Are wildlife value orientations useful tools to explain tolerance and illegal killing of wildlife by farmers in response to crop damage?

  • Jacopo CerriEmail author
  • Emiliano Mori
  • Mattia Vivarelli
  • Marco Zaccaroni
Original Article


Understanding human-wildlife conflicts and monitoring their consequences, such as wildlife persecution, is crucial for biological conservation. Although most theoretical models suggest that the influence of value orientations on behavior is mediated by higher order constructs such as attitudes and norms, wildlife value orientations are widely used to assess human-wildlife relationships and to predict human behavior towards wildlife. We have no evidence of studies which have measured them in Mediterranean countries, where the highest biodiversity level in temperate Western countries is present. In spring 2016, we administered a questionnaire to local farmers in Central Italy to measure the association between wildlife value orientations and illegal killing of wildlife, in response to crop or poultry damages (n = 352). We obtained the prevalence of illegal killing with the Randomized Response Technique, ensuring complete individual protection to respondents. We modeled the effect of wildlife value orientations over illegal wildlife killing with a Bayesian logistic regression for three taxa: the red fox, the crested porcupine, and birds, as most of persecution by farmers in our study site is exerted towards them. We found that domination predicted illegal killing for the red fox only. On the other hand, mutualism predicted tolerance towards all the study taxa. Combining wildlife value orientations and the Randomized Response Technique can be a promising approach to explore human-wildlife conflicts and their consequences. Furthermore, the Mediterranean setting of our study filled existing geographical gaps about wildlife value orientations in Europe. We encourage future research on the application of wildlife value orientations to conflicts involving wildlife and extensive farmers, i.e., at large scale, as well as future large-scale research on wildlife value orientations in Europe.


Wildlife value orientations Human dimensions of wildlife Values Randomized response technique Sensitive Crop/poultry damage 



Dr. Vasco Sfondrini kindly took the time to revise the English grammar and syntax of our manuscript. Two anonymous reviewers and the Associate Editor provided us with useful comments on an early draft.

Supplementary material

10344_2017_1127_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (476 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 476 kb)
10344_2017_1127_MOESM2_ESM.docx (15 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 15 kb)


  1. Albani C, Ascione E, Henke R, Li Vecchi D, Pesce A, Pierangeli F, Pierri F (2013) I giovani e il ricambio generazionale nell’agricoltura italiana. Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali, INEA (Eds.), Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  2. Barua M, Bhagwat SA, Jadhav S (2013) The hidden dimensions of human–wildlife conflict: health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biol Conserv 157:309–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blair G, Zhou YY, Imai K (2015) rr: Statistical methods for the randomized response. Available at the Comprehensive R Archive Network, http://CRAN. R-project. org/package= rr. Accessed on 28th July 2016Google Scholar
  4. Clergeau P, Vergnes P (2015) Bird feeders may sustain feral rose-ringed parakeets Psittacula krameri in temperate Europe. Wildl Biol 17:248–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cross P, St. John FAS, Khan S, Petroczi A (2013) Innovative techniques for estimating illegal activities in a human-wildlife-management conflict. PLoS One 8:e53681CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Cruyff MJ, Böckenholt U, Van der Heijden PG (2016) The multidimensional randomized response design: estimating different aspects of the same sensitive behavior. Behav Res Methods 48:390–399CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Dayer AA, Stinchfield HM, Manfredo MJ (2007) Stories about wildlife: developing an instrument for identifying wildlife value orientations cross-culturally. Hum Dim Wildl 12:307–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deinet S, Ieronymidou C, McRae L, Burfield IJ, Foppen RP, Collen B, Böhm M (2013) Wildlife comeback in Europe: the recovery of selected mammal and bird species. Final report to Rewilding Europe by ZSL, BirdLife International and the European Bird Census Council, Zoological Society of London LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Dickman AJ (2010) Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human-wildlife conflict. Anim Conserv 13:458–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doi Y, Minowa M, Uchiyama M, Okawa M, Kim K, Shibui K, Kamei Y (2000) Psychometric assessment of subjective sleep quality using the Japanese version of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI-J) in psychiatric disordered and control subjects. Psych Res 97:165–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fairbrass A, Nuno A, Bunnefeld N, Milner-Gulland EJ (2016) Investigating determinants of compliance with wildlife protection laws: bird persecution in Portugal. Eur J Wildl Res 62:93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fox AD, Abraham KF (2017) Why geese benefit from the transition from natural vegetation to agriculture. Ambio 46:188–197CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Frank B, Glikman JA, Sutherland M, Bath AJ (2016) Predictors of extreme negative feelings toward coyote in Newfoundland. Human Dim Wildl 21:297–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fulton DC, Manfredo MJ, Lipscomb J (1996) Wildlife value orientations: a conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dim Wildl 1:24–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gamborg C, Jensen FS (2016a) Wildlife value orientations: a quantitative study of the general public in Denmark. Human Dim Wildl 21:34–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gamborg C, Jensen FS (2016b) Wildlife value orientations among hunters, landowners, and the general public: a Danish comparative quantitative study. Human Dim Wildl 21:328–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gore ML, Siemer WF, Shanahan JE, Schuefele D, Decker DJ (2005) Effects on risk perception of media coverage of a black bear-related human fatality. Wildl Soc Bull 33:507–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herrmann N, Voß C, Menzel S (2013) Wildlife value orientations as predicting factors in support of reintroducing bison and of wolves migrating to Germany. J Nat Cons 21:125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacobs MH (2007) Wildlife value orientations in the Netherlands. Human Dim Wildl 21:359–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jacobs MH (2012) Human emotions toward wildlife. Human Dim Wildl 17:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jacobs MH, Vaske JJ, Roemer JM (2012) Toward a mental systems approach to human relationships with wildlife: the role of emotional dispositions. Human Dim Wildl 17:4–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacobs MH, Vaske JJ, Dubois S, Fehres P (2014a) More than fear: role of emotions in acceptability of lethal control of wolves. Eur J Wildl Res 60:589–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacobs MH, Vaske JJ, Sijtsma MT (2014b) Predictive potential of wildlife value orientations for acceptability of management interventions. J Nat Cons 22:377–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jafarpour M, Manohar M (2014) Wildlife value orientations based on age, gender and education in Malaysia. Life Sci J 11:194–201Google Scholar
  25. Kaczensky P (2007) Wildlife value orientations of rural Mongolians. Human Dim Wildl 12:317–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kluckhohn C (1951) Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: an exploration in definition and classification. In: Parsons T, Shils E (eds) Toward a general theory of action. Harper and Row Editions, New York, USA, pp 388–433Google Scholar
  27. Krumpal I (2013) Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Qual Quant 47:2025–2047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Langhammer M, Grimm V, Pütz S, Topping CJ (2017) A modelling approach to evaluating the effectiveness of ecological focus areas: the case of the European brown hare. Land Use Policy 61:63–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Laurenzi A, Bodino N, Mori E (2016) Much ado about nothing: assessing the impact of a problematic rodent on agriculture and native trees. Mammal Res 61:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liu F, McShea WJ, Garshelis DL, Zhu X, Wang D, Shao L (2011) Human-wildlife conflicts influence attitudes but not necessarily behaviors: factors driving the poaching of bears in China. Biol Conserv 144:538–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lovari S, Corsini MT, Guazzini B, Romeo G, Mori E (2017) Suburban ecology of the crested porcupine in a heavily poached area: a global approach. Eur J Wildl Res 63:10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Majić A, Bath AJ (2010) Changes in attitudes toward wolves in Croatia. Biol Conserv 143:255–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Manfredo MJ (2008) Who cares about wildlife? Springer US (Eds), New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 Quart 90:407–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Manfredo MJ, Teel TL, Dietsch AM (2016) Implications of human value shift and persistence for biodiversity conservation. Cons Biol 30:287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marzano M, Carss DN, Cheyne I (2013) Managing European cormorant-fisheries conflicts: problems, practicalities and policy. Fish Manag Ecol 20:401–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Massei G, Kindberg J, Licoppe A, Gačić D, Šprem N, Kamler J, Baubet E, Hohmann U, Monaco A, Ozoliņš CS, Podogórski T, Fonseca C, Markov N, Pokorny B, Rosell C, Nàhlik A (2015) Wild boar populations up, numbers of hunters down? A review of trends and implications for Europe. Pest Manag Sci 71:492–500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Merkle EC, Rosseel Y (2015). Blavaan: Bayesian structural equation models via parameter expansion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.05604Google Scholar
  39. Messmer TA (2009) Human-wildlife conflicts: emerging challenges and opportunities. Human-Wildl Confl 3:10–17Google Scholar
  40. Miller KK (2003) Public and stakeholder values of wildlife in Victoria, Australia. Wildl Res 30:465–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nuno ANA, St. John FA (2015) How to ask sensitive questions in conservation: a review of specialized questioning techniques. Biol Conserv 189:5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Patterson ME, Montag JM, Williams DR (2003) The urbanization of wildlife management: social science, conflict, and decision making. Urban For Urban Green 1:171–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Poole DW (2002) Effectiveness of two types of electric fence for excluding the red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Mamm Rev 32:51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Prokop P, Medina-Jerez W, Coleman J, Fančovičová J, Özel M, Fedor P (2016) Tolerance of frogs among high school students: influences of disgust and culture. Eur J Math Sci Tech Educ 12:1499–1505Google Scholar
  45. Prugh LR, Stoner CJ, Epps CW, Bean WT, Ripple WJ, Laliberte AS, Brashares JS (2009) The rise of the mesopredator. Bioscience 59:779–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Quantum GIS Development Team (2009) Quantum GIS geographic information system. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project.
  47. Raadik J, Cottrell S (2007) Wildlife value orientations: an Estonian case study. Hum Dim Wildl 12:347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Redpath SM, Young J, Evely A, Adams WM, Sutherland WJ, Whitehouse A, Amar A, Lambert LA, Linnell JDC, Watt A, Gutiérrez RJ (2013) Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol Evol 28:100–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Ripple WJ, Estes JA, Beschta RL, Wilmers CC, Ritchie EG, Hebblewhite M, Berger J, Elmhagen B, Letnic M, Nelson PM, Schmitz OJ, Smith DW, Wallach AD, Wirsing AJ (2014) Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Sci 343:1241484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rockeach M (1973) The nature of human values. Free Press (Eds.), New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  51. Rovný P (2016) The analysis of farm population with respect to young farmers in the European Union. Procedia-Soc Behav Sci 220:391–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Santilli F, Azara S, Galardi L, Gorreri L, Perfetti A, Bagliacca M (2012) Evaluation of an aerial scaring device for birds damage prevention to agricultural crops. Riv It Orn 82:144–146Google Scholar
  53. Schwartz SH (2006) A theory of cultural value orientations: explication and applications. Comp Sociol 5:137–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Serafini P, Lovari S (1993) Food habits and trophic niche overlap of the red fox and the stone marten in a Mediterranean rural area. Acta Theriol 38:233–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sijtsma MT, Vaske JJ, Jacobs MH (2012) Acceptability of lethal control of wildlife that damage agriculture in the Netherlands. Soc Nat Res 25:1308–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. St. John FA, Edwards-Jones G, Gibbons JM, Jones JP (2010) Testing novel methods for assessing rule breaking in conservation. Biol Conserv 143:1025–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. St. John FA, Brockington D, Bunnefeld N, Duffy R, Homewood K, Jones JP, Keane AK, Milner-Gulland EJ, Nuno A, Razafimanahaka JH (2016) Research ethics: assuring anonymity at the individual level may not be sufficient to protect research participants from harm. Biol Conserv 196:208–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tanakanjana N, Saranet S (2007) Wildlife value orientations in Thailand: preliminary findings. Hum Dim Wildl 12:339–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Teel TL, Manfredo MJ (2009) Understanding the diversity of public interests in wildlife conservation. Cons Biol 24:128–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Teel TL, Manfredo MJ, Stinchfield HM (2007) The need and theoretical basis for exploring wildlife value orientations cross-culturally. Hum Dim Wildl 12:297–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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. Intern J Sociol 40:104–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Treves A, Bruskotter J (2014) Tolerance for predatory wildlife. Sci 344:476–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van den Hout A, van der Heijden PG, Gilchrist R (2007) The logistic regression model with response variables subject to randomized response. Comp Stat Data Anal 51:6060–6069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vaske JJ (2008) Survey research and analysis: applications in parks, recreation and human dimensions. State College, PA: Venture PublishingGoogle Scholar
  65. Vaske JJ, Jacobs MH, Sijtsma MT (2011) Wildlife value orientations and demographics in The Netherlands. Eur J Wildl Res 57:1179–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wallach AD, Johnson CN, Ritchie EG, O’Neill AJ (2010) Predator control promotes invasive dominated ecological states. Ecol Lett 13:1008–1018PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. White PC, Jennings NV, Renwick AR, Barker NH (2005) Review: questionnaires in ecology: a review of past use and recommendations for best practice. J Appl Ecol 42:421–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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
  69. Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A (2005) People and wildlife, conflict or co-existence? (No. 9). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zainal Abidin ZA, Jacobs MH (2016) The applicability of wildlife value orientations scales to a Muslim student sample in Malaysia. Hum Dim Wildl 21:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zinn HC, Shen XS (2007) Wildlife value orientations in China. Hum Dim Wildl 12:331–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zinn HC, Manfredo MJ, Barro SC (2002) Patterns of wildlife value orientations in hunters' families. Hum Dim Wildl 7:147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Scuola Superiore Sant’AnnaPisaItaly
  2. 2.Research Unit of Behavioural Ecology, Ethology and Wildlife Management, Department of Life SciencesUniversity of SienaSienaItaly
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Scienze delle Produzioni AgroAlimentari (DISPAA)Università degli Studi di FirenzeFlorenceItaly
  4. 4.Dipartimento di BiologiaUniversità degli Studi di FirenzeFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations