Public and stakeholder values and knowledge of wildlife in Victoria, Australia

Prompted by a lack of human dimensions research in Australia, this study investigated the values and knowledge relating to wildlife held by members of the public within distinct demographic subsets of the Victorian population and members of wildlife management stakeholder groups; and compared these characteristics with how Victorian wildlife managers perceive these groups. A combination of semi-structured interviews and postal questionnaires were used. Fifteen in-depth interviews were conducted to explore how wildlife managers perceive the values and knowledge of wildlife held by members of various subsets of the Victorian population. A total of 1,431 questionnaires were completed by members of 13 public and stakeholder groups throughout Victoria, and these were analysed to explore values and knowledge relating to wildlife in Victoria. The findings of this study suggest that Victorian people have a strong emotional attachment to individual animals (the humanistic value), and an interest in learning about wildlife (the curiosity/learning/interacting value). The dominionistic/wildlife-consumption, utilitarian-habitat, aesthetic and negativistic values were not expressed by the majority of respondents from the public samples. The data also suggest that Victorian people have relatively low levels of factual knowledge about Australian wildlife. Thus, wildlife managers should expect support for wildlife management objectives that reflect the strong humanistic orientation of Victorians and tailor management and education programs to appeal to this value and Victorians' interest in learning about wildlife. Members of the Field Naturalists Club of Victoria (FNCV), Bird Observers Club of Australia (BOCA), Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) stakeholder groups and management agency Parks Victoria expressed a strong interest in learning about wildlife. Members of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) obtained high humanistic value scores; and members of the Victorian Field and Game Association (VFGA) obtained high domimomstic/wildlife-consumption value scores. Importantly, the humanistic and curiosity/learning/interacting values were the most strongly expressed values in all six groups and these values could be the key to more effective communication and collaboration between groups. Relationships between demographic factors, and values and knowledge relating to wildlife were found. For example, rural Victorians held a stronger dominionistic/ wildlife-consumption value than urban Victorians; females held stronger humanistic, curiosity/learning/interacting and negativistic values than males; young Victorians (18-34 years) held a lower curiosity/learning/interacting value and lower factual knowledge of wildlife than older Victorians; and more highly educated Victorians were more knowledgeable about wildlife than people with less formal education. No statistically significant differences were found between the values and knowledge of wildlife held by different income classes. While relationships between demographic factors, and values and knowledge relating to wildlife were found, they were generally much smaller than expected based on wildlife managers' perceptions and previous research. For example, the results suggest that Victorian females have a slightly stronger humanistic value of wildlife than males do. However, the important message emerging from the data is that males and females both express a strong emotional attachment to individual animals. Importantly, the results indicate that the effects of demographic factors on values and knowledge relating to wildlife are not always consistent across different geographic locations and stakeholder groups. For example, the slightly stronger interest in learning about wildlife among females when compared with males was observed in the rural and urban-fringe samples but not in the urban samples. This suggests that caution must be used when generalising the findings from human dimensions studies from one type of community or stakeholder group to another. Management programs should be tailored to the specific characteristics of the target audience. The findings also indicate that Victorian wildlife managers have diverse perceptions about the values and knowledge of wildlife held by members of different publics and stakeholder groups, and that the perceptions held by wildlife managers are not always consistent with the actual values and knowledge of wildlife held by members of different publics and stakeholders. For example, counter to the perceptions expressed by the interviewed wildlife managers, the interest in and factual knowledge of wildlife held by members of voluntary conservation groups equalled or surpassed that of wildlife managers; young Victorian adults (18-34 years) held a slightly lower curiosity/learning/interacting value and slightly lower level of factual knowledge of wildlife than older Victorians; and rural and urban communities in Victoria held low dominionistic and utilitarian values. Such discrepancies highlight the importance of investigating the actual values and knowledge held by members of such groups, so that appropriate and effective wildlife management programs can be implemented. Inaccurate perceptions and assumptions may contribute to ineffective communication between managers, stakeholders and publics; and adversely effect the success of wildlife management programs.