Wolf reintroduction to Scotland: public attitudes and consequences for red deer management

Nilsen, Erlend B.; Milner‐Gulland, E. J.; Schofield, Lee; Mysterud, Atle; Stenseth, Nils Chr.; Coulson, Tim

doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.0369

Cited by 93 publications

(105 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In Oman, many people are employed by the captive-born Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx) reintroduction program and the program is widely accepted by the local community (Fitter 1984;Price 1986). In Scotland, the public are generally positive about wolf (Canis lupus) reintroductions because the species plays an important role in maintaining ecological functions in the ecosystem (Nilsen et al 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, many studies have shown that rural residents tend to have more negative attitudes towards reintroduction programs than urban residents (Ericsson and Heberlein 2003;Morzillo et al 2010;Nilsen et al 2007;Williams et al 2002;Yen et al 2015). Kellert (1994) postulated that being rural tended to predispose one to more negative attitudes toward bears because these individuals are more connected to land-use problems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Giant panda reintroduction: factors affecting public support

Liu

Wei

et al. 2016

Biodivers Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reintroducing captive-born individuals of some extirpated flagship animal species is a helpful and remedy measure for promoting biodiversity conservation, and a successful reintroduction relies heavily on public support. However, little information is available on the factors affecting the public support for reintroduction of large carnivore species. In order to evaluate public support and willingness to pay for the Giant Panda Reintroduction Project (GPRP), we conducted 1100 interviews in August 2014 at Huaying city, Sichuan, China, close to where captive-born giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) will be reintroduced. The results showed that local people strongly support this project and that 78.5 % of them are willing to pay an annual contribution. Per capita annual payments averaged USD31, and the potential value of donations to the GPRP in Huaying is about 11 million USD per year. Factors like interviewees' residential area, occupation, education level, liking of wildlife, level of concern for wildlife conservation, the degree of familiarity with giant pandas, and the frequency of visiting captive giant pandas significantly affected their attitudes and willingness to pay for the project. The notion of ''because I love pandas'' was the main reason why respondents were willing to pay for the project; respondents' doubts about the appropriate use of donated funds made them be unwilling to pay for the Communicated by Dirk Sven Schmeller.Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Giant panda reintroduction: factors affecting public support

Liu

Wei

et al. 2016

Biodivers Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Essa consistiria no fato de que haveria menos cervos para competir pela busca de alimento com animais como as ovelhas. Além disso, uma das razões apresentadas para defender a reintrodução dos lobos é justamente que os cervos competem com as ovelhas por alimento (CLUTTON-BROCK et al, 2004;NILSEN et al, 2007). De um ponto de vista não especista que leve em consideração os interesses das ovelhas, isso é moralmente inaceitável (pois, antes mesmo de se entrar em outras considerações, a pecuária ovina já seria vista como inaceitável).…”

Section: Um Argumento Inconsistente Com a Pecuáriaunclassified

“…E seu emprego está sendo discutido também em outros lugares, em especial nas Terras Altas da Escócia (WATSON FEATHERSTONE, 1997;NILSEN et al, 2007;WILSON, 2004;MANNING et al, 2009;bem como BBC News 1999MORGAN 2007;ou O'CONNELL, 2008). Essa medida tem sido muito discutida, mas não devido às consequências que teria para os animais não humanos, mas sim pelo modo como poderia afetar certos interesses humanos (interesses que não seriam HORTA, O. Contra a ética da ecologia do medo vitais).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Contra a ética da ecologia do medo: por uma mudança nos objetivos de intervenção na natureza

Horta

2017

ethic@

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMOOs seres humanos intervêm frequentemente na natureza por razões antropocêntricas ou ambientalistas. Um exemplo de intervenção consiste na reintrodução de lobos em áreas previamente habitadas por eles com a finalidade de se criar o que é conhecido como "ecologia do medo". Na primeira parte deste artigo, discutemse as razões que têm sido utilizadas em favor dessa medida, e explica-se por que são incompatíveis com um enfoque não especista. Para tal, expõem-se os motivos pelos quais tal medida prejudica notavelmente animais como os cervos, sem tampouco ser benéfica para os próprios lobos. Em seguida, argumenta-se que, se abandonamos uma perspectiva especista, devemos mudar por completo o modo pelo qual intervimos na natureza. Em vez de intervir por motivos ecologistas ou antropocêntricos, nosso objetivo ao fazê-lo deve ser o de reduzir os danos sofridos pelos animais não humanos. A visão idílica segundo a qual os animais não humanos vivem vidas paradisíacas na natureza é completamente incorreta, e de fato há fortes razões para considerar que o sofrimento e a morte prematura prevalecem de forma clara sobre o bem-estar desses animais. Isso faz com que seja ainda mais importante que nosso objetivo seja melhorar sua situação e darlhes nossa ajuda, em vez de causar-lhes danos. Todavia, esse objetivo entra em conflito de maneira significativa com alguns ideais ecologistas fundamentais cuja defesa não é compatível com a consideração dos interesses dos animais não humanos. Palavras-chave: antropocentrismo, ecologia do medo, especismo, intervenção. ABSTRACTHumans often intervene in the wild for anthropocentric or environmental reasons. An example of such interventions is the reintroduction of wolves in places where they no longer live in order to create what has been called an "ecology of fear", which is being currently discussed in places such as Scotland. In the first part of this paper I discuss the reasons for this measure and argue that they are not compatible with a nonspeciesist approach. Then, I claim that if we abandon a speciesist viewpoint we should change completely the way in which we should intervene in nature. Rather than intervening for environmental or anthropocentric reasons, we should do it in order to reduce the harms that nonhuman animals suffer. This conflicts significantly with some fundamental environmental ideals whose defence is not compatible with the consideration of the interests of nonhuman animals.

show abstract

“…Therefore, an understanding of the drivers of landowner attitudes is vital for guiding conservation action (Thorn et al, 2014), especially for the design of more effective conflict-mitigation techniques. Gaining such an understanding can be achieved by assessing the socio-economic variables which may influence landowner attitudes (Nilsen et al, 2007;Romañach et al, 2007). These variables can include a person's education level (Lagendijk & Gusset, 2008), land use (Romañach et al 2007;Selebatso, Moe & Swenson, 2007), and culture (Selebatso et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Socio-Economic Factors Influencing Attitudes of Landowners Towards Free-Roaming Cheetahs

Nicholson

Marnewick

Beverley

et al. 2017

African Journal of Wildlife Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The largest area of the South African cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) distribution occurs outside formally protected areas, making cheetahs vulnerable to conflict-related killings. This conflict is assumed to be related to negative attitudes of landowners towards predators. Our study assessed the socio-economic factors influencing landowner attitudes towards cheetahs on private properties adjacent to the Kruger National Park (Kruger), South Africa. We used structured questionnaires to interview 199 landowners. Attitudes of landowners towards cheetahs were generally positive; 58% of landowners had attitude index scores between eight and 11. However, 11% had fairly negative or low scores (scores between -2 and 4). First language, land use and respondent knowledge of cheetahs were key drivers of attitude. English speaking landowners (49.8%) were more likely to display positive attitudes towards cheetahs than Afrikaans first-language speakers (46.8%). In addition, the likelihood of having a more positive attitude increased significantly as respondent knowledge of cheetahs increased. Attitudes were also influenced by land use, with wildlife ranchers or ecotourism ventures having a significantly higher probability of having more positive attitudes than livestock farmers. With the Kruger being a stronghold for cheetah conservation in Africa, and large carnivores being vulnerable to edge effects in protected areas, it is important to understand the factors driving conflict so that mitigation efforts can be targeted for maximum impact.

show abstract

Wolf reintroduction to Scotland: public attitudes and consequences for red deer management

Cited by 93 publications

References 48 publications

Giant panda reintroduction: factors affecting public support

Giant panda reintroduction: factors affecting public support

Contra a ética da ecologia do medo: por uma mudança nos objetivos de intervenção na natureza

Socio-Economic Factors Influencing Attitudes of Landowners Towards Free-Roaming Cheetahs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About