Farmer survey wildlife value orientation & crop damage tolerance

Research facility: Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research

Published May 20, 2025 on Dryad. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.kwh70rz6v

Data files

May 20, 2025 version files 45.88 KB

Abstract

Compensation is a common strategy to alleviate financial losses caused by wildlife, but its effects on farmers’ tolerance towards damage to crops caused by wildlife are poorly understood. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted semi-structured interviews in three areas in and around Biosphere Reserves in Sweden and Germany to examine farmers’ appraisals of wildlife-related crop damage and their evaluation of financial compensation in relation to crop damage prevention measures. We found that tolerated yield loss was higher and more variable with compensation compared to a scenario without compensation. Yet, also under a scenario of full financial compensation, farmers tolerated a median of less than 10% yield loss. Using an environmental stress model, our analysis revealed that farmers' perception of crop damage risk was influenced by their experience with wildlife and crop damage, their coping appraisals (e.g., accessibility of prevention measures and compensation), and individual motivations. Our results indicate that while compensation can be effective, its success to increase tolerance to crop damage varies most likely based on farmers’ values and how they perceive administrative challenges. Effective management of wildlife-related crop damage near and within protected areas should thus combine compensation schemes with tailored communication and crop damage prevention strategies involving governmental authorities, farmers, and other stakeholders.

https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.kwh70rz6v

Description of the data and file structure

The data was collected in 2019 using face-to face semi-structured interviews with 37 farmers operating in and in the vicinity of the Biosphere Reserves Schaalsee, Germany and Kristianstad Vattenrike, Sweden.

Files and variables

File: Data_farmersurvey.xlsx

Description: full list of closed questions and answers included in the semi-structured interview

Description: Data are taken from structured interviews with a random sample of farmers in and around the Biosphere Reserve Areas Schaalsee in Germany and Kristianstads Vattenrike, Sweden. Selection of respondents is described in the article Hemminger et al. (2025): Farmers' Tolerance for Crop Damage Caused by Wildlife: The Role of Compensation Wildlife Biology WLB-2023-01243.R2

Variables:

NA: respondents were not required to answer questions and unanswered questions are marked with NA

A: Interview ID: number for each Interview

B: Study area: location of the interview: KV= Biosphere Area Kristianstads Vattenrike, Sweden;

MWP= Biosphere Reserve Schaalsee, Mecklenburg Westen Pomerania, Germany

SH= area bordering Biosphere Reserve Schaalsee, Schleswig Holstein, Germany

C: Age: Age of respondent in years (span of 10 years)

D: Gender: gender of respondent (m= male, f= female)

E: farmsize: size of the farm’s agricultural area in ha (rounded to the nearest 50 ha)

F: Position: position of the respondent in the farm

G: education: highest degree of the respondent

H: management: Management type of farm: farms with some of their fields managed organic and some conventional were classified as organic.

I: arablefarming: does the farm include arable farming?

J: fruitgrowing: does the farm include fruitgrowing?

K: animalproduction: does the farm include animal production?

L: vegetables: does the farm include vegetable production?

M: forestry: does the farm include forestry area?

N: does the respondent judge wildlife damage as one of five major economic problems to the farm?

O towards AF: ranking of wildlife species based on the severity of damage they cause on the respondent´s farm (0=wildlife species not named in the ranking; 1= wildlife species ranked as causing the most damage; 2= wildlife species ranked as causing 2nd most damage; [...]; 5= wildlife species ranked as causing 5th most damage); e.g. Interview ID 1 gave the following answer to the question: " please name wildlife species that cause damage to your farm and rank them according to the severity of the damage" answer: 1= wildboar, 2= roedeer, 3= swan, 4= crane)

AG: %damage: estimated percentage of wildlife damage of total farm yield in last year (2018) (percentage loss of entire yield in decimal)

AH: damageacceptable: was the degree of damage acceptable to you? ( yes= yes/ no= no)

AI: acceptancelevel: please rate, how high the proportion of yield loss could get before you implement additional preventive measures? (percentage loss of entire yield in decimal)

AJ: acceptancelevelcompensation: Which proportion of yield loss caused by wildlife would you accept, if financial losses would be completely reimbursed? (percentage loss of entire yield in decimal)

AK: acceptancecranes: do you have a higher acceptance for crop damage caused by cranes than for damage caused by other wildlife species? (1= yes; 0=no)

AL towards AY:

Likert scale: 1= I fully disagree, 2= I rather disagree; 3= I partly agree/disaagree/ undecided/ 4= I rather agree; 5= I fully agree.

Wvo= Wildlife value orientation

wvomanagement: Humans should manage fish and wildlife populations so that humans benefit.

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

wvouse: Fish and wildlife are on earth pimarily for people to use.

wvoabundance: We should strive for a world where ther´s an abundance of fish and wildlife for hunting and fishing.

wvocruelty: hunting ia cruel and inhumane to animals.

wvodisrespect: Hunting does not respect the lives of animals.

wvoopportunity: people who want to hunt should be provided the opportunity to do so.

wvocoexistence: we should strive for a world where humans and wildlife can live side by side and without fear.

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

wvoanimalrights: Animals should have rights similar to the rights of humans.

wvowildlifefamily: Wildlife are like my family and I want to protect them.

wvoanimalpeople: I care about animals as much I do other people.

wvobond: I feel a strong emotional bond with animals.

wvocompanionship: I value the sense of companionship I receive from animals.

AZ: cranedamage: did you experience damage by cranes to your production in the last ten years?

(1=yes; 0= no)

BA towards CV: Please indicate whether you already used the following measures to reduce crop damage caused by cranes (methodused; yes/ no), whether you would like to use them in future (methodagain; yes; no) and how you would rate the efficiency of the method (1=very good; 2= good; 3=satusfactory; 4= adequate; 5= bad; 6= very bad) .

BA-BC: method: Noise making devices (pyrotechniques; propane cannons, guns)

BD-BF: method: Scarecrows or balloons

BG-BI: method: Reflective tagging or tape

BJ-BL: method: Timing of Planting (e.g. plan time of planting in a way that vulnerable crops have grown sufficiently before the arrival of cranes)

BM-BO: method: Pattern of harvesting (harvest vulnerable crops in proximity to staging areas first)

BP-BR: method: Delayed plowing of crop fields (delay plowing until vulnerable crops in proximity have sufficiently grown)

BS-BU: method: Advice by Scaring Consultant (on time and location of scaring)

BV-BX: method: place used cars in the center of fields to prevent cranes from landing on the field

CY-CA: method: change to crop rotation (e.g. combining maize with other crops not attractive to cranes)

CB-CD: method: leave some waste grain (small reduction in harvested amount, aim for reduced efficiency of harvest)

CE-CG: method: change from spring to winter grain.

CH-CI: method: Chemical seed treatment (e.g. anthraquinone , not approved in Europe)

CJ-CL: method: Zoning= coordination of crop rotation and location of vulnerable crops with several farms

(Location of sensitive crops and crops, that are not damaged by cranes are strategically spread in the cranes range)

CM-CO: method: Diversionary fields (compensation for fields that are only partially harvested or left as stubble)

CP-CR: method: Diversionary Feeding (spreading grain feed for cranes on designated areas)

CS-CT: method: Hunting of cranes to achieve more efficient scaring.

CU-CV: method: Hunting of cranes to limit population growth

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

File: Data_Wildife_Biology.xlsx

This Dataset is the part of the data "Data_farmersurvey.xlsx", that was used for analysis for the article mentioned above.

Variables

A: Interview ID: number for each Interview

B: Study area: location of the interview: KV= Biosphere Area Kristianstads Vattenrike, Sweden;

MWP= Biosphere Reserve Schaalsee, Mechlenburg Westen Pomerania, Germany

SH= area bordering Biosphere Reserve Schaalsee, Schleswig Holstein, Germany

C: Age: Age of respondent in years (span of ten years)

D: Gender: gender of respondent (m= male, f= female)

E: farmsize: size of the farm’s agricultural area in ha (rounded to the nearest 50 ha)

F: Position: position of the respondent in the farm

G: education: highest degree of the respondent

H: management: Management type of farm: farms with some of their fields managed organic and some conventional were classified as organic.

I: %damage: estimated percentage of wildlife damage of total farm yield in last year (2018)

(percentage loss of entire yield in decimal)

J: damageacceptable: was the degree of damage acceptable to you?

K: acceptancelevel: please rate, how high the proportion of yield loss could get before you implement additional preventive measures?

-->wildlife-related yield loss accepted by farmers (% of total yield in decimal)

L: acceptancelevelcompensation: Which proportion of yield loss caused by wildlife would you accept, if financial losses would be completely reimbursed?

--> wildlife-related yield loss accepted by farmers under the assumption of full financial compensation (% of total yield in decimal)

Code/software

Microsoft Exel