Attitudes of wildlife park visitors towards returning wildlife species: An analysis of patterns and correlates

Ostermann‐Miyashita, Emu‐Felicitas; Pernat, Nadja; König, Hannes; Hemminger, Karoline; Gandl, Nina; Bellingrath-Kimura, Sonoko Dorothea; Hibler, Sophia; Kiffner, Christian

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109878

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 88 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Large carnivores like wolves are often perceived negatively and associated with fear instead of rewilded herbivores (e.g. Arbieu et al, 2019;Ericsson & Heberlein, 2003;Ostermann-Miyashita et al, 2023). Our results do not show fear of beavers, but they indicate anger towards beavers by land managers from regions with high beaver abundances.…”

Section: Beavers and Other Speciescontrasting

confidence: 51%

“…The observed positive perception of beavers among individuals possessing hunting licences could potentially be attributed to their self-reliant capacity in addressing issues related to beavers and their enhanced affinity with the natural environment (Joel, 2018). Also evidence shows, that a better knowledge about a species, could help to generate a more positive emotion towards such species (Ostermann-Miyashita et al, 2023).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reintroduced, but not accepted: Stakeholder perceptions of beavers in Germany

Hohm,

Moesch,

Bahm

et al. 2024

People and Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While reintroductions of regionally extinct native species usually benefit ecosystems, reintroduced animals often struggle to locate appropriate habitats where they can establish themselves without conflict with humans. European beavers (Castor fiber) were successfully reintroduced to Germany almost 60 years ago and have reached high abundances again. As beavers can damage trees and change landscapes, they are increasingly in conflict with humans. We investigated human perceptions of beavers in Germany using an online survey, as they are an example of a reintroduced species with an expanding population and potential conflicts with humans. We asked participants about their emotions (anger, fear, interest, joy) towards beavers and what they consider to be acceptable beaver habitats. Of nearly 1500 survey participants, 803 (53%) were from the general public, 475 (32%) from the agricultural sector and 219 (15%) from forestry. People in these sectors had very different perspectives: beavers were positively perceived by the general public, but negatively by stakeholders working in agriculture and forestry. Independently of stakeholder groups, we also found regional differences, as participants from Bavaria—the German state with the highest beaver densities—viewed beavers more negatively than those from the rest of Germany. Zoos and wildlife parks, as well as urban and nature conservation areas, were considered to be the most acceptable habitats for beavers, whereas survey participants did not accept private gardens and cultivated areas as beaver habitats. We discuss the sources of negative emotions towards beavers and how ecologically suitable habitats differ from those that appear acceptable by humans. Even 60 years after their reintroduction, beavers in Germany are still being recognized as both a novelty and a nuisance. Our findings highlight the need for active beaver management and increased public engagement to enable positive coexistence between beavers and humans in Germany. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

show abstract

Section: Beavers and Other Speciescontrasting

confidence: 51%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reintroduced, but not accepted: Stakeholder perceptions of beavers in Germany

Hohm,

Moesch,

Bahm

et al. 2024

People and Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A key advantage of citizen science is that it enables members of the public to be part of research (Bonney et al, 2009 ; Turrini et al, 2018 ), to gain knowledge and insights about the current situation of the target species (Jordan et al, 2011 ), which can contribute to higher acceptance and more positive attitudes towards the species (Ostermann‐Miyashita et al, 2023 ). Although the interviewed population in our pilot survey was not representative of the general public, the results showed a high (>90%) willingness to engage in moose monitoring efforts (Figure 5 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opportunities and challenges for monitoring a recolonizing large herbivore using citizen science

Ostermann‐Miyashita,

Bluhm,

Dobiáš

et al. 2023

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monitoring is a prerequisite for evidence‐based wildlife management and conservation planning, yet conventional monitoring approaches are often ineffective for species occurring at low densities. However, some species such as large mammals are often observed by lay people and this information can be leveraged through citizen science monitoring schemes. To ensure that such wildlife monitoring efforts provide robust inferences, assessing the quantity, quality, and potential biases of citizen science data is crucial. For Eurasian moose (Alces alces), a species currently recolonizing north‐eastern Germany and occurring in very low numbers, we applied three citizen science tools: a mail/email report system, a smartphone application, and a webpage. Among these monitoring tools, the mail/email report system yielded the greatest number of moose reports in absolute and in standardized (corrected for time effort) terms. The reported moose were predominantly identified as single, adult, male individuals, and reports occurred mostly during late summer. Overlaying citizen science data with independently generated habitat suitability and connectivity maps showed that members of the public detected moose in suitable habitats but not necessarily in movement corridors. Also, moose detections were often recorded near roads, suggestive of spatial bias in the sampling effort. Our results suggest that citizen science‐based data collection can be facilitated by brief, intuitive digital reporting systems. However, inference from the resulting data can be limited due to unquantified and possibly biased sampling effort. To overcome these challenges, we offer specific recommendations such as more structured monitoring efforts involving the public in areas likely to be roamed by moose for improving quantity, quality, and analysis of citizen science‐based data for making robust inferences.

show abstract