Animal Preferences and Acceptability of Wildlife Management Actions around Serengeti National Park, Tanzania

Abstract

Wildlife management policies are often based on expert perceptions of the ecological importance of certain species and poorly informed perceptions of how public attitudes toward management are formed. Little is known about why preferences vary greatly and how this affects support for management actions. This paper explores preferences for a range of wildlife species among a sample of the rural population adjacent to Serengeti National Park in Tanzania. We also examine the degree of acceptance for alternative management interventions when potentially dangerous animals pose different levels of problems to human beings, and the extent to which these attitudes are related to species preferences. Gender has a significant effect on species preferences. Men like most species better than women. Age has no significant effect, but level of education affects preference level for some species. Species preferences have a positive effect on support for management intervention when dangerous animals cause small or moderate problems to humans, i.e. there is a higher degree of acceptance of problems caused by animals that are well liked. In situations where human life is threatened, species preferences have no effect on preferred management actions. Appreciation of animals is a combination of functional, consumptive and cultural dimensions, and there is no simple link between species preferences and attitudes toward management actions. The local context and concrete experience with wildlife encounters is more important for shaping normative beliefs like attitudes towards management actions than global wildlife attitudes.

Beyond the “General Public”: Implications of Audience Characteristics for Promoting Species Conservation in the Western Ghats Hotspot, India

“…The relatively high score received by the elephant even though it was involved in human-wildlife conflicts suggests that the cultural and religious ties associated with the species allows for continued positive appreciation. As expected, species that are often considered less aesthetically attractive (toad, wild boar), perceived as bad omens (slender loris: Kanagavel et al 2013; Travancore tortoise: Kumara 2007) and/or as a threat (king cobra; see Kaltenborn et al 2006) feature lower in the ranking (Fig. 2).…”

“…Attitude towards wildlife are influenced by ''a combination of functional, consumptive and cultural dimensions'' (Kaltenborn et al 2006). For example, gender and level of education have been shown to influence the attitude of local communities in Tanzania towards wildlife, with men and those most highly educated showing higher appreciation for wildlife (Kaltenborn et al 2006).…”

“…For example, gender and level of education have been shown to influence the attitude of local communities in Tanzania towards wildlife, with men and those most highly educated showing higher appreciation for wildlife (Kaltenborn et al 2006). Tourists with different motives for visiting the Doñana Natural Protected Area in Spain were found to differ in their perceptions of ecosystem services provided by the area and its biodiversity (Martin-Lopez et al 2007a).…”

Economic Valuation of Biodiversity Conservation: the Meaning of Numbers

“…The dual character of the elephant as both agricultural pest and valuable economic asset reflects the difficulty in classifying it as a useful or economically negative species. Similarly, humans have positive attitudes toward socially controversial animals in the context of abstract existence values, but these attitudes quickly become negative when the presence of the species is associated with economic costs in their immediate surroundings (Kaltenborn et al 2006). This means visitors have a higher WTP than local people (Loomis & Larson 1994;Loomis & White 1996).…”

Demographic transition among hunters: a temporal analysis of hunter recruitment dedication and motives in Denmark

“…For example, by shaping those who are recruited into small game hunting, in the sense that recruits starts their hunting carrier in a management regime with harvest regulations, and the of the tolerance towards an attribute is the novelty of the attribute itself. For example, people who have lived alongside wild animals tend to be less fearful of them (Kaltenborn et al 2006, Roskaft et al 2003. As new knowledge about eff ects of hunting on willow ptarmigan populations has been gained, management practice and hunters ' preferences are likely to change by time.Th is may explain why hunters who are used to harvest regulations tend to accept them more easily.…”