This article was downloaded by: [West Virginia University]On: 05 November 2014, At: 17:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Environmental EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjee20

Human-Wildlife Conflict andEnvironmental Education: Evaluatinga Community Program to Protect theAndean Bear in EcuadorSantiago Espinosa a & Susan K. Jacobson aa University of Florida , Gainesville, Florida, USAPublished online: 14 Nov 2011.

To cite this article: Santiago Espinosa & Susan K. Jacobson (2012) Human-Wildlife Conflict andEnvironmental Education: Evaluating a Community Program to Protect the Andean Bear in Ecuador,The Journal of Environmental Education, 43:1, 55-65, DOI: 10.1080/00958964.2011.579642

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2011.579642

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION, 43(1), 55–65, 2012Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0095-8964 print/1940–1892 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00958964.2011.579642

PROGRAM EVALUATION

Human-Wildlife Conflict and Environmental Education:Evaluating a Community Program to Protect the Andean

Bear in Ecuador

Santiago Espinosa and Susan K. JacobsonUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

Environmental education is a widespread, yet relatively unexamined strategy to reduce human-wildlifeconflicts. We evaluated knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions toward bear conservation afterfive years of environmental education in a Quichua community. Conflicts with livestock predationcreated mixed attitudes and behaviors toward bear conservation. Some program objectives wereachieved, such as 88% of participants reported satisfaction with environmental knowledge gained.Behavioral intentions to decrease bear conflicts increased, and multiple regression analysis revealedsupport for the project was associated with program participation. Focus group meetings with teachers,local policy makers and para-biologists provided a context for recommendations to improve programsuccess and revealed new issues for better bear management.

Keywords attitude, carnivore, cattle predation, community conservation, evaluation, risk perception,Tremarctos ornatus

INTRODUCTION

Conflicts between people and carnivores stemming from perceived and real threats to propertyand safety have led to worldwide declines in carnivore populations (Treves & Karanth, 2003).Education and outreach programs can be a successful strategy to promote conservation by enablinglocal residents to acquire accurate information and skills to reduce wildlife conflicts and makeinformed decisions for sustainable wildlife management (Jacobson, McDuff, & Monroe, 2006).Environmental education has been used as a strategy to help reduce conflicts with bears (Conover,2002; Gore & Knuth, 2006; Sato, 2008). Although it is important to understand and measure theeffectiveness of such programs, few evaluations have been conducted to determine if interventionsdesigned to reduce human-bear conflicts were successful, and program assessments have revealed

Correspondence should be sent to Santiago Espinosa, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University ofFlorida, 110 Newins-Ziegler Hall, P. O. Box 110430, Gainesville, FL 32611-0430, USA. E-mail: santiagoea@gmail.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

05 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

56 EVALUATING BEAR EDUCATION

mixed results (Gore, 2004; Gore & Knuth, 2006; Dunn, Elwell, & Tunberg, 2008, Sakurai &Jacobson, 2011).

In South America, to respond to the threatened status of the Andean bear (Tremarctos ornatus),an Ecuadorian organization, EcoCiencia, developed the Andean Bear Conservation Project witha public environmental education program. In Ecuador, the main threats to bears are habitatfragmentation, poaching for commercial sale of bear parts, and killing by local farmers to protectcrops and livestock (Suarez, 1999). Few public education programs have been developed forAndean bears in South America, and the effectiveness of existing programs is unknown.

Beginning in 1998, a bear education program was developed for a Quichua indigenous com-munity of Oyacachi, with approximately 550 inhabitants in 103 households, located within theCayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve (hereafter Reserve) in northern Ecuador. The objectives wereto increase residents’ knowledge about bears and to promote positive attitudes and behaviorstoward conserving their habitat (e.g., reducing bear shootings and habitat burning). Activities in-cluded a workshop on solid waste management; the creation of an educational radio program; anoccasional project newsletter; a “Bear Day” with interactive educational activities; collaborationwith a distance high school program for 15 village adults; infusion of environmental informationin the school curriculum through a teacher training for grades 4–6 (total of 46 students); andrecruitment and training of eight community members to work as para-biologists to assist inAndean bear research.

In 2003, five years after implementation, we evaluated program success. The objectives of theevaluation were to: a) assess current levels and changes in knowledge, attitudes, and behavioralintentions toward the conservation of the Andean bear and its habitat; b) analyze the influenceof respondents’ environmental knowledge, socioeconomic attributes, and interactions with theAndean bear on their attitudes and behavioral intentions toward bear conservation and BearProject support; and c) improve education program delivery by identifying needed modifications.

The framework we used to review program impacts was based on assessing four interactingvariables associated with individuals’ attitudes toward wildlife postulated by Kellert (1996). Theseincluded: a) individuals’ basic values toward animals and nature that affect their perceptions abouta particular species; b) physical and behavioral characteristics of an animal; c) knowledge andunderstanding about a particular species; and (4) interactions with a particular species.

METHODS

Surveys

Quantitative data were gathered through face-to-face surveys with male and female heads-of-households; a list of households and random numbers were used to choose participants. BetweenMay and August 2003, 83 out of 103 households were surveyed to obtain a sample with confidencelevel of 95% (Dillman, 2007). A total of 76 male and 77 female household heads were interviewed,with a cooperation rate of 98%. The first author conducted surveys on male participants and afemale assistant was hired, trained, tested, and reviewed to conduct surveys with women. Thefirst author and assistant are native Spanish speakers.

Surveys were designed using standard methods (Salant & Dillman, 1994) and reviewed bythree University of Florida survey researchers, Bear Project coordinators and local teachers to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

05 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

ESPINOSA AND JACOBSON 57

ensure usefulness of the results. Survey topics included: knowledge about bears and the localenvironment, attitudes and behavioral intentions toward bear conservation and environmentalprotection, previous interactions or conflicts with bears, support for the Bear Project and its en-vironmental education program, and socioeconomic background variables. Attitudes, behavioralintentions, and Bear Project support items were based on yes/no questions, multiple choice, anda 3-point and 5-point symmetrical Likert-type scale.

Quantitative Analyses

Statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS v17.0.1 (Dec. 2008). To assess changes afterprogram delivery, questions asked in a baseline 1998 survey were repeated in 2003; responseswere compared using chi-square tests (Table 1).

TABLE 1Chi-square Tests: Changes in Responses After Program Delivery

% Correct answers % Correct answersa) Knowledge 1998∗ 2003∗ X2 p-value

Do you know what the reserve is?(yes = 1/no = 0)

0.82 0.96 8.727 .003

Do you know if bears take careof their cubs?(yes = 1/no = 0)

0.76 0.86 2.390 .122

Do you know how bears live?(multiple choice)

0.67 0.49 3.607 .058

b) Attitudes % Pro-bear attitude 1998∗ % Pro-bear attitude 2003∗ X2 p-value

Does the bear need to be protected?(yes = 1/no = 0)

0.87 0.81 0.873 .350

Does the bear have any personalimportance to you?(yes = 1/no = 0)

0.96 0.67 10.812 .001

c) Intentional behaviors % Pro-bear behavior 1998∗ % Pro-bear behavior 2003∗ X2 p-value

What would you do to avoid beardamage to your crops or cattle?(Shoot it = 0, †other action = 1)

0.80 0.82 0.038 .846

What would you do if you see an adultbear? (Shoot it = 0,††other action = 1)

0.93 1.00 9.009 .002

What would you do if you see a bearcub? (Shoot it = 0,††other action = 1)

0.68 0.93 15.070 .000

∗N1998 = 25–34; N2003 = 146–153.†Other nonlethal actions included: scare the bear, spend more time taking care of crops and cattle, harvest earlier,

fencing crops, and not destroying the forest.††Other nonlethal actions included: scare the bear, run away, or leave the bear alone.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

05 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

58 EVALUATING BEAR EDUCATION

TABLE 2Questions Grouped in Indices Based on a Factor Analysis (N = 153)

Initial Eigenvalues∗

% of Component∗Total variance loadings

Index A: Attitude toward bear protection (Cronbach’s α = 0.63)It is good to have the RECAY? (5-point scale) 2.049 51.235 0.742Do you believe the RECAY is needed for bear survival? (5-point scale) 0.893 22.329 0.737Do bears need to be protected? (yes = 1/no = 0) 0.604 15.103 0.644Are laws to protect bears needed? (yes = 1/no = 0) 0.453 11.333 0.736

Index B: Attitude toward bear presence (Cronbach’s α = 0.53)Name three animals that are detrimental to your livelihood

(bear is named = 0; not named = 1)1.809 45.224 0.670

Name three animals that are beneficial to your livelihood(bear is named = 0; not named = 1)

0.848 21.190 0.604

Are there currently more bears than in the past? (3-point scale) 0.770 19.262 0.764Would you prefer that there are more or less bears in the forest?

(5-point scale)0.573 14.324 0.642

Index C: Behavioral intention in a conflict with a bear (Cronbach’s α = 0.58)What would you do to avoid bear damage to your crops and cattle?

(kill bears = 0; other responses = 1)1.755 58.493 0.574

What would you do if you see a bear close to your crops?(4-point scale: do nothing = 3; scare bear = 2; catch = 1; shoot = 0)

0.858 28.586 0.806

What would you do if you see a bear close to your cattle? (see above) 0.388 12.921 0.881

Index D: Bear project support (Cronbach’s α = 0.47)Is the Bear Project useful for community development? (5-point scale) 1.516 50.522 0.740Have you observed any positive changes in behaviors toward bear

conservation in the community since Bear Project? (yes/no)0.784 26.121 0.717

Where did you learn about bears and the environment?(mentions Bear Project = 1, other responses = 0)

0.701 23.357 0.673

∗Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Factor analyses were conducted with questions that evaluated attitudes (10 items), intentionalbehaviors (9 items) and Bear Project support (3 items). Factor loadings from principal componentswere used to identify items belonging to four different theoretical constructs; items were groupedto create indices that measured (A) attitudes toward bear protection, (B) attitudes toward bearpresence, (C) behavioral intention in a conflict with bears, and (D) program support (Table 2).Eight items with low loadings or with no clear theoretical connection were discarded fromsubsequent analyses. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to test for the internal consistency ofeach index (Table 2). These four indices were used as response variables in multiple regressionmodels that included a series of explanatory variables (Table 3).

Focus Groups

Focus group meetings were conducted by the first author to gain contextual information about theprogram, following standard procedures (Krueger & Casey, 2000). Three focus group discussions,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

05 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

ESPINOSA AND JACOBSON 59

TABLE 3Linear Multiple Regressions Showing the Association of Variables With People’s Attitudes, Behavioral

Intentions and Perceived Program Impacts

A) Attitude B) Attitude C) Behavioraltoward toward intention in a D) Bear Project

bear protection bear presence conflict with a bear support

Explanatory Std. Beta Std. Beta Std. Beta Std. Betavariables coefficient Sig. coefficient Sig. coefficient Sig. coefficient Sig.

Gender∗ −.137 .182 −.302 .010 −.544 .000 −.339 .002Age −.154 .076 .001 .995 .016 .855 .026 .778Monthly income −.108 .180 .081 .367 −.036 .643 .189 .027Cow predation by

bears∗∗−.139 .077 −.196 .028 −.024 .754 .001 .994

Environmentalknowledge

.484 .000 .189 .144 .235 .037 .182 .117

Participation inBear Project∗∗

.145 .087 .149 .132 .063 .447 .387 .000

Adjusted R2 .266 .081 .159 .232SE of the estimate .773 1.108 .916 .850N 121 121 145 114

∗Male = 1, Female = 0; ∗∗Yes = 1, No = 0.

each lasting approximately 1.5 hrs, were conducted with teachers (3 of 5), para-biologists (7 of 8)and local political authorities who are community decision makers (6 of 9). Central topics of focusgroup discussions were: a) perceptions about the Bear Project’s education and capacity-buildingactivities for bear conservation; b) program problems, and improvements needed; and c) viewsabout the collaboration between the community and the program administration. Results weretape recorded and transcribed for analysis. Perceptions and observations participants had aboutthe Bear Project were classified by themes (e.g., conflict over use of bait to attract bears) andused to provide suggestions for program improvement.

Methodological Limitations

A limitation of this evaluation was the reliance on a baseline survey for before and after quantitativecomparisons, which limits the accountability an evaluation can provide (Jacobson, 2009). Indicesused as response variables in the linear multiple regression models had alpha coefficients below0.60–0.65, which is conventionally considered adequate for reliability (Vaske, 2008). However,these indices have been retained because items in each of them are within the same theoreticalconstruct. Low alphas (e.g., 0.5) do not necessarily have critical effects on the validity of aninstrument (Schmitt, 1996). Alpha coefficients can be low when an instrument measures differentattributes or dimensions within the same theoretical construct. Additionally, alpha is directlyaffected by the instrument’s size; low numbers of items –as in this study– will result in smalleralphas (Schmitt, 1996). Findings still must be interpreted cautiously.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

05 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

60 EVALUATING BEAR EDUCATION

RESULTS

Sociodemographic Background of Oyacachi Villagers

In Ecuador, the monthly minimum wage in May 2004 was US $166, and in Oyacachi meanmonthly income was US $119 (SD = 73), ranging from US$18 to US $400, suggesting mostfamilies are impoverished. Eight percent of respondents had no formal education, 65% had someprimary school, and 32% had some high school education.

The main source of economic revenue in Oyacachi was from cattle ranching, followed bysale of locally made wooden handicrafts. Both activities represent approximately 50% and 25%respectively of Oyacachi’s total income. All households owned livestock, including cattle andsheep, and a quarter of them (20 of 83) reported having experienced economic losses due to bearattacks on their animals. Twelve, six, and three attacks to livestock were reported respectivelyin the first, second, and third years prior to this evaluation. Respondents estimated the economicloss of each attack ranged from US $40–1000, with a mean of US$343 (SD = 308.87).

Knowledge, Attitudes and Intentional Behaviors Toward theEnvironment and Bears

Although formal education levels were low, knowledge about the environment and bear con-servation was fairly high. The total knowledge score in 2003 averaged 9.62 out of 13 points(SD = 2.48). Men scored significantly higher (11.14, SD = 1.79), than women (8.15, SD =2.14) (t = −9.156, df = 145, p < .001). Participants were more knowledgeable about practicalitems (e.g., local wildlife, regulations within protected area) and less knowledgeable about moregeneral ecology (e.g., defining an ecosystem or the role of bears in it).

Interviewees had positive responses regarding conservation of natural resources and bears.Most respondents answered positively to questions about the need to conserve nature and thepersistence of natural ecosystems such as forests and paramos (wet grasslands in the high Andes),mainly mentioning their importance for maintaining various natural resources. Attitudes towardthe ecological Reserve were positive; 97% mentioned that it was good to have the Reserve present,mainly because it helped keep out outside people who want to convert land to agriculture. Themajority of respondents (81%) agreed that bears needed to be protected, and 93% thought bearsurvival in the region depended on the existence of the Reserve. In addition 66% recognizedbears could become extinct if unprotected from hunting. For 67% of respondents the bear wasimportant at a personal level, related to aesthetic, utilitarian (e.g., bears were seen as an importantattraction for tourism), ecological, and cultural values.

Conflicts with crop and cattle predation by bears created negative feelings toward bears inOyacachi. Most interviewees (62%) included the bear in a list of detrimental animals; only 14%named this animal as beneficial, like other species such as deer or tapir which are valued as food.When asked if they would prefer more or fewer bears in the area, 13% mentioned they would liketo have more bears, so they can show them to tourists. In contrast, half preferred fewer, mainlybecause they were concerned more bears could increase crop or cattle predation. This concernwas reflected when people were asked about their behavioral intentions if they encountered abear in different scenarios. If a bear was encountered in the forest they would either leave it alone

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

05 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

ESPINOSA AND JACOBSON 61

(88%) or scare it (12%). However, if a bear was encountered either near homes, crops or cattle;3%, 7% and 16% of respondents would shoot bears in each case respectively.

Changes in Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions AfterProgram Delivery

Knowledge improved on one of three questions between the baseline and final survey: morepeople knew about the existence of the Reserve (Table 1a). There was a decrease in people whothought it was good to protect bears, as well as in those who believed that bears were important tothem (Table 1b), although in both cases most respondents reported positive attitudes toward bears.

Respondents’ behavioral intentions in a hypothetical encounter with an adult bear or cub weremore positive after the educational program (Table 1c). The proportion of people who thoughtshooting bears was the solution to avoid crop or cattle predation did not change after programimplementation; however the majority, in both 1998 and 2003, believed nonlethal actions suchas guarding their cattle more vigilantly or building fences to keep bears from crops, could solvethese problems (Table 1c).

Variables Influencing People’s Attitudes, Behaviors and Bear Project Support

Indices used as response variables in linear multiple regression models are shown in Table 2.Results demonstrate that individuals who are more knowledgeable about their environment havemore positive attitudes toward bear protection (Table 3A). People’s attitudes toward bear presencewas explained by gender and experiences with cattle predation; women were more likely totolerate bear presence than men, and people who have had cattle killed by bears were less likelyto tolerate their presence (Table 3B). In the case of a conflictive situation with bears, womanwere more likely to have a positive behavioral intention toward bears (e.g., scare vs. shoot abear), as well as those respondents who had more environmental knowledge (Table 3C). Women,individuals with higher incomes, or those who have participated in any project activity were morelikely to support the Bear Project (Table 3D).

Bear Project Impacts in Oyacachi

Most respondents (97%) had heard about the Bear Project, and 91% could explain its activities inOyacachi. However, respondents mostly referred to the research being conducted on bear ecology.Only 41% of respondents knew about the environmental education program implemented at thelocal school.

Sixty-three respondents (43%) reported participating in at least one activity of the Bear Projectand the majority (88%) stated that they had had a good experience, noting that they had learnednew things about the environment and bears. Most respondents (92%) said that they would like tolearn more about the environment, and 88% would like to be enrolled in an activity for conservinglocal natural resources. In addition, 66% of respondents thought the Bear Project was useful forcommunity development, reporting that more knowledge of the environment helps them bettermanage natural resources.

Respondents also were asked about negative impacts of the Bear Project. Forty-one percentindicated that the project created conflicts. The main source of conflict concerned bear research

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

05 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

62 EVALUATING BEAR EDUCATION

procedures, such as including cattle blood in the ingredients for bait to attract bears to hair trapsfor ecological research. These were placed in close proximity to the community, and residentsbelieved the use of this bait was the cause of cattle predation by bears, which had increased inrecent years.

Focus Group Discussions

All local teachers, policy makers, and para-biologists were invited to the three focus groupmeetings to identify strengths and weaknesses of the program. Principal strengths includeda) relatively long-term presence and work resulting in project recognition by the community; andb) the collaborative process through which the Bear Project has conducted its activities with targetaudiences, following the suggestions of local people. Teachers indicated they were satisfied andmotivated to continue participating with the Bear Project because of their collaborative interactionin the school program. The main weaknesses were a) lack of communication with the communityabout the results of project activities, and b) limited target audiences, that were mainly adultsenrolled in the distance education program, para-biologists, and school children.

All three focus groups reported concern about the Bear Project’s use of cattle blood as bait forbears. Participants in all groups believed that this attracted bears to the community and taught themto feed on livestock. For example, one participant said, “We are willing to collaborate in effortsto conserve bears, under the condition that this problem [predation] is resolved.” Participantssuggested the educational program should include practical topics for managing their resourcesand reducing conflicts with bears.

DISCUSSION

Long-term assessments of educational programs addressing human-wildlife conflicts are rare, yetare critical to improve program success and identify unanticipated outcomes. A review by Gore(2004) of six case studies of outreach programs for reducing bear conflicts in North Americafound that only one case in Canada succeeded in reducing human-bear conflicts by 75% afterthe program. This evaluation of the Andean bear project was based on understanding programimpacts as they related to Kellert’s (1996) framework of four interacting variables associated withindividuals’ attitudes toward wildlife.

In Oyacachi, individuals valued bears and believed bears were personally important andshould be protected, which reflects people’s supportive attitudes toward bear conservation. Asecond interacting variable, physical and behavioral characteristics of an animal, could lead toboth positive and negative attitudes of respondents. Similar to other large carnivores, the bear isadmired for its beauty and power (Kellert, Black, Reid Rush, & Bath, 1996), however, due to thepredatory behavior of some bears, residents’ evaluation of bears shifted depending on whetherthey felt their property was threatened by bears (e.g., leaving bears alone if found in the forest orwanting to kill them if found near cattle).

In Oyacachi, people’s interactions with bears as a particular species were represented mainlyby livestock predation, and those who had lost livestock were less likely to tolerate bear presence.Livestock predation is a main cause for conflicts between people and large carnivores (Treves,Wallace, Naughton-Treves, & Morales, 2006) and therefore plays an important role in determining

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

05 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

ESPINOSA AND JACOBSON 63

attitudes and behaviors toward a species, especially if no compensation is provided to alleviatelosses (Mishra et al., 2003).

Kellert’s fourth variable, knowledge and understanding about a species, was important in pre-dicting support for bear conservation. Higher levels of environmental knowledge were positivelyassociated with two out of three indices that measured positive attitudes and behavioral intentionstoward bears. These results support social-psychological models that suggest people’s behaviorscan be influenced by increasing their knowledge (e.g., Hungerford & Volk, 1990; Kollmuss &Agyeman, 2002). As misunderstanding or ignorance can exacerbate negative attitudes towardsbears, the education program can help garner public support for bear conservation. More frequentmonitoring would have improved the outcomes through better communications between projectstaff and the community.

Kellert’s framework contributed to the understanding of mixed results toward bear conser-vation in Oyacachi. Although intrinsic values and environmental knowledge favored bears, theinteractions with this species and its predatory behavior caused mixed reactions toward bearprotection. For example, there was a decrease in the proportion of positive attitudes toward bearsafter program delivery, but behavioral intentions that favored bear conservation increased. Inaddition, although respondents thought bears needed to be protected, they also preferred to havefewer bears nearby.

The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) suggests Oyacachi residents could adopt behav-iors favorable to bear conservation only if they both perceive they have the capability to performthem and the necessary skills. Due to a fragile local economy, respondents likely perceived littlepersonal capacity to deal with the costs of damage that a bear could inflict. In order to allevi-ate wildlife conflicts, managers and researchers need to increase the benefits and decrease theliabilities carnivores can cause (Conover, 2002; Mishra et al., 2003).

Gender was significant in predicting pro-environmental attitudes and behavior. Bear Projectactivities reached mostly men in the adult population; 39 of 63 respondents who reported engagingin one or more activities were men, and all para-biologists were men. This gender bias ineducational program delivery was associated with men having higher environmental knowledgescores. In contrast, multiple regression models showed women were more likely to have favorableattitudes and behavioral intentions toward bears than men. Similar patterns have been observedin other studies that suggest that cultural and social factors may play a more important role ininfluencing women’s attitudes and behaviors than knowledge levels (Gilligan, 1982; Manfredo,2008; Tikka, Kuitunen, & Tynys, 2000). Understanding the influence of such cultural and socialfactors on people’s pro-environmental behaviors need further research and could be especiallyimportant to improve educational programs for the conservation of controversial species, such asthe Andean bear.

Bear Project Support and Lessons Learned

Most participants viewed program activities as a source of environmental learning and supportedthe Bear Project. However, the ineffectiveness of the project to control livestock predation bybears, and the use of cattle blood as a bear attractant were highly criticized. Lack of communicationof Bear Project results fostered this criticism; additional outreach efforts involving group meetingsand interpersonal interactions could help increase awareness by both project staff and communitymembers and avoid misunderstandings (Jacobson et al., 2006). The magnitude and negative

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

05 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

64 EVALUATING BEAR EDUCATION

influence of the conflict over cattle predation on the Bear Project program was unknown beforethis evaluation. This unanticipated finding emphasizes the importance of evaluation for collectinginformation to identify problems and modify programs to improve their probability of success(Rovira, 2002).

The focus group with para-biologists criticized the program for not reaching all members ofthe community. As participation in the Bear Project was a significant explanatory variable of BearProject support, this result indicates the need to reach out to more people in order to increasecommunity support for the program. Targeting women, who were more likely to be supportive ofthe Bear Project’s activities, would be a useful strategy as currently fewer women participated inany project activities.

In addition to building local support for a conservation program, capacity for carrying outconservation behaviors is a prerequisite for ultimate success (Ajzen, 1985). Respondents withhigher income had a higher capacity to perform pro-environmental behaviors and were more likelyto support the Bear Project. Personal interviews and focus groups revealed agreement amongcommunity members that they wanted the project to include activities that promote sustainablecommunity development. As suggested by other research (Mehta & Kellert, 1998; Udaya Sekhar,1998; Mishra et al., 2003), educational activities should complement other interventions thatpursue economic development in order to provide local people with alternatives that permit themto modify livelihood systems that conflict with wildlife conservation.

Livestock depredation signifies an economic loss to anyone who experiences it. The magnitudeof these conflicts can be especially important in economically depressed areas such as Oyacachiwhere losing one animal may represent several months of a family income. The declaration byfocus group participants that they will support Andean bear conservation only if the conflict withcattle predation is resolved, exemplifies the importance of this issue. Many programs for theconservation of large carnivores have included provisions of financial compensation for loss oradditional economic incentives to discourage people from killing these animals (Mishra et al.,2003). A collaborative process that includes both education of community members and the de-velopment of projects designed to improve sustainable livelihoods, should reduce environmentalconflicts (Schelhas, Buck, & Geisler, 2001; Treves et al., 2006) and lead to long-term success ofbear conservation efforts.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank the University of Florida Program for Studies in Tropical Conservation, andthe Compton Foundation for research funding. The authors also thank J. Alavalapati, G. Israel,and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions for this manuscript. They are gratefulto the community of Oyacachi and the Andean Bear Conservation Project–EcoCiencia for theircollaboration.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl and J. Beckmann (Eds.), Actioncontrol: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

05 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

ESPINOSA AND JACOBSON 65

Conover, M. (2002). Resolving human-wildlife conflicts: The science of wildlife management. London, England: LewisPublishers.

Dillman, D. (2007). Mail and interment surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Dunn, W., Elwell, J., & Tunberg, G. (2008). Safety education in bear country: Are people getting the message? Ursus,

19, 43–52.Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Gore, M. L. (2004). Comparison of intervention programs designed to reduce human-bear conflict: A review of literature.

Ithaca, NY: Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, HDRU Series No. 04-4.Gore, M. L., & Knuth, B. A. (2006). Attitude and behavior change associated with the New York NeighBEARhood Watch

Program. Ithaca, NY: Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, HDRU Series No. 06-14.Hungerford, H., & Volk, T. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental

Education, 21, 8–22Jacobson, S. K. (2009). Communication skills for conservation professionals. Washington, DC: Island Press.Jacobson, S. K., McDuff, M., & Monroe, M. (2006). Conservation education and outreach techniques. Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press.Kellert, S. (1996). The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Washington, DC: Island Press.Kellert, S., Black, M., Reid Rush, C., & Bath, A. (1996). Human culture and large carnivore conservation in North

America. Conservation Biology, 10, 977–990.Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to

pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8, 239–260.Krueger, R., & Casey, M. (2000). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. London, England: Sage.Manfredo, M. (2008). Who cares about wildlife? New York, NY: Springer.Mehta, J., & Kellert, S. (1998). Local attitudes toward community-based conservation policy and programmes in Nepal:

A case study in the Makalu-Barun Conservation Area. Environmental Conservation, 25, 320–333.Mishra, C., Allen, P., McCarthy, T., Madhusudan, M., Bayarjargal, A. & Prins, H. (2003). The role of incentive programs

in conserving the snow leopard. Conservation Biology, 17, 1512–1520.Rovira, M. (2002). Evaluating environmental education programmes: Some issues and problems. Environmental Educa-

tion Research, 6, 144–155.Salant, P., & Dillman, D. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Sakurai, R., & Jacobson, S. (2011). Public perceptions of bears and management interventions in Japan. Human Wildlife

Interaction, 5, 123–134.Sato, T. (2008). Wildlife as an environmental icon and local communities: Formation processes of environmental icons

and the role of science in ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Sociology, 14, 70–85.Schelhas, J., Buck, L., & Geisler, C. (2001). Introduction: The challenge of adaptive collaborative management. In L.

Buck, C. Geisler, J. Schelhas, & E. Wollenberg (Eds.), Biological diversity: Balancing interests through collaborativemanagement (pp. xix–xvii). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8, 350–353.Suarez, L. (1999). Status and management of the spectacled bear in Ecuador. In C. Servheen, S. Herrero, & B. Peyton

(Eds.), Bears: Status survey and conservation action plan (pp. 179–182). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/SSC Bear andPolar Bear Specialist Groups.

Tikka, P., Kuitunen, M., & Tynys, S. (2000). Effects of educational background on students’ attitudes, activity levels, andknowledge concerning the environment. Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 12–19.

Treves, A., & Karanth, K. (2003). Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide.Conservation Biology, 17, 1491–1499.

Treves, A., Wallace, R., Naughton-Treves, L., & Morales, A. (2006). Co-managing human-wildlife conflicts: A review.Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 11, 1–14.

Udaya Sekhar, N. (1998). Crop and livestock depredation caused by wild animals in protected areas: The case of SariskaTiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India. Environmental Conservation, 25, 160–171.

Vaske, J. (2008). Survey research and analysis: Applications in parks, recreation and human dimensions. State College,PA: Venture Publishing.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

05 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014