Managing Community Controversy in Suburban Wildlife Management: Adopting Practices that Address Value Differences

2005 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela B. Raik ◽  
T. Bruce Lauber ◽  
Daniel J. Decker ◽  
Tommy L. Brown
2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 94 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Nils Peterson ◽  
Markus J Peterson ◽  
Tarla Rai Peterson ◽  
Kirsten Leong

Conserving biodiversity requires productive management of conflict. Currently, wildlife are often portrayed as conscious human antagonists, which must be fought. We suggest using the ‘comic corrective’ to experiment with ways to reframe human–human conflicts over wildlife management and wildlife damage. This requires a deep commitment to change, often made more palatable through humour. This effort to fight the use of the term human–wildlife conflict should not be interpreted as a call to reject human–human conflict as a useful conservation tool. Conservationists, who value wildlife, often misleadingly suggest that conservation can sidestep irreducible value differences and political processes that see proponents of different views as antagonists. Because democracies cannot function without dissent, we suggest that conservation biologists should embrace stakeholder conflicts over wildlife conservation as a way to improve decision making. In particular, we should challenge the view that wildlife are willfully antagonistic to people while recognizing conflict among humans over how biodiversity conservation should occur.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert N Collins ◽  
David R. Mandel ◽  
Sarah S. Schywiola

Research suggests political identity has strong influence over individuals’ attitudes and beliefs, which in turn can affect their behavior. Likewise, firsthand experience with an issue can also affect attitudes and beliefs. A large (N = 10,362) survey (Pew Research and Ipsos W64) of Americans was analyzed to investigate the effects of both political identity and personal impact on individuals’ reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic. Results show that political identity (i.e., Democrat or Republican) and personal impact (i.e., personally affected or not) influenced different aspects of the American public’s reaction to COVID-19. Political identity exerted a strong influence on self-reports of emotional distress, threat perception, discomfort with exposure, support for restrictions, and perception of under/overreaction by individuals and institutions. Personal impact exerted a comparatively weaker influence on reported emotional distress and threat perception. Both factors had a weak influence on appraisal of individual and organizational and community responses. The dominating influence of political identity carried over into the bivariate relations among these responses. In particular, the appraisal of organizational response divided along party lines, tied to opposing views of whether there has been over- or under-reaction to the pandemic. The dominance of political identity has important implications for crisis management and reflects the influence of normative value differences between the parties, partisan messaging on the pandemic, and polarization in American politics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document