Emotional costs and empathy are associated with tolerance towards wolves

The recovery and growing population of grey wolves ( Canis lupus ) in Germany has increased interactions with livestock owners. Ensuring the continued protection and survival of wolves requires understanding the socio‐psychological factors that shape people's tolerance towards coexisting with them. While most studies focus on technical fixes, the underlying psychological and experiential drivers of human–wolf interactions remain underinvestigated. The Wildlife Tolerance Model, defined as ‘the ability and inclination of an individual to absorb the extra potential or actual costs of living with wildlife’, provides a framework for identifying these predictors and informing management strategies.

We collected data from sheep owners ( n  = 42) in northern Germany using a structured questionnaire based on the Wildlife Tolerance Model. The model included positive and negative meaningful experiences, empathy, tangible costs (e.g. livestock damage, experiences with compensation and subsidy schemes), intangible costs (e.g. negative emotions, time burden, vigilance and cognitive burden), tangible benefits (e.g. perceived monetary benefits of wolves to individuals and communities) and intangible benefits (positive emotions and non‐monetary benefits of wolves to individuals, communities, humankind and nature). We applied Bayesian Structural Equation Modelling to examine relationships among these constructs and identify key predictors of tolerance.

Tolerance towards wolves was substantially and negatively associated with intangible costs, whereas empathy showed a substantial positive association. Positive meaningful experiences were positively associated with perceived intangible benefits, whereas the associations of negative meaningful experiences with costs and benefits were non‐substantial. In contrast, tangible costs related to livestock losses showed no substantial direct association with tolerance.

Overall, tolerance was well explained by socio‐psychological predictors, highlighting the importance of addressing worry, frustration and related emotional burdens alongside fostering empathy. These findings suggest that strategies to support coexistence should extend beyond reducing material losses and instead incorporate psychosocial support, empathy‐building initiatives and opportunities for positive human–wolf experiences.

Synthesis. Collectively, these results highlight the value of co‐adaptive management approaches that address emotional and experiential dimensions of tolerance in recolonising landscapes.