How Community Members Engage With Wildlife—A Psychological Typology With Implications for Policy Making
Cristina Romero-de-Diego , Morena Mills , Bradd Witt , Angela Dean
Wildlife Letters ›› 2024, Vol. 2 ›› Issue (4) : 179 -191.
How Community Members Engage With Wildlife—A Psychological Typology With Implications for Policy Making
Community perceptions influence wildlife‐related management and policy efforts. However, there remains limited research into population‐level social and psychological aspects driving engagement with wildlife and how this shapes support for broader wildlife management approaches. Here we draw on Australian national data to develop a typology of community engagement with wildlife based on cognitive, affective, and behavioral factors, and how they shape support for wildlife management policies. We identified seven groups reflecting different patterns of engagement with wildlife, ranging from Champions to Disengaged. Importantly, respondents who were members of more engaged groups were also more likely to exhibit polarized views toward wildlife management strategies that involve culling or translocating wildlife. Our results suggest that wildlife managers and decision‐makers should not assume that support for wildlife always translates into support for wildlife management or conservation policies. We discuss approaches to communications and conflict management for diverse social groups.
affective / animal welfare / behavior / cognitive / communication / conflict management / conservation / lethal management / nature experiences / wildlife management
| [1] |
ABS. 2016. Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS): Volume 5-Remoteness Structure. Correspondence, 2017 Postcode to 2016 Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics. |
| [2] |
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
|
| [6] |
Australian Academy of Science. 2023. Australian Academy of Science Submission on the Impacts and Management of Feral Horses in the Australian Alps. Submission 57. |
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
|
| [40] |
|
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
|
| [43] |
|
| [44] |
|
| [45] |
|
| [46] |
|
| [47] |
|
| [48] |
|
| [49] |
|
| [50] |
|
| [51] |
|
| [52] |
|
| [53] |
|
| [54] |
|
| [55] |
|
| [56] |
|
| [57] |
|
| [58] |
|
| [59] |
|
| [60] |
|
| [61] |
|
| [62] |
|
| [63] |
|
| [64] |
|
| [65] |
|
| [66] |
|
| [67] |
|
| [68] |
|
| [69] |
|
| [70] |
|
| [71] |
|
| [72] |
|
| [73] |
|
| [74] |
|
| [75] |
|
| [76] |
|
| [77] |
|
| [78] |
|
| [79] |
|
| [80] |
|
| [81] |
|
| [82] |
|
| [83] |
|
| [84] |
RSPCA. 2017. Identifying Best Practice Cat Management in Australia. A Discussion Paper. Australia. |
| [85] |
|
| [86] |
|
| [87] |
|
| [88] |
|
| [89] |
|
| [90] |
|
| [91] |
|
| [92] |
|
| [93] |
|
| [94] |
|
| [95] |
|
| [96] |
|
| [97] |
|
| [98] |
|
| [99] |
|
| [100] |
|
| [101] |
|
| [102] |
|
| [103] |
|
| [104] |
|
| [105] |
|
| [106] |
|
| [107] |
|
| [108] |
|
| [109] |
|
| [110] |
|
| [111] |
|
| [112] |
|
2025 The Author(s). Wildlife Letters published by Northeast Forestry University and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |