Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher.
Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?
Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.
-
IntroductionHuman-wildlife coexistence in cities depends on how residents perceive and interact with wildlife in their neighborhoods. An individual’s attitudes toward and responses to wildlife are primarily shaped by their subjective cognitive judgments, including multi-faceted environmental values and perceptions of risks or safety. However, experiences with wildlife could also positively or negatively affect an individual’s environmental attitudes, including their comfort living near wildlife. Previous work on human-wildlife coexistence has commonly focused on rural environments and on conflicts with individual problem species, while positive interactions with diverse wildlife communities have been understudied. MethodsGiven this research gap, we surveyed wildlife attitudes of residents across twelve neighborhoods in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area, AZ to ask: how do the environments in which residents live, as well as their values, identities, and personal characteristics, explain the degree to which they are comfortable living near different wildlife groups (coyotes, foxes, and rabbits)? ResultsWe found that residents who were more comfortable living near wildlife commonly held pro-wildlife value orientations, reflecting the expectation that attitudes toward wildlife are primarily driven be an individual’s value-based judgements. However, attitudes were further influenced by sociodemographic factors (e.g., pet ownership, gender identity), as well as environmental factors that influence the presence of and familiarity with wildlife. Specifically, residents living closer to desert parks and preserves were more likely to have positive attitudes toward both coyotes and foxes, species generally regarded by residents as riskier to humans and domestic animals. DiscussionBy improving understanding of people’s attitudes toward urban wildlife, these results can help managers effectively evaluate the potential for human-wildlife coexistence through strategies to mitigate risk and facilitate stewardship.more » « less
-
Neighborhood ethnicity is related to mammal occupancy and activity across a desert metropolitan areaAbstract Cities support abundant human and wildlife populations that are shaped indirectly and directly by human decisions, often resulting in unequal access to environmental services and accessible open spaces. Urban land cover drives biodiversity patterns across metropolitan areas, but at smaller scales that matter to local residents, neighborhood socio‐cultural factors can influence the presence and abundance of wildlife. Neighborhood income is associated with plant and animal diversity in some cities, but the influence of other social variables is less well understood, especially across desert ecosystems. We explored wildlife distribution across gradients of neighborhood ethnicity in addition to income and landscape characteristics within residential areas of metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Utilizing data from 38 wildlife cameras deployed in public parks and undeveloped open spaces within or near suburban neighborhoods, we estimated occupancy and activity patterns of common mammal species, including species native to the Sonoran Desert (coyote [Canis latrans] and desert cottontail rabbit [Sylvilagus audubonii]), and non‐native domestic cat (Felis catus). Neighborhood ethnicity (percentage of Latino residents) appeared to exhibit a negative relationship with occupancy for coyotes and cottontail rabbits. Additionally, daily activity patterns of coyotes occurred later in the evenings and mornings in neighborhoods with higher proportions of Latino residents, but activity was unaffected by differences in neighborhood income. This study is one of the first to show that social‐ecological mechanisms associated with patterns of neighborhood ethnicity as well as income may help to shape wildlife distribution in cities. These findings have implications for equitable management and provisioning of ecosystem services for urban residents and highlight the importance of considering a range of social covariates to better understand biodiversity outcomes in urban and urbanizing areas.more » « less
An official website of the United States government
