Wildlife Value Orientations and Demographics in Greece

Abstract

Value orientations can predict attitudes and possibly behaviors. Wildlife value orientations (WVOs) are useful constructs for predicting differences in attitudes among segments of the public towards issues in the wildlife domain. We carried out face-to-face interviews with a representative sample of the Greek population (n = 2392) to investigate two basic WVOs, domination and mutualism and the four WVO types that result from their combination: traditionalist (high domination, low mutualism), mutualist (high mutualism, low domination), distanced (low mutualism, low domination) and pluralist (high mutualism, high domination), and how they relate to sociodemographics. Based on basic WVOs, the Greek population was predominantly mutualism-oriented. The analysis of WVO types also revealed that mutualists were the most abundant (41.0%) followed by the distanced (31.1%). Traditionalists (17.9%) and pluralists (10.0%) occupied smaller proportions of the population. Younger individuals were more mutualist-oriented, while older individuals (>35 years old) were more traditionalist and distanced-oriented. Females were more mutualist than males, the latter being more traditionalist. Those with higher education were more mutualist and less traditionalist and distanced than those with lower education. Pet owners were more mutualist and less distanced than non-pet owners. WVO types did not vary with current residence. The produced knowledge would inform about differences in WVOs among segments of the public and would be therefore useful for implementing successful wildlife conservation and management plans.

The Predictive Ability of Wildlife Value Orientations for Mammal Management Varies with Species Conservation Status and Provenance

“…These indices were used for further analyses. On average, the respondents were more mutualism-oriented (mean 4.64 ± 1.45 SD) than dominationoriented (mean 3.31 ± 1.61) (see Liordos et al [25] for further analyses). 0.75 0.62 0.75 a Variables coded on seven-point scales ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree); b Item was reverse-coded prior to analysis; c All t values for standardized factor loadings were significant at p < 0.001.…”

“…Greece's population has a 51.4% female/48.6% male gender ratio (50.8%/49.2% in this study); the age ratio, after excluding those under 18 and over 80, is 28.5%/37.1%/34.4% (32.4%/34.9%/32.6% in this study) for the 18-34-, 35-54-, and 55+-year-old age classes, respectively; the lower/higher educational level ratio is 73.4%/26.6% (70.9%/29.1% in this study) [23]; the rural/urban ratio is 21.0%/79.0% (23.7%/76.3% in this study) [24]. The sample's gender, age, educational level, and current residence (rural/urban) ratios were not different from those of the general population (gender: χ 2 = 0.064, df = 1, p = 0.769; age: χ 2 = 4.481, df = 2, p = 0.106; educational level: χ 2 = 1.790, df = 1, p = 0.166; current residence: χ 2 = 2.554, df = 1, p = 0.099) (see Liordos et al [25] for further information).…”