Exploring beliefs behind support for and opposition to wildlife management methods: a qualitative study

Dandy, Norman; Ballantyne, Stephanie; Moseley, Darren; Gill, Robin; Quine, Christopher P.; Wal, René van der

doi:10.1007/s10344-012-0619-1

Cited by 40 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Focus groups have been used as a stand-alone method to examine mental constructs of biodiversity (Fischer and Young, 2007), to learn about children's attitudes toward hunting (DiCamillo, 1995), and to explore beliefs underlying support or opposition of wildlife management methods (Dandy et al, 2012). They have also been used in combination with other methods such as individual interviews (Kaplowitz and Hoehn, 2001), key informant interviews (Mangun et al, 2007), and surveys (Kolinjivadi, 2012;Wutich et al, 2010) to examine perceptions of ecosystem services, perceptions of deer hunters, and water management concerns among decision makers.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tolerance of wolves in Wisconsin: A mixed-methods examination of policy effects on attitudes and behavioral inclinations

Browne-Nuñez

Treves

MacFarland

et al. 2015

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tolerance of wolves in Wisconsin: A mixed-methods examination of policy effects on attitudes and behavioral inclinations

Browne-Nuñez

Treves

MacFarland

et al. 2015

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Yet if future studies of why people hold their wildlife management views begin with exploring the potential subtleties of these views, rather than using a simple binary measure (e.g., of pro-or anti-hunting support) as a dependent variable, they may advance both theoretical understanding of human dimensions of wildlife and practical implications for adaptive impact management (Enck et al, 2006), applying to disputes not only about black bears but other species as well, such as deer (e.g., Dandy et al, 2011Dandy et al, , 2012Fulton, Skerl, Shank, & Lime, 2004;Koval & Mertig, 2004). The varied associations we found between salient beliefs, attitudes, management preferences and contexts (Don Carlos et al, 2009) when these are considered jointly by study participants should offer fodder for new hypotheses.…”

Section: The Larger Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Views on Black Bear Management in New Jersey

Johnson

Sciascia

2013

Human Dimensions of Wildlife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fierce controversies over wildlife management imply polarized public opinion, but this may be more complex, as in the debate over renewed black bear hunting in New Jersey. Statements about black bears and management options were assessed by Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) staff, environmental scientists, pro-hunt and anti-hunt citizen group members, and other bear-country residents using Q analysis. Four perspectives included "protectors" (largely anti-hunt members), "hunt supporters" (largely pro-hunt and DFW members), "movers," and "educators." Protectors and hunt supporters were not truly polarized, occupying separate orthogonal factors rather than opposite ends of a single factor. These two groups disagreed fiercely on some topics (primarily hunt rationale and consequences), but agreed on others, or one was indifferent on topics eliciting strong views from the other. Identification of two other unique perspectives also underlines complex views of black bear management in this urban state. IntroductionThe field of wildlife management is accustomed to conflict, from the role of hunting as a management tool to the merits of maintaining or reinstating large-predator populations. Enserink and Vogel (2006, p. 748), on the return of bears, wolves, lynx, and wolverines to western Europe, quote ecologist John Linnell as saying that " [u]nderstanding the sociology of coexistence is really the key" to successful re-establishment of such populations.We add to that sociology with our data on views of black bear management among New Jersey groups (e.g., wildlife agency staff, pro-hunt citizens, and anti-hunt citizens). These findings offer insight into what issues divide or potentially bring together different views on the topic. While our data show that the conflict is real, they also reveal a far more nuanced and diverse set of perspectives than simple polarization of "pro-hunt" and "antihunt" stances. Understanding these perspectives might help wildlife managers determine better ways to communicate their preferred management policies to policy makers and the public and may also help identify how to increase the effectiveness of management strategies that rely at least in part upon changes in public behavior.

show abstract

“…lethal control) of wildlife management techniques (Dandy et al, 2012;Eden and Bear, 2011). Thus, whilst policy makers may see these results as indicative of the need to address farmers' self-efficacy, this may only be achieved through the adoption of wildlife control strategies that meet farmers' concerns about nature rather than specifically disease.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Badger Vaccination: Dimensions of Trust and Confidence in the Governance of Animal Disease

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

DisclaimerThe University of Gloucestershire has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights.The University of Gloucestershire accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. We recommend you cite the published (post-print) version. The URL for the published version is http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a130298p DisclaimerThe University of Gloucestershire has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights.The University of Gloucestershire accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR TEXT. AcknowledgementsThe research on which this paper draws was funded by Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), as part of a longitudinal project examining farmer confidence in badger vaccination. We are grateful to Iain Trewby, Gavin Wilson, Andy Mitchell, Ruth Blackwell and Will Manley for their assistance and input to the research. We also acknowledge with thanks the constructive comments made by three reviewers on a draft of this article. Interpretation of the data rests with the authors. Key Words:Vaccination; trust; confidence; animal disease; governance; biosecurity; bovine tuberculosis; wildlife; badgers AbstractThis paper examines farmers' trust in badger vaccination as a method of preventing the spread of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) between wildlife (specifically badgers) and cattle in England. The spread of bTB has economic and social implications for farmers, but previous research has found that lack of trust in Government is a key factor in farmers' failure to adopt new preventative biosecurity practices. In these and other studies, however, the conceptual dimensions of trust are frequently loosely defined, meaning that it is unclear how trust, along with other factors, are related to the acc...

show abstract

Exploring beliefs behind support for and opposition to wildlife management methods: a qualitative study

Cited by 40 publications

References 45 publications

Tolerance of wolves in Wisconsin: A mixed-methods examination of policy effects on attitudes and behavioral inclinations

Tolerance of wolves in Wisconsin: A mixed-methods examination of policy effects on attitudes and behavioral inclinations

Views on Black Bear Management in New Jersey

Badger Vaccination: Dimensions of Trust and Confidence in the Governance of Animal Disease

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About