Search for: All records

Abstract Beef production systems are at the center of ongoing discussion and debate on food systems sustainability. There is a growing interest among beef producers, consumers, and other beef supply chain stakeholders in achieving greater sustainability within the industry, but the relationship of this interest to general sustainability issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, food security, livelihood risks, and animal welfare concerns is unclear. Specifically, there is very little research documenting how beef producers define and view the concept of sustainability and how to achieve it. Producer perspectives are critical to identifying constraints to sustainability transitions or to help build agreement with other producers about the shared values such transitions may support. Through a secondary analysis of survey data of U.S. beef producers (n = 911) conducted in 2021 by the Trust in Food division of Farm Journal, a corporation that provides content, data, and business insights to the agricultural community (e.g., producers, processors/distributors, and retailers), we investigated what “sustainable beef” means to U.S. beef producers, highlighting the key components and constraints they perceive to achieving desirable sustainability outcomes. Leveraging the three-pillar model of sustainability as a framework for analysis, we identified key themes producers use to define “sustainable beef.” We found that producers collectively viewed sustainability as: (1) multidimensional and interconnected; (2) semi-closed and regenerative; (3) long-lasting; and (4) producer-centered, although an integrated perspective uniting these aspects was rare. We discuss how these perspectives may be the basis for sustainability efforts supported by producers and raise future research considerations toward a shared understanding of what sustainability is and what is needed for enduring sustainability solutions in the U.S. beef industry. 

Abstract Wildlife conservation depends on supportive social as well as biophysical conditions. Social identities such as hunter and nonhunter are often associated with different attitudes toward wildlife. However, it is unknown whether dynamics within and among these identity groups explain how attitudes form and why they differ. To investigate how social identities help shape wildlife‐related attitudes and the implications for wildlife policy and conservation, we built a structural equation model with survey data from Montana (USA) residents (n = 1758) that tested how social identities affect the relationship between experiences with grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) and attitudes toward the species. Model results (r² = 0.51) demonstrated that the hunter identity magnified the negative effect of vicarious property damage on attitudes toward grizzly bears (β = −0.381, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.584 to −0.178,p < 0.001), which in turn strongly influenced acceptance (β = −0.571, 95% CI: −0.611 to −0.531,p < 0.001). Our findings suggested that hunters’ attitudes toward grizzly bears likely become more negative primarily because of in‐group social interactions about negative experiences, and similar group dynamics may lead nonhunters to disregard the negative experiences that out‐group members have with grizzly bears. Given the profound influence of social identity on human cognitions and behaviors in myriad contexts, the patterns we observed are likely important in a variety of wildlife conservation situations. To foster positive conservation outcomes and minimize polarization, management strategies should account for these identity‐driven perceptions while prioritizing conflict prevention and promoting positive wildlife narratives within and among identity groups. This study illustrates the utility of social identity theory for explaining and influencing human–wildlife interactions. 

Abstract Social connections among individuals are essential components of social‐ecological systems (SESs), enabling people to take actions to more effectively adapt or transform in response to widespread social‐ecological change. Although scholars have associated social connections and cognitions with adaptive capacity, measuring actors' social networks may further clarify pathways for bolstering resilience‐enhancing actions.We asked how social networks and socio‐cognitions, as components of adaptive capacity, and SES regime shift severity affect individual landscape management behaviours using a quantitative analysis of ego network survey data from livestock producers and landcover data on regime shift severity (i.e. juniper encroachment) in the North American Great Plains.Producers who experienced severe regime shifts or perceived high risks from such shifts were not more likely to engage in transformative behaviour like prescribed burning. Instead, we found that social network characteristics explained significant variance in transformative behaviours.Policy implications: Our results indicate that social networks enable behaviours that have the potential to transform SESs, suggesting possible leverage points for enabling capacity and coordination toward sustainability. Particularly where private lands dominate and cultural practices condition regime shifts, clarifying how social connections promote resilience may provide much needed insight to bolster adaptive capacities in the face of global change. Read the freePlain Language Summaryfor this article on the Journal blog. 

Over the last decade, there has been a remarkable increase in scientific literature addressing human–wildlife interactions (HWI) and associated concepts, such as coexistence, tolerance, and acceptance. Despite increased attention, these terms are rarely defined or consistently applied across publications. Indeed, the meaning of these concepts, especially coexistence, is frequently assumed and left for the reader to interpret, making it hard to compare studies, test metrics, and build upon previous HWI research. To work toward a better understanding of these terms, we conducted two World Café sessions at international conferences in Namibia, Africa and Ontario, Canada. Here, we present the array of perspectives revealed in the workshops and build upon these results to describe the meaning of coexistence as currently applied by conservation scientists and practitioners. Although we focus on coexistence, it is imperative to understand the term in relation to tolerance and acceptance, as in many cases these latter terms are used to express, measure, or define coexistence. Drawing on these findings, we discuss whether a common definition of these terms is possible and how the conservation field might move toward clarifying and operationalizing the concept of human-wildlife coexistence.