Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 5 – uploaded by Shalynn Pack

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
b. Dynamic Comparisons Among Models Figure 3: Large mammal population trends in Africa. Species data from protected areas, each species is weighted equally. Source: Craigie et al. 2010.

Figure 3 b. Dynamic Comparisons Among Models Figure 3: Large mammal population trends in Africa. Species data from protected areas, each species is weighted equally. Source: Craigie et al. 2010.

Related Figures (28)

Table 1: Summary of three wildlife management models To understand these models within such a large scope, we conducted an exhaustive literature review, citing over 280 articles of primarily peer-reviewed literature and government reports. Using this research, we compared the models across four categories: wildlife population trends, economics, social support for conservation, and protected area coverage. Next, from each category we identified measurable indicators of model performance (e.g. for economics: %GDP contribution from wildlife-related tourism). Finally, in order to compare the model performance in a concise and simplified manner, we selected one indicator per category that best exemplified model performance. Our final output is a “Model Performance” table, which shows each country’s ranking per the given indicator per a color-coding scheme (green = high, gray = medium, yellow = low).
Table 1: Summary of three wildlife management models To understand these models within such a large scope, we conducted an exhaustive literature review, citing over 280 articles of primarily peer-reviewed literature and government reports. Using this research, we compared the models across four categories: wildlife population trends, economics, social support for conservation, and protected area coverage. Next, from each category we identified measurable indicators of model performance (e.g. for economics: %GDP contribution from wildlife-related tourism). Finally, in order to compare the model performance in a concise and simplified manner, we selected one indicator per category that best exemplified model performance. Our final output is a “Model Performance” table, which shows each country’s ranking per the given indicator per a color-coding scheme (green = high, gray = medium, yellow = low).
social goals. Most of the wildlife included in this analysis currently have stable populations. A dedicated federal funding mechanism in the US ensures that a majority of wildlife management costs are covered by excise taxes, paid by hunters and anglers. Furthermore, the public trust doctrine provides all North Americans the opportunity to participate in nature-related activities. Conditions which enable the North American model to succeed include participation in hunting, public access to wildlife, and enforced hunting regulations. A threat to the model is privatization of wildlife and land, as it runs counter to the principles of the public trust doctrine. In addition, non-consumptive users don’t directly pay for conservation the same way that consumptive users do. This may compromise the sustainability of the model’s funding source if participation in hunting declines, particularly in the US. To strengthen the North American model, a funding mechanism that targets non-consumptive wildlife users should be established at the federal level.
social goals. Most of the wildlife included in this analysis currently have stable populations. A dedicated federal funding mechanism in the US ensures that a majority of wildlife management costs are covered by excise taxes, paid by hunters and anglers. Furthermore, the public trust doctrine provides all North Americans the opportunity to participate in nature-related activities. Conditions which enable the North American model to succeed include participation in hunting, public access to wildlife, and enforced hunting regulations. A threat to the model is privatization of wildlife and land, as it runs counter to the principles of the public trust doctrine. In addition, non-consumptive users don’t directly pay for conservation the same way that consumptive users do. This may compromise the sustainability of the model’s funding source if participation in hunting declines, particularly in the US. To strengthen the North American model, a funding mechanism that targets non-consumptive wildlife users should be established at the federal level.
Fig. 3: Comparison among models of population trends of selected large mammal species. ‘n’ represents the number of species included in the analysis. There is no significant difference between the Hunting Models and No-Hunting Model in terms of the percent of large mammal species in decline (paired t-test, p = 0.46, t = 1.3010, df = 1, standard error of difference = 25.550 ). See Appendix III for full list of species. Source: IUCN 2012.
Fig. 3: Comparison among models of population trends of selected large mammal species. ‘n’ represents the number of species included in the analysis. There is no significant difference between the Hunting Models and No-Hunting Model in terms of the percent of large mammal species in decline (paired t-test, p = 0.46, t = 1.3010, df = 1, standard error of difference = 25.550 ). See Appendix III for full list of species. Source: IUCN 2012.
Table 1: Summary of three wildlife management models *The North American model of wildlife conservation is characterized by public ownership of wildlife and a “user pay, user benefit” system in which hunters and anglers contribute to funding for wildlife conservation. This model is credited with success as it generates millions of dollars each year for conservation and local economies, promotes public interest in wildlife, and promotes stable populations of wildlife (Geist et al. 2001).
Table 1: Summary of three wildlife management models *The North American model of wildlife conservation is characterized by public ownership of wildlife and a “user pay, user benefit” system in which hunters and anglers contribute to funding for wildlife conservation. This model is credited with success as it generates millions of dollars each year for conservation and local economies, promotes public interest in wildlife, and promotes stable populations of wildlife (Geist et al. 2001).
Table 3: Model Performance of three wildlife management models
Table 3: Model Performance of three wildlife management models
Based on our analysis, North America supports the most stable or increasing populations of large mammals, while India has the most declining populations. We used this data to compare the two Hunting Models with the No-Hunting model. Statistically, there is no significant difference between the percent of declining large mammal populations between the No- Hunting Model and the Hunting Models.
Based on our analysis, North America supports the most stable or increasing populations of large mammals, while India has the most declining populations. We used this data to compare the two Hunting Models with the No-Hunting model. Statistically, there is no significant difference between the percent of declining large mammal populations between the No- Hunting Model and the Hunting Models.
We examined the coverage of protected areas for each country as a way to understand the status of habitat conservation among models. We compared models statistically and found that there is no significant difference among models in terms of terrestrial or marine protectec area coverage. However, compared to the other countries, Tanzania has the highest coverag. of terrestrial protected areas at 28%. This is attributed to, in part, the existence of many protected areas before Tanzania gained independence. Additionally, Tanzania receives significant NGO contributions annually (around US$14 million), which aid in its ability to suppo protected area management (Brockington et al. 2008).
We examined the coverage of protected areas for each country as a way to understand the status of habitat conservation among models. We compared models statistically and found that there is no significant difference among models in terms of terrestrial or marine protectec area coverage. However, compared to the other countries, Tanzania has the highest coverag. of terrestrial protected areas at 28%. This is attributed to, in part, the existence of many protected areas before Tanzania gained independence. Additionally, Tanzania receives significant NGO contributions annually (around US$14 million), which aid in its ability to suppo protected area management (Brockington et al. 2008).
Zimmerer et al. found that terrestrial protected area estates have grown at different rates in different regions around the world. Of the regions included, North America experienced the most growth in its protected area estate between 1985 and 1997. This may be attributed to the expansion of the protected areas in the United States under the National Wildlife Refuge system, the BLM (e.g. Grand Staircase National Monument) and The Nature Conservancy (Zimmerer et al. 2004). Limited growth of the protected area estate in South Asia could be attributed to its high population density, which has only allowed the creation of small, fragmented reserves.
Zimmerer et al. found that terrestrial protected area estates have grown at different rates in different regions around the world. Of the regions included, North America experienced the most growth in its protected area estate between 1985 and 1997. This may be attributed to the expansion of the protected areas in the United States under the National Wildlife Refuge system, the BLM (e.g. Grand Staircase National Monument) and The Nature Conservancy (Zimmerer et al. 2004). Limited growth of the protected area estate in South Asia could be attributed to its high population density, which has only allowed the creation of small, fragmented reserves.
Table 5. Economic Effects of Wildlife Tourism Sources: Boora 2005, Booth 2010, Filion et al. 1994, NCAA 2002, SANParks 2012, USFWS 2011, WTTC 2012.
Table 5. Economic Effects of Wildlife Tourism Sources: Boora 2005, Booth 2010, Filion et al. 1994, NCAA 2002, SANParks 2012, USFWS 2011, WTTC 2012.
Sources: IUCN and UNEP 2012, Lindsey et al. 2006, McCarthy n.d. (USA) Table 7. Percent of total land area utilized for Sport Hunting vs. Protected Areas
Sources: IUCN and UNEP 2012, Lindsey et al. 2006, McCarthy n.d. (USA) Table 7. Percent of total land area utilized for Sport Hunting vs. Protected Areas
Wildlife Restoration Figure 7: Funding from excise taxes on hunters directed into the Wildlife Restoration account. Source: Southwick Associates 2012; Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation 2012.
Wildlife Restoration Figure 7: Funding from excise taxes on hunters directed into the Wildlife Restoration account. Source: Southwick Associates 2012; Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation 2012.
Figure 8. Canada’s funding mechanism for wildlife conservation. There are no dedicated federal excise taxes for wildlife management; provincial agencies must rely on allocations from the general revenue and other sources. Solid arrows represent the flow of funds; dotted arrows represent tangible and intangible benefits of wildlife management including the ability to hunt, view, and enjoy wildlife.
Figure 8. Canada’s funding mechanism for wildlife conservation. There are no dedicated federal excise taxes for wildlife management; provincial agencies must rely on allocations from the general revenue and other sources. Solid arrows represent the flow of funds; dotted arrows represent tangible and intangible benefits of wildlife management including the ability to hunt, view, and enjoy wildlife.
Figure 9: Participation in Wildlife Viewing in the United States. Sources: USFWS 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006, 2011. Social Support for Conservation: North America North Americans generally support wildlife conservation; millions of Americans and Canadian: participate in consumptive and non-consumptive activities including hunting, bird watching, and visiting national parks and other natural areas. 71.8 million Americans (23% of the population) participated in wildlife watching in 2011; 68.6 million of these were around the home, while 22.5 million of these were away from home (USFWS 2011). In addition, nearly one in five Canadians (18.6 percent of the population) participated in wildlife viewing in Canada in 1996 (DuWors et al. 1999). Furthermore, membership in non-governmental environmental organizations in both the US and Canada is in the millions and increasing which indicates growing support for environmental conservation (Rands et al. 2010, Dunlap and Mertig 1992). In general, Americans and Canadians agree with wildlife and hunting policies, although exceptions exist, including animal welfare groups, which generally advocate for a complete ban Threats to wildlife in North America differ by region, but cumulative threats include climate change (which may contribute to range shifts), habitat fragmentation and loss, invasive species, and human-wildlife conflict, particularly wildlife-vehicle collisions and perceived risk of livestock predation (Imre and Derbowka 2011, Collins and Kays 2011). Given the trends in global biodiversity loss, it is likely that more species will be listed on the US Endangered Species Act and the Canadian Species at Risk Act in the future.
Figure 9: Participation in Wildlife Viewing in the United States. Sources: USFWS 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006, 2011. Social Support for Conservation: North America North Americans generally support wildlife conservation; millions of Americans and Canadian: participate in consumptive and non-consumptive activities including hunting, bird watching, and visiting national parks and other natural areas. 71.8 million Americans (23% of the population) participated in wildlife watching in 2011; 68.6 million of these were around the home, while 22.5 million of these were away from home (USFWS 2011). In addition, nearly one in five Canadians (18.6 percent of the population) participated in wildlife viewing in Canada in 1996 (DuWors et al. 1999). Furthermore, membership in non-governmental environmental organizations in both the US and Canada is in the millions and increasing which indicates growing support for environmental conservation (Rands et al. 2010, Dunlap and Mertig 1992). In general, Americans and Canadians agree with wildlife and hunting policies, although exceptions exist, including animal welfare groups, which generally advocate for a complete ban Threats to wildlife in North America differ by region, but cumulative threats include climate change (which may contribute to range shifts), habitat fragmentation and loss, invasive species, and human-wildlife conflict, particularly wildlife-vehicle collisions and perceived risk of livestock predation (Imre and Derbowka 2011, Collins and Kays 2011). Given the trends in global biodiversity loss, it is likely that more species will be listed on the US Endangered Species Act and the Canadian Species at Risk Act in the future.
Figure 10: Participation in Hunting in the United States. Sources: USFWS 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006, 2011.
Figure 10: Participation in Hunting in the United States. Sources: USFWS 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006, 2011.
Figure 11. Range map of African elephant (1979 and 2009) Source: National Geographic 2012. -- has likely fared even worse (Economist 2010, KWS 2013, Norton-Griffiths 2007). A study by Craigie et al. (2010) found that African national parks have lost 59% of their large mammals since 1970. As this study excludes elephant and rhino -- which are primarily threatened by poaching -- it demonstrates that factors other than overhunting led to this decline in protected areas. Habitat loss due to human and agricultural expansion are believed to be the primary drivers of this decline (Western et al. 2009). Ensuing habitat fragmentation has degraded migratory corridors for wildlife, inhibiting large mammals such as wildebeest and zebra from moving safely between their wet and dry season ranges (Western 2009). Wildlife outside of protected areas -- which includes 70% of Kenya’s wildlife, and 80% of its elephants -- has likely fared even worse (Economist 2010, KWS 2013, Norton-Griffiths 2007).
Figure 11. Range map of African elephant (1979 and 2009) Source: National Geographic 2012. -- has likely fared even worse (Economist 2010, KWS 2013, Norton-Griffiths 2007). A study by Craigie et al. (2010) found that African national parks have lost 59% of their large mammals since 1970. As this study excludes elephant and rhino -- which are primarily threatened by poaching -- it demonstrates that factors other than overhunting led to this decline in protected areas. Habitat loss due to human and agricultural expansion are believed to be the primary drivers of this decline (Western et al. 2009). Ensuing habitat fragmentation has degraded migratory corridors for wildlife, inhibiting large mammals such as wildebeest and zebra from moving safely between their wet and dry season ranges (Western 2009). Wildlife outside of protected areas -- which includes 70% of Kenya’s wildlife, and 80% of its elephants -- has likely fared even worse (Economist 2010, KWS 2013, Norton-Griffiths 2007).
Source: ENVIS 2012, Rodgers et al. 2003, IUCN and UNEP 2012
Source: ENVIS 2012, Rodgers et al. 2003, IUCN and UNEP 2012
Figure 12. Population sizes and trends of the Polar Bear. Source: WWF 2011 Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) live throughout the ice-covered waters of the Arctic Circle, ranging as far south as the sea ice extends. They are found in Canada, Greenland, Norway, Russia, and the United States. Some populations of polar bears have year long access to sea ice enabling them to hunt; others with annual summer ice melt must retreat to land and survive off of fat stores until the ice returns (IUCN 2013).
Figure 12. Population sizes and trends of the Polar Bear. Source: WWF 2011 Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) live throughout the ice-covered waters of the Arctic Circle, ranging as far south as the sea ice extends. They are found in Canada, Greenland, Norway, Russia, and the United States. Some populations of polar bears have year long access to sea ice enabling them to hunt; others with annual summer ice melt must retreat to land and survive off of fat stores until the ice returns (IUCN 2013).
Background The African lion (Panthera leo leo)is an iconic predator whose populations have been declining for the past 50 years due to habitat loss and human-wildlife conflict. Lions depend on large swaths of habitat and prey including zebras, wildebeest, and springbok. They live in prides of four to six members, which consist of related females and their cubs as well as a dominant male. Females hunt and raise young communally. Typically, lions live in open woodlands or scrub and grass complexes where sufficient cover is provided for hunting and denning. They are found in most countries in eastern and southern Africa, yet they survive in only 22% of their historical range (IUCN 2006a,b; Bauer 2008).
Background The African lion (Panthera leo leo)is an iconic predator whose populations have been declining for the past 50 years due to habitat loss and human-wildlife conflict. Lions depend on large swaths of habitat and prey including zebras, wildebeest, and springbok. They live in prides of four to six members, which consist of related females and their cubs as well as a dominant male. Females hunt and raise young communally. Typically, lions live in open woodlands or scrub and grass complexes where sufficient cover is provided for hunting and denning. They are found in most countries in eastern and southern Africa, yet they survive in only 22% of their historical range (IUCN 2006a,b; Bauer 2008).
Figure 13: Current and historic range map of the African lion. Source: Panthera 2009. Population Status
Figure 13: Current and historic range map of the African lion. Source: Panthera 2009. Population Status
From left: Indian, Sumatran, White, Javan, and Black Rhino Photo: Rhino Resource Center 2013.
From left: Indian, Sumatran, White, Javan, and Black Rhino Photo: Rhino Resource Center 2013.
Related topics:
EconomicsEnvironmental EducationSocial SciencesScience CommunicationConservation BiologyCommunity Based Natural Resources ManagementWildlife Ecology And ManagementEcologySouth Africa (History)Biodiversity
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved