Global Ecology and Conservation 22 (2020) e01036

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Ecology and Conservation
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/gecco

Original Research Article

Factors affecting attitudes toward reintroduction of wolves inJapan
Ryo Sakurai a, *, Hiroshi Tsunoda b, Hiroto Enari c, William F. Siemer d,Takuro Uehara a, Richard C. Stedman daCollege of Policy Science, Ritsumeikan University, 2-150, Iwakuracho, Ibaraki, Osaka, 567-8570, Japan
Center for Environmental Science in Saitama, 914, Kamitanadare, Kazo, Saitama, 347-0115, Japanc
Yamagata University, 1-23, Wakabamachi, Tsuruoka, Yamagata, 997-8555, JapandCenter for Conservation Social Sciences, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Fernow Hall, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USAba r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 23 January 2020
Received in revised form 24 March 2020
Accepted 24 March 2020

Japanese wolves (Canis lupus hodophilax) became extinct in the early 1900s. Because thecountry is experiencing growth in populations of ungulates, the potential of reintroducing
wolves to promote self-regulating biodiverse ecosystems has been discussed by various
Japanese and international researchers. However, limited research exists regarding public
attitudes toward the reintroduction of wolves, which is indispensable to the success ofsuch projects. We conducted a survey of 360 undergraduate students at a university inJapan and found that while most respondents believed that government ofﬁcials and local
residents should be responsible for the decision-making, a majority felt that this responsibility should not rest with the general citizens. Multiple regression analysis revealed
that respondents disagreed with the reintroduction of exotic species generally, while those
who thought wolves are necessary to a healthy ecosystem were supportive. Text mining
analysis revealed that those who disagreed with the reintroduction were thinking about“people” while those who agreed emphasized the need to control an increasing deer
population and to prevent related damage. In contrast to previous research, our survey
revealed that it is not people’s propensity for wolves (i.e., whether they like or hatewolves), but their understanding of the ecological impact of reintroduced wolves, thatinﬂuences their support. In summary, our ﬁndings suggest that public attitudes toward thereintroduction of wolves may become more favorable if people were informed of thescientiﬁc ﬁndings that Japanese and continental wolves are the same species and that theirpresence will positively impact the ecosystem.
© 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords:
Attitudes
Japan
Reintroduction
Undergraduate students
Wolves

1. Introduction
Reintroducing extirpated species, especially those that play a vital role in the ecosystem, is an important approach torestore trophic interactions and promote self-regulating biodiverse ecosystems (Vander Zanden et al., 2006; Svenning et al.,2016). The concept of decreasing interference by humans and restoring natural ecological processes, known as Ecological
Rewilding is widely researched and implemented in Europe (Pettorelli et al., 2018). In the US, since the reintroduction ofwolves to Yellowstone National Park in 1995, studies have shown revived ecological function and biodiversity through top-

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ryosak@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp (R. Sakurai).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01036
2351-9894/© 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

2

R. Sakurai et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 22 (2020) e01036

down effects caused by wolves (Hollenbeck and Ripple, 2008; Ripple and Beschta, 2012). Reintroduction, one approach forrewilding, could take different modes including releasing and managing wolves in controlled enclosures to be released inlarger national park areas. Many reintroduction projects aim to ultimately let wolves disperse beyond a certain region as thegoal of rewilding generally is to restore ecosystem function sufﬁciently so that management by humans is unnecessary.
Nevertheless, such programs cannot be successful nor sustainable without public understanding and support, especiallywhere top-predators are concerned (Decker et al., 2001 p.312, 314e315). In the US, multiple studies have been conducted tounderstand stakeholders’ (e.g., national park visitors, ranchers, local residents) perceptions of the reintroduction of wolves(Bath, 1989; Enck and Brown, 2002; Nie, 2003); these ﬁndings were utilized to select a target audience for public communications to increase tolerance toward this policy (Jacobson, 1999, p. 293e317).
Japan has rich biodiversity with more than 90,000 conﬁrmed species (Ministry of the Environment, 2008). However, rapid
economic development since World War II has reduced biodiversity; more than 20% of mammal species are currently endangered (The Nature Conservation Society of Japan, 2010). Species such as the Japanese wolves (Canis lupus hodophilax) andoriental stork (Ciconia boyciana) went extinct in the 20th century. To tackle the issues of decreasing wildlife population and toconserve and revive the ecosystem, the Act on Conservation of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora was enacted in
1993. Based on this law, the critically endangered crested ibis (Nipponia nippon) was reintroduced to Japan from China.
Despite this, the law does not specify if already extinct species such as wolves should be reintroduced as well (Kato, 2005).The
potential and signiﬁcance of reintroducing a top-predator, wolves, to revive the ecosystem and control herbivores such as Sika
deer (Cervus nippon) and boars (Sus scrofa), have been discussed among researchers (Knight, 2006; Yamanaka and Kaji, 2006;
Maruyama et al., 2007; Kaji, 2017) for decades.
Japan is also currently facing human depopulation, from 120 million residents in 2013 to an estimated 100 million residents by 2050 (Cabinet Ofﬁce Japan, 2014). In rural mountainous regions, aging and depopulation is an even more serious
problem; abandoned ﬁelds become brush and ultimately forests, leading to an expansion of habitats for species such as Sika
deer (Sakurai, 2019; Tsunoda and Enari, 2020). This has resulted in a high population density of deer (Kaji and Iijima, 2017),
leading to frequent and substantial crop damage; agricultural damage by deer more than doubled after the 1980s (Ministry of
the Environment, 2010).
While reintroduction of wolves to Japan is controversialdissues include biological/ecological and political mattersdinformation on public opinion on the reintroduction of wolves in Japan is lacking. As Japan is a democratic country
where public needs and requests affect decisions and policies, information on public opinion regarding the topic is
indispensable.
To address the dearth of human-dimension studies on this topic in Japan, we aim to understand attitudes toward thereintroduction of wolves and the factors inﬂuencing these attitudes by conducting surveys of university students as potential
future decision-makers.
2. Previous studies on attitudes toward wolf reintroduction
One of the classic studies (Bath and Buchanan, 1989) on public attitudes toward wolf reintroduction found diversity among
stakeholders in Wyoming (U.S.A.); stock growers were more opposed than the conservation association, Defenders ofWildlife. Using the same data, Bath (1989) conducted a multiple regression analysis and revealed that attitudes toward wolves
signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced their support toward reintroduction, explaining 72% of the total variance. In New York, a survey of theresidents within the boundary of Adirondack Park as well as statewide residents found that public opinion was divided; in the
Adirondack Park area, 42% were supportive and 41% opposed, whereas the majority of statewide residents (60%) supported
the reintroduction (Enck and Brown, 2002). Further, this research found that the following factors inﬂuenced support: 1)
attitudes toward wolves, 2) beliefs that reintroduced wolves would reduce deer population and restore important missing
elements of the wilderness, and 3) knowledge of wildlife.
In Europe, studies were conducted to gauge public opinion toward restored or increasing number of wolves (e.g, Glikman
et al., 2012 study in Italy). A series of studies has been conducted in Sweden to understand public attitudes toward wolves aswell as wolf policy. Findings of these research projects include: (1) having knowledge about wolves does not necessarily
increase positive attitudes toward wolves (e.g., the most knowledgeable local hunters had least favorable attitudes toward
wolves) (Eriksson and Heberlein, 2003), (2) multigenerational urbanities had more negative attitudes toward wolves thanthose with rural experience (Heberlein and Ericsson, 2005), and (3) public level of acceptance of wolves has decreased as thewolf population and people’s direct experience of wolves has increased (Eriksson et al., 2015). A survey of university students(n ¼ 364) in Germany revealed that wildlife value orientation (Fulton et al., 1996) predicated respondents’ support; people
with a domination ideology (a view of human mastery over wildlife) were more opposed compared to those with a mutualism ideology (a view that wildlife have rights like humans), and that there was a difference in wildlife value orientation
depending on the students’ major (for example, agriculture majors tend to have domination way of thinking) (Hermann et al.,2013).
3. Situation regarding potential wolf reintroduction in JapanAn anthropological study in Japan explored how the idea of reintroduction of wolves in the country might be reﬂected bypeople’s nostalgia for the pre-industrial past where Japanese co-existed with nature as well as their repentance hoping toR. Sakurai et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 22 (2020) e01036

3

atone for past mistakes of driving wolves to extinction (Knight, 2006). As wolves were traditionally seen as a benign animal or
the mountain spirit protecting agricultural ﬁelds from boars or deer, Knight (2006) proclaimed that wolf reintroduction in
Japan is expected to achieve both ecological and symbolic restoration (p. 247).
Recently in Japan, researchers have examined this topic from multiple perspectives, including the impact on reconstructing healthy ecosystems (Maruyama et al., 2007; Kaji, 2017), legislative imperatives (Kato, 2005), as well as the potential
risk of human casualties (Kawata, 2014). Based on the premise that an ecosystem lacking top-predators cannot self-sustain
ecological dynamics, many researchers assert that the determining factor ultimately lies in the public’s willingness to support
reintroduction (Yamanaka and Kaji, 2006 p. 314; Maruyama et al., 2007 p. 185; Kawata, 2014; Kaji, 2017 p. 118). However,limited studies focus on public opinion toward the reintroduction of wolves in Japan. The Japan Wolf Association (JWA), hasbeen conducting surveys regarding public opinion toward the reintroduction of wolves. A study conducted with citizens
nationwide in 1996 (n ¼ 1,176) found that public attitudes were divided; 28.5% supported and 27.7% opposed while 43.8%
were undecided (Angeli et al., 1998). The same study found that supporters tend to like wolves and were signiﬁcantly more
knowledgeable about wolves than opponents (Angeli et al., 1998). A similar survey conducted in 2016 showed that of 11,586
people surveyed, 45.5% were supportive and only 11.0% were opposed, while 43.3% were ambivalent (Japan Wolf Association,2017). Compared to their survey conducted in 1996, the ratio of those supporting reintroduction increased while that of those
opposing decreased substantially. Unfortunately, the respondents in these surveys were not selected randomly: questionnaires were distributed by the members of JWA to their acquaintances and friends, resulting in selection bias in the samples.
We therefore cannot conclusively say that attitudes changed over time.
When considering wolf reintroduction in Japan, there are critical issues that need to be addressed. First, the potentially
exotic breed of reintroduced wolves might affect public opinion. While there has been debate on whether Japanese wolves
were endemic or a sub-species of gray wolves (Nakamura, 2008; Ishiguro, 2012), recent DNA analyses revealed that theJapanese wolf is a sub-species of gray wolves (C. lupus) and therefore, the same species as continental wolves (Matsumura
et al., 2014). Second, public awareness of the massive agricultural damage caused by wildlife might also affect their attitudes toward wolves in Japan. Currently, agricultural damage caused by wildlife totals around 200 million US dollars annually(Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 2014). Media has been reporting wolf reintroduction as a potential solution to
mitigate agricultural damage by wildlife (e.g., Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 1998; The Sankei Shimbun and SANKEI DIGITAL, 2017).
Third, the locus of decision-making could be a critical factor that affects not only public attitudes but also the feasibility of thispolicy. Many Asian countries including Japan are collectivistic societies where people are inﬂuenced by what others think or
the decisions that others (such as government) make (Abrams et al., 1998; Gudykanst and Nishida, 1999/2000). In addition,
previous research in Japan found that social trust affects public opinion regarding wildlife management, for example, whether
local residents trusted government affected their willingness to engage in damage preventative interventions (Sakurai et al.,2013). Similar ﬁndings come from Sweden; whether individual support the wolf policy is affected by how much they felt
politically alienated (partly measured by their trust toward politicians) (Eriksson, 2017).
Finally, most surveys on wolf reintroduction were conducted as questions with scaled answers, such as the Likert scalefrom 1 to 5, enabling subsequent quantitative analyses. However, people’s perception toward the reintroduction of extinct
species is complex (Nie, 2003), and it is difﬁcult to thoroughly evaluate factors that inﬂuence attitudes with pre-determined
items and ﬁxed scales. There were several studies that used qualitative methods such as interviews to understand thevariance of people’s opinion (Beeland, 2008; Hermann and Menzel, 2013). However, limited research utilizes both quantitative and qualitative methods.
For our research, instead of testing certain socio-psychological theories, we utilized an exploratory approach to identify
factors among various potential variables that could explain public opinion toward the reintroduction of wolves in Japan. We
also included open-ended questions to determine the variance of opinions and identify the reasons behind their attitudes.
4. Questionnaire items
We developed questionnaire items based on previous studies and discussions among co-researchers on potential factorsthat would be important and appropriate in the Japanese context. Items were divided into eleven categories (Appendices 1
and 2): 1. Knowledge about wolves in Japan, 2. Attitudes toward wildlife and wolves, 3. Knowledge about wildlife issues inJapan, 4. Attitudes toward reintroduction of wolves in Japan, 5. Trust toward different stakeholders, 6. Risk perceptions, 7.
Stakeholders to be entrusted with decision-making responsibilities on wolf reintroduction, 8. Knowledge about general
biology and ecology, 9. Outdoor experiences, 10. Information sources about wildlife, and 11. Socio-demographic attributes.
While some questions within categories 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 were similar to those in previous studies (e.g., Enck and Brown, 2002;
Glikman et al., 2012) to facilitate comparative analyses, other questions (i.e., the species of reintroduced wolves; exotic or
native) were speciﬁcally designed for this study. We tested several hypotheses that are new to Japan including; “The more
knowledge about wolves students have, the more they support reintroduction”, “Students with positive attitudes toward
wolves (e.g., like wolves) more likely support reintroduction”, and “Students’ trust level is different for different stakeholders,and affects their support for reintroduction differently”.
Since perceived responsibility for decision making has been associated with decisions (Ikeda et al., 2010 p. 180), we
devised a category listing stakeholders to whom the responsibility of decision-making should rest. Further, the necessity ofincreasing public knowledge of wolves and the ecology to make informed decisions on wolf reintroduction have been discussed by researchers including Yamanaka and Kaji (2006, p. 314) and Kawata (2014). Therefore, we included questions

4

R. Sakurai et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 22 (2020) e01036

regarding biology and ecology; general knowledge gained during a science course at junior high school through textbooks(Okamura and Fujishima, 2016), and those learned in high school, such as the deﬁnition of keystone species, ecosystem
function, and endangered species in Japan (Asajima et al., 2018).
Two response scales were implemented (Appendices 1 and 2). In categories 1 and 3 (knowledge about wolves and wildlife
issues), a three-scale answer was provided (I do not know, know a little bit, and know very well). A ﬁve-point scale wasprovided (disagree, slightly disagree, neither disagree nor agree, slightly agree, and agree) for the following question categories: attitudes toward wolves (2); reintroduction of wolves (4); trust (5); risk perceptions (6); stakeholders responsible fordecision-making (7); outdoor experience (9); and resources (10). For general knowledge on biology and ecology, respondents
selected one answer among ﬁve choices. We also prepared an open-ended question to solicit personalized reasons regarding
respondents’ opinions on the reintroduction of wolves in Japan.
5. Study design
We surveyed students at Ritsumeikan University, a private university in Japan. There are more than 30,000 undergraduate
and approximately 4,000 graduate students at this university, making Ritsumeikan University one of the biggest universities
in the country. We surveyed students of the College of Policy Science at the Osaka campus, where approximately 1,600
undergraduate students enrolled in the four-year Bachelor of Policy Science degree study interdisciplinary subjects related topolicy. The survey was distributed to students undertaking the compulsory freshman course, “Introduction to Social Survey”.
University students are future decision-makers (Torkar et al., 2010; Hermann et al., 2013), and therefore, their perceptions
could be indicators of future public opinion. In addition, the College of Policy Science accept students with varying interestsand offer seminars in multiple ﬁelds. Therefore, we postulate that students of the College of Policy Science better represent
the general population of the future than students enrolled in one speciﬁc ﬁeld such as ecology or wildlife management.
6. Analysis
First, we undertook a descriptive analysis of each questionnaire item, presenting the key results below (the remainder are
shown in Appendices 3 to 5). Second, we conducted multiple regression analyses to identify the factors that affect public
attitudes toward the reintroduction of wolves in Japan (an item of category 4 as a dependent variable). We used all 61 items as
independent variables. Further, the mean score of the ﬁve knowledge items about general biology and ecology were combined into one variable. A stepwise method was used to identify the best ﬁt model in terms of F-value at a signiﬁcance level of
5%. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 20 (IBM, Tokyo). Third, we conducted text mining (morphological) analyses to characterize the differences in words found in answers for the open-ended questions. Word frequencies
were tabulated to show quantitative differences of the three responses (those who disagreed or slightly disagreed, those whoneither disagreed nor agreed, and those who agreed or slightly agreed). Words with high Jaccard coefﬁcients (degree of cooccurrence between certain words and responses) were listed in Appendix 6. To visualize the association of words and responses, correspondence analysis was conducted and 35 words with high Jaccard indices are shown. All text mining analysis
was conducted in KH Coder (Higuchi, 2016).
7. Results
7.1. Descriptive analysis
Students (n ¼ 360) who attended the class for “Introduction to Social Survey” on May 9th, 2019 participated in the survey;
56.8% of respondents were male while 43.2% were female. The majority of respondents (65.0%) were 18 years old, while 27.1%
were 19 years old and the rest were more than 20 years old. Most are currently urbanites (69.1%) and a majority grew up in
urban areas (56.6%).
While most respondents knew that wolves once lived in Japan (85.0%), more than half of them (52.6%) did not know thatthey went extinct by the beginning of the 1900s (Appendix 4). A majority of them neither knew the reason for wolf extinctionin Japan (71.0%) nor about wolf reintroduction in the US (85.2%).
While more than half of respondents (56.4%) felt that wolves are scary, nearly half (47.5%) thought that wolves are
beautiful (Table 1). A majority of respondents (63.8%) disagreed with the statement: “we could not help extirpating wolves inJapan because wolves only have negative impacts”. While 40.8% of respondents agreed that a balance of the ecosystem
collapsed without wolves, 38.3% were unsure. Nearly half of the respondents (43.0%) thought that reintroduced wolves fromother countries are exotic species and have negative impacts.
A majority of respondents (>60%) were unaware that the population of deer is increasing and negatively impacting theecosystem. Also, a considerable number of students (36.9%) did not know that deer frequently cause agricultural damage.
Further, most respondents knew what exotic species are (90.1%) and how they could cause extinction of native species(88.7%).
About half the respondents were able to correctly answer questions regarding basic biology (Appendix 4). While many
(56.2%) were aware of the basic principles of the ecosystem, a majority of respondents (57.1%) were not able to deﬁne“keystone species”. On average, students were able to answer less than half (44.6%) of the ﬁve biology and ecology questions.

R. Sakurai et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 22 (2020) e01036

5

Table 1Students’ responses to Category 2: attitudes toward wolves.
Respondents who either
disagreed or slightly
disagreed (%)
Wolves are scary (n ¼ 360)
22.5
Wolves are beautiful (n ¼ 360)
29.7
We could not help extirpating wolves in Japan
63.8
because wolves only have negative impacts(n ¼ 359)
Wolves are necessary for healthy forest/ecosystem 15.0
(n ¼ 360)
Balance of ecosystem collapse without wolves
20.9(n ¼ 360)
There is a causal relationship between increase of 28.4
deer and extinction of wolves (n ¼ 359)
Wolves can control population of deer (n ¼ 360) 35.5
I am worried about safety, such as when walking 25.8
outside, if wolves are reintroduced in Japan(n ¼ 360)
I worry that kids will be attacked if wolves are
21.9
reintroduced in Japan (n ¼ 360)
Reintroduced wolves are exotic species and have 20.5
negative impacts (n ¼ 360)

Respondents whoneither agreed nor
disagreed (%)

Respondents who either Mean Standard
agreed or slightly agreed score deviation
(%)

21.1
22.8
31.2

56.4
47.5
5.0

3.51
3.24
2.04

1.22
1.31
0.97

45.8

39.2

3.37

1.04

38.3

40.8

3.28

1.13

29.2

42.3

3.24

1.26

26.4
11.1

38.1
63.0

3.02
3.59

1.23
1.29

15.0

63.1

3.60

1.19

36.4

43.0

3.30

1.09

A majority of respondents trusted local and central government, and researchers at research institutes, in terms of information provided by those stakeholders (Appendix 5). About 10% fewer respondents trusted professors than trusted
researchers.
A majority of students supported central and local government, researchers at research institute, and local residents as
stakeholders who should be entrusted with the responsibility to make decisions regarding the reintroduction of wolves toJapan (Table 2). In contrast, the ratio of students who entrusted this responsibility to professors compared to researchers was
1:2. A majority of respondents (54.1%) disagreed or were not sure if the general citizen should be entrusted with this
responsibility.
Regarding support for the reintroduction of wolves in Japan, students’ opinions were divided. While 42.8% disagreed orslightly disagreed, 31.1% agreed or slightly agreed whereas 26.1% neither disagreed nor agreed (n ¼ 360, mean ¼ 2.80,
standard deviation ¼ 1.17).

7.2. Stepwise multiple regression analysis
Using a stepwise multiple regression analysis, four independent variables were identiﬁed as the best-ﬁt model to explain
attitudes towards wolf reintroduction (Table 3). While “wolves reintroduced from other country are exotic species and havenegative impacts” had signiﬁcantly negative effects (B ¼ 0.450), “wolves are necessary for healthy forest/ecosystem”(B ¼ 0.158), “trust information provided by close friends” (B ¼ 0.148), and “professors at universities should have responsibility to decide whether or not to reintroduce wolves in Japan” (B ¼ 0.114) had signiﬁcantly positive effects on attitudes
towards reintroduction. The VIF (Variance Inﬂation Factor) for these four independent variables was less than 2.0 for all, andTable 2Students’ responses to Category 7: stakeholders to be entrusted with decision-making responsibilities on wolf reintroduction.

Central government (e.g., cabinet, Ministry ofEnvironment) (n ¼ 360)
Local government (e.g., city ofﬁce, prefectural
government) (n ¼ 360)
Researchers at research institutes (n ¼ 359)
Professors at universities (n ¼ 359)
NGO, NPO (n ¼ 360)
General citizen (including urban residents)(n ¼ 360)
Local residents (those living near forest andmountain where wolves are reintroduced)(n ¼ 359)

Respondents who either
disagreed or slightly
disagreed (%)

Respondents whoneither agreed nor
disagreed (%)

Respondents who either
agreed or slightly agreed(%)

Mean Standard
score deviation

15.6

12.8

71.6

3.92

1.25

19.1

15.6

65.2

3.71

1.29

19.8
44.9
37.2
36.9

14.8
23.7
30.8
17.2

65.4
31.5
32.0
45.8

3.67
2.76
2.85
3.10

1.24
1.29
1.20
1.44

18.7

15.6

65.7

3.79

1.30

6

R. Sakurai et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 22 (2020) e01036

Table 3
Multiple regression analysis with students’ attitudes toward the reintroduction of wolves in Japan as a dependent variable (B ¼ Standardized coefﬁcient,n ¼ 296).
B

p

VIF

R2

Adjusted R2

Wolves reintroduced from other country are exotic species and have negative impacts
0.445 <0.001 1.010 0.263 0.253
Wolves are necessary for healthy forest/ecosystem
0.158 0.002 1.042
Trust information provided by familiar friends
0.148 0.004 1.040
Professors at universities should have responsibility to decide whether or not to reintroduce wolves in Japan 0.114 0.027 1.048

multicollinearity was insigniﬁcant (Vaske, 2008). The identiﬁed model had an adjusted R2 ¼ 0.253 indicating that about one
fourth of the variance in attitudes toward the reintroduction of wolves, was explained by these four variables.

7.3. Text mining analysis
A morphological text-mining analysis revealed a total of 10,180 words with 435 sentences in students’ answers for the
open-ended question regarding the reason for their attitudes toward wolf reintroduction in Japan. Most frequently
mentioned words by respondents who opposed (including those who slightly disagreed) reintroduction of wolves included“human being”, “exotic”, “attack”, and “collapse” while words mentioned by respondents who supported (including those
who slightly agreed) reintroduction included “deer”, “population”, “problem”, “damage”, and “increase” (Appendix 6).
Further, respondents who were ambivalent used words such as “wolf,” “ecology,” “reintroduction,” and “restore”.
We created Fig. 1 based on correspondence analysis using words that have a minimum of 10 occurrences and showed the
top 35 words that had a signiﬁcant difference in frequency used among respondents according to their attitudes (disagreed
including slightly disagreed, neither disagreed nor agreed, or agreed including slightly agreed) regarding the reintroduction

Fig. 1. Results of correspondence analysis showing words with strong association with respondents’ attitudes toward reintroduction of wolves in Japan. Squares
show the location of each attitude. The larger bubbles indicate words mentioned more frequently, and the closer the bubble is located to the attitudes, the more
likely respondents with that attitude used that word.

R. Sakurai et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 22 (2020) e01036

7of wolves. Respondents who opposed reintroduction are located on the left side (with negative scores) of Dimension 1 while
those who supported are located on the right side (with positive scores). A score of 76.02% indicates that the majority ofdifferences of words used by respondents could be explained as differences between those who disagreed and agreed withthe reintroduction. Those who neither disagreed nor agreed with reintroduction are indicated lower than other positions
showing negative scores in Dimension 2. A score of 23.98% indicates the difference of words used that can be explained by thedifference between those who neither disagreed nor agreed and those who disagreed/agreed with the reintroduction. Suchwords as “exotic,” “attack,” and “scary” are more likely mentioned by those who disagreed with the reintroduction. On theother hand, words such as “increase,” “crops,” “population,” and “deer” were more likely used by those who agreed with thereintroduction. Words such as “know,” “consider,” and “return” were more likely used by those who neither disagreed nor
agreed with the reintroduction.
8. Discussion
8.1. Knowledge of wolves and ecology
While a majority of students knew that wolves once lived in Japan, many of them neither knew that they are now
extirpated nor the reason for their extirpation. Further, most students knew what exotic species are and their potential impact
on the ecosystem, as well as basic ecological principles. The fact that most students disagreed with the statement “we could
not help extirpating wolves in Japan because wolves only have negative impacts” suggests that extinction of species should be
prevented. Students in junior and senior high schools learn about the importance of conserving biodiversity as well as basic
ecological concepts in their mandatory biology/science course.
8.2. Decision-makers as inﬂuencers
Most students (>65%) agreed that central and local government should be entrusted with the responsibility to makedecisions regarding the reintroduction of wolves while less than half (<32%) thought that professors or NGO/NPOs should be
entrusted with this responsibility. Currently in Japan, certain NGOs and academics are proposing the reintroduction of wolves
while government have vetoed this program (Secritariat of House of Representatives, 2014). While a majority of students
agreed that local residents living near to potential reintroduction sites should be entrusted with decision-making responsibilities, fewer thought that general citizens should be included in this process. This suggests that although Japan is ademocratic country where citizens can directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process, respondents are not
motivated to be involved in this process in relation to wildlife-related issues. This might be explained by the collectivistic
nature of Japan where meeting public expectations, especially decisions made by government, is paramount (Abrams et al.,
1998; Gudykanst and Nishida, 1999/2000). Our results suggest that it could be difﬁcult to gain public support unless the
program is promoted by Government.
8.3. Perception of ecological role of wolves
The factor that had the strongest effect on students’ position was their perception that reintroduced wolves would be an
exotic species and thus have negative impacts on the ecosystem. This could be attributed to speciﬁc characteristics of Japan;
an island country where many species are endemic and vulnerable to the negative effects of exotic species (Ministry of theEnvironment, 2008). As reintroduction projects should make sure that same or similar and related species are substituted as
ecological replacements (IUCN/SSC, 2013), much time and effort was invested in scientiﬁcally explaining the genetic origin of
both species when reintroducing wolves from Canada to Yellowstone National Park (Fritts et al., 1997 p. 12e13). In Florida,
when Texas cougars were reintroduced to revitalize the population of Florida’s panthers, researchers questioned the disparity
in genetic origin; this debate is still ongoing (Gross, 2005). Because respondents were much more likely to think of reintroduced wolves are an exotic species, our ﬁndings suggest that the public are unaware of recent scientiﬁc ﬁndings, whichshow that Japanese wolves are the same species as continental wolves (Matsumura et al., 2014; Asahi Shimbun, 2018).
Our study revealed that, net of other variables, attitudes toward wolves did not signiﬁcantly inﬂuence students’ position
toward reintroduction, which contradicts previous studies (Bath, 1989; Enck and Brown, 2002). Our results suggest that inJapan (at least, with university students), it is not affect but ecological understanding and perception of the ecological role ofwolves that potentially affect attitudes toward reintroduction. This contradicts the widely-held belief that emotions and fear
caused by the media and fairy talesdthe “Little Red Riding Hood Syndromedis a major inﬂuencing factor on public opinion(Angeli et al., 1998; The Sankei Shimbun and SANKEI DIGITAL, 2017). This also contradicts cultural comparison studies whichconcluded that Japanese appreciation of wildlife and nature is largely emotional with little biological and ecological considerations, when compared with people in countries such as the U.S.A. and Germany (Kellert, 1993).
Our ﬁndings revealed that students have abundant knowledge of ecology and their position toward reintroduction isaffected by their perception and understanding of the ecological signiﬁcance of wolves. Thus, it is imperative that more
research be conducted from evolutionary and ecological perspectives. While data are available on the ecological impact ofreintroduced wolves in North America and Europe (Ripple and Beschta, 2012; Callan et al., 2013; Ripple et al., 2014), only a few
studies were conducted on the potential ecological impact of restoring wolves in Japan (Tsunoda and Enari, 2012; Sakurai

8

R. Sakurai et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 22 (2020) e01036

et al., 2018) and further studies will also be based on hypothetical scenarios as wolves are absent in Japan. However, as
restoration of the ecosystem remain a national policy goal (e.g., Nature Restoration Act), and as issues related to increasing
ungulate populations prevail, such ecological research will be important.
Research shows that those who trust other people are positive thinkers and open to new ideas (Uslaner, 2002), which
explains why in our survey, those who trust close friends were supportive of wolf reintroduction. Therefore, besides
ecological knowledge, researchers should consider factors such as social trust (items that were not tested in previous studies)in order to fully understand variables affecting public opinion.
A willingness to satisfy the interviewer, the “social desirability effect” (Groves et al., 2004), might bias the results. If
students thought the professors who distributed this survey promoted wolf reintroduction in Japan, then students may also
support this idea. To determine the extent of bias from the social desirability effect, we conducted an additional short survey(n ¼ 192) two months later, on July 18th (authors’ unpublished data). The number of students who thought that professors
who distributed the survey on May 9th support reintroduction of wolves were 44.7% while 37.2% were not sure (the rest of
students, 18.1%, thought professors oppose reintroduction). Based on a regression analysis, whether students thought professors supported reintroduction did not affect their attitudes on this topic (p > 0.05); there was no social desirability effect inour sample.
8.4. Reasons behind students’ attitudes
Text mining analyses of open-ended questions revealed that those who opposed reintroduction used words such as“people”, “attack”, and “dangerous”, derived from phrases like “wolves will be dangerous for people”. This suggests that
opponents are human-centered with anthropocentric ethics in which the beneﬁts and threats of the natural environment tohuman beings are important considerations (Groom et al., 2006, p. 114). In contrast, those who support reintroduction used
words like “deer”, “increase”, and “population”, derived from phrases like “population of deer increased and needs to becontrolled”. Therefore, supporters possibly have ecocentric views, where wolves and people are considered members of abiotic community (Groom et al., 2006, p.128).
Those who neither support nor oppose reintroduction used words such as “wolf”, “ecology”, and “know”, derived fromsentences like “I ﬁrst need to know about ecology and wolf to decide whether to support or oppose reintroduction”.
Consequently, those who were ambivalent seemed to be careful thinkers emphasizing science and evidence. Previous studies
on education programs found that while most students with limited knowledge initially opposed restarting nuclear power
plants, their position shifted, when informed, to a neutral one (neither disagree nor agree) (Takano et al., 2018). A similar
trend might be observed; those who were ambivalent were eager to know about “ecology” and “wolf”.
8.5. Policy implication: researchers’ and citizens’ roles
The importance of restoring a healthy ecosystem has been promoted by the enactment of laws such as Act on Conservationof Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and projects that reintroduce species such as the crested ibis. However, theMinistry of the Environment has not prepared a roadmap with targets for restoration projects. Ecosystems lacking toppredators, especially keystone species such as wolves, are incomplete and cannot fully generate dynamics such as cascadeeffects (Ripple et al., 2014). In asserting the signiﬁcance of reintroducing top-predators, several researchers deferred to citizens by saying that reintroduction will depend on citizen understanding and acceptance (Yamanaka and Kaji, 2006, p. 314;
Kaji, 2017, p. 118). Our survey revealed that public opinions were divided among those who oppose (42.8%) and support(31.1%) wolf reintroduction in Japan; the remainder were ambivalent. This is not necessarily because respondents lack basic
knowledge of ecology or biology, but that this knowledge could be derived from textbooks as a key source of knowledge intheir educational training. While these textbooks explain the increasing deer population as well as its impact on theecosystem, they do not delve into the sustainable and effective management of this population without a predator-prey
relationship. Further, in explaining the signiﬁcance of reintroducing crested ibis, the ultimate goal of such restoration projects was not explained: the species for reintroduction. The latest high school textbook published in 2018 (Asajima et al., 2018)
describes the extinction of wolves but it does not explain nor introduce the current scientiﬁc ﬁnding that Japanese andcontinental wolves are the same species.
Wildlife management, including the decision to reintroduce extirpated species, is a public concern in which decisions
affect all citizens (e.g., through recreation, and agriculture). Fewer than half (45.8%) of respondents agreed that the general
population should be responsible for deciding whether wolves should be reintroduced, suggesting that government andeducational institutions could foster a public sense of ownership in relation to wildlife issues. Further, the goal of a school
curriculum is to train students to be conscious of and responsible for social issues (including environmental problems) and to
be independent thinkers (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Japan, 2009). Irrespective of the
public’s position on the reintroduction of wolves, they should ﬁrst acknowledge wildlife issues in Japan and be able tocritically think about how these issues could be solved; in other words, they should gain autonomy to make decisions for the
democratic management of their society (Chawla and Cushing, 2007). Previous research showed that direct experience andunderstanding of local issues and promoting participation by youths in the decision-making process are necessary tofostering youths’ ownership of environmental issues (Hermann and Menzel, 2013). In Japan, for example, taking students tolocal mountainous regions where damage by wildlife frequently occur and observing farmers protecting their crops might not

R. Sakurai et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 22 (2020) e01036

9

only increase students’ awareness of wildlife issues but also foster their sense of responsibility and autonomy (Sakurai, 2019 p.
121e130).
8.6. Limitations and potential direction of future research
There are several limitations of this research which imply potential direction of future research. First, surveys with agreater sample size, which do not focus exclusively on college students, should be conducted to determine if our ﬁndings are
representative of the general population. We understand the limitation of our study as undergraduate students are only
“potential future decision-makers” and not representative of the current general population. In addition, research could be
conducted with speciﬁc stakeholder groups (e.g., hunters, environmentalists, and others). The wolf-hunter relationship tends
to be negative as they compete in pursuing ungulates, and in Japan, there has not been any research conducted, as far as theauthors know, on how Japanese hunters’ views on wolf reintroduction. Second, there is a limitation in using one statisticalanalysis to analyze data. To begin to address this, we conducted a post-hoc cross validation on stepwise multiple regression
analysis, using 75% randomly selected data among a whole samples, to test if the same results could be obtained. While thecross validation identiﬁed three same independent variables as the factors that signiﬁcantly affected the dependent variable,
one independent variable; “trust information provided by familiar friends” was not selected in the ﬁnal model. Additional
analyses could further explore these data. Finally, more exploratory research including qualitative studies (e.g., in-depth
interview) would be necessary to identify other factors, besides those tested in this survey, that inﬂuence public opinion
toward the reintroduction of wolves, as only 25% of variation in attitudes was explained by our suite of predictor variables.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors have no conﬂict of interest.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 18K18239.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01036.
References
Abrams, D., Ando, K., Hinkle, S., 1998. Psychological attachment to the group: cross-cultural differences in organizational identiﬁcation and subjective
norms as predictors of workers’ turnover intentions. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 24 (10), 1027e1039.
Angeli, C.B., Maruyama, N., Koganezawa, M., Takahashi, M., Chinen, S., 1998. Japanese people’s attitudes toward wolves and their reintroduction into Japan.
Biosphere Conservation 1 (1), 63e71.
Asajima, M., et al., 2018. Biology. Tokyoshoseki. Toyo, Revise version, p. 484 (in Japanese).
Bath, A.J., 1989. The public and wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2, 297e306.
Bath, A.J., Buchanan, T., 1989. Attitudes of interest groups in Wyoming toward wolf restoration in Yellowstone National Park. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 17, 519e525.
Beeland, T.D., 2008. Information Sources, Beliefs and Values of Key Stakeholders Groups in Mexican Gray Wolf Reintroduction. A thesis presented to thegraduate school of the University of Florida.
Cabinet Ofﬁce Japan, 2014. Annual report on the aging society, Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese). Available from. http://www8.cao.go.jp/kourei/english/
annualreport/2014/2014pdf_e.html (accessed July 2015).
Callan, R., Nibbelink, N.P., Rooney, T.P., Wiedenhoeft, J.E., Wydeven, A.P., 2013. Recolonizing wolves trigger a trophic cascade in Wisconsin (USA). J. Ecol. 101,837e845.
Chawla, L., Cushing, D.F., 2007. Education for strategic environmental behavior. Environ. Educ. Res. 13 (4), 437e452.
Decker, D.J., Brown, T.L., Siemer, W.F., 2001. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management in North America. The Wildlife Society, Maryland.
Enck, J.W., Brown, T.L., 2002. New yorkers’ attitudes toward restoring wolves to the Adirondack park. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 30 (1), 16e28.
Eriksson, M., 2017. Political alienation, rurality and the symbolic role of Swedish wolf policy. Soc. Nat. Resour. 30 (11), 1374e1388.
Eriksson, G., Heberlein, T.A., 2003. Attitudes of hunters, locals, and the general public in Sweden now that the wolves are back. Biol. Conserv. 111, 149e159.
Eriksson, M., Sandstrom, C., Ericsson, G., 2015. Direct experience and attitude change towards bears and wolves. Wildl. Biol. 21, 131e137.
Fritts, S.H., Bangs, E.E., Fontaine, J.A., Johnson, M.R., Phillips, M.K., Koch, E.D., Gunson, J.R., 1997. Planning and implementing a reintroduction of wolves toYellowstone national park and central Idaho. Restor. Ecol. 5 (1), 7e27.
Fulton, D.C., Manfredo, M.J., Lipscomb, J., 1996. Wildlife value orientations: a conceptual and measurement approach. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 1 (2), 24e47.
Glikman, J.A., Vaske, J.J., Bath, A.J., Ciucci, P., Boitani, L., 2012. Residents’ support for wolf and bear conservation: the moderating inﬂuence of knowledge. Eur.
J. Wildl. Res. 58, 295e302.
Groom, J.M., Meffe, G.K., Carroll, C.R., contributors, 2006. Principles of Conservation Biology, third ed., p. 793 Massachusetts.
Gross, L., 2005. Why not the best? How science failed the Florida Panther. PLoS Biol. 3 (9), 1525e1531.
Groves, R.M., Fowler Jr., F.J., Couper, M.P., Lepkowski, J.M., Singer, E., Tourangean, R., 2004. Survey Methodology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey, p. 424.
Gudykunst, W.B., Nishida, T., 1999/2000. The inﬂuence of culture and strength of cultural identity on individual values in Japan and the United States.
Intercult. Commun. Stud. IX, 1.
Heberlein, T.A., Ericsson, G., 2005. Ties to the countryside: accounting for urbanites attitudes toward hunting, wolves, and wildlife. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 10,213e227.
Hermann, N., Menzel, S., 2013. Threat perception and attitudes of adolescents towards re-introduced wild animals: a qualitative study of young learners
from affected regions in Germany. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 35, 3062e3094.
Hermann, N., Vob, C., Menzel, S., 2013. Wildlife value orientation as predicting factors in support of reintroducing bison and of wolves migrating toGermany. J. Nat. Conserv. 21, 125e132.

10

R. Sakurai et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 22 (2020) e01036

Higuchi, K., 2016. A two-step approach to quantitative content analysis: KH Coder tutorial using Anne of Green Gables (Part I). Ritsumeikan Social Science
Review 52 (3), 77e91.
Hollenbeck, J.P., Ripple, W.J., 2008. Aspen snag dynamics, cavity-nesting birds, and trophic cascades in Yellowstone’s northern range. For. Ecol. Manag. 255,1095e1103.
Ikeda, K., Karasawa, M., Kudo, E., Muramoto, Y., 2010. Social Psychology: Active Social Animals in Multilayered Constraints. Yuhikaku, Tokyo, p. 481 (inJapanese).
Ishiguro, N., 2012. Phylogenetic analysis of extinct wolves in Japan. J. Jpn. Vet. Med. Assoc. 65, 225e231 (in Japanese).
IUCN/SSC, 2013. Guidelines Fo Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations. IUCN Species Survival Commission, Gland, Switzerland viiii þ 57pp,
Version 1.0.
Jacobson, S.K., 1999. Communication Skills for Conservation Professional. Island Press, Washington, D. C.
Japan Wolf Association, 2017. Results of eighth nation-wide survey on wolf conducted in 2016 (in Japanese). https://japan-wolf.org/content/2017/09/30/%
E7%AC%AC8%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%BB2016%E5%A0%B1%E5%91%8A/. (Accessed 18 October 2019).
Kaji, K., 2017. Chapter 6: discussion regarding reintroduction of carnivores. In: Kaji, K., Iijima, H. (Eds.), Sika Deer in Japan: the Science and Management of
Overabundant Populations. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo (in Japanese).
Kaji, K., Iijima, H., 2017. Sika Deer in Japan: the Science and Management of Overabundant Population. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo (in Japanese).
Kato, M., 2005. Can we see wolfs and otters again at Shiretoko peninsula? A study on sociological and legal aspects of the reintroduction of extinct species.
Shiretoko Museum 26, 47e54 (in Japanese with English abstract).
Kawata, Y., 2014. An examination of the reintroduction of the gray wolf into Japan. Shiretoko Museum 36, 41e55 (in Japanese with English abstract).
Kellert, S., 1993. Attitudes, knowledge, and behavior toward wildlife among the industrial superpowers: United States, Japan, and Germany. J. Soc. Issues 49(1).
Knight, J., 2006. Waiting for Wolves in Japan: an Anthropological Study of People-Wildlife Relations. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Maruyama, N., Suda, T., Koganezawa, M., 2007. Releasing Wolves: toward Better Relationship Among Forests, Wildlife and Human. Hakusuisha, Tokyo (inJapanese).
Matsumura, S., Inoshima, Y., Ishiguro, N., 2014. Reconstructing the colonization history of lost wolf lineages by the analysis of the mitochondrial genome.
Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 80, 105e112.
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 2014. Change of agricultural damage by wildlife (in Japanese). http://www.maff.go.jp/j/seisan/tyozyu/higai/
h_zyokyo2/h26/pdf/160122-b.pdf. (Accessed 11 January 2017).
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan, 2009. Material 2-2: objectives and goal of each type of schools based on School
Education Act (in Japanese). http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo3/siryo/attach/1346711.htm. (Accessed 18 November 2019).
Ministry of the Environment, 2008. The Wildlife in Japan. Wildlife Division, Nature Conservation Bureau, Tokyo.
Ministry of the Environment, 2010. Guideline for the speciﬁc wildlife conservation management plan: deer. Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese). Available from.
http://www.env.go.jp/nature/choju/plan/plan3-2e/cov_index.pdf. (Accessed August 2013).
Nakamura, K., 2008. A note on the length variation of lower carnassial tooth in the Japanese wolves in comparison with the related subspecies. Bulleting of
Kanagawa Prefectural Museum (Natural Science) 37, 49e56 (in Japanese with English abstract).
Nie, M.A., 2003. Beyond Wolves: the Politics of Wolf Recovery and Management. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, p. 255.
Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 1998. Wolves Should Be Restored in Japan as Well (in Japanese). October 27th.
Okamura, S., Fujishima, A., 2016. New Science 2. New version. Tokyoshoseki. Tokyo, p. 286 (in Japanese).
Pettorelli, N., Barlow, J., Stephens, P.A., Durant, S.M., Connor, B., Buhne, H.S., Sandom, C.J., Wenworth, J., Toit, J.T., 2018. Making rewilding ﬁt for policy. J. Appl.
Ecol. 55, 1114e1125.
Ripple, W.J., Beschta, R.L., 2012. Trophic cascades in Yellowstone: the ﬁrst 15 years after wolf reintroduction. Biol. Conserv. 145, 205e213.
Ripple, W.J., et al., 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 the World. Springer, Singapore.
Sakurai, R., Jacobson, S.K., Ueda, G., 2013. Public perceptions of risk and government performance regarding bear management in Japan. Ursus 24 (1),70e82.
Sakurai, R., Tidball, K.G., Stedman, R.C., Tsunoda, H., 2018. Exploring social-ecological resilience via three megafauna in Japan: an exercise in integratingideas of human dimensions of wildlife management, Satoyama, and SES thinking. Pol. Sci. 25 (2), 1e12.
Secritariat of House of Representatives, 2014. Minutes.Environ.Comm 6 (in Japanese). http://kokkai.ndl.go.jp/SENTAKU/syugiin/186/0017/18604110017006.
pdf. (Accessed 2 December 2019).
Shimbun, Asahi, 2018. The Real Feature of Wolves in Japan. Morning Paper of April 1st, 2018. (in Japanese).
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., 2016. Science
for a wilder Anthropocene: synthesis and future directions for trophic rewilding research. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 113 (4), 898e906.
Takano, H., Inui, A., Kato, C., Sakai, K., 2018. Opinion determination process in the pros or cons of restart of nuclear power plants: citizenship education
through controversial issue. People and Environment 44 (3), 18e28 (in Japanese).
The Nature Conservation Society of Japan, 2010. Conservation and Law of Wildlife from Ecological Perspectives: toward Conservation of Biodiversity.
Kodansha, Tokyo (in Japanese).
The Sankei Shimbun and SANKEI DIGITAL, 2017. Wolf is the best card to solve wildlife damage (in Japanese). https://www.sankei.com/west/news/170607/
wst1706070001-n1.html. (Accessed 2 December 2019).
Torkar, G., Mohar, P., Gregorc, T., Nekrep, I., Adamic, M.H., 2010. The conservation knowledge and attitudes of teenagers in Slovenia toward the Eurasian
Otter. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 5 (3), 341e352.
Tsunoda, H., Enari, H., 2012. Chapter 7: ecological role and social signiﬁcance of reintroducing wolves in Japan under the shrinking society. In: Paula, A.,
Crussi, H.F. (Eds.), Wolves: Biology, Behaviour and Conservation. Nova Science Publishers, New York.
Tsunoda, H., Enari, H., 2020. A strategy for wildlife management in depopulating rural areas of Japan. Conserv. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13470.
Uslaner, E.M., 2002. The Moral Foundations of Trust. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Vander Zanden, M.J., Olden, J.D., Gratton, C., 2006. Chapter 8 Food-web approaches in restoration ecology. In: Falk, D.A., Palmer, M.A., Zedler, J.B. (Eds.),
Foundations of Restoration Ecology. Island Press, Washington, D. C, pp. 165e189.
Vaske, J.J., 2008. Survey Research and Analysis: Applications in Parks, Recreation, and Human Dimensions. Venture Publishing Inc., Pennsylvania.
Yamanaka, M., Kaji, K., 2006. 3. Future of Shiretoko: a response to the Yellowstone researchers. In: McCullough, D.R., Kaji, K., Yamanaka, M. (Eds.), Wildlife inShiretoko and Yellowstone National Parks: Lessons in Wildlife Conservation from Two World Heritage Sites. Shiretoko Nature Foundation, Hokkaido,
pp. 310e315.