DOI: 10.5061/dryad.sxksn0389
title: Data for: Conservation scholars’ perspectives on the morality of trophy hunting for the sake of conservation

description: Trophy hunting is one of the most contentious issues in recent
 biodiversity conservation discourse, eliciting opposition and support for
 the practice. Ethical concerns are often at the heart of the debate. To
 investigate moral views about trophy hunting, we conducted an online
 survey of randomly selected scholars worldwide who had published on
 biodiversity conservation (n = 2,315). Scholars expressed divergent views
 on the moral acceptability of trophy hunting as a conservation practice.
 Moral convictions were significantly related to the perspectives The most
 important factor in predicting the moral views of the respondents was the
 consequences of trophy hunting for local human communities. The results
 also indicated that utilitarian (versus deontological) decision-making in
 conservation, ecological consequences of trophy hunting, and animal
 welfare issues contribute to the divergent views. The findings emphasize
 the need for interdisciplinary work on ethical issues concerning animal
 rights and welfare in conservation, as well as providing robust and
 comprehensive evidence on the consequences of trophy hunting for local
 communities. We caution that polarization among conservation scholars may
 negatively affect conservation efforts. Based on the literature and our
 findings, we provide some recommendations to narrow the gap and consider
 different management options.
description: In November and December 2020, we
 conducted a web-based survey of biodiversity conservation scholars who had
 published in the scientific literature since 2010. We used the
 publications listed in the 'Web of Science – All Databases' as
 the sampling frame and searched for publications using the search term:
 'biodiversity conservation' OR 'wildlife conservation'
 OR 'conservation biology' OR 'trophy hunting' in the
 'topic' field. We obtained the authors' email addresses
 from the same database and sent individualized email invitations with a
 link to the Web survey hosted by the Qualtrics survey platform. Qualtrics
 only accepted one response per link, avoiding the possibility of a
 respondent sharing their link with unidentified respondents. Two
 additional follow-up invitations were sent within two weeks of the initial
 invitation to those who did not respond to the earlier invitation.
 The instructions in the
 invitation email and survey noted that it was limited to the authors who
 had published work in the area of biodiversity
 conservation.
 Additionally, at the beginning of the
 questionnaire, we asked the respondents if their work, study, or research
 was related to biodiversity conservation. Those who responded
 'no' to this question were automatically excluded from the
 survey. We also asked the respondents to provide their opinions on trophy
 hunting in the context of the developing world. For clarity
 and consistency in the responses, the following definition of trophy
 hunting was provided to the respondents on multiple pages throughout the
 survey: “Trophy hunting is a type of selective recreational hunting of
 animals done to obtain their body parts as a representation of success or
 memorial,” with an emphasis on 'developing countries' (see
 Appendix S1). The Institutional
 Review Board of Texas A&M University approved the data collection
 protocols and the survey instrument
 (IRB2020-1228M). Of the 26,064 scholars who received the
 invitation, 3,794 responded (response rate: 14.5%), and 2,430 completed
 the questionnaire (completion rate: 64.0%). We used the authors’ contact
 information at the time of publication. Many had likely changed their
 institutional affiliation since publication (beginning in 2010). We cannot
 discern how many authors had changed their affiliations and, consequently,
 did not receive the invitation. Furthermore, we only sent invitations to
 authors whose email addresses were available through the database (all
 co-authors). After
 screening out responses from scholars whose work or research did not
 involve biodiversity conservation (<em>n</em> = 106) and those
 who did not answer our outcome variable (<em>n</em> = 9), we
 included 2,315 cases in the analyses. 
description: The data file can be opened in the IBM SPSS software.
description: # Data for: Conservation scholars’ perspectives on the morality of trophy
 hunting for the sake of conservation Data for "Conservation scholars
 perspectives on the morality of trophy hunting for the sake of
 conservation" published in the journal People and Nature. 2,315
 records from a survey of global conservation scholars regarding their
 perspectives on the morality of trophy hunting as a conservation practice.
 ## Description of the data and file structure When opened in SPSS, data
 labels and other fields are self-explanatory. Please refer to the
 publication for further information. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Title of
 Dataset: Conservation scholars' perspectives on the morality of
 trophy hunting for the sake of conservation 2. Author Information A. Lead
 Author Contact Information Name: Benjamin Ghasemi Institution: Colorado
 State University Address: Fort Collins, CO USA Email:
 benjamin.ghasemi@colostate.edu <br> B. Co-Author Contact Information
 Name: Gerard Kyle Institution: Texas A&M University Address:
 College Station, TX USA Email: gkyle@tamu.edu <br> C. Co-Author
 Contact Information Name: Jane Sell Institution: Texas A&M
 University Address: College Station, TX USA Email: j-sell@tamu.edu
 <br> D. Co-Author Contact Information Name: Gary Varner Institution:
 Texas A&M University Address: College Station, TX USA Email:
 g-varner@tamu.edu3. Date of data collection (single date, range,
 approximate date): 2016-2018 3. Geographic location of data collection:
 Las Cruces Biological Station, Costa Rica 4This datresearch did not
 receive any funding. 4. Links to publications that cite or use the data:
 Ghasemi, B., Kyle, G., Sell, J., & Varner, G. (2023). Conservation
 scholars' perspectives on the morality of trophy hunting for the sake
 of conservation. *People and Nature*.
 https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/pan3.10539 6.
 Recommended citation for this dataset: Ghasemi, B., Kyle, G., Sell, J.,
 & Varner, G. (2023). Data for: Conservation scholars'
 perspectives on the morality of trophy hunting for the sake of
 conservation. Dryad Digital Repository.
 https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.sxksn0389 DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR:
 Ghasemi et al. Trophy Hunting Survey.sav 1. Number of variables: 21 2.
 Number of cases/rows: 2,315 3. Variable List: (Variable Name; Description;
 Type; Measurement; Labeled Values;) * ResponseId; Respondent's unique
 ID; String; Nominal; * Q1; In your opinion, how acceptable is trophy
 hunting as a conservation practice?; Numeric; Ordinal; Totally
 unacceptable (1), Unacceptable (2), Slightly unacceptable (3), Undecided
 (4), Slightly acceptable (5), Acceptable (6), Perfectly acceptable (7); *
 Q2.1; To what extent do you feel your position on trophy hunting is a
 moral stance?; Numeric; Ordinal; Not at all (1), A little (2), To a
 moderate extent (3), A lot (4), To a great extent (5); * Q2.2; To what
 extent do you feel your position on trophy hunting is based on strong
 personal principles?; Numeric; Ordinal; Not at all (1), A little (2), To a
 moderate extent (3), A lot (4), To a great extent (5); * Q2.2; To what
 extent do you feel your position on trophy hunting is based on strong
 personal principles?; Numeric; Ordinal; Not at all (1), A little (2), To a
 moderate extent (3), A lot (4), To a great extent (5); * Q2.3; To what
 extent do you feel your position on trophy hunting is morally correct?;
 Numeric; Ordinal; Not at all (1), A little (2), To a moderate extent (3),
 A lot (4), To a great extent (5); * Q3; In your opinion, how morally
 acceptable is trophy hunting as a conservation practice?; Numeric;
 Ordinal; Totally unacceptable (1), Unacceptable (2), Slightly unacceptable
 (3), Undecided (4), Slightly acceptable (5), Acceptable (6), Perfectly
 acceptable (7); * Q4.1; How important was each of the factors below in
 your position on trophy hunting? - Economic incentives to protect
 threatened species; Numeric; Ordinal; Not at all important (1), Slightly
 important (2), Moderately important (3), Very important (4), Extremely
 important (5); * Q4.2; How important was each of the factors below in your
 position on trophy hunting? - Consequences to the number of threatened
 species; Numeric; Ordinal; Not at all important (1), Slightly important
 (2), Moderately important (3), Very important (4), Extremely important
 (5); * Q4.3; How important was each of the factors below in your position
 on trophy hunting? - Rights of the individual animals who get killed;
 Numeric; Ordinal; Not at all important (1), Slightly important (2),
 Moderately important (3), Very important (4), Extremely important (5); *
 Q4.4; How important was each of the factors below in your position on
 trophy hunting? - Welfare of the individual animals who get killed;
 Numeric; Ordinal; Not at all important (1), Slightly important (2),
 Moderately important (3), Very important (4), Extremely important (5); *
 Q4.5; How important was each of the factors below in your position on
 trophy hunting? - Fair distribution of economic benefits generated by
 trophy hunting; Numeric; Ordinal; Not at all important (1), Slightly
 important (2), Moderately important (3), Very important (4), Extremely
 important (5); * Q4.6; How important was each of the factors below in your
 position on trophy hunting? - Evolutionary consequences to the threatened
 species populations; Numeric; Ordinal; Not at all important (1), Slightly
 important (2), Moderately important (3), Very important (4), Extremely
 important (5); * Q4.7; How important was each of the factors below in your
 position on trophy hunting? - Trophy hunters' characters; Numeric;
 Ordinal; Not at all important (1), Slightly important (2), Moderately
 important (3), Very important (4), Extremely important (5); * Q4.8; How
 important was each of the factors below in your position on trophy
 hunting? - Trophy hunters' Intentions; Numeric; Ordinal; Not at all
 important (1), Slightly important (2), Moderately important (3), Very
 important (4), Extremely important (5); * Q4.9; How important was each of
 the factors below in your position on trophy hunting? - Local communities’
 opinions and feelings; Numeric; Ordinal; Not at all important (1),
 Slightly important (2), Moderately important (3), Very important (4),
 Extremely important (5); * Q4.10; How important was each of the factors
 below in your position on trophy hunting? - Social consequences to the
 local communities; Numeric; Ordinal; Not at all important (1), Slightly
 important (2), Moderately important (3), Very important (4), Extremely
 important (5); * Q4.11; How important was each of the factors below in
 your position on trophy hunting? - Consequences to biodiversity and
 ecosystems; Numeric; Ordinal; Not at all important (1), Slightly important
 (2), Moderately important (3), Very important (4), Extremely important
 (5); * Q4.12; How important was each of the factors below in your position
 on trophy hunting? - Global public opinion and feelings; Numeric; Ordinal;
 Not at all important (1), Slightly important (2), Moderately important
 (3), Very important (4), Extremely important (5); * Q4.13; How important
 was each of the factors below in your position on trophy hunting? - Global
 public trust in conservation; Numeric; Ordinal; Not at all important (1),
 Slightly important (2), Moderately important (3), Very important (4),
 Extremely important (5); * Q5.1; To what extent do you agree or disagree
 with the following statements regarding decision-making concerning
 wildlife? - It is morally right to harm a wild animal if harming it is a
 necessary means to helping several other wild animals.; Numeric; Ordinal;
 Strongly disagree (1), Disagree (2), Somewhat disagree (3), Neither agree
 nor disagree (4), Somewhat agree (5), Agree (6), Strongly agree (7); *
 Q5.2; To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following
 statements regarding decision-making concerning wildlife? - Sometimes it
 is morally necessary for wild animals to die as collateral damage—if more
 wild animals are saved overall.; Numeric; Ordinal; Strongly disagree (1),
 Disagree (2), Somewhat disagree (3), Neither agree nor disagree (4),
 Somewhat agree (5), Agree (6), Strongly agree (7); 4. Missing data codes:
 ., -99, -999 ## Sharing/other access N/A. Links to other publicly
 accessible locations of the data: N/A. Data was derived from the following
 sources: An online survey. ## Code/Software Data is in IBM SPSS file
 format (.sav).