Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T23:52:36.995Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk perception, trust and support for wildlife reintroduction and conservation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2021

Cristina E Watkins ,
Neelam C Poudyal Open the ORCID record for Neelam C Poudyal [Opens in a new window] ,
Robert E Jones ,
Lisa I Muller  and
Donald G Hodges
Cristina E Watkins
Affiliation:
Department of Forestry, Wildlife & Fisheries, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN37996, USA
Neelam C Poudyal*
Affiliation:
Department of Forestry, Wildlife & Fisheries, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN37996, USA
Robert E Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN37996, USA
Lisa I Muller
Affiliation:
Department of Forestry, Wildlife & Fisheries, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN37996, USA
Donald G Hodges
Affiliation:
Department of Forestry, Wildlife & Fisheries, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN37996, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Neelam C Poudyal, Email: npoudyal@utk.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Wildlife reintroduction projects often face resistance from local residents who see potential conflicts with the species or lack trust or confidence in the agencies and professionals involved in reintroduction. Yet the linkages between trust, confidence, risk perceptions, attitudes towards the species and local support for its reintroduction are not well known. The Dual-Mode Model of Cooperation and Cognitive Hierarchy Model were theoretical frameworks used to shed light on these linkages by exploring the potential roles trust and confidence play as mediators between risk perceptions and attitudes towards, and support for, reintroduced elk in Tennessee (USA). A mail survey of 1005 residents living in the five-county area surrounding the North Cumberland Elk Restoration Zone assessed resident attitudes and risk perceptions towards the reintroduced elk, trust towards the managing wildlife agency and support for continued conservation efforts. A structural equation model revealed that trust and confidence play positive roles in mitigating risk perceptions and improving support for the reintroduction of elk. The findings confirm the roles public trust and confidence play in wildlife reintroductions and should help agencies work towards building local trust and confidence, minimizing risks, improving attitudes and increasing the chances for successful outcomes for the species and people.

Keywords

social trustspecies reintroductionstructural equation modellingvalue conflictwildlife restoration
Type
Research Paper
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , June 2021 , pp. 127 - 135
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Foundation for Environmental Conservation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armstrong, JS, Overton, TS (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research 14: 396–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, RM, Kenny, DA (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruskotter, JT, Wilson, RS (2014) Determining where the wild things will be: using psychological theory to find tolerance for large carnivores. Conservation Letters 7: 158–165.10.1111/conl.12072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, B (2016) Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming, 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA: Routledge Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cangur, S, Ercan, I (2015) Comparison of model fit indices used in structural equation modeling under multivariate normality. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods 14: 152–167.10.22237/jmasm/1430453580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplenor, CA., Poudyal, NC, Muller, LI, Yoest, C (2017) Assessing landowners’ attitudes toward wild hogs and support for control options. Journal of Environmental Management 201: 45–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapagain, BP, Poudyal, NC (2020) Economic benefit of wildlife reintroduction: a case of elk hunting in Tennessee, USA. Journal of Environmental Management 269: 110808.10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110808CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chavez, AS, Gese, EM, Krannich, RS (2005) Attitudes of rural landowners toward wolves in northwestern Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33: 517–527.10.2193/0091-7648(2005)33[517:AORLTW]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchill, TN, Bettoli, PW, Peterson, DC, Reeves, WC, Hodge, B (2002) Angler conflicts in fisheries management: a case study of the Striped Bass controversy at Norris Reservoir, Tennessee. Fisheries 27: 10–19.10.1577/1548-8446(2002)027<0010:ACIFM>2.0.CO;22.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crank, RD, Hygenstrom, SE, Groepper, SR, Hams, KM (2010) Landowner attitudes toward elk management in the Pine Ridge region of north-western Nebraska. Human–Wildlife Interaction 4: 67–76.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, CJ, Peterson, MN, Cobb, DT, Sills, EO, Bondell, HD, Dalrymple, DJ (2012) Estimating public willingness to fund nongame conservation through state tax initiatives. Wildlife Society Bulletin 36: 483–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, MA, Leahy, JE, Anderson, DH, Jakes, PJ (2007) Building trust in natural resource management within local communities: a case study of the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie. Environmental Management 39: 353–368.10.1007/s00267-006-0016-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dillman, DA, Smyth, JD, Christian, LM (2014) Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Earle, TC (2010) Trust in risk management: a model-based review of empirical research. Risk Analysis 30: 541–574.10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01398.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fulton, DC, Manfredo, MJ, Lipscomb, J (1996) Wildlife value orientations: a conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1: 24–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grady, MJ, Harper, EE, Carlisle, KM, Ernst, KH, Schwiff, SA (2019) Assessing public support for restrictions on transport of invasive wild pigs (Sus scrofa) in the United States. Journal of Environmental Management 237: 488–494.10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.02.107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamm, JA (2017) Trust, trustworthiness, and motivation in the natural resource management context. Society & Natural Resources 30: 919–933.10.1080/08941920.2016.1273419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, EE, Miller, CA, Vaske, JJ (2015) Hunter perceptions of risk, social trust, and management of chronic wasting disease in Illinois. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 20: 394–407.10.1080/10871209.2015.1031357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, EE, Miller, CA, Vaske, JJ, Mengak, MT, Bruno, S (2016) Stakeholder attitudes and beliefs toward wild pigs in Georgia and Illinois. Wildlife Society Bulletin 40: 269–273.10.1002/wsb.653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katsuya, T (2002) Difference in the formation of attitude toward nuclear power. Political Psychology 23: 191–203.10.1111/0162-895X.00277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kindall, JL, Muller, LI, Clark, JD, Lupardus, JL, Murrow, JL (2011) Population viability analysis to identify management priorities for reintroduced elk in the Cumberland Mountains, Tennessee. Journal of Wildlife Management 75: 1745–1752.10.1002/jwmg.226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langin, C, Jacobson, S (2012) Risk and resident influences on public support for Florida panther recovery. Wildlife Society Bulletin 36: 713–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, ML, Miller, R (2003) Managing elk in the wildland–urban interface: attitudes of Flagstaff, Arizona residents. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 185–191.Google Scholar
Moon, W, Balasubramanian, SK (2004) Public attitudes toward agrobiotechnology: the mediating role of risk perceptions on the impact of trust, awareness, and outrage. Review of Agricultural Economics 26: 186–208.10.1111/j.1467-9353.2004.00170.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, MD, Vaske, JJ (2008) Hunter perceptions of similarity and trust in wildlife agencies and personal risk associated with chronic wasting disease. Society and Natural Resources 21: 197–214.10.1080/08941920701816336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Rourke, E (2014) The reintroduction of the white-tailed sea eagle to Ireland: people and wildlife. Land Use Policy 38: 129–137.10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.10.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poudyal, NC, Bowker, JM, Moore, RL (2016) Understanding public knowledge and attitudes toward controlling hemlock woolly adelgid on public forests. Journal of Forestry 114: 619–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qin, Y, Nyhus, PJ (2017) Assessing factors influencing a possible South China tiger reintroduction: a survey of international conservation professionals. Environmental Conservation 41: 58–66.Google Scholar
Riley, SJ, Decker, DJ (2000) Risk perception as a factor in wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for cougars in Montana. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5: 50–62.10.1080/10871200009359187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, SA, Fulton, DC, Cornicelli, L, Bruskotter, J (2018) How Minnesota wolf hunter and trapper attitudes and risk- and benefit-based beliefs predict wolf management preferences. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 23: 552–568.10.1080/10871209.2018.1511876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoenecker, KA, Shaw, WW (1997) Attitudes toward a proposed reintroduction of Mexican gray wolves in Arizona. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 2: 42–55.10.1080/10871209709359101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegrist, M, Cvetkovich, GT (2000) Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis 20: 713–719.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegrist, M, Cvetkovich, G, Roth, C (2000) Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis 20: 353–362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegrist, M, Earle, TC, Gutscher, H (2003) Test of a trust and confidence model in the applied context of electromagnetic field (EMF) risks. Risk Analysis 23: 705–716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegrist, M, Gutscher, H, Earle, TC (2005) Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence. Journal of Risk Research 8: 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sponarski, CC, Vaske, JJ, Bath, AJ, Musiani, MM (2014) Salient values, social trust, and attitudes toward wolf management in south-western Alberta, Canada. 2014. Environmental Conservation 41: 303–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, MJ (2008) Coercion, voluntary compliance and protest: the role of trust and legitimacy in combating local opposition to protected areas. Environmental Conservation 35: 200–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, PC, Dietz, T (1994) The values basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues 50: 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (2018) Tennessee strategic elk management plan 2018–2027 [www document]. URL https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/twra/documents/mammals/Tennessee-Strategic-Elk-Management-Plan.pdf Google Scholar
Trumbo, CW, McComas, KA (2003) The function of credibility in formation processing for risk perception. Risk Analysis 23: 343–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, C, Caplenor, CA, Poudyal, NC, Muller, LI, Yoest, C (2019) Comparing landowner support for wild hog management options in Tennessee. Journal of Environmental Management 232: 722–728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, MP, Eiser, JR (2005) Information specificity and hazard risk potential as moderators of trust asymmetry. Risk Analysis 25: 1187–1198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whittaker, D, Vaske, JJ, Manfredo, MJ (2006) Specificity and the cognitive hierarchy: value orientations and the acceptability of urban wildlife management actions. Society and Natural Resources 19: 515–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, CK, Ericsson, G, Heberlein, TA (2002) A quantitative summary of attitudes toward wolves and their reintroduction (1972–2000). Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: 575–584.Google Scholar
Vaske, JJ (2008) Survey Research and Analysis: Application in Parks, Recreation, and Human Dimensions. State College, PA, USA: Venture.Google Scholar
Vaske, JJ, Donnelly, MP (1999) A value–attitude–behavior model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Society and Natural Resources 12: 523–537.Google Scholar
Vaske, JJ, Timmons, NR, Beaman, J, Petchenik, J (2004) Chronic wasting disease in Wisconsin: hunter behavior, perceived risk, and agency trust. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9: 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zajac, RM, Bruskotter, JT, Wilson, RS, Prange, S (2012) Learning to live with black bears: a psychological model of acceptance. Journal of Wildlife Management 76: 1331–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar