Diverging viewpoints on tiger conservation: A Q-method study and survey of conservation professionals in India

Biological Conservation

Volumn 161, Issue , 2013, Pages 182-192

  Rastogi, Archi ^a   Hickey, Gordon M ^a   Badola, Ruchi ^b   Hussain, Syed Ainul ^b  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b Wildlife Institute of India   (India)

Author keywords

Anthropocentric biocentric conservation; Conservation management; Conservation policy; Conservation development; Protected areas; Tiger tribaldebate; Worldviews

Indexed keywords

ADVOCACY; BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; CONSERVATION PLANNING; DECISION MAKING; FELID; PERCEPTION; POLICY MAKING; PROTECTED AREA;

INDIA;

EID: 84876736274     PISSN: 00063207     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.03.013     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Agrawal A., Gibson C.C. Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Dev. 1999, 27:629-649.
2. Barry D., Oelschlaeger M. A science for survival: values and conservation biology. Conserv. Biol. 1996, 10:905-911.
3. Bengtsson M., Tillman A.-M. Actors and interpretations in an environmental controversy: the Swedish debate on sewage sludge use in agriculture. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2004, 42:65-82.
4. Bremner A., Park K. Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 139:306-314.
5. Brown S.R. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science 1980, Yale University Press, New Haven and London.
6. Carter N.H., Shrestha B.K., Karki J.B., Pradhan N.M.B., Liu J. Coexistence between wildlife and humans at fine spatial scales. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 2012, 109:15360-15365.
7. Carter N.H., Shrestha B.K., Karki J.B., Pradhan N.M.B., Liu J. Reply to Goswami et al., Harihar et al., and Karanth et al.: fine-scale interactions between tigers and people. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 2013, 110:E111-E112.
8. Chamberlain E.C., Rutherford M.B., Gibeau M.L. Human perspectives and conservation of grizzly bears in Banff National Park, Canada. Conserv. Biol. 2012, 26:420-431.
9. Chundawat, R.S., Habib, B., Karanth, U., Kawanishi, K., Ahmad Khan, J., Lynam, T., Miquelle, D., Nyhus, P., Sunarto, S., Tilson, R., Wang, S., 2011. Panthera tigris. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. Available from www.iucnredlist.org. Access date: July 4, 2012.
10. Clark T.W. The Policy Process: A Practical Guide for Natural Resource Professionals 2002, Yale University Press, New Haven and London.
11. Coomber R. Dangerous drug adulteration - an international survey of drug dealers using the internet and the world wide web (WWW). Int. J. Drug Policy 1997, 8:71-81.
12. Cuppen E., Breukers S., Hisschemoller M., Bergsma E. Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:579-591.
13. Danielson S. Q method and surveys: three ways to combine Q and R. Field Methods 2009, 21:219-237.
14. Dillman D.A., Smyth J.D., Christian L.M. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 2009, Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ. third ed.
15. Dinerstein, E., Loucks, C., Heydlauff, A., Wikramanayake, E., Bryja, G., Forrest, J., Ginsberg, J., Klenzendorf, S., Leimgruber, P., O'Brien, T., Sanderson, E., Seidensticker, J., Songer, M., 2006. Setting Priorities for the Conservation and Recovery of Wild Tigers: 2005-2015. A User's Guide. WWF, WCS, Smithsonian and NFWF-STF, Washington, DC, New York.
16. Folz D.H. Survey Research for Public Administration 1996, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
17. Goswami V.R., Vasudev D., Karnad D., Krishna Y.C., Krishnadas M., Pariwakam M., Nair T., Andheria A., Sridhara S., Siddiqui I. Conflict of human-wildlife coexistence. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 2013, 110:E108.
18. Grimble R., Wellard K. Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agric. Syst. 1997, 55:173-193.
19. Guha R. Radical American environmentalism and wilderness preservation: a third world critique. Environmental Ethics 1989, 11:71-83.
20. Hanssen L., Rouwette E., van Katwijk M.M. The role of ecological science in environmental policy making: from a pacification toward a facilitation strategy. Ecology and Society 2009, 14.
21. Harihar A., Chanchani P., Sharma R.K., Vattakaven J., Gubbi S., Pandav B., Noon B. Conflating "co-occurrence" with "coexistence". Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 2013, 110:E109.
22. Hickey G.M. Polarized debate surrounding Tasmania's old-growth forests. Forest. Chron. 2009, 85:762-771.
23. Karanth K., Nepal S. Local residents perception of benefits and losses from protected areas in India and Nepal. Environ. Manage. 2011, 49:372-386.
24. Karanth K.K., Karanth K.U. A tiger in the drawing room. Can luxury tourism benefit wildlife?. Economic & Political Weekly 2012, XLVII:38-43.
25. Karanth K.K., Kramer R.A., Qian S.S., Christensen N.L. Examining conservation attitudes, perspectives, and challenges in India. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141:2357-2367.
26. Karanth K.U. Reconciling conservation with emancipatory politics. Econ. Polit. Weekly 2005, 40:4803-4805.
27. Karanth K.U., Gopalaswamy A.M., Karanth K.K., Goodrich J., Seidensticker J., Robinson J.G. Sinks as saviors: why flawed inference cannot assist tiger recovery. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 2013, 110:E110.
28. Karanth K.U., Madhusudan M.D. Avoiding paper tigers and saving real tigers: response to Saberwal. Conserv. Biol. 1997, 11:818-820.
29. Korkeila K., Suominen S., Ahvenainen J., Ojanlatva A., Rautava P., Helenius H., Koskenvuo M. Non-response and related factors in a nation-wide health survey. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2001, 17:991-999.
30. Lackey R.T. Axioms of ecological policy. Fisheries 2006, 31:286-290.
31. Lackey R.T. Science, scientists, and policy advocacy. Conserv. Biol. 2007, 21:12-17.
32. Lawton J.H. Ecology, politics and policy. J. Appl. Ecol. 2007, 44:465-474.
33. Lewis M. Indian science for Indian tigers? Conservation biology and the question of cultural values. J. Hist. Biol. 2005, 38:185-207.
34. Lewis M.L. Inventing Global Ecology: Tracking the Biodiversity Ideal in India, 1945-1997 2003, Orient Longman, Sangam, Hyderabad & London.
35. Ludwig D., Mangel M., Haddad B. Ecology, conservation and public policy. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2001, 32:481-517.
36. Macnamara J. Media content analysis: Its uses, benefits & best practice methodology 2006, Media Monitors Pty Ltd.
37. Madhusudan M. Of rights and wrongs: wildlife conservation and the tribal bill. Econ. Polit. Weekly 2005, 40:4893-4895.
38. Malan L.-C. Beyond the Debate: Exploring the Underlying Values and Assumptions of Biodiversity Conservation in Protected Areas 2008, Department of Environmental Studies, Antioch University, New England.
39. Mattson D.J., Byrd K.L., Rutherford M.B., Brown S.R., Clark T.W. Finding common ground in large carnivore conservation: mapping contending perspectives. Environ. Sci. Policy 2006, 9:392-405.
40. Miller T.R., Minteer B.A., Malan L.-C. The new conservation debate: the view from practical ethics. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144:948-957.
41. Minteer B.A., Miller T.R. The new conservation debate: ethical foundations, strategic trade-offs, and policy opportunities. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144:945-947.
42. Mondol S., Karanth K.U., Ramakrishnan U. Why the Indian subcontinent holds the key to global tiger recovery. PLoS Genet. 2009, 5:e1000585.
43. Noss R.F., Dobson A.P., Baldwin R., Beier P., Davis C.R., Dellasala D.A., Francis J., Locke H., Nowak K., Lopez R., Reining C., Trombulak S.C., Tabor G. Bolder thinking for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2012, 26:1-4.
44. Project Tiger Joining the Dots: The Report of the Tiger Task Force Union Ministry of Environment and Forests 2005, Government of India, New Delhi.
45. Rai N. Green grabbing in the name of the tiger. Econ. Polit. Weekly 2012, XLVII:108-109.
46. Rastogi A., Hickey G.M., Badola R., Hussain S.A. Saving the superstar: a review of the social factors affecting tiger conservation in India. J. Environ. Manage. 2012, 113:328-340.
47. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach 1993, Westview Press, Boulder, CO. P.A. Sabatier, H.C. Jenkins-Smith (Eds.).
48. Saberwal V.K. Saving the tiger: more money or less power?. Conserv. Biol. 1997, 11:815-817.
49. Sandbrook C., Scales I.R., Vira B., Adams W.M. Value plurality among conservation professionals. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 25:285-294.
50. Sarewitz D. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ. Sci. Policy 2004, 7:385-403.
51. Schonlau M., Fricker R.D., Elliott M.N. Conducting research surveys via e-mail and the Web 2002, Rand, Santa Monica, CA.
52. Sethi N. Tiger tourism: lobbies fight tooth and nail. The Times of India 2012, Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., New Delhi.
53. Sexton D., Snyder P., Wadsworth D., Jardine A., Ernest J. Applying Q methodology to investigations of subjective judgments of early intervention effectiveness. Top. Early Child. Spec. Educ. 1998, 18:95-107.
54. Tigers of the World: The Science, Politics, and Conservation of Panthera tigris 2010, Academic Press, London, Burlington, San Diego. second ed. R. Tilson, P.J. Nyhus (Eds.).
55. Tompkins E.L., Few R., Brown K. Scenario-based stakeholder engagement: incorporating stakeholders preferences into coastal planning for climate change. J. Environ. Manage. 2008, 88:1580-1592.
56. Umbach P.D. Web surveys: best practices. New Dir. Inst. Res. 2004, 2004:23-38.
57. van Exel, J., de Graaf, G., 2005. Q Methodology: A Sneak Preview. http://qmethod.org/articles/vanExel.pdf.
58. Vasan S. Wildlife conservation. Deconstructing the 'Public'. Econ. Polit. Weekly 2005, 40:4805-4807.
59. Weible C.M. An advocacy coalition framework approach to stakeholder analysis: understanding the political context of California marine protected area policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2007, 17:95-117.
60. Wilhere G.F. Inadvertent advocacy. Conserv. Biol. 2012, 26:39-46.
61. Zhang Y. Using the Internet for survey research: a case study. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. 2000, 51:57-68.