Book contents
- Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Conservation Biology
- Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Map
- 1 Human–Wildlife Conflicts and the Need to Include Coexistence
- 2 A Multilevel, Systems View of Values Can Inform a Move towards Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 3 Broadening the Aperture on Coexistence with Wildlife through the Lenses of Identity, Risk and Morals
- 4 Understanding Emotions As Opportunities for and Barriers to Coexistence with Wildlife
- 5 Tolerance for Wildlife
- 6 A Framework for Assessing and Quantifying Human–Wildlife Interactions in Urban Areas
- 7 Predators in Human Landscapes
- 8 Corridor of Conflict
- 9 A Collaborative Approach for Coexistence with Wildlife in Rural Regions of Japan
- 10 Towards Tolerance and Coexistence
- 11 Elephants and Bees
- 12 The Twin Challenges of Preventing Real and Perceived Threats to Human Interests
- 13 Conflict and Coexistence with Invasive Wildlife
- 14 Institutions for Achieving Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 15 Worldviews and Coexistence with Coyotes
- 16 Conservation Marketing As a Tool to Promote Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 17 Leaping Forward
- 18 Towards Human–Wildlife Coexistence through the Integration of Human and Natural Systems
- 19 Planning for Coexistence in a Complex Human-Dominated World
- 20 Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
3 - Broadening the Aperture on Coexistence with Wildlife through the Lenses of Identity, Risk and Morals
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 April 2019
Book contents
- Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Conservation Biology
- Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Map
- 1 Human–Wildlife Conflicts and the Need to Include Coexistence
- 2 A Multilevel, Systems View of Values Can Inform a Move towards Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 3 Broadening the Aperture on Coexistence with Wildlife through the Lenses of Identity, Risk and Morals
- 4 Understanding Emotions As Opportunities for and Barriers to Coexistence with Wildlife
- 5 Tolerance for Wildlife
- 6 A Framework for Assessing and Quantifying Human–Wildlife Interactions in Urban Areas
- 7 Predators in Human Landscapes
- 8 Corridor of Conflict
- 9 A Collaborative Approach for Coexistence with Wildlife in Rural Regions of Japan
- 10 Towards Tolerance and Coexistence
- 11 Elephants and Bees
- 12 The Twin Challenges of Preventing Real and Perceived Threats to Human Interests
- 13 Conflict and Coexistence with Invasive Wildlife
- 14 Institutions for Achieving Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 15 Worldviews and Coexistence with Coyotes
- 16 Conservation Marketing As a Tool to Promote Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 17 Leaping Forward
- 18 Towards Human–Wildlife Coexistence through the Integration of Human and Natural Systems
- 19 Planning for Coexistence in a Complex Human-Dominated World
- 20 Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
Summary
Shifting conservation narratives from conflict to coexistence often requires addressing human–human conflict (HHC) over how to manage wildlife in addition to direct human–wildlife conflict. This chapter explores HHC using principles from morals, risk and human–nature interactions. We explore identity (i.e. affiliation with groups of like-minded individuals), risk perception (i.e. emotional and cognitive judgements related to harm) and moral judgements (i.e. intuitions about right and wrong) in an effort to advance understanding about the psychology of morally relevant behaviour as well as mechanisms for encouraging positive relationships between humans and their environment. We then discuss how each of these considerations interact to influence coexistence-based conservation behaviours, which can range from tacit tolerance of the presence of carnivores to active support in the recovery and reintroduction of species to historic and appropriate habitats. The chapter concludes with recommendations for next steps in research (e.g. risk messaging experiments) and application vis-à-vis the roles of emotion and moral judgement in HHC over wildlife.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Human–Wildlife InteractionsTurning Conflict into Coexistence, pp. 45 - 64Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
3.7 References
Amit, E. & Greene, J. D. (2012). You see, the ends don’t justify the means: Visual imagery and moral judgment. Psychological Science, 23, 861–8.Google Scholar
Associated Press. (2013, 22 May). Wolf hunt referendum to go on 2014 Michigan ballot. Detroit Free Press. Lansing, Michigan.Google Scholar
Baron, R. & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator–mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 1173–82.Google Scholar
Bruskotter, J. T., Vucetich, J. A., Enzler, S., Treves, A. & Nelson, M. P. (2014). Removing protections for wolves and the future of the U.S. Endangered Species Act (1973). Conservation Letters, 7, 401–7.Google Scholar
Carter, N. H. & Linnell, J. D. C. (2016). Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31, 575–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Vente, J., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L., Valente, S. & Newig, J. (2016). How does the context and design of participatory decision-making processes affect their outcomes? Evidence from sustainable land management in global drylands. Ecology & Society, 21, art. 24.Google Scholar
Dohmen, T., Falk, A. & Huffman, D. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9, 522–50.Google Scholar
Earle, T. C. & Siegrist, M. (2008). On the relation between trust and fairness in environmental risk management. Risk Analysis, 28, 1395–414.Google Scholar
Ford, J., O’Hare, D. & Henderson, R. (2012). Putting the ‘we’ into teamwork: Effects of priming personal or social identity on flight attendants’ perceptions of teamwork and communication. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society, 55, 499–508.Google Scholar
Frank, B. (2016). Human–wildlife conflicts and the need to include tolerance and coexistence: An introductory comment. Society & Natural Resources, 1920, 1–6.Google Scholar
Giannakakis, A. E. & Fritsche, I. (2011). Social identities, group norms, and threat: On the malleability of ingroup bias. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 82–93.Google Scholar
Gibbs, C., Gore, M. L., McGarrell, E. F. & Rivers, L. (2009). Introducing conservation criminology: Towards interdisciplinary scholarship on environmental crimes and risks. British Journal of Criminology, 50, 124–44.Google Scholar
Gore, M. L. & Knuth, B. A. (2009). Mass media effect on the operating environment of a wildlife-related risk-communication campaign. Journal of Wildlife Management, 73, 1407–13.Google Scholar
Gore, M. L, Knuth, B. A., Curtis, P. D. & Shanahan, J. E. (2007). Factors influencing risk perception associated with human–black bear conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 12, 133–6.Google Scholar
Gore, M. L., Ratsimbazafy, J. & Lute, M. L. (2013). Rethinking corruption in conservation crime: Insights from Madagascar. Conservation Letters, 6, 430–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gore, M. L., Wilson, R. S., Siemer, W. F., Hudenko, H. W., Clarke, C. E., Hart, P. S., Maguire, L. A. & Muter, B. A. (2009). Application of risk concepts to wildlife management: Special issue introduction. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14, 301–13.Google Scholar
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral Foundations Theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S. & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 101, 366–85.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316, 998–1002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Dædalus, 133, 55–66.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. & Joseph, C. (2007). The moral mind: How five sets of innate intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. In Carruthers, P., Laurence, S. & Stich, S., eds., The Innate Mind. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 367–91.Google Scholar
Hart, P. S. & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39, 701–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatcher, A., Jaffry, S., Thébaud, O. & Bennett, E. (2000). Normative and social influences affecting compliance with fishery regulations. Land Economics, 76, 448–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holsman, R. H. (2000). Goodwill hunting? Exploring the role of hunters as ecosystem stewards. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28, 808–16.Google Scholar
Johansson, M. & Karlsson, J. (2011). Subjective experience of fear and the cognitive interpretation of large carnivores. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 16, 15–29.Google Scholar
Jurin, R. R., Roush, D. & Danter, J. (2010). Environmental Communication, 2nd edn. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Keller, C., Siegrist, M. & Gutscher, H. (2006). The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication. Risk Analysis, 26, 631–9.Google Scholar
Labianca, G., Brass, D. J. & Gray, B. (1998). Social networks and perceptions of intergroup conflict: The role of negative relationships and third parties. The Academy of Management Journal, 41, 55–67.Google Scholar
Lazo, J. K, Kinnell, J. C. & Fisher, A. (2000). Expert and layperson perceptions of ecosystem risk. Risk Analysis, 20, 179–93.Google Scholar
Liao, C., Lin, H-N. & Liu, Y-P. (2009). Predicting the use of pirated software: A contingency model integrating perceived risk with the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 237–52.Google Scholar
Lindquist, K. A., Barrett, L. F., Bliss-Moreau, E. & Russell, J. A. (2006). Language and the perception of emotion. Emotion, 6, 125–38.Google Scholar
Lute, M., Bump, A. & Gore, M. L. (2014). Identity-driven differences in stakeholder concerns about hunting wolves. PLoS ONE, 9, e114460.Google Scholar
Lute, M., Navarrete, C. D., Nelson, M. P. & Gore, M. L. (2016). Assessing morals in conservation: The case of human–wolf conflict. Conservation Biology, 30, 1200–11.Google Scholar
Lute, M. L. & Axelrod, M. (2015). Public preferences for wolf management processes in Michigan. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 20, 95–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lute, M. L. & Gore, M. L. (2014). Stewardship as a path to cooperation? Exploring the role of identity in intergroup conflict among Michigan wolf stakeholders. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 19, 267–79.Google Scholar
Madden, F. & McQuinn, B. (2014). Conservation’s blind spot: The case for conflict transformation in wildlife conservation. Biological Conservation, 178, 97–106.Google Scholar
Manfredo, M. J., Bruskotter, J. T., Teel, T. L., Fulton, D., Schwartz, S. H., Arlinghaus, R., Oishi, S., Uskul, A. K., Redford, K., Kitayama, S. & Sullivan, L. (2017a). Why we can’t change social values for the sake of conservation. Conservation Biology, 31, 772–80.Google Scholar
Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L., Sullivan, L. & Dietsch, A. M. (2017b). Values, trust, and cultural backlash in conservation governance: The case of wildlife management in the United States. Biological Conservation, 214, 303–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muter, B. A., Gore, M. L. & Riley, S. J. (2009). From victim to perpetrator: Evolution of risk frames related to human–cormorant conflict in the Great Lakes. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14, 366–79.Google Scholar
Naughton-Treves, L., Grossberg, R. & Treves, A. (2003). Paying for tolerance: Rural citizens’ attitudes toward wolf depredation and compensation. Conservation Biology, 17, 1500–11.Google Scholar
Navarrete, C. D., McDonald, M. M., Molina, L. E. & Sidanius, J. (2010). Prejudice at the nexus of race and gender: An outgroup male target hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 933–45.Google Scholar
Nie, M. (2003). Drivers of natural resource-based political conflict. Policy Sciences, 36, 307–41.Google Scholar
Nie, M. A. (2002). Wolf recovery and management as value-based political conflict. Ethics, Place & Environment, 5, 65–71.Google Scholar
O’Connor, R. E., Bord, R. J. & Fisher, A. (1999). Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Analysis, 19, 461–71.Google Scholar
Oosting, J. (2013, 26 November). New Michigan group seeks to protect future wolf hunts with citizen-initiated legislation. MLive. Lansing, Michigan.Google Scholar
Paxton, J. M. & Greene, J. D. (2010). Moral reasoning: Hints and allegations. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 511–27.Google Scholar
Riley, S. J. & Decker, D. J. (2000). Risk perception as a factor in wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for cougars in Montana. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management, 4, 50–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripple, W. J. & Beschta, R. L. (2012). Trophic cascades in Yellowstone: The first 15 years after wolf reintroduction. Biological Conservation, 145, 205–13.Google Scholar
Rivers, L. & Arvai, J. (2007). Win some, lose some: The effect of chronic losses on decision making under risk. Journal of Risk Research, 10, 1085–99.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. (1968). Awareness of consequences and the influence of moral norms on interpersonal behavior. Sociometry, 31, 355–69.Google Scholar
Sherif, M. (1967). Group Conflict and Cooperation: Their Social Psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar
Sjöberg, L. (2000). Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 20, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sjöberg, L. & Winroth, E. (1986). Risk, moral value of actions, and mood. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 27, 191–208.Google Scholar
Skogen, K. & Krange, O. (2003). A wolf at the gate: The anti-carnivore alliance and the symbolic construction of community. Sociologia Ruralis, 43, 309–25.Google Scholar
Smith, E. R. & DeCoster, J. (2000). Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 4, 108–31.Google Scholar
Sponarski, C. C., Vaske, J. J. & Bath, A. J. (2015). Attitudinal differences among residents, park staff, and visitors toward coyotes in Cape Breton Highlands National Park of Canada. Society & Natural Resources, 28, 720–32.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W. G. & Worchel, S., eds. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, pp. 33–47.Google Scholar
Treves, A., Martin, K. A., Wydeven, A. P. & Wiedenhoeft, J. E. (2011). Forecasting environmental hazards and the application of risk maps to predator attacks on livestock. BioScience, 61, 451–8.Google Scholar
Wallach, A. D., Ripple, W. J. & Carroll, S. P. (2015). Novel trophic cascades: Apex predators enable coexistence. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30, 146–53.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. S. (2008). Balancing emotion and cognition: A case for decision aiding in conservation efforts. Conservation Biology, 22, 1452–60.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. S. & Arvai, J. L. (2010). Why less is more: Exploring affect-based value neglect. Journal of Risk Research, 13, 399–409.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. S. & Bruskotter, J. T. (2009). Assessing the impact of decision frame and existing attitudes on support for wolf restoration in the United States. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14, 353–65.Google Scholar