Social psychological bases for Stakeholder acceptance Capacity

Social factors mediating human–carnivore coexistence: Understanding thematic strands influencing coexistence in Central Romania

“…Importantly, human tolerance towards carnivores is not only shaped by the experience of damage (Hazzah et al 2009;Dickman et al 2014;Kansky et al 2014). Rather, it is constructed through a variety of factors related to economic, aesthetic, ecological, cultural, religious, and intrinsic values ascribed to carnivores (Zinn et al 2000;Dickman 2010). For example, traditional and cultural differences between pastoralists and agriculturalists explain differences in tolerance towards lions in South Africa Lagendijk and Gusset 2008).…”

Impact perceptions and acceptance capacity toward Piping Plovers Charadrius melodusamong visitors on a public beach in Nebraska, USA

“…Wildlife is valued (Wagner & Seal 1992) and people generally support wildlife conservation, but their support is influenced, at least in part, by their own positive or negative experiences with wildlife (Harcourt et al 1986, Mankin et al 1999. Lack of support toward wildlife conservation and protection generally results from negative experiences, which fall into three categories (Wagner & Seal 1992, Riley & Decker 2000, Zinn et al 2000, Lischka et al 2008, Maguire et al 2013: physical harm, economic cost, and inconvenience. The relative importance of the three categories influencing acceptance capacity will differ based on the wildlife species and individuals involved (Zinn et al 2000, Riley et al 2002.…”

“…Lack of support toward wildlife conservation and protection generally results from negative experiences, which fall into three categories (Wagner & Seal 1992, Riley & Decker 2000, Zinn et al 2000, Lischka et al 2008, Maguire et al 2013: physical harm, economic cost, and inconvenience. The relative importance of the three categories influencing acceptance capacity will differ based on the wildlife species and individuals involved (Zinn et al 2000, Riley et al 2002. In addition to personal experiences, support for wildlife protection may be influenced by an individual's subjective perceptions and values (Zinn et al 2000).…”

“…The relative importance of the three categories influencing acceptance capacity will differ based on the wildlife species and individuals involved (Zinn et al 2000, Riley et al 2002. In addition to personal experiences, support for wildlife protection may be influenced by an individual's subjective perceptions and values (Zinn et al 2000). Individuals that support various socio-political philosophies may be more or less inclined to support wildlife protections, even if they have no direct negative experiences themselves (Kuh 2011).…”

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

“…Attacks on humans are particularly important drivers of conflict as fear of personal injury and death builds strong antagonism toward wildlife, in particular toward elephants and large carnivores (Dublin & Hoare, 2004;Löe & Röskaft, 2004;Saberwal et al, 1994). Moreover, perceptions are crucial (Naughton 'Treves & Treves, 2005;Zinn et al, 2000) and any successful solution to conflict must address them directly (Madden, 2004;Treves et al, 2006). Research and practice show that perception of potential risk and of level of control over the situation are often the most important factors driving public reactions to HWC (Johansson & Karlsson, 2011;Sillero'Zubiri & Laurenson, 2001), even though perceptions are frequently incongruent with reality (Dublin & Hoare, 2004).…”