The sensitivities and adaptive capacity of public lands visitors.

Lands and waters administered by governing entities for public use (i.e., "public lands") are subject to changing social and ecological conditions (e.g., overcrowding, drought). Public lands managers are often tasked with addressing these changes while balancing conservation goals and public use mandates, and their decisions can significantly and inequitably impact visitor sensitivities to different types of exposures. To gain insights into visitor sensitivities and their adaptive capacity to mitigate the impacts of exposures, we draw upon a comprehensive monitoring effort conducted in collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to understand visitor experiences on national wildlife refuges (refuges). We collected data from 10,556 visitors to 68 refuges during 2018-2019, then segmented respondents into unique visitor types based on their frequency of visiting "this refuge" where they were contacted, their participation across different activities at that refuge, and visits to other public lands for purposes of their primary activity, all during the 12 months prior to being contacted. We then explored differences among the resulting visitor types in their (a) purpose of visit, (b) satisfaction with opportunities during their visit, and (c) demographic characteristics. Finally, we used external data sources to explore the sensitivities and adaptive capacity of visitors' home communities. Our approach identified eight types of visitors with distinct sensitivities and adaptive capacities. For example, the type categorized as "most sensitive" due to activity specialization and site dependency was more likely to engage in activities (e.g., fishing, hunting) that may be subsistence uses of public lands and more often lived in communities with reduced adaptive capacity. Our assessment supports public lands decision-making by helping to understand and address social inequities that may arise or be exacerbated by rapidly changing conditions.

Effect of semantics in the study of tolerance for wolves.

As conservation scholars increasingly recognize the critical role of human thought and behavior in determining the persistence of biodiversity across the globe, a growing line of inquiry regarding the validity and comparability of previous applications of core psychological concepts has emerged. Specifically, inconsistent measurement and use of terms, such as attitudes and acceptance, reveal important questions about previous approaches. Given that these concepts differ by definition, yet have been used interchangeably, we explored what drives differences in people's responses when each concept is operationalized in the context of a contested wildlife species, the gray wolf (Canis lupus). To do so, we used data from a 2014 survey of U.S. residents (n = 1287) to test how measures of six concepts (i.e., acceptance, attitudes, benefits, risks, [prior] behavior, and behavioral intentions) often employed in the conservation social sciences were related with a broad set of possible explanatory variables. Despite moderate to strong correlations between all concepts measured (| Pearson's r | = 0.39-0.65, p < 0.001), results revealed considerable variation in their respective relationships with identical explanatory variables. Specifically, although wildlife value orientation (i.e., domination or mutualism) operated fairly consistently across cognitive and behavioral concepts, the relationship between the six concepts and other factors, such as social trust, identification with various interest groups (i.e., hunter, farmer, or rancher, environmentalist, and animal rights advocate), and political ideology (i.e., liberal vs. conservative), varied considerably. Our findings underscore that differences exist in these measures, which could have serious implications for conservationists integrating social science findings in their decision-making processes if they are unaware of the theoretical underpinnings of and distinctions between core psychological concepts.

Efectos de la semántica en los estudios de tolerancia a los lobos Resumen Los académicos dedicados a la conservación reconocen cada vez más lo importantes que son el pensamiento y el comportamiento humano para definir la persistencia de la biodiversidad a nivel mundial, por lo que ha emergido una creciente línea de indagación con respecto a la validez y la comparabilidad de las aplicaciones previas de conceptos psicológicos fundamentales. Más específicamente, las medidas incompatibles y el uso de términos como actitudes y aceptación revelan preguntas importantes sobre las estrategias anteriores. Ya que estos conceptos difieren por definición y aun así se han usado indistintamente, decidimos explorar qué impulsa las diferencias en las respuestas de las personas cuando cada concepto opera en el contexto de una especie de fauna controvertida: el lobo gris (Canis lupus). Para lograr esto, usamos datos de un censo de 2014 aplicado a residentes estadunidenses (n = 1,287) para analizar cómo la medida de seis conceptos usados frecuentemente en las ciencias sociales de la conservación (aceptación, actitudes, beneficios, riesgos comportamiento [previo] e intenciones conductuales) se relacionan con un amplio conjunto de variables explicativas posibles. A pesar de las correlaciones moderadas y fuertes entre todos los conceptos medidos (| Pearson's r | = 0.39 a 0.65, p < 0.001), los resultados revelaron una variación considerable en sus respectivas relaciones con las variables explicativas idénticas. De manera más precisa, aunque la orientación del valor de la fauna (es decir, dominancia y mutualismo) operó uniformemente en los conceptos cognitivos y conductuales, la relación entre los seis conceptos y otros factores, como la confianza social, identificación con varios grupos de interés (cazador, agricultor o ranchero, ambientalista, defensor de los derechos animales) e ideología política (liberal vs conservador) variaron considerablemente. Nuestros resultados destacan las diferencias que existen en estas medidas, las cuales podrían tener repercusiones serias para los conservacionistas que integran los resultados de las ciencias sociales dentro de sus procesos de toma de decisiones si no están concientes de las teorías fundamentales y las distinciones entre los conceptos psicológicos fundamentales.

Trauma and Transgression in Nature-Based Leisure.

The following article contains language, including discussion of racialized trauma, violent oppression, and more, that could trigger strong emotions and other physiological reactions. Our intent is not to retraumatize anyone, but to instead center the voices and experiences of people who have transgressed significant historical trauma and long sought lasting change and equitable outcomes for all.

Determination of Dairy Cattle Euthanasia Criteria and Analysis of Barriers to Humane Euthanasia in the United States: The Veterinarian Perspective.

When dairy cattle become ill or injured to the extent that recovery is unlikely or impossible, on-farm euthanasia should be used as a tool to eliminate pain and suffering. Our study aimed to identify decision-making criteria and the most common factors considered by veterinarians when making and carrying out euthanasia decisions. Dairy cattle veterinarians were recruited to participate in an online survey (Part I, 61 surveys collected) or in one of three focus groups (Part II, 4-10 veterinarians/group, n = 22). Part I (survey): Surveyed veterinarians varied regarding health condition management and demonstrated a strong proclivity to treat compromised cattle, mirroring trends amongst dairy producers identified in previous research. Sixty percent of respondents indicated that most facilities for which they serve as the primary veterinarian have a written euthanasia protocol in place. Part II (focus groups): Three main themes about euthanasia decision-making (logistical, animal, and human) were identified from focus group discussions. Discussions focused primarily on logistical factors such as financial considerations and client/public perceptions. Development of specific standards for euthanasia, alongside interactive training programs for dairy veterinarians and producers are vital next steps to improving cattle welfare and consistency in euthanasia decision-making across the United States dairy industry.

Determination of Dairy Cattle Euthanasia Criteria and Analysis of Barriers to Humane Euthanasia in the United States: Dairy Producer Surveys and Focus Groups.

There are currently no clear guidelines in the US and some other countries regarding euthanasia decision making timelines for dairy cattle that become injured or ill to the extent that recovery is unlikely or impossible. Our study aimed to identify decision making criteria and the most common factors considered when making and carrying out euthanasia decisions. Dairy producers were recruited to participate in a mailed survey (Part I, 307 completed surveys were returned) or in one of three focus groups (Part II, 8-10 producers/group, n = 24). Part I (survey): Farm owners were most commonly responsible for on-farm euthanasia and most respondents would treat and monitor compromised cattle for a majority of 15 health conditions. Responses were highly variable; for example, 6.3% and 11.7% of respondents would never euthanize a non-ambulatory cow or calf, respectively. Part II (focus groups): Three main themes (animal, human, and farm operation) were identified from discussion which focused primarily on animal welfare (16% of the discussion) and human psychology (16%). Participants expressed a desire to eliminate animal suffering by euthanizing, alongside a wide range of emotional states. Development of specific standards for euthanasia is a critical next step and more research is needed to understand the human emotions surrounding euthanasia decision making.

The changing sociocultural context of wildlife conservation.

We introduced a multilevel model of value shift to describe the changing social context of wildlife conservation. Our model depicts how cultural-level processes driven by modernization (e.g., increased wealth, education, and urbanization) affect changes in individual-level cognition that prompt a shift from domination to mutualism wildlife values. Domination values promote beliefs that wildlife should be used primarily to benefit humans, whereas mutualism values adopt a view that wildlife are part of one's social network and worthy of care and compassion. Such shifts create emergent effects (e.g., new interest groups) and challenges to wildlife management organizations (e.g., increased conflict) and dramatically alter the sociopolitical context of conservation decisions. Although this model is likely applicable to many modernized countries, we tested it with data from a 2017-2018 nationwide survey (mail and email panel) of 43,949 residents in the United States. We conducted hierarchical linear modeling and correlational analysis to examine relationships. Modernization variables had strong state-level effects on domination and mutualism. Higher levels of education, income, and urbanization were associated with higher percentages of mutualists and lower percentages of traditionalists, who have strong domination values. Values affected attitudes toward wildlife management challenges; for example, states with higher proportions of mutualists were less supportive of lethal control of wolves (Canis lupus) and had lower percentages of active hunters, who represent the traditional clientele of state wildlife agencies in the United States. We contend that agencies will need to embrace new strategies to engage and represent a growing segment of the public with mutualism values. Our model merits testing for application in other countries.

El Cambiante Contexto Sociocultural de la Conservación de Fauna Resumen Introdujimos un modelo multinivel del cambio de valores para describir el cambiante contexto social de la conservación de fauna. Nuestro modelo representa cómo los procesos a nivel cultural llevados por la modernización (p. ej.: aumento de riqueza, educación y urbanización) afectan a los cambios en la cognición a nivel individual que incitan a un cambio de los valores de dominación a los valores de mutualismo de la fauna. Los valores de dominación promueven la creencia de que la fauna debería usarse principalmente para beneficio de los humanos, mientras que los valores de mutualismo adoptan una visión de que la fauna es parte de la red social de uno y digna de cuidados y compasión. Dichos cambios generan efectos emergentes (p. ej.: nuevos grupos de interés) y retos para las organizaciones de manejo de fauna (p. ej.: conflictos mayores) y alteran dramáticamente el contexto sociopolítico de las decisiones de conservación. Aunque este modelo probablemente pueda aplicarse a muchos países modernizados, lo pusimos a prueba con datos de un censo nacional de 2017 - 2018 realizado (por correo y correo electrónico) a 43,949 residentes de los Estados Unidos. Realizamos un modelado jerárquico lineal y un análisis de correlación para examinar las relaciones. Las variables de modernización tuvieron efectos sólidos a nivel estatal sobre la dominación y el mutualismo. Los niveles altos de educación, ingresos y urbanización estuvieron asociados con los porcentajes más altos de mutualistas y con los porcentajes más bajos de tradicionalistas, quienes tienen valores de dominación fuertes. Los valores afectaron a las actitudes hacia los retos para el manejo de fauna; por ejemplo, los estados con proporciones mayores de mutualistas mostraron un menor apoyo para el control letal de los lobos (Canis lupus) y tuvieron porcentajes más bajos de cazadores activos, quienes representan a la clientela tradicional de las agencias estatales de vida silvestre en los Estados Unidos. Sostenemos que las agencias necesitarán adoptar nuevas estrategias para envolver y representar a un segmento creciente del público con valores mutualistas. Nuestro modelo amerita ser evaluado para su aplicación en otros países.

Social values and biodiversity conservation in a dynamic world.

Understanding what shape values (which ultimately shape human behavior) will help improve the effectiveness of conservation solutions that depend on public support. To contribute to this understanding, we investigated the influence of societal-level changes, such as modernization, on values in a multilevel framework. We collected survey responses (n = 4183) to questionnaires mailed to a random selection of households within each county in Washington (U.S.A.) (response rate 32%). We used multilevel modeling to determine the relationship between modernization (e.g., county-level urbanization, wealth, and education) and wildlife value orientations (values that shape thought about wildlife) while controlling for individual-level sociodemographics. We then explored how values influence conservation support at different levels (e.g., individual and county) and how values explain conservation support in a case study of public responses to wolf (Canis lupis) recovery. We found positive associations between county-level examples of modernization and mutualism (a wildlife value orientation that prioritizes the perceived needs of wildlife) independent of a respondent's sociodemographics, and negative associations between modernization and domination (a wildlife value orientation that prioritizes human needs). Our results suggest that context has an additive impact on one's values; certain locations exhibited domination values, whereas others exhibited a mix of value types. This finding is important because actions that restrict human interests to promote biodiversity were negatively associated with domination and positively associated with mutualism. In the wolf case study, mutualism was strongly correlated with less social conflict over wolf recovery in many, but not all, counties (e.g., Pearson's r correlation = 0.59 in one county and a nonsignificant correlation in another). Our findings suggest that modernization operates on values within a state with implications for biodiversity, but other factors in addition to values must be investigated to fully understand what leads to proconservation behavior.

Implications of human value shift and persistence for biodiversity conservation.

Large-scale change in human values and associated behavior change is believed by some to be the ultimate solution to achieve global biodiversity conservation. Yet little is known about the dynamics of values. We contribute to this area of inquiry by examining the trajectory of values affecting views of wildlife in North America. Using data from a 19-state study in the United States and global data from the Schwartz Value Survey, we explored questions of value persistence and change and the nature of attitudinal responses regarding wildlife conservation issues. We found support, based on subjects' ancestry, for the supposition that domination is a prevalent American value orientation toward wildlife that has origins in European Judeo-Christian traditions. Independent of that effect, we also found indications of change. Modernization is contributing to a shift from domination to mutualism value orientations, which is fostering attitudes less centered on human interests and seemingly more consistent with a biocentric philosophy. Our findings suggest that if value shift could be achieved in a purposeful way, then significant and widespread behavior change believed necessary for long-term conservation success may indeed be possible. In particular, greater emphasis on mutualism values may help provide the context for more collaborative approaches to support future conservation efforts. However, given the societal forces at play, it is not at all clear that human-engineered value shift is tenable. Instead of developing strategies aimed at altering values, it may be more productive to create strategies that recognize and work within the boundaries of existing values. Whereas values appear to be in a period of flux, it will be difficult to predict future trends without a better understanding of value formation and shift, particularly under conditions of rapid social-ecological change.