Threats posed to conservation by media misinformation

Exploring the efficacy of identity priming and message framing in influencing American attitudes toward trophy hunting

In the United States, the general public typically disapproves of trophy hunting. Given the global ubiquity of the practice, its potential to benefit conservation when properly managed, and the substantial role played by American hunter-tourists, changing these attitudes can help to maintain the practice as a wildlife management tool. Existing trophy hunting communications, which are currently neither well-designed nor widely distributed, are unable to effectively do so. We used an online survey to explore current American attitudes regarding trophy hunting and assess the efficacy of different messaging strategies in influencing these attitudes. Respondents were randomly sorted into nine treatment groups, each of which received both an identity-focused priming item (or lack thereof, as a control) and a message about trophy hunting. The priming items prompted respondents to consider either their personal values (personal identity) or political affiliation (social identity) before reading their assigned message. All three messages evaluated in this study contained a brief informative paragraph about trophy hunting, and additional information concerning either the ecological or socioeconomic benefits associated with the practice was appended onto this paragraph for respondents assigned to treatments featuring an experimental message frame. Based on the responses of 2000 U.S. residents, we found that negative attitudes regarding trophy hunting were pervasive and resistant to change. Messages framed around the ecological or socioeconomic benefits of managed trophy hunting slightly increased approval for the practice, but identity-focused priming items had no comparable effect. Additionally, respondents' trust in the messages varied by source. This research represents a novel approach to understanding and changing public attitudes toward a highly controversial form of hunting through scientifically informed messaging. While our findings suggest several areas of improvement specifically for future trophy hunting communications, they may also be applied to outreach efforts concerning other contentious wildlife management issues.

Public perceptions of trophy hunting are pragmatic, not dogmatic

Fierce international debates rage over whether trophy hunting is socially acceptable, especially when people from the Global North hunt well-known animals in sub-Saharan Africa. We used an online vignette experiment to investigate public perceptions of the acceptability of trophy hunting in sub-Saharan Africa among people who live in urban areas of the USA, UK and South Africa. Acceptability depended on specific attributes of different hunts as well as participants' characteristics. Zebra hunts were more acceptable than elephant hunts, hunts that would provide meat to local people were more acceptable than hunts in which meat would be left for wildlife, and hunts in which revenues would support wildlife conservation were more acceptable than hunts in which revenues would support either economic development or hunting enterprises. Acceptability was generally lower among participants from the UK and those who more strongly identified as an animal protectionist, but higher among participants with more formal education, who more strongly identified as a hunter, or who would more strongly prioritize people over wild animals. Overall, acceptability was higher when hunts would produce tangible benefits for local people, suggesting that members of three urban publics adopt more pragmatic positions than are typically evident in polarized international debates.

Ten years of coverage of trophy hunting in UK newspapers

Hunting is an increasingly contentious topic. Trophy hunting, whereby people hunt individual animals with desirable characteristics in order to keep body parts (e.g. horns, heads, hides, antlers) as mementos, is especially contested. Political pressure, often in the form of trophy import bans, is being applied in multiple nations, and campaigns to ban trophy hunting, or trophy imports, attract considerable media attention. However, trophy hunting often has conservation value, acting to protect habitat and provide income for local communities. Assuming that media coverage can influence public and political opinion, negative or simplistic media coverage of trophy hunting has the potential to cause adverse outcomes for conservation and local communities. Here, we analyse coverage of trophy hunting from July 2010 - June 2020 (five years before and five years after the death of Cecil the Lion) in the most popular UK media outlets (624 articles in total), assessing the overall sentiment of each article, and the species and countries covered. Ninety percent of all coverage occurred after the death of Cecil the lion, marking this event as a watershed moment in UK mainstream media depiction of trophy hunting. The overall sentiment of articles was largely against trophy hunting (63.1%), and this was more pronounced in tabloids (84.2%) than broadsheets (42.2%). Pro-trophy hunting articles were very uncommon overall (3.5%). Articles that described the complexity of trophy hunting decreased following Cecil and were most common in pre-Cecil broadsheets (35.7%, dropping to 30.6%) and rarest in post-Cecil tabloids (3.1%). Articles focussed mainly on charismatic but rarely hunted species including lion, elephant and rhino, with commonly hunted species (such as impala or Cape buffalo) only rarely being mentioned. When countries were mentioned, southern African nations predominated, with four nations (Zimbabwe, South Africa, Namibia and Botswana) being named in 68% of qualifying articles. We conclude that simplistic media depiction of trophy hunting has the potential to cause negative outcomes for conservation through its impact on public perception and political opinion.

“Saving Lives, Protecting Livelihoods, and Safeguarding Nature”: Risk-Based Wildlife Trade Policy for Sustainable Development Outcomes Post-COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused huge loss of life, and immense social and economic harm. Wildlife trade has become central to discourse on COVID-19, zoonotic pandemics, and related policy responses, which must focus on “saving lives, protecting livelihoods, and safeguarding nature.” Proposed policy responses have included extreme measures such as banning all use and trade of wildlife, or blanket measures for entire Classes. However, different trades pose varying degrees of risk for zoonotic pandemics, while some trades also play critical roles in delivering other key aspects of sustainable development, particularly related to poverty and hunger alleviation, decent work, responsible consumption and production, and life on land and below water. Here we describe how wildlife trade contributes to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in diverse ways, with synergies and trade-offs within and between the SDGs. In doing so, we show that prohibitions could result in severe trade-offs against some SDGs, with limited benefits for public health via pandemic prevention. This complexity necessitates context-specific policies, with multi-sector decision-making that goes beyond simple top-down solutions. We encourage decision-makers to adopt a risk-based approach to wildlife trade policy post-COVID-19, with policies formulated via participatory, evidence-based approaches, which explicitly acknowledge uncertainty, complexity, and conflicting values across different components of the SDGs. This should help to ensure that future use and trade of wildlife is safe, environmentally sustainable and socially just.

Understanding the role of information in marine policy development: establishing a coastal marine protected area in Nova Scotia, Canada

Canada has expanded its marine protected area (MPA) coverage in line with the Aichi Biodiversity Target of protecting 10% of its marine territory by 2020. In 2018, a consultation process was launched to designate an Area of Interest surrounding the Eastern Shore Islands area off the coast of Nova Scotia, as the potential 15th Oceans Act MPA in Canada ( DFO 2021a ). This region has a fraught history with external conservation interventions and, consequently, there was a significant level of local mistrust in the process. This study explored the role of information in the consultation process and how it interplayed with the historical context, political pressures, trust, and mistrust among stakeholders and rightsholders. Drawing on interviews, a detailed desktop analysis, and participant observation at consultation meetings, this paper describes what worked well and what could be improved with respect to the sources of information used and the channels through which stakeholders and rightsholders accessed it. This case study demonstrates that while preferences for information sources and channels are context specific and varied, they are inherently personal and influenced by shared histories, trust, and individual beliefs.