Research Article
Development of an Effective Oral Vaccine Dissemination Strategy against Classical Swine Fever for Wild Boar in Gifu Prefecture, Japan
Table 1
The results of single regression analysis.
| | Variables | Variable type 1 | Variable type 2 | Unit | Variable (threshold) | N = 1227 (%) | Coefficients (β) | Standard error (SE) | value | Data source |
| | Wild boar | Response | Binominal | Presence: yes or no | Yes | 398 (32.4%) | — | — | — | Camera data | | No | 829 (67.6%) | — | — | — | | Deer | Explanatory | Binominal | Presence: yes or no | Yes | 256 (20.9%) | 0.133 | 0.148 | 0.371 | Camera data | | No | 971 (70.1%) | — | — | — | | Raccoon dog | Explanatory | Binominal | Presence: yes or no | Yes | 986 (80.4%) | 0.734 | 0.172 | <0.001 | Camera data | | No | 241 (19.6%) | — | — | — | | Raccoon | Explanatory | Binominal | Presence: yes or no | Yes | 165 (13.4%) | 0.703 | 0.170 | <0.001 | Camera data | | No | 1062 (86.6%) | — | — | — | | Fox | Explanatory | Binominal | Presence: yes or no | Yes | 683 (55.7%) | 0.143 | 0.123 | 0.246 | Camera data | | No | 544 (44.3%) | — | — | — | | Crow | Explanatory | Binominal | Presence: yes or no | Yes | 392 (31.9%) | 0.416 | 0.128 | <0.001 | Camera data | | No | 835 (68.1%) | — | — | — | | Badger | Explanatory | Binominal | Presence: yes or no | Yes | 188 (15.3%) | 5.4 × 10−4 | 0.169 | 0.997 | Camera data | | No | 1039 (84.7%) | — | — | — | | Altitude | Explanatory | Categorical | Meter | Low: 0–25% (993.5) | 308 (25.1%) | — | — | — | [25] | | Medium: 25–50% (1912.8) | 308 (25.1%) | 0.329 | 0.173 | 0.058 | | Medium-high: 50–75% (2166.3) | 304 (24.8%) | 0.218 | 0.175 | 0.213 | | High: 75–100% (2529.2) | 307 (25.0%) | 0.174 | 0.176 | 0.322 | | Slope | Explanatory | Categorical | % | Low: 0–25% (5.7) | 309 (25.2%) | — | — | — | [25] | | Medium: 25–50% (12.7) | 306 (24.9%) | −0.166 | 0.173 | 0.339 | | Medium-high: 50–75% (22.7) | 305 (24.9%) | −0.272 | 0.176 | 0.121 | | High: 75–100% (39.6) | 307 (25.0%) | 0.194 | 0.168 | 0.249 | | Road density | Explanatory | Categorical | m/km2 | Low: 0–25% (586) | 307 (25.0%) | — | — | — | [25] | | Medium: 25–50% (2103) | 307 (25.0%) | 0.68 | 0.178 | <0.001 | | Medium-high: 50–75% (4399) | 307 (25.0%) | 0.568 | 0.179 | <0.002 | | High: 75–100% (9011) | 306 (24.9%) | 0.427 | 0.181 | 0.019 | | Distance to water source | Explanatory | Categorical | Meter | Short: 0–25% (88.2) | 310 (25.3%) | — | — | — | [25] | | Middle: 25–50% (211.6) | 306 (24.9%) | −0.024 | 0.170 | 0.888 | | Middle-long: 50–75% (382.3) | 305 (24.9%) | −0.250 | 0.175 | 0.153 | | Long: 75–100% (1491.6) | 306 (24.9%) | 0.005 | 0.03 | 0.976 | | Capture pressure index | Explanatory | Categorical | Head/km2 | Low density (<0.252) | 942 (76.8%) | — | — | — | Gifu-provided data | | Medium density: (0.252–0.805) | 235 (19.2%) | 0.239 | 0.153 | 0.120 | | High density: (0.805–1.82) | 41 (3.3%) | 1.070 | 0.323 | <0.001 | | Very high density: (>1.82) | 9 (0.7%) | 0.602 | 0.675 | 0.372 | | Expected wild boar density | Explanatory | Categorical | Head/km2 | Low density: (<5) | 167 (13.6%) | — | — | — | [34] | | Medium density: (5-6) | 400 (32.6%) | 0.094 | 0.200 | 0.640 | | Medium-high density: (6-7) | 306 (24.9%) | −0.349 | 0.164 | 0.033 | | High density: (>7) | 354 (28.9%) | −0.060 | 0.164 | 0.715 | | Human density | Explanatory | Continuous | Person/km2 | (min, median, max) | 0, 2, 892 | 6.7 × 10−4 | 7.7 × 10−4 | 0.383 | [25] | | Wild boar distribution index | Explanatory | Categorical | | Low: 0–25% (0.571) | 307 (25.0%) | — | — | — | [29, 32] | | Medium: 25–50% (0.612) | 307 (25.0%) | 0.359 | 0.170 | 0.035 | | Medium-high: 50–75% (0.646) | 306 (24.9%) | −0.073 | 0.176 | 0.680 | | High: 75–100% (1) | 307 (25.0%) | −0.031 | 0.175 | 0.861 |
|
|
Variables with values less than 0.15 (in bold) were advanced to the next step. |
