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).
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).
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;
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 327
The relationship between the degree of endangerment of species and
support for their commercial harvesting 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 Income distribution for the population (Brisbane) and for the study
sample 322
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
Table 15.1 The list of reptile species assessed and the allocation column for
respondents to fill out 319
Table 15.2 Selected demographic characteristics of the study sample and the Brisbane population (from which it is drawn) as indicated by the
Census of 2001 320
Table 15.3 The income distribution for Brisbane in 2001 and this distribution
for the Brisbane sample 321
Table 15.4 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 15.5 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
Table 15.7 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
Table 15.8 Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between funds allocated for conservation of species and their threatened species rankings according
