UNIVERZA V LJUBLJANI BIOTEHNIŠKA FAKULTETA Aleksandra MAJIĆ SKRBINŠEK VLOGA STALIŠČ SPLOŠNE JAVNOSTI IN KLJUČNIH INTERESNIH SKUPIN PRI UPRAVLJANJU IN VARSTVU POPULACIJ VELIKIH ZVERI DOKTORSKA DISERTACIJA Ljubljana, 2022 UNIVERZA V LJUBLJANI BIOTEHNIŠKA FAKULTETA Aleksandra MAJIĆ SKRBINŠEK VLOGA STALIŠČ SPLOŠNE JAVNOSTI IN KLJUČNIH INTERESNIH SKUPIN PRI UPRAVLJANJU IN VARSTVU POPULACIJ VELIKIH ZVERI DOKTORSKA DISERTACIJA THE ROLE OF GENERAL PUBLIC AND KEY INTEREST GROUPS ATTITUDES IN MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION OF LARGE CARNIVORE POPULATIONS DOCTORAL DISSERTATION Ljubljana, 2022 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 Na podlagi Statuta Univerze v Ljubljani ter po sklepu Senata Biotehniške fakultete in sklepa Komisije za doktorski študij Univerze v Ljubljani z dne 30. 9. 2016 je bilo potrjeno, da kandidatka izpolnjuje pogoje za opravljanje doktorata znanosti na Interdisciplinarnem doktorskem študijskem programu Bioznanosti, znanstveno področje biologija. Za mentorja je bil imenovan prof. dr. Ivan Kos. Komisija za oceno in zagovor: Predsednik: doc. dr. Miha KROFEL Univerza v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, Oddelek za gozdarstvo in obnovljive gozdne vire Član: izr. prof. dr. Drago KOS Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za družbene vede Član: prof. emer. dr. Đuro HUBER Univerza v Zagrebu, Veterinarska fakulteta Datum zagovora: 13. 9. 2022 Aleksandra Majić Skrbinšek II Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 KLJUČNA DOKUMENTACIJSKA INFORMACIJA (KDI) ŠD Dd DK 591.5:639.111.7(043.3) KG varstvena biologija, odnos javnosti, stališča, vključevanje javnosti v odločanje, velike zveri, rjavi medved, Ursus arctos, volk, Canis lupus, evrazijski ris, Lynx lynx, Dinaridi A MAJIĆ SKRBINŠEK, Aleksandra, mag., dr. vet. med SA KOS, Ivan (mentor) KZ SI-1000 Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101 ZA Univerza v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, Interdisciplinarni doktorski študijski program Bioznanosti, področje Biologija. LI 2022 IN VLOGA STALIŠČ SPLOŠNE JAVNOSTI IN KLJUČNIH INTERESNIH SKUPIN PRI UPRAVLJANJU IN VARSTVU POPULACIJ VELIKIH ZVERI TD Doktorska disertacija OP VII, 77 str., 104 vir. IJ sl/en JI sl/en AI Varstvo velikih zveri je vpeto v širše socioekonomske, čustvene in politične kontekste. Vračanje teh vrst na območja, iz katerih so v preteklosti izginile prinaša s sabo precejšnje družbene izzive, saj temeljni konflikti, ki so v preteklosti povzročili preganjanje, niso izginili. Kot alternativo pristopom upravljanja »od zgoraj navzdol« predlagamo uporabo sodelujočih pristopov, ki pomagajo graditi zaupanje in vzpostaviti trajnostno sobivanje z velikimi zvermi. Ti pristopi so tudi inherentno bolj demokratični. Rezultati javnomnenjskih raziskav lahko pri teh pristopih predstavljajo glas »tihe večine« in upravljavcem omogočijo učinkovitejše oblikovanje rešitev. Na Hrvaškem smo pri volku v letih 1999 in 2003 dokumentirali premik stališč iz ekstremnih (pozitivnih in negativnih) proti bolj nevtralnim. Negativna stališča, ki so se razvila zlasti pri starejših kohortah ob popolni zaščiti volka proti koncu devetdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja so se do druge raziskave nekoliko umirila kljub naraščanju populacije volka. Pri rjavem medvedu smo v letih 2002 in 2008 in dokumentirali stališča javnosti in nekaterih pomembnejših interesnih skupin. Orientacije vrednot in naklonjenost ohranjanju vrste se nista spremenili, se pa je zmanjšala kapaciteta za sprejemanje rjavega medveda, verjetno zaradi rasti populacije in bolj centraliziranega upravljanja. V Albaniji in Severni Makedoniji smo raziskali odnos javnosti do vseh treh velikih zveri. Podpora varstvu volka je v obeh državah znatno nižja kot podpora varstvu rjavega medveda in evrazijskega risa. To kaže, da je potrebno vrste pri varstvu in upravljanju obravnavati ločeno, saj bi lahko skupni ukrepi za vse tri vrste povzročili, da bi se negativen odnos do volka »prelil« tudi na drugi dve vrsti. III Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 KEY WORDS DOCUMENTATION (KWD) Dn Dd DC 591.5:639.111.7(043.3) CX conservation biology, public opinion, attitudes, public participation in decision-making, large carnivores, brown bear, Ursus arctos, wolf, Canis lupus, Eurasian lynx, Lynx lynx, Dinarics AU MAJIĆ SKRBINŠEK, Aleksandra, M.Sc., DVM AA KOS, Ivan (supervisor) PP SI-1000 Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101 PB University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Interdisciplinary Doctoral Programme in Biosciences, Field of Biology PY 2022 TI THE ROLE OF GENERAL PUBLIC AND KEY INTEREST GROUPS ATTITUDES IN MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION OF LARGE CARNIVORE POPULATIONS DT doctoral dissertation NO VII, 77 pp., 104 ref. LA si/en AL si/en AI Conservation of large carnivores is entwined into wider socioeconomic, emotional and political contexts. Return of these species to the areas from which they disappeared in the past also brings considerable social challenges since the fundamental conflicts that caused persecution in the past never went away. As an alternative to top-down management, we are suggesting the use of collaborative approaches that help build trust and establish sustainable coexistence with large carnivores and are also inherently more democratic. For these approaches, results of public attitudes surveys can provide the voice of the “silent majority” and help the managers in more efficient forming of solutions. In Croatia, for wolf we documented a shift in attitudes between 1999 and 2003 from extremes (positive and negative) towards more neutral. Negative attitudes, which developed particularly in older cohorts primarily because of a top-down total protection of the wolf at the end of the 1990s, started to wind down by the second survey despite the wolf population increase. Fort the brown bear we documented the attitudes of the general public and key interest groups in 2002 and 2008. While value orientations and support for species conservation remained the same, there was a decrease in brown bear acceptance capacity, probably because of a population increase and more centralized management. In Albania and Northern Macedonia, we explored public attitudes towards all three large carnivores. Support for wolf conservation is in both countries much lower than support for conservation of brown bear and Eurasian lynx. This indicates that the species need to be treated separately in conservation and management since common measures for all three species could cause the negative attitudes towards wolves to transfer also to the other two species. IV Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 KAZALO VSEBINE KLJUČNA DOKUMENTACIJSKA INFORMACIJA (KDI) III KEY WORDS DOCUMENTATION (KWD) IV KAZALO VSEBINE V KAZALO ZNANSTVENIH DEL VII 1 PREDSTAVITEV PROBLEMATIKE IN HIPOTEZE 1 1.1 UVOD 1 1.2 VELIKE ZVERI V EVROPI – IZGINJANJE IN PONOVNA VRNITEV 2 1.3 DRUŽBENI IZZIVI VRNITVE VELIKIH ZVERI 4 1.4 IZZIVI VARSTVA VELIKIH ZVERI IN UPRAVLJANJA Z NJIMI 5 1.5 POMEN RAZISKAV STALIŠČ JAVNOSTI DO VELIKIH ZVERI ZA VARSTVO IN UPRAVLJANJE 6 1.6 VKLJUČEVANJE JAVNOSTI V ODLOČANJE 9 1.7 RAZISKOVALNE HIPOTEZE 9 2 ZNANSTVENA DELA 10 2.1 NE POZABITE POGLEDATI NAVZDOL – KOLABORATIVNI PRISTOPI K VAROVANJU ZVERI 10 2.2 SPREMEMBE V ODNOSU JAVNOSTI DO VOLKOV NA HRVAŠKEM 18 2.3 DINAMIKA ODNOSA JAVNOSTI DO MEDVEDA IN VLOGA LOVA NA MEDVEDE NA HRVAŠKEM 25 2.4 ZVERI SI NISO ENAKE V OČEH PREBIVALCEV PODEŽELJA. BI MORALI OB KONFLIKTIH RAZVIJATI VARSTVENE NAČRTE ZA FUNKCIONALNE CEHE, ALI ZA POSAMEZNE VRSTE? 36 2.5 OKREVANJE POPULACIJ VELIKIH ZVERI V SODOBNI KRAJINI EVROPE, V KATERI PREVLADUJE ČLOVEK 52 3 RAZPRAVA IN SKLEPI 56 3.1 RAZPRAVA 56 3.1.1 Kolaborativni pristopi k varstvu velikih zveri in kontrast s pristopi od zgoraj navzdol 57 3.1.2 Spremembe v stališčih javnosti do velikih zveri skozi čas 57 V Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 3.1.3 V očeh javnosti niso vse velike zveri enake 59 3.1.4 Evropsko varstvo velikih zveri kot zgodba o uspehu ter kontrast med rezervatnim varstvom in sobivanjem 59 3.1.5 Vloga znanosti 60 4 SKLEPI 61 5 POVZETEK 63 6 SUMMARY 66 7 VIRI 69 ZAHVALA PRILOGE PRILOGA A: DOVOLJENJA ZALOŽNIKOV ZA UPORABO ČLANKOV V TISKANI IN ELEKTRONSKI VERZIJI DOKTORSKE DISERTACIJE VI Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 KAZALO ZNANSTVENIH DEL Redpath, S. M., Linnell, J. D. C., Festa-Bianchet, M., Boitani, L., Bunnefeld, N., Dickman, A., Gutiérrez, R. J., Irvine, R. J., Johansson, M., Majić, A., McMahon, B. J., Pooley, S., Sandström, C., Sjölander-Lindqvist, A., Skogen, K., Swenson, J. E., Trouwborst, A., Young, J., Milner-Gulland, E. J. .2017. Don’t forget to look down – collaborative approaches to predator conservation. Biological Reviews: 92, 4: 2157–2163 10 Majić, A., Bath, A. J. .2010. Changes in attitudes toward wolves in Croatia. Biological Conservation: 143, 1: 255–260 18 Majić, A., Marino Taussig de Bodonia, A., Huber, D., Bunnefeld, N. 2011. Dynamics of public attitudes toward bears and the role of bear hunting in Croatia. Biological Conservation: 144, 12: 3018–3027 25 Trajçe, A., Ivanov, G., Keçi, E., Majić, A., Melovski, D., Mersini, K., Mustafa, S., Skrbinšek, T., Stojanov, A., Todorovska, A., von Arx, M., Linnell, J. D. C. (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, doi: 10.1016/J.GECCO.2019.E00677 36 Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J. D. C., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, H., López-Bao, J. V., Adamec, M., Álvares, F., Anders, O., Balečiauskas, L., Balys, V., Bedõ, P., Bego, F., Blanco, J. C., Breitenmoser, U., Brøseth, H., Bufka, L., Bunikyte, R., Ciucci, P., Dutsov, A., Engleder, T., Fuxjäger, C., Groff, C., Holmala, K., Hoxha, B., Iliopoulos, Y., Ionescu, O., Jeremić, J., Jerina, K., Kluth, G., Knauer, F., Kojola, I., Kos, I., Krofel, M., Kubala, J., Kunovac, S., Kusak, J., Kutal, M., Liberg, O., Majić, A., Männil, P., Manz, R., Marboutin, E., Marucco, F., Melovski, D., Mersini, K., Mertzanis, Y., Mysłajek, R.W., Nowak, S., Odden, J., Ozolins, J., Palomero, G., Paunović, M., Persson, J., Potočnik, H., Quenette. P-Y., Rauer, G., Reinhardt, I., Rigg, R., Ryser, A., Salvatori, V., Skrbinšek, T., Stojanov, A., Swenson, J.E., Szemethy, L., Trajçe, A., Tsingarska-Sedefcheva, E., Váňa, M., Veeroja, R., Wabakken, P., Wölfl, M., Wölfl, S., Zimmermann, F., Zlatanova, D., Boitani, L., 2014. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science, 346, 6216: 1517–1519 52 VII Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 1 PREDSTAVITEV PROBLEMATIKE IN HIPOTEZE 1.1 UVOD Kot človeštvo se danes soočamo s številnimi globalnimi izzivi, med katerimi je izguba biodiverzitete gotovo en pomembnejših in bolj izpostavljenih. Biodiverziteta je temelj delovanja ekosistemov, rezultat celotne evolucije našega planeta in, nenazadnje, ključna za obstoj človeka (Soulé, 1985). Zaradi eksplozivne rasti človeške populacije in vedno večjih potreb po prostoru in naravnih virih prihaja do krčenja in spreminjanja naravnega okolja in zmanjševanja razširjenosti in številčnosti številnih živalskih in rastlinskih vrst. Glede na podatke Mednarodne zveze za varstvo narave (IUCN) je danes 38.500, oziroma 28%, vseh živalskih in rastlinskih vrst, za katere je bila delana ocena, ogroženih (IUCN Red List, 2021). Že leta 2002 so (Sanderson in sod., 2002) ugotavljali, da je vsaj 83% zemeljske površine spremenjeno zaradi človeške aktivnosti. Vpliv človeka na geologijo in ekosisteme planeta zemlje je v zadnjih stoletjih tolikšen, da je predlagana nova geološka doba, Antropocen (Lewis in Maslin, 2015), katere glavna značilnost je v temeljih spremenjen odnos med človekom in celotnim sistemom planeta Zemlja. Kot odgovor znanosti na krizo biodiverzitete se je v osemdesetih letih dvajsetega stoletja oblikovala varstvena biologija kot interdisciplinarna, aplikativna veda, katere cilj je upočasniti, ali še bolje ustaviti, izgubo biodiverzitete in omogočiti nadaljevanje evolucijskih procesov in življenja na zemlji (Soulé, 1985). Čeprav izvira iz biologije, vključuje varstvena biologija ob številnih bioloških področjih tudi znanja in strokovnjake iz številnih drugih, tudi družbenih ved (Soulé, 1985). V zadnjem času pa se varstveno biologijo celo predlaga kot del širše varstvene znanosti (»Conservation Science«), ki vključuje tudi druge vede kot so agronomija, antropologija, ekonomija, sociologija, psihologija, komunikologija, medicina, politologija in podobno (Kareiva in Marvier, 2012). Ta kompleksnost ved, ki se ukvarjajo z reševanjem biodiverzitetne krize, je odraz izjemne kompleksnosti problematike in velikega izziva, ki ga predstavlja. Tako kot se pojavlja biodiverziteta na različnih ravneh, od ekosistemske do ravni genov (Kryštufek, 1999), je na različnih ravneh tudi varstvo. Čeprav so vse ravni varstva ključne, je verjetno tista temeljna raven varstvo vrst, pri čemer pa ne predstavljajo vse vrste enakega varstvenega izziva. Varstvo velikih zveri zavzema v marsičem posebno mesto. Zaradi velikih prostorskih potreb in nizkih populacijskih gostot potrebujejo velike zveri ogromna strnjena območja, da bi oblikovale viabilne populacije, kar je v sodobnem antropogeno spremenjenem svetu vse večji problem (Pelton, 2003). Obstoj teh velikih zveri se po eni strani od nekdaj križa z interesi človeka, po drugi strani pa je vedno bolj jasen velik pomen vrst na vrhu prehranskega spleta, zlasti plenilcev, pri delovanju ekosistemov (Estes, 2011). Konflikti, ki jih povzročajo z neposrednim vplivom na premoženje in eksistenco ljudi, 1 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 pa so razlog za sovraštvo do teh vrst, ki je globoko ukoreninjeno v človeški zgodovini in mnogih kulturah (Ripple in sod., 2014). Po drugi strani pa so te vrste izrazito karizmatične, pogosto prisotne v kulturni dediščini večine kultur na celotnem območju svoje zgodovinske razširjenosti, njihovo varstvo pa je močno vpeto v širše socioekonomske, čustvene in politične kontekste, kar naredi izzive njihovega varstva še bolj kompleksne (Chapron in López-Bao, 2014). 1.2 VELIKE ZVERI V EVROPI – IZGINJANJE IN PONOVNA VRNITEV Podobno kot sorodne vrste drugod po svetu imajo tudi evropske velike zveri dolgo zgodovino konflikta s človekom. Rjavi medved ( Ursus arctos, v nadaljevanju medved), volk ( Canis lupus) in evrazijski ris ( Lynx lynx, v nadaljevanju ris) so bili zgodovinsko razširjeni po večini evropskega kontinenta, v 18. in 19. stoletju pa so te vrste zaradi neposrednega iztrebljanja s strani človeka in izgube življenjskega prostora izginile iz večjega dela svoje zgodovinske razširjenosti. Medved je nekoč poseljeval celoten zmerni pas Holarktike. Njegovo izginjanje se je ponekod začelo že zgodaj, saj je iz delov severne in Zahodne Evrope začel izginjati že v srednjem veku. Večina ostalih populacij se je zelo zmanjšala v 19. in v začetku 20. stoletja, ko je medved izginil iz večjega dela Zahodne Evrope, kjer je ostal v zgolj nekaj majhnih reliktnih populacijah, in prišel na rob izumrtja v Skandinaviji (Breitenmoser, 1998). Večje populacije so ostale le v delu Srednje in v Vzhodni Evropi. Tudi volk je iz velikega dela Zahodne Evrope izginil že pred začetkom 18. stoletja, v prvi polovici 20. stoletja pa je izginil iz praktično celotne Zahodne Evrope, vključno s Skandinavijo (Zimen in Boitani, 1979). Velike populacije so v prvi polovici 20. stoletja ostale samo v Vzhodni Evropi (Rusija in Karpati), ostalo pa je tudi več manjših fragmeniranih populacij v Dinaridih ter na Iberskem in Apeninskem polotoku (Promberger in Schröder, 1993; Breitenmoser, 1998). Ris, čeprav verjetno najmanj kontroverzna izmed omenjenih vrst, je prav tako začel izginjati iz Evrope že pred 18. stoletjem, zlasti iz ravninskih območij, ki so jih bolj poseljevali ljudje, je pa bil še na začetku 19. stoletja prisoten v večini večjih gozdnatih območjih in gorskih masivov Evrope (Breitenmoser, 1998). Konec 19. in v začetku 20. stoletja je ris izginil iz Zahodne, Srednje in Južne Evrope, populacije so obstale le v borealnih gozdovih Severne Evrope, v Karpatih in majhna reliktna populacija na jugu Dinaridov v majhnem delu Grčije, Albanije in Severne Makedonije. 2 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 V preteklosti je izginjanje velikih zveri v veliki meri zrcalilo rast in širjenje človeške populacije. Kjerkoli so se naselili ljudje, so preganjali velike zveri, ki so ogrožale njihove domače živali in predstavljale tekmece za lovne vrste. Iztrebljanje teh vrst je bil kategoričen cilj vseh evropskih agrarnih družb, ki so večinoma za njihovo ubijanje izplačevale tudi nagrade (Breitenmoser, 1998). Ob neposrednem pregonu je izginjal habitat, konec 18. in v 19. stoletju pa je v večjem delu Evrope prišlo tudi do drastičnega upada populacij plenskih vrst, zlasti velikih parkljarjev (Potočnik, 2001). Izginjanje velikih zveri iz Evrope je zelo kompleksno in se med vrstami razlikuje – medtem ko je izginjanje volka in medveda sledilo podobnemu vzorcu, ko so populacije izginile s severa Evrope in ostale na jugu, je ris prav nasprotno preživel na severu Evrope in izginil na jugu. Breitenmoser (1998) razpravlja, da te razlike najverjetneje niso posledica različnih režimov preganjanja, ampak različni odzivi posamezne vrste na vplive človeka, kot so izguba habitata, padec populacij plenskih vrst, različnih živinorejskih pristopov in različnega lovnega pritiska, kar pa ima v različnih delih Evrope različna družbena in kulturna ozadja. Tako kot je bilo izginjanje velikih zveri posledica delovanja človeka, je bila potrebna za zaustavljanje tega procesa sprememba v odnosu ljudi do narave. Izginjanje velikih zveri se je v Evropi začelo ustavljati v drugi polovici 20. stoletja, ko so se s prebujajočo se naravovarstveno zavestjo v državah, kjer so velike zveri še živele, začele ukinjati nagrade, kmalu pa so se začeli vzpostavljati tudi prvi mehanizmi zaščite (Salvatori in sod., 2007). Številne države so vzpostavile formalno varstvo velikih zveri že pred podpisom ključnih mednarodnih naravovarstvenih konvencij (kjer je treba zlasti izpostaviti in Bernsko konvencijo (Konvencija o varstvu prosto živečega evropskega rastlinstva in živalstva ter njunih naravnih življenjskih prostorov, 1979) in Konvencijo o biološki raznovrstnosti (Konvencija Združenih Narodov o biološki raznovrstnosti, 1992)), po podpisanem pristopu k tem konvencijam pa se je v večini primerov zakonska zaščita še okrepila. Države evropske skupnosti so leta 1993 naredile še dodaten pomemben korak s sprejetjem Habitatne direktive (Direktiva Sveta 92/43/EGS, 1992), ki so jo bile države članice dolžne prenesti v svojo nacionalno zakonodajo in ki nudi široko zakonsko zaščito prosto živečim živalskim in rastlinskim vrstam ter njihovim habitatom in ki je ključen dokument naravovarstva v EU. Vzporedno z vzpostavljanjem zakonskega varstva velikih zveri je po večini evropskega kontinenta prihajalo tudi do urbanizacije in zmanjšanja intenzivne kmetijske rabe površin, ki jih je bilo težje obdelovati s stroji, kar je vodilo do širjenja habitata za številne gozdne vrste in marsikje do hitre rasti populacij plenskih vrst za velike zveri (Breitenmoser, 1998). Posledica omenjenih sprememb je bilo vračanje velikih zveri na številna območja, iz katerih so izginile. Dinamika te rekolonizacije je najbolj izrazita pri volku, ki se je že konec sedemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja začel širiti iz juga Apeninov proti Alpam, koloniziral Skandinavijo, v zadnjih desetletjih pa se je razširil tudi v Nemčijo in Francijo, kjer se populacije krepijo in širijo. Redno se pojavlja v Švici, Avstriji, na Poljskem in Češkem (Petra 3 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 Kaczensky in sod., 2013), prišli pa so tudi v Belgijo (van der Veken in sod., 2021) in Nizozemsko (van Liere in sod., 2021). Širitev medveda je počasnejša, kljub temu pa populacije večinoma naraščajo in se širijo, bile pa so tudi tri doselitve oziroma ponovne naselitve, in sicer iz Slovenije v Trentino v Italiji, v Pireneje v Franciji in v osrednjo Avstrijo (Kaczensky in sod., 2013). Pri tem je treba izpostaviti naselitev v Avstrijo, kjer je novo vzpostavljena populacija kljub hitri začetni dinamiki spet propadla. Naselitev v Avstrijo je ves čas spremljalo nasprotovanje večih interesnih skupin, zlasti lovcev in živinorejcev, kot ključen razlog za propad populacije pa raziskovalci navajajo krivolov (Kaczensky in sod., 2011). Najpočasnejše je okrevanje pri risu in zaenkrat poteka skoraj izključno preko ponovnih naselitev (Kaczensky in sod., 2013). Ponovne naselitve v Zahodno in Srednjo Evropo so se začele v sedemdesetih letih 20. stoletja, iz njih pa so nastale današnje populacije v severnih Dinaridih, Alpah, gorovju Jura, pogorju Harz in Bavarskem gozdu (Linnell in sod., 2009). Naštete ponovno naseljene populacije primarno izvirajo iz slovaških Karpatov, njihovo varstveno stanje pa ostaja problematično. 1.3 DRUŽBENI IZZIVI VRNITVE VELIKIH ZVERI Rast populacij velikih zveri in njihovo prostorsko širjenje prinaša s sabo številne družbene in upravljavske izzive. Četudi se naravovarstvena zavest na splošno dviguje, ima prisotnost velikih zveri velik posreden in neposreden vpliv na ljudi, ki si z njimi delijo prostor (Fritts in sod., 2003). Čeprav se človeška družba zelo hitro spreminja, se lahko velike zveri spreminjajo le v evolucijskem času in so z biološkega vidika v veliki meri enake, kot so bile pred več stoletji, ko smo jih ljudje načrtno preganjali in iztrebljali. Tudi razlogi, zaradi katerih smo jih preganjali, so v veliki meri ostali enaki. Velike zveri v ruralnem okolju še vedno lahko povzročijo resne škode v živinoreji, če domače živali niso ustrezno varovane, v primeru medveda pa se pojavljajo tudi škode na drugem premoženju (čebelnjaki, sadno drevje, kompostniki in podobno). Ustrezno varovanje domačih živali in drugega premoženja nosi s sabo dodatno delo in stroške za kmetovalca, tako da prisotnost velikih zveri v vsakem primeru neposredno vpliva na ruralno ekonomiko (Rode in sod., 2021). Drugo pomembno komponento pa predstavlja strah pred velikimi zvermi, tako racionalen kot iracionalen (Fritts in sod., 2003). Strah je do neke mere racionalen pri medvedu, ki je velika in močna žival in pri katerem lahko v izjemnih primerih pride do poškodb ali celo smrti ljudi. Medvedi se lahko ob velikih populacijskih gostotah in neprimernem ravnanju ljudi, zlasti ob dostopu medveda do različnih antropogenih virov hrane (npr. smeti, kompostniki, klavniški odpadki…) habituirajo na prisotnost človeka in se približujejo ljudem in naseljem. V takšnih primerih postane verjetnost neposrednega napada medveda na človeka večja, prisotnost medvedov pa lokalnim prebivalcem zelo moteča (Herrero in sod., 2005). Po drugi strani je neposreden strah pred volkom iracionalen (čeprav so v svetu 4 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 zabeleženi primeri, ko so volkovi napadli ljudi – glej - Linnell in sod., 2002), ima pa volk v kulturi in izročilu sloves »zlobnega« bitja, ki se ga ljudje bojijo. Še najmanj je strah prisoten pred risom, ki ga tudi na splošno ljudje slabše poznajo (Bath in sod., 2008; Lescureux in sod., 2011). V ruralnem okolju pa imajo lahko ljudje od velikih zveri tudi neposredno premoženjsko korist. Lovni turizem, v populacijah, ki prenesejo tak način rabe, lahko prinese precejšen doprinos lokalni ekonomiji, prisotnost velikih zveri pa nosi s sabo tudi potencial za razvoj ekoturizma (Fritts in sod., 2003). Po drugi strani pa se vrednote v družbi spreminjajo, velike zveri pa zlasti v urbanem okolju, kjer imajo ljudje z njimi znatno manj neposrednega stika, marsikomu pomenijo simbol neokrnjene narave in »divjine«. Okrog velikih zveri tako pogosto nastane nekakšen romantičen konstrukt, ki vodi v idealiziranje velikih zveri in močne čustvene reakcije (Fritts in sod., 2003). Družbeni diskurz okrog velikih zveri tako neredko postane izjemno glasen in čustven, tako v pozitivno kot v negativno smer. Problematika velikih zveri je pogosto močno izpostavljena in zlorabljena v medijih in politiki.Odločevalci pa se neredko znajdejo pod pritiskom različnih interesnih skupin, katerih želje, cilji in vrednote so pogosto diametralno nasprotni (Skogen in Thrane, 2007; Slagle in sod., 2018). 1.4 IZZIVI VARSTVA VELIKIH ZVERI IN UPRAVLJANJA Z NJIMI Glede na vso opisano ozadje je jasno, da je varstvo velikih zveri in upravljanje z njimi zahtevno in kompleksno področje. Čeprav se tradicionalno v ta namen uporabljajo pristopi »od zgoraj navzdol«, kjer upravljalci diktirajo upravljavske ukrepe, ki se potem izvajajo (ali pa tudi ne), je tak pristop v demokratičnih družbah vprašljiv (Björkell, 2008). Družbene spremembe v demokratičnih družbah omogočajo posredno in neposredno vključevanje interesnih skupin v procese okoljskega odločanja, kar je v zadnjih desetletjih tudi formalno deklarirano v mednarodni konvenciji (Konvencija o dostopu do informacij, udeležbi javnosti pri odločanju in dostopu do pravnega varstva v okoljskih zadevah (Aarhuška konvencija), 2005), ki so jo ratificirale vse evropske države razen Rusije. Pestrost interesov glede velikih zveri in možnost, da se ti interesi odrazijo v upravljanju in varstvu, so znatno povečali kompleksnost upravljanja. Tako Brown in Decker (2001) med drugim navajata naslednje razloge, zaradi katerih je od začetka devetdesetih prišlo do povečanja kompleksnosti v upravljanju in varstvu prostoživečih populacij živali: • število interesnih skupin se je povečalo, s tem pa so vrednote, ki jih te interesne skupine zastopajo, postale bolj raznolike. • zakonodaja, ki ureja procese odločanja v varstvu narave in upravljanju s prostoživečimi živalmi, je natančnejša. 5 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 • zahteve javnosti po sodelovanju v odločanju naraščajo. Pri velikih zvereh je bil dolgo glavni upravljavski pristop poseganje v populacijo z ubijanjem, v preteklosti z namenom iztrebljanja, kasneje pa tudi v obdobju varstva teh vrst kot orodje za regulacijo velikosti populacije, odstranjevanje osebkov ki povzročajo nesprejemljive škode ali so nevarni ljudem, pomiritev ljudi, v velikih populacijah pa tudi z lovom kot rabo naravnega vira (Anderson, 2021; Knott in sod. 2014; Salvatori in sod. 2002). Z vzpostavitvijo varstva pa se je znatno povečala tudi kompleksnost upravljavskih pristopov, ki so morali postati v veliki meri usmerjeni v neposredno reševanje konfliktov z velikimi zvermi in večanje podpore sobivanju, pa tudi reševanju konfliktov zaradi velikih zveri med interesnimi skupinami. Prav zaradi konfliktnosti velikih zveri je potreba po vključevanju družbenih vidikov v upravljanje oziroma varstvo teh vrst še posebej izpostavljena (Bath, 1996; 1998; Linnell in sod., 2001; Breitenmoser, 1998). 1.5 POMEN RAZISKAV STALIŠČ JAVNOSTI DO VELIKIH ZVERI ZA VARSTVO IN UPRAVLJANJE Upravljanje z velikimi zvermi pogosto pomeni spreminjanje obnašanja ljudi, ki na območju velikih zveri živijo (npr. uporaba zaščitnih sredstev pri preprečevanju škod po zvereh v kmetijstvu), kar daje še poseben pomen razumevanju norm obnašanja, stališč in vrednot, saj so stališča in obnašanje tesno povezani. Razmerja med stališči in obnašanjem dobro opisuje Fishbein-Ajzenov model (Ajzen in Fishbein, 2000; Fishbein in Ajzen, 1975b), ki kljub enostavnosti predstavlja danes enega izmed najbolje razdelanih kognitivnih psiholoških modelov (Ule, 2004). Po tem modelu je obnašanje odvisno od namere obnašanja, katero sooblikujejo družbeno sprejemljive norme obnašanja, stališča do problematike, pričakovanje rezultata in vrednosti rezultata obnašanja. Sistematične in strukturirane raziskave stališč do velikih zveri v Evropi so se začele konec sedemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja v Skandinaviji (Andersson in sod., 1977; Vittersø in sod., 1998; Lumiaro, 1998; Bjerke in sod., 1998; Bjerke in sod., 1998; Kaltenborn in sod., 1999; Ericsson in Heberlein 2003; Kleiven in sod., 2004). Znanstveniki iz Švedske, Norveške in Finske so prvi v Evropi pokazali interes za raziskave stališč različnih interesnih in demografskih skupin (naravovarstveniki, rejci drobnice, rejci severnih jelenov, lovci, urbano in ruralno prebivalstvo) do velikih zveri. Za preostale dele Evrope predstavlja mejnik prisotnosti tovrstnih raziskav in objav leto 2000, ko so se pod pokroviteljstvom Svetovne zveze za varstvo narave - Evropske iniciative za velike zveri (IUCN - LCIE) začele pojavljati številne obsežne kvantitativne raziskave. Na Hrvaškem so bili prvi poskusi raziskovanja stališč javnosti do zvereh rezultat zmanjševanja števila volkov in iskanja podpore javnosti za njihovo zakonsko zaščito (Morić in Huber, 1989; Gyorgy, 1984; Huber in sod., 1992; Huber in sod., 1994). Pomanjkljivosti 6 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 teh raziskav so bili majhni vzorci in nenaključno vzorčenje anketirancev. Rezultati raziskav kljub temu kažejo, da je v osemdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja prišlo v odnosu javnosti do volkov do sprememb. Tako se je odstotek anketirancev, ki so menili, da je volk škodljiva žival, v desetletju zmanjšal iz 42% leta 1983 (Gyorgy, 1984) na 25% (Huber in sod., 1994). Podobno se je odstotek anketirancev, ki podpirajo iztrebljanje volkov, zmanjšal iz 21% leta 1983 na samo 8 % v letu 1994. Prva raziskava, ki je sledila ustreznim metodološkim standardom v raziskovanju javnega mnenja, je bila na Hrvaškem izpeljana leta 1999. Analizirala je stališča ruralne javnosti, lovcev, gozdarjev in srednješolcev iz območja Gorskega Kotara, Like in Dalmacije do volkov. Opisno analizirani rezultati (Bath in Majić, 2001) kažejo na regionalne razlike v stališčih, saj so imeli najbolj pozitiven odnos do volka anketiranci iz Gorskega Kotara, medtem ko je bil ta odnos najmanj pozitiven pri anketirancih iz Dalmacije, kjer je bilo tudi največ škod po volkovih. Prvi korak v smeri spremljanja odnosa javnosti do volkov in ocenjevanja učinkov upravljavskih ukrepov na Hrvaškem je ponovitev omenjene raziskave leta 2003 in leta 2005 (Majić, 2007; Majić-Skrbinšek in Bath, 2004; 2005). Naslednja raziskava (Majić-Skrbinšek, 2003) je z anketo zajela prebivalce območja medveda na Hrvaškem, tako osrednjega območja kot tudi robnega območja, kjer se medvedi pojavljajo le občasno. Tretja ciljna skupina so bili gozdarji, ki delujejo na območju medveda. V Sloveniji je Korenjakova (1995; 2000) v svojem diplomskem in magistrskem delu analizirala stališča obiskovalcev ljubljanskega in dunajskega živalskega vrta ter turistov, gozdarjev, lovcev in živinorejcev v Sloveniji in Avstriji do velikih zveri. Rezultati so pokazali, da so imeli najbolj pozitiven odnos do teh vrst obiskovalci živalskih vrtov. Anketirani slovenski kmetje so večinoma menili, da velike zveri vendarle sodijo v slovenske gozdove, medtem ko so jim avstrijski kmetje odrekali vsako pravico bivanja v Avstriji. Podoben rezultat je dala tudi primerjava stališč slovenskih in avstrijskih lovcev, medtem ko so bili tako avstrijski kot slovenski gozdarji velikim zverem naklonjeni. Prva raziskava, ki je v Sloveniji raziskala odnos splošne javnosti do zveri (v tem primeru medveda), je vključevala le majhen del območja medveda v Sloveniji (Kaczensky in sod., 2004). Odnos do medveda je bil med anketiranimi lovci in prebivalci raziskovanega območja pozitiven, so pa večinoma že takrat nasprotovali širjenju medveda in višanju številčnosti populacije. Naslednja raziskava (Prosen, 2002) je bila prav tako usmerjena v stališča ciljnih interesnih skupin do velikih zveri. Raziskovali so stališča strokovnjakov na področju rabe prostora, oškodovancev pri škodah zaradi velikih zveri, članov lovskih družin in revirnih gozdarjev. Avtor je uporabil hipotezo o oblikovanju javnega mnenja preko komunikatorjev (v tem primeru omenjenih interesnih skupin) in kanalov komuniciranja, nato pa je stališča teh 7 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 skupin poskusil generalizirati na stališča splošne javnosti v območju, iz katerega so anketiranci prihajali. Raziskava ni podala vpogleda v naravo predvidenega vpliva izbranih komunikatorjev na oblikovanje javnega mnenja, mnenje splošne javnosti pa je ostalo še naprej nedokumentirano. Leta 2008 je bila izpeljana prva večja raziskava stališč splošne javnosti in lovcev do risa (Majić-Skrbinšek, 2008). Raziskava je pokazala, da obstaja glede ohranjanja risa v Sloveniji konsenz, večina anketirancev je podprla tudi dodatno naselitev risov iz tujine, bolj deljena pa so bila mnenja glede številčnosti risov. Leta 2010 je Slana (2010) v diplomskem delu analizirala stališča lovcev in splošne javnosti do morebitne dodatne doselitve evrazijskega risa. Anketiranci so bili potencialnemu posegu večinoma naklonjeni. Poleg tega je Mulejeva (2011) v diplomskem delu analizirala vpliv poznavanja biologije risa na stališča javnosti in lovcev na osrednjem območju razširjenosti risa v Sloveniji in ugotovila, da poznavanje biologije risa nima pomembne vloge pri napovedovanju stališča do te vrste. Pomembne napovedne spremenljivke so bile strah pred risom in splošno prepričanje o pomenu ohranjanja biotske pestrosti. Prelomnico v razumevanju odnosa javnosti do volka v Sloveniji predstavlja LIFE Narava projekt SloWolf. V okviru tega projekta je bila dvakrat izpeljana raziskava odnosa splošne javnosti in najpomembnejših interesnih skupin (rejci drobnice in lovci). V okviru prve raziskave Marinko in Majić Skrbinšek (2011) ugotavljata, da ni pomembnejših razlik med stališči raziskovanih skupin na območju stalne prisotnosti volka (teritorialni tropi) in območjih, kjer se volk pojavlja občasno (posamezni teritorialni volkovi in volkovi v disperziji). Odnos do volka je bil pozitiven s strani lovcev in splošne javnosti, rejci pa so bili volku manj naklonjeni. V okviru druge SloWolf raziskave Mulej s sodelavci (Mulej in sod., 2013) ugotavlja nespremenjeno podporo dolgoročnem ohranjanju volkov in izboljšanje sprejemanja številčnosti volkov. Leta 2015 so Majić Skrbinšek s sodelavci na območju italijanskih in slovenskih Alp izvedli obsežno raziskavo odnosa splošne javnosti in različnih interesnih skupin do volka (Majić-Skrbinšek in sod., 2015). Avtorji med drugim opozarjajo na pomen dobro načrtovanih izobraževalnih kampanj v zagotavljanju podpore javnosti ohranjanju volka. V primerjavi z ostalimi, večinoma dobro raziskanimi evropskimi populacijami velikih zveri, so populacije velikih zveri v Severni Makedoniji, še bolj pa v Albaniji, slabo raziskane (Trajce, 2016). Pomembno prelomnico predstavlja začetek čezmejnega povezovanja makedonskih, albanskih, švicarskih in nemških organizacij pri izvedbi Programa za okrevanje balkanskega risa (angl.: Balkan Lynx Recovery Programme) leta 2006 (KORA, 2021). V okviru te iniciative so pričeli s sistematičnim čezmejnim spremljanjem balkanske populacije risa ( Lynx lynx balcanicus). Ob tem so začeli raziskovati tudi družbene vidike sobivanja z velikimi zvermi – škode v kmetijstvu po velikih zvereh (Keci in sod., 2007) in odnos javnosti do zveri (Lescureux in Linnell, 2010; Trajce, 2016). 8 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 1.6 VKLJUČEVANJE JAVNOSTI V ODLOČANJE Rezultati zgoraj omenjenih raziskav so skoraj vsi po vrsti neposredno informirali odločevalske procese, saj si odločevalci v izogib povzročanju ali poglabljanju konfliktov prizadevajo preveriti in zagotoviti podporo javnosti načrtovanim ukrepom. Izsledki SloWolf raziskave (Marinko in Majić-Skrbinšek, 2011) so bili uporabljeni pri pripravi nacionalnega akcijskega načrta (Akcijski načrt za trajnostno upravljanje populacije volka (Canis lupus) v Sloveniji za obdobje 2013-2017, 2015), na Hrvaškem pa so anketne raziskave (Majićm 2003; Bath in Majić, 2001) predstavljale sestavni del participativne priprave načrtov upravljanja tako za volka (Štrbenac in sod., 2005) kot tudi za medveda (Dečak in sod., 2005). Izsledki anketne raziskave o risu (Majić-Skrbinšek, 2008) pa so med drugim predstavljali podlago za načrtovanje mednarodnega projekta za reševanje risa v Dinaridih – LIFE Lynx. Odločevalci torej potrebujejo znanstvene raziskave in podatke, ki natančno opisujejo cel spekter mnenj javnosti, da bi poiskali najustreznejše poti in rešitve, ki bi omogočile doseganje upravljavskih ciljev (Chase in sod., 2001). Tako so anketne raziskave postale dopolnilno, posredno orodje pri vključevanju javnosti v odločanje, ki da glas t.i. »tihi večini«. Javno mnenje se tradicionalno vključuje v odločitve skozi razprave, okrogle mize in delavnice, vendar obstajajo dokazi, da ti pristopi stališč javnosti ne vključujejo reprezentativno (Johnston in sod., 1993). Običajno se slišijo, in posledično upoštevajo, zgolj interesi najglasnejših, saj tako imenovana »tiha večina« praviloma pri takšnih oblikah izmenjave mnenj ni prisotna (Bath, 1996). 1.7 RAZISKOVALNE HIPOTEZE Pri delu sem postavila tri delovne hipoteze: a) Podpora javnosti ohranjanju vseh treh vrst velikih zveri je v Dinaridih visoka, vendar obstajajo pomembne razlike med različnimi interesnimi skupinami. Razliko v odnosu do velikih zveri bolje opiše pripadnost interesni skupini kot pripadnost državi ali regiji. b) Stališča javnosti do velikih zveri so dinamična in se lahko lokalno pomembno spremenijo v katero koli smer v razmeroma kratkem času. c) Splošen trend stališč javnosti do velikih zveri teži k vedno višjemu sprejemanju njihove prisotnosti. 9 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 2 ZNANSTVENA DELA 2.1 NE POZABITE POGLEDATI NAVZDOL – KOLABORATIVNI PRISTOPI K VAROVANJU ZVERI Don't forget to look down – collaborative approaches to predator conservation. Steve M. Redpath, John D. C. Linnell, Marco Festa-Bianchet, Luigi Boitani, Nils Bunnefeld, Amy Dickman, R. J. Gutiérrez, R. J. Irvine, Maria Johansson, Aleksandra Majić, Barry J. McMahon, Simon Pooley, Camilla Sandström, Annelie Sjölander-Lindqvist, Ketil Skogen, Jon E. Swenson, Arie Trouwborst, Juliette Young, E. J. Milner-Gulland Objavljeno v: Biological Reviews (2017), 92(4): 2157-2163. Sprejeto: 10. februarja 2017 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society, ponatisnjeno z dovoljenjem Izvleček: Iskanje uspešnih rešitev za varstvo velikih zveri je splošno prepoznano kot naravovarstvena prioriteta, se pa mnenja o najučinkovitejših pristopih za doseganje tega cilja razlikujejo: medtem ko nekateri dajejo prednost pristopom »ukazovanja in nadzora« od zgoraj navzdol, spet drugi zagovarjajo kolaborativne pristope. Argumenti v prid prisilnih pristopov od zgoraj navzdol so bili že predstavljeni drugje, tukaj predstavljamo argumente za sodelovanje. Marsikje v razvitem svetu je prožnost pristopov vgrajena v zakonodajo, tako da so cilji naravovarstva uravnoteženi z drugimi legitimni cilji. Nasprotno pa bi v državah v razvoju zaradi omejenih virov, revščine in neučinkovitosti upravljanja lahko imeli kolaborativni pristopi pri varstvo velikih zveri zelo velik pomen. Splošno gledano lahko politike prisile vodijo v razkroj politične legitimnosti, potencialno pa tudi do problemov nepokorščine kot je na primer nezakonito ubijanje, medtem ko lahko kolaborativni pristopi pripeljejo do psihološkega občutka lastništva, večjega zaupanja, učenja in boljših rezultatov za družbo. Trajnostni lov / lov s pastmi igra ključno vlogo pri varstvu in upravljanju številnih vrst velikih zveri. Po svetu obstajajo številni različni modeli za učinkovito varstvo velikih zveri, zdaj so potrebne raziskave, ki bi zmanjšale negotovost in preučile učinkovitost teh pristopov v različnih kontekstih. 10 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Biol. Rev. (2017), pp. 000–000. 1 doi: 10.1111/brv.12326 Don’t forget to look down – collaborative approaches to predator conservation Steve M. Redpath1,2,∗, John D. C. Linnell3, Marco Festa-Bianchet4, Luigi Boitani5, Nils Bunnefeld6, Amy Dickman7, R. J. Gutiérrez8, R. J. Irvine9, Maria Johansson10, Aleksandra Majić11, Barry J. McMahon12, Simon Pooley13, Camilla Sandström14, Annelie Sjölander-Lindqvist15, Ketil Skogen16, Jon E. Swenson3,17, Arie Trouwborst18, Juliette Young19 and E. J. Milner-Gulland20 1Institute of Biological & Environmental Science, University of Aberdeen, Zoology Building, Tillydrone Avenue, Aberdeen, AB24 2TZ, UK. 2Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Grimso Wildlife Research Station, SE-730 91 Riddarhyttan, Sweden 3Norwegian institute for nature research, P.O. Box 5685 Sluppen, NO-7485 Trondheim, Norway 4Département de biologie, Faculté des Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, 2500, boulevard de l’Université, Sherbrooke, J1K 2R1, Canada 5Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Piazzale Aldo Moro, 5, 00185 Roma, Italy 6Faculty of Natural Sciences, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, U.K. 7Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Zoology Department, University of Oxford, The Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Abingdon OX13 5QL, U.K. 8Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 87102, U.S.A. 9The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK 10Environmental Psychology, Department of Architecture and Built Environment, Lund University, PO Box 118, 221 Lund, Sweden 11Biotechnical Faculty, Biology Department, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia 12UCD School of Agriculture & Food Science, University College Dublin Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland 13Department of Geography, Environment and Development Studies, Birkbeck, University of London, London WC1H 9EZ, U.K. 14Department of Political Science, Ume˚a University, SE-901 87 Ume˚a, Sweden 15Gothenburg Research Institute, University of Gothenburg, Box 603, 405 30 Göteborg, Sweden 16Norwegian institute for nature research, Gaustadalléen 21, NO-0349 Oslo, Norway 17Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, PO Box 5003, NO - 1432 ˚As, Norway 18Department of European and International Public Law, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands 19NERFC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian, EH26 0QB, UK 20Department of Zoology and Merton College, Tasso Leventis Professor of Biodiversity, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, U.K. ABSTRACT Finding effective ways of conserving large carnivores is widely recognised as a priority in conservation. However, there is disagreement about the most effective way to do this, with some favouring top-down ‘command and control’ approaches and others favouring collaboration. Arguments for coercive top-down approaches have been presented elsewhere; here we present arguments for collaboration. In many parts of the developed world, flexibility of approach is built into the legislation, so that conservation objectives are balanced with other legitimate goals. In the developing world, limited resources, poverty and weak governance mean that collaborative approaches are likely to play a particularly important part in carnivore conservation. In general, coercive policies may lead to the deterioration of political legitimacy and potentially to non-compliance issues such as illegal killing, whereas col aborative approaches may lead to psychological ownership, enhanced trust, learning, and better social outcomes. Sustainable hunting/trapping plays a crucial part in the conservation and management of many large carnivores. There are many different models for how to conserve carnivores effectively across the world, research is now required to reduce uncertainty and examine the effectiveness of these approaches in different contexts. *Address for correspondence (Tel: 01224 274181; E-mail: s.redpath@abdn.ac.uk) Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society 11 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 2 S. Redpath and others Key words: predator management, conservation, carnivores, conflict, collaboration, top-down, bottom-up, hunting. CONTENTS I. Introduction . .. ... .. .... ... .. .. .. ... .. .. ..... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ..... .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .... .. ... .. .. .. . 2 II. Legislation for carnivore conservation ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ..... .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .... .. ... .. .. .. ... .. 2 III. Democracy and legitimacy .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .... .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .... ... .. .. .. ... .. .. ..... .. .. ..... .. .. ... 3 IV. Collaborative governance .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. ..... .. .. ..... .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .... .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .... ... .. .. . 3 V. Hunting and carnivore populations . ... .. .. ..... .. .. ..... .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .... .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .... ... .. .. . 4 VI. Illegal killing . .. ... .. .... ... .. .. .. ... .. .. ..... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ..... .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .... .. ... .. .. .. . 4 VII. The role of science .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .... .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .... ... .. .. .. ... .. .. ..... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. 5 VIII. Discussion .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .... ... .. .. .. ... .. .. ..... .. .. ..... .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .... .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .... ... . 5 IX. Conclusions . .. ... .. .... ... .. .. .. ... .. .. ..... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ..... .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .... .. ... .. .. .. . 5 X. Acknowledgements .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .... .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .... ... .. .. .. ... .. .. ..... .. .. ..... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. 6 XI. References .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. ..... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ..... .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .... .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .... ... . 6 I. INTRODUCTION range of methods are already in use for the calculation and implementation of sustainable hunting limits. There is a fundamental disagreement about how best to We conclude that both top-down and bottom-up gov- conserve large predators in the Anthropocene. Some argue ernance approaches have validity in predator conservation. for coercive policies (Treves et al., 2017), whereas others argue Our approach as scientists should be to develop new research for collaborative strategies (Lundmark, Matti & Sandström, to reduce the uncertainties and understand the effectiveness 2014). Treves et al. (2017) have taken a particularly strong of alternative strategies in different contexts, rather than position for a protectionist approach, whilst pointing out that advocating one approach to the exclusion of all others. the state has an obligation to conserve large predators in The arguments exemplified by Treves et al. (2017) and this trust for current and future citizens. They argued that this response are critical for the future viability of predator pop- could be accomplished for wolves Canis lupus in the USA ulations, the ecosystems where they live, the legitimacy of by ‘ management institutions and the well-being of people who . . . sophisticated, careful accounting by disinterested trustees who can both understand the multidisciplinary scientific measurements of live with them. relative costs and benefits among competing uses . . . ’ (p. 1). They claimed that strong, top-down and protectionist control needs to be exerted over the ‘ . . . tyrannies of the minorities, or II. LEGISLATION FOR CARNIVORE majorities, who may demand depletion of unpopular, native wildlife . . . ’ CONSERVATION (p. 18). They rejected the idea of sustainable population management, because they believed that the science Legislation can provide a supportive framework for changing guiding sustainable management is uncertain and disputed. the relationship between people and predators and for They argued that without stronger control, hunting, addressing the conservation conflicts associated with shared trapping and poaching would lead to the eradication of landscapes, both at local and intergovernmental levels predators. (Trouwborst, 2015a,b). In international wildlife law, public Here we consider the potential merits of col aborative trust and related concepts, such as intergenerational approaches, counterbalancing the arguments of Treves et al. equity and sustainable development are distinct features (2017). While we wholeheartedly share their objective to of the legal landscape (Sand, 2014; Treves et al., 2017). conserve predators for current and future generations, we The many national and international legal instruments question the sole focus on a coercive approach for six applicable to large carnivores al ow a mixture of reasons: (i) large predators mostly co-occur with people in approaches that can help balance conservation with other multi-functional landscapes, where collaborative approaches interests. are more appropriate; (ii) a coercive approach raises In the USA, state governments hold and manage wildlife moral issues and issues related to political legitimacy; (iii) as a public trust, but the federal government can manage collaborative approaches are mandated by legislation in wildlife in special cases such as under the Endangered Species many countries and many international legal instruments; Act (ESA) when species are threatened or endangered. The (iv) in many parts of the world, the state does not have ultimate goal of the ESA is for a species to achieve recovery the capacity to impose and implement strongly enforced, goals so that it can be delisted and management authority top-down policies; (v) many predator populations thrive in returned to the states. The ESA explicitly prohibits the the presence of hunting/trapping programs (hereafter just consideration of economic or social issues in listing decisions referred to as hunting) supported by local people; (vi) a for protected species. However, various mechanisms are Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society 12 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Collaborative carnivore conservation 3 used to reduce social conflict between rural residents and III. DEMOCRACY AND LEGITIMACY federal authorities, resulting in de facto consideration of economic and social factors in the process of endangered Democracy relates to a system of government based on species management (Thomas & Verner, 1992). a ‘belief in freedom and equality between people, in which power In the European Union, conservation and other interests is held either by elected representatives or directly by the people are balanced principally by the Habitats Directive. themselves’ (Cambridge Dictionary online 2017). Therefore, it The Directive’s primary aim is to achieve ‘Favourable is beholden on democratic countries to manage public-trust Conservation Status’ (FCS) for such species and this is assets, such as carnivores, in an appropriate manner non-negotiable. However, how member states achieve FCS consistent with this definition. Central to this is political is largely up to them, according to the subsidiarity principle legitimacy, which is ‘the belief of the rightfulness of the state, in (Trouwborst, Boitani & Linnell, 2017). Member States need its authority to issue commands, so that those commands are obeyed to ‘take account of economic, social and cultural requirements and not simply out of fear of sanctions or self-interest, but because they regional and local characteristics’ [Article 2(3)]. In some situations, are believed in some sense to have moral authority, because subjects governments must enact and enforce a strict protection believe they ought to obey’ (Barker, 1990). This makes legitimacy regime, although exemptions are al owed under certain a condition where citizens surrender authority to a branch conditions (Annex IV); in other situations, governments have of government based on a judgement that the relationship flexibility to determine how they ensure FCS (Annex V). between them and the state is proper. Thus, the political In principle, the better a predator population is faring, legitimacy of natural resource management policy is partly the more scope arises under the Directive for flexible, dependent on it being socially acceptable at a local level collaborative approaches regarding its conservation and (Peterson, 2003). This acceptability is particularly likely to management. This notion of broad stakeholder participation be rejected when local communities perceive that large, in decisions affecting wildlife also features strongly in dangerous predators are imposed on them and they have to other areas of legislation, such as the 1998 Aarhus bear the risks of living with such species only to benefit distant Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation elites (Knight, 2000; Dickman, 2010; Dickman & Hazzah, in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental 2016). When acceptability is rejected, political legitimacy Matters. suffers (Pearce & Littlejohn, 1997), and resistance in the In developing countries, predator management faces very form of non-compliance and outright sabotage (e.g. illegal different challenges. Conservation often ranks low on the hunting) may ensue (Krange & Skogen, 2011; von Essen agenda because of the competing pressures of poverty et al., 2014). and other social concerns. Governments of developing countries have often set aside extensive areas of land for wildlife, but limited resources and poor governance (especially corruption) mean they are unable to manage those IV. COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE areas effectively, let alone the significant wildlife populations outside protected areas (Smith et al., 2003; Lindsey et al., Ansell & Gash (2008, p. 544) defined collaborative 2014, 2016). Local communities often experience high governance as an ‘arrangement where one or more public agencies costs from these governmentally imposed wildlife areas, directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making such as displacement, disempowerment, restricted resource process that is formal, consensus oriented and deliberative and that use, killing of poachers and high levels of wildlife damage, aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or and receive few or no benefits, so are not predisposed assets’. Such approaches to large carnivore management to engage positively with government wildlife agencies have been applied in various parts of the world. For (Ferraro, 2002; Brockington & Igoe, 2006; Dickman, 2010). example, Norway has regional large carnivore committees, In many areas this sense of local resentment has been with local politicians appointed by the Ministry of the amplified by foreign governments being seen to impose Environment, Sweden has wildlife management delegations their values on local wildlife management (Nzou, 2015). at a regional level with politicians and stakeholders, and In such a landscape, a coercive approach to conservation Finland has national, regional and local wolf management such as currently applied may be counter-productive (Duffy organizations including public and private actors. There is a et al., 2015). Conversely, engaging local communities as key similar approach in the USA, such as the Wolf Stakeholder stakeholders in conservation has proved highly effective even Working Group in California or the Wolf Advisory Group in remote areas of developing countries (Hazzah et al., 2014; in Washington (Sandström et al., 2009; Lundmark & Matti, Dickman & Hazzah, 2016). Similarly, local ownership of 2015; Sjölander-Lindqvist, Johansson & Sandström, 2015). wildlife, such as through community conservancies, can The primary tasks of such groups are often to develop avoid many of the problems associated with wildlife areas and adopt management plans, determine or give advice on imposed and managed by governments (Fabricius et al., 2013; regional population targets, mitigate direct conflicts between Measham & Lumbasi, 2013). Collaborative approaches to wildlife and livestock and in some cases decide on quotas carnivore conservation therefore have a crucial role to play for large carnivore hunting. Stakeholders are often also in developing countries. included in monitoring and information sharing (Decker, Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society 13 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 4 S. Redpath and others Riley & Siemer, 2012). These approaches seek to strengthen increases (Bauer et al., 2016). Cougars (Puma concolor), have democracy by dealing with the problems related to a lack of also been increasing in much of North America (Sweanor, both legitimacy and acceptance of centralized governance of Logan & Hornocker, 2000; Larue et al., 2012) without large carnivore management (Sandström et al., 2009; Torfing being protected by the ESA and despite being hunted in et al., 2012; Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., 2015). They also offer nearly al of their range. Clearly, the ESA and the Habitats an arena for conflict management. Directive are partly responsible for fostering recent increases There have been few evaluations of col aborative in large carnivore populations (Fleurke & Trouwborst, 2014). governance in conservation, making it difficult to draw However, it is hard to disentangle the effects of legislation general conclusions regarding its legitimacy or outcomes. from the concurrent changes in land use, rebounding prey We are certainly far from being able to design the ideal populations and more positive public attitudes towards collaborative process, and in fact, recent studies have carnivores. Indeed, it is likely that these influences act highlighted some deficiencies. There are problems related to synergistical y (Boitani & Linnell, 2015). the representation of different interests (Lundmark & Matti, Although targets for sustainable harvesting of carnivores 2015), the lack of opportunities for deliberation (Hallgren may be difficult to estimate accurately in some cases, partly & Westberg, 2015), the lack of mechanisms for conflict because of the uncertainties involved, methods for sustainable resolution (Duit & Löf, 2015) and misunderstandings of harvesting under uncertainty are well established, with the mechanism by which decisions are made (Sandström an extensive literature (dating back at least to Walters & et al., 2009). Nevertheless, in spite of these problems these Hilborn, 1976). These techniques are applicable to carnivore studies also show the potential of collaborative processes to management (e.g. Edwards et al., 2014). Large carnivores in contribute to social and organizational learning, as wel as Europe and North America are among the most intensively contributing to the improvement of rules and regulations of monitored and studied large mammals in the world (Chapron wildlife management. Indeed, research suggests that those et al., 2014; Clark & Rutherford, 2014; Ripple et al., 2014). engaged in col aborative processes develop what has been This provides an adequate basis for harvesting, so long as termed the ‘psychological ownership’ of the process, which caution is exercised and coupled with an adaptive adjustment can lead to enhanced trust between participants and an of quotas. The challenge lies more with poor monitoring and increased sense of responsibility for the governance and enforcement of harvesting, as well as political priorities going management of wildlife among the affected parties (Pierce, against conservation, than with the underlying science. Kostova & Dirks, 2001; Pohja-Mykrä & Kurki, 2014a; Ratamäki, 2015). Given the potential that collaborative processes have, VI. ILLEGAL KILLING there is an urgent need to understand what works in dif- ferent contexts. We suggest that future studies should focus on four aspects: first, comparing collaborative governance One problem for the conservation of large predators is approaches among countries, rather than focusing on indi- illegal killing. Central to this problem is the relationship vidual case studies; second, understanding how institutional between approaches to conservation and the likelihood of design and leadership interact with non-state actors’ ideas illegal activity taking place. Recently, Chapron & Treves and conceptualizations of collaborative governance; third, (2016) claimed that legal hunting of wolves led to an understanding how the social and cultural contexts of these increase in illegal killings. Other studies, however, suggest actors inform the different governance models and their legit- the relationship is more complex. In Sweden, for example, imate outcomes; and fourth, understanding the impact of the the illegal killing of large carnivores was significantly higher collaborative process on the conflict both within and outside within national parks, where they are strictly protected, the collaborative bodies (Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., 2015). than outside, where they are hunted (Rauset et al., 2016). In other studies, predator abundance seems to be important. Eriksson, Sandström & Ericsson (2015) showed that an increase in direct experience of bears and wolves reduced V. HUNTING AND CARNIVORE POPULATIONS both the levels of acceptance of these animals and support for wolf conservation over time, suggesting that local Rural stakeholders that share the landscape with carnivores attitudes towards large carnivores are likely to deteriorate often wish to hunt them. Such practices do not necessarily as populations increase (Williams et al., 2011; Dressel, lead to carnivore population declines. Indeed, populations Sandström & Ericsson, 2015). In Croatia, attitudes towards can increase in the presence of hunting. For example, brown bears became less positive coincident with a shift from the Swedish brown bear (Ursus arctos) population has been local management that included hunting to more top-down increasing since the 1930s, from around 300 to over 3000 by protectionist policy (Majić et al., 2011). Pohja-Mykrä & Kurki 2008, despite the resumption of hunting in 1943 (Swenson (2014b) take this a step further and suggest that illegal killing et al., 1995; Kindberg et al., 2011). Similarly, hunting areas of wolves is a direct response to the failure of policy to such as Bubye Valley Conservancy in Zimbabwe, Niassa take rural people’s concerns seriously (see also Mech, 1995). National Reserve and Namibia’s communal conservancies In Kenya, Maasai respondents were more negative to lions are amongst the few places to record recent lion population Panthera leo, and more inclined to kill them, if they were Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society 14 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Collaborative carnivore conservation 5 denied access into protected areas to graze their livestock parts of Europe and the USA can be attributed to legislation during droughts (Hazzah et al., 2013). Such a response may and its enforcement. Where carnivore populations are be compounded by the tendency of groups to enhance their very low, strict protection may be appropriate and more internal cohesion under stress by blaming outside actors, acceptable to people living with carnivores, as their impacts such as management agencies (Skogen & Krange, 2003). on daily life are likely to be minimal and attitudes are more It is unlikely that there would be one consistent response positive. However, as carnivore populations recover and have to a certain management intervention, such as legal hunting, increasing impacts on more people, we suggest that a different that could be transferable among individuals, cultures and approach is required. In such situations, imposing coercive local contexts. Instead, an individual’s behaviour towards approaches that may not resonate locally risks alienating local carnivores will be a result of the complex interaction between stakeholders, leading to, for example, increased carnivore underlying values, previous experience, norms, attitudes and killing and greater conflict (Brockington & Igoe, 2006). trust in management authorities, set within a broader social Instead, we suggest that more collaborative and flexible and institutional context (Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., 2015). approaches are required to build trust and negotiate the Consequently, we must understand the interplay between challenges of living equitably and sustainably with carnivores. individuals’ appraisal of the threat from carnivores, their atti- This approach is inherently more democratic, as wel as tudes and the community-wide social construction of danger being embedded in current legislation and in international before we can draw general conclusions about illegal killing. conventions, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (Glowka, Burhenne-Guilmin & Synge, 1994). Evidence for the relative effectiveness of alternative approaches is not always available (Reed & Sidoli del Ceno, VII. THE ROLE OF SCIENCE 2015). There are many uncertainties in developing effective strategies for predator conservation in multi-use landscapes. Science is fundamental in helping societies navigate through We are not advocating one approach over another, we the controversies that surround carnivore conflicts. We need rather highlight that we must better understand what works robust science to help inform decisions. Efforts have typically when and where. Different models are likely to be context focused on a linear model of natural science providing dependent, and we must recognize that different stakeholder evidence to guide policy and management strategies (Burgess, groups and publics have different views and desires at Harrison & Filius, 1998; Sarewitz, 2004). Yet this approach different scales. has proved problematic for two main reasons. First, The need for robust science is clear, not only to explore stakeholders may frame conflicts on the basis of emotion, the effectiveness of alternative management approaches values and worldviews, rather than evidence (Slovic, 1987). in different contexts, but also to support the sustainable As a result science can be ignored or dismissed (Weber & management of hunting and to understand the factors Stern, 2011). Second, science is often represented as objective that affect il egal behaviour. Treves et al. (2017) call for truth, yet researchers may use science to legitimize normative an independent, national-level, external body, informed by positions (Lackey, 2004), leading to scientists not being science, to adjudicate issues around carnivore management. trusted and the credibility of the science being questioned Such approaches may provide useful input for top-down (Yamamoto, 2012). Thus, it is beholden on scientists to predator management, but they are doomed to fail avoid claiming that normative positions are science-based unless they are balanced by more bottom-up, collaborative but instead to engage fully with relevant stakeholders and the processes. There is increasing evidence that simply providing decision-making process, while developing robust evidence, the results of natural science to managers is not enough. A and being transparent about the uncertainties as well as their more effective route is likely to be through developing a more role and the values they hold. integrative, trans-disciplinary approach to knowledge with the appropriate stakeholders (Bennett et al., 2017). VIII. DISCUSSION IX. CONCLUSIONS Finding ways to encourage coexistence between people and large predators in multi-functional landscapes is a major (1) There is disagreement about the most effective way challenge for conservation worldwide (Carter & Linnell, to conserve large carnivores, with some favouring top- 2016; Di Minin et al., 2016). How can we encourage those down ‘command and control’ approaches and others with farming or other legitimate interests to share these favouring more collaborative approaches. Herein we landscapes with large predators that affect their livelihoods examine arguments for collaboration. and lives? (2) Flexibility is built into the legislation in the USA There are different models for how to achieve coexistence. and Europe to balance conservation with other legitimate On the one hand, top-down, command-and-control goals. In the developing world, col aborative approaches approaches play a crucial role in carnivore conservation. are likely to play a particularly important part in carnivore Much of the increase in large carnivore populations across conservation. Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society 15 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 6 S. Redpath and others (3) Coercive policies may lead to the deterioration Di Minin, E., Slotow, R., Hunter, L. T. B., Montesino Pouzols, F., Toivonen, of political legitimacy and potentially to non-compliance, T., Verburg, P. H., Leader-Williams, N., Petracca, L. & Moilanen, A. (2016). Global priorities for national carnivore conservation under land use change. including illegal carnivore killing. Scientific Reports 6, 23814. (4) Collaborative approaches may lead to enhanced trust, Dressel, S., Sandström, C. & Ericsson, G. (2015). A meta-analysis of studies on learning and better social outcomes. attitudes toward bears and wolves across Europe 1976–2012. Conservation Biology 29(2), 565–574. (5) Hunting can be part of the sustainable management of Duffy, R., St John, F. A., Büscher, B. & Brockington, D. (2015). The large carnivores. militarization of anti-poaching: undermining long term goals? Environmental (6) Research is required to reduce uncertainty and examine Conservation 42(04), 345–348. Duit, A. & Löf, A. (2015). Dealing with a wicked problem? A dark tale of the effectiveness of alternative approaches to carnivore carnivore management in Sweden 2007–2011. Administration & Society, 1–25. DOI: conservation in different contexts. 10.1177/0095399715595668. Edwards, C. T. T., Bunnefeld, N., Balme, G. A. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2014). Data-poor management of African lion hunting using a relative index of abundance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111(1), 539–543. X. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Eriksson, M., Sandström, C. & Ericsson, G. (2015). Direct experience and attitude change towards bears and wolves. Wildlife Biology 21(3), 131–137. von Essen, E., Hansen, H. P., Nordstr öm Källstr öm, H., Peterson, M. N. S. R. is grateful for the King Carl XVI Gustaf guest & Peterson, T. R. (2014). Deconstructing the poaching phenomenon: a review professorship that allowed him to write this paper. J. D. C. of typologies for understanding illegal hunting. British Journal of Criminology 54(4), 632–651. L. was supported by the Research Council of Norway (grant Fabricius, C., Koch, E., Turner, S. & Magome, H. (eds) (2013). Rights Resources number 251112). A. S.-L. was supported by the Swedish and Rural Development: Community-based Natural Resource Management in Southern Africa. Research Council (grant number 421-2014-1446). A. T. was Routledge, London. Ferraro, P. J. (2002). The local costs of establishing protected areas in low-income supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific nations: Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar. Ecological Economics 43(2), Research (grant number 452-13-014). We thank L. David 261–275. Mech and two anonymous referees for helpful suggestions. Fleurke, F. M. & Trouwborst, A. (2014). European regional approaches to the transboundary conservation of biodiversity: the Bern convention and the EU birds and habitats directive. In Transboundary Governance of Biodiversity (eds L. Kotze and T. Marauhn), pp. 128–162. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden. Glowka, L., Burhenne-Guilmin, F. & Synge, H. (1994). A guide to XI. REFERENCES the convention on biological diversity. Environmental Policy and Law Paper. Available at http://books.google.com.br/books?hl=pt-BR& lr=&id=xInED&uscore;dq2yoC&oi=fnd&pg=PP14& Ansell, C. & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. dq=convention+on+biological+diversity+&ots=jjb1ZKnHia& Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18, 543–571. sig=bMtJ416qD2CHb26xREiPscWOhcU#v=onepage&q&f=false Barker, R. (1990). Political legitimacy. In Political Legitimacy and the State, pp. 20– 42. Accessed July 2016. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Hallgren, L. & Westberg, L. (2015). Adaptive management? Observations Bauer, H., Packer, C., Funston, P. F., Henschel, P. & Nowell, K. (2016). of knowledge coordination in the communication practice of Swedish game Panthera leo. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2016. Available at http:// management. Wildlife Biology 21(3), 165–174. www.iucnredlist.org/details/15951/0. Accessed November 2016. Bennett, N. J., Roth, R., Klain, S. C., Chan, K. M. A., Clark, D. A., Cullman, Hazzah, L., Dolrenry, S., Kaplan, D. & Frank, L. (2013). Access to parks during G., Epstein, G., Nelson, M. P., Stedman, R., Teel, T. L., Thomas, R. E. W., drought influences attitudes and behavior toward lion conservation in Maasailand, Wyborn, C., Curran, D., Greenberg, A., Sandlos, J. & Veríssimo, D. ( Kenya. Environmental Conservation 40, 266–276. 2017). Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation. Conservation Biology 31, 56–66. Hazzah, L., Dolrenry, S., Naughton, L., Edwards, C. T., Mwebi, O., Kearney, Boitani, L. & Linnell, J. D. C. (2015). Bringing large mammals back: large F. & Frank, L. (2014). Efficacy of two lion conservation programs in Maasailand, carnivores in Europe. In Rewilding European landscapes (eds. H. M. PEREIRA & L. M. Kenya. Conservation Biology 28, 851–860. NAVARRO), pp 67–84. Springer Open, Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, Kindberg, J., Swenson, J. E., Ericsson, G., Bellemain, E., Miquel, C. & London. Taberlet, P. (2011). Estimating population size and trends of the Swedish brown Brockington, D. & Igoe, J. (2006). Eviction for conservation: a global overview. bear Ursus arctos population. Wildlife Biology 17(2), 114–123. Conservation and Society 4(3), 424–470. Knight, J. (2000). Natural Enemies: People-wildlife Conflicts in Anthropological Perspective. Burgess, J., Harrison, C. M. & Filius, P. (1998). Environmental communication Routledge, London. and the cultural politics of environmental citizenship. Environment and Planning A 30, Krange, O. & Skogen, K. (2011). When the lads go hunting: The ’Hammertown 1445–1460. mechanism’ and the conflict over wolves in Norway. Ethnography 12(4), 466–489. Carter, N. H. & Linnell, J. D. C. (2016). Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with Lackey, R. (2004). Normative science. Fisheries 29(7), 38–39. large carnivores. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 31(8), 575–578. Larue, M. A., Nielsen, C. K., Dowling, M., Miller, K., Wilson, B., Shaw, H. & Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J. D., Von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, Anderson, C. R. (2012). Cougars are recolonizing the midwest: analysis of cougar H., L ópez-Bao, J. V., Adamec, M., Álvares, F., Anders, O., Balčiauskas, confirmations during 1990–2008. Journal of Wildlife Management 76(7), 1364–1369. L., Balys, V., Bedo, P., Bego, F., Blanco, J. C., et al. (2014). Recovery of large Lindsey, P. A., Balme, G. A., Funston, P. J., Henschel, P. & Hunter, L. T. carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346(6216), (2016). Life after Cecil: channeling global outrage into funding for conservation in 1517–1519. Africa. Conservation Letters 9(4), 296–301. Chapron, G. & Treves, A. (2016). Blood does not buy goodwill: allowing culling Lindsey, P. A., Nyirenda, V. R., Barnes, J. I., Becker, M. S., McRobb, R., increases poaching of a large carnivore. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 283(1830), Tambling, C. J., Taylor, W. A., Watson, F. G. & t’Sas-Rolfes, M. (2014). 20152939. Underperformance of African protected area networks and the case for new Clark, S. G. & Rutherford, M. B. (eds) (2014). Large Carnivore Conservation: Integrating conservation models: insights from Zambia. PLoS ONE 9(5), e94109. Science and Policy in the North American West. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Lundmark, C. & Matti, S. (2015). Exploring the prospects for deliberative practices Decker, D. J., Riley, S. J. & Siemer, W. F. (2012). Human Dimensions of Wildlife as a conflict-reducing and legitimacy-enhancing tool: the case of Swedish carnivore Management. JHU Press, Baltimore. management. Wildlife Biology 21(3), 147–156. Dickman, A. (2010). Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social Lundmark, C., Matti, S. & Sandström, A. (2014). Adaptive co-management: factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation 13, how social networks, deliberation and learning affect legitimacy in carnivore 458–466. management. European Journal of Wildlife Research 60(4), 637–644. Dickman, A. J. & Hazzah, L. (2016). Money, myths and man-eaters: complexities Majić, A., Marino Taussig de Bodonia, A., Huber, D. & Bunnefeld, N. (2011). of human– wildlife conflict. In Problematic Wildlife (ed. F. Angelici), pp. 339–356. Dynamics of public attitudes toward bears and the role of bear hunting in Croatia. Springer, Rome. Biological Conservation 144, 3018–3027. Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society 16 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Collaborative carnivore conservation 7 Measham, T. G. & Lumbasi, J. A. (2013). Success factors for community-based natural Skogen, K. & Krange, O. (2003). A wolf at the gate: the anti-carnivore alliance and resource management (CBNRM): lessons from Kenya and Australia. Environmental the symbolic construction of community. Sociologia Ruralis 43(3), 309–325. Management 52(3), 649–659. Slovic, P. (1987). The perception of risk. Science 236, 280–285. Mech, L. D. (1995). The challenge and opportunity of recovering wolf populations. Smith, R. J., Muir, R. D., Walpole, M. J., Balmford, A. & Leader-Williams, Conservation Biology 9(2), 270–278. N. (2003). Governance and the loss of biodiversity. Nature 426(6962), 67–70. Nzou, G. (2015). In Zimbabwe, we don’t cry for lions. The New York Times, 4 August Sweanor, L. L., Logan, K. A. & Hornocker, M. G. (2000). Cougar dispersal 2015. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/opinion/in-zimbabwe- patterns, metapopulations dynamics, and conservation. Conservation Biology 14(3), we-dont-cry-for-lions.html?&uscore;r=0 Accessed 11.10.2016. 798–808. Pearce, W. B. & Littlejohn, S. W. (1997). Moral Conflict: When Social Worlds Collide. Swenson, J. E., Wabakken, P., Sandegren, F., Bjärvall, A., Franzén, R. & Sage, Thousand Oaks. S örderberg, A. (1995). The near extinction and recovery of brown bears in Peterson, T. R. (2003). Social control frames: opportunities or constraints? Scandinavia in relation to the bear management policies of Norway and Sweden. Environmental Practice 5(3), 232–238. Wildlife Biology 1, 11–25. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T. & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological Thomas, J. W. & Verner, J. (1992). Accommodation with socioeconomic factors ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review 26(2), 298–310. under the endangered species act-more than meets the eye. Transactions of the North Pohja-Mykrä, M. & Kurki, S. (2014a). Evaluation of the Finnish national policy on American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 57, 627 –641. large carnivores. Report No. 135. University of Helsinki, Finland. Torfing, J., Peters, B. G., Pierre, J. & Eva, S. (2012). Power and politics in Pohja-Mykrä, M. & Kurki, S. (2014b). Strong community support for illegal killing interactive governance. In Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm, pp. 48–71. challenges wolf management. European Journal of Wildlife Research 60(5), 759–770. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Ratamäki, O. (2015). Elements, orders, and modes of governance in the development Treves, A., Chapron, G., L ópez-Bao, J. V., Shoemaker, C., Goeckner, A. R. of Finnish wolf policy. In Management and Participation in the Public Sphere (ed. M. M. & Bruskotter, J. T. (2017). Predators and the public trust. Biological Reviews 92, Merviö), pp. 38–61. Information Science Reference, Hershey, USA. 248–270. Rauset, G. R., Andrén, H., Swenson, J. E., Samelius, G., Segerstr öm, P., Trouwborst, A. (2015a). Global large carnivore conservation and international law. Zedrosser, A. & Persson, J. (2016). National Parks in Northern Sweden as Biodiversity and Conservation 24(7), 1567–1588. refuges for illegal killing of large carnivores. Conservation Letters 9, 334–341. Trouwborst, A. (2015b). Law and conservation conflicts. In Conflicts in Conservation: Reed, M. S. & Sidoli del Ceno, J. (2015). Mediation and conservation conflicts: Navigating Towards Solutions (eds S. M. Redpath, R. J. Gutiérrez, K. A. Wood from top-down to bottom up. In Conflicts in Conservation – Navigating Towards Solutions and J. C. Young), pp. 108–118. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. (eds S. M. Redpath, R. J. Gutierrez, K. A. Wood and J. C. Young), pp. Trouwborst, A., Boitani, L. & Linnell, J. D. C. (2017). Interpreting ‘favourable 226–237. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. conservation status’ for large carnivores in Europe: how many are needed and how Ripple, W. J., Estes, J. A., Beschta, R. L., Wilmers, C. C., Ritchie, E. G., many are wanted? Biodiversity and Conservation 26(1), 37–61. Hebblewhite, M., Berger, J., Elmhagen, B., Letnic, M., Nelson, M. P., Walters, C. J. & Hilborn, R. (1976). Adaptive control of fishing systems. Journal of Schmitz, O. J., Smith, D. W., Wallach, A. D. & Wirsing, A. J. (2014). Status the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33(1), 145–159. and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343(1241481), 1–13. Weber, E. U. & Stern, P. C. (2011). Public understanding of climate change in the Sand, P. H. (2014). The rise of public trusteeship in international environmental law. United States. American Psychologist 66(4), 315–328. Environmental Policy and Law 44(1), 210–218. Williams, P. S., Darville, R., Keul, A., Legg, M., Garner, N. & Comer, C. Sandström, C., Pellikka, J., Ratamäki, O. & Sande, A. (2009). Management (2011). Stakeholders’ attitudes towards black bear in East Texas. Human Dimensions of large carnivores in Fennoscandia: new patterns of regional participation. Human of Wildlife 16(6), 414–424. Dimensions of Wildlife 14, 37–50. Yamamoto, Y. T. (2012). Values, objectivity and credibility of scientists in a contentious Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. natural resource debate. Public Understanding of Science 21, 101–125. Environmental Science and Policy 7, 385–403. Sj ölander-Lindqvist, A., Johansson, M. & Sandström, C. (2015). Individual and collective responses to large carnivore management: the roles of trust, representation, knowledge spheres, communication and leadership. Wildlife Biology 21(3), 175–185. (Received 8 November 2016; revised 8 February 2017; accepted 10 February 2017 ) Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society 17 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 2.2 SPREMEMBE V ODNOSU JAVNOSTI DO VOLKOV NA HRVAŠKEM Changes in attitudes toward wolves in Croatia. Aleksandra Majić, Alistair J. Bath Objavljeno v: Biological Conservation (2010), 143:255-260. Sprejeto: 14. september 2009 © 2009 Elsevier Ltd., ponatisnjeno z dovoljenjem Izvleček: Leta 1999 smo vzporedno z razvijajočim se procesom sprememb upravljanja z volkom izpeljali osebne strukturirane intervjuje prebivalcev treh regij v območju volkov na Hrvaškem (n = 1209), potem pa študijo z enako metodologijo ponovili še leta 2003 (n = 1172). Zabeležili smo spremembe v podpori javnosti tako varstvu volkov kot tudi nadzoru številčnosti te vrste. Te spremembe so bile posledica dejanskih sprememb v odnosu in ne le rezultat sprememb v starostni strukturi vzorčene populacije. Spremembe smo opazili v obeh južnih regijah, Liki in Dalmaciji, kjer se je odnos premaknil bolj proti nevtralnemu, saj je padla tako podpora varstvu volkov kot tudi podpora nadzoru številčnosti te vrste. Zdi se, da so se različne rojstne kohorte različno odzvale na aktivnosti povezane z varstvom volkov. V letu 1999 je na mlajše kohorte verjetno imela večji vpliv kampanja zakonske zaščite volkov, medtem ko so se starejše kohorte bolj odzvale na problematiko škod na domačih živalih in so posledično gojile do volkov bolj negativen odnos. Uporaba javnomnenjskih raziskav kot ocenjevalnega orodja lahko upravljalcem omogoči večjo prilagodljivost in posledično bolj učinkovite rešitve pri upravljanju z velikimi zvermi. 18 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Author's personal copy Biological Conservation 143 (2010) 255–260 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation j o u r n a l ho m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / b i o c o n Short communication Changes in attitudes toward wolves in Croatia Aleksandra Majicá,*, Alistair J. Bath b a Biology Department, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Vecňa pot 111, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, Europe b Geography Department, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada A1B 3X9 a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Against a background of an evolving wolf policy process we carried out personal structured interviews Received 3 February 2009 with residents of three regions within Croatian wolf range in 1999 (n = 1209) and repeated the study, Received in revised form 8 September 2009 using the same methodology in 2003 (n = 1172). We documented a change in public support for wolf con-Accepted 14 September 2009 servation and support for control of wolves. The change was a result of a real change in attitudes and not Available online 14 October 2009 of a change in the age structure of the sampled population. The changes were documented in the two southern regions, Lika and Dalmatia, with attitudes shifting towards a more neutral viewpoint, as there Keywords: was a decrease in support for wolf conservation and a decrease in support to control wolves. It seems that Attitudes Canis lupus different birth cohorts react differently to conservation activities. In 1999, the younger cohort groups may Measuring change have been influenced more by the legal protection campaign. The older cohorts reacted more sympathet-Cohort analysis ically to livestock concerns and thus held stronger negative attitudes toward wolves. Using human Croatia dimensions research as an evaluative tool can help large carnivore managers be more adaptive and thus effective in their management solutions. 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction living with large carnivores over time. Similarly, they found that the proportion of people afraid of large carnivores was relatively Most human dimensions in wildlife management research are high before carnivore arrival but also decreased with experience. case studies reporting results from only one point in time. Human It appears that people can learn to coexist with large carnivores dimensions research on large carnivores is no exception. As an ap- and change their views. plied and still relatively recent field of study, often driven by crisis Few human dimension research studies have been completed in management (Bath, 1998), this is not surprising. Due to this tradi- Croatia. The first attempts to investigate public opinion about tional focus of human dimensions research, studies have rarely ex- wolves in Croatia (Gyorgy, 1984; Moricánd Huber, 1989; Huber plored the subject of attitude change and rarely have been able to et al., 1992; Radišicét al., 1994) came as a response to a shrinking capture changes in attitudes over time (Williams et al., 2002). wolf population. These studies suffered from small sample sizes Many researchers (e.g. Manfredo et al., 1998; McComas and and non-random sampling. This being said, the results from those Scherer, 1999; Kaczensky et al., 2001) have called for the need to few studies implied that there had been a change in public atti- conduct longitudinal research and to begin attitudinal and belief tudes during the 1980s. The overall percentage of Croatians consid- monitoring. ering the wolf a harmful species dropped from 42% in 1983 Today in many places large carnivores are increasing in num- (Gyorgy, 1984) to 25% in 1993 (Radišicét al., 1994). In addition, bers and range and returning to previous areas where they were 21% of respondents in 1983 wanted to exterminate wolves once exterminated. In those areas opportunities exist for scientists (Gyorgy, 1984), while only 8% of the respondents expressed the to document existing attitudes and subsequent attitude change. same view in 1993 (Radišicét al., 1994). As the number of wolves Changes are likely to occur as carnivore-livestock conflicts in- decreased (Frkovicánd Huber, 1992) over time, the attitude to- crease, policy changes occur, awareness campaigns are delivered, ward the species seemed to become more positive (Radišicét al., and carnivore-livestock damage prevention programs are imple- 1994). This would support the traditional view of natural resources mented. For example, Zimmermann et al. (2001) found by review- where as a resource becomes scarce, it gains value. It was in the ing attitude surveys in Norway that the proportion of people with early 1990s, a campaign to completely protect the wolf began in negative attitudes continues to increase to its maximum with the Croatia, and full protection nationwide was declared for the wolf arrival of large carnivores, and then decreases with experience of in 1995 (Parliament of the Republic of Croatia, 1995). With a decrease in rural population and an increase in aban- doned agricultural land, wolf numbers began to increase through- * Corresponding author. Tel.: +386 1 423 33 88; fax: +386 1 257 33 90. out the country and return to areas in Dalmatia, where they were E-mail addresses: almajic@gmail.com (A. Majic´), abath@mun.ca (A.J. Bath). 0006-3207/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.09.010 19 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Author's personal copy 256 A. Majic´, A.J. Bath / Biological Conservation 143 (2010) 255–260 exterminated after the Second World War (Frkovicánd Huber, 1999 study (Central Bureau of Statistics, 1992) and 2001 census 1992). An increase in illegal killings was also documented during for the 2003 study (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2001). Sampled this period (Štrbenac et al., 2005) suggesting attitudes were per- population included all residents of the three regions older than haps shifting once again back to the previous negative viewpoints. 14 years. While typically respondents over 18 are selected for such A content analysis of newspaper articles seemed to support this social science research, in Croatia the census divided people into hypothesis (Bath and Majic´, 2000). As part of this study that exam- the age category 15–20 so sampling was done to be consistent with ined newspaper articles, data was also collected in 1999 from a the census age class. The target sample was 400 per region ensuring representative sample of residents in three regions (Gorski Kotar, a 95% confidence level and a 5% confidence interval (Sheskin, 1985). Lika and Dalmatia) within wolf range in Croatia. We found that We carried out all the interviews in person at the respondent’s attitudes toward wolves were positive in the northern region of place of residence. A team of five different interviewers conducted Gorski Kotar, largely neutral in the central region of Lika, and the interviews during each data collection period. All of them re- mainly negative in the southern region of Dalmatia (Bath and ceived interviewer training prior to implementing the interviews. Majic´, 2000). An opportunity to reassess attitudes four years later, in 2003, provided the basis for this paper and the chance to assess 2.2. Research instrument whether attitudes have changed. Understanding the strength and direction of attitude change toward wolves in Croatia will allow The questionnaire used in 1999 was designed by Bath and Majic´ the Croatian government to more effectively implement their (2000). It included items covering general attitudes toward wolves, adaptive management approach to wolf management in the attitudes toward different management options, knowledge and country. beliefs about wolves, experiences with wolves and demographic By controlling for the two important socio-demographic vari- information about the respondents. The second questionnaire ables of age and gender, we identify and describe the potential (Majic´, 2007) was a modified version of the earlier one. All attitu- change in attitudes toward wolves among the general public in dinal and belief items included in the analysis were based on a 5- the wolf-inhabited regions of Croatia. We identify whether the point Likert scale (Likert, 1932) ranging from strongly disagree to change in attitude is due to a real change or simply a reflection strongly agree. of change in the structure of the population. 2.3. Data analysis 2. Methods We used screening of the data in order to check the accuracy. We followed the guidelines given by Tabachnick and Fidell 2.1. Study area, sampling and data collection (2001), and checked whether all values were in range and mean scores and standard deviations were reasonable. We used Maha- The target populations for both studies were residents of Gorski lanobis distances in order to identify outlier cases with unusual Kotar (45 200N, 14 530E), Lika (44 400N, 15 230E) and Dalmatia patterns of responses and excluded them from the analysis. We (43 540N, 16 090E). The general public within the Croatian wolf also excluded cases with missing data (e.g. no age of the range was divided into three regions (Fig. 1) defined as manage- respondent). ment units in the Wolf Management Plan for Croatia (Štrbenac We used principal components analysis (PCA) with a varimax et al., 2005) and labelled Gorski Kotar, Lika and Dalmatia. In both rotation as an exploratory technique for identifying the types of measurements we used stratified random sampling (Kalton, attitudes measured by the questionnaire. Following several repeti- 1983) at a community level in order to get the samples representa- tions with adjusting the number of factors extracted (Tabachnick tive of each of the three regions. The sampling was based on the and Fidell, 2001), regression factor scores were saved as variables most recent national census data, which were 1991 census for the and used in the following analysis. To identify whether there was a change in attitudes a between the two measurements we calcu- lated effect sizes and ran t test. To understand the differences in both samples, we calculated the effect sizes and ran MW-U test or Chi-square test, as appropriate. Age was the most important socio-demographic variable pre- dicting pro-wolf attitudes in the previous analysis of the data from 2003 (Majic´, 2007). In order to control for age we partitioned the data into five birth cohort categories, following the guidelines given 1 by Glenn (1977) and labelled them 1 (the youngest one) to 5 (the oldest one). The same study revealed that gender was the most important socio-demographic variable predicting fear of wolves, 2 hence when running t test, data from both measurements (1999 and 2003) were weighted by gender. The data on gender were taken from the national census data from 2001 (Central Bureau of Statis- tics, 2001), as it was the census which was the closest in time to 3 both data collection periods. Gender was weighted using simulated replication to correspond to the gender ratio from the census. 3. Results 0 25 50 100 150 Kilometers 3.1. Respondent characteristics Fig. 1. Study area in both studies was divided into three regions which respond to We obtained sample sizes of 402, 401 and 406 in 1999 and 406, the national management units (1 = Gorski Kotar, 2 = Lika, 3 = Dalmatia). 384 and 382 in 2003, for Gorski Kotar, Lika and Dalmatia, respec- 20 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Author's personal copy A. Majic´, A.J. Bath / Biological Conservation 143 (2010) 255–260 257 tively. Response rates were above 80% in all six samples. There Table 2 were more males (58.2%) than females among the survey respon- Results of the principal components analysis (PCA): Two factors were extracted and dents, and this proportion remained approximately the same in used in further analyses: Factor 1 – support to wolf conservation and Factor 2: support to control wolf numbers. Factor 3 (fear of wolves) was not used in the further both measurements (58.5% in 1999, 58.1% in 2003). Median age analyses. Only loadings >0.30 are shown in the table. of the respondents was 52 (range 15–93, IQR 29) years in 1999, and 44 (range 15–93, IQR 29) years in 2003. There seemed to be Factor 1 2 3 a real difference in age between the two measurements (8 years Rotation sums of squared loadings – % of variance 23.8 23.4 11.4 difference in median age, MW–U, p < 0.001). Most of the respon- Eigenvalues 6.66 1.7 1.02 dents reported seeing a wolf in captivity (Table 1), however a lar- Attitudinal items ger proportion saw wolves in 2003 (difference = 5.9%, v2 = 10.58, We should assure abundant populations of wolves for 0.4 0.6 the future generations p = 0.001). On the other hand, less people reported seeing a wolf Whether I had a chance to see a wolf or not, it is 0.73 0.39 in the wild in 2003 (difference = 5.7%, v2 = 6.56, p = 0.01). We could important to me that wolves exist in Croatia confirm no differences between the two samples in number of There is no need to have wolves in Gorski Kotar/Lika/ – respondents reporting they had killed a wolf (difference = 0.5%) Dalmatia since they already exist in other parts of 0.72 Croatia or whether they own sheep and/or goats (difference = 0.8%) and Wolves should be completely protected in Gorski 0.41 0.72 are hunters (difference = 1.5%). Eleven cases were identified as Kotar/Lika/Dalmatia multivariate outliers and excluded from further analysis. Wolves should be allowed to be hunted year round 0.7 0.38 Wolves should be allowed to be killed with all – possible means, including poisons and killing pups 0.65 3.2. Preparatory analysis in dens Wolves keep roe deer populations in balance 0.59 Principal components analysis of the attitudinal items pooled In areas where wolves live close to the communities, – 0.71 attacks on humans are common 0.31 from both surveys resulted in the extraction of three factors (Table I would be afraid to walk in woods where wolves are 0.8 2). The first factor explained 23.8% of the variance and was inter- present preted as ‘‘support to wolf conservation”. Factor 2 explained I would agree with increasing wolf numbers in Croatia 0.46 0.63 23.4% of the variance and was interpreted as ‘‘support to control It is important to maintain wolf population in Croatia 0.79 wolf numbers”. The third factor explained 11% of the variance for future generations Wolves should be allowed to be hunted in a specific 0.68 and was interpreted as ‘‘fear”. The two items of this factor were hunting season in Gorski Kotar/Lika/Dalmatia fear of hiking in the woods and fear of attacks by wolves on hu- Wolves cause a lot of damage to livestock. 0.58 0.43 mans. This factor was not used in further analysis as it was based If a wolf killed livestock, I would agree with killing of 0.69 on only these two items and had an eigenvalue that was 1.02. that problem animal We already have enough wolves in Croatia 0.68 Farmers should receive compensations for the 0.54 3.3. Change in attitudes or a cohort effect? damages that wolves cause on their livestock We present the differences in the two factors (support to wolf conservation and support to control numbers) between the two conservation. Consistently across all regions, only in the oldest co- measurements for each of the zones in Table 3. There was a small hort (number 5) there were no changes on Factor 1. difference on Factor 1 (support to wolf conservation) in Lika, where On the ‘‘support to wolf control” factor (Table 4) we also found the respondents in 2003 scored somewhat lower than those in changes in the two southern regions and across all cohorts, except 1999 indicating decrease in public support for wolf conservation. the youngest one. These results indicated a decrease in support to On Factor 2 (support for wolf control), measured differences in control of wolf numbers. all three regions indicated a decrease in support to control wolf Plots of mean values across the cohorts, regions and the two numbers. measurements (Fig. 2) illustrate the effect of cohorts on attitudes The next step was to conduct a cohort analysis of the extracted toward wolves. Support to control of wolf numbers increases with factors with the purpose of controlling for age. On the ‘‘support to age, while support to wolf conservation decreases. Visual examina- wolf conservation” factor (Table 4), changes were recorded in the tion of the plots allows for comparisons among the regions across southern regions, Lika and Dalmatia, however not across all co- the cohorts. By looking at the intersection points of the attitudinal horts. In Lika and Dalmatia there was a decrease in support to wolf factors’ plots across the cohorts, it is possible to single out the co- hort in which the presumed shift in attitudes toward wolves from negative to more positive occurred in each of the three regions. Our Table 1 results suggest that this shift first took place in Gorski Kotar as the Characteristics of the respondents with regards to the respondents’ experiences with intersection point lies over the cohort group 4, followed by Lika wolves and association with an interest group (GK = Gorski Kotar, LK = Lika, DA = Dalmatia). (cohort 2 in 1999 and 3 in 2003) and lastly Dalmatia (cohort 1 in 1999 and 2 in 2003). Notable are also the extreme differences Measurement 1999 2003 across the cohorts in Lika and Dalmatia in 1999, where the younger Region GK LK DA GK LK DA cohorts were strongly supporting wolf conservation and opposing Seen wolf in captivity N 279 233 246 253 295 296 wolf control, while the older cohorts expressed the almost exact % 79.3 76.1 74.3 85.5 80.6 82.2 opposite extreme opinions. Seen wolf in wild N 234 196 192 174 217 194 % 66.5 63.6 58 58.6 59 53.9 4. Discussion Killed a wolf N 14 11 3 8 16 10 % 4 3.6 0.9 2.7 4.3 2.8 Many researchers have found that socio-demographic charac- Hunter N 46 25 34 26 27 39 teristics of respondents influence the attitudes toward wolves. El- % 13.1 8.1 10.3 8.8 7.5 10.9 derly, less educated people, women and sheep farmers tended to Owns sheep/goats N 48 80 103 53 83 95 have more negative attitudes toward wolves (e.g. Kellert, 1985; % 13.6 26 31.1 17.8 22.6 26.4 Bath and Buchanan, 1989; Bjerke et al., 2000; Ericsson and Heber- 21 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Author's personal copy 258 A. Majic´, A.J. Bath / Biological Conservation 143 (2010) 255–260 Table 3 Comparisons of sample sizes (N), mean scores (possible range 1 to 1) and standard deviations (SD) for the two measurements across the three regions. We evaluated attitude change by calculating actual difference in mean scores (diff), pooled standard deviations (SDp) and by running t test. When running t test the data were weighted by gender. Region 1999 2003 Difference 1999–2003 N Mean SD N Mean SD diff SDp Factor 1 G. Kotar 352 0.09 0.86 295 0.18 0.90 0.09 0.88 Lika 308 0.31 1.22 368 0.03 0.90 0.34 1.06a Dalmatia 331 0.19 1.14 360 0.32 0.90 0.13 1.02 Factor 2 G. Kotar 352 0.18 0.90 295 0.51 0.85 0.33 0.88a Lika 308 0.48 1.20 368 0.25 0.84 0.73 1.02a Dalmatia 331 0.64 0.94 360 0.25 0.73 0.89 0.84a a = p < 0.001. Table 4 standing this difference is important for understanding the nature Comparisons of sample sizes (N), mean scores (possible range 1 to 1) and standard of the attitudes and their formation. deviations (SD) for the two measurements across the three regions and across birth It is difficult to document a real change in attitudes over time cohorts (1 representing the youngest birth cohort and 5 representing the oldest birth because we tend to sample populations at different points in time cohort). We evaluated attitude change by calculating actual difference in mean scores (diff), pooled standard deviations (SDp) and by running t test. When running t test the rather than directly tracking individuals over time. By understand-data were weighted by gender. ing the most important socio-demographic characteristics influ- encing the attitudes toward wolves and controlling for them, we Cohort 1999 2003 Change 1999–2003 can distinguish among attitude change due to change in population N Mean SD N Mean SD diff SDp structure and real attitude change. We believe that we have docu- Gorski Kotar, Factor 1 mented a real change in attitudes toward wolves in Croatia, as the 1 56 0.24 0.82 96 0.21 0.63 0.03 0.70 observed changes were independent of the most important socio- 2 62 0.11 0.77 53 0.37 0.80 -0.26 0.78 demographic parameters, age and gender. 3 65 0.10 0.71 59 0.18 0.97 -0.08 0.84 4 88 0.10 0.90 35 0.04 1.07 0.14 0.94 According to Eagly and Chaiken (1993), the people that already 5 81 0.11 1.06 25 0.36 0.90 0.25 1.02 have favourable or unfavourable thoughts predominating their Gorski Kotar, Factor 2 attitudes about an issue will be more susceptible to cognitive 1 56 0.60 1.02 96 0.79 0.80 0.19 0.88 structure change and thus to attitude change (i.e. those with neg- 2 62 0.35 0.88 53 0.49 0.87 0.14 0.87 ative attitudes will reinforce their negative attitudes). Their atti- 3 65 0.19 0.89 59 0.33 0.81 0.14 0.85 tudes will be relatively enduring, resistant and predictive of that 4 88 0.01 0.75 35 0.03 0.79 0.02 0.76 5 81 0.06 0.86 25 0.01 0.68 0.05 0.81 person’s behaviour. Those that hold neutral attitudes might expe- rience peripheral attitude shift when exposed to new information, Lika, Factor 1 1 48 0.61 0.96 71 0.03 0.77 0.58 0.84a and form attitudes which are relatively temporary, susceptible, and 2 58 0.92 1.12 96 0.17 0.80 0.75 0.93a not predictive of behaviour. According to this we would expect that 3 59 0.42 1.04 64 0.20 0.75 0.22 0.89 the residents of the Lika region, which have predominantly neutral 4 58 0.29 1.31 62 0.25 0.89 0.54 1.10b attitudes towards wolves, might be influenced only temporarily by 5 80 0.35 1.22 58 0.52 0.96 0.17 1.11 persuasive messages. On the other hand the Dalmatians, with pre- Lika, Factor 2 dominantly negative attitudes, and the people from Gorski Kotar, 1 48 0.65 1.41 71 0.47 0.88 -0.18 1.11 with predominantly positive attitudes, should be more susceptible 2 58 0.47 1.21 96 0.28 0.81 0.75 0.97a 3 59 0.54 1.08 64 0.25 0.84 0.79 0.95a to change. 4 58 0.86 1.01 62 0.09 0.70 0.95 0.86a However, in the period between the two studies (1999–2003) 5 80 0.93 0.91 58 0.04 0.81 0.89 0.86a the Croatian government implemented a program aimed at miti- Dalmatia, Factor 1 gating the effects of the damages caused by wolves on livestock. 1 36 0.63 1.06 52 0.28 0.82 0.35 0.91 All of the activities, such as donations of electric fences and live- 2 59 0.23 1.07 103 0.21 0.84 0.44 0.92b stock guarding dogs, as well as lectures and seminars, were carried 3 70 0.02 1.01 74 0.41 0.92 0.39 0.96c 4 70 0.60 1.01 60 0.74 0.87 0.14 0.94 out in Lika and Dalmatia (Štrbenac et al., 2005). From that perspec- 5 90 0.62 1.14 56 0.20 0.85 -0.42 1.03 tive, we would expect an attitude change among the respondents Dalmatia, Factor 2 coming from those two regions. 1 36 0.11 1.17 52 0.49 0.86 0.38 0.99 Williams et al. (2002) in their quantitative meta-analysis found 2 59 0.55 1.15 103 0.21 0.65 0.76 0.86a that public attitudes toward wolves have been stable over the last 3 70 0.71 0.93 74 0.15 0.81 0.86 0.86a 30 years. In Utah, Bruskotter et al. (2007) similarly found that atti- 4 70 0.79 0.73 60 0.10 0.56 0.89 0.65a tudes toward wolves did not change over the past decade. Our re- 5 90 0.84 0.67 56 0.20 0.66 1.04 0.66a sults clearly indicate that considerable changes in attitudes toward a = p < 0.001, b = p < 0.010, c = p < 0.050. wolves can occur, even over a relatively short period of time. The changes were documented in the two southern regions, Lika and Dalmatia, with attitudes drifting towards a more neutral position, lein, 2003; Kleiven et al., 2004). Knowing this, and having in mind as there was both a decrease in support to wolf conservation and that the sampled populations are open systems with people immi- a decrease in support to control wolf numbers. Furthermore, the grating, emigrating, dying and entering our sampling frame as they differences in attitudes among the cohort groups in Lika and Dal- get older, means that any potentially detected attitude change matia became smaller. The hypothesis that Lika, as s neutral region, could merely be a reflection of the change in the structure of the should be the most susceptible for changes in attitudes was re- sampled population and not an actual attitude change. Under- jected as soon as we partitioned the data into the cohort categories. 22 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Author's personal copy A. Majic´, A.J. Bath / Biological Conservation 143 (2010) 255–260 259 Fig. 2. Mean values of the two analysed factors (support to wolf conservation and support to wolf number control) across the regions (Gorski Kotar = GK, Lika = LK and Dalmatia = DA), the two measurements (1999 and 2003) and birth cohorts (1 representing the youngest birth cohort and 5 representing the oldest birth cohort). Examining the cohort data for Lika in 1999 revealed that that ‘‘neu- were found to be negative, the objective became one of changing tral” group was actually composed of ‘‘extreme” cohorts with the them towards a more positive note. In fact, finding neutral atti- younger cohorts supporting wolf conservation and opposing wolf tudes has been seen as an opportunity to influence those views to- control more than the most positive group, the Gorski Kotar ward more positive viewpoints. The results of our research would respondents. On the other hand, the older cohorts were strongly suggest this might not be beneficial, as neutral attitudes may indi- opposing conservation of wolves and strongly supporting control cate less conflict. Attitudes should therefore be considered more as of the wolf population. A similar pattern across the cohorts was indicators of the current situation and not as objects to be directly also found in Dalmatia, the most negative toward wolves among influenced through awareness campaigns. We do need attitudinal the three regions. In 1999, the younger cohorts may have been studies to understand the nature of conflicts, but instead of focus- influenced more by the legal protection campaign than the older ing on changing the attitudes afterwards, we would do better to fo- cohorts. At this time, the older cohorts seemed more sympathetic cus on a resolution of the underlying conflict. We believe that the to livestock protection concerns and as a result held stronger neg- effects the implemented management decisions have on public ative attitudes toward wolves. Attitudes in Gorski Kotar seem to attitudes should be addressed more often in human dimensions re- have remained stable across the two measurements. One explana- search. Such research could help evaluate the effectiveness of a tion for this could be the absence of sheep farming in this region specific educational program or policy change, or even provide and consequent absence of wolf-livestock conflicts, resulting in an understanding of the effect that a change in the status of a cer- less public interest in wolf management. tain wildlife population might have on the attitudes. Through such From the analytical perspective the change in attitudes in Lika attitudinal and belief monitoring the human dimensions as a re- and Dalmatia can be seen as supportive of our hypothesis that search field could evolve from isolated studies driven by key man- the government’s mitigating measures for conflicts caused by agement issues into an integrated component of any wildlife predator damage to livestock in these two regions would also re- management decision-making process. flect on the attitudes toward wolves, as there was a decrease in support to control wolves. However, the support for wolf conserva- tion has also decreased considerably in these two regions, indicat- ing that there was a decrease in overall public interest for wolf Acknowledgements management. We can interpret this as fading of the anger-driven negative attitudes that were caused by the initial legal protection We thank the LCIE for funding and otherwise supporting the of wolves (Bath and Majic´, 2000). We suggest that over time, living first study and the SINP for their willingness to engage the general with wolves within this new framework of protection could lead public through this research and for being willing to integrate towards more tolerance and better coexistence. these results into their wolf management decision-making process. The movement from extreme viewpoints toward more neutral We also thank Djuro Huber and John Linnell for kindly reviewing attitudes creates greater possibilities for compromise between all our manuscript and offering valuable suggestions. We would also groups, and suggests that extremely positive attitudes toward like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions on wolves can be just as ‘‘problematic” as extremely negative ones how to improve an earlier draft of this paper. Finally, we thank in working towards effective solutions in wolf management. Tradi- all our respondents who without offering their opinions about tionally, we have focused on documenting attitudes and when they wolves we would have no data. 23 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Author's personal copy 260 A. Majic´, A.J. Bath / Biological Conservation 143 (2010) 255–260 References Kellert, S.R., 1985. Public perceptions of predators, particularly the wolf and Coyote. Biological Conservation 31, 167–189. Bath, A., 1998. The role of human dimensions in wildlife resource research in Kleiven, J., Bjerke, T., Kaltenborn, B.P., 2004. Factors influencing the social acceptability of large carnivore behaviours. Biodiversity and Conservation 13, wildlife management. Ursus 10, 349–355. 1647–1658. Bath, A.J., Buchanan, T., 1989. Attitudes of interest groups in Wyoming toward wolf Likert, R., 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of restoration in Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17, 519–525. Bath, A.J., Majic´, A., 2000. Human Dimensions in Wolf Management in Croatia. Large Psychology. 140, 1–55. Carnivore Initiative for Europe, Zagreb, Croatia. Majic´, A., 2007. Human Dimensions in Wolf Management in Croatia: Understanding Public Attitudes Toward Wolves Over Time and Space. Thesis, Memorial Bjerke, T., VittersØ, J., Kaltenborn, B.P., 2000. Locus of control and attitudes toward University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Canada. large carnivores. Psychological Reports 86, 37–46. Manfredo, M.J., Decker, D.J., Duda, M.D., 1998. What is the future for human Bruskotter, J.A., Schmidt, R.H., Teel, T.L., 2007. Are attitudes toward wolves dimensions of wildlife? In: Transactions of the North American Wildlife and changing? A case study in Utah. Biological Conservation 139, 211–218. Natural Resources Conference vol. 64, pp. 278–292. Central Bureau of Statistics – Republic of Croatia, 1992. Popis stanovništva, McComas, K.A., Scherer, C.W., 1999. Providing balanced risk information in surveys domacínstava, stanova i poljoprivrednih gospodarstava, 31, ozˇujak 1991: used as citizen participation mechanisms. Society and Natural Resources 12, Stanovništvo prema spolu i starosti, po naseljima. Republic of Croatia (in 107–119. Croatian). Moric´, S., Huber, Ð., 1989. Istrazˇivanje mnijenja stranih posjetilaca Nacionalnog Central Bureau of Statistics – Republic of Croatia, 2001. Census of Population, parka Plitvicˇka jezera o medvjedima i vukovima. Ekologija 24, 21–33 (in Households and Dwellings, 31st March 2001. Republic of Croatia. Croatian). Eagly, A.H., Chaiken, S., 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., Orlando, Florida. Parliament of the Republic of Croatia, 1995. Pravilnik o zaštiti pojedinih vrsta sisavaca. Official Gazette 31, 968 (in Croatian). Ericsson, G., Heberlein, T.A., 2003. Attitudes of hunters, locals, and the general Radišic´, B., Novosel, D., Huber, Ð., Frkovic´, A., 1994. Istrazˇivanje javnog mnijenja o public in Sweden now that the wolves are back. Biological Conservation 111, vukovima u Hrvatskoj. Peti kongres biologa Hrvatske. Pula, 395–396 (in 149–159. Frkovic´, A., Huber, Ð. 1992. Wolves in Croatia: baseline data. In: Promberger, C., Croatian). Sheskin, I.M., 1985. Survey Research for Geographers. Association of American Schröder, W., Proceedings of the Workshop: Wolves in Europe – Current Status Geographers, Washington, DC. and Prospects. Munich Wildlife Society, Oberammergau, Germany, pp. 67–69. Štrbenac, A., Huber, Ð., Kusak, J., Majic´, A., Frkovic´, A., Štahan, Zˇ., Jeremic´-Martinko, Glenn, N.D., 1977. Cohort Analysis. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California. J., Desnica, S., Štrbenac, P., 2005. Wolf Management Plan for Croatia. State Gyorgy, J., 1984. Istrazˇivanje javnog mnijenja o vukovima u Hrvatskoj. In: Drugi Institute for Nature Protection, Zagreb, Croatia. kongres biologa hrvatske, Zadar, Croatia, pp. 116–117 (in Croatian). Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S., 2001. Using Multivariate Statistics. Allyn and Bacon, Huber, Ð., Mitevski, S., Kuhar, D., 1992. Questionnaire on wolves in Croatia and Toronto, Canada. Macedonia. In: Promberger, C., Schröder, W., Comparison of Public Attitudes. Williams, C.K., Ericsson, G., Heberlein, T.A., 2002. A quantitative summary of Oberammergau, Germany, pp. 124–125. attitudes toward wolves and their reintroduction (1972–2000). Wildlife Society Kaczensky, P., Blazic, M., Gossow, H., 2001. Content analysis of articles on brown Bulletin 30, 575–584. bears in the Slovenian press, 1991–1998. Forest Snow and Landscape Research Zimmermann, B., Wabakken, P., Dötterer, M., 2001. Human–carnivore interactions 76, 121–135. in Norway: how does the re-appearance of large carnivores affect people’s Kalton, G., 1983. Introduction to Survey Sampling. Series: Quantitative Applications in Social Sciences, vol. 35. Sage Publications Inc., Newbury Park, California. attitudes and levels of fear? Forest Snow and Landscape Research 76, 137–153. 24 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 2.3 DINAMIKA ODNOSA JAVNOSTI DO MEDVEDA IN VLOGA LOVA NA MEDVEDE NA HRVAŠKEM Dynamics of public attitudes toward bears and the role of bear hunting in Croatia. Aleksandra Majić, Agnese Marino Taussig de Bodonia, Đuro Huber, Nils Bunnefeld Objavljeno v: Biological Conservation (2011), 144:3018-3027. Sprejeto: 12. september 2011 © 2011 Elsevier Ltd., ponatisnjeno z dovoljenjem Izvleček: Uspešno varstvo velikih zveri je odvisno od sprejemanja javnosti in odnosa le-te do njih, oboje pa se lahko v spremenjenih razmerah hitro spremeni. Javnomnenjske raziskave s časovno komponento, ki bi lahko takšne spremembe zaznale, so redke. V naši študiji smo anketirali prebivalce hrvaškega podeželja v letih 2002 in 2008 ter analizirali njihove odgovore, da bi tako zaznali, ali se je v tem času odnos do rjavega medveda ( Ursus arctos) spremenil. Pomembni dogodki na Hrvaškem v času naše raziskave so vključevali sprejetje bolj centralizirane in jasno opredeljene strategije upravljanja z medvedom, pa tudi porast številčnosti medvedje populacije. S pomočjo statističnega modeliranja smo pri anketirancih poskusili razložili vrednostne usmeritve, dojemanje medvedov kot grožnje in pripravljenost za sprejemanje te vrste. Rezultati kažejo, da se vrednostne usmeritve in dojemanje medvedov kot grožnje s časom niso spremenile, je pa padla pripravljenost za njihov sprejemanje. To nakazuje, da je porast medvedje populacije, morda pa tudi bolj centralizirano upravljanje z vrsto, zmanjšalo pripravljenost anketirancev, da bi številnejšo populacijo medvedov sprejeli. Sklepamo, da je stalno vključevanje javnosti v upravljanje z medvedom ključno za ohranjanje občutka nadzora nad to vrsto pri lokalnem prebivalstvu. Ob tem tudi menimo, da je lov v preučevani regiji pomembna oblika vključevanja javnosti, ki pomaga krepiti obstojno in zapuščinsko vrednost medveda in povečuje sprejemanje te vrste s strani javnosti. 25 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Biological Conservation 144 (2011) 3018–3027 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Biological Conservation j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / b i o c o n Dynamics of public attitudes toward bears and the role of bear hunting in Croatia Aleksandra Majicá,1, Agnese Marino Taussig de Bodonia b,⇑,1, Ðuro Huber c, Nils Bunnefeld b a University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Biology Department, Vecňa pot 111, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia b Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Silwood Park, Buckhurst Road, Ascot SL5 7PY, UK c Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Biology Department, Heinzelova 55, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Successful carnivore conservation depends on public attitudes and acceptance levels of carnivores, and Received 21 March 2011 these are likely to change as circumstances change. Attitude studies repeated in time that can demon-Received in revised form 18 August 2011 strate such change are rare. Our study surveyed Croatian rural inhabitants in 2002 and in 2008 and ana-Accepted 12 September 2011 lyzed their responses to detect a change in attitudes toward brown bears (Ursus arctos) over time. Available online 25 October 2011 Important developments occurring in Croatia at the time of our research included a more centralized and more clearly defined bear management strategy, and an increase in the bear population. We con-Keywords: structed models to explain respondent’s value orientations, their level of perceived threat and their Attitude change acceptance capacity for bears. Findings show that while value orientations and the overall level of per-Brown bear Human dimensions ceived threat did not change over time, bear acceptance capacity was reduced. This suggests that the Hunting increase in the bear population and perhaps the more centralized bear management reduced respon-Social carrying capacity dents’ willingness to accept a larger bear population. We conclude that continuous public involvement Croatia in bear management is essential in order to maintain a feeling of control over the bear among the local population. Furthermore we argue that hunting is an important form of public involvement in the region, serving to reinforce existence and bequest values of the bear and increase its public acceptance. 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction vore conservation could facilitate the development of management strategies that are more receptive and adaptive to public opinion. The key to successful carnivore conservation in human domi- In Croatia, where the bear is historically a hunted species and nated landscapes lies in stakeholder acceptance (Bath and Bucha- where its population has been growing for the past few decades nan, 1989). The Croatian context offers a good opportunity to (Decˇak et al., 2005), most of the controversy around bear manage- study public attitudes toward carnivores as it has recently experi- ment is focused on determining optimal population levels. The enced changes in brown bear (Ursus arctos) management that are concept of wildlife acceptance capacity was first described by representative of larger scale trends. A more regulated hunting sys- Decker and Purdy (1988, p. 53) as a dynamic measure of ‘‘the max- tem prompted by European integration and an increase in Croatia’s imum wildlife population level. . . that is acceptable to people’’. bear population, reflect a general tendency toward more protec- Wildlife value orientations are made up of economic, esthetic, eco- tionist conservation approaches and expanding carnivore popula- logical and intrinsic values of wildlife, and the perceived level of tions in parts of the western world. This study investigates the threat posed by wildlife in terms of damage to property and risk effects of these changes on public attitudes and acceptance capac- to personal safety. They are seen as major influences on wildlife ity for bears, by surveying Croatian rural inhabitants at two points acceptance capacity (Decker and Purdy, 1988; Wagner and Seal, in time. A better understanding of the changing context of carni- 1992; Riley and Decker, 2000; Zinn et al., 2000). Other studies have identified the effects of three more factors on both value orienta- tions and opinions about wildlife management: socio-demo- graphic factors (Kellert and Berry, 1987; Bath and Buchanan, Abbreviations: PCA, principal components analysis; BMP, bear management plan. 1989; Deruiter and Donnelly, 2002; Røskaft et al., 2003); past ⇑ Corresponding author. Present address: Via Baccina 45, 00184 Rome, Italy. Tel.: experience and knowledge about wildlife (Kellert et al., 1996; Vit- +39 3332154543; fax: +39 0648913978. tersø et al., 1999; Naughton-Treves et al., 2003; Røskaft et al., E-mail addresses: almajic@gmail.com (A. Majic´), agnese.marino87@gmail.com 2003; Bisi et al., 2007; Ericsson and Heberlein, 2003); and finally (A. Marino Taussig de Bodonia), djuro.huber@gmail.com (Ð. Huber), n.bunnefel- contextual or situation specific factors. Context has been thor- d06@imperial.ac.uk (N. Bunnefeld). 1 Joint first authors as they contributed equally to the manuscript. oughly studied with regards to specific opinions about manage- 0006-3207/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.09.005 26 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 A. Majicét al. / Biological Conservation 144 (2011) 3018–3027 3019 ment, such as the acceptability of lethal control (Zinn et al., 1998; 2. Methods Ericsson et al., 2004; Don Carlos et al., 2009; Bruskotter et al., 2009). Few studies have investigated how value orientations or 2.1. Data collection wildlife acceptance capacity change over time (but see Ericsson and Heberlein, 2003; Bruskotter et al., 2007; Majicánd Bath, This study was carried out in an area of 9600 km2 spreading 2010; Zimmermann et al., 2001). The next section therefore through the Dinaric Mountains in Croatia, where bears are perma- describes the changes that have occurred in the Croatian context nently present and hunted (Decˇak et al., 2005). Low human density with regards to bear management and their relevance to public (about 25/km2) is present throughout the area and the primary attitudes. source of income derives from small farms, livestock grazing and for- Croatia devised a Bear Management Plan (BMP) in 2005 out of estry activities (Decˇak et al., 2005). We based the questionnaire on the need to comply with the Bern and CITES conventions, in prep- Bath and Majic´’s (2000) and Kaczensky’s (2000) question format. It aration for European accession in 2013. The plan brought several consisted of 48 multiple choice questions, mostly on a five point Lik- changes that are likely to have had varying effects on public atti- ert scale regarding general attitudes toward bears, knowledge about tudes. The Bear management regime in place at the time of the first bears, opinions about bear management,past experience with bears, attitude survey in 2002, was run by individual hunting ground and socio-demographic details of respondents (Appendix I). In 2002, units, responsible for setting harvesting quotas for their own questionnaires were sent to randomly sampled households from grounds. Under the bear management in place at the time of the areas throughout the bear range excluding large urban areas, pro- second attitude survey, in 2008, experts from the scientific com- portionately to the number of inhabitants. In 2008 questionnaires munity were responsible for setting quotas on a national level, were mailed to the same addresses as in 2002. Each time 700 ques- and the hunting season was shortened by 45 days. This more cen- tionnaires were sent out, followed by a reminder/thank you card. tralized and more regulated form of bear management may have The question ‘‘Have you participated in such a survey in 2002?’’ caused the perception in stakeholders that their involvement and was included in the 2008 questionnaire to identify the respondents agency in bear management diminished. However, other BMP that were surveyed both times. Personal information was handled in measures were aimed at increasing public involvement in the accordance with the personal information protection legislation. Re- drafting and implementation parts of the plan as well as reducing turn rates reached 40.86% in 2002 and 53.14% in 2008, with a total of and mitigating human–bear conflicts. Guidelines and recommen- 658 responses. dations for good practice were drafted, a consultation process with various interest groups was initiated and the plan was presented throughout communities of the bear range (Decˇak et al., 2005). 2.2. Preparatory analysis Brown bear populations have increased in several European countries, including Slovenia, Norway and Sweden (Swenson For the analysis we used the R version 2.11.0 (R Development et al., 2000). Although population monitoring before 2005 was Core Team, 2010). Data points with missing values and data points inconsistent in Croatia, it is possible to discern a trend of sustained in which all questions relevant to our analysis had been answered population increase. Estimates show that there were about 100 were collected into a datasets of 170 and 488 data points, respec- bears in the 1950s, between 600 and 1000 bears in 2005 (Huber tively. To compare the two datasets we used Wilcoxon’s test on all et al., 2008) and 1000 bears in 2008 (Kocijan and Huber, 2008). of the continuous variables (as they were not normally distributed) Questionnaires collected in Croatia in 2002 suggest that bear except for age, for which we used the t-test. We used the chi-square acceptance capacity was being approached and there is reason to test on all the categorical variables. Respondents who did not answer believe that the growing bear population may have exacerbated all the relevant questions were older and in several cases exhibited conflict. more negative attitudes toward bears and bear management The most common form of damage caused by bears in Croatia is (Appendix II). To avoid problems with missing values replacement to crops and orchards, followed by depredation of livestock and we proceeded by eliminating all observations with missing data. destruction of beehives, as well as traffic accidents due to collisions Two different datasets were used in further analyses. The main with bears. Dangerous encounters with bears are instead rare, dataset consisted of 488 data points from the random sample: 231 there has been one fatal encounter with a bear over the past 75 in 2002 and 257 in 2008. The other contained the responses of peo- years and seven other encounters that caused injuries over the past ple who had answered the questionnaire both in 2002 and in 2008, 35 years (Decˇak et al., 2005). Official estimates suggest that dam- and consisted of 72 data points: 36 for each year. We carried out age levels are low (about USD 9000 paid annually) (Sindicˇic´, the paired and unpaired tests mentioned above on the smaller 2009), but because compensation is paid by local hunting grounds, and larger datasets respectively, to detect real and overall changes community ties are likely to deter compensation claims. Therefore in responses to each question between 2002 and 2008. real damages are likely to be higher and to have increased along Responses from the larger dataset were then grouped to sim- with the increase in the bear population. plify analysis. We computed a knowledge score (0–7) by adding In order to understand the importance of context in the forma- the number of correct answers to questions regarding bear popula- tion of value orientations and acceptance capacity for bears, as well tion numbers and trends; bear feeding habits; their hibernation, as its relevance with respect to other factors mentioned in the lit- reproduction and development behavior; and the level of legal pro- erature, we formulated the following hypotheses: tection they are under. We then assigned dummy variables to the categories from the Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) Value orientations are affected by: socio-demographic variables to strongly agree (5), and used the R package ‘ psych’’ to perform (H1); experiences with bears (H2); changes in bear population principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation on the dynamics and bear management (H3). section on general attitudes toward bears and the section on opin- Bear acceptance capacity is affected by: socio-demographic ions about bear management. PCA and Factor Analysis performed variables (H4); experiences with bears (H5); changes in the bear on dummy variables is commonly used in human dimension stud- population dynamics and bear management (H6); and respon- ies (Vaske and Donnelly, 1999; Vaske et al., 2001; Bruskotter et al., dent’s value orientations (H7). 2007, 2009; Lloyd and Miller, 2010; Majicánd Bath, 2010). The effects of bear population dynamics and bear management PCA run on the general attitudes section gave two components will produce attitude changes at the individual level (H8). with eigenvalues >1 (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1989), suggesting that 27 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 3020 A. Majicét al. / Biological Conservation 144 (2011) 3018–3027 Table 1 PCA loadings for the general attitudes section of the questionnaire. Only those >0.30 are shown. Questions ‘‘Existence, bequest and use ‘‘Perceived values’’ threat’’ What are your feelings toward bears? 0.68 0.33 To have bears in Croatia is: 1. Good; 2. Do not know; 3. Bad 0.61 It is important to maintain the bear population for future generations 0.79 We should assure that future generations have an abundant bear population 0.67 0.31 Whether or not I get to see a bear, it is important to me that they exist in Croatia 0.77 It is unnecessary to have bears in Croatia because abundant populations of bears already exist in other European 0.58 countries Having bears in your region increases tourism 0.64 Bears cause abundant damage to livestock 0.82 Bears cause abundant damages to crops and orchards 0.88 In areas where bears live in close proximity to humans, bear attacks on humans are common 0.49 0.49 I would be afraid to hike in the woods if bears were present 0.57 Eigenvalue 3.64 2.43 % of variance explained by each component 33.10 22.10 Cumulative % of variance explained 33.10 55.20 Table 2 PCA loadings for the management section of the questionnaire. Only those >0.30 are shown. The first component is the only one that was interpreted and used in analysis. Questions ‘‘Support for limiting bear Component Component Component numbers’’ 2 3 4 I would agree with increasing bear numbers in Croatia 0.76 I would agree with increasing bear numbers in my region 0.76 Bears should be completely protected 0.56 0.35 Bears should be allowed to be hunted in a specific season 0.65 Bears should be allowed to be hunted all year round 0.60 0.32 Bears should be killed by all means 0.54 Hunting quotas for bears should be agreed on a national level 0.40 Hunting quotas for bears should be agreed on a county level 0.44 0.45 Hunting quotas for bears should be agreed on a hunting ground level 0.34 0.53 If a bear repeatedly causes damages I would agree with killing this problem animal 0.31 I would be willing to contribute money toward compensation program for losses due to 0.55 bears We already have enough bears in Croatia 0.74 We already have enough bears in this region 0.74 Compensation for the damages caused by bears should not be paid if appropriate 0.74 prevention was not used Farmers should buy insurance for protection of their crops and animals against bear 0.77 damages Hunters that manage bears should pay for compensation for the damages caused by bears 0.55 Administration should pay for compensation for the damages caused by bears 0.49 Bear hide and skull should be removed from the list of hunting trophies 0.66 Hunter can keep the trophy after it has been properly registered in the national database 0.67 Eigenvalue 3.56 2.25 2.01 1.42 % of variance explained by each component 18.70 11.80 10.60 7.50 Cumulative % of variance explained 18.70 30.60 41.20 48.70 value orientations are composed of two elements that should be the first one in the analysis (Table 2). The variables loading highest analyzed separately (Table 1). The most important variables con- on it represent negative feelings towards increasing bear numbers, tributing to the first principal component are those expressing opinions that bears should be hunted more than they already are, respondents’ existence, use and bequest value orientations, the lat- that they should not be completely protected and that hunting ter referring to the importance those respondents gave to conserv- quotas should be allocated on the hunting ground level. This com- ing the bear for future generations. A series of variables are then ponent was interpreted as ‘‘support for limiting bear numbers’’. negatively and weakly correlated to the component, relating to lack of existence values and fear of bears. This component was 2.3. Modeling interpreted as ‘‘existence, bequest and use values’’. The variables that feature as most important in the second principal component We designed three models to test our hypotheses. The response express respondents’ perception that bears cause a lot of damages variables used in the models were the scores of the principal com- to crops, orchards and livestock, and questions expressing respon- ponents mentioned above, while the explanatory variables used in dent’s fear of bears. This component was interpreted as ‘‘perceived the models were derived from the questionnaire. The models con- threat’’. tained a dummy variable for ‘‘year’’ with two levels to represent PCA run on the management section of the questionnaire gave the year in which the survey was carried out (2002 and 2008). six principal components with eigenvalues >1. After considering Our data on damages and encounters with bears in the wild does the scree plot and the interpretability of the components (Tabach- not allow us to measure whether the intensity and frequency of nick and Fidell, 1989), we chose to retain four components and use the experience increased for the same respondents between 2002 28 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 A. Majicét al. / Biological Conservation 144 (2011) 3018–3027 3021 Table 3 List of models and variables used in them. Explanatory variables with are interaction variables of ‘‘year’ and variables for which we hypothesized that the effects could be year-dependent. Response variable Explanatory variables 1. ‘Existence, bequest and use ‘Gender’, ‘hunter’, ‘age’ (H1); ‘seen in wild’, ‘damage’, ‘knowledge’ (H2); ‘year’, ‘year hunter’, ‘year seen in wild’, ‘year damage’ (H3) values’ 2. ‘Perceived threat’ ‘Gender’, ‘hunter’, ‘age’ (H1); ‘seen in wild’, ‘damage’, ‘knowledge’ (H2); ‘year’ ‘year hunter’, ‘year seen in wild’, ‘year damage’ (H3) 3. ‘Support for limiting bear ‘Gender’, ‘age’, ‘hunter’ (H4); ‘seen in wild’, ‘damage’ ‘knowledge’ (H5); ‘year’, ‘year damage’, ‘year seen in wild’, ‘year hunter’, numbers’ ‘year existence, bequest and use values’, ‘year perceived threat’ (H6); ‘existence, bequest and use values’, ‘perceived threat’ (H7) and 2008. Therefore we included interactions between ‘year’ and 3.2. Changes between 2002 and 2008 other variables in the models to see whether the experience of damage, seeing a bear in the wild and being a hunter produced a Overall, results reflect a general positive attitude toward bears change in attitudes over time (Table 3). To check for goodness of (Table 4). The majority of questions pertaining to existence and be- fit, we inspected the residual plots of the full models and found quest value orientations and perceived damages from bears did not signs of heteroscedasticity on the first and third model. We per- differ significantly between the two surveys. However, the belief formed Box-cox transformation on the variable ‘ existence, bequest that attacks from bears are common was generally limited but and use values’’ to stabilize its variance, and used regression diag- more widespread in 2008. Tests run on the management section nostics to identify and exclude 17 and 29 influential points from of the questionnaire show that overall respondents remained posi- the first and third model, respectively. tive towards increasing the bear population, but significantly less Since the data in this study is observational (not subject to exper- so in 2008 (Table 5). In 2008 significantly less people agreed with imental manipulation) and non orthogonal (variables are autocorre- further increasing the bear population and less people disagreed lated), the significance of factors depends on the order in which they with the statement that there are enough bears in Croatia. Answers are removed from the model (Burnham and Anderson, 2002; Craw- to questions about compensation issues varied considerably, but ley, 2007). For this reason, multi model inference was carried out on average respondents agreed that the state and hunting grounds with the R package ‘‘MuMIn’’, by running models for all the possible should pay for damages caused by bears. Although responses did combinations of the variables. We used second order Akaike Infor- not change radically between 2002 and 2008, significantly less mation Criterion (AICc) to account for the small sample size and people in 2008 agreed that compensation should be paid only the high number of parameters. We then generated a confidence when appropriate precautions are taken, and significantly less peo- set of models by using the cut off point of 2 AICc differences (Burn- ple in 2008 agreed that farmers should buy insurance against dam- ham and Anderson, 2002), (Appendix V). The ‘‘MuMIn’’ package per- ages. Lastly, results show support for a controlled system of bear formed model averaging across the confidence set, to produce hunting. Respondents disagreed with killing bears by all means, averaged parameter estimates, standard errors and confidence expressed low support for year round hunting, and in 2008 signif- intervals. Furthermore it calculated the relative importance of each icantly more people agreed with the statement that bears should variable. This is measured across the confidence set of models by be hunted in a specific season. The majority of respondents agreed adding the weights of all the models in which each variable features, with the statement that quotas should be decided on a national le- thereby ranking variables by importance according to their contri- vel but in 2008 significantly more people thought that they should bution to the entire set of likely models. be decided on a county level. 3.3. Paired test results 3. Results The paired Wilcoxon and chi-square tests performed on the data- 3.1. Descriptive analysis of variables set containing only the responses of those that had answered the questionnaire both times support the main findings from the larger The socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents did dataset. More people in 2008 agreed that there are already enough not vary significantly between the samples of 2002 and 2008 bears in Croatia (Wilcoxon = 40.00, p = 0.0045), more were aware (Appendix III). Age of respondents was normally distributed with that the bear population is growing (Chi-square = 8.44, df = 3, a mean of 49 years. The gender composition of the population p = 0.0377), and more were in favor of hunting bears in a specific was skewed, with men making up 75.61% of the sample probably hunting season (Wilcoxon = 47.50, p = 0.0030). Furthermore, fewer because male heads of households more often completed the ques- respondents agreed with deciding on quotas at the national level tionnaire. As for the hunting proportion of the sampled population, (Wilcoxon = 279.00, p = 0.0294). No other significant changes were 21.31% were hunters. There was also no significant change in the detected (Appendix IV). Still, these results show that the change in number of respondents experiencing damage and seeing a bear respondent’s opinions about bear management was consistent at in the wild (Appendix III). However, our data does not account the individual level and not simply due to different samples. for the amount of damage or encounters experienced by each respondent, and it is possible that the same respondents that expe- 3.4. Models rienced damage and encounters with bears in 2002 experienced more damages and encounters in 2008. Overall, 27.05% of respon- 3.4.1. Existence bequest and use values dents had experienced damages from bears and 74.80% had seen a We ran 280 models to explain ‘‘existence, bequest and use val- bear in the wild. Respondents’ knowledge also did not differ signif- ues’’ toward bears, and included five in the confidence set based on icantly between 2002 and 2008 (Appendix III), with a mean of their AICc (Appendix V). The best model contains the variables: three out of seven correct answers. Only 30.94% of the sample age, whether respondents experienced damage, whether they were knew that the bear population is increasing, but significantly more hunters, and their knowledge of bears. The graphs of the model people perceived the growth in the bear population in 2008 (Fig. 1) show that respondent’s ‘‘existence, bequest and use values’’ (Chi-square = 9.71, df = 3, p = 0.0212). decreased with age and increased with knowledge. They also show 29 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 3022 A. Majicét al. / Biological Conservation 144 (2011) 3018–3027 Table 4 Distribution of responses (%) given in the general attitudes toward bears section of the questionnaire. Means were calculated using dummy variables assigned to the categories ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) unless otherwise noted; Wilcoxon and p-values are given in bold for responses that differed significantly between 2002 and 2008. 2002 2008 Questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Mean Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Mean Wilcoxon and disagree (%) (%) (%) agree disagree (%) (%) (%) agree p-values (%) (%) (%) (%) What are your feelings 0.43 1.73 19.91 51.52 26.41 4.02 1.56 1.17 19.46 48.64 29.18 4.03 W = 29106.00 toward bears? p = 0.6867 To have bears in Croatia is: 96.97 2.60 0.43 1.03 93.77 3.89 2.33 1.09 W = 28722.00 1. Good; 2. Don’t know; p = 0.0924 3. Bad It is important to maintain 0.87 0.43 2.60 54.55 41.56 4.35 3.50 0.39 4.67 44.75 46.69 4.31 W = 29043.50 the bear population for p = 0.6442 future generations We should assure that 0.87 7.36 6.93 56.28 28.57 4.04 3.50 7.39 13.62 55.25 20.23 3.81 W = 33717.50 future generations p = 0.0040 have an abundant bear population Whether or not I get to see 0.87 1.30 2.16 54.55 41.13 4.34 2.33 1.17 3.11 53.70 39.69 4.27 W = 30499.50 a bear, it is important to p = 0.5517 me that they exist in Croatia It is unnecessary to have 43.29 49.78 3.03 2.60 1.30 1.69 43.97 49.03 2.33 3.89 0.78 1.68 W = 29852.00 bears in Croatia because p = 0.9037 abundant populations of bears already exist in other European countries Having bears in your region 0.00 9.52 9.96 51.95 28.57 4.00 3.11 9.73 12.45 45.53 29.18 3.88 W = 30885.00 increases tourism p = 0.4048 Bears cause abundant 16.88 52.38 14.72 15.15 0.87 2.31 17.12 54.09 15.18 11.28 2.33 2.28 W = 30262.00 damage to livestock p = 0.6848 Bears cause abundant 13.85 45.45 12.99 23.38 4.33 2.59 10.89 47.86 14.01 23.74 3.50 2.61 W = 29185.50 damages to crops and p = 0.7332 orchards In areas where bears live 31.17 57.58 6.93 4.33 0.00 1.84 24.12 59.92 8.17 4.67 3.11 2.03 W = 26773.00 in close proximity to p = 0.0336 humans, bear attacks on humans are common I would be afraid to hike in 21.65 48.05 9.52 15.58 5.19 2.35 17.12 47.08 8.56 20.23 7.00 2.53 W = 27215.50 the woods if bears were p = 0.0906 present that respondents who experienced damage from bears had slightly variables in the averaged model are small, their standard errors weaker ‘ existence bequest and use values’’, and respondents that large, and their relative importance low: age, being a hunter and were hunters had slightly stronger ‘‘existence bequest and use val- year. None of the interactions between year of survey and other ues’’. However, as shown in the figure, these variables do not ex- variables feature as important predictors (Table 6). plain much of the variation, and the best model is weak (R2 = 0.06, adjusted R2 = 0.05). Other variables that feature in the averaged model do not reveal a clear trend based on their large 3.4.3. Support for limiting bear numbers confidence intervals. They are year of survey, gender, and whether We ran 3128 models to explain respondents’ ‘‘support for limit- respondents had seen a bear in the wild. Finally, none of the inter- ing bear numbers’’ and included thirteen in the confidence set actions between year of survey and the other variables feature as (Appendix V). The best model contained the variables: ‘‘existence, important predictors in the models (Table 6). bequest and use values’’; ‘ perceived threat from bears’’; year of survey; and whether respondents had seen a bear in the wild. Fig. 1 shows that stronger ‘‘existence bequest and use values’’ de- 3.4.2. Perceived threat from bears creased respondents’ ‘‘support for limiting bear numbers’’, while We ran 280 models to explain ‘‘perceived threat’ from bears, stronger ‘‘perceived threat’’ increased it. Moreover, respondents and we included four models in the confidence set (Appendix V). in 2008 were slightly more in favor of limiting the bear population The best model contained the variables: gender, whether respon- than respondents in 2002, and respondents that had seen a bear in dents experienced damage, whether they had seen a bear in the the wild were slightly more in favor of limiting bear numbers. The wild and their knowledge of bears. Fig. 1 shows that perceived figure representation and the R2 values of the model (R2 = 0.47, ad- threat decreased with knowledge and was slightly higher in wo- justed R2 = 0.47) show that its explanatory power is higher than men. Respondents that had experienced damage felt more threa- the previous two models. Several other variables included in the tened, while respondents who had seen a bear in the wild felt averaged model have low relative importance, small effect sizes less threatened. However the effects of these variables are not and large standard errors, these are: experience of damage, age, strong and the explanatory power of the model is weak knowledge, gender, being a hunter and the interactions between (R2 = 0.08, adjusted R2 = 0.07). The effect sizes of the following year of survey and other variables (Table 6). 30 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 A. Majicét al. / Biological Conservation 144 (2011) 3018–3027 3023 ise rw d 0 0 00 50 50 50 50 00 0 50 .00 50 00 .00 50 00 he an 4 9.00 ot n 96 59 52 01 74 43 16 43 90. es 958. ss 32859. 0266 33132. 0161 33454. 0104 18715. 0E-1 27344.50 28933.50 30 26694. 0430 28152.0 31247. 31840 24398. 0003 26339. 0248 34795.0 0005 33130.0 0195 29220 29342. 2735 320 le 0. 0. 0. 5. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ilcoxo = 0.0931 0.56 0.38 0.30 0.27 0.14 0.74 0.81 0.12 0.0825 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = un W p-valu W p W p W p W p W p W p W p W p W p W p W p W p W p W p W p W p W p W p W p (5) n 8 4 60 54 48 81 98 53 61 37 05 97 06 agree Mea 3. 3. 3. 3. 1. 1. 3. 3. 3. 3.56 2.85 2. 3. 2.6 3.0 3.78 3.93 3.20 3.61 lyng y (%) stro 8 1 8 5 7 9 8 to rongl ree 79 18 74 06 01 11 61 67 59 18 28 6. 4. 5. 1.95 0.7 3. St ag 18.6 14.0 21. 22. 23. 12.4 12. 14. 4.6 7.3 21. 22. 18.6 11. (1) ree 3 4 7 6 0 8 1 2 6 5 7 1 2 3 8 ree ) 36 74 .2 4. Ag (% 49.0 48.6 40.4 54.8 3.5 0.7 44. 42.4 37. 49.4 28.02 29.9 30.3 26.0 42.4 50 52.5 25.6 56.03 disagly l 9 1 5 9 1 1 9 6 8 5 4 89 67 5 5 8 eutra ) 7.3 6.6 3.1 6.61 9.34 strong 3. N (% 18.2 21.0 12.4 10.8 15.5 32.6 23.3 23.7 10. 11. 11.4 12.4 19.07 18.6 m fro ree 1 1 ing ) 12 23 62 28 64 85 56 24 29 35 85 .18 2. Disag (% 8.56 10. 13. 20. 11. 55. 33. 15. 27. 25. 14.79 27.63 37. 33. 45.9 31.9 13.66 10.12 29 rangsie (%) ly e tegor 3 6 1 4 8 2 5 ca ng 08 89 11 28 73 00 56 67 67 3. 3. 4.67 4. 9. 7. 6.2 8.5 4. 4. 9.3 3.0 2.7 7.39 5.4 the 20 1. Stro disagre 32.30 61.48 15. 10.5 tod n 6 6 4 9 6 6 0 ne 83 00 80 49 61 01 06 28 75 76 73 Mea 3.8 3.7 3. 3. 1. 1. 3.6 3.0 2.9 3. 3. 2.6 2.8 3. 3. 3. 3. 3.03 3. assig y bles (%) 1 8 7 9 9 9 0 6 3 5 5 5 5 ria rongl ree 27 .3 va 5. 6.4 6.9 St ag 22.5 18.1 27.2 2.16 2.60 27. 7.7 9.52 11.6 3.46 2.6 4.7 12.5 20 22.08 15.1 13.8 my 9 9 2 6 ree ) .98 .84 .72 .83 .66 .17 60 .21 .44 52 95 04 dum 2.60 0.00 g 4. Ag (% 54 55 47.1 40.6 43 39 37 60 31. 21 29 42.4 41.5 51. 51. 23.38 61. 08. l usin 20 6 6 3 2 9 2 6 2 ) 99 12 23 76 73 33 82 36 48 88 91 and eutra 8. 4. 1. 3. N (% 4. 7. 9.9 12. 12. 11.2 10. 33.3 19. 16. 10.8 12.9 12.1 11.2 19. 14.7 lculated 02 ca 20 e ree 2 er een ) .12 .14 .08 .0 .03 27 85 57 .32 .10 03 68 55 w 7.36 3.03 tw 2. Disag (% 12 13.42 28 51 31.60 16 32 27. 13. 28. 46 38 32. 24. 12. 10.39 30.74 ns bely Mea (%) e. e ir ficant 6 3 6 2 9 3 na 02 rongly 90 42 39 07 18 39 82 .82 signi 3. 7.7 8.2 20 1. St disagre 2.1 1.7 13. 39. 64. 8.6 9.5 4.33 3.03 3.46 4.33 7.36 18. 10. 10. 10 d estionqu is ed in differe l level th be and e the t g ve d t th caus of n r tin tha n le u ling tion no es stered n a so level fo ty un gro kil sa ld crops h ati region sea aln un g h regi it en ou eir ion of y sectio onses ro y damag t C m fic co w sh th e erl nt atio ntin e lis resp und a in in ci n u comp of ro d th a h re ars op n for s s spe on a ag mpensat for the pr a on ard be use o n ld ber ber year on ld ti co m u by ot r anageme bo m m in eed tow atia region n fo fro bee m u u all s in n n agreed wo o sed r r ted agr I Cr this u was protec ensation ved ha the agreed pay un ted s be r be es in in ca s it in h money rs fo ld given bea bea ld be on g g rotected hun er p u remo be mean ld te ou comp u bea ges nti are in in y be ould aft sho ou damag sh be given to all sh rib to bears bears ve amage rs for ) eas eas to d rs hy s rs sh ama s es e h h d r ld p (% cr cr pre pletel ed d by ar du ug ug bea bea pay ou in in d bea ar cont insurance caus s bea e by ld sh tro p-values low le be r be to the abase ly eno eno r iate ag ou ll onses com al allowe kil for fo g buy the for al losse e e fo sed sh dat and with with be be opr d be be ted im lin n ainst man n sku ep resp il hav hav pr cau d al on ree ree d d otas ea an w for ag ke n of ul ul ap s at an ag ag ould ould quotas quotas rep m m atio shoul g qu le be if th ies can atio ion ons d d sho sho sh sh ar d s istratio ide n ob ogra ready ready bears pens id ers imal in h ph e 5 ut Wilcox sti oul oul ting tin ting be al al ter ter ars ars rs rs n n n pr pr pa an n damages m by r tro n th le w w a woul strib ed; Que I I Be Be Bea Bea Hu Hu Hu If I We We Com Farm Hu Ad Bea Hu Tab Di not 31 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 3024 A. Majicét al. / Biological Conservation 144 (2011) 3018–3027 80 80 60 60 damage N & hunter N damage N & hunter Y 40 40 damage Y & hunter N damage Y & hunter Y 20 20 stence, bequest, use values 0 0 Exi 20 40 60 80 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (a) Age (b) Knowledge 3 3 2 2 damage N & seen in wild N 1 1 damage N & seen in wild Y ed threat damage Y & seen in wild N 0 0 damage Y & seen in wild Y Perceiv -1 -1 -2 -2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (c) Knowledge in women (d) Knowledge in men 3 3 2 2 1 seen in wild N & year 2002 miting no. 1 seen in wild N & year 2008 0 0 seen in wild Y & year 2002 t for li seen in wild Y & year 2008 -1 por -1 -2 Sup -2 0 20 40 60 80 -2 -1 0 1 2 (e) Existence, bequest, use values (f) Perceived threat Fig. 1. Multivariate plots of the best model explaining existence bequest and use values, perceived threat and support for limiting bear numbers. The gray points are raw data and the trend lines represent the effects of the categorical variables taken from the model outputs. The graphs show: the effect of (a) age and (b) knowledge on the transformed variable representing existence bequest and use values for respondents who never experienced damage and were not hunters, who never experienced damage and were hunters, who experienced damage and were not hunters, who experienced damage and were hunters; the effect of knowledge in (c) women and in (d) men on level of perceived threat for respondents who never experienced damage and had never seen a bear in the wild, had never experienced damage and had seen a bear in the wild, had experienced damage and had never seen a bear in the wild, had experienced damage and had seen a bear in the wild; the effect of the transformed variable representing respondent’s (e) existence bequest and use values and their (f) perceived threat on their level of support for limiting bear numbers, for respondents who in 2002 had never seen a bear in the wild, who in 2008 had never seen a bear in the wild, who in 2002 had seen a bear in the wild, who in 2008 had seen a bear in the wild. 4. Discussion 4.1. Wildlife value orientations The results of this study show that respondents’ existence be- Some literature suggests that wildlife value orientations are quest and use value orientations and their overall level of per- created early in life, as individuals are socialized into different pro- ceived threat did not change significantly over time, while fessional cultures and lifestyles that shape their relationship with instead acceptance capacity for bears was reduced. We hypothe- nature (Bjerke and Kaltenborn, 1999; Røskaft et al., 2003). Our size that this reduction might be due to changes in bear population model supports this and validates the hypothesis that socio-demo- and management. We also discuss the formation of value orienta- graphic variables affect value orientations (H1). Women were more tions and the socio-demographic and experience factors that influ- threatened by bears than men and younger respondents showed ence them. Our findings offer insights into the general structure of more positive attitudes than older respondents, in agreement with attitudes and the direction of attitude change over time. Overall literature that discusses the growth of environmental concerns in attitudes toward bear management have remained largely intact younger generations (Deruiter and Donnelly, 2002). and the majority of respondents are still in favor of increasing Furthermore, our models show that experiences with bears the bear population. influence value orientations (H2). A large part of the sample 32 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 A. Majicét al. / Biological Conservation 144 (2011) 3018–3027 3025 Table 6 The averaged models explaining ‘ existence bequest and use values’’, ‘‘perceived threat’’, and ‘‘support for limiting bear numbers’’. Coefficient Standard error Lower CI Upper CI Relative importance 1. ‘‘Existence bequest and use values’’ (Intercept) 52.1245 3.1246 45.9868 58.2623 Age 0.1680 0.0481 0.2625 0.0735 1.0000 Damage (y) 3.8997 1.5852 7.0147 0.7848 1.0000 Hunter (y) 4.1270 1.7871 0.6156 7.6384 1.0000 Knowledge 0.7777 0.6239 0.4474 2.0028 0.8050 Year (2008) 0.2179 0.4812 1.1619 0.7262 0.1772 Gender (m) 0.2411 0.5507 0.8395 1.3218 0.1685 Seen in wild (y) 0.0899 0.3074 0.5135 0.6933 0.1288 2. ‘‘Perceived threat’ (Intercept) 0.5612 0.1545 0.2576 0.8648 Gender (m) 0.2998 0.1061 0.5083 0.0913 1.0000 Damage (y) 0.4219 0.1009 0.2236 0.6201 1.0000 Knowledge 0.0882 0.0352 0.1575 0.0190 1.0000 Seen in wild (y) 0.2734 0.1059 0.4815 0.0653 1.0000 Hunter (y) 0.0226 0.0488 0.1184 0.0731 0.225 Age 0.0004 0.0010 0.0016 0.0024 0.1919 Year (2008) 0.0012 0.0146 0.0274 0.0299 0.1538 3. ‘‘Support for limiting bear numbers’’ (Intercept) 1.3058 0.1459 1.0192 1.5925 Existence (transformed) 0.0335 0.0022 0.0378 0.0292 1.0000 Perceived threat 0.3870 0.0351 0.3181 0.4559 1.0000 Year (2008) 0.2243 0.0751 0.0768 0.3718 1.0000 Seen in wild (y) 0.1201 0.0860 0.0487 0.2890 0.8552 Damage (y) 0.0231 0.0428 0.0609 0.1071 0.2507 Age 0.0006 0.0012 0.0029 0.0017 0.2304 Gender (m) 0.0065 0.0166 0.0260 0.0390 0.1186 Knowledge 0.0013 0.0034 0.0054 0.0080 0.0706 Hunter (y) 0.0032 0.0091 0.0211 0.01467 0.0656 Perceived threat year (2008) 0.0019 0.0063 0.0104 0.01423 0.0610 Existence (transformed) year (2008) 0.0001 0.0003 0.0005 0.0006 0.0558 Seen in wild (y) year (2008) 0.0005 0.0084 0.0170 0.01611 0.05447 reported having seen a bear in the wild, and many respondents carnivores had more negative attitudes. Furthermore, Bjerke were hunters. Respondents that had had these kinds of experiences et al. (2000) show that higher levels of marginalization of the rural with bears, along with respondents that were more knowledgeable community from decision making are positively associated with of bears, felt less threatened by them. In contrast, the experience of fear. In our study the impact of changes in bear management and damage had a negative effect on both respondents’ existence be- bear population was not strong enough to produce changes in quest and use values, and their level of perceived threat. Experi- the principal components that were used to summarize value ori- ence with wildlife can be linked to social group membership, as entations, since neither year nor the interaction between year and it may be more common among respondents who live closer to for- other variables was significant. However, background changes do ests, cultivate crops or rear livestock. These individuals would be seem to have led to an increase in respondents’ fear of bear attacks expected to have predetermined, usually more negative attitudes between 2002 and 2008, as shown by the unpaired tests. toward carnivores characteristic to rural inhabitants, as was found Although there are signs that value orientations might be influ- in rural areas near Yellowstone National Park (Bath, 1989) and enced by contextual changes, our results show that overall they re- among sheep farmers in Norway (Bjerke and Kaltenborn, 1999). main consistent. This is supported by the fact that paired tests did Our results show that those respondents who lived in close con- not detect any changes at the individual level (H8). Our results tact with bears and incurred the costs of bear conservation had show that value orientations are also difficult to model, and even more negative attitudes. The detected effect of real threats on per- though the variables discussed above were significant they had ceived threats has important management implications. In places low explanatory power. This is consistent with findings by Ericsson like Croatia, where there is a history of coexistence with carnivores and Heberlein (2003), who present four models explaining atti- and where significant percentages of the population have experi- tudes towards wolves with adjusted R2 ranging from 0.17 to 0.08. enced bear presence, an awareness raising campaign aimed at swaying attitudes without acknowledging that threats are real is 4.2. Bear acceptance capacity likely to fall short of its objectives. Instead, our results indicate that when dealing with negative attitudes, the most effective manage- Hypotheses regarding the effects of socio-demographic vari- ment approaches are those aimed at conflict resolution. ables (H4) and experience (H5) on bear acceptance capacity were Our best models do not support the hypothesis that value orien- in part refuted by the model explaining ‘ support for limiting bear tations are affected by changes in the bear population and manage- numbers’’. The experience of encountering a bear in the wild is an ment (H3), but they do show that they depend on factors that have important predictor but the experience of damage is a less impor- the potential to produce change. The fact that younger respondents tant predictor. However, our data does not allow to measure the held stronger existence, bequest and use values suggests that a likely increase in the frequency of damages incurred in 2008 by generational change may soon be replacing more negative wildlife the same respondents that experienced damage in 2002. This could values. Moreover, a more centralized and regulated bear manage- have led to a failure in detecting an existing trend in the data. Stud- ment and an increase in the bear population could theoretically af- ies have shown that wildlife densities increase around human-re- fect the frequency, intensity or the experience of damage from lated food sources, such as supplementary feeding sites bears and encounters in the wild. Vittersø et al. (1999) show that (Ghoddousi, 2010; Sahlsten et al., 2010) and agriculture (Bunnefeld farmers experiencing higher levels of predation from large et al., 2006). Currently, we have limited knowledge on bear use 33 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 3026 A. Majicét al. / Biological Conservation 144 (2011) 3018–3027 space and the relationship between bear population size, bear dis- favor of hunting the bear and less wanted it to be protected. Treves tribution, and the damages it causes. Further studies combining (2009) argues that hunting can increase support for conservation data from these areas would therefore enhance our understanding by contributing a sense of ownership and control over carnivore of the issue. populations. Our results support this view, and suggest the need Our models instead support the hypotheses that value orienta- for management strategies that further public participation in bear tions (H7) and changes in bear management and bear population management and decision making. In Croatia hunting forms an size (H6) affect bear acceptance capacity. The model shows that important aspect of public involvement, and given the appropriate bear acceptance capacity was reduced over time, and this is con- institutional and ecological mechanisms to ensure its sustainabil- firmed by both the unpaired and the paired tests. The latter indi- ity it can constitute an effective conservation instrument. cate that opinions about acceptable levels of the bear population The general trend of increasing bear populations in several changed even at the individual level (H8). Furthermore, in 2008 European countries (Swenson et al., 2000), and the future exten- fewer respondents believed that the costs of damages should be sion of the European Union will affect management of bears and bourn by individuals, as fewer supported buying insurance and other large carnivores in more countries. These changes suggest more were in favor of compensation being paid irrespectively of the need for continued monitoring of wildlife populations and atti- the preventive measures taken. Therefore, results indicate that tudes of stakeholders toward wildlife. They also highlight the attitudes regarding bear management and increasing bear popula- importance of context specific management strategies that help tion levels have become slightly more negative over time. build local support for wildlife conservation. Although the BMP takes important steps to mitigate both hu- man–bear encounters and the damages caused by bears, it is pos- Acknowledgements sible that the positive results of these actions have not yet been felt by the local population. This might be because they have not been Aleksandra Majic´, Djuro Huber and Nils Bunnefeld were sup- properly implemented, or because the people do not know of them. ported by the European Commission under the HUNT project of Instead, the more immediate effects of the BMP, such as the more the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological regulated hunting system and management being taken away from Development. Neither the European Commission nor any person local administrations, may have spurred more public discussion, acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use made inducing the perception that bears have become more protected of the information. Agnese Marino Taussig de Bodonia was sup- and that local stakeholders have been denied their rights to self- ported by Imperial College London. The 2002 survey was funded determination. It is possible that respondents were not aware that by the Croatian government; the 2008 survey was funded by the the hunting quotas more than doubled since implementation of Dutch government through the BBI-Matra program. Thanks go to BMP and that actually quotas are not being fulfilled (Bišcán et al., John Linnell, Maarten De Groot, Roman Luštrik, Kai Lorenzen and 2010). On the other hand, it may take longer for the positive im- TomazŠkrbinšek for reviewing the earlier versions of the pacts of the BMP to trickle down into public consciousness. This manuscript. could be facilitated by reinforcing BMP efforts that encourage stakeholders to participate in bear management and raise aware- ness about the BMP’s guidelines to reduce human–bear conflict. Appendix A. Supplementary material In line with most human dimension studies (Bath, 1989; Bisi et al., 2007; Bjerke et al., 2000) our results highlight the impor- Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in tance of public involvement in wildlife management. the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.09.005. 4.3. The role of hunting as a conservation tool References Despite the changes mentioned above, attitudes towards bears Bath, A., 1989. The public and wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park. in Croatia were overall positive and the majority of the public is Society & Natural Resources 2, 297–306. still willing to accept an increase in the bear population. Some lit- Bath, A., Buchanan, T., 1989. Attitudes of interest groups in Wyoming toward wolf erature divides value orientations into ‘‘use’’ and ‘‘non-use’’ values, restoration in Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17, 519–525. Bath, A., Majic´, A., 2000. Human Dimensions in Wolf Management in Croatia. Large placing them on opposite sides of the same scale (Bjerke and Kal- Carnivore Initiative for Europe. tenborn, 1999; Vaske and Donnelly, 1999). Findings in this study Bišcán, A., Budor, I., Francetic´, I., Frkovic´, A., Gospocˇic´, A., Grubešic´, M. Huber, Ð., do not support that division, and show that use values correlate JakšicŹ., Sindicˇic´ M., Štahan, Zˇ., Zec, D., 2010. Akcijski plan gospodarenja with existence and bequest values in the first principal component. sme - dim medvjedom u Republici Hrvatskoj u 2011. godini. Ministry of Regional Development, Forestry and Water Management, Zagreb. Hunters made up a large part of the sampled population and scored Bisi, J., Kurki, S., Svensberg, M., Liukkonen, T., 2007. Human dimensions of wolf higher on the scale of ‘‘existence, bequest and use values’’ of bears. (Canis lupus) conflicts in Finland. European Journal of Wildlife Research 53, It is likely that their utilitarian values contributed to strengthen the 304–314. Bjerke, T., Kaltenborn, B., 1999. The relationship of ecocentric and anthropocentric existence and bequest values of non hunting members in the com-motives to attitudes toward large carnivores. Journal of Environmental munity. Since bear hunting is a historically established tradition in Psychology 19, 415–421. Croatia, the bear may have come to symbolize an aspect of rural Bjerke, T., Vittersø, J., Kaltenborn, B., 2000. Locus of control and attitudes toward large carnivores. Psychological Reports 86, 37–46. and national cultural heritage. Moreover, because compensation Bruskotter, J., Schmidt, R., Teel, T., 2007. Are attitudes toward wolves changing? A for damage is paid by local hunting grounds, trophy hunting pro-case study in Utah. Biological Conservation 139, 211–218. vides the financial means to cover some of the costs of bear conser- Bruskotter, J., Vaske, J., Schmidt, R., 2009. Social and cognitive correlates of Utah residents’ acceptance of the lethal control of wolves. Human Dimensions of vation as well as profit for the hunting grounds and the local Wildlife 14, 119–132. tourism industry. Bunnefeld, N., Linnell, J., Odden, J., van Duijn, M., Andersen, R., 2006. Risk-taking by Changes in attitudes and acceptance levels of the bear over the Eurasian lynx in a human-dominated landscape: effects of sex and reproductive status. Journal of Zoology 270, 31–39. past decade provide insight regarding the role of hunting as a tool Burnham, K., Anderson, D., 2002. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference, to maintain local rights over land use and livelihoods. Results sug- second ed. Springer-Verlag, New York. gest that when faced with a growing bear population and a more Crawley, M., 2007. The R book. John Wiley and Sons, England. Decˇak, D., Frkovic´, A., Grubešic´, M., Huber, Ð. Ivicěk, B., Kulic´, B., Serticć, D., Štahan, centralized bear management some respondents asserted their Zˇ., 2005. Brown Bear Management Plan for the Republic of Croatia. Ministry of hunting rights with more intensity. More people in 2008 were in Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management and Ministry of Culture, Zagreb. 34 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 A. Majicét al. / Biological Conservation 144 (2011) 3018–3027 3027 Decker, D., Purdy, K., 1988. Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in Riley, S., Decker, D., 2000. Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for cougars in wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16, 53–57. Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28, 931–939. Deruiter, D., Donnelly, M., 2002. A qualitative approach to measuring determinants Røskaft, E., Bjerke, T., Kaltenborn, B., Linnell, J., Andersen, R., 2003. Patterns of self-of wildlife value orientations. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 7, 251–271. reported fear towards large carnivores among the Norwegian public. Evolution Don Carlos, A., Bright, A., Teel, T., Vaske, J., 2009. Human-black bear conflict in urban and Human Behavior 24, 184–198. Areas: an integrated approach to management response. Human Dimensions of Sahlsten, J., Bunnefeld, N., Mansson, J., Ericsson, G., Bergstrom, R., Dettki, H., 2010. Wildlife 14, 174–184. Can supplementary feeding be used to redistribute moose Alces alces? Wildlife Ericsson, G., Heberlein, T., 2003. Attitudes of hunters, locals, and the general public Biology 16, 85–92. in Sweden now that the wolves are back. Biological Conservation 111, 149–159. Sindicˇic´, M., 2009. Many bears cause few damages (in Croatian). Lovacˇki vjesnik Ericsson, G., Heberlein, T., Karlsson, J., Bjarvall, A., Lundvall, A., 2004. Support for 118/9, 18–19. hunting as a means for wolf Canis Lupus population control in Sweden. Wildlife Swenson, J.E., Dahle, B., Gerstl, N., Zedrosser, A., 2000. Action plan for the Biology 10, 269–276. conservation of the brown bear in Europe. Convention on the Conservation of Ghoddousi, A. 2010. Habitat suitability modelling of the brown bear Ursus arctos in European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention), Nature and Croatia and Slovenia using telemetry data. MSc thesis Imperial College London environment, N. 114, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, France. . Tabachnick, B., Fidell, L., 1989. Using Multivariate Statistics, second ed. Harper Huber, Ð., Kusak, J., Majic´-Skrbinšek, A., Majnaric´, D., Sindicˇic´, M., 2008. A Collins Publishers. multidimensional approach to managing the European brown bear in Croatia. Treves, A., 2009. Hunting for large carnivore conservation. Journal of Applied Ursus 19, 22–32. Ecology 46, 1350–1356. Kaczensky, P., 2000. Co-existence of brown bears and men in the cultural landscape Vaske, J., Donnelly, M., 1999. A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wildland of Slovenia. Institute of Wildlife Biology and Game Management in Vienna, preservation voting intentions. Society and Natural Resources 12, 523–537. Munich Wildlife Society, Slovenian Hunting Association, University of Ljubljana. Vaske, J., Donnelly, M., Williams, D., Jonker, S., 2001. Demographic influences on Kellert, S., Berry, J., 1987. Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviours toward wildlife as environmental orientations and normative beliefs about national forest affected by gender. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15, 363–371. management. Society and National Resources 14, 761–776. Kellert, S., Black, M., Rush, C., Bath, A., 1996. Human culture and large carnivore Vittersø, J., Bjerke, T., Kaltenborn, B., 1999. Attitudes toward large carnivores among conservation in North America. Conservation Biology 10, 977–990. sheep farmers experiencing different degrees of depredation. Human Kocijan, I., Huber, Ð., 2008. Conservation genetics of brown bears in Croatia. Final Dimensions of Wildlife 4, 20–35. report. Project Gaining and Maintaining public acceptance of Brown bear in Wagner, F., Seal, U., 1992. Values, problems, and methodologies in managing Croatia (BBI-Matra/2006/020 through ALERTIS). overabundant wildlife populations: an overview. In: McCullough, D., Barrett, R. Lloyd, K.A., Miller, C., 2010. Influence of demographics, experience and value (Eds.), Wildlife 2001: Populations. Elsevier Applied Science, London. orientations on preferences for lethal management of feral cats. Human Zimmermann, B., Wabakken, P., Dotterer, M., 2001. Human–carnivore interactions Dimensions of Wildlife 15, 262–273. in Norway: how does the re-appearance of large carnivores affect people’s Majic´, A., Bath, A., 2010. Changes in attitudes toward wolves in Croatia. Biological attitudes and levels of fear? Forest Snow and Landscape Research 76, 137–153. Conservation 143, 255–260. Zinn, H., Manfredo, M., Vaske, J., Wittmann, K., 1998. Using normative beliefs to Naughton-Treves, L., Grossberg, R., Treves, A., 2003. Paying for tolerance: Rural determine the acceptability of wildlife management actions. Society and citizen’s attitudes toward wolf depredation and compensation. Conservation Natural Resources 11, 649–662. Biology 17, 1500–1511. Zinn, H., Manfredo, M., Vaske, J., 2000. Social psychological bases for stakeholder R Development Core Team, 2010. R: A language and environment for statistical acceptance capacity. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5, 20–33. computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3- 900051-07-0. . 35 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 2.4 ZVERI SI NISO ENAKE V OČEH PREBIVALCEV PODEŽELJA. BI MORALI OB KONFLIKTIH RAZVIJATI VARSTVENE NAČRTE ZA FUNKCIONALNE CEHE, ALI ZA POSAMEZNE VRSTE? 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? Aleksandër Trajçe, Gjorge Ivanov, Erjola Keçi, Aleksandra Majić, Dime Melovski, Kujtim Mersini, Sabit Mustafa, Tomaž Skrbinšek, Aleksandar Stojanov, Aleksandra Todorovska, Manuela von Arx, John D.C. Linnell Objavljeno v: Global Ecology and Conservation (2019), 19:e00677. Sprejeto: 21. maj 2019 © 2019 Elsevier Ltd., ponatisnjeno z dovoljenjem Izvleček: S podatki zbranimi v anketni raziskavi (n = 759) smo ocenjevali razlike v odnosu ruralne javnosti do medvedov, volkov in risov v Albaniji in Makedoniji. Volk je bil vrsta, ki ji je bila javnost na podeželju najmanj naklonjena in za katero je bila v primerjavi z medvedom in risom podpora varstvu najmanjša. Ob tem so volkove tudi dojemali kot bolj konfliktne kot drugi dve vrsti. Menimo, da bi glede na vrstno specifične razlike v odnosu javnosti morali volka obravnavati ločeno od medveda in risa, saj lahko nižja podpora javnosti do volkov ogrozi tudi varstvo ostalih dveh vrst velikih zveri. Glede na podobno raven podpore javnosti njihovemu varstvu, bi lahko medvede in rise v varstvenih iniciativah potencialno obravnavali skupaj, je pa potrebno z vidika reševanja konfliktov vsako izmed treh vrst obravnavati ločeno. 36 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Global Ecology and Conservation 19 (2019) e00677 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Global Ecology and Conservation j ou r n a l h om e p a g e : h t t p : / / w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / g e c c o Original Research Article 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? Aleksand€er Trajçe a, *, Gjorge Ivanov b, Erjola Keçi c, Aleksandra Majic d, Dime Melovski b, e, Kujtim Mersini a, Sabit Mustafa f, Tomaz Skrbinsek d, Aleksandar Stojanov b, Aleksandra Todorovska b, Manuela von Arx g, John D.C. Linnell h a Protection and Preservation of Natural Environment in Albania, Rr. Vangjush Furxhi 16/1/10, 1001, Tirana, Albania b Macedonian Ecological Society, Ul. Arhimedova 5, 1000, Skopje, Macedonia c “Aleksand€er Moisiu” University of Durr€es, Faculty of Professional Studies, Department of Medicine, L.1 Rr. e Currilave, Durr€es, Albania d University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Biology, Jamnikarjeva 101, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia e Georg-August University, Department of Wildlife Sciences, Büsgenweg 3, 37033, G€ottingen, Germany f Zürich University of Applied Sciences, School of Life Sciences and Facility Management, Grüentalstrasse 14, P.O. Box 8820, W€adenswil, Switzerland g KORA e Carnivore Ecology and Wildlife Management, Thunstrasse 31, CH-3074, Muri, Switzerland h Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), P.O. Box 5685 Torgard, NO-7485, Trondheim, Norway a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: We tested differences in attitudes towards bears, wolves and lynx among the rural public Received 30 October 2018 in Albania and Macedonia through information collected from a questionnaire survey Received in revised form 21 May 2019 (n ¼ 759). Wolves were the species with the least positive attitudes among the rural public Accepted 21 May 2019 and had the lowest support for conservation compared with bears and lynx. In addition, conflict perception of wolves was higher than for bears and lynx. We argue that, based on Keywords: species specific differences in public attitudes, conservation initiatives and management Large carnivores plans for large carnivores should deal with wolves separately from bears and lynx, as lower Humanewildlife conflict Human dimensions public support for wolves might jeopardise the conservation of the two other large car-Albania nivores. Bears and lynx can be potentially treated together in conservation initiatives based Macedonia on the similar levels of public support for conservation, however, from a conflict-management point of view, all three species need to be addressed separately. © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). 1. Introduction Large carnivore conservation remains a challenging endeavour worldwide. Their large spatial requirements and conflicts with humans are the main challenges when it comes to conservation (Gittleman et al., 2001; Woodroffe and Ginsberg, 1998). * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: a.trajce@ppnea.org (A. Trajçe), gjorgi.ivanov@gmail.com (G. Ivanov), erjolakeci@yahoo.it (E. Keçi), almajic@gmail.com (A. Majic), melovskid@mes.org.mk, melovskidime@gmail.com (D. Melovski), k.mersini@ppnea.org (K. Mersini), mustafa.sabit@gmail.com (S. Mustafa), tomaz. skrbinsek@gmail.com (T. Skrbinsek), stojanov@mes.org.mk (A. Stojanov), todorovska@mes.org.mk (A. Todorovska), m.vonarx@kora.ch (M. von Arx), john. linnell@nina.no (J.D.C. Linnell). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00677 2351-9894/© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). 37 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 2 A. Trajçe et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 19 (2019) e00677 From an ecological perspective, carnivore conservation objectives should be set to ensure the viability of large populations and thus require large areas to fulfil the species’ ecological requirements. However, as humans have influenced and fragmented the majority of natural landscapes worldwide, setting aside wilderness conservation areas large enough to sustain viable large carnivore populations is almost impossible, particularly in a European context (Linnell et al., 2005; Woodroffe and Ginsberg, 1998). Conservation must therefore occur in multi-use human-dominated landscapes and as a result conservation ambitions for large carnivores in Europe are constrained by both the fact that humans have modified the natural landscape for millennia, and by the degree of acceptance that local human populations have for their presence (Linnell et al., 2001). Large carnivores cause considerable economic damage throughout Europe, mainly due to livestock depredation (Kaczensky, 1999), and they also sometimes represent a risk for human safety (L€oe and R€oskaft, 2004). Conserving large carnivores in such human dominated landscapes requires complementing classic conservation biology approaches (Carroll et al., 2001; Noss et al., 1996) with social science research which examines human attitudes toward these species (Bath, 1998; Decker et al., 2001; Manfredo et al., 1996), and the integration of the latter into conservation strategies and programmes. Within conservation biology there has been a trend for moving away from single-species conservation to more holistic, ecosystem approaches (Groom et al., 2006). The historical developments include ideas such as ‘ecosystem management’ (Christensen et al., 1996; Grumbine, 1994), and the ‘ecosystem approach’ (COP, 1998). The motivation is to rationalise the use of limited resources for conservation by focusing on entire ecosystems rather than single species (Christensen et al., 1996). This is further supported by the fact that many ecosystem elements either depend on, or interact with, one another and moreover, they provide a more practical approach for conservation. One way to rationalise this approach is to focus efforts on functional groups of animals or ‘guilds’ that, given their ecological characteristics and functions, will theoretically ensure the protection of ecosystems at large (Lambeck, 1997; Roberge and Angelstam, 2004; Simberloff, 1998). Large carnivores are a potential target of this ‘guild’ approach (Carroll et al., 2001; Noss et al., 1996). Across the European continent there is a strong movement for the conservation of large carnivores as a group; grey wolves (Canis lupus), brown bears (Ursus arctos), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) and wolverines (Gulo gulo) are often packaged together in conservation efforts and initiatives. Many environmental organisations in Europe base their awareness and fundraising activities on this large carnivore ‘guild’, and often implement programmes aiming at the simultaneous conservation of all large carnivores (EAZA, 2010; Kirby, 1999; Salvatori, 2013). Species-specific differences in public attitudes could potentially represent a problem for the ‘guild’ approach if different species inspire different feelings among the public. Negative attitudes toward a particular species might negatively influence the public's view of the entire guild, including species that the public might not be particularly against or which may even be favoured for conservation (Farhadinia et al., 2017). Attitudes about large carnivores can vary according to a number of factors and variables, often linked to cultural, economic and social circumstances (Kleiven et al., 2004; Roskaft et al., 2007). These differentiations are widely noted even in historical literature and folklore. While wolves have been traditionally depicted as merciless beasts of destruction, evil creatures and are ever-present in legends and stories across the European continent (Dingwall 2001; Marvin, 2012), lynx are hardly talked about in a historical or cultural context and remain a poorly known species for most people (Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten, 2008). In addition, wolves and bears have a history of attacking and even killing people and have been feared for this reason, but there is hardly any evidence of lynx or wolverines attacking humans (Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten, 2008; Kruuk, 2002; Linnell et al., 2002). Moreover, carnivores are not equal in the level of damage they can inflict on economic activities, with wolves being responsible for most losses of livestock and bears causing more damage on crops and fruit trees (Andersen et al., 2003; Kaczensky, 1999; Swenson and Andren, 2005). Lescureux and Linnell (2010) further argue that people have different perceptions of carnivore species and their characteristics, depending on the species' cultural history, ecology, the level of damage they cause, and their level of interactions with humans. This study seeks to explore the relative ranking of attitudes toward three species of large carnivores, namely wolves, bears and lynx, within a sample of the rural public in Albania and Macedonia who share their immediate environments with these species. We conducted a quantitative study based on the administration of a questionnaire survey, aiming to collect information on people's perceptions of, and attitudes towards, the three species. This study is the first of its kind in the region and represents a new possibility for modernising wildlife management policies and decision-making processes in these two countries. In addition, it is an exploration of the relative opinions of different species given by the same people within the same sample of the population. As such, it brings new insights in human dimensions research as it is one of few studies in Europe that simultaneously looks at public attitudes towards several species of large carnivores. The specific hypothesis was to test whether public support and attitudes toward large carnivores differ considerably between the three species and the two countries. Based on the results, implications that might arise for current and future conservation and management approaches are discussed. Furthermore, the results are also interpreted in light of similar attitudinal studies that have been conducted in other parts of Europe, especially when it came to exploring the extent to which various individual characteristics (such as age, gender, education) influence variation in general attitudes. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Study area The study area is in the regions of eastern Albania and western Macedonia covering a total area of 13,407.2 km2 (S1). This area was selected because it is the only area in the region with a documented presence of all three large carnivores (Chapron 38 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 A. Trajçe et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 19 (2019) e00677 3 et al., 2014; Ivanov et al., 2008; Kaczensky et al., 2013), therefore providing higher chances for respondents to give opinions on all three species. While the brown bear and wolf are considered to have larger and stable populations in both countries, the lynx is evaluated as critically endangered with very few individuals remaining (S2). The lynx in Albania and Macedonia are part of the remaining Balkan lynx population, estimated to be the most threatened indigenous population of Eurasian lynx in Europe, with no more than 40 mature individuals remaining (Melovski et al., 2015). The survey was conducted in 32 municipalities in Albania and 29 in Macedonia with a cumulative area of 3227.2 km2 and 10,180 km2 respectively. The cumulative population of the study area municipalities in Albania was 163,500 inhabitants (Institute of Statistics, 2003) with a population density of 50.7 people/km2. The study area in Macedonia had 358,600 inhabitants (State Statistical Office, 2007) with a population density of 35.2 people/km2. These areas are predominantly rural, characterised by small villages scattered over a largely mountainous and forested landscape. The main human activities are farming, livestock breeding, forestry, collection of medicinal and aromatic plants and other forest products, and hunting. The most commonly kept livestock species are sheep and to a lesser extent cattle, goats, donkeys and horses. In recent decades, these areas of Albania and Macedonia have been facing rural depopulation, with locals migrating out of the area towards big cities in the respective countries or even abroad. However, this abandonment occurred in different periods in the two countries; in Macedonia having its peak in the 1950s and 1960s (Thomas, 1982) and in Albania occurring almost entirely after the collapse of the communist regime in 1990s (King and Vullnetari, 2003). The physical landscape is characterised by agriculture fields in valley bottoms and around villages, forests on mountain slopes, and alpine pastures and meadows at higher elevations. Agriculture and livestock breeding remain rather traditional and occur at a near subsistence level, particularly in Albania (Keçi et al., 2008; Kume et al., 2004). 2.2. Sampling frame and data collection Only residents 18 years and older were eligible to take part in the survey. Stratified random sampling was used to ensure a proportional representation of the population. A target sample of 400 questionnaires per country was chosen so as to ensure a 95% confidence level and 5% confidence interval (Sheskin, 1985). In total ten interviewers (five in each country) helped in the data collection process, all of whom had received prior training for the survey. All interviews were conducted face-to-face and people were selected on a random approach after entering a given village e e.g. every third person encountered in the street. The field survey extended from April 2007 to January 2009. 2.3. Questionnaire structure The survey instrument (S3) was a questionnaire developed out of similar research studies in other European countries (Bath et al., 2008; Bath and Majic, 2001; Kaczensky et al., 2004). The questionnaire was adapted according to Albanian and Macedonian contexts and was focused on the three species of large carnivores present in these countries. Questions were organised around general topics such as attitudes, beliefs, knowledge of species, management, personal experiences, and socio-demographic information. There were 46 questions in total, of which 24 were asked for all three large carnivore species, six were questions intended to measure general environmental attitudes of participants, two were management-specific questions concerning respectively lynx and wolves, three questions focussed on related attitudes toward general societal issues, and 11 were questions concerning background socio-demographic information and interviewee profile. Attitudinal items were based on a 5-point Likert scale and scored from 1 (strongly disagree/dislike) to 5 (strongly agree/like). 2.4. Data analysis All statistical analyses were done in the R statistical environment (Version 3.1.2, R Development Core Team, 2014). Initially we reduced data among the attitudinal questions by performing a principal component analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation to summarise the types of attitudes measured by the questionnaire items. We used the functions in the R package Psych (Revelle, 2014) for the PCA, and did the analysis for all three species together to enable comparisons. Based on a scree plot analysis, we extracted two factors that included the majority of variance in the data (fit ¼ 0.94). We based the interpretation of these two factors on loadings of different variables (responses to specific questions) in each factor. Grouped in the first extracted factor were the responses to questions about support for conservation (SC) of species. The second factor was interpreted as conflict perception (CP) of species, as it included the responses to questions about perception of large carnivores as dangerous and a threat to human livelihoods (Table 1). We used these two factors (SC and CP) as response variables in the downstream analysis. To ease interpretation, we centred and scaled both factors on a scale 2 to 2, where 0 is “neutral” (all answers on the Likert scale). We used linear mixed effects models with R package nlme (Pinheiro et al., 2014) to model the effects of independent variables on SC and CP scores. A set of models was fitted for each of these two factors as the response variables, with explanatory variables selected a priori based on the existing knowledge and reasoning about their effects on the response variable (Burnham and Anderson, 2002). Besides existing explanatory variables in the questionnaire, we created a knowledge score (0e15) for large carnivores as a new variable, by summing correct answers given by each respondent in regard to questions on ecology (weight, way of living, diet) and legal status (protection status, payment for compensation) of the three species in each country. Since there was no reason to expect a particular distribution for the response variables (and hence use 39 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 4 A. Trajçe et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 19 (2019) e00677 Table 1 PCA loadings of each attitudinal question for the two extracted factors. Only values > 0.30 are shown. Question Support for Conservation Conflict Perception How do you feel about [bears, wolves, lynx] 0.72 0.30 It is important to save [bears, wolves, lynx] for future generations 0.76 [Bears, wolves, lynx] attract tourists 0.68 [Bears, wolves, lynx] cause big damage on livestock 0.35 0.64 I'm afraid the presence of [bears, wolves, lynx] might cause financial loss 0.69 [Bears, wolves, lynx] that kill livestock should be killed 0.36 0.57 It is known that [bears, wolves, lynx] kill people 0.57 [Bears, wolves, lynx] reduce prey populations significantly and make hunting impossible 0.65 [Bears, wolves, lynx] should be entirely protected by law 0.69 I would agree for [bears, wolves, lynx] numbers to increase in [AL, MK] 0.67 0.31 I think we already have enough of [bears, wolves, lynx] in [AL, MK] 0.31 0.48 There should be authorised hunting of [bears, wolves, lynx] in [AL, MK] 0.61 % of variance explained by each factor 24 24 Cumulative % of variance explained 24 48 an appropriate link function in a generalized linear model) we used the identity link (Gaussian errors) and transformed the response variable as required. While the CP score had a unimodal symmetrical distribution, and didn't require a transformation, we inverted the data and used the lognormal transform for the SC score, and back-transformed the results for interpretation. Since the explanatory variables were selected a priori based on our understanding of the questions, we fitted the full model set for these variables without interactions up to the number of parameters supported by the data. We used 40 data points per parameter as the criteria, where we considered each respondent as a data point. Since each respondent generated three records (one for a set of questions for each species) and these records were not independent, we included the respondent as a random effect variable fitted into the intercept. We used diagnostic plots for the global model in R to check for heterogeneity, non-normality and model outliers. Clear model outliers were removed from the data and were not further explored since there were few. We checked for multicollinearity using Variance Inflation Factors. We checked for heterogeneity in the data by plotting residuals against fixed-effects variables, and included error structure in the model (Zuur et al., 2009). Since the variance for different species and genders varied, we included the correction in the model error structure using varIdent weights (Zuur et al., 2009). The models were ranked using the Second-order Information Criterion (AICc), and we used Akaike's weights to estimate the relative importance of each variable (Burnham and Anderson, 2002). Among the models with the lowest that were within DAICc 2, we considered the models with the least parameters as the most parsimonious. These final models (Table 2) for both response variables were checked again for fit and used for inference. Fitting of the full model set, estimation of variable importance and model averaging were done using the R package MuMIn (Barton, 2014). The process of factors extraction and subsequent model selection are summarised in Appendix S4. 3. Results 3.1. Respondents’ characteristics and interactions with large carnivores In total, 759 people were interviewed during the survey, 397 in Albania and 362 in Macedonia. A detailed descriptive profiling of respondents can be found in Appendix S2. The original sampling design aimed to interview an equal number of men and women. However, because of the conservative and patriarchal nature of societies in the region, it was not always possible to interview enough women, despite having female interviewers in each team. This resulted in a male bias among the respondents (76.9% men and 23.1% women). The bias was higher in Macedonia where only 15% of the respondents were women. The average age of respondents was 43.3 years (range 18e83) and among these the Macedonian sampled population was on average younger (40.5 years) than the Albanian one (45.8 years) [t (757) ¼ 5.136; p < 0.05]. In respect to residence, the vast majority of respondents (94.6%) in both countries described themselves as being permanent inhabitants in their respective rural municipalities. In Albania, livestock and beehive ownership was higher than in Macedonia, with the majority Table 2 Support for conservation (SC) and conflict perception (CP) models and the explanatory variables used in them. Explanatory variables with * are a-priori hypothesised interaction variables, which improve the model. Response variable Explanatory variables Support for ‘species’, ‘interest in hunting’, ‘gender’, ‘had damage’, ‘knowledge species’, ‘interest in hiking’, ‘seen captive’, ‘country’, conservation (SC) ‘education’, ‘practice hunting’, ‘species*gender’, ‘gender*education’, ‘hunt*education’, ‘species*knowledge species’, ‘species*country’ Conflict perception (CP) ‘country’, ‘species’, ‘education’, ‘knowledge species’, ‘gender’, ‘had damage’, ‘interest in hiking’, ‘seen captive’, ‘interest in hunting’, ‘has livestock’, ‘species*has livestock’, ‘species*gender’, ‘species*knowledge species’, ‘country*hunt’, ‘country*species’ 40 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 A. Trajçe et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 19 (2019) e00677 5 of the respondents claiming to own at least one head of livestock, whereas in Macedonia livestock ownership was rather limited to fewer people (in AL: 48.5% were owners of small livestock, 77.3% owners of big livestock and 6.5% owners of beehives; in MK: 8.3% were owners of small livestock, 29.6% owners of big livestock and 2.8% owners of beehives). Hunting was practiced by more respondents in Albania than in Macedonia (24.1% of respondents in AL, 16.3% in MK). People in Albania seemed to have more interactions with wolves and bears in the wild when compared to Macedonia as higher incidences of observations, shooting of, and damages from these two large carnivores were reported. The picture was inverted for lynx, with people in Macedonia having reportedly more interactions with the species. Overall, wolves and bears were the species with which people had most interactions, and lynx were the least interacted with. Respondents in Macedonia had more observation experiences of large carnivores in captivity than Albanian respondents. Wolves were reported as the most damage-causing animal in both countries, followed by bears, whereas there were very few reports of lynx causing damage in Macedonia and none in Albania. There seems to be a general lack of knowledge of lynx as a species in Albania. Despite showing a lynx photograph during the interviews, only about one third (33.5%) of respondents in Albania reported knowing the species and were thus able to give answers to the lynx-related items in the questionnaire. Descriptive analysis of interactions with large carnivores are presented in Appendix S2. 3.2. Attitude differences between species and countries Through the constructed models we explored the effects of single explanatory variables, and their selected interactions, have on the response variables (SC and CP), while controlling for the effect of other variables. The most obvious effect is that of species in SC (i ¼ 1.00; “i” is the importance of predictor variables expressed in terms of proportion of models that use the variable weighted by each model's Akaike's weight). Bears and lynx enjoy a high support for conservation as they rank the highest in the SC score. Wolves, on the other hand, ranked the lowest among the three large carnivores, being the least favoured species for conservation, among members of the rural public in both Albania and Macedonia (Fig. 1). However, the SC score of wolves is still positive (above zero), indicating that, for the most part, the rural population in Albania and Macedonia is supportive of their conservation. Therefore, it can be argued that all three species enjoy a positive support for conservation in Albania and Macedonia, however, wolves are supported less than bears and lynx. The support for conservation results are mirrored by the effect of species in conflict perception (i ¼ 1.00). Wolves are considered by far the species that evoke a greater conflict perception among a majority of people, bears rank second and lynx rank third and almost neutral in their CP (Fig. 1). While the SC model suggests that bears and lynx enjoy a largely similar support for conservation and wolves are the species that stands out with the lowest support, the CP model separates all three species from each other. Country differences and their effect on SC and CP, were evident in both constructed models. Support for conservation seemed higher in Albania than Macedonia (when controlling for knowledge, education and gender). The Albanian public had more supportive attitudes for the conservation of all three species, and this difference was higher for lynx and lower for bears (Fig. 1). In addition, in Albania, SC for lynx was the highest among all three carnivores, whereas in Macedonia, bears ranked first in SC, slightly above lynx. Wolves had the lowest SC in both countries. Interestingly, support for conservation does not seem to be driven by conflict perception, as this was higher in Albania as well. In general, the rural Albanian public perceived wolves and bears as species causing more conflict than their counterparts in Macedonia did. The picture was less pronounced for lynx, the CP of which was close to neutral in Albania and slightly negative in Macedonia (meaning that the majority of the public did not perceive the lynx as a conflict species). In both countries, wolves were perceived as the species causing most conflict (Fig. 1). 3.3. Exploring effects of respondents' characteristics on attitudes 3.3.1. Knowledge about large carnivores The effect of knowledge was prominent in both models (SC: i ¼ 0.94; CP: i ¼ 1.00). People with greater knowledge about large carnivores were more supportive of their conservation and perceived fewer conflicts with them than people who knew less about large carnivores (Fig. 2). However, there were differences between species concerning the degree of the effect of knowledge on both models. Knowledge had the most impact on SC for lynx and the least impact for wolf (Fig. 2). In regard to CP, while increases in knowledge had a very strong impact in reducing conflict perception of lynx and bear, it seems to have a very marginal, to almost no, impact in reducing conflict perception of wolves (Fig. 2). 3.3.2. Gender The gender of respondents was an important predictor in terms of attitudes towards large carnivores, for both SC (i ¼ 1.00) and CP (i ¼ 0.91). Women were, in general, less supportive of large carnivore conservation and considered them more a cause of conflict than men. The difference in SC metric was the largest for bears, and the least pronounced for lynx. On the other hand, both men and women perceived wolves to be the species causing most conflict and came quite close in that attitude. The difference in the CP metric was, again, largest for bears. With regard to lynx, the majority of men do not consider them as conflict species as their CP is below zero (Fig. 3). 41 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 6 A. Trajçe et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 19 (2019) e00677 Fig. 1. Effect of species in SC (a.) and CP (b) and of species by country in SC (c.) and CP (d). For SC -2 ¼ most negative, 0 ¼ neutral, þ2 ¼ most positive and for CP -2 ¼ no conflict, 0 ¼ neutral, þ2 ¼ most conflict. Bears and lynx seem to enjoy a high support for conservation, whereas wolves have by far the lowest support (albeit still positive). Wolves are considered the most conflict causing species, followed by bears, while lynx rank almost neutral in people's conflict perception. All three species are supported more in Albania than in Macedonia, with the difference being largest for lynx and smallest for bear. Simultaneously, all three species are perceived more conflict causing in Albania than in Macedonia. 3.3.3. Education Our study revealed a strong effect of education on both SC (i ¼ 0.71) and CP (i ¼ 1.00) models. It seems that higher education levels are associated with an increase in SC and decrease in CP. The effect of education was much stronger for CP than for SC (Fig. 3). Whilst for the CP model the education variable does not seem to interact with any other variable for improving the model, for SC it interacts with gender and ‘interest in hunting’. There seems to be a difference in how men and women, in terms of how their levels of education affects support for large carnivore conservation. Education has a much greater effect on women than it does on men. Increased education in men doesn't seem to have a significant effect on SC, whereas the effect is much stronger for women, for whom, increase in education leads to higher support for conservation. Exploring these effects on a species by species approach, we noticed that the difference in the SC metric between men and women decreased significantly with an increase in education of women. In the case of support for lynx conservation, women with higher education are even more supportive then men with the same level of education, and they come quite close to men in the wolves' case (Fig. 3). Since our population sample was highly biased towards men (particularly in Macedonia), careful considerations are needed when interpreting the interplays between gender and education. In addition, exploring education levels between genders and countries showed that in general the Macedonian women's sub-sample had a higher level of education than the Albanian one. Most of the women who agreed to partake in the questionnaire survey in Macedonia had tertiary (university) 42 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 A. Trajçe et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 19 (2019) e00677 7 Fig. 2. Effect of knowledge on SC (a.) and CP (b.). Effect of knowledge by species and country on SC (c.) and CP (d.). Higher knowledge about large carnivores leads to higher support for conservation and lower conflict perception. The effect in SC is stronger for lynx and least pronounced for wolf, whereas in CP effect of knowledge is almost negligible for wolf and very strong for lynx and bear. 43 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 8 A. Trajçe et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 19 (2019) e00677 Fig. 3. Effect of gender and education on attitudes towards large carnivores. Effect of gender on SC (a.) and on CP (b.). Effect of education on SC (c.) and CP (d.). Effect of education by gender and species on SC (e.). Men are more supportive of LCs and perceive them less conflict species than women do. Higher education leads to higher support for conservation and lower conflict perception. The effect in SC is stronger for women; higher education in women leads to higher SC than among men. 44 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 A. Trajçe et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 19 (2019) e00677 9 education, considerably higher than the median education of women in Albania (primary education). The Macedonian sub-sample seems to be highly biased towards more educated women (for results on descriptive statistics of our sampled population refer to Appendix S2). 3.3.4. Livestock ownership and damages from large carnivores While ‘owning livestock’ did not come up as an important predictor in the SC model (importance ¼ 0.29), it seems to have an effect in the CP model, when it interacts with the ‘species’ variable (Fig. 4). Interestingly, while people who owned livestock perceived wolves and lynx as slightly more conflictful species than people who did not own livestock, the effect for bears was the opposite i.e. owners of livestock had lower perception of conflict than people who did not own livestock. Experiencing damages from large carnivores came up as an important predictor in both models (SC: i ¼ 0.99; CP: i ¼ 1.00). As expected, people who had experienced damages from large carnivores were less supportive of their conservation and had higher conflict perceptions than people who had not experienced damages, however these differences in the metrics of both models were low (Fig. 4). 3.3.5. Interest in hunting The modelling results indicate that ‘interest in hunting’ has an effect on both SC (i ¼ 1.00) and CP (i ¼ 0.59) models. Interestingly, the parameter “has interest in hunting” seems to be a much stronger predictor of an effect of hunting than the yes/no parameter of whether a person actually practices hunting, which only came up in the SC model (i ¼ 0.64). It seems that a greater interest in hunting is associated with more support for conservation of large carnivores (Fig. 5). For CP, the ‘interest in hunting’ variable interacts with the ‘country’ variable. It seems that an increase of interest in hunting has quite opposite effects on CP with regard to the country concerned. While in Macedonia an increase in interest in hunting is associated with increased conflict perception, in Albania it led to a decrease in conflict perception (Fig. 5). 3.3.6. Interest in hiking A person's ‘interest in hiking’ was a very important predictor for both SC (i ¼ 0.91) and CP (i ¼ 0.98) models. There is a slight increase in SC with increase of interest in hiking. However, there is also a considerable increase in CP with increase in interest in hiking (Fig. 5). 4. Discussion 4.1. The large carnivore ‘guild’ and implications for conservation This study demonstrates that there are substantial differences in attitudes towards the different species of large carnivores among the rural public in Albania and Macedonia, with wolves receiving less support for conservation and being more associated with conflicts. Albanians perceived all species as being more conflictful that Macedonians, but also expressed greater support for their conservation. . This research represents the first quantitative study on public attitudes towards wildlife conducted so far in Albania and Macedonia on a representative sample of the rural population, as well as the first to look at attitude differences between countries by using the same standardised research framework. In addition, it is one of few studies in Europe that simultaneously looks at public attitudes towards multiple sympatric large carnivores. Human dimensions studies tends to be focused on single species, with wolves often getting the greatest share of attention (Bath, 2009, 2000; Ericsson and Heberlein, 2003; Majic and Bath, 2010; Nilsen et al., 2007; Williams et al., 2002). There have been a few studies that attempt to look at public attitudes towards several large carnivore species at a time (Andersone and Ozolins, 2004; Hunziker et al., 2001; Kleiven et al., 2004; Roskaft et al., 2007; Wechselberger et al., 2005; Wechselberger and Leizinger, 2005), however, most of them remain either descriptive in nature or just focus on the factors that influence individual variability in attitudes. In this regard, the present study is one of the first to make an explicit comparative analysis of the attitudes of the same sample of the public towards different carnivore species. Large carnivores are frequently treated as a ‘guild’ in European conservation initiatives based on their similar ecological needs and the similar potential to cause conflict with humans. Human dimensions' research on large carnivores has produced results that call into question the wisdom of this guild approach in conservation and management, primarily because different species of carnivores generate different feelings among members of the public. Kleiven et al. (2004) and Roskaft et al. (2007) conclude that public attitudes of the Norwegian population are quite species-dependent. Norwegians seems to be much more negative towards the larger carnivores, bears and wolves, and more accepting of the smaller ones, lynx and wolverines. More positive attitudes towards lynx are prevalent, even though lynx are documented to cause significantly more damage than wolves and bears in Norway e this is also explained by their higher abundance and wider distribution (Kleiven et al., 2004; Roskaft et al., 2007, 2003). In the Albanian and Macedonian contexts, wolves stand out by having lower support for conservation and higher conflict perception than bears and lynx. The more negative status that wolves have in people's perceptions is probably a reflection of the wolves' greater involvement in conflicts with people, mainly by depredating on livestock (Keçi et al., 2008). Lescureux and Linnell (2010) argue that people's attitudes towards carnivore species are based on their ecological characteristics, the reciprocal interactions between the two, and the infringement that carnivores cause to what is considered ‘human space’. As such, wolves are considered as a large ‘homogenous’ population that is often hard to 45 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 10 A. Trajçe et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 19 (2019) e00677 Fig. 4. Effect of owning livestock on CP (a.) and effect of having experienced damage from large carnivores on SC (b.) and CP (c.). Owners of livestock have higher CP for lynx and wolf and lower CP for bear than people who do not own livestock. People who have experienced damage from LCs have lower SC and higher CP than people who have not experienced damage. control on a local level (Lescureux and Linnell, 2013), as opposed to bears that are often viewed as individuals, and where people feel that they can control the few that adopt undesired behaviours (Lescureux et al., 2011a). Lynx on the other hand are more ambiguous, and even though most studies reveal that they are generally favoured by the local population, they often receive a negative share of opinions due to their cryptic nature, which occasionally gives rise to inaccurate myths of behaviour that make them feared by the local population (Lescureux et al., 2011b). Between-country differences between Albania and Macedonia validate a further point for the need of local considerations in the conservation and management of large carnivores. As mentioned, the Albanian rural population seems to be simultaneously more supportive of the conservation of large carnivores and perceiving them as more conflictual species than the Macedonian rural population. While at first glance such a situation might appear contradictory, it has explanatory grounds in considering existing differences in rural livelihoods between the two countries and subsequent interrelationships with large carnivores. In Albania, rural communities have largely preserved traditional lifestyles centred on family-based subsistence farming and livestock husbandry (Doempke S., 2010). Almost every village family owns some livestock (Keçi et al., 2008; Kume et al., 2004). Livestock are always looked after and guarded by at least one member of the family when grazing in forests and meadows. In Macedonia, the picture seems to be inverted as livestock ownership is concentrated in the hands of fewer individuals, who specialise in such an activity and make a profit from it by owning larger flocks of livestock (Keçi et al., 2008). The majority of the Macedonian rural population does not own or care for livestock and this could potentially explain the 46 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 A. Trajçe et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 19 (2019) e00677 11 Fig. 5. Effect of interest in hunting and interest in hiking on SC (a, c.) and effect of interest in hunting by country on CP (b.) and interest in hiking on CP (d.). Higher interest in hunting leads to higher SC, whereas it leads to lower CP in Albania and higher CP in Macedonia. Higher interest in hiking leads to higher SC and CP. overall perception of large carnivores as less of a conflict species than in Albania. Similarly, these very differences in rural livelihoods between Albania and Macedonia can potentially justify the higher support for conservation in the former. The prevalent subsistence farming and stock-breeding observed in Albania ensures a more frequent and close relationship with large carnivores than in Macedonia. Several studies suggest that farmers and livestock owners in societies with more traditional rural livelihoods and subsistence economies tend to show greater tolerance towards large carnivores and have a more positive image of them, than their counterparts in countries with more developed economies and intensive production (Athreya et al., 2013; Boitani, 1995; Dorresteijn et al., 2014; Kellert et al., 1996). These country-specific differences were mirrored also in the number of interactions reported with the large carnivores in the wild. The Albanian rural population has a higher level of interactions with wolves and bears in the wild compared with the Macedonians (S2). The majority of respondents in Albania confirmed having seen bears and wolves in the wild at least once in their lifetime. Higher interactions with large carnivores in Albania are an indicator of rural livelihood differences between Albania and Macedonia and could explain the higher support for conservation shown in Albania. Lynx, on the other hand, stand out from wolves and bears in that they were rarely seen or interacted with in the wild in both countries. The fewer interactions with lynx in general seem to be consistent with the fact that they are much rarer than wolves and bears in the region (Breitenmoser-Würsten and Breitenmoser, 2001; Kaczensky et al., 2013; Melovski et al., 2015) and their behaviour make them much less visible to humans (Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten, 2008). Our survey indicated that lynx were largely unknown animals among the rural public in Albania. About two thirds of respondents in Albania did not even know of the existence of such a species at the time of the survey. On the other hand, lynx was widely 47 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 12 A. Trajçe et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 19 (2019) e00677 known among the rural Macedonian public. This clear difference in knowledge between the two countries is potentially attributable to the prominent symbolic status that lynx hold in Macedonia and their representation in daily life and culture (e.g. the image of a lynx is portrayed on the 5 Denar coin, the currency of Macedonia). 4.2. Factors influencing attitudes towards large carnivores In regard to effects of different factors on attitudes, this study largely confirmed what other human dimension research in Europe has generally revealed (Bath et al., 2008; Bjerke et al., 2002; Bjerke and Kaltenborn, 1999; Ericsson and Heberlein, 2003; Kaczensky et al., 2004; Kleiven et al., 2004; Majic et al., 2011; Majic and Bath, 2010; Roskaft et al., 2003). Gender, education, knowledge, and damages to livestock were all strong predictors of attitudes towards all three species. A multitude of human dimension studies across Europe have shown that older generations tend to have more negative views towards large predators and are usually less supportive of their conservation than younger people (Andersone and Ozolins, 2002; Bath et al., 2008; Bjerke et al., 2002; Ericsson and Heberlein, 2003; Kaczensky et al., 2004; Kleiven et al., 2004; Majic et al., 2011; Majic and Bath, 2010; Roskaft et al., 2007; Wechselberger et al., 2005). However, this did not seem to be the case for Albania and Macedonia. A potential explanation could lie in the familial and societal structure of rural mountainous villages of Albania and Macedonia, characterised by a strong age-based patriarchal system of governance where the elderly men within families and villages have a leadership role and exert great influence on the younger members of the community (Danaj, 2014; Kaser, 1996). Moreover, the persistence of traditional customary laws and practices, particularly in highland Albania (de Waal, 2005), ensures the continuity of such systems over time and limits generational changes in attitudes. Interest in hunting seemed to have an effect on the support for conservation of large carnivores and was a much stronger predictor of attitudes than whether a person actually hunted or not. This result might have important implications for using hunting as a management approach in the conservation of large carnivores e and in particular about wolves, due to their lower public support when compared to bears and lynx. Nonetheless, any eventual lethal control management options for wolves need to be excerted cautiously and sustainably, in order to ensure the long-term survival of the population. Various authors have suggested that carefully regulated hunting, conducted and managed by local hunters, is among the most accepted methods for the management of carnivores and can contribute to the reduction of conflicts with locals, increase public acceptance of large predators and even potentially generate income for the local people (Bruskotter et al., 2007; Ericsson et al., 2004; Kaltenborn and Brainerd, 2016; Majic et al., 2011; Treves, 2009). However, careful country-specific considerations should be made when advocating and using hunting as a conflict-mitigation tool, as the effect of hunting interest was opposite in the two countries. While in Albania an increase of interest in hunting was associated with lower conflict perception of large carnivores, in Macedonia this increase seems to lead to higher conflict perception. Such opposite effects may have explanatory grounds concerning differences in hunting traditions between the two countries. In Macedonia there is a longer tradition of recreational hunting, which was particularly well organised during the Yugoslav regime and was conducted in designated and managed hunting grounds (Petkovski et al., 2003). The hunters' community in Macedonia has been organised in associations and clubs for decades. By contrast, in Albania, recreational hunting is a relatively new activity, being fully opened to the broader public only after the collapse of the communist regime in the 1990s and lacking proper forms and norms of control and management. Prior to 1990 recreational hunting was restricted to elite members of the totalitarian government and other trusted members of the community. The longer tradition of recreational hunting in Macedonia and existence of hunting grounds managed by hunting associations, indicate a higher sense of responsibility and ownership towards prey species among hunters and thus large carnivores could be viewed as competitors and a threat to their activity. In Albania, such forms of organisations in hunting are still nascent and not yet consolidated, thus prey species have not yet been ‘commodified’ as in Macedonia. Hunting interest in Albania seems to be more of an indicator for nature and wildlife appreciation in general, rather than a representation of hunting interests per se and perceptions of game ownership among hunters. Our models indicated that increased interest in hiking in Albania and Macedonia is associated with higher support for conservation. This seems consistent with public attitude findings in other parts of the continent, where studies have shown that people who engage more in outdoor activities tend to have more positive attitudes towards large carnivores that people who do not (Bath, 2000; Roskaft et al., 2003; Wechselberger et al., 2005). At the same time, interest in hiking was associated with higher conflict perception of large carnivores. Among rural inhabitants walking in the forests is a necessary, utilitarian, activity for collecting plants, forest fruits or mushrooms. Given that the presence of large carnivores could be viewed as a physical threat may explain higher conflict perceptions among people with higher interest in hiking. 4.3. Conclusion The results of this study are interesting in two ways. Firstly, they have clear consequences for the future management of large carnivores in Albania and Macedonia. Because of the lower support shown towards wolves, conservation initiatives that place the bear and lynx into the same category as the wolf would not be advised for the region. Giving wolves a full protection without any management options could lead to an escalation of conflict, much like experiences in nearby Croatia has shown (Bath and Majic, 2001). Conflict escalation with wolves, could spill-over to lynx and bears and be detrimental to the more positive image of the latter. Addressing conflicts with these three species also requires a species-specific approach given the differences in conflict perceptions they evoke among the rural public. Secondly, this is one of very few human-dimension 48 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 A. Trajçe et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 19 (2019) e00677 13 studies conducted in south-eastern Europe. Based on this experience it is possible to conclude that the method worked well in the Albanian and Macedonian social context (although access to women was difficult and posed sampling limitations) and produced meaningful results. The general factors explaining attitudes towards large carnivores were broadly similar to studies conducted elsewhere in western, central and northern Europe, indicating the broad generality of these patterns. Acknowledgements Thanks to Garry Marvin, Caroline Ross, Istvan Praet, Catherine Hill and Henry Buller for their thorough review of the article (as part of A. Trajçe's doctorate thesis) and recommendations for its improvement. The research presented here was conducted under a series of projects financially supported by the Norwegian Research Council, Norway (Grants 174812, 203358, 250290, and 251112) and as an integral part of the Balkan Lynx Recovery Programme e Phase I (2006e2009) funded by the MAVA Foundation, Switzerland. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00677. References Andersen, R., Linnell, J.D.C., Brainerd, S., Hustad, H., 2003. Large Predators and Human Communities in Norway e a Guide to Coexistence for the 21st Century. NINA, Trondheim. Andersone, Z., Ozolins, J., 2004. Public perception of large carnivores in Latvia. Ursus 15, 181e187. Andersone, Z., Ozolins, J., 2002. Investigation of the Public Opinion about Three Large Carnivore Species in Latvia e Brown Bear (Ursus arctos), Wolf (Canis lupus) and lynx (Lynx lynx). World Wildlife Fund, Latvia, Riga. Athreya, V., Odden, M., Linnell, J.D.C., Krishnaswamy, J., Karanth, U., 2013. Big cats in our backyards: persistence of large carnivores in a human dominated landscape in India. PLoS One 8, e57872. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057872. Barton, K., 2014. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. Bath, A.J., 2009. Working with people to achieve wolf conservation in Europe and North America. In: Musiani, M., Boitani, L., Paquet, P.C. (Eds.), A New Era for Wolves and People: Wolf Recovery, Human Attitudes and Policy. University of Calgary Press, Calgary, pp. 173e199. Bath, A.J., 2000. Human Dimensions in Wolf Management in Savoie and Des Alpes Maritimes, France. Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe. Bath, A.J., 1998. The role of human dimensions in wildlife resource research in wildlife management. Ursus 10, 349e355. Bath, A.J., Majic, A., 2001. Human Dimensions in Wolf Management in Croatia. Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe. Bath, A.J., Olszanska, A., Okarma, H., 2008. From a human dimensions perspective, the unknown large carnivore: public attitudes toward Eurasian Lynx in Poland. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 13, 31e46. Bjerke, T., Kaltenborn, B.P., 1999. The relationship of ecocentric and anthropocentric motives to attitudes toward large carnivores. J. Environ. Psychol. 19, 415e421. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0135. Bjerke, T., Skogen, K., Kaltenborn, B., 2002. Attitudes towards Large Carnivores in Norway. Results from a National Survey. (No. 768). Oppdragsmelding. NINA, Trondheim. Boitani, L., 1995. Ecological and cultural diversities in the evolution of wolf-human relationships. In: Carbyn, L.N., Fritts, S.H., Seip, D.R. (Eds.), Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Edmonton, Canada, pp. 3e12. Breitenmoser, U., Breitenmoser-Würsten, C., 2008. Der Luchs. Ein Grossraubtier in der Kulturlandschaft. Salm Verlag, Bern. Breitenmoser-Würsten, C., Breitenmoser, U., 2001. The Balkan Lynx Population: History, Recent Knowledge on its Status and Conservation Needs. (No. 7). KORA Bericht. KORA, Bern. Bruskotter, J.T., Schmidt, R.H., Teel, T.L., 2007. Are attitudes toward wolves changing? A case study in Utah. Biol. Conserv. 139, 211e218. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.biocon.2007.06.016. Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D.R., 2002. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. Springer Science & Business Media. Carroll, C., Noss, R.F., Paquet, P.C., 2001. Carnivores as focal species for conservation planning in the Rocky Mountain region. Ecol. Appl. 11, 961e980. Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J.D.C., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andren, H., Lopez-Bao, J.V., Adamec, M., Alvares, F., Anders, O., Balciauskas, L., Balys, V., Bed}o, P., Bego, F., Blanco, J.C., Breitenmoser, U., Brøseth, H., Bufka, L., Bunikyte, R., Ciucci, P., Dutsov, A., Engleder, T., Fuxj€ager, C., Groff, C., Holmala, K., Hoxha, B., Iliopoulos, Y., Ionescu, O., Jeremic, J., Jerina, K., Kluth, G., Knauer, F., Kojola, I., Kos, I., Krofel, M., Kubala, J., Kunovac, S., Kusak, J., Kutal, M., Liberg, O., Majic, A., M€annil, P., Manz, R., Marboutin, E., Marucco, F., Melovski, D., Mersini, K., Mertzanis, Y., Mysłajek, R.W., Nowak, S., Odden, J., Ozolins, J. , Palomero, G., Paunovic, M., Persson, J., Potocnik, H., Quenette, P.-Y., Rauer, G., Reinhardt, I., Rigg, R., Ryser, A., Salvatori, V., Skrbinsek, T., Stojanov, A., Swenson, J.E., Szemethy, L., Trajçe, A., Tsingarska-Sedefcheva, E., Vana, M., Veeroja, R., Wabakken, P., W€olfl, M., W€olfl, S., Zimmermann, F., Zlatanova, D., Boitani, L., 2014. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe's modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346, 1517e1519. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1257553. Christensen, N.L., Bartuska, A.M., Brown, J.H., Carpenter, S., D'Antonio, C., Francis, R., Franklin, J.F., MacMahon, J.A., Noss, R.F., Parsons, D.J., Peterson, C.H., Turner, M.G., Woodmansee, R.G., 1996. The report of the ecological society of America committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecol. Appl. 6, 665e691. COP, 1998. Report of the Workshop on the Ecosystem Approach (No. CBD/COP/4/Inf.9). Convention on Biological Diversity, Bratislava. Danaj, E., 2014. Family in Albania as a primary solidarity network. In: Pichler, R. (Ed.), Legacy and Change: Albanian Transformation from Multidisciplinary Perspectives. LIT Verlag Münster, Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 117e134. de Waal, C., 2005. Albania Today: A Portrait of Post-communist Turbulence. IB Tauris. Decker, D.J., Brown, T.L., Siemer, W.F. (Eds.), 2001. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management in North America. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Dingwall, S., 2001. Ravenous wolves and cuddly bears: predators in everyday language. For. Snow Landsc. Res. 76, 107e120. Doempke, S., 2010. Pastoralist landscapes as multifunctional systems of interaction between people and nature. The case of Tropoja, Albania. In: Lerin, F. (Ed. ), Pastoralisme Mediterraneen : Patrimoine Culturel et Paysager et Developpement Durable, Options Mediterraneennes : Serie A. Seminaires Mediterraneens. Montpellier . CIHEAM/AVECC/UNESCO, pp. 173e179. Dorresteijn, I., Hanspach, J., Kecskes, A., Latkova, H., Mezey, Z., Sugar, S., von Wehrden, H., Fischer, J., 2014. Human-carnivore coexistence in a traditional rural landscape. Landsc. Ecol. 29, 1145e1155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0048-5. EAZA, 2010. EAZA European carnivore campaign 2008/10 [WWW document]. https://www.eaza.net/conservation/campaigns/ (accessed 8.20.10). Ericsson, G., Heberlein, T.A., 2003. Attitudes of hunters, locals, and the general public in Sweden now that the wolves are back. Biol. Conserv. 111, 149e159. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00258-6. 49 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 14 A. Trajçe et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 19 (2019) e00677 Ericsson, G., Heberlein, T.A., Karlsson, J., Bjarvall, A., Lundvall, A., 2004. Support for hunting as a means of wolf Canis lupus population control in Sweden. Wildl. Biol. 10, 269e276. Farhadinia, M.S., Johnson, P.J., Hunter, L.T.B., Macdonald, D.W., 2017. Wolves can suppress goodwill for leopards: patterns of human-predator coexistence in northeastern Iran. Biol. Conserv. 213, 210e217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.07.011. Gittleman, J.L., Funk, S.M., Macdonald, D.W., Wayne, R.K., 2001. Why “carnivore conservation”? In: Gittleman, J.L., Macdonald, D.W., Funk, S.M., Wayne, R.K. (Eds.), Carnivore Conservation, Conservation Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1e7. Groom, M.J., Meffe, G.K., Carrol, C.R. (Eds.), 2006. Principles of Conservation Biology, third ed. Sinauer Publications, Sunderland. Grumbine, R.E., 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conserv. Biol. 8, 27e38. Hunziker, M., Hoffmann, C.W., Wild-Eck, S., 2001. Die Akzeptanz von Wolf, Luchs und «Stadtfuchs» e Ergebnisse einer gesamtschweizerisch-repr€asenta-tiven Umfrage. For. Snow Landsc. Res. 76, 301e326. Institute of Statistics, 2003. Treguesit Social€e [WWW Document]. Instituti i Statistik€es. http://www.instat.gov.al/ (accessed 8.22.10). Ivanov, G., Stojanov, A., Melovski, D., Avukatov, V., Keçi, E., Trajçe, A., Shumka, S., Schwaderer, G., Spangenberg, A., Linnell, J.D.C., von Arx, M., Breitenmoser, U. , 2008. Conservation status of the critically endangered Balkan lynx in Albania and Macedonia. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Congress of Ecologists of the Republic of Macedonia with International Participation, 06-09.10.2007. Presented at the 3rd Congress of Ecologists of the Republic of Macedonia with International Participation, 06-09.10.2007. Macedonian Ecological Society, Struga, pp. 249e256. Kaczensky, P., 1999. Large carnivore depredation on livestock in Europe. Ursus 11, 59e71. Kaczensky, P., Blazic, M., Gossow, H., 2004. Public attitudes towards brown bears (Ursus arctos) in Slovenia. Biol. Conserv. 118, 661e674. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.biocon.2003.10.015. Kaczensky, P., Chapron, G., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andren, H., Linnell, J.D.C., 2013. Status, management and distribution of large carnivores - bear, lynx, wolf & wolverine - in Europe, Document prepared with the assistance of Istituto di Ecologia Applicata and with the contributions of the IUCN/SSC Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe under contract N 070307/2012/629085/SER/B3 for the European Commission. IUCN/SSC Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe. Kaltenborn, B.P., Brainerd, S.M., 2016. Can poaching inadvertently contribute to increased public acceptance of wolves in Scandinavia? Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 62, 179e188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-016-0991-3. Kaser, K., 1996. Introduction: household and family contexts in the balkans. Hist. Fam. 1, 375e386. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1081-602X(96)90008-1. Keçi, E., Trajçe, A., Mersini, K., Bego, F., Ivanov, G., Melovski, D., Stojanov, A., Breitenmoser, U., von Arx, M., Schwaderer, G., Spangenberg, A., Linnell, J.D.C., 2008. Conflicts between lynx, other large carnivores, and humans in Macedonia and Albania. Proceedings of the 3rd Congress of Ecologists of the Republic of Macedonia with International Participation, 06-09.10.2007. Presented at the 3rd Congress of Ecologists of the Republic of Macedonia with International Participation, 06-09.10.2007. Macedonian Ecological Society, Struga, pp. 257e264. Kellert, S.R., Black, M., Rush, C.R., Bath, A.J., 1996. Human culture and large carnivore conservation in north America. Conserv. Biol. 10, 977e990. King, R., Vullnetari, J., 2003. Migration and Development in Albania (Working Paper No. C5). Development Research Centre on Migration, Globalisation and Poverty, Sussex, UK. Kirby, A., 1999. Campaign for Europe's Carnivores [WWW Document]. BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/284106.stm (accessed 8.20.10). Kleiven, J., Bjerke, T., Kaltenborn, B., 2004. Factors influencing the social acceptability of large carnivore behaviours. Biodivers. Conserv. 13, 1647e1658. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BIOC.0000029328.81255.38. Kruuk, H., 2002. Hunter and Hunted: Relationships between Carnivores and People. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kume, K., Bicoku, Y., Papa, L., 2004. Sheep and goat production in hill and mountainous regions in Albania: Extension service and government subsidies. In: Options Mediterraneennes. Serie A : Seminaires Mediterraneens. Presented at the Seminaire du Sous-Reseau Systemes de Production du Reseau Cooperatif Interregional FAO-CIHEAM de Recherche et Developpement sur les Ovins et les Caprins, Alghero (Italy), 4-6 April 2002. CIHEAM-IAMZ. Lambeck, R.J., 1997. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conserv. Biol. 11, 849e856. Lescureux, N., Linnell, J., Mustafa, S., Melovski, D., Stojanov, A., Ivanov, G., Avukatov, V., 2011. The king of the forest: local knowledge about European brown bears (Ursus arctos) and implications for their conservation in contemporary Western Macedonia. Conserv. Soc. 9, 189e201. Lescureux, N., Linnell, J.D.C., 2013. The effect of rapid social changes during post-communist transition on perceptions of the human - wolf relationships in Macedonia and Kyrgyzstan. Pastoralism 3, 1e20. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-7136-3-4. Lescureux, N., Linnell, J.D.C., 2010. Knowledge and perceptions of Macedonian hunters and herders: the influence of species specific ecology of bears, wolves, and Lynx. Hum. Ecol. 38, 389e399. Lescureux, N., Linnell, J.D.C., Mustafa, S., Melovski, D., Stojanov, A., Ivanov, G., Avukatov, V., von Arx, M., Breitenmoser, U., 2011. Fear of the unknown: local knowledge and perceptions of the Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx in western Macedonia. Oryx 45, 600e607. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605310001547. Linnell, J.D.C., Andersen, R., Andersone, Z., Balciauskas, L.K., Blanco, J.C., Boitani, L., Brainerd, S., Breitenmoser, U., Kojola, I., Liberg, O., Loe, J., Okarma, H., Pedersen, H.C., Promberger, C., Sand, H., Solberg, E.J., Valdmann, H., Wabakken, P., 2002. The Fear of Wolves: A Review of Wolf Attacks on Humans (No. 731). NINA, Trondheim. Linnell, J.D.C., Promberger, C., Boitani, L., Swenson, J.E., Breitenmoser, U., Andersen, R., 2005. The linkage between conservation strategies for large carnivores and biodiversity: the view from the “Half-Full” forests of Europe. In: Ray, J.C., Redford, K.H., Steneck, R.S., Berger, J. (Eds.), Large Carnivores and the Conservation of Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington DC, pp. 381e399. Linnell, J.D.C., Swenson, J.E., Anderson, R., 2001. Predators and people: conservation of large carnivores is possible at high human densities if management policy is favourable. Anim. Conserv. 4, 345e349. L€oe, J., R€oskaft, E., 2004. Large carnivores and human safety: a review. AMBIO A J. Hum. Environ. 33, 283e288. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-33.6.283. Majic, A., Bath, A.J., 2010. Changes in attitudes toward wolves in Croatia. Biol. Conserv. 143, 255e260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.09.010. Majic, A., Marino Taussig de Bodonia, A., Huber, Ð., Bunnefeld, N., 2011. Dynamics of public attitudes toward bears and the role of bear hunting in Croatia. Biol. Conserv. 144, 3018e3027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.09.005. Manfredo, M.J., Vaske, J.J., Sikorowski, L., 1996. Human dimensions of wildlife management. In: Ewert, A.W. (Ed.), Natural Resource Management: the Human Dimensions. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, Colorado, pp. 53e72. Marvin, G., 2012. Wolf, Animal. Reaktion, London. Melovski, D., Breitenmoser, U., von Arx, M., Breitenmoser-Würsten, C., Lanz, T., 2015. Lynx lynx Ssp. Balcanicus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015 e.T68986842A68986849. Nilsen, E.B., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Schofield, L., Mysterud, A., Stenseth, N.C., Coulson, T., 2007. Wolf reintroduction to Scotland: public attitudes and consequences for red deer management. Proc. Biol. Sci. 274, 995e1003. Noss, R.F., Quigley, H.B., Hornocker, M.G., Merrill, T., Paquet, P.C., 1996. Conservation biology and carnivore conservation in the rocky mountains. Conserv. Biol. 10, 949e963. Petkovski, S., Smith, D., Petkovski, T., Sidorovska, V., 2003. Study on Hunting Activities in Macedonia: Past, Present and Future. Society for the Investigation and Conservation of Biodiversity and the Sustainable Development of Natural Ecosystems (BIOECO), Skopje. Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D., EISPACK authors, R-core, 2014. Nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R Development Core Team, 2014. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Revelle, W., 2014. Psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. Roberge, J.-M., Angelstam, P., 2004. Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conserv. Biol. 18, 76e85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1523-1739.2004.00450.x. Roskaft, E., Bjerke, T., Kaltenborn, B., Linnell, J.D.C., Andersen, R., 2003. Patterns of self-reported fear towards large carnivores among the Norwegian public. Evol. Hum. Behav. 24, 184e198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00011-4. Roskaft, E., Handel, B., Bjerke, T., Kaltenborn, B., 2007. Human attitudes towards large carnivores in Norway. Wildl. Biol. 13, 172e185. 50 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 A. Trajçe et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 19 (2019) e00677 15 Salvatori, V., 2013. Large Carnivore Conservation and Management in Europe: the Contribution of EC Co-funded LIFE Projects. Istituto di Ecologia Aplicata, Rome, Italy. Sheskin, I.M., 1985. Survey Research for Geographers. Association of American Geographers, Washington DC. Simberloff, D., 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-species management passe in the landscape era? Biol. Conserv. 83, 247e257. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00081-5. State Statistical Office, 2007. Statistical Yearbook [WWW Document]. State Statistical Office. http://www.stat.gov.mk. (Accessed 22 August 2010). Swenson, J.E., Andren, H., 2005. A tale of two countries: large carnivore depredation and compensation schemes in Sweden and Norway. In: Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S., Rabinowitz, A. (Eds.), People and Wildlife, Conflict or Co-existence? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 323e339. Thomas, C., 1982. Migration and urban growth in Yugoslavia. East Eur. Q. 16, 199. Treves, A., 2009. Hunting for large carnivore conservation. J. Appl. Ecol. 46, 1350e1356. Wechselberger, M., Leizinger, D., 2005. Die Akzeptanz von B€ar, Wolf und Luchs in € Osterreich. WWF and Institut für Wildbiologie und Jagdwirtschaft. Wechselberger, M., Rigg, R., Betkova, S., 2005. An Investigation of Public Opinion about the Three Species of Large Carnivores in Slovakia: lynx (Lynx lynx), Wolf (Canis lupus) and Brown Bear (Ursus arctos). Slovak Wildlife Society. Williams, C.K., Ericsson, G., Heberlein, T.A., 2002. A quantitative summary of attitudes toward wolves and their reintroduction (1972-2000). Wildl. Soc. Bull. 30, 575e584. Woodroffe, R., Ginsberg, J.R., 1998. Edge effects and the Extinction of populations inside protected areas. Science 280, 2126e2128. Zuur, A., Ieno, E.N., Walker, N., Saveliev, A.A., Smith, G.M., 2009. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R. Springer, New York. 51 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 2.5 OKREVANJE POPULACIJ VELIKIH ZVERI V SODOBNI KRAJINI EVROPE, V KATERI PREVLADUJE ČLOVEK Recovery of large carnivores in Europe's modern human-dominated landscapes. Guillaume Chapron, Petra Kaczensky, John D. C. Linnell, Manuela von Arx, Djuro Huber, Henrik Andrén, José Vicente López-Bao, Michal Adamec, Francisco Álvares, Ole Anders, Linas Balčiauskas, Vaidas Balys, Péter Bedő, Ferdinand Bego, Juan Carlos Blanco, Urs Breitenmoser, Henrik Brøseth, Luděk Bufka, Raimonda Bunikyte, Paolo Ciucci, Alexander Dutsov, Thomas Engleder, Christian Fuxjäger, Claudio Groff, Katja Holmala, Bledi Hoxha, Yorgos Iliopoulos, Ovidiu Ionescu, Jasna Jeremić, Klemen Jerina, Gesa Kluth, Felix Knauer, Ilpo Kojola, Ivan Kos, Miha Krofel, Jakub Kubala, Saša Kunovac, Josip Kusak, Miroslav Kutal, Olof Liberg, Aleksandra Majić, Peep Männil, Ralph Manz, Eric Marboutin, Francesca Marucco, Dime Melovski, Kujtim Mersini, Yorgos Mertzanis, Robert W. Mysłajek, Sabina Nowak, John Odden, Janis Ozolins, Guillermo Palomero, Milan Paunović, Jens Persson,1 Hubert Potočnik, Pierre-Yves Quenette, Georg Rauer, Ilka Reinhardt, Robin Rigg, Andreas Ryser, Valeria Salvatori, Tomaž Skrbinšek, Aleksandar Stojanov, Jon E. Swenson, László Szemethy, Aleksandër Trajçe, Elena Tsingarska-Sedefcheva, Martin Váňa, Rauno Veeroja, Petter Wabakken, Manfred Wölfl, Sybille Wölfl, Fridolin Zimmermann, Diana Zlatanova, Luigi Boitani, Objavljeno v: Science (2014), 346: 1517. Sprejeto: 21. novembra 2014 © 2014 American Association for the Advancement of Science, ponatisnjeno z dovoljenjem Izvleček: Varstvo velikih zveri predstavlja resen izziv pri varstvu biodiverzitete. S pomočjo podatkov o preteklem in sedanjem stanju populacij rjavega medveda ( Ursus arctos), evrazijskega risa ( Lynx lynx), volka ( Canis lupus) in rosomaha ( Gulo gulo) v državah Evrope smo pokazali, da približno tretjino celinske Evrope poseljuje najmanj ena vrsta velikih zveri, pri podatkih iz 21. stoletja v večini primerov s stabilno ali naraščajočo številčnostjo. Razlogi za ta splošen naravovarstven uspeh so v varstveni zakonodaji, naklonjenem javnem mnenju in številnih pristopih, ki omogočajo sobivanje med velikimi zvermi in ljudmi. Primer Evrope ponazarja, da velike zveri in ljudje lahko sobivajo v isti krajini. 52 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 RE SE ARCH | REPORTS U.S. National Climate Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ PZ00P2_142424 (AM-G) and PP00P2_144811 (SLJ), and ETH Figs. S1 and S2 paleo/study/17455) and Pangaea (http://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/ grant ETH-04 11-1 (SLJ/APH). Tables S1 to S4 PANGAEA.839454) and can be accessed in tables S3 and S4. References (35–51) Financial support was provided by the Comer Science and SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS Education Foundation (CTH/RFA), the W.O. Crosby Fellowship www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6216/1514/suppl/DC1 28 May 2014; accepted 21 November 2014 (C.T.H.), Swiss National Science Foundation grants Materials and Methods 10.1126/science.1256620 CONSERVATION it has been deemed a priori to fail because of the existing conflicts between large carnivores and hu- Recovery of large carnivores mans. This dichotomy of large carnivore conserva- tion models is analogous to the land-sharing versus land-sparing debate, which is ongoing in a wider in Europe’s modern biodiversity conservation context (7). We compiled data about the status (i.e., cur- human-dominated landscapes rent and past occurrence and abundance) of large carnivores [brown bears (Ursus arctos), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), gray wolves (Canis lupus), and 4 Guillaume Chapron,1* wolverines (Gulo gulo)] in Europe (8). We show † Petra Kaczensky,2 John D. C. Linnell,3 Manuela von Arx,4 that the European continent (considering all con- Djuro Huber,5 Henrik Andrén,1 José Vicente López-Bao,1,6† Michal Adamec,7 , 201 tinental European countries excluding Belarus, Francisco Álvares,8 Ole Anders,9 Linas Balčiauskas,10 Vaidas Balys,11 Péter Bedő,12 Ukraine, and Russia) is succeeding in maintaining, r 18 Ferdinand Bego,13 Juan Carlos Blanco,14 Urs Breitenmoser,4,15 Henrik Brøseth,3 e and to some extent restoring, viable large carnivore Luděk Bufka,16 Raimonda Bunikyte,17 Paolo Ciucci,18 Alexander Dutsov,19 populations on a continental scale (Fig. 1 and Thomas Engleder,20 Christian Fuxjäger,21 Claudio Groff,22 Katja Holmala,23 emb fig. S1). All mainland European countries ex- c Bledi Hoxha,24 Yorgos Iliopoulos,25 Ovidiu Ionescu,26,27 Jasna Jeremić,28 cept for Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Klemen Jerina,29 Gesa Kluth,30 Felix Knauer,2 Ilpo Kojola,31 Ivan Kos,29 Miha Krofel,29 Luxembourg have a permanent and reproducing n De Jakub Kubala,32 Saša Kunovac,33 Josip Kusak,5 Miroslav Kutal,34,35 Olof Liberg,1 occurrence of at least one species of large carnivore o Aleksandra Majić,29 Peep Männil,36 Ralph Manz,4 Eric Marboutin,37 (Fig. 1). The total area with a permanent presence rg Francesca Marucco,38 Dime Melovski,39,40 Kujtim Mersini,41 Yorgos Mertzanis,25 of at least one large carnivore species in Europe .og Robert W. Mysłajek,42 Sabina Nowak,43 John Odden,3 Janis Ozolins,44 covers 1,529,800 km2 (roughly one-third of main- Guillermo Palomero,45 Milan Paunović,46 Jens Persson,1 Hubert Potočnik,29 land Europe), and the area of occasional presence ema Pierre-Yves Quenette,47 Georg Rauer,2 Ilka Reinhardt,30 Robin Rigg,12 Andreas Ryser,4 is expanding, as the presence of solitary dispersing cn Valeria Salvatori,48 Tomaž Skrbinšek,29 Aleksandar Stojanov,39 Jon E. Swenson,3,49 wolves has been confirmed in both Denmark and e László Szemethy,50 Aleksandër Trajçe,24 Elena Tsingarska-Sedefcheva,19 Martin Váňa,35 Belgium in recent times. Rauno Veeroja,36 Petter Wabakken,51 Manfred Wölfl,52 Sybille Wölfl,53 Brown bears presently occur permanently in ww.sci Fridolin Zimmermann,4 Diana Zlatanova,54 Luigi Boitani18 22 countries (485,400 km2) and can be clustered w into 10 populations, most of which are native pop- m The conservation of large carnivores is a formidable challenge for biodiversity conservation. ulations (tables S1 to S3). Eurasian lynx presently ro Using a data set on the past and current status of brown bears (Ursus arctos), Eurasian lynx occur permanently in 23 countries (813,400 km2) f (Lynx lynx), gray wolves (Canis lupus), and wolverines (Gulo gulo) in European countries, we and can be clustered into 11 populations, five edd show that roughly one-third of mainland Europe hosts at least one large carnivore species, of them being native populations (tables S5 to S7). with stable or increasing abundance in most cases in 21st-century records. The reasons for Wolves currently occur permanently in 28 coun-nloa this overall conservation success include protective legislation, supportive public opinion, and tries (798,300 km2) and can be clustered into 10 w a variety of practices making coexistence between large carnivores and people possible. The populations, which are all native (tables S9 to S11). oD European situation reveals that large carnivores and people can share the same landscape. Wolverines, however, are only found in the three L Fennoscandic countries, and they permanently arge carnivores are among the most con- left for viable and ecologically functional popula- occur over a total of 247,900 km2 in two popula- troversial and challenging group of species tions (6). As the two main drivers of the current tions (tables S13 to S15). Because of the limited bio- to conserve in our modern and crowded world. biodiversity crisis—human overpopulation and geographic distribution of wolverines, Fennoscandia There is a deeply rooted hostility to these spe- overconsumption—show no sign of reducing, an is the only region containing all four large carni- cies in human history and culture, because of intuitive forecast could be that large carnivores will vore species in Europe (171,500 km2), and could perceptions of their negative impacts on human persist only in highly managed protected areas be considered as a large-carnivore hot spot together livelihoods (1). Large carnivore abundance and dis- (with regular translocations being made to achieve with southeastern Europe (Dinaric, Carpathian, tribution have historically been reduced (2), and artificial connectivity) or in some remote and un- and Balkan regions) and the Baltics (fig. S2). Three their present conservation has become intertwined inhabited wilderness areas. This approach derives large carnivore species overlap over 593,800 km2 with broader emotional, political, and socioeconomic conceptually from the North American wilderness in Europe (fig. S2). issues that further complicate this challenge (3). In model that separates people and nature and that Overall, Europe hosts several large and stable addition, large carnivores live at low densities and has further been adopted in many Asian, African, populations on the order of thousands of individ- have large spatial requirements (4). Accordingly, and neotropical countries (6) (“keeping people and uals, many medium-sized and increasing popu- the conservation of viable large carnivore pop- predators apart,” the separation model). The ulti- lations that number in the hundreds of individuals, ulations needs to be planned and coordinated on mate expression of this approach lies in the southern and a few small and declining populations with a very wide scales, often spanning many intra- and African propensity to fence protected areas (6). few tens of individuals. Interestingly, none of the international borders [i.e., requiring transboun- The alternative model, “allowing people and pre- medium or large populations are declining. Brown dary management (5)]. dators together” (coexistence model), following a bears are the most abundant large carnivore in The main debate around large carnivore conser- landscape-scale conservation approach, has rarely Europe, with an estimated total number around vation is whether there is enough suitable space been given proper consideration, probably because 17,000 individuals, and all population ranges have SCIENCE sciencemag.org 19 DECEMBER 2014 • VOL 346 ISSUE 6216 1517 53 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 RE SEA RCH | REPORTS been relatively stable or slightly expanding (table vores in Europe. The general picture emerging from The reasons for the success of large carnivores S2). Wolves are the second most abundant species, the current status of large carnivores in Europe is in Europe range from coordinated legislation with an estimated total number larger than 12,000 that these species have shown the capacity to sur- shared by many European countries (19, 20) to individuals (table S10). Most populations have vive in human-dominated landscapes, representing context-specific management practices and insti- been increasing or stable during recent years, an often underappreciated conservation success tutional arrangements. Since the end of World although the Sierra Morena population (Spain) story. Having high numbers of large carnivores War II, Europe has benefited from stable politi- is on the brink of extinction, with only one pack in such landscapes is not exclusive to Europe [the cal institutions ensuring proper law enforcement. detected in 2010 (9). In recent years, the larger United States has abundant populations of black The post-communist transition in Eastern Euro- Iberian population has an uncertain trend, although bears (Ursus americanus) and mountain lions (Puma pean countries was not generally associated with it seems stable, and the Karelian population has concolor)]; however, the largest species, brown bears institutional collapse, with the exception of some declined (9). The estimated total number of and wolves, occur in Europe with much higher hu- Balkan countries. This stability created the con- Eurasian lynx is around 9000 individuals (table man densities. For example, Europe hosts twice as ditions for securing land tenure and associated S6), and most populations have generally been many wolves (>11,000) as the contiguous United rights for activities such as forestry and hunting, stable in the past decade, although most of the States [~5500 wolves (11)], despite being half the which are preconditions for the development of reintroduced populations appear to have stag- size (4.3 million km2 versus 8 million km2) and sustainable practices. The rise of environmental nated at relatively small sizes, and the Vosges- more than twice as densely populated (97 inhab- movements in the 1970s provided the motivation Palatinian and Balkan lynx populations have itants/km2 versus 40 inhabitants/km2). for various pan-European legislative agreements declined (9). Finally, the estimated total num- We believe that the alternative view to the co- to emerge that served to promote biodiversity ber of wolverines is 1250 individuals, and both existence model (i.e., the separation model), which conservation. For example, the Bern Convention, populations are increasing (table S14). Details argues that the largest predators can only survive administered by the Council of Europe, covers all on large carnivore monitoring methods are given in protected areas or wilderness, is a consequence countries included in this report, and the Habitats in tables S4, S8, S12, and S16 and (9). of former policy goals to exterminate these spe- Directive covers all 20 European Union member All four large carnivore species are persisting cies (12). However, our results underline that if states with a permanent occurrence of large car- in human-dominated landscapes (fig. S3) and the separation model had been applied in Europe, nivores. Consequently, the four large carnivore spe- largely outside protected areas. The mean T SD there would hardly be any large carnivore popula- cies examined here enjoy some degree of legal human density in areas of permanent large car- tions at all, because most European protected protection in all European countries. Large car- nivore presence is 19.0 T 69.9 inhabitants/km2 areas are too small to host even a few large car- nivores have also benefited from the socioeconom- (range: 0 to 1651) for brown bears; 21.8 T 73.8 nivore reproductive units (13). ic changes over the past four decades that led to an inhabitants/km2 (range: 0 to 2603) for lynx; 36.7 T Whereas large carnivores do not permanently improvement in habitat quality. For example, 95.5 inhabitants/km2 (range: 0 to 3050) for wolves; occur in the areas of highest human density in Europe again hosts large populations of wild un- and 1.4 T 5.7 inhabitants/km2 (range: 0 to 115) for Europe, they have shown an ability to recolonize gulates (21), which can sustain large carnivore wolverines (fig. S3). These figures suggest species- areas with moderate human densities if they are populations. The impact of human land-use ac- specific sensitivities of large carnivores to humans, allowed, and to persist in highly human-dominated tivities has also been declining in many areas with wolves being most successful in adapting to landscapes and in the proximity of urban areas because of a widespread exodus from rural areas human-dominated landscapes (fig. S3). Wolverines (14, 15) in highly fragmented landscapes consist- and the associated abandonment of agricultural are somewhat special, because their distribution ing of forest-farmland mosaics or even agro- land (22). These broad patterns are further accom- is constrained by climatic conditions, which re- ecosystems. Our results are not the first to reveal panied by a variety of local, cultural, or regulatory stricts them to northern and high-altitude areas, that large carnivores can coexist with people (16–18), practices making coexistence between large which have low human population densities (10). but they show that the land-sharing model for carnivores and people possible (15, 23). One These figures permit cautious optimism for the large carnivores (coexistence model) can be suc- important prerequisite has been to maintain and occurrence, abundance, and trends for large carni- cessful on a continental scale. revive traditional livestock protection measures 1Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 73091 Riddarhyttan, Sweden. 2Research Institute of Wildlife Ecology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Savoyenstrasse 1, 1160 Vienna, Austria. 3Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Post Office Box 5685 Sluppen, 7485 Trondheim, Norway. 4KORA, Thunstrasse 31, 3074 Muri bei Bern, Switzerland. 5Biology Department of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zagreb, Heinzelova 55, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia. 6Research Unit of Biodiversity (UO/ CSIC/PA), Oviedo University, 33600 Mieres, Spain. 7State Nature Conservancy of Slovak Republic, Tajovskeho 28B, 974 01 Banská Bystrica, Slovakia. 8CIBIO/InBio, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto, 4485-661 Vairão, Portugal. 9Harz Nationalpark, Lindenallee 35, 38855 Wernigerode, Germany. 10Nature Research Centre, Akademijos 2, 08412 Vilnius, Lithuania. 11Association for Nature Conservation WBaltijos vilkas,W Visoriu 6A-54, 08300 Vilnius, Lithuania. 12Slovak Wildlife Society, Post Office Box 72, 03301 Liptovsky Hradok, Slovakia. 13Biology Department of the Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Tirana, Boulevard Zog I, Tirana, Albania. 14Wolf Project, Consultores en Biología de la Conservación, Calle Manuela Malasana 24, 28004 Madrid, Spain. 15Centre for Fish and Wildlife Health, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Länggassstrasse 122, 3012 Bern, Switzerland. 16Department of Game Management and Wildlife Biology, Czech University of Life Sciences in Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 21 Prague, Czech Republic. 17Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania, Jakšto 4/9, 01105 Vilnius, Lithuania. 18Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, University of Rome “La Sapienza,” Viale dell’Università 32, 00185 Roma, Italy. 19Balkani Wildlife Society, Boulevard Dragan Tzankov 8, 1164 Sofia, Bulgaria. 20Lynx Project Austria Northwest, Linzerstrasse 14, 4170 Haslach/Mühl, Austria. 21Nationalpark Kalkalpen, Nationalpark Zentrum Mol n, Nationalpark Allee 1, 4591 Mol n, Austria. 22Provincia Autonoma di Trento - Servizio Foreste e Fauna, Via Trener no. 3, 38100 Trento, Italy. 23Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, Viikinkaari 4, 00790 Helsinki, Finland. 24Protection and Preservation of Natural Environment in Albania, Rruga Vangjush Furxhi 16/1/10, Tirana, Albania. 25Callisto Wildlife and Nature Conservation Society, Mitropoleos 123, 54621 Thessaloniki, Greece. 26Faculty of Silviculture and Forest Engineering, Department of Silviculture, Transilvania University, 1 Beethoven Lane, 500123 Brașov, Romania. 27Forest Research Institute (ICAS) Bulevardul Eroilor Number 128, Voluntari, Ilfov, 077190 Romania. 28State Institute for Nature Protection, Trg Mažuranića 5, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia. 29University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Jamnikarjeva 101, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. 30LUPUS – German Institute for Wolf Mnitoring and Research, Dorfstrasse 20, 02979 Spreewitz, Germany. 31Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, Oulu Game and Fisheries Research, Tutkijantie 2E, 90570 Oulu, Finland. 32Department of Forest Protection and Game Management, Faculty of Forestry, Technical University of Zvolen, T.G. Masaryka 20, 960 53 Zvolen, Slovakia. 33Faculty of Forestry, University of Sarajevo, Zagrebačka 20, 71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. 34Department of Forest Protection and Wildlife Management, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 3, 61300 Brno, Czech Republic. 35Friends of the Earth Czech Republic, Olomouc Branch, Dolní Náměstí 38, 77900 Olomouc, Czech Republic. 36Estonian Environment Agency, Rõõmu tee 2, 51013 Tartu, Estonia. 37Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage, ZI Mayencin, 5 Allée de Béthléem, 38610 Gières, France. 38Centro Gestione e Conservazione Grandi Carnivori, Piazza Regina Elena 30, Valdieri 12010, Italy. 39Macedonian Ecological Society, Arhimedova 5, Skopje 1000, FYR Macedonia. 40Department of Wildlife Sciences, Georg-August University, Büsgenweg 3, 37077 Göttingen, Germany. 41National Veterinary Epidemiology Unit, Food Safety and Veterinary Institute, Rruga Aleksandër Moisiu 10 Tirana, Albania. 42Institute of Genetics and Biotechnology, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw, Pawińskiego 5a, 02-106 Warszawa, Poland. 43Association for Nature “Wolf,” Twardorzeczka 229, 34-324 Lipowa, Poland. 44Latvian State Forest Research Institute “Silava,” Rīgas Iela 111, Salaspils, 2169 Latvia. 45Fundación Oso Pardo, Cal e San Luis 17, 4° A, 39010 Santander, Spain. 46Natural History Museum, Njegoseva 51, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia. 47ONCFS-CNERA PAD, Equipe Ours, Chef de Projet, Impasse de la Chapelle, 31800 Villeneuve de Rivière, France. 48Istituto di Ecologia Applicata, Via B. Eustachio 10, 00161 Rome, Italy. 49Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Postbox 5003, 1432 Ås, Norway. 50St. István Unversity Institute for Wildlife Conservation, Páter Károly 1, 2103 Gödöllő, Hungary. 51Hedmark University College, Evenstad, 2480 Koppang, Norway. 52Bavarian Agency of Environment, Hans-Högn-Strasse 12, 95030 Hof/Saale, Germany. 53Lynx Project Bavaria, Trailling 1a, 93462 Lam, Germany. 54Department of Zoology and Anthropology, Faculty of Biology/Sofia University WSt. Kliment Ohridski,W Boulevard Dragan Tzankov 8, 1164 Sofia, Bulgaria. *Corresponding author. E-mail: gchapron@carnivoreconservation.org or guillaume.chapron@slu.se †These authors contributed equally to this work. 1518 19 D ECEM BER 2014 • VOL 346 ISSUE 6216 sciencemag.org SCIENCE 54 Majić Skrbinšek, A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 RE SE ARCH | REPORTS (livestock-guarding dogs, night corrals, and shep- At present, there is a conjuncture between many can persist in these novel ecosystems encourages herds), as well as to invest innew techniques (electric policy areas combined with a generally supportive optimism for the conservation of larger and more fences) as an important nonlethal tool to mini- public opinion, so that the positive forces have connected large carnivore populations. mize large carnivore depredation on livestock (24). been prevailing. However, the underlying nega- The most severe challenges for large carnivore tive forces are still present and could reemerge as REFEREN CES AND NOTES conservation are in countries where large car- a result of ecological, social, political, or econom- 1. A. Treves, K. U. Karanth, Conserv. Biol. 17, 1491–1499 (2003). 2. W. J. Ripple et al., Science 343, 1241484 (2014). nivores have previously been extirpated, where ic changes. There is a need to monitor both the 3. G. Chapron, J. V. López-Bao, Science (New York, N.Y.) 343, the adaptations for coexistence have been lost, or ecological situation and sociopolitical climate to 1199–1200 (2014). where husbandry practices have evolved toward ensure that the current trends are maintained. 4. J. L. Gittleman, S. M. Funk, D. Macdonald, R. K. Wayne, new production schemes. In such contexts, the The European experience offers hope for wild- Carnivore conservation. Conserv. Biol. Ser. (Cambridge) 5, 1-675 (2001). return of large carnivores can trigger social con- life conservation in human-dominated landscapes 5. J. D. C. Linnell, L. Boitani, Hystrix 23, 80–91 (2012). flicts. For example, poaching enjoys social accept- and is relevant to other areas of the world. Al- 6. C. Packer et al., Ecol. Lett. 16, 635–641 (2013). ance in rural areas of Norway (25), limits the though developing countries may lack many of 7. B. Phalan, M. Onial, A. Balmford, R. E. Green, Science 333, 1289–1291 (2011). recovery of wolves in Scandinavia (26), and erad- the institutions and capacities that have enabled 8. See materials and methods, figs. S1 to S3, and tables S1 to S16 icated a reintroduced bear population in Austria large carnivore recovery in Europe, there are other in the supplementary materials. (27). In these areas, the practical challenges and examples of large carnivores persisting and recov- 9. P. Kaczensky et al., Status, Management and Distribution of Large economic impacts of carnivore conservation have ering in human-dominated landscapes and even in Carnivores—Bear, Lynx, Wolf and Wolverine—in Europe (Report to the EU Commission, Part 1 and Part 2, 2013); http://ec.europa.eu/ escalated into social conflicts, where the carni- cities (17, 28, 29). Clearly, the presence of large environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/pdf/ vores have become symbols of wider political carnivores in human-dominated ecosystems is as- task_1_part1_statusoflcineurope.pdf and http://ec.europa.eu/ divisions between rural and urban populations sociated with modified ecological conditions that environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/pdf/ and between individuals and groups with funda- deviate from conditions in areas with little hu- task_1_part2_species_country_reports.pdf. 10. J. P. Copeland et al., Can. J. Zool. 88, 233–246 (2010). mentally different value orientations and interests. man activity. However, the fact that such species 11. International Wolf Center, Wolves in the United States; www.wolf.org/wow/united-states/ (2014). 12. J. D. C. Linnell, J. E. Swenson, R. Anderson, Anim. Conserv. 4, 345–349 (2001). 13. R. Woodroffe, J. R. Ginsberg, Science 280, 2126–2128 (1998). 14. M. Basil e et al., Ecography 32, 683–691 (2009). 15. J. V. López-Bao, V. Sazatornil, L. Llaneza, A. Rodríguez, Conserv. Lett. 6, 448–455 (2013). 16. S. D. Gehrt et al., Urban Carnivores: Ecology, Conflict, and Conservation (John Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD, 2010). 17. V. Athreya, M. Odden, J. D. Linnell, J. Krishnaswamy, U. Karanth, PLOS ONE 8, e57872 (2013). 18. N. H. Carter, B. K. Shrestha, J. B. Karki, N. M. Pradhan, J. Liu, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 15360–15365 (2012). 19. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1992); http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri= CELEX:31992L0043. 20. Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Heritage (1979); http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/ Treaties/html/104.htm. 21. J. D. C. Linnell, F. E. Zachos, in Ungulate Management in Europe: Problems and Practices, R. Putman, M. Apollonio, R. Andersen, Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2011), pp. 12–53. 22. L. M. Navarro, H. M. Pereira, Ecosystems (N. Y.) 15, 900–912 (2012). 23. E. J. Knott et al., Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 60, 85–97 (2014). 24. J. D. C. Linnell et al., in Carnivore Ecology and Conservation: A Handbook of Techniques, L. Boitani, R. A. Powell, Eds. (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2012), pp. 314–332. 25. K. E. Gangaas, B. P. Kaltenborn, H. P. Andreassen, PLOS ONE 8, e68849 (2013). 26. O. Liberg et al., Proc. R. Soc. Ser. B 279, 910–915 (2012). 27. L. Kruckenhauser, G. Rauer, B. Däubl, E. Haring, Conserv. Genet. 10, 1223–1233 (2009). 28. C. Vynne et al., PLOS ONE 6, e28939 (2011). 29. A. Zimmermann et al., in Wild Rangelands, J. du Toit, R. Kock, J. Deutsch, Eds. (Wiley, Oxford, 2010), pp. 129–151. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Shape files of all maps are available in Dryad at this address: http://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.986mp. This study was partly funded by European Commission contract 070307/2012/629085/ SER/B3. P.K., G.C., J.D.C.L., M.v.A., D.H., H.A., J.V.L.-B., and L.B. designed the study; G.C. and J.V.L.B. wrote the paper with help from P.K., J.D.C.L., M.v.A., D.H., H.A., and L.B.; and all authors contributed data. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6216/1517/suppl/DC1 Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S3 Fig. 1. Distribution of large carnivores in Europe in 2011. Brown bears (top left), Eurasian lynx Tables S1 to S16 (top right), gray wolves (bottom left), and wolverines (bottom right). Dark blue cells indicate areas of References (30–258) permanent occurrence, and light blue cells indicate areas of sporadic occurrence. Numbers refers to 17 June 2014; accepted 13 November 2014 population identifications in tables S1 to S16. Orange lines indicate boundaries between populations. 10.1126/science.1257553 SCIENCE sciencemag.org 19 DECEMBER 2014 • VOL 346 ISSUE 6216 1519 55 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 3 RAZPRAVA IN SKLEPI 3.1 RAZPRAVA Iskanje rešitev za sobivanje med ljudmi in velikimi zvermi v antropogeno spremenjeni, multifunkcionalni krajini je resen globalni izziv (Carter in Linnell, 2016; Di Minin in sod., 2016), saj pravzaprav zahtevamo od ljudi, da si delijo prostor z živalmi, ki lahko neposredno ogrožajo njihove vire za preživetje, obenem pa utegnejo biti neposredno nevarne tudi njim. Varstva velikih zveri in sobivanja z njimi se lahko z upravljavskega vidika lotimo z dvema temeljnima pristopoma, ki pa se med seboj precej razlikujeta. Pri prvem, tradicionalnem, upravljavci »od zgoraj navzdol« predpišejo ukrepe, ki naj bi se jih ostali držali. Pri drugem, kolaborativnem pristopu, se rešitve za varstvo in sobivanje iščejo v sodelovanju z drugimi legitimnimi interesi v prostoru. Tega se s soavtorji lotevamo v prvem članku disertacije (Redpath in sod., 2017). »Prisilna« politika pristopa od zgoraj navzdol lahko povzroči razkroj legitimnosti in proženje odpora, kar lahko pripelje tudi do nezakonitega ubijanja velikih zveri, te probleme in negativne posledice ukrepov pa lahko zaznamo s spremljanjem stališč javnosti. Po drugi strani pa kolaborativni pristop zahteva temeljito razumevanje stališč javnosti do velikih zveri, pa tudi odnosov med prepričanji, stališči, nameni obnašanja in dejanskim vedenjem, kar je bil predmet večine mojih raziskav. Takšne raziskave omogočajo lažje in ustreznejše vključevanje javnosti v odločanje, kot to zahtevajo številni predpisi (npr. Bernska konvencija, 1979; Aarhuška konvencija, 2005). Ker je upravljanje z velikimi zvermi pogosto bolj sociološke kot biološke narave (Bath, 1996), omogočajo rezultati takšnih raziskav tudi boljše in učinkovitejše odločitve v upravljanju in varstvu teh vrst. Raziskave longitudinalnega spreminjanja stališč do volka in medveda v času predstavljam v naslednjih dveh člankih, vključenih v disertacijo (Majić in Bath, 2010; Majić in sod., 2011). Na raziskovanja stališč se nanaša tudi četrti članek (Trajce in sod., 2019), v katerem s soavtorji ugotavljamo, da se lahko odnosi do različnih vrst velikih zveri zelo razlikujejo, kar kaže, da bi morali ustrezno prilagajati tudi upravljanje. V Evropi so se oblikovale nove smernice za varstvo velikih zveri po katerih se težišče varstva in upravljanja z nacionalne ravni preusmerja na raven populacije (Linnel in sod., 2008), kar smo začeli upoštevati pri raziskavah in na primer v raziskavo, opisano v četrtem članku, vključili čezmejno območje Severne Makedonije in Albanije, kar pokriva večji del razširjenosti balkanskega risa in ne zgolj območje znotraj posamezne države. Čezmejni pristopi pomenijo pomemben preskok, saj velika večina evropskih držav zaradi omejene velikosti in številnih območij ohranjene narave ob državnih mejah ne more imeti populacij velikih zveri v varstveno ugodnem stanju. V praksi to pomeni, da je za učinkovito varstvo populacij velikih zveri nujno potrebno tesno sodelovanje med dvema ali več sosednjimi 56 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 državami. In varstvo velikih zveri nam v Evropi, kot je razvidno iz zadnjega izmed člankov v disertaciji (Chapron in sod. 2014), uspeva. 3.1.1 Kolaborativni pristopi k varstvu velikih zveri in kontrast s pristopi od zgoraj navzdol V prvem članku, predstavljenem v disertaciji (Redpath in sod., 2017), s soavtorji kolaborativne pristope sodelovanja z interesnimi skupinami primerjamo s klasičnim pristopom »od zgoraj navzdol«, ko ukrepe diktira upravljalec. V Evropi in ZDA je izvajanje varstvene zakonodaje, ki je bila postavljena po tem principu, ključno prispevalo k izboljšanju varstvenega stanja velikih zveri. Če so populacijske gostote velikih zveri zelo nizke, je njihov vpliv na ljudi razmeroma majhen, odnos bolj pozitiven in je lahko tudi stroga zaščita popolnoma sprejemljiva. Do težave pride, ko začnejo populacije naraščati in imeti vse večji vpliv na vedno več ljudi in s soavtorji menimo, da se je potrebno v takšnih primerih problema lotiti drugače. Prisilne pristope od zgoraj navzdol lahko lokalno prebivalstvo slabo sprejme in se lahko ukrepom upre, kar lahko vodi do povečanja ilegalnega ubijanja velikih zveri in še poglobljenih konfliktov (Brockington in Igoe, 2006). Kot alternativo predlagamo uporabo bolj kolaborativnih in fleksibilnih pristopov, ki pomagajo graditi zaupanje in vzpostaviti trajnostno sobivanje z velikimi zvermi. Ti pristopi so tudi inherentno bolj demokratični in nenazadnje zahtevani v nacionalnih zakonodajah in mednarodnih konvencijah. Opisana problematika je zelo aktualno in se z njo v Evropski skupnosti intenzivno soočamo. Z rastjo populacij velikih zveri (zadnji članek disertacije, Chapron s sod. 2014) naraščajo tudi konflikti. Interesne skupine, ki nasprotujejo velikim zverem, postajajo vse glasnejše, vse močnejši pa je tudi konflikt med njimi in interesnimi skupinami, ki varstvo velikih zveri zagovarjajo (Hovardas in sod., 2021). Dejansko varstvo in upravljanje se mora prilagajati kontekstu in lokalnim razmeram, pri tem pa potrebuje podporo znanosti. Ob tem pa je vedno več je dokazov, da klasični pristop, v katerem naravoslovne znanosti pridobijo empirične dokaze, s pomočjo katerih se vodijo politike in upravljavske strategije (Sarewitz, 2004; Burgess in sod., 2016), ni dovolj. Kot učinkovitejši pristop se zdi bolj vključujoče, transdisciplinarno pridobivanje znanja z neposrednim sodelovanjem vseh ustreznih deležnikov (Bennett in sod., 2017). 3.1.2 Spremembe v stališčih javnosti do velikih zveri skozi čas Javno mnenje se tradicionalno vključuje v odločitve skozi razprave, okrogle mize in delavnice, vendar obstajajo dokazi, da ti pristopi stališč javnosti ne vključujejo reprezentativno (Johnston in sod., 1993). Običajno se slišijo, in posledično upoštevajo, zgolj interesi najglasnejših, saj tako imenovana »tiha večina« praviloma pri takšnih oblikah izmenjave mnenj ni prisotna (Bath, 1996). Čeprav velike zveri in upravljanje z njimi pogosto sprožajo razvoj ekstremnih stališč tako v pozitivnem kot v negativnem smislu (Kellert, 1985; 57 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 Bath, 1996; Scarce, 1998), nam novejše raziskave kažejo tudi na visok delež nevtralnih stališč javnosti do te problematike (Bath in Majić, 2001; Williams in sod., 2002; Ericsson in Heberlein, 2003). To pomeni, da ima tudi glede upravljanja z velikimi zvermi javnost svojo »tiho večino«, katere stališča moramo aktivno iskati. Med raziskovalci je sicer konsenz, da so stališča ljudi, ki živijo na območju velikih zveri, za upravljanje s temi vrstami najpomembnejša (Ericsson in Heberlein 2003; Naughton-Treves in sod., 2003), vseeno pa ostaja varovanje populacij velikih zveri kot naravne dediščine tudi nacionalno vprašanje. Zato v raziskovane vzorce pogosto vključujemo tudi prebivalce urbanih središč oziroma drugih območij, kjer velikih zveri ni, njihova stališča pa je potrebno vseeno razumeti in primerno upoštevati. Običajno se raziskave stališč javnosti do zveri izvajajo ob posameznih izjemnih dogodkih (Bath, 1998) in so običajno rezultat krize ali načrtovanja kontroverznih varstvenih ukrepov kot je npr. ponovna naselitev vrste in kot takšne ne morejo dokumentirati sprememb skozi čas (Williams in sod., 2002). Obenem pa številni znanstveniki opozarjajo prav na potrebo po takšnih longitudinalnih študijah (Enck in Bath 2001; Kaczensky in sod., 2001), saj se okoliščine upravljanja nenehno spreminjajo in zahtevajo fleksibilnejše upravljavske pristope. V drugem in tretjem članku disertacije (Majić in Bath, 2010 (str. 17); Majić in sod., 2011 (str. 25)) smo s soavtorji raziskali stališča javnosti do volka in medveda na Hrvaškem, z longitudinalno študijo pa smo pokazali tudi kako so se ta stališča v času spreminjala. Pri volku smo v letih 1999 in 2003 dokumentirali premik stališč iz ekstremnih (pozitivnih in negativnih) proti bolj nevtralnim, kar izboljšuje možnosti za kompromise. Negativna stališča, ki so se razvila zlasti pri starejših kohortah ob »od zgoraj navzdol« popolni zaščiti volka proti koncu devetdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja (Bath in Majić, 2001) so se do druge raziskave nekoliko umirila. Na premik stališč proti bolj nevtralnim pa je verjetno vplivala tudi kampanja ozaveščanja in reševanja konfliktov, zlasti preko podpore izboljšanju zaščite domačih živali, ki se je izvajala v času med obema raziskavama stališč (Štrbenac in sod., 2005). Pri medvedu smo razmeroma veliko anketno raziskavo prav tako izvedli dvakrat, v letih 2002 in 2008 in dokumentirali stališča javnosti in nekaterih najpomembnejših interesnih skupin. Opazili smo, da se orientacije vrednot in splošno razumevanje medveda kot grožnje niso spremenile, se pa je zmanjšala kapaciteta za sprejemanje (še več) medvedov. V času med raziskavama je populacija medvedov na Hrvaškem znatno narastla, ob tem pa je Hrvaška sprejela tudi strategijo za upravljanje z medvedom. Rast populacije in bolj centralizirano in dorečeno upravljanje sta najverjetneje pripeljala do upada kapacitete za sprejemanje medveda, vendar so stališča kljub temu ostala pretežno medvedu naklonjena. 58 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 Rezultati obeh raziskav, zlasti pa raziskave stališč do volka, so nas opozorili na nekatere negativne posledice upravljanja od zgoraj navzdol, pa tudi na pozitivne učinke sodelovanja z ljudmi in reševanja problemov, saj se je oboje odrazilo na stališčih. Te izkušnje sem prenesla tudi v širši kontekst v prvem članku disertacije (Redpath in sod. 2017). Prav tako so nas rezultati opozorili na občutljivost stališč na dogodke v družbi in posledično na nujnost longitudinalnih javnomnenjskih raziskav. Prav longitudinalnost raziskav je izjemnega pomena, saj se pri upravljanju s populacijami prosto živečih živali vse pogosteje ugotavlja potreba po rednem spremljanju stališč in drugih družbenih kazalnikov (Treves in sod., 2013). Le tako lahko stališča korektno upoštevamo pri upravljavskih odločitvah in gradimo upravljanje, ki omogoča in podpira sobivanje ljudi in velikih zveri. 3.1.3 V očeh javnosti niso vse velike zveri enake Četrti članek disertacije predstavlja zanimiv primer raziskovanja stališč javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin do vseh treh velikih zveri v Albaniji in Severni Makedoniji. Obe državi si populacije delita, tako da smo raziskavo, eno prvih v jugovzhodni Evropi, izvedli na obeh straneh meje. Ob nekaterih razlikah med državama in razlikah med skupinami glede na demografske karakteristike (ki so se izkazale za podobne kot v raziskavah, izvedenih v Zahodni in Srednji Evropi), je bila zanimiva ugotovitev, da je v obeh državah podpora varstvu volka znatno nižja kot podpora varstvu medveda in risa. To kaže, da je potrebno vrste pri varstvu in upravljanju obravnavati ločeno, saj bi lahko skupni ukrepi za vse tri vrste povzročili, da bi se negativen odnos do volka »prelil« tudi na drugi dve vrsti, kar bi lahko zlasti v primeru izjemno občutljive populacije ogrožene podvrste balkanskega risa, ki živi še samo na tistem območju, prineslo resne varstvene probleme. 3.1.4 Evropsko varstvo velikih zveri kot zgodba o uspehu ter kontrast med rezervatnim varstvom in sobivanjem V zadnjem, petem članku, ki sem ga vključila v disertacijo, smo v širokem konzorciju evropskih strokovnjakov za velike zveri zbrali podatke o varstvenem stanju velikih zveri v Evropi in naredili sintezo. Rezultat je bil marsikomu presenetljiv, saj je prikazal izrazito optimistično sliko prostorske in številčne rasti velike večine populacij in rekolonizacijo območij, kjer so bile velike zveri v preteklosti iztrebljene. Zlasti zanimiv vidik je primerjava modela sobivanja, ki ga uporabljamo v Evropi, z modelom ločevanja ljudi in velikih zveri z rezervatnim varstvom, ki je v uporabi v Severni Ameriki in ki se je v najbolj ekstremni obliki z ograjevanjem zavarovanih območij z ograjami usidral na jugu Afrike. Glede na majhnost in razdrobljenost zavarovanih območij bi uporaba tega modela v Evropi vodila v izumiranje velikih zveri. 59 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 Članek je izzval precej pozornosti v strokovni javnosti zlasti zato, ker je razbijal ustaljeno dogmo, da je sobivanje z velikimi zvermi zaradi konfliktnosti a-priori nemogoče in da je rezervatno varstvo edina rešitev. V članku smo s soavtorji pokazali, da je obstoj velikih zveri mogoč tudi v močno spremenjenih ekosistemih antropocena, če le to možnost dopustimo in vlagamo v sobivanje. 3.1.5 Vloga znanosti Vloga znanosti, ki je ne glede na temeljni pristop ključna in ki je nujno potrebna za upravljanje, pa ni vedno preprosta. Tradicionalno se uporablja linearni model, v katerem naravoslovne znanosti pridobijo empirične dokaze, s pomočjo katerih se vodijo politike in upravljalske strategije (Burgess in sod., 2016; Sarewitz, 2004). Ta pristop se je pokazal kot problematičen zaradi dveh temeljnih razlogov. Kot prvo lahko interesne skupine formirajo konflikte na osnovi emocij, vrednot in svetovnega nazora, ne pa na osnovi dokazov (Slovic, 1987) in lahko preprosto ignorirajo znanost (Weber in Stern, 2011). Kot drugo se znanost pogosto predstavlja kot objektivna resnica, kljub temu pa jo lahko raziskovalci uporabijo kot argument za legitimizacijo in branjenje normativnih pozicij (Lackey, 2004). Na ta način lahko pride do izgube zaupanja in kredibilnosti, znanstveniki pa postanejo samo še ena interesna skupina. 60 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 4 SKLEPI Varstvo velikih zveri je evropska zgodba o uspehu. V antropocenu, ko je postala hitra izguba biodiverzitete stalnica in ko že začenjamo preko podnebnih sprememb boleče in neposredno čutiti človekov vpliv na planet, so takšne zgodbe na žalost redke, jih pa je prav zato vredno razumeti in se iz njih učiti. Okrevanje populacij velikih zveri je posledica sprememb odnosa do narave in družbenih sprememb, pa tudi spremenjene človekove rabe okolja. Vendar pa je Evropa 21. stoletja, kljub demokratičnim vrednotam in na splošno pozitivnemu odnosu do narave, dom 750 milijonom ljudi – neokrnjene narave je malo, zveri pa brez sobivanja z ljudmi v tej Evropi ne bi mogle preživeti. Sobivanje je ključ in bi moralo biti cilj, a doseganje tega cilja ostaja vse prej kot preprosto. Rast populacij velikih zveri in njihovo prostorsko širjenje tudi ni enoznačno – ta zgodba o uspehu se zdi marsikateremu lokalnemu prebivalcu, ki mora svoje vedenje in delo prilagajati novi realnosti prisotnosti velikih zveri, vse prej kot »zgodba o uspehu«, glasovi proti velikim zverem pa postajajo vse glasnejši. Trenutno okrevanje populacij teh vrst je v veliki meri rezultat pristopa od zgoraj navzdol, tako preko nacionalnih zakonodaj kot preko zakonodajnih instrumentov Evropske skupnosti. Nagla rast populacij in širitev velikih zveri, z vsemi problemi in konflikti ki jo spremljajo, pa daje misliti, da tak pristop v prihodnosti ne bo vzdržen in da bo trajnost sobivanja med ljudmi in velikimi zvermi treba zagotoviti drugače. Pri tem se moramo zavedati, da se velike zveri v očeh javnosti razlikujejo in da moramo biti previdni, da jih ne obravnavamo »paketno«, ampak da ukrepe prilagodimo vsaki vrsti posebej. Najbolj obetaven, pa tudi najbolj demokratičen pristop je vzpostavljanje varstva in upravljanja v sodelovanju z interesi v nekem prostoru. So pa takšni kolaborativni pristopi zahtevni – po eni strani potrebujejo ogromno znanja, po drugi strani pa precejšen angažma s strani upravljalcev. Ne enega ne drugega ni vedno preprosto zagotoviti. Vloga socioloških študij, zlasti javnomnenjskih raziskav, je pri kolaborativnem pristopu ključna, saj je le na ta način mogoče vzpostaviti dovolj prožno upravljanje, ki bo omogočilo varstvo zveri ob upoštevanju interesov ljudi, ki morajo z njimi živeti. Enkratni posnetki stanja, ki se običajno izvajajo, pa pri tem niso dovolj – potrebne so longitudinalne študije, ki bodo zabeležile ne samo stališča, ampak tudi njihove spremembe skozi čas in jih povezale s kritičnimi dogodki v družbi. Tako dobijo upravljalci povratno informacijo o učinkih ukrepov in dogodkov v preteklosti, pa tudi smernice za ukrepanje v prihodnje. Vloga znanosti, tako naravoslovnih kot družboslovnih, je v takšnih procesih ključna, moramo pa biti pri tem znanstveniki izjemno previdni. Znanstveniki kot ljudje imamo, enako kot drugi, svoje osebne vrednote in zagovarjamo svoja stališča. Meja med objektivno 61 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 znanostjo in nečim kar to ni, lahko postane ob interpretaciji raziskav pri tematikah, v katerih smo tudi osebno angažirani (kar je pri naravovarstvenih temah pogosto), zelo tanka in je potrebno veliko previdnosti, da je (tudi nezavedno) ne prestopimo. Družba od znanstvenikov potrebuje objektivno resnico, znanstveniki pa od družbe zaupanje, da so to objektivno resnico sposobni in pripravljeni posredovati – brez tega je delo znanstvenika brez smisla. Zato je potrebno jasno in odkrito komunicirati kaj so naša stališča, kaj pa objektivna resnica (vključno z našo negotovostjo pri njenem zaznavanju) in jasno poudariti razliko med enim in drugim. V nasprotnem primeru izgubimo verodostojnost in postanemo zgolj še ena interesna skupina, ki bolj prispeva k problemu kot k njegovemu reševanju. 62 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 5 POVZETEK Varstvo velikih zveri zavzema v okviru naravovarstva posebno mesto zaradi svoje kompleksnosti in zahtevnosti. Zaradi velikih prostorskih potreb in nizkih populacijskih gostot potrebujejo velike zveri ogromna strnjena območja, kar je v sodobnem antropogeno spremenjenem svetu vse večji problem. Obstoj velikih zveri se po eni strani od nekdaj križa z interesi človeka, konflikti, ki jih povzročajo z neposrednim vplivom na premoženje in eksistenco ljudi, pa so razlog za sovraštvo do teh vrst, ki je globoko ukoreninjeno v človeški zgodovini in kulturi (Ripple in sod., 2014). Po drugi strani pa so te vrste izrazito karizmatične, pogosto prisotne v kulturni dediščini večine kultur na celotnem območju svoje zgodovinske razširjenosti, njihovo varstvo pa je močno vpeto v širše socioekonomske, čustvene in politične kontekste, kar naredi izzive njihovega varstva še bolj kompleksne (Chapron in López-Bao, 2014). Intenzivno preganjanje, sistematično iztrebljanje, izginjanje habitata in izginjanje plena so povzročili izginjanje velikih zveri iz velikega dela območja, ki so ga zgodovinsko poseljevale, pa tudi populacije, ki so ostale, so bile v veliko primerih zelo majhne in razdrobljene (Breitenmoser, 1998). Izginjanje teh vrst se je v Evropi začelo ustavljati v drugi polovici 20. stoletja, ko so se s prebujajočo se naravovarstveno zavestjo začeli vzpostavljati tudi prvi mehanizmi zaščite (Salvatori in sod., 2007). Z urbanizacijo se je spremenila raba prostora, marsikje pa je prišlo do hitre rasti populacij plenskih vrst (Breitenmoser, 1998). Posledica je bilo vračanje velikih zveri na mnoga območja, iz katerih so v preteklosti izginile, proces ki traja še danes (Kaczensky in sod., 2013). Vračanje velikih zveri pa prinaša s sabo precejšnje družbene izzive, saj temeljni konflikti, ki so v preteklosti povzročili preganjanje, niso izginili. Število interesnih skupin se povečuje, vrednote postajajo vedno bolj raznolike in zahteve javnosti po sodelovanju v odločanju naraščajo, kar dela varstvo teh vrst in upravljanje z njimi vedno bolj kompleksno (Brown in Decker, 2001). Tradicionalni pristopi reševanja problemov s poseganjem v populacijo s smrtnostjo ne zadostujejo več, upravljanje pa se je moralo usmeriti v reševanje konfliktov in podporo sobivanju. V prvem članku, predstavljenem v disertaciji (Redpath in sod., 2017 str. 10), s soavtorji kolaborativne pristope sodelovanja z interesnimi skupinami primerjamo s klasičnim pristopom »od zgoraj navzdol«, ko ukrepe diktira upravljalec. Pristopi od zgoraj navzdol so lahko ključni, ko so populacije velikih zveri majhne, ko pa populacije začnejo naraščati, pa lahko povzročijo odpor in vodijo v še večje konflikte (Brockington in Igoe, 2006), kar je v Evropi zelo aktualna tematika. Kot alternativo predlagamo uporabo bolj kolaborativnih in fleksibilnih pristopov, ki pomagajo graditi zaupanje in vzpostaviti trajnostno sobivanje z velikimi zvermi. Ti pristopi so tudi inherentno bolj demokratični in nenazadnje zahtevani v nacionalnih zakonodajah in mednarodnih konvencijah. 63 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 Tradicionalno se raziskave stališč javnosti do zveri izvajajo ob posameznih izjemnih dogodkih (Bath, 1998) in so običajno rezultat krize ali načrtovanja kontroverznih varstvenih ukrepov kot je npr. ponovna naselitev vrste in kot takšne ne morejo dokumentirati sprememb skozi čas (Williams in sod., 2002). Obenem pa številni znanstveniki opozarjajo prav na potrebo po takšnih longitudinalnih študijah (Enck in Bath, 2001; Kaczensky in sod., 2001), saj se okoliščine upravljanja nenehno spreminjajo in zahtevajo fleksibilnejše upravljavske pristope. V drugem in tretjem članku disertacije smo s soavtorji raziskali stališča javnosti do volka in medveda na Hrvaškem, z longitudinalno študijo pa smo pokazali tudi kako so se ta stališča v času spreminjala. Pri volku (Majić in Bath, 2010) smo v letih 1999 in 2003 dokumentirali premik stališč iz ekstremnih (pozitivnih in negativnih) proti bolj nevtralnim. Negativna stališča, ki so se razvila zlasti pri starejših kohortah ob »od zgoraj navzdol« popolni zaščiti volka proti koncu devetdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja (Bath in Majić, 2001) so se do druge raziskave nekoliko umirila. Na premik stališč proti bolj nevtralnim pa je verjetno vplivala tudi kampanja ozaveščanja in reševanja konfliktov (Štrbenac in sod., 2005). Pri medvedu (Majić in sod., 2011) smo raziskavo prav tako izvedli dvakrat, v letih 2002 in 2008 in dokumentirali stališča javnosti in nekaterih najpomembnejših interesnih skupin. Opazili smo, da se orientacije vrednot in splošno razumevanje medveda kot grožnje niso spremenile, se pa je zmanjšala kapaciteta za sprejemanje medveda. Rast populacije in bolj centralizirano in dorečeno upravljanje sta najverjetneje pripeljala do padca kapacitete za sprejemanje medveda, vendar je odnos kljub temu ostal pretežno medvedu naklonjen. V četrtem članku (Trajce in sod., 2019) opisujemo raziskavo odnosa javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin do vseh treh velikih zveri v Albaniji in Severni Makedoniji. Ob nekaterih razlikah med državama in razlikah med skupinami glede na demografske karakteristike je bila zanimiva ugotovitev, da je v obeh državah podpora varstvu volka znatno nižja kot podpora varstvu medveda in risa. To kaže, da je potrebno vrste pri varstvu in upravljanju obravnavati ločeno, saj bi lahko skupni ukrepi za vse tri vrste povzročili, da bi se negativen odnos do volka »prelil« tudi na drugi dve vrsti, kar bi lahko zlasti v primeru izjemno občutljive populacije ogrožene podvrste balkanskega risa, ki živi še samo na tistem območju, prineslo resne varstvene probleme. V petem članku (Chapron in sod., 2014) smo v širokem konzorciju evropskih strokovnjakov za velike zveri zbrali podatke o varstvenem stanju velikih zveri v Evropi in naredili sintezo. Rezultat je bil marsikomu presenetljiv, saj je prikazal izrazito optimistično sliko prostorske in številčne rasti velike večine populacij in rekolonizacijo območij, kjer so bile velike zveri v preteklosti iztrebljene. Prav tako smo pokazali pomen sobivanja, saj bi glede na majhnost in razdrobljenost zavarovanih območij rezervatno varstvo v Evropi vodilo v izumiranje velikih zveri. 64 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 Zaradi konfliktnosti velikih zveri je potreba po vključevanju družbenih vidikov v upravljanje oziroma varstvo teh vrst še posebej izpostavljena (Bath, 1996; 1998; Linnell in sod., 2001; Breitenmoser, 1998). Odločevalci potrebujejo znanstvene raziskave in podatke, ki natančno opisujejo cel spekter mnenj javnosti, da bi poiskali najustreznejše poti in rešitve, ki bi omogočile doseganje upravljavskih ciljev (Chase in sod., 2001). Pri tem pa moramo biti raziskovalci izjemno previdni, saj smo v naravovarstvenih tematikah pogosto osebno angažirani in imamo jasno opredeljene osebne vrednote in stališča. Pri podajanju rezultatov moramo odkrito komunicirati kaj so naša stališča, kaj pa objektivna resnica (vključno z našo negotovostjo pri njenem zaznavanju) in jasno poudariti razliko med enim in drugim. V nasprotnem primeru izgubimo verodostojnost in postanemo zgolj še ena interesna skupina, ki bolj prispeva k problemu kot k njegovemu reševanju. 65 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 6 SUMMARY Conservation of large carnivores holds a special place in nature conservation because of its complexity and challenges. Because of large spatial demands and low population densities, large carnivores require large areas of continuous habitat, which is increasingly becoming a problem in the modern, human-dominated world. Presence of large carnivores has always clashed with the interests of humans, and there is hostility towards these species that’s deeply rooted in human history and culture because of their direct effect on people’s property and livelihood (Ripple et al., 2014). On the other hand, these species are deeply charismatic, often present in the culturally heritage in most cultures across their historic range while their conservation is strongly entangled in wider socioeconomic, emotional, and political contexts, which makes the challenges of their conservation even more complex (Chapron and López-Bao, 2014). Intense persecution, systematic eradication, habitat loss and dwindling of prey caused disappearance of large carnivores from a large part of their historic range, and the populations that remained were in many cases very small and fragmented (Breitenmoser, 1998). The decline of these species in Europe started slowing down in the second half of the 20th century when increasing conservation awareness gave rise to the first protection mechanisms (Salvatori et al., 2007). Urbanization changed the way humans use the landscape, and many places saw a rapid increase in abundance of prey species (Breitenmoser, 1998). This resulted in the return of large carnivores to many areas where they previously disappeared, and the process is continuing to this day (Kaczensky et al., 2013). However, this return also brings considerable social challenges since the fundamental conflicts that have caused the persecution in the past never went away. The number of interest groups is rising, values are diversifying and the demands of public to participate in the decision making are getting stronger, which makes conservation of large carnivores and their management increasingly complex (Brown and Decker, 2001). The traditional approaches of solving problems by lethal interventions don’t suffice anymore, and management had to shift its focus into resolution of conflicts and support for coexistence. In the first article of the dissertation (Redpath et al., 2017) we contrast the collaborative approaches of cooperation with interest groups with the classic top-down approaches where managers dictate management measures. The top-down approaches may be essential when the carnivore populations are small but can cause antagonism and lead to even greater conflicts when these populations start to grow (Brockington and Igoe, 2006), which is a very relevant topic in Europe. As an alternative we suggest the use of more collaborative and flexible approaches that help build trust and facilitate sustainable coexistence with large 66 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 carnivores. These approaches are also inherently more democratic, and required in national legislations and international conventions. Surveys of public attitudes towards large carnivores have traditionally been conducted in face of some extraordinary event (Bath, 1998) and are usually the result of a crisis or planning of a controversial conservation action, for example a species reintroduction, and as such can’t document changes of attitudes through time (Williams et al., 2002). At the same time many scientists are pointing out the need for longitudinal studies (Enck and Bath, 2001; Kaczensky et al., 2001) since rapid changes of management circumstances demand more flexible management approaches. In the second and third article of the dissertation we explored the public attitudes towards wolf and bear in Croatia and showed through longitudinal studies how these attitudes changed through time. For the wolf (Majić and Bath, 2010) we documented a shift of attitudes between 1999 and 2003 from extreme (positive and negative) towards more neutral. Negative attitudes, which developed particularly in the older cohorts as a result of “top-down” total protection of the wolf at the end of the 1990s (Bath and Majić, 2001) started to wind down by the second survey. A part of this shift towards more neutral attitudes can probably also be attributed to an awareness raising and conflict-solving campaign that took place at the same time (Štrbenac et al., 2005). For the brown bear (Majić et al., 2011) we also conducted the survey twice, in 2002 and 2008, and documented the attitudes of the general public and the key interest groups. We observed that the orientation of values and the general perception of bear as a threat didn’t change, but there was a decrease in acceptance capacity for bears. Growth of the bear population and increasingly centralised management probably caused this drop in acceptance capacity, however the attitudes towards bears remained generally positive. In the fourth article (Trajce et al., 2019) we describe a survey of the attitudes of the general public and the key interest groups towards all three large carnivores in Albania and Northern Macedonia. Besides some differences between both countries and the differences between groups based on the demographic characteristics, an interesting finding was that the support for conservation of wolves was in both countries considerably lower than support for conservation of bear and lynx. This indicates that for conservation and management purposes these species should be treated separately since joined measures for all three species could cause the negative attitudes towards wolves to also transfer to the other two species. This could cause serious problems particularly for the vulnerable population of the threatened Balkan lynx subspecies that lives in the area. In the fifth article (Chapron et al., 2014) we formed a large consortium of European large carnivore experts, collected the data on conservation status of large carnivores in Europe, 67 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 and made a synthesis. The result was surprising for many since it showed a very optimistic picture of spatial and numeric growth of most populations and recolonization of areas from which large carnivores were extinct in the past. We also demonstrated the importance of coexistence since considering the small size and fragmentation of protected areas, an attempt of separation and conservation in protected areas would result in extinction of large carnivores in Europe. The high conflict potential of large carnivores makes the need for inclusion of human dimensions in management and conservation of these species particularly important (Bath, 1996; 1998; Linnell et al. 2001; Breitenmoser, 1998). Decision makers need scientific research and data that precisely describe the entire spectrum of public attitudes to find the best solutions and paths towards reaching the management goals (Chase et al., 2001). Researchers must be particularly cautious when providing this since we are often personally invested in conservation topics and have clearly defined personal attitudes and values. In presenting the results we must clearly communicate the difference between our attitudes and the objective truth (including our uncertainty in its detection). Failing that, we lose credibility and become just another interest group, contributing more to the problem than towards its resolution. . 68 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 7 VIRI Ajzen I., Fishbein M. 2000. Attitudes and the Attitude-Behavior Relation: Reasoned and Automatic Processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 1: 1–33 Akcijski načrt za trajnostno upravljanje populacije volka ( Canis lupus) v Sloveniji za obdobje 2013-2017. 2015. sklep št. 00728- 7/2013/4 in Spremembe in dopolnitve Akcijskega načrta za upravljanje populacije volka ( Canis lupus) v Sloveniji za obdobje 2013–2017 dne 12. 3. 2015 s sklepom št. 35600-1/2015/7: 67 str. Anderson R. M. 2021. Killing for the common good? The (bio)politics of wolf management in Washington State. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 9, 1, 00179: doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2020.00179: 15 str. Andersson T., Bjarvall A., Blomberg M. 1977. Installning till Varg i Sverige—En Intervjuundersokning.: 65 str. Bath A. 1996. Increasing the Applicability of Human Dimensions Research to Large Predators. Journal of Wildlife Research, 1: 215–220 Bath A. 1998. The Role of Human Dimensions in Wildlife Resource in Wildlife Management. Ursus, 10: 349–355 Bath A., Majić A. 2001. Human Dimensions in Wolf Management in Croatia. Understanding Attitudes and Beliefs of Residents in Gorski Kotar, Lika and Dalmatia toward Wolves and Wolf Management. Zagreb, Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe: 171 str. Bath A., Olszanska A., Okarma H. 2008. From a Human Dimensions Perspective, the Unknown Large Carnivore: Public Attitudes Toward Eurasian Lynx in Poland. Human Dimensions of wildlife, 13, 1: 31–46 Bennett N., Roth J. R., Klain S. C., Chan K. M. A., Clark D. A., Cullman G., Epstein G. s sod. 2017. Mainstreaming the Social Sciences in Conservation. Conservation Biology, 31, 1: 56–66 Bjerke T., Ødegårdstuen T.S., Kaltenborn B.P. 1998. Attitudes Toward Animals Among Norwegian Adolescents. Anthrozoos, 11, 2: 79–86 Bjerke T., Reitan O., Kellert S.R. 1998. Attitudes toward Wolves in Southeastern Norway. Society and Natural Resources, 11, 2: 169–178 69 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 Björkell S. 2008. Resistance to Top-Down Conservation Policy and the Search for New Participatory Models. International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics, 14: 109–126 Breitenmoser U. 1998. Large Predators in the Alps: The Fall and Rise of Man’s Competitors. Biological Conservation, 83, 3: 279–289 Brockington D., Igoe J. 2006. Eviction for conservation: a global overview. Conservation and Society, 4,3: 424-470 Brown T. L., Decker D. J. 2001. Evolution of Human Dimensions Interest. V: Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management in North America, Decker D. J., Brown T. L, Siemer W. F. (ur.). Rockwille, Bethesda, The Wildlife Society: 23–38 Burgess J., Harrison C.M., Filius P. 2016. Environmental Communication and the Cultural Politics of Environmental Citizenship: Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 30, 8: 1445–1460 Carter N. H., Linnell J. D. C. 2016. Co-Adaptation Is Key to Coexisting with Large Carnivores. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31, 8: 575–578 Chapron G., López-Bao J. V. 2014. Conserving Carnivores: Politics in Play. Science, 343: 1199–1200 Chase L. C., Lauber T.B., Decker D. J. 2001. Citizen Participation in Wildlife Management Decisions. V: Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management in North America. Decker D. J., Brown T. L, Siemer W. F. (ur.), Rockwille, Bethesda, The Wildlife Society: 153–170 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora OJ L 206, 22.7.1992: 7–50 Dečak Đ., Frković A., Grubešić M., Huber Đ., Iviček B., Kulić B., Sertić D., Ž. Štahan Ž., Majić Skrbinšek A. 2005. Plan gospodarenja smeđim medvjedom u Republici Hrvatskoj. Zagreb, Ministarstvo poljoprivrede, šumarstva i vodnog gospodarstva, Ministarstvo kulture: 92 str. Enck J. W., Bath A. J. 2001. Restoration of Wildlife Species. V: Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management in North America. Decker D.J., Brown T.L, Siemer W.F. (ur.). Rockwille, Bethesda, The Wildlife Society: 307–328 Ericsson G., Heberlein T. A. 2003. Attitudes of Hunters, Locals, and the General Public in Sweden Now That the Wolves Are Back. Biological Conservation, 111, 2: 149–159 70 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 Estes J. A., Terborgh J., Brashares J. S., Power M. E., Berger J., Bond W. J., Wardle D. A. 2011. Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. Science, 333, 6040: 301-306 Fishbein M., Ajzen I. 1975. Principles of Change. V: Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley: 387-410 Fritts S. H., Stephenskon R. O., Hayes R. D., Boitani L.. 2003. Wolves and Humans. V: Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation. Mech, L.D., Biotani, L. (ur.). Chicago, The University of Chicago Press: 289–316 Gyorgy J. 1984. Istraživanje Javnog Mišljenja o Vukovima u Hrvatskoj. V: Drugi Kongres Biologa Hrvatske, Zadar 1. – 6. oktober 1984, Zbornik sažetaka. Gomerčić H, Huber Đ. (ur.). Zadar, Hrvatsko biološko društvo: 116–117 Herrero S., Smith T., DeBruyn T. D., Gunther K., Matt C. A. 2005. From the Field: Brown Bear Habituation to People—Safety, Risks, and Benefits. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33,1: 362–373 Hovardas T., Penteriani V., Trouwborst A., López-Bao J.V. 2021. Editorial: Conservation and Management of Large Carnivores—Local Insights for Global Challenges. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9: 682444. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2021.682444: 3 str. Huber Đ., Mitevski S., Kuhar D. 1992. Questionnaire on Wolves in Croatia and Macedonia: Comparison of Public Attitudes. V: Wolves in Europe – Current Status and Prospects. Oberammagau, 2. – 5. april 1992. Promberger, C., Schroder, W. (ur.). Oberammargau, Munich Wildlife Society: 124–125 Huber Đ., Radišić B., Novosel D., Frković A.. 1994. Istraživanje Javnog Mnijenja o Vukovima u Hrvatskoj. Šumarski List, 5–6: 167–172 IUCN. 2021. IUNC Red List of Threatened Species https://www.iucnredlist.org/ (september 2021) Johnston K. N., Johnson R. L., Edwards D. K., Wheaton C. A. 1993. Public Participation in Wildlife Management: Opinions from Public Meetings and Random Surveys. Wildlife Soceity Bulletin, 21: 218–225 Kaczensky P., Blažič M., Gossow H. 2001. Content Analysis of Article on Brown Bears in the Slovenian Press, 1991-1998. Forest Snow and Landscape Research, 76: 121–135 71 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 Kaczensky P., Blažič M., Gossow H. 2004. Public Attitudes towards Brown Bears ( Ursus arctos) in Slovenia. Biological Conservation, 118, 5: 661–674 Kaczensky P., Chapron G., von Arx M., Huber Đ., Andrén H., Linnell J. 2013. Status, Management and Distribution of Large Carnivores – Bear, Lynx, Wolf and Wolverine in Europe. Part 1. Brussels, European Commission: 72 str. Kaczensky P., Jerina K., Jonozovič M., Krofel M., Skrbinšek T., Rauer G., Kos I., Gutleb B. 2011. Illegal Killings May Hamper Brown Bear Recovery in the Eastern Alps. Ursus, 22, 1: 37–46 Kaltenborn B. P., Bjerke T., Vitterso J. 1999. Attitudes toward Large Carnivores among Sheep Farmers, Wildlife Managers, and Research Biologists in Norway. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 4, 3: 57–73 Kareiva P., Marvier M. 2012. What Is Conservation Science? BioScience, 62, 11: 962–69 Keci E., A. Trajce A., Mersini K., Bego F., Ivanov G. 2008. Conflicts between Lynx, Other Large Carnivores, and Humans in Macedonia and Albania. V: Proceedings of the 3rd Congress of Ecologists of The Republic of Macedonia with International Participation. Struga 6. – 9. oktober 2007. Grupče L. (ur.). Skopje, Macedonian Ecological Society: 257–264 Kellert S. R. 1985. Historical Trends in Perceptions and Uses of Animals in 20th Century America. Environmental Review, 9, 1: 19–33 Kleiven J., Bjerke T., Kaltenborn B. P. 2004. Factors Influencing the Social Acceptability of Large Carnivore Behaviours. Biodiversity and Conservation, 13, 9: 1647–1658 Knott E. J., Bunnefeld N., Huber D., Reljić S., Kereži V., Milner-Gulland E. J. 2014. The Potential Impacts of Changes in Bear Hunting Policy for Hunting Organisations in Croatia. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 60, 1: 85–97 KORA. 2021. Balkan Lynx Recovery Programme. https://www.kora.ch/index.php?id=122&L=1 (september 2021) Korenjak A. 1995. Človek in Velike Zveri v Avstriji in Sloveniji. Diplomsko delo. Ljubljana, Biotehniška fakulteta, Oddlek za gozdarstvo in obnovljive gozdne vire: 70 str. Korenjak A. 2000. Odnos slovenske javnosti do varovanja volka. Magistrsko delo. Ljubljana, Biotehniška fakulteta, Oddlek za gozdarstvo in obnovljive gozdne vire : 119 str. 72 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 Kryštufek B. 1999. Osnove Varstvene Biologije. Ljubljana, Tehniška založba Slovenije: 155 str. Lackey R. 2004. Normative Science. Fisheries, 29, 7: 38–39 Lescureux N., Linnell J. D. C. 2010. Knowledge and Perceptions of Macedonian Hunters and Herders: The Influence of Species Specific Ecology of Bears, Wolves, and Lynx. Human Ecology, 38, 3: 389–99 Lescureux N., Linnell J. D. C., Mustafa S., Melovski D., Stojanov A., Ivanov G., Avukatov V., von Arx M., Breitenmoser U. 2011. Fear of the Unknown: Local Knowledge and Perceptions of the Eurasian Lynx Lynx Lynx in Western Macedonia.” Oryx, 45, 4: 600–607 Lewis S. L., Maslin M. A. 2015. Defining the Anthropocene. Nature, 519, 7542: 171–80 Linnel J., Salvatori V., Boitani L. 2008. Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans for Large Carnivores. Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe, no. 070501: 85 str. Linnell J. D. C., Andersen R., Andersone Z. 2002. Norsk Institutt for Naturforskning The Fear of Wolves : A Review of Wolfs Attacks on Humans. Nina, 731: 65 str. https://www.nina.no/archive/nina/pppbasepdf/oppdragsmelding/731.pdf (december 2006) Linnell J. D. C., Breitenmoser U., Breitenmoser-Würsten C., Odden J., von Arx M. 2009. Recovery of Eurasian Lynx in Europe: What Part Has Reintroduction Played. V: Reintroduction of Top-Order Predators. Hayward, M. W., Somers, M. J. (ur.). Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell Publishing: 72–91 Linnell J. D. C., Swenson J.E., Andersen R. 2001. Predators and People: Conservation of Large Carnivores Is Possible at High Human Densities If Management Policy Is Favourable. Animal Conservation, 4, 4: 345–349 Lumiaro R. 1998. Attitude of Finns towards the Wolf. Soumen Riista, 44: 43–55 Majić A. 2007. Human Dimensions in Wolf Management in Croatia: Understanding Public Attitudes Toward Wolves Over Time and Space. Magistrska naloga. St.John's, Memorial University of Newfoundland: 124 str. Majić-Skrbinšek A. 2003. Human Dimensions in Brown Bear Management: Attitudes towards and Beliefs about Brown Bears in Croatia: Descriptive Analysis of Survey Results. Zagreb, LCIE: 79 str. 73 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 Majić-Skrbinšek A. 2008. DinaRis: Stališča splošne javnosti in lovcev do risa: Opisna analiza rezultatov anketne raziskave. Ljubljana, Biotehniška fakulteta: 81 str. Majić-Skrbinšek A., Bath A. J. 2004. Attitudes of Rural and Urban Public toward Wolves in Croatia. LIFE - Third Countries project: Protection and Management of Wolves in Croatia. Zagreb, State Institite for Nature Protection: 43 str. Majić-Skrbinšek A., Bath A. J. 2005. Attitudes of Rural and Urban Public toward Wolves in Croatia. LIFE - Third Countries project: Protection and Management of Wolves in Croatia. Zagreb, State Institite for Nature Protection: 83 str. Majić-Skrbinšek A., Skrbinšek T., Marinko U., Marucco F., (ur.). 2015. Public Attitudes toward Wolves and Wolf Conservation in Italian and Slovenian Alps. Ljubljana, Biotehniška fakulteta: 128 str. Marinko U., Majić-Skrbinšek A. 2011. Raziskava odnosa rejcev drobnice, lovcev in splošne javnosti do volka in upravljanja z njim: Končno Poročilo Akcije A.6 LIFE+SloWolf. Ljubljana, Biotehniška fakulteta: 142 str. Minin di E., Slotow R., Hunter L. T. B., Montesino Pouzols F., Toivonen T., Verburg P. H., Leader-William N., Petracca L., Moilanen A.. 2016. Global Priorities for National Carnivore Conservation under Land Use Change. Scientific Reports, 6,1: 1–9 Morić A., Huber Đ. 1989. Istraživanje mišljenja stranih posjetilaca Nacionalnog Parka Plitvička Jezera o medvjedima i vukovima. Ekologija, 24: 21–33 Mulej J. 2011. Vpliv poznavanja biologije risa ( Lynx lynx) na stališča javnosti in lovcev na osrednjem območju razširjenosti risa v Sloveniji. Diplomsko Delo. Ljubljana, Biotehniška fakulteta, Oddelek za biologijo: 76 str. Mulej J., Bertoncelj I., Černe R., Jerina K., Kavčič I., Majić-Skrbinšek A., Marinko U., Potočnik H., Vidrih M., Jelenčič M., Skrbinšek T. 2013. Overall Evaluation and Monitoring of the Project Conservation Achievements. Ljubljana, Biotehniška fakulteta: 82 str. Naughton-Treves L., Grossberg R., Treves A. 2003. Paying for Tolerance: Rural Citizens’ Attitudes toward Wolf Depredation and Compensation. Conservation Biology, 17, 6: 1500–1511 Pelton M. R., 2003. Book Reviews: Carnivore Conservation. 2001. Gittleman J., Funk S., Macdonald D., Wayne R. (ur.). The Journal of Wildlife Management, 67: 229-230 74 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 Potočnik H. 2001. Zgodovinski pregled vzrokov izumiranja risa v Evropi. V: Ris v Sloveniji: Strokovna izhodišča za varstvo in upravljanje. Kos I. (ur). Ljubljana, Biotehniška fakulteta: 64-68 Promberger C., Schröder W. 1993. Wolves in Europe: Status and Perspectives. Munich, Munich Wildlife Society: 70 str. Prosen M. 2002. Odnos javnosti do velikih zveri v Sloveniji in uporaba javnega mnenja pri oblikovanju modela potencialnega habitata. Magistrsko delo. Ljubljana, Biotehniška fakulteta, Oddelek za gozdarstvo in obnovljive gozdne vire: 125 str. Ripple W. J., Estes J .A., Beschta R. L., Wilmers C. C., Ritchie E. G., Hebblewhite M., Berger J., Elmhagen B., Letnic M., Nelson M. P., Schmitz O. J., Smith D. W., Wallach A. D., Wirsing A. J. 2014. Status and Ecological Effects of the World’s Largest Carnivores. Science, 343: 6167, doi: 10.1126/science.1241484: 12 str. Rode J., Flinzberger L., Karutz R., Berghöfer A., Schröter-Schlaack C. 2021. Why so Negative? Exploring the Socio-Economic Impacts of Large Carnivores from a European Perspective. Biological Conservation, 255: 108918. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108918. Salvatori V., Boitani L., von Arx M., Linnell J. D. C. 2007. Conservation Status of Large Carnivores in Europe and the Freedom within Frames Approach. V: Coexistence of Large Carnivores and Humans: Threat or Benefit? Proceedings of the International Symposium Preceding the 54th CIC General Assembly. Potts, R. G., Hecker, K. (ur.) Belgrade, CIC - International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation: 13–22 Salvatori V., Okarma H., Ionescu O., Dovhanych Y., Find’o S., Boitani L. 2002. Hunting Legislation in the Carpathian Mountains: Implications for the Conservation and Management of Large Carnivores. Wildlife Biology, 8,1: 3-10 Sanderson E. W., Jaiteh M., Levy M. A., Redford K. H., Wannebo A., Woolmer G. 2002. The Human Footprint and the Last of the Wild: The Human Footprint Is a Global Map of Human Influence on the Land Surface, Which Suggests That Human Beings Are Stewards of Nature, Whether We like It or Not. BioScience, 52, 10: 891–904 Sarewitz D. 2004. How Science Makes Environmental Controversies Worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 5: 385–403 Scarce R. 1998. What Do Wolves Mean? Conflicting Social Constructions of Canis Lupus in ‘Bordertown.’” Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 3, 3: 26–45 75 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 Skogen K., Thrane C. 2007. Wolves in Context: Using Survey Data to Situate Attitudes Within a Wider Cultural Framework. Society and Natural Resources, 21, 1: 17–33 Slagle K. M., Wilson R. S., Bruskotter J. T., Toman E. 2018. The Symbolic Wolf: A Construal Level Theory Analysis of the Perceptions of Wolves in the United States. Society and Nautral Resources, 32, 3: 322–337 Slana D. 2010. Stališča lovcev in splošne javnosti do morebitne dodatne doselitve evrazijskega risa ( Lynx lynx) v Sloveniji. Diplomsko delo. Ljubljana, Biotehniška fakulteta, Oddelek za bijologijo: 151 str. Slovic P. 1987. Perception of Risk. Science 236, 4799: 280–285 Soulé M. E. 1985. What Is Conservation Biology? A New Synthetic Discipline Addresses the Dynamics and Problems of Perturbed Species, Communities, and Ecosystems. BioScience, 35, 11: 727–34 Štrbenac A., Huber Đ., Kusak J., Majić Skrbinšek A., Frković A., Štahan Ž, Jeremić- Martinko J., Desnica S., Štrbenac P. 2005. Plan Upravljanja Vukom u Hrvatskoj. Zagreb, Državni zavod za zaštitu prirode: 110 str. Trajce A. 2016. The Gentleman, the Vagabonds and the Stranger: Cultural Representations of Large Carnivores in Albania and Their Implications for Conservation. Doctoral Thesis. London, University of Roehampton: 345 str. Treves A., Naughton-Treves L., Shelley V. 2013. Longitudinal Analysis of Attitudes Toward Wolves. Conservation Biology, 27, 2: 315–23 Ule M. 2004. Socialna Psihologija. zbirka Psihologija vsakdanjega življenja. Ljubljana, Založba FDV: 454 str. Van Liere D., Siard N., Martens P., Jordan D. 2021. Conflicts with Wolves Can Originate from Their Parent Packs. Animals, 11, 6 1801, doi: 10.3390/ani11061801 Veken T. van der, Berge K. van der, Gouwy J., Berlengee F., Schamp K.. 2021. Diet of the first settled wolves ( Canis lupus) in Flanders, Belgium. Lutra (Leiden), 64, 1: 45–56 Vittersø J., Kaltenborn B. P., Bjerke T. 1998. Attachment to Livestock and Attitudes Toward Large Carnivores Among Sheep Farmers in Norway. Anthrozoos, 11, 4: 210–217 Weber E. U., Stern P.C. 2011. Public Understanding of Climate Change in the United States. American Psychologist, 66, 4: 315–328 76 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2022 Williams C. K., Ericsson G., Heberlein T. A. 2002. A Quantitative Summary of Attitudes toward Wolves and Their Reintroduction (1972-2000). Wildlife Society Bulletin, 30, 2: 575–84 Zakon o ratifikaciji Konvencije o biološki raznovrstnosti. 1996. Uradni list Republike Slovenije, Mednarodne pogodbe, 7, 30: 109-131 Zakon o ratifikaciji Konvencije o dostopu do informacij, udeležbi javnosti pri odločanju in dostopu do pravnega varstva v okoljskih zadevah. 2004. Uradni list Republike Slovenije, Mednarodne pogodbe, 17,62: 4234-4253 Zakon o ratifikaciji Konvencije o varstvu prosto živečega evropskega rastlinstva in živalstva ter njunih življenjskih prostorov. 1999 Uradni list Republike Slovenije, Mednarodne pogodbe, 17, 55: 774-820 Zimen E., Boitani, L. 1979. Status of the Wolf in Europe and the Possibilities of Conservation and Reintroduction. V: The Behavior and Ecology of Wolves Klinghameer, E. (ur.). New York, Garland Press: 43–83 77 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 ZAHVALA Pri mojem raziskovalnem delu in pisanju disertacije je bila ključna podpora in potrpežljivost moje družine – Žive, Leona in Tomaža Skrbinška. Za to sem jim neskončno hvaležna. Hvaležna sem tudi svojemu mentorju Ivanu Kosu za pomoč, podporo in usmerjanje v raziskovalnem delu. Brez njega in ostalih članov raziskovalne skupine za ekologijo živali - Huberta Potočnika, Franca Kljuna, Urše Marinko, Romana Luštrika, Mete Mavec in drugih, tudi tega dela ne bi bilo. Posebna zahvala gre Đuru Huberju, Alistairju Bathu in Josipu Kusaku za navdih in izjemno pomoč v začetku moje poti v naravovarstvu. Za nenadomestljivo pomoč pri iskanju motivacije se zahvaljujem Maji Rus Makovec. Ključnega pomena je bilo tudi moje sodelovanje v IUCN-LCIE skupini. Luigiju Boitaniju, Johnu Linnellu, Steveu Redpahtu, Aleksandru Trajcetu ter drugim članom te skupine sem hvaležna za dragoceno skupno delo, ki je vseskozi pomagalo pri soočanju z izzivi in iskanju rešitev. Rada bi se zahvalila tudi vsem organizacijam, ki so s financiranjem omogočile raziskave, katerih podatki so uporabljeni v tej disertaciji. To so IUCN-LCIE, Hrvaški zavod za varstvo narave (projekt LIFE Crowolf), Hrvaško ministrstvo za kmetijstvo, gozdarstvo in prehrano, Vlada Kraljevine Nizozemske (skozi program BBI-Matra), Evropska komisija (skozi raziskovalni projekt 7. Okvirnega programa HUNTing for Sustainability) ter Norveška Raziskovalna Agencija in Fundacija MAVA, ki sta sofinancirali raziskovalno delo v Albaniji in Makedoniji. Posebna zahvala pa gre številnim anketirancem in udeležencem fokusnih skupin. Brez njihove pripravljenosti z nami deliti svoja mnenja ne bi imeli ne podatkov, ne raziskav. Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 PRILOGE PRILOGA A: DOVOLJENJA ZALOŽNIKOV ZA UPORABO ČLANKOV V TISKANI IN ELEKTRONSKI VERZIJI DOKTORSKE DISERTACIJE Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021 Majić Skrbinšek A. Vloga stališč splošne javnosti in ključnih interesnih skupin pri upravljanju in varstvu populacij velikih zveri. Dokt. disertacija, Ljubljana, Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, 2021