Human activities have been described as the greatest threat to biodiversity. This also implies that people have great opportunities to influence development in a positive direction through the way they manage and protect individual species and biotopes. Today, it is mainly the natural science perspectives and biological facts which form the basis for the prioritisations made and initiatives taken in this field. Experience from the field of environmental psychology research shows, however, that psychological factors are in many cases more important than objective facts for the attitudes and behaviours of people in relation to a sustainable development. This also seems to apply to the attitude of the public at large to the management and conservation of biodiversity.
Interdisciplinary approach
If the significance of psychological factors is to have an impact in nature conservancy, research into the way people react must be adequately related to the current natural science approaches and definitions. For some years, interdisciplinary projects concerning people and biodiversity, at both biotope and species level, have been in progress at Environmental Psychology, Lund University. In a current project, performed together with Mats Gyllin, SLU and Jesper Witzell, Board of Forestry, a study is made of human perceptions, subjective reactions and brain activity in deciduous forest environments with different degrees of ecological qualities which are known to be significant for biodiversity. These reactions are related to how willing the people under investigation are to support measures to conserve the biotopes.
Today, it is well substantiated through studies that different qualities in nature can affect people, for instance our emotional states, in a profound way. In many of these studies the definition of the biological qualities has been of secondary interest, which has made the results inadequate from a natural science perspective. There are also studies which show that people’s emotional reaction to nature comes to expression in their attitude to the protection of nature. It is still not clear just which ecological qualities are important in this context.
In our introductory laboratory study where environmental stimuli are carefully controlled, the results show that the public can perceive biologically defined differences in the degree of ecological quality. Those taking part in the study report the most positive emotional reactions in an environment that has an intermediate degree of biological variation regarding the complexity and diversity of the vegetation structure. It is also this environment, that is different from others regarding brain activity measured with EEG, which the participants say is most important to protect because of the biological diversity. In future, people’s reactions to the controlled environments in the laboratory will be followed up by a similar investigation of the reactions in the real natural environments.
The large predators
The studied deciduous forest environments give rise to small differences in the overwhelmingly positive emotional reactions. In Swedish nature there are however also species which appear to evoke strong negative feelings. One example are the large predators. The Wildlife Damage Centre at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences SLU has practical experiences of this. In wildlife management, strategies for the management and preservation of large predators in densely populated landscapes are the subject of debate. Conflicts often arise with the local population, and this can result in mistrust of the authorities, serious problems for individual owners of livestock and for hunters, and in acts such as illegal hunting. Today, there are mainly four types of conflict between large predators and people in Sweden:
- Predators attack domesticated animals, chiefly reindeer, sheep and cattle.
- Predators attack pets, chiefly dogs.
- Predators compete with humans for wildlife that can be hunted, chiefly moose and roe deer.
People are afraid of being attacked
In both wildlife research and wildlife management these four areas of conflict have been used, not only when the problems are described but also in the search for measures to reduce these conflicts. This is probably appropriate in the cases where an attempt is made to understand the mechanisms that cause wolves to attack hunting dogs or lynx to kill sheep.
Dealing with fear
The fear people have that large predators will attack them, their families or their animals is however difficult to deal with in traditional wildlife research since this fear may be due to experiences and feelings in relation to all four areas of conflict. In addition, it is likely that there are also other factors involved. Finding ways of dealing with people’s fear of predators thus requires a more broadly based approach, with the involvement of more disciplines than is usual in traditional wildlife research and wildlife management.
It has also been found difficult for wildlife managers to deal with people’ expression of fear. The solution so far has been to invest money in information on large predators, but it is not known what effect such information has on the general public. Questions concerning the way people react to various measures to manage wolves and bears, and the consequences these measures have for people’s feelings and their acceptance of these species, are now being studied in interdisciplinary projects where research in wildlife biology, environmental psychology and environmental economics are combined.
In psychology, the way people react to animals such as snakes and spiders has been known for some time how. With the involvement of emotion psychologist Anders Flykt at Gävle University College, a project is in progress with the aim of acquiring a better understanding of how fear of wolves and bears arises, and how such fear comes to expression. With knowledge of whether this fear has a genetic or cultural basis, there will be greater opportunities to find ways of making it easier for people and predators to meet. The project is funded by Formas, the Wildlife Protection Fund and the Crafoord Foundation.
Fear – a factor to take into consideration
Fear of large predators cannot be ignored. Even though, considered objectively, the large predators constitute very little threat to the Swedish public, personal fear of coming face to face with a predator is a barrier to the willingness of the public to support Swedish wildlife policy. This is shown by a recent study. Knowledge of which factors reinforce or weaken the support of the public for various management measures can contribute to more effective work on the conservation and manage-ment of the four large predators lynx, wolf, bear and wolverine. The objective of a recently concluded study was to analyse the importance of human fear of meeting animals in nature in relation to their willingness to support financially the national policy for the conservation and management of the large predators in Sweden. The analyses are based on a questionnaire survey among 2455 Swedish people aged 18-84 who live at different distances from predator areas. Data were collected within the framework of the project, funded by Formas, “Willingness to pay for wolves, a study of existence and risk value”, under the direction of Professor Runar Brännlund, Department of Economics, Umeå University.
The study investigated the willingness to pay for the national predator policy, comprising socio-demographic variables (income, profession, residence), the prevalence of predators in the vicinity of the place of residence, and variables for anxiety. The most important factor was whether or not the interview subject lives within the distribution area of the four large predators. Those living in the distribution area were less willing to contribute financially to the implementation of the predator policy. Of the socio-demographic variables, a lower income, being a hunter, living in the same household as a hunter, living on a farm and owning a hunting dog were negatively related to the willingness to pay. A high educational standard, membership of a nature conservation organisation and being a dog owner had a positive effect on the willingness to pay. Those persons who had a relatively high degree of fear of meeting indigenous animal species in nature and whose fear was channelled towards predators also had a lower willingness to pay. Perceived fear was about equally significant for the willingness to pay as previously known socio-demographic variables such as the income level of the household.
The results indicate that the fear and anxiety of the public cannot be disregarded in wildlife management. Even though, considered objectively, the large predators constitute very little threat to the Swedish public, the conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that the self-reported personal fear of coming face to face with a predator is a barrier to the willingness of the public to support Swedish predator policy. The study was performed by Maria Johansson, Magnus Sjöström, Jens Karlsson and Runar Brännlund with a research grant from the Wildlife Protection Fund.
Author
:
Maria Johansson
is Associate Professor at Environmental Psychology, Department of Architecture and the Built Environment, Lund University
Jens Karlsson
PhD in Ecology, works at Wildlife Damage Centre, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences