Public Support for Sustainable Wildlife
Public Support for Sustainable Wildlife Harvesting and
Biodiversity Conservation: A Case Study
Chapter 15 in Clement A. Tisdell (2014) Human Values and Biodiversity
Conservation: The Survival of Wild Species, Cheltenham UK and Northampton,
MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited
15.1
Introduction
Can the harvesting of wildlife be used to save endangered species from extinction and
promote biodiversity conservation? To what extent do members of the public support the
harvesting of wildlife species and what factors influence this support? Relying on survey
data, this chapter (and the next) examines the varied attitudes of members of the public to the
harvesting of wildlife species and establishes some general relationships. Studies of this type
are important because the sustainable use of wildlife has been promoted as an effective means
for conserving biodiversity, and sustainable use of biological resources has been included in
the Convention on Biological Diversity as a worthy objective. Apart from reporting and
analysing the attitudes of sampled members of the Australian public towards the harvesting
of wildlife and its sustainable use, this chapter assesses the effectiveness of sustainably using
wildlife species in order to conserve these. The next chapter extends the discussion by
considering the extent to which members of the Australian public support the use of wildlife
by Indigenous Australians.
Attitudes to the sustainable commercial harvesting of some individual wildlife species and
aspects of policies affecting their use have been covered in earlier chapters of this book. For
example, use of hawksbill turtles was discussed in Chapter 8 and the utilization of saltwater
crocodiles was considered in Chapter 9. This chapter advances the previous analyses by
taking into account attitudes of members of the public towards the use of multiple species,
and as a result, establishes some general relationships.
The harvesting of wildlife, particularly when it involves the killing of animals, is a socially
controversial subject. Objections include its possible disruption. of ecosystem functions
(Luck et al., "2003, p. 33), its possible endangerment of the continuing existence of harvested
species and/or of species dependent on these (Struhsaker, 1998), and the view that killing
animals is cruel or violates animal rights (Singer, 1985). Use of wildlife species by humans
may either be consumptive or non-consumptive. Harvesting of wildlife whether for
subsistence use, that is, for direct use by individuals or families, or for commercial sale is
normally consumptive. Considerable controversy exists about whether such harvesting is
likely to promote the conservation of biodiversity or is likely to be detrimental to it
(Struhsaker, 1998; Medellin, 1999).
In the early 1990s, a dominant international conservation organization, the International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) endorsed the view that the use of wildlife,
including its harvesting, could be an effective means for conserving species. These views are
set out in Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living (IUCN-UNEP-WWF,
1
1991), which states (p. 42) that projects to conserve wild species and ecosystems are unlikely
to succeed unless they provide a sustainable economic return to the rural communities. This
will require the use of wildlife and, in many cases, its harvesting. This document also stresses
that as an economic incentive for conservation, communities that conserve wildlife should be
allowed to export their sustainable surpluses and receive the revenue earned. This implies, for
example, that as an economic incentive for the conservation of elephants, commercial exports
of ivory and other products obtained from African elephants should be allowed from those
nations and regions that are effective in conserving their populations of elephants. The
sustainable use concept is incorporated in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
(Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, undated).
This emphasis on utilizing wildlife, including by their consumptive harvest, differs from the
general philosophy underlying the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
(CITES). CITES sees the exploitation of wildlife resulting from international trade as
potentially threatening to the survival of many wild species and tries to ban or restrict
international trade in endangered species. This involves a potential conflict with CBD, which
is discussed, for example, in Tisdell (2009, Chapter 10, see particularly Section 10.5). Note
also that whereas The World Conservation Strategy (IUCN-UNEP-WWF, 1980) endorsed the
non-consumptive economic use of wildlife, for instance for wildlife-based tourism, it stopped
short of promoting the commercial harvesting of wildlife as a conservation strategy, unlike
Caring for the Earth (IUCN-UNEP- WWF, 1991).
Whether or not a sustainable use policy can be expected to be effective in maintaining
biodiversity has been subject to much debate (Campbell, 2002). Allen and Edwards (1995)
and Hutton and Dickson (2001) claim that if carried out with appropriate efficiency and
restraint, sustainable use of wildlife can promote conservation (see also Webb, 2002) but this
strategy inevitably results in a loss of biodiversity because it favours more useful species at
the expense of the less useful ones, according to Robinson (1993). Tisdell (2004a, 2004b) has
described how emphasis on commercial sustainable use of wildlife can alter the composition
of species in nature and its evolution. Hutton and Leader-Williams (2003, p. 223) argue that,
because much of humanity will continue to utilize wildlife, biologically sustainable use and
incentive-driven conservation must become a central conservation activity.
Decision-making about natural resource management cannot be divorced from public
attitudes about this management, and indeed, pressure to increase public involvement in this
policy-making sphere has grown (Sexton et al., 1999). It has also been claimed that, in
managing wildlife, science alone is inadequate and that stakeholder involvement is vital if use
and biodiversity conservation are to be achieved (Stave, 2002, p. 140). The public's attitudes
towards sustainable use of wildlife should, therefore, be evaluated (Witter and Sheriff, 1987,
p. 262; Ballard, 1994) to determine whether there is political support for sustainable use of
wildlife. Attitudes and beliefs of stakeholders and the wider public may clash with the
management options that wildlife managers or wildlife experts prefer, and so management
actions devised without public consultation and involvement may have little public support
and could be undermined by public opinion (Fulton et al., 2004). For example, plans to carry
out the culling of koalas on Kangaroo Island, Australia, in order to conserve eucalypts on
which koalas depend for food, have proven to be unsuccessful because of strong public
opposition (Rodgerson, 2004). Similarly, deer hunting has been discontinued during some
years in parts of Alaska due to public opposition (Hicks, 2001, p. 35).
North American studies, such as that of Butler et al. (2003), have assessed changes in the
public's attitude over time towards wildlife, touching incidentally on the management of
wildlife for sustainable use, and Fulton et al. (1993) have determined the proportion of a
2
sample of the public belonging to the pro-animal rights set or to pro-animal use set favouring
sustainable use of wildlife. Yet, there seems to have been no specific examination of the
public's attitude to the strategy of sustainable commercial use of wildlife and support for the
sustainable harvesting of specific wildlife species. The research results reported in this
chapter are a start towards filling this gap in the literature. They also provide a valuable step
in the process of .assessing contrasting policy proposals for conserving wildlife biodiversity,
particularly use versus non-use proposals, which are, for example, represented in the CBD
and CITES, respectively.
This chapter:
•
Analyses and reports the attitudes of a sample of 204 members of the Australian
public to the sustainable commercial harvesting of wildlife in general.
•
Assesses the sample's attitude to the sustainable commercial harvesting of 24 native
Australian wildlife species, covering mammals, birds and reptiles.
•
Determines what factors, if any, make these sampled members of the public more (or
less) receptive to the sustainable commercial harvesting of wildlife species. In this
regard, the association between the conservation status of the species as listed in the
IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2006) and participants' stated degree of support for their
sustainable commercial harvest is considered. Does, for instance, a greater degree of
endangerment of a species result in reduced support for commercial harvesting?
The main aims of the chapter are to determine whether there is likely to be widespread
support among members of the Australian public for a policy of encouraging sustainable
commercial use of species to promote their conservation, and to isolate significant factors that
may influence the public's degree of support for such a policy. It is hypothesized that the
degree of threat to the survival of species is likely to be a major influence on the public's
support for their use, including their commercial use. While this is not the only influence on
attitudes to harvesting wildlife species, it is worthwhile exploring because of its policy
relevance. Although the study sample is small relative to the Australian adult population, it
provides a starting point for further investigation. Resources were not available to consider a
larger sample. The study raises issues that need to be addressed in the socio-political sphere
by bodies promoting nature conservation. These issues are not specific to Australia.
The pattern of presentation of this chapter is as follows: first, the methods used to obtain the
relevant empirical data are outlined. While these are the same as those outlined previously in
this book (see, for example, Chapters 12 and 13), some extra information is provided here
that is particularly relevant to the sustainability part of this study. Second, the results from the
sample are reported. These results include:
•
relevant attributes of the sample;
•
general attitudes of those sampled towards the sustainable commercial harvesting of
wildlife;
•
the extent to which those sampled support the commercial harvesting of each of 24
selected Australian wildlife species and the relationship between this support and the
extent to which each of the species is endangered;
•
the relationship between the support of those sampled for the sustainable commercial
use of each of the focal wildlife species and the amount of funds respondents state
that they are willing to contribute towards the conservation of each.
3
Then, prior to concluding, the results (drawn from the analysis of the responses of those
sampled) are discussed.
Table of Contents of Chapter 15
15. Public Support for Sustainable Wildlife Harvesting and Biodiversity
Conservation: A Case Study
313
15.1. Introduction
313
15.2. Methods
317
Selection of sample
317
Coverage of questions asked
318
Data Analysis
319
15.3. Results: Attributes of the Sample, General Attitudes to Wildlife Harvesting,
Extent of Support for Harvesting Individual Species
320
General characteristics of the study sample
320
Attitudes towards sustainable commercial harvesting of wildlife in
general
323
Advocacy of nature conservation by participants related to their
attitudes towards commercial harvesting
323
Attitudes of participants towards the sustainable commercial
harvesting of each of the 24 Australian wildlife species listed
325
15.4. Further Relationships: Support for Harvesting Species Related to their
Endangerment, and to WTP for their Conservation
The relationship between the degree of endangerment of species and
support for their commercial harvesting
327
327
Relationships between stated willingness to pay for the conservation of
species and attitudes of participants towards sustainable commercial
harvesting of species
327
15.5. Discussion
331
15.6. Conclusions
332
References
334
List of Figures and Tables in Chapter 15
Figure 15.1
Figure 15.2
Income distribution for the population (Brisbane) and for the study
sample
322
Support for sustainable commercial harvesting of the various mammal
species versus allocation form hypothetical fund of AUS $1000 to help
the conservation of the mammal species
328
4
Figure 15.3
Support for sustainable commercial harvesting of the various bird species
versus allocation from hypothetical fund of AUS $1000 to help the
conservation of the bird species
329
Figure 15.4
Support for sustainable commercial harvesting of the various reptile
species versus allocation from hypothetical fund of AUS $1000 to help
the conservation of the reptile species
330
The list of reptile species assessed and the allocation column for
respondents to fill out
319
Selected demographic characteristics of the study sample and the
Brisbane population (from which it is drawn) as indicated by the
Census of 2001
320
The income distribution for Brisbane in 2001 and this distribution
for the Brisbane sample
321
Extent to which survey participants agreed with specified statements
about commercial harvesting of wildlife. The significance of differences
in values in Survey I and Survey II are tested using the chi-squared test
324
Table 15.1
Table 15.2
Table 15.3
Table 15.4
Table 15.5
The number and percentages of respondents supporting and not supporting
commercial harvesting of wildlife species, classified according to the
extent to which participants advocate nature conservation
325
Table 15.6
Attitudes of survey participants to whether sustainable commercial
harvesting of each of 24 Australian wildlife species should be allowed
and the IUCN Red List (2006) conservation status of each
326
Results from Spearman’s rank correlation test of survey participants’
relative support for harvesting (ratio of ‘yes’/’no’ responses) of the
various species in relation to the conservation status of each of the
species in the IUCN Red List
327
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between funds allocated for
conservation of species and their threatened species rankings according
to the IUCN Red List
330
Table 15.7
Table 15.8
5
Biodiversity Conservation: A Case Study
Chapter 15 in Clement A. Tisdell (2014) Human Values and Biodiversity
Conservation: The Survival of Wild Species, Cheltenham UK and Northampton,
MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited
15.1
Introduction
Can the harvesting of wildlife be used to save endangered species from extinction and
promote biodiversity conservation? To what extent do members of the public support the
harvesting of wildlife species and what factors influence this support? Relying on survey
data, this chapter (and the next) examines the varied attitudes of members of the public to the
harvesting of wildlife species and establishes some general relationships. Studies of this type
are important because the sustainable use of wildlife has been promoted as an effective means
for conserving biodiversity, and sustainable use of biological resources has been included in
the Convention on Biological Diversity as a worthy objective. Apart from reporting and
analysing the attitudes of sampled members of the Australian public towards the harvesting
of wildlife and its sustainable use, this chapter assesses the effectiveness of sustainably using
wildlife species in order to conserve these. The next chapter extends the discussion by
considering the extent to which members of the Australian public support the use of wildlife
by Indigenous Australians.
Attitudes to the sustainable commercial harvesting of some individual wildlife species and
aspects of policies affecting their use have been covered in earlier chapters of this book. For
example, use of hawksbill turtles was discussed in Chapter 8 and the utilization of saltwater
crocodiles was considered in Chapter 9. This chapter advances the previous analyses by
taking into account attitudes of members of the public towards the use of multiple species,
and as a result, establishes some general relationships.
The harvesting of wildlife, particularly when it involves the killing of animals, is a socially
controversial subject. Objections include its possible disruption. of ecosystem functions
(Luck et al., "2003, p. 33), its possible endangerment of the continuing existence of harvested
species and/or of species dependent on these (Struhsaker, 1998), and the view that killing
animals is cruel or violates animal rights (Singer, 1985). Use of wildlife species by humans
may either be consumptive or non-consumptive. Harvesting of wildlife whether for
subsistence use, that is, for direct use by individuals or families, or for commercial sale is
normally consumptive. Considerable controversy exists about whether such harvesting is
likely to promote the conservation of biodiversity or is likely to be detrimental to it
(Struhsaker, 1998; Medellin, 1999).
In the early 1990s, a dominant international conservation organization, the International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) endorsed the view that the use of wildlife,
including its harvesting, could be an effective means for conserving species. These views are
set out in Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living (IUCN-UNEP-WWF,
1
1991), which states (p. 42) that projects to conserve wild species and ecosystems are unlikely
to succeed unless they provide a sustainable economic return to the rural communities. This
will require the use of wildlife and, in many cases, its harvesting. This document also stresses
that as an economic incentive for conservation, communities that conserve wildlife should be
allowed to export their sustainable surpluses and receive the revenue earned. This implies, for
example, that as an economic incentive for the conservation of elephants, commercial exports
of ivory and other products obtained from African elephants should be allowed from those
nations and regions that are effective in conserving their populations of elephants. The
sustainable use concept is incorporated in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
(Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, undated).
This emphasis on utilizing wildlife, including by their consumptive harvest, differs from the
general philosophy underlying the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
(CITES). CITES sees the exploitation of wildlife resulting from international trade as
potentially threatening to the survival of many wild species and tries to ban or restrict
international trade in endangered species. This involves a potential conflict with CBD, which
is discussed, for example, in Tisdell (2009, Chapter 10, see particularly Section 10.5). Note
also that whereas The World Conservation Strategy (IUCN-UNEP-WWF, 1980) endorsed the
non-consumptive economic use of wildlife, for instance for wildlife-based tourism, it stopped
short of promoting the commercial harvesting of wildlife as a conservation strategy, unlike
Caring for the Earth (IUCN-UNEP- WWF, 1991).
Whether or not a sustainable use policy can be expected to be effective in maintaining
biodiversity has been subject to much debate (Campbell, 2002). Allen and Edwards (1995)
and Hutton and Dickson (2001) claim that if carried out with appropriate efficiency and
restraint, sustainable use of wildlife can promote conservation (see also Webb, 2002) but this
strategy inevitably results in a loss of biodiversity because it favours more useful species at
the expense of the less useful ones, according to Robinson (1993). Tisdell (2004a, 2004b) has
described how emphasis on commercial sustainable use of wildlife can alter the composition
of species in nature and its evolution. Hutton and Leader-Williams (2003, p. 223) argue that,
because much of humanity will continue to utilize wildlife, biologically sustainable use and
incentive-driven conservation must become a central conservation activity.
Decision-making about natural resource management cannot be divorced from public
attitudes about this management, and indeed, pressure to increase public involvement in this
policy-making sphere has grown (Sexton et al., 1999). It has also been claimed that, in
managing wildlife, science alone is inadequate and that stakeholder involvement is vital if use
and biodiversity conservation are to be achieved (Stave, 2002, p. 140). The public's attitudes
towards sustainable use of wildlife should, therefore, be evaluated (Witter and Sheriff, 1987,
p. 262; Ballard, 1994) to determine whether there is political support for sustainable use of
wildlife. Attitudes and beliefs of stakeholders and the wider public may clash with the
management options that wildlife managers or wildlife experts prefer, and so management
actions devised without public consultation and involvement may have little public support
and could be undermined by public opinion (Fulton et al., 2004). For example, plans to carry
out the culling of koalas on Kangaroo Island, Australia, in order to conserve eucalypts on
which koalas depend for food, have proven to be unsuccessful because of strong public
opposition (Rodgerson, 2004). Similarly, deer hunting has been discontinued during some
years in parts of Alaska due to public opposition (Hicks, 2001, p. 35).
North American studies, such as that of Butler et al. (2003), have assessed changes in the
public's attitude over time towards wildlife, touching incidentally on the management of
wildlife for sustainable use, and Fulton et al. (1993) have determined the proportion of a
2
sample of the public belonging to the pro-animal rights set or to pro-animal use set favouring
sustainable use of wildlife. Yet, there seems to have been no specific examination of the
public's attitude to the strategy of sustainable commercial use of wildlife and support for the
sustainable harvesting of specific wildlife species. The research results reported in this
chapter are a start towards filling this gap in the literature. They also provide a valuable step
in the process of .assessing contrasting policy proposals for conserving wildlife biodiversity,
particularly use versus non-use proposals, which are, for example, represented in the CBD
and CITES, respectively.
This chapter:
•
Analyses and reports the attitudes of a sample of 204 members of the Australian
public to the sustainable commercial harvesting of wildlife in general.
•
Assesses the sample's attitude to the sustainable commercial harvesting of 24 native
Australian wildlife species, covering mammals, birds and reptiles.
•
Determines what factors, if any, make these sampled members of the public more (or
less) receptive to the sustainable commercial harvesting of wildlife species. In this
regard, the association between the conservation status of the species as listed in the
IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2006) and participants' stated degree of support for their
sustainable commercial harvest is considered. Does, for instance, a greater degree of
endangerment of a species result in reduced support for commercial harvesting?
The main aims of the chapter are to determine whether there is likely to be widespread
support among members of the Australian public for a policy of encouraging sustainable
commercial use of species to promote their conservation, and to isolate significant factors that
may influence the public's degree of support for such a policy. It is hypothesized that the
degree of threat to the survival of species is likely to be a major influence on the public's
support for their use, including their commercial use. While this is not the only influence on
attitudes to harvesting wildlife species, it is worthwhile exploring because of its policy
relevance. Although the study sample is small relative to the Australian adult population, it
provides a starting point for further investigation. Resources were not available to consider a
larger sample. The study raises issues that need to be addressed in the socio-political sphere
by bodies promoting nature conservation. These issues are not specific to Australia.
The pattern of presentation of this chapter is as follows: first, the methods used to obtain the
relevant empirical data are outlined. While these are the same as those outlined previously in
this book (see, for example, Chapters 12 and 13), some extra information is provided here
that is particularly relevant to the sustainability part of this study. Second, the results from the
sample are reported. These results include:
•
relevant attributes of the sample;
•
general attitudes of those sampled towards the sustainable commercial harvesting of
wildlife;
•
the extent to which those sampled support the commercial harvesting of each of 24
selected Australian wildlife species and the relationship between this support and the
extent to which each of the species is endangered;
•
the relationship between the support of those sampled for the sustainable commercial
use of each of the focal wildlife species and the amount of funds respondents state
that they are willing to contribute towards the conservation of each.
3
Then, prior to concluding, the results (drawn from the analysis of the responses of those
sampled) are discussed.
Table of Contents of Chapter 15
15. Public Support for Sustainable Wildlife Harvesting and Biodiversity
Conservation: A Case Study
313
15.1. Introduction
313
15.2. Methods
317
Selection of sample
317
Coverage of questions asked
318
Data Analysis
319
15.3. Results: Attributes of the Sample, General Attitudes to Wildlife Harvesting,
Extent of Support for Harvesting Individual Species
320
General characteristics of the study sample
320
Attitudes towards sustainable commercial harvesting of wildlife in
general
323
Advocacy of nature conservation by participants related to their
attitudes towards commercial harvesting
323
Attitudes of participants towards the sustainable commercial
harvesting of each of the 24 Australian wildlife species listed
325
15.4. Further Relationships: Support for Harvesting Species Related to their
Endangerment, and to WTP for their Conservation
The relationship between the degree of endangerment of species and
support for their commercial harvesting
327
327
Relationships between stated willingness to pay for the conservation of
species and attitudes of participants towards sustainable commercial
harvesting of species
327
15.5. Discussion
331
15.6. Conclusions
332
References
334
List of Figures and Tables in Chapter 15
Figure 15.1
Figure 15.2
Income distribution for the population (Brisbane) and for the study
sample
322
Support for sustainable commercial harvesting of the various mammal
species versus allocation form hypothetical fund of AUS $1000 to help
the conservation of the mammal species
328
4
Figure 15.3
Support for sustainable commercial harvesting of the various bird species
versus allocation from hypothetical fund of AUS $1000 to help the
conservation of the bird species
329
Figure 15.4
Support for sustainable commercial harvesting of the various reptile
species versus allocation from hypothetical fund of AUS $1000 to help
the conservation of the reptile species
330
The list of reptile species assessed and the allocation column for
respondents to fill out
319
Selected demographic characteristics of the study sample and the
Brisbane population (from which it is drawn) as indicated by the
Census of 2001
320
The income distribution for Brisbane in 2001 and this distribution
for the Brisbane sample
321
Extent to which survey participants agreed with specified statements
about commercial harvesting of wildlife. The significance of differences
in values in Survey I and Survey II are tested using the chi-squared test
324
Table 15.1
Table 15.2
Table 15.3
Table 15.4
Table 15.5
The number and percentages of respondents supporting and not supporting
commercial harvesting of wildlife species, classified according to the
extent to which participants advocate nature conservation
325
Table 15.6
Attitudes of survey participants to whether sustainable commercial
harvesting of each of 24 Australian wildlife species should be allowed
and the IUCN Red List (2006) conservation status of each
326
Results from Spearman’s rank correlation test of survey participants’
relative support for harvesting (ratio of ‘yes’/’no’ responses) of the
various species in relation to the conservation status of each of the
species in the IUCN Red List
327
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between funds allocated for
conservation of species and their threatened species rankings according
to the IUCN Red List
330
Table 15.7
Table 15.8
5