‘Not the Wolf Itself’: Distinguishing Hunters’ Criticisms of Wolves from Procedures for Making Wolf Management Decisions

Essen, Erica von; Allen, Michael

doi:10.1080/21550085.2020.1746009

Cited by 18 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 53 publications

(64 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Equating the general favorability of a species (attitude) with distinct preferences for the size of future populations in a given area (e.g., WAC) may contribute to ill‐informed management decisions. In fact, in the context of certain species (e.g., wolves), evidence suggests that some people may prefer local populations to decrease despite holding positive attitudes toward the species overall (Ericsson et al., 2008; von Essen & Allen, 2020). Given the well‐established status quo bias––a cognitive heuristic whereby a desire for things to remain the same results in an aversion to change (Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988)––it is possible that preferences about current population sizes may be largely independent of attitudes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of semantics in the study of tolerance for wolves

Carlson

Dietsch

Slagle

et al. 2022

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As conservation scholars increasingly recognize the critical role of human thought and behavior in determining the persistence of biodiversity across the globe, a growing line of inquiry regarding the validity and comparability of previous applications of core psychological concepts has emerged. Specifically, inconsistent measurement and use of terms, such as attitudes and acceptance, reveal important questions about previous approaches. Given that these concepts differ by definition, yet have been used interchangeably, we explored what drives differences in people's responses when each concept is operationalized in the context of a contested wildlife species, the gray wolf (Canis lupus). To do so, we used data from a 2014 survey of U.S. residents (n = 1287) to test how measures of six concepts (i.e., acceptance, attitudes, benefits, risks, [prior] behavior, and behavioral intentions) often employed in the conservation social sciences were related with a broad set of possible explanatory variables. Despite moderate to strong correlations between all concepts measured (| Pearson's r | = 0.39-0.65, p < 0.001), results revealed considerable variation in their respective relationships with identical explanatory variables. Specifically, although wildlife value orientation (i.e., domination or mutualism) operated fairly consistently across cognitive and behavioral concepts, the relationship between the six concepts and other factors, such as social trust, identification with various interest groups (i.e., hunter, farmer, or rancher, environmentalist, and animal rights advocate), and political ideology (i.e., liberal vs. conservative), varied considerably. Our findings underscore that differences exist in these measures, which could have serious implications for conservationists integrating social science findings in their decision-making processes if they are unaware of the theoretical underpinnings of and distinctions between core psychological concepts.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of semantics in the study of tolerance for wolves

Carlson

Dietsch

Slagle

et al. 2022

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, it is possible that a sense of connection with nature may not easily encompass taxa perceived as uncharismatic and experienced as threatening. Moreover, the discord between the seemingly widespread support for preventing local extinction and the simultaneous desire to control problematic wildlife and eradicate vipers from private properties suggests that phenomena, such as not‐in‐my‐backyard attitudes (whereby stakeholders approve of something in principle but not directly in their vicinity), may also be at play in shaping attitudes to more problematic fauna (von Essen & Allen, 2020). These results show that nature connection is not always associated with biophilic attitudes; hence, the dominant framing of nature as benevolent in research from Western nations is overly simplistic and may not always be generalizable to other contexts (Zylstra et al., 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the influence of nature connection and values on conservation attitudes at a tropical deforestation frontier

Mikołajczak

Barlow

Lees

et al. 2023

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inner phenomena, such as personal motivations for pursuing sustainability, may be critical levers for improving conservation outcomes. Most conservation research and policies, however, focus on external phenomena (e.g., ecological change or economic processes). We explored the factors shaping 9 conservation attitudes toward forest and wildlife protection among colonist farmers around an Amazonian deforestation frontier. Our data comprised 241 face‐to‐face quantitative surveys, complemented with qualitative insights from open‐ended questionnaire responses and opportunistic semistructured interviews. To account for the full spectrum of possible inner motivations, we employed measures of nature connection (indicating biospheric motivation) and personal values organized around the traditionalism (traditionalist through to high openness to change) and universalism dimensions (egoistic through to altruistic motivations). We used averaged beta‐binomial generalized linear models to assess the role of external factors (socioeconomic, sociodemographic, and environmental) and personal (inner) motivations on the variation in attitudes. Each attitude was modeled separately. The relative importance of each predictor was judged by the proportion of models where it appeared as significant. Proconservation views were expressed by the majority (at least 65%) of the respondents in 7 out of the 9 attitude models. The most consistent predictors were emotional nature connection and personal values (significant in 4–6 out of 9 models), rather than external phenomena (significant in 0–5 models). However, the poorest farmers had lower scores on the agreement with prioritizing nature over development (𝛽 = –0.52, 95% CI: –0.96 to –0.07). Qualitative data also indicated that economic barriers hinder forest conservation on farms. These results suggest that biospheric, traditionalistic, and altruistic motivations promote people's proconservation attitudes, but nurturing these latent motivations is unlikely to improve conservation outcomes if material poverty remains unaddressed. Integrating the inner–outer perspective into conservation thinking and practical interventions could foster environmental stewardship and increase human well‐being.

show abstract

“…Parts of our results concur with existing knowledge on the human dimension of wildlife, and others bridge previous gaps in research. Many of the individual n-motives pick up concepts that have been discussed as relevant, e.g., questions of the belonging of a returning species to an endemic ecosystem (Ghosal et al, 2015;Sjölander-Lindqvist, 2015;von Essen & Allen, 2020) or the allegation that wolves attack livestock not for hunger, but are motivated by a genuine lust for killing (Bath, 2000;Lescureux & Linnell, 2010). Moreover, the continuum of narratives in its entirety corroborates the canonical concepts in the field and thus further underscores the power of the anthropocentrism-ecocentrism-biocentrism distinction (Callicott, 2004); the poles of mutualism and domination (Teel & Manfredo, 2010); and the contrasting ideas of separation-versus coexistence paradigms for gauging people's value orientations concerning nature and wildlife (Chapron et al, 2014).…”

Section: Corroborating and Complementing Extant Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Wolves is Managing Narratives: Views of Wolves and Nature Shape People’s Proposals for Navigating Human-Wolf Relations

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The resurgence of wolf populations in Germany is causing controversies regarding their management policies. Through 41 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, we found that respondents favored the management directives predicated on the narratives they entertained, i.e., beliefs about wolves and nature more broadly. We identified 18 narratives that ranged from the extreme of “beings-focused, harmony-oriented, and wolf-favoring” extreme through “ecosystem-focused, conservation-oriented, and wolf-ambivalent” to another extreme of “human-centered, dominion-oriented, and wolf-critical” extreme. The 24 directives aim to allow, balance, and control wolf behavior. Narratives and directives correlate: participants and stakeholders holding beings-focused views tend to propose more allowing directives, those endorsing ecosystem-focused perspectives lean to choose balancing directives, and those inclined to human-focused stances prefer controlling directives. Thus, our research allows wildlife managers to understand better why people endorse or oppose specific management options and devise effective communication strategies by working with the underlying narratives.

show abstract

‘Not the Wolf Itself’: Distinguishing Hunters’ Criticisms of Wolves from Procedures for Making Wolf Management Decisions

Cited by 18 publications

References 53 publications

Effect of semantics in the study of tolerance for wolves

Effect of semantics in the study of tolerance for wolves

Evaluating the influence of nature connection and values on conservation attitudes at a tropical deforestation frontier

Managing Wolves is Managing Narratives: Views of Wolves and Nature Shape People’s Proposals for Navigating Human-Wolf Relations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About