Table 3 Intention to increase goose hunting and expected response to policy instruments in three groups of hunters.

From: The importance of structural, situational, and psychological factors for involving hunters in the adaptive flyway management of geese

 

Non-goose hunters (N = 675)

Lapsed goose hunters (N = 278)

Goose hunters (N = 606)

Effect size

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

Partial η2

Intention to increase goose hunting

1.76 (0.92)c

1.97 (0.97)b

2.90 (1.03)a

0.23

Response to policy instruments

Extended hunting season

3.33 (0.79)b

3.37 (0.93)b

3.86 (0.89)a

0.08

Financial instruments

3.31 (0.84)b

3.32 (0.98)b

3.60 (0.96)a

0.02

Collaborative instruments

3.31 (0.86)a

3.24 (0.91)a

3.05 (0.96)b

0.02

Educational instruments

3.37 (0.83)a

3.19 (0.96)b

3.36 (0.91)a

0.01

Borrow equipment

3.24 (0.78)

3.19 (0.90)

3.31 (0.78)

> 0.01

Access to game meat processing plants

3.19 (0.82)

3.14 (1.04)

3.21 (1.02)

> 0.01

  1. Means having the same superscript letter did not differ at p < 0.05 (ANOVA with Bonferroni correction). Following guidelines proposed by Cohen65, a small, medium, and large effect size correspond to Partial η2 = 0.01, Partial η2 = 0.06, and Partial η2 = 0.14.
Back to article page