Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T18:18:04.785Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Relationship of Political Party Affiliation to Wildlife Conservation Attitudes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Brian Czech  and
Rena Borkhataria
Brian Czech*
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA, website: www.steadystate.org)
Rena Borkhataria
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, USA
*
Correspondence should be sent to 5101 S. lph St., Arlington, VA22204, USA (e-mail: brianczech@juno.com.
Get access

Abstract

Species conservation via the Endangered Species Act is highly politicized, yet few data have been gathered to illustrate the relationship of political party affiliation to species conservation perspectives. We conducted a nationwide public opinion survey and found that Democrats value species conservation more highly than do Republicans, and that Democrats are also more strongly supportive of the Endangered Species Act. Republicans place higher value on property rights than do Democrats, but members of both parties value economic growth as highly as wildlife conservation. The results imply that the Democratic propensity to value species conservation reflects a biocentric perspective that does not bode well for practical conservation efforts. Species conservation will depend upon the success of academicians and progressive political leaders in educating students and members of all parties about the fundamental conflict between economic growth and wildlife conservation.

Type
Articles
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 3 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ayres, R.U. (1999). Turning Point: An End to the Growth Paradigm. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Babbitt, B. (1998). “Protecting Our Common Heritage—Keynote.” North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference Transactions 63:11–18.Google Scholar
Barone, M. and Ujifusa, G. (1995). The Almanac of American Politics. Washington, DC: National Journal.Google Scholar
Belinfante, A. (1999). Telephone Subscribership in the United States (Data Through November 1998). Washington, DC: Industry Analysis Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission.Google Scholar
Bergman, B.J. (1995). “Leader of the Pack.” Sierra 8(6):50–55.Google Scholar
Brick, J.M., Waksberg, J., Kulp, D., and Starer, A. (1995). “Bias in List-Assisted Telephone Samples.” Public Opinion Quarterly 59(2):218–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cawley, R.M. (1993). Federal Land, Western Anger: The Sagebrush Rebellion and Environmental Politics. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Cover, A.D., Pinney, N., and Serra, G. (1997). “Voting Behavior in the U.S. House and Senate: Regional Shifts and Contemporary Changes in Party Coalitions.” Party Politics 3(2)221–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cozic, C.P. (1996). Politicians and Ethics. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.Google Scholar
Czech, B. (2000a). “Economic Growth as the Limiting Factor for Wildlife Conservation.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:4–14.Google Scholar
Czech, B. (2000b). Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train: Errant Economists, Shameful Spenders, and a Plan to Stop Them All. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Czech, B. (2001). “A Potential Catch-22 for a Sustainable American Ideology.” Ecological Economics 39(1):3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czech, B., Devers, P.K., and Krausman, P.R. (2001). “The Relationship of Gender to Species Conservation Attitudes.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:187–94.Google Scholar
Czech, B. and Krausman, P.R. (1997). “Distribution and Causation of Species Endangerment in the United States.” Science 277:1116–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czech, B. and Krausman, P.R. (2001). The Endangered Species Act: History, Conservation Biology, and Public Policy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Czech, B., Krausman, P.R., and Borkhataria, R. (1998). “Social Construction, Political Power, and the Allocation of Benefits to Endangered Species.” Conservation Biology 12:1103–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czech, B., Krausman, P.R., and Devers, P.K. (2000). “Economic Associations Among Causes of Species Endangerment in the United States.” Bioscience 50(7):593–601.Google Scholar
Daly, H.E. and Cobb, J.B. Jr. (1994). For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Dillman, D.A. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Dobson, A.P., Rodriquez, J.P, Roberts, W.M., and Wilcove, D.S. (1997). “Geographic Distribution of Endangered Species in the United States.” Science 275:550–53.Google Scholar
Doyle, R. (2000). “Voter Turnout.” Scientific American 283(5):23.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, P.R. and Ehrlich, A.H. (1996). Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, P.R., Wolff, B., Daily, G.C., Hughes, J.B., Daily, S., Dalton, M., and Goulder, L. (1999). “Knowledge and the Environment.” Ecological Economics 30:267–84.Google Scholar
Famighetti, R., ed. (1996). The World Almanac and Book of Facts 1997. Mahwah, NJ: K-III Reference Corporation.Google Scholar
Fearnside, P.M. (1986). Human Carrying Capacity of the Brazilian Rainforest. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Flanigan, W.H. and Zingale, N.H. (1998). Political Behavior of the American Electorate. Ninth edition. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Flather, C.H., Knowles, M.S., and Kendall, I.A. (1998). “Threatened and Endangered Geography: Characteristics of Hot Spots in the Conterminous United States.” Bioscience 48(5):365–75.Google Scholar
Giesbrecht, L.H., Kulp, D.W., and Starer, A.W. (1996). “Estimating Coverage Bias in RDD Samples with Current Population Survey (CPS) Data.” Paper presented at the 1996 American Association for Public Opinion Research Annual Conference and available from Marketing Systems Group, Fort Washington, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Gingrich, N., Armey, R.K., Gillespie, E., and Schellhas, B. (1994). Contract with America: The Bold Plan by Rep. Newt Gingrich, Rep. Dick Armey and the House Republicans to Change the Nation. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, R. (1993). Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the American Environmental Movement. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Hayward, T. (1994). Ecological Thought: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hueting, R. (1991). “Correcting National Income for Environmental Losses: A Practical Solution for a Theoretical Dilemma.” In Costanza, R. (ed.), Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Jansson, A.M., Hammer, M., Folke, C., and Costanza, R., eds. (1994). Investing in Natural Capital. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Keeter, S. (1995). “Estimating Noncoverage Bias from a Phone Survey.” Public Opinion Quarterly 59(10):218–35.Google Scholar
Kellert, S.R. (1987). “Attitudes, Knowledge, and Behaviors Toward Wildlife as Affected by Gender.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 15:363–71.Google Scholar
Kellert, S.R. (1996). The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Koenig, D.J. (1975). “Additional Research On Environmental Activism.” Environment and Behavior 7(4):472–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, T.A. (1995). “Cloaked in a Wise Disguise.” In Echeverria, J.D. and Eby, R.B. (eds.), Let the People Judge: Wise Use and the Private Property Rights Movement. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Luke, T.W. (1999). Capitalism, Democracy, and Ecology: Departing from Marx. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Madrick, J. (1995). The End of Affluence: The Causes and Consequences of America's Economic Decline. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Niemi, R.G., Watson, D.A., and Weisberg, H.F., eds. (2001). Controversies in Voting Behavior. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Patterson, K.D. (1996). Political Parties and the Maintenance of Liberal Democracy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Pianka, E.R. (1974). Evolutionary Ecology. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Piekarski, L., Kaplan, G., and Prestegaard, J. (1999). “Telephony and Telephone Sampling: the Dynamics of Change.” Paper presented at the American Association for Public Opinion Research Annual Conference, St. Petersburg, Florida, May 15, 1999, and available from Survey Sampling, Fairfield, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Ramos, T. (1995). “Wise Use in the West: the Case of the Northwest Timber Industry.” In Echeverria, J.D. and Eby, R.B. (eds.), Let the People Judge: Wise Use and the Private Property Rights Movement. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Reffalt, W. (1991). “The Endangered Species Lists: Chronicles of Extinction?” In Kohm, K.A. (ed.), Balancing on the Brink of Extinction: The Endangered Species Act and Lessons for the Future. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Rifkin, J. and Rifkin, C.G. (1992). Voting Green: Your Complete Environmental Guide to Making Political Choices in the 90's. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Rostow, W.W. (1990). Theorists of Economic Growth from David Hume to the Present: With a Perspective on the Next Century. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Salant, P., and Dillman, D.A. (1994). How to Conduct Your Own Survey. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Simon, J.L. and Kahn, H. (1984). The Resourceful Earth: A Response to Global 2000. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stanley, H.W. and Niemi, R.G. (1995). Vital Statistics on American Politics. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Strand, P.J. (1981). “The Energy Issue: Partisan Characteristics.” Environment and Behavior 13(4):509–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiele, L.P. (1999). Environmentalism for a New Millennium: The Challenge of Coevolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
United States Bureau of the Census (1996). Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1996. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
United States Bureau of Economic Analysis (1998). “GDP and Other Major NIPA Series, 1929–1997.” Survey of Current Business 78(8):147–66.Google Scholar
Wall, G. (1995). “General Versus Specific Environmental Concern: A Western Canadian Case.” Environment and Behavior 27(3):294–316.Google Scholar
Wilcove, D.S., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Phillips, A., and Losos, E. (1998). “Quantifying Threats to Imperiled Species in the United States.” Bioscience 48(8):607–16.Google Scholar
Williams, T. (1996). “Defense of the Realm.” Sierra 81(1):34–39, 121–22.Google Scholar
Yaffee, S.L. (1982). Prohibitive Policy: Implementing the Federal Endangered Species Act. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar