Journal
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Volume 44, Issue 2, Pages 139-147Publisher
CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S037689291600045X
Keywords
invasive species; endangered species; decision making; policy preferences; carnivores; predator-prey; human-wildlife interactions; human-wildlife conflict
Categories
Funding
- Indiana University's Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis
- School of Public and Environmental Affairs
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Despite increasing support for conservation efforts, humans exert strong negative forces on nature and disagree over the management of these effects. Conflicts over conservation policy may reflect evolving opinions about how people ought to conserve species and whether to intervene in various processes. To understand public preferences for conservation in the USA, we measured support for various strategies in five case studies, where we pitted one species against another in simplified but realistic scenarios. Among our online convenience sample of 1040 participants, we found the majority of participants favoured habitat protection in all but one case, and there was little acceptance of lethal control across all cases. The results reveal that habitat protection preferences positively relate to considerations of moral principles and ecosystems and negatively relate to economic and practical considerations. Older, conservative and male participants were less likely to support habitat protection and more likely to support no action. The results suggest broad support for holistic nature conservation that benefits both people and nature and highlight areas where current wildlife management may not align with public preferences. Controversy may continue until wildlife management policies are consistent with societal values and address moral and ecosystem considerations at multiple levels.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available