Stakeholder trust in a state wildlife agency

Abstract

Trust in science and government regulatory agencies (e.g., state wildlife agencies) is a growing issue among wildlife managers and administrators who are attempting to engage stakeholders and develop effective, public wildlife conservation. However, a paucity of research has investigated attributes affecting stakeholder trust in wildlife agencies. We proposed a theoretical model of 2 key factors that can affect levels of trust: procedural fairness and technical competency. We used structured equation modeling to examine the influence of these factors on trust in a state wildlife agency by a prominent wildlife stakeholder, licensed hunters ≥18 years old. We tested the model with results from a mail‐back questionnaire (n = 2,708 respondents, 39.6% response rate) about trust in the Michigan Department of Natural Resources’ Wildlife Division. The respondent population closely reflected Michigan's population of hunting license‐holders regarding demographic and geographic composition. The modified measurement model fit the data well, supporting the uniqueness of the procedural fairness, technical competency, and trust measures. The test of the structural model indicted that stakeholder perceptions of procedural fairness and technical competence exhibited by agency personnel positively influenced trust; however, the coefficient for procedural fairness was nearly 4 times greater than that of perceived technical competence of personnel. Perceived congruency of values between stakeholders and the agency was the most important modifier of the relationship of fairness and competency on trust. Our findings identify influential pathways wildlife professionals generally and state wildlife agencies specifically can take to strengthen stakeholders’ trust and confidence in their agencies. The complexity of public wildlife management ensures that there always will be factors affecting trust in state wildlife agencies for which agencies can do little about. Yet, development of decisions processes perceived by stakeholders to be fair and transparent and investment in agency personnel with skills in stakeholder engagement likely will be effective ways to foster trust and confidence in state wildlife agencies. © 2018 The Wildlife Society.

The Impact of Perceived Risk on Consumers’ Cross-Platform Buying Behavior

“…Some propose a broad definition of trust as an undefended mental state based on a positive estimation of the intention and behavior of the other party (Rousseau et al, 1998). In a broad sense, trust is the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another based on expectations that the other has positive intentions and actions toward the one trusting (Mayer et al, 1995;Rousseau et al, 1998;Malhotra and Lumineau, 2011;Stern and Coleman, 2015;Riley et al, 2018). Therefore, an unguarded mental state is one of the important elements of trust.…”

Trust, Connection and Equity: Can Understanding Context Help to Establish Successful Campus Community Gardens?

“…Means and 95 percent confidence intervals were then calculated for the Personal Wellbeing Index, nature relatedness and trust scales. These were compared with results from previous studies [ 66 , 69 ] plus unpublished data on nature relatedness from a contemporaneous national study of 2000 Australians [ 70 ].…”

Factors Affecting Trust Among Natural Resources Stakeholders, Partners, and Strategic Alliance Members: A Meta-Analytic Investigation

“…This situation clearly calls for longitudinal studies that separate out when antecedents, trust, and trust outcomes are measured to test theoretical models of trust development through time. Moreover, given the issue with multicollinearity identified with fairness we strongly recommend that future studies adopt more fine-grained measures to capture fairness perceptions (e.g., for procedural, Riley et al, 2018, or distributive fairness, PytlikZillig et al, 2017, as opposed to generalized measures. Additionally, more studies are needed that gather trust data from multiple sources so as to better inform estimates of interrater agreement.…”

“…Trust, broadly defined, is the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another based on expectations that the other has positive intentions and actions toward the trustor (Mayer et al, 1995;Rousseau et al, 1998;Malhotra and Lumineau, 2011;Stern and Coleman, 2015;Riley et al, 2018). The definition of trust as a psychological state also allows for institutions to be targets of trust (PytlikZillig and Kimbrough, 2016).…”

“…The primary goal of trust research at the natural resource agency level is to understand how it develops and is sustained (Ring and Van de Ven, 1994;Zaheer and Harris, 2006). However, this aim is hindered by the pronounced lack of clarity regarding factors for building trust in natural resource management (Boschetti et al, 2016;Riley et al, 2018). Indeed, although this topic has received considerable research attention with many empirical studies and conceptual reviews across management, marketing, and other fields (Zaheer and Harris, 2006;Seppänen et al, 2007;Lachapelle and McCool, 2012;Sharp et al, 2013;Agostini and Nosella, 2017), there are still ambiguities surrounding the factors important for building trust.…”