Linking social identity, risk perception, and behavioral psychology to understand predator management by livestock producers

Abstract

Human behaviors can determine the success of efforts to restore predators to ecosystems. While behaviors such as lethal predator control may impede predator restoration, other land management practices can facilitate coexistence between predators and humans. Socio‐psychological theories provide useful tools for understanding and improving these human behaviors. We explore three frameworks to understand what shapes Australian livestock graziers' behaviors with regards to management of the threat that dingoes pose to livestock. These frameworks are the theory of reasoned action (incorporating values and beliefs about dingoes), the social identity approach, and perception of risk. We distributed a survey to Australian graziers by mail and online (n = 138) which allowed recording of information on these three frameworks and their engagement in lethal dingo control. Among the respondents, we found that all three frameworks were linked with lethal dingo control when assessed individually, but when combined in a hierarchical regression, only social identity (specifically, identifying as an “environmentalist” or “pest controller”) was significant in predicting behavior. This result reveals the strength of social norms and normative beliefs over perceived risk in shaping behavior. As such, social identity is a useful metric for predicting and understanding environmental management behavior. Determining what these social identities mean in a given context is important for identifying how to implement behavior change to promote evidence‐based management that facilitates restoration of wildlife such as predators to landscapes where conflict with humans occurs.

A Theory of Change for promoting coexistence between dingoes and livestock production

“…In a public survey, we found that Australians had limited awareness of dingo management, held negative attitudes toward lethal control of dingoes, and supported retaining dingoes as top predators in Australian ecosystems . This included similar (negative) attitudes toward lethal dingo control as those held toward killing kangaroos and horses (van Eeden, Newsome, et al, 2020;, so we might expect that public backlash against dingo control would have similar outcomes (i.e., restricting lethal control actions by governments) if public awareness about dingo management improves. Raising public awareness may lead to support for conservationists advocating policy change for dingo management.…”

“…Our ToC aims to promote a more inclusive decision‐making process. Our assessment of the relevant contexts and stakeholders is largely informed by the results of the lead author's (LvE) interdisciplinary PhD research on the social, political, and historical factors that shape dingo management (van Eeden et al, 2018; van Eeden, Dickman, Crowther, & Newsome, 2019; van Eeden, Dickman, Newsome, & Crowther, 2019; van Eeden, Newsome, Crowther, Dickman, & Bruskotter, 2019; van Eeden, Newsome, Crowther, Dickman, & Bruskotter, 2020; van Eeden, Slagle, Crowther, Dickman, & Newsome, 2020; van Eeden, Smith, Crowther, Dickman, & Newsome, 2018), along with the expertise of the other three authors (CD, MC, TN) whose combined experience in research on dingo ecology and biology exceeds 49 years.…”

“…Path dependence shapes dingo management behaviors not just through individuals' reluctance to change, but also because these social norms surrounding dingo management have been engrained within Australian culture over decades of lethal dingo control. In the case of the dingo, many stakeholders, particularly those who identify as “pest controllers” (van Eeden, Dickman, Crowther, & Newsome, 2019; van Eeden, Slagle, et al, 2020), see managing dingoes as a duty, beneficial to both livestock production and the environment whereas graziers who identify as environmentalists are less likely to engage in lethal control (van Eeden, Slagle, et al, 2020). A campaign to promote coexistence with dingoes should include appropriate messaging that seeks to change attitudes toward dingoes, reframing them as valuable by recognizing benefits they might have in reducing grazing pressure (egoistic values) and suppressing introduced pests (biocentric values), where appropriate (Kusmanoff et al, 2016).…”

“…Effective messaging strategies can include segmenting the population to develop group‐appropriate framing based on social norms (Kidd et al, 2019). For example, appealing to an environmentalist identity may be effective in promoting dingo‐friendly farming behavior among those who identify as environmentalists but still use lethal control (van Eeden, Slagle, et al, 2020). If small numbers of influential community members are successful in adopting nonlethal management, they may lead by example, inadvertently encouraging neighboring farmers to adopt the same or similar approaches, a process termed “social diffusion” (McKenzie‐Mohr & Smith, 1999; Rogers, 1995).…”

Killing for the common good? The (bio)politics of wolf management in Washington State

“…Wildlife conservation and the mitigation of human-wildlife conflict are increasingly recognized to be as much social as ecological challenges (Baruch-Mordo et al, 2009;Dickman, 2010), and predator conservation in particular requires promoting social tolerance (Chapron et al, 2014), especially in contexts where the recovery of predator populations is supported by human constituencies that are geographically removed while negative impacts are borne locally (Treves and Bruskotter, 2014;Lute and Carter, 2020). While much of the public in the United States supports the use of nonlethal tools to promote human-predator coexistence (Slagle, 2017), rural residents and ranchers may remain more likely to favor lethal removal (Dietsch et al, 2011;Treves et al, 2013;Responsive Management, 2019).…”