1. Communicating Research Findings More Effectively: The Potential for Conflict Index Jerry J. Vaske Colorado State University Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Fort Collins, CO 80523

2. Overview of Presentation Introduce Potential for Conflict Index (PCI 1 ) Describe enhancements in 2 nd generation of PCI 2 Provide a partial validation of PCI 2 Demonstrate the PCI 2 menu system

3. Goal – Challenge – Solution Goal of Human Dimensions / Recreation research Conceptualize, measure and interpret variables and their relationships in a way that bears meaning on problems of managerial or scientific interest Challenge Effectively communicating the meaning of abstract statistics (e.g., standard deviation, standard error) for measuring consensus Solution – Potential for Conflict Index (PCI) Manfredo, Vaske, & Teel, 2003 Vaske et al., 2006; Vaske et al., 2010

4. Potential for Conflict Index (PCI) Integrates into one measure information about: –Central tendency –Dispersion –Shape of a distribution Uses graphic display: Easy interpretation Places findings in managerial context (e.g., the acceptability of a given mgmt. action)

5. PCI 1 Measurement Requirements Response scale -3-20123 Highly Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable NeutralSlightly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Highly Acceptable Balanced scale with equal number of response options on either side of “Neutral” point Number of response options can be 3, 5, 7, or 9 (typical to have 5 or 7 response options) Numerical ratings must be assigned with center point given value of 0

6. PCI Assumptions Greatest potential conflict (PCI = 1) occurs with bimodal distribution: –50% rate mgmt. action as “Highly Unacceptable” –50% rate mgmt. action as “Highly Acceptable” –0% are “Neutral” No conflict (PCI = 0) occurs when: –100% rate mgmt. action in a single category (e.g., 100% “Highly Unacceptable” OR 100% “Highly Acceptable”) Index range: 0 (no conflict – most consensus) to 1 (most conflict – least consensus)

7. Previous Applications of PCI Yellowstone wolf mgmt. (ID & WY) Desert tortoise mgmt. (CA) Chronic wasting disease (8 states) Off leash dogs urban parks (CO) Wildlife values (19 states) Wildland fire management (3 states) Instream flows in Hell’s Canyon (ID) Scuba divers / snorkelers (FL) Summer use – Whistler ski area (BC)

8. Different Species & Severity Human-Wildlife Interactions Jerry J. Vaske 1 Mark D. Needham 2 Lori B. Shelby 1 Caroline Hummer 1 1 Colorado State University 2 Oregon State University Paper presented at International Union of Game Biologists XXVIII Congress, Uppsala, Sweden, 2007

9. Survey scenarios manipulated 3species:Raccoons, Bears, Mountain Lions 3 levels – Severity of human-wildlife interaction:Presence, Nuisance, Kills human Management Action Highly Unacceptable Unacceptable Somewhat UnacceptableNeither Somewhat AcceptableAcceptable Highly Acceptable Monitor the situation -3-20123 Frighten the bear away -3-2 0123 Capture and relocate the bear -3-20123 Destroy the bear -3-20123 Example scenario: A person encounters a black bear in their neighborhood. The bear charges and mauls the person, resulting in the person’s death. Given this scenario, how unacceptable or acceptable would it be for wildlife agencies to take each of the following actions.

10. Traditional Display Descriptive Statistics – Acceptability of Destroy Animal MeanStd ErrorStd. Dev.VarianceSkewnessKurtosis Raccoon roaming neighborhood-2.47.1141.2291.5102.5546.075 Raccoon pest-2.09.1521.6432.7001.8362.339 Raccoon kills humans1.16.2022.1854.775-.862-.740 Bear roaming neighborhood-2.58.0961.0361.0733.25111.618 Bear pest-2.30.1201.2951.6772.1274.390 Bear kills human.17.2032.1904.798-.202-1.355 Mt Lion roaming neighborhood-2.41.1261.3661.8652.5986.268 Mt Lion pest-2.10.1481.5992.5581.9963.164 Mt Lion kills human.18.2122.2795.193 -.124-1.501

11. Acceptability of Destroying Animal Highly Acceptable Neither Highly Unacceptable Raccoon Presence Nuisance Kills Human.05.04.08.14.13.36.58.06.63 -3 -2 0 1 2 3 Bear Mountain Lion Larger bubbles reflect more potential for conflict

12. Other Applications of PCI

13. Very Acceptable Neutral Very Unacceptable Acceptability Level of Flow (CFS): 5000 8000 10000 15000 30000 40000 50000 Acceptability of Instream Flows

14. Chronic Wasting Disease Management Highly Acceptable Neither Highly Unacceptable.05 Continue to test deer / elk for CWD.12 No action – allow CWD to take its natural course.62 Use trained agency staff to dramatically reduce herds in affected zones Use hunters to drama- tically reduce herds in affected zones.26 Action Acceptability -3 -2 0 1 2 3

15. Highly Acceptable Neither Highly Unacceptable Action Acceptability Injures Person Kills Person Kills Pet Seen in Area Acceptability of Destroying Lion by Attitude Negative Attitude.61.07 Positive Attitude Neutral Attitude.20.42.14.41.31.68.21.19.41.09 -3 -2 0 1 2 3

16. Take away permit for year Take away permit for 15 days Give a fine Do nothing Sanctions Fishing in No-take zone Illegal fishing methods Off-season Sea cucumber harvest Off-season lobster harvest Shark harvest Fishing Violations Norms for Fishing Violations in the Galapagos 32103210 Santa CruzIsabela

17. Take away permit for year Take away permit for 15 days Give a fine Do nothing Sanctions Fishing in No-take zone Illegal fishing methods Off-season Sea cucumber harvest Off-season lobster harvest Shark harvest Fishing Violations Norms for Fishing Violations in the Galapagos Santa CruzIsabela 32103210

18. Par or lower Above Par Satisfaction with Golfing by Score Delighted Pleased Mostly Satisfied Mixed Mostly Dissatisfied Unhappy Terrible Own Performance Course Condition Pace of Play

19. Par or lower Above Par Satisfaction with Golfing by Score Delighted Pleased Mostly Satisfied Mixed Mostly Dissatisfied Unhappy Terrible Own Performance Course Condition Pace of Play

20. Satisfaction with Occupation Therapy Treatments Care givers Patients Extremely Satisfied Unsure Extremely Dissatisfied In-patient Out-patient In-home

21. Satisfaction with Occupation Therapy Treatments Care givers Patients Extremely Satisfied Unsure Extremely Dissatisfied In-patient Out-patient In-home

22. Satisfaction with Occupation Therapy Treatments Care givers Patients Extremely Satisfied Unsure Extremely Dissatisfied In-patient Out-patient In-home

23. Enhancements in PCI 2 Generates statistic from SPSS, SAS, Excel & PHP A simulation generates M & SD (default n = 400) (SD allows test of differences between PCI values) Allows for: –different scale widths (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) –unipolar & bipolar scales (with or without neutral value) –different power functions (i.e., 1, 2 or any power > 0) –different distance functions (D1, D2, D3)

24. PCI 2 – Distance Based Formula Consider person (x) response relative to person (y) Responses = r x and r y Distance between people d x,y = f(r x, r y ) Different ways to define distance: d x,y = |r x – r y | Issue: People at –3 & –2 not really in conflict; differ only in degree to which views are held Alternative distance formulations... -3-20123 Highly Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable NeutralSlightly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Highly Acceptable

25. PCI 2 – Alternative Distance Functions D1d x,y = (|r x – r y | – 1) If sign(r x ) ≠ sign(r y );(e.g., r x = –3 & r y = +1) otherwise d x,y = 0  Neutral is not considered in determining distance (D1: –3 to 1 is 3) D2d x,y = |r x – r y | If sign(r x ) ≠ sign(r y ); otherwise d x,y = 0  Neutral is considered in determining distance (D2: –3 to 1 is 4) -3-20123 Highly Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable NeutralSlightly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Highly Acceptable

26. PCI 2 Formula where: n k = number of respondents for each scale value n h = number of respondents at other scale values d k,h = distances between respondents δ max = maximum distance between extreme values * number of times this distance occurs

27. PCI 2 in Excel 5-point scale # of respondents at:Value -2100 0 00 10 2100 Total sample200 Total distance Maximum distance PCI 200 0 0 0 0 0 60000 0 50 0 200 40000 60000.67 25 100 25 200 10000 60000.17 10000 60000 1.00

28. Current Recommended Settings: PCI 2 Distance:D1 Power: P1: Power = 1 Scale width:5 or 7 points Recommendations subject to further testing and validation using actual & simulation data

29. Toward a Validation of PCI 2

30. PCI 2 – General Validation Meets boundary conditions (i.e., PCI = 0 and / or 1 when it should) Simulated values for a distribution are approximately normally distributed (i.e., usual tests for differences can be used) Bias is small relative to standard deviation in a PCI estimated for a survey

31. PCI 2 & Sample Size 7-point scale 0.4790.48 0.4850.486 0.489 0.4920.493 0.4950.4960.497 5-point scale 0.3510.349 0.351 0.35 Each estimated mean based on 1000 simulated samples 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1002003004005006007008009001000 Sample Size PCI Value

32. PCI – Conclusions PCI offers an intuitive approach to summarizing statistical results Based on past experiences, managers understand PCI results Computing PCI & graphical display is straightforward PCI 2 allows for multiple analytical options & experimentation capabilities

33. PCI – Future Research Continue validation Further examination of scale width issues Link PCI to practical significance indicators (e.g., effect sizes, Van der Eijk’s measure of agreement) Apply PCI to more human dimensions issues Develop standards for interpreting PCI values

34. Questions PCI 2 SPSS, Excel, PHP, PowerPoint programs available at: h ttp://welcome.warnercnr.colostate.edu/~jerryv/