Relationships between valence towards wildlife and wildlife value orientations

Research to understand human responses to wildlife and wildlife issues has predominantly focused on cognitions. Yet, as emotions are basic human responses to wildlife, emotions are important too. Integrating cognition and emotion concepts could foster the overall understanding of human-wildlife relationships. This study tested the relationships between valence (the pleasant-unpleasant dimension of emotion) regarding wildlife and wildlife value orientations (patterns of basic cognitions in the context of wildlife). Also, this study estimated the additional predictive potential of emotion next to cognition for the acceptability of lethal control and support for wildlife conservation. Analyses showed that valence was associated with wildlife value orientations. Valence had additional explanatory value next to cognition for conservation support. Valence, however, did not have additional predictive potential for acceptability of lethal control. Based on these findings, we recommend integrating cognition and emotion measurements in future research to understand human responses to wildlife issues. Also, wildlife managers could take the emotion of stakeholders into account in their communication and decision-making processes

The applicability of wildlife value orientations scales to a Muslim student sample in Malaysia

This article addresses the applicability of quantitative wildlife value orientation scales in Muslim students in Malaysia. As Malaysian culture is deeply influenced by Islam ideology, this article presents a case for addressing the cross-cultural applicability of the scales. The current wildlife value orientation scales were reliable—all Cronbach’s alphas ≥ .65—and had predictive validity—8 to 14% of variance of acceptability of lethal control was explained. Yet, both reliability and predictive validity were of lesser magnitude than figures in previous Western studies. Especially the hunting beliefs scale did not reflect basic thinking about wildlife in our sample, and our data suggest two different hunting dimensions—consequences of hunting for wildlife and human opportunities for hunting. For future cross-cultural comparisons of wildlife value orientations, amendment of the scales to better reflect salient beliefs in non-Western nations is recommended

Understanding human responses to wildlife in Malaysia

Understanding thought about wildlife can help managers and policy-makers to anticipate public responses. Previous research suggests that wildlife value orientations, emotions, and risk perceptions predict how people think about wildlife-related issues. This research makes a new contribution by combining these factors to understand Malaysians’ responses to wildlife management and policy. A pilot study and an elicitation study found that existing wildlife value orientation scales are applicable in Malaysians and reflect important beliefs about wildlife. A large scale survey in the state of Johor was conducted to test how well value orientations, emotions and risk perceptions predict evaluation of management and policy. Acceptability of management actions was mainly influenced by a domination orientations towards wildlife. Emotion towards wildife was the best predictor for conservation support. Overall, findings confirm the theoretical model. Also, comparison with previous research suggests that the structure of thought about wildlife in Malaysians is different from western populations.</p

Exploring cultural differences in wildlife value orientations using student samples in seven nations

Understanding differences in the way people think about wildlife across countries is important as many conservation challenges transcend jurisdictions. We explored differences in wildlife value orientations in seven countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Serbia. Standard scales assessed domination (prioritizing human well-being) and mutualism (striving for egalitarian relationships with wildlife). We used student samples (total n = 2176) for cross-cultural comparisons. Reliabilities of the wildlife value orientations scales were adequate in all countries. Relationships between demographics and wildlife value orientations were different across countries. Men were generally more oriented towards domination and less towards mutualism than women, except in Serbia, where it was the other way around. Estimated at the level of the individual (using ANOVA), wildlife value orientations varied across countries, with nationality explaining a larger portion of the variation in mutualism (21%) than domination (6%). Estimated at the level of countries (using multilevel modelling), effect sizes were comparable. Thought about wildlife has previously only been examined within single countries. This paper makes a new contribution to the conservation literature suggesting that wildlife value orientations vary by country, and are associated with demographic factors. For conservation practices, understanding national differences in the way people think about wildlife is crucial to understanding sources of conflict among practitioners. Such knowledge is also important to gain public support for conservation