The changing sociocultural context of wildlife conservation

被引:99
|
作者
Manfredo, Michael J. [1 ]
Teel, Tara L. [1 ]
Don Carlos, Andrew W. [1 ]
Sullivan, Leeann [1 ]
Bright, Alan D. [1 ]
Dietsch, Alia M. [2 ]
Bruskotter, Jeremy [2 ]
Fulton, David [3 ]
机构
[1] Colorado State Univ, Dept Human Dimens Nat Resources, Campus Delivery 1480, Ft Collins, CO 80523 USA
[2] Ohio State Univ, Sch Environm & Nat Resources, 210 Kottman Hall,2021 Coffey Rd, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[3] Univ Minnesota, US Geol Survey, Minnesota Cooperat Fish & Wildlife Res Unit, 1980 Folwell Ave,200 Hodson Hall, St Paul, MN 55108 USA
关键词
multilevel analysis; social change; values; value shift; wildlife value orientations; MULTILEVEL ANALYSIS; VALUE ORIENTATIONS; ENVIRONMENT; MANAGEMENT; GOVERNANCE; ATTITUDES; SOCIETY; WOLF;
D O I
10.1111/cobi.13493
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
We introduced a multilevel model of value shift to describe the changing social context of wildlife conservation. Our model depicts how cultural-level processes driven by modernization (e.g., increased wealth, education, and urbanization) affect changes in individual-level cognition that prompt a shift from domination to mutualism wildlife values. Domination values promote beliefs that wildlife should be used primarily to benefit humans, whereas mutualism values adopt a view that wildlife are part of one's social network and worthy of care and compassion. Such shifts create emergent effects (e.g., new interest groups) and challenges to wildlife management organizations (e.g., increased conflict) and dramatically alter the sociopolitical context of conservation decisions. Although this model is likely applicable to many modernized countries, we tested it with data from a 2017-2018 nationwide survey (mail and email panel) of 43,949 residents in the United States. We conducted hierarchical linear modeling and correlational analysis to examine relationships. Modernization variables had strong state-level effects on domination and mutualism. Higher levels of education, income, and urbanization were associated with higher percentages of mutualists and lower percentages of traditionalists, who have strong domination values. Values affected attitudes toward wildlife management challenges; for example, states with higher proportions of mutualists were less supportive of lethal control of wolves (Canis lupus) and had lower percentages of active hunters, who represent the traditional clientele of state wildlife agencies in the United States. We contend that agencies will need to embrace new strategies to engage and represent a growing segment of the public with mutualism values. Our model merits testing for application in other countries.
引用
收藏
页码:1549 / 1559
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Technocracy in a time of changing values: Wildlife conservation and the "relevancy" of governance reform
    Sullivan, Leeann M.
    Manfredo, Michael J.
    Teel, Tara L.
    CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE, 2022, 4 (02)
  • [2] How anthropomorphism is changing the social context of modern wildlife conservation
    Manfredo, Michael J.
    Urquiza-Haas, Esmeralda G.
    Carlos, Andrew W. Don
    Bruskotter, Jeremy T.
    Dietsch, Alia M.
    BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2020, 241
  • [3] Understanding the Diversity of Public Interests in Wildlife Conservation
    Teel, Tara L.
    Manfredo, Michael J.
    CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2010, 24 (01) : 128 - 139
  • [4] Addressing the challenge of wildlife conservation in urban landscapes by increasing human tolerance for wildlife
    Puri, Mahi
    Johannsen, Kristina L.
    Goode, Kaitlin O.
    Pienaar, Elizabeth F.
    PEOPLE AND NATURE, 2024, 6 (03) : 1116 - 1129
  • [5] Stakeholder Support for Wildlife Conservation Funding Policies
    Henderson, Chris D. D.
    Riley, Shawn J. J.
    Pomeranz, Emily F. F.
    Kramer, Daniel B. B.
    FRONTIERS IN CONSERVATION SCIENCE, 2021, 2
  • [6] Context-dependent conservation responses to emerging wildlife diseases
    Langwig, Kate E.
    Voyles, Jamie
    Wilber, Mark Q.
    Frick, Winifred F.
    Murray, Kris A.
    Bolker, Benjamin M.
    Collins, James P.
    Cheng, Tina L.
    Fisher, Matthew C.
    Hoyt, Joseph R.
    Lindner, Daniel L.
    McCallum, Hamish I.
    Puschendorf, Robert
    Rosenblum, Erica Bree
    Toothman, Mary
    Willis, Craig K. R.
    Briggs, Cheryl J.
    Kilpatrick, A. Marm
    FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, 2015, 13 (04) : 195 - 202
  • [7] Wildlife values can inform strategic conservation communication efforts
    Martell, Josephine E. M.
    Rodewald, Amanda D.
    HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE, 2025, 30 (02) : 182 - 200
  • [8] Transformation of a state fish and wildlife agency: Missouri Department of Conservation's effort to remain relevant in a changing world
    Pauley, Sara Parker
    Beres, Audrey
    Murray, Norman
    Sumners, Jason A.
    Witthaus, Kendra
    Hilgedick, Kristie
    CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE, 2022, 4 (02)
  • [9] Conservation's blind spot: The case for conflict transformation in wildlife conservation
    Madden, Francine
    McQuinn, Brian
    BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2014, 178 : 97 - 106
  • [10] Why the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is Problematic for Modern Wildlife Management
    Peterson, M. Nils
    Nelson, Michael Paul
    HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE, 2017, 22 (01) : 43 - 54