Prioritizing community behaviors to improve wild dog management in peri-urban areas

ABSTRACT

Wild dogs contribute to a range of negative impacts in Australian peri-urban regions. We identified and prioritized 13 behaviors that peri-urban residents could engage in to reduce the impacts of wild dogs in their communities. Key-informant interviews and stakeholder focus groups were used to develop a list of wild dog-management behaviors. On-line surveys with wild dog experts (n = 10) and peri-urban residents (n = 302) were used to create a Behavior Prioritization Matrix (BPM), which ranked the behaviors in terms of projected impact, based on: (a) expert estimates of effectiveness, (b) current adoption levels (penetration), and (c) likelihood of future adoption. BPM analysis indicated that increasing community reporting of wild dogs and their impacts would produce the greatest overall benefits for wild dog management. Behaviors rated as highly effective by experts (e.g., baiting and trapping) had low projected impact given that they were unlikely to be adopted by most residents.

KEYWORDS:

• Invasive animal management
• wild dogs
• behavior change
• adoption
• community-based social marketing

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the key stakeholders and community members who contributed to the initial engagement process and later participated in the surveys, and ORU who administered the online panel survey

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the article.

Funding

This work was supported by the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre; Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries; City of Gold Coast. Funding and in-kind support for this project was provided by the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, the City of Gold Coast, and the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. The project was carried out under University of New England Human Research Ethics Committee Approval Numbers HE14-275, HE15-127, and HE15-128.

Notes

^1. Copies of the two surveys can be accessed at https://publicgoodgroup.org/research-downloads/.

^2. Mean values were determined for each of the four impact categories as well. If you are interested in these data, please contact the corresponding author.

^3. For each behavior a target population (n) was determined and only the data of the target population were included in the analysis of each particular behavior (Table 1). Examples of these target sub-populations include pet owners, small and medium sized animal owners, livestock owners, members of community groups, and peri-urban residents on land greater than 1000m².

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre; Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries; City of Gold Coast. Funding and in-kind support for this project was provided by the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, the City of Gold Coast, and the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. The project was carried out under University of New England Human Research Ethics Committee Approval Numbers HE14-275, HE15-127, and HE15-128.