Open Access

Martín Espinosa-Molina

• Nowadays, a challenge in wildlife management and nature conservation is to reach a state of human-wildlife coexistence, integrating wildlife into the human-dominated landscape. Achieving a state of coexistence is urgent as human-wildlife conflicts increase over time. Thus a "route guide" for researchers and conservation practitioners will be needed to identify if a human-wildlife interaction is heading towards conflict or coexistence, enabling them to conduct management activities, when possible, to achieve human-wildlife coexistence. Researchers have used different individual-based attributes as a proxy to measure support towards wildlife species by the general public. Different operationalizations from Environmental Economics and Environmental and Conservation Psychology research fields have been used to measure support. Examples of operationalization are the willingness-to-pay and Likert-type scale, or rating scale, from the first and second research fields. In the first, participants must indicate how much they would be willing to pay to protect a specific wildlife species population in a particular area and time. In the second, participants are asked to rate statements through, e.g., a five-point ordinal rating scale with opposite alternatives between, e.g., strongly agree and strongly disagree. In the human dimension of natural resources management research, variations of these methodologies have been used to measure support, not only for one wildlife species but for a set. For the willingness-to-pay variation, i.e., money allocation, participants must distribute a constant sum of money among a set of wildlife species. For the rating scale variation, each of the wildlife species in the set corresponds to a statement to be rated. The thesis aims to contrast these two variations, i.e., money allocation and rating scale, in their capacity to assess support changes towards a set of 12 native wildlife species from different taxa. A survey was applied in 2018 (n: 368) and replicated in 2019 (n: 359) among urban dwellers who cohabit with the wildlife species set, in Valdivia, south of Chile. The surveys were applied before and after information disclosure and exposure in an experimental and longitudinal research design structure, respectively. As information disclosure, the threatened and endemic status of the wildlife species was presented to the participants. On the other hand, mass media coverage of a human-wildlife conflict involving one of the species included in study, the South American Sea Lion, was used for information exposure. The results indicate that the money allocation method identified support changes among the wildlife species to a greater extent than the rating scale for both types of information (Chapters 2, 3, and 4). The money allocation in the experimental design structure grouped the wildlife species based on their threatened and endemic status, while the rating scale did not come with the same results (Chapter 3). In the longitudinal design structure, the South American Sea Lion support decreased based on the average values of the money allocation and rating scale after the information exposure (Chapter 4). Differently, when the South American Sea Lion position support is compared with the other wildlife species, based on the money allocation, there was a descent, while the rating scale presented an ascent after the mass media coverage of the human-wildlife conflict (Chapter 4). This difference between the results of the two methods, in both research design structures, can be explained to a certain extent due to their scaling technique characteristics. The money allocation is a comparative scale; therefore, the support given to one wildlife species will affect the possible support given to the other species. In contrast, the rating scale is a non-comparative scale, i.e., the support given to a wildlife species is independent of the support given to the other wildlife species in the set. In the experimental research design structure (Chapters 2 and 3), to give or increase the support to a threatened or endemic wildlife species, a bill should be taken from another wildlife species, usually not threatened nor endemic. On the contrary, in the rating scale, there was no need to choose; the support could be increased for a wildlife species without decreasing the support for other wildlife species. In the longitudinal study design structure, the money allocation allows direct comparison between wildlife species from one year to another, while the rating scale does not. For the money allocation, the possible amount of support to be given to a wildlife species, i.e., 12 bills of 1,000 CLP each, did not vary from 2018 to 2019. For the rating scale, the values received among the wildlife species can vary within the rating scale from one year to another, misleading to incorrect interpretations. The money allocation method can be suitable for monitoring human-wildlife interactions, i.e., to position and visualize support shifts. The money allocation could be used as an overview of human-wildlife interactions in a specific area, working as a first assessment.