Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:19:03.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emotions and the tolerance of large carnivores: pumas in a crop-based landscape in Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Andrea Dechner Open the ORCID record for Andrea Dechner [Opens in a new window]
Andrea Dechner*
Affiliation:
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 48824, East Lansing, Michigan, USA; Program in Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Behavior, Michigan State University, 48824, East Lansing, Michigan, USA and Center for Global Change and Earth Observations, Michigan State University, 48823, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Andrea Dechner, Email: dechners@msu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Understanding the factors that affect the tolerance of carnivores is critical for proposing strategies for their conservation. A widely known hazard-acceptance model for large carnivores proposes that, unlike cognitive factors, emotional (affective) factors are secondary drivers of tolerance towards these species. The main objective of this article is to compare the effect of affective and cognitive factors on the tolerance of pumas (Puma concolor), using 109 semi-structured interviews conducted in a rural landscape in the state of Bahia (Brazil). Through the use of cumulative link models I found that although the cognitive model explained a considerable amount of variability (gen. R2 = 0.38) in the tolerance of the species, the affective model explained a higher amount of variability (gen. R2 = 0.44). In addition, an integrative model containing cognitive and affective factors explained the highest amount of variability (gen. R2 = 0.51). Contrary to what has been believed for decades, humans may not process information regarding wildlife from a purely analytical viewpoint, and social-based strategies for carnivore conservation should benefit from integrative approaches that consider emotional responses to wildlife.

Keywords

Brazilian Atlantic Forestcarnivore conservationemotionshazard-acceptance modelperceived benefitsperceived costs
Type
Research Paper
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , June 2021 , pp. 93 - 99
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Foundation for Environmental Conservation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ação, Ambiental (2011) Diagnóstico Sócioambiental das Comunidades do Entorno da Reserva Ecológica Michelin. In: Igrapiúna, Bahia-Brasil: Ação Ambiental.Google Scholar
Agresti, A (2012) Categorical Data Analysis. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Bjerke, T, Kaltenborn, BP (1999) The relationship of ecocentric and Anthropocentric motives to attitudes toward large carnivores. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19: 415–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruskotter, JT, Singh, A, Fulton, DC, Slagle, K (2015) Assessing tolerance for wildlife: clarifying relations between concepts and measures. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 20: 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruskotter, JT, Wilson, RS (2014) Determining where the wild things will be: using psychological theory to find tolerance for large carnivores. Conservation Letters 7: 158–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bürkner, P-C, Vuorre, M (2019) Ordinal regression models in psychology: a tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 2: 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, KP, Anderson, DR (2002) Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.Google Scholar
Carter, NH, Riley, SJ, Liu, J (2012) Utility of a psychological framework for carnivore conservation. Oryx 46: 525–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castilho, LC, De Vleeschouwer, KM, Milner-Gulland, EJ, Schiavetti, A (2018) Attitudes and behaviors of rural residents toward different motivations for hunting and deforestation in protected areas of the northeastern Atlantic Forest, Brazil. Tropical Conservation Science 11: 1940082917753507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, RHB (2015) Analysis of Ordinal Data with Cumulative Link Models Estimation with the R-Package Ordinal. R-Vignette.Google Scholar
Christensen, RHB (2019) Cumulative Link Models for Ordinal Regression with the R-Package Ordinal. R-Vignette.Google Scholar
Dechner, A (2020) Predicting the tangible and intangible costs of co-occurring with wildlife. Global Ecology and Conservation 23: e01091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, MT, Vaske, JJ, Bath, AJ, Marchini, S (2016) Predicting acceptability of jaguars and pumas in the Atlantic Forest, Brazil. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 21: 427–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estes, JA, Terborgh, J, Brashares, JS, Power, ME, Berger, J, Bond, WJ, Carpenter, SR et al. (2011) Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. Science 333: 301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finucane, ML, Alhakami, A, Slovic, P, Johnson, SM (2000) The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13: 1–17.3.0.CO;2-S>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritz, MS, Mackinnon, DP (2007) Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science 18: 233–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glikman, JA, Vaske, JJ, Bath, AJ, Ciucci, P, Boitani, L (2011) Residents’ support for wolf and bear conservation: the moderating influence of knowledge. European Journal of Wildlife Research 58: 295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, MH (2009) Why do we like or dislike animals? Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, MH (2012) Human emotions toward wildlife. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17: 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, MH, Fehres, P, Campbell, M (2012a) Measuring emotions toward wildlife: a review of generic methods and instruments. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17: 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, MH, Vaske, JJ, Dubois, S, Fehres, P (2014) More than fear: role of emotions in acceptability of lethal control of wolves. European Journal of Wildlife Research 60: 589–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, MH, Vaske, JJ, Roemer, JM (2012b) Toward a mental systems approach to human relationships with wildlife: the role of emotional dispositions. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17: 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, M, Ferreira, IA, Støen, O-G, Frank, J, Flykt, A (2016a) Targeting human fear of large carnivores: many ideas but few known effects. Biological Conservation 201: 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, M, Flykt, A, Frank, J, Støen, O-G (2019) Controlled exposure reduces fear of brown bears. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 24: 363–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, M, Frank, J, Støen, O-G, Flykt, A (2016b) An evaluation of information meetings as a tool for addressing fear of large carnivores. Society & Natural Resources 30: 281–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, M, Karlsson, J, Pedersen, E, Flykt, A (2012) Factors governing human fear of brown bear and wolf. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17: 58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kansky, R, Kidd, M, Knight, AT (2016) A wildlife tolerance model and case study for understanding human wildlife conflicts. Biological Conservation 201: 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landon, AC, Jacobs, MH, Miller, CA, Vaske, JJ, Williams, BD (2019) Cognitive and affective predictors of Illinois residents’ perceived risks from gray wolves. Society & Natural Resources 33: 574–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, LR, Cooper, CB, Hauber, ME (2016) Emotions as drivers of wildlife stewardship behavior: examining citizen science nest monitors’ responses to invasive house sparrows. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 21: 18–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeDoux, JE (2012) Evolution of human emotion: a view through fear. Progress in Brain Research 195: 431–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liddell, TM, Kruschke, JK (2018) Analyzing ordinal data with metric models: what could possibly go wrong? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 79: 328–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lischka, SA, Teel, TL, Johnson, HE, Crooks, KR (2019) Understanding and managing human tolerance for a large carnivore in a residential system. Biological Conservation 238: 108189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchini, S, Crawshaw, PG (2015) Human–wildlife conflicts in Brazil: a fast-growing issue. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 20: 323–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagelkerke, NJD (1991) A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 78: 691–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naimi, B (2019) usdm Package: Uncertainty Analysis for Species Distribution Models. In: R package version 1.1-18.Google Scholar
Peterson, B, Harrell, FE (1990) Partial proportional odds models for ordinal response variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics) 39: 205–217.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2019) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. In: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Ripple, WJ, Estes, JA, Beschta, RL, Wilmers, CC, Ritchie, EG, Hebblewhite, M, Berger, J et al. (2014) Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343: 1241484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saif, O, Kansky, R, Palash, A, Kidd, M, Knight, AT (2019) Costs of coexistence: understanding the drivers of tolerance towards Asian elephants Elephas maximus in rural Bangladesh. Oryx: 1–9.Google Scholar
Slagle, K, Zajac, R, Bruskotter, J, Wilson, R, Prange, S (2013) Building tolerance for bears: a communications experiment. The Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 863–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slagle, KM, Bruskotter, JT, Wilson, RS (2012) The role of affect in public support and opposition to wolf management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17: 44–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straka, TM, Miller, KK, Jacobs, MH (2019) Understanding the acceptability of wolf management actions: roles of cognition and emotion. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 25: 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, SC (1999) Illusions of control: how we overestimate our personal influence. Current Directions in Psychological Science 8: 187–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treves, A, Bruskotter, J (2014) Tolerance for predatory wildlife. Science 344: 476–477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vining, J (2003) The connection to other animals and caring for nature. Human Ecology Review 10: 87–99.Google Scholar
Wieczorek Hudenko, H (2012) Exploring the influence of emotion on human decision making in human–wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17: 16–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, EJ, Harrington, KM, Clark, SL, Miller, MW (2013) Sample size requirements for structural equation models: an evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement 73: 913–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yee, TW (2019) VGAM Package: Vector Generalized Linear and Additive Models. In: R package.Google Scholar
Zainal Abidin, ZA, Jacobs, M (2019) Relationships between valence towards wildlife and wildlife value orientations. Journal for Nature Conservation 49: 63–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zajac, RM, Bruskotter, JT, Wilson, RS, Prange, S (2012) Learning to live with black bears: a psychological model of acceptance. The Journal of Wildlife Management 76: 1331–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Dechner supplementary material

Dechner supplementary material

Download Dechner supplementary material(File)
File 2.6 KB