Acceptability of management actions: effects of endangered status

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a critical piece of legislation that has helped a multitude of species experiencing widespread habitat loss or significant declines in population. Despite being important... [ view full abstract ]

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a critical piece of legislation that has helped a multitude of species experiencing widespread habitat loss or significant declines in population. Despite being important to these species by designating critical habitat and preventing extinction, the ESA has come under attack as a perceived misuse of government funds and for limiting development. Thus, there is a need to understand how the status of a species affects people’s thinking about possible management actions, which often are the basis for social conflict about wildlife between different groups of people. Specifically, does protection status as “endangered” amplify the relationship between wildlife value orientations (WVOs) and acceptability of lethal control as a management action for conflict scenarios? Research shows that a person with a domination WVO (that prioritizes the needs of humans) is typically supportive of lethal control of carnivores – but is lethal control less acceptable to this group when the carnivore is endangered? Do people with a mutualism WVO (that prioritizes a balance between human needs and the perceived needs of wildlife) differentiate between an endangered species versus one with a low population size when determining the acceptability of lethal control? In light of these questions, we determine whether federal status as endangered and the commonness of a species in a localized context affect the relationship between WVOs and acceptability of lethal control.  We also expect that the type of wildlife being managed (herbivore and carnivores) will impact responses, since research has shown that lethal control is more acceptable when people have a higher perception of risk associated with a species. Thus, we test endangered status and commonness between-subjects and species type within-subjects using a 2X2X2 experimental design.  Results of our analyses can help to provide context as to why social conflict among groups of people with divergent values arise, which is an especially timely contribution given recent efforts to alter or dismantle the ESA and its protections.