Effect of semantics in the study of tolerance for wolves.

As conservation scholars increasingly recognize the critical role of human thought and behavior in determining the persistence of biodiversity across the globe, a growing line of inquiry regarding the validity and comparability of previous applications of core psychological concepts has emerged. Specifically, inconsistent measurement and use of terms, such as attitudes and acceptance, reveal important questions about previous approaches. Given that these concepts differ by definition, yet have been used interchangeably, we explored what drives differences in people's responses when each concept is operationalized in the context of a contested wildlife species, the gray wolf (Canis lupus). To do so, we used data from a 2014 survey of U.S. residents (n = 1287) to test how measures of six concepts (i.e., acceptance, attitudes, benefits, risks, [prior] behavior, and behavioral intentions) often employed in the conservation social sciences were related with a broad set of possible explanatory variables. Despite moderate to strong correlations between all concepts measured (| Pearson's r | = 0.39-0.65, p < 0.001), results revealed considerable variation in their respective relationships with identical explanatory variables. Specifically, although wildlife value orientation (i.e., domination or mutualism) operated fairly consistently across cognitive and behavioral concepts, the relationship between the six concepts and other factors, such as social trust, identification with various interest groups (i.e., hunter, farmer, or rancher, environmentalist, and animal rights advocate), and political ideology (i.e., liberal vs. conservative), varied considerably. Our findings underscore that differences exist in these measures, which could have serious implications for conservationists integrating social science findings in their decision-making processes if they are unaware of the theoretical underpinnings of and distinctions between core psychological concepts.

Efectos de la semántica en los estudios de tolerancia a los lobos Resumen Los académicos dedicados a la conservación reconocen cada vez más lo importantes que son el pensamiento y el comportamiento humano para definir la persistencia de la biodiversidad a nivel mundial, por lo que ha emergido una creciente línea de indagación con respecto a la validez y la comparabilidad de las aplicaciones previas de conceptos psicológicos fundamentales. Más específicamente, las medidas incompatibles y el uso de términos como actitudes y aceptación revelan preguntas importantes sobre las estrategias anteriores. Ya que estos conceptos difieren por definición y aun así se han usado indistintamente, decidimos explorar qué impulsa las diferencias en las respuestas de las personas cuando cada concepto opera en el contexto de una especie de fauna controvertida: el lobo gris (Canis lupus). Para lograr esto, usamos datos de un censo de 2014 aplicado a residentes estadunidenses (n = 1,287) para analizar cómo la medida de seis conceptos usados frecuentemente en las ciencias sociales de la conservación (aceptación, actitudes, beneficios, riesgos comportamiento [previo] e intenciones conductuales) se relacionan con un amplio conjunto de variables explicativas posibles. A pesar de las correlaciones moderadas y fuertes entre todos los conceptos medidos (| Pearson's r | = 0.39 a 0.65, p < 0.001), los resultados revelaron una variación considerable en sus respectivas relaciones con las variables explicativas idénticas. De manera más precisa, aunque la orientación del valor de la fauna (es decir, dominancia y mutualismo) operó uniformemente en los conceptos cognitivos y conductuales, la relación entre los seis conceptos y otros factores, como la confianza social, identificación con varios grupos de interés (cazador, agricultor o ranchero, ambientalista, defensor de los derechos animales) e ideología política (liberal vs conservador) variaron considerablemente. Nuestros resultados destacan las diferencias que existen en estas medidas, las cuales podrían tener repercusiones serias para los conservacionistas que integran los resultados de las ciencias sociales dentro de sus procesos de toma de decisiones si no están concientes de las teorías fundamentales y las distinciones entre los conceptos psicológicos fundamentales.

The role of governance in rewilding the United States to stem the biodiversity crisis.

A critical but underattended feature of the biodiversity crisis is the contraction of geographic range experienced by most studied terrestrial vertebrates. In the United States, the primary policy tool for mitigating the biodiversity crisis is a federal law, the Endangered Species Act (ESA). For the past two decades, the federal agencies that administer the ESA have interpreted the act in a manner that precludes treating this geographic element of the crisis. Therefore, the burden of mitigating the biodiversity crisis largely falls on wildlife agencies within state government, which are obligated to operate on behalf of the interests of their constituents. We present survey research indicating that most constituents expect state agencies to prioritize species restoration over other activities, including hunting. This prioritization holds even among self-identified hunters, which is significant because state agencies often take the provisioning of hunting opportunity as their top priority. By prioritizing rewilding efforts that restore native species throughout portions of their historic range, state agencies could unify hunting and nonhunting constituents while simultaneously stemming the biodiversity crisis.

Finding Purpose in the Conservation of Biodiversity by the Commingling of Science and Ethics.

Averting the biodiversity crisis requires closing a gap between how humans tend to behave, individually and collectively, and how we ought to behave-"ought to" in the sense of behaviors required to avert the biodiversity crisis. Closing that gap requires synthesizing insight from ethics with insights from social and behavioral sciences. This article contributes to that synthesis, which presents in several provocative hypotheses: (i) Lessening the biodiversity crisis requires promoting pro-conservation behavior among humans. Doing so requires better scientific understanding of how one's sense of purpose in life affects conservation-relevant behaviors. Psychology and virtue-focused ethics indicate that behavior is importantly influenced by one's purpose. However, conservation psychology has neglected inquiries on (a) the influence of one's purpose (both the content and strength of one's purpose) on conservation-related behaviors and (b) how to foster pro-conservation purposes; (ii) lessening the biodiversity crisis requires governance-the regulation of behavior by governments, markets or other organization through various means, including laws, norms, and power-to explicitly take conservation as one of its fundamental purposes and to do so across scales of human behaviors, from local communities to nations and corporations; (iii) lessening the biodiversity crisis requires intervention via governance to nudge human behavior in line with the purpose of conservation without undue infringement on other basic values. Aligning human behavior with conservation is inhibited by the underlying purpose of conservation being underspecified. Adequate specification of conservation's purpose will require additional interdisciplinary research involving insights from ethics, social and behavioral sciences, and conservation biology.

Emotion as a source of moral understanding in conservation.

Recent debates around the meaning and implications of compassionate conservation suggest that some conservationists consider emotion a false and misleading basis for moral judgment and decision making. We trace these beliefs to a long-standing, gendered sociocultural convention and argue that the disparagement of emotion as a source of moral understanding is both empirically and morally problematic. According to the current scientific and philosophical understanding, reason and emotion are better understood as partners, rather than opposites. Nonetheless, the two have historically been seen as separate, with reason elevated in association with masculinity and emotion (especially nurturing emotion) dismissed or delegitimated in association with femininity. These associations can be situated in a broader, dualistic, and hierarchical logic used to maintain power for a dominant male (White, able-bodied, upper class, heterosexual) human class. We argue that emotion should be affirmed by conservationists for the novel and essential insights it contributes to conservation ethics. We consider the specific example of compassion and characterize it as an emotional experience of interdependence and shared vulnerability. This experience highlights conservationists' responsibilities to individual beings, enhancing established and widely accepted beliefs that conservationists have a duty to protect populations, species, and ecosystems (or biodiversity). We argue compassion, thus understood, should be embraced as a core virtue of conservation.

El Sentimiento como Fuente de Entendimiento Moral en la Conservación Resumen Los debates recientes en torno al significado y las implicaciones de la conservación compasiva sugieren que algunos conservacionistas consideran al sentimiento como una base falsa y engañosa para el juicio moral y la toma de decisiones. Seguimos estas creencias hasta una convención sociocultural prolongada y relacionada con el género y argumentamos que el menosprecio por el sentimiento como fuente del entendimiento moral es problemático empírica y moralmente. De acuerdo con el conocimiento científico y filosófico actual, la razón y el sentimiento se entienden de mejor manera como pareja, en lugar de como opuestos. Sin embargo, ambos conceptos han estado históricamente separados, con la razón como concepto elevado asociado con la masculinidad y el sentimiento (especialmente el sentimiento de crianza) rechazado o deslegitimado en asociación con la feminidad. Estas asociaciones pueden situarse dentro de una lógica más general, dualista y jerárquica usada para mantener el poder de la clase humana del macho dominante (blanco, sin discapacidades, de clase alta, heterosexual). Sostenemos que el sentimiento debería ser ratificado por los conservacionistas por el conocimiento novedoso y esencial que contribuye a la ética de la conservación. Consideramos el ejemplo específico de la compasión y lo caracterizamos como una experiencia emocional de la interdependencia y la vulnerabilidad compartida. Esta experiencia resalta las responsabilidades que los conservacionistas tienen con los individuos, fortaleciendo las creencias establecidas y ampliamente aceptadas de que los conservacionistas tienen el deber de proteger a las poblaciones, especies y ecosistemas (o a la biodiversidad). Sostenemos que la compasión, entendida así, debería ser aceptada como una virtud nuclear de la conservación.

Exploring nationality and social identity to explain attitudes toward conservation actions in the United States and Australia.

Understanding human attitudes toward wildlife management is critical to implementing effective conservation action and policy. Understanding the factors that shape public attitudes toward different wildlife management actions is limited, however, which can result in unpredictable public responses to interventions. We drew on comparisons between residents of 2 countries on separate continents to explore differences in attitudes toward wildlife management and determine factors important in shaping these attitudes. We surveyed representative publics via market research panels in Australia (n = 881 respondents) and the United States (n = 1287). We applied a social-identity approach and demography to identify factors that explained variance between responses about wildlife management. We compared responses between countries overall and within subgroups of respondents who strongly identified as environmentalists, animal rights activists, wildlife conservation advocates, and farmers. We created aggregate scores for the management-related response items per respondent and used regression analyses to identify the relative importance of country, identity, age, and gender in explaining variance between responses. These factors accounted for 15.3% of variance among responses. Australians overall were generally more accepting of lethal wildlife management actions than U.S. respondents. Differences in national attitudes reflected differences between United States and Australian wildlife management and policy, highlighting the importance of understanding social attitudes in shaping conservation policy. Identifying as a farmer followed by identifying as an animal rights activist most shaped attitudes toward wildlife management. Identity-related conflicts could be initiated or exacerbated by conservation interventions that fail to consider identity-related processes.

Exploración de la Nacionalidad y la Identidad Social para Explicar las Actitudes hacia las Acciones de Conservación en los Estados Unidos y en Australia Resumen El entendimiento de las actitudes humanas hacia el manejo de fauna es muy importante para la implementación efectiva de las acciones y las políticas de conservación. Sin embargo, la comprensión de los factores que forman las actitudes públicas hacia las diferentes acciones de manejo de fauna es limitada, lo que puede resultar en respuestas públicas impredecibles ante las intervenciones. Trabajamos con comparaciones entre residentes de dos países en continentes distintos para explorar las diferencias en actitudes hacia el manejo de fauna y para determinar los factores importantes que intervienen en la formación de estas actitudes. Encuestamos a ciudadanos representativos por medio de paneles de estudios de mercado en Australia (n = 881 respondientes) y en los Estados Unidos (n = 1287). Aplicamos una estrategia de identidad social y demografía para identificar los factores que explican la varianza entre las respuestas al manejo de fauna. Comparamos las respuestas entre ambos países en general y entre subgrupos de respondientes que se identificaron fervientemente como ambientalistas, activistas por los derechos de los animales, defensores de la conservación de fauna y agricultores. Creamos puntajes agregados por respondiente para las respuestas relacionadas al manejo y usamos análisis de regresión para identificar la importancia relativa del país, la identidad, la edad y el género para la explicación de la varianza entre las respuestas. Estos factores explicaron el 15.3% de la varianza entre las respuestas. Como generalidad, los australianos tuvieron una mayor aceptación de las acciones de manejo letal de fauna que los respondientes estadunidenses. Las diferencias en las actitudes nacionales reflejaron las diferencias entre las políticas y el manejo de fauna en los Estados Unidos y en Australia, lo que resalta la importancia del entendimiento de las actitudes sociales en la formación de políticas de conservación. La identidad que más influencia tuvo sobre las actitudes hacia el manejo de fauna fue la de agricultor, seguido de activista por los derechos de los animales. Los conflictos relacionados con la identidad podrían ser iniciados o agudizados por las intervenciones de conservación que omiten considerar los procesos relacionados con la identidad.

Predators and the public trust.

Many democratic governments recognize a duty to conserve environmental resources, including wild animals, as a public trust for current and future citizens. These public trust principles have informed two centuries of U.S.A. Supreme Court decisions and environmental laws worldwide. Nevertheless numerous populations of large-bodied, mammalian carnivores (predators) were eradicated in the 20th century. Environmental movements and strict legal protections have fostered predator recoveries across the U.S.A. and Europe since the 1970s. Now subnational jurisdictions are regaining management authority from central governments for their predator subpopulations. Will the history of local eradication repeat or will these jurisdictions adopt public trust thinking and their obligation to broad public interests over narrower ones? We review the role of public trust principles in the restoration and preservation of controversial species. In so doing we argue for the essential roles of scientists from many disciplines concerned with biological diversity and its conservation. We look beyond species endangerment to future generations' interests in sustainability, particularly non-consumptive uses. Although our conclusions apply to all wild organisms, we focus on predators because of the particular challenges they pose for government trustees, trust managers, and society. Gray wolves Canis lupus L. deserve particular attention, because detailed information and abundant policy debates across regions have exposed four important challenges for preserving predators in the face of interest group hostility. One challenge is uncertainty and varied interpretations about public trustees' responsibilities for wildlife, which have created a mosaic of policies across jurisdictions. We explore how such mosaics have merits and drawbacks for biodiversity. The other three challenges to conserving wildlife as public trust assets are illuminated by the biology of predators and the interacting behavioural ecologies of humans and predators. The scientific community has not reached consensus on sustainable levels of human-caused mortality for many predator populations. This challenge includes both genuine conceptual uncertainty and exploitation of scientific debate for political gain. Second, human intolerance for predators exposes value conflicts about preferences for some wildlife over others and balancing majority rule with the protection of minorities in a democracy. We examine how differences between traditional assumptions and scientific studies of interactions between people and predators impede evidence-based policy. Even if the prior challenges can be overcome, well-reasoned policy on wild animals faces a greater challenge than other environmental assets because animals and humans change behaviour in response to each other in the short term. These coupled, dynamic responses exacerbate clashes between uses that deplete wildlife and uses that enhance or preserve wildlife. Viewed in this way, environmental assets demand sophisticated, careful accounting by disinterested trustees who can both understand the multidisciplinary scientific measurements of relative costs and benefits among competing uses, and justly balance the needs of all beneficiaries including future generations. Without public trust principles, future trustees will seldom prevail against narrow, powerful, and undemocratic interests. Without conservation informed by public trust thinking predator populations will face repeated cycles of eradication and recovery. Our conclusions have implications for the many subfields of the biological sciences that address environmental trust assets from the atmosphere to aquifers.

Why social values cannot be changed for the sake of conservation.

The hope for creating widespread change in social values has endured among conservation professionals since early calls by Aldo Leopold for a "land ethic." However, there has been little serious attention in conservation to the fields of investigation that address values, how they are formed, and how they change. We introduce a social-ecological systems conceptual approach in which values are seen not only as motivational goals people hold but also as ideas that are deeply embedded in society's material culture, collective behaviors, traditions, and institutions. Values define and bind groups, organizations, and societies; serve an adaptive role; and are typically stable across generations. When abrupt value changes occur, they are in response to substantial alterations in the social-ecological context. Such changes build on prior value structures and do not result in complete replacement. Given this understanding of values, we conclude that deliberate efforts to orchestrate value shifts for conservation are unlikely to be effective. Instead, there is an urgent need for research on values with a multilevel and dynamic view that can inform innovative conservation strategies for working within existing value structures. New directions facilitated by a systems approach will enhance understanding of the role values play in shaping conservation challenges and improve management of the human component of conservation.

A conceptual framework for understanding illegal killing of large carnivores.

The growing complexity and global nature of wildlife poaching threaten the survival of many species worldwide and are outpacing conservation efforts. Here, we reviewed proximal and distal factors, both social and ecological, driving illegal killing or poaching of large carnivores at sites where it can potentially occur. Through this review, we developed a conceptual social-ecological system framework that ties together many of the factors influencing large carnivore poaching. Unlike most conservation action models, an important attribute of our framework is the integration of multiple factors related to both human motivations and animal vulnerability into feedbacks. We apply our framework to two case studies, tigers in Laos and wolverines in northern Sweden, to demonstrate its utility in disentangling some of the complex features of carnivore poaching that may have hindered effective responses to the current poaching crisis. Our framework offers a common platform to help guide future research on wildlife poaching feedbacks, which has hitherto been lacking, in order to effectively inform policy making and enforcement.

Evaluating whether nature's intrinsic value is an axiom of or anathema to conservation.

That at least some aspects of nature possess intrinsic value is considered by some an axiom of conservation. Others consider nature's intrinsic value superfluous or anathema. This range of views among mainstream conservation professionals potentially threatens the foundation of conservation. One challenge in resolving this disparity is that disparaging portrayals of nature's intrinsic value appear rooted in misconceptions and unfounded presumptions about what it means to acknowledge nature's intrinsic value. That acknowledgment has been characterized as vacuous, misanthropic, of little practical consequence to conservation, adequately accommodated by economic valuation, and not widely accepted in society. We reviewed the philosophical basis for nature's intrinsic value and the implications for acknowledging that value. Our analysis is rooted to the notion that when something possesses intrinsic value it deserves to be treated with respect for what it is, with concern for its welfare or in a just manner. From this basis, one can only conclude that nature's intrinsic value is not a vacuous concept or adequately accommodated by economic valuation. Acknowledging nature's intrinsic value is not misanthropic because concern for nature's welfare (aside from its influence on human welfare) does not in any way preclude also being concerned for human welfare. The practical import of acknowledging nature's intrinsic value rises from recognizing all the objects of conservation concern (e.g., many endangered species) that offer little benefit to human welfare. Sociological and cultural evidence indicates the belief that at least some elements of nature possess intrinsic value is widespread in society. Our reasoning suggests the appropriateness of rejecting the assertion that nature's intrinsic value is anathema to conservation and accepting its role as an axiom.