This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]On: 06 November 2013, At: 19:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Human Dimensions of Wildlife: AnInternational JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhdw20

The Need and Theoretical Basis forExploring Wildlife Value OrientationsCross-CulturallyTara L. Teel a , Michael J. Manfredo a & Holly M. Stinchfield aa Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Department , ColoradoState University , Fort Collins, Colorado, USAPublished online: 13 Sep 2007.

To cite this article: Tara L. Teel , Michael J. Manfredo & Holly M. Stinchfield (2007) The Need andTheoretical Basis for Exploring Wildlife Value Orientations Cross-Culturally, Human Dimensions ofWildlife: An International Journal, 12:5, 297-305, DOI: 10.1080/10871200701555857

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10871200701555857

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

297

Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 12:297–305, 2007Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1087-1209 print / 1533-158X onlineDOI: 10.1080/10871200701555857

UHDW1087-12091533-158XHuman Dimensions of Wildlife, Vol. 12, No. 5, Jul 2007: pp. 0–0Human Dimensions of Wildlife

The Need and Theoretical Basis for Exploring Wildlife Value Orientations Cross-Culturally

Wildlife Value Orientations across CulturesT. L. Teel et al. TARA L. TEEL, MICHAEL J. MANFREDO, AND HOLLY M. STINCHFIELD

Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Department, Colorado StateUniversity, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

Research in the United States suggests wildlife value orientations are changing as partof a broader shift in values. Specifically, a shift from materialist to post-materialistvalues occurring with modernization is linked to a rise in mutualism orientations,viewing wildlife as capable of relationships of trust with humans and as deserving ofrights and caring. Although it is conceivable that growth in mutualism is a global phe-nomenon, little is known on a worldwide scale about the cognitive basis for human–wildlife relationships. The purpose of the investigation summarized throughout thisspecial issue was to contribute to the need for research in this area by exploring wild-life value orientations across cultures. We began our investigation by asking whethermutualism could be detected as an orientation in societies outside the United Statesand by developing a method for cross-cultural value orientation assessment. Here wesummarize the purpose and theoretical approach to this investigation.

Keywords culture, human–wildlife conflict, values, value orientations, wildlife values

Various sources contend that values toward wildlife are changing in the United States.Trends such as the national decline of recreational hunting, increased social conflict overwildlife-related issues, and the growth of nongovernmental organizations that address ani-mal rights issues seem to support a change in societal views regarding wildlife (Heberlein,1991; Muth & Jamison, 2000; Peyton, 2000). Prior research has also supported this con-tention. Kellert (1976), for example, found evidence of a decrease in “utilitarian attitudes”toward wildlife in an analysis of American newspaper accounts between 1900 and 1976.Similarly, Manfredo and Zinn (1996), through an investigation of intergenerational differ-ences among Colorado residents, indicated a trend away from utilitarian wildlife value ori-entations that emphasize the use of wildlife for human benefit. At the same time,Americans’ views of the environment, more broadly, appear to be changing. Specifically,research demonstrating sustained growth of environmental attitudes over time suggests anoverall increase in level of concern for the environment (Dunlap, 2002).

Recent research in the United States suggests these changes are actually part of a glo-bal shift in values (Manfredo, Teel, & Bright, 2003; Manfredo, Teel, & Henry, 2007). Thischange has been described by Inglehart (1990, 1997; Inglehart & Welzel, 2005) as a shiftfrom materialist to post-materialist values that occurs as societies move through industrialto post-industrial phases. Inglehart argues that economic development resulting from this

Address correspondence to Dr. Tara L. Teel, Human Dimensions of Natural ResourcesDepartment, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1480, USA. E-mail: tteel@lamar.colostate.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

19:

29 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2013

298 T. L. Teel et al.

process changes the composition and prioritization of values within societies, elevatingpeople away from emphasis on basic concerns of material well-being. Materialist values,according to his theory, focus on safety, security, and economic stability, whereas post-materialist values focus on belongingness, quality of life, and self actualization. Thischange arguably extends to many aspects of people’s lives, including how they view theenvironment. Inglehart’s research in over 65 societies around the world provides supportfor this argument, demonstrating that an increase in emphasis on post-materialist values ispositively associated with growth in environmentalism.

Although it is conceivable that values toward wildlife may be changing on a globalscale in line with this worldwide shift in broader values, our knowledge of the cognitivebasis for human–wildlife relationships is limited to a few areas of the world, precludingour ability to explore change. If trends suggested by research in the United States are anyindication of what may be taking place in other countries, a global shift in wildlife valueswill have clear implications for the future of wildlife conservation internationally. Wild-life values have been shown through this research to affect human attitudes and behaviorsin a wildlife-related context and to form the foundation for social conflict on issues ofwildlife management (Teel & Manfredo, 2007a, 2007b). A shift in wildlife values there-fore would alter the social context in which conservation strategies are considered andinfluence the extent to which those strategies are successful.

The purpose of the Wildlife Values Globally project summarized throughout this spe-cial issue was to contribute to the need for cross-cultural research on human–wildlife rela-tionships. Specifically, we sought to enhance understanding of the nature of theserelationships in different societies around the world by beginning to explore the types ofvalues toward wildlife that might exist in those societies. Attaining this information wasperceived to be immediately useful for guiding policy development, management, andeducational efforts directed toward wildlife conservation within and across societies. Fur-ther, findings from the exploratory studies would point to areas where additional researchis necessary to advance cross-cultural understanding.

Theoretical Approach

The approach to this investigation built on Inglehart’s (1990, 1997; Inglehart & Welzel,2005) cross-cultural values work as well as our recent applications of the concept of wild-life value orientations in the United States (Manfredo et al., 2007; Teel & Manfredo,2007a). We found Inglehart’s theory particularly relevant to the investigation for two pri-mary reasons: (1) it advances an explanation for global value shift that offers interestinginsight into how societal views regarding wildlife may be changing, and (2) it provides aclassification scheme that has proven useful in understanding values cross-culturally.Inglehart’s explanation for change indicates there is a general pattern of value shift fromtraditional/religious during pre-industrial periods, to secular/rational during industrialperiods, to emphasis on self-expression values in post-industrial periods (Inglehart &Welzel, 2005). Support for this explanation is found in his empirical work (Inglehart,1990, 1997), which contends socioeconomic development accompanying industrializationdrives a societal shift from materialist to post-materialist values. He argues this shift is dueto the effect that economic advancement has on the prevailing need states of people withina society. Materialist values arise when existence needs prevail during critical times ofvalue formation (e.g., one’s youth) for a given generation. As improved economic well-being alleviates those needs, post-materialist values, emphasizing other concerns, includ-ing belongingness and quality of life, emerge among subsequent generations. Inglehart’s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

19:

29 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2013

Wildlife Value Orientations Across Cultures 299

work suggests environmentalism is also included among these concerns emphasized bypost-materialist values.

Our theory of wildlife value orientations as it has been applied in the United Statescontends the changes of modernization proposed by Inglehart have not only impacted howpeople perceive the environment but have also had a powerful effect on how people thinkabout wildlife (Manfredo et al., 2007). This in turn has had a direct impact on human–wildlife relationships. At the beginning of the twentieth century in the United States, theprevailing wildlife value orientation was defined by a “materialism” view in which wild-life was a resource for meeting existence needs. At that time, wildlife was viewed as animportant source of food, particularly in rural areas. Industrialization and movement intothe post-industrial phase brought about massive economic growth, transition from a ruralto an urbanized society, and shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a service econ-omy. As economic well-being improved for much of society and highly efficient agricul-tural systems emerged for food production, the need for wildlife as a food source wasgreatly diminished. In addition, increased urbanization and less direct contact with wild-life altered the nature of human–wildlife interactions. This transition is captured by Bell(1973) who described the context of life as a “game against nature” in agrarian times, “agame against fabricated nature” during industrialization, and “a game against people” inpost-industrial times. Hence, with changes in the mode of economic production and shift-ing life experiences, wildlife for most people was no longer seen as a daily threat or as anecessary food source for meeting existence needs.

In this transition, a different way of viewing the wildlife resource, more reflective ofthe prevailing needs of contemporary American society, has emerged. This “mutualism”value orientation, envisioning wildlife as capable of living in relationships of trust withhumans, as life forms having rights like humans, as part of an extended family, and asdeserving of caring and compassion, is borne from the growing need for belongingnessassociated with the emergence of post-materialist values. Belongingness, recognized as ahuman universal that becomes salient after basic existence needs are met (Maslow, 1954;Inglehart, 1997), is a biologically prepared human trait directing people to seek out andestablish stable and emotionally rewarding relationships with other individuals (Baumeister& Leary, 1995). By making such relationships seem possible with wildlife, the human ten-dency to anthropomorphize has provided further impetus for a rise in mutualism. Absentthe real need to view wildlife in a materialist way, this inherited tendency serves as thefoundation for seeing wildlife as more “human-like” (Katcher & Wilkins, 1993). As ani-mals are perceived to possess human characteristics, human-like relationships with themare also possible, and those relationships afford humans a sense of social connectedness(Serpell, 2003). As Vining (2003) indicates in her discussion of factors related to humanconnection to other animals, a caring response often develops with a desire to be com-forted and for companionship and social support that can be satisfied through our relation-ships with pets and wild animals. Hence, a mutualism value orientation, focused on caringand emotional bonding with wildlife, has formed in a context where the need for socialaffiliation was prevalent and relationships with wildlife could be constructed to meet thatneed.

Wildlife Value Orientations as the Basis for Individual Behavior

The importance of understanding wildlife value orientations and how they may be chang-ing lies in the impact they have on human behavior. Recent applications of our theory ofwildlife value orientations in the United States have explored this in the context of a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

19:

29 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2013

300 T. L. Teel et al.

macro–micro model linking societal-level variables of modernization, through the cogni-tive processes of individuals, to the behavior that they exhibit (Manfredo et al., 2007).Building on the widely applied value-attitude-behavior, or cognitive hierarchy, framework(Homer & Kahle, 1988; Maio, Olson, Bernard, & Luke, 2003), our model contends indi-vidual behavior toward wildlife is driven by specific attitudes, and these attitudes aredirected by wildlife value orientations. The latter are defined as basic beliefs that give per-sonal meaning of right and wrong and an ideal life to one’s more basic values in relation towildlife. They play an important role in explaining variation in people’s wildlife-relatedbehaviors and their attitudes toward topics related to wildlife treatment. Specifically, thosewith a strong mutualism orientation are more likely to engage in welfare-enhancingbehaviors for individual wildlife (e.g., feeding, nurturing abandoned or hurt animals) andare less likely to support actions resulting in death or harm to wildlife. Alternatively, thestronger one’s materialism orientation, the more likely his/her attitudes and actions willprioritize human well-being over wildlife, he/she will find actions that result in death orother intrusive control of wildlife to be acceptable, and the more likely he/she will be tofind justification for treatment of wildlife in utilitarian terms (e.g., support for hunting).

Additional Domains of Wildlife-Related Thought

In addition to materialism and mutualism wildlife value orientations, our research hasidentified two other broad classifications of thought about wildlife—attraction and con-cern for safety. The attraction orientation is associated with an interest in and desire toknow more about wildlife. It is grounded in the feeling that wildlife enhances human lifeexperiences. The concern for safety orientation centers around an uneasiness related tointeracting with wildlife due to possibility of harm (e.g., due to attacks by wildlife) or dis-ease contraction. Individuals with this orientation are worried about encountering wildlifewhile in the outdoors.

Attraction and concern for safety orientations likely reflect basic responses towardwildlife (e.g., approach vs. avoidance) that transcend many situations. Although theoryand our empirical findings in the United States suggest these dimensions are less relevantin affecting reactions across a host of management issues, they do have predictive validityfor certain areas of wildlife-related thought (Teel & Manfredo, 2007b). As revealed in thecase studies reported in this special issue, these orientations may also prove useful incross-cultural exploration.

Study Purpose and Special Issue Contributions

The overall purpose of the Wildlife Values Globally project was to expand our knowledgeof the cognitive basis for human–wildlife relationships by exploring wildlife value orien-tations and how they may be changing across cultures. Of ultimate interest was the ques-tion: How does modernization affect change in how people think about wildlife indifferent societies? Is a shift toward mutualism, for example, occurring globally as a func-tion of modernization (e.g., a rise in economic well-being)? As a starting point for improv-ing cross-cultural understanding, we chose in the first stage of this research effort todetermine if the wildlife value orientations identified through our work in the UnitedStates were evident in other societies. More specifically, to begin to examine the possibil-ity of a worldwide shift toward mutualism, we asked whether a tendency to emphasize thisorientation was apparent across cultures. Given that we were constrained by methods inthis cross-cultural context, the initial research phase was also focused on developing a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

19:

29 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2013

Wildlife Value Orientations Across Cultures 301

cross-cultural assessment technique that could be used to detect and classify wildlife valueorientations.

As reported in the articles of this special issue, research was conducted in the firstphase in the United States (Dayer, Stinchfield, & Manfredo, 2007), China (Zinn & Shen,2007), Thailand (Tanakanjana & Saranet, 2007), Estonia (Raadik & Cottrell, 2007), theNetherlands (Jacobs, 2007), and Mongolia (Kaczensky, 2007). Although not presented inthis issue, data were also collected in Malaysia, Uganda, and Kenya. Collaboratorsincluded representatives from each of the participating countries, forming an internationalinvestigator team to inform development of methodology and the interpretation of find-ings. Dayer et al. (2007) describe an exploratory assessment tool that was developed andproved useful in offering “clues” about the prevalence of wildlife value orientations in theparticipating countries. These clues provide a starting point in considering the nature ofhuman–wildlife relationships and the extent of change that may be occurring in how peo-ple view wildlife outside the United States.

The cultures investigated represent a wide range of socioeconomic and political situa-tions, and yet they are also united in many cases by a common thread of change in societalconditions. Mongolia, for instance, has undergone substantial change in the last 15 years,moving from a communist to a democratic form of governance (Kaczensky, 2007). Estoniahas also felt the impact of the collapse of the Soviet Union as tourism has become moreeconomically important than agriculture in some areas (Raadik & Cottrell, 2007). Thailandhas experienced increased urbanization recently, and more than half of its labor force isnow employed in non-agricultural sectors (Tanakanjana & Saranet, 2007). China hasbecome an economic powerhouse during the past 20 years (Zinn & Shen, 2007), and theNetherlands is a highly educated and wealthy nation in which a political party won two par-liamentary seats running primarily on a platform of animal rights last year (Jacobs, 2007).

Despite differences between these countries, a mutualism orientation toward wildlifewas identified in all cultures. In the Netherlands, Thailand, and Estonia, mutualism wasexpressed much more frequently than materialism. In Mongolia, there was a mixture ofmutualism and materialism views, whereas in China the predominant wildlife value orien-tation was materialism. Because of the generally small sample sizes and exploratorynature of this initial phase of research, it is difficult to make detailed comparisons betweencultures; however, it seems clear from study findings that wildlife value orientations simi-lar to those identified in the United States also exist in other societies. Further, although aglobal shift toward mutualism cannot be established without more extensive research, thedetection of mutualism across societies in addition to the predominance of this orientationin some cultures, but not others, indicates that additional studies are warranted.

Conclusions

Sustained threats to wildlife populations and species diversity exist throughout the world.The character and extent of these threats are greatly influenced by human factors, andmore specifically by the nature of human–wildlife interactions. The global acceleration ofhuman–wildlife conflict (HWC), with serious implications for biodiversity conservationas well as human health and well-being, is a testament to the importance of consideringsuch human factors. Case studies from around the world provide evidence of the severityof the conflict and indicate a need for more in-depth investigation of this global phenome-non. Incidents include wildlife threats to human safety through direct harm or diseasetransmission, auto accidents involving wildlife, wildlife depredation on livestock and agri-cultural crops, and nuisance interactions (e.g., wildlife-caused damage to landscaping).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

19:

29 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2013

302 T. L. Teel et al.

These incidents have far-reaching social and economic costs for individuals and societies.To illustrate, a recent report by the World Wildlife Fund (2007) reported that between 100and 300 people are killed each year in India during crop raiding by elephants. Conover(2002), in a review of the economic impacts of HWC in the United States, estimated thatthe number of deer–vehicle collisions occurring annually is around 1.5 million, resultingin approximately $1.6 billion in economic losses per year. According to his reports,roughly 16,000 civilian and military aircraft collide with birds each year. This resulted in aloss of over $300 million in the 1990s alone. He further estimated that the annual impactfrom wildlife damage to agricultural producers is around $4.5 billion.

Of course HWC also has detrimental impacts to wildlife. Growth of human popula-tions and expansion of human settlement into remote areas have resulted in reduced avail-ability of quality habitat for wildlife. These changes, in addition to over-harvest of wildlifepopulations and intentional elimination of less preferred species, have accelerated theoccurrence of species extinction and contributed to a worldwide reduction in biodiversity(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). The extent of such human-caused impacts isexemplified by what has recently been termed the “bushmeat crisis.” The crisis is definedby the unsustainable, oftentimes illegal, commercial hunting of wildlife (e.g., non-humanprimates) for meat and trade that has resulted in rapid, widespread local extinctions inAsia and West Africa (Bushmeat Crisis Task Force, 2007). The bushmeat phenomenonhas also raised serious concerns about the high potential for transmission of infectious dis-eases, including Ebola and HIV-related viruses, to human populations.

Although the problem of HWC points to the deleterious consequences that can resultfrom human–wildlife interactions, it is important not to ignore the many positive impactspeople derive from experiences with wildlife. Evidence of positive impacts can be found,for example, in the benefits associated with participation in wildlife-related recreation.Sixty-three million Americans report involvement in wildlife viewing activities aroundtheir home, and 37.8 million Americans hunt or fish, spending approximately $70 billionannually on these activities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service & U.S. Census Bureau, 2001).Similarly, Hoyt (2001) reported that over nine million people worldwide participate inwhale watching and spend nearly $300 million on their involvement in this activity.Beyond their economic impact, such activities offer a host of benefits for the individualswho participate and provide a means by which people can experience and appreciate thenatural environment (Manfredo, 2002).

The nature of these human–wildlife interactions and their associated impacts definesthe context for wildlife conservation. They are rooted in human needs and interests thataffect human response and dictate the success of specific conservation approaches. Devel-opment of effective strategies for conservation and HWC mitigation therefore demands anunderstanding of the needs and interests of people and the nature of their relationship withwildlife. These social considerations are critical to ensuring conservation decisions ade-quately address implementation challenges brought on by human factors including pov-erty, threats to human safety and property, competition over land and water resources,spiritual or religious obligations, and stakeholder values and preferences. Further, themove toward developing broad-scale solutions to the global problem of HWC requires anunderstanding of how these social considerations vary or remain consistent across culturesand geographic scales. As Manfredo and Dayer (2004, p. 325) indicate, “HWC is a globalphenomenon that requires a cross-cultural research approach to prevent and mitigate con-flict and aid in coordinated global, national, and regional action.”

In response to this need for cross-cultural understanding to improve conservationplanning and decisions, our investigation was designed to explore the basic modes of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

19:

29 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2013

Wildlife Value Orientations Across Cultures 303

thought about wildlife that exist in different societies and that form the basis for human–wildlife relationships in those societies. In particular, as a starting point, we were inter-ested in determining if wildlife value orientations identified through our work in theUnited States (Manfredo et al., 2007) were evident in other cultures. As reported in thisspecial issue, the investigation resulted in the development of a methodology that proveduseful in beginning to assess wildlife value orientations cross-culturally. Our consistencyin method allowed not only for the detection of possible orientations within participatingcountries, contributing to a depiction of the current social context for wildlife conservationin those societies, but it also allowed for a preliminary determination of whether a shifttoward mutualism—characterized by a view in which wildlife is seen as capable of rela-tionships of trust with humans and deserving of rights and caring—seemed possible out-side the United States. Findings do indeed support the possibility, providing evidence ofthis orientation in other countries. Findings at the same time provide impetus for futureresearch that is needed in several key areas to expand the cross-cultural applicability of thewildlife value orientation concept.

A logical next step in research stems from important methodological limitations notedacross the studies reported in this special issue. The sample sizes were generally quitesmall, with the exception of the Thailand study, limiting the generalizability of study find-ings. Additionally, it is important to note that convenience samples, rather than samplesobtained through random selection procedures, were used for most participating countries.In some cases this may have contributed to a more homogeneous respondent pool, under-representative of certain population subgroups (e.g., urban versus rural residents, socio-economic classes). A final methodological consideration that demands the attention offuture research involves the survey instrument itself. The actual assessment procedure,although simple and brief, worked well for this type of exploratory investigation. How-ever, a more focused and lengthier instrument designed to provide greater depth of mea-surement and to enhance comparability of findings is most likely needed in future follow-up efforts.

Another important topic area for future research links back to our original overarch-ing research question: How does modernization affect change in wildlife-related thoughtin different cultures? Inglehart’s (1997; Inglehart & Welzel, 2005) theory and researchindicate that modernization, characterized largely by improved economic well-being, hascontributed to a worldwide shift toward emphasis on post-materialist values. Our researchin the United States suggests wildlife value orientations are changing along a similar tra-jectory, that is, as existence needs are met, a new way of viewing the wildlife resource thatis more indicative of the need for belongingness has emerged (Manfredo et al., 2007).Although research reported here identifies mutualism as an orientation that persists acrossvarious countries, we lack information about the factors that have given rise to this orien-tation outside the United States. Further, we lack understanding of the process by whichmodernization may affect wildlife value orientations over time in different cultural con-texts. Do similar patterns of thought and observable behavior emerge, for example, incountries with different cultural and religious traditions; or, alternatively, are there uniqueaspects of change that are specific to certain cultures? Answers to these questions are crit-ical to understanding how wildlife value orientations are shaped in response to societal-level forces.

Future research of a longitudinal nature is not only needed to more fully explore theimpact of modernization but also to examine the long-term effects of a shift in wildlifevalue orientations. As suggested by our research and by trends occurring in the UnitedStates, such a shift has important implications for wildlife conservation. Wildlife value

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

19:

29 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2013

304 T. L. Teel et al.

orientations have been shown through our work to represent basic modes of thought thatform the foundation for wildlife-related attitudes and behaviors (Teel & Manfredo, 2007a,2007b). A change in this basic thinking about wildlife in American society is believed tobe at the root of such trends as declines in hunting participation, the rise in stakeholderconflict over wildlife issues, and the emergence of new interests in wildlife management.Further examination of wildlife value orientations over time and across geographic andcultural contexts in relation to more specific attitudes and behaviors could provide addi-tional insight into these implications of change for the future of wildlife conservation.

References

Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New York:Basic Books.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachmentsas a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

Bushmeat Crisis Task Force. (2007). Bushmeat crisis task force. Retrieved March 24, 2007 fromhttp://www.bushmeat.org/

Conover, M. (2002). Resolving human–wildlife conflicts: The science of wildlife damage manage-ment. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.

Dayer, A., Stinchfield, H. M., & Manfredo, M. J. (2007). Stories about wildlife: Developing aninstrument for identifying wildlife value orientations cross-culturally. Human Dimensions ofWildlife, 12(5), this issue.

Dunlap, R. E. (2002). An enduring concern: Light stays green for environmental protection. PolicyPerspective, September/October, 10–14.

Heberlein, T. A. (1991). Changing attitudes and funding for wildlife—preserving the sport hunter.Wildlife Society Bulletin, 19, 528–534.

Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hier-archy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 638–646.

Hoyt, E. (2001). Whale watching 2001: Worldwide tourism numbers, expenditures, and expandingsocioeconomic benefits. Yarmouth Port, MA: International Fund for Animal Welfare.

Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-sity Press.

Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.

Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change and democracy: The humandevelopment sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jacobs, M. (2007). Wildlife value orientations in the Netherlands. Human Dimensions of Wildlife,12(5), this issue.

Kaczensky, P. (2007). Wildlife value orientations of rural Mongolians. Human Dimensions of Wild-life, 12(5), this issue.

Katcher, A., & Wilkins, G. (1993). Dialogue with animals: Its nature and culture. In S. R. Kellert &E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 173–200). Washington, DC: Island Press.

Kellert, S. R. (1976). Perceptions of animals in American society. Transactions of the North Ameri-can Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 41, 533–546.

Maio, G. R., Olson, J. M., Bernard, M. M., & Luke, M. A. (2003). Ideologies, values, and behavior.In J. Delamater (Ed.) Handbook of social psychology (pp. 283–308). London: Springer.

Manfredo, M. J., Ed. (2002). Wildlife viewing in North America: A management planning handbook.Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Manfredo, M. J., & Dayer, A. A. (2004). Concepts for exploring the social aspects of human–wildlife conflict in a global context. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9, 317–328.

Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L., & Bright, A. D. (2003). Why are public values toward wildlife chang-ing? Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8(4), 285–304.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

19:

29 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2013

Wildlife Value Orientations Across Cultures 305

Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L., & Henry, K. (2007). Linking modernization forces, cognitions, andhuman behavior: Understanding the shift in human–wildlife relationships. Manuscript inReview.

Manfredo, M. J., & Zinn, H. C. (1996). Population change and its implications for wildlife manage-ment in the new west: A case study of Colorado. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1(3), 62–74.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems & human well-being: Synthesis. Washing-

ton, DC: Island Press.Muth, R. M., & Jamison, W. V. (2000). On the destiny of deer camps and duck blinds: The rise of

the animal rights movement and the future of wildlife conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28,841–851.

Peyton, R. B. (2000). Wildlife management: Cropping to manage or managing to crop? WildlifeSociety Bulletin, 28, 774–779.

Raadik, J., & Cottrell, S. (2007). Wildlife value orientations: An Estonian case study. HumanDimensions of Wildlife, 12(5), this issue.

Serpell, James A. (2003). Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection—beyond the ‘cuteresponse’. Society & Animals, 11(1), 83–100.

Tanakanjana, N., & Saranet, S. (2007). Wildlife value orientations in Thailand: Preliminary find-ings. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 12(5), this issue.

Teel, T. L., & Manfredo, M. J. (2007a). Understanding the diversity of public interests in wildlifeconservation. Manuscript in Review.

Teel, T. L., & Manfredo, M. J. (2007b). Exploring the predictive validity of the wildlife value orien-tation concept across a diverse set of wildlife-related issues. Draft Manuscript.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service & U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). 2001 National survey of fishing,hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. Washington, DC: United States Department of theInterior.

Vining, J. (2003). The connection to other animals and caring for nature. Human Ecology Review,10(2), 87–99.

World Wildlife Fund. (2007). Issues: human-elephant conflict. Retrieved March 24, 2007 fromhttp://www. panda. org/about_wwf/where_we_work/asia_pacific/our_programmes/areas/issues/elephant_human_conflict/index.cfm

Zinn, H. C., & Shen, X. S. (2007). Wildlife value orientations in China. Human Dimensions of Wild-life, 12(5), this issue.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

19:

29 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

19:

29 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2013