Anthropocentric or Biocentric? Socio-Cultural, Environmental, and Political Drivers of Urban Wildlife Signage Preferences and Sustainable Coexistence

Abstract

What determines whether the public favors anthropocentric or biocentric signage in urban contexts? We conceptualize signage not only as a communicative device but also as a governance instrument that encodes environmental values into urban spaces. We study a city-level case of human–wildlife coexistence involving wild boars in Mount Carmel and Nesher (Israel) using a public opinion survey of residents (N = 405) and an operationalization that combines open-ended coding of the proposed sign content with structured items on sign design preferences. Analyses (correlations and regression models with mediation and moderation tests) indicate that higher perceived harm is associated with stronger anthropocentric preferences; this relationship is partly transmitted via support for local environmental morality policies and is conditioned by political ideology. These findings collectively show that socio-cultural stability, perceived harm, and political worldview jointly shape whether residents endorse signage that emphasizes human safety or ecological coexistence. Design choices also align with the spectrum: biocentric preferences co-occur with instructional/informational content, softer color palettes, family-oriented iconography, and humorous tones. By empirically operationalizing signage preference and linking it to socio-cultural and political drivers, this study clarifies how “design governance” can shape human–wildlife interactions. By demonstrating how governance instruments such as signage reflect deeper social, environmental, and political dynamics, this study advances our theoretical understanding of “design governance” and its role in urban sustainability. We discuss practical implications for municipalities seeking to foster coexistence through clear, behaviorally informed signage.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Urban life today emerges at the intersection of political, economic, and ecological pressures, producing cityscapes where encounters between people and wildlife are unavoidable [1]. Scholars increasingly emphasize that animals in urban environments contribute to political processes, moving beyond a passive role to become actors that shape policy outcomes [2,3]. Recent work also underscores the role of citizens’ eco-anxiety in influencing policy preferences [4]. Thus, urban political dynamics must account not only for the physical presence of wildlife but also for the environmental and emotional responses of residents [5].

Although the overlap between human life and natural systems has expanded steadily in recent decades, effective theoretical and practical frameworks for governing these dynamics remain limited [6,7,8]. Research highlights that cities are not merely sites of conflict but also important habitats for biodiversity, making wildlife-inclusive urban design a key strategy for sustainability [9]. Yet municipalities are often challenged to reconcile environmental protection with urbanization processes that clash and compete [10]. The growing visibility of wild animals in city streets and the increasing frequency of human–wildlife encounters compel regulators to craft local environmental policies that balance between advocates of animal rights and those who perceive urban wildlife primarily as harmful [11,12]. These disputes reflect deeper value conflicts where human safety and ecological coexistence are negotiated in contested urban spaces [13].

1.2. Anthropocentric vs. Biocentric Framings

Anthropocentric and biocentric framings represent two fundamentally different orientations toward the relationship between humans and nature. Anthropocentric framings prioritize human welfare, safety, and control, often portraying wildlife as disruptive or hazardous to urban life. In contrast, biocentric framings emphasize coexistence, ecological reciprocity, and the intrinsic value of non-human life. This conceptual distinction not only anchors the study’s theoretical perspective but also provides an analytical lens for understanding how residents interpret and respond to urban environmental communication [14,15,16].

Biocentrism and biophilia emphasize the value of multispecies coexistence and the intrinsic significance of urban wildlife, suggesting that engagement with nature can yield both psychological and physical benefits [14,15,16]. Conversely, the presence of certain wildlife species in urban landscapes often provokes anthropocentric perspectives that prioritize human needs and safety, particularly in relation to animals perceived as threatening or disruptive. In these framings, wildlife is associated with risks such as property damage, traffic accidents, disease transmission, harm to other species, and broader political and social disputes [6,17]. As a result, municipal interventions in wildlife management—especially morally sensitive measures such as culling or restrictions on feeding—tend to divide residents, creating clear camps of supporters and opponents [18,19]. These divisions extend to visual communication and urban design, including signage strategies [20].

Beyond these political and socio-cultural factors, behavioral dimensions are equally critical, since public preferences ultimately translate into concrete actions shaped by regulation, education, and municipal enforcement. Research on European cities shows that bans on feeding wildlife, fines, and urban planning adjustments—such as secured garbage bins—can significantly reduce negative human–wildlife encounters [21,22]. Similarly, public awareness campaigns and school-based programs have been found to foster empathy and safer interactions with urban animals [23].

1.3. Research Gap

While scholarship has examined anthropocentric versus biocentric framings, as well as local environmental governance, most of this work has developed outside the discipline of public administration. Only a small body of research explicitly links municipal environmental actions to patterns of citizen support [24,25,26,27]. Existing studies often emphasize the behavioral effects of signage rather than the deeper factors shaping signage preferences [28,29]. In parallel, research on environmental governance has concentrated on interventions such as culling, relocation, or habitat alteration [17,18], while giving little attention to signage as a policy tool that embodies social and political contestation over human–wildlife coexistence [7]. The limited capacity of municipalities to resolve ongoing conflicts has therefore prompted calls to integrate environmental and political dimensions into the study of urban semiotics and signage, exploring their implications for planning, local policy instruments, and public opinion [7,8,30].

This gap is particularly significant because signage does more than inform behavior: it encodes competing worldviews about coexistence, governance, and environmental morality. As such, signage should be understood not only as a communicative tool but as a contested political and ecological symbol—one that reflects and shapes value conflicts in cities.

1.4. Objectives and Contribution

To address this gap, this study focuses on wild boars in Mount Carmel and the municipality of Nesher, Israel, as a test case of the urban–environmental conflict. We examine how socio-cultural, environmental, and political factors—including personal vulnerability, perceived harm from human–animal interactions, support for local environmental morality policies (e.g., thinning and feeding regulation), and political ideology—shape public preferences for anthropocentric versus biocentric human–wildlife signage.

This study contributes in two ways: Theoretically and empirically, it enriches debates on local environmental governance, urban conflicts, and semiotics by framing animals as political actors and situating signage within broader struggles for sustainable coexistence in cities. Practically, it offers policymakers insights into how signage can be mobilized to design urban environmental strategies that both enhance legitimacy and promote sustainable coexistence.

Building on this framework, this study advances several hypotheses regarding the drivers of signage preferences. We expect that socio-cultural vulnerabilities, perceptions of harm, and political orientations interact with support for environmental morality policies to shape whether residents adopt more anthropocentric or biocentric views of urban wildlife signage. These propositions guide the empirical analysis that follows.

2. Literature Review and Background

2.1. Urban-Wildlife Encounters in the Anthropocene Era

In the Anthropocene, human activity has profoundly altered global ecosystems, creating severe sustainability challenges [31]. Paradoxically, even as urban growth reduces natural habitats, sightings of wild animals within cities have become increasingly common [5,32], generating conflicts that require new modes of governance and collaboration among city actors [33]. Although many cities still pursue sharp separations between built and natural environments, planning efforts that incorporate multispecies perspectives are gaining ground [2]. This development raises the question of “who owns the city?”—whether urban environments should be understood exclusively as human domains or as shared spaces with animals, a question now central to public administration scholarship [34].

Coexistence is thus not the absence of conflict but a dynamic process in which humans and wildlife adapt to shared landscapes, accepting some tension as part of sustainable urban life [35]. Scholars and activists have argued for recognizing urban animals through rights-based frameworks, while others question the feasibility of such claims [2]. What is clear, however, is that the presence of animals compels residents and decision-makers to adjust politically and administratively, often in unexpected ways [3,36]. These encounters generate distinctive perspectives, emotions, and behaviors, with public support for policy responses shaped by citizens’ perceived vulnerability and political orientations [4].

Building on these insights, the present study highlights that beyond traditional management approaches, attention should also be given to communicative and symbolic tools. In particular, we argue that signage functions as a governance instrument that reflects and shapes tensions between anthropocentric and biocentric perspectives in urban environments, offering a novel lens for understanding human–wildlife coexistence.

2.2. Wild Boars as an Urban Environmental Challenge

The presence of wild animals in cities has been steadily increasing, with species such as bears, raccoons, jackals, and pigeons demonstrating remarkable adaptability to urban environments [12]. Wild boars, in particular, have become a pressing concern in numerous European cities, including Rome, Berlin, Barcelona, and Haifa [37]. Originally native to Europe, Asia, and North Africa, wild boars (Sus scrofa) have spread globally, aided by human activity and their capacity to thrive across diverse habitats and food sources [38]. Though often classified as invasive, their expansion into urban environments stems directly from anthropogenic changes to ecosystems [39]. A comparable dynamic is evident in Romania’s Transylvanian region, where the growing Carpathian brown bear population increasingly enters urban areas such as Brașov, creating recurrent conflicts with residents and placing pressure on local authorities to devise more effective regulatory and management measures [40].

Responses to urban wildlife are highly context-dependent and vary across species. While wild boars often trigger debates centered on safety, nuisance, and municipal governance, other urban species raise different concerns. For example, the management of free-roaming cats in cities highlights questions of animal welfare, shared space, and sustainable coexistence rather than direct physical threat [41]. Similarly, in the case of reptiles and amphibians, the central challenge is not perceived danger but habitat fragmentation and road mortality, which require infrastructural and planning solutions to ensure ecological connectivity [42]. These comparisons illustrate that anthropocentric and biocentric framings are not uniform across species, but shift depending on the social meanings, risks, and governance challenges that different animals represent in urban contexts.

Research on wild boars has underscored their intelligence, social behavior, and ability to evoke strong emotional responses among residents [43]. Despite numerous municipal efforts, no urban management strategy has succeeded in stabilizing or reducing their numbers, with population control proving effective only in agricultural zones [37]. Much of this work has emphasized ecological and biological dimensions, while the political, administrative, and communicative aspects of urban governance remain underexplored [6]. This aligns with broader debates on the limited autonomy of cities in addressing environmental pressures, highlighting the need for new political projects that expand urban governance capacities [44].

Taken together, the case of wild boars illustrates a broader pattern: traditional management strategies such as population control have clear limitations, pointing to the importance of complementing them with innovative governance instruments. In this study, we extend the focus to signage as a contested political and communicative tool, one that can capture public values and mediate coexistence debates in urban environments.

2.3. Environmental Morality Policies

Morality policies are rooted in deeply ingrained ethical and socio-cultural values and are typically expressed as absolute rules of conduct—either prohibitions or prescriptions—that inevitably draw public attention and political contestation [45,46]. Classic examples include abortion, drug use, gambling, and firearm ownership [45], but comparable dilemmas increasingly emerge in the sphere of urban environmental governance. Measures such as banning the feeding of wild animals, carrying out culling of invasive species, applying Trap–Neuter–Return (TNR) programs, conserving open green areas, or restricting plastics not only address ecological challenges but also embody normative debates over animal welfare, environmental justice, and collective responsibility [32].

Scholarship has shown that local governments increasingly adopt explicit moral positions when managing urban wildlife [12]. For instance, TNR, though often framed as a humane practice, has sparked debate over how to reconcile ecological balance with ethical treatment of animals [47]. Political polarization further shapes public support for policies such as culling or TNR, intensifying civic engagement and influencing municipal decisions [2,48]. These findings underscore that wildlife-related morality policies function as flashpoints where ethical values, public opinion, and political pressures converge.

Yet while extensive research has examined “hard” instruments such as culling and TNR, far less attention has been given to softer, communicative forms of morality policy. This study addresses that gap by positioning signage as a contested policy tool—one that, like feeding bans or culling, encodes ethical and political claims but does so through visual and semiotic design. This perspective highlights how signage operates not merely as a behavioral nudge but as part of the moral and political repertoire of urban governance.

2.4. Thinning of Invasive Species and Regulations Against Feeding Wild Animals

Thinning invasive species and banning the feeding of wild animals are widely employed tools in urban environmental management. Culling refers to intentionally reducing populations of introduced species that threaten local habitats, aiming to protect biodiversity by alleviating competitive pressure and preventing degradation. Advocates argue that culling protects endangered species and helps reestablish ecological balance, whereas critics view it as unnecessary harm that questions the legitimacy of human dominance over nature [2,49,50].

Municipal bans on feeding wild animals are designed to limit human–wildlife frictions and to prevent habituation to anthropogenic food. While these measures seek to safeguard public health and ecological integrity, they also generate ethical debates. Some interpret them as acts of compassionate stewardship, while others argue that they disrupt natural behaviors and may even intensify conflict [51].

Taken together, these instruments exemplify the dilemmas of environmental morality policies: they are well-studied, politically divisive, and deeply value-laden, often reflecting underlying anthropocentric and biocentric worldviews. Yet despite this substantial literature on “hard” management tools, far less attention has been devoted to “soft” instruments such as signage. Like bans or culling, signage conveys moral and political claims, but it does so through semiotic and communicative design. Examining signage therefore extends the governance repertoire and highlights a neglected dimension of urban policy debates.

2.5. Anthropocentric vs. Biocentric Views

Contestation between anthropocentric and biocentric orientations in urban governance reflects wider socio-political and ecological debates. Anthropocentrism places human safety, economic vitality, and public health at the center, often representing urban wildlife as disruptive or threatening [6,17]. This framing aligns with traditional governance models that conceive cities primarily as human domains, justifying interventions such as wildlife control, habitat modification, and feeding bans [8,18]. Research on consumer behavior shows that ingrained social biases often shape preferences and choices in ways that go beyond rational considerations. In a similar manner, entrenched urban anthropocentric perspectives shape how residents evaluate and respond to non-human species, driving resistance to wildlife-inclusive policies and reinforcing exclusionary planning.

In contrast, biocentric views promote a paradigm recognizing wildlife as integral to urban ecosystems, echoing urban political ecology and environmental justice [1]. From this standpoint, cities should enable coexistence across species and combine ecological insight with communicative design to steer both human and animal behavior [14,16]. Studies on environmental identity and eco-centric consumption show that people with stronger nature connectedness are more likely to support wildlife integration and habitat protection [27,29]. This perspective challenges conventional governance, suggesting that urban semiotics—particularly the design and messaging of signage—shapes public attitudes toward human–wildlife interactions. Importantly, these framings are not merely symbolic categories but carry observable behavioral and policy consequences. Anthropocentric cues tend to align with avoidance and control-oriented responses and with support for restrictive, interventionist measures (e.g., wildlife control, habitat modification, and feeding bans) [8,18]. By contrast, biocentric cues are associated with empathy, curiosity, and pro-coexistence orientations, which translate into greater openness to educational, informational, and inclusionary approaches in urban policy and design [27,29,31]. In this sense, framing functions as a governance mechanism that channels environmental values into concrete preferences for signage and related policy instruments [7,31].

Taken together, the anthropocentric–biocentric continuum has been well documented in the literature, but mainly at the level of abstract values and “hard” management tools. What remains underexplored is how these orientations become visible through semiotic instruments such as signage. By focusing on signage as a contested political and ecological symbol, this study bridges existing debates and highlights a neglected dimension of urban governance. In this sense, we provide the conceptual link between prior research on human–wildlife conflicts and morality policies and our contribution to understanding signage within the repertoire of governance tools.

2.6. Urban Signage as a Political and Environmental Discourse

Studies in urban semiotics emphasize signage as a governance tool, embedding symbolic meanings into the built environment and reinforcing official narratives. Signage addressing human–wildlife interactions functions not only as an informational device but also as a symbolic mechanism that signals municipal priorities [30]. Research shows that signage can narrow or broaden what is considered ‘public’ in contested spaces [52]. When combined with education and regulation—such as penalties for feeding animals or requirements for pet registration—signage has been shown to foster more responsible practices [53,54]. Institutional frameworks like the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals have further reinforced these approaches, linking regulation, education, and design to reduce conflicts [54,55].

In this context, signage can either normalize wildlife presence and promote coexistence or reinforce exclusion and control, depending on social, cultural, and political dynamics [8]. Yet while the literature has explored signage as a semiotic practice and as part of behavioral governance, few studies have examined how public preferences for signage themselves are shaped by broader governance debates, moral conflicts, and political cultures [30]. This represents a critical gap that the present study seeks to address.

Beyond its symbolic and regulatory roles, urban wildlife signage is also a design artifact. Choices of form, color, iconography, and spatial placement communicate normative expectations and encode ideological worldviews. Warning signs with sharp angles and bold colors (e.g., red triangles) evoke a logic of threat and control, while softer shapes, muted tones, and stylized depictions may signal empathy, humor, or coexistence. In this way, signage contributes to a wider “designed urban environment” that encodes political preferences not only through text but also through visual grammar [56,57].

Taken together, these insights underscore the novelty of our contribution: while existing research has focused largely on “hard” management tools such as culling or relocation, and on signage as an administrative device, our study empirically investigates public preferences for wildlife signage as a contested political and ecological symbol. This perspective integrates prior debates on urban conflicts, morality policies, and governance tools, positioning signage at the center of urban environmental discourse.

Building on this distinction, our model assumes that individuals interpret urban signage through these underlying value orientations. Consequently, the preference for anthropocentric versus biocentric signage reflects not only aesthetic or informational choices but also deeper moral and political positions toward coexistence and urban governance. In this sense, signage serves as a microcosm of broader human–wildlife relations, translating abstract environmental values into everyday urban decisions.

3. Developing Hypotheses: Socio-Cultural, Environmental, and Political Drivers of Anthropocentric vs. Biocentric Wildlife Signage

3.1. Socio-Cultural Factors and Preference for Anthropocentric vs. Biocentric Human–Wildlife Signage

The theoretical basis of our model suggests that individual and socio-cultural characteristics shape attitudes toward biocentric as opposed to anthropocentric signage (see Figure 1). In this study, preference for biocentric versus anthropocentric signage was operationalized through a set of survey items and coding procedures that captured participants’ interpretations and design choices for urban wildlife signs. Responses were classified along an anthropocentric–neutral–biocentric spectrum, later aggregated into an index of signage preference, with full details provided in the Method section.

One key element of individual and socio-cultural characteristics that shape attitudes toward biocentric and anthropocentric signage is eco-anxiety, an increasingly recognized phenomenon that strongly influences perceptions of urban wildlife [4,58]. Encounters with animals such as wild boars in urban environments can generate physical, psychological, emotional, or environmental threats, leading residents to experience heightened vulnerability [6]. These interactions with non-human species also shape how people interpret urban life and wildlife, influencing their sense of belonging by reinforcing symbolic boundaries that exclude the “other” [33,36,59]. To mitigate these perceived dangers, residents may gravitate toward firm anthropocentric positions that emphasize human needs and interests over those of animals [33,59].

For example, women may perceive wild boar encounters as threatening their sense of safety, comfort, and belonging in urban spaces, which can lead them to support anthropocentric signage as a means of protection. Likewise, being elderly, a parent, or a long-term resident can intensify the anxiety and sense of vulnerability that arise during such encounters, thereby linking these experiences to a preference for anthropocentric signage. Religious worldviews can also shape perceptions. Among Jewish traditional groups in Nesher, wild boars are often regarded as unclean, a view that may generate disgust or detachment, reinforce human dominance over animals, and increase support for anthropocentric signage [2,4,15,60,61,62].

Education level may also play a role in shaping signage preferences, as prior studies have shown that lower levels of education are often associated with stronger anthropocentric views (e.g., [63]). Conversely, traditions and religious worldviews may in some contexts encourage biocentric perspectives, by framing human–wildlife relations in terms of stewardship or moral obligation toward animals, although in other cases they may reinforce anthropocentric dominance.

H1. 

Individuals with greater socio-cultural vulnerability—such as women, elderly people, parents of young children, long-term residents, or members of religious groups with restrictive worldviews toward animals—will show lower preference for biocentric signage.

3.2. Environmental Factors and Preference for Anthropocentric vs. Biocentric Human–Wildlife Signage

Our theoretical model posits that environmental factors significantly shape urban residents’ preferences for human–wildlife signage, especially when contrasting biocentric approaches—which promote ecological values and non-human moral agency—with anthropocentric ones that prioritize human interests. For instance, frequent encounters with wild animals such as invasive wild boars can erode feelings of protection, fostering vulnerability and a weakened sense of place, particularly when daily life is disrupted and local authorities appear ineffective [6,64].

Human–animal relationships in cities are also embedded in broader biopolitical and legal frameworks. Srinivasan [65] shows how dominant discourses and power structures often depict wild animals as threats, prompting societies to reinforce control rather than pursue coexistence. Biocentric signage counters these narratives by emphasizing wildlife’s intrinsic ecological value—a view that challenges entrenched human-centered assumptions.

This tension is heightened by the gap between expert-led environmental policies and residents’ lived experiences. While experts may favor ecologically inclusive strategies, public perceptions are shaped by personal encounters involving harm or disruption. These lead many to adopt an anthropocentric stance that prioritizes human safety over animal moral consideration [66]. Moreover, as Sotiropoulos [57] notes, neoliberal urban governance frames public space through exclusionary, human-centric models. These emphasize order and functionality, often sidelining more-than-human concerns and making both residents and officials more resistant to biocentric signage. As perceived threats increase, such signage may be viewed as undermining human control of the city.

Altogether, these factors reflect the interplay between environmental experiences, socio-political dynamics, and safety concerns—explaining why, in settings with frequent disruptive wildlife encounters, support for biocentric signage declines in favor of anthropocentric alternatives. We therefore propose the following hypothesis:

H2. 

Greater perceived harm from human–wildlife encounters will be associated with lower preference for biocentric signage.

3.3. Political Factors: The Mediation Role of Environmental Morality Policies

Building on our previous hypothesis, we propose that the link between perceived harm from human–wildlife encounters—especially with disruptive species like wild boars—and the preference for biocentric signage is more politically complex than a simple direct relationship. As interactions with wild animals increase, feelings of protection and immunity erode, leading to heightened vulnerability and a diminished sense of place. Experiences of harm, whether material losses or emotional distress, often strengthen residents’ backing for local environmental morality policies [2,60].

Encounters with wild boars highlight a conflict between moral considerations and governance needs. Residents who face significant physical or emotional harm tend to favor policies aimed at limiting animal numbers or controlling their behavior. Conversely, when harm is minimal or infrequent, ethical debates about animals’ rights and fair treatment become more pronounced. Thus, high levels of perceived harm reduce openness to animal rights while fostering support for culling and feeding restrictions [2,6,61,67].

Furthermore, the political and ethical implications of measures such as wildlife thinning or food source restrictions can be expressed through urban signage. By supporting morality policies aimed at reducing wildlife encounters, residents may engage with broader issues of environmental and urban justice and influence the design of public spaces. Signage then becomes both a symbolic and practical tool that embeds municipal policy priorities into the urban landscape [30,56,57,68,69].

In summary, we suggest that as perceived harm from wild animals increases, so does support for environmental morality policies. This support, in turn, drives a preference for anthropocentric signage—which reinforces wildlife exclusion—over biocentric signage that normalizes wildlife [8].

H3. 

Support for local environmental morality policies will mediate the relationaship between greater perceived harm from human–wildlife interactions and lower preference for biocentric signage.

3.4. Political Factors: The Moderation Role of Political Ideology

The making of environmental policy is strongly conditioned by political dynamics, with urban governance providing a key arena for these effects. Evidence shows that electoral cycles shape public support for environmental rules [70], while political pressures directly affect wildlife policy outcomes [18,30]. Building on these insights, we suggest that human–wildlife relations generate consequences at the public, bureaucratic, and political levels [2,6,36,71].

Understanding support for local environmental morality policies requires attention to political ideology. Insights from climate change research reveal similar patterns [48,72]. McCright & Dunlap [73] show a clear partisan divide: liberals and those on the left generally express stronger environmental concern than conservatives. These ideological gaps are amplified through media narratives and political discourse, which influence public opinion [74]. Applied to urban wildlife management, such dynamics imply that residents with left-leaning orientations, who prioritize environmental values, are more inclined to back policies addressing human–wildlife interactions. For them, mitigating such conflicts aligns with ethical and ecological commitments, encouraging support for humane, regulatory approaches. However, when wildlife poses harm, even liberals may favor interventionist policies to protect public safety. Thus, they are more likely to back environmental policies framed as essential for both ecological balance and community welfare [73].

Right-leaning conservatives are generally less likely to view wild boars as an urgent problem, and they often approach environmental policy—particularly government-driven regulation—with skepticism. If they believe wildlife harms are overstated or if they favor market solutions, support for intervention wanes. McCright & Dunlap [73] highlight this pattern, showing that conservative ideology frequently resists state regulation, resulting in lower backing for wildlife policies. Based on these insights, we propose the following hypothesis:

H4. 

Political ideology will moderate the relationship between perceived harm from human–wildlife interactions and support for local environmental morality policies, such that left-leaning residents will show stronger support for morality policies under conditions of harm than right-leaning residents.

4. Method

4.1. Nesher Municipality and the Challenge of Sustainable Coexistence with Wild Boars

Nesher is a city in Israel’s Haifa District with a 2024 population of approximately 28,000. It has a predominantly Jewish population, including a large segment of residents with migration backgrounds from the former Soviet Union [about 95%], while Arab citizens—Muslim and Christian—comprise the remaining 5%. Known for its industrial base and blue-collar character, Nesher ranks 7 out of 10 on Israel’s socioeconomic index. Around 55% of residents identify as secular, and the city’s political orientation in recent years has been right-centrist, reflecting broader national trends [75].

Bordering Nesher is Mount Carmel, a 245 km² region along the eastern Mediterranean designated a Biosphere Reserve since 1996, protecting diverse flora and fauna. While Nesher is mostly urban, its outskirts were once covered by Mediterranean forest, now reduced to scattered woodlands and wadis threading between neighborhoods. These green corridors serve as ecological lungs, supporting plant and animal species increasingly rare in northern Israel’s built-up areas.

In recent years, the municipality has faced persistent challenges from wild boars (Sus scrofa), which frequently enter residential areas. According to the 2025 State Comptroller’s Report, between 2020 and 2024 hundreds of complaints from residents were filed with the municipal hotline, with approximately 55% originating from the southern neighborhoods of Givat Nesher and Tel Hanan, which are adjacent to open landscapes and the Nesher stream. Although the scale in Nesher is smaller than in neighboring Haifa—where thousands of reports are recorded annually (e.g., 3691 in 2023 alone, down from 5425 in 2022, the relative intensity for a small city like Nesher is significant, making wild boar encounters one of the most salient environmental–governance challenges for local residents and officials [76].

4.2. Wild Boars in Mount Carmel and Nesher: Environmental–Political Insights

For roughly 780,000 years, wild boars have been present in Israel, where they once contributed to subsistence and resource use. They represent an unusual category: an eruptive native species that resembles invasive dynamics [77]. Today, in the absence of predators and under the Wild Animal Protection Law [19,55], which forbids hunting or capture, their numbers have consistently increased since 1948.

In the 1990s, immigration to Nesher and nearby cities from former USSR countries increased. Many immigrants brought traditions such as leaving food for stray cats. In the 2000s, rapid urban development and underground blasting for the Carmel Tunnels also occurred. As a result of these dynamics, wild boars have become increasingly visible on Mount Carmel and throughout the streets of Nesher [15,78]. Between 2021 and 2023, unlike neighboring Haifa, the Municipality of Nesher launched, funded, and completed a citywide project to bury all garbage bins to deter wild boars. Starting in January 2021 and completed by January 2023, Nesher became the first Israeli city with all bins underground. This aimed to limit access to food waste and reduce boar incursions into residential areas. The initiative also improved urban aesthetics and created additional parking spaces.

4.3. Survey Design, Sample, Procedure and Ethics

The survey employed a structured design to ensure transparency and representativeness. In total, 405 residents of Nesher participated, recruited through the municipality’s official newsletter distributed to all households. The sample was stratified according to municipal quarters and weighted against official statistics to approximate the city’s demographic profile. Details on demographics, response rate, and recruitment strategy are provided below.

We weighted and stratified the data that we obtained according to the Ministry of the Interior and the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (ICBS) [75]. As noted above, the survey encompassed 405 residents of Nesher (N = 405), with the sample reflecting proportional representation of the city’s five municipal quarters. Women comprised 58% of respondents and men 42%. Religiosity, measured on a 1 (not at all) to 10 (very religious) scale, averaged 3.3 (SD = 2.4). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 90 years (M = 47, SD = 15.0) and reported between 4 and 25 years of education (M = 15, SD = 3.2). Regarding family characteristics, 71% were married or cohabiting with a partner, and 45% had children under 18 residing at home. Residency in Nesher (in years) (1 to 75, mean = 22, SD = 15.51); monthly income compared to the national average, i.e., NIS (New Israel Shekel, The Israeli currency) 13,700 ≈ $3640 (1 = a lot below average national income = 19%, 2 = below average = 20%, 3 = close to the average = 28%, 4 = above average = 25% and 5 = a lot above average = 8%). The response rate was 35%. We recognize that quotas cannot ensure perfect alignment; however, the resulting sample approximates the Nesher population closely enough to be considered a valid representation.

As with all survey-based studies, potential limitations include self-selection bias (e.g., residents more engaged with municipal issues being more likely to respond), reliance on online distribution which may under-represent less digitally connected groups, and the cultural specificity of the Nesher context, which may limit generalizability.

The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (1975, revised 2013). Ethical clearance was granted by the University of Haifa Ethics Committee (Approval Code: 261/2024; Approval Date: November 2024). Prior to participation, all respondents were presented with an informed consent form (see Appendix A). The form explained the purpose of the study, assured participants that their responses would remain completely anonymous, and emphasized that the Municipality of Nesher would not have access to the raw data. It further clarified that participation was entirely voluntary, that refusal would have no consequences, and that participants could discontinue at any stage without repercussions.

Participants were explicitly informed that the survey would take approximately 15 min, that there were no right or wrong answers, and that the study referred only to their personal opinions as residents receiving municipal services. Consent was obtained electronically by clicking “Continue,” which indicated agreement to participate after reading the full information sheet. Data were coded directly by the researcher and stored securely on university servers, with no identifying details collected. The procedures thus ensured confidentiality, voluntary participation, and full compliance with both national guidelines and international standards for research with human subjects.

5. Measures

The complete set of items can be found in Appendix A. Regarding the Preference for biocentric (vs. anthropocentric) human–wildlife signage, we followed several steps:

(i)

Participants were asked to describe the primary content and message of a sign, assuming the Municipality of Nesher decides to install signage related to wild boars.

(ii)

The researcher analyzed the responses and categorized them into three groups: 1 = Anthropocentric—Participants who framed wild boars as a threat and emphasized warnings for pedestrians and drivers. Examples include: “Notice: Wild Boar Ahead;” “A red circle with a wild boar inside;” “Dangerous wild boars roam in the area, do not approach and report immediately.” 2 = Neutral—Participants who focused on appropriate human behavior to ensure the well-being of wild boars. Examples include: “Please do not leave trash or feed wild boars;” “Anyone caught will be severely punished;” “A surveillance camera is recording;” “Feeding animals is prohibited;” “Information on behavior guidelines for interacting with wild boars.” 3 = Biocentric—Participants who emphasized wild boars’ rights, advocated for their respectful treatment, and accepted their presence in the urban environment. Examples include: “The boar is not an enemy, but a wild animal searching for food;” “Wild boars are an integral part of the city’s natural and environmental ecosystem—they are not our enemies;” “Wild boars in this area. Preserve urban nature and coexistence.”

(iii)

We examined the correlation between the coding of the signage descriptions and five additional questions related to signage attributes. Our findings indicate that a preference for biocentric signage (higher score) aligns with: A preference for installing signs rather than avoiding them; A preference for instructional or informational signs rather than warning or prohibition signs; A preference for light and soft colors (light blue, greenish, gray, purplish) rather than bright and vivid colors (red, orange, yellow, black); A preference for an illustration of a family of wild boars rather than a full-body or head-only depiction of a wild boar; A preference for a humorous illustration rather than a realistic depiction.

(iv)

We coded all six questions on a scale from 1 to 3 and averaged respondents’ answers, creating an index of human–wildlife signage preference, where higher values indicate a biocentric perspective, and lower values indicate an anthropocentric perspective. The choice to code design-oriented variables on a 1–3 scale was both theoretically and empirically motivated. From a theoretical standpoint, prior research on environmental worldviews often conceptualizes anthropocentric and biocentric orientations as categorical poles along a spectrum, with a neutral middle ground. From an empirical standpoint, our pilot test indicated that respondents consistently distinguished among these three categories, but finer gradations produced inconsistent responses. Using a 1–3 ordinal scale therefore provided a parsimonious and interpretable coding scheme, while subsequent reliability and factor analyses confirmed that the items cohered into a single construct.

To ensure the validity of the measures, we implemented several procedures. The six items were also tested for internal consistency. This supports the reliability of the signage preference index as a coherent construct. Because the variables are perception-based, surveys constituted the most appropriate method. The item content was developed through a review of the literature on governance, politics, democracy, urban design, and sustainability [25,79], and subsequently refined in a pilot test. Multicollinearity was examined using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF), with values ranging from 1.04 to 1.12, which indicated no issues. To assess construct validity, the six items forming the signage preference index were jointly subjected to exploratory factor analysis. All items loaded strongly on a single latent factor, supporting their treatment as a coherent unidimensional construct. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) employing varimax rotation demonstrated clear differentiation among constructs. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin statistic (KMO = 0.859) surpassed the recommended threshold of 0.6, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p < 0.001), confirming strong factorability. Together, the factors accounted for 69% of the total variance, supporting the validity and reliability of the scales.

In addition, prior to the main survey, the signage framings were developed and refined through a short pilot phase. The textual and visual examples representing anthropocentric and biocentric orientations were adjusted based on participants’ feedback to ensure clarity and framing accuracy. A small pre-test (N = 30) confirmed that respondents consistently identified the intended orientation of each example and found the messages comprehensible. This pilot process enhanced the face and construct validity of the signage stimuli used in the survey.

Statistical Procedures

Data were analyzed with IBM SPSS 27.0. Internal consistency was assessed through Alpha Cronbach alongside descriptive statistics, and the hypotheses were examined using Pearson correlations and hierarchical multiple regression analyses. We applied Hayes’ PROCESS macro (model #7 for moderated mediation; [80]).

These analytical methods were chosen because they directly align with our hypotheses: Pearson correlations test the bivariate associations among key constructs; hierarchical multiple regression allows us to examine the incremental explanatory power of socio-cultural, environmental, and political factors; and Hayes’ PROCESS macro (Model 7) is specifically designed to test moderated mediation, which reflects our theoretical expectation that political ideology moderates the indirect link between perceived harm, policy support, and signage preference.

Prior to conducting the analyses, we verified the assumptions of regression-based procedures. Residuals met normality criteria (skewness and kurtosis within acceptable thresholds), scatterplots indicated homoscedasticity and linearity, and multicollinearity was not a concern (VIF values ranged between 1.04 and 1.12, as reported above). These diagnostics confirm the appropriateness of the analytical approach for testing the study’s conceptual model.

6. Findings

To provide an overview, the empirical analysis yielded mixed but clear results across the four hypotheses. H1 was partially supported, as some socio-cultural factors aligned with anthropocentric preferences while others correlated with biocentric views. H2 was fully supported, confirming that perceived harm decreases support for biocentric signage. H3 was supported, showing that support for local environmental morality policies mediates the link between harm perception and signage preference. Finally, H4 was supported, indicating that political ideology moderates this relationship, shaping the pathways through which harm perception translates into policy support and signage choices.

6.1. H1: Socio-Cultural Factors

Descriptive statistics and correlations for the study variables are displayed in

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlations for the research variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1. Gender (female)
2. Age	−0.071
3. Religion	0.018	0.139 *
4. Religiosity	−0.085	0.076	−0.039
5. Residency in Nesher in years	0.021	0.386 **	0.122 *	0.090
6. Marital status (married/in a relationship)	−0.026	0.114	0.050	0.025	−0.036
7. Children (under 18)	0.097	−0.317 **	0.030	0.017	−0.169 **	0.260 **
8. Salary	−0.203 **	0.147 *	0.163 **	−0.018	0.099	0.286 **	0.148 *
9. Voted for mayor	0.001	0.065	−0.002	−0.027	0.092	−0.073	0.007	−0.014
10. Political Ideology (right)	−0.129 *	0.003	0.005	0.297 **	0.059	0.016	−0.001	−0.075	−0.079
11. Perceived harm caused by human–animal interactions	0.057	−0.006	0.097	0.098	0.042	−0.180 **	−0.003	0.054	−0.011	−0.032
12. Support for Local Environmental Morality Policies	−0.039	0.148 *	0.066	0.221 **	0.042	0.000	−0.014	0.044	0.044	0.147 *	0.342 **
13. Preference for biocentric (vs. anthropocentric) human–wildlife signage	−0.071	−0.013	−0.038	−0.134 *	0.153 **	0.201 **	0.067	0.146 *	−0.096	−0.064	−0.214 **	−0.329 **
Mean	0.58	47.41	0.95	3.34	22.70	0.72	0.45	2.83	1.28	4.58	1.91	5.20	1.77
SD	0.49	15.05	0.21	2.43	15.52	0.46	0.50	1.22	0.66	1.58	1.04	2.03	0.53
Min	0.00	18.00	0.00	1.00	1.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Max	1.00	90.00	1.00	10.00	75.00	2.00	1.00	5.00	3.00	7.00	5.00	8.00	3.00
Alpha Cronbach											0.91	0.92	0.56

* = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01.

. Consistent with H1, our expectation was that personal and socio-cultural vulnerability attributes (women, elderly, religiosity, long residency, marital status, having children under 18 years old) would be negatively related to the preference for biocentric human–wildlife signage. H1 was only partially supported. As expected, residents with higher religiosity tended to prefer more anthropocentric signage, reflecting traditional worldviews (r = −0.134, p < 0.05). However, contrary to expectations, longer residency in Nesher, being married or in a relationship, and higher income were positively related to biocentric signage preferences (r = 0.153, r = 0.201, r = 0.146, p < 0.05, respectively). Other socio-cultural attributes such as gender, age, and having children at home were not significantly related to signage views. These results suggest that while certain aspects of socio-cultural vulnerability foster anthropocentric tendencies, others may actually correspond with greater openness to biocentric approaches.

6.2. H2: Environmental Factors

In H2, we anticipated negative correlation between environmental factors, i.e., perceived harm caused by human–animal interactions and preference for biocentric human–wildlife signage. H2 was confirmed. Residents who perceived greater harm from wild boars tended to prefer anthropocentric signage (r = −0.214; p < 0.001). In other words, the more residents perceived the harm caused by human–animal interactions high, the more they preferred an anthropocentric human–wildlife signage.

6.3. Political Factors: H3 & H4

H3 tested whether support for local environmental morality policies serves as a mediator between perceived harm from human–animal interactions and preferences for biocentric wildlife signage (see Figure 1). Support for local morality policies explained why stronger feelings of harm translated into more anthropocentric signage preferences. This was confirmed through moderated mediation analysis. Using PROCESS Model #7, the results supported H3, even after controlling for personal and socio-cultural vulnerability. The analysis indicated that once support for local environmental morality policies was incorporated into the model, the link between perceived harm and preference for biocentric signage turned significantly negative.

H4 examined whether political ideology moderates the positive association between perceived harm from human–animal interactions and support for local environmental morality policies. Using PROCESS Model #7, the hypothesis was supported: among right-leaning conservatives, the positive link between perceived harm and support for such policies proved weaker (b = 0.638, p < 0.001, 95% (LLCI = 0.369, ULCI = 0.907)). Among left-liberal residents, the relationship was stronger (b = 1.001, p < 0.001, 95% (LLCI = 0.732, ULCI = 1.270)) (see Figure 2).

Overall, the moderated mediation model was significant. Without considering support for local environmental morality policies, the direct effect of perceived harm from human–animal encounters on preference for biocentric signage did not reach significance (b = −0.038, p = NS). However, as perceived harm caused by wild boars increased, so did support for local environmental morality policies, which in turn was associated with a preference for anthropocentric human–wildlife signage (negative slopes ranging from −0.050 to −0.078; 95% CI (LLCI = −0.080 to −0.114, ULCI = −0.026 to −0.045)), with political ideology shaping this trend (see

Table 2. Conditional model (PROCESS Model #7) examining (i) mediating effect of support for local environmental morality policies on the relationship between the perceived harm caused by wild boars and the preference for biocentric (vs. anthropocentric) human–wildlife signage (ii) the moderating effect of political ideology (right) on the relationship between the perceived harm caused by wild boars and support for local environmental morality policies.

	Dependent Variable = Preference for Biocentric (vs. Anthropocentric) Human–Wildlife Signage R2 = 0.172; F = 6.049 ***
Predictor	β			T
Constant	1.944			9.469 ***
Perceived harm caused by wild boars	−0.032			−0.873
Support for local environmental morality policies	−0.078			−4.810 ***
Religiosity	−0.012			−0.914
Gender (F)	−0.080			−1.278
Marital status (married/in a relationship)	0.167			2.379 *
Children (under 18)	−0.002			−0.037
Education	0.009			0.925
Salary	0.037			1.334
Voted for mayor	−0.003			−0.069
	Conditional indirect effect of perceived harm caused by wild boars on support for local environmental morality policies with simple slopes for political ideology (right)
Political ideology (right)	β		LLCI		ULCI
Left (liberal)-3	−0.078		−0.114		−0.045
Center-4	−0.069		−0.101		−0.040
Right (conservative)-6	−0.050		−0.080		−0.026
	Index for moderated mediation: β = 0.009 * LLCI= 0.002; ULCI= 0.017

* = p < 0.05; *** = p < 0.001.

). Among left-liberals, stronger feelings of harm amplified the negative relationship between perceived harm and preference for biocentric signage. Among right-conservatives, stronger feelings of harm also reinforced this negative relationship but in a more moderate manner.

These results show that signage preferences along the biocentric–anthropocentric spectrum are driven both by perceptions of harm and by support for local environmental morality policies, while political ideology plays an important role. The discussion section provides further detail.

To sum up, the moderated mediation analysis (b = 0.009, p < 0.05, 95% (LLCI = 0.002, ULCI = 0.017)) indicates that the strongest pathway leading to a preference for anthropocentric human–wildlife signage begins with high personal and socio-cultural vulnerability. In this case, strong feelings of harm caused by human–animal interactions increase support for local environmental morality policies—particularly among left-liberals—which ultimately leads to a preference for anthropocentric signage. Conversely, the strongest pathway leading to a preference for biocentric human–wildlife signage begins with low personal and socio-cultural vulnerability. Here, limited feelings of harm arising from human–animal encounters translate into partial backing for local environmental morality policies, most notably among right-conservative residents, and this ultimately fosters a preference for biocentric signage.

In summary, the findings reveal clear patterns in how residents interpret human–wildlife coexistence through signage. Individuals with higher levels of religiosity were more inclined toward anthropocentric signage, while some markers of stability and rootedness in the city, such as longer residency, marriage, or higher income, corresponded with greater openness to biocentric views. Residents who perceived wild boars as more harmful were more likely to favor anthropocentric signage, particularly when these perceptions translated into stronger support for restrictive environmental policies. Political ideology further shaped these pathways: liberal residents tended to back morality policies more strongly under conditions of harm, which led them toward anthropocentric preferences, while conservative residents showed weaker shifts. Taken together, the results highlight that signage preferences are not only aesthetic or informational choices, but also expressions of deeper socio-cultural vulnerabilities, environmental experiences, and political worldviews.

7. Discussion and Conclusions

Our findings show that signage is far more than a technical or aesthetic intervention: it is a governance instrument that encodes political, moral, and ecological values into the urban landscape. Positioned along the biocentric–anthropocentric continuum, signage reflects how residents and municipalities negotiate coexistence with wildlife. By translating ideological orientations and governance priorities into visual and spatial cues, signage actively shapes how people interpret encounters with non-human species and navigate contested urban environments. In this sense, signage should be understood as a form of “design governance,” where aesthetic choices and political meanings converge to direct civic behavior.

This view aligns with broader findings on public signage and wayfinding. Research on street signs shows that standardized shapes and colors—for instance, red-bordered triangles for warnings—serve as universally recognized cues guiding public behavior [81]. Similarly, studies of wildlife signage indicate that design and message framing significantly influence effectiveness; for example, park visitors found “do not feed” warning signs most persuasive when the message stressed the animals’ health and safety rather than just prohibition [82]. By linking our findings to these principles, we underscore that the aesthetic and semantic choices in wildlife signage (color, iconography, tone) operate much like other signage systems in shaping public perception and action.

Human–wildlife conflicts such as Nesher’s encounters with wild boars exemplify “wicked problems” in local governance—issues that defy simple technical solutions because they are deeply tied to values, risks, and political divides. These conflicts reveal that urban environmental governance is not only ecological or administrative, but also moral and political, echoing Bulkeley et al.’s [44] call for strengthening local capacities to handle environmental challenges. In practice, whether wildlife is framed as a legitimate urban presence or as a threat becomes a site of contested governance, reflecting competing worldviews about safety, justice, and ecological responsibility [13].

This study reveals that signage preferences stem from the interplay of socio-cultural vulnerability, perceived harm, local policy support, and political ideology. These findings underscore the political nature of environmental governance, showing how signage attitudes reflect broader ideological struggles over space and coexistence with non-human species.

Our results confirm H1: socio-cultural vulnerability increases support for anthropocentric signage. Individuals who perceive higher personal risk or disruption from boars show less support for biocentric approaches promoting coexistence. This aligns with Beeri, Sadetzki & Hirsch-Matsioulas [6] and Sterba [12], who show how fear and insecurity push residents toward governance emphasizing control. Vulnerability, in this sense, drives exclusionary mechanisms reinforcing human dominance.

H2 adds nuance by showing that perceived harm from animals reduces support for biocentric signage. This supports Srinivasan’s [65] view that dominant urban discourses, rooted in human exceptionalism, portray wildlife as an “inconvenience” to be managed, not integrated. Such responses reflect broader governance patterns prioritizing safety and stability over ecological inclusion [48,56]. The finding underscores the tension between expert-led coexistence policies and residents’ lived experiences of disruption.

Even in Nesher, where boars haven’t triggered a full-scale crisis-political ideology shapes signage preferences, as confirmed by H3 and H4. Support for local environmental morality policies mediates the link between perceived harm and signage views, while ideology moderates it. Signage is thus not a neutral intervention but a political act embedding ideologies into urban space. Our findings also resonate with scholarship on the attitude–behavior link. While supportive attitudes toward biocentric policies are essential, studies repeatedly note a gap between stated preferences and actual behaviors [83,84]. This suggests that policy instruments—such as education, regulation, and signage—must work together to close this gap, ensuring that pro-environmental preferences translate into consistent public behavior. In this light, signage should be understood not only as a symbolic device but as part of a wider behavioral governance toolkit.

This observation echoes Lippert and Sleiman’s [52] argument that signage actively constructs public space and channels social behavior. In addition, these results resonate with Hirsch [85], Beeri, Sadetzki & Hirsch-Matsioulas [6], and Hubbard & Brooks [33], who show how ideology shapes support for environmental policies. In Nesher, right-leaning individuals reject regulation and support morality policies less, which affects signage views. Left-leaning individuals endorse restrictions in the name of environmental ethics, even when perceiving harm.

These findings advance the literature on urban environmental governance and policy design. First, they challenge the view of signage as a mere behavioral tool, framing it instead as a vehicle of political discourse and spatial governance. Signage encodes governance values, delineating who belongs and who does not [30,57]. Second, this study extends morality policy research [45], showing that local environmental governance operates along ideological fault lines similar to those in debates on climate action, animal rights, and urban exclusion.

From a policy standpoint, the findings underscore the importance of multi-level governance that incorporates personal, environmental, and political dimensions of human–wildlife conflict. Relying solely on ecological management is inadequate; instead, a broader approach is required to foster sustainable coexistence between urban residents and wildlife. A participatory framework is needed—one that actively involves citizens in co-designing urban space, including signage reflecting local values and contested narratives. For policymakers, this means that strategies should integrate signage design into broader governance frameworks, ensuring that communication tools are tailored to diverse publics and reduce polarization rather than exacerbate it [19,86].

Moreover, urban semiotics, signage design and messaging, should be treated as a governance instrument. If signage shapes behavior and signals priorities, municipalities must deploy it strategically to navigate ideological divides. For example, signs that balance anthropocentric safety cues with biocentric awareness may offer a middle ground between policy camps. Municipalities could, for instance, adopt dual-signage strategies that simultaneously address safety concerns and highlight ecological values, thereby creating legitimacy across different ideological groups.

Beyond policy design, these insights are also relevant for professionals engaged in urban design, public communication, and environmental education. Designers can apply these findings by crafting signs that combine visual clarity with emotional resonance—using softer palettes, inclusive iconography, and informative language that invite engagement rather than fear. Communication officers and educators may adopt complementary messaging that reinforces coexistence values through public campaigns or school programs. Together, these design and educational practices can operationalize biocentric framings in everyday governance, transforming signage from a static warning device into a participatory tool for civic learning and ecological awareness.

Cities aiming to foster inclusive, ecologically attuned environments must recognize that signage is not neutral. It is a governance interface that can either alienate or engage residents in ecological stewardship. Co-design approaches—involving residents in aesthetic and functional signage choices—may bridge political divides and enhance the legitimacy of local policy [87]. Sustainability scholarship increasingly emphasizes the importance of preserving and restoring semi-natural urban areas to support the return of insects, birds, and other wildlife, thereby strengthening resilience and biodiversity [88]. Urban signage, often dismissed as mundane, mirrors deeper debates about governance, ethics, and coexistence. In Nesher, the wild boar is more than an animal—it is a political actor symbolizing struggles over space, safety, and belonging.

These findings extend beyond Israel, offering insights for cities worldwide facing urban wildlife challenges. In the Anthropocene, the task is not simply to “manage” wildlife, but to govern the human–animal interface in ways that are both politically viable and ecologically just.

This study is not without limitations. First, the reliance on a single case study in Nesher constrains the generalizability of the findings to other urban or cultural contexts. Second, the use of an online survey may introduce self-selection bias and relies on self-reported preferences rather than observed behavior in real-world settings. Third, the coding of design-oriented variables on a 1–3 scale necessarily simplifies more nuanced aesthetic and symbolic choices. Future research could address these limitations by conducting cross-city comparative studies, integrating experimental or field-based designs to capture actual behavioral responses to signage, and incorporating the perspectives of urban planners and policymakers. Longitudinal approaches would also allow examination of how signage preferences and governance dynamics evolve over time.

From a public administration perspective, these findings highlight the value of treating signage as an intentional policy instrument rather than a mere afterthought. Municipal authorities and urban planners could leverage evidence-based design principles—clarity, consistency, and empathy-driven messaging—to craft wildlife signs that not only convey regulations but also build public understanding and buy-in. For instance, local governments might develop guidelines for wildlife warning signs that balance cautionary symbols with pro-conservation cues (addressing safety while fostering respect for urban fauna), in line with our observation that blended sign designs can offer a middle ground between control-oriented and coexistence-oriented camps. Such steps would concretely integrate signage into urban wildlife policy, extending the public administrator’s toolkit with a ‘soft’ governance mechanism that encodes communal values into the cityscape [34,52].

In conclusion, this study advances our understanding of how urban signage functions as a governance instrument that embeds moral, political, and ecological meanings into the cityscape. By integrating socio-cultural, environmental, and ideological factors, it links individual perceptions with policy preferences along the anthropocentric–biocentric continuum. While the single-city focus limits generalizability, the conceptual framework can be replicated and tested across different cultural and urban contexts to examine how local values shape coexistence strategies. Future research could apply experimental or comparative designs to explore how design governance contributes to sustainable and inclusive urban environments.