Geology topics

Tara L. Teel

Publications and source records attributed to Tara L. Teel.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Enduring cultural legacies affect Euro-American wildlife values

Social values shape biodiversity conservation success. Yet information is lacking on how values form, change and adapt people to their environment. Our 33-nation survey in 2021–2023 ( n = 18,477) explored the effect of the institutions of European colonization on present-day values towards wildlife in the Americas. Here we found mutualism values (seeing wildlife as part of one’s social community) prevail in Iberian-origin Latin American countries, whereas domination values (seeing wildlife as a resource for human use) are more prevalent in British-origin North American countries. Multilevel analysis showed significant country-level effects of colonial institution (for example, colonial origin, Protestant versus Catholic religious cultures) and endowment (for example, pre-colonial population density, Indigenous ancestry, settler mortality) factors on wildlife values in the Americas. The strong mutualism emphasis in Latin America appears to be consistent with acculturation between the compatible ideologies of Indigenous peoples and the Iberian colonizers. The effectiveness of wildlife institutions and policies will depend on their congruence with the social values of publics being served.

Nature Sustainability↗

USGS2020

The changing sociocultural context of wildlife conservation

We introduced a multilevel model of value shift to describe the changing social context of wildlife conservation. Our model depicts how cultural-level processes driven by modernization (e.g., increased wealth, education, and urbanization) affect changes in individual-level cognition that prompt a shift from domination to mutualism wildlife values. Domination values promote beliefs that wildlife should be used primarily to benefit humans, whereas mutualism values adopt a view that wildlife are part of one's social network and worthy of care and compassion. Such shifts create emergent effects (e.g., new interest groups) and challenges to wildlife management organizations (e.g., increased conflict) and dramatically alter the sociopolitical context of conservation decisions. Although this model is likely applicable to many modernized countries, we tested it with data from a 2017–2018 nationwide survey (mail and email panel) of 43,949 residents in the United States. We conducted hierarchical linear modeling and correlational analysis to examine relationships. Modernization variables had strong state-level effects on domination and mutualism. Higher levels of education, income, and urbanization were associated with higher percentages of mutualists and lower percentages of traditionalists, who have strong domination values. Values affected attitudes toward wildlife management challenges; for example, states with higher proportions of mutualists were less supportive of lethal control of wolves ( Canis lupus ) and had lower percentages of active hunters, who represent the traditional clientele of state wildlife agencies in the United States. We contend that agencies will need to embrace new strategies to engage and represent a growing segment of the public with mutualism values. Our model merits testing for application in other countries.

Conservation Biology↗

USGS2017

Why social values cannot be changed for the sake of conservation

The hope for creating widespread change in social values has endured among conservation professionals since early calls by Aldo Leopold for a “land ethic.” However, there has been little serious attention in conservation to the fields of investigation that address values, how they are formed, and how they change. We introduce a social–ecological systems conceptual approach in which values are seen not only as motivational goals people hold but also as ideas that are deeply embedded in society's material culture, collective behaviors, traditions, and institutions. Values define and bind groups, organizations, and societies; serve an adaptive role; and are typically stable across generations. When abrupt value changes occur, they are in response to substantial alterations in the social–ecological context. Such changes build on prior value structures and do not result in complete replacement. Given this understanding of values, we conclude that deliberate efforts to orchestrate value shifts for conservation are unlikely to be effective. Instead, there is an urgent need for research on values with a multilevel and dynamic view that can inform innovative conservation strategies for working within existing value structures. New directions facilitated by a systems approach will enhance understanding of the role values play in shaping conservation challenges and improve management of the human component of conservation.

Conservation Biology↗

USGS2014

Considerations in representing human individuals in social ecological models

In this chapter we focus on how to integrate the human individual into social-ecological systems analysis, and how to improve research on individual thought and action regarding the environment by locating it within the broader social-ecological context. We discuss three key questions as considerations for future research: (1) is human thought conceptualized as a dynamic and adaptive process, (2) is the individual placed in a multi-level context (including within-person levels, person-group interactions, and institutional and structural factors), and (3) is human thought seen as mutually constructed with the social and natural environment. Increased emphasis on the individual will be essential if we are to understand agency, innovation, and adaptation in social-ecological systems.

Book chapter↗

USGS2013

The state of human dimensions capacity for natural resource management: needs, knowledge, and resources

The social sciences have become increasingly important in understanding natural resource management contexts and audiences, and are essential in design and delivery of effective and durable management strategies. Yet many agencies and organizations do not have the necessary resource management. We draw on the textbook definition of HD: how and why people value natural resources, what benefits people seek and derive from those resources, and how people affect and are affected by those resources and their management (Decker, Brown, and Seimer 2001). Clearly articulating how HD information can be used and integrated into natural resource management planning and decision-making is an important challenge faced by the HD field. To address this challenge, we formed a collaborative team to explore the issue of HD capacity-building for natural resource organizations and to advance the HD field. We define HD capacity as activities, efforts, and resources that enhance the ability of HD researchers and practitioners and natural managers and decision-makers to understand and address the social aspects of conservation. Specifically, we sought to examine current barriers to integration of HD into natural resource management, knowledge needed to improve HD capacity, and existing HD tools, resources, and training opportunities. We conducted a needs assessment of HD experts and practitioners, developed a framework for considering HD activities that can contribute both directly and indirectly throughout any phase of an adaptive management cycle, and held a workshop to review preliminary findings and gather additional input through breakout group discussions. This paper provides highlights from our collaborative initiative to help frame and inform future HD capacity-building efforts and natural resource organizations and also provides a list of existing human dimensions tools and resources.

The George Wright Forum↗