We analyzed differences in brown bear acceptance by teenagers in four countries characterized by differing brown bear population statuses - two no-bear countries: Latvia (no breeding records) and Lithuania (no permanent population, but increasing numbers of registrations in recent years); along with two bear-inhabited countries, both having high bear densities: Bulgaria (about 600 animals) and Turkey (up to 4000 animals). In all countries, the bears are protected, but poaching levels differ (probably higher in Turkey). As a result of our analysis of differences in brown bear acceptance among teenagers in these four countries, we consider that bear-related education in Latvia and Lithuania would prevent fear of these animals and sustain their acceptance, while human-wildlife conflict management measures in Bulgaria and Turkey would be recommended to boost species appreciation.
We used anonymous questionnaires with mostly close-ended questions, completed under informed consent by schoolchildren. The sample size was about 1800 respondents, with gender distribution near 1:1 and urban vs. rural distribution from 1:2 to 1:3, with no significant difference between countries in either parameters. The range of respondent age was 10–18 years. In general, respondents at either end of this age range were less positive towards bears (the difference significant only in Latvia). Our aim was to characterize drivers of species acceptance, described as clines in the rural–urban inhabitation of respondents, in particular their relationship to nature, as well as their familiarity and encounters with bears (cognitive aspect).We tested several hypotheses: H1 was that bear acceptance is higher in the countries where they are constantly present compared to so-called no-bear countries; H2 stated that urban inhabitants would better accept the species; H3 tested whether lower acceptance was related to fear of the species. H1 was rejected as negative opinion regarding bears was significantly stronger in Bulgaria (11.4% of respondents) and Turkey (16.5%) than in the non-bear countries (4.6–5.4%). H2 was confirmed (chi2, p<0.001), especially for countries with bear populations, where negative opinion was about two times stronger in rural respondents compared to 1.6 times stronger in non-bear countries (p=0.057). H3 was confirmed for both bear and non-bear countries (both p<0.001), with negative opinion 4–7 times more expressed among those who feel fear of the bears. Predictably, future existence of bears in the region was seen more positively in no-bear countries (from 25.7% of respondents in Turkey to 74.4% in Latvia). Factor analysis revealed that factors important to brown bear acceptance among teenagers included the country of the respondent and country-related aspects, familiarity or contact with bears, experiences in human-wildlife conflict, gender-age differences and, in particular, the respondent's relationship to nature and the origin of their knowledge of the species. Notably, over 70% of teenagers in all investigated countries would like to know more about brown bears, irrespective of species status and the different ways they gained information about these animals. Thus, in order to achieve a better acceptance of brown bears, awareness-raising campaigns are considered likely to be effective.
Topics: Natural Resource and Conservation Stakeholders: Managing Expectations and Engageme
