What you’re doing
For this assignment, you will be completing a survey, and then conducting a basic analysis and interpretation based on your results. If you have not already completed the survey, please do so now before reading further. The survey is here.
Instructions
Now that you have completed the survey, follow the directions below:
The survey you took is the first section of a larger survey that was commissioned by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) in 2004, in order to establish the factors that influence the presence of a defined set of wildlife value orientations in the western United States. This study is available online as Teel et al (2005).
The purpose of this assignment is to:
Have you assess your wildlife value orientation and belief dimensions using the Teel et al (2005) instrument, and
Gain some insight into the use of survey instruments to characterize values and beliefs, and
Identify ways in which knowledge of values and beliefs could benefit the natural resource manager.
Procedure
Once you have completed the survey, use the following directions to summarize your responses.
1) Average your indicated numerical value for your responses (e.g., 1=strongly disagree and 7=strongly agree) for the following groups of questions:
1a. #1, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 13. This value is your utilitarian belief dimension score.
1b. #2, 5, 6, and 7. This value is your mutualism belief dimension score.
1c. #18, 22, 24, 25, and 28. This value is your caring belief dimension score.
1d. #11, 14, 16, and 19. This value is your safety belief dimension score.
1e. #26, 29, and 31. This value is your environmental belief dimension score.
2) Reverse the scores for questions #15, 17, 20, and 27. For example if your score was 5, it becomes a 3, a 7 becomes a 1, and a 6 becomes a 2. Once you have reversed the scores for these 4 questions, average the values for the following groups:
2a. #17 and 20. This value is your attraction belief dimension score.
2b. #3, 15, 23, and 27. This value is your hunting belief dimension score.
3) Average your mutualism belief score (1b above) and your caring belief score (1c), this is your Mutualism value orientation score.
4) Average your utilitarian belief score (1a) and your hunting belief dimension score (2b), this is your Utilitarian value orientation score.
5) Utilize the following table to establish your value orientation type (in bold):
Utilitarian Value Orientation Score
4.5
Mutualism Value
Orientation Score
4.5
Mutualist
Pluralist
6) Sum the rankings for the 1st and 3rd statements in each of the 3 groups on the first page of the survey (so you are summing 6 values). This is your materialist ranking.
7) Sum the rankings for the 2nd and 4th statements in each of the 3 groups (again, 6 values total). This is your post-materialist ranking.
8) Subtract your post-materialist ranking (#7) from your materialist ranking (#6), this is your Materialist/Post-Materialist Index. If it is positive, you have a post-materialist value set, if it is negative, a materialist value set. If it is 0, you have a mixed values set.
Questions
Provide the results of your analysis of the survey you took. These results should indicate the values that are used to determine the following:
Your dominant belief dimension (out of the utilitarian, hunting, mutualist, and caring dimensions),
Your utilitarian and mutualism orientation scores (whichever is highest is your value orientation),
Your value orientation type (Distanced, Utilitarian, Mutualist, Pluralist),
Your Attraction, Safety, and Environmentalism belief dimension scores,
Your Materialist/post-materialist score
Reflect on your categorization – with a focus on your wildlife value orientation type (Distanced, Utilitarian, Mutualist, Pluralist). How might knowledge of your own orientation influence your interactions with others who possess a different value orientation? What predispositions does your orientation have that might conflict with those of other value orientations? Inform your statements with support from the Petitpas and Bonacic (2019) paper on the Guanaco as well as the described results of the use of this survey found in Manfredo et al (2009)
Literature Cited
Manfredo, M.J., T.L. Teel, and K.L. Henry. 2009. Linking society and environment: a multi-level model of shifting wildlife value orientations in the western U.S. Social Science Quarterly 90:407-427.
Petitpas, R., and C. Bonacic. 2019. Ontological Politics of Wildlife: Local People, Conservation Biologists and Guanacos. Conservation & Society 17(3): 250–257. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26677961.
Teel, T. L., A.A. Dayer, M.J. Manfredo, and A.D. Bright. 2005. Regional results from the research project entitled “Wildlife Values in the West.” (Project Rep. No. 58). Project Report for the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit. Available at ResearchGate
