View of wildlife influences landscape conservation actions

This paper examines stated wildlife value orientations of landowners and revealed landscape conservation actions. A recurrent argument offered by hunters and the European Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation... [ view full abstract ]

This paper examines stated wildlife value orientations of landowners and revealed landscape conservation actions. A recurrent argument offered by hunters and the European Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation (FACE) is that hunting help promoting biodiversity, and more broadly, landscape conservation. Recreational hunting has been shown to be instrumental in shaping the landscape – either by the landowner hunting the holding, by letting others hunt the holding for free, by renting the holding for hunting, or not allowing any hunting. However, there are no studies connecting wildlife value orientations of the landowners and the landscape conservation actions (combined studies where stated or revealed behavior or preferences are recorded on the same population whose wildlife value orientations are gauged). This study, using a nationally representative data-set of landowners in Denmark, makes this connection. Clear patterns of variation are found which in turn relate to whether more ‘narrow’ (focusing entirely on game species) or ‘broader’ (including benefits for other species groups as well), conservation and nature management actions, such as creating pheasant cover, planting hedges, establishing hedge banks and ponds, or making reservoirs, are carried out, or whether there is focus on longer-term or shorter-term changes. Combined, these characteristics can be said to influence the potential for biodiversity and landscape conservation. Findings show that while mutualists and distanced wildlife value orientations dominated in the public; most Danish landowners (especially full-time farmers) were utilitarian followed by pluralist (using the utilitarian-pluralist-mutualist-distanced orientation scale). When it comes to wildlife value orientations in relation to the utilization of the hunting opportunity at the holding, we e.g. see relative more pluralists among landowners who utilize the opportunity themselves and more mutualists and distanced when no hunting occurs at the holding. At the same time, we find the likelihood of at least one landscape change is higher on holdings hunted by the owner compared to holdings where no hunting takes place. Seen from management and policy perspectives, the long-term, broader landscape changes are likely to invoke less public/stakeholder opposition than the narrower, more hunting orientated changes. This is in line with earlier studies showing management initiatives related to rear and release of game birds to have the most negative impact on (hunting) attitude. In a broader perspective the results can, maybe, be used help to predict which changes in the rural landscape can be expected because of developments in the agricultural sector, and in wildlife value orientations.