Addressing social attitudes toward lethal control of wildlife in national parks

Abstract

The extraordinary population growth of certain ungulate species is increasingly a concern in agroforestry areas because overabundance may negatively affect natural environments and human livelihoods. However, society may have negative perceptions of killing wildlife to reduce their numbers and mitigate damage. We used an online survey that included a choice experiment to determine Spanish citizens' (n = 190) preferences toward wildlife population control measures related to negative effects of ungulate overabundance (negative impacts on vegetation and other wildlife species and disease transmission to livestock) in 2 agroforestry national parks in Spain. We used latent-class and willingness-to-pay in space models to analyze survey results. Two percent of respondents thought a national park should have no human intervention even if lack of management may cause environmental degradation, whereas 95% of respondents favored efforts to reduce damage caused by overabundant ungulate species. We estimated human well-being losses of survey respondents when sustainable effects of deer overabundance on the environment became unsustainable effects and well-being gains when sustainable effects transitioned to no visible effects. We found that the type of wildlife-control program was a very relevant issue for the respondents; indirect control in which killing was avoided was the preferred action. Sixty-six percent of respondents agreed with the option of hunters paying for culling animals to reduce ungulate impacts rather than management cost coming out of taxes, whereas 19% of respondents were against this option and willing to pay for other solutions in national parks. Our results suggest that killing wildlife in national parks could be a socially acceptable tool to manage overabundance problems in certain contexts, but it could also generate social conflicts.

Wild ungulate overabundance in Europe: contexts, causes, monitoring and management recommendations

“…to improve animal health, for recreation, to reduce damage to crops (Garrido et al 2017). According to Martínez‐Jauregui et al (2020), the use of indirect measures to reduce the impact of ungulates and live trapping is better perceived by society than lethal measures. Only 50% of people agree with the idea of selling licences to interested hunters in order to reduce the impacts of ungulates, but part of society shows a positive willingness‐to‐pay for other solutions in protected areas (Martínez‐Jauregui et al 2020).…”

“…However, most of these indicators are evaluated within the human dimension (Conover 2001), requiring the use of surveys of members of the public to obtain their opinions and to set the admissible levels (VerCauteren et al 2018). In this sense, it is necessary to consider the views of different stakeholders (hunters, foresters, farmers, shepherds; Martin et al 2020), including those who are not directly involved in the conflicts (animal welfare, environmentalists, urban citizens), to diagnose and manage overabundance situations (Martínez‐Jauregui et al 2020, Valente et al 2020).…”

Human–wildlife coexistence in a changing world

“…2020 [this issue]; Martínez‐Jauregui et al. 2020 [this issue]; Salerno et al. 2020 [this issue]), where wildlife species damage mainly subsistence farms and where effective implementation of conservation laws has resulted in increased wildlife populations.…”

“…Communities living adjacent to PAs, for example, may experience spillover effects of wildlife intrusions into their farms and villages (Martínez‐Jauregui et al. 2020). Urban deer are not perceived and experienced equally by all members of the community; some people feed or encourage deer and others seek to mitigate damages.…”

“…Martinez et al. (2020) use a choice experimental approach (willingness to pay) to analyze attitudes and perceptions of citizens toward alternative management options to control “overabundant” ungulates (red deer) in 2 Spanish national parks. They found that a majority of the surveyed citizens believe it is acceptable to kill deer to maintain ecological functions of the parks.…”