Yes, but Over There: Costs, Benefits, and Attitudes toward Rewilding

Debates about the rewilding of large carnivores are often centered around questions of who will pay, and how that group compares to the people who will benefit most. Using a survey experiment that examines attitudes toward the... [ view full abstract ]

Debates about the rewilding of large carnivores are often centered around questions of who will pay, and how that group compares to the people who will benefit most. Using a survey experiment that examines attitudes toward the reintroduction of the California Grizzly Bear, we investigate how issue framing can influence perceived costs and benefits of reintroduction, and how those perceived costs and benefits in turn shift support on the issue. We find that individuals given a treatment conceptualizing Grizzly Bear reintroduction as occurring in remote areas, and therefore having a diffuse cost structure, are more likely to support reintroduction. In particular, respondents who are told that Grizzly Bears would be reintroduced into National Parks are more supportive of reintroduction. As other researchers have found with respect to existing wildlife (Reading, Clark and Kellert 1992; Kellert 1994), we also find that individuals who believe humans should care for and live in harmony with nature are more supportive of reintroduction, suggesting that values play a role in support for reintroduction. The success of rewilding efforts, therefore, may be contingent on the degree to which policy entrepreneurs and interest groups can build winning coalitions by promoting reintroduction through messages that highlight diffusely distributed costs among stakeholders while promoting some form of benefits for all (Patashnik 2008; Lowi 1972; Wilson 1973).