Information Spread in a Region of Human–Mountain Lion Coexistence
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 15327133 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Stephen E S Crook (San Diego State University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2014 |
| Volume | 19 |
| Issue | 6 |
| Pages | 555-558 |
| Publication date | 2014-11-02 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Human Dimensions of Wildlife (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1087-1209 • E-ISSN: 1533-158X |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/10871209.2014.918220 |
| OpenAlex | W2037572858 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 5 |
The media has a significant role in spreading information about human–wildlife conflict, yet it is not the only information source available. The extent to which the public receives information about conflict from various sources, especially in areas where it is occurring, has not been well established. A questionnaire survey and media content analysis are used to uncover how the public receives information about mountain lion (Puma concolor) issues in Santa Cruz County, California. In the region, individuals had substantial experience with mountain lions. Residents also discussed mountain lion issues with friends and neighbors nearly as often as they read about them. In newspaper articles, citizens were cited more than any other group, including government agencies, scientists, and nongovernmental organizations. Understanding the high levels of public experience and information sharing can lend managers insight into attitudes, risk perception, and knowledge, while revealing opportunities for outreach beyond increasing media presence
Advertising · Business · Geography · Government (linguistics · Human–wildlife conflict · Newspaper · Outreach · Perception · Political science · Politics · Public opinion · Public relations · Wildlife · Animal and Plant Science Education · Climate Change Communication and Perception · Psychology · Species Distribution and Climate Change · Ecology
| Citations per year | 0.22 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2017 - 2019 (3) |
| Highly cited | No |