%0 Journal Article
%A Kiffner, Christian
%A Linnell, John D.C.
%A Capelli, Simona
%A Ciolli, Marco
%A Iglesias, Ana
%A Jewell, Kyle
%A Kaltenborn, Bjørn
%A König, Hannes J.
%A Martin-Collado, Daniel
%A Prodanova, Hristina
%A Soriano, Barbara
%A Stoycheva, Vanya
%A Tattoni, Clara
%A Uthes, Sandra
%A Volani, Stefania
%A Zöller, Moya
%A Ostermann-Miyashita, Emu-Felicitas
%+ Department of Human Behavior Ecology and Culture, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Max Planck Society
%T Comparative stakeholder perceptions of wildlife management in five European multi-use landscapes (advance online) : 
%G eng
%U https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0011-6694-3
%R 10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126186
%7 2025-06-17
%D 2025
%* Review method: peer-reviewed
%X 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).<br>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.<br>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.
%K Conservation conflict, Human-wildlife coexistence, Human-wildlife conflict, Human-wildlife interactions, Participatory methods, Protected areas
%J Journal of Environmental Management
%V 389
%] 126186
%I Elsevier
%C Amsterdam [u.a.] 
%@ 1095-8630