Engaging urban residents in the appropriate actions to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Puri, Mahi
dc.contributor.author Goode, Kaitlin O.
dc.contributor.author Johannsen, Kristina L.
dc.contributor.author Pienaar, Elizabeth Frances
dc.date.accessioned 2024-01-26T09:47:43Z
dc.date.available 2024-01-26T09:47:43Z
dc.date.issued 2024-02
dc.description DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT : Deidentified data that support the findings of this study are available on Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10444964. en_US
dc.description SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL : TABLE S1. Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of survey respondents, metropolitan Atlanta, United States, 2022 (n = 1006). TABLE S2. Respondents' risk sensitivity to wildlife diseases. Respondents answered the question “How concerned are you that wildlife in your neighborhood may transmit diseases to (1) yourself, (2) members of your community, (3) your pets, and (4) members of your household.” TABLE S3. Respondents' self-efficacy pertaining to managing interactions with wildlife. Respondents indicated whether they agreed or disagreed with four statements. TABLE S4. Respondents' trust in the Georgia Department of Natural Resources to manage wildlife and human–wildlife conflicts (n = 1006). Respondents indicated whether they agreed or disagreed with five statements. TABLE S5. Distribution of responses to the Wildlife Value Orientation Scale (n = 1006). These statements loaded onto three factors: mutualism; hunting beliefs; and utilitarian views of wildlife. en_US
dc.description.abstract Mitigating human–wildlife conflicts by altering human behaviors is critical to urban wildlife conservation. We investigated what actions urban residents are willing to take to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts in metropolitan Atlanta, one of the fastest growing metropolises in the United States (~6.1 million people, 21,690 km2). In 2022, we administered online surveys to 1006 residents of metropolitan Atlanta to determine which measures they had adopted to mitigate conflicts with urban wildlife, elicit their stated willingness to adopt additional conflict mitigation measures, and identify determinants of current or potential implementation of mitigation measures. Respondents most frequently reported watching urban wildlife (63.0% of respondents). The most frequently reported conflicts were wildlife raiding trash cans (14.8%) and damaging landscaping (20.8%). In total, 342 respondents (34.0%) had not taken any action to mitigate conflicts with wildlife. Respondents who had taken action to prevent conflicts most often secured their trash by keeping cans indoors or locking the lid of the can (28.7%), kept pets (20.5%) and pet food (20.3%) indoors, and took trash out on the morning of collection (19.6%). Respondents who had not adopted conflict mitigation measures stated that they were likely to secure their trash or keep pets and pet food indoors if they considered these measures to be necessary. Prior conflicts with wildlife influenced both respondents' current efforts to mitigate conflicts with wildlife, and their stated willingness to adopt additional measures to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts. Risk sensitivity to zoonotic pathogen transmission increased both actual and intended adoption of conflict mitigation measures. Respondents' self-efficacy, beliefs about wildlife, and age also influenced their willingness to adopt conflict mitigation measures. Our results suggest that education and outreach about the need for conflict mitigation measures should highlight the importance and effectiveness of these measures in conserving wildlife, while also securing the well-being of humans and pets. en_US
dc.description.department Mammal Research Institute en_US
dc.description.department Zoology and Entomology en_US
dc.description.librarian hj2024 en_US
dc.description.sdg SDG-15:Life on land en_US
dc.description.sponsorship Georgia Department Of Natural Resources. en_US
dc.description.uri http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/csp2 en_US
dc.identifier.citation : Puri, M., Goode, K. O., Johannsen, K. L., & Pienaar, E. F. (2024). Engaging urban residents in the appropriate actions to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts. Conservation Science and Practice, 6(2), e13074. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.13074. en_US
dc.identifier.issn 2578-4854 (online)
dc.identifier.issn 10.1111/csp2.13074
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2263/94114
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher Wiley en_US
dc.rights © 2024 The Authors. Conservation Science and Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. en_US
dc.subject Anthropogenic food conditioning en_US
dc.subject Beliefs en_US
dc.subject Hazing en_US
dc.subject Risk perceptions en_US
dc.subject Self-efficacy en_US
dc.subject Social trust en_US
dc.subject Wildlife value orientation en_US
dc.subject SDG-15: Life on land en_US
dc.title Engaging urban residents in the appropriate actions to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts en_US
dc.type Article en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record