“Socioeconomic status influences whether people view wildlife as having intrinsic value or utilitarian value, which affects whether trophy hunting can function as a conservation tool.”

We found that perceptions of the acceptability of trophy hunting were not dogmatic but depended on specific attributes of the hunt (which animal would be hunted, how the meat would be used, and how the revenue would be used), as well as on participants' country of residence, degree of formal education, social identities and orientation towards people and wild animals. … The only demographic characteristics that appeared in our top-supported model were participants' country of residence and their level of formal education, which had a positive but weak association with perceptions of the acceptability of trophy hunting (figure 3). One possible explanation for this finding is that participants with more formal education may have been more familiar with the ecological, social, and economic complexities of trophy hunting.

Our model depicts how cultural-level processes driven by modernization (e.g., increased wealth, education, and urbanization) affect changes in individual-level cognition that prompt a shift from domination to mutualism wildlife values. … Domination values promote beliefs that wildlife should be used primarily to benefit humans, whereas mutualism values adopt a view that wildlife are part of one's social network and worthy of care and compassion. … Higher levels of education, income, and urbanization were associated with higher percentages of mutualists and lower percentages of traditionalists, who have strong domination values.

Moreover, available valuation frameworks applied to wildlife ignore that values are subjective, and as such they are perceived differently among stakeholders according to their social, economic, cultural, and ecological context. … Some stakeholders may oppose sport hunting despite its economic benefits because they recognize the intrinsic value to individuals (Conniff 2014).

We support the elimination of illegal hunting and the strenuous reform of legal hunting to improve conservation and welfare standards, but acknowledge that African governments will act to benefit their own people, particularly those living alongside dangerous wildlife, and whose emotions concerning lions are often undervalued and in stark contrast to those of international “stakeholders.” … Trophy hunting of big cats may eventually be judged unacceptable by Western policymakers, but we fear that precipitate legislation in reaction to western-orientated values could have far-reaching negative impacts on biodiversity without development of alternative, economically viable policies.

The demographic factors that influenced the attitude of local people toward trophy hunting were household size, occupation, and education.

We used multilevel modeling to determine the relationship between modernization (e.g., county-level urbanization, wealth, and education) and wildlife value orientations (values that shape thought about wildlife) while controlling for individual-level sociodemographics. … We found positive associations between county-level examples of modernization and mutualism (a wildlife value orientation that prioritizes the perceived needs of wildlife) independent of a respondent's sociodemographics, and negative associations between modernization and domination (a wildlife value orientation that prioritizes human needs).

Socio-demographic factors play an important role in determining local communities’ attitudes towards trophy hunting, and this must be taken into account during the design and assessment of wildlife management conservation strategies, both locally in the KGCA and in similar national and international initiatives.

Respondents who were happier and had smaller households were more pro-conservation than those who were unhappier, with larger households. Household income and size may correlate with poverty levels, and therefore happiness, and serve as indices of respondents' capacity to support pro-conservation attitudes.

Consequently, this dissertation calls for greater consideration of nonhuman sentience and complexity in decisions regarding wildlife conservation rather than an utilitarian ethos guided by colonial epistemologies and neoliberal logics that abstract nonhuman lives into parts for capitalist accumulation.

The cost of living for these southern African nations relative to South Africa correlates with the percentage acceptance of different fees (Fig. 1), and speculatively the relatively high cost of living in Mozambique may at least partially explain the high willingness-to-pay of lion protection fees among respondents from this country.

We provide five key recommendations for research to inform trophy hunting policy in Asia: (1) Ecological impact assessments; (2) Socioeconomic impact assessments; (3) Evaluations of the contributions of trophy hunting to conservation spending; (4) Evaluations of the contributions of trophy hunting to the post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework; (5) Further examinations of perceptions of trophy hunting.

Typically, a higher GDP per capita is associated with more post-material values (Inglehart 1997; Inglehart and Baker 2000), and by extension with a less domination and more mutualist orientation to wildlife (Manfredo et al. 2020, 2009).

Socio‐demographic factors play an important role in determining local communities’ attitudes towards trophy hunting, and this must be taken into account during the design and assessment of wildlife management conservation strategies, both locally in the KGCA and in similar national and international initiatives.

Do levels of income explain differences in game abundance?

Our research found that people who reported being happier, and those from smaller households, were more likely to support conservation. These factors may reflect lower levels of economic stress. This suggests that improving well-being could foster more positive attitudes toward wildlife.

Offsetting the costs of coexisting with elephants in this area is critical to incentivizing elephant conservation within community‐based conservation (CBC) areas, and trophy hunting has long been touted as a method for generating revenue for communities from wildlife. However, the idea that sustainable elephant hunting can offset the costs of crop depredation remains largely untested.

We propose that the rise in mutualism is driven by modernization. In support of that, we find mutualism is strongly related to modernization indicators, including urbanization, education, and income at the state level. … Traditionalists (or Utilitarians) – Score high (above the midpoint) on the domination scale and low (at or below) the midpoint on the mutualism scale; i.e., they are the most extreme in beliefs that wildlife should be used and managed for the benefit of people. • Mutualists – Score high on the mutualism scale and low on the domination scale; i.e., they are the most extreme in seeing wildlife as part of their extended social network.

Proposed alternatives to sport hunting should consider protein provisioning in addition to other benefits (e.g., employ ment, community pledges, anti-poaching funds) that rural Zambian communities receive from the sport hunting industry.

Sustainable trophy hunting can be a valuable conservation tool, particularly in remote areas with low wildlife densities where ecotourism is not feasible.

In the literature, it is possible to identify two main orientations towards wildlife (Manfredo, 2008): dominance and mutualism. People with a dominant orientation tend to think that wildlife should be managed for the benefits of mankind. On the other hand, a person with a mutualism orientation place humans and animals nearly on the same level; animals are seen as creatures deserving rights and care.

On one hand, opponents of trophy huntingdenounce an unethical practice, killing the same animals that are supposed to be protected while the benefits are reaped by wealthy private actors. On the other hand, proponents of trophy hunting argue that by generating revenues, it can then provide much needed incentives for wildlife conservation and management as well as socio-economic benefits for local communities, private landowners and national economies at large.

Further examinations of perceptions of trophy hunting.

While trophy hunting’s socio-economic benefits are reasonably well studied, research on its direct contribution to altering wildlife habitats and reducing illegal wildlife activities remains scarce.

The human dimensions of wildlife literature embody three prominent conceptual approaches: attitudes, values, and norms. … The attitudinal positions people hold are driven by values. Values indicate how important something is. They are people’s assignment of meaning, goodness or worth, and therefore influence the attitudes of people and society. … These values shape the different views and attitudes of people and their relationship with wildlife, linking back to the polarised debate with the underlying assumptions of norms and ethics.

The community’s attitudes towards trophy hunting varied across household size and occupation. Education and household position had an indirect influence on the community’s attitude.

Fischer et al. (2013, 261) stressed that “debates over hunting should not be simplified as a dispute between hunters and ‘anti-hunters', as acceptability of hunting is context specific, dependent on hunting methods, motives, the species hunted, places and participants.”

We find that trophy hunting is supported by the majority of rural residents but opposed by most urban residents, although there is heterogeneity within both these groups. We recommend that policy‐making in this realm should be informed by a better understanding of the preferences of different stakeholders, including the local people who bear the costs of living with wildlife.

Well-managed trophy hunting can be a positive driver of conservation because it increases the value of wildlife and the habitats it depends on, providing crucial benefits that can motivate and enable sustainable management approaches.

We then conducted a two-step analysis, first identifying socio-demographic traits associated with rejection of trophy hunting, finding that older, female respondents choosing a non-meat containing diet and with lower levels of education were more likely to outrightly reject trophy hunting. … Our results reveal a large proportion of people who object to trophy hunting on moral grounds and are likely therefore to be unreceptive to evidence based reasoning.

The demographic factors that influenced the attitude of local people toward trophy hunting were household size, occupation, and education.

These activities provide economic incentives in the form of hunting fees, which changed the attitude and perceptions of the local com munities towards conservation of wildlife. Thus communities support and actively involved in the conservation and protection of Markhor and other wildlife species in the study areas.

The growing global negative sentiment against trophy hunting – if this sub-sector were to be closed, the South African wildlife ranching sector would be negatively impacted financially.

To achievedesiredconservation outcomes, there is dire needto combining socio- ecological, and ecological approaches to understanding how people and wildlife are linked and the associated challenges in modern day conservation (Carteret al., 2014).

Further complicating policy formulation regarding wildlife use is the frequently polarized views of diverse stakeholders, especially concerning sentient and charismatic species, with ethical, ideological, and scientific, arguments used to support or oppose potential options (Hammond et al. 2022, Mkono 2022).

An ethical utili tarian approach would have to consider many additional factors (e.g., social views on trophy hunting, the belief of some conservationists that the lives of individual animals matter, many other possible values of wildlife, and the costs to animals themselves) and all interests impartially.

Manfredo et al. [1] recognized domination and mutualism as the two basic WVOs (previously referred to as the protection/use dimension). Mutualism is composed of two belief dimensions—a caring for and a social affiliation with wildlife—while domination is composed of the hunting and use of wildlife belief dimensions.

The 2018 landmark America’s Wildlife Values report identified four types of value orientations towards wildlife based on national and regional survey data from 2004 and 2018: … UTILITARIAN/TRADITIONALIST: This type is characterized by a view of human mastery over wildlife and a prioritization of human well-being over wildlife. Specifically, utilitarians believe wildlife should be managed for human benefit.

Fulton, Manfredo, and Lipscomb (1996) found that wildlife value orientations influence attitudes towards hunting and fishing, as well as attitudes towards wildlife viewing, which, in turn, influence behavioral intention related to these respective activities. … Those with protectionist (mutualism) orientations were less willing to accept the lethal control of beavers and coyotes than those with use (domination) orientations (Zinn et al., 1998) . … Manfredo, Teel, and Henry (2009) found wildlife value orientation was linked with attitudes towards lethal bear management and with hunting behavior. The domination orientation was positively associated with support for lethal bear management and hunting activity and the mutualist orientation was negatively associated with support for lethal bear management and hunting activity.