Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 63, Issue 2, pp 260–269 | Cite as

Assessing Illinois Residents’ Support for Natural Recolonization of Apex Predators

  • Adam C. LandonEmail author
  • Craig A. Miller
  • Brent D. Williams
Article

Abstract

Understanding sources of difference in public attitudes toward wildlife is critical for the design of effective policy instruments. In this article we explored the role of wildlife value orientations and stakeholder group membership (general public versus agricultural producers) in shaping residents support for the natural recolonization of apex predators (black bear, cougar, gray wolf), in Illinois, USA. Results demonstrate differences in attitudes toward recolonization as a function of residents’ basic beliefs about the human-wildlife relationship and stakeholder group membership. Results revealed varying degrees of opposition and/or antipathy toward recolonization of apex predators across wildlife values types and stakeholder groups. Individuals that were identified to hold utilitarian beliefs about wildlife (traditionalist orientation) and agricultural producers were found to exhibit the most negative attitudes toward natural recolonization, compared to individuals that believe wildlife have intrinsic rights (mutualist orientation) or members of the general public. Individuals’ attitudes toward the recolonization of black bears were found to differ according to their wildlife value orientations, stakeholder group membership, and the combination of the two factors.

Keywords

Wildlife value orientations Attitudes toward predators Natural recolonization Wildlife management 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank management staff from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, especially D. Dufford and M.G. Alessi for their support for this project. We thank L.K. Campbell for leading data collection efforts, and numerous students for their contributions in data entry. We would also like to acknowledge two anonymous reviewers whose input helped to shape this manuscript.

References

  1. Beschta R, Ripple WJ (2009) Large predators and trophic cascades in terrestrial ecosystems of the western United States. Biol Conserv 142:2401–2414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brewer MB (1991) The social self: on becoming the same and different at the same time. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 17:475–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bright AD, Barro SC, Burtz RT (2002) Public attitudes toward ecological restoration in the Chicago metropolitan region. Soc Nat Resour 15:763–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown TA (2015) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruskotter JT, Vaske JJ, Schmidt RH (2009) Social and cognitive correlates of Utah residents’ acceptance of the lethal control of wolves. Human Dimens Wildl 14:119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Byrne BM, Shavelson RJ, Muthen B (1989) Testing for equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychol Bull 105(3):456–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chavez AS, Gese EM, Krannich RS (2005) Attitudes of rural landowners toward wolves in northern Minnesota. Wildl Soc Bull 33(2):517–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dougherty EM, Fulton DC, Anderson DH (2003) The influence of gender on the relationship between wildlife value orientations, beliefs, and the acceptability of lethal deer control in Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Soc Nat Resour 16:603–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fulton DC, Manfredo MJ, Lipscomb J (1996) Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimens Wildl 1:24–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gore M, Kahler JS (2012) Gendered risk perceptions associated with human-wildlife conflict: Implications for participatory conservation. PLoS One 7(3):e32901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2010) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  12. Heberlein TA (2012) Navigating environmental attitudes. Conserv Biol 26:583–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hermann N, Vob C, Menzel S (2013) Wildlife value orientations as predicting factors in support of reintroducing bison and wolf migrating to Germany. J Nat Conserv 21:125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6:1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. IBM Corp (2012) IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. IBM Corp, Armonk, NYGoogle Scholar
  16. Jacobs MH, Vaske JJ, Sijtsma MTJ (2014) Predictive potential for wildlife value orientations for acceptability of management interventions. J Nat Conserv 22:377–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kellert SR (1985) Public perceptions of predators, particularly the wolf and coyote. Biol Conserv 31:167–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kellert SR, Berry JK (1987) Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife as affected by gender. Wildl Soc Bull 15(3):363–371Google Scholar
  19. Lischka S, Riley SJ, Rudolf BA (2008) Effects of impact perception on acceptance capacity for white-tailed deer. J Wildl Manag 72(2):502–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lute ML, Gore ML (2014) Stewardship as a path to cooperation? Exploring the role of identity in intergroup conflict among Michigan stakeholders. Human Dimens Wildl 19:267–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Manfredo MJ, Bruskotter JT, Teel TL, Fulton D, Schwartz SH, Arlinghaus R, Oishi S, Uskul AK, Redford K, Kitayama S, Sullivan L (2016) Why social values cannot be changed for the sake of conservation. Conserv Biol 31:772–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Manfredo MJ, Teel TL, Sullivan L, Dietsch AM (2017) Values, trust, and cultural backlash in conservation governance: The case of wildlife management in the United States. Biol Conserv 214:303–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marshall K, White R, Fischer A (2007) Conflicts between humans over wildlife management: On the diversity of stakeholder attitudes and implications for conflict management. Biodivers Conserv 16:3129–3146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller Z, Freimund W, Covelli Metcalf E, Nickerson N (2018) Targeting your audience: Wildlife value orientations and the relevance of messages about bear safety. Human Dimens Wildl 23(3):213–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pratto F (1999) The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social, and cultural forces in social dominance theory. In: Zanna MP (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol 31. Academic, San Diego, p 191–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Raykov T (1997) Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Appl Psychol Meas 2:173–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Riley S, Decker D (2000) Risk perception as a factor in wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for cougars in Montana. Human Dimens Wildl 5:50–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ritchie E, Elmhamagen B, Glen A, Letnic M, Ludwig G, McDonald R (2012) Ecosystem restoration with teeth: What role for predators? Trends Ecol Evol 27:265–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saunders C, Brook A, Meyers O (2006) Using psychology to save biodiversity and human well-being. Conserv Biol 20:702–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schwartz SH (1994) Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J Social Issues 50(4):19–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schwartz SH, Bilsky W (1987) Toward a psychological structure of human values. J Pers Soc Psychol 53:550–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shaw RG, Mitchell-Olds T (1993) Anova for unbalanced data: An overview. Ecology 74:1638–1645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sijtsma MT, Vaske JJ, Jacobs MH (2012) Acceptability of lethal control of wildlife that damage agriculture in the Netherlands. Soc & Nat Resour 25:1308–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. StataCorp (2017) Stata statistical software: Release 15. StataCorp LP, Survey Sampling International (SSI), College Station, TX, Fairfield, CTGoogle Scholar
  35. Tajfel H (1982) Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annu Rev Psychol 33:1–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Teel T, Manfredo MT (2009) Understanding the diversity of public interests in wildlife conservation. Conserv Biol 24:128–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Toledo D, Agudelo M, Bentley A (2011) The shifting targets of ecological restoration benchmarks and their social impacts: digging deeper into Pleistocene re-wilding. Restor Ecol 9:564–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Treves A, Bruskotter J (2014) Tolerance for predatory wildlife. Science 344:476–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Treves A, Karanth KU (2003) Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conserv Biol 17:1491–1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. USDA NASS (2012) Census of Agriculture. accessed November 16 2018 https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/Illinois/cp99017.pdf. Accessed November 16 2018
  41. Vaske JJ, Donnelly M (1999) A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Soc Nat Resour 12:523–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vaske JJ, Beaman J, Sponarski CC (2016) Rethinking internal consistency in Cronbach’s alpha. Leis Sci 39:163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wald DM, Jacobson SK (2014) A multivariate model of stakeholder preference for lethal cat management. PLOSone 9:e93118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Whittaker D, Vaske JJ, Manfedo MT (2006) Specificity and the cognitive hierarchy: value orientations and the acceptability of urban wildlife management actions. Soc & Nat Resour 19:515–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wildavsky A (1987) Choosing preferences by constructing institutions: a cultural theory of preference formation. Am Polit Sci Rev 81:3–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zinn HC, Manfredo MJ, Vaske JJ (2000) Social psychological basis for stakeholder acceptance capacity. Human Dimens Wildl 5:20–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam C. Landon
    • 1
    Email author
  • Craig A. Miller
    • 1
  • Brent D. Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.Illinois Natural History SurveyUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations