!

!!

CONSERVATION!PRIORITIES,!POLICY,!!AND!PUBLIC!OPINION!IN!BRITISH!COLUMBIA!

by!!

Emily!Meuser!B.Sc.,!Simon!Fraser!University,!2007!

!!

THESIS!!SUBMITTED!IN!PARTIAL!FULFILLMENT!OF!THE!REQUIREMENTS!FOR!THE!DEGREE!OF!

!MASTER!OF!SCIENCE!!

!in!the!!

Department!of!Biological!Sciences!Faculty!of!Science!

!!!

©!Emily!Meuser!2012!SIMON!FRASER!UNIVERSITY!

Spring!2012!

!All!rights!reserved.!However,!in!accordance!with!the!Copyright*Act*of*Canada,!this!work!may!be!reproduced,!without!authorization,!under!the!conditions!for!“Fair!Dealing.”!Therefore,!limited!reproduction!of!this!work!for!the!purposes!of!private!study,!research,!criticism,!review!and!news!reporting!is!likely!to!be!in!accordance!

with!the!law,!particularly!if!cited!appropriately.!

!

! ii

APPROVAL!!

Name:! Emily!Meuser!!Degree:! Master!of!Science!!Title!of!Thesis:!

Conservation!priorities,!policy,!and!public!opinion!in!British!Columbia!!Examining!Committee:!!Chair:! Dr.!B.!Crespi,!Professor!! !! !! !! !! Dr.!A.!Mooers,!Professor,!Senior!Supervisor!! Department!of!Biological!Sciences,!S.F.U.!! !! !! !! Dr.!E.!Elle,!Associate!Professor!! Department!of!Biological!Sciences,!S.F.U.!! !! !! !! Dr.!G.!Pomaki,!Research!Scientist!! Occupational!Health!and!Safety!Agency!for!Healthcare!in!B.C.!! !! !! !! Dr.!H.!Harshaw,!Research!Associate!! Department!of!Forest!Resources!Management,!U.B.C.!! !! !! !! Dr.!W.!Palen,!Assistant!Professor!! Department!of!Biological!Sciences,!S.F.U.!! Public!Examiner!! !! !! !! !! June!09,!2011!! Date!Approved!

Partial Copyright Licence

Ethics Statement

The author, whose name appears on the title page of this work, has obtained, for the research described in this work, either:

a. human research ethics approval from the Simon Fraser University Office of Research Ethics,

or

b. advance approval of the animal care protocol from the University Animal Care Committee of Simon Fraser University;

or has conducted the research

c. as a co-investigator, collaborator or research assistant in a research project approved in advance,

or

d. as a member of a course approved in advance for minimal risk human research, by the Office of Research Ethics.

A copy of the approval letter has been filed at the Theses Office of the University Library at the time of submission of this thesis or project.

The original application for approval and letter of approval are filed with the relevant offices. Inquiries may be directed to those authorities.

Simon Fraser University Library Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada

update Spring 2010

!

! iii

Abstract!

Biodiversity!conservation!is!increasingly!recognized!as!an!issue!of!managing!

people! in! addition! to!managing!wildlife;! therefore,! understanding! the! values! that!

people!hold!toward!various!aspects!of!wildlife!can!help!inform!policies!around!the!

conservation!of!species!at!risk.!To!this!end,!I!helped!conduct!a!survey!of!the!British!

Columbian!public!to!explore!their!preferences!for!species!attributes!that!can!help!to!

inform! conservation! priorities,! and! found! that! species! endemism! was! the! most!

important! of! the!measured! attributes.! Preferences! for! different! species! attributes!

were! influenced! by! survey! respondents’! gender,! education,! residential! stability,!

income! and! ecological! worldview,! but! not! by! age.! Examining! current! British!

Columbian!Red!and!Blue!lists!of!at^risk!species,!I!found!that!more^endemic!species!

were! less! likely! than! less^endemic! species! to! be! identified! as! priorities! across!

several! vertebrate! taxa,! indicating! a! local,! instead! of! global,! conservation! focus.!

Importantly,!this!pattern!held!regardless!of!species’!global!range!size.!!

!Keywords:!!Biodiversity!conservation;!British!Columbia,!Canada;!conservation!priorities;!endemism;!peripheral!species;!public!attitudes;!public!values;!species!attributes.!!

!

! iv

Dedication!

I!dedicate!this!work!to!all!those!who!devote!their!lives!to!preserving!!

Earth’s!phenomenal!biodiversity.!

!

! v !

Acknowledgements!

I!give!my!sincere!thanks!to!my!supervisor,!Arne!Mooers,!whose!dedication!to!

his!work,!students!and!causes!is!inspiring.!I!am!indebted!also!to!Elizabeth!Elle,!who!

has! provided!me!with! countless! hours! of! good! counsel! and! support.! I! also! thank!

Georgia!Pomaki!and!Howie!Harshaw!for!their!valuable!and!diverse!contributions!to!

my!work.!

I!couldn’t!have!asked!for!a!better!group!of!people!to!work!with!than!my!lab!

mates:! Jeff! Joy,! Will! Stein,! Janie! Dubman,! Gordon! Smith,! Rakesh! Parhar,! Phoebe!

Paterson,!Stephanie!Standerwick,!Juan!Cantalapiedra,!Clea!Moray,!Dave!Redding!and!

Tyler!Kuhn.! I! sincerely!appreciate!both!your!substantial!contributions! to!my!work!

and!your!friendship.!Thank!you!to!the!FAB*!lab!at!large!for!exposing!me!to!amazing!

ideas,!good!science!and!an!incredibly!rigourous!environment.! I!also!appreciate!the!

E2O! lab! group,! in! particular! the! Dulvy/Coté! contingent,! and! the! Roitberg! lab,!

especially!Lee!Henry,!Brian!Ma!and!Alex!Chubaty.!

My!sincere! thanks!go! to! the!support!staff!of! the!Biology!Department! for!all!

their!help,!in!particular,!Marlene!Nguyen,!Barb!Sherman!and!Dave!Carmean.!

I! cannot! possibly! thank! my! family! and! friends! enough! for! their! love! and!

support.!My!especial! thanks!go!to!Beth!Nyboer,!Sarah!Moffatt,!Derra!Truscott,!and!

my!parents.!Finally,!and!with!all!my!heart,!I!thank!my!husband,!David.!!

!

! vi

Table!of!Contents!

Approval!.....................................................................................................................................!ii!

Abstract!......................................................................................................................................!iii!

Dedication!.................................................................................................................................!iv!

Acknowledgements!.................................................................................................................!v!

Table!of!Contents!....................................................................................................................!vi!

List!of!Figures!........................................................................................................................!viii!

List!of!Tables!............................................................................................................................!ix!

1:!Introduction!..........................................................................................................................!1!1.1! Motivation!...........................................................................................................................................!1!1.2! The!need!for!conservation!prioritization!..............................................................................!2!1.3! Conservation!prioritization!beyond!threat!status!.............................................................!4!

1.3.1! Evolutionary!distinctiveness!........................................................................................!5!1.3.2! Endemism!.............................................................................................................................!6!

1.4! Incorporating!public!opinions!....................................................................................................!8!1.4.1! Why!incorporate!public!opinions?!.............................................................................!8!1.4.2! How!are!public!opinions!investigated?!.................................................................!10!

1.5! Thesis!outline!..................................................................................................................................!15!1.6! Reference!List!.................................................................................................................................!16!

2:!Public!Opinions!on!Species!Conservation!Priorities!in!British!Columbia!..................................................................................................................................!24!2.1! Abstract!.............................................................................................................................................!24!2.2! Introduction!.....................................................................................................................................!24!2.3! Methods!.............................................................................................................................................!28!

2.3.1! Survey!Methods!...............................................................................................................!28!2.3.2! Analysis!Methods!............................................................................................................!29!

2.4! Results!................................................................................................................................................!32!2.4.1! Attribute!rankings!..........................................................................................................!32!

2.5! Discussion!.........................................................................................................................................!33!2.6! Figures!...............................................................................................................................................!38!2.7! Tables!.................................................................................................................................................!41!

!

! vii

2.8! Reference!List!.................................................................................................................................!44!

3:!Influence!of!People’s!Characteristics!on!Species!Conservation!Priorities!in!British!Columbia!..........................................................................................!48!3.1! Abstract!.............................................................................................................................................!48!3.2! Introduction!.....................................................................................................................................!48!

3.2.1! Socioeconomic!variables!and!conservation!........................................................!51!3.3! Methods!.............................................................................................................................................!53!

3.3.1! Survey!Methods!...............................................................................................................!53!3.3.2! Analysis!Methods!............................................................................................................!54!

3.4! Results!................................................................................................................................................!57!3.4.1! Attribute!groupings!.......................................................................................................!57!3.4.2! Socioeconomic!correlates!...........................................................................................!59!

3.5! Discussion!.........................................................................................................................................!59!3.6! Tables!.................................................................................................................................................!65!3.7! Reference!List!.................................................................................................................................!70!

4:!Endemism,!Peripheral!Species!and!Conservation!Practice!in!British!Columbia!..................................................................................................................................!73!4.1! Abstract!.............................................................................................................................................!73!4.2! Introduction!.....................................................................................................................................!74!4.3! Methods!.............................................................................................................................................!78!4.4! Results!................................................................................................................................................!80!4.5! Discussion!.........................................................................................................................................!83!4.6! Figures!...............................................................................................................................................!90!4.7! Tables!.................................................................................................................................................!94!4.8! Reference!List!.................................................................................................................................!97!

5:!Discussion!.........................................................................................................................!102!5.1! Reference!List!..............................................................................................................................!108!

Appendices!............................................................................................................................!109!Appendix!A:!The!New!Ecological!Paradigm!in!British!Columbia!.....................................!109!Appendix!B:!Additional!Figures!and!Tables!for!Chapter!3!.................................................!122!Appendix!C:!Species!Data!used!in!Chapter!4!............................................................................!131!

!

!!

!

! viii

List!of!Figures!

Figure!2.1:!Survey!question!1.!Ranking!of!priorities!of!species!attributes!for!species!at!risk!protection!and!recovery.!...................................................................!38!

Figure!2.2:!Survey!question!2.!Prioritizing!conservation!spending!among!species!attributes.!...............................................................................................................!39!

Figure!2.3:!Survey!question!3.!Tradeoffs!between!species!attributes!as!protection!priorities.!.........................................................................................................!40!

Figure!4.1:!Contrasting!predictions!of!species!prioritization,!based!on!the!findings!of!Bunnell!et!al.!(2004;!a),!the!hypothesis!of!an!interaction!effect!on!provincial!listing!status!between!range!size!and!proportion!of!range!in!British!Columbia!presented!here!(b),!and!the!results!of!the!analysis!(c).!................................................................................................!90!

Figure!4.2:!British!Columbian!conservation!listings!of!mammal,!reptile!and!amphibian!species,!compared!to!global!status!(IUCN!Redlist)!ranks..!........!91!

Figure!4.3:!Listing!probability!for!species!with!large!or!small!range!sizes,!with!large!(more!endemic)!or!small!(less!endemic)!proportions!of!their!ranges!falling!within!BC.!.......................................................................................!92!

Figure!4.4:!Plots!of!a)!amphibian,!b)!mammal,!and!c)!reptile!species’!log!total!range!sizes!versus!the!proportion!of!their!range!in!BC.!.....................................!93!

Figure!B.1:!Scaled!preference!for!endemism!from!questions!1!(a),!2!(b),!and!3!(c).!...........................................................................................................................................!122!

Figure!B.2:!Scaled!preference!for!species!at!risk!in!British!Columbia,!but!common!elsewhere!from!questions!1!(a)!and!3!(b).!.........................................!123!

Figure!B.3:!Scaled!preference!for!the!likelihood!or!chances!of!a!species!being!protected!from!questions!1!(a)!and!3!(b).!.............................................................!124!

Figure!B.4:!Scaled!preference!for!species!that!are!culturally!or!traditionally!important!from!questions!1!(a)!and!3!(b).!............................................................!125!

Figure!B.5:!Scaled!preference!for!the!cost!of!protecting!and!recovering!a!species!from!questions!1!(a)!and!3!(b),!and!the!economic!importance!of!a!species!from!question!2!(c)!........................................................!126!

Figure!B.6:!Scaled!preference!for!common!species!that!are!currently!experiencing!rapid!decline!from!questions!1!(a),!2!(b),!and!3!(c).!.............!127!

Figure!B.7:!Scaled!preference!for!distinctive!species!from!question!2.!........................!128!

!

! ix

List!of!Tables!

Table!2.1:!Wilcoxon!signed^ranks!tests!for!pairs!of!attributes!from!question!1.!........!41!Table!2.2:!Wilcoxon!signed^rank!tests!for!pairs!of!attributes!from!question!2.!..........!42!Table!2.3:!G^tests!for!differences!between!pairs!of!attributes!from!question!3.!.........!43!Table!3.1:!Cronbach’s!alphas!(internal!consistency)!and!inter^item!

correlations!for!groups!of!attributes!revealed!by!factor!analysis.!................!65!Table!3.2:!Factor!loadings!of!respondent!preferences!to!survey!questions.!.................!66!Table!3.3:!Summary!of!relationships!between!factors!obtained!through!factor!

analysis!and!socioeconomic!variables.!......................................................................!67!Table!3.4:!Descriptive!statistics!of!socioeconomic!correlates!of!factor!1:!

Common!Declining!vs.!Economic!Importance.!.......................................................!67!Table!3.5:!Descriptive!statistics!of!socioeconomic!correlates!of!factor!2:!At!

Risk!in!BC!vs.!Costs.!............................................................................................................!68!Table!3.6:!Descriptive!statistics!of!socioeconomic!correlates!of!factor!3:!

Endemic.!..................................................................................................................................!68!Table!3.7:!Descriptive!statistics!of!socioeconomic!correlates!of!factor!4:!

Cultural.!...................................................................................................................................!69!Table!3.8:!Descriptive!statistics!of!socioeconomic!correlates!of!factor!5:!

Economic!Importance!vs.!Distinctive.!........................................................................!69!Table!4.1:!Variables!included!in!logit!models!of!species’!local!listing!

probability.!.............................................................................................................................!94!Table!4.2:!Correlations!among!variables!included!in!models.!.............................................!95!Table!4.3:!Variables!retained!in!models!of!provincial!listing!status.!................................!96!Table!A.1:!Correlations!between!NEP!and!socioeconomic!variables.!............................!118!Table!B.1:!Descriptive!statistics!for!scaled!attribute!preferences.!..................................!129!Table!B.2:!Descriptive!statistics!for!socioeconomic!variables.!.........................................!130!!!

!

! 1

1: Introduction!

!

1.1 Motivation!

Wildlife! species! worldwide! are! under! increasing! pressure! from! anthropogenic!

disturbances! (Millennium! Ecosystem! Assessment! 2005).! In! response! to! these!

human^generated! threats,! international! agreements! have! established! various!

guidelines! with! the! intention! of! protecting! biodiversity! from! population! loss! and!

species! extinction.! Notably,! the! Rio! Convention! on! Biological! Diversity! of! 1992!

pledged! signatory! nations! to! “rehabilitate! and! restore! degraded! ecosystems! and!

promote!the!recovery!of!threatened!species,!inter*alia,!through!the!development!and!

implementation!of!plans!or!other!management!strategies”!(CBD,!Article!8f).!As!part!

of! Canada’s! commitment! resulting! from! this! convention,! Canada’s! Species! at! Risk!

Act! (SARA)! was! enacted! in! 2002! with! the! mandate! of! preventing! Canada’s!

indigenous! species! from! becoming! extinct,! promoting! recovery! of! at^risk! species,!

and! encouraging! management! of! other! wildlife! populations! so! that! they! will! not!

become!at!risk!(SARA,!Section!6).!!

!

However,!the!process!of!listing!species!as!priorities!for!either!conservation!policy!or!

conservation!practice!is!not!always!straightforward.!While!nearly!400!species!have!

already! been! listed! for! protection! under! SARA,! questions! have! already! arisen!

!

! 2

concerning!the!criteria!used!for!listing!species,!both!politically!(Mooers!et!al.,!2007;!

Findlay!et!al.,!2009)!and!scientifically!(Bunnell!et!al.,!2004).!!

!

The!issue!of!conservation!prioritization!is!relevant!at!scales!ranging!from!the!global!

to! the! local,! with! most! conservation! decisions! being! made! at! the! relatively! local!

level.! In! British! Columbia,! there! is! currently! no! legislation! intended! for! the!

protection!of!wildlife!species,!although!the!provincial!government!recently!created!a!

Species!At!Risk!Task!Force!to! look!into!this! issue.!Provincial! lists!of!at^risk!species!

(Red!and!Blue! lists,! and!more! recently,!BC’s!new!Conservation!Framework)!direct!

provincial! conservation! practice,! though! they! do! not! hold! legal! force.! British!

Columbia! is! the!most!biodiverse!of! the!Canadian!provinces;! that,! coupled!with! the!

importance! of! extractive! resource! use! such! as! forestry! and! fishing! to! the! B.C.!

economy! makes! the! province! a! particularly! interesting! environment! in! which! to!

investigate! conservation!prioritization.!Thus,! I! aim! to! contribute! to! the!discussion!

around! conservation! criteria! by! investigating! the! importance! of! conservation^

relevant! species! attributes! to! British! Columbians! and! determining! to!what! extent!

current! prioritization! frameworks! in! the! province! are! consistent! with! these!

preferences.!

!

1.2 The!need!for!conservation!prioritization!

Assigning! conservation! priority! to! different! species! only!makes! sense! if! there! are!

some!species!that!we!would!less!like!to!lose!through!extinction!than!other!species.!

!

! 3

Conservation! prioritization! can! allow! policy^makers! and! scientists! to! direct!

resources!toward!species!(or!other!entities)!that!have!the!highest!‘value,’!in!terms!of!

ecological,! economic,! social,! or! other! considerations,! in! order! to! decrease! the!

likelihood!that!these!parts!of!biodiversity!will!be! lost.!This! framework!is!premised!

on!the!assumption!that!species!are!not!equal!in!terms!of!their!conservation!value,!i.e.!

that! a! framework! can! be! established! wherein! species! can! be! ranked! in! terms! of!

conservation!priority.!Failing!to!prioritize! leads!to!society!both!using!conservation!

resources! less! efficiently! now,! and! ceding! control! over! the! biodiversity! that! will!

exist!in!the!future!(see,!e.g.!Brooks!et!al.!2006).!!

!

It! is! important! to! acknowledge! that,! while! many! government! entities! and! other!

organizations!are!presently!committed! to!species^based!conservation,! the! trend! in!

conservation!is!toward!conserving!landscapes,!ecosystems,!and!processes.!In!British!

Columbia,!the!BC!Species!At!Risk!Task!Force!recently!recommended!an!ecosystem^

based! approach! to! conservation! (BC! Ministry! of! Environment,! 2011).! Making!

species^by^species!conservation!decisions!and!strategies!is!problematic!because!it!is!

time! consuming! and! resource! intensive,! requires! a! high! degree! of! scientific!

knowledge! about! each! species,! and! tends! to! be! biased! toward! vertebrates! and!

vascular! plants! (Franklin! 1993).! However,! implementing! conservation! strategies!

that!focus!on!broader^scale!phenomena!also!has!drawbacks.!Notably,!it!is!difficult!to!

monitor!and!quantify!ecosystem! functioning!or! landscape!quality.! Since!a! species^

by^species! approach! is! the! predominant! conservation! strategy! employed! by!

!

! 4

governments! currently,! and! this! seems! likely! to! remain! the! case,! at! least! over! the!

near!term,!I!focus!on!species^based!prioritization!in!this!thesis.!

!

1.3 Conservation!prioritization!beyond!threat!status!

Current! species! conservation! prioritization! metrics! rank! wildlife! species! as!

conservation!priorities!based!solely!upon!the!degree!to!which!they!are!threatened!

with! extinction! (e.g.! Canada’s! Species! At! Risk! Act;! IUCN! Red! List).! While! risk! of!

extinction!is!certainly!an!intuitive!criterion!upon!which!to!base!the!listing!of!species!

for! protection! under! the! law! (given! the! overall! goal! of! reduction! of! species! loss),!

some! (e.g.! Avise,! 2005)! have! suggested! that! other! species! attributes,! such! as!

economic! and! ecological! importance,! charisma,! evolutionary! distinctiveness! and!

endemism,! should!be! considered!alongside! threat! in!order! to! inform!conservation!

priority.! Indeed,! focusing! conservation! effort! on! species! that! are! most! at! risk! is!

likely!to!result!in!an!inefficient!allocation!of!resources,!as!these!species!often!require!

large! conservation! effort! with! only! small! chances! of! success! (Possingham! et! al.!

2002).!!

!

There! are! many! different! values! that! are! associated! with! biodiversity,! several! of!

which!I!examine!in!this!thesis.!In!particular,!I!look!at!species’!economic!importance,!

endemism,!threat!status,!species’!distinctiveness,!cultural!or!traditional!importance!

and!the!costs!and! likelihood!of!protection!or!recovery.! It! is! important! to!note! that!

the! attributes! that! I! explore! here! are! generally!management! attributes! associated!

!

! 5

with!different!species,!as!opposed!to!traits!inherent!to!species!such!as!colour!or!size,!

or! traits! associated! with! species’! functional! role! within! ecosystems.! Thus,! the!

identification! of! these! attributes! is! already! associated! with! particular! (and! often!

anthropocentric)!values.!While!many!of!these!attributes!have!been!explored!in!other!

work! or! are! self^explanatory,! one! attribute,! species! distinctiveness,! has! not! to!my!

knowledge!been!explored!with! regard! to!public!preferences! for! conservation.!The!

intent!in!including!distinctiveness!as!a!species!attribute!was!driven!by!my!interest!in!

investigating! evolutionary! distinctiveness! (as! described! below),! however,! because!

this!would!be!a!complex!and!unfamiliar!concept!to!the!public,!it!was!included!in!the!

exploration!of!public!preferences!as!the!more!intuitive!distinctiveness!measure!(see!

Ch.! 2! and! 3).! Another! attribute,! endemism,! has! been! explored! only! to! a! limited!

extent!(Veríssimo!et!al.!2009)!and!is!particularly!relevant!in!the!British!Columbian!

context.!Therefore,!I!describe!these!two!attributes!in!some!detail!here.!!

!

1.3.1 Evolutionary!distinctiveness!

Redding!and!Mooers!(2006),!among!others!(e.g.!Vane^Wright!et!al.!1991;!Faith!1992;!

Mooers! et! al.! 2005;! Isaac! et! al.! 2007)! have! advocated! metrics! that! incorporate!

species’!evolutionary!history!in!order!to!take!into!account!the!differences!in!amount!

of! genetic! diversity! that! would! be! lost! as! a! result! of! the! extinction! of! different!

species,! depending! upon! how! closely! related! those! species! are! to! others.! This!

approach! makes! the! assumption! that! species! having! more! unique! evolutionary!

history!are!more!valuable!for!conservation,!because!they!are!irreplaceable!and!may!

!

! 6

have!traits!that!make!them!odd!or!unique!(Redding!and!Mooers!2010).!In!the!survey!

of!public!opinions!that!forms!the!core!of!this!thesis,!this!concept!is!presented!simply!

as!‘distinctiveness’,!and!described!in!terms!of!the!traits!associated!with!this!measure!

instead!of!in!terms!of!evolutionary!history.!

!

1.3.2 Endemism!

Throughout! this! thesis,! I! refer! to! ‘endemism’! as! defined! by! Anderson! (1994):! a!

species! is! considered! endemic! when! its! range! is! restricted! to! a! particular! area.!

Naturally,!this!definition!means!little!if!the!area!to!which!a!species!is!endemic!is!not!

concurrently!specified.!When!endemic!species!occur!in!a!restricted!area!such!as!an!

island,! the! relevant! spatial! scale! over! which! endemism! is! defined! is! intuitive;!

however,! this! is! less! true!when! looking! at! endemism!on! larger! landmasses.!While!

endemism!is!the!conceptual!opposite!of!cosmopolitanism,!depending!on!the!spatial!

scale! at! which! endemism! is! defined! there! may! be! many! species! that! are! neither!

endemic!nor!cosmopolitan.!Endemism!has!often!been!conceptually!linked!to!small^

ranged!species!and!employed!synonymously!with! ‘stenotopic’!(Greek:!steno6!small,!

topic6!place).!But,!as!humourously!noted!by!Anderson!(1994),!at!very! large!spatial!

scales!every!species! is!endemic! (to!Earth),! “neglecting…!the! infrequent!straying!of!

human! beings! to! the! moon! and! other! such! events”! (Anderson! 1994,! p.! 451).!

Practically,!however,! the!concept!of!endemism!is!rarely!used!on!scales! larger! than!

the!continental!(and!usually!much!smaller!than!this).!

!

!

! 7

Given!the!liberty!of!researchers!to!define!the!area!over!which!species!are!endemic,!

this!concept!may!be!(and!often!is)!applied!at!a!sociopolitical!level,!with!species!being!

identified! as! endemic! to! a! particular! nation! or! state/province! (see,! for! example,!

Meuser! et! al.! 2009).! While! this! use! of! the! term! moves! away! from! the! strictly!

biogeographical! interpretation! originally! intended! (de! Candolle,! 1820)! and! more!

recently! used! to! discuss! ‘areas! of! endemism’! (e.g.! Parenti! and! Ebach! 2009),! it! is!

useful!in!the!context!of!conservation!as!most!conservation!policies!and!actions!occur!

at!some!sociopolitical!level.!!

!

In! a! study! of! spatial! congruence! of! different! definitions! of! biodiversity! hotspots,!

Orme!et!al.!(2005)!found!that!hotspots!of!bird!endemism!captured!hotspots!of!both!

total!species!richness!and!threatened!species!richness,!while!the!converse!was!not!

true.!The!authors!suggested!this!might!be!due!to!the!lower!spatial!autocorrelation!of!

endemic!species!than!of!either!of!the!species!richness!measures:!the!spatial!extent!of!

the!landmass!covered!by!the!25%!of!avian!species!with!the!smallest!breeding!ranges!

also! incorporated! the! ranges! of! many! other! (non^endemic)! species! (Orme! et! al.!

2005).!This!demonstrates!how!a!conservation!focus!on!endemic!species!can!capture!

more! biodiversity! than! other!measures,! indicating! that! endemic! species!may! be! a!

good!target!for!conservation!initiatives.!!

!

Although!all! species!existing! in!an!area!contribute! to! the!biodiversity!of! that!area,!

endemic! species! represent! a!unique!biological!heritage! found!nowhere!else! in! the!

world,!and!should!therefore!be!considered!special!targets!for!conservation.!Endemic!

!

! 8

species! make! compelling! targets! for! conservation! because! people! care! that! they!

persist:! the! British! Columbian! public! values! endemism! as! the! most! important!

species! attribute! to! be! used! in! determining! conservation! priorities! (Meuser! et! al.!

2009;!see!Chapter!2),!and!there!is!also!scientific!support!for!focusing!conservation!

effort!on!endemics!(Bunnell!2004).!!

!

1.4 Incorporating!public!opinions!

1.4.1 Why!incorporate!public!opinions?!

It! is! telling! that! the! task! force! that! can! grant! exceptions! to! the! United! States’!

Endangered! Species! Act! (ESA,! 1973)! is! nicknamed! the! ‘God! Squad’:! human!

preferences! and! behaviours! have! a! profound! impact! on! the! natural! environment.!!

Indeed,! it! is! increasingly! recognized! that! the! primary! determinants! of! success! of!

environmental!policy!(as!well!as!the!drivers!behind!that!policy)!are!social!(Mascia!et!

al.!2003).!!

!

The!factors!that!lead!to!species!declines!and!extinctions!^^!habitat!loss,!introduction!

of! non^native! invasive! species! and! overexploitation! ^^! are! human^generated,!

through! our! economic! activity! and! behaviour.! Similarly,! policy! choices! lead! to!

changes!in!human!behaviour!that!will!mitigate!these!effects!for!at! least!a!subset!of!

species.!Application!of!species!at!risk!policies!has!been!widely!critiqued!for!focusing!

on!anthropomorphic!or!anthropocentric!aspects!of!species!(especially!charisma!and!

economic!considerations,!see,!e.g.!Simon!et!al.,!1995;!Metrick!and!Weitzman,!1996,!

!

! 9

1998;!Dawson!and!Shogren,!2001;!Restani!and!Marzluff,!2001,!2002;!Male!and!Bean,!

2005),!but!it!is!important!to!recognize!that!in!many!cases!this!focus!is!the!result!of!a!

true! social! preference! for! certain! species! over! others.! Attempting! to! blanket!

different! parts! of! biodiversity! with! the! same! set! of! policies! can! lead! to! perverse!

outcomes! for! species! at! risk! of! becoming! extinct.! A! notable! example! of! this! is! the!

conflict!between!the!species!protections!afforded!under!The!US!Endangered!Species!

Act! and! private! property! rights.! Landowners! engaging! in! activities! that! could!

potentially! be! harmful! to! species! on! their! own! properties! were! incentivized! to!

‘shoot,!shovel!and!shut!up’!(known!euphemistically!as!the!3^S!treatment)!instead!of!

reporting! the! presence! of! at^risk! species! on! their! properties,! lest! the! strict!

prohibitions!against!harming!a!species!or!its!habitat!result!in!expected!financial!loss!

(Cribb! 1998).! Since! prohibitions! on! ‘harming’! species! or! their! habitats! only! come!

into! force! when! an! individual! of! an! endangered! species! occupies! that! habitat,!

landowners! have! also! been! incentivized! to! preemptively! destroy! suitable! habitat.!

For!example,!in!order!to!prevent!red^cockaded!woodpeckers!(which!require!mature!

stands! of! trees! as! habitat)! from! colonizing,! Lueck! and! Michael! (2003)! document!

forestry!managers!harvesting! forest!stands!at!a!younger!stand!age.!This! illustrates!

that! enacting! policies! that! are! inconsistent! with! public! opinions! and! values! can!

actually! result! in! worse! outcomes! for! some! species! than! having! no! protective!

legislation.!!

!

While! the! need! to! understand! public! opinions! to! inform! educational! or!

communication! strategies! and! ensure! that! conservation! initiatives! will! be! more!

!

! 10

likely! to! succeed! is! widely! recognized! (Miller! and! McGee! 2001;! Blanchard! 2000;!

Manfredo!et!al.!1998),!it!is!more!controversial!to!suggest!that!public!opinions!should!

be! involved! in! directing! conservation! policy.! While! I! do! not! argue! this! point!

extensively! here,! it! is! the! case! that! the! public! must! bear! the! costs! of! either!

prevention! of! or! adaptation! to! species! loss.! Since! conservation! decisions! are!

therefore! made! on! behalf! of! the! public,! taking! into! account! their! preferences! in!

forming! policy! may! be! appropriate.! Indeed,! incorporating! public! values! into! the!

process! of! conservation! prioritization! is! an! expansion! of! a! process! that! already!

occurs!within! the! scientific! conservation! community.! Choices!of! study! system!and!

research!program!(and!thus!the!data!available!to!conservation!decision^makers)!are!

themselves!driven!by!scientists’!biases!and!preferences;!these!choices!are!far!from!

value^free!(Meine!and!Meffe!1996).!!

!

1.4.2 How!are!public!opinions!investigated?!

There!are!several!different!approaches!for!exploring!the!values!that!people!hold!for!

the!natural!world.!From!an!environmental!sociology!approach,!Kellert!(1996),!and!

Kellert! and! Berry! (1987),! Dunlap! and! Van! Liere! (1978)! and! Dunlap! et! al.! (2000)!

have! investigated! different! aspects! of! an! emerging! ecological! worldview! (Riley!

Dunlap!and!colleagues’!approach,!the!New!Ecological!Paradigm!scale,!is!discussed!in!

detail!in!Appendix!A).!Changing!worldviews!(in!conjunction!with!social!norms)!are!

associated!with! changes! in! behaviour! according! to! the! theory! of! reasoned! action!

(Ajzen!and!Fishbein!1973),!such!that,!for!example,!changes!in!public!attitudes!from!a!

!

! 11

more! anthropocentric! to! a! more! biocentric! worldview! may! be! associated! with!

increases!in!pro^environmental!behaviour.!!

!

From!the!economic!perspective,!stated!preference!studies!(where!study!participants!

are! asked! to! state! their! preference! between! several! options! in! a! survey! or!

interview)! explore! public! values! for! natural! goods! and! services!with! econometric!

tools!that!attempt!to!elicit!willingness^to^pay!(WTP)!estimates!from!members!of!the!

public! or! more! specific! groups! of! interest.! These! methods! have! been! extensively!

used!in!the!conservation!realm!(e.g.!Kotchen!and!Reiling!2000;!Martin^Lopez!et!al.!

2007,!2008;!Tisdell!et!al.!2007;!Rudd!2009;!Veríssimo!et!al.!2009).!Assigning!a!dollar!

value!to!conservation!targets!serves!several!purposes:!it!allows!for!the!comparison!

of! different! conservation! options! via! a! standardized! metric,! provides! a! rough!

estimate! of! public! support! for! a! particular! initiative! in! terms! familiar! to! policy!

makers,! and! also! provides! some! estimate! of! the! opportunity! cost! of! conserving!

species! over! other! worthwhile! causes! (Shogren! et! al.! 1999).! Although! utilizing!

economic! valuation!methods! (which! some! view! as! ‘putting! a! price! on! nature’)! is!

inconsistent! with! some! conservationists’! perception! of! conservation! as! correctly!

approached!as!a!moral!rather!than!an!economic!problem!(see,!e.g.!Ehrenfeld!1988;!

Roughgarden!1995),!the!reality!is!that!not*attempting!to!establish!an!economic!value!

for!species!and!other!natural!entities!often!results!in!the!true!value!of!these!entities!

to! society! not! being! considered! when! policy! decisions! are!made.! Essentially,! like!

other!public!goods,!nature!is!provided!free!of!cost!and!is!therefore!often!considered!

valueless! in! economic! transactions!unless! a! framework! is! established! for! taking! it!

!

! 12

into!account.!For!governments!tasked!with!maximizing!net!benefits!to!society!given!

limited! resources,! it! is! particularly! useful! to! be! able! to! compare! different! policy!

options! using! the! same!metric! (i.e.! dollars).! It! is! important! to! note,! however,! that!

non^economic! valuation!methods! are! also! useful! in! describing! the! relative! values!

publics! hold! for! natural! goods! and! services.! These! techniques! include! in^depth!

interviews! or! focus! groups! (Kaplowitz! and! Hoehn! 2001),! participatory! modeling!

(Videira!et!al.!2009)!and!citizens’!jury!(Aldred!and!Jacobs!2000).!

!

Several!methods!have!been!employed! in!eliciting!WTP! for! conservation!objectives!

(see!Hanley! and! Spash! 1993),! two! of!which! I! describe! here.! Contingent! valuation!

(CV;!Davis!1963)!presents!survey!respondents!with!a!specific!scenario!(for!example,!

a! conservation! initiative)! and! a! cost! that! they!would! have! to! bear! if! the! scenario!

were! implemented! (for! example,! an! increase! to! their! property! tax! bill),! and! then!

asks! them! to! accept! or! reject! the! scenario! at! that! price.! This! type! of! question! is!

formatted!similarly!to!voting!in!a!referendum,!and!is!thus!at!least!notionally!familiar!

to!respondents.!By!presenting!numerous!scenarios!to!a!respondent,!each!varying!in!

the! attributes! of! the! scenario! (conceptualized! in! this! case! as! a! bundle! of!

environmental! goods)! presented! and! the! cost! of! the! program,! a! researcher! can!

estimate! respondents’! values! for! different! aspects! of! the! non^market! goods!

presented! in! the! scenarios.! Choice! experiments! (CE)! are!methodologically! closely!

related! to! CV,! but! instead! of! a! yes/no! vote! on! a! single! scenario,! respondents! are!

asked!to!choose!one!of!two!or!more!different!scenarios!(Hanley!et!al.!1998).!In!this!

manner,! an! explicit! price! of! each! scenario! may! or! may! not! be! included,! and!

!

! 13

respondents!have!the!easier!task!of!choosing!between!competing!scenarios!instead!

of!deciding!on!the!value!(in!dollar!terms)!of!a!certain!set!of!non^market!goods.!Rudd!

(2009)!used!a!CE!survey!to!estimate!public!values!for!the!conservation!of!six!aquatic!

species!in!Canada!and!showed!that!all!species!had!substantial!public!support!($1.07^

$132.87! per! person! annually,! depending! on! target! species).! Indeed,! assuming! a!

representative! sample,! establishing!effective!protective!policies! for!even! the! least^

preferred!species,!the!Porbeagle!shark,!would!result!in!tens!of!millions!of!dollars!in!

net!benefits!to!Canadian!society,!despite!the!loss!in!revenue!from!no!longer!directly!

or! indirectly!harvesting! this! species! (Rudd!2009).! In! this!way,!economic!valuation!

studies! can! reveal! information! about! the! costs! and! benefits! of! conservation!

strategies! that! can! help! to! identify! and! resolve! tensions! between,! especially,! use!

(such! as! hunting! and! fishing)! and! non^use! (such! as! wildlife! viewing)! economic!

values.!

!

The!economic!perspective!also!provides!an!interesting!counterpoint!to!the!way!that!

conservation!is!often!discussed!in!the!scientific!literature.!In!particular,!the!concept!

of! intrinsic! value,! or! value! that! is! inherent! to! an! entity! apart! from! its! value! to!

humans,!is!widely!used!in!the!conservation!literature!(e.g.!Soulé!1985;!Wilson!1992;!

Angermeier! 2000;! McCauley! 2006)! but! plays! little! role! in! the! use! and! non^use!

instrumental!values!(value!for!something!as!a!means!to!another!end)!investigated!in!

the!economic!literature.!While!the!intrinsic!value!of!natural!entities!is!often!used!as!

a! justification! for! their! conservation,! this! framework! does! not! allow! for! a!

comparison!of!the!value!of!species!or!other!entities!to!one!another!and!therefore!is!

!

! 14

of! little! use! to! conservation! prioritization! (for! an! excellent! discussion! of! intrinsic!

value!with!regard!to!conservation,!see!Justus!et!al.!2009).!Thus,!economics!can!help!

to!reframe!the!discussion!of!value!for!biodiversity! in!ways!that!enable!tradeoffs!to!

be!made!between!different! species! or! other! natural! entities.! Interestingly,! several!

studies!(Stevens!et!al.!1991;!Spash!and!Hanley!1995)!have!presented!evidence!that!

WTP!and!personal!ethical!beliefs!are!related,!with!ethical!beliefs!accounting!for!up!

to!25%!of!the!variation!in!WTP.!!

!

While! some! aspects! of! economic! valuation! of! non^market! goods! are! useful! in!

informing! conservation! priorities,! the! kinds! of! information! generated! in! such!

studies! are!not! always!useful! and!potentially!misleading.!One!of! the!more! serious!

issues!of!non^market!environmental!valuation!studies! that! focus!on!a!subset!of!all!

environmental!goods!is!that!respondents!are!asked!to!evaluate!that!subset!without!

also!accounting! for!all!other!environmental!goods! that! they!might!also!value.!This!

raises!a!problem!of!scaling,!whereby!a!respondent!may,!for!example,!allocate!a!high!

proportion!of!the!total!funds!they!would!be!willing!to!spend!on!species!conservation!

on! a! single! species,! despite! the! likelihood! that! they! care! equally! about! the!

conservation!of!numerous!other!species!(Hanley!and!Spash!1993).!!

!

Although!there!are!sophisticated!tools!for!estimating!the!relative!economic!benefits!

of!different!aspects!of!biodiversity,!in!this!initial!exploration!of!the!preferences!that!

British! Columbians! hold! for! different! species! attributes! as! they! relate! to!

!

! 15

conservation! I!was! interested! in! obtaining! a! simple! ranking.! This! choice!was! also!

dictated!by!time!and!space!constraints!of!the!survey!instrument!itself!that!was!used!

to!elicit!the!preference!ranking,!as!the!primary!objective!of!this!survey!was!to!serve!

the!needs!of!the!Species!At!Risk!Coordination!Office!of!BC.!!

!

1.5 Thesis!outline!

In! my! first! data! chapter! (Ch.! 2),! I! explore! British! Columbians’! preferences! for!

different! conservation^related! species! attributes! as! revealed! in! a! provincially!

representative! public! opinion! survey.! The! following! chapter! (Ch.! 3)! explores! how!

these!preferences!are!related!to!several!socioeconomic!variables!across!the!survey!

respondents.!Finally,! in!Chapter!4,! I! examine! the!effect!of! the!survey!respondents’!

most^preferred! species! attribute,! endemism! (see! Ch.! 2),! on! the! status! of! species!

included!on!British!Columbian!lists!of!at^risk!species.!!

!

! !

!

! 16

1.6 Reference!List!

!

Ajzen,!I.!and!M.!Fishbein.!1973.!Attitudinal!and!normative!variables!as!predictors!of!

specific!behaviors.!Journal!of!Personality!and!Social!Psychology!27(1):!41^57.!

Aldred,! J.! and!M.! Jacobs.! 2000.! Citizens! and!wetlands:! Evaluating! the! Ely! citizens’!

jury.!Ecological!Economics!34:!217^232.!

Anderson,! S.! 1994.! Area! and! endemism.! The! Quarterly! Review! of! Biology! 69(4):!

451^471.!

Angermeier,!P.L.!2000.!The!natural!imperative!for!biological!conservation.!

Conservation!Biology!14:!373–381.!!

Avise,!J.C.!2005.!Phylogenetic!units!and!currencies!above!and!below!the!species!

level.!Pages!76^101!in!A.!Purvis,!J.L.!Gittleman,!and!T.!Brooks,!editors.!

Phylogeny!and!conservation.!Cambridge!University!Press,!Cambridge,!United!

Kingdom.!

Blanchard,!K.A.!2000.!Rachel!Carson!and!the!human!dimensions!of!fish!and!wildlife!

management.!Human!Dimensions!of!Wildlife!5:!52^66.!!

British!Columbia!Ministry!of!Environment.!Species!at!Risk!Task!Force.!2011.!Report*

of* the* British* Columbia* Task* Force* on* Species* at* Risk.* Retrieved! from:!

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/sartaskforce/reports^and^documents.html!

Brooks,! T.M.,! R.A.! Mittermeier,! G.A.B.! da! Fonseca,! J.! Gerlach,! M.! Hoffman,! J.F.!

Lamoreux,! C.G.! Mittermeier,! J.D.! Pilgrim! and! A.S.L.! Rodrigues.! 2006.! Global!

biodiversity!conservation!priorities.!Science!313:!58^61.!!

!

! 17

Bunnell,!F.L.,!W.!Campbell!and!K.A.!Squire.!2004.!Conservation!priorities!for!

peripheral!species:!the!example!of!British!Columbia.!Canadian!Journal!of!

Forest!Research!34:!2240^2247.!

Cribb,! S.!1998.!Endangered!Species!Act,! Section!10(J):! Special! rules! to! re^establish!

the!Mexican!wolf! to! its!historic!range! in!the!American!Southwest.!Environs:!

Environmental!Law!and!Policy!Journal!21:!49^55.!!

Davis,! R.! 1963.! Recreation! planning! as! an! economic! problem.! Natural! Resources!

Journal!3(2):!239^249.!

Dawson,!D.!and!J.F.!Shogren.!2001.!An!update!on!priorities!and!expenditures!under!

the!endangered!species!act.!Land!Economics!4:!527–532.!

de!Candolle,!A.!P.!1820.!Géographie!botanique.!In:!Dictionnaire!des!Sciences!

Naturelles,!pp.!359–422.!

Dunlap,!R.!E.,!and!K.!Van!Liere.!1978.!The!New!Environmental!Paradigm:!A!proposed!

measuring!instrument!and!preliminary!results.!Journal!of!Environmental!

Education!9:!10^19.!

Dunlap,!R.E.,!K.D.!Van!Liere,!A.G.!Mertig!and!R.E.!Jones.!2000.!Measuring!

endorsement!of!the!New!Ecological!Paradigm:!A!revised!NEP!scale.!Journal!of!

Social!Issues!56:!425^442.!

Ehrenfeld,!D.!1988.!Why!put!a!value!on!biodiversity?!In!Biodiversity,!Ed.!E.!Wilson.!

National!Academy!Press,!Washington!D.C.!

ESA!(Endangered!Species!Act).!1973.!Public!Law!93^205,!87!Stat.!884,!16!U.S.C.!

1531^1544.!

!

! 18

Faith,!D.!P.!1992.!Conservation!evaluation!and!phylogenetic!diversity.!Biological!

Conservation!61:!1–10.!

Findlay, C.S., S. Elgie, B. Giles and L. Burr. 2009. Species Listing under Canada's

Species at Risk Act. Conservation Biology 23(6): 1609-1617.

Franklin, J.F. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: Species, ecosystems, or landscapes?

Ecological Applications 3(2): 202-205.

Haidt,!J.!2007.!The!new!synthesis!in!moral!psychology.!Science!316:!998^1002.!

Hanley,!N.!and!C.L.!Spash.!1993.!Cost^Benefit!Analysis!and!the!Environment.!Edward!

Elgar!Publishing:!Northampton,!Mass.!

Isaac,!N.J.B.,!S.T.!Turvey,!B.!Collen,!C.!Waterman!and!J.E.M.!Baillie.!2007.!Mammals!on!

the!EDGE:!Conservation!priorities!based!on!threat!and!phylogeny.!PLoS!One!

3:!1^7.!

Justus,!J.,!M.!Colyvan,!H.!Regan!and!L.!Maguire.!2009.!Buying!into!conservation:!

Intrinsic!versus!instrumental!value.!Trends!in!Ecology!and!Evolution24(4):!

187^191.!

Kaplowitz,!M.D.!and!J.P.!Hoehn,!J.P.!2001.!Do!focus!groups!and!individual!interviews!

reveal!the!same!information!for!natural!resource!valuation?!Ecological!

Economics!36:!237^247.!

Kellert, S.K. and J.K. Berry. 1987. Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife

as affected by gender. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15(3): 363-371.

Kellert,!S.K.!1996.!The!value!of!life.!Island!Press,!Washington,!D.C.!!

!

! 19

Kotchen,!M.J.!and!S.D.!Reiling.!2000.!Environmental!attitudes,!motivations,!and!

contingent!valuation!of!nonuse!values:!a!case!study!involving!endangered!

species.!Ecological!Economics!32:!93–107.!

Lueck,!D.!and!J.A.!Michael.!2003.!Preemptive!habitat!destruction!under!the!

Endangered!Species!Act.!Journal!of!Law!and!Economics!46:!27^60.!

Male,!T.D.!and!M.J.!Bean.!2005.!Measuring!progress!in!US!endangered!species!

conservation.!Ecology!Letters!9:!986–992.!

Manfredo,!M.J.,!D.J.!Decher!and!M.D.!Duda.!1998.!What!is!the!future!for!human!

dimensions!of!wildlife?!Transactions!of!the!North!American!Wildlife!and!

Natural!Resources!Conference!63:!278^292.!

Martín^Lopez,!B.,!C.!Montes!and!J.!Benayas.!2007.!Influence!of!user!characteristics!on!

valuation!of!ecosystem!services!in!Doñana!Natural!Protected!Area!(south^

west!Spain).!Environmental!Conservation!34:!215^224.!!

Martín^López,!B.,!C.!Montes!and!J.!Benayas.!2008.!Economic!valuation!of!biodiversity!

conservation:!the!meaning!of!numbers.!Conservation!Biology!22:!624^635.!

Mascia,!M.B,!!J.P!Brosius,!T.A!Dobson,!B.C!Forbes,!L!Horowitz,!M.A!McKean!and!N.J!

Turner.!2003.!Conservation!and!the!social!sciences.!Conservation!Biology!

17(3):!649^650.!

McCauley,!D.J.!2006.!Selling!out!on!nature.!Nature!443:!27–28.!

Meine,!C.!and!G.K.!Meffe.!1996.!Conservation!values,!conservation!science:!A!healthy!

tension.!Conservation!Biology!10:!916^917.!!

Metrick,!A.,!Weitzman,!M.L.,!1996.!Patterns!of!behavior!in!endangered!species!

preservation.!Land!Economics!1:!1–16.!!

!

! 20

Metrick,!A.,!Weitzman,!M.L.,!1998.!Conflicts!and!choices!in!biodiversity!preservation.!

Journal!of!Economic!Perspectives!3:!21–34.!

Meuser!E.,!H.W.!Harshaw!and!A.Ø.!Mooers.!2009.!Public!preference!for!endemism!

over!other!conservation^related!species!attributes.!Conservation!Biology!23:!

1041^1046.!!

Millennium!Ecosystem!Assessment.!2005.!Ecosystems!and!Human!Well^Being.!

Island!Press,!Washington,!DC.!

Miller,!K.K.!and!T.K.!McGee.!2001.!Toward!incorporating!human!dimensions!

information!into!wildlife!management!decision^making.!Human!Dimensions!

of!Wildlife!6:!205^221.!!

Mooers,!A.Ø.,!S.B.!Heard,!and!E.!Chrostowski.!2005.!Evolutionary!heritage!as!a!metric!

for!conservation.!Pp.!120^138!in!Phylogeny!and!Conservation!(A.!Purvis,!T.L.!

Brooks!and!J.L.!Gittleman,!eds.)!Oxford!University!Press,!Oxford.!

Mooers,!A.!Ø.,!Prugh,!L.R.,!Festa^Bianchet,!M.!and!J.A.!Hutchings.!2007.!Biases!in!legal!

listing!under!Canadian!endangered!species!legislation.!Conservation!Biology!

21:!572^575.!

Mooers,!A.Ø.,!D.F.!Doak,!C.S.!Findlay,!D.M.!Green,!C.!Grouios,!L.L.!Manne,!A.!Rashvand,!

M.A.!Rudd!and!J.!Whitton.!2010.!Science,!policy,!and!species!at!risk!in!Canada.!

BioScience!60(10):!843^849.!

Orme,!C.D.L.,!R.G.!Davies,!M.!Burgess,!F.!Eigenbrod,!N.!Pickup,!V.A.!Olson,!A.J.!

Webster,!T.^S.!Ding,!P.C.!Rasmussen,!R.S.!Ridgely,!A.J.!Stattersfield,!P.M.!

Bennett,!T.M.!Blackburn,!K.J.!Gaston!and!I.P.F.!Owens.!2005.!Global!hotspots!

of!species!richness!are!not!congruent!with!endemism!or!threat.!Nature!436:!

!

! 21

1016^1019.!

Parenti,!L.R.!and!M.C.!Ebach.!2009.!Comparative!Geography:!!Discovering!and!

Classifying!Biogeographical!Patterns!of!a!Dynamic!Earth.!University!of!

California!Press.!

Possingham,!H.P.,!S.J.!Andelman,!M.A.!Burgman,!R.A.!Medellin,!L.M.!Master!and!D.A.!

Keith.!2002.!Limits!to!the!use!of!threatened!species!lists.!Trends!in!Ecology!

and!Evolution!17(11):!503^506.!

Redding,!D.W.!and!A.Ø.!Mooers.!2006.!Incorporating!evolutionary!measures!into!

conservation!prioritisation.!Conservation!Biology!20:1670^1678.!

Redding,!D.W.!and!A!Ø.!Mooers.!2010.!Can!systematists!help!decide!the!relative!

worth!of!bits!of!biodiversity.!The!Systematist!32:!4^8.!

Redding,!D.W.,!C.!DeWolff!and!A.Ø.!Mooers.!2010.!Evolutionary!distinctiveness,!

threat!status,!and!ecological!oddity!in!primates.!Conservation!Biology!24(4):!

1052^1058.!

Restani,!M.!and!J.!M.!Marzluff.!!2001.!Avian!conservation!under!the!Endangered!

Species!Act:!expenditures!versus!recovery!priorities.!Conservation!Biology!5:!

1292–1299.!!

Restani,!M.!and!Marzluff,!J.M.!2002.!Funding!extinction?!Biological!needs!and!

political!realities!in!the!allocation!of!resources!to!endangered!species!

recovery.!BioScience!2:!169–177.!

Roughgarden,!J.!1995.!Can!economics!save!biodiversity?!In!The!Economics!and!

Ecology!of!Biodiversity!Decline:!The!Forces!Driving!Global!Change.!

Cambridge!University!Press,!New!York.!

!

! 22

Rudd,!M.A.!2009.!National!values!for!regional!aquatic!species!at!risk!in!Canada.!

Endangered!Species!Research!6:!239^249.!

SARA!(Species!at!Risk!Act).!2002.!Bill!C^5,!an!act!respecting!the!protection!of!wildlife!

species!at!risk!in!Canada.!Statutes!of!Canada,!Ottawa.!Available!from!

www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-5/C-5_4/C-

5TOCE.html!!

Shogren,!J.F.,!J.!Tschirhart,!T.!Anderson,!A.!Whritenour!Ando,!S.!R.!Bessinger,!D.!

Brookshire,!G.M.!Brown!Jr.,!D.!Coursey,!R.!Innes,!S.M.!Meyer!and!S.!Polasky.!

1999.!Why!economics!matters!for!endangered!species!protection.!

Conservation!Biology!13(6):!1257^1261.!

Simon,!B.M.,!Leff,!C.S.,!Doerksen,!H.!1995.!Allocating!scarce!resources!for!endangered!

species!recovery.!Journal!of!Policy!Analysis!and!Management!3:!415–432.!

Soulé,!M.E.!1985.!What!is!conservation!biology?!Bioscience!35:!727–!734.!

Spash,!C.L.!and!N.!Hanley.!1995.!Preferences!information!and!biodiversity!

preservation.!Ecological!Economics!12:!191^208.!

Stevens,!T.,!J.!Echevarria,!R.!Glass,!T.!Hager!and!T.!More.!1991.!Measuring!the!

existence!value!of!wildlife:!What!do!CVM!estimates!really!show.!Land!

Economics!67:!390^400.!

Tisdell,!C.,!H.S.!Nantha!and!C.!Wilson.!2007.!Endangerment!and!likeability!of!wildlife!

species:!how!important!are!they!for!payments!proposed!for!conservation?!

Ecological!Economics!60:!627^633.!

Vane^Wright,!R.I.,!C.J.!Humphries!and!P.H.!Williams.!1991.!What!to!protect?!–!

Systematics!and!the!agony!of!choice.!Biological!Conservation!55:!235–254.!

!

! 23

Verissimo,!D.,!I.!Fraser,!J.!Groombridge,!R.!Bristol!and!D.C.!MacMillan.!2009.!Birds!as!

tourism!flagship!species:!a!case!study!of!tropical!islands.!Animal!

Conservation!12:!549^558.!

Videira,!N.,!P.!Antunes!and!R.!Santos.!2009.!Scoping!river!basin!management!issues!

with!participatory!modelling:!the!Baixo!Guadiana!experience.!Ecological!

Economics!68:!965^978.!

Wilson,!E.O.!1992.!The!Diversity!of!Life.!Harvard!University!Press!

!

! 24

2: Public!Opinions!on!Species!Conservation!Priorities!in!British!Columbia!

Parts! of! this! chapter!were! published! in! Conservation!Biology! 23(4):!1041^1046.!!

Emily!Meuser,!Howard!W.!Harshaw!and!Arne!Ø.!Mooers!

E.!Meuser!conducted!all!analyses!and!wrote!the!following!chapter.!

2.1 Abstract!

Public!preferences!are!likely!to!play!an!important!role!in!prioritizing!species!at!risk!

for! conservation.! I! conducted! a! survey! of! British! Columbians! (Canada)! (n=555,!

response! rate! [ratio! of! surveys!mailed! out! to! respondents! to! those! received! back!

from! respondents]=73%)! to! examine! how! the! public! ranks! a! species’! attributes!

(rather! than! named! species)! with! respect! to! conservation! priority.! Endemism,!

defined!as!species!only!or!mainly!occurring!in!British!Columbia!or!species!occurring!

in!British!Columbia!and!nowhere!else!in!Canada,!was!considered!the!most!important!

among! the!measured! attributes.! I! suggest! that! investigating! how!much! the! public!

values! species’! attributes,! as! opposed! to! named! species,! provides! a!more! efficient!

way! of! incorporating! public! opinion! into! policies! on! species! at! risk,! especially! if!

large!numbers!of!species!must!be!ranked!for!conservation!priority.!!

2.2 Introduction!

Given!that!resources!available!for!conservation!of!species!are!limited,!it!is!necessary!

!

! 25

to!make!trade^offs!regarding!which!species!should!be!protected!and!which!cannot.!

Most! current! prioritization! frameworks! focus! on! the! degree! to!which! a! species! is!

threatened!with!extinction! (e.g.,! IUCN!Red!List!2001;!Canada’s! Species! at!Risk!Act!

2002).! Some! authors! (e.g.,! Avise! 2005)! suggest,! however,! that! other! species!

attributes,! such! as! economic! or! ecological! importance,! charisma,! evolutionary!

distinctiveness,! and! endemism,! should! be! considered! alongside! threat! when!

determining!conservation!priority.!Conservation!decisions!are!undertaken!on!behalf!

of!the!public.!For!that!reason,!perhaps!the!species!most!highly!valued!by!the!public!

should!be!considered!the!highest!priorities!for!conservation.!One!way!in!which!the!

structure! of! a! conservation! framework! including! public! preferences! can! be!

investigated! is! to! determine! how! the! public! ranks! species’! attributes! in! terms! of!

importance!to!conservation!decisions.!While!perhaps!philosophically!controversial,!

incorporating! public! opinions! into! conservation! policy! represents,! at! least,! a!

pragmatic! approach! to! conservation:! much! of! biodiversity! owes! its! continuing!

existence!to!human!intervention,!and!publicly!supported!interventions!will!be!more!

likely! to! succeed.! Discovering! the! areas! where! science^based! policy! and! public!

opinion!are!congruent!can!point!to!conservation!interventions!that!will!be!effective!

and!relatively!(politically)!easy!to!implement,!while!exploring!issues!where!science!

and! opinion! diverge! can! help! to! identify! areas! where! communication! and!

educational!outreach!efforts!could!be!focused.!Therefore,!at!this!point!investigating!

the!social!valuation!of!different!species!attributes!that!could!be!used!to!inform!new!

prioritization!metrics!seems!prudent.!!

!

!

! 26

The! above! approach! avoids! relying! entirely! on! public! opinions! to! direct! policy!

toward! species! at! risk,! but! instead! uses! public! input! alongside! a! suite! of! other,!

primarily! science^based! information! in! order! to! implement! effective! conservation!

policy.! Letting! conservation! decisions! rest! entirely! on! the! opinions! of! the! public!

would! likely! lead! to! an! overwhelming! focus! on! charismatic! megafauna! at! the!

expense!of!other,! less!popular,!organisms.!This!preference!for!cute,!cuddly,!usually!

large! creatures! is! reflected! in!many! conservation! organizations’! choice! of! flagship!

species!to!generate!support!for!conservation!initiatives!that!benefit!other!species!as!

well.! However,! this! ‘bread! and! circuses’! view! of! what! the! public! desires! from!

conservation!targets!may!not!reflect!the!sophistication!with!which!people!are!able!

to! understand! conservation! strategies.! For! example,! Veríssimo! et! al.! (2011)! have!

found!that!people!may!be!receptive!to!a!more!diverse!conceptualization!of!‘flagship’!

that!does!not!involve!charismatic!species!(for!example,!coral!reefs).!

!

An! approach! for! gauging! public! support! for! species! conservation! is! to! examine!

people’s!willingness! to!pay! for! the!conservation!of!different!species!(Martín^López!

et!al.!2008).!While!many!studies!have!explored!public!valuations!of!single!species!or!

sets!of!species!(e.g.!Rudd,!2009;!Kotchen!and!Reiling,!2000),!few!have!examined!how!

valuation! of! species! is! influenced! by! the! attributes! of! those! species! (but! see!

Knegtering! et! al.! 2002;! Stokes! 2007;! Meuser! et! al.! 2009;! Veríssimo! et! al.! 2009).!

Provided!that!1)!different!species!can!be!characterized! in!terms!of! their!attributes!

(of!which!each!species!may!have!many,!to!varying!degrees),!and!2)!these!attributes!

are! valued! to! differing! degrees! by! the! public,! determining! public! opinions! about!

!

! 27

these! values!may! yield! a! useful! tool! for! predicting!which! species! the! public! feels!

should!be!prioritized!for!conservation,!without!the!need!to!conduct!a!survey!asking!

about!each!species!individually.!

!

In! order! to! investigate! the! conservation! preferences! of! British! Columbians,! I! was!

involved!in!conducting!a!formal!attitude!survey!(e.g.!Hagelin!et!al.!2003)!of!British!

Columbians!to!determine!how!we!value!different!species.!Fairly!informal!surveys!of!

Canadians!on! this! subject!were! conducted!before! SARA!was! enacted! (IFAW!1999,!

2000);! re^examining! this! issue! now! that! species! at! risk! legislation! is! in! place! and!

species!are!being!denied!legal!status!(see!Mooers!et!al.!2007;!Findlay!et!al.!2009)!is!

an! important! component! of! addressing! the! treatment! of! species! at! risk! in!Canada!

with!respect!to!public!concern.!I!investigated!how!British!Columbians!view!different!

conservation^related! species! attributes,! in! order! to! predict! which! species! British!

Columbians! would! most! like! to! see! protected! (given! that! species! can! be!

characterized! by! their! attributes).! This! may! help! decision^makers! to! ensure! that!

protected! species! status! and! scarce! conservation! resources! are! directed! to! the!

species!that!are!most!highly!valued!by!society,!as!public!support!can!enable!public!

policy,!while!a!lack!of!public!support!can!hamper!policy!implementation.!!

!

This! chapter! aims! to! contribute! to! the! discussion! surrounding! how! best! to! direct!

conservation! efforts! toward! species! at! risk,! given! economic! and! social!

considerations,!and!limited!resources.!!

!

!

! 28

2.3 Methods!

2.3.1 Survey!Methods!

Dr.! Howard! Harshaw,! of! the! University! of! British! Columbia’s! Faculty! of! Forestry,!

designed!and!conducted!a!survey!of!the!opinions!and!beliefs!of!British!Columbians!

regarding! the!management,! protection! and! recovery! of! at^risk! species! within! the!

province.! Dr.! Harshaw! invited! me! to! construct! a! question! to! be! included! on! this!

survey,! and! involved! me! in! the! process! of! reviewing! and! commenting! on! other!

aspects!of!the!survey!instrument.!Draft!versions!of!the!survey!were!reviewed!by!the!

Species! at! Risk! Coordination! Office,! World! Wildlife! Fund! Canada,! the! British!

Columbia! Council! of! Forest! Industries,! and! faculty! members! at! the! University! of!

British!Columbia’s!Faculty!of!Forestry!and!Simon!Fraser!University’s!Department!of!

Biology.!A!draft!version!of!the!survey!was!also!piloted!with!students!in!the!Faculty!of!

Forestry!at!the!University!of!British!Columbia!to!judge!time!needed!for!completion!

and!identify!problem!areas.!!

!

We! obtained! a! stratified! random! sample! of! British! Columbians! that! was!

representative! across! eight! provincial! regions! (“development! regions”)! by! using!

random!digit!telephone!dialling!to!solicit!mailing!addresses!from!people!who!agreed!

to! participate! in! the! survey,! using! most! recent! birthday! to! ensure! even!

representation! between! the! sexes.! ! 770/2993! contacts! agreed! to! participate,! for!

which! we! had! valid! addresses! for! 762.! Following! the! Tailored! Design! Method! to!

maximize!survey!response!rates!and!minimize!the!potential!for!survey!error!(Salant!

and! Dillman! 1994),! we:! 1.! mailed! an! introductory! letter! on! January! 15,! 2008;! 2.!

!

! 29

mailed!a!questionnaire!two!days!later;!3.!mailed!a!follow^up!postcard!one!week!after!

the!questionnaire;!and!4.!mailed!a!second!copy!of!the!questionnaire,!identical!to!the!

first,!on!January!31,!2008!to!those!from!whom!we!had!not!yet!received!a!completed!

questionnaire.! We! received! 555! completed! questionnaires! by! March! 13,! 2008,!

yielding!a! response! rate!of!72.8%.!Males!were! slightly!overrepresented! (50.5%!of!

the! sample! compared! to! 49.6%! of! the! BC! population)! and! females! slightly!

underrepresented!(49.5%!of!the!sample!compared!to!50.4%!of!the!BC!population).!

Sample! respondents! were! somewhat! older! than! the! provincial! average,! with! a!

median! age! of! 53! years,! versus! a! provincial! median! age! of! 40.8! years! (BC! Stats!

2008).!Survey!respondents!had!also!completed!more!years!of!education,!on!average,!

than!the!BC!population,!with!24.4%!having!a!high!school!education!or!less!(versus!

38%! of! the! BC! population)! and! 74.6%! having! completed! at! least! some! post^

secondary! education! (versus! 62%! of! the! BC! population;! BC! Stats! 2008).! Further!

details!on!methods!and!results!of! the! survey,! as!well! as!a! complete!version!of! the!

survey! instrument,! may! be! found! at! www.hd^research.ca/sar^pos/SaR^

POS_reports.html!(Harshaw!2008).!

!

2.3.2 Analysis!Methods!

Here! I! focus! on! three! questions! from! the! larger! questionnaire,! which! all! asked!

respondents!to!indicate!their!preferences!for!a!range!of!similar!conservation^related!

species! attributes.! We! included! three! different! questions! with! largely! the! same!

content! in! order! to! determine!whether! respondents’! preferences!were! consistent!

!

! 30

across!different!styles!of!survey!questions,!in!order!to!better!ascertain!whether!the!

responses!were! indicative! of! true! preferences! or!were! being! elicited! by! a! certain!

question!format.!Responses!to!surveys!are!sensitive!to!question!wording!(Robinson!

et! al.! 1991)! context! (Schwartz! 1999)! and! response! format! (Krosnick! 1999);!

therefore,!obtaining!consistent!preferences!across!a!range!of!question!styles!would!

indicate!that!those!preferences!are!likely!to!be!robust.!

!

The!first!survey!question!(Figure!2.1)!asked!respondents!to!rank!for!importance!six!

different!species!attributes! that!natural!resource!managers!might!use! in!allocating!

resources! for! species! at! risk! protection! and! recovery:! species! at! risk! in! BC! but!

common!elsewhere;! species!only!or!mainly!occurring! in!BC;! chances!of! successful!

protection! and! recovery;! cultural! and! traditional! importance;! economic! costs! of!

protection!and!recovery;!and!common!species!whose!numbers!are!in!rapid!decline.!!

!

The! second! question! (Figure! 2.2)! asked! respondents! to! make! a! conservation!

allocation! decision,! with! a! hypothetical! $100,! among! four! different! species!

attributes:! distinctive! species,! defined! as! species! that! look! or! act! differently! from!

other!species,!or!play!a!unique!role!in!the!ecosystem;!species!that!exist!only!in!BC,!

and! no! other! area! in! Canada;! species! that! are! important! to! BC’s! economy;! and!

species! that!are!common,!but!whose!numbers!are!decreasing!quickly.!This! type!of!

constant!sum!question!provides!a!ranking!of!attributes,!as!well!as!a!measure!of!the!

extent!of!respondents’!preferences!over!these!attributes.!!

!

!

! 31

The!third!question!(Figure!2.3)!was!formatted!according!to!the!Thurstone!approach!

(Thurstone!1959),!which!asks!respondents!to!make!preference!judgments!between!

pairs!of!statements!describing!different!species!attributes.!In!each!pair,!respondents!

chose! which! attribute! should! have! a! higher! priority! for! identifying! what! species!

attributes!should!be!protected!among!six!presented!attributes,!each!of!which!were!

compared! to! all! other! attributes.! These! attributes!were:! species! at! risk! in! BC! but!

common! elsewhere;! cultural! and! traditional! importance;! the! likelihood! of! the!

species! being! protected;! common! species! whose! numbers! are! in! rapid! decline;!

species!only!or!mainly!occurring!in!BC;!and!the!costs!associated!with!protecting!the!

species.! This! question! has! previously! been! analysed! using! the! Thurstone!

methodology!(Harshaw!2008);!however,! for!the!purpose!of!consistency!of!analysis!

across!the!three!survey!questions!here,!I!analysed!this!data!using!binomial!tests!(as!

described!below).!!

!

For!questions!1!and!2,!I!compared!the!rank!for,!or!mean!allocation!to,!each!attribute!

and!tested!for!differences!using!Wilcoxon!signed^ranks!tests.!For!question!3,!I!tested!

for! differences! in! pairwise! comparisons! of! attributes! using! binomial! tests.!Within!

each!question,! I! corrected! for! false!discovery!rate!due! to!multiple!comparisons!by!

controlling! for! the! expected! number! of! incorrectly! rejected! null! hypotheses!

(Benjamini!and!Hochberg,!1995).!!

!

!

! 32

2.4 Results!

2.4.1 Attribute!rankings!

Using!Wilcoxon!signed^ranks!tests!of!the!ranked!attributes!in!question!1,!I!found!

significant!differences!in!14/15!pairwise!comparisons!(Table!2.1).!‘Species!only!or!

mainly!occurring!in!BC’!was!ranked!higher!than!any!other!attribute,!and!was!

preferred!to!all!other!attributes.!‘Common!species!whose!numbers!are!in!rapid!

decline’!was!preferred!to!4/5!attributes,!although!the!preference!to!‘chances!of!

successful!protection!and!recovery’!was!not!statistically!significant.!‘Chances!of!

successful!protection!and!recovery,’!‘species!at!risk!in!BC!but!common!elsewhere,’!

and!‘economic!costs!of!protection!and!recovery’!were!preferred!over!3/5,!2/5!and!

1/5!attributes,!respectively.!‘Cultural!and!traditional!importance’!was!the!lowest^

ranked!attribute,!being!significantly!non^preferred!to!each!of!the!other!attributes!

(Table!2.1).!!

!

For!question!two,!Wilcoxon!signed^ranks!tests!revealed!significant!differences!for!

5/6!pairwise!comparisons!of!allocations!to!attributes!(Table!2.2).!‘Species!that!exist!

in!BC!and!no!other!area!in!Canada’!were!allocated!significantly!more!than!each!of!

the!other!species!attributes.!‘Species!that!are!important!to!BC’s!economy’!were!

allocated!more!than!‘common!species!whose!numbers!are!decreasing!rapidly’!and!

‘distinctive!species,’!while!the!latter!two!attributes!were!not!preferred!over!any!

other!attribute!(Table!2.2).!

!

!

! 33

Analysis!of!question!3!using!binomial!tests!yielded!significant!differences!for!12/15!

pairwise!comparisons!(Table!2.3).!Both!‘species!only!or!mainly!occurring!in!BC’!and!

‘common!species!whose!numbers!are!in!rapid!decline’!were!chosen!by!respondents!

a!greater!proportion!of!the!time!than!the!remaining!four!attributes,!though!neither!

was!chosen!significantly!over!the!other.!Respondents!selected!‘the!likelihood!of!the!

species!being!protected’!more!often!than!‘species!at!risk!in!BC!but!common!

elsewhere,’!‘the!costs!associated!with!protecting!the!species,’!and!‘cultural!and!

traditional!importance.’!Both!‘cultural!and!traditional!importance’!and!‘the!costs!

associated!with!protecting!the!species’!were!not!preferred!to!any!other!attribute,!

while!‘species!at!risk!in!BC!but!common!elsewhere’!was!significantly!preferred!to!

the!former!attribute,!but!not!the!latter!(Table!2.3).!

2.5 Discussion!

!

My! results! suggest! that! the! British! Columbian! public! generally! values! endemism!

over!other!species!attributes.!This!preference!for!endemism!is!contrary!to!a!recent!

meta^analysis!by!Martín^López!et!al.!(2008),!which!suggests!that!public!preferences!

for! species! conservation! are! not! influenced! by! endemism.! However,! and!

importantly,! in! the! surveys! reviewed! by! Martin^Lopez! et! al.! (2008),! respondents!

were! asked! to! choose! between! named! species! whose! attributes! (including!

endemism)!were!often!not!made!explicit.! In!contrast,! I!asked!respondents!directly!

about!species!attributes!instead!of!named!species,!which!is!important!in!order!to!be!

able! to! generalize! the! results.! Named! species! can! elicit! preferences! because! of!

!

! 34

previous! experience! or! knowledge! of! the! species! by! the! respondent,! that! are! not!

necessarily!related!to!the!attributes!of!the!species!as!understood!by!the!researcher.!

If! named! species! are! not! described! to! survey! respondents! in! terms! of! their!

distribution!and!if!the!concept!of!endemism!is!not!defined,!respondents!may!not!be!

able! to! consider! this! attribute! in! their! decision^making! process.! This! idea! is!

consistent! with! other! work! showing! that! conservation! preferences! are! related! to!

respondents’!knowledge!about!species!(Martín^Lopez!et!al.!2007;!Tisdell!et!al!2007),!

and!highlights!the!importance!of!including!supplemental!information!about!species:!

I! suggest! that,! all! else! being! equal,! the! public! would! likely! prefer! to! conserve!

endemic!species!rather!than!non^endemic!species,!even!if! they!lack!the!knowledge!

base! of!whether! certain! species! are! endemic.! This! hypothesis! is! supported!by! the!

work!of!Wilson!and!Tisdell!(2006),!which!suggests!that!public!conservation!funding!

allocations!change!when!additional!information!is!provided!about!species.!!

!

There! are! several! aspects! of! endemism! value! that! require! further! investigation.!

Among! them! is! the!possible!difference! in!public! valuation!between! true! endemics!

and!sociopolitical!endemics!(in!the!Canadian!context,!“peripheral!species”!occurring!

in! Canada! at! the! edge! of! their! geographic! range).! Jurisdictions! might! prioritize!

species! for!which! they! have! global! responsibility! (true! endemics)! over! imperilled!

biota! in! BC! that! is! at! less! risk! elsewhere! (Bunnell! et! al.! 2004;! Mooers! 2007).!

Interestingly,! British! Columbians! did! not! find! species! that! are! at! risk! in! BC! but!

common! elsewhere! (which! describes! many! peripheral! species)! important! as!

conservation! priorities,! which! indicates! that! the! public! favours! an! approach! that!

!

! 35

focuses!on!global!responsibility.!However,!the!information!available!to!us!in!the!data!

set! did! not! allow! us! to! completely! disentangle! these! two! concepts! of! endemism.!

Making! decisions! around! the! conservation! of! peripheral! species! is! an! important!

issue! in! the! British! Columbian! context,! as! peripheral! species! are! currently! over^

represented! on! provincial! lists! of! at^risk! species! (Bunnell! et! al.! 2004;! see! also!

Chapter! 4).! A! recent! policy! change! to! the! Conservation! Framework! of! the! BC!

Conservation! Data! Centre! (Ministry! of! Environment! 2009)! that! shifts! provincial!

conservation! priorities! to! reflect! species’! global! risk! status! will! likely! lead! to!

peripheral!species!being!removed!from!provincial!conservation!listings!in!the!near!

future.!However,! given! that! public! values! for! species! at! the! local! level! seem! to!be!

closely!related!to!local!biodiversity!(based!on!the!most^preferred!species!attributes!

in!this!survey:!endemic!species!and!common!but!declining!species),!and!the!fact!that!

peripheral!species!are!part!of!the!local!biota!for!many!BC!residents!(especially!in!the!

south!of! the!province),! the!de^prioritization!of! these!species!may!be!controversial,!

even!though!survey!responses!indicated!that!peripheral!species!are!not!preferred!as!

conservation!priorities.!This!may!be!mitigated!if!the!public!is!concurrently!informed!

about!the!reasons!for!their!change!of!provincial!status.!!

!

Another!area!that!requires!further!work!is!investigating!public!value!for!endemism!

in! a! broader! context.! Because! this! survey! was! restricted! to! residents! of! British!

Columbia,!it!was!not!possible!with!our!sample!to!determine!whether!this!was!a!local!

British!Columbian!phenomenon!or!whether!people! from!other! jurisdictions!would!

value! British! Columbian! endemics! over! nonendemics;! value! their! own,! local!

!

! 36

endemic!species;!or!value!endemic!species!over!nonendemic!species!wherever!they!

occur.!Supporting!the!hypothesis!that!endemism!holds!conservation!value!for!non^

local! publics,! Veríssimo! et! al.! (2009)! found! that! endemism! was! the! second^most!

important! attribute! influencing! tourists’! willingness! to! pay! for! conservation!

programmes!aimed!at!birds! in! the!Seychelles.!Further!exploration!of! this!question!

should!help!to!determine!whether!the!value!expressed!for!endemism!is!associated!

with!a!particular!place!or!whether!endemism!itself!is!valuable.!!

!

It! is! important! to!note! that! this!work!does!not!address! the! impact!of! charisma!on!

public!values!for!species.!Charismatic!megafauna!have!been!widely!used!as!the!focus!

of! conservation! fundraising!by!NGOs! (notably,! the!World!Wildlife!Federation!uses!

the!panda! as! its! emblem),! and!much! conservation! effort! is! specifically! directed! at!

species! that! are! ‘cute! and! furry’! (Leader^Williams!and!Dublin,! 2000,! estimate! that!

approximately!three^quarters!of!conservation!projects!are!directed!at!such!species).!

It!is!therefore!possible!that!these!rankings!would!change!if!charisma!were!one!of!the!

investigated!attributes.!!

!

I!suggest!that!surveys!of!public!conservation!preferences!can!contribute!to!the!on^

going!debate!on!how!to!allocate!scarce!resources!to!conservation.!!To!make!public!

policy!for!the!common!good,!authorities!need!to!know!what!the!public!values!and!

why,!and!I!suggest!it!would!be!most!efficient!if!authorities!gathered!information!

based!on!species!attributes!rather!than!on!specific!species!because!such!information!

!

! 37

could!be!applied!more!broadly.!

!

!

! 38

!2.6 Figures!

!

Figure!2.1:!Survey!question!1.!Ranking!of!priorities!of!species!attributes!for!species!at!risk!protection!and!recovery.!

! !

!

! 39

!!Figure!2.2:!Survey!question!2.!Prioritizing!conservation!spending!among!species!

attributes.!

!

! 40

!!

!

Figure!2.3:!Survey!question!3.!Tradeoffs!between!species!attributes!as!protection!priorities.!

! !

!

! 41

2.7 Tables!

Table!2.1:!Wilcoxon!signed^ranks!tests!for!pairs!of!attributes!from!question!1.!!This!is!based!on!ranks,!such!that!lower!ranks!(nearer!1)!indicate!the!preferred!attribute.!P^values!are!corrected!for!the!false!discovery!rate!(Benjamini!and!Hochberg,!1995).!!Effect!size!is!Z/√N.!For!all!significant!comparisons!(p^values!in!bold),!the!column!attribute!is!ranked!higher!than!the!row!attribute.!

! Cultural!and!traditional!importance!!

Economic!costs!of!protection!and!recovery!

Species!at!risk!in!BC!but!common!elsewhere!

Chances!of!successful!protection!and!recovery!

Common!species!whose!numbers!are!in!rapid!decline!

Species!only!or!mainly!occurring!in!BC!

Cultural!and!traditional!importance!!

Row!attribute!!Column!attribute!n!Z!p!Effect!size!

5.42*!4.31*!522!^2.47!0.016%^0.11!

5.42!3.80!524!^7.10!0.001%^0.31!

5.42!2.70!520!^15.77!0.001%^0.69!

5.42!2.48!525!^15.65!0.001%^0.68!

5.42!2.20!523!^16.88!0.001%^0.74!

Economic!costs!of!protection!and!recovery!

! ! 4.31!3.80!522!^4.86!0.001%^0.21!

4.31!2.70!520!^15.35!0.001%^0.67!

4.31!2.48!524!^14.56!0.001%^0.64!

4.31!2.20!520!^16.00!0.001%^0.70!

Species!at!risk!in!BC!but!common!elsewhere!!

! ! ! 3.80!2.70!521!^9.68!0.001%^0.42!

3.80!2.48!530!^12.88!0.001%^0.56!

3.80!2.20!525!^14.24!0.001%^0.62!

Chances!of!successful!protection!and!recovery!!

! ! ! ! 2.70!2.48!524!^2.36!0.089*^0.10!

2.70!2.20!519!^5.44!0.001%^0.24!

Common!species!whose!numbers!are!in!rapid!decline!

! ! ! ! ! 2.48!2.20!527!^3.18!0.001%^0.14!

*Read!first!two!rows!in!each!cell!as:!Mean!rank!of!row!attribute!Mean!rank!of!column!attribute!!! !

!

! 42

Table!2.2:!Wilcoxon!signed^rank!tests!for!pairs!of!attributes!from!question!2.!P^values!are!corrected!for!the!false!discovery!rate!(Benjamini!and!Hochberg,!1995).!!Effect!size!is!Z/√N.!For!all!significant!comparisons!(p^values!in!bold),!the!column!attribute!was!allocated!a!greater!amount!than!the!row!attribute.!!

! Distinctive!species!

Common!species!whose!numbers!are!decreasing!quickly!

Species!that!are!important!to!BC’s!economy!

Species!that!exist!in!BC!and!no!other!area!in!Canada!

Distinctive!species!

Row!attribute!Column!attribute!n!Z!p!Effect!size!

21.45*!23.33*!524!^1.17!0.251*^0.05!

21.45!26.22!524!^4.46!0.001%^0.19!

21.45!28.82!524!^9.01!0.001%^0.39!

Common!species!whose!numbers!are!decreasing!quickly!

! ! 23.33!26.22!524!^3.18!0.001%^0.14!

23.33!28.82!524!^5.93!0.001%^0.26!

Species!that!are!important!to!BC’s!economy!

! ! ! 26.22!28.82!524!^2.76!0.007%^0.12!

*Read!first!two!rows!in!each!cell!as:!Mean!allocation!to!row!attribute!($)!Mean!allocation!to!column!attribute!($)!! !

!

! 43

!

!

!

Table!2.3:!G^tests!for!differences!between!pairs!of!attributes!from!question!3.!For!all!pairs,!test!proportion!is!0.5.!P^values!are!corrected!for!the!false!discovery!rate!(Benjamini!and!Hochberg,!1995).!For!all!significant!comparisons!(p^values!in!bold),!the!column!attribute!was!chosen!more!often!than!the!row!attribute.!

! Cultural!and!traditional!importance!

The!costs!associated!with!protecting!the!species!

Species!at!risk!in!BC!but!common!elsewhere!

The!likelihood!of!the!species!being!protected!

Common!species!whose!numbers!are!in!rapid!decline!

Species!only!or!mainly!occurring!in!BC!

Cultural!and!traditional!importance!

Row!attribute!Column!attribute!n!p**

.46*!

.54*!502!0.108*

.32!

.68!499!0.001%

.18!

.82!502!0.001%

.09!

.91!506!0.001%

.15!

.85!508!0.001%

The!costs!associated!with!protecting!the!species!

!!

! .49!.51!501!0.532*

.24!

.76!499!0.001%

.21!

.79!497!0.001%

.19!

.81!500!0.001%

Species!at!risk!in!BC!but!common!elsewhere!

! ! ! .34!.66!497!0.001%

.23!

.77!496!0.001%

.18!

.82!515!0.001%

The!likelihood!of!the!species!being!protected!

! ! ! ! .32!.68!502!0.001%

.42!

.58!506!0.001%

Common!species!whose!numbers!are!in!rapid!decline!

! ! ! ! ! .47!.53!495!0.220*

*Read!cells!as:!Proportion!of!respondents!choosing!row!attribute!Proportion!of!respondents!choosing!column!attribute!!

!

! 44

2.8 Reference!List!

Avise,!J.C.!2005.!Phylogenetic!units!and!currencies!above!and!below!the!species!

level.!Pages!76^101!in!A.!Purvis,!J.L.!Gittleman,!and!T.!Brooks,!editors.!

Phylogeny!and!conservation.!Cambridge!University!Press,!Cambridge,!United!

Kingdom.!

BC!Stats.!2008.!2006*Census*Fast*Facts:*Ageing*of*the*British*Columbian*Population.!

Retrieved!from:!http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject!

/Census/2006Census.aspx!

BC!Stats.!2008.!2006*Census*Fast*Facts:*Educational*Attainment*of*British*Columbians.!

Retrieved!from:!http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject!

/Census/2006Census.aspx!

Benjamini!,!Y.!and!Y.!Hochberg.!1995.!Controlling!the!false!discovery!rate:!a!practical!

and!powerful!approach!to!multiple!testing.!Journal!of!the!Royal!Statistical!

Society!B!157(1):!289^300!

Bunnell,!F.L.,!W.!Campbell!and!K.A.!Squire.!2004.!Conservation!priorities!for!

peripheral!species:!the!example!of!British!Columbia.!Canadian!Journal!of!

Forest!Research!34:!2240^2247.!

Czech,!B.,!P.R.!Krausman!and!R.!Borkhataria.!1998.!Social!construction,!political!

power,!and!the!allocation!of!benefits!to!endangered!species.!Conservation!

Biology!12:!1103^1112.!

Czech,!B.,!P.K.!Devers!and!P.R.!Krausman.!2001.!The!relationship!of!gender!to!species!

conservation!attitudes.!Wildlife!Society!Bulletin!29:!187^194.!

Dillman,!D.A.!2000.!Mail!and!internet!surveys:!the!tailored!design!method.!2nd!

edition.!John!Wiley!&!Sons,!Toronto.!

!

! 45

Findlay, C.S., S. Elgie, B. Giles and L. Burr. 2009. Species Listing under Canada's

Species at Risk Act. Conservation Biology 23(6): 1609-1617.

Green,!D.M.!2005.!Designatable!units!for!status!assessment!of!endangered!species.!

Conservation!Biology!19:!1813^1820.!

Harshaw,!H.W.!2008.!British!Columbia!species!at!risk!public!opinion!survey!2008:!

final!technical!report.!University!of!British!Columbia!Collaborative!for!

Advanced!Landscape!Planning,!Vancouver,!British!Columbia.!Available!from!

www.hd^research.ca/sar^pos/SaR^POS_reports.html!!

IUCN!(International!Union!for!Conservation!of!Nature).!2006.!IUCN!red!list!of!

threatened!species.!IUCN,!Cambridge,!United!Kingdom.!!

Kellert,!S.K.!1996.!The!value!of!life.!Island!Press,!Washington,!D.C.!!

Knegtering,!E.,!L.!Hendrickx,!H.J.!van!der!Windt!and!A.J.M.!Schoot!Uiterkamp.!2002.!

Effects!of!species’!characteristics!on!nongovernmental!organizations’!

attitudes!toward!species!conservation!policy.!Environment!and!Behavior!34:!

378^400.!

Kotchen,!M.J.!and!S.D.!Reiling.!2000.!Environmental!attitudes,!motivations,!and!

contingent!valuation!of!nonuse!values:!a!case!study!involving!endangered!

species.!Ecological!Economics!32:!93–107.!

Krosnick,!J.A.!1999.!Survey!research.!Annual!Review!of!Psychology!50:!537–567.!

Martín^Lopez,!B.,!C.!Montes!and!J.!Benayas.!2007.!Influence!of!user!characteristics!on!

valuation!of!ecosystem!services!in!Doñana!Natural!Protected!Area!(south^

west!Spain).!Environmental!Conservation!34:!215^224.!!

Martín^López,!B.,!C.!Montes!and!J.!Benayas.!2008.!Economic!valuation!of!biodiversity!

conservation:!the!meaning!of!numbers.!Conservation!Biology!22:!624^635.!

!

! 46

McKinney,!M.L.!1997.!Extinction!vulnerability!and!selectivity:!combining!ecological!

and!paleontological!views.!Annual!Review!of!Ecological!Systems!28:!495!–!

516.!

Mooers,!A.Ø.!2007.!The!diversity!of!biodiversity.!Nature!445:!717^718.!

Mooers,!A.!Ø.,!Prugh,!L.R.,!Festa^Bianchet,!M.!and!J.A.!Hutchings.!2007.!Biases!in!legal!

listing!under!Canadian!endangered!species!legislation.!Conservation!Biology!

21:!572^575.!

Montgomery,!C.A.!2002.!Ranking!the!benefits!of!biodiversity:!an!exploration!of!

relative!values.!Journal!of!Environmental!Management!65:!313^326.!

NatureServe.!2008.!NatureServe!Explorer:!an!online!encyclopedia!of!life![web!

application].!Version!7.0.!NatureServe,!Arlington,!Virginia.!Available!

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer!(accessed!November!2008).!

Purvis,!A.,!P.M.!Agapow,!J.L.!Gittleman!and!G.M.!Mace.!2000.!Nonrandom!extinction!

and!the!loss!of!evolutionary!history.!Science!288:!328^330.!

Robinson,!J.!P.,!P.R.!Shaver!and!L.S.!Wrightsman.!1991.!Measures!of!personality!and!

social!psychological!attitudes.!San!Diego:!Academic!Press.!

SARA!(Species!at!Risk!Act).!2002.!Bill!C^5,!an!act!respecting!the!protection!of!wildlife!

species!at!risk!in!Canada.!Statutes!of!Canada,!Ottawa.!Available!from!

www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-5/C-5_4/C-

5TOCE.html!!

Schwarz,!N.!1999.!Self^reports:!how!the!questions!shape!the!answers.!American!

Psychologist!54:!93–105.!

Stokes,!D.L.!2007.!Things!we!like:!human!preferences!among!similar!organisms!and!

implications!for!conservation.!Human!Ecology!35:!361^369.!

!

! 47

Tisdell,!C.!and!C.!Wilson.!2006.!Information,!wildlife!valuation,!conservation:!

experiments!and!policy.!Contemporary!Economic!Policy!24:!144^159.!

Tisdell,!C.,!H.S.!Nantha!and!C.!Wilson.!2007.!Endangerment!and!likeability!of!wildlife!

species:!how!important!are!they!for!payments!proposed!for!conservation?!

Ecological!Economics!60:!627^633.!

Veríssimo,!D.,!I.!Fraser,!J.!Groombridge,!R.!Bristol!and!D.C.!MacMillan.!2009.!Birds!as!

tourism!flagship!species:!a!case!study!of!tropical!islands.!Animal!

Conservation!12:!549^558.!!

Veríssimo,!D.,!D.C.!MacMillan!and!R.J.!Smith.!2011.!Toward!a!systematic!approach!for!

identifying!conservation!flagships.!Conservation!Letters!4(1):!1^8.!!

!

!

! 48

3: Influence!of!People’s!Characteristics!on!Species!Conservation!Priorities!in!British!Columbia!

Parts! of! this! chapter!were! published! in! Conservation!Biology! 23(4):!1041^1046.!!

Emily! Meuser,! Howard! W.! Harshaw,! Georgia! Pomaki,! and! Arne! Ø.!Mooers!!

E.!Meuser!conducted!all!analyses!and!wrote!the!following!chapter.!

3.1 Abstract!

Conservation!programmes!tend!to!achieve!only!inconsistent!success.!Investigating!the!characteristics!of!publics!that!have!the!ability!to!drive!the!success!of!such!programmes!seems!worthwhile!in!order!to!better!design!or!target!interventions.!I!used!responses!from!a!public!opinion!survey!of!British!Columbians!(Canada;!n=555,!r=73%)!to!explore!how!different!segments!of!society!(based!on!gender,!education,!age,!residential!stability,!income!and!ecological!worldviews)!responded!to!survey!questions!regarding!conservation!priorities!for!different!types!of!species!attributes.!Factor!analysis!revealed!5!underlying!factors,!which!explained!66.8%!of!the!variation!in!responses,!with!similar!species!attributes!loading!on!the!same!factor.!All!factors!showed!a!significant!relationship!with!respondents’!ecological!worldviews!as!measured!by!the!New!Ecological!Paradigm!scale.!Factors!also!showed!different!patterns!of!relationships!with!gender,!education,!residential!stability!and!income,!while!age!did!not!show!a!relationship!with!any!factor.!These!results!indicate!that!different!segments!of!the!population!may!be!more!(or!less)!responsive!to!conservation!initiatives!with!different!focal!species.!This!suggests!that!choosing!different!species,!offering!a!greater!diversity!of!attributes,!may!be!most!effective!in!recruiting!public!support!for!conservation.!!!

3.2 Introduction!

The! problem! of! biodiversity! conservation! is! fundamentally! a! problem! of!

understanding! and! changing! human! behaviour.! Since! each! of! the! main! factors!

contributing! to! biodiversity! loss! (habitat! destruction,! invasive! species,! climate!

!

! 49

change,!exploitation!and!pollution)!is!either!wholly!or!partly!due!to!human!activity,!

stemming!the!tide!of!species!extinction!depends!on!the!human!choice!to!do!so.!For!

policy! makers! to! initiate! successful! programs! for! biodiversity! conservation,! they!

require!information!about!what!the!public!values,!which!is!the!topic!of!Chapter!2!of!

this! work,! and! also! what! characteristics! of! the! public! influence! how! species! are!

valued,!and!how!different!values!for!wildlife!relate!to!one!another.!This!is!the!topic!

of!the!current!chapter.!!

!

Public! concerns! for! biodiversity! conservation,! and! pro^environmental! attitudes,!

have! grown! over! time! (Dunlap! et! al.! 2000;! Inglehart! &! Baker! 2000),!with! people!

supporting! the! creation! of! species! conservation! legislation! in! the! recognition! that!

species! are! being! lost.! That! humans! have! a! hand! in! Earth’s! sixth!mass! extinction!

event!is!not!only!scientifically!established,!but!also!has!been!accepted!in!the!popular!

literature! (e.g.!Kolbert!2009;!Economist!2008).! !However,! this! increase! in!concern!

has!not!been!matched!by!an!increase!in!the!knowledge!that!the!public!has!about!the!

causes! of! species! extinctions! or! about! biodiversity! in! general! (Hunter! and!Brehm!

2003),! meaning! that! the! public! may! often! fail! to! understand! conservation!

interventions!and! therefore!oppose!or!not! abide!by! them.!With! respect! to! climate!

change,! Bord! et! al.! (2000)! found! that! environmental! concern! alone! was! a! poor!

predictor! of! intent! to! change!behaviour! to! reduce!negative! environmental! impact,!

while! accurate! knowledge! about! environmental! phenomena! was! the! single! best!

predictor! of! both! intent! to! change! behaviour,! and! support! for! pro^environmental!

policies.! The! authors! found! that! the! public! was! “woefully! uninformed”! about! the!

nature! and! causes! of! climate! change,!which!may!help! to! explain! the! reluctance! of!

!

! 50

respondents! who! lack! accurate! knowledge! of! the! subject! to! support! policy! or!

behaviour!changes:!they!may!be!uncertain!about!the!most!helpful!courses!of!action.!!

!

Given! that! conservation! programmes! tend! to! achieve! only! inconsistent! success!

(Jenks!et!al.!2010),!investigating!the!characteristics!of!publics!that!have!the!ability!to!

drive!the!success!of!such!programmes!seems!worthwhile! in!order!to!better!design!

or!target!interventions.!Conservation!strategies!often!focus!on!single!species—often,!

charismatic! megafauna—that! environmental! NGOs! believe! will! encourage! public!

support.!However,!recent!work!has!indicated!that!a!more!diverse!set!of!criteria!can!

be! employed! in! choosing! flagship! species! for! conservation! (Verissimo! et! al.! 2009;!

Home!et!al.!2009).!Since!different!segments!of!the!population!may!be!more!(or!less)!

responsive! to! conservation! initiatives! with! different! focal! species,! perhaps! a!

movement! toward! choosing! different! species,! offering! a! greater! diversity! of!

attributes,! will! be!most! effective! in! recruiting! public! support! for! conservation.! In!

this! line,!some!environmental!NGOs!have!moved!toward!using!marketing!research!

strategies!more!commonly!used!in!commercial!settings.!One!such!organization!that!

is! particularly! relevant! in! the! context! of! the! previous! chapter’s! finding! on! public!

support!for!endemic!species!is!Rare,!an!environmental!NGO!that!focuses!on!endemic!

species!while!making!use!of!“social!marketing”!to!“conserve! imperiled!species!and!

ecosystems!around!the!world!by!inspiring!people!to!care!about!and!protect!nature”!

(www.rareconservation.org).! Rare! uses! strategies! such! as! audience! segmentation!

(dividing! the! target! audience! into! subgroups!with! similar!motivating! factors)! and!

market! research! (which! involves! gathering! information! about! the! attitudes,!

preferences! and! behaviours! of! a! target! audience),! to! initiate! community^based!

!

! 51

conservation! strategies! and! bring! about! desired! social! change! (Jenks! et! al.! 2010).!

This!approach!appears!to!be!successful.!For!example,!a!campaign!using!this!type!of!

social! marketing! directed! at! the! Saint! Lucia! Parrot! contributed! to! the! species!

receiving!protected!species!status!and!increasing!its!population!numbers!and!range!

size,!where!other!conservation!strategies!had!failed!(Jenks!et!al.!2010).!!

!

3.2.1 Socioeconomic!variables!and!conservation!

The! effect! of! socioeconomic! variables! such! as! gender,! age,! income,! education! and!

ecological!worldview!has!been!examined! in! the!context!of!public!attitudes! toward!

and! value! for! species! conservation! generally.! People! with! more! ecocentric!

worldviews!tend!to!place!a!greater!priority!on!species!conservation!than!those!with!

more! anthropocentric! worldviews,! regardless! of! survey! respondents’! knowledge!

about! species! (Hunter! &! Rinner! 2004;! also! see! Appendix! A).! Kellert! and! Berry!

(1987)! found!that!men!were!more! likely! than!women!to!have!ecologistic!attitudes!

toward!wildlife!(viewing!wildlife!as!an!interrelated!system!of!species!and!habitats);!

however,!more!recent!research!suggests!that!both!women!and!men!value!ecologistic!

concerns!(ecological!importance,!rarity!and!severity!of!threat!to!species)!over!other!

attributes,! and! that! these! values! do! not! differ! between! the! genders! (Czech! et! al.!

2001).!In!fact,!Montgomery!(2002)!reported!that!women!are!more!likely!than!men!

to!value!ecological!benefits! that!are! certain! (conversely,!men!are!more! likely! than!

women!to!value!ecological!benefits!that!are!uncertain).!!

!

!

! 52

Kasarda! &! Janowitz! (1974)! found! that! people! with! higher! residential! stability!

(proportion!of!their! life!spent! in!the!same!community)!tend!to!participate!more!in!

their!communities!and!feel!more!psychological!attachment!to!their!communities.!As!

well,! people! with! high! levels! of! residential! stability! exhibit! more! pro^community!

behaviour,!including!supporting!preservation!of!the!local!environment,!than!people!

that!are!more!mobile!(Oishi!et!al.!2007).!!

!

Four! studies,! to!my!knowledge,! have! examined! conservation!priorities! for! species!

attributes!(Czech!et!al.!1998;!2001;!Montgomery!2002;!Knegtering!et!al.!2002),!and!

three! of! these! studies! (Czech! et! al.! 1998;! 2001;!Montgomery!2002)! examined! the!

socioeconomic! correlates! of! respondents’! preferences! (Knegtering! et! al.! 2002!

examined!conservation!priorities!of!NGOs!as!opposed!to!those!of!the!general!public).!

However,!none!of!these!studies!have!addressed!either!endemism!or!distinctiveness!

explicitly,!and!studies!of!this!type!have!not!yet!been!done!in!the!British!Columbian,!

or!Canadian,!context.!!

!

In! this! public! attitudes! survey! of! British! Columbians,! I! aimed! to! gain! insight! into!

how! values! for! species! attributes! are! affected! by! socioeconomic! characteristics! of!

the! British! Columbian! public,! particularly! with! regard! to! endemic! species.! This!

information! can! help! enable! policy^makers! and! conservation! managers! either! to!

respond!to!the!priorities!of!the!publics!they!represent,!or!to!identify!segments!of!the!

population! to! target! for! educational! campaigns! to! promote! desired! social! change.!

Here! I! explore! how! age,! gender,! education,! income,! ecological! worldviews! (as!

measured! by! the! New! Ecological! Paradigm;! see! Appendix! A),! and! residential!

!

! 53

stability! influence!people’s! preferences! for! prioritizing! different! species! attributes!

for!conservation.!

!

Since!people!with!high!residential!stability!feel!connected!to!the!human!and!natural!

communities!around!them,!as!described!above,!I!hypothesized!that!people!with!high!

residential! stability! might! reflect! this! with! a! greater! preference! for! species!

attributes!that!contain!an!aspect!of!being!local!(e.g.!endemism,!or! locally!at!risk).! I!

also!expected!that!people!with!more!biocentric!worldviews!(i.e.!a!higher!NEP!score)!

would! prefer! scientific! and! ecological! attributes! over! economic! attributes,! since!

people!with!higher!NEP!scores!tend!to!be!more!pro^environmental!(Martin^López!et!

al.!2007).!

!

I!did!not!have!any!specific!predictions!about!the!relationship!between!the!remaining!

socioeconomic!variables!and!different!species!attributes.!

!

3.3 Methods!

3.3.1 Survey!Methods!

A! description! of! the! survey! methods! may! be! found! in! Chapter! 2,! and! also! at!

www.hd^research.ca/sar^pos/SaR^POS_reports.html!(Harshaw!2008).!!

!

!

! 54

3.3.2 Analysis!Methods!

Here!I!focus!on!three!questions!on!species!attributes!from!the!larger!questionnaire!

(Figs!2.1^2.3).! !As!well,!survey!respondents!were!asked!to!report!their!age,!gender,!

the!number!of!years! they!had! lived! in! their!current!community,! level!of!education!

(by!choosing!a!category!over!a!range!of!education!levels)!and!household!income!(by!

choosing!a!category!over!a!range!of!income!levels).!Mean!age!of!survey!respondents!

was! 53.0! years,! and! the! sample!was! 50.5%!male! and! 49.5%! female.! Respondents!

had! lived! in! their! current! communities!an!average!of!21.9!years,! and! the!majority!

(69.1%)! had! started! or! completed! some! postsecondary! education.! A! majority!

(54.9%)!of!respondents!reported!an!annual!household!income!of!$60!000!or!more!

(Harshaw!2008).!

!

3.3.2.1 Attribute!groupings!

In!order! to!explore!whether! there!are!underlying!dimensions! that!account! for! the!

pattern! of! respondents’! preferences! for! different! attributes,! I! conducted! a! factor!

analysis!(Bartholomew!1980).!In!order!to!do!so,!I!first!converted!the!data!from!the!

three!attribute!preference!questions!into!comparable!formats.!For!question!1,!which!

asked!respondents!to!rank!species!attributes!for!conservation!priority!(Figure!2.1),!I!

reversed!the!ranking!so!that!the!most^preferred!attribute!was!assigned!the!highest!

number! for! each! respondent! (reversed! rank! =! number! of! attributes! –! rank! of!

attribute;! so! that!an!attribute! that!was! ranked!most!preferred,!or!1,!would!have!a!

reversed! rank! of! 5),! and! then! divided! the! reversed! rank! by! the! total! number! of!

!

! 55

attributes!minus!1!(6!attributes!–!1!=!5),!so!that!the!degree!of!preference!for!a!given!

attribute!scales!between!0!and!1.!

!

For!question!2,!which!asked!respondents!to!allocate!a!hypothetical!$100!toward!the!

conservation!of!different!species!attributes!(Figure!2.2),!I!ranked!the!attributes!for!

each! respondent! based! on! their! allocation! to! each! attribute.! In! the! case! that! a!

respondent!allocated!the!same!amount!to!multiple!attributes,!I!assigned!the!mean!of!

the!ranks!spanned!by!the!equal!allocation!to!each!attribute! involved!in!the!tie!(for!

example,! if! a! respondent! allocated! $30! to! one! attribute,! and! $20! each! to! the!

remaining!three!attributes,!the!first!attribute!would!be!ranked!1,!and!the!remaining!

three! attributes!would! be! ranked! (2+3+4)/3! =! 3).! Then,! as! above,! I! reversed! the!

ranking!and!divided!by! the!number!of!attributes!minus!1!(4!attributes!–!1!=!3)!so!

that!the!preferences!for!attributes!in!this!question!also!scale!between!0!and!1.!!

!

For!question!3,!which!asked!respondents!to!select!their!preferred!attribute!for!each!

of! 15! pairs! of! species! attributes! (Figure! 2.3),! I! summed! the! number! of! times! a!

respondent! selected! each! attribute! over! each! other! attribute! in! pairwise!

comparisons.!Since!6!attributes!were! included! in! this!question,!each!attribute!was!

involved! in! 5! pairwise! comparisons,! so! that! the! maximum! number! of! times! an!

attribute! could! be! preferred! to! all! the! other! attributes! was! 5.! In! this! manner,! I!

assigned! each! attribute! a! score! between! 0! and! 5! for! each! respondent,! and! then!

divided!by!5,!so!that!the!preferences!for!attributes!scale!between!0!and!1,!as!in!the!

other!attribute!preference!questions.!!

!

!

! 56

The! resulting! distributions! for! each! of! these! attributes! are! shown! in! Appendix! B,!

Figures!B.1^B.7.!All!of! the!variables!significantly!deviate!from!normality!(Appendix!

B,! Table! B.1),!which! is! expected! if! some! attributes! are!more! preferred,! and! some!

attributes!less!preferred!by!respondents.!!

!

Across! the! three! survey! questions,! respondents! were! asked! about! 16! species!

attribute!statements!(Table!3.1).!Many!of!these!attributes!were!phrased!similarly!or!

the! same! across! the! different! questions,! i.e.! they!were! intended! to! ask! about! the!

same!species!attribute.!These!attributes!of!interest!were:!endemic!species!(defined!

as! species! occurring! only! or!mainly! in! BC,! or! in! BC! and! nowhere! else! in! Canada;!

Endemism),! common!but! declining! species! (Common!Declining),! the! likelihood! or!

chances!of!a!species!being!protected!(Likelihood),!species!that!are!at!risk!in!BC!but!

common!elsewhere! (SARBC),! the!economic!costs!of!protecting! the! species! (Costs),!

species! that! have! a! unique! appearance,! behaviour,! or! role! in! nature! (Distinctive),!

species! that!are!economically! important! in!BC!(Economic! Importance)!and,! finally,!

species! that!are!culturally!or! traditionally! important! (Cultural).! ! I! expected! that,! if!

respondents!understood!the!similarly!phrased!attributes!across!different!questions!

to!be!addressing!the!same!concept,!similar!attributes!would!load!on!the!same!factor!

in! a! factor! analysis.! To! improve! interpretation! of! the! factor! analysis,! I! applied! a!

varimax! (orthogonal)! rotation,! and! omitted! factor! loadings! of! less! than! 0.4! (Field!

2004).!!

!

!

! 57

I!then!examined!the!relationships!of!attributes!within!and!across!different!attribute!

groups!with! a! factor! analysis! and! tested! for! internal! consistency! of! the! groupings!

revealed!by!the!factor!analysis!using!Cronbach’s!alpha!(Cronbach!1951).!!

!

3.3.2.2 Socioeconomic!correlates!

Finally,!I!explored!whether!respondents’!preferences!for!attributes!as!described!by!

the! factors! extracted! by! principal! components! analysis! were! correlated! with!

socioeconomic! attributes! or! ecological! worldview! by! conducting! tests! of!

correlations.! I!was! interested! in! exploring! the! effect! of! gender,! education,! income,!

age,! residential! stability! and! ecological!worldview! as!measured! by! the! NEP! scale.!

Although!the!demographic!variables!were!all!significantly!non^normal!(Appendix!B,!

Table! B.2),! I! used! linear! regression! to! test! for! correlations,! while! ensuring! that!

residuals! of! these! comparisons! were! uncorrelated! (Durban^Watson! statistic!

between!1^3;!Tables!3.4^3.8).!All!statistical!tests!were!carried!out!using!SPSS!16!for!

Mac.!!

!

3.4 Results!!

3.4.1 Attribute!groupings!

Factor! analysis! revealed! 5! underlying! factors! with! eigenvalues! greater! than! 1!

(Kaiser’s!criterion;!Kaiser!1960),!which!together!explain!66.82%!of!the!variance!in!

the! data! (Table! 3.1).! Questions! that! involved! the! chances! of! a! species! being!

!

! 58

protected!were!excluded!from!the!final!analysis,!as!they!did!not!load!clearly!on!any!

one!factor!in!the!initial!analysis.!All!other!attributes!that!were!phrased!similarly!or!

the!same!across!the!three!different!questions!grouped!together!along!at!least!one!of!

the! revealed! factors! (Table! 3.2).! The! 5! factors! have! good! internal! consistency!

(Cronbach’s!alphas!ranged!from!0.64^0.69),!especially!considering!the!low!number!

of!attributes!comprising!each!factor!(Table!3.1)!Inter^item!correlations!tended!to!be!

>0.3! (Table!3.1;!Field!2004),!but!even! in!cases! that! the! inter^item!correlations! fell!

below!this!level,!Cronbach’s!alpha!was!not!improved!substantially!by!the!removal!of!

any!items.!!

!

The!first!factor,!accounting!for!21.17%!of!the!variance,!included!a!positive!loading!of!

preference! for! species! that! are! common,! but! experiencing! rapid! decline! and! a!

negative!loading!of!economic!importance.!Preference!for!species!that!are!at!risk!in!

BC!but!common!elsewhere!loads!positively!on!the!second!factor,!while!the!costs!of!

protecting!and!recovering!species!loads!negatively.!This!factor!accounts!for!16.06%!

of! the! variance.! The! third! factor! includes! preference! for! endemic! species,! and!

accounts! for! 11.97%! of! the! variance.! The! fourth! factor,! explaining! 9.43%! of! the!

variance,! included! preferences! for! cultural! and! traditional! importance! of! species.!

Finally,! the! fifth! factor! accounted! for! 8.20%!of! the! variance! and! loaded! economic!

importance!of!species!positively!and!distinctive!species!negatively!(Tables!3.1!and!

3.2).!

!

! 59

3.4.2 Socioeconomic!correlates!!

All! five! factors! revealed! in! factor! analysis!were! correlated!with!NEP!Score,!where!

high!NEP!scores! indicate!a!more!biocentric!worldview!and!lower!scores! indicate!a!

more!anthropocentric!worldview.!Factors!1^4!were!positively!correlated!with!NEP!

Score,! while! factor! five! showed! a! negative! correlation! (Tables! 3.4^3.8! and!

summarized!in!Table!3.3).!Factor!one!(common,!declining!species,!versus!economic!

importance)!was!also!positively!correlated!with!residential!stability!(the!proportion!

of! a! respondent’s! life! that! they! have! lived! in! their! current! community),! and!

negatively! correlated!with! respondents’! level! of! education! (Table! 3.4).! Factor! two!

(species! at! risk! in! BC! but! common! elsewhere,! versus! costs)! was! also! negatively!

correlated! with! level! of! education,! while! factor! 3! (endemism)! was! positively!

correlated!with!level!of!education!(Tables!3.5!and!3.6).!Factor!three!was!negatively!

correlated!with!gender!(meaning!that!males!were!more!likely!to!score!higher!on!this!

factor! than! females;! Table! 3.6).! Factor! four! (cultural! and! traditional! importance)!

was! negatively! correlated! with! level! of! income,! and! positively! correlated! with!

gender!(Table!3.7),!while!factor!five!(economic!importance,!versus!distinctive)!was!

negatively! correlated! with! both! gender! and! education! (Table! 3.8).! There! was! no!

significant!relationship!between!age!and!any!of!the!factors.!

3.5 Discussion!

Biocentric!worldviews!as!measured!by! the!NEP!scale!were!correlated!with! factors!

that!comprised!more!biocentric!(or!less!anthropocentric)!species!attributes.!This!is!

intuitive,!and!consistent!with!previous! findings! that!pro^environment!respondents!

!

! 60

(who! tend! to! score! high! on! the! NEP! scale;! Hawcroft! &! Milfont! 2010)! have!

preferences! toward! scientific! and! ecological! attributes! (Martin^Lopez! et! al.! 2007)!

and!also!with!my!predictions.!

!

That! common,! declining! species! tended! to! be! valued! by! people! who! had! high!

residential! stability! (spent! much! of! their! lives! in! the! same! community)! may! be!

reflective!of! the!connection! that!people! feel! to!species! that! they!are!able! to!see!or!

interact! with! in! their! everyday! lives! (common! but! declining,! versus! economic!

importance;! Table! 3.4).! This! is! consistent! with! my! hypothesis! that! more!

residentially!stable!individuals!would!feel!more!connection!to!local!species,!and!also!

with! other! research.! For! example,! Hunter! &! Brehm! (2003)! conducted! in^depth!

interviews!with!people!living!in!a!rural,!Western!US!area!and!reported!that!people!

with! high! residential! stability! felt! a! heightened! sense! of! concern! over! the!

disappearance!of!local!species.!However,!this!species!attribute!has!not!been!widely!

investigated!and!more!work!is!needed!before!the!drivers!of! its!value!to!people!are!

understood.! It! is! interesting! to!note! that! the!other! two! factors! that! could! reflect! a!

focus!on!local!species^^!endemism!and!at!risk!in!BC!but!common!elsewhere,!versus!

costs—did!not!have!the!expected!relationship!with!residential!stability.!!

!

Czech! et! al.! (2001)! found! that! women! were! less! likely! than! men! to! rank! the!

monetary! expense! of! conservation! as! an! important! factor,! while! I! did! not! find! a!

relationship! between! the! gender! of! a! respondent! and! their! value! for! the! costs! of!

protecting!and!recovering!species!(species!at!risk!in!BC!but!common!elsewhere!vs.!

costs;!Table!3.6).!!I!found!that!education!was!negatively!correlated!with!this!factor,!

!

! 61

indicating! that! people! with! higher! education! tended! to! prioritize! the! costs! of!

protecting! species! over! protecting! species! that! are! at! risk! in! BC! but! common!

elsewhere.!This!may!represent!a!pragmatic!approach!to!conservation,!and!is!actually!

consistent!with!some!scientific!work!(e.g.!Bunnell!2004):! if!conservation!resources!

are! limited,!perhaps!they!should!be!directed!toward!species!for!which!a!particular!

jurisdiction!has!a! substantial! amount!of! the! species’! range,!or! toward!species! that!

depend!on!local!support!for!their!existence.!

!

I! also! found! that! men! and! those! with! postsecondary! education! tended! to! value!

endemic!species!to!a!greater!degree!than!women!and!those!without!postsecondary!

education! (endemism;!Table!3.6).! Inglehart! (1977)!and!Dunlap!and!Catton! (1979)!

suggest! that! education! is! one! of! the! more! useful! predictors! of! environmental!

concern!(others!are!age,!political!ideology,!and!urban!residence),!and!Kellert!(1996)!

found!that!males!are!more!likely!to!be!concerned!about!conserving!wildlife!species!

than! females! (although! this! finding!may! be! out! of! date;! Czech! 2001).! However,! I!

found! that! females! tended! to! score! higher! on! the!NEP! scale!measuring! ecological!

worldviews!(i.e.!were!more!biocentric;!see!Appendix!A).!

!

Czech!et!al.! (1998)!did!not! find!a!relationship!between!age,!gender,!education!and!

ranking!of!species!attributes,!although!they!did!find!that!valuation!of!wildlife!species!

increased! when! respondents! were! members! of! a! wildlife! organization,! and!

decreased! when! they! self^identified! as! members! of! the! Republican! party! (US).!

However,! Czech! et! al.! (2001)! found! that! while! women! and! men! rate! ecological!

!

! 62

importance,! rarity! and! severity! of! threat! as! the! most! important! factors! in!

prioritizing!species!for!conservation!over!other!attributes,!women!were!more!likely!

than!men!to!value!the!cultural!and!historical!attributes!of!species.!This!is!consistent!

with!our!finding!that!females!were!more!likely!to!score!higher!than!men!on!‘cultural’!

(Table! 3.8).! ! I! also! found! that! people! with! higher! incomes! tended! to! consider!

cultural! and! traditional! value! of! species! a! lower! priority! than! people! with! lower!

incomes.! This! result! is! contrary! to! Montgomery! (2002),! who! found! a! positive!

relationship!between!income!and!aesthetic!and!symbolic!values!for!species.!Gender!

and!income!were!not!correlated!in!our!sample,!so!this!relationship!is!not!explained!

by!the!difference!in!value!for!this!attribute!between!genders.!

!

Finally,!women!and!those!with!a!higher!level!of!education!were!more!likely!to!prefer!

distinctive! species! to!economically! important! species! (Table!3.8).!This!may! reflect!

that!women!and!those!with!higher!levels!of!education!are!less!likely!to!be!involved!

in!harvesting!of! species! for! their!economic! livelihood! (e.g.! trapping,! fishing;!Czech!

2001;!Kellert!&!Berry!1987).!!

!

Overall,!I!found!some!notable!differences!in!the!conservation!priorities!of!different!

members! of! the!British! Columbian! public.!While! the! size! of! these! differences!was!

small! (as! measured! by! the! correlation! coefficients),! the! fact! that! people! value!

different!species!attributes!to!different!degrees!suggests!that!it!may!be!effective!to!

broaden!the!selection!of!species!that!are!targeted!for!conservation!prioritization!and!

action,! as! this! may! aid! in! engaging! a! larger! segment! of! society! with! nature!

conservation.! This! finding! is! consistent! with! an! emerging! picture! that! public!

!

! 63

attitudes! toward! species! attributes! allow! for! more! diversity! than! there! has!

traditionally!been!in!selecting!targets!for!conservation!!(Verissimo!et!al.!2009,!2011;!

Home! et! al.! 2009).! This! information! should! be! of! particular! importance! to!

jurisdictions! that!have!high!conservation!needs!but! lack!charismatic!megafauna! to!

act! as! typical! flagship! species.! In! the! British! Columbian! context,! it! is! particularly!

interesting! to! note! that! an! increasing! level! of! education! is! negatively! related! to! a!

preference! for! conserving! peripheral! species.! Much! of! BC’s! biodiversity! is! shared!

with! other! jurisdictions,! and! local! ENGOs! have! recently! produced! a! report!

highlighting! the! importance!of!such!species! to! the!province!(Connolly!et!al.!2010).!

Since!examining! the!relationship!of!socioeconomic!variables! to!preferences!can!be!

regarded!as!an!opportunity!to!target!educational!initiatives,!there!may!be!a!prospect!

in!the!province!of!targeting!those!with!higher!levels!of!education!with!information!

about!peripheral!species.!!

!

It! is!worth!noting!that! the!population!composition!of!British!Columbia! is!dynamic,!

and! so! the! values! that! the! public! holds! for! species! as! conservation!priorities!may!

change! over! time.! Future! surveys! could! attempt! to! address! this! by! including!

information! about! respondents’! cultural! identities! and! immigration! status,! for!

example,!in!order!to!better!understand!aspects!of!the!human!diversity!represented!

in! the!province.!This! could!aid! in!obtaining!a!deeper! interpretation!of! this! type!of!

public!opinion!data.!

!

Depending! on! the! specific! set! of! circumstances! under!which! the! public! is!making!

conservation!decisions,!it!is!possible!that!people!may!have!different!perceptions!of!a!

!

! 64

species’! value.!While! the! above^mentioned! research! has! occurred! in! low^pressure!

situations! that! allow! people! to! use! rational! judgment! to! come! to! prioritization!

decisions,! recent! work! by! Haidt! (2007)! suggests! that! people! may! respond! to!

controversial!or!highly!emotive!stimuli!first!at!an!emotional!level,!and!then!come!up!

with! post! hoc! rational! justifications! for! their! initial! response.! This! may! help! to!

explain! why! fundraising! efforts! targeted! toward! species! at! imminent! risk! of!

extinction! are! highly! successful! in! raising! support! for! their! cause,! and!why! failed!

attempts! at! conserving! rare! species! can! lead! to! public! disengagement! from!

conservation! initiatives.! Future! work! into! whether! this! type! of! response! also!

correlates! with! socioeconomic! variables! might! be! informative! for! generating!

sustained! support! for! conservation! initiatives,! and! thus! improving! conservation!

outcomes!over!the!long!term.!

!

!

! 65

3.6 Tables*

Table!3.1:!Cronbach’s!alphas!(internal!consistency)!and!inter:item!correlations!for!groups!of!attributes!revealed!by!factor!analysis.!Together,!the!5!factors!explain!66.82%!of!the!variance!in!the!data.!

! Attributes*loading*on*factor* Survey*Question***

Cronbach’s*alpha*for*attributes*in*factor*

N* InterAitem*Correlation*

Factor*1*!

21.17%!of!variance!

Common!but!declining! 1! !!

0.684!!!

472!

1!and!2:!0.308!1!and!3:!0.500!1!and!4:!0.221!2!and!3:!0.506!2!and!4:!0.360!3!and!4:!0.262!

Common!but!declining! 2!Common!but!declining!Economic!importance!

3!2!!

Factor*2*!

16.06%!of!variance!

At!risk!in!BC!but!common!elsewhere!! 1!

!0.675!!

461!

1!and!2:!0.540!1!and!3:!0.228!1!and!4:!0.297!2!and!3:!0.192!2!and!4:!0.395!3!and!4:!0.421!

At!risk!in!BC!but!common!elsewhere!! 3!Costs!of!protection!and!recovery!! 1!Costs!of!protection!and!recovery! 3!

Factor*3*!

11.97%!of!variance!

Only!or!mainly!occurring!in!BC! 1!

0.636!

!!

474!!

!

1!and!2:!0.278!1!and!3:!0.471!2!and!3:!0.356!

Only!or!mainly!occurring!in!BC! 2!Only!or!mainly!occurring!in!BC!! 3!

Factor*4*!

9.43%!of!variance!

Cultural!and!traditional!importance!! 1!0.639! 472! 0.473!Cultural!and!traditional!importance!! 3!

Factor*5*!

8.20%!of!variance!

Distinctive! 2!0.642! 524! 0.484!Economic!importance! 2!

*!refer!to!Figs.!2.1:2.3.!!

!

! 66

Table!3.2:!Factor!loadings!of!respondent!preferences!to!survey!questions.!! ! Factor!! ! 1:Common!

declining!vs.!

Economic!importance!

2:At!risk!in!BC!vs.!Costs!

3:Endemic! 4:Cultural! 5:Economic!importance!

vs.!Distinctive!

Common!but!declining! Q1! .668! ! ! ! !Q2! .710! ! ! ! !Q3! .829! ! ! ! !

Species!at!risk!in!BC,!but!common!elsewhere!

Q1! ! .801! ! ! !Q3! ! .824! ! ! !

Costs!of!protection/recovery! Q1! ! P.463! ! ! !Q3! ! P.609! ! ! !

Endemic! Q1! ! ! .663! ! !! Q2! ! ! .711! ! !! Q3! ! ! .782! ! !

Cultural/traditional!importance!

Q1! ! ! ! .780! !

! Q3! ! ! ! .871! !Distinctive! Q2! ! ! ! ! P.896!

Economic!importance! Q2! P.452! ! ! ! .750!

!! !

!

! 67

Table!3.3:!Summary!of!relationships!between!factors!obtained!through!factor!analysis!and!socioeconomic!variables.!! Factor!! 1:Common!

Declining!vs.!

Economic!Importance!

2:At!Risk!in!BC!vs.!Costs!

3:Endemic! 4:Cultural! 5:Economic!Importance!

vs.!Distinctive!

Residential!Stability! +! n.s.! n.s.! n.s.! n.s.!Femaleness! n.s.! n.s.! P! +! P!Education! P! P! +! n.s.! P!Income! n.s.! n.s.! n.s.! P! n.s.!NEP!Score! +! +! +! +! P!

Age! n.s.! n.s.! n.s.! n.s.! n.s.!

n.s.!=!not!significant.!

Table!3.4:!Descriptive!statistics!of!socioeconomic!correlates!of!factor!1:!Common!Declining!vs.!Economic!Importance.!

Demographic!parameter!

Traits! n! ß! R2! FPratio! Probability!of!Type!I!error!

DurbinPWatson!

Residential!stability!

Continuous;!0P1! 363! 0.153! 0.023! 8.607! 0.004! 1.821!

Education! Some!high!school;!high!school;!some!university/college;!university/college!degree;!graduate!degree;!other!(‘other’!category!excluded!from!analysis)!

401! P0.122! 0.015! 6.009! 0.015! 1.832!

NEP!score! Continuous;!1P5! 442! 0.124! 0.015! 6.819! 0.009! 1.912!!

!

! 68

!

!

Table!3.5:!Descriptive!statistics!of!socioeconomic!correlates!of!factor!2:!At!Risk!in!BC!vs.!Costs.!

Demographic!parameter!

Traits! n! ß! R2! FPratio! Probability!of!Type!I!error!

DurbinPWatson!

Education! Some!high!school;!high!school;!some!university/college;!university/college!degree;!graduate!degree;!other!

(‘other’!category!excluded!from!analysis)!

401! P0.170! 0.029! 11.821! 0.001! 1.769!

NEP!score! Continuous;!1P5! 442! 0.222! 0.049! 22.909! <0.001! 1.821!

!!!!Table!3.6:!Descriptive!statistics!of!socioeconomic!correlates!of!factor!3:!Endemic.!Demographic!parameter!

Traits! n! ß! R2! FPratio!

Probability!of!Type!I!error!

DurbinPWatson!

Gender! Male!(1);!female!(2)! 431! P0.102! 0.010! 4.474! 0.035! 1.466!

Education! Some!high!school;!high!school;!some!university/college;!university/college!degree;!graduate!degree;!other!

(‘other’!category!excluded!from!analysis)!

401! 0.147! 0.022! 8.814! 0.003! 1.491!

NEP!score! Continuous;!1P5! 442! 0.128! 0.017! 7.382! 0.007! 1.450!

!! !

!

! 69

Table!3.7:!Descriptive!statistics!of!socioeconomic!correlates!of!factor!4:!Cultural.!Demographic!parameter!

Traits! n! ß! R2! FPratio! Probability!of!Type!I!error!

DurbinPWatson!

Income! <10K;!10P20K;!20P30K;!30P40K;!40P50K;!50P60K;!60P70K;!70P80K;!80P90K;!90P100K;!100P150K;!>150K!

($CAD)!

392! P0.100! 0.010! 3.914! 0.049! 1.917!

Gender! Male!(1);!female!(2)!

431! 0.112! 0.012! 5.430! 0.020! 1.938!

NEP!score! Continuous;!1P5! 442! 0.200! 0.040! 18.331! <0.001! 1.935!

!

Table!3.8:!Descriptive!statistics!of!socioeconomic!correlates!of!factor!5:!Economic!Importance!vs.!Distinctive.!

Demographic!parameter!

Traits! n! ß! R2! FPratio! Probability!of!Type!I!error!

DurbinPWatson!

Gender! Male!(1);!female!(2)! 431! P0.157! 0.025! 10.837! 0.001! 2.101!Education! Some!high!school;!

high!school;!some!university/college;!university/college!degree;!graduate!degree;!other!

(‘other’!category!excluded!from!analysis)!

401! P0.106! 0.011! 4.552! 0.033! 2.086!

NEP!score! Continuous;!1P5! 442! P0.192! 0.037! 16.898! <0.001! 2.168!!

!

! 70

3.7 Reference*List*

Bord,!R.J.,!R.E.!O’Connor!and!A.!Fisher.!2000.!In!what!sense!does!the!public!need!to!

understand!global!climate!change?!Public!Understanding!of!Science!9:!205–

218.!

Bunnell,!F.L.,!W.!Campbell!and!K.A.!Squire.!2004.!Conservation!priorities!for!

peripheral!species:!the!example!of!British!Columbia.!Canadian!Journal!of!

Forest!Research!34:*2240P2247.!

Cronbach,!L.J.!1951.!Coefficient!alpha!and!the!internal!structure!of!tests.!

Psychometrika!16(3):!297P334.!

Czech,!B.,!P.R.!Krausman!and!R.!Borkhataria.!1998.!Social!construction,!political!

power,!and!the!allocation!of!benefits!to!endangered!species.!Conservation!

Biology!12:*1103P1112.!

Czech,!B.,!P.K.!Devers!and!P.R.!Krausman.!2001.!The!relationship!of!gender!to!species!

conservation!attitudes.!Wildlife!Society!Bulletin!29:!187P194.!

Dunlap,!R.E.!and!W.R.!Catton.!1979.!Environmental!sociology.!Annual!Review!of!

Sociology!5:!243P273.!

Dunlap,!R.E.,!K.D.!Van!Liere,!A.G.!Mertig!and!R.E.!Jones.!2000.!Measuring!

endorsement!of!the!New!Ecological!Paradigm:!A!revised!NEP!scale.!Journal!of!

Social!Issues!56:!425P442.!

Economist, The.!2008.!“Fewer!creatures!great!and!small.”!October!18,!2008!Vol.!389!

Issue!8602,!p.!68P69.!

Field,!A.!2005.!Discovering!Statistics!Using!SPSS,!2nd!Edition.!SAGE!Publications:!

London.!!

!

! 71

Haidt,!J.!2007.!The!new!synthesis!in!moral!psychology.!Science!316:!998P1002.!

Harshaw,!H.W.!2008.!British!Columbia!species!at!risk!public!opinion!survey!2008:!

final!technical!report.!University!of!British!Columbia!Collaborative!for!

Advanced!Landscape!Planning,!Vancouver,!British!Columbia.!Available!from!

www.hdPresearch.ca/sarPpos/SaRPPOS_reports.html!!

Home,!R.,!C.!Keller,!P.!Nagel,!N.!Bauer!and!M.!Hunziker.!2009.!Selection!criteria!for!

flagship!species!by!conservation!organizations.!Environmental!Conservation!

36(2):!139P148.!

Hunter,!L.M.!and!L.!Rinner.!2004.!The!association!between!environmental!

perspective!and!knowledge!and!concern!with!species!diversity.!Society!and!

Natural!Resources!17:!517–532.!

Inglehart,!R.!and!W.E.!Baker.!2000.!Modernization,!cultural!change,!and!the!

persistence!of!traditional!values.!American!Sociological!Review,!65(1):!19–

51.!

Jenks,!B.,!P.W.!Vaughan!and!P.J.!Butler.!2010.!The!evolution!of!Rare!Pride:!Using!

evaluation!to!drive!adaptive!management!in!a!biodiversity!conservation!

organization.!Evaluation!and!Program!Planning!33:!186–190.!

Kellert, S.K. and J.K. Berry. 1987. Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife

as affected by gender. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15(3): 363-371.

Kellert,!S.K.!1996.!The!value!of!life.!Island!Press,!Washington,!D.C.!!

Knegtering,!E.,!L.!Hendrickx,!H.J.!van!der!Windt!and!A.J.M.!Schoot!Uiterkamp.!2002.!

Effects!of!species’!characteristics!on!nongovernmental!organizations’!

!

! 72

attitudes!toward!species!conservation!policy.!Environment!and!Behavior!34:*

378P400.!

Kolbert,!E.!2009.!“The!Sixth!Extinction?”!The!New!Yorker,!May!25,!2009,!p.!53.!

Montgomery,!C.A.!2002.!Ranking!the!benefits!of!biodiversity:!an!exploration!of!

relative!values.!Journal!of!Environmental!Management!65:*313P326.!

Veríssimo,!D.,!I.!Fraser,!J.!Groombridge,!R.!Bristol!and!D.C.!MacMillan.!2009.!Birds!as!

tourism!flagship!species:!a!case!study!of!tropical!islands.!Animal!

Conservation!12:!549P558.!

Veríssimo,!D.,!D.C.!MacMillan!and!R.J.!Smith.!2011.!Toward!a!systematic!approach!for!

identifying!conservation!flagships.!Conservation!Letters!4(1):!1P8.!!

!

!

! 73

4: Endemism,* Peripheral* Species* and* Conservation*Practice*in*British*Columbia*

Emily!Meuser!and!Arne!Ø.!Mooers!

*

4.1 Abstract*

Prioritizing!species!for!conservation!attention!is!a!crucial!issue!facing!scientists!and!

policyPmakers! in! conservation! biology.! RegionallyPbased! institutions! that! focus! on!

species! locally! at! risk,! and! global! institutions! that! focus! on! the! status! of! species!

worldwide! can! conflict! in! the! conservation!priorities! they! identify! for! a!particular!

jurisdiction.! Furthermore,! the! biological! criteria! for! prioritization! can! yield! vastly!

different! threat! levels! for! species! when! employed! at! different! spatial! scales.! I!

explored!the!relationships!between!provincial!listing!status!of!terrestrial!mammals,!

amphibians!and!reptiles! in!British!Columbia!(BC;!Canada),!and!species’! total!range!

size,!global!listing!status!and!the!proportion!of!their!range!in!BC.!I!found!that,!while!

globallyPlisted!species!were!also!more!likely!to!be!listed!locally!in!BC,! lessPendemic!

species!were!more!likely!to!be!listed!than!morePendemic!species,!regardless!of!their!

global!range!size.!These!patterns!hold!independent!of!other!important!predictors!of!

species! listing!status!such!as!population!trend,!number!of!occurrences!of!a!species!

that!are!protected!(e.g.!within!a!nature!preserve),!whether!or!not!a!species’!range!is!

disjunct! in! BC,! and! the! taxon! of! a! species.! Our! results! suggest! that! current!

!

! 74

conservation!effort!may!be!overly!focused!on!the!status!of!species!at!the!local!level!

rather! than! on! global! stewardship,! which! is! likely! to! be! detrimental! to! global!

biodiversity!as!a!whole.!

!

4.2 Introduction*

Prioritizing! species! for! conservation! attention! in! the! face! of! widespread! species!

decline!and! loss! is!one!of! the!most! important! issues!currently! facing!conservation!

biologists! and! conservation! policyPmakers.! Setting! conservation! priorities! is!

complicated! by! the! fact! that! locally! based! institutions! (such! as! state! or! provincial!

conservation!authorities)!tend!to!focus!on!species!that!are!locally!at!risk!(Wells!et!al.!

2010),!while! institutions! that! focus! on! the! status! of! species! at! a! larger! scale! (e.g.!

NatureServe;! IUCN)! emphasize! species! that! are! globally! threatened.! Hence,! these!

bodies! can! conflict! in! the! conservation! priorities! they! identify! for! a! particular!

jurisdiction.!A!local!focus!can!neglect!global!patterns!of!rarity,!so!when!a!species!is!

locally!secure!but!globally!threatened,!it!may!be!underserved!by!local!conservation!

priorities.! Alternatively,! species! that! are! locally! rare! but! globally! secure! might!

receive!disproportionate!investment.!!For!example,!Wells!et!al.!(2010)!showed!that!

over! half! of! bird! species! included! on!U.S.! state! lists! of! conservation! priority!were!

species! that! both! were! at! low! risk! globally,! and! also! did! not! have! a! substantial!

proportion! of! their! global! population! within! the! listing! states.! This! type! of!

‘parochial’!conservation!prioritization!has!been!criticized!for!its!disproportionately!

high!(on!a!needs!basis)!resource!allocation!to!species! that!are!globally!secure.!For!

example,!when!the!scale!of!analysis!was!changed!from!treating!North!America!as!a!

!

! 75

single! unit! to! treating! all! North! American! (U.S.,! Mexico! and! Canada)! states! and!

provinces!separately,!Vazquez!et!al.!(2008)!found!that!the!number!of!‘priority!areas’!

identified!as!conservation!targets!in!order!to!protect!a!given!set!of!species!increased!

by! approximately! an! order! of!magnitude.! This! indicates! that! limited! conservation!

resources! will! be! allocated! less! efficiently! when! applied! to! local! conservation!

concerns.!

!

Local! conservation! priorities!may! particularly! conflict!with! global! priorities!when!

species! are! peripheral! in! a! particular! jurisdiction! (species! with! only! a! small!

proportion! of! their! range! falling! within! the! borders! of! a! particular! geopolitical!

entity;! Hunter! and! Hutchinson! 1994;! Bunnell! et! al.! 2004).! Conversely,! a! global!

conservation! focus,!while!aiming! to!maximize! the! total! level!of!biodiversity! that! is!

maintained! globally,! can! lead! to! loss! of! biodiversity! at! the! local! scale.! While!

jurisdictional!conservation!priorities!would!ideally!encompass!both!local!and!global!

conservation!concerns,!limited!human!or!financial!conservation!resources!constrain!

the!number!of!species!for!which!conservation!action!can!be!taken.!

!

In! the! context! of! such! resource! allocation! concerns,! a! socioPpolitical!

conceptualization!of!endemism!could!help!to!focus!scarce!conservation!resources!on!

species!that!exist!primarily!in!a!single!area!that!is!governed!by!a!particular!political!

body.! The! idea! that! socioPpolitical! entities! (e.g.! nations,! states)! should! accept!

stewardship! responsibility! for! species! with! a! substantial! proportion! of! species’!

ranges! falling! within! their! borders! is! consistent! with! a! public! preference! for! the!

!

! 76

conservation!of!locally!endemic!species!(Meuser!et!al.!2009;!Verissimo!et!al.!2009).!

When!the!concept!of!endemism!is!applied!in!the!geopolitical!sense,!endemism!works!

in! tandem! with! threat! to! define! a! concept! described! by! Bunnell! et! al.! (2004)! as!

‘global! stewardship! responsibility’! for! species.! This! approach! has! been! criticized!

because! socioPpolitical! boundaries! are! irrelevant! to! the! biological! entities!

themselves!(see,!e.g.!Connolly!et!al.!2010);!however,!as!conservation!resources!tend!

to! be! allocated! over! spatial! scales! much! smaller! than! the! span! of! many! species’!

geographical! ranges,! stewardship! responsibility! may! represent! an! approach! to!

conservation! prioritization! that! is! consistent! with! current! decisionPmaking!

frameworks!and!prePexisting!local!conservation!capabilities.!

!

Although!endemic!species!enjoy!public!(Meuser!et!al.!2009;!Verissimo!et!al.!2009)!

and! scientific! (Bunnell! et! al.! 2004)! support! for! their! conservation,! this! has! not!

translated! into!morePendemic! species! being! prioritized! for! conservation! at! either!

the! provincial! (Bunnell! et! al.! 2004)! or! the! federal! level! (Findlay! et! al.! 2009)! in!

Canada.!For!instance,!species!that!exist!only!within!the!single!Canadian!province!of!

BC!(true!endemics)!were!less!likely!to!be!listed!on!the!provincial!Red!and!Blue!lists!

than!peripheral!species!(species!for!which!<10%!of!their!range!falls!within!the!focal!

jurisdiction;!Bunnell! et! al.!2004).!CanadaPwide,!Findlay!et! al.! (2009)! found! that!as!

more!of!a!species’!range!fell!within!Canadian!borders,!the!less!likely!they!were!to!be!

listed!under!Canada’s! Species!At!Risk!Act! (SARA!2003),! although! this! relationship!

was! complicated! by! a! strong! relationship! between! degree! of! endemism! and!

!

! 77

taxonomy!(72%!of!the!morePendemic!species!were!mammals!or!fishes!in!their!data!

set).!

!

While! some!component!of! species’! risk! status!may! reflect! geopolitical!boundaries,!

biological! and! ecological! factors! are,! of! course,! important! to! the! listing! status! of!

species.! In! particular,! small! range! size! is! one! of! the!most! important! predictors! of!

extinction!risk!(Purvis!et!al.!2000).!Here,!I!investigate!how!an!ecological!factor,!total!

range!size,!interacted!with!a!humanPimposed!condition,!the!proportion!of!a!species’!

range! falling!within! a! jurisdiction,! in! their! effect! on! the! probability! that! a! species!

would!be!included!in!jurisdictional!lists!of!atPrisk!species.!

!

Following! from!the!preliminary! findings!of!Bunnell!et!al.! (2004;!Fig.!4.1a)!and! the!

federal! listing! patterns! documented! by! Findlay! et! al.! (2009)! that! morePendemic!

species!are!less!likely!to!be!listed,!I!predicted!that!species!with!larger!proportions!of!

their!ranges!in!BC!(more!endemic)!would!be!less!likely!to!be!provincially!listed!than!

species! with! a! smaller! proportion! of! their! ranges! in! BC! (more! peripheral).! I! also!

expected!that!because!small!ranges!can!reflect!greater!extinction!risk,!species!with!

smaller!range!sizes!would!be!more!likely!to!be!included!on!provincial!Red!and!Blue!

lists!of!atPrisk!species!than!species!with!larger!range!sizes,!for!a!given!proportion!of!

range! falling!within!BC! (Fig.! 4.1b).! Finally,! I! test! for! an! interaction!between! these!

two! factors:! if! conservation! prioritization! in! BC! is! blind! to! global! endangerment,!

then!we!might!expect!a!negative!interaction,!such!that!both!smallP!and!largePranged!

!

! 78

species!might!be! listed! if! they!are!peripheral,!while!only! smallPranged! species! are!

likely!to!be!listed!if!most!of!their!range!is!in!the!province.!

!

4.3 Methods*

I!obtained!extent!of!occurrence!(range)!maps!for!terrestrial!mammals,!amphibians!

and! reptiles! (N=135)! from! the! IUCN! website (http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-

documents/spatial-data; Accessed 22/09/2010).!Based!on! these!maps! (transformed! to!

cylindrical!equalPareas!projections),!I!used!ArcGIS!(9.3,!2008)!to!determine!the!total!

range!size!of!each!species,!and!the!proportion!of!each!species’!total!range!that!falls!

within!BC.!Both!total!range!size!and!proportion!of!range!in!BC!were!included!in!the!

analysis!as!transformed!variables!(log!and!arcsin!square!root,!respectively)!as!both!

raw!variables!were!nonPnormally!distributed.!!

!

I! obtained! information! on! the! number! of! adequately! protected! or! managed!

occurrences! of! each! species,! population! trends! and! global! status! from! the!

NatureServe!and!IUCN!websites.! Information!about!whether!or!not!species’!ranges!

are! disjunct! in! BC! (where! the! population! in! BC! is! geographically! separated! from!

other! populations! of! the! same! species)! was! obtained! from! Bunnell! et! al.! (2007).!

Table! 4.1! describes! the! variables! that! were! included! in! the! analysis.! Preliminary!

analysis! of! correlations! between! variables! showed! insufficient!multicollinearity! to!

warrant!excluding!any!variables!(correlations!ranged!from!|0.05|P!|0.5|;!Table!4.2).!

The!data!set!is!included!as!Appendix!C.!

!

! 79

!

The! binary! response! variable! (listed/not! listed)! was! based! on! provincial! listing!

status! from! the! BC! Ministry! of! Environment’s! Species! and! Ecosystems! Explorer!

(http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/atrisk/red-blue.htm;! Accessed! 30/09/2010).! For! the!

purposes!of!this!analysis,!I!classified!species!as!‘listed’!if!they!were!designated!under!

either!Red!or!Blue!lists,!and!‘not!listed’!if!species!were!provincially!Yellow!listed!(not!

at! risk),!or!were! indicated!as! ‘unknown’!or! ‘no!status.’! It! is! important! to!note! that!

these!provincial! lists!do!not!confer! legal!protection!on!species,!but!rather!serve! to!

identify!atPrisk!wildlife!for!the!purposes!of!conservation!prioritization,!or!to!inform!

more!formal!conservation!designations!at!the!provincial!or!federal!level.!!

!

I! predicted! that! there! would! be! an! interaction! between! the! total! range! size! of! a!

species! and! the! proportion! of! that! range! falling! within! BC! in! their! effect! on! the!

probability! that! a! species! will! be! listed! as! a! conservation! priority! (Fig.! 4.1b).!

Therefore,!both!of!these!variables,!as!well!as!their!interaction,!were!included!in!each!

candidate!model.! The! other! variables! listed! in! Table! 4.1!were! included! to! explain!

additional!variation!in!species’!probability!of!listing,!but!are!not!an!exhaustive!list!of!

variables! one! might! expect! to! be! influential! upon! this! outcome.! For! example,!

species’!economic!or!ecological!importance!is!not!included!in!this!analysis.!!

!

Given! the! dichotomous! outcome! variable! (listed/not! listed),! I! used! logistic!

regression! (which!constrains! the! response!variable! to!values!between!0!and!1)! to!

describe! a! candidate! set! of! linear! models.! I! then! used! an! informationPtheoretic!

!

! 80

approach! to! model! selection,! comparing! Akaike! information! criteria! from! each!

candidate! model! to! select! the! best! model! (lowest! AIC)! and! other! models! with!

substantial!empirical!support!(within!+2!AIC!units!of!the!best!model;!Burnham!and!

Anderson,! 2002).! In! order! to! explicitly! test! the!hypothesis! of! an! interaction! effect!

between! species’! range! size! and! the! proportion! of! their! range! in! BC! on! their!

probability! of! being! listed! in! BC,! I! generated! one!model! including! only! these! two!

variables!and!their!interaction!term,!as!well!as!a!model!including!all!variables!from!

the! best! model,! but! excluding! the! rangePbyPproportion! interaction! term,! and!

compared! the! AICs! from! these! models! to! the! best! model’s! AIC.! All! models! were!

tested!in!the!R!(2010)!software!environment!using!the!glm!command!of!the!linear!

and!nonPlinear!mixedPeffects!models!library!(Pinheiro!et!al.!2010;!R!package!version!

3.1P97).!!

!

4.4 Results**

ThirtyPseven!terrestrial!mammal,!amphibian!and!reptile!species!out!of!135!(27.4%)!

are!included!on!British!Columbian!Red!and!Blue!Lists,!with!species!that!are!globally!

at!risk!being!more!likely!to!be!listed!locally!than!species!that!are!not!globally!at!risk!

(χ2!=!21.11,!p<0.001;!Fig.!4.2).!Two!mammals!and!one!amphibian!have!IUCN!(global)!

Red! List! ranks! of! G1PG3,! or! Critically! Imperilled! to! Vulnerable! (Vancouver! Island!

Marmot,!G1;!Oregon!Spotted!Frog,!G2;!Keen’s!Myotis,!G2G3),!and!these!are!included!

on!BC!lists!of!atPrisk!species.!Eighteen!species!(7!amphibians!and!11!mammals)!have!

an!IUCN!Red!List!rank!of!G4PG4G5!(Apparently!Secure)!of!which!11!(4!amphibians!

!

! 81

and! 7!mammals)! are! included! on! provincial! lists.! The! remaining! 114! species! (12!

amphibians,!90!mammals,!and!12!reptiles)!have!an! IUCN!rank!of!G5,!or!Secure.!Of!

these,!23!(4!amphibians,!14!mammals!and!6!reptiles)!are!included!on!provincial!lists!

(Fig.!4.2).!!

The! model! of! provincial! listing! with! the! greatest! empirical! support! (model! 1a,!

AIC=86.77;!Table!4.3)! included! total! range!size,! the!proportion!of!species!range! in!

BC,!number!of!protected!occurrences,!population!trend,!and!the!interaction!between!

range!size!and!proportion!of!range!in!BC.!The!four!bestPsupported!models!of!listing!

probability!showed!a!positive!effect!of!range!size!and!proportion!of!range!in!BC,!and!

a!negative! relationship!with! the! interaction!between! range! size! and!proportion!of!

range!in!BC.!The!number!of!occurrences!of!a!species!that!are!protected!and!species!

population! trend!were! also! negatively! related! to! listing! probability,!while! species!

that!are!disjunct! in!BC!showed!a!positive!relationship!(models!3!and!4;!Table!4.3).!

Amphibians!and!reptiles!were!also!more!likely!to!be!listed!than!mammals!in!models!

2!and!4!(Table!4.3).!!

!

Importantly,!model!5,!which!included!only!range!size,!proportion!of!range!in!BC,!and!

their! interaction! term,! also! had! some! degree! of! empirical! support! (model! 5,! Δi! =!

3.08;! Table! 4.3),!meaning! that! these! three! terms! contribute! to! listing.! Conversely,!

when!the!interaction!term!was!removed!from!the!overall!bestPsupported!model,!the!

resulting!model!had!essentially!no!empirical! support! (model!1b,!Δi!=!20.11;!Table!

4.3).!!

!

!

! 82

The! interaction! between! total! range! size! and! proportion! of! species! range! in! BC!

captures! the! observation! that! species! with! both! small! and! large! ranges! were!

similarly! likely! to! be! provincially! listed! when! they! were! more! peripheral.! MoreP

endemic! species! having! small! global! ranges! were! somewhat! less! likely! to! be!

included! on! provincial! lists,!while!morePendemic! species!with! large! global! ranges!

were!much! less! likely! to!be!provincially! listed! (Figs.!4.1c!and!4.3).!Looking!at! this!

relationship! separately! by! taxonomic! group,! the! pattern! of! largePranged! species!

being!more!likely!to!be!listed!when!they!were!more!peripheral!holds!for!reptiles!and!

mammals,!but!not!for!amphibians!(Figs.!4.4aPc).!SmallPranged!species!were!equally!

likely! to!be!provincially! listed!with! either!high!or! low!proportions!of! their! ranges!

falling!within!BC!for!the!reptiles!and!amphibians,!while!morePendemic,!smallPranged!

mammals!were!more!likely!to!be!listed!than!smallPranged!mammals!that!were!more!

peripheral! (Figs.! 4.4aPc).! However,! given! the! small! number! of! species! generating!

these! relationships! for! the! reptiles! and! amphibians,! these! latter! taxonomic!

differences!should!be!interpreted!cautiously.!

Species’! total! range! size! and! the! proportion! of! their! range! falling!within! BC!were!

negatively!correlated!(r!=!P0.317,!p=!0.001;!Fig.!4.4aPc)!with!a!triangular!projection!

in!logPspace!due!in!part!to!the!total!hard!upper!limit!imposed!by!the!size!of!BC.!The!

extreme!end!of! the!distribution!was!comprised!of! largePranged!carnivores.!To! test!

these!species’!effect!on!the!relationships!obtained!in!the!models!described!below,!I!

rePran! the!analysis! excluding! the!5! largestPranged! carnivores! (Vulpes* vulpes,!Canis*

lupus,!Mustela* nivalis,!Mustela* erminea,! and!Ursus* arctos).!While! the!magnitude! of!

!

! 83

coefficients! generated! by! the! logit! regressions! changed! when! these! species! were!

excluded,!the!direction!and!significance!of!relationships!between!variables!did!not.!!

!

4.5 Discussion*

British! Columbian! conservation! priorities! are! relatively! congruent! with! global!

conservation!priorities!for!terrestrial!mammals,!amphibians!and!reptiles!(Fig.!4.2).!

However,!given!that!only!three!species!in!this!data!set!are!at!highPrisk!globally,!this!

is! not! necessarily! indicative! of! provincial! policy! being! intentionally! in! line! with!

global!priorities.!Indeed,!Bunnell!et!al.’s!(2004)!findings!indicate!that!this!is!unlikely!

to! be! the! case.! A!majority! of! species! (11/18=61%)! in! the! G4! global! risk! category!

were! listed! provincially,! but! it! is! perhaps! concerning! that! not! all! of! these! species!

were! listed! in! preference! to! other,! listed! species! in! the! G5! (secure)! global! risk!

category!(for!which!23/114=20%!of!species!in!this!data!set!were!provincially!listed;!

Fig.!4.2).!

!

Applying! conservation! criteria! at! the! regional! level! has! been! critiqued! for! two,!

conflicting!reasons:!the!unaltered!application!of!global!criteria!at!a!local!scale!when!

that! is!not! reflective!of! the! local! status!of! the! species;! and! the! application!of! local!

criteria!within!jurisdictional!boundaries!without!regard!for!species’!ecological!status!

in! neighbouring! regions! (Bunnell! et! al.! 2004).! The! former! problem! will! tend! to!

downplay!local!risk!factors,!while!the!latter!exaggerates!local!phenomena!that!may!

or!may!not!be!important!to!the!population!at!an!ecologically!relevant!scale.!Based!on!

!

! 84

the! results! of! this! analysis,! BC! appears! to! fall! in! the! second! category,!with!moreP

peripheral!species!being!more!likely!to!be!included!on!lists!of!conservation!concern!

than! species! for! which! BC! bears! greater! global! responsibility.! Specifically,! the!

hypothesis!of!an!interaction!effect!between!total!range!size!and!proportion!of!range!

in! BC! was! supported! by! the! analysis,! indicating! that! while! jurisdictional! rarity!

influences!regional!listings,!this!effect!does!not!operate!independently!of!biological!

rarity.!It!is,!however,!important!to!note!that!our!data!do!not!allow!us!to!comment!on!

whether! these! listing! decisions! are! positive! or! negative! for! biodiversity!

conservation! in! the! province,! as! this!would! require! information! about,! e.g.! future!

range!shifts!due!to!climate!change,!the!opportunity!costs!of!listing!one!species!over!

others,!and!the!effect!of!local!listing!status!on!the!conservation!of!a!species.!

!

SmallPranged!species!are! intrinsically!more! likely! to!be! threatened!with!extinction!

than!species!with!larger!ranges!(Gaston!1994),!so,!other!things!being!equal,!should!

be!more!likely!to!be!included!on!lists!of!conservation!concern.!The!fact!that!smallP

ranged!species!were!more!likely!to!be!listed!when!they!were!more!peripheral!than!

when!they!were!more!endemic!to!the!province!indicates!that!spanning!a!geopolitical!

border!has!an!impact!on!how!species!are!treated!within!the!province.!It!appears!that!

jurisdictional! priorities! in! BC! tend! to! focus! on! biological! and! ecological! variables!

that!are!BCPspecific,!regardless!of!the!status!of!species!beyond!provincial!borders.!!

!

Notably,! morePperipheral,! largePranged! species! were! equally! likely! to! be! listed!

provincially!as!more!peripheral,! smallPranged!species,!and!more! likely! to!be! listed!

!

! 85

than!small!ranged!species!that!were!more!endemic.!These! largePranged!peripheral!

species!(e.g.!Vulpes*vulpes,!Canis* lupus,!Mustela*nivalis;!all!with!<2%!of!their!global!

range! in!BC)!are! those! for!which!BC! is!unlikely! to!contribute!substantially! to! their!

current! conservation.! Indeed,! targeting! these! species! as! conservation! priorities!

overlooks! the! fact! that! species! have! natural! spatial! extents.! There! has! been!

extensive!study!of! the! factors! limiting!the!geographic!distributions!of!species!(see,!

e.g.,!Gaston!2003).!These!include!insufficient!resources!(Alkon!and!Saltz!1988),!high!

mortality! or! poor! growth! or! development! of! young! (St.! Clair! and! Gregory! 1990;!

Morita! and! Yamamoto! 2000),! and! low! genetic! variability! (Yamashita! and! Polis!

1995)! at! species’! range! margins,! while! gene! flow! from! central! populations! to!

peripheral! populations! can! prevent! adaptation! of! local! populations! to! local!

conditions! (Kirkpatrick! and! Barton! 1997;! Bridle! and! Vines! 2006).! Because!

conditions!at!the!margins!of!a!species’!range!are!less!favourable!to!the!species!than!

conditions! at! the! centre! (Lesica! and! Allendorf! 1995),! populations! at! the! edges! of!

ranges! tend! to! be! smaller! and!more! fragmented! (Brown! et! al.! 1995;! Thomas! and!

Kunin! 1999),! and! show! more! demographic! variability! and! different! genetic!

structure! (Vucetich! and! Waite! 2003)! than! those! at! the! centre.! Essentially,! these!

factors! amount! to! peripheral! populations! more! likely! being! sink! populations,!

characterized! by! a! lower! birth! rate! than! death! rate! and! therefore! dependent! on!

continual!migration! from!connected!source!populations.!Setting! local!conservation!

priorities! for! species! having! fluctuating! populations! across! a! geopolitical! border!

because! they! appear! to! be! at! risk! ignores! these! important! issues:! Bunnell! et! al.!

(2004)!note!that!the!suite!of!peripheral!species!considered!to!be!locally!at!risk!in!a!

!

! 86

particular! jurisdiction! would! change! if! the! borders! of! that! jurisdiction! shifted,!

without!a!change!in!the!species’!abundance!or!distribution.!Thus,!apparent!species!

rarity!can!be!the!result!of!humanPimposed!boundaries.!

!

While!inclusion!of!species!as!conservation!priorities!simply!by!merit!of!their!being!

peripheral! is! not! a! good! strategy,! deprioritizing! species! simply! because! they! are!

peripheral! is!similarly!unwise.!For!example,!a! local!focus!can!also!help!to!motivate!

local! conservation! efforts! beyond! regulatory! status,! given! that! this! is! the! scale! at!

which!most!conservation!organizations!operate.!Such!local!concern!is!likely!to!lead!

to!better!conservation!outcomes.!!

!

There! are! also! biologically! compelling! reasons! for! prioritizing! peripheral!

populations!for!conservation!(e.g.!Fraser!2000).!In!general,!species!tend!to!collapse!

toward! the! edges! of! their! ranges! (Lomolino! and! Channell! 1995),! and! are!

rediscovered!at!the!edges!of!their!range!where!they!may!be!isolated!from!threats!at!

the! range! centre! (Fisher! and! Blomberg! 2010;! Fisher! 2011).! So,! peripheral!

populations! of! species! have! been! used! to! repopulate! more! central! portions! of! a!

species’! range! when! central! populations! suffer! from! extreme! bottlenecks! or! are!

extirpated!(e.g.!sea!otter,!Watson!et!al.!1997).!Margins!of!species!ranges!have!also!

been! identified! as! areas! where! speciation! may! be! more! likely! to! occur,! due! to!

reduced! gene! flow! from! central! populations! and! different! abiotic! and! biotic!

conditions!(Keyghobadi!et!al.!2005).!!

!

!

! 87

Especially!with!regard!to!peripheral!species,!a! local!conservation!focus!can!help!to!

maintain!the!full!complement!of!genetic!diversity!(Manos!et!al.!1999)!and!ecological!

roles!represented!within!a!species.!Populations!on! the!margins!of!a!species’! range!

can!be!adapted!to!more!extreme!environments!(Parsons!1991;!Lesica!and!Allendorf!

1995;! Guo! et! al.! 2005;! Bears! et! al.! 2009)! or! be! involved! in! different! ecological!

associations! than! populations! nearer! the! centre! of! the! range! (Hunter! and!

Hutchinson! 1994;! Hardie! and! Hutchings! 2010).! This! is! particularly! true! when!

peripheral! populations! are! also!disjunct! (Bunnell! et! al.! 2004).! These! observations!

imply!that!neglecting!species!that!are!peripheral! in!BC!may!have!consequences!for!

these!species’!future!persistence.!

!

Importantly,! species’! ranges! are! not! static.! Faced! with! projected! shifts! in! species!

ranges!associated!with!global!climate!change,! in! this!case!study,!southern!areas!of!

British!Columbia!may!become!an!increasingly!important!refuge!for!species!that!are!

unable!to!tolerate!newly!inhospitable!climates!in!their!historical!ranges.!Population!

adaptations!to!more!marginal!conditions!may!aid!species!in!shifting!their!ranges!in!

response!to!climate!change!(Crozier!2003).!!!

!

Administratively,!the!picture!for!provincial!listing!of!species,!particularly!of!endemic!

species,! may! soon! change! in! British! Columbia:! the! province’s! new! Conservation!

Framework!(Ministry!of!Environment!2009)!includes!an!explicit!focus!on!species!for!

which! British! Columbia! bears! a! high! stewardship! responsibility! (Bunnell! et! al.!

2004).!Local!environmental!NGOs!have!spoken!out!against!this!move!(Connolly!et!al.!

!

! 88

2010),!fearing!that!BC!may!now!justify!an!overall!less!resourcePintensive!approach,!

with! a! focus! on! morePendemic! species! while! neglecting! morePperipheral! species.!

These!concerns!may!be!wellPfounded:!NinetyPsix!per!cent!of!BC’s!species!are!shared!

with! other! jurisdictions,! with!many! of! these! being! peripheral! (67%! of!mammals,!

amphibians!and!reptiles!had!<10%!of!their!range!falling!within!BC!in!this!data!set);!

deprioritizing! these! species! at! the! provincial! level! may! have! important!

consequences! for! local! biodiversity! (Connolly! et! al.! 2010).! It! is! imaginable! that! a!

provincial! conservation!strategy! that! focuses!on!species! that!are!more!endemic! to!

the!province!could!be!‘successful’!at!protecting!its!target!species!while!the!majority!

of!provincial!biodiversity!remained!locally!at!risk.!

!

Ecologists! have! long! recognized! the! necessity! of! incorporating! information! across!

different! spatial! and! temporal! scales! (Levin! 1992;! Gaston! 2003).! An! approach! to!

conservation!that!is!balanced!between!local!and!global!priorities!is! likely!to!be!the!

best! strategy! to! maintaining! the! maximum! level! of! biodiversity.! However,! the!

optimal! approach! to! conservation! priorities! depends! on! the! desired! outcomes! of!

conservation,! and! these! are! not! always! clear.! That! said,! the! patterns! I! document!

here! are! consistent! with! the! view! that! current! conservation! effort! may! be! too!

focused!on!the!status!of!species!at!the!local!level,!perhaps!to!the!detriment!of!global!

biodiversity,! if! overPallocation! of! limited! conservation! resources! to! locally! rare!

species!while! neglecting! globally! threatened! species! contributes! to! global! species!

loss!(Bunnell!et!al.!2004;!Wells!2010).!!

!

!

! 89

Making!appropriate!conservation!prioritization!decisions! is!contingent!upon!being!

clear! about! the! specific! objectives! of,! and! timescale! relevant! to,! the! particular!

conservation!focus!in!a!given!situation.!There!are!compelling!reasons!to!protect!both!

morePendemic! and! lessPendemic! species,! and! deciding! which! species! to! focus!

conservation! attention! on! requires! input! from! both! the! natural! and! social!

(economics,!policy,!psychology/sociology)!sciences.!Ensuring!that!species!for!which!

a!jurisdiction!has!high!stewardship!responsibility!are!afforded!protection!may!help!

to!remedy!the!situation!documented!here!in!which!species!that!the!province!is!least!

able! to! protect! (peripheral! species)! are! those! that! are! most! likely! to! be! listed.!

However,!peripheral!species!are!also!important!in!their!contribution!to!overall!local!

biodiversity,! as! well! as! improving! the! chances! of! species’! persistence.! Limited!

conservation!resources!necessitate!difficult!decision!making!between!conservation!

priorities,! and! this! will! always! be! an! uncomfortable! and! delicate! balance.!

!

! 90

*

4.6 Figures**

a)! ! b)! ! c)! !

Figure!4.1:!Contrasting!predictions!of!species!prioritization,!based!on!the!findings!of!Bunnell!et!al.!(2004;!a),!the!hypothesis!of!an!interaction!effect!on!provincial!listing!status!between!range!size!and!proportion!of!range!in!British!Columbia!presented!here!(b),!and!the!results!of!the!analysis!(c).!Rectangles!represent!the!focus!jurisdiction,!while!ovals!represent!species’!ranges.!DarkPshaded!ranges!are!predicted!to!have!a!higher!probability!of!being!included!as!conservation!priorities,!unshaded!the!lowest!probability,!and!greyPhatched!a!medium!probability.!I!did!not!make!a!prediction!about!the!difference!in!probability!of!listing!between!the!two!greyPhatched!ranges!in!b).!

! !

!

! 91

!

!!Figure!4.2:!British!Columbian!conservation!listings!of!mammal,!reptile!and!

amphibian!species,!compared!to!global!status!(IUCN!Redlist)!ranks.!N!=!135;!species!for!which!provincial!status!was!listed!as!‘unknown’!or!‘no!status’!were!included!as!Not!Listed.!The!proportion!of!species!listed!provincially!is!higher!for!species!listed!globally!as!not!secure,!G<5!(chiPsquare!test,!p<0.001).!! !

*

*

*!p<!0.001

n!=!22 n!=!114

!

! 92

!

!Figure!4.3:!Listing!probability!for!species!with!large!or!small!range!sizes,!with!small!

(less!endemic)!or!large!(more!endemic)!proportions!of!their!ranges!falling!within!BC.!!

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

Less endemic More endemic

Pred

icte

d pr

obab

ility

of

listin

g

(log%od

ds)%

Small Range

Large Range

!

! 93

!!

Figure!4.4:!Plots!of!a)!amphibian,!b)!mammal,!and!c)!reptile!species’!log!total!range!sizes!versus!the!proportion!of!their!range!in!BC.!Filled!points!indicate!provincially!listed!species;!open!points!indicate!unlisted!species.

!

! 94

4.7 Tables**

Table!4.1:!Variables!included!in!logit!models!of!species’!local!listing!probability.!

Variable! Traits!Total!range!size! Continuous;!6744P51!600!000!km2!

Proportion!of!range!in!BC! Continuous;!<0.01P1.00!Disjunct!in!BC! Categorical;!1!if!species’!range!is!disjunct!

in!BC,!0!otherwise!Occurrences!protected! Categorical;!0!if!none,!1!if!few,!2!if!

moderate,!3!if!many!Population!trend! Categorical;!P1!if!declining,!0!if!stable,!1!if!

increasing!Amphibian! 1!if!amphibian,!0!otherwise!Reptile! 1!if!reptile,!0!otherwise!

!

!

! 95

Table!4.2:!Correlations!among!variables!included!in!models.!Read!cells!as:!Pearson!correlation!(r);!P6value.!N=!105!for!all!comparisons.!

! Total!range!size!

Proportion!of!range!in!

BC!

Disjunct! Occurrences!protected!

Population!trend!

Amphibian!

Proportion!of!range!in!BC!

P0.317!!0.001!

! ! ! !!!

!!

! ! ! ! ! ! !Disjunct!in!BC! P0.092!!

0.348!P0.135!!0.169!

! !!!

!!!

!!

! ! ! ! ! ! !Occurrences!protected!

0.193!!0.049!

P0.217!!0.026!

0.115!!0.244!

! !!!

!!!

! ! ! ! ! ! !Population!trend!

0.103!!0.295!

P0.191!!0.051!

P0.218!!0.026!

0.248!!0.011!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !Amphibian! P0.227!!

0.020!0.140!!0.154!

0.254!!0.009!

0.056!!0.568!

P0.506!<0.001!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !Reptile! P0.187!!

0.056!P0.057!!0.561!

0.201!!0.040!

0.353!!<0.001!

0.100!!0.311!

n/a!

! !

!

! 96

!Table!4.3:!Variables!retained!in!models!of!provincial!listing!status.!Model!1a!has!the!

greatest!empirical!support,!while!models!2P4!have!Δi!<2.!Model!5!includes!only!the!variables!involved!in!the!hypothesis:!range,!proportion!of!range!in!BC!and!their!interaction.!Model!1b!is!the!bestPsupported!model!(1a)!with!the!interaction!term!(Total!range!size*Proportion!of!range!in!BC)!removed.!!

Model! Variables!included! Coefficient!(95%!C.I.)! AIC! Δi!1a! Total!range!size!

Proportion!of!range!in!BC!Population!trend!Occurrences!protected!Range*Proportion!

0.39!(P0.87,!1.66)!!41.47!(14.21,!74.65)!P1.62!(P3.23,!P0.26)!P0.17!(P0.94,!0.63)!P8.76!(P15.05,!P3.72)!

86.77* 0!

2! Total!range!size!Proportion!of!range!in!BC!Population!trend!Occurrences!protected!Amphibian!Reptile!Range*Proportion!

0.88!(P0.54,!2.36)!45.06!(16.18,!79.25)!P0.98!(P2.81,!0.60)!P0.90!(P2.06,!0.18)!1.58!(P0.61,!3.87)!1.89!(P0.08,!4.06)!P9.34!(P15.78,!P4.05)!

86.82* 0.05!

3! Total!range!size!Proportion!of!range!in!BC!Population!trend!Occurrences!protected!Disjunct!in!BC!Range*Proportion!

0.49!(P0.80,!1.80)!42.48!(14.74,!76.14)!P1.51!(P3.14,!P0.11)!P0.24!(P1.04,!0.57)!1.45!(P1.75,!5.19)!P8.89!(P15.27,!P3.78)!

88.04! 1.27!

4! Total!range!size!Proportion!of!range!in!BC!Population!trend!Occurrences!protected!Disjunct!in!BC!Amphibian!Reptile!Range*Proportion!

0.95!(P0.49,!2.48)!46.19!(16.76,!81.00)!P0.91!(P2.75,!0.69)!P0.94!(P2.12,!0.15)!1.02!(P2.14,!4.79)!1.60!(P0.61,!3.92)!1.78!(P0.23,!3.97)!P9.51!(P16.08,!P4.14)!

88.46* 1.69!

5! Total!range!size!Proportion!of!range!in!BC!Range*Proportion!

0.42!(P0.74,!1.57)!43.90!(16.47,!75.09)!P9.01!(P14.89,!P4.03)!

89.85! 3.08!

1b! Total!range!size!Proportion!of!range!in!BC!Population!trend!Occurrences!Protected!

P1.33!(P2.15,!P0.61)!!P4.58!(P7.69,!P1.99)!P1.41!(P2.62,!P0.29)!P0.06!(P0.75,!0.66)!

106.88! 20.11!

!!

!

! 97

4.8 Reference*List*

!

Alkon, P.U. and D. Saltz. 1988. Foraging time and the northern range limits of Indian

crested porcupines (Hystrix indica Kerr) Journal of Biogeography 15(3): 403-408.

Bears, H., K. Martin and G.C. White. 2009. Breeding in high-elevation habitat results in

shift to slower life-history strategy within a single species. Journal of Animal

Ecology 78: 365–375.

Bridle, J.R. and T. Vines. 2006. Limits to evolution at range margins: When and why

does adaptation fail? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 22(3): 140-147.

Brown,! J.H.,! D.W!Mehlman! and! G.C! Stevens.! 1995.! Spatial! variation! in! abundance,!

Ecology!76(7):!2028P2043.!

Bunnell, F.L., R.W. Campbell and K.A. Squires. 2004. Conservation priorities for

peripheral species: the example of British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forestry

Research 34(11): 2240-2247.

Bunnell,! F.L.,! L.! Kremsater! and! I.! Houde.! 2007.! Data! file:! Appendices! for! Global!

Responsibility! for! BC! Species_November! 2007.xls.! Available! at!

www.biodiversitybc.org!

Burnham,!K.P.!and!D.R.!Anderson.!2002.!!Model*selection*and*multimodel*inference:*a*

practical* information6theoretic* approach.! 2nd!Edition.! SpringerPVerlag,!New!

York,!New!York,!USA.!

Connolly,! M.,! K.! Ferguson,! S.! Pinkus! and! F.! Moola.! 2010.! On! the! edge:! British!

Columbia’s! unprotected! transboundary! species.! David! Suzuki! Foundation,!

Vancouver.!

!

! 98

Crozier,!L.!2003.!Winter!warming!facilitates!range!expansion:!cold!tolerance!of!the!

butterfly!Atalopedes*campestris.!Oecologia*135:!648–656.!

Findlay, C.S., S. Elgie, B. Giles and L. Burr. 2009. Species Listing under Canada's

Species at Risk Act. Conservation Biology 23(6): 1609-1617.

Fisher, D.O. and S.P. Blomberg. 2010. Correlates of rediscovery and the detectability of

extinction in mammals. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biological

Science 278: 1090-1097.

Fisher,!D.O.!2011.!Trajectories!from!extinction:!Where!are!missing!mammals!

rediscovered?!Global!Ecology!and!Biogeography!20(3):!415P425.!

Fraser,!D.F.!2000.!Species!at!the!edge:!the!case!for!listing!of!“peripheral”!species.!In*

At! risk:! Proceedings! of! a! Conference! on! the! Biology! and! Management! of!

Species! and! Habitats! at! Risk,! Kamloops,! British! Columbia,! 15–19! February!

1999.!Edited*by*L.!Darling.!British!Columbia!Ministry!of!Environment,!Lands!

and!Parks,!Victoria,!B.C.!pp.!49–53.!

Gaston,!K.J.!1994.!Rarity.!London:!Chapman!&!Hall!

Gaston,! K.J.! 2003.! The! structure! and! dynamics! of! geographic! ranges.! Oxford,! UK:!

Oxford!University!Press.!

Guo,! Q.,! M.! Taper,! M.! Schoenberger! and! J.! Brandle.! 2005.! SpatialPtemporal!

population! dynamics! across! species! range:! from! centre! to! margin.* Oikos!

108(1):!47–57.!

Hardie, D.C. and J.A. Hutchings. 2010. Evolutionary ecology at the extremes of species

ranges. Environmental Reviews 18: 1-20.

!

! 99

Hunter M.L. and A. Hutchinson. 1994. The virtues and shortcomings of parochialism:

conserving species that are locally rare, but globally common. Conservation

Biology 8(4): 1163-1165.

IUCN!(2009)!IUCN!Red!List!of!threatened!species.!http://www.iucnredlist.org/,!Species!

Survival!Commission,!Gland,!Switzerland.!

Keyghobadi, N., J. Roland and C. Strobeck. 2005. Genetic differentiation and gene flow

among populations of the alpine butterfly, Parnassius smintheus, vary with

landscape connectivity. Molecular Ecology 14(7): 1897-1909.

Kirkpatrick, M. and N.H. Barton. 1997. Evolution of a species’ range. American

Naturalist 150: 1-23.

Lesica, P. and F.W. Allendorf. 1995. When are peripheral populations valuable for

conservation? Conservation Biology 9(4): 753-760.

Levin,! S.A.! 1992.! The! problem! of! pattern! and! scale! in! ecology:! the! Robert! H.!

MacArthur!award!lecture.!Ecology!73(6):!1943P1967.!

Lomolino, M.V. and R. Channell. 1995. Splendid isolation: patterns of geographic range

collapse in endangered mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 76(2): 335-347.

Manos, P.S., J.J. Doyle and K.C. Nixon. 1999. Phylogeny, biogeography, and processes

of molecular differentiation in Quercus subgenus Quercus (Fagaceae). Molecular

Phylogenetics and Evolution 12(3): 333-349.

Meuser, E., H.W. Harshaw and A.Ø. Mooers. 2009. Public preference for endemism over

other conservation-related species attributes. Conservation Biology 23(4): 1041-

1046.

Ministry!of!Environment.!2009.!Conservation!priorities!for!species!and!ecosystems!

!

! 100

primer.!Available!at:!www.env.gov.bc.ca/conservationframework/index.html!

Mooers, A.Ø., L.R. Prugh, M. Festa‐Bianchet and J.A. Hutchings. 2007. Biases in legal

listing under Canadian endangered species legislation. Conservation Biology

21(3): 572-575.

Mooers,!A.Ø.,!D.F.!Doak,!C.S.!Findlay,!D.M.!Green,!C.!Grouios,!L.L.!Manne,!A.!Rashvand,!

M.A.!Rudd!and!J.!Whitton.!2010.!Science,!policy,!and!species!at!risk!in!Canada.!

BioScience!60(10):!843P849.!

Morita, K. and S. Yamamoto. 2000. Occurrence of a deformed white-spotted charr,

Salvelinus leucomaenis (Pallas), population on the edge of its distribution.

Fisheries Management Ecology 7: 551-553.

Parsons,! P.A.! 1991.! Evolutionary! rates:! stress! and! species! boundaries.! Annual!

Review!of!Ecology!and!Systematics!22(1):!1–18.!

Pinheiro,!J.,!D.!Bates,!S.!DebRoy,!D.!Sarkar!and!the!R!Development!Core!Team.!2010.!

nlme:!Linear!and!Nonlinear!Mixed!Effects!Models.!R!package!version!3.1P97.!

Purvis,! A.,! J.L.! Gittleman,!G.! Cowlishaw!and!G.M.!Mace.! 2000.! Predicting! extinction!

risk! in! declining! species.! Proceedings! of! the! Royal! Society! of! London! B!

Biological!Science!267:!1947P1952.!

R! Development! Core! Team.! 2010.! R:! A! language! and! environment! for! statistical!

computing.!R!Foundation!for!Statistical!Computing,!Vienna,!Austria.! ISBN!3P

900051P07P0,!URL!http://www.R-project.org/!

St.! Clair,!R.C.! and!P.T.!Gregory.! 1990.! Factors! affecting! the!northern! range! limit! of!

painted! turtles! (Chrysemys* picta):! winter! acidosis! or! freezing?! Copeia! 4:!

1083P1089.!

!

! 101

Thomas, C.D. and W.E. Kunin. 1999. The spatial structure of populations. Journal of

Animal Ecology 68(4): 647-657.

Vazquez,! L.B.,! P.! Rodríguez! and! H.T.! Arita.! 2008.! Conservation! planning! in! a!

subdivided!world.!Biodiversity!Conservation!17(6):!1367P1377.!

Veríssimo, D., I. Fraser, J. Groombridge, R. Bristol and D.C. MacMillan. 2009. Birds as

tourism flagship species: a case study of tropical islands. Animal Conservation

12: 549-558.

Vucetich, J.A. and T.A. Waite. 2003. Spatial patterns of demography and genetic

processes across the species’ range: null hypotheses for landscape conservation

genetics. Conservation Genetics 4(5): 639–645.

Watson,!J.C.,!G.M.!Ellis!and!J.K.!Ford.!1997.!Updated!status!of!the!sea!otter,!Endhydra*

lutris!in!Canada.!Canadian!Field!Naturalist!111:!277–286.!

Wells,! J.V.,! B.! Robertson,! K.V.! Rosenberg! and! D.W.! Mehlman.! 2010.! Global! versus!

local! conservation! focus! of! U.S.! state! agency! endangered! bird! species! lists.!

PLoS!One!5(1):!1P5.!

Yamashita,!T.!and!G.A.!Polis.!1995.!Geographical!analysis!of!scorpion!populations!on!

habitat!islands.!Heredity!75(5):!495P505.!

!

!

!

!

!

! 102

5: Discussion*

!

This!thesis!sought!to!investigate!the!values!that!the!British!Columbian!public!holds!

for! different! species! attributes! (Ch.! 2),! how! these! preferences! are! influenced! by!

socioeconomic!variables!of! the!public! (Ch.!3),! and!how!well! these!preferences!are!

reflected!in!current!lists!of!atPrisk!species!in!the!province!(Ch.!4).!This!information!

can,!perhaps,!be!used! to!help! inform!conservation!priorities!and!opportunities! for!

education!at!the!provincial!level.!!

!

It!is!important!to!note!the!limitations!of!survey!methodology.!Surveys!are!subject!to!

response! bias,! as! not! all! potential! respondents! actually! participate.! This! nonP

response!may!correspond!with!some!third!variable!that!differentiates!those!who!did!

not!respond!from!those!who!did;!thus,!the!survey!results!may!not!be!representative!

of!the!BC!population.!Here,!the!survey!respondents!tended!to!be!older,!more!likely!

to!be!male,!and!having!more!years!of!education!than!the!BC!population!as!a!whole,!

which!may!have!had!an! influence!on! the! results! that! I!obtained! in!my!analysis.! In!

particular,! those!who! responded! to! the! survey!may!have!been!more! interested! in!

environmental!issues!than!those!who!did!not!respond.!!

!

In! addition,! the! survey! instrument! itself! was! imperfect,! and! it! is! likely! based! on!

some! of! the! freePform! comments! on! the! returned! surveys! that! not! all! survey!

!

! 103

participants!understood!all!of! the! survey!questions! in! the!way! that! the!authors!of!

the! instrument! had! intended.! Understanding! of! the! survey! may! also! have! been!

complicated! by! the! fact! that! some! of! the! questions! involved! concepts! and!

terminology!that!may!have!been!complex!and!unfamiliar!to!survey!participants.!!

!

In! order! to! address! these! limitations,! the! survey! instrument! should! be! tested!

thoroughly!on!a!sample!of!its!target!audience!in!order!to!ensure!that!any!necessary!

clarifications!are!made!to!the!questions,!and!followPup!calls!should!be!made!to!nonP

respondents! to!elucidate!whether! this!group!differs! from!survey! respondents! in!a!

systematic! way.! While! we! did! take! steps! to! address! the! survey! limitations,! time!

constraints! made! it! difficult! to! fully! test! the! final! incarnation! of! the! survey!

instrument!before!it!was!mailed.!Harshaw!(2008)!found!few!significant!differences!

between!early!and!late!survey!responders,!although!we!did!not!follow!up!with!nonP

responders.!!

!

Most! notably,! I! found! a! general! preference! for! prioritizing! endemism,! and! a! nonP

preference! for! species! that! are! at! risk! in! BC! but! common! elsewhere—which!

describes!many!peripheral!species! in!the!province!(Ch.!2).! Interestingly,!this! is!the!

opposite! pattern! that! I! observed! in! species! included! in! provincial! lists! of! atPrisk!

species:!morePperipheral!(less!endemic)!species!were!more!likely!to!be!included!on!

such!lists!than!more!endemic!(lessPperipheral)!species,!regardless!of!total!range!size!

(Ch.! 4).! This! may! represent! the! application! of! a! local,! as! opposed! to! a! global,!

conservation! focus,! whereby! only! the! status! of! a! species! within! a! certain!

!

! 104

jurisdiction’s!boundaries!is!taken!into!account.!When!the!margins!of!a!species’!range!

enter! British! Columbia,! the! small! and! often! fluctuating! population! and! range! size!

within!the!province!makes!it!likely!that!the!species!will!be!regarded!by!the!province!

as! a! target! for! conservation.!While! it! is! unlikely! that! peripheral! species! are!more!

likely! to!be! at! risk! globally,! they! are! certainly!more! likely! to!appear! to! be! at! risk!

within!the!jurisdiction!in!which!they!are!peripheral,!and!are!therefore!more!likely!to!

be!listed!as!a!local!conservation!priority.!It!will!be!interesting!to!see!if!and!how!this!

situation! changes! with! BC’s! new! Conservation! Framework’s! primary! focus! on!

species!for!which!the!province!bears!global!responsibility.!

!

However,!this!does!not!mean!that!peripheral!species!should!therefore!be!summarily!

dePprioritized.!Bunnell!(2004)!reports!that!the!proportion!of!continuous!peripheral!

species! in! British! Columbia! for! various! taxa! ranges! between! 31.8%! for! fishes! to!

87.5%!for!reptiles.!In!my!data!set,!66.7%!of!species!had!less!than!10%!of!their!range!

falling! within! BC.! This! represents! a! substantial! amount! of! the! province’s!

biodiversity.! A! more! reasonable! approach! to! appropriately! focusing! scarce!

conservation! resources! to!where! they!are!most!needed!and!will! be!most! effective!

requires!a!collaborative!approach!with!bordering!jurisdictions,!particularly!with!the!

American! States! of! the! Pacific! Northwest.! Since! the! province! appears! to! be!

considering!enacting!species!protection!laws!in!the!coming!years,!this!should!be!an!

area!that!is!concurrently!discussed.!

!

!

! 105

Although! it! is! unfortunate! that! the! province! has! not,! to! date,! enacted! effective!

species! protection! legislation,! it! is! encouraging! that! the! British! Columbian! public!

reports!widespread! acceptance! of! an! ecological!worldview! (Appendix!A).! As!well,!

while!I!was!involved!in!data!entry!for!the!public!opinions!survey!that!forms!the!core!

of! this! thesis,! I! was! struck! by! the! number! and! quality! of! optional! freePform!

comments! that! survey! respondents! submitted! along! with! their! survey! responses!

(these! comments! are! documented! in! Harshaw! 2008).! It! seems! that! many! British!

Columbians! are! both! wellPinformed! and! passionate! about! environmental! issues;!

this,! coupled! with! their! generally! biocentric! worldviews! should! provide! fertile!

ground!for!enacting!publiclyPsupported!species!protection!legislation.!This!province!

should! also! provide! a! receptive! audience! for! educational! messages! about! BC’s!

biodiversity! and!wildlife! conservation.! In! particular,! given! that! people! with! postP

secondary! education! tended! to! not! prefer! prioritizing! peripheral! species! for!

conservation! (Ch.! 3),! this! would! seem! to! be! an! opportunity! for! ENGOs! to! create!

targeted!messages!(since!these!organizations!promote!the!importance!of!protecting!

peripheral!species!in!BC;!Connolly!et!al.!2010).!!

!

Though! not! explicitly! investigated! in! this! thesis,! it! is! important! to! emphasize! the!

necessity!of!setting!effective!conservation!priorities.!Global!conservation!priorities!

currently! focus! attention! on! species! that! are! most! likely! to! go! extinct,! without!

generally!resourcePintensive!intervention.!Once!again,!this!represents!a!reactionary!

approach! to! conservation! that! is! not! the!most! cost! effective,! or,! indeed,! the!most!

effective!in!terms!of!preventing!species!loss.!Working!to!secure!populations!that!are!

!

! 106

already! relatively! stable! or! easy! to! recover,! to! ensure! that! they! do! not! become!

threatened,!should!be!the!major!focus!of!most!conservation!attention!and!resources.!

This! will! help! to! ensure! that! the! essential! lifePsupport! systems! and! ecosystem!

services!provided!by!natural!infrastructure!remain!functional.!!

!

It! is! also! important! to! stress! that! conservation! prioritization! requires! decisionP

making.!As!scientific!a!process!as!it!can!appear,!conservation!must!be!guided!either!

explicitly! or! implicitly! by! normative! conceptualizations! of! what! is! ‘good’.!

Incorporating! public! opinions! is! one! way! of! making! the! guiding! principles! of!

conservation!explicit.!To! that!end,!policy!makers!must!be!clear! that!a!goal!of! zero!

species! loss! is! unrealistic,! and,! indeed,! damaging! to! the! cause! of! conservation!

because!it!leads!to!inefficient!use!of!conservation!resources.!!

!

Conservation!is!inherently!an!interdisciplinary!field,!requiring!the!creation!of!novel!

and! innovative! frameworks! that! integrate! concepts! from! several! disciplines.! It! is!

therefore!essential!that!academics!involved!in!conservation!be!trained!in!tools!and!

concepts! from!both! the!natural!and!social! sciences,! in!order! to!be!able! to!address!

problems! that! are! ecologically,! economically! and! socially! complex.! This! necessity!

has!been!recognized!(Mascia!et!al.!2003);!however,!obstacles!remain!in!creating!the!

academic! structures! to! support! such! education.! Relatively! new! interdisciplinary!

journals!tend!to!be!less!prestigious!than!established!fieldPspecific!academic!journals,!

thus! potentially! hindering! the! chances! of! interdisciplinary! academics! to,! for!

!

! 107

example,!achieve!tenure!or!other!advancement!(Campbell!2005).!As!well,!graduate!

students!embarking!on!an!interdisciplinary!research!program!are!often!constrained!

by!the!academic!requirements!of!two!or!more!university!departments,!as!well!as!a!

lack! of! strong!mentorship! (Graybill! et! al.! 2006).! These! issues! are! currently! being!

worked! on! in! many! academic! institutions;! laying! this! groundwork! will! help! in!

finding!solutions!to!the!global!environmental!crisis.!!

!

The! initiatives! outlined! above,! among! others,! give! plenty! of! reason! to! be! hopeful!

about! the! future! of! conservation! as! a! field! and,! therefore,! the! future! of! the!

biodiversity! of! this! planet.! While! the! challenges! are! immense,! it! is! important! to!

remember!that!conservation!is!a!relatively!young!field,!which!in!its!short!history!has!

had!a!profound!impact,!both!socially!and!scientifically.!As!tools!and!understanding!

improve,!this!contribution!will!certainly!grow.!

*

! *

!

! 108

5.1 Reference*List*

!

Bunnell,!F.L.,!W.!Campbell!and!K.A.!Squire.!2004.!Conservation!priorities!for!

peripheral!species:!the!example!of!British!Columbia.!Canadian!Journal!of!

Forest!Research!34:*2240P2247.!

Campbell,!L.M.!2005.!Overcoming!obstacles!to!interdisciplinary!research.!

Conservation!Biology!19:!574P577.!!

Connolly,!M.,!K.!Ferguson,!S.!Pinkus!and!F.!Moola.!2010.!On!the!edge:!British!

Columbia’s!unprotected!transboundary!species.!David!Suzuki!Foundation,!

Vancouver.!

Graybill,!J.K.,!S.!Dooling,!V.!Shandas,!J.!Withey,!A.!Greve!and!G.L.!Simon.!2006.!A!

rough!guide!to!interdisciplinarity:!Graduate!student!perspectives.!BioScience!

56:!757P764.!

Harshaw,!H.W.!2008.!British!Columbia!species!at!risk!public!opinion!survey!2008:!

final!technical!report.!University!of!British!Columbia!Collaborative!for!

Advanced!Landscape!Planning,!Vancouver,!British!Columbia.!Available!from!

www.hdPresearch.ca/sarPpos/SaRPPOS_reports.html!!

Mascia,!M.B,!J.P!Brosius,!T.A!Dobson,!B.C!Forbes,!L!Horowitz,!M.A!McKean!and!N.J!

Turner.!2003.!Conservation!and!the!social!sciences.!Conservation!Biology!

17(3):!649P650.!

!

! 109

Appendices*

Appendix*A:*The*New*Ecological*Paradigm*in*British*Columbia*

*

Introduction*

As!mentioned!often! throughout! this! thesis,! conservation!of! threatened!species! (or!

lands,! or! ecosystems,! etc.)! is! fundamentally! a! problem! of! understanding! and!

changing!human!behaviour!and!human!impacts!on!the!natural!world!(e.g.!Mascia!et!

al.!2003).!Therefore,!it!is!interesting!and!informative!to!consider!conservation!from!

a! social! science! perspective.! Beginning! in! the! 1970’s,! an! era! of! burgeoning!

environmental!concern!coupled!with!rapid!growth!in!the!field!of!social!psychology!

gave! rise! to! an! interest! in! exploring! changing!worldviews! in! a! public! increasingly!

aware! of! human! impacts! on! the! environment.! A! number! of! researchers! have!

explored! these! emerging! environmental! or! ecological! perspectives,! and! have!

created! conceptual! frameworks! to! characterize! these! views! through! the! use! of!

public!opinion!surveys.!Notably,!Stephen!Kellert!(1996)!was!a!pioneer!in!this!field,!

along!with!Dunlap!and!Van!Liere!(1978)!and!Dunlap!et!al.!(2000).!It!is!important!to!

look! at! ecological! worldviews! in! order! to! understand! the! relationship! between!

demographic! variables,! worldviews! and! environmental! behaviours! (Zelezny! et! al.!

2000).!The!New!Ecological!Paradigm!(previously!known!as!the!New!Environmental!

Paradigm;!Dunlap!and!Van!Liere!1978)!is!seen!as!a!contrast!to!the!dominant!social!

!

! 110

paradigm,!which!emphasizes!technology!and!growthPoriented!use!of!environmental!

resources!and!is!thus!inherently!not!proPenvironmental!(Edgell!and!Nowell!1989).!!

!

The! New! Ecological! Paradigm! scale! has! been! variously! described! as! measuring!

ecological! worldviews,! environmental! concern,! values! or! environmental! attitudes!

(Castro! 2006),! and! recognizes! five! facets! of! an! emerging! worldview:! antiP

anthropocentrism,! the! reality! of! limits! to! growth,! the! fragility! of! nature’s! balance,!

the!possibility!of!an!ecoPcrisis,!and!the!rejection!of!exemptionalism!(the!belief!that!

humans,! because! of! their! intelligence,! creativity! and! other! special! characteristics,!

are!not!subject!to!the!same!constraints!as!other!species;!Cairns!1998).!This!15Pitem!

(previously!12Pitem;!see!Dunlap!and!Van!Liere!1978)!scale!(Fig.!1)!is!a!widely!used!

scale! of! proPenvironmental! views! because! comparable! scales! tend! to! be! much!

longer! and! more! unwieldy! (Dunlap! et! al! 2000),! and! contain! items! referring! to!

specific! environmental! phenomena! that! become! dated! over! time! (Hawcroft! and!

Milfont!2010).!Items!on!the!NEP!scale!are!presented!as!a!5Ppoint!Likert!scale,!with!

respondents!choosing!one!of:!strongly!agree,!mildly!agree,!partially!agree/disagree,!

mildly!disagree!and!strongly!disagree.!Previous!work!on! the!NEP!scale!has!shown!

this!measure! to! have! criterion! validity! (i.e.! that! it! actually!measures! a! biocentric!

orientation):! it! strongly! discriminated! between! known! environmentalists! and! the!

general! public! (e.g.! Edgell! and! Nowell! 1989;! Widegren! 1998),! indicating! knownP

group! validity,! and! several! studies! link! higher! NEP! scores! to! proPenvironmental!

behavioural! intentions!or!observed!behaviours! (e.g.! Stern! et! al.! 1995;! Schultz! and!

Zelezny!1998),! indicating!predictive!validity.!Content!validity!(the!degree!to!which!

!

! 111

the!scale!captures!all!facets!of!the!construct!it!is!intended!to!measure)!is!somewhat!

harder!to!ascertain;!however,!an!interviewPbased!study!identified!similar!beliefs!to!

those!that!form!the!major!axes!of!the!NEP!scale!(Kempton!et!al.!1995).!Those!with!

greater!environmental!knowledge!tend!to!score!higher!on!the!NEP!scale!(Arcury!et!

al.!1986),!while!those!with!a!rightPwing!political!orientation!tended!to!score!lower!

(Schultz! and! Stone! 1994),! indicating! that! the!NEP! also! has! construct! validity! (the!

scale!accords!with!other!measures!in!theoretically!specified!ways).!!

!

Previous! studies! of! NEP! have! explored! how! this! measure! correlates! with!

socioeconomic!variables,!particularly!age,!income,!education,!liberalism!and!gender,!

with!younger,!more!educated!and!liberalPminded!individuals!tending!to!score!higher!

on!the!NEP!scale!(Dietz!et!al.!1998).!In!contrast,!the!relationship!between!NEP!and!

income! tends! to! be! weak! and! either! inconsistent! or! not! statistically! significant!

across!studies!(Dietz!et!al.!1998).!!

!

In!a!metaPanalysis,!Zelezny!et!al.! (2000)! found! that!women! tended! to!have!higher!

NEP!scores!(more!proPenvironmental!attitudes)!than!men!for!4/6!studies,!with!no!

significant! difference! between! genders! for! the! remaining! 2! studies.! Across! the! 6!

studies! the! effect! of! female! gender! on! proPenvironmental! attitudes!was! relatively!

small,!with!r!=!0.07! (Zelezny!et!al.!2000).!This!pattern!held!regardless!of!age,!and!

across! 14! countries.! Interestingly,! further! investigation! by! Zelezny! et! al.! (2000)!

revealed!that!NEP!responses!are!more!strongly!related!to!gender!orientation!than!to!

!

! 112

gender!itself,!indicating!that!underlying!personality!and!socialization!variables!that!

tend!to!be!associated!with!gender!may!be!more!important!in!explaining!variation!in!

NEP!than!gender!itself.!!

!

Based! on! these! previous! findings,! I! hypothesized! a! negative! relationship! between!

NEP!and!age!and!a!positive!relationship!with!gender!(femaleness)!and!education.!I!

did!not!hypothesize!a!relationship!between!NEP!and!income!or!residential!stability.!

!

Methods*

A! representative! sample! of! British! Columbians,! as! described! in! Chapters! 2! and! 3,!

responded!to!a!public!opinion!survey!including!the!15!items!of!the!New!Ecological!

Paradigm!scale! (Fig.!1).! Survey!methods!can!be! found! in!Chapters!2!and!3,!and! in!

more! detail! in! Harshaw! (2008).! The! same! survey! instrument! also! gathered!

information!on! gender,! age,! education,! income!and! residential! stability,!which! are!

variables! I! have! used! as! socioeconomic! correlates! to! preferences! for! species!

attributes! elsewhere! in! this! work! (in! particular,! Chapter! 3).! Harshaw! (2008)!

calculated!each!respondent’s!NEP!score!by!1)!coding!each!item!in!the!scale!such!that!

high!values! indicated!a!more!biocentric!response!and! low!values! indicated!a!more!

anthropocentric! response;!2)! calculating!each! respondent’s!mean!score!across! the!

scale.!!

!

!

! 113

I!then!performed!a!correlation!analysis!between!respondent!NEP!scores!and!gender,!

age,! income,! education! and! residential! stability.! Tests! for! which! I! hypothesized! a!

relationship!with!NEP!(age!(P);!education!(+)!and!gender!(+))!were!onePtailed,!while!

the!tests!for!a!relationship!with!income!and!residential!stability!were!twoPtailed.!All!

analyses!were!carried!out!using!SPSS!18!for!Mac.!

!

Results**

NEP!index!scores!for!survey!respondents!in!BC!indicated!a!general!acceptance!of!an!

ecological!worldview.!Harshaw!(2008)!presents!a!thorough!analysis!of!this!question,!

which!I!summarize!here.!!Respondents’!mean!score!on!the!NEP!scale!was!3.78!±!

0.059!(n=553),!with!a!minimum!score!of!1.27!and!a!maximum!score!of!5.00!(which!

is!the!upper!limit!of!the!scale).!Cronbach’s!alpha!for!the!entire!15Pitem!scale!was!

0.848!and!was!not!improved!by!the!removal!of!any!scale!items,!which!indicates!good!

internal!consistency.!Coefficient!alphas!for!each!of!the!five!facets!of!an!ecological!

worldview!(antiPanthropocentrism,!reality!of!limits!to!growth,!fragility!of!nature’s!

balance,!the!possibility!of!an!ecoPcrisis,!and!rejection!of!exemptionalism)!ranged!

between!0.539P0.773,!supporting!the!unidimensionality!of!the!NEP!scale.!!!

!

Only!gender!showed!a!significant!(positive)!relationship!with!NEP!(Table!1),!

indicating!that!females!tend!to!be!more!biocentric!than!males.!The!remaining!

variablesPP!age,!income,!education!and!residential!stability—showed!no!significant!

relationship!to!NEP!(Table!1).!!

!

! 114

!

Discussion*

While! gender! showed! the! expected,! positive! relationship! with! biocentrism,! it! is!

interesting! that! neither! age! nor! education! showed! a! significant! relationship! with!

NEP.!Although!neither!was!significant,!both!had!pPvalues!approaching!significance!

(0.083! and! 0.073,! respectively),! and! the! relationship! with! both! variables! was!

positive.! This! was! the! expected! relationship! with! education,! but! not! with! age.!

Although! I! did! not! examine! political! orientation! in! this! survey,! it! would! be!

informative! to! investigate! this! relationship! in! the! future.! British! Columbia! is! a!

relatively! liberal! jurisdiction;! therefore! it!would!be! interesting! to!see!whether!age!

and! education! have! the! expected! correlations! with! NEP! when! controlled! for!

liberalism.!!

!

Neither!residential!stability!nor! income!showed!a!relationship! to!NEP!scores.!This!

result!is!consistent!for!previous!findings!for!income!(Dietz!et!al.!1998).!Residential!

stability!has!not,! to!my!knowledge,!been!explored! in!relation!to!NEP,!and!I!had!no!

specific! expectation! as! to! how! the! proportion! of! a! respondent’s! life! spent! in! the!

same!community!would!affect!their!ecological!worldview.!!

!

A! motivation! behind! studying! public! ecological! worldview! is! to! understand! and!

predict! proPenvironmental! behaviours.! Zelezny! et! al.! (2000)! found! a! positive!

relationship!between!female!gender!and!both!proPenvironmental!attitudes!and!proP

!

! 115

environmental! behaviours.! However,! the! link! between! attitudes! and! behaviours!

toward!the!environment!is!not!clear.!Indeed,!several!authors!have!remarked!on!the!

lack! of! correspondence! between! the! two! (see,! e.g.! Van! Liere! and! Dunlop! 1981;!

Castro!2006).!The!ability!of!people!to!express!different!views!about!the!same!subject!

in! different! contexts! (known! as! cognitive! polyphasia)! may! help! to! explain! why!

people! express! proPenvironmental! views! in! one! situation,! but! fail! to! act! in! a! proP

environmental!manner!(Castro!2006).!This!may!help!to!explain!why!although!proP

environmental! views! have! been! increasing! since! the! 1970s,! environmental!

behaviours! have! not! been! keeping! pace! (see,! e.g.! Dunlap! et! al.! 1993).! It! is! also!

interesting!to!note!that!the!targets!for!public!concern!about!the!environment!have!

changed!drastically! since! the!1970s.! From! the! initial! concern! surrounding!air! and!

water! pollution,! problems! which! tended! to! have! identifiable! (and! often! point)!

sources! and! a! more! localized! scale,! many! of! the! environmental! problems! on! the!

public!radar!today!are!more!global!in!scale,!more!diffuse!in!origin,!and!have!impacts!

that!are!not!always!easy!to!detect!or!attribute!to!a!single!cause!(e.g.!global!climate!

change).!!This!may!complicate!the!relationship!between!beliefs!and!behaviour!in!an!

environmental!context.!

!

Interestingly,!Kotchen!and!Reiling!(2000)!found!a!relationship!between!higher!NEP!

scores!and!survey!respondents’!willingness!to!participate!in!a!hypothetical!market!

for! environmental! goods! as! presented! in! a! contingent! valuation! (CV)! format! (see!

Chapter! 1! for! an! introduction! to! CV).! While! more! proPenvironment! respondents!

were! more! likely! to! give! valuation! answers! to! the! questions! presented! (as!

!

! 116

expected),!those!who!scored!lower!on!the!NEP!scale!were!more!likely!to!protest!the!

hypothetical! CV! scenarios.! This! may! indicate! that! some! degree! ‘buying! in’! to! the!

exercise!of!nonPmarket!valuation!for!environmental!goods!itself!is!directed!by!a!proP

environmental!orientation.!

*

*

!

! 117

Figures*

*

*

Figure!A.1:!The!New!Ecological!Paradigm!15Pitem!scale!as!presented! in! the!public!opinion!survey.!

!

! 118

Tables**

!!

Table!A.1:!Correlations!between!NEP!and!socioeconomic!variables.!! Pearson!

Correlation!PPvalue! n!

Age! 0.060! 0.083! 537!Income! P0.018! 0.688! 476!Education! 0.065! 0.073! 501!

Gender!(Femaleness)! 0.099! 0.011* 537!Residential!Stability! P.011! 0.406! 444!

!

! 119

Reference*List*

Arcury,!T.A.,!T.P.!Johnson!and!S.J.!Scollay.!1986.!Ecological!worldview!and!

environmental!knowledge:!The!“new!environmental!paradigm.”!Journal!of!

Environmental!Education!17:!35P40.!

Cairns,!J.!1998.!Hydrobiologia,!Malthus,!exemptionalism!and!the!risk/uncertainty!

paradox.!Hydrobiologia!384:!1P5.!

Campbell,!L.M.!2005.!Overcoming!obstacles!to!interdisciplinary!research.!

Conservation!Biology!19:!574P577.!!

Castro,!P.!2006.!!Applying!social!psychology!to!the!study!of!environmental!concern!

and!environmental!wordviews:!contributions!from!the!social!representations!

approach.!Journal!of!Community!and!Applied!Social!Psychology!16:!247P266.!

Dietz,! T.,! P.C.! Stern! and! G.A.! Guagnano.! 1998.! Social! structural! and! social!

psychological! bases! of! environmental! concern.! Environment! and! Behavior!

30(4)!450–471.!

Dunlap,!R.!E.,!and!K.!Van!Liere.!1978.!The!New!Environmental!Paradigm:!A!proposed!

measuring!instrument!and!preliminary!results.!Journal!of!Environmental!

Education!9:!10P19.!

Dunlap,!R.E.,!K.D.!Van!Liere,!A.G.!Mertig!and!R.E.!Jones.!2000.!Measuring!

endorsement!of!the!New!Ecological!Paradigm:!A!revised!NEP!scale.!Journal!of!

Social!Issues!56:!425P442.!

Dunlap,!R.E.,!G.H.!Gallup!Jr.!and!A.M.!Gallup.!1993.!Of!global!concern:!Results!of!the!

health!of!the!planet!survey.!Environment!35:!6P40.!!

!

! 120

Edgell,!M.C.R.!and!D.E.!Nowell.!1989.!The!new!environmental!paradigm!scale:!

Wildlife!and!environmental!beliefs!in!British!Columbia.!Society!and!Natural!

Resources!2:!285P296.!

Harshaw,!H.W.!2008.!British!Columbia!species!at!risk!public!opinion!survey!2008:!

final!technical!report.!University!of!British!Columbia!Collaborative!for!

Advanced!Landscape!Planning,!Vancouver,!British!Columbia.!Available!from!

www.hdPresearch.ca/sarPpos/SaRPPOS_reports.html!!

Hawcroft,!L.J.!and!T.L.!Milfont.!2010.!The!use!(and!abuse)!of!the!new!ecological!

paradigm!scale!over!the!last!30!years:!A!metaP!analysis.!Journal!of!

Environmental!Psychology!30:!143P158.!

Kellert,!S.K.!1996.!The!value!of!life.!Island!Press,!Washington,!D.C.!!

Kempton,!W.,!J.S.!Boster,!and!J.A.!Hartley.!1995.!Environmental!values!in!American!

culture.!Cambridge,!MA:!MIT!Press.!

Kotchen,!M.J.!and!S.D.!Reiling.!2000.!Environmental!attitudes,!motivations,!and!

contingent!valuation!of!nonuse!values:!a!case!study!involving!endangered!

species.!Ecological!Economics!32:!93–107.!

Mascia,!M.B,!J.P!Brosius,!T.A!Dobson,!B.C!Forbes,!L!Horowitz,!M.A!McKean!and!N.J!

Turner.!2003.!Conservation!and!the!social!sciences.!Conservation!Biology!

17(3):!649P650.!

Schultz,!P.W.!and!W.F.!Stone.!1994.!Authoritarianism!and!attitudes!toward!the!

environment.!Environment!and!Behavior!26:!25P37.!

Schultz,!P.!W.!and!L.!Zelezny.!1998.!Values!and!proenvironmental!behavior:!A!fiveP

country!survey.!Journal!of!CrossPCultural!Psychology!29:!540P558.!

!

! 121

Stern,!P.C.,!T.!Dietz,!L.!Kalof!and!G.A!Guagnano.!1995.!Values,!beliefs,!and!

proenvironmental!action:!attitude!formation!toward!emergent!attitude!

objects.!Journal!of!Applied!Social!Psychology!25(18):!1611–1636.!

Widegren,!Ö.!1998.!The!new!environmental!paradigm!and!personal!norms.!

Environment!and!Behavior!30(1):!75–100.!

Zelezny,! L.C.,! PPP.! Chua! and!C.!Aldrich.! 2000.!Elaborating!on! gender!differences! in!

environmentalism.!Journal!of!Social!Issues!56(3):!443P457.!!

!

!

! 122

Appendix(B:(Additional(Figures(and(Tables(for(Chapter(3(

Figures(

a) b) c) !

Figure!B.1:!Scaled!preference!for!endemism!from!questions!1!(a),!2!(b),!and!3!(c).!!

!

! 123

a) ! b) !

Figure!B.2:!Scaled!preference!for!species!at!risk!in!British!Columbia,!but!common!elsewhere!from!questions!1!(a)!and!3!(b).!!

!

! 124

a) ! b) !

Figure!B.3:!Scaled!preference!for!the!likelihood!or!chances!of!a!species!being!protected!from!questions!1!(a)!and!3!(b).!!

!

! 125

a) ! b) !

Figure!B.4:!Scaled!preference!for!species!that!are!culturally!or!traditionally!important!from!questions!1!(a)!and!3!(b).!!

!

! 126

a) b) c) !

Figure!B.5:!Scaled!preference!for!the!cost!of!protecting!and!recovering!a!species!from!questions!1!(a)!and!3!(b),!and!the!economic!importance!of!a!species!from!question!2!(c)!

!!!

!

! 127

a) b) c) !

Figure!B.6:!Scaled!preference!for!common!species!that!are!currently!experiencing!rapid!decline!from!questions!1!(a),!2!(b),!and!3!(c).!

!

! 128

!

Figure!B.7:!Scaled!preference!for!distinctive!species!from!question!2.!! !

!

! 129

Tables(

Table!B.2:!Descriptive!statistics!for!scaled!attribute!preferences.!Attribute((question(#)( Mean((standard(error)( KolmogorovBSmirnov((df;(p)( Skewness((standard(error)( Kurtosis((standard(error)(

Endemism!(1)! 0.7633!(0.01307)! 0.270!(474;!<0.001)! P1.010!(0.112)! P0.012!(0.224)!

Endemism!(2)! 0.6122!(0.01250)! 0.166!(474;!<0.001)! P0.205!(0.112)! P0.650!(0.224)!

Endemism!(3)! 0.7300!(0.01109)! 0.201!(474;!<0.001)! P0.640!(0.112)! P0.260!(0.224)!

SaR!in!BC!(1)! 0.4434!(0.01465)! 0.171!(475;!<0.001)! 0.067!(0.112)! P1.226!(0.224)!

SaR!in!BC!(3)! 0.3899!(0.01208)! 0.171!(475;!<0.001)! 0.177!(0.112)! P0.901!(0.224)!

Likelihood!(1)! 0.6581!(0.01249)! 0.192!(468;!<0.001)! P0.424!(0.113)! P0.682!(0.225)!

Likelihood!(3)! 0.6051!(0.01124)! 0.163!(468;!<0.001)! P0.135!(0.113)! P0.654!(0.225)!

Cultural!(1)! 0.2866!(0.01330)! 0.232!(469;!<0.001)! 0.897!(0.113)! P0.085!(0.225)!

Cultural!(3)! 0.2333!(0.01167)! 0.256!(469;!<0.001)! 1.197!(0.113)! 0.972!(0.225)!

Costs!(1)! 0.3276!(0.01360)! 0.186!(467;!<0.001)! 0.569!(0.113)! P0.660!(0.225)!

Costs!(3)! 0.3332!(0.01327)! 0.203!(467;!<0.001)! 0.465!(0.113)! P0.437!(0.225)!

Economic!Importance!(2)! 0.5221!(0.01540)! 0.146!(467;!<0.001)! P0.085!(0.113)! P1.080!(0.225)!

Common!Declining!(1)! 0.7072!(0.01350)! 0.198!(472;!<0.001)! P0.841!(0.112)! P0.168!(0.224)!

Common!Declining!(2)! 0.4396!(0.01426)! 0.160!(472;!<0.001)! 0.311!(0.112)! P0.791!(0.224)!

Common!Declining!(3)! 0.7225!(0.01151)! 0.217!(472;!<0.001)! P0.683!(0.112)! P0.280!(0.224)!

Distinctive!(2)! 0.4291!(0.01178)! 0.152!(524;!<0.001)! 0.239!(0.107)! P0.541!(0.213)!

!

!

! 130

Table!B.2:!Descriptive!statistics!for!socioeconomic!variables.!

( Mean((standard(error)( KolmogorovBSmirnov((df;(p)( Skewness((standard(error)( Kurtosis((standard(error)(Education!by!category! 3.2729!(0.04866)! 0.210!(502;!<0.001)! P0.224!(0.109)! P0.728!(0.218)!

NEP!Score! 3.7830!(0.03027)! 0.088!(553;!<0.001)! P0.734!(0.104)! 0.417!(0.207)!Income!by!category! 7.0251!(0.14524)! 0.114!(478;!<0.001)! P0.019!(0.112)! P1.161!(0.223)!

Age! 52.9592!(0.59697)! 0.028!(539;!0.200)! P0.007!(0.105)! P0.398!(0.210)!Residential!Stability! 0.4227!(0.01393)! 0.085!(446;!<0.001)! 0.544!(0.116)! P0.731!(0.231)!

(

!

! 131

Appendix(C:(Species(Data(used(in(Chapter(4(

(

Species! BC!Listed!

Mam

mal!

Amphibian!

Reptile!

Total!range!size!

(km

2 )!

Range!Size!in!BC!

(km

2 )!

Proportion!of!range!

in!BC!

Transformed!range!

size!

Transformed!

Ppoportion!in!BC!

#Occurrences!in!BC!

#!Occurrences!total!

Disjunct!in!BC!

Estim

ated!

population!

Global!status!

Population!trend!

Occurrences!

protected!

Vulpes!vulpes! 0! 1! 0! 0! 64742300! 889438! 0.0137! 7.811! 0.117! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! NA!Canis!lupus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 51565110! 884312! 0.0171! 7.712! 0.131! 2! 2! 0! 2! 4! 0! 3!Mustela!nivalis! 1! 1! 0! 0! 43724741! 579170! 0.0132! 7.641! 0.115! 1! 2! 0! 3! 5! 0! 3!Mustela!erminea! 0! 1! 0! 0! 41533312! 929891! 0.0224! 7.618! 0.150! 2! 2! 0! 3! 5! 0! 3!Ursus!arctos! 1! 1! 0! 0! 30266817! 853045! 0.0282! 7.481! 0.169! 1! 2! 0! 2! 4! P1! 1!Gulo!gulo! 0! 1! 0! 0! 24396583! 842216! 0.0345! 7.387! 0.187! 2! 2! 0! 2! 4! P1! 1!Puma!concolor! 0! 1! 0! 0! 22246147! 733478! 0.0330! 7.347! 0.183! 1! 1! 0! 2! 5! P1! 1!Lasiurus!cinereus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 21079570! 175211! 0.0083! 7.324! 0.091! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! NA! 2!Lasiurus!blossevillii! 0! 1! 0! 0! 19044624! 24978! 0.0013! 7.280! 0.036! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! P1! 2!Microtus!oeconomus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 18612484! 207158! 0.0111! 7.270! 0.106! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! 2!Myodes!rutilus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 18530225! 154716! 0.0083! 7.268! 0.092! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! NA! 2!Rangifer!tarandus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 18314204! 429259! 0.0234! 7.263! 0.154! 2! 2! 0! NA! 5! P1! NA!Canis!latrans! 0! 1! 0! 0! 17097660! 889438! 0.0520! 7.233! 0.230! 1! 1! 0! NA! 5! 1! 3!Sorex!tundrensis! 1! 1! 0! 0! 16000923! 8429! 0.0005! 7.204! 0.023! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! 2!Castor!canadensis! 0! 1! 0! 0! 15418842! 920952! 0.0597! 7.188! 0.247! 2! 2! 0! 2! 5! 1! 3!Cervus!canadensis!(Cervus!elaphus)! 0! 1! 0! 0! 15261023! 182071! 0.0119! 7.184! 0.109! 2! 2! 0! 3! 5! 1! 2!Alces!americanus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 15112561! 837044! 0.0554! 7.179! 0.238! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! 2!Ondatra!zibethicus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 14688476! 872620! 0.0594! 7.167! 0.246! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! NA!Neovison!vison! 0! 1! 0! 0! 14573802! 889415! 0.0610! 7.164! 0.250! 1! 2! 0! 2! 5! 0! 3!Odocoileus!virginianus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 14410478! 470112! 0.0326! 7.159! 0.182! 1! 2! 0! 3! 5! 0! 3!Eptesicus!fuscus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 13168295! 371004! 0.0282! 7.120! 0.169! 1! 2! 0! 3! 5! 1! 3!

!

! 132

Peromyscus!maniculatus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 13030566! 913350! 0.0701! 7.115! 0.268! 2! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! 2!

Mustela!frenata! 0! 1! 0! 0! 12272126! 395170! 0.0322! 7.089! 0.180! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! 3!

Mephitis!mephitis! 0! 1! 0! 0! 12271140! 651119! 0.0531! 7.089! 0.232! 1! 1! 0! NA! 5! 0! NA!

Erethizon!dorsatum! 0! 1! 0! 0! 12063334! 889438! 0.0737! 7.081! 0.275! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! NA!

Myotis!lucifugus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 12040436! 889441! 0.0739! 7.081! 0.275! 1! 1! 0! 3! 5! 0! NA!

Microtus!pennsylvanicus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 11962109! 845018! 0.0706! 7.078! 0.269! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! 2!

Lontra!canadensis! 0! 1! 0! 0! 11902856! 898647! 0.0755! 7.076! 0.278! 2! 2! 0! 2! 5! 0! 1!

Procyon!lotor! 0! 1! 0! 0! 11684183! 113612! 0.0097! 7.068! 0.099! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! 1! 3!

Sorex!cinereus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 11571850! 888816! 0.0768! 7.063! 0.281! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! 2!

Tamiasciurus!hudsonicus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 10364040! 844584! 0.0815! 7.016! 0.289! 2! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! 2!

Lasionycteris!noctivagans! 0! 1! 0! 0! 10110373! 654300! 0.0647! 7.005! 0.257! 1! 2! 0! 3! 5! 0! 2!

Ursus!americanus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 9704198! 920952! 0.0949! 6.987! 0.313! 2! 2! 0! 2! 5! 1! 1!

Lepus!americanus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 9535594! 849346! 0.0891! 6.979! 0.303! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! NA!

Lynx!rufus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 9303129! 267283! 0.0287! 6.969! 0.170! 1! 2! 0! 2! 5! 0! 2!

Taxidea!taxus! 1! 1! 0! 0! 8851941! 503292! 0.0569! 6.947! 0.241! 1! 2! 0! 3! 5! P1! NA!

Zapus!hudsonius! 0! 1! 0! 0! 8737682! 666663! 0.0763! 6.941! 0.280! 1! 1! 0! NA! 5! 0! 2!

Lynx!canadensis! 0! 1! 0! 0! 8452518! 727503! 0.0861! 6.927! 0.298! 1! 2! 0! 2! 5! 0! 1!

Myodes!gapperi! 0! 1! 0! 0! 8370657! 784941! 0.0938! 6.923! 0.311! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! 3!

Glaucomys!sabrinus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 7852683! 888314! 0.1131! 6.895! 0.343! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! 2!

Martes!americana! 0! 1! 0! 0! 7637537! 918075! 0.1202! 6.883! 0.354! 2! 2! 0! 2! 5! 0! 1!

Marmota!monax! 0! 1! 0! 0! 7610787! 440661! 0.0579! 6.881! 0.243! 1! 1! 0! 2! 5! 0! 2!

Sorex!hoyi! 0! 1! 0! 0! 6985312! 754998! 0.1081! 6.844! 0.335! 1! 2! 0! 2! 5! 0! 1!

Synaptomys!borealis! 0! 1! 0! 0! 6774187! 889441! 0.1313! 6.831! 0.371! 1! 2! 0! 2! 4! NA! 1!

Odocoileus!hemionus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 6339436! 873013! 0.1377! 6.802! 0.380! 2! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! 2!

Sorex!palustris! 0! 1! 0! 0! 6241652! 712893! 0.1142! 6.795! 0.345! 2! 2! 0! 3! 5! P1! 2!

Lemmus!trimucronatus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 5592577! 363104! 0.0649! 6.748! 0.258! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! 1!

Spermophilus!parryii! 0! 1! 0! 0! 5347301! 230469! 0.0431! 6.728! 0.209! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! NA! 1!

Neotamias!minimus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 5243646! 274792! 0.0524! 6.720! 0.231! 1! 1! 0! NA! 5! 0! 3!

Reithrodontomys!megalotis! 1! 1! 0! 0! 5116747! 12689! 0.0025! 6.709! 0.050! 1! 1! 0! NA! 5! 0! 2!

Myotis!septentrionalis! 1! 1! 0! 0! 4946759! 158660! 0.0321! 6.694! 0.180! 1! 2! 0! 1! 4! 0! 1!

Myotis!volans! 0! 1! 0! 0! 4711730! 613009! 0.1301! 6.673! 0.369! 1! 2! 0! 2! 5! 0! NA!

Corynorhinus!townsendii! 1! 1! 0! 0! 4596733! 166733! 0.0363! 6.662! 0.192! 1! 2! 0! 1! 4! NA! 1!

Sorex!arcticus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 4534048! 143217! 0.0316! 6.656! 0.179! 1! 1! 0! NA! 5! 0! 3!

!

! 133

Sorex!monticolus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 4519383! 874239! 0.1934! 6.655! 0.455! 2! 2! 0! NA! 5! NA! 1!

Antrozous!pallidus! 1! 1! 0! 0! 4366863! 16390! 0.0038! 6.640! 0.061! 1! 2! 0! 2! 5! 0! NA!Myotis!yumanensis! 0! 1! 0! 0! 4063101! 368175! 0.0906! 6.609! 0.306! 1! 1! 0! 2! 5! 0! 2!Microtus!longicaudus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 4020903! 838143! 0.2084! 6.604! 0.474! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! 2!Myotis!californicus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 3984267! 378613! 0.0950! 6.600! 0.313! 1! 1! 0! NA! 5! NA! 2!Spilogale!gracilis! 0! 1! 0! 0! 3825099! 67921! 0.0178! 6.583! 0.134! 1! 1! 0! NA! 5! P1! NA!Neotoma!cinerea! 0! 1! 0! 0! 3608024! 838436! 0.2324! 6.557! 0.503! 1! 1! 0! NA! 5! 0! 3!

Martes!pennanti! 1! 1! 0! 0! 3485319! 662360! 0.1900! 6.542! 0.451! 2! 2! 0! 2! 5! NA! 1!Myotis!thysanodes! 1! 1! 0! 0! 3472025! 44471! 0.0128! 6.541! 0.113! 1! 1! 0! 2! 4.5! P1! 1!Lepus!townsendii! 1! 1! 0! 0! 3453820! 23619! 0.0068! 6.538! 0.083! 1! 1! 0! 2! 5! P1! NA!Zapus!princeps! 0! 1! 0! 0! 3277351! 793062! 0.2420! 6.516! 0.514! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! 1!Myotis!evotis! 0! 1! 0! 0! 3163275! 367054! 0.1160! 6.500! 0.348! 1! 1! 0! 2! 5! 0! NA!Thomomys!talpoides! 0! 1! 0! 0! 2619925! 64607! 0.0247! 6.418! 0.158! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! 2!

Marmota!caligata! 0! 1! 0! 0! 2536698! 671808! 0.2648! 6.404! 0.541! 1! 1! 0! NA! 5! 0! 1!Euderma!maculatum! 1! 1! 0! 0! 2104576! 73163! 0.0348! 6.323! 0.188! 1! 2! 0! NA! 4! 0! 1!Sylvilagus!nuttallii! 1! 1! 0! 0! 2066966! 5729! 0.0028! 6.315! 0.053! 1! 1! 0! NA! 5! NA! NA!Sorex!merriami! 1! 1! 0! 0! 1800241! 660! 0.0004! 6.255! 0.019! 1! 1! 0! 2! 5! NA! 1!Marmota!flaviventris! 0! 1! 0! 0! 1717934! 41089! 0.0239! 6.235! 0.155! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! 2!Spermophilus!lateralis! 0! 1! 0! 0! 1704526! 122571! 0.0719! 6.232! 0.271! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! 2!

Microtus!montanus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 1453059! 56099! 0.0386! 6.162! 0.198! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! 3!Myotis!ciliolabrum! 1! 1! 0! 0! 1387940! 5635! 0.0041! 6.142! 0.064! 1! 1! 0! NA! 5! 0! 1!Ochotona!princeps! 0! 1! 0! 0! 1345870! 243275! 0.1808! 6.129! 0.439! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! P1! 2!Neotamias!amoenus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 1102180! 223292! 0.2026! 6.042! 0.467! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! 2!Sorex!vagrans! 0! 1! 0! 0! 991934! 137365! 0.1385! 5.996! 0.381! 2! 2! 0! 3! 5! 0! 2!Ochotona!collaris! 1! 1! 0! 0! 946218! 40194! 0.0425! 5.976! 0.208! 1! 1! 0! NA! 5! NA! NA!

Perognathus!parvus! 1! 1! 0! 0! 921286! 26116! 0.0283! 5.964! 0.169! 1! 1! 0! NA! 5! 0! 2!Microtus!richardsoni! 0! 1! 0! 0! 859720! 136933! 0.1593! 5.934! 0.411! 2! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! NA!Oreamnos!americanus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 838029! 407925! 0.4868! 5.923! 0.772! 2! 2! 0! 2! 5! 0! NA!Ovis!dalli! 0! 1! 0! 0! 816139! 107458! 0.1317! 5.912! 0.371! 2! 2! 0! 2! 5! 0! 1!Ovis!canadensis! 1! 1! 0! 0! 538053! 75194! 0.1398! 5.731! 0.383! 2! 2! 0! 2! 4! 0! 2!Spermophilus!columbianus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 532335! 181907! 0.3417! 5.726! 0.624! 1! 1! 0! NA! 5! 0! 2!

Phenacomys!intermedius! 0! 1! 0! 0! 524319! 226414! 0.4318! 5.720! 0.717! 2! 2! 0! 2! 5! 0! 2!Tamiasciurus!douglasii! 0! 1! 0! 0! 491284! 62039! 0.1263! 5.691! 0.363! 1! 1! 0! NA! 5! 0! 0!

!

! 134

Sorex!trowbridgii! 1! 1! 0! 0! 377587! 9278! 0.0246! 5.577! 0.157! 2! 2! 0! 3! 5! 0! 2!

Scapanus!orarius! 0! 1! 0! 0! 351202! 12002! 0.0342! 5.546! 0.186! 1! 1! 0! 2! 5! 0! NA!

Aplodontia!rufa! 0! 1! 0! 0! 245503! 14212! 0.0579! 5.390! 0.243! 1! 2! 0! 2! 5! 0! 1!

Neurotrichus!gibbsii! 0! 1! 0! 0! 221366! 16562! 0.0748! 5.345! 0.277! 2! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! 2!

Microtus!townsendii! 0! 1! 0! 0! 213978! 34446! 0.1610! 5.330! 0.413! 2! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! 2!

Peromyscus!keeni! 0! 1! 0! 0! 211557! 113905! 0.5384! 5.325! 0.824! 2! 2! 0! 2! 5! 0! 2!

Sorex!bendirii! 1! 1! 0! 0! 207254! 5282! 0.0255! 5.317! 0.160! 2! 2! 0! NA! 4! NA! 1!

Microtus!oregoni! 0! 1! 0! 0! 206848! 6274! 0.0303! 5.316! 0.175! 2! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! 2!

Bos!bison! 0! 1! 0! 0! 195312! 28982! 0.1484! 5.291! 0.395! 2! 2! 0! 2! 4! 0! 2!

Zapus!trinotatus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 162627! 8644! 0.0532! 5.211! 0.233! 2! 2! 0! NA! 5! NA! 1!

Neotamias!townsendii! 0! 1! 0! 0! 151287! 3150! 0.0208! 5.180! 0.145! 1! 1! 0! NA! 5! 0! 1!

Neotamias!ruficaudus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 147846! 21544! 0.1457! 5.170! 0.392! 1! 1! 0! NA! 5! 0! 2!

Scapanus!townsendii! 1! 1! 0! 0! 116648! 3499! 0.0300! 5.067! 0.174! 2! 2! 0! 2! 5! 0! 1!

Myotis!keenii! 1! 1! 0! 0! 109268! 91502! 0.8374! 5.038! 1.156! 2! 2! 0! NA! 2.5! P1! 1!

Spermophilus!saturatus! 0! 1! 0! 0! 74910! 19185! 0.2561! 4.875! 0.531! 1! 1! 0! NA! 5! 0! 1!

Marmota!vancouverensis! 1! 1! 0! 0! 6744! 6728! 0.9975! 3.829! 1.521! 1! 1! 0! 1! 1! 0! 1!

Rana!sylvatica! 0! 0! 1! 0! 9134145! 659064! 0.0722! 6.961! 0.272! 1! 2! 0! 3! 5! 0! 3!

Rana!pipiens! 1! 0! 1! 0! 6025186! 11! 0.0000! 6.780! 0.001! 2! 2! 1! 3! 5! P1! 2!

Pseudacris!maculata! 0! 0! 1! 0! 5606988! 79151! 0.0141! 6.749! 0.119! 1! 2! 0! 3! 5! 0! 3!

Ambystoma!tigrinum! 1! 0! 1! 0! 5146517! 8382! 0.0016! 6.712! 0.040! 1! 2! 1! 3! 5! P1! 3!

Bufo!boreas! 0! 0! 1! 0! 2853153! 739407! 0.2592! 6.455! 0.534! 2! 2! 0! 3! 4! P1! 2!

Pseudacris!regilla! 0! 0! 1! 0! 1543679! 250920! 0.1625! 6.189! 0.415! 2! 2! 0! NA! 5! P1! 2!

Ambystoma!macrodactylum! 0! 0! 1! 0! 1443168! 671356! 0.4652! 6.159! 0.751! 2! 2! 0! 2! 5! P1! 2!

Rana!luteiventris! 0! 0! 1! 0! 1322418! 423654! 0.3204! 6.121! 0.602! 2! 2! 0! 3! 4! P1! 1!

Spea!intermontana! 1! 0! 1! 0! 1000667! 23247! 0.0232! 6.000! 0.153! 1! 2! 0! 2! 5! 0! 3!

Taricha!granulosa! 0! 0! 1! 0! 372036! 112729! 0.3030! 5.571! 0.583! 2! 2! 0! 3! 5! 0! 2!

Ambystoma!gracile! 0! 0! 1! 0! 350863! 139987! 0.3990! 5.545! 0.684! 2! 2! 0! 2! 5! 0! 2!

Ensatina!eschscholtzii! 0! 0! 1! 0! 325430! 11891! 0.0365! 5.512! 0.192! 1! 2! 0! 3! 5! P1! 3!

Ascaphus!truei! 1! 0! 1! 0! 304262! 98192! 0.3227! 5.483! 0.604! 2! 2! 0! 2! 4! P1! 2!

Ascaphus!montanus! 1! 0! 1! 0! 239004! 1165! 0.0049! 5.378! 0.070! 1! 1! 0! 1! 4! P1! 1!

Rana!aurora! 1! 0! 1! 0! 218790! 76904! 0.3515! 5.340! 0.635! 2! 2! 0! 2! 4! P1! 2!

Dicamptodon!tenebrosus! 1! 0! 1! 0! 169916! 96! 0.0006! 5.230! 0.024! 2! 2! 0! 2! 5! 0! 2!

Plethodon!vehiculum! 0! 0! 1! 0! 166116! 52272! 0.3147! 5.220! 0.596! 2! 2! 0! 3! 5! P1! 2!

!

! 135

Plethodon!idahoensis! 1! 0! 1! 0! 82815! 944! 0.0114! 4.918! 0.107! 1! 1! 0! 2! 4! NA! 2!

Rana!pretiosa! 1! 0! 1! 0! 62530! 1902! 0.0304! 4.796! 0.175! 1! 2! 1! 1! 2! P1! 1!Aneides!vagrans! 0! 0! 1! 0! 52041! 32670! 0.6278! 4.716! 0.915! 2! 2! 1! 1! 4! P1! NA!Coluber!constrictor! 1! 0! 0! 1! 5645960! 37744! 0.0067! 6.752! 0.082! 1! 2! 0! 3! 5! 0! 3!Pituophis!catenifer! 0! 0! 0! 1! 5373576! 23732! 0.0044! 6.730! 0.067! 1! 2! 0! 3! 5! 0! 3!Hypsiglena!torquata! 1! 0! 0! 1! 2972565! 3129! 0.0011! 6.473! 0.032! 1! 2! 0! NA! 5! 0! 3!Thamnophis!elegans! 0! 0! 0! 1! 2537950! 186107! 0.0733! 6.404! 0.274! 2! 2! 1! 3! 5! 0! 3!

Crotalus!oreganus! 1! 0! 0! 1! 1446210! 38062! 0.0263! 6.160! 0.163! 1! 2! 0! 3! 5! 0! 3!Eumeces!skiltonianus! 1! 0! 0! 1! 1155712! 44560! 0.0386! 6.063! 0.198! 1! 2! 0! 2! 5! 0! 3!Charina!bottae! 0! 0! 0! 1! 1118756! 77862! 0.0696! 6.049! 0.267! 2! 2! 0! 2! 5! 0! 2!Elgaria!coerulea! 0! 0! 0! 1! 538753! 168510! 0.3128! 5.731! 0.593! 2! 2! 0! 2! 5! 0! 2!Phrynosoma!douglasii! 1! 0! 0! 1! 373398! 2028! 0.0054! 5.572! 0.074! 1! 2! 0! 2! 5! 0! 2!Thamnophis!ordinoides! 0! 0! 0! 1! 194130! 52614! 0.2710! 5.288! 0.548! 2! 2! 0! 3! 5! 0! 3!

Contia!tenuis! 1! 0! 0! 1! 162142! 2123! 0.0131! 5.210! 0.115! 2! 2! 1! 2! 5! 0! 3!Thamnophis!sirtalis! 0! 0! 0! 1! 96621! 31511! 0.3261! 4.985! 0.608! 1! 2! 0! 3! 5! 0! 3!

!