Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jul 26;119(30):e2202224119.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2202224119. Epub 2022 Jul 18.

Wolf attacks predict far-right voting

Bernhard Clemm von Hohenberg  1 , Anselm Hager  2
Affiliations

Wolf attacks predict far-right voting

Bernhard Clemm von Hohenberg et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Does the return of large carnivores affect voting behavior? We study this question through the lens of wolf attacks on livestock. Sustained environmental conservation has allowed the wolf (Canis lupus) to make an impressive and unforeseen comeback across Central Europe in recent years. While lauded by conservationists, local residents often see the wolf as a threat to economic livelihoods, particularly those of farmers. As populists appear to exploit such sentiments, the wolf's reemergence is a plausible source for far-right voting behavior. To test this hypothesis, we collect fine-grained spatial data on wolf attacks and construct a municipality-level panel in Germany. Using difference-in-differences models, we find that wolf attacks are accompanied by a significant rise in far-right voting behavior, while the Green party, if anything, suffers electoral losses. We buttress this finding using local-level survey data, which confirms a link between wolf attacks and negative sentiment toward environmental protection. To explore potential mechanisms, we analyze Twitter posts, election manifestos, and Facebook ads to show that far-right politicians frame the wolf as a threat to economic livelihoods.

Keywords: Canis lupus; environmental conservation; human–wildlife relations; political behavior; radical-right voting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interest.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Wolf attacks on livestock over time and space. (Left) Yearly aggregates of wolf attacks and killed livestock animals since 1998 in Germany. (Right) Map of wolf attacks since 1998 at the municipality level (harmonized at the 2021 borders, n = 10,976; two states did not provide data).
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Link between wolf attacks and far-right/Green voting behavior. Shown are point estimates and their 95% CIs from models regressing the AfD’s (blue)/the Green party’s (green) vote share on a dummy indicating that a municipality experienced a wolf attack, for federal elections (9 since 1990), state elections (120 since 1990), and municipal elections (147 since 1990). We use two estimators: PanelMatch (12) (square) and the traditional two-way fixed-effect estimator (TWFE) without (circle) and with treatment lag (triangle). We estimate all models with (solid line) and without (dashed line) controls. There are n = 10,976 municipalities in each election period.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Carter N. H., Linnell J. D. C., Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 575–578 (2016). - PubMed
    1. Chapron G., et al. ., Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346, 1517–1519 (2014). - PubMed
    1. Karlsson J., Sjöström M., Human attitudes towards wolves, a matter of distance. Biol. Conserv. 137, 610–616 (2007).
    1. Dressel S., Sandström C., Ericsson G., A meta-analysis of studies on attitudes toward bears and wolves across Europe 1976–2012. Conserv. Biol. 29, 565–574 (2015). - PubMed
    1. Treves A., Naughton-Treves L., Shelley V., Longitudinal analysis of attitudes toward wolves. Conserv. Biol. 27, 315–323 (2013). - PubMed