Investigating Hunters' Beliefs About Lynx and Lynx Management in The

Home , Palatinate Forest

Investigating hunters’ beliefs about lynx and lynx management in the Harz Mountains using Q Methodology

Linda- Marie Kohser Student Reg. no. 921125455120 Supervisors: Dr. KAJ (Koen) Arts Dr. AE (Arjen) Buijs

Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group (FNP)

August 2017

Investigating hunters’ beliefs about lynx and lynx management in the Harz Mountains using Q Methodology

Linda- Marie Kohser Student Reg. no. 921125455120 M.Sc. Forest and Nature Conservation

MSc Thesis- FNP- 80436 Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group Wageningen University

Supervisors: Dr. KAJ (Koen) Arts Dr. AE (Arjen) Buijs Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group (FNP)

Wageningen University August 2017

Front cover photo: Lynx spotted in Freiheit (Osterode am Harz) by Rolf Renneberg (8-Mar-2017)

Acknowledgements

First of all I want to thank my supervisors Koen Arts and Arjen Buijs for their encouragement throughout my thesis and for steering me in the right direction. Furthermore, I would like to thank all hunters of my study for their participation and time. The openness about the topic and the friendliness of participants made me really enjoy conducting the interviews.

Without the support of my family and friends it would not have been possible to write this thesis. With their help, I got the chance to study in Wageningen and write my thesis about a topic I am passionate about. Thank you for supporting me during all the time!

Table of contents

1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Reintroduction project Harz Mountains ...... 3 1.3 Research Objective ...... 5 1.4 Research Questions ...... 6 2 Theoretical Framework ...... 7 2.1 Human dimensions of wildlife ...... 7 2.2 Beliefs and Attitudes ...... 9 2.3 Factors influencing attitudes toward wildlife species ...... 11 2.3.1 Impacts of wildlife species...... 11 2.3.2 Social trust ...... 13 2.3.3 Personal control ...... 13 2.4 Preliminary conceptual model...... 14 3 Methodology...... 16 3.1 Q Methodology...... 16 3.2 Data Collection ...... 17 3.2.1 Participants...... 17 3.2.2 Statements ...... 18 3.2.3 Adjusted conceptual model ...... 20 3.2.4 Q Sorting...... 21 3.2.5 Interview Process ...... 22 3.2.6 Ethical Considerations ...... 23 3.3 Data Analysis ...... 24 3.3.1 Creating factors with PQ Method ...... 24 3.3.2 Interview Analysis ...... 25 4 Results...... 26 4.1 Factor 1 ...... 26 4.2 Factor 2 ...... 31 4.3 Factor 3 ...... 35 5 Discussion ...... 39 5.1 Findings ...... 39 5.2 Reflection on the Theoretical Framework ...... 43 5.3 Reflection on the Methodology ...... 45 5.3.1 Doing Q Methodology ...... 45 5.3.2 Q Data Analysis ...... 48

6 Conclusion...... 50 6.1 Research Questions ...... 50 6.2 Conclusion of Findings...... 57 6.3 Recommendations...... 59 7 Bibliography ...... 61 Appendix

List of Figures

Figure 1. Map distribution lynx ...... 1 Figure 2. Preliminary conceptual model ...... 15 Figure 3. Identification of steps to derive statements...... 18 Figure 4. Adjusted conceptual model ...... 21 Figure 5. Grid with a quasi-normal distribution ...... 22 Figure 6. Distinguishing Card Content Analysis ...... 25

List of Tables

Table 1. Correlation between the three factors...... 26

Summary The comeback of predators to Europe is challenged by a variety of factors. Besides ecological factors also socio-political factors can diminish conservation success for those species. Considering peoples’ opinions regarding large predators is of relevance as the ability to achieve the successful conservation of predators will be improved when affected groups hold no objections.

After 300 years of absence in the Harz Mountains within the scope of the lynx project, the first lynx was reintroduced to the Harz Mountains in the year 2000. In the following years, 24 lynx were reintroduced. In Germany the lynx is protected by law and indexed in the Red List of Germany as highly threatened. According to the Habitats Directive of the European Union it is listed in Annex II which means that for its conservation the designation of special areas is required. The first goal of the reintroduction project in the Harz Mountains to establish a lynx population that can reproduce has already been achieved as the numbers of lynx are continuously growing.

At the beginning of the lynx project concerns from different groups were articulated regarding the suitability of the Harz Mountains as habitat for lynx and the impacts the lynx can have for the Harz Mountains. Also hunters in the Harz Mountains expressed their concerns about the lynx project. However, for the lynx project the group of hunters is of special importance as they directly act in lynx habitat and they can help with the monitoring of lynx by reporting dead game that got killed by lynx. Therefore, knowing and considering their views on the animal is of special importance. The aim of this study was, therefore, to investigate hunters’ beliefs about the lynx and lynx management. Knowing prevalent beliefs of hunters can help to understand their positions better and moreover help the national park administration responsible for the practical implementation of the lynx project considering those beliefs when communicating with hunters. Furthermore, the aim of this study was to indicate the corresponding attitudes of hunters. The certainty and evaluation of beliefs helped to indicate the corresponding attitude of hunters. As it was not possible to clearly evaluate all beliefs for hunters only careful indications of their attitudes can be given.

To derive beliefs most relevant for hunters, Q methodology was applied to reveal how beliefs are seen in relation to each other, to identify shared beliefs among hunters and to evaluate beliefs. Q methodology is a research tool that combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques. Q sorts with accompanying interviews were conducted with 15 hunters from the Harz Mountains. Data analysis revealed 3 factors reflecting 3 distinguishable belief patterns of hunters.

Seven participants can be associated with the first factor that emerged from the data analysis with PQ Method. Those hunters especially emphasised the role the lynx has on the ecosystem. However, they did not believe that the lynx leads to great implications for hunters. Hunters in this factor also believed that the national park administration carries the task associated with

the lynx project out in a satisfactory way. Six hunters load on factor 2 and highlighted the impacts of the lynx on the hunt. Those hunters saw the preservation efforts of hunters and the control of hunters over wildlife populations threatened with the presence of lynx. Individual hunters in this group also expressed their concerns about the work of the national park administration. The third factor consist of 2 participants who were generally careful with assumptions about the impacts of the lynx. However, this group believed that the lynx has rather positive than negative impacts in the Harz Mountains. Positive impacts mentioned were for example that the presence of lynx contribute to tourism in the Harz Mountains and that other species benefit from measures that are taken for the lynx.

Although participants in the three factors expressed different beliefs about the impacts of the lynx in the Harz Mountains, most hunters described the impacts on the hunt as minimal. Hunters often compared the impacts of the lynx with the impacts of the wolf, downplaying the effects of the lynx in the Harz Mountains. Hunters especially focussed on the impacts on the ecosystem and the hunt. As hunters are directly acting in lynx habitat and the lynx can have an effect on the ecosystem and the hunt, the beliefs of those categories were of special importance for hunters and can be seen as the most prominent dimension of the studied beliefs. Besides beliefs about the impacts of the lynx also the categories Personal Control and Social Trust were of importance for hunters. Although all hunters believed to have no opportunity and therefore no control in influencing decisions about the lynx management they differ in the trust they have in the national park administration. Another notable observation was that hunters who had a low trust in the national park administration often criticized the project initiation and not the work of the national park administration nowadays. This indicates that the role of past experiences with the agencies deciding to implement the lynx project still influences the beliefs of hunters today about the lynx and its management.

1 Introduction

1.1 Background In prehistoric times, the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) appeared in forests and semi-open habitats all over Europe and the British Isles (Sommer & Benecke, 2006). Due to human activities, along with habitat changes in the 18th and 19th century, populations declined and the lynx became extinct in many parts of Western Europe (Breitenmoser, 1998). Reintroduction programmes, habitat improvement and legal protection in the second half of the 20th century led to a slow recovering of lynx populations.

In Germany, the Eurasian lynx is protected by law (Federal Nature Conservation Act: § 7 section 2 No 13: specially protected species; § 7 section 2 No 14: strictly protected species) and indexed in the BfN (Federal Office for Nature Conservation) Red List of Germany in category two highly threatened (NLWKN, 2011; Meinig et al., 2009). According to the Habitats Directive of the European Union, the lynx is listed in Annex II, which means that for its conservation the designation of special areas is required (Council Directive 92/43/EEC). In Annex IV, the lynx is listed among species of community interest in need of strict protection (Council Directive 92/43/EEC). However, even though ambitions are high for the development of stable populations in Germany, the natural migration of lynx is slow (Schadt et al., 2002). From the population reintroduced in the Czech Bohemian Forest the lynx could migrate to Germany (Cerveny & Bufka, 1996).

Reintroduction programs have helped lynx populations develop in Germany. At present, two lynx populations exist in Germany. One is documented for the Bavarian and Palatinate Forest and the second population is located in the Harz Mountains (Fig.1).

Figure 1. Map of the distribution of lynx in Germany in the monitoring year 2013 (BfN, 2014) 1

Individual animals were also spotted in North Rhine-Westphalia, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Saxony-Anhalt, Thuringia and Saxony (BfN, 2014).

However, lynx populations in Germany are confronted with a human dominated landscape that is shaped by roads and railways, resulting in fragmented habitats (Fischer & Lindenmayer, 2007). Besides threats like road and rail traffic lynx populations are also threatened when populations get isolated by new roads (NLWKN, 2011). Furthermore, also natural mortality, like for example scabies is a factor that can have a negative impact on small lynx populations (Ryser-Degiorgis, 2001). In south Germany several cases of illegal killings have been reported in the last years (Blog Bayern Wild, 2016; AZ, 2016). The first known case of a lynx that got killed in the Harz Mountains was reported in 2016 when a pregnant lynx was found near the village Opperode in a forest (Hannoversche Allgemeine, 2016). Researchers assessing the availability of suitable habitat for the lynx along the Austrian- German- Czech border found out that in the area of their study the distribution of lynx is not limited by habitat but by other factors, such as illegal killings (Magg et al., 2016).

Although conflicts between humans and wildlife have always been present, growing numbers of carnivore populations and the expansion of settlements and human activities have led to an increasing number of conflicts between humans and wildlife in the last few decades (Liukkonen et al., 2009). Large carnivores such as lynx and wolf can evoke different responses from stakeholders (Liukkonen et al., 2009; Bath et al., 2008; Bath & Buchanan, 1989). The conservation of large carnivores with their large area requirements is controversial and often challenging, as there is a “deeply rooted hostility to these species in human history and culture, because of perceptions of their negative impacts on human livelihoods” (Chapron et al. 2014: 1517). Therefore, the conservation of large carnivore populations requires an understanding about the beliefs and attitudes of various interest groups (Bath, 1998). Contradictory views on wildlife management and conflicts with wildlife can occur when protected species cause negative effects for humans (Woodroffe et al., 2005). Opposition towards carnivores’ reintroduction and illegal killings that reduce carnivore populations are factors diminishing conservation success (Andrén et al., 2006; Molinari-Jobin et al., 2010; Kaltenborn & Bjerke, 2002). Studies have shown that when affected groups hold no objections it is easier to achieve a successful coexistence of large predators and humans (Bath et al., 2008). Therefore, the successful reintroduction of lynx in Germany is not only a matter of favourable ecological conditions. Socio-political factors are as relevant as ecological factors and often even more important (Bath, 1998), making the acceptance of the public towards the lynx crucial for the success of its conservation.

The terms attitudes, beliefs, perceptions and perspectives are often used in human dimension of wildlife studies but often they lack a clear distinction. A short description of those concepts will be given to help the reader to differentiate between the terms that are used in this study. Perception can be defined as receiving sensory information and processing that information (Schacter et al., 2015). This process involves the organization, identification and interpretation 2 of sensory information in order to represent and understand the environment (Bernstein, 2010). Perception can therefore be one source for the formation of beliefs about an object (Fishbein & Azjen, 1975). When a person perceives that an object has certain attributes he can form a belief about an object on the basis of the observations he made. Beliefs are cognitions what people hold to be true and cannot only be formed through direct experiences but also on the basis of unobservable events like for example previously learned relationships (Fishbein & Azjen, 1975). The certainty and evaluation of interrelated beliefs about an object can give an indication about the corresponding attitude towards the object (Fishbein & Azjen, 1975; Rokeach, 1976: 116). The beliefs someone has about a wildlife species can therefore give an indication about the attitude someone has towards the species in question. The notion of perspective can be defined as “the range of alternatives taken into account when an individual is making a judgement “(Ostrom, 1970: 281). A more broad definition defines it as “a specified or stated manner of consideration or appraisal” (The American Heritage ® Dictonary of Idioms, n.d.). This range can depend among other factors on beliefs someone has. In this thesis the terms perspective and point of view will be used equivalently.

1.2 Reintroduction project Harz Mountains In 1999 the Lower Saxony Ministry for Nutrition, Agriculture, Consumer Protection and Rural Development, the Lower Saxony Ministry for Environment and Climate Protection and the Hunter’s association of Lower Saxony decided the initiation of a reintroduction project of lynx in the Harz Mountains (Anders & Sacher, 2005). The project is carried out in collaboration with the Thuringian Ministry for Agriculture, Nature Conservation and Environment, the Ministry for Agriculture and Environment of Saxony-Anhalt, the Lower Saxony state forest, the Saxony- Anhalt Regional Office for Environmental Protection and the Thuringian Regional Office for Forest, Hunting and Fishing. The coordination and practical implementation of the project lies within the national park administration Harz (Anders & Sacher, 2005).

Decisions around the lynx project are made by a group that consists of the Lower Saxony Ministry for Nutrition, Agriculture, Agriculture, Consumer Protection and Rural Development, the Lower Saxony Ministry for Environment and Climate Protection, the Hunter association of Lower Saxony, the Ministry for Agriculture and Environment of Saxony- Anhalt, the Environmental Protection Agency of Saxony-Anhalt, the Thuringian Regional Office for Forest, Hunting and Fishing, the Hunter association of Saxony- Anhalt and the national park administration Harz (Anders, 2011).

Between 2000 and 2006, the project introduced 24 lynx into the area (Middelhoff & Anders, 2016). Although a habitat analysis of the Harz Mountains evaluated the suitability of the Harz Mountains as good (Schadt et al., 2002) critical comments about the project were articulated. In a critical statement by Wotschikowsky et al. (2001) several concerns have been expressed about the lynx reintroduction in the Harz Mountains. The authors of this critical statement stated that international guidelines for reintroductions like for example the Guidelines for reintroductions of the Species Survival Commission of the IUCN (IUCN/SSC RSG 1995) have 3 not been considered enough. Concerns the authors expressed were for example the small size of the Harz Mountains as a habitat for lynx which could lead to genetical problems and that the reason for the extinction of lynx have not been eradicated and examined to a satisfactory extent. However, to this day, the numbers of lynx have increased and, even though exact numbers are not known, the density of lynx is estimated to be up to 2,4 individuals in 100 square kilometres, and 3,9 individuals in 100 square kilometres when also including young animals (Middelhoff & Anders, 2017). Since the Harz Mountains can be seen as too small for viable lynx populations, in the future it is important to monitor the current populations and to ensure that lynx in that area are able to connect to other areas through green corridors (NLWKN, 2011).

The last lynx in the Harz Mountains was shot in 1818 (Schultze-Lutter, 2002). Discussions about the reintroduction of lynx in the Harz Mountains already started in the 1970es when the University of Göttingen evaluated the habitat of the Harz Mountains as suitable habitat for lynx (Stahl, 1972). Since then, three attempts have been taken to set the course for a reintroduction project. In 1971/72 beliefs about the negative influence of lynx on tourism in the Harz Mountains were the reason why the attempt was stopped, while 1975 the fear that the lynx would threaten the western capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus major) stopped the reintroduction of lynx. In 1995 objections against a lynx reintroduction were held because of the belief that with the presence of lynx more traffic accidents were expected (Schultze- Lutter, 2002; Festetics, 1997). With the establishment of the national park in the Harz Mountains in 1994 and an expert colloquium in 1997 in Goslar which had the aim to discuss the potential reintroduction of lynx in the Harz Mountains the foundation for the decision in 1999 was laid (Ude-Koeller, 2004).

A survey with the aim to investigate the acceptance of the general public and hunters in the Harz Mountains toward the lynx was conducted before the lynx were released into the Harz Mountains (Schultze-Lutter, 2002). That study was conducted within the scope of a dissertation using questionnaires and interviews. While the public was addressed using both questionnaires and interviews, hunters from hunter associations were only addressed through questionnaires. The results of the study showed that most of the hunters participating in the study were against a reintroduction of lynx to the Harz Mountains. It has to be noted, that the response rate of hunters were quite low and some hunter associations wanted to have preliminary interviews (Schultze- Lutter, 2002). The low response rate of hunters and the request to have preliminary interviews highlights the need for communication about the topic at that time.

Now, seventeen years after the first lynx from the lynx project got reintroduced into the Harz Mountains hunters had some time to get used to the presence of lynx. In that time hunters might have changed their opinions about the lynx now the lynx has been there for a while or they still hold beliefs they had at the beginning of the project. Knowing more about hunters’ beliefs about the lynx today would give insights into the actual state of hunters’ attitudes towards the lynx that have been directly operating in lynx habitat for some years.

According to German law game is ownerless and therefore when a lynx kills game no property of hunters gets lost. In that sense they don’t get compensational payments like for example 4 sheep farmers when livestock got killed. However, private hunters in the Harz Mountains get a fixed payment of 50 € when they report game killed by lynx. The game then needs to be inspected by someone from the national park administration in order to ensure that the game indeed got killed by lynx (Anders & Sacher, 2005). The aim of the payment is to increase the acceptance of hunters towards the lynx and is financed by the Lower Saxony Ministry for Nutrition, Agriculture, Consumer Protection and Rural Development (Hullen, 2004). Within the scope of the lynx project an important aspect has been public relations work with the aim to increase the acceptance of the public towards the lynx. Examples for public relations work within the lynx project are events, publications, information boards and the viewing enclosure in Bad Harzburg (Hullen, 2004). Hunters get informed about the situation of the lynx through articles in hunting magazines and informational evenings (Hullen, 2004). This informational and educational work can be seen as aiming to increase the knowledge of hunters about the lynx and recognising its ecological role in the Harz Mountains. If those efforts were successful cannot be said as the predominant opinions of hunters in the Harz Mountains are not known. However, in newspaper articles from the last years, hunters often raised their concerns about the impacts the lynx has in the Harz Mountains (Klaus, 2008; Köckritz, 2009; Konkurrenz um Beute, 2015). By searching on websites from hunter associations about any statements about the lynx one hunter association had formulated a detailed text about the lynx and its presumed impacts in the Harz Mountains. This hunter association was raising concerns about the lynx density in the area and the accompanying consequences. On their website, the association states that the lynx is responsible for the decrease in the mouflon and roe deer populations and criticizes the national park administration, responsible for the monitoring of the lynx population, for not informing the hunter association about the actual numbers of lynx (Jägerschaft Wernigerode, 2017). Of course, the opinion about the lynx stated on the website and new paper articles cannot be seen as being representative of all hunters that association or of other hunters in the Harz Mountains. However, it gives rise to the question how hunters in the Harz Mountains think about the lynx and lynx management and which beliefs are most prevalent among hunters. An in depth investigation of beliefs that hunters in the Harz Mountains have about the lynx and lynx management can give important information that can help to understand hunters attitudes towards the lynx better.

1.3 Research Objective While qualitative studies on hunters’ attitudes on lynx in South Germany already exist (Lüchtrath & Schraml, 2015; Lüchtrath, 2011), no such studies exist for hunters in the Harz Mountains. Although the rising number of lynx in the Harz Mountains is an indicator of the projects success, the management still needs to consider the attitudes and beliefs of hunters in order to recognise and resolve conflicts at an early stage. Focussing on beliefs can give insights into what hunters think are the consequences of the presence of lynx in the Harz Mountains. Knowing more about the beliefs hunters hold about the lynx can also facilitate the communication between the park administration and hunters. The objective of this study is, therefore, to investigate the beliefs of hunters in the Harz Mountains about the lynx, lynx 5 management and the presumed impacts of its presence. The findings of the investigation can help the park administration to consider and understand the perspectives of local hunters towards the lynx better. Moreover, this study will add to the scientific knowledge on human- wildlife conflicts by giving in-depth insights into hunters’ beliefs and attitudes towards the lynx.

1.4 Research Questions For this study one main research question and four sub-research questions have been formulated.

The main research question (MRQ) is:

1. How do local hunters describe their beliefs about the lynx, lynx management and the presumed impacts of its presence in the Harz Mountains?

The sub research questions (SRQ) are:

1. What are the beliefs most relevant for hunters? 2. How are beliefs seen in relation to each other? 3. What are shared beliefs among hunters? 4. How do hunters evaluate those beliefs?

2 Theoretical Framework In this chapter I will give a short overview of the field of human dimensions of wildlife and give examples of existing studies that are investigating people’s views on wildlife. After that I will explain factors influencing attitudes toward wildlife and then address the concepts of beliefs and attitudes in more detail. In the end the factors and concepts used for the theoretical framework are used to create a conceptual model for this study.

2.1 Human dimensions of wildlife In traditional wildlife management, the focus has mainly been on biological and ecological aspects of animals and their habitats, not taking into account the publics opinion on decisions that the management has made on wildlife (Bath, 1998). However, pursuing conservation goals can be difficult when nature conservationists’ viewpoints are imposed upon others (Bath, 1998).

In the past decade, wildlife professionals started to recognise the importance of the human factor in wildlife issues (Linell et al., 2009; Manfredo et al., 1995). With the increasing consideration of public opinions for wildlife and its management, the field of human dimensions of wildlife management, which incorporates social sciences to investigate human-wildlife relationships, has slowly received more attention (Manfredo, 2008).

As large carnivores’ conservation often takes place in human dominated landscapes (Carter & Linell, 2016), conflicts can occur when carnivores feed on livestock or when property gets damaged (Woodroffe et al., 2005). Besides those material impacts, studies showed that social, cultural, cognitive and emotional factors are important to consider when determining the acceptance of large carnivores (Treves & Bruskotter, 2014). Around the world, the frequency of those conflicts are increasing (Madden, 2004), which is problematic as the conflict between human and wildlife is seen as one of the main threats that hinders the conservation of species (Dickmann, 2010). Madden (2004: 248) describes human- wildlife conflicts as follows: “Human-wildlife conflict occurs when the needs and behaviour of wildlife impact negatively on the goals of humans or when the goals of humans negatively impacts the needs of wildlife”. However, how people view carnivores can also be influenced by human-human interactions (Redpath et al., 2013). As people can have different attitudes toward carnivores also different goals regarding the conservation of carnivores can be prevalent (Treves & Bruskotter, 2014). Furthermore, discrepancies in the past, socioeconomic needs as well as distrust can be sources of conflicts over wildlife between people (Madden, 2004).

Several studies have been conducted investigating people’s attitudes, perceptions and acceptance towards wildlife. While human dimension of wildlife studies are common in America and almost all U.S. state fish and wildlife agencies sponsor research on human dimensions of wildlife (Manfredo, 2008), in Europe research in this field is not as popular (Bath et al., 2008).

Quantitative and qualitative research on human dimensions of wildlife on large predators in Europe focusses mainly on wolves (Skogen, 2001; Ericsson & Heberlein, 2003; Bath et al., 2008; Bjerke et al., 1998) and brown bears (Swenson et al., 1999; Kaczensky et al., 2004; Majić, 2003). Studies on human dimensions in the context of the Eurasian lynx are less prevalent (Bath et al., 2008). Current considerations about a reintroduction of lynx in the United Kingdom highlight the need for more knowledge about the attitudes of people towards the animal as the insights of those studies can help reintroduction programs. Although a study investigating the feasibility of a reintroduction of lynx to the United Kingdom concluded that the reintroduction of lynx would be biologically feasible (Hetherington, 2005) considering the human dimension is of importance as well, as illegal killing is a major factor limiting the growth of lynx populations (Andrén et al., 2006).

Many studies on large predators have been conducted by investigating demographic factors in relation to attitudes towards predators. Kleiven et al. (2004) for example investigated the acceptance of wolf, bear, wolverine and lynx across the Norwegian population and found out that the respondent’s age, sex and place of residence had an influence on the acceptance towards predators. Furthermore, economic loss and personal control were factors negatively influencing the acceptability towards those species (Kleiven et al., 2004). He also observed that the view towards carnivores is affected by the level of carnivore conflict in the local area of the participant (Kleiven et al., 2004). In a study regarding attitudes towards wolves and their reintroduction, Williams et al. (2002) found that the factors income and education positively affect the acceptability of wolves. However, in the study of Ericsson & Herberlein (2003) hunters, even though they had the deepest knowledge on wolves, were the group with the most negative attitudes. Although more knowledge about the wolf resulted in a more positive attitude towards the wolf, the most knowledgeable hunters had still more negative attitudes towards the wolf than the least knowledgeable person of the general public (Ericsson & Heberlein, 2003).

Studies from Switzerland (Hunziker et al., 2001), from the biosphere reserve Pfälzerwald (Vögely & Paulus, 2005) and the Harz Mountains in Germany investigating the acceptance towards the lynx found that the attitude of the general public towards the lynx can be described as positive. However, even though in some cases it might be only a minority some people can still hold ambiguous or negative attitudes towards the lynx. People can hold negative attitudes due to fear, lack of knowledge or economic loss. Examples are livestock depredation for sheep farmers or competition over game with hunters (Liukkonen et al., 2009; Odden et al., 2002; Skogen, 2003; Lüchtrath & Schraml, 2015). Especially the predation of game often leads to a conflict, which is poorly understood (Breitenmoser et al. 2010).

Erricson & Heberlein (2003) point out that locals’ beliefs and attitudes are of particular importance, as in general population surveys they often form the minority but can have totally different viewpoints from people living in areas where large carnivores are not present. Since hunters are directly operating in lynx habitats, understanding their beliefs and attitudes regarding the lynx is of special importance.

2.2 Beliefs and Attitudes Many studies in the field of human dimension of wildlife on large carnivores are crisis driven, investigating the acceptance towards large carnivores (Hunziker et al., 2001; Wechselberger et al., 2005). Usually one of two approaches is used by researchers when investigating the acceptability of wildlife (Zajac et al., 2012). The first approach is to determine the acceptability of wildlife management action, using psychological approaches such as attitudes (e.g. reintroduction; see for example, Bath & Buchanan, 1989; Ericsson & Heberlein, 2003) and the other one is concerned with investigating the acceptability of a wildlife population within some geographically or politically relevant unit (see for example, Riley and Decker, 2000). In the latter approach the Wildlife acceptance capacity (WAC) is used to determine human tolerance for a species in an area by investigating the maximum numbers of a wildlife population in an area (Bruskotter et al., 2009). However, many studies determining the tolerance of wildlife population in a geographically or politically unit often lack “a robust theoretical framework and standard terminology” (Gigliotti et al., 2000: 77). Also studies that are applying concepts like attitudes often lack a clear description of underlying concepts. However, attitudinal research in form of standardized surveys is frequently applied since it is easy to conduct and interpret and it helps managers to predict how people will respond to new management incentives (Manfredo, 2008).

Many different definitions about the concept of attitudes exist (McGuire, 1969; Greenwald, 1968). One definition that is often used defines attitudes as people’s evaluations of objects, persons or issues (Fazio et al., 1982). In this definition the evaluation of people’s surroundings involves “a series of complex processes, namely receiving and interpreting information, storing information in memory, and retrieving information” (Manfredo, 2008: 78). Another definition of attitude is:

“An attitude is defined simply as an organization of interrelated beliefs around a common object, with certain aspects of the object being at the focus of attention for some persons, and other aspects for other persons” (Rokeach, 1976: 116).

In this definition Rokeach implies that attitudes consist of beliefs around a point of reference . When he explains attitudes he also acknowledges that beliefs about the attitude object can result in a predisposition to respond. More current works on attitude theory also acknowledge the behavioural component of attitudes and emphasise that not all attitudes result in a certain behaviour (Fazio, 1995; Fishbein & Azjen, 1975). Manfredo (2008) concludes that although, there is a debate whether attitudes are consistent with behaviour, it is generally assumed that attitudes can be seen as predisposition of behaviour.

That beliefs about an object provide the basis for the formation of attitudes towards the object is also mentioned by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975). They refer to beliefs as linking an object to some attribute and highlight that as someone has a belief about an object he also automatically has an attitude towards the object. The formation of believes therefore “involves the

9 establishment of a link between any two aspects of an individual’s world” (Azjen & Fishbein, 1975: 131).

Beliefs are cognitions about what people think to be true, even though it might not actually be true (Whittacker et al., 2001). Rokeach describes beliefs as:

“The content of a belief may describe the object of belief as true or false, correct or incorrect; evaluate it as good or bad; or advocate a certain course of action or a certain state of existence as desirable or undesirable” (Rockeach, 1976: 113).

In this definition beliefs within the attitude organization are thought of involving three components: an affective component that involves people’s emotions towards the object, because some beliefs can evoke arousal about the object of the belief; a conative component, that comprises the behaviour related towards the attitude object; and a cognitive component, that is concerned with the knowledge someone has about the object, held with varying degrees of certitude about what is good or false (Rokeach, 1975). Manfredo (2008) notes that these components are not always consistent and can sometimes even be contradictory.

Beliefs about an object can be formed through direct experience when an individual perceives that some object has a certain attribute. These are called descriptive beliefs and can be held with maximal certainty (Azjen & Fishbein, 1975). For example, someone feels the fur of a cat and describes it as soft. Beliefs that are not created on the basis of “directly observable events” (Azjen & Fishbein, 1975: 132) are called inferential beliefs and can be formed on the basis of descriptive beliefs but also through prior inferences or past experience (Azjen & Fishbein, 1975). However, the distinction between descriptive and inferential beliefs is hard to make as beliefs that seem to be descriptive also involve concepts that have been acquired in the past. Other beliefs can also be formed by accepting information of outside sources with many factors that determine to what extent the new information will be accepted (Azjen & Fishbein, 1975).

A person may believe that a behaviour has certain consequences or that an object possess certain attributes. Generally, people’s perceptions and attitudes are not necessarily based on facts but rather on factors like “wider societal experiences, cultural norms, expectations and beliefs ” (Dickman, 2010: 462). People’s beliefs about the lynx might be that the lynx has consequences for the ecology (e.g. decrease in roe deer populations), the economy (e.g. jobs) or society (e.g. road traffic accidents), reflecting categories in which individual beliefs might aggregate.

Azjen & Fishbein (1975) define attitudes as consisting of two determinants: the strength of beliefs and evaluations of those beliefs. While belief strength can be determined how ‘likely’ or ‘unlikely’ something is going to happen, belief evaluation can be determined by asking if something is seen as rather positive or negative.

When two people share an attitude towards an object (for example the lynx) different belie fs around this object can be hold (Kerlinger, 1967). Some beliefs can be more critical for one person than for the other. If people share same beliefs these can be evaluated differently by individuals. People might share the same beliefs but can have different attitudes due to different 10 evaluation of those beliefs. Two people might hold the same strong belief that the lynx is responsible for the decrease in roe deer but while one person evaluates this belief as extremely bad, the other person might see it neutral or even good. The belief strength and evaluation can therefore be used to indicate a negative or positive attitude towards the issue in question.

Quantitative studies, interested in relating peoples’ attitudes to behaviour, have for example used the Theory of Reasoned Action, in which the attitudinal component is described as consisting of a combination of multiple beliefs and the evaluation of those beliefs (Azjen & Fishbein, 1975). An example is the study of Fulton et al. (2004) in which beliefs and attitudes towards lethal management of deer in Cuyhoga Valley National Park were investigated by applying the Theory of Reasoned Action to predict behaviour.

However, the frequent use of quantitative studies for the investigation of people’s attitudes towards wildlife bears the risk that attitudes are not seen in relation to each other and the reason why those attitudes are held are often not known. To get a better understanding of an individuals’ attitude, it is not only enough to reveal it. The reasons why an individual holds an attitude must be known as well (Manfredo et al., 1995). As attitudes towards the lynx can be thought of as consisting of individuals’ beliefs and the evaluation of those beliefs, knowing and considering hunters’ beliefs underpinning attitudes towards lynx can facilitate wildlife management and help to recognise and resolve conflicts.

One example of a qualitative study that is investigating people’s beliefs underpinning attitudes is the study of Dandy et al. (2012), in which beliefs were used to explore and understand why people support or oppose certain wildlife management methods. In other studies the acceptability of lethal control of wildlife has been investigated by looking at beliefs about the impacts of a species and the related attitude toward that species (Decker et al., 2006; Zinn et al., 1998).

2.3 Factors influencing attitudes toward wildlife species In this chapter I describe factors that can influence attitudes toward wildlife species. These can be beliefs about the perceived benefits or risks of that species (Riley & Decker, 2000) but also factors like social trust in the authority responsible for managing a wildlife species or personal control (Zajac et al., 2012).

2.3.1 Impacts of wildlife species Research on the human factor in wildlife issues have shown that the presumed impacts of a species like harmfulness or perceived risk can influence people’s attitudes toward the species and the support for it (Fischer et al., 2011). Species that are associated with perceived or actual negative impacts are often less appreciated by people (Nelson et al., 2003).

In order to investigate the acceptance for wildlife management actions or wildlife populations, researchers have focused on the impacts that are associated with a management action or wildlife population. Those impacts can be perceived as positive and negative by people. In the 11 study of Bright & Manfredo (1996) the “perceptions of outcomes” of a wolf reintroduction were investigated to predict the associated attitudes towards reintroductions. In another study “impact perceptions” were examined in order to determine the acceptance for white-tailed deer (Lischka et al., 2008). In the study of Riley and Decker (2000) “risk perception” was a factor influencing the attitude towards cougars. In those studies besides the perceived negative impacts also the benefits associated with a wildlife management incentive or wildlife population were investigated to predict the acceptance of wildlife and wildlife management actions.

People might see certain species as posing a hazard. The perceptions of risk is more an intuitive evaluation and does not necessarily reflect the actual risk originating from the object (Slovic, 1987). This is especially the case when hazards are believed to be uncontrollable or result from involuntary exposure (Slovic, 1987). Perception of risk can be influenced by personal characteristics, exposure, personal control, voluntariness and can be shaped by past experiences (Dickman, 2010; Hill, 2004; Fischhoff et al., 1978). Furthermore, familiarity and knowledge about the hazard can influence the perceived risk (Fischhoff et al. 1978). Research has shown that factors influencing the acceptance of wildlife are the perception of risk (Riley & Decker, 2000) but also positive impacts associated with the wildlife species. As the lynx preys among smaller animals also on mouflon, roe deer and red deer (Anders; 2014; Okarma et al., 1997; Odden et al., 2006) which are species hunted in the Harz Mountains, hunters might perceive negative impacts for their hunt.

Local people might see wildlife protected by law as state-owned and therefore don’t believe that they have the opportunity to bring in their interest in decisions about the species. This can be an explanation why even though domestic animals might cause the same damage, wildlife is more likely to be blamed than domestic animals as wildlife species can sometimes be seen as imposed upon local people by external authorities (Naughton- Treves & Treves, 2005). The beliefs people have about the risk of a wildlife species and the actual degree of risk that originates from this animals are often not consistent (Dickman, 2010). That means that people can have different beliefs about to what extent they are affected by a wildlife species independent from the actual degree the individual is affected. The potential risk associated with the species is also linked to the lack of control people can feel regarding the wildlife species (Madden, 2004). As the lynx is protected by law people have no control over it because of governmental laws. With regards to the lynx, an individual might have the strong believe that the lynx is responsible for the decrease in roe deer in his hunting territory even though this might not be true and roe deer is less prevalent because of other reasons. While an individual may intentionally or unintentionally exaggerated the losses he perceives other people reporting about their damages from wildlife can also raise perceptions of the risk associated with wildlife of people who did not experience any damage (Dickman, 2010). However, even though it might be the case that the actual damage a wildlife species causes is less than the perceived impacts, this perceived risk is still influencing the view of an individual towards that wildlife species and, therefore, needs to be addressed.

2.3.2 Social trust Social factors play a special role in human-wildlife conflicts (Dickman, 2010; Lüchtrath & Schraml, 2015). Studies focussing on the social dimension as influencing the perceptions towards carnivores found out that conflicts about carnivores are often caused by social conflicts for example when people have different ideas on land use (Wilson, 1997) or when people are opposing nature conservation associations (Liukkonen et al., 2009).

Besides perceptions of risk and perceptions of benefits another factor influencing the acceptance towards a species is social trust (Zajac et al., 2012). According to Zajac et al. (2012) social trust can be seen as a factor that is indirectly affecting the acceptance of wildlife via the risks and benefits of a wildlife species. As trust in a wildlife agency increases the perceived benefits of a species and decreases the associated risks it can be assumed that increasing an individual’s trust in the agency might also result in a higher acceptance towards the wildlife species. Also the study of Siegrist & Cvetkovich (2000) shows that social trust of those who are responsible for managing a hazard can be a factor which shows a strong correlation with the perceived risks and benefits of that hazard. Social trust can be explained as the “willingness to rely on those who have the formal responsibility to develop policies and take appropriate action” (Sponarski et al., 2014: 303) and can have an influence on publics support or opposition of management decisions (Sponarski et al., 2014). Trust in the governing agency positive ly influences if people accept management decisions while distrust can lead to negative reactions of the public (Cvetkovich & Winter, 2003). In Finland and Sweden the low level of trust in the authorities responsible for wildlife is believed to be one of the main causes for illegal killings of large carnivores (von Essen et al., 2014). A closely related variable that has been used in determining the acceptance towards a wildlife species is value similarity (Zajac et al., 2012). In the study of Zajac et al. (2012) value similarity reflects to which degree someone shares the value of the agency managing the wildlife species. This variable is thought of indirectly influencing the trust in the agency what has also been shown in their results. For this study this variable is not taken into consideration as investigating the trust hunters have in the national park administration is thought of sufficiently covering the social aspect influencing the attitudes towards the lynx.

Especially with regards to the lynx project in the Harz Mountains the role of social trust seems to be of special importance as the coordination and practical implementation lies with the national park administration.

2.3.3 Personal control Another factor relevant to understand the acceptance towards a wildlife species is personal control (Zajac et al., 2012). Personal control reflects to which degree someone thinks that a situation is under control and if he or she can influence that situation (Mc Allister et al., 2012). A high internal locus of control means that the person beliefs to have control over his or her life. When the person believes that external factors, such as chance or others are responsible to control the situation personal control is perceived low while external control is perceived high

(Levenson & Mahler, 1981). Zajac et al. (2012) developed a psychological model that has the aim to determine the variables that influence people’s acceptance for black bears. In this model personal control is seen as indirectly influencing the acceptance towards bears. In their case personal control positively influenced social trust towards the agency responsible for managing the animal and negatively influenced the perceptions of risk people have about the species.

Wildlife management of wild carnivores can be distinguished by different goals, namely eradication, regulated harvest or preservation (Treves & Karanth, 2003). Preservation is a goal when a wildlife species is considered threatened, rare or valuable (Treves & Karanth, 2003). Since the lynx in Germany is protected by law and mentioned in the FFH directive particular attention is paid on its conservation. Someone who perceives a wildlife species as posing a threat or having negative impacts on something might feel as having no control over the situation especially when the animal is protected by law. The species might cause negative effects but due to its protection the person sees himself as powerless to make a change in that situation. Starr (1969) who investigated how people perceive and tolerate risks found out that people who undertake risks voluntarily are 1000 times more likely to accept the risk than when the risk is imposed by external forces. This can also have an important role in shaping local people’s attitudes toward a species from a reintroduction project brought into the area by external agencies. Although the hunter association of Lower Saxony is one of the project initiators it is not known how individual hunters perceived the initiation of the project and if they felt that they were involved.

2.4 Preliminary conceptual model This study investigates how hunters in the Harz Mountains describe their beliefs about the lynx, its management and the presumed impacts of its presence, by looking at beliefs about presumed impacts, personal control and social trust. This will be done by looking at the certainty of beliefs and how those beliefs are evaluated by hunters. The organization of those beliefs form the basis of the attitude hunters have towards the lynx. This relation is illustrated in in the preliminary conceptual model (Fig. 2).

Beliefs are the focus of this study and belief strength and belief evaluation will be investigated to indicate the corresponding attitude. Investigating hunters’ beliefs can, therefore, not only reveal beliefs about lynx management and the perceived impacts of lynx hold by hunters but also allow to link these beliefs to attitudes.

Figure 2. Preliminary conceptual model. Beliefs about the Impacts of the wildlife species (Benefits/Risks), Social Trust and Personal Control with the respective certainty and evaluation of beliefs result in an organization of beliefs around the topic and indicate the corresponding attitude. The adjusted conceptual model can be found in chapter 3.2.3.

Research that reveals the beliefs most relevant for hunters (SRQ1), how beliefs are seen in relation to each other (SRQ2), shared beliefs among hunters (SRQ3) and how hunters evaluate those beliefs (SRQ4) can help to answer the main research question how hunters in the Harz Mountains describe their beliefs about the lynx, lynx management and the presumed impacts of its presence (MRQ). This gives important insights into the perspectives of local hunters in the Harz Mountains and allows to reveal the corresponding attitude that emerges from the organization of beliefs.

3 Methodology In this chapter I will explain which method was used to derive the data needed to address the research questions. This chapter starts with an introduction on Q methodology. The following sub- chapters describe in detail how the method was applied. This chapter ends with an adjustment of the conceptual model that has been created in chapter 2.4.

3.1 Q Methodology An appropriate method that gives in-depth insights into participants’ beliefs and attitudes about a topic is Q methodology (Brown, 1996). Q methodology was invented by William Stephenson in the 1930s (Brown, 1996) but is a little-known research method in social science. Especially in Germany Q methodology is a research technique that didn’t find much application (Müller & Kals, 2004). Müller & Kals (2004) assume that the reason why Q methodology is only scarcely mentioned in German-language literature has to do with the research tradition of social science in Germany. Quantitative and qualitative methods were developing individually which hinders researchers to take up an approach that combines both. In Q methodology, qualitative and quantitative techniques are combined (Barry & Proops, 1999; Ramlo, 2016). Its main applications have been in psychology, but it has also been applied in the fields of political science (Barry & Proops, 1999), public health (Stenner et al., 2003), education (Bracken & Fischel, 2006) and media research (Byung & Wonhi, 2001). The use of Q methodology in environmental studies is currently expanding (Webler et al., 2009).

The aim of Q methodology is not to reveal the objective truth but to investigate what is and what is not important from the participant’s perspective (Brown, 1996). It is a data reduction technique that helps to find shared views across the group of investigation. Although investigating an individual’s point of view is thought to be difficult, Q methodology offers a tool to study subjectivity (McKeown, 1984). It is used to investigate people’s attitudes towards a certain topic from their point of view (Cross, 2005) and can help to understand the logic behind their positions (Webler et al., 2009). In a Q study, participants individually sort statements about a certain topic on a grid usually ranging from ‘most agree’ to ‘most disagree’. As a result, participants create their individual Q sort that expresses their viewpoints on the topic (Watts & Stenner, 2012). The Q sorts of all participants can then be analysed using statistical software. Usually, correlation and factor analysis are the applied statistical tests. As a result, it reveals dominant patterns of shared beliefs, by revealing on which statements participants agree and gives an in-depth portrait of relative evaluations of a situation (Watts & Stenner, 2005). One limitation of Q methodology is that because of the small number of respondents usually results cannot be generalized (Ho, 2016). Since the focus of this study is to investigate the beliefs of local hunters about the lynx and the perceived impacts of its presence in the Harz Mountains (MRQ) the aim of this thesis lies in an in-depth analysis of hunters’ beliefs about the lynx in the Harz Mountains (in this particular situation) and not in creating results that are representative for hunters’ beliefs about lynx in general.

3.2 Data Collection In this chapter I will describe the data collection for this thesis. This includes the selection of participants, deriving statements for Q methodology, the procedure of the Q sorts and the role of interviews during the Q study. Furthermore ethical considerations will be explained and the adaption of the conceptual model will be undertaken.

3.2.1 Participants As the aim in Q methodology is to capture the views of target stakeholders it is not necessary as in quantitative method to select a representative sample. Participants will not be randomly chosen but strategically in order to select stakeholders that are data rich. Four hunter associations that are close to the Harz Mountains were contacted for this study to get insights into hunters’ beliefs about lynx that are in or close to lynx habitat. The reason of contacting four hunter associations around the Harz Mountains was the aim to include hunters from different parts in the Harz Mountains. Therefore, hunter associations from the west and from the east of the Harz Mountains were contacted. To contact the four hunter associations in the Harz Mountains, an email was sent to each chairperson of the association which explained the objective of the study and which contained a request to send another email to all members of the association. In this email, the members of the hunter association were asked for voluntary participation in the study. Criteria for the selection of participants were that the person is an active hunter and that the topic has personal relevance for that person. This was important since people who feel personally affected tend to cognitively process the topic more strongly than people who do not feel that the topic has personal relevance for them (Petty et al., 1981). The reason for sending an email to all members of the hunter associations and asking for their voluntary participations was that it was assumed that people who are familiar with the topic and have well-formed opinions are more likely to respond. People with well-formed opinions have it easier to sort the statements and it is more likely that they create robust Q sorts (Webler et al., 2009). Participants that already conducted the Q sort were also asked if they knew other hunters that would like to participate. Even though the sample doesn’t need to be statistically representative of a certain category (e.g. age), Brown (1980) suggests to select participants that differ in variables such as age and gender.

For a Q study, a small number of respondents is sufficient to yield testable results (Watts & Stenner, 2005). Although it is difficult to determine the number of Q participants, Webler et al. (2009) suggests that the ratio of statements to participants should be 3:1 but not higher than 2:1. For this study 15 participants and 45 statements were chosen.

Additionally to the meetings with 15 hunters I also attended the informational evening initiated by the hunter association Lower Saxony where people from the national park administration informed hunters about the current situation of lynx in the Harz Mountains.

3.2.2 Statements In order to compile statements for the Q sort as the first step in Q methodology, a concourse that aims to reflect what people might say or think about the topic has to be compiled (Said & Stricklin, 2014). Sources for this concourse can be diverse. For my study, I chose to have three different sources of which statements for the concourse were derived (Fig.3). Deriving statements for the concourse from a variety of sources ensured that the risk that essential statements are missed was diminished.

Figure 3. Identification of different steps that were undertaken to derive statements for the Q study.

I examined existing literature about hunters’ attitudes and beliefs towards predators as well as documents of local hunter associations concerning lynx and their management (e.g. magazines of local hunter associations). Furthermore, background interviews with two local hunters who were familiar with the variety of opinions of regional hunters towards the lynx were conducted, to capture further statements that were not derived from written text sources and reflect the local-specific perspectives people have towards the topic. These background interviews were semi-structured with open questions regarding the impacts of the lynx in the Harz Mountains, questions about the lynx management with respect to the factor of Social Trust and questions about Personal Control. The interviews were subsequently recorded and transcribed. The transcripts were coded, identifying themes and subthemes of that interview.

The advantage of conducting interviews with locals is that statements are directly derived from the people studied and the influence of the researcher is diminished (Webler et al., 2009). While the questions covered the themes Impacts of the lynx, Social Trust and Personal Control the interview structure allowed the hunters to also mention and discuss new topics related to the lynx which they perceive as important. Even though the use of different sources to derive the statements ensures that a wide range of perspectives is covered, the Q set can never be totally 18 exhaustive. However, Watts & Stenner (2005: 75) state that “a Q set only needs to contain a representative condensation of information”. This is because the Q set in itself has no prior meaning but acquires meaning as the participant sorts and engages with the statements (Watts & Stenner, 2005). To select statements for the Q study, strategic sampling was applied. That means that statements from the whole concourse were split into categories reflecting different themes.

The criteria for selecting a statement were that participants are likely to have an opinion about it and that the statement is understandable. Furthermore, it was important that a statement was not to narrow, as in Q methodology it is generally preferable to have statements that can be interpreted slightly different by participants (Webler et al., 2009).

The themes and the related statements that could be derived were Impacts on the Ecosystem (IE), Impacts on Hunting (IH), Impacts on Society (IS), Personal Control (PC), Social Trust (ST), Harz Mountains as Habitat (HH) and Measures to Improve Acceptance (MA). Statements from each category were chosen for the final set of Q statements.

Particular attention was paid to the phrasing of the statements. While in existing Q studies statements derived from interviews were used with the same wording upon the rationale that such wording is understandable for the people in the study area (e.g. Armatas et al., 2017), for this study the statements were slightly changed in order to have more neutral statements in the end. This was important, as a statement that is phrased strongly either positive or negative would probably let the participant rank it on an extreme end whether that issues was relevant for him or not. Therefore, statements especially from the categories Impacts on the Ecosystem and Impacts on Hunting that were strongly positive or negative were rephrased to allow the participant to give their own evaluation of the statement. However, as making every statement absolutely neutral was not possible it has to be mentioned that those statements, nevertheless, were included in the final set of statements since they were often mentioned in pre-interviews and literature. The final set of statements, the Q sample can be found in Appendix I. In the end 45 statements from 7 categories were chosen. From the 7 categories, statements from the categories Impacts on the Ecosystem and Impacts on Hunting were more numerous than statements from other categories. The reason was that from the pre-interviews and the literature research to derive statements for the concourse those categories were often mentioned and discussed in great detail. Therefore, it was decided to include more statements from those categories in order to allow the participants to express themselves in a more differentiated way. Dividing into categories ensured that statements of the whole concourse were included into the final set of statements, called the Q sample (Webler et al., 2009). The statements were printed on cards and numbered so that after the participant conducted the Q sort it was easy to record the positioning of statements.

3.2.3 Adjusted conceptual model Besides the categories Impacts of Wildlife Species (Benefits/Risks), Social Trust and Personal Control that were included in the preliminary conceptual model (see chapter 2.4 ) additional categories from the concourse emerged which lead to an adaption of the conceptual model (Fig. 4).

The topics Harz Mountains as Habitat and Measures to Improve Acceptance were additional topics derived directly from the concourse and were therefore not included in the preliminary conceptual model. However, as those two topics emerged repeatedly in the concourse including statements from those categories seemed to be of special importance. Statements from the category Harz Mountains as Habitat that cover how hunters would describe for example the suitability of the Harz Mountains as a habitat for lynx can give important insights and more specific information how hunters describe the location of the Harz Mountains as habitat for the lynx. It was assumed that statements from the category Harz Mountains as Habitat can on the one hand help to indicate the attitude hunters have about the lynx (if someone sees the Harz Mountains not as a suitable habitat for lynx they may form a rather negative attitude towards the lynx as it does not belong there) and on the other hand if someone already has a negative attitude towards the lynx it can be assumed that the person sees the Harz Mountains not as a suitable habitat because the person already had a negative attitude beforehand and maybe does not want the species living in this area. Also statements from the category Measures to Improve Acceptance were selected for the final set of statements. Those statements were included in the final set of statements as they were derived directly from the pre-interviews with the hunters. Including statements from this category helps to reveal how hunters think the acceptance toward the lynx could be improved. It not only encourages the hunters to explain their thoughts on the statements that contain different measures to improve the acceptance toward the lynx and to propose own solutions but also to describe their thoughts on the current acceptance of hunters in the Harz Mountains toward the lynx. Statements from this category are viewed as being influenced by the categories Impacts of Wildlife Species (Benefits/Risks), Social Trust and Personal Control. It can be assumed that depending on how hunters describe the impacts of the lynx, the trust they have in the responsible authority for managing the lynx and the factor of personal control can influence hunters’ opinions about how the acceptance toward the lynx could be improved.

Figure 4. Adjusted conceptual model. Beliefs about the Impacts of the Wildlife Species (Benefits/Risks), Social Trust and Personal Control with the respective certainty and evaluation of beliefs can indicate the corresponding attitude. The category Measures to Improve Acceptance is expected to be influenced by Impacts of wildlife species (Benefits/Risks), Social Trust and Personal Control. The category Harz Mountains as Habitat can be seen as influencing the attitude toward the lynx but also as being influenced by the attitude toward the lynx. 3.2.4 Q Sorting In an individual meeting with the hunter, the procedure of the Q sorting process and what I want to learn from it was explained. I emphasized that there is no right or wrong answer and that I am interested in the participants’ authentic opinion. After the procedure was explained the participants were asked to read through the statements, which were in a randomised order, and to arrange them at first on three piles: statements that reflect more likely what they think, statements that do not reflect what they think and statements they feel neutral or have no opinion about. After that the participants were instructed to rank the statement cards on the grid. This procedure is called Q sorting. Brown (1980: 17) calls this “the technical means whereby data is obtained for factoring.” Participants were asked to place the statement cards on the grid that ranges from +5 to -5. Statements people feel strongly about either positive or negative had to be placed at the corners of the grid. Statements participants had no opinion about or felt ambivalent about had to be placed towards the middle. The zero point on the grid is intended to mean that the statement has no salience for the participant. Since it is unlikely that participants assign identical numbers of cards on the positive and negative place on the grid around the zero point the grid ranged from ‘most likely how I think’ to ‘least likely how I think’. This allowed that participants could decide for themselves where the zero point should lay. After the Q sorting the participant was asked to identify the column that demarcates agree from disagree. Knowing were the participants see the zero point in their Q sort helped for the interpretation of the results. 21

For Q statements ranging from 40-60 statements Brown suggests an 11- point distribution (Brown, 1980). Therefore, for my study, the grid took on the form of a quasi-normal distribution with 11 categories ranging from +5 to -5 (Fig. 5). In that way, participants were forced to sort their statements in relation to other statements. Using a forced distribution or a free distribution, where participants are free to assign as many statements as they want on one ordering position makes no difference for the results (Brown, 1980; Watts & Stenner, 2005). An advantage of the forced distribution is that respondents are likely to think more deeply about how they place statements in relation to other statements (Watts & Stenner, 2005).

Figure 5. Grid with a quasi-normal distribution used during Q sorting.

3.2.5 Interview Process The Q sorts of participants are used to create factors that reveal which statements of the participants match. However, only the results of the statistical analysis do not necessarily reveal the rationale behind hunters’ placing of cards. Letting participant express their interpretation of cards makes the interpretation of the emerging factors more transparent (Gallagher & Porock, 2010). Therefore, interviews conducted while the participant is sorting the statements on the grid captures important qualitative data to reveal why the participant sorts the Q sorts this way, if he or she misses statements or if there are other comments, the participant wants to add. The last point is especially important in order to capture important beliefs that are not encompassed in the statements. Doing interviews with the participants during the sorting procedure helps to interpret the factor arrays that emerge from the analysis (Gallagher & Porock, 2010). Furthermore, the interviews are used to determine whether a belief of the participant is evaluated positively or negatively underpinning a negative or positive attitude and underlying reasons why that belief is hold. Brown writes that in Q methodology an interview “is an important step often overlooked in Q studies” (1980:200). Getting a better understanding about

22 the individuals Q sorts can in the end help to interpret the emerging factors and can improve the quality of findings (Watts & Stenner, 2012).

Two approaches exist for interviews in Q methodology. The participant is either asked to first sort all statements on the grid and after that to explain why he sorted the statements in this way, or the participant is instructed to explain the rationale behind a statements during the placing of cards (Gallagher & Porock, 2010). While both approaches have advantages and disadvantages in this study the latter approach was used because it encourages the participant to think ‘out loud’ while doing the Q sort, and helps to investigate the rationale behind the placing of cards. As the objective of this study is not only to reveal hunters’ beliefs about the lynx and lynx management but also to evaluate those beliefs, linking it to attitudes and investigating the reason why those beliefs are hold it is important to derive this qualitative data from the interviews. Using the approach that enables the participant to explain the statements while sorting them facilitates that the hunters can directly decide which statements they want to discuss in more detail. In this study the participant was instructed to talk about the statements while he was sorting them on the grid, explaining why he sorted the statements on that position and how he evaluates statements. The main focus was on beliefs that were held most strongly (-/+ 4 and -+ 5). As understanding the rationale behind the placing of cards in all positions is of importance the participant was also encouraged to add comments to statements that were placed on positions of less polarity (Gallagher & Porock, 2010).

This additional data was used as a help to interpret the results. The interviews were recorded and transcribed using the rules of simplified transcription by Dresing & Pehl (2011). These guidelines state the following: the interview will be transcribed word by word and not phonetically; sentences or words that are not fluent will be shortened or left out; the form of the sentence will be left unchanged even though syntax or grammatical errors occur; punctuation will be used following orthographical rules; pauses will be transcribed as (…); utterances that are filling pauses (uh, uhm, mhm,…) will only be transcribed when it is a single answer without further explanations; words that are stressed will be transcribed in CAPITAL LETTERS; the speakers will be transcribed in separate paragraphs; emotional or non-verbal utterances will be indicated in brackets (laughs, sighs); words that could not be understand will be indicated with (unclear).

3.2.6 Ethical Considerations Participants of this study were given both verbal and written information about the purpose of the study, that the data will be treated anonymously and that the participation is voluntary and the participants can decline to answer any question. I stressed that I am interested in their opinion and that I want to learn about their perspectives. I also asked the participants for permission to record the interviews and assured them that neither their names nor other personal information will be mentioned in the report.

3.3 Data Analysis In this chapter the creation of factors with PQ Method and the interview analysis will be described.

3.3.1 Creating factors with PQ Method The Q sorts of the participants were analysed using statistical software. I used the free software PQ Method for data-analysis, since it is available for Microsoft and data can be entered easily (Webler et al., 2009). The analysis of Q sorts is used to find patterns across the individuals’ Q sorts identifying similar subjective views (Webler et al., 2009). A correlation matrix shows how Q sorts are correlated with each other (Watts & Stenner, 2005). Factor analysis examines this correlation matrix and generates factors which describes a particular item configuration. Participants who sorted the statements in similar ways are consequently loading onto the same factor (Watts & Stenner, 2005). Factor loadings are a correlation coefficient and they reveal how Q sorts correlate with each factor (Webler et al., 2009). When participants load highly on one factor their Q sorts will be merged together creating an idealized Q sort for that particular factor (Watts & Stenner, 2012).

For the analysis of the Q sorts in this study Principal Component Factor Analysis (PCA) was applied. In the next step of the analysis the factors had to be rotated. For this step the varimax rotation technique was applied since it “maximizes the amount of variance explained by the extracted factors” (Watts & Stenner, 2005: 81). After selecting the number of factors flagging was applied. Flagging means that Q sorts will be associated with the factors. Q sorts that load highly on a factor will be flagged on this particular factor. The program calculates the weighted average of the Q sorts flagged for one factor which is then responsible for the final output of that factor (Weber et al. 2009). The tool of PQ Method for automatic pre-flagging was applied in this study.

In literature on Q methodology several requirements have been described on how to decide on the number of factors. One requirement mentioned is the Eigenvalue of the factor. When factors have an eigenvalue of 1 or more they can be considered significant (Brown, 1993). Another requirement for a factor is that at least two sorters load highly on it and that those two sorters do not load on other factors (Watts & Stenner, 2012). Furthermore, the recommendations of Webler et al. (2009) acted as a guidance for defining the factors in this study. These were: Simplicity, meaning that deciding on fewer factors can make viewpoints more understandable, even though it is important by deciding on a few factors not to miss important information; Clarity, meaning that it is best to have factors on which sorters load highly and not to have sorters who load on more than one factor or on no factor at all; Distinctness, meaning that it is desired to have low correlations between the emerging factors. However, if two factors correlate highly with one another knowing, on which statements these two factors disagree can also yield important information; Stability, meaning that when trying different numbers of factors certain Q sorts tend to be grouped together which shows that those participants indeed have similar views on that topic. For the final set of factors it was important to have those stable factors with 24 people thinking similarly about the topic but also enough factors that allow to explain the complexity of viewpoints.

3.3.2 Interview Analysis Although there is much literature that explains the procedure of a Q study (e.g. Webler et al., 2009; McKeown & Thomas, 1988; Addams & Proops, 2000; Thomas & Watson, 2002) the interviews conducted during or after the Q sorting process have received little attention (Gallagher & Porock, 2010). However, interviews conducted during the Q sorting process are helpful when explaining the rationale behind the sorting of statements. After factors were identified and the statistical analysis of the Q sorts with PQ Method was done the interviews were used as additional data to help interpreting the results. The interview transcripts were used to support the description of emerging factors. In order to interpret the factors interviews from the hunters that loaded onto a certain factor were used to help explaining this factor. Extracting quotes from the interview transcripts helped to explain the story of the respective factor. To interpret the positioning of statements in the factors Distinguishing Card Content Analysis described by Gallagher & Porock (2010) was applied (Fig. 6). This analysis was used to systematically interpret statements in the respective factors. In the Distinguishing Card Content Analysis only the interviews of the Q sorts that belong to the same factor are used to extract quotes that help interpreting the positioning of statements. This procedure makes sure that only the transcripts of the people loading on that factor will be used to explain that factor and that comments from people who loaded onto other factors were not used to explain the factor in question. The software QDA Miner Lite was used as an aiding tool to find parts in the transcripts where people discussed the statement in question. In order to derive the quotes for the different factors, interview transcripts of the people loading on one factor were put together in QDA miner Lite in three different categories representing the three factors. In the next step, the interview transcripts loading on the respective factor were searched for quotes where participants discussed the statements. Three different documents have been created that contain the quotes for the statements that will be used for the description of results.

Figure 6. Distinguishing Card Content Analysis Gallagher & Porock, , adapted 25

4 Results With the steps described in chapter 3.3.1 three factors were created with respectively 7, 6 and 2 people loading on them. This 3-factor solution accounts for 55% (23%, 20%, and 12%) of the variance. The Eigenvalues are 10.35, 9, and 5.4. In Q methodological studies an explanatory power of 35-40% or higher is considered as sufficient for Q methodological studies (Kline, 1994). The correlation between the three factors is shown in table 1. Factors 1 and 2 show the highest correlation with R=0.55. This correlation indicates that to a certain extent those factors share similarities in the viewpoints they reflect. In the next chapter the three factors will be described using the Q sort value (+5,-5 etc.) and quotes from the interview transcripts of the participants to explain the rationale behind the positioning of statement cards.

Table 1. Correlation between the three factors. Correlation between factor scores 1 2 3 1 1.0000 0.5506 0.3893 2 0.5506 1.0000 0.3983 3 0.3893 0.3983 1.0000

4.1 Factor 1 Lynx as a fellow hunter, causing no large impacts on the hunt- predominately foresters with trust in the national park administration.

Out of the 15 participants of this study 7 hunters loaded on the first factor. They have an average age of 45 years. Five hunters were from the field of forestry (2 foresters, 2 students from forest science, 1 forester candidate) and 2 were private hunters. Participants grouped within factor 1 strongly emphasised the role the lynx has on the ecosystem. Although hunters in this group believed that the lynx has impacts on the ecosystem they did not believe that this results in major consequences for the hunt. Another characteristic of this group is their trust in the national park administration to fulfil the tasks with the lynx project in a satisfactory way.

Hunters loading on factor 1 emphasised the role the lynx has on the ecosystem. Participants believed that the lynx has an impact on the fox and in that sense also on ground-nesting birds (5: +1). However, the impact was seen as minimal and it was assumed that “when he [the lynx] has sufficient other food sources he does not catch a fox” (Interviewee 2). Another argument made by different participants during the interview was that the populations of ground-nesting birds in the Harz Mountains are already quite low so that the lynx cannot cause significant damage. One participant stated it as follows:

“I cannot imagine that the populations of ground-nesting birds are so high that he could cause great damage at all.” (Interviewee 14)

While hunters could imagine that the lynx has little impacts on foxes and therefore on ground- nesting birds hunters were not sure about impacts on the wildcat (4:0). Participants believed that when the lynx has a chance he would take out a wildcat but also this impact was seen as minimal. Beliefs about the impacts on the wildcat were ambivalent. While the effect of the lynx on the wildcat can be seen as negative when the lynx catches a wildcat one participant also mentioned a positive impact the lynx can have for the wildcat. This participant explained the following.

“I believe he [the lynx] could also have a positive impact on the populations of the wildcat maybe, maybe because of the measures that are taken for the lynx.” (Interviewee 10) Hunters also did not believe that the lynx could pose a threat to livestock (13: -4). Impacts were seen as minimal and would not play a role compared to the impacts of the wolf. One hunter did not believe that livestock is threatened as sheep for example are gregarious animals and because of that the lynx does not dare to attack them.

While participants loading on that factor did not believe that the lynx has an impact on the presence of wildlife species (2: -1) they do saw an effect on the densities on wildlife populations (1: +3). Hunters agreed that the lynx has an impact on the densities on game populations but not necessarily only because lynx feeds on game but because the behaviour of game chances which in turn influences their densities for example when they move on to other regions. One participant felt ambiguous about this statement and explained that he sees only minimal effects on roe deer and red deer but tremendous effects on the densities of mouflon’s.

“We have a mouflon population there in the east of the Harz that is almost exhausted. (…) Well roe deer and red deer less but the mouflon which is due to the characteristics of the mouflon not able to run away or to protect itself from upward attacks (…) the lynx is a predator that jumps on his prey from above and the mouflon does not look above they come from Sardinia and plain fields and they are genetically totally different, I would say, prepared for foes.” (Interviewee 2) So while hunters believed that the lynx has impacts on the densities of game populations they did not necessarily believe that the presence of the lynx would cause wildlife species to vanish.

As already mentioned in the context with game population densities, hunters from factor 1 had the strong belief that with the presence of lynx in the Harz Mountains the behaviour of game changes (27: +4). Hunters described the behaviour of game as “shyer”, “restless” and more “secret” when the lynx is present. One of the hunters explained that although he assumed that the lynx has an impact on the behaviour of game also other factors could be responsible for the change in behaviour of game.

“Presence of lynx has an impact on the behaviour of game. Yes, but it is not so bad. Yes it is. But we have to accept that a little bit. It is like it is. It is not only the presence of the lynx but it 27 is also just an assumption we have. We don’t know it. When game moves we don’t know if the lynx is there or was there, it could also be other disruptive factors. We don’t know that.” (Interviewee 15)

This participant stressed that it is impossible to know about the real impacts of the lynx and that also hunters can just make assumptions about the impacts of the lynx.

Another strongly held belief of hunters was that the natural regeneration of young trees will be facilitated with the presence of lynx because of their impact on hoofed game (28: +5). Participants again did not see dramatic impacts but they did believe that because lynx preys on roe deer trees can regenerate more easily. Two hunters loading on factor 1 pointed out that the impacts of the lynx are not only direct because the lynx preys on roe deer but also indirect because the behaviour of lynx chances and when the lynx is present game moves which in turn reduces bite damages on trees in the area. However, one participant also saw limitations of that positive effect for young trees in the Harz Mountains because he stated that the Harz Mountains have high numbers of red deer on which the lynx usually seldom preys. This hunter also doubted that the impacts of the lynx could be as high as the impacts of the wolf on the regeneration on young trees in general.

While hunters in factor 1 did believe that the lynx selects weak animals from game populations (29: +3) they hold ambiguous beliefs whether the lynx utilizes game completely or not (6: 0). Participant generally agreed that the lynx primary takes out weak animals although one hunter pointed out that he knows someone who saw that the lynx took out a roe deer which weighed around fifty or sixty kilogram. Another participant explained that it’s not the weak animals the lynx takes out but the ones that are not cautious. Regarding the statement whether the lynx takes out weak animals, hunters explained that they know from cases where the lynx indeed came back to the piece of game to feed on it, although that is not always the case. One participant described the lynx in this context as “wasteful”. Another hunter explained that it depends on the degree of disturbance how much from the piece of game the lynx utilizes.

“Game killed by lynx will be visited again until it is completely utilized, this depends on how the lynx gets disrupted. When he is left alone then he comes back to its prey and therefore I think because of that it also depends how much remains.” (Interviewee 13)

Although hunters in this factor highlighted the role of the lynx in the ecosystem and its impacts they did not believe that the lynx has an influence on the control of hunters over processes in wildlife populations (20: -2) or on their preservation efforts for game (7: -2). With regard to the statement about the control of hunters, participants noted that they do not see their control threatened because they can’t control their wildlife populations and making estimates about game populations is difficult. Another participant pointed out that game becomes more easily scared but he also explained that when someone has fewer sightings that does not mean that less game is prevalent. In this context hunters did acknowledge that because behaviour of game changes also the time spent on a hunt changes (23: +3). Regarding the preservation efforts one

28 hunter explained that one could not talk about preservation efforts at least for roe deer. Another hunter from this factor mentioned that he personally does not see an impact on preservation efforts for hunters. In general hunters within this factor did not believe that the lynx has great impacts on the hunt as the large territories of lynx minimize losses for the individual hunter (21: +2).

Regarding statements from the category Measures to Improve Acceptance hunters in this factor did not believe that increasing compensations payments (30: -2) or reducing hunting taxes (31: -5) would change the acceptance of hunters in the Harz Mountains towards the lynx. According to hunters loading on this factor money is not the factor that could change the acceptance of hunters because it cannot change the attitude the individual hunter has about the lynx. Money in this case would not help to establish a “real acceptance” it would only be “a gesture of goodwill with the goal that no one complains about it” (Interviewee 13). Some hunters explained that they do not feel that monetary compensation or more educational work would result in a higher acceptance of hunters. Those hunters believed that when someone already has a negative attitude those measures cannot change it as they are difficult to convince. One hunter mentioned that hunters who have a negative attitude towards the lynx see him has a competitor that causes envy. Another hunter said that with the lynx as a fellow hunter, hunters in the Harz Mountains have to “slim down a little bit but that’s just the way it is” (Interviewee 12). Hunters in this factor perceived the acceptance towards the lynx mostly positive but they believed that a minority of hunters are more critical about the lynx. When talking about hunters with a more negative attitude towards the lynx some participants directly referred to older hunters who are more conservative and traditional. One participant assumed that in the future the positive impacts of the lynx on the regeneration of the forest and car accidents will become visible which might facilitates a more positive attitude for hunters who are critical nowadays. Some hunters grouped in factor 1 also believed that the education of today’s foresters and hunters are a factor that will change the acceptance towards the lynx in the future. Today, young hunters learn much more about aspects from nature conservation than hunters before them which contributes to an understanding of younger hunters.

Another aspect that is mentioned with regard to statements about how to change the acceptance of hunters is the predator wolf. The impacts of the wolf on game were seen as more dramatic than the impacts of the lynx. One hunter explained that now after all the time the lynx is not any longer that important for the people. He explains that the focus now lies on the wolf.

Regarding statements from the category Impacts on Society, hunters grouped within this factor did not believe that the lynx affects humans directly (12: -3) or leads to a change in numbers of car accidents (11: -2). They also did not believe that the lynx will lead to unpredictable costs (19: -3). They regarded the Harz Mountains as suitable habitat (17: +3) and a good study side for field research on the lynx (16: +2) and in that sense did not believe that the Harz Mountains are too exposed which would cause inbreeding (14: -2).

Regarding the belief from the category Social Trust whether the national park administration listens to concerns from hunters, participants weakly agreed (36: +1). While some hunters had no strong opinion about the issue one participant considered the statement differentiated by agreeing on the statement in general but with the comment that although the national park administration listens to concerns they do not change anything. Although hunters did not have the strong belief that the national park administration listens to their concerns they did believe that the communication of the park administration regarding the lynx is open and transparent (38: +2).

“They won’t tell about everything they found out but when there are any topics and a lynx was seen or one strays somewhere then they are really open with that.” (Interviewee 10)

Regarding the national park administration hunters in factor 1 also had the strong belief that they react to lynx conflicts accordingly (35: +4) and that they know how to handle lynx which are too tame (40: +2). Hunters pointed out that when there is a need the national park administration looks after it. One hunter mentioned that they have to react accordingly because they are in the spotlight regarding issues on the lynx. Another participant described how the park administration reacts to conflicts with lynx as follows:

“The national park administration responds to lynx conflicts accordingly. There are not so many conflicts with the lynx. Therefore, in any case. More than appropriate actually. When we call that person [responsible person for the lynx monitoring], when we call him and half an hour later he stands in front of the door it is not irrelevant for him. This was really cooperative somehow, so when there was something.” (Interviewee 15)

Another point hunters in this factor strongly agreed on is that the national park administration fulfils the tasks that are associated with the lynx project in a satisfactory way (41: +5). This belief shows that overall hunters in this factor felt that the national park administration is doing a good job regarding the lynx project. The agreement of hunters on statements from the category Social Trust whether they listen to concerns from hunters, if they know how to handle lynx which are too tame, about the communication of the park administration, if they respond to lynx conflicts accordingly and that they fulfil tasks regarding the lynx project in a satisfactory way shows that hunters in this factor have trust in the responsible authority for the lynx in the Harz Mountains.

Regarding beliefs about Personal Control hunters loading on factor 1 did not think that hunters or the average citizen can influence decisions about the lynx (33: -1; 43: -5). Although they also did not believe that hunters in general can influence management decisions about the lynx some hunters do think that a few chosen hunters have a say.

4.2 Factor 2 Lynx as competitor, having several impacts on the hunt- predominately private hunters with low trust in the national park administration.

Six participants loaded on factor 2 constituting 4 private hunters and 2 foresters. Participants in this factor have an average age of 59 years. Hunters belonging to factor 2 strongly emphasised that the lynx has impacts on the ecosystem and in turn also on the hunt. In turn they did not believe to have the opportunity to influence the impacts of the lynx or decisions regarding the lynx project.

Participants grouped within factor 2 emphasised the impacts of the lynx on hunting. The strong belief that with the presence of lynx the behaviour of game changes from the category Impacts on the Ecosystem (27: +5) corresponds with the statement that because the behaviour changes also the time spent on a hunt changes (23: +4). Hunters in this factor argued that because game becomes “shyer” and more alert with the presence of the lynx also hunting takes more time.

“When the lynx is there in an area you can stay at home, you don’t need to go hunting. Because you don’t see anything anyway.” (Interviewee 5)

In that sense hunters also believed that the control they possess over wildlife populations becomes affected with the presence of the lynx (20: +5). Therefore, hunters also assumed an impact on their preservation efforts for game (7: +2). The presence of a predator made hunters feel losing the control over processes in wildlife populations not necessarily because the lynx takes out animals at a high rate or has tremendous impacts on the densities of game (1: +1) but because with the presence of the lynx it is believed that the behaviour of the game changes. However, the impact on game population densities was only seen as minimal. One participant specified his belief about the impacts of the lynx on game population densities and differentiated between the effects on roe deer, red deer, wild boar and mouflon.

“I don’t see that significant especially what I see here in my territory. I see no significant decrease of roe deer in shooting what we have here. Neither with wild boar, neither with red deer, for mouflon clearly to the left [position on the grid most agree with] (…) I can only see my territory, my neighbours in the private forest they say they don’t have any roe deer left, (…) I say guys when I shoot 50 or even 60 roe deer and you have the same population rate then you just have to shoot, you just have to do it that is the problem with that and therefore I am honest and say I don’t see an impact because it doesn’t become less.” (Interviewee 11) This hunter referred to the mouflon population in the east Harz where the numbers of mouflons in the last years have decreased and at the same time downplays the effects of the lynx on other game populations.

Another belief from the category Impacts on Hunting participants in this factor held is that the lynx also affects to what extent hunters can comply with hunting schedules (24: +2) and that the presence of lynx has an impact on the venison for hunters (8: +2). However, one participant

31 stated that no dramatic impacts are expected as in some areas the hunting bag is increasing while another hunter only saw a high impact on the venison for hunters but again only with regard to mouflon. He gave an example and stated that they now in his forest operation hunt 20 mouflons a year while it were around 150 pieces a few years ago. He also mentioned that they have difficulties to provide venison of mouflon for restaurants in the Harz Mountains because the mouflon they shoot will firstly be used for private consumption. The same issue exist with the economic part of the hunt. While hunters in general saw no dramatic impacts on the economic part of the hunt because of the presence of the lynx (10: +1) the same hunter explaining the impacts on the venison also mentioned that the lynx affects the trophy hunt on mouflon.

“Because this enormous amounts that are paid for rams, for silver and gold rams, it brings its 3000€ and for such a lease district yes? And when they are not there anymore then this is for a lease district which benefits maybe every year from one guest… this drops out yes? And we have these cases, we have it numerous. Not only in the state forest sector but we also have it in the private sector.” (Interviewee 11)

As hunters in this factor believed that the lynx has several impacts on the hunt they see him rather as a competitor affecting their hunt. However, also hunters in this factor assumed that due to the large territories of the lynx the losses for the individual hunter become minimized (21: +3).Although hunters saw impacts on the behaviour of game and its densities they were not sure if the lynx in turn is able to facilitate the regeneration of young trees (28: 0). Hunters grouped within factor 2 did not believe that lynx have impacts on livestock (13: -1) although this factor had a higher ranking on this statement than in the other two factors (13: -4; 13: -3). Participants believed that there is an impact but that it is only minimal. One participant described the impacts of the lynx on livestock as “tolerable” and that with the compensation payments can be coped with. Furthermore, he thought that the impacts of the lynx and the impacts the wolf are not comparable as the attacks of the wolf on livestock are “traumatic”. This participant also explained that he imagined the impacts the lynx has on livestock to be worse and that in the end it did not turn out to be as dramatic. In comparison to the lynx the wolf is “something completely different” and seen as far more dangerous for humans.

With regards to hunting dog’s hunters from this factor assumed that the lynx can impact hunting dogs. However, this belief was not strongly hold (22: +1). Some participants knew about cases where dogs were attacked by lynx but hunters were in general not concerned about their dogs when the lynx is present in an area. One participant explained that the lynx might have learned with the years to avoid dogs as they are also predators and they also pose a threat to the lynx. Although a minimal impact on hunting dogs was seen, when talking about lynx as a threat for humans, hunters strongly believed that the lynx won’t be dangerous for humans (12: -2).

Beliefs participants strongly disagreed with were from the category Personal Control. Hunters did not believe that they can influence the impacts of the lynx in the Harz Mountains (34: -4) and that the average citizen (43: -5), hunters (33: -4) or they (42: -5) have the opportunity to 32 assert their interest in management decisions about the lynx. Hunters in this regard often mentioned that when the lynx project was initiated they were not involved.

“Also Thuringia was not involved then and even administrations and hunters in Thuringia say they don’t have anything to do with the lynx. This is a matter of Lower Saxony. They did not ask us and know they have to deal with it.” (Interviewee 3)

This quote highlights the problems some hunters perceived that were at stake when the project was initiated. Also other hunters continuously mentioned that one big problem is that they were not asked and the project was initiated without involving hunters sufficiently and hearing their concerns.

“They implemented it [the lynx project] relatively good on the highest level but as I said, they completely left the hunters out. These are things that still have an effect and it has changed.” (Interviewee 6)

In this statement the hunter also referred to the decision of the lynx project that was from his point of view made without involving hunters but he also mentioned that nowadays things have changed and hunters nowadays are more involved.

Although, these are weaker beliefs, hunters also did not believe that the national park administration listens to concerns from ordinary people (39: -2) and that issues about the lynx project are communicated in an open and transparent way (38: -1). However, some hunters pointed out that the work of the national park administration nowadays is much better than when the project was initiated. With regards to the statement of the communication one hunter again criticised the beginning of the lynx project where hunters were not involved and where from his perspective “no communication at all took place” (Interviewee 6). This hunter assumed that this is also the reason why hunters of an older age are still angry about that. It is also mentioned that at the beginning of the project problems with reporting of lynx occurred. This hunter explained that although hunters in the east of the Harz Mountains reported the presence of a lynx those reporting’s were not always integrated in the data system from the people responsible for the lynx project. He explained that because of this also the transparency towards the people responsible for the lynx project was questioned at that time. He mentioned that nowadays the reporting of lynx works out as the people of the lynx project register reported lynx without hesitation.

“(…) no one thinks about that anymore when we call them [people of the lynx project] and there was a lynx they register it. Because why should someone call them and say that there was a lynx and there wouldn’t have been one. That is not likely to happen.” (Interviewee 11)

Another comment from one hunter regarding the topic ‘communication’ was that from his perspective the national park administration is always seen as the only one responsible for the lynx project even though also hunters contribute to this project when they for example report the presence of a lynx. He criticised that in the external image only the national park

33 administration is mentioned although much of the information about the actual presence of lynx is coming from hunters in the Harz Mountains.

While in the other factors the influence of the lynx on tourism in the Harz Mountains was believed to exist (18: +2; 18: +5) hunters belonging to factor 2 did not believe that the lynx would in some way affect tourism in the Harz Mountains (18: 0). One participant explained that the lynx does not really have an influence on the tourism of the Harz Mountains as it only suggest to people that they have a special experience in the Harz Mountains because of the lynx but in reality they won’t see one.

“(…) at every tourist information they get a stuffed animal, they get a button tacked on their breast, they get a map with the lynx on it and it is suggested that in the Harz Mountains they permanently see lynx and people go with these expectations in the forest and are extremely disappointed when they don’t see him.” (Interviewee 11) Despite the fact that hunters belonging to this factor did believe that in some cases the lynx has high impacts on the hunt and that hunters from this factor expected a lack of personal control regarding the lynx management they did believe that the Harz Mountains are a suitable habitat for current and future populations (17: +4), that they offer a good study site for research on lynx (16: +1) and that the presence of lynx in the Harz Mountains will contribute to the preservation of this species in Germany (15: +3). While before the lynx project was initiated critics were concerned about the exposed position of the Harz Mountains which might make it difficult for lynx to reach other habitats hunters belonging to this factor believed that the Harz Mountains are a suitable habitat as they described that the lynx could already move out of the Harz Mountains to reach other habitats and because of the high numbers of lynx that could develop in such a short time.

Also in factor 2 hunters did not believe that a better monetary compensation (30: 0; 31; -2; 32: -1; 45: -3) or additional educational work (44: -3) would change the acceptance of hunters. Two hunters in this factor explained that a higher compensation payment would not change the acceptance as it involves too much bureaucracy and it has to be ensured that firstly the compensation payments have to be paid without too much hesitation. One hunter did not believe that money could help changing the acceptance as in that context hunters do not care about the money. From his perspective the reason is rather their “basic attitude” towards the animal. This hunter also mentioned that at the beginning of the lynx project he was also sceptical but now he thinks that he is okay with the lynx as only the behaviour of game changes but not the numbers. As one participant did not believe that any of the measures described on the statements cards from the category Measures to Improve Acceptance could be effective I asked if he had own ideas how the acceptance could be improved. This participant answered that he does not understand why the acceptance should be improved when the lynx has negative impacts for him.

“How should I improve the acceptance when for me a game species becomes eradicated? (…) I have nothing against the lynx. I think he is beautiful. Beautiful animal. Except that he almost ate my dog but… I think it is a beautiful animal but why do I have to have a lynx and no roe deer anymore? (…) And what benefit do I have when there are no roe deer anymore? That is something I don’t understand. Not at all.” (Interviewee 1)

One hunter grouped in factor 2 assumed that the acceptance towards the lynx among hunters is mostly there although he also acknowledged that some hunters might see the impacts of the lynx more negatively. Another participant thought similarly and mentioned that at the beginning of the lynx project hunters might have answered differently than nowadays and that it turned out that the presence of the lynx did not hurt the individual hunter.

4.3 Factor 3 Lynx as fellow hunter, with rather positive than negative impacts- students with low trust in the national park administration.

Two hunters loaded on the third factor, both of them students from the field of forestry. Their average age is 21 years. Hunters within this factor were mostly careful with assumptions about the impacts of the lynx in general. They believed that the presence of the lynx causes impacts for the ecosystem but they did not believe that the lynx has great implications for hunters. This group of hunters is the only one that assumed that monetary compensation and additional educational work would have an influence on the acceptance of hunters.

Hunters grouped in factor 3 believed that he lynx has an impact on the presence of wildlife species (2: +4), game population densities (1: +3) and that when the lynx catches game that it gets completely utilised by the lynx (6: +5). One of the hunters assumed that the impacts of the lynx on game are positive because the population of hoofed game is quite high in Germany making it difficult to reduce those numbers with the conventional hunt to a degree which is tolerable for the forest. However, although participants in this factor did see an impact of the lynx on game populations they did not expect that this would affect the preservation efforts for game (7: -1) or that the venison for hunters would be affected (8: -2). One hunter explained that even if there would be an impact it would rather be positive than negative.

“(…) many hunters understand preservation efforts especially with regard to roe deer to increase healthy game populations but this in turn affects or they try that this influences the quality of the trophies that is clear. And it is also documented that the quality of the trophies gets better with lower game densities and consequently he would maximally have a positive effect on it because per roe deer there is a bigger habitat and better grazing, less concurrence and less stress within the population and therefore the impacts would be positive but for many hunters negative.” (Interviewee 9)

In this quote the participant described that although some hunter might see their preservation efforts threatened there could also be a positive influence the lynx could have on game

35 populations. Also like participants in factor 1 and 2, hunters in factor 3 share the same belief that the large territories of lynx minimize losses for the individual hunter (21: +2).

Regarding another statement from the category Impacts on Hunting participants of this group shared the strong belief that lynx won’t have an impact on hunting dogs (22: -5). Other threats like the disease Pseudorabies or the wolf were assumed to pose a more severe threat to hunting dogs and the impacts of the lynx in that context were believed to be non-existent compared to other threats for hunting dogs. Hunters grouped within factor 3 also did not believe that the lynx has an impact on livestock (13: -3). Also regarding this topic one participant directly compared the impacts of the lynx on livestock with the impacts of the wolf. It was not believed that the lynx would have major consequences on populations of livestock while the effects of the wolf are seen as “dramatic” on both livestock and game populations.

However, participants loading on this factor did not expect that the lynx has an impact on the “ecological balance” between forest and game, herbivores and predators (3: -2). The explanation one hunter gave is that nowadays no “functional and natural ecosystems” exist that are not influenced by men. Therefore one could not talk about a self-regulating nature. This participant furthermore highlighted the role of mankind in nature and that because of the changes humans caused in nature they also have to manage the environment they created.

“As I said we have to follow through with what we have started.” (Interviewee 8)

Participants grouped within factor 3 are the only group of hunters that believed that measures for the habitat of the lynx also affects other species (25; +3). They assumed that measures for the habitat of one species can benefit other species. One example given by one of the participants is the closure of some hiking paths in the Harz Mountains for the lynx. He explained that this brings more peace into the forest which is good for other wildlife species but also benefits the hunt on red deer. He also assumed that the understanding for those measures is higher when the reason is the lynx than the reason that the forest just needs more peace.

This group of hunters strongly believed that the presence of the lynx in the Harz Mountains has an impact on tourism (18: +5). One of the participants mentioned the enclosure with lynx in Bad Harzburg which allows tourists to see lynx from a close range while the other one sees the lynx next to the Brocken and the Hexenstieg as a flagship for the Harz Mountains which draws tourists. Regarding another statement from the category Impacts on Society, hunters in this factor did not believe that with the presence of lynx the number of car accidents would increase (11: -4). Like participants in factor 1 and 2 also hunters in this factor did believe that the Harz Mountains is a suitable habitat for lynx populations (17: +3), that it is a good study site for research on lynx (16: +2) and they did not think that the Harz Mountains are too exposed which would cause problems like for example inbreeding (14: -4). In accordance with hunters from the other factors participants in this factor also did not assume that the lynx would pose a threat to humans (12: -3).

Hunters loading on factor 3 are the only group of participants that believed that reducing costs of hunting would change the acceptance of hunters towards the lynx. They assumed that reducing costs of hunting tenancies (45: +2) and reducing hunting taxes (31: +2) would have an influence on the acceptance of hunters. However, they did not believe that a higher compensational payment would change the acceptance of hunters. One participant stated that he did not know about a monetary compensation for reporting dead game killed by lynx. Both of the hunters referred to hunters of an older age when talking about what could change the acceptance.

“It is simply that hunters, especially hunters of an older age see the lynx as a competitor and somehow try to hunt against him than with him and I do believe that the acceptance would significantly increase when the hunt would be cheaper because many don’t see why to pay such a high rent although game populations decrease.” (Interviewee 9)

However, they were not sure if adapting hunting schedules would change the acceptance of hunters towards the lynx (32: -1). One participant could imagine that it would change the acceptance not in a positive but in a negative way.

“That’s clear the lynx as a certain influence on hoofed game and when you now decrease the hunting schedules than I think many would go on the warpath and demand their tribute because they want to continue hunting like they always did and at some point they will realise that this is not possible.” (Interviewee 9)

Participants of this factor believed that additional informational and educational work would change the acceptance of hunters towards the lynx (44: +5) and again they referred to older hunters. One participant explained that additional educational work could influence the acceptance but sees difficulties when trying to increase the acceptance of hunters of an older age. He mentioned that this might be difficult and “one bites on granite” there. However, one of the hunters grouped in factor 3 stated that he thinks the general acceptance towards the lynx is good. That participant compared the situation nowadays with the situation 100 years ago were he believes that “every dead lynx was celebrated.” He also explained that he thinks that the acceptance towards the wolf would be different. The lynx is not seen to be as dangerous as the wolf. Because of the physiology of the lynx it does not look as threatening as the wolf. The other hunter of this factor assumed that the impacts of the lynx are not as dramatic as the impacts of the wolf especially in regard to livestock but also on game populations. Hunters repeatedly compared the lynx with the wolf and did not expect that the lynx would have as negative impacts as the wolf. One reason is that the lynx is a solitary animal which has its own territory. Moreover the slow reproduction rate of the lynx and diseases that threatens its existence were seen as reasons that would make the lynx more tolerable than the wolf as there are many factors that ensure that the population of lynx stays in limits.

While they assumed that the acceptance of hunters towards the lynx at a certain age is lower because those hunters see the lynx as a competitor hunters in this factor believed that a better

37 monetary compensation and additional educational work would change the acceptance although they also see the limits those measures have. Talking about measures to improve the acceptance of hunters let one participant explain that a lower acceptance towards the lynx is coming from hunters who cling to their traditions and living with the principle that the past was better. He criticised those hunters and the assumptions they make.

“One shoots then 5 roe deer less in his territory and then it has to be the lynx. It HAS to be the lynx it then cannot be because I am maybe a terrible hunter NO it HAS to be the lynx. ” (Interviewee 8)

In this context hunters loading on factor 3 were the only participants who could imagine that the presence of the lynx could have an impact on leasing hunting grounds in the future (9: +2). Also regarding this statement one hunter saw the competitive thinking about the lynx of hunters of an older age as a reason which might cause that they won’t lease some hunting grounds in the future. Also participants loading on factor 3 like hunters from factor 1 and 2 believed that the large territories of the lynx minimize losses for the individual hunter (21: +2) and that presence of lynx will not lead to unpredictable costs (19: -2).

As in the other two factors also participants grouped within factor 3 did not believe to have the opportunity to influence the impacts of the lynx in the Harz Mountains (34: -5). Hunters in this factor also did not believe that they can assert their interests in management decisions about the lynx (42: -3). One hunter explained that it might be possible to bring in his interests but rather indirectly than directly when communicating interests via a spokesperson of that group. The other hunter also saw no direct opportunity to bring in his interests and assumed that the same mechanisms that are at work with the wolf are also at work with the lynx. Furthermore, those participants did not believe that the national park administration listens to concerns from hunters (36: -1). One hunter emphasised the lack of communication from hunters but also from lynx representatives. He explained that both parties need to work on their communication in order to improve the relationship. He stressed the need for a mediator between people who are in favour of the lynx and people who are against the lynx who could mediate between both parties from a neutral point of view.

5 Discussion

5.1 Findings The aim of this study was to investigate how hunters in the Harz Mountains describe their beliefs about the lynx and lynx management and the perceived impacts of its presence. The findings of this study gave insights into beliefs most relevant to hunters, how beliefs are seen in relation to each other and identified shared beliefs among hunters. Although the link from beliefs to attitudes could not have been made for every participant, it was possible to indicate the attitudes of the three hunters groups. The results will be discussed and linked to wider scientific literature on this topic.

An observation that was made throughout many interviews was the link participants made between statement cards from the categories Social Trust, Personal Control and the project initiation of the lynx project. Although many participants, especially of factor 1 expressed that they are satisfied with the work of the national park administration a few other hunters ranked statements about the national park administration low. When asking participants why they ranked those statements in rather low positions, hunters often did not refer to the work of the national park administration nowadays but to the project initiation back in the 2000s. In the study of Zajac et al. (2012) social trust and personal control are factors that besides the impacts of a species, either perceived benefits or risks, also influence the acceptance of a predator. Also in this study it seems that besides the impacts of the lynx factors like social trust and personal control affect how hunters perceive the lynx and lynx management the Harz Mountains. As some hunters explained that they felt that they were not involved and the communication was lacking back then, those feelings still seem to influence hunters’ beliefs today about the national park administration. When people do not believe that they can affect decisions on resource management or rural development this can be one factor causing resistance (Wilson, 1997). The fact that some hunters complained about the lack of involvement at the initiation of the lynx project indicates that as some hunters felt that external forces decided over the situation of the lynx reintroduction, personal control was perceived low. This lack of involvement some hunters felt back then also indicates that some hunters felt a lack of control in this situation. That personal control is perceived low when external authorities decide over a situation is also mentioned by Levenson & Mahler (1981). Unfortunately not a lot on information about the beginning of the lynx project exist so that it was difficult to describe the process objectively apart from the descriptions of hunters. Therefore within the scope of this thesis it cannot be said if hunters were sufficiently involved. This judgement would be beyond the scope of this study. However, it has to be noted that many hunters in this study referred to the lack of involvement during the project initiation and that this seems to be an essential aspect from their perspective. The fact that I did not find detailed information about the project initiation shows that it was even more important in this study to have a qualitative part in the methodology which made it possible to reveal an important aspect for hunters regarding the lynx project.

As hunters that were highlighting the lack of involvement back when the project was initiated also had more critical concerns about the impacts of the lynx, it can be assumed that the lack of involvement has an important role on how hunters perceive the situation with the lynx in the Harz Mountains today. As human-human interactions can also shape people’s views on wildlife (Redpath et al., 2013) the experience with the agency initiating the lynx project can be seen as an aspect influencing how some hunters perceive the lynx and its management today. That past experience can have an effect in shaping hunters position in lynx conflicts shows the study of Lüchtrath & Schraml (2015). They developed a model in which the relationship between hunters and the agencies responsible for the lynx is influenced by collective experiences of those groups. In their model this in turn influences hunters’ social identity and behavioural freedom which is perceived to be threatened which can lead to reactance and/or out-group discrimination. Also in this study it can be assumed that despite the believed impacts of the lynx, the complex and dynamic relationship between hunters and the agency responsible for lynx is a factor that influences the view of hunters on the lynx and lynx management.

Although critical comments about the national park administration and the lynx were only expressed by a few people in this study it can be assumed that when carrying out the research with a larger sample size that this would be a reoccurring aspect. Although this study sample is not representative for all the hunters in the Harz Mountains it does show how beliefs are seen in relation to each other and can indicate the prevalence of belief patterns. Therefore it is important to also acknowledge the argumentation of a small numbers of hunters as they can give insights into the belief patterns that are prevalent among the different participants.

Another aspect that was observed during the interviews is the comparison of wolf and lynx although no statements card about the wolf existed. Although the comparison of wolf and lynx and how the perception of hunters differed regarding those animals was not the research objective it was an aspect that was continuously mentioned by the participants which indicates the importance of that issue for them. The impacts of the lynx were continuously compared with the effects of the wolf and in that sense the impacts of the lynx were seen as less dramatic. Also other studies showed that when investigating the acceptability of lynx and wolf that the wolf is less accepted (Kleiven et al., 2004; Wild-Eck & Zimmerman, 2001; Wechselberger et al., 2005). While hunters in this study believed that the wolf has more tremendous impacts on both livestock and game populations the effects of the lynx are seen as tolerable. The fact that many hunters directly downplayed the impacts of the lynx shows that the lynx compared to the wolf is not a problem. Despite the impacts of the wolf on livestock and game populations also the biology of the wolf is an aspect making it a bigger threat than the lynx. The higher reproduction rate, the fact that the wolf lives in packs and the appearance of the wolf make it more dangerous to humans. Also during the informational evening where the responsible people from the lynx project informed interested hunters about the current situation of the lynx and the wolf-representative of the hunter association Lower Saxony described the current distribution of the wolf it became clear that the wolf is seen as far more problematic than the lynx by hunters. Although the perceived impacts of the lynx can be seen as an essential aspect for hunters 40 perceptions about the lynx, the repeated comparison of the impacts of the lynx with the impacts of the wolf downplays the effects of the lynx and indicate that other aspects like past experiences with the agency responsible for the management of the predator are influencing hunters beliefs about the lynx and the national park administration nowadays. As the social dimension seems to play an important role in how hunters perceive the lynx and the lynx project nowadays, studies in the field of human dimensions of wildlife should focus more on the dynamics of those social dimensions.

In the 3 factors that emerged hunters tended to cluster together depending on the type of hunter they are. While in the first factor 5 hunters are from the field of forestry and 2 are private hunters, the second factor is represented by 4 private hunters and 2 foresters and the third factor consists of 2 students from forestry. Although the sample size of this study does not allow to generalize these findings on all hunters in the Harz Mountains it indicates that different belief patterns of hunters from different positions exist. The differences in belief patterns of hunters from different positions indicate that when communicating with hunters about the lynx project one should bear in mind the position of the hunter. While foresters might appreciate the presence of the lynx due to their belief that the lynx facilitates the regeneration of young trees by taking out hoofed game, the impacts of the lynx for private hunters are seen as more critical as they have different goals when hunting. As most foresters mainly hunt to prevent bite damages on trees, private hunters might hunt for trophies, venison or other reasons. As those two groups differ regarding the reason of hunting this can also have an influence how hunters perceive the impacts of the lynx. However, as the impacts of the lynx were in general seen as minimal also the fact that in all factors participants have the belief that the large territories of the lynx minimize losses for the individual hunter indicates that the effects of the lynx are not thought of as causing great implications for the hunt or the ecosystem.

Most of the hunters in this study did not believe that monetary measures or additional educational and informational work would change the acceptance towards the lynx. Reasons for this were diverse. While some hunters believed that money cannot change the real acceptance someone has towards the lynx, others mentioned that they think that with more time hunters will get used to the lynx and no measures are needed to improve the acceptance. Regarding measures like more educational work hunters explained that a lot has been done in the last years and that there is no need for more measures. Hunters explained that they believe that when someone already has a negative attitude those measures would not change that. Although educational and informational measures is often a mean the field of nature conservation to improve the understanding and acceptance of for example predators like the lynx or the wolf also the limits of those measures have to be acknowledged. In the study of Hunziker et al. (2001) knowledge about the predator had no significant influence on the acceptance towards the predator. Among people with a high knowledge of the predator were people in favour of the animal and people who have a more negative attitude. People with a low level of knowledge of the predator were rather undecided. This corresponds with the theory persuasion of attitudes of Petty & Cacioppo (1986). They describe that providing knowledge is 41 only effective when the person in question already possess a certain attitude towards the issue. When someone has a rather negative attitude from the beginning knowledge can in turn strengthen the more negative attitude instead of transforming it. Hunziker et al. (2001) proposes that when the desired attitude towards the issue does not exist one has to develop a trust relationship so that the attitude will be changed because of sympathy. After that providing knowledge can strengthen the desired attitude. Many of the hunters in this study mentioned that the lynx is accepted in the Harz Mountains and that they believe only a minority of hunters still have concerns about the lynx. They do not see the necessity for further measures to improve the acceptance. Some in this context referred to time as a factor that will cause the people to get used to the lynx.

This study has revealed the variety of beliefs hunters in the Harz Mountains have towards the lynx and made a distinction between three different types of belief patterns that are hold. Overall hunters, although they had different assumptions about the impacts of the lynx, often highlighted that the impacts of the lynx are rather minimal. Hunters especially focussed on belief-statements about the impacts of the lynx on the hunt and on the ecosystem. As hunters are directly acting in lynx habitat, the impacts of the lynx can affect the ecosystem and the hunt which can result in changes for hunters. Those categories, therefore, seem to be of special importance for hunters when talking about the lynx and can be seen as the most prominent dimension of the studies beliefs. However, besides the impacts of the lynx also the social dimension seems to play an important role when hunters talk about the lynx project. Also beliefs about the national park administration differ and some hunters show a higher trust in the agency than others. The beliefs of hunters who think more critically about the lynx project and national park administration might stem from former experiences with the agency and are still prevalent when hunters express their opinions about the agency today. Overall it can be said that most hunters in this study associate the lynx only with minimal impacts. Those hunters that have concerns about the lynx are only a few and those also emphasise the lack of involvement of hunters when the project was initiated. However, some of those hunters also acknowledge that the work regarding the lynx project got better. Although the results of this study cannot be seen as representative for all hunters in the Harz Mountains, the factors do indicate the prevalence of belief patterns that exist among hunters of the Harz Mountains and helps to understand the views hunters have about the lynx and the lynx management better.

As predators such as the lynx and the wolf are slowly reoccurring or get reintroduced to Germany, people living in the areas where they are present have in general no opportunity to change that situation but to live with it. In those cases it is necessary that there is an effective communication between stakeholders. Especially hunters and other groups that are directly affected such as farmers and sheep farmers need to be involved in the early stages of reintroduction projects as this can facilitate that people feel involved from the beginning on and not that external authorities make decisions without including people who might be affected by a reintroduction of a predator. The group of hunters is of special importance in regard to large predators. They are directly acting in their habitat and their role in those projects has to be 42 considered as they can highly contribute to those projects when they report game killed by lynx which helps monitoring the species. The findings of this study show that hunters cannot be seen as homogenous group and that they hold different assumptions about the lynx. Also in seemingly homogenous groups a variety of beliefs about a wildlife species can be hold and people can focus on different aspects that influence their attitude about the species. This is an essential aspect that has to be considered also for human-wildlife interactions in general. When dealing with groups such as farmers or hunters in the context of human-wildlife interactions it cannot be assumed that inside those groups the same beliefs and attitudes about the wildlife species in question exist. Applying measures that aim to increase the acceptance towards the species might not be effective without knowing the different views that are predominately hold. This becomes clear in this study as hunters in the three factors focus on different aspects that are important to them which indicates that hunters might react differently to measures that aim to increase the acceptance towards the animal. This study also highlights the role of past experiences that shaped the beliefs of hunters. Negative experiences with the project initiation and the lack of involvement hunters perceived back then is an aspect that is still influencing their trust about the national park administration today. The role of past experiences with the agency responsible for wildlife species, therefore, needs to be considered in future human dimension of wildlife studies as it can reveal underlying issues influencing people’s views on the wildlife species in question which might not be immediately apparent.

5.2 Reflection on the Theoretical Framework In my theoretical framework I explained the concepts of beliefs and attitudes that were the main focus of my thesis. The categories Impacts of Wildlife Species, Social Trust and Personal Control were initially used to develop my conceptual model as according to literature those categories influence how people perceive a wildlife species (Fischer et al., 2011; Lischka et al., 2008; Dickman, 2010; Zajac et al., 2012). As beliefs about a species can give important insights into how people perceive that animal and indicate the corresponding attitude this concept was explained in greater detail. As people can have totally different beliefs about their surroundings and different aspects can be important to them the goal of this thesis was to reveal what the beliefs are hunter feel most strongly about, how beliefs are seen in relation to another, what shared beliefs among hunters are an the evaluation on those beliefs regarding the lynx in the Harz.

In my theoretical framework I described that the strength and evaluation of beliefs about the lynx can help indicate the corresponding attitude (Azjen & Fishbein, 1975). However as the strength or certainty of the belief was clearly determined by the positioning of statements it was difficult for many participants to clearly explain the evaluation of the respective belief- statement. It was therefore not possible to derive a clear attitude for all participants. Although participants found it difficult to articulate the evaluation of their beliefs they found it easier when I asked them about the general acceptance of hunters in the Harz Mountains. When they were explaining how they perceive the current acceptance of hunters towards the lynx they also

43 felt more comfortable indicating their attitude. However, it was not possible to indicate the attitude for all participants and therefore, only indications about the general attitude of those groups are given. Q methodology allowed to derive the variety of beliefs of hunters successfully deriving the evaluations of those beliefs proves to be rather difficult. However, as the few evaluations of beliefs indeed indicate a certain attitude of the participant it can be assumed that with a more systematically approach it could be possible to bring all participants to indicate the evaluations of beliefs. In this case it turned out to be difficult with a qualitative approach to derive all evaluations of the beliefs. A short questionnaire after the Q study and the interview could have helped to derive this extra data that is needed to have a clear evaluation of the respective beliefs. Although it was not possible to derive the evaluation of beliefs for all participants the certainty of beliefs was derived by letting participants sort the statements on the different positions on the grid.

Knowing hunters beliefs can help to understand their points of view better regarding the lynx in the Harz Mountains and also to get deeper insights in the concerns they have. Especially beliefs from the categories Impacts on the Ecosystem and Impacts on Hunting seemed to be of particular importance for hunters when talking about the lynx as they generally focused on those belief-statements and explained the positioning of statements in more detail than statements from other categories. It can therefore be assumed that the impacts of the species have an essential role in shaping hunters attitudes towards the lynx. This becomes also reflected in existing studies in the field human dimension of wildlife where the key variable in influencing the acceptance towards a species is the perceived impacts (Lischka et al., 2008; Zajac et al., 2012).

Statement cards from the categories Social Trust and Personal Control gave insights in the social aspect that is shaping hunters attitudes towards the lynx. These categories also allowed the participants to talk freely about the trust they have in the national park administration and the control they perceive to have which in the end revealed that the perceived lack of involvement with the initiation of the reintroduction project is an essential aspect for hunters shaping their trust towards the agency. Although it seems that those two categories have an essential role in shaping hunters attitudes towards the lynx they have to be seen in relation so each other. As in the study of Zajac et al. (2012) people who perceive more personal control also exhibit more trust in the wildlife agency this cannot be shown in this thesis. In all three factors personal control is perceived low while the trust in the agency differs among the groups of hunters. Looking at the two categories separately won’t give sufficient insights in the positioning of beliefs from those categories. It is rather the relation between those categories which gives a clearer picture about the social dimension that is shaping hunters attitudes towards the lynx.

Beliefs from the categories Impacts of Wildlife species, Social Trust and Personal Control can help to understand the attitude towards a predator. While those factors were included in the conceptual framework from the beginning on after conducting interviews to derive statements

44 for the Q study two additional categories were included. Those were Harz Mountains as Habitat and Measures to Improve Acceptance. The reason to include belief-statements about Harz Mountains as Habitat was that they were mentioned repeatedly in the interviews that were meant to collect statements for the Q study and it seemed that beliefs from those categories needed to be included in order to allow the participant to express themselves in more different ways during the Q study and to provide a more complete set of statements covering as much of the topics that could be important to the hunters in the Harz Mountains as possible. It was believed that those beliefs can influence the attitude someone has about the lynx but also the other way around that the attitude influences how someone thinks about the Harz Mountains as habitat. It cannot be said however how much this belief affects the attitude towards the lynx. The other additionally included category was Measures to Improve Acceptance. This category has been chosen as belief-statements about how the acceptance could be improved would let the participant agree or disagree that those measures would change the acceptance. Furthermore, it was also meant to encourage the participant to think about the general acceptance of hunters in the Harz Mountains and if he or she has other ideas.

The conceptual model was not meant to find out the relations between the different categories but to show how the different categories are thought of in relation to each other and how beliefs of those categories can help to indicate the corresponding attitude. The categories derived covered a wide range of topics which are important for hunters in regard to the lynx and the lynx management. They allowed the participants to express their beliefs about the impacts of the lynx but also on aspects from the social dimension. Having statements from these diverse categories ensured that people could explain their beliefs in differentiated ways and made sure that no essential aspect was missing. As most participants explained that they have nothing to add to the set of statement cards and the other aspects not mentioned in the cards were explored during the interview it can be assumed that the categories defined in the theoretical framework covered the wide range of beliefs hunters of this study had about the lynx.

5.3 Reflection on the Methodology

5.3.1 Doing Q Methodology Most attitudinal research in human dimension of wildlife studies use a quantitative approach (e.g. Bath & Buchanan, 1989; Hill, 1998; Zimmermann et al., 2005). Although conducting a quantitative study would have made it possible to investigate a larger sample size an only quantitative method has not been chosen as quantitative tools are not able to capture the underlying reasons and nuances of people’s beliefs and attitudes. In order to allow the participants of this study to express themselves in a differentiated way and allow them to focus on the points most important to them Q methodology with accompanying interviews was chosen. Although little has been published about interviews in Q methodological studies (Gallagher & Porock, 2010) I decided in an early stage of my thesis to conduct interviews as the complexity of the topic seemed to be better captured by a qualitative approach. The 45 interviews allowed the participants to talk freely about the positioning of statements and why participants thought that certain beliefs were most relevant to them. As Q methodology allows to combine quantitative and qualitative research, this method was seen as suitable to generate quantitative results which reveals which beliefs were most relevant for hunters, how beliefs are seen in relation to each other and to reveal shared beliefs. With an approach that combines both techniques it was possible to structure the qualitative findings with the help of the quantitative data in a clear way and in turn the qualitative data helped to interpret the positioning of belief- statements and to reveal other essential aspects for hunters. Hunters’ beliefs about the lynx were the focus of this study and Q methodology allowed the participants to express their beliefs about the lynx and to decide which beliefs the participant wants to discuss and explain in more detail.

Although e-mails to the heads of 4 hunter associations were sent, not all associations agreed to send another e-mail to the members of their association. While 3 hunter associations replied and agreed to send an e-mail to their members, the head of one association in the east of the Harz Mountains refused to send an e-mail to hunters from his association. This person stated that he and people from his association had bad experience with so called lynx advocates and that he therefore refuses to send the e-mail to the members of this association. The fact that hunters of the Q study mentioned that the hunters in the east of the Harz are still angry that they were not involved when the lynx project was initiated might be an explanation why the head of one of the associations in the east had no interest in participating and sending the e-mail to his members.

As it was at first quite difficult to get participants for this study it got better after conducting several interviews because participants knew me better and gave me numbers of other hunters who might be interested. Due to difficulties at the beginning to find participants, in the end 15 Q sorts and interviews were conducted. As the goal in Q methodology is not to select a representative sample of the population but to select participants that represent the range of different views and who have well-formed opinions towards the topic in question a smaller sample size yields testable results (Cross, 2005). Sending e-mails to hunter associations and asking members for participation was used as it was assumed that people who respond to the e- mail are familiar with the topic and have well-formed beliefs they want to share. This seemed to be true as all participants of the study could explain their positioning of statements and all had background knowledge of the lynx project. As the head of one of the hunter associations in the east of the Harz Mountains did not agree to send the e-mails to his members and only 1 hunter from the east of the Harz Mountains agreed to participate it was not possible to include as many hunters from the east as from the west. However, having private hunters and hunters from the field of forestry ensured that a diversity of viewpoints were included. As respondents from the hunter associations that answered and were willing to participate were all of an older age I decided to also contact younger hunters directly in order to have respondents of different ages. Those hunters were mostly students from forest science or forest economy from the university and the technical college in Göttingen.

Although the number of participants might not generate the strongest statistical power it was sufficient to show a trend in the belief patterns of hunters. The qualitative data derived through the interviews gave meaning to these trends and helped to interpret the beliefs. The findings of this study helped to understand the beliefs of hunters in the Harz Mountains about the lynx which can also be helpful to have a better understanding about hunters’ beliefs about the lynx in other locations.

As already mentioned in the discussion of the theoretical framework (chapter 5.2) the statement cards for the Q study seemed to cover most aspects that were important for hunters regarding the lynx and lynx project. After every interview the participant was asked if statements were missing from his point of view and if he had an idea for a new statement card that would contribute to the existing cards. Most of the participants found the topics of the cards and the belief-statements covered everything they have in mind regarding the lynx in the Harz Mountains. However, one participant had difficulties placing the statement cards the presence of lynx has an impact on game population densities (Card No. 1) and the presence of lynx has an impact on the presence of wildlife species (Card No. 2). This participant had different beliefs about those cards as he saw only minimal impacts on roe deer but tremendous effects on mouflon. This participant suggested that for the next time it would be better to divide those statement cards that cover game species separately. As this participant was the only one mentioning this issue it can be assumed that this does not negatively affect the results of the study. Moreover, the interviews during the Q sorting helped to fill this gap as hunters had the opportunity to explain their interpretation of the statement cards. Especially in this case conducting the interview while sorting the statements showed how important it is to derive those additional data that helps to explain the positioning of cards. Having more statements in the category Impacts on Hunting and Impacts on the Ecosystem seemed to be a good choice as with a higher number of cards on these issues participants could express their beliefs in more differentiated ways.

Having statements that could be interpreted in slightly different ways is desired in Q methodology (Webler et al., 2009). In this case it was a good approach to formulate the beliefs on the statements as neutral as possible so that the participant can decide how he interprets the statement.

Participants of this study generally appreciated the technique of Q methodology as the cards gave a good basis for discussions and encouraged participants to talk about their opinion of the belief on the statement card. For interviews in Q methodological studies two approaches exist. One approach is to conduct the interview after the participant sorted the statements on the grid and the other approach is to let the participants explain the positioning of cards directly as they place them on the grid (Gallagher & Porock, 2010). For this thesis the second approach has been used as it was thought that this encourages the participant to engage with the statement cards better and to directly explain why certain beliefs were more relevant for them than others. Doing the interviews while participants were sorting the statement cards on the grid turned out

47 to be a good approach that enabled the participants to express their opinions on the statements and to reveal the connections between different statement cards which also gave insights into how different beliefs are interconnected with each other. If the interview would have been conducted after the participant sorted all the statements it can be assumed that important qualitative data would have been missing as the thoughts the participant has while sorting the statements could not have been derived. It also has to be noticed that directly explaining the position of the statement made the participant think more about how strongly they think about the statements in relation to other statements. As a result, in several cases hunters were changing the position of statements as they were reading them out loud and explaining them. It can be assumed that if the Q sort would have done without an interview, for example when letting participants fill in the Q sort online, important qualitative data would have been missing as the participant is not engaged with the statements in the same way as in an individual meeting with him. However, doing the interviews during the sorting procedure also had its limitations. It was challenging for the interviewer to ask questions with the aim to reveal the underlying reasons why statements were sorted at that position as it was a dynamic process and the interview was an open task that had to be adapted to the individual participant. Due to the open interview and that the interviewer had to be flexible during the interview as every participant decided on which statements he wants to focus on, it was sometimes also difficult to ask the participants for the evaluation of their beliefs. Although at the beginning of the Q sort the interviewee was instructed to talk about the positioning of statements and to explain why statements were sorted in that way and to give an evaluation of the belief on the card it was a task participants found quite difficult. Although the interview followed a rough structure it was still necessary to ask in depth questions that could not be created beforehand. This was important as the participant was able to focus on the statements most important to him. Nevertheless, this was a challenging task for the interviewer and due to time limitations it was not possible to ask in depth questions for every statement on the grid. Furthermore, while many participants found it easy to place the statement cards on the grid and explain them directly it seemed that some participants found it difficult to explain the placing of the cards in depth during the Q sorting process. In those cases participants only explained roughly the placing of the statements during the Q sort and discussed their Q sort in more detailed as it was finished.

Although studies on the human dimension of wildlife deal with a complex topic in which many variables can influence how people perceive wildlife species (see also Manfredo, 2008) in this study Q methodology with its accompanying interviews allowed the participants to express this complexity and focus on the aspects most important to them.

5.3.2 Q Data Analysis How the data analysis in Q methodology is carried out depends much on the aims of the researcher and the data gathered cannot be resolved into one correct solution. Many possibilities exist that can lead to different results. For this study PCA and for the factor rotation varimax has been applied resulting in 3 factors. After trying different factor solutions having 3 factors

48 gave the most satisfactory results. Although it would have been possible to include a fourth factor (Eigenvalue 1.169) if I would have only looked at the Eigenvalue as determinant for including factors (Eigenvalue > 1) this decision was not made. Despite the Eigenvalues of the factors also the aspects Simplicity, Clarity, Distinctness and Stability that have been described in chapter 3.3.1 have been considered. 3 factors have been chosen as with only 2 factors important specificities of Q sorts would have been missed and in the 4 -factors solution not all participants could be placed on all 4 factors (non-loaders) and some participants even loaded on 2 factors (confounders) which should be avoided (Webler et al., 2009). Although having only 2 factors would have been easier to interpret it can be assumed that interesting aspects of individual Q sorts would have been missed as with fewer factors important information about differences in people’s views get lost. Moreover, after trying different numbers of factors people who thought similarly tended to cluster together. As it is best to get as many stable clusters as possible (Webler et al., 2009) and the 3 factors preserved those clusters better than other factor solutions the 3- factor solution has been chosen. The 3-factor solution yielded Q sorts which loaded highly on the respective factors and exhibited clearly distinguishable belief patterns which could be interpreted. After the varimax rotation of the 3-factor solution automatic pre-flagging was applied grouping the people who think similarly together. Additionally the solution was compared with a by hand rotation showing that the results are quite similar. Also other authors indicate that the results of a varimax rotation and by hand rotation do not significantly differ (Webler et al., 2009). The correlation scores of factor 1 and 2 indicate (see Table 1) a high correlation between those factors. Factor 1 and factor 2 indeed show high similarities regarding the placing of statements and therefore especially those two groups of participants share many belief-statements. Although it is generally desired to have low correlation scores in Q methodological studies between factors (Distinctness), having a higher correlation score between factors can also be an interesting result. During the interpretation of the 2 factors it became clear that while those factors have similarities clear differences exist which allowed for the development of two different belief patterns.

6 Conclusion In this chapter I will answer the main research question of my study by referring to the sub- research questions. After that I will summarise my research and give a conclusion of findings highlighting main discussion points. Furthermore, in the last chapter I will present recommendations based on the conclusions made.

6.1 Research Questions SRQ 1: What are the beliefs most relevant for hunters? Beliefs that are seen as most relevant for hunters in the Harz Mountain towards the lynx are in this case the belief-statements that have been placed in high (+4, +5) positions on the grid. As knowing which belief-statement hunters do not hold true is as important as knowing on which beliefs they agree also beliefs of low positions (-4, -5) are included.

Factor 1: Lynx as a fellow hunter, causing no large impacts on the hunt- predominately foresters with trust in the national park administration. Beliefs that were most relevant for hunters in factor 1 were beliefs about the impacts of the lynx on the ecosystem. Hunters strongly believed that the lynx affects populations of hoofed games which in turn has a positive impact on the natural regeneration of young trees. Participants also had the strong belief that with the presence of lynx the behaviour of game changes. Besides perceived impacts of the lynx on the ecosystem, other beliefs most relevant for hunters when talking about the lynx project were about the trust in the national park administration. Hunters in this factor strongly believed that the national park administration fulfils the tasks of the lynx project in a satisfactory way and they imagined that the national park administration responds accordingly to lynx conflicts. Regarding measures to improve the acceptance of hunters towards the lynx, participants in this factor did not assume that reducing hunting taxes would change the acceptance of hunters towards the lynx. Hunters in this factor did not think that they can influence the impacts of the lynx and they did not believe that the average citizen can influence decisions about the lynx. Regarding the impacts of lynx on livestock, hunters of this factor generally saw no threat for livestock.

Factor 2: Lynx as competitor, having several impacts on the hunt- predominately private hunters with low trust in the national park administration.

Hunters in factor 2 strongly believed that with the behaviour of lynx also the behaviour of game changes. Furthermore, they expected several impacts on the hunt. While they believed that due to the presence of the lynx in the Harz Mountains the time spent on a hunt changes they also believed that the lynx has an impact on the control of hunters over processes in wildlife 50 populations. Besides the beliefs about the impacts of the lynx on the ecosystem and the hunt, participants grouped within this factor also strongly assumed that the Harz Mountains provide a good habitat for current and future lynx populations. Hunters in this factor did not believe that citizens can influence decisions regarding the lynx and they also believed to have no opportunity in asserting their own interest in management decisions about the lynx. Furthermore, they did not see a chance that they can influence the impacts the lynx has in the Harz Mountains.

Factor 3: Lynx as fellow hunter, with rather positive than negative impacts- students with low trust in the national park administration.

Hunters grouped within factor 3 believed that game killed by lynx will be completely utilized and that the lynx affects the presence of wildlife species. Those hunters also assumed that the presence of the lynx will benefit tourism in the Harz Mountains. Regarding measures to improve the acceptance of hunters towards the lynx participants of this study were the only group that believes that additional educational and informational work would help to change the acceptance of hunters in the Harz Mountains. Hunters in this factor did not assume that the lynx affects hunting dogs and they also did not believe that the presence of the lynx would cause more or less car accidents. Regarding the Harz Mountains as habitat for lynx this group of hunters strongly disagreed with the statement that the location of the Harz Mountain is too exposed which would lead to problems like inbreeding. Also in this factor hunters believed to have no opportunity in influencing the impacts of the lynx.

SRQ 2: How are beliefs seen in relation to each other? As participants sorted the statements on the grid and directly explained the positioning of statements they indicated how beliefs are seen in relation to each other. The relation between those beliefs also help to understand why single beliefs are hold.

Factor 1: Lynx as a fellow hunter, causing no large impacts on the hunt- predominately foresters with trust in the national park administration. Although participants in this factor believed that the lynx affects the behaviour of game and that therefore the time on a hunt changes they did not believe that this will affect hunters’ preservation efforts for game, the control of hunters over processes in wildlife populations or to what extent hunters can comply with hunting schedules. Therefore they expected no great implications for hunters. As they saw no great implications for the hunt they emphasized the role the lynx has on the ecosystem and strongly believed that the lynx can facilitate the regeneration of young trees because they have an impact on hoofed game. Those participants

51 believed that with the presence of lynx game populations become affected to the extent where they cause less bite damages on young trees. According to hunters grouped in this factor this is caused by the impact of the lynx on game population densities but more importantly because the behavior of game changes. One belief that was continuously mentioned by hunters in this group when talking about the impacts of the lynx was the wolf. When participants were explaining how they believed that the lynx affects game populations or livestock they often directly compared the impacts of the lynx with the impacts of the wolf. The wolf in this context was seen has having more dramatic impacts on game populations and livestock and one participant also mentioned that the wolf is more dangerous for hunting dogs than the lynx. When talking about statements how to improve the acceptance of hunters they often explained that money cannot change the attitude towards the lynx. Participants of this factor emphasized that a negative attitude towards a predator comes from hunters who see the lynx as a competitor and that those people will not change their way of thinking when offered a better monetary compensation. In this context one hunter stated that those hunters might change their attitude when they see the positive impacts of the lynx become visible in the future. Additionally a change in attitudes is predicted because the education of young hunters focuses more on nature conservation aspects than before. Although participants of this study ranked belief-statements of the category Personal Control low or very low statements of the category Social Trust are ranked in high or very high positions. This indicates that even though hunters in this group did not believe that they or other people outside the lynx project can influence decisions about it they do trust the agency responsible for the lynx project in carrying out the corresponding tasks in a satisfactory way. Although they only held weak beliefs whether the national park administration listens to concerns from different parties they were sure that the national park administration responds accordingly to lynx conflicts.

Factor 2: Lynx as competitor, having several impacts on the hunt- predominately private hunters with low trust in the national park administration.

Hunters grouped within factor 2 clearly stated that the presence of the lynx in the Harz Mountains leads to implications for the hunt. This not necessarily only because the numbers of game the lynx preys changes which influences the densities of game populations and the presence of wildlife species but more importantly because the behavior of the game changes. Especially the change in behavior of game was believed to be the reason why the hunt becomes more difficult for hunters. With the behavior of game that changes, hunters believed that the time on a hunt also changes which makes them loose control over processes of wildlife populations but also in preservation efforts for game. However, they did not expect the impacts of the lynx to be dramatic because they did not see a high impact on population densities for example. They rather believed that the lynx has small impacts that are tolerable. This became especially clear when hunters compared the impacts of the lynx with the impacts of the wolf. While the wolf awoke many negative associations the

52 lynx compared to the wolf was seen as less problematic. As the impacts of the lynx were continuously compared with the impacts of the wolf and were seen less important, hunters downplayed the impacts of the lynx at the same time.

Another continuously mentioned issue in regard to statements of Social Trust and Personal Control was the initiation of the project back in 2000. Hunters in this factor ranked statements from the category Personal Control lower than all other groups. In that context many hunters in this factor referred to the initiation of the lynx project back. They emphasised the lack of communication and involvement they felt back then as hunters were not sufficiently heard from their point of view. This lack of involvement back then was still in the heads of the hunters and showed that the lack of control over this decision then is still a reoccurring issue that influences how hunters perceive the national park administration nowadays. This topic is reoccurring in the interviews and although the impacts of the lynx nowadays were seen as tolerable by many hunters, how the project was initiated was still a point they talk negatively about highlighting the role of Personal Control when initiating wildlife projects. It can be assumed that this lack of control hunters felt back then also becomes reflected in the trust they have in the national park administration. Although belief-statements of the category Social Trust were not ranked in very low positions but rather in the neutral or slightly positive direction it indicates that hunters of this group had ambiguous feelings about whether they trust the national park administration or not. Even though some hunters of this group did believe that the national park administration for example responds to lynx conflicts accordingly or that they carry out the tasks associated with the lynx project in a satisfactory way, most hunters in this factor were unsure whether the agency listens to concerns from different parties and the communication was generally not seen as open and transparent. Hunters in this factor showed differences in their opinions regarding the national park administrations. While some hunters were satisfied with their work, others had complains. Although some hunters articulated complains about the work of the national park administration nowadays, it can be assumed that those beliefs stem in part from the time when the lynx project was initiated as the hunters complain about the lack of communication back then which still influences their perceptions about the agency nowadays.

Factor 3: Lynx as fellow hunter, with rather positive than negative impacts- students with low trust in the national park administration.

Participants in this factor believed that the lynx has impacts on game population densities and the presence of other wildlife species but did not believe that these effects could influence the ecological balance in the forest as nature is already modified and therefore has to be maintained by humans. Although this group of hunters believed that the lynx has impacts on the ecosystem and the species in it, in general hunters belonging to this factor were careful with assumptions about the impacts of the lynx on the ecosystem and the hunt. They assumed that the lynx affects the ecosystem and the species living in it but this group of hunter did not expect that this will 53 have great implication for hunters. This might stem from their academic background from the field of forestry and that those hunters were younger than the average participant in this study and only had a few years hunting experience. Those hunters were critically questioning the beliefs they thought other older and more traditional hunters might have and saw those hunters as clinging to traditions and living in the past. When talking about measures to improve acceptance hunters in this category were the only group that believed that reducing hunting taxes, reducing costs of hunting tenancies and additional informational and educational work would change the acceptance of hunters towards the lynx. When talking about those measures participants in this factor directly referred to older hunters who might have a negative attitude as they are more traditional in their thinking and see the lynx as a competitor. In this context they expected that money could change the attitude of those who have a rather negative attitude towards the lynx. Participants loading on this factor strongly emphasized on the positive impact of the lynx on tourism in the Harz Mountains and believed that the lynx functions as a flagship drawing tourists. Although no statement card about the comparison of lynx and wolf existed also hunters of factor 3 continuously referred to the wolf when talking about the impacts of the lynx. The comparison of the impacts of the lynx with the impacts of the wolf downplays the impacts the lynx has as the wolf was described as being more dangerous an having tremendous impacts on game and livestock.

SRQ 3: What are shared beliefs among hunters?

The results of the Q data analysis show which statements were placed in similar positions by all participants in the three factors. This exhibits the beliefs that are shared by hunters of the three factors.

Hunters in all three factors believed that the Harz Mountains constitute a suitable habitat for lynx nowadays but also for lynx populations in the future. In turn participants of this study did not hold the belief that the Harz Mountains are too exposed which would cause negative consequences such as inbreeding. They held those beliefs because of the growing population of lynx in the last years, which showed the suitability of the Harz Mountains as habitat. Furthermore, hunters explained that the large territories of the lynx and their movements in the last years indicate that they indeed can reach other habitats outside the Harz Mountains. Hunters also agreed that the Harz Mountains offer a good study site for research on lynx. No participant of this study believed that the lynx has impacts on humans. Regarding this belief-statement hunters did not assume that the presence of the lynx in the Harz Mountains changed the way of living of people in the Harz Mountains and that concerns about the impacts of the lynx on humans do not exist anymore. The appearance and the secretive way of living of the lynx were also reasons mentioned by hunters why the lynx is not perceived as dangerous for humans. Another shared belief in all factors was that people did not believe that they can influence the impacts of the lynx. Although hunters of all factors had different beliefs about the impacts of the lynx they all assumed to have no opportunity in influencing the impacts of the lynx.

Regarding the impacts on hunting hunters in all factors shared the belief that the large territories of lynx minimize losses for the individual hunter. Even though different perceptions about the impacts of the lynx on the hunt existed in all 3 factors hunters in general expected no large impacts as the lynx does not stay in the same area for a long time. As hunters in factor 1 and 2 did not believe that any measures listed on the statement cards would change the acceptance towards the lynx, participants in factor 3 assumed that additional educational and informational work, reducing costs of hunting tenancies and reducing hunting taxes could improve the acceptance. However, a belief from this category participants of all factors placed in similar positions was that they did not believe that an increase of the compensation payment would change the acceptance towards the lynx. While some hunters clearly stated that they do not believe that higher payments would lead to a better acceptance other hunters, however, did not know about the fact that they get money when they report game killed by lynx.

SRQ 4: How do hunters evaluate those beliefs? As not all participants clearly evaluated their beliefs, it was not possible to indicate the attitude for individual participants. However, some statements and beliefs gave hints about the attitudes in the three groups in general. Therefore, in this section a careful indication about the attitudes in the three groups will be made.

Factor 1: Lynx as a fellow hunter, causing no large impacts on the hunt- predominately foresters with trust in the national park administration. Hunters in factor 1 highlighted the positive role of the lynx on the ecosystem, namely that the lynx will facilitate the regeneration of young trees because it affects hoofed game. As many participants of this group were foresters who can have problems with bite damages from game, their belief that the lynx could affect the regeneration of young trees shows that they think that the lynx could have a positive role in the ecosystem. That hunters in this group did not see major consequences on the hunt and that the lynx could have a positive impact on the ecosystem indicates a rather positive attitude those participants have towards the lynx. The comparison of the impacts of lynx and wolf show that the lynx is not the problem in the eyes of the hunters and that compared to the wolf the impacts of the lynx are not seen as dramatic. This aspect also indicates a rather positive attitude towards the lynx as the negative impacts are downplayed with this comparison. Although hunters in this factor did not believe that they have the opportunity to influence decisions on the lynx project they showed trust in the national park administration. Although it is believed that the lynx has impacts on the ecosystem for example on the behaviour of game, the trust in the agency responsible for the management of lynx indicates support towards the animal as it is believed that the park administration responds accordingly to conflicts with the lynx if there are any and carries out the tasks regarding the lynx project adequately. Hunters of this factor believed that the people who are against the lynx

55 see it as a fellow hunter who causes envy. They also assumed that, when someone already has a negative attitude, he is not going to change it also not with a better monetary compensation. However, some of the hunters in this group mentioned that in the future the acceptance of people who have a negative attitude now will change as those people will see the positive impacts it will have. The way participants talked about how other hunters see the lynx also indicates a rather positive attitude towards the animal as they did not see themselves as being part of hunters who have more negative attitudes towards the lynx.

Factor 2: Lynx as competitor, having several impacts on the hunt- predominately private hunters with low trust in the national park administration.

Participants grouped within this factor had a rather reserved attitude towards the lynx has they have to accept its presence and the impacts because they cannot change it. The lynx is rather seen as a competitor due to its impacts on the hunt. Although hunters believed that the lynx has several effects on the hunt most of them did not evaluate those believes as extremely bad also because they thought that the large territories of the lynx minimize the impacts for the individual hunter. Also the low trust in the national park administration which can be seen as mainly stemming from the experiences with the project initiation and the lack of control hunters perceive to have indicate a neutral and in some cases a rather negative attitude towards the lynx. Two of the hunters in this factor thought about the impacts of the lynx on the hunt more negatively as the others as they strongly emphasised the negative consequences the lynx has on game which in turn directly affects hunting. One of the hunters was not only concerned about the impacts of the lynx but also strongly criticised that the lynx project was initiated without communicating the issue sufficiently to hunters. This issue seems to be of special importance by contributing to the attitude this hunter has about the lynx. Also the other hunter who believed that the lynx causes high impacts for game and in turn on the hunt seems to have a rather negative attitude as he saw no need for measures to improve the acceptance of hunters as he did not understand why the acceptance should be improved for an animal which causes such impacts. For those hunters the distrust they had in the national park administration mainly seems to originate from the project initiation as they felt a lack of involvement back then. This distrust and the lack of personal control they experienced seems to be an essential aspect when shaping their attitudes towards the lynx today.

Factor 3: Lynx as fellow hunter, with rather positive than negative impacts- students with low trust in the national park administration.

Participants in this group expected no large negative influences on the hunt or on the ecosystem and the impacts of the lynx got downplayed by comparing it to the wolf. This indicates that those hunters did not see the lynx as a competitor but rather as useful for tourism or when for example hiking tracks become closed which also benefits other wildlife species. When talking

56 about the acceptance towards the lynx those hunters directly referred to older hunters who think more traditionally about the hunt and they believed that negative attitudes towards the lynx are mainly held by those hunters. This indicates that these participants did not see themselves as being part of hunters who might have a more negative attitude towards the lynx. As hunters in factor 3 were careful with assumptions about the impact of the lynx and they expected both negative and positive effects their attitude cannot be seen as strongly negative or strongly positive. They rather accept the presence of the lynx as he does not cause great impacts from their point of view. Therefore, they have a rather open- attitude towards the lynx. Participants of this factor are rather fact seeking in that sense and try not to base their beliefs on prejudices about the impacts of the lynx. However, despite the impacts of the lynx also the opinion those hunters have about the national park administration have to be considered when talking about the attitude towards the animal. Those hunters did not believe that the national park administration listens to their concerns and one participant mentioned that for the future it would be important that a mediator negotiates between people who are strongly pro-lynx and hunters who feel the impacts of the lynx. This indicates that although this group of hunters sees no major consequences due to the presence of the lynx it is still necessary to also pay attention to the social aspects concerning the lynx project.

6.2 Conclusion of Findings The aim of this study was to investigate how hunters in the Harz Mountains describe their beliefs about the lynx, lynx management and the presumed impacts of its presence in the Harz Mountains (MRQ). The organization and evaluation of those beliefs should then help to indicate the corresponding attitude of the hunters.

Within the scope of a reintroduction project in 2000, 24 lynx have been released into the Harz Mountains with the goal that in the following years those lynx will form healthy and viable populations in the Harz Mountains that will also reach other habitats and connect with other lynx populations. At the beginning of the project critical voices of hunters have been articulated and also in the following years comments about the negative impacts of the lynx in the Harz Mountains have been made. As hunters are directly acting in lynx habitat and they can highly contribute to the lynx project when they for example report game killed by lynx or lynx sights knowing their attitude towards the lynx is of special importance.

To reveal how hunters in the Harz Mountains describe their beliefs about the lynx, lynx management and the presumed impacts of the lynx I used Q methodology. I conducted two pre- interviews that helped to prepare the Q study and 15 Q sorts with accompanying interviews.

The results of the study revealed which beliefs were most relevant for hunters (SRQ1), how beliefs were seen in relation to each other (SRQ2), what shared beliefs among hunters are (SRQ3) and also gave an indication about the attitudes of hunters towards the lynx (SRQ4). With the investigation of those sub-research questions it was possible to answer the main

57 research question how hunters describe their beliefs about the lynx, lynx management and the presumed impacts of its presence. The three emerging factors indicate that hunters of this study focus on different beliefs regarding the lynx which became reflected in three distinguishable belief-patterns.

The first factor was mainly represented by foresters which also became reflected by the relevance they assigned to the belief-statements. Those hunters highlighted the positive role the lynx has on the ecosystem as they believed it can facilitate the regeneration of young trees by affecting hoofed game but in general those hunters expected no dramatic impacts on the hunt due to the presence of the lynx. Hunters in factor 2 who were mainly private hunters, in contrast, believed that the lynx has implications on the hunt, although they agree that the impacts for the individual were rather small because of the large territories of the lynx. Hunters of factor 3, students from the field of forestry, were rather careful with assumptions about the beliefs regarding the impacts of the lynx and did also not believe that the lynx will cause great impacts for hunters. Although the impacts of the lynx were an important aspect for hunters when talking about the lynx project in the Harz Mountains the impacts in all three groups were generally seen as minimal for the individual hunter. That also became clear through the comparison of lynx and wolf. Many participants directly compared the impacts of the lynx with the impacts of the wolf and concluded that when comparing those two species the lynx only has minimal impacts which are not as dramatic as the impacts of the wolf.

Besides beliefs about the impacts of the lynx also beliefs regarding the national park administration differed among the three groups. While in all three factors participants believed to have no control about the lynx management, the trust they have in the national park administration varied. While participants in factor 2 and 3 showed a rather low trust towards the agency, participants in factor 1 had a higher trust in the national park administration as they strongly believed that the park administration fulfils the tasks associated with the lynx project in a satisfactory way and that they respond to lynx conflicts accordingly. The initiation of the reintroduction project could be seen as an aspect that influences how hunters trust the national park administration today. Hunters who did not trust the agency today reported that they did not feel heard and involved when the project was initiated. This lack of control and involvement back then seems to be one aspect shaping the trust towards the agency responsible for managing the lynx today. This can be seen as an aspect that makes it difficult for the national park administration to reach those hunters who felt not included at the beginning of the project.

The impacts of the lynx on the ecosystem and the hunt and the trust hunters have towards the national park administration are of importance for hunters when talking about the lynx project. The positive influence of the lynx of the forest as it is believed by participants of factor 1 and that they did not expect great impacts for the hunt indicated a rather positive attitude towards the lynx. The trust in the national park administration underpins this positive attitude. Hunters in factor 2 were more neutral as the impacts of the lynx on the hunt are believe to exist but those impacts are only minimal from their point of view. The attitude of 2 hunters in factor 2,

58 however, can be described as more negative and additionally to the negative impacts of the lynx those hunters do not trust the national park administration. Hunters in factor 3 made no strong assumptions about negative impacts of the lynx and emphasised that the lynx can also have positive effects for other species as measures for its habitat also benefit other species. The attitude of those hunters can be seen as open towards the lynx.

6.3 Recommendations This study showed that hunters in the Harz Mountains held different beliefs about the lynx, lynx management and the perceived impacts of the lynx. Therefore, hunters cannot be seen as homogenous group with similar views on the topic. The differences in assumptions hunters have about the lynx need to be considered when involving or communicating with hunters. The three factors with distinguishable belief patterns in this study indicate that the position of the hunter, in this case private hunters and foresters, have an influence on their beliefs about the lynx. As private hunters and foresters in this study think differently about the lynx and lynx management, this is an essential aspect the national park administration has to consider when communicating with hunters about the lynx project. Hunters in all three factors believed that the lynx has impacts on the hunt and on the ecosystem although the relevance of those beliefs is different among the three different groups. Although hunters in the three factors assigned a different importance to those beliefs, in all three factors the belief is hold that the large territories of the lynx minimize the impacts of the lynx for the individual hunter. As the impacts of the lynx were in general not seen as dramatic in all three groups, beliefs about the trust in the national park administration differ. Especially in factor 2 the social dimension seems to play an important role for some hunters when talking about the lynx project. While some hunters in that factor had more neutral beliefs about the national park administration, two hunters held beliefs underpinning distrust toward the agency. This distrust is not necessarily directed towards the national park administration and its work nowadays. It is rather the lack of involvement hunters felt with the project initiation and the absence of communication back then that shapes the beliefs of hunters about the lynx and lynx management today. Although the impacts of lynx were seen as rather minimal some people in that factor had more negative beliefs about the lynx and its impacts. However, for those people the social dimension seems to be of special importance when indicating their attitude towards the lynx. The combination of seeing no opportunity to influence decisions about the lynx project and the distrust in the national park administration indicates for those hunters a rather negative attitude. Although a negative attitude can only carefully be indicated or 2 hunters of this study, it can be assumed that their thoughts are shared by more hunters in the Harz Mountains who think similarly about the topic. For this group of hunters it seems to be of importance to ensure an open and transparent communication about the lynx project nowadays. Although it might be difficult to change the distrust of hunters who felt excluded from decision processes about the project initiation back then, the national park administration should try to incorporate those hunters more. This can be done with additional informational evenings where not only people from the national park administration inform hunters about the lynx and its current distribution but where hunters get 59 the opportunity to talk about aspects important to them regarding the lynx project. In those meetings hunters could share their concerns with the national park administration and with other hunters and together people from the national park administration and hunters together could try to seek for explanations and solutions for those concerns. Besides those meetings it has to be ensured that the contribution of hunters to this project is recognised. With reporting game killed by lynx to the national park administration hunters help monitoring this species and therefore contribute in establishing new findings. The fact that hunters contribute to the lynx project should not be taken for granted and therefore is important to clearly mention them as contributing to the lynx project when reporting about the lynx project. When hunters feel that they are part of the lynx project and their help benefits the lynx project it can be assumed that their support for the project rises.

As hunters in this study were stating that they are not satisfied with the work of the national park administration often directly referred to the project initiation back then and most of the other hunters had no complains about the trustworthiness and actual work of the people responsible for the national park administration it can be assumed that the relation between hunters and the responsible people of the lynx project is better nowadays than at the beginning of the project and that the transparency helps to develop this relationship. However, it is important that the distrust of hunters towards people responsible for the lynx that can be seen as mainly coming from past experiences will be converted, so that a transparent communication and sufficient involvement and recognition of hunters today determines the trust they have in the authority and not in past experience.

7 Bibliography

Abendzeitung München (AZ) (2016): Bund Naturschutz empört. Geschossene Luchse:“ Bayern ist das Land der illegalen Tötungen. Retrieved from http://www.abendzeitung-muenchen.de/inhalt.bund- naturschutz-empoert-geschossene-luchse-bayern-ist-das-land-der-illegalen-toetung.239ba6e7-07db- 48e1-b08d-26f8297d360b.html (20.04.2017).

Addams, H., & Proops, J. L. (Eds.). (2000). Social discourse and environmental policy: an application of Q methodology. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Anders, O., & Sacher, P. (2005). Das Luchsprojekt Harz–ein Zwischenbericht. In Nationalpark-Forum (Vol. 7, No. 05, p. 4).

Anders, O. (2011): Luchsprojekt Harz. Bericht 2010/11. Nationalparkverwaltung Harz.

Anders, O. (2014): Luchsprojekt Harz. Bericht. Monitoringjahre 2011/12 und 2012/13. Nationalparkverwaltung Harz.

Andrén, H., Linnell, J. D., Liberg, O., Andersen, R., Danell, A., Karlsson, J., & Franzén, R. (2006). Survival rates and causes of mortality in Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) in multi-use landscapes. Biological Conservation, 131(1), 23-32.

Armatas, C., Venn, T., & Watson, A. (2017). Understanding social–ecological vulnerability with Q- methodology: a case study of water-based ecosystem services in Wyoming, USA. Sustainability Science, 12(1), 105-121.

Barry, J., & Proops, J. (1999). Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological economics, 28(3), 337-345.

Bath, A. J., & Buchanan, T. (1989). Attitudes of interest groups in Wyoming toward wolf restoration in Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006), 17(4), 519-525.

Bath, A. J. (1998). The role of human dimensions in wildlife resource research in wildlife management. Ursus, 349-355.

Bath, A., Olszanska, A., & Okarma, H. (2008). From a human dimensions perspective, the unknown large carnivore: public attitudes toward Eurasian lynx in Poland. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 13(1), 31-46.

Bernstein, D. A. (2010). Essentials of Psychology. Cengage Learning, 123–124. ISBN 978-0-495- 90693-3.

Bjerke, T., Reitan, O., & Kellert, S. R. (1998). Attitudes toward wolves in south eastern Norway.

Blog Bayern Wild (2016): Straftaten an Luchsen. Retrieved from http://blog.bayern- wild.de/tag/illegale-toetung-luchs/ (20.04.2017).

Bracken, S. S., & Fischel, J. E. (2006). Assessment of preschool classroom practices: Application of Q- sort methodology. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(4), 417-430.

Breitenmoser, U. (1998). Large predators in the Alps: the fall and rise of man's competitors. Biological conservation, 83(3), 279-289.

Breitenmoser, U., Ryser, A., Molinari-Jobin, A., Zimmermann, F., Haller, H., Molinari, P., & Breitenmoser-Würsten, C. (2010). The changing impact of predation as a source of conflict between hunters and reintroduced lynx in Switzerland. Biology and conservation of wild felids, 493-506.

Bright, A. D., & Manfredo, M. J. (1996). A conceptual model of attitudes toward natural resource issues: a case study of wolf reintroduction. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1(1), 1-21.

Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press.

Brown, S. R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant subjectivity, 16(3/4), 91-138.

Brown, S. R. (1996). Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative health research, 6(4), 561- 567.

Bruskotter, J. T., Vaske, J. J., & Schmidt, R. H. (2009). Social and cognitive correlates of Utah residents' acceptance of the lethal control of wolves. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14(2), 119-132.

Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BFN) (2014). Luchsverbreitung in Deutschland im Monitoringjahr 2013 (1.5.2013 – 30.4.2014).

Byung, S. Lee & Wonhi, Synn (2001). Investor response to online stock trading: A study using Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 24, 109-131.

Carter, N. H., & Linnell, J. D. (2016). Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31(8), 575-578.

Cerveny, J., & Bufka, L. (1996). Lynx (Lynx lynx) in south-western Bohemia. Lynx in the Czech and Slovak Republics, 16-33.

Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J. D., Von Arx, M., Huber, … & Boitani, L. (2014). Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. science, 346(6216), 1517-1519.

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Official Journal of the European Union, 206, 7-50. [Fauna-Flora-Habitat-Richtlinie, FFH- RL].

Cross, R. M. (2005). Exploring attitudes: the case for Q methodology. Health education research, 20(2), 206-213.

Cvetkovich, G., & Winter, P. L. (2003). Trust and social representations of the management of threatened and endangered species. Environment and Behavior, 35(2), 286-307. 62

Dandy, N., Ballantyne, S., Moseley, D., Gill, R., Quine, C., & Van Der Wal, R. (2012). Exploring beliefs behind support for and opposition to wildlife management methods: a qualitative study. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 58(4), 695-706.

Decker, D. J., Jacobson, C. A., & Brown, T. L. (2006). Situation-specific “impact dependency” as a determinant of management acceptability: Insights from wolf and grizzly bear management in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34(2), 426-432.

Dickman, A. J. (2010). Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Animal conservation, 13(5), 458-466.

Dresing, T., & Pehl, T. (2011). Praxisbuch Transkription. Regelsysteme, Software und praktische Anleitungen für qualitative ForscherInnen. Marburg.

Ericsson, G., & Heberlein, T. A. (2003). Attitudes of hunters, locals, and the general public in Sweden now that the wolves are back. Biological conservation, 111(2), 149-159.

Fazio, R. H., Chen, J. M., McDonel, E. C., & Sherman, S. J. (1982). Attitude accessibility, attitude- behavior consistency, and the strength of the object-evaluation association. Journal of experimental social psychology, 18(4), 339-357.

Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences, 4, 247-282.

Federal Nature Conservation Act (2009). Articel 1 of the Act from 29.07.2009 (BGBl. I S. 2542), entered into force 01.03.2010, as last amended by the Law dated 29.05.2017 (BGBl. I S. 1298) m.W.v. 02.06.2017.

Festetics, A. (1997). Die Wiederansieldung des Luchses- Erfahrungen aus den Ostalpen für den Harz. Expertenkolloquium zur Frage der Wiederansiedlung des Luchses im Harz. Fachtagung am 29/30.4.1997, Goslar, im Auftrag des Nds. Umweltministeriums.

Fischer, J., & Lindenmayer, D. B. (2007). Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Global ecology and biogeography, 16(3), 265-280.

Fischer, A., Bednar-Friedl, B., Langers, F., Dobrovodská, M., Geamana, N., Skogen, K., & Dumortier, M. (2011). Universal criteria for species conservation priorities? Findings from a survey of public views across Europe. Biological conservation, 144(3), 998-1007.

Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy sciences, 9(2), 127-152.

Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I., (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.

Fulton, D. C., Skerl, K., Shank, E. M., & Lime, D. W. (2004). Beliefs and attitudes toward lethal management of deer in Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 32(4), 1166-1176.

Gallagher, K., & Porock, D. (2010). The use of interviews in Q methodology: card content analysis. Nursing research, 59(4), 295-300.

Gigliotti, L., Decker, D. J., & Carpenter, L. H. (2000). Developing the wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity concept: research needed. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 5(3), 76-82.

Greenwald, A. G. On defining attitude and attitude theory. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations ofartirudes. New York: Academic Press, 1968.

Hannoversche Allgemeine (2016): Trächtige Luchsin im Harz erschossen. Retrieved from http://www.haz.de/Nachrichten/Der-Norden/Uebersicht/Traechtige-Luchsin-im-Harz-erschossen (20.04.2017).

Hetherington, D. A. (2005). The feasibility of reintroducing the Eurasian lynx, Lynx lynx to Scotland (Doctoral dissertation, University of Aberdeen).

Hill, C. M. (1998). Conflicting attitudes towards elephants around the Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda. Environmental Conservation, 25(3), 244-250.

Hill, C. M. (2004). Farmers’ perspectives of conflict at the wildlife–agriculture boundary: Some lessons learned from African subsistence farmers. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9(4), 279-286.

Ho, G. W. (2016). Examining Perceptions and Attitudes A Review of Likert-Type Scales Versus Q- Methodology. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 0193945916661302.

Hullen, M. (2004). Das Luchsprojekt Harz, in: Luchmanagement in Mitteleuropa. Naturschutz in Niederbayern, Heft 4: 1-121. Wölfl, M.; Leibl, F.

Hunziker, M., Hoffmann, C. W., & Wild-Eck, S. (2001). Die Akzeptanz von Wolf, Luchs und Stadtfuchs»–Ergebnisse einer gesamtschweizerisch-repräsentativen Umfrage. Forest Snow and Landscape Research, 76(1/2), 301-326.

Jägerschaft Wernigerode: Luchse im Harz - die etwas andere Sichtweise. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.jägerschaft-wernigerode.de/aktuelle-luchsdaten/ (20.01.2017)

Kaczensky, P., Blazic, M., & Gossow, H. (2004). Public attitudes towards brown bears (Ursus arctos) in Slovenia. Biological Conservation, 118(5), 661-674.

Kaltenborn, B. P., & Bjerke, T. (2002). The relationship of general life values to attitudes toward large carnivores. Human Ecology Review, 9(1), 55-61.

Kerlinger F. N. (1967). Social Attitudes and their criterial referents: a structural theory. Psychological Review, 1967, 74, 110-122.

Klaus, F. (2008, November 29). 26 Tiere auf der Strecke. Thüringer Landeszeitung.

Kleiven, J., Bjerke, T., & Kaltenborn, B. P. (2004). Factors influencing the social acceptability of large carnivore behaviours. Biodiversity & Conservation, 13(9), 1647-1658.

Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge.

Konkurrenz um Beute. Jäger wettern gegen Luchs- Auswilderung im Harz. (2015, February 19). RP Online. Retrieved from http://www.rp-online.de/panorama/deutschland/harz-jaeger-wettern-gegen- auswilderung-der-luchse-aid-1.4888979 (20.04.2017).

Köckritz, M. (2009, March 30). Problem mit Pinselohren. Thüringer Landeszeitung.

Levenson, H., & Mahler,I. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful others, and chance. Pages 15-59 in H. M. Lefcourt, editor. Research with the locus of control construct. Volume 1. Assessment Methods edition. Academic Press, New York.

Linnell, J. D., Breitenmoser, U., Breitenmoser-Würsten, C., Odden, J., & von Arx, M. (2009). Recovery of Eurasian lynx in Europe: what part has reintroduction played. Reintroduction of top-order predators, 72-91.

Liukkonen, T., Mykrä, S., Bisi, J., & Kurki, S. (2009). Conflicts and compromises in lynx Lynx lynx conservation and management in Finland. Wildlife Biology, 15(2), 165-174.

Lischka, S. A., Riley, S. J., & Rudolph, B. A. (2008). Effects of impact perception on acceptance capacity for white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72(2), 502-509.

Lüchtrath, A. (2011). Bewertung von Bestrebungen zum Schutz großer Beutegreifer durch betroffene Bevölkerungsgruppen am Beispiel des Luchses (Doctoral dissertation).

Lüchtrath, A., & Schraml, U. (2015). The missing lynx—understanding hunters' opposition to large carnivores. Wildlife Biology, 21(2), 110-119.

Madden, F. (2004). Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: global perspectives on local efforts to address human–wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9(4), 247-257.

Magg, N., Müller, J., Heibl, C., Hackländer, K., Wölfl, S., Wölfl, M., ... & Heurich, M. (2016). Habitat availability is not limiting the distribution of the Bohemian–Bavarian lynx Lynx lynx population. Oryx, 1-11.

Majić, A. (2003). Human Dimensions in Brown Bear Management–Attitudes toward and beliefs about brown bears in Croatia. Report for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of the Republic of Croatia, Zagreb.

Manfredo, M. J. (2008). Who cares about wildlife?. Springer US.

Manfredo, M. J., Vaske, J. J., & Decker, D. J. (1995). Wildlife Management: Basic Concepts. Wildlife and recreationists: Coexistence through management and research, 17.

McAllister, M., Wood, A. M., Dunn, G., Shiloh, S., & Todd, C. (2012). The perceived personal control (PPC) questionnaire: Reliability and validity in a sample from the United Kingdom. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 158(2), 367-372.

McGuire, W. J. The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd Ed., Vol. 3). Reading, Mass.: Addisson- Wesely, 1969.

McKeown, B. F. (1984). Q methodology in political psychology: Theory and technique in psychoanalytic applications. Political Psychology, 415-436.

McKeown, B. & B. Thomas (1988). Q methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Meinig , H.,Boye, E,P.& Hutterer, R. (2009): Rote Liste und Gesamtartenliste der Säugetiere (Mammalia) Deutschlands.– Münster (Landwirtschaftsverlag). –Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 70 (1): 115-153.

Middelhoff T.L. & Anders O. (2016). Abundanz und Dichte des Luchses im westlichen Harz. Fotofalenmonitring 2015/2016, Projektbericht, Nationalpark Harz.

Middelhoff T.L. & Anders O. (2017). Abundanz und Dichte des Luchses im westlichen Harz. Fotofalenmonitring 2016/2017, Projektbericht, Nationalpark Harz.

Molinari-Jobin, A., Marboutin, E., Wölfl, S., Wölfl, M., Molinari, P., Fasel, M., Kos, I., Blazic, M., Breitenmoser, C., Fuxjäger, C., Huber, T., Koren, I., Breitenmoser, U. (2010). Recovery of the Alpine Lynx lynx metapopulation. Oryx, 44(02), 267-275.

Müller, F. H., & Kals, E. (2004). Die Q-Methode. Ein innovatives Verfahren zur Erhebung subjektiver Einstellungen und Meinungen. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung (Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 2-04).

Naughton-Treves, L., & Treves, A. (2005). Socio-ecological factors shaping local support for wildlife: crop-raiding by elephants and other wildlife in Africa. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY SERIES- CAMBRIDGE-, 9, 252.

Nelson, A., Bidwell, P., & Sillero-Zubiri, C. (2003). A review of human-elephant conflict management strategies. People & Wildlife, A Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Born Free Foundation Partnership.

Niedersächsischer Landesbetrieb für Wasserwirtschaft, Küsten- und Naturschutz (NLWKN) (2011): Niedersächsische Strategie zum Arten- und Biotopschutz. Vollzugshinweise zum Schutz von Säugetierarten in Niedersachsen. Luchs (Lynx lynx).

Odden, J., Linnell, J. D., Moa, P. F., Herfindal, I., Kvam, T., & Andersen, R. (2002). Lynx depredation on domestic sheep in Norway. The Journal of wildlife management, 98-105.

Odden, J., Linnell, J. D., & Andersen, R. (2006). Diet of Eurasian lynx, Lynx lynx, in the boreal forest of southeastern Norway: the relative importance of livestock and hares at low roe deer density. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 52(4), 237-244.

Okarma, H., Jedrzejewski, W., Schmidt, K., KowALCZYK, R., & Jedrzejewska, B. (1997). Predation of Eurasian lynx on roe deer and red deer in Bialowieza Primeral Forest, Poland. Acta Theriologica, 42(2), 203-224.

Ostrom, T. M. (1970). Perspective as a determinant of attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6(3), 280-292.

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument- based persuasion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 41(5), 847.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: Theory and research.

Point of view (n.d.). The American Heritage ® Dictonary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Retrieved from Dictonary.com website http://www.dictionary.com/browse/point-of-view (06.08.2017).

Ramlo, S. (2016). Mixed method lessons learned from 80 years of Q methodology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(1), 28-45.

Redpath, S. M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W. M., Sutherland, W. J., Whitehouse, A., ... & Gutierrez, R. J. (2013). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in ecology & evolution, 28(2), 100-109.

Riley, S. J., & Decker, D. J. (2000). Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for cougars in Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 931-939.

Rokeach, M. (1976). Beliefs, attitudes and values. A theory of organization and change. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Ryser-Degiorgis, M. P. (2001). Todesursachen und Krankheiten beim Luchs: eine Übersicht. KORA.

Said, G., & Stricklin, M. (2014). Operant Subjectivity. The international Journal of Q methodology 37/3

Schacter, D., Gilbert, D., Wegner, D., & Hood, B. (2015). Psychology: Second European Edition. Palgrave Macmillan.

Schadt, S., Revilla, E., Wiegand, T., Knauer, F., Kaczensky, P., Breitenmoser, U., Bufka, L., Cerveny, J., Koubek, P., Huber, T., Staniša, C., Trepl, L. (2002). Assessing the suitability of central European landscapes for the reintroduction of Eurasian lynx. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39(2), 189-203.

Schultze-Lutter, R. (2002). Der Luchs im Harz: Landschaftsgestaltung und Bürgerbefragung zu seiner Wiederansiedlung. Lang.

Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk analysis, 20(5), 713-720.

Skogen, K. (2001). Who’s afraid of the big, bad wolf? Young people’s responses to the conflicts over large carnivores in eastern Norway. Rural Sociology 66 (2): 203–226.

Skogen, K. (2003). Adapting adaptive management to a cultural understanding of land use conflicts. Society &Natural Resources, 16(5), 435-450.

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-85.

Sommer, R. S., & Benecke, N. (2006). Late Pleistocene and Holocene development of the felid fauna (Felidae) of Europe: a review. Journal of Zoology, 269(1), 7-19.

Sponarski, C. C., Vaske, J. J., Bath, A. J., & Musiani, M. M. (2014). Salient values, social trust, and attitudes toward wolf management in south-western Alberta, Canada. Environmental Conservation, 41(04), 303-310.

Stahl, D. (1972). Gutachten über Möglichkeiten und Aussichten einer Wiedereinbürgerung des Luchses (Lynx lynx L.) im westl. Harz. Gutachten des Instituts für Wildforschung Jagdkunde der Universität Göttingen.

Starr, C. (1969). Social benefit versus technological risk. Science, 1232-1238.

Stenner, P. H., Cooper, D., & Skevington, S. M. (2003). Putting the Q into quality of life; the identification of subjective constructions of health-related quality of life using Q methodology. Social Science & Medicine, 57(11), 2161-2172.

Swenson, J. E., Sandegren, F., Söderberg, A., Heim, M., Sørensen, O. J., Bjärvall, A., Franzen R., Wikan, S., Wabakken, P. (1999). Interactions between brown bears and humans in Scandinavia. Biosphere Conservation, 2(1), 1-9.

Thomas, D. M., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Q-sorting and MIS research: A primer. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 8(1), 9.

Treves, A., & Bruskotter, J. (2014). Tolerance for predatory wildlife. Science, 344(6183), 476-477.

Treves, A., & Karanth, K. U. (2003). Human carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conservation Biology, 17(6), 1491-1499. ‐ Ude-Koeller, S. (2004). Auf gebahnten Wegen. Waxmann Verlag.

Von Essen, E., Hansen, H. P., Källström, H. N., Peterson, M. N., & Peterson, T. R. (2014). Deconstructing the poaching phenomenon a review of typologies for understanding illegal hunting. British Journal of Criminology, 54(4), 632-651.

Vögely, V., & Paulus, M. (2005). Reintegration und Akzeptanzanalyse vom Europäischen Luchs (Lynx lynx L.) im Biosphärenreservat Pfälzerwald (Doctoral dissertation, Diplomarbeit an der Universität Trier).

Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation. Qualitative research in psychology, 2(1), 67-91.

Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method & interpretation. Sage.

Webler, T., Danielson, S., & Tuler, S. (2009). Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research. Greenfield MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute, 54, 1-45.

Wechselberger, M., Rigg, R., Beťková, S., Wechselberger, M., Rigg, R., & Beťková, S. (2005). An investigation of public opinion about the three species of large carnivores in Slovakia: brown bear (Ursus arctos), wolf (Canis lupus) and lynx (Lynx lynx). Slovak Wildlife Society, Liptovský Hrádok, Slovakia.

Whittaker, D., Manfredo, M. J., Fix, P. J., Sinnott, R., Miller, S., & Vaske, J. J. (2001). Understanding beliefs and attitudes about an urban wildlife hunt near Anchorage, Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 1114-1124.

Wild-Eck, S., & Zimmerman, W. (2001). Raubtierakzeptanz in der Schweiz: Erkenntnisse aus einer Meinungsumfrage zu Wald und Natur. Forest Snow and Landscape Research, 76, 285-300.

Williams, C. K., Ericsson, G., & Heberlein, T. A. (2002). A quantitative summary of attitudes toward wolves and their reintroduction (1972-2000). Wildlife Society Bulletin, 575-584.

Wilson, M. A. (1997). The wolf in Yellowstone: Science, symbol, or politics? Deconstructing the conflict between environmentalism and wise use. Society & Natural Resources, 10(5), 453-468.

Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S., & Rabinowitz, A. (2005). The future of coexistence: resolving human- wildlife conflicts in a changing world. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY SERIES-CAMBRIDGE-, 9, 388.

Wotschikowsky, U., Kaczensky, P., & Knauer, F. (2001). Wiederansiedlung des Luchses im Harz. Eine kritische Stellungnahme aus wildbiologischer Sicht. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung, 33, 259-261.

Zajac, R. M., Bruskotter, J. T., Wilson, R. S., & Prange, S. (2012). Learning to live with black bears: A psychological model of acceptance. The journal of wildlife management, 76(7), 1331-1340.

Zimmermann, A., Walpole, M. J., & Leader-Williams, N. (2005). Cattle ranchers' attitudes to conflicts with jaguar Panthera onca in the Pantanal of Brazil. Oryx, 39(4), 406-412.

Zinn, H. C., Manfredo, M. J., Vaske, J. J., & Wittmann, K. (1998). Using normative beliefs to determine the acceptability of wildlife management actions. Society & Natural Resources, 11(7), 649-662.

Appendix I

Table: Statements with factor arrays and category of statements. IE= Impacts on the ecosystem, IH= Impacts on hunting, IS= Impacts on society, HH= Harz Mountains as habitat, MA= Measures to improve acceptance, PC= Personal control, ST= Social trust.

Factor arrays Item number and wording F1 F2 F3 1 The presence of lynx has an impact on game population densities. (IE) 3 1 3 2 The presence of lynx has an impact on the presence of wildlife species. (IE) -1 3 4 3 The lynx has an impact on the „ecological balance” between forest and game, herbivores and predators. 1 2 -2 (IE) 4 The lynx has an impact on populations of the wildcat. (IE) 0 -3 -3 5 The lynx has an impact on populations of the fox which in turn affects ground- nesting birds. (IE) 1 -1 -2 6 Game killed by lynx will be visited again till it is almost completely utilized. (IE) 0 3 5 7 The presence of lynx has an impact on hunter’s preservation efforts for game. (IH) -2 2 -1 8 The presence of the lynx has an impact on the amount of venison for hunters. (IH) 0 2 -2 9 The presence of lynx will have an impact on leasing hunting grounds in the future. (IH) 0 0 2 10 The presence of lynx has an impact on the economic part of the hunt. (IH) 0 1 3 11 The presence of lynx in the Harz Mountains has an impact on the number of car accidents. (IS) -2 -3 -4 12 The presence of the lynx in the Harz Mountains has direct impacts on humans. (IS) -3 -2 -3 13 The lynx has impacts on livestock. (IS) -4 -1 -3 14 The location of the Harz Mountains as a habitat for lynx is too exposed (Island position/Inbreeding). -2 -2 -4 (HH) 15 The presence of lynx in the Harz Mountains will contribute to the preservation of this species in 1 3 1 Germany. (HH) 16 The Harz Mountains are qualified for field research of lynx in the cultural landscape. (HH) 2 1 2 17 The Harz Mountains is a suitable habitat for current and future lynx populations. (HH) 3 4 3 18 The presence of lynx has an impact on tourism in the Harz Mountains. (IS) 2 0 5 19 The presence of lynx leads to unpredictable costs. (IS) -3 -2 -2 20 The presence of lynx has an impact on the control of hunters over processes in wildlife populations. (IH) -2 5 1 21 The large territories of lynx relativize impacts for the individual hunter. (IH) 2 3 2 22 The presence of lynx has an impact on hunting dogs. (IH) -1 1 -5 23 Because behavior of game changes with the presence of lynx also the time spent on a hunt changes. (IH) 3 4 0 24 The presence of lynx affects to what extent hunters can comply with hunting schedules. (IH) 0 2 0 25 Measures for the habitat of lynx also have an impact other species. (IE) 0 0 3 26 The presence of lynx has an impact on ground-nesting birds. (IE) -1 -1 -1 27 The presence of lynx has an impact on the behavior of game. (IE) 4 5 0 28 The presence of lynx has an impact on populations of hoofed game which in turn affects natural 5 0 1 regeneration of young trees. (IE) 29 From game populations, the lynx mainly takes out weak animals. (IE) 3 -1 1 30 An increase of compensation payments would change the acceptance of hunters towards the lynx. (MA) -2 0 -1 31 Reducing hunting taxes would change the acceptance of hunters towards the lynx. (MA) -5 -2 2 32 Adapting hunting schedules to the impacts of lynx would change the acceptance of hunters towards the -3 -1 -1 lynx. (MA) 33 Hunters can influence decisions about the lynx. (PC) -1 -4 -1 34 I can influence the impacts of lynx in the Harz Mountains. (PC) -4 -4 -5 35 The national park administration responds to lynx conflicts accordingly. (ST) 4 2 0 36 The national park administration listens to concerns about lynx from hunters. (ST) 1 0 -1 37 The national park administration listens to concerns about lynx from farmers and sheep farmers. (ST) 1 0 0 38 The national park administration communicates issues about the lynx project in an open and transparent 2 -1 0 way. (ST) 39 The national park administration listens to concerns about lynx from ordinary people. (ST) 1 -2 1 40 The national park administration knows how to handle lynx which are too tame. (ST) 2 1 0 41 The national park administration fulfills the tasks that are associated with the lynx project in a 5 1 1 satisfactory way. (ST) 42 I can assert my interest in management decisions about the lynx. (PC) -1 -5 -3 43 The average citizen can influence decisions about the lynx. (PC) -5 -5 -2 44 Additional informational and educational work would change the acceptance of hunters towards the -1 -3 4 lynx. (MA) 45 Reducing costs of hunting tenancies would change the acceptance of hunters towards the lynx. (MA) -3 -3 2

Appendix II

PQ Method Home Screen of PQ Method

Conducting Principal Component Analysis

3- factor solution with automatic flagging

Appendix III

Q Sort procedure and Interview Explanation study context

 The aim of this study is to derive beliefs of hunters in the Harz Mountains towards the lynx.  To derive those beliefs Q methodology will be applied. This method is quite unknown especially in Germany. It combines quantitative and qualitative research tools and will help to find differences and similarities between participants’ beliefs.  If you have no objections I would like to record this interview. The recordings will be used to create transcripts of the interview which is essential for the data analysis. Explanation Q methodology and procedure

 The cards that will be used for this method contain statements about the lynx and lynx management. These statements were derived through literature research and preliminary interviews with hunters in the Harz Mountain.  Please first read through the statement cards on your own and take your time. If you have questions feel free to ask.  Now, I want you to sort the statements on three piles: o Left, the pile of cards that reflects how you think about the topic; o Middle, the pile of cards you are neutral about or you have ambiguous beliefs about; o Right, the pile of cards that do not reflect how you think about the topic.

 This is the grid where you have to place the statement-cards. The grid ranges from ‘most like how I think’ to ‘least like how I think’.  Please start with one of your piles and sort the statement cards on the grid. While doing this please explain the positioning of cards and evaluate those statements. You can either start on the left side or on the right side. It is not a problem if you have an unequal number of pro and contra cards. Please indicate the position on the grid where you end with the pro and contra cards and where you placed the cards you are neutral about or have ambiguous feelings about. Interview

 While you are sorting the statements on the grid please talk freely about the positioning of statements.  How would you evaluate the statement on the respective card?  After placing the cards on the grid. Are there any statements you missed? Do you have statements you would like to add?  Short questionnaire (Age, profession, hunter association, hunting territory, direct experiences with lynx, position of hunter)

Appendix IV

Output table PQMethod

Appendix V

Example of conducted Q sort