Social identity, values, and trust in government: How stakeholder group, ideology, and wildlife value orientations relate to trust in a state agency for wildlife management

Schroeder, Susan A.; Landon, Adam C.; Fulton, David C.; McInenly, Leslie E.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109285

Cited by 24 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dialogue should be respectful, include mutual listening, and be inclusive of all views which could be approached through communicative framing (Dietsch et al, 2021). This should recognize and seek to address underlying ideological or identity differences that may shape trust in agency or attitudes toward a coexistence program (Schroeder et al, 2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to compensation, WDFW could have an ongoing mediation process that relies on individuals or institutions trusted by both the public and the ranchers. Furthermore, it is imperative that WDFW attempt to keep open and regular communication with ranchers and rancher organizations because increasing the frequency of interaction could increase trust in the agency (Schroeder et al, 2021), which can consequently increase participation of ranchers in WDFW-led non-lethal strategies. We recommend investigating novel strategies such as performance payments (Zabel and Holm-Müller, 2008;Macon, 2020) and economic incentives such as premium prices on ranch products (Bogezi et al, 2019) that reward ranchers' efforts to coexist with wildlife.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Where ranchers have trustful relationships with wildlife agencies, they are more likely to participate in coexistence strategies, whereas with lack of trust there is little buy in for wolf coexistence strategies. Stakeholder groups like ranchers and hunters typically having lower agency trust than the general public, and such groups can be considered as kinds of social identities (Schroeder et al, 2021). Group dynamics and social identity in conflict resolution can cause individuals to take positions in contrast to the outgroups, consequently hindering successful debate and inhibiting conservation action (Dietsch et al, 2021).…”

Section: Theoretical and Analytical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ranchers' Perspectives on Participating in Non-lethal Wolf-Livestock Coexistence Strategies

Bogezi

Eeden

Wirsing

et al. 2021

Front. Conserv. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Potential impacts to rural livelihoods by large carnivores, such as gray wolves (Canis lupus), increase economic liability and fear among residents, resulting in social conflicts over wildlife issues. Strategies have been developed to promote non-lethal predator management in rural communities, but there is limited understanding of why ranchers choose to participate in such programs. We conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 45) of ranchers in Washington state, United States, asking open-ended questions to explore their perspectives on conflict mitigation. Interviews were analyzed using Grounded Theory. Ranchers mentioned five broad types of mitigation strategies: state agency intervention (i.e., calling the state agency in charge of wolf management to request either compensation or lethal wolf removal), biological measures (e.g., use of guard animals), physical measures (e.g., fences), human interference (cowboys and cowgirls), and indirect measures (e.g., husbandry practices). Motivations for participating in non-lethal mitigation strategies included previous positive interactions with wildlife agency officials, an understanding of the importance of wolves to the ecosystem, and clearly outlined guidelines on how to deal with wolf interactions. Barriers that hindered rancher participation included disdain for regulation both regarding the Endangered Species Act and the state's requirements for accessing damage compensation, which were perceived to be extensive and over-reaching. Negative attitudes toward wolf recovery included fear of wolves and perceived damage that wolves inflict on rural lives and livelihoods. Ranchers' motivations and perceived barriers for participating in mitigation strategies included sociopolitical and economic factors. Thus, we suggest that in addition to mitigating economic loss, wildlife managers address the intangible social costs that deter ranchers' participation in mitigation strategies through continued dialogue.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretical and Analytical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ranchers' Perspectives on Participating in Non-lethal Wolf-Livestock Coexistence Strategies

Bogezi

Eeden

Wirsing

et al. 2021

Front. Conserv. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Future conservation successes may depend on expansion of sources for social and financial support, integration of non-game programs, and incorporation of broader societal interests and values toward wildlife into decision making processes (Nie, 2004;Jacobson et al, 2010;Decker et al, 2016). A better understanding of the factors that influence stakeholder support for alternative mechanisms for funding conservation may improve trust and transparency in decision making (Schroeder et al, 2021), leading to more broadly acceptable management decisions and enabling more effective governance of wildlife resources. Increased support for conservation funding may also help conservation advocates and decision makers build collaborative partnerships that alleviate political conflict and work toward sustainable funding models that incorporate the best interests of wildlife species and the diverse publics who value them.…”

Section: Background Funding For Wildlife 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

“…Scholars have established a clear relationship among stakeholder beliefs, attitudes, and acceptance of wildlife management actions (Loker et al 1999 ; Fulton et al 2004 ; Whittaker et al 2006 ; Bruskotter et al 2009 ), which likely influences perceptions of agency performance and management efficacy (Schroeder et al 2021a ). Values for and attitudes toward wildlife also relate closely to agency and informational trust (Manfredo et al 2017 ; Schroeder et al 2021b ). Finally, trust in agencies varies with individual characteristics (Saunders 2012 ; Schmidt et al 2018 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding and Evaluating Public Satisfaction with Wildlife Governance: Insights from Deer Management in Indiana, USA

Stinchcomb

Caudell

2022

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wildlife agencies in North America desire to incorporate broader public interests into decision-making so they can realize the principle of governing wildlife in the public trust. Public satisfaction is a key component of good governance but evaluating satisfaction with wildlife management focuses on traditional user experiences rather than perceptions of agency performance. We draw from political science, business, and conservation social science to develop a multidimensional concept of satisfaction with wildlife management that includes agency performance, service quality, trust in the managing agency, and informational trust. We use data collected from a 2021 survey of Indiana residents to analyze the social and cognitive determinants of satisfaction with white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) management. Quantile regression models revealed that respondents’ acceptability of management methods and deer-related concerns most strongly affected performance and quality components, whereas respondent characteristics mostly affected trust components of the index. Future research should associate satisfaction with key variables we did not fully capture including perceived control, psychological distance, and norms of interaction between wildlife agencies and the public. Expanding agency conceptions of public satisfaction represents a critical step toward public trust thinking and the practice of good wildlife governance in North America.

show abstract

Social identity, values, and trust in government: How stakeholder group, ideology, and wildlife value orientations relate to trust in a state agency for wildlife management

Cited by 24 publications

References 53 publications

Ranchers' Perspectives on Participating in Non-lethal Wolf-Livestock Coexistence Strategies

Ranchers' Perspectives on Participating in Non-lethal Wolf-Livestock Coexistence Strategies

Stakeholder Support for Wildlife Conservation Funding Policies

Expanding and Evaluating Public Satisfaction with Wildlife Governance: Insights from Deer Management in Indiana, USA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About