Housing density as an indicator of spatial patterns of reported human–wildlife interactions in Northern New York

Kretser, Heidi E.; Sullivan, Patrick J.; Knuth, Barbara A.

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.08.007

Cited by 91 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We also expected bears to select foraging sites at an intermediate human density with higher overall anthropogenic attractants but somewhat reduced potential for human interaction (Kretser et al 2008). Finally, we expected that bears select foraging locations near restaurants, which typically produce large amounts of food waste and emit strong foodscented odors.…”

Section: Attributes Associated With Anthropogenic Foragingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foraging ecology of black bears in urban environments: guidance for human‐bear conflict mitigation

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Urban environments offer wildlife novel anthropogenic resources that vary spatiotemporally at fine scales. Property damage, economic losses, human injury, or other human-wildlife conflicts can occur when wildlife use these resources; however, few studies have examined urban wildlife resource selection at fine scales to guide conflict mitigation. We studied black bears (Ursus americanus) in the urban area of Aspen, Colorado, USA from 2007 to 2010 to quantify bear foraging on natural and anthropogenic resources and to model factors associated with anthropogenic feeding events. We collected fine-scale spatiotemporal data by tracking GPS-collared bears at 30-min intervals and backtracked to bear locations within 24 hours of use. We used discrete choice models to assess bears' resource selection, modeling anthropogenic feeding (use) and five associated random (availability) locations as a function of attributes related to temporally changing natural (e.g., ripe mast) and human (e.g., garbage) food resources, urban characteristics (e.g., housing density), and land cover characteristics (e.g., distance to riparian area). We backtracked to 2,675 locations used by 24 bears and classified 20% as foraging locations. We found that bears foraged on both natural and anthropogenic food sources in the urban environment, with 77% of feeding events being anthropogenic. We documented inter-and intra-annual foraging patterns in which bears foraged extensively in urban areas when natural food production was poor, then switched to natural food sources when available. These patterns suggest that bears balance energy budgets and individual safety when making foraging decisions. Overwhelmingly, garbage was the main anthropogenic food source that bears used. Selection of foraging sites was not only influenced by presence of garbage but also by proximity to riparian habitat and presence of ripe anthropogenic fruit trees. We found that while 76% of the garbage containers at random locations were bear-resistant, 57% of these bear-resistant containers were not properly secured. We recommend conflict mitigation focus on reducing available garbage and anthropogenic fruit trees, particularly near riparian areas, to make urban environments less energetically beneficial for foraging. Additionally, deploying bear-resistant containers is inadequate without education and proactive enforcement to change human behavior to properly secure garbage and ultimately reduce human-bear conflict.

show abstract

Section: Attributes Associated With Anthropogenic Foragingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foraging ecology of black bears in urban environments: guidance for human‐bear conflict mitigation

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In turn, those features increase potential for wildlife-related events (Fig. 1h), which vary between species and development patterns (Krester et al 2008). In fact, habitat change is among the greatest challenges to urban wildlife management (DeStefano and DeGraaf 2003), as variation in vegetation and development characteristics influence urban wildlife composition (Theobald 2004, Fraterrigo and Wiens 2005, McKinney 2008) and potential for conflict and resulting human behavior (Morzillo and Schwartz 2011).…”

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

A conceptual framework to evaluate human-wildlife interactions within coupled human and natural systems

Morzillo¹,

Beurs²,

Martin-Mikle³

2014

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Landscape characteristics affect human-wildlife interactions. However, there is a need to better understand mechanisms that drive those interactions, particularly feedbacks that exist between wildlife-related impacts, human reaction to and behavior as a result of those impacts, and how land use and landscape characteristics may influence those components within coupled human and natural systems. Current conceptual models of human-wildlife interactions often focus on species population size as the independent variable driving those interactions. Such an approach potentially overlooks important feedbacks among and drivers of human-wildlife interactions that result from mere wildlife presence versus absence. We describe an emerging conceptual framework that focuses on wildlife as a driver of human behavior and allows us to better understand linkages between humans, wildlife, and the broader landscape. We also present results of a pilot analysis related to our own ongoing study of urban rodent control behavior to illustrate one application of this framework within a study of urban landscapes.

show abstract

“…Within urban systems, the presence and adaptation of wildlife and conflict with humans (Luniak 2004, DeStefano and Degraaf 2003, Gehrt et al 2010) is a consequence of broadly shared resource needs (e.g., O'Donnell and DeNicola 2006, Hill et al 2007, Krester et al 2008, Hostetler and Drake 2009. For instance, residential land management (Lepczyk et al 2004b), intentional feeding (Fuller et al 2008), and presence of exotic species Soulé 1999, Baker et al 2005) may enable potential for conflict between humans and wildlife.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Landscape characteristics affect animal control by urban residents

Morzillo

Schwartz

2011

Ecosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Ecological patterns exist within urban landscapes. Among urban patterns of biodiversity, species occurrences may coincide with interactions between humans and wildlife. However, research focused on consequences of human reaction to interactions with wildlife is limited. We evaluated landscape characteristics of rodent control behavior across two urban landscapes in California, Bakersfield, and in proximity to Santa Monica Mountain National Recreation Area (SAMO). Our data were collected prior to a recent policy ruling limiting distribution of particular rodent control products. In both locations, local biologists have observed non-target effects of rodent control products among local carnivores. Mice and rats were among the species most targeted in both locations, but squirrels and gophers also were common targets in SAMO. Carnivore species identified by biologists were among those also reported by residents as targeted for control. In both locations, those who reside in single-family structures and among lowerdensity development were more likely to practice rodent control. Species targeted varied by distance to open space in both locations, but by development density in SAMO only. In Bakersfield, control was distributed across the study area, but one cluster of control existed among mainly lower-density, singlefamily residences. In SAMO, clusters of both control (n ¼ 2) and chemical use (n ¼ 3) existed among singlefamily, lower-density areas in proximity to wash channels and relatively lush vegetation. Our results suggest possible pathways for contact between wildlife and rodent control products, but causal linkages between the two are beyond the scope of our data. Similar to other urban ecological processes, human responses to interactions with ecological phenomena may occur at both fine and landscape scales. Furthermore, our results suggest a possible feedback loop of interacting ecological and social phenomena that may provide information about human activities affecting urban wildlife populations.

show abstract

Housing density as an indicator of spatial patterns of reported human–wildlife interactions in Northern New York

Cited by 91 publications

References 41 publications

Foraging ecology of black bears in urban environments: guidance for human‐bear conflict mitigation

Foraging ecology of black bears in urban environments: guidance for human‐bear conflict mitigation

A conceptual framework to evaluate human-wildlife interactions within coupled human and natural systems

Landscape characteristics affect animal control by urban residents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About