In this experiment, I used a survey to determine the attitude toward wildlife of the students at the University of Puerto Rico at Humacao and at the University of Nebraska at Kearney. The survey included questions regarding demographic information, such as age, field of study, and home state or country. It also asked questions of opinion about wildlife and the outdoors. Several questions were designed to determine the level of knowledge of the participants. I handed out 172 surveys to students at the University of Puerto Rico and 179 surveys to students at the University of Nebraska. About fifty percent of the students were biology majors at each school, a small section was composed of chemistry majors, and the rest of the students were majoring in other fields. The null hypothesis of the study was that there are not significant differences in the public attitude toward wildlife in the two regions. The data suggests that the animals in danger of extinction in Puerto Rico are more valuable to the Puerto Ricans than the endangered species of Nebraska are to the Nebraskans. The endangered species in Puerto Rico are treasured and displayed proudly.

Key words opinion, questionnaire, Latin American culture

---

Public opinion is pertinent to wildlife conservation. Once conservationists know how the public feels toward certain types of wildlife, they will be better able to choose the method of conservation backed by the most public support. The successful conservation of wildlife depends partly on cultural attitudes. Wildlife management agencies must take into account public opinion while formulating wildlife management policies. Otherwise, feelings of resentment and opposition may form toward management agencies. One way to determine public opinion is through the use of surveys.

Surveys have been used in the past to ascertain information on such topics as public attitudes toward wildlife viewing as a recreational activity (Manfredo and Larson 1993) and the differences in attitude toward habitat and management policies between hunters and those people who participate in wildlife conventions (Johnson et al. 1993). Gilbert (1982) surveyed residents of Guelph, Ontario, to determine the level of interest in and knowledge about wildlife. The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies used small group discussions to study the attitude of school children toward hunting (DiCamillo 1995). In 1991, a survey was used to investigate the role of state governments in the management of the nation’s endangered and threatened species (Swimmer et al. 1992). Also, mail-in surveys have been useful in determining the opinions of Coloradoans in whether or not to reintroduce wolves into Colorado (Pate et al. 1996). Taylor (1989) determined from various studies that there is a difference in the amount of concern toward wildlife shown by black people and white people. She studied the factors influencing the concern and action gap between people of different races. A survey similar to the one which I plan to use was created by Shaw and Gilbert (1974) in order to determine the attitudes of college students toward hunting.

Success has come from using public attitudes in wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe (Simmons 1995) and in the Galapagos Islands (Pearce 1995).

Kellert (1985) created a list of values that come from endangered wildlife. He felt that the main fault of endangered species protection programs was a lack of knowledge about society’s perceptions of endangered wildlife. The values he included were: (1) naturalistic/outdoor recreational value; (2) ecological value; (3) moral or existence value; (4) scientific value; (5) aesthetic value; (6) utilitarian value; (7) cultural, symbolic, and historical value.

Up until recent times, wildlife management has been aimed toward the needs of hunters, because sportsmen have funded the efforts. Over time, the non consumptive uses of wildlife have gained popularity. In 1975, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service designed a study to measure the importance of consumptive and nonconsumptive uses of wildlife in the United States. The outcome of the survey showed that the general public and hunters as well valued the nonconsumptive uses of wildlife more than the consumptive uses (Arthur and Wilson 1979).

Brash (1986) completed a study of the relationship between the deforestation of Puerto Rico and the loss of species. He also related the effect of human development on the island to the study.

A nationwide survey regarding public attitude toward predator control was completed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, along with the University of Arizona. Some of the issues that the survey addressed were the importance of the uses and roles of wildlife. It was designed to screen participants on the basis of their knowledge of and interest in the conflict between environmentalists and livestock ranchers (Arthur et al. 1977).

In Nebraska, there are 12 species of animals listed as endangered or threatened species, and in Puerto Rico, there are 11 species, even though the island is a fraction of the size of Nebraska (Swimmer et al. 1992). A survey by Swimmer et al. (1992) determined that federal funds account for 72.5% of the nation’s (including Puerto Rico) programs aimed at protecting endangered species and educating the public about endangered species.

Several years ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was involved in a dispute over Culebra National Wildlife Refuge, located off the eastern coast of Puerto Rico. The Fish and Wildlife Service wanted to give the island of Culebrita to the commonwealth of Puerto Rico, in a swap for other land. The island would be developed for tourism. This proposal included a request for land that was the only known habitat of the rare giant anole lizard to be added to the refuge. But it also endangered the native seabirds, four species of rare and endangered turtles, and all of the other rare birds and animals that lived on the island. The solution to the dispute was a list given to Puerto Rico specifying the management of Culebrita’s wildlife after the island was in their control (Laycock 1980).

Many Latin American and Caribbean countries have shown an effort toward conservation of valuable resources. Since 1986, soil and water conservation principles have led to large increases in crop yields and a decrease in the need for fertilizer on farmland (Arledge 1988). This effort gives hope that the concern demonstrated for the land will extend to the wildlife as well in these countries.

The purpose of this project was to survey residents of Puerto Rico and residents of Nebraska to determine their feelings toward wildlife. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in attitude toward wildlife between the two cultures. This information will later be available for use in educating the public through methods that foster positive attitudes toward wildlife.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The materials that I used for my project were a survey and participants to fill out the survey. I used the surveys used by Dahlgren et al. (1977), Arthur et al. (1977), and Shaw and Gilbert (1974) as guides to create an appropriate survey. The questions from these surveys gave me some idea of the type of questions that I wanted to use on my survey. The survey is composed of questions intended to determine the degree of knowledge of the students about the wildlife of their region and of the world, their level of concern toward the well-being of the wildlife, and their overall attitude toward wildlife. I designed a survey of this type to correlate with my hypothesis.

The surveys used in Puerto Rico and Nebraska were similar but not exactly the same. The difference in language was accounted for through a translation into Spanish and English. As the wildlife varies greatly from one region to the next, some of the questions were designed to test a Puerto Rican’s knowledge of Puerto Rico. In the same way, some of the questions on the English survey related specifically to Nebraska.

In the spring semester of 1998, I handed out 172 copies of the survey to students at the University of Puerto Rico at Humacao, in the following classes: Wildlife Management, Spanish Language, Business Administration, American History, Vertebrates of Puerto Rico, Biometry, Chemistry, and several others, as well as to students passing through the halls. This University is located in the town of Humacao, a town of 30,000 people, on the Southeastern end of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is the Southeastern-most island of the Greater Antilles in the Caribbean. The national language is Spanish, and the island is a territory of the United States. I explained to the students and the faculty what my goal was in having them complete the survey, and also my hypothesis.

Shaw and Gilbert (1974) determined that when the researcher gave a questionnaire in person to a class of students after explaining the purpose of the study, the students did a more complete job of filling out the survey, rather than when the teacher handed out the survey and asked the students to complete them. However, to facilitate the equal distribution of surveys to varying majors, I also gave the surveys to several students of other majors; after explaining to them the details of the study and the method in which to disperse them, I asked them to hand out the survey to the students in their classes. I obtained feedback from both science and non-science students and faculty, in order to avoid the biases that may result from surveying only science majors and to determine the effect that the field of study may have on the results.

In the fall semester of 1998, I handed out 179 copies of a similar survey to students and faculty at the University of Nebraska at Kearney. This University has approximately 6,000 undergraduate students. The same types of classes were visited in Nebraska as in Puerto Rico: Wildlife Management, Spanish Language, Business Administration, American History, Vertebrates of Puerto Rico, Biometry, Chemistry, and several others, as well as to students passing through the halls. I specifically gave the survey to approximately the same number of Biology Majors, Chemistry Majors, and “Other” Majors as I had in Puerto Rico, in order to have a nearly equal comparison. The same method was used in handing out the survey as had been used in Puerto Rico; I distributed the surveys in person in each class after explaining the purpose of the study and the hypothesis which was being tested. In most cases, I waited until the students had finished the survey and I collected them. In some cases, it was necessary to have either the teacher or one of the students collect the completed surveys and return them to me at a later date.

After the required number of surveys had been completed at each University, I began the data entry process. I grouped the surveys according to gender and major. The majors were categorized as Biology, Chemistry, and Other (all of the other majors that were represented). I systematically sorted through the several groups of surveys and entered the responses that each participant had marked for each question. Next, I determined the weighted averages of each group and calculated a total average for the males, females, and the combination of both. I used these numbers to find the standard deviation. The standard deviation is usually helpful in determining which samples may be significantly different from each other. At this point, I chose several of the questions which summed up the survey and focused on those questions. I calculated the Chi-Square values for the results of questions 5, 9, 11, 16, 17, 21, 23 (of the Puerto Rico survey, which is equivalent to, and thus compared against #24 of the Nebraska survey), and 28, using the following formula for the Chi-Square test:

The Chi-Square test was used to accept or reject the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the responses of the Puerto Rican students and those of the Nebraskan students. These select questions illustrate the overall attitude of the people toward wildlife and specifically endangered species, and their level of knowledge regarding these topics.

RESULTS

The Chi-Square test resulted in the rejection of the null hypothesis within specific groups in several of the questions. There were four groups (three degrees of freedom in the calculations) in each of the Chi-Square calculations. In order to be rejected, the value needed to be greater than 7.815.

Question #5

“Do you prefer to live in a town of fewer than 10,000 people or a cityof more than 10,000 people?” (See Table 1 for responses.)

The Chi-Square value when comparing all of the Puerto Ricans to all of the Nebraskans resulted in a number greater than 7.815 (Table 2), and therefore, the difference was significant (the hypothesis that each group would answer the question the same was rejected). There is a significant difference between the Nebraskan and Puerto Rican preference in the size of the town in which they live. Puerto Ricans tended to prefer small towns of less than 10,000 people, whereas Nebraskans tended to prefer to live in larger cities (more than 10,000 people). A comparison of the percentage of students who responded with each answer to the question is displayed in Fig. 1.

Table 1.

Table 2.

Fig. 1.

When comparing Puerto Rican biology majors to Nebraskan biology majors, the Chi-Square value is high enough to reject the hypothesis. This indicates that there is also a significant difference between the size of town preference of the Puerto Rican biologists and the Nebraskan biologists.

There is also a significant difference between the female Puerto Rican respondents and the female Nebraskan respondents. However, when comparing the female Nebraskans to the male Nebraskans or the female Puerto Ricans to the male Puerto Ricans, there is not a significant difference in the way they answered the question.

Question #9

“Have you had a hunting license in the past?” (See Table 3 for responses.)

This question resulted in completely different answers from the Puerto Rican people and from the Nebraskans. There was a very large significant difference between the overall Puerto Rican group and the Nebraskan group, so the null hypothesis was rejected, as is shown in Table 4. As is shown in Fig. 2, the Nebraskans tended to answer “no” (59% answered no, while 41% answered affirmatively) while the great majority of the Puerto Ricans answered “no”, with only .6% answering that in the past, they had owned a hunting license. When comparing the biology majors in Puerto Rico to the biology majors of Nebraska, the difference was even greater. None of the respondents from Puerto Rico said yes, while 51% of the Nebraskans said that they had owned a hunting license. When narrowed down to gender, the null hypothesis was rejected also (between females and females as well as between males and males). In Nebraska, only 9.9% of the females have owned licenses to hunt, whereas 67% of the males have in the past. However, in Puerto Rico, the null hypothesis was accepted, where 0% of the females responded affirmatively and only 2% of the males responded affirmatively.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Fig. 2.

Question #10

“In which of the following types of outdoor recreation do you enjoy participating? Other activity ________”

The answers varied between Nebraskan students and Puerto Rican students for the listed activities, but no formal analysis was completed. However, the available space for other activities in which the student enjoyed participating was filled by different activities in Puerto Rico than in Nebraska. Nebraskan students cited the following activities as activities in which they enjoy taking part: backpacking, horseback riding, target shooting. In Puerto Rico, many of the activities that the students listed were associated with the ocean, such as scuba diving, surfing, swimming, and snorkeling.

Question #11

“Do you go to certain places specifically to see animals in nature?” (See Table 5 for responses.)

Overall, there is no significant difference between the frequency of visits to certain places specifically to see animals in nature between the Puerto Rican people and the people from Nebraska (Table 6). Gender didn’t seem to influence their decisions, as there was not a significant difference between males and females from Puerto Rico or Nebraska. Nebraska biology majors tended to go places specifically to see animals in nature more than the rest of the Nebraskan students. Also, biology students in both Puerto Rico and in Nebraska answered yes to the question more frequently, but not significantly more. The only significant difference between the Nebraskans and the Puerto Ricans was within the Puerto Rico group. The biology majors from Puerto Rico go to certain places specifically to see animals in nature significantly more than do the other Puerto Rican students (62% to 37%; Fig. 3).

The second part of the question asked where they go to see animals in nature. The Nebraskans go to the country, to nearby ponds or rivers, nearby states, the family farm or ranch, or state parks. Sometimes they watch cranes, watch animals while they’re hunting, or sit in a duck blind. The Puerto Ricans tend to visit the beach, the state parks of Puerto Rico, the zoo, or the rainforest. They may be whale-watching or watching other marine life.

Table 5.

Table 6

Fig. 3.

Question #16

“Do you think that the citizens of the United States (citizens of Puerto Rico) should pay a tax specifically dedicated to protecting the species of animals in danger of extinction?” (See Table 7 for responses.)

As shown in Table 8, there is a significant difference between the number of Nebraskans and Puerto Ricans who think that they, as citizens of their respective areas, should pay a tax to protect endangered species. Both groups responded more than 60% of the time that they should pay the tax, but Puerto Ricans supported it significantly more than did the Nebraskans (82% to 63%; Fig. 4). The Puerto Rican biology students supported the tax significantly more than did the Nebraskan biology students (88% to 66%). The majors other than biology majors from Nebraska and Puerto Rico feel the same way about the tax. The majority support it, with the Puerto Rican people slightly more in support of it than the Nebraskans, but not significantly.

---

Table 7.

---

Table 8.

Fig. 4

Question #17

“Would you pay a tax specifically dedicated to conserving and protecting the animals in danger of extinction in the United States if the tax was: $1-25/year, $26-50/year, $51-75/year, more than $75/year?” (In the analysis, the results were tested as $1-25/year or more than $25/year). (See Table 9 for responses.)

Overall, the majority of the students supported giving less tax money annually. There is a significant difference between the Puerto Rican decision and the Nebraskan decision of how much money they would pay (Table 10). Puerto Ricans tend to be willing to pay more annually than the Nebraskans are willing to pay. Fifty-one percent of the Puerto Rican biology majors would be willing to pay more than $25 per year to support the endangered species, whereas only 22% of the Nebraskan students would do the same, as is shown in Fig. 5. The majority of the Nebraskan students would prefer to pay less than $25 per year. Within Nebraska, the field of study had no influence on the way the student answered the question, as the majority of the biology students and the other students would be more willing to pay less than $25 per year than more than $25 per year. In Puerto Rico, the biology students were significantly more willing to pay the higher tax than were the other majors (52% to 22%).

Table 9.

Table 10.

 

Fig. 5.

Question #21

“How many species of animals have been identified as “in danger of extinction” in Nebraska?”

(This question had five possible choices, but it was analyzed on a right or wrong basis). The correct answer is 7 in Nebraska and 12 in Puerto Rico. (See Table 11 for responses.)

There was no significant difference between the Nebraskan group and the Puerto Rican group, as shown in Table 12. The Nebraskans and the Puerto Ricans answered correctly 19% of the time (Fig. 6). They did not answer correctly the majority of the time. Nebraskan biologists tended to answer correctly more frequently than the Puerto Rican biologists, but not significantly more, and 20% or less of each group answered it correctly. The Puerto Rican biologists tended to overestimate the number of endangered species. The Nebraskan biologists didn’t have a particular tendency; some overestimated, some underestimated the number of endangered species. Within each region, there wasn’t a significant difference in answers between the biologists and the other majors. Most Nebraskans underestimate the number of endangered species in Nebraska.

 

Table 11.

Table 12.

Fig. 6.

Question #23/24

In Nebraska, the question read “White-tailed deer are active during the: daylight hours or twilight hours?” In Puerto Rico, the question read “The Boa of Puerto Rico is active during the: day or the night?” (See Table 13 for responses.)

This question was changed to accommodate the differences in wildlife in the two areas. The Boa of Puerto Rico is an endangered species of snake, and it is well known in the country. The White-tailed deer is a common animal in Nebraska, and it is well known in the state.

There is a significant difference between the answers of the Puerto Ricans and theNebraskans (Table 14). The Nebraskans answered correctly 94% of the time, whereas the Puerto Ricans answered correctly 82% of the time (Fig. 7). The biology students of each region answered the question with the same frequency of correct answers. Each group was correct the majority of the time (88% of the Puerto Rican biology students answered correctly and 93% of the Nebraskan biology students answered correctly).

Table 13.

Table 14.

Fig. 7.

Question #28

“Do you feel that the lack of a safe place to nest is causing the populations of some birds to decline?” (See Table 15 for responses.)

The answer is yes, as is the case with the Common Loon, Gavia immer, the Puerto Rican Parrot, Amazona vittata, and many other species of bird. The Puerto Ricans answered correctly significantly more frequently than did the Nebraskans (96% to 88%) (Table 16 and Fig. 8), but both groups answered correctly the majority of the time. Within Nebraska, the other majors answered correctly 89% of the time, while the biology majors answered correctly only 86% of the time. In Puerto Rico, 98% of the biologists answered correctly, while 95% of the other majors answered correctly. The Puerto Rican biologists answered correctly more frequently, but not significantly, than the Nebraskan biology majors (98% to 86%). When all of the biologists are compared with all of the other majors, the difference in answers was not significant.

Table 15.

Table 16.

Fig. 8.

DISCUSSION

Success has come from using public attitudes in wildlife conservation. In Zimbabwe, the native people used to resent the wildlife of the Gonarezhon National Park. But they changed their attitude toward the wildlife when they decided to become a partner in Mahenye Safari Camp, and now they view the wildlife as an asset (Simmons 1995).

In the Galapagos Islands, the government needs to use public feedback in their wildlife conservation decisions. The islanders have revolted against the scientists’ rigid conservation attitudes. They have traditional methods of conservation, and they are opposed to the new techniques that are being used. The government needs to know the public’s conception of wildlife and conservation before it takes over, because a mutual agreement on goals in conservation would be much more successful if both sides worked together to accomplish it (Pearce 1995).

Nebraskans and Puerto Ricans exhibited similar attitudes toward wildlife in answering several of the questions, but there were also some significant differences in their attitudes. Biologists in some cases may exhibit ecologistic, scientistic, and dominionistic attitudes which are stronger and more variable than those of the general public (Peyton and Langenau 1985). The same source stated that their stronger ecologistic and naturalistic attitudes may strengthen the biologists’ anti-utilitarian position on resource development issues. Farmers and non-farmers may have very different attitudes toward animals. National surveys have indicated that farmers constitute the one occupational group whose attitudes toward wildlife are distinct from the rest (McIvor and Conover 1994). This is significant when reviewing the responses from the farming-families of Nebraska and the non-farmers of Puerto Rico (much of the island’s land was abandoned by agricultural interests in the 1940’s (Brash 1987)).

Question #5

There is a significant difference of preference between the cultures. This may be caused by the culture and the geography of the areas (Puerto Ricans are forced to live so close together that they seem to dream of living in their own space whereas the Nebraskans, from the Midwest, may dream of the big city life). These feelings may influence the attitude that the students have toward wildlife. If they prefer the country or small towns, they most likely appreciate the animals and vegetation that occur more uninhibitedly in the country. Dahlgren et al. (1977), through surveys dealing with natural resources, determined that the home state and the place of childhood residence of the person surveyed affected their knowledge of wildlife. The results also suggest that gender doesn’t determine the difference in preference. Both males and females of each region prefer the same-sized town to live in. Kellert (1985) said that much of the world’s species loss will occur in the developing countries, which have low per capita incomes, economic dependence on natural resources, and human overpopulation problems.

Question #9

The wildlife in Nebraska is different than the wildlife in Puerto Rico. Mammals as large as deer are common in Nebraska, owing to the open terrain and the adequate vegetation to support such large animals. In Puerto Rico, there are some wild goats and pigs, but these animals are limited to specific areas (like Mona Island, near the Western Coast of Puerto Rico). The majority of the animals in Puerto Rico are smaller animals, such as birds andamphibians.There is also much more open space in Nebraska than in Puerto Rico, which makes the land more conducive to hunting. In Nebraska, hunting is something of a family tradition, or family activity, in which the fathers and sons especially, but also the mothers and daughters, become involved. It is a popular sport because of these factors. According to Arthur and Wilson (1979), 40% of all Americans hunted or fished in 1974. Since then, the overall number of Americans who hunt may have increased. The results from this survey suggest that, as 41% of the Nebraskan students have had a hunting license (not including fishing), Nebraskans may hunt more than the average American. Some Puerto Ricans hunt, but it requires much more effort to hunt in Puerto Rico, with less success. The large animals are not abundant, there is not a large amount of land to hunt on, and the permits required are more difficult to obtain. I would not consider Puerto Ricans to be “anti-hunters”, as some Puerto Ricans do hunt. Peyton and Langenau (1985) said that anti-hunters have stronger humanistic and moralistic attitudes than the general public. Some survey participants did indicate that they thought that hunting was wrong (some Nebraskans indicated the same opinion).

Question #10

The preferences of the Puerto Ricans may be influenced by the fact that they live on an island in the tropics, versus the landlocked Nebraskan students, who find alternate activities in which to participate.

Question #11

The results from this question suggest that both Nebraskans and Puerto Ricans appreciate wildlife, to the same degree, but in a different manner. Kellert (1985) stated that the depressed socioeconomic conditions of most third-world countries causes the people to feel that species preservation efforts are an “impractical luxury”. He says that these people think of the wildlife with a utilitarian attitude. However, in this survey the responses suggest that the Nebraskans go to see the wildlife for utilitarian reasons, such as to hunt, whereas the Puerto Ricans seem to visit wildlife purely for relaxation reasons. The two groups visit different areas when they want to see animals in nature. Since Puerto Rico is surrounded by the ocean, the people have more of an interest and knowledge of marine animals.

Question #16

The Puerto Rican people supported the tax to protect endangered species moreso than did the Nebraskans. This suggests that the animals in danger of extinction in Puerto Rico are more valuable (according to Kellert’s list of values (Kellert 1985)) to the Puerto Ricans than the endangered species of Nebraska are to the Nebraskans. The endangered species in Puerto Rico are treasured and displayed as symbols of which the people are very proud (for example, the Cotorra ,Amazona vittata, and the Coqui, Eleutherodactylis coqui). This pride makes the people aware of which species are endangered, and also the ecological requisites of each of these animals. Kellert (1985) presents as a major challenge the incorporation of the socioeconomic needs and utilitarian values of developing nations into the species preservation programs. He said that one way to do this is to emphasize the relation of the country’s biological resources as a basis for national pride, which is what has occurred in Puerto Rico. This knowledge of the endangered species may be especially encouraged in the college-level biology classes, as the biology students of Puerto Rico were more willing to protect these species than were the other students of Puerto Rico. In Nebraska, the endangered species are not as publicized.

Kellert (1985) said that people are most inclined to protect the endangered species that are large, aesthetically attractive, and regarded as possessing the ability to feel, think, and experience pain. In Puerto Rico, the endangered species that are focused on the most are the

Puerto Rican Parrot, the Puerto Rican Plains Pidgeon, the Puerto Rican Boa, and the Coqui, a tiny frog unique to Puerto Rico.

As of 1992, Nebraska employed one person on its Endangered Species Staff, whereas Puerto Rico employed 20 people on its staff (Swimmer et al. 1992). Funding for endangered species protection in Nebraska comes from the General Fund and the Income Tax Check-Off Box. In Puerto Rico, it comes from the Legislature’s Special Fund and the Federal Government (Sec. 6; Swimmer et al. 1992).

Question #17

The people of Puerto Rico were significantly more willing than the Nebraskans to pay a tax to protect endangered species of animals. They were also more willing to pay a higher amount of tax money to support this cause than the Nebraskans were willing to pay. The per capita income of the average Nebraskan was $23,047 in 1996 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1997). The per capita income of the average Puerto Rican was $7,882 as of 1996 (Wiesenfeld 1997). This, once again, demonstrates the level of awareness and concern that the Puerto Rican people exhibit, and the lesser concern that the Nebraskans exhibit. However, Kellert (1985) cited a survey of the American public when he stated that most Americans are willing to forgo diverse social benefits to protect certain endangered species. Kellert also said that there is an absence of a “conservation ethic” in most developing countries, which, based on the results from this survey, seems to be untrue in the case of Puerto Rico.

Question #21

These results may demonstrate that all of the students are aware that they have endangered species in their region, but they don’t know exactly which species they are. The fact that the Puerto Ricans overestimated the number of endangered species suggests that they frequently hear news dealing with endangered species, so the Puerto Ricans are aware that they exist in their regions. Kellert (1985) states that “a tendency exists to understate the risks of endangerment or extinction because most species-related values are often incompletely specified and inadequately measured.” Education is the key to awareness-if the students don’t know how many or which species are endangered, it will be difficult for them to know the ecological requisites of the species, or what needs to be done to protect the species.

Question #23/24

The Nebraskan students correctly answered this question more frequently than the Puerto Rican students. This may be because deer are very commonly seen in Nebraska, and as this species is hunted, the sportsmen need to know in which hours it is most active in order to increase their chances of success. According to Dahlgren et al (1977), individuals with hunting experience scored higher on the wildlife knowledge questions on the Dahlgren et al survey than did those individuals who had never hunted.

The Puerto Rican Boa is a rare animal. Many of the Puerto Rican people have never seen this animal, and the only reason they know facts about its lifestyle is through education, not by hands-on experience. The fact that 82% of the students correctly answered this question demonstrates that the country is educating their students to be aware of the endangered species and their ecological requisites.

Question #28

The majority of the students from both regions answered this question correctly. Kellert (1985) cites the situation of Hawaii’s endemic avifauna as an example of how human-related factors are the primary causes of the decline of certain bird species. Other human-related factors are agriculture, grazing and forestry (which results in habitat destruction), the introduction of other birds, and overharvesting the birds for their meat and feathers, or for sport hunting (Kellert 1985). It is important that the students realize the reasons that certain populations of animals are decreasing, so they can find ways to increase reproduction and promote successful breeding.

---

CONCLUSIONS

The Puerto Rican respondents answered the questions intelligently and demonstrated a higher level of knowledge and concern about endangered species than is typical of a developing country. They tended to show more concern for the endangered species than the Nebraskan respondents, possibly resulting from the pride that their nation feels about these species. The biology students especially received high scores on the knowledge questions, which indicates that the students are being educated in such a way that they learn about the endangered species, and they learn the ecological requisites of these species.

The Nebraskan students scored well on the questions dealing with hunting, as this is a popular activity and usually hunters have some knowledge of the wildlife. Endangered species in Puerto Rico may receive more attentionbecause Puerto Rico is a separate entity, whereas Nebraska is part of the continental United States, so a species that is endangered in Nebraska may be focused on as one of the United State’s endangered species, rather than specifically one of Nebraska’s endangered species.

The null hypothesis that there would be no differences in attitude toward wildlife was rejected overall, although there were also notable similarities between the students from Nebraska and Puerto Rico.

Education is the key in species preservation. The college students of today will soon be responsible for managing our wildlife and maintaining our world’s biodiversity. The values that they place on the wildlife will be the values that determine the survival or extinction of each species in the future. The goal in obtaining this data was not to find a specific conservation technique for a type of wildlife or a region of the world. The goal was simply to determine the attitude of the public toward wildlife, based on the data gathered from the people in the two selected areas. This information can lead to a better educated public; once we determine the current attitudes, we can work to educate the public through methods that foster positive attitudes toward wildlife.

LITERATURE CITED

• Arledge, J. E. 1988. Demonstration and extension of soil and water conservation principles in Latin America. Pages 166-171 in W. C. Moldenhauer and N. W. Hudson, editors. Conservation Farming on Steep Lands.

  ---

• Arthur, L. M. and W. R. Wilson. 1979. Assessing the demand for wildlife resources: a first step. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 7(1):30-34.

  ---

• Brash, A. R. 1986. The history of avian extinction and forest conversion on Puerto Rico. Biol. Conserv., 39:97-111.

  ---

• Curlee, A. P., T. W. Clark, D. Casey, and R. P. Reading. 1994. Large carnivore conservation: back to the future. Endangered Species Update., 11(3-4):1-4.

  ---

• Dahlgren, R. B., A. Wywialowski, T. A. Bubolz and V. L. Wright. 1977. Influence of knowledge of wildlife management principles on behavior and attitudes toward resource issues. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 42:146-155.

  ---

• DiCamillo, J. A. 1995. Focus groups as a tool for fish and wildlife management: a case study. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 23(4):616-621.

  ---

• Gilbert, F. F. 1985. Public attitudes toward urban wildlife: a pilot study in Guelph, Ontario. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 10:245-253.

  ---

• Hotchkiss, N. A. 1992. Public education efforts on the ESA reauthorization. (Endangered Species Act) (Report from the Field). Endangered Species Update., 9(9-10):13-14.

  ---

• Johnson, K. N., R. L. Johnson, D. K. Edwards, and C. A. Wheaton. 1993. Public participation in wildlife management: opinions from public meeting and random surveys. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 21(3):218-226.

  ---

• Kellert, S. R. 1985. Social and perceptual factors in endangered species management. Journal of Wildlife Management, 49:528-536.

  ---

• Laycock, G. 1980. An island adrift (Puerto Rican refuge to be dropped). Audubon, 82:24-26.

  ---

• Manfredo, M. J. and R. A. Larson. 1993. Managing for wildlife viewing recreation experiences: an application in Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 21(3):226-237.

  ---

• Pate, J., M. J. Manfredo, A. D. Bright, and G. Tischbein. 1996. Coloradan’s attitudes toward reintroducing the gray wolf into Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(3):421-429.

  ---

• Pearce, F. 1995. On the origin of revolution (the conflict between the islanders and the conservationists on the Galapagos Islands). New Scientist, 147(1997):28-30.

  ---

• Peyton, R. B. and E. E. Langenau, Jr. 1985. A comparison of attitudes held by BLM biologists and the general public towards animals. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 13:117-120.

  ---

• Shaw, D. L. and D. L. Gilbert. 1974. Attitudes of college students toward hunting. Transactions of the North American Wildlife Conference, 39:157-162.

  ---

• Simmons, N. 1995. Make room for elephants (conserving elephants in Zimbabwe). Wildlife Conservation, 98(4):50-55.

  ---

• Swimmer, J. Y., L. Manor, and R. L. Gooch. 1992. Endangered species programs in the 50 states and Puerto Rico. Endangered Species Update, 10(2):6-10.

  ---

• Taylor, D. E. 1989. Blacks and the environment: toward an explanation of the concern and action gap between blacks and whites. Environment and Behavior, 21(2):175-206.

  ---

• U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1997 (117th edition.) Washington, DC, 1997, pg 457.

  ---

• Wiesenfeld, L. P. (ed.) 1997. The world almanac and book of facts, 1998. Mahwah, New Jersey. World Almanac Books.

---

Weber, S. 1999. Student attitudes toward wildlife based on a survey in Puerto Rico and Nebraska. Senior Research Thesis, Department of Biology, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Kearney, Nebraska, 68849-1140.