Search for: All records

Abstract Global change is increasing the frequency and severity of human‐wildlife interactions by pushing people and wildlife into increasingly resource‐limited shared spaces. To understand the dynamics of human‐wildlife interactions and what may constitute human‐wildlife coexistence in the Anthropocene, there is a critical need to explore the spatial, temporal, sociocultural and ecological variables that contribute to human‐wildlife conflicts in urban areas.Due to their opportunistic foraging and behavioural flexibility, coyotes (Canis latrans) frequently interact with people in urban environments. San Francisco, California, USA hosts a very high density of coyotes, making it an excellent region for analysing urban human‐coyote interactions and attitudes toward coyotes over time and space.We used a community‐curated long‐term data source from San Francisco Animal Care and Control to summarise a decade of coyote sightings and human‐coyote interactions in San Francisco and to characterise spatiotemporal patterns of attitudes and interaction types in relation to housing density, socioeconomics, pollution and human vulnerability metrics, and green space availability.We found that human‐coyote conflict reports have been significantly increasing over the past 5 years and that there were more conflicts during the coyote pup‐rearing season (April–June), the dry season (June–September) and the COVID‐19 pandemic. Conflict reports were also more likely to involve dogs and occur inside of parks, despite more overall sightings occurring outside of parks. Generalised linear mixed models revealed that conflicts were more likely to occur in places with higher vegetation greenness and median income. Meanwhile reported coyote boldness, hazing and human attitudes toward coyotes were also correlated with pollution burden and human population vulnerability indices.Synthesis and applications: Our results provide compelling evidence suggesting that human‐coyote conflicts are intimately associated with social‐ecological heterogeneities and time, emphasizing that the road to coexistence will require socially informed strategies. Additional long‐term research articulating how the social‐ecological drivers of conflict (e.g. human food subsidies, interactions with domestic species, climate‐induced droughts, socioeconomic disparities, etc.) change over time will be essential in building adaptive management efforts that effectively mitigate future conflicts from occurring. Read the freePlain Language Summaryfor this article on the Journal blog. 

Abstract Contributory science—including citizen and community science—allows scientists to leverage participant‐generated data while providing an opportunity for engaging with local community members. Data yielded by participant‐generated biodiversity platforms allow professional scientists to answer ecological and evolutionary questions across both geographic and temporal scales, which is incredibly valuable for conservation efforts.The data reported to contributory biodiversity platforms, such as eBird and iNaturalist, can be driven by social and ecological variables, leading to biased data. Though empirical work has highlighted the biases in contributory data, little work has articulated how biases arise in contributory data and the societal consequences of these biases.We present a conceptual framework illustrating how social and ecological variables create bias in contributory science data. In this framework, we present four filters—participation,detectability,samplingandpreference—that ultimately shape the type and location of contributory biodiversity data. We leverage this framework to examine data from the largest contributory science platforms—eBird and iNaturalist—in St. Louis, Missouri, the United States, and discuss the potential consequences of biased data.Lastly, we conclude by providing several recommendations for researchers and institutions to move towards a more inclusive field. With these recommendations, we provide opportunities to ameliorate biases in contributory data and an opportunity to practice equitable biodiversity conservation. Read the freePlain Language Summaryfor this article on the Journal blog. 

Abstract Human–wildlife interactions, including human–wildlife conflict, are increasingly common as expanding urbanization worldwide creates more opportunities for people to encounter wildlife. Wildlife–vehicle collisions, zoonotic disease transmission, property damage, and physical attacks to people or their pets have negative consequences for both people and wildlife, underscoring the need for comprehensive strategies that mitigate and prevent conflict altogether. Management techniques often aim to deter, relocate, or remove individual organisms, all of which may present a significant selective force in both urban and nonurban systems. Management‐induced selection may significantly affect the adaptive or nonadaptive evolutionary processes of urban populations, yet few studies explicate the links among conflict, wildlife management, and urban evolution. Moreover, the intensity of conflict management can vary considerably by taxon, public perception, policy, religious and cultural beliefs, and geographic region, which underscores the complexity of developing flexible tools to reduce conflict. Here, we present a cross‐disciplinary perspective that integrates human–wildlife conflict, wildlife management, and urban evolution to address how social–ecological processes drive wildlife adaptation in cities. We emphasize that variance in implemented management actions shapes the strength and rate of phenotypic and evolutionary change. We also consider how specific management strategies either promote genetic or plastic changes, and how leveraging those biological inferences could help optimize management actions while minimizing conflict. Investigating human–wildlife conflict as an evolutionary phenomenon may provide insights into how conflict arises and how management plays a critical role in shaping urban wildlife phenotypes.