The Predictive Ability of Wildlife Value Orientations for Mammal Management Varies with Species Conservation Status and Provenance
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sampling Protocol and Sample Size
2.2. Survey Design
2.3. Data Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
4.1. The Predictive Ability of WVOs
4.2. Management Implications
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Manfredo, M.J.; Teel, T.L.; Henry, K.L. Linking society and environment: A multilevel model of shifting wildlife value orientations in the Western United States. Soc. Sci. Q. 2009, 90, 407–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teel, T.L.; Manfredo, M.J. Understanding the diversity of public interests in wildlife conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24, 128–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fulton, D.C.; Manfredo, M.J.; Lipscomb, J. Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual and measurement approach. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 1996, 1, 24–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Homer, P.M.; Kahle, L.R. A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1988, 54, 638–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rokeach, M. The Nature of Human Values; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
- Sijtsma, M.T.J.; Vaske, J.J.; Jacobs, M.H. Acceptability of lethal control of wildlife that damage agriculture in the Netherlands. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2012, 25, 1308–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobs, M.H.; Vaske, J.J.; Sijtsma, M.T.J. Predictive potential of wildlife value orientations for acceptability of management interventions. J. Nat. Conserv. 2014, 22, 377–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glas, Z.E.; Getson, J.M.; Prokopy, L.S. Wildlife value orientations and their relationships with mid-size predator management. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2019, 24, 418–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Legakis, A.; Maragou, P. The Red Data Book of Threatened Animals of Greece; Hellenic Zoological Society: Athens, Greece, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Karamanlidis, A.A.; de Gabriel Hernando, M.; Krambokoukis, L.; Gimenez, O. Evidence of a large carnivore population recovery: Counting bears in Greece. J. Nat. Conserv. 2015, 27, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karamanlidis, A.A.; Sanopoulos, A.; Georgiadis, L.; Zedrosser, A. Structural and economic aspects of human–bear conflicts in Greece. Ursus 2011, 22, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papageorgiou, N.K.; Sfougaris, A.I.; Christopoulou, O.G.; Vlachos, C.G.; Petamidis, J.S. Food habits of the red fox in Greece. Acta Theriol. 1988, 33, 313–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tasioudi, K.E.; Iliadou, P.; Agianniotaki, E.I.; Robardet, E.; Liandris, E.; Doudounakis, S.; Tzani, M.; Tsaroucha, P.; Picard-Meyer, E.; Cliquet, F.; et al. Recurrence of animal rabies, Greece, 2012. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2014, 20, 326–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tsiodras, S.; Dougas, G.; Baka, A.; Billinis, C.; Doudounakis, S.; Balaska, A.; Georgakopoulou, T.; Rigakos, G.; Kontos, V.; Tasioudi, K.E.; et al. Re-emergence of animal rabies in northern Greece and subsequent human exposure, October 2012–March 2013. Euro Surveill. 2013, 18, 20474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parera, A. Los Mamíferos de Argentina y la Región Austral de Sudamérica; El Ateneo: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Bertolino, S.; Genovesi, P. Semiaquatic mammals introduced into Italy: Case studies in biological invasion. In Biological Invaders in Inland Waters: Profiles, Distribution, and Threats; Gherardi, F., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 175–191. [Google Scholar]
- Carter, J.; Leonard, B.P. A review of the literature on the worldwide distribution, spread of, and efforts to eradicate the coypu (Myocastor coypus). Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2002, 30, 162–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panzacchi, M.; Cocchi, R.; Genovesi, P.; Bertolino, S. Population control of coypu Myocastor coypus in Italy compared to eradication in UK: A cost-benefit analysis. Wildl. Biol. 2007, 13, 159–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Randall, L.A.J.; Foote, A.L. Effects of managed impoundments and herbivory on wetland plant production and stand structure. Wetlands 2005, 25, 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lowe, S.; Browne, M.; Boudjelas, S.; De Poorter, M. 100 of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien Species. A Selection from the Global Invasive Species Database; IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG): Auckland, New Zealand, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Redpath, S.M.; Bhatia, S.; Young, J. Tilting at wildlife: Reconsidering human–wildlife conflict. Oryx 2015, 49, 222–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vaske, J.J. Survey Research and Analysis: Applications in Parks, Recreation and Human Dimensions; Venture Publishing Inc.: State College, PA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- ELSTAT (Hellenic Statistical Authority). Population Census. 2011. Available online: http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/PAGE-census2011 (accessed on 9 October 2021). (In Greek).
- United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/420). United Nations. Available online: https://population.un.org/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2018-Report.pdf (accessed on 9 October 2021).
- Liordos, V.; Kontsiotis, V.J.; Eleftheriadou, I.; Telidis, S.; Triantafyllidis, A. Wildlife value orientations and demographics in Greece. Earth 2021, 2, 457–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schreiber, J.B.; Nora, A.; Stage, F.K.; Barlow, E.A.; King, J. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. J. Educ. Res. 2006, 99, 323–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Liordos, V.; Kontsiotis, V.J.; Georgari, M.; Baltzi, K.; Baltzi, I. Public acceptance of management methods under different human–wildlife conflict scenarios. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 579, 685–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liordos, V.; Kontsiotis, V.J.; Nevolianis, C.; Nikolopoulou, C.E. Stakeholder preferences and consensus associated with managing an endangered aquatic predator: The Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra). Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2019, 24, 446–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liordos, V.; Kontsiotis, V.J.; Emmanouilidou, F. Understanding stakeholder preferences for managing red foxes in different situations. Ecol. Process. 2020, 9, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kontsiotis, V.J.; Vadikolios, G.; Liordos, V. Acceptability and consensus for the management of game and non-game crop raiders. Wildl. Res. 2020, 47, 296–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, B.; Monaco, A.; Bath, A.J. Beyond standard wildlife management: A pathway to encompass human dimension findings in wild boar management. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2015, 61, 723–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heneghan, M.D.; Morse, W.C. Acceptability of management actions and the potential for conflict following human-black bear encounters. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2019, 32, 434–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sponarski, C.C.; Vaske, J.J.; Bath, A.J. Differences in management action acceptability for coyotes in a National Park. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2015, 39, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Treves, A.; Wallace, R.B.; Naughton-Treves, L.; Morales, A. Co-managing human–wildlife conflicts: A review. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2006, 11, 383–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, S.H. A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comp. Sociol. 2006, 5, 137–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liordos, V.; Kontsiotis, V.J.; Anastasiadou, M.; Karavasias, E. Effects of attitudes and demography on public support for endangered species conservation. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 595, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knight, A.J. “Bats, snakes and spiders, Oh my!” How aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection. J. Environ. Psychol. 2008, 28, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- König, A. Fears, attitudes and opinions of suburban residents with regards to their urban foxes: A case study in the community of Grünwald—A suburb of Munich. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2008, 54, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, D.E.; Lacher, T.E.; Mittermeier, R.A. (Eds.) Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. 6. Lagomorphs and Rodents I; Lynx Edicions: Barcelona, Spain, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Manfredo, M.J. Who Cares about Wildlife? Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Hermann, N.; Voss, C.; Menzel, S. Wildlife value orientations as predicting factors in support of reintroducing bison and of wolves migrating to Germany. J. Nat. Conserv. 2013, 21, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liordos, V.; Kontsiotis, V.J.; Kokoris, S.; Pimenidou, M. The two faces of Janus, or the dual mode of public attitudes towards snakes. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 621, 670–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tkac, J. The effects of information on willingness-to-pay values of endangered species. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1998, 80, 1214–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leong, K.M. The tragedy of becoming common: Landscape change and perceptions of wildlife. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2009, 23, 111–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruskotter, J.T.; Vaske, J.J.; Schmidt, R.H. Social and cognitive correlates of Utah residents’ acceptance of lethal control for wolves. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2009, 14, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharp, R.L.; Larson, L.R.; Green, G.T. Factors influencing public preferences for invasive alien species management. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 2097–2104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Straka, T.M.; Kendal, D.; van der Ree, R. When ecological information meets high wildlife orientations: Influencing preferences of nearby resident for urban wetlands. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2016, 21, 538–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bright, A.D.; Manfredo, M.J.; Fulton, D.C. Segmenting the public: An application of value orientations to wildlife planning in Colorado. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2000, 28, 218–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macdonald, D.W.; Tattersall, F.H.; Johnson, P.J.; Carbone, C.; Reynolds, J.C.; Langbein, J.; Rushton, S.P.; Shirley, M.D.F. Management and Control of Populations of Foxes, Deer, Hares and Mink in England and Wales, and the Impact of Hunting with Dogs; A Report to the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs; The Stationery Office: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Gosling, L.M.; Baker, S.J. The eradication of muskrats and coypus from Britain. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 1989, 38, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobs, M.H.; Vaske, J.J.; Teel, T.L.; Manfredo, M.J. Human dimensions of wildlife. In Environmental Psychology: An Introduction; Steg, L., van den Berg, A.E., de Groot, J.I.M., Eds.; Blackwell: Chicester, UK, 2012; pp. 77–86. [Google Scholar]
Wildlife Value Orientation Statements a | CFA | Reliability Analysis | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Factor Loadings c | Item Total Correlation | Alpha if Item Deleted | Cronbach’s Alpha | |
Domination | 0.80 | |||
Appropriate use beliefs | 0.76 | |||
Humans should manage fish and wildlife populations so that humans benefit. | 0.68 | 0.42 | 0.71 | |
The needs of humans should take priority over fish and wildlife protection. | 0.76 | 0.50 | 0.69 | |
It is acceptable for people to kill wildlife if they think it poses a threat to their life. | 0.60 | 0.48 | 0.69 | |
It is acceptable for people to kill wildlife if they think it poses a threat to their property. | 0.71 | 0.59 | 0.66 | |
It is acceptable to use fish and wildlife in research even if it may harm or kill some animals. | 0.65 | 0.45 | 0.7 | |
Fish and wildlife are on earth primarily for people to use. | 0.90 | 0.38 | 0.72 | |
Hunting beliefs | 0.75 | |||
We should strive for a world where there is an abundance of fish and wildlife for hunting and fishing. | 0.66 | 0.43 | 0.68 | |
Hunting is cruel and inhumane to the animals. b | 0.54 | 0.57 | 0.52 | |
Hunting does not respect the lives of animals. b | 0.59 | 0.59 | 0.51 | |
People who want to hunt should be provided the opportunity to do so. | 0.69 | 0.42 | 0.68 | |
Mutualism | 0.86 | |||
Social affiliation beliefs | 0.77 | |||
We should strive for a world where humans and fish and wildlife can live side by side without fear. | 0.55 | 0.46 | 0.74 | |
I view all living things as part of one big family. | 0.66 | 0.60 | 0.66 | |
Animals should have rights similar to the rights of humans. | 0.82 | 0.53 | 0.70 | |
Wildlife is like my family and I want to protect it. | 0.81 | 0.61 | 0.66 | |
Caring beliefs | 0.81 | |||
I care about animals as much as I do for people. | 0.77 | 0.48 | 0.79 | |
It would be more rewarding to me to help animals rather than people. | 0.51 | 0.43 | 0.79 | |
I take great comfort in the relationships I have with animals. | 0.69 | 0.68 | 0.73 | |
I feel a strong emotional bond with animals. | 0.82 | 0.72 | 0.71 | |
I value the sense of companionship I receive from animals. | 0.75 | 0.62 | 0.75 |
Acceptable (%) | Unacceptable (%) | Odds Ratio Domination | Odds Ratio Mutualism | Nagelkerke R2 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brown bears damage crops | |||||
No action | 23.1 | 76.9 | 0.76 ** | 1.31 * | 0.14 |
Compensation | 60.4 | 39.6 | 1.21 | 1.27 * | 0.04 |
Fencing | 84.4 | 15.6 | 1.19 | 1.17 | 0.02 |
Trapping and relocation | 38.6 | 61.4 | 1.41 ** | 0.91 | 0.11 |
Shooting | 7.4 | 92.6 | 1.28 * | 0.80 * | 0.11 |
Brown bears attack domestic animals | |||||
No action | 21.9 | 78.1 | 0.65 *** | 1.29 * | 0.14 |
Compensation | 60.7 | 39.3 | 1.28 * | 1.27 * | 0.08 |
Fencing | 84.6 | 15.4 | 1.11 | 1.21 | 0.02 |
Trapping and relocation | 41.0 | 59.0 | 1.65 *** | 1.07 | 0.13 |
Shooting | 10.0 | 90.0 | 1.68 *** | 0.83 * | 0.20 |
Red foxes attack domestic animals | |||||
No action | 18.1 | 81.9 | 0.83 * | 1.25 * | 0.09 |
Compensation | 44.1 | 55.9 | 1.27 * | 1.31 * | 0.08 |
Fencing | 80.6 | 19.4 | 1.10 | 1.20 | 0.02 |
Destruction at breeding sites | 20.1 | 79.9 | 1.57 ** | 0.99 | 0.12 |
Shooting | 16.9 | 83.1 | 1.88 *** | 0.78 * | 0.29 |
Red foxes transmit disease | |||||
No action | 12.4 | 87.6 | 0.61 *** | 1.07 | 0.15 |
Compensation | 18.3 | 81.7 | 0.87 | 1.02 | 0.01 |
Vaccination | 85.4 | 14.6 | 1.11 | 1.18 | 0.02 |
Destruction at breeding sites | 17.4 | 82.6 | 2.12 *** | 0.97 | 0.19 |
Shooting | 25.3 | 74.7 | 2.86 *** | 0.89 | 0.31 |
Coypus damage crops | |||||
No action | 14.4 | 85.6 | 0.76 ** | 1.02 | 0.12 |
Compensation | 54.5 | 45.5 | 1.29 * | 1.27 * | 0.08 |
Provision of alternative food | 78.3 | 21.7 | 0.94 | 1.02 | 0.00 |
Destruction at breeding sites | 20.7 | 79.3 | 1.76 *** | 1.14 | 0.17 |
Shooting | 19.1 | 80.9 | 2.37 *** | 1.10 | 0.25 |
Coypus transmit disease | |||||
No action | 10.5 | 89.5 | 0.50 *** | 0.88 | 0.18 |
Compensation | 12.7 | 87.3 | 0.85 | 0.99 | 0.01 |
Provision of alternative food | 68.7 | 31.3 | 0.91 | 1.11 | 0.01 |
Destruction at breeding sites | 36.3 | 63.7 | 2.51 *** | 1.17 | 0.28 |
Shooting | 33.1 | 66.9 | 3.46 *** | 1.23 | 0.36 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kontsiotis, V.J.; Triantafyllidis, A.; Telidis, S.; Eleftheriadou, I.; Liordos, V. The Predictive Ability of Wildlife Value Orientations for Mammal Management Varies with Species Conservation Status and Provenance. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11335. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011335
Kontsiotis VJ, Triantafyllidis A, Telidis S, Eleftheriadou I, Liordos V. The Predictive Ability of Wildlife Value Orientations for Mammal Management Varies with Species Conservation Status and Provenance. Sustainability. 2021; 13(20):11335. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011335
Chicago/Turabian StyleKontsiotis, Vasileios J., Archimidis Triantafyllidis, Stylianos Telidis, Ioanna Eleftheriadou, and Vasilios Liordos. 2021. "The Predictive Ability of Wildlife Value Orientations for Mammal Management Varies with Species Conservation Status and Provenance" Sustainability 13, no. 20: 11335. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011335