The Return of Large Carnivores and Extensive Farming Systems: A Review of Stakeholders' Perception at an EU Level

Abstract

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.

Keywords: European Union; coexistence; human–carnivore conflict; livestock system; predator.

Figure 1

Overview of the criteria used for manuscript selection and dataset creation.

Figure 2

Countries represented in the review referring to the local perception of the involved categories (urban inhabitants, rural inhabitants, hunters, general public, conservationists). In Italy, we found five papers focused on the evaluation of stakeholders’ perception towards carnivores. In Sweden, ten scientific articles focused on stakeholders’ perception. As far as Finland is concerned, only four articles focusing on the attitude of stakeholders were found.

Figure 3

Contingency table showing the distribution frequency as far as the attitude towards carnivores of each category involved is concerned, i.e., urban inhabitants, rural inhabitants (mainly farmers and livestock owners), hunters, general public, conservationists. The size of the grey bars depends on the number of responses obtained by each stakeholder category for each attitude. For instance, from the above figure we see that the grey bar for rural inhabitants is the largest. This is because the highest number of responses were obtained (negative = 27, neutral = 6, positive = 4). On the contrary, the grey bar for urban inhabitants is the smallest as the lowest number of responses were obtained (negative = 2, neutral = 1, positive = 6). As far as the attitude is concerned (i.e., negative, neutral, positive), the criterion is the same. The negative attitude is that one which showed the larger grey bar as was that one mentioned the most by all stakeholders (urban inhabitants = 2, rural inhabitants = 27, hunters = 14, general public = 8, conservationists = 1). Contrarywise, the neutral attitude showed the smallest grey bar as the lesser mentioned by the stakeholders (urban inhabitants = 1, rural inhabitants = 6, hunters = 1, general public = 5, conservationists = 3). Reference list: [22,23,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,46,47,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77].

Figure 4

(a). Contingency table showing the distribution frequency regarding the attitude towards carnivores of each category involved in the first period (2003–2012). The size of the grey bars depends on the number of responses obtained by each stakeholder category for each attitude (refer to Figure 3 caption for a more detailed explanation). For the reference list divided by periods, refer to Table 1. (b). Contingency table showing the distribution frequency regarding the attitude towards carnivores of each category involved in the second period (2013–2020). The size of the grey bars depends on the number of responses obtained by each stakeholder category for each attitude (refer to Figure 3 caption for a more detailed explanation). For the reference list divided by periods, refer to Table 1.

Figure 5

(a). Contingency table showing the distribution frequency regarding the attitude towards carnivores of rural inhabitants (mainly farmers and livestock owners) and hunters in areas where humans and carnivores have always coexisted. The size of the grey bars depends on the number of responses obtained by each stakeholder category for each attitude (refer to Figure 3 caption for a more detailed explanation). Reference list: [36,61,69,70]. (b) Contingency table showing the distribution frequency regarding the attitude towards carnivores of rural inhabitants (mainly farmers and livestock owners) and hunters in areas where carnivores have been eradicated. The size of the grey bars depends on the number of responses obtained by each stakeholder category for each attitude (refer to Figure 3 caption for a more detailed explanation). Reference list: [34,39,40,41,42,52,53,54,57,59,60,66,68,72,73,74].

Figure 5

(a). Contingency table showing the distribution frequency regarding the attitude towards carnivores of rural inhabitants (mainly farmers and livestock owners) and hunters in areas where humans and carnivores have always coexisted. The size of the grey bars depends on the number of responses obtained by each stakeholder category for each attitude (refer to Figure 3 caption for a more detailed explanation). Reference list: [36,61,69,70]. (b) Contingency table showing the distribution frequency regarding the attitude towards carnivores of rural inhabitants (mainly farmers and livestock owners) and hunters in areas where carnivores have been eradicated. The size of the grey bars depends on the number of responses obtained by each stakeholder category for each attitude (refer to Figure 3 caption for a more detailed explanation). Reference list: [34,39,40,41,42,52,53,54,57,59,60,66,68,72,73,74].