Perception and trust influence acceptance for black bears more than bear density or conflicts

Introduction To sustain black bear (Ursus americanus) populations, wildlife managers should understand the coupled socio-ecological systems that influence acceptance capacity for bears. Method In a study area encompassing a portion of New York State, we spatially matched datasets from three sources: human-bear conflict reports between 2006 and 2018, estimates of local bear density in 2017–2018, and responses to a 2018 property owner survey (n=1,772). We used structural equation modeling to test hypothesized relationships between local human-bear conflict, local bear density, and psychological variables. Results The final model explained 57% of the variance in acceptance. The effect of bear population density on acceptance capacity for bears was relatively small and was mediated by a third variable: perception of proximity to the effects of human-bear interactions. The variables that exerted a direct effect on acceptance were perception of bear-related benefits, perception of bear-related risks, perceived proximity to effects of human-bear interactions, and being a hunter. Perception of bear-related benefits had a greater effect on acceptance than perception of bear-related risks. Perceived proximity to effects of human-bear interactions was affected by local bear density, but also was affected by social trust. Increased social trust had nearly the same effect on perceived proximity as decreased bear density. Social trust had the greatest indirect effect on acceptance of any variable in the model. Discussion Findings suggest wildlife agencies could maintain public acceptance for bears through an integrated approach that combines actions to address bear-related perceptions and social trust along with active management of bear populations.