Scrapbooking

A mismatch of community attitudes and actions: a study of Koalas

Description
A mismatch of community attitudes and actions: a study of Koalas
Categories
Published
of 11
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  LandscapeandUrbanPlanning126(2014)42–52 ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect Landscape   and   Urban   Planning  j   o   urnal   homepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan Research   Paper A   mismatch   of    community   attitudes   and   actions:   A   study   of    koalas Nicole   Shumway a , ∗ ,Leonie   Seabrook a , b ,Clive   McAlpine a , b ,   Patrick   Ward c a TheUniversityofQueensland,LandscapeEcologyandConservationGroup,Centrefor    SpatialEnvironmentalResearch,SchoolofGeography,Planning,andEnvironmentalManagement,Brisbane,Qld4072,Australia b TheUniversityofQueensland,TheEcologyCentre,Brisbane,Qld4072,Australia c SchoolofIntegrativeBiology,UniversityofQueensland,Brisbane,Qld4072,Australia h   ig   hli   g   h   t   s •  Three   areas   (suburban,   peri-urban,   eco-village)   of    one   communityweresurveyed. •  Attitudes   toward   koalas   were   correlated   toareaof    residence   within   the   community. •  Peri-urban   residentslikely   to   have   positive   attitudes   towardkoala   conservation. •  Suburbanresidentsunlikely   toparticipate   in   koala   conservation   measures. •  Areaof    residence   isimportantin   involving   localcommunity   inwildlife   management. a   rti   c   le   i   nf   o  Articlehistory: Received18July2013Receivedinrevisedform13March2014Accepted24March2014 Keywords:Phascolarctoscinereus SurveyHumandimensionsofwildlifeHuman–wildlifeconflict ab   s   t   ra   ct Manywildlife   populations,   particularly   inurban   areas,are   indecline.   This   isinpart   duetoa   disconnec-tion   betweenthe   livesof    urban   residents   and   nativewildlife.   Thereconnectionof    socialand   ecologicalsystems   by   understandingthe   linkages   betweenpeople’s   attitudesandconservationbehavior   will   helpimproveconservation   outcomes.   This   studyinvestigated   the   attitudes   of    localcommunities   towardkoalapopulationsandsustainable   wildlife   conservation   insoutheastQueensland,   Australia.   Data   wascollectedusinga   questionnaire   inface-to-face   surveys   ( n   =   102).PrincipalComponent   Analysis   wasused   toquantifyattitudeand   action   statements   into   keycomponents.   Furtheranalysis   of    demographics   andknowledge   of koalas   wasperformed   usinganalysis   of    variance   andregression   analysis.   Results   suggested   that   residents’attitudetoward   koalaconservation   wasstrongly   correlated   with   their   home’sproximityto   relativelyintact   habitat.   Residents   livingin   peri-urban   areas   weresignificantly   more   likelythan   suburban   resi-dentstohave   apositive   attitude   toward   koala   conservation,   and   bewilling   to   participate   inactionstoconservekoalas,   such   astraffic   calming   measures,   community   conservation   schemesandsupport   forcouncil-ledconservation   actions.   Theseresults   highlightthe   importance   of    understanding   variations   incommunity   behavior   towardbiodiversity   conservation   inurban   and   peri-urban   neighborhoodsandsug-gest   that   localgovernments   andconservation   groups   use   areaof    residence   totarget   urban   planning   andconservationinitiatives   moreeffectively.©2014Elsevier   B.V.   All   rights   reserved. 1.Introduction Humaninducedlandusechangethreatenstheviabilityof manywildlifespeciesaroundtheworld,notonlyfromhabi-tatlossbutalsothroughexposuretoarangeofthreateningprocesses(Brook,Sodhi,&Bradshaw,2008).Thisis   particularlytrueforfaunapopulationsin   urbanareas,whichmay   become ∗ Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+610416504471. E-mailaddresses: shumwayn@gmail.com,n.shumway@uq.edu.au(N.Shumway),l.seabrook@uq.edu.au(L.   Seabrook),c.mcalpine@uq.edu.au(C.McAlpine),p.ward1@uq.edu.au(P.Ward). isolatedinhabitatfragmentssurroundedbya   relativelyimper-meablematrix(Fischer&Lindenmayer,2007;Garden,McAlpine,Peterson,Jones,&Possingham,2006;McKinney,2002;Miller&Hobbs,2002).However,maintainingnativeecosystemsinurbanareasis   importantto   protectlocalbiodiversity,facilitatethemovementof    faunato   non-urbanhabitat,improvehumanwell-beingandtoconductenvironmentaleducation(Dearborn&Kark,2010).Thereisa   growingrecognitionthatthedis-connectionof    urbanpopulationsfromthenaturalworldisaresultof    theirdecliningdailyexposuretowildlife(Deruiter&Donnelly,2002).Thisdisconnectionmeansthatthereislessunderstandingof    theneedsandvalueof    localspecies,andtheirbasicrequirementsmay   go   unrecognized,compromising http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.03.0040169-2046/©2014ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved.  N.Shumwayetal./LandscapeandUrbanPlanning126   (2014)42–52 43 speciessurvival(Deruiter&Donnelly,2002).Increasingthe connectionbetweenhumansandwildlife,especiallyinurbanareas,isakeycomponentforthecontinuedsurvivalof    manyspecies.Understandingwhichfactorsinfluenceanindividual’sappre-ciationandconcernforwildlifeconservationisessential.Wildlifemanagersareincreasinglyconfrontedwiththetaskofsuccessfullyrepresentinga   diversenumberof    publicinterestsand,often,con-servationofspecieshingesontheeffectivenessof    thistask(Teel&   Manfredo,2009).   Personalwildlifeperspectivesareunavoid-ablytiedtomanycomponentsincludingworldviews,cultureandunderstanding(Aslin&Bennett,2000);   pastexperienceanddemo-graphics(Miller,2009);andvalues,attitudesandbeliefsshaped byideologythatgivemeaningtovaluesinregardtonature(Teel&   Manfredo,2009).Furthermore,behaviorisnotalwaysreflec-tiveofpublicattitudes,especiallywherewildlifeconservationisconcerned.Humandimensionsresearchseekstoforma   baselinetoidentifytherelationshipbetweenvalues,beliefsandattitudesregardingnatureanditsconservationandthereforeoffera   ‘socialscience’approachto   wildlifemanagement(Teel&Manfredo,2009).Humanbehavioris   complexbothinitsnumberof    influencesanddiversity,andisdrivenbymultiplefactorsthatareoftendiffi-culttoquantifyanddefine(Stern,2002).Predictingbehaviorina specificinstancefromattitudes,valuesandbeliefscanbeproblem-atic,butAjzen(1991)f oundthatgeneralattitudesandpersonality traitscanbelinkedtobehavior.Morespecifically,theTheoryof PlannedBehaviorstatesthatsomefunctionof    perceivedcontroloverbehaviorandbehavioralintentioncanbeusedtopredictactualbehavior(Ajzen,1991).Behavioralintentionismadeupof  threecomponents:theattitudeor   favorabilitytowardthebehav-ior;theperceivedsocialpressuretoperformthebehavior;andtheperceiveddifficultyor   easeofperformingthebehavior(e.g.oppor-tunityandresources)(Ajzen,1991).   ThisissupportedbyresearchbyBoyesandStanisstreet(2012)whofoundthatin   generalthedegreeofwillingnesstoactis   influencedbytheperceivedeffec-tivenessoftheaction;thoughin   somecircumstancestherecanbeanaturalreluctancetoactduetodisincentivessuchasinconvenienceandlifestyle.VaskeandDonnelly(1999)developeda   cognitivehierarchybasedonsocial-psychologicaltheory,showingthatatti-tudes,beliefsandnormsmediatetherelationshipbetweenvaluesandbehavior(Vaske&Donnelly,2007).Attitudesdirectlyaffect behaviorandvalueorientationsrevealtheimpactof    ideologyandprovidesignificancetothosevaluesrelativeto   a   specifictopic(Teel&   Manfredo,2009;Vaske&Donnelly,2007).Forthepurposesof    thisstudy,attitudeisdefinedasthepsychologicaltendencytoappraiseanentitywithfavoror   disfavor(Eagly&Chaiken,1993),whileval- uesaredefinedasguidingprinciplesthatinformattitudes(Fischer&vanderWal,2007).Understandingtheattitudesandbehaviorof    residentstowardwildlifepopulationsis   vitaltoimprovingurbanwildlifemanage-ment.Weexaminethesein   relationtothewildkoalapopulationsof    SoutheastQueensland.Thekoala, Phascolarctoscinereus ,is   anAustralianarborealmarsupialthatis   a   highlyspecializedeucalyptfolivore(Moore&Foley,2005).Thekoalaprovidesa   goodexam-pleofahuman-wildlifeconflictarisingfromurbanencroachmentintonativeecosystems,wherecommercialandprivatedevelop-mentinkoalahabitatareasleadsto   habitatloss(Gardenetal.,2006;McAlpineetal.,   2006b).Whilekoalascanliveinperi-urbanareasthereisanassociatedincreasein   exposuretoriskssuchascolli-sionswithvehiclesandattacksfromdomesticdogsastheymovebetweensmallpatchesof    remainingbushland(McAlpineetal.,2006a).Koalasarespecialiststhatdependcompletelyonthepres-enceofalimitednumberof    eucalyptspeciestosurvive(Hume,1990;Rhodesetal.,2006).Thisputskoalapopulationsparticularlyat   riskwhenthosetreesareclearedforurbandevelopment,lead-ingtogeneticisolation(Leeetal.,2010)andelevatedmortalityas koalasattempttodisperseacrossahighlymodifiedurbanmosaic Fig.1. Conceptualframeworkof    influencesof    attitudestowardkoalaconservation. (McAlpineetal.,2006b).Mostkoaladeathsareattributedto   habi-tatlossandfragmentation,carcollisionsanddogattacks,allfactorswhichincreasewithhumandevelopment(McAlpineetal.,2006a;Rhodesetal.,   2006),andasa   result,koalapopulationsovermostof theirrangehaveexperiencedlocaldeclinesandextinctions(SECRC,2011).In   2012thekoalawaslistedasa   vulnerablespeciesundertheEnvironmentProtectionandBiodiversityConservationAct(1992)inareaswherethespecieshasdramaticallydeclinedinrecentyears(Queensland,NewSouthWalesandtheAustralianCapi-talTerritory)(DepartmentofEnvironment,2012).InSouthEast Queensland,despitespecificlegislationprotectingtheirhabitat,koalapopulationsintheKoalaCoastareashoweda   51%declinein   koalapopulationabundancebetween2006and2008anda64%declineoverthelasttenyears(DepartmentofEnvironment,2012).Inhigh-densityurbanareaswherekoalasnolongerexist,itislessnecessaryto   attempttomodifybehaviorsinceresidentsdonothaveenoughregularexposuretowildlife.However,moreresearchisneededtodeterminepublicinterestandparticipationin   con-servationeffortsinsuburbanandbushlandareaswherekoalascontinuetopersist.Assessingresidents’knowledgeandattitudestowardkoalasin   general,aswellastheirvaluesandattitudestowardlocalkoalas,canprovideimportantinsightintohowtominimizetheimpactof    resident’sactivitiesonkoalapopulations.Thepositiveinfluenceof    increasingknowledgethroughwildlifeeducationprogramsis   demonstratedbytheeffectivenessof    conser-vationeducationbyBatConservationInternationalin   Austin,Texas(USA)where100,000peoplenowcongregateannuallyto   seetheeveningemergenceof1.5millionMexicanfree-tailedbats Tadaridabrasiliensis ,thatwereonceunknownto   mostvisitors(Dearborn&Kark,2010).Thisstudyaimedtoanswerthequestions:(1)canattitudetowardkoalasbemeasured;(2)whatfactorsinfluencecommu-nityattitudestowardkoalas;(3)howdodifferenturbandensities(suburban,peri-urbanandaneco-village)affectconservationknowledgeandbehavior;and(4)whatconservationactionswouldresidentsbe   willingtotaketomitigatelocalthreats?Thisinfor-mationwillserveasanexploratorystudytoestablisha   baselineof communityknowledgeandhelpdetermineresidents’willingnesstoworktowardsustainableconservationgoalsinsuburbanareas. 1.1.Conceptualframework Weexaminedtheinfluenceof    valuesanddemographicchar-acteristics,on   people’sperceptionsandattitudestowardkoalasandkoalaconservationin   theurbanandperi-urbanenviron-ment(Fig.1).Oneareaof    focuswasonthevalueorientation  44 N.Shumwayetal./    Landscapeand   UrbanPlanning126(2014)42–52 of    residentsfrombiocentric(nature-centered)toanthropocentric(people-centered)(Dunlap&   VanLiere,1978;Vaske&Donnelly,2007).Theseincludedviewsontheeffectivenessofcurrentleg-islation,theintrinsicrightsofnativewildlife,andinterestinconservationactions.We   alsopredictedthatplaceof    residency(indicatedbyurbandensity)couldperhapsreflectlifestylechoicesandhencebroadattitudesinregardtoconservation(althoughwerecognizethatlifestylewillbeinfluencedbyothercircumstancessuchasincomeandopportunity).Theareaofresidencemightalsoinfluencesocialnormsandconservationbehavior.ResearchbyTeelandManfredo(2009)showsaweakrelationshipbetweenwildlifevaluationandsocialdemographicsatanindividuallevel.AccordingtoTeelandManfredo(2009),   value-orientationtypes(dominators,thosewhobelievewildlifeshouldbemanagedonlyastheypertaintohumansversusmutualists,thosewhoseeintrinsicvaluein   wildlifeandbelieveinthesocialinclusionof    human/wildliferelationships)onabroaderscalewerecorrelatedto   statewidedemographics.Forinstance,moremutualistswerefoundin   areaswithgreaterlevelsofurbanization,consistentwiththeideathatimprovedeconomicwellbeingandmodernizationarecausinga   shiftawayfroma   dom-inantorientationtowardwildlife,andtowardamoremutualistorientation(Teel&Manfredo,2009).Theaffectof    residentialarea(urbanvs.rural)onattitudestowardwildlifehasbeendemon-stratedpreviously.Urbanresidentstypicallydisplaymorepositiveattitudestowardwildlifein   generalthanruralresidents(Ericsson&Haberlein,2003;Reading&Kellert,1993;Readingetal.,1999; Williams,Ericsson,&Heberlein,2002).Studiesonruralresidentattitudestendtofocusonranchers,farmersandlive-stockowners,whoareimpactedmoredirectlybypossibledamagetorangelandsandgrazingvalues(Reading,Miller,&Kellert,1999)orthenegative aspectsofpredatorreintroductions(Ericsson&Haberlein,2003;Williamsetal.,2002).Forexample,inthecaseof    wolfreintro-duction,ruralresidentsoftenviewedwolvesasa   symbolofurbandominanceoverruralvalues(Ericsson&Haberlein,2003;Williamsetal.,2002),whileastudyof    black-footedferretreintroductions(ReadingandKellert,1993),foundthatthereintroductionof    anendangeredspecieselicitedfearregardingincreasedgovernmentrestrictionsinranching,andlossof    autonomyandcontroloverland.Additionally,ranchershadmoredominantandutilitarianattitudestowardswildlifeandweresignificantlymorenegativethantheirurbancounterpartsin   regardto   theirattitudetowardferretrein-troductions(ReadingandKellert,1993).Theattitudetowardprairie dogsfollowedageneralincreasingpatternof    positivityfromranch-erstootherruralresidents,tourbanresidents,toconservationorganizationmembers(ReadingandKellert,1993).Inthispaperwe   comparesuburbanresidentsin   differenthous-ingdensities,hypothesizingthatmostperi-urbanresidentschoosetoliveclosertonatureatleastin   part,becausetheyvaluetheenvi-ronment.Thekoaladoesnot   posethesamethreatstolivelihoodsaslargecarnivoressuchaswolves,sothereisnoutilitarianreasonfornegativeattitudes,althoughregulatoryrestrictionsassociatedwithkoalasmay   havesomeinfluence.Forthisreason,wepredictedthatourresultsmightdifferfrompreviousresearch.Athirdgroupof    variableslookedatsocialdemographics(income,education,age,andgender),whichcanplayanimpor-tantroleinthevaluationofwildlifeandoftenactasbehavioralpredictors(Loyd&Miller,2010;Mankin,Warner,&Anderson,1999).AccordingtoDeruiterandDonnelly(2002),   acrossvariedcircumstances,genderhasbeenrecognizedasoneof    themostsig-nificantdemographicvariablesaffectingattitudestowardwildlifeandmanagement.Thoughtheimportanceofgenderwasoftennotverbalizedinsurveys,itremainsa   keyaspectof    valueori-entations(Deruiter&Donnelly,2002).Femalesaremorelikely toseetheintrinsicvalueofecosystemsandwildlife(utilitarian-habitatvalue,estheticvalue)(Hill,Carbery,&   Deane,2007)andweremorelikelyto   displayinterestinwildlifeinteraction,educa-tionregardingnatureconservationandloveof    animals,butwerealsomorelikelytofearwildlifethanweremen(Miller&McGee,2000).A   studyonthehumandimensionsof    PossumconflictinAustralia,founda   significantdifferencein   residentbeliefinthe‘intrinsicvalueof    possums’basedonage(31–59or>60)(Hilletal.,2007).Researchalsosuggeststhattheperceiveddegreeof endangerment,likeability,attractiveness,charismaticnatureandhuman-likecharacteristicsof    a   speciesareallimportantaspectsof thepublic’saffectiontowardaspeciesandtheirwillingnessto   sup-porttheirconservation(Tisdell&Nantha,2007).Theextentofan individual’sknowledgein   relationtoa   specieshasa   directeffectonthedemandtoconserveandsustainthat   species(Tisdell&Wilson,2006).Knowledgeofthreatsdoesnotnecessarilyleadto   greaterconservation(McKenzie-Mohr,Lee,Schultz,&Kotler,2012),butit doeshelpdeterminea   baselineof    educationalawarenessthatcanbebuiltuponandexpanded.Evidencealsosuggeststhatpromotingpositivebehaviorsis   morelikelytoprovokechange(Schultz,2011). 2.Materialsandmethods  2.1.Studyarea Thestudywas   carriedoutin   SoutheastQueensland,Australiain   thecommunitiesofElanoraandCurrumbinWaterswithintheGoldCoastLocalGovernmentArea(Fig.2).   Thestudyareaislocated38km   southof    Brisbaneandtheregionisexperiencingrapidurbandevelopment.ProjectionsindicatethattheGoldCoastwillcon-tinuetogrowatanaveragerateof3.6%peryear,increasingfromthecurrentpopulationof536,000toover730,000residentsby2026.Thestudyareahasanaveragedensityof    1300residents/km 2 (AustralianBureauof    Statistics,2011)withapopulationof11,645in   Elanoraand8883inCurrumbinWaters(AustralianBureauof Statistics,2011b).ElanoraandCurrumbinWatersaresomeof    thefewareasremainingin   southeastQueenslandthatstillhavearelativelylargepopulationof    urbankoalas(GCCC,2011).Thevegetationconsists predominantlyof    eucalyptwoodlandandopen-forest,but   hasbeenheavilymodifiedandisthereforeclassifiedas‘OfConcern’(DepartmentofEnvironment,2010).Itisalsopart   of    alargerbiore-gionalcorridor,connectingrelativelyintactremnantvegetationinthewesttocoastalvegetationin   theeast(Chenoweth,2010).TheElanoraandCurrumbinWaters’areais   thefocusof    theGoldCoastCityCouncil’sconservationeffortsaspartof    a   newKoalaConservationPlanforthearea.Thereis   amixof    denseurbansettlementsandlarger,morevegetatedperi-urbanpropertiesattheoutskirts.Awildlife‘friendly’eco-villagein   theCurrumbinValleywasincorporatedintothestudyalthoughitsupportsaminimalnumberof    koalas.Thegoalwasto   compareconservationviewsbetweenresidentsof    differentlocationswithinthesamecom-munityandtheiraccessibilitytoandknowledgeof    localkoalapopulations.  2.2.Surveydesignandquestionnaire During2012,door-to-doorsurveyingwas   carriedoutinsubur-banareasofElanoraandperi-urbanareasof    CurrumbinWatersandCurrumbinValley.Basedonthepopulationnumbersgivenaboveandanaveragehouseholdsizeof    2.65,therewereapproximately7500housesinthestudyarea(AustralianBureauof    Statistics,2011b).We   visitedapproximately334homes(4.5%of    theesti-matednumberof    households),with102completedinterviews.Wechosetouseface-to-facesurveyswitha   mix   of    openandclosedquestionstoallowparticipantstoexpandupontheirresponses,generatinga   morein-depthunderstandingof    theirattitudes(Doyle,  N.Shumwayetal./LandscapeandUrbanPlanning126   (2014)42–52 45 Fig.2. Map   ofthestudysiteshowingtheGoldCoastLocalGovernmentAreainsouth-eastQueenslandandresidentialareaswheresurveyswerecarriedout:(a)   suburban,(b)   peri-urban,and(c)eco-village(baseimagefromGoogleEarth).Koalasightingsareshownaswhitedots(source:GoldCoastCityCouncilandWildcare,QueenslandGovernment). 2005).Althoughtheuseofface-to-facesurveystook   moretimethanmailortelephonesurveys,theadditionalinformationprovidedvaluabledatabutresultedinalowerthanidealsamplesize.Giventheprimarypurposeofthesurveywastoexaminecommunityatti-tudesandknowledgeof    koalas,we   chosetotargetresidentsinareaswherekoalaswerereportedmostfrequently,basedonCoun-cilrecordsoflocalkoalasightings(Fig.2).Streetswereselectedat randomclosetokoalasightingsandwevisitedeachaccessiblefreestanding-houseonthatstreet.Respondentswerethenaskedtofilloutaquestionnaire(seeAppendix1).Thequestionnaireconsistedofbothmultiple-choiceandshortanswerquestionsandwas   designedtotakelessthantenmin-utesto   complete.Ouraimwasto   assesswhetherattitudestowardkoalasandwillingnesstoadaptbehaviorvariedaccordingto   placeof    residenceordemographicvariables.Datawas   collectedonthefollowingtopics:  A.Demographics :Informationonrespondents’gender,ageandlevelof    educationwerecollectedaswellasinformationonprop-ertysizeandlengthofresidency.Differencesin   demographicshaveprovedinfluentialinprevioushumandimensionof    wildlifestudies  46 N.Shumwayetal./    Landscapeand   UrbanPlanning126(2014)42–52 (Deruiter&Donnelly,2002;Hill   etal.,   2007;Loyd&Miller,2010;Mankinetal.,1999). B.Residents’attitudestowardandknowledgeaboutkoalas,includingknowledgeofthreats: Residentswereaskediftheyhadseenorreportedkoalasightingsonorneartheirresidence,andtoshareanydetailsof    thesesightings.Thequestionnairealsorequesteddetailsofresidents’attitudeinrespectto   koalasandkoalaconservationpolicy.Respondentswerepresentedwith13statementsregardingkoalasandaskedthedegreetowhichtheyagreedordisagreedonafive-pointLikertscale,1–4beinga   scaleofstronglyagreetostronglydisagreeand5beingneutral(SeeAppendix1).Thestatementscoveredaspectsof    livingwithkoalas,koalaconservationpolicyandtherightsof    nativewildlife.Respon-dentswerealsopresentedwitha   listof    threatstokoalas(e.g.,disease,vehiclecollisions,dogattacks)andaskedto   assessthelevelofthreatonacontinuumof    nottruetoverytrue(SeeAppendix1).Thiswasdonesothat   therespondents’perceptionof    theimpor-tanceofeachthreatcouldbeidentifiedrelativetoanotherforeachrespondent.Aself-assessmentofresidents’knowledgetowardkoalasintheirneighborhood,cityandthroughoutthestatewas   alsoincludedinthequestionnaire. C.Possibleactionstomitigatethreats :Respondentswereaskedviamultiplechoicequestions,aboutthereasonstheyval-uedthepresenceof    koalasin   theircommunity,dogownershipandwheredogswerekeptbetweenduskanddawn,whenkoalaactiv-ityisatitshighest.Residentswerealsoaskedhowlikelytheyweretoparticipateorsupporta   rangeofkoalasconservationaction(e.g.,communityconservationgroup,nativevegetationrestoration,roadcontrolmeasuresin   koalahabitatareas),onafour-pointscalefromhighlyunlikelytohighlylikely.  2.3.Statisticalanalysis QuestionnaireresponseswerecollatedusingaMicrosoftExceldatabase(ExcelforMac,version14.0.2).PrincipalComponentAnalysis(PCA)wasperformedusing‘R’StatisticalComputing(R DevelopmentCoreTeam,2012)onthirteenLikertscalestatements(seeQ9inAppendix1)thatexaminedattitudestowardkoalacon-servationandeightactionstatements(seeQ15inAppendix1)thatexaminedthelikelihoodof    participatinginconservationbehaviortoidentifyanymajorcomponentsthat   may   accountforvariationinresponses.PrincipalComponentAnalysiswasusedtoanalyzetheLikertscaledataasitexplainsthemaximumpossiblevariancewiththefewestpossiblecomponents.ThereliabilityofeachcomponentwasanalyzedwithCronbach’salphaandGuttman’sLambda6.   AnycomponentswithanEigenvaluegreaterthanonewereanalyzedfurtherusingAnalysisof    Variance(ANOVA)to   determineifthedatagroupsvariedsignificantly.Eachsignificantcomponentwasalsoanalyzedagainstresidentdemographics(e.g.,age,gender,educa-tion),koalaactivityandknowledgeofkoalaconservation.Modelfitwasverifiedusingstandarddiagnosticplotssuppliedby‘R’(“resid-ualsversusfittedvalues”and“qqnorm”).Effectsize,ameasureof thepracticalimportanceof    asignificantrelationship,wasmeasuredusingeta( r  2 )   as r  2 /(1   − r  2 ),in   ordertodeterminewhethereffectsizewasminimal(.100),typical(.243)or   substantial(.371)(Vaske,Gliner,&Morgan,2002).Whensignificantdifferenceswereiden-tified,posthoc T  -testsrevealedthesourceof    thesignificance.ABonferronicorrectionwasappliedto   thethreepairwise T  -testsfromeachAnovatable(EV-PU,PU-SU,SU-EV),theresultofwhichwasthatonly  p -valuesbelow.017weredeemedsignificant. 3.   Results Oftheapproximately334households,102surveyswerecom-pleted(33%responserate).Suburban(SU)respondentsaccounted  Table1 Dogownershippercentagesandlocationatnight.VariableQ13.DogownershipSuburbanPeri-urbanDog46%63%VariableQ14.Doglocation(night)%SuburbanPeri-urbanInside38%   67%Restrictedareaoutside 24% 12%Roamfreelyoutside 38%21% for n =   34responses,peri-urban(PU) n =38andeco-village(EV) n =30.  3.1.Demographics Femalesaccountedformorethanhalfof    questionnaireresponses( n =   56).Theageof    respondentsrangedfrom18toover70,with82%( n =84)betweentheagesof    31–70.Most(64%)resi-dentsindicatedtheyhadseenkoala(s)onor   neartheirproperty(SU, n =   16;PU, n =   35;EV, n =   14).LengthofresidencywithintheElanora,CurrumbinWatersareavariedconsiderably,with20%of respondentslivingin   theareaforlessthanoneyear,44%for1–10years,31%for11–30yearsand4%forover30years.  3.2.Petownership Ofthe72suburbanandperi-urbanrespondents,68%reportedpetownership(Table1).Residentsof    theeco-villageare   notallowedpetsandwereexcludedfromanalysisinthissection.Of the65residentswho   haveseenkoalasonorneartheirproperty,48%owneddogs.  3.3.Knowledgeofkoalas Respondentswereaskedto   ratetheirlevelofknowledgeaboutkoalasin   theirown   suburb,ontheGoldCoastandacrossQueens-land,aswellastheirknowledgeof    thethreatsfacingkoalapopulations.Themajoritystatedtheyhadan‘average’knowledgeofkoalasintheirlocalitybutknew‘verylittle’aboutkoalaselse-whereinthestate(Fig.3a).Allresidentialareasconsideredhabitat clearingandhousingdevelopmenttobethetwo   mosturgentthreatstokoalasurvival,whilediseasewas   scoredastheleastseriousthreat.Bothsuburbanandperi-urbanresidentsbelievedcarsto   bemorethreateningto   koalapopulationsthandogs,thougheco-villageresidentsfounddogsmoreof    a   threat(Fig.3b).  3.4.Attitudestowardkoalasandkoalaconservation Thescreeplotandeigenvaluescores(equaltoorgreaterthan1)fromPCAwereusedextractfourfactorswhichaccountedformostof    thevariationwithintheresponsestotheLikertscaleattitudestatements(seeQ9   in   Appendix1)fromthequestionnaire(Table2).Twofactors,accountingfor47%of    variancewereanalyzedfurtherusinganalysisof    varianceandlinearregressionmodeling.PriortoPCAanalysis,theorderoftheLikertscalein   thequestion-nairewas   reversedtorangefrom1(stronglyagree)to   4(stronglydisagree).Therefore,foraccurateinterpretation,scoresthatarepositivereflectdisagreementwiththestatement,whilescoresthatare   negativereflectagreementwiththestatement.Component1accountedfor27%ofvariationwithintheattitudestatements(Table2).Thestatementscorrelatedwiththiscomponentdescribed anindividual’spositiveattitudetowardkoalaconservation.This
Search
Similar documents
View more...
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks