U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Citizen Knowledge of and Attitudes toward Black-tailed Prairie Dogs:

Completion Report

by

Berton Lee Lamb1

Kurt Cline2

Ayeisha Brinson1

Natalie Sexton1

Phadrea D. Ponds1

Open-File Report 01-471

This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial 

standards. Any use of trade product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. The analysis and recommendations in this paper are those of the 

authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies of the U.S. Geological Survey or Department of the 

Interior.

1 Midcontinent Ecological Science Center

2 Johnson Controls World Services, Inc.

2001
Table of Contents

Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1

Methods and Measurements........................................................................................... 4

Response Rates and Reliability.................................................................................... 10

Knowledge.................................................................................................................... 11

Participation.................................................................................................................. 16

General Environmental Attitudes................................................................................... 19

Attitudes Toward Black-tailed Prairie Dogs................................................................... 24

The Role of Rurality ......................................................................................................28

Prairie Dogs in Context.................................................................................................30

Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................34

References.................................................................................................................... 35

Appendix A: Description of Indices and Table of Variables........................................... 39

Appendix B: List of All Questions Asked....................................................................... 43

Appendix C: Reviewer Comments ................................................................................ 51

MI
List of Tables

Table 1. Identification of variables and their use in hypotheses 1-4.............................9

Table 2. Response rate for the survey of residents of the 11-state short-grass prairie

region conducted in August-November 2000................................................ 10

Table 3. Familiarity with terms related to black-tailed prairie dog management......... 12

Table 4. Ordinary least squares model of self assessed familiarity with terms related to

black-tailed prairie dogs (Adjusted tfof .304; F=52.679 Sig.=0.000)............ 13

Table 5. Percentage of all respondents who correctly answered multiple choice fact

questions about the life history of Black-tailed prairie dogs........................... 14

Table 6. Ordinary least squares model of factual knowledge with an.......................... 15

Table 7. Ordinary least squares (OLS) model for predictors of total political participation

0^=35.643, Adjusted /^=0.271, />=0.000)................................................... 18

Table 8. Respondent categories related to general environmental attitudes................21

Table 9. Ordinary least squares model for respondents' preference for protection of the

environment versus growth of the economy (Adjusted R2 =0.252, ^=80.717,

^=0.000)................................................................................................... 21

Table 10. Ordinary least squares for the New Environmental Paradigm...................... 23

Table 11. Social Benefits Provided by Prairie Dog Management.................................25

Table 12. Ordinary least squares model of benefits of managing to protect prairie dogs 

(Adjusted /^=0.274; F= 46.063; />=0.000) ..............................................26

Table 13. Respondent perceptions of the seriousness of the prairie dog problem....... 26

Table 14. Ordinary least squares model of seriousness of the prairie dog problem.

(Adjusted /^=0.122; F= 27.548; />=0.000) ..............................................27

IV
Executive Summary

In the late summer of 2000, we canvassed a random sample of residents in the 11- 

state short grass prairie region of the United States. We asked about people's attitude 

toward and knowledge of black-tailed prairie dogs and their management. The survey 

received 1,933 useable responses with a response rate of 56.4% (margin of error 

±2.2%).

We developed a questionnaire (0MB Control Number: 1028-0073; see Appendix B) to 

answer the following questions:

 What is the level of citizen knowledge regarding black-tailed prairie dogs?

 What are citizens' attitudes and preferences regarding black-tailed prairie dogs 

and the environment in general?

 What are the factors that explain differences in attitudes and knowledge about 

prairie dogs?

 What are the factors that explain citizen participation in these types of issues?

 What are the important differences between rural and urban citizens regarding 

their political participation and their knowledge and attitudes about prairie dogs?

In general, we found that citizens do not have a high regard for black-tailed prairie 

dogs. Citizens generally have a positive orientation toward the environment and favor a 

balanced or somewhat environmental approach on questions like prairie dog 

management that involve environmental protection and economic considerations. 

People having direct experience with prairie dogs are less inclined to view them as 

beneficial to society than are those who infrequently see or come in contact with the 

animals. When asked about prairie dogs specifically, most citizens did not believe the 

question of what to do about these animals was a highly important environmental issue.

Knowledge

We measured knowledge in two ways: familiarity with terms and knowledge of specific 

facts. Most people are familiar with some terms used in prairie dog management. Two 

commonly used terms were known by almost all of our respondents: burrowing and 

Endangered Species Act. Other terms, such as habitat conservation, biological 

vulnerability, and habitat fragmentation were known by about half the people we 

surveyed. In contrast, specific or technical terms (i.e., Sylvatic Plague, diurnal, and 

extirpated) were known by only a very few citizens. About half the people surveyed 

knew some general facts (e.g., that prairie dogs are most active during the day) but 

some facts seem to be the province of only a tiny few (i.e., relation to chipmunks, 1 

litter per year, and coteries).

Knowledge seemed to be related to people's direct experience with prairie dogs 

(especially their likelihood of seeing the animals and knowing where the nearest prairie 

dog town is located) in combination with using printed sources of information to learn
about prairie dogs. This held true for both measures of knowledge we examined. People 

who found environmental issues hard to understand were less likely to be 

knowledgeable. Significantly, people who were more politically active tended to have 

more knowledge about prairie dogs.

Participation

Four out of ten respondents to our survey had not participated in any type of political 

activity. To measure this we asked citizens to answer yes or no to each item on a list of 

possible activities (e.g., signing a petition or leadership of a group). Forty-percent said 

they had participated in at least one activity. Of those who had participated, 83% were 

categorized as passive participants and 17% as active participants. Well-educated, 

higher income people, as well as women were more likely to be politically active. 

Although active political participants were more likely than passive participants to say 

they were familiar with terms, those who had participated in any form of political 

activity were more likely to be knowledgeable of terms and facts about prairie dogs 

than those who had not participated.

Those who used printed and formal organizational sources of information (such as 

public meetings and hearings), possessed a higher level of formal education, higher 

income, and were more knowledgeable. A positive orientation toward prairie dogs was 

associated with political participation. Those who engaged in more outdoor activities 

were more likely to also be politically active and those with an orientation toward postmaterial values (desiring a sense of belonging and inclusion rather than economic 

security) were more likely to participate in politics, as were persons in agricultural 

occupations.

General Attitudes Toward the Environment

We measured general environmental attitudes in three ways: opinions about the 

balance between environmental protection and economic growth; trust in science and 

technology as an answer to environmental problems; and environmental orientation as 

measured by the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP; i.e., the perception that the earth 

is a spaceship with finite resources that should be protected).

First, respondents tended to favor a balance between environmental protection and 

economic growth. Thirty-nine percent of respondents said the environment was the 

most important, 38% said equal consideration should be given to the environment and 

economy and 23% said the economy was most important. About 6 in 10 people with an 

environmentalist orientation and half of the women (49%) indicated that the 

environment was most important when considering environmental protection and the 

economy. Forty-two percent of those who were politically active and 44% of those who 

did not trust in science also believed the environment was the most important 

consideration. Residents of rural and urban counties were divided on this question, with

vi
48% of urban respondents and 33% of rural respondents indicating that the 

environment was most important.

The variables that most explain an environmental or economic orientation are related to 

belief system, experience, and age. Older people, those who held agricultural jobs, and 

those who relied on formal organizational sources of information (e.g., public meetings 

and hearings) tended to favor economic growth. Not surprisingly, those who held an 

environmental orientation (as measured by the NEP) tended to favor environmental 

protection.

Second, we examined the factors that seemed to be behind general environmental 

orientation as expressed by support for the NEP and trust in science and technology. 

There are fewer of policy-relevant findings in this section than in other parts of this 

report. The models explaining NEP and trust in science and technology are weak and 

really cannot be relied upon to draw concrete conclusions about what drives support for 

the NEP or science and technology. For that reason, we have not reported the model 

explaining trust in science and technology. But we do report the NEP relationships.

Those who use printed sources of information about prairie dogs and the women in our 

study were more likely to hold an environmental orientation as measured by the NEP. 

Interestingly, those who reported a trust in science and technology were not likely to 

support the NEP. This may be because people who trust in science believe science will 

solve future environmental problems. Those who rated themselves as politically 

conservative were more likely to hold the dominant social paradigm as opposed to the 

NEP. Also likely to support the dominant social paradigm were those who held 

agricultural jobs and those who relied on formal organizational sources of information.

Attitudes Toward Prairie Dogs

Respondents indicated a very moderate level of overall support for prairie dog 

protection. When we asked people to tell us how much in the way of social benefits 

were provided by prairie dog management, 58% (37% medium, 21% high) said there 

was at least some benefit to prairie dog management. However, when looking at this 

question in another way, more than 4 in 10 respondents said that the benefits to 

society of managing prairie dogs were low.

Interestingly, factors that may be related to direct experience tended to foster negative 

views of prairie dogs. Such things as frequency of seeing prairie dogs, friends and 

neighbors as a source of information about the animals, and holding agricultural jobs 

were associated with negative views. On the other hand, those who support the NEP 

are likely to find social benefits in protection of the species. This is a good example of 

how the context and medium in which information is received can have important 

influences on attitude. The fact that friends and neighbors and frequency of seeing the 

animals were associated with negative attitudes toward prairie dogs (coupled with the

VII
association between using formal organizational sources of information and support for 

economic growth) suggests that those with policy-making responsibilities and media 

gate-keepers may have less of an opportunity to shape attitudes than local and 

personal factors.

This is supported by our findings on the seriousness of the problem of deciding what to 

do about prairie dogs. People who supported the NEP and those who used electronic 

media as a source of information tended to rate the problem of deciding what to do 

with the species as more serious. Those who were more politically conservative, lived in 

rural counties, or held agricultural jobs tended to see the problem as less serious.

Conclusions

Presentation of prairie dog information in forums and in ways that emphasize personal 

experience and use electronic media may be the most effective strategy in working with 

citizens concerned about prairie dog management. Although we did not ask whether 

respondents had experienced positive or negative interactions with prairie dogs, it 

might be safe to assume that attitudes and knowledge have often been formed from 

negative personal experience. Knowledge alone is not the key to citizen perceptions of 

the prairie dog. That key lies in the level of political activity and general environmental 

orientation coupled with personal experience.

However, our findings suggest that public discussion of prairie dog protection could be 

improved by increasing the relevant knowledge and vocabulary of citizens. This is, in 

itself, a worthy objective for wildlife managers. Rather than focusing on increasing 

knowledge as a way to build support for a species, it would be better to focus on 

building knowledge as a way to enhance the decision process. This can be done if 

people recognize the animals in the wild, know how they live and the role they play in 

the ecosystem, have access to trusted sources of information about the problems the 

animals cause, and understand the range of viable management options.

viii
Introduction

What do residents of the short-grass prairie region know and think about black-tailed 

prairie dogs? How can federal and state resource managers use this information to 

communicate with involved publics, participate in planning and decision-making 

activities, and ultimately successfully manage this species? These are important and 

timely questions in light of the ongoing controversy surrounding the black-tailed prairie 

dog and its recent Endangered Species Act designation as a "warranted but precluded" 

threatened species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999).

Data on the publics' attitude toward and knowledge of prairie dogs remains limited 

(Zinn and Andelt 2000; Reading, et al. 1999; Lee and Henderson 1989). To expand this 

knowledge base, social scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey surveyed citizens of 

an 11-state area in the summer of 2000. The study area encompassed the short-grass 

prairie region of the United States (Figure 1). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) commissioned the Social, Economic, and Institutional Analysis Section of the 

Midcontinent Ecological Science Center to conduct the most extensive public survey on 

these issues to date. There were four purposes for the survey: (1) to determine citizens' 

attitudes toward and knowledge of black-tailed prairie dogs and their management; (2) 

to describe the factors that explain citizens' knowledge and attitudes regarding blacktailed prairie dogs (including rural and urban influences); (3) to describe factors that 

explain citizen participation in natural resource issues such as black-tailed prairie dog 

management; and (4) to synthesize the results to assist managers in communicating 

with the public.

Specifically, we aimed to answer the following questions:

 What is the level of citizen knowledge regarding black-tailed prairie dogs?

 What are citizens' attitudes and preferences regarding black-tailed prairie dogs 

and the environment in general?

 What are the factors that explain differences in attitudes and knowledge?

 What are the factors that explain citizen participation in these types of issues?

 What are the important differences between rural and urban citizens regarding 

their participation, knowledge, and attitudes?

The controversy over the species has been fueled by the emerging scientific 

understanding of prairie dogs, historical perceptions, differing attitudes between rural 

and urban citizens (Zinn and Andelt 2000), and a growing public interest and demand 

for involvement in natural resource decision-making (Becker 1993; Gericke and Sullivan 

1994).

Recently, scientists have begun taking a fresh look at prairie dogs because studies have 

shown that the conservation of prairie dogs may be vital not only for their own survival, 

but also for a large number of other grassland species such as the black-footed ferret
and ferruginous hawk (U.S. Forest Service 1978; Knopf 1993; Miller et al. 1996; Kotliar 

et al. 1999).

Historic perceptions of the species have furthered the debate over conservation 

strategies. Livestock operators implemented extensive poisoning of prairie dogs around 

1880. The federal government began subsidizing prairie dog poisoning in 1915 and 

poisoning quickly became common practice for federal, state, tribal, and county 

governments (Dunlap 1988). Although states are beginning to address prairie dog 

conservation (Denver Rocky Mountain News 2000; Sanko 2000; Wyoming TribuneEagle 2000), all states within the historic range of the black-tailed prairie dog "classify 

the species as a pest for agricultural purposes and either permit or require their 

eradication" (64 Federal Register 57 at 14427). Prairie dog numbers have been further 

reduced due to disease (i.e., Sylvatic plague; see Barnes 1993); such habitat-related 

factors as drought, housing developments, cultivation and grazing practices; and 

recreational shooting (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1991; Graber and France 1998). In addition, the currently occupied black-tailed 

prairie dog habitat is, perhaps, only 1% of the species' original range (Graber and 

France 1998; Dolan 1999; Kotliar et al. 1999).

Despite this reduction in the species' population and habitat range, most people 

perceive prairie dogs to be abundant (Long 1998). With the exception of those who 

identify themselves as "environmentalists," most people have little regard for prairie 

dogs (Randall 1976; Reading 1993; Dolan 1999). However, there is a continuum of 

attitudes and perceptions. Based on limited existing studies, farmers and ranchers are 

on one end, expressing little value for the species. Next are rural dwellers who 

generally report a more negative attitude toward prairie dogs than their urban 

counterparts. On the other end of the spectrum are environmentalists, who express the 

most value for prairie dogs. Native Americans' value for prairie dogs falls somewhere in 

the middle of this continuum (Long 1998; Graber and France 1998; Dolan 1999; U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). However, these findings represent only results from 

limited samples and geographic areas.

Successful management of a threatened species requires effective participation of all 

groups in the decision process. As a planning tool for citizen involvement, wildlife 

management research has traditionally concentrated on the biological, technical, and 

economic aspects of wildlife issues as reflected in single-species instead of ecosystem 

management but not on assessing citizen attitudes and knowledge (Kellert 1985; 

Reading 1993). Over the past two decades more holistic attempts have been made to 

appraise wildlife issues by including assessments of public attitudes and knowledge 

about a variety of management problems (Jacobson and Marynowski 1997; Messmer et 

al. 1999; Coluccy et al. 2001). The results have provided managers, stakeholders, and 

concerned citizens with an improved framework for expediting the policy process and 

rendering it more effective (Kellert and Clark 1991).
Historically, it has been thought that better information (e.g., accurate descriptions of 

species life history) would be the key to better participation by the public. Agencies at 

all levels of government have acted on the twin assumptions that (1) well-informed 

citizens will be more active in policy-making and (2) the result will be better decisions 

and less conflict (Selin et al. 1997). As a result of this premise, the information available 

to the general citizenry has increased over time. This is especially true in the field of 

natural resources management where managers have come to recognize the 

importance of developing policy-relevant information and are required to share that 

information with the public (National Environmental Policy Act 1969, 42 U.S.C. Section 

4321).

Interestingly, although the information available to the general citizenry has increased 

over time, citizen involvement in politics in the United States especially as measured 

by voting has not. It has been decreasing since the 1950's. However, there is reason 

for optimism. Although participation, as reflected in voting, has not increased and 

conflict has not been reduced (Cupps 1976; Behan 1990), a link has been established 

between the level of formal education and participation in policy-making (Wolfinger and 

Rosenstone 1980; Luskin 1993; Verba et al. 1995). Citizens with more formal education 

are more likely than others to participate. In addition, a recent study by Bimber (2001) 

concluded, "political participation is not regulated directly by the cost or availability of 

information." Bimber actually questioned whether social contacts, citizen involvement 

programs, and education affect participation by providing different forms of 

information. He suggested, instead, that participation might be explained more by 

emotional attachments and predispositions (or attitudes, values, and beliefs; see also: 

Ezrahi 1980; Collingridge and Reeve 1986; McCool and Guthrie 2001).

Zelezny (1999) seemed to support this point in her findings that there is a relation 

between formal learning activities and changed environmental behavior among younger 

persons. Most behavioral changes result from experiences that are hands-on, more than 

10 hours in duration, and where social context is important (Zelezny 1999). But 

Zelezny's (1999) findings seem to address more the role of specific, policy-relevant 

training, rather than simply formal education levels. This raises three questions.

First, are knowledgeable people more likely to participate in natural resource decision 

making? If, as Bimber expected, participation is explained by emotional attachments 

and predispositions (i.e., attitudes and beliefs) we would expect to find that formal 

education, income, location of residence, occupation, source of information and 

attitudes are associated with participation to a greater extent than knowledge (i.e., 

simply knowing about prairie dogs).

Second, are some types of people more knowledgeable about prairie dogs than others? 

If as Zelezny (1999) indicated, people's behavior may be altered through formal 

activities that are sufficiently long and within supportive social contexts it would be 

important to understand whether the quality of knowledge about prairie dogs differs
among citizens with different formal and informal learning experiences. For example: 

Are those who live close to prairie dogs (Zinn and Andelt 1999) or hold occupations or 

conduct recreational activities in which they have contact with prairie dogs more likely 

to be knowledgeable than those with higher income or formal education? Are rural 

residents more knowledgeable than urban residents (Reading et al. 1999)? Is there a 

relation between attitude and knowledge? What separates (in terms of attitudes or 

socio-demographics) the people who know more about prairie dogs from those who are 

less knowledgeable?

Third, although legislation requires decisions about listing a species as threatened or 

endangered to be based upon scientific evidence (Endangered Species Act 1973,16 

U.S.C. Section 1531), it is important to understand the predominant attitudes toward 

wildlife in general and the particular species of concern. What explains peoples' 

attitudes toward these issues? Is it their subject-specific knowledge and technical 

orientation? Is it how the information is presented (e.g., electronic media or print 

media)? Is it the level of political participation, personal interaction with the resource, or 

socio-demographic characteristics (including level of formal education)? An 

understanding of these questions can help managers design more relevant policy 

processes and gauge the acceptability of wildlife policy, thus decreasing the potential 

for contention.

Methods and Measurements

Survey and Sampling Design

In order to capture the attitudes and knowledge level of the 14 million people who live 

in the areas where black-tailed prairie dogs occur, we developed a mail-out 

questionnaire to administer this survey. We sent the questionnaire to citizens in an 11- 

state area encompassing the short-grass prairie region (Figure 1). This study area was 

based upon black-tailed prairie dog distribution maps provided by USFWS and included 

portions of all of the following states: Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, 

New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. Potential 

respondents were randomly selected from rural, suburban, and urban counties within 

the study area. Counties were categorized as rural, suburban, or urban using Cleland's 

(1995) Rurality Index. Survey Sampling, Inc. provided the names and addresses of a 

sample of 4,380 citizens in the region. To administer the survey, we followed a step-bystep procedure called the Total Design Method (Dillman 1978, 2000). This is a 

dependable process for survey sampling that maximizes the quality and quantity of 

responses for mail and telephone surveys. Specifically, we followed these steps:

1. We sent a postcard to all potential respondents to: (1) tell them about the survey 

(2) give them an opportunity to decline participation, and (3) determine any 

undeliverable addresses.
Figure 1. Eleven state study area.
2. One week later, we sent the survey package, which included: the survey, a postagepaid return envelope, and a cover letter explaining the study.

3. Over the course of the following 9 weeks, we sent 2 more packages to those who 

had not responded.

4. As a final attempt, we telephoned approximately 50% of those from whom we had 

not yet received responses.1 The purpose of the telephone calls was two-fold: (1) to 

encourage responses from nonrespondents, and (2) to see if the nonrespondents 

differed from the respondents. We achieved the latter by asking 4 questions from 

the survey and then comparing those answers (telephone respondents) with mail 

respondents' answers.

Before administering the survey, we pre-tested a draft of the survey with 9 citizens of 

Fort Collins and 10 employees of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Eastern Area Office, 

in Loveland, Colorado in an effort to identify any questions that were not easily 

understood or any answer set that was unclear. We used the results of these pretests 

to develop the survey instrument that was sent for approval to the Department of the 

Interior and Office of Management and Budget.

Data Analysis

Hypotheses. In an effort to answer our questions of interest, we developed the 

following hypotheses:

1. Knowledge:

HI: Those who are older, males, those with higher levels of formal education and 

income; those who use published sources of information; those who have a technical 

orientation; and those with environmentalist attitudes have a higher level of knowledge.

HZ: Those who have greater experience with prairie dogs or participate in outdoor 

activities near prairie dog habitat have a higher level of knowledge about the animals.

Knowledge was measured in two ways: First, by respondents' familiarity with a set of 

terms related to prairie dogs (Question 5; see Appendix B for a listing of all questions 

on the survey). These terms were identified from Federal Register documents and 

government press releases related to black-tailed prairie dogs and their management. 

Second, by respondents' answers to factual questions about black-tailed prairie dog life 

history (Question 6). We developed multiple-choice questions from facts provided on 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prairie dog informational web page located at: 

www.r6.fws.gov/BTPrairieDog/QANDA.htm.

1 A Spanish-speaking interviewer was provided for the 9 people called who preferred to answer in Spanish.
2. Participation

HI: Those who are younger, male, have a higher level of education and income, use 

printed sources of information, have experience with prairie dogs, hold a technical 

orientation, and an environmentalist attitude are more likely to be politically active 

participation.

H2: Those who are more knowledgeable about prairie dogs are more likely to be 

politically active.

We measured participation by the types of activities in which respondents said they 

tried to influence decisions (e.g., attend a public hearing or lead a citizen group) 

(Question 8).

3. General environmental attitudes:

HI: Those who are more knowledgeable about prairie dogs are more likely to hold 

environmentalist attitudes and technical orientation.

HZ: Those who are more politically active and have experience with prairie dogs are 

more likely to hold environmentalist attitudes.

H3 : Those who are older, male, well educated, have higher incomes, hold a technical 

orientation, and use printed sources of information are more likely to hold an 

environmentalist attitude.

To measure general environmental attitudes, we relied on respondents' views on the 

protection of the environment versus growth of the economy (Question 6), their 

support of the NEP (Question 12), and their trust in science and technology (Question 

12). The New Environmental Paradigm is a measure that predicts respondents' 

environmental behavior and participation (Van Liere and Dunlap 1981; 1980).

4. Specific attitudes toward prairie dogs:

HI: Those with more knowledge about prairie dogs are more likely to hold positive 

attitudes toward prairie dogs.

HZ: Those who are politically active and those who have experience with prairie dogs 

are more likely to hold positive attitudes toward prairie dogs. 

H3 : Those who are older, male, have higher levels of education and income, hold a 

technical orientation, and use printed sources of information are more likely to have 

positive attitudes toward prairie dogs.
Specific attitudes toward prairie dogs were measured by the level of benefits 

respondents associated with protecting prairie dogs (Question la) and the seriousness 

of prairie dog issues as compared to other environmental issues (Question Ib).

Listed in Table 1 are the independent variables hypothesized as possible factors to 

explain knowledge, participation, or attitudes. To test our hypotheses, we developed 

ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models to analyze what factors explain 

respondents' knowledge, participation, and attitudes. These analyses allowed us to 

determine which variables were significantly correlated with our dependent variables, 

while at the same time controlling for other possible explanations.

Creation of Indices

The first step in analyzing the data was to create analytical concepts that reflected our 

research questions. Using the data gathered by the survey, we constructed indices to 

reflect these larger analytical concepts. In order to examine the self-assessed 

knowledge and factual knowledge variables, we created indices of both these measures. 

To assess attitudes toward prairie dogs, an index was created based on responses to a 

series of ideas concerning prairie dog management. We also created analytical concepts 

that could be used to explain respondents and attitudes. These indices included: 

Postmaterialism, Trust in Science, and New Environmental Paradigm. While all of these 

analytical concepts were constructed using such techniques as factor analysis and 

reliability analysis, our theoretical framework was always the guiding principle. Indices 

and measures of central tendency are described in Appendix A.

We then proceeded to work with the refined data set. The first step was to analyze the 

data in a descriptive manner. This entailed looking at the data in terms of frequency 

distributions, difference of means tests, correlations, and nonparametric statistics. After 

examining the data in univariate and bivariate forms, we moved on to a multivariate 

analysis of the data. We chose to use OLS regression to analyze the impact of a 

multitude of explanatory variables on respondents' level of knowledge and attitudes 

about prairie dogs. This analysis allowed us to determine which variables were 

significantly correlated with our measures of knowledge and attitude, while at the same 

time controlling for the impact of other possible explanations (Blalock 1972). This report 

was submitted to four peer reviewers outside of the USGS. Three peer reviews were 

received (Appendix C) and changes were made accordingly; all reviewers recommended 

that the report be submitted to the USFWS.
Table 1. Identification of variables and their use in hypotheses 1-4.

Variable Name

Socio-demographic Indicators

Age in years

Respondent's gender

Highest level of formal education

Agriculture occupational status

Annual family income

Racial origin

Respondent's residence

Experience with Prairie Dogs

How often respondents see prairie dogs

Know how far primary residence is from a prairie dog town

Index of total outdoor activity near prairie dog towns

Sources of Information Indicators

Learned about prairie dogs from person-to-person 

information sources (Friends and Neighbors)

Learned about prairie dogs from person-to-person 

information sources (Formalized communication)

Learned about prairie dogs from printed information sources

Learned about prairie dogs from electronic information 

sources

Technical Orientation Indicators

Agreement with the statement "environmental issues are 

hard to understand"

Trust in science and technology

Support of the New Environmental Paradigm3

Post-Materialism

Knowledge Indicators

Index of familiarity with terms related to prairie dogs

Index of factual knowledge related to prairie dogs

Political Factors

Index of total political participation

Ideology

Attitudes

Benefits of Managing to Protect Prairie Dogs

Importance of Protecting Prairie Dogs

Best management option (environment vs. economic 

growth)

Survey Question3

13,14,16,18,19,20

13

14

18

19

20

16

2,3,4

2

3

4

9

9

9

9

9

11,12

12

12

12

11

5,7

5

7

8,10

8

10

la, Ib, 6

la

Ib

6

a See Appendix B for survey questions.

b The New Environmental Paradigm is a measure that predicts respondents' environmental orientation (Van Liere

and Dunlap 1981; 1980.
Response Rates and Reliability

Response Rates

As a result of our sampling design and methodology, the response rate for the entire 

survey was 56.4% (1,933 total respondents; +/-2.2% margin of error), with 539 from 

urban counties, 673 from suburban counties, and 721 from rural counties (Table 2). 

Summary information, including frequency distributions for each question on the 

survey, can be found in Sexton et al. (2001).

Table 2. Response rate for the survey of residents of the 11-state 

short-grass prairie region conducted in August-November 2000.

Survey Response Rate Total Urban Suburban Rural

Total Addresses 4,309 1,333 1,550 1,426

Undeliverable Addresses 882

3.7

Nonresponse Bias

We conducted a telephone canvas of those who had not responded to the survey after 

three mailings. We used the telephone follow-up calls to determine if nonrespondents 

to the mail-out survey were different from people who had already returned the 

questionnaire. Our findings are limited in this regard because we did not ask the 

telephone respondents the full panel of questions from the questionnaire. In terms of 

demographics, we cannot compare education, income, race or ethnicity. We did not 

gather data to allow a comparison of differences in knowledge-holding and we asked 

only one question of telephone respondents regarding attitude toward prairie dogs.

We telephoned 50% of nonrespondents, and found that the telephone respondents and 

mail-out respondents differed significantly with respect to age and rurality of county. 

Telephone respondents tended to be older (median age 60 as opposed to 53 for mailout respondents) and were significantly more likely to reside in urban counties than 

mail-out respondents. However, mail-out respondents saw prairie dogs more frequently 

than telephone respondents. There was no demonstrable difference between the 

respondents in terms of gender or whether or not they were employed in an 

agriculturally related occupation. The two groups of respondents did not exhibit a 

difference in how important prairie dogs were compared to other environmental issues.

10
Knowledge

Knowledge was measured in two ways: First, by respondents' familiarity with a set of 

terms related to prairie dogs and, second, by respondents' answers to factual questions 

about black-tailed prairie dog life history.

Knowledge-holding: Familiarity with Terms

Univariate Analysis. Most people are familiar with some terms that are often used in 

management of prairie dogs. Two terms were familiar to most people: more than 80% 

said they knew the terms "burrowing" (90%) and "Endangered Species Act" (85%). 

Four terms were familiar to a majority of respondents: "urban sprawl" (68%), "prairie 

ecosystem" (61%), "habitat conservation" (54%), and "biological vulnerability" (54%). 

Three terms were familiar to approximately a third of respondents: "habitat 

fragmentation" (42%), "Sylvatic Plague" (31%), and "random demographic events" 

(28%). Two terms were familiar to only a very few respondents: "diurnal" (16%) and 

"extirpated" (14%).

Of those terms that were familiar to at least half of respondents, all are found in 

common parlance. Certainly, burrowing is a term in everyday use while Endangered 

Species Act is very frequently mentioned in newspaper or television and radio news 

reports. Urban sprawl is also a term that is in common usage. Other well-known terms 

contain referents that are commonly used such as "conservation" and "vulnerability."

What seems to set these terms apart from the less-well known items is that the less 

familiar terms are specific descriptors of technical aspects of wildlife management. For 

example, random demographic events refers to a phenomenon that must be 

understood in its precise context, Sylvatic Plague is a specific disease, and diurnal and 

extirpated are technical terms in the field biology discipline. Individuals are not likely to 

know these terms without specific training in or exposure to wildlife management. 

Thus, what distinguishes this list of terms is the sharp break between familiar and 

unfamiliar terms. These findings are reported in Table 3.

Urban respondents rated themselves as significantly more knowledgeable about prairie 

dogs (term familiarity index score: 5.59; see Appendix A) than did their rural 

counterparts (term familiarity index score: 5.25; /M).05) but there were no significant 

differences in the scores of suburban and rural or suburban and urban respondents. 

There was also a significant difference between those rated as passive political 

participants (6.14) and active political participants (6.90; /M).00). Each level of 

respondent education and income resulted in significantly higher scores on term 

familiarity (/M).00; the difference between medium and high income was significant at 

/>=0.04).

11
Table 3. Familiarity with terms related to black-tailed 

prairie dog management.

Term

Burrowing

Endangered 

Species Act

Urban sprawl

Prairie ecosystem

Habitat conversion

Biological 

vulnerability

Habitat 

fragmentation

Sylvatic Plague

Random 

demographic 

events

Diurnal

Extirpated

Know meaning

90%

85%

68%

61%

54%

54%

42%

31%

28%

16%

14%

Heard of but 

don't know 

meaning

5%

10%

10%

16%

24%

22%

25%

21%

24%

11%

15%

Don't know 

meaning

5%

5%

22%

23%

22%

25%

34%

49%

48%

73%

71%

Multivariate Analysis. A scale representing familiarity with terms was constructed 

using 11 terms concerning the management of prairie dogs. The scores on the scale 

ranged from 0 to 11. Using this index as the dependent variable, we developed an OLS 

regression model to ascertain which variables seemed to explain the variance in selfassessed knowledge of terms (Table 4). The resulting model demonstrates the 

importance of participation in politics and outdoor recreation, gender, formal education, 

experience with prairie dogs, use of information sources, and people's political ideology 

in explaining respondents' level of self-assessed knowledge.

Because the dependent variable was scored 0 to 11 with the highest score indicating 

familiarity with the most terms, a negative coefficient indicates that the higher the level 

of the independent variable the lower the familiarity index. F-tests results indicate that 

the model is statistically significant and the adjusted R2 indicates that the model 

explains 30% of the variance.

Variables that may be associated with the attentive public political activity and outdoor 

recreation were positively related to familiarity with terms. The model suggests that 

more political participation is associated with increased familiarity with terms. Higher 

levels of self-assessed knowledge were also bolstered by a different kind of activity. 

Those who reported a higher level of outdoor recreation near prairie dog towns were

12
familiar with more of the terms. This is not surprising because those more active in the 

outdoors are more likely to come in contact with prairie dogs. Knowing the location of 

prairie dog towns also contributed to increased familiarity with terms. This increased 

experience with prairie dogs can make the issue more important (i.e., salient) for some 

respondents. Thus, those who participated more in politics and had a direct experience 

with prairie dogs reported higher levels of self-assessed knowledge.

Besides these variables related to attentive publics, there were other types of variables 

that were positively related to familiarity with terms. One of these was respondents' use 

of information sources. People who indicated they received information from personal 

experience and those who consulted printed materials were likely to report that they 

knew the meaning of terms. Socio-demographic characteristics were also important. 

Men reported a higher level of self-assessed knowledge than women. Not surprisingly, 

those with higher levels of education reported increased familiarity with the terms. On 

the other hand, those who said they had a hard time understanding environmental 

issues recorded lower levels of self-assessed knowledge.

Table 4. Ordinary least squares model of self assessed familiarity with terms 

related to black-tailed prairie dogs (Adjusted R*of .304; F=52.679

Sig.=0.000).

Variable

Index of total participation

Highest level of education

Personal experience as a source of 

information

Environmental Issues are hard to 

Understand

Know location of prairie dogs

Index of total outdoor activity

Printed materials as a source of 

information

Gender

Ideology

Unstandardized 

Coefficient B

0.386°

0.300°

0.478b

-0.261 °

0.611°

0.093a

0.346°

-0.495 a

-0.216°

Standardized 

Coefficient B

0.249

0.188

0.083

-0.116

0.101

0.070

0.099

-0.077

-0.133

Significant at p < 0.05.

Significant at p< 0.01.

° Significant at p< 0.001.

13
Knowledge-holding: Factual Knowledge

Univariate Analysis. Close to half of the respondents knew when prairie dogs were 

most active, that they are most often killed by poison, and that plague is the disease 

that can most likely occur in both prairie dogs and humans. These facts deal with some 

form of human-prairie dog interaction. The less well-known facts were those that had to 

do solely with prairie dog life history. Just over a quarter of respondents knew that 

prairie dogs were most closely related to chipmunks. And just 10% knew that prairie 

dogs have one litter per year and live in groups called coteries (Table 5).

Although there were no significant differences between suburban and urban or 

suburban and rural respondents, urban residents (factual knowledge index score: 1.72; 

see Appendix A) were significantly less knowledgeable than their rural counterparts 

(factual knowledge index score: 2.03; />=0.00). There was no significant difference 

between passive and active political participants (P=Q.75), but there was a difference in 

knowledge between low and medium levels of education levels (/*=0.01) and low and 

high education (/>=0.05). Low income respondents were less knowledgeable than 

medium income respondents (/*=0.00) and high income respondents were less 

knowledgeable than medium income respondents (/*=0.04).

Table 5. Percentage of all respondents who correctly answered multiple 

choice fact questions about the life history of Black-tailed prairie dogs.

Fact

Prairie dogs are most active in the daytime

Prairie dogs that interfere with human activity are 

most often killed with poison

A disease that can occur in prairie dogs and 

people is Plague

Prairie dogs are most closely related to 

chipmunks

Prairie dogs have 1 litter each year

Prairie dogs live in groups called coteries

Percent who knew correct 

answer

56%

49%

41%

29%

10%

9%

Multivariate Analysis. J\\z factual knowledge index is an objective measure of 

knowledge. We developed the index by scoring all the correct answers to a series of 

multiple-choice questions as a 1 and all the incorrect answers as a 0 then summing. 

The resulting scale ranged from 0 to 6, with the higher score indicating greater factual 

knowledge.

14
We found a mix of variables to be important in explaining respondents' level of factual 

knowledge about prairie dogs. Those who were more involved in the political system 

knew more facts about prairie dogs than those who participated less. Age was also 

associated with knowing more facts. Older respondents tended to have a higher level of 

factual knowledge than their younger counterparts. Respondents' experience with and 

use of different information sources regarding prairie dogs was also associated with 

their level of factual knowledge. Those who saw prairie dogs more often and reported 

knowing where prairie dog towns were located possessed a higher level of factual 

knowledge than those who lacked these kinds of direct experience. Those who reported 

learning about prairie dogs through personal experience and printed information 

sources, such as government pamphlets, demonstrated a higher level of factual 

knowledge than those who did not use these information resources. The model for 

factual knowledge is presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Ordinary least squares model of factual knowledge with an 

Adjusted ^of .149 (F=29.878 Sig.=0.000).

Variable

Index of total participation

Personal experience as a source of 

information

Printed materials as a source of 

information

Frequency of seeing prairie dogs

Know location of prairie dogs

Age

Unstandardized 

Coefficient B

0.068b

0.217a

0.185C

0.154 C

0.363 c

0.005 a

Standardized 

Coefficient B

0.097

0.083

0.116

0.165

0.135

0.060

Significant at p < 0.05.

Significant at p< 0.01.

c Significant at p< 0.001.

Discussion

The research questions related to knowledge were two-fold: (1) What is the current 

citizen level of knowledge and (2) what explains these levels of knowledge?

What do people know about prairie dogs and their ecology? Not surprisingly, 

respondents were more familiar with terms used in everyday conversation. They 

reported much lower levels of knowledge on more specific and technical terms. For 

example, many respondents knew the meanings of general ecological terms such as 

burrowing, Endangered Species Act, urban sprawl, or habitat conservation. But, only

15
some knew the meanings of terms like Sylvatic plague, habitat fragmentation, or 

extirpated (Table 3).

There was a similar answer when looking at factual knowledge. Respondents were 

more apt to correctly answer questions concerning how humans interact with prairie 

dogs. This was demonstrated with a majority of people (56%) knowing that prairie 

dogs are active in the daytime. Those questions concerning only prairie dogs (e.g., not 

something people are likely to learn from just "interacting" with prairie dogs) were 

missed by a vast majority of people (Table 4).

With respect to both self-assessed and factual knowledge, information that is more 

specific, technical, and harder to attain was less likely to be possessed by the majority 

of respondents. All of this suggests that people may know something about general 

ecology, but when it comes to specifics about prairie dogs, knowledge is not as high.

We examined the results of the multivariate analyses for familiarity with terms and 

factual knowledge. An important difference between these types of knowledge is the 

role of formal education. Education provided part of the explanation for levels of selfassessed knowledge (term familiarity), but not for factual knowledge. People's selfassessed knowledge was also affected by their difficulty in understanding environmental 

issues. This suggests that higher levels of education (e.g., beyond a high school 

degree) can expose people to at least some of the management terms and increase 

their understanding of somewhat complex issues like the environment. On the other 

hand, it seems to be less effective in providing people with specific facts related to 

prairie dogs.

Having examined the major difference, it is important to focus on what these different 

types of knowledge have in common. The analyses suggest that three factors explain 

both factual knowledge and familiarity with terms about prairie dogs and their ecology: 

(1) the importance of information sources, both printed and personal experience; (2) 

knowledge about where prairie dogs are located; and (3) political participation. All of 

this indicates that people who possess higher levels of both self-assessed and factual 

knowledge will be part of an attentive public (e.g., higher levels of political 

participation) that has experience with prairie dogs and is willing to use additional 

information resources to learn more about them.

Participation

Participation refers to respondents' political activity in terms of efforts to influence 

decisions (Question 8: Appendix B). We measured this by asking respondents to answer 

yes or no to a series of activities in which they might have engaged. These questions 

related to attempts to influence "a decision about land use" but were not specific to 

prairie dog management. We categorized respondents into active political participants

16
and passive political participants. Active political participants is an index developed by 

scoring yes as 1 and no as 0 for Question 8, options e (leading a citizen advisory 

group), g (leading a natural resource or environmental interest group), and i (helping 

organize a petition concerning natural resources or the environment). Any respondent 

who answered at least one of these questions with "yes" was labeled as an active 

political participant. Passive political participants is an index developed by scoring yes as 

1 and no as 0 and for Question 8, options a (attending a public hearing), b (contacting 

or writing a state/federal agency), c (contacting or writing an elected official), and h 

(signing a petition concerning natural resources or the environment). Any respondent 

who answered at least one of these questions with a "yes" but did not answer yes to 

active indicators was labeled as a passive political participant. Finally we totaled all yes 

responses for each respondent, which resulted in an index of Total Participation. Scores 

on the Total Participation index ranged from 0 (indicating no participation) to 9 

(indicating high participation).

Univariate Analysis

Forty-six percent of respondents indicated that they had not engaged in any political 

activities. Of the 54% who had participated in at least 1 activity, 83% were categorized 

as passive participants and 16% were categorized as active participants. Active political 

participants were more likely than passive participants to report a familiarity with terms 

(^=0.00) but there was no difference between active and passive participants in terms 

of their factual knowledge (/>=0.75; Appendix A).

The activities in which most people engaged included: "signing a petition" (37%) and 

"attending a public hearing" (36%). Almost a quarter of respondents (24%) said they 

had written an elected representative or state or federal agency. Other activities 

received less participation. Thirteen percent said they had joined a natural resource or 

environmental interest group and fewer than one in ten said they had become a 

member of a citizens advisory group. Even fewer said they had helped organize a 

petition (7%), led a citizen advisory group (3%), or led interest group (2%).

Multivariate Analysis

Political activity is correlated with several variables, which explain about 27% of the 

variance (Table 7). These can be grouped roughly into four categories: perception, 

direct experience, information sources, and demographics. First, perception includes 

post-materialist orientation, self-assessed term familiarity, and attitude toward prairie 

dogs. Measuring post-materialism has been an important ingredient in many surveys of 

the public over the past 10 years. Post-materialism is the feeling that needs (such as a 

desire for belonging, self-expression, and participation in decisions, as well as concern 

for the quality of life) are among the most important personal values. Materialism, on 

the other hand, is defined as the feeling that more basic needs such as economic 

security are more important. In the prairie dog model, those who hold a post17
materialist, rather than materialist orientation were more likely to score well on the total 

participation index. Although there was no significant difference between passive and 

active political participants, those who were either passively or actively participants in 

politics were significantly more likely (/>=0.uuO; Appendix A) to rate themselves as postmaterialist. Those who rated themselves as more familiar with terms and/or who 

believed prairie dogs have a positive benefit to society were also more likely report 

higher levels of political activity.

Second, it is not surprising that direct experience is also a predictor of participation. 

Those who engaged in outdoor recreation are likely to have higher total participation 

scores. This is perhaps explained by the propensity for outdoor recreationists to identify 

with or be concerned about natural resource issues. Those who classified themselves as 

holding agricultural occupations were also likely to be participants. Third, sources of 

information were correlated with higher total participation scores. People who relied on 

printed materials or formal organizational sources of information (e.g., public hearings) 

were more likely to be active in politics.

Fourth, several demographic variables explained higher total participation scores. 

Women were more likely than men to score high on this index as were older persons 

and those with higher levels of formal education (above a high school education). 

Those with higher incomes were likely to report more political participation as well.

Table 7. Ordinary least squares (OLS) model for predictors of total political 

participation (F=35.643, Adjusted ^=0.271, p=0.000).

Variable

Post-Materialism

Familiarity with terms

Attitude toward prairie dogs

Outdoor Activity

Printed materials as source of 

information

Person-to-person communication as 

source of information (formalized 

Communication)

Income

Education

Gender

Agricultural jobs

Unstandardized 

Coefficients B

-0.200 a

0.185 c

0.033 b

0.126 c

0.371 c

0.436 c

0.055 D

0.073 a

0.249 a

0.374 a

Standardized 

Coefficient B

-0.068

0.286

0.077

0.146

0.162

0.114

0.087

0.071

0.060

0.075

Significant at p < 0.05.

Significant at p< 0.01.

c Significant at p< 0.001.

18
Discussion

It is heartening to find that nearly half (48%) of respondents indicated that they had 

engaged in some form of political activity. Although, less than 1 in 10 indicated that 

they engaged in active political participation, 41% said they had at least signed a 

petition, attended a public hearing, or contacted someone in an elective or bureau 

office. Among those who were active, there was a correlation with using printed 

materials as a source of information. This bodes well for the usefulness of newspaper 

articles, pamphlets, and other publications to reach the portion of the public who are 

attentive to policy questions. This group of people is also more likely to be ones who 

have relied on formal organizational communication as a source of information about 

prairie dogs.

The role of basic attitudes is interesting. People who found a positive social benefit from 

prairie dogs were more likely to be more politically active. This may suggest that people 

with positive orientations toward prairie dogs tend to become more active in decisions 

concerning natural resource and environmental issues. Consistent with other findings, 

older, well-educated, higher income people and women were also more likely to be 

politically active. Politically active respondents were also more likely to say that they 

were familiar with more terms. From this pattern we expected to find that those with a 

post-materialist orientation were also more active (as hypothesized by Inglehardt 

1995). Indeed, in this study, post-materialists were more likely than materialists to be 

active in politics. This pattern may suggest that while some political activity is 

associated with affluent citizens who hold more tolerant views toward wildlife, another 

cadre of political activist is characterized by direct experience with the species, holding 

agricultural occupations, and reliance on formal organizational sources of information.

General Environmental Attitudes

To measure general environmental attitudes, we relied on respondents' preference for 

protection of the environment versus growth of the economy, their support of the NEP, 

and their trust in science and technology. Preference for the environment or the 

economy is a fairly straightforward indicator of environmental attitudes. The NEP 

measures the relationship between people and nature. It especially casts that 

relationship in terms of the "spaceship earth" idea in which the earth is said to consist 

of finite resources (Pierce et al. 1989). We chose to measure trust in science and 

technology because those who believe in the promise of scientific progress are thought 

to expect a bright future in which ecological problems are overcome. On this measure, 

trust in science and technology indicates faith that solutions to environmental problems 

can be achieved (Pierce et al. 1989).

19
Environmental Protection versus Economic Growth

Univariate Analysis. We asked respondents to choose a best scenario for natural 

resource management (ranging from protection of the environment to growth of the 

economy as the most important consideration). Thirty nine percent of respondents 

indicated, "protection of the environment should be the most important or only 

consideration." These findings are consistent with other national surveys in which 35% 

to 40% of the public said the environment was among the most important issues 

(Krause 1993; Pleschberger 1995; Smith and Krannich 2000; Ungar 1994).

Interestingly, however, urban and rural residents were significantly different on this 

measure. A significantly higher percentage (48%) of urban county respondents as 

compared to 33% of rural county residents said that the environment was the most 

important consideration. Politically active respondents (42%), women (49%), NEP 

supporters (59%; see explanation below), and respondents who do not support science 

(44%) also felt that the environment was the most important consideration (Table 8).

Multivariate analysis. An index of general environmental attitude was constructed 

using the five options that ranged from rating environmental preservation as most 

important to rating economic growth as most important. Using this index as the 

dependent variable, we estimated an OLS model for respondents' attitudes toward 

environmental protection and economic growth (Table 9). F-tests (F=80.7) indicate that 

the model is statistically significant and the adjusted F? explains 25% of the variance. A 

positive coefficient indicates a favorable attitude toward economic growth.

The model suggests that older people, those with agricultural jobs and those who used 

formal organizational sources for information about the species were more likely to 

support economic growth as opposed to environmental preservation when considering 

natural resource issues, such as black-tailed prairie dog management. This is not 

surprising because those who work in agriculture are more likely to see prairie dogs and 

would likely support economic growth rather than preservation of natural resources.

At the other end of the spectrum were people who supported protecting the 

environment in its natural state. Those who supported the NEP were likely to support 

environmental preservation of natural resources, such as black-tailed prairie dog 

habitat.

20
Table 8. Respondent categories related to general environmental attitudes.

Variable

All Respondents (n=1797)

Urban County Residents 

(n=495)

Suburban County Residents 

(n=608)

Rural County Residents 

(n=678)

No Political Participation 

(n=766)

Active Political Participants 

(n=146)

Passive Political Participants 

(n=774)

No Activity Outdoors (n=570)

Active Outdoor Recreationists 

(n=946)

No Trust in Science (n=354)

Trust in Science (n=342)

LowNEP(n=186)

High NEP (n=720)

Men (n= 1267)

Women (n=487)

Protection of the 

environment

39%

48%

39%

33%

38%

42%

40%

38%

39%

44%

35%

11%

59%

36%

49%

Equal 

consideration

38%

35%

40%

40%

37%

33%

41%

36%

42%

33%

40%

34%

33%

41%

31%

Growth of the 

economy

23%

17%

21%

27%

25%

25%

19%

26%

19%

27%

25%

55%

8%

23%

20%

Table 9. Ordinary least squares model for respondents1 preference for

protection of the environment versus growth of the economy

(Adjusted tf2 =0.252, F=80.717, p=0.000).

Variable

Agriculture jobs

Person-to-person communication as 

source of information (formalized 

communication)

New Environmental Paradigm

Age

Unstandardized 

Coefficient B

0.181a

0.125 a

-0.094D

0.006 b

Standardized 

Coefficient 6

0.071

0.064

-0.461

0.093

Significant at p < 0.05. 

Significant at p< 0.001.

21
New Environmental Paradigm

Univariate Analysis. Previous researchers have characterized the attitudes of the 

public by attempting to classify ecological attitudes into two opposing views: the 

dominant social paradigm and the NEP. Dunlap and Van Liere (1984) found evidence to 

suggest that the dominant social paradigm, which is based upon traditional American 

values and beliefs (for example, hunting and trapping), poses a barrier to developing 

strong pro-environmental orientations. The NEP measures basic orientation toward the 

environment and a high NEP score suggests pro-environmentalist values (Dunlap and 

Van Liere 1978; Van Liere and Dunlap 1980 and 1981). The premise of the new 

environmental paradigm is if persons achieve a high score, they are more likely to have 

increased environmental concern; advocates of the new environmental paradigm are 

more likely to exhibit pro-environmental behavior (Dunlap and Van Liere 1978, Van 

Liere and Dunlapl980 and 1981; Steel and Weber unpublished data available from the 

authors).

We developed an NEP index from answers to a series of statements regarding the 

environment (Appendices A and C). The resulting categories were high, medium, and 

low support for the NEP. Most respondents either had medium (47%) or high (42%) 

support for the NEP. Eleven percent of respondents had low support for the new 

environmental paradigm.

Multivariate Analysis. We found that age, occupation, political ideology, and 

information sources were important in explaining support for the NEP (Table 10). Ftests (F= 17.66) indicate that the model is weak but statistically significant with an 

adjusted Pf explaining 10% of the variance. A positive coefficient indicates support for 

the NEP.

In studies by others, the NEP was correlated with three socio-demographic 

characteristics: age, ideology, and education level (Noe and Snow 1990; Van Liere and 

Dunlap 1980; Steel and Weber unpublished data available from the authors). As with 

those studies we did find a relation between NEP and ideology, with more conservative 

respondents tending to support the dominant social paradigm. We did not find age or 

education level to be significantly correlated with the new environmental paradigm. 

Women and people who used printed materials as information sources about prairie 

dogs were more likely to be associated with the new environmental paradigm (Table 

10).

People who relied on formal organizational sources as a means of gathering information 

on prairie dogs and people who supported science and technology were more likely to 

support the dominant social paradigm (Table 10). Others who held the dominant social 

paradigm attitude included those who frequently see prairie dogs, worked in the 

agricultural sector, and relied on direct experience for information. We are reluctant to

22
ascribe great weight to these findings because of the weakness of the regression 

model.

Table 10. Ordinary least squares for the New Environmental Paradigm 

(Adjusted R? =0.108, F=17.661, p=0.000).

Variable

Person-to-person communication as a 

source of information (formalized 

communication)

Gender

Printed materials as a source of 

information

Trust in science and technology

Ideology

Agriculture jobs

Frequency of seeing prairie dogs

Unstandardized 

Coefficient B

-0.6283

1.015b

0.745 c

-0.195 C

-0.412 b

-2.026 c

-0.310 D

Standardized 

Coefficient B

-0.066

0.098

0.130

-0.146

-0.158

-0.162

-0.093

Significant at p < 0.05.

Significant at p< 0.01.

c Significant at p< 0.001.

Trust in Science and Technology

We developed an index for trust in science and technology by scoring respondent 

answers to a series of statements measuring faith that science can find solutions to 

environmental problems (Appendix A). The resulting categories were high, medium, and 

low trust in science and technology. An overwhelming majority (60%) of people had a 

medium level of trust in science and technology. Twenty percent of the respondents 

had low and high levels of trust in science and technology. The multivariate model 

explaining trust in science and technology was statistically significant but not deemed to 

be meaningful.

Discussion

Foci of this study were (1) to determine what goals people prefer related to protecting 

natural resources and prairie dogs; and (2) what explains people's attitudes toward the 

environment in general.

In answering these questions, it is important to look at such things as direct experience, 

basic perceptions, and important sources of information. Peoples' basic perceptions, 

including political ideology and support of the NEP, have been reinforced by their direct

23
experiences with prairie dogs. The views of political conservatives and those who 

supported the dominant social paradigm took a dim view of protecting the environment. 

Those holding agricultural occupations and who have seen prairie dogs frequently were 

less likely to favor efforts to protect the environment. Formal organizational sources of 

information, such as public hearings, simply worked to compound a general lack of 

support for environmental protection.

For those looking to promote environmental protection, it is an uphill struggle. They 

must deal with the perceptions and values of the opposition, which are reinforced by 

direct experience with prairie dogs. Printed information sources, such as newspapers 

and government pamphlets, seemed to promote more pro-environmental views. Those 

who relied on printed media as an important source of information about prairie dogs 

were more likely to support the NEP and favor environmental protection over economic 

growth. Proponents of environmental protection need to reach out and make their case 

with objective information in whatever communication forum is available. Given the 

importance of printed sources of information to promoting knowledge and political 

participation, this is an avenue that should be explored by those seeking to protect the 

environment in general and prairie dogs in particular.

Attitudes Toward Black-tailed Prairie Dogs

Specific attitudes toward prairie dogs were measured by the level of benefits 

respondents associated with protecting prairie dogs and the seriousness of prairie dog 

issues as compared to other environmental issues.

Benefits of Prairie Dog Management

Univariate Analysis. We used a set of four questions concerning the benefits 

respondents' perceived would accrue to society from the protection of prairie dogs. 

These responses were summed to form an index of the perceived level of benefits that 

would be derived from protecting prairie dogs (Appendix A). Higher scores indicate that 

a respondent viewed protecting prairie dogs as more beneficial than those with lower 

scores. Respondents' scores ranged from 4 to 20. Although 58% felt that there were at 

least moderate benefits to society, respondents who reported an overall "low" level of 

benefits outnumbered those who indicated a "high" level of benefits by a 2 to 1 ratio 

(42-21%; Table 11).

Multivariate Analysis. Ordinary least squares estimates for respondents' attitudes 

concerning the benefits of protecting prairie dogs are presented in Table 12. The 

dependent variable is a scale measuring the perceived benefits to society of protecting 

prairie dogs through various management options (see Appendix A). A positive 

coefficient suggests an increasing level of perceived benefit for protecting prairie dogs. 

F-test results indicate the model is statistically significant. The adjusted R2 indicates the

24
model explains a little over 27% of the variation in respondents' perceptions of the level 

of benefit received from protecting prairie dogs.

Socio-demographic factors provide an important part of the explanation. Older 

respondents and those employed in the agricultural sector were less likely to see a 

benefit from protecting prairie dogs than those who were younger and employed in 

other types of occupations. Respondents who lived in more rural counties or who 

reported seeing the animals more frequently were less likely to view protecting prairie 

dogs as highly beneficial.

There are other factors that offer an insight into these attitudes. Electronic media and 

person-to-person communication with friends and neighbors provide a contrasting view 

of the role of information sources in determining respondents' attitudes. Those who find 

electronic information sources useful were more likely to find protecting prairie dogs 

beneficial. However, those who relied on friends and neighbors for their information 

concerning prairie dogs were less likely to view protection in a positive light. 

Respondents who identified themselves with the NEP were more likely to see protecting 

prairie dogs as beneficial than were those more closely identified with the Dominant 

Social Paradigm. Those who reported having a more conservative political ideology 

were more likely to place a lower value on protecting prairie dogs.

Table 11. Social Benefits Provided by Prairie Dog Management.

Benefits

Low Benefits

Medium Benefits

High Benefits

Total

Score Range

4-9

10-14

15-20

Number of 

Respondents

747

654

378

1779

Percent

42.0

36.8

21.2

100.0

25
Table 12. Ordinary least squares model of benefits of managing to protect 

prairie dogs (Adjusted £*=0.274; F= 46.063; p=0.000)

Variable

Frequency of seeing prairie dogs

Ideology

NEP

Person-to-person communication as a 

source of information (friends & neighbors)

Electronic media as a source of information

Age

Agriculture jobs

Respondents' residence

Unstandardized 

Coefficient B

-0.527C

-0.225b

0.313 c

-0.6499

0.539 c

-0.032 c

-1.899 c

-0.062 b

Standardized 

Coefficient B

-0.170

-0.092

0.334

-0.066

0.086

-0.109

-0.162

-0.069

Significant at p < 0.05.

Significant at p< 0.01.

c Significant at p< 0.001.

Seriousness of Prairie Dog Problem

Univariate Analysis. Respondents were asked about the importance of deciding what 

to do about prairie dogs compared to other environmental problems in their state. 

Approximately 31% of respondents indicated that deciding what to do with prairie dogs 

was as important or more important than other environmental problems. However, 

69% felt the prairie dog problem was less important or not even an issue at all. Overall, 

this seems to indicate that deciding what to do about prairie dog populations is not a 

pressing issue for most respondents (Table 13).

Table 13. Respondent perceptions of the seriousness of the

prairie dog problem.

Protecting Prairie Dogs Is

One of the most serious environmental problems

About the same as any other issue

Less important than other environmental issues

Not an issue at all

Total

Frequency

142

433

676

628

1879

Percent

7.6

23.0

36.0

33.4

100.0

Multivariate Analysis. Ordinary least squares estimates for respondents' attitudes 

concerning the relative importance of deciding what to do about protecting prairie dogs 

compared with other environmental problems are presented in Table 14. Because of the

26
way the dependent variable (Seriousness of the prairie dog problem; Appendix A) is 

scored (1 = Protecting prairie dogs is one of the more serious issues to 4 = Protecting 

prairie dogs is not an issue at all), a negative coefficient indicates that respondents see 

protecting prairie dogs as a serious issue when compared to other environmental 

problems. This model is statistically significant.

We found that a variety of variables explained respondents' attitude toward the 

importance of deciding what to do about prairie dogs. Respondents who reported 

possessing a more conservative political ideology were less likely to view prairie dogs as 

a serious issue. Those who were employed in the agricultural sector were much less 

likely to view protecting prairie dogs as a serious issue than were those employed in 

other types of occupations. As with the question of social benefits from prairie dog 

protection, respondents who identified with the NEP and found electronic information 

sources to be highly useful were more likely to view protecting prairie dogs as a serious 

issue. Interestingly, those with more formal education were more likely to view prairie 

dogs as not even being an issue at all.

Table 14. Ordinary least squares model of seriousness of the prairie dog 

problem. (Adjusted £2=0.122; F= 27.548; p=0.000)

Variables:

NEP

Agriculture jobs

Electronic media as a source of information

Ideology

Education

Unstandardized 

Coefficient B

-0.054C

0.262b

-0.177 c

0.047 b

0.033a

Standardized 

Coefficient B

-0.266

0.104

-0.131

0.089

0.063

Significant at p < 0.05. 

b Significant at p< 0.01. 

c Significant at p< 0.001.

Discussion

The research questions regarding attitudes toward prairie dogs were two-fold: (1) What 

are citizens' attitudes/preferences regarding prairie dogs and (2) What are the factors 

that explain differences in attitudes? We examined those questions by (1) looking at 

the level of benefits to society people perceive are provided by management that is 

aimed at prairie dog protection and (2) asking how important the problem of deciding 

what to do about prairie dog protection is in relation to other environmental issues.

Citizens generally reported unfavorable attitudes toward black-tailed prairie dogs. As 

has been suggested by earlier research (Reading et al. 1999; Zinn and Andelt 1999),

27
negative attitudes were associated with familiarity with the animal. Those who 

frequently saw, were in occupations that might bring them in contact with, or relied on 

friends and neighbors for information about prairie dogs felt that the protection of the 

rodents was less beneficial to society and not as important as other environmental 

issues. Negative attitudes were also associated with older respondents and those who 

possessed a more conservative political ideology. Environmentalists (identified with the 

NEP) and those who relied on electronic media for their information were less 

negatively disposed.

Although this pattern seems to suggest a rural/urban divide in attitude toward prairie 

dogs, those geographic factors did not emerge as significant in our models. More than 

where people live (unless they live near prairie dog colonies), it is direct experience with 

the animals that seems to predict attitude. Even the reliance on electronic media (i.e., 

radio and television) versus person-to-person contacts (e.g., friends and neighbors) for 

information bespeaks this same phenomenon. The divide of overall orientation 

augments the divide of direct experience, with environmentalists and those with more 

liberal political ideologies being more favorably disposed toward prairie dogs.

This suggests a daunting challenge for wildlife managers. Protection of prairie dogs 

does not evoke images of environmental protection, suggesting that the idea of these 

burrowing rodents as keystone species has not taken root in the perceptions of the 

general public. The most successful symbols of environmental concern are ones that 

evoke a fear of eminent ecological disaster. Prairie dogs may achieve that status only 

with environmentalists. Factors like direct experience (e.g., frequency of sighting and 

agricultural jobs) are associated with negative attitudes towards prairie dogs. Wildlife 

managers may have to find avenues to reduce the potential for harm that may be 

caused by the populations that do exist. Changing these negative perceptions will rely 

on using different forms of communication to demonstrate the relation of a keystone 

species to other environmental amenities. Wildlife managers should attempt to use print 

media as well as sources like the Internet to present a more positive image of the 

prairie dog.

The Role of Rurality

We specifically designed this study to examine the role of rurality in knowledge of and 

attitudes toward black-tailed prairie dogs. To do this, we divided our sample into 

counties that were rural, suburban, and urban. These categories were based on the 

rurality index developed by Cleland (1995). The role of rurality seemed to be an 

important question for two reasons. First it seemed important because a difference 

between rural and urban residents had been reported in the literature on attitudes 

about prairie dogs (e.g., Reading 1993; Zinn and Andelt 1999). Second, understanding 

the difference between rural and urban residents seemed important because it might 

provide insight into developing effective outreach and public involvement programs for

28
wildlife management agencies. We found that rurality itself was only once an 

explanatory factor in models of attitude toward or knowledge of prairie dogs. But some 

variables related to rurality do seem to be important.

In support of the findings of Reading (1993), we found a difference between rural and 

urban residents in terms of general environmental attitudes. When asked how residents 

would balance environmental protection and economic progress, the vast majority of 

respondents (77% overall) and the majority of urban, suburban, and rural residents 

said that the environment and economy should be balanced or the environment should 

be emphasized (Table 8). But urban county respondents were significantly (/M).000) 

more likely to express environmental attitudes than were rural residents.

However, when we ran the regression models, rurality was a significant factor only in 

explaining attitude toward the social benefits of managing to protect prairie dogs. The 

variables that more frequently emerged as important were agricultural jobs and 

frequency of seeing prairie dogs. Zinn and Andelt (1999) reported that people who 

most commonly saw prairie dogs (especially those living close to prairie dog colonies) 

were more likely to have generally negative attitudes toward them. In our examination 

of general environmental orientation we found that frequency of seeing prairie dogs 

was likely to be associated with lower environmentalist scores.

Another example in which direct experience with the animals was associated with lower 

levels of environmentalism was in the analysis of the NEP. In the regression model 

(Table 10) people were less likely to hold the NEP if they were in agricultural jobs or 

frequently saw prairie dogs. These examples illustrate that factors related to rurality are 

significant indicators even when rurality, itself, is not.

Residence in a rural county was not related to general attitudes on protection of the 

environment. However, factors related to a rural experience i.e., agricultural jobs and 

frequency of seeing prairie dogs were important. Certainly, people who have 

agricultural jobs and see prairie dogs more often are likely to be rural residents or travel 

in rural areas. Beyond that, the data seem to suggest that formal organizational sources 

of information such as public hearings or meetings-is an element in the development 

of environmental attitudes.

This is supported by the data regarding people's attitudes toward prairie dogs 

specifically. Rurality was a factor, along with frequency of seeing prairie dogs and 

agricultural jobs, when we asked respondents to tell us whether they believed prairie 

dogs to be beneficial to society (Table 12). People from rural counties were more likely 

to view prairie dogs as providing little or no benefits to society. Similarly, when asked 

about the seriousness of the problem of deciding what to do about prairie dogs, most 

people did not think the animals were part of a serious problem (Table 14). 

We thought that residence in a rural county would also be associated with higher levels 

of knowledge about prairie dogs. That proved to be untrue. In the question about

29
respondents' familiarity with terms rural, suburban, or urban county of residence was 

not a significant factor. People who frequently see prairie dogs and those who know 

where the nearest prairie dog town was located were more likely to know both terms 

and facts. People with direct experience knew more.

In conclusion, we did not find that residence in rural counties was directly tied to 

knowledge of prairie dogs. However, we did find that residence in a rural county was 

associated with believing in low social benefits from protecting the animals. One reason 

for this is that sampling rural counties means surveying people who live in towns, small 

cities, as well as on farms and ranches. The factors explaining attitudes and knowledge 

about prairie dogs seem to be related to direct experience because those factors (e.g., 

frequency of seeing the animals, and agricultural occupation) increase the salience of 

the prairie dog issue for these people.

Prairie Dogs in Context 

General Environmental Attitudes

In a 1999 study of the general public The Pew Research Center for the People and the 

Press (2000) asked respondents to weigh two options about environmental protection. 

People were asked to choose between these statements: "Stricter environmental laws 

and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy" or Stricter environmental 

laws and regulations are worth the cost." Pew found that 62% (margin of error ±8%) 

favored the statement that environmental laws were worth the cost.

We made a similar inquiry, when we asked respondents to choose one out of three 

options: "Protection of the environment should be the most important or only 

consideration," "Equal consideration to protection of environment and growth of the 

economy," or "Growth of the economy should be the most important or only 

consideration." We found that 39% of respondents believed the environment should be 

the only or main consideration and 77% believed that the emphasis of environmental 

policy should be on the environment or a balance between environment and the 

economy (23% said the economy should be the most important or only consideration).

In both surveys, more than 6 in 10 people said that the environment was an important 

consideration. In another question from the Pew study (Pew 2000), 81% said that they 

(either completely or mostly) agreed with the statement that "there need to be stricter 

laws and regulations to protect the environment." In that same survey, 79% said that 

they "personally worry" about "the loss of natural habitat." This compares with findings 

from the Gallup organization in 1989 and 1990 that more than 8 in 10 respondents said 

they personally worry about the loss of natural habitat (Pew 2000). 

When the Pew (2000) study asked the question about personal worries, about 70% said 

they worried about a wide variety of environmental issues, ranging from the ozone

30
layer to loss of tropical rain forests. From the Pew (2000) study it appears that people 

worry about pollution and other threats. They worry about environmental issues that 

might be considered distant or general problems. In a question similar to ours, almost 7 

in 10 respondents (66%; Pew 2000) said they had confidence in environmental groups 

to strike the right balance between protecting the environment and keeping the 

economy growing. All of this speaks to a reservoir of concern about the environment.

Attitudes Toward Black-tailed Prairie Dogs

However, when it comes to more particular issues and problems that are closer to 

home, citizens reported a lower level of concern or worry. For example, the Pew (2000) 

study found that "commercial development of open space" is a concern to fewer people 

(59%). Other researchers have found that prairie dogs are a specific example of this 

phenomenon (Reading et al. 1999; Zinn and Andelt 1999).

In our study area, only 3 in 10 (Table 13) said they believed deciding what to do about 

prairie dog management held about the same or more importance as other 

environmental problems. Sixty-nine percent believed it was a less important problem or 

not an issue at all. People were concerned about specific issues related to prairie dogs: 

about 4 out of 10 thought disease prevention was an important management question; 

a quarter of respondents said ranch and farm operations were the most important issue 

and only 11% said habitat protection was the most important issue (taken together, 

32% said that habitat protection and private land development were the least important 

issues).

Although more than half (58%; Table 11) of the people we surveyed perceived some 

social benefits from protecting prairie dogs, people with direct experience of prairie 

dcgs were less likely to find benefits from protecting them (Table 12). This response 

places prairie dogs in the position of one of the less salient environmental issues; far 

less important to the public than problems like toxic waste (83%; Pew 2000); the ozone 

layer (68%; Pew 2000); water pollution (78%; Pew 2000); or even the greenhouse 

effect (58%; Pew 2000).

The percentage of citizens who reported positive benefits from protecting prairie dogs 

in our study is similar to those who believed the United States was "losing ground" in its 

fight against environmental pollution (27%: Pew 2000). In short, protecting prairie dogs 

is not an issue that has much traction with the public.

Knowledge of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs

The lack of traction is related to three interlocking elements: salience (a combination of 

visibility and importance), knowledge (and sources of knowledge), and negative 

experience. Understanding people's knowledge about prairie dogs is an important first 

step in working on these three elements. People do not see prairie dogs as

31
environmentally important; they do see them as sometimes harmful or threatening; and 

they do not really know much about the animals.

Who does know about natural resource management? It has already been 

demonstrated that there is a difference between the knowledge levels of the general 

public and managers or politicians who specialize in natural resources. Pierce and 

Lovrich (1986) showed that there is a difference in knowledge between the attentive 

and general public. On some issues, the difference is not great. Pierce et al. (1989) 

reported that 30% of the public, 32% of environmentalists, and 21% of officials knew 

about sources of soil pollution. Steel and his colleagues (1990) reported that the 

average respondent said they were familiar with 6 of 10 technical terms associated with 

environmental risk and scored 7 on a 10-point scale of knowledge of pollution sources. 

In another example, Cantrell et al. (2000) found that only 31% of "community leader" 

respondents could correctly identify the amount of "protected land" in the area in which 

they live. But on other issues, there is a great difference between the attentive and 

general public. Pierce et al. (1989) reported that 62% of the public and 81% of officials 

knew about sources of water pollution, and 51% of the public knew about phosphate 

pollution as compared with 72% of officials, 64% of civic group members, and 62% of 

environmentalists. In other words, it is not only managers who have specialized 

knowledge; those who are active in or give attention to natural resource issues also 

possess knowledge.

Knowledge of prairie dogs is a fairly specialized type of information. Is knowledge 

holding about prairie dogs similar to peoples' knowledge of other environmental issues? 

Looking at two non-wildlife-related environmental issues, Pew (2000) found that 62% 

were able to give a correct answer to a question about "the greenhouse effect" and 

45% knew that the United States produces more carbon dioxide that other countries 

with similar populations. We divided our terms into those that seemed to be in common 

use and those of a more specialized nature. Between 50% and 90% told us they knew 

the meaning of many of the terms commonly used to discuss prairie dogs. However, far 

fewer (40% to less than 20%) said they knew the meaning of terms specific to prairie 

dogs.

We found a similar differentiation in the results of the objective evaluation of 

respondent knowledge (Tables 5 and 6). Although almost 6 in 10 respondents knew 

that prairie dogs were active in the daytime and a plurality knew the animals are most 

frequently killed with poison and can carry plague, far fewer (10%) knew that prairie 

dogs have only one litter per year or that they are related to chipmunks (29%). Many 

people have some knowledge of prairie dogs, but few know detailed facts.

Interestingly, urban respondents said that they knew more terms than did their rural 

counterparts. But the factors associated with objective knowledge about prairie dogs 

were related to direct experience with the animals and political participation (Table 6).

32
Those engaged in active political participation were also more likely to be familiar with 

terms and know facts (Table 4).

It may be a problem for outreach efforts about prairie dog protection that urban 

dwellers seem to think they know more terms than they actually know facts. However, 

the central finding for addressing the traction issue is that knowledge is associated with 

those who said they frequently see, live near, or hold agricultural occupations that 

might put them in contact with the animals or are active in politics. It may be 

reasonable to consider those who are politically active and those who have direct 

experience with the animals as comprising the attentive public.

We saw, in Table 7, that higher income, higher education, and more outdoor activity as 

well as women and those with agricultural jobs were associated with higher total 

political activity. Of that group agricultural occupation was associated with a negative 

attitude toward prairie dogs (Tables 12 and 14). Personal experience as a source of 

information was important in shaping knowledge while formal organizational sources of 

information was important in shaping general environmental attitude.

This suggests that the role of the wildlife manager may be most effective when it seeks 

out those who are already actively participating in natural resource issues in addition to 

performing the necessary role of meeting the general public, answering questions in 

public forums, and presenting information to citizen groups. Those who are politically 

active but not currently engaged in the prairie dog debate might be important 

audiences for updated information. Presentation of prairie dog information in forums 

and styles that are more personal and experiential may be the most effective strategy 

(see, for example, Firth 1998). It seems apparent that information-sharing that focuses 

on the urban citizen should include more opportunities for personal interaction with 

prairie species emphasizing the general environmental benefits and experiencedbased learning about the role of a keystone species.

Knowledge of prairie dogs does not seem to be associated with positive attitudes 

toward the importance or need for protection of the animals. The first step in 

addressing this divide is to work toward a consensus among scientists on the relation 

between prairie dog protection and human use of public and private lands. Beyond that 

needed first step, reversing negative perceptions will require demonstrating how a 

keystone species is related to other environmental amenities and affects quality of life. 

That connection can probably be made only anecdotally. Wildlife managers may find it 

efficacious to use commonly available print media, as well as outlets like the Internet, 

to present scientific findings and give concrete examples. Those findings might be most 

effective if explained in terms of personal experience.

Wildlife managers must overcome the apparent perception among most citizens that 

the protection of prairie dogs is not a major environmental concern. More information, 

better explained, might expand the public's knowledge but there is no guarantee that

33
increased information will result in more positive public perceptions. People seem to be 

aware of the environment as an important question for the nation and favor protection 

of the environment. But many competing issues are raised in the name of 

environmental protection and it is probably difficult for citizens who do not have firsthand experience with a species to sort among those issues and focus on ones that are 

immediately relevant. To address this, wildlife managers could focus on providing 

indications to the public about how to evaluate environmental problems. For example, 

the decision by the USFWS in 2000 to not immediately list the black-tailed prairie dog 

as a threatened species is one way to transmit a professional assessment of relative 

environmental priorities.

Our findings suggest that public discussion of prairie dog protection could be aided by 

increasing the relevant knowledge and vocabulary of citizens. This is a worthy objective 

for wildlife managers. It is noteworthy that the attentive public especially those who 

attend meetings, write letters, and the like, as well as those having direct experience 

(especially in the form of routine, frequent exposure to prairie dogs) are more 

knowledgeable. But it is also important to note that these same factors did not help 

explain attitudes. In fact, increasing the breadth of the public knowledge domain may 

shift the debate over prairie dog management in ways that cannot be foreseen. This 

suggests that concentrating on the attentive public may not build a bridge to greater 

general appreciation of prairie dogs. That bridge is more likely to arise from helping 

people see personal consequences. This can be done if people recognize the animals in 

the wild, know how they live and the role they play in the ecosystem, have access to 

trusted sources of information about the problems they cause, and understand the 

range of viable management options.

Acknowledgements

Although the descriptions and analysis in this completion report are the responsibility of 

the authors, we are grateful for the review comments provided by Dr. Shana Gillette, 

and outside reviewers: John C. Pierce, Brent Steel, and Delwin Benson.

34
References

Barnes, A.M. 1993, A review of plague and its relevance to prairie dog populations and the black-footed

ferret, in Oldemeyer, IT., and others, eds., Management of prairie dog complexes for

reintroduction of the black-footed ferret, Biological Report 13, Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, p. 28-37. 

Becker, M.L, 1993, The International Joint Commission and public participation: Past experiences,

present challenges, future tasks, Natural Resources Journal'33(2): 235-274.

Behan, R.W., 1990, The RPA/NFMA: Solution to a nonexistent problem, Journal of Forestry 88(5):20-25. 

Bimber, B., 2001, Information and political engagement in America: The search for effects of information

technology at the individual level, Political Research Quarterly 54(1):53-67. 

Blalock, H. M., 1972, Social statistics (2d ed.): New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company.

http://www.cswe.org/publications/jswe/00-3ed.htm 

Cantrell, J., Potter, T., and Stephenson, W., 2000, Protected areas and regional sustainability: Surveying

decision makers in the Lake Superior Basin, Natural Resources Journal W(w'mter)\ 19-45. 

Cleland, C.L, 1995, Measuring reality, Human Services in the Rural Environmental^ 18(4):13-18. 

Collingridge, D., and C. Reeve, 1986, Science speaks to power: The role of experts in policymaking: New

York, St. Martins Press. 

Coluccy, J.M., Drobney, R.D., Graber D.A., Sheriff S.L, and Witter, DJ. 2001, Attitudes of central

Missouri residents toward local giant Canada geese and management alternatives, Wildlife Society

Bulletin 2$ (\)\ 116-123. 

Cupps, D.S., 1976, Emerging problems of citizen participation, Public Administration Review 37(5):478-

487.

Denver Rocky Mountain News, August 8, 2000. Most in state call prairie dogs pests, p. 4A. 

Dillman, D.A., 1978, Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method: New York, John Wiley & Sons. 

Dillman, D.A., 2000, Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method: New York, John Wiley &

Sons. 

Dolan, C.C., 1999, The national grasslands and disappearing biodiversity: Can the prairie dog save us

from an ecological desert?, EnvironmentalLaw79: 213-234. 

Dunlap, T.R., 1988, Saving america's wildlife: Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press. 

Dunlap, R.E., and Van Liere, K.D., 1978, The 'New Environmental Paradigm,1 . Journal of Environmental

Education 9(4): 10-19. 

 1984, Commitment to the dominant social paradigm and concern for environmental quality, Social

Science Quarterly tt\ 1013-1028. 

Ezrahi, Y., 1980, Utopian and pragmatic rationalism: The political context of scientific advice, Minerva: A

Review of Science, Learning and Policy 81(?):111-131. 

Firth, P., 1998, Freshwater: Perspectives on the integration of research, education, and decision making,

Freshwater Systems 8(3) :601-609. 

Gericke, K.L, and Sullivan, J., 1994, Public participation and appeals, Society and Natural Resources

7(2):125-135. 

Graber, K., and France, T., 1998, Petition for rule listing the black-tailed prairie dog as threatened

throughout its range, National Wildlife Federation, petitioner to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Inglehardt, R., 1995, Public support for environmental protection: Objective problems and subjective

values in 43 societies, PS: Political Science 28(1): 57-71. 

Jacobson, S.K., and Marynowski, S.B., 1997, Public attitudes and knowledge about ecosystem

management on Department of Defense land in Florida, Conservation Biology11(3): 770-781. 

Kellert, S.R., 1985, Social and perceptual factors in endangered species management, Journal of Wildlife

Management49(2): 528-536. 

Kellert, S.R., and Clark, T.W., 1991, The theory and application of a wildlife policy framework, in Mangun,

W.R., and Nagel, S.S., eds., Public policy and wildlife conservation: New York, Greenwood Press, p.

17-36. 

Knopf, F.L, 1993, Avian assemblages on altered grasslands, Studiesin Avian Biology'15: 247-257.

35
Kotliar, N.B., Baker, B.W., Whicker, A.D., and Plumb, G., 1999, A critical review of assumptions about the

prairie dog as a keystone species, EnvironmentalManagement74(2): 177-192. 

Krause, D., 1993, Environmental consciousness: An empirical study, Environment and Behav/or 25(1):

126-142. 

Lee, C.D., and Henderson, R., 1989, Kansas attitudes on prairie dog control, Paper presented at Ninth

Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop, Fort Collins, CO, April 18-20. 

Long, M.E., 1998, The vanishing prairie dog, National Geographic 193(4): 116-130. 

Luskin, R.C., 1993, Explaining political sophistication, in Niemi, R.G., and Weisberg, H.F. (eds),

Controversies in voting behavior (3d ed.): Washington, DC, Congressional Quarterly, p. 114-136. 

McCool, S.F., and Guthrie, K., 2001, Mapping the dimensions of successful public participation in messy

natural resources management situations, Society and Natural Resources 14:309-323. 

Messmer T.A., Brunson, M.W., Reiter, D., and Hewitt, D.G., 1999, United States public attitudes regarding

predators and their management to enhance avian recruitment, Wildlife Society Bulletin 27 (1): 75-

85. 

Noe, F.P., and Snow, R., 1990, The new environmental paradigm and further scale analysis, Journal of

Environmental Education 21(4): 20-26. 

Pierce, 1 C., and Lovrlch, N.P., 1986, Water resources, democracy and the technical information

quandary: Millwood, NY, Associated Faculty Press, Inc. 

Pierce, 1 C., Lovrich, N.P., Tsurutani, T., and Abe, T., 1989, Public knowledge and environmental politics

in Japan and the United States: Boulder, CO, Westview Press. 

Pleschberger, W., 1995, Environmental concern of the local elite, Annals of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science 540: 90-104. 

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 2000, Performance and purpose: Constituents rate

government agencies, (www.peopie-press.org/questionnaires/nprOOaue.htm [08.09.01]). 

Randall, D., 1976, Shoot the damn prairie dogs!, Defenders 51(6): 378-381. 

Reading, R., 1993, Toward an endangered species ^introduction paradigm: A case study of the blackfooted ferret, Ph.D. Dissertation: Yale University, New Haven, CT. 

Reading, R.P., Miller, BJ., and Kellert, S.R., 1999, Values and attitudes toward prairie dogs, Anthrozoos

12(l):43-52.

Sanko, 1, 2000, Prairie dogs doing fine, says new report, Denver Rocky Mountain News. (14 November). 

Selin, S.W., Schuett, M.A., and Carr, D.S., 1997, Has collaborative planning taken root in the national

forests?, Journal of Forestry 95(5): 25-28. 

Sexton, N., Brinson, A. Ponds, P.D., Cline, K., and Lamb, B.L, 2001, Citizen knowledge and perception of

black-tailed prairie dog management: Report to respondents: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File

Report 01-467, 23 p. (http://www.mesc.usgs.gov/products/pubs/10001/10001.shtml). 

Smith, M.D., and Krannich, R.S., 2000, 'Culture Clash' revisited: Newcomer and longer-term residents'

attitudes toward land use, development, and environmental issues in rural communities in the

Rocky Mountain West, RuralSociology 65(3): 396-421. 

Steel, B.S., Soden, D.L, and Warner, R.L., 1990, The impact of knowledge and values on perceptions of

environmental risk to the Great Lakes, Society and Natural Resources 3:331-348. 

Ungar, S., 1994, Apples and oranges: probing the attitude-behaviour relationship for the environment,

Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 31(3): 288-304. 

U.S. Forest Service, 1978, Management of prairie dogs on lands administered by the supervisor of the

Nebraska National Forest, in Sutton, L (ed.), Prairie dog management: USDA Forest Service

Environmental Statement (USDA-FS-R2-FES). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1999, Positive 90-day finding for a petition to list the black-tailed prairie

dog: Washington, DC: http://frwebQate.access.gpo.QOv/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname= 1999 register&docid=99-7273-filed 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6,1991, Utah prairie dog

recovery plan: Salt Lake City, Utah and Denver, Colorado. 

Van Liere, K.D., and Dunlap, R.E., 1980, The social basis of environmental concern: A review of

hypotheses, explanations, and empirical evidence, Public Opinion Quarterly 44, 181-197.

36
 1981, Environmental concern: Does it make a difference how it's measured, Environment and

Behavior 13: 651-684. 

Verba, S.,Schlozman, K.L, and Brady, H.E., 1995, Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American

politics: Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

Wolfinger, R.E., and Rosenstone. SJ., 1980, Who votes?: New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 

Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, 2000, Prairie dogs get needed protection: Wyoming Tribune-Eagle. (December

05), A9. 

Zinn, H., and Andelt, W., 1999, Attitudes of Fort Collins, Colorado residents toward prairie dogs, Wildlife

SocietyBulletin 27(4): 1098-1106. 

Zelezny, L, 1999, Educational interventions that improve environmental behaviors: A meta-analysis, The

Journal of Environmental Education 31(1):5-14.

37

Appendix A: Description of Indices and Table of Variables

Term Familiarity: This scale was constructed by summing a respondent's answer for 

items Q5a thru Q5k. Respondents received a score of 1 if they reported "Knowing the 

meaning and a 0 if they reported either "Heard of but don't know meaning" or "Have 

not heard of the term." Scores can range from 0 to 11. Reliability analysis was 

performed to construct this scale. Its Alpha coefficient was .8501.

Term Familiarity Expert: Respondents were classified as experts with respect to 

terms if they met two criteria. First, they had to know at least 8 out of 11 of these 

terms (Q5a through Q5k). Second, items Q5c and Q5e had to be among the terms they 

report knowing.

Active Political Participation: This index was constructed by summing Yes (1) and 

No (0) responses to items Q8e, Q8g, and Q8i. If a respondent answered Yes to any of 

these items, they were considered to be involved in an active form of political 

participation.

Passive Political Participation: This index was constructed by summing the Yes (1) 

and No (0) responses to items Q8a, Q8b, Q8c, and Q8h. If a respondent answered Yes 

to any of these items, they were considered to be involved in a passive form of political 

participation.

Total Political Participation: This index was constructed by summing the Yes (1) 

and No (0) responses to items Q8a thru Q8i. Scores ranged from 0 to 9.

Trust in Science: This index was constructed by summing a respondent's answers to 

items Q12a thru Q12d. Items Q12b, Q12c, and Q12d were recoded so that higher 

scores reflected a support of science. Scores could range from 4 to 20 with higher 

scores indicating more trust in science.

Person-to-Person Information Sources (Friends and Neighbors): This index 

was constructed from the response to item Q9a. Respondents indicating that they 

either use the source "Some" or "A Great Deal" received a 1. Responses of "None" and 

"Not Much" received a 0. Scores are either a 0 or 1.

Person-to-Person Information Sources (Formalized Communication): This 

index was constructed from the responses to items Q9e, Q9f and Q9g. Respondents 

indicating that they either use the source "Some" or "A Great Deal" received a 1. 

Responses of "None" and "Not Much" received a 0. Scores range from 0 to 3. The 

reliability coefficient for this scale (Cronbach's Alpha) was 0.60.

Printed Information Sources (PRISOURC): This index was constructed by 

summing responses to items Q9d, Q9h, Q9j, and Q9I. Respondents indicating that they

39
either use the source "Some" or "A Great Deal" received a 1. Responses of "None" and 

"Not Much" received a 0. Scores ranged from 0 to 4.

Electronic Information Sources (ELESOURC): This index was constructed by 

summing responses to items Q9b, Q9c, and Q9i. Respondents indicating that they 

either use the source "Some" or "A Great Deal" received a 1. Responses of "None" and 

"Not Much" received a 0. Scores could range from 0 to 3.

Personal Experience as Sources (PESOURC): This item was constructed by 

recoding item Q9k. Respondents indicating that they either use the source "Some" or "A 

Great Deal" received a 1. Responses of "None" and "Not Much" received a 0. Scores 

were either 0 or 1.

Postmaterialism (POSTMAT): This index was constructed by a combination of 

responses on items Qlla and Qllb. If respondents indicated that answers "b" and "d" 

were their first and second choice for this country's future goals, they were considered 

to be postmaterialist. Both "b" and "d" are considered to be postmaterialist values. If 

respondents indicated that answers "a" and "c" should be the future goals of this 

country, they were classified as traditional. Answers "a" and "c" are considered to be 

traditional values. If respondents mixed these answer sets, then they were considered 

to in a "mixed" values category. This construction generated scores of 1, 2, and 3 

(1 = postmaterialist, 2 = mixed values, 3 = traditional).

New Environmental Paradigm (NEP): This index was constructed by summing 

responses to items Q12f thru Q12j. Items Q12i and Q12j were recoded so that a higher 

score reflected a positive orientation to the NEP. Scores could range from 5 to 25 with 

higher scores indicating more support for the NEP.

Perceived Level of Benefits to Society: The index used to create this measure was 

produced from questionnaire items Qla.l - Qla.4. The first three items (Qla.l - 

Qla.3) were recoded to reflect a positive orientation towards the protection of prairie 

dogs. The reliability coefficient (Cronbach's Alpha) for the index was .8011. This 

suggests that respondents were mostly consistent in their response patterns for the 

additive scale and that scale components were intercorrelated.]

Importance of Protecting Prairie Dogs: This index was constructed from question 

Ib. Respondent scores ranged from 1 to 4. A score of 1 indicates that the respondent 

placed a high value on protecting prairie dogs (e.g., one of the more serious 

environmental problems in my state). A score of 4 indicates that respondents feel 

protecting prairie dogs "is not an issue at all."

40
Table of Variables Showing Measures of Central Tendency

Independent Variables Mean Score Standard 

Deviation

Socio-demographic indicators

Age in years

Respondent's gender

Highest level of formal education

Agriculture occupational status

Annual family income

Racial origin

Respondent's county of residence (rurality): rural, 

suburban, or urban

52.84

.72 

Female=0 Male=l

6.67 (1-10)

.19 

NoAgjob=0 Agjob=l

5.14 (1-12)

.94 

Non-white=0 White=l

9.32 (0-18) 

higher score indicates more 

rural

15.94

.49

1.84

.39

2.92

.23

4.63

Experience with prairie dogs

How often respondents see prairie dogs

Know how far primary residence is from a prairie dog town

Index of total outdoor activity near prairie dog towns

/.3ft (0-4) 

higher number indicates 

more often

.68 (0-1)

2.05 (0-8)

1.43

.47

2.17

Sources of information Indicators

Learned about prairie dogs from person-to-person 

information sources (Friends and Neighbors)

Learned about prairie dogs from person-to-person 

information sources (Formalized communication)

Learned about prairie dogs from printed information 

sources

Learned about prairie dogs from electronic information 

sources

.27(0-1)

.20 (0-3)

.52 (0-4)

.39 (0-3)

.45

.55

.84

.69

Technical Orientation Indicators

Agreement with the statement "environmental issues are 

hard to understand"

Trust in science and technology

Suport of the New Environmental Paradigm

Post-Materialism

2.92 (1-5) 

higher score indicates 

agreement

12.36 (4-20)

17.32 (5-25)

1.94 

1= postmaterialist; 2=mixed; 

3=traditional

1.31

3.39

4.56

.61

41

Appendix B: List of All Questions Asked

1a. Listed below is a series of ideas concerning prairie dog management. For each idea, please rate its benefit 

to society using the scale below (Please circle the appropriate number).

High Benefits to Society 1 2 Neutral 345 Low Benefits to Society

Protecting prairie dogs on public and private lands will have...

Protecting prairie dogs on private lands owned by landowners 

who are willing to be compensated for their protection will have...

Protecting prairie dogs only on public lands will have... 

Not protecting prairie dogs will have...

1 b. Recently, there has been a lot of talk about whether prairie dogs will become endangered in the coming 

years. Generally speaking, how important is deciding what to do about prairie dogs compared to other environmental 

problems in your state? (Please circle the number of your answer.)

One of the more serious environmental problems 

About the same as any other issue 

Less important than other environmental issues 

It is not an issue at all

1c. Listed below are several issues that wildlife experts are confronted with when managing prairie dogs. Please 

indicate which issue you feel is the most important and which is the least important by putting numbers in the 

appropriate blanks.

Disease prevention

Ranch and farm practices

Habitat protection

Size of prairie dog populations

Location of prairie dog towns

Private land development

Tourism and recreation opportunities

Other

2. In general, how often do you see prairie dogs?

Zero times 1 to 5 times per 6 to 10 times 11 to 20 times More than 20 

per month month per month per month times per month

3. Which best describes how far your primary residence is from a prairie dog town?

Within 50 yards of your home

Between 50 yards and 14 mile from your home

More than V* mile from your home

I don't know where the nearest prairie dog town to my home is.

43
4. The next question is on the subject of outdoor activities. Please tell us how often you participate in each of 

the following outdoor activities near prairie dog towns. (Please circle the appropriate number.)

Activity

Zero 

times per 

year

Less than 

1 time per 

year

1 to 2 

times per 

year

3 to 5 

times 

per year

6 to 10 

times per 

year

More than 

10 times 

per year

horseback riding

camping

hunting

hiking/backpacking

bicycling

wildlife/nature viewing 

photography 

four wheeling

other

5. Below is a list of specific terms that mangers commonly use when they discuss management of prairie dogs. 

We are asking if you know each term, have heard of the term but do not know its meaning, or have not heard of the 

term at all. (Please fill in the blank with the number of the most appropriate answer.)

Term Know Meaning Heard of but Have not heard of 

_________________________a don t know_______________

Burrowing

Endangered Species Act

Urban sprawl

Prairie ecosystem

Habitat conversion

Biological vulnerability

Habitat fragmentation

Sylvatic Plague________________________________________

Random demographic events

Diurnal

Extirpated

44
6. Because preserving or developing prairie dog habitat is one element of environmental policy, it is important 

to know how you feel about this issue. (Please write in the box the number of the best option.)

Option'1:

Protection of the environment in its natural state should be the only consideration 

in deciding what to do with natural resources.

Option 2:

Protection of the environment should be the most important, but not the only, 

consideration in deciding what to do with natural resources.

Option 3:

Protection of the environment and the growth of the economy should be given 

equal consideration in deciding what to do with natural resources.

Option 4:

Growth of the economy should be the most important, but not the only, 

consideration in deciding what to do with natural resources.

Option 5:

Growth of the economy should be the only consideration in deciding what to do 

with natural resources.

7. In order to work well with citizens it is important to understand what is commonly known about prairie dogs. 

Please check the one box for each of the following statements that best completes each sentence. (Correct answer is 

in bold text.)

Prairie dogs that interfere with human activity

are most often

Trapped and moved

Killed with poison

Killed by shooting

Not sure

Prairie Dogs are most active during

Daytime

Nighttime

Both day and night

Not sure

A disease that can occur in prairie

dogs and people is

Rabies

Plague

None

Not sure

Prairie dogs live in groups called

Harems 

Coteries

Pods 

Not sure

How many litters of young do prairie dogs have 

each year?

1 litter

2 or 3 litters 

4 litters 

Not sure

Prairie dogs are most closely related to

Marmots 

Domestic dogs 

Chipmunks 

Not sure

45
8. Have you ever tried to influence a decision about land use in any of the following ways? (Please circle the most 

appropriate answer.)

________________Influence Decisions__________________YES NO 

Signing a petition concerning natural resources or the environment 

Attending a public hearing

Contacting or writing a U.S. senator, member of congress, or state legislator 

Contacting or writing a state/federal agency 

Joining a natural resource or environmental interest group 

Becoming a member of a citizen advisory group

Helping to organize a petition concerning natural resources or the environment 

Leading a citizen advisory group 

Leading a natural resource or environmental interest group

9. How much would you say that you have learned in the past year about prairie dogs from the following 

sources? (Please circle the most appropriate answer.)

S°" __________None M"u°'h Some ^ 

Personal experience 

Friends and neighbors 

Television 

Newspapers 

Radio

General mailings to your home 

Scientific/technical media 

County extension agents 

Government pamphlets 

Other

Public hearings 

Organizational meetings 

WWW or Internet

Which newspaper source do you use most often (for those respondents who said they learned about prairie dogs 

from newspapers in the question above)?

Local Newspaper 

Regional Newspaper 

State Newspaper 

National Newspaper

46
10. In discussions of environmental protection, we hear a lot of talk about liberals and conservatives. Below is a 

7-point scale in which the environmental policy views that people might hold are arranged from extremely liberal to 

extremely conservative. Where would you place yourself on the following scale? (Please circle the appropriate 

number.)

Extremely liberal

Liberal

Slightly liberal

Middle of the road or moderate

Slightly conservative

Conservative

Extremely conservative

Don't know; haven't thought much about it

11. There is a lot of talk these days about what our country's goals should be for the next 10 or 15 

years. Listed below are some of the goals that different people say should be given top priority. Please 

write the letter in the blank that most accurately describes your beliefs. 

A Maintaining order in the nation

B Giving people more say in important decisions

C Fighting rising prices

D Protection of free speech

12. Please circle the number indicating whether you agree or disagree with the following statements. 

Strongly Disagree 1 2 No Opinion 34 5 Strongly Agree

Technology will find a way of solving the problems of shortages of natural resources.

People would be better off if they lived without so much technology.

Future Scientific research is more likely to cause problems than to find solutions.

Technical and scientific experts are usually biased.

Environmental issues are hard to understand.

The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset by human activities.

The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources.

Plants and animals do not exist primarily for humans to use.

Modifying the environment for human use seldom causes serious problems.

People were created to rule over the rest of nature.

13. Your age

14. Please identify your gender 

Male Female

15. What ethnicity do you consider yourself?

Hispanic or Latino 

Not Hispanic or Latino

47
16. What racial origin do you consider yourself?

American Indian or Alaska Native

Asian

Black or African American

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

White

17. Where is your current place of residence located?

On a farm or ranch

In the country but not on a farm or ranch

In a town or village of less than 2,500

In a town of 2,500 - 9,999

In a city of 10,000-24,999

In a city of 25,000 - 49,999

In a city of 50,000 - 99,999

In a city of more than 100,000

18. What is your highest level of education?

No formal education

Some grade school

Completed grade school

Some high school

Completed high school

Technical training

Some college/two year degree

Completed college

Some graduate work

An advanced degree

Other

48
19. Which category best fits your occupational status?

Professional/Technical

Retired

Agriculture

Self-employed

Trade Worker

Office Worker

Homemaker

Student

Unemployed

Other

20. What is your approximate annual family income before taxes?

Less than $10,000 

$10,000-19,999 

$20,000 - 29,999 

$30,000 - 39,999 

$40,000 - 49,999 

$50,000 - $59,999 

$60,000 - $69,999 

$70,000 - $79,999 

$80,000 - $89,999 

$90,000 - $99,999 

$100,000-$109,999 

$110,000 and above

Additional Comments:

49

Appendix C: Reviewer Comments

Email Received: 24 August 2001

Lee:

I had a quick look at the report and believe that it is near ready to go 

out. I'd edit to avoid unnecessary phrases such as "as well as" and "the 

fact that." Conclusion that getting people closer to the source of 

issues is always good advice, yet your data suggest that knowing more will 

likely lead to less support. That is O.K. for your context since you are 

seeking the truth. The report seems quite long. Will it be used most for 

internal use by persons likely to read the whole document or by decision 

makers? Shorter is always better, but the Executive Summary gives ample 

details for the quick reader while more can be found by those inclined.

Del

Delwin E. Benson, Ph.D.

Professor and Extension Wildlife Specialist 

Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology 

Room 109 Wagar, CSU, Fort Collins CO 80523

At 10:34 PM 08/15/2001 -0600, you wrote:

>Dear Del, John, Dennis, Brent, and Cindy;

>

>Here is the prairie dog knowledge/attitudes study completion report for

>your review, comments and suggestions. When you make comments please tell

>us whether or not the report should be forwarded to the FWS, substantially

>revised before submission, or completely rewritten and reviewed again.

>

>(See attached file: Completion report for FWS 8-15a-01.doc)

>

>Your suggested revisions are anticipated and appreciated.

>

>Regards,

>

>Lee

>

>Berton Lee Lamb

>Social, Economic, and Institutional Analysis Section

>USGS

>4512 McMurry Ave.

>Fort Collins, CO 80525-3400

>Phone: 970-226-9314

>FAX: 970-226-9230

>URL: www.mesc.usgs.gov/seias

51
Email Received: September 7, 2001

Lee,

I have been through your "Ctizien Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward 

Black-Tailed Prarie Dogs: Completion Report." In general I found the 

report to be well written with excellent analyses. I particularly am 

impressed with your multivariate analyses. Very interesting findings.

I have a couple of picky suggestions for improvement (from someone who 

teaches methods):

1. "H o" usually means "null hypotheses" (there is no relationship between 

the variables). I would just number the hypotheses 1,2,3, etc.

2. In terms of wording hypotheses, it is best to state the direction of

the

hypothesis--!.e., instead of "experience with prarie dogs and participation

explain people's level of knowledge," it would be better to say "the higher

the level of experience with prarie dogs, the higher the level of policy

relevant knowledge."

3. It would be helpful to have a summary table of the various independent

variables you employ (could be an appendix). The table would provide the

variable name, coding information, a measures of central tendency if

appropriate). This would help the reader interpret your regressions

better.

I've attched a recent paper where we have such a table. If you have this

information in the paper, I must have missed it.

All in all this report is excellent!

Brent Steel

Professor, Department of Political Science

Oregon State University

Corvallis, OR

52
Email Received: September 7, 2001

Dear Lee:

I have read through your review draft of "Citizen Knowledge of and 

Attitudes Toward Black-tailed Prairie Dogs: Completion Report." I found 

the research and the report to be highly competent, information, and very 

interesting. Of particular note are the contrasts between the role of 

knowledge and the belief in the importance of prairie dogs when compared 

to other environmental issues. Apart from a few minor typos and word 

omissions (which I am certain you will identify), I have the following 

general comments which you might wish to address in a revision.

1. I think the report reflects ambivalence or uncertainty over the 

direction of the relationship between knowledge and participation. Would 

it be possible for you and your team to clarify and elaborate how you view 

that connection, for it would seem to have important implications for the 

recommendations that you make in the conclusion of the paper.

2. As a manager, which I am not, I would want you to elaborate more at 

the end of the paper as to the strategies and the content that would most 

effectively achieve agency goals. You introduce that issue, but I think 

more detail would make the report more useful to readers.

While obviously not an element of this study, you might consider some 

long-range plan to assess knowledge and participation relationships in a 

specific environmental policy area such as Prairie Dogs through a more 

quasi-experimental design. That is, do pre- and post participation 

measures of policy relevant knowledge for participants, and then do 

simultaneous measures of non-participants in the particular policy arena.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to review the draft of this 

report on a very important public policy issue.

John Pierce

Vice-chancellor for Academic Affairs 

University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 

Colorado Springs, CO

53