Understanding the Diversity of Public Interests in Wildlife Conservation

Abstract

North American state wildlife agencies are increasingly faced with the challenge of effectively representing a diverse public. With increasing social conflict over wildlife issues, the future of wildlife conservation hinges on preparedness of the profession to respond to this challenge. In the interest of finding ways to improve response, 19 agencies in the western U.S. joined forces to initiate an investigation that would provide a better understanding of the diversity of wildlife-related interests in the region. Specific objectives, accomplished through use of a mail survey administered in 2004, were to categorize people on the basis of their value orientations toward wildlife and explore how different groups were distributed across states and to examine differences on sociodemographic characteristics and attitudes toward wildlife-related topics among groups. The focus was on two orientations: domination (view of wildlife that prioritizes human well-being over wildlife and treats wildlife in utilitarian terms); and mutualism (view of wildlife as capable of relationships of trust with humans and defined by a desire for companionship with wildlife). Four types of people were identified on the basis of these orientations. Types differed in their geographic distribution and wildlife-related attitudes and behaviors, revealing how value orientations can form the foundation for conflict on wildlife issues. Our characterizations of stakeholder groups offer a framework that can be applied over time and across geographic scales to improve conservation planning efforts and inform broader thinking about the social aspects of wildlife conservation.

Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation

“…Indeed, the social sciences have been applied to understand diverse conservation and environmental management problems including, but not limited to, water governance (Armitage et al, 2012;Bakker, 2012;Curran, 2015), fisheries management (Heck et al, 2015;Symes and Hoefnagel, 2010;Wilson et al, 2013), agriculture landscape management (de Snoo et al, 2013), wildlife management (Clark et al, 2008;Gore et al, 2011;Teel and Manfredo, 2010), avian conservation (Kingston, 2016;Veríssimo et al, 2014), protected areas (Brockington and Wilkie, 2015;Ferraro and Pressey, 2015;Lockwood, 2010), forest management (Agrawal and Gupta, 2005;Allen et al, 2014;Ostrom and Nagendra, 2006;Stanturf et al, 2012) and marine conservation planning (Aswani and Hamilton, 2004;Ban et al, 2013;Cornu et al, 2014). The social sciences have also been used to research conservation and environmental management at all scales from local (Bennett et al, 2010) to regional (Pietri et al, 2015) and global (Fleischman et al, 2014).…”

“…Overviews: (Clayton and Myers, 2015;Manfredo, 2008;Saunders, 2003;Vaske and Manfredo, 2012) Examples: (Clayton et al, 2013;Schultz, 2011;Teel and Manfredo, 2010) Environmental Sociology (Sociology)…”

“…Social science research can inform all stages of conservation education program development and implementation in order to optimize success in the form of positive outcomes for the environment, for local groups or communities and for society. At the outset of a conservation education initiative, social science frameworks can contribute to a better understanding of target audience cognitions (e.g., values, attitudes and norms (Teel and Manfredo, 2010;Thomas et al, 2014)), existing knowledge, and barriers and perceived ability to take action to solve environmental issues (Hungerford and Volk, 1990). Social science can also form the foundation for rigorous evaluation of outcomes and impacts to ensure program objectives were met (Heimlich, 2010;Thomas, 2016) by focusing on, for example, changes in pro-environmental human behavior, increased civic engagement, or changes in thinking towards conservation issues, in addition to ecological indicators of program success (Betiang, 2010;Kuhar et al, 2010;McDuff and Jacobson, 2000).…”

Transparency and communication can improve wildlife welfare outcomes: A case of kangaroos

“…Researchers have reported that the values of the wider public and government agencies responsible for wildlife management are frequently quite different [9] and that the views of large numbers of people are either ignored or not heard [10], raising the possibility that large numbers of animals are killed or otherwise harmed in ways that would not be approved by the citizens that decision-makers are representing. Studies in Canada reported that the public and experts agreed on potential harm levels, but management strategies that involved killing animals often lacked broad public support [11].…”

Conflicts and Compromises in Lynx Lynx lynx Conservation and Management in Finland

“…Given that in many European regions illegal shootings threaten the survival of large carnivore populations (Andrén et al 2006, Červený et al 2002, von Arx et al 2004, Breitenmoser and BreitenmoserWürsten 2008, understanding hunters' perceptions of large carnivores seems especially relevant. Current research on what forms attitudes towards large carnivores includes many quantitative studies that focus on demographic factors, normative beliefs or value orientations (Bath 1989, Bjerke et al 1998, Hunziker et al 2001, Williams et al 2002, Naughton-Treves et al 2003, Kleiven et al 2004, Glikman et al 2010, 2012, Teel and Manfredo 2010, Majic et al 2011, Herrmann et al 2013. With regard to hunters' attitudes these studies arrive at different conclusions.…”