Skip to main content

Table 4 Comparisons of acceptability within impact scenarios for each of the management strategies and stakeholder groups (n = 746)

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

Strategy/scenario

General public (M)

Farmers (M)

Hunters (M)

Farmers-hunters (M)

Multivariate Wilks’λ

Within-subject Greenhouse-Geisser

Partial eta squared (ηp2)

No action

Scenario 1

– 0.60 A

– 0.96 A

– 0.75 A

– 1.35 A

49.301*

89.793*

0.137

Scenario 2

0.28 B

– 0.38 B

– 1.13 AB

– 1.47 A

   

Scenario 3

– 1.41 C

– 1.46 C

– 1.69 B

– 1.53 A

   

Culling at the den

Scenario 1

– 1.42 A

– 0.79 A

– 0.31 A

– 0.29 A

29.819*

54.512*

0.090

Scenario 2

– 1.38 A

– 0.72 A

0.38 A

0.53 A

   

Scenario 3

– 0.97 B

– 0.18 B

0.00 A

0.41 A

   

Trapping or snaring

Scenario 1

– 1.63 A

– 1.09 A

– 0.31 A

– 0.18 A

25.131*

31.368*

0.073

Scenario 2

– 1.50 A

– 1.10 A

0.19 A

0.24 A

   

Scenario 3

– 1.27 B

– 0.90 A

0.36 A

0.65 A

   

Hunting

Scenario 1

– 1.32 A

– 0.87 A

– 0.19 A

0.00 A

47.730*

83.901*

0.137

Scenario 2

– 1.32 A

– 0.81 A

1.31 B

1.41 B

   

Scenario 3

– 1.01 B

– 0.52 A

0.88 B

1.18 B

   

Shooting

Scenario 1

– 1.62 A

– 1.44 A

– 1.00 A

– 0.71 A

43.271*

50.622*

0.123

Scenario 2

– 1.57 A

– 1.17 AB

– 0.19 AB

0.41 B

   

Scenario 3

– 1.45 A

– 1.08 B

– 0.06 B

0.12 AB

   
  1. Note: Repeated measures analysis of variance was used for comparisons. Scenario 1, foxes attack livestock; scenario 2, foxes reduce game; scenario 3, foxes carry rabies. M = mean acceptability. Partial eta-squared (ηp2), effect size, ηp2 = 0.01–0.059 denotes a small effect, ηp2 = 0.06–0.139 denotes a medium effect, ηp2 > 0.14 denotes a large effect (Vaske 2008). In each management strategy and stakeholder group, scenarios' mean scores not sharing a superscript letter (A, B, or C) are significantly different (p < 0.0167, Tamhane post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction). *p < 0.001