Wolves as a Symbol of People's Willingness to Pay for Large Carnivore Conservation

Ericsson, Göran; Bostedt, Göran; Kindberg, Jonas

doi:10.1080/08941920701861266

Cited by 43 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the case of the wolf, managers publicly admit weariness of public controversy and wish to manage wolves as they do other species. Yet wolves trigger stronger and sometimes qualitatively different responses in people than do other wildlife (Ericsson et al 2007;Zabel and Holm-Muller 2008). For example, unlike with wolves, there were no calls for perpetual compensation when WI terminated compensation for bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) damages.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Together, differences in attitudes between these two regions suggest respondents saw compensation payments in a similar light, but viewed wolves, donors, or the federal government differently. Researchers from other regions have also noted the many factors that shape individual perceptions of carnivores including views of government and other members of society (Ericsson et al 2004(Ericsson et al , 2007Heberlein and Ericsson 2005;Karlsson 2007;Karlsson and Sjostrom 2007).…”

Section: Compensation Is Popularmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The price of tolerance: wolf damage payments after recovery

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The costs of wildlife conservation distribute unequally across society. Compensation can potentially redress inequities and raise local tolerance for endangered wildlife that damage property. However, the rules for payments generate controversy, particularly as costs mount and species recover. In Wisconsin (USA), gray wolf damage payments grew notably over 28 years and eventually undermined budgets for conserving other endangered species. We measured attitudes to compensation among 1,364 state residents, including those who voluntarily contributed funds and those likely to receive compensation, and we interviewed elected officials about the politics of payment rules. Most respondents endorsed compensation for wolf damages to livestock-even when wolves are no longer endangered-but opposed payments for wolf damage to hunting dogs on public land. Most donors opposed killing wolves and over one-fourth unconditionally rejected a wolf hunt. We predict the latter donors would stop contributing funds for compensation if the state were to implement a proposed wolf hunt. Controversy over payment rules reveals clashing values regarding wildlife between those receiving and those Co-authors arranged in alphabetical order.A. Treves (paying for compensation. Moreover, the costs of compensation ratchet up as endangered species recover and claims of entitlement expand. Hence we recommend conservationists use sunset clauses and an adaptive management of compensation programs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Compensation Is Popularmentioning

confidence: 96%

The price of tolerance: wolf damage payments after recovery

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Combined with spatial ecological descriptors of carnivore sustainability and economical descriptors, our spatial approach may form the basis for identifying optimal areas for carnivore establishment. Policy and management practices and concrete humanwildlife conflicts occur at different scales (Ericsson & Heberlein 2003;Ericsson et al 2008), and multi-scale studies are needed to unravel the relationships between local, regional,…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental attitudes associated with large-scale cultural differences, not local environmental conflicts

Gangaas¹,

Kaltenborn

Andreassen³

2014

Envir. Conserv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYSpecies and ecosystems are under constant pressure from a rapidly-growing human population. Human tolerance of carnivores, including the willingness to live in areas with these predators, is key to the success of large carnivore conservation. In the Scandinavian Peninsula, large carnivore populations conflict with human activity; low tolerance among local people may lead to illegal hunting. A survey of 2521 Scandinavian respondents to measure environmental value orientation, using the new environmental paradigm (NEP) scale and attitudes toward large carnivores, revealed attitudes towards the presence of carnivores were not related to carnivore abundance. Nor was there a significant relationship between environmental value orientation and personal experiences with loss of domestic sheep or hunting dogs. Environmental values were mainly explained by country differences; Swedes had a more ecocentric value orientation than Norwegians. Significantly more Norwegians (45 %) than Swedes (19 %) responded that there were too many carnivores in their country. Historic differences in how government is perceived between Norway and Sweden may result in different attitudes towards illegal hunting and towards carnivores. Specifically, Norwegians may hold a more anthropocentric view, based on a suspicion of central authorities, whereas Swedes may hold a more ecocentric view.

show abstract

“…Hence, the sample should not only cover local individuals. Ericsson et al (2007) and Bostedt et al (2007) uses the same survey data from 2004, based on a geographically stratified sample, to estimate the overall WTP for implementing the Swedish predator policy package in Sweden. Essentially two geographical areas are studied; one area consisting of 69 strata where all of the four large predators are present, and one stratum for the rest of Sweden.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The WTP data used is elicited from a MB question, where response-uncertainty is considered. In Ericsson et al (2007) they take advantage of the MB data by estimating a random-effects ordered probit model. This approach rests upon the assumption that the response to each new bid in the bid vector is independent of the response to previous bids, which seems to be a strong assumption (see Vossler and Poe, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%