Assessing Tolerance for Wildlife: Clarifying Relations Between Concepts and Measures

Abstract

Two parallel lines of inquiry, tolerance for and acceptance of wildlife populations, have arisen in the applied literature on wildlife conservation to assess probability of successfully establishing or increasing populations of controversial species. Neither of these lines is well grounded in social science theory, and diverse measures have been employed to assess tolerance, which inhibits comparability across studies. We empirically tested behavioral measures of tolerance against self-reports of previous policy-relevant behavior and behavioral intentions. Both composite behavioral measures were strongly correlated (r > .70) with two attitudinal measures of tolerance commonly employed in the literature. The strong correlation between attitudinal and behavioral measures suggests existing attitudinal measures represent valid, parsimonious measures of tolerance that may be useful when behavioral measures are too cumbersome or misreporting of behavior is anticipated. Our results demonstrate how behavioral measures of tolerance provide additional, useful information beyond general attitudinal measures.

The public and geese: a conflict on the rise?

“…The association between the two acceptance measures was weaker than in previous research (e.g., Bruskotter et al, 2015) and slightly different variables were confirmed predictors. For example, whereas emotions were more important predictors of attitudes, beliefs about ES food/hunting and EDS displayed stronger associations with acceptance capacity.…”

“…The composite measures displayed good reliability (α = .91). Previous research of wildlife acceptance capacity has included measures reflecting whether people would prefer the wildlife population to decrease or increase and the potential for coexistence (Bruskotter et al, 2015;Skupien et al, 2016). In the present study, two questions relevant in the goose context were included: (a) "What is your perception of the goose population in your municipality?"…”

“…First, it has been examined in terms of an attitude, reflecting an evaluation ranging from negative to positive, such as from like to dislike, love to hate, or in favor to against (Dressel et al, 2015). Second, it has been examined in terms of tolerance for wildlife, often assessed using measures of wildlife acceptance capacity reflecting the maximum wildlife population level that is acceptable to people (Decker & Purdy, 1988; see also Bruskotter & Fulton, 2012;Bruskotter et al, 2015;Bruskotter & Wilson, 2014). Drawing on the cognitive hierarchy model (Fulton et al, 1996; see also Dietz et al, 1998) and attitude theory (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993), this paper addressed how humanwildlife interactions may be linked to public acceptance.…”

Emotionalization in Science Communication: The Impact of Narratives and Visual Representations on Knowledge Gain and Risk Perception

“…Pertinent examples are human-wildlife interactions, where the success of any mitigation measures completely hinges on the cooperation of the people affected. In such cases, it is crucial to implement successful communication to improve public perception of conservation programs and to foster people's tolerance toward wildlife (Bruskotter et al, 2015).…”

Using pastoral ideology to understand human–wildlife coexistence in arid agricultural landscapes

“…The food pyramid (c) illustrates that biomass reduces at higher trophic levels and is dependent on the amount of vegetation in desert landscapes supportive of management actions like lethal control for dealing with human-wildlife conflicts (Manfredo et al, 2016). Tolerance is an indicator of attitudes toward wildlife, defined more specifically as an individual's acceptance of negative effects and desire for positive effects that arise from interactions with wildlife (Bruskotter, Singh, Fulton, & Slagle, 2015). People who have high tolerance of a wildlife species prefer larger populations of that species.…”