Received: 28 November 2022

Revised: 9 April 2023

Accepted: 19 May 2023

DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14130

CONTRIBUTED PAPERS

Public attitudes and intentions toward engaging in reintroductionof wolves to JapanRyo Sakurai1

Hiroshi Tsunoda2

1

College of Policy Science, Ritsumeikan University,
Ibaraki-shi, Japan

2

Center for Environmental Science in Saitama,Kazo-shi, Japan

3

Faculty of Agriculture, Yamagata University,
Tsuruoka-shi, Japan

4

Department of Natural Resources and theEnvironment, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York,USA
Correspondence
Ryo Sakurai, Ritsumeikan University, 2–150
Iwakuracho, Ibaraki-shi, Osaka 567–8570, Japan.
Email: ryo223sak@gmail.com
Article impact statement: Information on theecological role of wolves and a mutualistic attitudeenhances public support for reintroduction ofwolves to Japan.

Hiroto Enari3

Richard C. Stedman4

Abstract
Reintroducing apex predators is an important approach in ecosystem restoration; however, it is challenging. Wolves (Canis lupus) were exterminated in Japan around 1900, andsince then, there has been a lack of top predators throughout the country. Currently, thewild ungulate population is increasing, causing agricultural and forest damage. This has
triggered an ongoing debate among researchers and nongovernmental organizations onwhether wolves should be reintroduced to promote self-regulating biodiverse ecosystems.
We conducted a nationwide survey to examine public attitudes toward wolf reintroduction(WR) in Japan. We sent online questionnaires to 88,318 citizens across the country. Amongthe 12,028 respondents, excluding those with invalid or incomplete answers and unqualified respondents, we obtained and analyzed 7500 responses that were representative ofJapanese citizens in terms of some key sociodemographic attributes. More respondents
disagreed with WR (39.9%) than agreed (17.1%), and many respondents (43.0%) were
undecided. Structural equation modeling revealed that risk perceptions affected public attitudes, implying that the greater the perceived threat of wolf attacks, the less likely people
are to support WR. In contrast, attitudes toward wolves (e.g., “I like wolves.”) influenced
by wildlife value orientation and beliefs about the ecological role of wolves (e.g., controlling deer populations) positively affected public attitudes toward WR. Those who had apositive attitude toward WR showed intentions to engage in behaviors that support WR.
Our results suggest that the dissemination of information related to the ecological roleof wolves and the development of a more mutualistic mindset in people could positively
influence public support for WR in Japan.
KEYWORDS
behavioral intentions, caring beliefs, ecological restoration, Japanese, nationwide survey, risk perception, structural
equational modeling, top predators

Actitudes e intenciones públicas respecto a la reintroducción de lobos en Japón
Resumen: La reintroducción de superdepredadores es una estrategia importante para larestauración de los ecosistemas; sin embargo, representa muchos retos. Los lobos (Canis
lupus) fueron exterminados en Japón alrededor de 1900 y desde entonces no ha habido
superdepredadores en el país. Hoy en día, la población silvestre de ungulados está incrementando y ocasionando daño agrícola y forestal. Esto ha detonado un debate entre losinvestigadores y las organizaciones no gubernamentales sobre si se debiesen reintroducir
lobos para promover ecosistemas biodiversos autorregulados. Realizamos una encuesta
nacional para analizar las actitudes públicas respecto a la reintroducción de lobos (RL)en Japón. Enviamos 88,318 cuestionarios virtuales a ciudadanos de todo el país. De losThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
© 2023 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.
Conservation Biology. 2023;e14130.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14130

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cobi

1 of 12SAKURAI ET AL.

12,028 respondientes, excluyendo a aquellos con respuestas inválidas o incompletas y a
los respondientes no calificados, obtuvimos y analizamos 7500 respuestas representativasdel ciudadano japonés en términos de algunas características sociodemográficas importantes. Hubo más respondientes en contra (39.9%) que a favor (17.1%) de la RL y todavía
más respondientes (43.0%) no estaban decididos. El modelo de ecuación estructural reveló
que las percepciones de riesgo impactaron sobre las actitudes públicas, lo que implica queentre mayor sea la amenaza percibida de los ataques de lobos, es menos probable que lagente apoye la RL. Como contraste, la orientación del valor de la fauna que influyó sobrelas actitudes (p. ej.: “me gustan los lobos”) y las creencias sobre el papel ecológico de loslobos (p. ej.: controlar las poblaciones de venados) tuvieron un impacto positivo en las actitudes respecto a la RL. Quienes tuvieron una actitud positiva respecto a la RL mostraronintenciones de apoyarla. Nuestros resultados sugieren que la divulgación de información
relacionada con el papel ecológico de los lobos y el desarrollo de una mentalidad más
mutualista en las personas podrían influir positivamente en el apoyo público para la RL en
Japón.
PALABRAS CLAVE
creencias humanitarias, encuesta nacional, intenciones conductuales, japonés, modelo de ecuación estructural,
percepción de riesgo, restauración ecológica, superdepredador,  (Canis
lupus) 1900, , , , 
, 
, 
88,31812,028 ,     , 7,500 ,   
 (39.9%)  (17.1%),  (43.0%) 
, ,    ,    , 
 (“”),   ()    
,   : ; : : , , ,INTRODUCTION
The critical role of top predators in driving trophic cascades
in ecosystems is well documented (Callan et al., 2013; Smith &Bangs, 2009; Svenning et al., 2016). Historically, people worldwide have viewed top predators as pests. In some cases, thepredators were persecuted until they were exterminated fromthe region (Bangs et al., 2005; Ripple et al., 2014). Research indifferent ecosystems shows that the loss of top predators canlead to an ecological release of prey species, which in turn constrains species on lower trophic levels, resulting in secondary
extinctions and changes in biological communities (Groomet al., 2006; Ripple et al., 2014). Additionally, evidence existsthat reintroducing top predators into ecosystems helps in the, ,, 

, 

recovery of ecosystems and improves biodiversity richness (e.g.,wolf [Canis lupus] reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park,
USA [Beschta & Ripple, 2016; Smith & Bangs, 2009]). The
results of such predator-reintroduction efforts, in which top
predators have aided in ecosystem restoration, have led to exterminated predators either being reintroduced or considered for
reintroduction worldwide, for example, potential reintroductionof wolves in Scotland (Nilsen et al., 2007) and Colorado (USA)(Niemiec et al., 2020) and potential reintroduction of lynx (Lynxlynx) to the United Kingdom (Drouilly & O’Rian, 2021).
Two subspecies of wolves inhabited Japan: the Ezo wolf (C.
lupus hattai) in Hokkaido and the Japanese wolf (C. l. hodophilax)
in Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu (Endo, 2015). Traditionally,
cultivation of crops, such as rice, was the major source of15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14130 by Ritsumeikan Universitaet, Wiley Online Library on [06/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

2 of 12

food production in Japan; it was more common than ranching
except in Hokkaido (Knight, 2006). Wolves were traditionallyconsidered benign animals. They were worshiped as gods
because they helped protect fields from crop-raiding pests, suchas deer (Cervus nippon), boars (Sus scrofa), and monkeys (Macaca
fuscata) (Knight, 2006). However, the positive image of wolves
as guardians of agricultural fields changed with the spread ofrabies in the 1700s, which led to several cases of wolf attacks onpeople (Knight, 2006). Furthermore, deforestation for the creation of agricultural lands and urbanization over the years led tothe destruction of wolf habitat, which in turn led to a decrease
in wolf prey populations (such as deer), which further led toa reduction in the number of wolves (Endo, 2015). Wolves inJapan consequently decreased in number. The last Ezo wolf was
killed in Hokkaido in the 1890s, and the last Japanese wolf was
hunted and killed in 1905.
Japan is currently facing various wildlife-related problems,
including an increase in the number of wild ungulates (i.e., deer
and boar), which are causing more agricultural damage thanany other mammals (Sakurai, 2019; Tsunoda & Enari, 2020).
In several regions of Japan, the population density of deer
has increased to more than 40 deer/km2 (Ueno et al., 2022).
The number of deer harvested by hunting has increased 12fold from 42,000 in 1990 to 725,000 in 2021 (Ministry of theEnvironment, 2022a). Despite this increase in hunting-related
harvest, populations continue to increase. Terrestrial mammals,
mainly deer and boar, cause agricultural damage costing approximately 13 billion yen (approximately US$82 million) annually(Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries, 2021a).
The human population in Japan is decreasing; the resident
population of 120 million in 2013 is projected to decline toapproximately 100 million by 2050 (Cabinet Office Japan, 2014).
Depopulation and aging of the population is severe, especiallyin the rural mountainous areas. Abandoned fields in these areas
ultimately become brush and forests, leading to the expansionof habitats for wild animals (Sakurai, 2019; Tsunoda & Enari,2020). Although the government aims to mitigate wildlife damage by promoting hunting and culling (Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry & Fishery, 2021b), the number of hunters has also
declined to approximately 200,000 as of 2018. This is less thanhalf the number of hunters in the 1970s (Kaji et al., 2013;
Ministry of the Environment, 2022b).
To help resolve these problems, researchers suggest wolf
reintroduction to Japan (WR) to promote the self-regulationof ecosystems (Kaji, 2017; Knight, 2006; Sakurai et al., 2018;
Yamanaka & Kaji, 2006). However, because Japan is democratic, the government needs to consider public opinion andimplement policies that reflect the needs and demands ofcitizens. As in Colorado, where WR was determined basedon ballot results (NPR News, 2020), WR in Japan would
depend on the majority opinion of the public (Kaji, 2017;
Yamanaka & Kaji, 2006). However, few studies have been
conducted in Japan to determine nationwide public attitudes
toward WR. Therefore, we analyzed public perceptions of
WR in Japan through a representative sampling of Japanesecitizens.

Previous studies
Public perceptions of WR have been well-studied in the UnitedStates. A series of studies of stakeholders in and around Yellowstone National Park were some of the first attempts tounderstand public attitudes toward WR. The research findings
included differences in support based on respondent attributes(positive attitude among the statewide public toward WR vs.
negative attitude among nearby residents). People with more
knowledge about wolves tended to support WR (Bath, 1989;
Bath & Buchanan, 1989). Similar results were found in Europe.
In Poland, rural residents in regions with a long history of wolf
presence had less positive attitudes toward wolves than those inregions with a short history whose knowledge of wolves positively affected their attitudes (Gosling et al., 2019). A review
of public attitudes toward WR and conservation mostly in
the United States and Europe (Williams et al., 2002) showedthat public attitudes toward WR should become more positive as education and urbanization increase. An increase in
human−wolf tensions was recorded in countries where wolf
populations recovered naturally. In Sweden, an increase in wolf
populations led to a decrease in public acceptance as people experienced direct encounters with wolves (Eriksson et al.,2015). Other factors, such as attitudes toward wolves and risk
perceptions, seem to affect public attitudes toward WR as well
(Appendix S1; see “Conceptual Framework” for details).
Human dimension studies are also being conducted in places
where WR projects have not yet taken place. In Colorado, where
WR is expected to take place by 2024, a study revealed that amajority of residents across different regions of the state anddifferent age groups are in favor of WR (Niemiec et al., 2020).
In Scotland, where wolves were eradicated in the 1700s, ruraland urban communities are generally positive about the idea ofWR, although they are concerned about the loss of livestock orhuman casualties due to wolves (Nilsen et al., 2007).
In Japan, studies have been conducted to understand the public attitudes toward WR. The Japan Wolf Association (JWA) (ageneral incorporated association) has been continuously conducting public surveys on this subject. A nationwide survey (n= 1176) conducted in 1996 showed that public attitudes toward
WR were divided: 28.5% supported WR and 27.7% opposed
the idea, and 43.8% were undecided (Angeli et al., 1998). The
results of a more recent survey (n = 12,114) conducted in 2019
showed that 41.2% supported and 14.5% opposed WR, whereas
43.9% were unsure about WR (JWA, 2020). This implies that
potentially there has been an increase in the ratio of respondents
supporting WR in the past two decades. However, because thesurvey was conducted mainly by members of the JWA collecting
opinions from gatherings in parks and festivals, sampling was
not systematic (JWA, 2020). Thus, it is unclear on how well the
respondents represented the perceptions of the larger citizenry.
Sampling bias can occur when some members of the samplingframe are unlikely to be selected (Groves et al., 2004). The JWA
was established to promote and realize WR in Japan; therefore, it
is understood that most of its members are supporters of WR.
Another study conducted with a targeted sample (students at

15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14130 by Ritsumeikan Universitaet, Wiley Online Library on [06/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

3 of 12CONSERVATION BIOLOGYa private university in Japan [n = 360]) showed that their attitudes were divided: 42.8% disagreed, 31.1% agreed, and 26.1%
were neutral to WR (Sakurai et al., 2020). Students who thought
wolves were necessary for a functioning ecosystem were more
likely to support reintroduction, whereas those who thought
reintroduced wolves would become invasive species were more
likely to disagree (Sakurai et al., 2020).

Conceptual framework
Based on the findings of previous studies on public acceptanceof large carnivores (Bruskotter & Wilson, 2014; Zajac et al.,2012), we developed a hypothesized model (Appendix S2) of
the factors that affect public attitudes and intentions toward
engaging in WR in Japan. Following the hazard-acceptancemodel modified for use with large carnivores (Bruskotter &Wilson, 2014), we hypothesized that public attitudes toward
WR (acceptance of a newly developed wolf population) are
affected by risk perceptions. People are prone to misjudging
risk levels. They overestimate infrequent risks with catastrophic
consequences and underestimate more frequent but less consequential risks (Jaeger et al., 2001; Slovic, 1987). In the UnitedStates, risk perceptions related to cougars (Felis concolor) (e.g., fearof being attacked) affect their attitude toward the species (Riley& Decker, 2000). In Japan, local residents with a greater perceived risk of bear (Ursus thibetanus) attacks are less accepting of
the species (Sakurai et al., 2013a).
Previous studies show that social trust affects risk perceptions (Bruskotter & Wilson, 2014; Zajac et al., 2012). Social
trust is a degree of trust people have in agencies or individuals
responsible for the management of technology, the environment, or other realms of public health and safety (Siegrist
et al., 2000, 2005). People in the United States who trust agencies participate more in wildlife-related interventions promoted
by governments than those who lack trust in agencies (Vaske
et al., 2004) and Japan (Sakurai et al., 2013a). Public trust in
researchers and governments who propose management policies could affect public attitudes toward WR. A study in Japan
showed that university students who trust researchers are more
likely to support WR (Sakurai et al., 2020).
Attitudes toward wolves could influence attitudes toward
WR and risk perceptions (Bruskotter & Wilson, 2014) and arepotentially affected by wildlife value orientation (WVO). This
cognitive concept was developed specifically to examine publicbeliefs regarding wildlife (Manfredo, 2008). Two key value orientations possibly affect the public’s relationship with wildlife:
mutualism, measured by social affiliation and caring beliefs, anddomination, measured by appropriate use and hunting beliefs(Manfredo, 2008; Manfredo et al., 2020). WVO appears to affectpublic attitudes toward wolves; those with mutualistic values
are more likely to support wolf conservation than those withhunting beliefs (Gosling et al., 2019; Manfredo et al., 2020).
Few, if any, studies have been conducted in Asian countries todetermine the influence of WVO on public perception of WR.
Knowledge systems formed through education, experiences,and media affect how people shape attitudes (Ajzen, 1985;

SAKURAI ET AL.

Hines et al., 1987). The public’s science-based knowledge ofwolves affects support toward WR (Angeli et al., 1998; Enck
& Brown, 2002; Gosling et al., 2019). A previous study in Japan
showed that people are more supportive of the reintroductionof familiar species, which could be the result of the social psychological phenomenon mere-exposure effect (Sakurai et al.,2022). Based on the findings of previous studies, we speculated
that beliefs regarding the ecological role of wolves affect attitudes toward wolves (Williams et al., 2002) and that knowledgeof deer-related problems affects attitudes toward WR (Angeli
et al., 1998).
As one of the first nationwide surveys to have been conducted in Japan, we aimed to explore potential factors affecting
public attitudes toward WR. Because Japan is an island country, whether the public perceives reintroduction of wolves as an
introduction of an invasive species could affect their attitudes
toward WR. In Japan, the introduction of invasive predators,
such as the mongoose (Herpestes javanicus) and raccoon (Procyon
lotor), has led to the loss of indigenous species and conflicts withhumans (Ikeda, 2015; Yamada & Sugimura, 2004). However,few studies have focused on whether the public perception ofinvasive species affects their attitudes toward WR. We assumed
that people would perceive WR as a risk if they believe wolves
are a non-native species that could become invasive.
Because most researchers have investigated public attitudes
and beliefs about WR (Enck & Brown, 2002; Williams etal., 2002; Eriksson et al., 2015) without associating these attitudes and beliefs with an action, their results have no direct
influence on policy. In contrast, action predicted based on
behavioral intention (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) could directly
affect policies and legislation, especially in democratic countries.
Moreover, few sociological studies of WR have focused on therelationships among cognitive factors, attitudes, and behavioral
intentions in a model.

METHODS
Questionnaire items
Survey items were developed based on discussions among theauthors, who included two researchers specializing in humandimensions of wildlife management (one from Japan and one
from the United States) and two ecologists from Japan.
Although the survey included 84 items, for this study, we
focused on 45 items associated with our hypotheses. These wereasked mostly according to the 5-point Likert scale. The items
were divided into eight categories: knowledge of problems with
deer; beliefs about the ecological role of wolves; attitudes toward
wolves; risk perceptions; social trust; WVO; attitudes toward
WR in Japan; and behavioral intentions to engage in actions
that support WR (Appendices S3 & S4). We identified these
items from a survey conducted in Japan (Sakurai et al., 2020)
created based on previous studies conducted worldwide on public attitudes toward WR (e.g., Bath, 1989; Enck & Brown, 2002).
Although the use of the Likert scale is occasionally criticizedbecause the assumption of equidistance between categories is15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14130 by Ritsumeikan Universitaet, Wiley Online Library on [06/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

4 of 12not necessarily verified (e.g., Lionello et al., 2021), it is a widely
accepted approach in questionnaire surveys. Thus, we used thisscale to compare our results with those of previous studies thatutilized similar scales.

Sampling procedure
We conducted a web-based survey of residents in Japan.
Respondents were sampled with an aim to represent the entire
population (following the distribution of citizens in the country publicized in the Basic Resident Register by the Ministry ofInternal Affairs & Communication, 2020) in terms of genderratio (categories male and female), age (six categories: 20−29,
30−39, 40−49, 50−59, 60−69, and 70−99 years old), andregion of residence (eight categories: Hokkaido, Tohoku, Kanto,
Chubu, Kinki, Chugoku, Shikoku, and Kyushu). Questionnaires
were distributed to residents who were registered in the website
system Research Panel (Research Panel, 2020). Over 2.2 million
residents in Japan were registered in this system at the time ofour survey. Registrants gain from the system, for example, useful
information related to shopping and points that are worth actual
money to be used for other purposes. Although those who are
more comfortable with using technology may be more likely tohave answered our online survey (Ranchhod & Zhou, 2001),
the respondents were recruited independent of their interest in
the topic. In addition, respondents were sampled following theratio of the Japanese population in terms of sociodemographics.
Therefore, consistent with a previous study in which a similar
online survey was used (Niemiec et al., 2020), we believe that
our stratified sampling enabled a better representation of theJapanese population.
Web surveys conducted using registered monitors have been
criticized because they involve some respondents who answer
the questions rather informally because their focus is only
to obtain rewards (Liu & Wronski, 2018). However, theseapproaches could overcome declining response rates to surveys
distributed to random samples of general populations (Stedman et al., 2019). To ensure the reliability of the samples, we
inserted two trap questions in the survey in which respondents
were asked to choose a particular answer (e.g., “Please choose
2: Slightly disagree with this question.”). Respondents who did
not answer “slightly disagree with this question” (i.e., those
who were potentially not reading the question) were excluded
from the sample. In addition, we excluded those respondents
who answered the survey in <2 min because this implied they
were not reading the questions carefully. This was based on ourpilot survey with a few individuals, which showed that it was
impossible for the respondents to answer 84 questions in <2min.
In August 2020, we randomly distributed questionnaires to
88,793 people registered in Research Panel. Overall, we received
12,028 responses (response rate = 13.5%). Among them, 3096
failed in either of the two trap questions. We excluded 1310
respondents because they answered all questions in <2 min. In
addition, 38 respondents did not answer all the questions, and84 respondents did not qualify as respondents (e.g., teenagers).

Following sample exclusions, we reached a sample size of
7500 respondents in <1 week of distribution of questionnaires.
Because the population of Japan is approximately 120 million,a sample size of more than 1067 is considered suitable to allow
for population estimates within a 3% margin of error at the 95%
confidence level (Vaske, 2008). Therefore, we considered oursample size sufficient for achieving our research objectives.
The final survey and all administrative procedures wereapproved by the Research Ethics Committee involving Living Human Participants, Ritsumeikan University (protocol
Kinugasa-Hito-2019-10).

Analyses
We first analyzed the descriptive results of the items to identify
the characteristics of our samples. To validate our hypotheses,
we used a multivariate technique, namely, a structural equation model (SEM) because our model contained both measured
variables (e.g., “I like wolves.”) and latent variables (concepts
composed of multiple observed items that cannot be measured
directly; e.g., attitudes toward wolves). An SEM, which combines factor analysis and multiple regression, was appropriate
for examining the causal relationships among the measured andlatent variables. We conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
to determine whether each item was loaded on the hypothesizedlatent variables (knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, risk perceptions,social trust, and behavioral intention) because these categories
were not based on established theories. Factor analysis for WVO
items was conducted to confirm that items were loaded in the
expected variables because these scales have been validated inprevious studies (e.g., Manfredo, 2008). Items considered construct latent variables (factor loading >0.4 based on Gosling
et al., 2019) with sufficient internal reliability (Cronbach α ≥0.70
according to Vaske, 2008:518) were used in the SEM. To refine
and explore the model with the best fit, we conducted an
exploratory specification search analysis of SEM in which all
possible associations and covariances between latent constructs
were tested. We considered the fit of SEM acceptable if the root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was <0.08 (Diamantopoulos & Siguar, 2000) and goodness-of-fit index (GFI)
and comparative fit index (CFI) were ≥0.9 (Toyoda, 2010:18).
We performed all statistical analyses with SPSS 22 (IBM) and
AMOS 16 (IBM) with significance levels set at p<0.05.

RESULTS
Descriptive results
Our samples were divided equally in terms of gender, andage was evenly split in each age category. Individuals over
70 years old accounted for the highest percentage (23.4%) of
respondents. Most respondents (33.5%) were from Kanto, andShikoku the fewest respondents (3.3%). Respondents represented the actual ratio of the Japanese population in termsof gender, age, and region (Appendix S5). Regarding their

15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14130 by Ritsumeikan Universitaet, Wiley Online Library on [06/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

5 of 12CONSERVATION BIOLOGYknowledge of wolves, a majority were aware that wolves once
inhabited Japan (89.8%) and that they were extirpated in the
1900s (63.0%), although a majority (69.0%) did not know thereasons for their extirpation.
The proportion of respondents who agreed that wolves werenecessary for ecosystems; ecosystems would collapse without
wolves; and wolves can control the population of deer was
more than double that of respondents disagreeing with thesestatements. However, over half agreed that reintroduced wolves
would become invasive and have negative effects on ecosystems (53.3%). Although a majority of respondents were afraidof wolves (72.5%), approximately one-half had a neutral attitude regarding whether they liked or disliked wolves. A majorityof respondents worried about safety while walking outdoors(57.5%) and that children would be attacked (59.3%) if wolves
were reintroduced. As for attitudes toward WR in Japan, 39.9%
disagreed, 17.1% agreed, and the remaining (43.0%) neither
agreed nor disagreed to WR. Those who agreed to engage inactions to support WR were limited (15.9% agreed to vote and12.7% agreed to affix their signatures) (Table 1).

Results of statistical analyses
The EFA verified that items were loaded into seven hypothesized latent variables (knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, risk perceptions, social trust [two categories], and behavioral intentions)(Table 2) Factor analysis revealed that WVO items fell into four
categories in line with previous studies: appropriate use, hunting, social affiliation, and caring beliefs. However, contrary to
the results of previous studies, the item “Wildlife is like myfamily and I want to protect them.” (originally part of social
affiliation beliefs) was associated with caring beliefs. Three items
were not loaded in any latent variables and were deleted fromthe SEM (Appendix S6).
The exploratory specification searches of the SEM revealed
the finalized model with the best GFI (RMSEA = 0.070, GFI= 0.808, CFI = 0.843) (Figure 1), and fit indexes slightly
improved from the original hypothesized model (Appendix S7).
The general assumptions of the SEM, including normality ofitem response distributions, were met because skewness ranged
from −0.766 to 0.835 and kurtosis from −1.011 to 0.028,
indicating no signs of major departure from normality (Toyoda, 2010). The final model showed all factors with significant
relationships (p<0.001) in the dependent variables. Risk perceptions were associated with a more negative attitude toward WR(B = −0.34), which mediated social trust. However, attitudes toward wolves had positive effects on public attitudes
toward WR (B = 0.20) and negative effects on risk perceptions(B = −0.32) and mediated the effects of beliefs regarding theecological role of wolves and four WVO variables. Attitudes
toward WR had a strong effect on behavioral intentions toengage in actions to support WR (B = 0.72). The explanatory
power (R2 ) of attitudes toward WR was 0.20, indicating that
one-fifth of variances in attitudes toward WR were explainedby risk perceptions and attitudes toward wolves. The R2 ofbehavioral intentions was 0.51, implying that the majority of

SAKURAI ET AL.

the variance in behavioral intentions were explained by attitude.
Although the overall model had a satisfactory level of fitness
with an RMSEA of <0.08, the fact that both GFI and CFI were
below 0.9 demonstrates the necessity of interpreting the resultswith caution (see “Discussion”).

DISCUSSION
Japanese attitudes toward WR and their
behavioral intentions to support WR
Our study is the first systematic sampling survey addressing Japan residents views on wolves. The results showed thatthe highest percentage of public attitudes toward WR was
undecided (i.e., “neither agreed nor disagreed” with WR). A
previous survey conducted with Japanese students showed thatthose who were unsure about their attitudes felt they did nothave enough knowledge to express their opinion about WR(Sakurai et al., 2020). It is possible that our sampled respondents
felt the same way.
Based on the SEM, we found that greater perceived risk negatively affected public attitudes toward WR in Japan, similar
to a previous study (Enck & Brown, 2002). This implies thateven in a country where wolves were extirpated more than 100
years ago, with a low possibility of a direct interaction, people
expressed fear toward the species. Some researchers argue thatimages of Japanese wolves mostly originated from nonscientific
literature, such as fairy tales (e.g., “Little Red Riding Hood”),
that mostly originated from outside the country (Angeli et al.,
1998; Nambu, 2007). Considering the fact that human casualties in wolf attacks are rare worldwide (e.g., two fatal cases in 18
years from 2002 to 2020 in North America [Linnell et al., 2021]),
our results suggest that people might be overestimating the riskof attack.
We found that positive attitudes toward wolves that mediate
people’s beliefs in the ecological role of wolves have increased
people’s support of WR. Cascading effects caused by top predators in ecosystems, which have both direct and indirect effects
on prey species, have been observed worldwide (Beschta & Ripple, 2016; Ripple et al., 2014). Therefore, awareness of these
ecological dynamics could encourage people to gain positive
beliefs about the ecological role of wolves. The relationshipbetween public knowledge and attitude toward WR is complex. A previous study pointed out that knowledge of the recent
increase in deer populations and agricultural damage caused by
the species could increase public support for WR (Angeli et al.,1998); however, we did not observe such relationships in ourstudy.
However, we found that perceptions that reintroduced
wolves would have negative impacts on the ecosystem as invasive species, together with other risk perception items, reduced
public support for WR, which is in line with the results of aprevious study (Sakurai et al., 2020). Japan has a large numberof endemic species (>60% of reptiles and >80% of amphibians are endemic to Japan) (Conservation International, 2022),
which have recently been threatened by invasive species, such

15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14130 by Ritsumeikan Universitaet, Wiley Online Library on [06/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

6 of 12TABLE 1

Public attitude, beliefs, and behavioral intentions regarding wolf reintroduction in Japan.a

Beliefs about
ecological role ofwolvesAttitudes toward
wolvesRespondents whoeither disagreed orslightly disagreed(%)

Respondents whoneither agreed nor
disagreed (%)

Respondents whoeither agreed orslightly agreed (%)

Wolves are necessary for healthy forest or
ecosystem.

13.2

49.8

37.0

The balance of an ecosystem collapses without
wolves.

14.0

50.9

36.1

There is a causal relationship between
increases in deer and extinction of wolves.

20.7

42.0

37.2

Wolves can control the deer population.

18.3

41.6

40.2

Wolves are scary.

10.0

17.5

72.5

Wolves are beautiful.

25.9

37.9

36.2

I like wolves.

38.6

42.7

18.8

I hate wolves.

31.4

47.6

21.1

I am interested in wolves.

45.9

34.3

19.8

I am worried about safety, such as when
walking outside, if wolves are reintroduced
in Japan.

20.9

21.6

57.5

Pets will be attacked if wolves are reintroduced
in Japan.

20.1

28.6

51.2

I worry that kids will be attacked if wolves arereintroduced in Japan.

16.9

23.8

59.5

Reintroduced wolves would become invasive
species and have negative impacts in Japan.

11.4

35.2

53.3

Attitudes toward WR
in Japan

Do you agree or disagree with thereintroduction of wolves from anothercountry to recover healthy ecosystem inJapan?

39.9

43.0

17.1

Behavioral intentions
to engage inactivities to support
the reintroductionof wolves

I would collect donations for reintroduction ofwolves.

67.5

28.0

4.5

I would support reintroduction of wolves in a
vote.

52.0

32.0

15.9

I would affix my signature for reintroductionof wolves.

55.7

31.6

12.7

Risk perceptionsaNumber of respondents 7500.

as mongoose and raccoon. Negative impacts of invasive species
are frequently reported in the media (Fukano & Soga, 2019) andare taught in schools (Asajima et al., 2018), resulting in increased
public knowledge about the risks posed by invasive species. If
wolves are perceived as non-native, this may further contributeto opposition to WR.
We observed that caring beliefs had the strongest (positive)
effect on attitude among four WVO variables. This is consistent
with the findings of previous studies (Gosling et al., 2019). People have become more mutualistic as society has modernized
and urbanized (Manfredo et al., 2020). More Japanese would
become mutualistic with the progression of modernization, andmore people are expected to support WR.
Our SEM explained one-fifth (20.0%) of public attitudes
toward WR, which is comparable to that found in previous studies (Gosling et al., 2019; Sakurai et al., 2020). Future
research should focus on the remaining factors that affect public

attitudes toward WR in Japan. Different methods, such as interviewing people and analysis of open-ended questions on thereasons for their support or opposition to WR, would provide
additional information.

Study limitations
Previous researchers (e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1999) have proposedthat the cutoff point of model selection when using RMSEA
should be <0.065 and that CFI should be >0.95. Our final
model (RMSEA = 0.070, CFI = 0.843) did not fulfill theserequirements. This implies that other factors that contributeto public attitudes toward WR in Japan should be explored.
Although studies on the validity of WVO scale have been conducted, a majority of them are from North America and Europe.
There has been limited research done to test model validity

15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14130 by Ritsumeikan Universitaet, Wiley Online Library on [06/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

7 of 12CONSERVATION BIOLOGYSAKURAI ET AL.

TABLE 2 Results of factor analysis of items used as latent constructs in the structural equation model (SEM) related to a survey of Japanese citizens on wolf
reintroduction.
FactoraItem

Mean (SD)

Factorloadings

Cronbach α

Knowledge about deer
issuesKD1. I know that in Japan, the deer population isincreasing.

1.87 (0.67)

0.88

0.907

KD2. I know that agricultural damage by deer frequently
occurs all over Japan.

2.04 (0.64)

0.88

KD3. I know that an increase in deer affects the forest
ecosystem in Japan.

1.84 (0.71)

0.87

BW1. Wolves are necessary for healthy forests andecosystems.

3.31 (0.93)

0.83

BW2. Balance of ecosystem collapses without wolves.

3.27 (0.92)

0.94

BW3. Wolves can control population of deer.

3.27 (1.00)

0.51

BW4. There is a causal relationship between increase ofdeer and extinction of wolves.

3.22 (1.03)

0.50

AW1. Wolves are beautiful.

3.14 (1.07)

0.74

AW2. I like wolves.

2.72 (1.04)

0.95

AW3. I am interested in wolves.

2.58 (1.09)

0.69

AW4. I hate wolves [reversed coded].

3.14 (1.04)

0.68

RP1. I worry about safety such as when walking outside if
wolves are reintroduced in Japan.

3.49 (1.10)

0.87

RP2. Pets will be attacked if wolves are reintroduced inJapan.

3.39 (1.06)

0.87

RP3. I worry that kids will be attacked if wolves arereintroduced in Japan.

3.57 (1.06)

0.95

RP4. Reintroduced wolves would become invasive species
and have negative impacts in Japan.

3.60 (1.00)

0.48

TI1. I trust information provided by central government.

2.95 (1.02)

0.89

TI2. I trust information provided by local government.

3.18 (0.95)

0.95

TI3. I trust information provided by researchers.

3.42 (0.89)

0.68

TI4. I trust information provided by professors atuniversity.

3.27 (0.87)

0.60

TD1. Central government should have responsibility to
decide whether to reintroduce wolves in Japan.

3.78 (1.19)

0.47

TD2. Local government should have the responsibility to
decide whether to reintroduce wolves in Japan.

3.55 (1.16)

0.61

TD3. Researchers should have the responsibility to decide
whether to reintroduce wolves in Japan.

3.41 (1.11)

0.94

TD4. Professors at university should have the responsibility
to decide whether to reintroduce wolves in Japan.

2.98 (1.06)

0.83

AU1. Human should manage fish and wildlife populations
so that humans benefit.

2.65 (1.11)

0.53

AU2. The needs of humans should take priority over fish
and wildlife protection.

2.47 (1.00)

0.62

AU3. It is acceptable for people to kill wildlife if they think
it poses a threat to their life.

2.86 (1.15)

0.88

AU4. It is acceptable for people to kill wildlife if they think
it poses a threat to their property.

2.89 (1.12)

0.90

AU5. It is acceptable to use fish and wildlife in researcheven if it may harm or kill some animals.

2.51 (1.02)

0.66

AU6. Fish and wildlife are on earth primarily for people touse.

1.91 (0.95)

0.42

Beliefs about ecologicalrole of wolves

Attitudes toward wolves

Risk perceptions

Trust in information
provided bygovernment andresearchers

Trust in government andresearchers to takeresponsibility fordecision-making

Appropriate use beliefs

0.826

0.853

0.880

0.871

0.822

0.846

(Continues)

15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14130 by Ritsumeikan Universitaet, Wiley Online Library on [06/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

8 of 12TABLE 2(Continued)

FactoraItem

Mean (SD)

Factorloadings

Cronbach α

Hunting beliefs

HB1. Hunting is cruel and inhumane to the animals[reverse coded].

3.18 (1.05)

0.91

0.885

HB2. Hunting does not respect the lives of animals [reverse
coded].

3.21 (1.07)

0.88

SB1. We should strive for a world where humans andwildlife can live side by side without fear.

3.80 (1.03)

0.70

SB2. I view all living things as part of one big family.

3.22 (1.06)

0.55

SB3. Animals should have rights similar to the rights ofhumans.

3.67 (1.04)

0.73

CB1. I care about animals as much as I do other people.

3.00 (1.00)

0.61

CB2. It would be more rewarding to me to help animals
rather than people.

2.70 (0.98)

0.61

CB3. I take great comfort in the relationships I have withanimals.

3.16 (1.04)

0.84

CB4. I feel a strong emotional bond with animals.

2.69 (1.05)

0.99

CB5. I value the sense of companionship I receive fromanimals.

3.12 (1.07)

0.83

CB6. Wildlife are like my family and I want to protect
them.b

3.01 (0.98)

0.46

BI1. I would collect donations for WR.

2.02 (0.92)

0.76

BI2. I would support WR in a vote.

2.40 (1.13)

0.91

BI3. I would affix my signature for WR.

2.30 (1.10)

0.98

Social affiliation beliefs

Caring beliefs

Behavioral intentions toengage in actions to
support WR

a

0.758

0.896

0.923

All factors except “behavioral intentions to engage in actions to support WR” were used as independent variables in SEM. Codes, such as KD1, match items shown in the model in Figure 1.
Originally part of social affiliation beliefs; however, based on the factor analysis, it was categorized as a caring belief item.

b

FIGURE 1 Finalized model of public attitudes toward and their behavioral intentions to support wolf reintroduction (WR) in Japan (n = 7500, root meansquare error of approximation 0.070, goodness-of-fit index 0.808, comparative fit index 0.843, χ2 = 33,490.906). All scores represent standardized coefficients (allrelationships were significant at 0.1%). Abbreviations of items that comprise each factor are defined in Table 2.

15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14130 by Ritsumeikan Universitaet, Wiley Online Library on [06/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

9 of 12CONSERVATION BIOLOGYoutside of Western countries, where people might perceive
wildlife differently. In fact, our results showed that some WVO
items did not represent the expected latent variables, which
resulted in only two items remaining for a particular construct.
This potentially weakened the model. Additionally, the relationship between several factors contrasted with our expectations(e.g., trust toward the government and researchers increased risk
perceptions), which differs from the findings of previous studies (e.g., Bruskotter & Wilson, 2014). Further research should
be conducted to explore factors that best describe the cognitive framework of how people perceive wildlife in countries with
cultural and social backgrounds different from those in North
America and Europe.
Although we sampled respondents to represent gender, age,and region, there are other factors that could affect public attitudes toward WR, such as level of education. In future research,
additional criteria should be included to obtain samples that
better represent the population, and the use of other survey
methods (e.g., mail and telephone survey) should be considered to overcome problems associated with online surveys (e.g.,
only those who were registered with the site were contacted),but see Stedman et al. (2019) for a statement on limitationsof these methods as well. Conducting additional surveys withnonrespondents could also reveal potential gaps between attitudes of those who responded to this survey and those who didnot (e.g., whether respondents were more likely interested in the
topics of wolves and WR than nonrespondents).
Finally, the quality of measurement (e.g., content of items
and response options) could be modified in future research.
For example, the question of attitudes toward WR included
statements on the case of WR in North America and howthat could restore the ecosystem. Therefore, respondents who
disagreed with this statement might not oppose the reintroduction itself but instead oppose the assumption thatreintroducing wolves would improve ecosystem functioning.
Additionally, the fact that there was no “do not know” option
for attitude questions implies that some respondents who
selected “neither disagree nor agree” may simply have notunderstood the question. In addition, knowledge about deer
problems was asked via self-assessment and should be calibrated with questions that answer actual knowledge (thatsaid, perceived knowledge is very commonly used in survey
research).

Policy implications and potential outreach
As one of the first studies to explore the relationships among
public cognitive components, attitudes toward WR, and their
behavioral intentions, our model revealed that a relatively small
percentage of the public (>10%) possessed behavioral intentions to support WR. These intentions were strongly affectedby attitude toward WR. Based on our results, we could quantitatively predict that once people begin to understand the scientificevidence for the role played by wolves in ecosystem management, they will be more likely to take action and support WR.
It is not our intention to lead the discussion toward a certain

SAKURAI ET AL.

side (e.g., how to increase or decrease the number of people
who support WR). However, we believe that decision-making
should be based on updated scientific knowledge. Public misunderstandings, based on a lack of certain information, canbe corrected with the dissemination of solid scientific researchfindings.
Risks could be amplified via media and anecdotes, which may
not necessarily reflect the true nature of the risks (Jaeger et al.,2001). When the media resorts to repeated sensational reportingof casualties caused by bear attacks (for example), it potentiallymakes people believe that such incidents occur frequently, leading to overestimation of actual risks (e.g., cases in New York[USA] [Gore et al., 2009] and in Japan [Sakurai et al., 2013b]).
Media and agencies need to provide more information on theactual risk of casualties caused by wildlife (not only by wolves
but also by species that currently exist in the country, such as
bears and boar) so that people can shape their risk perceptions
based on more accurate risk frequencies.
A majority of respondents thought that reintroduced wolves
would become invasive. Holding this belief was associated withless support for WR. However, wolves that once lived in Japan
could be classified as the same species currently seen in Asian
continents based on DNA typing (Ishiguro, 2012; Matsumura
et al., 2014). Therefore, schools, media, and agencies should
include the results of such recent research when referring to
WR. Internationally, the goal of reintroduction projects is clear
in that the same, similar, or a related species could be used as
ecological replacements (IUCN/SSC, 2013). Full-scale restoration of ecosystems targeting species at all tropic levels (Carver
et al., 2021) would help fulfill biodiversity conservation goals.
However, people have a more positive attitude toward species
that have already been reintroduced (e.g., oriental stork [Ciconia boyciana]) than toward species that are yet to be reintroduced(e.g., river otters [Lutra lutra]) (Sakurai et al., 2022). Such bias inpublic perception would affect reintroduction projects worldwide; people are supportive of the reintroduction of species thatthey favor, whereas species that are not favored by citizens are
not reintroduced (Seddon et al., 2005).
Although the potential of WR has been proposed and analyzed in Japan (Yamanaka & Kaji, 2006), there have been very
few discussions based on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Guidelines (IUCN/SSC, 2013) on whether
such projects should include the restoration of similar species(such as different subspecies) that could play the ecological roleof the lost species. Although some species, such as the oriental
stork and crested ibis (Nipponia nippon), have been reintroduced
in Japan, no concrete goals have been set up by the Ministryof Environment or prefectural governments clarifying whether
the reintroduction of these carnivorous species and rewilding
should be attempted in Japan. This needs further research anddebate in Japan.
Finally, while gaining public trust is one of the primary goalsof government agencies because their service is directed to
improve the lives of citizens, our results showed that a majorityof respondents were not sure if they could trust the government.
Similarly, a majority of people were unsure about whether they
could trust researchers. In terms of human–wildlife conflicts,

15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14130 by Ritsumeikan Universitaet, Wiley Online Library on [06/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

10 of 12

agencies could increase trust by disseminating facts and providing opportunities for residents to discuss issues with agency
staff and help generate solutions to problems (Needham &Vaske, 2008; Sakurai et al., 2013a). In addition to agency personnel, researchers could also participate in decision-making andinteract with citizens so that people would be aware of current
research results. Although there is no right answer on whether
wolves should be reintroduced in Japan, our results suggestthat by disseminating information related to the ecological roleof wolves and as people develop a more mutualistic mindset,
public attitudes will likely shift toward the idea of WR in the
country.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank editors and anonymous reviewers fortheir insightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript.
ORCID
Ryo Sakurai https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4129-9419
Hiroshi Tsunoda https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6214-5625
Hiroto Enari https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1249-7563
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J.
Kuhl, & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control, from cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39).
Springer Berlin.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Prentice-Hall.
Angeli, C. B., Maruyama, N., Koganezawa, M., Takahashi, M., & Chinen, S.
(1998). Japanese people’s attitudes towards wolves and their reintroduction
into Japan. Biosphere Conservation, 1, 63–71.
Asajima, M., et al. (2018). Biology (Revised version). Tokyoshoseki (in Japanese).
Bangs, E. E., Fontaine, J. A., Jimenez, M. D., Meier, T. J., Bradley, E. H.,
Niemeyer, C. C., Smith, D. W., Mack, C. M., Asher, V., & Oakleaf, J.
K. (2005). Managing wolf–human conflict in the northwestern UnitedStates. In R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, & A. Rabinowitz (Eds.), People and wildlife: Conflict or coexistence? (pp. 340–356). Cambridge University
Press.
Bath, A. J. (1989). The public and wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National
Park. Society and Natural Resources, 2, 297–306.
Bath, A. J., & Buchanan, T. (1989). Attitudes of interest groups in Wyoming
towards wolf restoration in Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin,
17, 519–525.
Beschta, R. L., & Ripple, W. J. (2016). Riparian vegetation recovery in Yellowstone: The first two decades after wolf reintroduction. Biological Conservation,
198, 93–103.
Bruskotter, J. T., & Wilson, R. S. (2014). Determining where the wild things
will be: Using psychological theory to find tolerance for large carnivores.
Conservation Letters, 7(3), 158–165.
Cabinet Office Japan. (2014). Annual report on the aging society. Tokyo, Japan(in Japanese). http://www8.cao.go.jp/kourei/english/annualreport/2014/
2014pdf_e.html
Callan, R., Nibbelink, N. P., Rooney, T. P., Wiedenhoeft, J. E., & Wydeven, A.
P. (2013). Recolonizing wolves trigger a trophic cascade in Wisconsin (USA).
Journal of Ecology, 101, 837–845.
Carver, S., Convery, I., Hawkins, S., Beyers, R., Eagle, A., Kun, Z.,
Van Maanen, E., Cao, Y., Fisher, M., Edwards, S. R., & Nelson,
C. (2021). Guiding principles for rewilding. Conservation Biology, 35,
1882–1893.
Conservation International. (2022). Japan – Species. https://www.cepf.net/
our-work/biodiversity-hotspots/japan/species
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL. Sage
Publications.

11 of 12

Drouilly, M., & O’Riain, M. J. (2021). Rewilding the world’s large carnivores
without neglecting the human dimension. Biodiversity and Conservation, 30,
917–923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-021-02112-y
Enck, J. W., & Brown, T. L. (2002). New Yorkers’ attitudes towards restoring
wolves to the Adirondack Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 30, 16–28.
Endo, H. (2015). Canis lupus (Linnaeus, 1758). In S. D. Ohdachi, Y. Ishibashi, M.
A. Iwasa, D. Fukui, & T. Saitoh (Eds.), The wild mammals of Japan (2nd ed., pp.
226–227). Shoukadoh.
Eriksson, M. (2017). Political alienation, rurality and the symbolic role of
Swedish wolf policy. Society & Natural Resources, 30, 1374–388.
Eriksson, M., Sandstrom, C., & Ericsson, G. (2015). Direct experience andattitude change towards bears and wolves. Wildlife Biology, 21, 131–137.
Fukano, Y., & Soga, M. (2019). Spatio-temporal dynamics and drivers of public
interest in invasive alien species. Biological Invasions, 21, 3521–3532.
Gore, M. L., Wilson, R. S., Siemer, W. F., Hudenko, H. W., Clarke, C. E., Slohart,P., Maguire, L. A., & Muter, B. A. (2009). Application of risk concepts towildlife management: Special issue introduction. Human Dimensions of Wildlife,
14, 301–313.
Gosling, E., Bojarska, K., Gula, R., & Kuehn, R. (2019). Recent arrivals or
established tenants? History of wolf presence influences attitudes towards
the carnivore. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 43, 639–650.
Groom, M. J., Meffe, G. K., & Carroll, R. (2006). Principles of conservation biology(3rd ed.). Sinauer Associates.
Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., &Tourangean, R. (2004). Survey methodology. John Wiley & Sons.
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesisof research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journalof Environmental Education, 18, 1–8.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Ikeda, T. (2015). Invasive alien mammal problems in Japan. In S. D. Ohdachi, Y.
Ishibashi, M. A. Iwasa, D. Fukui, & T. Saitoh (Eds.), The wild mammals of Japan(2nd ed., p. 277). Shoukadoh.
Ishiguro, N. (2012). Phylogenetic analysis of extinct wolves in Japan. Journal ofJapanese Veterinary Medicinal Association, 65, 225–231. (in Japanese).
IUCN/SSC. (2013). Guidelines for reintroductions and other conservation translocations.
Version 1.0. IUCN Species Survival Commission.
Jaeger, C. C., Renn, O., Rosa, E. A., & Webler, T. (2001). Risk, uncertainty, andrational action. Earthscan Publications.
JWA (Japan Wolf Association). (2020). Results of ninth nation-wide
survey on wolf conducted in 2019. (in Japanese). https://japanwolf.org/2020/11/26/%e7%ac%ac9%e5%9b%9e%e5%85%a8%e5%9b%bd%e3%82%aa%e3%82%aa%e3%82%ab%e3%83%9f%e3%82%
a2%e3%83%b3%e3%82%b1%e3%83%bc%e3%83%88%e8%aa%bf%
e6%9f%bb2019%e5%a0%b1%e5%91%8a/
Kaji, K. (2017). Discussion regarding reintroduction of carnivores. In K. Kaji
& H. Iijima (Eds.), Sika deer in Japan: The science and management of overabundant
populations (pp. 102–121). University of Tokyo Press (in Japanese).
Kaji, K., Igota, M., & Suzuki, M. (2013). Science of hunting: For wildlife managementin Japan. Asakura (in Japanese).
Knight, J. (2006). Waiting for wolves in Japan: An anthropological study of people–wildlife
relations. University of Hawaii Press.
Linnell, J. D. C., Kovtun, E., & Rouart, I. (2021). Wolf attacks on humans: An updatefor 2002–2020. Report 1994. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research.
Lionello, M., Aletta, F., Mitchell, A. M., & Kang, J. (2021). Introducing a method
for intervals correction on multiple Likert scales: Soundscape data collection
instrument. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 602831.
Liu, M., & Wronski, L. (2018). Examining completion rates in web surveys via
over 25,000 real-world surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 36, 116–124.
Manfredo, M. J. (2008). Who cares about wildlife? Social science concepts for exploring
human–wildlife relationships and conservation issues. Springer.
Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L., Carlos, D., A, W., Sullivan, L., Bright, A. D., Dietsch,A. M., Bruskotter, J., & Fulton, D. (2020). The changing sociocultural context
of wildlife conservation. Conservation Biology, 34, 1549–1559.
Matsumura, S., Inoshima, Y., & Ishiguro, N. (2014). Reconstructing the colonization history of lost wolf lineages by the analysis of the mitochondrial
genome. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 80, 105–112.

15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14130 by Ritsumeikan Universitaet, Wiley Online Library on [06/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

CONSERVATION BIOLOGYMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. (2021a). Change of agricultural
damage caused by wildlife. (in Japanese). https://www.maff.go.jp/j/seisan/tyozyu/higai_zyoukyou/index.html
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. (2021b). Current situation of
wildlife damage and interventions. (in Japanese). https://www.maff.go.jp/j/seisan/tyozyu/higai/attach/pdf/index-393.pdf
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication. (2020). Population, population
dynamics, and number of households based on the Basic Resident Register. (in Japanese). https://www.soumu.go.jp/main_sosiki/jichi_gyousei/
daityo/jinkou_jinkoudoutai-setaisuu.html
Ministry of the Environment. (2022a). Preliminary results of number of deer
and boars hunted and culled in 2021. (in Japanese). https://www.env.go.jp/
nature/choju/docs/docs4/sokuhou.pdf
Ministry of the Environment. (2022b). Statistical record related to wildlifeof 2018. (in Japanese). https://www.env.go.jp/nature/choju/docs/docs2/
h30/06h30tou.html
Nambu, N. (2007). Japanese perceptions of wolves. In N. Maruyama, K. Suda,& M. Koganezawa (Eds.), Releasing wolves (pp. 152–162). Hakusuisha. (inJapanese).
Needham, M. D., & Vaske, J. J. (2008). Hunter perceptions of similarity and trustin wildlife agencies and personal risk associated with chronic wasting disease.
Society and Natural Resources, 21, 197–214.
Niemiec, R., Berl, R. E. W., Gonzalez, M., Teel, T., Camara, C., Collins, M.,
Salerno, J., Crooks, K., Schultz, C., Breck, S., & Hoag, D. (2020). Public perspectives and media reporting of wolf reintroduction in Colorado. PeerJ, 8,
e9074. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9074
Nilsen, E. B., Milner-Gulland, E., Schofield, L., Mysterud, A., Stenseth, N. C.,& Coulson, T. (2007). Wolf reintroduction to Scotland: Public attitudes andconsequences for red deer management. Proceedings of the Royal Society Bulletin,
274, 995–1002.
NPR News. (2020). Historic move, Colorado voters decide to reintroduce gray wolves. https://www.npr.org/2020/11/06/931472376/inhistoric-move-colorado-voters-decide-to-reintroduce-gray-wolves
Ranchhod, A., & Zhou, F. (2001). Comparing respondents of e-mail and mailsurveys: Understanding the implications of technology. Marketing Intelligence& Planning, 19, 254–262.
Research Panel. (2020). Research Panel. (in Japanese). https://research-panel.
jp/
Riley, S. J., & Decker, D. J. (2000). Risk perception as a factor in wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for cougars in Montana. Human Dimensions ofWildlife, 5, 50–62.
Ripple, W. J., Estes, J. A., Beschta, R. L., Wilmers, C. C., Ritchie, E. G.,
Hebblewhite, M., Berger, J., Elmhagen, B., Letnic, M., Nelson, M. P.,
Schmitz, O. J., Smith, D. W., Wallach, A. D., & Wirsing, A. J. (2014). Status
and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science, 343, 1241484.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241484
Sakurai, R. (2019). Human dimensions of wildlife management in Japan: From Asia to theworld. Springer.
Sakurai, R., Jacobson, S. K., & Carlton, J. S. (2013b). Media coverage ofmanagement of the black bear Ursus thibetanus in Japan. Oryx, 47, 519–525.
Sakurai, R., Jacobson, S. K., & Ueda, G. (2013a). Public perceptions of risk andgovernment performance regarding bear management in Japan. Ursus, 24,
70–82.
Sakurai, R., Stedman, R. C., Tsunoda, H., Enari, H., & Uehara, T. (2022).
Comparison of perceptions regarding the reintroduction of river otters andoriental storks in Japan. Cogent Social Science, 8, 2115656. https://doi.org/10.
1080/23311886.2022.2115656
Sakurai, R., Tidball, K. G., Stedman, R. C., & Tsunoda, H. (2018). Exploringsocial-ecological resilience via three megafauna in Japan: An exercise in integrating ideas of human dimensions of wildlife management, Satoyama, andSES thinking. Policy Science, 25, 1–12.
Sakurai, R., Tsunoda, H., Enari, H., Siemer, W. F., Uehara, T., & Stedman, R. C.
(2020). Factors affecting attitudes towards reintroduction of wolves in Japan.
Global Ecology and Conservation, 22, e01036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.
2020.e01036

SAKURAI ET AL.

Seddon, P. J., Soorae, P. S., & Launay, F. (2005). Taxonomic bias inreintroduction projects. Animal Conservation, 8, 51–58.
Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., & Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity, social
trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20, 713–719.
Siegrist, M., Gutscher, H., & Earle, T. C. (2005). Perception of risk: The influence of general trust, and general confidence. Journal of Risk Research, 8,
145–156.
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280–285.
Smith, D. W., & Bangs, E. E. (2009). Reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone
National Park: History, values and ecosystem restoration. In M. W. Hayward & M. J. Somers (Eds.), Reintroduction of top-order predators (pp. 92–125).
Blackwell Publishing.
Stedman, R. C., Connelly, N. A., Heberlein, T. A., Decker, D. J., & Allred, S.
B. (2019). The end of the (research) world as we know it? Understanding
and coping with declining response rates to mail surveys. Society and Natural
Resources, 32, 1139–1154.
Svenning, J., Pedersen, P. B. M., Donlan, C. J., Ejrnaes, R., Faurby, S., Galetti, M.,
Hansen, D. M., Sandel, B., Sandom, C. J., Terborgh, J. W., & Vera, F. W. M.
(2016). Science for a wilder Anthropocene: Synthesis and future directions
for trophic rewilding research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
113, 898–906.
Toyoda, H. (2010). Structural equation modeling using Amos. Tokyo-tosho (inJapanese).
Tsunoda, H., & Enari, H. (2020). A strategy for wildlife management in depopulating rural areas of Japan. Conservation Biology, 34(4), 819–828. https://doi.
org/10.1111/cobi.13470
Ueno, M., Iijima, H., Asada, M., & Watanabe, D. (2022). Variation in the local
sika deer density between three areas of Japan with diverse climatic conditions. In K. Kaji, H. Uno, & H. Iijima (Eds.), Sika deer: Life history plasticity andmanagement (pp. 61–81). Springer Singapore.
Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey research and analysis: Applications in parks, recreation, andhuman dimensions. Venture Publishing.
Vaske, J. J., Timmons, N. R., Beaman, J., & Petchenik, J. (2004). Chronic wasting disease in Wisconsin: Hunter behaviors, perceived risk, and agency trust.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9, 193–209.
Williams, C. K., Ericsson, G., & Heberlein, T. A. (2002). A quantitative summaryof attitudes towards wolves and their reintroduction (1972–2000). Wildlife
Society Bulletin, 30, 575–584.
Yamada, F., & Sugimura, K. (2004). Negative impact of an invasive small Indian
Mongoose Herpestes javanicus on native wildlife species and evaluation ofa control project in Amami-Ohshima and Okinawa Islands, Japan. Global
Environmental Research, 8, 117–124.
Yamanaka, M., & Kaji, K. (2006). Future of Shiretoko: A response to the Yellowstone researchers. In D. R. McCullough, K. Kaji, & M. Yamanaka (Eds.),
Wildlife in Shiretoko and Yellowstone National Parks: Lessons in wildlife conservationfrom two world heritage sites (pp. 310–315). Shiretoko Nature Foundation.
Zajac, R., Bruskotter, J. T., Wilson, R. S., & Prange, S. (2012). Learning to livewith black bears: A psychological model of acceptance. Journal of Wildlife
Management, 76(7), 1331–1340.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information can be found online in the
Supporting Information section at the end of this article.

How to cite this article: Sakurai, R., Tsunoda, H.,
Enari, H., & Stedman, R. C. (2023). Public attitudes andintentions toward engaging in reintroduction of wolves
to Japan. Conservation Biology, e14130.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14130

15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14130 by Ritsumeikan Universitaet, Wiley Online Library on [06/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

12 of 12