130925-studie-wildlife-comeback-in-europe

key tool for wildlife population increase. Conflicts
may be caused by the movement of wildlife into
adjoining human-inhabited areas (e.g. Brown
bear in Slovenia and Wolverine in Norway [129] ), but
these can be offset by opportunities for wildlife
viewing and hunting (see above). On a local scale,
exclusion or deterrence of wildlife can be highly
effective. For example, electric fencing has been
used to exclude bears from apiaries and small
crop plantations [114, 131, 132] , keep wolves and lynx
out of sheep grazing fields [114] and mitigate crop
damage [133, 134] .
In areas where wildlife never really disappeared,
traditional agricultural systems have persisted
which provide techniques for limiting livestock
or crop damage. For example, in the Carpathians
and parts of Italy, a long period of coexistence
between humans and large carnivores has allowed
both parties to coevolve by means of reciprocal
ecological and behavioural adjustments [135] . For
example, guarding of livestock by dogs decreases
the incidence of livestock depredation [136, 137] , and
employing local knowledge to avoid high-risk
areas and confining livestock at night can also be
highly effective [137] . Advocating and employing
traditional techniques in areas where wildlife has
recently returned may provide an effective tool for
minimising wildlife damage.
Compensation schemes [138] are frequently used
to offset livestock losses caused by predators, such
as wolf, bear, lynx, and raptors [139, 140] (Table 1), and
crop damage caused by large herbivores, cranes,
ducks and geese [141, 142] . Where the relevant wildlife
species is not of conservation concern, occurs
at higher densities or over a much larger area,
and crop damage is more extensive, compensation
schemes are likely to prove too costly and
controlling population densities by culling or
regulated hunting becomes the primary route for
minimising conflict [143] . However, willingness to
pay for compensation schemes is likely to be influenced
by a country’s wealth and demography (e.g.
large sums of money spent on damage compensation
schemes in the Netherlands [128] ).
The main shortcoming of compensation
schemes is that they only address the outcome of
human-wildlife conflict, though in some cases it
is difficult to prevent or even minimise conflicts
in the first place (e.g. geese in grasslands). As a
result, they are often costly and unsustainable
in the long run, or their cost-effectiveness is
affected by the intensity of the livestock regime
(e.g. compensation may work in intensively
farmed livestock systems, but not in extensively
farmed ones [116] ). They also often fail at creating
positive attitudes towards wildlife [144] , yet are
preferable to having no system in place at all.
Stewardship schemes provide ideal participatory
approaches whereby people benefit from having a
healthy wildlife population, rather than receiving
compensation when damage has happened. It is
vital that we learn from experiences worldwide to
devise the most appropriate schemes which allow
coexistence of wildlife and people, and open up
opportunities for local people to benefit from the
presence of wildlife.
Humans as part of nature:
understanding attitudes and
establishing participatory approaches
in managing wildlife comeback
People are an integral part in many European
landscapes and often come into conflict with
wildlife. Sometimes these conflicts can be a
manifestation of opposing interests between
different stakeholders [145] , but commonly they are
related to existing attitudes, culture, demography,
feelings and levels of knowledge of the populace.
Understanding the social and economic issues
involved in human-wildlife conflicts, as well as the
cultural and historical background, is therefore
of utmost importance to develop a sound understanding
of the processes that form people’s
attitudes towards wildlife [146, 147] .
Worldwide, landscapes not only have a biological
carrying capacity to support returning wildlife,
but also a social carrying capacity affected by
emotions, attitudes and knowledge of people, such
as the abundance of wildlife which is tolerated by
the local inhabitants [47] . Understanding attitudes,
beliefs and behaviours towards wildlife is vital
in increasing cooperation and helping parties to
reach an optimal agreement or compromise in a
participatory approach and ultimately may make
the difference between a successful or unsuccessful
conservation programme [148] . The level of
exposure and distance to returning wildlife has
a direct bearing on attitudes within the human
population [149] . For example, attitudes of urban
citizens towards wolf comeback are generally
positive as opposed to more negative attitudes
held by rural inhabitants [74, 150] . In Sweden, negative
attitudes are stronger in areas with wolf populations
than elsewhere [149, 151] . Impact of wildlife on
personal income is also important in shaping
perceptions: in Central Asia, local communities
primarily relying on cash crops were more tolerant
towards Snow leopards (Uncia uncia) than those
relying on livestock [152] . In Poland, carp losses to
otters were perceived as higher by private owners
than by managers of state-owned fisheries [153] .
However, in many cases negative attitudes are held
296