Search for: All records

Human-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.

Given 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)?

We 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.

By 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.

 

Human activity and land use change impact every landscape on Earth, driving declines in many animal species while benefiting others. Species ecological and life history traits may predict success in human-dominated landscapes such that only species with “winning” combinations of traits will persist in disturbed environments. However, this link between species traits and successful coexistence with humans remains obscured by the complexity of anthropogenic disturbances and variability among study systems. We compiled detection data for 24 mammal species from 61 populations across North America to quantify the effects of (1) the direct presence of people and (2) the human footprint (landscape modification) on mammal occurrence and activity levels. Thirty-three percent of mammal species exhibited a net negative response (i.e., reduced occurrence or activity) to increasing human presence and/or footprint across populations, whereas 58% of species were positively associated with increasing disturbance. However, apparent benefits of human presence and footprint tended to decrease or disappear at higher disturbance levels, indicative of thresholds in mammal species’ capacity to tolerate disturbance or exploit human-dominated landscapes. Species ecological and life history traits were strong predictors of their responses to human footprint, with increasing footprint favoring smaller, less carnivorous, faster-reproducing species. The positive and negative effects of human presence were distributed more randomly with respect to species trait values, with apparent winners and losers across a range of body sizes and dietary guilds. Differential responses by some species to human presence and human footprint highlight the importance of considering these two forms of human disturbance separately when estimating anthropogenic impacts on wildlife. Our approach provides insights into the complex mechanisms through which human activities shape mammal communities globally, revealing the drivers of the loss of larger predators in human-modified landscapes. 

Human activity affects plant and animal populations across local to global scales, and the management of recreation areas often aims to reduce such impacts. Specifically, by understanding patterns of human activity and its influence on animal populations, parks and recreation areas can be managed to provide spatial and temporal refuge to wildlife most sensitive to this type of human disturbance. However, additional research is necessary to understand how human activity influences wildlife populations, habitat use, and activity patterns for a diversity of wildlife species. We studied the potential impacts of human activity (as measured by nonmotorized recreationists) on populations and activity patterns of 12 mammal species, including herbivores and carnivores, from 63 motion‐activated cameras that sampled game trails and human trails with varying degrees of human activity along the Front Range of Colorado. Human activity was greatest during the day and minimal or absent during the night. All wildlife species in our study used human trails, although the extent to which human recreation altered the occupancy, relative habitat use, and activity patterns of wildlife varied across species, where some animals appeared to be more influenced by human activity than others. Some species (e.g., fox squirrel, red fox, and striped skunk) did not demonstrate a response to human activity. Other species (e.g., black bear, coyote, and mule deer) altered their activity patterns on recreation trails to be more active at night. Across all wildlife, the degree to which animals altered activity patterns on human trails was related to their natural activity patterns and how active they were during the day when human activity was greatest; species that exhibited greater overlap in natural activity patterns with humans demonstrated the greatest shifts in their activity, often exhibiting increased nocturnal activity. Further, some species (e.g., Abert’s squirrel, bobcat, and mountain lion) exhibited reduced occupancy and/or habitat use in response to human recreation. Managing spatial and temporal refuges for wildlife would likely reduce the impacts of human recreation on animals that use habitat in proximity to trail networks.