Biological Conservation 167 (2013) 79–89

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biological Conservation

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate /biocon

Clarifying standpoints in the gray wolf recovery conflict: Procuringmanagement and policy forethought

0006-3207/$ - see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.017

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 206 685 4960.E-mail addresses: kmazur.ferriter@gmail.com (K.E. Mazur), stasah@uw.edu (S.T.

Asah).

Kristine E. Mazur, Stanley T. Asah ⇑School of Environmental & Forest Sciences, College of the Environment, University of Washington, Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195-2100, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 18 February 2013Received in revised form 8 June 2013Accepted 12 July 2013

Keywords:Q methodologyConsensusHuman dimensionsIntra-stakeholder contradictionsLatent agendaStakeholder flexibility

a b s t r a c t

Top-order predator recovery and conservation is notoriously contentious and often leads to researchefforts to understand stakeholder attitudes. Where unfavorable attitudes are identified, efforts havefocused on changing those attitudes instead of resolving the underlying conflicts that those attitudesmanifest. But, in order to effectively resolve these conflicts, we must first understand and clarify thestructure of contending perspectives. We used Q methodology to enable stakeholders to systematicallystructure their standpoints in the conflict about gray wolf recovery in Washington State. Stakeholdersprioritized issues, outlined areas of consensus and disagreement, revealed latent agendas fueling the con-flict, and enabled better understanding of stakeholders. Analysis of 32 Q sorts from five stakeholdergroups revealed three standpoints: ecological standpoint, emphasizing higher numbers of breeding pairsand improved wolf habitat conditions; incompatibility standpoint, rejecting claims of the urgency forwolf recovery, expressing concerns about the impacts of wolves on prey populations and hunters; andprecautionary standpoint, focusing on the extent to which wolves should be recovered. Stakeholdersfound some level of unanimous agreement on 14 of 56 issues involved in the sorting exercise, includingprocedures for determining delisting decisions, and collaboration between formal institutions and NativeAmerican tribes. Conversely, only five issues were contentious, including whether wolves are needed forbiodiversity conservation, and acceptable number of breeding pairs. Results also revealed latent agendasand stakeholder inflexibilities that may render the conflict to appear more contentious than it actually is.Our findings emphasize the importance of systematically structuring stakeholder standpoints in conten-tious predator recovery and conservation issues. Systematic structures of stakeholder standpoints mini-mize ambiguity thereby facilitating conflict management and consequent achievement of conservationgoals.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The recovery and conservation of top-order predators is essen-tially a notoriously contentious human endeavor (Clark and Brun-ner, 2002). These conflicts, habitually characterized by differencesabout what constitutes biological recovery and what is best forpeople, often embody strong emotions and competing values(Nie, 2002). Polarizing differences among stakeholders undermine,among other things, trust and effective partnerships necessary forsuccessful recovery and conservation (Cork et al., 2000). Consider-able human dimensions research focusing on human attitudes to-wards predators have resulted from these conflicts; wherenegative attitudes are identified, the tendency has been to changethose attitudes to more positive ones (Bath, 1998; Majic and Bath,2010). Rather than attempting to directly change negative

attitudes, recovery and conservation efforts would benefit fromfocusing more on managing the underlying conflict manifestedthrough attitudes (Majic and Bath, 2010). In order to effectivelymanage the conflict, it is important that we first understand thestructure of the conflict—what issues and stakeholders are at thecore, how various stakeholders prioritize their preferences, andon what issues, if any, do stakeholders find consensus. Understand-ing the structure of the conflict is fundamental to the success ofrecovery and conservation (Hayward and Somers, 2009).

The concept of standpoint or perspective taking (Clark and Wal-lace, 1999) is an important and underused means for understand-ing conflicts about species recovery and conservation. According toBardwell (1991), some conflicts resist resolution when disputants’views are not clearly understood because their standpoints are notwell organized and articulated. The concept and process of estab-lishing standpoints is rooted in cognitive psychology (Bartlett,1932) where standpoints are defined as cognitive structures in hu-man memory, retrieved to help organize and interpret new experi-ences. Standpoints, in this context, refer to how stakeholders view

80 K.E. Mazur, S.T. Asah / Biological Conservation 167 (2013) 79–89

the recovery process and the roles of various stakeholders in thatprocess. In environmental conflict analysis, standpoints are a wayof organizing information about a conflict to facilitate understand-ing and clarification of disputants’ stance with respect to a conflict(Taylor, 2000). Standpoints reveal disputants’ views of how theyand others are implicated in and by a conflict. Because standpointsclarify disputants’ perspectives about a conflict, they orient effortstowards identifying and addressing outstanding problems (Gray,2004). Therefore, conflicts can be more effectively and efficientlymanaged when the content and structure of stakeholder stand-points are more self-evident.

Often, natural resource management issues appear more con-troversial than they actually are because disputants and disputingparties unknowingly hold multiple and sometimes conflicting orcontradictory standpoints about the issue (Benford, 1997; Brugn-ach et al., 2011). Thus, it is important to have explicit understand-ings of one’s own standpoint as well as those of other stakeholders,to minimize antagonism in recovery and conservation debates.Therefore, effectively managing conflicts about top-order predatorrecovery requires clear and coherent structures of stakeholders’standpoints. In addition to enabling deep understanding of stake-holders’ own standpoints and those of others, coherent structuresilluminate existing intra-stakeholder contradictions, thereby mini-mizing ambiguity and resultant conflict intensity—important pre-conditions for recovery and conservation success (Cork et al.,2000; Hovardas and Stamou, 2006).

Using the debate about gray wolf recovery and conservation inWashington State (WA) as a case study, we enabled stakeholders tosystematically structure their standpoints. We show how system-atic structuring facilitates delineation of areas of consensus anddisagreement, identification and characterization of conflictingparties, illumination of existing intra-stakeholder contradictionsand latent agendas tied to the conflict, and trade-offs among com-peting preferences. These understandings, especially the context ofdisagreements, facilitate stakeholder engagement in conservationinitiatives (Shine and Doody, 2011). Our approach minimizesambiguity and facilitates better understanding of stakeholder atti-tudes and preferences. We point to ways in which managementand policy could benefit from systematic structures of stakeholderstandpoints to mobilize prudence and facilitate successful recoveryof a viable wolf population in Washington State and other conten-tious recovery and conservation initiatives.

1.1. Human dimensions research in wolf conservation

Considerable research on human attitudes towards wolves hasbeen conducted since the 1970s (see Williams et al., 2002 for a re-view). Research on the human dimensions of wolf conservation hascontributed immensely to our understanding of public attitudesand support for restoration, especially in areas experiencing in-creases in wolf populations and ranges (e.g., Ericsson and Heber-lein, 2003; Meadow et al., 2005; Bruskotter et al., 2007; Karlssonand Sjöström, 2007; Stronen et al., 2007; Wilson and Bruskotter,2009; Majic and Bath, 2010). These studies present evidence thatwildlife conservation and management efforts are strengthenedby examining and addressing stakeholder perspectives and atti-tudes (Bandara and Tisdell, 2003; Lindsey et al., 2005; Liu et al.,2011; Majic et al., 2011). Human dimensions research providesknowledge that helps promote more constructive debates, andthereby reduce conflict (Karanth et al., 2008), enhance the predic-tive capacities of outcomes and stakeholder approval under alter-native management practices (Treves and Karanth, 2003; Fischerand van der Wal, 2007; Fleishman et al., 2011), and facilitateadaptability and improve opportunities for success (Majic andBath, 2010).

While human dimensions research contributes enormously tounderstanding preferences and attitudes toward wolf recovery andmanagement, such research, with few exceptions (e.g., Byrd, 2002;Mattson et al., 2006) and based on survey questionnaires, oftenuse R methodology. The response options in R methodology oftenprompt respondents to state their preferences and attitudes inde-pendently of other pertinent preferences included in the question-naire. Respondents’ expression of a preference is not constrainedby other relevant perspectives. Thus, survey questionnaires, basedon typical R methodology approaches, may not fully reveal the likelytradeoffs that stakeholders are able to make in their preferences ofrecovery and conservation strategies. It is important to understandthese tradeoffs in conservation practice, because resource con-straints impose the prioritization of issues—practically impossibleto address every issue. It is important to enable stakeholders to sys-tematically structure their perspectives to facilitate prioritization ofcompeting preferences—tradeoffs.

Q methodology is an empirical approach for studying humansubjectivity and behavior, developed by William Stephenson(1953). The methodology is well suited for exploring contentiousissues (Eden et al., 2005) because it enables systematic structuringof stakeholders’ standpoints (Stephenson, 1953), according tosome, in a more democratic and open fashion than other ap-proaches (Dryzek, 1990). This is especially the case when the state-ments used in a Q study are derived directly from stakeholders andtheir verbatim statements are taken back to them for sorting(Brown, 2002). This allows stakeholders to ‘‘speak for themselves,’’making Q methodology an interactive, stakeholder-driven process(Dryzek and Berejikian, 1993). Q methodology is additionallyadvantageous for its ability to facilitate the emergence of latent be-lief structures, rather than imposing a framework or taxonomy bythe researcher. Thus, systematic structure of stakeholders’ stand-points, using Q methodology, informs management and policy op-tions that are more politically, socially and culturally acceptableacross diverse stakeholder groups (Asah et al., 2012a,b). Q method-ology facilitates consensus-building opportunities (Brown, 2002).Using a case study of a conflict among county visitors, conventionbureau members, citizens, and policy-makers, Q methodology out-performed the Nominal Group Technique voting in finding consen-sus among these disputants (Maxwell, 2000). Areas of consensus,while essential to prudent management and decision-makingregarding predator recovery, are often otherwise masked by the in-tense rhetoric and emotions that typify the conflict about recoveryand conservation of top-order predators (Gargan and Brown, 1993;Focht and Lawler, 2000). Furthermore, the necessity of publicacceptance of recovery and conservation aims makes more demo-cratic and open efforts to understand and potentially resolve out-standing differences among key stakeholders essential.

1.2. Wolf restoration in Washington

In the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM), the gray wolf (Canislupus) has been at the forefront of initiatives to restore decimatedpredator populations. Wolf recovery efforts and habitat connectiv-ity with Montana, Idaho, Oregon and British Columbia facilitatedthe dispersal of gray wolves into Washington. The species wasextirpated from Washington in the 1930s, largely due to farmlandand ranch expansions. Despite sightings of individual wolves sincethen, it was not until 2008 that breeding pairs with surviving pupswere documented (Wiles et al., 2011). The population continues togrow—evidenced by documentation of at least 51 wolves in ninepacks (Becker et al., 2013). Under state law, wolves are classifiedas endangered species throughout WA. The species has been re-moved from federal listing in the eastern third of the state, but isendangered in the western two-thirds of Washington (Wileset al., 2011).

K.E. Mazur, S.T. Asah / Biological Conservation 167 (2013) 79–89 81

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) ini-tiated a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Wolf Conservationand Management Plan in 2007 as a result of natural dispersal, statelaw, and movements to federally delist the species. In anticipationof stakeholder polarity, the WDFW encouraged broad participationamong diverse interests, which may lead to partnerships, cultivateownership, and encourage commitment (Webler et al., 2001). Anadvisory Wolf Working Group (WWG) of 17 citizens was appointedto provide input during the planning process and to help developthe plan. When diverse stakeholders engage in dialogue involvingempirical and scientific uncertainty, decision-making can becomeproblematic (Dayton, 2000). Accordingly, a professional negotiatorhelped guide the group toward its goals of drafting a plan aimed atachieving recovery of a self-sustaining wolf population while min-imizing livestock losses, maintaining ungulate populations, andfostering public tolerance (Wiles et al., 2011). But, typical of manycontentious social interactions, interpersonal influences shape theconstruction and expression of participants’ perspectives, whichmay obscure true identification of participants’ preferences (Asahet al., 2012a; Dewulf et al., 2004).

Public input was solicited between 2007 and 2011 through aseries of scoping meetings, scientific peer review, a 90-day publicreview under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) coupledwith twelve meetings throughout the state, blind peer review, pub-lic workshops, and WWG meetings (Wiles et al., 2011). A publicattitude surveys, conducted in collaboration with WDFW, helpedinform the management plan by determining the frequency ofoccurrence of opinions on hunting and wolf management usingtelephone and mail-in responses (Duda et al., 2008a,b). The finalplan was submitted to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commis-sion and adopted in 2011 (Wiles et al., 2011). The R methodologicalapproach to the public opinion surveys did not enable survey par-ticipants to fully disclose likely tradeoffs in their preferences forgray wolf recovery and conservation because responses to eachstatement of opinion were made independent of other statementsof opinion. Consequently, resultant recommendations may notfully identify tradeoffs that stakeholders could possibly make.

Similarly, the comments submitted to the WDFW through thepublic review process were in the form of emails, online com-ments, postal mail, and verbal testimony. These inputs representtransitive thoughts and therefore, tend to be spontaneous, unpre-dictable, and difficult to structure (Brown, 1993). Stakeholders ut-tered these views without any pre-condition to prioritize them.Excess wording and verbal tics distracted from meanings andclouded their relative significance. Additionally, public forumscan exert pressure to conform to group norms (Maxwell, 2000).The confluence of multiple stakeholders in oral testimonies createsits own social context, exposing participants to each other’s influ-ences (Asah et al., 2012a). This may result in strategic framingwhere in contrast to focusing on the problem, issues are advancedto accomplish goals like acquisition and mobilization of resources(Benford and Snow, 2000; Dewulf et al., 2004). Thus, during oraltestimonies and other socially-interactive deliberations, partici-pants may not represent as accurate as possible their perspectivesas they exist in their minds. In this article, we use Q methodologyto systematically map standpoints and provide structured insightsto the comments submitted during the public review period.

2. Methods

First, we generated a concourse—the population of statementsabout gray wolf recovery in WA, representative of stakeholders’ di-verse views. We extracted the majority of statements from tenstatewide public meetings conducted by WDFW between Octoberand November 2009, during which participants submitted

comments on the proposed wolf management plan. We tran-scribed verbatim—to preserve the authenticity of stakeholderviews—publicly available audio records of these ten meetings.We consulted supplemental sources, including newspaper articlesand online blogs, to ensure comprehensive representation ofstakeholders’ views. After compiling 1150 statements, saturationwas reached—additional information did not provide new insights.

We conducted thematic coding of the 1150 statements to iden-tify prevailing concepts and issue areas (Saldana, 2010). Twentymain themes emerged from the analysis including recovery anddelisting objectives, management options, livestock depredation,impacts on ungulate populations, impacts on hunting, funding,habitat connectivity and persistence, human safety, reintroductionversus re-colonization, ecological values, education and outreach,wolf-dog hybrids, household pets, wolf interactions with wildlife,tourism, disease, wolf extirpation, city versus rural human popula-tions, Native American tribes, and the role of science and politics.These themes were referenced against the sections of the draftwolf management and conservation plan to ensure representationof issue areas. We used Fisher’s experimental (variance) designtechnique to maximize within-theme variance in the sampling ofstatements from these themes (Brown, 1970). Consequently, un-equal numbers of statements were retained from each theme. Onlyone statement was retained for themes with little or no variance inthe constituent statements while up to four statements were re-tained for highly varied themes. This variance design-driven sam-pling resulted in 56 (n = 56) randomly ordered statements. Fourvolunteers reviewed these statements for clarity and comprehensi-bility while retaining, as much as possible, the verbatim expres-sions of stakeholders. The final set of 56 statements was printedon note cards, each card containing one statement. The Q sortstatements and the research protocol were reviewed and approvedby the Division of Human Subjects of the University of Washing-ton’s Institutional Review Board (IRB # 38849) before we beganinviting stakeholders to participate in the sorting.

Key and diverse stakeholders, who comprise the person sampleor ‘‘P-set’’, were recruited to represent the breadth of opinions andperspectives among Washington residents, and based on: (i)involvement in the decision-making process; (ii) interest grouprepresentation; (iii) participation in the public review period; (iv)knowledge of the wolf recovery phenomenon, and/or; (v) the po-tential to be affected directly by wolf recovery. These stakeholderswere categorized into five groups: (i) livestock owners; (ii) hunt-ers; (iii) government officials; (iv) external scientists and consul-tants; and (v) members of environmental NGOs. Since thesecategories are not mutually exclusive, stakeholders were asked toself-identify the category in which they best fit. Participatingstakeholders’ contact information was obtained from public docu-ments. Additional participants were recommended via snowballsampling (Goodman, 1961).

Q sorters were strategically sampled to represent stakeholdersfrom current wolf territory, projected habitat, and areas unlikelyto be colonized to avoid missing important contributions to thestructure of stakeholders’ standpoints. Our goal was to selectstakeholders to achieve comprehensive coverage of statewide per-spectives and, most importantly, to represent the breadth of keystakeholder opinions about gray wolf conservation and manage-ment. Thus, and typical of Q methodology, selection of stakehold-ers was purposeful.

We used telephone and postal mail to invite stakeholders toparticipate in the study. Of the 32 completed Q sorts included inthe final analysis, we conducted 13 of those in person in King, Clal-lam, and Chelan counties. We mailed 80 study packets throughoutthe state; 19 of these generated usable Q-sorts—completed with nostatements missing or reported twice. The Q sorting exercise wasconducted at locations of stakeholders’ preferences and in the

82 K.E. Mazur, S.T. Asah / Biological Conservation 167 (2013) 79–89

absence of other stakeholders. Thus, social influence was mini-mized. The Q sort statement to person sample ratio (56/32) of1.75 is more than sufficient for Q methodology; recommendedratio is 62 (Stephenson, 1953).

We administered the Q sorting exercise between December2010 and February 2011. Each participating stakeholder was pro-vided with a deck of 56 numbered cards containing statementsabout wolf recovery and management in WA. First, we advisedstakeholders to read through the entire stack, to obtain an ideaof the range of views represented. Next, stakeholders placed thecards into three piles according to whether they agreed, disagreed,or had uncertain or neutral propensities towards the statement.Stakeholders then proceeded to order the statements by placingeach card into a box located on a grid of 11 columns (Fig. 1) fromthe extreme ends inwards. This procedure ensures that the signif-icance of each statement be revisited in the context of the entireset (McKeown and Thomas, 1988). The Q sort distribution allowedstakeholders to prioritize their issues at the bipolar ends of theagreement continuum, while encouraging consensus by allowingfor more responses at and toward the center of the normal distri-bution (Fig. 1).

Stakeholders moved the statements between columns until sat-isfied. At the conclusion of the sorting stage, stakeholders elabo-rated on the most salient statements placed at either end of thecontinuum, commented on the study, and provided informationabout socio-demographics and level of engagement in the wolfrecovery debate. This information was useful in interpreting theresults.

We used the software PQMethod version 2.11 (Schmolck, 2002)to analyze the 32 sorts. A correlation matrix of all 32 sorts was gen-erated. The matrix was subjected to principal component factoranalysis resulting in eight un-rotated factors (i.e., standpoints),all of which had Eigenvalues P1.0. These initial standpoints wererotated using the varimax orthogonal method (Stephenson, 1953,1964; Brown, 1980). Typical of factor analysis procedures in Q

Strongly disagree

Neutral

Column A

Column B

Column C

Column D

Column E

ColumnF

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(8)

(12)

Fig. 1. Rank order structure of the 56 Q sort statements; number

methodology, some level of judgment was used in retaining rele-vant standpoints (Brown, 1980); retained standpoints had R2 val-ues P12%, were markedly different from other standpoints,positive inter-standpoint associations <0.5, and at least one stake-holder loaded highest on that standpoint. Each of the retainedstandpoints is represented by a unique Q sort, relative to whichindividual stakeholder’s loading scores for each standpoint werecomputed.

3. Results

Based on the criteria for factor analysis discussed earlier, threedistinct structured standpoints were retained. We labeled thesethe Ecological Standpoint (A), Incompatibility Standpoint (B), andPrecautionary Standpoint (C). These three standpoints explained60% variance in the debate about gray wolf recovery and conserva-tion in WA. Descriptions of each focus on distinguishing state-ments from the columns on either bipolar extreme of the Q sortdistribution. Notable issues for each standpoint are illustrated innarrative form in the next subsections, with reference to specificQ statement numbers reported in parentheses, preceded by the #symbol. The statement numbers in parenthesis are as listed in Ta-ble 1. Table 1 shows the salience (agree or disagree) of each of the56 statements with each of the three standpoints. Z-scores (nor-malized weighted average statement scores) are reported, ratherthan raw factor rankings, to better illustrate the nuances withinand among standpoints (Asah et al., 2012a and b). Table 2 showsthe computed factor loadings that reveal the extent to which eachstakeholder agreed or disagreed with each standpoint. Table 3 dis-plays the correlations among standpoints, specifying the extent towhich standpoints are at odds (�1) or aligned (+1). High positivecorrelations indicate inter-standpoint agreement on many issues,yet with distinct priorities, whereas negative correlations indicatepolar standpoints—disagreement.

Strongly

agree

Column G

Column H

Column I

Column J

Column K

+1 +2 +3 +4 +5

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(8)

s in parenthesis indicate number of statements per column.

Table 1Table of Q statements made by stakeholders covering 20 main themes about gray wolf conservation and management in Washington State. Participants ranked these statements in a continuum from �5 (strongly disagree) to +5(strongly agree). Z-scores are normalized weighted means of the rankings of each statement for that standpoint. The Z-scores for Q-defined consensus statements are highlighted in bold. Statements on which all three standpoints havepositive Z-scores or all three standpoints have negative Z-scores also indicate consensus.

# Q statement Z-scores for standpoints A, B, and C

A:ecological

B:incompatibility

C:precautionary

1 The implementation plan’s current recovery target of 15 breeding pairs for three years is too low to be scientifically defensible and self-sustaining 1.13 �0.83 �2.282 Ranchers, farmers, and rural residents must be allowed the ability to kill wolves that are ‘‘caught in the act’’ of harassing or attacking livestock or family pets on private

lands through all phases of the delisting process�0.60 1.52 1.99

3 There is too much scientific uncertainty, especially about suitable wolf habitat for occupancy, to be setting specific recovery goals at this time �0.44 0.13 �1.254 The DEIS Alternative 1 does not offer the best opportunity for wolf recovery due to its less forgiving permitting for lethal control and take of wolves while they are listed as

a threatened species0.56 �0.67 �1.11

5 The wolf control techniques that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has suggested to protect livestock are too costly �0.33 �0.74 �0.426 Washington should use a scaled delisting by region to designate distinct wolf populations that can be actively managed in areas where they are doing well 0.04 0.15 0.727 The plan, Preferred Alternative 2, is based more on political compromise than best science 0.88 0.15 0.068 The proactive deterrents and non-injurious wolf control techniques that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has suggested to protect livestock are

impractical�1.00 0.80 0.29

9 Although we have to be able to live with the numbers we set, the long-term plan for management is more important than where the line is ultimately drawn on recoverynumbers

0.93 �0.19 0.48

10 We have to be able to coexist and recover wolves within our lifetime, rather than passing the responsibility onto subsequent generations 1.54 �1.93 0.3311 There are going to be all kinds of hoops for landowners to jump through in order to receive compensation from a documented wolf kill �0.47 0.77 0.5612 The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife should not rely on Defenders of Wildlife compensation for livestock depredation because there is no long-term

guarantee0.07 0.60 0.09

13 I am hesitant to trust the USDA Wildlife Services for lethal control in Washington due to their track record of indiscriminate killing of predators 0.31 0.20 �1.4414 High stress levels due to the presence of wolves will adversely affect conception rates and weaning weights in ungulate and livestock populations �0.64 0.15 1.5015 We are focusing too much on reimbursing ranchers by paying more than the fair market value for confirmed livestock losses in DEIS Alternatives 2 and 3 0.29 �0.53 �1.2216 I oppose the options in Alternatives 1–3 to issue permits for lethal control or take of wolves on public lands and grazing allotments because I fear illegal killing will hinder

wolf recovery efforts0.58 �1.12 �2.16

17 After delisting, hunting should be used as a tool for control of wolves and as a source of income �0.53 1.01 1.3618 When it comes to reimbursing ranchers, I would caution that we do not get caught up in paying people for a risk that the rest of the population really is not responsible for �0.16 �1.18 �1.2519 Washington should protect habitat and restrict road access in the proximity of wolf rendezvous and den sites while wolves are under federal and state protection 1.52 �1.32 �0.6920 The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is going to lose its monetary support base from the hunters due to a decrease in hunting opportunities �0.66 1.19 0.5021 I am quite concerned that the compensation will not be funded by the state legislature, and without having a fully funded compensation program we will have an empty

plan0.27 1.33 1.19

22 Translocation will be an advantageous strategy to manage wolves that conflict with livestock 0.22 �1.76 �1.2023 Hunter trust in the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will continue to decline in response to reductions in hunting opportunities �0.56 0.98 0.8324 A proactive approach should be taken toward developing and maintaining prey populations and safe foraging areas rather than reactively allowing Washington’s

ungulates to reach an ‘‘at-risk’’ state before addressing the effects of wolves0.20 1.49 0.44

25 I support translocation of wolves to the Olympic Peninsula and the Southern Cascades as a proactive tool to speed recovery and delisting 0.65 �1.99 0.8426 Managing wolf-human interactions will be very important for human safety �0.85 0.46 0.4327 Wolves will be on federal lands in addition to state and private lands, but Washington should rely on its own funding so that recovery efforts are not dependent on federal

dollars and policies that continue to be challenged in court�0.05 �0.62 0.07

28 In order to have a robust ungulate population, you have to be able to weed out the sick and the weak, and that is what wolves do best 0.69 �1.26 �1.2729 We barely have enough money today to run anything, and if we take money out of the existing funding that means that programs for birds, elk, fish, and other wildlife are

going to suffer�0.34 1.71 1.23

30 Public education and outreach about management of wolves and wolf ecology must be given high priority and full funding under the final plan 1.57 �0.56 0.2031 The state should cease to provide feed for ungulates in the winter because it is unnatural and will result in controversy and conflict for recovering wolf populations 0.33 �1.12 �0.1832 It is going to put a lot of burden on a lot of people who probably cannot afford it if you raise taxes for these wolves �0.81 0.56 0.3333 When you add wolves to a predator population, a balance is created: we are going to have a few less cougars and bears and a lot less coyotes due to competition with

wolves0.70 �1.51 0.63

34 Providing and improving habitat corridors between Washington’s wild areas may help prevent wolves from seeking ranges that are closer to ranches or humaninhabitants

1.52 �0.79 �0.49

35 There are too many people, too few prey, and inadequate habitat in Washington for wolves to be compatible with our society today �1.52 1.73 �0.1936 Wolf recovery is one of those issues where, if you are watching from the sidelines in Seattle or other urban areas, your opinion really is meaningless �1.41 �0.37 0.1137 A stronger analysis about habitat connectivity to other states and provinces and within Washington will allow the state to best manage for sustained population growth

and genetic diversity in recovery areas1.54 0.03 0.17

(continued on next page)

K.E.M

azur,S.T.Asah

/BiologicalConservation

167(2013)

79–89

83

Table 1 (continued)

# Q statement Z-scores for standpoints A, B, and C

A:ecological

B:incompatibility

C:precautionary

38 Wolves are not only going to come into our backyards and kill our family pets, but also our dogs while out hunting and hiking �1.41 0.04 0.3639 It is critical to use biological data and sound science, over economics and politics, in this attempt to get wolves to repopulate our state 1.12 0.54 0.7540 The restoration of wolves is critical for maintaining the diversity of plant and animal communities and for restoring resilient ecosystems 2.23 �1.85 �0.6341 I see deer and elk more often in our yards and fields than in the forest, and now the wolves are going to force the coyotes into town as well �1.21 �0.15 �0.0342 I am in favor of Alternative 1A, ‘‘the Sensible Alternative’’, because it utilizes the Ruckelshaus Center (a neutral resource for collaborative problem solving) to determine

delisting decisions and build consensus for a legally defensible, sustainable solution0.23 �0.03 0.01

43 Wolf hybrids should be banned because people may associate their aggressive behavior and attack history with wild wolves, thus hampering wolf recovery 0.56 0.28 0.0744 We are doing a great injustice to our ancestors who eradicated wolves. We need to eventually eradicate all the wolves again, just like we did the first time �2.48 0.90 �2.0345 At the end of the three year period when the threshold of breeding pairs is met, there will be delisting delays due to lawsuits against the Washington Department of Fish

and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that will result in more wolves than required for delisting�0.23 1.73 1.46

46 I am optimistic that wolf recovery will be an important source of revenue from tourism for the State of Washington 0.47 �0.69 �1.4447 Rural property owners are going to receive a disproportionate burden from wolf recovery �0.49 1.41 0.8848 The present and potential future habitation of wolves on Tribal lands requires that greater collaboration occur between the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

and Native American Tribes0.76 0.32 0.82

49 I am in favor of DEIS Alternative 4, ‘‘No Action’’, because I believe in Darwin; let the fittest in a wolf pack survive �1.05 0.39 �0.7850 The Olympic Peninsula contains a large ungulate population and quality habitat, and therefore I support the four recovery regions proposed in the DEIS Alternative 3 1.23 �1.13 0.1351 I urge that we consider the recommendations for fewer breeding pairs in the minority report (of the Wolf Working Group) because this will best address issues of concern

to sportsmen and ranchers�1.75 0.25 1.92

52 We lack the legally binding and enforceable tools and resources at the Department to manage the wolves and to resolve wolf-related conflicts �0.40 1.05 1.2353 Using total population size rather than successful breeding pairs to measure recovery is preferable �0.11 0.58 0.1154 I am concerned that parasites and diseases will be transmitted from wolves to other wildlife and humans in Washington, as has occurred in the Northern Rocky

Mountains�1.39 0.43 �0.19

55 Use of breeding pairs to measure recovery will gauge population status and reproduction, but will not guarantee a viable population 0.58 �0.21 �1.0356 I do not think that the increase in wolf populations in Washington can solely be attributed to dispersal from other areas; I think they are deliberately being reintroduced �1.83 �0.32 �0.79

84K

.E.Mazur,S.T.A

sah/Biological

Conservation167

(2013)79–

89

Table 2Stakeholder loadings, or levels of agreement, on each standpoint extracted from Q sorts with statements on gray wolf conservation and management in Washington State. Boldedvalues indicate significant stakeholder agreement (+) or disagreement (�) with a standpoint. ‘‘X’’ denotes a defining Q sort (arrangement of statements defining that standpoint).

Stakeholders Stakeholders’ level of agreementa with each standpoint

A: ecological B:incompatibility C: precautionary

Hunter 1 0.04 0.76X 0.30Hunter 2 �0.34 0.70X 0.06Hunter 3 �0.27 0.71X 0.44Hunter 4 0.12 0.06 0.76XHunter 5 �0.25 0.68X 0.13Hunter 6 �0.35 0.61X 0.38Government Agency Official 1 0.20 0.42 0.44Government Agency Official 2 0.62X �0.18 0.49Government Agency Official 3 0.24 0.30 0.61XGovernment Agency Official 4 0.78X �0.21 0.07Government Agency Official 5 0.58X �0.22 0.46External Scientist/Consultant 1 �0.28 0.19 0.67XExternal Scientist/Consultant 2 0.78X �0.19 0.09External Scientist/Consultant 3 0.83X �0.28 0.05External Scientist/Consultant 4 0.60X 0.05 0.03External Scientist/Consultant 5 �0.15 0.76X 0.00External Scientist/Consultant 6 0.70X 0.06 0.03Livestock Owner 1 �0.54 0.18 0.51Livestock Owner 2 �0.25 0.56X 0.11Livestock Owner 3 �0.54 0.62X 0.04Livestock Owner 4 �0.21 0.44 0.50XLivestock Owner 5 �0.18 0.17 0.71XEnvironmental Advocate 1 0.69X �0.27 �0.05Environmental Advocate 2 0.75X �0.27 �0.23Environmental Advocate 3 0.84X �0.15 �0.19Environmental Advocate 4 0.76X �0.14 �0.22Environmental Advocate 5 0.53X �0.29 �0.38Environmental Advocate 6 0.75X �0.28 0.05Environmental Advocate 7 0.67X �0.35 �0.07Environmental Advocate 8 0.83X �0.21 �0.09Environmental Advocate 9 0.80X �0.16 0.04Environmental Advocate 10 0.77X �0.22 �0.10% Explanatory Power 32 16 12Total # of stakeholders in agreement 21 10 11

a Loading on a standpoint requires P < 0.01 probability. Significant loading = (2.58) 1/p

N where N = # of statements. Loading scores = ± 0.34 are significant.

Table 3Inter-standpoint correlations extracted from Q sorts with statements on gray wolfconservation and management in Washington State.

Standpoint A: ecological B: incompatibility C: precautionary

A: ecological 1.00B: incompatibility �0.53 1.00C: precautionary �0.15 0.48 1.00

K.E. Mazur, S.T. Asah / Biological Conservation 167 (2013) 79–89 85

3.1. The ecological standpoint (standpoint A)

Stakeholders who define this standpoint value foremost theconcept of wolves as keystone predators that launch trophic cas-cades, thereby maintaining and improving ecosystem balance,diversity, and resiliency (#40). As a precondition for recovery, thisstandpoint stresses that public education and outreach about wolfmanagement and ecology must be given high priority and fullyfunded (#30). Since wolves are dispersing into WA, this standpointholds that it is timely to develop strategies to recover and learnhow to coexist with them now, rather than transferring the conflictonto future generations (#10).

This standpoint also highlights concern about wildlife habitat. Itbelieves regional connectivity of wolf habitat is essential for long-term persistence, thus calling for additional research and analysisto facilitate population growth and genetic exchange (#37). Sincehabitat loss and human disturbance are leading threats to wildlife,this standpoint supports the protection of wolf dens and rendez-vous sites while the species is still listed as endangered (#19). Itsuggests that conflict with humans could be mitigated by

providing and improving habitat corridors between wild areas inthe state (#34). In order for recovery to be effective and self-sustaining, people with this standpoint emphasize that a delistingtarget of more than 15 successful breeding pairs is necessary (#1).Consequently, this standpoint opposes the WWG minority report,which proposes fewer breeding pairs (#51).

Stakeholders who hold the ecological standpoint agree that theopinions of both rural and urban citizens hold equal weight in therecovery debate (#36). Yet, they are not concerned about the effectof wolves on coyote distribution (#41), disease transfer fromwolves (#54), or about threats to family pets and hunting dogs(#38). This standpoint disagrees with the notions that wolves areincompatible with WA people, prey and habitat (#35), and rejectsthe notion that wolf recovery in the state is facilitated (#56), de-spite advocating for research to facilitate population growth, ge-netic exchange, and additional recovery objectives for theOlympic Peninsula (#50). All stakeholders from environmentalNGOs or self-described conservationists, four stakeholders in theexternal scientist and consultant group, and three government offi-cials significantly agreed with this standpoint. Two stakeholdersfrom the hunting community and two ranchers significantly dis-agreed with this standpoint (Table 2).

3.2. The incompatibility standpoint (standpoint B)

Stakeholders who hold this standpoint argue that wolves areincompatible with Washington’s high human population, availablehabitat and prey (#35). They strongly reject the notion that there isurgency to recover and coexist with wolves (#10). Concerns about

86 K.E. Mazur, S.T. Asah / Biological Conservation 167 (2013) 79–89

the effects of wolves on prey populations and the hunting commu-nity are high and without adequate proactive measures, this stand-point expresses that the WDFW may lose monetary support fromhunters (#20). People with this standpoint believe that wolf recov-ery objectives should not be established on the Olympic Peninsula,since ungulate populations and habitat there are insufficient (#50),nor should provisions be made to restrict road access or protecthabitat (#19). This standpoint argues that facilitating recovery ofgray wolves will not achieve ecosystem balance amongst large pre-dators (#33) or benefit landscape biodiversity and resilience (#40).Therefore, any efforts to relocate wolves for the purposes of pre-venting livestock conflicts (#22) or for accelerating recovery objec-tives are not supported by stakeholders who hold this standpoint(#25). Interestingly, the incompatibility issue (#35) is prioritized withthe same magnitude (both Z-scores = 1.73, Table 1) as concerns thatlegal procedures will interfere with delisting of the gray wolves oncean acceptable breeding threshold is reached, leading to wolf overpop-ulation (#45). Despite the incompatibility argument advanced by thisstandpoint, it strongly advocates for a pro-active approach to protectwolf prey (#24); expresses the importance of managing wolf-humaninteractions (#26), and concern over the financial and material impli-cations and burden that wolf recovery may impose (#s21, 27, 32, 47);slightly favors the fewer breeding pairs recommended by the minor-ity report (#51); and strongly expresses the need for legally bindingand enforceable tools and resources to manage wolf recovery and re-lated conflicts. The stakeholders who most closely define this stand-point include five hunters, two ranchers, and one external scientist.One stakeholder from the environmental group significantly dis-agreed with this perspective.

3.3. The precautionary standpoint (standpoint C)

This standpoint frames the debate not as whether or not wolvesshould recover, but rather to what extent this will be necessary. Theprecautionary standpoint supports the argument for fewer breedingpairs as recommended in the minority report, which proposes arequirement of 3-6-8 successful breeding pairs for down-listing tothreatened, sensitive, and delisting, respectively (#51), maintainingthat 15 pairs for delisting is too high (#1). People with this stand-point believe that target objectives will help WA know when recov-ery has been reached, but fewer pairs will be more sustainable giventhe dynamic fluctuations of human and prey populations (#3).

Concerns about impacts on livestock and ungulates dominatethis standpoint. Beyond predation, physiological impacts thatinfluence behavior and the interactions between organisms andtheir environments will be important issues to address in orderto appease apprehensions (#14). This standpoint advocates that agenerous compensation package for confirmed wolf kills of live-stock should be made available to support ranchers’ livelihoods(#15). People associated with this standpoint trust Wildlife Ser-vices as an agency charged with addressing predator conflicts(#13), but more importantly, believe that ranchers must be ableto remove problem predators from public lands and grazing allot-ments (#16). This standpoint expresses that these control optionswill not be detrimental to wolf-related tourism, as the latter is notanticipated to contribute significantly to state revenue (#46).Stakeholders whose Q sorts closely define this perspective includetwo livestock owners, one hunter, one external scientist/consul-tant, and one government official. One environmental advocatesignificantly disagreed with this standpoint.

3.4. Standpoint comparisons

3.4.1. Consensus issue areasQ methodology revealed more agreement among the three

standpoints than is apparent on the surface in public forums and

in comments submitted to the WDFW. That is, substantial commonground to prevent intractable conflict exists. Stakeholders reachedconsensus on five Q-defined aspects of wolf recovery (Table 1)—Q-defined consensus statements are those with Z-scores that arestatistically indistinguishable among standpoints. All threestandpoints disagreed that the wolf control techniques that theWDFW suggest to protect livestock are too costly (#5), yet agreedthat: (i) ‘‘WDFW should not rely on Defenders of Wildlife compen-sation for livestock depredation because there is no-long termguarantee’’ (#12); (ii) Alternative 1A, ‘the Sensible Alternative’, isfavored because it utilizes the Ruckelshaus Center to determinedelisting decisions and build consensus for a legally defensible,sustainable solution (#42); (iii) wolf hybrids should be restricted(#43); and (iv) ‘‘the present and potential future habitation ofwolves on Tribal lands requires that greater collaboration occurbetween the WDFW and Native American Tribes’’ (#48).

Besides Q-defined consensus, other non-confrontational issueswere revealed. Normalized Z-scores indicate that all stakeholdersvaryingly agreed with six other issue areas. These include: (i) thecritical need to use biological data and sound science, over eco-nomics and politics, in managing wolf recovery (#39); (ii) the needto use a scaled delisting by region to designate distinct wolf popu-lations that can be actively managed in areas where they are thriv-ing (#6); (iii) the impression that the plan, Preferred Alternative 2,is based more on political compromise than best science (#7); (iv)concern about the extent of funding by the state legislature forlivestock compensation (#21); (v) a recommendation for a proac-tive approach toward developing and maintaining prey popula-tions, and safe foraging areas rather than reactively allowingungulates to reach an ‘‘at-risk’’ state before addressing the effectsof wolves (#24); and (vi) support for a stronger analysis about hab-itat connectivity to other states and provinces and within WA to al-low the state to best manage for sustained population growth andgenetic diversity in recovery areas (#37).

All standpoints disagreed, at various levels, with three issues: (i)the statement expressing caution, with regards to reimbursingranchers, not to get caught up in paying people for a risk that therest of the population really is not responsible for (#18); (ii) theidea wolves have and will drive other wildlife out of habitat intohuman dwellings (#41); and (iii) the notion that wolves are delib-erately being reintroduced (#56).

3.4.2. Contentious issue areasFive issues were highly contentious among the standpoints—the

most contentious being whether wolves, as keystone predators, areneeded to maintain biodiversity and restore ecosystems. The eco-logical standpoint strongly agrees with this viewpoint (#40), whilethe incompatibility and precautionary standpoints disagree. Thesecond contentious issue is about the number of breeding pairsset as a target for state delisting (#51). The precautionary stand-point supports a smaller number of breeding pairs, proposed inthe minority report of the WWG, with the incompatibility stand-point in slight agreement. The ecological standpoint stronglyopposes this proposition, arguing that 15 breeding pairs are toofew to be sustainable and scientifically defensible, while the otherstandpoints oppose this argument (#1).

The third conflicting issue is whether wolves have an intrinsicvalue and place within 21st century Washington. The incompati-bility standpoint believes that efforts to recover wolves negate pre-vious extirpation successes—wolves should be removed from thestate again (#44); the ecological and precautionary standpointsstrongly disagree. Furthermore, the ecological and precautionarystandpoints agree that wolves need to be recovered within ourhuman lifetime, rather than passing on the responsibility to subse-quent generations (#10); the incompatibility standpoint opposesthis viewpoint. The incompatibility standpoint justifies this

K.E. Mazur, S.T. Asah / Biological Conservation 167 (2013) 79–89 87

position by arguing that there are too many people, too few prey,and too little habitat for wolf compatibility with society (#35).The ecological and precautionary standpoints strongly and slightlydisagree, respectively, with this viewpoint.

Translocation as a tool to speed recovery and delisting (#25)was strongly opposed by the incompatibility standpoint, whilethe ecological and precautionary standpoints showed agreement.The fifth item of contention is whether land use restrictions shouldbe enforced to protect wolf den and rendezvous sites (#19). Theecological standpoint indicated strong agreement, while theincompatibility and precautionary standpoints opposed this man-agement option.

The correlation among standpoints (Table 3) specifies the ex-tent to which standpoints are at odds or aligned. A correlation of�1 indicates extreme conflict among standpoints while a correla-tion of +1 indicates complete agreement (Asah et al., 2012a). Thenegative correlation between the ecological and incompatibilitystandpoints (�0.53) indicates conflict, but notably does not reflectextreme intractability, in which case we would expect a correlationmuch closer to �1. The precautionary standpoint is closely corre-lated with the incompatibility standpoint (0.48). However, thesetwo standpoints have disagreements as earlier noted.

In addition to revealing issues at the core of the recovery de-bate, our results shed some interesting insights about stakeholders.All stakeholders who identified themselves as environmentaladvocates had significant positive loadings only on the ecologicalstandpoint; all were defining sorts for this standpoint. Stakehold-ers from the external scientist and consultant group loaded signif-icantly on all three standpoints with none of the individualsopposing any. Only one government official stakeholder loaded sig-nificantly on only one standpoint—four others agreed with morethan one standpoint. Stakeholders from the hunting and ranchingcommunities had significant positive loadings on the incompatibil-ity and precautionary standpoints.

4. Discussion

By enabling systematic structuring of the conflict, stakeholdersclarified their standpoints by prioritizing issues to reveal areas andlevels of consensus and disagreement, and to illuminate existingintra-stakeholder contradictions. Our findings suggest that thereexists a significant level of unanimity among stakeholders in a de-bate that is otherwise viewed as extremely contentious. Of the 56issues represented by Q sort statements, all standpoints foundsome level of alignment on 14 of those issues, and had significantdisagreements only on five issues. These findings have importantmanagement and policy implications—consensus areas could beused as launching points to forge social acceptability and trustamong stakeholders. Consensus issues such as the wolf controltechniques to protect livestock suggested by the WDFW, and athird party to rely on, to determine delisting decisions could bebrought to the forefront of deliberations. In addition to suggestinga way forward, the recognition of common agreement may ener-gize closely involved disputants (Webler et al., 2009).

The emergence of three distinct, yet, interrelated standpointsclarified stakeholders’ views and destabilized the apparent rigidityof those views by prioritizing otherwise single-standing issues(Elliot et al., 2003). For example, although the incompatibilitystandpoint appears to be against wolf recovery, they expresscommensurate concerns that legal procedures will interfere withdelisting once an acceptable breeding threshold is reached. Theincompatibility standpoint also expresses the need for a legalframework to guide recovery, supports the breeding pairrecommendations of the minority report, strongly advocates apro-active approach to protect wolf prey and manage wolf-human

interactions, and is concerned about perceived disproportionateburden to rural property owners. Although apparently contradic-tory to the compatibility argument, these concerns suggest thatthis standpoint is not any more against wolf recovery, as they areconcerned about the perceived conditions for recovery. Holdersof this standpoint, therefore, envision a post-recovery period inwhich they co-exist with wolves, but are uncertain and discontentwith the conditions of that co-existence. In other words, what is la-tent yet salient in this standpoint are the concerns that appear tosubjectively justify the incompatibility argument. Q methodologyis unique in uncovering these sorts of latent agendas that do notsurface in the disputants’ expressions in controversial natural re-source management issues (Addams and Proops, 2000). Accord-ingly, to holders of this standpoint, the acceptance of wolfrecovery in WA depends more on the extent to which these con-cerns are addressed rather than the extent to which we attemptto change their attitudes to a more ‘‘wolf-compatible’’ standpoint(Majic and Bath, 2010). Thus, by enabling stakeholders’ collectiveand systematic structure of the conflict, using the forced-choicedistribution, issues are prioritized and within standpoint con-tradictions become obvious, which facilitates understanding andconsequent management of the conflict. In this case, revealing thatcontradiction shifts the debate from the presumed manifested is-sue of wolf-society incompatibility to the latent but more salientconsideration of the conditions under which recovery isacceptable.

Our findings also revealed pertinent management and policy in-sights about stakeholders. None of the external scientist and con-sultant stakeholders significantly disagreed with any standpoint,positioning them as a consensus stakeholder group. These findingssuggest that external scientists and consultants could play a signif-icant role in buffering the conflict to facilitate successful wolfrecovery and conservation. Given the unanimous consensus amongall standpoints for a biological science-based recovery approach(#39), external scientists may serve as effective mediators in spe-cies recovery and conservation debates. Four of the five stakehold-ers from the government officials’ stakeholder group loaded onmultiple standpoints, suggesting that there is considerable flexibil-ity within agencies about advancing recovery and conservation op-tions. It is insightful to notice that these two stakeholder groupsappear to ‘‘see’’ more than one side of the debate because theyare somewhat charged with managing the recovery and conserva-tion process. They exhibit the sort of flexibility that might facilitateadaptability to the varied needs of stakeholders.

The environmental group stakeholders were the least flexible instructuring their standpoints—holding one and only one stand-point, unlike ranchers and hunters who held more standpoints.This is not uncommon; stakeholders who identify themselves asenvironmentalists have been shown, using Q methodology, to holdinflexible standpoints in other contentious environmental man-agement problems (Asah et al., 2012a,b). This inflexibility towardsthe views of others might be fueling the rather manifest extremeposition of the incompatibility standpoint, forcing holders of thisstandpoint to ‘‘submerge’’ more salient issues to more effectivelybargain for flexibility from environmentalists. Thus, and as sug-gested elsewhere (Majic and Bath, 2010), overly pro-wolf stand-points may be just as problematic to wolf recovery as anti-wolfattitudes.

The ecological standpoint strongly advances a science-educa-tion-outreach mission, an element that is compatible with theunanimous consensus on the need for a biological science-drivenrecovery process. However, the inflexibility of the environmental-ists, champions of this standpoint, toward other positions in thewolf recovery dialogue may adversely affect the science-educa-tion-outreach cause. Educating disputants with content perceivedas originating from those with seemingly inflexible standpoints,

88 K.E. Mazur, S.T. Asah / Biological Conservation 167 (2013) 79–89

who fail to openly recognize that some may be disproportionatelyburdened by wolf recovery, might be less likely successful. Addi-tionally, the incompatibility and precautionary standpoints, towhich the hunters and ranchers adhere, agree that biological sci-ence should guide recovery, and express perceived scientific uncer-tainty regarding wolf recovery and conservation. Although theseexpressions incite science-driven education and outreach interven-tions, caution should be exercised in designing and delivering suchinterventions for several reasons. Importantly, the science ele-ments of the incompatibility and precautionary standpoints arelesser priorities (lower Z-scores) than concerns about the lack oftrust in the delisting process once recovery is reached, and theneed for a certain and agreeable arrangement for compensationfor wolf-induced losses. Science education and outreach interven-tions are less likely to be successful without commensurate atten-tion to these more highly prioritized concerns. Additionally, it isknown that: some hunters, for example, can be good stewards ofwildlife (Noss et al., 2005), and that some scientists believe thatscience might be sanctifying the wolf (Mech, 2012), and that wolfextinctions were sanctioned by science—the perspective that sci-ence orders nature as it comprehends it (Lansing, 2002). Practitio-ners must not only consider these issues in the design and deliveryof science-driven education and outreach efforts, but must ensurethat such efforts include a persuasive content targeting those withinflexible pro-wolf standpoints.

Although wolf recovery in WA has been generally characterizedas a debate among the competing options of conservation, use, hu-man values and perceptions, politics and several other issues, thesestandpoints had not been previously systematically structured. Re-sults suggest that characterizations that cluster stakeholders with-in group identities (Gray, 2003) add little value to the wolf debate—except for environmentalists, stakeholders have rather flexiblestandpoints on the debate. Stakeholders of different backgroundsthink about the issue differently than pre-specified stereotypes im-ply. Use of Q methodology in contentious top-predator recoveryand conservation, therefore, enhances understanding and effectiveconflict management. The approach can help stakeholders betterunderstand the deeply held values and concerns advanced througheach standpoint. Such understanding could promote respect (Byrd,2002) and prevent the conflict from approaching intractability.However, the outstanding areas of contention represent issuesthat, if not carefully managed, may lead to persistence of theconflict.

5. Conclusion

Conflicts about the recovery and conservation of top-order pre-dators are essentially conflicts about different management op-tions. Thus, these conflicts need human dimensions researchtools and applications to help foster recovery and conservationinitiatives. By enabling stakeholders to structure their standpointsby prioritizing issues, in a process free of social pressure, Q meth-odology facilitates empirical presentation of consensus and dis-agreement, enables the emergence of latent flexibilities andcontradictions, and facilitates a deeper understanding of stake-holders and their standpoints, thereby enhancing better under-standing and consequent management of the conflict (Maxwell,2000). Thus, we illustrate Q methodology’s utility as an additionaltool for understanding the human dimensions of wildlifeconservation in deliberative policymaking processes. We show thatQ methodology can be used to move a debate beyond positionalgridlocked postures of support versus objection by providing shar-per insight into the preferences of stakeholders. Thus, the approachassists stakeholders in exerting prudence by ‘‘anticipating the fu-ture and making better decisions’’ (Gargan and Brown, 1993).

These attributes of Q methodology have been shown elsewhereto be fundamental to the success of species recovery and conserva-tion (Hayward and Somers, 2009).

It is necessary to consider limitations of this study. The purity ofstatements as originally expressed was preserved as much as pos-sible. Some Q sorters were conflicted by a perceived lack of scien-tific accuracy or multiple concepts apparent in certain Q sortstatements. Additionally, a Q study does not guarantee that all per-spectives are located (Brown, 1980). It is possible that importantsocial perspectives framing the wolf dialogue are omitted if thosethat participated did not fully represent the views of their stake-holder groups (Danielson et al., 2009). However, enormous effortswere made to avoid missing important social perspectives byassessing the breadth of the views and opinions, recruiting strate-gically, and including P5 Q sorts from each stakeholder group inthe analysis.

References

Addams, H., Proops, J. (Eds.), 2000. Social discourses and environmental policy: anapplication of Q methodology. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.

Asah, S.T., Bengston, D.N., Wendt, K., DeVaney, L., 2012a. Prognostic framing ofstakeholders’ subjectivities: a case of all-terrain vehicle management on statepublic lands. Environ. Manage. 49 (1), 192–206.

Asah, S.T., Bengston, D.N., Wendt, K., Nelson, K.C., 2012b. Diagnostic reframing ofintractable environmental problems: case of a contested multiparty publicland-use conflict. J. Environ. Manage. 108, 108–119.

Bandara, R., Tisdell, C., 2003. Comparison of rural and urban attitudes to theconservation of Asian elephants in Sri Lanka: empirical evidence. Biol. Conserv.110, 327–342.

Bardwell, L.V., 1991. Problem-framing: a perspective on environmental problemsolving. Environ. Manage. 15 (5), 603–612.

Bartlett, F.C., 1932. Remembering: a study in experimental and social psychology.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bath, A., 1998. The role of human dimensions in wildlife resource research inwildlife management. Ursus 10, 349–355.

Becker, S.A., Frame, P.F., Martorello, D., Krausz, E. 2013. Washington Gray WolfConservation and Management 2012 Annual Report. Pages WA-1 to WA-16 inU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rocky Mountain Wolf Program 2012 AnnualReport. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana, 59601.

Benford, R.D., 1997. An insider’s critique of the social movement framingperspective. Soc. Quart. 67, 409–430.

Benford, R.D., Snow, D.A., 2000. Framing processes and social movements: anoverview and assessment. Ann. Rev. Soc. 26, 611–639.

Brown, S.R., 1970. On the use of variance designs in Q methodology. Psychol. Rec.20, 179–189.

Brown, S.R., 1980. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in PoliticalScience. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Brown, S.R., 1993. A primer on Q methodology. Oper. Subject. 16, 91–138.Brown, S.R., 2002. Structural and functional information. Policy Sci. 35 (3), 285–304.Brugnach, M., Dewulf, A., Henriksen, H.J., van der Keur, P., 2011. More is not always

better: coping with ambiguity in natural resources management. J. Environ.Manage. 92 (1), 78–84.

Bruskotter, J.T., Schmidt, R.H., Teel, T.L., 2007. Are attitudes towards wolveschanging? A case study in Utah. Biol. Conserv. 139, 211–218.

Byrd, K., 2002. Mirrors and metaphors: contemporary narratives of the wolf inMinnesota. Ethics, Place Environ. 5 (1), 50–65.

Clark, T.W., Brunner, R.D., 2002. Making partnerships work in endangered speciesconservation: an introduction to the decision process. Endang. Spec. Update 19(4), 74–80.

Clark, T.W., Wallace, R.L., 1999. The professional in endangered speciesconservation: an introduction to standpoint clarification. Endang. Spec.Update 16 (1), 9–13.

Cork, S.J., Clark, T.W., Mazur, N., 2000. An interdisciplinary effort for Koalaconservation. Conserv. Biol. 14 (3), 606–609.

Danielson, S., Webler, T., Tuler, S.P., 2009. Using Q method for the formativeevaluation of public participation processes. Soc. Nat. Res. 23 (1), 92–96.

Dayton, B.W., 2000. Policy frames, policy making, and the global climate changediscourse. In: Addams, H., Proops, J. (Eds.), Social discourse and environmentalpolicy: an application of Q methodology. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp.71–99.

Dewulf, A., Craps, M., Dercon, G., 2004. How issues get framed and reframed whendifferent communities meet: a multi-level analysis of a collaborative soilconservation initiative in the Ecuadorian Andes. J. Commun. Appl. Soc. Psychol.14 (3), 177–192.

Dryzek, J., 1990. Discursive Democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Dryzek, J., Berejikian, J., 1993. Reconstructive democratic theory. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev.

87, 48–60.Duda, M.D., Beppler, T., Bissell, S.J., Criscione, A., Hepler, B., Herrick, J.B. . . Lanier, A.,

2008a. Public opinion on hunting and wildlife management in Washington.

K.E. Mazur, S.T. Asah / Biological Conservation 167 (2013) 79–89 89

Harrisonburg, VA: Responsive Management. <http://www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/WA_Hunt_Public_Report.pdf>.

Duda, M.D., Beppler, T., Bissell, S.J., Criscione, A., Hepler, B., Herrick, J.B. . . Lanier, A.,2008b. Public opinion on hunting and wildlife management in Washington.Harrisonburg, VA: Responsive Management. <http://www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/WA_Hunt_Hunter_Report.pdf>.

Eden, S., Donaldson, A., Walker, G., 2005. Structuring subjectivity? Using Qmethodology in human geography. Area 37, 413–422.

Elliot, M., Gray, B., Lewicki, R.J., 2003. Lessons learned from the framing andreframing of intractable environmental conflicts. In: Lewicki, R.J., Gray, B.,Elliott, M. (Eds.), Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: framesand cases. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 409–435.

Ericsson, G., Heberlein, T.A., 2003. Attitudes of hunters, local, and the general publicin Sweden now that the wolves are back. Biol. Conserv. 111, 149–159.

Fischer, A., van der Wal, R., 2007. Invasive plant suppresses charismatic seabird –the construction of attitudes towards biodiversity management options. Biol.Conserv. 135, 256–267.

Fleishman, E., Blockstein, D.E., Hall, J.A., Mascia, M.B., Rudd, M.A., Scott, J.M., Vedder,A., 2011. Top 40 priorities for science to inform US conservation andmanagement policy. Bioscience 61 (4), 290–300.

Focht, W., Lawler, J., 2000. Using Q methodology to facilitate policy dialogue. In:Addams, H., Proops, J. (Eds.), Social discourse and environmental policy: anapplication of Q methodology. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 100–122.

Gargan, J.J., Brown, S.R., 1993. ‘‘What is to be done?’’ Anticipating the future andmobilizing prudence. Policy Sci. 26, 347–359.

Goodman, L.A., 1961. Snowball sampling. Ann. Math. Statist. 32 (1), 148–170.Gray, B., 2003. Framing of environmental disputes. In: Lewicki, R., Gray, B., Elliott,

M. (Eds.), Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: frames andcases. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 1–34.

Gray, B., 2004. Strong opposition: frame-based resistance to collaboration. J.Commun. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 14, 166–176.

Hayward, M.W., Somers, M.J. (Eds.), 2009. Reintroduction of top-order predators.Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

Hovardas, T., Stamou, G., 2006. Structural and narrative reconstruction of ruralresidents’ representations of ‘nature’, ‘wildlife’, and ‘landscape’. Biodivers.Conserv. 15, 1745–1770.

Karanth, K.K., Kramer, R.A., Qian, S.S., Christensen, N.L., 2008. Examiningconservation attitudes, perspectives, and challenges in India. Biol. Conserv.141, 2357–2367.

Karlsson, J., Sjöström, M., 2007. Human attitudes towards wolves, a matter ofdistance. Biol. Conserv. 137, 610–616.

Lansing, M., 2002. Environmental ethics, green politics and the history of predatorbiology. Ethics, Place Environ. 5 (1), 43–49.

Lindsey, P.A., du Toit, J.T., Mills, M.G.L., 2005. Attitudes of ranchers towards Africanwild dogs Lycaon pictus: conservation implications on private land. Biol.Conserv. 125, 113–121.

Liu, F., McShea, W.F., Garshelis, D.L., Zhu, X., Wang, D., Shao, L., 2011. Human-wildlife conflicts influence attitudes but not necessarily behaviors: factorsdriving the poaching of bears in China. Biol. Conserv. 144, 538–547.

Majic, A., Bath, A., 2010. Changes in attitudes towards wolves in Croatia. Biol.Conserv. 143, 255–260.

Majic, A., Taussig, Marino., de Bodonia, A., Huber, D., Bunnefeld, N., 2011. Dynamicsof public attitudes towards bears and the role of bear hunting in Croatia. Biol.Conserv. 144, 3018–3027.

Mattson, D.J., Byrd, K.L., Rutherford, M.B., Brown, S.R., Clark, T.W., 2006. Findingcommon ground in large carnivore conservation: mapping contendingperspectives. Environ. Sci. Policy 9, 392–405.

Maxwell, J.P., 2000. Managing conflict at the county level: the use of Q methodologyin dispute resolution and strategic planning. Public Admin. Quart. 24, 338–354.

McKeown, B., Thomas, D., 1988. Q Methodology. (Quantitative Applications in theSocial Sciences series). vol. 66. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

Meadow, R., Reading, R.P., Phillips, M., Mehringer, M., Miller, B.J., 2005. Theinfluence of persuasive arguments on public attitudes toward a proposed wolfrestoration in the southern Rockies. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 33 (1), 154–163.

Mech, L.D., 2012. Is science in danger of sanctifying the wolf? Biol. Conserv. 150,143–149.

Nie, M.A., 2002. Wolf recovery and management as value-based political conflict.Ethics, Place Environ. 5 (1), 65–71.

Noss, A.J., Oettingo, I., Cuellar, R.L., 2005. Hunter self-monitoring by the Isosen~ o-Guaranı in the Bolivian Chaco. Biodivers. Conserv. 14, 2679–2693.

Saldana, J., 2010. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Schmolck, P., 2002. PQ Method (2.11). <http://schmolck.userweb.mwn.de/qmethod/>.

Shine, R., Doody, J.S., 2011. Invasive species control: understanding conflictsbetween researchers and the general community. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9 (7),400–406.

Stephenson, W., 1953. The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology.University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Stephenson, W., 1964. Application of Q method to measurement of public opinion.Psychol. Rec. 14, 265–273.

Stronen, A.V., Brook, R.K., Paquet, P.C., Mclachlan, S., 2007. Farmer attitudes towardwolves: implications for the role of predators in managing disease. Biol.Conserv. 135, 1–10.

Taylor, D., 2000. Advances in environmental justice: research, theory andmethodology. Am. Behav. Sci. 43 (4), 504–580.

Treves, A., Karanth, K.U., 2003. Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives oncarnivore management worldwide. Conserv. Biol. 17, 1491–1499.

Webler, T., Tuler, S., Krueger, R., 2001. What is a good public participation process?Five perspectives from the public. Environ. Manage. 27 (3), 435–450.

Webler, T., Danielson, S., Tuler, S., 2009. Using Q method to reveal socialperspectives in environmental research. Social and Environmental ResearchInstitute, Greenfield, MA. <http://www.seri-us.org/sites/default/files/Qprimer.pdf>.

Wiles, G.J., Allen, H.L., Hayes, G.E., 2011. Wolf conservation and management planfor Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Williams, C.K., Ericsson, G., Heberlein, T.A., 2002. A quantitative summary ofattitudes towards wolves and their reintroduction (1972–2000). Wildl. Soc.Bull. 30 (2), 575–584.

Wilson, R.S., Bruskotter, J.T., 2009. Assessing the impact of decision frame andexisting attitudes on support for wolf restoration in the United States. HumanDimen. Wildlife 14 (5), 353–365.