Achieving and maintaining a coexistence between humans and large carnivores, especially the wolf, is a critical component of wildlife conservation and a pressing challenge to global conservation efforts and those tasked with managing human-carnivore conflicts (Olson et al., 2015; Morehouse et al., 2020; Peterson et al., 2010; Chapron et al., 2014; Decker & Chase, 1997; Ripple et al., 2014). Although the importance of the wolf and other carnivores is known in the scientific community, there are conditions that determine the possibility of conflicts between wolfs and humans. In the last decades the question took new dimensions, especially as a result of the protection of the species. In fact, the wolf, once considered “harmful” and persecuted until disappeared in various regions of Italy, has now begun to reappear in some areas it had been missing for some time. The increase in the wolf population was allowed for many reasons, including: favourable regulations, greater availability of prey, the possibility of inhabiting territories that humans has freed, a greater awareness of the importance of wildlife for the environment by scholars. But the same increase in the wolf population also increased conflicts with humans, which have always existed and are now exacerbated by a number of factors: presence in production-oriented landscapes (territorial competition) (Loveridge et al., 2010); predation of livestock (Olson et al., 2019; Ugarte et al., 2019); fear for humans and their pets security (Butler et al., 2013; Kruuk, 2002); amplification of risk perception by social media (Nanni et al., 2020); presence in human-dominated landscapes (Kuijper et al., 2019), such as urban suburbs. The social and media world often overestimates the wildlife negative impacts, and sometimes overlook some possible positive factors; for example, the presence of large carnivores could be used to promote nature tourism, and to disseminate an image of the territory linked to the protection of wildlife (Rode et al., 2021).

Public opinion is a fundamental factor in the acceptance of coexistence with the wolf, as is the perception of the risks related to coexistence by the various stakeholders, which has been the subject of numerous studies. These studies show the strong link between this perception and some factors, such as age, work activity, level of education, place of residence, relationship to nature (van Heel et al., 2017; Chapron et al., 2014; Glikman et al., 2011; Manfredo et al., 2003) or having suffered predation of livestock (Olson et al., 2019; Ugarte et al., 2019). A higher level of education and residence in urban areas, for example, facilitate the acceptance of the wolf (Kleiven et al., 2004), as well as expecting the risk or having already contact with wildlife (Røskaft et al., 2003, 2007; Vittersø et al., 1999). However, often “the deeply rooted hostility to this species in human history and culture” changes stakeholders’ perceptions of the wolf and makes his acceptance difficult (Chapron et al., 2014). The aim of this study is to investigate the wolf perceptions of stakeholders, identifying connections and relationships between the aforementioned factors and the acceptance of the coexistence between humans and wolves in a specific area of Calabria, region of Southern Italy particularly important in the history of the wolf. Another objective of this study is to understand which interventions can mitigate conflicts related to coexistence, which is in some way obliged in the area of investigation. The presence of the wolf in Calabria has historical roots. The region represents the optimal range of the wolf, where it is distributed over the whole mountain area ranging from 800 to 1800 meters above sea level with a population that survived many vicissitudes. The regional wolf range, which in the past included the Pollino massif, the Sila and part of the Coast Chain, has now expanded to include the Aspromontano massif, with its National Park (Bocedi & Bracchi, 2004). The study concerned the Sila National Park, an area in which the predator is significantly present (3-4 packs of 5-6 specimens each, according to the most recent data provided by the Park Authority). The survey was carried out by collecting the opinions of different stakeholders distributed in 3 groups, depending on their job and their degree of specialization (as explained in the methods). Furthermore, together with the opinions related to various aspects about the presence of the wolf, the relationship between humans and nature, which is considered intimately linked to the different attitudes on the level of acceptance of large carnivores, was also investigated.

Between the end of the XIX century and the beginning of the XX century in Italy, as in much of Europe, wolf populations fell sharply, (Bocedi & Bracchi, 2004; Chapron et al., 2014; Salvatori & Linnell, 2005), because wolf was considered as “harmful” and persecuted until disappeared in various territories. It is estimated that the 70s of the last century was the period of lesser presence of the wolf in Italy, when remained only 100 specimens, distinguished in 4 small separate groups, including a small surviving population in the area of the Sila National Park (Boitani, 1992; Piscopo et al., 2017). After that, protectionist organisations and researchers, stressing the danger of extinction for the species, have raised awareness among legislators, who have finally enacted laws for its protection (Boceda & Bracchi, 2004). Several conventions, directives and initiatives were issued to protect wolves and wildlife. The first were two regulatory interventions: the Ministerial Decree “Natali” of 1971 and the Ministerial Decree “Marcora” of 1976. The former, by eliminating the wolf from the list of “harmful animals”, prohibited its hunting and banned the use of poison, thus marking a drastic turnaround, while the latter represented the definitive decree for the wolf protection and prohibited its hunting indefinitely. Thus, the wolf became a fully protected species in Italy (Bocedi & Bracchi, 2004). Subsequently, the law of 11 February 1992, n. 157 was enacted, that places the wolf among the particularly protected species, also under the sanction profile (MA, 2021). In support of this development, various European regulations were transposed in Italy in the 1990s, such as the Berne Convention, the Washington Convention and the Habitats Directive (92/43/CEE). Once protection started, it was soon understood that the species, even with minimal conservation interventions, showed an interesting resilience (Ciucci & Boitani, 2011). Although today there are no unitary censuses for the whole national territory, it is estimated that in Italy there are almost 2000 specimens of wolf (ISPRA, 2020). Moreover, the resilience of the wolf is well known: specialized in the predation of big wild herbivores such as deer and wild boars, as well as small mammals such as hares, mice and various reptiles, it is also extremely versatile, being able to feed on fruit, berries and carcasses, thus managing to survive even in the absence of prey. This great adaptability of the animal then reaches its extreme consequences in the attacks of domestic animals on pasture, which, in fact, are found to constitute a component, sometimes relevant, of the predator’s diet (Mattiello et al., 2010). The current system of protection, articulated on territorial (in the case of parks), regional, national, community and international level (Ciucci & Boitani, 2005), has led to an expansion of the areas recolonized by the animal, rewarding the efforts of scholars and environmentalists. At the same time, however, it has heightened the tension between various stakeholders, generating the destabilization of the coexistence between the wolf and the communities, especially in the newly settled areas (García-Lozano et al., 2015; Mech et al., 2000; Mech, 2001; Fritts et al., 2003; Harper et al., 2005; Berger, 2006). In fact, it has been noted that, while the areas historically affected by the wolf showed a good capacity to recover the balance between wolf and human activity, the same does not happen in the newly occupied areas, for fear of unknown risks (Salvatori & Linnell, 2005). The coexistence between wolfs and humans is a real challenge (Ciucci & Boitani, 2005; Graham et al., 2005; Treves et al., 2006; Dressel et al., 2015; Morehouse et al., 2020; Rode et al., 2021), as is the relationship between wolf and livestock (Chapron et al., 2014; Grossmann et al., 2020). But it is an unequal challenge, in which the wolf did not consciously choose to participate. Wolf can only be the object of a conflict, but not a party to it, as animals do not consciously enter into a conflict in a human sense (Peterson et al., 2005, 2010; Bouwma et al., 2010 a,b; Linnell, 2013). It often finds itself a victim of one-sided, violent and repressive human behaviour. Examples are the accidents and causes of wolf mortality even within protected areas, very frequent and often unjustifiable (Piscopo et al., 2017; Olson et al., 2015; Loveridge et al., 2010). Humans must find a way to resolve this challenge, mitigate conflicts and finally achieve peaceful coexistence, that is an ethical stance that, in our opinion, should be applied from a regulatory point of view. Furthermore, we must not forget that, in addition to human and wolf, conflicts also arise between humans (indirect conflicts), when different stakeholders have different motives, knowledges, priorities, values or level of affectedness (Grossman et al., 2020; Olson et al., 2015; Madden, 2004). All these conflicts should also be mitigated, and all stakeholders, at least, should negotiate and try to facilitate and stimulate a fruitful dialogue. Finally, a greater understanding/knowledge of the scenarios and landscapes in which these conflicts occur can promote risk avoidance and encourage management interventions; these are critical steps toward coexistence (Olson et al., 2015). These considerations indicate the need to better investigate our understandings of stakeholders’ perceptions towards wolf and its conservation management. Different stakeholders have different ways of seeing the wolf and the conflicts related to it; that is, they have different “perceptions” of the relationship between wolfs and humans. Various researches suggest several factors to be important in the perception of large carnivores: demographic and personal variables as age, gender, education, occupation, place of residence, habit to recreate in nature and how people perceive the human-nature relationship (van Heel et al., 2017; Røskaft et al., 2003, 2007; Treves & Karanth, 2003; Treves et al., 2013), emotions such as fear or curiosity (Kaltenborn & Bjerke, 2002; Røskaft et al., 2007), perceived or experienced risk, personal or economic (Kleiven et al., 2004; Vittersø et al., 1999). The negative perceptions can be mitigated by tools such as: establishing or improving compensation programs for damage (Nyhus et al., 2003; Boitani et al., 2011; Dickman et al., 2011, 2013; Marino et al., 2016), increasing the level of knowledge of stakeholders, even if this does not work in the same way for all the people involved (Hovardas, 2018), promoting management practices that reduce predation risk (Boitani, 2000; Boitani et al., 2011; Gazzola et al., 2008), calming the debate on social media, which is often spoiled by fake news that increase fear for the wolf (Nanni et al., 2020); when necessary, implementing management actions for the species, e.g. preventing hybridization with stray or feral dogs.

The study area was the Sila National Park (Figure 1). The Park covers an area of 763.95 km², with an elongated shape from North to South and includes 3 of the 5 Calabrian provinces: Catanzaro, Cosenza and Crotone. The park was definitely established in 2002, after a long political process. The Sila National Park contains one of the most significant biodiversity systems, so much so that it was classified in 2014 as 10^th Italian Biosphere Reserve in the World Network of Sites of Excellence, based on MaB - Man and the Biosphere Programme, by UNESCO.

Inside the Park there are 3 of the 6 artificial basins present on the Silane plateau and its wooded area is very large, so much so that among the Italian National Parks is the one with the highest percentage of wooded area, about 80% of the total, composed mainly of beech and pine forests of the typical silane pine (Pinus nigra laricio). Wide are the valleys that open along the ridges of the Park where traditional sheep farming is practiced, with forms of transhumance ¹ and pasture that resist still today (Di Gregorio et al., 2021). The territorial boundaries of the Sila National Park were redesigned several times, due to strong contrasts between the municipalities falling within the Park. Today (2020) there are nineteen municipalities that fall within the territory of the protected area, of which 9 in the Province of Cosenza (Acri, Aprigliano, Bocchigliero, Casali del Manco, Celico, Corigliano - Rossano, Longobucco, San Giovanni in Fiore, Spezzano della Sila), 6 in the Province of Catanzaro (Albi, Magisano, Petronà, Sersale, Taverna, Zagarise) and 4 in the Province of Crotone (Cotronei, Mesoraca, Petilia Policastro, Savelli).

The stakeholders surveyed were people living and working in municipalities within the Sila National Park area. The area has a long tradition of coexistence with wolves, as they have always been present in the area. Consequently, we can say that cohabitation with the wolf is part of their experiential baggage, as well as their cultural heritage. Moreover, all the respondents had the experience of seeing a wolf, in the wild or in captivity, that is very important in forming positive attitudes towards wildlife, according to van Heel et al. (2017). In addition, all respondents on average showed a rather ecocentric vision of the human’s relationship to nature, that is, they attribute to humans the role of “steward” or “partner/participant” or “steward+partner”. So, we expected an averagely open attitude also towards the wolf (Røskaft et al., 2007), even by the farmers, who know and implement important coexistence strategies. Overall, those participated in the survey are cattle farmers, less susceptible to predation than sheep (Meriggi & Lovari, 1996; Gazzola et al., 2008; Dondina et al., 2015). Furthermore, according to Røskaft et al. (2003, 2007), Treves & Karanth (2003), Kleiven et al. (2004), Treves et al. (2013), some socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents such as gender, mainly male, and age, mainly under 55, led to expect a positive attitude towards the wolf by all groups of respondents. The level of education instead differentiates the 3 groups, with a medium-low level in the general public and in farmers, compared to a medium-high level in the experts. The level of knowledge of the wolf also follows the same trend: higher in the experts, medium-low in the other two groups; this could justify a more favourable perception of the wolf by the experts (e.g. Glikman et al., 2011). Another reason why experts are more positive towards the wolf could be that they view potential conflicts from a “rational” perspective, taking into consideration benefits of improved ecosystem functioning (van Heel et al., 2017). All three groups of respondents consider positive the presence of the wolf in the area of the Park; on the contrary, only the group of experts considers positive this presence in the territory in general, while the other two groups express opposite or neutral opinion. This attitude could be called a NIMBY effect in reverse: respondents show a greater acceptance of the wolf in their territory as a protected area. Overall, a majority of the general public and experts think that coexistence with humans is possible, that the wolf should be completely protected, both within and outside the Park; know that hunting or killing wolves is forbidden and agree with these regulations. They would be happy if the number of the wolves in the Park increased. On the contrary, despite the farmers think that the wolfs presence in the Park area is positive, about half of them claim to be against the wolf and don’t believe that coexistence is possible. Moreover, most of them are favourable to hunting, at least outside the park. The same percentage of farmers would not be happy if the number of wolves in the park increased. However, we can note that the majority of farmers, as well as the majority of experts and general public, trust environmental managers can make the right decisions. This is a positive result and can absolutely be helpful for a constructive dialogue. A negative perception on the part of farmers was also found in other studies; and seem a direct result from the impact the wolf may have on their livelihood (Naughton-Treves et al., 2003; Kalterborn & Bjerke, 2002; van Heel et al., 2017), and may related to possible damage to their livestock (Kaltenborn & Bjerke, 2002). In addition, many of the participating farmers have already experienced the damage and the risk, and this could also lead them to have, according to Kleiven et al. (2004) and Vittersø et al. (1999), a more negative perception. Stakeholders’ general knowledge of the wolf and its relationship with nature and humans is generally good, despite some deficiency. For example, most of the respondents (excepted the experts) don’t believe that only the “alpha pair” reproduces (Mech, 1999), which can affect the life of the pack. The (illegal) killing of an alpha wolf does not eliminate the alleged danger to livestock, but on the contrary creates unrest and uncontrolled behaviour by surviving individuals (Mech & Boitani, 2007). They often turn to livestock for food, being temporarily unable to organize for hunting wild prey. Moreover, the farmers maintain that the wolf prefers livestock in any case, even if they have wild prey available; therefore, they display negative attitudes towards the predator, such as the desire to kill every wolf that has killed their animals. Another element of contention is the use of the compensation tool; in fact, the experts would like it conditional on the presence of adequate protection methods, including insurance, while the general public and farmers would like it unconditionally. In our view, and in agreement with Naughton-Treves et al. (2003) and Røskaft et al. (2007), it is quite normal to find such opinions in breeders; indeed, according to these authors, they did not become more tolerant even after receiving compensation for the damage. Nevertheless, all respondents identify compensation payments as a strategy of conflicts mitigation. The majority of respondents believe that training courses and awareness campaigns could help the population to better orientate themselves in the human-wolf relationship, as these tools can improve knowledge and allow a more objective view of the issues. But this does not always happen and does not happen in the same way for everyone. In fact, the knowledge deficit model presupposes that learners are passive receptors of knowledge and use the same knowledge in the same way, which is not the case, since all the stakeholders have a different socio-cultural background and an active role in interpreting any new knowledge and information (Hovardas, 2018).

Our survey covered people living and working in the area of the Sila National Park, where the presence of the wolf is historical. For this area, the wolf can be defined a real “cultural heritage”, so much so that the logo of the park portrays it. This context allowed us to photograph a particularly favourable situation, with a perception of the wolf that can be summarized in a substantial acceptance even by breeders. In our study we found that all the respondents showed a rather ecocentric vision of the relationship between humans and nature, that is, on average, they all adhere to the position of “stewardship” of humans with respect to nature, which could be in line with a more positive perception towards wolf. Moreover, the data obtained show that joining stewardship is also important because it makes people open to dialogue and gives them trust in environmental managers.

To further improve wolf perceptions, personalized communication strategies could be adopted for different stakeholder groups, acknowledging each group the different knowledge-spheres, including those based on personal experiences, culture and tradition, and science (Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., 2015). Framing messages from a steward point of view may also provide ground for stakeholder groups to understand each other and agree a common view for wolf management, as suggested by Reimer et al. (2012). Customizing the actions according to the different stakeholders may not give the desired results; however, in our opinion, giving up “education” towards the population would be an even greater mistake. In our opinion, the stakeholders who live in the Park area could take an active role in raising awareness-raising strategies towards the rest of the population, including through social media, contributing with their testimony and experience to improve the general perception.

In line with the suggestion, coordinated measures have been launched between research and field activities, such as the “Wolfnet Sila” project developed by the Sila National Park Authority for the protection and promotion of the wolf in its territory. The project is developed in the context of a research activity for management purposes, which makes possible the concrete, shared and large-scale implementation of a monitoring, conservation and management system capable of ensuring long-term conservation of the wolf in the Park area, and the containment of any conflicts that may arise on the territory.

After all, finding solutions for a peaceful coexistence was one of the objectives that we set ourselves in the study.