COS 208-1 - Divergent values and perspectives drive three distinct viewpoints on grizzly bear reintroduction in Washington, USA

Wednesday, August 9, 2023

3:30 PM – 3:45 PM PDT

Location: B112

Presenting Author(s)

AS

Anna R. Santo

PhD Student
Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada

Coauthor(s)

TE

Tara Easter

School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, United States
JR

Jason Ransom, PhD

Wildlife Biologist & Wildlife Program Supervisor
North Cascades National Park Service Complex, United States
AS

Abby Sage

Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, United States
KC

Kai M. A. Chan

Professor and Canada Research Chair
IRES, University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
NC

Neil H. Carter

Associate Professor
University of Michigan, Michigan, United States

Abstract: Global biodiversity is plunging by many measures, and appeals and proposals to reverse this trend are growing. One increasingly common strategy for restoring biodiversity is to reintroduce species, in particular apex carnivores, to ecosystems where they have been extirpated. The success or failure of such efforts can hinge on understanding and attending to diverse viewpoints (i.e., subjective perspectives based on different ways of thinking) of those involved in and impacted by reintroductions. Yet, viewpoints vary widely due a suite of complex and intersecting contextual and individual factors, such as values, beliefs, and preferences. We sought to identify distinct, generalized viewpoints, and areas of overlap and divergence between them, surrounding a proposal to reintroduce grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) to the North Cascades Ecosystem.

We used Q-methodology to systematically identify viewpoints on the proposal among interested and affected parties in Washington State. Q-method combines qualitative and quantitative methods by asking purposefully sampled respondents to sort various statements on a given topic into an ordered grid.

We identified three distinct viewpoints among 67 respondents using factor analysis and responses to open-ended questions about the sorting exercise. Two of these viewpoints represent essentially polarized perspectives corresponding to deeply normative notions about grizzly bear recovery: Reintroducing bears is a moral requisite, and Reintroducing bears is inappropriate and risky. These viewpoints expressed diverging risk perceptions and perspectives about our collective responsibilities to and appropriate relationships with others (i.e., “relational values”), particularly with grizzly bears, the ecosystem, government agencies, and different user groups. The second factor focused on sensibility and practicality, and corresponded to a third viewpoint, Reintroducing bears is impractical and not sensible.

Our analysis reveals three key insights. First, polarized public discourse can obscure latent viewpoints that are important to fully understand social acceptability of grizzly bear reintroduction. Second, individuals who appear to share important identity factors may have widely varying, even opposing, viewpoints on such proposals. Third, individuals integrate instrumental, intrinsic, and relational values when assessing grizzly bear reintroduction, and forefronting conversations about responsibilities and appropriate relationships is critical for finding acceptable paths forward in such recovery efforts. We discuss the management implications of these findings for the North Cascades grizzly bear reintroduction, and transferability to other large carnivore reintroductions.