Bears and fears: Cultural capital, geography and attitudes towards large carnivores in Norway

Abstract

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 urbanÁrural divide on the issue of conservation policies and carnivore stock management.

Factors governing human fear of wolves: moderating effects of geographical location and standpoint on protected nature

“…One factor that might play into the moderating effects on self-reported fear of geographical location as well as stand point on protected nature areas is the role of personal experience of encountering wolves close to where one live (Johansson et al 2012b). Another factor might be the dependency on different livelihoods between people who live in relatively more urban and rural areas (Fredman and Sandell 2009;Blekesaune and Rønningen 2010). The pattern of antecedents reported refers to a general feeling of fear of wolves rather than the feeling experienced at a specific encounter.…”

“…In a frame analysis in Italy, Vitali (2014) reported that the perspectives of administrators and policy-makers, on the intrinsic value of the wolf, permeated the dominating frame, while the competing frame, confined largely to rural respondents, claimed that human activities should be the first priority within conservation policy. It has been suggested that the relationship between Scandinavians who live in large-carnivore areas and the managing authorities may be inflated by diverging values related to protection of nature corresponding to a utilitarian/ mutualist divide or a more anthropocentric vs ecocentric or biocentric view on nature Heberlein 2003a, 2003b;Skogen and Krange 2003;Skogen and Thrane 2007;Skogen et al 2008;Blekesaune and Rønningen 2010). Moreover, large carnivores, and in particular, wolves, play an important symbolic role in the social construction of local community because of their representation of urban power over rural areas (Skogen and Krange 2003; for a similar view on brown bears, see Blekesaune and Rønningen 2010).…”

The Uplands after neoliberalism? – The role of the small farm in rural sustainability

“…Greater influence on the management of the increasing stocks of large carnivores (wolf, bear, lynx and wolverine) is another, more controversial part of their ambition, reflecting a split between the dominant urban middle class' environmental views and those of groups within rural communities who face the practical consequences of such policies. Sheep farming, utilising hill pastures and outfields (utmark), represents a major farming system for the uplands, but this is suffering high losses to carnivores (Blekesaune and Rønningen, 2010). Above all, this set of policies is presented together as a mountain policy, and not as separate agricultural, conservation or rural development policies.…”

An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human–predator relations

“…Studies of the social dimensions of conservation tend toward quantitative social science, drawing on ideas from social psychology and economics, aimed at discovering and changing beliefs and attitudes influencing undesirable behavior, often to protect wildlife rather than humans (Blekesaune & Rønningen 2010;Dickman et al 2011;Jhamvar-Shingote & Schuett 2013;Hayman et al 2014). Empirical studies of the roles of culture and values in human-wildlife coexistence remain rare, and the humanities are almost entirely absent from the field.…”