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

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.