Abstract
Simple SummaryLarge carnivores and husbandry practices are important contributors to biodiversity integrity. However, conflicts that may arise when carnivores and livestock share the same areas may undermine both carnivore conservation and the maintenance of husbandry activities. Through the revision of the existing literature regarding human–carnivore conflict at a European Union (EU) level, our work aimed to assess stakeholders’ perception towards large carnivores (bear and wolf). The results showed that those categories (i.e., rural inhabitants and hunters), which were affected the most by the presence of carnivores were those who showed the most negative attitude. We showed that direct experience with carnivores has led the opinion of certain categories to become more negative. Furthermore, we did not find differences in terms of degree of tolerance by comparing areas in which carnivores and humans have coexisted for centuries and areas in which carnivores were extirpated. In the light of carnivore population dynamics, we recommend monitoring changes in attitudes over time to define appropriate solutions aimed at mitigating carnivore impacts.Conflicts between large carnivores and human activities undermine both the maintenance of livestock practices as well as the conservation of carnivores across Europe. Because large carnivore management is driven by a common EU policy, the purpose of this research was to assess stakeholders’ perception towards bears and wolves at an EU level. We conducted a systematic search and subsequent analysis of 40 peer-reviewed studies collected from 1990 to September 2020 within Member States of the EU. Rural inhabitants and hunters exhibited the most negative attitude compared to urban inhabitants and conservationists, whose attitude was more positive. We showed that direct experience with predators as a consequence of ongoing re-colonization may have affected the degree of acceptance of certain categories and that the long-term coexistence between humans and carnivores does not necessarily imply increased tolerance. To encourage coexistence, we recommend monitoring changes in attitudes over time relative to carnivore population dynamics.
Highlights
Extensive grazing practices are less modified and more biodiverse than intensive livestock systems [1] and play a fundamental role in both the management and the conservation of areas of high natural value since these are important providers of ecosystem services that contribute to human well-being [2,3]
In those studies in which the attitude of the different stakeholder categories was evaluated in more countries not all belonging to the European Union (EU) (e.g., Norway and Sweden), we considered only the information reported in EU countries (i.e., Sweden)
In Italy, we found five papers focused on the evaluation ants, rural inhabitants, hunters, general public, conservationists)
Summary
Extensive grazing practices are less modified and more biodiverse than intensive livestock systems [1] and play a fundamental role in both the management and the conservation of areas of high natural value since these are important providers of ecosystem services (e.g., food, climate regulation, habitat and biodiversity maintenance, etc.) that contribute to human well-being [2,3]. Their importance in production, environmental, and social terms is recognized by European agricultural policies, which provide direct payments for the public goods offered to society [4]. Human–wildlife interactions arise for several reasons including progressive human advancement into wilderness areas [15], wildlife population range expansion [16], and wildlife recovery because of successful conservation plans [17]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call