Addressing social attitudes toward lethal control of wildlife in national parks

This study is the first analysis of the influence of the design of the logos of the National and Natural Parks of Spain on social attitudes toward these protected areas (PAs). The effect of certain elements in the logo of a PA on its attractiveness and on support for its conservation was explored through a questionnaire survey of groups of university students. The respondents were asked to choose between different park logos, using three main criteria: tourist interest, conservation priority, and willingness to pay for conservation. The results showed a higher preference for PAs whose logos include animals and a lower preference for those with heritage elements. No significant differences were found in terms of types of university programs. The results suggest that greater attention should be paid to the role of iconographic elements in considerations of the protection and management of landscapes. This study adds to our understanding of the social mechanisms that influence the interest of the public in Natural and National Parks. These results can be used to increase the involvement of the general population in conservation goals, contributing to the social, economic, and environmental sustainability of PAs.

Download Full-text

Promoting human–dingo co-existence in Australia: moving towards more innovative methods of protecting livestock rather than killing dingoes (Canis dingo)

Wildlife Research ◽

10.1071/wr16161 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 45 (1) ◽

pp. 1 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Bradley P. Smith ◽

Robert G. Appleby

Keyword(s):

National Parks ◽

Traditional Approach ◽

Aversive Conditioning ◽

Experimental Investigations ◽

Buffer Zones ◽

Lethal Control ◽

Control Programs ◽

Lethal Management ◽

Management Approaches ◽

Production Areas

Existing methods of reducing livestock depredation are heavily biased towards lethal control. However, criticism regarding the efficacy of such practices is rising. In Australia, over 200 years of lethal control has done little to resolve the conflict between dingoes (Canis dingo) and livestock producers. That is, killing dingoes does not necessarily prevent livestock losses. Rather than continuing with lethal control programs, there is an opportunity to shift to more innovative, effective and ethical non-lethal measures of protecting livestock from attacks. Traditionally, buffer zones (areas surrounding livestock enterprises or national parks where attempts are made to eradicate all dingoes entering that zone) have been put in place as a means to limit conflict. Although seen as more strategic than indiscriminately baiting over large areas, targeting dingoes in buffer zones does not necessarily remove problem animals. In addition, dingoes from outside baited zones eventually fill any territorial voids created. In order to break this cycle, we propose amending the traditional approach, so that instead of killing dingoes in these sensitive zones, they are excluded from production areas or otherwise discouraged from interacting with livestock (what we term ‘living buffer zones’). This can, in principle, be achieved through adoption of a suite of non-lethal management approaches, including aversive conditioning, which to-date has not been widely examined. In turn, resident dingoes conditioned to avoid livestock and/or livestock areas will maintain territories that largely exclude non-resident dingoes. Occasional ingress by transient dingoes will be met by the same exclusion and aversive strategies and are likely to quickly move on if harassed by resident dingoes. Such a strategy takes advantage of our ever-increasing knowledge of dingo biology and behaviour and leverages well established principles of animal learning. By funnelling funds currently spent on killing dingoes into experimental investigations of non-lethal approaches, we conclude that significantly more livestock will actually be saved.

Download Full-text

Living on the edge: characteristics of human–wildlife conflict in a traditional livestock community in Botswana

Wildlife Research ◽

10.1071/wr16160 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 44 (7) ◽

pp. 546 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

J. Weldon McNutt ◽

Andrew B. Stein ◽

Lesley Boggs McNutt ◽

Neil R. Jordan

Keyword(s):

National Parks ◽

Crop Damage ◽

Financial Benefit ◽

Livestock Farming ◽

Buffer Zones ◽

Standard Format ◽

Lethal Control ◽

Farming Community ◽

Financial Benefits ◽

The Government

Context Conflicts between wildlife and humans have occurred for millennia, and are major drivers of wildlife decline. To promote coexistence, Botswana established buffer zones called wildlife-management areas (WMAs) adjacent to National Parks and Reserves where communities assume stewardship of wildlife and derive financial benefits from it. In contrast, communities outside WMAs are generally excluded from these benefits despite incurring ‘coexistence costs’, including crop damage and livestock depredation, although they may receive compensation for these losses. Aims To investigate the perceptions and actions of a livestock farming community outside (but surrounded by) WMAs in northern Botswana, especially in relation to predator management. Methods We conducted standard-format interviews with 62 heads of households (cattleposts), and evaluated responses using descriptive and multivariate statistics. Key results Almost half (46%) of respondents expressed negative perceptions of predators, with 67% reporting losses to predation. After disease, predation was the most commonly reported source of livestock losses. Increased age of the head of household was the strongest predictor of reported predation. Few households employed husbandry beyond kraaling at night, but some (21%) reported conducting lethal control of predators. Reported use of lethal control was independent of the household experience with predation and whether they derived financial benefits from wildlife. Instead, households with larger herds were more likely to report using lethal control, despite the most educated farmers tending to have larger herds. Lethal control was almost twice as likely in households previously denied government compensation for losses (42%) than in those granted compensation (23%). Perhaps as a result of perceived failures of the government compensation scheme, most households (91%) supported the development of an independent insurance program, with 67% expressing willingness to pay a premium. Conclusions Our results challenge the assumption that deriving financial benefit from wildlife increases tolerance. A measurable disconnect also exists between the willingness of a household to employ lethal control and their experience with predation, suggesting that lethal control was used pre-emptively rather than reactively. Implications Efforts must be made to connect the financial costs incurred during farming alongside wildlife with the financial benefits derived from wildlife. Where compensation schemes exist, timely payments may reduce retaliatory killing.

Download Full-text

What Good Is a Bear to Society?

Society and Animals ◽

10.1163/15685306-12341262 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 22 (2) ◽

pp. 174-193 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Lauren Harding

Keyword(s):

National Parks ◽

National Park ◽

Natural World ◽

Social Attitudes ◽

Canadian Rockies ◽

Equal Energy ◽

Banff National Park ◽

Large Predator ◽

Territory Overlap

Abstract Arising out of fieldwork in the Canadian Rockies, this paper analyzes the role of bears in the conservation culture of Canadian national parks. Why is the presence of this large predator tolerated and even celebrated by some? And why do others fear and even despise this animal, whom they see as a danger and a menace, and resent its continued preservation? Bears may act as a token charismatic species in conservation mythology; they may be anthropomorphized into a cuddly roadside attraction evoking childhood nostalgia; or they may play the part of wrathful Nature guarding against human incursion into the wilderness. Tourists in Banff National Park take great pains to see bears, while local hikers and campers expend almost equal energy avoiding an ursine encounter. This paper explores what human reactions to bears reveal about social attitudes toward the natural world, particularly in areas like the Canadian Rockies where human and bear territory overlap.

Download Full-text

The Structure Among Measures of Personality, Social Attitudes, Values, and Social Norms

Journal of Individual Differences ◽

10.1027/1614-0001.28.4.240 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 28 (4) ◽

pp. 240-251 ◽

Cited By ~ 28

Author(s):

Lazar Stankov

Keyword(s):

Factor Analysis ◽

Individual Differences ◽

Social Norms ◽

Social Interactions ◽

Correlation Matrix ◽

Social Attitudes ◽

Group Differences ◽

Factor Scores ◽

Ethnic Group Differences ◽

Inside Out

Abstract. This paper presents the results of a study that employed measures of personality, social attitudes, values, and social norms that have been the focus of recent research in individual differences. These measures were given to a sample of participants (N = 1,255) who were enrolled at 25 US colleges and universities. Factor analysis of the correlation matrix produced four factors. Three of these factors corresponded to the domains of Personality/Amoral Social Attitudes, Values, and Social Norms; one factor, Conservatism, cut across the domains. Cognitive ability showed negative correlation with conservatism and amoral social attitudes. The study also examined gender and ethnic group differences on factor scores. The overall interpretation of the findings is consistent with the inside-out view of human social interactions.

Download Full-text