Abstract
This systematic review of peer reviewed articles on attitudes towards gray wolves (Canis lupus), shows that attitudes are mainly measured either by mean values of attitudes or by proportional differences in attitudes. This may impact on how attitudes are perceived and interpreted across studies and areas. However, independent of method used, we found that people living in areas where wolves always have existed, are more negative towards wolves compared to people living in areas where there are no wolves, or where wolves have recovered after years of absence. People who express fear, or being directly affected by having wolves, such as farmers and hunters, report more negative attitudes compared to other groups of respondents. For wolf conservation we recommend politicians and management authorities to prepare local societies of the different consequences of living in wolf areas. We recommend using dialogues and conflict management methods to minimize the level of conflicts.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Large carnivores and humans have a long history of being at odds with each other (Fritts et al. 2003), as the presence of large carnivores may entail conflicts of interest in resources and land use with people who live in the same areas (Kansky et al. 2014; van Eeden et al. 2018; Lozano et al. 2019). Some species, such as gray wolves (Canis lupus), are overrepresented in such conflicts. Wolves are often defined as a flagship species which acts as a symbol that can increase attention and contribute to the conservation of the system (ecosystem) in which the species represent or live in (Heywood and Watson 1995). Additional of being part of social conflicts (Nie 1999; Douglas and Veríssimo 2013; Slagle et al. 2019), wolves are also described as iconic (Kellert et al. 1996; Lynn 2010), or linked to stories and old myths (Johnson 1974; Varga 2009; Jürgens and Hackett 2017). Wolf representations, however, depend on the eye of the beholder, and social representations, such as whether or not the species belongs in an area, may vary greatly even between people living in the same areas (Figari and Skogen 2011; Peterson et al. 2020). Accordingly, a range of emotional responses towards wolves are observed today, from blind love to raging hate, leading to diverging opinions on management goals and actions (Wilson 1997; Slagle et al. 2019). Unsurprisingly, wolf-human interactions have been a focus in the scientific literature for decades, where researchers aim to better understand the roots of the conflicts, and why people perceive wolves in the way they do. However, while single attitude surveys in restricted geographical locations can contribute knowledge on attitudes towards wolves in that particular time and space, they fall short if we are interested in more general trends. The meta-analysis conducted by Dressel et al. (2015), compared attitudes towards bears (Ursus arctos) and wolves across Europe. They found more positive attitudes towards bears than wolves, and that attitudes towards wolves even got less positive the longer people and wolves co-existed (Dressel et al. 2015). In this study, we expand the study done by Dressel et al. (2015) to not be restricted to Europe but have utilized the accumulated literature worldwide in the period 1980–2020.
From being one of the most widely distributed non-human land mammals worldwide (Young and Goldman 1944), wolves have been extirpated from many countries due to human persecution and habitat fragmentation (Ripple et al. 2014; Hunter 2019). Wolves killing livestock, as well as causing fear of attacks on humans, motivated the extermination (Mech and Boitani 2003). The development of protection and effective policy implementation in recent decades, has allowed large carnivores to recover in both Europe (Linnell et al. 2001; Trouwborst 2010; Kaczensky et al. 2013; Chapron et al. 2014) and North America (Linnell et al. 2001; Wydeven et al. 2009; Mech 2017). In the 1970s, environmental movements provided the motivation for pan-European legislative agreements, including the 1979 Bern Convention administered by the Council of Europe (Council of Europe 1979; Trouwborst 2010). In 1992, wolves became legally protected as part of the Habitat Directive, which covers all European Union member states (Council Directive (EEC) 1992). The EU member states counted 12 states at that time, and included Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, UK, Greece, Spain and Portugal. The agreement of the Habitat Directive facilitated wolves to recover in parts of France, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark and Scandinavia as individuals migrated from large populations in Spain, Italy, Russia and Eastern Europe (Mech and Boitani 2003; Chapron et al. 2014). In North America, wolves were exterminated from all the contiguous U.S. states except Minnesota and Michigan (Young and Goldman 1944; Mech and Boitani 2003). However, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and consequent protection and management by the US Fish and Wildlife Service have facilitated an increase in recovery in several states (Smith and Bangs 2009). This protection, in addition to dispersal has led to wolves are now occurring in states where they were previously considered locally extinct (Treves et al. 2009; Jimenez et al. 2017). Wolf distribution and abundance are less well known in Asia (Honghai 1999). In China, wolves are present in all provinces on the mainland, however large populations only remain in northwestern parts of the country (Mech and Boitani 2003; Wang et al. 2016). The number of reports of injury and loss caused by wolves to livestock has increased in recent years, followed by an increase in conflicts associated with the species (Zhang et al. 2010; Li et al. 2013). In northern Inner Mongolia, the distribution and abundance of wolves have been greatly reduced because of human interests in keeping predation of livestock and gazelles under control, yet few places have experienced complete eradication (Maruyama et al. 1996; Mech and Boitani 2003). In Russia, wolves were never eradicated, mainly due to their vast range, although variations in abundance and distribution occur caused by human influence and variations in wildlife prey abundance (Bibikov 1994; Fritts et al. 1994; Honghai 1999). After the collapse of the Soviet Union, wolves experienced a rapid increase in numbers, most likely because of the ending of governmental population control (Bragina et al. 2015). In summary, wolves are reappearing in former areas all over the world, but to a lesser extent in Asia where extensive changes in legislation have yet to take place.
As wolves recover in human-dominated landscapes, personal experiences of interacting with them increase, and conservation demands land sharing between wolves and humans (Treves and Karanth 2003; Linnell 2015; Cretois et al. 2021). However, wolves are still not present everywhere, so the costs of living with them are unevenly distributed (Karlsson and Sjöström 2007; Eriksson et al. 2015). While wolf recovery is being welcomed by people who perceive it as a contribution to the wilderness (Sjölander-Lindqvist 2008, 2009; Slagle et al. 2019), it is opposed by those who perceive wolves as a potential threat to livestock, big game populations and the rural way of life (Wilson 1997; Eriksson 2016; Mykrä et al. 2017). Successful management of large carnivore must balance different priorities and expectations among people of different beliefs and take into account changes and diversifications of stakeholder values (Dietsch et al. 2016; Bruskotter et al. 2017).
Attitudes can be defined as “a disposition or tendency to respond with some degree of favorableness or not, to a psychological object” (Fishbein and Ajzen 2010). Attitude towards an object determines a person’s willingness to behave in a certain manner (Manfredo 2008; Vaske and Manfredo 2012). Several scholars have divided attitudes into two main components, cognitive and the affective components (Eagly and Chaiken 1993; Fishbein and Ajzen 1977; Verplanken et al. 1998). Knowledge about public attitudes towards large carnivores such as wolves can help to predict the social foundation for future conservation (Bright and Manfredo 1996; Bruskotter et al. 2009; Vaske and Manfredo 2012), and determine whether carnivore–human interactions are expressed as conflict or coexistence. Coexistence has several definitions (Carter and Linnell 2016; Chapron and López-Bao 2016; Morehouse and Boyce 2017), but will in general reflect a tolerant attitude (Frank 2016). Positive attitudes associate with the valuing and respect of wildlife and a will to forego one’s own interests to benefit wildlife. Neutral responses could reflect lack of interest or no willingness to take action in response to a wildlife issue (Frank 2016), while negative attitudes may cause negative impacts on wildlife conservation by for example an increased acceptance of poaching (Liberg et al. 2012; Gangaas et al. 2013). Negative attitudes can also induce public resistance to conservation plans and policies and promote eradication policies (Zinn et al. 1998; Bruskotter and Fulton 2012).
Attitudes are generally fairly stable but can change rapidly (Eagly and Chaiken 1993; Heberlein 2012) when the benefit of change exceeds the costs of keeping that attitude. Direct experience can cause increased attitude strength, as well as changes in them (Fazio et al. 1983; Petty et al. 1997). Previous studies have shown negative attitudes to be associated with both direct experience (i.e. loss of livestock or damage to property, observations of wolves or tracks; Eriksson et al. 2015) and indirect experiences (i.e. experienced by others; Karlsson and Sjöström 2007). In the general public, attitudes towards wolves are likely to be held loosely as they are based largely on second-hand information and no direct experiences (Ericsson and Heberlein 2008). Consequently, these attitudes could be subject to change when people experience the return of wolves to their area (Ericsson and Heberlein 2003; Ericsson et al. 2008; Treves et al. 2013). Based on their different experiences with wolves, some social groups tend to be associated with negative attitudes towards wolves, e.g. farmers (Kellert 1985; Bright and Manfredo 1996; Kleiven et al. 2004) and hunters (Ericsson and Heberlein 2003; Mykrä et al. 2017).
Our main objective is to test whether attitudes towards wolves are influenced by the presence of wolves and how this may vary between different respondent groups included in the surveys. We want to determine whether people hold more negative attitudes in areas in which wolves have been continuously present compared to those where wolves have returned after being locally extinct.
Materials and methods
Search protocol and process
We conducted a systematic review of English language scientific peer-reviewed journal articles measuring attitudes towards wolves published during the 40-year period between 1 January 1980 and 31 December 2020. From our initial search, 1980 seemed to be a natural starting point as few peer-reviewed studies were available before then. We searched for articles using two electronic databases: Web of Knowledge and Scopus, and followed the guidelines for systematic reviews provided by Pullin and Stewart (2006). We considered publication bias (i.e. strong bias to publish studies that show significant results) to be unlikely within our literature search, as performing significance-tests for attitudes towards carnivores seems counterproductive. As such, we did not carry out any formal assessments of possible publication bias. We used the following commonly used search terms: “attitude* OR tolerance* OR perception* OR judgement* AND wolf* OR wolves* OR canis lupus”. We restricted the inclusion criteria to include quantitative studies on self-reported attitudes towards wolves only, to allow comparisons across studies. We only included studies that measured attitudes towards wolves, not surveys that exclusively measured support for specific conservation strategies, such as lethal control (e.g., Manfredo et al. 2020).
In the first step of the methodological process (Fig. 1), we identified 303 references that fitted the search terms. Through the first screening of articles, we excluded those that did not fit the inclusion criteria by briefly reviewing titles and abstracts, leaving 119 studies. In the second screening, we read the articles full text to assess their eligibility and commonly analyzed factors and research designs, as well as to establish categorization criteria. After removing studies that did not use quantitative examination of attitudes, applied previously published studies in their analysis, or did not report self-reported attitudes (e.g., analyzed media cover), the final dataset consisted of 86 studies (Appendix A). As a number of these articles (30) included sub-samples in which the authors either had conducted separate surveys in different locations or had reported data and information on the samples of different response groups, these were treated as separate surveys. Hereafter we use “study” for the number articles (n = 86) and “survey” for the separate surveys (n = 137). We based our analyses and summaries on the surveys.
Data and data analysis
For the descriptive summary of surveys included in the review, the scale of the study area within each survey was categorized as local (municipalities and villages; see Alexander et al. 2015; Kirilyuk and Ke 2020), regional (counties or provinces; see Milheiras and Hodge 2011; Browne-Nunez et al. 2015), or national (includes studies in multiple countries; see Berg and Solevid 2015; Kaltenborn and Brainerd 2016). For descriptive purposes we chose to show surveys in four geographical regions: North America, Europe, Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden), and Asia. Scandinavia was shown as a separate entity from the rest of Europe because countries in this region were highly represented. We recorded general information about the respondents included in the surveys when available. This information varied among surveys but could for example include age, gender, income, education level, being a livestock owner, hunter and more (see the results section for the full list of relevant variables). Further, we recorded whether the variables tested were found to be non-significant, positively significant or negatively significant based on p values or showed negative or positive trends based on AIC values in the most parsimonious models. As many different variables were used, we chose to only report those that were included in at least five different surveys.
As the included surveys used different questionnaire designs, a variety of questions were used to measure attitudes towards wolves. Generally, the wording of the questions was fairly similar, such as “What are your feelings towards wolves?”, “How much do you care about wolves?”, and “Do you support conservation of wolves in your area?”. During the first screening, we noticed that surveys measured slightly different attitude objects. For example, “attitude towards wolves” and “attitudes towards wolf management”, as well as “attitude towards wolf management” and “attitude towards wolf restoration”. We tested for differences between the attitude objects. However, no significant differences between the attitude objects were found, and thus we treated all these possible attitude objects as one in the analyses.
The respondent groups were classified into groups similar to those used by Dressel et al. (2015): general public, students, urban public, public in wolf area, hunters, farmers (Appendix B). For analysis purposes, the urban public group were included in the general public group due to a low sample size. For the group students, we included researchers and managers both due to low sample sizes for the specific groups, and also with the rationale that these groups might usually be considered as influencing each other and share common attitudes in an academic environment. We thus renamed this new variable as Academics. The variable presence status was also based on Dressel et al. (2015), and described whether wolves were “Absent”, had “Returned” after being locally extinct, or had been continuously present “Persisting”. We simplified the variable compared to the one in Dressel et al. (2015) and merged the two categories “Far away” and “Close” into “Absent”, as both categories indicated that wolves were not present in the focal study area. We also merged two categories that described recolonizing populations, “Newly arrived” and “Established” into “Returned”. In addition, we added the category “Mixed” as some surveys included participants from more than one area that had different wolf presence status but did not report results separately for each status. Consequently, we used the following four categories: “Absent”, “Returned”, “Persisting, and “Mixed” (Table 1). In addition, as the sampling method varied across surveys, and could influence how results can be interpreted, we chose to differentiate between different sampling methods. Specifically, we used three categories: “Random sampling”, where any member of the population within the scope of the research frame may be selected; “Purposive sampling”, where the researcher selects a sample that is most useful for answering the research question of the survey; and “Convenience sampling”, where individuals who happen to be most accessible to the researcher are included. We also included snowball sampling, within the latter category, where participants are recruited via other participants.
The way attitudes were measured varied between the surveys and included those using both single- and multiple-item indicators. Attitude measurements were provided in terms of favor or disfavor, like or dislike, and were measured on rating scales from three to nine points. Attitude scores were either reported as a proportion of respondents (hereafter proportional dataset) or as mean scores (hereafter mean dataset). Because of challenges with standardizing these two different measurements, we chose to analyze them separately. For proportional data (n = 56), Likert-scale measures were condensed into “negative”, “neutral”, and “positive” scores to allow for comparisons across surveys with different numbers of points. We used the percentage of respondents who expressed positive attitudes towards wolves as the dependent variable for these surveys. For mean data (n = 54), attitudes were reported as the respondents’ mean attitude score. The remaining 27 surveys reported attitudes both as a proportion and a mean. We chose to include those in the mean dataset, as this dataset had the lowest sample size. Consequently, the proportional data and the mean data included 56 and 81 surveys, respectively.
By using the attitude measurements in the proportional dataset, we created two separate variables. The first was named “positive proportion” and were created by scaling the positive attitude measurement scores into a numeric variable bound between 0 and 1, where 0 equated to no respondents being positive and 1 where all respondents were positive towards wolves. The second variable was named “negative proportion” and were created by scaling the negative attitude measurements into a numeric variable bound between 0 and 1, where 0 equated to no respondents being negative and 1 where all respondents were negative towards wolves. To test whether attitudes were associated with different wolf presence statuses and/or respondent groups, we fitted two models using the proportional data, one with “positive proportion” and one with “negative proportion” as the response variable. The mean data were scaled so that the value shared a common range between 1 (most negative) to 5 (most positive), across all surveys.
For the formal exploration of overall effects on attitudes, we choose to only include the two variables most relevant to the aims of this review, “presence status” and “respondent group”. This was due to the low sample size of surveys within the two measurements of attitudes, which restricted the number of variables to include in the statistical model. However, as there were multiple sampling methods used across the surveys, and the surveys could be considered as nested within these, we also included “sampling method” as a random effect in the model structure. Mixed-effects beta regression models with logit-links were constructed to explore the effects of the focal variables within the “proportional” data, using the glmmTMB-library (Brooks et al. 2017) in the statistical environment R (R Core Team 2020). For the “mean” data, linear mixed effect models were constructed using the lme4-library (Bates et al. 2015).
Results
Descriptive summary
The 137 surveys included in this review represented all geographical areas in which wolves are present: North America (n = 55), Europe (n = 60), and Asia (n = 22) (Fig. 2). Out of the 60 surveys in Europe, 27 were conducted within Scandinavia. The three most surveyed countries were the United States of America (n = 48), Sweden (n = 14), and Norway (n = 12). In Europe, three surveys were conducted across multiple countries (Fig. 2).
One survey collected data before 1980 (Kellert 1985), yet was included as the year constraint in the inclusion criteria was based on publication year. Only eight surveys were carried out before year 1990, while 72 surveys were included from the last 10 years (2010–2019) (53% of total; Fig. 3). No surveys published within the study period collected data the year of 2020. The sample size of the surveys varied between geographical regions and ranged between 17 and 3142 respondents. Most surveys (93 out of 137), including all surveys from Asia, involved fewer than 500 respondents. However, 21 out of 137 had between 500 and 1000 respondents and 15 surveys had between 1000 and 2000 respondents. Only eight surveys involved more than 2000 respondents, of which one was from Europe (outside Scandinavia), two from North America and the rest from Scandinavia. In North America, most surveys were restricted to a single state (the United States of America) or province (Canada). Similarly, in Europe, most surveys were carried out at a regional scale, yet some focused on a local scale, restricting the scope to specific municipalities or villages. In Asia, several surveys were on a regional scale, but the majority were focused on local scales by restricting the scope to people living within one or a few closely located villages.
The way attitudes were framed and measured varied across the surveys. In 49 surveys (36%), we found reference to other surveys, such that the method used to measure attitudes was either copied or based on methods from other surveys (e.g., Kellert 1985; Kaczensky et al. 2004). While the oldest surveys, except Kellert (1985), measured attitude towards wolves, all other surveys in North America between 1980 and 2000 measured attitudes towards the restoration of wolves (Bath 1989; Tucker and Pletscher 1989; Kellert 1991; Lohr et al. 1996; Pate et al. 1996; Schoenecker and Shaw 1997). Outside North America, the oldest surveys from Scandinavia focused on attitudes towards the return of wolves among different respondent groups (Bjerke et al. 1998a, b; Kaltenborn et al. 1999). The oldest survey from Asia was published in 2010 and compared the compensation rules and practices between Solapur in India and Wisconsin in the US (Agarwala et al. 2010).
The most frequently used sampling method was random sampling (n = 76; 56%), while purposive sampling (n = 33; 24%) and convenient sampling (n = 28; 20%) were less used. The use of different sampling methods varied across geographical regions, with random sampling being the most common method for all regions except Asia (Table 1). For both Scandinavia and North America, random sampling was the most common by far, while for Asia all methods were almost as frequently used, although convenient sampling was used slightly more often. Overall, only 58 of the total 137 (42%) surveys reported response rate (number of respondents who answered the survey divided by the number of people assigned to the survey), which averaged of 61% and varied between 3.3 and 100%.
Summary of respondents in the surveys
Only 44 of the 137 surveys in total, reported the age of the respondents in some form. Of the 44, only 34 were comparable, as the remaining ten surveys reported age by variously defined categories or the proportion of respondents above a certain cut-off age, which were unique for each study. Gender was reported in 53 surveys, ranging from 30 to 100% male compared to female respondents. Education level was reported in 29 surveys but was reported in a variety of different ways making comparisons difficult.
Summary of variables influencing attitudes towards wolves
Education level, age and gender were the most frequently used variables to test for an association with attitudes towards wolves (Table 2). Age was found to be non-significant in most cases, although negative correlations were also commonly observed with older respondents holding more negative attitudes. For the twelve surveys testing for an influence of age on attitudes at the local scale, only one found a significantly negative effect. The remaining eleven found no effect. By contrast, at the regional scale, we found 19 surveys testing for the influence of age, where 50% showed a negative effect of age on attitudes and 50% showing no effect. For surveys done on large scale, the influence of age on attitudes was tested in eight surveys. We found a negative association in five of the eight studies, one with no effect, and two showed a positive association. For gender effects, the most common result was no observed trend. For those observing a trend, males were more often the most negative gender, yet the opposite were also observed. For education, two third of the surveys reported that higher levels of education correlated with more positive attitudes, while one third showed no association. Being a hunter resulted in all attitudinal outcomes, yet a significant correlation with negative attitudes was the most common. All outcomes were also observed among livestock owners, although a negative effect was most common. For fear and wolf area (i.e. respondent having wolf in residential area or not), only negatively significant or non-significant effects where found, with a significant negative effect being dominant for both variables. The variable testing for the effect of rural vs urban areas found both negative trend and no trend, while all outcomes were observed for the variable population size. The variable income showed all outcomes, too. While all outcomes were observed for the knowledge as well, positive trends and non-significant trends were most common (Table 2).
In addition to the variables in Table 2, variable values were included in ten surveys to test for an influence on attitudes towards wolves. Some surveys used a value-measurement that were wolf-specific, and assessed the relationship between this existence value of wolves and attitude (e.g., Bishop et al. 2020), while others included a more general wildlife value orientation measurement (e.g., Büssing et al. 2018; Gosling et al. 2019; Landon et al. 2020) using established wildlife value scales (e.g., Fulton et al. 1996; Manfredo et al. 2009). Several surveys found that mutualism was positively correlated with attitudes toward wolves, while domination was negatively correlated (e.g., Hermann et al. 2013; Landon et al. 2020).
Models examining wolf presence status and respondent groups
The models showed that wolf presence influenced attitudes to some degree (Appendix C). The presence status “Persisting” was associated with more negative attitudes in both the positive and negative proportion models (Fig. 4). For the model using the positive proportion as the response variable, the mixed wolf presence status was associated with more positive attitudes than the other statuses. We observed no differences between the “Absent” and “Returned” statuses in any of the proportional models.
For the mean data model, no significant effect of presence status on attitudes was observed (Figure S1 in Appendix F).
Academics were found to have a lower proportion of reporting negative attitudes towards wolves compared to other respondent groups (Fig. 5). As academics do not stand out in the positive proportion, this suggests that many of them must have had neutral attitudes.
For the mean data, farmers were found to be associated with most negative attitudes compared to the other respondent groups, followed by hunters and the public in wolf areas (Fig. 6). By contrast, general public and academics were found to hold the most positive attitudes.
Discussion
Attitudes related to presence or absence of wolves
We compared 137 different surveys to examine how attitudes towards wolves were associated with wolf presence status, and how attitudes differed among different types of respondents. Surveys reported attitudes in two different ways, and we observed slightly different results for proportional and mean data. For proportional data, people living in areas where wolves had been continuously present held more negative attitudes compared to areas where wolves had returned. This was in accordance with the findings of the systematic reviews carried out by Dressel et al. (2015) and Williams et al. (2002), who observed that time living with wolves was correlated with negative attitudes. Dressel et al. (2015), explain this as there is easy to support a hypothetical return of the wolves, but as the wolves establish, people experience an increased conflict with encounters, media attention, loss of sheep and other negative consequences (Dressel et al. 2015). However, in our study, we did not observe significant differences in attitudes between people living in areas where wolves were absent and where they had returned. This may be caused by low wolf population sizes in the re-establishment period, and/or that it could have been a short time period between their return and the time of the survey. In the “return period”, there could also be a low frequency of personal encounters (e.g., Anthony and Tarr 2019) and consequently a minimal influence of wolf recovery on public attitudes towards wolves.
Time of exposure
Very few studies included information on when wolves had returned. Also knowledge of the accuracy of presence/absence of wolves in study areas was limited. In studies where respondents self-report whether or not they live in an area where wolves had returned, different generations may differ in their perceptions. In cases where the wolf returned e.g., 30 years ago, parents and grandparents would remember the time without wolves, in addition to an experience from when the wolf returned. Younger people (in the same area) have only experienced persisting wolves. In their systematic reviews, Williams et al. (2002) and Dressel et al. (2015) found indications of attitudes becoming more negative over time. However, the opposite effect has also been observed (Zimmermann et al. 2001; George et al. 2016; Kutal et al. 2018). To test for actual change in attitudes over time, longitudinal surveys are needed. We believe that changes in attitudes should be studied over time in the same area, preferably with the same respondents if the actual change in individuals’ attitudes are of interest, yet re-sampling the same respondents comes with challenges. Several studies have assessed change in attitudes in the same area by taking comparable samples some years apart. Bruskotter et al. (2007) looked at changes in attitudes towards wolves in Utah, and found relatively stable attitudes for all respondent groups over a 10 year period. Treves et al. (2013) observed an increase in fear of wolves and an inclination to poach wolves in their longitudinal study in Wisconsin. In Sweden, scientists observed a lower degree of support for policy goals of wolves over a 5-year period with a continued increase in wolf populations and suggested this could be linked to an increase in direct experience of the animal (Ericsson 2015). In Croatia, Majić and Bath (2010) observed that attitudes shifted towards a more neutral position, as there was both a decreased support for wolf conservation and a decrease in support to control wolf numbers.
We could also question why we do not see a pattern of people becoming used to living close to wolves over time, and thereby become more positive the longer they have coexisted. As far as we have found, very few studies actually support such a “happy coexistence”. There was however, one study in Norway in 2001 (Zimmerman et al. 2001) showing attitudes becoming more positive after the wolves had established, additional to reveal a decreased level of fear (Zimmerman et al. 2001). This study was conducted at the same time as the wolf began to recover after years of being almost extinct (Zimmerman et al. 2021), and it would be very interesting to repeat the study to see how this have developed after a longer time with wolf being present. This lack of long-term monitoring of attitudes points to the challenge that most studies just map attitudes in a snapshot, but do not investigate how or why attitudes may change over time. Studies should for instance be repeated regularly before, at the time, and after wolves’ establishment as the wolf situation changes. In Norway and in many Scandinavian and European countries, studies conducted in early 2000, represented a wolf situation where the wolf was about to increase from being extinct. Today, young people have actually been living with wolves their entire life and may hold different attitudes.
Attitudes related to social identity
Our findings of differences in the way surveys were conducted, meant that there were unequal proportions of the different respondent groups in surveys with differing wolf presence statuses. Farmers were by far the most frequently included respondent group in surveys where wolves had been continuously present but were rarely included in surveys with other wolf presence statuses, such as returned. The model based on mean data indicated that farmers and hunters held more negative attitudes towards wolves, followed by the public in wolf areas. This was in line with what Dressel et al. (2015) found in their systematic review. Social identity can influence attitudes towards large carnivores even more strongly than personal experience or regional differences (Kellert et al. 1996; Naughton-Treves et al. 2003; Chavez et al. 2005; Lute et al. 2014).
Findings from Scandinavia, show that wolf conflicts are not necessarily driven by the presence of the wolf itself, the presence of wolf zones, nor the loss of sheep depredated by wolves (Gangaas et al. 2013, 2015). Rather, the conflict associated with large carnivores such as the wolf may as well be linked to rural cultural values such as sheep farming and strong traditions of big game hunting (Gangaas et al. 2013; Larsson et al 2022). Therefore, it is interesting that our results from this study also revealed that variables such as being a hunter, perceived risk, being a livestock owner, and experiencing fear were often associated with negative attitudes.
We found that surveys where wolves had returned, were mainly aimed at the general public who often perceived fewer negative consequences of wolves as their livelihoods were not affected in the same way. We would recommend that groups like farmers and hunter, which are the groups mostly directly affected by the presence of wolves, are included in future attitudinal studies no matter if the attitudes mapped deals with wolf being present, absent, or persistent. This would generate knowledge of attitudes among these groups also in the period before being directly affected by the presence of wolves. It could help us understand how attitudes may differ between the stages of absence to presence of the wolf.
The impact of emotions such as fear
Fear of wolves was found to be associated with negative attitudes in all but one study (e.g., Roskaft et al. 2007; Behr et al. 2017). Fear is related to psychology, defined not only as an emotion, but also as a perception and an attitude by itself (Johansson et al. 2016). There are many different types of fear, and some of the most frequent types is fear towards animals (Broeren et al. 2011). Fear of carnivores can be caused by different emotions such as fear of entering the forest alone, to let children walk alone to the school bus in areas where carnivores occur, or the experience of losing hunting dogs to the wolf (Bjerke et al. 2003; Linnell et al. 2005). In rural areas, fear of encountering large carnivores may in certain situations prevent people from outdoor recreational activities, such as hiking (especially with dogs), berry picking or hunting (Røskaft et al. 2003; Skogen and Krange 2003). Even studies where respondents in general may be positive to conservation of large carnivores, shows that the majority do not necessarily accept large carnivores in their neighboring area (Krange et al. 2012). This phenomenon called NIMBY (Not-In-My-Back-Yard) is also known from studies related to establishment of e.g., prisons, landfills or power plants (Wexler 1996; Krange et al. 2012). Hence, emotions such as fear, can negatively affect people even if they have no experience of encounters with the feared object, here the wolf.
A previous study suggested that people were on average 1000 times more likely to accept risk which they undertook voluntarily compared to risks imposed externally (Starr 1969). Perceived risks, such as competition for big game or risk of livestock losses, were frequently included in the measured attitudes reported in the surveys (e.g., Schroeder et al. 2018; Anthony and Tarr 2019; Grima et al. 2020). Research suggests that risk and fear may reduce acceptance of management actions (Johansson et al. 2012; Slagle et al. 2012), and therefore be a driver of human intolerance towards wolves or wildlife in general (Dickman 2010; Bhatia et al. 2020).
Negative experiences matter
Owning livestock, being a farmer, experiencing fear, or losses to predation and perceived risk were, with very few exceptions, only applicable in areas with wolves (i.e. presence status “Persisting” or “Returned”). As these variables were not included in surveys of respondents living in areas without wolves, they could not be interpreted independently of wolf presence. Nonetheless, while all three attitudinal outcomes (‘negative’, ‘positive’ and ‘neutral’) were recorded for most variables, including experiencing loss, most significant relationships reflected the negative experiences of people in wolf areas, associated with being a hunter, owning livestock and feeling fear. This emphasizes that the perceived negative consequences of living with wolves often influence attitudes negatively, as found in many surveys on large carnivores in general, and wolves in particular (e.g., Naughton-Treves et al. 2003; Karlsson and Sjöström 2007; Eriksson et al. 2015).
Demografic variables such as age, gender and education
Age, gender and education are traditionally included in most surveys, as these variables most often have been thought to impact on people’s attitudes (Andersone and Ozoliņš 2004; Gangaas et al. 2013). In general, women are more afraid of large carnivores compared to what men report, and younger people are more positive towards having carnivores compared to elderly people. Age, gender and education are also those variables most frequently tested for an influence on attitudes towards wolves (as in attitudinal studies in general), but also those most frequently showing non-significant effects. This may be because other variables give a stronger impact when it comes to wolves. For example, Stronen et al. (2007) found that attitudes were strongly influenced by family and community. However, their study exclusively included rural-living farmers on farms which their family had owned for generations. Consequently, they argue that the influence of age and education were of less importance than social identity. Cultural differences may have a significant impact as well. In some cultures, women are not allowed or expected to be included in such surveys, and this may cause a lack of knowledge in how gender impact on attitudes in some areas. In our review, age was less likely to influence attitudes in smaller than larger geographic scale surveys. Such patterns were not found for gender or education. This might be linked to the choice of sample method, with purposive sampling being more commonly used in small-scale surveys. Another explanation could be that the way the variable is constructed may cause variation in the results. Age was given both as a categorical and continuous variable, and many studies which used the latter found no significant effect (e.g. Stronen et al. 2007; Li et al. 2015; Berry et al. 2016; Filter et al. 2020; Torres et al. 2020). The assumption of a linear relationship between age and attitudes may not suffice in all situations. Education levels differ heavily between different cultures, so this needs to be considered when comparing results in such a review. For example, while scales in some areas ranged from high school educated to PhD-level, elsewhere education may be defined in terms of being able to read and write or not (literacy, e.g., Chetri et al. 2020). There may also be a bias in some countries regarding who is able to contribute to such surveys, as analphabetism is still a challenge in some parts of the world and may prevent participation.
Other variables that might impact attitudes
Relative to the total number of surveys, the proportion of surveys that tested variables’ influence on attitude were relatively low, as multiple surveys measured attitudes towards wolves with other objectives than to test for the influence of a range of different variables on attitude. Some surveys used structural equation models to test for the correlation between different concepts, such as risk- and benefit-based beliefs (Schroeder et al. 2018), behavioral support (Bishop et al. 2020), willingness to pay (Bishop et al. 2020), acceptability of lethal control (Straka et al. 2020), and risk perception (Landon et al. 2020). In such studies, other variables that might influence attitudes were not always included as they were not considered of interest, explaining the relative high proportion of surveys that did not report variables testing for trends summarized in Table 2. Accordingly, there might be multiple variables that either falsely identified a strong relationship between measured variables or masked the true relationship. For example, Bhatia et al. (2017) observed that religion influenced attitudes towards snow leopards when no other factors were considered, however, when accounting for variance explained by other variables the impact of religion was non-significant. Anthony and Tarr (2019) speculated that the non-significant effect of age and education in their survey might be a result of other variables more able to explain the variation.
Wolves versus other carnivores
For all studies that included attitude measurements for species other than wolves, such as snow leopards (Panthera uncia), brown bears (Ursus arctos), hyena (Hyaena hyaena), wolverine (Gulo gulo), or Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) (e.g., Behmanesh et al. 2019; Trajce et al. 2019; Augugliaro et al. 2020), attitudes were exclusively more positive than attitudes towards wolves. Multiple surveys in Asia included measurements of respondents’ attitudes towards snow leopards in addition to wolves and reported significantly more positive attitudes towards snow leopards than wolves (respondents included in these surveys were only members of public in wolf areas or farmers). Another interesting finding, was how management actions had an impact on the attitudes towards wolves, as a study of Samelius et al. (2020) revealed more negative attitudes towards wolves after installing fences against wolves and snow leopards, despite reduced livestock predation (Samelius et al. 2020). Similarly, Suryawanshi et al. (2013) reported that local people perceived wolves to have a greater negative impact on livestock than snow leopards, even though the data on actual damage suggested otherwise.
The difference in reported attitudes towards wolves compared to attitudes towards other carnivores, is a continuous discussion. The phenomenon is being explained by a variety of theories from hypothesis that the old stories and myths of the “big bad wolf” is causing a hatred against the wolf, to challenges among farmers and hunters, to the life history of the wolves. As far as we know, there has been no studies looking at whether or not the wolves’ life history may impact on peoples’ thoughts of having wolves in their home areas, but wolves may be experienced as more exposed to people as they live in family groups and are active year around. People may observe tracks on the snow, carcasses of large prey, and wolves can be seen as frightening when they come chasing as a pack, or killing hunting dogs close to people’s homes. Bears, who kills more people during a year than wolves do, are sleeping the whole winter, and rarely leave tracks on the snow. They occur solitarily and are not chasing dogs or encountering people in the same way as wolves may. This is just personal questions and speculations from our side, so there may be other explanations, but there is historically a much stronger aversion to wolves compared to other carnivore species which deserves to be better explained.
The challenge of measuring attitudes, and the expectation of a related behavior
Some surveys reported neutral attitudes. Psychologists have defined attitude as the evaluation of an object with a degree of favor or disfavor (Eagly and Chaiken 1993), i.e. it has a direction. The reviewed surveys included a range of measurements, and, in some, attitudes, tolerance or acceptance were measured in a way that allowed for neutral answers. The concepts of tolerance and acceptance have been discussed in the literature (e.g., Bruskotter and Fulton 2012; Treves 2012; Bruskotter and Wilson 2014). Tolerance may be viewed as the passive acceptance of wildlife populations (Treves and Bruskotter 2014), and therefore an observed neutral attitude may be interpreted as tolerance. But as attitude and behavior are not synonymous (Eagly and Chaiken 1993; Fishbein and Ajzen 2010; Heberlein 2012), tolerant attitudes do not necessarily lead to tolerant behavior. Many of the more recent surveys that we reviewed tested for a relationship between attitude and behavioral intention (e.g., Bruskotter et al. 2015; Bhatia et al. 2020; Bishop et al. 2020; Niemiec et al. 2020), as well as past behavior (e.g., Bhatia et al. 2020). Some used two individual measures for acceptance and attitude (e.g., Bruskotter et al. 2015). While general attitudes towards wolves and attitudes towards their reintroduction or the management of an existing population likely correlate (e.g., Bath 1989; Enck and Brown 2002), exceptions do also exist. For example, Sakurai et al. (2020) found no significant association between attitude towards wolves and support for their reintroduction, and Grima et al. (2020) observed respondents to have more positive attitudes towards wolves than towards wolf reintroduction. The composition of the measurements also varies when it comes to items included in relation to cognitive and affective components. Some included terms for normative beliefs and beliefs about wolves in the measure of attitude, while others have argued that beliefs and attitudes should be measured separately (Glikman et al. 2011; Verplanken et al. 1998).
Challenges between proportional data and mean data
Discrepancies between proportional and mean data might arise for a number of reasons such as differences in sampling methods and sample sizes between surveys. They may also be a consequence of the two different measurement scales. The mean data measured attitudes over a wider scale, allowing for more variance in the data and thus perhaps a more nuanced overall picture of effects compared to the usually more binary measured effect of e.g., positive/negative attitudes in the proportional data. Varying study designs, including ways of measuring attitude, may cause decrements in results. For example, the lack of a standardized system to measure conflict intensity suppressed spatio-temporal patterns in a survey aiming to examine conflict escalation over time (Anand and Radhakrishna 2017). In addition, the different use of terminology in questions may give contrary conclusions (Lewis et al. 2012; Berry et al. 2016), while the use of different sampling methods (i.e. random, purposive, and convenient samples) complicates interpretation. Nonetheless, a systematic review of attitudes can give an overview of differences in attitudes and how they are surveyed. This may reveal limitations on how comparable measurements are and provide suggestions for future improvements. A systematic review is less suitable for guiding management decisions, as country-specific considerations are needed in order to apply appropriate conflict-mitigation tools, as demonstrated by Trajce et al. (2019). Even at local scales, people may hold different attitudes (Glikman et al. 2010; Sponarski et al. 2013; Stauder et al. 2020), and thus spatial heterogeneity needs to be considered in attitude surveys to facilitate situation-specific strategies.
Recommendations for future studies
This study provides an overview of research exploring attitudes towards wolves, of which we conclude that there are challenges related to making comparisons or show trends, due to the wide range of sampling methods, variables tested and ways of measuring and reporting attitudes. For future research, we recommend a standardized system for conducting attitude surveys of wildlife species to facilitate spatial–temporal analysis of perceptions. By using standardized variables, there will be possible to compare studies independent of where they are conducted, and there would be a huge contribution if studies were done before, under and after wolf recoveries (Table 3). Social science competence is needed in order to get more comparable measurements, ideally including both cognition and emotions to improve predictions of peoples’ responses to e.g., wolf management actions (Schroeder et al 2018; Jacobs and Vaske 2019; Bishop et al. 2020; Straka et al. 2020; Dheer et al. 2021). We suggest to including qualitative studies, by doing e.g. in-depth-interviews of key persons, or arranging workshops to get a broader understanding of peoples thoughts, feelings and get into the complexity of the conflicts.
We found that groups directly affected by wolves like hunters and farmers, and the respondents' feeling of fear (e.g., Johansson et al. 2019) was important as explanatory variables of attitudes, additional to demographic variables such as education level. We also recommend including questions related to value orientations (e.g., being ecocentric or anthropocentric) to better understand the basic values that attitudes are based on Jürgens et al. (2023) and Barmoen et al. (2022). Last, to make it feasible to compare measured attitudes across studies, attitude measurements need to be reported in a standardized way, either as mean data or proportional data. If proportional data are chosen, either all categories need to be reported (positive, negative and neutral) or all surveys need to agree upon which of them to use.
Recommendations for future conservation
As there already are numerous studies which has aimed at mapping attitudes towards wolves in general, we now suggest emphasizing future research on understanding the reason why we observe the attitudes that we do, do attitudes change over time, and what is needed to increase the chance of coexistence between the wolves and humans (Pettersson et al 2022). Also in future surveys, we will recommend including those groups of people who are directly affected by having wolves (e.g., hunters and farmers), either by doing geospatial surveys to ensure including areas where wolves actually live (Pettersson et al 2022) or include the NIMBY effect (von Essen and Allen 2020). Hunters and farmers have shown to be the ones who can impact on wolf management or wolf conservation as they often represent strong voices in local societies (Treves and Martin 2011; Larsson et al 2022). We will also propose that future research focus on understanding the attitudinal barriers and find opportunities of achieving a wolf-human coexistence by examining attitudes of different management actions that can be supported, and also to a higher extent by using qualitative studies (Jacobs et al. 2014; Din et al 2017; Johansson et al 2019; Larsson et al 2022; Pettersson et al. 2022).
In areas where wolves are to be reestablished, or natural reestablishment are expected, we recommend management authorities and politicians to develop a communication- and action plan to better prepare the local human population for which consequences presence of wolves may cause. In wolf areas, we will emphasize the importance of close dialogue on how to deal with wolves in the local area.
References
Agarwala, M., S. Kumar, A. Treves, and L. Naughton-Treves. 2010. Paying for wolves in Solapur, India and Wisconsin, USA: Comparing compensation rules and practice to understand the goals and politics of wolf conservation. Biological Conservation 143: 2945–2955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.003.
Alexander, J., P.J. Chen, P. Damerell, W. Youkui, J. Hughes, K. Shi, and P. Riordan. 2015. Human wildlife conflict involving large carnivores in Qilianshan, China and the minimal paw-print of snow leopards. Biological Conservation 187: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.04.002.
Anand, S., and S. Radhakrishna. 2017. Investigating trends in human-wildlife conflict: Is conflict escalation real or imagined? Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 10: 154–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japb.2017.02.003.
Andersone, Z., and J. Ozoliņš. 2004. Public perception of large carnivores in Latvia. Ursus 15: 181–187. https://doi.org/10.2192/1537-6176(2004)015%3c0181:PPOLCI%3e2.0.CO;2.
Anthony, B.P., and K. Tarr. 2019. The wolves are back! local attitudes towards the recently re-populated grey wolf and wolf management in Bükk National Park, Hungary. Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 65: 195–214. https://doi.org/10.17109/AZH.65.2.195.2019.
Augugliaro, C., P. Christe, C. Janchivlamdan, H. Baymanday, and F. Zimmermann. 2020. Patterns of human interaction with snow leopard and co-predators in the Mongolian western Altai: Current issues and perspectives. Global Ecology and Conservation 24: e01378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01378.
Barmoen, M. 2022. Obsessive about shades of grey: Attitudes towards wolves and trust in large carnivore science. PhD-thesis, HINN, Norway. https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2981954.
Bates, D., M. Maechler, B. Bolker, and S. Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67: 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
Bath, A.J. 1989. The public and wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park. Society and Natural Resources 2: 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941928909380693.
Behmanesh, M., M. Malekian, M.R. Hemami, and S. Fakheran. 2019. Patterns and determinants of human-carnivore conflicts in Central Iran: Realities and perceptions behind the conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 24: 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2018.1531182.
Behr, D.M., A. Ozgul, and G. Cozzi. 2017. Combining human acceptance and habitat suitability in a unified socio-ecological suitability model: A case study of the wolf in Switzerland. Journal of Applied Ecology 54: 1919–1929. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12880.
Berg, L., and M. Solevid. 2015. Tracing a political cleavage: The wolf issue in Sweden. European Politics and Society 16: 488–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2015.1055917.
Berry, M.S., N.P. Nickerson, and E.C. Metcalf. 2016. Using spatial, economic, and ecological opinion data to inform gray wolf conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 40: 554–563. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.687.
Bhatia, S., S.M. Redpath, K. Suryawanshi, and C. Mishra. 2017. The relationship between religion and attitudes toward large carnivores in northern India? Human Dimensions of Wildlife 22: 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2016.1220034.
Bhatia, S., K. Suryawanshi, S.M. Redpath, and C. Mishra. 2020. Understanding people’s responses toward predators in the Indian Himalaya. Animal Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12647.
Bibikov, D.I. 1994. Wolf problem in Russia. Lutreola 3: 10–14.
Bishop, B., J.J. Vaske, and A.J. Bath. 2020. Resident cognitions associated with branding Thompson, Manitoba as the Wolf Capital of the World. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 25: 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2020.1683656.
Bjerke, T., T.S. Ødegårdstuen, and B.P. Kaltenborn. 1998b. Attitudes toward animals among Norwegian adolescents. Anthrozoös 11: 79–86. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279398787000742.
Bjerke, T., O. Reitan, and S.R. Kellert. 1998a. Attitudes toward wolves in southeastern Norway. Society and Natural Resources 11: 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941929809381070.
Bjerke, T., K. Skogen, and B.P. Kaltenborn. 2003. Nordmenns holdninger til store rovpattedyr. NINA Oppdragsmelding 768. http://www1.nina.no/lcie_new/pdf/635011366542105283_Bjerke%20NINA%20Norwegians%20attitudes%20towards%20large%20carnivores.pdf.
Bragina, E., A. Ives, A. Pidgeon, T. Kuemmerle, L. Baskin, Y. Gubar, M. Piquer-Rodríguez, N. Keuler, et al. 2015. Rapid declines of large mammal populations after the collapse of the Soviet Union: Wildlife decline after collapse of socialism. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12450.
Bright, A.D., and M.J. Manfredo. 1996. A conceptual model of attitudes toward natural resource issues: A case study of wolf reintroduction. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209609359048.
Broeren, S., K.J. Lester, P. Muris, and A.P. Field. 2011. They are afraid of the animal, so therefore I am too: Influence of peer modeling on fear beliefs and approach–avoidance behaviors towards animals in typically developing children. Behaviour Research and Therapy 49: 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2010.11.001.
Brooks, M.E., K. Kristensen, J. Koen, A. Magnusson, C.W. Berg, A. Nielsen, H.J. Sakug, M. Meaechler, et al. 2017. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear modeling. The R Journal 9: 378–400.
Browne-Nunez, C., A. Treves, D. MacFarland, Z. Voyles, and C. Turng. 2015. Tolerance of wolves in Wisconsin: A mixed-methods examination of policy effects on attitudes and behavioral inclinations. Biological Conservation 189: 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.12.016.
Bruskotter, J.T., and D.C. Fulton. 2012. Will hunters steward wolves? A comment on Treves and Martin. Society and Natural Resources 25: 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.622735.
Bruskotter, J.T., R.H. Schmidt, and T.L. Teel. 2007. Are attitudes toward wolves changing? A case study in Utah. Biological Conservation 139: 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.06.016.
Bruskotter, J.T., A. Singh, D.C. Fulton, and K. Slagle. 2015. Assessing tolerance for wildlife: Clarifying relations between concepts and measures. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 20: 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2015.1016387.
Bruskotter, J., J. Vaske, and R. Schmidt. 2009. Social and cognitive correlates of Utah residents’ acceptance of the lethal control of wolves. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14: 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200802712571.
Bruskotter, J.T., J.A. Vucetich, M.J. Manfredo, G.R. Karns, C. Wolf, K. Ard, N.H. Carter, J.V. López-Bao, et al. 2017. Modernization, risk, and conservation of the world’s largest carnivores. BioScience 67: 646–655.
Bruskotter, J.T., and R.S. Wilson. 2014. Determining where the wild things will be: Using psychological theory to find tolerance for large carnivores. Conservation Letters 7: 158–165.
Büssing, A.G., M. Schleper, and S. Menzel. 2018. Do pre-service teachers dance with wolves? Subject-specific teacher professional development in a recent biodiversity conservation issue. Sustainability 11: 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010047.
Carter, N.H., and J.D.C. Linnell. 2016. Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends in Ecology Evolution 31: 575–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.05.006.
Chapron, G., P. Kaczensky, J.D.C. Linnell, M. von Arx, D. Huber, H. Andren, J.V. Lopez-Bao, M. Adamec, et al. 2014. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346: 1517–1519. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257553.
Chapron, G., and J.V. López-Bao. 2016. Coexistence with large carnivores informed by community ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 31: 578–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.06.003.
Chavez, A.S., E.M. Gese, and R.S. Krannich. 2005. Attitudes of rural landowners toward wolves in northwestern Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33: 517–527. https://doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648(2005)33[517:AORLTW]2.0.CO;2.
Chetri, M., M. Odden, O. Devineau, T. McCarthy, and P. Wegge. 2020. Multiple factors influence local perceptions of snow leopards and Himalayan wolves in the central Himalayas, Nepal. PeerJ 8: 10108. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10108.
Council Directive (EEC). 1992. 92/43 of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora [1979] OJ L206/7.
Council of Europe. 1979. Convention on the conservation of european wildlife and natural heritage. Bern, Switzerland. https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=104.
Cretois, B., J.D.C. Linnell, B. Van Moorter, P. Kaczensky, E.B. Nilsen, J. Parada, and J.K. Rød. 2021. Coexistence of large mammals and humans is possible in Europe’s anthropogenic landscapes. iScience 24: 103083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.103083.
Dheer, A., E. Davidian, M.H. Jacobs, J. Ndorosa, T.M. Straka, and O.P. Höner. 2021. Emotions and cultural importance predict the acceptance of large carnivore management strategies by maasai pastoralists. Science 2: 691975. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2021.691975.
Dickman, A.J. 2010. Complexities of conflict: The importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human-wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation 13: 458–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00368.x.
Dietsch, A.M., T.L. Teel, and M.J. Manfredo. 2016. Social values and biodiversity conservation in a dynamic world. Conservation Biology 30: 1212–1221. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12742.
Din, J.U., H. Ali, A. Ali, M. Younus, T. Mehmood, Y. Norma-Rashid, and M.A. Nawaz. 2017. Pastoralist-predator interaction at the roof of the world: Conflict dynamics and implications for conservation. Ecology and Society 22: 32. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-09348-220232.
Douglas, L.R., and D. Veríssimo. 2013. Flagships or battleships: Deconstructing the relationship between social conflict and conservation flagship species. Environment and Society: Advances in Research 4: 98–116.
Dressel, S., C. Sandström, and G. Ericsson. 2015. A meta-analysis of studies on attitudes toward bears and wolves across Europe 1976–2012. Conservation Biology 29: 565–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12420.
Eagly, A.H., and S. Chaiken. 1993. The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Enck, J.W., and T.L. Brown. 2002. New Yorkers’ attitudes toward restoring wolves to the Adirondack Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: 16–28.
Ericsson, G., G. Bostedt, and J. Kindberg. 2008. Wolves as a symbol of people’s willingnes to pay for large carnivore conservation. Society and Natural Resources 21: 294–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920701861266.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0006-3207(02)00258-6.
Ericsson, G., and T. Heberlein. 2008. Public attitudes and the future of wolves. Wildlife Biology 14: 391–394.
Eriksson, M. 2016. Rurality and collective attitude effects on wolf policy. Sustainability 8: 711. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080711.
Eriksson, M., C. Sandstrom, and G. Ericsson. 2015. Direct experience and attitude change towards bears and wolves. Wildlife Biology 21: 131–137. https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00062.
Fazio, R.H., M.C. Powell, and P.M. Herr. 1983. Toward a process model of the attitude-behavior relation: Accessing one’s attitude upon mere observation of the attitude object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44: 723–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.4.723.
Figari, H., and K. Skogen. 2011. Social representations of the wolf. Acta Sociologica 54: 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699311422090.
Filter, E., A. Eckes, F. Fiebelkorn, and A.G. Bussing. 2020. Virtual reality nature experiences involving wolves on YouTube: Presence, emotions, and attitudes in immersive and nonimmersive settings. Sustainability 12: 3823. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093823.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1977. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Philosophy and Rhetoric 10: 130–132.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 2010. Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. London: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203838020.
Frank, B. 2016. Human–wildlife conflicts and the need to include tolerance and coexistence: An introductory comment. Society and Natural Resources 29: 738–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1103388.
Fritts, S.H., E.E. Bangs, and J.F. Gore. 1994. The relationship of wolf recovery to habitat conservation and biodiversity in the northwestern United-States. Landscape and Urban Planning 28: 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(94)90040-x.
Fritts, S.H., R.O. Stephenson, R.D. Hayes, and L. Boitani. 2003. Wolves and humans. In Wolves: Behavior, ecology, and conservation, ed. D.L. Mech and L. Boitani, 289–316. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Fulton, D.C., M.J. Manfredo, and J. Lipscomb. 1996. Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1: 24–47.
Gangaas, K.E., B.P. Kaltenborn, and H.P. Andreassen. 2013. Geo-spatial aspects of acceptance of illegal hunting of large carnivores in Scandinavia. PLoS ONE 8: 9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068849.
Gangaas, K.E., B.P. Kaltenborn, and H.P. Andreassen. 2015. Environmental attitudes associated with large-scale cultural differences, not local environmental conflicts. Environmental Conservation 42: 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0376892914000125.
George, K.A., K.M. Slagle, R.S. Wilson, S.J. Moeller, and J.T. Bruskotter. 2016. Changes in attitudes toward animals in the United States from 1978 to 2014. Biological Conservation 201: 237–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.07.013.
Glikman, J.A., A.J. Bath, and J.J. Vaske. 2010. Segmenting normative beliefs regarding wolf management in central Italy. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 15: 347–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2010.505598.
Glikman, J.A., J.J. Vaske, A.J. Bath, P. Ciucci, and L. Boitani. 2011. Residents’ support for wolf and bear conservation: The moderating influence of knowledge. European Journal of Wildlife Research 58: 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-011-0579-x.
Gosling, E., K. Bojarska, R. Gula, and R. Kuehn. 2019. Recent arrivals or established tenants? History of wolf presence influences attitudes toward the carnivore. Wildlife Society Bulletin 43: 639–650. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1027.
Grima, N., J. Brainard, and B. Fisher. 2020. Are wolves welcome? Hunters’ attitudes towards wolves in Vermont, USA. Oryx. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319000061.
Heberlein, T.A. 2012. Navigating environmental attitudes. New York: Oxford University Press. https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/9910165513802121.
Hermann, N., C. Voss, and S. Menzel. 2013. Wildlife value orientations as predicting factors in support of reintroducing bison and of wolves migrating to Germany. Journal for Nature Conservation 21: 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2012.11.008.
Heywood, V.H., and R.T. Watson. 1995. Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Honghai, Z. 1999. Population and distribution of wolf in the world. Journal of Forestry Research 10: 247–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02855466.
Hunter, L. 2019. Carnivores of the world, vol. 117. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jacobs, M., and J.J. Vaske. 2019. Understanding emotions as opportunities for and barriers to coexistence with wildlife. In Human-wildlife interactions: Turning conflict into coexistence, ed. B. Frank, J.A. Glikman, and S. Marchini, 65–84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235730.007.
Jacobs, M.H., J.J. Vaske, S. Dubois, and P. Fehres. 2014. More than fear: Role of emotions in acceptability of lethal control of wolves. European Journal of Wildlife Research 60: 589–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-014-0823-2.
Jimenez, M.D., E.E. Bangs, D.K. Boyd, D.W. Smith, S.A. Becker, D.E. Ausband, S.P. Woodruff, E.H. Bradley, et al. 2017. Wolf dispersal in the Rocky Mountains, Western United States: 1993–2008. The Journal of Wildlife Management 81: 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21238.
Johansson, M., I.A. Ferreira, O.-G. Støen, J. Frank, and A. Flykt. 2016. Targeting human fear of large carnivores—Many ideas but few known effects. Biological Conservation 201: 261–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.07.010.
Johansson, M., A. Flykt, J. Frank, and O.-G. Støen. 2019. Controlled exposure reduces fear of brown bears. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 24: 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2019.1616238.
Johansson, M., M. Sjostrom, J. Karlsson, and R. Brannlund. 2012. Is human fear affecting public willingness to pay for the management and conservation of large carnivores? Society and Natural Resources 25: 610–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.622734.
Johnson, R.T. 1974. On the spoor of the “big bad wolf.” The Journal of Environmental Education 6: 37–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1974.10801857.
Jürgens, U.M., M. Grinko, A. Szameitat, L. Hieber, R. Fischbach, and M. Hunziker. 2023. Managing wolves is managing narratives: Views of wolves and nature shape people’s proposals for navigating human–wolf relations. Human Ecology 51: 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-022-00366-w.
Jürgens, U.M., and P.M.W. Hackett. 2017. The big bad wolf: The formation of a stereotype. Ecopsychology 9: 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2016.0037.
Kaczensky, P., M. Blazic, and H. Gossow. 2004. Public attitudes towards brown bears (Ursus arctos) in Slovenia. Biological Conservation 118: 661–674.
Kaczensky, P., G. Chapron, M. Von Arx, D. Huber, H. Andrén, and J. Linnell. 2013. Status, management and distribution of large carnivores-bear, lynx, wolf & wolverine-in Europe. Freiburg: Verlag nicht ermittelbar.
Kaltenborn, B.P., T. Bjerke, and J. Vittersø. 1999. Attitudes toward large carnivores among sheep farmers, wildlife managers, and research biologists in Norway. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 4: 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209909359157.
Kaltenborn, B.P., and S.M. Brainerd. 2016. Can poaching inadvertently contribute to increased public acceptance of wolves in Scandinavia? European Journal of Wildlife Research 62: 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-016-0991-3.
Kansky, R., M. Kidd, and A.T. Knight. 2014. Meta-analysis of attitudes toward damage-causing mammalian wildlife. Conservation Biology 28: 924–938.
Karlsson, J., and M. Sjöström. 2007. Human attitudes towards wolves, a matter of distance. Biological Conservation 137: 610–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.03.023.
Kellert, S.R. 1985. Public perceptions of predators, particularly the wolf and coyote. Biological Conservation 31: 167–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(85)90047-3.
Kellert, S.R. 1991. Public views of wolf restoration in Michigan. In Transactions of the North American wildlife and natural resources conference.
Kellert, S.R., M. Black, C.R. Rush, and A.J. Bath. 1996. Human culture and large carnivore conservation in North America. Conservation Biology 10: 977–990. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10040977.x.
Kirilyuk, A., and R. Ke. 2020. Wolf depredation on livestock in Daursky State Nature Biosphere Reserve, Russia. Journal for Nature Conservation 58: 125916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2020.125916.
Kleiven, J., T. Bjerke, and B.P. Kaltenborn. 2004. Factors influencing the social acceptability of large carnivore behaviours. Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 1647–1658. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:Bioc.0000029328.81255.38.
Krange, O., T. Tangeland, C. Sandström, and G. Ericsson. 2012. Holdninger til store rovdyr i Norge og Sverige. En komparativ studie av holdninger til rovdyr og rovviltforvaltning. (NINA Rapport 879). https://brage.nina.no/nina-xmlui/handle/11250/2385616.
Kutal, M., P. Kovařík, L. Kutalová, M. Bojda, and M. Dušková. 2018. Attitudes towards large carnivore species in the West Carpathians Shifts in public perception and media content after the return of the wolf and the bear. In Large carnivore conservation and management, ed. T. Hovardas, 168–189. London: Routledge.
Landon, A.C., M.H. Jacobs, C.A. Miller, J.J. Vaske, and B.D. Williams. 2020. Cognitive and affective predictors of Illinois residents’ perceived risks from gray wolves. Society and Natural Resources 33: 574–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1664680.
Larsson, S., S.O. Larsson, J. Bennett, and A. Sjölander-Lindqvist. 2022. Contextualizing negative attitudes to wildlife and wildlife governance in the moral economy of Swedish farmers. Frontiers in Conservation Science 3: 1014769. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2022.1014769Lescureux.
Lewis, M., G. Pauley, Q. Kujala, J. Gude, Z. King, and K. Skogen. 2012. Summary of research: Selected results from four separate surveys of resident Montanans regarding Montana’s wolf hunt. Montana Fish and Wildlife.
Li, X., P. Buzzard, Y. Chen, and X. Jiang. 2013. Patterns of livestock predation by carnivores: Human–wildlife conflict in Northwest Yunnan, China. Environmental Management 52: 1334–1340.
Li, C., Z. Jiang, C. Li, S. Tang, F. Li, Z. Luo, X. Ping, Z. Liu, et al. 2015. Livestock depredations and attitudes of local pastoralists toward carnivores in the Qinghai Lake Region, China. Wildlife Biology 21: 204–212. https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00083.
Liberg, O., G. Chapron, P. Wabakken, H.C. Pedersen, N.T. Hobbs, and H. Sand. 2012. Shoot, shovel and shut up: Cryptic poaching slows restoration of a large carnivore in Europe. Proceedings of the Royal Society b: Biological Sciences 279: 910–915.
Linnell, J.D.C. 2015. Defining scales for managing biodiversity and natural resources in the face of conflicts. In Conflicts in conservation: Navigating towards solutions, ed. S.M. Redpath, R.J. Gutiérrez, K.A. Wood, and J.C. Young, 212–225. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Linnell, J., E. Nilsen, U. Lande, I. Herfindal, J. Odden, and K. Skogen. 2005. Zoning as a means of mitigating conflicts with large carnivores: Principles and reality. In People and wildlife, Conflict or co-existence?, ed. R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, 163–174. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Linnell, J.D.C., J.E. Swenson, and R. Anderson. 2001. Predators and people: Conservation of large carnivores is possible at high human densities if management policy is favourable. Animal Conservation Forum 4: 345–349. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1367943001001408.
Lohr, C., W.B. Ballard, and A. Bath. 1996. Attitudes toward gray wolf reintroduction to New Brunswick. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24: 414–420.
Lozano, J., A. Olszańska, Z. Morales-Reyes, A.A. Castro, A.F. Malo, M. Moleón, J.A. Sánchez-Zapata, A. Cortés-Avizanda, et al. 2019. Human-carnivore relations: A systematic review. Biological Conservation 237: 480–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.07.002.
Lute, M.L., A. Bump, and M.L. Gore. 2014. Identity-driven differences in stakeholder concerns about hunting wolves. PLoS ONE 9: e114460. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114460.
Lynn, W.S. 2010. Discourse and wolves: Science, society, and ethics. Society and Animals 18: 75–92.
Majić, A., and A.J. Bath. 2010. Changes in attitudes toward wolves in Croatia. Biological Conservation 143: 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.09.010.
Manfredo, M.J. 2008. Who cares about wildlife? In Who cares about wildlife?, ed. M.J. Manfredo, 1–27. Berlin: Springer.
Manfredo, M.J., T.L. Teel, A.W. Don Carlos, L. Sullivan, A.D. Bright, A.M. Dietsch, J. Bruskotter, and D. Fulton. 2020. The changing sociocultural context of wildlife conservation. Conservation Biology 34: 1549–1559. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13493.
Manfredo, M.J., T.L. Teel, and K.L. Henry. 2009. Linking society and environment: A multilevel model of shifting wildlife value orientations in the western United States. Social Science Quarterly 90: 407–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00624.x.
Maruyama, N., Z. Gao, and K. Shi. 1996. Decline of gray wolves in Xinhaerhuyougi and Ewenkegi Districts, Northern Inner Mongolia. In Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on coexistence of large carnivores with man.
Mech, L.D. 2017. Where can wolves live and how can we live with them? Biological Conservation 210: 310–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.04.029.
Mech, L.D., and L. Boitani. 2003. Wolf conservation and recovery. In Wolves: Behavior, ecology, and conservation, ed. L.D. Mech and L. Boitani, 317–340. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Milheiras, S., and I. Hodge. 2011. Attitudes towards compensation for wolf damage to livestock in Viana do Castelo, North of Portugal. Innovation-the European Journal of Social Science Research 24: 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2011.592071.
Morehouse, A.T., and M.S. Boyce. 2017. Troublemaking carnivores conflicts with humans in a diverse assemblage of large carnivores. Ecology and Society 22: 1–12.
Mykrä, S., M. Pohja-Mykrä, and T. Vuorisalo. 2017. Hunters’ attitudes matter: Diverging bear and wolf population trajectories in Finland in the late nineteenth century and today. European Journal of Wildlife Research 63: 76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-017-1134-1.
Naughton-Treves, L., R. Grossberg, and A. Treves. 2003. Paying for tolerance: Rural citizens’ attitudes toward wolf depredation and compensation. Conservation Biology 17: 1500–1511. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00060.x.
Nie, M.A. 1999. The wolf as symbol, surrogate, and policy problem. In Beyond wolves: The politics of wolf recovery and management, ed. M.A. Nie, 67–112. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Niemiec, R., R.E.W. Berl, M. Gonzalez, T. Teel, C. Camara, M. Collins, J. Salerno, K. Crooks, et al. 2020. Public perspectives and media reporting of Wolf reintroduction in Colorado. PeerJ 2020: e9074. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9074.
Pate, J., M.J. Manfredo, A.D. Bright, and G. Tischbein. 1996. Coloradans’ attitudes toward reintroducing the gray wolf into Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24: 421–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209709359101.
Peterson, M.N., A. Chen, E. von Essen, and H.P. Hansen. 2020. Evaluating how Swedish hunters determine which species belong in nature. European Journal of Wildlife Research 66: 77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-020-01418-6.
Pettersson, H.L., C.H. Quinn, G. Holmes, and S.M. Sait. 2022. “They Belong Here”: Understanding the conditions of human-wolf coexistence in north-western Spain. Conservation and Society 20: 113–123.
Petty, R.E., D.T. Wegener, and L.R. Fabrigar. 1997. Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology 48: 609–647. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.609.
Pullin, A.S., and G.B. Stewart. 2006. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology 20: 1647–1656.
R Core Team. 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-Project.org/.
Ripple, W.J., J.A. Estes, R.L. Beschta, C.C. Wilmers, E.G. Ritchie, M. Hebblewhite, J. Berger, B. Elmhagen, et al. 2014. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343: 6167. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241484.
Røskaft, E., T. Bjerke, B. Kaltenborn, J.D.C. Linnell, and R. Andersen. 2003. Patterns of self-reported fear towards large carnivores among the Norwegian public. Evolution and Human Behavior 24: 184–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00011-4.
Roskaft, E., B. Handel, T. Bjerke, and B.P. Kaltenborn. 2007. Human attitudes towards large carnivores in Norway. Wildlife Biology 13: 172–185. https://doi.org/10.2981/0909-6396(2007)13[172:Hatlci]2.0.Co;2.
Sakurai, R., H. Tsunoda, H. Enari, W.F. Siemer, T. Uehara, and R.C. Stedman. 2020. Factors affecting attitudes toward reintroduction of wolves in Japan. Global Ecology and Conservation 22: e01036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01036.
Samelius, G., K. Suryawanshi, J. Frank, B. Agvaantseren, E. Baasandamba, T. Mijiddorj, Ö. Johansson, L. Tumursukh, et al. 2020. Keeping predators out: Testing fences to reduce livestock depredation at night-time corrals. Oryx. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319000565.
Schoenecker, K.A., and W.W. Shaw. 1997. Attitudes toward a proposed reintroduction of mexican gray wolves in Arizona. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 2: 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209709359101.
Schroeder, S.A., D.C. Fulton, L. Cornicelli, and J.T. Bruskotter. 2018. How Minnesota wolf hunter and trapper attitudes and risk- and benefit-based beliefs predict wolf management preferences. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 23: 552–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2018.1511876.
Sjölander-Lindqvist, A. 2008. Local identity, science and politics indivisible: The Swedish wolf controversy deconstructed. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 10: 71–94.
Sjölander-Lindqvist, A. 2009. Social-natural landscape reorganised: Swedish forest-edge farmers and wolf recovery. Conservation and Society 7: 130–140.
Skogen, K., and O. Krange. 2003. A wolf at the gate: The anti-carnivore alliance and the symbolic construction of community. Sociologia Ruralis 43: 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00247.
Slagle, K.M., J.T. Bruskotter, and R.S. Wilson. 2012. The role of affect in public support and opposition to wolf management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17: 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2012.633237.
Slagle, K.M., R.S. Wilson, J.T. Bruskotter, and E. Toman. 2019. The symbolic wolf: A construal level theory analysis of the perceptions of wolves in the United States. Society and Natural Resources 32: 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1501525.
Smith, D.W., and E.E. Bangs. 2009. Reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park: History, values, and ecosystem restoration. In Reintroduction of top-order predators, ed. M.W. Hayward and M.J. Somers, 92–125. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sponarski, C.C., C. Semeniuk, J.A. Glikman, A.J. Bath, and M. Musiani. 2013. Heterogeneity among rural resident attitudes toward wolves. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 18: 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2013.792022.
Starr, C. 1969. Social benefit versus technological risk. Science 165: 1232–1238.
Stauder, J., F. Favilli, A.E. Stawinoga, A. Omizzolo, and T.P. Streifeneder. 2020. The attitude of society to the return of the wolf in South Tyrol (Italy). European Journal of Wildlife Research 66: 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-020-1372-5.
Straka, T.M., K.K. Miller, and M.H. Jacobs. 2020. Understanding the acceptability of wolf management actions: Roles of cognition and emotion. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 25: 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2019.1680774.
Stronen, A.V., R.K. Brook, P.C. Paquet, and S. McLachlan. 2007. Farmer attitudes toward wolves: Implications for the role of predators in managing disease. Biological Conservation 135: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.09.012.
Suryawanshi, K.R., Y.V. Bhatnagar, S. Redpath, and C. Mishra. 2013. People, predators and perceptions: Patterns of livestock depredation by snow leopards and wolves. Journal of Applied Ecology 50: 550–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12061.
Torres, R.T., D. Lopes, C. Fonseca, and L.M. Rosalino. 2020. One rule does not fit it all: Patterns and drivers of stakeholders perspectives of the endangered Iberian wolf. Journal for Nature Conservation 55: 125822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2020.125822.
Trajce, A., G. Ivanov, E. Keci, A. Majic, D. Melovski, K. Mersini, S. Mustafa, T. Skrbinsek, et al. 2019. All carnivores are not equal in the rural people’s view. Should we develop conservation plans for functional guilds or individual species in the face of conflicts? Global Ecology and Conservation 19: e00677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00677.
Treves, A. 2012. Tolerant attitudes reflect an intent to steward: A reply to Bruskotter and Fulton. Society and Natural Resources 25: 103–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.621512.
Treves, A., and J. Bruskotter. 2014. Tolerance for predatory wildlife. Science 344: 476–477.
Treves, A., and K.U. Karanth. 2003. Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conservation Biology 17: 1491–1499. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00059.x.
Treves, A., and K.A. Martin. 2011. Hunters as stewards of wolves in Wisconsin and the northern rocky mountains, USA. Society and Natural Resources 24: 984–994. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.559654.
Treves, A., K.A. Martin, J.E. Wiedenhoeft, and A.P. Wydeven. 2009. Dispersal of gray wolves in the Great Lakes region. In Recovery of gray wolves in the Great Lakes region of the United States: An endangered species success story, ed. A.P. Wydeven, T.R. Van Deelen, and E.J. Heske, 191–204. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-85952-1_12.
Treves, A., L. Naughton-Treves, and V. Shelley. 2013. Longitudinal analysis of attitudes toward wolves. Conservation Biology 27: 315–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12009.
Trouwborst, A. 2010. Managing the carnivore comeback: International and EU species protection law and the return of lynx, wolf and bear to western Europe. Journal of Environmental Law 22: 347–372. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqq013.
Tucker, P., and D.H. Pletscher. 1989. Attitudes of hunters and residents toward wolves in northwestern montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17: 509–514.
van Eeden, L.M., M.S. Crowther, C.R. Dickman, D.W. Macdonald, W.J. Ripple, E.G. Ritchie, and T.M. Newsome. 2018. Managing conflict between large carnivores and livestock. Conservation Biology 32: 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12959.
Varga, D. 2009. Babes in the woods: Wilderness aesthetics in children’s stories and toys, 1830–1915. Society and Animals 17: 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853009X445370.
Vaske, J., and M. Manfredo. 2012. Social psychological considerations in wildlife management. In Human dimensions of wildlife management, 2nd ed., ed. D.J. Decker, S.J. Riley, and W.F. Siemer, 43–57. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
Verplanken, B., G. Hofstee, and H.J.W. Janssen. 1998. Accessibility of affective versus cognitive components of attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology 28: 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199801/02)28:1%3C23::AID-EJSP843%3E3.0.CO;2-Z.
von Essen, E., and M. Allen. 2020. ‘Not the wolf itself’: Distinguishing hunters’ criticisms of wolves from procedures for making wolf management decisions. Ethics, Policy and Environment 23: 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2020.1746009.
Wang, L., Y.-P. Ma, Q.-J. Zhou, Y.-P. Zhang, P. Savolainen, and G.-D. Wang. 2016. The geographical distribution of grey wolves (Canis lupus) in China: A systematic review. Zoological Research 37: 315. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920600663912.
Wexler, M.N. 1996. A sociological framing of the NIMBY (Not-In-My-Backyard) syndrome. International Review of Modern Sociology 26: 91–110.
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.
Wilson, M.A. 1997. The wolf in Yellowstone: Science, symbol, or politics? Deconstructing the conflict between environmentalism and wise use. Society and Natural Resources 10: 453–468.
Wydeven, A.P., T.R. van Deelen, and E. Heske. 2009. Recovery of gray wolves in the Great Lakes region of the United States: An endangered species success story. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-85952-1.
Young, S.P., and E.A. Goldman. 1944. The wolves of North America: Part I. Their history, life habits, economic status, and control. Washington: American Wildlife Institute.
Zhang, H., Y. Zou, H. Dou, X. Liu, C. Zhang, and S. Liu. 2010. Preliminary analysis on the habitat selection of wolf (Canis lupus) in Dalai Lake Natural Reserve in Inner Mongolia. Acta Ecologica Sinica 30: 3637–3644.
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: 1–17.
Zinn, H.C., M.J. Manfredo, J.J. Vaske, and K. Wittmann. 1998. Using normative beliefs to determine the acceptability of wildlife management actions. Society and Natural Resources 11: 649–662.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Jos Milner for proof reading the original draft of the manuscript, improving the English language and for comments to the original draft of the manuscript.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Norwegian institute for nature research. Open access funding provided by Norwegian institute for nature research. Funding was provided by Høgskolen i Innlandet.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors hereby declare they have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Barmoen, M., Bærum, K.M. & Mathiesen, K.E. Living with wolves: A worldwide systematic review of attitudes. Ambio 53, 1414–1432 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02036-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02036-1