IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i20p11335-d655770.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Predictive Ability of Wildlife Value Orientations for Mammal Management Varies with Species Conservation Status and Provenance

Author

Listed:
  • Vasileios J. Kontsiotis

    (Department of Forest and Natural Environment Sciences, International Hellenic University, P.O. Box 172, 66100 Drama, Greece)

  • Archimidis Triantafyllidis

    (Department of Forest and Natural Environment Sciences, International Hellenic University, P.O. Box 172, 66100 Drama, Greece)

  • Stylianos Telidis

    (Department of Forest and Natural Environment Sciences, International Hellenic University, P.O. Box 172, 66100 Drama, Greece)

  • Ioanna Eleftheriadou

    (Department of Forest and Natural Environment Sciences, International Hellenic University, P.O. Box 172, 66100 Drama, Greece)

  • Vasilios Liordos

    (Department of Forest and Natural Environment Sciences, International Hellenic University, P.O. Box 172, 66100 Drama, Greece)

Abstract

Wildlife value orientations (WVOs) can predict consensus or controversy over wildlife-related issues and are therefore important for their successful management. We carried out on-site face-to-face interviews with Greek people (n = 2392) to study two basic WVOs, i.e., domination (prioritize human well-being over wildlife) and mutualism (wildlife has rights just as humans). Our sample was more mutualism-oriented than domination-oriented; however, domination was a better predictor of management acceptability than mutualism. WVOs were better predictors of the acceptability of lethal strategies (shooting, destruction at breeding sites, 11–36% of variance explained) relative to taking no action (9–18%) and non-lethal strategies (e.g., compensation, fencing, trapping, and relocating, 0–13%). In addition, the predictive ability of WVOs, mostly for accepting lethal strategies, increased with the increasing severity of the conflict (crop damage, attacking domestic animals, 11–29%; disease transmission, 17–36%) and depending on species conservation status and provenance (endangered native brown bear ( Ursus arctos ), 11–20%; common native red fox ( Vulpes vulpes ), 12–31%; common exotic coypu ( Myocastor coypus ), 17–36%). Managers should consider these findings for developing education and outreach programs, especially when they intend to raise support for lethal strategies. In doing so, they would be able to subsequently implement effective wildlife management plans.

Suggested Citation

  • Vasileios J. Kontsiotis & Archimidis Triantafyllidis & Stylianos Telidis & Ioanna Eleftheriadou & Vasilios Liordos, 2021. "The Predictive Ability of Wildlife Value Orientations for Mammal Management Varies with Species Conservation Status and Provenance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-12, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:20:p:11335-:d:655770
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/20/11335/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/20/11335/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael J. Manfredo & Tara L. Teel & Kimberly L. Henry, 2009. "Linking Society and Environment: A Multilevel Model of Shifting Wildlife Value Orientations in the Western United States," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 90(2), pages 407-427, June.
    2. Jennifer Tkac, 1998. "The Effects of Information on Willingness-to-Pay Values of Endangered Species," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1214-1220.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tisdell, Clement A., 2005. "Knowledge about a Species' Conservation Status and Funding for its Preservation: Analysis," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 55065, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    2. Clem Tisdell & Clevo Wilson, 2006. "Information, Wildlife Valuation, Conservation: Experiments And Policy," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 24(1), pages 144-159, January.
    3. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 2002. "The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 13-31, February.
    4. Tisdell, Clem & Nantha, Hemanath Swarna & Wilson, Clevo, 2007. "Endangerment and likeability of wildlife species: How important are they for payments proposed for conservation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 627-633, January.
    5. Clevo Wilson & Clem Tisdell, 2007. "How Knowledge Affects Payment To Conserve An Endangered Bird," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 25(2), pages 226-237, April.
    6. Ressurreição, Adriana & Gibbons, James & Dentinho, Tomaz Ponce & Kaiser, Michel & Santos, Ricardo S. & Edwards-Jones, Gareth, 2011. "Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 729-739, February.
    7. Alexander Georg Büssing & Maike Schleper & Susanne Menzel, 2018. "Do Pre-service Teachers Dance with Wolves? Subject-Specific Teacher Professional Development in A Recent Biodiversity Conservation Issue," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-24, December.
    8. Rousseau, Sandra & Vranken, Liesbet, 2013. "Green market expansion by reducing information asymmetries: Evidence for labeled organic food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 31-43.
    9. Alberini, Anna & Longo, Alberto, 2007. "Valuing the Cultural Monuments of Armenia: Bayesian Updating of Prior Beliefs in Contingent Valuation," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 9337, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    10. Clem Tisdell, 2005. "Linking Policies For Biodiversity Conservation With Advances In Behavioral Economics," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 50(spec0), pages 449-462.
    11. L. Boronyak & B. Jacobs & A. Wallach & J. McManus & S. Stone & S. Stevenson & B. Smuts & H. Zaranek, 2022. "Pathways towards coexistence with large carnivores in production systems," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 47-64, March.
    12. Provencher, Bill & Lewis, David J. & Anderson, Kathryn, 2012. "Disentangling preferences and expectations in stated preference analysis with respondent uncertainty: The case of invasive species prevention," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 169-182.
    13. Quan-Hoang Vuong & Minh-Phuong Thi Duong & Ni Putu Wulan Purnama Sari & Viet-Phuong La & Minh-Hoang Nguyen, 2024. "From beauty to belief: The aesthetic and diversity values of plants and pets in shaping biodiversity loss belief among Vietnamese urban residents," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, December.
    14. Osman M. Jama & Abdishakur W. Diriye & Abdulhakim M. Abdi, 2023. "Understanding young people’s perception toward forestation as a strategy to mitigate climate change in a post-conflict developing country," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 4787-4811, June.
    15. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2008. "Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 275-285, November.
    16. Kularatne, Thamarasi & Wilson, Clevo & Lee, Boon & Hoang, Viet-Ngu, 2021. "Tourists’ before and after experience valuations: A unique choice experiment with policy implications for the nature-based tourism industry," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 529-543.
    17. Li, Xiaoshu & Boyle, Kevin J. & Pullis, Genevieve, 2012. "Does On-site Experience Affect Responses to Stated Preference Questions?," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124991, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Grilli, Gianluca & Notaro, Sandra & Campbell, Danny, 2018. "Including Value Orientations in Choice Models to Estimate Benefits of Wildlife Management Policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 70-81.
    19. Anna Alberini & Alberto Longo, 2007. "Valuing the Cultural Monuments of Armenia: Bayesian Updating of Prior Beliefs in Contingent Valuation," Working Papers 2007.36, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    20. Sharma, Sadikshya & Kreye, Melissa M., 2022. "Social value of bird conservation on private forest lands in Pennsylvania, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:20:p:11335-:d:655770. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.