Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/taylor-francis/stakeholder-acceptance-capacity-in-wildlife-management-NZOCIiq40b
References (19)
-
T. Brown, D. Decker (1979)
Incorporating Farmers' Attitudes into Management of White-Tailed Deer in New YorkJournal of Wildlife Management, 43
-
W. Coplin, M. O'leary (1976)
Everyman's Prince: A guide to understanding your political problems -
B. Shelby, T. Heberlein (1986)
Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings -
(1985)
Deer population management in New York: Using public input to meet public needs -
(1992)
Carrying Capacity Network. Leopold, A. 1933. Game management -
(1991)
Implications of the wildlife acceptance capacity concept for urban wildlife management -
D. Decker, C. Krueger, R. Baer, B. Knuth, M. Richmond (1996)
From clients to stakeholders: A philosophical shift for fish and wildlife managementHuman Dimensions of Wildlife, 1
-
(1983)
Rural landowner attitudes toward deer and deer populations in Ohio -
B. Shelby, T. Heberlein (1984)
A conceptual framework for carrying capacity determinationLeisure Sciences, 6
-
(1983)
Wildlife conflicts in an urban area: Occurrence of problems and human attitudes toward wildlife -
(1992)
Cultural carrying capacity -
(2000)
Innovations in stakeholder involvement : What ' s the next step ? -
M. Conover (1997)
Monetary and intangible valuation of deer in the United States.Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25
-
D. Decker, Lisa Chase (1997)
HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF LIVING WITH WILDLIFE : A MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE FOR THE 21ST CENTURYWildlife Society Bulletin, 25
-
G. Norton, P. Pardey, J. Alston (1992)
Economic Issues in Agricultural Research Priority SettingAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74
-
(1987)
Landowners' willingness to tolerate white-tailed deer damage in New York: an overview of research and management response -
A. Graefe, J. Vaske, F. Kuss (1984)
Resolved issues and remaining questions about social carrying capacityLeisure Sciences, 6
-
(1992)
Survey use and landowner tolerance in wildlife damage management -
D. McCullough (1992)
Concepts of Large Herbivore Population Dynamics
- Publisher
- Taylor & Francis
- Copyright
- Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
- ISSN
- 1533-158X
- eISSN
- 1087-1209
- DOI
- 10.1080/10871200009359184
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
Abstract Capacity understanding has been a central driving force in both the biological and human dimensions of wildlife management. The concept of biological carrying capacity has been recognized for a long time. For many years, reference has been made to another form of carrying capacity, that of society to tolerate or accept the impacts of wildlife in particular situations. Attempts to articulate this concept have taken several forms, but all generally recognize the economic or attitudinal limits of society to “carry”; wildlife (e.g., risk perception and acceptance). We compare and contrast elements of the biological and human dimensions concepts of carrying capacity. We then describe the concept “stakeholder acceptance capacity”; in wildlife management and a theoretical model for weighting stakes, including algorithms to illustrate conceptually how stakes can be weighted in management decision making.
Journal
Human Dimensions of Wildlife – Taylor & Francis
Published: Sep 1, 2000
Keywords: Carrying capacity; human dimensions; stakeholder acceptance capacity; stakeholders; wildlife management