Human-Wildlife Conflicts and Wildlife Conservation

The field of wildlife conservation and management has historically addressed issues of wildlife population sizes and how to manage them, understanding systems between biotic and abiotic components of the ecosystem, and the management of natural resources. Human-wildlife conflict has existed long before wildlife conservation emerged as field of science and has been addressed in a variety of ways, ranging from non-lethal deterrents to annihilation of problematic animals.

As human populations grow and settlements expand into previously uninhabited areas, human-wildlife conflicts can be expected to continue. Managing human-wildlife conflicts has become an important part of a wildlife manager’s job. However, there are many factors to consider when deciding how to handle such conflicts. It is important for wildlife managers to cooperate with local stakeholders and to consider the sentiments of the general public when choosing a management action.

Given the quantitative paradigm upon which the field relies, many efforts to conduct social research in the field of wildlife management and conservation in conducted through close-ended surveys and questionnaires. Drury et al. (2011) gives an overview of how qualitative research may be used in the field of wildlife conservation. Quantitative methods seek to explore human behavior, attitudes, or perceptions using standardized categories.

Make sure your essay is 100% unique

Our experts will write for you an essay on any topic, with any deadline and requirements from scratch

127 our experts are available
right now

Get custom essay

In contrast, qualitative methods seek to explore the nature of human understanding of issues and to allow unknown characteristics to emerge through open-ended inquiry. Qualitative inquiry is critical to developing complete understanding of wildlife management issues due to the huge variety of individuals who are affected by these problems.

Wildlife Value Orientations

Wildlife value orientations were developed as a way to classify and describe people’s values regarding wildlife. Wildlife value orientations are based in cognitive hierarchy models and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Fulton, 1996). Values, beliefs, attitudes, and norms are important factors within the cognitive hierarchy which help individuals to form behaviors in response to an object or idea (Fulton, 1996). The Theory of Planned behavior is frequently used to study human dimensions in wildlife sciences due its predictive validity and focus on explicit attitudes, which individuals are consciously aware of and can report (Manfredo, 2008).

Attitudes can be examined through both quantitative and qualitative methods. For example, Kellert et al. (1985) used both qualitative and quantitative methods to explore attitudes and knowledge regarding predators in America. Historically, Americans have persecuted predators as settlers moved westward and tamed wild western lands.

Through interviews and questionnaires, this study found that predators were viewed more negatively by livestock producers and attitudes towards predators were greatly affected by one’s social demographics and participation in activities which involved animals. This early research helped to illuminate the importance of the human dimensions of wildlife management in understanding public attitudes towards wildlife species and management actions.

Values guide a person’s interpretation of the world and affect behavior through the hierarchy of cognitions (Manfredo, 2008). Wildlife value orientations are useful in identifying an individual’s underlying attitudes towards wildlife. A study by Tynon (1997) described qualities what hunters found important in their hunting experiences. This research involved an open-ended question on a questionnaire sent to elk hunters in Idaho.

This question allowed respondents to elaborate on what they thought were “key characteristics of a “high quality” Idaho elk hunting experience”. Literary sources were also analyzed to enhance understanding of the issue and cross-check respondent data. Seeing elk or elk sign, being in a natural setting, having few other hunters in the area, knowing that elk were abundant in their hunting range, and harvesting an elk were the five most frequently mentioned qualities important to respondents.

These qualities were mentioned in different context by different hunters. To some, seeing few other hunters and the abundance of elk were mentioned even without the harvest of an elk. This study suggests that the definition of a quality hunting experience is highly variable among hunters with different harvest expectations. Thus, different hunters may possess different wildlife value orientations and perceive different benefits from their recreational experiences with wildlife.

Wildlife value orientations shift as cultures and groups develop or change over time (Manfredo, 2008). As human populations migrate and cultures are formed, new wildlife value orientations may surface in that group. Deruiter and Donnelly (2002) explored the effects of socialization, past experiences, personal characteristics, and place as determinants of wildlife value orientations. Interview participants were selected to represent anthropocentric, biocentric, and neutral orientations. This research suggests that socialization within families played a large part in influencing wildlife value orientations.

Place was the second most important influence on wildlife value orientation, however the effect of place was modified by socialization and experience factors. Experiences important to wildlife value orientation formation included childhood experiences, those with family, and encounters with wildlife. Personal characteristics, such as gender and religiosity, were not commonly explicitly stated to influence wildlife value orientations, but were noted to influence how respondents viewed or interacted with wildlife in more implicit ways. This research suggests important factors which should be considered when wildlife managers attempt to understand public viewpoints and responses to management efforts.

Attitudes Toward Management

The totality of attitudes regarding different types of wildlife is expansive and, when management actions do not align with public attitudes, there is potential for conflict. If wildlife managers wish to properly manage wildlife populations, it is also important to ensure that management actions will be publicly acceptable. Beliefs are important in constructing attitudes (Manfredo, 2008) and we may be able to use beliefs to better understand the attitudes surrounding wildlife management issues.

Research conducted by Dandy et al. (2012) sought to explore the beliefs behind attitudes towards wildlife management methods. Focus groups were conducted in Britain, in the rural area of Herefordshire and the more urban area of Scotland’s ‘Central Belt’. Focus group participants included individuals who claimed to have an active livelihood link to wildlife or land management (professionals) and those who did not (public).

Five distinct themes emerged as categories for respondents’ beliefs regarding wildlife management methods: naturalness, overabundance, impacts, effectiveness and animal welfare. Beliefs about “naturalness” and what is or is not natural were found to affect attitudes across social groups, even though individuals possessed different understandings of the concept.

Beliefs concerning the overabundance of a species were also very important in constructing attitudes towards management methods due to their conceptual links to the impacts of overabundant species. Finally, beliefs about the effectiveness of management methods and concern for animal welfare were important to respondents. Wildlife managers may need to consider how beliefs prevalent in local communities may frame attitudes about management actions.

Some species are iconic and draw a lot of public attention and their popularity creates engaged groups of individuals with similar attitudes and beliefs about the species. These strongly-held beliefs and attitudes may be helpful in garnering support for management activities. In a study in south Texas, Bernacchi et al. (2015) investigated stakeholder engagement in Whooping Crane conservation. Authors described “active stakeholders” as those who “are positively predisposed toward locally dwelling wildlife, and who seek opportunities to contribute to the conservation and/or restoration of those wildlife populations.”

Local communities placed a lot of value on the Whooping Crane and, thus, many stakeholders were actively involved in the conservation of the species. The importance of Whooping Crane conservation to these active stakeholders may have beneficial effects on other species in the same habitat, people who live near the bird’s habitat, and the ecosystem as a whole. The study suggests that wildlife managers may involve active stakeholders to improve community relations and collaboration.

Knowledge and Attitudes

Conservation science is often complex and poorly understood by the general public. Even though many individuals express concern for conservation issues, it is difficult to engage the public in matters that they do not understand. Hunter and Brehm (2003) used a case study approach to understand the levels of knowledge and concern with issues related to biodiversity among Utah residents.

Interviews included individuals from a small community that is bordered by public lands and near to regional biodiversity hotspots. In this community, individuals were found to possess limited knowledge and understanding of conservation issues and how species are lost or the consequences of such losses. While individuals generally possessed concern for biodiversity loss, many viewed this issue as an “exotic” one that did not occur in their area or focused their discussions of the decline of game species.

Because conservation is a relatively young science, it is understandable that the lay public does not have a strong grasp of the complex ecological processes and biological systems that affect biodiversity. This study highlights the need for local knowledge and concern for biodiversity to be addressed by wildlife and land managers. Local individuals may simply be unaware of conservation needs in their area which they may otherwise be advocates for.

Hunter and Brehm (2004) also identified a wide variety of value orientations toward wildlife and biodiversity in this community. This study revealed that local context and definitions of what is valuable are important in the development of value orientations and that wildlife managers should not generalize populations solely by their rural status.

Utilitarian outlooks were prevalent within this community, however, the majority of individuals expressed concern for the local environment and interest in balancing the needs of humans with the needs of wildlife. This research found that individuals’ value orientations were strongly linked to their knowledge and perceptions of local wildlife population health over time, especially animal populations used for recreation or hunting.

Because knowledge is important to the development of wildlife value orientations, it is important that wildlife managers keep the public informed about conservation and management issues. The Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service offers statewide wildlife and agriculture educational services to interested individuals across the state. These educational services include seminars, webinars, videos, and literature. It may be important to understand which types of education is most effective in a wildlife setting.

Knapp and Poff (2001) investigated the impact of environmental interpretive programs on knowledge retention in children. While our key stakeholders in wildlife management issues likely will not be children, this research indicated that active experiences were effective in improving the retention of the interpretive program. The incorporation of more exploratory or interactive learning tools in extension programs may be more useful in enhancing participants’ knowledge on management methods.

Future Research

Invasive species are a large concern to wildlife managers and conservation scientists. Wild pigs are an exotic, invasive species that were initially introduced to the United States in the 1500s and are capable of affecting the natural environment in many ways, including degrading water quality, damaging forested and grassland areas and predating upon native wildlife. In addition to environmental concerns, wild pigs pose threats to livestock and human health by harboring and transmitting disease and parasites and to crop production and storage through consumption. However, wild pigs are also an important resource to many Texas residents, who may use them for recreation, income, or meat. Because Texas is comprised of over 95% privately owned lands, it is instrumental that stakeholders are involved in attempts to make decisions about managing the species.

An exploratory research project by Weeks and Packard (2009) investigated wild pig management perceptions of local residents near the Big Thicket National Preserve in East Texas. Through the National Parks System’s public scoping process, researchers were able to gain insight into the reasons behind perceptions held by members of local communities. The public scoping process involved internal and external scoping which lead to two public workshops and included semi-structured interviews.

Weeks and Packard used historical contexts to develop a deeper understanding of the persistence of stockman culture in the area and the role that this culture plays in individuals’ perceptions of wild pig management methods. Their research revealed that many local individuals descended from stockmen families and some were even alive to recall the systematic marginalization of the stockmen culture, including the loss of common land historically used for free-range domestic hog ranching. Resentment exists among local residents towards the removal of wild pigs, which the community believes still belong to them and are a key natural resource that should be used instead of eliminated.

Additionally, many local residents contest the idea that wild pigs are “out of place in the East Texas woods and are of no ecological or social value.” Wildlife managers may create controversy when wild pig management activities are viewed as unacceptable by local communities. This research illustrates the need for wildlife management professionals to understand and incorporate the unique perspectives and values held by individuals who are engaged with the land and animals that live there.

Further research into the human dimensions of wild pigs should include both quantitative and qualitative methods on a statewide scale. Understanding stakeholder perspectives and the impacts that wild pigs have on different stakeholder groups is important in developing outreach and education programs to mitigate wild pig damage. Insights into human dimensions are also important in developing plans to manage wild pigs that consider both the positive and negative qualities associated with the species. Future research in this area will help wildlife biologists, outreach coordinators, and state decision makers to understand the reasons for the continued growth of wild pig populations despite education efforts and ways to improve education efforts to encourage better management of wild pigs.

Works Cited

1. Bernacchi, L. A., Ragland, C. J., And Peterson, T. R. (2015). Engaging Active Stakeholders in Implementation of Community-Based Conservation: Whooping Crane Management in Texas, USA. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 39(3):564–573. doi: 10.1002/wsb.565
2. Dandy, N., Ballantyne, S., Moseley, D., Gill, R., Quine, C., And Wal, R. V. D. (2012). Exploring Beliefs Behind Support for and Opposition to Wildlife Management Methods: A Qualitative Study. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 58(4):695–706. doi: 10.1007/s10344-012-0619-1
3. Deruiter, D. S. And Donnelly, M.P. (2002). A Qualitative Approach to Measuring Determinants of Wildlife Value Orientations. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 7(4):251–271. doi: 10.1080/10871200214754
4. Drury, R., Homewood, K., And Randall, S. (2011). Less is More: The Potential of Qualitative Approaches in Conservation Research. Animal Conservation, 14(1):18–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00375.x
5. Fulton, D.C., Manfredo, M. J., And Lipscomb, J. (1996). Wildlife Value Orientations: A Conceptual and Measurement Approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1(2): 24-47. doi: 10.1080/10871209609359060
6. Hunter, L. M. And Brehm, J. (2003). Qualitative Insight into Public Knowledge of, and Concern with, Biodiversity. Human Ecology, 31(2):309–320. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/4603472
7. Hunter, L. M. And Brehm, J. (2004). A Qualitative Examination of Value Orientations Toward Wildlife and Biodiversity by Rural Residents of the Intermountain Region. Human Ecology Review, 11(1):13–26. Retrieved from http://apjh.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her111/111hunterbrehm.pdf
8. Kellert, S. R. (1985). Public Perceptions of Predators, Particularly the Wolf and Coyote. Biological Conservation, 31(2):167–189. doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(85)90047-3
9. Knapp, D. And Poff, R. (2001). A Qualitative Analysis of the Immediate and Short-Term Impact of an Environmental Interpretive Program. Environmental Education Research, 7(1):55–65. doi: 10.1080/13504620124393
10. Manfredo, M. J. (2008). Who Cares About Wildlife? Social Science Concepts for Exploring Human-Wildlife Relationships and Conservation Issues. New York, NY: Springer.
11. Tynon, J. F. (1997). Quality Hunting Experiences: A Qualitative Inquiry. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 2(1):32–46. doi: 10.1080/10871209709359085
12. Weeks, P. And Packard, J. (2009). Feral Hogs: Invasive Species or Nature’s Bounty? Human Organization, 68(3). doi: 10.17730/humo.68.3.663wn82g164321u1