Kangaroo Court? An Analysis of Social Media Justifications for Attitudes to Culling
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21192541 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Michael Mehmet (0000-0002-4936-5946, Charles Sturt University, corresponding author), Peter Simmons (0000-0003-1078-3101, Charles Sturt University) |
| Year | 2018 |
| Volume | 12 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 370-386 |
| Publication date | 2018-04-03 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Environmental Communication (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1752-4032 • E-ISSN: 1752-4040 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/17524032.2016.1220966 |
| OpenAlex | W2518109682 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 6 |
| References cited | 21 |
There are heated debates in Australia for and against culling kangaroos. Understanding community attitudes to wildlife management may aid strategic communication, leading to better outcomes for humans and wildlife. For decision-makers, social media present tantalizingly available attitude data. Using the “appraisal” framework, this study analyzed attitudes toward kangaroo culling expressed in Facebook discussions. Scholarly wildlife attitude models provide useful descriptors and categories but do not account for the complexity and contradictions within individuals’ attitudes to culling kangaroos. The findings reveal conflation of human interests and attitudes to culling; proponents generally justified culling with reference to financial cost or harm reduction. Opponents of culling argued that human convenience and economics do not justify taking the lives of kangaroos. Proponents and opponents often attacked each other based on perceived personal and ideological differences, ignoring the substance or validity of others’ comments. An urban–rural divide promulgated by some culling proponents may fuse cultural/political allegiances with attitudes to culling in ways that undermine kangaroo welfare. Humans charged with wildlife management and decision-making should aim to make assessments that benefit wildlife as well as humans. Future research on decision-making should elucidate relationships between human interest and decisions and communication concerning animal welfare
Animal welfare · Biology · Culling · Environmental ethics · Political science · Public relations · Sociology · Wildlife · Wildlife management · Animal and Plant Science Education · Environmental Education and Sustainability · Psychology · Social Psychology · Wildlife Ecology and Conservation · Ecology
The Language of Evaluation
Researching Language and Social Media
Co-Managing Human–Wildlife Conflicts
Understanding the Diversity of Public Interests in Wildlife Conservation
Why Are People Skeptical about Climate Change? Some Insights from Blog Comments
Public Spheres in Interaction
The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks
Wildlife and world views
Exploring “Humane” Dimensions of Wildlife
What Are They Thinking? Exploring Layperson Conceptualizations of Wildlife Health and Disease
Using tradeable permits to improve efficiency, equity and animal protection in the commercial kangaroo harvest
Ambient affiliation
Us and Them
Beyond voice
Linking Society and Environment
Social Media in Public Opinion Research
Animals and modernity
| Unique citing works | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0.86 |
| Citation span | 2019 - 2023 (5) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 5 |