TY - JOUR
T1 - The future of wildlife conservation funding
T2 - What options do U.S. college students support?
AU - Larson, Lincoln R.
AU - Peterson, Markus Nils
AU - Furstenberg, Richard Von
AU - Vayer, Victoria R.
AU - Lee, Kangjae Jerry
AU - Choi, Daniel Y.
AU - Stevenson, Kathryn
AU - Ahlers, Adam A.
AU - Anhalt-Depies, Christine
AU - Bethke, Taniya
AU - T. Bruskotter, Jeremy
AU - Chizinski, Christopher J.
AU - Clark, Brian
AU - Dayer, Ashley A.
AU - Dunning, Kelly Heber
AU - Ghasemi, Benjamin
AU - Gigliotti, Larry
AU - Graefe, Alan
AU - Irwin, Kris
AU - Keith, Samuel J.
AU - Kelly, Matt
AU - Kyle, Gerard
AU - Metcalf, Elizabeth
AU - Morse, Wayde
AU - Needham, Mark D.
AU - Poudyal, Neelam C.
AU - Quartuch, Michael
AU - Rodriguez, Shari
AU - Romulo, Chelsie
AU - Sharp, Ryan L.
AU - Siemer, William
AU - Springer, Matthew T.
AU - Stayton, Brett
AU - Stedman, Richard
AU - Stein, Taylor
AU - Van Deelen, Timothy R.
AU - Whiting, Jason
AU - Winkler, Richelle L.
AU - Woosnam, Kyle Maurice
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors. Conservation Science and Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology
PY - 2021/10
Y1 - 2021/10
N2 - Insufficient funding is a major impediment to conservation efforts around the world. In the United States, a decline in hunting participation threatens sustainability of the “user-pay, public benefit” model that has supported wildlife conservation for nearly 100 years, forcing wildlife management agencies to contemplate alternative funding strategies. We investigated support for potential funding options among diverse college students, a rapidly expanding and politically active voting bloc with a potentially powerful influence on the future of conservation. From 2018 to 2020, we surveyed 17,203 undergraduate students at public universities across 22 states. Students preferred innovative approaches to conservation funding, with 72% supporting funding derived from industry sources (e.g., natural resource extraction companies), 63% supporting state sources (e.g., general sales tax), and 43% supporting conventional user-based sources such as license fees and excise taxes associated with outdoor recreation activities (e.g., hunting). Findings emphasize the need to broaden the base of support for conservation funding and highlight the importance of considering the preferences and perspectives of young adults and other diverse beneficiaries of wildlife conservation.
AB - Insufficient funding is a major impediment to conservation efforts around the world. In the United States, a decline in hunting participation threatens sustainability of the “user-pay, public benefit” model that has supported wildlife conservation for nearly 100 years, forcing wildlife management agencies to contemplate alternative funding strategies. We investigated support for potential funding options among diverse college students, a rapidly expanding and politically active voting bloc with a potentially powerful influence on the future of conservation. From 2018 to 2020, we surveyed 17,203 undergraduate students at public universities across 22 states. Students preferred innovative approaches to conservation funding, with 72% supporting funding derived from industry sources (e.g., natural resource extraction companies), 63% supporting state sources (e.g., general sales tax), and 43% supporting conventional user-based sources such as license fees and excise taxes associated with outdoor recreation activities (e.g., hunting). Findings emphasize the need to broaden the base of support for conservation funding and highlight the importance of considering the preferences and perspectives of young adults and other diverse beneficiaries of wildlife conservation.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85122096822&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85122096822&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/csp2.505
DO - 10.1111/csp2.505
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85122096822
SN - 2578-4854
VL - 3
JO - Conservation Science and Practice
JF - Conservation Science and Practice
IS - 10
M1 - e505
ER -