IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0114460.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identity-Driven Differences in Stakeholder Concerns about Hunting Wolves

Author

Listed:
  • Michelle L Lute
  • Adam Bump
  • Meredith L Gore

Abstract

Whereas past wolf management in the United States was restricted to recovery, managers must now contend with publicly contentious post-recovery issues including regulated hunting seasons. Understanding stakeholder concerns associated with hunting can inform stakeholder engagement, communication, and policy development and evaluation. Social identity theory (SIT) has been used to understand how groups interact, why they conflict, and how collaboration may be achieved. Applying SIT to stakeholder conflicts about wolf hunting may help delineate groups according to their concern about, support for or opposition to the policy choice of hunting wolves. Our objective was to assess concerns about hunting as a tool to resolve conflict in Michigan, using SIT as a framework. We used a mixed-modal sampling approach (e.g., paper, Internet) with wolf hunting-related public meeting participants in March 2013. Survey questions focused on 12 concerns previously identified as associated with hunting as a management tool to resolve conflict. Respondents (n = 666) cared greatly about wolves but were divided over hunting wolves. Wolf conflicts, use of science in policy decisions, and maintaining a wolf population were the highest ranked concerns. Principle components analysis reduced concerns into three factors that explained 50.7% of total variance; concerns crystallized over justifications for hunting. General linear models revealed a lack of geographic influence on care, fear and support for hunting related to wolves. These findings challenge assumptions about regional differences and suggest a strong role for social identity in driving dichotomized public perceptions in wildlife management.

Suggested Citation

  • Michelle L Lute & Adam Bump & Meredith L Gore, 2014. "Identity-Driven Differences in Stakeholder Concerns about Hunting Wolves," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-15, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0114460
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114460
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0114460
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0114460&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0114460?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dan Kahan, 2010. "Fixing the communications failure," Nature, Nature, vol. 463(7279), pages 296-297, January.
    2. Søren C. Winter & Peter J. May, 2001. "Motivation for Compliance with Environmental Regulations," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 675-698.
    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. David Jancsics & Salvador Espinosa & Jonathan Carlos, 2023. "Organizational noncompliance: an interdisciplinary review of social and organizational factors," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 1273-1301, September.
    2. Zhang, Zibin & Yang, Wenxin & Ye, Jianliang, 2021. "Why sulfur dioxide emissions decline significantly from coal-fired power plants in China? Evidence from the desulfurated electricity pricing premium program," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PB).
    3. Leibbrandt, Andreas & Lynham, John, 2018. "Does the allocation of property rights matter in the commons?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 201-217.
    4. Agneman, Gustav & Henriks, Sofia & Bäck, Hanna & Renström, Emma, 2024. "On the nexus between material and ideological determinants of climate policy support," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    5. Jesse L. Reynolds & Edward A. Parson, 2020. "Nonstate governance of solar geoengineering research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 323-342, May.
    6. Jeroen van der Heijden & Jitske de Jong, 2009. "Towards a Better Understanding of Building Regulation," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 36(6), pages 1038-1052, December.
    7. Costa-Font, Joan & Ljunge, Martin, 2023. "Ideological spillovers across the Atlantic? Evidence from Trump's presidential election," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    8. Theiss Bendixen, 2020. "How cultural evolution can inform the science of science communication—and vice versa," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    9. Norah Mackendrick, 2005. "The role of the state in voluntary environmental reform: A case study of public land," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 38(1), pages 21-44, March.
    10. Abdullah Banikhalid & Michel Rahbeh, 2024. "The Role of the Law in Prompting Environmental Stewardship for Farms Located Near Phosphate Mines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-22, January.
    11. Michael D. Jones, 2014. "Cultural Characters and Climate Change: How Heroes Shape Our Perception of Climate Science," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(1), pages 1-39, March.
    12. Borrell Porta, Mireia & Contreras Silva, Valentina & Costa-Font, Joan, 2023. "Is employment during motherhood a ‘value changing experience’?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 118054, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Hatfield-Dodds, Steve & Morrison, Mark, 2010. "Confusing opportunity costs, losses and forgone gains: Assessing the effect of communication bias on support for climate change policy in the United States and Australia," Working Papers 249386, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    14. Chung, Leanne & Lo, Carlos Wing-Hung & Li, Pansy Hon Ying, 2016. "The interaction effects of institutional constraints on managerial intentions and sustainable performance," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(PB), pages 374-383.
    15. Huiqi Yan & Jeroen van der Heijden & Benjamin van Rooij, 2017. "Symmetric and asymmetric motivations for compliance and violation: A crisp set qualitative comparative analysis of Chinese farmers," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 64-80, March.
    16. Zulaikha Mokhtar & Steven Kenway & Irdayanti Mat Nashir, 2024. "Challenges for Compliance with Industrial Effluent Regulations—An Industry Perspective," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-17, December.
    17. Yingjie Hao & Congcong Fan & Yunguang Long & Jieyi Pan, 2019. "The role of returnee executives in improving green innovation performance of Chinese manufacturing enterprises: Implications for sustainable development strategy," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 804-818, July.
    18. Rafael Robina Ramírez & Pedro R. Palos-Sánchez, 2018. "Environmental Firms’ Better Attitude towards Nature in the Context of Corporate Compliance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-21, September.
    19. Vejre, H. & Vesterager, J.P. & Andersen, P.S. & Olafsson, A.S. & Brandt, J. & Dalgaard, T., 2015. "Does cadastral division of area-based ecosystem services obstruct comprehensive management?," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 176-187.
    20. Dietrich Earnhart & Lana Friesen, 2021. "Enforcement Federalism: Comparing the Effectiveness of Federal Punishment versus State Punishment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 78(2), pages 227-255, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0114460. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.