Wildlife comebacks are often subject to public debate. Recurring controversies dominate the discussion, while the frequent use of stereotypes to describe concerned actors reinforces polarizations. This is not any different for the return of the wolf. In order to assist in the interpretation of the human dimensions of the wolf debate, we propose the use of the socio-cultural (SC) value concept. This concept distinguishes between the performance and importance of ecosystem services and allows to give meaning to indicators without blindfolding on caricaturized profiles. The methodology is applied to the case study of the Ardennes (southern Belgium), where the wolf has recently made its comeback. An online survey, based on main points of controversy in human–wildlife debates, was presented to a large sample (N = 1461) of local residents and (potential) visitors, representative for age classes and gender. The answer options were modeled as a function of socio-demographic and profile variables, as well as SC value variables. Overall, a positive positioning was observed. The example of the hunter profile is used to demonstrate how SC values address heterogeneity within and overlap of profiles between groups. Our results show that the use of SC values, complementary to the sole use of standard profile variables, is an interesting tool to overcome preconceptions and to understand underlying reasons behind peoples stated position on points of controversy. These insights can, among others, lead to question the legitimacy of existing discourses and to transparency in terms of which values are accounted for by an actual or proposed management.

野生动物的卷土重来经常受到公开辩论。反复出现的争议主导了讨论，而频繁使用刻板印象来描述相关参与者加剧了两极分化。这与狼归来没有什么不同。为了帮助解释狼辩论的人性维度，我们建议使用社会文化 (SC) 价值概念。这个概念区分了生态系统服务的性能和重要性，并允许赋予指标意义，而无需对漫画化的配置文件蒙上眼睛。该方法应用于阿登（比利时南部）的案例研究，狼最近在那里卷土重来。一项基于人类与野生动物辩论中主要争议点的在线调查被提交给大样本（N = 1461）当地居民和（潜在）游客，代表年龄层级和性别。答案选项被建模为社会人口和概况变量以及 SC 值变量的函数。总体而言，观察到了积极的定位。猎人配置文件的示例用于演示 SC 值如何解决组间配置文件内的异质性和重叠问题。我们的结果表明，使用 SC 值作为对标准配置文件变量的单独使用的补充，是一种有趣的工具，可以克服先入为主的观念，并了解人们对争议点陈述立场背后的根本原因。除其他外，这些见解可能会导致质疑现有话语的合法性，并导致实际或提议的管理层对哪些价值观进行解释的透明度。