Rurality and Collective Attitude Effects on Wolf Policy

Eriksson, Max

doi:10.3390/su8080711

Cited by 19 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Direct personal experiences are expected to play an important role in shaping attitudes toward large carnivores (Browne‐Nuñez et al, ; Doll & Ajzen, ) and while it has been postulated that direct experience of wolves would decrease support of wolf policy (Eriksson, ), our results highlight the existence and potential importance of positive experiences. Nevertheless, large carnivores do incur costs to human activities and pose specific conservation problems where they occur (Eklund et al, ; Widman & Elofsson, ), but they can also provide benefits for human well‐being (O'Bryan et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 47%

“…Negative experiences were expected to be reported more frequently by farmers or hunters (Jacobs et al, ), given the higher potential for conflicting situations with wolves (probability of depredation for farmers, or increased competition for game species or attacks on hunting dogs for hunters). Conflicts over wolf management often illustrate urban–rural divides, owing to different cultural factors and power asymmetries (Eriksson, , ). Here, trust is a critical issue as increased personal experience with carnivores can lead to decreased trust and stronger feelings of fear (Johansson et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, previous studies have shown that personal experience can decrease concerns of living in proximity to large carnivores and reduce risk perception (Carter, Riley, & Liu, ; Siemer, Hart, Decker, & Shanahan, ). On the other hand, increased exposure to large carnivores has been associated with increased fear (Johansson, Karlsson, Pedersen, & Flykt, ), decreased tolerance, and negative attitudes toward large carnivores (Ericsson & Heberlein, ; Eriksson, ; Treves, Naughton‐treves, & Shelley, ; Williams, Ericsson, & Heberlein, ). Understanding the nature of encounters with large carnivores and knowing how these experiences relate to attitude and behavior is therefore urgent, because policy choices upon which large carnivore populations depend (Chapron et al , Dressel, Sandström, & Ericsson, ; Heberlein & Ericsson, ) can be influenced by public opinion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The positive experience of encountering wolves in the wild

Arbieu

Albrecht

Mehring

et al. 2020

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large carnivores often impact human livelihoods and well-being. Previous research has mostly focused on the negative impacts of large carnivores on human well-being but has rarely considered the positive aspects of living with large carnivores. In particular, we know very little on people's direct experiences with large carnivores like personal encounters and on people's awareness and tolerance toward their exposure to large carnivores. Here, we focus on the wolf (Canis lupus), and report on a phone survey in Germany. We examined whether encounters with wolves were positive or negative experiences and quantified people's awareness and tolerance related to their exposure to wolves. We found that the majority of people reported positive experiences when encountering wolves, regardless of whether wolves were encountered in the wild within Germany, in the wild abroad, or in captivity. The frequency of encounters did not affect the probability to report positive, neutral, or negative experiences. Moreover, people in Germany expressed a high tolerance of living in close vicinity to wolves. These findings are novel and important because they highlight the positive aspects of living in proximity with large carnivores in human-dominated landscapes. K E Y W O R D Sattitudes, emotions, human-wildlife interactions, social survey

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 47%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The positive experience of encountering wolves in the wild

Arbieu

Albrecht

Mehring

et al. 2020

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In extreme cases where wolves have access to free‐ranging cattle during the grazing season, the frequency of livestock in wolf scat can reach 45% and >74% of the biomass consumed (Morehouse & Boyce, ). Beyond these economic costs is the underlying perception by the rural people affected that the wider society imposes the recovery of a predator onto them and has little regard on their role or function in society and their values (Nilsson Dahlstrom, ; Eriksson, , ).…”

Section: Consequences Of Wolf Recoverymentioning

confidence: 99%

Deer, wolves, and people: costs, benefits and challenges of living together

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human-driven species annihilations loom as a major crisis. However the recovery of deer and wolf populations in many parts of the northern hemisphere has resulted in conflicts and controversies rather than in relief. Both species interact in complex ways with their environment, each other, and humans. We review these interactions in the context of the ecological and human costs and benefits associated with these species. We integrate scattered information to widen our perspective on the nature and perception of these costs and benefits and how they link to each other and ongoing controversies regarding how we manage deer and wolf populations. After revisiting the ecological roles deer and wolves play in contemporary ecosystems, we explore how they interact, directly and indirectly, with human groups including farmers, foresters, shepherds, and hunters. Interactions with deer and wolves generate various axes of tension, posing both ecological and sociological challenges. Resolving these tensions and conflicts requires that we address key questions using integrative approaches: what are the ecological consequences of deer and wolf recovery? How do they influence each other? What are the social and socio-ecological consequences of large deer populations and wolf presence? Finally, what key obstacles must be overcome to allow deer, wolves and people to coexist? Reviewing contemporary ecological and sociological results suggests insights and ways to improve our understanding and resolve long-standing challenges to coexistence. We should begin by agreeing to enhance aggregate benefits while minimizing the collective costs we incur by interacting with deer and wolves. We should also view these species, and ourselves, as parts of integrated ecosystems subject to long-term dynamics. If co-existence is our goal, we need deer and wolves to persevere in ways that are compatible with human interests. Our human interests, however, should be inclusive and fairly value all the costs and benefits deer and wolves entail including their intrinsic value. Shifts in human attitudes and cultural learning that are already occurring will reshape our ecological interactions with deer and wolves.Biological Reviews 95 (2020) 782-801

show abstract

“…The human behavior is driven by specific attitudes or emotions [4,5] and therefore, the analysis of the conflict context must include the attitudes of humans towards wildlife [6] and also the drivers which are changing these attitudes in time. However, emotions vary greatly among people who are subject to different experiences with a certain animal species [7,8]. Although all three categories of emotions (positive, neutral, and negative) could be encountered, the policymaking process is frequently shaped by the extremes (i.e., positive vs. negative).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coexistence with Bears in Romania: A Local Community Perspective

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the modern context of the strict protection of large carnivores, the competition for resources between local community dwellers and these animals has become an important challenge for ensuring coexistence—the key for conservation success. To assess the perceptions of this intricate relationship, six local communities from Central Romania, located in areas with high-density brown bear (Ursus arctos L.) population and frequent conflicts, were investigated. A large proportion of the respondents (69%) showed various forms of intolerance (e.g., relocation, punishment, or killing) towards aggressive bears. However, the cognitive evaluation score derived from the level of interaction with bears showed a non-significant (p = 0.470) segregation by tolerance levels, suggesting that not only the tangible costs (direct damage) but rather the psychological costs of fear, danger, or risk are more important drivers of negative attitudes towards bears. Furthermore, the prevalent experienced emotions towards an inoffensive bear (fear, terror, and hate, which represent 73%) underline the general preference for living in “separate worlds”. This requires that bears should avoid humans and their settlements, a goal unlikely to be achieved under the current strict protection regime. Therefore, an alternative strategy that ensures mutual avoidance of the two players may be more appropriate for successful human–bear coexistence.

show abstract

Rurality and Collective Attitude Effects on Wolf Policy

Cited by 19 publications

References 30 publications

The positive experience of encountering wolves in the wild

The positive experience of encountering wolves in the wild

Deer, wolves, and people: costs, benefits and challenges of living together

Coexistence with Bears in Romania: A Local Community Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About