Clarifying standpoints in the gray wolf recovery conflict: Procuring management and policy forethought

Biological Conservation

Volumn 167, Issue , 2013, Pages 79-89

  Mazur, Kristine E ^a   Asah, Stanley T ^a  

^a University of Washington   (United States)

Author keywords

Consensus; Human dimensions; Intra stakeholder contradictions; Latent agenda; Q methodology; Stakeholder flexibility

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CANID; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; DECISION MAKING; MANAGEMENT PRACTICE; POLICY MAKING; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; PRIORITIZATION; SPECIES CONSERVATION; STAKEHOLDER;

UNITED STATES; WASHINGTON [UNITED STATES];

EID: 84882998259     PISSN: 00063207     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.017     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Social discourses and environmental policy: an application of Q methodology 2000, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. H. Addams, J. Proops (Eds.).
2. Asah S.T., Bengston D.N., Wendt K., DeVaney L. Prognostic framing of stakeholders' subjectivities: a case of all-terrain vehicle management on state public lands. Environ. Manage. 2012, 49(1):192-206.
3. Asah S.T., Bengston D.N., Wendt K., Nelson K.C. Diagnostic reframing of intractable environmental problems: case of a contested multiparty public land-use conflict. J. Environ. Manage. 2012, 108:108-119.
4. Bandara R., Tisdell C. Comparison of rural and urban attitudes to the conservation of Asian elephants in Sri Lanka: empirical evidence. Biol. Conserv. 2003, 110:327-342.
5. Bardwell L.V. Problem-framing: a perspective on environmental problem solving. Environ. Manage. 1991, 15(5):603-612.
6. Bartlett F.C. Remembering: a study in experimental and social psychology 1932, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
7. Bath A. The role of human dimensions in wildlife resource research in wildlife management. Ursus 1998, 10:349-355.
8. Becker, S.A., Frame, P.F., Martorello, D., Krausz, E. 2013. Washington Gray Wolf Conservation and Management 2012 Annual Report. Pages WA-1 to WA-16 in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rocky Mountain Wolf Program 2012 Annual Report. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana, 59601.
9. Benford R.D. An insider's critique of the social movement framing perspective. Soc. Quart. 1997, 67:409-430.
10. Benford R.D., Snow D.A. Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Ann. Rev. Soc. 2000, 26:611-639.
11. Brown S.R. On the use of variance designs in Q methodology. Psychol. Rec. 1970, 20:179-189.
12. Brown S.R. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science 1980, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
13. Brown S.R. A primer on Q methodology. Oper. Subject. 1993, 16:91-138.
14. Brown S.R. Structural and functional information. Policy Sci. 2002, 35(3):285-304.
15. Brugnach M., Dewulf A., Henriksen H.J., van der Keur P. More is not always better: coping with ambiguity in natural resources management. J. Environ. Manage. 2011, 92(1):78-84.
16. Bruskotter J.T., Schmidt R.H., Teel T.L. Are attitudes towards wolves changing? A case study in Utah. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 139:211-218.
17. Byrd K. Mirrors and metaphors: contemporary narratives of the wolf in Minnesota. Ethics, Place Environ. 2002, 5(1):50-65.
18. Clark T.W., Brunner R.D. Making partnerships work in endangered species conservation: an introduction to the decision process. Endang. Spec. Update 2002, 19(4):74-80.
19. Clark T.W., Wallace R.L. The professional in endangered species conservation: an introduction to standpoint clarification. Endang. Spec. Update 1999, 16(1):9-13.
20. Cork S.J., Clark T.W., Mazur N. An interdisciplinary effort for Koala conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2000, 14(3):606-609.
21. Danielson S., Webler T., Tuler S.P. Using Q method for the formative evaluation of public participation processes. Soc. Nat. Res. 2009, 23(1):92-96.
22. Dayton B.W. Policy frames, policy making, and the global climate change discourse. Social discourse and environmental policy: an application of Q methodology 2000, 71-99. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. H. Addams, J. Proops (Eds.).
23. Dewulf A., Craps M., Dercon G. How issues get framed and reframed when different communities meet: a multi-level analysis of a collaborative soil conservation initiative in the Ecuadorian Andes. J. Commun. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 14(3):177-192.
24. Dryzek J. Discursive Democracy 1990, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
25. Dryzek J., Berejikian J. Reconstructive democratic theory. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 1993, 87:48-60.
26. Duda, M.D., Beppler, T., Bissell, S.J., Criscione, A., Hepler, B., Herrick, J.B. . . Lanier, A., 2008a. Public opinion on hunting and wildlife management in Washington. Harrisonburg, VA: Responsive Management. <>. http://www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/WA_Hunt_Public_Report.pdf.
27. Duda, M.D., Beppler, T., Bissell, S.J., Criscione, A., Hepler, B., Herrick, J.B. . . Lanier, A., 2008b. Public opinion on hunting and wildlife management in Washington. Harrisonburg, VA: Responsive Management. <>. http://www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/WA_Hunt_Hunter_Report.pdf.
28. Eden S., Donaldson A., Walker G. Structuring subjectivity? Using Q methodology in human geography. Area 2005, 37:413-422.
29. Elliot M., Gray B., Lewicki R.J. Lessons learned from the framing and reframing of intractable environmental conflicts. Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: frames and cases 2003, 409-435. Island Press, Washington, DC. R.J. Lewicki, B. Gray, M. Elliott (Eds.).
30. Ericsson G., Heberlein T.A. Attitudes of hunters, local, and the general public in Sweden now that the wolves are back. Biol. Conserv. 2003, 111:149-159.
31. Fischer A., van der Wal R. Invasive plant suppresses charismatic seabird - the construction of attitudes towards biodiversity management options. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 135:256-267.
32. Fleishman E., Blockstein D.E., Hall J.A., Mascia M.B., Rudd M.A., Scott J.M., Vedder A. Top 40 priorities for science to inform US conservation and management policy. Bioscience 2011, 61(4):290-300.
33. Focht W., Lawler J. Using Q methodology to facilitate policy dialogue. Social discourse and environmental policy: an application of Q methodology 2000, 100-122. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. H. Addams, J. Proops (Eds.).
34. Gargan J.J., Brown S.R. "What is to be done?" Anticipating the future and mobilizing prudence. Policy Sci. 1993, 26:347-359.
35. Goodman L.A. Snowball sampling. Ann. Math. Statist. 1961, 32(1):148-170.
36. Gray B. Framing of environmental disputes. Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: frames and cases 2003, 1-34. Island Press, Washington, DC. R. Lewicki, B. Gray, M. Elliott (Eds.).
37. Gray B. Strong opposition: frame-based resistance to collaboration. J. Commun. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 14:166-176.
38. Reintroduction of top-order predators 2009, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK. M.W. Hayward, M.J. Somers (Eds.).
39. Hovardas T., Stamou G. Structural and narrative reconstruction of rural residents' representations of 'nature', 'wildlife', and 'landscape'. Biodivers. Conserv. 2006, 15:1745-1770.
40. 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.
41. Karlsson J., Sjöström M. Human attitudes towards wolves, a matter of distance. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 137:610-616.
42. Lansing M. Environmental ethics, green politics and the history of predator biology. Ethics, Place Environ. 2002, 5(1):43-49.
43. Lindsey P.A., du Toit J.T., Mills M.G.L. Attitudes of ranchers towards African wild dogs Lycaon pictus: conservation implications on private land. Biol. Conserv. 2005, 125:113-121.
44. Liu F., McShea W.F., Garshelis D.L., Zhu X., Wang D., Shao L. Human-wildlife conflicts influence attitudes but not necessarily behaviors: factors driving the poaching of bears in China. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144:538-547.
45. Majić A., Bath A. Changes in attitudes towards wolves in Croatia. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143:255-260.
46. Majić A., Taussig Marino., de Bodonia A., Huber D., Bunnefeld N. Dynamics of public attitudes towards bears and the role of bear hunting in Croatia. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144:3018-3027.
47. 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.
48. Maxwell J.P. Managing conflict at the county level: the use of Q methodology in dispute resolution and strategic planning. Public Admin. Quart. 2000, 24:338-354.
49. McKeown, B., Thomas, D., 1988. Q Methodology. (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences series). vol. 66. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
50. Meadow R., Reading R.P., Phillips M., Mehringer M., Miller B.J. The influence of persuasive arguments on public attitudes toward a proposed wolf restoration in the southern Rockies. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2005, 33(1):154-163.
51. Mech L.D. Is science in danger of sanctifying the wolf?. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 150:143-149.
52. Nie M.A. Wolf recovery and management as value-based political conflict. Ethics, Place Environ. 2002, 5(1):65-71.
53. Noss A.J., Oettingo I., Cuellar R.L. Hunter self-monitoring by the Isoseñ o-Guaranidotlesś in the Bolivian Chaco. Biodivers. Conserv. 2005, 14:2679-2693.
54. Saldana J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers 2010, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
55. Schmolck, P., 2002. PQ Method (2.11). <>. http://schmolck.userweb.mwn.de/qmethod/.
56. Shine R., Doody J.S. Invasive species control: understanding conflicts between researchers and the general community. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2011, 9(7):400-406.
57. Stephenson W. The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology 1953, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
58. Stephenson W. Application of Q method to measurement of public opinion. Psychol. Rec. 1964, 14:265-273.
59. Stronen A.V., Brook R.K., Paquet P.C., Mclachlan S. Farmer attitudes toward wolves: implications for the role of predators in managing disease. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 135:1-10.
60. Taylor D. Advances in environmental justice: research, theory and methodology. Am. Behav. Sci. 2000, 43(4):504-580.
61. Treves A., Karanth K.U. Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conserv. Biol. 2003, 17:1491-1499.
62. Webler T., Tuler S., Krueger R. What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environ. Manage. 2001, 27(3):435-450.
63. Webler, T., Danielson, S., Tuler, S., 2009. Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research. Social and Environmental Research Institute, Greenfield, MA. <>. http://www.seri-us.org/sites/default/files/Qprimer.pdf.
64. Wiles G.J., Allen H.L., Hayes G.E. Wolf conservation and management plan for Washington 2011, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
65. Williams C.K., Ericsson G., Heberlein T.A. A quantitative summary of attitudes towards wolves and their reintroduction (1972-2000). Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2002, 30(2):575-584.
66. Wilson R.S., Bruskotter J.T. Assessing the impact of decision frame and existing attitudes on support for wolf restoration in the United States. Human Dimen. Wildlife 2009, 14(5):353-365.