The wolf (canis lupus) as a symbol of an urban–rural divide? Results from a media discourse analysis on the human–wolf conflict in Germany

Abstract

Given that wolves have been extinct in Germany for approximately 150 years, their return and growing population over the last decade has caused intense discussion and conflict. To develop a widely accepted and just coexistence between humans and wolves, a comprehensive understanding of the conflict is needed. There are indications that the conflict goes beyond dealing with the wolf population and marks a spatial–cultural divide between urban and rural areas. Nevertheless, the social dimensions of the human–wolf conflict in Germany have been little studied. The aim of this paper is to narrow this gap by means of a media discourse analysis including reader comments in order to provide insights into the constituent elements of this conflict. We conducted a qualitative content analysis. The sample comprises articles (n = 63) and reader comments (n = 515) over a period of one year (5/2018-5/2019) from six online periodicals in Germany. The results support the assumption of an urban–rural divide in terms of perspectives and values. The discourse indicates that rural actors who are most affected by the wolves’ vicinity have more negative attitudes towards them. At the same time, they feel abandoned and dominated by urban perspectives and politics. In addition, linkages to right-wing populist positions and conspiracy narratives that can be interpreted as a consequence of political alienation are found.

The sacred deer conflict of management after a 1000‐year history: Hunting in the name of conservation or loss of their genetic identity

“…We still need a clearer understanding of the factors contributing to conflict on the human side. For example, rural communities are often particularly frustrated by the urban elite's perceived protection or imposition of wildlife damage (Zscheischler & Friedrich, 2022). We must not focus only on living organisms, but also consider the more comprehensive socio‐economic, ecological, and cultural conditions in which conflicts occur (Dickman, 2010).…”

Emotional states elicited by wolf videos are diverse and explain general attitudes towards wolves

“…Individual factors included a set of predictors that were expected to influence attitudes (marked with +, − or * according to their expected positive, negative and uncertain effect on attitudes, respectively), that is information sources, trust in information(+) and frequency of information(+), previous encounters with wolves(*), losing livestock to depredation(−), age(−), gender, knowledge of wolves(+), education level(+), being a hunter − and a livestock owner − (Arbieu et al., 2019, 2020; Eriksson et al., 2015; Kansky et al., 2014; Majić & Bath, 2010; Piédallu et al., 2016). Regional factors included predictors describing the wolf‐related situation of the city, namely the permanent presence of wolves(−) (wolf region), the actual(+) and estimated(+) distances to the closest wolf territory and the rural(−) versus intermediate(+) categorization of the region (Arbieu et al., 2019; Heberlein et al., 2005; Karlsson & Sjöström, 2007; Zscheischler & Friedrich, 2022). To quantify attitudes, we also used a PCA with varimax rotation and polychoric correlation structure, and retained factors that had a higher Eigen value than expected by chance for analysis.…”

“…Regional factors included predictors describing the wolf-related situation of the city, namely the permanent presence of wolves(−) (wolf region), the actual(+) and estimated(+) distances to the closest wolf territory and the rural(−) versus intermediate(+) categorization of the region (Arbieu et al, 2019;Heberlein et al, 2005;Karlsson & Sjöström, 2007;Zscheischler & Friedrich, 2022). To quantify attitudes, we also used a PCA with varimax rotation and polychoric correlation structure, and retained factors that had a higher Eigen value than expected by chance for analysis.…”