@prefix this: . @prefix sub: . @prefix np: . @prefix dct: . @prefix nt: . @prefix npx: . @prefix xsd: . @prefix rdfs: . @prefix orcid: . @prefix prov: . @prefix foaf: . sub:Head { this: a np:Nanopublication; np:hasAssertion sub:assertion; np:hasProvenance sub:provenance; np:hasPublicationInfo sub:pubinfo . } sub:assertion { a , ; dct:creator orcid:0000-0001-6917-8729, orcid:0000-0001-9532-585X, orcid:0000-0002-4455-7607; dct:publisher ; rdfs:comment "Despite years of research, concepts such as human tolerance andacceptability of wildlife remain inconsistently defined and measured,creating confusion, undermining comparative and longitudinalresearch, and limiting utility to practitioners. To address these short-comings, the wildlife attitude-acceptability framework proposed inter-secting attitudes toward wildlife species with acceptability of impactsfrom that species to reveal four archetypes of human cognitionstoward wildlife. Here, we use data from western US household surveysto populate the conceptual space of the wildlife attitude-acceptabilityframework with human cognitions toward three carnivore species:gray wolf (Canis lupis), cougar (Puma concolor), and grizzly bear(Ursus arctos horribilis). This empirical application of the wildlife atti-tude-acceptability framework demonstrates its potential to informmanagement and conservation efforts, promote consistent measure-ment across species and studies, and extend theoretical understand-ing of concepts like tolerance, which are necessary for human–wildlifecoexistence. We discuss these opportunities and remaining needs forimprovement before wider adoption.KEYWORDSCarnivores; coexistence;cognitions; conservation;methods; quantitativesurvey; toleranceIntroduction and Literature ReviewHuman dimensions of wildlife researchers have increasingly sought to define and oper-ationalize concepts relating to human–wildlife interactions, including people’s cognitionstoward species and their evaluations of wildlife-related costs and benefits (Carlson et al.,2023; König et al., 2020). Despite this literature, or perhaps because of it (Bruskotter et al.,2015), wildlife scientists and practitioners continue to hold shared, contested, and some-times confused perspectives toward concepts such as tolerance, acceptability, coexistence,and other cognitions such as beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions when used withregard to wildlife (Glikman et al., 2021; Hill, 2021). Universally shared definitions of theseCONTACT Alexander L. Metcalf alex.metcalf@umontana.edu Wildlife Biology Degree Program, Department ofSociety & Conservation, W.A. Franke College of Forestry & Conservation, University of Montana, 440 CHCB, 32 Campus Drive,Missoula, MT 59812, USAThis article has been republished with a minor change. This change does not impact on the academic content of the article.HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE2025, VOL. 30, NO. 4, 415–429https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2024.2318330© 2024 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided theoriginal work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. Major findings: Researchers developed a new tool called the \"wildlife attitude-acceptability framework\" to better understand how people think about large predators like wolves, cougars, and grizzly bears. By looking at whether people like the animal (their attitude) and whether they are okay with the impacts the animal has on their lives (their acceptability), the researchers identified four main groups: advocates, conditional supporters, opponents, and those who tolerate the species. The study found that while many people like these animals, they are often \"conditional supporters\" who only want them around if they don't cause too much trouble. This framework helps wildlife managers set clearer goals and create better plans for helping humans and wildlife coexist."; rdfs:label "The wildlife attitude-acceptability framework’s potential toinform human dimensions of wildlife science and practice"; ; this:; "elizabeth.metcalf@umontana.edu"; "2025"; "2024" . } sub:provenance { sub:assertion prov:wasAttributedTo orcid:0009-0008-8411-2742 . } sub:pubinfo { orcid:0009-0008-8411-2742 foaf:name "Emily Regalado" . this: dct:created "2026-01-14T05:37:41.452Z"^^xsd:dateTime; dct:creator orcid:0009-0008-8411-2742; dct:license ; npx:introduces ; npx:wasCreatedAt ; nt:wasCreatedFromProvenanceTemplate ; nt:wasCreatedFromPubinfoTemplate , ; nt:wasCreatedFromTemplate . sub:sig npx:hasAlgorithm "RSA"; npx:hasPublicKey "MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAxzr6UBGMW6c8tegz0babaledWUEQ0PLDE4tp7Iinbe2DZtAtY5JUptKYuStWDZx+QER4808P8dejNWRnBDzgthYJm/AyNSXflHSJhz2+NC+h7RylOLxbwLEQocmyKKiYxa2gT85m6ajVL2M6TnfG67nnK+K2f7iCGL6wYXRITD1q+7+5SWqBdDXIV921W4IKWaD2GJk+NRBoOqQhbsrk8Tn5XsNd7DMYVHk47oMDGbeBnrOIoRPsbBgAcoCsxxhiB9yN6Lf8EUbnlXVEDzJuZk048L1BDZL+6nkA8btTQGP2ijUFWA7rTrod3LjUDQWLZS95njjl867dtmv/znYkzwIDAQAB"; npx:hasSignature "m9Qw74QHygZVv37+vTtch5HB+ui3L2zCNsB0O9JqKn211DQP+VndDVj6maV6BkBPOp2XCKMKzj7BAu3IOTrk49u0IgL85yd+nYIvKYIyJNJmPTZlceNaPNDQM1UQnlzV08xOzcrY3YqYyK8H+k8Kx1NLApBvKE6XQsCFFSXnT3MW3+bPa1KmBSiEp80lfN6iX4X/KpTjb5BxiORMjt713WdDchCnZwpamHB19g2MRadhFeizbnToGZ1/Sp6fJF04+PRydZypLOB65RG98XGe6ndt14Ji0+nsMOHOOsmwjQFJtqc0THyVrCkd/nepUIvpr4R/3n5h61ZUx/6Y9Q2SvA=="; npx:hasSignatureTarget this:; npx:signedBy orcid:0009-0008-8411-2742 . }