IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v40y2020i4d10.1007_s10669-020-09766-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Minnesota landowners’ trust in their department of natural resources, salient values similarity and wildlife value orientations

Author

Listed:
  • Larry M. Gigliotti

    (South Dakota State University)

  • Lily A. Sweikert

    (U.S. Agency for International Development)

  • Louis Cornicelli

    (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources)

  • David C. Fulton

    (University of Minnesota)

Abstract

Due to extensive land conversion over the last century, much of the native prairie pothole ecosystem has been converted to agricultural or other human uses. The prairie pothole ecosystem is found in the northern plains of Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana. Because most of the land in this region is privately owned and used for agricultural production, most impacts to wildlife habitat are the result of decisions by individual landowners. Landowner trust in natural resource management agencies is important for agencies to effectively accomplish their mission. We measured the nature (competence and fairness) and level of trust that western Minnesota landowners have in the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) and landowners’ wildlife value orientations (WVO). Landowners rated MnDNR slightly higher in competence than fairness; however, these two dimensions were strongly correlated. We developed a MnDNR trust scale (six items) and a three-cluster model dividing landowners along the MnDNR trust scale, which we named Negative (28%), Neutral (43%), and Positive (29%). We provide evidence supporting the salient values similarity (SVS) model that states people have trust in agencies holding similar values; landowners reporting greater importance for wildlife consideration when making land-use decisions also reported greater trust in the MnDNR. In addition, mutualist landowners had the highest trust in the MnDNR and utilitarian landowners the lowest level of trust, which is opposite of the trust relationship reported for the general public with state wildlife agencies. Based on the SVS model, our results suggest that mutualist landowners perceive greater congruence with MnDNR goals related to wildlife habitat compared to utilitarian landowners.

Suggested Citation

  • Larry M. Gigliotti & Lily A. Sweikert & Louis Cornicelli & David C. Fulton, 2020. "Minnesota landowners’ trust in their department of natural resources, salient values similarity and wildlife value orientations," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 577-587, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:40:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s10669-020-09766-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-020-09766-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-020-09766-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10669-020-09766-z?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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. Adam Reimer & Aaron Thompson & Linda Prokopy, 2012. "The multi-dimensional nature of environmental attitudes among farmers in Indiana: implications for conservation adoption," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 29(1), pages 29-40, March.
    3. Pretty, Jules & Ward, Hugh, 2001. "Social Capital and the Environment," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 209-227, February.
    4. Wynveen, Christopher J. & Sutton, Stephen G., 2015. "Engaging the public in climate change-related pro-environmental behaviors to protect coral reefs: The role of public trust in the management agency," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 131-140.
    5. Michael Pirson & Deepak Malhotra, 2011. "Foundations of Organizational Trust: What Matters to Different Stakeholders?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 1087-1104, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zachary A. Collier & James H. Lambert & Igor Linkov, 2020. "Analytics and decision-making to inform public policy in response to diverse threats," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 463-464, December.

    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. Dastjerdi, Aliasghar Mehdizadeh & Kaplan, Sigal & de Abreu e Silva, Joao & Anker Nielsen, Otto & Camara Pereira, Francisco, 2019. "Use intention of mobility-management travel apps: The role of users goals, technophile attitude and community trust," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 114-135.
    2. Tobias Böhmelt & Jürg Vollenweider, 2015. "Information flows and social capital through linkages: the effectiveness of the CLRTAP network," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 105-123, May.
    3. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2007:i:68:p:1-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, 2006. "Environmental Morale and Motivation," CREMA Working Paper Series 2006-17, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    5. Erik Nelson & Virginia Matzek, 2016. "Carbon Credits Compete Poorly With Agricultural Commodities In An Optimized Model Of Land Use In Northern California," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(04), pages 1-24, November.
    6. Põllumäe, Priit & Lilleleht, Ando & Korjus, Henn, 2016. "Institutional barriers in forest owners' cooperation: The case of Estonia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 9-16.
    7. Brühl, Rolf & Basel, Jörn S. & Kury, Max F., 2018. "Communication after an integrity-based trust violation: How organizational account giving affects trust," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 161-170.
    8. Phu Nguyen-Van & Anne Stenger & Tuyen Tiet, 2021. "Social incentive factors in interventions promoting sustainable behaviors: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-27, December.
    9. Sharmila Moganadas & Victor Corral-Verdugo & Santhi Ramanathan, 2013. "Toward systemic campus sustainability: gauging dimensions of sustainable development via a motivational and perception-based approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 1443-1464, December.
    10. Ryschawy, Julie & Tiffany, Sara & Gaudin, Amélie & Niles, Meredith T. & Garrett, Rachael D., 2021. "Moving niche agroecological initiatives to the mainstream: A case-study of sheep-vineyard integration in California," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    11. Doğru Çağlar, 2021. "The Effects of Electronic Surveillance on Job Tension, Task Performance and Organizational Trust," Business Systems Research, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 125-143, December.
    12. Górriz-Mifsud, Elena & Burns, Matthew & Marini Govigli, Valentino, 2019. "Civil society engaged in wildfires: Mediterranean forest fire volunteer groupings," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 119-129.
    13. Simon Zaby, 2019. "Science Mapping of the Global Knowledge Base on Microfinance: Influential Authors and Documents, 1989–2019," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-21, July.
    14. Urszula Markowska-Przybyła & David M. Ramsey, 2018. "Social Capital and Long-Term Regional Development within Poland in the Light of Experimental Economics and Data from a Questionnaire," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, August.
    15. Willy, Daniel Kyalo & Holm-Müller, Karin, 2013. "Social influence and collective action effects on farm level soil conservation effort in rural Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 94-103.
    16. Asta Valackienė & Rafał Nagaj, 2021. "Shared Taxonomy for the Implementation of Responsible Innovation Approach in Industrial Ecosystems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-21, September.
    17. Kristina Beethem & Sandra T. Marquart-Pyatt & Jennifer Lai & Tian Guo, 2023. "Navigating the information landscape: public and private information source access by midwest farmers," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(3), pages 1117-1135, September.
    18. Asian Development Bank (ADB), 2013. "Climate Risks in the Mekong Delta: Ca Mau and Kien Giang Provinces of Viet Nam," ADB Reports RPT135841-2, Asian Development Bank (ADB), revised 07 Aug 2013.
    19. Mariella Marzano, 2002. "Rural livelihoods in Sri Lanka: an indication of poverty?," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 817-828.
    20. Andzelika Libertowska, 2014. "Social Capital In Knowledge Based Economy. Chosen Aspects," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 5(3), pages 93-107, September.
    21. Linh Nguyen & Pauline van den Berg & Astrid Kemperman & Masi Mohammadi, 2020. "Where do People Interact in High-Rise Apartment Buildings? Exploring the Influence of Personal and Neighborhood Characteristics," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-23, June.

    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:spr:envsyd:v:40:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s10669-020-09766-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.