Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:17:25.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public decisions on animal species: does body size matter?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2010

EDO KNEGTERING ,
HENNY J. VAN DER WINDT  and
ANTON J. M. SCHOOT UITERKAMP
EDO KNEGTERING*
Affiliation:
Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, Department of Nature, Landscape and Rural Affairs, PO Box 20401, 2500 EK Den Haag, the Netherlands
HENNY J. VAN DER WINDT
Affiliation:
University of Groningen, Department of Biology, Science and Society Group, PO Box 14, 9750 AA Haren, the Netherlands
ANTON J. M. SCHOOT UITERKAMP
Affiliation:
University of Groningen, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies IVEM, Nijenborgh 4, 9747AG Groningen, the Netherlands
*
*Correspondence: Edo Knegtering Tel: + 31 70 3785695 Fax: + 31 70 3786114 e-mail: e.knegtering@minlnv.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Systematic knowledge about factors affecting the willingness of societies to conserve biodiversity is still scarce. This study investigates the role of body size in national decisions on wild animal species by analysing the average body sizes of the animal species subject to species-specific legislation in the Netherlands over the period 1857–1995. Three legal objectives were distinguished, namely ‘control’, ‘use’ and ‘protection’. For most taxa, average body sizes of species were found to differ significantly between legal objectives within a substantial number of subperiods analysed. Throughout the entire period examined, protected bird, mammal, fish and mollusc species were of smaller average body size than those subject to use legislation and protected bird, mammal and mollusc species were also smaller than those subject to control legislation most of the time. Protected insects were generally larger than those subject to control or use. For vertebrate taxa, average sizes of protected species increased over the time period selected for examination, suggesting that legislation initially excluded larger vertebrates from protection, possibly partly owing to demands to maintain use of these species. The results emphasize that conservation context is important, as other studies suggest that conservation policy generally favours larger species.

Keywords

attitudesconservationhistorylawthe Netherlandsvalues
Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 28 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2010

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

Arterburn, J.E., Kirby, D.J. & Berry, C.R. Jr (2002) A survey of angler attitudes and biologist opinions regarding trophy catfish and their management. Fisheries 27: 10–21.Google Scholar
Balmford, A. (2000) Separating fact from artifact in analyses of zoo visitor preferences. Conservation Biology 14: 1193–1195.Google Scholar
Bitgood, S., Patterson, D. & Benefield, A. (1988) Exhibit design and visitor behavior: empirical relationships. Environment and Behavior 20: 474–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, T.M. & Gaston, K.J. (1994 a) Animal body size distributions: patterns, mechanisms and implications. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9: 471–474.Google Scholar
Blackburn, T.M. & Gaston, K.J. (1994 b) Animal body size distributions change as more species are described. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 257: 293–297.Google ScholarPubMed
Brown, T.C. (1984) The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Economics 60: 231–246.Google Scholar
Burghardt, G.M. & Herzog, H.A. (1980) Beyond conspecifics: is Brer Rabbit our brother? BioScience 30: 763–768.Google Scholar
Burghardt, G.M. & Herzog, H.A. (1989) Animals, evolution, and ethics. In: Perceptions of Animals in American Culture, ed. Hoage, R.J., pp. 129–151. Washington, DC, USA: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Buve, W.B.J. & Drijver, J. (1937) De vogelwet 1936: toegelicht en verklaard. Alphen aan den Rijn, the Netherlands: Samson.Google Scholar
Cohen, J.E., Pimm, S.L., Yodzis, P. & Saldaña, J. (1993) Body sizes of animal predators and animal prey in food webs. Journal of Animal Ecology 62: 67–78.Google Scholar
Dahles, H. (1990) Mannen in het groen: de wereld van de jacht in Nederland. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: SUN.Google Scholar
DeFoliart, G.R. (1999) Insects as food: why the Western attitude is important. Annual Review of Entomology 44: 21–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Klemm, C. & Shine, C. (1993) Biological Diversity Conservation and the Law: Legal Mechanisms for Conserving Species and Ecosystems. Cambridge, UK and Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.Google Scholar
Dutch Species Catalogue, (2008) Overview of biodiversity of the Netherlands [www document]. URL http://www.nederlandsesoorten.nl/nlsr/nlsr/english.htmlGoogle Scholar
Fa, J.E., Peres, C.A. & Meeuwig, J. (2002) Bushmeat exploitation in tropical forests: an intercontinental comparison. Conservation Biology 16: 232–237.Google Scholar
Kellert, S.R. (1980) American attitudes toward and knowledge of animals: an update. International Journal for Studies in Animal Problems 1: 87–119.Google Scholar
Kellert, S.R. (1985) Historical trends in perceptions and uses of animals in 20th century America. Environmental Review 9: 19–33.Google Scholar
Kellert, S.R. (1996) The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Knegtering, E., Hendrickx, L., Van der Windt, H.J. & Schoot Uiterkamp, A.J.M. (2002) Effects of species’ characteristics on nongovernmental organizations’ attitudes toward species conservation policy. Environment and Behavior 34: 378–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knegtering, E., Van der Windt, H.J. & Schoot Uiterkamp, A.J.M. (2000) Trends in the legal status of indigenous species. Environmental Conservation 27: 404–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koomen, P., Van Nieukerken, E.J. & Krikken, J. (1995) Zoölogische diversiteit van Nederland. In: Biodiversiteit in Nederland, ed. van Nieukerken, E.J. & van Loon, A.J., pp. 49–136. Leiden, the Netherlands: Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum.Google Scholar
Kuroda, J. (1969) Elimination of children's fears of animals by the method of experimental desensitization: an application of learning theory to child psychology. Psychologia 12: 161–165.Google Scholar
Loomis, J. (2006) Use of survey data to estimate economic value and regional economic effects of fishery improvements. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26: 301–307.Google Scholar
Metrick, A. & Weitzman, M.L. (1996) Patterns of behavior in endangered species preservation. Land Economics 72: 1–16.Google Scholar
Metrick, A. & Weitzman, M.L. (1998) Conflicts and choices in biodiversity preservation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12: 21–34.Google Scholar
Nelissen, I., Muris, P. & Merckelbach, H. (1995) Computerized exposure and in vivo exposure treatments of spider fear in children: two case reports. Journal of Behavior, Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 26: 153–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nijssen, H. & De Groot, S.J. (1987) De vissen van Nederland. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Stichting Uitgeverij KNNV.Google Scholar
Plous, S. (1993) Psychological mechanisms in the human use of animals. Journal of Social Issues 49: 11–52.Google Scholar
Robinson, M. (2008) Minimum landing size for Northeast Atlantic stocks of deep-water red crab, Chaceon affinis (Milne Edwards and Bouvier, 1894). ICES Journal of Marine Science 65: 148–154.Google Scholar
Schlegel, H. (1852) Naamlijst der tot heden in de Nederlanden in den wilden staat waargenomen vogels. In: Bouwstoffen voor eene fauna van Nederland, Iste deel, 2e stuk, ed., Herklots, J.A., pp. 58–103. Leiden, the Netherlands: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Serpell, J.A. (2004) Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Animal Welfare 13: S145–S151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelmerdine, R.L., Adamson, J., Laurenson, C.H. & Leslie, B. (2007) Size variation of the common whelk, Buccinum undatum, over large and small spatial scales: potential implications for micro-management within the fishery. Fisheries Research 86: 201–206.Google Scholar
Slone, T.H., Orsak, L.J. & Malver, O. (1997) A comparison of price, rarity and cost of butterfly specimens: implications for the insect trade and for habitat conservation. Ecological Economics 21: 77–85.Google Scholar
Stokes, D.L. (2007) Things we like: human preferences among similar organisms and implications for conservation. Human Ecology 35: 361–369.Google Scholar
Van den Berg, A.B. & Bosman, C.A.W. (2001) Zeldzame vogels van Nederland: met vermelding van alle soorten. Haarlem, the Netherlands: GMB Uitgeverij/Utrecht, the Netherlands: Stichting Uitgeverij van de KNNV.Google Scholar
Ward, P.I. (2000) Zoo visitor preferences: reply to Balmford. Conservation Biology: 14: 1196.Google Scholar
Ward, P.I., Mosberger, N., Kistler, C. & Fischer, O. (1998) The relationship between popularity and body size in zoo animals. Conservation Biology 12: 1408–1411.Google Scholar
Wilcove, D.S., McMillan, M. & Winston, K.C. (1993) What exactly is an endangered species? An analysis of the US endangered species list: 1985–1991. Conservation Biology 7: 87–93.Google Scholar
Wheeler, S. & Damania, R. (2001) Valuing New Zealand recreational fishing and an assessment of the validity of the contingent valuation estimates. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 45: 599–621.Google Scholar
Wildes, F.T. (1995) Recent themes in conservation philosophy and policy in the United States. Environmental Conservation 22: 143–150.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Knegtering Supplementary Material

Knegtering Supplementary Appendix

Download Knegtering Supplementary Material(File)
File 162.3 KB