DV

Mutualism in marine wildlife value orientations on Cape Cod_ Conflict and consensus in the sea and on the shore

Introduction to Marine Wildlife Value Orientations

  • Focus of Study: Examines stakeholder value orientations toward marine wildlife on Cape Cod, emphasizing conflicts and consensus regarding seals and sharks.

  • Key Definition: Wildlife value orientations influence attitudes and behaviors toward wildlife, evolving from domination to mutualism in U.S. contexts.

Stakeholder Overview

  • Stakeholder Groups: Residents, commercial fishers, and tourists.

  • Survey Results: All groups inclined towards mutualism; tourists score highest, followed by residents and then commercial fishers, who lean more towards domination but still have a positive mutualism score.

Human-Wildlife Conflict in Marine Environments

  • Human-Wildlife Conflict: Conflict arises when human activities and wildlife needs intersect due to increasing human encroachment and climate change.

  • Consequences: Both human livelihoods and wildlife welfare may suffer due to these conflicts.

  • Marine Predators: Conflicts are particularly complex with marine mammals and sharks, leading to issues like bycatch and negative perceptions about predatory species.

Value Orientations and Their Impacts

  • Wildlife Value Orientations: Categories of beliefs about wildlife ranging from mutualism (viewing wildlife as deserving of rights and protection) to domination (viewing wildlife primarily as resources for human use).

  • Shifting Values: Over the past 70 years, a notable shift towards mutualistic values has been observed in U.S. society, particularly among groups not engaged in consumptive wildlife uses.

Study Context

Cape Cod Marine Ecosystems

  • Historical Background: Seals were extirpated from Cape Cod by the 1950s due to bounty hunts, with their populations rebounding since protections were established.

  • Shark Recovery: Increased seal populations have led to a rise in white shark sightings, complicating their management due to public safety concerns.

Research Objectives

  • Hypotheses:

    • H1: Tourists and residents exhibit stronger mutualistic orientations than commercial fishers.

    • H2: Commercial fishers will show a higher emphasis on domination.

    • H3: Tourists will display the highest consensus regarding marine wildlife values.

Methods and Data Collection

  • Survey Design: Distributed via systematic random sampling to the three stakeholder groups, measuring marine wildlife value orientations, beliefs, and attitudes.

  • Statistical Techniques: Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was used to validate the survey's constructs, finding two clear factors: mutualism and domination.

Results Summary

Stakeholder Characteristics

  • Response Rates:

    • Residents: 32% response rate

    • Commercial Fishers: 39% response rate

    • Tourists: 68% response rate

  • Demographics: Characteristics such as gender and age were consistent with census data for Cape Cod.

Value Orientation Findings

  • Dominance vs. Mutualism:

    • Tourists scored highest on mutualism and lowest on domination (Mean: 2.41).

    • Residents scored moderate on both measures (Mean mutualism: 2.11; domination: -1.76).

    • Commercial fishers showed more domination (Mean: -1.04) compared to mutualism but still leaned towards mutualism overall.

Conflict and Consensus Analysis

Insights from PCI2 Analysis

  • Mutualism Items: Tourists showed consensus on sharing the ocean with wildlife; commercial fishers expressed more conflict, indicating diverse perspectives within that group.

  • Dominion Items: All groups rejected the notion that recreational use outweighs wildlife protection, but differing levels of consensus were found, particularly among commercial fishers.

Discussion and Management Implications

Understanding Value Orientations

  • Deeper Implications: Stakeholders all lean towards mutualism despite differing intensity levels, suggesting that shared mutualistic values can aid in conflict resolution and management policy formulation.

  • Conservation Strategies: Emphasizing compassionate conservation that respects both marine wildlife and stakeholder values.

Future Directions

  • Further Research Needed: Suggested exploration into how emerging social and ecological factors influence stakeholder values over time, and how this research can be applied to improve marine conservation practices.

Conclusion

  • Collaborative Governance: Essential for effective marine wildlife management that leverages shared values across stakeholder groups to mitigate conflicts and promote coexistence strategies.