2022
DOI: 10.3389/fevo.2022.783035
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

“Landscape of Stress” for Sheep Owners in the Swedish Wolf Region

Abstract: Farmers who keep livestock in large carnivore areas are exposed to threat of predation directly impacting on finances and workload as well as the associated psychological stress indirectly impacting on farmers well-being. So far, little is known about such stress responses. The concept of “stress” or “stress reaction” is often used as an undifferentiated umbrella concept for the experience of negative emotional episodes. However, the stress reactions could be divided into cognitive, physiological, and behaviou… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In terms of attitude, negative emotional responses such as anger and stress, technical constraints and workload, and perceived negative impact of night pens on animal welfare emerged most prominently. Anger or additional stress in livestock farmers because of wolf return (Zahl-Thanem et al 2020; Rode et al 2021) or the need to use protection measures (Sjölander-Lindqvist et al 2021; Flykt et al 2022) has already been confirmed in other studies. The same applies to technical limitations and the poor cost–benefit ratio, which have already been the subject of analyses in other geographical contexts where wolves have returned (Hackländer et al 2019; Moser et al 2019).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…In terms of attitude, negative emotional responses such as anger and stress, technical constraints and workload, and perceived negative impact of night pens on animal welfare emerged most prominently. Anger or additional stress in livestock farmers because of wolf return (Zahl-Thanem et al 2020; Rode et al 2021) or the need to use protection measures (Sjölander-Lindqvist et al 2021; Flykt et al 2022) has already been confirmed in other studies. The same applies to technical limitations and the poor cost–benefit ratio, which have already been the subject of analyses in other geographical contexts where wolves have returned (Hackländer et al 2019; Moser et al 2019).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…This involved animals or interaction with animals to which they assigned a negative valence, with their close presence being associated with stress responses (e.g. Flykt et al., 2022). The participants described how the nuisance caused by, for example, mosquitoes hinders relaxation and how a potential encounter with feared animals (wolves, wild boars, brown bears, snakes) would trigger stress that counteracts psychological restoration.…”
Section: Findings and Interpretationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On one side, the financial burden and workload linked to this change in animal husbandry must be considered [94,105]. Additionally, the stress that livestock farmers experience with wolves can trigger negative reactions, such as pasture abandonment or small-scale fencing, with negative consequences for species richness and abundance [106]. On the other side, the necessity to adopt guided grazing could also result in an added benefit for landscape preservation, biodiversity and animal welfare, with the constant presence of shepherds and the cultivation of marginal areas [107].…”
Section: The Impact Of Wolvesmentioning
confidence: 99%