Eurasian beavers in Central Italy: perceptions in the local community

• Published in: Die Naturwissenschaften Vol. 110; no. 4; p. 30
• Main Authors: Viviano, Andrea, Auster, Roger E., Mazza, Giuseppe, Lagrotteria, Alessandro, Pucci, Chiara, Senserini, Davide, Campbell-Palmer, Roisin, Needham, Robert, Curci, Davide, Mori, Emiliano
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01-08-2023; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Animals; Animals, Wild; Aquatic mammals; Beavers; Biodiversity; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Castor fiber; Ecology; Environment; Fish populations; Humans; Italy; Life Sciences; Medieval period; Mitochondrial DNA; Original; Original Article; Perceptions; Questionnaires; Reintroduction; Rodentia; Wildlife; Wildlife conservation; Italy; Social perception; Reintroduction; Central Italy; Human dimensions; Myocastor coypus; Castor fiber
• ISSN: 0028-1042; 1432-1904
• DOI: 10.1007/s00114-023-01860-x

According to the IUCN guidelines, wildlife reintroduction should consider any impacts on humans within feasibility assessments. Eurasian beavers
Castor fiber
are recovering across their native range, due to protection laws and reintroductions. In Central Italy, a self-sustaining, naturalised population of Eurasian beavers has been identified in the last five years. A questionnaire to measure whether and how citizens in the local area perceive the presence of the beaver was administered to 1114 respondents. We observed a comprehensive awareness of the presence of the beaver in Italy and a high ability to distinguish it from non-native coypus
Myocastor coypus
(92.3%). We also recorded a general high knowledge of issues related to the presence of the beaver (i.e., potential effects on indigenous biodiversity). The majority (65.5%) of the surveyed population was in favour of reintroducing the beaver in Central Italy, and only 1.2% was firmly against it. The majority of interviewed people was against the removal of beavers from Central Italy (65.8%), whereas only 3.7% was in favor, citing fears of perceived impacts on the river, crops, and fish populations.