Fig 1.
Map of the extant range of the Amur tiger in relation to Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture, China.
Amur tiger range was drawn based on IUCN, 2015 [8], and base layers were created through ArcMap 10.3 (ESRI, Redlands, USA).
Fig 2.
Sampling villages in the study area.
Red squares indicate study villages. Two protected areas are shaded: the dark green region refers to the Land of Leopard National Park (Russia), and the light green region refers to Northeast China and Leopard National Park (China). Tiger occurrence was created based on previously published data [29] and base layers were created through ArcMap 10.3 (ESRI, Redlands, USA).
Table 1.
Annual income and economy activities in the survey area.
The ratio under each economy activity indicates the proportion of respondents who engage in these economic activities, with the majority of households involved in several different economic activities concurrently. The main income sources reported for the two lowest income tiers (annual income of $1,000-$2,500 and <$1,000 respectively) were from state support programs or financial support from other family members.
Fig 3.
Agricultural product loss within 5 years.
48% of families reported that they had corn destroyed and 40% of families reported that they had lost both corn and beans to wildlife. Losses of other crops like ginseng and pumpkins were also reported.
Table 2.
Factor loading values based on exploratory factor analysis (N = 139).
Total contribution of the factors is 72.5%, and all the loading coefficients are higher than 0.45, which means that there is a close correlation among each factor, and the common factors can be used to explain the variables effectively. By reading the loading values, 5 main attitude categories were classified as Factor 1, which could be described as the attitude towards carnivores; Factor 2 could be described as the preference towards herbivores; Factor 3 could be described as attitude towards reducing hunting to benefit wildlife conservation; Factor 4 could be described as the attitude towards wild boars; Factor 5 could be described as the attitude towards nature resources.
Table 3.
Important variables associated with the attitude towards wildlife using multiple linear regressions (n = 120).
A regression model with nine potential influencing variables was run for each of the five attitude factors to determine their values. The F value and variable numbers were taken into consideration when selecting the result. Results in bold font represent highly significant values.