Drivers of intervention use to protect domestic animals from large carnivore attacks

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of responses.

Group	n	Response rate^a	Gender	Mean age (years)	Age range (years)
Hunters with dogs	633	48%	15% female	45	18–84
Pet dog owners	118	13%	64% female	48	20–74
Reindeer herders	33	NA	21% female	41	22–62
Sheep owners	323	20%	50% female	53	22–85
Transhumance farmers	56	25%	38% female	53	25–76

^athe number of complete responses without missing values in relation to the total number of distributed links

Table 2. Items and response scales (in italics) for TPB constructs and for emotional appraisal constructs.

Construct	ID	Items and response options
Behavioral Intention Response	BI	What is your stand on using some intervention to prevent carnivore attacks within the coming 3 years?
	0	Will definitely not use any intervention.
	1	Will preferably avoid using any intervention.
	2	Either or.
	3	Will preferably use some intervention.
	4	Will absolutely use some intervention.
Attitude	A1 A2 A3 A4	That there are interventions intended to protect animals from attacks by large carnivores is predominately good. That there are interventions intended to protect animals from attacks by large carnivores is predominantly useless. [reverse coding] That there are interventions intended to protect animals from attacks by large carnivores is predominantly desirable. That there are interventions intended to protect animals from attacks by large carnivores is predominantly negative. [reverse coding]
Subjective Norm	SN1 SN2 SN3 SN4	My family thinks that I should use interventions. My close friends think that I should use interventions. People with the same lifestyle as I think that I should use interventions Other animal owners in my surrounding use interventions.
Perceived Control	PC1 PC2 PC3	I experience that I have the possibility to implement relevant interventions. I experience that I in my everyday life can use existing interventions. I experience that I have time to maintain interventions to protect my animals from carnivore attacks.
Response	0/4	No, absolutely not.
	1/3	No, hardly.
	2/2	Either or.
	3/1	Yes, to some extent.
	4/0	Yes, absolutely.
Worry	EO	Do you feel worry/fear that some large carnivore (bear, wolverine, lynx, wolf) will attack your animals?
Response	0 … 10	None at all … Very strongly
Relevance	R1	I think that my animals will be attacked by large carnivores …
Response	0 1 2 3 4	No I do not think it will happen. … after more than 10 years. … within 6–10 years. … within 1–5 years. … within a half year.
Relevance	R2	It is important that there are interventions to prevent carnivore attacks on animals.
	R3	My animals and my animal husbandry define who I am.
Implication	I1	Carnivore attacks on animals are a result of political decisions.
	I2	I would be negatively affected by an attack from large carnivores on my animals.
	I3	Carnivore attacks on animals are a result of natural processes. [reverse coding]
	I4	I think that the consequences of a carnivore attack on my animals would be substantial.
	I5	I would be positively affected by an attack from large carnivores on my animals. [reverse coding]
	I6	I experience that a carnivore attack on my animals would be like an attack on me and my lifestyle.
Coping Potential	C1 C2	I experience that I can influence what the consequences are of a carnivore attack on my animals. I experience that I can handle the consequences of a carnivore attack on my animals.
	C3	The use of preventive interventions reduces my anxiety of carnivore attacks.
Norm	N1	I experience that the use of interventions is supported by existing legislation.
	N2	The interventions that are available to prevent carnivore attacks on animals are in line with my view of good animal husbandry.
	N3	The County Administration Board’s work with interventions to prevent carnivore attacks is predictable.
Response	0/4 1/3 2/2 3/1 4/0	No, absolutely not. No, hardly. Either or. Yes, to some extent. Yes, absolutely.

The word animal was substituted for the relevant domestic animal in each owner group. ID indicates identification for each item, and code/reverse-code value for response options. Response scales are shown below dashed lines corresponding to all items in each section separated by solid lines in the table.

Table 3. Indices of model fit for the confirmatory factor analysis of model 1, 2, and 3.

Model	CFA (latent: observed)	χ^2 (df)	RMSEA	PClose	TLI	CFI
1	Attitude: A1, A2, A3, A4 Subjective Norm: SN1, SN2, SN3, N4 Perceived Control: PC1, PC2, PC3	342 (41)	.77	.00	.95	.96
2	Attitude: A1, A2, A4 Subjective Norm: SN1, SN2, SN3, N4 Perceived Control: PC1, PC2, PC3	178 (32)	.06	.02	.97	.98
3	Attitude: A1, A2, A4 Subjective Norm: SN1, SN2, SN3 Perceived Control: PC1, PC2, PC3	57.8 (24)	.03	.99	.99	.99

Cutoff values are provided in the Methods-section.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics.

Measure	Mean	Standard Deviation	Range
Worry
Hunting dog owners	8.04	2.420	0.00–10.0
Pet dog owners	4.69	3.268	0.00–10.0
Reindeer herders	9.73	1.008	5.00–10.0
Sheep owners	6.66	2.903	0.00–10.0
Transhumance farmers	8.25	2.193	2.00–10.0
Vulnerability
Hunting dog owners	3.22	0.604	0.00–4.00
Pet dog owners	1.92	1.035	0.25–4.00
Reindeer herders	3.14	0.508	2.00–4.00
Sheep owners	2.51	0.955	0.00–4.00
Transhumance farmers	2.93	0.748	1.00–4.00
Potential for action
Hunting dog owners	1.29	0.764	0.00–3.80
Pet dog owners	1.81	0.723	0.00–3.60
Reindeer herders	1.35	0.716	0.00–2.40
Sheep owners	2.31	0.832	0.00–4.00
Transhumance farmers	2.02	0.805	0.40–3.60
Behavioral intention
Hunting dog owners	2.82	1.231	0.00–4.00
Pet dog owners	2.04	1.317	0.00–4.00
Reindeer herders	3.70	0.637	2.00–4.00
Sheep owners	2.85	1.179	0.00–4.00
Transhumance farmers	2.89	1.171	0.00–4.00
Attitude
Hunting dog owners	2.25	1.193	0.00–4.00
Pet dog owners	2.65	1.245	0.00–4.00
Reindeer herders	2.44	1.183	0.00–4.00
Sheep owners	3.16	0.943	0.00–4.00
Transhumance farmers	3.05	0.936	1.00–4.00
Subjective norm
Hunting dog owners	3.14	0.938	0.00–4.00
Pet dog owners	2.49	1.062	0.00–4.00
Reindeer herders	3.13	0.946	1.00–4.00
Sheep owners	3.19	0.907	0.00–4.00
Transhumance farmers	3.07	1.006	0.00–4.00
Perceived control
Hunting dog owners	1.82	1.038	0.00–4.00
Pet dog owners	2.39	1.022	0.00–4.00
Reindeer herders	1.46	0.924	0.00–3.33
Sheep owners	2.48	0.965	0.00–4.00
Transhumance farmers	2.20	0.921	0.00–3.33

Table 5. Model estimates for regression of the behavioral intention to use interventions.

Factor	B	SE	t-value	p-value
Attitude	0.002	0.028	0.060	.952
Perceived Control	0.194	0.033	5.808	< .001
Subjective Norm	0.461	0.035	13.075	< .001
Worry	0.096	0.013	7.576	< .001
Owner Group Affiliation: Pet dog owner (reference)	Intercept -0.020	0.163	−0.121	.904
Hunting dog owner	0.269	0.115	2.342	< .05
Reindeer owner	1.057	0.218	4.860	< .001
Sheep owner	0.275	0.118	2.327	< .05
Transhumance farmer	0.280	0.178	1.577	.115

The intention to use interventions is described by TPB constructs extended with the emotional factor worry and group affiliation. For the categorical variable “Owner group affiliation” intercepts and test of statistical significance are in relation to the reference group “Pet dog owners.”

Table 6. Model estimates for regression of worry.

Factor	B	SE	t-value	p – value
Potential for Action	−0.444	0.091	−4.866	< .001
Vulnerability	1.717	0.092	18.604	< .001
Owner Group Affiliation: Pet dog owner (reference)	Intercept 2.195	0.353	6.213	< .001
Hunting dog owner	0.886	0.240	3.697	< .001
Reindeer owner	2.749	0.433	6.344	< .001
Sheep owner	1.182	0.246	4.806	< .001
Transhumance farmer	1.917	0.363	5.288	< .001

Worry is described by the modified Emotional Appraisal constructs extended with group affiliation. For the categorical variable “Owner group affiliation” the intercept and test of statistical significance are reported in relation to the reference group “Pet dog owners.”