Home > Publications . Search All . Browse All . Country . Browse PSC Pubs . PSC Report Series

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

Shaefer and Edin's book ($2 a Day) cited in piece on political debate over plight of impoverished Americans

Eisenberg tracks factors affecting both mental health and athletic/academic performance among college athletes

Shapiro says Americans' low spending reflects "cruel lesson" about the dangers of debt

Highlights

Susan Murphy elected to the National Academy of Sciences

Maggie Levenstein named director of ISR's Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research

Arline Geronimus receives 2016 Harold R. Johnson Diversity Service Award

PSC spring 2016 newsletter: Kristin Seefeldt, Brady West, newly funded projects, ISR Runs for Bob, and more

Next Brown Bag

PSC Brown Bags
will resume fall 2016

A household perspective for biodiversity conservation

Publication Abstract

Peterson, M.N., M.J. Peterson, T.R. Peterson, and Jianguo Liu. 2007. "A household perspective for biodiversity conservation." Journal of Wildlife Management, 71(4): 1243-1248.

Many researchers have implicated human population density in species endangerment, but these correlative studies do not demonstrate causality. We propose that hypotheses implicating human population density in wildlife endangerment at global and national scales owe their public and academic currency as thoroughly to inductive reasoning and repetition as to scientific experimentation. It follows that alternative research hypotheses generated from the same facts should provide equally tenable results. Household density provides such an alternative hypothesis and is growing faster than human population density. We used linear multiple regression models to demonstrate that household density provides a viable alternative statistical hypothesis to human population density for explaining species endangerment (household model, r(2) = 0.85; population model, r(2) = 0.84). We then suggest adopting a household perspective for biodiversity conservation because 1) social norms and practices render a household approach to conservation more pragmatic than a human population perspective and 2) shifting the focus toward households could facilitate movement from a human-versus-nature ethic to a humans-situated-within-nature ethic (e.g., a land ethic). Wildlife managers and researchers concerned about the negative influence humans have on biodiversity should consider grounding research, theory, and policy decisions in the dynamics of human households as an alternative to human population.

DOI:10.2193/2006-207 (Full Text)

Browse | Search : All Pubs | Next