Psychological drivers of risk-reducing behaviors to limit human–wildlife conflict

Conflicts between people and wild animals are increasing globally, often with serious consequences for both. Local regulations or ordinances are frequently used to promote human behaviors that minimize these conflicts (risk-reducing behaviors), but compliance with ordinances can be highly variable. While efforts to increase compliance could be improved through applications of conservation psychology, little is known about the relative influence of different factors motivating compliance. Using concepts from psychology and risk theory, we conducted a longitudinal study pairing data from mail surveys with direct observations of compliance with a wildlife ordinance requiring residents to secure residential garbage from black bears (Ursus americanus). We assessed the relative influence of beliefs and attitudes toward bears and bear proofing, perceived behavioral control, perceived risks and benefits assigned to bears, norms, trust in management, previous experience with conflicts, and demographics on compliance behavior (i.e., bear proofing). Data on previous experience were obtained through direct observation and survey reports. We found that higher compliance rates were associated with more observed conflicts on a respondent's block. Counter to expectations, however, residents were less compliant when they were more trusting of the management agency and perceived more benefits from bears. We suggest that messages have the potential to increase compliance when they empower residents by linking successful management of conflicts to individual actions and emphasize how reducing conflicts could maintain benefits provided by wildlife. Modifying existing educational materials to account for these psychological considerations and evaluating their impact on compliance behavior over time are important next steps in changing human behaviors relevant to the globally important problem of human-wildlife conflict.