Addressing the Elephant in the Room: A Quantitative Approach to Understanding “Wild”

The concept of “wild” is poorly defined when applied to non-human animals, despite its central role in conservation, wildlife management and environmental policy. Despite numerous attempts to define “wildness”, the distinction between “wild” and “non-wild” remains inconsistently applied. A shared, empirically grounded understanding of wildness would strengthen communication, support policy and legislation, and clarify human attitudes towards wildlife and nature. We assessed whether a shared understanding of wildness exists within the research community. A total of 358 professionals from different fields completed an online survey comprising 44 wildness-related statements along established measures of attitude and acceptability toward wildlife (AATW) and nature-relatedness (NRS). . Exploratory Factor Analysis revealed six components (19 statements): Human-mediated animal availability, Urbanisation, Independence from humans, Human-wildlife perceived conflict, Individual history of wildness, and Feralisation. These factors explained 43.91% of the variance. Mediation analysis showed that urbanisation and human-wildlife perceived conflict shape nature-relatedness by influencing attitudes and acceptability towards wildlife. Respondents’ demographic and professional backgrounds influenced their conceptualisation of wildness. While there is a shared latent structure of wildness across fields, it is multidimensional. This has implications for developing working definitions applicable to research, policy and practice.