European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 57, Issue 6, pp 1179–1187 | Cite as

Wildlife value orientations and demographics in The Netherlands

  • Jerry J. Vaske
  • Maarten H. Jacobs
  • Mette T. J. Sijtsma
Original Paper


This article identified the Dutch publics’ value orientations toward wildlife and examined differences in value orientations among four demographic characteristics: age, sex, current residence, and education. The two wildlife value orientations—domination and mutualism—were based on prior theorizing and research in the USA. People with a domination value orientation believe wildlife should be managed for human benefit and are more likely to prioritize human well-being over wildlife in their attitudes and behaviors. Individuals with a mutualism orientation view wildlife as part of an extended family, deserving of rights and care. Data were obtained from a mailed survey (n = 353) sent to randomly selected individuals in the Dutch population. K-means cluster analysis was used to segment respondents into three groups based on their responses to the 19 items used to measure their wildlife value orientations. As predicted by the literature, those with a domination wildlife value orientation were statistically older (M = 55.2) than mutualism oriented individuals (M = 51.5). Females (61%) and those living in an urban area (48%) tended to be more mutualism-oriented. There were no significant differences among the clusters in education level. Overall, this article provides information about wildlife value orientations and public demographic characteristics that can help wildlife managers to (1) understand the diversity of value orientations that exist and (2) gauge support for or opposition to management policies.


Wildlife value orientation Demographics Segmentation The Netherlands 


  1. Applegate JE (1973) Some factors associated with attitudes toward deer hunting in New Jersey residents. Trans North Am Wildl Nat Resour Conf 38:267–273Google Scholar
  2. Bengston D (1994) Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Soc Nat Resour 7:515–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bright AD, Manfredo MJ, Fulton DC (2000) Segmenting the public: an application of value orientations to wildlife planning in Colorado. Wildl Soc Bull 28:218–226Google Scholar
  4. Buijs AE (2009) Lay people’s images of nature: comprehensive frameworks of values, beliefs, and value orientations. Soc Nat Resour 22(5):417–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Connelly NA, Brown TL, Decker DJ (2003) Factors affecting response rates to natural resource–focused surveys: empirical evidence of declining rates over time. Soc Nat Resour 16:541–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cromartie JB, Wardwell JM (1999) Migrants settling far and wide in the rural west. Rural Dev Perspect 14:2–8Google Scholar
  7. Dayer AA, Stinchfield HM, Manfredo MJ (2007) Stories about wildlife: developing an instrument for identifying wildlife value orientations cross–culturally. Hum Dimens Wildl 12:297–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Decker DJ, Brown TL, Siemer WF (2001) Human dimensions of wildlife management in North America. Wildlife Society, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  9. Eagly AH, Chaiken S (1993) The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  10. Fulton DC, Manfredo MJ, Lipscomb J (1996) Wildlife value orientations: a conceptual and measurement approach. Hum Dimens Wildl 1(2):24–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grendstad G, Wollebaek D (1998) Greener still? An empirical examination of Eckersley’s ecocentric approach. Environ Behav 30:653–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Howell S, Laska S (1992) The changing face of the environmental coalition: a research note. Environ Behav 24:134–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Inglehart R (1990) Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  14. Ingold T (1994) From trust to domination: an alternative history of human–animal relations. In: Manning A, Serpell J (eds) Animals and human society: changing perspectives. Routledge, New York, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  15. Jacobs MH (2007) Wildlife value orientations in The Netherlands. Hum Dimens Wildl 12:359–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D (1993) LISREL 8: user’s reference guide. Scientific Software International, LincolnwoodGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaczensky P (2007) Wildlife value orientations of rural Mongolians. Hum Dimens Wildl 12:317–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kellert SR (1980) America’s attitudes and knowledge of animals. Trans North Am Wildl Nat Resour Conf 45:111–124Google Scholar
  19. Kellert SR (1996) The value of life: biological diversity and human society. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Kline RB (1998) Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. Guilford, New York, p 354Google Scholar
  21. Manfredo MJ (2008) Who cares about wildlife? Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Manfredo MJ, Zinn HC (1996) Population change and its implications for wildlife management in the New West: a case study of Colorado. Hum Dimens Wildl 1:62–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Manfredo MJ, Fulton DC, Ciruli F, Cassin S, Lipscomb J, Sikorowski L, Norris S (1993) Summary of project report: Coloradoan’s recreational uses of and attitudes toward wildlife. (Summary of Project Report No. 6). Project Report for the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Fort Collins, CO, Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources UnitGoogle Scholar
  24. Manfredo MJ, Teel TL, Bright AD (2003) Why are public values toward wildlife changing? Hum Dimens Wildl 8:285–304Google Scholar
  25. Manfredo MJ, Teel TL, Henry KL (2009) Linking society and environment: a multilevel model of shifting wildlife value orientations in the Western United States. Soc Sci Q 90:407–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Milbrath LW (1984) Environmentalists: vanguard for a new society. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  27. Nelson PB (1999) Quality of life, nontraditional income, and economic growth: new development opportunities for the rural west. Rural Dev Perspect 14:32–37Google Scholar
  28. Pratto F (1999) The puzzle of continuing group inequality: piecing together psychological, social and cultural forces in social dominance theory. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 31:191–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Raddick J, Cottrell S (2007) Wildlife value orientations: an Estonian case study. Hum Dimens Wildl 12:347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rokeach M (1973) The nature of human values. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Rudzitis G (1999) Amenities increasingly draw people to the rural west. Rural Dev Perspect 14:9–13Google Scholar
  32. Schwartz (2006) A theory of cultural value orientations: explication and applications. Comp Soc 5:136–182Google Scholar
  33. Shaw WW, Carpenter EH, Arthur LM, Gum RL, Witter DJ (1978) The American disposition toward hunting in 1976. Wildl Soc Bull 6:33–35Google Scholar
  34. Sijtsma MTJ, Vaske JJ, Jacobs MH (2011) Acceptability of lethal control of geese and deer that damage agriculture in The Netherlands. Technical Report. Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
  35. Steel BS, List P, Shindler B (1994) Conflicting values about federal forests: a comparison of national and Oregon publics. Soc Nat Resour 7:137–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Steger MA, Witt S (1989) Gender differences in environmental orientations: a comparison of publics and activists in Canada and the US. West Polit Q 42:627–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stern PC, Dietz T (1984) The value basis of environmental concern. J Soc Issues 50(3):65–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tanakanjana N, Saranet S (2007) Wildlife value orientations in Thailand: preliminary findings. Hum Dimens Wildl 12:339–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Teel TL, Manfredo MJ (2009) Understanding diversity of public interests in wildlife conservation. Conserv Biol 24:128–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Teel TL, Dayer AA, Manfredo MJ, Bright AD (2005) Regional results from the research project entitled “Wildlife Values in the West.” Project report for the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Fort Collins, Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources UnitGoogle Scholar
  41. Teel TL, Manfredo MJ, Stinchfield HM (2007) The need and theoretical basis for exploring wildlife value orientations cross–culturally. Hum Dimens Wildl 12:297–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Teel TL, Manfredo MJ, Jensen FS, Buijs AE, Fischer A, Riepe C, Arlinghaus R, Jacobs MH (2010) Understanding the cognitive basis for human–wildlife relationships as a key to successful protected area management. Int J Sociol 40(3):104–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Liere KD, Dunlap RE (1980) The social basis of environmental concern: a review of hypotheses, explanations, and empirical evidence. Public Opin Q 44:181–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vaske JJ (2008a) Wildlife value orientations in rural America. In: Goreham G (ed) Encyclopedia of Rural America, 2nd edn. Gray House, Millerton, pp 1103–1107Google Scholar
  45. Vaske JJ (2008b) Survey research and analysis: applications in parks, recreation and human dimensions. Venture Publishing, State CollegeGoogle Scholar
  46. Vaske JJ, Donnelly MP (1999) A value–attitude–behavior model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Soc Nat Resour 12(6):523–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vaske JJ, Manfredo MJ (2011) Social psychological aspects of wildlife management (chapter 5). In: Decker DJ, Riley S, Siemer WF (eds) Human dimensions of wildlife management. The Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  48. Vaske JJ, Needham MD (2007) Segmenting public beliefs about conflict with coyotes in an urban recreation setting. J Park Recreat Adm 25:79–98Google Scholar
  49. Vaske JJ, Donnelly MP, Williams DR, Jonker S (2001) Demographic influences on environmental value orientations and normative beliefs about national forest management. Soc Nat Resour 14:761–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vaske JJ, Jacobs MH, Sijtsma MTJ, & Beaman J (2011) Can weighting compensate for sampling issues in online surveys? Hum DimensWildl 16(3), in pressGoogle Scholar
  51. Whittaker D, Vaske JJ, Manfredo MJ (2006) Specificity and the cognitive hierarchy: value orientations and the acceptability of urban wildlife management actions. Soc Nat Resour 19:515–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wildavsky AB (1991) The rise of radical egalitarianism. The American University Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  53. Zinn HC, Pierce C (2002) Values, gender, and concern about potentially dangerous wildlife. Environ Behav 34:239–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zinn HC, Shen XS (2007) Wildlife value orientations in China. Hum Dimens Wildl 12:331–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jerry J. Vaske
    • 1
  • Maarten H. Jacobs
    • 2
  • Mette T. J. Sijtsma
    • 2
  1. 1.Human Dimensions of Natural ResourcesColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.Wageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations