Examining Sense of Place and Florida Black Bear Habitat Use in Florida?s Northwestern 
Panhandle: A Social-Ecological Approach to Landscape Management 
 
by 
 
Damon Royal Lowery 
 
 
 
 
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of 
Auburn University 
in partial fulfillment of the 
requirements for the Degree of 
Master of Science 
 
Auburn, Alabama 
August 6, 2011 
 
 
 
 
Keywords:  black bear, habitat use, human-landscape relationships, 
land use change, management, sense of place 
 
 
Copyright 2011 by Damon Royal Lowery 
 
 
Approved by 
 
Wayde Morse, Chair, Assistant Professor of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences 
James Grand, Professor of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences 
Todd Steury, Assistant Professor of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences
ii 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Abstract 
 
 
Florida?s Northwestern Panhandle is one of the last undeveloped areas of Florida 
coastline and faces potential alterations in the near future. These changes will have landscape 
level impacts, and this study aimed at understanding the potential effects to both social and 
ecological systems. From a social standpoint, human-landscape relationships and sense of place 
were identified and mapped within Franklin and Gulf counties. From an ecological standpoint, 
habitat use patterns of threatened Florida black bears were examined within Apalachicola 
National Forest and Tate?s Hell State Forest. Individuals? attitudes toward black bears and 
preferences related to managing human-black bear conflicts were also explored. Study findings 
revealed residents possess strong attachments to the landscape based on a variety of meanings, 
black bears are using Tate?s Hell State Forest over Apalachicola National Forest, and residents? 
attitudes concerning bears and conflict management preferences varied greatly. Findings will 
assist with planning for impending development and creating management plans that correspond 
with residents? sense of place and local black bear habitat use patterns. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
iii 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Acknowledgments 
 
 
 I would like to thank the United States Forest Service and the Auburn University Center 
for Forest Sustainability for support and funding for this study. I am extremely grateful for my 
major professor Dr. Wayde Morse and his mentorship, assistance, and unwavering support. 
Gratitude is also given to Dr. Todd Steury for his unselfish efforts in assisting with the 
development and execution of this study from the beginning stages. Additionally, I would like to 
acknowledge Dr. Morse and Dr. Steury, as well as Dr. James Grand, for serving as my graduate 
committee. Their constructive criticism and ongoing efforts greatly enhanced my thesis and 
overall graduate experience. I would also like to thank my office colleagues who assisted with 
various tasks and made my time at Auburn an enjoyable tenure.   
 Appreciation is given to staff of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 
Florida Division of Forestry, and United States Forest Service for logistical project support. 
Additional thanks to Auburn University?s School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, College of 
Veterinary Medicine, Canine and Detection Research Institute, and Animal Health and 
Performance Program for project support. Lastly, I thank all individuals who assisted with data 
collection and organization. 
 
 
 
 
iv 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 
 
 
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... ii 
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................ iii 
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ v 
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. vi 
Chapter 1: Examining Human-Landscape Relationships: A Qualitative and Spatial Analysis of 
Sense of Place ............................................................................................................. 1 
 
Chapter 2: Habitat Use of Florida Black Bears in Florida?s Panhandle ..................................... 27 
Chapter 3: Examining Human-Black Bear Conflicts in the Panhandle of Florida ..................... 51 
Epilogue ...................................................................................................................................... 67 
References ................................................................................................................................... 70 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
v 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
List of Tables 
 
 
Table 1: Univariate analysis results of camera data .................................................................... 46 
Table 2: Univariate analysis results of scat detection dog data .................................................. 47 
Table 3: Models produced from all models subset analysis ....................................................... 48 
Table 4: Model averaged results of Florida black bear habitat use ............................................ 49 
Table 5: Average values of site covariates ................................................................................. 50 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
vi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
List of Figures 
 
 
Figure 1: Map of places important for livelihoods ..................................................................... 24 
Figure 2: Map of places important for recreation ....................................................................... 25 
Figure 3: Map of places important for ecological reasons .......................................................... 26 
Figure 4: Map of Apalachicola National Forest and Tate?s Hell State Forest ............................ 45 
Figure 5: Map of study area ........................................................................................................ 66
1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 1 
Examining Human-Landscape Relationships: 
A Qualitative and Spatial Analysis of Sense of Place 
 
 
 
Abstract 
Florida?s Northwestern Panhandle is one of the last undeveloped areas of Florida 
coastline and faces potential alterations in the near future. This study identified places of 
importance, human-landscape relationships, and sense of place across a mixed landscape of both 
private and public lands within Franklin and Gulf counties in order to better plan for impending 
development. Relevant data was obtained through an innovative approach that utilized the 
combination of focus groups and spatial mapping procedures. Focus group discussions supplied 
rich understanding of human-landscape relationships, while participant mapping provided 
spatially explicit representations of those relationships. Study findings revealed a variety of place 
based meanings are present, locations of landscape attachments are spatially identifiable, and 
strong conservation and development preferences exist. In a broader context, study findings will 
provide natural resource managers with spatially explicit information needed to create 
management plans that correspond with local land use preferences and sense of place. 
 
 
 
2 
 
Introduction 
Across much of the United States population growth and development continue to 
increase, resulting in major landscape modifications and land use changes. The implications of 
these changes have significant impacts on human systems, ecological systems, and the 
relationships between the two. The association between humans and their environments is highly 
interactive, with humans bound to the landscapes in which they live and landscapes subject to the 
actions of humans. As changes continue to occur and landscapes are altered, an improved 
understanding of human-landscape relationships and places of importance is needed. 
This article?s objective is to provide insight into and spatially represent local human-
landscape relationships within two counties in the Florida Panhandle that contain a mix of land 
ownerships that are facing potential developmental threats. This task was undertaken by 
employing a novel approach which utilized the combination of focus groups and participatory 
mapping procedures. Specifically, meanings and attachments to the landscape resulting from 
livelihood and recreational interactions were sought. With development impending, opinions 
concerning places of ecological importance and preferences for conservation and development 
were obtained as well. 
The benefit of such a methodology that utilizes both focus groups and participatory 
mapping procedures is that in-depth and personal insight into human-landscape relationships is 
obtained. Focus group discussions provide rich, comprehensive understanding of specific place 
meanings, landscape attachments, and the basis for those meanings and attachments across a 
range of stakeholders, while participatory mapping reveals the geographical dimensions and 
specific locations of those meanings and attachments. Furthermore, data collected at a fine scale, 
such as the county level as in this study, provides relevant and spatially detailed findings useful 
3 
 
for future land use planning and management objectives. Thus, managers are afforded the ability 
to formulate land use plans that preserve human-landscape relationships and coincide with local 
land use preferences.            
 
Conceptual Background  
Across numerous disciplines multiple approaches have been developed to conceptualize 
the intricate relationships that exist between humans and landscapes (Davenport and Anderson 
2005; Williams et al. 1992). An overarching concept that has emerged as an appropriate means 
for understanding the bonds between human and ecological systems is ?sense of place? 
(Davenport and Anderson 2005; Jorgensen and Stedman 2001; Rogan et al. 2005; Stedman 2003; 
Williams and Stewart 1998). In its simplest form, sense of place is an interpretation of how 
humans identify and connect with the places or landscapes with which they interact (Williams 
and Stewart 1998). Sense of place, however, is a complex, multidimensional concept that has 
been described as a collection of meanings, values, attachments, bonds, feelings, symbols, 
perceptions, satisfactions, qualities, and characteristics that humans associate with a place 
(Brown 2005; Davenport and Anderson 2005; Eisenhauer et al. 2000; Fishwick and Vining 1992; 
Galliano and Loeffler 1995; Greider and Garkovich 1994; Kaltenborn 1998; Relph 1976; Rogan 
et al. 2005; Stedman 2003; Tuan 1977; Williams and Stewart 1998,).   
The developmental process of sense of place can be viewed from what past researchers 
have termed an ?interactionist perspective? (Berger and Luckmann 1967; Greider and Garkovich 
1994) or as a ?transactional concept? (Zube 1987). Both approaches demonstrate that sense of 
place develops through people actively living, participating, and interacting in and with places 
and landscapes.  As people interact with their surroundings, they enjoy experiences, partake in 
4 
 
activities, make observations, and instill value and meaning into specific places. Place meanings 
are shaped by both social influences and the physical landscape and do not have to be 
exclusively of a utilitarian or consumptive nature (Eisenhauer et al. 2000; Raymond et al. 2009; 
Williams and Stewart 1998). Social influences impacting meanings can include an individual?s 
previous experiences, personal needs and desires, cultural heritage, family history, and lifestyle 
among other things (Williams and Stewart 1998; Zube 1987). The nature of the physical 
environment and specific attributes of a place operate in unison with these social influences to 
further mold the meanings that are associated with particular places and landscapes (Shields 
1991; Stedman 2003). Place meanings ultimately shape the bonds and connections that develop 
between individuals and places. 
Past efforts have intensively explored and aided in the conceptualization of sense of 
place. Early sense of place research revealed that individuals instill a variety of place meanings 
into specific locations and develop attachments based on a number of interactions with the 
landscape (Williams et al. 1992) such as, livelihood dependence (Davenport and Anderson 2005) 
and recreational use (Farnum et al. 2005; Moore and Graefe 1994). Place attachment was further 
suggested to comprise the additional components of place identity and place dependence (Moore 
and Graefe 1994; Williams et al. 1992), although debate still remains over the exclusivity of 
place attachment, identity, and dependence (Stedman 2003). Mesch and Manor (1998) identified 
the importance of perceptions of place, and Stedman (2003) substantiated the significance of 
place satisfaction as a core element of sense of place. Furthermore, Stedman (2003) 
demonstrated that in addition to social processes, the nature of the physical environment, termed 
as place characteristics, shapes sense of place.  
5 
 
These past endeavors reveal that sense of place can be defined as a multidimensional 
concept consisting of place meanings, place attachment which includes place identity and place 
dependence, place satisfaction, and place characteristics. Each of the four main domains operates 
separately, but more importantly, in conjunction to comprise the overall concept of sense of 
place. The interworking relationship between these four domains is best explained by Stedman 
(2003) who suggests that characteristics of the physical environment provide an outlet for place 
meanings to develop, and the ensuing meanings mold both place attachments and place 
satisfactions. The result of this process is a unique sense of place that elucidates the relationship 
between an individual and a place and sheds light onto why a place is deemed as important or as 
a ?special place?.   
The multifaceted nature of sense of place makes it an exceptional construct for 
developing insight into how particular communities relate to their surroundings and the 
importance of areas within the larger landscape. Answers to a variety of questions can be 
obtained such as, what makes a place important, how do environmental features shape 
connections with landscapes, and how do potential landscape alterations shape meanings, 
perceptions, and attachments. By examining these various questions deeper insight into human-
landscape bonds and how those bonds can be maintained emerges. Understanding these 
relationships is a critical component of natural resource management, and thus the ultimate 
practicality of sense of place is that it allows managers to identify, understand, and consider 
human-landscape relationships prior to proposing and implementing management decisions 
(Williams and Patterson 1996). A thorough knowledge of a community?s sense of place provides 
valuable information needed to create management plans and formulate policies that coincide 
6 
 
with locals? conservation and development preferences, help minimize potential conflicts, and 
preserve the complex bonds that exist between individuals and places.    
 
Spatially Representing Sense of Place  
As the concept of sense of place has continued to evolve, researchers have conceded that 
one of the greatest limitation of previous research has been the inability to spatially represent 
individuals? sense of place (Black and Liljeblad 2006; Brown 2006; Dixon and Durrheim 2000; 
Tyrv?inen et al. 2007). The mapping of human-landscape relationships holds the potential to 
bridge the gap between theoretical sense of place research and applied land management. 
Representing an individual?s knowledge within a spatial context is known as ?participatory? or 
?bottom-up? geographic information systems (GIS), which is a valuable tool for identifying the 
spatial dimensions of sense of place (Abbot et al. 1998; Talen 2000).   
Brown (2005) utilized participatory GIS by having Alaska residents place points on a 
paper map that represented specific landscape values (i.e., aesthetic, therapeutic, etc). Although 
Brown (2005) successfully identified the locations of place values, his study lacked qualitative 
understanding of whether those locations were important, and if so, what attachments, 
satisfactions, or physical characteristics contributed to the importance of the mapped places. 
Black and Liljebald (2006) utilized an alternative method to mapping landscape values in order 
to gain a fuller representation of place attachments held by Bitterroot Valley residents to the 
Trapper-Bunkhouse planning area in the Bitterroot National Forest. Black and Liljebald (2006) 
conducted in-depth interviews with participants and had each participant draw areas of 
importance or areas imbued with specific meanings. Black and Liljebald?s (2006) approach 
provided the necessary link between mapping places of importance and understanding what 
7 
 
meanings and attachments made those places important.  Furthermore, by working at a fine scale 
participants were able to hand draw areas of importance. The advantage of having participants 
draw on maps is that specific areas or landscape features can be mapped, identifying both large 
geographical areas (i.e., hunting leases) and specific characteristics of a landscape (i.e., 
trailheads) that are important. The end product of Black and Liljebald?s (2006) research endeavor 
was an in-depth understanding of residents? place attachments, underlying meanings for those 
attachments, and visualization of places of importance.         
 
Study Area      
The adjacent counties of Franklin and Gulf lie along the Gulf Coast of Florida's 
Northwestern Panhandle, 80 miles and 100 miles southwest of the state capital of Tallahassee 
respectively. Together, the two counties are one of the last remaining areas of undeveloped 
coastline in Florida, and a diversity of land ownerships and uses exist throughout both counties. 
Public lands comprise eighty-seven percent of the land mass in Franklin County and 
approximately fifteen percent of Gulf County. Public lands throughout the counties include 
national preserves, state forests, and other protected lands. Private lands consist of residential 
areas, timber and agricultural lands, coastal properties, and other land holdings. Both counties 
contain miles of pristine coastal shoreline, numerous beaches, expansive river systems, the 
Apalachicola and St. Joseph Bays, various aquatic habitats, and many local and state parks.   
Both counties are predominantly rural, but residents vary demographically. The counties 
contain long term residents and retirees, second home buyers and newcomers, and individuals of 
various races, ages, occupations, and socio-economic statuses. Franklin and Gulf boast of being 
part of ?Old Florida? and categorize themselves as the ?Forgotten Coast? due to the minimal 
8 
 
development that has occurred along the coastlines. The maritime culture of Franklin and Gulf 
counties is a significant aspect that further defines both counties, and Franklin County is 
especially known for its functioning waterfronts and prominent oyster industry.    
The combination of diverse natural surroundings and traditional towns and communities 
has produced remarkably strong bonds between county residents and their surroundings (Johnson 
and Zipperer 2007). However, several land development companies own the majority of private 
lands remaining in Franklin and Gulf, and both counties are poised to undergo land use change in 
the future. As these changes manifest, the need to identify, understand, and verbalize the 
relationships between local residents and their surroundings has come to the forefront of natural 
resource management in both counties. 
 
Methods 
This study follows a similar methodology to Black and Liljebald (2006) in that 
participatory GIS is utilized to make the link between qualitatively understanding and spatially 
representing human-landscape relationships. In contrast to Black and Liljebald (2006), this study 
explores human-landscape relationships and sense of place across a mixed landscape of various 
private and public ownerships. Focus groups are used to capture detailed insight concerning the 
bonds between humans and landscapes, and participant drawing is employed to spatially 
document places of importance. Spatial data is collected at a fine scale where participants can 
easily identify and map specific locations. This approach undertaken at the local level provides 
managers and planners with understanding and visualization of important places, which can be 
integrated into appropriate land management policies and decisions.                   
 
9 
 
Qualitative Methods and Analysis 
A diversity of focus groups was conducted to represent a broad range of opinions, with 
the goal of in-depth and rich understanding of bonds shared between individuals and landscapes. 
Key informants within both counties assisted with identifying and recruiting a range of groups. 
Additionally, a snow ball sampling technique was employed to identify individuals with whom 
to conduct focus group discussions. A total of 19 focus group discussions and one interview were 
conducted in the summer of 2010. On average each focus group consisted of five to eight similar 
individuals. This small group size was ideal for discussing human-landscape relationships and 
sense of place because it encouraged self-disclosure among participants, allowed participants 
sufficient opportunity to explain and share their many experiences and attitudes, and provided 
participants with the opportunity to readily identify and draw their places of importance. Focus 
groups consisted of marine industry workers, ecotourism workers, realtors, small business 
owners, educators, second home buyers, new residents, long term residents and retirees, local 
recreational clubs, professional biologists and foresters, and concerned citizen groups. 
To ensure consistency across focus groups, a questioning guide and follow up probes 
were developed. Open-ended questions were used to facilitate discussion specifically related to 
place meanings and attachments that result from livelihood dependence on the natural 
environment and recreating on the landscape. These two interactions were examined as they are 
the main interactions Franklin and Gulf County residents have with the landscape. Questions also 
explored opinions related to places of ecological importance and preferences for conservation 
and development. Insight into such opinions and preferences was obtained in order to understand 
the potential impact of future development on sense of place. All focus group discussions were 
10 
 
audio recorded, and prior to formal analysis discussions were transcribed verbatim into an 
electronic text file. Each transcript was reviewed to ensure accuracy and completeness. 
Upon finalization of all transcripts, qualitative analysis procedures were employed as 
outlined by Strauss and Corbin (1990). A start list of initial codes was developed based on sense 
of place theory and previous research. Initial codes were created to capture ideas related to the 
sense of place constructs of place meanings, place attachment and it?s sub-components of place 
identity and place dependence, place satisfaction, and place characteristics (Mesch and Manor 
1998; Moore and Graefe 1994; Stedman 2003; Williams et al. 1992). Place meaning codes 
included meanings resulting from livelihood and recreational interactions with the landscape 
(Davenport and Anderson 2005; Farnum et al. 2005; Moore and Graefe 1994). Ecological 
meanings associated with particular places were also coded (Davenport and Anderson 2005; 
Manning et al. 1999). Additional codes related to conservation and development preferences and 
attitudes toward development type were generated (Brown 2006; Davenport and Anderson 
2005). Emergent coding categories were created as transcripts were read and common themes 
and responses not originally contained in the start list of codes became apparent. After initial and 
emergent coding categories had been proposed, project staff reviewed potential codes, and a final 
list of codes was formulated. Each main coding category consisted of subcategories that 
contained additional codes for capturing important subthemes, ideas, and relationships.    
The qualitative analysis program NVivo v8.0 was used to perform all coding and coding 
summation. Within NVivo relevant passages and phrases from each focus group discussion were 
coded based on the content of the text. Every passage that referenced a specific drawn polygon 
was coded with the associated unique identifier for that polygon (see Spatial Mapping Methods). 
This allowed passages to be directly linked to the geographical location that the passage 
11 
 
described. After all coding concluded coded transcripts were examined by additional project staff 
to assess the reliability of the coding. Necessary changes in coding were made to ensure all codes 
accurately and reliably classified the content of passages. Interpretation of coded passages 
identified major themes and attitudes related to place meanings, attachments, and overall sense 
of place. 
 
Spatial Mapping Methods and Analysis 
In order to spatially represent human-landscape relationships each focus group was 
presented with a 36 inch by 48 inch aerial photograph of both counties, with a scale of 1 inch 
equal to 1.43 miles. As each main topic was discussed participants were asked to draw areas (i.e., 
polygons) on the map that were related to the topic. For example, as participants discussed 
important areas for recreational use, they drew on the map areas where they conducted specific 
types of recreation. Furthermore, for each polygon participants discussed why that place was 
significant to them and what social and biophysical factors contributed to making that place 
significant. In order to ensure clarity during analysis, each polygon was assigned a unique 
identifier. As each polygon was discussed the moderator announced the unique identifier 
associated with that polygon, allowing each polygon to be linked to its associated recorded 
qualitative data. Prior to formal analysis all polygons drawn by participants were manually 
digitized into ESRI ArcGIS using the previously assigned unique identifier as the Polygon ID. 
Once hand drawn polygons had been digitized into ArcGIS, all polygons from every 
focus group were merged into one new shapefile. Each polygon was assigned specific attributes 
based on the content of the passage associated with that polygon. This was done by creating a 
new field in the attribute table of the shapefile, and then classifying each polygon based on the 
12 
 
particular attribute under review. For example, a new field labeled recreation was created, and 
every polygon that referenced an area related to recreation was assigned a value of 1 in the newly 
created recreation field. This process was completed for all polygons that were described by a 
particular passage.      
The main spatial representation of human-landscape relationships for this study involved 
the creation of density maps, also referred to as hotspot maps. Density maps display areas that 
are most frequently identified (i.e., hotspots) in relation to a particular type of interaction that 
contributes to sense of place. These maps were created in ArcGIS by taking polygons that 
overlapped at any one location and summing them together. Multiple hotspot maps were created 
to visually demonstrate where certain human-landscape relationships and places of importance 
were geographically located within Franklin and Gulf counties. Once hotspots were identified 
the text associated with each polygon comprising a particular hotspot was referenced. This 
allowed for understanding of the place meanings, attachments, satisfactions, and characteristics 
underlying each hotspot. Careful consideration should be given to not interpret hotspots as the 
definitive most important places within both counties as focus groups were designed for breadth 
of understanding rather than representation of the greater population. Therefore, hotspot maps 
display the places most often identified as important by study participants only and demonstrate 
the spectrum of important places within the counties.   
 
Study Findings 
Participants attribute a range of meanings to their natural surroundings, which has 
resulted in the development of specific attachments and bonds to the landscape. Strong 
preferences were readily apparent when individuals discussed their attitudes toward future 
13 
 
development, with the majority of participants placing a heavy emphasis on conservation of 
lands and disapproval of large scale development. What follows is a summary of resident?s 
livelihood dependence on the environment, recreational use of specific places, and opinions 
concerning ecological places of importance. Selected passages from the focus group discussions 
are presented to emphasize why participants associate particular meanings with the landscape 
and how their attachments to the landscape have developed. Conservation and development 
preferences are further described to reveal how individuals? perceive potential landscape 
alterations. Hotspot maps representing participants? ties to the landscape are provided in order to 
spatially reference and visually display human-landscape relationships. 
 
Livelihood Dependence on the Natural Environment 
In both Franklin and Gulf counties livelihoods are almost solely derived from natural 
resource dependent industries. One participant states: ?The whole economy and everything is 
dependent on a beautiful natural environment.? In both counties the main livelihood strategies 
consist of working in either the seafood or tourism industry. Tourist based jobs consist of 
employment at local restaurants, shops, and other service oriented professions. In the seafood 
industry, products regularly harvested include fish, oysters, shrimp, and crabs. The historical and 
present day significance of the seafood industry is demonstrated by a participant who stated: 
?That?s all they have ever done in Franklin County is fish, shrimp, oyster, crab, and whatever. 
That is the livelihood.? Other employment opportunities exist in government, construction, real 
estate, and the timber industry. However, such jobs are rare due to downturns in the housing 
market and economy and increased public land purchases.   
14 
 
 Meanings associated with places providing for livelihoods include economic, sustenance, 
cultural, and historical. The present day maritime culture, working waterfronts, and local seafood 
industry within both counties, especially within Apalachicola, is viewed by many as a vital 
aspect of the local communities? identity. The strong cultural meaning and attachment 
participants? have to the maritime tradition in both counties is summed up by a participant: 
To me personally and historically, when I drive over that bridge and I look out and I see 
them oystering that gives me a sense of connectedness to the past as well as future to see 
those guys out there making their living on the bay, tonging with the same wooden 
handled tongs that they have for years and years. 
  
 Within the seafood and tourism industries there is a strong dependence on the 
Apalachicola Bay, St. Joseph Bay, and Gulf of Mexico to harvest marine species and draw 
vacationers and tourists to the area (Figure 1). Several participants also make reference to the 
importance of the Apalachicola River and smaller river systems in maintaining the viability of 
the bays and Gulf. Additionally, the beaches located on St. George Island, Cape San Blas, and 
the St. Joseph Peninsula attract tourists to the area, which in turn provides employment 
opportunities for locals. The physical nature of the islands which draws vacationers to the area is 
described by one participant:  
A tremendous amount of people come here every year just to see that bay? That 
peninsula on outside beaches and on inside is probably some of the most beautiful waters 
and sand dunes that you?ll see anywhere. We got sand dunes on that peninsula that?s 100 
feet high. 
 
One participant sums up the extreme dependency on the bays and coastal properties for 
livelihoods: ?The bays and the beaches drive the whole economy, whether it is tourism or 
seafood or just anything else.? Another participant asserts that the bays are the ?lifeblood? of the 
counties. These statements demonstrate that even livelihoods generated from other opportunities 
15 
 
outside of seafood and tourism depend on a functioning natural environment to attract people to 
the area and live in the area. 
 
Recreational Use of Specific Places  
Recreational use of specific places includes both the terrestrial environment as well as a 
variety of water bodies (Figure 2). Multiple participants state recreational opportunities span the 
entirety of both counties: ?The whole county is recreation? and ?We got everything we want to 
do right here in Gulf County.? Recreational activities most frequently mentioned are similar to 
livelihood approaches and include crabbing, oystering, scalloping, and fishing within the rivers 
and bays. Other activities participants often partake in consist of beach going, wildlife viewing, 
boating, kayaking and canoeing, hunting, and camping. Participants state that the vast 
availability of numerous recreational opportunities contributes to their desire to live in the area: 
?I don?t know about you guys but one of the reasons I am here was because of the proximity and 
the availability to inshore and offshore fishing.?  
Locations used for recreation contain a variety of meanings including spiritual, 
therapeutic, aesthetic, solitude, bequeath, wilderness and naturalness, social, and the meaning of 
recreation itself. The meaning of solitude can be observed as a one participant states: ?We enjoy 
going up the river to swim. I love it because no one is ever there and you can park the boat in the 
middle of the river and jump in.? Discussions concerning recreation demonstrate that 
participants? attachments to recreation sites are mainly based on either social or nature meanings. 
Social meanings related to ?family?, ?friends?, and ?grandchildren? among others lead to place 
attachments. According to a participant: 
Wetappo Creek, the reason we go there is family. My great grandparents live there, so we 
love to go up. My brother comes down from Tennessee and as many family members, 
16 
 
and we just enjoy being out on the water, seeing where our great grandparents lived and 
boated and enjoyed life. 
 
Additionally, participants bond with particular recreational areas based on nature meanings 
concerning the physical characteristics of the environment such as ?natural beauty?, ?scenery?, 
?nice white beaches?, ?abundant natural resources?, ?fresh air?, ?remoteness?, ?unspoildness?, 
and ?peacefulness.?  One individual stated:  
The part I love the most is the sound. It is tidal. It is different every day. It is either got 
sparkles on the water or it is dry land or it is dark because there is a storm coming in or it 
is bright because the sky is blue or it?s choppy because the wind is blowing. Every time 
you look in any direction on any given day you never see the same thing. 
 
The strong attachments individuals have developed with the landscape through recreation are 
summed up by an individual who claims: 
These natural resources are the reason that people come here. The reason that I came here 
was because of the natural resources, and I believe that there are always going to be 
people that want to experience natural resources in their recreational time. 
 
 
 
Opinions Related to Places of Ecological Importance 
 Both counties are considered to be highly valuable from an ecological standpoint: ?We 
love the environment? (Figure 3). Many participants emphasize that both counties, from 
recreation to livelihoods to historical relevance, depend on healthy terrestrial environments as 
well as on functioning watersheds, bays, and the Gulf of Mexico. As one participant claimed: ?If 
you lose the environment you lose everything. If the environment is gone then the rest is all gone 
too.? Meanings associated with ecological places of importance include economic, sustenance, 
historical, intrinsic, therapeutic, aesthetic, wilderness and naturalness, recreational, and the 
meaning of ecological itself. 
17 
 
 Participants indicate that it?s not individual components of the environment that are 
important, but it?s the interworking relationships among all ecological components that are vital: 
It?s so interconnected and so interdependent that if I tried to say the most important 
environmental thing in Franklin County is Nick?s Hole, well I can argue the other side of 
that and be absolutely convinced I?m wrong. You just can?t pull one thing out. 
  
Within both counties participants stress the critical ecological role the terrestrial landscape, 
rivers, bays, estuaries, Gulf of Mexico, islands, and coasts play. Participants mention the 
amazing marine and terrestrial biodiversity provided by each of these. One individual notes:  
St. Vincent is unbelievably important. They still have red wolves, a pair that they use as 
semi-captive breeding. They have that, but the migratory birds, shorebirds, all manners of 
endangered species of birds it is important for. It also has turtle nesting beaches and 
nursery ground, these marshes, nursery grounds for fish for all the fish. 
  
 Furthermore, the characteristics of ?naturalness? and ?pristineness? within both counties 
are satisfying to numerous participants: ?I came from Louisiana where you have no pristine 
environment, and that?s one of the things I love about this area.? Several participants explain 
how the area provides ?clean? and ?fresh? air, ?dark night skies? for ?stargazing?, and ?beautiful 
sunsets and sunrises.? On a larger scale participants appreciate the ?natural? and ?wild? state of 
the extensive river systems and the vast amount of wilderness lands present in both counties: 
One thing that impresses me is the fact that for 50 miles north and 100 miles wide from 
319 we have national and state forests. That is roughly 5,000 square miles. It is one of the 
largest natural areas in the state of Florida, including the Everglades and over near 
Okefenokee. 
 
 
 
Preferences for conservation and development 
 Conservation and development preferences among focus group participants are highly 
aligned with each other. Areas identified as important for conservation and protection from 
development closely resemble the hotspot map of ecologically important places (Figure 3), with 
18 
 
the slight difference of increased emphasis being placed on the terrestrial landscape. Participants 
emphasize the importance of already preserved lands in both counties for environmental 
protection purposes. Furthermore, participants stress the need to protect the remaining coastlines 
in both counties from development for aesthetic, water accessibility, economic, community 
identity, and most notably environmental conservation reasons. One participant explains that 
conservation of coastlines and developmental restrictions are needed in order to ensure the long 
term functioning of marine ecosystems: 
The other really important land for conservation is the coastline, especially these really 
low elevation coastlines that with sea level rise are going to be under water. If we have 
development along the shoreline, we have sea level rise, it is going to be hardened 
shoreline, and we aren?t going to have the marshes that support all the life of the bay and 
all.  
 
Participants also place strong emphasis on conserving public access to the water and waterfronts 
for recreational and livelihood endeavors as both depend on available access points: 
As far as our economy of our area being related to commercial fishing, that?s important to 
me that that not go away. I know you can?t preserve a way of life. You can?t mandate a 
way of life, but you can do things as a community or as a government to help encourage 
it, and one of those things that we?ve been working on for years in the county is finding 
places where people can get in and out of the water, and preserving some of our 
waterfront for commercial fishing and for recreational fishing. 
 
Developmental preferences vary based on type of development. Most hold the belief that 
developmental expansion is not warranted unless it involves bringing clean industries to the area 
to stimulate job growth, diversify livelihood approaches beyond seafood products and tourism, 
and is clustered around currently existing population centers. Most participants agree that 
development ?is not the best for the environment? and that ?the environment is too important 
here to bring something in to destroy it.? 
 Views toward residential development are uniformly negative and strongly against future 
developments. Development is viewed as a threat to the local ?Forgotten Coast? identity that so 
19 
 
many residents value: ?I think when you mention the word development in Franklin County it?s 
usually a dirty word because people don?t want to end up like Destin. They don?t want high-
rises.? Similarly, participants disapprove of private development companies pushing for 
increased development that is contrary to residents? desires and the unique flavor of the area: 
Look at what happened in Eastpoint. This firm came in and bought up a lot of properties 
below the waterfront and was going to do this development. I remember the comment 
was, ?you couldn?t have another building like the Gibson Inn if you don?t break the 
height limits.? And everybody says ?great we have already got one, we don?t need another 
one.? That?s the thing, they never really got it. They were intent on doing something that 
was different than what people moved here for. 
 
Commercial development in the form of more stores, restaurants, and shops is viewed in 
several contexts. Almost all participants view large chain stores as opposed to the local 
community identity: ?If you want Starbucks go back to the big cities. That is not what we are 
about.? Another participant states that large chain stores would threaten existing livelihoods: 
All it takes is one Olive Garden and one Chili?s or Pepper?s and then pretty soon you?ve 
got local restaurants going out of business. It takes one Home Depot and you lose all your 
hardware stores. One Wal-Mart and everybody goes out of business. We don?t want the 
big chains in here? I like doing business with local businesses. 
 
Several participants mention that from an economic growth and livelihood expansion perspective 
the establishment of a few more local shops and restaurants that fit in with the local character 
would be beneficial: 
As far as economic development or growth of businesses to me what would be good is to 
see it happen in the towns. Port St. Joe is a shell of a town. They are in the process of 
developing it back into a town center with recreation and businesses and that kind of 
thing. I?d love to see that happen. 
 
 Participants express the need for increased industrial growth but in a ?clean? fashion that 
will not harm the environment or compromise current livelihood approaches. Most participants 
call for industrial development in order to promote economic expansion: 
20 
 
Somehow there needs to be development for employment. It needs to be planned and 
done so it doesn?t affect all the things that we have already talked about in a negative 
way. Somehow there needs to be some kind of industry that can employ these people. 
 
A few participants are outright against increased industrial development as they believe it would 
harm the environment and jeopardize the local identity within Franklin and Gulf counties: 
What made this place special is its pristine environment, its seafood, people, and all that. 
I?ve lived in Louisiana by oil refineries and the industrial model doesn?t value?It won?t 
be a special place anymore; it will be another industrial place. And that will be a tragedy. 
 
 
 
Discussion 
 Similar to past studies, findings from this study demonstrate that various place based 
meanings produce attachments between individuals and their surroundings. Place attachment 
within both counties consists of both identity and dependence constructs. Participants proudly 
identify the area as the Forgotten Coast, and recognize the maritime culture, water accessibility, 
and minimal development as defining components of the community. ?Not being Destin? was a 
common theme and point of emphasis. Place dependence within both counties can be broken into 
several components. As past literature has cited (Davenport and Anderson 2005; Stokols and 
Shumaker 1981; Williams et al. 1992), place dependence results from recreational experiences 
that facilitate the development of traditional place meanings, such as aesthetic and solitude 
among others. However, as Davenport and Anderson (2005) brought to light, the additional 
element of livelihood dependence on the environment, which has often been ignored in 
understanding place attachments, heavily influences human-landscape relationships. The 
dependency participants have on natural resources to maintain a living conveys the significant 
role that the natural environment and healthy ecosystems play as a source of revenue. Such 
21 
 
bonds cannot be viewed as insignificant, as economic security derived from the landscape 
heavily influences participants? sense of place.   
 In addition to place identity and place dependence, study findings demonstrate that place 
characteristics and the physical environment profoundly impact the bonds that develop between 
people and places (Black and Liljeblad 2006; Davenport and Anderson 2005; Stedman 2003). 
Participants clearly stated that certain areas are valued and important for their ecology and 
physical characteristics. Specifically two main place characteristics emerged as most influential 
on the formation of bonds between participants and places: naturalness and biodiversity. Often 
times, regardless of experiences or activities, participants instill value in, bond with, and find 
satisfaction with areas they deem as ?natural?, ?wild?, and ?unspoiled? or places containing 
unique, endemic, or high concentrations of terrestrial and marine species. On a broader scale, 
individuals assert that the extensive water system consisting of the Gulf of Mexico, Apalachicola 
Bay and St. Joseph Bay, estuaries, rivers, and numerous tributaries is intrinsically ?special? and 
?important? because such systems are rare elsewhere. 
 As participants demonstrated, place meanings and attachments and thus satisfactions are 
highly susceptible to change as landscape modifications manifest themselves in the form of 
future developments. Like Davenport and Anderson (2005), it was necessary to proceed beyond 
simply classifying individuals? perspectives as pro vs. antidevelopment in order to assess the 
impacts of development on the bonds between people and places. Meanings sighted as being 
impacted by developmental threats were most often associated with livelihoods, the 
environment, aesthetics, water accessibility, and local community identity. The potential 
development type was vital for understanding how participants? attachments and satisfactions 
would change as a result of landscape modifications. Development, especially in the form of 
22 
 
either residential or large-scale commercial, is viewed as negatively impacting meanings and 
contradicting the ?Forgotten Coast? mantra of the counties. Conversely, most view clean 
industry as beneficial for improving upon meanings related to livelihoods and economic security 
in the counties. However, such industry is only viewed as acceptable if it does not impede upon 
current meanings, community identity, and ecologically important places. Who would be 
conducting the development was also found to be important, as most individuals view large 
private development companies as stronger threats to current meanings and attachments. As 
demonstrated, the impact of development upon place meanings and attachments cannot be 
understood through a simple categorization of pro vs. antidevelopment. Impacts on specific 
meanings and attachments and subsequent changes in attitudes and satisfactions must be 
identified based on the manner of development and potential alterations. 
The threat of development on local sense of place demonstrates that ?natural resources 
exist in a social and political world? and that proper management decisions can only be 
formulated ?by putting the human bond with nature in the foreground, rather than treating it as 
an interesting but insignificant feature of the background? (Williams and Stewart 1998). This 
study aids land managers in addressing Williams and Stewart?s (1998) assertions in a twofold 
manner: qualitatively understanding human-landscape relationships and spatially representing 
those relationships. Focus group discussions qualitatively addressed the ?what? to manage 
question by providing the valuable link between identifying what places are important and 
understanding why those places are important. These discussions revealed the specific meanings 
associated with places of importance and how those meanings shaped the attachments that 
developed between participants and the landscape. Such an understanding of place meanings and 
attachments further provided deep insight into and a holistic representation of residents? sense of 
23 
 
place and relationships with the landscape. From a management standpoint, comprehensive 
understanding of sense of place was acquired across a range of constituent groups, permitting 
planners to integrate multiple stakeholder perspectives into management.  
Spatially mapping place meanings and bonds between individuals and landscapes 
provided managers with the answer to the ?where? to manage question. Specific meanings and 
attachments to places spatially varied but also overlapped across the landscape, demonstrating 
that each location on the landscape was unique from all others based on the specific meanings 
and attachments attributed to that place. Furthermore, this study addressed Brown and 
Raymond?s (2007) statement that, ?mapping of landscape values and special places can provide 
an operational bridge between place attachment and applied land use planning.? Through 
participatory mapping procedures this ?operational bridge? was created, which is vital for 
prioritizing management objectives, especially across landscapes containing mixed ownerships 
and land uses, as in this study. Unlike so many past efforts, this study provided local natural 
resource agencies with both qualitative and spatially explicit data on where specific bonds exist 
between community members and the surrounding environment. Just as importantly, spatial data 
was collected at the county level and at a fine scale resolution, allowing planners to readily 
incorporate findings into land use planning initiatives. As this research endeavor demonstrated, 
by qualitatively understanding human-landscape relationships and spatially mapping those 
relationships, management efforts can be formulated that are place based and aligned with 
residents? preferences. 
 
 
 
 
 
24 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Figure 1.  Map of places identified as important for livelihoods in Franklin and Gulf counties, 
FL by focus group participants. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
25 
 
 Figure 2.  Map of places identified as important for recreation in Franklin and Gulf counties, FL 
by focus group participants. 
 
 
 
 
 
26 
 
 
Figure 3.  Map of places identified as ecologically important in Franklin and Gulf counties, FL 
by focus group participants. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
27 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 2 
 
Habitat Use of Florida Black Bears in Florida?s Panhandle 
 
 
 
Abstract 
Throughout the southeastern United States, Ursus americanus floridanus (Florida Black 
Bear) has been heavily impacted by habitat fragmentation and destruction. Successful Florida 
Black Bear conservation depends on proper habitat management, and the objective of this study 
was to understand the habitat use patterns of the Apalachicola subpopulation of Florida Black 
Bears within Apalachicola National Forest (ANF) and Tate?s Hell State Forest (THSF) in the 
Florida Panhandle. A combination of remote cameras and scat detection dogs was employed in 
the summer and fall of 2010 to determine Black Bear habitat use. Occupancy modeling was 
conducted to determine the effect of vegetative land cover and habitat features on habitat use. 
Results from occupancy modeling revealed Black Bears use THSF more than ANF, suggesting 
that differences in past management of the two forests have resulted in differences in habitat 
suitability for Black Bears. Most other habitat variables only weakly described Black Bear 
habitat use. Future research is needed to understand why Black Bears prefer THSF over ANF. 
Such information is critical to the conservation and long-term persistence of Black Bears in 
Florida. 
 
 
28 
 
Introduction 
Understanding a species? habitat requirements and habitat use is a fundamental 
component of successful wildlife management and conservation. For threatened and endangered 
species, a thorough knowledge of habitat needs and usage patterns is vital to managing for the 
continued existence of the species. In general, habitat use is based on an animal?s behavior, with 
an animal using and selecting habitats that improve its chances of survival and reproduction. A 
variety of habitat characteristics may influence an individual?s use of habitat, and information 
must be gathered on these characteristics in order to properly manage and conserve wildlife (Burt 
1943; Fretwell and Lucas 1970; Powell et al. 1997). Only once a species? habitat requirements 
have been identified can habitats be preserved and managed to fulfill the needs of that species. 
As human expansion and development have increased over time within the United States, 
numerous wildlife species have experienced drastic fragmentation and destruction of their 
habitats. One species that has suffered particularly from habitat loss as a result of human 
disturbance is Ursus americanus floridanus Merriam (Florida Black Bear) (Maehr 1984; 
McCown et al. 2009; Mykytka and Pelton 1990; Wooding and Hardisky 1994). As a result of 
human-induced range declines, Florida Black Bear populations are currently only found in 
isolated pockets in Florida, southern Georgia, and southern Alabama. Consequently, the Florida 
Black Bear is listed as a state threatened species in Florida and as a species of highest 
conservation concern in Alabama. With Florida Black Bears restricted to a few core areas in the 
southeast, increased emphasis has been placed on understanding bear habitat use and selection.   
Black Bears are primarily forest dwellers, but they are also considered to function as 
habitat generalists because of their ability to utilize a variety of forest types and foods (Mykytka 
and Pelton 1990; Stratman et al. 2001; Wooding and Hardisky 1994). Nevertheless, in a broad 
29 
 
sense, Black Bear habitat use is primarily a function of food availability and cover for seclusion 
(Clark et al. 1994; Costello and Sage 1994; Landers et al. 1979; Mollohan 1987; Mykytka and 
Pelton 1990; Schooley 1990). In most regions of North America food accessibility is the key 
factor determining bear habitat use (Clark et al. 1994; Costello and Sage 1994; Mykytka and 
Pelton 1990). Mast producing trees and other vegetation are energy rich food sources and key 
components of bear habitat, with bears often utilizing habitats where soft or hard mast is 
available over habitats lacking mast (Clark et al. 1994; Hellgren et al. 1991; Mollohan 1987; 
Mykytka and Pelton 1990). Escape cover is also a critical habitat component that influences bear 
habitat use. Habitats that consist of dense vegetation, closed canopies, and other vegetation 
structure provide bears with adequate concealment and are more likely to be used over habitats 
containing minimal escape cover (Benson and Chamberlain 2007; Hellgren et al. 1991; Landers 
et al. 1979; Wooding and Hardisky 1994). 
Given the importance of understanding habitat use in successful Florida Black Bear 
conservation efforts, this study examined the habitat use patterns of the Apalachicola 
subpopulation of Florida Black Bears located in the Florida Panhandle. Specifically, this study 
explored the relationship between vegetative land cover and other habitat features on Black Bear 
use. In accordance with past findings, we predicted that Black Bears would select for areas 
where mast sources were abundant and seclusion cover was readily available. However, as past 
research on the specific habitat use patterns of the Apalachicola subpopulation has been minimal 
(Seibert 1993) this study takes an exploratory approach aimed at obtaining an improved 
understanding of the general habitat use patterns of the Apalachicola subpopulation. As the 
Apalachicola subpopulation faces a particularly high risk of habitat alteration and human 
30 
 
disturbance due to its close proximity to the Gulf Coast and the area?s allure to developers, an 
improved understanding of habitat use is vital to maintaining valuable Black Bear habitat. 
 
Field-Site Description 
Habitat use was examined for the Apalachicola subpopulation of Florida Black Bears in 
the core areas of Apalachicola National Forest (ANF) and Tate?s Hell State Forest (THSF) 
(Figure 4). ANF consists of 231,111 hectares, and THSF comprises 81,923 hectares. Prior to 
government ownership, THSF was subject to timber extraction, which substantially altered the 
natural landscape and hydrology of the forest. Throughout THSF, an extensive system of dirt 
roads remains from past logging operations. Since government acquisition of THSF, restoration 
efforts have been initiated. Conversely, ANF has long been intensively managed to restore native 
longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) forests, contains expanses of pitcher plant (Sarracenia flava) 
prairies, and is regularly subjected to prescribed burning.     
Bottomland hardwood stands consisting of cypress (Taxodium spp.)-water tupelo (Nyssa 
aquatic), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), and red maple (Acer 
rubrum), as well as upland pine flatwoods and longleaf pine sandhills are found within both 
forests (Seibert 1993; Simek et al. 2005). Within the pine communities, numerous understory and 
groundcover species are present including several oak species (Quercus spp.), wiregrass 
(Aristida beyrichiana), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), several gallberry species (Ilex spp.), and 
expanses of titi (Cyrilla racemiflora) and buckwheat tree (Cliftonia monophylus) (Seibert 1993). 
Notable soft mass producing species found throughout the forests include gallberry, blackberry 
(Rubus spp.), blueberry (Ericacea spp.), grape (Vitis spp.), and saw palmetto. Vast expanses of 
31 
 
wetlands, wet prairies and flatwoods, swamps, bayheads, and shrub bays can also be found, each 
containing a variety of plant species.   
 
Methods 
 
Data Collection 
Presence/Absence Data: A combination of remote camera surveys and scat detection dog 
surveys were employed to obtain data on Black Bear habitat use in ANF and THSF. Eighty-five 
remote camera surveys were conducted from May through July 2010, and 23 scat detection dog 
surveys were conducted from late October through late November 2010. Survey sites were 
determined within ArcGIS (ArcGIS 9.3.1, ESRI 2009) by creating a boundary around both ANF 
and THSF and then classifying the forests into major vegetative land covers based on the 2001 
National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) (USDA 2001). Stratified random sampling then was used 
to determine final survey sites, with samples within each vegetative land cover chosen in 
proportion to the percent make-up in the forests. Survey sites were located at least 1 km apart. 
For the camera surveys, digital cameras (RapidFireTM PC85, Reconyx, Inc., Holmen, WI) 
were secured to a tree and positioned at a height that allowed for the effective detection and 
photographing of a Black Bear. In the detection zone of each camera, Caven?s Hiawatha Valley 
Predator Bait and blackberry jam were placed in a shallow hole in the ground and smeared on a 
tree as an attractant. Cameras were programmed to trigger on both a time lapse scale and when 
motion was detected. For the time lapse scale, cameras were programmed to take a picture every 
2 minutes. Cameras were in place at each site for 7 days, and the cameras were active for 24 
hours each day. Date and time were recorded for each picture taken. Upon the conclusion of each 
32 
 
camera survey, the pictures were downloaded to a computer, and each picture was examined to 
determine if a bear was present.     
For the scat detection dog surveys, a team consisting of a scat detection dog, dog handler, 
and orienteer was utilized.  Sites were surveyed by creating a triangular transect around each 
survey site that was on average 900 m in length (range = 300 m-1500 m). Along the transect line, 
a single, off-leash dog searched for the presence of Black Bear scat within a 15 m buffer on each 
side of the transect line. The dog handler stayed with the dog at all times, and the handler and 
orienteer examined each scat located to verify the species that produced the scat. For each 
indentified Black Bear scat, the location was recorded with a global positioning system (GPS), a 
digital photograph was taken, and DNA samples were acquired for future analysis.  
Habitat Data: A variety of habitat characteristics were examined in relation to Black Bear 
habitat use. For each remote camera survey site and each scat detection dog survey site, relevant 
information regarding major habitat type and habitat features was collected. On a broad scale, 
ArcGIS was used to classify each site as being located in a specific NLCD vegetative land cover 
and as either in ANF or THSF. Additionally, landscape-level habitat features that were examined 
for each site included distance to Gulf coast, distance to nearest water source, distance to nearest 
paved road, distance to nearest dirt road, road density, and distance to nearest human population 
center. All landscape-level habitat data needed for analysis was produced by and downloaded 
online in the form of shapefiles from the Geography Division of the US Census Bureau (2010). 
Distance measurements were calculated using ArcToolbox tools, and all measurements are in 
meters. Based on the spatial layout of roads in ANF and THSF, road densities were calculated by 
dividing the total length of roads within a 10.8 kilometer radius of each site by the total area 
within the search radius (i.e., road density = km/km2) using the Spatial Analyst within ArcGIS. 
33 
 
Fine scale habitat data, which was collected in the field for only the camera surveys, 
consisted of percent canopy cover, percent understory density, and availability of mast crops at 
each survey site. Data regarding percent canopy cover, percent understory density, and 
availability of mast crops was not collected for the scat detection dog surveys because each of 
these variables varied greatly along each transect, and thus it was not possible to assign a single 
value for each of these variables to each transect. Canopy cover was measured using the point-
quarter sampling method (Brower and Zar 1977). Standing at the location of the bait the survey 
site was divided into four quadrants using the cardinal directions as dividing lines. For each 
quadrant, the nearest tree within 25 m of the bait was identified. If a quadrant contained no trees 
within 25 m it was classified as containing 0% canopy cover. Once the nearest tree had been 
identified, the distance from the bait to the point where the canopy of the tree was directly 
overhead was recorded.  Also, the distance from the bait to the trunk of the tree was recorded. 
Percent canopy cover for each quadrant was calculated by subtracting the distance to canopy 
measurement from the distance to trunk measurement and then dividing the difference by the 
distance to trunk measurement.  Percent canopy cover was averaged across all four quadrants to 
obtain an overall percent canopy cover for each camera site.  
Understory density was indexed using a 128cm by 64cm vegetation profile board that 
consisted of a checkered pattern of 8 cm white and orange squares (modified from Nudds 1977). 
At a distance of 15 m from the bait, the number of orange squares that could be entirely or 
partially seen was recorded in each of the cardinal directions. Percent understory density in each 
direction was calculated by dividing the number of visible orange squares by the total number of 
orange squares on the board and then subtracting from 1. Percent understory density was 
34 
 
averaged across all four cardinal directions to obtain an overall percent understory density for 
each site.  
Availability of mast crops was measured using a categorical and visual assessment of 
known Black Bear food sources at survey sites. Within a 20 m range of the bait the availability 
of food sources was rated along a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 representing low mast availability and 5 
representing high mast availability. Acorns, gallberries, blackberries, blueberries, muscadines, 
and saw palmetto berries were included in mast calculations. 
 
Data Analysis 
Florida Black Bear habitat use and the effects of specific habitat features on use were 
analyzed via occupancy modeling by using the package Unmarked (Fiske et al. 2011) in the 
computer program R, version 2.11.0 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing 2010). 
Occupancy modeling is a technique that estimates the probability that a site is occupied by a 
particular species based on the species? presence or absence and associated site characteristics 
(i.e., habitat features) (MacKenzie and Royle 2005; MacKenzie et al. 2002; Nichols et al. 2007; 
Royle and Nichols 2003). The power of occupancy modeling lies in its ability to account for 
instances where an animal may be present but goes undetected (i.e., imperfect detection). Unlike 
other analysis techniques, occupancy modeling appropriately deals with imperfect detection by 
simultaneously estimating the probability of detection and site occupancy. Thus, less biased 
measures of site occupancy and habitat use are obtained (MacKenzie 2006; MacKenzie and 
Royle 2005; MacKenzie et al. 2003).   
In order for occupancy models to accurately determine habitat use, three main 
components must be included: the detection or non-detection of a species at a site (i.e., detection 
35 
 
history), variables that affect the detection of a species at a site (i.e., detection covariates), and 
variables that affect the occupancy or use of a site by a species (i.e., site covariates). For the 
remote camera surveys, each 24 hour period spanning from 12pm to 12pm was considered a 
detection period. Therefore, each camera survey had a detection history consisting of 7 unique 
detection periods in which a bear was either detected or not detected. Detection periods of 24 
hours were chosen in order to attain a detection history containing an adequate number of 
detection periods for analysis (MacKenzie et al. 2002). As Black Bears are crepuscular, detection 
periods were classified from 12pm to 12pm to ensure that a single detection of a bear at dawn or 
dusk was not classified as two detections within different detection periods. Detection covariates 
initially considered for analysis included amount of rain, mean temperature, maximum 
temperature, minimum temperature, and average wind speed within each 24 hour detection 
period. Site covariates initially considered for analysis included all of the previously mentioned 
variables listed in the habitat data section. 
For the scat detection dog surveys a slightly different method was used to determine an 
appropriate detection history. In this instance every 90 m along the transect was considered 
spatial replicates for detection; assuming that the entire transect was either used or unused by 
bears (Kendall and White 2009; MacKenzie et al. 2006). Detection covariates initially 
considered for analysis included average humidity, mean temperature, maximum temperature, 
minimum temperature, average wind speed, and total distance searched by the dog along that 
transect. Covariates related to humidity, temperature, and wind speed were included to account 
for variation in scent deposition and in the dog?s ability to detect the scent of a scat (Wasser et al. 
2004). Total distance searched, and to a lesser degree humidity and temperature covariates, 
accounted for effects on dog stamina, which may influence the likelihood a dog detects a scat 
36 
 
(Wasser et al. 2004). Site covariates initially considered for analysis included all of the 
previously mentioned variables listed in the habitat data section, excluding distance to dirt road, 
road density, percent canopy cover, percent understory density, and availability of mast crops. 
Distance to dirt road and road density were excluded due to the close proximity of all transects to 
dirt roads. Data regarding percent canopy cover, percent understory density, and availability of 
mast crops was excluded from analysis because each of these variables varied greatly along each 
transect. Therefore, it was not possible to obtain a single value for each of these variables to 
associate with each transect.   
Within the program R initial analysis consisted of conducting univariate analyses of 
detection and site covariates to determine the effect and strength of each variable on detection 
and occupancy. Colinearities and nonlinearities of variables were also explored. In addition to 
univariate analyses, past research on Black Bear habitat use was referenced to determine the 
most relevant variables to include in a global predictive model of habitat use for the 
Apalachicola subpopulation. 
Two global models, one for the camera data and one for the scat detection dog data, were 
created. An all models subset approach was utilized based on the global models. A subset of 
models for the camera data was created by developing all possible models that consisted of all 
the unique combinations of variables that were within the global model. The same approach was 
utilized to create a subset of models for the scat detection dog data. For each model within the 
subsets, R provided the associated AICc, ?AICc, and coefficient estimates for each covariate in 
that particular model. Model weights, which estimate the probability that a particular model is 
the best model out of all models being considered, were calculated for each sub-model based off 
of ?AICc (Anderson et al. 2000). Model averaged coefficient estimates were calculated by 
37 
 
summing the product of the weight of each individual model and the coefficient estimate for the 
given covariate. Standard errors for model averaged coefficient estimates were also calculated 
using methods outlined by Buckland et al. (1997) and Anderson et al. (2000). Additionally, 
cumulative covariate weights, which estimate the probability that a particular covariate is in the 
best explanatory model, were calculated by summing the model weights of all models that 
contained the particular covariate of interest. As well, the odds ratio for each covariate was 
calculated through the exponential transformation of model averaged coefficient estimates (i.e., 
exp?). 
       
Results 
 
Presence/Absence Surveys 
Examination of photographs from all 85 camera sites revealed that at least one bear was 
detected at 17 sites during the time span the cameras were in place. Furthermore, 4 of the 17 sites 
contained multiple detections of bears. In ANF 6 of the 49 sites surveyed contained at least one 
detected bear, and in THSF 11 of the 36 sites surveyed contained at least one detected bear. The 
na?ve estimate of occupancy, calculated as the number of sites with a bear detected divided by 
the total number of sites, was 0.2. The raw daily detection rate of Black Bears, calculated as the 
number of detection periods with a bear detected divided by the total number of detection 
periods, was 0.034 for the camera surveys. Findings from the 23 scat detection dog transects 
consisted of 12 transects containing no detected scats, 6 transects containing one detected scat, 4 
transects containing two detected scats, and 1 transect containing three detected scats. In ANF 4 
of the 13 transects surveyed contained at least one detected scat, and in THSF 7 of the 10 
38 
 
transects surveyed contained at least one scat. The na?ve estimate of occupancy was 0.478. The 
raw detection rate of Black Bear scats for the scat detection dog surveys was 0.073 per 90 meter 
section of transect. 
 
Occupancy Modeling 
The global model chosen for the remote camera data consisted of the detection covariates 
of rain amount and mean temperature. Site covariates included were percent canopy cover, 
percent understory density, THSF, evergreen forest land cover, woody wetland land cover, and 
all other land covers grouped together as a reference land cover. The global model constructed 
based on the scat detection dog data consisted of the detection covariate of mean temperature. 
Site covariates included were THSF, woody wetland land cover, and evergreen forest served as a 
reference land cover. Other habitat variables initially considered for inclusion in both global 
models were omitted based on the combination of lack of effect or significance in univariate 
analyses and insufficient evidence from previous studies to support their inclusion (Tables 1, 2) 
(Clark et al. 1994; Costello and Sage 1994; Landers et al. 1979; Mollohan 1987; Mykytka and 
Pelton 1990; Schooley 1990; Stratman et al. 2001; Wooding and Hardisky 1994). Univariate 
analysis of each detection and site covariate assisted with understanding the directional effect 
(i.e., positive or negative) each variable had on detection or occupancy and the statistical 
significance of that effect. Furthermore, findings from past studies were referenced to understand 
the effects and significance of specific habitat features on Black Bear habitat use. Thus, 
covariates were included in global models based on their strength of directional effect and 
statistical significance and support for inclusion from past findings related to the effects of 
particular habitat variables.           
39 
 
The all models subset analysis produced 128 individual models based on the camera data 
and 8 individual models based on the scat detection dog data (Table 3). The strongest individual 
model generated for the camera data contained the detection covariate of rain and the site 
covariate of THSF. The model weight for this model was 0.0712 and the weight relative to the 
null model was 3.0876. The strongest individual model generated for the scat detection dog data 
contained the detection covariate of mean temperature and no site covariates. The model weight 
for this model was 0.4842 and the weight relative to the null model was 9.0725. 
Calculated model averaged coefficient estimates, standard errors, cumulative covariate 
weights, and odds ratios for both the camera and scat detection dog analyses can be found in 
Table 4. For the camera data, only the detection covariate for rain amount and the site covariate 
for THSF had strong support. The Akaike weight for rain amount suggested that there is a 
probability of 0.63 that the variable is in the best explanatory model, and the odds ratio suggested 
for each one inch increase in rain a Black Bear was 1.79 times as likely to be detected. The odds 
ratio for THSF suggested that THSF was 2.69 times as likely to be used by Black Bears 
compared to ANF; the Akaike weight suggested that the variable has a probability of 0.62 of 
being in the best explanatory model.       
For the scat detection dog data, the detection covariate for mean temperature has a 
probability of 0.8 of being in the best explanatory model, according to the Akaike weight, and 
for each one degree Celsius increase in mean temperature a scat was 1.19 times as likely to be 
detected. The weight for the site covariate THSF indicated that the variable has a probability of 
0.26 of being in the best explanatory model. Similar to the camera data, the odds ratio suggested 
that THSF was 1.53 times as likely to be used by Black Bears as ANF.  
40 
 
For both the camera and scat detection dog data, the average values of site covariates in 
ANF and THSF were compared to understand how differences in covariates between the two 
forests may account for black bear use of THSF over ANF (Table 5). Comparisons of covariates 
reveal that the two forests differ in the availability of different land covers, and survey sites 
between the two forests differed in distance to Gulf coast, distance to nearest water source, 
distance to nearest paved road, distance to nearest dirt road, road density, and distance to nearest 
human population center. Such variation in habitat features between THSF and ANF may aid in 
understanding observed differences in black bear use of the two forests. 
 
Discussion 
Model output related to both camera and scat detection dog data indicates that Florida 
Black Bears in the Apalachicola subpopulation tend to use THSF more than ANF. Although 
trends can be observed in the relationship between Black Bear habitat use and specific vegetative 
land covers and habitat features, model weights are weak and reveal little support for those 
variables as predictors of Black Bear habitat use (see Tables 1, 2, 4). Observed differences in use 
between THSF and ANF could be accounted for by major differences that exist between the two 
forests. A significant distinction between the two relates to management practices and fire 
history. ANF is intensively managed for stands of longleaf pine, and prescribed burning is 
heavily employed throughout the forest. Unlike ANF, THSF experiences relatively minimal 
burning, and current management does not focus on restoring the forest to a longleaf pine 
ecosystem. The impact of fire on Florida Black Bear habitat use was examined for the Eglin 
subpopulation in northwest Florida by Stratman and Pelton (2007) who discovered that within all 
habitat types Florida Black Bears used unburned areas more than burned areas. Therefore, this 
41 
 
dichotomy in management and use of prescribed burning may assist in explaining differences in 
use between the two forests and serves as a starting point for exploring further differences 
between ANF and THSF.   
As ANF is managed for longleaf pines, large portions of the forest consist of upland pine 
stands. Due to the proximity to the coast and presence of hydrologic features, the majority of 
THSF is comprised of woody wetlands and bottomland hardwood forests. Although effects of 
vegetative land cover on Black Bear habitat use were weak in this study, this broad scale 
difference in land cover type may aid in understanding Black Bear selection of THSF over ANF. 
Multiple studies have recognized that Black Bears, especially Black Bears of the southeast, often 
select swamps and riparian areas over other habitat types (Benson and Chamberlain 2007; 
Hellgren et al. 1991; Schooley et al. 1994; Stratman et al. 2001; Wooding and Hardisky 1994). 
Similarly, several studies have found lower use and densities of Florida Black Bears within 
longleaf pine communities (Simek et al. 2005; Wooding and Hardisky 1994). Unlike longleaf 
pine systems, swamps and riparian zones provide great escape cover for seclusion and often 
contain a variety of food sources, thus making them highly attractive to Black Bears. Thus, 
selection of THSF over ANF may be attributed to landscape level differences in land cover type.              
Due to dissimilarities in management and major land cover type, plant species 
composition between the two forests is different. Longleaf pine stands within ANF contain an 
open understory, and the presence of mast producing species is often limited. Conversely, THSF 
management does not focus on a monoculture of longleaf pine stands. As such, THSF is believed 
to contain greater numbers of hard mast producing species, and a variety of soft mass producing 
species, such as blackberry, gallberry, and muscadines are present throughout THSF. 
Furthermore, due to the lack of intense burning, the understory layer in THSF consists of dense 
42 
 
vegetation, which provides excellent escape cover compared to the open understory of longleaf 
pine forests. In this study the effects of understory and mast availability on Black Bear habitat 
use were found to be minimal, but when considering possible data limitations, these two features 
may aid in explaining the observed use of THSF over ANF.   
The importance of escape cover and most likely understory density is also supported by 
the finding that no Black Bears were detected in open, prairie like habitats. This lack of 
detections is in agreement with the findings of past studies which have also concluded that Black 
Bears use open areas the least out of all habitat types, most likely due to the lack of cover they 
provide (Costello and Sage 1994; Hellgren et al. 1991; Landers et al. 1979; Mollohan 1987; 
Schooley et al. 1994). 
Several plausible explanations exist for why most other habitat variables had such little 
support for explaining patterns in Black Bear habitat use. In this study, data limitations, in the 
form of small sample sizes and low detection rates, are one possibility. The limitation of sample 
size is an especially valid argument for scat detection dog data analysis, as only 23 sites were 
surveyed. Furthermore, detection rates for camera and scat detection dog surveys were 0.034 and 
0.073 respectively, which is well below the suggested detection rate of at least 0.3 for obtaining 
unbiased estimates of covariate effects (MacKenzie 2002). Several covariates significantly 
differed between THSF and ANF (see Table 5), which could potentially account for observed 
differences in use between the two. However, support for those covariates in the univariate 
analyses and all models subset analyses was weak, which suggests data limitations may have 
limited the ability to assess the exact strength of effect of those variables as predictors of black 
bear habitat use.  
43 
 
Black Bear habitat use patterns may also appear to be absent due to the possibility that 
variables that account for variation in habitat use, such as the presence of specific mast species or 
the number of fallen trees at a site, may have been excluded during the data collection and data 
analysis process. Like all field studies, project and time constraints limited this study?s ability to 
address all potential variable effects, and it is possible that pertinent variables impacting Black 
Bear habitat use were neglected from analysis. 
Biological factors may also account for the lack of support most habitat variables 
received in explaining Black Bear habitat use. ANF and THSF comprise over 300, 000 hectares 
of contiguous, uninhabited forest and previous research has indicated that having a large tract of 
intact land may trump or overshadow the selection of specific habitat characteristics by Black 
Bears (Kindall and Van Manen 2005). As a result, particular habitat components may not be as 
important as simply the need for the existence of un-fragmented forests, thus potentially 
explaining weak support for most habitat variables in this study. Furthermore, weak selection of 
specific habitat features may result from Black Bears being generalists with large home ranges. 
Black Bear home ranges encompass an array of habitat types and features that bears are capable 
of exploiting for food, cover, and other necessities (Costello and Sage 1994, Mykytka and Pelton 
1990, Schoen 1990). Thus, the selection of specific habitat features over others may not be 
strong for the Apalachicola subpopulation. 
 
Management Implications 
With Black Bears tending to use THSF over ANF, future research should aim to identify 
the exact drivers causing differences in use between the two forests. Observed habitat use 
patterns may be the result of differing habitat management practices, and additional studies are 
44 
 
needed to understand the effects of specific management practices on Florida Black Bear habitat 
use. Future endeavors should also strive to gain a better understanding of how the availability of 
different land cover types, such as swamps and wetlands, within THSF and ANF may influence 
use patterns between the two forests. Variation in the composition of plant species between 
THSF and ANF, most notably in the form of differences in the availability of mast and 
understory density, should further be explored as potential factors resulting in differences in use 
between the two forests. Ultimately, an improved understanding of the mechanisms leading to 
habitat use differences between THSF and ANF will aid managers in identifying and preserving 
valuable habitat characteristics for Florida Black Bears. 
 
 
 
45 
 
 Figure 4.  Map of Apalachicola National Forest and Tate?s Hell State Forest where Florida 
Black Bear habitat use was studied in the summer and fall of 2010. 
 
 
 
46 
 
Table 1. Univariate analysis of camera covariate effects on habitat use of Florida Black Bears 
located in Tate?s Hell State Forest and Apalachicola National Forest in 2010. 
 
Covariate1 Estimate Standard Error P-value 
p.Rain2 0.90 0.468 0.054 
p.Mean Temperature3 -0.102 0.150 0.497 
p.Maximum Temperature 0.127 0.111 0.251 
p.Minimum Temperature -0.142 0.130 0.275 
p.Wind Speed -0.0315 0.0671 0.638 
psi.THSF2  1.394 0.867 0.108 
psi.Woody Wetland Land Cover3,4 0.526 0.796 0.509 
psi.Evergreen Forest Land Cover3,4 -0.210 0.897 0.815 
psi.All Other Land Covers3,4 -0.670 1.060 0.527 
psi.Distance to Gulf Coast -5.10e-05 0.0005 .980 
psi.Distance to Water 0.000375 0.0005 0.4159 
psi.Distance to Paved Road 0.000416 0.0005 0.37 
psi.Distance to Dirt Road -0.00233 0.00247 0.345 
psi.Distance to Humans -1.42e-05 0.0002 0.955 
psi.Road Density 2.33 1.92 0.226 
psi.Percent Canopy Cover4 1.49 1.642 0.365 
psi.Percent Understory Density4 2.25 1.88 0.231 
psi.Availability of Mast 0.168 0.515 0.745 
1p represents detection covariates. psi represents site covariates. 
2Included based on p-value. 
3Included for consistency with the scat detection dog global model.  
4Included based on findings from previous studies. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
47 
 
Table 2. Univariate analysis of scat detection dog covariate effects on habitat use of Florida 
Black Bears located in Tate?s Hell State Forest and Apalachicola National Forest in 2010. 
 
Covariate1 Estimate Standard Error P-value 
p.Humidity -0.00717 0.0185 0.698 
p.Mean Temperature2 0.221 0.0992 0.026 
p.Maximum Temperature  0.220  0.0978 0.025 
p.Minimum Temperature 0.174  0.0836 0.037 
p.Wind Speed -0.091 0.128 0.476 
p.Distance Searched -0.00128 0.0008 0.116 
psi.THSF3 2.825 3.453 0.413 
psi.Woody Wetland Land Cover2,4 2.304 1.535 0.133 
psi.Evergreen Forest Land Cover2,4 -2.304 1.535 0.133 
psi.Distance to Gulf Coast 1.40e-19 0.0001 1 
psi.Distance to Water 0.000145 0.0004 .706 
psi.Distance to Paved Road 0.000354  0.0002 .152 
psi.Distance to Humans  0.00038  0.0003 .260 
1p represents detection covariates. psi represents site covariates. 
2Included based on p-value. 
3Included for consistency with the camera global model.  
4Included based on findings from previous studies. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
48 
 
Table 3. Models produced from the all models subset analysis based on the global predictive 
models of habitat use of Florida Black Bears located in Tate?s Hell State Forest and Apalachicola 
National Forest in 2010. 
 
Model1 
No. of 
Parameters AICc 
Delta 
AICc Weight 
Cameras2         
     p(Rain),psi(THSF) 4 198.1595 0.0000 0.0712 
     p(Rain),psi(THSF+UnderstoryDensity) 5 199.1139 0.9545 0.0442 
     p(Rain),psi(THSF+CanopyCover) 5 199.2045 1.0451 0.0422 
     p(Rain),psi() 3 199.3069 1.1474 0.0401 
     p(),psi(THSF) 3 199.4303 1.2708 0.0377 
     p(Rain),psi(UnderstoryDensity) 4 199.7485 1.5890 0.0322 
     p(),psi(THSF+UnderstoryDensity) 4 200.1481 1.9886 0.0264 
     p(rain),psi(EvergreenForest+THSF) 5 200.1640 2.0045 0.0261 
     p(Meantemp+Rain),psi(THSF) 5 200.3347 2.1752 0.0240 
     p(),psi() 2 200.4154 2.2559 0.0231 
          
Scat Detection Dogs3         
     p(Meantemp),psi() 3 120.0451 0.0000 0.4842 
     p(Meantemp),psi(THSF) 4 122.4577 2.4126 0.1449 
     p(Meantemp),psi(WoodyWetland) 4 122.5333 2.4882 0.1396 
     p(),psi(WoodyWetland) 3 124.0768 4.0317 0.0645 
     p(),psi(THSF) 3 124.0981 4.0530 0.0638 
     p(),psi() 2 124.4556 4.4106 0.0534 
     p(Meantemp),psi(WoodyWetland+THSF) 5 125.6555 5.6104 0.0293 
     p(),psi(WoodyWetland+THSF) 4 126.3854 6.3403 0.0203 
  1p represents detection covariates. psi represents site covariates. 
  2The top ten models and the null model from the subset analysis are given. 
  3All models from the subset analysis are given. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
49 
 
Table 4. Model averaged results from occupancy modeling of habitat use of Florida Black Bears 
located in Tate?s Hell State Forest and Apalachicola National Forest in 2010. 
 
Covariate1 Estimate Standard Error Weight Odds Ratio 
Cameras 
    p.Intercept -2.5370 1.5439 
  p.Mean Temperature -0.0040 0.0459 0.2562 0.9960 
p.Rain 0.5797 0.5880 0.6251 1.7855 
psi.Intercept -1.3982 1.2591 
  psi.THSF 0.9901 1.1117 0.6224 2.6915 
psi.Woody Wetland 0.0205 0.3266 0.2611 1.0207 
psi.Evergreen Forest 0.1508 0.4678 0.2764 1.1628 
psi.Undersotry Density 0.7274 1.3459 0.3133 2.0696 
psi.Canopy Cover 0.4579 0.9390 0.2517 1.5808 
     Scat Detection Dogs 
    p.Intercept -5.6984 2.6158 
  p.Mean Temperature 0.1730 0.1239 0.7980 1.1889 
psi.Intercept 0.8048 1.2647 
  psi.THSF 0.4222 0.9711 0.2584 1.5252 
psi.Woody Wetland 0.3911 0.8365 0.2537 1.4786 
 1p represents detection covariates. psi represents site covariates. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
50 
 
Table 5. The average values of site covariates in ANF and THSF, which were compared to 
understand the differences in habitat variables between ANF and THSF. P-values for 
comparisons of land cover types were generated using a chi-square test (i.e., comparison of 
binomial proportions). All other comparisons were made using a t-test.  
 
Covariate1 THSF ANF P-value 
Cameras       
Woody Wetland Land Cover 732741 1411436 <0.001 
Evergreen Forest Land Cover 70076 951683 <0.001 
All Other Land Covers 119309 217312 <0.001 
Distance to Gulf Coast 11367.0420 31092.2248 0.001 
Distance to Water 1603.3171 739.3320 0.004 
Distance to Paved Road 6490.5647 3092.9664 0.001 
Distance to Dirt Road 170.0803 264.1094 0.02 
Distance to Humans 9161.0729 11642.5686 0.038 
Road Density 1.4681 1.2472 0.018 
Percent Canopy Cover 0.560 0.594 0.595 
Percent Understory Density 0.633 0.574 0.313 
Availability of Mast 1.58 1.49 0.555 
        
Scat Detection Dogs       
Woody Wetland Land Cover 732741 1411436 <0.001 
Evergreen Forest Land Cover 70076 951683 <0.001 
Distance to Gulf Coast 11109.8482 32102.1757 0.001 
Distance to Water 2731.3605 2151.5955 0.503 
Distance to Paved Road 5857.7265 3698.5792 0.223 
Distance to Humans 7452.9154 10816.6692 0.162 
               1Land cover measurements are total number of 90m2 units present and not averages. 
          1Distance measurements are all in meters. Road density is km/km2. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
51 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 3 
 
Examining Human-Black Bear Conflicts in the Panhandle of Florida 
 
 
 
Abstract 
 As human-black bear conflicts continue to increase throughout the USA, developing 
appropriate conflict mitigation strategies has become a primary objective of black bear 
management. In order to develop successful conflict reduction strategies, social understanding of 
conflicts should be obtained and supplemented with biological knowledge related to conflicts. In 
this study, focus groups were conducted with local residents and wildlife professionals in the 
Florida Panhandle to obtain participants? beliefs, attitudes, and preferences toward bears and 
conflict management approaches. Findings demonstrate that residents hold a variety of attitudes 
toward black bears, conflict management preferences vary, and discrepancies exist between the 
public and wildlife professionals concerning appropriate conflict mitigation strategies. To 
resolve discrepancies educational efforts should inform residents of the appropriateness and 
effectiveness of various mitigation techniques. Insight acquired from this study holds the 
potential to assist managers with implementing appropriate conflict mitigation strategies and 
identifying limitations where conflict management needs to improve. 
 
 
 
52 
 
Introduction 
Across the United States interactions and conflicts between humans and American black 
bears (Ursus americanus) have greatly increased over the last quarter of a century (Baruch-
Mordo et al. 2008; Beck 1991; Beckmann and Berger 2003; Carr and Burguess 2004; Zack et al.  
2003). Consequently, preventing and reducing human-black bear conflicts has come to the 
forefront of black bear management. As conflict mitigation strategies have continued to evolve, 
there has been increasing recognition that understanding the human dimensions of conflicts is 
vital to successful mitigation (Decker et al. 1981; Don Carlos et al. 2009; Kretser et al. 2009). 
Understanding social factors, such as individuals? beliefs and attitudes about bears, acceptance 
levels of conflicts, and management preferences, can assist with formulating socially acceptable 
conflict mitigation strategies (Don Carlos et al. 2009). Furthermore, the viability of publicly 
preferred management strategies can be evaluated through comparisons with scientifically 
validated management options. Such comparisons provide insight into discrepancies that exist 
between the public and wildlife professionals concerning appropriate conflict management and 
can serve as the basis for future educational outreach efforts (Don Carlos et al. 2009).     
To successfully manage human-black bear conflicts, social understanding should be 
accompanied by biological knowledge that is related to conflicts (Don Carlos et al. 2009). 
Understanding of biological factors such as black bear habitat use can aid in determining the 
likely spatial distribution of conflicts and whether conflict management strategies need to focus 
on bear or human related aspects or both. Furthermore, supplementing social understating with 
biological knowledge provides managers with the ability to create conflict mitigation strategies 
that address social concerns and preferences but also account for biological factors that 
contribute to the occurrence of conflicts.      
53 
 
One state that has observed a noticeable increase in human-black bear conflicts over the 
last 15 years is Florida (Eason 2003; Hristienko and McDonald Jr. 2007; Spencer et al. 2007). 
Florida contains several isolated populations of the Florida black bear (U. americanus 
floridanus). Since the banning of black bear hunting throughout Florida after 1993, black bear 
populations have responded positively and have increased in number (FWC 2000). 
Simultaneously, the human population within Florida has grown, resulting in expanded 
development and movement into previously unoccupied lands (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). As a 
result of this rapid growth in both bear and human populations, Florida has experienced an 
upward trend in the occurrence of human-black bear conflicts (Eason 2003; Hristienko and 
McDonald Jr. 2007; Spencer et al. 2007). 
This trend of increasing populations and human-black bear conflicts has been observed 
for the Apalachicola subpopulation of black bears located in the Florida Panhandle. Additionally, 
general understanding of the habitat use patterns of the Apalachicola subpopulation reveal that 
black bears are using areas located closer to humans over other areas (Lowery 2011). Such 
findings suggest that as populations continue to expand the occurrence of conflicts will likely 
continue to increase. Therefore, this study aimed to understand the social factors related to the 
occurrence of human-black bear conflicts associated with the Apalachicola subpopulation. 
Specific objectives consisted of acquiring people?s beliefs and attitudes about black bears and 
their management, identifying the most common conflicts present, and understanding attitudes 
toward reinstating black bear hunting. Comparisons of preferred conflict management 
approaches between the public and wildlife professionals, which have been minimal in past 
research endeavors, were utilized to reveal knowledge gaps or discrepancies concerning 
appropriate conflict management strategies. A thorough examination of the social contexts in 
54 
 
which human-black bear conflicts transpire, in light of recent findings concerning black bear 
habitat use, will assist managers with implementing appropriate conflict mitigation strategies, 
identifying limitations where conflict management needs to improve, and anticipating responses 
to future management solutions. 
 
Study Area  
Within Franklin (Population: 11, 549; U.S. Census Bureau 2010) and Gulf (Population: 
15, 863; U.S. Census Bureau 2010) counties, Florida conflicts between human residents and 
black bears are increasing. In 2005, the Apalachicola subpopulation of Florida black bears 
consisted of approximately 438 to 695 bears within a primary range of 951, 944 hectares (Simek 
et al. 2005). The core area of the subpopulation is located in Apalachicola National Forest (ANF; 
231, 111 ha) and Tate?s Hell State Forest (THSF; 81, 923 ha) (Figure 5). Along the southern 
border of THSF the small towns of Carrabelle, East Point, and Lanark Village, which are in 
Franklin County, regularly experience human-black bear conflicts. Within Gulf County, which 
lies directly west of both THSF and ANF, conflicts occur in the small towns of Port St. Joe and 
Wewahitchka among several others (Figure 5). Both counties and the towns within are 
predominantly rural, but residents vary demographically. Franklin and Gulf counties contain 
long term residents and retirees, second home buyers and newcomers, and individuals of various 
races, ages, occupations, and socio-economic statuses. In both counties wildlife biologists devote 
substantial time and effort to mitigating human-black bear conflicts (Warwick and Telesco 2009, 
personal communication).  Therefore, it is within those communities that the social aspects 
associated with conflicts were explored. 
 
55 
 
Biological Data: Black Bear Habitat Use 
The habitat use patterns of the Apalachicola subpopulation of Florida black bears were 
examined in Apalachicola National Forest and Tate?s Hell State Forest by Lowery (2011) who 
discovered that black bears are using THSF over ANF. Differences in use of the two forests may 
be the result of differences in management practices and the use of prescribed burning, variation 
in the availability of swamps and other bottomland areas, and differences in the composition of 
plant species between ANF and THSF (Lowery 2011).    
 Although the exact habitat components leading to different use patterns between THSF 
and ANF may be uncertain, the discovery that bears are using THSF more than ANF is not 
insignificant. The favored use of THSF by black bears is relevant as THSF is located closer to 
human population centers than ANF, and thus demonstrates that in general black bears are 
utilizing habitats closer to humans. Therefore, the use of THSF over ANF may aid in 
understating the increased occurrence of human-black bear conflicts in the towns bordering and 
surrounding THSF. Furthermore, the selective use of THSF by bears suggests that conflicts are 
not likely to dissipate based on black bears abandoning wildlands neighboring existing towns. 
Such findings reveal the need to understand the social contexts in which human-black bear 
conflicts occur in Franklin and Gulf counties and highlight the significance of augmenting social 
data related to human-black bear conflicts with biological knowledge. 
 
Methods 
 
Data Collection 
56 
 
Data regarding social factors related to human-black bear conflicts was obtained through 
focus group discussions. Focus groups allowed participants to emphasize what information they 
deemed as most relevant and provided in-depth and comprehensive understanding of 
participants? attitudes and beliefs. Key informants within both counties aided in recruiting 
participants and forming focus groups. A diversity of groups was sought in order to acquire a 
broad range of attitudes and opinions in relation to study objectives. A total of eighteen focus 
group discussions were conducted in the summer of 2010, with each group averaging 5 to 8 
individuals. Final focus groups consisted of local marine industry workers, ecotourism workers, 
realtors, small business owners, educators, second home buyers, new residents, long term 
residents and retirees, local recreational clubs including a hunt club, and concerned citizen 
groups. Furthermore, a focus group consisting of state biologists and foresters was conducted for 
comparison with participants from the general public about viewpoints toward bears, conflicts, 
and management preferences. 
Each focus group discussion followed a set questioning guide for consistency across 
groups. Questions posed to participants were open-ended and designed to facilitate discussion on 
four main topics: 1) general attitudes and beliefs about black bears, 2) types of interactions and 
conflicts encountered, 3) opinions concerning current conflict management and preferences for 
future conflict management, and 4) attitudes toward re-opening a season for hunting black bears. 
Each discussion was audio recorded, transcribed verbatim into an electronic text file, and 
reviewed to ensure accuracy and completeness. 
 
Data Analysis 
57 
 
Qualitative analysis techniques, as described by Strauss and Corbin (1990), were 
employed to analyze each focus group discussion. A start list of primary codes was developed to 
categorize common responses concerning attitudes toward bears, conflicts encountered, conflict 
management opinions and preferences, and attitudes toward re-opening bear hunting. As 
transcripts were read, secondary codes were also generated to capture additional themes and 
opinions related to each primary coding category. Proposed coding categories were reviewed by 
project staff, and a final coding scheme was agreed upon prior to formal coding.  
All coding was completed using the qualitative analysis software NVivo v8.0. For each 
transcript, pertinent passages were coded into appropriate categories based on the content of the 
text. Reliability of coded transcripts was assessed by additional project staff at the conclusion of 
initial coding, and necessary changes were made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of coded 
passages. Following the coding of all transcripts, similarities and dissimilarities in responses 
across constituent groups were explored to decipher differences in groups? views of bears, 
thoughts on conflicts, conflict management preferences, and attitudes toward re-opening black 
bear hunting. Comparisons of data provided by wildlife professionals and the other focus groups 
were utilized to identify discrepancies concerning appropriate management of human-black bear 
conflicts. 
 
Results 
Participants? attitudes toward black bears, conflicts encountered with black bears, 
preferred management approaches, and attitudes toward re-opening bear hunting varied greatly. 
Specific discrepancies between the public and wildlife professionals regarding appropriate 
management of conflicts were also brought to light. What follows is a summary of the 1) general 
58 
 
attitudes and beliefs about black bears, 2) types of interactions and conflicts encountered, 3) 
opinions concerning current conflict management and preferences for future conflict 
management, 4) attitudes toward re-opening a season for hunting black bears, and 5) 
discrepancies in conflict management approaches between the public and wildlife professionals. 
 
General Attitudes and Beliefs about Black Bears 
The majority of focus group participants held bears in a positive light or were indifferent 
toward bears, regardless of the conflicts bears created. One participant stated: ?It?s one of the 
biggest thrills in my life down here when I spot a black bear. When I spot a black bear I can sit 
there and watch him, and to watch them run and move it?s exciting to me.? Numerous 
participants described bears as ?beautiful? and ?majestic.? The unique scenario of having bears 
along the coast was mentioned multiple times and highly valued by most. Additionally, 
participants explained and expressed satisfaction knowing that the presence of bears in the area 
demonstrates that the counties are still ?wild? and ?pristine.? A few participants, mostly long 
term residents, viewed bears strictly from a negative perspective and as ?pests? because of the 
conflicts they have experienced with bears.  
 
Human Interactions and Conflicts with Black Bears 
Both wildlife professionals and nonprofessionals clearly stated that the most common 
conflict encountered was bears eating garbage and overturning trashcans: ?I have a huge bear 
issue at my house. I have big bears that come to my house, and they will come to my trashcan all 
the time and dump it and whatever and drag it across the street.? Property damage was another 
key conflict with multiple participants claiming bears damaged yards, gardens, bird and deer 
59 
 
feeders, and grills. Participants noted vehicle collisions with black bears were increasing and 
stressed personal concern over colliding with a black bear. A few participants also mentioned 
bears hurting their pets and in some cases trying to enter their house. Participants also viewed the 
possibility of bears injuring small children as a serious potential conflict. Purposeful feeding of 
bears by individuals in the community was also viewed as a conflict which perpetuated other 
conflicts. 
 
Conflict Management Opinions and Preferences 
In general, some participants believed local wildlife professionals and agencies were 
satisfactorily managing conflicts, while a similar number of other participants believed agencies 
should be doing more to manage conflicts. Dissatisfied participants viewed management as 
needing to address both bear and human related problems. From a human standpoint, participants 
stated the need for improved educational efforts concerning conflicts, enhanced waste services, 
and mandates on garbage. One participant claimed: ?The public has to be educated about how 
not to leave your garbage lying around, and it might be mandatory to literally have bear-proof 
trashcans around because that is 99% of the problem.? In order to reduce conflicts from a bear 
management standpoint, participants mentioned trapping and relocating bears, considering 
opening a bear hunting season, and improving habitat management away from population centers 
to help keep bears away from humans. A participant stated:  
Bring the hardwoods back to the plantation so there are acorns and those sorts of things. 
You have pushed bears out of the forest because they have taken a lot of the hardwoods 
and a lot of the habitat that the bears would have probably flourished in north of here and 
pushed them where the people are on the coast. 
 
60 
 
This statement is particularly relevant as it is in accordance with this study?s hypothesis that the 
lack of available food may account for the finding that bears are using THSF and habitats closer 
to humans more than other habitats.  
Wildlife professionals stated they were making progress in addressing conflicts given 
financial and agency limitations, but also agreed management needed to continue to improve. 
Professionals believed most conflicts were related to altering human behavior and managing 
people rather than strict bear management: ?It is a people problem. Most of all bear management 
is managing the response level of people.? To improve future conflict management, professionals 
proposed increasing educational efforts and outreach to the public, improving waste services or 
implementing an ordinance on the storing of garbage, and creating harsher penalties for 
purposefully feeding bears. 
 
Attitudes toward Black Bear Hunting 
Strong support and resistance to re-opening a hunting season for black bears was 
apparent. Supporters of hunting were mostly long term community members whose families had 
lived in the counties for multiple generations, where those opposed to hunting were mostly new 
residents or transplants to the area. Supporters believed hunting would reduce the occurrence of 
conflicts, and thus viewed hunting positively: ?The black bears they better do something about 
them. They have become a nuisance. The best way to control it is open it to hunting.? All 
supporters of hunting stressed the need for a controlled hunt with a set quota and limit on the 
number and types of bears that could be harvested.  
Participants opposed to hunting believed nuisance bears would not be the ones harvested 
but rather bears in wildland areas not causing conflicts, and therefore viewed hunting negatively: 
61 
 
?The bears that are causing problems are in your neighborhoods. The bears that you hunt are out 
in the wilderness. So I think that is a very good reason for me to say no.? Concerns were also 
expressed that the local bear population may not be large enough to maintain a sustainable 
population with the onset of hunting. Wildlife professionals explained that human-black bear 
conflicts and hunting were two separate issues that overlapped minimally. Professionals stated 
that they understood the value of hunting for sustenance purposes and as a population control 
technique, but clearly stressed that hunting would not solve the problems individuals were 
having with bears. 
 
Conflict Management Discrepancies 
Discrepancies between the public and wildlife professionals concerning proper conflict 
management revolved around three main aspects: black bear hunting, trapping and relocating 
problem bears, and the alteration of human behavior. Hunting was viewed as an inappropriate 
management tool for reducing human-black bear conflicts by wildlife professionals, whereas 
some nonprofessional participants believed a hunting season would reduce the occurrence of 
conflicts. Relocating nuisance bears was also viewed as ineffective at solving conflicts by 
wildlife managers because attractants often remain in place and a new bear moves into the 
vacated area. However, multiple nonprofessional participants called for increased trapping and 
removal efforts. Altering human behavior was another topic of contingency, as professionals 
strongly believed many residents were oblivious to the role humans play in the management of 
conflicts. Professionals stated residents needed to improve efforts aimed at storing garbage 
properly, decreasing the attractiveness of their homes to bears, and understanding the role 
humans play in the creation of conflicts. Some nonprofessional participants echoed similar 
62 
 
sentiments, but others were unaware of the role humans play in conflict mitigation and called for 
management approaches that primarily focused on altering bear behavior. 
 
Discussion  
The steady increase in human-black bear conflicts over the last 15 years in Franklin and 
Gulf counties has made the management of such conflicts a priority of local wildlife agencies. 
Study findings reveal black bears are using THSF over ANF, and therefore bears are residing in 
areas located closer to human populations (Lowery 2011). As a result, the small towns bordering 
THSF may be experiencing increased conflicts as bears exit THSF to locate easily accessible 
garbage and other attractants. Furthermore, the selective use of areas located closer to humans by 
black bears demonstrates the importance of addressing the social factors associated with human-
black bear conflicts (Decker et al. 1981; Don Carlos et al. 2009; Kretser et al. 2009). 
Examination of individuals? attitudes toward bears reveals that attitudes vary, but overall most 
view black bears in a positive light, which is similar to findings from previous studies (Decker et 
al. 1981; Don Carlos et al. 2009; Kellert 1994). Furthermore, as in past studies, the acceptability 
of specific conflict management strategies varied among individuals (Don Carlos et al. 2009; 
Vaske et al. 2008; Wittmann et al. 1998; Zinn et al. 1998). The public and wildlife professionals 
agreed county provided waste service options and improved educational efforts were needed to 
reduce conflicts, and such efforts have been deemed necessary for successful management in 
other conflict prone locations (Hristienko and McDonald Jr. 2007; Kaczensky et al. 2004; 
Spencer et al. 2007). As bears are residing in habitats located in close proximity to humans, 
educational outreach should advise residents? of the need to securely stow garbage, place 
garbage out only on the day of pick up, feed pets indoors, remove wildlife feeders, and properly 
63 
 
clean and store grills (Hristienko and McDonald Jr. 2007; Spencer et al. 2007). Also, due to 
discrepancies between the public and wildlife professionals concerning management preferences, 
educational efforts should provide information on the scientific basis concerning the 
effectiveness of specific conflict mitigation techniques, such as bear relocations, hunting, and the 
alteration of human behavior.  
The acceptability of reinstating a hunting season was divided with mostly long term 
residents supporting hunting and newer residents and wildlife professionals opposing hunting as 
a conflict reduction strategy. Compounding the legitimacy of hunting as a conflict mitigation 
technique is the mixed conclusions past studies have garnered regarding the success of hunting 
programs. Several studies have demonstrated hunting aided in reducing conflicts by likely 
decreasing bear population sizes and causing bears to be more cautious of humans (Landriault 
1998; McCullough 1982; Wolgast et al. 2005), while other findings revealed that hunting was 
ineffective at reducing conflicts (Tavss 2005; Treves et al. 2010). As the Apalachicola black bear 
population continues to grow in size and conflicts become more frequent, managers will have to 
determine the viability of hunting as a biologically and socially acceptable conflict reduction 
technique.   
Wildlife professionals and the public also disagreed on the use of bear relocations as a 
viable approach to mitigating conflicts. Wildlife professionals espoused that relocating problem 
bears is ineffective at reducing conflicts as incentives that attract bears to an area often remain in 
place, problem bears carry their nuisance behaviors with them when relocated, and there is a 
shortage of relocation sites (Hristienko and McDonald Jr. 2007; Linnel et al. 1997; Spencer et al. 
2007). Relocations are also problematic because relocated bears often attempt to return to their 
original home ranges (Hristienko and McDonald Jr. 2007; Landriault 1998). As bears attempt to 
64 
 
return home they are likely to place themselves and motorists in danger by crossing roadways, or 
they find new human settlements and exhibit similar nuisance behaviors, thus shifting the 
problem to a different area. Nonprofessional participants were likely unaware of such factors 
regarding the shortcomings of relocations.         
A final discrepancy between wildlife professionals and the public revolved around the 
role human behavior plays in conflict mitigation. Wildlife professionals exclaimed individuals 
needed to consciously alter their behavior to reduce the occurrence of conflicts by responsibly 
storing garbage and understanding the role garbage plays in creating conflicts. The need to 
securely store garbage is especially important as study findings revealed bears are utilizing 
habitats closer to humans, and thus are likely to seek out garbage. This viewpoint held by 
professionals differed from some participants who called for conflict management strategies 
solely or mostly related to altering bear behavior rather than human behavior. Such discrepancies 
as the ones present in this study reveal that desired conflict mitigation strategies can and often 
vary between those who manage wildlife and those for which wildlife is managed. 
 
Conclusions 
Managing conflicts between humans and black bears is a complex task. However, 
approaches that aim to utilize social understating of conflicts with supplemental biological 
knowledge are a much needed step in the right direction for reducing conflicts. By understanding 
both biological and social factors related to conflicts, conflict mitigation approaches can be 
developed that align social management preferences with scientific understanding of the 
biological drivers contributing to the occurrence of conflicts. For this study biological 
understanding of the local black bear populations? habitat use, as determined by recent studies, 
65 
 
laid the foundation for appropriately addressing the social factors related to human-black bear 
conflicts. 
 Social understanding concerning human-black bear conflicts demonstrated that local 
residents maintain a variety of beliefs, attitudes, and preferences toward bears and conflict 
management approaches. As a result of this diversity in viewpoints, the public and wildlife 
professionals agreed and disagreed on the appropriateness of certain management approaches. 
Many nonprofessional individuals? attitudes toward particular conflict reduction techniques, such 
as relocating nuisance bears, were based off of incorrect or incomplete beliefs. Such knowledge 
gaps aid in explaining why discrepancies over appropriate conflict management methods exist 
and provide a strong case for increased educational efforts directed at informing the public of 
viable conflict reduction solutions. As managing human-black bear conflicts will likely only 
increase in relevance as both bear and human populations continue to increase, improved 
educational efforts will be essential to resolving discrepancies and mitigating conflicts. 
 
66 
 
 Figure 5.  Map of study area located in the Panhandle of Florida where human-black bear 
conflicts were examined. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
67 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Epilogue 
Franklin and Gulf counties, which are located in Florida?s Panhandle, are a microcosm of 
the larger scale pattern of ever increasing development and expansion within the United States. 
Both counties currently have been minimally developed compared to most coastal areas, but 
Franklin and Gulf are poised to undergo development in the future. This general pattern can be 
seen across the United States as development is at an all time high and human populations 
continue to grow and expand into previously uninhabited areas. As a result of continued growth 
and sprawl, major landscape alterations and land use changes are likely to only increase as 
society progresses into the future. Such changes will alter both social and ecological systems. 
As Franklin and Gulf prepare for oncoming development this study aimed to and 
successfully addressed aspects related to both social and ecological systems that will likely be 
impacted by landscape changes. The intricate bonds residents within Franklin and Gulf counties 
had developed with the natural landscape were remarkable. The strong dependency of the 
counties on the natural environment for recreation, livelihoods, and even historical and cultural 
identity was surprising as this is becoming a decreasing trend in many communities within the 
eastern United States. Furthermore, this study brought to light that improved understanding of 
social systems can be greatly enhanced by immersing oneself into a community and culture. By 
actively living within Franklin and Gulf counties and interacting with residents a greater 
understanding and appreciation for the area, its residents, and the relationships between the two 
were obtained. 
68 
 
Understanding of Florida black bear habitat use and human-black bear conflicts was an 
original and worthwhile undertaking for addressing the potential impact development may have 
on ecological systems within Franklin and Gulf. The findings that bears are utilizing habitats 
located close to humans and that a diversity of opinions exist concerning human-black bear 
conflicts demonstrate that the relevance of appropriate black bear management will likely only 
increase as alterations are made to the natural landscape. Additionally, insight was gained on the 
realization that the public and wildlife professionals often times do not agree on wildlife 
management strategies, but scientific understanding of biological processes, such as an animal?s 
habitat use, can be utilized to formulate and educate the public about proper management 
strategies. 
On a personal note, the willingness of local residents to fight for their cultural identity as 
the ?Forgotten Coast? in the face of impending development was astounding and highly 
respected. However, the ability of residents to defend current social systems was countered by 
the inability of black bears and ecological systems in general to defend themselves as 
developmental expansion progresses. This dichotomy brought to light that future research efforts 
need to continue to explore ecological processes, such as habitat use, in order to better 
understand and prepare ecological systems for the potential impacts caused by development and 
other landscape modifications.   
Perhaps most importantly, this study demonstrated that both social and ecological 
knowledge are needed for successful natural resource management. Natural resources and 
landscapes are not just elements within ecological systems but are also relevant components of 
social systems. Therefore, understanding of both systems is needed to obtain a complete picture 
of the potential impacts to landscapes and natural resources resulting from land use changes and 
69 
 
landscape modifications. Only once the link has been made between understating how social 
systems interact and influence ecological systems and vice versa can proper and acceptable 
management decisions be formulated. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
70 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
References 
 
Abbot, J., R. Chambers, C. Dunn, T. Harris, E. Merode, G. Porter, J. Townsend, and D. Weiner. 
1998. Participatory GIS: Opportunity or oxymoron? IIED: PLA Note 33. 
 
Anderson, D. R., K. P. Burnham, and W. L. Thompson. 2000. Null hypothesis testing: Problems, 
prevalence, and an alternative. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:912-923. 
 
Baruch-Mordo, S., S. W. Breck, K. R. Wilson, and D. M. Theobald. 2008. Spatiotemporal 
distribution of black bear human conflicts in Colorado, USA. Journal of Wildlife 
Management 72:1853-1862. 
 
Beck, T. D. I. 1991. Black bears of west central Colorado. Technical Publication 39. Fort 
Collins, CO: Colorado Division of Wildlife. 
 
Beckmann, J. P., and J. Berger. 2003. Rapid ecological and behavioural changes in carnivores: 
The responses of black bears (Ursus americanus) to altered food. Journal of the 
Zoological Society of London 261:207-212. 
 
Benson, J. F., and M. J. Chamberlain. 2007. Space use and habitat selection by female Louisiana 
Black Bears in the Tensas River Basin of Louisiana. Journal of Wildlife Management 
71:117-126. 
 
Berger, P. L., and T. Luckmann. 1967. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the 
sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. 
 
Black, A. E., and A. Liljebald. 2006. Guide to methods used for developing, analyzing, and 
preparing social data related to attachment to place (No. Final report JFSP project no. 
04-2-1-114). Missoula, MT: Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute. 
 
Black, A. E., and A. Liljebald. 2006. Integrating social values in vegetation models via GIS: The 
missing link for the Bitterroot National Forest (No. Final report JFSP project no. 04-2-1-
114). Missoula, MT: Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute. 
 
Brower, J. E., and J. H. Zar. 1977. Field and Laboratory Methods for General Ecology. 
Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown Company.  
 
Brown, G., and C. Raymond. 2007. The relationship between place attachment and landscape 
values: Toward mapping place attachment. Applied Geography 27:89-111. 
 
71 
 
Brown, G. 2006. Mapping landscape values and developmental preferences: A method for 
tourism and residential development planning. International Journal of Tourism 
Research 8:101-113. 
 
Brown, G. 2005. Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural resource management: 
Methods and applications. Society and Natural Resources 18:17-39. 
 
Buckland, S. T., K. P. Burnham, and N. H. Augustin. 1997. Model selection: An integral part of 
inference. Biometrics 53:603-618. 
 
Burt, W. H. 1943. Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. Journal of 
Mammalogy 24:346-352. 
 
Carr, P. C., and K. Burguess. 2004. Black bear in New Jersey status report 2004. Trenton, NJ: 
New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife. 
 
Chen, N., L. Huancheng, and W. Lihong. 2009. A GIS-based approach for mapping direct use 
value of ecosystem services at a county scale: Management implications. Ecological 
Economics 68:2768-2776. 
 
Clark, J. D., D. L. Clapp, K. G. Smith, and B. Ederington. 1994. Black Bear habitat use in 
relation to food availability in the northern highlands of Arkansas. International Conference 
on Bear Research and Management 9:309-318. 
 
Costello, C. M., and R. W. Sage Jr. 1994. Predicting Black Bear habitat selection from food 
abundance under 3 forest management systems. International Conference on Bear 
Research and Management 9:375-387. 
 
Davenport, M. A., and D. H. Anderson. 2005. Getting from sense of place to place based 
management: An interpretative investigation of place meanings and perceptions of 
landscape change. Society and Natural Resources 18:625-641. 
 
Decker, D. J., T. L. Brown, D. L. Hustin, S. H. Clarke, and J. O?Pezio. 1981. Public attitudes 
toward black bears in the Catskills. New York Fish and Game Journal 28:1-20.  
 
Dixon, J., and K. Durrheim. 2000. Displacing place-identity: A discursive approach to locating 
self and other. British Journal of Social Psychology 39:27-44. 
 
Don Carlos, A. W., A. D. Bright, T. L. Teel, and J. J. Vaske. 2009. Human-black bear conflict in 
urban areas: An integrated approach to management response. Human Dimensions of 
Wildlife 14:174-184. 
 
Eason, T. H. 2003. Florida status report, 2003, 17th eastern black bear workshop. Tallahassee, 
FL: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 
 
72 
 
Eisenhauer, B. W., R. S. Krannich, and D. J. Blahna. 2000. Attachments to special places on 
public lands: An analysis of activities, reason for attachments, and community 
connections. Society and Natural Resources 13:421-441. 
 
ESRI (Environmental Systems Resource Institute). 2009. ArcGIS 9.3.1. Redlands, CA: ESRI. 
 
Farnum, J., T. Hall, and L. E. Kruger. 2005. Sense of place in natural resource recreation and 
tourism: An evaluation and assessment of research findings. PNW-GTR-660. Portland, 
OR: USDA, Forest Service, PNW Research Station.  
  
Fishwick, L., and J. Vining. 1992. Toward a phenomenology of recreation place. Journal of 
Environmental Psychology 12:57-63. 
 
Fiske, I., R. Chandler, and A. Royle. 2011. Models for data from unmarked animals. Available 
online at http://www.r-project.org/. Accessed January 16, 2011. 
 
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Division of Wildlife (FWC). 2000. Black 
Bear Status Report. Retrieved October 8, 2009 from 
http://myfwc.com/media/425969/bear_ status_report_Oct2000.pdf 
 
Fretwell, S. D., and H. L. Lucas Jr. 1970. On territorial behavior and other factors influencing 
habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheoretica 19:6-36. 
 
Galliano, S. J., and G. M. Loeffler. 1995. Place assessment: How people define ecosystems. 
Walla Walla, WA: Social Science Assessment Team, USDA Forest Service. 
 
Greider, T., and L. Garkovich. 1994. Landscapes: The social construction of nature and the 
environment. Rural Sociology 59:1-24. 
 
Hellgren, E. C., M. R. Vaughan, and D. F. Stauffer. 1991. Macrohabitat use by Black Bears in a 
southeastern wetland. Journal of Wildlife Management 55:442-448. 
 
Hristienko, H., and J. E. McDonald Jr. 2007. Going into the 21st century: A perspective on 
trends and controversies in the management of the American black bear. Ursus 18:72-88. 
 
Johnson, C. Y., and W. C. Zipperer. 2007. Culture, place, and urban growth in the U.S. south. 
Urban Ecosystems 10:459-474. 
 
Jorgensen, B. S., and R. C. Stedman. 2001. Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners 
attitudes toward their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21:233-248. 
 
Kaczensky, P., M. Blazic, and H. Gossow. 2004. Public attitudes towards brown bears (Ursus 
acrtos) in Solvenia. Biological Conservation 118:661-674.  
 
Kaltenborn, B. P. 1998. Effects of sense of place on responses to environmental impacts. Applied 
Geography 18:169-189. 
73 
 
 
Kellert, S. R. 1994. Public attitudes toward bears and their conservation. International 
Conference Bear Research and Management 9:43-50. 
 
Kendall, W. L., and G. C. White. 2009. A cautionary note on substituting spatial subunits for 
repeated temporal sampling in studies of site occupancy. Journal of Applied Ecology 
46:1182-1188.  
 
Kindall, J. L., and F. T. van Manen. 2007. Identifying habitat linkages for American Black Bears 
in North Carolina, USA. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:487-495. 
 
Kretser, H. E., P. D. Curtis, and B. A. Knuth. 2009. Landscape, social, and spatial influences on 
perceptions of human-black bear interactions in the Adirondack Park, NY. Human 
Dimensions of Wildlife 14:393-406. 
 
Landers, J. L., R. J. Hamilton, A. S. Johnson, and R. L. Marchinton. 1979. Foods and habitat of 
Black Bears in southeastern North Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management 43:143-
153. 
 
Landriault, L. J. 1998. Nuisance black bear (Ursus americanus) behavior in central Ontario. 
Thesis. Sudbury, Ontario, Canada: Laurentian University.  
 
Linnel, J. D. C., R. Aanes, J. E. Swenson, J. Odden, and M. E. Smith. 1997. Translocation of 
carnivores as a method for managing problem animals: A review. Biodiversity and 
Conservation 6:1245-1257. 
 
Lowery, D. R. 2011. Examining Sense of Place and Florida Black Bear Habitat Use in Florida?s 
Northwestern Panhandle: A Social-Ecological Approach to Landscape Management. 
Thesis. Auburn, AL: Auburn University. 
 
MacKenzie, D. I., and J. A. Royle. 2005. Designing occupancy studies: General advice and 
allocating survey effort. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:1105-1114.  
 
MacKenzie, D. I. 2006. Modeling the probability of resource use: The effect of, and dealing 
with, detecting a species imperfectly. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:367-374. 
 
MacKenzie, D. I., J. D. Nichols, J. A. Royle, K. H. Pollock, L. L. Bailey, and J. E. Hines. 2006. 
Occupancy Estimation and Modeling: Inferring Patterns and Dynamics of Species 
Occurrence. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 
 
MacKenzie, D. I., J. D. Nichols, J. E. Hines, M. G. Knutson, and A. D. Franklin. 2003. 
Estimating site occupancy, colonization and local extinction when a species is detected 
imperfectly. Ecology 84:2200-2207. 
 
74 
 
MacKenzie, D. I., J. D. Nichols, G. B. Lachman, S. Droege, J. A. Royle, and C. A. Langtimm. 
2002. Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. 
Ecology 83:2248-2255. 
 
Maehr, D. S. 1984. Distribution of Black Bears in eastern North America. Eastern Workshop on 
Black Bear Management and Research 7:74. 
 
Manning, R., W. Valliere, and B. Minteer. 1999. Values, ethics, and attitudes toward national 
forest management: An empirical study. Society and Natural Resources 12:421-436. 
 
McCown, J. W., P. Kubilis, T. H. Eason, and B. K. Scheick. 2009. Effect of traffic volume on 
American Black Bears in central Florida, USA. Ursus 20:39-46.  
 
McCullough, D. A. 1982. Behavior, bears, and humans. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10:27-33. 
 
Mesch, G. S., and O. Manor. 1998. Social ties, environmental perception, and local attachment. 
Environment and Behavior 30:504-519. 
 
Mollohan, C. M. 1987. Black Bear habitat use in northern Arizona. Final report, project W-78-
R, work plan 4, job 19. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish, Research Branch. 
 
Moore, R. L., and A. R. Graefe. 1994. Attachments to recreation settings: The case of rail-trail 
users. Leisure Sciences 16:17-31. 
 
Mykytka, J. M., and M. R. Pelton. 1990. Management strategies for Florida Black Bears based 
on home range habitat composition. International Conference on Bear Research and 
Management 8:161-167. 
 
Nichols, J. D., J. E. Hines, D. I. MacKenzie, M. E. Seamans, and R. J. Guti?rrez. 2007. 
Occupancy estimation and modeling with multiple sates and state uncertainty. Ecology 
88:1395-1400. 
 
Nudds, T. D. 1977. Quantifying the vegetative structure of wildlife cover. Wildlife Society 
Bulletin 5:113-117. 
 
Powell, R. A., J. W. Zimmerman, and D. E. Seaman. 1997. Ecology and Behaviour of North 
American Black Bears: Home Ranges, Habitat and Social Organization. New York, NY: 
Chapman and Hall. 
 
Raymond, C. M., B. A. Bryan, D. H. MacDonald, A. Cast, S. Strathearn, A. Grandgirard, and T. 
Kalivas. 2009. Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. 
Ecological Economics 68:1301-1315. 
 
Relph, E. 1976. Place and placelessness. London: Pion Limited. 
 
75 
 
Rogan, R., M. O'Connor, and P. Howrwitz. 2005. Nowhere to hide: Awareness and perceptions 
of environmental change, and their influence on relationships with place. Journal of 
Environmental Psychology 25:147-158. 
 
Royle, J. A., and J. D. Nichols. 2003. Estimating abundance from repeated presence absence data 
or point counts. Ecology 84:777-790.  
 
Schoen, J. W. 1990. Bear habitat management: A review and future perspective. International 
Conference on Bear Research and Management 8:143-154. 
 
Schooley, R. L., C. R. McLaughlin, W. B. Krohn, and G. J. Matula Jr. 1994. Spatiotemporal 
patterns of macrohabitat use by female Black Bears during fall. International Conference 
on Bear Research and Management 9:339-348. 
 
Seibert, S. G. 1993. Status and management of Black Bears in Apalachicola National Forest. 
Final report W-41-30. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 
 
Shields, R. 1991. Places on the margin: Alternative geographies of modernity. London: 
Routledge. 
 
Simek, S. L., S. A. Jonker, B. K. Scheick, M. J. Endries, and T. H. Eason. 2005. Statewide 
assessment of road impacts on bears in six study areas in Florida from May 2001-
September 2003. Final report contract BC-972. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Game and Fresh 
Water Fish Commission.  
 
Spencer, R. D., R. A. Beausoleil, and D. A. Martorello. 2007. How agencies respond to human-
black bear conflicts: A survey of wildlife agencies in North America. Ursus 18:217-229. 
 
Stedman, R. C. 2003. Is it really just a social construction?: The contribution of the physical 
environment to sense of place. Society and Natural Resources 16:671-685. 
 
Stokols, D., and S. A. Shumaker. 1981. People in places: A transactional view of settings. In 
Cognition, social behavior, and the environment, ed. J. Harvey, 441-488. Hillsdale, 
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 
 
Stratman, M. R., and M. R. Pelton. 2007. Spatial response of American Black Bears to 
prescribed fire in northwest Florida. Ursus 18:62-71. 
 
Stratman, M. R., C. D. Alden, M. R. Pelton, and M. E. Sunquist. 2001. Habitat use by American 
Black Bears in the sandhills of Florida. Ursus 12:109-114. 
 
Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 
 
Talen, E. 2000. Bottom-Up GIS: A new tool for individual and group expression in participatory 
planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 66:279-294. 
 
76 
 
Tavss, E. A. 2005. Correlation of reduction in nuisance black bear complaints with 
implementation of (a) a hunt vs. (b) a non-violent program. Final Report-Version 4. 
Newark, NJ: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. 
 
The R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2010. Available online at http://www.r-project.org/. 
Accessed January 16, 2011.  
 
Treves, A., K. J. Kapp, and D. M. MacFarland. 2010. American black bear nuisance complaints 
and hunter take. Ursus 21:30-42.   
 
Tuan, Y. F. 1977. Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis, MN: University 
of Minnesota Press. 
 
Tyrv?inen, L., K. M?kinen, and J. Schipperijn. 2007. Tools for mapping social values of urban 
woodlands and other green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 79:5-19. 
 
United States Census Bureau. 2010. Retrieved March 2011, from http://www.census.gov/ 
 
United States Census Bureau. 2010. TIGER?, TIGER/line? and TIGER?-related products.  
Available online at http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/. Accessed October 3, 2010.  
 
USDA/NRCS-National Cartography and Geospatial Center. 2001. National land cover dataset. 
Available online at http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2001_downloads.php. Accessed February 
22, 2010.  
 
Vaske, J. J., A. W. Don Carlos, and A. D. Bright. 2008. Judgments of responsibility in human 
bear conflict. Proceedings of the Western Black Bear Workshop 9.  
 
Warwick, A., and D. Telesco. 2009. Personal communications. Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Commission Carrabelle Office, Carrabelle, FL. October 17, 2009.  
 
Wasser, S. K., B. Davenport, E. R. Ramage, K. Hunt, M. Parker, C. Clarke, and G. Stenhouse. 
2004. Scat detection dogs in wildlife research and management: Application to Grizzly 
and Black Bears in the Yellowhead Ecosystem, Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of 
Zoology 82:475-492. 
 
Williams, D. R., and M. E. Patterson. 1996. Environmental meaning and ecosystem 
management. Society and Natural Resources 9:507-521. 
 
Williams, D. R., and S. I. Stewart. 1998. Sense of place: An elusive concept that is finding a 
home in ecosystem management. Journal of Forestry 96:18-23. 
 
Williams, D. R., M. E. Patterson, J. W. Roggenbuck, and A. E. Watson. 1992. Beyond the 
commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure 
Sciences 14:29-46. 
 
77 
 
Wittmann, K. J., J. J. Vaske, M. J. Manfredo, and H. C. Zinn. 1998. Standards for lethal response 
to problem urban wildlife. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 3:29-48. 
 
Wolgast, L. J., W. S. Ellis, and J. Vreeland. 2005. Comprehensive black bear (Ursus 
americanus) management policy. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Fish and Game Council, 
Black Bear Policy Committee. 
 
Wooding, J. B., and T. S. Hardisky. 1994. Home range, habitat use and mortality of Black Bears 
in north-central Florida. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 
9:349-356. 
 
Zack, C. S., B. T. Milne, and W. C. Dunn. 2003. Southern oscillation index as an indicator of 
encounters between humans and black bears in New Mexico. Wildlife Society Bulletin 
31:517-520. 
 
Zube, E. H. 1987. Perceived land use patterns and landscape values. Landscape Ecology 1:37-45. 
 
Zinn, H. C., M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, and K. Wittmann. 1998. Using normative beliefs to 
determine the acceptability of wildlife management actions. Society and Natural 
Resources 11:649-662.