Mind the gap: Comparing expert and public opinions on managing overabundant koalas

Management decisions that do not adequately align with the values and opinions of the public-at-large can lead to controversy and conflict. In conservation and natural resource management, knowledge of the public's values and opinions are often assumed or based on the personal perceptions of experts, rather than on empirical evidence. Mismatches can occur, and in Australia, an ongoing debate about how to best manage overabundant koalas has divided experts and members of the public for decades. On several occasions, experts have recommended culling of overabundant koalas, and yet culls are rarely conducted by managers. Anecdotally this is due to perceived public opposition to the culling of koalas, but there is little empirical evidence to evaluate this assessment. Using a nationwide survey, we investigated the social acceptability of different options for koala management in a population of experts and the general public, and how underlying environmental values and basic beliefs about human-wildlife relationships can explain differences of opinion. We found significant differences in the acceptability of management options between experts and the general public, although the polarity of acceptability was mostly the same. However, the lethal management options of culling and indigenous hunting elicited opposing opinions. Consistent with previous research, beliefs about human-wildlife relationships and belief profiles were found to be useful in explaining differences in acceptability of lethal control among the public, but not among experts. Biospheric values and increased experience and knowledge could play a greater role in the formation of experts' acceptability judgements. Due consideration of evidence-based knowledge of people's opinions can avoid reactive decision-making based on the opinions of a vocal minority. Where differences of opinion exist between experts and the general public, reconciling these divergent views should lead to better conservation outcomes with reduced conflict over potentially controversial management actions.