Stakeholder Support for Wildlife Conservation Funding Policies

State wildlife management agencies in the United States have depended on a “user-pay” funding model for conservation efforts that relies on revenue from hunting license sales and a federal excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. Declines in hunting participation, however, jeopardi...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Chris D. Henderson, Shawn J. Riley, Emily F. Pomeranz, Daniel B. Kramer
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:	human dimensions hunting Michigan wildlife management wildlife watching General. Including nature conservation, geographical distribution QH1-199.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/29d73c4b0a5b4ec29041d86b742af672
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:29d73c4b0a5b4ec29041d86b742af672
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:29d73c4b0a5b4ec29041d86b742af6722021-11-04T05:12:25ZStakeholder Support for Wildlife Conservation Funding Policies2673-611X10.3389/fcosc.2021.767413https://doaj.org/article/29d73c4b0a5b4ec29041d86b742af6722021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2021.767413/fullhttps://doaj.org/toc/2673-611XState wildlife management agencies in the United States have depended on a “user-pay” funding model for conservation efforts that relies on revenue from hunting license sales and a federal excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. Declines in hunting participation, however, jeopardize sustainability of the current funding model. Ensuring support among stakeholders for wildlife management and conservation may require expanding sources of funding and incorporating the perspectives and values of a diversifying constituency into decision making processes. We used a web-based survey of wildlife-associated recreationists in Michigan, USA to evaluate support for a range of conservation funding policies. Respondents self-identified primarily as hunters (n = 2,558) or wildlife watchers (n = 942). We used binary logistic regression to evaluate support for four conservation funding policy options: state sales tax, lottery proceeds, extractive industry revenue, and a user-based tax on outdoor gear (i.e., “backpack tax”). Determinants of support varied by type of policy and stakeholder characteristics. We found no statistically significant differences between hunters and wildlife watchers in their support for conservation funding policies when accounting for other variables such as wildlife value orientations, engagement in stewardship behaviors, age, and gender. The industry-based policy achieved the greatest level of approval, while the backpack tax had the lowest. Respondents were mixed in their support of the sales tax and lottery proceeds options. Cluster analysis revealed three homogenous groups related to conservation funding policies: “strong support,” “mixed/opposed,” and “anti-backpack tax.” Clusters differed in their support for conservation funding policies and on psychological and demographic variables. The “strong support” and “anti-backpack tax” groups differed in their levels of stewardship engagement, knowledge of conservation funding mechanisms, and support for the backpack tax option. The “mixed-opposed” group tended to be older, less educated, and less likely to be a member of a conservation organization. Results suggest support for conservation funding differs by policy type and social and psychological characteristics of stakeholders. Based on differences in policy support revealed in this study, we suggest a multi-tiered approach to funding conservation and building on support among wildlife stakeholders to mitigate the looming funding crisis for state wildlife agencies.Chris D. HendersonShawn J. RileyEmily F. PomeranzDaniel B. KramerDaniel B. KramerFrontiers Media S.A.articlehuman dimensionshuntingMichiganwildlife managementwildlife watchingGeneral. Including nature conservation, geographical distributionQH1-199.5ENFrontiers in Conservation Science, Vol 2 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	human dimensions hunting Michigan wildlife management wildlife watching General. Including nature conservation, geographical distribution QH1-199.5
spellingShingle	human dimensions hunting Michigan wildlife management wildlife watching General. Including nature conservation, geographical distribution QH1-199.5 Chris D. Henderson Shawn J. Riley Emily F. Pomeranz Daniel B. Kramer Daniel B. Kramer Stakeholder Support for Wildlife Conservation Funding Policies
description	State wildlife management agencies in the United States have depended on a “user-pay” funding model for conservation efforts that relies on revenue from hunting license sales and a federal excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. Declines in hunting participation, however, jeopardize sustainability of the current funding model. Ensuring support among stakeholders for wildlife management and conservation may require expanding sources of funding and incorporating the perspectives and values of a diversifying constituency into decision making processes. We used a web-based survey of wildlife-associated recreationists in Michigan, USA to evaluate support for a range of conservation funding policies. Respondents self-identified primarily as hunters (n = 2,558) or wildlife watchers (n = 942). We used binary logistic regression to evaluate support for four conservation funding policy options: state sales tax, lottery proceeds, extractive industry revenue, and a user-based tax on outdoor gear (i.e., “backpack tax”). Determinants of support varied by type of policy and stakeholder characteristics. We found no statistically significant differences between hunters and wildlife watchers in their support for conservation funding policies when accounting for other variables such as wildlife value orientations, engagement in stewardship behaviors, age, and gender. The industry-based policy achieved the greatest level of approval, while the backpack tax had the lowest. Respondents were mixed in their support of the sales tax and lottery proceeds options. Cluster analysis revealed three homogenous groups related to conservation funding policies: “strong support,” “mixed/opposed,” and “anti-backpack tax.” Clusters differed in their support for conservation funding policies and on psychological and demographic variables. The “strong support” and “anti-backpack tax” groups differed in their levels of stewardship engagement, knowledge of conservation funding mechanisms, and support for the backpack tax option. The “mixed-opposed” group tended to be older, less educated, and less likely to be a member of a conservation organization. Results suggest support for conservation funding differs by policy type and social and psychological characteristics of stakeholders. Based on differences in policy support revealed in this study, we suggest a multi-tiered approach to funding conservation and building on support among wildlife stakeholders to mitigate the looming funding crisis for state wildlife agencies.
format	article
author	Chris D. Henderson Shawn J. Riley Emily F. Pomeranz Daniel B. Kramer Daniel B. Kramer
author_facet	Chris D. Henderson Shawn J. Riley Emily F. Pomeranz Daniel B. Kramer Daniel B. Kramer
author_sort	Chris D. Henderson
title	Stakeholder Support for Wildlife Conservation Funding Policies
title_short	Stakeholder Support for Wildlife Conservation Funding Policies
title_full	Stakeholder Support for Wildlife Conservation Funding Policies
title_fullStr	Stakeholder Support for Wildlife Conservation Funding Policies
title_full_unstemmed	Stakeholder Support for Wildlife Conservation Funding Policies
title_sort	stakeholder support for wildlife conservation funding policies
publisher	Frontiers Media S.A.
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/29d73c4b0a5b4ec29041d86b742af672
work_keys_str_mv	AT chrisdhenderson stakeholdersupportforwildlifeconservationfundingpolicies AT shawnjriley stakeholdersupportforwildlifeconservationfundingpolicies AT emilyfpomeranz stakeholdersupportforwildlifeconservationfundingpolicies AT danielbkramer stakeholdersupportforwildlifeconservationfundingpolicies AT danielbkramer stakeholdersupportforwildlifeconservationfundingpolicies
_version_	1718445198157021184

Stakeholder Support for Wildlife Conservation Funding Policies

Ejemplares similares