No abstract

7Wildlife has existed in urban areas since records began. However, the discipline of urban 8 ecology is relatively new and one that is undergoing rapid growth. All wildlife in urban areas 9 will interact with humans to some degree. With rates of urbanisation increasing globally, 10 there is a pressing need to understand the type and nature of human-wildlife interactions 11 within urban environments, to help manage, mitigate or even promote these interactions. 12Much research attention has focussed on the core topic of human-wildlife conflict. This 13 inherent bias in the literature is probably driven by the ease with which can be quantified 14 and assessed. Human-wildlife conflicts in terms of disease transmission, physical attack and 15property damage are important topics to understand, but conversely the benefits of human 16 interactions with wildlife are equally important, becoming increasingly recognised although 17 harder to quantify and generalise. Wildlife may contribute to the provision of ecosystem 18 services in urban areas, and some recent work has shown how interactions with wildlife can 19 provide a range of benefits to health and wellbeing. More research is needed to improve 20 understanding in this area, requiring wildlife biologists to work with other disciplines including 21 economics, public health, sociology, ethics, psychology and planning. There will always be a 22 need to control wildlife populations in certain urban situations to reduce human-wildlife 23 conflict. However, in an increasingly urbanised and resource-constrained world, we need to 24 learn how to manage the risks from wildlife in new ways, and to understand how to maximise 25 the diverse benefits that living with wildlife can bring. 26 27

SUMMARYThere is increasing emphasis on the need for effective ways of sharing knowledge to enhance environmental management and sustainability. Knowledge exchange (KE) are processes that generate, share and/or use knowledge through various methods appropriate to the context, purpose, and participants involved. KE includes concepts such as sharing, generation, coproduction, comanagement, and brokerage of knowledge. This paper elicits the expert knowledge of academics involved in research and practice of KE from different disciplines and backgrounds to review research themes, identify gaps and questions, and develop a research agenda for furthering understanding about KE. Results include 80 research questions prefaced by a review of research themes. Key conclusions are: (1) there is a diverse range of questions relating to KE that require attention; (2) there is a particular need for research on understanding the process of KE and how KE can be evaluated; and (3) given the strong interdependency of research questions, an integrated approach to understanding KE is required. To improve understanding of KE, action research methodologies and embedding evaluation as a normal part of KE research and practice need to be encouraged. This will foster more adaptive approaches to learning about KE and enhance effectiveness of environmental management.

This review examines the current situation of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in southern African savannah systems, and uses theory on multi-species host-pathogen systems to suggest possible options for future research and management. In southern Africa, the buffalo (Syncerus caffer) and the Kafue lechwe [Marsh antelope] (Kobus leche) have been found to be maintenance hosts for this disease, but the importance of other host species is becoming apparent. The role of other host species in the maintenance and spread of the disease varies, depending on the spatial distribution and resource utilization patterns of the species, disease susceptibility, transmission modes and the ecology of both host(s) and vector(s). Future research needs to identify the pathogenicity of bTB in each of the host species, and the mechanisms and rates of inter- and intra-specific transmission among different species, in order to develop multi-host models to understand the development and spread of the disease.

Summary 1.Questionnaires, or social surveys, are used increasingly as a means of collecting data in ecology. We present a critical review of their use and give recommendations for good practice. 2. We searched for papers in which questionnaires were used in 57 ecological academic journals, published over the period [1991][1992][1993][1994][1995][1996][1997][1998][1999][2000][2001][2002][2003] inclusive. This provided a total sample size of 168 questionnaires from 127 papers published in 22 academic journals. 3. Most questionnaires were carried out in North America and western Europe, and addressed species-level issues, principally focusing on mammals. The majority were concerned with impacts of species and/or their conservation, and just under half with human-wildlife interactions. 4. Postal survey was the method used most frequently to carry out the questionnaires, followed by in-person interviews. Some questionnaires were conducted by telephone, and none was web-based. 5. Most questionnaires were concerned with obtaining factual information or perceptions of facts. Ground-truthing (independent verification of the facts) was carried out in less than 10% of questionnaires. 6. The mean ( ± SE) sample size (number of respondents) per questionnaire was 1422 ± 261 and the average ( ± SE) response rate was 63 ± 3%. These figures varied widely depending on the methods used to conduct the questionnaire. 7. The analysis of data was mostly descriptive. Simple univariate methods were the most frequently used statistical tools, and data from a third of questionnaires were not subjected to any analysis beyond simple descriptions of the results. 8. Synthesis and applications. We provide recommendations for best practice in the future use of questionnaires in ecology, as follows: (i) the definition of the target population, any hypotheses to be tested and procedures for the selection of participants should be clearly documented; (ii) questionnaires should be piloted prior to their use; (iii) the sample size should be sufficient for the statistical analysis; (iv) the rationale for the choice of survey method should be clearly stated; (v) the number of non-respondents should be minimized; (vi) the question and answer format should be kept as simple as possible; (vii) the structure of the questionnaire and the data emerging from it should be unambiguously shown in any publication; (viii) bias arising from non-response should be quantified; (ix) the accuracy of data should be assessed by ground-truthing where relevant; (x) the analysis of potentially interrelated data should be done by means of modelling. Researchers should also consider whether alternative, interpretative methods, such as in-depth interviews or participatory approaches, may be more appropriate, for example where the focus is on elucidating motivations or perceptions rather than testing factual hypotheses.