Undecided Percentage (n=387) Opponents Percentage (n=117) Group comparisons b 1 2 3 1&3 1&2 2&3 Have you heard anything about panthers in the last six months? 41 29 37 ns ** ns Where did you hear it? Television 36 37 54 ns ns Internet 3 4 0 ns ns ns Newspaper 48 57 45 ns ns ns Radio 9 2 0 ns Magazine 3 0 0 ns ns ns Other 1 0 0 ns ns ns Coverage of panthers in the media is not enough. 78 59 48 ** ** ns adequate. 21 41 48 ** ** ns too much. 1 0 4 ns ** Coverage of panthers in the usually true. 45 49 36 ns ns sometimes true. 42 43 55 ns rarely true. 10 5 5 ns ns untrue. 4 2 4 ns ns ns The best source for information about panthers is wildlife agencies. 45 49 36 ns ns ns politicians. 0 2 0 ns ns environmental groups. 27 20 21 ns ns sportsmen. 5 6 6 ns ns ns How do you prefer to get your news? Television 47 55 45 ns ns Newspaper 32 24 35 ns Radio 6 6 6 ns ns ns Internet 13 13 14 ns ns ns Magazine 3 2 1 ns ns ns a Groups formed from mean scores on behavioral intention scale after weighting. Proponents y > 3, Undecided y=3 and Opponents y< 3. b* p 0.05. ** p 0.01. ns=not statistically significant 82

PAGE 83

Table 3-20. Comparisons of demographic variables between proponents-undecided-opponents Questions Proponents Undecided Opponents Group comparisons b Mean or Percentage (n=297) Mean or Percentage (n=387) Mean or Percentage (n=117) 1 2 3 1&3 1&2 2&3 Interest in wildlifec 3.29 2.47 2.22 ** ** ** In the last two years, have you hunted or fished. 35 29 33 ns ns ns hiked or camped. 42 33 26 ** ns Do panthers live in your county? 68 61 69 ns ns ns How much land do you own in Florida? None 17 18 29 ** ns ** Less than 1 acre 57 64 51 ns ns 1 to 5 acres 19 15 15 ns ns ns 6 to 20 acres 6 1 3 ns ** ns More than 20 acres 2 2 1 ns ns ns Current residence City 10 14 10 ns ns ns Suburb 65 63 68 ns ns ns Rural non-farm 23 23 21 ns ns ns Rural farm 2 1 1 ns ns ns Past residence City 17 19 14 ns ns ns Suburb 41 42 41 ns ns ns Rural non-farm 26 23 32 ns ns ns Rural farm 15 16 13 ns ns ns Length of Florida residence 26.51 19.86 20.18 ** ** ns Children under 18 in the household 19 21 14 ns ns ns Pet ownership 61 45 45 ** ** ns Livestock ownership 2 4 4 ns ns ns Education level d 3.03 2.85 2.89 ns ** ns Ethnicity (% Latino) 8 12 4 ns ns Race (% white) 92 91 99 ns Age 55.90 56.43 62.99 ** ns ** Income e 6.01 5.73 5.97 ns ns ns Gender (% male) 42 39 37 ns ns ns Southwest or South Central (% Southwest) 23 19 29 ns ns Rural or urban (% rural) 15 13 16 ns ns ns a Groups formed using weighted means from intention scale. Proponents>3, Undecided=3 and Opponents<3. b* p 0.05. ** p 0.01. c Included 4 retrospective wildlif e-related activities. Range: 0/4. Higher response reflects greater interest. d Levels: 0=None, 1=Elementary school, 2=High school, 3=College, 4=Graduate or Professional school. e Levels: 1) < $10,000; 2) $10-$19,000; 3) $20-29,000; 4) $30-$39,000; 5) $40-49,000; 6) $50-$59,000; 7) $60$79,000; 8) $80-$99,000; ; 9) $100-$150,000; 10) > $150,000. 83

PAGE 84

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Not Enough Adequate Too Much Southwest Rural Southwest Urban South Central Rural South Central Urban Figure 3-1. Perceived adequacy of panther media coverage by stratum. 84

PAGE 85

CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION Southwest-South Central and Urban-Rural Comparisons The majority of respondents, whether rural or urban, from Southw est or South Central Florida, supported panther recovery. The trend across response variables, however, showed that expressions of support became weaker as questions progressed from attitudes to support for specific management interventions to intention to act. Consistent with attitudinal studies of proposed large carnivore reintroductions, translocation of panthers was a less popular mana gement intervention than protection of natural lands. Previous experience with reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone and attempts to reintroduce panthers in North Fl orida has demonstrated that a small, vocal group of opposed citizens can stall reintroduction efforts indefinitely (Fritts & Carbyn 1995; Belden & McCown 1996). This makes it critical to understand who is likely to oppose, and to begin involving these individuals in the process in advance of any plans for reintroduction. Respondents who intended to act in opposition to recove ry were supportive of protectio n of natural lands but not translocation of panthers into their county. In other stud ies, rural residents were more inclined to oppose translocation, and to be less tolerant of pa nthers near areas occupied by people than urban residents because they perceived themselves to be at greater risk (Manfr edo et al. 1998; Riley & Decker 2000). However, in this study, urban and rural respondents did not differ with regard to support for translocation both groups tended to support translocation. Urban residents of Southwest Florida were significantly more likely than urban residents in South Central Florida to prefer that panthers be protected on ly on public lands, rather than everywhere. This difference may result from landowner rights issues, which are likely to be more salient to residents in core pa nther habitat who are mo re likely to land use restrictions. Still, 85

PAGE 86

residents in both locations agreed that panthers should be protected, and few differences in levels of support were found between urban -rural or Southwest-South Central strata pairings, in spite of a fairly large number of demographic differences. Whereas other studies have found lower le vels of predator knowledge among urban residents to be correlated with more positive at titudes (Kellert 1983), and Arizona residents have been found to simultaneously have positive attitu des and very little knowledge of cougars (Casey et al. 2005), in this study, knowle dge about panthers was positively correlated with attitudes and level of support, and negatively correlated with risk perception. In fact, the high level of knowledge, low perceived risk, and highest level of support expresse d by rural residents of South Central Florida compared to all other strata is a promising finding in light of the fact that support from this stratum may be the most critical to any proposed translocation. The relatively higher knowledge level of urban residents of Southwest Fl orida than those in South Central Florida is also promising news for outreach and educati on efforts currently underway, considering the apparent relationship between support for rec overy, risk perception and knowledge levels. Perception of risk was consiste ntly low, with a majority of respondents unlikely to feel concerned about panthers living nearby in both their neighborhoods a nd natural areas, consistent with studies of cougars in the western United States, where cougar populations number in the thousands (Riley & Decker 2000; Casey et al. 2 005). Unlike a study of Colorado residents (Zinn & Pierce 2002), I found no significant differences in risk perception between males and females. Gender did predict knowledge levels, however, and may therefore indirectly affect risk perception. Additionally, unlike Zinn and Pierce (2002), presence of children under 18 in the household did not predict risk perception in my study, although the two were negatively correlated. 86

PAGE 87

Duration of Florida residence was negatively co rrelated with risk perception, unlike results from a study measuring risk perception from cougars in Montana which found no relationship between duration of residence and perceived ri sk (Riley & Decker 2000). Duration was also positively correlated with level of support, which ma y be of particular importance with regard to Southwest Florida, which has a high seasonal influx of part-year retirees (S.K. Smith & M. House, unpublished data). Indeed, all Florida loca tions have a high immigration rate relative to other parts of the country. Shorter residency time combined with an ag ing population, may lead to decreased support for recover y. Consistent with other studies of environmental behavior, proponents tended to be slightly younger, and more highly e ducated than either undecided respondents or opponents (Hines et al. 1986; Jones & Dunlap 1992; Berger 1997). Factors Influencing Public Support for Panther Recovery Panther recovery is a multi-dimensional challenge due to charact eristics of both the panther and its human neighbor; any solution must addr ess a wide array of human behaviors with similarly diverse motivations. This study used th e TRA (Ajzen & Fishbein 1980) to address this need by testing relationships between the individu al factors theorized to influence support for recovery. The resulting model explained 43% of th e variance in behavioral intentions, and 51% of the variance in panther management preferences. This suggests that it is relatively effective for predicting public support for panther recovery and providing insight into the cognitive, affective and demographic character istics associated with the beha vioral intentions measured. If carefully interpreted, it can be used to assist wildlife managers and policy-makers in anticipating support for panther recovery by providing detailed information on the levels of support for specific management interventions, potential informational gaps, and attitudinal differences likely to be found in those who intend to act in support of or opposition to recovery. 87

PAGE 88

Behavioral intentions were best predicted by management preference, attitudes, and subjective norm, meaning that e ach explained a unique part of the variance in behavioral intentions. Additionally, both attitudes and subjective norm were identified as predictive variables in the regression anal ysis of management pr eferences. These findings offer statistical support for the placement of management preferences as a moderating variable in the resulting model (Figure 4-1). Management preferences were strongly correlated with behavioral intentions, although regression analysis showed that both attitudes and subjective norms were also independent predictors of intentions. Sin ce the same unit of measurement was used for all ordinal scales, comparing the unstandardized path coefficients provides some insight into the relative size of effect of each on behavioral intentions. Based on this comparison, attitudes are the most important predictor of behavioral intentions of the theoretical variables included in the model. This finding implies that perceived consequences of pa nther protection may present the most effective target for communication stra tegies. Risk perception, although not a direct predictor, negatively influenced behavioral intent ions through attitudes, management preferences and subjective norms. This offers support for th e importance of maintaining low perceived risk in order to encourage support for recovery. Know ledge, as expected, had a negative relationship with risk perception, affirming that education is important to maintaini ng low perceived risk by reducing the likelihood of negativ e human-panther encounters. Although demographic variables were not found to directly predict be havioral intentions, they exerted an indirect effect through all five theoretical variables, wh ich can help to define target audiences and messages for outreach stra tegies to, for example, promote awareness. People who expressed greater interest in wild life by participating in more wildlife-related activities were likely to perceive less risk a nd to be more supportiv e of panther recovery. 88

PAGE 89

Contrary to expectations, pet ownership also predicted lower perceived risk. Respondents who had hunted or fished within the last two years, however, tended to have more negative attitudes and subjective norms, potentially making them less supportive of recovery efforts. Older respondents tended to be less support ive of recovery efforts and to have more negative attitudes than younger ones. Those with ch ildren under 18 in the household tended to be le ss supportive of recovery efforts. Although white respondents perceived less risk from panthers than nonwhites, they also perceived less social pressure to suppor t recovery. Ethnicity pl ayed a part in risk perception and knowledge levels, wi th Latino respondents tending to perceive greater risk and know less about panthers than did non-Latino respondents. Finally, residents of Southwest Florida tended to know more about panthers than did residents of South Central Florida, and males tended to know more than females. Proponent-Undecided-Opponent Comparisons Proponents, opponents and undecided respondents di ffered not only in their reactions to specific management interventions, but in their de sire for greater media coverage of the issue, and their beliefs about potential consequences of panther protection. Opp onents were more likely to believe that protecting panthers would restrict landowner developm ent rights, and that panthers would compete with hunters for game. They tended to object to translocation of panthers into their home county. These findings sugge st that understanding the social context of panther recovery requires posing specific questions a bout the perceived consequences or costs associated with recovery efforts. For example, when asked whether or not saving panthers is a threat to the economic prosperity of Florida, 11% of the total sample agreed, and 80% disagreed. However, when asked whether protecting panthers restricts how private landowners can manage their land, 38% agreed and 40% disagreed. Most Florida residents may agree that panthers 89

PAGE 90

should be saved, but this studys fi ndings suggest that they are lik ely to differ in the strength of that belief and, consequently, at what person al cost they are willing to support it. Proponents, undecided respondents and opponents all felt that panthe rs should not be removed whenever they were f ound in close proximity to areas occupied by people. However, both opponents and undecided respondents tended to disagree that pant hers should not be removed from the wild under any circumstances suggesting that there are circumstances under which these groups would prefer that panthers be removed. When asked whether panthers should be protected everywhere, in public lands onl y, or nowhere, proponents were more likely to believe that panthers shou ld be protected everywhere whereas opponents and undecided respondents tended to feel that panthers should be protected on public lands only. The fact that the majority of respondents iden tified habitat loss as the greatest cause of panther endangerment is important because lack of awareness may limit how well attitudes predict support for management interventions. For example, people who are not aware that habitat loss is the primary cause of endangermen t may be less concerned that panther protection may conflict with development goals and economic growth in their home county, and introducing this new information might cha nge support for management interventions. Therefore, expressions of support from people who are aware that panthers need more habitat are more likely to be durable. My findings differed from the results of a 1994 survey in that the percentage of people attributing panther endangerment to car accidents increased from 7% to 15% (Duda & Young 1995) (Table 4-1). This may be a result of media cove rage of the record number of panther fatalities from vehicular trauma reached by June 2007 (Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission 2007). 90

PAGE 91

Limitations of the Study The low response rate for this survey relative to the panther survey administered in 1995 (Duda & Young 1995) is consistent with declini ng response rates for telephone surveys over the past quarter century (Curtin et al. 2005). Low response rate s may not yield high nonresponse errors, provided that nonrespondents are si milar to respondents (Keeter et al. 2000). Alternatively, studies on politic al opinion have shown that nonrespondents may be less interested in the survey topic than respondents (Brehm 1993; Couper 1997). Nonrespondent interviews were not conducted due to financia l constraints. However, the f act that a much higher proportion of our respondents engaged in wildlife viewing around their property (69%) than Florida respondents to the National Survey of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife-Associated Recreation in 2001 (22%) suggests that respondents to this survey may have been more interested in wildlife than non-respondents (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). The rural designation I used was entirely based on population density, whereas rural sociology employs numerous competing definitions of rurality. Characteristics generally included in these definitions besides an areas po pulation density are its lo cation relative to urban areas, homogeneity of the cultu re, and economic/social charac ter (Switzer 2001). Our study sought to generalize to the total population of both study sites, and the cost of screening for these criteria would have been prohibitively expensive and difficult to maintain at this scale. Recommendations Beliefs can be bolstered or weakened base d on new information and new ideas (Ajzen & Fishbein 1980). Attitudes figured prominently in the model predicting behavioral intentions, suggesting that communication stra tegies may be most effective if they include messages about perceived benefits of protecting panthers and pos itive characteristics associated with the cats in messages. Proponents, undecideds, and opponents a ll tended to agree that protecting panthers 91

PAGE 92

had positive consequences. In the total sample, 92% believed that future generations should be able to see panthers in Florida, 90% agreed that it is important to know that panthers exist even though they will probably never see them in the wild, 88% of respondents agreed that protecting panthers helps to save natural lands, 85% agreed that protecting panthers keeps the environment healthy, 79% believe that panthers maintain ba lance in prey species, and 75% agreed that panthers have a right to exist wherever they are. Outreach might incorporate these perceived benefits, which are likely to re sonate with a broad audience and reinforce existing positive beliefs, in messages to encourage behaviors which benefit panthers. For example, a billboard discouraging speeding in core panther habitat might be combined with a message about the need to protect every panther so they will be around for future generations to see. New information can also be used to challe nge existing beliefs (F ishbein & Ajzen 1975), although it is unlikely to sway individuals with strongly held beliefs (R abin & Schrag 1999). The introduction of new information is particularly rele vant to the social context of panther recovery because respondents who were undecided regarding th eir intention to act, and who may not have strong beliefs about panther recove ry, made up nearly ha lf (48%) of the total sample. A larger proportion of undecided respondents in this study were Latino ( 12%) than either proponents (8%) or opponents (4%). This may be an area for further investigation, particularly in light of the fact that Latinos are projected to become the largest minority group within the next decade (Hill & Moreno 2001). Agencies may be able to reach out to this constituency by identifying and developing relationships with ga tekeeper organizations, such as churches, schools or community centers, and ensuring outreach materials are linguistically and culturally appropriate. The context of opposition seems to center around concerns about land use restriction and the effect of panthers on game species, rather th an any inherent dislike of panthers. These types 92

PAGE 93

of cost-related concerns have been cited in ma king wolves in Yellowstone a biophysical pawn in a larger debate over resource management (N ie 2001). In addition to holding more negative attitudes toward panthers and panther protection, respondents who had hunted or fished within the past two years were less likely to feel social pressure to su pport recovery. It may be helpful for agencies to provide information about the lik ely impact of panthers on game species, the current size of deer populations in Florida, or the benefits of top-down trophic control to the fitness of deer herds, provided that agencies are considered a tr ustworthy source by this stakeholder group. However, in the event that the negative relationship between hunting demographics and support for recovery indicates an underlying conflict, such as that between advocates of wise-use versus environmentalism, considerable care should be given to selecting the source of information. Alternatively, involv ing members of the huntin g community in data collection for panther re search may help to both foster trust between wildlife managers and hunters, and to increase faith in the information produced. Based on experience with wolf reintroductions in Yellowstone, concerns about restrictions of land use may be best addressed by focusing on improving relations between wildlife agencies and local landowners and fostering trust thr ough regular, transparent communication (Fritts & Carbyn 1995; Jacobson 1999). Large landowners are mo st likely to feel unfairly burdened by the costs of preserving panthers. Inde ed, when ownership of more th an 20 acres is included in the regression analysis for behavioral intentions as a dichotomous variable, it is a significant negative predictor of intenti on (B=-0.47, p<0.05). This highlights the importance of continuing to advance landowner incentive pr ograms such as the Rural Land Stewardship legislation in Collier County, which make listed species such as pa nthers a benefit rather than a cost to the private landowners upon whom their long term persistence largely depends. 93

PAGE 94

The mean length of Florida residence for propone nts was at least 6 years longer than either undecideds or opponents. Respondents who had lived in Florida between 20 and 50 years had the most positive attitudes toward pa nthers, and the lowest perceive d risk. Those who had lived in Florida for less than 20 years or greater than 50 years generally had less positive attitudes toward panthers, although the latter was likely a consequence of aging. This suggests that newer residents of Florida may be a target audien ce for communication campaigns, to maintain high public support for panther recovery and low le vels of human-panthe r interaction. Welcome billboards in panther habitat might visually in troduce new residents to a photograph of the Florida state animal, while advocating that driver s be vigilant about their speed. Brochures or magnets could be introduced in welcome packets disseminated to new residents by chambers of commerce. Risk may currently not have direct association with behavioral inten tion because levels of human-panther interaction are so low. One widely publicized inci dent could potentially change the relationship between risk pe rception and support, making it much more critical predictor of intentions. However, the negative relationship between knowledge and risk perception (i.e., that greater knowledge about panthers is associated with lower percei ved risk) offers support for the important of current outreach and education e fforts underway to teach residents in panther habitat about how to safely coexist with panthers. A minority of respondents were aware that less than 100 panthers remain in Florida, that a male panther does not weigh 91 kilograms, that there has never been an attack on a human by a panther in Florida, and that the best way to respond to a panther which is approaching aggressively is to shout and try to look as larg e as possible. All of these are potential areas of emphasis in an outreach strategy. Additionally, a minority of opponents (41%), compared to a 94

PAGE 95

majority of both proponents (73%) and undecideds (60%), correctly identified the status of panthers as endangered. Environm ental behavior can be motivated by a sense of urgency to an extent, provided that the problem is not perc eived as overwhelming, and action consequently futile. To that end, outreach messages to the general public should combine the endangered status of panthers with updates on what progr ess has been made in increasing the number of panthers in the wild. Since our results indicate that media outlets such as television and newspapers are reaching proponents, undecided re spondents and opponents alike, it is important that agencies maintain strong relationships with representatives of local and regional media. Sending updates via a broadcast email to reporte rs who commonly handle environmental news stories would be reasonably simple, and woul d require a current contact list. Establishing personal relations with media representatives is an important precursor for good coverage (Jacobson 1999). The fact that respondents genera lly identified habitat loss as the primary reason for panther endangerment may facilitate obtaining public support for management interventions such as protection of natural lands. In fact, support for this measur e was high across all strata, and among proponents, opponents and un decided respondents alike. It may now be important that residents not only be aware of habitat loss as the greatest cause, but understand how much land panthers actually need. Environm ental organizations in New England have successfully tied the fate of the wolf to that of wilderness (Nie 2001). Beliefs about the pos itive consequences of panther protection found in this study, combined with the high levels of support for protecting natural lands, suggest that panthe rs might best be marketed to the public as part of a larger campaign to preserve habitat in Florid a, and keep Florida beautiful. 95

PAGE 96

Translocation, or reintr oduction, is often one of the most controversial issues in large carnivore conservation, and the findings in this study were consistent with previous studies (Clark et al. 1996; Lohr et al. 1996). Respondents who opposed transl ocation in this survey were less likely to engage in outdoor activities, and were generally older, poorer and less educated than those who supported translocation. As a result, these individuals are unlikely to see signage or receive educational materials in public pa rks. A majority (67%) of those who opposed translocation were female, compared to 56% of supporters. The fact that the mean age of those who opposed translocation was nearly 10 years greater than that of s upporters highlights the importance of future monitoring as Floridas pop ulation continues to age (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The majority of both undecideds (54%) and opponents (58%) reported a preference for getting their news from television, with an a dditional third of each group preferring newspaper sources, indicating that either outlet may be an effective way of reaching these individuals. Since support for translocation was negatively correlated with risk perception and positively correlated with knowledge levels, educational strategies wh ich use these outlets to address knowledge gaps regarding how to live safely in panther habita t may increase support for translocation. Wildlife managers can involve these demographic groups in citizen task forces, advisory councils or stakeholder planning teams, which would assist the agencies in selecting the most appropriate means of preparing local residents for any pr oposed translocation (D ecker et al. 2001). Attitude salience and levels of support are likely to change as both demographic characteristics of Florida resi dents change and new challenge s or opportunities in panther recovery arise. Future evaluation and monitori ng efforts will be needed, particularly if translocation is to take place, in order to ensu re that agency goals remain consistent with 96

PAGE 97

97 stakeholder views, and that stakeholders most directly affected by translocation know how to coexist safely with panthers.

PAGE 98

Table 4-1. Comparisons with other at titudinal studies on mountain lions. a Current Study Duda and Young (1995) Riley and Decker (2000) Casey et al (2005) What is the status of panthers in Florida? 62% correctly identified the status as endangered. What is the status of panthers in Florida? 58% correctly identified the status as endangered. N/A N/A Less than 100 panthers live in Florida today. 36% of respondents believed that less than 100 panthers remain. More than 1000 panthers live in Florida today. 17% believed that more than 1000 panthers remained. How many panthers live in Florida today? 25% of respondents believed that less than 100 panthers remained, and 8% believed that more than 1000 remained. N/A N/A What is the greatest cause of the panther being endangered? 66% attributed endangerment to habitat loss, and 15% to car accidents. What is the greatest cause of the panther being endangered? 58% if respondents attributed endangerment to habitat loss, and 7% to car accidents. N/A N/A Overall do you support or oppose efforts to help the panther population in Florida by increasing the number of panthers in the wild? 71% of respondents supported. Overall, do you support or oppose efforts to save the Florida panther from extinction? 91% of respondents supported. N/A N/A 98

PAGE 99

Table 4-1. Continued. Current Study Duda and Young (1995) Riley and Decker (2000) Casey et al (2005) I am concerned about the safety of pets because panthers may live nearby. 63% of respondents were NOT concerned about the safety of pets because of panthers. Is panther reintroduction a concern for you because you think it is likely that panthers will harm pets? 72% of respondents were NOT concerned that reintroduced panthers would harm pets. N/A N/A I am concerned about the safety of livestock because panthers may live nearby. 62% of respondents were NOT concerned about the safety of livestock because of panthers. Is panther reintroduction a concern for you because you think it is likely that panthers will harm livestock? 58% of respondents were NOT concerned that reintroduced panthers would harm livestock. Mountain lions are an unacceptable threat to livestock. 46% of respondents did NOT feel that mountain lions were an unacceptable threat to livestock. N/A Although I never see Florida panthers in the wild, it is important to know they exist in Florida. 90% of respondents agreed. Although I may never see a Florida panther in the wild, it is important to know they exist in Florida. 92% of respondents agreed. N/A N/A 99

PAGE 100

Table 4-1. Continued. Current Study Duda and Young (1995) Riley and Decker (2000) Casey et al (2005) Maintaining panther populations in the wild is a threat to the economic prosperity of Florida. 80% of respondents disagreed. Maintaining panther populations in the wild is a threat to the economic prosperity of Florida. 82% of respondents disagreed. N/A N/A Panthers have a right to live wherever they are. 75% of respondents agreed. N/A Mountain lions should have the right to exist wherever they may occur. 44% of respondents agreed. N/A If, in order to increase the number of panthers in the wild, panthers would have to be moved into your county, to what extent would you support or oppose this action? 64% of respondents supported translocation into their home county. I favor the reintroduction of panthers in my county or surrounding counties. 77% of respondents supported reintroduction into either their home county or surrounding counties. N/A N/A Panthers should be removed from the wild anywhere they are found close to peoples homes. 67% of respondents disagreed. N/A N/A Mountain lions should be controlled (i.e., shot or trapped) anywhere they are found in association with human developments. 68% of respondents disagreed. 100

PAGE 101

Table 4-1. Continued. Current Study Duda and Young (1995) Riley and Decker (2000) Casey et al (2005) Which of the following comes closest to your point of view: 1) Panthers should be protected everywhere in Florida. 2) Panthers should be protected ONLY within national parks and other nature reserves, NOT on private lands. 3) Panthers should not be protected anywhere. 66% of respondents felt that panthers should be protected everywhere, 30% felt they should only be protected in parks, and 4% felt they should not be protected anywhere. N/A N/A Mountain lions should be protected in all areas. 79% of respondents agreed. Mountain lions should be protected only in national parks. 38% of respondents agreed. Mountain lions should not be protected under any circumstances. 6% of respondents agreed. 101 a Comparisons between these studies should be interpreted with caution, since the sa mpling frames, mode, context and question wording differed between surveys.

PAGE 102

102 R=0.44 R=0.53 R=0.21 R=0.39 R=0.28 B=0.32 B=-0.28 Behavioral intention B=-0.05 B=0.02 B=0.05 B=-0.40 B=-0.38 B=0.38 B=0.20 B=0.59 B=0.12 Knowledge Demographics Risk perception Attitudes Subjective norm Management preferences Figure 4-1. Path diagram showing unstandardized regression coefficients (B) and ex plained variance (R) for regressions on al l theoretical variables influencing intention to act in support of or opposition to panther recovery..

PAGE 103

APPENDIX A DISCUSSION QUESTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW Background Information: 1. How long have you lived in this area? 2. What sorts of outdoor activities do you regularly engage in? (Examples: 1) feeding wildlife; 2) hunting deer or hogs; 3) fishing); 4) hiking/birding) 3. Do you make any use of nearby public la nds? Which lands and what do you do there? Panther questions: 4. What do you think of when you hear the words "Florida panther"? 5. Please name three traits that you associate with Florida panthers. At the moment several young male panthers have roamed throughout central Florida. However, since female panthers are not generally known to roam nor th of the Caloosahatchee River, panthers are not able to breed here. Therefore, panthers are curre ntly confined to South Florida and cannot grow in number. Wildlife officials are considering helping fema le panthers to move north of the river in order to increase the chances that they will breed a nd increase the number of panthers in Florida. 6. Do you have an opinion about this? Now I'd like to find out about the types of IMPACTS you feel that you, your family, your business or your community are likely to experience if this acti on is taken. Impacts are important events caused by wildlife, or management decisions about wildlife, that somehow affect your life. They can have a positive, negative or neutral effect on you. Please na me any impacts that come to mind, and indicate whether each of them has a positive, negative or neutral effect on you. Theres no rush, please feel free to take a moment to think about it. [For each impact identified] Do you feel that that is a positive or negative impact? 7. Have you read or heard anything about the Florida panther recently in the press? What was the most recent report that you recall? Do you remember when you heard it? Where/from whom did you hear about it? [If they heard it from a friend or acquaintance] Do you recall seeing an ything about panthers recently in the press? What was the most memorable thing you remember hearing about the Florida panther? 8. How satisfied are you with current panther manage ment decisions made by local, state and federal agencies? In your opinion, has the money spent thus far on efforts to save the Florida panther been worthwhile? 9. How would you like to see the total panther population change in the next five years? 10. In your mind, what should managers do to achie ve these changes in the total panther population? 103

PAGE 104

104 11. Have you participated in or do you know of any landowner incentive programs [e.g. Rural Land Stewardship legislation in Collier County] to preserve natural lands? What are your thoughts on these types of programs? Where do they succeed in meeting the needs of large landowners and where do they fail? 12. In general, do you support or oppose continuing efforts to save the Florida panther? If you had to choose one reason for your opinion, what would it be? Knowledge questions about panthers: 13. How many pounds would you say a male panther weighs? A female? 14. What do panthers prey on? 15. How many Florida panthers do you think remain in the wild? 16. What is the status of the panther in Florida would you say it is healthy and thriving, recovering, or still in danger of going extinct? Im looking for your personal opinion, rather than the federally or state-listed status. Additional Background Questions 17. What do you think are the most important wildlife issues in your local area right now? 18. How much land do you own or lease in South Florida? 19. Do you sell any agricultural products raised/grown on land in the study area? Do you raise cattle? (Do you have grazing rights to any public lands?) 20. Do you allow others to hunt on your property? Why/why not? What species are hunted on your property?

PAGE 105

APPENDIX B SURVEY INSTRUMENT Hello, my name is _________ and Im calling from the Un iversity of Florida to ask your opinions on wildlife in Florida specifically the Florida panther. This is not a sales call. This is an opportunity for you to have input into how the state manages your na tural resources. In order for our results to be scientifically valid, we need to randomly pick some one within your household to interview. Of the people who currently live in your household who are 18 or older, who most recently celebrated a birthday? May I speak with him or her? (INTERVIEWER: If the person who answers the phone IS th e person with the most recent birthday, read Introduction A. If he or she is NOT, read Introduc tion B once the person with the most recent birthday comes to the phone.) Introduction A : This interview is completely voluntary and confidential. There is no penalty for refusing to complete any or all of the survey. There is no monetary compensation for participating in this research. If I come to any question that you would prefer not to answer, just let me know and I will skip over it. The entire survey should take about 20 minutes. May I begin with your first name? Introduction B: Hello, my name is _________ and I'm calling from the University of Florida to ask your opinions on wildlife in Florida specifically the Florid a panther. This is not a sales call. This is an opportunity for you to have input into how the state manages your natural resources. (The interview is completely voluntary and confidential. There is no penalty for refusing to complete any or all of the survey. There is no monetary compensation for partic ipating in this research. If I come to any question that you would prefer not to answer, just let me know and I will skip over it.) The entire survey should take about 20 minutes. May I begin with your first name? Please tell me whether or not you've participated in each of the following activities in the past two years. 1 Have you watched TV programs, videos or movies about wildlife? 1) Yes 2) No 2 Have you read about wildlife? 1) Yes 2) No 3 Have you gone hunting or fishing? 1) Yes 2) No 4 Have you gone hiking or camping? 1) Yes 2) No 5 (INTERVIEWER: Only ask of people who say "Yes" to Questions 3 and/or 4.) Did you make use of public lands such as national, state or city parks for these activities? 1) Yes 2) No 105

PAGE 106

6 During the past two years did you take a special interest in wildlife around your home, that is, closely observing, feeding or trying to identify wildlife near your home? 1) Yes 2) No 7 During the past two years, did you take any trips or outings in Florida of at least 1 mile away from home for the PRIMARY purpose of observing, photographing or feeding wildlife? Please do not include trips to the zoo, circus, aquarium, museum or trips for fishing or hunting. 1) Yes 2) No 8 Do you believe that Florida pant hers still live in Florida? 1) Yes 2) No (INTERVIEWER: Only if people answer "No" or "I don't know" to Question 8, say "Actually, although few people are aware of it, panthers still do live in parts of Florida.") 9 To the best of your knowledge, do panthers live in your county? 1) Yes 2) No People have many different attitud es toward panthers. Please tell me whether you strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree or str ongly agree with the following statements. If you do not have an opinion on an issue, you may answer dont know. (INTERVIEWER: Read answer list after questions only if necessary.) 10 Protecting panthers is good because it helps to sav e the natural lands where they live in Florida. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 11 Protecting panthers is a waste of money. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 12 Although I never see Florida panthers in the w ild, it is important to know that they exist in Florida. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 13 Protecting panthers is good because they are one of the world's most endangered animals. 1) strongly disagree 106

PAGE 107

2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 14 Protecting panthers restricts access to public lands. (INTERVIEWER: Only if asked, say "Public lands are places such as parks or public forests.") 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 15 Maintaining panther populations in the wild is a threat to the economic prosperity of Florida. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 16 Panthers are good because they help maintain deer and small animals in balance with their environment. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 17 Panthers have a right to live wherever they are. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 18 Protecting panthers restricts how priv ate landowners can manage their land. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 19 Our grandchildren and future generations should be able to see panthers in Florida. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 20 Panthers are beautiful animals. 1) strongly disagree 107

PAGE 108

2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 21 Panthers are vicious murderers. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 22 Panthers are intelligent animals. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 23 Panthers compete with hunters for game animals such as deer. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 24 Protecting panthers is good because helps keep a healthy environment. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree The next set of questions are designed to help us to better understand your opinions about potential encounters between panthers and people in Florida. Again, please tell me if you strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree or str ongly agree with the following statements. If you do not have an opinion on an issue, you may answer dont know. (INTERVIEWER: Read answer list after questions only if necessary.) 25 I am concerned about the safety of pets because panthers may live nearby. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 26 I am concerned about the safety of livestock because panthers may live nearby. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 108

PAGE 109

4) agree 5) strongly agree 27 I am concerned about the safety of children because panthers may live nearby. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 28 I am comfortable visiting natural areas where panthers may live nearby. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 29 I am comfortable being outdoors in my neighborhood, where panthers may live nearby. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 30 I am more concerned about being injured by a panther than being injured by a dog. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 31 I am more concerned about be ing injured by a panther than being injured by an alligator. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 32 I am more concerned about being injured by a panther than being bitten by a snake. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 33 Panther-human encounters are becoming more frequent. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 109

PAGE 110

34 People can generally make choices about be ing exposed to the risks from panthers. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 35 Panthers should be removed from the wild anyw here they are found close to peoples' homes. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 36 Panthers should not be removed from the wild under any circumstances. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 37 Most people who are important to me think I should support increasing the number of panthers in Florida. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 38 Please tell me which of the following three statements comes closest to your view: (INTERVIEWER: Read each response aloud. Respondent should select only ONE response.) 1) Protecting people people from panthers is the responsibility of homeowners. 2) Protecting people from panthers is the responsibility of the government. 3) Protecting people from panthers is the responsibility of both homeowners AND the government. 39 Please tell me which of the following three statements comes closest to your view: (INTERVIEWER: Read each response aloud. Respondent should select only ONE response.) 1) Panthers should be protected everywhere in Florida. 2) Panthers should be protected ONLY within na tional parks and other nature reserves, NOT on private lands. 3) Panthers should not be protected anywhere. Now I'd like to learn more about your opinion on ho w panthers should be managed. Please tell me whether you strongly oppose, oppose, neither oppose nor support, support or strongly support each of the following options. Again, there are no right or wrong answers. If you don't have an opinion about any one of the measures, you may say "don't know". (INTE RVIEWER: Read answer list after questions only if necessary.) 110

PAGE 111

40 Overall, do you support or oppose efforts to help the panther population in Florida by increasing the number of panthers in the wild? 1) strongly oppose 2) oppose 3) neither support nor oppose 4) support 5) strongly support 41 If, in order to increase the number of panthers in the wild, panthers would have to be moved into your county, to what extent would you support or oppose this action? (INTERVIEWER: If asked whether the government intends to do this, say "This is only a hypothetical question by the University of Florida. It does not reflect any actual government plans.") 1) strongly oppose 2) oppose 3) neither support nor oppose 4) support 5) strongly support 42 If, in order to increase the number of panthers in the wild, it would be necessary to protect natural lands in your county, to what extent would you support or oppose this action? 1) strongly oppose 2) oppose 3) neither support nor oppose 4) support 5) strongly support Please tell me whether you strongly disagree, disagree, ne ither agree nor disagree, agree or strongly agree with the following statements. (INTERVIEWER: Read answer list after questions only if necessary.) 43 I would write a letter to an elected official to support increasing the number of panthers in Florida. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 44 I would pay a small additional amount of state tax to fund increasing the number of panthers in Florida. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 45 I would vote for an elected official that favors development over panthers. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree 111

PAGE 112

46 I would attend a local government meeting to oppose increasing the number of panthers in Florida. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) neither agree nor disagree 4) agree 5) strongly agree These next statements are some things that people say about panthers. Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with each statement. 47 Less than 100 panthers live in Florida today. 1) Agree 2) Disagree 48 A male panther weighs about 200 pounds. 1) Agree 2) Disagree 49 More than 1000 panthers live in Florida today. 1) Agree 2) Disagree 50 Deer are one of the main food items of panthers. 1) Agree 2) Disagree 51 Panthers are only active during the day. 1) Agree 2) Disagree 52 In the western United States, panthers are also known as mountain lions. 1) Agree 2) Disagree 53 There has never been a panther attack on a human being in Florida. 1) Agree 2) Disagree 54 Which of the following do you believe best d escribes the status of panthers in Florida? 1) Extinct 2) Endangered 3) Rare 4) Common 55 In your opinion, what is the greatest cause of the panther being endangered? 1) Hunting 2) Car accidents 3) Disease 112

PAGE 113

4) Not enough natural land or habitat 5) Not enough food 56 To the best of your knowledge, what is the best way to respond to a panther that is approaching you aggressively? Should you 1) Lie down and play dead 2) Shout and try to look as large as possible 3) Run away 4) Climb a tree 5) Other Now I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about what you may have seen or heard about Florida panthers in the news. 57 Within the last six months, have you seen an ything about the Florida panther in the news? 1) Yes 2) No 58 (INTERVIEWER: Only ask of people who say "Yes" to Question 57.) Where did you hear about it? (INTERVIEWER: Record first response ONLY.) 1) Television 2) Internet 3) Newspaper 4) Radio 5) Magazine 6) Other (Type in response) 59 Do you feel that newspaper cove rage about the Florida panther is 1) Not enough 2) Adequate 3) Too much 60 Do you feel that news about panthers in newspapers is 1) Usually true 2) Sometimes true 3) Rarely true 4) Untrue 61 Please tell me which of the following sources provides the most reliable information about panthers. (INTERVIEWER: Record first response ONLY.) 1) Wildlife agencies 2) Politicians 3) Environmental groups 4) Sportsmen's clubs 62 Which of the following sources do you rely on primarily to get your news? (INTERVIEWER: Record first response ONLY.) 1) Television 2) Newspaper 3) Radio 4) Internet 113

PAGE 114

5) Magazines 63 If you read a newspaper, what newspaper do you read? (INTERVIEWER: Type in response.) Great, we're almost finished. The final set of questions I have will help us understand the answers of everyone taking the survey. 64 How much land do you own in Florida? (INTERVIEWER: Read all answers aloud.) 1) None 2) less than 1 acre 3) 1-5 acres 4) 6-20 acres 5) more than 20 acres 65 (INTERVIEWER: Only ask of people who have more than 20 acres.) What is the primary use of this land? 1) Farming 2) Ranching 3) Forestry 4) Not being used 5) Residential 6) Commercial 7) Industrial 8) Investment 9) Other (Type in response.) 66 Do you own any livestock such as cows goats, pigs, sheep or chickens? 1) Yes 2) No 67 (INTERVIEWER: Only ask of people who have livestock.) Please tell me which, if any, of the following types of livestock you own. 1) Cows 2) Goats 3) Pigs 4) Sheep 5) Chicken 6) Other (Type in response.) 68 Please indicate which of the following b est describes where you currently live: 1) In the downtown area of a city or town. 2) In the suburb of a city or town. 3) In a rural area but not on a farm. 4) On a farm. 69 Please indicate which of the following stat ements best describes where you grew up: 1) In the downtown area of a city or town. 2) In the suburb of a city or town. 3) In a rural area but not on a farm. 4) On a farm. 114

PAGE 115

The remaining questions may seem a little personal. Your responses will be completely confidential and anonymous, and will help us to understand the answers of everyone taking the survey. 70 How many years have you lived in Florida? (INTERVIEWER: Type in response.) 71 Do you have any children under the age of 18 who live at home? 1) Yes 2) No 72 Do you have any dogs or cats? 1) Yes 2) No 73 What is the highest grade of school or year in college you yourself completed? (INTERVIEWER: Please code response, not necessary to read choices.) 0) None 1) Elementary 2) Elementary 3) Elementary 4) Elementary 5) Elementary 6) Elementary 7) Elementary 8) Elementary 9) High School 10) High School 11) High School 12) High School 13) College (Associate's) 14) College (Associate's) 15) College 16) College 17) Some Graduate School 18) Graduate or Professional Degree 74 Are you of Spanish or Hispanic origin ? 1) Yes 2) No 75 How would you describe your race or et hnic background? (INTERVIEWER: If necessary read choices.) 1) White (Caucasian) 2) Black (African American) 3) Asian or Pacific Islander 4) American Indian or Alaska native 5) Other (Type in response) 6) Multi-racial or mixed race 76 May I ask your age? 115

PAGE 116

77 Now consider your family's household income from all sources. As I read a list, please stop me when I get to the income level that best descr ibes your household income in 2006 before taxes. 1) less than $10,000 2) $10,000 to $19,999 3) $20,000 to $29,999 4) $30,000 to $39,999 5) $40,000 to $49,999 6) $50,000 to $59,999 7) $60,000 to $79,999 8) $80,000 to $99,999 9) $100,000 to $150,000 10) Over $150,000 78 (INTERVIEWER: Record gender.) 1) Male 2) Female This completes the survey. Thank you very much. Any questions or concerns you may have about your rights can be directed to the UFIRB office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 326112250. (If you have any questions regarding the survey, you may contact Dr. Susan Jacobson, Professor at the Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conserva tion, University of Florida, Gainesville.) 116

PAGE 117

LIST OF REFERENCES Agresti, A., and B. Finlay 1997. Statistical met hods for the social scie nces (Third Edition). Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Aipanjiguly, S., S. K. Jacobson, and R. Fl amm. 2003. Conserving Manatees: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Intentions of Boaters in Tampa Bay, Florida. Conservation Biology 17:1098. Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Alvarez, K. 1993. Twilight of the panther: biol ogy, bureaucracy and failure in an endangered species program. Myakka River Publishing, Sarasota. Alvarez, K., R. E. Baudy, R. C. Belden, B. Know les, J. Kushlan, J. N. Layne, and P. Pritchard. 1981. Florida Panther Recovery Plan, date d December 17, 1981, prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Cooperati on with the recovery team. USFWS. Andersone, anete, Ozolin, J., and nis. 2004. Public perception of large carnivores in Latvia. Ursus 15:181-187. Assael, H., and J. Keon. 1982. Nonsampling vs. samp ling errors in survey research. Journal of Marketing 46:114-123. Bath, A. J., and T. Buchanan. 1989. Attitudes of various interest groups in Wyoming toward wolf restoration in Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:519-525. Belden, R. C., and J. W. McCown. 1996. Florida panther reintroduction f easibility study final report. FWCC. Berger, I. E. 1997. The Demographics of Recy cling and the Structure of Environmental Behavior. Environment and Behavior 29:515-531. Bjerke, T., J. Vitterso, and B. P. Klatenborn. 200 0. Locus of control and attitudes toward large carnivores. Psychologica l Reports 86:37-46. Brehm, J. 1993. The phantom respondents: opin ion surveys and political representation. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Bright, A. D., and M. J. Manfredo. 1996. A con ceptual model of attitudes toward natural resource issues: a case study of wolf rein troduction. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1:121. Brook, A., M. Zint, and R. De Young. 2003. Landowners' Responses to an Endangered Species Act Listing and Implications for Encour aging Conservation. C onservation Biology 17:1638-1649. 117

PAGE 118

Bryman, A., and D. Cramer. 1990. Quantitative An alysis for Social Scientists. Routledge, London and New York. Campbell, J. M., and K. J. MacKay. 2003. Attitudinal and normative influences on support for hunting as a wildlife management strategy. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8:181-197. Casey, A. L., P. R. Krausman, W. W. Shaw, a nd H. G. Shaw. 2005. Knowledge of and attitudes toward mountain lions: a public survey of residents adjacent to Saguaro National Park, Arizona. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10:28-38. Clark, T. W., A. P. Curlee, and R. P. Readi ng. 1996. Crafting Effective Solutions to the Large Carnivore Conservation Problem Conservation Biology 10:940-948. Cordell, H. K., C. J. Betz, and G. T. Gree n. 2002. Recreation and the environment as cultural dimensions in contemporary american society. Leisure Sciences 24:13-41. Couper, M. P. 1997. Survey introductions and da ta quality. Public Opinion Quarterly 61:317338. Coursey, D. L. 1998. The revealed demand for a public good: evidence from endangered and threatened species. New York University Environmental Law Journal 6:411-449. Cunningham, M. 2005. Presentation entitled "Florida panther: biomedical investigation and genetic restoration" in C. B. F. 2005), editor, Gainesville. Curtin, R., S. Presser, and E. Singer. 2005. Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century. Public Opinion Quarterly 69:87-98. Czech, B., P. R. Krausman, and R. Borkhataria. 1998. Social Constructio n, Political Power, and the Allocation of Benefits to Endanger ed Species. Conservation Biology 12:1103-1112. Decker, D. J., T. L. Brown, and W. F. Siemer 2001. Human dimensions of wildlife management in North America. The Wildlife Society, Maryland. Decker, D. J., and L. C. Chase. 1997. Huma n Dimensions of Living with Wildlife: A Management Challenge for the 21st Cent ury. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:788-795. Duda, M. D., and K. C. Young. 1995. Floridians knowledge, opinions and attitudes toward panther habitat and panther-related issues. Responsive Management Enck, J. W., and T. L. Brown. 2002. New Yorkers' attitudes toward restoring wolves to the Adirondack Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:16-28. Fazio, R. 1990. Multiple processes by which attit udes govern behavior: the MODE model as an integrative framework. Pages 75-109 in M. Za nna, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 118

PAGE 119

Federal Register 32:4001. 1967. Endangered Species List. Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen 1975. Belief, attitude intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Fitzhugh, E. L., M. W. Kenyon, and K. Etling. 2003. Lessening the impact of a cougar attack on a human. Proceedings of the Seventh Cougar Workshop, Jackson, Wyoming, United States of America. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Co mmission.1999-2007. Florida Pant her Net Official Education Website. (Accessed 8-7-07) Fritts, S. H., and L. N. Carbyn. 1995. Population viability, nature reserves, and the outlook for gray wolf conservation in North Am erica. Restoration Ecology 3:26-38. Gaziano, C. 2005. Comparative analysis of within -household respondent se lection techniques. 69:124(134). Gross, L. 2005. Why Not the Best? How Science Fa iled the Florida Panther. Public Library of Science 3:online. Cougar Management Guidelines Working Group. 2005. Cougar Management Guidelines. Wild Futures, Bainbridge Island, Washington. Groves, R. M., F. J. Fowler, M. P. Couper, J. M. Lepkowski, E. Singer, and R. Tourangeau 2004. Survey Methodology. Wiley-Interscience, New York. Heberlein, T. A., G. Ericsson, ouml, and ran. 2005. Ties to the Count ryside: Accounting for Urbanites Attitudes toward Hunting, Wolv es, and Wildlife. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10:213 227. Hedrick, P. W. 1995. Gene flow and genetic rest oration: the Florida panther as a case study. Conservation Biology 9:996-1007. Helms, J.E., K.T. Henze, T.L. Sass, a nd V.A. Mifsud. 2006. Treating Cronbachs alpha reliability coefficients as data in coun seling research. The Counseling Psychologist 34:630-660. Hill, K., and D. Moreno. 2001. Language as a variab le: English, Spanish, ethnicity, and political opinion. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science 23:208-228. Hines, J. M., H. R. Hungerfor d, and A. N. Tomera. 1986. Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior. Jour nal of Environmental Education 18:1-8. 119

PAGE 120

Holt, D., and T. M. F. Smith. 1979. Post-stratifica tion. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A142:33-46. Jacobson, S. 1999. Communication Skills for Co nservation Professionals. Island Press, Washington D.C. Jones, R. E., and R. E. Dunlap. 1992. The social bases of environmental concern: have they changed over time? Rural Sociology 57. Kautz, R., R. Kawula, T. Hoctor, J. Comiskey, D. Jansen, D. Jennings, J. Kasbohm, F. Mazzotti, R. McBride, L. Richardson, and K. Root 2006. How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panthe r. Biological Conservation 130:118-133. Keeter, S., C. Miller, A. Kohut, R. M. Groves, and S. Presser. 2000. Consequences of Reducing Nonresponse in a National Telephone Surve y. The Public Opini on Quarterly 64:125-148. Kellert, S. R. 1983. Affective, cognitive, and ev aluative perceptions of animals. Pages 241-267 in I. Altman, and J. Wohlwill, editors. Behavior and the natural environment. Plenum, New York. Kellert, S. R. 1985. Public perceptions of predator s, particularly the wolf and coyote. Biological Conservation 31:169-189. Kellert, S. R. 1996. The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society. Island Press, Washington D.C. Kellert, S. R., and J. K. Berry. 1980. Knowledge, a ffection, and basic attitudes toward animals in American society (Phase III). United States Fish and Wildlife Serv ice, Washington D.C. Kellert, S. R., M. Black, C. R. Rush, and A. J. Bath. 1996. Human culture and large carnivore conservation in North America. Conservation Biology 10:977-990. Kleiven, J., T. Bjerke, and B. Kaltenborn, P. 2004. Factors influencing the social acceptability of large carnivore behaviours. Biodive rsity and Conservation 13:1647-1658. Leech, B. L. 2002. Asking questions: techniques for semistructured intervie ws. Political Science and Politics 35:665-668. Linnell, J. D. C., J. E. Swenson, and R. A nderson. 2001. Predators and pe ople: conservation of large carnivores is possible at high human densities if management policy is favourable. Animal Conservation 4:345-349. Logan, T. H., A. C. Eller Jr., R. Morell, D. Ruffner, and J. Sewell. 1993b. Florida panther habitat preservation plan: South Florida population. USFWS. Lohr, C., W. B. Ballard, and A. J. Bath. 1996. At titudes toward gray wolf reintroduction to New Brunswick. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:414-420. 120

PAGE 121

Main, M. B., F. M. Roka, and R. F. Noss. 1999. Evaluating Costs of Cons ervation. Conservation Biology 13:1262-1272. Manfredo, M. J., D. C. Fulton, and C. L. Pier ce. 1997. Understanding vote r behavior on wildlife ballot initiatives: Colorado's trapping amen dment. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 2:2239. Manfredo, M. J., H. C. Zinn, L. Sikorowski, and J. Jones. 1998. Public Acceptance of Mountain Lion Management: A Case Study of Denver, Colorado, and Nearby Foothills Areas. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:964-970. Margolis, H. 1996. Dealing with risk: why the public and the experts disagr ee on environemental issues. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. McCleery, R. A., R. B. Ditton, J. Sell, and R. R. Lopez. 2006. Understanding and improving attitudinal research in wildlife scienc es. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:537-541. McClelland, G. H., W. D. Schulze, and B. Hurd. 1990. The effects of risk beliefs on property values: a case study of a hazardous wast e site. Risk Analysis 10:485-497. Meyer, C. B. 2001. A case in case study methodology. Field Methods 13:329-352. Miller, K. K., and C. T. K. McGee. 2001. Toward Incorporating Human Dimensions Information into Wildlife Management Decision-Maki ng. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 6:205-221. Montgomery, C. A. 2002. Ranking the benefits of biodiversity: an explorati on of relative values. Environmental Management 65:313-326. Naughton-Treves, L., R. Grossberg, and A. Trev es. 2003. Paying for Tolerance: Rural Citizens' Attitudes toward Wolf Depredation and Compensation. Conservation Biology 17:15001511. Neal, A. G. 1985. Animism and Totemism in Popular Culture. The Journal of Popular Culture 19:15-24. Nie, M.A. 2001. The sociopolitical dimensions of wo lf management and restoration in the U.S. Human Ecology Review, 8. Pate, J., M. J. Manfredo, A. D. Bright, and G. Tischbein. 1996. Coloradan's attitudes toward reintroducing the gray wolf into Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:421-428. Primm, S. A. 1996. A pragmatic approach to Grizzly bear conservati on. Conservation Biology 10:1026-1035. Rabin, M., and J. L. Schrag. 1999. First Impression s Matter: A Model of Confirmatory Bias. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 114:37-82. 121

PAGE 122

Richards, R. T., and R. S. Krannich. 1991. The ideology of the animal rights movement and activists' attitudes toward wildlife. Pages 363371. Transactions of the Fifty-Sixth North American Wildlife Natural Resource s Conference, Edmonton, Alberta. Riley, S. J., and D. J. Decker. 2000. Wildlife st akeholder acceptance cap acity for cougars in Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:931-939. Routhe, A. S., R. E. Jones, and D. L. Feld man. 2005. Using theory to understand public support for collective actions that im pact the environment: allevia ting water supply problems in a nonarid biome. Social Science Quarterly 874. Sheppard, B. H., J. Hartwick, and P. R. Wa rshaw. 1988. The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-Analysis of Past Research with Reco mmendations for Modifications and Future Research. The Journal of C onsumer Research 15:325-343. Skogen, K. 2003. Adapting Adaptive Management to a Cultural Understanding of Land Use Conflicts. Society & Na tural Resources 16:435. Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236:280-285. Slovic, P. 1993. Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy. Risk Analysis 13:675-682. Smithem, J. L. 2005. Risk perceptions of and acc eptance capacity for th e Amercian crocodile ( Crocodylus acutus ) in South Florida. Page 77. University of Florida. Steel, B. S. 1996. Thinking glaba lly and acting locally? Environm ental attitudes, behavior and activism. Environmental Management 47:27-36. Stern, P. C., T. Dietz, T. Abel, G. A. Guagnano, and L. Kalof. 1999. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmental concern. Human Ecology Review 6:81-97. Stokes, D. L. 2007. Things We Like: Human Preferences among Similar Organisms and Implications for Conservation. Human Ecology 35:361-369. Straughan, R. D., and J. A. Roberts. 1999. Enviro nmental segmentation a lternatives: a look at green consumer behavior in the new millenium. Journal of Consumer Marketing 16:558575. Switzer, J. V. 2001. Influencing Environm ental Policy in Rural Communities: The Environmental Opposition at Work. Policy Studies Journal 29:128-138. Taylor, D. E. 1989. Blacks and the Environment: Toward an Explanation of the Concern and Action Gap between Blacks and Whites. Environment and Behavior 21:175-205. 122

PAGE 123

Teel, T. L., R. S. Krannich, and R. H. Schm idt. 2002. Utah stakeholde rs' attitudes toward selected cougar and black bear management practices. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:2-15. Thatcher, C. A., F. T. V. Manen, and J. D. Clark. 2006. Identifying Suitable Sites for Florida Panther Reintroduction. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:752-763. Thompson, J. G. 1992. Addressing the human dimens ions of wolf reintroduction: an example using estimates of livestock depredation a nd costs of compensation. Society and Natural Resources 6:154-179. Tucker, P., and D. H. Pletscher. 1989. Attitudes of hunters and residents toward wolves in northwestern Montana. Wildlif e Society Bulletin 17:509-514. U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. Census 2000, Summary 1 File, generated by Cynthia Langin using American FactFinder. U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Re search Service. 2004. Population and migration (2000-2003). U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Florida Panther Recovery Plan, Dated December 17, 1981. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. National su rvey of hunting, fishing and wildlife-associated recreation (FHWAR). U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006a. Draft Environmental A ssessment (EA) for "Guidelines for Living with Florida Panthers and the In teragency Florida Panther Response Plan". U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv ice, Atlanta, Georgia. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006b. Technical/Agency Draft, Florida Panther Recovery Plan ( Puma concolor coryi ), Third Revision. Page 212. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. Ward, P. I., N. Mosberger, C. Kistler, and O. Fischer. 1998. The relationship between popularity and body size in zoo animals. Conservation Biology 12:1408-1411. Williams, C. K., G. Ericsson, and T. A. He berlein. 2002. A Quantitative Summary of Attitudes toward Wolves and Their Reintroduction ( 1972-2000). Wildlife Soci ety Bulletin 30:575584. Zaller, J., and S. Feldman. 1992. A Simple Th eory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences. American Journal of Political Science 36:579616. Zhang, L. C. 2000. Post-stratification and calibrati on a synthesis. American Statistician 53:178184. 123

PAGE 124

124 Zinn, H. C., and C. L. Pierce. 2002. Values, Gender, and Concern about Potentially Dangerous Wildlife. Environment and Behavior 34:239-256.

PAGE 125

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Cynthia Langin received her B.A. in In ternational Relations from Johns Hopkins University, and then spent a year backpacking in Australia. Upon returning to the United States, she went to work for the Institute of Internati onal Education in Washington D.C. as a program coordinator for the U.S.-Asia E nvironmental Partnership Program. This program reinvigorated her interest in the relationship between people and nature, and inspir ed her to return to graduate school to study the human dimensions of wildlife conservation. Cynthia enro lled in the School of Natural Resource and Environment at the Univers ity of Florida, where, under the guidance of Susan Jacobson, she conducted a social scienc e research into support for Florida panther recovery. 125