Fascinating and favourable to most, but also frustrating and fearful to some: A study of Danish citizens' perception of trophic rewilding

In Denmark, trophic rewilding in state-owned, fenced-off nature areas open to the public has given rise to fierce debates about recreational impacts. Based on a nationally representative survey (n = 5061) in 2022, we report overall attitude, interest in visiting, and changes in intended visit frequency. Associational analyses included two belief constructs (costs and benefits), four sociodemographic variables (gender, age, education and residence) and a recreational profile. Most of the respondents believed that benefits from rewilding, including creating good conditions for wild flora and fauna (82%), thriving of the released animals (60%) and good recreational opportunities (66%), would accrue. Some believed there would be costs relating to more difficult walking access (30%) and feelings of not being safe (26%). A clear majority (75%) had a positive or very positive attitude to this form of rewilding, and 70% of the respondents expressed that they were highly or moderately interested in visiting these areas. Most (66%) would visit the areas with the same frequency. Multivariable regression analyses showed that respondents who expected benefits, had a longer education, lived in larger urban areas or were members of a nature conservation society were more likely to report a very positive attitude and a very high interest in visiting the areas. To avoid only focussing on the views prevalent in an often polarised media debate about nature planning and management, clarifying the variety of views found among members of the wider public is important. A challenge for managers and policymakers is that most members of the public who are positive about rewilding belong to a mainly silent majority.Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.