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.
Are wildlife value orientations useful tools to explain tolerance and illegal killing of wildlife by farmers in response to crop damage?
