Research

INTRODUCTION

As human populations living in settlements increase (UN 2018), natural land used by wildlife is being destroyed (Adams 2005). Wild animals increasingly find refuge in urban spaces, and some have even become urban exploiters and dwellers as they thrive in residential areas (Fischer et al. 2015) and sometimes reach higher densities there than in their natural environment (Ives et al. 2016). Arguments have been made that synanthropic species, like foxes (Vulpes Vulpes) and rats (Rattus spp.), have a right to exist in residential areas because of human encroachment upon their natural habitats (Michelfelder 2003).

The presence of wildlife in human settlements has both negative and positive impacts on residents (Soulsbury and White 2015, Perry et al. 2020). On the one hand, mammals can cause damage, for example, damaging gardens or attics, and fear of injuries (Hadidian 2015). On the other hand, their presence has the potential to improve human-nature relationships (Turner et al. 2004) and benefit human well-being and mental health (Methorst et al. 2020). In densely populated residential areas, humans typically have fewer day-to-day experiences with nature compared to rural areas (Soga and Gaston 2016), leading to a reduced emotional connection with nature and possibly a decline in pro-environmental actions (Miller 2005). Greater engagement with wildlife might therefore encourage people to protect biodiversity (Soga and Gaston 2016). On the other hand, people might exhibit an overly sentimental view of wildlife, often disconnected from the realities of nature and their potential negative impacts, a phenomenon termed the “Bambi syndrome” (Lutts 1992).

An understanding of human perceptions can help manage conflicts (IUCN 2023). “Perception” is an umbrella term including people’s preferences (Rupprecht 2017), emotions (Jacobs and Vaske 2019), attitudes (Bjerke et al. 2003), and acceptability of wildlife (Straka et al. 2022). Perception shapes people’s understanding of conflicts and their acceptability of management strategies (van Eeden et al. 2020, Basak et al. 2023). For instance, in Scotland, the general public tends to accept culling of red deer (Cervus elaphus) because of the association of red deer with negative ecological impacts (Hare et al. 2021). In contrast, in Portugal, the general public perceives red deer more positively, leading to disapproval of culling (Valente et al. 2020). Animal traits influencing their perception are related to size, predatory tendencies, aesthetics (including texture, e.g., fluffy, sleek), or assumed intelligence (Woods 2000). Perceptions are measured to gain evidence of how people want nature to be managed (e.g., Manfredo et al. 2003). “Preferences” describe a divide between liked and disliked animals (e.g., Rupprecht 2017), and understanding human preferences about wildlife is key to reduce conflicts and enhance human-nature relationships. Preferences can be influenced by people’s experiences and socio-demographic backgrounds, and previous studies investigated specific factors like age, gender, experiences, and education. For example, Kellert (1996) showed that younger generations were more in favor of wildlife than older generations, Bjerke and Østdahl (2004) found that women preferred pet-like animals, whereas men favored predators, and Rupprecht (2017) demonstrated that participants with a lower educational degree showed lower willingness to coexist with wildlife. Additionally, living in an urban versus rural setting (e.g., Kimmig et al. 2020) as well as being parents of young children (Murray et al. 2023) were shown to affect wildlife perceptions.

However, previous perception surveys on wildlife in residential areas focused on either a particular taxonomic group, e.g., birds (Clergeau et al. 2001), single species like foxes (Kimmig et al. 2020), species pairs (e.g., Straka et al. 2022), or wildlife management (Loyd and Miller 2010). Perception studies on multiple wildlife species in residential areas are limited. They mostly depict a small spatial scale and focus on single cities such as Athens (Liordos et al. 2020), Krakow (Basak et al. 2022), or Chicago (Murray et al. 2023). Further, previous studies have a limited socio-demographic scope, for example, studies focused on students (Sweet et al. 2023) or housing developers (Jakoby et al. 2019).

Besides socio-demographic factors as the driving force behind human perceptions, real-life encounters with wildlife are discussed as an additionally important factor (Soulsbury and White 2019). Jacobs (2009) emphasized the relevance of psychological factors and Jürgens et al. (2022) that perception can be influenced by assumptions about animal ecologies instead of actual biological facts. The impact of encounters or the absence thereof on perceptions toward wild species is multifaceted: although some negative perceptions of certain species can be attributed to adverse experiences (e.g., Arbieu et al. 2019, Ostermann-Miyashita et al. 2023, Soga et al. 2023), others may stem from a lack of familiarity and, possibly, fear of the unknown (e.g., Zhang et al. 2014, Soga et al. 2020). Animals are frequently evaluated favorably or unfavorably based on the characteristics and attributes attributed to them by individuals (Callahan et al. 2021, Andrade et al. 2022). Here, the media plays a pivotal role in shaping perceptions and fears toward wildlife (e.g., Arbieu et al. 2021, Oelke et al. 2022). Other sources explain that exposure to wildlife during childhood tends to increase tolerance toward encountering wildlife later in life (Hosaka et al. 2017). Although the effects of human-wildlife encounters are investigated within wildlife tourism (e.g., Curtin 2009, Dell'Eva et al. 2020) or management preferences (e.g., Loyd and Miller 2010, Díaz et al. 2020), relevant studies within residential settings are rare. Bell et al. (2018) looked at the well-being of people encountering wildlife and Basak et al. (2022) at differences between 2010 and 2020 in the number of encountered species, but these and other studies that we are aware of did not investigate the important question of how previous wildlife encounters with a species in residential areas affect its human perception.

To address these knowledge gaps, we conducted a broad survey of human wildlife perception in residential areas across Germany. We not only investigated how socio-demographic background is related to human wildlife perception, but also if previous encounters and experiences with wildlife shaped people’s preferences to see them in a residential setting. Specifically, we asked: (1) Which wild mammals are preferred versus not preferred in residential areas? (2) Which wild mammals are frequently encountered in residential areas? (3) Do previous encounters shape human preferences? Finally, (4) which socio-demographic variables shape human preferences of wild mammals? Our results can support wildlife management by helping to identify drivers of wildlife preferences in residential areas and the relevance of actual encounters. With the latter, we can categorize negatively perceived mammals into encountered and unencountered groups.

We therefore hypothesize that wildlife encounters or lack thereof shape wildlife preferences (H1), predicting that positive perceptions and previous encounters are linked. Further, we hypothesize that socio-demographics also influence preferences of urban wild mammals (H2). Aligned with previous research, we predict here that gender (women) and urbanity positively influence human preferences towards wild mammals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Mammal species in residential areas

We focused on 12 species of mammals (Fig. 1) that are common in residential areas (Sukopp 1990) and are among the most familiar in Germany (Sweet et al. 2023): European beaver (Castor fiber), red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris), European hare (Lepus europaeus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), European hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus), stone marten (Martes foina), coypu (Myocastor coypus), brown or common rat (Rattus norvegicus), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), and wild boar (Sus scrofa).

Martens, hedgehogs, and foxes are carnivores, beavers, roe deer, hares, and rabbits herbivores, and the other five species omnivores (Ineichen et al. 2012). Squirrels and hedgehogs are the smallest mammals in our survey (15–20 cm height, 200–400 g weight), and wild boars and roe deer are the biggest with 120–140 cm height and 140–200 kg weight (Ineichen et al. 2012). Roe deer, squirrels, rabbits, and hares are protagonists in Walt Disney’s “Bambi” (1942), and the “Bambi syndrome” (Lutts 1992) is suggested to shape a positive image. The marten is the villain in Walt Disney’s “Perri” (1957) and in Europe is often connected to damage to cars (Herr et al. 2009). A newer film, DreamWorks Animation’s “Over the Hedge” (2006) portrayed squirrels, hedgehogs, and raccoons as protagonists. Although raccoons and coypus are, in contrast to the other 10 species, invasive in Germany and originate from the Americas (Jeschke et al. 2022), Eurasian beavers have been reintroduced across Germany after having almost become extinct in the 19th century; they can now be found in high numbers in Germany again, also increasingly in cities (Zahner et al. 2021).

Survey structure

We built a web-based survey to target participants all over Germany. The online tool SoSci Survey (https://www.soscisurvey.de/) was used to create a survey that was online for 100 consecutive days from 24 August until 7 December 2020 and was only available in German. The link for the survey was spread through mailing lists (university, NGOs, and allotment garden communities, etc.), social media such as Instagram, Twitter, Facebook (here especially regional groups, e.g., Netzwerk Hamburg or Schwarzes Brett München), and printed flyers with QR codes. The questionnaire (Appendix I) included 36 questions in four parts: (A) Preferences for wild mammals in residential areas (3 questions, e.g., the question, “Which wild mammals would you like to see in your surroundings?”>), (B) Occurrence and encounters with wild mammals in residential areas (9 questions, 2 filter questions), (C) Habitat for wildlife (12 questions), and (D) Socio-demographic background (12 questions). Questions were a mixture of open-ended questions, multiple choice, and single answers.

We calculated a preference score from the answers of the open-ended questions “Which wild mammals would you like to see in your surroundings?” and “Which wild mammals would you not like to see in your surroundings?” These questions were inspired by Rupprecht (2017), and survey participants were asked to list up to five wild mammals that they would like, or not like, to see in their surroundings. These questions were asked before the survey participants saw the list of 12 focal mammals (Fig. 1), hence they were not prompted to list these species. Answers to these open-ended questions were cleaned (e.g., separating species and reasons, correcting spelling mistakes) in order to use the R-search function (search terms in Table A2.1). Only free roaming wild (excluding domestic) mammal species in Germany were counted as valid answers, e.g., omitting elephants, butterflies, and dogs. We followed Rupprecht’s (2017) preference scoring: preferred/liked animals were coded as 1, and unpreferred/disliked animals were coded as -1. We assigned a value of 0 as neutral if a participant did not list mammals included for the preference-models in the like or dislike question. We only ran preference-models for mammals listed by more than 20% of participants.

Afterward, participants were presented with Fig. 1 and asked if they had encountered these mammals before (“Have you seen some of these mammals in your surroundings?”), which was subsequently used as the “encounter” variable. We provided the participants with the choice of up to 10 options to select where they saw a species in their neighborhood (“in the house,” “in the garden,” “in the courtyard,” “on the street,” “in a park,” “in or at a water body,” “in an urban forest,” “on a playground,” and “in a cemetery”), with the alternative answer “not seen before.” We sorted each participant’s answer for each of our 12 mammals into either encountered before (“yes”) or not encountered before (“no”). In the last section of the survey, we asked for the socio-demographic background: (1) gender, (2) age, (3) education, (4) urbanity, and if participants had (5) children, (6) a garden, (7) a car, and (8) pets (Table 1).

Statistical analyses

All statistical analyses were performed using R v4.2.2 (“Innocent and Trusting”; R Core Team 2022). We calculated Pearson’s moment correlation (Pearson 1992, Freedman et al. 2007) of the Preference-Score and the percentage of encounters with the 12 focused mammals to investigate the connection of actual encounters and imagined preferences. Additionally, we ran models on the preference-score testing the influence of our eight predictor variables (Table 1) as well as encounter. Because values for the preference-score were categorical (like/neutral/dislike), we used cumulative link models (clm) within the “ordinal” package (Christensen 2015, 2023). We tested all predictor variables (Table 1) for multicollinearity with the variance inflation factor (vif; Thompson et al. 2017), using the R-package “car” (Fox and Weisberg 2019). Following O’Brien (2007), variables with a vif-factor < 3 can be included in the same models. Our variables all showed a vif factor < 2, suggesting that there is no multicollinearity (Table A2.2). For statistical significance tests, a threshold p-value of 0.05 was used. Model fit was assessed according to conditional Hessian values, where models with values above 10e6 were deemed ill-defined models (Christensen 2015). For our analysis, we ran a total of 10 models: one model per mammal species listed by more than 20% of participants in questions 2 and 3. We depicted the results of the models with Dot-and-Whisker-Plots with the R-package “dotwhisker” (Solt and Hu 2015). For visualization, we used mammal silhouettes from the R-package “phylopic” (Geartly et al. 2023).

RESULTS

Sample population

Of the 4294 survey participants, we included the 2997 participants that completed the survey including the last question. More women than men participated in the survey (women 76%, men 24%; Fig. 2). The average age was 46 years (men 47, women 46), and the level of education was divided into 54% without and 46% with an academic degree. Almost all survey participants (99%) were born in Germany. Most participants lived in urban areas (61%) opposed to 21% in periurban and 19% in rural areas. Additionally, most participants had no children (78%), but a pet (70%), a garden (73%), and a car (77%). For pets, 39% answered that they had dogs, 33% cats, 12% rabbits or guinea pigs, 10% chickens, and 9% horses. Social media, and especially Facebook, were the main means through which to spread the survey (79%), followed by friends (7%), conservation associations (3%), university (3%), allotment gardens (2%), flyer (2%), and other (2%; Fig. A2.1). Most participants (20%) have resided in their current residence for 5 years or less (Fig. A2.2).

Preferences

Answers to the open-ended question addressing mammal preference showed that squirrels are the most liked and wild boars the most disliked species (Fig. 3). Alongside our 12 focal mammals (Fig. 1), some participants also listed other mammals (e.g., wolves, bears, bats) where we also included wolves because of their high number of listings (n = 810). A majority of respondents expressed liking squirrels (n = 1569, 52.4%), hedgehogs (n = 1192, 39.8%), deer (n = 666, 22.2%), and hares (n = 618, 20.6%) while only a minority mentioned disliking these species, with 6 (0.2%), 10 (0.3%), 134 (4.5%), and 25 (0.8%) respondents, respectively. In contrast, a significant majority of respondents expressed dislike toward wild boar (n = 1313, 43.8%), rats (n = 794, 26.5%), raccoons (n = 741, 24.7%), wolves (n = 665, 22.2%), and martens (n = 471, 15.7%), while only a minority indicated liking these species, with 198 (6.6%), 29 (1.0%), 230 (7.7%), 145 (4.8%), and 349 (11.6%) respondents, respectively. Despite high popularity (n = 1380, 46.0%), foxes were also disliked by many respondents (n = 442, 14.7%). For each mammal, we calculated a preference-score of the difference of listings as liked and disliked (Table A2.2). Squirrels obtained the highest score (score = 1563), followed by hedgehogs (1182) and foxes (938). Wild boars (-1115), rats (-765), wolves (-520), and raccoons (-511) exhibited the lowest scores, all of which were negative.

Encountered mammals

Squirrels (n = 2883; 96%) were the most encountered mammal (Fig. 4), followed by hedgehogs (n = 2776; 93%), rats (n = 2546, 85%), foxes (n = 2.412; 80%), martens (n = 2126; 71%), rabbits (n = 1.980, 66%), roe deer (n = 1708, 57%), and hare (n = 1.596, 53%). Wild boar (n = 1470, 49%) and raccoon (n = 1146, 38%) were encountered by less than half of the participants, and coypu (n = 813, 27%) and beavers (n = 711, 23%) by less than a third (Fig. 4). Most mammals were encountered on streets (average: 25%), followed by gardens (19%), parks 19%), and urban forests (19%). Wildlife in houses were spotted least (3%), with rats and martens most present (Fig. A2.3).

Preferences and encounters

The percentage of encounters and preference for a mammal species were moderately positively correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.54, p = 0.07). Thus, frequently encountered mammals tended to be preferred by participants. While squirrels, hedgehogs, foxes, hare, and rabbits are encountered and preferred by many people, wild boars, raccoons, and coypus are rarely encountered and disliked by people (Fig. 5). Thus, 6 of the 12 mammals are encountered often and preferred. On the other hand, rats and martens are frequently encountered by people but still disliked, while beavers are rarely encountered and preferred by people.

Encounters, preferences, and socio-demographics

The preference models (Fig. 4, Table A2.4) showed that for all of the 10 mammals, at least one socio-demographic predictor variable showed significant results. In terms of gender, we found that women significantly preferred squirrels, hedgehogs, and foxes (which are already highly liked) in contrast to men. Similarly, wolves and raccoons (which are already highly disliked) were disliked significantly more by men than women. Age had significant effects, too, as younger participants did not want to see martens. Our models also show that participants from rural areas liked roe deer significantly more than participants from urban areas, while those from urban areas significantly liked squirrels and foxes more. Rats were significantly disliked more by urban participants compared to rural participants. Regarding education, participants with an academic background significantly disliked wolves and raccoons more than those without academic degrees but liked hedgehogs significantly more. The variable of participants who were currently taking care of young children did show significant influences for a preference to see deer. The variable of having young children did show significant influences for a preference to see deer. Participants without pets significantly liked squirrels more than pet owners, but listed rats, foxes, and martens significantly more often as disliked. Participants with a garden liked hedgehogs significantly more than non-garden owners, but they significantly disliked martens, rats, and raccoons. Non-garden owners significantly disliked wolves compared to participants with gardens. Car owners significantly disliked martens and wild boar. Finally, in relation to the eight socioeconomic variables examined, encounters with wildlife significantly influenced preferences for all preference models (wolf being the exception as the variable was not accessed in the survey): Participants who had encounters with squirrels, hedgehogs, foxes, hares, and deer expressed significantly higher preferences for these animals compared to those who did not encounter them. Conversely, participants who encountered rats and raccoons exhibited significantly lower preferences for them compared to those who did not encounter them. Similarly, the lack of encounters with martens and wild boars resulted in significantly lower preferences among participants compared to those who did encounter them.

DISCUSSION

Through our survey conducted in German residential areas, our primary objective was to examine the intricate interplay among socio-demographic factors, wildlife encounters, and preferences. Our findings mostly supported our two hypotheses (H1-H2), with minor elaborations. First, our results showed that preferred species (squirrels, hedgehogs, hares, roe deer) were encountered often, whereas unpreferred species were either often (rats, martens) or rarely (wild boars, coypus, raccoons) encountered. Second, women generally preferred wildlife, and while in rural settings, roe deer were the preferred species, in urban settings it was squirrels and foxes. Additionally, wildlife was also preferred by people with garden access.

The “good” wildlife in residential areas

Our results of preferred mammals, namely squirrels, hedgehogs, hares, rabbits, and roe deer align with studies from other countries (Liordos et al. 2020, Basak et al. 2022). One indicator for the popularity of squirrels might be that there are about 200 wildlife rescue centers across Germany for just squirrels (www.eichhörnchen-in-not.de), around 80 for hedgehogs (www.pro-igel.de), but no specific centers for our other 10 focal mammal species. The high preference for squirrels, hedgehogs, hares, rabbits, and roe deer underlines the Bambi syndrome hypothesis (Lutts 1992). This notion is further reinforced by the frequent portrayal of these mammals, characterizing them as “cute,” on children’s clothing (Hooykaas et al. 2022), and their prominent roles as heroes in children’s books (Hara and Koda 2020) and movies, such as “Bambi” (1942) and “Zootopia” (2016). Further, squirrels are used as symbols for conservation efforts (Rotherham and Boardman 2006), hedgehogs are connected to well-being through gardening (Hobbs and White 2016), and rabbits and hares are symbols of spring and Easter (Lauritsen et al. 2018). Although foxes play a secondary role in Basak et al.’s (2022) survey, in our results foxes showed the second highest number of listings as preferred animal, but also a number of listings as unpreferred animal. Controversial beliefs around foxes prevail in Germany: Although Germany is considered free of terrestrial rabies (Müller et al. 2012), they are still connected to this disease (Kimmig et al. 2020). Similarly, although foxes are liked because of their aesthetic appearance (König 2008) and their intelligence as featured in folk tales (Uther 2006), they are also connected to pet predation (Peerenboom et al. 2020) and fear (König 2008). Generally, however, foxes are considered as “good” mammals by human residents, and therefore can be symbolic ambassadors for greening and restoration in residential areas. Our results indicate that the same applies for beavers for urban waters. Such ambassadors are essential for effective public outreach (Wilkinson 2023).

The “bad” wildlife in residential areas

Our results of unpreferred mammals mirror studies from other countries (e.g. Basak et al. 2022, Murray et al. 2023), with wild boar, rats, raccoons, martens, and coypus as the least liked ones. Wild boars were the most disliked mammals and pose danger because of their size, weight, strength, and tusks (Conejero et al. 2019). Rats are associated with dirt and garbage (Byers et al. 2019), bad neighborhoods (German and Latkin 2016), as well as disease, also still including the Black Death plague (Jedwab et al. 2019). Raccoons are disliked despite their charisma (Jarić et al. 2020) and being movie heroes (e.g., Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy, 2014), probably because of the damage they cause for native fauna and private properties (Nehring 2018). Martens are known as pet predators (Lanszki 2003) and connected to damage of cars (Lachat 1991), even though evidence shows that not every car visited by martens is impacted (Herr et al. 2009). Coypus, also known as water rats (Manno 2017), reflect the pest image of rats and are connected to dike damage (Gethöffe and Siebert 2020) and negative impacts on native ecosystems (Prigioni et al. 2005). We trace back the listings of wolves, even though they are known to avoid residential areas (Bateman and Fleming 2012), to the generally negative portrayal of this species in the media (Arbieu et al. 2019) and the stereotype of the “big bad wolf” (Jürgens and Hackett 2017). Thus, mammals perceived as “bad” (wild boar, rats, raccoon, marten, coypu) partly have actual negative impacts, but their image also suffers from stereotypes. Although for some species a better public image highlighting the scarcity of possible negative encounters is needed, e.g., for wolves (Arbieu et al. 2019, 2021) and wild boar (Goulding and Roper 2002, Oelke et al. 2022), for others, targeted measures could prevent undesirable encounters, which could lead to negative perceptions, e.g., those that deter raccoons and martens from properties (Lopez 2002, Kistler et al. 2013). Accordingly, we encourage the use of public outreach as a component of management action in order to reduce human-wildlife conflicts in urban areas going forward.

The “unseen” wildlife in residential areas

The “unseen” mammals are beavers, coypus, wild boar, and raccoons. The beaver is the only animal in our survey that is rarely encountered but preferred, as all other preferred mammals are encountered frequently. This suggests that real-life encounters are important for people to prefer particular species. Our results are in line with Soulsbury and White’s (2019) theory of human-wildlife encounters being an influential factor of an animal’s perception.

The low number of beaver encounters might be due to their primarily nocturnal activity and their still relatively low abundance in densely settled areas in Germany (Zahner et al. 2021). Hence, a beaver sighting is a rare event even leveraged for tourism purposes (Auster et al. 2020). Although beavers are mostly seen as nuisance by German land managers (Hohm et al. 2022), people like to see them in residential areas. Negative effects of beaver-related flooding might be smaller for residents in densely populated settlements than for farmers, so beaver acceptance is higher where their presence and damage are less visible (Siemer et al. 2013). Hence, the positive image of beavers in urban areas might help to prevent a general perception as nuisance.

Wild boars, raccoons, and coypus are disliked but rarely encountered. This result does not correspond with Conejero et al.’s study (2019) where encounters with wild boars related to negative human perception. Wild boars have been highlighted as dangerous in literature and films (Mathews and Kendall 2023). And for Germany, particularly within urban settings, wild boars have garnered substantial media coverage in recent decades, even outside of the country (e.g., Gray 2020, Oltermann 2023) and were connected with the spread of African swine fever (Frant et al. 2021). Consequently, although remaining largely invisible in the physical landscape, wild boars are prominent in the media notably in a negative context.

Similarly, there has been a notable surge in German newspaper articles about non-native raccoons over the past decade, predominantly depicting them in a negative context because of the damage they cause to native species and private properties (Moesch et al. 2024). Listing unseen mammals as disliked species might also suggest a lack of preparedness in the event of actual encounters (e.g., fear of wild boars and uncertainty about how to behave when encountering them). Increased knowledge about these species and appropriate behavior in the case of encounters could potentially reduce negative perceptions. We conclude that more studies are needed to understand the negative perceptions of those unseen and unpreferred mammals (wild boar, raccoon, coypu) and where possible, to create adequate management plans to reduce negative impacts.

Socio-demographic factors

An important part of wildlife management is managing people (Davies et al. 2004). With the insights from our models, we concluded that encounters play a crucial role for wildlife perception. Given the significant results observed with socioeconomic variables outside of wildlife encounters, we can single out socioeconomic demographics where public outreach is needed. We found gender, garden access, and urbanity to be the most significant factors determining wildlife preference; we therefore need to specifically address those groups.

In terms of gender, women’s preferences for a greater number of mammals mirror other studies (e.g., Bjerke et al. 1998, Bjerke and Østdahl 2004) and underline that women give more rights to and are more interested in wildlife (Herzog 2007). Deruiter (2002) speaks of a feminine quality of nurturing connected to a greater compassion between women and other creatures, as evidenced by higher rates of vegetarianism among women (Dowsett et al. 2018). This leaves us with the conclusion that we need to move away from wildlife being a “feminine” topic (Donovan 2008) and to also target men when it comes to public outreach.

In terms of garden access, although raccoons, martens, and rats are seen as nuisances because of garden damage (Peerenboom et al. 2020), preferred hedgehogs are connected to well-being through gardening (Hobbs and White 2016). Their reliance on biodiverse green spaces (Hof and Bright 2009) and the connectivity of gardens (Gazzard et al. 2021), means that by using hedgehogs as ambassadors for wildlife-inclusive gardening, we can help other species as well (Dowding et al. 2010). Access to gardens is inherently linked to encountering wildlife, given that gardens serve as both a location where humans frequently encounter wildlife (Fig A2.3) and a habitat utilized by wildlife itself (Gaston et al. 2007, Van Helden et al. 2020). The interplay between encounters and gardens becomes crucial because this is where conflicts might arise (Peterson et al. 2010) as human interests, such as growing vegetables, might clash with wildlife choosing gardens as habitats or foraging on vegetables (Curtin and Fox 2014).

For a rural-urban comparison, the preference of urban participants for foxes mirrors the results of Kimmig et al. (2020), and those for squirrels the results of Sweet et al. (2023). The preference for roe deer by rural participants might be connected to a sense of guilt over high deer mortality by cars (e.g., Seidel et al. 2018) and fawn mortality by mowing machines in agricultural areas (Wimmer et al. 2013). Rats could be significantly disliked in urban areas because of their image as pests and disease vectors especially in cities (Byers et al. 2019). Our findings support the idea that urban foxes hold potential as effective ambassadors for urban wildlife (Clark 2011) and can serve as umbrella species, fostering the creation of more “wild” green spaces that also benefit other species.

Pathways for applying our findings to enhance urban wildlife management

Using the insights garnered from our research, wildlife management can be customized to tackle animals that are perceived positively or negatively. In consideration of the “pigeon paradox” (Dunn et al. 2006), which underscores the significance of people engaging with nature in urban settings for motivating future conservation, we see that our findings could be used to increase positive encounters with wildlife.

Species perceived as “good” could serve as ambassadors for conservation efforts. Similar to flagship species utilized for conservation in natural habitats (Smith and Sutton 2008), which depend on high visibility and charismatic appeal (Jarić et al. 2024), urban areas can utilize frequently encountered and publicly favored species to educate the public about animals and their conservation needs (Sexton et al. 2015, Soanes et al. 2023). Examples include beaver tours in Scotland (Auster et al. 2020) and a bat festival in Austin, Texas (Dearborn and Kark 2010). Ultimately, these species could facilitate the promotion of wildlife-inclusive designs (e.g., Apfelbeck et al. 2020, Hauck et al. 2021) and wildlife-friendly gardening (e.g., Gazzard et al. 2021, Fardell et al. 2022).

The findings concerning animals encountered and perceived as “bad” underscore the necessity for implementing measures to mitigate conflicts. Alongside efforts to reduce negative stigma, such as the portrayal of martens as “car marten” (Herr et al. 2009), there is a pressing need for implementing measures to reduce negative encounters (Treves et al. 2009). Examples are the deterrence of martens from properties (Kistler et al. 2013) or the implementation of vehicular fortifications (Langwieder et al. 2000). Moreover, if deemed necessary, akin to the case of red deer in Scotland (Hare et al. 2021), lethal management might find greater public acceptance, particularly in instances of high encounter rates and negative perceptions, as already witnessed in the management of rats perceived as pests (Murray and Sánchez 2021). Nonetheless, it is crucial to address the root causes of problems and seek sustainable approaches rather than relying solely on lethal control (Lee et al. 2022). For instance, learning about rats might lead to a neutral acceptance of their presence (Aivelo and Huovelin 2020).

Regarding the “unseen” species, which are rarely encountered but largely disliked, socio-demographic factors such as education also influence perceptions alongside the scarcity of encounters (Fig. 6). Because newspaper consumers often tend to have higher levels of education (Elvestad and Blekesaune 2008, Artero et al. 2020), media portrayal plays crucial roles in shaping perceptions, particularly for non-native species like raccoons (Moesch et al. 2024) and returned or reintroduced species like wolves (Arbieu et al. 2019, 2021). Media often sensationalize wildlife narratives to enhance sales, with conflict-driven stories gaining attraction (Goulding and Roper 2002, Houston et al. 2010). Consequently, we advocate for a more balanced and fact-based portrayal of reintroduced, native, and non-native wild species in the media, focusing on their impacts without resorting to emotional language or perpetuating stereotypes. Nevertheless, the negative perception is not necessarily unfounded, as these unseen species may indeed pose negative impacts (Jernelöv 2017, Colomer et al. 2021). As with frequently encountered, unpreferred wildlife, it is equally crucial to minimize negative interactions with those that are encountered rarely. Examples are to give guidance on how to prevent negative consequences, e.g., creating raccoon-proof trash cans (Rosatte 2000), building fences as wild boar barriers (Laguna et al. 2022), and the incorporation of wildlife within urban design and planning (Treves et al. 2009; Kay et al. 2022), e.g., reducing the attractiveness of urban corridors for wild boar movement into residential areas (Castillo-Contreras et al. 2018).

Limitations and future research

Because online surveys might attract only specific demographics (Bethlehem 2010, Andrade 2020), it is imperative to consider the potential influence of our dissemination strategy. However, the verification that our dissemination strategy did not influence outcomes in our analysis is supported by our sample, which only shows a marginal impact from distribution channels such as universities, NGOs, and allotment garden communities (2–3%, Fig. A2.1), with the largest number of respondents (79%) accessing our survey via diverse social media platforms. Further, our study operated under the presumption that humans can identify species, despite potential similarities, e.g., hares and rabbits (Langley 2014), or beavers and coypus (Viviano et al. 2023). The absence of a specific time frame or frequency of encounters with wildlife in our survey data limits our ability to assess the effect of multiple versus single encounters. Regarding our analysis, assuming a neutral perception for species not listed as preferred or unpreferred may oversimplify perceptions. Additionally, the noticeable imbalance in male and female participants might obscure the true sentiments of men toward wildlife. This is not an isolated occurrence, as other studies examining perception of animals also indicate a higher level of women participation (Herzog 2007). Furthermore, it is important to note that our survey focused on wild mammals and excluded domesticated pets. This leaves out species that do not neatly fit into either category, such as stray cats and dogs which act wild, but have different origins within human society (Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2022, Göttert and Perry 2023). Although not a major concern in Germany, stray and feral animals cause conflicts in other cities (e.g., Parsons et al. 2018, Coronel-Arellano et al. 2021). These limitations should be considered when interpreting the results and suggested avenues for future research.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there appears to be an initial contradiction, our viewpoint aligns with the perspectives of Soulsbury and White (2019) as well as Jürgens et al. (2022): The formation of favorable perceptions for our preferred mammals is primarily influenced by real, physical encounters, while less favored species tend to be associated with negative perceptions stemming from a combination of real negative impacts and adverse public portrayals. Particularly in the case of disliked wild boars and raccoons, we need to provide people with precise instructions on how to act during real encounters, and to reduce the damage they cause with proactive management plans.

Encountering wildlife in residential areas will most likely increase in the future, with urban sprawl from growing cities encroaching upon natural habitats. Therefore, we need to shape our lives together with wildlife: Enhance greenspaces in residential areas to promote positive encounters with those we prefer (squirrels, hedgehogs, fox, hare) and prevent negative human-wildlife impacts in residential areas with public outreach and conflict-prevention measures for those we do not prefer (wild boar, raccoons, martens, rats). We propose that the knowledge derived from this research has the potential to shape urban planning strategies and broader environmental and conservation policies going forward, facilitating the coexistence of urban biodiversity alongside effective management of human-animal conflicts.

LITERATURE CITED

Adams, L. W. 2005. Urban wildlife ecology and conservation: a brief history of the discipline. Urban Ecosystems 8:139-156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-005-4377-7

Aivelo, T., and S. Huovelin. 2020. Combining formal education and citizen science: a case study on students’ perceptions of learning and interest in an urban rat project. Environmental Education Research 26(3):324-340. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1727860

Andrade, C. 2020. The limitations of online surveys. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine 42(6):575-576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0253717620957496

Andrade, R., K. L. Larson, J. Franklin, S. B. Lerman, H. L. Bateman, and P. S. Warren. 2022. Species traits explain public perceptions of human-bird interactions. Ecological Applications 32(8):e2676. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2676

Apfelbeck, B., R. P. Snep, T. E. Hauck, J. Ferguson, M. Holy, C. Jakoby, J. S. MacIvor, L. Schär, M. Taylor, and W. W. Weisser. 2020. Designing wildlife-inclusive cities that support human-animal co-existence. Landscape and Urban Planning 200:103817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103817

Arbieu, U., G. Chapron, C. Astaras, B. Bunnefeld, S. Harkins, Y. Iliopoulos, M. Mehring, I. Reinhardt, and T. Mueller. 2021. News selection and framing: the media as a stakeholder in human-carnivore coexistence. Environmental Research Letters 16(6):064075. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac05ef

Arbieu, U., M. Mehring, N. Bunnefeld, P. Kaczensky, I. Reinhardt, H. Ansorge, K. Böhning-Gaese, J. A. Glikman, G. Kluth, C. Nowak, and T. Mueller. 2019. Attitudes towards returning wolves (Canis lupus) in Germany: exposure, information sources and trust matter. Biological Conservation 234:202-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.03.027

Artero, J. P., V. Orive, and P. Latorre. 2020. Sociodemographic profiles and predictors of news consumers. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social (77):55-71.

Auster, R. E., S. W. Barr, and R. E. Brazier. 2020. Wildlife tourism in reintroduction projects: exploring social and economic benefits of beaver in local settings. Journal for Nature Conservation 58:125920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2020.125920

Basak, S. M., M. S. Hossain, D. T. O'Mahony, H. Okarma, E. Widera, and I. A. Wierzbowska. 2022. Public perceptions and attitudes toward urban wildlife encounters - a decade of change. Science of the total environment 834:155603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155603

Basak, S. M., E. Rostovskaya, J. Birks, and I. A. Wierzbowska. 2023. Perceptions and attitudes to understand human-wildlife conflict in an urban landscape: a systematic review. Ecological Indicators 151:110319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110319

Bateman, P. W., and P. A. Fleming. 2012. Big city life: carnivores in urban environments. Journal of Zoology 287(1):1-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00887.x

Bell, S. L., M. Westley, R. Lovell, and B. W. Wheeler. 2018. Everyday green space and experienced well-being: the significance of wildlife encounters. Landscape Research 43(1):8-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2016.1267721

Bethlehem, J. 2010. Selection bias in web surveys. International Statistical Review 78(2):161-188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-5823.2010.00112.x

Bjerke, T., T. S. Ødegårdstuen, and B. P. Kaltenborn. 1998. Attitudes toward animals among Norwegian adolescents. Anthrozoös 11:79-86. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279398787000742

Bjerke, T., and T. Østdahl. 2004. Animal-related attitudes and activities in an urban population. Anthrozoös 17(2):109-129. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279304786991783

Bjerke, T., T. Østdahl, and J. Kleiven. 2003. Attitudes and activities related to urban wildlife: pet owners and non-owners. Anthrozoös 16(3):252-262. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279303786992125

Byers, K. A., S. M. Cox, R. Lam, and C. C. Himsworth. 2019. “They’re always there”: resident experiences of living with rats in a disadvantaged urban neighbourhood. BMC Public Health 19:853. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7202-6

Callahan, M. M., T. Satterfield, and J. Zhao. 2021. Into the animal mind: perceptions of emotive and cognitive traits in animals. Anthrozoös 34(4):597-614. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2021.1914439

Castillo-Contreras, R., J. Carvalho, E. Serrano, G. Mentaberre, X. Fernández-Aguilar, A. Colom, C. González-Crespo, S. Lavín, 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

Christensen, R. H. B. 2015. Ordinal-regression models for ordinal data. R Package Version. Version 2015.

Christensen, R. H. B. 2023. Ordinal: regression models for ordinal data. R package version 2018.8-25. https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.ordinal

Clark, H. O. 2011. Urban carnivores: ecology, conflict, and conservation. Western North American Naturalist 70(4):577-578. https://doi.org/10.3398/064.070.0420

Clergeau, P., G. Mennechez, A. Sauvage, and A. Lemoine. 2001. Human perception and appreciation of birds: a motivation for wildlife conservation in urban environments of France. Pages 69-88 in J. Marzluff, R. Bowman, and R. Donnelly, editors. Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Springer, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1531-9_4

Colomer, J., C. Rosell, J. D. Rodriguez-Teijeiro, and G. Massei. 2021. ‘Reserve effect’: an opportunity to mitigate human-wild boar conflicts. Science of the Total Environment 795:148721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148721

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

Coronel-Arellano, H., M. Rocha-Ortega, F. Gual-Sill, E. Martínez-Meyer, A. K. Ramos-Rendón, M. González-Negrete, G. Gil-Alarcón, and L. Zambrano. 2021. Raining feral cats and dogs? Implications for the conservation of medium-sized wild mammals in an urban protected area. Urban Ecosystems 24(1):83-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00991-7

Curtin, S. 2009. Wildlife tourism: the intangible, psychological benefits of human-wildlife encounters. Current Issues in Tourism 12:451-474. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500903042857

Curtin, S., and D. Fox. 2014. Human dimensions of wildlife gardening: its development, controversies and psychological benefits. Pages 1025-1046 in G. R. Dixon and D. E. Aldous, editors. Horticulture: plants for people and places, Volume 3. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8560-0_4

Davies, R. G., L. M. Webber, and G. S. Barnes. 2004. Urban wildlife management - it’s as much about people. Pages 38-43 in D. Lunney and S. Burgin, editors. Urban wildlife: more than meets the eye. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, New South Wales, Australia. https://doi.org/10.7882/FS.2004.079

Dearborn, D. C., and S. Kark. 2010. Motivations for conserving urban biodiversity. Conservation Biology 24(2):432-440. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01328.x

Dell'Eva, M., C. R. Nava, and L. Osti. 2020. Perceptions and satisfaction of human-animal encounters in protected areas. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 12(4):441-458. https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-05-2020-0024

Deruiter, D. S. 2002. A qualitative approach to measuring determinants of wildlife value orientations. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 7(4):251-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200214754

Díaz, M. V., J. A. Simonetti, and F. Zorondo-Rodríguez. 2020. Social acceptability of management actions for addressing different conflict scenarios between humans and wildlife in Patagonia. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 25(1):17-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2020.1678079

Donovan, J. 2008. Animal rights and feminist theory. Pages 191-216 in C. Palmer, editor. Animal rights. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315262529-14

Dowding, C. V., R. F. Shore, A. Worgan, P. J. Baker, and S. Harris. 2010. Accumulation of anticoagulant rodenticides in a non-target insectivore, the European hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus). Environmental Pollution 158(1):161-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2009.07.017

Dowsett, E., C. Semmler, H. Bray, R. A. Ankeny, and A. Chur-Hansen. 2018. Neutralising the meat paradox: cognitive dissonance, gender, and eating animals. Appetite 123:280-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.01.005

Dunn, R. R., M. C. Gavin, M. C. Sanchez, and J. N. Solomon. 2006. The pigeon paradox: dependence of global conservation on urban nature. Conservation Biology 20(6):1814-1816. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00533.x

Elvestad, E., and A. Blekesaune. 2008. Newspaper readers in Europe: a multilevel study of individual and national differences. European Journal of Communication 23(4):425-447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323108096993

Fardell, L. L., C. R. Pavey, and C. R. Dickman. 2022. Backyard biomes: is anyone there? Improving public awareness of urban wildlife activity. Diversity 14(4):263. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14040263

Fischer, J. D., S. C. Schneider, A. A. Ahlers, and J. R. Miller. 2015. Categorizing wildlife responses to urbanization and conservation implications of terminology. Conservation Biology 29(4):1246-1248. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12451

Fox, J., and S. Weisberg. 2019. An R companion to applied regression. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Frant, M. P., A. Gal-Cisoń, Ł. Bocian, A. Ziętek-Barszcz, K. Niemczuk, G. Woźniakowski, and A. Szczotka-Bochniarz. 2021. African swine fever in wild boar (Poland 2020): passive and active surveillance analysis and further perspectives. Pathogens 10(9):1219. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens10091219

Freedman, D., R. Pisani, and R. Purves. 2007. Statistics. WW Norton and Company, New York, New York, USA.

Gaston, K. J., P. Cush, S. Ferguson, P. Frost, S. Gaston, D. Knight, A. Loram, R. M. Smith, K. Thompson, and P. H. Warren. 2007. Improving the contribution of urban gardens for wildlife: some guiding propositions. British Wildlife 18(3):171.

Gazzard, A., A. Boushall, E. Brand, and P. J. Baker. 2021. An assessment of a conservation strategy to increase garden connectivity for hedgehogs that requires cooperation between immediate neighbours: a barrier too far? PLoS ONE 16(11):e0259537. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259537

Geartly, W., L. A. Jones, S. Chamberkain, and D. Miller. 2023. Package ‘rphylopic’. Get silhouettes of organisms from PhyloPic. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rphylopic/rphylopic.pdf

German, D., and C. A. Latkin. 2016. Exposure to urban rats as a community stressor among low-income urban residents. Journal of Community Psychology 44(2):249-262. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21762

Gethöffe, F., and U. Siebert. 2020. Current knowledge of the Neozoa, Nutria and Muskrat in Europe and their environmental impacts. Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 4(2):1-12.

Göttert, T., and G. Perry. 2023. Going wild in the city—animal feralization and its impacts on biodiversity in urban environments. Animals 13(4):747. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13040747

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

Gray, M. 2020. Wild boar that stole nudist’s laptop could meet its demise. New York Post, 15 August. https://nypost.com/2020/08/15/wild-boar-that-stole-nudists-laptop-could-meet-its-demise/

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

Hara, K., and N. Koda. 2020. Quantitative analysis of anthropomorphic animals in picture books: roles and features of animals. International Journal of Literature and Arts 8(6):308-315. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijla.20200806.11

Hare, D., M. Daniels, and B. Blossey. 2021. Public perceptions of deer management in Scotland. Frontiers in Conservation Science 2:781546. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2021.781546

Hauck, T. E., W. W. Weisser, B. Apfelbeck, C. Jakoby, R. Rogers, M. Hanusch, M. Koch, E. Boas Steffani, R. Honecker, and J. Piecha. 2021. Animal-aided design: Einbeziehung der Bedürfnisse von Tierarten in die Planung und Gestaltung städtischer Freiräume. No. 595. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn, Deutschland. https://doi.org/10.19217/skr595

Herr, J., L. Schley, and T. J. Roper. 2009. Stone martens (Martes foina) and cars: investigation of a common human-wildlife conflict. European Journal of Wildlife Research 55:471-477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-009-0263-6

Herzog, H. A. 2007. Gender differences in human-animal interactions: a review. Anthrozoös 20(1):7-21. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279307780216687

Hobbs, S. J., and P. C. White. 2016. Achieving positive social outcomes through participatory urban wildlife conservation projects. Wildlife Research 42(7):607-617. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR14184

Hof, A. R., and P. W. Bright. 2009. The value of green-spaces in built-up areas for western hedgehogs. Lutra 52(2):69-82.

Hohm, M., S. S. Moesch, J. Bahm, J. M. Jeschke, and N. Balkenhol. 2022. Der Biber: Problemtier oder konfliktfreie Koexistenz mit dem Nager nach über 100 Jahren Unterschutzstellung? Pages 133-140 in J. Arnola and A. Klamm, editors. Wildbiologische Forschungsberichte 2022. Kessel Verlag, Remagen, Germany.

Hooykaas, M. J. D., A. K. Aalders, M. Schilthuizen, and I. Smeets. 2022. Animals in fashion: portrayal of animal biodiversity on children’s clothing. Society and Animals 1:1-26. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-bja10109

Hosaka, T., K. Sugimoto, and S. Numata. 2017. Effects of childhood experience with nature on tolerance of urban residents toward hornets and wild boars in Japan. PLoS ONE 12(4):e0175243. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175243

Houston, M. J., J. T. Bruskotter, and D. Fan. 2010. Attitudes toward wolves in the United States and Canada: a content analysis of the print news media, 1999-2008. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 15(5):389-403. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2010.507563

Ineichen, S., B. Klausnitzer, and M. Ruckstuhl. 2012. Stadtfauna: 600 Tierarten unserer Städte. Haupt Verlag, Bern, Switzerland.

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2023. IUCN SSC guidelines on human-wildlife conflict and coexistence. First edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Ives, C. D., P. E. Lentini, C. G. Threlfall, K. Ikin, D. F. Shanahan, G. E. Garrard, S. Bekessy, R. Fuller, L. Mumaw, L. Rayner, R. Rowe, and L. E. Valentine, and D. Kendal. 2016. Cities are hotspots for threatened species. Global Ecology and Biogeography 25(1):117-126. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12404

Jacobs, M. 2009. Why do we like or dislike animals? Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14(1):1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200802545765

Jacobs, M., and J. J. Vaske. 2019. Understanding emotions as opportunities for and barriers to coexistence with wildlife. Pages 65-84 in B. Frank, J. Glikmann and S. Marchini, editors. Human-wildlife interactions: turning conflict into coexistence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235730.007

Jakoby, C., R. Rogers, B. Apfelbeck, T. E. Hauck, and W. W. Weisser. 2019. Wildtiere im Wohnumfeld: wie werden sie von Wohnungsunternehmen bewertet? Natur und Landschaft 94:181-187. https://doi.org/10.17433/5.2019.50153685.181-187

Jarić, I., F. Courchamp, R. A. Correia, S. L. Crowley, F. Essl, A. Fischer, P. González-Moreno, G. Kalinkat, X. Lambin, B. Lenyer, et al. 2020. The role of species charisma in biological invasions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 18(6):345-353. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2195

Jarić, I., I. C. Normande, U. Arbieu, F. Courchamp, S. L. Crowley, J. M. Jeschke, U. Roll, K. Sherren, L. Thomas-Walters, D. Veríssimo, and R. J. Ladle. 2024. Flagship individuals in biodiversity conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 22(1):e2599. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2599

Jedwab, R., N. D. Johnson, and M. Koyama. 2019. Pandemics, places, and populations: evidence from the Black Death. Centre for Economic Policy Research, London, UK. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/pandemics-places-and-populations-evidence-black-death

Jernelöv, A. 2017. Raccoons in Europe (Germany). Pages 217-230 in The long-term fate of invasive species: aliens forever or integrated immigrants with time? Springer, Cham, Switzerland.

Jeschke, J. M., S. Hilt, A. Hussner, S. S. Moesch, A. Mrugała, C. Musseau, F. Ruland, A. Sagouis, and D. L. Stayer. 2022. Biological invasions: case studies. Pages 382-398 in T. Mehner, and K. Tockner, editors. Encyclopedia of inland waters, Volume 4. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819166-8.00035-9

Jürgens, U. M., and P. M. Hackett. 2017. The big bad wolf: the formation of a stereotype. Ecopsychology 9(1):33-43. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2016.0037

Jürgens, U. M., P. M. Hackett, M. Hunziker, and A. Patt. 2022. Wolves, crows, spiders, and people: a qualitative study yielding a three-layer framework for understanding human-wildlife relations. Diversity 14(8):591. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14080591

Kay, C. A. M., A. T. Rohnke, H. A. Sander, T. Stankowich, M. Fidino, M. H. Murray, J. S. Lewis, I. Taves, E. W. Lehrer, A. J. Zellmer, C. J. Schell, and S. B. Magle. 2022. Barriers to building wildlife-inclusive cities: insights from the deliberations of urban ecologists, urban planners and landscape designers. People and Nature 4(1):62-70. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10283

Kellert, S. R. 1996. The value of life. Biological diversity and human society. Island, Washington, D.C., USA.

Kimmig, S. E., D. Flemming, J. Kimmerle, U. Cress, and M. Brandt. 2020. Elucidating the socio-demographics of wildlife tolerance using the example of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in Germany. Conservation Science and Practice 2(7):e212. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.212

Kistler, C., D. Hegglin, K. von Wattenwyl, and F. Bontadina. 2013. Is electric fencing an efficient and animal-friendly tool to prevent stone martens from entering buildings? European Journal of Wildlife Research 59:905-909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-013-0752-5

König, A. 2008. Fears, attitudes and opinions of suburban residents with regards to their urban foxes. European Journal of Wildlife Research 54:101-109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-007-0117-z

Lachat, N. 1991. Stone martens and cars: a beginning war. Mustelid and Viverrid Conservation 5:4-6.

Laguna, E., J. A. Barasona, A. J. Carpio, J. Vicente, and P. Acevedo. 2022. Permeability of artificial barriers (fences) for wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Mediterranean mixed landscapes. Pest Management Science 78(6):2277-2286. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.6853

Langley, L. 2014. What’s the difference between rabbits and hares? National Geographic, 19 December.

Langwieder, K., F. Höpfl, and L. Anselm. 2000. Schäden am Pkw durch Marder-Verbiß. Institut für Fahrzeugsicherheit, Graz, Austria.

Lanszki, J. 2003. Feeding habits of stone martens in a Hungarian village and its surroundings. Folia Zoologica 52(4):367-377.

Lauritsen, M., R. Allen, J. M. Alves, C. Ameen, T. Fowler, E. Irving-Pease, G. Larson, L. J. Murphy, A. K. Outram, E. Pilgrim, P. A. Shaw, and N. Sykes. 2018. Celebrating Easter, Christmas and their associated alien fauna. World Archaeology 50(2):285-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2018.1515655

Lee, M. J., K. A. Byers, C. Stephen, D. M. Patrick, R. Corrigan, S. Iwasawa, and C. G. Himsworth. 2022. Reconsidering the “war on rats”: what we know from over a century of research into municipal rat management. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 10:813600. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.813600

Liordos, V., E. Foutsa, and V. J. Kontsiotis. 2020. Differences in encounters, likeability and desirability of wildlife species among residents of a Greek city. Science of The Total Environment 739:139892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139892

Lopez, A. D. 2002. When raccoons fall through your ceiling: the handbook for coexisting with wildlife. University of North Texas Press, Denton, Texas, USA.

Loyd, K. A. T., and C. A. Miller. 2010. Influence of demographics, experience and value orientations on preferences for lethal management of feral cats. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 15(4):262-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2010.491846

Lutts, R. H. 1992. The trouble with Bambi: Walt Disney’s Bambi and the American vision of nature. Forest and Conservation History 36(4):160-171. https://doi.org/10.2307/3983677

Manfredo, M., T. Teel, and A. Bright. 2003. Why are public values toward wildlife changing? Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8(4):287-306. https://doi.org/10.1080/716100425

Manno, T. G. 2017. Swamp rat: the story of Dixie’s nutria invasion. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi, USA.

Mathews, F., and T. Kendall. 2023. Black ops and beaver bombing: adventures with Britain’s wild mammals. Simon and Schuster, New York, New York, USA.

Methorst, J., U. Arbieu, A. Bonn, K. Böhning-Gaese, and T. Müller. 2020. Non-material contributions of wildlife to human well-being: a systematic review. Environmental Research Letters 15(9):093005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9927

Michelfelder, D. P. 2003. Valuing wildlife populations in urban environments. Journal of Social Philosophy 34(1):79-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9833.00166

Miller, J. R. 2005. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20:430-434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.013

Moesch, S. S., A. J. Seeliger, L. P. Heinrich, W.-C. Saul, D. Haase, J. M. Jeschke. 2024. Raccoons in Germany. Impacts and management options from media and stakeholder perspectives. Natur und Landschaft 99(4):188-200.

Müller, T., H. J. Baetza, C. Freuling, A. Kliemt, J. Kliemt, R. Heuser, H. Schlueter, T. Selhorst, A. Vos, and T. C. Mettenleiter. 2012. Elimination of terrestrial rabies in Germany using oral vaccination of foxes. Berliner und Münchener Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 125(5/6):117-190.

Murray, M. H., K. A. Byers, J. Buckley, E. W. Lehrer, C. Kay, M. Fidino, S. Magle, and D. German. 2023. Public perception of urban wildlife during a COVID-19 stay-at-home quarantine order in Chicago. Urban Ecosystems 26(1):127-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-022-01284-x

Murray, M. H., and C. A. Sánchez 2021. Urban rat exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides and zoonotic infection risk. Biology Letters 17(8):20210311. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2021.0311

Nehring, S. 2018. Warum der gebietsfremde Waschbär naturschutzfachlich eine invasive Art ist - trotz oder gerade wegen aktueller Forschungsergebnisse. Natur und Landschaft 93:453-461. https://doi.org/10.17433/9.2018.50153629.453-461

O’Brien, R. M. 2007. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality and Quantity 41(5):673-690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6

Oelke, J., A. Jarynowski, and V. Belik. 2022. The curious case of the lion from Berlin in summer ’23: how Internet media shapes risk perception from wildlife-human conflict. E-Methodology 9(9):127-136. https://doi.org/10.15503/emet.2022.127.136

Oltermann, P. 2023. Escaped ‘lioness’ in Berlin was most likely a wild boar, mayor says. The Guardian, 21 July. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/21/escaped-lioness-berlin-most-likely-wild-boar

Ostermann-Miyashita, E. F. N. Pernat, H. J. Koenig, K. Hemminger, N. Gandl, K. Bellingrath-Kimura, S. D. Bellingrath-Kimura, S. Hibler, and C. Kiffner. 2023. Attitudes of wildlife park visitors towards returning wildlife species: an analysis of patterns and correlates. Biological Conservation 278:109878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109878

Parsons, M. H., P. B. Banks, M. A. Deutsch, and J. Munshi-South. 2018. Temporal and space-use changes by rats in response to predation by feral cats in an urban ecosystem. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 6:409816. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00146

Pearson, K. 1992. On the criterion that a given system of deviations from the probable in the case of a correlated system of variables is such that it can be reasonably supposed to have arisen from random sampling. Pages 11-28 in S. Kotz and N. L. Johnson, editors. Breakthroughs in statistics: methodology and distribution. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4380-9_2

Peerenboom, G., F. Berger, C. Janko, and I. Storch. 2020. Wildtiermanagement im Siedlungsraum - Ein Handbuch für Kreise und Kommunen in Baden-Württemberg. Professur für Wildtierökologie und Wildtiermanagement der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg im Breisgau, Freiburg, Germany.

Perry, G., C. Boal, R. Verble, and M. Wallace. 2020. “Good” and “bad” urban wildlife. Pages 141-170 in F. M. Angelici and L. Rossi, editors. Problematic wildlife II: new conservation and management challenges in the human-wildlife interactions. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42335-3_5

Peterson, M. N., J. L. Birckhead, K. Leong, M. J. Peterson, and T. R. Peterson. 2010. Rearticulating the myth of human-wildlife conflict. Conservation Letters 3(2):74-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00099.x

Prigioni, C., A. Balestrieri, and L. Remonti. 2005. Food habits of the coypu (Myocastor coypus) and its impact on aquatic vegetation in a freshwater habitat of NW Italy. Folia Zoologica 54:269-277.

R Core Team. 2022. Innocent and trusting. The R Foundation for Statistical Computing Platform, Vienna, Austria.

Rodríguez-Rodríguez, E. J., J. Gil-Morión, and J. J. Negro. 2022. Feral animal populations: separating threats from opportunities. Land 11(8):1370. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081370

Rosatte, R. 2000. Management of raccoons (Procyon lotor) in Ontario, Canada: do human intervention and disease have significant impact on raccoon populations?. Mammalia 64(4):369-390 https://doi.org/10.1515/mamm.2000.64.4.369

Rotherham, I. D., and S. Boardman. 2006. Who says the public only love red squirrels. ECOS 27(1):28-35.

Rupprecht, C. D. D. 2017. Ready for more-than-human? Measuring urban residents’ willingness to coexist with animals. Fennia 195:142-160. https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.64182

Schneider, S. L. 2016. The conceptualisation, measurement, and coding of education in German and cross-national surveys. GESIS Survey Guidelines. GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Mannheim, Germany.

Seidel, D., N. Hähn, P. Annighöfer, A. Benten, T. Vor, and C. Ammer. 2018. Assessment of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L.) - vehicle accident hotspots with respect to the location of ‘trees outside forest’ along roadsides. Applied Geography 93:76-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.02.015

Sexton, N. R., D. Ross-Winslow, M. Pradines, and A. M. Dietsch. 2015. The urban wildlife conservation program: building a broader conservation community. Cities and the Environment 8(1):3.

Siemer, W. F., S. A. Jonker, D. J. Decker, and J. F. Organ. 2013. Toward an understanding of beaver management as human and beaver densities increase. Human-Wildlife Interactions 7(1):114-131.

Smith, A. M., and S. G. Sutton. 2008. The role of a flagship species in the formation of conservation intentions. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 13(2):127-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200701883408

Soanes, K., L. Taylor, C. E. Ramalho, C. Maller, K. Parris, J. Bush, L. Mata, N. S. G. Williams, and C. G. Threlfall. 2023. Conserving urban biodiversity: current practice, barriers, and enablers. Conservation Letters 16(3):e12946. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12946

Soga, M., M. J. Evans, T. Yamanoi, Y. Fukano, K. Tsuchiya, T. F. Koyanagi, and T. Kanai. 2020. How can we mitigate against increasing biophobia among children during the extinction of experience? Biological Conservation 242:108420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108420

Soga, M., and K. J. Gaston. 2016. Extinction of experience: the loss of human-nature interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14:94-101. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1225

Soga, M., K. J. Gaston, Y. Fukano, and M. J. Evans. 2023. The vicious cycle of biophobia. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 38(6):512-520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.12.012

Solt, F., and Y. Hu. 2015. dotwhisker: Dot-and-whisker plots of regression results. https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.dotwhisker

Soulsbury, C. D., and P. C. L. White. 2015. Human wildlife interactions in urban areas: a review of conflicts, benefits and opportunities. Wildlife Research 42:541-553. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR14229

Soulsbury, C. D., and P. C. L. White. 2019. A framework for assessing and quantifying human-wildlife interactions in urban areas. Pages 107-128 in B. Frank, J. Glikmann and S. Marchini, editors. Human-wildlife interactions: turning conflict into coexistence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235730.009

Straka, T. M., L. Bach, U. Klisch, M. H. Egerer, L. K. Fischer, and I. Kowarik. 2022. Beyond values: how emotions, anthropomorphism, beliefs and knowledge relate to the acceptability of native and non‐native species management in cities. People and Nature 4(6):1485-1499. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10398

Sukopp, H. 1990. Stadtökologie - das Beispiel Berlin. Dieter Reimer Verlag, Berlin, Germany.

Sweet, F. S., P. Noack, T. E. Hauck and W. W. Weisser. 2023. The relationship between knowing and liking for 91 urban animal species among students. Animals 13(3):488. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13030488

Thompson, C. G., R. S. Kim, A. M. Aloe, and B. J. Becker. 2017. Extracting the variance inflation factor and other multicollinearity diagnostics from typical regression results. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 39(2):81-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2016.1277529

Treves, A., R. B. Wallace, and S. White. 2009. Participatory planning of interventions to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts. Conservation Biology 23(6):1577-1587. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01242.x

Turner, W. R., T. Nakamura, and M. Dinetti. 2004. Global urbanization and the separation of humans from nature. Bioscience 54(6):585-590. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0585:GUATSO]2.0.CO;2

United Nations. 2018. World urbanization prospects: the 2018 revision. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York, New York, USA.

Uther, H. J. 2006. The fox in world literature: reflections on a “Fictional Animal”. Asian Folklore Studies 65:133-160.

Valente, A. M., P. Acevedo, A. M. Figueiredo, R. Martins, C. Fonseca, R. T. Torres, and M. Delibes-Mateos. 2020. 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

van Eeden, L. M., T. M. Newsome, M. S. Crowther, C. R. Dickman, and J. Bruskotter. 2020. Diverse public perceptions of species’ status and management align with conflicting conservation frameworks. Biological Conservation 242:108416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108416

Van Helden, B. E., P. G. Close, B. A. Stewart, P. C. Speldewinde, and S. J. Comer. 2020. An underrated habitat: residential gardens support similar mammal assemblages to urban remnant vegetation. Biological Conservation 250:108760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108760

Viviano, A., R. E. Auster, G. Mazza, A. Lagrotteria, C. Pucci, D. Senserini, R. Campbell-Palmer, R. Needham, D. Curci, and E. Mori. 2023. Eurasian beavers in Central Italy: perceptions in the local community. Science of Nature 110(4):30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-023-01860-x

Wilkinson, C. E. 2023. Public interest in individual study animals can bolster wildlife conservation. Nature Ecology and Evolution 7(4):478-479. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02009-9

Wimmer, T., M. Israel, P. Haschberger, and A. Weimann. 2013. Rehkitzrettung mit dem Fliegenden Wildretter: Erfahrungen der ersten Feldeinsätze. In 19. Workshop Computer-Bildanalyse in der Landwirtschaft 81:85-95.

Woods, B. 2000. Beauty and the beast: preferences for animals in Australia. Journal of Tourism Studies 11(2):25-35.

Zahner, V., M. Schmidbauer, G. Schwab, and C. Angst. 2021. Der Biber. Baumeister mit Biss. Second edition. SüdOst Verlag, Regenstauf, Germany.

Zhang, W., E. Goodale, and J. Chen. 2014. How contact with nature affects children’s biophilia, biophobia and conservation attitude in China. Biological Conservation 177:109-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.06.011