Hierzu eine kurze Überschau zur Einstellung der Bevölkerung aus verschiedenen Regionen der Erde, die nach Belieben erweitert werden kann (siehe auch viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3041&p=38904#p38904); Material ist mehr als genügend vorhanden. Auch können z.B. Nina oder TheOnikra gerne die Umfragen hierzulander detaillierter aufdröseln, wenn die Quellen schon ohnehin näher untersucht wurden (viewtopic.php?p=40074#p40064).
Nilsen et al. (2007): Wolf reintroduction to Scotland: public attitudes and consequences for red deer management. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2006.0369.
Abstract
Reintroductions are important tools for the conservation of individual species, but recently more attention has been paid to the restoration of ecosystem function, and to the importance of carrying out a full risk assessment prior to any reintroduction programme. In much of the Highlands of Scotland, wolves (Canis lupus) were eradicated by 1769, but there are currently proposals for them to be reintroduced. Their main wild prey if reintroduced would be red deer (Cervus elaphus). Red deer are themselves a contentious component of the Scottish landscape. They support a trophy hunting industry but are thought to be close to carrying capacity, and are believed to have a considerable economic and ecological impact. High deer densities hamper attempts to reforest, reduce bird densities and compete with livestock for grazing. Here, we examine the probable consequences for the red deer population of reintroducing wolves into the Scottish Highlands using a structured Markov predator–prey model. Our simulations suggest that reintroducing wolves is likely to generate conservation benefits by lowering deer densities. It would also free deer estates from the financial burden of costly hind culls, which are required in order to achieve the Deer Commission for Scotland's target deer densities. However, a reintroduced wolf population would also carry costs, particularly through increased livestock mortality. We investigated perceptions of the costs and benefits of wolf reintroductions among rural and urban communities in Scotland and found that the public are generally positive to the idea. Farmers hold more negative attitudes, but far less negative than the organizations that represent them.
(d) Assessing rural and urban attitudes to wolf reintroductions
Attitudes to reintroductions of wolves and other extirpated components of the British fauna varied between rural and urban samples. Urban respondents had a mean attitude score of C5.3 on a scale of K18 to C18, while rural respondents had a significantly lower score of C1.9 (figure 3). The lower score for the rural population was due to the negative attitudes of the subsample of farmers (mean score K4.7). When offered a choice of scenarios, 43% of respondents favoured the reintroduction of a range of species, including wolves, into the wild; 35% favoured reintroductions into fenced eco-parks; 8% favoured reintroductions of species other than wolves (e.g. beavers) and 14% favoured no reintroductions of any species. Of the rural population, 23% felt that deer control was the major advantage of wolf reintroductions, with the potential for tourism ranking second (21% of respondents). Of urban respondents, 19% felt that tourism would be the major benefit, but they also saw a range of other advantages that were not highlighted by the rural community, including preserving Scotland’s heritage and restoring the balance of nature. The major concern of the rural population was loss of livestock (54% of respondents), while the urban population was predominately concerned about the potential of wolves to harm humans (35% of respondents). The attitudes of people other than farmers reflected media coverage of the wolf issue; a search of UK national and local newspapers using Factiva revealed that 54% of articles mentioning wolves had a positive message and 19% were negative.
Our study suggests that the Scottish public, with the exception of farmers, has a generally positive view of reintroductions, including wolves. It is instructive to note, however, that farmer attitudes are less negative than might have been expected, and substantially less negative than
the attitudes expressed by their representative organization. However, unless reintroductions are well planned, such attitudes may change in a more negative direction when people actually experience wolf predation (Ericsson & Heberlein 2003). In this paper, we have suggested one advantage of the reintroduction of wolves—solving some of the difficult issues surrounding deer management in Scotland.
Heberlein & Ericsson (2008): Public attitudes and the future of wolves Canis lupus in Sweden. DOI: 10.2981/0909-6396(2008)14[391:PAATFO]2.0.CO;2.
Our meta-analysis of 38 attitude studies from around the world published between 1972 and 2000 shows majority support for wolves and restoration across studies (Williams et al. 2002). This support has been constant across wolf attitude studies for nearly 30 years. [...] Our recent surveys in Sweden show that support for the existence of wolves in Sweden is strong and widespread among the general public (Ericsson et al. 2006). Even a majority of hunters who live in the wolf areas support the right of wolves to exist (Ericsson & Heberlein 2003). Attitudes of the general public in Sweden towards wolves have been stable or have become even more positive between 1976 and 2001 (Ericsson & Heberlein 2003).
Though attitudes are usually stable, they are not immovable. Attitudes towards wolves may become more negative now that the wolves are back. It is easy to support hypothetical wolves, but real wolves, such as the ‘Ringvattnet wolf’ which may kill hunting dogs and livestock and threaten the public's sense of security. Both our research and the research of others show that people who live in wolf areas are less positive towards wolves than people who live in areas where wolves do not occur (Ericsson & Heberlein 2003, Ericsson et al. 2006, Karlsson & Sjöström 2007). Increasing wolf numbers can lead to more negative experiences which can lead to more negative attitudes.
Furthermore, lack of experience may be even more important for changing attitudes than experience itself. The results of our meta-analysis showed that in most studies >30% of the respondents reported no strong attitudes towards wolves (Williams et al. 2002). We also found this level of disinterest in our 2001 Swedish survey. But a single negative event could make this group change from neutral to negative.
The most dramatic change in Sweden has been a decline in hunter support for wolves. In 1976, 3/4 of the hunters and the public agreed that it was important to do something for wolves, and 60% of both of these groups supported artificial reintroduction of wolves (Andersson et al. 1977). At that time, the hunters were more positive than the general public in their support for a free-ranging wolf population (63 vs 51%), and in their support for an unrestricted population of wolves (59 vs 51%). Today, when real wolves have returned to Sweden, we found that only 40% of the hunters said they liked wolves compared to 61% of the general public (Ericsson & Heberlein 2003). So, today, hunters are much less likely than the general public (40 vs 71%) to say that the wolf population should increase. We believe that these changes occurred because 30 years ago hunters anticipated that wolves would show up in the mountains and in the reindeer Rangifer tarandus areas in the north rather in the southern forests and in the moose Alces alces hunting areas where the restoration actually happened. While hunters in Sweden compose about 3% of the total population and hunters in the wolf area compose 0.1% of the population between 16-65 years old, they represent an important interest group when it comes to wolves as they are directly affected.
Naughton-Treves et al. (2003): Paying for Tolerance: Rural Citizens’ Attitudes toward Wolf Depredation and Compensation. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00060.x.
Abstract
As wolf (Canis lupus) populations recover in Wisconsin (U.S.A.), their depredations on livestock, pets, and hunting dogs have increased. We used a mail‐back survey to assess the tolerance of 535 rural citizens of wolves and their preferences regarding the management of “problem” wolves. Specifically, we tested whether people who had lost domestic animals to wolves or other predators were less tolerant of wolves than neighboring residents who had not and whether compensation payments improved tolerance of wolves. We assessed tolerance via proxy measures related to an individual's preferred wolf population size for Wisconsin and the likelihood she or he would shoot a wolf. We also measured individuals' approval of lethal control and other wolf‐management tactics under five conflict scenarios. Multivariate analysis revealed that the strongest predictor of tolerance was social group. Bear (Ursus americanus) hunters were concerned about losing valuable hounds to wolves and were more likely to approve of lethal control and reducing the wolf population than were livestock producers, who were more concerned than general residents. To a lesser degree, education level, experience of loss, and gender were also significant. Livestock producers and bear hunters who had been compensated for their losses to wolves were not more tolerant than their counterparts who alleged a loss but received no compensation. Yet all respondents approved of compensation payments as a management strategy. Our results indicate that deep‐rooted social identity and occupation are more powerful predictors of tolerance of wolves than individual encounters with these large carnivores.
Wolves stir people’s emotions and attract public attention far out of proportion to their numbers (Bangs et al. 1998; Linnell et al. 2001). Correspondingly, there is a sizeable body of research documenting public attitudes toward wolves (for a review of 38 surveys, see Williams et al. 2002). Evidently, support for wolves is strongest among young to middle-aged, college-educated, affluent urban residents, and among women (Kaltenborn et al. 1999; Williams et al. 2002; but regarding rural support for wolves see Forbes et al. 1998).
Kleiven & Kaltenborn (2004): Factors influencing the social acceptability of large carnivore behaviours. DOI: 10.1023/B:BIOC.0000029328.81255.38.
Abstract
A survey on attitudes toward large carnivores was conducted in a representative sample of the Norwegian population (n = 3134). People were asked about the acceptability of carnivores living in remote wilderness, close to where people live, killing livestock, killing pets, or threatening humans. Large differences in acceptability appeared across the five situations. Wolves and bears were less acceptable than lynx and wolverines when observed close to where people live. Negative associations were found between acceptability and lack of personal control, economic loss, and respondents' age. Acceptability was higher among males than among females, and higher among urban than among rural residents. The results showed that general measures of attitudes alone toward large carnivores were of limited value in wildlife management. The situational and social specificity of these attitudes should be given more attention.
There are two obvious candidate variables in this respect. Firstly, previous research has shown that the personal importance of an issue is an important variablein studies of attitude–behaviour relations (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Bright andManfredo 1996). It has been shown that the opposition to wolves is strongest when the impact (economic or otherwise) of the species is negative (e.g., Pate et al.1996) [Anm.: Jaja, wütende Wasserwerker hier!]. Vittersøet al. (1999) showed that farmers’ anticipated consequence for the future of sheep farming revealed strong predictive potentials about their attitude toward large carnivores (the estimated annual loss of sheep to predators in Norway is around 30 000 heads). Thus, economic loss due to the presence of large predators should influence the acceptability of large carnivore behaviour. In areas where sheep farming is very limited, other perceived negative consequences may be more important (Skogen and Haaland 2001).Secondly, the controversy about large carnivores may have involved a rural protest against control by central political authorities over land use, since ‘‘wide-spread sentiments of social disempowerment (exist) in rural communities throughout the American West’’ (Wilson 1997, p. 460). In a study in Norway it was found that sheep farmers expressed an external locus of control, indicating a belief that external forces control events, relative to two other groups (wildlife managers and wildlife biologists).
Discussion
On a general level, this study confirmed what several other studies of attitudes toward large carnivores have shown: older people, women, persons with a low levelof education, and rural residents, and people who suffer an economic loss due to carnivores have more negative attitudes towards these animal species (Bjerke et al. 2002; Williams et al. 2002).
[...]
Currently, wolves are seen as highly controversial animals in Norway. Since this species has been functionally extinct from the Scandinavian ecosystem for several decades, and is currently making a rapid comeback, the public is not familiar with its presence. We should treat attitudes and acceptance levels related to wolves as unstable social issues,where the various interest groups have not yet worked through the issue to a level where a more stable consensus on the appropriate levels of presence is reached.In this context, well-formulated and targeted information can have positive effects. At least a portion of the high level of fear reported in the general public (Bjerke et al. 2001) can likely be attributed to lack of knowledge about the ecologyand behaviour of large carnivores, and the wolf in particular. An example of this is that biologists generally agree that under the current conditions (i.e., a small po-pulation of wolves that have ample access to natural prey like roe deer and moose),the likelihood of wolves actually attacking people may be very small. The probability of an attack by a bear or a wolf on humans in Scandinavia has been shown to be extremely low (Swenson et al. 1996; Linnell and Bjerke 2002). Human fear of animals is irrational as well as real, nevertheless some fear reduction should be possible through processes like habituation and information.