Around the world, natural habitats are shrinking as urban spaces grow. However, not all species remain outside these artificial, human-made borders. Some wild animals are drawn to urban ecosystems because of the food and other resources they provide. Within these shared spaces, people’s willingness and ability to mitigate conflicts with wild animals are crucial for peaceful coexistence. But what exactly influences their level of tolerance for different species?

This study aimed to examine predictors of wildlife tolerance in metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, a rapidly urbanizing and racially diverse area in the southeastern United States. The researchers were particularly interested in exploring differences for minority communities, as these populations are understudied. They designed an online questionnaire focused on species common to the area, including bats, bobcats, coyotes, deer, foxes, hawks, hummingbirds, opossums, owls, rabbits, raccoons, snakes, squirrels/chipmunks, and turtles. The questionnaire measured:

• Tolerance (whether people wanted populations of these animals to increase, decrease, or stay the same)
• Attitudes (how much people liked or disliked these animals)
• Emotional responses (whether these animals evoked negative reactions like fear or positive feelings like excitement)
• Types and frequencies of interactions with these animals, such as seeing or feeding them
• Beliefs about wildlife more generally, such as whether it’s okay to hunt
• Self-efficacy (whether people believe in their own ability to manage conflicts with wild animals)
• Level of trust in the state wildlife agency

The questionnaire was completed by 1,006 metropolitan Atlanta residents between January and April 2022. The majority of respondents were female (57%) and identified as Black (54%) or white (43%). On average, they were 35 to 44 years of age and had some college-level education.

Attitudes And Emotions

On average, participants liked deer, hawks, owls, rabbits, squirrels/chipmunks, and turtles. Opossums, bats, foxes, and raccoons were neither liked nor disliked, while bobcats, coyotes, and snakes were disliked. Only hummingbirds were strongly liked.

In line with these attitudes, participants generally expressed more negative emotions (e.g., scared, disgusted, annoyed) towards animals who were less liked, including bobcats, coyotes, snakes, and opossums. Animals who were more liked tended to inspire more positive emotions (e.g., interested, excited, caring/compassion), and included hawks, owls, deer, turtles, squirrels/chipmunks, rabbits, and hummingbirds.

These results were also consistent with participants’ tolerance: less liked animals, including bobcats, coyotes, opossums, and snakes, were less tolerated, with participants preferring populations of these animals to decrease. Hummingbirds, the most liked animal, were the most tolerated and the only species that participants wanted to see increase. Participants were generally tolerant of all other species, with no preference for a change in their numbers.

Thus, attitudes and emotional responses towards wild animals seem to be positive predictors of tolerance.

Beliefs

On average, participants agreed that humans and wild animals should be able to coexist without fear and disagreed that wild animals exist for human use. They neither agreed nor disagreed with statements both for and against hunting.

Participants with a mutualistic mindset — the belief that humans and wild animals benefit from each other — were more likely to be tolerant of coyotes, deer, opossums, snakes, and squirrels/chipmunks. The researchers found no relationship between tolerance and utilitarian views of wild animals, where participants believed that humans have a right to use or benefit from them.

Prior Interactions

Participants reported watching wild animals as their most frequent interaction with them, followed by putting out food for them. Most conflict arose from raccoons and opossums raiding trash cans, rabbits, deer, and squirrels/chipmunks damaging landscaping, and vehicle collisions with deer. Conflicts such as being threatened or injured by a wild animal were reported by less than 1% of participants, and had only happened a few times at most.

In general, tolerance was influenced by prior interactions with wild animals, except for foxes, opossums, and snakes. Negative experiences like feeling personally threatened, having pets being threatened, property damage, and vehicle collisions tended to be associated with lower tolerance for the species involved. Interestingly, raiding trash cans, entering homes, and having household members being threatened didn’t affect tolerance.

Self-Efficacy

On average, respondents agreed that they’re able to keep themselves, their household members, and their pets safe from wild animals, but were more ambivalent about their ability to prevent wild animals from entering their property. There was some evidence that self-efficacy was related to increased tolerance, particularly for owls and hawks. However, a lack of self-efficacy was associated with increased tolerance for raccoons and snakes.

Trust

On average, respondents agreed that the state wildlife agency has the resources and expertise to manage human-wildlife conflicts. They had neutral opinions on whether the agency provided adequate information about conflict prevention, their responsiveness, and their effectiveness in wildlife protection. Trust in the state wildlife agency wasn’t found to influence tolerance, however.

Demographic Differences

The study revealed tolerance for different species was influenced by gender, age, level of education, and ethnicity. For instance, females tended to be less tolerant of owls, foxes, and snakes, while older respondents were less tolerant of coyotes, rabbits, and squirrels/chipmunks. Those with higher levels of education were more tolerant of bats. Black respondents were less tolerant of foxes, and Hispanic respondents were less tolerant of owls and rabbits. However, contrary to the researchers’ hypothesis, minority communities didn’t experience more conflict with wild animals.

Overall, this study has several key takeaways for animal advocates. Attitudes, emotions, and self-efficacy were identified as drivers of wildlife tolerance, and each of these can be influenced by targeted communication, education, and engagement efforts. More specifically, the authors suggest that it’s important to reinforce people’s positive views of wild animals in addition to reducing their negative attitudes and emotional responses. Finally, as the least tolerance was found for urban carnivores and snakes across all respondents, the authors argue that attention should be paid to increasing tolerance for these species in particular.