IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v42y2025i5p1129-1156.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conservation in conflict: Examining rural–urban discourse in wolf reintroduction policy in Colorado

Author

Listed:
  • Kayla M. Gabehart

Abstract

Wolf reintroduction and management is a highly conflictual topic in both the United States and Europe, enflaming rural–urban tensions and pitting agriculture interests against environmentalists. This study examines the case of gray wolf reintroduction in Colorado. The reintroduction decision was decided by state popular vote on a citizen‐introduced ballot initiative, Proposition 114, in 2020. While a majority of Coloradans voted in favor of reintroduction, this vote was almost exclusively divided along rural–urban geographic lines. To analyze these cleavages and the conflict therein, this study examines the changing coalitional discourse surrounding wolf reintroduction policy in Colorado. This study captures changes in the policy conflict from the beginning of 2020 when the ballot initiative to reintroduce gray wolves was first proposed, to the passage of that initiative on the November 2020 ballot, through the related legislative bills proposed in the spring of 2021 in an effort to maintain rural representation in the reintroduction process. This case utilizes the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) and emotion belief analysis (EBA) to analyze news media and legislative testimony. “重新引入和管理灰狼”在美国和欧洲都是一个高度冲突的话题,其激化了城乡之间的紧张关系,并使农业利益与环保主义者对立。本研究分析了科罗拉多州重新引入灰狼的案例。重新引入的决定是由2020年公民提出的投票倡议第114号提案的州民众投票决定的。虽然大多数科罗拉多州人都投票支持该提案,但这次投票几乎完全是按照城乡地理划分的。为了分析这些分歧及其中的冲突,本研究分析了科罗拉多州围绕“重新引入灰狼政策”的不断变化的联盟话语。本研究记录了从2020年初首次提出重新引入灰狼的投票倡议,到2020年11月投票通过该倡议期间政策冲突的变化,再到2021年春季提出的相关立法法案,后者旨在保持重新引入灰狼过程中农村的代表性。本案例利用倡导联盟框架(ACF)和情绪信念分析(EBA)来分析新闻媒体和立法证词。 La reintroducción y la gestión del lobo es un tema sumamente conflictivo tanto en Estados Unidos como en Europa, que inflama las tensiones entre las zonas rurales y urbanas y enfrenta los intereses agrícolas con los de los ambientalistas. Este estudio examina el caso de la reintroducción del lobo gris en Colorado. La decisión de reintroducirlo se decidió por votación popular estatal en una iniciativa de votación presentada por los ciudadanos, la Proposición 114, en 2020. Si bien la mayoría de los habitantes de Colorado votaron a favor de la reintroducción, esta votación se dividió casi exclusivamente en líneas geográficas rurales y urbanas. Para analizar estas divisiones y el conflicto que las acompaña, este estudio examina el discurso de coalición cambiante en torno a la política de reintroducción del lobo en Colorado. Este estudio captura los cambios en el conflicto de políticas desde principios de 2020, cuando se propuso por primera vez la iniciativa de votación para reintroducir a los lobos grises, hasta la aprobación de esa iniciativa en la votación de noviembre de 2020, pasando por los proyectos de ley relacionados propuestos en la primavera de 2021 en un esfuerzo por mantener la representación rural en el proceso de reintroducción. Este caso utiliza el Marco de Coalición de Defensa (ACF) y el Análisis de Emociones y Creencias (EBA) para analizar los medios de comunicación y el testimonio legislativo.

Suggested Citation

  • Kayla M. Gabehart, 2025. "Conservation in conflict: Examining rural–urban discourse in wolf reintroduction policy in Colorado," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 42(5), pages 1129-1156, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:42:y:2025:i:5:p:1129-1156
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.70000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.70000
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.70000?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:42:y:2025:i:5:p:1129-1156. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.