The future of wildlife conservation funding: What options do U.S. college students support?

Lincoln R. Larson; Markus Nils Peterson; Richard Von Furstenberg; Victoria R. Vayer; Kangjae Jerry Lee; Daniel Y. Choi; Kathryn Stevenson; Adam A. Ahlers; Christine Anhalt-Depies; Taniya Bethke; Jeremy T. Bruskotter; Christopher J. Chizinski; Brian Clark; Ashley A. Dayer; Kelly Heber Dunning; Benjamin Ghasemi; Larry Gigliotti; Alan Graefe; Kris Irwin; Samuel J. Keith; Matt Kelly; Gerard Kyle; Elizabeth Metcalf; Wayde Morse; Mark D. Needham; Neelam C. Poudyal; Michael Quartuch; Shari Rodriguez; Chelsie Romulo; Ryan L. Sharp; William Siemer; Matthew T. Springer; Brett Stayton; Richard Stedman; Taylor Stein; Timothy R. Van Deelen; Jason Whiting; Richelle L. Winkler; Kyle Maurice Woosnam

doi:10.1111/csp2.505

The future of wildlife conservation funding: What options do U.S. college students support?

Lincoln R. Larson, Markus Nils Peterson, Richard Von Furstenberg, Victoria R. Vayer, Kangjae Jerry Lee, Daniel Y. Choi, Kathryn Stevenson, Adam A. Ahlers, Christine Anhalt-Depies, Taniya Bethke, Jeremy T. Bruskotter, Christopher J. Chizinski, Brian Clark, Ashley A. Dayer, Kelly Heber Dunning, Benjamin Ghasemi, Larry Gigliotti, Alan Graefe, Kris Irwin, Samuel J. KeithMatt Kelly, Gerard Kyle, Elizabeth Metcalf, Wayde Morse, Mark D. Needham, Neelam C. Poudyal, Michael Quartuch, Shari Rodriguez, Chelsie Romulo, Ryan L. Sharp, William Siemer, Matthew T. Springer, Brett Stayton, Richard Stedman, Taylor Stein, Timothy R. Van Deelen, Jason Whiting, Richelle L. Winkler, Kyle Maurice Woosnam

Recreation, Park and Tourism Management

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

11 Scopus citations

Abstract

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.

Original language	English (US)
Article number	e505
Journal	Conservation Science and Practice
Volume	3
Issue number	10
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.505
State	Published - Oct 2021

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Global and Planetary Change
Ecology
Environmental Science (miscellaneous)
Nature and Landscape Conservation

Access to Document

10.1111/csp2.505

Cite this

Larson, L. R., Peterson, M. N., Furstenberg, R. V., Vayer, V. R., Lee, K. J., Choi, D. Y., Stevenson, K., Ahlers, A. A., Anhalt-Depies, C., Bethke, T., T. Bruskotter, J., Chizinski, C. J., Clark, B., Dayer, A. A., Dunning, K. H., Ghasemi, B., Gigliotti, L., Graefe, A., Irwin, K., ... Woosnam, K. M. (2021). The future of wildlife conservation funding: What options do U.S. college students support? Conservation Science and Practice, 3(10), Article e505. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.505

@article{37549566beca4393a98a239e9ed7dee5,

title = "The future of wildlife conservation funding: What options do U.S. college students support?",

abstract = "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.",

author = "Larson, {Lincoln R.} and Peterson, {Markus Nils} and Furstenberg, {Richard Von} and Vayer, {Victoria R.} and Lee, {Kangjae Jerry} and Choi, {Daniel Y.} and Kathryn Stevenson and Ahlers, {Adam A.} and Christine Anhalt-Depies and Taniya Bethke and {T. Bruskotter}, Jeremy and Chizinski, {Christopher J.} and Brian Clark and Dayer, {Ashley A.} and Dunning, {Kelly Heber} and Benjamin Ghasemi and Larry Gigliotti and Alan Graefe and Kris Irwin and Keith, {Samuel J.} and Matt Kelly and Gerard Kyle and Elizabeth Metcalf and Wayde Morse and Needham, {Mark D.} and Poudyal, {Neelam C.} and Michael Quartuch and Shari Rodriguez and Chelsie Romulo and Sharp, {Ryan L.} and William Siemer and Springer, {Matthew T.} and Brett Stayton and Richard Stedman and Taylor Stein and {Van Deelen}, {Timothy R.} and Jason Whiting and Winkler, {Richelle L.} and Woosnam, {Kyle Maurice}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021 The Authors. Conservation Science and Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology",

year = "2021",

month = oct,

doi = "10.1111/csp2.505",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "3",

journal = "Conservation Science and Practice",

issn = "2578-4854",

publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",

number = "10",

}

Larson, LR, Peterson, MN, Furstenberg, RV, Vayer, VR, Lee, KJ, Choi, DY, Stevenson, K, Ahlers, AA, Anhalt-Depies, C, Bethke, T, T. Bruskotter, J, Chizinski, CJ, Clark, B, Dayer, AA, Dunning, KH, Ghasemi, B, Gigliotti, L, Graefe, A, Irwin, K, Keith, SJ, Kelly, M, Kyle, G, Metcalf, E, Morse, W, Needham, MD, Poudyal, NC, Quartuch, M, Rodriguez, S, Romulo, C, Sharp, RL, Siemer, W, Springer, MT, Stayton, B, Stedman, R, Stein, T, Van Deelen, TR, Whiting, J, Winkler, RL & Woosnam, KM 2021, 'The future of wildlife conservation funding: What options do U.S. college students support?', Conservation Science and Practice, vol. 3, no. 10, e505. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.505

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

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 -

The future of wildlife conservation funding: What options do U.S. college students support?

Abstract

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this