The future of wildlife conservation funding: What options do U.S. college students support?

Conservation Science and Practice

Matt Kelly¹  Michael Quartuch²  Taniya Bethke³  Ashley A. Dayer⁴  Mark D. Needham⁵  Taylor Stein⁶  Timothy R. Van Deelen⁷  Markus Nils Peterson⁸  Daniel Y. Choi⁸  Matthew T. Springer⁹  Neelam C. Poudyal^1,10  Chelsie Romulo^1,11  Adam A. Ahlers^1,12  Ryan L. Sharp^1,12  Larry Gigliotti^1,13  William Siemer^1,14  Richard Stedman^1,14  Victoria R. Vayer^1,15  Kathryn Stevenson^1,15  Richard Von Furstenberg^1,15  Kangjae Jerry Lee^1,15  Lincoln R. Larson^1,15  Gerard Kyle^1,16  Benjamin Ghasemi^1,16  Jason Whiting^1,17  Alan Graefe^1,18  Richelle L. Winkler^1,19  Shari Rodriguez^2,20  Brian Clark^2,21  Brett Stayton^2,22  Jeremy T.Bruskotter^2,23  Kelly Heber Dunning^2,24  Wayde Morse^2,24  Christopher J. Chizinski^2,25  Elizabeth Metcalf^2,26  Samuel J. Keith^2,27  Kyle Maurice Woosnam^2,27  Kris Irwin^2,27  Christine Anhalt‐Depies^2,28 

[1] College of Forest Resources and Environmental Science Michigan Tech University Houghton Michigan USA;Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Parks & Wildlife Denver Colorado USA;Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports Washington District of Columbia USA;Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation Virginia Tech Blacksburg Virginia USA;Department of Forest Ecosystems & Society Oregon State University Corvallis Oregon USA;Department of Forest Resources and Conservation Gainesville Florida USA;Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology University of Wisconsin Madison Wisconsin 53706 USA;Department of Forestry & Environmental Resources North Carolina State University Raleigh North Carolina USA;Department of Forestry & Natural Resources University of Kentucky Lexington Kentucky USA;Department of Forestry, Wildlife & Fisheries University of Tennessee Knoxville Tennessee USA;Department of Geography, GIS, & Sustainability University of Northern Colorado Greeley Colorado USA;Department of Horticulture and Natural Resources Kansas State University Manhattan Kansas USA;Department of Natural Resource Management South Dakota State University Brookings South Dakota USA;Department of Natural Resources Cornell University Ithaca New York USA;Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism Management North Carolina State University Raleigh North Carolina USA;Department of Rangeland, Wildlife & Fisheries Management Texas A&M University College Station Texas USA;Department of Recreation Administration California State University Fresno California USA;Department of Recreation, Park & Tourism Management The Pennsylvania State University University Park Pennsylvania USA;Department of Social Sciences Michigan Technological University Houghton Michigan USA;Forestry & Environmental Conservation Department Clemson University Clemson South Carolina USA;Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Frankfort Kentucky USA;RIFF Outdoors Nashville TN USA;School of Environment and Natural Resources The Ohio State University Columbus Ohio USA;School of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences Auburn University Auburn Alabama USA;School of Natural Resources University of Nebraska Lincoln Nebraska USA;W. A. Franke College of Forestry & Conservation University of Montana Missoula Montana USA;Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources University of Georgia Athens Georgia USA;Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Madison Wisconsin USA;

关键词: angling;    college students;    conservation policy;    funding;    hunting;    public support;   

DOI  :  10.1111/csp2.505

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Abstract Insufficient funding is a major impediment to conservation efforts around the world. In the United States, a decline in hunting participation threatens sustainability of the “user‐pay, public benefit” model that has supported wildlife conservation for nearly 100 years, forcing wildlife management agencies to contemplate alternative funding strategies. We investigated support for potential funding options among diverse college students, a rapidly expanding and politically active voting bloc with a potentially powerful influence on the future of conservation. From 2018 to 2020, we surveyed 17,203 undergraduate students at public universities across 22 states. Students preferred innovative approaches to conservation funding, with 72% supporting funding derived from industry sources (e.g., natural resource extraction companies), 63% supporting state sources (e.g., general sales tax), and 43% supporting conventional user‐based sources such as license fees and excise taxes associated with outdoor recreation activities (e.g., hunting). Findings emphasize the need to broaden the base of support for conservation funding and highlight the importance of considering the preferences and perspectives of young adults and other diverse beneficiaries of wildlife conservation.

【 授权许可】

Unknown