Research in the 21st century has conceptualized and supported the study of fundamental values and their orientation toward wildlife and wildlife management. In the United States, values toward the natural environment, and wildlife in particular, have historically represented a domination orientation. That is, nature, and in turn, wildlife were resources to be dominated, or mastered, for the purpose of human survival, safety, and use. With increases in urbanization, education, and modernization; human relationships with wildlife have evolved to include a mutualistic orientation, whereby wildlife is viewed by many as having similar, or equal rights as humans. This has resulted in state wildlife management agencies across the United States having to respond to a greater diversity of public preferences for how wildlife resources should be managed. Furthermore, the extent to which this diversity of values toward the environment and wildlife differs across regions and states of the U.S., making wildlife management across the U.S. complicated and complex.
A concept that has been addressed to explore differences across societies, cultures, and geographic regions is “Tightness – Looseness.” “Tight” societies hold strong social norms and exhibit low tolerance for behavior that does not conform to those norms. “Loose” societies, on the other hand, hold relatively weak social norms and exhibit high tolerance for behaviors that may differ from those norms. In a study of 33 nations, Gelfand et al (2011) supported the hypotheses that the tight or loose characteristic of a culture is influenced by ecological and historical factors. Tightness tended to be a characteristic of cultures that are vulnerable to factors such as natural disasters, disease, resource paucity, and external threats, whereby cultures that are less vulnerable to these factors showed a proclivity toward looseness. Harrington and Gelfand (2014) found that the diversity in ecological and historical conditions among the 50 states of the U.S. is also manifested in differences in cultural tightness – looseness.
Exploring cultural tightness – looseness can further explain differences among cultures in how they view wildlife and wildlife management, and ultimately support the agencies and the policies that, ideally, broadly represent the diverse values of their constituents. It is hypothesized here that the relative tightness – looseness of a state and/or region of the U.S. will relate to the prevalence of Domination and Mutualistic wildlife value orientations of that state or region, attitudes toward specific wildlife management actions enacted in that region, as well as perceptions of and trust in the wildlife management institution of that region. From an applied perspective, this approach can 1) enhance management’s understanding of the complexity of its public’s perceptions and support of wildlife management issues, and 2) shed light on the differences in values, wildlife value orientations and attitudes toward specific policies across and within states and regions. From a theoretical perspective, exploring the role of tightness – looseness from a cultural perspective enhances the understanding of the social – ecological conceptual approach to which values play a role, both motivational and descriptive of the evolution of a society’s material culture.
Topics: Social-ecological systems as a framework for conservation management
