Open AccessThe future of wildlife conservation funding: What options do U.S. college students support?
Author(s) -
Larson Lincoln R.,
Peterson Markus Nils,
Furstenberg Richard Von,
Vayer Victoria R.,
Lee Kangjae Jerry,
Choi Daniel Y.,
Stevenson Kathryn,
Ahlers Adam A.,
AnhaltDepies Christine,
Bethke Taniya,
Bruskotter Jeremy,
Chizinski Christopher J.,
Clark Brian,
Dayer Ashley A.,
Dunning Kelly Heber,
Ghasemi Benjamin,
Gigliotti Larry,
Graefe Alan,
Irwin Kris,
Keith Samuel J.,
Kelly Matt,
Kyle Gerard,
Metcalf Elizabeth,
Morse Wayde,
Needham Mark D.,
Poudyal Neelam C.,
Quartuch Michael,
Rodriguez Shari,
Romulo Chelsie,
Sharp Ryan L.,
Siemer William,
Springer Matthew T.,
Stayton Brett,
Stedman Richard,
Stein Taylor,
Van Deelen Timothy R.,
Whiting Jason,
Winkler Richelle L.,
Woosnam Kyle Maurice
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
conservation science and practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2578-4854
DOI - 10.1111/csp2.505
Subject(s) - wildlife , business , natural resource , wildlife conservation , license , sustainability , recreation , additionality , resource (disambiguation) , environmental planning , environmental resource management , political science , public economics , economics , geography , ecology , law , biology , computer network , computer science
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.