Stakeholder Perceptions of Risk Associated with Human–Black Bear Conflicts in New York's Adirondack Park Campgrounds: Implications for Theory and Practice

Abstract New York State's Adirondack Park is home to an estimated 6,000 black bears (Ursus americanus), about 75% of the state's total population. Human–bear interactions at the Park's nearly 100 campgrounds are commonplace. Some interactions are conflicts that include risks to personal safety and property damage. Between 19 June 2003 and 18 August 2003, we interviewed 54 Adirondack Park campers and caretakers at 7 campgrounds to determine stakeholder-perceived risks. We structured interviews to assess 9 possible constructs influencing risks not yet reported in the literature for human–bear conflicts from campground stakeholders' perspectives: volition of exposure; certainty; feelings of dread; perceived frequency of exposure to risk; responsiveness of black bear managers; trust in black bear managers; familiarity of risk; natural causes of risk; and control over risk. Overall, perceived risk associated with human–bear conflict was low. Evidence-based analysis revealed 8 of 9 constructs to be salient. We characterized salient constructs according to camper and caretaker perspectives. Caretakers had a higher risk perception than campers. Using camper comments as a foundation, we classified groups of constructs as agency capacity/responsiveness (i.e., incorporating volition, trust, and responsiveness of wildlife managers), and individual capacity/knowledge (i.e., incorporating perceived certainty, dread, and frequency, control over exposure to risks associated with black bears, and magnitude or acuteness of exposure to risks associated with black bears). With additional confirmatory analysis, these constructs and methodology may have the potential to increase understanding of risk perceptions associated with human–bear conflict and inform the content and format of strategic management plans incorporating risk management and communication.

[1]  S. Riley INTEGRATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, BIOLOGICAL, AND HUMAN DIMENSIONS FOR MANAGEMENT OF MOUNTAIN LIONS (PUMA CONCOLOR) IN MONTANA , 1998 .

[2]  J. Burger,et al.  Gender Differences in Recreational Use, Environmental Attitudes, and Perceptions of Future Land Use at the Savannah River Site , 1998 .

[3]  L. Sjöberg The Methodology of Risk Perception Research , 2000 .

[4]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  A Causal Model Explaining the Perception and Acceptance of Gene Technology1 , 1999 .

[5]  Petter Wabakken,et al.  Human-carnivore interactions in Norway: How does the re-appearance of large carnivores affect people's attitudes and levels of fear? , 2001 .

[6]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Shared Values, Social Trust, and the Perception of Geographic Cancer Clusters , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[7]  O Weber,et al.  Risk Perception of Heavy Metal Soil Contamination and Attitudes toward Decontamination Strategies , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[8]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Perceived risk, trust, and democracy , 1993 .

[9]  L Sjöberg,et al.  Worry and Risk Perception , 1998, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[10]  William F. Siemer,et al.  2002 New York State Black Bear Management Survey: Study Overview and Findings Highlights , 2003 .

[11]  N. Denzin,et al.  Handbook of Qualitative Research. Second Edition. , 2000 .

[12]  R. J. Bord,et al.  Risk Perceptions, General Environmental Beliefs, and Willingness to Address Climate Change , 1999 .

[13]  Ian Burton Cultural and personality variables in the perception of natural hazards. , 1972 .

[14]  Sonya A. Grier,et al.  Social marketing in public health. , 2005, Annual review of public health.

[15]  R. Emerson Contemporary Field Research : Perspectives and Formulations , 2001 .

[16]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits , 1978 .

[17]  L. Zepeda,et al.  A Model of Consumers' Risk Perceptions Toward Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rbGH): The Impact of Risk Characteristics , 1999, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[18]  Sarah McCaffrey Thinking of Wildfire as a Natural Hazard , 2004 .

[19]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Trust as a Determinant of Opposition to a High‐Level Radioactive Waste Repository: Analysis of a Structural Model , 1992 .

[20]  Dennis S. Mileti,et al.  Taking care: Programs that encourage the adoption of precautions against natural hazards: review and evaluation , 1987 .

[21]  Kathleen J. Tierney,et al.  Socio-Economic Aspects of Hazard Mitigation , 1993 .

[22]  Meredith L. Gore,et al.  Effects on risk perception of media coverage of a black bear-related human fatality , 2005 .

[23]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Concepts of risk : a classification , 1992 .

[24]  Rachel Dunifon,et al.  Evidence-Based Extension , 2008 .

[25]  S. Kellert PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD BEARS AND THEIR CONSERVATION , 1994 .

[26]  D. Dillman Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method, 2nd ed. , 2007 .

[27]  I Savage,et al.  Demographic influences on risk perceptions. , 1993, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[28]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[29]  Joachim Scholderer,et al.  Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[30]  P. Slovic Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[31]  S. Herrero,et al.  Injury to People Inflicted by Black, Grizzly or Polar Bears: Recent Trends and New Insights , 1990 .