Divergent values and perspectives drive three distinct viewpoints on grizzly bear reintroduction in Washington, USA

The success or failure of apex carnivore reintroduction efforts can hinge
on understanding and attending to diverse viewpoints of those involved in
and impacted by reintroductions. Yet, viewpoints vary widely due to a
suite of complex and intersecting factors, such as values, beliefs, and
sociocultural context. We ask, “what are the diverse viewpoints that exist
surrounding apex carnivore recovery and what kinds of emotional,
analytical, and values-based judgments might people use to construct their
viewpoints?”  We used Q-methodology to identify distinct,
generalized viewpoints, and areas of overlap and divergence between them,
surrounding a proposal to reintroduce grizzly bears (Ursus arctos
horribilis) to the North Cascades Ecosystem, USA. Q-methodology combines
qualitative and quantitative methods by asking purposefully sampled
respondents to sort various statements on a given topic into an ordered
grid.  We found three distinct viewpoints among 67 respondents
using factor analysis and responses to open-ended questions about the
sorting exercise. Two of these viewpoints represent essentially polarized
perspectives corresponding to deeply normative notions about grizzly bear
recovery, where one views reintroducing bears as a moral requisite, and
the other views it as inappropriate and risky. These viewpoints primarily
diverged on their perceptions of risk and perspectives about our
collective responsibilities to and appropriate relationships with others
(i.e., “relational values”). The third viewpoint was distinguished by its
prioritization of practical considerations and views reintroducing bears
as impractical and not sensible.  Our analysis underscores the
need to identify and attend to latent viewpoints that may be overlooked in
the polarized public discourse as well as the multiple value systems and
perceptions of risk that are integrated in perspectives on grizzly bear
reintroduction. Additionally, our broadly defined identity groups were of
very little utility in predicting viewpoints in this study, highlighting
the importance of avoiding assumptions about people’s views based on their
identities and interests. We argue that forefronting conversations about
responsibilities and appropriate relationships is critical for finding
acceptable paths forward in such recovery efforts. We discuss the
management implications of these findings for the North Cascades grizzly
bear reintroduction and for other large carnivore reintroductions.