1. Perceived Similarity, Social Trust, & Perceived Risk Jerry J. Vaske Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit Colorado State University Mark D. Needham Department of Forest Resources Oregon State University Craig A. Miller Illinois Natural History Survey University of Illinois

2. Perceived similarity  the public often lacks the knowledge to make complex trust attributions  trust is often based on perceptions of the agency  people trust agencies perceived to share similar views  salient value similarity (SVS), perceived similarity Similarity, Trust & Risk

3. Social trust  implies that the person trusts the individual with decision making ability  adjective social suggests that the person may not know individual in charge  when people trust the managing agency, they tend to perceive less risk from the hazard Similarity, Trust & Risk

4. Perceived Risk  extent to which people feel are exposed to a hazard (e.g., CWD risk, wildfires)  important because risk can influence behavior (e.g., stop hunting, adopt defensible space) Similarity, Trust & Risk

5. 1. Examine extent to which individuals:  perceive themselves to be similar to wildlife (natural resource) agencies  trust agencies to manage CWD / disease / wildfire  perceive personal risks associated with CWD / disease / wildfire 2.Examine generalizability of findings across different data sets Objectives

6. Data SetPotential Risk 2004 – Regional deer / elkCWD 2012 – Illinois deerCWD 2009 – Oregon beaverDisease 2004 – USDA Forest ServiceWildfire 2013 – Colorado State Forest ServiceWildfire Data sets

7.  Transmissible disease in deer, elk, & moose  Similar to mad cow or scrapie (sheep)  Caused by abnormal brain protein (prion)  Loss of body functions, always fatal  Not known to be transmissible to humans  Free-ranging herds in USA & Canada  2 provinces: Alberta, Saskatchewan  19 states Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD)

8. Hypotheses H 1 :positive relationship between similarity & social trust e.g., Hunters who perceive they have similar views as agency more likely to trust agency H 2 : negative relationship between social trust & personal risk e.g., Hunters who trust agency are less likely to perceive risks associated with CWD + _ Perceived similarity Social trust Perceived personal risk

9. 2004 Regional CWD Mail Survey  Gun deer & elk hunters  Residents & Non-residents  3 mailings (July – October 2004)  n = 9,567 all 22 strata (308 – 564 per stratum)  44% overall response rate  non-response check (n = 785), no differences  deer hunters: 8 states (AZ, CO, ND, NE, SD, UT, WI, WY)  elk hunters: 3 states (CO, UT, WY)

10. Takes similar actions as I would Thinks in a similar way as me Shares similar goals as me Shares similar opinions as me Shares similar values as me I feel the (agency) … Perceived Similarity Cronbach alpha:.94 –.97

11. Social Trust Make good deer / elk management decisions regarding CWD Properly address CWD in (state) Provide timely information about CWD Provide truthful information about human safety & CWD Provide enough info to decide what actions to take RE: CWD Provide best available information on CWD I trust the (state wildlife agency) to … Cronbach alpha:.94 –.97

12. Become ill as a result of contracting a disease caused by CWD Personal Risk Inadvertently eat meat from an animal infected with CWD Because of CWD, how concerned are you about your health Cronbach alpha:.77 –.85 Because of CWD, I have concerns about eating deer / elk

13. SEM Results Trust → Risk –.16 * –.13 * –.04 –.19 *** –.07 –.11 * –.03 –.13 * –.11 * –.08 –.14 * –.16 * –.02 –.01 –.14 * –.11 * –.28 *** –.05 –.25 *** –.21 *** –.06 β.03.02.00.04.01.02.00.02.01.02.03.00.02.08.00.06.05.00 R2R2.95.90.94.93.95.92.94.95.94.93.91.95.94.90.94.92.91 CFI* Similarity → Trust.67 ***.50 ***.68 ***.63 ***.70 ***.66 ***.65 ***.61 ***.64 ***.56 ***.45 ***.52 ***.60 ***.61 ***.62 ***.63 ***.54 ***.65 ***.47 ***.50 ***.63 *** β Wyoming resident elk Wyoming nonresident elk Wyoming resident deer Wyoming nonresident deer Wisconsin resident deer Wisconsin nonresident deer Utah resident elk Utah nonresident elk Utah resident deer Utah nonresident deer South Dakota resident deer South Dakota nonresident deer North Dakota resident deer North Dakota nonresident deer Nebraska resident deer Nebraska nonresident deer Colorado resident elk Colorado nonresident elk Colorado resident deer Colorado nonresident deer Arizona resident deer Arizona nonresident deer.07.09.08.07.08.07.08.09.06.07.09.07.08.07.08 RMSEA*.45.25.46.39.49.44.43.37.40.31.32.21.27.36.37.38.40.29.42.22.25.40 R2R2

14.  All 22 strata, hunters perceived  slight to moderate similarity with wildlife agencies  slight to moderate social trust in agencies  some personal risk associated with CWD  Hypotheses  H 1 : hunters who perceive they have similar views as agency more likely to trust agency supported: all 22 strata, up to 49% variance in trust explained by similarity  H 2 : hunters who trust agency are less likely to perceive risk associated with CWD partially supported: for 14 strata, negative but insignificant for rest, only up to 8% variance in risk explained by trust Summary of 2004 CWD study

15.  Trust → risk: negative, but weak  relatively new & spreading wildlife disease  hunters may feel the risks beyond agencies control  Relatively high similarity & trust  can influence support of agency goals & management  continue to foster positive relationship with hunters  Relatively high personal CWD risk  feel at risk of becoming ill from CWD  agencies may want to reinforce no link between CWD & human health  educate on CWD & BSE (mad cow) differences CWD Management Implications

16. Generalizability of Findings H 1 :Positive and strong relationship between similarity & social trust Coefficients tended to.4 to.6 range H 2 : Negative relationship between social trust & personal risk Mixed results + _ Perceived similarity Social trust Perceived personal risk

17.  Strong positive similarity → trust: consistent with past research  Weak negative trust → risk: other dimensions influence risk  Knowledge  Species (e.g., deer vs. beaver)  Context (e.g., wildlife disease vs. wildfire)  General risk sensitivity  High reliability & construct validity all 3 concepts Research Implications

18. Questions or Comments?