Harming or Killing Snakes in Canada: Results of the National Survey, 2010
1
Table 1: Response and Gender Table 2: Response and Urban/Rural Gender Harm/Kill Other Responses Male 40 905 Female 23 1014 X2 6.522 .011 Location Harm/Kill Other Responses Urban 31 1288 Rural 32 631 X2 8.791 ,003 Income Harm/Kill Other Responses Under Median$$ 31 749 Over Median $$ 23 942 X2 3.641 .056 Education Harm/Kill Other Responses High School or less 21 497 More than High School 41 1403 X2 1.838 .175 Table 3: Response and Income Table 4: Response and Education Harming or Killing Snakes In Canada: Results of the National Survey, 2010 Jonathan Choquette1, Kristen Campbell2, Brian Hutchinson3, R.J. Payne4 1 School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, University of Guelph, Guelph ON, N1G 2W1, [email protected] ; 2 School of Environment and Management, Royal Roads University, Victoria BC, V8P 5C2, [email protected]; 3 Parks Canada, Ottawa ON, K1B 3V7, [email protected]; 4 School of Outdoor Recreation, Parks and Tourism, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay ON, P7B 5E1, [email protected] The survey sought to obtain answers to questions about how people in Canada react to snakes, when they encounter them on their own properties (homes, cottages, farms) or elsewhere (roads, trails, parks). While a broad number of reactions to snakes, ranging from “avoid the snake” through “get someone to deal with the snake” were identified by respondents, it was the “harm/kill” response that was the focus of the research. Ashley, E. Paul, Kosloski, A., and Petrie, S., 2007. Incidence of intentional vehicle–reptile collisions. Human Dimensions in Wildlife, 12:137–143. Bixler, R.D., C.L. Carlisle, W.E. Hammitt and M. F. Floyd. 1994. Observed fears and discomforts among urban students on field trips to wildland areas. The Journal of Environmental Education 26(1): 24-33. Matchett, G. and Davey, G. 1991. Test of a disease avoidance model of animal phobias. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 29, 91-94. Cited in Bixler, R.D. and M.F. Floyd. 1999. Hands on or hands off? Disgust sensitivity and preference to environmental education activities. The Journal of Environmental Education 30 (3): 4-11. Sissons, A. 2006. Attitudes and Values Towards Reptiles. Report prepared for Parks Canada, Ontario Region. Introduction Methods Data for the study were collected in the last week of March and the first week of April, 2010, by means of telephone surveys conducted by Harris-Decima, Inc. Harris-Decima operates a weekly “Vox” survey during which clients can add particular questions to a standard array of socio-demographic and socio-economic variables. The nine questions formulated for this research (see Appendix I for the questions) sought to gauge people's reactions to snakes on their property and elsewhere as well as people's awareness of snakes and their protection status in Canadian provinces. The two weeks of telephone surveys yielded 2021 interviews. These interviews were collected randomly, but selection was stratified according to populations in each Canadian province. This stratification means that, while the total number of respondents (2021) constitutes a large sample of Canadians, sample size becomes problematic when one leaves the more populous provinces. References Next comes two sets qualitative interviews, one with residents of southern Alberta that will focus on interactions with Prairie Rattle Snakes, and the other in the Windsor, Ontario area with a broader focus. Each set of interviews will be guided in selecting interviewees by the results presented in this poster. Following the interviews both sources of data will contribute to the development of a social marketing strategy to change the behaviours of those who harm or kill snakes. Next Steps Two other variables – income and education – exhibit marginally significant differences when examined for responses to snakes. For income, people having lower than the median Canadian income are slightly more likely to harm or kill snakes; for education, people with high school or less education are slightly more likely to harm or kill snakes. As expected, a respondent’s gender is significant in the “harm/kill” response, with men more likely than women to harm or kill snakes encountered on their property. Similarly, respondents’ location in rural areas versus urban areas shows a statistically significant difference response, with people in rural areas more likely to harm or kill a snake encountered on their property Discussion Income and education may have some influence, but the extent of any such influence requires further study. Men are more likely than women to harm or kill snakes. Rural residents are more likely to harm or kill snakes than urban.
description
Poster presented at the Human Dimensions in Natural Resource Management Conference, Revelstoke, BC, October 6-7, 2010
Transcript of Harming or Killing Snakes in Canada: Results of the National Survey, 2010
Table 1: Response and Gender
Table 2: Response and Urban/Rural
Gender Harm/Kill Other Responses
Male 40 905
Female 23 1014
X2 6.522 .011
Location Harm/Kill Other Responses
Urban 31 1288
Rural 32 631
X2 8.791 ,003
Income Harm/Kill Other Responses
Under Median$$
31 749
Over Median $$
23 942
X2 3.641 .056
Education Harm/Kill Other Responses
High School or less
21 497
More than High School
41 1403
X2 1.838 .175
Table 3: Response and Income
Table 4: Response and Education
Harming or Killing Snakes In Canada: Results of the National Survey, 2010
Jonathan Choquette1, Kristen Campbell2, Brian Hutchinson3, R.J. Payne4
1 School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, University of Guelph, Guelph ON, N1G 2W1, [email protected] ;
2 School of Environment and Management, Royal Roads University, Victoria BC, V8P 5C2, [email protected];
3 Parks Canada, Ottawa ON, K1B 3V7, [email protected];
4 School of Outdoor Recreation, Parks and Tourism, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay ON, P7B 5E1, [email protected]
The survey sought to obtain answers to questionsabout how people in Canada react to snakes, when they encounter them on their own properties (homes, cottages, farms) or elsewhere (roads, trails, parks).
While a broad number of reactions to snakes,ranging from “avoid the snake” through “getsomeone to deal with the snake” were identified by respondents, it was the “harm/kill” response thatwas the focus of the research.
Ashley, E. Paul, Kosloski, A., and Petrie, S., 2007.
Incidence of intentional vehicle–reptile collisions.
Human Dimensions in Wildlife, 12:137–143.
Bixler, R.D., C.L. Carlisle, W.E. Hammitt and M. F. Floyd.
1994. Observed fears and discomforts among urban
students on field trips to wildland areas. The Journal of
Environmental Education 26(1): 24-33.
Matchett, G. and Davey, G. 1991. Test of a disease
avoidance model of animal phobias. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 29, 91-94. Cited in Bixler, R.D.
and M.F. Floyd. 1999. Hands on or hands off? Disgust
sensitivity and preference to environmental education
activities. The Journal of Environmental Education 30
(3): 4-11.
Sissons, A. 2006. Attitudes and Values Towards
Reptiles. Report prepared for Parks Canada, Ontario
Region.
Introduction
Methods
Data for the study were collected in the last week of
March and the first week of April, 2010, by means of
telephone surveys conducted by Harris-Decima, Inc.
Harris-Decima operates a weekly “Vox” survey during
which clients can add particular questions to a standard
array of socio-demographic and socio-economic
variables. The nine questions formulated for this
research (see Appendix I for the questions) sought to
gauge people's reactions to snakes on their property
and elsewhere as well as people's awareness of snakes
and their protection status in Canadian provinces.
The two weeks of telephone surveys yielded 2021
interviews. These interviews were collected randomly,
but selection was stratified according to populations in
each Canadian province. This stratification means that,
while the total number of respondents (2021)
constitutes a large sample of Canadians, sample size
becomes problematic when one leaves the more
populous provinces.
References
Next comes two sets qualitative interviews, one with
residents of southern Alberta that will focus on
interactions with Prairie Rattle Snakes, and the other in
the Windsor, Ontario area with a broader focus. Each
set of interviews will be guided in selecting
interviewees by the results presented in this poster.
Following the interviews both sources of data will
contribute to the development of a social marketing
strategy to change the behaviours of those who harm
or kill snakes.
Next Steps
Two other variables – income and education – exhibit
marginally significant differences when examined for
responses to snakes. For income, people having lower
than the median Canadian income are slightly more
likely to harm or kill snakes; for education, people with
high school or less education are slightly more likely to
harm or kill snakes.
As expected, a respondent’s gender is significant in the
“harm/kill” response, with men more likely than
women to harm or kill snakes encountered on their
property. Similarly, respondents’ location in rural areas
versus urban areas shows a statistically significant
difference response, with people in rural areas more
likely to harm or kill a snake encountered on their
property
Discussion
Income and education may have some influence, but
the extent of any such influence requires further study.
Men are more likely than women to harm or kill snakes.
Rural residents are more likely to harm or kill snakes
than urban.
