Content uploaded by Roman Gula
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Roman Gula on Dec 02, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 1–12; 2019; DOI: 10.1002/wsb.1027
Original Article
Recent Arrivals or Established Tenants?
History of Wolf Presence Influences Attitudes
Toward the Carnivore
ELIZABETH GOSLING,
2
Unit of Molecular Zoology, Chair of Zoology, Department of Animal Science, Technical University of Munich, Hans‐Carl‐
von‐Carlowitz‐Platz 2, D‐85354 Freising, Germany
KATARZYNA BOJARSKA, Institute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences, Mickiewicza 33, 31‐120 Cracow, Poland
ROMAN GULA, Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Wilcza 64, 00‐679 Warsaw, Poland
RALPH KUEHN,
1,3
Unit of Molecular Zoology, Chair of Zoology, Department of Animal Science, Technical University of Munich, Hans‐Carl‐von‐
Carlowitz‐Platz 2, D‐85354 Freising, Germany
ABSTRACT Human dimensions are a critical part of large carnivore conservation. We investigated how the
historical presence of wolves (Canis lupus)influences public attitudes toward the carnivore and its manage-
ment in rural areas of Poland. From March 2016 to March 2017, we used a self‐administered questionnaire to
assess attitudes of rural residents (n=292)and foresters (n=325)in 6 regions where wolves have either been
continuously present, or where they have recently recovered after a period of absence. While we found that
attitudes toward wolves were generally neutral or positive, differences in attitudes did exist across target groups
and regions with long and short histories of wolf presence. Foresters tended to have more negative attitudes
toward wolves than did rural residents, and their attitudes remained stable across regions. In contrast, rural
residents from the regions with an uninterrupted history of wolf presence, which also suffer greater rates of
livestock depredation, tended to have less positive attitudes than did residents from regions where wolves have
recovered more recently. Knowledge of wolves and wildlife value orientations were also positive predictors of
attitudes. Negative attitudes among local residents and lower support for wolfconservation in response to wolf
attacks on livestock could be a major obstacle for the continued recovery of wolves in Europe. Our results
reinforce the need for proactive approaches, involving both information campaigns and actions to mitigate
wolf predation on livestock, to maintain local support for wolf conservation. © 2019 The Authors. Wildlife
Society Bulletin published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The Wildlife Society.
KEY WORDS attitudes, Canis lupus, human dimensions, human–wildlife conflict, large carnivore conservation,
Poland, wolf recovery.
Wolf (Canis lupus)recovery is often accompanied by intense
debate (Carter and Linnell 2016). Whereas some people
celebrate wolves as a symbol of wild nature (Fritts et al.
2003), others loathe the predator as a killer of livestock and
competitor for game (Breitenmoser 1998, Linnell et al.
2000). Understanding public attitudes toward wolves is
therefore essential to guide management decisions, address
human–wildlife conflicts, and design effective education
programs (Bath 2013). We investigated how the historical
presence of wolves in a region influences local attitudes
toward the carnivore and its management in Poland.
Previous research in North America and Europe shows
that people’s attitudes toward wolves are influenced by the
presence and proximity of wolf populations. People living in
regions where wolves occur tend to be less supportive of
wolf conservation than people living far away from wolf
populations (Williams et al. 2002, Ericsson and Heberlein
2003, Karlsson and Sjöström 2007, Hermann and Menzel
2013). Negative attitudes among people in areas where
wolves are present may be driven by direct and indirect
experience. Residents living close to wolf territories are
more likely to be confronted with human–carnivore con-
flicts, either through first‐hand experience, or perhaps more
commonly, indirectly through personal contacts or local
Received: 28 November 2017; Accepted: 4 July 2019
Published:
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and
distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations
are made.
1
E‐mail: kuehn@wzw.tum.de
2
Present address: Institute of Forest Management, TUM School of Life
Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, Hans‐Carl‐
von‐Carlowitz‐Platz 2, D‐85354 Freising, Germany.
3
Joint affiliation: Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation
Ecology, New Mexico State University, Box 30003, MSC 4901, Las
Cruces, NM 88003‐8003, USA.
Gosling et al. •Attitudes Toward Wolves 1
media reports. Greater exposure to negative information
about wolves is likely to reduce local residents’acceptance of
the predator and erode their support for wolf conservation
(Ericsson and Heberlein 2003, Karlsson and Sjöström 2007,
Eriksson et al. 2015). As a major source of human–carnivore
conflict, livestock depredation can mediate the link between
wolf presence in a region, experience with the carnivore, and
local attitudes.
In addition to direct effects of wolves, underlying cultural
conflicts may shape local opinions about wolves and wolf
policy in rural areas. For example, in many regions around
the world, wolves have become a symbol of the rural–urban
divide. Rural residents may view policies to reintroduce or
protect wolves as a threat to agriculture, and thus to tradi-
tional rural ways of life (Eriksson 2016). Negative attitudes
toward wolves and opposition to wolf conservation in rural
communities may in part reflect resistance to an urban
majority imposing its conservation values on a rural mi-
nority (Ericsson and Heberlein 2003, Fritts et al. 2003,
Chapron et al. 2014, Eriksson et al. 2015).
The historical context of wolf presence may also influence
both direct (e.g., depredation)and indirect (e.g., cultural)
drivers of attitudes in wolf areas. It has been postulated that
residentsmay be more accepting of large carnivores in regions
where predators have been continuously present compared
with regions where they recently returned after a period of
extinction (Williams et al. 2002, Fritts et al. 2003).Inplaces
where wolves or other large carnivores have always persisted,
local people may have retained adaptations to coexist and
cope with the predators, such as animal husbandry practices
that reduce depredation, thereby minimizing wolf–livestock
conflicts and contributing to a local culture that is more ac-
cepting of large carnivores: evidence from Austria, Estonia,
Italy, and Finland supports this hypothesis (Zeiler et al. 1999,
Randveer 2006, Bisi et al. 2007, Bath 2009). In contrast, in
regions where large carnivores have been absent for a long
period, local traditions for coexistence may be lost and people
may no longer accept predators as part of the natural system
(Breitenmoser 1998, von Arx et al. 2004). The return of large
carnivores to these regions is likely to spark social conflicts,
which can contribute to hostility toward the new arrivals
(Chapron et al. 2014, Dressel et al. 2014).
Studies investigating how local people’s attitudes change
over time after carnivores return to an area have yielded
somewhat inconsistent findings. Studies in Norway, for
example, suggest a peak in negative attitudes when large
carnivores first arrive in a region, followed by a gradual im-
provement in attitudes as people become more familiar and
experienced with living with predators (Zimmermann et al.
2001). However, other European studies suggest that people’s
attitudes toward wolves steadily become less positive the
longer people coexist with them (Dressel et al. 2014).
In Poland, wolves have a history of persecution and re-
covery, providing the chance to explore how historical wolf
presence can influence local attitudes toward the carnivore. By
the early 1900s state‐sanctioned eradication campaigns had
eliminated wolves from most of Poland except a few forested
regions in the east of the country (Wolsan et al. 1992,
Okarma 1993). During the world wars, wolf numbers began
to recover (Wolsan et al. 1992), but renewed eradication
efforts after WWII had reduced wolves in Poland to <100
individuals by the early 1970s (Okarma 1993). In 1975, the
status of the wolf was upgraded from pest to game species,
which allowed hunting with firearms only (no poisoning or
trapping),withanation‐wide 4‐month closed season in-
troduced in 1981 (Okarma 1993). The wolf population
subsequently recovered to an estimated 700–900 individuals
by the mid‐1990s, but wolves were still rare in western Poland
(Okarma 1993, Gula 2008a, Nowak and Mysłajek 2017).In
1995, the wolf was declared a protected species in most of
Poland, and full protection from hunting was extended to the
whole country by 1998 (Gula 2008a). Since 2000, numbers in
western Poland began to recover to the point where local
people became aware of the presence of wolves in the forests
(Gula 2008c, Nowak and Mysłajek 2017).
Previous studies provide some insight into public attitudes
toward wolves in different regions of Poland. A study of
residents in northeast Poland, a region where wolves have
always persisted, reported high acceptance of wolves, al-
though only 24% of respondents would accept wolves within
10 km of their home (Balčiauskas et al. 2007). Another
study targeting farmers, hunters, foresters, and teenagers
found no relationship between wolf presence in a region and
local attitudes (Olszańska 2012). However, this measure of
attitudes did not include beliefs about the negative effects of
wolves or support for wolf conservation. Studies have not
yet targeted rural communities in Poland in areas where
wolves have recently recovered after being rare or absent for
a long period. Understanding public attitudes toward wolves
in these areas is particularly important because these com-
munities may be more likely to face wolf‐related conflicts.
We investigated attitudes toward wolves and wolf man-
agement in regions with different histories of wolf presence
in Poland. We focused on the attitudes of people living in
the areas where wolves occur, including foresters working
directly in wolf habitat, and aim to answer the following
research question: is there a difference in attitudes between
regions where wolves have been continuously present and
regions where wolf recovery has occurred more recently?
STUDY AREA
Six study areas were included in the survey (Fig. 1): 3 regions
in the far east of Poland where wolves, despite eradication
efforts, had been continuously present (regions 1–3);and
3 regions west of the Vistula River where wolf populations
had recently recovered after being rare or only sporadically
present for a long period (regions 4–6).Wedefined regions
east of the Vistula River as having a “long history of wolf
presence”(meaning wolves have been continuously present in
relatively high numbers), and regions west of the Vistula as
having a “short history of wolf presence”(meaning sporadic
wolf presence until around the year 2000, after which wolf
presence became conspicuous to the public).
Estimated wolf densities were similar across the study
sites: between 2.7 and 3.7 wolves/100 km
2
(Gula 2008b,
Jędrzejewski et al. 2008, Gula et al. 2018; K. Bojarska and
2 Wildlife Society Bulletin
R. Gula et al., Polish Academy of Sciences, unpublished
data), except for Drawsko where the density was lower (1.1
wolves/100 km
2
; Mysłajek et al. 2018), but this may be due
to differences in estimation methods. Both human pop-
ulation and livestock density were greater in regions west of
the Vistula River compared with the 3 eastern regions.
Despite more livestock being present, depredation rates
were negligible west of the Vistula, partly because livestock
in these regions tend to be kept indoors, which reduces the
risk of wolf depredation. In contrast livestock usually graze
outdoors in the 3 eastern regions, where wolf attacks on
livestock were common. For example, from 2014 to 2016
wolves killed an average of 192 animals/year in Bieszczady
(Central Statistical Office 2014, 2015, 2016).
METHODS
We used a factorial design (2×2)to investigate the influ-
ence of wolf history of a region (short, long)on attitudes
toward wolves and wolf management of 2 interest groups
(rural residents, foresters)in Poland. We define rural resi-
dents as people living in villages within the study areas, and
foresters as employees of the State Forests National Forest
Holding whose duties involve regularly working in the
forest.
Foresters were included in the study because they repre-
sent a key interest group for wolf conservation. Foresters
are responsible for managing the majority of wolf habitat
in Poland and the only organized service present on an
everyday basis in wolf territories across Poland (Gula
2008a). In some regions, foresters are also responsible for
game management (including wolf prey), further under-
lining the relevance of this interest group for wolf con-
servation efforts. Foresters in this survey also lived in the
study areas, so they can be viewed as a subset of rural resi-
dents. In light of foresters’close ties to wolf habitat and
management, however, and coupled with the strong or-
ganizational culture of the State Forests Holding, we
expected to find differences in attitudes toward wolves be-
tween foresters and other rural residents.
We measured attitudes using a self‐administered ques-
tionnaire. Within each region, we targeted approximately 50
rural residents and 50 foresters. The minimum age for par-
ticipation in the survey was 16 years. We were concerned that
a postal survey would result in a very low response rate, so we
distributed questionnaires to rural residents via wolf biolo-
gists working in each area. These biologists used a mix of
methods to distribute the survey either personally or, in most
cases, via people not associated with wolf research, including
contacting neighbors and acquaintances in person, going
door‐to‐door in the villages, and distributing the ques-
tionnaire at community meetings and local businesses. We
sampled foresters via forestry district offices; questionnaires
were either distributed to and completed by foresters during
meetings or given to the forest district manager for dis-
tribution among employees and collected at a later date. We
added to the forester group 31 rural residents who identified
themselves as a forester in the questionnaire. Before they
completed the questionnaire, we provided respondents with
information about the purpose of the research and informed
them that their participation was voluntary and all responses
were anonymous and confidential. We collected data from
March 2016 to March 2017.
Although we did not measure the response rate among
rural residents and foresters, we expected it to be very high.
Persons distributing the questionnaire reported that few
people declined to do the survey. Furthermore, the hier-
archical nature of the Polish forestry authority coupled with
foresters’long tradition of following requests from author-
ities (Lawrence 2009, Olszańska 2012)make it likely that
they would have completed the questionnaire when asked by
their manager.
Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire contained 54 questions in 6 sections,
printed as an A5 booklet (English version available online in
Supporting Information). We adapted questions from pre-
vious human dimension studies (e.g., Kaczensky et al. 2004,
Bath et al. 2008, Majićand Bath 2010, Glikman et al. 2012,
Slagle et al. 2012). The first 20 questions measured affective
and cognitive components of attitudes toward wolves, fear
of wolves, and intent to support or oppose wolf conservation
(Table 1). The next 8 items measured attitudes toward
specific management options. Respondents answered each
question on a 5‐point scale. We coded answers to the 20
wolf attitude items so that 1 =very negative attitude (or very
high fear), and 5 =very positive attitude (or very low fear).
Responses to the management options were coded as
1=strongly disagree, and 5 =strongly agree. The middle
options of the response scale were labeled ‘no opinion,’
‘neutral,’and in 2 cases ‘I am indifferent to it.’
Five questions measured respondents’knowledge of wolf
biology and ecology. These questions were mostly multiple‐
choice, with 2–4 answer choices and a ‘not sure’option to
Figure 1. Locations of the 6 study areas in Poland in which we measured
local attitudes toward wolves in March 2016 to March 2017: 1 =
Augustów, 2 =Białowieża, 3 =Bieszczady, 4 =Świętokrzyskie, 5 =Bory
Dolnośląskie, and 6 =Drawsko. Grey shaded areas indicate forests
occupied by wolves in 2012–2015 (R. Gula and K. Bojarska et al.,
unpublished data).
Gosling et al. •Attitudes Toward Wolves 3
eliminate guessing. Answers were coded as dichotomous
variables, using 1 for the correct answer and 0 for incorrect,
not sure, and missing answers. We summed correct answers
to compute a knowledge score. Five questions (with di-
chotomous yes–no responses)measured respondents’expe-
rience with wolves: whether they had ever observed traces of
wolves in the wild, observed a wolf in captivity or in the
wild, observed livestock or pets attacked by a wolf, or per-
sonally killed a wolf. Responses were coded as 1 if the re-
spondent had experienced a particular situation and 0 if they
had not; we then summed answers to produce an experience
score.
Next, we included 10 items based on Teel et al. (2010)to
measure domination and mutualism wildlife value ori-
entations, with a 5‐point response scale from strongly dis-
agree (coded as 1)to strongly agree (coded as 5): the middle
option was labeled ‘neutral.’The last part of the ques-
tionnaire asked respondents about their gender, age, edu-
cation level, and whether they are a hunter, forester, or own
livestock.
Data Analysis
We carried out all analyses using SPSS (IBM SPSS Sta-
tistics for Macintosh Version 24.0, released 2016; IBM
Corp., Armonk, NY, USA)and Microsoft Excel (Microsoft
Excel for Mac 2011, Version 14.6.9; Microsoft Corp.,
Redmond, WA, USA)and excluded cases with missing data
list‐wise from analyses. All statistical tests were 2‐sided,
with α=0.05. We used t‐tests and 2‐way analysis of var-
iance (ANOVA)with simple effects analysis to compare
groups, using Cohen’sdand η
2
to measure effect size
(Vaske 2008).
We used exploratory factor analysis with an oblique ro-
tation (direct oblimin)to examine the structure of the 20
wolf attitude items. We extracted factors with eigenvalues
>1 and used loadings >0.40 to identify items belonging to
each factor (Field 2013).
We fitted a linear regression model to predict each of
the 3 wolf attitude subscales identified through the factor
analysis and included 11 potential explanatory variables in
each model. Explanatory variables comprised 5 integer–
continuous variables: knowledge and experience scores
(ranging from 0 to 5), mutualism and hunting beliefs scores
(ranging from 1 to 5)and age (in years); and 6 dummy
variables: wolf history of region (1=respondent lives in a
region with a long history of wolf presence), gender
(1=female), hunter (1=respondent is a hunter), livestock
(1=respondent owns livestock), forester (1=respondent is
a forester), and education (1=respondent has a tertiary
education). Models only included the main effects of each
explanatory variable. For each regression model, all Variance
Inflation Factors were <2 and the largest correlation be-
tween independent variables was r=0.48; therefore, mul-
ticollinearity was not a concern.
Finally, we used the second generation of the Potential
for Conflict Index (PCI
2
)and associated graphing tech-
nique to analyze and compare respondents’support for
the 8 wolf management options (Vaske et al. 2010).This
approach is increasingly used in human dimensions re-
search to communicate the support for different wildlife
Table 1. Summary of exploratory factor analysis (using a direct oblimin rotation)for the 20 wolf attitude items in the questionnaire. Data were collected
from foresters and rural residents in 6 regions of Poland between March 2016 and March 2017 (n=548). Dashes represent factor loadings <0.40.
Rotated factor loadings
Item Affect and benefits
Costs and
conservation support Fear of wolves
Attitude toward wolves in Poland 0.78 ––
It is important to have wolves in Poland for future generations 0.74 ––
Wolves are an important and natural part of forest ecosystems 0.73 ––
Attitude toward wolves in the region 0.72 ––
Attitude toward wolves in general 0.68 ––
Having wolves in Poland helps preserve the wolf as a wildlife species 0.66 ––
There is no need to have wolves in Poland because they already exist in other parts
of Europe 0.57 ––
Wolves restore the environment to a more natural state 0.51 ––
If I were hunting and I saw a wolf I would shoot it –––
The presence of wolves in the forest attract tourists –––
Wolves cause farmers to lose money –0.75 –
Wolves cause too much damage to livestock –0.74 –
Wolves limit ungulate populations –0.64 –
There are too many wolves in Poland –0.57 –
I would sign a petition to support wolf conservation 0.40
a
0.57
a
–
I would support an increase in wolf numbers in Poland –0.50 –
I would sign a petition to oppose wolf conservation –0.48 –
Wolves have a negative impact on hunting opportunities in Poland –––
I would be afraid to walk in a forest where wolves are present ––0.65
In areas where wolves live close to people, wolves are dangerous to humans ––0.61
Eigenvalues 8.36 1.66 1.40
% Variance 41.81 8.28 7.00
α0.89 0.83 0.74
a
These items loaded highly on the same factor and were excluded from the analysis.
4 Wildlife Society Bulletin
management options among different interest groups (e.g.,
Needhametal.2004,Franketal.2015,Sponarskietal.
2015).Themaximumpotentialforconflict (PCI
2
=1)
suggests an issue is highly controversial and occurs when
responses to a particular management action are split
equally between the 2 extremes of the response scale (e.g.,
50% strongly agree and 50% strongly disagree).The
minimum potential for conflict (PCI
2
=0)occurs when all
answersfallonthesamepointoftheresponsescale,in-
dicating a high level of consensus on an issue (Vaske 2008;
see also Vaske et al. 2010 for a detailed description of how
the index is computed).WecalculatedPCI
2
values using
the software available at http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/
~jerryv/PCI2/index.htm (Accessed 17 Apr 2017).
RESULTS
The sampling method resulted in 617 completed ques-
tionnaires, comprising 292 rural residents (59% female,
average age 43.6 yr)and 325 foresters (16% female, average
age 45.5 yr). Greater than a third (35%)of the sampled
foresters were hunters, compared with just 3% of rural res-
idents. Fifty‐two percent of foresters had a university edu-
cation compared with 36% of residents, while the rate of
livestock ownership was similar between the 2 groups (29%
for residents and 32% for foresters).
Attitude Subscales Derived from Factor Analysis
The factor analysis produced 3 factors that together ex-
plained 57% of the variance (Table 1). Items that cluster on
each factor suggest that Factor 1 represented affection for
wolves and beliefs about their benefits. Factor 2 represented
beliefs about the negative effects of wolves and support for
wolf conservation. Factor 3 represented fear of wolves.
Three items—‘If I were hunting and I saw a wolf I would
shoot it,’‘The presence of wolves in the forest attracts
tourists,’and ‘Wolves have a negative impact on hunting
opportunities in Poland’—did not load highly on any factor.
A fourth item—‘I would sign a petition to support wolf
conservation’—loaded highly on Factors 1 and 2. These 4
items were excluded from further analysis.
We treated the extracted factors as 3 wolf attitude sub-
scales, which we labeled ‘Affect and benefits,’‘Costs and
conservation support,’and ‘Fear of wolves.’These subscales
showed acceptable reliability: Cronbach’s alpha (α)ranged
from 0.74 to 0.89. We computed a respondent’s mean score
for each attitude subscale by averaging their responses to the
items belonging to that subscale.
The 5 items measuring mutualism values also showed
acceptable reliability (α=0.76), but the reliability of the 5
domination items was poor (α=0.60). Deleting 3 domi-
nation items resulted in a 2‐item scale with adequate reli-
ability (α=0.68). The 2 remaining items—‘Hunting is cruel
and inhumane to the animals’(which was reverse coded)
and ‘People who want to hunt should be provided with the
opportunity to do so’—reflect beliefs about hunting, which
is one dimension of a domination value orientation (Teel
et al. 2010). We computed a ‘mutualism’score for each
respondent by averaging their responses to the 5 mutualism
items and a ‘hunting beliefs’score based on the mean re-
sponse to the 2 hunting‐related items.
Attitudes Toward Wolves
On average, respondents expressed neutral to positive atti-
tudes toward wolves. The mean score (3.6)for the ‘Affect
and benefits’subscale suggests that most respondents liked
wolves, valued them as a species, and believed that they have
positive effects on ecosystems. The mean score (3.0)for the
‘Costs and conservation support’subscale suggests that, on
average, respondents were undecided about the potential
costs of wolves and neither supported nor opposed wolf
conservation. Finally, the mean score (3.2)for the ‘Fear of
wolves’subscale suggests that, on average, respondents were
not afraid of wolves.
For the ‘Affect and benefits’attitude scores, the ANOVA
did not produce main effects of interest group (forester vs.
rural resident)or wolf history (long vs. short). Main effects,
however, were observed for ‘Costs and conservation support’
and ‘Fear of wolves,’representing minimal to typical effect
sizes (Table 2). For both ‘Affect and benefits’and ‘Costs and
conservation support’there was an interaction (albeit min-
imal in effect size)between group and wolf history
(P<0.01). This indicates that the effect of historical wolf
presence on local attitudes was different for rural residents
than it was for foresters. Simple effects analysis shows that
residents from regions with a long history of wolf presence
(east of the Vistula River)held less positive attitudes than
did residents from regions where wolves have recovered
more recently (west of the Vistula River)for both ‘Affect
and benefits’(F
1,605
=11.10, P=0.001, d=0.39)and
‘Costs and conservation support’(F
1,609
=24.50, P<0.001,
d=0.60), representing minimal to typical effect sizes. In
contrast, foresters from each side of the Vistula River did
not differ in any of the wolf attitude subscales.
When comparing foresters and residents in regions with
a similar history of wolf presence (i.e., from regions either
east or west of the Vistula River), foresters expressed
more negative attitudes for ‘Cost and conservation support’
Table 2. Results from a 2‐way analysis of variance for group (rural resi-
dent, forester)and wolf history (short, long)for the 3 wolf attitude sub-
scales: “Affect and benefits”(n=609),“Costs and conservation support”
(n=613), and “Fear of wolves”(n=603). Data were collected from for-
esters and rural residents in 6 regions of Poland between March 2016 and
March 2017.
Attitude df
Mean
square FPη
2
Affect and benefits
Group 1 0.00 0.01 0.941 0.00
Wolf history 1 0.66 1.27 0.261 0.00
Group ×Wolf history 1 7.19 13.84 <0.001 0.02
Costs and conservation support
Group 1 24.86 40.42 <0.001 0.06
Wolf history 1 12.47 20.27 <0.001 0.03
Group ×Wolf history 1 4.51 7.32 0.007 0.01
Fear of wolves
Group 1 33.29 28.59 <0.001 0.05
Wolf history 1 7.90 6.79 0.009 0.01
Group ×Wolf history 1 0.00 0.00 0.958 0.00
Gosling et al. •Attitudes Toward Wolves 5
than did rural residents (west: F
1,609
=40.69, P<0.001,
d=0.71; east: F
1,609
=6.73, P=0.010, d=0.31), again
representing minimal to typical effect sizes. For ‘Affect and
benefits,’a cross‐over effect was evident: west of the Vistula
River foresters expressed more negative attitudes than did
rural residents (F
1,605
=7.13, P=0.008, d=0.28), but east
of the Vistula the reverse was true (F
1,605
=6.70, P=0.010,
d=−0.33), representing minimal effect sizes. There were
no interaction effects for ‘Fear of wolves.’Here the main
effects indicated that foresters expressed lower levels of fear,
mean score 3.4 ±1.1 (SD), than did rural residents
(2.9 ±1.1), while respondents west of the Vistula River
were less fearful (3.3 ±1.1)than were respondents from the
east (3.1 ±1.1).
The 3 regression models predicting wolf attitudes ex-
plained 17–35% of variation in the subscale scores (Table 3).
‘Affect and benefits’was positively influenced by knowledge,
mutualism values, and education level, and negatively in-
fluenced by age, being a hunter and owning livestock. ‘Costs
and conservation support’was also positively influenced by
knowledge and mutualism values and negatively influenced
by hunting beliefs, a long history of wolf presence in a re-
gion, age, and being a hunter or forester. Finally, knowledge
and experience tended to increase scores for ‘Fear of wolves’
(i.e., were associated with lower levels of fear), while a long
history of wolf presence was associated with greater levels
of fear.
Attitudes Toward Wolf Management
Only 32% of respondents agreed that wolves should be
completely protected, 47% disagreed, and 21% had no
opinion. Greater than half (55%)of respondents would
support seasonal wolf hunting, and 50% agreed that wolf
hunting should be restricted to specific areas. Support for
unrestricted hunting, however, was very limited—only 11%
of respondents believed that wolves should be hunted all
year round.
West of the Vistula River, where wolf recovery is a more
recent phenomenon, foresters disagreed, on average, that
wolves should be completely protected; however, rural res-
idents tended to agree, the difference between groups
representing a typical to substantial effect size (Table 4;
Fig. 2a). Similarly, foresters, on average, agreed that wolf
hunting should be allowed in restricted seasons and re-
stricted areas, whereas rural residents tended to oppose
these management options (typical effect size). On average,
foresters and rural residents both opposed year‐round wolf
hunting; relatively low PCI
2
values for this management
action (0.16 and 0.10 for foresters and rural residents, re-
spectively)suggest a high degree of consensus within each
Table 3. Regression model of possible predictors for 3 measures of attitudes toward wolves: “Affect and benefits”(n=574),“Costs and conservation
support”(n=576), and “Fear of wolves”(n=567), where b=unstandardized coefficients and β=standardized coefficients. Data were collected from
foresters and rural residents in 6 regions of Poland between March 2016 and March 2017.
Affect and benefits Costs and conservation support Fear of wolves
Adjusted R
2
0.27 0.35 0.17
F20.08 29.00 12.10
P≤0.001 ≤0.001 ≤0.001
Possible predictors bβbβbβ
Knowledge 0.17 0.30* 0.13 0.19* 0.27 0.30*
Experience 0.03 0.04 −0.02 −0.04 0.16 0.18*
Mutualism 0.31 0.36* 0.28 0.26* 0.05 0.03
Hunting beliefs −0.04 −0.06 −0.18 −0.22* −0.06 −0.05
Wolf history of region −0.00 −0.00 −0.19 −0.11* −0.27 −0.12*
Gender −0.01 −0.01 −0.03 −0.02 0.08 0.04
Age −0.01 −0.10* −0.01 −0.09* −0.00 −0.00
Education (degree)0.16 0.11* 0.07 0.04 0.14 0.06
Hunter −0.19 −0.10* −0.34 −0.17* 0.11 0.04
Livestock −0.15 −0.10* −0.09 −0.05 −0.16 −0.07
Forester 0.12 0.00 −0.16 −0.01* 0.16 0.07
*P<0.05
Table 4. Comparisons of attitudes between rural residents (n=141–142)and foresters (n=161–162)west of the Vistula River for the 8 wolf management
options. Data were collected from 3 regions of Poland between March 2016 and March 2017.
Mean
Management option Residents Foresters tdf Pd
Complete protection 3.47 2.70 5.88 301 <0.001 0.68
Hunting in restricted season 2.88 3.51 −4.77 302 <0.001 −0.55
Year round hunting 2.06 2.18 −1.10 301 0.272 −0.13
Hunting in restricted areas 2.81 3.27 −3.43 301 0.001 −0.39
Killing a wolf that killed livestock 3.35 3.50 −1.22 301 0.225 −0.14
Compensate farmers for livestock losses 3.88 4.19 −3.25 301 0.001 −0.37
Only compensate farmers if they use methods to prevent losses 3.37 3.07 2.35 301 0.019 0.27
Subsidies for farmers in wolf areas 3.10 3.43 −2.87 302 0.004 −0.33
6 Wildlife Society Bulletin
group. Both foresters and rural residents also agreed, on
average, with killing a wolf that had killed livestock.
East of the Vistula River, foresters expressed similar views
to their counterparts in the west (Fig. 2b); they tended to
oppose strict protection of wolves and agree with hunting in
specific seasons and areas. Interestingly, east of the Vistula
rural residents also, on average, opposed strict protection
and agreed with seasonal hunting, with neutral attitudes
toward allowing wolf hunting in specific areas. Both groups
also supported, on average, killing a wolf that had killed
livestock: relatively low PCI
2
values (0.14 and 0.16 for
foresters and rural residents, respectively)and a lack of a
difference in the views of each group suggest united support
for lethal control of problem wolves (Table 5).
When asked about compensation, both foresters and rural
residents from west and east of the Vistula River agreed, on
average, that farmers should be compensated for losses
caused by wolves; low PCI
2
values for this item indicate a
high level of consensus within each group (Fig. 2a–b).In
comparison, proposals to limit compensation to farms that
use methods to minimize predation or to provide subsidies
to farms within wolf areas were met with more neutral
attitudes.
DISCUSSION
Our study provides evidence that despite increasing wolf
abundance and substantial livestock depredation in the
eastern study areas, neutral to positive attitudes toward
wolves have persisted in rural areas of Poland. Scores for the
‘Affect and benefits’subscale suggest that foresters and rural
residents on both sides of the Vistula River tend to like
wolves as a species and value their role in ecosystems,
matching previous research that reported positive attitudes
toward wolves among foresters and residents in Poland
(Balčiauskas et al. 2007, Olszańska 2012). However, results
uncovered differences in the attitudes of foresters and rural
residents, and between residents from regions with different
histories of wolf presence. Furthermore, it appears that
positive attitudes toward wolves as a species do not neces-
sarily correspond with support for the current ban on wolf
hunting.
(a)
(b)
Figure 2. Potential for Conflict Index (PCI
2
; Vaske et al. 2010)for attitudes toward wolf management options for foresters (dark green)and rural residents
(light green)in Poland a)in 3 regions west, and b)in 3 regions east of the Vistula River. Asterisks indicate management options for which the opinions of
foresters and rural residents differed (Tables 4 and 5). Sample size varied by group and question: for rural residents west n=141–142, for rural residents east
n=147–149, for foresters west n=161–162, and for foresters east n=160–162. Data were collected between March 2016 and March 2017.
Gosling et al. •Attitudes Toward Wolves 7
Rural residents from the 3 regions with an uninterrupted
history of wolf presence expressed less positive attitudes and
lower support for wolf conservation than did residents from
the 3 regions where wolves have recovered more recently.
This finding, which represents a medium effect size, does
not fit the hypothesis that a long history of coexistence will
lead to greater acceptance of wolves among local inhabitants
(Williams et al. 2002, Fritts et al. 2003). Instead, results
align with studies from Europe and the United States that
found local attitudes tend to become more negative the
longer wolves have been abundant in a region, which is
usually attributed to residents’greater exposure to wolf‐
related conflicts (Treves et al. 2013, Dressel et al. 2014).
In the current study, the substantial rates of livestock
depredation in the 3 eastern study areas are likely to be an
important factor shaping local residents’attitudes toward
wolves. Any acceptance generated from an uninterrupted
history of wolf presence may be negated by residents’greater
exposure to negative information about wolf attacks on
domestic animals (Ericsson and Heberlein 2003, Karlsson
and Sjöström 2007). However, given that in our study all
regions with a long history of wolf presence also suffer
substantial rates of depredation, we are not able to isolate
the individual effects of direct wolf–livestock conflicts and
more indirect cultural factors (e.g., acceptance of carnivores
born of a long history of coexistence). It seems likely that
exposure to livestock depredation is a major driver of local
residents’more negative attitudes in the eastern study areas,
given the high livestock losses in each region. We cannot
directly demonstrate this link through our analysis, however,
because experience score was not a significant negative
predictor of attitudes in the regression models. This sug-
gests that the more negative attitudes in the eastern study
areas are more likely the result of second‐hand knowledge of
local human–wolf conflicts, for example from talking to
neighbors about wolf attacks on livestock, than the result of
personal experiences. This aligns with a Swedish study that
found indirect experiences drive negative attitudes of resi-
dents living in or near wolf territories (Karlsson and
Sjöström 2007).
According to Chapron et al. (2014), animal husbandry
practices that reduce depredation (such as livestock‐
guarding dogs and electric fences)are a prerequisite for the
coexistence of people and carnivores in regions with an
uninterrupted history of wolf presence. In 2 of the eastern
study regions (Augustów and Białowieża), livestock pro-
tection measures are not widely implemented and cattle are
often left unattended on pastures overnight. Therefore,
programs to improve animal husbandry on vulnerable farms
in these regions (e.g., through electric fencing or the use of
night corrals), as well as wild ungulate harvesting regimes
that ensure a stable density of natural prey for wolves, could
be important strategies to reduce wolf–livestock conflicts
and help build local acceptance for the carnivore (Gula
2008c, Chapron et al. 2014). However, in the third eastern
study area (Bieszczady)electric fencing, shepherds, and
guarding dogs are routinely used to protect sheep on pas-
tures, but predation rates remain high. It is clear that
minimizing livestock depredation is essential to foster local
acceptance of large carnivores in rural areas (Chapron et al.
2014), but the situation in Bieszczady suggests a caveat that
the adoption of farming practices that aim to reduce dep-
redation does not alone guarantee positive attitudes toward
the predators.
Unlike rural residents, foresters’attitudes toward wolves
did not vary across regions with different histories of wolf
presence, aligning with previous research (Olszańska 2012).
The consistency of foresters’attitudes may partly reflect that
foresters are employees of the same government agency and
their views toward wildlife are likely to be influenced by the
professional culture of that agency (Kaltenborn et al. 1999).
This may be particularly pertinent for Polish forestry, which
has a strong cultural identity (Lawrence 2009). Other
studies have also reported a strong effect of profession on
attitudes toward wolves (Kaltenborn et al. 1999, Naughton‐
Treves et al. 2003). However, it should be noted that be-
cause the occupation of rural residents is unknown, our
results do not provide any insights into the influence of
profession on attitudes beyond that of being a forester.
On both sides of the Vistula River, foresters tended to be
more critical of the costs of wolves and less supportive of
wolf conservation than were rural residents (representing a
moderate effect size). By the nature of their occupation,
foresters in this study frequently work in forests inhabited
by wolves and are therefore likely to be more aware of the
presence and impacts of the predator (e.g., by encountering
remains of prey in the forest). This familiarity may heighten
concerns about the abundance and costs of wolves and
Table 5. Comparisons of attitudes between rural residents (n=147–149)and foresters (n=160–162)east of the Vistula River for the 8 wolf management
options. Data were collected from 3 regions of Poland between March 2016 and March 2017.
Mean
Management option Residents Foresters tdf Pd
Complete protection 2.82 2.43 3.15 308 0.002 0.36
Hunting in restricted season 3.19 3.63 −3.61 307 <0.001 −0.41
Year round hunting 2.49 2.29 1.69 306 0.092 0.19
Hunting in restricted areas 3.05 3.53 −3.96 308 <0.001 −0.45
Killing a wolf that killed livestock 3.59 3.83 −2.31 306 0.022 −0.26
Compensate farmers for livestock losses 3.97 4.18 −2.22 308 0.027 −0.25
Only compensate farmers if they use methods
to prevent losses 3.03 2.88 1.11 306 0.266 0.13
Subsidies for farmers in wolf areas 3.31 3.04 2.10 309 0.036 0.24
8 Wildlife Society Bulletin
temper support for strict protection. Nonetheless, foresters
could also be expected to view wolves favorably because of
the carnivore’s potential to reduce browsing damage in
forests by reducing red deer (Cervus elaphus)and roe deer
(Capreolus capreolus)numbers. The strong ties between
hunting and forestry in Poland may be an important factor
influencing foresters’attitudes. For example, the Polish
Hunting Association mostly hunts in forests managed by
the State Forests Holding, with a formal agreement be-
tween the 2 organizations to collaborate closely on wildlife
management (State Forests National Forest Holding [State
Forests] and Polish Hunting Association [PHA] 2016).
Greater than a third of the sampled foresters were also
hunters, making them more likely to have an interest in
hunting wolves as a trophy species, but also to be concerned
about the effect of a growing wolf population on hunting
opportunities for wild ungulates in Poland (although the
item related to hunting effects was not included in the
analysis). Hunters in Poland claim they already incur eco-
nomic losses from reduced hunting sales in areas where
wolves are present (Okarma et al. 2011). Our regression
model confirmed that being a hunter is associated with
more negative attitudes toward the carnivore.
Consistent with Olszańska (2012), we found low support
for the ban on wolf hunting in Poland. Results indicate that
>20 years after wolves were declared a protected species,
more than half of respondents would support seasonal wolf
hunting. Again, there appears to be important differences in
the attitudes of foresters and rural residents, and between
residents from either side of the Vistula River. Support for
hunting was strongest among foresters, whose attitudes
appear to have remained stable over time; in 2006, ap-
proximately 60% of foresters agreed with seasonal hunting
(Olszańska 2012), compared with 65% in the current study.
Given that foresters tended to be critical of wolves’effects
on livestock and game, their opposition to strict protection
may reflect a desire to curb the negative effects of the car-
nivore by regulating wolf numbers through hunting.
Rural residents were less supportive of strict protection
and more supportive of hunting in regions with continuous
wolf presence, compared with residents from regions where
wolves have recently recovered. This could indicate that
rural residents may become less accepting of wolf protection
the longer wolves have been abundant in a region, matching
other European studies that report a decline in positive at-
titudes over time (Dressel et al. 2014). However, it is also
possible that opposition to wolf protection (and more neg-
ative attitudes)have simply persisted in areas where wolves
have been continuously present, but been ‘forgotten’in re-
gions where wolves were rare or absent for a long period. In
each case, we would argue that livestock depredation is
likely to be an important driver of attitudes. Frequent live-
stock depredation east of the Vistula River may promote (or
maintain)more negative attitudes toward wolves, whereas
the absence of livestock depredation in the western study
areas may have allowed more positive attitudes to persist (or
negative attitudes to fade over time). As large carnivore
recovery continues across Europe, livestock depredation and
human–wolf conflicts are only likely to intensify (Mech
2016), posing a key challenge for maintaining local support
for wolf protection in rural areas.
Differences in attitudes, however, could also reflect dif-
ferent cultural and socio‐economic factors in regions with
long and short histories of wolf presence. For example,
population density was lower in the 3 eastern areas, and
rural areas in eastern Poland also tend to be poorer and less
industrialized than rural areas in the west (Rosner and
Stanny 2017). It is conceivable that people living in these
more remote and sparsely populated regions may feel more
marginalized than those living in the more densely popu-
lated and industrialized west. This attitude may heighten
the perceived urban–rural divide in these communities, fu-
eling feelings of political alienation, which could manifest in
collective resistance to wolf conservation and subsequently
in more negative attitudes among residents (Eriksson 2016).
Although we focused on comparing attitudes across re-
gions and interest groups, results from the regression anal-
ysis suggest that respondents’attitudes toward wolves were
partly influenced by their knowledge of the species and their
underlying values toward wildlife (i.e., mutualism values).
This corroborates previous studies that found a positive
relationship between knowledge and support for wolves
(Ericsson and Heberlein 2003, Glikman et al. 2012), and an
inverse relationship between knowledge and fear (Majić
Skrbinšek et al. 2015), and which have linked wildlife value
orientations with attitudes toward large carnivores (e.g.,
Zinn and Pierce 2002, Hermann and Menzel 2013,
Hermann et al. 2013). These findings support the use of
regionally targeted awareness campaigns to help improve
attitudes toward wolves in rural areas (Bath 2013). Such
campaigns could focus on factual information about wolf
biology and habitat, and aim to address misconceptions
about wolf–human conflicts that may contribute to negative
attitudes. For example, educational messages should em-
phasize that wolf attacks on humans are extremely rare
(Linnell et al. 2002), and that if wolves exist near livestock
in areas where wild ungulates are abundant, wolves still
selectively predate on wild prey (Meriggi and Lovari 1996,
Gula 2008b). Perceived competition between hunters and
wolves for wild ungulates could be addressed by commu-
nicating that in human‐dominated landscapes, large carni-
vores only have a very limited effect on the density of their
prey (Kuijper et al. 2016). These fact‐based messages
could also be complemented by messages that appeal to
people’s values (such as messages that focus on the rights of
wolves to exist)to further help to foster support for wolf
conservation.
Limitations
A key limitation of our study relates to differences between
regions with long and short histories of wolf presence. This
creates a confounding effect, where it is not possible to
isolate the influences of livestock depredation, socio‐
economic factors and historical wolf presence on local atti-
tudes toward wolves. Therefore we cannot judge whether
residents in the study regions with a short history of wolf
Gosling et al. •Attitudes Toward Wolves 9
presence expressed more positive attitudes because a)they
have had less time to develop negative opinions, b)they
have been exposed to fewer wolf–livestock conflicts, or c)
they feel less marginalized. Unfortunately, the geographic
history of wolf presence in Poland makes it difficult to avoid
such confounding effects in the study design. In times of
persecution, wolves persisted in more remote (and less
densely populated)areas of easternmost Poland (Okarma
1993). The prevalence of outdoor cattle and sheep grazing
in these regions leads to a greater risk of wolf–livestock
conflicts (Jędrzejewski et al. 2008). Here it should be noted
that the greater predation rates at the eastern study areas are
not the result of greater livestock density (which was gen-
erally greater west of the Vistula River), but can instead be
ascribed to greater overlap between wolf territories and
grazing land (Gula 2008b). Nevertheless, including other
regions in Poland where wolves are not present (or present
in very low numbers)in the survey design would help future
studies to tease out the separate effects of wolf presence and
livestock depredation on local attitudes toward wolves.
Another weakness of our study is the possible bias asso-
ciated with our sampling of rural residents. While a lack of a
reliable sampling frame prevented us from conducting true
probability sampling, we made special effort to reach a wide
range of people and make the selection process as random as
possible (e.g., by distributing questionnaires via individuals
not associated with wolf research and at community meet-
ings and local businesses), to minimize bias and achieve a
representative sample. To help assess the representativeness
of the rural resident sample, we used census data to compare
the gender and age profile of respondents with that of the
population in the communes where the survey was carried
out: results (not shown)suggest that elderly residents were
underrepresented in the sample. This could contribute to
more positive attitudes because attitudes toward wolves are
often found (also in our study)to correlate negatively with
age (Zimmermann et al. 2001, Dressel et al. 2014, Majić
Skrbinšek et al. 2015). While the skewed sex ratio of
the forester sample reflects that forestry is still a male‐
dominated profession in Poland (Bath et al. 2008), the ratio
of females in our rural resident sample (59%)is greater than
that of the population (47%). This may contribute to less
positive attitudes, given that many studies have found that
women tend to be more negative than men are toward large
carnivores (e.g., Bath et al. 2008, Olszańska 2012, Dressel
et al. 2014). Although the neutral to positive attitudes re-
vealed in our study are consistent with other Polish studies
(Balčiauskas et al. 2007, Olszańska 2012), given the non-
probability sampling method, care is needed in generalizing
our results to the wider population of rural residents living
in wolf areas in Poland. Future studies could consider al-
ternative sampling frames to target rural residents (e.g.,
randomly selecting houses identified from aerial photo-
graphs); or, if this is not feasible, use quota sampling based
on age classes and gender.
Finally, it should be noted that in this study, age and time
lived in a wolf area may affect the validity of our measure of
direct experience of wolves. We did not measure time lived
in a wolf area, but there was a minimal (r=0.14)but rel-
evant (P<0.001)correlation between age and experience
score.
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
Our study provides evidence that residents’attitudes are
less positive in regions where wolves have been abundant
for a longer period and that suffer high rates of wolf
depredation on livestock. Results reinforce the importance
of curbing wolf–livestock conflicts (e.g., through im-
proving animal husbandry practices on vulnerable farms)to
increase local acceptance of the carnivore. Our results are
relevant to other regions experiencing wolf recovery, and
point to the need for a proactive approach to counteract a
potential shift toward more negative attitudes and reduced
supportforwolfconservationifdepredationratesarehigh.
Relationships between knowledge, mutualism values, and
attitudes suggests that targeted educational campaigns in-
volving both fact‐and value‐based messages could be
an effective means of fostering and maintaining support
for wolf conservation, in areas with both long and short
historiesofwolfpresence.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was funded by the Polish National Science
Centre (grants NCN2011/01/B/NZ8/04233, NCN2012/
05/N/NZ8/00860), SAVE Wildlife Conservation Fund,
and Technical University of Munich. M. Hardej helped
translate the questionnaire. A. Adamowicz, K. Kochano-
wicz, M. Kwiatkowska, A. Milanowski, D. Myczkowski,
T. Pietrzykowski, B. Pirga, J. Harmuszkiewicz, and A.
Laskowska‐Ginszt distributed the questionnaires among
foresters and rural residents in the study area. We also thank
all of the forestry districts that participated in the survey:
Baligród, Cisna, Człopa, Krzyż, Mirosławiec, Pieńsk,
Ruszów, Skarżysko, Stąporków, Suchedniów, Tuczno,
Wałcz, and Wymiarki. Finally, we would like to thank the
Associate Editor and 2 anonymous reviewers for their in-
sightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript.
LITERATURE CITED
Balčiauskas, L., H. Volodka, and M. Kazlauskas. 2007. Wolf conservation
and acceptance: comparison of south east Lithuania and north east
Poland. Acta Biologica Universitatis Daugavpiliensis 8:20–27.
Bath, A. J. 2009. Working with people to achieve wolf conservation in
Europe and North America. Pages 173–199 in M. Musiani, L. Boitani,
and P. C. Paque, editors. A new era for wolves and people: wolf recovery,
human attitudes and policy. The University of Calgary Press, Alberta,
Canada.
Bath, A. J. 2013. Introduction to the human dimension: a valuable research
tool to achieve wildlife conservation objectives and maned wolf con-
servation. Pages 265–282 in A. G. Consorte‐McCrea and E. F. Santos,
editors. Ecology of the maned wolf: multidisciplinary perspectives. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.
Bath, A., A. Olszańska, and H. Okarma. 2008. From a human dimensions
perspective, the unknown large carnivore: public attitudes toward Eur-
asian lynx in Poland. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 13:31–46.
Bisi, J., S. Kurki, M. Svensberg, and T. Liukkonen. 2007. Human di-
mensions of wolf (Canis lupus)conflicts in Finland. European Journal of
Wildlife Research 53:304–314.
Breitenmoser, U. 1998. Large predators in the Alps: the fall and rise of
man’s competitors. Biological Conservation 83:279–289.
10 Wildlife Society Bulletin
Carter, N. H., and J. D. C. Linnell. 2016. Co‐adaptation is key to coex-
isting with large carnivores. Trends in Ecology and Evolution
31:575–578.
Central Statistical Office. 2014. Ochrona Środowiska 2014 [Environment
2014], Central Statistical Office, Warszawa, Poland. [In Polish and
English.]
Central Statistical Office. 2015. Ochrona Środowiska 2015 [Environment
2015], Central Statistical Office, Warszawa, Poland. [In Polish and
English.]
Central Statistical Office. 2016. Ochrona Środowiska 2016 [Environment
2016], Central Statistical Office, Warszawa, Poland. [In Polish and
English.]
Chapron, G., P. Kaczensky, J. D. C. Linnell, M. von Arx, D. Huber, H.
Andrén, J. V. López‐Bao, M. Adamec, F. Álvares, O. Anders, L.
Balčiauskas, V. Balys, P. Bedő, F. Bego, J. C. Blanco, U. Breitenmoser,
H. Brøseth, L. Bufka, R. Bunikyte, P. Ciucci, A. Dutsov, T. Engleder,
C. Fuxjäger, C. Groff, K. Holmala, B. Hoxha, Y. Iliopoulos, O. Ionescu,
J. Jeremić, K. Jerina, G. Kluth, F. Knauer, I. Kojola, I. Kos, M. Krofel, J.
Kubala, S. Kunovac, J. Kusak, M. Kutal, O. Liberg, A. Majić, P. Männil,
R. Manz, E. Marboutin, F. Marucco, D. Melovski, K. Mersini, Y.
Mertzanis, R. W. Mysłajek, S. Nowak, J. Odden, J. Ozolins, G.
Palomero, M. Paunović, J. Persson, H. Potočnik, P. Quenette, G. Rauer,
I. Reinhardt, R. Rigg, A. Ryser, V. Salvatori, T. Skrbinšek, A. Stojanov,
J. E. Swenson, L. Szemethy, A. Trajçe, E. Tsingarska‐Sedefcheva, M.
Váňa, R. Veeroja, P. Wabakken, M. Wölfl, S. Wölfl, F. Zimmermann,
D. Zlatanova, and L. Boitani. 2014. Recovery of large carnivores in
Europe’s modern human‐dominated landscapes. Science 346:1517–1519.
Dressel, S., C. Sandström, and G. Ericsson. 2014. A meta‐analysis of
studies on attitudes toward bears and wolves across Europe 1976–2012.
Conservation Biology 29:565–574.
Ericsson, G., and T. A. Heberlein. 2003. Attitudes of hunters, locals, and
the general public in Sweden now that the wolves are back. Biological
Conservation 111:149–159.
Eriksson, M. 2016. Rurality and collective attitude effects on wolf policy.
Sustainability (Switzerland)8:1–13.
Eriksson, M., C. Sandström, and G. Ericsson. 2015. Direct experience and
attitude change towards bears and wolves. Wildlife Biology 21:131–137.
Field, A. 2013. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Fourth
edition. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
Frank, B., A. Monaco, and A. J. Bath. 2015. Beyond standard wildlife
management: a pathway to encompass human dimension findings in wild
boar management. European Journal of Wildlife Research 61:723–730.
Fritts, S. H., R. O. Stephenson, R. D. Hayes, and L. Boitani. 2003. Wolves and
humans. Pages 289–316 in D.MechandL.Boitani,editors.Wolves:be-
havior, ecology and conservation. University of Chicago Press, Illinois, USA.
Glikman, J. A., J. J. Vaske, A. J. Bath, P. Ciucci, and L. Boitani. 2012.
Residents’support for wolf and bear conservation: the moderating in-
fluence of knowledge. European Journal of Wildlife Research
58:295–302.
Gula, R. 2008a. Legal protection of wolves in Poland: implications for the
status of the wolf population. European Journal of Wildlife Research
54:163–170.
Gula, R. 2008b. Wolf depredation on domestic animals in the Polish
Carpathian Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:283–289.
Gula, R. 2008c. Wolves return to Poland’s Holy Cross primeval forest.
International Wolf Magazine Spring: 17–21.
Gula, R., K. Bojarska, A. Milanowski, and J. Major. 2018. SAVE Foun-
dation wolf research and monitoring—7th interim report. SAVE
Foundation, Środa Śląska, Poland.
Hermann, N., and S. Menzel. 2013. Predicting the intention to support
the return of wolves: a quantitative study with teenagers. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 36:153–161.
Hermann, N., C. Voß, and S. Menzel. 2013. Wildlife value orientations as
predicting factors in support of reintroducing bison and of wolves mi-
grating to Germany. Journal for Nature Conservation 21:125–132.
Jędrzejewski, W., B. Jędrzejewska, B. Zawadzka, T. Borowik, S. Nowak,
and R. W. Mysłajek. 2008. Habitat suitability model for Polish wolves
based on long‐term national census. Animal Conservation 11:377–390.
Kaczensky, P., M. Blazic, and H. Gossow. 2004. Public attitudes towards
brown bears (Ursus arctos)in Slovenia. Biological Conservation 118:661–674.
Kaltenborn, B. P., T. Bjerke, and J. Vittersø. 1999. Attitudes toward large
carnivores among sheep farmers, wildlife managers, and research biolo-
gists in Norway. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 4:57–73.
Karlsson, J., and M. Sjöström. 2007. Human attitudes towards wolves, a
matter of distance. Biological Conservation 137:610–616.
Kuijper, D. P. J., E. Sahlén, B. Elmhagen, S. Chamaillé‐Jammes, H.
Sand, K. Lone, and J. P. G. M. Cromsigt. 2016. Paws without claws?
Ecological effects of large carnivores in anthropogenic landscapes.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 283(1841):
20161625.
Lawrence, A. 2009. Forestry in transition: imperial legacy and negotiated
expertise in Romania and Poland. Forest Policy and Economics
11:429–436.
Linnell, J. D. C., R. Andersen, S. Andersone, L. Balčiauskas, J. C. Blanco,
L. Boitani, S. Brainerd, U. Breitenmoser, I. Kojola, O. Liberg, J. Loe, H.
Okarma, H. C. Pedersen, C. Promberger, H. Sand, E. J. Solberg, H.
Valdmann, and P. Wabakken. 2002. The fear of wolves: a review of
wolf attacks on humans. Oppdragsmelding 731. Norwegian Institute of
Nature Research, Trondheim, Norway.
Linnell, J. D. C., J. E. Swenson, and R. Anderson. 2000. Conservation of
biodiversity in Scandinavian boreal forests: large carnivores as flagships,
umbrellas, indicators, or keystones? Biodiversity and Conservation
9:857–868.
Majić, A., and A. J. Bath. 2010. Changes in attitudes toward wolves in
Croatia. Biological Conservation 143:255–260.
MajićSkrbinšek, A., T. Skrbinšek, U. Marinko, and F. Marucco. 2015.
Public attitudes towards wolves and wolf conservation in Italian and
Slovenian Alps–Technical Report, Project LIFE 12 NAT/IT/00080
WOLFALPS.
Mech, L. D. 2016. Costs of European wolf and human coexistence.
E‐letter in Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., J. D. C. Linnell, M. von Arx, D.
Huber, H. Andren, et al., 2014. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s
modern human‐dominated landscapes. Science 346:1517–1519.
Meriggi, A., and S. Lovari. 1996. A review of wolf predation in southern
Europe: does the wolf prefer wild prey to livestock? Journal of Applied
Ecology 33:1561–1571.
Mysłajek, R. W., M. Tracz, M. Tracz, P. Tomczak, M. Szewczyk, N.
Niedźwiecka, and S. Nowak. 2018. Spatial organization in wolves Canis
lupus recolonizing north‐west Poland: large territories at low population
density. Mammalian Biology 92:37–44.
Naughton‐Treves, L., R. Grossberg, and A. Treves. 2003. Paying for
tolerance: rural citizens’attitudes toward wolf depredation and com-
pensation. Conservation Biology 17:1500–1511.
Needham, M. D., J. J. Vaske, and M. J. Manfredo. 2004. Hunters’
behavior and acceptance of management actions related to chronic
wasting disease in eight states. Human Dimensions of Wildlife
9:211–231.
Nowak, S., and R. W. Mysłajek. 2017. Response of the wolf (Canis lupus
Linnaeus, 1758)population to various management regimes at the edge
of its distribution range in western Poland. Applied Ecology and Envi-
ronmental Research 15:187–203.
Okarma, H. 1993. Status and management of the wolf in Poland. Bio-
logical Conservation 66:153–158.
Okarma, H., R. Gula, and P. Brewczyński. 2011. Krajowa strategia
ochrony wilka Canis lupus warunkująca trwałość populacji gatunku w
Polsce [The project of the wolf management plan in Poland], Warsaw
University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland. [In Polish.]
Olszańska, A. 2012. Comparison of attitudes of the key interest groups
toward the wolf (Canis lupus)and the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx)con-
servation in Poland. Dissertation, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków,
Poland.
Randveer, T. 2006. The attitude of Estonians towards large carnivores.
Acta Zoologica Lituanica 16:119–123.
Rosner, A., and M. Stanny. 2017. Socio‐economic development of rural
areas in Poland. The European Fund for the Development of Polish
Villages Foundation and the Institute of Rural and Agricultural Devel-
opment, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Slagle, K. M., J. T. Bruskotter, and R. S. Wilson. 2012. The role of affect
in public support and opposition to wolf management. Human Di-
mensions of Wildlife 17:44–57.
Sponarski, C. C., J. J. Vaske, and A. J. Bath. 2015. Differences in man-
agement action acceptability for coyotes in a national park. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 39:239–247.
State Forests National Forest Holding [State Forests] and Polish Hunting
Association [PHA] 2016. Porozumienie zawarte w dniu 12 stycznia 2016
r(Agreement concluded on January 12, 2016)<http://www.lasy.gov.pl/pl/
Gosling et al. •Attitudes Toward Wolves 11
nasza‐praca/lowiectwo/porozumienie‐pomiedzy‐dyrektorem‐generalnym‐
lasow‐panstwowych‐i‐przewodniczacym‐zg‐pzl>. Accessed 19 Sep 2018.
[In Polish.]
Teel, T. L., M. J. Manfredo, F. S. Jensen, A. E. Buijs, A. Fischer, C.Riepe,
R. Arlinghaus, and M. H. Jacobs. 2010. Understanding the cognitive basis
for human–wildlife relationships as a key to successful protected‐area
management. International Journal of Sociology 40:104–123.
Treves, A., L. Naughton‐Treves, and V. Shelley. 2013. Longitudinal
analysis of attitudes toward wolves. Conservation Biology 27:315–323.
Vaske, J. J. 2008. Survey research and analysis—applications in parks,
recreation and human dimensions. Venture, State College, Pennsyl-
vania, USA.
Vaske, J. J., J. Beaman, H. Barreto, and L. B. Shelby. 2010. An extension
and further validation of the potential for conflict index. Leisure Sciences
32:240–254.
von Arx, M., C. Breitenmoser‐Würsten, F. Zimmermann, and U.
Breitenmoser. 2004. Status and conservation of the Eurasian lynx (Lynx
lynx)inEuropein2001.KORABericht,MuribeiBern,Switzerland.
https://www2.nina.no/lcie_new/pdf/634991391273336522_Arx%20KORA
%20ELOIS.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2019.
Williams, C. K., G. Ericsson, and T. A. Heberlein. 2002. A quantitative
summary of attitudes toward wolves and their reintroduction
(1972–2000). Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:575–584.
Wolsan, M., M. Bieniek, and T. Buchalczuk. 1992. The history of dis-
tributional and numerical changes of the wolf Canis lupus L. in Poland.
Pages 375–380 in B. Bobek, K. Perzanowski, and W. Regelin, editors.
Transactions the 18th IUGB Congress, Kraków, Global Trends in
Wildlife Management, Volume 2. Świat Press, Kraków‐Warszawa,
Poland.
Zeiler, H., A. Zedrosser, and A. Bath. 1999. Attitudes of Austrian
hunters and Vienna residents toward bear and lynx in Austria. Ursus
11:193–200.
Zimmermann, B., P. Wabakken, and M. Dötterer. 2001. Human–
carnivore interactions in Norway: how does the re‐appearance of large
carnivores affect people’s attitudes and levels of fear? Forest Snow and
Landscape Research 76:137–153.
Zinn, H. C., and C. L. Pierce. 2002. Values, gender, and concern
about potentially dangerous wildlife. Environment and Behavior
34:239–256.
Associate Editor: Miller.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information may be found in the
online version of this article at the publisher's web‐site. The
full questionnaire (in English)is provided.
12 Wildlife Society Bulletin
