Fig 1.
The Great Fish River Nature Reserve and the study area within South Africa.
Table 1.
Reasons given by respondents to justify willingness/unwillingness to reintroduce wild dogs to the Great Fish River Nature Reserve.
Fig 2.
The threat index scores of the communal area (represented as an average index score of the respondents for each community) and private properties surrounding the Great Fish River Nature Reserve.
(Reds and oranges indicate higher threat areas while darker greens indicate low threat areas).
Fig 3.
Threats to wild dogs around the Great Fish River Nature Reserve.
A) Poaching, B) Snaring, C) Domestic dogs and D) Wild dogs used for traditional medicine.
Table 2.
The Akaike information criterion (AICc) values for regression models investigating the effects of human socio-demographic variables on the threat index of respondents (n = 128).
Table 3.
The individual Akaike weights (impact factors) for the human demographic variables predicting the threat index of respondents towards wild dogs in the Great Fish River Nature Reserve.
Fig 4.
The significant relationships between the first language of a respondent and their threat index (F(2; 118) = 13.87; p < 0.05) and the level of education of respondent and threat index (F(3; 123) = 3.53; p < 0.05).
Table 4.
The Akaike information criterion (AICc) values for regression models investigating the effects of property variables on the threat index of respondents.
Table 5.
The individual Akaike weights (impact factors) for the property variables predicting the threat index of respondents towards wild dogs in the Great Fish River Nature Reserve.
Fig 5.
The relationships between the threat index of a respondent and their properties land use (F(3; 123) = 3.75; p < 0.05) and land tenure (F(1;116) = 16.44; p < 0.05) was found to be significant.