The authors examined the willingness of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to support public species conservation measures as a function of species characteristics, NGOs’interests, and interests harmed by the measures. In an experiment, 39 policy makers from nature conservation, mobility and recreation, and agriculture NGOs read 16 illustrated descriptions of indigenous animal species, which systematically varied across taxon, relative size, and rarity. The representatives rated the importance of species’ continued existence to their NGOs and their NGO’s support for hypothetical conservation measures for the species. The measures were either described as (a) harmful to the interests of representatives’own NGOs or (b) harmful to the interests of other NGOs. The judgments regarding the importance of species’ continued existence and support for conservation measures were found to differ across representatives’NGOs and to depend on taxon and relative size. Support for the measures also depended on the interests harmed (own versus another’s).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bath, A. J. , & Buchanan, T. (1989). Attitudes of interest groups in Wyoming toward wolf restoration in Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 17, 519-525.
2.
Bink, F. A. (1992). Ecologische atlas van de dagvlinders van Noordwest-Europa [Theecologi cal atlas of the butterflies of north-western Europe]. Haarlem, the Netherlands: Schuyt.
3.
Bitgood, S. , Patterson, D., & Benefield, A. (1988). Exhibit design and visitor behavior: Empirical relationships. Environment and Behavior, 20, 474-491.
4.
Burghardt, G. M. , & Herzog, H. A. (1980). Beyond conspecifics: Is Brer Rabbit our brother?BioScience, 30, 763-768.
5.
Burghardt, G. M. , & Herzog, H. A. (1989). Animals, evolution and ethics. In R. J. Hoage (Ed.), Perceptions of animals in American culture (pp. 129-151). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
6.
Carr, S. , & Tait, J. (1991). Differences in the attitudes of farmers and conservationists and their implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 32, 281-294.
7.
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek . (1999). Statistisch Jaarboek 1999 [Statistical yearbook 1999]. Voorburg/Heerlen, the Netherlands: Author.
8.
Cherrett, I. , O’Keefe, Ph., Heidenreich, A., & Middlebrook, P. (1995). Redefining the roles of environmental NGOs in Africa. Development in Practice, 5, 26-35.
9.
Coenen, F.H.J.M. , Huitema, D., & O’Toole, Jr., L. J. (Eds.). (1998). Participation and the quality of environmental decision making. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
10.
Cohen, S. , & Downes, D. (1994). The biodiversity action network (BioNet). In A. F. Krattiger, J. A. McNeely, W. H. Lesser, K. R. Miller, Y. St. Hill, & R. Senanayake (Eds.), Widening perspectives on biodiversity (pp. 387-392). Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources/Geneva, Switzerland: International Academy of the Environment.
11.
Dalton, R. J. (1994). The green rainbow: Environmental groups in Western Europe. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12.
DeKay, M. L. , & McClelland, G. H. (1996). Probability and utility components of endangered species preservation programs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 60-83.
13.
De Klemm, C. , & Shine, C. (1993). Biological diversity conservation and the law: Legal mechanisms for conserving species and ecosystems. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
14.
Eikeland, P. O. (1994). U.S. environmental NGOs: New strategies for new environmental problems?The Journal of Social, Political & Economic Studies, 19, 259-285.
15.
Geijskes, D. C. , & Van Tol, J. (1983). De libellen van Nederland (Odonata) [Thedragonflies of the Netherlands (Odonata)]. Hoogwoud, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Nederlandse Natuurhistorische Vereniging.
16.
Gittenberger, E. , Backhuys, W., & Ripken, Th.E.J. (1984). De landslakken van Nederland [The terrestrial gastropods of the Netherlands] (Natuurhistorische Bibliotheek KNNV No. 37). Hoogwoud, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Nederlandse Natuurhistorische Vereniging.
17.
Jutro, P. R. (1994). Broadening participation in the Convention on Biological Diversity: A view from the USA. In A. F. Krattiger, J. A. McNeely, W. H. Lesser, K. R. Miller, Y. St. Hill, & R. Senanayake (Eds.), Widening perspectives on biodiversity (pp. 381-386). Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources/Geneva, Switzerland: International Academy of the Environment.
18.
Kellert, S. R. (1980). American attitudes toward and knowledge of animals: An update. International Journal for Studies in Animal Problems, 1, 87-119.
19.
Kellert, S. R. (1996). The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Washington, DC: Island.
20.
Kleukers, R.M.J.C. , Van Nieukerken, E.J., Odé, B., Willemse, L.P.M., & Van Wingerden, W.K.R.E. (1997). De sprinkhanen en krekels van Nederland (Orthoptera)—Nederlandse Fauna 1 [The grasshoppers and crickets of the Netherlands (Orthoptera)—Dutch fauna 1]. Leiden, the Netherlands: Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, KNNV Uitgeverij & European Invertebrate Survey–Nederland.
21.
Knegtering, E. , Van der Windt, H. J., & Schoot Uiterkamp, A.J.M. (2000). Trends in the legal status of indigenous species. Environmental Conservation, 27, 404-413.
22.
Koninklijke Nederlandse Toeristenbond ANWB . (1999). Jaarverslag 1998 [Annual report 1998]. Den Haag, the Netherlands: Author.
23.
Ligtvoet, W. , & Straetmans, E.H.F.M. (1992). Ondergrondse woelmuis Pitymys subterraneus [Thepinevole Pitymys subterraneus]. In S. Broekhuizen, B. Hoekstra, V. van Laar, C. Smeenk, & J.B.M. Thissen (Eds.), Atlas van de Nederlandse Zoogdieren (pp. 256-260). Utrecht, the Netherlands: KNNV Uitgeverij.
24.
Litjens, B.E.J. (1992). Edelhert Cervus elaphus [The red deer Cervus elaphus]. In S. Broekhuizen, B. Hoekstra, V. van Laar, C. Smeenk, & J.B.M. Thissen (Eds.), Atlas van de Nederlandse Zoogdieren (pp. 205-210). Utrecht, the Netherlands: KNNV Uitgeverij.
25.
Lowe, Ph. , & Goyder, J. (1983). Environmental groups in politics. Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
26.
Land- en Tuinbouworganisatie Nederland . (1999). (Insert to the report In de verandering ligt de versterking: Oriëntatie op de toekomst van agrarische bedrijven en hun behoefte aan dienstverlening en belangenbehartiging [Strengthening is in the change: Orientation on the future of farms and their demand for service and interest promotion]). Den Haag, the Netherlands: Author.
27.
Metrick, A. , & Weitzman, M. L. (1998). Conflicts and choices in biodiversity preservation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12, 21-34.
28.
Nias, R. C. (1995). The role of non-government organizations in the development of international and national policies for the conservation of biological diversity. In R. A. Bradstock, T. D. Auld, D. A. Keith, R. T. Kingsford, D. Lunney, & D. P. Sivertsen (Eds.), Conserving biodiversity: Threats and solutions (pp. 375-379). Chipping Norton, Australia: Surrey Beatty & Sons.
29.
Peterson, R. T. , Mountfort, G., & Hollom, P.A.D. (1984). Petersons Vogelgids [A field guide to the birds of Britain and Europe]. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
30.
Plous, S. (1993). Psychological mechanisms in thehuman useof animals. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 11-52.
31.
Potter, D. (1996). Non-governmental organisations and environmental policies. In A. Blowers & P. Glasbergen (Eds.), Environmental policy in an international context: 3. Prospects for environmental change (pp. 25-49). London: Arnold.
32.
Prendergast, J. R. , Quinn, R. M., Lawton, J. H., Eversham, B. C., & Gibbons, D. W. (1993). Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies. Nature, 365, 335-337.
33.
Samples, K. C. , Dixon, J. A., & Gowen, M. M. (1986). Information disclosure and endangered species valuation. Land Economics, 62, 306-312.
34.
Schultz, W. (1987). Attitudes towards birds and other wildlife in West Germany and America. In A. W. Diamond & F. L. Filion (Eds.), The value of birds (ICBP Technical Publication No. 6, pp. 23-29). Cambridge, UK: International Council for Bird Preservation.
35.
Samenwerkende Organisaties Vogelonderzoek Nederland . (1987). Atlas van de Nederlandse Vogels [The atlas of the Dutch birds]. Arnhem, the Netherlands: Author.
36.
Van den Brink, F. H. (1978). Zoogdierengids [A field guideto themammals of Britain and Europe]. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
37.
Van der Coelen, J.E.M. , & Verheggen, L.S.G.M. (1997). Gewone baardvleermuis Myotis mystacinus (Kuhl, 1819) [The whiskeret bat Myotis mystacinus (Kuhl, 1819)]. In H. Limpens, K. Mostert, & W. Bongers (Eds.), Atlas van de Nederlandse vleermuizen: Onderzoek naar verspreiding en ecologie (pp. 72-80). Utrecht, the Netherlands: KNNV Uitgeverij.
38.
Van Swaay, C. (1993). De ontwikkeling van de dagvlinderstand in deze eeuw [Developments of the butterfly populations in this century]. In C.A.M. van Swaay & I. van Halder (Eds.), Jaarboek Natuur 1993 (pp. 114-124). Wageningen: De Vlinderstichting.
39.
Vereniging Natuurmonumenten . (1999). Natuurbeheer mensenwerk: Vereniging Natuurmonumenten Jaarverslag 1998 [Nature management human work: Annual report 1998 of the Society for the Preservation of Nature in the Netherlands]. ’s-Graveland, the Netherlands: Author.
40.
Wasscher, M. T. , & Van Tol, J. (1993). Veranderingen in het voorkomen van libellen (Odonata) in relatie tot geselecteerde milieuparameters [Changes in the occurrence of dragonflies (Odonata) in relation to selected environmental indicators] (Flora en fauna 2030: Achtergrondreeks, deel 3). Leiden, the Netherlands: Stichting European Invertebrate Survey.
41.
Wiertz, J. , & Vink, J. (1992). Das Meles meles [Thebadger Meles meles]. In S. Broekhuizen, B. Hoekstra, V. van Laar, C. Smeenk, & J.B.M. Thissen (Eds.), Atlas van de Nederlandse Zoogdieren (pp. 172-177). Utrecht, the Netherlands: KNNV Uitgeverij.
