Local Perspectives on Environmental Insecurity and Its Influence on Illegal Biodiversity Exploitation

Environmental insecurity is a source and outcome of biodiversity declines and social conflict. One challenge to scaling insecurity reduction policies is that empirical evidence about local attitudes is overwhelmingly missing. We set three objectives: determine how local people rank risk associated with different sources of environmental insecurity; assess perceptions of environmental insecurity, biodiversity exploitation, myths of nature and risk management preferences; and explore relationships between perceptions and biodiversity exploitation. We conducted interviews (N = 88) with residents of Madagascar’s Torotorofotsy Protected Area, 2014. Risk perceptions had a moderate effect on perceptions of environmental insecurity. We found no effects of environmental insecurity on biodiversity exploitation. Results offer one if not the first exploration of local perceptions of illegal biodiversity exploitation and environmental security. Local people’s perception of risk seriousness associated with illegal biodiversity exploitation such as lemur hunting (low overall) may not reflect perceptions of policy-makers (considered to be high). Discord is a key entry point for attention

Identity-driven differences in stakeholder concerns about hunting wolves.

Whereas past wolf management in the United States was restricted to recovery, managers must now contend with publicly contentious post-recovery issues including regulated hunting seasons. Understanding stakeholder concerns associated with hunting can inform stakeholder engagement, communication, and policy development and evaluation. Social identity theory (SIT) has been used to understand how groups interact, why they conflict, and how collaboration may be achieved. Applying SIT to stakeholder conflicts about wolf hunting may help delineate groups according to their concern about, support for or opposition to the policy choice of hunting wolves. Our objective was to assess concerns about hunting as a tool to resolve conflict in Michigan, using SIT as a framework. We used a mixed-modal sampling approach (e.g., paper, Internet) with wolf hunting-related public meeting participants in March 2013. Survey questions focused on 12 concerns previously identified as associated with hunting as a management tool to resolve conflict. Respondents (n  =  666) cared greatly about wolves but were divided over hunting wolves. Wolf conflicts, use of science in policy decisions, and maintaining a wolf population were the highest ranked concerns. Principle components analysis reduced concerns into three factors that explained 50.7% of total variance; concerns crystallized over justifications for hunting. General linear models revealed a lack of geographic influence on care, fear and support for hunting related to wolves. These findings challenge assumptions about regional differences and suggest a strong role for social identity in driving dichotomized public perceptions in wildlife management

Conservation professionals agree on challenges to coexisting with large carnivores but not on solutions

Although many studies explore characteristics of stakeholders or publics “for” or “against” large carnivores, disagreements among conservation professionals advocating different conservation strategies also occur, but are not well recognized. Differing viewpoints on whether and how humans can share landscapes with large carnivores can influence conservation policies. To characterize current viewpoints about terrestrial large carnivore conservation, we conducted an online survey assessing a wide range of viewpoints about large carnivore conservation among international professionals (n =505). We explored how variation in viewpoints was related to expertise, background, and broader institutional contexts in which one lives and works. The majority of participants agreed people and large carnivores can share the same landscapes (86%). Human adaptation to carnivores (95% agreement) and acceptance of some conflict (93%) were the highest ranked requirements for humancarnivore coexistence. We found broad consensus regarding intrinsic value of carnivores, reasons carnivores are imperilled, conflict drivers, and importance of proactive solutions, such as adopting preventative livestock husbandry methods or avoiding situations that put people at risk. The greatest polarization was observed in issues related to lethal control, where we only found broad consensus for killing carnivores in situations where humans are in immediate risk. Participants opposed the killing of large carnivores when objectives were to decrease population sizes or increase human tolerance, profits, livelihoods, or fear of humans. Results point to considerable diversity, perhaps driven by local context, concerning how to proceed with large carnivore conservation in the increasingly human-influenced landscapes of the Anthropocene. The different observed viewpoints represent both different strategies about how to best conserve, but also different moral platforms about what, how, where, and for whom conservation should occur. Our study underlines that challenges to adopting and implementing long-lasting carnivore conservation strategies may well occur as much within the conservation community as outside it. Coexistence Endangered species Predators Attitudes Lethal control Human-wildlife conflict Potential for conflict indexacceptedVersio

Concerns about hunting wolves.

<p>Respondents were asked to rank the importance of the following concerns associated with hunting wolves in Michigan, March 2013. Principal component analysis of concerns was conducted and concerns were assigned to the factor in which they load highest and ≧0.45.</p><p>Concerns about hunting wolves.</p

Principal components analysis revealed 12 concerns loaded significantly (≥0.45) on three factors (KMO = 0.821, Barlett's X² = 662.394, df = 66, p<0.01), explaining 50.7% of total variance.

<p>Factor 1 explained 26.8% of variance and consisted of 8 concerns. Factor 2 explained 13.6% of variance and consisted of 3 concerns. Concerns about changes to pack behavior made up Factor 3, which explained 10.3% of variance.</p

Conservation professionals' views on governing for coexistence with large carnivores

Decision-making about large carnivores is complex and controversial, and processes vary from deliberation and expert analysis to ballot boxes and courtrooms. Decision-makers range from neighboring landowners to the United Nations. Efficacy, longevity and legitimacy of policies may often depend as much on process as the policy itself. Overcoming controversy requires greater understanding of preferences for decision-makers and processes as well as deeper beliefs about human-carnivore interactions. Although academic debates are rich with recommendations for governance, practitioners' perceptions regarding decision-making processes have been rarely examined. Doing so can facilitate constructive discourses on managing and conserving carnivores across highlyvariable social-ecological landscapes. To gain insight into different viewpoints on governance regarding large carnivore conservation, we asked a global community of conservation professionals (n = 505) about their preferences for governance alternatives for carnivore conservation through an online survey. Respondents agreed that government biologists should make decisions while legislators and commissions received low agreement and less consensus. Findings also indicated a general rejection of turning decision processes completely over to the general public, to courts, or to politicians who are perceived as lacking both technical knowledge and local insights. We found evidence for consensus on best management processes using a combination of science, local knowledge and participatory decision-making. According to our sample, sustainable coexistence strategies may require significant shifts in processes that remove mistrusted political influences visà- vis ballot boxes, courtrooms, commissions and legislative chambers. Our sample believed governance structures that combine technical expertise with local perspectives in a co-management framework may best withstand tests of time and controversy.acceptedVersio

Madagascar insecurity data

The data instrument is attached to the manuscript file as supplementary information. Michigan State University’s Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects IRB# x10-394 reviewed and approved all methods and procedures used in this research. A committee-approved informed consent was obtained in verbal form due to potential participant illiteracy. In instances where participants approved use of a digital voice recorder, consent was documented digitally. In all instances, participants had to verbally consent to participate in the study before data collection commenced

Eight threats to environmental security in Torotorofotsy, Madagascar in May 2014 (n = 88).

<p>Eight threats to environmental security in Torotorofotsy, Madagascar in May 2014 (n = 88).</p

Local perceptions of illegal biodiversity exploitation rates.

<p>Error bars denote standard error. All activities are illegal under the rule of law in Madagascar.</p