Skip to main content
Log in

Landowners’ wildlife value orientations, attitudes and behaviour in relation to game management practices

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Wildlife Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Landowners are shaping the landscape, sometimes through wildlife management for hunting purposes; however, no studies have looked at the connection between how landowners view wildlife (their wildlife value orientations—WVO) and, respectively, their attitudes to and stated game management practices potentially affecting the landscape. This study, using a nationally representative data set of landowners in Denmark, makes this connection. Using a utilitarian-pluralist-mutualist-distanced orientation scale, most Danish landowners (especially full-time farmers) were utilitarian followed by pluralist. Utilitarian and pluralist were generally more accepting of game management practices than mutualists and distanced landowners. Landscape- or nature-orientated game management practices were accepted by a clear majority of landowners regardless of WVOs (though utilitarian and pluralists were more positive). More narrow game-orientated management practices were significantly more acceptable for those with a utilitarian and mutualist orientation. In a management context, results are relevant when predicting changes in the rural landscape and the relation to developments in the composition of landowners, and in their WVO. Moreover, in relation to potential conflicts, the general public in Denmark has a higher proportion of mutualists and distanced than among landowners, and are likely to be less accepting of the narrow, game-orientated practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Dec 50:179–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown J, Mitchell B (2000) The stewardship approach and its relevance for protected landscapes. George Wright Forum 17:70–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger, GV, Teer JG (1981) Economic and socioeconomic issues influencing wildlife management on private land. In: Proceedings of wildlife management on private lands symposium. Wisconsin Chapter, The Wildlife Society, Madison, pp 252–278

  • Cerri J, Mori E, Vivarelli M, Zaccaroni M (2017) Are wildlife value orientations useful tools to explain tolerance and illegal killing of wildlife by farmers in response to crop damage? Eur J Wildlife Res 63(4):70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen AA, Svenningsen SR, Lommer MS, Brandt J (2014) New multifunctional hunting landscapes in Denmark. Dan J Geogr 114:25–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conover MR (1998) Perceptions of American agricultural producers about wildlife on their farms and ranches. Wildlife Soc B 26:597–604

    Google Scholar 

  • Daley SS, Cobb DT, Bromley PT, Sorenson CE (2004) Landowner attitudes regarding wildlife management on private land in North Carolina. Wildlife Soc B 32:209–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danmarks Statistik (2012) Landbrug 2012. Statistik om landbrug, gartneri og skovbrug. Statistics Denmark, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Danmarks Statistik (2015) Statistisk Årbog 2015. [Statistical yearbook 2015]. Statistics Denmark, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Decker DJ, Siemer WF, Forstchen AB, Smith C (2018) The role of human dimensions in state wildlife management. In: Ryder J (ed) State wildlife management conservation. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 194–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Delibes-Mateos M, Giergiczny M, Caro J, Vinuela J, Riera P, Arroyo B (2014) Does hunters’ willingness to pay match the best hunting options for biodiversity conservation? A choice experiment application for small-game hunting in Spain. Biol Conserv 177:36–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FACE (2018) Biodiversity. The European Federation of Associations for Hunting & Conservation (FACE) https://www.face.eu/nature-conservation/biodiversity/. Accessed 23 August 2018

  • Fulton DC, Manfredo MJ, Lipscomb J (1996) Wildlife value orientations: a conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dim Wildlife 1:24–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamborg C, Jensen FS (2016a) Wildlife value orientations: a quantitative study of the general public in Denmark. Human Dim Wildl 21:34–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamborg C, Jensen FS (2016b) Wildlife value orientations among hunters, landowners and the general public: a Danish comparative quantitative study. Human Dim Wildl 21:328–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamborg C, Jensen FS (2017) Attitudes to recreational hunting: a quantitative survey of the general public in Denmark. J Outdoor Recreat Tour 17:20–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamborg C, Palmer C, Sandøe P (2012) Ethics of wildlife management and conservation: what should we try to protect? Nat Educ Knowl 3(10):8

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamborg C, Jensen FS, Sandøe P (2016) A dividing issue: attitudes to game bird shooting among landowners, hunters and the general public in Denmark. Land Use Policy 57:296–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genghini M, Spalatro F, Gellini S (2002) Farmers’ attitudes toward the carrying out of wildlife habitat improvement actions (WHIA) in intensive agricultural areas of Northern Italy. Z Jagdwiss 48:309–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Golden KE, Peterson MN, DePerno CS, Bardon RE, Moorman CE (2013) Factors shaping private landowner engagement in wildlife management. Wildlife Soc B 37:94–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzon I, Mikk M (2007) Farmers’ perceptions of biodiversity and their willingness to enhance it through agri-environment schemes: a comparative study from Estonia and Finland. J Nat Conserv 15:10–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iversen T (2017) Markvildtlavenes indsats 2017. Jæger 10:45–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaltenborn BP, Bjerke T, Vitterso J (1999) Attitudes toward large carnivores among sheep farmers, wildlife managers and research biologists in Norway. Human Dim Wildl 4:57–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellert SR (1984) Wildlife values and the privatel and owner. Am Forests 90:002060–002061

    Google Scholar 

  • Lund JF, Jensen FS (2017) Is recreational hunting important for landscape multi-functionality? Evidence from Denmark. Land Use Policy 61:389–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manfredo MJ, Vaske JJ, Decker D (1995) Human dimensions of wildlife management: basic concepts. In: Knight RL, Gutzwiller KJ (eds) Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 17–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Miljø-og Fødevareministeriet (2017) Bekendtgørelse om udsætning af vildt, jagtmåder og jagtredskaber (Bekendtgørelse nr. 1652 af 19/12/2017. https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=196508, 19.08.2018). Accessed 19 August 2018

  • Mills J, Gaskell P, Ingram J, Chaplin S (2018) Understanding farmers’ motivations for providing unsubsidised environmental benefits. Land Use Policy 76:697–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustin K, Newey S, Irvine J, Arroyo B, Redpath S (2010) Biodiversity impacts of game bird hunting and associated management practices in Europe and North America. Contract Report. James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen, 71 pp

  • Primdahl J, Bojesen M, Vesterager JP, Kristensen LS (2012) Hunting and landscape in Denmark: farmers’ management of hunting rights and landscape changes. Landsc Res 37:659–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond CM, Bieling C, Fagerholm N, Martin-Lopez B, Plieninger T (2016) The farmer as a landscape steward: comparing local understandings of landscape stewardship, landscape values, and land management actions. Ambio 45:173–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renting H, Rossing WA, Groot JC, Van der Ploeg JD, Laurent C, Perraud D, Stobbelaar DJ, Van Ittersum MK (2009) Exploring multifunctional agriculture. A review of conceptual approaches and prospects for an integrative transitional framework. J Environ Manag 90:S112–S123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose DC, Keating C, Morris C (2018) Understanding how to influence farmers’ decision-making behaviour: a social science literature review. Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, University of East Anglia, Norwich

    Google Scholar 

  • Søndergaard N (2009) Natur- og Vildtpleje. Landbrugsforlaget, Aarhus

    Google Scholar 

  • Teel T, Dayer A, Manfredo M, Bright A (2005) Regional results from the research project entitled “Wildlife Values in the West”. (Project Rep. No. 58). Project Report for the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit, Fort Collins, CO.

  • Vandervell A, Coles C (1980) Game & the English landscape. The influence of the chase on sporting art and scenery. Debrett’s Peerage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Zinn HC, Manfredo MJ, Barro SC (2002) Patterns of wildlife value orientations in hunters’ families. Human Human Dim Wildl 7:147–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments.

Funding

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support for this work from the “15. Juni Fonden”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Gamborg.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gamborg, C., Lund, J.F. & Jensen, F.S. Landowners’ wildlife value orientations, attitudes and behaviour in relation to game management practices. Eur J Wildl Res 65, 9 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-018-1245-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-018-1245-3

Keywords

Navigation