Abstract
Analyzing how similar social perception and ecological field data are might help identify potential biases in identifying and managing human-carnivore conflicts. We analyzed the degree of similarity between the perceived and field-measured relative abundance to unveil whether attitude towards carnivores of two groups of stakeholders, namely hunters and other local people, is underpinned or it is instead biased by alternative factors. Our results indicate that, in general, mesocarnivore perceived abundances were generally different to actual species abundance. We also found that the perceived abundance and attributed damage to small game species were related with respondents' ability to identify the carnivore species. We underline the existence of bias and the need to increase people knowledge on species distribution and ecological characteristics before adopting decisions when managing human-carnivore conflicts, especially for stakeholders that are directly involved in.