Psychometric framework for coexistence with large carnivores.

Abstract

Human-carnivore coexistence is essential for biodiversity conservation, yet measuring the attitudes and behaviors that support it remains methodologically challenging. We developed psychometric scales to assess willingness to coexist with carnivores and the underlying beliefs of this coexistence through an iterative expert elicitation process grounded in risk perception theory and moral psychology to ensure strong content validity. The scales measure willingness to coexist and encompass individual and collective behaviors and their cognitive antecedents: perceived positive consequences, perceived negative consequences, and ethical considerations. We validated the scales based on three representative samples of Colorado residents (n = 434, 442, 433) focused on gray wolves (Canis lupus), mountain lions (Puma concolor), and black bears (Ursus americanus). Validation involved expert review, cognitive interviews, confirmatory factor analyses, and measurement invariance testing across species. The scales demonstrated strong construct validity, with factor structures consistent with theoretical expectations and evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. Concurrent validity was supported through associations with related attitudes and behavioral intentions. These instruments offer researchers a robust, theory-driven framework for examining human-wildlife interactions that facilitates standardized comparisons across species and contexts. For practitioners, the psychometric scales provide a practical means to assess public readiness for coexistence, monitor attitudinal change over time, and design interventions tailored to specific belief structures.