Modelling stakeholder satisfaction for conflict resolution in wildlife management: a case of wolf population in Sweden

Abstract

The Swedish wolf population has rebounded from near extinction in the 1960s to around 365 individuals in 2020, after the implementation of the Hunting Act (jaktlagen) in 1966. This recent increase in the wolf population has evoked a serious divide between “pro-wolf” and “anti-wolf” Swedish citizens. Despite the continuous efforts by the Swedish government to reconcile this antagonism, the conflicts are persistent with a sign of impasse. In this paper, we present a modelling tool, which can bring transparent and “structured dialogue to the opposing positions.” This approach includes a stylized framework for quantitative modelling of stakeholders’ satisfaction levels regarding their preferred size of the wildlife population in question, based on the concept of satisfaction functions. We argue that this framework may contribute to conflict resolution by bringing a common understanding among stakeholders, facilitate a societal discourse, and potentially help to assess likely support for conservation policies. We present a showcase application of this modeling tool in the context of the conflict over the Swedish wolf conservation policies. The model is informed using a thorough literature review as well as interviews, which identified relevant stakeholder groups and respective drivers of their attitudes towards wolves.

Human dimensions of grizzly bear conservation: The social factors underlying satisfaction and coexistence beliefs in Montana, USA

“…We found that satisfaction with grizzly bear management followed the Goldilocks principle where satisfaction peaks when people perceive that wildlife population levels are neither too high nor too low (Figures 3–5a). Our findings are consistent with at least one other study relating satisfaction with preferred wolf population sizes for different interest groups in Sweden (Lin et al, 2021). Satisfaction measures, when applied to conservation of large carnivores such as grizzlies, may provide one important social indication of coexistence.…”

“…For example, large carnivores can drive tourism and are often the face of conservation campaigns because many people highly value these animals (Chambers & Whitehead, 2003; Naidoo et al, 2011; Richardson & Loomis, 2009; Thomas‐Walters & Raihani, 2017). On the other hand, opposition to large carnivore recovery can stem from real or perceived risks to human values and safety (Hughes & Nielsen, 2019; Lin et al, 2021; Riley & Decker, 2000; Stone et al, 2017). Despite this common “for or against” framing, evidence suggests large carnivore conservation is far more complex, where people can see the value of large carnivores and the risks they impose (Zajac et al, 2012).…”

“…Wildlife agencies and human dimensions of wildlife researchers often measure the acceptability of wildlife management actions (Metcalf et al, 2017), but measures of satisfaction with wildlife management outcomes have generally been limited to understanding recreation experiences (Lee et al, 2004; Matt & Aumiller, 2002; Vaske et al, 1982; Watkins & Poudyal, 2020). Measuring satisfaction of the public may be useful for investigating the social landscape of coexistence with large carnivores, especially if linked to normative beliefs about population sizes (Lin et al, 2021). For example, the Goldilocks principle (i.e., an optimal middle between two extremes) has been used across many fields, including astrophysics, sociology, and education (Matysek & Tomaszczyk, 2021) and may apply to wildlife management.…”