Shifting attitudes toward brown bears in Bulgaria: A longitudinal and regional analysis

Ganchev, Nikola 1 2 ; Todorov, Vladimir2; Dressel, Sabrina1

Published Mar 27, 2026 on Dryad. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.37pvmcw0t

Data files

Mar 27, 2026 version files 16 KB

Filtered_Questionnaire_data_v2.csv

11.85 KB
README.md

4.14 KB

Abstract

Longitudinal research on public attitudes toward large carnivores is scarce, limiting our understanding of how human-wildlife coexistence evolves. This study aimed to bridge this gap by replicating a 2012 survey on attitudes toward brown bears (Ursus arctos) in four bear-populated regions of Bulgaria. Shifts in attitudes were analysed between 2012 and 2022 using data from 200 participants, and the influence of socio-demographic and regional variables was explored. Results revealed a significant positive shift in public attitudes since 2012, and decreased support for lethal control. However, persistent regional differences remain, with the Rhodopes region exhibiting significantly higher negative attitudes. The disparity is not explained by bear population density but likely by a combination of factors including landscape characteristics that increase human-bear interaction, the lack of protected nature areas, higher levels of reported bear damage, perceived increase in human-wildlife conflicts, and ongoing rural depopulation. A critical finding is the mismatch between official monitoring data showing declining bear populations and a widespread public perception of increasing populations, a belief strongly correlated with negative attitudes. Education and age were significant demographic predictors, with higher education and younger age associated with more positive attitudes. The results underscore the importance of continued longitudinal research to capture evolving attitudes and beliefs, while also highlighting persistent regional challenges that must be addressed to foster coexistence.

Dataset DOI: 10.5061/dryad.37pvmcw0t

Description of the data and file structure

The data was collected from towns and villages located in the 4 main bear-populated regions of Bulgaria - The Central Balkan mountain range, the Rila mountain, Pirin mountain and the Western Rhodopes mountains using a questionnaire approach.

Files and variables

A2.1: "Bears are important" (1 = Fully disagree to 5 = Fully agree)
A2.8: "Bears are an important component of the ecosystem" (1–5 Likert)
A2.10: "Having bears in the region I live in is positive" (1–5 Likert)
A14: "How do you feel about projects aimed at brown bear conservation?" (1 = Very negatively to 5 = Very positively)
A20: "What are your views toward bears?" (1 = Very negative to 5 = Very positive)
Bear Acceptance: Composite scale — mean of A2.1, A2.8, A2.10, A14, A20 (α = 0.873); higher values indicate greater acceptance
A2.2: "Bears cause more damages than they bring benefits" (1–5 Likert)
A2.5: "People need to control bear populations" (1–5 Likert)
A2.6: "Bears should be killed" (1–5 Likert)
Lethal Control: Composite scale — mean of A2.2, A2.5, A2.6 (α = 0.820); higher values indicate greater support for lethal control
A2.3: Attitude item excluded from composite scales due to inconsistency (1–5 Likert)
A2.4: "Bears are dangerous" (1–5 Likert)
A2.7: "Problem bears should be killed" (1–5 Likert)
A2.9: "Having bears in Bulgaria is positive" (1–5 Likert)
C7: "Do you feel that in the last 10 years, the rate of human–wildlife conflict with bears in your region has changed?" (1 = Strongly decreased to 5 = Strongly increased; 6 = I cannot say)
C8: "Do you think measures should be taken regarding bear damages?" (1 = Yes, 2 = No; "Unsure" responses excluded)
Measures (C9): "What measures ought to be taken against bear damages?" Open answer recoded: 1 = Coexistence measures, 2 = Relocation/lethal control measures, 3 = Mixed
A17: "Do you think that in the last 10 years the number of bears in your region changed?" (1 = Strongly decreased to 5 = Strongly increased; 6 = I cannot say)
A18: "In your opinion, on what organisational level should measures be taken against bear attacks?" (0 = Don't think measures should be taken, 1 = National, 2 = Regional, 3 = Municipal, 4 = Community, 5 = Individual action by those who suffered damages). Not analysed in the associated publication.
Sex: Participant gender (1 = Male, 2 = Female)
Weight: Gender-based sample weight to correct for skewed sex ratio (0.83 = Male, 1.25 = Female)
AgeGroups: Age category (1 = 18–35, 2 = 36–60, 3 = 60+)
Region: Study region (1 = Pirin, 2 = Rhodopes, 3 = Rila, 4 = Central Balkan)
Education: Highest completed education level (1 = Primary school, 2 = High school, 3 = Higher education)

Code/software

SPSS Statistics 26 was used for the majority of analyses.

Human subjects data

This study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. Upon consultation with the Ethics Committee of Wageningen University, no ethical approval was required, given the non-sensitive nature of the work and the fact that it was conducted as part of graduate research.

Participation was voluntary. All participants were informed about the purpose of the research and provided verbal informed consent prior to participation, including consent for article publication and associated data.

No personally identifiable information was collected for the study. The questionnaire did not record participants' names, contact details, addresses, or other direct identifiers. Responses regarding geographic location were collected and analysed at the regional level only; fine-scale locality data are included in the deposited dataset. As a result, individual participants cannot be identified from the published data.