• Andris Pētersons Turiba University (LV)



attitude, Latvian people, utilitarian, mutualist, wildlife


The wildlife values orientation and attitude towards wildlife has become a hot topic nowadays in Latvia because the management of preservation and conservation of wildlife must be based on the understanding of the general public. Furthermore Latvia is considered to be one of the more densely forested countries in Europe with 50% of its territory covered with forest.

This article examines the wildlife values orientation of different groups of people from six regions of the country towards wildlife. Catherine M. Hill, Amanda D. Webber, Nancy E. C. Priston studies of conflicts in society about wildlife (2017) show that these conflicts rise because of different values between different human groups. Wildlife value orientation framework used in this study is taken from early studies of Fulton, Manfredo and Lipscomb (1996), which was later developed by Teel, Dayer, Manfredo, Bright (2005).

According to the data of a nationwide survey conducted by the author all respondents are divided into “utilitarians”, people who consider that wildlife exists for human use and enjoyment; “mutualists”, people who consider humans and wildlife live side by side as parts of one big family, “pluralists” who share both the “utilitarian” and the “mutualist” point of view and take one or the other side in different situations and “distanced”, people who lack well - formed value orientation, indicating very little interest.

Respondents were categorized into four wildlife value orientation types based on their responses to 24 statements. The wildlife value orientations among different groups of people were compared according to their age, gender, education, level of income, place of living and place where their childhood was spent. The attitude of people with different wildlife values and general attitude of all people towards hunters was established.


Download data is not yet available.


Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and Operation of Attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27 – 58.

Chase, L. (2013). Wildlife value orientations among diverse audiences in the American Southwest: helping state wildlife agencies broaden their constituent base. Doctoral paper at Colorado State University. Downloaded from file:///C:/Users/andrisp/Desktop/Wildlife%20values.pdf (2018, a). CSB aptaujās iedzīvotājus par internet lietošanas paradumiem. Downloaded from (2018, b). Iedzīvotāju skaits un iedzīvotāju dabiskās kustības galvenie rādītāji pa mēnešiem. Downloaded from

Fischer, A., Sandström, C., Delibes-Mateos, M., Arroyo, B., Tadie, D., Randall, D., Hailu, F., Lowassa, A. et al (2013). On the multifunctionality of hunting – an institution analysis of eight cases from Europe and Africa. Journal of Environmental Planning and management, Vol. 56, Issue 4, 531–552.

Fulton, D., M. Manfredo, & J. Lipscomb. 1996. Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1(2), 24 – 47.

Gamborg, C., & Jensen F. S. (2017). Attitudes towards recreational hunting: A quantitative survey of the general public in Denmark. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. 17, 20 – 28.

Heberlein, T. A. (2012). Navigating Environmental Attitudes. Conservation Biology, Vol. 26, Issue 4, 583 – 583.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Kellert, S.R. (1984). American attitudes toward and knowledge of animals. Advances in animal welfare science 1984/85 177 – 213. Washington, DC: The Humane Society of the United States.

Kellert, S. (1990). PublicattitudesandbeliefsaboutthewolfanditsrestorationinMichigan. HBRS, Madison , Wisconsin.

Kluckhohn, C. K. (1951). Values and value orientations in the theory of action. In T. Parsons and E. A. Shils (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Larson, L. R., Conway A. L., Hermandez S.H., & Caroll J.P. (2016). Human – wildlife Conflict, Conservation attitudes, and a Potential Role for Citizen Service in Sierra Leone, Africa. Conservation and Society, 14 (3), 205 – 217.

Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L., & Bright, A. D. (2003). Why are public values toward wildlife changing? Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8, 287 – 306.

Mykra, S., Vuorisalo, T., & Mykra, M.P. (2015). Emergence of Species Conservation in Finland: Development of wildlife Attitudes in 1894-1928. Conservation and Society, Vol 13, Issue 4, 323 – 331.

Petty, R. E., D. T. Wegener, & L.R. Fabrigar. 1997. Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review Psychology. 48, 609-647.

Rohini, C. K., Aravindan, T., Anoop Das, K. S., & Vinayan, P.A., (2017). People’s attitude towards wildlife conservation in Kerala part of the Western Ghats, India. International Journal of Conservation Science, Volume 8, Issue 2, April – June. 269 – 280.

Rokeach, M. J. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York, The Free Press.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 cultures. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol 25, pp 1-65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Teel, T. L., & Manfredo M. J. (2010). Understanding the diversity of public interests in wildlife conservation. Conservation Biology, Vol. 24, No. 1, 128 – 139.




How to Cite

Pētersons, A. (2018). ATTITUDE OF LATVIAN PEOPLE TOWARDS WILDLIFE. SOCIETY. INTEGRATION. EDUCATION. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, 7, 208-216.