Direct use values and passive use values: implications for conservation of large carnivores
2008 (English)In: Biodiversity and Conservation, ISSN 0960-3115, E-ISSN 1572-9710, Vol. 17, no 4, 883-891 p.Article in journal (Refereed) PublishedText
We made a quantitative analysis of the responses of urban and rural residents in Sweden to arguments supporting and opposing conservation of large carnivores. The most important arguments in favour of conservation were: "I want them [the large carnivores] to exist in Sweden, even if I will never see any of them", "Sweden should share the responsibility of conserving the large carnivores" and "We owe it [conservation of large carnivores] to future generations". We found only small differences between rural and urban residents. For arguments opposing conservation, the difference between rural and urban areas was slightly greater. The most important arguments opposing conservation of large carnivores were: "They may have serious negative impact on livestock farming", "They may have serious negative impact on reindeer husbandry" and "May inflict suffering on injured livestock". We conclude that there seems to be less support for direct use values such as hunting, ecotourism or just experiencing large carnivores, this may imply that the minimum viable population size can be used as a long-term management goal for large carnivore populations, possibly with an exception for bears. We also conclude that a separate conservation or management plan is needed for each species, since the conflicts with human interests vary greatly between the different carnivore species.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Dordrecht, 2008. Vol. 17, no 4, 883-891 p.
conservation, large carnivores, values, policy, WTP
Ecology Environmental Sciences
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-117503DOI: 10.1007/s10531-008-9334-3ISI: 000254360200016OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-117503DiVA: diva2:908425