Situation-Specific “Impact Dependency” as a Determinant of Management Acceptability: Insights From Wolf and Grizzly Bear Management in Alaska

Abstract

With increasing negative wildlife‐related impacts on humans, public expectations of agency roles are transitioning and wildlife managers are becoming more concerned about public acceptance of management interventions, particularly lethal measures. One goal of human dimensions research in wildlife is to provide managers with a better understanding of the relationship among stakeholders' values, beliefs, and acceptance of management actions. We used data obtained from a survey of Alaska residents on managing wolf (Canis lupus) and grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) predation on moose (Alces alces) and caribou (Rangifer tarandus) to explore 2 general questions: 1) is opposition to lethal control of wildlife context‐free (an individual is opposed to lethal control regardless of circumstance) or context specific (an individual's support or opposition to lethal control depends on circumstances)? And 2) does perceived impacts of wildlife on humans make a difference in an individual's expression of support or opposition to lethal actions? We found that support for lethal methods for management of wolves and grizzly bears to minimize predation on moose and caribou was influenced by the impact that predation was perceived to have on humans' access to moose and caribou, whether access was a concern primarily for food or recreational hunting. Specifically, respondents were more likely to support the use of lethal methods to control predation in situations where the effect of predation on moose and caribou had the greatest subsequent impact on humans' access to these big game resources. Conversely, lethal control of predators was less likely to be supported in situations where the impact of predators on moose and caribou was perceived to be less severe with respect to human needs. We use the phrase “impact dependency” to highlight the importance of context‐specific influences on public evaluations of management actions. Although inherent characteristics of potential management interventions (e.g., relative humaneness, cost, efficiency, etc.) are important considerations in decision making, our findings suggest that researchers and managers also should consider how public support or opposition for a particular management action is influenced by public perceptions of the nature of impacts being experienced by people.

The price of tolerance: wolf damage payments after recovery

“…Overall 72.7% of respondents were men and 27.3% women, reflecting a common bias of mailing lists based on telephone records (Decker et al 2006;Dillman 2007). Men predominated in all six zip codes sampled.…”

“…Such situation-dependent contingency is crucial to understanding nuance of attitudes (cf. Decker et al 2006) and this deserves closer attention in future research.…”

“…We lacked resources to assess non-response bias directly. However, non-respondents to wildlife management surveys tend to be less interested in the issues covered by the survey (e.g., Decker et al 2006), so we expect our non-response bias under-represents neutral positions. Further support for this assumption comes form the large number of questionnaires returned with extensive marginal comments written in by hand, from both pro-and anti-wolf respondents (unpublished data).…”

Hunters as Stewards of Wolves in Wisconsin and the Northern Rocky Mountains, USA

“…The three self-administered, mail-back questionnaires targeted different populations for different purposes ( We lacked resources to assess nonresponse bias, so probably undersampled neutral responses, as in other wildlife attitude surveys (Decker et al 2006). From this standpoint our NRM 2007 survey should be viewed cautiously because fewer than half the mailed surveys were returned despite reminders and cash incentives (Table 1).…”

Protected Areas: Conservation Cornerstones or Paradoxes? Insights from Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Africa and Southeastern Europe

“…Conflicts between humans and wildlife are the product of socio'economic and political landscapes (Graham et al, 2005) and the institutional architecture designed to manage these conflicts, and are controversial because the resources concerned have economic value and the species involved often have high profile and are legally protected (McGregor, 2005;Treves & Karanth, 2003). While humans and wildlife have a long history of co'existence, the frequency of HWC has grown in recent decades (Decker et al, 2006;Graham et al, 2005;Mishra, 1997;Wang & Macdonald 2006), mainly because of (i) extension of human presence and activities into wildlife habitat and shrinking prey populations (Linnell et al, 2001;Woodroffe, 2000;Woodroffe et al, 2005), (ii) expansion of some wildlife distributions including into the matrix surrounding PAs (Bisi & Kurki, 2005;Breitenmoser, 1998;Cozza et al, 1996;Stahl et al, 2001;Zedrosser et al, 2001), as well as (iii) a frequent inability of institutions that are meant to mediate such conflicts to respond effectively (Anthony et al, 2010;Hewitt & Messmer, 1997). Moreover, particularly in developing countries, poor and politically marginalised people frequently come into conflict with wildlife and are pitted against the state and its wildlife agencies in strongly unequal power relationships.…”