DOI: 10.5061/dryad.73n5tb369
title: Divergent values and perspectives drive three distinct viewpoints on grizzly bear reintroduction in Washington, USA

description: 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.
description: # Divergent values and perspectives drive three distinct viewpoints on
 grizzly bear reintroduction in Washington, USA
 [https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.73n5tb369](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.73n5tb369) ## Description of the data and file structure This dataset contains answers to a short questionnaire and the Q-sort rankings each participant gave to 41 statements depending on how much they agreed or disagreed with each statement. The scale of agreement ranges from -5 (strongly disagree) to +5 (strongly agree), and participants were "forced" to prioritize statements by sorting them in a grid (see figure in supporting information) which only allowed for one statement to be ranked -5 and one statement ranked +5. Several statements could be ranked neutrally (0).  ### Files and variables #### File: Statements\_for\_Dryad.csv **Description:** These are the statements that were ranked by participants in the Q-sort grid and their corresponding ID number (s1, s2, ...). ##### Variables * ID: Statement id that corresponds to the raw sorts header row.  * Statement: Text of each statement that participants sorted in the Q-sort activity.  #### File: Raw\_Sorts\_for\_Dryad.xlsx **Description:** This contains the answers to the preliminary questionnaire participants answered that collected basic demographic and familiarity information. It also contains how each participant ranked each statement (-5 to +5) based on level of agreement with that statement.  Blank cells (unanswered questions) are filled in with "N/A". ##### Variables * Number: The numerical id of each participant. Corresponds to Figure 2 in the manuscript.  * Participant: Participant identifier given by the software. * Loading: The factor which each participant loaded onto in our analysis.  * Year_born: Year the participant was born. * Gender_identity: Self-identified gender of the participant.  * Primary_role: The role which the participant identified with most strongly as it pertains to their activities or involvement in the North Cascades Ecosystem (See manuscript and supporting information for questionnaire details).  * Secondary_role1 through Secondary_role3: Participants had the option to select up to 3 additional roles they identify with. Some selected their primary roles twice.  * DEIS_familiarity: The level of familiarity participants had with the 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, with 4 categories of familiarity. * s1 through s41: The ranking given to each statement by each participant.  ## Code/software Our analyses were performed in Q Method Software, which is a paid subscription service: [https://qmethodsoftware.com/](https://qmethodsoftware.com/)  However, analysis is possible using the open software KenQ: [https://shawnbanasick.github.io/ken-q-analysis/](https://shawnbanasick.github.io/ken-q-analysis/) The website provides substantial instructions for use of their software, and has the same options for analysis which are: * We generated a **Pearson correlation** matrix of every Q sort. * We used the matrices to conduct a **centroid factor analysis**. * We used a combination of **judgmental hand rotation** and **Varimax rotation** to explore Q sort loadings relative to two, three, and four extracted factors.