Moral dimensions of human–wildlife conflict

Abstract

Despite increasing support for conservation globally, controversy over specific conservation policies persists among diverse stakeholders. Investigating the links between morals in relation to conservation can help increase understanding about why humans support or oppose policy, especially related to human-wildlife conflict or human conflict over wildlife. Yet the moral dimension of human-wildlife conflict has mostly gone unconsidered and unmeasured; thus, policy and programmatic efforts to reduce controversy may be missing a key part of the equation. We conducted a web-based survey (n = 1239 respondents) in Michigan (U.S.A.) to investigate cognitive and emotional influences on the value-behavior relationship. Respondents were identified by their interest and involvement in Michigan wolf management. The survey consisted of questions about values, emotions, cognitions, and behaviors relative to wolves in Michigan. We used path analysis to explore whether emotions and cognitions mediated the relationship between value and behavior. Most respondents attributed intrinsic value to wolves (n = 734) and all life (n = 773) and engaged in behaviors that benefited wolf populations and ecosystems regardless of stakeholder group (e.g., environmentalist, farmer). Attributing intrinsic value to wolves was positively related to favorable emotions toward wolves and cognitive assessments that hunting and trapping of wolves is unacceptable. Despite similarities in attribution of intrinsic value, groups differed in emotions and cognitions about wolf hunting. These differences provide a useful way to predict stakeholder behavior. Our findings may inform interventions aimed at increasing support for wolf management policies and positive interactions among stakeholders and wildlife. Leveraging agreement over intrinsic value may foster cooperation among stakeholders and garner support for controversial conservation policy.

Value diversity and conservation conflict: Lessons from the management of red grouse and hen harriers in England

“…A number of studies have highlighted the importance of understanding stakeholder values in conflicts over wildlife management (e.g., Manfredo et al, 2004;Dickman 2010;Dietsch, Teel, & Manfredo, 2016;Lute, Navarrete, Nelson, & Gore, 2016). These have focused on the public or on one specific set of stakeholders.…”

The wolves are back! Local attitudes towards the recently re-populated grey wolf and wolf management in Bükk National Park, Hungary

“…LOCAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOLVES AT BÜKK NATIONAL PARK (HUNGARY) Many respondents, even those with the lowest wolf-tolerance, presented more positive attitudes regarding the concept of attributing intrinsic or aesthetic value to wolves (items 1-3, Table 2). Consequently, we can assume that in terms of values, anthropocentrism may be less common amongst our respondents than expected (Lute et al 2016). Our respondents do value wolves per se; their concern is the territory of BNP being inadequate (too small and/ or close to human activities/settlements) for wolf populations.…”

“…Frustrations about nature conservation practices and its economic and psychological consequences are also important factors in the development of negative attitudes towards wolves and wolf management, symbolizing local residents' feelings of powerlessness and exposure towards a centrally controlled authority (Linnell 2013, Lute et al 2016. Respondents expressed their dissatisfaction about these items in relation with the wolf issue impulsively, even if the questionnaire did not contain this concept at all.…”

The virtuous circle: predator‐friendly farming and ecological restoration in Australia

“…Transitioning to predator‐friendly production is likely to gain increasing momentum because it links two strongly supported social values: animal welfare and biodiversity conservation (Treves & Bruskotter ; Ramp & Bekoff ; Lute et al ). Although most attention on animal production has so far focused on the humane treatment of livestock, there is growing recognition that much animal production also involves killing of wild animals, and this killing often entails a high degree of suffering.…”