Using normative beliefs to determine the acceptability of wildlife management actions

Abstract

Because wildlife in the United States is publicly owned, management actions and policies depend on public acceptance. This article uses a normative approach to describe and evaluate what the public believes are acceptable management actions toward three different wildlife species involved in human‐wildlife interactions. The results illustrate the extent to which normative beliefs about wildlife management actions are influenced by situational specifics and wildlife value orientations. Across different species and situations, individuals with protectionist wildlife values were less willing than those with pro‐use wildlife values to accept destroying an animal. The results point to circumstances that are likely to generate intense conflict over particular management policies and allow more confident generalization about how publics will respond to different management actions. Additional research is needed to identify the situational specifics and human values that best explain and predict normative beliefs across a wide variety of species and situations.