Attitudes and Beliefs of Nebraska Residents …...Biodiversity & Quality of Life Issues 2004 Public Opinion Survey Larry Mark Gigliotti, Ph.D. Human Dimensions Consulting The purpose

Attitudes and Beliefs of Nebraska ResidentsBiodiversity & Quality of Life Issues

2004 Public Opinion Survey[April 2006]

ByLarry Mark Gigliotti, Ph.D.

Human Dimensions Consulting30286 S.D. Hwy 34

Pierre, South Dakota 57501

Results in this report are from the data collected for the following study:

Teel, T. L., Dayer, A. A., Manfredo, M. J., & Bright, A. D. (2005). Regional resultsfrom the research project entitled "Wildlife Values in the West." (Project Rep. No. 58).Project Report for the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Fort Collins,CO: Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit.

A Product of the Wildlife Values in the West Project

Nebraska State-Specific Report

Teel, T. L., Dayer, A. A., Manfredo, M. J., & Bright, A. D. (2005). Regional resultsfrom the research project entitled "Wildlife Values in the West." (Project Rep. No.58). Project Report for the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. FortCollins, CO: Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit.

Gigliotti, L. M. (2006). Attitudes and beliefs of Nebraska residents: Biodiversity & quality oflife issues – 2004 public opinion survey. Report prepared for Nebraska Game andParks Commission. Human Dimensions Consulting, Pierre, SD.

Executive SummaryAttitudes and Beliefs of Nebraska Residents

Biodiversity & Quality of Life Issues – 2004 Public Opinion Survey

Larry Mark Gigliotti, Ph.D.Human Dimensions Consulting

This is a descriptive study of attitudes of Nebraska residents in relation to

biodiversity and quality of life issues. Topics included attitudes towards various options

for protecting lands (habitat) for nongame species and funding for nongame programs,

understanding and support for maintaining biodiversity in Nebraska, importance of

various quality of life factors, and the role of fish and wildlife in the world (biodiversity).

This information has a number of valuable uses:

1. Better management decisions : This information provides a valuable

understanding of the public's attitudes in relation to nongame species

management and biodiversity issues, which in turn can lead to better

management decisions by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission.

2. Improved ability to predict public responses to wildlife issues: A better

understanding of the public's attitudes on specific topics may also lead to an

improved predictive ability on related topics.

3. Improved public trust in the agency: In addition, being able to demonstrate

that NGPC listens to and understands the public's attitudes, opinions, desires,

needs, etc. can increase the public's trust in the agency.

4. Public involvement tool: Most wildlife issues are the result of conflicting

values and attitudes. Often each side in such conflicts holds the view that

their opinion is held by a significant majority of the public and/or they have a

poor understanding of the other side's position. When sound scientific public

attitude data is shared with the public it often tends to moderate the conflict

and the groups tend to become more willing to accept compromise solutions.

5. Measure trends and evaluate projects, programs or policy changes:

Human dimensions information is especially valuable in measuring trends and

evaluating project or program effectiveness and impacts.

ii

6. Collection of public opinion information relevant to Wildlife Action

Plans: With the development of Wildlife Action Plans by every state and the

increase in national attention on nongame species management and

biodiversity issues will likely increase. One important aspect of this issue for

wildlife agencies will be the public's understanding of and support for

nongame species management and biodiversity issues. This is especially

important, as each state will need to identify 50% matching funds to receive

federal funding for their nongame management projects.

Summary of Major Findings

• All six options for protecting lands for nongame species were very acceptable to

Nebraska residents.

• Nebraska residents are not currently supportive of any type of "new" tax for nongame

species programs (selling conservation license plates was the only funding option to

receive a high acceptability rating). However, the vast majority of Nebraska residents

expect NGPC to explore options and find appropriate funding for nongame species.

• Overall, the majority of residents are positive towards biodiversity issues and

supportive of programs to conserve and protect Nebraska's biodiversity.

• This study produced a biodiversity typology (biodiversity model) based on

respondents' opinion of the role of fish and wildlife in the world.

• This study produced profiles for fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing participants

(non-participants, inactive participants and active participants) and for the wildlife

value orientations and biodiversity model.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Per

cen

t

Very High High Medium Low Very Low

Biodiversity Groups

This five-group model measures

the underlying value system

related to biodiversity and is a

very good tool for predicting

specific attitudes towards

biodiversity issues and related

management actions.

iii

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary............................................................................................................. iMethods................................................................................................................................1ResultsPart 1 – Overview of attitudes and beliefs of Nebraska residents.......................................4 Section A: Options for managing nongame species (Tables 1.1-A – 1.3 and Figure 1.1) ...............................................................................................................4 Section B: Funding of nongame programs (Tables 1.4-A – 1.6 and Figure 1.2) ......10 Section C: Attitudes related to wildlife diversity (Tables 1.7-B and 1.7-B).............15 Section D: Quality of life factors (Tables 1.8 – 1.9-O and Figure 1.3).....................17 Section E: Biodiversity (Tables 1.10-A – 1.10-L) ....................................................24 Further analysis of the biodiversity Items (Table 1.11 and 1.12 and Figures 1.4 - 1.8) ...............................................................................................31Part 2 – Biodiversity typology ..........................................................................................36 Section A: Importance of biodiversity – biodiversity model (Tables 2.1 – 2.3-L and Figures 2.1 – 2.3-L)........................................................36 Biodiversity factor scores (Table 2.4 and Figures 2.4-A through 2.4-D) .............53 Section B: Options for managing nongame species analyzed by the biodiversity model (Tables 2.5-A – 2.6 and Figures 2.5-A – 2.5-F) ....................56 Section C: Funding of nongame programs analyzed by the biodiversity model (Tables 2.7-A – 2.8 and Figures 2.6-A – 2.6-F)....................................................64 Section D: Quality of life factors analyzed by the biodiversity model (Tables 2.9-A – 2.11 and Figures 2.7-A – 2.9) .....................................................72 Section E: Wildlife value orientations analyzed by the biodiversity model (Tables 2.12 – 2.13 and Figures 2.10 – 2.11)........................................................90Part 3 – Attitudes and beliefs of fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing participants in Nebraska – Who are our customers?.........................................................................93 Section A: Anglers (Tables 3.1-A – 3.8-B)...............................................................93 Section B: Hunters (Tables 3.9-A – 3.16-B) ...........................................................104 Section C: Wildlife viewers (Tables 3.17-A – 3.24-B)...........................................115 Section D: Wildlife value orientations (Tables 3.25-A – 3.30)...............................116Part 4 – Description of fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing participants in Nebraska – Who are our customers?...........................................................................135 Section A: Description of fishing participants (non-anglers, inactive anglers and active anglers) (Tables 4.1 – 4.11) ...............................................................135 Section B: Description of hunting participants (non-hunters, inactive hunters and active hunters) (Tables 4.12 – 4.22) .............................................................141 Section C: Description of wildlife viewing participants (non-viewers, inactive viewers and active viewers) (Tables 4.23 – 4.33)...............................................147 Summary (Tables 4.34 – 4.37 and Figure 4.1) .......................................................153Part 5 – Description of Nebraska residents from the perspective of the wildlife value orientation groups and the biodiversity model – Who are our customers? .......156 Section A: Description of wildlife value orientation groups (pluralist, utilitarian, mutualist and distanced) (Tables 5.1 – 5.10) ......................................................156 Section B: Description of biodiversity model (very high, high, medium, low, and very low) (Tables 5.11 – 5.20) .....................................................................161

iv

Section C: Further analysis of the biodiversity factors (species primacy, species loss, species value and human primacy) (Tables 5.21 – 5.24)............................166 Full Biodiversity Scale (Tables 5.25 - 2.26 and Figures 5.1 - 5.3) .....................171DiscussionValue and use of this information....................................................................................174Options for protecting lands (habitats) for nongame species...........................................175Options for funding nongame species programs..............................................................175Quality of life factors .......................................................................................................176Biodiversity Model...........................................................................................................176Anglers.............................................................................................................................177Hunters.............................................................................................................................178Wildlife watchers .............................................................................................................178Wildlife value orientations...............................................................................................179Comparing the wildlife value orientations with the biodiversity model..........................179Description of fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing participation in Nebraska – Who are our customers?...........................................................................................180Description of Nebraska residents from two perspectives – Who are our customers?....181Appendix A – Questionnaire used for the survey of Nebraska residents........................182

A Product of the Wildlife Values in the West Project

Nebraska State-Specific Report

Teel, T. L., Dayer, A. A., Manfredo, M. J., & Bright, A. D. (2005). Regional resultsfrom the research project entitled "Wildlife Values in the West." (Project Rep. No.58). Project Report for the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. FortCollins, CO: Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit.

Gigliotti, L. M. (2006). Attitudes and beliefs of Nebraska residents: Biodiversity & quality oflife issues – 2004 public opinion survey. Report prepared for Nebraska Game andParks Commission. Human Dimensions Consulting, Pierre, SD.

Attitudes and Beliefs of Nebraska ResidentsBiodiversity & Quality of Life Issues

2004 Public Opinion Survey

Larry Mark Gigliotti, Ph.D.Human Dimensions Consulting

The purpose of this report is to gain a better understanding of Nebraska residents

in relation to biodiversity and quality of life issues and nongame species management by

the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC).

METHODSThis study was conducted as part of a larger project (Wildlife Values in the West

2004) summarized below (Teel, et al., 2005). A complete description of project

background and methods can be found in the Wildlife Values in the West 2004 report.

This document only reports on the Nebraska state-specific section of the study. See

Appendix A for a copy of the Nebraska state-specific question items used in this study.

Project Overview - Wildlife Values in the West 2004

"Wildlife Values in the West 2004" is a project of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife

Agencies (WAFWA) Human Dimensions Committee in cooperation with Colorado State University.

The survey instrument for this project was divided into two parts: 1) a regional section, and 2) a

state-specific section.

The purpose of the regional section of the survey, which was the same across all states, was to

measure public values and wildlife value orientations, sociodemographic characteristics, and

participation in wildlife-related recreation activities among residents of each state. The regional

section also contained questions addressing public reactions to key "regional" wildlife management

issues deemed important across a majority of participating states. Issues were selected largely on the

basis of their ability to provide information about how changes in public values could affect

responses to management issues and decisions.

The state-specific section provided an opportunity to gather information about key, timely

management issues affecting a particular state. The questions appearing in this part of the survey

were developed by each participating state, with input and suggestions from Colorado State

University and other members of the project work group.

Biodiversity & Quality of Life Issues Attitudes and Beliefs of Nebraska Residents – 2004

2

The report is organized into five parts. Part one, "Overview of Attitudes and

Beliefs of Nebraska Residents" provides a description of how Nebraska residents

answered the various state-specific questions. The Nebraska state-specific questions are

arranged in five topic areas: (1) options for managing nongame species, (2) funding of

nongame programs, (3) attitudes related to biodiversity, (4) quality of life factors, and (5)

biodiversity. This section on biodiversity measures opinion about the role of fish and

wildlife in the world.

Part two, "Biodiversity Typology" segments the Nebraska residents into five

groups based on how they responded to a set of twelve questions related to the role of

fish and wildlife in the world. The five groups form somewhat of a continuum from very

high support to very low support for biodiversity.

Part three, "Attitudes and Beliefs of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Viewing

Participants in Nebraska – Who are our customers?" compares the mean response to the

all of the state-specific questions for non-participants, inactive participants and active

participants for fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing. This will provide an understanding

of the similarities and differences in attitudes related to biodiversity and nongame species

management for these stakeholders.

Part three also compares the mean responses to the state-specific questions for the

four wildlife value orientations. The Wildlife Values in the West project identified the

following value orientations for Nebraska residents (Teel et al. 2005):

Utilitarian Wildlife Value – 41.6%: Believe that wildlife should be used and managedfor human benefits.

Mutualist Wildlife Value – 23.4%: Believe that humans and wildlife are meant to co-exist or live in harmony.

Pluralist Wildlife Value – 26.5%: Hold aspects of both utilitarian and mutualist values.

Distanced Wildlife Value – 8.4%: People that are not very interested in wildlife-relatedissues.

Part four, "Description of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Viewing participation in

Nebraska – Who are our customers?" provides a demographic description of anglers,

hunters and wildlife viewing participants. Part five, "Description of Nebraska Residents


3

from the Perspective of the Wildlife Value Orientation Groups and the Biodiversity

Model" provides a demographic description of the four wildlife value orientations

(pluralist, utilitarian, mutualist and distanced) and the five biodiversity model groups

(very high, high, medium, low, and very low).


4

RESULTSPart 1 –Overview of Attitudes and Beliefs of Nebraska ResidentsSection A: Options for Managing Nongame Species

Overall, two options for managing nongame species had the highest mean

support, "purchase conservation easements from willing landowners to protect habitat"

and "purchase lands from willing sellers to protect habitat" (Tables 1.1-A – 1.1-F and 1.2

and Figure 1.1). Overall, most Nebraska residents accepted all six listed management

options ranging from 75-90 percent acceptable.

1 The low response rate to this question was likely due to the questionnaire design and question format.The question item was probably overlooked by many of the nonrespondents to this item (see Appendix A).

SITUATION 1. Many fish and wildlife that are not hunted or fished (nongamespecies) are known to be declining in Nebraska. In order to prevent them frombecoming endangered, immediate action is necessary. There are various options toprotect the lands that are essential for the survival of these species (habitat). Weare interested in how you feel about these options to protect lands.

Only about half of the

respondents identified their most

preferred option for managing

nongame species.1 "Purchase

lands from willing sellers to

protect habitat" had the highest

percentage of Nebraska residents

selecting it as their most preferred

option (31%) followed by

"provide financial incentives to

landowners to protect habitat"

(24%) (Table 1.3)


5

Table 1.1-A. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to purchase lands from willingsellers to protect habitat?Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentHighly Unacceptable (-3) 30 4.5%Moderately Unacceptable (-2) 25 3.8%Slightly Unacceptable (-1) 12 1.8%Neither (0) 9 1.4%Slightly Acceptable (1) 76 11.5%Moderately Acceptable (2) 182 27.5%Highly Acceptable (3) 327 49.5%Total 662 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 1.92 1.80 – 2.04

SUMMARIZED RESULTSUNACCEPTABLE 66 10.0%NEITHER 9 1.4%ACCEPTABLE 586 88.5%

Table 1.1-B. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to purchase conservationeasements from willing landowners to protect habitat?Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentHighly Unacceptable (-3) 25 3.8%Moderately Unacceptable (-2) 14 2.2%Slightly Unacceptable (-1) 12 1.9%Neither (0) 17 2.6%Slightly Acceptable (1) 84 12.6%Moderately Acceptable (2) 194 29.3%Highly Acceptable (3) 316 47.7%Total 662 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 1.97 1.85 – 2.08



6

Table 1.1-C. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to provide financial incentivesto landowners to protect habitat?Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentHighly Unacceptable (-3) 24 3.6%Moderately Unacceptable (-2) 22 3.4%Slightly Unacceptable (-1) 25 3.7%Neither (0) 28 4.3%Slightly Acceptable (1) 124 18.7%Moderately Acceptable (2) 191 28.9%Highly Acceptable (3) 247 37.4%Total 660 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 1.67 1.56 – 1.79


Table 1.1-D. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to enact new regulations thatincrease protection of habitat?Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentHighly Unacceptable (-3) 30 4.5%Moderately Unacceptable (-2) 34 5.1%Slightly Unacceptable (-1) 57 8.6%Neither (0) 45 6.8%Slightly Acceptable (1) 122 18.5%Moderately Acceptable (2) 186 28.2%Highly Acceptable (3) 187 28.3%Total 660 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 1.27 1.14 – 1.40



7

Table 1.1-E. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to increase enforcement ofcurrent regulations to protect habitat?Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentHighly Unacceptable (-3) 19 2.9%Moderately Unacceptable (-2) 14 2.1%Slightly Unacceptable (-1) 29 4.4%Neither (0) 36 5.4%Slightly Acceptable (1) 111 16.8%Moderately Acceptable (2) 176 26.7%Highly Acceptable (3) 275 41.7%Total 660 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 1.78 1.67 – 1.90


Table 1.1-F. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to seek water rights or leasewater for fish and wildlife in important streams?Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentHighly Unacceptable (-3) 31 4.7%Moderately Unacceptable (-2) 15 2.3%Slightly Unacceptable (-1) 23 3.5%Neither (0) 54 8.1%Slightly Acceptable (1) 148 22.4%Moderately Acceptable (2) 192 29.1%Highly Acceptable (3) 197 29.8%Total 661 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 1.48 1.36 – 1.60



8

Table 1.2. Summary of mean acceptability of each option for protecting habitat (lands)for nongame species.Options for Protecting Habitat for Nongame Species Mean 95% C.I.purchase conservation easements from willinglandowners to protect habitat 1.97 1.85 – 2.08purchase lands from willing sellers to protect habitat 1.92 1.80 – 2.04increase enforcement of current regulations to protecthabitat 1.78 1.67 – 1.90provide financial incentives to landowners to protecthabitat 1.67 1.56 – 1.79seek water rights or lease water for fish and wildlife inimportant streams 1.48 1.36 – 1.60enact new regulations that increase protection ofhabitat 1.27 1.14 – 1.40

Figure 1.1. Summary of mean acceptability of each option for protecting habitat (lands)for nongame species (data from Table 1.2).

Options for Protecting Habitat for Nongame Species

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Conservation easements

Purchase Lands

Increase enforcement

Financial incentives

Seek water rights

Enact new regulations

Accpetability Scale


9

Table 1.3. Most favorite option for protecting habitat (lands) for nongame species.Most Favorite Option for Protecting Habitat for Nongame Number Percentpurchase lands from willing sellers to protect habitat 107 30.8%provide financial incentives to landowners to protect habitat 82 23.7%purchase conservation easements from willing landowners toprotect habitat 55 15.8%increase enforcement of current regulations to protect habitat 53 15.2%seek water rights or lease water for fish and wildlife inimportant streams 35 10.2%enact new regulations that increase protection of habitat 15 4.3%Total 346 100%


10

Section B: Funding of Nongame Programs

Overall, three of the six funding options for nongame species management

received overall support (selling conservation license plates, redirecting federal taxes, and

redirecting state taxes) while three funding options received an overall unacceptable

rating (increasing the state sales tax, establishing a new tax on wildlife viewing

equipment, and the take no action option) (Tables 1.4-A – 1.4-F and 1.5 and Figure 1.2).

"Selling conservation license plates whose proceeds would benefit nongame fish and

wildlife" was acceptable to most Nebraska residents (88%) (Table 1.4-C). Only 15% of

Nebraska residents felt that it was acceptable to "take no action to obtain new funds for

nongame species" (Table 1.4-F).

Only about half of the respondents identified their most preferred funding option

for nongame species management.2 Over half selected the conservation license plate

funding options as their most preferred option for funding nongame species management

(Table 1.6). Only about 7% selected "take no action" as their preferred funding option,

while support for the other four funding options ranged from 9% to 13% selecting it as

their preferred option.

2 The low response rate to this question was likely due to the questionnaire design and question format.The question item was probably overlooked by many of the nonrespondents to this item (see Appendix A).

SITUATION 2. NGPC is responsible for conservation of all fish and wildlifespecies, not just those hunted and fished. However, funding for many species islimited. We are interested in what you think about potential new sources offunding for fish and wildlife that are not hunted or fished (nongame species).


11

Table 1.4-A. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to increase the state tax 1/8 of onepercent to cover the necessary costs?Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentHighly Unacceptable (-3) 168 25.5%Moderately Unacceptable (-2) 80 12.2%Slightly Unacceptable (-1) 96 14.5%Neither (0) 47 7.1%Slightly Acceptable (1) 127 19.3%Moderately Acceptable (2) 77 11.7%Highly Acceptable (3) 64 9.7%Total 659 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval -0.44 -0.59 – -0.28


Table 1.4-B. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to redirect existing state revenue fromtaxes?Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentHighly Unacceptable (-3) 63 9.5%Moderately Unacceptable (-2) 64 9.7%Slightly Unacceptable (-1) 58 8.8%Neither (0) 61 9.2%Slightly Acceptable (1) 190 28.7%Moderately Acceptable (2) 141 21.3%Highly Acceptable (3) 85 12.8%Total 661 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 0.53 0.39 – 0.67



12

Table 1.4-C. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to sell conservation license plates whoseproceeds would benefit nongame fish and wildlife?Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentHighly Unacceptable (-3) 26 3.9%Moderately Unacceptable (-2) 12 1.9%Slightly Unacceptable (-1) 10 1.5%Neither (0) 31 4.8%Slightly Acceptable (1) 111 16.9%Moderately Acceptable (2) 149 22.6%Highly Acceptable (3) 321 48.6%Total 660 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 1.91 1.79 – 2.02


Table 1.4-D. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to redirect a portion of the federal taxes?Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentHighly Unacceptable (-3) 54 8.1%Moderately Unacceptable (-2) 52 7.8%Slightly Unacceptable (-1) 61 9.3%Neither (0) 61 9.2%Slightly Acceptable (1) 208 31.4%Moderately Acceptable (2) 133 20.1%Highly Acceptable (3) 93 14.1%Total 661 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 0.65 0.51 – 0.78



13

Table 1.4-E. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to establish a new tax on wildlife viewingequipment (for example, binoculars, backyard bird feeders)?Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentHighly Unacceptable (-3) 187 28.3%Moderately Unacceptable (-2) 77 11.7%Slightly Unacceptable (-1) 109 16.5%Neither (0) 65 9.9%Slightly Acceptable (1) 118 17.9%Moderately Acceptable (2) 58 8.8%Highly Acceptable (3) 44 6.7%Total 659 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval -0.69 -0.84 – 0.54


Table 1.4-F. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to take no action to obtain new funds fornongame species?Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentHighly Unacceptable (-3) 158 24.0%Moderately Unacceptable (-2) 127 19.3%Slightly Unacceptable (-1) 143 21.8%Neither (0) 131 19.9%Slightly Acceptable (1) 52 8.0%Moderately Acceptable (2) 19 2.9%Highly Acceptable (3) 28 4.2%Total 657 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval -1.06 -1.18 – -0.93



14

Table 1.5. Summary of mean acceptability of each funding option for nongame speciesmanagement.Funding Options for Nongame Species Management Mean 95% C.I.sell conservation license plates whose proceeds wouldbenefit nongame fish and wildlife 1.91 1.79 – 2.02redirect a portion of the federal taxes 0.65 0.51 – 0.78redirect existing state revenue from taxes 0.53 0.39 – 0.67increase the state tax 1/8 of one percent to cover thenecessary costs -0.44 -0.59 – -0.28establish a new tax on wildlife viewing equipment (forexample, binoculars, backyard bird feeders) -0.69 -0.84 – 0.54take no action to obtain new funds for nongamespecies -1.06 -1.18 – -0.93

Figure 1.2. Summary of mean acceptability of each funding option for nongame speciesmanagement (data from Table 1.5).

Funding Options for Nongame Species Management

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

License Plates

Federal Taxes

State Taxes

Increase Sales Tax

New Tax

Take No Action

Acceptability Scale


15

Table 1.6. Most favorite funding option for nongame species management.Most Favorite Option for Nongame Species Management Number Percentsell conservation license plates whose proceeds would benefitnongame fish and wildlife 147 51.4%increase the state tax 1/8 of one percent to cover the necessarycosts 37 12.9%redirect existing state revenue from taxes 29 10.0%establish a new tax on wildlife viewing equipment (forexample, binoculars, backyard bird feeders) 28 9.8%redirect a portion of the federal taxes 26 8.9%take no action to obtain new funds for nongame species 20 7.1%Total 286 100%

Section C: Attitudes Related to Biodiversity

Most Nebraska residents agree that, "the primary sign of the quality of the natural

environment is that many different types of fish and wildlife exist there," (84%) and only

9% disagree with this statement (Table 1.7-A). Also, most Nebraska residents agree that,

"NGPC should strive to maintain as much diversity in fish, wildlife, and plants as

possible," (88%) and only 7% disagreed (Table 1.7-B).


16

Table 1.7-A. How strongly do you disagree or agree with the statement – The primarysign of the quality of the natural environment is that many different types of fishand wildlife exist there.Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentStrongly Disagree (-3) 7 1.1%Moderately Disagree (-2) 22 3.3%Slightly Disagree (-1) 32 4.8%Neither (0) 42 6.4%Slightly Agree (1) 140 21.4%Moderately Agree (2) 265 40.5%Strongly Agree (3) 148 22.5%Total 656 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 1.55 1.45 – 1.65

SUMMARIZED RESULTSDISAGREE 60 9.2%NEITHER 42 6.4%AGREE 553 84.3%

Table 1.7-B. How strongly do you disagree or agree with the statement – NGPC shouldstrive to maintain as much diversity in fish, wildlife, and plants as possible.Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentStrongly Disagree (-3) 4 0.6%Moderately Disagree (-2) 17 2.6%Slightly Disagree (-1) 24 3.7%Neither (0) 29 4.5%Slightly Agree (1) 159 24.3%Moderately Agree (2) 244 37.2%Strongly Agree (3) 178 27.1%Total 656 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 1.69 1.60 – 1.79



17

Section D: Quality of Life Factors

Survey respondents were asked to rate the importance of fifteen factors for

maintaining a high quality of life. "Clean water" received the overall highest importance

rating (significantly higher than all other factors) and "power boating and skiing in lakes"

received the over lowest importance rating (Table 1.8 and Figure 1.3). The frequency

ratings for each item is provided in Tables 1.9-A – 1.9-O. The main use of these

variables will be to describe various groups identified in this report, e.g., comparing the

importance of the quality-of-life factors for anglers vs. non-anglers, etc.

Table 1.8. Summary of mean importance of the quality-of-life factors.Quality-of-Life Factors Mean 95% C.I.Clean Water 3.80 3.76 – 3.85Farming 3.44 3.36 – 3.51Rivers and Streams 3.43 3.36 – 3.49Lakes and Reservoirs 3.36 3.30 – 3.43State Parks 3.20 3.14 – 3.27Natural Areas 3.01 2.93 – 3.09Prairies 2.86 2.78 – 2.95Wetlands 2.83 2.75 – 2.92Camping 2.74 2.65 – 2.83Observing Wildlife 2.74 2.65 – 2.82Hiking and Biking 2.64 2.56 – 2.73Fishing 2.62 2.53 – 2.71Hunting 2.25 2.14 – 2.35Boating and Floating in Rivers 2.12 2.03 – 2.21Power Boating and Skiing in Lakes 1.60 1.50 – 1.70

How important are the following to you in maintain a high quality of life (health,family, well-being, environment, community) in Nebraska.


18

Figure 1.3. Summary of mean importance of the quality-of-life factors (data from Table1.8) (see Tables 1.8-A – 1.8-O for description of the importance scale).

Quality of Life Factors

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Clean Water

Farming

Rivers & Streams

Lakes & Reservoirs

State Parks

Natural Areas

Prairies

Wetlands

Camping

Observing Wildlife

Hiking & Biking

Fishing

Hunting

Boating & Floating in Rivers

Power Boating and Skiing in Lakes

Importance Scale


19

Table 1.9-A. Importance of Quality-of-Life factor – Natural Areas.Importance Rating (scale) Number PercentNot at All Important (0) 5 0.7%Slightly Important (1) 29 4.4%Moderately Important (2) 110 16.6%Quite Important (3) 250 37.7%Extremely Important (4) 249 37.5%No Opinion (0) 20 3.0%Total 662 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 3.01 2.93 – 3.09

Table 1.9-B. Importance of Quality-of-Life factor – Prairies.Importance Rating (scale) Number PercentNot at All Important (0) 10 1.4%Slightly Important (1) 33 4.9%Moderately Important (2) 124 18.7%Quite Important (3) 245 37.1%Extremely Important (4) 219 33.1%No Opinion (0) 31 4.7%Total 661 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 2.86 2.78 – 2.95

Table 1.9-C. Importance of Quality-of-Life factor – Wetlands.Importance Rating (scale) Number PercentNot at All Important (0) 6 0.9%Slightly Important (1) 62 9.4%Moderately Important (2) 110 16.7%Quite Important (3) 233 35.3%Extremely Important (4) 222 33.6%No Opinion (0) 26 4.0%Total 659 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 2.83 2.75 – 2.92


20

Table 1.9-D. Importance of Quality-of-Life factor – Rivers and Streams.Importance Rating (scale) Number PercentNot at All Important (0) 3 0.5%Slightly Important (1) 10 1.5%Moderately Important (2) 51 7.7%Quite Important (3) 212 31.9%Extremely Important (4) 382 57.5%No Opinion (0) 6 0.9%Total 664 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 3.43 3.36 – 3.49

Table 1.9-E. Importance of Quality-of-Life factor – Lakes and Reservoirs.Importance Rating (scale) Number PercentNot at All Important (0) 3 0.5%Slightly Important (1) 13 1.9%Moderately Important (2) 66 10.0%Quite Important (3) 216 32.6%Extremely Important (4) 359 54.1%No Opinion (0) 6 0.9%Total 663 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 3.36 3.30 – 3.43

Table 1.9-F. Importance of Quality-of-Life factor – Clean Water.Importance Rating (scale) Number PercentNot at All Important (0) 2 0.3%Slightly Important (1) 2 0.3%Moderately Important (2) 13 2.0%Quite Important (3) 71 10.7%Extremely Important (4) 570 86.0%No Opinion (0) 5 0.7%Total 663 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 3.80 3.76 – 3.85


21

Table 1.9-G. Importance of Quality-of-Life factor – State Parks.Importance Rating (scale) Number PercentNot at All Important (0) 2 0.3%Slightly Important (1) 16 2.4%Moderately Important (2) 92 14.0%Quite Important (3) 245 37.2%Extremely Important (4) 294 44.6%No Opinion (0) 10 1.5%Total 659 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 3.20 3.14 – 3.27

Table 1.9-H. Importance of Quality-of-Life factor – Fishing.Importance Rating (scale) Number PercentNot at All Important (0) 30 4.6%Slightly Important (1) 77 11.7%Moderately Important (2) 156 23.8%Quite Important (3) 200 30.5%Extremely Important (4) 182 27.8%No Opinion (0) 11 1.6%Total 657 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 2.62 2.53 – 2.71

Table 1.9-I. Importance of Quality-of-Life factor – Hiking and Biking.Importance Rating (scale) Number PercentNot at All Important (0) 19 2.8%Slightly Important (1) 70 10.6%Moderately Important (2) 175 26.5%Quite Important (3) 208 31.5%Extremely Important (4) 176 26.6%No Opinion (0) 13 2.0%Total 661 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 2.64 2.56 – 2.73


22

Table 1.9-J. Importance of Quality-of-Life factor – Power Boating and Skiing inLakes.Importance Rating (scale) Number PercentNot at All Important (0) 143 21.5%Slightly Important (1) 177 26.6%Moderately Important (2) 164 24.8%Quite Important (3) 107 16.1%Extremely Important (4) 59 8.9%No Opinion (0) 14 2.1%Total 663 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 1.60 1.50 – 1.70

Table 1.9-K. Importance of Quality-of-Life factor – Observing Wildlife.Importance Rating (scale) Number PercentNot at All Important (0) 16 2.4%Slightly Important (1) 57 8.6%Moderately Important (2) 146 22.2%Quite Important (3) 242 36.8%Extremely Important (4) 181 27.6%No Opinion (0) 16 2.4%Total 658 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 2.74 2.65 – 2.82

Table 1.9-L. Importance of Quality-of-Life factor – Farming.Importance Rating (scale) Number PercentNot at All Important (0) 5 0.8%Slightly Important (1) 22 3.3%Moderately Important (2) 49 7.4%Quite Important (3) 128 19.4%Extremely Important (4) 440 66.9%No Opinion (0) 14 2.2%Total 658 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 3.44 3.36 – 3.51


23

Table 1.9-M. Importance of Quality-of-Life factor – Boating and Floating in Rivers.Importance Rating (scale) Number PercentNot at All Important (0) 60 9.0%Slightly Important (1) 140 21.1%Moderately Important (2) 173 26.1%Quite Important (3) 173 26.1%Extremely Important (4) 100 15.2%No Opinion (0) 17 2.6%Total 663 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 2.12 2.03 – 2.21

Table 1.9-N. Importance of Quality-of-Life factor – Hunting.Importance Rating (scale) Number PercentNot at All Important (0) 84 12.7%Slightly Important (1) 116 17.5%Moderately Important (2) 116 17.5%Quite Important (3) 184 27.8%Extremely Important (4) 148 22.2%No Opinion (0) 15 2.2%Total 663 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 2.25 2.14 – 2.35

Table 1.9-O. Importance of Quality-of-Life factor – Camping.Importance Rating (scale) Number PercentNot at All Important (0) 22 3.2%Slightly Important (1) 65 9.9%Moderately Important (2) 131 19.7%Quite Important (3) 240 36.2%Extremely Important (4) 193 29.1%No Opinion (0) 13 1.9%Total 664 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 2.74 2.65 – 2.83


24

Section E: Biodiversity

The main use of these twelve questions will be to develop a topology model

(segmentation model) that describes how Nebraska residents view the role of fish and

wildlife in the world. Essentially these twelve questions will be used to develop a

segmentation model around the topic of biodiversity. The importance of these questions

is not how people responded to each individual question but how they responded to the

entire set of questions. However, for general background information the response for

each question is provided in this section. Overall, most Nebraska residents responded to

the individual questions in an environmentally positive way, i.e., being supportive of

maintaining biodiversity (Tables 1.10-A – 1.10-L). For example, 90 percent disagreed

with the statement that, "the loss of natural habitats for wildlife is not serious as long as

there are zoos available for these animals to live in," and only six percent agreed with this

statement (Table 1.10-K). However, some other questions were more discriminating by

providing a more varied response, e.g., only about 55 percent disagreed and 32 percent

agreed with this statement, "I can think of some species of mammals, reptiles, fish,

insects, or plants that I would like to see go extinct" (Table 1.10-L).

Previously we have asked questions regarding fish and wildlife in Nebraska. Nowwe would like to get your opinion on how you view the role of fish and wildlife inthe world.


25

Table 1.10-A. How strongly do you disagree or agree with the statement – Even if aplant or wildlife species is in danger of going extinct by natural causes humansshould try to save the species.Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentStrongly Disagree (-3) 37 5.5%Moderately Disagree (-2) 37 5.6%Slightly Disagree (-1) 53 7.9%Neither (0) 34 5.1%Slightly Agree (1) 199 29.9%Moderately Agree (2) 172 25.9%Strongly Agree (3) 133 20.0%Total 665 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 1.06 0.93 – 1.19


Table 1.10-B. How strongly do you disagree or agree with the statement – It isunacceptable when humans cause extinction of plant or wildlife species.Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentStrongly Disagree (-3) 14 2.1%Moderately Disagree (-2) 21 3.2%Slightly Disagree (-1) 33 4.9%Neither (0) 22 3.3%Slightly Agree (1) 110 16.5%Moderately Agree (2) 164 24.6%Strongly Agree (3) 302 45.4%Total 667 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 1.84 1.73 – 1.95



26

Table 1.10-C. How strongly do you disagree or agree with the statement – Theextinction of wildlife and plant species could have harmful effects on the well-beingof humans.Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentStrongly Disagree (-3) 15 2.2%Moderately Disagree (-2) 22 3.3%Slightly Disagree (-1) 23 3.4%Neither (0) 33 5.0%Slightly Agree (1) 123 18.4%Moderately Agree (2) 181 27.1%Strongly Agree (3) 270 40.5%Total 667 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 1.77 1.66 – 1.88


Table 1.10-D. How strongly do you disagree or agree with the statement – Ifeconomic/agricultural development would results in a plant or wildlife speciesbecoming extinct, the development should be stopped.Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentStrongly Disagree (-3) 28 4.3%Moderately Disagree (-2) 34 5.1%Slightly Disagree (-1) 61 9.2%Neither (0) 51 7.6%Slightly Agree (1) 159 23.9%Moderately Agree (2) 188 28.2%Strongly Agree (3) 145 21.8%Total 667 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 1.13 1.01 – 1.26



27

Table 1.10-E. How strongly do you disagree or agree with the statement – The loss ofwildlife or plant species in nature could have harmful effects on the ability of otherwildlife and plant species to survive.Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentStrongly Disagree (-3) 7 1.1%Moderately Disagree (-2) 10 1.5%Slightly Disagree (-1) 13 1.9%Neither (0) 27 4.0%Slightly Agree (1) 136 20.4%Moderately Agree (2) 207 31.0%Strongly Agree (3) 267 40.0%Total 667 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 1.94 1.85 – 2.04


Table 1.10-F. How strongly do you disagree or agree with the statement – There is nosuch thing as a good or bad plant or wildlife species since they all perform afunction in the animal world.Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentStrongly Disagree (-3) 50 7.5%Moderately Disagree (-2) 48 7.2%Slightly Disagree (-1) 91 13.6%Neither (0) 38 5.7%Slightly Agree (1) 129 19.3%Moderately Agree (2) 165 24.8%Strongly Agree (3) 145 21.8%Total 666 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 0.84 0.70 – 0.98



28

Table 1.10-G. How strongly do you disagree or agree with the statement – A wildlife orplant species should be protected or saved from extinction only if it can be shown todirectly benefit humans.Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentStrongly Disagree (-3) 165 24.7%Moderately Disagree (-2) 138 20.7%Slightly Disagree (-1) 124 18.6%Neither (0) 59 8.9%Slightly Agree (1) 85 12.8%Moderately Agree (2) 62 9.2%Strongly Agree (3) 34 5.1%Total 667 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval -0.87 -1.02 – -0.73


Table 1.10-H. How strongly do you disagree or agree with the statement – Humans arepart of the natural environment; therefore, some human-caused extinction shouldbe expected.Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentStrongly Disagree (-3) 71 10.7%Moderately Disagree (-2) 73 10.9%Slightly Disagree (-1) 108 16.3%Neither (0) 86 12.9%Slightly Agree (1) 235 35.4%Moderately Agree (2) 69 10.3%Strongly Agree (3) 23 3.5%Total 665 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval -0.04 -0.16 – 0.09



29

Table 1.10-I. How strongly do you disagree or agree with the statement – When humanneeds conflict with conserving important habitat of a plant or wildlife species,human needs should take precedence.Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentStrongly Disagree (-3) 65 9.8%Moderately Disagree (-2) 79 11.8%Slightly Disagree (-1) 103 15.5%Neither (0) 91 13.6%Slightly Agree (1) 152 22.9%Moderately Agree (2) 103 15.5%Strongly Agree (3) 72 10.8%Total 664 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval 0.18 0.04 – 0.31


Table 1.10-J. How strongly do you disagree or agree with the statement – Some speciesof plants and wildlife are undesirable in certain places and it would be good if theydid go extinct in the entire world.Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentStrongly Disagree (-3) 165 24.7%Moderately Disagree (-2) 106 16.0%Slightly Disagree (-1) 142 21.2%Neither (0) 77 11.5%Slightly Agree (1) 78 11.7%Moderately Agree (2) 50 7.5%Strongly Agree (3) 49 7.3%Total 668 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval -0.79 -0.93 – -0.64



30

Table 1.10-K. How strongly do you disagree or agree with the statement – The loss ofnatural habitats for wildlife is not serious as long as there are zoos available forthese animals to live in.Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentStrongly Disagree (-3) 352 52.9%Moderately Disagree (-2) 152 22.9%Slightly Disagree (-1) 91 13.7%Neither (0) 30 4.5%Slightly Agree (1) 20 3.0%Moderately Agree (2) 13 1.9%Strongly Agree (3) 7 1.1%Total 664 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval -2.08 -2.18 – -1.98


Table 1.10-L. How strongly do you disagree or agree with the statement – I can thinkof some species of mammals, reptiles, fish, insects, or plants that I would like to seego extinct.Attitude Response (scale) Number PercentStrongly Disagree (-3) 222 33.3%Moderately Disagree (-2) 86 12.8%Slightly Disagree (-1) 56 8.5%Neither (0) 87 13.0%Slightly Agree (1) 96 14.4%Moderately Agree (2) 52 7.8%Strongly Agree (3) 68 10.1%Total 668 100%Mean / 95% Confidence Interval -0.74 -0.90 – -0.58



31

Further Analysis of the Biodiversity Items. These twelve biodiversity question

items are a subset of 17 items developed by Bright et al3 (Table 1.11). Four dimensions

or factors (names: species primacy, species loss, species value and human primacy)

comprise this set of biodiversity questions (Table 1.12 and Figures 1.4 – 1.8). Nebraska

residents had the highest overall score for species loss followed by species primacy, i.e.,

indicating high concern about the loss of species and human-impacts on species loss.

Nebraska residents had a slightly positive score for species value and a nearly neutral

score for human primacy. These factor scores will be used to further describe the

biodiversity model.

Table 1.11. Identification and scoring for the four biodiversity dimensions (factors).Factor and Item Strongly

DisagreeModerately

DisagreeSlightlyDisagree Neither

SlightlyAgree

ModeratelyAgree

StronglyAgree

Species Primacy

Even if a plant or wildlife species isin danger of going extinct by naturalcauses humans should try to save thespecies.

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

It is unacceptable when humanscause extinction of plant or wildlifespecies.

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

If economic/agricultural developmentwould result in a plant or wildlifespecies becoming extinct, thedevelopment should be stopped.

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

Species Loss

The extinction of wildlife and plantspecies could have harmful effects onthe well-being of humans.

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

The loss of wildlife or plant speciesin nature could have harmful effectson the ability of other wildlife andplant species to survive.

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

The loss of natural habitats forwildlife is not serious as long as thereare zoos available for these animalsto live in.

+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Table continued on next page. 3 Bright, A. D., S. C. Barro, and R.T. Burtz. (2002). Public attitudes towards ecological restoration in theChicago metropolitan region. Society and Natural Resoruces , 15:763-785.


32

Table 1.11-Continued. Identification and scoring for the four biodiversity dimensions(factors).

Factor and Item StronglyDisagree

ModeratelyDisagree

SlightlyDisagree Neither

SlightlyAgree

ModeratelyAgree

StronglyAgree

Species Value

There is no such thing as a good orbad plant or wildlife species sincethey all perform a function in thenatural word.

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

Some species of plants and wildlifeare undesirable in certain places andit would be good if they did goextinct in the entire world.

+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

I can think of some species ofmammals, reptiles, fish, insects, orplants that I would like to see goextinct.

+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

Human Primacy

A wildlife or plant species should beprotected or saved from extinctiononly if it can be shown to directlybenefit humans.

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

Humans are part of the naturalenvironment: therefore, some human-caused extinction should beexpected.

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

When human needs conflict withconserving important habitat of aplant or wildlife species, humanneeds should take precedence.

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3


33

Table 1.12. Frequency distributions and mean scores for the four biodiversitydimensions (factors) for Nebraska residents.

Biodiversity Dimensions (Factors)ScoreSpecies Primacy Species Loss Species Value Human Primacy

-9 0.9% 0.0% 1.5% 3.6%-8 0.4% 0.3% 0.8% 3.6%-7 0.7% 0.1% 1.0% 3.1%-6 0.8% 0.4% 1.0% 3.5%-5 0.5% 0.4% 1.5% 4.7%-4 1.9% 0.0% 3.1% 6.6%-3 2.0% 1.1% 6.2% 8.8%-2 1.9% 1.2% 5.5% 6.6%-1 3.4% 1.0% 6.5% 11.9%0 3.1% 2.3% 7.9% 8.4%1 6.5% 2.5% 6.8% 8.8%2 8.9% 5.6% 7.7% 8.5%3 8.9% 5.6% 8.3% 5.5%4 6.9% 8.7% 7.3% 5.2%5 10.2% 8.5% 6.6% 4.0%6 12.9% 12.2% 5.7% 3.1%7 10.9% 12.6% 8.1% 1.6%8 8.7% 12.5% 7.2% 1.4%9 10.6% 25.1% 7.5% 1.1%

Number 663 663 666 661Mean 4.03 5.80 2.38 -0.72

95% C.I. 3.73 – 4.33 5.56 – 6.05 2.05 – 2.71 -1.04 – -0.40

Figure 1.4. Frequency distribution for the species primacy factor.

Species Primacy

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Per

cen

t


34

Figure 1.5. Frequency distribution for the species loss factor.

Figure 1.6. Frequency distribution for the species value factor.

Species Loss

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Per

cen

t

Species Value

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Per

cen

t


35

Figure 1.7. Frequency distribution for the human primacy factor.

Figure 1.8. Mean biodiversity factor scores.

Human Primacy

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Per

cen

t

Mean Biodiversity Factor Scores

-9

-7

-5

-3

-1

1

3

5

7

9

SpeciesPrimacy

Species Loss Species Value Human Primacy

Fac

tor

Sco

res


36

Part 2 – Wildlife Diversity Typology

Section A: Importance of Biodiversity – Biodiversity Model

Part One – Section E introduced the twelve "biodiversity" questions and factors

and provided a sample response distribution and sample mean for each item, however, if

groups of people have significantly different attitudes related to biodiversity issues these

values may not be very descriptive of true public opinion. A K-means cluster analysis

was used to identify various groups of Nebraska residents based on their various attitude

positions on the twelve "biodiversity" questions. A five-group model was selected as the

most complete and descriptive of Nebraska residents' opinions (Table 2.1 and Figure

2.1).4 In this report this five-group model is refereed to as the biodiversity model. The

very high group was the largest representing about one-third of the sample. The high and

medium groups were about equal in size representing 22 percent and 23 percent

respectively. The low group and very low group were the two smallest groups

representing 13 percent and 9 percent respectively.

While the majority of all five groups agree with the statements, "the primary sign

of the quality of the natural environment is that many different types of fish and wildlife

exist there," and "NGPC should strive to maintain as much diversity in fish, wildlife, and

plants as possible," the mean level of positive attitude decreases along the continuum

from the very high group to the very low group (Tables 2.2-A – 2.2-B and Figures 2.2 –

2.3). For these two statements the very high and high groups were very similar.

For the next four statements:

• Even if a plant or wildlife species is in danger of going extinct by natural causeshumans should try to save the species,

• It is unacceptable when humans cause extinction of plant or wildlife species,

• The extinction of wildlife and plant species could have harmful effects on thewell-being of humans, and

• If economic/agricultural development would result in a plant or wildlife speciesbecoming extinct, the development should be stopped,

4 Group names are provided by the researcher. The names selected for use in this report reflect acontinuum ranging from very high support or positive attitudes towards wildlife diversity to very lowsupport or negative attitudes towards wildlife diversity, which was generally the case in most situations.


37

the groups from very high to low had an average positive attitude while the very low

group had an average negative attitude (Tables 2.3-A – 2.3-D and Figures 2.3-A – 2.3-D).

However, most evident was the relatively strong decrease in positive attitudes towards

these statements along the continuum from the very high group to the very low group.

The same decrease in positive attitude along the continuum from the very high

group to the very low group was observed for the statement, "the loss of wildlife or plant

species in nature could have harmful effects on the ability of other wildlife and plant

species to survive" (Table 2.3-E and Figure 2.3-E). However, for the next seven

statements there were some minor deviations in the direct relationship between the

biodiversity model and attitude towards the various statements.

The very high and the high biodiversity groups had strong agreement with the

statement, "there is no such thing as a good or bad plant or wildlife species since they all

perform a function in the animal world" (Table 2.3-F and Figure 2.3-F). However, the

medium and very low groups were about neutral while the low group had strong

disagreement.

The very high and medium groups disagreed with the statement, "a wildlife or

plant species should be protected or saved from extinction only if it can be shown to

directly benefit humans" (Table 2.3-G and Figure 2.3-G). The high, low and very low

groups slightly to strongly agreed with this statement. Only the very high group had an

average disagreement with the statements, "humans are part of the natural environment;

therefore some human-caused extinction should be expected," and "when humans needs

conflict with conserving important habitat of a plant or wildlife species, human needs

should take precedence (Tables 2.3-H – 2.3-I and Figures 2.3-H – 2.3-I).

The very high and medium groups disagreed with the statement, "some species of

plants and wildlife are undesirable in certain places and it would be good if they did go

extinct in the entire world" (Table 2.3-J and Figure 2.3-J). The high group was about

neutral towards this statement while the low and very low groups agreed with this

statement. While all five groups disagreed with the statement, "the loss of natural

habitats for wildlife is not serious as long as there are zoos available for these animals to

live in," the very high and the medium groups had significantly higher disagreement


38

compared to the other three groups (high, low and very low) (Table 2.3-K and Figure 2.3-

K).

The very high and medium groups disagreed with the statement (the very high

group much more so than the medium group), "I can think of some species of mammals,

reptiles, fish, insects, or plants that I would like to see go extinct" (Table 2.3-L and

Figure 2.3-L). The high group was about neutral towards this statement while the low

and very low groups agreed with this statement.

Table 2.1. Importance of biodiversity five-group model – frequency distribution.Importance of Biodiversity Groups Number PercentVery High 218 33.5%High 141 21.6%Medium 148 22.6%Low 84 12.9%Very Low 61 9.4%Total 653 100%

Figure 2.1. Five-group biodiversity model (data from Table 2.1).

Biodiversity Model

Very High33%

High22%

Medium23%

Low13%

Very Low9%


39

Table 2.2-A. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – The primary sign of the quality ofthe natural environment is that many different types of fish and wildlife exist there.

5-Group Biodiversity ModelAttitude Response (scale) Very

High High Medium LowVeryLow

Strongly Disagree (-3) 0.0% 0.7% 1.4% 1.3% 5.0%Moderately Disagree (-2) 2.3% 0.0% 4.8% 6.3% 6.7%Slightly Disagree (-1) 5.1% 3.0% 4.1% 11.4% 3.3%Neither (0) 5.5% 5.9% 6.2% 5.1% 13.3%Slightly Agree (1) 15.2% 23.0% 24.7% 16.5% 36.7%Moderately Agree (2) 39.2% 42.2% 44.5% 48.1% 25.0%Strongly Agree (3) 32.7% 25.2% 14.4% 11.4% 10.0%Total 217 135 146 79 60Chi-square: X2=75.79; df=24, p<0.001Mean 1.82 1.78 1.41 1.16 0.8195% Confidence Interval 1.66 – 1.99 1.59 – 1.96 1.19 – 1.62 0.83 – 1.50 0.41 – 1.21

ANOVA: F=10.74; df=4/630, p<0.001SUMMARIZED RESULTS

DISAGREE 7.4% 3.7% 10.3% 19.0% 15.3%NEITHER 5.5% 5.9% 6.2% 5.1% 13.6%AGREE 87.1% 90.4% 83.4% 75.9% 71.2%Chi-square: X2=23.41; df=8, p=0.003

Figure 2.2-A. Mean agreement with the statement – The primary sign of the quality ofthe natural environment is that many different types of fish and wildlife exist there,analyzed by the 5-group biodiversity model (data from Table 2.2-A).

Quality of Environment = Biodiversity

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3


Importance of Biodiversity Groups

Att

itu

de

Sca

le


40

Table 2.2-B. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – NGPC should strive to maintainas much diversity in fish, wildlife, and plants as possible.

5-Group Biodiversity ModelAttitude Response (scale) Very

High High Medium LowVeryLow

Strongly Disagree (-3) 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 3.3%Moderately Disagree (-2) 0.9% 0.0% 2.8% 5.0% 10.0%Slightly Disagree (-1) 2.8% 3.7% 2.8% 7.5% 5.0%Neither (0) 4.6% 2.9% 2.1% 2.5% 15.0%Slightly Agree (1) 15.3% 18.4% 29.4% 33.8% 40.0%Moderately Agree (2) 36.1% 45.6% 42.7% 36.3% 18.3%Strongly Agree (3) 40.3% 29.4% 18.9% 15.0% 8.3%Total 216 136 143 80 60Chi-square: X2=113.75; df=24, p<0.001Mean 2.03 1.94 1.59 1.31 0.6795% Confidence Interval 1.88 – 2.17 1.77 – 2.10 1.40 – 1.79 1.01 – 1.61 0.29 – 1.04


DISAGREE 4.1% 3.7% 7.0% 12.7% 18.6%NEITHER 4.6% 2.9% 2.1% 2.5% 15.3%AGREE 91.2% 93.4% 90.9% 84.8% 66.1%Chi-square: X2=42.30; df=8, p<0.001

Figure 2.2-B. Mean agreement with the statement – NGPC should strive to maintainas much diversity in fish, wildlife, and plants as possible, analyzed by the 5-groupbiodiversity model (data from Table 2.2-B).

Importance of Biodiversity

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Att

itude

Sca

le


41

Table 2.3-A. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Even if a plant or wildlife speciesis in danger of going extinct by natural causes humans should try to save the species.

5-Group Biodiversity ModelAttitude Response(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowStrongly Disagree (-3) 0.0% 0.0% 6.8% 4.8% 35.0%Moderately Disagree (-2) 2.8% 1.4% 8.2% 8.4% 13.3%Slightly Disagree (-1) 0.9% 4.3% 15.6% 13.3% 15.0%Neither (0) 1.8% 2.2% 6.8% 14.5% 6.7%Slightly Agree (1) 27.1% 30.2% 35.4% 33.7% 26.7%Moderately Agree (2) 28.9% 39.6% 22.4% 20.5% 0.0%Strongly Agree (3) 38.5% 22.3% 4.8% 4.8% 3.3%Total 218 139 147 83 60Chi-square: X2=294.40; df=24, p<0.001Mean 1.94 1.67 0.42 0.42 -1.1195% C.I. 1.79 – 2.09 1.49 – 1.85 0.16 – 0.68 0.09 – 0.75 -1.57 – -0.65



Figure 2.3-A. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Even if a plant or wildlife speciesis in danger of going extinct by natural causes humans should try to save the species(data from Table 2.3-A).

Even if a plant or wildlife species is in danger of going extinct by natural causes humans should try

to save the species.

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Att

itude

Sca

le


42

Table 2.3-B. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – It is unacceptable when humanscause extinction of plant or wildlife species.




Figure 2.3-B. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – It is unacceptable when humanscause extinction of plant or wildlife species (data from Table 2.3-B).

It is unacceptable when humans cause extinction of plant or wildlife species.

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Att

itu

de

Sca

le


43

Table 2.3-C. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – The extinction of wildlife andplant species could have harmful effects on the well-being of humans.




Figure 2.3-C. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – The extinction of wildlife andplant species could have harmful effects on the well-being of humans (data fromTable 2.3-C).

The extinction of wildlife and plant species could have harmful effects on the well-being of humans.

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Att

itu

de

Sca

le


44

Table 2.3-D. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – If economic/agriculturaldevelopment would result in a plant or wildlife species becoming extinct, thedevelopment should be stopped.




Figure 2.3-D. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – If economic/agriculturaldevelopment would result in a plant or wildlife species becoming extinct, thedevelopment should be stopped (data from Table 2.3-D).

If economic/agricultural development would result in a plant or wildlife species becoming extinct, the

development should be stopped.

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Att

itude

Sca

le


45

Table 2.3-E. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – The loss of wildlife or plantspecies in nature could have harmful effects on the ability of other wildlife and plantspecies to survive.

5-Group Biodiversity ModelAttitude Response(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowStrongly Disagree (-3) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.5%Moderately Disagree (-2) 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 9.8%Slightly Disagree (-1) 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 5.9% 9.8%Neither (0) 0.5% 2.8% 4.8% 5.9% 14.8%Slightly Agree (1) 1.8% 22.7% 25.2% 42.4% 42.6%Moderately Agree (2) 20.5% 37.6% 46.3% 35.3% 8.2%Strongly Agree (3) 77.2% 36.9% 21.1% 10.6% 3.3%Total 219 141 147 85 61Chi-square: X2=400.94; df=24, p<0.001Mean 2.75 2.08 1.75 1.37 0.0495% C.I. 2.68 – 2.81 1.94 – 2.22 1.58 – 1.92 1.16 – 1.58 -0.37 – 0.45



Figure 2.3-E. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – The loss of wildlife or plantspecies in nature could have harmful effects on the ability of other wildlife and plantspecies to survive (data from Table 2.3-E).

The loss of wildlife or plant species in nature could have harmful effects on the ability of other wildlife and

plant species to survive.

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Att

itu

de

Sca

le


46

Table 2.3-F. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – There is no such thing as a goodor bad plant or wildlife species since they all perform a function in the animalworld.

5-Group Biodiversity ModelAttitude Response(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowStrongly Disagree (-3) 2.3% 0.0% 8.1% 27.4% 13.1%Moderately Disagree (-2) 1.4% 0.7% 12.8% 25.0% 6.6%Slightly Disagree (-1) 2.8% 0.0% 27.0% 34.5% 21.3%Neither (0) 0.5% 5.7% 8.1% 6.0% 14.8%Slightly Agree (1) 12.8% 30.5% 25.0% 7.1% 19.7%Moderately Agree (2) 39.4% 35.5% 12.8% 0.0% 14.8%Strongly Agree (3) 40.8% 27.7% 6.1% 0.0% 9.8%Total 218 141 148 84 61Chi-square: X2=393.35; df=24, p<0.001Mean 2.02 1.83 -0.10 -1.56 0.0895% C.I. 1.85 – 2.18 1.67 – 1.99 -0.37 – 0.18 -1.82 –-1.30 -0.38 – 0.55



Figure 2.3-F. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – There is no such thing as a goodor bad plant or wildlife species since they all perform a function in the animal world(data from Table 2.3-F).

There is no such thing as a good or bad plant or wildlife species since they all perform a function in the

natural world.

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Att

itu

de

Sca

le


47

Table 2.3-G. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – A wildlife or plant species shouldbe protected or saved from extinction only if it can be shown to directly benefithumans.

5-Group Biodiversity ModelAttitude Response(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowStrongly Disagree (-3) 58.4% 5.6% 16.9% 1.2% 3.3%Moderately Disagree (-2) 26.5% 7.7% 33.8% 11.9% 3.3%Slightly Disagree (-1) 10.0% 20.4% 32.4% 22.6% 8.3%Neither (0) 2.7% 13.4% 9.5% 13.1% 15.0%Slightly Agree (1) 1.4% 18.3% 6.8% 27.4% 33.3%Moderately Agree (2) 0.0% 23.2% 0.7% 16.7% 20.0%Strongly Agree (3) 0.9% 11.3% 0.0% 7.1% 16.7%Total 219 142 148 84 60Chi-square: X2=418.57; df=24, p<0.001Mean -2.34 0.46 -1.41 0.32 0.9495% C.I. -2.47 – -2.20 0.18 – 0.75 -1.60 – -1.23 -0.01 – 0.65 0.56 – 1.33



Figure 2.3-G. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – A wildlife or plant species shouldbe protected or saved from extinction only if it can be shown to directly benefithumans (data from Table 2.3-G).

A wildlife or plant species should be protected or saved from extinction only if it can be shown to

directly benefit humans.

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Att

itu

de

Sca

le


48

Table 2.3-H. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Humans are part of the naturalenvironment; therefore, some human-caused extinction should be expected.

5-Group Biodiversity ModelAttitude Response(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowStrongly Disagree (-3) 26.0% 1.4% 2.7% 4.8% 4.9%Moderately Disagree (-2) 22.4% 5.7% 7.4% 2.4% 4.9%Slightly Disagree (-1) 21.5% 15.6% 19.6% 4.8% 8.2%Neither (0) 8.2% 13.5% 20.3% 13.1% 4.9%Slightly Agree (1) 16.9% 45.4% 41.9% 48.8% 42.6%Moderately Agree (2) 4.6% 13.5% 5.4% 21.4% 21.3%Strongly Agree (3) 0.5% 5.0% 2.7% 4.8% 13.1%Total 219 141 148 84 61Chi-square: X2=221.52; df=24, p<0.001Mean -1.17 0.55 0.17 0.80 0.8995% C.I. -1.38 – -0.96 0.34 – 0.77 -0.03 – 0.38 0.52 – 1.08 0.50 – 1.29



Figure 2.3-H. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Humans are part of the naturalenvironment; therefore, some human-caused extinction should be expected (datafrom Table 2.3-H).

Humans are part of the natural environment; therefore, some human-caused extinction should be expected.

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Att

itude

Sca

le


49

Table 2.3-I. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – When human needs conflict withconserving important habitat of a plant or wildlife species, human needs should takeprecedence.

5-Group Biodiversity ModelAttitude Response(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowStrongly Disagree (-3) 23.9% 0.7% 5.4% 0.0% 3.2%Moderately Disagree (-2) 28.0% 4.3% 8.1% 0.0% 0.0%Slightly Disagree (-1) 17.9% 10.0% 25.7% 3.6% 11.3%Neither (0) 13.8% 15.7% 18.2% 8.3% 4.8%Slightly Agree (1) 11.9% 34.3% 25.7% 28.6% 24.2%Moderately Agree (2) 3.7% 22.1% 13.5% 33.3% 24.2%Strongly Agree (3) 0.9% 12.9% 3.4% 26.2% 32.3%Total 218 140 148 84 62Chi-square: X2=313.40; df=24, p<0.001Mean -1.23 0.96 0.03 1.70 1.5395% C.I. -1.43 – -1.03 0.73 – 1.19 -0.21 – 0.27 1.47 – 1.93 1.15 – 1.91



Figure 2.3-I. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – When human needs conflict withconserving important habitat of a plant or wildlife species, human needs should takeprecedence (data from Table 2.3-I).

When human needs conflict with conserving important habitat of a plant or wildlife species, human needs

should take precedence.

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Att

itude

Sca

le


50

Table 2.3-J. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Some species of plants and wildlifeare undesirable in certain places and it would be good if they did go extinct in theentire world.

5-Group Biodiversity ModelAttitude Response(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowStrongly Disagree (-3) 59.2% 7.7% 9.6% 1.2% 4.8%Moderately Disagree (-2) 19.3% 7.7% 28.8% 3.6% 11.3%Slightly Disagree (-1) 11.5% 29.6% 36.3% 10.7% 14.5%Neither (0) 4.6% 15.5% 11.0% 22.6% 16.1%Slightly Agree (1) 3.7% 21.8% 11.0% 16.7% 11.3%Moderately Agree (2) 0.5% 10.6% 2.1% 20.2% 22.6%Strongly Agree (3) 1.4% 7.0% 1.4% 25.0% 19.4%Total 218 142 146 84 62Chi-square: X2=403.74; df=24, p<0.001Mean -2.20 -0.05 -1.01 1.10 0.6295% C.I. -2.36 – -2.03 -0.32 – 0.21 -1.22 – -0.80 0.77 – 1.44 0.14 – 1.09



Figure 2.3-J. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Some species of plants andwildlife are undesirable in certain places and it would be good if they did go extinctin the entire world (data from Table 2.3-J).

Some species of plants and wildlife are undesirable in certain places and it would be good if they did go

extinct in the entire world.

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Att

itu

de

Sca

le


51

Table 2.3-K. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – The loss of natural habitats forwildlife is not serious as long as there are zoos available for these animals to live in.

5-Group Biodiversity ModelAttitude Response(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowStrongly Disagree (-3) 85.8% 31.7% 59.7% 22.4% 13.1%Moderately Disagree (-2) 11.0% 16.9% 31.5% 37.6% 34.4%Slightly Disagree (-1) 2.3% 26.1% 8.1% 22.4% 29.5%Neither (0) 0.9% 14.8% 0.0% 4.7% 3.3%Slightly Agree (1) 0.0% 1.4% 0.7% 10.6% 11.5%Moderately Agree (2) 0.0% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.9%Strongly Agree (3) 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 2.4% 3.3%Total 218 142 149 85 61Chi-square: X2=307.76; df=24, p<0.001Mean -2.81 -1.33 -2.51 -1.45 -1.1095% C.I. -2.88 – -2.74 -1.59 – -1.07 -2.62 – -2.40 -1.76 – -1.15 -1.48 – -0.72



Figure 2.3-K. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – The loss of natural habitats forwildlife is not serious as long as there are zoos available for these animals to live in(data from Table 2.3-K).

The loss of natural habitats for wildlife is not serious as long as there are zoos avaliable for these animals

to live in.

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Att

itu

de

Sca

le


52

Table 2.3-L. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – I can think of some species ofmammals, reptiles, fish, insects, or plants that I would like to see go extinct.

5-Group Biodiversity ModelAttitude Response(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowStrongly Disagree (-3) 65.6% 16.4% 29.1% 1.2% 11.5%Moderately Disagree (-2) 12.8% 12.9% 18.9% 3.6% 9.8%Slightly Disagree (-1) 6.9% 12.1% 8.8% 4.8% 8.2%Neither (0) 8.3% 17.1% 13.5% 15.5% 19.7%Slightly Agree (1) 4.6% 15.7% 16.2% 33.3% 18.0%Moderately Agree (2) 1.4% 13.6% 5.4% 11.9% 18.0%Strongly Agree (3) 0.5% 12.1% 8.1% 29.8% 14.8%Total 218 140 148 84 61Chi-square: X2=258.89; df=24, p<0.001Mean -2.19 -0.07 -0.85 1.30 0.3495% C.I. -2.37 – -2.01 -0.40 – 0.26 -1.17 – -0.52 0.98 – 1.61 -0.15 – 0.83



Figure 2.3-L. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – I can think of some species ofmammals, reptiles, fish, insects, or plants that I would like to see go extinct (datafrom Table 2.3-L).

I can think of some species of mammals, reptiles, fish, insects, or plants that I would like to see go extinct.

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Att

itu

de

Sca

le


53

Biodiversity Factor Scores. The biodiversity factor scores better illustrate some

of the finer differences among the biodiversity model groups (Table 2.4 and Figures 2.4-

A – 2.4-D). The biodiversity groups form a linear relationship with species primacy,

although the medium and low groups are relatively similar on this factor (Figure 2.4-A).

For the species loss factor the medium biodiversity group had a slightly higher mean

score than the high biodiversity group (Figure 2.4-B). For the species value factor the

low biodiversity group had a significantly lower mean score than the very low

biodiversity group (Figure 2.4-C). For the human primacy factor the very high and

medium biodiversity groups had negative mean factor scores and the high, low and very

low biodiversity groups had positive mean factor scores (Figure 2.4-D). The very high

biodiversity group was the most distinguished group (being most different from the other

four groups) and by far had the highest environmental attitude (support for biodiversity).

Table 2.4. Mean factor scores for the 5-group biodiversity model.

Factor Biodiversity GroupsMean Factor

Score95% Confidence

IntervalVery High 6.97 6.74 – 7.20High 5.45 5.09 – 5.82Medium 2.54 2.09 – 2.98Low 2.05 1.61 – 2.49

Species Primacy

Very Low -3.64 -4.41 – -2.87

Very High 8.20 8.06 – 8.34High 5.41 5.00 – 5.83Medium 5.98 5.62 – 6.33Low 4.03 3.47 – 4.59

Species Loss

Very Low 0.22 -0.63 – 1.07

Very High 6.41 6.09 – 6.72High 1.95 1.49 – 2.41Medium 1.76 1.29 – 2.23Low -3.97 -4.55 – -3.38

Species Value

Very Low -0.87 -1.78 – 0.03

Very High -4.73 -5.10 – -4.37High 1.97 1.49 – 2.46Medium -1.21 -1.57 – -0.86Low 2.82 2.24 – 3.39

Human Primacy

Very Low 3.37 2.60 – 4.14


54

Figure 2.4-A. Mean species primacy factor scores for the biodiversity model (data fromTable 2.4).

Figure 2.4-B. Mean species primacy factor scores for the biodiversity model (data fromTable 2.4).

Species Primacy

-9-7-5-3-113579


Biodiversity Model

Fac

tor

Sco

res

Species Loss

-9-7-5

-3-113579


Biodiversity Model

Fac

tor

Sco

res


55

Figure 2.4-C. Mean species loss factor scores for the biodiversity model (data fromTable 2.4).

Figure 2.4-D. Mean human primacy factor scores for the biodiversity model (data fromTable 2.4).

Species Value

-9-7-5-3-113579


Biodiversity Model

Fac

tor

Sco

res

Human Primacy

-9

-7-5

-3

-11

3

5

7

9


Biodiversity Model

Fac

tor

Sco

res


56

Section B: Options for Managing Nongame Species Analyzed by the BiodiversityModel

There was a decreasing amount of support for all six of the options for managing

nongame species along the continuum from the very high biodiversity group to the very

low biodiversity group, although the high and mediums groups were very similar on most

of the items (Tables 2.5-A – 2.5–F and Figures 2.5-A – 2.5–F). For all options except,

"enact new regulations that increase protection of habitat," all five groups and an average

positive level of acceptability. For this exception, the very low group was about neutral

towards the option, "enact new regulations that increase protection of habitat" (Table 2.5-

D and Figure 2.5-D). What is especially noticeable is the very large difference in

acceptability for all six of these options for managing nongame species between the very

high biodiversity group and the very low biodiversity group.

The very high, high, medium, and low biodiversity groups had a much higher

percentage that favored the option to "purchase lands from willing sellers to protect

habitat" compared to the very low biodiversity group (Table 2.6).


57

Table 2.5-A. Options for Managing Nongame Species Analyzed by the BiodiversityModel – …purchase lands from willing sellers to protect habitat?

5-Group Biodiversity ModelAttitude Response(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowHighly Unacceptable (-3) 4.6% 0.7% 2.8% 3.7% 16.4%Moderately Unacceptable (-2) 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 8.6% 14.8%Slightly Unacceptable (-1) 0.5% 2.2% 3.5% 1.2% 3.3%Neither (0) 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% 2.5% 6.6%Slightly Acceptable (1) 1.8% 18.8% 10.6% 22.2% 19.7%Moderately Acceptable (2) 15.2% 34.1% 36.2% 33.3% 23.0%Highly Acceptable (3) 76.0% 42.0% 44.7% 28.4% 16.4%Total 217 138 141 81 61Chi-square: X2=186.22; df=24, p<0.001Mean 2.43 2.04 2.00 1.43 0.3095% C.I. 2.24 – 2.62 1.85 – 2.23 1.77 – 2.23 1.06 – 1.79 -0.25 – 0.86ANOVA: F=27.43; df=4/636, p<0.001

SUMMARIZED RESULTSUNACCEPTABLE 6.4% 4.3% 7.7% 13.6% 35.5%NEITHER 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% 2.5% 6.5%ACCEPTABLE 93.1% 95.0% 91.5% 84.0% 58.1%Chi-square: X2=71.73; df=8, p<0.001

Figure 2.5-A. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Attitude towards …purchaselands from willing sellers to protect habitat (data from Table 2.5-A).

...purchase lands from willing sellers to protect habitat?

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Acc

epta

bili

ty S

cale


58

Table 2.5-B. Options for Managing Nongame Species Analyzed by the BiodiversityModel – …purchase conservation easements from willing landowners to protecthabitat?



Figure 2.5-B. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Attitude towards …purchaseconservation easements from willing landowners to protect habitat (data from Table2.5-B).

...purchase conservation easements from willing landowners to protect habitat?

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Acc

epta

bili

ty S

cale


59

Table 2.5-C. Options for Managing Nongame Species Analyzed by the BiodiversityModel – …provide financial incentives to landowners to protect habitat?

5-Group Biodiversity ModelAttitude Response(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowHighly Unacceptable (-3) 4.2% 0.7% 2.8% 2.5% 8.1%Moderately Unacceptable (-2) 1.9% 4.3% 4.2% 5.0% 4.8%Slightly Unacceptable (-1) 1.4% 3.6% 3.5% 5.0% 11.3%Neither (0) 2.3% 7.9% 5.6% 2.5% 3.2%Slightly Acceptable (1) 14.0% 18.6% 14.0% 35.0% 25.8%Moderately Acceptable (2) 17.7% 34.3% 42.7% 28.8% 19.4%Highly Acceptable (3) 58.6% 30.7% 27.3% 21.3% 27.4%Total 215 140 143 80 62Chi-square: X2=108.89; df=24, p<0.001Mean 2.07 1.66 1.59 1.31 0.9895% C.I. 1.86 – 2.27 1.43 – 1.89 1.35 – 1.84 0.98 – 1.63 0.49 – 1.46ANOVA: F=8.12; df=4/635, p<0.001

SUMMARIZED RESULTSUNACCEPTABLE 7.4% 8.6% 11.1% 13.6% 24.6%NEITHER 2.3% 7.9% 5.6% 2.5% 3.3%ACCEPTABLE 90.2% 83.6% 83.3% 84.0% 72.1%Chi-square: X2=23.28; df=8, p=0.003

Figure 2.5-C. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Attitude towards …providefinancial incentives to landowners to protect habitat (data from Table 2.5-C).

...provide financial incentives to landowners to protect habitat?

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Acc

epta

bili

ty S

cale


60

Table 2.5-D. Options for Managing Nongame Species Analyzed by the BiodiversityModel – …enact new regulations that increase protection of habitat?

5-Group Biodiversity ModelAttitude Response(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowHighly Unacceptable (-3) 3.2% 0.7% 4.2% 8.9% 14.8%Moderately Unacceptable (-2) 1.8% 2.9% 4.9% 11.4% 13.1%Slightly Unacceptable (-1) 4.1% 8.6% 7.6% 16.5% 19.7%Neither (0) 3.7% 7.9% 11.1% 11.4% 1.6%Slightly Acceptable (1) 17.5% 12.9% 22.9% 19.0% 24.6%Moderately Acceptable (2) 25.8% 35.7% 30.6% 20.3% 18.0%Highly Acceptable (3) 43.8% 31.4% 18.8% 12.7% 8.2%Total 217 140 144 79 61Chi-square: X2=124.57; df=24, p<0.001Mean 1.83 1.63 1.09 0.33 -0.0795% C.I. 1.63 – 2.03 1.39 – 1.87 0.83 – 1.36 -0.08 – 0.74 -0.57 – 0.43ANOVA: F=26.25; df=4/635, p<0.001


Figure 2.5-D. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Attitude towards …enact newregulations that increase protection of habitat (data from Table 2.5-D).

...enact new regulations that increase protection of habitat?

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Acc

epta

bili

ty S

cale


61

Table 2.5-E. Options for Managing Nongame Species Analyzed by the BiodiversityModel – …increase enforcement of current regulations to protect habitat?

5-Group Biodiversity ModelAttitude Response(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowHighly Unacceptable (-3) 3.7% 0.0% 2.1% 1.2% 11.5%Moderately Unacceptable (-2) 1.4% 1.4% 2.1% 6.2% 3.3%Slightly Unacceptable (-1) 1.8% 5.0% 4.2% 9.9% 6.6%Neither (0) 4.6% 2.9% 4.2% 6.2% 14.8%Slightly Acceptable (1) 8.8% 19.4% 19.4% 25.9% 24.6%Moderately Acceptable (2) 15.7% 36.0% 34.0% 24.7% 23.0%Highly Acceptable (3) 64.1% 35.3% 34.0% 25.9% 16.4%Total 217 139 144 81 61Chi-square: X2=126.14; df=24, p<0.001Mean 2.18 1.90 1.78 1.27 0.7695% C.I. 1.98 – 2.38 1.70 – 2.09 1.56 – 2.00 0.92 – 1.62 0.29 – 1.22ANOVA: F=14.83; df=4/636, p<0.001


Figure 2.5-E. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Attitude towards …increaseenforcement of current regulations to protect habitat (data from Table 2.5-E).

...increase enforcement of current regulations to protect habitat?

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Acc

epta

bili

ty S

cale


62

Table 2.5-F. Options for Managing Nongame Species Analyzed by the BiodiversityModel – …seek water rights or lease water for fish and wildlife in importantstreams?



Figure 2.5-F. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Attitude towards …seek waterrights or lease water for fish and wildlife in important streams (data from Table 2.5-F).

...increase enforcement of current regulations to protect habitat?

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Acc

epta

bili

ty S

cale

...seek water rights or lease water for fish and wildlife in important streams?

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Acc

epta

bili

ty S

cale


63

Table 2.6. Most favorite option for protecting habitat (lands) for nongame speciesanalyzed by Biodiversity Model.

5-Group Biodiversity ModelMost Favorite Option forProtecting Habitat forNongame

VeryHigh High Medium Low

VeryLow

purchase lands from willingsellers to protect habitat 36.1% 33.3% 26.3% 47.2% 7.1%provide financial incentives tolandowners to protect habitat 25.4% 27.8% 17.1% 16.7% 32.1%purchase conservationeasements from willinglandowners to protect habitat

15.6% 4.2% 23.7% 16.7% 25.0%

increase enforcement ofcurrent regulations to protecthabitat

14.8% 13.9% 17.1% 8.3% 25.0%

seek water rights or leasewater for fish and wildlife inimportant streams

4.1% 13.9% 14.5% 11.1% 10.7%

enact new regulations thatincrease protection of habitat 4.1% 6.9% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0%Total Number 122 72 76 36 28Chi-square: X2=40.03; df=20, p=0.005


64

Section C: Funding of Nongame Programs Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model

There was a decreasing amount of support for the funding option of increasing the

sales tax 1/8 of one percent and for using existing state taxes for funding of nongame

programs along the biodiversity continuum (very high to very low groups) (Tables 2.7-A

– 2.7-B and Figures 2.6-A –2.6-B). Only the very high biodiversity group had a mean

positive acceptability rating for increasing the general sales tax, while the very high, high

and medium groups were positive towards redirecting existing state revenue taxes for

funding nongame programs. All five groups had high support for selling conservation

license plates for funding nongame programs (Table 2.7-C and Figure 2.6-C).

The very high, high, and medium groups were positive towards redirecting

existing federal taxes to fund nongame programs and the low and very low groups were

nearly neutral (the low group was slightly negative towards this funding option and the

very low group was slightly positive) (Table 2.7-D and Figure 2.6-D). All five groups

were on average negative towards establishing a new tax on wildlife viewing equipment

(Table 2.7-E and Figure 2.6-E). All five groups also said that is was on average

unacceptable to not take any action to obtain new funds for nongame species, although

the very low biodiversity group was nearly neutral on this item (Table 2.7-F and Figure

2.6-F). The very low biodiversity group also had the highest percent (23%) selecting the

take no action funding option as their most preferred funding option (Table 2.8).


65

Table 2.7-A. Funding of Nongame Programs Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model –…increase the state sales tax 1/8 of one percent to cover the necessary costs?

5-Group Biodiversity ModelAttitude Response(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowHighly Unacceptable (-3) 13.0% 24.3% 23.6% 41.5% 56.7%Moderately Unacceptable (-2) 11.6% 8.1% 15.3% 15.9% 10.0%Slightly Unacceptable (-1) 10.2% 16.2% 20.8% 12.2% 15.0%Neither (0) 6.0% 6.6% 10.4% 9.8% 3.3%Slightly Acceptable (1) 25.0% 24.3% 16.7% 11.0% 8.3%Moderately Acceptable (2) 17.6% 13.2% 5.6% 8.5% 1.7%Highly Acceptable (3) 16.7% 7.4% 7.6% 1.2% 5.0%Total 216 136 144 82 60Chi-square: X2=110.53; df=24, p<0.001Mean 0.38 -0.33 -0.71 -1.39 -1.7895% C.I. 0.11 – 0.65 -0.67 – 0.01 -1.02 – -0.40 -1.78 –-1.00 -2.24 – -1.31


UNACCEPTABLE 34.7% 48.9% 59.7% 70.4% 81.7%NEITHER 6.0% 6.6% 10.4% 9.9% 3.3%ACCEPTABLE 59.3% 44.5% 29.9% 19.8% 15.0%Chi-square: X2=75.79; df=8, p<0.001

Figure 2.6-A. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Attitude towards …increase thestate sales tax 1/8 of one percent to cover the necessary costs (data from Table 2.7-A).

...increase the sales tax 1/8 of one percent to cover the necessary costs?

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Acc

epta

bili

ty S

cale


66

Table 2.7-B. Funding of Nongame Programs Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model –…redirect existing state revenue from taxes?

5-Group Biodiversity ModelAttitude Response(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowHighly Unacceptable (-3) 5.1% 8.7% 5.6% 18.5% 25.0%Moderately Unacceptable (-2) 9.3% 2.9% 15.3% 13.6% 10.0%Slightly Unacceptable (-1) 8.3% 5.8% 12.5% 11.1% 6.7%Neither (0) 6.0% 12.3% 9.0% 9.9% 15.0%Slightly Acceptable (1) 24.1% 42.0% 29.9% 22.2% 26.7%Moderately Acceptable (2) 24.5% 19.6% 20.1% 22.2% 8.3%Highly Acceptable (3) 22.7% 8.7% 7.6% 2.5% 8.3%Total 216 138 144 81 60Chi-square: X2=98.79; df=24, p<0.001Mean 0.99 0.72 0.34 -0.17 -0.3095% C.I. 0.75 – 1.23 0.46 – 0.98 0.05 – 0.62 -0.58 – 0.25 -0.82 – 0.21



Figure 2.6-B. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Attitude towards …redirectexisting state revenue from taxes (data from Table 2.7-B).

...redirect existing state revenue from taxes?

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Acc

epta

bilit

y S

cale


67

Table 2.6-C. Funding of Nongame Programs Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model –…sell conservation license plates whose proceeds would benefit nongame fish andwildlife?

5-Group Biodiversity ModelAttitude Response(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowHighly Unacceptable (-3) 4.1% 2.2% 1.4% 3.7% 8.3%Moderately Unacceptable (-2) 0.5% 2.2% 1.4% 0.0% 8.3%Slightly Unacceptable (-1) 0.5% 2.2% 0.7% 2.5% 3.3%Neither (0) 1.8% 5.8% 6.3% 7.4% 6.7%Slightly Acceptable (1) 13.8% 19.0% 19.7% 18.5% 20.0%Moderately Acceptable (2) 12.8% 28.5% 23.2% 34.6% 30.0%Highly Acceptable (3) 66.5% 40.1% 47.2% 33.3% 23.3%Total 218 137 142 81 60Chi-square: X2=85.52; df=24, p<0.001Mean 2.26 1.81 1.97 1.71 1.0895% C.I. 2.07 – 2.45 1.57 – 2.05 1.75 – 2.18 1.40 – 2.02 0.59 – 1.56


UNACCEPTABLE 5.0% 7.3% 4.2% 7.3% 19.7%NEITHER 1.8% 5.8% 6.3% 7.3% 6.6%ACCEPTABLE 93.1% 86.9% 89.6% 85.4% 73.8%Chi-square: X2=25.38; df=8, p=0.001

Figure 2.6-C. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Attitude towards …sellconservation license plates whose proceeds would benefit nongame fish and wildlife(data from Table 2.7-C).

...sell conservation license plates whose proceeds would benefit nongame fish and wildlife?

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Acc

epta

bili

ty S

cale


68

Table 2.7-D. Funding of Nongame Programs Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model –…redirect a portion of the federal taxes?

5-Group Biodiversity ModelAttitude Response(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowHighly Unacceptable (-3) 4.1% 6.5% 6.8% 14.6% 18.3%Moderately Unacceptable (-2) 6.5% 2.9% 11.0% 12.2% 13.3%Slightly Unacceptable (-1) 8.8% 10.1% 7.5% 13.4% 5.0%Neither (0) 6.0% 12.3% 11.0% 12.2% 3.3%Slightly Acceptable (1) 28.6% 32.6% 35.6% 31.7% 33.3%Moderately Acceptable (2) 23.0% 23.9% 19.2% 11.0% 16.7%Highly Acceptable (3) 23.0% 11.6% 8.9% 4.9% 10.0%Total 217 138 146 82 60Chi-square: X2=67.71; df=24, p<0.001Mean 1.10 0.78 0.51 -0.16 0.1295% C.I. 0.88 – 1.33 0.51 – 1.04 0.24 – 0.79 -0.55 – 0.23 -0.40 – 0.64



Figure 2.6-D. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Attitude towards …redirect aportion of the federal taxes (data from Table 2.7-D).

...redirect a portion of the federal taxes?

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Acc

epta

bili

ty S

cale


69

Table 2.7-E. Funding of Nongame Programs Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model –…establish a new tax on wildlife viewing equipment (for example, binoculars,backyard bird feeders)?

5-Group Biodiversity ModelAttitude Response(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowHighly Unacceptable (-3) 27.1% 23.7% 20.1% 40.7% 45.0%Moderately Unacceptable (-2) 9.8% 6.5% 16.7% 14.8% 16.7%Slightly Unacceptable (-1) 18.7% 17.3% 16.7% 14.8% 10.0%Neither (0) 11.7% 8.6% 14.6% 4.9% 3.3%Slightly Acceptable (1) 16.4% 22.3% 18.1% 16.0% 11.7%Moderately Acceptable (2) 9.8% 15.1% 6.9% 0.0% 8.3%Highly Acceptable (3) 6.5% 6.5% 6.9% 8.6% 5.0%Total 214 139 144 81 60Chi-square: X2=52.55; df=24, p=0.001Mean -0.64 -0.29 -0.58 -1.21 -1.3595% C.I. -0.90 – -0.38 -0.63 – 0.04 -0.89 – -0.28 -1.65 – -0.77 -1.86 – -0.83

ANOVA: F=4.79; df=4/634, p=0.001SUMMARIZED RESULTS

UNACCEPTABLE 55.8% 47.1% 53.8% 69.5% 71.7%NEITHER 11.6% 8.7% 14.7% 4.9% 3.3%ACCEPTABLE 32.6% 44.2% 31.5% 25.6% 25.0%Chi-square: X2=23.77; df=8, p=0.003

Figure 2.6-E. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Attitude towards …establish anew tax on wildlife viewing equipment (for example, binoculars, backyard birdfeeders) (data from Table 2.7-E).

...establish a new tax on wildlife viewing equipment?

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Acc

epta

bili

ty S

cale


70

Table 2.7-F. Funding of Nongame Programs Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model –…take no action to obtain new funds for nongame species?

5-Group Biodiversity ModelAttitude Response(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowHighly Unacceptable (-3) 42.5% 15.8% 14.7% 7.5% 11.5%Moderately Unacceptable (-2) 24.8% 18.7% 16.8% 17.5% 13.1%Slightly Unacceptable (-1) 15.4% 24.5% 28.7% 26.3% 21.3%Neither (0) 7.9% 22.3% 30.1% 28.8% 19.7%Slightly Acceptable (1) 7.0% 12.9% 4.9% 7.5% 8.2%Moderately Acceptable (2) 0.9% 1.4% 2.1% 7.5% 9.8%Highly Acceptable (3) 1.4% 4.3% 2.8% 5.0% 16.4%Total 214 139 143 80 61Chi-square: X2=146.12; df=24, p<0.001Mean -1.78 -0.81 -0.89 -0.45 -0.0695% C.I. -1.97 – -1.59 -1.07 – -0.55 -1.12 – -0.67 -0.79 – -0.12 -0.56 – 0.44



Figure 2.6-F. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Attitude towards …take no actionto obtain new funds for nongame species (data from Table 2.7-F).

...take no action to obtain new funds for nongame species?

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3



Acc

epta

bili

ty S

cale


71

Table 2.8. Most favorite funding option for nongame species management analyzed byBiodiversity Model.

5-Group Biodiversity ModelMost Favorite Option forProtecting Habitat forNongame


VeryLow

sell conservation license plateswhose proceeds would benefitnongame fish and wildlife

57.5% 52.5% 49.2% 50.0% 36.4%

increase the state tax 1/8 ofone percent to cover thenecessary costs

11.3% 11.9% 6.6% 11.8% 18.2%

redirect existing state revenuefrom taxes 8.5% 16.9% 11.5% 5.9% 4.5%establish a new tax on wildlifeviewing equipment (forexample, binoculars,backyard bird feeders)

7.5% 5.1% 19.7% 11.8% 9.1%

redirect a portion of thefederal taxes 10.4% 5.1% 11.5% 5.9% 9.1%take no action to obtain newfunds for nongame species 4.7% 8.5% 1.6% 14.7% 22.7%Total Number 106 59 61 34 22Chi-square: X2=31.19; df=20, p=0.053


72

Section D: Quality of Life Factors Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model

The five biodiversity groups were statistically similar on four of the 15 quality-of-

life factors measured in this study (see Part One – Section D) (Tables 2.9-A – 2.9-O and

Figures 2.7-A – 2.7-O). These four quality-of-life factors were fishing, power boating

and skiing in lakes, boating and floating in rivers, and farming.

A factor analysis was conducted to reduce the complexity of analyzing 15 items

by identifying the fundamental dimensions represented by these 15 items. The factor

analysis reduced the 15 items to four dimensions, named: water, land areas, non-

consumptive activities and consumptive activities (Table 2.10). Overall, the three water

items had the highest mean importance score while the six consumptive activities had the

lowest mean importance score (Figure 2.8).

The very high biodiversity group had the highest importance rating for the water,

land areas and non-consumptive activities dimensions while the very low biodiversity

group had the lowest mean importance for these three dimensions, with the three middle

biodiversity groups in between the two extremes (Table 2.11 and Figure 2.9). The five

biodiversity groups were statistically similar in their ratings of the importance of the

consumptive activities quality-of-life dimension.


73

Table 2.9-A. Quality of Life Factors Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model – NaturalAreas.

5-Group Biodiversity ModelImportance Rating(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowNot at All Important / NoOpinion (0) 0.5% 2.2% 2.1% 9.9% 6.8%Slightly Important (1) 1.4% 0.7% 4.2% 7.4% 20.3%Moderately Important (2) 7.8% 16.5% 16.0% 32.1% 30.5%Quite Important (3) 33.5% 43.2% 49.3% 32.1% 25.4%Extremely Important (4) 56.9% 37.4% 28.5% 18.5% 16.9%Total 218 139 144 81 59Chi-square: X2=144.01; df=16, p<0.001Mean 3.45 3.11 2.97 2.43 2.2595% C.I. 3.35 – 3.55 2.96 – 3.26 2.82 – 3.12 2.17 – 2.69 1.95 – 2.55ANOVA: F=31.45; df=4/637, p<0.001

Figure 2.7-A. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Importance of …Natural Areas(data from Table 2.9-A).

Importance of Natural Areas

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4



Imp

ort

ance

Sca

le


74

Table 2.9-B. Quality of Life Factors Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model – Prairies.5-Group Biodiversity ModelImportance Rating

(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowNot at All Important / NoOpinion (0) 0.9% 7.9% 4.8% 8.5% 15.5%Slightly Important (1) 1.4% 0.7% 4.1% 17.1% 12.1%Moderately Important (2) 9.7% 22.9% 18.6% 32.9% 24.1%Quite Important (3) 38.0% 42.1% 44.1% 22.0% 29.3%Extremely Important (4) 50.0% 26.4% 28.3% 19.5% 19.0%Total 216 140 145 82 58Chi-square: X2=121.83; df=16, p<0.001Mean 3.35 2.79 2.87 2.28 2.2795% C.I. 3.24 – 3.45 2.61 – 2.97 2.70 – 3.04 2.01 – 2.54 1.92 – 2.61ANOVA: F=24.20; df=4/636, p<0.001

Figure 2.7-B. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Importance of …Prairies (datafrom Table 2.9-B).

Importance of Prairies

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4



Imp

ort

ance

Sca

le


75

Table 2.9-C. Quality of Life Factors Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model – Wetlands.5-Group Biodiversity ModelImportance Rating


Figure 2.7-C. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Importance of …Wetlands (datafrom Table 2.9-C).

Importance of Wetlands

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4



Impo

rtan

ce S

cale


76

Table 2.9-D. Quality of Life Factors Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model – Rivers andStreams.


Figure 2.7-D. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Importance of …Rivers andStreams (data from Table 2.9-D).

Importance of Rivers and Streams

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4



Imp

ort

ance

Sca

le


77

Table 2.9-E. Quality of Life Factors Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model – Lakes andReservoirs.


Figure 2.7-E. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Importance of …Lakes andReservoirs (data from Table 2.9-E).

Importance of Lakes and Reservoirs

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4



Imp

ort

ance

Sca

le


78

Table 2.9-F. Quality of Life Factors Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model – CleanWater.


Figure 2.7-F. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Importance of …Clean Water(data from Table 2.9-F).

Importance of Clean Water

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4



Imp

ort

ance

Sca

le


79

Table 2.9-G. Quality of Life Factors Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model – StateParks.

5-Group Biodiversity ModelImportance Rating(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowNot at All Important / NoOpinion (0) 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 4.9% 3.4%Slightly Important (1) 0.0% 0.7% 4.2% 6.1% 6.8%Moderately Important (2) 6.5% 12.3% 16.7% 17.1% 35.6%Quite Important (3) 36.1% 37.0% 35.4% 48.8% 30.5%Extremely Important (4) 57.4% 47.1% 43.8% 23.2% 23.7%Total 216 138 144 82 59Chi-square: X2=87.46; df=16, p<0.001Mean 3.51 3.24 3.18 2.81 2.6395% C.I. 3.43 – 3.59 3.08 – 3.39 3.03 – 3.32 2.59 – 3.04 2.36 – 2.90

ANOVA: F=18.41; df=4/637, p<0.001

Figure 2.7-G. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Importance of …State Parks(data from Table 2.9-G).

Importance of State Parks

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4



Imp

ort

ance

Sca

le


80

Table 2.9-H. Quality of Life Factors Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model – Fishing.5-Group Biodiversity ModelImportance Rating

(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowNot at All Important / NoOpinion (0) 6.5% 7.2% 3.5% 3.6% 10.0%Slightly Important (1) 13.9% 8.7% 11.3% 10.8% 10.0%Moderately Important (2) 21.3% 19.6% 21.1% 33.7% 38.3%Quite Important (3) 22.7% 36.2% 38.7% 32.5% 21.7%Extremely Important (4) 35.6% 28.3% 25.4% 19.3% 20.0%Total 216 138 142 83 60Chi-square: X2=36.24; df=16, p=0.003Mean 2.66 2.69 2.71 2.53 2.3295% C.I. 2.49 – 2.83 2.49 – 2.89 2.53 – 2.89 2.30 – 2.75 2.01 – 2.62ANOVA: F=1.53; df=4/632, p=0.193

Figure 2.7-H. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Importance of …Fishing (datafrom Table 2.9-H).

Importance of Fishing

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4



Impo

rtan

ce S

cale


81

Table 2.9-I. Quality of Life Factors Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model – Hiking andBiking.


Figure 2.7-I. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Importance of …Hiking andBiking (data from Table 2.9-I).

Importance of Hiking and Biking

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4



Imp

ort

ance

Sca

le


82

Table 2.9-J. Quality of Life Factors Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model – PowerBoating and Skiing in Lakes.

5-Group Biodiversity ModelImportance Rating(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowNot at All Important / NoOpinion (0) 27.8% 18.0% 22.9% 28.0% 23.3%Slightly Important (1) 26.4% 25.9% 30.6% 24.4% 23.3%Moderately Important (2) 26.4% 29.5% 20.1% 26.8% 21.7%Quite Important (3) 11.1% 17.3% 17.4% 12.2% 25.0%Extremely Important (4) 8.3% 9.4% 9.0% 8.5% 6.7%Total 216 139 144 82 60Chi-square: X2=16.06; df=16, p=0.449Mean 1.46 1.75 1.60 1.47 1.7095% C.I. 1.29 – 1.62 1.55 – 1.95 1.39 – 1.81 1.19 – 1.74 1.37 – 2.02ANOVA: F=1.48; df=4/638, p=0.206

Figure 2.7-J. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Importance of …Power Boatingand Skiing in Lakes (data from Table 2.9-J).

Importance of Power Boating and Skiing in Lakes

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4



Imp

ort

ance

Sca

le


83

Table 2.9-K. Quality of Life Factors Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model – ObservingWildlife.


Figure 2.7-K. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Importance of …ObservingWildlife (data from Table 2.9-K).

Importance of Observing Wildlife

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4



Impo

rtan

ce S

cale


84

Table 2.9-L. Quality of Life Factors Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model – Farming.5-Group Biodiversity ModelImportance Rating


Figure 2.7-L. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Importance of …Farming (datafrom Table 2.9-L).

Importance of Farming

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4



Imp

ort

ance

Sca

le


85

Table 2.9-M. Quality of Life Factors Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model – Boatingand Floating in Rivers.

5-Group Biodiversity ModelImportance Rating(scale) Very High High Medium Low Very LowNot at All Important / NoOpinion (0) 12.9% 10.1% 11.7% 11.0% 11.7%Slightly Important (1) 16.6% 19.4% 20.7% 32.9% 26.7%Moderately Important (2) 28.6% 23.7% 28.3% 14.6% 33.3%Quite Important (3) 24.0% 25.9% 29.0% 34.1% 18.3%Extremely Important (4) 18.0% 20.9% 10.3% 7.3% 10.0%Total 217 139 145 82 60Chi-square: X2=30.75; df=16, p=0.014Mean 2.18 2.28 2.05 1.95 1.8895% C.I. 2.01 – 2.35 2.07 – 2.49 1.85 – 2.24 1.85 – 2.21 1.58 – 2.18ANOVA: F=1.82; df=4/638, p=0.124

Figure 2.7-M. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Importance of …Boating andFloating in Rivers (data from Table 2.9-M).

Importance of Boating and Floating in Rivers

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4



Imp

ort

ance

Sca

le


86

Table 2.9-N. Quality of Life Factors Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model – Hunting.5-Group Biodiversity ModelImportance Rating


Figure 2.7-N. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Importance of …Hunting (datafrom Table 2.9-N).

Importance of Hunting

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4



Imp

ort

ance

Sca

le


87

Table 2.9-O. Quality of Life Factors Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model – Camping.5-Group Biodiversity ModelImportance Rating


Figure 2.7-O. Evaluation of the biodiversity model – Importance of …Camping (datafrom Table 2.9-O).

Importance of Camping

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4



Imp

ort

ance

Sca

le


88

Table 2.10. Mean importance of the four dimensions identified by data reduction (factoranalysis) of the 15 factors important for maintaining a high quality of life in Nebraska.General Name ofGroup (dimensions) Factors Included Mean Score 1 95% C.I.

Rivers and StreamsLakes and Reservoirs

Water

Clean Water3.53 3.48 – 3.58

Natural AreasPrairies

Land Areas

Wetlands2.92 2.84 – 2.99

State ParksHiking and Biking

Non-consumptiveActivities

Observing Wildlife2.86 2.80 – 2.93

FishingPower Boating andSkiing in LakesFarmingBoating and Floatingin RiversHunting

ConsumptiveActivities

Camping

2.46 2.40 – 2.53

1Importance Scale: 0 = not important, 1 = slightly important, 2 = moderately important, 3 = quite important,and 4 = extremely important

Figure 2.8. Mean importance of the four dimensions of the 15 factors important formaintaining a high quality of life in Nebraska (data from Table 2.10).

Four Dimensions of Quality of Life Factors

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Water

Land Areas

Non-consumptive

Consumptive

Importance Scale


89

Table 2.11. Quality of Life Dimensions (reduced factors) Analyzed by the BiodiversityModel .

5-Group Biodiversity ModelDimension (reducedfactors) Very High High Medium Low Very LowWaterMean 3.73 3.56 3.52 3.24 3.1095% C.I. 3.67 – 3.79 3.46 – 3.66 3.44 – 3.61 3.05 – 3.44 2.87 – 3.33ANOVA: F=18.00; df=4/636, p<0.001

Land AreasMean 3.35 2.93 2.90 2.32 2.2495% C.I. 3.26 – 3.45 2.79 – 3.08 2.75 – 3.04 2.08 – 2.56 1.95 – 2.53ANOVA: F=31.12; df=4/629, p<0.001

Non-consumptive ActivitiesMean 3.22 2.87 2.82 2.35 2.3295% C.I. 3.13 – 3.31 2.73 – 3.01 2.69 – 2.95 2.16 – 2.55 2.08 – 2.56ANOVA: F=27.51; df=4/627, p<0.001

Consumptive ActivitiesMean 2.46 2.57 2.50 2.32 2.3395% C.I. 2.34 – 2.57 2.41 – 2.73 2.37 – 2.63 2.14 – 2.50 2.10 – 2.56ANOVA: F=1.51; df=4/624, p=0.197

Figure 2.9. Quality of Life Dimensions (reduced factors) Analyzed by the BiodiversityModel (data from Table 2.11).

Mean Quality of Life Dimensions

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

VeryHigh

High Medium Low VeryLow


Imp

ort

ance

Sca

le

WaterLand

Non-consumptiveConsumptive


90

Section E: Wildlife Value Orientations Analyzed by the Biodiversity Model

The wildlife value orientations and the biodiversity model groups were strongly

related (Tables 2.12 – 2.13 and Figures 2.10 – 2.11). Mutualists dominated the very high

biodiversity group and the pluralists dominated the high biodiversity group (Table 2.12

and Figure 2.10). Note the strong direct correlation of increasing percentage composition

of utilitarians along the biodiversity model continuum from the very high group to the

very low group.

Pluralists were comprised mainly of people from the very high and high

biodiversity groups while the mutualists were dominated by people from the very high

biodiversity group (Table 2.13 and Figure 2.11). Utilitarians and distanced people tended

to be comprised of a range of biodiversity groups with the largest percent coming from

the medium group.


91

Table 2.12. Wildlife value orientations of the biodiversity model groups.5-Group Biodiversity ModelWildlife Value

Orientations Very High High Medium Low Very LowPluralist 26.1% 43.7% 24.3% 20.2% 9.8%Utilitarian 19.3% 34.5% 55.4% 64.3% 73.8%Mutualist 50.5% 13.4% 9.5% 3.6% 9.8%Distanced 4.1% 8.5% 10.8% 11.9% 6.6%Total Number 218 142 148 84 61Chi-square: X2=196.57; df=12, p<0.001

Figure 2.10. Wildlife value orientations of the biodiversity model groups (data fromTable 2.12).

Wildlife Value Orientations for each of the Biodiversity Model Groups

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

VeryHigh

High Medium Low VeryLow

Biodiversity Model Groups

Per

cen

t

Pluralist

Utilitarian

Mutualist

Disatanced


92

Table 2.13. Biodiversity model groups analyzed by wildlife value orientations.Wildlife Value Orientations5-Group Biodiversity

Model Pluralist Utilitarian Mutualist DistancedVery High 32.0% 15.4% 72.4% 17.6%High 34.8% 18.0% 12.5% 23.5%Medium 20.2% 30.1% 9.2% 31.4%Low 9.6% 19.9% 2.0% 19.6%Very Low 3.4% 16.5% 3.9% 7.8%Total Number 178 272 152 51Chi-square: X2=196.57; df=12, p<0.001

Figure 2.11. Biodiversity model groups analyzed by wildlife value orientations (datafrom Table 2.13).

Biodiversity Model Groups for each of the Wildlife Value Orientations

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

Pluralist Utilitarian Mutualist Disatanced

Wildlife Value Orientations

Per

cen

t

Very High

High

Medium

Low

Very Low


93

Part 3 – Attitudes and Beliefs of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife ViewingParticipants in Nebraska – Who are our customers?

Section A: Anglers

In general, anglers (inactive and active) tended to have slightly higher support for

the various strategies to protect habitat for nongame species, although the overall

differences were small and anglers and non-anglers had statistically similar attitudes

towards four of the six options (Tables 3.1-A – 3.1-F). Non-anglers had slightly higher

preference for the purchase of land to protect habitat and seeking water rights compared

to anglers (inactive and active) and conversely, anglers had higher preference for

purchasing conservation easements and providing financial incentives to protect habitat

for nongame species (Table 3.2).

Table 3.1-A. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to purchase lands from willingsellers to protect habitat analyzed by fishing participation?Fishing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Angler 1.70 1.42 – 1.98Inactive Angler 1.96 1.80 – 2.13Active Angler 2.03 1.79 – 2.27ANOVA: F=1.54; df=2/650, p=0.2161Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable



94

Table 3.1-B. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to purchase conservationeasements from willing landowners to protect habitat analyzed by fishingparticipation?Fishing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Angler 1.65 1.36 – 1.94Inactive Angler 2.01 1.86 – 2.16Active Angler 2.10 1.88 – 2.32ANOVA: F=3.27; df=2/651, p=0.0391Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.1-C. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to provide financial incentivesto landowners to protect habitat analyzed by fishing participation?Fishing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Angler 1.33 1.02 – 1.64Inactive Angler 1.77 1.63 – 1.92Active Angler 1.70 1.43 – 1.97ANOVA: F=3.63; df=2/649, p=0.0271Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.1-D. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to enact new regulations thatincrease protection of habitat analyzed by fishing participation?Fishing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Angler 1.12 0.81 – 1.43Inactive Angler 1.32 1.15 – 1.50Active Angler 1.29 1.03 – 1.55ANOVA: F=0.61; df=2/649, p=0.5451Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.1-E. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to increase enforcement ofcurrent regulations to protect habitat analyzed by fishing participation?Fishing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Angler 1.53 1.27 – 1.80Inactive Angler 1.86 1.71 – 2.00Active Angler 1.82 1.58 – 2.06ANOVA: F=2.12; df=2/648, p=0.1211Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable


95

Table 3.1-F. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to seek water rights or leasewater for fish and wildlife in important streams analyzed by fishing participation?Fishing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Angler 1.27 0.98 – 1.56Inactive Angler 1.47 1.31 – 1.63Active Angler 1.71 1.49 – 1.94ANOVA: F=2.64; df=2/650, p=0.0721Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.2. Most favorite option for protecting habitat (lands) for nongame speciesanalyzed by fishing participation.

Fishing ParticipationMost Favorite Option for ProtectingHabitat for Nongame Non-Angler

InactiveAngler

ActiveAngler

purchase lands from willing sellers toprotect habitat 41.0% 29.1% 32.5%provide financial incentives tolandowners to protect habitat 15.4% 24.2% 26.0%purchase conservation easements fromwilling landowners to protect habitat 2.6% 17.6% 16.9%increase enforcement of currentregulations to protect habitat 10.3% 15.9% 15.6%seek water rights or lease water forfish and wildlife in important streams 28.2% 8.4% 5.2%enact new regulations that increaseprotection of habitat 2.6% 4.8% 3.9%Total 39 227 77Chi-square: X2=24.37; df=10, p=0.007


96

In general, anglers (inactive and active) tended to have slightly higher support for

the various funding options for nongame species, although the overall differences were

small and anglers and non-anglers had statistically similar attitudes towards four of the

six options (Tables 3.3-A – 3.3-F). Also, non-anglers and anglers (inactive and active)

were statistically similar in the selection of the most preferred funding option for non-

game species (Table 3.4).

Table 3.3-A. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to increase the state tax 1/8 of onepercent to cover the necessary costs analyzed by fishing participation?Fishing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Angler -0.67 -1.05 – -0.29Inactive Angler -0.47 -0.68 – -0.26Active Angler -0.16 -0.48 – 0.17ANOVA: F=2.16; df=2/647, p=0.1161Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.3-B. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to redirect existing state revenue fromtaxes analyzed by fishing participation?Fishing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Angler 0.19 -0.18 – 0.56Inactive Angler 0.56 0.38 – 0.74Active Angler 0.65 0.37 – 0.93ANOVA: F=2.32; df=2/650, p=0.0991Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable



97

Table 3.3-C. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to sell conservation license plates whoseproceeds would benefit nongame fish and wildlife analyzed by fishing participation?Fishing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Angler 1.59 1.26 – 1.92Inactive Angler 1.95 1.81 – 2.10Active Angler 2.00 1.77 – 2.23ANOVA: F=2.99; df=2/649, p=0.0511Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.3-D. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to redirect a portion of the federal taxesanalyzed by fishing participation?Fishing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Angler 0.31 -0.06 – 0.67Inactive Angler 0.73 0.56 – 0.90Active Angler 0.67 0.39 – 0.96ANOVA: F=2.57; df=2/650, p=0.0771Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.3-E. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to establish a new tax on wildlife viewingequipment (for example, binoculars, backyard bird feeders) analyzed by fishingparticipation?Fishing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Angler -0.29 -0.67 – 0.09Inactive Angler -0.92 -1.11 – -0.73Active Angler -0.41 -0.73 – -0.10ANOVA: F=6.54; df=2/648, p=0.0021Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.3-F. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to take no action to obtain new funds fornongame species analyzed by fishing participation?Fishing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Angler -0.83 -1.14 – -0.51Inactive Angler -1.06 -1.21 – -0.90Active Angler -1.23 -1.50 – -0.97ANOVA: F=2.07; df=2/646, p=0.1271Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable


98

Table 3.4. Most favorite funding option for nongame species management analyzed byfishing participation.

Fishing ParticipationMost Favorite Option for NongameSpecies Management Non-Angler

InactiveAngler

ActiveAngler

sell conservation license plates whoseproceeds would benefit nongame fishand wildlife

48.6% 51.9% 52.4%

increase the state tax 1/8 of one percentto cover the necessary costs 11.4% 13.4% 12.7%redirect existing state revenue fromtaxes 5.7% 11.8% 7.9%establish a new tax on wildlife viewingequipment (for example, binoculars,backyard bird feeders)

14.3% 9.6% 7.9%

redirect a portion of the federal taxes 5.7% 8.6% 9.5%take no action to obtain new funds fornongame species 14.3% 4.8% 9.5%Total 35 187 63Chi-square: X2=7.46; df=10, p=0.681


99

Attitudes Related to Biodiversity Analyzed by Fishing Participation

Table 3.5-A. How strongly do you disagree or agree with the statement – The primarysign of the quality of the natural environment is that many different types of fishand wildlife exist there analyzed by fishing participation.Fishing Participation Mean Attitude 1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Angler 1.27 1.01 – 1.54Inactive Angler 1.56 1.43 – 1.69Active Angler 1.68 1.46 – 1.90ANOVA: F=3.09; df=2/644, p=0.0461Scale: -3 = Strongly Disagree; -2 = Moderately Disagree; -1 = Slightly Disagree; 0 = Neither; 1 = SlightlyAgree; 2 = Moderately Agree; 3 = Strongly Agree

Table 3.5-B. How strongly do you disagree or agree with the statement – NGPC shouldstrive to maintain as much diversity in fish, wildlife, and plants as possible analyzedby fishing participation.Fishing Participation Mean Attitude 1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Angler 1.54 1.31 – 1.76Inactive Angler 1.66 1.54 – 1.79Active Angler 1.86 1.68 – 2.04ANOVA: F=2.34; df=2/644, p=0.0971Scale: -3 = Strongly Disagree; -2 = Moderately Disagree; -1 = Slightly Disagree; 0 = Neither; 1 = SlightlyAgree; 2 = Moderately Agree; 3 = Strongly Agree

Active anglers had slightly more agreement than

non-anglers with the statement, "the primary sign of the

quality of the natural environment is that many different

types of fish and wildlife exist there" (inactive anglers

were more similar to active anglers than non-anglers)

(Table 3.5-A). Anglers (active and inactive) were

statistically similar to non-anglers in the level of support

for maintaining biodiversity (Table 3.5-B).


100


Non-anglers, inactive anglers and active anglers were statistically similar in their

rating of importance for three of the 15 quality-of-life factors evaluated in this study

(state parks, hiking & biking, and farming) (Table 3.6 and 3.7). For the twelve

significant quality-of-life factors, active anglers had the highest importance rating and

non-anglers had the lowest importance rating.

Table 3.6. Importance of Quality-of-Life factor analyzed by fishing participation.Fishing Participation1Quality of Life Factor

(p-value) Non-Angler Inactive Angler Active AnglerNatural Areas (p=0.011)Mean 2.78 3.01 3.1795% C.I. 2.57 – 3.00 2.91 – 3.11 3.02 – 3.32

Prairies (p=0.019)Mean 2.64 2.85 3.0395% C.I. 2.40 – 2.89 2.74 – 2.96 2.87 – 3.20

Wetlands (p<0.001)Mean 2.52 2.81 3.1095% C.I. 2.27 – 2.77 2.70 – 2.92 2.93 – 3.26

Rivers and Streams (p<0.001)Mean 3.14 3.44 3.6095% C.I. 2.94 – 3.34 3.36 – 3.51 3.49 – 3.70

Lakes and Reservoirs (p<0.001)Mean 3.17 3.33 3.6095% C.I. 2.98 – 3.35 3.24 – 3.41 3.49 – 3.70

Clean Water (p=0.005)Mean 3.64 3.83 3.8595% C.I. 3.48 – 3.81 3.78 – 3.88 3.78 – 3.93



101

State Parks (p=0.114)Mean 3.07 3.22 3.3095% C.I. 2.86 – 3.27 3.13 – 3.30 3.17 – 3.42

Continued on next page

Table 3.6 - Continued. Importance of Quality-of-Life factor analyzed by fishingparticipation.

Fishing ParticipationQuality of Life Factor(p-value) Non-Angler Inactive Angler Active AnglerFishing (p<0.001)Mean 1.93 2.55 3.2995% C.I. 1.70 – 2.17 2.43 – 2.66 3.16 – 3.43

Hiking and Biking (p=0.241)Mean 2.56 2.71 2.5695% C.I. 2.35 – 2.77 2.60 – 2.82 2.37 – 2.75

Power Boating and Skiing in Lakes (p=0.007)Mean 1.45 1.54 1.8795% C.I. 1.20 – 1.70 1.41 – 1.65 1.66 – 2.08

Observing Wildlife (p=0.014)Mean 2.46 2.77 2.8395% C.I. 2.23 – 2.70 2.67 – 2.88 2.66 – 3.00

Farming (p=0.910)Mean 3.47 3.44 3.4295% C.I. 3.27 – 3.68 3.35 – 3.53 3.26 – 3.58

Boating and Floating in Rivers (p=0.001)Mean 1.89 2.07 2.4395% C.I. 1.63 – 2.15 1.95 – 2.19 2.24 – 2.62

Hunting (p<0.001)Mean 1.85 2.10 2.9295% C.I. 1.59 – 2.12 1.97 – 2.23 2.72 – 3.12

Camping (p<0.001)Mean 2.39 2.69 3.1595% C.I. 2.14 – 2.64 2.58 – 2.79 2.99 – 3.301Importance Scale: 0 = not at all important or no opinion; 1 = slightly important; 2 =moderately important; 3 = quite important; 4 = extremely important


102

Table 3.7. Summary of mean importance of the quality-of-life factors analyzed byfishing participation.Quality-of-Life Factors with SignificantDifferences Among the Three FishingParticipation Levels

Quality-of-Life Factors withoutSignificant Difference Among the ThreeFishing Participation Levels

Natural Areas State ParksPrairies Hiking and BikingWetlands FarmingRivers and StreamsLakes and ReservoirsClean WaterFishingPower Boating and Skiing in LakesObserving WildlifeBoating and Floating in RiversHuntingCamping


103

Importance of Biodiversity Model and Wildlife Value Orientations Analyzed byFishing Participation

Fishing participation was significantly related to the biodiversity model and

wildlife value orientations (Tables 3.8-A and 3.8-B). Active anglers had a much higher

percent of the very high biodiversity group compared to non-anglers with inactive anglers

in-between the two groups. Non-anglers had the highest percent of mutualists while

active anglers had a higher percent of pluralists compared to non-anglers and inactive

anglers.

Table 3.8-A. Importance of biodiversity model analyzed by fishing participation.Fishing ParticipationImportance of Biodiversity

Groups Non-Angler Inactive Angler Active AnglerVery High 23.6% 34.0% 40.1%High 37.3% 18.8% 17.8%Medium 12.7% 22.9% 27.0%Low 10.9% 14.7% 9.9%Very Low 15.5% 9.5% 5.3%Total 110 388 152Chi-square: X2=35.50; df=8, p<0.001

Table 3.8-B. Wildlife value orientations analyzed by fishing participation.Fishing Participation

Wildlife Value Orientations Non-Angler Inactive Angler Active AnglerPluralists 18.4% 25.6% 37.5%Utilitarian 40.4% 39.1% 46.7%Mutualist 31.6% 25.1% 13.2%Distanced 9.6% 10.3% 2.6%Total 114 399 152Chi-square: X2=29.57; df=6, p<0.001


104

Section B: Hunters

Table 3.9-A. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to purchase lands from willingsellers to protect habitat analyzed by hunting participation?Hunting Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Hunter 2.03 1.87 – 2.19Inactive Hunter 1.83 1.60 – 2.05Active Hunter 1.73 1.32 – 2.14ANOVA: F=1.75; df=2/650, p=0.1751Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.9-B. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to purchase conservationeasements from willing landowners to protect habitat analyzed by huntingparticipation?Hunting Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Hunter 2.00 1.85 – 2.14Inactive Hunter 1.94 1.74 – 2.15Active Hunter 1.88 1.53 – 2.24


Non-hunters, inactive hunters and active hunters were

statistically similar in their level of support for five of the six

options to protect habitat for nongame species and their

preferred option (Tables 3.9-A – 3.9-F and 3.10). Non-

hunters had slightly higher acceptance of enacting new

regulations that increase protection of habitat compared to

hunters (Table 3.9-D).


105

ANOVA: F=0.22; df=2/650, p=0.8071Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.9-C. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to provide financial incentivesto landowners to protect habitat analyzed by hunting participation?Hunting Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Hunter 1.62 1.45 – 1.79Inactive Hunter 1.72 1.54 – 1.91Active Hunter 1.86 1.49 – 2.24ANOVA: F=0.89; df=2/648, p=0.4121Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.9-D. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to enact new regulations thatincrease protection of habitat analyzed by hunting participation?Hunting Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Hunter 1.47 1.30 – 1.64Inactive Hunter 0.96 0.72 – 1.20Active Hunter 1.25 0.85 – 1.65ANOVA: F=6.13; df=2/648, p=0.0021Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.9-E. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to increase enforcement ofcurrent regulations to protect habitat analyzed by hunting participation?Hunting Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Hunter 1.78 1.62 – 1.94Inactive Hunter 1.78 1.58 – 1.97Active Hunter 1.77 1.43 – 2.12ANOVA: F<0.01 df=2/647, p=0.9991Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.9-F. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to seek water rights or leasewater for fish and wildlife in important streams analyzed by hunting participation?Hunting Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Hunter 1.54 1.38 – 1.69Inactive Hunter 1.39 1.17 – 1.61


106

Active Hunter 1.53 1.16 – 1.89ANOVA: F=0.61; df=2/649, p=0.5421Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.10. Most favorite option for protecting habitat (lands) for nongame speciesanalyzed by hunting participation.

Hunting ParticipationMost Favorite Option for ProtectingHabitat for Nongame Non-Hunter

InactiveHunter

ActiveHunter



107

Non-hunters, inactive hunters and active hunters were statistically similar in their

level of support for four of the six funding options for nongame species and their

preferred funding option (Tables 1.11-A – 3.11-F and 3.12). Non-hunters were slightly

less negative towards establishing a new tax on wildlife viewing equipment compared to

hunters (inactive and active) (Table 3.11-E). Non-hunters were more opposed than were

hunters (inactive and active) to the "no action" option, i.e., to not take any action to

obtain new funds for nongame species (Table 3.11-F).

Table 3.11-A. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to increase the state tax 1/8 of onepercent to cover the necessary costs analyzed by hunting participation?Hunting Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Hunter -0.35 -0.57 – -0.13Inactive Hunter -0.65 -0.92 – -0.38Active Hunter -0.19 -0.69 – 0.32ANOVA: F=2.00; df=2/646, p=0.1361Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.11-B. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to redirect existing state revenue fromtaxes analyzed by hunting participation?Hunting Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Hunter 0.55 0.36 – 0.74Inactive Hunter 0.42 0.18 – 0.67Active Hunter 0.67 0.24 – 1.10ANOVA: F=0.61; df=2/649, p=0.5431Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable



108

Table 3.11-C. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to sell conservation license plates whoseproceeds would benefit nongame fish and wildlife analyzed by hunting participation?Hunting Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Hunter 1.92 1.76 – 2.08Inactive Hunter 1.94 1.76 – 2.12Active Hunter 1.66 1.28 – 2.03ANOVA: F=1.07; df=2/648, p=0.3441Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.11-D. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to redirect a portion of the federal taxesanalyzed by hunting participation?Hunting Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Hunter 0.64 0.46 – 0.82Inactive Hunter 0.61 0.38 – 0.84Active Hunter 0.77 0.33 – 1.21ANOVA: F=0.23; df=2/649, p=0.7991Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.11-E. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to establish a new tax on wildlifeviewing equipment (for example, binoculars, backyard bird feeders) analyzed byhunting participation?Hunting Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Hunter -0.48 -0.69 – -0.27Inactive Hunter -1.00 -1.25 – -0.75Active Hunter -0.78 -1.21 – -0.35ANOVA: F=4.93; df=2/647, p=0.0071Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.11-F. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to take no action to obtain new fundsfor nongame species analyzed by hunting participation?Hunting Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Hunter -1.23 -1.38 – -1.07Inactive Hunter -0.80 -1.02 – -0.57Active Hunter -0.98 -1.40 – -0.56ANOVA: F=5.01; df=2/645, p=0.0071Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable


109

Table 3.12. Most favorite funding option for nongame species management analyzed byhunting participation.

Hunting ParticipationMost Favorite Option for NongameSpecies Management Non-Hunter

InactiveHunter

ActiveHunter


56.3% 47.5% 38.9%


9.9% 9.1% 11.1%



110

Attitudes Related to Biodiversity Analyzed by Hunting Participation

Table 3.13-A. How strongly do you disagree or agree with the statement – The primarysign of the quality of the natural environment is that many different types of fishand wildlife exist there analyzed by hunting participation.Hunting Participation Mean Attitude 1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Hunter 1.50 1.36 – 1.63Inactive Hunter 1.60 1.43 – 1.78Active Hunter 1.55 1.21 – 1.89ANOVA: F=0.46; df=2/643, p=0.6331Scale: -3 = Strongly Disagree; -2 = Moderately Disagree; -1 = Slightly Disagree; 0 = Neither; 1 = SlightlyAgree; 2 = Moderately Agree; 3 = Strongly Agree

Table 3.13-B. How strongly do you disagree or agree with the statement – NGPCshould strive to maintain as much diversity in fish, wildlife, and plants as possibleanalyzed by hunting participation.Hunting Participation Mean Attitude 1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Hunter 1.70 1.58 – 1.83Inactive Hunter 1.65 1.48 – 1.82Active Hunter 1.74 1.46 – 2.02ANOVA: F=0.19; df=2/643, p=0.8281Scale: -3 = Strongly Disagree; -2 = Moderately Disagree; -1 = Slightly Disagree; 0 = Neither; 1 = SlightlyAgree; 2 = Moderately Agree; 3 = Strongly Agree

Hunting participation was not related to attitude

towards the statement," the primary sign of the quality

of the natural environment is that many different types

of fish and wildlife exist there" (Table 3.13-A). Also

hunters (active and inactive) were statistically similar

to non-hunters in their level of support for maintaining

biodiversity (Table 3.13-B).


111


Non-hunters, inactive hunters and active hunters were statistically similar in their

rating of importance for six of the 15 quality-of-life factors evaluated in this study

(natural areas, rivers & streams, lakes & reservoirs, clean water, state parks, and farming)

(Table 3.14 and 3.15). For eight of the nine significant quality-of-life factors, active

hunters had the highest importance rating and non-hunters had the lowest importance

rating, except for observing wildlife for which inactive hunters had the lowest rating. For

many of the significant factors, inactive hunters tended to be more similar to the non-

hunters than they were to the active hunters. For hiking & biking, non-hunters had the

highest importance rating while inactive and active hunters had a low and similar rating.

Table 3.14. Importance of Quality-of-Life factor analyzed by hunting participation.Hunting ParticipationQuality of Life Factor

(p-value) Non-Hunter Inactive Hunter Active HunterNatural Areas (p=0.059)Mean 3.01 2.94 3.2795% C.I. 2.90 – 3.12 2.81 – 3.07 3.06 – 3.48

Prairies (p=0.007)Mean 2.78 2.87 3.2395% C.I. 2.66 – 2.91 2.73 – 3.01 3.03 – 3.43

Wetlands (p=0.001)Mean 2.77 2.78 3.2995% C.I. 2.65 – 2.90 2.64 – 2.92 3.08 – 3.51

Rivers and Streams (p=0.234)Mean 3.44 3.37 3.5695% C.I. 3.35 – 3.52 3.26 – 3.48 3.40 – 3.72

Lakes and Reservoirs (p=0.177)Mean 3.36 3.32 3.5395% C.I. 3.27 – 3.45 3.20 – 3.44 3.37 – 3.69




112

Table 3.14 - Continued. Importance of Quality-of-Life factor analyzed by huntingparticipation.

Hunting ParticipationQuality of Life Factor(p-value) Non-Hunter Inactive Hunter Active HunterClean Water (p=0.597)Mean 3.83 3.78 3.7895% C.I. 3.77 – 3.89 3.71 – 3.86 3.66 – 3.91

State Parks (p=0.360)Mean 3.24 3.13 3.2295% C.I. 3.15 – 3.34 3.01 – 3.25 3.03 – 3.42

Fishing (p<0.001)Mean 2.43 2.66 3.3895% C.I. 2.30 – 2.56 2.51 – 2.80 3.19 – 3.57

Hiking and Biking (p<0.001)Mean 2.81 2.46 2.4595% C.I. 2.70 – 2.92 2.32 – 2.61 2.18 – 2.72


Observing Wildlife (p=0.004)Mean 2.82 2.54 2.9195% C.I. 2.70 – 2.93 2.39 – 2.69 2.69 – 3.13

Farming (p=0.229)Mean 3.49 3.35 3.4695% C.I. 3.40 – 3.59 3.21 – 3.49 3.26 – 3.66


Hunting (p<0.001)Mean 1.93 2.28 3.6795% C.I. 1.79 – 2.07 2.11 – 2.45 3.52 – 3.81

Camping (p<0.001)Mean 2.73 2.60 3.2595% C.I. 2.62 – 2.85 2.44 – 2.75 3.02 – 3.47


113

Table 3.15. Summary of mean importance of the quality-of-life factors analyzed byhunting participation.Quality-of-Life Factors with SignificantDifferences Among the Three HuntingParticipation Levels

Quality-of-Life Factors withoutSignificant Difference Among the ThreeHunting Participation Levels

Prairies Natural AreasWetlands Rivers and StreamsFishing Lakes and ReservoirsHiking and Biking Clean WaterPower Boating and Skiing in Lakes State ParksObserving Wildlife FarmingBoating and Floating in RiversHuntingCamping


114

Importance of Biodiversity Model and Wildlife Value Orientations Analyzed byHunting Participation

Hunting participation was significantly related to the biodiversity model and

wildlife value orientations (Tables 3.16-A and 3.16-B). Non-hunters had a higher percent

of the very high biodiversity group compared to hunters (inactive and active). Non-

hunters had the highest percent of mutualists while hunters (inactive and active) had a

higher percent of utilitarians.

Table 3.16-A. Importance of biodiversity model analyzed by hunting participation.Hunting ParticipationImportance of Biodiversity

Groups Non-Hunter Inactive Hunter Active HunterVery High 38.0% 27.2% 29.2%High 24.1% 19.6% 16.7%Medium 20.4% 22.8% 33.3%Low 11.3% 16.1% 11.1%Very Low 6.2% 14.3% 9.7%Total 353 224 72Chi-square: X2=23.82; df=8, p=0.002

Table 3.16-B. Wildlife value orientations analyzed by hunting participation.Hunting Participation

Wildlife Value Orientations Non-Hunter Inactive Hunter Active HunterPluralists 23.8% 25.0% 48.6%Utilitarian 32.8% 53.1% 45.9%Mutualist 31.8% 16.7% 4.1%Distanced 12.2% 5.3% 1.4%Total 362 228 74Chi-square: X2=69.61; df=6, p<0.001


115

Section C: Wildlife Viewers

Wildlife viewers (inactive and active) had higher support than did non-viewers for

all six of the options to protect habitat for nongame species with five of the six

relationships being statistically significant (Tables 3.17-A – 3.17-F). However, wildlife

viewing participation was not significantly related to the most preferred option for

protecting habitat for nongame species (Table 3.18).

Table 3.17-A. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to purchase lands fromwilling sellers to protect habitat analyzed by viewing participation?Viewing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Viewer 1.76 1.57 – 1.95Inactive Viewer 2.07 1.84 – 2.29Active Viewer 2.03 1.80 – 2.26ANOVA: F=2.70; df=2/652, p=0.0681Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.17-B. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to purchase conservationeasements from willing landowners to protect habitat analyzed by viewingparticipation?Viewing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Viewer 1.80 1.62 – 1.98Inactive Viewer 2.02 1.81 – 2.24Active Viewer 2.13 1.93 – 2.32ANOVA: F=3.05; df=2/653, p=0.0481Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable



116

Table 3.17-C. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to provide financialincentives to landowners to protect habitat analyzed by viewing participation?Viewing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Viewer 1.48 1.29 – 1.67Inactive Viewer 1.85 1.64 – 2.06Active Viewer 1.79 1.58 – 1.99ANOVA: F=3.87; df=2/651, p=0.0211Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.17-D. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to enact new regulations thatincrease protection of habitat analyzed by viewing participation?Viewing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Viewer 1.07 0.87 – 1.27Inactive Viewer 1.39 1.16 – 1.63Active Viewer 1.44 1.19 – 1.69ANOVA: F=3.27; df=2/651, p=0.0391Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.17-E. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to increase enforcement ofcurrent regulations to protect habitat analyzed by viewing participation?Viewing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Viewer 1.60 1.41 – 1.78Inactive Viewer 1.94 1.75 – 2.13Active Viewer 1.89 1.68 – 2.10ANOVA: F=3.71; df=2/650, p=0.0251Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.17-F. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to seek water rights or leasewater for fish and wildlife in important streams analyzed by viewing participation?Viewing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Viewer 1.20 1.00 – 1.39Inactive Viewer 1.67 1.47 – 1.86Active Viewer 1.71 1.48 – 1.93ANOVA: F=8.10; df=2/652, p<0.0011Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable


117

Table 3.18. Most favorite option for protecting habitat (lands) for nongame speciesanalyzed by viewing participation.

Viewing ParticipationMost Favorite Option for ProtectingHabitat for Nongame Non-Viewer

InactiveViewer

ActiveViewer



118

Wildlife viewers (inactive and active) were less opposed to increasing the state

sales tax 1/8 of one percent for nongame funding than were non-viewers (Table 3.19-A).

Active viewers had higher support for using existing state and federal tax revenue and for

selling conservation license plates for funding nongame programs than did non-viewers

and inactive viewers (Tables 3.19-B – 3.19-D). Viewing participation was not

significantly related to attitude towards establishing a new tax on wildlife viewing

equipment for nongame funding (all three groups were, on average, opposed) (Table

3.19-E). While all three groups felt that it was unacceptable to not take action to obtain

new funds for nongame species, active viewers found the no-action option the most

unacceptable (Table 3.19-F). Wildlife viewing participation was not significantly related

to the most preferred nongame funding option (Table 3.20).

Table 3.19-A. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to increase the state tax 1/8 of onepercent to cover the necessary costs analyzed by viewing participation?Viewing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Viewer -0.68 -0.93 – -0.43Inactive Viewer -0.27 -0.55 – 0.01Active Viewer -0.26 -0.56 – 0.05ANOVA: F=3.27; df=2/649, p=0.0391Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.19-B. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to redirect existing state revenue fromtaxes analyzed by viewing participation?Viewing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Viewer 0.16 -0.06 – 0.38Inactive Viewer 0.53 0.27 – 0.79Active Viewer 1.01 0.77 – 1.25ANOVA: F=12.86; df=2/652, p<0.0011Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable



119

Table 3.19-C. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to sell conservation license plates whoseproceeds would benefit nongame fish and wildlife analyzed by viewing participation?Viewing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Viewer 1.79 1.61 – 1.97Inactive Viewer 1.80 1.58 – 2.02Active Viewer 2.14 1.94 – 2.34ANOVA: F=3.76; df=2/651, p=0.0241Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.19-D. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to redirect a portion of the federal taxesanalyzed by viewing participation?Viewing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Viewer 0.37 0.15 – 0.59Inactive Viewer 0.59 0.34 – 0.83Active Viewer 1.07 0.84 – 1.30ANOVA: F=9.64; df=2/652, p<0.0011Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.19-E. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to establish a new tax on wildlifeviewing equipment (for example, binoculars, backyard bird feeders) analyzed byviewing participation?Viewing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Viewer -0.77 -1.01 – -0.53Inactive Viewer -0.46 -0.74 – -0.18Active Viewer -0.81 -1.07 – -0.54ANOVA: F=1.85; df=2/650, p=0.1581Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable

Table 3.19-F. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to take no action to obtain new fundsfor nongame species analyzed by viewing participation?Viewing Participation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Viewer -0.78 -0.97 – -0.58Inactive Viewer -1.13 -1.35 – -0.92Active Viewer -1.37 -1.60 – -1.14ANOVA: F=8.29; df=4/648, p<0.0011Scale: -3 = Highly Unacceptable; -2 = Moderately Unacceptable; -1 = Slightly Unacceptable; 0 = Neither;1 = Slightly Acceptable; 2 = Moderately Acceptable; 3 = Highly Acceptable


120

Table 3.20. Most favorite funding option for nongame species management analyzed byviewing participation.

Viewing ParticipationMost Favorite Option for NongameSpecies Management Non-Viewer

InactiveViewer

ActiveViewer


51.0% 51.6% 52.1%


12.5% 7.7% 9.4%



121

Attitudes Related to Biodiversity Analyzed by Viewing Participation

Table 3.21-A. How strongly do you disagree or agree with the statement – The primarysign of the quality of the natural environment is that many different types of fishand wildlife exist there analyzed by viewing participation.Viewing Participation Mean Attitude 1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Viewer 1.40 1.25 – 1.56Inactive Viewer 1.54 1.33 – 1.74Active Viewer 1.73 1.56 – 1.90ANOVA: F=3.54; df=4/646, p=0.0291Scale: -3 = Strongly Disagree; -2 = Moderately Disagree; -1 = Slightly Disagree; 0 = Neither; 1 = SlightlyAgree; 2 = Moderately Agree; 3 = Strongly Agree

Table 3.21-B. How strongly do you disagree or agree with the statement – NGPCshould strive to maintain as much diversity in fish, wildlife, and plants as possibleanalyzed by viewing participation.Viewing Participation Mean Attitude 1 95% Confidence IntervalNon-Viewer 1.42 1.27 – 1.57Inactive Viewer 1.75 1.57 – 1.93Active Viewer 1.99 1.85 – 2.14ANOVA: F=13.08; df=4/646, p<0.0011Scale: -3 = Strongly Disagree; -2 = Moderately Disagree; -1 = Slightly Disagree; 0 = Neither; 1 = SlightlyAgree; 2 = Moderately Agree; 3 = Strongly Agree

Active wildlife viewers had significantly higher

agreement with the statement," the primary sign of the quality of

the natural environment is that many different types of fish and

wildlife exist there" than did non-viewers, with inactive viewers

in-between these two groups in their mean attitude (Table 3.21-

A). Also, active viewers had higher support for maintaining

wildlife diversity compared to non-viewers, with inactive viewers

in-between these two groups in their mean level of support for

biodiversity (Table 3.21-B).


122


Non-viewers, inactive viewers and active viewers were statistically similar in

their rating of importance for six of the 15 quality-of-life factors evaluated in this study

(lakes & reservoirs, fishing, power boating & skiing in lakes, farming, boating & floating

in rivers, and hunting) (Table 3.22 and 3.23). For all nine of the significant quality-of-

life factors, active viewers had the highest importance rating and non-viewers had the

lowest importance rating (in most cases the inactive viewers were in-between these two

groups in their level of importance).

Table 3.22. Importance of Quality-of-Life factor analyzed by viewing participation.Viewing ParticipationQuality of Life Factor

(p-value) Non-Viewer Inactive Viewer Active ViewerNatural Areas (p<0.001)Mean 2.81 3.00 3.3095% C.I. 2.67 – 2.95 2.87 – 3.14 3.19 – 3.42

Prairies (p<0.001)Mean 2.68 2.82 3.1495% C.I. 2.54 – 2.83 2.66 – 2.99 3.01 – 3.28

Wetlands (p<0.001)Mean 2.61 2.86 3.1195% C.I. 2.46 – 2.76 2.71 – 3.02 2.97 – 3.26

Rivers and Streams (p=0.002)Mean 3.30 3.51 3.5395% C.I. 3.19 – 3.40 3.41 – 3.60 3.43 – 3.64

Lakes and Reservoirs (p=0.054)Mean 3.27 3.40 3.4595% C.I. 3.16 – 3.38 3.30 – 3.50 3.34 – 3.57

Clean Water (p=0.039)Mean 3.74 3.83 3.8795% C.I. 3.66 – 3.82 3.75 – 3.90 3.81 – 3.94




123

Table 3.22 - Continued. Importance of Quality-of-Life factor analyzed by viewingparticipation.

Viewing ParticipationQuality of Life Factor(p-value) Non-Viewer Inactive Viewer Active ViewerState Parks (p<0.001)Mean 2.96 3.29 3.4795% C.I. 2.84 – 3.07 3.17 – 3.42 3.36 – 3.57

Fishing (p=0.078)Mean 2.50 2.74 2.6695% C.I. 2.35 – 2.64 2.58 – 2.90 2.49 – 2.84

Hiking and Biking (p<0.001)Mean 2.45 2.69 2.8995% C.I. 2.31 – 2.59 2.52 – 2.85 2.74 – 3.03


Observing Wildlife (p<0.001)Mean 2.35 2.81 3.2095% C.I. 2.21 – 2.48 2.67 – 2.96 3.08 – 3.33

Farming (p=0.391)Mean 3.39 3.52 3.4495% C.I. 3.26 – 3.53 3.40 – 3.65 3.32 – 3.56


Hunting (p=0.443)Mean 2.23 2.35 2.1895% C.I. 2.07 – 2.39 2.16 – 2.54 1.97 – 2.39

Camping (p=0.006)Mean 2.61 2.72 2.9595% C.I. 2.47 – 2.75 2.56 – 2.87 2.80 – 3.10


124

Table 3.23. Summary of mean importance of the quality-of-life factors analyzed byviewing participation.Quality-of-Life Factors with SignificantDifferences Among the Three ViewingParticipation Levels

Quality-of-Life Factors withoutSignificant Difference Among the ThreeViewing Participation Levels

Natural Areas Lakes and ReservoirsPrairies FishingWetlands Power Boating and Skiing in LakesRivers and Streams FarmingClean Water Boating and Floating in RiversState Parks HuntingHiking and BikingObserving WildlifeCamping


125

Importance of Biodiversity Model and Wildlife Value Orientations Analyzed byWildlife Viewing Participation

Wildlife viewing participation was significantly related to the biodiversity model

and wildlife value orientations (Tables 3.24-A and 3.24-B). Active viewers had a much

higher percentage of the very high biodiversity group compared to non-viewers (inactive

viewers were in-between these two groups in the percentage of the very high biodiversity

group). Non-viewers were comprised of a greater percent of low and very low

biodiversity groups compared to the inactive and active viewers. Active viewers had the

highest percent of mutualists compared to inactive viewers and non-viewers.

Table 3.24-A. Importance of biodiversity model analyzed by viewing participation.Viewing ParticipationImportance of Biodiversity

Groups Non-Viewer Inactive Viewer Active ViewerVery High 22.8% 37.4% 45.1%High 25.4% 22.0% 15.9%Medium 20.7% 23.1% 25.1%Low 17.4% 11.0% 8.2%Very Low 13.8% 6.6% 5.6%Total 276 182 195Chi-square: X2=42.14; df=8, p<0.001

Table 3.24-B. Wildlife value orientations analyzed by wildlife viewing participation.Viewing Participation

Wildlife Value Orientations Non-Viewer Inactive Viewer Active ViewerPluralists 26.0% 29.2% 26.0%Utilitarian 44.8% 40.5% 37.0%Mutualist 18.5% 22.7% 31.0%Distanced 10.7% 7.6% 6.0%Total 281 185 200Chi-square: X2=13.38; df=6, p=0.037


126

Section D: Wildlife Value Orientation

Wildlife value orientations were significantly related to all six options for

protecting habitat for nongame species (Tables 3.25-A – 3.25-F). Mutualists had the

highest acceptability rating for all six of the options, utilitarians and distanced had the

lowest level of acceptability with pluralists usually in-between mutualists and utilitarians.

Differences in preferred option were minor among the four wildlife value orientations

(Table 3.26).

Table 3.25-A. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to purchase lands fromwilling sellers to protect habitat analyzed by wildlife value orientations?Wildlife Value Orientation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalPluralist 2.02 1.81 – 2.23Utilitarian 1.60 1.40 – 1.81Mutualist 2.36 2.13 – 2.58Distanced 1.94 1.52 – 2.36ANOVA: F=7.91; df=3/657, p<0.001

Table 3.25-B. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to purchase conservationeasements from willing landowners to protect habitat analyzed by wildlife valueorientations?Wildlife Value Orientation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalPluralist 2.06 1.87 – 2.25Utilitarian 1.80 1.62 – 1.98Mutualist 2.23 1.98 – 2.47Distanced 1.78 1.37 – 2.19ANOVA: F=3.38; df=3/658, p=0.018



127

Table 3.25-C. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to provide financialincentives to landowners to protect habitat analyzed by wildlife value orientations?Wildlife Value Orientation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalPluralist 1.84 1.63 – 2.06Utilitarian 1.55 1.36 – 1.74Mutualist 1.86 1.62 – 2.10Distanced 1.23 0.77 – 1.68ANOVA: F=3.61; df=3/656, p=0.013

Table 3.25-D. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to enact new regulations thatincrease protection of habitat analyzed by wildlife value orientations?Wildlife Value Orientation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalPluralist 1.61 1.38 – 1.84Utilitarian 0.65 0.44 – 0.86Mutualist 1.96 1.72 – 2.19Distanced 1.32 0.90 –1.75ANOVA: F=25.01; df=3/656, p<0.001

Table 3.25-E. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to increase enforcement ofcurrent regulations to protect habitat analyzed by wildlife value orientations?Wildlife Value Orientation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalPluralist 1.87 1.66 – 2.08Utilitarian 1.53 1.35 – 1.71Mutualist 2.14 1.90 – 2.38Distanced 1.72 1.34 – 2.10ANOVA: F=6.04; df=3/655, p<0.001

Table 3.25-F. Is it unacceptable or acceptable for NGPC to seek water rights or leasewater for fish and wildlife in important streams analyzed by wildlife valueorientations?Wildlife Value Orientation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalPluralist 1.82 1.61 – 2.02Utilitarian 1.07 0.88 – 1.26Mutualist 1.95 1.72 – 2.19Distanced 1.05 0.64 – 1.47ANOVA: F=16.00; df=3/657, p<0.001


128

Table 3.26. Most favorite option for protecting habitat (lands) for nongame speciesanalyzed by wildlife value orientation.

Wildlife Value OrientationMost Favorite Option forProtecting Habitat forNongame Pluralist Utilitarian Mutualist Distancedpurchase lands fromwilling sellers to protecthabitat

33.3% 28.9% 28.4% 36.0%

provide financialincentives to landownersto protect habitat

34.4% 21.5% 22.2% 4.0%

purchase conservationeasements from willinglandowners to protecthabitat

10.8% 20.1% 14.8% 12.0%

increase enforcement ofcurrent regulations toprotect habitat

8.6% 20.1% 17.3% 8.0%

seek water rights or leasewater for fish and wildlifein important streams

8.6% 7.4% 12.3% 24.0%

enact new regulations thatincrease protection ofhabitat

4.3% 2.0% 4.9% 16.0%

Total 93 149 81 25Chi-square: X2=35.53; df=15, p=0.002


129

The wildlife value orientations were significantly different in the evaluations of

five of the six nongame species funding options (Tables 3.27-A – 3.27-F). The four

wildlife value orientation groups were statistically similar in their high support for selling

conservation license plates for funding nongame species (Table 3.27-C). The mutualists

rated increasing the state sales tax 1/8 of one percent as acceptable while the pluralists

and distanced were slightly negative and the utilitarians were very negative (Table 3.27-

A). The mutualists had the highest support for using existing state and federal taxes for

nongame funding and the utilitarians had the lowest level of support (Tables 3.27-B and

3.27-D). All four wildlife value groups were opposed to a new tax on wildlife viewing

equipment for funding nongame programs with the utilitarians having the highest level of

opposition (Table 3.27-E). On the positive side for funding nongame species all four

groups were opposed to the no-action option, with mutualists being the most opposed

(Table 3.27-F). Mutualists had the highest preference for increasing the sales tax 1/8 of

one percent compared to the other three wildlife value orientation groups (Table 3.28)

Table 3.27-A. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to increase the state tax 1/8 of onepercent to cover the necessary costs analyzed by wildlife value orientations?Wildlife Value Orientation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalPluralist -0.20 -0.51 – 0.10Utilitarian -1.15 -1.37 – -0.93Mutualist 0.45 0.12 – 0.79Distanced -0.17 -0.70 – 0.36ANOVA: F=23.50; df=3/654, p<0.001



130

Table 3.27-B. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to redirect existing state revenue fromtaxes analyzed by wildlife value orientations?Wildlife Value Orientation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalPluralist 0.78 0.52 – 1.04Utilitarian -0.02 -0.23 – 0.20Mutualist 1.30 1.04 – 1.55Distanced 0.23 -0.24 – 0.70ANOVA: F=20.39; df=3/657, p<0.001

Table 3.27-C. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to sell conservation license plates whoseproceeds would benefit nongame fish and wildlife analyzed by wildlife valueorientations?Wildlife Value Orientation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalPluralist 1.95 1.75 – 2.16Utilitarian 1.77 1.59 – 1.95Mutualist 1.99 1.72 – 2.25Distanced 2.21 1.91 – 2.52ANOVA: F=1.70; df=3/656, p=0.165

Table 3.27-D. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to redirect a portion of the federal taxesanalyzed by wildlife value orientations?Wildlife Value Orientation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalPluralist 0.96 0.72 – 1.20Utilitarian 0.09 -0.13 – 0.30Mutualist 1.27 1.00 – 1.54Distanced 0.62 0.22 – 1.02ANOVA: F=18.87; df=3/657, p<0.001

Table 3.27-E. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to establish a new tax on wildlifeviewing equipment (for example, binoculars, backyard bird feeders) analyzed bywildlife value orientations?Wildlife Value Orientation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalPluralist -0.62 -0.90 –-0.34Utilitarian -0.94 -1.17 – -0.71Mutualist -0.52 -0.84 – -0.19Distanced -0.20 -0.72 – 0.32ANOVA: F=3.19; df=3/655, p=0.023


131

Table 3.27-F. Is it unacceptable or acceptable to take no action to obtain new fundsfor nongame species analyzed by wildlife value orientations?Wildlife Value Orientation Mean Acceptability1 95% Confidence IntervalPluralist -1.21 -1.45 – -0.97Utilitarian -0.50 -0.69 – -0.32Mutualist -1.78 -2.01 – -1.54Distanced -1.27 -1.63 – -0.90ANOVA: F=23.99; df=3/653, p<0.001

Table 3.28. Most favorite funding option for nongame species management analyzed bywildlife value orientation.

Wildlife Value OrientationMost Favorite Option forNongame SpeciesManagement Pluralist Utilitarian Mutualist Distancedsell conservation licenseplates whose proceedswould benefit nongamefish and wildlife

50.7% 51.7% 51.4% 52.4%

increase the state tax 1/8 ofone percent to cover thenecessary costs

15.1% 7.6% 22.2% 0.0%

redirect existing staterevenue from taxes 6.8% 12.7% 6.9% 14.3%establish a new tax onwildlife viewing equipment(for example, binoculars,backyard bird feeders)

8.2% 11.0% 4.2% 28.6%

redirect a portion of thefederal taxes 11.0% 9.3% 9.7% 0.0%take no action to obtainnew funds for nongamespecies

8.2% 7.6% 5.6% 4.8%

Total 73 118 72 21Chi-square: X2=26.21; df=15, p=0.036


132

Attitudes Related to Biodiversity Analyzed by Wildlife Value Orientation

Table 3.29-A. How strongly do you disagree or agree with the statement – The primarysign of the quality of the natural environment is that many different types of fishand wildlife exist there analyzed by wildlife value orientations?Wildlife Value Orientation Mean Attitude 1 95% Confidence IntervalPluralist 1.85 1.65 – 2.04Utilitarian 1.32 1.16 – 1.47Mutualist 1.78 1.58 – 1.98Distanced 1.14 0.75 – 1.53ANOVA: F=9.57; df=3/651, p<0.001

Table 3.29-B. How strongly do you disagree or agree with the statement – NGPCshould strive to maintain as much diversity in fish, wildlife, and plants as possibleanalyzed by wildlife value orientations?Wildlife Value Orientation Mean Attitude 1 95% Confidence IntervalPluralist 2.02 1.86 – 2.18Utilitarian 1.35 1.20 – 1.50Mutualist 2.03 1.84 – 2.22Distanced 1.38 1.06 – 1.70ANOVA: F=17.50; df=3/651, p<0.001

Pluralists and mutualists had significantly higher

agreement with the statement," the primary sign of the quality

of the natural environment is that many different types of fish

and wildlife exist there" than did the utilitarian and distanced

value orientations (Table 3.29-A). Also, pluralists and

mutualists had significantly higher support for maintaining

biodiversity compared to the utilitarian and distanced value

orientations (Table 3.29-B).


133

Quality of Life Factors

The four value orientation groups (pluralist, utilitarian, mutualist, and distanced)

were statistically similar for only one of their ratings of importance of the 15 quality-of-

life factors evaluated in this study (clean water) (Table 3.30). Mutualists had the highest

ratings for eight of the 14 significant quality-of-life factors (natural areas, prairies,

wetlands, rivers & streams, lakes & reservoirs, state parks, hiking & biking, and

observing wildlife) and pluralists had the highest for the other six factors (fishing, power

boating & skiing in lakes, farming, boating & floating, hunting, and camping).

Table 3.30. Importance of Quality-of-Life factor analyzed by wildlife value orientation.Wildlife Value Orientation1Quality of Life

Factor (p-value) Pluralist Utilitarian Mutualist DistancedNatural Areas (p<0.001)Mean 3.19 2.67 3.45 2.8495% C.I. 3.05 – 3.33 2.54 – 2.79 3.32 – 3.59 2.56 – 3.13

Prairies (p<0.001)Mean 2.98 2.64 3.33 2.2695% C.I. 2.81 – 3.14 2.52 – 2.77 3.20 – 3.46 1.88 – 2.64

Wetlands (p<0.001)Mean 3.02 2.53 3.23 2.5795% C.I. 2.86 – 3.19 2.40 – 2.67 3.08 – 3.39 2.21 – 2.93

Rivers and Streams (p<0.001)Mean 3.53 3.21 3.69 3.4295% C.I. 3.43 – 3.64 3.10 – 3.32 3.59 – 3.78 3.18– 3.66

Lakes and Reservoirs (p<0.001)Mean 3.50 3.19 3.55 3.2595% C.I. 3.39 – 3.62 3.07 – 3.30 3.45 – 3.65 3.03 – 3.47

Clean Water (p=0.058)Mean 3.86 3.74 3.87 3.7795% C.I. 3.79 – 3.92 3.66 – 3.82 3.78 – 3.96 3.62 – 3.92




134

Table 3.30 - Continued. Importance of Quality-of-Life factor analyzed by wildlife valueorientation.

Wildlife Value OrientationQuality of LifeFactor (p-value) Pluralist Utilitarian Mutualist DistancedState Parks (p<0.001)Mean 3.32 3.04 3.43 2.9995% C.I. 3.19 – 3.44 2.93 – 3.16 3.31 – 3.56 2.75 – 3.22

Fishing (p<0.001)Mean 3.08 2.66 2.29 1.8595% C.I. 2.94 – 3.23 2.54 – 2.79 2.08 – 2.49 1.46 – 2.23

Hiking and Biking (p<0.001)Mean 2.73 2.41 3.04 2.4095% C.I. 2.57 – 2.90 2.27 – 2.54 2.89 – 3.19 2.09 – 2.71

Power Boating and Skiing in Lakes (p<0.001)Mean 1.90 1.60 1.34 1.3895% C.I. 1.72 – 2.08 1.45 – 1.74 1.13 – 1.55 1.04 – 1.73

Observing Wildlife (p<0.001)Mean 3.01 2.35 3.15 2.5795% C.I. 2.86 – 3.15 2.21 – 2.48 3.01 – 3.30 2.29 – 2.85

Farming (p=0.002)Mean 3.53 3.48 3.43 2.9795% C.I. 3.39 – 3.67 3.37 – 3.60 3.29 – 3.57 2.65 – 3.29

Boating and Floating in Rivers (p=0.001)Mean 2.40 2.05 2.07 1.7395% C.I. 2.23 – 2.58 1.90 – 2.19 1.86 – 2.27 1.41 – 2.05

Hunting (p<0.001)Mean 2.88 2.48 1.50 1.2195% C.I. 2.72 – 3.05 2.34 – 2.62 1.28 – 1.72 0.88 – 1.55

Camping (p<0.001)Mean 3.01 2.66 2.76 2.2295% C.I. 2.85 – 3.17 2.53 – 2.79 2.58 – 2.95 1.94 – 2.511All variables were significant except for "clean water"

Biodiversity Diversity Model and Wildlife Value Orientations

The biodiversity model and the wildlife value orientations are

very strongly related (see Part II, Section E: Tables 2.12 and 2.13 and

Figures 2.10 and 2.11 – pages: 90-91).


135

Part 4 – Description of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Viewing Participants in Nebraska – Who are our customers?

Section A: Description of Fishing Participants (Non-Anglers, Inactive Anglersand Active Anglers)

Fishing Participation and Interest. About 23% of the adult population of

Nebraska residents fished in the past year (survey conducted in the fall of 2004) and an

additional 60% fished in the past, but not recently (Table 4.1). Only about 23% of the

non-anglers had any interest in fishing in the future (most of which were only slightly

interested), representing about 4% of the total adult population. About 62% of the

inactive anglers were interested in fishing in the future and almost all (95%) of the active

anglers were interested in fishing in the future. Overall, about 63% of the adult

population in Nebraska have some level of interest in fishing in the future.

Describing the Angler. Fishing participation was strongly related to hunting and

wildlife viewing participation (Table 4.2). About 35% of the active anglers were active

hunters and 42% were active wildlife viewers. Active anglers were comprised of mainly

utilitarians and pluralists while non-anglers had a higher proportion of mutualists

compared to anglers (Table 4.3).

Active anglers had a high proportion of males (72%) compared to non-anglers

who were largely females (65%) (Table 4.4). Active anglers were younger and lived

fewer years in Nebraska (although this variable is mainly influenced by age) (Table 4.5).

Active anglers were also more likely to have children at home compared to non-anglers

and inactive anglers, although this variable is also most likely influenced by age (Table

4.6). Fishing participation was not significantly related to race although sample size of

non-whites was too small for an accurate assessment of this relationship (Table 4.7).

The inactive anglers had the highest education level with non-anglers and active

anglers similar in education level (Table 4.8). Active anglers had the highest income

level and non-anglers the lowest income level, although this relationship was not

significant at the 0.05 alpha level (Table 4.9). Active and inactive anglers were slightly

less likely to reside in a large city and non-anglers slightly more likely to reside on a farm

or rural area (Table 4.10). In general, non-anglers tended to have been raised in a more


136

rural setting while anglers (active and inactive) tended to have been raised in a more

urban setting (Table 4.11).

Table 4.1. Fishing participation and interest in fishing in the future by adult, Nebraskaresidents.Type of Fishing Participation Number PercentNon-Angler – Never fished 112 16.9%Inactive Angler – Fished in the past but not recently (past year) 400 60.1%Active Angler – Fished recently (past 1 year) 153 23.0%Total 665 100%

Type of Fishing ParticipationInterest in Fishing (scale score) Non-Angler Inactive Angler Active AnglerNot at all Interested (0) 76.8% 38.5% 4.6%Slightly Interested (1) 18.8% 33.8% 12.4%Moderately Interested (2) 2.7% 18.0% 25.5%Strongly Interested (3) 1.8% 9.8% 57.5%Total Number 112 400 153Mean à (1.19) 0.31 0.99 2.3695% C.I. à (1.10 – 1.28) 0.19 – 0.43 0.89 – 1.08 2.22 – 2.50

Table 4.2. Hunting and wildlife viewing participation analyzed by fishing participation.Type of Fishing ParticipationType of Hunting

Participation Non-Angler Inactive Angler Active AnglerNon-Hunter 85.6% 56.1% 27.8%Inactive Hunter 12.6% 39.3% 37.1%Active Hunter 1.8% 4.5% 35.1%Total Number 111 399 151Chi-Square: X2=161.15; df=4; p<0.001

Type of Fishing ParticipationType of Wildlife ViewingParticipation Non-Angler Inactive Angler Active AnglerNon-Viewer 69.0% 37.8% 32.9%Inactive Viewer 14.2% 33.0% 25.0%Active Viewer 16.8% 29.3% 42.1%Total Number 113 400 152Chi-Square: X2=50.21; df=4; p<0.001


137

Table 4.3. Fishing participation analyzed by wildlife value orientation.Type of Fishing ParticipationWildlife Value

Orientation Non-Angler Inactive Angler Active AnglerPluralist 18.4% 25.6% 37.5%Utilitarian 40.4% 39.1% 46.7%Mutualist 31.6% 25.1% 13.2%Distanced 9.6% 10.3% 2.6%Total Number 114 399 152Chi-square: X2=29.57; df=6, p<0.001

Table 4.4. Fishing participation analyzed by gender.Type of Fishing Participation

Gender Non-Angler Inactive Angler Active AnglerMale 35.4% 52.8% 72.4%Female 64.6% 47.3% 27.6%Total Number 113 400 152Chi-Square: X2=36.65; df=2; p<0.001

Table 4.5. Fishing participation analyzed by age & years of residence in Nebraska.Age Years of Residence in NEType of Fishing

Participation Mean (95% C.I.) Mean (95% C.I.)Non-Angler 49.5 (46.0 – 53.0) 40.3 (35.6 – 45.0)Inactive Angler 47.7 (46.1 – 49.3) 34.4 (32.3 – 36.5)Active Angler 42.4 (40.1 – 44.8) 33.7 (30.9 – 36.5)Average (95% C.I.) 46.8 (45.5 – 48.1) 35.2 (33.6 – 36.8)ANOVA F=7.49; df=2/657; p=0.001 F=3.85; df=2/604; p=0.022

Table 4.6. Fishing participation analyzed by children (18 years old or less) living athome.

Type of Fishing ParticipationChildren Living at Home Non-Angler Inactive Angler Active AnglerNo Children at Home 61.3% 59.4% 48.0%Children at Home 38.7% 40.6% 52.0%Total Number 111 392 152Chi-Square: X2=6.77; df=2; p=0.034


138

Table 4.7. Fishing participation analyzed by ethnicity.Type of Fishing Participation

Race Non-Angler Inactive Angler Active AnglerWhite 94.3% 96.2% 95.8%Non-White 5.7% 3.8% 4.2%Total Number 105 365 144Chi-Square: X2=0.712; df=2; p=0.701

Table 4.7-A. Ethnicity - description of sample.Ethnicity Number PercentWhite, not Hispanic 595 95.8%Black, not Hispanic 9 1.5%Spanish, Hispanic, Latino 8 1.3%Asian 4 0.6%Native American 2 0.4%other 2 0.4%Total 622 100%


139

Table 4.8. Fishing participation analyzed by education level.Type of Fishing Participation

Highest Level of Education Non-Angler Inactive Angler Active AnglerLess than High School 2.7% 0.5% 2.6%High School or GED 37.3% 26.2% 36.2%2-Year Degree / Trade School 15.5% 20.7% 19.7%4-Year College Degree 30.9% 33.0% 28.9%College + (Advanced Degree) 13.6% 19.6% 12.5%Total Number 110 397 152Chi-Square: X2=17.10; df=8; p=0.029

Mean Education Level 3.14 3.45 3.1395% Confidence Interval 2.92 – 3.36 3.34 – 3.56 2.95 – 3.31ANOVA: F=6.57; df=2/656; p=0.001

Table 4.9. Fishing participation analyzed by income level.Type of Fishing Participation

Highest Income Level (Level) Non-Angler Inactive Angler Active AnglerLess than $10,000 (1) 8.2% 3.2% 1.4%$10,000 – $29,999 (2) 29.9% 19.0% 14.9%$30,000 – $49,999 (3) 18.6% 19.9% 24.1%$50,000 – $69,999 (4) 13.4% 26.9% 24.1%$70,000 – $89,999 (5) 14.4% 14.9% 17.7%$90,000 – $109,999 (6) 7.2% 7.0% 7.1%$110,000 – $149,999 (7 & 8) 5.2% 5.8% 6.4%$150,000 or more (9) 3.1% 3.2% 4.3%Total Number 97 342 141Chi-Square: X2=22.56; df=14; p=0.068

Mean Income Level 3.59 3.96 4.1595% Confidence Interval 3.20 – 3.98 3.77 – 4.15 3.85 – 4.45ANOVA: F=2.85; df=2/579; p=0.059


140

Table 4.10. Fishing participation analyzed by size of current residence.Type of Fishing Participation

Size of Current Residence (level) Non-Angler Inactive Angler Active AnglerLarge City – 250,000 or more (1) 30.4% 38.5% 36.3%City w/ 100,000 – 249,999 (2) 20.6% 11.0% 5.5%City w/ 50,000 – 99,999 (3) 1.0% 2.9% 2.7%Small City w/ 25,000 – 49,999 (4) 9.8% 10.7% 10.3%Town w/ 10,000 – 24,999 (5) 2.9% 7.0% 9.6%Town w/ 5,000 – 9,999 (6) 8.8% 6.1% 9.6%Small town w/ less than 5,000 (7) 9.8% 13.1% 16.4%Farm or Rural Area (8) 16.7% 10.7% 9.6%Total Number 102 374 146Chi-Square: X2=25.92; df=14; p=0.026Mean Residence Level 3.80 3.61 3.9595% Confidence Interval 3.26 – 4.34 3.34 – 3.88 3.52 – 4.38ANOVA: F=0.90; df=2/618; p=0.405

Table 4.11. Fishing participation analyzed by size of residence where raised.Type of Fishing ParticipationSize of Residence Where Raised

(level) Non-Angler Inactive Angler Active AnglerLarge City – 250,000 or more (1) 16.8% 22.3% 22.1%City w/ 100,000 – 249,999 (2) 5.9% 9.4% 6.9%City w/ 50,000 – 99,999 (3) 2.0% 3.3% 4.8%Small City w/ 25,000 – 49,999 (4) 5.0% 11.0% 8.3%Town w/ 10,000 – 24,999 (5) 8.9% 9.4% 11.0%Town w/ 5,000 – 9,999 (6) 7.9% 10.7% 9.7%Small town w/ less than 5,000 (7) 20.8% 14.9% 17.9%Farm or Rural Area (8) 32.7% 19.0% 19.3%Total Number 101 363 145Chi-Square: X2=17.67; df=14; p=0.222Mean Residence Level 5.51 4.62 4.7595% Confidence Interval 4.99 – 6.03 4.35 – 4.89 4.32 – 5.19ANOVA: F=4.57; df=2/608; p=0.011


141

Section B: Description of Hunting Participants (Non-Hunters, Inactive Huntersand Active Hunters)

Hunting Participation and Interest. About 11% of the adult population of

Nebraska residents hunted in the past year (survey conducted in the fall of 2004) and an

additional 34% hunted in the past, but not recently (Table 4.12). About 84% of the non-

hunters, 49% of the inactive hunters and 1% of the active hunters did not have any

interest in hunting in the future. Overall, about 37% of the adult population in Nebraska

have some level of hunting in the future.

Describing the Hunter. Hunting participation was strongly related to fishing but

not wildlife viewing participation (Table 4.13). About 73% of the active hunters were

active anglers but only 42% were active wildlife viewers. Active hunters were comprised

of mainly utilitarians and pluralists while non-hunters had a high proportion of mutualists

compared to hunters (Table 4.14).

Active hunters were mainly males (87%) while non-hunters were mainly females

(65%) (Table 4.15). Inactive hunters were older than non-hunters and active hunters,

however, the non-hunters had the fewest mean number of years living in Nebraska (Table

4.16). A higher percent of active hunters had children living at home compared to non-

hunters and inactive hunters (Table 4.17). Non-hunters had a higher proportion of non-

whites however, sample size of non-whites was too small for an accurate assessment of

the relationship between hunting participation and race (Table 4.18).

Non-hunters and inactive hunters had a higher proportion of people with

advanced degrees compared to active hunters however, the relationship was not

significant (Table 4.19). Mean education level was slightly higher for non-hunters and

inactive hunters compared to active hunters. Active hunters had higher mean income

levels compared to non-hunters with inactive hunters in between these two groups (Table

4.20). A higher proportion of active and inactive hunters lived in a rural area compared

to non-hunters (Table 4.21). Non-hunters were more likely to have been raised in a more

urban environment compared to inactive and active hunters (Table 4.22).


142

Table 4.12. Hunting participation and interest in hunting in the future by adult, Nebraskaresidents.Type of Hunting Participation Number PercentNon-Hunter – Never Hunted 363 54.7%Inactive Hunter – Hunted in the past but not recently (past year) 228 34.3%Active Hunter – Hunted recently (past 1 year) 73 11.1%Total 664 100%

Type of Hunting ParticipationInterest in Hunting (scalescore) Non-Hunter Inactive Hunter Active HunterNot at all Interested (0) 84.1% 48.7% 1.4%Slightly Interested (1) 10.7% 25.0% 6.8%Moderately Interested (2) 3.0% 14.9% 16.4%Strongly Interested (3) 2.2% 11.4% 75.3%Total Number 364 228 73Mean à (0.72) 0.23 0.88 2.6495% C.I. à (0.63 – 0.80) 0.17 – 0.29 0.75 – 1.02 2.48 – 2.81

Table 4.13. Fishing and wildlife viewing participation analyzed by hunting participation.Type of Hunting ParticipationType of Fishing

Participation Non-Hunter Inactive Hunter Active HunterNon-Angler 26.3% 6.2% 2.7%Inactive Angler 62.0% 69.2% 24.7%Active Angler 11.6% 24.7% 72.6%Total Number 361 227 73Chi-Square: X2=161.15; df=4; p<0.001

Type of Hunting ParticipationType of Wildlife ViewingParticipation Non-Hunter Inactive Hunter Active HunterNon-Viewer 43.8% 41.2% 37.8%Inactive Viewer 28.4% 29.8% 20.3%Active Viewer 27.8% 28.9% 41.9%Total Number 363 228 74Chi-Square: X2=6.64; df=4; p=0.156


143

Table 4.14. Hunting participation analyzed by wildlife value orientation.Type of Hunting ParticipationWildlife Value

Orientation Non-Hunter Inactive Hunter Active HunterPluralist 23.8% 25.0% 48.6%Utilitarian 32.8% 53.1% 45.9%Mutualist 31.8% 16.7% 4.1%Distanced 12.2% 5.3% 1.4%Total Number 362 228 74Chi-square: X2=69.61; df=6, p<0.001

Table 4.15. Hunting participation analyzed by gender.Type of Hunting Participation

Gender Non-Hunter Inactive Hunter Active HunterMale 34.9% 74.4% 86.5%Female 65.1% 25.6% 13.5%Total Number 361 227 74Chi-Square: X2=122.74; df=2; p<0.001

Table 4.16. Hunting participation analyzed by age & years of residence in Nebraska.Age Years of Residence in NEType of Hunting

Participation Mean (95% C.I.) Mean (95% C.I.)Non-Hunter 44.4 (42.7 – 46.1) 32.3 (30.0 – 34.5)Inactive Hunter 52.2 (50.1 – 54.2) 39.4 (36.7 – 42.2)Active Hunter 42.0 (38.8 – 45.2) 35.5 (31.8 – 39.2)Average (95% C.I.) 46.8 (45.5 – 48.1) 35.1 (33.5 – 36.7)ANOVA F=19.78; df=2/655; p<0.001 F=8.13; df=2/602; p<0.001

Table 4.17. Hunting participation analyzed by children (18 years old or less) living athome.

Type of Hunting ParticipationChildren Living at Home Non-Hunter Inactive Hunter Active HunterNo Children at Home 56.9% 61.3% 43.8%Children at Home 43.1% 38.7% 56.2%Total Number 355 225 73Chi-Square: X2=6.89; df=2; p=0.032


144

Table 4.18. Hunting participation analyzed by ethnicity.Type of Hunting Participation

Race Non-Hunter Inactive Hunter Active HunterWhite 94.0% 97.6% 98.6%Non-White 6.0% 2.4% 1.4%Total Number 334 211 69Chi-Square: X2=5.66; df=2; p=0.059



145

Table 4.19. Hunting participation analyzed by education level.Type of Hunting Participation

Highest Level of Education Non-Hunter Inactive Hunter Active HunterLess than High School 1.4% 1.8% 1.4%High School or GED 28.3% 31.3% 37.0%2-Year Degree / Trade School 18.6% 18.9% 24.7%4-Year College Degree 33.1% 30.8% 27.4%College + (Advanced Degree) 18.6% 17.2% 9.6%Total Number 360 227 73Chi-Square: X2=6.50; df=8; p=0.591


Table 4.20. Hunting participation analyzed by income level.Type of Hunting Participation

Highest Income Level (Level) Non-Hunter Inactive Hunter Active HunterLess than $10,000 (1) 6.2% 1.0% 1.5%$10,000 – $29,999 (2) 20.6% 20.2% 13.4%$30,000 – $49,999 (3) 21.2% 21.2% 16.4%$50,000 – $69,999 (4) 24.3% 21.8% 29.9%$70,000 – $89,999 (5) 13.4% 16.1% 20.9%$90,000 – $109,999 (6) 5.9% 7.8% 9.0%$110,000 – $149,999 (7 & 8) 5.6% 7.3% 6.0%$150,000 or more (9) 2.8% 4.7% 3.0%Total Number 321 193 67Chi-Square: X2=17.97; df=14; p=0.208



146

Table 4.21. Hunting participation analyzed by size of current residence.Type of Hunting Participation

Size of Current Residence (level) Non-Hunter Inactive Hunter Active HunterLarge City – 250,000 or more (1) 45.4% 28.4% 21.4%City w/ 100,000 – 249,999 (2) 13.7% 9.3% 2.9%City w/ 50,000 – 99,999 (3) 2.1% 3.3% 4.3%Small City w/ 25,000 – 49,999 (4) 8.7% 11.6% 15.7%Town w/ 10,000 – 24,999 (5) 4.5% 9.8% 11.4%Town w/ 5,000 – 9,999 (6) 7.2% 6.5% 10.0%Small town w/ less than 5,000 (7) 10.4% 16.3% 17.1%Farm or Rural Area (8) 8.1% 14.9% 17.1%Total Number 335 215 70Chi-Square: X2=46.90; df=14; p<0.001Mean Residence Level 3.17 4.25 4.8395% Confidence Interval 2.90 – 3.44 3.89 – 4.60 4.22 – 5.43ANOVA: F=18.35; df=2/617; p<0.001

Table 4.22. Hunting participation analyzed by size of residence where raised.Type of Hunting ParticipationSize of Residence Where Raised

(level) Non-Hunter Inactive Hunter Active HunterLarge City – 250,000 or more (1) 25.9% 18.1% 10.0%City w/ 100,000 – 249,999 (2) 11.1% 5.2% 2.9%City w/ 50,000 – 99,999 (3) 4.5% 1.4% 4.3%Small City w/ 25,000 – 49,999 (4) 9.3% 9.0% 11.4%Town w/ 10,000 – 24,999 (5) 9.9% 10.0% 10.0%Town w/ 5,000 – 9,999 (6) 8.7% 11.4% 12.9%Small town w/ less than 5,000 (7) 11.7% 21.4% 22.9%Farm or Rural Area (8) 18.7% 23.3% 25.7%Total Number 332 210 70Chi-Square: X2=33.83; df=14; p=0.002Mean Residence Level 4.33 5.24 5.7095% Confidence Interval 4.04 – 4.62 4.89 – 5.59 5.16 – 6.26ANOVA: F=12.60; df=2/607; p<0.001


147

Section C: Description of Wildlife Viewing Participants (Non-Viewers, InactiveViewers and Active Viewers)

Wildlife Viewing Participation and Interest. About 30% of the adult Nebraska

residents reported taking a recreational trip in the past year for the primary purpose of

wildlife viewing and another 28% reported taking a trip for wildlife viewing in the past,

but not in the recent year (Table 4.23). About 57% of the non-viewers reported to have

some interest in wildlife viewing in the future, representing about 42% of the adult

population. Most of the inactive (92%) and active wildlife viewers (99%) had some level

of interest in wildlife viewing in the future. Overall, about 80% of the adult population

have some level of interest in wildlife viewing in the future.

Describing the Wildlife Viewer. Wildlife viewing was significantly related to

fishing and but not hunting participation (Table 4.24). About 32% of the active wildlife

viewers were active anglers but only 16% were active hunters. Active wildlife viewers

had higher proportions of mutualists compared to non-viewers, which had a high

proportion of utilitarians (Table 4.25).

Gender was not significantly related to wildlife viewing participation (Table

4.26). Active viewers were younger and lived fewer years in Nebraska (Table 4.27). The

inactive viewers had the highest proportion of children living at home (Table 4.28).

Wildlife viewing participation was not significantly related to race although sample size

of non-whites was too small for an accurate assessment of this relationship (Table 4.29).

Wildlife viewers had slightly higher mean education levels compared to non-

viewers (Table 4.30). Income level was not significantly related to wildlife viewing

(Table 4.31). Wildlife viewers were slightly more likely to reside in an urban residence

and to have been raised in a more urban residence compared to non-viewers (Tables 4.32

and 4.33).


148

Table 4.23. Wildlife viewing participation and interest in wildlife viewing in the futureby adult, Nebraska residents.Type of Viewing Participation Number PercentNon-Viewer – Never viewed wildlife 281 42.2%Inactive Viewer – Viewed in the past but not recently (past year) 185 27.8%Active Viewer – Viewed wildlife recently (past 1 year) 200 30.0%Total 667 100%

Type of Viewing ParticipationInterest in Viewing (scalescore) Non-Viewer Inactive Viewer Active ViewerNot at all Interested (0) 42.7% 8.1% 1.0%Slightly Interested (1) 35.9% 29.0% 12.0%Moderately Interested (2) 17.1% 43.0% 27.5%Strongly Interested (3) 4.3% 19.9% 59.5%Total Number 281 186 200Mean à (1.57) 0.83 1.75 2.4595% C.I. à (1.49 – 1.66) 0.73 – 0.94 1.62 – 1.88 2.35 – 2.55

Table 4.24. Fishing and hunting participation analyzed by wildlife viewing participation.Type of Viewing ParticipationType of Fishing

Participation Non-Viewer Inactive Viewer Active ViewerNon-Angler 28.0% 8.6% 9.5%Inactive Angler 54.1% 71.0% 58.5%Active Angler 17.9% 20.4% 32.0%Total Number 279 186 200Chi-Square: X2=50.21; df=4; p<0.001

Type of Viewing ParticipationType of HuntingParticipation Non-Viewer Inactive Viewer Active ViewerNon-Hunter 56.6% 55.4% 51.0%Inactive Hunter 33.5% 36.6% 33.3%Active Hunter 10.0% 8.1% 15.7%Total Number 281 186 198Chi-Square: X2=6.64; df=4; p=0.156


149

Table 4.25. Viewing participation analyzed by wildlife value orientation.Type of Viewing ParticipationWildlife Value

Orientation Non-Viewer Inactive Viewer Active ViewerPluralist 26.0% 29.2% 26.0%Utilitarian 44.8% 40.5% 37.0%Mutualist 18.5% 22.7% 31.0%Distanced 10.7% 7.6% 6.0%Total Number 281 185 200Chi-square: X2=13.38; df=6, p=0.037

Table 4.26. Viewing participation analyzed by gender.Type of Viewing Participation

Gender Non-Viewer Inactive Viewer Active ViewerMale 56.8% 49.5% 54.5%Female 43.2% 50.5% 45.5%Total Number 280 186 200Chi-Square: X2=2.44; df=2; p=0.296

Table 4.27. Viewing participation analyzed by age & years of residence in Nebraska.Age Years of Residence in NEType of Wildlife Viewing

Participation Mean (95% C.I.) Mean (95% C.I.)Non-Viewer 49.1 (47.1 – 51.1) 38.1 (35.4 – 40.7)Inactive Viewer 46.2 (43.8 – 48.7) 34.2 (31.1 – 37.2)Active Viewer 44.2 (42.1 – 46.3) 32.2 (29.5 – 35.0)Average (95% C.I.) 46.8 (45.6 – 48.1) 35.2 (33.6 – 36.8)ANOVA F=5.36; df=2/658; p=0.005 F=4.71; df=2/604; p=0.009

Table 4.28. Viewing participation analyzed by children (18 years old or less) living athome.

Type of Viewing ParticipationChildren Living at Home Non-Viewer Inactive Viewer Active ViewerNo Children at Home 61.4% 48.9% 58.5%Children at Home 38.6% 51.1% 41.5%Total Number 277 180 200Chi-Square: X2=7.18; df=2; p=0.028


150

Table 4.29. Viewing participation analyzed by ethnicity.Type of Viewing Participation

Race Non-Viewer Inactive Viewer Active ViewerWhite 95.3% 96.6% 95.7%Non-White 4.7% 3.4% 4.3%Total Number 257 174 186Chi-Square: X2=0.39; df=2; p=0.824



151

Table 4.30. Viewing participation analyzed by education level.Type of Viewing Participation

Highest Level of Education Non-Viewer Inactive Viewer Active ViewerLess than High School 2.5% 1.6% 0.5%High School or GED 33.9% 32.6% 23.5%2-Year Degree / Trade School 20.7% 13.0% 23.5%4-Year College Degree 28.2% 33.2% 34.5%College + (Advanced Degree) 14.6% 19.6% 18.0%Total Number 280 184 200Chi-Square: X2=16.63; df=8; p=0.034


Table 4.31. Viewing participation analyzed by income level.Type of Viewing Participation

Highest Income Level (Level) Non-Viewer Inactive Viewer Active ViewerLess than $10,000 (1) 4.0% 5.0% 2.8%$10,000 – $29,999 (2) 23.5% 20.5% 14.1%$30,000 – $49,999 (3) 20.6% 19.9% 20.9%$50,000 – $69,999 (4) 24.7% 25.5% 21.5%$70,000 – $89,999 (5) 12.6% 11.8% 23.2%$90,000 – $109,999 (6) 5.7% 8.1% 7.9%$110,000 – $149,999 (7 & 8) 4.9% 6.8% 6.8%$150,000 or more (9) 4.0% 2.5% 2.8%Total Number 247 161 177Chi-Square: X2=18.68; df=14; p=0.178



152

Table 4.32. Viewing participation analyzed by size of current residence.Type of Viewing Participation

Size of Current Residence (level) Non-Viewer Inactive Viewer Active ViewerLarge City – 250,000 or more (1) 30.4% 43.1% 39.7%City w/ 100,000 – 249,999 (2) 10.4% 12.6% 10.6%City w/ 50,000 – 99,999 (3) 2.3% 1.7% 3.7%Small City w/ 25,000 – 49,999 (4) 9.2% 12.6% 10.1%Town w/ 10,000 – 24,999 (5) 7.7% 3.4% 10.1%Town w/ 5,000 – 9,999 (6) 9.2% 6.9% 4.8%Small town w/ less than 5,000 (7) 16.5% 8.0% 13.8%Farm or Rural Area (8) 14.2% 11.5% 7.4%Total Number 260 174 189Chi-Square: X2=27.28; df=14; p=0.018Mean Residence Level 4.18 3.31 3.4695% Confidence Interval 3.85 – 4.52 2.92 – 3.70 3.09 – 3.82ANOVA: F=7.02; df=2/619; p=0.001

Table 4.33. Viewing participation analyzed by size of residence where raised.Type of Viewing ParticipationSize of Residence Where Raised

(level) Non-Viewer Inactive Viewer Active ViewerLarge City – 250,000 or more (1) 18.3% 23.0% 24.3%City w/ 100,000 – 249,999 (2) 6.2% 10.9% 8.8%City w/ 50,000 – 99,999 (3) 2.7% 3.4% 4.4%Small City w/ 25,000 – 49,999 (4) 8.9% 10.3% 8.8%Town w/ 10,000 – 24,999 (5) 10.5% 8.0% 10.5%Town w/ 5,000 – 9,999 (6) 10.5% 12.1% 7.7%Small town w/ less than 5,000 (7) 18.7% 15.5% 13.8%Farm or Rural Area (8) 24.1% 16.7% 21.5%Total Number 257 174 181Chi-Square: X2=12.92; df=14; p=0.533Mean Residence Level 5.15 4.50 4.5995% Confidence Interval 4.83 – 5.46 4.11 – 4.90 4.19 – 4.98ANOVA: F=3.90; df=2/610; p=0.021


153

Summary:

Overall, fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing participation were related to most

of the demographic variables measured in this survey (Table 4.34). Overall, about 54%

of the adult population in Nebraska did not participate in fishing, hunting or taking a

recreational trip with wildlife viewing as the primary reason in the past year (Table 4.35).

Only about 4% participated in all three activities in the past year. Interest in participating

in these three activities in the future was significantly correlated (Table 4.36). Interest in

participating in fishing and hunting and fishing and wildlife viewing were strongly

correlated.

Size of current residence and size of residence where raised can have an influence

on wildlife related attitudes and behaviors (i.e., the urban-rural influence). The change in

residential can also be part of that influence. About 44% of the adult Nebraska residents

are currently living in the same residential status as where they were raised, however

many (43%) currently live in a more urban residence than where raised (Table 4.37). The

degree of change may also play an important role (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1. The degree of change in size of residential status from where raised to currentresidence.

Change in Residential Size (Residence Where Raised to Current Residence)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Rural -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 NoChange

1 2 3 4 5 6 Urban 7

More Rural--------to--------More Urban

Per

cen

t


154

Table 4.34. Summary of variables tested for relationship with fishing, hunting andwildlife viewing participation.

ParticipationVariable Fishing Hunting Wildlife ViewingFishing Significant SignificantHunting Significant NOTWildlife Viewing Significant NOTWildlife Value Orientation Significant Significant SignificantGender Significant Significant NOTAge Significant Significant SignificantYears of Residence in ND Significant Significant SignificantChildren Living at Home Significant Significant SignificantRace NOT NOT NOTEducation Significant Significant SignificantIncome NOT Significant NOTCurrent Residence Significant Significant SignificantResidence Where Raised Significant Significant Significant1Relationship not clear, i.e., although significant the relationship may not be important.

Table 4.35. Summary of participation based on active participation of Nebraska adultresidents – 2004.Participation Type Number PercentNon-participant 362 54.4%Hunter Only 13 2.0%Angler Only 58 8.7%Viewer Only 130 19.5%Hunter & Angler 29 4.4%Hunter & Viewer 8 1.2%Angler & Viewer 41 6.2%Hunter-Angler-Viewer 24 3.6%Total 665 100%

Table 4.36. Relationship (Pearson correlation) among interest in future participation infishing, hunting and wildlife watching.

Interest in…1,2

Interest in…1,2Fishing Hunting Wildlife Watching

Fishing 1.000 0.619 0.345Hunting 0.619 1.000 0.190Wildlife Watching 0.345 0.190 1.0001Interest coded as: 0 = Not at all Interested, 1 = Slightly Interested, 2 = Moderately Interested, 3 = StronglyInterested2All correlation significant: p<0.001


155

Table 4.37. Type of residence where raised compared with current residence.Type of Residence Where RaisedCurrent

Residence(Level)

Level1

Level2

Level3

Level4

Level5

Level6

Level7

Level8

TotalNumber

250,000 ormore (1) 46.9% 8.0% 5.8% 4.5% 8.9% 8.9% 7.1% 9.8% 224100,000 –249,999 (2) 7.6% 31.8% 3.0% 1.5% 10.6% 4.5% 22.7% 18.2% 6650,000 –99,999 (3) 11.8% 11.8% 11.8% 35.3% 5.9% 0.0% 11.8% 11.8% 1725,000 –49,999 (4) 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 6.2% 6.2% 26.2% 18.5% 6510,000 –24,999 (5) 2.2% 0.0% 2.2% 4.4% 48.9% 6.7% 13.3% 22.2% 455,000 – 9,999 (6) 16.7% 6.3% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 50.0% 12.5% 8.3% 48less than5,000 (7) 6.1% 3.7% 3.7% 7.3% 3.7% 4.9% 36.6% 34.1% 82Farm–RuralArea (8) 4.3% 5.8% 0.0% 11.6% 1.4% 4.3% 11.6% 60.9% 69

616

Residence Change Status PercentRemained the Same 44.4%Became more Urban 43.0%Became more Rural 12.5%

Type of Residence Where RaisedCurrentResidence(Level) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8250,000 ormore (1) 80.2% 35.3% 59.1% 16.7% 33.9% 32.8% 16.0% 16.7%100,000 –249,999 (2) 3.8% 41.2% 9.1% 1.7% 11.9% 4.9% 15.0% 9.1%50,000 –99,999 (3) 1.5% 3.9% 9.1% 10.0% 1.7% 0.0% 2.0% 1.5%25,000 –49,999 (4) 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 43.2% 6.8% 6.6% 17.0% 9.1%10,000 –24,999 (5) 0.8% 0.0% 4.5% 3.3% 37.3% 4.9% 6.0% 7.6%5,000 – 9,999 (6) 6.1% 5.9% 4.5% 1.7% 1.7% 39.3% 6.0% 3.0%less than5,000 (7) 3.8% 5.9% 13.6% 10.0% 5.1% 6.6% 30.0% 21.2%Farm–RuralArea (8) 2.3% 7.8% 0.0% 13.3% 1.7% 4.9% 8.0% 31.8%Total Number 131 51 22 60 59 61 100 132


156

Part 5 – Description of Nebraska Residents from the Perspective of the Wildlife Values Orientation Groups and the Biodiversity Model – Who are our customers?

Section A: Description of the Wildlife Value Orientation Groups (Pluralists, Utilitarians, Mutualists, and Distanced)

Fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing are significantly related to wildlife value

orientations (Table 5.1). Pluralist and utilitarian value orientations were more likely to be

active anglers and hunters while mutualists were more likely to be active wildlife viewers

(Table 5.1). Mutualists were almost entirely comprised of people in the very high and

high biodiversity groups (Table 5.2).

Mutualists and distanced value orientations had higher percentages of females and

pluralists and utilitarians had higher percentages of males (Table 5.3). Mutualists had the

youngest mean age, but mutualists and distanced value orientations had fewer mean years

of residence in Nebraska (Table 5.4). The distanced value orientation had the highest

percent of children living at home and the mutualists the lowest percent (Table 5.5).

Wildlife value orientation was not significantly related to race although sample size of

non-whites was too small for an accurate assessment of this relationship (Table 5.6).

Education level was not related to wildlife orientation, although the distanced had

the highest mean education and the pluralists the lowest mean education level (Table

5.7). The utilitarians had the highest mean income level and the pluralists the lowest

mean income level (Table 5.8). Mutualists were far more likely to currently reside in

urban areas and to have been raised in more urban environments compared to the

pluralists, utilitarians and distanced value orientations (Tables 5.9 and 5.10).


157

Table 5.1. Wildlife value orientation groups analyzed by fishing, hunting and wildlifeviewing participation.

Wildlife Value Orientation GroupsType of FishingParticipation Pluralist Utilitarian Mutualist DistancedNon-Angler 11.7% 16.8% 23.1% 19.6%Inactive Angler 56.7% 57.1% 64.1% 73.2%Active Angler 31.7% 26.0% 12.8% 7.1%Total Number 180 273 156 56Chi-Square: X2=29.57; df=6; p<0.001

Wildlife Value Orientation GroupsType of HuntingParticipation Pluralist Utilitarian Mutualist DistancedNon-Hunter 48.0% 43.0% 73.7% 77.2%Inactive Hunter 31.8% 44.5% 24.4% 21.1%Active Hunter 20.1% 12.5% 1.9% 1.8%Total Number 179 272 156 57Chi-Square: X2=69.61; df=6; p<0.001

Wildlife Value Orientation GroupsType of WildlifeViewingParticipation Pluralist Utilitarian Mutualist DistancedNon-Viewer 40.8% 45.8% 33.3% 53.6%Inactive Viewer 30.2% 27.3% 26.9% 25.0%Active Viewer 29.1% 26.9% 39.7% 21.4%Total Number 179 275 156 56Chi-Square: X2=13.38; df=6; p=0.037

Table 5.2. Wildlife value orientation groups analyzed by biodiversity model.Wildlife Value Orientation GroupsBiodiversity Model

Groups Pluralist Utilitarian Mutualist DistancedVery High 32.0% 15.4% 72.4% 17.6%High 34.8% 18.0% 12.5% 23.5%Medium 20.2% 30.1% 9.2% 31.4%Low 9.6% 19.9% 2.0% 19.6%Very Low 3.4% 16.5% 3.9% 7.8%Total Number 178 272 152 51Chi-Square: X2=196.57; df=12; p<0.001


158

Table 5.3. Wildlife value orientation groups analyzed by gender.Wildlife Value Orientation Groups

Gender Pluralist Utilitarian Mutualist DistancedMale 53.9% 65.2% 39.5% 44.6%Female 46.1% 34.8% 60.5% 55.4%Total Number 180 273 157 56Chi-Square: X2=29.07; df=3; p<0.001

Table 5.4. Wildlife value orientation groups analyzed by age & years of residence inNebraska.

Age Years of Residence in NEWildlife ValueOrientation Groups Mean (95% C.I.) Mean (95% C.I.)Pluralist 49.0 (46.5 – 51.5) 37.6 (34.3 – 40.9)Utilitarian 47.9 (45.9 – 49.8) 37.9 (35.4 – 40.5)Mutualist 42.3 (39.8 – 44.8) 30.1 (27.1 – 33.1)Distanced 47.8 (43.2 – 52.3) 29.9 (23.9 – 35.9)Average (95% C.I.) 46.9 (45.6 – 48.1) 35.2 (33.6 – 35.9)ANOVA F=5.45; df=3/658; p=0.001 F=6.67; df=3/604; p<0.001

Table 5.5. Wildlife value orientation groups analyzed by children (18 years old or less)living at home.

Wildlife Value Orientation GroupsChildren Living atHome Pluralist Utilitarian Mutualist DistancedNo Children at Home 60.8% 54.4% 65.1% 40.4%Children at Home 39.2% 45.6% 34.9% 59.6%Total Number 176 274 152 57Chi-Square: X2=12.34; df=3; p=0.006

Table 5.6. Wildlife value orientation groups analyzed by ethnicity.Wildlife Value Orientation Groups

Race Pluralist Utilitarian Mutualist DistancedWhite 95.2% 97.2% 95.3% 90.7%Non-White 4.8% 2.8% 4.7% 9.3%Total Number 166 253 149 54Chi-Square: X2=4.79; df=3; p=0.188


159

Table 5.7. Wildlife value orientation groups analyzed by education level.Wildlife Value Orientation Groups

Highest Level of Education Pluralist Utilitarian Mutualist DistancedLess than High School 2.8% 2.2% 0.6% 0.0%High School or GED 35.4% 29.4% 29.9% 19.3%2-Year Degree / Trade School 21.3% 17.3% 20.4% 21.1%4-Year College Degree 27.5% 35.7% 28.0% 35.1%College + (Advanced Degree) 12.9% 15.4% 21.0% 24.6%Total Number 178 272 157 57Chi-Square: X2=17.25; df=12; p=0.141

Mean Education Level 3.13 3.33 3.39 3.6595% Confidence Interval 2.96 – 3.29 3.19 – 3.46 3.21 – 3.57 3.36 – 3.93ANOVA: F=3.52; df=3/658; p=0.015

Table 5.8. Wildlife value orientation groups analyzed by income level.Wildlife Value Orientation Groups

Highest Income Level (Level) Pluralist Utilitarian Mutualist DistancedLess than $10,000 (1) 8.3% 1.2% 4.2% 4.0%$10,000 – $29,999 (2) 21.2% 17.0% 26.1% 16.0%$30,000 – $49,999 (3) 26.9% 16.2% 19.7% 24.0%$50,000 – $69,999 (4) 22.4% 24.1% 21.1% 34.0%$70,000 – $89,999 (5) 10.3% 19.1% 14.8% 12.0%$90,000 – $109,999 (6) 3.8% 9.5% 7.7% 2.0%$110,000 – $149,999 (7 & 8) 5.8% 8.7% 2.8% 2.0%$150,000 or more (9) 1.3% 4.1% 3.5% 6.0%Total Number 156 241 142 50Chi-Square: X2=46.11; df=21; p=0.001

Mean Income Level 3.50 4.33 3.75 3.8695% Confidence Interval 3.23 – 3.76 4.10 – 4.56 3.45 – 4.05 3.37 – 4.36ANOVA: F=7.65; df=3/584; p<0.001


160

Table 5.9. Wildlife value orientation groups analyzed by size of current residence.Wildlife Value Orientation Groups

Size of Current Residence (level) Pluralist Utilitarian Mutualist DistancedLarge City – 250,000 or more (1) 26.8% 35.5% 47.0% 41.8%City w/ 100,000 – 249,999 (2) 12.5% 3.9% 20.8% 12.7%City w/ 50,000 – 99,999 (3) 1.8% 3.5% 2.0% 5.5%Small City w/ 25,000 – 49,999 (4) 13.7% 11.6% 5.4% 10.9%Town w/ 10,000 – 24,999 (5) 7.1% 7.3% 6.7% 7.3%Town w/ 5,000 – 9,999 (6) 10.1% 7.7% 6.0% 3.6%Small town w/ less than 5,000 (7) 14.3% 15.1% 8.1% 14.5%Farm or Rural Area (8) 13.7% 15.4% 4.0% 3.6%Total Number 168 259 149 55Chi-Square: X2=64.94; df=21; p<0.001Mean Residence Level 4.17 4.11 2.73 3.1795% Confidence Interval 3.77 – 4.57 3.77 – 4.45 2.36 – 3.10 2.51 –3.84ANOVA: F=11.63, df=3/624; p<0.001

Table 5.10. Wildlife value orientation groups analyzed by size of residence whereraised.

Wildlife Value Orientation GroupsSize of Residence Where Raised(level) Pluralist Utilitarian Mutualist DistancedLarge City – 250,000 or more (1) 20.0% 19.8% 25.5% 18.9%City w/ 100,000 – 249,999 (2) 9.7% 4.7% 13.4% 5.7%City w/ 50,000 – 99,999 (3) 4.2% 2.8% 5.4% 1.9%Small City w/ 25,000 – 49,999 (4) 7.9% 10.3% 4.7% 24.5%Town w/ 10,000 – 24,999 (5) 7.9% 9.5% 15.4% 3.8%Town w/ 5,000 – 9,999 (6) 10.9% 9.1% 12.1% 7.5%Small town w/ less than 5,000 (7) 14.5% 18.6% 12.8% 18.9%Farm or Rural Area (8) 24.8% 25.3% 10.7% 18.9%Total Number 165 253 149 53Chi-Square: X2=52.34; df=21; p<0.001Mean Residence Level 4.88 5.13 4.12 4.8395% Confidence Interval 4.47 – 5.30 4.80 – 5.46 3.71 – 4.53 4.12 – 5.53ANOVA: F=4.73; df=3/614; p=0.003


161

Section B: Description of the Biodiversity Model Groups (Very High, High, Medium, Low, and Very Low)

Fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing are significantly related to the biodiversity

groups (Table 5.11). The very high and medium biodiversity groups had the highest

percent of active anglers, the medium biodiversity group had the highest percent of active

hunters and the very high and medium groups had the highest percent of active wildlife

viewers. The very high biodiversity group had a very high percent of mutualists

compared to the other groups (Table 5.12). Note the steady increase in the percent

composition of utilitarians going from the very high biodiversity group (19%) to the very

low biodiversity group (74%).

Females comprised 55% of the very high biodiversity group compared to only

27% of the very low biodiversity group (Table 5.13). The very high biodiversity group

had the youngest mean age and the fewest years residence in Nebraska (Table 5.14). The

medium biodiversity group had the highest percent of children living at home and the

very low biodiversity group the lowest percent of children living at home (Table 5.15).

The biodiversity model was not significantly related to race although sample size of non-

whites was too small for an accurate assessment of this relationship (Table 5.16).

The very high biodiversity group had the highest mean education level and the

low biodiversity group the lowest mean education level (Table 5.17). The medium

biodiversity group had the highest mean income level and the high biodiversity group the

lowest mean income level (Table 5.17). Current and residence were raised was strongly

(and linearly) related to the biodiversity model (Tables 5.19 and 5.20). Current residence

and residence were raised was steadily more urban moving from the very low to the very

high biodiversity group.


162

Table 5.11. Biodiversity model groups analyzed by fishing, hunting and wildlifeviewing participation.

Biodiversity Model GroupsType of FishingParticipation Very High High Medium Low Very LowNon-Angler 11.9% 29.1% 9.7% 14.3% 27.4%Inactive Angler 60.3% 51.8% 61.8% 67.9% 59.7%Active Angler 27.9% 19.1% 28.5% 17.9% 12.9%Total Number 219 141 144 84 62Chi-Square: X2=35.50; df=8; p<0.001

Biodiversity Model GroupsType of HuntingParticipation Very High High Medium Low Very LowNon-Hunter 62.0% 60.3% 49.0% 47.6% 36.1%Inactive Hunter 28.2% 31.2% 34.7% 42.9% 52.5%Active Hunter 9.7% 8.5% 16.3% 9.5% 11.5%Total Number 216 141 147 84 61Chi-Square: X2=23.82; df=8; p=0.002

Biodiversity Model GroupsType of WildlifeViewingParticipation Very High High Medium Low Very LowNon-Viewer 28.8% 49.6% 38.5% 57.1% 62.3%Inactive Viewer 31.1% 28.4% 28.4% 23.8% 19.7%Active Viewer 40.2% 22.0% 33.1% 19.0% 18.0%Total Number 219 141 148 84 61Chi-Square: X2=42.14; df=8; p<0.001

Table 5.12. Biodiversity model groups analyzed by wildlife value orientations.Biodiversity Model GroupsWildlife Value

Orientations Very High High Medium Low Very LowPluralist 26.1% 43.7% 24.3% 20.2% 9.8%Utilitarian 19.3% 34.5% 55.4% 64.3% 73.8%Mutualist 50.5% 13.4% 9.5% 3.6% 9.8%Distanced 4.1% 8.5% 10.8% 11.9% 6.6%Total Number 218 142 148 84 61Chi-Square: X2=196.57; df=12; p<0.001


163

Table 5.13. Biodiversity model groups analyzed by gender.Biodiversity Model Groups

Gender Very High High Medium Low Very LowMale 44.7% 52.5% 59.2% 58.8% 72.6%Female 55.3% 47.5% 40.8% 41.2% 27.4%Total Number 219 141 147 85 62Chi-Square: X2=18.68; df=4; p=0.001

Table 5.14. Biodiversity model groups analyzed by age & years of residence inNebraska.

Age Years of Residence in NEBiodiversity ModelGroups Mean (95% C.I.) Mean (95% C.I.)Very High 41.4 (39.4 – 43.3) 29.0 (26.6 – 31.4)High 49.8 (46.7 – 52.9) 39.8 (35.5 – 44.1)Medium 46.1 (43.7 – 48.5) 33.6 (30.7 – 36.6)Low 53.6 (49.8 – 57.4) 46.1 (41.4 – 50.7)Very Low 52.5 (48.9 – 56.1) 40.5 (35.1 – 45.9)Average (95% C.I.) 46.9 (45.6 – 48.2) 35.5 (33.8 – 37.1)ANOVA F=13.37; df=4/642; p<0.001 F=13.88; df=4/589; p<0.001

Table 5.15. Biodiversity model groups analyzed by children (18 years old or less) livingat home.

Biodiversity Model GroupsChildren Living atHome


VeryLow

No Children at Home 59.1% 56.2% 48.3% 61.9% 73.3%Children at Home 40.9% 43.8% 51.7% 38.1% 26.7%Total Number 215 137 147 84 60Chi-Square: X2=12.23; df=4; p=0.016

Table 5.16. Biodiversity model groups analyzed by ethnicity.Biodiversity Model Groups

Race Very High High Medium Low Very LowWhite 97.6% 93.1% 94.7% 97.4% 96.6%Non-White 2.4% 6.9% 5.3% 2.6% 3.4%Total Number 209 131 133 76 58Chi-Square: X2=5.02; df=4; p=0.285


164

Table 5.17. Biodiversity model groups analyzed by education level.Biodiversity Model Groups

Highest Level of Education VeryHigh High Medium Low

VeryLow

Less than High School 0.5% 4.3% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0%High School or GED 21.8% 34.8% 28.4% 39.8% 42.6%2-Year Degree / Trade School 20.8% 19.6% 15.5% 26.5% 11.5%4-Year College Degree 31.9% 26.1% 35.8% 31.3% 36.1%College + (Advanced Degree) 25.0% 15.2% 18.2% 2.4% 9.8%Total Number 216 138 148 83 61Chi-Square: X2=51.65; df=16; p<0.001

Mean Education Level 3.59 3.13 3.40 2.96 3.1495% Confidence Interval 3.44 – 3.74 2.93 – 3.32 3.22 – 3.59 2.76 – 3.16 2.86 – 3.42ANOVA: F=7.17; df=4/642; p<0.001

Table 5.18. Biodiversity model groups analyzed by income level.Biodiversity Model Groups

Highest Income Level (Level) VeryHigh High Medium Low

VeryLow

Less than $10,000 (1) 5.0% 6.5% 1.6% 1.5% 3.8%$10,000 – $29,999 (2) 20.0% 32.5% 9.4% 22.1% 15.1%$30,000 – $49,999 (3) 21.0% 17.1% 25.0% 16.2% 15.1%$50,000 – $69,999 (4) 20.5% 20.3% 23.4% 33.8% 32.1%$70,000 – $89,999 (5) 15.5% 13.8% 16.4% 20.6% 11.3%$90,000 – $109,999 (6) 9.0% 5.7% 7.8% 1.5% 7.5%$110,000 – $149,999 (7 & 8) 6.0% 4.1% 8.6% 1.5% 11.3%$150,000 or more (9) 3.0% 0.0% 7.8% 2.9% 3.8%Total Number 200 123 128 68 53Chi-Square: X2=57.06; df=28; p=0.001

Mean Income Level 3.91 3.37 4.48 3.75 4.2695% Confidence Interval 3.65 – 4.16 3.09 – 3.64 4.14 – 4.82 3.39 – 4.11 3.73 – 4.78ANOVA: F=6.88; df=4/566; p<0.001


165

Table 5.19. Biodiversity model groups analyzed by size of current residence.Biodiversity Model Groups

Size of Current Residence (level) VeryHigh High Medium Low

VeryLow

Large City – 250,000 or more (1) 49.0% 33.8% 32.1% 25.6% 25.9%City w/ 100,000 – 249,999 (2) 15.7% 13.8% 7.3% 2.6% 8.6%City w/ 50,000 – 99,999 (3) 1.9% 3.8% 1.5% 3.8% 5.2%Small City w/ 25,000 – 49,999 (4) 8.6% 16.2% 8.0% 17.9% 0.0%Town w/ 10,000 – 24,999 (5) 6.7% 3.1% 11.7% 5.1% 6.9%Town w/ 5,000 – 9,999 (6) 6.7% 8.5% 6.6% 5.1% 13.8%Small town w/ less than 5,000 (7) 6.7% 10.8% 24.8% 11.5% 15.5%Farm or Rural Area (8) 4.8% 10.0% 8.0% 28.2% 24.1%Total Number 210 130 137 78 58Chi-Square: X2=116.72; df=28; p<0.001Mean Residence Level 2.78 3.60 4.19 4.76 4.8395% Confidence Interval 2.47 –

3.093.16 –4.05

3.74 –4.65

4.13 –5.39

4.08 –5.58

ANOVA: F=14.33, df=4/607; p<0.001

Table 5.20. Biodiversity model groups analyzed by size of residence where raised.Biodiversity Model GroupsSize of Residence Where Raised

(level) VeryHigh High Medium Low

VeryLow

Large City – 250,000 or more (1) 28.8% 21.5% 15.3% 13.7% 16.4%City w/ 100,000 – 249,999 (2) 13.5% 6.2% 8.0% 2.7% 1.8%City w/ 50,000 – 99,999 (3) 3.8% 3.8% 5.1% 4.1% 0.0%Small City w/ 25,000 – 49,999 (4) 7.7% 7.7% 9.5% 20.5% 3.6%Town w/ 10,000 – 24,999 (5) 14.9% 6.9% 8.0% 8.2% 5.5%Town w/ 5,000 – 9,999 (6) 10.6% 10.0% 8.8% 6.8% 14.5%Small town w/ less than 5,000 (7) 13.0% 14.6% 23.4% 9.6% 21.8%Farm or Rural Area (8) 7.7% 29.2% 21.9% 34.2% 36.4%Total Number 208 130 137 73 55Chi-Square: X2=91.62; df=28; p<0.001Mean Residence Level 3.89 5.08 5.20 5.34 5.9295% Confidence Interval 3.55 –

4.234.60 –5.56

4.77 –5.63

4.75 –5.93

5.24 –6.60

ANOVA: F=11.15, df=4/597; p<0.001


166

Section C: Further Analysis of the Biodiversity Factors (Species Primacy, Species Loss, Species Value, and Human Primacy)

The wildlife value orientations were strongly related to the four biodiversity

factors (Table 5.21). The mutualists had the highest scores for species primacy, species

loss and species value and the lowest score for human primacy, and vise versa for the

utilitarians.

Fishing participation was slightly related to the four biodiversity factors (Table

5.22). Active anglers had the highest scores for species primacy, species loss and species

value and the lowest score for human primacy.

Hunting participation was slightly related with species primacy and species value

but not significantly related with species loss and human primacy (Table 5.22). Non-

hunters had the highest scores for species primacy and species value.

Wildlife viewing participation was related to the four biodiversity factors (Table

5.22). Active viewers had the highest scores for species primacy, species loss and

species value and the lowest score for human primacy.

Two of the four biodiversity factors (species primacy and species loss) were

significantly related with gender (Table 5.23). Females had higher scores for species

primacy and species loss compared to males. Only one of the biodiversity factors was

significantly related with having children living at home (Table 5.23). Respondents with

children living at home registered higher scores for species primacy. The four

biodiversity factors were not related with race (Table 5.23).

The four biodiversity factors had high correlations with each other (Table 5.24).

Age and years living in Nebraska were significantly correlated with all four biodiversity

factors. Age and years living in Nebraska were negatively correlated with species

primacy, species loss and species value and positively correlated with human primacy. In

other words, as age and years living in Nebraska increased, the scores for species

primacy, species loss and species value decreased while scores for human primacy

increased.

Education level was not significantly correlated with species primacy, but was

positively correlated with species loss and species value and negatively correlated with


167

human primacy (Table 5.24). In other words, as education level increased, the scores for

species loss and species value increased while the support for human primacy decreased.

Income level was significantly correlated with species primacy, but not with the

other three biodiversity factors (Table 5.24). As income level increased support for

species primacy decreased.

Both size of current residence and size of residence where raised were

significantly related to all four biodiversity factors (Table 5.24). As size of residence

(both current and where raised) became more urban support for support for species

primacy, species loss and species value increased while support for human primacy

decreased.

Table 5.21. Mean scores for the four biodiversity dimensions (factors) analyzed by thewildlife value orientations.

Wildlife Value Orientations (95% C.I.)BiodiversityDimensions(Factors) Pluralist Utilitarian Mutualist DistancedSpecies Primacy(p < 0.001)

5.07(4.60 – 5.54)

2.17(1.70 – 2.64)

6.30(5.83 – 6.77)

3.41(2.47 – 4.36)

Species Loss(p < 0.001)

6.27(5.83 – 6.71)

4.67(4.28 – 5.06)

7.517.17 – 7.86)

5.16(4.29 – 6.02)

Species Value(p < 0.001)

2.86(2.29 – 3.43)

0.72(0.20 – 1.24)

5.10(4.51 – 5.68)

1.37(0.37 – 2.38)

Human Primacy(p < 0.001)

-0.94(-1.55 – -0.34)

0.74(0.30 – 1.17)

-3.35(-3.99 – -2.71)

0.16(-0.78 – 1.10)


168

Table 5.22. Mean scores for the four biodiversity dimensions (factors) analyzed byfishing, hunting and wildlife viewing participation.

Fishing Participation (95% C.I.)BiodiversityDimensions (Factors) Non-Angler Inactive Angler Active AnglerSpecies Primacy(p = 0.051)

3.46(2.67 – 4.25)

3.98(3.59 – 4.36)

4.62(4.05 – 5.19)


4.28(3.57 – 5.00)

6.01(5.71 – 6.31)

6.40(5.99 – 6.80)

Species Value(p = 0.024)

1.43(0.69 – 2.18)

2.43(1.99 – 2.87)

2.91(2.21 – 3.60)

Human Primacy(p = 0.002)

0.50(-0.18 – 1.18)

-0.91(-1.33 – -0.49)

-1.15(-1.81 – -0.49)

Hunting Participation (95% C.I.)BiodiversityDimensions (Factors) Non-Hunter Inactive Hunter Active HunterSpecies Primacy(p = 0.032)

4.37(4.00 – 4.75)

3.56(2.99 – 4.12)

3.65(2.81 – 4.49)

Species Loss(p = 0.103)

6.00(5.67 – 6.32)

5.44(5.00 – 5.88)

5.99(5.37 – 6.62)

Species Value(p = 0.001)

2.91(2.47 – 3.35)

1.53(0.94 – 2.13)

2.26(1.33 – 3.20)

Human Primacy(p = 0.236)

-0.88(-1.31 – -0.45)

-0.35(-0.91 – 0.20)

-1.10(-2.04 – -0.16)

Wildlife Watching Participation (95% C.I.)BiodiversityDimensions (Factors) Non-Viewer Inactive Viewer Active ViewerSpecies Primacy(p < 0.001)

3.16(2.68 – 3.63)

4.54(4.01 – 5.07)

4.76(4.25 – 5.27)


4.88(4.47 – 5.29)

6.15(5.72 – 6.58)

6.76(6.40 – 7.12)

Species Value(p < 0.001)

1.56(1.06 – 2.06)

2.75(2.11 – 3.38)

3.18(2.56 – 3.79)

Human Primacy(p < 0.001)

0.22(-0.27 – 0.71)

-0.71(-1.27 – -0.15)

-2.08(-2.66 – -1.51)


169

Table 5.23. Mean scores for the four biodiversity dimensions (factors) analyzed bygender, children living at home and race.

Gender (95% C.I.)Biodiversity Dimensions(Factors) Male FemaleSpecies Primacy (p < 0.001) 3.49 (3.06 – 3.92) 4.69 (4.30 – 5.08)Species Loss (p < 0.001) 5.36 (5.01 – 5.72) 6.34 (6.03 – 6.66)Species Value (p = 0.099) 2.12 (1.65 – 2.58) 2.68 (2.20 –3.16)Human Primacy (p = 0.071) -0.45 (-0.88 – -0.01) -1.04 (-1.50 – -0.57)

Children Living at Home (95% C.I.)Biodiversity Dimensions(Factors) No Children at Home Children at HomeSpecies Primacy (p = 0.034) 3.74 (3.32 – 4.17) 4.39 (4.01 – 4.78)Species Loss (p = 0.119) 5.63 (5.30 – 5.97) 6.03 (5.68 – 6.37)Species Value (p = 0.419) 2.25 (1.78 – 2.71) 2.53 (2.05 – 3.01)Human Primacy (p = 0.095) -0.46 (-0.91 – -0.01) -1.02 (-1.46 – -0.57)

Race (95% C.I.)Biodiversity Dimensions(Factors) White Non-WhiteSpecies Primacy (p = 0.664) 4.06 (3.75 – 4.37) 3.72 (1.76 – 5.68)Species Loss (p = 0.419) 5.85 (5.59 – 6.11) 5.33 (3.94 – 6.72)Species Value (p = 0.435) 2.49 (2.13 – 2.84) 1.81 (0.30 – 3.32)Human Primacy (p = 0.686) -0.82 (-1.16 – -0.48) -0.47 (-1.74 – 0.80)


170

Table 5.24. Pearson correlations between the four biodiversity dimensions (factors) andage, years living in state, education level, income level, size of current residence and sizeof community where raised.

Biodiversity Dimensions (Factors)Variables Species

PrimacySpecies

LossSpeciesValue

HumanPrimacy

Species Primacy 0.637(p < 0.001)

0.477(p < 0.001)

-0.458(p < 0.001)

Species Loss 0.637(p < 0.001)

0.448(p < 0.001)

-0.511(p < 0.001)

Species Value 0.447(p < 0.001)

0.448(p < 0.001)

-0.509(p < 0.001)

Human Primacy -0.458(p < 0.001)

-0.511(p < 0.001)

-0.509(p < 0.001)

Age -0.152(p < 0.001)

-0.162(p < 0.001)

-0.235(p < 0.001)

0.260(p < 0.001)

Years Living in State -0.145(p < 0.001)

-0.197(p < 0.001)

-0.268(p < 0.001)

0.232(p < 0.001)

Education Level 0.026(p = 0.507)

0.171(p < 0.001)

0.140(p < 0.001)

-0.102(p = 0.009)

Income Level -0.141(p = 0.001)

0.043(p = 0.301)

-0.017(p = 0.674)

-0.005(p = 0.913)

Current Residence -0.191(p < 0.001)

-0.221(p < 0.001)

-0.254(p < 0.001)

0.124(p = 0.002)

Residence Where Raised -0.195(p < 0.001)

-0.215(p < 0.001)

-0.178(p < 0.001)

0.134(p = 0.001)


171

Full Biodiversity Scale. A full biodiversity scale was created by combining the

four factors (reverse coding the human primacy factor) to create a scale ranging from -36

to +36 (Figure 5.1). About 85% of the Nebraska sample fell in the positive range (mean

= 12.93 and median = 14.00).

The biodiversity scale shows that the high and medium biodiversity groups were

overall qualitatively similar (Table 5.25 and Figure 5.2). Thus, the main difference

between the high and medium biodiversity groups are the qualitative differences on the

item or factor scores.

The mutualists had the highest total biodiversity score and the utilitarians the

lowest biodiversity score (Table 5.26).

Figure 5.1. Full biodiversity scale created by combining the four biodiversity factors(reverse coding the human primacy factor).

Full Biodiversity Scale

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Low

-36 -3

3

-30

-27

-24

-21

-18

-15

-12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33

Hig

h 3

6

Nu

mb

er


172

Table 5.25. Mean full biodiversity score for the five importance of biodiversity groups.Importance ofBiodiversity Groups Mean Biodiversity Scale 95% C.I.Very High 26.31 25.70 – 26.93High 10.84 9.92 – 11.77Medium 11.49 10.76 – 12.21Low -0.70 -1.81 – 0.41Very Low -7.66 -9.59 – -5.73Average 12.93 11.99 – 13.88

Figure 5.2. Mean full biodiversity score for the five importance of biodiversity groups(data from Table 2.25).

Mean Biodiversity Scores

-36

-24

-12

0

12

24

36


Biodiversity Model

Fu

ll B

iod

iver

sity

Sca

le


173

Table 5.26. Mean full biodiversity score for the four wildlife value orientations.Wildlife ValueOrientations Mean Biodiversity Scale 95% C.I.Pluralist 15.07 13.55 – 16.60Utilitarian 6.93 5.57 – 8.28Mutualist 22.36 20.75 – 23.96Distanced 9.45 6.48 – 12.43Average 12.93 11.99 – 13.88

Figure 5.3. Mean full biodiversity score for the four wildlife value orientations (datafrom Table 2.26).

Mean Biodiversity Scores

-36

-24

-12

0

12

24

36

Pluralist Utilitarian Mutualist Distanced


Fu

ll B

iod

iver

sity

Sca

le


174

DISCUSSIONValue and Use of this Information. This is a descriptive study of attitudes and

beliefs of Nebraska residents in relation to biodiversity and quality of life issues and

nongame species management. Topics included attitudes towards various options for

protecting lands (habitat) for nongame species and funding for nongame programs,

understanding and support for maintaining biodiversity in Nebraska, importance of

various quality of life factors, and the role of fish and wildlife in the world (biodiversity).

This information provides a valuable understanding of the public's attitudes in relation to

biodiversity and quality of life issues and nongame species management, which in turn

can lead to better management decisions by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission

(NGPC). A better understanding of the public's attitudes on specific topics may also lead

to an improved predictive ability on related topics. In addition, being able to demonstrate

that NGPC listens to and understands the public's attitudes, opinions, desires, needs, etc.

can increase the public's trust in the agency.

This information is also a very good public involvement tool. Most wildlife

issues are the result of conflicting values and attitudes. Often each side in such conflicts

holds the view that their opinion is held by a significant majority of the public and/or they

have a poor understanding of the other side's position. When sound scientific public

attitude data is shared with the public it often tends to moderate the conflict and the

groups tend to become more willing to accept compromise solutions.

Another valuable use of this information is as baseline data that can be used to

evaluate trends to measure the impact of projects, programs or changes in policy. For

example, this study measured the current amount of interest in nongame species

management. Is interest in nongame species management a trend that is increasing and if

so, at what rate? Human dimensions information is especially valuable in measuring

trends and evaluating project or program effectiveness and impacts.

With the development of Wildlife Action Plans by every state and the increase in

national attention on nongame species management, nongame issues will likely increase.

One important aspect of this issue for wildlife agencies will be the public's understanding

of and support for nongame species management and biodiversity issues. This is


175

especially important, as each state will need to identify 50% matching funds to receive

federal funding for their nongame management projects.

Options for Protecting Lands (Habitats) for Nongame Species. The results

were very positive for managing nongame species since all six options evaluated were

found to be very acceptable to Nebraska residents. What this means for NGPC is that the

agency does not need to spend much effort justifying the use of any of these strategies for

protecting lands (habitat) for nongame species management.

Options for Funding Nongame Species Programs. Unfortunately the results

were not very positive when it comes to the topic of funding nongame species

management and suggest that it will require a major information and education effort by

NGPC before the nongame funding issue can be resolved. Selling conservation license

plates was the only option that received a high acceptability rating. Since this option is a

voluntary funding strategy it is not likely to generate enough money to fund the necessary

amount of nongame species management efforts in Nebraska. While this funding

strategy should be considered as one of the options to generate funding for nongame

species management, public information will be needed to demonstrate the level of

funding revenue that can be achieved and the funding gap that still remains. In other

words, before the public will be willing to accept other funding options they will first

need to understand that this strategy or other voluntary strategies alone will not likely

meet the total amount of funding needed for nongame species programs.

Redirecting existing state tax revenue did receive an average, slightly acceptable

rating. On the positive side this does suggest that a significant portion of the public is

willing to spend tax dollars for nongame species management. Unfortunately, most state

budgets are strapped and it is very difficult to find the necessary amount of money in

current state budgets that can be shifted to fund new ventures. Also, relying on this

strategy would not likely produce stable funding due to changing economic conditions

and occasional emergencies. The same is also true of using existing federal taxes,

especially since the funding is needed for a 50-percent match to federal funds. The

public will need to understand why using existing federal tax revenue will not likely

work. However, this information may be useful in eventually getting the federal


176

government to consider a program that only requires a 25-percent match similar to the P-

R and D-J money for funding game and fish research and management.

In the long-run nongame species management is going to need a stable and large

enough funding source that can only be supplied via a new funding source.

Unfortunately, the majority of the public is opposed to increasing the sales tax or

establishing a new tax on wildlife viewing equipment. What this means for NGPC is that

the agency will need to start working to gain more public support for these types of

funding strategies before attempting to implement one of these funding strategies. The

very good news is that the vast majority of Nebraska residents expect NGPC to explore

options and find appropriate funding for nongame species.

Quality of Life Factors. This report documents the relative importance of 15

factors for maintaining a high quality of life (health, family, well-being, environment, and

community) in Nebraska. This information is useful for describing market segments

(groups) and is valuable as baseline information for measuring trends.

Biodiversity Typology (Biodiversity Model). The biodiversity model was

developed from a set of twelve questions measuring respondents' opinion on the role of

fish and wildlife in the world. This model produced five distinct groups based on the

overall view of the role of fish and wildlife in the world, thus identifying their underlying

value system related to biodiversity. When dealing with biodiversity it would be very

helpful to publicly recognize the diversity of values held by the public and to show how

attempts were made to fairly address this diversity in the decision-making process used

and where possible in the decision reached. This model produced a somewhat linear

continuum ranging from people with a very high interest in and support for biodiversity

to the opposite end with people with very little support for and even opposition to

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Per

cen

t


Biodiversity Groups

management actions to conserve

and protect biodiversity. There

were many more people on the

high support for wildlife

diversity side of the continuum

than the low side of the

biodiversity model.


177

It is important to note that the biodiversity model is not the perfect continuum that

is implied by the names of the groups but that there are some qualitative differences

among the groups that do not form a perfectly linear pattern. However, the most

consistent feature of the model is that the two ends of the continuum (the very high and

very low groups) have strongly held and very different attitudes towards biodiversity.

What this means for NGPC is that the majority of the public will generally be

supportive of biodiversity programs and actually expect the agency to be developing

programs to conserve and protect biodiversity in Nebraska. However, there will always

be a small group that will be less supportive to very much opposed to some types of

management actions. The range of values associated with biodiversity will require the

agency to provide increased public participation opportunities. Providing increased

public participation opportunities will provide NGPC with more opportunities to provide

information about biodiversity issues, offer solutions to problems, explain the agency's

programs to the public, infuse the biological information into the process, all of which

demonstrates service to customers and increases trust in the agency. Also, public

participation techniques enable the publics to gain a broader perspective of issues and to

realize that the agency's decisions are fairer when all sides are considered.

Anglers. The three fishing participation groups (non-anglers, inactive anglers and

active anglers) were relatively similar in their attitudes towards options to protect habitat

for nongame species and funding of nongame programs and general attitudes towards

biodiversity. This was in spite of the fact that most of the quality of life factors were

more important to anglers than non-anglers. Fishing participation was fairly strongly

Biodiversity Model

0102030405060708090

100

Non-Anglers Inactive Anglers Active Anglers

Per

cent

Very High

High

Medium

Low

Very Low

related to the biodiversity model

– anglers had more support for

biodiversity compared to non-

anglers.


178

Hunters. The three hunting participation groups (non-hunters, inactive hunters

and active hunters) were relatively similar in their attitudes towards options to protect

habitat for nongame species and funding of nongame programs and general attitudes

towards biodiversity. This was in spite of the fact that many of the quality of life factors

were more important to hunters than non-hunters. Hunting participation was fairly

Wildlife Watchers. Wildlife viewing participation (non-viewers, inactive

viewers and active viewers) was significantly related to attitudes towards options to

protect habitat for nongame species and funding of nongame programs and general

attitudes towards biodiversity. Wildlife viewers, and especially active viewers, had

higher support for options to protect habitat for nongame species and funding of nongame

programs as well as general attitudes towards biodiversity. Also, many of the quality of

life factors were more important to viewers than non-viewers. As these results would

strongly related to the

biodiversity model – non-

hunters had more support for

biodiversity compared to

hunters.

Biodiversity Model

0102030405060708090

100

Non-Hunters Inactive Hunters Active Hunters

Per

cent

Very High

High

Medium

Low

Very Low

predict, wildlife viewing

participation was strongly

related to the biodiversity model

– wildlife viewers had more

support for biodiversity

compared to non-viewers.

Biodiversity Model

0102030405060708090

100

Non-Viewers Inactive Viewers Active Viewers

Per

cent

Very High

High

Medium

Low

Very Low


179

Wildlife Value Orientations. The wildlife value orientations (pluralist,

utilitarian, mutualist, and distanced) were strongly related to attitudes towards options to

protect habitat for nongame species, funding of nongame programs, general attitudes

towards biodiversity and quality of life factors. The wildlife value orientation groups

were statistically similar on only two of the 31 variables measured (support for the

funding option of selling conservation license plates and the importance of clean water to

quality of life). Mutualists had very high support for biodiversity issues, the utilitarian

and distanced groups had much lower support while the pluralists tended to be

somewhere in-between the mutualists and utilitarians in support and attitude related to

Comparing the Wildlife Value Orientations with the Biodiversity Model. The

biodiversity model provides the best predictions of support for and attitudes related to

biodiversity issues and programs because the biodiversity model was based specifically

on peoples' opinions about biodiversity in general. The wildlife value orientations are

especially good at predicting biodiversity issues for the mutualists identified in the

model. It appears that most mutualists respond in a very similar and environmentally

positive way when it comes to the topic of wildlife diversity, however, mutualists only

comprise about 23 percent of Nebraska residents. Pluralists (27% of the population) tend

to have somewhat of an environmentally positive response to biodiversity issues, but not

with nearly the high consistency of mutualists. In other words, it will not be as easy to

predict pluralists' support of or attitude towards biodiversity issues and programs as it

would be for mutualists.

Biodiversity Model

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pluralist Utilitarian Mutualist Disatanced


Per

cen

t

Very High

High

Medium

Low

Very Low

biodiversity issues. What

this means is that the

wildlife value orientations

may provide a relatively

good model for predicting

public attitudes related to

biodiversity issues and

programs.


180

Utilitarians (42%) and distanced (8%), while having a much lower level of

average support for biodiversity issues and programs, are not as easy to predict how

specific individuals would respond to biodiversity issues. This is because the utilitarian

and distanced groups are comprised of a fair percentage of people from all five levels of

the biodiversity model. In other words, knowing that a person has a utilitarian or

distanced wildlife value orientation does not give you a very high probability of knowing

their attitudes related to biodiversity issues. A utilitarian or distanced person has about

the same likelihood of being at the high end of the biodiversity model as the low end of

the model. This has information and education implications for wildlife agencies because

it means that some people with a utilitarian or distanced wildlife value orientation can see

or appreciate the value of biodiversity. For example, I suspect that some utilitarians see

some type of economic or other use benefit for conserving and protecting biodiversity in

Nebraska. Identifying that message may be useful in gaining the support of other

utilitarians for biodiversity issues and programs.

The biodiversity model developed in this study shows that a high percentage of

Nebraska residents have positive attitudes and support for biodiversity issues and

programs. The very high biodiversity group represents one-third the population and as

the name suggests, has very strong support for biodiversity issues and programs. The

high, medium and even the low biodiversity groups generally had varying levels of

support for biodiversity or at least were not likely to be opposed to biodiversity programs.

However, the very low biodiversity group, at about nine percent of the population, is a

group of Nebraska residents that will likely be opposed to various biodiversity programs

unless public involvement measures are taken to include this group's values in the

decision-making process.

Description of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Viewing Participation in

Nebraska – Who are our customers? This section provides a demographic description

of three major classifications of customers, namely, anglers, hunters and wildlife

watchers. Overall, most of the demographic variables measured in this study were

significantly related to fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing participation. This

information is useful when planning projects or programs for the various constituents,

especially when the target groups have significantly different demographic profiles from


181

the general public. One particular note is the relatively strong relationship among these

three recreational groups, i.e., a significant number of people tend to have an interest in

more than just one of the activities.

Description of Nebraska Residents from Two Perspectives – Who are our

customers? This section provides a demographic description of Nebraska residents from

the perspective of the wildlife value orientations and the biodiversity model. The wildlife

value orientation groups were found to be very useful for providing an overall

understanding of the public's attitudes and behaviors related to wildlife issues (Teel, et

al., 2005), and were significantly related to most of the demographic variables measured

in this study. The biodiversity model was found to be very useful in understanding public

opinion related to the topic of biodiversity, and was significantly related to most of the

demographic variables measured in this study. Especially useful was the finding that the

biodiversity model and the wildlife value orientations were strongly related, i.e., strongly

predictive of each other. Thus, knowledge of wildlife value orientations can be used to

make predictions of the public's attitudes towards or response to biodiversity issues and

programs. Although the biodiversity model provides for a more accurate assessment of

public opinion related to the topic of biodiversity.


182

APPENDIX AComplete questionnaire used in the Wildlife Values in

the West Survey for Nebraska – 2004

Management of Fish and

Wildlife in the West

A study conducted cooperatively by:

NEBRA NEBRASKA GAME AND PARKS COMMISSION

Summer 2004

PLEASE READ BEFORE COMPLETING THIS SURVEY:

This survey is being sent to people residing in states and provinces throughoutthe West. Please note that, while some of the questions in this survey may notbe relevant to your state or province specifically, we are still interested in youropinions because they are relevant to other states and provinces in the westernregion.

What is wildlife? In this survey, when we refer to “fish and wildlife,” we meanvertebrates, including reptiles, amphibians, fish, birds, and mammals;

and invertebrates, such as insects, crustaceans, and mollusks.

Section I.People have goals for this country that may or may not involve natural resources such as fish and wildlife. Wewant to understand how people prioritize these goals for the next 10 years. Below are 3 groups of goals that peoplewould prioritize differently. For each group, rank the 4 goals in order of importance to you. That is:

1 = the goal most important to YOU 3 = the 3rd most important goal2 = the 2nd most important goal 4 = the least important goal

Group 1. Rank these 4 goals from most important (1) to least important (4). Please no ties (meaning,DO NOT GIVE ANY OF THESE ITEMS THE SAME RANK). Group 1 Rank

• Maintain a high level of economic growth. _______

• See that people have more to say about how things are done at their jobs and in their communities. _______

• Make sure this country has strong defense forces. _______

• Try to make our cities and countryside more beautiful. _______

Group 2. Repeat now for this next set of goals (1=most important, 4=least important). Please no ties(meaning, DO NOT GIVE ANY OF THESE ITEMS THE SAME RANK). Group 2 Rank

• Maintain order in the nation. _______

• Give people more to say in important government decisions. _______

• Fight rising prices. _______

• Protect freedom of speech. _______

Group 3. Repeat again for this final set of goals (1=most important, 4=least important). Please noties (meaning, DO NOT GIVE ANY OF THESE ITEMS THE SAME RANK). Group 3 Rank

• Maintain a stable economy. _______

• Progress toward a less impersonal and more humane society. _______

• Fight crime. _______

• Progress toward a society in which ideas count more than money. _______

Below are statements that represent a variety of ways people feel about fish and wildlife and the naturalenvironment. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement. Circle one number foreach response.

StronglyDisagree

ModeratelyDisagree


SlightlyAgree

ModeratelyAgree

StronglyAgree

1. Humans should manage fish and wildlifepopulations so that humans benefit.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2. Our society should strive to protect animals fromsuffering.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

3. In an ideal world, we could hunt and fish withoutworrying about negative impacts on fish and wildlifepopulations.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

4. We should strive for a world where humans and fishand wildlife can live side by side without fear.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

5. I view all living things (including fish and wildlifeand humans) as related as if they are part of one bigfamily.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

6. I long for a world where there is such an abundanceof fish and wildlife that there would be no need forrestrictions on hunting and fishing.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

7. The natural environment should be protected for itsown sake rather than simply to meet our needs.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8. Animals should have rights similar to the rights ofhumans.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9. Unless we act now, environmental destruction willthreaten human survival.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

StronglyDisagree

ModeratelyDisagree


SlightlyAgree

ModeratelyAgree

StronglyAgree

10. We should strive for a society that emphasizesenvironmental protection over economic growth.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

11. Fishing enables people to enjoy the outdoors in apositive manner.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

12. Protecting the natural environment should be thiscountry’s top priority.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

13. Hunting is cruel and inhumane to the animals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14. The fate of the natural environment is out of ourhands.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

15. Wildlife that becomes a nuisance to humans shouldbe destroyed.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

16. All this talk about environmental problems, likeglobal warming, is simply worrying about nothing. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

17. Animal suffering is unfortunate, but it shouldn'tbother us that much since it is just a part of nature. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

18. Humans were created fundamentally different fromthe rest of nature.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

19. We should strive for a world where there's anabundance of fish and wildlife for hunting andfishing.

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

20. Humans have a religious or spiritual obligation totake care of nature. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21. Hunting enables people to enjoy the outdoors in apositive manner. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

22. I am concerned that my family may be at risk fromenvironmental hazards such as global warming,agricultural run-off, and acid rain.

1 2

3 4

5

6

7

23. Science can provide answers to any problems thatwe encounter in nature. 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

24. I wish we had an abundance of fish and wildlife forhunting and fishing like we did years ago. 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

25. Human needs should take precedence overprotecting the natural environment. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

26. We have a moral and ethical obligation to ensureanimals do not suffer needlessly. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

27. Fish and wildlife should be protected in order toprovide a source of food for humans. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

28. Humans should learn to live more in harmony withthe natural environment. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

29. We should strive for a world where there is nosuch thing as animal cruelty. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

30. It is our moral responsibility to protect nature fromharm. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

31. The needs of humans should take priority over fishand wildlife protection. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

32. Humans, as part of nature, are at the mercy of itsforces. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

33. Fish and wildlife are like my family and I want toprotect them. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

34. Religious or spiritual forces control nature similarto the way that they control our destiny. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

35. Advances in technology will eventually provide asolution to our environmental problems. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

36. Catching fish for sport is cruel. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

37. There is no need to worry about environmentalproblems since we can find solutions throughscience and technology.

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

Section II.Many fish and wildlife management issues are regional in nature and are relevant to several states and provincesthroughout the West. This section provides you with a description of key regional issues that have been identifiedas important to one or more western states and provinces.

Please note that, while some of these questions may not be relevant to your state or province specifically, we arestill interested in your opinions because they are relevant to other states and provinces in the western region.For each set of questions, please follow the directions that are provided.

1. We would like to know how you feel about the extent to which your state fish and wildlife agency listens to and considers youropinions in fish and wildlife decision-making. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the followingstatements. Circle one number for each statement.

StronglyDisagree

ModeratelyDisagree


SlightlyAgree

ModeratelyAgree

StronglyAgree

I feel that my opinions are heard by fishand wildlife decision-makers in my state.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I feel that my interests are adequately takeninto account by fish and wildlife decision-makers in my state.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I feel that if I provide input, it will make adifference in fish and wildlife decisions inmy state.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I feel that my state fish and wildlife agencymakes a good effort to obtain input fromthe public as a whole.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I don’t have an interest in providing inputto fish and wildlife decisions in my state.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I trust my state fish and wildlife agency tomake good decisions without my input.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Fish and wildlife agencies hear from many different groups of people about their interests, making decisions and priorities difficult.Below is a series of hypothetical approaches that describe how priorities could be directed. Please read about each approach andthen tell us how you think things are now and how they should be in your state based on these approaches by answering the 2questions that follow.

APPROACH 1 Government agencies are active in the development of programs that meet the needs primarily of those who hunt and/or fish.Fish and wildlife management is mostly funded by hunting and fishing license dollars .

APPROACH 2 Government agencies are active in the development of programs that meet the needs primarily of those who hunt and/or fish.Fish and wildlife management is mostly funded by public taxes.

APPROACH 3 Government agencies are active in the development of programs that meet the needs primarily of those who hunt and/or fish.Fish and wildlife management is funded by hunting and fishing license dollars and also by public taxes .

APPROACH 4 Government agencies are active in the development of programs that meet the needs of all members of the public regardless oftheir level of interest in wildlife. Fish and wildlife management is mostly funded by hunting and fishing license dollars .

APPROACH 5 Government agencies are active in the development of programs that meet the needs of all members of the public regardless oftheir level of interest in wildlife. Fish and wildlife management is mostly funded by public taxes.

APPROACH 6 Government agencies are active in the development of programs that meet the needs of all members of the public regardless oftheir level of interest in wildlife. Fish and wildlife management is funded by hunting and fishing license dollars and also bypublic taxes.

2a. Of the above approaches, which approach do you think best resembles how things are now in your state? Check only one (þ).

r Approach 1 r Approach 2 r Approach 3 r Approach 4 r Approach 5 r Approach 6

2b. Which approach best represents your opinion of how things should be in your state? Check only one (þ).

r Approach 1 r Approach 2 r Approach 3 r Approach 4 r Approach 5 r Approach 6

3. Human-wildlife interactions occur in a variety of settings. Fish and wildlife agencies are interested in knowing how peopleperceive these interactions and who they think should be responsible for dealing with them. Please take a moment to look over the 3drawings below and then answer the questions shown to the right of the drawings. Even though it may seem unlikely that thesethings could occur where you live, we are still interested in your opinions.

Briefly describe what you think is happening here. There areno right or wrong answers.

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

Who is responsible for dealing with this situation?

________________________________________________

Has something like this ever happened to you? (Check one þ.)r Yes r No


_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________


________________________________________________


Survey illustrations © Ram Papish


_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________


________________________________________________


4. Fish and wildlife agencies want to know how the public thinks they should respond to human-wildlife conflict situations. Below isa series of IMAGINARY situations involving black bears . For each situation, we would like to know how you feel about theacceptability of certain management actions that could be used to address that situation. Even though it may seem unlikely that thesethings could occur where you live, we are still interested in your opinions.

If the following situation occurred, would the actions on the left be unacceptable or acceptable?(PLEASE PROVIDE A RESPONSE FOR ALL 3 SITUATIONS.)

Is it unacceptable or acceptable to….

SITUATION 1

Bears are increasinglywandering into areas where

humans live in search offood. There are occasionalbear attacks on livestock.

(Check one box þ for eachstatement below.)

SITUATION 2

Bears are increasingly wanderinginto areas where humans live insearch of food. Bears are gettinginto trash and pet food containers,

and bear attacks on pets haveoccurred.


SITUATION 3

Bears are increasinglywandering into areas where

humans live in search offood. Bear attacks onhumans have occurred.


Unacceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Acceptable

...do nothing to control bear populations? r r r r r r

…provide more recreational opportunitiesto hunt bears?

r r r r r r

…conduct controlled hunts using trainedagency sharpshooters?

r r r r r r

…distribute pellets containingcontraceptives, causing bears to be unableto produce offspring permanently?

r r r r r r

…distribute pellets containingcontraceptives, causing bears to be unableto produce offspring for only a fewbreeding seasons?

r r r r r r

5. Below is a series of IMAGINARY situations involving deer. For each situation, we would like to know how you feel about theacceptability of certain management actions that could be used to address that situation. Even though it may seem unlikely that thesethings could occur where you live, we are still interested in your opinions.

If the following situation occurred, would the actions on the left be unacceptable or acceptable?(PLEASE PROVIDE A RESPONSE FOR ALL 3 SITUATIONS.)

Is it unacceptable or acceptable to….

SITUATION 1

Deer numbers areincreasing. There are

increased sightings of deerin residential areas.


SITUATION 2

Deer numbers are increasing. Thereare increasing complaints aboutdeer entering people’s yards andeating shrubs and garden plants.

(Check one box þ for each statement below.)

SITUATION 3

Deer numbers are increasing.The number of deer-vehicle

collisions has increased.


Unacceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Acceptable

...do nothing to control deer populations? r r r r r r

…provide more recreational opportunitiesto hunt deer?

r r r r r r

…conduct controlled hunts using trainedagency sharpshooters?

r r r r r r

…distribute pellets containingcontraceptives, causing deer to be unableto produce offspring permanently?

r r r r r r

…distribute pellets containingcontraceptives, causing deer to be unableto produce offspring for only a fewbreeding seasons?

r r r r r r

6. A fish and wildlife agency manager in a particular area has limited funds to spend on protecting fish and wildlife. As a result, thereare some difficult choices that must be made about what deserves the greatest attention. This often involves choosing one type of fishor wildlife over another. Below is a series of comparisons that illustrate the kinds of choices that might be made in the area. For eachcomparison, please select the type of fish or wildlife that you believe the manager should spend funds on.

Please Note: Even though some of these fish or wildlife may not be present where you live, we are still interested in your opinions.

6a. Which should the manager spend funds on? (Check one þ.)PLEASE READ:° This bird is native to the area, meaning it naturally occurs here

(not introduced by humans).

° Status: numbers are low, which means you don’t see this birdvery often anymore.

° Hunted species.

° Goal of management: increase bird numbers.

r CHOICE A: Canvasback Duck

OR

PLEASE READ:° This mammal is NOT native to the area. It was introduced

here by humans.

° Status: even though it did exist here at one time, it is nolonger present.

° Not a hunted species.

° Goal of management: reintroduce the mammal back to thearea.

r CHOICE B: Mexican Gray Squirrel

6b. Which should the manager spend funds on? (Check one þ.)PLEASE READ:° This mammal is NOT native to the area. It was introduced

here by humans.

° Status: now common in the area, and numbers are stable.

° Hunted species.

° Goal of management: maintain current mammal numbers.

r CHOICE A: Axis Deer

OR

PLEASE READ:° This fish is native to lakes and rivers in the area, meaning it

naturally occurs here (not introduced by humans).

° Status: numbers are low, which means you don’t see this fishvery often.

° Not a fished species.

° Goal of management: increase fish numbers.

r CHOICE B: Roundtail Chub

6c. Which should the manager spend funds on? (Check one þ.)PLEASE READ:° This mammal is native to the area, meaning it naturally occurs

here (not introduced by humans).

° Status: numbers are low, which means you don’t see thismammal very often anymore.

° Hunted species.

° Goal of management: increase mammal numbers.

r CHOICE A: Bighorn Sheep

OR

PLEASE READ:° This fish is NOT native to lakes and rivers in the area. It was

introduced here by humans.

° Status: even though it did exist here at one time, it is nolonger present.


° Goal of management: reintroduce the fish back to the area.

r CHOICE B: Black Tetra

6d. Which should the manager spend funds on? (Check one þ.)PLEASE READ:° This fish is native to lakes and rivers in the area, meaning it


° Status: common in this area, and numbers are stable.

° Fished species.

° Goal of management: maintain current fish numbers.

r CHOICE A: Broad Whitefish

OR

PLEASE READ:° This bird is NOT native to the area. It was introduced here

by humans.

° Status: numbers are low, which means you don’t see this birdvery often.


° Goal of management: increase bird numbers.

r CHOICE B: Eurasian Skylark

6e. Which should the manager spend funds on? (Check one þ.)PLEASE READ:° This fish is native to lakes and rivers in the area, meaning it


° Status: even though it used to occur here naturally, it is nolonger present.

° Fished species.

° Goal of management: reintroduce the fish back to the area.

r CHOICE A: Coho Salmon

OR

PLEASE READ:° This bird is NOT native to the area. It was introduced here

by humans.



° Goal of management: maintain current bird numbers.

r CHOICE B: House Sparrow

6f. Which should the manager spend funds on? (Check one þ.)PLEASE READ:° This bird is native to the area, meaning it naturally occurs here

(not introduced by humans).



° Goal of management: maintain current bird numbers.

r CHOICE A: American Robin

OR

PLEASE READ:° This mammal is NOT native to the area. It was introduced

here by humans.

° Status: numbers are low, which means you don’t see thismammal very often.

° Hunted species.

° Goal of management: increase mammal numbers.

r CHOICE B: Fallow Deer

6g. Which should the manager spend funds on? (Check one þ.)PLEASE READ:° This bird is NOT native to the area. It was introduced here by

humans.

° Status: even though it did exist here at one time, it is no longerpresent.

° Hunted species.

° Goal of management: reintroduce the bird back to the area.

r CHOICE A: Red-Legged Partridge

OR

PLEASE READ:° This mammal is native to the area, meaning it naturally

occurs here (not introduced by humans).



° Goal of management: maintain current mammal numbers.

r CHOICE B: Least Chipmunk

6h. Which should the manager spend funds on? (Check one þ.)PLEASE READ:° This mammal is native to the area, meaning it naturally occurs




° Goal of management: reintroduce the mammal back to thearea.

r CHOICE A: River Otter

OR

PLEASE READ:° This fish is NOT native to the area. It was introduced here by

humans.

° Status: common in this area and numbers are stable.

° Fished species.

° Goal of management: maintain current fish numbers.

r CHOICE B: Brown Trout

6i. Which should the manager spend funds on? (Check one þ.)

PLEASE READ:° This fish is NOT native to lakes and rivers in the area. It was

introduced here by humans.

° Status: numbers are low, which means you don’t see this fishvery often.


° Goal of management: increase fish numbers.

r CHOICE A: Eastern Mosquitofish

OR

PLEASE READ:° This bird is native to the area, meaning it naturally occurs



° Hunted species.

° Goal of management: reintroduce the bird back to the area.

r CHOICE B: Greater Prairie Chicken

7. Now we are interested in finding out how strongly you like or dislike each of the fish or wildlife species mentioned in thecomparisons above. Circle one number for each statement.

How strongly do you like or dislike… StronglyDislike

ModeratelyDislike

SlightlyDislike Neither

SlightlyLike

ModeratelyLike

StronglyLike

The Canvasback Duck? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Mexican Gray Squirrel? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Axis Deer? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Roundtail Chub? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Bighorn Sheep? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Black Tetra? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Broad Whitefish? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Eurasian Skylark? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Coho Salmon? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The House Sparrow? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The American Robin? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Fallow Deer? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Red-Legged Partridge? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Least Chipmunk? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The River Otter? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Brown Trout? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Eastern Mosquitofish? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Greater Prairie Chicken? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Section III.

Next, we would like your input on fish and wildlife management in Nebraska. The information you provide willhelp the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC) understand how Nebraskans feel about these issues andimprove their ability to manage fish and wildlife populations and habitats in Nebraska. Please read the descriptionfor each situation below and respond to the statements that follow. Circle one number for each statement.

SITUATION 1. Many fish and wildlife that are not hunted or fished (nongame species) are known to be declining in Nebraska. Inorder to prevent them from becoming endangered, immediate action is necessary . There are various options to protect the lands thatare essential for the survival of these species (habitat). We are interested in how you feel about these options to protect lands.

How acceptable or unacceptable is itfor NGPC to…

HighlyUnacceptable

ModeratelyUnacceptable

SlightlyUnacceptable Neither

SlightlyAcceptable

ModeratelyAcceptable

HighlyAcceptable

…purchase lands from willingsellers to protect habitat? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

…purchase conservationeasements from willinglandowners to protect habitat?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

…provide financial incentives tolandowners to protect habitat? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

…enact new regulations thatincrease protection of habitat? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

…increase enforcement of currentregulations to protect habitat? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

…seek water rights or lease waterfor fish and wildlife in importantstreams?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

________ Please write the letter of the statement that corresponds to your favorite choice from the first situation listed.

SITUATION 2. NGPC is responsible for conservation of all fish and wildlife species, not just those hunted and fished. However,funding for many species is limited. We are interested in what you think about potential new sources of funding for fish and wildlifethat are not hunted or fished (nongame species).

How acceptable or unacceptable is it to… HighlyUnacceptable

ModeratelyUnacceptable

SlightlyUnacceptable Neither

SlightlyAcceptable

ModeratelyAcceptable

HighlyAcceptable

…increase the state sales tax 1/8 of onepercent to cover the necessary costs? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

…redirect existing state revenue fromtaxes? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

…sell conservation license plateswhose proceeds would benefitnongame fish and wildlife?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

…redirect a portion of the federaltaxes? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

…establish a new tax on wildlifeviewing equipment (for example,binoculars, backyard bird feeders)?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

…take no actions to obtain new fundsfor nongame species? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

________ Please write the letter of the statement that corresponds to your favorite choice from the second situation listed.

1. How strongly do you disagree or agree with the following statements? Circle one number for your response to each statement.

“The primary sign of the quality of the natural environment is that many different types of fish and wildlife exist there.”

StronglyDisagree

ModeratelyDisagree


SlightlyAgree

ModeratelyAgree

StronglyAgree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

“NGPC should strive to maintain as much diversity in fish, wildlife, and plants as possible.”

StronglyDisagree

ModeratelyDisagree


SlightlyAgree

ModeratelyAgree

StronglyAgree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. How important are the following to you in maintaining a high quality of life (health, family, well-being, environment, community) inNebraska? Circle one number for each statement or check the box (þ) for “I have no opinion or don’t know.”

Not at AllImportant

SlightlyImportant

ModeratelyImportant

QuiteImportant

ExtremelyImportant

I have no opinion ordon’t know.

Natural Areas 1 2 3 4 5 r

Prairies 1 2 3 4 5 r

Wetlands 1 2 3 4 5 r

Rivers and Streams 1 2 3 4 5 r

Lakes and Reservoirs 1 2 3 4 5 r

Clean Water 1 2 3 4 5 r

State Parks 1 2 3 4 5 r

Fishing 1 2 3 4 5 r

Hiking and Biking 1 2 3 4 5 r

Power Boating and Skiing inLakes 1 2 3 4 5 r

Observing Wildlife 1 2 3 4 5 r

Farming 1 2 3 4 5 r

Boating and Floating in Rivers 1 2 3 4 5 r

Hunting 1 2 3 4 5 r

Camping 1 2 3 4 5 r

4. Previously we have asked questions regarding fish and wildlife in Nebraska. Now we would like to get your opinion on how youview the role of fish and wildlife in the world. Circle one number for each statement.

Do you agree or disagree that… StronglyDisagree

ModeratelyDisagree


SlightlyAgree

ModeratelyAgree

StronglyAgree

Even if a plant or wildlife species is in dangerof going extinct by natural causes humansshould try to save the species.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

It is unacceptable when humans causeextinction of plant or wildlife species.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The extinction of wildlife and plant speciescould have harmful effects on the well-beingof humans.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

If economic/agricultural development wouldresult in a plant or wildlife species becomingextinct, the development should be stopped.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The loss of wildlife or plant species in naturecould have harmful effects on the ability ofother wildlife and plant species to survive.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

There is no such thing as a good or bad plantor wildlife species since they all perform afunction in the natural world.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A wildlife or plant species should beprotected or saved from extinction only if itcan be shown to directly benefit humans.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Humans are part of the natural environment;therefore, some human-caused extinctionshould be expected.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

When human needs conflict with conservingimportant habitat of a plant or wildlifespecies, human needs should takeprecedence.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Some species of plants and wildlife areundesirable in certain places and it would begood if they did go extinct in the entire world.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The loss of natural habitats for wildlife is notserious as long as there are zoos available forthese animals to live in.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I can think of some species of mammals,reptiles, fish, insects, or plants that I wouldlike to see go extinct.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Section IV.

We would like to learn about your fish- and wildlife-related recreation activities. Please check your response (þ).

1. Have you ever participated in recreational (non-commercial) fishing? r Yes r No

2. Did you participate in recreational (non-commercial) fishing during the past 12 months (1 year)? r Yes r No

3. Have you ever participated in recreational (non-commercial) hunting? r Yes r No

4. Did you participate in recreational (non-commercial) hunting during the past 12 months (1 year)? r Yes r No

5. Have you ever taken any recreational trips for which fish or wildlife viewing was the primary purpose of thetrip?

r Yes r No

6. Did you take any recreational trips in the past 12 months (1 year) for which fish or wildlife viewing was theprimary purpose of the trip?

r Yes r No

Please respond to the following 3 questions about your interest in participating in fish- and wildlife-related recreation in thefuture. Circle one number for each response.

Not at allInterested

SlightlyInterested

ModeratelyInterested

StronglyInterested

7. How interested are you in taking recreational fishing trips in the future? 1 2 3 4

8. How interested are you in taking recreational hunting trips in the future? 1 2 3 4

9. How interested are you in taking recreational trips in the future forwhich fish or wildlife viewing is the primary purpose of the trip?

1 2 3 4

Now we would like to know more about your interest in participating in certain types of wildlife viewing activities in the future.Circle one number for each response.

How interested would you be in…? Not at allInterested.

Somewhatinterested, butthere are othertrips I wouldrather take.

Interested, butthere are other

trips I would liketo take just

as much.

Quite interested,I would preferthis trip over

others I wouldconsider taking.

Very interested,This is one of thefew trips I would

really love totake someday.

10. …taking a trip to Africa to go on a safari toview wildlife?

1

2

3 4

5

11. …taking a trip to a remote area of Alaska toview wildlife (for example, bears)?

1

2

3 4

5

12. …taking a trip to the Galapagos islands to viewwildlife?

1

2

3

4

5

13. …taking a trip to a nearby area (for example, apark or wildlife area) in Nebraska to view localwildlife in a natural setting?

1

2

3

4

5

The following demographic information will be used to help make general conclusions about the residents of thisstate. Your responses will remain completely confidential.

1. Are you…? r Male r Female

2. What is your age? (Write response.) ________ Years

3. How many people under 18 years of age are currently living in your household? (Write response.) ________ Person(s)

r Less than high school diploma r 4-year college degree

r High school diploma or equivalent (forexample, GED)

r Advanced degree beyond 4-year college degree

4. What is the highest level ofeducation that you haveachieved? (Check only one þ.)

r 2-year associates degree or trade school

r Less than $10,000 r $70,000 - $89,999

r $10,000 - $29,999 r $90,000 - $109,999

r $30,000 - $49,999 r $110,000 - $129,999

5. What is your approximateannual household incomebefore taxes? (Check one þ.)

r $50,000 - $69,999 r $130,000 - $149,999

r $150,000 or more

6. About how long have you lived in Nebraska? (Write response or check boxþindicating less than one year.) _____ Years, OR r Less than one year.

r Large city with 250,000 or more people r Town with 10,000 to 24,999 people

r City with 100,000 to 249,999 people r Town with 5,000 to 9,999 people

r City with 50,000 to 99,999 people r Small town / village with less than 5,000 people

7. How would you describeyour current residence orcommunity? (Check one þ.)

r Small city with 25,000 to 49,999 people r A farm or rural area

8. Would you consider your current residence a suburb of alarger city or metropolitan area? (Check one þ.)

r Yes r No

r Large city with 250,000 or more people r Town with 10,000 to 24,999 people

r City with 100,000 to 249,999 people r Town with 5,000 to 9,999 people

r City with 50,000 to 99,999 people r Small town / village with less than 5,000 people

9. How would you describethe community in which youwere raised? (Check one þ.)If more than one area, checkthe place where you lived thelongest. r Small city with 25,000 to 49,999 people r A farm or rural area

10. Would you consider the community in which you were raiseda suburb of a larger city or metropolitan area? (Check one þ.)

r Yes r No

11. Are you Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino? (Check one þ.) r No, not Spanish, Hispanic, or Latinor Yes, Spanish, Hispanic, Latino

r White r Native Hawaiian

r Black or African American r Other Pacific Islander

r Native American, Alaska Native, orFirst Nations

r Some other race (Please print race on line below.)

_________________________________________________

12. What is your race?(Check one or more races toindicate what you consideryourself to be.)

r Asian r Do not wish to answer

13. While many people in America view themselves as “Americans”, we are interested in finding out more about how you woulddefine your ethnic background. What is the primary ethnic origin with which you identify yourself? (for example, Italian,Jamaican, African American, Norwegian, Dominican, Korean, Mexican, Taiwanese, Ukrainian, and so on)

(Please write your ethnic origin.) __________________________________________________________________

Thank you for participating in this study. Your input is very important!

Please return the completed survey as soon as possible in the

enclosed addressed and postage-paid envelope.

Attitudes and Beliefs of Nebraska Residents …...Biodiversity & Quality of Life Issues 2004 Public Opinion Survey Larry Mark Gigliotti, Ph.D. Human Dimensions Consulting The purpose

Documents