| dc.description.abstract | As bear populations across the globe are increasing, bears and humans are being
brought together more frequently and often into conflict. Because of this rise in human
bear conflicts, it is becoming more crucial to understand public attitudes towards bears
and management interventions. Management methods vary in effectiveness and public
support, further complicating the management of bears and other large carnivores.
Without proper understanding of public attitudes towards bears and specific management
actions, conflict can ensue between stakeholders and managers, leading to a dissolution in
social trust and management support. To address this need, I conducted a quantitative
study in two phases, (1) a meta-analysis examining public attitudes towards bears and
their management and human-bear conflict from studies around the world and (2) an
online survey of students at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, as they will
become the next stakeholders and policymakers. I sought to assess the local and global
differences in public attitudes towards bears and their management and determine the
factors associated with these trends, including personal experience with bears, socio-cultural influences, and stakeholder group membership. Globally, attitudes towards bears
tended to be positive, with age, gender, education level, community type, knowledge of
bears, and experiences with bears most frequently found to have significant effects on
attitudes. Attitudes towards bears and towards specific management actions were also
often impacted by region and species of bear. Lethal management, policy, relocation, and
hunting were most regularly explored in management questionnaires. Support for
interventions was often framed in a specific situational context (e.g., an attack versus a
sighting), with many studies finding significant impacts of context on attitudes. Locally,
students were generally positive in their attitudes towards bears, and these results indicate
significant differences in attitudes based on bear species, home college, gender, and the
frequency of and type of experiences with bears. While the effects of gender, college, and
frequency of experiences with bears were fairly minimal, I found substantial effects of
experience type on attitudes towards bears. Further, I found that support for specific
management actions differed based on attitudes towards bears themselves, in addition to
home college, stakeholder group affiliation, gender, experiences with bears, and the
human-bear conflict context. As in the meta-analysis, student support for more intensive
management actions tended to increase with the severity of the human-bear conflict.
Further supported by the findings of both the meta-analysis and survey, attitudes towards
bears and their management held by members of the public can be quite complex and
diverse, thus it is essential to consider the social, experiential, and contextual variables as
potential drivers of attitudes. This thesis reinforces the importance of experience on
attitudes, the need to consider the situational context when evaluating support for
management actions, and potential points for broader public outreach and education to
better inform the public of management actions. | en_US |
