Public perceptions of trophy hunting are pragmatic, not dogmatic

Abstract

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

Keywords: conservation conflicts; politics; social acceptability; sustainable use; wildlife conservation.

Figure 1.

Experimental design and example vignettes. A full-factorial (2 × 2 × 3) design comprising all possible combinations of each factor and level produced 12 experimental conditions. Examples show unique vignettes corresponding to three conditions. All vignettes were identical except for the language we manipulated, representing different levels of each factor.

Figure 2.

Acceptability of trophy hunting in 12 experimental scenarios. Each bar represents one scenario describing a hunt involving either an elephant or a zebra, in which the meat would be provided to people living in the area or left for wildlife, and the revenue would help support wildlife conservation, economic development or hunting enterprises. Colours show distribution of responses. Percentages show combined proportions of participants who indicated that the hunt would be very unacceptable, unacceptable, or somewhat unacceptable (left), neither acceptable nor unacceptable (middle), or somewhat acceptable, acceptable or very acceptable (right), after excluding ‘I don't know' responses.

Figure 3.

Associations between acceptability of trophy hunting and predictor variables in top-supported model. Squares show parameter estimates (log odds ratios) for each level of all experimental, demographic, and social identity and orientation predictor variables in the top-supported model relative to the reference category for that variable. Darker error bars show 85% confidence intervals and lighter error bars show 95% confidence intervals. Positive estimates indicate increased acceptability relative to the reference category, negative estimates indicate decreased acceptability relative to the reference category and estimates of zero indicate no difference in acceptability relative to the reference category.

Figure 4.

Acceptability of trophy hunting in 12 experimental scenarios, grouped by responses from the USA, UK and South Africa (SA). Each panel represents one scenario describing a hunt involving either an elephant or a zebra, in which the meat would be provided to people living in the area, and the revenue would help support wildlife conservation, economic development or hunting enterprises. Bars are grouped by participants from each country, and colours show distribution of responses. Percentages show combined proportions of participants from each country who indicated that the hunt would be very unacceptable, unacceptable, or somewhat unacceptable (left), neither acceptable nor unacceptable (middle), or somewhat acceptable, acceptable or very acceptable (right), after excluding ‘I don't know' responses.

Figure 5.

Predicted relative acceptability of hunting across 12 experimental scenarios. Squares show model-derived predictions for each combination of experimental factors (which animal would be hunted, how meat from the hunt would be used, and how revenue from the hunt would be used), accounting for effects of all other variables in our top-supported model (i.e. marginal predictions). Darker error bars show 85% confidence intervals and lighter error bars show 95% confidence intervals. Larger values indicate greater probability that, all else equal, a hunt would be perceived as more acceptable. All else equal, hunts involving zebras would be more acceptable than hunts involving elephants; hunts in which the meat would be provided to people are more acceptable than hunts in which the meat would be left for wildlife; and hunts in which the revenue would support conservation are more acceptable than hunts in which the revenue would support either economic development or hunting enterprises.