Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparisons between impact scenarios regarding the acceptability of red fox management strategies (n = 746)

From: Understanding stakeholder preferences for managing red foxes in different situations

Management strategy

Scenario 1 (M)

Scenario 2 (M)

Scenario 3 (M)

F

p

Eta (η)

No action

– 0.80 A

– 0.17 B

– 1.45 C

214.502

< 0.001

0.432

Compensation

0.81

–

–

–

–

–

Fencing

1.67

–

–

–

–

–

Culling at the den

– 1.03 A

– 0.91 A

– 0.47 B

34.036

< 0.001

0.212

Trapping or snaring

– 1.25 A

– 1.15 A

– 0.92 B

14.724

< 0.001

0.164

Hunting

– 0.99 A

– 0.82 A

– 0.59 B

17.664

< 0.001

0.182

Shooting

– 1.46 A

– 1.22 B

– 1.13 B

16.017

< 0.001

0.170

Vaccination

–

–

1.47

–

–

–

Kill sick animals

–

–

0.48

–

–

–

  1. Note: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for comparisons. M = mean acceptability. F = the F-statistic produced by ANOVA tests. Eta (η) = effect size, η = 0.100 denotes a minimal relationship, η = 0.243 denotes a typical relationship, and η = 0.371 denotes a substantial relationship (Vaske 2008). Scenario 1, foxes attack livestock; scenario 2, foxes reduce game; scenario 3, foxes carry rabies. For each management strategy, mean responses not sharing a superscript letter (A, B, or C) are significantly different (p < 0.0167; Tamhane post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction)