Explaining support for mandatory versus voluntary conservation actions among waterfowlers

Schroeder, Susan A.; Cornicelli, Louis; Fulton, David C.; Landon, Adam C.; McInenly, Leslie E.; Cordts, Steven D.

doi:10.1080/10871209.2020.1830205

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, achieving support for new laws or policies may also depend upon several social, political, economic, and individual factors. Evidence suggests that support for policies depends on the perceived burden to the individual (i.e., self-serving bias) (Caplan, 2011), whether the policy is voluntary or compulsory (Schroeder et al, 2020), as well as social-psychological variables such as personal values, social norms, and other contextual factors (Stern, 2000).…”

Section: Factors Affecting Stakeholder Support For Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder Support for Wildlife Conservation Funding Policies

Henderson¹,

Riley²,

Pomeranz³

et al. 2021

Front. Conserv. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

State wildlife management agencies in the United States have depended on a “user-pay” funding model for conservation efforts that relies on revenue from hunting license sales and a federal excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. Declines in hunting participation, however, jeopardize sustainability of the current funding model. Ensuring support among stakeholders for wildlife management and conservation may require expanding sources of funding and incorporating the perspectives and values of a diversifying constituency into decision making processes. We used a web-based survey of wildlife-associated recreationists in Michigan, USA to evaluate support for a range of conservation funding policies. Respondents self-identified primarily as hunters (n = 2,558) or wildlife watchers (n = 942). We used binary logistic regression to evaluate support for four conservation funding policy options: state sales tax, lottery proceeds, extractive industry revenue, and a user-based tax on outdoor gear (i.e., “backpack tax”). Determinants of support varied by type of policy and stakeholder characteristics. We found no statistically significant differences between hunters and wildlife watchers in their support for conservation funding policies when accounting for other variables such as wildlife value orientations, engagement in stewardship behaviors, age, and gender. The industry-based policy achieved the greatest level of approval, while the backpack tax had the lowest. Respondents were mixed in their support of the sales tax and lottery proceeds options. Cluster analysis revealed three homogenous groups related to conservation funding policies: “strong support,” “mixed/opposed,” and “anti-backpack tax.” Clusters differed in their support for conservation funding policies and on psychological and demographic variables. The “strong support” and “anti-backpack tax” groups differed in their levels of stewardship engagement, knowledge of conservation funding mechanisms, and support for the backpack tax option. The “mixed-opposed” group tended to be older, less educated, and less likely to be a member of a conservation organization. Results suggest support for conservation funding differs by policy type and social and psychological characteristics of stakeholders. Based on differences in policy support revealed in this study, we suggest a multi-tiered approach to funding conservation and building on support among wildlife stakeholders to mitigate the looming funding crisis for state wildlife agencies.

show abstract

Section: Factors Affecting Stakeholder Support For Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder Support for Wildlife Conservation Funding Policies

Henderson¹,

Riley²,

Pomeranz³

et al. 2021

Front. Conserv. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This approach may produce a more immediate and complete change, because the law is clearly defined and non‐compliance is illegal. However, regulation of hunting through legislation may be resisted or defied, perhaps covertly, and so lose efficacy (Schroeder et al., 2021 ; Watkins et al., 2018 ). For example, legislation to restrict the use of lead shot for some specific hunting scenarios in the UK was introduced from 1999 in England, but surveys indicate that compliance is currently low (Green et al., 2023 ; Stroud et al., 2021 ) contrasting with higher levels of compliance to similar regulations in some parts of the USA and EU (Kanstrup & Balsby, 2019 ; Mateo & Kanstrup, 2019 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of self‐regulation by the hunting community: A case study on the voluntary restraint of woodcock hunting in the UK

McNicol,

Ellis,

Madden

2024

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behaviour change through voluntary action can be an important approach to reducing human impacts on biodiversity. One example is self‐regulation in hunting, potentially a vital contributory factor in improving the sustainability of wild bird harvest. There has been a growing realisation among woodcock Scolopax rusticola hunters, reinforced by advice from sector organisations, that components of the UK woodcock populations are declining and that some aspects of woodcock hunting, specifically timing of harvest, may contribute to these. This study utilised five qualitative and quantitative data sets, collected for different purposes, to assess the behaviour and attitudes of woodcock hunters, both currently and over the past century. In the UK, relatively few woodcock are harvested and few hunters or species‐specific shoots target them. An estimated 26%–29% of lowland shoots advertise or harvest woodcock, with fewer than 5% of shoots or hunters participating in ‘woodcock specific’ shoot days. The number of birds harvested has fallen in recent years and is estimated to be between 62,000 and 140,000. Qualitative data suggests that over 90% of hunters now report shooting woodcock only after the recommended date of 1st December, or not at all. This is reflected in bag data which shows that, since 2018, fewer than 3%–13% of woodcock shot were harvested prior to 1st December. Around a third of hunters have reported stopping shooting woodcock and it is likely the harvest will decline in coming years due to voluntary restraint. This work demonstrates both through self‐report data and independent harvest data that behaviour change among hunters can be effected. This provides a working example where self‐regulation in response to a collective sector‐led effort has the potential to conserve wild quarry.

show abstract

“…Voluntary agreements featuring hunting-free days and safe foraging areas have further been shown to increase goose presence, resulting in increased hunting success 16 . Hunters’ responses to policy instruments have been examined, e.g., attitudes towards regulations on waterbird hunting 22 , 33 , 35 , but such studies do not necessarily reflect how hunters would act if a change in policy were to be implemented. Hence, there is a need to also consider responses to policy that more closely reflect behaviors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The importance of structural, situational, and psychological factors for involving hunters in the adaptive flyway management of geese

Eriksson

Månsson

Liljebäck

et al. 2023

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adaptive flyway management of superabundant geese is emerging as a strategy to reduce damage to agricultural crops and other ecosystem disservices, while also ensuring sustainable use and conservation objectives. Given the calls for intensified hunting as part of flyway management in Europe, we need to increase the understanding of structural, situational, and psychological factors important for goose hunting among hunters. Our survey data, retrieved in southern Sweden, showed a higher potential to intensify hunting among goose hunters than other hunters. In response to hypothetical policy instruments (including regulations, collaborative, and others), hunters declared a minor increase in their intention to hunt geese, with the greatest expected increase among goose hunters should the hunting season be extended. Situational factors (e.g., access to hunting grounds) were associated with goose hunting (frequency, bag size, and intention to increase hunting). In addition, controlled motivation (derived from external pressures or to avoid guilt) and more importantly autonomous motivation (due to hunting being enjoyable or valuable) were along with goose hunter identity positively associated with goose hunting. Hunters’ involvement in flyway management may be encouraged by using policy instruments to remove situational barriers and facilitate their autonomous motivation.

show abstract

Explaining support for mandatory versus voluntary conservation actions among waterfowlers

Cited by 5 publications

References 41 publications

Stakeholder Support for Wildlife Conservation Funding Policies

Stakeholder Support for Wildlife Conservation Funding Policies

Evaluation of self‐regulation by the hunting community: A case study on the voluntary restraint of woodcock hunting in the UK

The importance of structural, situational, and psychological factors for involving hunters in the adaptive flyway management of geese

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About