Cited by 19Wildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal and Plant Science EducationConservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education

The Predictive Ability of Wildlife Value Orientations for Mammal Management Varies with Species Conservation Status and Provenance

Open access
Kontsiotis, Vasileios J., Triantafyllidis, Archimidis, Telidis, Stylianos, Eleftheriadou, Ioanna, Liordos, Vasilios·2021·Sustainability

Abstract

Wildlife value orientations (WVOs) can predict consensus or controversy over wildlife-related issues and are therefore important for their successful management. We carried out on-site face-to-face interviews with Greek people (n = 2392) to study two basic WVOs, i.e., domination (prioritize human well-being over wildlife) and mutualism (wildlife has rights just as humans). Our sample was more mutualism-oriented than domination-oriented; however, domination was a better predictor of management acceptability than mutualism. WVOs were better predictors of the acceptability of lethal strategies (shooting, destruction at breeding sites, 11–36% of variance explained) relative to taking no action (9–18%) and non-lethal strategies (e.g., compensation, fencing, trapping, and relocating, 0–13%). In addition, the predictive ability of WVOs, mostly for accepting lethal strategies, increased with the increasing severity of the conflict (crop damage, attacking domestic animals, 11–29%; disease transmission, 17–36%) and depending on species conservation status and provenance (endangered native brown bear (Ursus arctos), 11–20%; common native red fox (Vulpes vulpes), 12–31%; common exotic coypu (Myocastor coypus), 17–36%). Managers should consider these findings for developing education and outreach programs, especially when they intend to raise support for lethal strategies. In doing so, they would be able to subsequently implement effective wildlife management plans.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/su132011335

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Rare species are generally considered to have greater value than abundant species.

    “For example, rare species are generally considered to have greater value than abundant species (Leong, 2009), which often results in greater tolerance, positive attitudes, and conservation support from the public (e.g., Kontsiotis et al., 2021).”

    From Of Rarity and Symbolism: Understanding Human Perceptions of Charismatic Color Morphs (2024) · cites this paper as Kontsiotis et al., 2021

    Section 4.1 (page unavailable) says the public viewed the rare brown bear as attractive and worthy of protection, and gave it first priority for conservation and respect for life over the common species studied. This supports the conservation-support and tolerance aspects of the clause cited to Kontsiotis et al., but the paper does not establish that rarity or greater perceived value causes greater tolerance and positive attitudes generally; the species also differ in charisma and provenance. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Rareness may result in greater tolerance, positive attitudes, and conservation support from the public.

    “For example, rare species are generally considered to have greater value than abundant species (Leong, 2009), which often results in greater tolerance, positive attitudes, and conservation support from the public (e.g., Kontsiotis et al., 2021).”

    From Of Rarity and Symbolism: Understanding Human Perceptions of Charismatic Color Morphs (2024) · cites this paper as Kontsiotis et al., 2021

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

10 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Carter, J.; Leonard, B.P. A review of the literature on the worldwide distribution, spread of, and efforts to eradicate the coypu (Myocastor coypus). Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2002, 30, 162-175. [CrossRef] · DOI
  2. Redpath, S.M.; Bhatia, S.; Young, J. Tilting at wildlife: Reconsidering human-wildlife conflict. Oryx 2015, 49, 222-225. [CrossRef] · DOI
  3. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978.
  4. Wilson, D.E.; Lacher, T.E.; Mittermeier, R.A. (Eds.) Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. 6. Lagomorphs and Rodents I; Lynx Edicions: Barcelona, Spain, 2008.
  5. Bright, A.D.; Manfredo, M.J.; Fulton, D.C. Segmenting the public: An application of value orientations to wildlife planning in Colorado. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2000, 28, 218-226. [CrossRef] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kontsiotis, V. J., Triantafyllidis, A., Telidis, S., Eleftheriadou, I., & Liordos, V.
Affiliations
International Hellenic University (GR)
Corresponding author
Liordos, Vasilios
Venue
Sustainability
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-10-14
Volume
13
Issue
20
Pages
11335
ISSN
2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3205431815
Cited by
19
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2
FWCI
1.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Animal and Plant Science Education
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Conservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
Keywords
wildlife value orientations, human-wildlife conflict, species status, native vs exotic species, brown bear, red fox, Myocastor coypus, crop damage, disease transmission, public attitudes toward wildlife, Greece

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review