No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Approval of Wolves in Scandinavia: A Comparison Between Norway and Sweden
Abstract
Based on Norwegian and Swedish representative national samples, and samples from areas with large mammalian carnivores present, we investigated whether well-known predictors for approval of wolves may explain between-country differences. Swedes were in general more positive than Norwegians were, while respondents in large carnivore areas, regardless of nationality, were less positive. The profile of those who approved wolf presence was the same in all samples. The difference between the samples was greater in Sweden, indicating that the relationship between urbanized and rural areas is more polarized in Sweden compared to Norway. We suggest this to be an effect of the fact that Norway’s large carnivore and agriculture policies favor the rural population, and of a higher degree of urbanization in Sweden. We recommend future studies to look into the different power relations between people living in urban and rural areas, comparing countries with different degree of urbanization.
... Despite the existence of regulatory instruments, during the past three decades management of wolves in Norway has been informed by conflicting interests of rural and urban populations, as in many other European countries facing the return of wolves (Krange et al. 2017). 6 Rural wolf opponents expect the state to protect their traditional lifestyles and economic interests-hunting and livestock farming-while urban-based NGOs and wolf supporters often champion animal rights and ecologist ideologies and consequently demand that the government protect endangered species such as wolves (Krange et al. 2017;Sollund 2020). ...
... Despite the existence of regulatory instruments, during the past three decades management of wolves in Norway has been informed by conflicting interests of rural and urban populations, as in many other European countries facing the return of wolves (Krange et al. 2017). 6 Rural wolf opponents expect the state to protect their traditional lifestyles and economic interests-hunting and livestock farming-while urban-based NGOs and wolf supporters often champion animal rights and ecologist ideologies and consequently demand that the government protect endangered species such as wolves (Krange et al. 2017;Sollund 2020). ...
... This globalizing trend in Norwegian society is influenced by Arne Naess's 1970s philosophy (Naess and Drengson 2008), which enjoys widespread popularity in Norway, and movements such as Framtiden i våre hender (The Future is in Our Hands). 10 These two philosophical orientations-anthropocentrism and ecocentrismclash over wolf "management" (Krange et al. 2017). The former regards animals as being at the disposal of humans; they are hunted for food, to give hunters the opportunity to be at one with nature, for the comradeship hunting offers, because it endorses ideal masculinity (Brandth and Haugen, 2006;Bye, 2003), for the sensation of power that hunting provides (Bye 2003;Presser and Taylor 2011) and as trophy (Sollund 2017a(Sollund , 2019. ...
While scholars of state crime and organized crime have frequently explored the intersection of these fields with green criminology, for the most part they have not brought the two together as organized state criminality as a means to explore environmental destruction. Of the few explorations of organized state green crime that do exist, most do not embrace a non-speciesist perspective. In this article, we develop a non-speciesist theory of organized state green crime to explain the Nor-wegian state-licensed killing of wolves, a phenomenon that we analyze through the use of the concept ideological inertia. Our main argument is that the underlying cultural, political and economic interests that were prioritized up to the 1970s in Norway continue to have a counteracting effect on the protection of large carnivores, which the country committed to as a signatory to the Bern Convention.
... In general women, elderly people, people with a lower level of education and less knowledge of the target species show less tolerance [34][35][36]. Secondly, folklore referring to oral traditions, folk tales, culturally transmitted fear, distaste or love towards certain groups of animals may lead to important conservation issues as some species may survive to the detriment of others [37][38][39]. Thirdly, people living in rural areas are generally less tolerant than urban inhabitants [35,36,[40][41][42], which in turn is linked to another factor that may drive people's attitudes, i.e., direct experience with carnivores [34,36]. Urban interests are perceived as the dominating norm in society driving political processes and controlling policymaking processes [43]. ...
... This perception of political subordination is even more clear in relation to carnivore management and creates a situation in which rural people perceive that they are not considered, taken seriously, or given enough participation in the carnivore policy processes [45]. All these situations contribute to generating political alienation in terms of a general mistrust that rural inhabitants have towards actors and institutions of the political system [39,40]. All these situations may promote illegal killing of carnivores with common silence and appraisal by local stakeholders who see hunting violators as defenders of human safety [46,47]. ...
... Contrarywise, the neutral attitude showed the smallest grey bar as the lesser mentioned by the stakeholders (urban inhabitants = 1, rural inhabitants = 6, hunters = 1, general public = 5, conservationists = 3). Reference list: [22,23,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]46,47,. ...
Simple Summary
Large carnivores and husbandry practices are important contributors to biodiversity integrity. However, conflicts that may arise when carnivores and livestock share the same areas may undermine both carnivore conservation and the maintenance of husbandry activities. Through the revision of the existing literature regarding human–carnivore conflict at a European Union (EU) level, our work aimed to assess stakeholders’ perception towards large carnivores (bear and wolf). The results showed that those categories (i.e., rural inhabitants and hunters), which were affected the most by the presence of carnivores were those who showed the most negative attitude. We showed that direct experience with carnivores has led the opinion of certain categories to become more negative. Furthermore, we did not find differences in terms of degree of tolerance by comparing areas in which carnivores and humans have coexisted for centuries and areas in which carnivores were extirpated. In the light of carnivore population dynamics, we recommend monitoring changes in attitudes over time to define appropriate solutions aimed at mitigating carnivore impacts.
Abstract
Conflicts between large carnivores and human activities undermine both the maintenance of livestock practices as well as the conservation of carnivores across Europe. Because large carnivore management is driven by a common EU policy, the purpose of this research was to assess stakeholders’ perception towards bears and wolves at an EU level. We conducted a systematic search and subsequent analysis of 40 peer-reviewed studies collected from 1990 to September 2020 within Member States of the EU. Rural inhabitants and hunters exhibited the most negative attitude compared to urban inhabitants and conservationists, whose attitude was more positive. We showed that direct experience with predators as a consequence of ongoing re-colonization may have affected the degree of acceptance of certain categories and that the long-term coexistence between humans and carnivores does not necessarily imply increased tolerance. To encourage coexistence, we recommend monitoring changes in attitudes over time relative to carnivore population dynamics.
... Although human dimensions in wildlife research have been integrated in management decisions in America (Chamberlain et al., 2012;Mech, 2017), it remains a relatively new field in most of Europe (Bath, Olszanska & Okarma 2008;Mech, 2017 (Piedallu et al., 2016), Germany (Ronnenberg et al., 2017), and Switzerland (e.g. Behr, Ozgul & Cozzi, 2017), although the longest tradition certainly exists in Scandinavia (Eriksson, Sandstrom & Ericsson, 2015;Gangaas, Kaltenborn & Andreassen, 2013;Krange, Sandstrom, Tangeland & Ericsson, 2017). Thus, there are already review articles and meta analyses such as that of Kansky, Kidd and Knight (2014) that focussed on problematic mammalians in general and that of Dressel, Sandstrom and Ericsson (2015), which is the most important review of wolf and bear acceptance literature from 1974 to 2012. ...
... Generally positive attitudes towards large carnivores have been reported by many authors Psychological Factors Influencing Human Attitudes towards Brown Bears 10 Schwerpunkt from older studies (e.g. Andersone & Ozolins, 2004;Hunziker, Hoffman & Wild-Eck, 2001;Kaczensky, Blazic & Gossow, 2004;Røskaft, Händel, Bjerke & Kalten born, 2007;Wechselberger, Rigg & Be ková, 2005) but differences have been found within different stakeholder groups (Andersone & Ozolins, 2002;Johansson & Karlsson, 2011;Lundmark & Matti, 2015;Mykra, Pohja-Mykra & Vuorisalo, 2017) and bet ween affected and non-affected regions (Ambarli, 2016;Frank, Johansson & Flykt, 2015;Johansson, Sandstrom, Pedersen & Ericsson, 2016;Krange et al., 2017), i.e., between people or groups with and without bad experiences with the predators, such as confrontation with damages (Dressel et al., 2015;Eriksson et al., 2015). This leads us to the question of what is actually influencing the attitudes and final acceptance of large carnivores, such as wolves and lynxes and, in particular regarding our study, the bear. ...
... Regarding affectedness, we found more negative attitudes in affected areas compared with non-affected areas, a result that is in accordance with previous studies (Ambarli, 2016;Frank et al., 2015;Johansson et al., 2016;Krange et al., 2017). However, we did not find any differences for repressive management between affected and non-affected areas. ...
Conflicts caused by interactions between humans and large carnivores involve complex phenomena and therefore both the biological and social aspects of the phenomena need to be considered. In this paper, we concentrate on people's attitudes towards brown bears (Ursus arctos). The main aims of the study were 1) to detect attitudes towards bears and towards bear management in potentially affected regions, 2) to analyse psychological factors that influence bear attitudes and bear management attitudes, and 3) to determine how affectedness influences attitudes towards bear and bear management and the mechanisms that form these attitudes. Data was collected from two Swiss cantons via a mail survey. A total of 401 (20.50 %) respondents returned a properly filled-in questionnaire. The results indicate that respondents are polarized concerning the bear issue. Our analyses reveal that psychological factors such as fear, perceived damage caused by bears, and value orientation are strong and significant predictors for attitudes towards bears, which are, in turn, strong predictors for attitudes towards repressive management of bears. Neither knowledge about bears nor affectedness were found to be associated with attitudes towards bears or towards repressive measures. As the people are polarized concerning the bear issue, different groups have to learn to get along with each other and to try to understand each other's concerns. Our model suggests that intervention should mainly Maria Mondini Maria Mondini studied Psychology at Univ. Zurich. She focussed on environmental psychology issues and conducted research projects on nature conservation attitudes and on health effects of nature experience.
... Previous research focused on attitudes towards the wolf as a species, including a global review of attitudes (Barmoen et al. 2024), and specifically across Europe, e.g. Croatia (Majić and Bath 2010), Germany (Arbieu et al. 2019), Hungary (Anthony and Tarr 2019), Italy (Bongi et al. 2023;Franchini et al. 2021;Glikman et al. 2012;Stauder et al. 2020), Latvia (Žunna et al. 2020), Norway (Krange et al. 2017), Portugal (Torres et al. 2020;Valente et al. 2024), Slovenia (Oražem and Tomažic 2018), Sweden (Ericsson and Heberlein 2003;Krange et al. 2017;Williams et al. 2002), andSwitzerland (Cracco et al. 2024;Hunziker et al. 2001). In comparison, less research has focussed on the perception of wolf management in Europe (Torres et al. 2020), even though scholars have argued that attitudes towards species and their management require separation (Von Essen and Allen 2020), and management is integral to conflict resolution (Firlein 2018). ...
... Previous research focused on attitudes towards the wolf as a species, including a global review of attitudes (Barmoen et al. 2024), and specifically across Europe, e.g. Croatia (Majić and Bath 2010), Germany (Arbieu et al. 2019), Hungary (Anthony and Tarr 2019), Italy (Bongi et al. 2023;Franchini et al. 2021;Glikman et al. 2012;Stauder et al. 2020), Latvia (Žunna et al. 2020), Norway (Krange et al. 2017), Portugal (Torres et al. 2020;Valente et al. 2024), Slovenia (Oražem and Tomažic 2018), Sweden (Ericsson and Heberlein 2003;Krange et al. 2017;Williams et al. 2002), andSwitzerland (Cracco et al. 2024;Hunziker et al. 2001). In comparison, less research has focussed on the perception of wolf management in Europe (Torres et al. 2020), even though scholars have argued that attitudes towards species and their management require separation (Von Essen and Allen 2020), and management is integral to conflict resolution (Firlein 2018). ...
Across Europe, wolves are recolonizing former habitats, but frictions between wolves and people remain a challenge. Better understanding of attitudes towards existing management practices is essential to devise wolf management that better considers societal aspects. In this study, we focus on a case study in the Italian Alps, where we conducted a quantitative survey to investigate attitudes towards wolf management. We used multiple regression analysis to determine which factors such as emotions and knowledge or belonging to a particular stakeholder group explained variations in attitudes towards wolf management. We found that almost half of our respondents felt scared about the presence of wolves, and that people who had less factually correct knowledge about wolves were more afraid than people who had better factual knowledge. Farmers reported significantly higher ratings of anger, fear, and frustration than the general population. We found that anger and fascination were significant predictors for attitudes towards management, but that fear, factual knowledge, education level and connectedness to nature were not. Our findings support further stakeholder engagement to take seriously and address the range of emotions of stakeholders that impact public support for wolf management and co-existence in the cultural landscapes of the Italian Alps.
... Direct experience with wolves (Canis lupus) have been observed to associate with negative attitudes towards the species (Eriksson et al. 2015;Williams et al. 2002). People living in large carnivore areas are potentially negatively affected by large carnivores (Krange et al. 2017b), for example, by experiencing losses of domestic animals (Røskaft et al. 2007), being a hunter and thus experiencing competition for big game species (Naughton-Treves et al. 2003;Treves and Martin 2011), and/or fear of meeting these animals in the wild (Krange et al. 2017a). In addition, as the influence from what friends, peers, and enemies think can strongly affect a person's attitude (Boninger et al. 1995;Petty et al. 1997), indirect experiences (e.g., relying on other people's experiences rather than personally being exposed to carnivores or seeing tracks or signs; Eriksson et al. 2015) can be important influencing attitudes (Karlsson and Sjöström 2007). ...
... This result is consistent with previous studies showing that people who reported personal experience of signs of wolves in the area where they lived had relatively lower social trust in the managing authorities (Johansson et al., 2012). Wolf presence has been associated with negative attitudes towards carnivores in several previous studies (Karlsson and Sjöström 2007;Krange et al. 2017a;Skogen and Krange 2003). Direct experience with wolves has been observed to correlate with negative attitudes towards both the animals and wolf policy goals (Ericsson et al. 2006;Eriksson et al. 2015). ...
Large carnivores are controversial species, and associated conflicts between stakeholders with opposing views on large carnivores are observed across the globe. Social trust, the public’s willingness to rely on those responsible for developing policies, has gained much attention regarding the acceptance of large carnivores and large carnivore management. However, trust in large carnivore science has not received as much consideration. In Norway, administrative management authorities are responsible to execute the political framework decided by the Norwegian Parliament while basing their decisions on recommendations from large carnivore science. As large carnivore science is the main knowledge provider for monitoring and measures implemented in management decisions to achieve viable carnivore populations, trust in science is crucial. Yet, scientific information is often challenged. As attitude studies show a tendency for the wider general public to be more positive towards large carnivores than people most adversely affected, we wanted to examine whether the trust in large carnivore science follows the same pattern. We used a geographically stratified sample of 2110 respondents, five respondents from each municipality in Norway, to model how trust varies across the sample. Our results indicate that elderly men, people with lower education, those who have experienced loss of livestock to carnivores associate with lower trust in large carnivore science. Lower trust was also found among big game hunters and people who fear large carnivores. This knowledge could help to guide targeted science communication and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of cognitions important for management of conflicts involving large carnivores.
... In the former case, however, natural scientists predominantly indicate that impersonal structural mechanisms have influenced the wolf come-back and rarely mention underlying socio-political factors connected with the values, beliefs, and activities of concrete social actors interested in wolf management. At the same time, the literature points to social conflicts between groups with different interests and values towards wolves and other carnivores, especially in countries where the species has moved in relatively recently [4]. The key conflicts concern the depredation of wolves on livestock, their impact on game animals and hunting dogs (especially in northern Europe), and safety among some rural populations [5]. ...
... Many representatives of the previously dominant groups in the field of wolf governance were oblivious to the key factors and people contributing to the change, e.g. they suggested a letter from Brigitte Bardot to the President of Poland was a crucial cause of wolf conservation. Finally, the opposition to the new rules might have been limited by the lack of direct coexistence with the wolf among the large section of the hunting community and local communities due to very limited range of the species at that time [4,99]. ...
Poland was one of the first countries of Central and Eastern Europe with stable wolf populations to effectively introduce year-round protection of the species. This paper traces the process of policy change using institutional theory as an organizational perspective. Based on the analysis of data from desk research and semi-structured interviews, we propose a model of institutional change and argue that in the 1990s, environmental activists and wildlife biologists successfully used a political window of opportunity connected with socio-economic transformation after 1989 and managed to induce the government to move the species from the domain of hunting to the domain of nature conservation. The new policy, informed by an ecological paradigm, diverged from the historical path dominated by hunters and the vision of the wolf as a pest and a hunting target. The improved protection led to the numerical growth of Poland's wolves and ultimately to their westward expansion.
... There is a considerable Nordic literature documenting studies of attitudes to carnivores (e.g. Kaltenborn and Bjerke 2002;Røskaft et al. 2007;Blekesaune and Rønningen 2010;Krange et al. 2011;Dressel et al. 2017;Krange et al. 2017) confirming that the conservation and reintroduction policies have broad public support, even in many rural areas. Most conflicts are directly linked to carnivore predation on livestock or to the predation on big games. ...
... Since the reintroduction of large carnivores in the 1980s and 1990s, sheep farming has declined in the areas where the carnivores were reintroduced. A negative development with respect to income and quality of life for sheep and reindeer farmers inside the CMZs is reported by other Norwegian studies on impacts of the national carnivore conservation policy (Kaltenborn and Bjerke 2002;Røskaft et al. 2007;Blekesaune et al. 2010;Krange et al. 2011;Krange et al. 2017). ...
Increasing populations of large carnivores are leading to tension and conflicts with livestock production, a situation that potentially might escalate. In Norway the objective of the large carnivore policy is two-folded: to ensure viable carnivore populations and to secure a sustainable grazing industry. The main instrument is zonation, with carnivore management zones (CMZs) prioritized for reproduction of the large carnivore species separated from other areas prioritized for grazing livestock. The objective of this paper is to describe current knowledge about the impact of the zoning management strategy on the grazing industry. This is done by documenting status and changes in sheep production, losses of livestock to predating carnivores, and the use of grazing areas inside and outside the CMZs. CMZs offering protection for lynx, wolverine, bear and wolf cover 55% of the Norwegian mainland. 30% of the sheep and 50% of the Sami reindeer grazing areas are found inside the CMZs. Livestock (semi-domestic reindeer excluded) is using 59% of the available natural pasture areas outside the CMZs, but only 26% inside the CMZs. The lowest use of available grazing areas was found inside zones for wolves (12%) and brown bears (6%). Livestock in these zones are confined to fenced enclosures, mostly on the farm itself, or moved to pastures outside the management zone for summer grazing. Livestock losses increased in the affected regions during the period when carnivores were reestablished. Later, losses declined when CMZs were established and mitigation efforts were implemented in these zones. The bulk of sheep and reindeer killed by carnivores are now found in boundary areas within 50 km off the CMZs, where sheep are still grazing on open mountain and forest ranges. Therefore, instruments to protect livestock in areas close to the CMZs are also needed. The number of sheep declined inside the CMZs from 1999 to 2014, but increased outside the zones. The reduction in the absolute number of sheep in the CMZs is balanced by a similar increase outside, thus the total sheep production in Norway is maintained. We conclude that although of little consequence for the total food production in Norway, the economic and social impact of the large carnivore management strategy can be serious for local communities and individual farmers who are affected. There is a need for more exact carnivore population monitoring to quantify the carnivore pressure, better documentation of reindeer losses, and a clearer and stricter practicing of the zoning strategy. Increased involvement of social sciences is important in order to understand the human dimension of the carnivore conflicts.
... The approaches can be seen as a response to policy changes made in the 1960s and 1970s, when the three countries, after centuries of governmentsponsored persecution of large carnivores, decided to protect the bear (Ursus arctos), the lynx, (Lynx lynx), the wolf (Canis lupus), and the wolverine (Gulu gulo) and thereby ending the bounty-based system that had been the norm since the 1600 (Pohja- Mykrä et al., 2005;Eriksson, 2017). The policy changes, which have strong support among the public in the three countries, have had a rather profound effect on the population numbers of the different species, although with a certain time lag of 20-30 years (Ratamäki, 2008Dressel et al., 2015Krange et al., 2017;Mykrä et al., 2017). However, partly due to the existence of varying ecocentric to anthropocentric values among the general public, different interests, and positive and negative experiences gained from increasing large carnivore presence, human-animal conflicts, and humanhuman conflicts are prevailing in the three countries (Eriksson, 2017;Krange et al., 2017). ...
... The policy changes, which have strong support among the public in the three countries, have had a rather profound effect on the population numbers of the different species, although with a certain time lag of 20-30 years (Ratamäki, 2008Dressel et al., 2015Krange et al., 2017;Mykrä et al., 2017). However, partly due to the existence of varying ecocentric to anthropocentric values among the general public, different interests, and positive and negative experiences gained from increasing large carnivore presence, human-animal conflicts, and humanhuman conflicts are prevailing in the three countries (Eriksson, 2017;Krange et al., 2017). ...
... For example, Kopatz et al. (2012) reported the gene flow and bi-directional migration among the sub-populations of brown bears from Karelia and Pinega that were nearly 600 km apart. Moreover, the negative perceptions of local people towards large carnivores (Krange et al., 2017) coupled with their broad tolerance to modified habitats (Torres et al., 2012;Boitani and Linnell, 2015) may have contributed to the lack of their use as focal species for corridor research in Scandinavia. The research gap across eastern Europe and Scandinavia may also be due to the diversity of languages across the region and the publication of research in native language journals. ...
Introduction: Conservation research plays an integral role in the effort to conserve biodiversity globally. However, research gaps can limit conservation research’s potential contribution to addressing global biodiversity problems such as habitat fragmentation. While a synthesis of the research literature does not attain effective conservation action by itself, it can inform future research and corridor conservation planning and practices.
Methods: We used a systematic search of peer-reviewed research articles in Scopus, Web of Science, and grey literature in the Connectivity Conservation Specialist Group library published before December 2020. Our review assessed research on the identification and use of corridors, a primary instrument used to address the threats of habitat fragmentation, for large carnivores to identify patterns, priorities, and gaps in the literature. We focused on large carnivores because they are frequently used for connectivity planning owing to their higher sensitivity to habitat fragmentation and their importance as conservation flagship species.
Results and discussion: We found that peer-reviewed studies primarily focused on single-species corridors with a strong preference toward apex predators, whereas grey literature focused on multi-species corridors. More than 80% of studies included one of the following five species, the mountain lion (n=46 studies), American black bear (n=31 studies), jaguar (n=25 studies), tiger (n=25 studies), and brown bear (n=18 studies). Although research on the identification of corridors was relatively more common in the past, we found an increasing trend in the publication of studies assessing the use of corridors by large carnivores in recent years. The published research is predominantly from North America (47%) and Asia (30%), with comparatively fewer studies from Africa (4%), despite having several large carnivore species. While climate change and human-wildlife conflict are considered major concerns for large carnivore conservation, these were seldomly considered in corridor research. Corridor research collaborations exist between academia, government, and non-government institutions, but the involvement of the private sector is lacking.
Conclusions: Our review shows that there is scope for future corridor research to (i) focus on areas where geographical gaps exist, (ii) target multi-species corridors, (iii) include climate change and human-wildlife conflict scenarios, and iv) increase collaboration with the private sector to better inform connectivity solutions.
... peri-urban catchments clearly benefit more in this scenario than rural catchments, especially since they attract more recreational value. This has policy implications: tensions between developed areas and rural areas regarding economic development and ecosystem management are already part of the political debate in the Nordic countries (Arter 2011, Krange et al. 2017, and can be further exacerbated depending on which shape the bioeconomy will take. ...
Policy makers in Nordic countries envisage a developing bioeconomy as an important element in the transition towards a fossil-energy-free future. However, although the shape of such a bioeconomy is unclear, impacts on land use and land management are likely. To analyse the possible impact on ecosystem services value of this transition, we used five scenarios that describe possible socio-economic environments in the four Nordic countries in the year 2050. These five Nordic Bioeconomy Pathways (NBPs) have been labelled in brief as: ‘sustainability first’, ‘conventional first’, ‘self-sufficiency first’, ‘city first’ and ‘growth first’. In this paper, we adapted an existing integrating framework of ecosystem service delivery to accommodate these NBPs and estimated economic value of all services for six study catchments across the Nordic countries: Odense (DK), Simojoki (FI), Haldenvassdraget (NO), Orrevassdraget (NO), Sävjaån (SE) and Vindelälven (SE). We articulated the scenario storylines to a set of numerical attributes per NBP using input from secondary data sources and interviews with stakeholder representatives and local experts. We made land use change spatially explicit based on the catchment’s physical characteristics and used links between catchment attributes and ecosystem services flow to estimate annual ecosystem services generation in biophysical and monetary units. Outcomes suggest: the value of active recreation increases more in 'sustainability first' and 'growth first' than in other scenarios; variations in total value are largest among catchments under 'city first'; the overall rank order of ecosystem services value within catchments largely remains unchanged under all NBPs. We conclude that outdoor recreation contributes a high benefit to society that is likely not adequately considered relative to provisioning services in current decision making, and that these benefits appear sensitive to how a bioeconomy will develop. Overall, the estimated summed value delivered in these catchments is highest under the 'sustainability first' and 'growth first' scenarios.
... In some areas, wildlife-related conflicts have increased because of predation on livestock, pets, and hunting dogs (Naughton-Treves et al. 2003), or because of fear of large carnivores among people (Johansson et al. 2017, Støen et al. 2018. Large carnivores are also highly appreciated and attract the interest of many people, including tourists and hunters (Krange et al. 2017). ...
Large carnivores are elusive and use large areas, which causes monitoring to be challenging and costly. Moreover, management to reduce conflicts and simultaneously ensure long‐term population viability require precise population estimates. In Scandinavia, the monitoring of wolves ( Canis lupus ) is primarily based on counting packs, identifying reproduction, and genetically identifying territorial wolves from noninvasive DNA samples. We assessed the reliability of wolf monitoring in Scandinavia by estimating the detectability of territorial pairs, packs, and reproduction. Our data, comprising snow‐tracking data and DNA‐identified individuals from 2005–2016, covered 11 consecutive winter monitoring seasons (Oct–Mar). Among 343 cases where we identified a wolf pack, territorial wolves were also detected in the same area during the previous season in 323 (94.2%) cases. In only 6 of the remaining 20 cases, there was no prior knowledge of territorial wolves in the area. Among the 328 detected reproduction events (litter born to a pack), we detected 97% during the monitoring period and identified the rest ≥1 year later from kinship assessments of all DNA‐detected individuals. These results suggest that we failed to detect only few packs with reproduction events during the monitoring season that followed breeding. Yearly monitoring of territorial individuals and continuous updates of the pedigree allowed us to retrospectively identify reproduction events and packs that were not identified earlier.
... Overall, loss of sheep, hunter ratio, and anthropocentric values are all highly associated with rural area characteristics (Andreassen et al., 2018;Kaltenborn & Bjerke, 2002), while the presence of carnivores is no longer specific to rural areas in Norway (e.g. both wolves and lynx have established in areas with high human population density; Krange et al., 2017). The lower trust among respondents associated with these rural area characteristics may also be an expression of either having more trust in local knowledge, or less trust in the authorities, attitudes towards wildlife species become increasingly negative when people are directly affected (Ericsson & Heberlein, 2003;Eriksson et al., 2015). ...
Human–wildlife interactions occur when humans and wildlife overlap in the same landscapes. Due to the growing human population, the number of interactions will continue to increase, and in some cases, develop further into social conflicts. Conflicts may occur between people disagreeing about wildlife conservation or arguing over which wildlife management measures should be taken. Social conflicts between humans are based on different attitudes, values and land‐use aspirations. The success of solving these social conflicts strongly depends on building trust between the public, stakeholders, authorities and researchers, as trust is fundamental to all communication and dialogue.
Here we have examined how trust in large carnivore research differs within a geographically stratified sample of the Norwegian population. The comprehensive survey, including 2,110 respondents, allows us to explore how people perceive factual statements about large carnivores depending on the source of these statements. Specifically, the respondents were given multiple statements and asked to judge them in terms of meaning and authenticity depending on whether the statements were made by a politician, the Norwegian farmers' association, the Norwegian Fish and Game association or a large carnivore researcher. Based on the variations in perceptions, we inferred that trust in large carnivore researchers and their research results varied with people's attitudes, values and direct experience of large carnivores.
In general, respondents perceived 60% of the statements to be genuine when given no information of who had made them. Although this increased to 75% when informed that the statements were made by a large carnivore researcher, there was still a 25% probability that the statement was perceived as manipulative or political. Age, environmental values and negative experiences of carnivores increased the probability of perceiving research statements as manipulative or political. People living in areas with high proportions of hunters showed particularly polarized views, either more strongly perceiving the statements as political, or in contrast as research.
This study provides a novel perspective in understanding the role trust plays in social conflicts related to human–wildlife interactions.
A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.
... Befolkningsundersøkelser viser at det er bred aksept for jakt her i landet. Over 80 prosent svarer at de enten er positive til jakt eller aksepterer jakt Krange et al., 2017). Vi har imidlertid ikke grunnlag for å si noe om endringer over tid. ...
Throughout the 1950s, as psychology, sociology and criminology developed as academic disciplines in Norway, researchers within these disciplines began publishing scattered reports on youth. In the 1970s and ‘80s, The Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (the so-called Birmingham school) became a global inspiration for youth researchers. In Norway, the Centre’s studies on e.g. style and resistance in particular were replicated by qualitative youth researchers. However, the establishment of UNGforsk in 1991 fundamentally changed the youth research milieu in Norway. Over the course of a few years, a group of 15–20 researchers developed a secure base and continued to publish studies based on qualitative interviews and fieldwork. However, the defining features of the milieu were representative surveys of youth in numerous local communities and a large and national representative longitudinal study – Young in Norway. The participants in this study are now in their mid-40s and are still followed up in surveys and register data. UNGforsk gradually became part of the Norwegian Social Research (NOVA) institute at Oslo Metropolitan University. After 30 years, the youth research section still remains the key youth research institution in Norway. A rich and solid infrastructure of regular national surveys (UNGDATA), annual conferences and a Nordic youth research journal has developed through the institute. Its research is continually cited in mainstream Norwegian media, and the researchers regularly take part in expert groups developing Norwegian youth policy.
... This distanced governing of regions like Redes is a trend across Europe, whereby governments tend to geographically move away from rural populations (Poel 2000;Skogen 2003;Williams 2000). While in many cases of conflict over wolves NGOs and national conservation organizations manage to respond to this trend and retain influence (Bisi et al. 2007;Dickman and Hazzah 2016;Jacobsen and Linnell 2016;Kragge et al. 2017), it is especially the rural population who increasingly experiences disempowerment and resentment. This is because of the feeling that urban-oriented governments are unequippedfinancially and knowledge-wiseto deal with local, rural issues (Dickman, Marchini and Manfredo 2013;Linnell et al. 2017). ...
Numerous efforts are implemented to manage conflicts over wolves with the implicit aim to predict, gain control, and resolve them. Yet conflicts over wolves tend to persist in practice. Based on Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory, we aim to explain this persistence by considering conflicts over wolves as evolving unities of persisting and contradicting communications. Using a case study in Redes Natural Park, Spain, we illustrate how conflicts over wolves evolve semi-independently through internal and external communications. These communications can both fuel and redirect the complex trajectories of conflict, thereby contributing to its persistence over time. Taking lessons from this case, we propose alternative interventions that do not necessarily aim at resolving conflicts, but instead consider an open-mindedness toward the multitude of conflict observations and experiences; the need to follow and monitor the enduring lives of conflict over wolves; and the prudence of overly managing these conflicts at a distance.
... This is certainly the case in Scandinavia. Public acceptance for large carnivore reintroduction is generally high, even if approval rates are considerably higher in urban centers, whose inhabitants do not come into direct contact with the species (Eriksson, 2016a;Krange et al., 2017;Masius & Sprenger, 2015). Recent research however shows that even staunch skeptics of such policy, typically livestock farmers and hunters who stand to lose livelihoods and lifestyles in such reintroductions, offer fairly high 'in principle' support for large carnivores (Von Essen et al., 2017). ...
Swedish hunters sometimes appeal to an inviolate ‘right to exist’ for wolves, apparently rejecting NIMBY. Nevertheless, the conditions existence hunters impose on wolves in practice fundamentally contradict their use of right to exist language. Hunters appeal to this language hoping to gain uptake in a conservation and management discourse demanding appropriately objective ecological language. However, their contradictory use of ‘right to exist' opens them up to the charge that they are being deceptive – indeed, right to exist is a 'disguised NIMBY!' We address this situation by distinguishing hunters’ criticisms of wolves from the procedures for reaching objective policy decisions.
... Finally, there are many studies of people's attitude towards carnivores (Dressel et al. 2014;Krange et al. 2017). There are, however, few studies of the wider social and economic consequences of zonal carnivore management systems on local communities and people's economy and welfare. ...
We investigated the impact of Norway’s current zonal carnivore management system for four large carnivore species on sheep farming. Sheep losses increased when the large carnivores were reintroduced, but has declined again after the introduction of the zoning management system. The total number of sheep increased outside, but declined slightly inside the management zones. The total sheep production increased, but sheep farming was still lost as a source of income for many farmers. The use of the grazing resources became more extensive. Losses decreased because sheep were removed from the open outfield pastures and many farmers gave up sheep farming. While wolves expel sheep farming from the outfield grazing areas, small herds can still be kept in fenced enclosures. Bears are in every respect incompatible with sheep farming. Farmers adjust to the seasonal and more predictable behavior of lynx and wolverine, although these species also may cause serious losses when present. The mitigating efforts are costly and lead to reduced animal welfare and lower income for the farmers, although farmers in peri-urban areas increasingly are keeping sheep as an avocation. There is a spillover effect of the zoning strategy in the sense that there is substantial loss of livestock to carnivores outside, but geographically near the management zones. The carnivore management policy used in Norway is a reasonably successful management strategy when the goal is to separate livestock from carnivores and decrease the losses, but the burdens are unequally distributed and farmers inside the management zones are at an economic disadvantage.
... For instance, acceptance of poaching large predators has been attributed to the prevalence of big game hunting and sheep farming and unrelated to the presence of carnivores, the presence of priority zone for wolves or loss of sheep to predation (Gangaas et al., 2015). Norwegians also have less favorable attitudes towards large predators than Swedes, despite having lower densities of predators (Gangaas et al., 2015;Krange, Sandström, Tangeland, & Ericsson, 2017). Large predator species are all red listed in Norway (Henriksen & Hilmo, 2015) and their lethal removal is controversial (Linnell, Trouwborst, & Fleurke, 2017). ...
Nature-based tourism is increasingly encouraged to support local socioeconomic development in and around protected areas, but managing protected areas for tourism could challenge existing park uses associated with self-organized outdoor recreation and local resource use. We used a web-based Public Participatory Geographic Information System (PPGIS) to identify the most important places and values of local, domestic, and international visitors to Jotunheimen National Park and Utladalen Protected Landscape in Norway. Scenic and recreation values were prioritized by all groups, but local users mapped more values relating to hunting, fishing, gathering and cultural identity. While the three user groups overlapped in some places, we found that they self-segregated to some extent. Our study affirms the importance of spatially explicit analyses to support protected area management. Understanding the spatial distribution of values held by different user groups can aid in designing tourism management strategies that minimize intergroup conflict.
... They all introduced new policies in the mid-20th century, where the new agenda was to protect and recover the carnivore species. However, despite their common history on hunting and governing, the countries have chosen to design the governance of large carnivores in different ways (Sandström et al. 2009;Borgström 2012;Krange et al. 2017), which opens up for comparison. Focusing more clearly on different cases within the same ecological system and with similar basis for human-wildlife conflicts, but where political boundaries cut across the system, provides us with the opportunity to explore current knowledge and thinking on the role of governance during such circumstances. ...
The governance of large carnivores is often surrounded by conflicts. Along with the difficulties of governing large carnivores through centralized, top-down governing and a general shift towards participatory approaches in natural resource governance, this has led many countries to establish various collaborative measures in large carnivore governance – often presented as a catch-all solution to problems of legitimacy, democratic deficit and effectiveness. However, the field of large carnivore governance currently lacks a coherent understanding of strengths and weaknesses of different kinds of collaborative arrangements. In this paper, we address this knowledge gap. Using the framework of modes of governance to categorize and compare the governance of large carnivores in Norway, Sweden and Finland, we discuss the potential and limitations of various governance modes and identify gaps in contemporary research literature. The main conclusion is that all three governance systems need to incorporate more interactive governance elements.
A body of literature on human conflicts about carnivores finds little hope of conflict resolution, yet studies of community-based natural resource management for carnivores describe how these “unresolvable” conflicts are, if not entirely resolved, mitigated enough to allow for consensus-based decision-making among participating stakeholder groups. The Montana-based non-profit Blackfoot Challenge, located in the Blackfoot Watershed, is a celebrated example of successful community-based natural resource management using a collaborative, participatory, consensus-driven approach to manage a number of natural resources, including wolves and grizzly bears. Using participant observation and interviews, in Chapter 1, I ask why Blackfoot Challenge did not suffer from a frequent pitfall of community-based natural resource management programs: government refusal to allow a citizen-controlled process or refusal to accept the outcome of such a process once it took place. While many factors contributed to Blackfoot Challenge’s success, their board members’, staff members’, committee members’, and other government partners’ commitments to building and maintaining long-term trusting relationships were at the heart of their ability to manage carnivores collaboratively. In Chapters 2 and 3, I study how Blackfoot Challenge achieved what many scholars of carnivore conflicts deemed impossible: successful communication of knowledge between experts (Chapter 2) and lay people and increased tolerance of wolves among hunters and ranchers who previously held more negative attitudes toward wolves (Chapter 3). Blackfoot Challenge relies on long term trusting relationships between lay people and experts to communicate knowledge, and Blackfoot Challenge participants who report increased tolerance of wolves primarily attribute their tolerance to legalized public wolf hunting.
Ulvekonflikten har stor oppmerksomhet i forvaltningen og rovdyrdebatten blusser stadig opp i media, vekker engasjement og følelser. Sist rundt vedtak, debatt og klager i forbindelse med lisensfelling av ulv innenfor ulvesonen i 2021. Allerede på 1990-tallet (Bjerke & Reitan, 1994) noterte man at sympatien for ulven økte, og senere studier indikerer at økende grad av friluftslivsdeltakelse også øker positive holdninger til (Bjerke & Lindell, 2002; Krange & Skogen, 2018). Figari mfl. (2013) peker på flere begrensninger for friluftsliv og at frykt for ulven fører til at flere av de som bor i ulveområder føler de får en svekket livskvalitet. Men hvordan friluftslivet påvirkes har vi fortsatt mindre kunnskap om og mot denne bakgrunn ble følgende problemstilling formulert: Hvordan uttrykker personer bosatt i ulvesona i Hedmark at deres friluftsliv påvirkes av ulven? Studien baserer seg på nye analyser av et datamateriale som ble innsamlet i 2017. Et spørreskjema var utformet i Questback og hadde 18 spørsmål med svaralternativer og fire åpne spørsmål. Spørreundersøkelsen ble gjennomført elektronisk i Questback og er godkjent av NSD. Spørreundersøkelsen hadde ikke ambisjoner om representativitet og ble distribuert via offentlig innlegg på Facebook og Instagram. Totalt 664 respondenter fullførte undersøkelsen. Resultatene viser at mange beboere i ulvesona i Hedmark rapporterer at deres friluftsliv påvirkes av ulven, dette i motsetning til hva Lodberg-Holm mfl. (2015) fant blant friluftslivsutøvere i Østmarka i Oslo. Hvordan utvalget uttrykker at friluftslivet påvirkes av ulven varierer, også mellom ulike grupper som eldre/yngre, med/uten små barn, jeger/ikke jeger. Det kommer fram at noen unngår å bruke naturen eller utøver mindre friluftsliv enn tidligere på grunn av ulven, mens andre rapporterer økt bruk på grunn av ulven.
The diet composition and prey selection of grey wolves (Canis lupus) inhabiting the Roztocze and Solska Forest (south-east Poland) was studied based on an analysis of scats collected in 2001-2002 (n = 84)
and 2017-2020 (n = 302). In both periods, wolves preyed mainly on wild ungulates (96.5-96.7% of consumed biomass). Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) was the most critical wolf prey accounting for 57.8% of consumed biomass in 2001-2002 and 49.2% and 2017-2020, but wolves positively select only wild boar (Jacob’s selectivity
index D = 0.213 in 2001-2002 and 0.710 in 2017-2020) and fallow deer (D = 0.588 only in 2017-2020). The largest species – moose Alces alces and red deer Cervus elaphus – were consumed less than expected from their share in the ungulate community. Predation on medium-sized wild mammals and domestic animals was low,
0.8-2.2% and 1.1-2.7% of the biomass consumed, respectively. The breadth of the wolf diet was very narrow and identical in both study periods (B = 1.07), while the similarity of diet composition was high (α = 0.999). This study indicated the stability of the wolf diet over two decades and the importance of wild boar as a food source for this carnivore.
How do hunters and livestock producers who report increased tolerance for wolves account for the changes in their attitudes, and how can their perspectives inform researchers’ understanding of human conflicts about wolves? I explore this by analyzing interviews with people who live, work, and recreate in the Blackfoot watershed, Montana. All interviewees who reported increased tolerance over time were hunters and ranchers with good relationships with government wildlife officials and close ties to a collaborative nonprofit, Blackfoot Challenge. All who reported increased tolerance attributed their tolerance to the legalization of wolf hunting (sometimes in addition to other factors). Several expressed anger at environmental and animal rights groups who used lawsuits to keep hunting illegal for longer in the state. My data suggests that intolerance for wolves may stem from an injustice frame, a belief that humans bear some blame for causing harm.
How do hunters and livestock producers who report increased tolerance for wolves account for the changes in their attitudes, and how can their perspectives inform researchers' understanding of human conflicts about wolves? I explore this by analyzing interviews with people who live, work, and recreate in the Blackfoot watershed, Montana. All interviewees who reported increased tolerance over time were hunters and ranchers with good relationships with government wildlife officials and close ties to a collaborative non-profit, Blackfoot Challenge. All who reported increased tolerance attributed their tolerance to the legalization of wolf hunting (sometimes in addition to other factors). Several expressed anger at environmental and animal rights groups who used lawsuits to keep hunting illegal for longer in the state. My data suggests that intolerance for wolves may stem from an injustice frame, a belief that humans bear some blame for causing harm.
The announcement that Spain was going to ban wolf hunting throughtout its territory has been the trigger to reopen the debate on the wolf and its conservation and management status. In Europe, the unexpected success of wolf conservation policies has led to the wolf being considered as a pest or a species detrimental to agriculture and livestock farming. This perception of predators is present in and inspires the reservations and exceptions to the rules of the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and those of the Habitats Directive of the European Union, which provide for different protection statuses and management regimes. Exceptions to these rules allow some states to prohibit wolf hunting and others to allow it in order to avoid escalating conflicts with humans. Although this 'rule of law of biodiversity', guarantees legal protection for the wolf, in practice a serious lack of compliance has been revealed, which is one of the threats to the wolf. A study of the application of these exceptions in Spain and the case law of the Spanish courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union suggests that the legalisation of hunting cannot serve to remedy this compliance deficit when there are alternatives. These may include criminal or administrative prosecution of their violation.
Konfliktene som utspiller seg rundt forvaltningen av ulv har etablert seg som et stabilt og synlig trekk i den norske politiske offentligheten. Også på bakken, ute blant vanlige folk, er kontroversene sterke. I deler av samfunnet har naturforvaltningen, og kanskje særlig rovdyrforvaltningen, svært lav legitimitet. Et markert, og man kan si spissformulert, uttrykk for dette finnes i det ikke ubetydelige omfanget av ulovlig avlivning av ulv. Vår interesse ligger i den mulige støtten slike handlinger har i befolkningen. Vi spurte et representativt utvalg av nordmenn om de mener at det er akseptabelt å skyte ulv ulovlig. Svarene ble gitt på en skala som varierte fra «helt uakseptabelt» til «helt akseptabelt». Variasjonen i svarene er stor nok til at det lar seg gjøre å studere hvem som er tilbøyelige til å akseptere slike lovbrudd. Analysene viser at aksepten føyer seg inn i et bredere mønster av motsetninger i det norske samfunnet, uttrykt ved fenomener som fremmedfiendtlighet, klimaskepsis, anti-elitisme og lav tillit til institusjoner som arbeider for å bevare norsk natur. Om man er jeger eller har ulv området der man bor, spiller mindre rolle.
Nøkkelord: Ulovlig jakt, motstand, anti-elitisme, fremmedfiendtlighet, klimaskepsis, populisme
Public attitudes towards wolves in Norway
Protected area management can be highly contentious. Information about the acceptability of conservation actions can help environmental authorities design policies that are accepted locally, and identify potential areas of conflict between land users and conservation objectives. In this study, we implemented a spatially-explicit method for eliciting public preferences for land use and conservation policy (web-based public participation GIS; PPGIS). We invited randomly selected local residents in two mountainous regions in Norway to map their preferences for consumptive resource use, motorized use, land development and predator-control. We assessed whether local communities favored or opposed these human activities in nearby protected areas using mixed-effects logistic regression and controlling for landscape characteristics, accessibility and demographics. Local residents strongly favored consumptive resource use and predator control regardless of protected area status, and were more likely to oppose than favor land development inside protected areas. These preferences are largely consistent with the present protected area policy in Norway and Europe that promotes traditional consumptive use and the maintenance of cultural landscapes, but restricts land development. Our results suggest that use-based framing of conservation is more likely to resonate with these communities than narratives tied to the preservation of pristine nature and emerging conservation ideas of the rewilding of nature. Mapped community preferences can be a valuable tool for policy makers and stakeholders representing community interests in participatory processes, and for assessing the local acceptance of alternative management actions within protected areas.
It may be challenging to see how illegal hunting, a crime that ostensibly proceeds as shoot, shovel and shut up in remote rural communities, at all communicates with the regime. Examining the socio-legal interplay between hunters and state regulation, however, clarifies illegal hunting to be part of a politically motivated pattern of dissent that signals hunters’ disenfranchisement from the polity. While few contemporary illegal hunters cut conscientious figures like Robin Hood, their violation of illegitimate law may likewise testify to a profound disjuncture between legality and legitimacy.
This is the premise taken in the following research. Here it is observed contemporary Swedish hunters experience the deliberative system pertaining to wildlife and wolf conservation to be systematically stacked against them and unable to serve as a site for critical law-making that provides equal uptake of all voices. One manifestation of their growing disenfranchisement is the establishment of a counterpublic mobilised on the basis of shared semantics for the sorts of deliberative deficits they argue befall them in the present. Within the remit of their counterpublic, hunters undertake and justify illegal hunting along with other forms of disengaging dissent like abstentions, non-compliance, boycotts and conscientious refusals with state agencies.
The research captures hunters’ dissent in Smith’s deliberative disobedience, a deliberative and Habermasian grounded reinterpretation of the more familiar classical theory of civil disobedience. On this perspective, illegal hunting signals a deficit in the deliberative system, which hunters both bypass by taking an alternative conduit for contestation, and draw attention to when they undertake dissent. The dissent in this case study is deconstructed in terms of its grammar—as simultaneously engaging and disengaging with the premises of power—and in terms of its communicative content. Set within the field of Environmental Communication, the dissertation is intended as an empirical and theoretical contribution to a discussion on the boundaries of political dialogue in the context of civic disenfranchisement: it asks whether some of hunters’ dissent may be parsed as a call for a more inclusive debate, or as dialogic acts in themselves. Finally, it presents ways toward short-term and longer-term reconciliation of hunters with the deliberative system, drawing on the work of contestatory citizen mini-publics from the third wave of deliberative democracy.
Most conservation conflicts have “material cores” in the sense that interests tied
to economically motivated landscape transformation are pitted against conservation.
These aspects of the conflict resemble issues that are regularly handled within established
political and bureaucratic contexts, such as those regulating the interaction
between the state and the agricultural sector. Mitigation efforts normally target such
conflict issues, which can apparently be addressed by means of economic compensation
or incentives. However, many controversies have additional aspects that are fundamental
to conflict development. These are rooted in social tensions and processes of social
change that may have less to do with conservation per se. Therefore, mitigation efforts
that address economic loss may lead to unintended consequences, in that they aggravate
other aspects of the conflicts. Norwegian wolf management is a prime example, as
conflict mitigation is almost entirely directed at livestock producers—even in areas with
little livestock.
Overseeing the continued recovery, dispersal and management of large carnivore populations while simultaneously considering human viability and welfare requires delicately balancing local concerns for rural communities’ livelihood prospects and property vulnerability with international concerns for saving threatened species. In this article, we propose an integrated analytical perspective to elucidate how competing interests and power relationships influence the governance and management of contested wildlife resources. However, simply identifying these patterns is not enough. It is also imperative that the interrelationships between broader biophysical, social, political, economic, and cultural contexts and histories be explored in order to describe, analyze and better understand how and why individual and collective responses vary. In doing this, we drew from findings from a variety of social science disciplines (environmental communication,
environmental psychology, human ecology, human geography, political science, public administration and social anthropology) and, here, present how social science approaches can enhance understanding of the different layers and contexts of contested natural resource management. Highlighting the individual, socio-cultural, political and institutional dimensions, the article concludes by identifying five recurrent concepts that must be understood and consciously applied to large carnivore governance and management: 1) establishment of trust between people and groups interacting on the subject; 2) fair representation of stakeholder interests; 3) acknowledgement of the different knowledge-spheres, including those based on personal experiences, culture and tradition, and science; 4) communication, based on dialogue about pluralistic perspectives, to collectively formulate and agree on set goals; and 5) leadership emphasising empowerment.
Understanding how changes in the sizes of large carnivore populations affect the attitudes of the public is vital in order to mitigate social conflicts over large carnivore management issues. Using data from two Swedish postal surveys in 2004 and 2009, we examined the probable social effects of a continued increase in the Swedish populations of bear and wolf by comparing levels of direct experience of bears and wolves with public attitudes towards these animals. We report an increase in direct experience of bears and wolves, lower levels of acceptance of the existence of these animals, and a lower degree of support for the policy goals of both species in 2009 compared to 2004. We also find that these changes are more prominent in areas with local carnivore populations than in other areas of Sweden. Our results imply that attitudes towards bears and wolves are likely to become more negative as populations continue to grow. The uneven distributions of the carnivore populations are likely to generate more frequent social conflicts in the future as they could cause an increase in the attitudinal divide between those members of the Swedish public who have had direct experiences of carnivores and those who have not.
Previous research on human fear of large carnivores has mainly been based on self-reports in which individual survey items and the objects of fear are measured, so whether a person fears attacks on humans or livestock and pets has not been identified. The objectives of this study were to differentiate between the objects of fear as well as capturing attitudes towards implementation of management actions and the potential for conflict index (PCI). These concern the implementation of a limited number of management actions currently used or discussed in Sweden that are aimed at reducing human fear of brown bears/wolves. 391 persons living in areas with either brown bear (n = 198) or wolf (n = 193) in Sweden responded to a questionnaire. The degree of self-reported fear varied between residents in brown bear areas and residents in wolf areas. The fear of attacks on livestock and pets was stronger than fear of attacks on humans in both brown bear and wolf areas. In brown bear areas, fear was strongest for livestock, while in wolf areas fear was strongest for pets. The fear of attacks on livestock and pets was significantly stronger in wolf areas, while the fear of attacks on humans was strongest in brown bear areas. In both brown bear and wolf areas, there was little acceptance of implementation of management actions that would allow people to carry pepper spray or a gun outdoors. Management actions aimed at setting a population cap for bear/wolf populations, information on how to act when encountering a bear/wolf, and providing information on local presence of bear/wolf had relatively high acceptability. This was especially true for respondents expressing high fear of attacks on humans.
Species and ecosystems are under constant pressure from a rapidly-growing human population. Human tolerance of carnivores, including the willingness to live in areas with these predators, is key to the success of large carnivore conservation. In the Scandinavian Peninsula, large carnivore populations conflict with human activity; low tolerance among local people may lead to illegal hunting. A survey of 2521 Scandinavian respondents to measure environmental value orientation, using the new environmental paradigm (NEP) scale and attitudes toward large carnivores, revealed attitudes towards the presence of carnivores were not related to carnivore abundance. Nor was there a significant relationship between environmental value orientation and personal experiences with loss of domestic sheep or hunting dogs. Environmental values were mainly explained by country differences; Swedes had a more ecocentric value orientation than Norwegians. Significantly more Norwegians (45 %) than Swedes (19 %) responded that there were too many carnivores in their country. Historic differences in how government is perceived between Norway and Sweden may result in different attitudes towards illegal hunting and towards carnivores. Specifically, Norwegians may hold a more anthropocentric view, based on a suspicion of central authorities, whereas Swedes may hold a more ecocentric view.
The increase in large carnivore populations in a number of European countries causes numerous social conflicts and populations need to be kept at levels that are acceptable to the public. This may eventually require opening up or increasing public hunting of species like bear, wolf, wolverines and lynx as a management strategy. We surveyed a sample of 672 Norwegian hunters to examine how they judged a set of dilemmas associated with hunting carnivores versus ungulates. More than one-half of the sample would like to maintain or increase the current population sizes of the large carnivores (for wolverines: 57.5%; bears: 65.6%; wolves: 66.1%; lynx: 59.6%). A large majority of hunters (85.5%) emphasise not stressing the game over securing success in killing game, require adequate shooting skills (87.7%), linking harvest strategies to ecological principles (79.5%) rather than the level of conflict, and sustainable wildlife populations (95.1%) over optimum economic yield. Carnivore hunting is associated with a stronger preference for quotas based on science rather than local knowledge as well as paying more attention to the conflict level, compared to the judgments made for ungulate hunting. Positive attitudes toward maintaining or increasing carnivore populations are associated with a concern for animal welfare, and faith in scientific information, ecological values and sustainable wildlife populations.
We analyze the architecture and functioning of wolf governance in the European Union revealing some of the dynamics between biology conservation and social management. Comparing Germany, Galicia (Spain), Portugal and Sweden as illustrative examples the paper highlights important similarities and differences in the governance conceptualizations and architectures. In the second part, the article examines struggles and challenges to the EU’s protective governance paradigm. Our findings indicate that active opposition to wolves becomes especially visible in Sweden and Germany, the two countries with the least number of wolves but their fairly recent re-appearance. We conclude that such opposition cannot be sufficiently explained by rationally grounded disadvantages due, for example, loss of farm animals caused by the large carnivores and/or insufficient compensation measures. We argue it’s more accurate to assume a clash of paradigms, which have in themselves vaster ontological, epistemological, experiential and axiological issues and which, in turn, strongly shape opinions, values and attitudes.
Individuals process information through two systems: the experiential system, containing affect and emotion, and the analytic system, containing logic and normative rules. Both are involved in decision making, and expected to help explain choices to support or oppose wildlife-related policies. In the present study, an Internet survey of motivated, informed individuals is used to investigate the role of both systems in wolf recovery policy choices. Integral affect measures serve as the experiential component in our model, while objective knowledge and beliefs about outcomes of wolf recovery serve as the analytic component. Results indicate that affect has a greater effect than knowledge on beliefs, and is more important for explaining intentions to oppose than to support wolf recovery. Knowledge of differences in information processing between those that support versus oppose wolf recovery allows managers to design outreach that motivates greater analytic processing, potentially mitigating the effects of experiential processing.
Rural communities are changing. Depopulation and unemployment is accompanied by the advance of new perspectives on nature, where protection trumps resource extraction. These developments are perceived as threatening by rural working-class people with close ties to traditional land use – a situation they often meet with cultural resistance. Cultural resistance is not necessarily launched against institutionalized power, nor does it necessarily imply a desire for fundamental social change. It should rather be seen as a struggle for autonomy. However, autonomy does not entail influence outside the cultural realm. Struggles to uphold traditional rural lifestyles – for example by denouncing the current nature conservation regime – could be understood in much the same conceptual framework as Willis employed in ‘Learning to labour’. Based on an ethnographic study of the conflicts over wolf protection, we demonstrate that ‘the Hammertown mechanism’ is of a more general nature than often implied in the discussion of Willis’ work.
This article is based on a qualitative study of young working–class men who are dedicated hunters and hardcore wolf adversaries. Our aim is to make sense of their attitudes and practices regarding the re–appearance of wolves. They see the wolves as impeding their life projects: being hunters and outdoorsmen. Therefore, we discuss attitude formation in the light of theories of identity, paying special attention to the idea that identity formation is strongly affected by individualization in ‘late modernity’. Norwegian media tend to depict rural ways of life as rooted in traditionalism, implying an antagonism between the modern and the traditional along an urban–rural axis. Yet, even if important choices made by the young men include distinct elements of local tradition, these choices are no less reflexive than those made by more mobile peers. The article argues that the young hunters are simultaneously traditional and modern and that they transgress such artificial antagonisms through their everyday practices.
Forty years ago Philip M. Hauser (1962)20.
Hauser , P. M. 1962. “Demographic and ecological changes as factors in outdoor recreation”. In Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission Study Report 22, 27–59. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office. View all references argued that classifying all urbanites without regard to their rural origins ignored the cultural effects of rural life on recreation. A population of urbanites who grew up in rural areas should be more likely to participate in hunting, for example, than multigenerational urbanites, because of the rural cultural influences on hunting. This article extends Hauser’s logic to attitudes toward hunting, wildlife, and wolves. Does where a city resident grew up make any difference? Do contacts with the countryside have an influence on the attitudes of urbanites? This article’s data, based on a national survey of Swedes, show that multigenerational urbanites, those who where born in cities of parents who lived in cities have more negative attitudes toward hunting and toward wolves, and feel that wildlife is less important, in comparison to those with rural experience. Urban residents who had more contact with the countryside had more positive attitudes toward hunting, wildlife, and wolves. As fewer urban Swedes have rural origins, support for wildlife, hunting and wolves may be expected to decline. Cultural or management actions that increase urban residents’ contacts with rural areas could, however, help promote or maintain more positive attitudes toward wildlife-related attitude objects such as hunting and wolves.
The recolonising wolf Canis lupus population has created conflicts in Scandinavia, and it will eventually be necessary to control wolf numbers if the population continues to grow. One mechanism for this is hunting. Under what circumstances will the Swedish public support hunting of wolves? We examined this question for the general public and for three stakeholder groups: all hunters, the public living in areas with wolf populations and hunters living in wolf population areas. A majority of all four groups found it acceptable to hunt wolves to reduce the risk of livestock depredation (53-91%), and if wolves had been coming into populated areas (54-86%). However, about one fifth of the Swedish public was neutral to any justification, so an extreme or a well-publicised event could alter the current levels of support. The majority in all groups did not support wolf hunting merely because people were afraid of them (22-46%), or because wolves compete with humans for game (11-45%). A majority of all hunters found wolf hunting to be justified if wolves were a threat to dogs in the area, but the majority of the general public even in the wolf population areas did not find this to be appropriate justification. Our study shows the importance of surveying stakeholder groups as well as the general public to develop sound and acceptable conservation and management plans for rebounding populations of large carnivores such as wolves.
Predation risk" and "fear" are concepts well established in animal behavior literature. We expand these concepts to develop the model of the "landscape of fear". The landscape of fear represents relative levels of predation risk as peaks and valleys that reflect the level of fear of predation a prey experiences in different parts of its area of use. We provide observations in support of this model regarding changes in predation risk with respect to habitat types, and terrain characteristics. We postulate that animals have the ability to learn and can respond to differing levels of predation risk. We propose that the landscape of fear can be quantified with the use of well documented existing methods such as giving-up densities, vigilance observations, and foraging surveys of plants. We conclude that the landscape of fear is a useful visual model and has the potential to become a unifying ecological concept.
In this paper, we analyse self-reported fear of four large carnivore species in a representative sample of the Norwegian population. People reported the most fear of the two largest and most dangerous carnivores, brown bears and wolves, and less fear of lynx and wolverines. Women expressed significantly more fear of these species than did men, and expressed fear increased with age in both sexes. Human population density had very little effect on the degree of self-reported fear of large carnivores, but people living in rural areas with one carnivore species in their vicinity expressed less fear of this species than people from rural areas where this carnivore species was absent. Activities related to experience with, or knowledge of, the large carnivores also effected fear patterns. People with higher education and those who expressed interest in outdoor activities like small game hunting and mountain hiking generally reported less fear than did respondents with lower education and no interest in outdoor activities, respectively. We argue that a good management strategy is to develop educational programs where people learn about the biology and habits of the large carnivores and are encouraged to gain first-hand outdoor experience in areas with large carnivores
This article develops an approach for exploring the social and cultural aspects of human–wildlife conflict in a global context. The proposed micro-macro level model integrates the cognitive hierarchy theory of human behavior and materialist theory of culture. This model guides research of human behavior in these situations and yields information that can aid conflict prevention and mitigation on the local level and offer suggestions for effective coordinated global, national, or regional efforts. Past applications of the micro (individual level) component and preliminary research and potential areas of future exploration for the macro (cultural level) component are discussed. Cross-cultural research will be highly useful in advancing an understanding of human–wildlife conflict.
Studies of public attitudes toward wolves tend to be descriptive in nature, and few sophisticated analyses of complex attitude patterns have been conducted. Drawing on findings from qualitative studies, the present study analyzed nationally representative survey data from Norway in order to probe the relationships between attitudes toward wolves and such factors as education, urban/rural place of residence, cultural capital, and various value orientations: environmental orientation, general political values, and trust in formal or informal information sources. Structural equation modeling confirmed that attitudes are embedded in more general cultural patterns. Although the cultural level is influenced by structural factors, effects of the background variables were reduced or disappeared in a model that included value orientations. This finding demonstrates that in order to access the level of meaning by means of survey methods, carefully constructed instruments and causal models must be employed.
Recent studies and literature suggest that negative attitudes towards large carnivores may to a large extent be explained by ignorance and lack of certain aspects of cultural capital. Fear and resistance, it has been argued, can be overcome through spreading information and knowledge about carnivores and how to interact with them. This argument has, on the other hand, been interpreted as an example of inherent arrogance among urban elites, undermining the economic foundation and quality of life in rural areas. The article aims to analyse acceptance of bears in Norway among a representative sample of the population, to describe attitudes towards large carnivores, economic and cultural capital, the importance of physical and geographical closeness, and the extent to which and how these factors are interlinked. The analysis is based on two national quantitative surveys, carried out in 2005 and 2007. The findings show a clear, although small, increase in resistance to the existence of bears in Norway. The increase appears to be most marked among young people who have grown up in rural areas. The authors conclude that there is an increasing urban–rural divide on the issue of conservation policies and carnivore stock management.
Many factors influence human attitudes towards large carnivores. In our study we explore different factors that affect attitudes towards four such species, i.e. wolverines Gulo gulo, lynx Lynx lynx, brown bears Ursus arctos and wolves Canis lupus. We examined attitudes through a representative sample of the Norwegian population. By using 12 independent variables chosen for this study, we were able to explain around 15-45% of the variance in attitudes towards the four species. In general, people displayed more negative attitudes towards wolves and bears than towards lynx and wolverines. However, they were more positive towards increasing the small populations of the first two species than the relatively large populations of the last two. The results showed that 34-44% of the respondents reacted negatively to the question ‘What do you think should be done about the size of the carnivore population?’. On the other hand, 73-87% reacted positively to the question ‘Do these species have a right to exist in Norway?’. To the question ‘How far do you want the carnivore species from your home?’, 41-66% answered > 10 km. The most important variables explaining negative attitudes towards all the large carnivore species regarded the concern of the respondents for their own and their family's safety. People became more negative with age; those who were afraid of the carnivores were in general more negative towards them, and those who experienced financial loss (i.e. farmers) by having large carnivores in their vicinity expressed negative attitudes. On the other hand, the excitement of seeing large carnivores in their natural environment had a positive influence on attitude. People from larger communities were in general more positive, whereas those who thought they had the species in their vicinity were more negative. Big-game hunters frequently showed negative attitudes, whereas those with higher levels of education tended to be more positive. Our results indicate that attitudes towards large carnivores are complex. However, people are in general more negative towards wolves and bears, which must be taken into account in conservation programmes.
Regulated hunting may help conserve wildlife. Advocates argue hunters will champion conservation, generate revenue for management, regulation will promote sustained, stable wildlife populations, and conflicts with game species will diminish. Applying this notion to predators such as the wolf presents difficulties because of widespread human intolerance for the species. We assessed hunter stewardship of wolves by measuring attitudes of hunters and non-hunters in three surveys spanning 2001–2007 among 2,320 residents of four states in wolf range. Two U.S. states have implemented hunting and several more are contemplating it, all as part of long-term, wolf conservation. At the time of our surveys, majorities supported hypothetical wolf-hunting depending on the justifications used. Likely wolf-hunters showed little inclination to conserve wolves. However some predict such attitudes might change if they were allowed to hunt wolves.
Controversies over the return of large carnivores (e.g. wolves) are often interpreted as clashes between rural traditionalism and urban modernity. Rural communities, however, have never been culturally monolithic, and modernization increases their diversity. However, the popular image is one of rural communities united against vermin and urban romantics. An important reason for this is probably the successful construction of the anti-carnivore front as a last line of defence against destructive forces threatening rural life. Drawing on examples from a study in Østerdalen, Norway, the struggle against wolf protection is discussed as an instance of symbolic construction of community. Images of a threatened community are vital to the self-understanding of the wolf adversaries, but cleavages run through the alliance. Three principal groups may be identified: sheep farmers, landowners who lease hunting, and people with strong ties to traditional land use practices (primarily hunting) and a rural working-class culture. These groups have not always been allies, and conflicts of interest run through the ‘resistance front’. The task here is to identify the social forces that now bring them together, and to explain why the carnivore issue is well suited as a significant component in their symbolic construction of community.
As wolf (Canis lupus) populations recover in Wisconsin (U. S. A.), their depredations on livestock, pets, and hunting dogs have increased. We used a mail-back survey to assess the tolerance of 535 rural citizens of wolves and their preferences regarding the management of "problem" wolves. Specifically, we tested whether people who had lost domestic animals to wolves or other predators were less tolerant of wolves than neighboring residents who had not and whether compensation payments improved tolerance of wolves. We assessed tolerance via proxy measures related to an individual's preferred wolf population size for Wisconsin and the likelihood she or he would shoot a wolf. We also measured individuals' approval of lethal control and other wolf-management tactics under five conflict scenarios. Multivariate analysis revealed that the strongest predictor of tolerance was social group. Bear (Ursus americanus) hunters were concerned about losing valuable hounds to wolves and were more likely to approve of lethal control and reducing the wolf population than were livestock producers, who were more concerned than general residents. To a lesser degree, education level, experience of loss, and gender were also significant. Livestock producers and bear hunters who had been compensated for their losses to wolves were not more tolerant than their counterparts who alleged a loss but received no compensation. Yet all respondents approved of compensation payments as a management strategy. Our results indicate that deep-rooted social identity and occupation are more powerful predictors of tolerance of wolves than individual encounters with these large carnivores.
Large carnivores are often used as focal species (indicators, umbrellas, flagships or keystones) in conservation strategies either aimed at conserving carnivores, the rest of the biodiversity that occupies their habitats, or both. We evaluate their suitability for these roles in the context of boreal forest biodiversity conservation in the muti-use landscapes of Scandinavia. The enormous conflicts, especially with livestock, that carnivores cause in these areas makes them very controversial flagships to the extent that it may affect rural people's attitudes to conservation in general. Because of the broad habitat tolerance of large carnivores and their prey, and the difficulties in surveying carnivore numbers, they are very insensitive and impractical indicators of forest biodiversity. This ability of large carnivores to thrive in industrial forests means that the many species that are sensitive to modern forestry will not fall under the umbrella of areas managed for large carnivores. If large carnivores have a keystone function with respect to affecting the density of their ungulate prey it is likely to lead to even further conflicts with hunters who gain economic benefit from harvesting wild ungulates. In other words, none of the classic `ecological' arguments are likely to help justify large carnivore conservation, and large carnivore conservation is unlikely to help conserve the rest of the boreal forest's biodiversity. Based on these arguments we recommend that (1) justification for large carnivore conservation focus on the real philosophical and value orientated reasons rather than ecological justifications, (2) that this conservation should be brought about in practice by dedicated management programs that specifically address the conflicts caused by large carnivores, and (3) that boreal forest biodiversity is best conserved by specific actions designed to establish reserves or change forestry practices.
The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and tolerance are both widely used measures of the degree of multi-collinearity of the
ith independent variable with the other independent variables in a regression model. Unfortunately, several rules of thumb
– most commonly the rule of 10 – associated with VIF are regarded by many practitioners as a sign of severe or serious multi-collinearity
(this rule appears in both scholarly articles and advanced statistical textbooks). When VIF reaches these threshold values
researchers often attempt to reduce the collinearity by eliminating one or more variables from their analysis; using Ridge
Regression to analyze their data; or combining two or more independent variables into a single index. These techniques for
curing problems associated with multi-collinearity can create problems more serious than those they solve. Because of this,
we examine these rules of thumb and find that threshold values of the VIF (and tolerance) need to be evaluated in the context
of several other factors that influence the variance of regression coefficients. Values of the VIF of 10, 20, 40, or even
higher do not, by themselves, discount the results of regression analyses, call for the elimination of one or more independent
variables from the analysis, suggest the use of ridge regression, or require combining of independent variable into a single
index.
This article focuses on the roots of the Finnish wolf conflict by using stakeholder evaluations of the wolf as a tool. The
recent growth of the wolf population has highlighted stakeholders’ contradictory objectives and revealed a conflict between
the two main stakeholders, conservationists and hunters, in wolf management. The question of hunting emerges as the core of
the conflict. The negative evaluation of the wolf by hunters reflects a competitive situation, which is typical of the historical
development of wolf management in Finland. In areas with the most abundant wolf populations, hunters view the wolf most negatively.
This study clearly demonstrates that the Finnish wolf conflict is rooted in the values of modern society and carries a long
historical, practical and ecological background in which humans and wolves compete over resources, mainly the moose. The conflict
between hunters and conservationists in wolf management is connected to the appreciation of moose as game and stems from competition
between humans and wolves over their prey and the historical presence or absence of the wolf.
KeywordsConflict-Competition-Conservationists-Evaluation-Hunters-Wolf management history
Poaching is a widespread and well-appreciated problem for the conservation of many threatened species. Because poaching is illegal, there is strong incentive for poachers to conceal their activities, and consequently, little data on the effects of poaching on population dynamics are available. Quantifying poaching mortality should be a required knowledge when developing conservation plans for endangered species but is hampered by methodological challenges. We show that rigorous estimates of the effects of poaching relative to other sources of mortality can be obtained with a hierarchical state-space model combined with multiple sources of data. Using the Scandinavian wolf (Canis lupus) population as an illustrative example, we show that poaching accounted for approximately half of total mortality and more than two-thirds of total poaching remained undetected by conventional methods, a source of mortality we term as 'cryptic poaching'. Our simulations suggest that without poaching during the past decade, the population would have been almost four times as large in 2009. Such a severe impact of poaching on population recovery may be widespread among large carnivores. We believe that conservation strategies for large carnivores considering only observed data may not be adequate and should be revised by including and quantifying cryptic poaching.
The politics and the underlying reasons behind the recovery of the Scandinavian wolf population are increasingly contested. According to official policy, wolves should be guaranteed a place in the Swedish natural world. However, the conflict over whether Sweden should host a wolf population sets views on biodiversity and sustainable development against the perspective that local traditions and livelihoods are threatened by the return of wolves. These diverging environmental visions can be seen as competing interests and understandings of nature and wildlife. The desire of the state and nature conservation organisations to implement measures to provide conditions fostering wolf survival are counterbalanced by local action groups and community residents struggling to maintain conditions for conserving summer pastures, opportunities for hunting with sporting dogs, and other recreational activities such as mushroom- and berry-picking. Not only are these activities considered to have high natural and cultural value, the European Union (EU) has stated that small-scale farming is important for maintaining the landscape and safeguarding the survival of values associated with ′agri-environmental′ habitats. The conflict between the interest groups is essentially about the access to and use of environmental resources. Squeezed between policies safeguarding wolf populations, preventing cruelty to animals and implementing activities required by the EU agricultural programme, farmers in areas with resident wolf populations have come to take part in processes that may reinforce rural identity.
The ranges of wolves (Canis lupus) and bears (Ursus arctos) across Europe have expanded recently, and it is important to assess public attitudes toward this expansion because responses toward these species vary widely. General attitudes toward an object are good predictors of broad behavioral patterns; thus, attitudes toward wolves and bears can be used as indicators to assess the social foundation for future conservation efforts. However, most attitude surveys toward bears and wolves are limited in scope, both temporally and spatially, and provide only a snapshot of attitudes. To extend the results of individual surveys over a much larger temporal and geographical range so as to identify transnational patterns and changes in attitudes toward bears and wolves over time, we conducted a meta-analysis. Our analysis included 105 quantitative surveys conducted in 24 countries from 1976 to 2012. Across Europe, people's attitudes were more positive toward bears than wolves. Attitudes toward bears became more positive over time, but attitudes toward wolves seemed to become less favorable the longer people coexisted with them. Younger and more educated people had more positive attitudes toward wolves and bears than people who had experienced damage from these species, and farmers and hunters had less positive attitudes toward wolves than the general public. For bears attitudes among social groups did not differ. To inform conservation of large carnivores, we recommend that standardized longitudinal surveys be established to monitor changes in attitudes over time relative to carnivore population development. Our results emphasize the need for interdisciplinary research in this field and more advanced explanatory models capable of capturing individual and societal responses to changes in large carnivore policy and management.
From an interdisciplinary approach, this study aims at analyzing self-reported animal fear, specifically large carnivore fear, in relation to public willingness to pay to fulfill a governmental policy on large carnivore-induced costs. In a survey in Sweden involving more than 2,000 respondents, it was found that people whose animal fear was directed particularly toward large carnivores were less likely to be willing to pay these costs, or were likely to be willing to pay a lower amount of money. In the prediction of willingness to pay (WTP), the contribution of the fear variable was as equally important as previously addressed socioeconomic factors.
This paper explores American attitudes toward, and knowledge of, predators, particularly the wolf and coyote. The data for this paper were derived from a national study of animal-related attitudes, knowledge, and behaviours among 3107 randomly selected Americans residing in the 48 contiguous states and Alaska. Each respondent was personally interviewed in his or her home for approximately one hour. Additionally, special mail surveys of cattle and sheep producers and trappers were conducted.Responses to questions regarding attitudes toward wolves, coyotes, and a variety of other predators were analysed. Comparisons were made among a variety of demographic groups distinguished by age, sex, region of residence, urban-rural residence, education, and occupation. The views of livestock producers—mainly cattlemen and sheep producers—were also explored. Attitudes toward the wolf, coyote, and other predators were compared with attitudes toward other species, and factors identified as possibly accounting for these differences in species preference.Knowledge of animals and, in particular, predators was also examined and compared across various demographic groups. Additionally, groups characterized by relatively great like or dislike of predators were contrasted regarding basic attitudes toward animals. Finally, the study explored attitudes toward predator control, in particular alternative methods for limiting coyote depredations of livestock. Attitudes toward a variety of control strategies were examined, and distinguished among the general public and livestock producers.
Public support of hunting is a key to sustaining this socio-economic activity that contributes to control of game populations. Previous studies have suggested that experience with hunting and hunters may determine acceptance of hunting. An untested assumption is that consumption of game meat is a causal factor in generating positive attitudes toward hunters and hunting. Here we used a survey, sent during 2009 to a random sample of 1,067 Swedish residents, to test the association between non-hunters' frequency of game-meat consumption and their attitudes toward hunting. We found that game meat was consumed at least once per year in 65% of non-hunters' household, and that 80% of non-hunters expressed favorable attitudes toward hunting. Game-meat consumption and social relationships were the key factors associated with positive attitudes toward hunting. Our findings suggest game-meat consumption to be an important reason that hunting is well accepted in the Swedish society. We suggest that increased distribution and availability of game meat to non-hunters will increase the likelihood that positive attitudes toward hunters and hunting will be sustained. Our findings are from Sweden, where meat from wild game can freely be distributed and traded; yet, the results can be considered as catalysts for discussion about sale of game meat in countries where it now is illegal. © 2012 The Wildlife Society.
Given the increasing use of attitude surveys, the need to recognize the complex nature of the attitude concept increases. This study proposes and tests a conceptual model of attitudes using wolf reintroduction in Colorado as a case study. The model proposed that cognitive factors (beliefs and knowledge about wolves and wolf reintroduction), affective factors (emotions elicited by wolf reintroduction), and attitudes toward wolves have concomitant effects on attitudes toward reintroducing wolves, which directly influence intention to support reintroducing wolves. The relative effects of each of these factors depend on the personal importance of the wolf reintroduction issue. Results suggest that attitudes toward wolf reintroduction were based less on knowledge and beliefs about wolves and wolf reintroduction than on values and emotions surrounding the issue. Furthermore, the relative effects of these factors on attitudes depend on the importance individuals place on the wolf reintroduction issue. Implications focus on the need to understand what factors drive attitudes toward a natural resource issue, especially when attempting to influence public attitudes toward that issue.
Some surveys are performed at a spatial scale that hides the core of the problem. This is not a trivial problem if local members of the public and more distant respondents disagree over a certain issue. We contrast a Swedish national, proportional survey with corresponding regional and local surveys. We use three survey questions about wolves to illustrate the risk of extrapolation from proportional national surveys to areas where human and nature conservation issues are in conflict. As attitudes towards large carnivores generally tend to be favourable amongst the general public, but negative amongst those most likely to be adversely affected, surveys performed at a too large a spatial scale do not capture the problem or reveal disagreements between local and general public. This could lead to a conceptual mismatch between the spatial scales of, first, the natural resource problem and, second human population sampling. Our study in the mountain region of northern Sweden illustrates biases potentially introduced to controversial issues tied to local problems by using proportional national surveys. We suggest over-sampling in problem areas contrasted with proportional regional/national sampling, or proportional sampling matching the scale of problem, to identify the driving mechanisms and related variables.
The environment, and how humans affect it, is more of a concern now than ever. We are constantly told that halting climate change requires raising awareness, changing attitudes, and finally altering behaviors among the general public-and doing it fast. New information, attitudes, and actions, it is conventionally assumed, will necessarily follow one from the other. However, this approach ignores much of what is known about attitudes in general and environmental attitudes in particular-a huge gap lies between what we say and what we do. Solving environmental problems requires a scientific understanding of public attitudes. Like rocks in a swollen river, attitudes often lie beneath the surface-hard to see, and even harder to move or change. This book helps us read the water and negotiate its hidden obstacles, explaining what attitudes are, how they change and influence behavior. Rather than trying to change attitudes, we need to design solutions and policies with attitudes in mind. Heberlein illustrates these points by tracing the attitudes of the well-known environmentalist Aldo Leopold, while tying social psychology to real-world behaviors throughout the book. Bringing together theory and practice, this book provides a realistic understanding of why and how attitudes matter when it comes to environmental problems; and how, by balancing natural with social science, we can step back from false assumptions and unproductive, frustrating programs to work toward fostering successful, effective environmental action.
This paper reports an analysis of support for wolves (Canis spp.) reported in 38 quantitative surveys conducted between 1972 and 2000. Of 109 records reported in these surveys, a majority (51%) showed positive attitudes toward wolves and 60% supported wolf restoration. Attitudes toward wolves had a negative correlation with age, rural residence, and ranching and farming occupations, and positive correlation with education and income. Thirty-five percent of ranchers and farmers surveyed had positive attitudes toward wolves. Among surveys of the general population samples, 61% expressed positive attitudes. Surveys of environmental and wildlife groups showed an average of 69% support. Surveys in the lower 48 states showed higher proportions of positive attitudes than surveys in Scandinavia and Western Europe, where a majority did not support wolves. Among all surveys, 25% of respondents had neutral attitudes toward wolves. Positive attitudes toward wolves did not appear to be increasing over time. Because attitudes toward wolves are often not strong among the general public, they have the potential to change rapidly if linked to other, stronger attitudes and beliefs. We expect that progress in education and urbanization will lead to increasingly positive attitudes over time. Negative attitudes associated with age are probably a cohort effect, and we should not expect the aging populations in the United States and Europe to lead to more negative wolf attitudes. Paradoxically, successful wolf reintroductions are likely to reduce general positive sentiment, since the presence of wolves gives people a more balanced experience with the animals. Traditionally, people with the most positive attitudes toward wolves have been those with the least experience.
The wolf population in Scandinavia has increased from functionally extinct to about 100 wolves since the 1970s. In 2001 we surveyed four groups of Swedes to analyze the relationship between experience, knowledge, and people's attitude toward wolves. Although all groups support the right of wolves to exist, Swedes who live in areas where wolves have been restored have more negative attitudes than the general public. Attitudes toward wolves are not strong among the general public, thus changes are possible. Experience with wolf predation leads to more negative attitudes toward wolves. Hunters in areas with wolves have the most accurate knowledge about wolves but at the same time the most negative attitudes. But within all four groups as knowledge increases attitudes become more positive. Still, the most knowledgeable local hunters have less favorable attitudes than the least knowledgeable members of the general public. High proportions of the population do not care about wolves which makes it difficult to reach them with information, but does make them susceptible to rapid changes if wolves become a media topic. With the restoration of wolves, hunters, the strongest supporters of wolves in the 1970s, are now less supportive than the general public.
Gray wolves were systematically and fervently eliminated from the northwestern United States between the mid-1800s and early 1900s. Wolves disappeared from lower elevations first and generally persisted longer in more remote, mountainous areas. Preservation of large tracts of public land, primarily for commodity use, at the turn of the century, had the unforeseen effect of allowing conditions for wolf recovery to occur later. Improving attitudes toward the species and the recovery of ungulate prey populations from their turn of the century lows are the proximate factors making wolf recovery possible in areas with vast public lands. Planners for wolf recovery in the Northern Rockies identified three areas for wolf recovery, northwestern Montana, central Idaho, and the Greater Yellowstone area, because they consisted primarily of national parks, designated wilderness, and national forests. Those areas had previously been designated as public lands largely because they were too unproductive for agriculture; they consist in part of high elevation habitat that supports relatively few prey for wolves in winter. So far, recolonizing wolves have settled in lower elevation habitats where deer and elk are most abundant. Since private lands are most often in these lower elevations, they may be more important to the recovery and maintenance of viable wolf populations than was earlier envisioned. The negative symbolic nature of the wolf was a major factor in its eradication and continues to be a major factor in considerations of reintroduction and natural recolonization; the newer positive symbolic nature of the animal will ultimately facilitate its return and contribute indirectly toward long-term conservation of wild spaces and biodiversity in North America.
The Value of Life is an exploration of the actual and perceived importance of biological diversity for human beings and society. Stephen R. Kellert identifies ten basic values, which he describes as biologically based, inherent human tendencies that are greatly influenced and moderated by culture, learning, and experience. Drawing on 20 years of original research, he considers: the universal basis for how humans value nature differences in those values by gender, age, ethnicity, occupation, and geographic location how environment-related activities affect values variation in values relating to different species how vlaues vary across cultures policy and management implications Throughout the book, Kellert argues that the preservation of biodiversity is fundamentally linked to human well-being in the largest sense as he illustrates the importance of biological diversity to the human sociocultural and psychological condition.