Specificity and the Cognitive Hierarchy: Value Orientations and the Acceptability of Urban Wildlife Management Actions
ABSTRACT This article tests theory suggesting cognitions at the same level of specificity have stronger associations than those at different levels. Using data from a survey of Anchorage, AK, residents (n = 971, response rate = 59%), we explored relationships between general wildlife value orientations and (1) the general acceptability of hunting urban wildlife populations, and (2) specific wildlife management actions (e.g., the acceptability of destroying a bear or moose after specific conflict situations). Consistent with previous research, patterns of basic wildlife beliefs aligned along two distinct value orientations (protection–use and wildlife appreciation) that differentially predicted management action acceptability. As hypothesized, general wildlife value orientations had more influence on the acceptability of hunting to reduce wildlife populations than destroying an animal involved in specific conflict situations. Findings suggested ways to improve measurement, ways to develop broader models that include values-related variables, and the importance of values-level information when addressing urban wildlife conflicts.
- 01/1980; Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This article develops an approach for exploring the social and cultural aspects of human–wildlife conflict in a global context. The proposed micro-macro level model integrates the cognitive hierarchy theory of human behavior and materialist theory of culture. This model guides research of human behavior in these situations and yields information that can aid conflict prevention and mitigation on the local level and offer suggestions for effective coordinated global, national, or regional efforts. Past applications of the micro (individual level) component and preliminary research and potential areas of future exploration for the macro (cultural level) component are discussed. Cross-cultural research will be highly useful in advancing an understanding of human–wildlife conflict.Human Dimensions of Wildlife 08/2010; Winter 2004(Vol. 9):1-20.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Managers face limited options when dealing with problems created by urban wildlife. Destroying an animal that is perceived to be a nuisance is sometimes acceptable; at other times destroying the animal may be controversial. This paper uses the structural norm approach to develop standards for an agency's use of lethal response to problem urban wildlife. The paper describes three structural characteristics of public wildlife management norms (range of acceptable situations, norm intensity, and norm agreement) and shows how these standards may be affected by different situational contexts (impact severity) and different animal species. Three wildlife species (beavers, coyotes, and mountain lions) are examined across a continuum of situation contexts ranging from seeing wildlife in a residential area to an animal killing a person. For all three species, acceptability of destroying the animal increased as the impact severity of the human‐wildlife interaction increased. For identical situations, however, acceptability of destroying an animal varied by species. Overall, the normative approach can effectively clarify the positions of constituents on wildlife management decisions for specific contexts and animal species. Such information can decrease the risk of public controversy generated by general broad‐based wildlife management policies.Human Dimensions of Wildlife 01/1998; 3(4):29-48.