Expert judgment and uncertainty regarding the protection of imperiled species

Decisions concerning the appropriate listing status of species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) can be controversial even among conservationists. These decisions may determine whether a species persists in the near term and have long‐lasting social and political ramifications. Given the ESA's mandate that such decisions be based on the best available science, it is important to examine what factors contribute to experts’ judgments concerning the listing of species. We examined how a variety of factors (such as risk perception, value orientations, and norms) influenced experts’ judgments concerning the appropriate listing status of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Experts were invited to complete an online survey examining their perceptions of the threats grizzly bears face and their listing recommendation. Although experts’ assessments of the threats to this species were strongly correlated with their recommendations for listing status, this relationship did not exist when other cognitive factors were included in the model. Specifically, values related to human use of wildlife and norms (i.e., a respondent's expectation of peers’ assessments) were most influential in listing status recommendations. These results suggest that experts’ decisions about listing, like all human decisions, are subject to the use of heuristics (i.e., decision shortcuts). An understanding of how heuristics and related biases affect decisions under uncertainty can help inform decision making about threatened and endangered species and may be useful in designing effective processes for protection of imperiled species.     

Exploring nationality and social identity to explain attitudes toward conservation actions in the United States and Australia

Understanding human attitudes toward wildlife management is critical to implementing effective conservation action and policy. Understanding the factors that shape public attitudes toward different wildlife management actions is limited, however, which can result in unpredictable public responses to interventions. We drew on comparisons between residents of 2 countries on separate continents to explore differences in attitudes toward wildlife management and determine factors important in shaping these attitudes. We surveyed representative publics via market research panels in Australia (n = 881 respondents) and the United States (n = 1287). We applied a social-identity approach and demography to identify factors that explained variance between responses about wildlife management. We compared responses between countries overall and within subgroups of respondents who strongly identified as environmentalists, animal rights activists, wildlife conservation advocates, and farmers. We created aggregate scores for the management-related response items per respondent and used regression analyses to identify the relative importance of country, identity, age, and gender in explaining variance between responses. These factors accounted for 15.3% of variance among responses. Australians overall were generally more accepting of lethal wildlife management actions than U.S. respondents. Differences in national attitudes reflected differences between United States and Australian wildlife management and policy, highlighting the importance of understanding social attitudes in shaping conservation policy. Identifying as a farmer followed by identifying as an animal rights activist most shaped attitudes toward wildlife management. Identity-related conflicts could be initiated or exacerbated by conservation interventions that fail to consider identity-related processes.     

Addressing identity-related barriers to collaboration for conservation through self-affirmation theory and moral foundations theory

The natural resource management literature documents many reasons for pursuing collaborative processes, offering useful insights on how to manage conflict and facilitate productive deliberation in complex multistakeholder collaborative efforts. Moral foundations theory and self-affirmation theory can further help collaborative efforts mitigate conflicts caused by identity threats and the identity-protective reasoning these threats provoke. Moral foundations theory suggests an approach to increase collaboration by minimizing triggering language and helping people appreciate opposing viewpoints. Self-affirmation theory suggests a practical intervention that could be used to increase collaboration by desensitizing people to identity threats and reducing defensiveness. Taken together, these theories can contribute substantially to the understanding and practice of collaboration and conflict management for conservation.