Public attitudes to the use of wildlife by Aboriginal Australians: Marketing of wildlife and its conservation

Indigenous Australians have socioeconomic attributes similar to those of residents in some developing countries. Their utilisation of wildlife could add to their economic opportunities. Attitudes of a sample of the Australian public towards the subsistence use of wildlife by Indigenous Australians and whether or not they should be allowed to sell wildlife and wildlife products are examined. Allowing such possibilities could provide economic incentives for nature conservation among local people. We explore whether those sampled believe that Indigenous Australians should do more than other groups and institutions to conserve Australia's tropical species, and whether or not they should be allowed to take common as well as endangered wildlife species for food. Attitudes of the sampled public towards Indigenous Australians earning income from trophy hunting and from the harvesting of northern long-necked turtles for the pet trade are canvassed. The possible conservation consequences of sale of wildlife by Indigenous Australians are discussed.

Public valuation of and attitudes towards the conservation and use of the Hawksbill turtle: An Australian case study

Managing hawksbill turtle populations for use and conservation requires (i) adequate scientific understanding of their population status and dynamics and (ii) consideration of the public’s attitudes to this species. This study employs experimental surveys to assess the Australian public’s attitudes towards the hawksbill turtle, their knowledge of it, their views about its sustainable commercial harvesting, and their support and financial contribution for the species’ conservation. Contingent valuation reveals that the Australian public’s willingness to contribute to the conservation of the hawksbill turtle is high even in comparison to threatened Australian bird and mammal fauna. Most of this stated contribution is based on the intrinsic (non-use) value associated with the hawksbill turtle. It seems that the Australian public will only accept its harvesting if the sustainability of this is assured and its population is more secure. The CITES categorisation of the hawksbill as an Appendix I species hampers the development of techniques for its sustainable use.

Public choice of species for the ark: Phylogenetic similarity and preferred wildlife species for survival

Humans play a role in deciding the fate of species in the current extinction wave. Because of the previous Similarity Principle, physical attractiveness and likeability, it has been argued that public choice favours the survival of species that satisfy these criteria at the expense of other species. This paper empirically tests this argument by considering a hypothetical ‘Ark’ situation. Surveys of 204 members of the Australian public inquired whether they are in favour of the survival of each of 24 native mammal, bird and reptile species (prior to and after information provision about each species). The species were ranked by percentage of ‘yes’ votes received. Species composition by taxon in various fractions of the ranking was determined. If the previous Similarity Principle holds, mammals should rank highly and dominate the top fractions of animals saved in the hierarchical list. We find that although mammals would be over-represented in the ‘Ark’, birds and reptiles are unlikely to be excluded when social choice is based on numbers ‘voting’ for the survival of each species. Support for the previous Similarity Principle is apparent particularly after information provision. Public policy implications of this are noted and recommendations are given.

Research output of Australian general practice: A comparison with medicine, surgery and public health

Objectives: To compare the productivity of Australian general practice in terms of research publications with the productivity of other medical disciplines. Design: A survey of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health publications carried out by manual searching of specific journals and an electronic search of the US National Library of Medicine's PubMed database. Main outcome measures: The number of original research publications by Australian general practitioners, physicians, surgeons and public health physicians during 1999; the relative publication rate of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health over the period 1990-1999. Results: Of original research articles published in 1999, GPs authored 65% (17/26) in Australian Family Physician and 3% (3/90) in the Medical Journal of Australia; physicians published 4% and 37%, respectively. The electronic search identified 54 research articles relating to Australian general practice published in 1999 in 21 different journals, only two of which were primary care journals. Over the period 1990-1999, there was a publication rate of one general practice [discipline] article per 1000 GPs in practice per year. Corresponding rates for medicine, surgery and public health were 105/1000, 61/1000 and 148/1000, respectively. Conclusions: There is considerable disparity between the level of research output of general practice and that of the disciplines of medicine, surgery and public health. If we are to have effective general practice research, we urgently need to develop research skills, a supportive infrastructure and a culture that nurtures research.