Open Access

Martín Espinosa‐Molina, Volker Beckmann

• Abstract Monitoring the general public's support toward wildlife species is a strategy to identify whether a specific human–wildlife conflict (HWC) is escalating or de‐escalating over time. The support can change due to multiple factors, such as mass media news of HWC or providing information about ecological traits of a species. Methods such as the rating scale (RS) and the allocation of a fixed amount of money (money allocation [MA]) have been used in the human–wildlife dimension as a proxy to measure support toward wildlife species. We compared these two methods' capacity to assess the general public's support changes toward wildlife species in an experimental design setting. Face‐to‐face interviews were applied among urban dwellers (n: 359) in Valdivia, Chile. In each interview, the support toward 12 wildlife species was elicited using an RS and MA methods, on two occasions, before and after disclosing ecological traits of the species. The results indicate that the MA grouped the wildlife species based on shared ecological traits, information disclosed to the participants, while the RS did not obtain the same results. Specifically, the MA identified an increase and decrease of support toward the wildlife species, and the RS only an increment of support. These results could be partly explained due to the conceptual foundation of each method. The MA was designed to elicit preferences in a constrained choice, while the RS measures attitudes. As a constrained choice, the MA does allow maximum support to be given to one species only if all other species are left unsupported, while in the RS, it is possible to provide maximum support for all species. The mentioned characteristics of the MA make it more suitable than the RS when the objective is to identify support changes.