Comparative stakeholder perceptions of wildlife management in five European multi-use landscapes

Human-wildlife coexistence in shared landscapes requires effectively navigating different stakeholder interests. Despite progress in this field, most studies focus on a limited number of "problematic" wildlife species. This narrow scope overlooks the species-specific nature of human-wildlife interactions. To identify general patterns in stakeholder perceptions of diverse wildlife species, we implemented a modified 3i (interest, influence, impact) method to assess how individuals within seven stakeholder groups (crop farmers, livestock farmers, foresters, hunters, tourism operators, protected area managers, and staff of environmental non-governmental organizations) rated their interest in, their influence on, and how they are impacted by twelve wildlife species categories: moose, red deer, wild reindeer, chamois, roe deer, brown bear, wild boar, grey wolf, European ground squirrel, cormorant, eagles, and vultures (some of them were site-specific). The study design consisted of two steps: 1) assessing expert perceptions of the 3i for each stakeholder-species combination in each of the five study areas in Bulgaria, Germany, Italy, Norway, and Spain, and 2) assessing stakeholder (251 individuals) perceptions of the 3i. We found substantial variation in stakeholder perceptions across groups, sites, and species categories. Within-group heterogeneity and individual respondents belonging to multiple stakeholder categories further challenged simplistic assumptions of distinct and well-defined stakeholder perspectives. Expert perceptions often underestimated stakeholder interest in wildlife species categories and occasionally diverged from stakeholder-perceptions of influence and impact. Notably, perceived impacts of brown bears, wolves, and eagles often exceeded the perceived influence on these species categories, underscoring a sense of powerlessness in managing interactions in some sites. Our study provides a comparative framework for understanding major patterns in key conservation conflicts in Europe, and emphasizes the importance of addressing contextualized stakeholder diversity and heterogeneity for more effective co-management of human-wildlife coexistence. These findings offer actionable pathways for improving conservation outcomes and participatory wildlife management across Europe.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Environmental Management
Published
2025-06-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126186
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.15

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative stakeholder perceptions of wildlife management in five European multi-use landscapes

John D. C. Linnell, Hannes König, Stefania Volani, Clara Tattoni et al.
3 citations
Journal of Environmental Management
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
5.15
article

Comparative stakeholder perceptions of wildlife management in five European multi-use landscapes

John D. C. Linnell, Hannes König, Stefania Volani, Clara Tattoni, Ana Iglesias, Marco Ciolli, Emu‐Felicitas Ostermann‐Miyashita, Hristina Prodanova, Christian Kiffner, Sandra Uthes, Vanya Stoycheva, Bárbara Soriano, Bjørn P. Kaltenborn, Daniel Collado, Kyle Jewell, Simona Capelli, Moya Zöller
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Human-wildlife coexistence in shared landscapes requires effectively navigating different stakeholder interests. Despite progress in this field, most studies focus on a limited number of "problematic" wildlife species. This narrow scope overlooks the species-specific nature of human-wildlife interactions. To identify general patterns in stakeholder perceptions of diverse wildlife species, we implemented a modified 3i (interest, influence, impact) method to assess how individuals within seven stakeholder groups (crop farmers, livestock farmers, foresters, hunters, tourism operators, protected area managers, and staff of environmental non-governmental organizations) rated their interest in, their influence on, and how they are impacted by twelve wildlife species categories: moose, red deer, wild reindeer, chamois, roe deer, brown bear, wild boar, grey wolf, European ground squirrel, cormorant, eagles, and vultures (some of them were site-specific). The study design consisted of two steps: 1) assessing expert perceptions of the 3i for each stakeholder-species combination in each of the five study areas in Bulgaria, Germany, Italy, Norway, and Spain, and 2) assessing stakeholder (251 individuals) perceptions of the 3i. We found substantial variation in stakeholder perceptions across groups, sites, and species categories. Within-group heterogeneity and individual respondents belonging to multiple stakeholder categories further challenged simplistic assumptions of distinct and well-defined stakeholder perspectives. Expert perceptions often underestimated stakeholder interest in wildlife species categories and occasionally diverged from stakeholder-perceptions of influence and impact. Notably, perceived impacts of brown bears, wolves, and eagles often exceeded the perceived influence on these species categories, underscoring a sense of powerlessness in managing interactions in some sites. Our study provides a comparative framework for understanding major patterns in key conservation conflicts in Europe, and emphasizes the importance of addressing contextualized stakeholder diversity and heterogeneity for more effective co-management of human-wildlife coexistence. These findings offer actionable pathways for improving conservation outcomes and participatory wildlife management across Europe.

Journal of Environmental ManagementVol. 389
University of Insubria (IT), University of Trento (IT), Universitätsmedizin Greifswald (DE), Universität Greifswald (DE), Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE), National Institute of Geophysics, Geodesy and Geography (BG), Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (DE), University of Inland Norway (NO), Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón (ES), Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NO), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (ES)
Biodiversa+, European Commission, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Bulgarian National Science Fund, Fundación Biodiversidad, Agencia Estatal de Investigación
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
5.15
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.