Environmental attitudes associated with large-scale cultural differences, not local environmental conflicts

Species and ecosystems are under constant pressure from a rapidly-growing human population. Human tolerance of carnivores, including the willingness to live in areas with these predators, is key to the success of large carnivore conservation. In the Scandinavian Peninsula, large carnivore populations conflict with human activity; low tolerance among local people may lead to illegal hunting. A survey of 2521 Scandinavian respondents to measure environmental value orientation, using the new environmental paradigm (NEP) scale and attitudes toward large carnivores, revealed attitudes towards the presence of carnivores were not related to carnivore abundance. Nor was there a significant relationship between environmental value orientation and personal experiences with loss of domestic sheep or hunting dogs. Environmental values were mainly explained by country differences; Swedes had a more ecocentric value orientation than Norwegians. Significantly more Norwegians (45 %) than Swedes (19 %) responded that there were too many carnivores in their country. Historic differences in how government is perceived between Norway and Sweden may result in different attitudes towards illegal hunting and towards carnivores. Specifically, Norwegians may hold a more anthropocentric view, based on a suspicion of central authorities, whereas Swedes may hold a more ecocentric view

Matching social-ecological systems by understanding the spatial scale of environmental attitudes

Mismatching in the spatial scales of social structures and ecological processes complicates the management of natural resources. Here we suggest the use of variance components to determine at which spatial scale variation in feelings, environmental attitudes and value orientation is largest and hence most exposed to conflicts. We estimated the variance components of the feeling of fear for large carnivores, environmental attitudes towards large carnivores and environmental value orientation at 3 scales (municipality, county and country) in Norway and Sweden. The feeling of fear for specific carnivores had the highest variance components at the municipality level, we found no specific scale that best explained the variance in attitudes towards carnivores in general, while attitudes based on environmental value orientation showed the highest variance components at the country level. To match the social-ecological systems, we conclude that management units have to be designed as the best possible trade-off between the social and ecological scales; i.e. largest possible to maintain ecological sustainability, but small enough to maintain a low degree of social conflicts

Mapping of mean attitudes towards poaching (upper panel) and mapping of potential conflict index (PCI₂) in Scandinavia at the county level (lower panel).

<p>Dark colours show high acceptance for poaching in a scale from 1 (highly disagree that illegal hunting is acceptable) to 5 (highly agree that illegal hunting is acceptable), and dark colours at the PCI map show where the potential conflict is highest (highest PCI₂ values). PCI₂ ranges from 0–1.</p

The model of the effect of respondent’s characteristics on acceptance of illegal hunting at the individual level presented with estimates from the logit link function and binomial error.

<p>The model of the effect of respondent’s characteristics on acceptance of illegal hunting at the individual level presented with estimates from the logit link function and binomial error.</p

Spearman correlation coefficients (r_sp ± SE_r) between mean acceptance level of poaching and PCI₂ at the county and municipality level in Norway and in Sweden (all p<0.001).

<p>Spearman correlation coefficients (r_sp ± SE_r) between mean acceptance level of poaching and PCI₂ at the county and municipality level in Norway and in Sweden (all p<0.001).</p

The questionnaire (16 questions in total) including the questions dealing with acceptance of illegal hunting (question 6–9).

<p>The questions were answered from highly disagree to highly agree on a 5 level Likert scale.</p

The correlation between acceptance for poaching and traditions for big game hunting (upper panel), and between the potential conflict index (PCI₂) and human density (log transformed; lower panel) at county level.

<p>The correlation between acceptance for poaching and traditions for big game hunting (upper panel), and between the potential conflict index (PCI₂) and human density (log transformed; lower panel) at county level.</p

Mean (95% confidence interval) percentage of respondents who agreed or highly agreed that poaching was acceptable (binomial distribution), and mean (95% confidence interval) potential conflict index (PCI₂) at county level for each carnivore species.

<p>Mean (95% confidence interval) percentage of respondents who agreed or highly agreed that poaching was acceptable (binomial distribution), and mean (95% confidence interval) potential conflict index (PCI₂) at county level for each carnivore species.</p

Spearman correlation coefficients (r_sp ± SE_r) between acceptance to poach the different carnivore species at the level of the individual respondent (all p<0.001).

<p>Spearman correlation coefficients (r_sp ± SE_r) between acceptance to poach the different carnivore species at the level of the individual respondent (all p<0.001).</p