SOCIAL SCIENCE

RESEARCH REVIEW VOLUME 4, NUMBER 1 SUMMER 2003

Wildlife-Human Interactions in National Parks in and the USA

Dr. Alistair J. Bath, Memorial University of Dr. Jody W. Enck, Cornell University

support and understanding of the various publics Abstract interested in national parks and their management.

The chance to view wildlife draws millions of visi- Various national laws in both Canada and tors each to the national parks of North the United States of America (USA) provide a legal America. The combination of a large number of context for understanding and managing wildlife- people and abundant wildlife leads to a variety of human interactions in national parks. The Canadian wildlife-human interactions. In this paper we ex- National Parks Act (1930) does not directly deal with plore the nature of those wildlife-human interac- wildlife-human interactions. It does state, however, tions, theoretical frameworks social scientists are that “parks are dedicated to the people of Canada using to understand those interactions, and ap- for their benefit, education and enjoyment…and proaches used by national parks across North shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave America to manage those interactions. them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future genera- tions” ( Agency 2000). In addition, the act grants the field unit manager the power to make Introduction and Scope regulations for “the protection of wild animals and the disposal of noxious, predatory or superabundant North American national parks provide some animals.” In Canada, national park regulations also of the best opportunities to meet public desires for permit the field unit manager to regulate access to viewing wildlife and enjoying the sounds of nature areas to protect wildlife, prohibit the feeding of wild- (Driver et al. 1991). The “bear jams” that result in life in national parks, and to set garbage regulations. places like Yellowstone National Park are continued These park managers also have the authority to con- evidence of people’s fascination with wildlife trol animals deemed dangerous to human safety (e. (Compton 1994). However, close proximity of people g., supporting the removal of problem bears), and to and wildlife in national parks leads to interactions control and dispose of surplus animals deemed that can pose threats and/or direct injury to the wild- harmful to the natural environment (e.g., white- life species people come to enjoy. Some interactions tailed deer in Point Pelee National Park, also result in human injury, death, and property dam- Ontario). age. National park managers are faced in part with the difficult tasks of providing opportunities for visi- Similarly, the U.S. National Park Service tors to enjoy and learn about wildlife, protecting (NPS) has a broad policy that allows for the manage- wildlife from visitors, protecting visitors from wild- ment of animals and plants and their environment to life, protecting rare plants and forested ecosystems minimize human interference. The NPS will not al- from wildlife, and making all these decisions with the low activities that “…present a clear danger to pub-

WILDLIFE-HUMAN INTERACTIONS 1 lic health and safety” (Aguirre and Starkey 1994). to: 1) emphasis on prevention or minimization of in- NPS policy states, “the saving of human life will take teractions that may be perceived by park staff as precedence over all other management actions.” negative; 2) a narrow definition of negative interac- Generally, park policies in the USA seem aimed more tions as prevention or minimization of interactions at preventing direct wildlife-human interactions than that may be perceived by park staff as negative; and facilitating other forms of interaction. Similar to the (3) facilitation of positive interactions in relatively Canadian system, USA national park superintendents controlled situations. This interpretation is sup- have a great degree of latitude in interpreting policies ported by gaps occurring in the published literature and choosing management actions to address the about wildlife-human interactions in national parks, unique conditions of the area. especially in the limited amount of research about positive “human dimensions” of interactions other Although legislation in both the USA and than viewing enjoyment. Canada protects people from wildlife, legislation to protect wildlife from people and to restore endan- The field of human dimensions in wildlife gered wildlife appears stronger in the USA than in management focuses on understanding how people Canada. In Canadian national parks, wilderness value wildlife, on understanding public support or zones (zone two) are delineated in which human im- opposition to management actions, and on working pacts on wildlife may be reduced passively, but no with people who are affected by, or can affect, wild- national wilderness legislation exists. As of 2002, life decisions (Decker et al. 2001). Human- Parks Canada is discussing legislating wilderness dimensions insights, gained through the application zones in national parks. In contrast, the Wilderness of appropriate social science theory and methods, Act of 1964 in the USA directs federal land managers can enhance managers’ confidence that they are to actively minimize potential negative human im- making the best possible decisions to address wild- pacts on wildlife within any designated wilderness life-human interactions that occur in national parks. areas occurring in national parks. In addition, man- This is not to say that public attitudes should drive agers of national parks in the USA utilize the Endan- management decisions, but that a greater under- gered Species Act of 1973 to specifically protect rare standing of human perceptions of interactions with and threatened species and recover such species ac- wildlife, along with ecological knowledge and an un- tively, as seen, for example, with wolves in Yellow- derstanding of the various other human perspec- stone National Park (Bangs and Fritts 1996). Canada tives (e.g., social, institutional arrangements, eco- has only recently acquired in 2002 national endan- nomics, legal, and political) of natural resource man- gered species legislation (i.e., Species at Risk Legisla- agement can help managers make better decisions tion), and it is yet to be seen whether such legislation (Mitchell 1989) . can be used to actively recover species in national parks. Within Parks Canada, a new emphasis on In this paper, we review scientific literature “ecological integrity” strives to put protection of pertaining to wildlife-human interactions within the flora and fauna ahead of human uses (Parks Canada three categories mentioned above, using examples Agency 2000). However, such emphasis is merely a from Canadian and USA national parks. We then principle to guide management; there exists no present a classification scheme to aid managers’ con- equivalent to the much stronger legislation in the sideration of the social science aspects of these wild- USA. life-human interactions. Next, we discuss how an understanding of public values, attitudes, and beliefs These legal contexts and policy sideboards about wildlife-human interactions can provide man- for management in both countries seem to have influ- agers with insights to address potential conflicts be- enced research aimed at informing management ac- tween interest groups, and between interest groups tions to address wildlife-human interactions. Our and park managers, with respect to wildlife-human interpretation of these sideboards is that they lead interactions. We describe several social sci-

2 NPS SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH REVIEW SUMMER 2003 ence theories that have been applied to help under- cases of aggressive elk chasing and injuring visitors stand the human dimensions of wildlife-human inter- and local residents in the developed area of Lake actions and to prevent or resolve conflicts over the Louise, , Alberta. Research also management of these interactions. Finally, we de- has been aimed at understanding and addressing simi- scribe how public involvement techniques, an impor- lar wildlife-human conflicts within a region known as tant suite of human-dimensions tools, have been used the Three-Valley Confluence Area of Jasper National to collect data for making management decisions Park (AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. 2001, about wildlife-human interactions, to help make Bertwhistle 2000, 1998, Mattson those decisions, and to assist managers in implement- et al. 1995, Mercer and Purves 2000, Weaver et al. ing decisions. Throughout the paper, we share exam- 1996). Mountain lions, wolves, and bison also have ples of how national parks in Canada and the USA are stalked, pursued, or attacked park visitors (Riley and classifying and dealing with wildlife-human interac- Decker 2000, Braithwaite and McCool 1989, Linnell et tions, thus providing opportunities for managers to al. 2002). Medium-sized predators such as coyotes, network with other national parks managers regard- foxes, and bobcats also cause conflicts with people, ing their own wildlife-human interaction issues. especially in developed areas of parks (Gibeau 1993) or in parks near urban areas (Bounds and Shaw 1994, Harris et al. 1997). The bases of these conflicts usually The Nature of Wildlife-Human are either increased fear or perceived risk to human Interactions in the Literature safety or actual risk to pets (e.g., from coyotes). Other documented conflicts between wildlife and humans Wildlife-human interactions typically have include predators (e.g., coyotes, wolves, owls, and been categorized in one of three ways in the litera- hawks) killing visitors’ pets (Geary 2001), concern ture: 1) wildlife conflicting with people, 2) people en- about the transmission of disease to visitors, e.g., ra- joying wildlife, and 3) people harassing or negatively bies in bats, (LaFleur 1982) or to livestock near parks, affecting wildlife. Within each of these categories, e.g., brucellosis in bison (Agguire and Starkey 1994, various interest groups may perceive these interac- Inserro 1997). tions quite differently, resulting in people-people conflicts about the nature of the problem and subse- Perhaps the most frequent problems are not quent management action (Riley et al. 2002). caused by large animals but by insects, whose effects on humans and human installations range from mere Wildlife Conflicting with People aggravation (e.g., mosquitoes and black flies) to possi- ble death for certain park visitors (e.g., from wasp and Conflicts can be as minor as an inconven- bee stings). Insects attack ornamental trees, invade ience for humans (e.g., ground squirrels, skunks, and buildings, and in extreme cases can cause serious dam- raccoons eating food in campgrounds), as major as age to visitor installations or plantation trees (Lafleur human injury or death (e.g., from mountain lions or 1982). In LaMauricie National Park in Quebec park grizzly bears), or they can involve a perception that managers reported that the greatest number of com- humans are at increased risk of injury or death (e.g., plaints were about insects, followed by birds (LaFleur moose-vehicle collisions). The most visible conflicts 1982). Defecation by nesting birds (e.g., starlings, occur between humans and large mammals such as sparrows, and swallows) damages buildings “...and bears, other carnivores, and ungulates (AXYS Envi- give rise to significant maintenance costs and some- ronmental Consulting Ltd. 2001, Kuss et al. 1990, times embarrassing situations” (LaFleur 1982). Wellman 1987, Wright 1992). Conflicts between peo- In some cases visitors may intentionally get ple and large wildlife occur both in wilderness areas too close to animals to view or photograph them, pre- of parks and in developed areas. For example, Hem- senting a management problem that could possibly mera Resource Consultants Ltd. (1999) documented be solved through better education efforts. In other

WILDLIFE-HUMAN INTERACTIONS 3 cases, visitors have been unsuspecting victims of at- feeding milk to deer fawns in Yellowstone National tacks, a management problem requiring both educa- Park and establishing bear feeding/viewing stations tion about wildlife behavior as well as public under- in Yosemite and Yellowstone national parks in the standing and acceptance of possible closures and 1920s where national park rangers interpreted bear removal of problem animals. For example, the ma- behavior to visitors (Compton 1994, Wright 1992). jority of elk and human conflicts in Jasper National Today, feeding of any wildlife inside a national park Park have occurred in and around the town site and in Canada or the USA is strictly prohibited. campgrounds. Parks Canada, as part of a community action plan to reduce human-elk conflicts (e.g., risk Some management changes occurred in re- perception from goring and vehicle collisions), relo- sponse to public and park staff concerns about hu- cated 211 elk during the winters of 1998-99 and 1999- man health and safety issues associated with what 2000 (AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. 2001). previously may have been promoted as a positive (e.g., viewing) experience. In 1967, National Some wildlife-human conflicts are indirect in Park in the USA experienced its first fatal grizzly that they are associated with wildlife-habitat interac- bear-inflicted attacks; two women were killed within tions. For example, control of white-tailed deer a 24-hour period by different grizzly bears (Herrero populations in eastern USA national parks has been and Higgins 1999). Additional dangerous interac- done to protect the forested ecosystems that the pub- tions between bears and humans in national parks lic values (Porter 1991, Warren 1991). Also, managers and protected areas were documented at about the in Point Pelee National Park in Ontario carried out a same time (Moment 1968a, 1969, 1970; Herrero white-tailed deer cull to protect the native Carolinian 1970a, 1970b, Mundy and Flook 1973). Serious inci- forest, an important habitat for birds and one of the dents between bears and humans, i.e., bears physi- key attributes leading to the park’s establishment. cally contacting people, charging people, damaging Habitat degradation by burros in Grand Canyon Na- property or food, or people taking evasive action tional Park in Arizona was one reason for burro con- from a bear (Albert and Bowyer 1991), apparently in- trol programs in the 1970s (Behan 1978). Other indi- creased in North American national parks until gar- rect wildlife-human conflicts have been associated bage-management techniques were improved and with wildlife-wildlife interactions. For example, ad- other actions taken to minimize human use of areas vocates of piping plover restoration have called for frequented by bears (Mattson et al. 1996, McLellan the trapping of foxes that prey on plovers and their et al. 1999, Ream 1979). While never as high as in the nests. USA, injury rates in the Canadian Rocky Mountain parks also decreased with better garbage and food Analysis of similar kinds of wildlife-human management (Herrero and Higgins 1999). All na- interactions over time, and the management actions tional parks with bears have management plans that directed at addressing these interactions, seems to address safety issues by either influencing bear be- indicate that management efforts by park staff reflect havior, e.g., through removal, relocation, or aversive policies to eliminate certain kinds of interactions as a conditioning (Rancourt 1998, Clark et al. 2002) or way of minimizing wildlife-human conflicts. Some influencing human behavior, e.g., by closing areas to management actions that historically may have pre- human use, requiring minimum group sizes when sented national parks as “wildlife zoos” were hiking in bear country (Albert and Bowyer 1991, changed to present national parks more as wild eco- Sherwonit 1996, White et al. 1999), enforcing clean systems (Compton 1994; Wright 1992). For example, campsites through fines, and confiscating coolers. management actions that may have promoted close Enjoyment of Wildlife by People contact by people and wildlife eventually were dis- continued, apparently to minimize the potential for At least since the early 1990s, national park wildlife-human conflicts. These actions included managers have attempted to provide opportunities

4 NPS SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH REVIEW SUMMER 2003 to view bears and other wildlife in controlled situa- (noting that even within species some animals can tions to minimize potentially dangerous encounters become habituated to human activity), and along a between people and wildlife, minimize wildlife continuum from short-term effects (e.g., short-term harassment, and enhance public enjoyment of wild- displacement, increased heart rate, nest abandon- life (Clayton and Mendelsohn 1993). Park visitors ment) to long-term effects, including death. Knight also seek out and engage in informal, uncontrolled and Gutzwiller (1995) reported a variety of human opportunities to view or photograph wildlife to en- effects on wildlife, including impacts on nesting hance their enjoyment. Huge economic impacts of birds, deer, wolves, manatees, raptors, and bighorn wildlife-related recreation have been documented sheep. Pomerantz et al. (1988) developed a classifica- through national surveys completed in Canada tion scheme to assess the impacts of recreation on (Federal-Provincial-Territorial Task Force 2000) and wildlife. While most of this research has been done the USA (USDI 1993), with a large amount of such in areas outside of national parks, we assume visitors wildlife-viewing activities occurring in national parks. to national parks and protected areas have similar These wildlife-human interactions are positive from a effects on wildlife, whether intentionally or uninten- human perspective (i.e., economically and in terms of tionally. Research from Banff National Park (Paquet wildlife-enjoyment benefits), whether the activity is et al. 1996) and Jasper National Park in Canada bird watching in Point Pelee National Park (AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. 2001) support (Hvenegaard et al. 1989) or whale watching in Sague- this assumption, having documented effects of vari- nay-St. Lawrence Marine Park (Gilbert and Saguenay- ous human activities on gray wolves, grizzly bears, St. Lawrence Marine Park 1998). Auditory wildlife- elk, and bighorn sheep. human interactions, such as the popular wolf howling programs in Algonquin Provincial Park (Strickland Harassment includes events that cause ex- 1983) and the enjoyment people experience listening citement and/or stress, disturbance of essential ac- to elk bugle in the fall in many western national parks tivities, severe exertion, displacement, and some- in the USA and Canada (Compton 1994), are further times death of wildlife (Ream 1979). Some forms of examples of positive wildlife-human interactions. harassment are intentional, as when visitors try to elicit a response from wildlife by chasing or throwing Effects on Wildlife of Harassment by People objects at them (Wright 1992). Sometimes harass- ment is unintentional. For example, use of motor- National park managers in Canada manage ized off-road vehicles (e.g., snowmobiles, jet skis, wildlife resources based upon the principle of eco- helicopter over-flights) can displace animals, in- logical integrity (Parks Canada Agency 2000), and creasing their home range and affecting their pat- USA national park policies emphasize minimization terns of activity (Cottereau 1972, Freddy et al. 1986, of human impacts on wildlife. The notion that the King and Workman 1986, Kuss et al. 1990). Removal impacts of humans should be at most minimal may be of woody debris for firewood and ornamental uses one reason why a large body of literature has focused by visitors and staff in Point Pelee National Park re- on identifying impacts people have on wildlife (e.g., duced habitat available for five-lined skinks, which Bertwhistle 2000, Dobson 2000, Mercer et al. 2000, use woody debris as refuge sites (Hecnar and Mercer and Purves 2000, Purves and Doering 1999). McCloskey 1995, 1998). Local pet store operators Boyle and Samson (1985), upon reviewing 166 articles collected skinks from Point Pelee National Park, not on the effects of non-consumptive outdoor recrea- realizing the collection of species within a national tion on wildlife, concluded that in 81% of the re- park was illegal (Hecnar and McCloskey 1995, 1998). viewed studies, humans were negatively impacting Hood and Parker (2001) found that human activities, wildlife. The degree of impact varied by recreation including increased trail use by people, had negative activity (e.g., cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, impacts on habitat suitability for grizzly bears. Simi- motor boating, canoeing, photography), by species larly, heavy traffic volume on roads can modify

WILDLIFE-HUMAN INTERACTIONS 5 movement and feeding patterns of some wildlife (1988), Woods (1990), Shury (1996), and Clevenger (Mattson et al. 1987, Mattson 1990). For example, in and Waltho (2000) have explored the effectiveness Denali National Park, moose were found to avoid ar- of underpasses and fences to reduce wildlife mortal- eas with high road traffic volume, but “caribou and ity. Clevenger and Waltho (2000) suggest that un- grizzly bear distribution indicated no pattern of traf- derpasses can prove useful in reducing mortality, but fic avoidance” (Yost and Wright 2001). there are many factors that influence the effective- ness of structural fixes. Wildlife mortality on roads and rail lines in national parks has long been recognized as an impor- Managers have benefited from understand- tant negative wildlife-human interaction. Wildlife- ing both human behaviors that lead to wildlife- vehicle collisions in parks cause thousands of dollars vehicle collisions and acceptance of slowing down of damage, numerous human injuries, and some hu- and being more vigilant while driving (Bath 1997, man deaths each year (Conover et al. 1995). In west- Romin and Bissonnette 1996). While speed zone re- ern Canada, where park establishment was linked ductions in Jasper National Park from 90 to 70km/hr purposefully to economic development, wildlife rou- in key areas used for daily and seasonal migrations tinely are killed along major highways and rail lines of elk reduced the rate of increase in elk mortalities running through some of the Rocky Mountain na- over a three-year period, bighorn sheep mortalities tional parks (Hatler 1979). “In some , the com- were in fact higher in 70km/hr zones than 90km/hr bined kill of moose and deer from collisions with ve- zones (AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. 2001, hicles and trains probably exceeds the hunter kill for Bertwhistle 2000). Lighted and animated warning some local herds” (Hatler 1979). Jasper National signs, reflectors, fencing, public awareness, and pri- Park managers have been particularly concerned with vate cooperation with particular interest groups have the large number of mortalities of elk, white-tailed all been used with various degrees of success in re- deer, mule deer, wolves, grizzlies, and black bear in ducing vehicle and train collisions with wildlife the Yellowhead Highway along the Miette and Atha- (AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. 2001, Romin baska River valleys, the paralleling Canadian National and Bissonnette 1996). Targeted working initiatives rail line, and Highway #93 south along the Athabaska with interest groups could be particularly effective. River. Significant numbers of wildlife, including elk, For example, as truck traffic in Jasper National Park grizzly, and black bear, are killed along the rail line, is responsible for a disproportionately high percent- frequently in association with grain spills (AXYS En- age of wildlife kills, communication with truck com- vironmental Consulting Ltd. 2001, Bertwhistle 2000). panies could prove useful. Likewise, ensuring that Other species killed by vehicles or trains in national Canadian National Railway (CNR) expediently cleans parks include bighorn sheep (Van Tighem 1981) and grain spills along its lines could reduce collisions moose (Bertwhistle 2000, The Ungulate Ecology with bears and elk (AXYS Environmental Consulting Group 1988). Ltd. 2001).

In 1982, Damas and Smith (1982) reported the From a wildlife perspective, the loss of ani- significant amounts of wildlife mortality in transpor- mals from the local population due to highway kills tation corridors in Canada’s national parks, and since or other human impacts may represent a threat to then research has focused on reducing such wildlife- ecological integrity, particularly where species of vehicle collisions. Heap (1987) began to explore high management concern and low reproductive ca- mechanisms to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions in pacity are involved (AXYS Environmental Consulting Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba in the late Ltd. 2001). For example, Jasper National Park man- 1980s; however, most of the research and search for agers have a specific goal to maintain <1% human- solutions remains concentrated within the Rocky caused mortality for grizzly bears and wolves, species Mountain region (Poll 1989, Romin and Bissonnette that have low recruitment and/or high vulnerability 1996, Ruediger et al. 1999, Clevenger 2000). Bradford

6 NPS SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH REVIEW SUMMER 2003 to human-caused mortality (Jasper National Park - 1990). Harris et al. (1995) showed that disturbance Parks Canada 2000). From a human perspective, re- by visitors to Saguaro National Park in Arizona in- ducing wildlife-human conflicts is consistent with creased mortality of desert bighorn sheep. In gen- park mandates in Canada and the USA that empha- eral, data are lacking about whether people recog- size public safety. nize the effects of these interactions and whether they believe those effects are important (i.e., either The problem of wildlife-vehicle collisions is beneficial or detrimental in some way). not limited to just large mammals and the Rocky Mountain National Park complex. Bernardino and Management Approaches to Dalrymple (1992) documented road mortality of snakes, and while such mortality does not cause the Wildlife-Human Interactions same degree of damage to vehicles, it can have signifi- cant impacts on local populations. However, no Park managers address harassment of wild- studies exist that focus on human perceptions of life, wildlife conflict with people, and enjoyment of these collisions and their effects on wildlife. wildlife through a variety of management actions, including public-involvement approaches, imple- Boating activities can disturb birds with menting trail and area closures, and actively reduc- floating nests, making the nests vulnerable to damage ing wildlife populations. For example, the phenome- and the birds susceptible to stress (Kuss et al. 1990). nal growth since the 1980s in whale-watching activi- Stolley et al. (1999) documented reduced nest success ties within the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park and gosling survival for Canada geese due to human region and the concern over potential harassment of disturbance at Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge marine life resulted in Parks Canada managers, busi- in Utah. In addition, rock climbing at Joshua Tree ness interests, and other interest groups working to- National Park has disturbed nests of cliff-nesting gether through a facilitated approach to design a set birds, although the effect on survival of fledglings was of guidelines for whale-watching activities (Gilbert uncertain (Camp and Knight 1998). On the Maligne and Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park 1998). To River in Jasper National Park, canoeists displaced effectively understand and address snowmobiling harlequin ducks (Smith 2000) until commercial raft- issues in , Parks Canada ing on the river was banned by Parks Canada in the and representatives of local communities worked late 1990s. Watercraft in Voyageurs National Park in together toward a common vision and set of core Minnesota were found to reduce nesting success of values through a series of facilitated workshops pro- bald eagles (Grubb et al. 2002). Bald eagles were also ducing a set of guidelines for that activity. The proc- negatively affected in Grand Canyon National Park, ess not only addressed concerns about wildlife- Arizona by human activity along the Colorado River human interactions, but also built trust and credibil- (Brown and Stevens 1997). Along the beaches in ity between the park and local communities. Nova Scotia and in Prince Edward Island National Park, Flemming et al. (1988) documented various im- Closing areas to people has been a tradi- pacts on piping plovers, an endangered shorebird tional approach to minimizing impact on wildlife. species, including an energy deficit in chicks that Parts of Yellowstone National Park (e.g., backcoun- made them more susceptible to inclement weather try areas near Dunraven Pass) are permanently and predation, thereby reducing fledging success. closed to visitors to reduce human-grizzly interac- Beach-goers also disrupted colonization of new tions. Closing specific during sensitive breed- beaches by northern elephant seals at Point Reyes ing times is another form of management to help National Seashore in California (Allen 1999). Various protect wildlife from people (Flemming et al. 1992). species of wildlife have choked on or been poisoned The James Callaghan Trail in Gros Morne National by campground litter, and camping activities have Park is closed in the spring during the breeding pe- collapsed burrows and suffocated animals (Kuss et al. riod for ptarmigan. Nevertheless, closing areas to

WILDLIFE-HUMAN INTERACTIONS 7 people to reduce conflicts with wildlife can be a con- voles, short-tailed shrews, and white-footed mice. troversial and time-consuming process, as various Some people value the protection of all wildlife and interest groups value wildlife differently. Closing believe that humans should not affect even rodents Fishing Bridge Campground in Yellowstone National inside a national park, while for other people, ro- Park to protect grizzly bears took many years beyond dents have no value or importance. Some people the initial realization that the campground was lo- weigh the benefits of seeing other wildlife via snow- cated in prime grizzly habitat. These cases illustrate mobile as more important than the negative impact that while managers have tried to manage interac- of snowmobiling on rodents. Thus, management de- tions between wildlife and people directly, they also cisions aimed at addressing problems associated need to manage issues leading to those interactions, with wildlife-human interactions can be informed including the benefits people want from encounters greatly by understanding the human dimensions of with wildlife. these interactions and their various effects (Riley et al. 2002). A Classification System of Wildlife- Human Interactions Obviously, almost any wildlife-human inter- action could be classified as: 1) a conflict between Although we focus on wildlife-human inter- wildlife and humans, 2) enjoyment of wildlife by hu- actions in national parks, in a broader context we are mans, or 3) harassment of wildlife by humans. To discussing human-environment relationships that ex- help managers better consider how people may in- ist within national park settings and the need to inte- terpret differently and place varying levels of impor- grate the human component into natural resource tance on these interactions and their effects (Riley et management. Nepstead and Nilsen (1993) proposed a al. 2002), we present a conceptual framework with framework for understanding these broader human- four dimensions: environment relationships in Canadian national • Perspective - is the impact of the interaction parks, encouraging managers to think about and described or considered from the perspec- manage the interface of landscape/seascape/people tive of people or of wildlife? and processes. Our discussion of wildlife-human in- • Motivation - is the interaction intentional or teractions is consistent with this broader framework. unintentional? This should be considered Wildlife-human interactions and the bio- from the people’s perspective and from the physical effects associated with them do not inher- animals’ perspective (e.g., predatory behav- ently create wildlife-human conflicts. Conflicts occur ior or surprise encounter). because of differences among people’s values – differ- • Directness of the effect – is the effect direct ences in terms of which wildlife are deemed desirable (e.g., through visual, auditory, or olfactory vs. undesirable, in which human activities in parks cues) or indirect (e.g., snowmobiles leave are viewed as acceptable or unacceptable, and differ- trails that allow animals to move through the ences in how people interpret the biophysical effects area long after snowmobiles are gone)? of their activities. For example, Pruit (1971) suggested • Desirability of impact – is the interaction per- that compaction of snow by snowmobiles severely ceived as good or bad (e.g., seeing a bear on limits the subnivean movements of small mammals the trail while out backcountry hiking vs. and invertebrates. Neumann and Merriam (1972) go seeing a bear on the trail when out for morn- further by showing that compacted snow decreases ing exercise)? temperatures, significantly increasing metabolic rates Perspective dimension Any interaction can of the short-tailed shrew. Finally, Jarvinen and be considered from the perspective of either humans Schmid (1973) found that even moderate packing of a or wildlife. For example, consider people snow- field by snowmobiles resulted in 100% mortality of mobiling near a herd of bison during the winter. The the small mammal fauna, including meadow interaction may increase human satisfaction with their visit because their expectation for seeing

8 NPS SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH REVIEW SUMMER 2003 Table 1: Framework Re-Categorizing Wildlife-Human Interactions in National Parks

1) Perspective dimension People

Wildlife

2) Motivation dimension Intentional

Unintentional

3) Effect dimension Direct

Indirect

4) Impact dimension Desirable People: attitudinal (satisfaction, risk perception, fear, excitement, return visitation, tolerance, etc.) Wildlife: behavioral (mortality, survival, Undesirable movement, harassment, etc.)

wildlife is met. The interaction may also disturb the tively, they may visit a park for the purpose of hiking bison, increase their energetic demands, and decrease in the backcountry and may have an exhilarating ex- survival (Meagher 1989). The degree to which man- perience when a bear crosses the trail in front of agers take action to prevent or ameliorate these nega- them (secondary benefit). In the case of a bear en- tive effects on wildlife depends in part on whether tering a campground, the bear may be obtaining food managers or other groups believe these effects are purposefully, but may unintentionally cause a con- important enough to manage. flict from the perspective of people. A bear that pur- posively pulls a hiker out of a tent (predatory moti- Certain activities intended to facilitate or en- vation) is quite different from an attack motivated by hance positive interactions for humans can result in a surprising a sow with cubs on a trail. Similarly, moti-

variety of unintentional negative or positive encoun- vations among people may vary considerably, de- ters from the perspective of wildlife. For example, pending upon a variety of factors. use of off-road vehicles can allow visitors to get twice as close to nesting birds as people on foot (Cole and Various groups of visitors and other interest Knight 1991). Snowmobiles can serve a similar pur- groups affected by park management decisions pose in winter, allowing individuals easier access to sometimes disagree about management actions taken backcountry areas to view wildlife. However, the to minimize human safety risks. Some visitors wish compacted snow of snowmobile trails can adversely all bears and dangerous wildlife to be removed from affect mice and voles by reducing their ability to bur- their “pleasuring grounds;” others want close con- row in snow for insulation (Kuss et al. 1990). On the tact with animals, and many believe “...national other hand, some wildlife species, such as parks are not intended to be zoos without (Neumann and Merriam 1972) and bison (Meagher cages” (Wright 1992). These differences in motiva- 1989), may use the trails to increase their mobility. tions and values can lead to conflicts; thus, managers need to understand the various motivations and hi- Motivational dimension From the perspec- erarchy of values within the wildlife-recreation ex- tive of either people or animals, the cause of an inter- perience (e.g., for some people safety in the wilder- action may be intentional or unintentional. For ex- ness is more important than the exhilaration of hik- ample, people may intentionally set out to view wild- ing in grizzly bear country). life when visiting a park (primary benefit). Alterna-

WILDLIFE-HUMAN INTERACTIONS 9 Individuals may have a variety of motivations Any wildlife-human interaction might result for pursuing wildlife-recreation activities. For some in both positive and negative effects. The same per- individuals, it may be important to be with others and son may even interpret the effects in very different to reach specific goals of seeing certain species, while ways depending upon the motivations at the particu- for others seeking the quiet of the outdoors away lar time of the wildlife-human interaction and the from people and not being driven by any specific spatial context (where the interaction occurs). For achievement goals may be important. Understanding example, a local resident in Banff National Park is motivations helps park managers create experiences jogging alone along a trail for exercise. This same that will satisfy visitors and minimize conflicts be- person might also have a low tolerance for seeing tween various interest groups. McFarlane (1994) large animals at close distances. To see wildlife on found that experienced birdwatchers were more mo- that trail at that time may not be his/her motivation tivated by personal achievement (i.e., expanding for being there, thus encountering a large mammal knowledge and improving skills) than were casual near the trail could cause concern and result in a birdwatchers, who placed more importance on negative wildlife-human interaction. On the other appreciative issues, such as being in the outdoors. hand, the same individual on the same trail with his/ We further discuss issues of motivations, her family may at another time be seeking to view expectations, and satisfaction in the next section on wildlife, and seeing a large mammal under these social science approaches. circumstances could be positive. If however, the individual has a low tolerance of risk for large Effect dimension Wildlife-human interac- mammals, regardless of the situational context, the tions may have either direct or indirect effects on end result would be a negative interaction. Without people and/or animals. There may be immediate vis- social science research that understands the nature ual or physical contact, or there may be human influ- of behavior, an interpretation and subsequent ence on an animal’s surrounding habitat, which in management of the wildlife-human interaction is turn would somehow affect the animal itself. For ex- difficult. Encountering wildlife close to home or the ample, using snowmobiles may provide people campsite may be negative (e.g., bear in the backyard greater access to directly encounter wildlife visually. or campground), but seeing the same bear on a Grooming roads for snowmobiling in parks also may backcountry trail could be very rewarding. The harass animals and cause them to flee the area as spatial, temporal, and motivational context must be grooming occurs, but can provide subsequent understood to effectively evaluate the nature of the (indirect) access to additional foraging areas wildlife-human interaction. (Meagher 1989, Bjornlie and Garrott 2001). People’s previous experiences with wildlife Impact dimension From the perspective of may influence their evaluations of wildlife-human humans or wildlife the impact of a particular interac- interactions. For example, visitors to Great Smoky tion may be either desirable or undesirable. This is Mountains National Park who had previous bear- potentially the most complex dimension because a related experience perceived a lower risk from bears variety of behavioral indicators (by humans or wild- compared to those with no previous bear-related ex- life) or attitudinal indicators (humans) may be used perience (Pelton et al. 1981). Upon classifying the to assess or evaluate interactions. Wildlife-human nature of the wildlife-human interaction, various so- interactions can be evaluated as either desirable or cial science approaches can be used to understand undesirable depending on how people interpret the the issues and gain public acceptance of management effects associated with those interactions. The decisions. evaluation or assessment depends on the underlying attitudes and values of the people involved. People’s risk perception also influences their interpretation of a wildlife interaction as either positive or negative.

10 NPS SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH REVIEW SUMMER 2003 Social Science Approaches to Wildlife- options to address the wildlife-human interaction Human Interactions will increase the possibility of implementing a deci- sion with public support.

Social scientists often use one of two broad Human-dimensions or social science re- categories of theoretical approaches to examine the search can address these issues and offer managers human dimensions of wildlife-human interactions: data representative of the entire constituency to cognitive approaches examining attitudes and values make better decisions, but often such passive re- or motivational approaches used to understand and search will not resolve conflict. For conflict situa- predict human behavior (Decker et al. 2001). Within tions, an active human-dimensions approach utiliz- these two broad categories are a variety of specific ing a suite of public involvement tools are available conceptual frameworks that can be used to under- to help build trust and credibility between park staff stand the complex nature of wildlife-human interac- and various interest groups. In the next section, we tions (Table 2). Most of these frameworks have rarely outline briefly the nature of these social science re- been applied in national parks, but park managers search approaches and public involvement tools (see could use such frameworks to help articulate man- also Force and Forester 2002). agement decisions and determine the types of hu- man-dimensions data that might be useful in inform- Understanding Attitudes – A Fundamental ing those decisions (Decker et al. 2001). Concept in Social Science Research

For example, using a framework based on Assessing attitudes of various interest groups visitor motivations and behavioral intentions could toward wildlife species, interactions with those spe- help park managers understand and predict the types cies, and management options to address the inter- of interactions people are likely to have with wildlife actions can be useful for understanding public sup- (both intentional and unintentional) and whether port and opposition to management decisions. So- people are likely to recognize and place importance cial scientists typically divide attitudes into three on certain effects of those interactions. This infor- components (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975): 1) affective mation could help managers deliver more effective (i.e., liking or disliking the species), 2) cognitive (i.e., interpretive messages. In addition, park managers beliefs about the species that may or may not be could use an understanding of motivations to help true), and 3) behavioral intention (i.e., what people achieve better satisfaction among visitors by provid- or groups say they will do with respect to the spe- ing experiences that visitors desire. Park managers cies). Under well-defined conditions, these three fac- could also gauge public acceptance or tolerance of tors can be used to predict overt behavior – what certain wildlife-human interactions (e.g., do people people actually do. By formulating questions within perceive the interaction as desirable or unacceptable) each component, researchers are able to better un- by assessing attitudes toward the interactions. An derstand the human component of the wildlife- assessment of visitors’ risk perceptions also could human interaction. shed light on why an interaction is interpreted by visitors as tolerable or intolerable. Any of these con- For example, Bright and Manfredo (1996) ceptual frameworks could help managers investigate examined attitudes toward wolves and wolf restora- questions such as: 1) is the interaction an important tion in Colorado, beliefs about wolves, and behav- issue for people, and, if so, for which groups; and 2) ioral intentions to support or oppose restoration do people expect managers to take some action to measures. They then explained behavioral inten- prevent the interaction, or will they demand action to tions based on knowledge of people’s attitudes and facilitate the wildlife-human interaction under con- beliefs about wolves and the potential consequences trolled circumstances? If action is required, an un- of wolf restoration. Further examples of assessing derstanding of attitudes toward various management attitudes and beliefs include documentation of visi- tor attitudes toward grizzly bears in Glacier National

WILDLIFE-HUMAN INTERACTIONS 11

. ng interactions perceived as risky, or by trying to decrease decrease to trying by or risky, as perceived interactions ng associated withwildlife perceived population level. Percep- tand Wildlife-Human Interactions le do not recognize riskassociated with some kinds of interac- focusing on wildlifeon population management focusing the solution toas

Summary of Approaches Used to Unders Used of Approaches Summary

Table 2. Table Assumes increasing perceptions of risk are associated with increasing perceived likelihood of conflict and decreasing accep- decreasing and conflict of likelihood perceived increasing with are associated risk of perceptions increasing Assumes risk. the of tance Data collected using questionnaires. reduci by perception risk reduce to manage can one and this Know perceived riskthrough risk communication. Goodfor addressing wildlife-human interactions defined as conflict. Also can to developbe used help realistic perceptionsabout risk if peop tions. human to (risk set a narrow on and effects), positive (ignores interactions of effects negative overcoming on only Focuses en- “wildlife or “harassment” as defined interactions addressing for suitable Not interactions. negative of safety) and health joyment.” Assumesacceptance is basedtolerance on ofperceived problems tion of numbers ofpopulation one of is the mostimportant variables in predicting attitude toward managementoptions and the species.toward Data collected using questionnaires. Good for addressing“conflict.” Questionnaire can be designedto understandthe nature of the conflict (cognitive, value, value. additional adding behavioral), cost/benefits, Potential emphasis a biological to place on too much strategy “conflict.” the attentionOften pays onlyto upperlower level ignores and level of acceptance of acceptance, a modified question- however, naire approachcould get at this. • • • • • • • • • Strengths of approach Weaknesses of approach Strengths of approach Weaknesses of approach WildlifeApproach: Acceptance Capacity (WAC) Approach: Risk Perception

12 NPS SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH REVIEW SUMMER 2003 as

(cont.).

Wildlife-Human Interactions Wildlife-Human abstract thoughts (attitudes and values) to practical manage- practical values) to (attitudes and thoughts abstract ctives, and targetsand negotiations based upon principles. ed with increasingwith ed levels“wildlifeenjoyment.” of

of “conflict”or “harassment” interactions.

ooking at dissatisfaction (if greater than 15%). 15%). than (if greater at dissatisfaction ooking

Approaches Used to Understand Used Approaches

with Wildlife-Related Experiences

Table 2. Summary of 2. Summary Table various interests focusing upon common visions, goals, obje goals, visions, common upon focusing interests various Assumes that addressing human values (not wildlife populations per se) is the central mission of management. management. of mission central the is se) per populations wildlife (not values human addressing that Assumes questionnaires. through collected Data Mixture of peoples’tolerance of negative interactions and desirefor positive ones. Could be used for addressing “conflict,” “harassment,”“wildlife and enjoyment.” tested. extensively been has not methodology Survey Clearly defines groups asstakeholders, implying clear positions and position negotiations rather than considerationof groups Quantitative instrumentthat can allow managersto categorize individuals and groups into various attitudinal types. questionnaires. through collected Data Has beenwidely usedand tested.Attitudinal items have strong reliability estimates. specificallymanagement Does not address questions. of measurement the from insights transfer to difficult Sometimes decisions. ment Assumes increasing levels of satisfaction are associat questionnaires. using collected Data experienceParks have measuringmonitoring in and satisfaction levelswhilesatisfaction over time, levels are often and high, by l concept assess to begun parks have some Could be appropriateto address “wildlife enjoyment”interactions. May notbe as useful for examining the nature toVisitors state tend satisfaction with park facilities general.in high • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Strengths of approach Strengths of approach Weaknesses of Strengths of approach approach Strengths of approach Weaknesses of approach Strengths of approach Weaknesses of (WSAC) Capacity Acceptance Stakeholder Wildlife Approach: Approach: WildlifeValues Attitudes and Typologies(e.g., KellertTypology, WAVS) Approach: Visitor Satisfaction

WILDLIFE-HUMAN INTERACTIONS 13 Park, USA (Mahalic 1974), and the exploration by when it is integrated with biophysical data. Attitudi- Bath (1989, 1991) and Bath and Buchanan (1989) of nal assessments can also help park managers predict attitudes and beliefs of interest groups and the gen- where conflicts may occur over management actions. eral public in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho toward For example, while habitat outside a park may be wolf restoration in Yellowstone National Park. By very good from a biophysical perspective for recov- documenting the attitudes of the general public by ery of a certain species, attitudes may be so negative political unit (statewide samples in the three-state in that region that animals may be killed if they cross area) and by interest group (e.g., Wyoming Wildlife outside park boundaries, suggesting that park man- Federation, a group mainly consisting of hunters, agers consider other areas that have more positive Wyoming Stock Growers, livestock operators, and human attributes to ensure successful recovery of Defenders of Wildlife members) toward wolves and the species. An assessment of public attitudes to- wolf restoration, the Yellowstone study served a ward wolves in two provinces in France has helped variety of purposes. Political leaders in Montana, park managers of Mercantour National Park under- Wyoming, and Idaho had publicly stated their stand how people perceive wolves that live in areas opposition or support for wolf restoration, claiming surrounding the park and the likelihood of wildlife- they were speaking on behalf of their state human conflicts as wolves expand their range and constituents. For those politicians who truly wanted enter the cultural landscape of France (Bath 2000). to represent their constituents’ views, this research gave them an accurate assessment of their voters’ Several different attitude and value scales opinions. Further, by documenting the positions of have been used as a foundation for understanding interest groups with very differing views, it was how people are likely to react to various kinds of possible to define the attitudinal spectrum across a wildlife-human interactions. Edgell and Nowell variety of management questions and attitudinal (1989) have argued that wildlife management con- items, thus allowing managers to assess how far apart flicts are part of a broader conflict between beliefs various interest groups were on certain issues and and values emphasizing a technological, growth- whether the distance between groups remained oriented utilization of the environment (labeled as a constant or varied, suggesting areas for possible dominant social paradigm) and a more recent set of compromises. Specifically, ranchers supported the beliefs and values emphasizing an ecological per- idea of compensation, an important compromise in spective (labeled as the new environmental para- resolving potential livestock depredation issues, thus digm). Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) developed the allowing wolf restoration to move ahead. Managers new environmental paradigm (NEP) scale consisting could also balance the views of the interest groups of 12 value statements to examine people’s general toward the issue by understanding the nature of environmental dispositions. The scale has an em- general public attitudes statewide and within the phasis on the “Spaceship Earth” metaphor. Several counties directly surrounding Yellowstone. researchers (Albrecht et al. 1982; Geller and Lasley 1985; Edgell and Nowell 1989; Kuhn and Jackson Attitudinal and belief studies not only 1989) have found that the 12-item scale can be clus- provide an accurate and representative assessment of tered into three belief domains (balance of nature, public attitudes and beliefs for managers, but also can limits to growth, and humanity over nature) that can act as baseline information, allowing changing be used to help understand underlying public atti- attitudes and beliefs to be monitored over time. Such tudes and values toward wildlife-human interac- studies can be used as a first step in evaluating tions. While the NEP scale has not been widely ap- changes in public perceptions after implementation plied to wildlife-human relationships, Edgell and of new policies and/or management actions. Nowell (1989) applied the scale to help understand Attitudes and beliefs can also be monitored with the wildlife and environmental beliefs of commercial changing dynamics of the biological population. The fishers, Greenpeace members, and the general public strength of such human-dimension research occurs in British Columbia, Canada.

14 NPS SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH REVIEW SUMMER 2003 Another example is the attitudinal typology with wildlife decreased over a 15-year period. Fur- developed by Kellert and Berry (1980) that catego- ther, managers had assumed that protectionist values rizes humans based on ten attitudinal dimensions, had been increasing over time. Instead, Butler et al. which have been discussed in a variety of papers (2001) found that protectionist values had remained (Kellert 1976, 1980, 1983, 1985, 1991). One premise of stable, bringing into question another assumption this typology is that people’s attitudes toward that society had become less accepting of the idea of wildlife species and the interactions they have with managing wildlife populations to address conflicts. humans will be affected by whether people are more oriented toward naturalistic versus utilitarian per- However, understanding attitudes based spectives. However, people across the attitudinal upon Kellert’s typology, WAVs, or NEP may not di- spectrum tend to express the most positive attitudes rectly provide managers with information to make toward pets and large mammals that have high es- informed management decisions regarding wildlife- thetic value, high phylogenetic similarity with hu- human interactions, particularly when such attitudes mans, low perceived risk to human health and safety, manifest themselves in different behaviors and when high cultural importance, and high perceived/real the attitude scales are broader than the specific man- economic value. More negative attitudes are associ- agement issue at hand. Even so, understanding atti- ated with wildlife having opposite characteristics. tudes can shed light on how the public feels gener- The Kellert attitude typology, while dated, continues ally about a wildlife species, interaction, or manage- to be used in many studies focusing on a variety of ment action. It also can increase understanding wildlife species and wildlife-human interactions in about why people seek certain kinds of park experi- many different locations (Bjerke et al. 1998; Kalten- ences or why they support or oppose different man- born et al. 1999; Vitterso et al. 1999). agement actions. For example, people with more protectionist attitudes have been found to be less The wildlife attitudes and values scale supportive of lethal control of mountain lions in ar- (WAVS) is another example of an attitude typology eas near Rocky Mountain National Park compared used to understand how people interpret or evaluate to people not expressing protectionist attitudes interactions with wildlife (Purdy and Decker 1989). (Zinn et al. 1998). WAVS uses a set of statements about wildlife to deter- mine how personally important it is for people to re- Understanding Beliefs – The Linkages to late to wildlife and its use along four basic dimen- Attitudes sions. A social-benefits dimension pertains to appre- Social scientists also strive to understand the ciation and existence of wildlife. A communication- belief component (i.e., items that may or may not be benefits dimension pertains to observing and talking true) of attitudes and explore linkages between be- about wildlife as part of everyday experiences. A liefs and attitudes toward management options and problem-tolerance dimension includes concerns the species, thus providing park managers with the about economic and safety risks associated with wild- necessary information to design more effective inter- life. A traditional-conservation dimension pertains pretation programs and messages. Gray (1985) has to management of wildlife. Application of WAVS in suggested that beliefs about wildlife are complex and more than a dozen management contexts over more multidimensional in nature, requiring multivariate than 15 years in New York State has helped wildlife analysis. For example, Bath (2002) identified key be- managers evaluate their assumption that rural and liefs of residents who lived near Terra Nova National non-rural residents would differ in their tolerance for Park, Newfoundland that were most directly related conflicts with wildlife and their likelihood of sup- to attitudes toward the endangered Newfoundland porting certain kinds of management actions (Butler marten and its management. Such information may et al. 2001). Instead of differences, the authors enhance effective design and evaluation of research (Butler et al. 2001) found that both rural and urban programs in national parks by helping to target in- people’s tolerance for experiencing conflicts terpretive messages to key audiences, thus

WILDLIFE-HUMAN INTERACTIONS 15 resulting in interpretive programs that resonate with In there are approximately visitors. By understanding beliefs, park managers can 25 moose-vehicle collisions each year in the park, also develop recreational opportunities for people even though moose densities are several times higher that are consistent with people’s attitudes and values outside the park where collisions are very few. toward wildlife. Moose biologists found no clear patterns between the occurrence of moose-vehicle collisions and ei- Understanding Wildlife-People and People- ther characteristics of the moose (age, condition, People Conflicts – Risk Perception and Public sex, home ranges) or vegetation along roads where Involvement collisions occurred. A human-dimension study, fo-

Wildlife-human interactions involving con- cused on drivers’ perceptions of risk, knowledge, be- flict can be considered in terms of human tolerance liefs, and driving behavior, revealed most respon- for the wildlife species in question (e.g., risk percep- dents did not realize when most collisions occurred, tion, wildlife acceptance capacity), but conflict can perceived a lower risk than actually existed, were also be explored in terms of conflicts between various willing to not drive at night, and did not realize that interest groups regarding the management solution most collisions occurred when the animal came from to a wildlife-human interaction. The former involves the opposite side of the road while drivers were con- scientific research based upon theoretical ap- centrating on the nearest ditch or talking with a pas- proaches; the latter depends on a more practical pub- senger (Bath 1997). Integrating this social science lic-involvement process requiring an understanding information with the biophysical data provided man- of conflict, principle versus position negotiations, agers with a better understanding of the moose- and public involvement approaches and tools. Exam- vehicle collision situation in Terra Nova National ples of both are discussed in this section. Park, enabling them to design effective education efforts to help reduce accidents (Bath 1997). Wildlife-human interactions described as conflict can be understood when framed using the Interest groups (e.g., livestock operators, concept of risk perception. Risk perception is a be- timber companies), local/gateway communities, and lief or view of what the probability is, or could be, of aboriginal people may be located outside the adverse effects of a wildlife-human interaction boundaries of national parks in North America and (Knuth et al. 1992). Park visitors may have accurate thus be affected in unique ways by decisions made or inaccurate assumptions regarding possible risks within park boundaries. These groups may have associated with interacting with wildlife. For exam- heightened risk perceptions regarding loss of live- ple, Riley and Decker (2000) found that Montana stock due to predators protected within park residents’ perceptions of the risk of serious injury boundaries (Bath 1989, Scarce 1998), increased per- from mountain lions greatly exceeded an objective ceptions of possible damage to agricultural lands measure of actual risk. They found that people’s per- (e.g., haystacks) caused by protected ungulates, and ceptions of risk were influenced both by cognitive heightened perceived risk of transmission of disease risk judgments (i.e., the probability of a risk event oc- (e.g., brucellosis transmission from bison) to domes- curring) and affective risk judgments (i.e., level of tic livestock (Aguirre and Starkey 1994, Inserro 1997). fear associated with a risk event). An elevated risk Those involved in the livestock industry on the perception can occur if people’s affective risk judg- boundaries of a national park may have a variety of ment is high, even if they know that the actual prob- concerns, including loss of income from treating sick ability of a terrifying event is very low. animals or not being able to sell agricultural prod- ucts, concern about the welfare of their animals (i.e., Risk management can be used to “…integrate worry about animals becoming sick or injured), loss risk assessment data with social, economic, and po- of personal investment in husbandry knowledge and litical information to decide how to reduce or elimi- skills, and the loss of self-determination and nate potential risks identified” (Reinert et al. 1991). freedom (i.e., loss of a traditional way of life). Park

16 NPS SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH REVIEW SUMMER 2003 managers can benefit from determining which risks A more recent outgrowth of WAC is the no- are most important to the livestock operator and tion of wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity which risks are above acceptable levels. If managers (WSAC) (Carpenter et al. 2000). WSAC is an im- simply make assumptions about which risks are per- provement over wildlife acceptance capacity because ceived to be above acceptable levels and take actions it includes recognition that people perceive a range to manage those risks, either by mitigating them (e.g., of acceptable population levels. People do not want physically separating wildlife and livestock by electric a wildlife population to drop below some minimum fences or other means), or by communicating about acceptable threshold, nor exceed some maximum real economic risk, they could be managing the acceptable level. Both minimum and maximum wrong problem. Scarce (1998) found that relatively thresholds are determined for any group of people low acceptance of fair-market-value compensation by the ways in which they weigh the various positive programs was related to the fact that farmers cared and negative impacts associated with wildlife-human more about loss of self-determination and freedom interactions. The lower limit is the willingness of than possible economic losses associated with live- people to accept the absence of positive interactions stock depredation. This indicates the importance of and the upper limit is the willingness to tolerate ascertaining how people define a problem, either in negative interactions. Application of these concepts terms of risk perception or inconsistencies between remains limited in the wildlife management area, es- opportunities and motivations, and articulating and pecially with species that are not hunted as a popula- examining all assumptions about the issue (Enck and tion-control mechanism. In national parks and pro- Decker 1997). tected areas where hunting is prohibited or re- stricted to traditional uses, there is a need to test Related to risk perception is the concept of such theories. wildlife acceptance capacity (WAC). WAC is adapted from the notion of biological carrying capacity and is Conflict between wildlife and humans is sub- an assessment of the maximum number of individuals jective. What is considered a conflict to one person of a species that is acceptable to people in an area or interest group may not be viewed as a conflict by (Decker and Purdy 1988). WAC is based on people’s another interest group. National park managers face perceptions of the negative impacts that a wildlife many conflicts between interest groups over wildlife- species may cause in an area, rather than on a bio- human interactions, including whether to restore logical estimate of population numbers. This hierar- wolves, whether to prevent bison from migrating out chy of perceived negative impacts influences the up- of a park, whether to minimize disturbance of wild- per acceptable limit of a wildlife population. In gen- life by closing trails or campsites, and how best to eral, WAC will be lower for animals that pose a per- prevent habituation of wildlife. Successful resolu- ceived risk to human health and safety (e.g., moun- tion of people-people conflicts requires an under- tain lions) than for those that pose a risk of economic standing of the types of conflicts. According to damage (e.g., ground squirrels in campsites) (Decker Mitchell (1989) there are four basic types of conflict: and Purdy 1988). However, the number and types of 1) cognitive (based on differing beliefs of what may actual interactions, amount of controversy surround- or may not be true); 2) value (based on differences in ing management of those interactions, amount of importance of wildlife in comparison with other as- concern that people have about a potential risk, wild- pects of society); 3) costs/benefits (based on eco- life species involved, and perceptions of wildlife nomic factors, such as who benefits and who pays); population trends all can influence WAC (Decker and and 4) behavioral conflicts (based upon mistrust or Purdy 1988, Craven et al. 1992, Loker et al. 1999). For on the credibility of an individual or particular example, Pelton et al. (1981) found that visitors’ toler- agency). Any one or more of these types of conflict ance of nuisance encounters with black bears in may exist in the context of wildlife-human interac- Great Smoky Mountains National Park increased tions. Social scientists can help managers identify with increasing level of previous experience with the types of conflicts, thus providing the necessary bears. first step toward conflict resolution.

WILDLIFE-HUMAN INTERACTIONS 17 of satisfaction have limited use in guiding program Enjoyment of Wildlife by People – Understanding development, as they tend to elicit consistently high Motivations and Satisfaction rates of satisfaction and only measure major changes

To understand enjoyment of wildlife by peo- in the quality of service (Manfredo et al. 1995). As ple, social scientists understand people’s expecta- discussed earlier, satisfaction can be viewed as a tions, motivations, and satisfaction levels. Motiva- function of the discrepancy between visitor tion theories are used to explore why people interact expectations (influenced by perceptions, knowledge, the way they do with wildlife-related recreation ac- and attitudes) and the fulfillment of those tivities, thus allowing managers to understand the expectations on-site (Decker et al. 2001). To inform outcomes, expectations, and benefits people seek management decisions in national parks, complex from a wildlife-related experience. One major theo- research designs involving pre- and post-tests and retical approach is to view satisfaction as a function focused upon understanding expectations are of the discrepancies between expectations and actual needed, rather than after-the-fact, one-shot experiences (Decker et al. 2001). Hendee (1974) be- satisfaction studies. gan discussions about motivations and satisfaction Visitor satisfaction related to enjoyment of levels when he explored satisfaction levels of hunters wildlife can be influenced by a variety of factors, in- and concluded that satisfaction is a multi-faceted cluding perceptions of human crowding. For exam- concept, not just dependent on hunters bagging ple, Whittaker (1997) helped establish use limits on game. Decker et al. (1984, 1987) further explored mo- bear-viewing platforms that maintained visitor ac- tivations of hunters based on need-classification ceptance and satisfaction levels while addressing the theories. They found three important motivations: 1) ecological concern of limiting the number of visitors affiliation (i.e., enjoyment of being with others), 2) because of effects upon grizzly bears (Olson and Gil- achievement (i.e., reaching specific goals, such as bert 1994). bagging an animal), and 3) appreciation (i.e., seeking peace in the outdoors). While hunting is not usually Effects on Wildlife of Harassment - Moving an issue within national parks, the motivations for beyond Biophysical Issues to the Human participation in this activity may also be important in Dimension of Values, Conflict Resolution, understanding wildlife-human interactions classified and Public Involvement as enjoyment of wildlife by people in national parks. Our review of the literature suggests that Driver et al. (1991) have used the expectancy- much research pertaining to wildlife-human interac- value theory of motivation to explore a variety of tions in national parks has focused on biophysical wildlife-related recreation opportunities. The theory effects to determine whether the human activity has states that a person’s choice of activity is a function a negative impact. Two challenges associated with of expectations that certain behaviors will lead to de- these research studies are that measuring the effects sirable events and the likelihood that those events of specific human activities on animals is often diffi- will lead to valued psychological outcomes (Decker et cult and that determining whether the effect is al. 2001). Knowing motivations can help managers “significant” depends on human values. Most stud- better understand their customers and thus increase ies are deficient in several ways; they may be too satisfaction levels. In addition, such information of- short in duration (Wiens 1984), may not have ade- ten aids in identifying sources of conflict between quate controls or be replicable (Hurlbert 1984), or interest groups regarding wildlife-human interac- have too many confounding variables to isolate the tions. effects of a specific human activity (Cooke 1980; van der Zande and Vos 1984; Bell and Austin 1985; While national park managers routinely ex- Anderson 1988; Madsen 1988). amine visitor satisfaction through general surveys and monitoring of complaints, such broad measures Beginning in the late 1990s and continuing

18 NPS SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH REVIEW SUMMER 2003 snowmobiling issues inside the park. Participants into the twenty-first century, managers in Yellow- have been given a mandate to work together using stone National Park and in Gros Morne National consensus to find a solution, and while the group Park researched whether snowmobiling affects wild- can not “fetter the Minister’s decision,” it is under- life, whether the effects are “significant” and, if so, stood that if a diverse group of interests could reach how those effects should be managed. In Gros agreement this would be a powerful recommenda- Morne National Park, research found that caribou tion that would not be lightly dismissed. In the USA, run from the sight of snowmobiles. Coincidentally federal laws (e.g., NEPA) prevent the use of such over the past 20 years, both unregulated snowmobi- techniques for direct decision-making and manage- ling activity and caribou numbers have increased in ment planning. However, such techniques might be Gros Morne National Park. However, the question of used by national park managers to gain insights snowmobile management is not solely one of proving about the range of issues that need to be considered or disproving physiological effects on wildlife, but a in any management actions. human-dimensions question. If there were no nega- tive impact by snowmobiles on caribou, would na- Public involvement, defined as a redistribu- tional park managers be concerned about the activ- tion of power from decision-makers or managers to ity? Many would argue “yes,” because the issue is the various publics (Praxis 1988), can contribute to more about motorized access to wilderness areas, the solution of many wildlife-human conflicts. Na- perceptions of pristineness, and the UNESCO world tional park managers can benefit from engaging heritage site image. community residents who live inside or outside the boundaries of the national parks in meaningful pub- Cross-country skiers have a negative effect lic involvement processes. Building trust and credi- on elk in Yellowstone National Park, causing animals bility with local communities is the first step toward to flee (Cassirer et al. 1992). Similar research in Elk understanding and addressing the various categories Island National Park, Alberta found that moose num- of wildlife-human interactions. bers were negatively associated with cross-country ski trails. However, the issue of cross-country ski Conclusion management in Yellowstone and Gros Morne na- tional parks has not appeared in the scientific litera- Our review of the literature determined that ture. Again, an argument can be made that resolving many types of interactions between humans and the issue is less about biophysical impacts and more wildlife (e.g., physical, physiological, economic) have about perceptions and attitudes of what is appropri- been documented, that specific interactions have ate recreation in national parks. been interpreted, studied, and managed from both a people perspective and a wildlife perspective, and The research questions regarding harassment that for different people the same interaction may and effects on wildlife are in many ways social sci- have positive or negative effects, depending in part ence questions that need to be addressed through as- on the attitudes and motivations of people before, sessments of values, attitudes, and beliefs. The ques- during, and after such wildlife-human interactions. tion for the many different interest groups concerned Our review also discerned that different interest about snowmobiling activity in Yellowstone and Gros groups interpret wildlife interactions (e.g., predator- Morne should be one of “do people care about these prey) or wildlife-habitat interactions (e.g., impacts of wildlife species and what happens to them?” The an- herbivores) as desirable or unacceptable, demon- swers to such complex issues can be informed by un- strating that the effects of wildlife-human interac- derstanding the perspectives of all interest groups tions also can be indirect. involved with the issue. In Gros Morne National Park a facilitated workshop approach has allowed Although research exists about public atti- various interest groups to discuss common visions for tudes toward management options regarding large the area, key objectives, and concerns regarding carnivores in national parks, surprisingly little

WILDLIFE-HUMAN INTERACTIONS 19 research was found about the importance of wildlife References experiences to visitors’ overall recreational experi- ences. Application of social science research can Aguirre, A. A. and E. E. Starkey. 1994. Wildlife dis- help managers make better management decisions ease in U.S. national parks: Historical and co- about wildlife viewing, evaluation of interpretive pro- evolutionary perspectives. Conservation Biology grams, and provide a better understanding of com- 8(3):654-661. munity attitudes toward management issues and broader national park system goals. Our review sug- Albert, D. M. and R. T. Bowyer. 1991. Factors re- gests that much of the social science research to date lated to grizzly bear-human interactions in done in Canadian and USA national parks has been Denali National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19 issue-oriented and one-shot in nature. Similar to (3):339-349. how biophysical scientists do long-term monitoring of biological populations, permitting them to assess Albrecht, D., G. Bultena, E. Hoiberg, and P. Nowak. changes after certain policies are implemented, there 1982. The new environmental paradigm scale. is a need for more longitudinal research and moni- Journal of Environmental Education 13:39-43. toring of attitudes and beliefs in national parks to as- sess the effects of interpretive programs and commu- Allen, S. G. 1999. Mirounga massing at Point Reyes. nity-outreach education efforts. Satisfaction research Park Science 19(1):30-31. currently being done in national parks could be set within a theoretical context that would provide man- Anderson, D.W. 1988. Dose-response relationship agers a much better understanding of visitors’ expec- between human disturbance and brown pelican tations and motivations and whether these were met. breeding success. Wildlife Society Bulletin Such satisfaction research would provide a much bet- 16:339-345. ter understanding of visitor satisfaction than the ex- isting general visitor surveys currently employed. AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. 2001. This being said, there have been many applications of Evaluation of ecological recovery options for theory without directly focusing on informing man- the three valley confluence landscape manage- agement decisions, and thus a real need exists to de- ment unit in Jasper National Park, Alberta. velop decision-based research agendas. Parks Canada. Jasper National Park, Calgary, AB. We suggest that managers can benefit in their decision-making by considering the degree to which Bangs, E. E. and S. H. Fritts. 1996. Reintroducing specific kinds of interactions could be interpreted as the gray wolf to central Idaho and Yellowstone either positive or negative, depending on the values National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:402- and attitudes of the people involved, and depending 413. on whether the interaction is considered from the perspective of humans or wildlife. Public acceptance Bath, A.J. 2002. Public attitudes and beliefs of resi- of, and support for, management decisions regarding dents near Terra Nova national park toward wildlife-human interactions likely will be highest Newfoundland marten and marten manage- when the public believes management “solutions” are ment. Report for Terra Nova National Park, consistent with their perceptions of management , NF. “problems” (Decker et al. 2001). Social science re- search can help understand what people do, why they Bath, A.J. 2000. Human dimensions in wolf manage- do it, and what they think. With this information, ment in Savoie and Des Alpes Maritimes, national park managers can better manage wildlife France: Results targeted toward designing a for their entire resource constituency. more effective communication campaign and

20 NPS SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH REVIEW SUMMER 2003 building better public awareness materials. Bjerke, T., O.Reitan ,and S.R. Kellert. 1998. Attitudes Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE) and toward wolves in southeastern Norway. Society Council of Europe Publication. 147pp. and Natural Resources 11:169-178.

Bath, A.J. 1997. Terra Nova National Park visitor atti- Bjornlie, D. D. and R. A Garrott. 2001. Effects of tudes toward and beliefs about moose, moose winter road grooming on bison in Yellowstone management and moose-vehicle collisions. National Park. Journal of Wildlife Management Parks Canada Tech. Rep., Terra Nova National 65(3):560-572. Park. 108pp. Bounds, D. L. and W. W. Shaw. 1994. Managing Bath, A.J. 1991. Public attitudes in Wyoming, Montana coyotes in U.S. national parks: Human-coyote and Idaho toward wolf restoration in Yellow- interactions. Natural Areas Journal 14(4):280- stone National Park. Transactions North Ameri- 284. can Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 56:91-95. Bow Corridor Ecosystem Advisory Group (BCEAG). 1999. Guidelines for human use within wildlife Bath, A.J. 1989. The public and wolf reintroduction in corridors and habitat patches in the Bow Valley, Yellowstone National Park. Society and Natural Municipality of Bighorn, Town of Canmore, Resources 2:297-306. Banff National Park, Government of Alberta. 5pp. Bath, A.J. and T. Buchanan. 1989. Attitudes of interest groups in Wyoming toward wolf restoration in Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of noncon- Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Society Bul- sumptive recreation on wildlife: A review. Wild- letin 17:519-525. life Society Bulletin 13:110-116.

Behan, R. W. 1978. Political dynamics of wildlife Bradford, W.B. 1988. A plan to reduce wildlife mor- management: the Grand Canyon burros. Trans- tality along transportation corridors in Jasper actions of the North American Wildlife and Natu- National Park. Parks Canada. Calgary, AB. Un-

ral Resources Conference 43:424-433. publ. Rep.

Bell, D.V. and L.W. Austin. 1985. The game-fishing Braithwaite, A. and S. McCool. 1989. Social influ- season and its effects on overwintering wildfowl. ences and backcountry visitor behavior in occu- Biological Conservation 33:65-80. pied grizzly bear habitat. Society and Natural Resources 2 (4):273-283. Bernardino, F.S. Jr. and G.H. Dalrymple. 1992. Sea- sonal activity and road mortality of the snakes of Bright, A.D. and M. Manfredo. 1996. A conceptual the Pa-hay-okee of Everglades Na- model of attitudes toward natural resource is- tional Park, USA. Biological Conservation 62:71- sues: A case study of wolf reintroduction. Hu- 75 man Dimensions in Wildlife 1(1):1-21.

Bertwhistle, J. 2000. Assessing the effects of reduced Brown, B. T. and L. E. Stevens. 1997. Winter bald speed highway zones on elk and bighorn sheep eagle distribution is inversely correlated with vehicle collisions in Jasper National Park. Jasper human activity along the Colorado River in Ari- National Park. 18pp. zona. Journal of Raptor Research 31(1):7-10.

WILDLIFE-HUMAN INTERACTIONS 21 Butler, J. S., J. E. Shanahan, and D. J. Decker. 2001. Connelly, N. A., D. J. Decker, and S. Wear. 1988. Wildlife attitudes and values: A trend analysis. Public tolerance of deer in a suburban environ- Human Dimensions Research Unit publication ment: Implications for management and con- series number 01-4. Department of Natural Re- trol. Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Confer- sources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 21pp. ence. 3:207-218.

Camp, R. J. and R. L. Knight. 1998. Rock climbing Conover, M.R., W.C. Pitt, K.K. Kessler, T.J. DuBow, and cliff bird communities at Joshua Tree Na- and W.A. Sanborn. 1995. Review of human inju- tional Park, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin ries, illnesses and economic losses caused by 26(4):892-898. wildlife in the U.S. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:407-414. Carpenter, L. H., D. J. Decker, and J. F. Lipscomb. 2000. Stakeholder acceptance capacity in wild- Cooke, A.S. 1980. Observations on how close certain life management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife passerine species will tolerate an approaching 5(3):5-19. human in rural and suburban areas. Biological Conservation. 18:85-88. Cassirer, E.F., D.J. Freddy, and E.D. Ables. 1992. Elk responses to disturbance by cross-country skiers Cottereau, P. 1972. Les incidences du “bang” des in Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Society avions supersoniques sur les productions et la Bulletin 20:375-381. vie animals. Revue de Medecine Veterinaire 123 (11):1367-1409. Clark, J. E., F. T. van Manen, and M. R. Pelton. 2002. Correlates of success for on-site releases of nui- Craven, S. R., D. J. Decker, W. F. Siemer, and S. E. sance black bears in Great Smoky Mountains Hygnstrom. 1992. Survey use and landowner National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(1):104- tolerance in wildlife damage management. 111. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 57:75-88. Clayton, C. and R. Mendelsohn. 1993. The value of watchable wildlife: A case study of McNeil River. Damas and Smith (DSL Consultants Ltd.). 1982. Journal of Environmental Management 39:101- Wildlife mortality in transportation corridors in 106. Canada’s national parks. Volume 1 (Main Re- port) and II (Appendices). Unpubl. Rep. for Clevenger, A.P. and N. Waltho. 2000. Factors influ- Parks Canada 397pp + appendices. encing the effectiveness of wildlife underpasses in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. Conser- Decker, D.J., T.L. Brown, and W.F. Siemer. 2001. Hu- vation Biology 14:47-56. man dimensions of wildlife management in North America. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Cole, D.N. and R.L. Knight. 1991. Wildlife preserva- MD. tion and recreational use: Conflicting goals of wildland management. Transactions North Decker, D.J. and K.G. Purdy. 1988. Toward a concept American Wildlife and Natural Resources Confer- of wildlife acceptance capacity in wildlife man- ence 56:233-237. agement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:53-57.

Compton, G. 1994. Visitors and wildlife. Yellowstone Decker, D.J., T.L. Brown, B.L. Driver, and P.J. Brown. Science 2(2):5-8. 1987. Theoretical developments in assessing so- cial values of wildlife:Toward a comprehensive

22 NPS SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH REVIEW SUMMER 2003 understanding of wildlife recreation involve- Minister of Public Works and Government Ser- ment. Pages 76-95 in D.J. Decker and G.R. Goff, vices Canada. Ottawa, ON. eds. Valuing wildlife: Economic and social per- spectives. Westview, Boulder, CO. Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, inten- tion, and behavior: An introduction to theory and Decker, D.J., R.W. Provencher, and T.L. Brown. 1984. research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. 578pp. Antecedents to hunting participation: An ex- ploratory study of the social-psychological de- Flemming, S.P., R.L. Gautreau, D.K. Cairns, M.R. terminants of initiation, continuation, and de- Ryan. 1992. Assessing habitat quality, distur- sertion in hunting. Cornell Univ. Department of bance tolerance, and demographics through en- Nat. Res., Ithaca, N.Y. Outdoor Recreation Res. ergetic modeling: A new approach to piping Unit Ser. No.84-6. 178pp. plover recovery in . Unpubl. Rep. Parks Canada. 29pp + appendices. Dobson, B. 2000. Development of ecologically-based planning tools for managing cumulative effects Flemming, S.P., R.D. Chiasson, P.C. Smith, P.J. Aus- in Jasper National Park: The ecosite representa- tin-Smith, and R.D. Bancroft. 1988. Piping tion and breeding bird habitat effectiveness plover status in Nova Scotia related to its repro- models. MS thesis. University of British Colum- ductive and behavioral responses to human dis- bia. 174pp. turbance. Journal of Field Ornithology 59:321- 330. Driver, B.L., H.E. Tinsley, and M.J. Manfredo. 1991. Leisure and recreation experience preference Force, J. and J. Forester. 2002. Public involvement in scales: Results from two inventories designed to National Park Service land management issues. assess the breadth of the perceived benefits of Social Science Research Review 3(1):1-28. leisure. Pages 263-87 in B.L. Driver, P.J. Brown, and G.L. Peterson, eds. The benefits of leisure. Freddy, D.J., W.B. Bronaugh, and M.C. Fowler. 1986. Venture, State College, PA. Response of mule deer to disturbance by per- sons at foot and snowmobiles. Wildlife Society

Dunlap, R.E. and K. Van Liere. 1978. The new envi- Bulletin 14:63-68. ronmental paradigm: A proposed measuring in- strument and preliminary results. Journal of En- Geary, J. 2001. Humans and animals need not sit on vironmental Education 9:10-19. opposite sides of the proverbial fence. Mountain Life Magazine. Edgell, M.C. and D.E. Nowell. 1989. The new environ- mental paradigm scale: Wildlife and environ- Geller, J.M. and P. Lasley. 1985. The new environ- mental beliefs in British Columbia. Society and mental paradigm: A reexamination. Journal of Natural Resources 2(4):285-296. Environmental Education 17:9-12.

Enck, J. W. and D. J. Decker. 1997. Examining as- Gibeau, M. 1993. Use of urban habitats by coyotes in sumptions in wildlife management: A contribu- the vicinity of Banff, Alberta. MS thesis. Univer- tion of human dimensions inquiry. Human Di- sity of Montana. 66pp. mensions of Wildlife 2(3):56-72. Gilbert, M.C. and Saguenay-St.Lawrence Marine Federal-Provincial-Territorial Task Force. 2000. The Park 1998. Proceedings of the regional workshop importance of nature to Canadians: The eco- on whale-watching activities at sea. May 25 nomic significance of nature-related activities.

WILDLIFE-HUMAN INTERACTIONS 23 and 26 1998, Tadoussac, Quebec. 60p + V ap- Hendee, J.C. 1974. A multiple satisfaction approach pendices. to game management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2: 104-13. Gray, D.B. 1985. Ecological beliefs and behaviors: As- sessment and change. Greenwood, Westport, Herrero, S. 1970a. Human injury inflicted by grizzly CT. bears. Science 170: 593-598

Grubb, T. G., W. L. Robinson, and W. W. Bowerman. Herrero, S. 1970b. Man and the grizzly bear (present, 2002. Effects of watercraft on bald eagles nest- past, but future?) Bioscience 20: 1148-1153. ing in Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(1):156-161. Herrero, S. and A. Higgins. 1999. Human injuries in- flicted by bears in British Columbia: 1960-97. Harris, L. K., R. H. Gimblett, and W. W. Shaw. 1995. Ursus 11:209-218. Multiple-use management: Using a GIS model to understand conflicts between recreationists and Hood, G.A. and K.L. Parker. 2001. Impact of human sensitive wildlife. Society and Natural Resources activities on grizzly bear habitat in Jasper Na- 8(6):559-572. tional Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2): 624- 638. Harris, L. K., W. W. Shaw, and J. Schelhas. 1997. Ur- ban neighbors’ wildlife-related attitudes and be- Hurlbert, S.H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the de- haviors near federally protected areas in Tucson, sign of ecological field experiments. Ecological Arizona, USA. Natural Areas Journal 17(2):144- Monograph 54: 187-211. 148. Hvenegaard, G.T., J.R. Butler, and D.K. Krystofiak, Hatler. 1979. Regional wildlife management plan, 1989. Economic values of bird watching at Point Skeena region. Unpubl. MS thesis. BC Fish and Pelee National Park, Canada. Wildlife Society Wildlife Branch, Smithers, BC. 148pp. Bulletin 17:526-531.

Heap, M. 1987. A proposal to reduce wildlife mortal- Inserro, J. C. 1997. States, agencies discuss solutions ity on transportation corridors in Riding moun- for handling Yellowstone bison, brucellosis. tain National Park. Parks Canada. Unpubl Rep. American Veterinary Medical Association Journal 29pp. 210(5):593-595.

Hecnar, S.J. and R.T. M’Closkey. 1995. The effects of Jarvinen, J.A. and W.D. Schmid. 1973. Snowmobile human disturbance on skink numbers and distri- use and winter mortality of small mammals. Pp. bution at Point Pelee National Park (1992-1994). 131-139 in D.F. Holecek, ed.. Proceedings of the Unpubl. Rep. Parks Canada 59pp. 1973 snowmobile and off the road vehicle re- search symposium. Michigan State University. Hecnar, S.J. and R.T. M’Closkey. 1998. Effects of hu- man disturbance on five-lined skink, Eumeces Jasper National Park. 1998. Bear/human conflict fasciatus, abundance and distribution. Biological management plan. Jasper National Park. 31pp + Conservation 85(3):213-222. app.

Hemmera Resource Consultants Ltd. 1999. Summer Kaltenborn, B.P., T. Bjerke, and J. Vitterso. 1999. At- use study Lake Louise Ski Area. Unpubl. Rep. titudes toward large carnivores among sheep Parks Canada. 40pp + appendices

24 NPS SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH REVIEW SUMMER 2003 farmers, wildlife managers and research biolo- Knuth, B.A., R.J. Stout, W.F. Siemer, D.J. Decker, and gists in Norway. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 4 R.C. Stedman. 1992. Risk management concepts (3):57-73. for improving wildlife population decisions and public communication strategies. Transactions Kellert, S.R. 1991. Public views of wolf restoration in North American Wildlife and Natural Resources- Michigan. Transactions North American Wildlife Conference 57:63-74. and Natural Resources Conference 56:152-161. Kuhn, R.G. and E.L. Jackson. 1989. Stability of factor Kellert, S.R. 1985. Historical trends in perceptions structures in the measurement of public envi- and uses of animals in 20th century America. En- ronmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental vironmental Review 9:19-33. Education 20:27-32.

Kellert, S.R. 1983. Affective, cognitive, and evaluative Kuss, F.R., A.R. Graefe, and J.J. Vaske. 1990. Visitor perceptions of animals. Pages 241-67 in I.Altman impact management: A review of research. Na- and J.F. Wohlwill, eds. Behavior and the natural tional Parks and Conservation Association, environment. Plenum, New York. Washington, D.C.

Kellert, S.R. 1980. Contemporary values of wildlife in Lafleur,Y. 1982. D’intervention sur la faune en conflit America. Pages 31-60 in W.W. Shaw and E.H. avec l’homme [Wildlife-human conflicts man- Zube, eds. Wildlife values. Center for assessment agement plan] La Mauricie National Park Plan of noncommodity natural resource values insti- 80pp tutional series report no. 1. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Linnell, J. et al. 2002. The fear of wolves: A review of Station, Fort Collins, CO. wolf attacks on humans. Report for the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE). Trond- Kellert, S. R. 1976. Knowledge, affection and basic heim, Norway. attitudes toward animals in American society. Phase III. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Loker, C.A., D.J. Decker, and S.J. Schwager. 1999.

Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 162pp. Social acceptability of wildlife management ac- tions in suburban areas: Three cases from New Kellert, S.R. and J.K. Berry. 1980. Knowledge, affec- York. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27(1):152-159. tion and basic attitudes toward animals in American society (National Technical Informa- Madsen, J. 1988. Autumn feeding ecology of herbivo- tion Service publ. PB-81-173106). National Tech- rous wildfowl in the Danish Wadden Sea, and nical Information Service, Springfield, VA. impact of food supplies and shooting on move- ments. Comm. No. 217, Vildtbiologisk Station, King, M.M. and G.W. Workman. 1986. Response of Dalo, Denmark. desert bighorn sheep to human harassment: Management implications. Transactions North Mahalic, D.A. 1974. Visitor attitudes toward grizzly American Wildlife and Natural Resources Confer- bears in Glacier National Park, Montana. MS ence 51: 74-85. thesis. Michigan State University.

Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller. 1995. Wildlife and Manfredo, M.J., J.J. Vaske, and D.J. Decker. 1995. recreationists: Coexistence through management Human dimensions of wildlife management: and research. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Basic concepts. Pages 17-31 in R.L. Knight and 372pp. K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists:

WILDLIFE-HUMAN INTERACTIONS 25 Coexistence through management and research. human use and wildlife movement. Research Island Press, Washington, D.C. Links Volume 8, Number 13. Parks Canada, . Summer/Autumn. Mattson, D. J. 1990. Human impacts on bear habitat use. Proceedings of the international conference Mitchell, B. 1989. Geography and resource analysis. on bear research and management 8:33-56. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Mattson, D.J., S. Herrero, R.G. Wright, and C.M. Moment, G.B. 1968. Bears: the need for a new sanity Pease. 1996. Science and management of Rocky in wildlife conservation. BioScience 18:1105-1108 Mountain grizzly bears. Conservation Biology 10 (4):1013-1025. Moment, G.B. 1969. Bears and conservation: Reali- ties and recommendations. BioScience 19:1019- Mattson, D.J., S. Herrero, R.G. Wright, and C.M. 1020 Pease. 1995. Designing and managing protected areas for grizzly bears. In R.G. Wright and D.J. Moment, G.B. 1970. Man-grizzly problems-past and Mattson, eds. National parks and protected ar- present, implications for endangered species. eas: Their role in environmental protection. BioScience 20:1142-1144. Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, UK . Mundy, K.R.D. and D.R. Flook. 1973. Background for Mattson, D.J., R.R. Knight, and B.M. Blanchard. 1987. managing grizzly bears in the national parks of The effects of developments and primary roads Canada. Canadian Wildlife Service Report Se- on grizzly bear habitat use in Yellowstone Na- ries No. 22. 35pp. tional Park, Wyoming. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 7:259-273. Nepsted, E. and P. Nilsen 1993. Towards a better un- derstanding of human/environment relation- McFarlane, B.L. 1994. Specialization and motivations ships in Canadian National Parks. National of birdwatchers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22 Parks Occasional Paper No.5. 77pp (3):361-70. Neumann, P.W. and H.G. Merriam. 1972. Ecological McLellan, B. N., F. Hovey, R. D. Mace, J. G. Woods, D. C. effects of snowmobiles. Canadian Field Natural- Carney, M. L. Gibeau, W. L. Wakkinen, and W. K. ist 86:207-212. Kasworm. 1999. Rates and causes of grizzly bear mortality in the interior mountains of British Co- Olson, T. and B. Gilbert. 1994. Variable impacts of lumbia, Alberta, Montana, and Idaho. Journal of people on brown bear use of an Alaskan river. Wildlife Management 63: 901-920. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 9:97-106. Meagher, M. 1989. Range expansion by bison of Yel- lowstone National Park. Journal of Mammalogy Paquet, P.C., J. Wierzchowski, and C. Callaghan. 70:670-675. 1996. Summary report on the effects of human activity on gray wolves in the Bow River valley, Mercer, G. and H. Purves. 2000. An initial assessment Banff National Park, Alberta. Chapter 7 in J. of wildlife movement corridors in the Three Val- Green, C. Pacas, L. Cornwell, and S. Bayley, eds. ley Confluence of Jasper National Park. 31pp + Ecological outlooks project: A cumulative effects app. assessment and futures outlook of the Banff Bow Valley. Prepared for the Banff Bow Valley Study. Mercer, G., G. Carrow, and J. Deagle. 2000. Linking

26 NPS SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH REVIEW SUMMER 2003 Department of Canadian Heritage, Ottawa, ON. Purdy, K. G. and D. J. Decker. 1989. Applying wild- 74pp. +app. life values information in management: The wildlife attitudes and values scale. Wildlife Soci- Parks Canada Agency. 2000. “Unimpaired for Future ety Bulletin 17:494-500. Generations”? Protecting Ecological Integrity with Canada’s National Parks. Vol. I “A Call to Purves, H. and C. Doering. 1999. Wolves and people: Action.” Vol. II “Setting a New Direction for Assessing cumulative impacts of human distur- Canada’s National Parks.” Report of the Panel bance on wolves in Jasper National Park. In: on the Ecological Integrity of Canada’s National ESRI User Conference Proceedings, 1999: http:// Parks, Ottawa, ON. www.esri.com/library/userconf/proc99/ proceed/papers/pap317/p317.htm Parks Canada – Jasper National Park. 2000. Jasper National Park management plan. Minister of Rancourt, L. M. 1998. Barking dogs repel hungry Public Works and Government Services Canada. park bears. National Parks 72(11-12):13-14. 80pp. Ream, C. 1979. Human-wildlife conflicts in back- Pelton, M. R., C.D. Scott, and G. M. Burghardt. 1981. country: Possible solution. Pages 153-163 in Attitudes and opinions of persons experiencing Proceedings: Recreational impact on wildland. property damage and/or injury by black bears in USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region. the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Pro- Report No. R-6-001-1979. Seattle, WA. ceedings of the international conference on bears 3:157-167. Reinert, R.E., B.A. Knuth, M.A. Kamrin, and Q.J. Stober. 1991. Risk assessment, risk manage- Poll, D.M. 1989. Wildlife mortality on the Kootenay ment, and fish consumption advisories in the Parkway: Final Report. Environment Canada. United States. Fisheries 16(6):5-12. Canadian Parks Service, , Radium Hot Springs, BC. 105pp. Riley, S. J. and D, J. Decker. 2000. Risk perception as a factor in wildlife stakeholder acceptance

Pomerantz, G.A., D.J. Decker, G.R. Goff, and K.G. capacity for cougars in Montana. Human Di- Purdy. 1988. Assessing impact of recreation on mensions of Wildlife 5(3):50-62. wildlife: A classification scheme. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:58-62. Riley, S. J., D. J. Decker, L. H. Carpenter, J. F. Organ, W. F. Siemer, G. F. Mattfeld, and G. Parsons. Porter, W. F. 1991. White-tailed deer in eastern eco- 2002. The essence of wildlife management. systems: Implications for management and re- Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(2):585-593. search in national parks. Natural Resources Re- port NPS/NRSUNY/NRR-91/05. Romin, L.A. and J.A. Bissonnette. 1996. Deer-vehicle collisions: Status of state monitoring activities Praxis. 1988. Public involvement: Planning and imple- and mitigation efforts. Wildlife Society Bulletin menting public involvement programs. Executive 24(2):276-283. Overview. Calgary, AB. 13pp. Ruediger, B., J.J. Claar, and J.F. Gore. 1999. Restora- Pruit, W.O. Jr. 1971. Paper presented at the Confer- tion of carnivore habitat connectivity in the ence on Snowmobiles and All-Terrain Vehicles northern Rocky Mountains. Pp. 5-20 in G.L. at the University of Western Ontario, London, ON.

WILDLIFE-HUMAN INTERACTIONS 27

Evink, P. Garrett, and D. Zeigler, eds. Proceed- U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), Fish and ings of the Third International Conference on Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Com- Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. Missoula, merce, Bureau of the Census. 1993. 1991 Na- MT, Sept. 1999. 332pp. tional survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife- associated recreation U.S. Government Printing Sax, J.L. 1980. Mountains without handrails: Reflec- Office, Washington, D.C. tions on the national parks. Ann Arbor, MI: Uni- versity of Michigan Press. Van der Zande, A.N. and P.Vos. 1984. Impact of a semi-experimental increase in recreation inten- Scarce, R. 1998. What do wolves mean? Conflicting sity on the densities of birds in groves and social constructions of Canis lupus in hedges on a lakeshore in the Netherlands. Bio- “Bordertown.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 3 logical Conservation 30:237-259. (3):26-45. Van Tighem, K. 1981. Mortality of bighorn sheep Sherwonit, W. 1996. Katmai at a crossroads. Na- (Ovis canadensis) on a railroad and highway in tional Parks 70(5-6):28-33. Jasper National Park, Canada. Unpubl. Rep. Parks Canada. 21pp. Shury,T.K. 1996. Wildlife mortality in Banff National Park 1981-1995. Report submitted to the Warden Vitterso, J., T. Bjerke, and B. Kaltenhorn. 1999. Atti- Service of Banff National Park. tudes toward large carnivores among sheep farmers experiencing different degrees of dep- Smith, C.M. 2000. Population dynamics and breeding redation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 4(1):20- ecology of harlequin ducks in Banff National 35. Park, Alberta, 1995-1999. Unpubl. Tech. Rep. Parks Canada. Banff National Park, Banff, AB. Warren, R. J. 1991. Ecological justification for con- 107pp trolling deer populations in eastern national parks. Transactions of the North American Wild- Stolley, D. S., J. A. Bissonette, and J. A. Kadlec. 1999. life and Natural Resources Conference 56:56-66. Limitations on Canada goose production at Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge. Great Basin Weaver, J.L., P.C.Paquet, and L.F. Ruggiero. 1996. Naturalist 59(3):245-252. Resilience and conservation of large carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology Strickland, D. 1983. Wolf howling in parks – the Al- 10(4):964-976. gonquin experience in interpretation. Pages 93- 95. in L. Carbyn, ed. Wolves in Canada and Wellman, J.D. 1987. Wildland recreation policy: An Alaska. Canadian Wildlife Service Report Series introduction. J. Wiley, New York. 284pp. No. 45. 135pp. White, D., Jr., K. C. Kendall, and H. D. Picton. 1999. Ungulate Ecology Group. 1988. A study of bighorn Potential energetic effects of mountain climbers sheep mortality along Highway 16 in Jasper Na- on foraging grizzly bears. Wildlife Society Bulle- tional Park (August, 1988). Unpubl. Rep. 34pp. tin 27(1):146-151.

28 NPS SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH REVIEW SUMMER 2003

Whittaker, D. 1997. Capacity norms on bear viewing (i.e., what people say they will do) and behavior (i.e., platforms. Human Dimensions Wildlife 2(2):37- overt or actual behavior). 49. conflict: Conflict is a term used to describe various Wiens, J.A. 1984. The place of long-term studies in interactions and reasons for interactions between ornithology. Auk 101:202-203. people. There are four basic types of conflict: cogni- tive conflict arising from differences in knowledge Woods, J.M. 1990. Effectiveness of fences and under- and beliefs between individuals or groups; value con- passes on the Trans Canada Highway and their flict arising from differences in the hierarchy of impact on ungulate populations in Banff Na- importance of various values between individuals or tional Park, Alberta. Canadian Parks Service. groups; costs/benefits conflicts arising from dis- Calgary, AB. 103pp. agreements over which individual or group bears the costs and reaps the benefits; and finally behavioral Wright, R. G. 1992. Wildlife research and manage- conflicts focusing on mistrust and credibility issues ment in the national parks. University of Illinois between individuals, groups, or agencies. Several Press. Urbana, IL. types of conflicts can occur at the same time.

Yost, A. C. and R. G. Wright. 2001. Moose, caribou, harassment: Harassment to wildlife includes activi- and grizzly bear distribution in relation to road ties that cause excitement and/or stress to the wild- traffic in Denali National Park, Alaska. Arctic 54 life, disturbance of essential activities such as breed- (1):41-48. ing and feeding, severe exertion, displacement, and sometimes death. Zinn, H. C., M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, and K. Witt- mann. 1998. Using normative beliefs to deter- non-consumptive wildlife use: Non-consumptive mine the acceptability of wildlife management wildlife use includes activities in which people enjoy actions. Society and Natural Resources 11:649- interacting with wildlife without deliberately trying 662. to kill the animal. Many researchers have docu-

mented negative impacts on wildlife caused by non- consumptive wildlife activities. Glossary public involvement: Public involvement is a process attitudes: Attitudes are general feelings toward an of redistributing the power of decision-making from object or issue. Human-dimensions researchers are managers to the various publics that are affected or interested not only in the direction of the attitude can affect the successful implementation of a deci- (i.e., positive, negative or neutral), but also in the sion. Public involvement should be thought of as a strength of the attitude. Attitudes are made up of four continuum, ranging from situations where various components: affective (i.e., liking or disliking of an groups have very little influence on decision-making object), cognitive or belief component (i.e., ideas that to those cases where groups have complete control may or may not be true), behavioral intention over decision-making.

WILDLIFE-HUMAN INTERACTIONS 29 About the Authors

Alistair J. Bath is an associate professor at Memorial Univer- sity of Newfoundland. He received his honours B.A. degree in geography from Wilfrid Laurier University, his M.A. in geogra- phy from the University of Wyoming, and his Ph.D. from the University of Calgary. He has applied a human-dimensions ap- proach to understanding and resolving several issues between local residents, interest groups, and Parks Canada, particularly in Terra Nova and Gros Morne National Parks. He has done research in Portugal, Spain, France, Croatia, and Poland on various human dimensions of large carnivore management is- sues and is currently a member of the Bern Convention Expert Group on large carnivores for the Council of Europe. Dr. Bath can be contacted at: Dr. Alistair J. Bath Department of Geography Memorial University St. John's, NF, Canada. A1B 3X9. Telephone: (709)737-7417 Fax: (709)737-3119,

Email: [email protected]

Jody W. Enck is a research associate in the Department of Natural Resources at Cornell University. He teaches a course in the Human Dimensions of Natural Resource Management. His research focuses on social feasibility of wildlife species res- toration, human satisfactions and motivations pertaining to natural resources, and adaptive management of impacts asso- ciated with human-wildlife interactions. Dr. Enck can be con- tacted at: Dr. Jody W. Enck Human Dimensions Research Unit Department of Natural Resources 119 Fernow Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 Telephone: (607)255-8192 E-mail: [email protected]

30 NPS SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH REVIEW SUMMER 2003 Notes

WILDLIFE-HUMAN INTERACTIONS 31

About the Series

The purpose of the Social Science Research Review is to provide a basis for scientific understanding of specific issues critical to the management of the National Park System. Each paper presents a conceptual framework for understanding the issue, reviews methodologies used in relevant studies, and pre- sents key findings from published scientific literature, technical reports, and other documents. Each paper is peer-reviewed. The papers are not intended to provide specific policy guide- lines or management recommendations.

The Social Science Research Review series is part of the National Park Service Social Science Program under the direction of Dr. Jim Gramann, Visiting Chief Social Scientist, and Dr. Michael Soukup, Associate Director for Natural Re- sources Stewardship and Science.

About the Program The role and function of the NPS Social Science Pro- gram are to: provide leadership and direction to the social sci- ence activities of the NPS, coordinate social science activities with other programs of the NPS, act as liaison with the USGS Biological Resources Division and other federal agencies on social science activities, provide technical support to parks, park clusters, support offices and regional offices, and support a program of applied social science research related to na- tional research needs of the NPS. For more information, contact Dr. Jim Gramann Visiting Chief Social Scientist National Park Service 1849 C Street, NW (2300) Washington, DC 20240 Telephone: (202) 513-7189 Email: [email protected] Website-http://www.nps.gov/socialscience

32 NPS SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH REVIEW SUMMER 2003