The wolves are coming: understanding human controversies on the return of the wolf through the use of socio-cultural values

Abstract

Wildlife comebacks are often subject to public debate. Recurring controversies dominate the discussion, while the frequent use of stereotypes to describe concerned actors reinforces polarizations. This is not any different for the return of the wolf. In order to assist in the interpretation of the human dimensions of the wolf debate, we propose the use of the socio-cultural (SC) value concept. This concept distinguishes between the performance and importance of ecosystem services and allows to give meaning to indicators without blindfolding on caricaturized profiles. The methodology is applied to the case study of the Ardennes (southern Belgium), where the wolf has recently made its comeback. An online survey, based on main points of controversy in human-wildlife debates, was presented to a large sample (N = 1461) of local residents and (potential) visitors, representative for age classes and gender. The answer options were modeled as a function of socio-demographic and profile variables, as well as SC value variables. Overall, a positive positioning was observed. The example of the hunter profile is used to demonstrate how SC values address heterogeneity within and overlap of profiles between groups. Our results show that the use of SC values, complementary to the sole use of standard profile variables, is an interesting tool to overcome preconceptions and to understand underlying reasons behind peoples stated position on points of controversy. These insights can, among others, lead to question the legitimacy of existing discourses and to transparency in terms of which values are accounted for by an actual or proposed management.

“I am Wolf, I Rule!” - Attributing Intentions to Animals in Human-Wildlife Interactions

“…Headlines like these abound in the discussion about humanwildlife interactions such as the recovery of wolf and beaver populations, or human cohabitation with hemerophiles. It seems that wherever humans coexist with wild animals, similarly intense and polarizing sentiments are being spurred regardless of the particular intricacies (Egli et al, 2001;Canby, 2005;Owen-Smith et al, 2006;Knight, 2008;Lescureux and Linnell, 2010;Gibeau, 2012;Echeverri et al, 2018;Mondini and Hunziker, 2018;Bhatia et al, 2021;Breyne et al, 2021). People's similar reactions to dissimilar wildlife indicate a human disposition to mentally represent ecologically disparate animals in similar ways (Jürgens and Hackett, 2021).…”

“…Yet, while perceiving wild animals as holding intentions toward humans may alleviate ambiguity for an individual person conceiving of human-wildlife relations, such a conception may fuel human-wildlife conflicts and their politicization on the societal level. Human-animal interactions already are polarized due to different economic and political interests (Nie, 2001;Adams, 2015;Carlson et al, 2020;Pates and Leser, 2021), diverging beliefs about and affective responses to wildlife (Treves and Karanth, 2003;Flykt et al, 2013;Jacobs et al, 2014;Behr et al, 2017;Stauder et al, 2020), and opposing value orientations with regard to nature more broadly (Bjerke and Kaltenborn, 1999;Bauer et al, 2008;Marvin, 2010;Teel and Manfredo, 2010;Dietsch et al, 2017;Breyne et al, 2021). Existing lines of conflict are likely to be reflected in stakeholders' conceptions of wild animals' alleged intentions (Bell, 2015;Jürgens and Hackett, 2021).…”

“…Animals' intentional agency may challenge some humans' claim on a "supremacy over nature" (Bell, 2015, p.149). Similarly, nonhuman agents who transgress the conceptual line between the spheres of civilization and nature, and thus populate spaces where they presumably do not "belong" (Figari and Skogen, 2011;Breyne et al, 2021), refute "human social orderings of space" (Poerting and Marquardt, 2019, p. 147). In this vein, particularly wolves are construed as animals "disrespectful of borders and norms" (Lescureux and Linnell, 2010, p. 394).…”

Wolves, Crows, Spiders, and People: A Qualitative Study Yielding a Three-Layer Framework for Understanding Human–Wildlife Relations

“…Conversely, wolf-favorable participants viewed wolves as intelligent and "caring" (W1) social beings who are granted a "right to be there" based on "environmental ethics" (W7) that bestow existence rights to wildlife having traditionally belonged to Central European ecosystems (cf. [73,81,82]). Moreover, many wolf-favoring participants venerate wolves as epitomes and wardens of wilderness, i.e., nature untouched and unbridled by humankind.…”

Managing Wolves is Managing Narratives: Views of Wolves and Nature Shape People’s Proposals for Navigating Human-Wolf Relations

“…Epitomes of natural resilience to be welcomed -or vermin to be kept in check? People's conceptions of wolves and wolf management differ starkly (Nie, 2001;Skogen, 2001;Lute et al, 2018;Breyne et al, 2021;Jürgens & Hackett, 2021). From practitioners managing stakeholder-wolf interactions on the micro-level in the short term to decision-makers navigating human-wolf relations on the macro-level in the long term (Manfredo & Dayer, 2004;König et al, 2020), it is essential to understand the roots of those opposing stances.…”