The future of wildlife conservation funding: What options do U.S. college students support?

Larson, Lincoln R.; Peterson, M. Nils; Furstenberg, Richard von; Vayer, Victoria R.; Lee, KangJae Jerry; Choi, Daniel; Stevenson, Kathryn T.; Ahlers, Adam A.; Anhalt‐Depies, Christine; Bethke, Taniya; Bruskotter, Jeremy T.; Chizinski, Christopher J.; Clark, Brian; Dayer, Ashley A.; Dunning, Kelly; Ghasemi, Benjamin; Gigliotti, Larry M.; Graefe, Alan R.; Irwin, Kris; Keith, Samuel J.; Kelly, Matt; Kyle, Gerard T.; Metcalf, Elizabeth Covelli; Morse, Wayde C.; Needham, Mark D.; Poudyal, Neelam C.; Quartuch, Michael R.; Rodriguez, Shari L.; Romulo, Chelsie; Sharp, Ryan L.; Siemer, William F.; Springer, Matthew T.; Stayton, Brett; Stedman, Richard C.; Stein, Taylor V.; Deelen, Timothy R. Van; Whiting, Jason W.; Winkler, Richelle; Woosnam, Kyle M.

doi:10.1111/csp2.505

Cited by 11 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results were similar to those of Mangun and Shaw (1984), Kellert et al (2017), andLarson et al (2021) in finding general opposition to new user-based tax options for conservation funding, and greater support for industry and state-based tax options. However, our findings differed from Dalrymple et al (2012) who found preferences for user-based taxes for nongame conservation funding.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…The MNRTF is a state-based program that takes revenue from natural resource extraction in the state of Michigan and distributes grants to local and state entities for a wide variety of parks and recreation improvement projects [Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), 2015]. Industry-based funding models enjoy high levels of public support (e.g., Kellert et al, 2017;Larson et al, 2021) and fish and wildlife interests have capitalized on that support with the introduction of Recovering America's Wildlife Act (RAWA) (Recovering America's Wildlife Act, 2021) in the United States Congress in 2021. Although bipartisan support exists for RAWA, it's future is uncertain at this time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As the diversity and popularity of non-hunting recreation has grown in North America, responsibilities for management have diversified from providing huntable game to providing for a range of wildlife tourism and recreation opportunities involving non-game species (Duffus and Dearden, 1990). Prior inquiries have evaluated support for conservation funding proposals that benefit both game and non-game wildlife species (e.g., Mangun and Shaw, 1984) and found support for a combination of funding sources, including preferences for excise taxes on general outdoor gear (Loomis and Mangun, 1987), sales taxes on outdoor gear (Dalrymple et al, 2012), and industry contributions (Larson et al, 2021). Socio-demographic characteristics often reflect cultural identities across rural-urban gradients, differing ethnicities, age groups, and gender identities that can influence views on wildlife conservation (Dalrymple et al, 2012;Kellert et al, 2017;Manfredo et al, 2017;van Eeden et al, 2020).…”

Section: Factors Affecting Stakeholder Support For Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Much empirical research has investigated how various socialpsychological constructs such as cognitive factors, place-based motivations, and contextual influences such as specialization act as behavioral antecedents that affect stakeholder behavioral intentions. Studies of determinants of support for conservation funding, however, generally focus on socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., Kellert et al, 2017;Larson et al, 2021). Our study incorporates social-psychological and place-based variables, based on a conceptual framework of cognitive, affective, and normative influences on behavior (Ajzen, 1991;Stern, 2000), to investigate stakeholder support for alternative conservation funding strategies.…”

Section: Place-based and Contextual Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Future research and outreach programs may help clarify relationships between stakeholder support, decision processes, and policymakers by highlighting innovative approaches in the public and private sectors to conserve biodiversity at local to global scales, and gauge willingness to participate in various programs. This may be a particularly relevant approach among younger generations who represent key beneficiaries of future conservation efforts (Larson et al, 2021).…”

Section: Conclusion and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Factors Affecting Stakeholder Support For Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Place-based and Contextual Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conclusion and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Stakeholder Support for Wildlife Conservation Funding Policies

Henderson¹,

Riley²,

Pomeranz³

et al. 2021

Front. Conserv. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Relationship between Wildlife Recreationists' Familiarity with State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Recreation Identity, and Future Financial Contributions

Grooms

Dayer

Stern

et al. 2022

N American J Fish Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

North American fish and wildlife management has long been supported by the financial contributions of anglers and hunters to state fish and wildlife agencies; however, stagnation in angling participation and declines in hunting participation threaten the stability of this user‐pay support system. While engaging recreationists beyond those with consumptive interests may assist in addressing limitations of the current user‐pay benefit approach, anecdotal evidence suggests differences in recreationists' familiarity with agencies, and perceived benefits of financial contributions may dissuade certain wildlife recreationists from providing agency support. Using focus groups (n = 83) and a survey (n = 1,016) of Virginia residents, we explored how recreationists' familiarity with an agency differed among three categories of wildlife recreationists (i.e., recreation groups)—consumptive (anglers and hunters), nonconsumptive (birders and other wildlife viewers), and multi‐recreationists (those who participate in both consumptive and nonconsumptive activities)—relative to non‐wildlife recreationists (those who do not participate in fish and wildlife recreation). We further examined whether familiarity with an agency and recreation group influenced the future likelihood of financial contributions across voluntary (not required for access or use of natural resources) and user‐pay (required for access or use of natural resources) funding mechanisms. We found that consumptive recreationists and multi‐recreationists had greater familiarity with the agency than nonconsumptive recreationists. Approximately 40% of nonconsumptive recreationists were likely to support the agency through either user‐pay or voluntary mechanisms, while approximately 80% of consumptive recreationists preferred user‐pay mechanisms. Further, all recreationists expected tangible outcomes from their contributions and transparency about how their contributions would benefit their activities (e.g., newsletters detailing angling access funded by their support). We recommend that agencies build familiarity among wildlife recreationists, especially within their nonconsumptive constituency, and demonstrate how current funding mechanisms benefit and are derived from multiple recreation groups.

show abstract

Conservation decision makers worry about relevancy and funding but not climate change

Jewell

Peterson

Martin

et al. 2023

Wildlife Society Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stakeholders fundamentally shape the success of wildlife management, yet little is known about how one of the most important stakeholder groups, wildlife agency decision makers, view emerging conservation challenges. Wildlife agency decision makers collectively shape how wildlife conservation unfolds in North America, but their perspectives are generally absent in the literature. Challenges including climate change, conservation funding models, and wildlife disease make understanding how wildlife decision makers view the future of wildlife conservation essential. We interviewed 48 directors and supervisory board members of wildlife agencies in the southeast United States from July 2019 to January 2020 to gauge their assessment of future conservation challenges and preferred response strategies. Declining agency relevancy and insufficient funding were the 2 most commonly identified challenges, while climate change was rarely mentioned as an issue because decision makers believed it was a relatively slowmoving background condition. Decision makers described improving relevance through education and outreach as their primary response to conservation challenges. Our results suggest that climate change-informed wildlife management may benefit from a 2-pronged approach. First, we suggest decision makers should be informed about the challenges posed by climate change, and second, existing efforts to

show abstract

The future of wildlife conservation funding: What options do U.S. college students support?

Abstract: Insufficient funding is a major impediment to conservation efforts around the world. In the United States, a decline in hunting participation threatens sustainability of the "user-pay, public benefit" model that has supported wildlife

Cited by 11 publications

References 32 publications

Stakeholder Support for Wildlife Conservation Funding Policies

Stakeholder Support for Wildlife Conservation Funding Policies

The Relationship between Wildlife Recreationists' Familiarity with State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Recreation Identity, and Future Financial Contributions

Conservation decision makers worry about relevancy and funding but not climate change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About