Framing of Wildlife-related Conflict Near the Home

Human intolerance of wildlife, which leads to decreased support for conservation efforts, is often associated with negative interactions (i.e., conflict) between humans and wildlife. While many studies of these conflicts focus... [ view full abstract ]

Human intolerance of wildlife, which leads to decreased support for conservation efforts, is often associated with negative interactions (i.e., conflict) between humans and wildlife. While many studies of these conflicts focus on which species are involved and the extent of damage caused, few studies focus on understanding the psychological factors that shape how people talk about or “frame” such negative interactions. This investigation seeks to understand how situational-specific factors (e.g., the nature, extent, and frequency of previous interactions) and underlying psychological factors, such as wildlife value orientations, impact an individual’s framing of reported problems with wildlife. Using data from a survey of residents living in Washington state, we performed a mixed-methods analysis of 1,852 responses to an open-ended question asking participants to describe the problems they have experienced with wildlife near their homes. We report differences in responses across the state and within counties in relation to the following: (1) descriptive items, such as types of interactions experienced and species involved; (2) identification of drivers of interactions; (3) description of mitigation strategies; and (4) ascription of responsibility for interactions (i.e., blame) or implementation of mitigation strategies. Differences in preferences for or engagement in mitigation strategies was dependent on types of interactions, species involved, and value orientation type. For Traditionalists (who hold a value orientation that prioritizes human needs over the perceived needs of wildlife), acceptance or tolerance of species was partially related to the ability of individuals to implement mitigation strategies (e.g., lethal control) on their own property. Similarly, Traditionalists expressed frustration with agency policies when it prevented individuals from contributing to population reduction of identified problem species through hunting or lethal control, while Mutualists (who hold a value orientation that prioritizes both human and wildlife needs) described the state agency as responsible for or capable of removing problem species. Results suggest that a more comprehensive understanding of psychological factors that contribute to how individuals frame interactions with wildlife as conflict can reveal whether or not groups of people are more likely to report wildlife damage, seek compensation, or engage agencies to address nuisance wildlife.