How spatial scales shape the study of human-wildlife conflicts: Livestock farmers and Iberian wolves

Large carnivore populations are recovering across many regions, with populations of grey wolves ( Canis lupus ) being a prominent example. While their resurgence offers socioecological benefits, it also intensifies conflicts with livestock farmers, particularly in areas undergoing recent recolonization where traditional protection practices have diminished. Understanding local perceptions is therefore essential for designing management strategies that reconcile conservation objectives with rural livelihoods. We assessed human-wolf conflict across Spain at two spatial scales: a national scale through an online survey, and a regional scale through in-person questionnaires. Nationally, we compared perceptions between areas with ( n = 83) and without ( n = 42) wolves. Regionally, we focused on two wolf expansion areas: High Conflict Area (HCA) in La Rioja ( n = 30) and Low Conflict Area (LCA) in Guadalajara ( n = 34). We examined perceptions about wildlife damage, preventive measures, species responsible for losses, and perceptions toward coexistence. At the national scale, perceptions were largely homogeneous regardless of wolf presence. In contrast, regional results showed that conflict intensity strongly shaped perceptions. Farmers in HCA reported more wolf-related damage, lower trust in public administration, and stronger demands for better compensation and preventive measures than farmers in LCA. Wolves were consistently perceived as the weakest contributor to ecosystem balance, whereas livestock was ranked the highest. Perceptions of other wildlife species varied with conflict intensity, reflecting nuanced views of their ecological roles. These findings highlight the need for multi-scale management that integrates prevention, compensation, and stakeholder engagement to promote sustainable coexistence and support rural socioeconomic resilience.