Research

INTRODUCTION

The overabundance of a wildlife species in a specific locality is perceived to occur when its population status (1) threatens humans’ lives or their livelihoods; (2) affects the fitness of the overabundant species; (3) reduces the density of other species with an economic or aesthetic value; or (4) causes dysfunctions in the ecosystem (Caughley 1981). When a population increases to inadmissible levels, the undesirable effects related to population abundance emerge, and an overabundance situation can technically be diagnosed (Carpio et al. 2021). Overabundant situations should be managed to avoid deleterious effects on the greater ecosystem, which an excess of animals can produce (Valente et al. 2020a). Nevertheless, managing these situations usually involves population size control, and these types of actions are not always well perceived or accepted by society, mainly when they occur in natural contexts such as national parks (Martínez-Jauregui et al. 2020). Moreover, whether or not people consider a population of any wild ungulate species to be overabundant depends entirely on its overall status (Warren 2011) and the benefits and conflicts perceived (Pascual-Rico et al. 2020). The admissibleness of a given population density, therefore, varies according not only to the ecological and socioeconomic context in which the population is located (Carpio et al. 2021), but also local stakeholders’ perceptions (König et al. 2020).

In this context, there is a growing interest in wildlife management issues within society (Henderson et al. 2000). Including public opinion in wildlife management planning has become critical (Decker and Chase 1997). Identifying citizens’ attitudes and perceptions is a key aspect with regard to implementing management policies, particularly in controversial situations, such as those involving the lethal control of individuals (Martínez-Jauregui et al. 2020). Martínez-Jauregui and Soliño (2021) showed that the success of a management strategy may depend on public support, emphasizing the relevance of designing management programs to achieve greater social acceptance.

Furthermore, attitudes and support for specific strategies can vary significantly between and within rural, urban, agriculture, livestock, and natural (protected areas) landscapes (König et al. 2020), and may have important consequences. For example, one of the events that shows the importance of society and the consequences of its attitudes in wildlife management was the abolishment of the Iberian wild goat Capra pyrenaica management plan in the Sierra de Guadarrama National Park (central Spain) because of an appeal filed by the Animalist Party Against the Mistreatment of Animals (Martínez-Jauregui and Soliño 2021). This decision led to significant ecological consequences (Perea et al. 2015), resulting in one of the highest reported densities of wild ungulates in natural populations in this area, without any effective population control plan and an insufficient population of potential predators (Refoyo et al. 2015).

In Europe, the most common and intense conservation conflicts related to mammal management often revolve around predators such as the wolf (Canis lupus), or the brown bear (Ursus arctos; Rode et al. 2021). In the case of these carnivores, most conflicts are related to livestock and game species predation (Chapron et al. 2014, Delibes-Mateos 2015). Additionally, in recent years, ungulate populations have experienced significant increases in numbers and geographic range sizes, both in Spain and Europe (Valente et al. 2020a). The expansion of ungulate populations can be attributed to a complex interplay of ecological, environmental, and socioeconomic factors. Changes in land use practices, including land abandonment and the shift away from traditional agricultural practices, have led to habitat re-naturalization, resulting in increased food availability for ungulates (Acevedo et al. 2011). Additionally, alterations in habitat availability, more restricted hunting legislation, and the reduction of native predators in some regions, for example the wolf in the Iberian Peninsula, have all contributed to this phenomenon (Carpio et al. 2021). Moreover, certain management measures such as supplementary feeding, fencing, translocations, or increased access to food in livestock and peri-urban environments have also contributed to this population increase (Mysterud 2010, Milner et al. 2014). Therefore, the consequences of high population density in ungulates, particularly the wild boar (Sus scrofa) and the red deer (Cervus elaphus), have led to frequent conflicts among different stakeholders (Delibes-Mateos 2015, Pascual-Rico et al. 2021). In these cases, managers need to know society’s perceptions of these species and their management before designing and implementing effective management programs (Conejero et al. 2019, Valente et al. 2020b).

Previous studies have shown that society tends to support ungulate control programs when damage or environmental conflicts appear (Martínez-Jauregui et al. 2020). However, this perception varies depending on the stakeholders involved (Valente et al. 2020b) and on their previous experience (Conejero et al. 2019). Warren (2011) demonstrated that a better understanding of the human dimensions associated with deer overabundance has helped many agencies to define appropriate public education programs, resulting in improved public support for ungulate population management.

It is clear that there are the following: many ecological and socioeconomic contexts in which ungulate overabundance occurs in Europe (protected areas, hunting areas, forestry, arable, farming, and urban areas); many species involved (red deer, roe deer Capreolus capreolus, wild boar); as well as many types of impacts (negative: crop damage, traffic collisions, or positive: tourism, prey for predators), and indicators of ecological change (e.g., health, animal performance, impact on habitat) that are appropriate for the monitoring and diagnosis of overabundance from an ecological point of view (Valente et al. 2020a, Carpio et al. 2021).

However, most of these indicators are evaluated without considering the human dimension (Conover 2001). Therefore, it is necessary to consider society’s opinions about the main wildlife ungulate species and their population abundance. Establishing the most accepted indicators will make it possible to share and enhance communication regarding management outcomes for both policy makers and other stakeholders (Martínez-Jauregui et al. 2020). There is, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, currently no empirical and systematic study addressing what drives the public’s perception of ungulates overabundance, that is, what species and what contexts or factors make society consider that steps should be taken to control population sizes. Understanding the most appropriate social indicator can be important because it can be used to influence people’s support for overabundance management programs (Martínez-Jauregui et al. 2019).

In order to contribute to a better understanding of the lack of public support for ungulate population management, this study focuses on the general public’s awareness and perceptions of wild ungulate population abundance in mainland Spain (494,011 km² and 43,068,733 inhabitants). The specific objectives of this study were (i) to evaluate society’s knowledge of the eight species of wild ungulates present on the Iberian Peninsula; (ii) to discover society’s social perception of the population status of these species and what indicators can better explain that perception; and (iii) to establish a (context dependent) spatial view of that perception. Understanding when society is willing to manage wild ungulate population size, the choice of indicators that will increase the possibilities of supporting management, and detecting the factors that influence them should be considered for a correct planning of wildlife ungulate management. This is particularly crucial when dealing with contentious tools such as population control.

METHODS

Questionnaire design

The questionnaire (i.e., instrument) was in the first place constructed on the basis of the bibliography and our objectives. It was validated by a committee of experts (n = 10), whose participation was evaluated by considering their professional experience (as researchers, technicians, or environmental managers) of working with wild ungulates, along with their knowledge of and experience in wildlife control and management (Appendix 1). This panel of experts judged the clarity, appropriateness, and relevance of the instrument by using a Likert-scale. The content validation process led to several refinements and adaptations to enhance the questionnaire’s quality and effectiveness. The results of the content validation are shown in Appendix 2a. Finally, after modifying the instrument by considering the experts’ suggestions, a pilot population of 40 respondents was requested to validate the questionnaire’s comprehensibility and user-friendliness. The questionnaire and its implementation were approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Córdoba (Spain), with reference number 5091.

The questionnaire was structured in three well-differentiated sections. The objective of the first section was to obtain socio-demographic information about the respondents, such as their gender, age group, academic qualifications, and the interest group/s to which they belonged (hunters, farmers, cattle ranchers, ecologists, or the general public; Appendix 3a). The second section addressed the respondents’ knowledge and perceptions of wild ungulate abundance at their province level (Spanish NUTS3 administrative levels). For example, we asked whether they knew the species present in their province (i.e., the aoudad Ammotragus lervia, the chamois Rupicapra pyrenaica, the fallow deer Dama dama, the Iberian wild goat, the red deer, the roe deer, the mouflon Ovis orientalis musimon, and the wild boar); what they thought about the species in terms of their abundance; or how dense they would like their population to be in the future. Finally, there was a section on the understanding of overabundance, which dealt with the context-dependent perception of ungulate abundance and the best-perceived indicators with which to describe it. We explicitly asked the respondents to provide their definitions of the term “overabundance” through the use of several indicators commonly used in ecology. They could choose to agree or disagree with the indicators suggested, which were associated with their effects on (1) the population itself (Gortázar et al. 2006); (2) other species of fauna (Machar et al. 2018); (3) plants (Perea et al. 2014); (4) springs and water courses (Beschta et al. 2013); (5) the structure and composition of the soil (Pascual-Rico et al. 2018); (6) an economic activity (crops, forestry, livestock, infrastructure; Bobek et al. 2017); (7) transport (Groot Bruinderink and Hazebroek 1996); and (8) others. They could additionally choose the most important indicator with which to describe ungulate overabundance in each area (context) where they thought more effort should be made to manage populations. The questions used in this section were based principally on a Likert-scale (Batterton and Hale 2017; Appendix 1). The calculation of the sample size is detailed in Appendix 2b.

Questionnaire implementation

A sample of 440 people who were representative of mainland Spanish society (Appendix 3a and 3b) regarding rural and urban population, age, gender, and region of residence, and who were selected on a consumer panel, something that is frequently used to investigate public preferences (e.g., Martínez-Jauregui et al. 2023), answered an online survey. We assumed certain disadvantages common to the use of a panel of consumers, but it is a valid and adequate sampling method (Nielsen 2011). The survey was conducted on the web platform https://www.tickstat.com in November 2021. Participation was voluntary and no incentives were given. The participants gave their informed consent before taking part in the study. The average time taken to fill in the questionnaire was approximately 15 minutes per respondent.

To prevent any uncertainty and potential bias in this convenience sampling method, we took some precautions and applied controls before analyzing the data (Maas et al. 2021): (i) the sample was stratified according to age, gender, rural and urban population, and regions (i.e., survey respondents were in the same proportion as the total mainland Spanish population; Appendix 3a); and (ii) reliability analyses of scale were carried out (Cronbach’s Alpha was above 0.75 for our scale, representing a good level of fit; Cortina 1993).

Statistical analysis

In order to test whether there was a significant association among the species and society’s perception of their overabundance, we created contingency tables and conducted Fisher’s exact test (α = 0.05). We conducted the same test to determine whether some species were particularly perceived as overabundant in each context (n = 440). The sample was divided into two sub-samples, one for those respondents who did not consider any species to be abundant (n = 268), and the other for those who considered at least one species to be abundant (n = 172). The cases in which society considered that population size should be controlled (indicators of overabundance) were compared by dividing the population into the two subsamples described previously and applying Fisher’s test.

RESULTS

Knowledge of wild ungulate species

The stratified surveys were sent to 440 respondents (Appendix 3a). Regarding knowledge of the species (Question 1), the population’s general lack of knowledge of many species stands out (χ² = 23.68; df = 14; p < 0.001). More than 50% of society did not know or was not sure how to recognize six species (the aoudad, the Iberian wild goat, the roe deer, the fallow deer, the mouflon, and the chamois) of the eight studied. The chamois and the Iberian wild goat were the least recognized (more than 70% of the respondents). The wild boar and the red deer were, on the contrary, identified by 95 and 72% of the population surveyed, respectively (Fig. 1a).

Perception of (over)abundance

With regard to species abundance (Questions 2 and 3), only the answers obtained from those people who knew the species were considered. The number of responses depended on the respondents’ wild ungulate species knowledge. Therefore, the responses number ranged between 420 for wild boar and 118 for chamois, and the number of responses by species were (mean ± SD) 209 ± 105. This response, along with that to Question 3, allowed us to discover the social perception of ungulate population size. We understood that those respondents who perceived the species as abundant or very abundant in their region and who wanted the population to be reduced were suggesting a potential overabundance situation. In the case of abundance (Question 2), we found significant differences (χ² = 58.12; df = 42; p < 0.001). The wild boar was considered as abundant (χ² = 110.02; p < 0.001) or very abundant (χ² = 160.34; p < 0.001), accounting for 59% of the respondents. It was followed by the roe deer (19%), the red deer, and the Iberian wild goat, both of which obtained 13%. However, introduced species such as the aoudad or the mouflon were considered overabundant by only 3% of the respondents (Fig. 1b). It should be noted that those species with a more restricted distribution such as the aoudad, the mouflon, the fallow deer, or the chamois were statistically more frequently selected as absent (Fig. 1b).

The perception of overabundance was complemented by Question 3, which considered an estimator of the attitude toward abundance, consisting of those who considered that the species should disappear or decrease (Wildlife Acceptance Capacity; Decker and Purdy 1988). We found associations between particular species and abundance perception (χ² = 56.32; df = 42; p < 0.001). Although people stated that the species was highly abundant, their perception of whether the species would go locally extinct or decrease was not generalized. For example, in the case of the wild boar, 59% of the respondents considered that the species was overabundant (Question 2), but only 39% expressed that its population size should be reduced. The percentage of respondents who considered that the populations should be controlled was 5% for the roe deer, and 3% for the red deer and the Iberian wild goat. However, the percentages for exotic species such as the aoudad or the mouflon increased from 3% of people who stated that they were abundant (Question 2) to 5 and 4%, respectively, who expressed that they should go locally extinct or decrease (Fig. 1c). Regarding Question 3, the wild boar was the only species that those surveyed preferred would decrease slightly (χ² = 97.41; p < 0.001) or a lot (χ² = 142.78; p < 0.001), while in the case of the other ungulates, more than 80% of the respondents preferred the stability or even an increase in their populations (e.g., the fallow deer, the red deer, or the Iberian wild goat). It is worth noting the case of the red deer because the respondents expected that their populations would increase slightly (χ² = 7.37; p < 0.01) or a lot (χ² = 6.36; p < 0.01).

Socioeconomic contexts

With regard to the socioeconomic contexts, which we defined as the main land use, the sample was divided into two subsamples concerning the respondents’ attitudes toward ungulate overabundance: one for those who considered that none of the populations of species identified should decrease (n = 268), and another for those who considered that the populations should decrease in the case of at least one species (n = 172). With regard to the second group, we found particular associations between contexts and species (χ² = 66.33; df = 49; p < 0.001), highlighting urban (35%), agricultural (28%), and livestock (14.6%) contexts and those involving the wild boar (86%; Fig. 2a). However, we did not find any association when the first group was asked to choose the most important overabundance context, although the urban context (42%) or neither (34%) stood out. This, therefore, highlighted that this group responded more randomly because its members were forced to choose a context (χ² = 49.80; df = 49; p = 0.996). Moreover, only 2% and 4% considered that forest and protected areas, respectively, should be the contexts in which populations should decrease (Fig. 2b).

Furthermore, the spatial distribution of overabundance perceptions was context dependent (Appendix 4), and the species involved in each one varied among Spanish regions (Appendix 5). However, when we represented only those who perceived the situation of overabundance after answering Question 2 (Fig. 3), the perception of overabundance in urban contexts stood out in most regions, followed by the agricultural context.

Factors that influence the knowledge and perception of overabundance

Regarding the knowledge of the species, we found associations between some species and the place of residence (rural/urban; χ² = 32.67; df = 21; p < 0.001). For example, the aoudad (χ² = 7.35; p < 0.001) and the roe deer (χ² = 2.68; p < 0.05) were more unknown in the urban than in the rural environment (Appendix 6). With regard to abundance, people from the urban environment perceived the abundances of the red deer and the wild boar to be adequate with greater frequencies than expected, and those of mouflon to be adequate with less frequency than expected (χ² = 49.80; df = 35; p < 0.001). However, those from the rural environment perceived those of roe deer to be adequate with more frequency than expected and those of chamois to be adequate with less frequently than expected. Finally, in the case of the question concerning how they would like the populations to be (χ² = 49.80; df = 35; p < 0.001), the urban population attained lower frequencies than expected for the decrease in species such as the aoudad, the Iberian wild goat, the red, the roe, and the fallow deer or the mouflon, but they were higher than expected with regard to the increase in the red and fallow deer, the mouflon and the chamois with respect to the rural population. However, the rural population attained frequencies higher than those expected only for the increase in the Iberian wild goat and the red deer with respect to the urban sample (Appendix 6). With regard to the respondents’ ages, differences among age groups were found only in the case of the wild boar (χ² = 21.69; df = 10; p = 0.02), with the percentage of “do not know” or “I’m not sure” being higher for young people (< 35 years).

Overabundance indicators

The deconstruction of the public definition of overabundant ungulate populations by means of indicators is shown in Figure 4, in which those respondents who believe that at least one ungulate species should decrease in their region are distinguished from those who consider that none of the ungulate species present in their region should decrease. We found association between particular contexts and indicators in the first group (χ² = 908.36; df = 40; p < 0.0001), highlighting principally urban, agricultural, and livestock contexts, with transport and economic activity as selected indicators, respectively (Fig. 3a). Furthermore, there were also significant associations among contexts and indicators for the second group (χ² = 1309.32; df = 40; p < 0.0001).

DISCUSSION

The results obtained in this research show the lack of knowledge of wild ungulates that exists in society in general, and how that perception and people’s attitudes are biased toward certain species and specific socioeconomic contexts. We also found that charismatic species, such as the red deer, are not perceived as overabundant by the public (despite the fact that several cases have been reported in scientific literature; Valente et al. 2020b, Carpio et al. 2021). In general, an important disagreement between technical and social overabundance results was noted in mainland Spain. From the sociological perspective, it is considered that management should be applied only for the wild boar in peri-urban and agricultural contexts, whereas they do not perceive overabundance of ungulate species in other analyzed contexts, even though it has been demonstrated (e.g., the wild boar, the red deer, and the Iberian wild goat; Perea et al. 2015). We also identified the most frequently selected indicators of ungulate overabundance, which were context dependent, in order to ensure effective communication and to improve public support for ungulate management. We have, therefore, generated key information with which to include the human dimension in conservation management so as to improve the likelihood of success of ungulate population management (Bennett 2016).

Knowledge of wild ungulates species

Taxon bias in social knowledge and concern about wildlife, scientific information, research investments, and conservation expenditures are connected topics (Martín-López et al. 2009). The knowledge of and experience with wildlife depend on the stakeholders involved (e.g., hunters, tourists; Cortés-Avizanda et al. 2022), the species characteristics (e.g., anthropocentric factors such as usefulness; Martín-López et al. 2007), and the environmental and socioeconomic contexts of wildlife (e.g., protected areas, forests, agricultural areas). It is not, therefore, surprising that we detected that rural respondents have greater knowledge of species than urban participants (e.g., in the case of the aoudad and the roe deer; see also Breuer et al. 2021). This is related to the fact that rural people spend more time in contact with the natural environment, which is an effective source of knowledge (Ambarlı 2016). We also found that there is a positive relationship between knowledge of species and the age of the respondents. These results coincide with those of previous research, which states that elderly people have more ecological knowledge than their younger counterparts (Cortés-Avizanda et al. 2018). This could be because of a decline in the transfer of intergenerational knowledge, in combination with cumulative learning (i.e., the process by which people accumulate knowledge and abilities).

As already shown in previous literature (Genovart et al. 2013, Morales-Reyes et al. 2019), we have found that society’s knowledge is biased toward certain wildlife species, even when considering close taxonomical groups and how local knowledge of the species could differ from scientific knowledge (Linares et al. 2020). Although the most widely distributed species tend to be well known, as is the case of the wild boar and the red deer in our study, in many cases, threatened species with restricted distributions may be better known because of their charismatic nature (Albert et al. 2018). The latter was not evidenced in our study, because no wild ungulates inhabiting mainland Spain are threatened, and the endemic Iberian wild goat is generally unknown by society. This is contributing to the fact that people are now more disconnected from nature because of the way in which they live (Larson et al. 2022) and the information they receive (especially via the television or the Internet; Courchamp et al. 2018). For instance, flagship species are frequently used to raise awareness, stimulate conservation, and increase political support for conservation issues (Genovart et al. 2013). However, flagship species do not, in many cases, represent the local ecological community, and many of the native species do not receive as much publicity, scope (e.g., the Iberian wild goat and chamois, among others), or financial support (Martín-López et al. 2007). In this respect, Porter (1997) mentioned that engaging the public in ecological issues is challenging (particularly for hunting species) because the concepts are complex, and part of the problem, therefore, reflects our failure as scientists to present statistics in such a way that the public can understand them. Increasing efforts in environmental education and focusing on direct experiences with the local environment in order to increase knowledge of local fauna and spark members of the public’s interest in their own natural world is, therefore, key (Genovart et al. 2013). In our case study, this is particularly relevant in the urban population (Ambarlı 2016, Breuer et al. 2021), principally in the case of young people and the six ungulate species other than the red deer and the wild boar.

Perception of and attitudes toward population abundance

We found that, although red deer and roe deer populations are increasing in a generalized manner (Carpio et al. 2021), and the Iberian wild goat or the aoudad populations are increasing in a specific local manner (Refoyo et al. 2022), society perceives that only the abundance of wild boar is a problem, particularly in the urban context. This could be because the wild boar is associated with more conflicts than other ungulate species (Pascual-Rico et al. 2020), and mass media coverage often focuses mainly on their negative aspects (Goulding and Roper 2002), affecting people’s tolerance and perception of wildlife (Gore and Knuth 2009). Fischer et al. (2011) found that at least 80% of those surveyed rated red deer and/or roe deer as somewhat or extremely attractive, whereas Siard and Jordan (2018) showed that only 11.3% of the students surveyed stated that they liked wild boar. Here, we found a paradoxical situation: if we focus on the red deer and the wild boar (the only species that are well known by rural and urban respondents), both species have been locally diagnosed as being overabundant on a European scale based on technical criteria (Carpio et al. 2021), and the associated conflicts have been described profusely in Spain (Castillo-Contreras et al. 2018). However, our results showed opposite perceptions of the abundance of these species (only the wild boar is considered as overabundant). Although the significance of specific species varies, both groups of respondents (those who considered that at least one ungulate population should decrease and those who did not) indicated a preference for increasing populations, except for the wild boar for which the opposite preference was stated (i.e., a population decrease).

With regard to future population trends (wildlife acceptance capacity, as defined by Decker and Purdy 1988, and used as a threshold of the situation in which individuals take some form of actions to influence wildlife populations; Bruskotter and Fulton 2012), the results are still clear. More than 80% of those surveyed would prefer cervids and bovids to remain as they are or would even like to see their populations increase, with the exception of the wild boar. We found that the public had no general consensus with regard to reducing numbers in order to mitigate damage, and this is even more difficult when managing charismatic species (Drijfhout et al. 2020), such as cervids, or when considering people living in an urban context in which they are not normally exposed to the animal (Kawata and Watanabe 2021). It is for this reason that, although many of the respondents may not have been in contact with cervids or bovids, their tolerance and possible stewardship toward them is positive (i.e., increase their populations). Caution is required when interpreting the perception of abundance for unknown species, because little experience or not being familiar with the ecological concept could lead to a misinterpretation of the perception and possible attitudes toward species and their populations (McCleery et al. 2006).

Socioeconomic context

Previous studies have shown that admissible levels of population densities vary in relation to the ecological and socioeconomic context inhabited by the species (Carpio et al. 2021). However, admissible levels of population abundance could differ according to the ecological and the social point of view, with the tolerance threshold being context dependent (König et al. 2020). This may explain why the urban environment is perceived as that in which ungulate problems related to their abundance are more frequent, because admissible density levels are minimal there (e.g., a few individuals in a city can be perceived as overabundance) and the information about the problem that is available to society is maximum, although this depends on the species involved (Duarte et al. 2015). Hadidian (2015) indicates that the negative encounters that people have with wild animals are important with regard to determining their tolerance toward those species. This may help to explain why the public’s attitudes toward species that have detrimental effects could be generalized to broader antipathies toward certain species, such as the wild boar, whose behavior is more aggressive or harmful.

A significant portion of the participants surveyed (60.9%) stated that they had no perception that was compatible with population overabundance for any species. For this group (no perception of overabundance) the selection of the contexts in which there may be overabundance was random, based on no criteria (i.e., no significant results). During the last few years, social-ecological approaches and perceptions have conditioned conservation strategies and decision making related to management (Martínez-Jauregui et al. 2020). Our results reinforce the idea that society’s opinions should be analyzed in greater depth. Some stakeholders presented useful information regarding certain biological groups because of their relationship with them, as was the case of shepherds with wild ungulates and scavengers (Morales-Reyes et al. 2019, Pascual-Rico et al. 2020). However, one phenomenon of the loss of ecological knowledge is occurring to a great extent in most industrialized countries, in which dependence on local resources is low (Pilgrim et al. 2008). This may be even greater for the urban population, and if survey respondents are dealing with unfamiliar objects and concepts, caution is consequently required when seeking solutions and driving decision making. It is also necessary to improve society’s knowledge in this respect.

More sensitive indicators of overabundance according to society

According to our results, the need for human intervention in order to manage wild ungulate populations was considered differently by society according to the contexts and species, and also differed with regard to the indicators highlighted in order to perceive a population as overabundant. Urban, agricultural, and livestock areas received more attention than others, such as hunting or protected areas. The indicators mainly accepted were related to economic activities (i.e., crops and livestock), damage to material property (i.e., vehicles), and even harm to humans (i.e., injuries). Kansky et al. (2014) showed that the potential to suffer damage could affect the perception and tolerance of wildlife. The possibility of suffering any sort of harm from wild ungulates, including material damage and/or injuries to humans, could make society consider wild ungulate management necessary. Our results showed that the diagnosis and monitoring of ungulate overabundance via indicators of ecological change are greatly context-dependent (Carpio et al. 2021). Respondents who consider that ungulates should not decrease agree with respondents who consider ungulates are overabundant when the forest context and an effect on plants are included among the main indicators selected. The results showed that there are certain differences among the subsets of respondents and their interpretation of the overabundance of ungulates indicators (i.e., protected areas), but it is even more evident that we did not find a single measure capturing the public’s perception of ungulate overabundance for all the socioeconomic contexts. Therefore, a set of indicators should be managed in order to guarantee the social perception of overabundance. As expected, the most important indicator in urban areas is that related to transportation because of traffic accidents, whereas the economic indicators stand out (damage to crops or transmission of diseases) in the agricultural and livestock contexts.

CONCLUSION

The results generally showed that society’s view of certain species (wild boar) and contexts (urban) is biased. Previous studies have shown that society is increasingly more disconnected from nature, which represents a profoundly challenging conservation issue. The urbanization processes that people undergo in modern societies separate them from the natural world, which in turn results in a decrease in their knowledge of the environment, and disconnected environmental behavior with regard to nature (Nisbet and Zelenski 2013).

The perception of and attitudes toward ungulates are highly conditioned by social media and depend on the species. Therefore, more education concerning the species situation is necessary, with mass media less biased toward certain contexts and that will allow society to have a more realistic view of the situation. We have also shown that society does appreciate differences between overabundance indicators. Improvement of public knowledge of species and their populations, and the efficient choice of the metrics used to evaluate ungulate populations will consequently allow society to better accept management measures and confront the challenges of coexisting with wild ungulates in human-dominated landscapes.

LITERATURE CITED

Acevedo, P., M. Á. Farfán, A. L. Márquez, M. Delibes-Mateos, R. Real, and J. Vargas. M. 2011. Past, present and future of wild ungulates in relation to changes in land use. Landscape Ecology 26:19-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9538-2

Albert, C., G. M. Luque, and F. Courchamp. 2018. The twenty most charismatic species. PLoS ONE 13(7):e0199149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199149

Ambarlı, H. 2016. Rural and urban students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward brown bears in Turkey. Anthrozoös 29(3):489-502. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2016.1181384

Batterton, K. A., and K. N. Hale, 2017. The Likert scale what it is and how to use it. Phalanx 50(2):32-39.

Bennett, N. J. 2016. Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology 30(3):582-592. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12681

Beschta, R. L., D. L. Donahue, D. A. DellaSala, J. J. Rhodes, J. R. Karr, M. H. O’Brien, T. L. Fleichner, and C. Deacon Williams. 2013. Adapting to climate change on western public lands: addressing the ecological effects of domestic, wild, and feral ungulates. Environmental Management 51(2):474-491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9964-9

Bobek, B., J. Furtek, J. Bobek, D. Merta, and M. Wojciuch-Ploskonka. 2017. Spatio-temporal characteristics of crop damage caused by wild boar in north-eastern Poland. Crop Protection 93:106-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2016.11.030

Breuer, T., Y. Londza, and F. B. Mavinga. 2021. Primate and wildlife law outreach campaigns in the Republic of Congo: assessing knowledge gain of school children in urban centers compared to rural villages. American Journal of Primatology 83(4):e23194. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.23194

Bruskotter, J. T., and D. C. Fulton. 2012. Will hunters steward wolves? A comment on Treves and Martin. Society and Natural Resources 25(1):97-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.622735

Carpio, A. J., M. Apollonio, and P. Acevedo. 2021. Wild ungulate overabundance in Europe: contexts, causes, monitoring and management recommendations. Mammal Review 51:95-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12221

Castillo-Contreras, R., J. Carvalho, E. Serrano, G. Mentaberre, X. Fernández-Aguilar, A. Colom, C. González-Crespo, S. Lavin, and J. R. López-Olvera. 2018. Urban wild boars prefer fragmented areas with food resources near natural corridors. Science of the Total Environment 615:282-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.277

Caughley, G. 1981. Overpopulation. Pages 7-19 in P. A. Jewell, S. Holst, D. Hart, editors. Problems in management of locally abundant wild mammals. Academic, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385280-9.50008-1

Chapron, G., P. Kaczensky, J. D. Linnell, M. Von Arx, D. Huber, H. Andrén, J. V. López-Bao, M. Adamec, F. Álvares, O. Anders, et al. 2014. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346(6216):1517-1519. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257553

Conejero, C., R. Castillo-Contreras, C. González-Crespo, E. Serrano, G. Mentaberre, S. Lavín, and J. R. López-Olvera. 2019. Past experiences drive citizen perception of wild boar in urban areas. Mammalian Biology 96:68-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2019.04.002

Conover, M. R. 2001. Resolving human-wildlife conflicts: the science of wildlife damage management. CRC, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.

Cortés-Avizanda, A., B. Martín-López, O. Ceballos, and H. M. Pereira. 2018. Stakeholders perceptions of the endangered Egyptian vulture: insights for conservation. Biological Conservation 218:173-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.09.028

Cortés-Avizanda, A., H. M. Pereira, E. McKee, O. Ceballos, and B. Martín-López. 2022. Social actors’ perceptions of wildlife: insights for the conservation of species in Mediterranean protected areas. Ambio 51:990-1000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01546-6

Cortina, J. M. 1993. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(1):98-104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98

Courchamp, F., I. Jaric, C. Albert, Y. Meinard, W. J. Ripple, and G. Chapron. 2018. The paradoxical extinction of the most charismatic animals. PLoS Biology 16(4):e2003997. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2003997

Decker, D. J., and L. C. Chase. 1997. Human dimensions of living with wildlife: a management challenge for the 21st century. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:788-795.

Decker, D. J., and K. G. Purdy. 1988. Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:53-57.

Delibes-Mateos, M. 2015. Conservation conflicts involving mammals in Europe. Therya 6:123-137. https://doi.org/10.12933/therya-15-240

Drijfhout, M., D. Kendal, and P. T. Green. 2020. Understanding the human dimensions of managing overabundant charismatic wildlife in Australia. Biological Conservation 244:108506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108506

Duarte, J., M. A. Farfán, J. E. Fa, and J. M. Vargas. 2015. Deer populations inhabiting urban areas in the south of Spain: habitat and conflicts. European Journal of Wildlife Research 61(3):365-377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-015-0902-z

Fischer, A., B. Bednar-Friedl, F. Langers, M. Dobrovodská, N. Geamana, K. Skogen, and M. Dumortier. 2011. Universal criteria for species conservation priorities? Findings from a survey of public views across Europe. Biological Conservation 144(3):998-1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.12.004

Genovart, M., G. Tavecchia, J. J. Enseñat, and P. Laiolo. 2013. Holding up a mirror to the society: children recognize exotic species much more than local ones. Biological Conservation 159:484-489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.10.028

Gore, M. L., and B. A. Knuth. 2009. Mass media effect on the operating environment of a wildlife-related risk-communication campaign. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(8):1407-1413. https://doi.org/10.2193/2008-343

Gortázar, C., P. Acevedo, F. Ruiz-Fons, and J. Vicente. 2006. Disease risks and overabundance of game species. European Journal of Wildlife Research 52(2):81-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-005-0022-2

Goulding, M. J., and T. J. Roper. 2002. Press responses to the presence of free‐living wild boar (Sus scrofa) in southern England. Mammal Review 32(4):272-282. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2907.2002.00109.x

Groot Bruinderink, G. W. T. A., and E. Hazebroek. 1996. Ungulate traffic collisions in Europe. Conservation Biology 10(4):1059-1067. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10041059.x

Hadidian, J. 2015. Wildlife in US cities: managing unwanted animals. Animals 5(4):1092-1113. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani5040401

Henderson, D. W., R. J. Warren, D. H. Newman, J. M. Bowker, J. S. Cromwell, and J. J. Jackson. 2000. Human perceptions before and after a 50% reduction in an urban deer herd’s density. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:911-918.

Kansky, R., M. Kidd, and A. T. Knight. 2014. Meta-analysis of attitudes toward damage-causing mammalian wildlife. Conservation Biology 28:924-938. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12275

Kawata, Y., and M. Watanabe. 2021. Nuisance or benefit? A study of deer-altered park landscapes in Japan. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 58:126960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126960

König, H. J., C. Kiffner, S. Kramer‐Schadt, C. Fürst, O. Keuling, and A. T. Ford. 2020. Human-wildlife coexistence in a changing world. Conservation Biology 34(4):786-794. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13513

Larson, B. M., B. Fischer, and S. Clayton. 2022. Should we connect children to nature in the Anthropocene? People and Nature 4(1):53-61. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10267

Linares, O., J. Carranza, M. Soliño, M. Delibes-Mateos, P. Ferreras, E. Descalzo, and M. Martínez-Jauregui. 2020. Citizen science to monitor the distribution of the Egyptian mongoose in southern Spain: who provide the most reliable information? European Journal of Wildlife Research 66:65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-020-01408-8

Maas, B., Y. Fabian, S. M. Kross, and A. Richter. 2021. Divergent farmer and scientist perceptions of agricultural biodiversity, ecosystem services and decision-making. Biological Conservation 256:109065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109065

Machar, I., P. Cermak, and V. Pechanec. 2018. Ungulate browsing limits bird diversity of the Central European hardwood floodplain forests. Forests 9(7):373. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9070373

Martín-López, B., C. Montes, and J. Benayas. 2007. The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 139(1-2):67-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.06.005

Martín-López, B., C. Montes, L. Ramírez, and J. Benayas. 2009. What drives policy decision-making related to species conservation? Biological Conservation 142(7):1370-1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.01.030

Martínez-Jauregui, M., M. Delibes-Mateos, B. Arroyo, J. A. Glikman, and M. Soliño. 2023. Beyond rural vs urban differences: a close match in European preferences in some basic wildlife management and conservation principles. Journal of Environmental Management 331:117236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117236

Martínez-Jauregui, M., M. Delibes-Mateos, B. Arroyo, and M. Soliño. 2020. Addressing social attitudes toward lethal control of wildlife in national parks. Conservation Biology 34(4):868-878. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13468

Martínez-Jauregui, M., and M. Soliño. 2021. Society’s preferences when ecological values and health risks are at stake: an application to the population control of a flagship ungulate (Iberian ibex) in Sierra de Guadarrama National Park, Spain. Science of The Total Environment 776:146012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146012

Martínez-Jauregui, M., P. C. White, J. Touza, and M. Soliño. 2019. Untangling perceptions around indicators for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 38:100952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100952

McCleery, R. A., R. B. Ditton, J. Sell, and R. R. Lopez. 2006. From the field: understanding and improving attitudinal research in wildlife sciences. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(2):537-541. https://doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[537:UAIARI]2.0.CO;2

Milner, J. M., F. M. Van Beest, K. T. Schmidt, R. K. Brook, and T. Storaas. 2014. To feed or not to feed? Evidence of the intended and unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates. Journal of Wildlife Management 78(8):1322-1334. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.798

Morales-Reyes, Z., B. Martín-López, M. Moleón, P. Mateo-Tomás, P. P. Olea, E. Arrondo, J. A. Donázar., and J. A. Sánchez-Zapata. 2019. Shepherds’ local knowledge and scientific data on the scavenging ecosystem service: insights for conservation. Ambio 48(1):48-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1055-6

Mysterud, A. 2010. Still walking on the wild side? Management actions as steps towards ‘semi-domestication’ of hunted ungulates. Journal of Applied Ecology 47:920-925. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01836.x

Nielsen, J. S. 2011. Use of the Internet for willingness-to-pay surveys: a comparison of face-to-face and web-based interviews. Resource and Energy Economics 33(1):119-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2010.01.006

Nisbet, E. K., and J. M. Zelenski. 2013. The NR-6: a new brief measure of nature relatedness. Frontiers in Psychology 4:813. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00813

Pascual-Rico, R., B. Martín-López, J. A. Sánchez-Zapata, and Z. Morales-Reyes. 2020. Scientific priorities and shepherds’ perceptions of ungulate’s contributions to people in rewilding landscapes. Science of The Total Environment 705:135876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135876

Pascual-Rico, R., Z. Morales-Reyes, N. Aguilera-Alcalá, A. Olszańska, E. Sebastián-González, R. Naidoo, M. Moleón, J. Lozano, F. Botella, H. von Wehrden, B. Martín-López, J. A. Sánchez-Zapata. 2021. Usually hated, sometimes loved: a review of wild ungulates’ contributions to people. Science of the Total Environment 801:149652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149652

Pascual-Rico, R., A. Morugán-Coronado, F. Botella, F. Garcia-Orenes, and J. A. Sánchez-Zapata. 2018. Soil properties in relation to diversionary feeding stations for ungulates on a Mediterranean mountain. Applied Soil Ecology 127:136-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2018.03.017

Perea, R., M. Girardello, and A. San Miguel. 2014. Big game or big loss? High deer densities are threatening woody plant diversity and vegetation dynamics. Biodiversity and Conservation 23(5):1303-1318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0666-x

Perea, R., R. Perea-García-Calvo, C. G. Díaz-Ambrona, and A. San Miguel. 2015. The reintroduction of a flagship ungulate Capra pyrenaica: assessing sustainability by surveying woody vegetation. Biological Conservation 181:9-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.10.018

Pilgrim, S. E., L. C. Cullen, D. J. Smith, and J. Pretty. 2008. Ecological knowledge is lost in wealthier communities and countries. Environmental Science & Technology 42:1004-1009. https://doi.org/10.1021/es070837v

Porter, W. F. 1997. Ignorance, arrogance, and the process of managing overabundant deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:408-412.

Refoyo, P., C. Olmedo, I. Polo, P. Fandos, and B. Muñoz. 2015. Demographic trends of a reintroduced Iberian ibex Capra pyrenaica victoriae population in central Spain. Mammalia 79(2):139-145. https://doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2013-0141

Refoyo, P., M. Peláez, M. García-Rodríguez, A. López-Sánchez, and R. Perea. 2022. Moss cover and browsing scores as sustainability indicators of mountain ungulate populations in Mediterranean environments. Biodiversity and Conservation 31:2741-2761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-022-02454-1

Rode, J., L. Flinzberger, R. Karutz, A. Berghöfer, and C. Schröter-Schlaack. 2021. Why so negative? Exploring the socio-economic impacts of large carnivores from a European perspective. Biological Conservation 255:108918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108918

Siard, N., and D. Jordan. 2018. Slovenian students’ knowledge and opinions about wild boar (Sus scrofa L.). Anthrozoös 31(6):741-760. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2018.1529357

Valente, A. M., P. Acevedo, A. M. Figueiredo, C. Fonseca, and R. T. Torres. 2020a. Overabundant wild ungulate populations in Europe: management with consideration of socio-ecological consequences. Mammal Review 50:353-366. https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12202

Valente, A. M., P. Acevedo, A. M. Figueiredo, R. Martins, C. Fonseca, R. T. Torres, and M. Delibes-Mateos. 2020b. Dear deer? Maybe for now. People’s perception on red deer (Cervus elaphus) populations in Portugal. Science of The Total Environment 748:141400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141400

Warren, R. J. 2011. Deer overabundance in the USA: recent advances in population control. Animal Production Science 51:259-266. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN10214

Copyright © 2024 by the author(s). Published here under license by The Resilience Alliance. This article is under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. You may share and adapt the work provided the original author and source are credited, you indicate whether any changes were made, and you include a link to the license.