Advanced

Believed effect - A prerequisite but not a guarantee for acceptance of carnivore management interventions

Eklund, Ann LU ; Johansson, Maria LU ; Flykt, Anders ; Andrén, Henrik and Frank, Jens (2020) In Biological Conservation 241.
Abstract

Conflicts over wildlife and their potential impacts on human practices and livelihoods are widespread. Large carnivore predation on livestock often becomes a contested topic which has led to global declines in carnivore numbers over centuries. To minimise impacts of carnivores on human livelihoods and allow conservation, various interventions are used to prevent attacks. However, these interventions can only be effective if they are used and implemented. According to the Technology Acceptance Model, end user acceptance depends on perceived usefulness and ease of use. This study investigates the former as believed effect through a modified version of the Potential for Conflict Index. Using a web-based questionnaire we assess acceptance... (More)

Conflicts over wildlife and their potential impacts on human practices and livelihoods are widespread. Large carnivore predation on livestock often becomes a contested topic which has led to global declines in carnivore numbers over centuries. To minimise impacts of carnivores on human livelihoods and allow conservation, various interventions are used to prevent attacks. However, these interventions can only be effective if they are used and implemented. According to the Technology Acceptance Model, end user acceptance depends on perceived usefulness and ease of use. This study investigates the former as believed effect through a modified version of the Potential for Conflict Index. Using a web-based questionnaire we assess acceptance levels and believed effect of interventions intended to prevent carnivore predation on livestock, dogs, and reindeer among animal owners/keepers and members of the public in Sweden. The analysis shows that believed effect is a prerequisite for acceptance of an intervention, but not a guarantee. Interventions promoted by authorities are in some cases highly acceptable to users and the public, but in other cases believed contra-productive and are opposed by the end users. Active promotion of the latter may undermine mitigation efforts. Carnivore removal is generally more acceptable to animal owners than to members of the public. The results are useful to minimise conflicts within carnivore management and increase transparency and success of conservation. The results are discussed in relation to how similar questions may be approached in other systems using combined measures of believed effect, accept-intention, and the Potential for Conflict Index.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Conflict mitigation, Human perceptions, Large carnivore, Potential for conflict index, Predation, Wildlife conflict
in
Biological Conservation
volume
241
article number
108251
publisher
Elsevier
external identifiers
  • scopus:85075900667
ISSN
0006-3207
DOI
10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108251
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
5b3f5ebd-99f4-4308-b024-503049debd9b
date added to LUP
2020-01-02 15:31:01
date last changed
2020-05-26 05:37:35
@article{5b3f5ebd-99f4-4308-b024-503049debd9b,
  abstract     = {<p>Conflicts over wildlife and their potential impacts on human practices and livelihoods are widespread. Large carnivore predation on livestock often becomes a contested topic which has led to global declines in carnivore numbers over centuries. To minimise impacts of carnivores on human livelihoods and allow conservation, various interventions are used to prevent attacks. However, these interventions can only be effective if they are used and implemented. According to the Technology Acceptance Model, end user acceptance depends on perceived usefulness and ease of use. This study investigates the former as believed effect through a modified version of the Potential for Conflict Index. Using a web-based questionnaire we assess acceptance levels and believed effect of interventions intended to prevent carnivore predation on livestock, dogs, and reindeer among animal owners/keepers and members of the public in Sweden. The analysis shows that believed effect is a prerequisite for acceptance of an intervention, but not a guarantee. Interventions promoted by authorities are in some cases highly acceptable to users and the public, but in other cases believed contra-productive and are opposed by the end users. Active promotion of the latter may undermine mitigation efforts. Carnivore removal is generally more acceptable to animal owners than to members of the public. The results are useful to minimise conflicts within carnivore management and increase transparency and success of conservation. The results are discussed in relation to how similar questions may be approached in other systems using combined measures of believed effect, accept-intention, and the Potential for Conflict Index.</p>},
  author       = {Eklund, Ann and Johansson, Maria and Flykt, Anders and Andrén, Henrik and Frank, Jens},
  issn         = {0006-3207},
  language     = {eng},
  publisher    = {Elsevier},
  series       = {Biological Conservation},
  title        = {Believed effect - A prerequisite but not a guarantee for acceptance of carnivore management interventions},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108251},
  doi          = {10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108251},
  volume       = {241},
  year         = {2020},
}