Search

Abstract Wildlife in cities divides people, with some animals bringing positive benefits and others causing conflict, for example due to property damage. Urban wildlife professionals from municipal administration, nature conservation, and hunting associations have a crucial role in shaping human‐wildlife relationships in cities and fostering conflict‐free coexistence. While many studies on urban wildlife have focused on the views of citizens, few have investigated the perspectives of experts to date. To address this knowledge gap, we interviewed 36 urban wildlife professionals giving guidance in the context of urban wildlife management, either in one of the four largest German cities by population (Berlin, Hamburg, Munich and Cologne) or at the national level. Red foxes, wild boars, raccoons, stone martens and Eurasian beavers were the five mammal species most frequently highlighted in interviews to cause human‐wildlife conflicts. The interviewees saw wild boars and raccoons as the most controversial urban wild mammals but emphasized the need to create refuges for beavers and better inform the public about foxes. Management in terms of public outreach, urban planning and population control, as well as establishing official contact points and stricter fines of activities violating regulations were highlighted as important elements of a toolkit to manage urban wildlife conflicts. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Future cities have the potential to be biodiverse areas in which humans and wildlife can coexist. However, the success of creating or maintaining wildlife-inclusive future cities can be challenged by management actions that are solely based on ecological research, while overlooking research on human perspectives. Despite the growth of literature on human-wildlife interactions, which complements the breadth of urban ecology research, the overlap between these two research areas is still uncommon. In this study, we reviewed the literature of wild mammals in urban areas to identify patterns and gaps in the literature. We found 848 published journal articles, of which 480 articles focused on wildlife ecology, 269 articles focused on human dimensions and 99 articles had interdisciplinary combinations of both. Ecology-centered publications tended to be about habitat, rather than behavior, diet, health, reproduction and inter-species-relations, and literature on human dimensions was more evenly divided into management, perception, conflict and coexistence. Most ecology studies reported on specific taxonomic families, mainly canids and murids, but in human-dimension studies, “wildlife” was considered more as a general community of species. The most studied interdisciplinary combination of research themes was wildlife habitat and human-wildlife conflicts (n = 22), while only nine studies incorporated perception with ecological research. Even though studies on human dimensions of wildlife in cities are increasing, interdisciplinary research is lacking, which limits the knowledge on how to manage and shape urban areas to achieve coexistence of humans and wild mammals. For future cities to successfully become biophilic and support human-wildlife coexistence, we outlined five key elements for a research agenda: 1) Investigate urban mammal research through an interdisciplinary lens; 2) Explore ecological dynamics beyond habitat selection; 3) Conduct research for coexistence; 4) Disentangle what is “urban wildlife”; 5) Study a diverse array of urban wild mammals.

Abstract While reintroductions of regionally extinct native species usually benefit ecosystems, reintroduced animals often struggle to locate appropriate habitats where they can establish themselves without conflict with humans. European beavers (Castor fiber) were successfully reintroduced to Germany almost 60 years ago and have reached high abundances again. As beavers can damage trees and change landscapes, they are increasingly in conflict with humans. We investigated human perceptions of beavers in Germany using an online survey, as they are an example of a reintroduced species with an expanding population and potential conflicts with humans. We asked participants about their emotions (anger, fear, interest, joy) towards beavers and what they consider to be acceptable beaver habitats. Of nearly 1500 survey participants, 803 (53%) were from the general public, 475 (32%) from the agricultural sector and 219 (15%) from forestry. People in these sectors had very different perspectives: beavers were positively perceived by the general public, but negatively by stakeholders working in agriculture and forestry. Independently of stakeholder groups, we also found regional differences, as participants from Bavaria—the German state with the highest beaver densities—viewed beavers more negatively than those from the rest of Germany. Zoos and wildlife parks, as well as urban and nature conservation areas, were considered to be the most acceptable habitats for beavers, whereas survey participants did not accept private gardens and cultivated areas as beaver habitats. We discuss the sources of negative emotions towards beavers and how ecologically suitable habitats differ from those that appear acceptable by humans. Even 60 years after their reintroduction, beavers in Germany are still being recognized as both a novelty and a nuisance. Our findings highlight the need for active beaver management and increased public engagement to enable positive coexistence between beavers and humans in Germany. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

As natural habitats decline and wildlife adapts to increasing anthropogenic disturbance, it is crucial to understand human-wildlife relationships in residential areas. However, relevant studies are limited and mostly focused on single cities. To address this knowledge gap, we investigated people’s preferences for seeing wild mammals in residential areas by conducting and analyzing an online survey distributed across Germany (n = 2997 participants). Our results revealed that preferred species (squirrels, hedgehogs, hares, roe deer) were frequently encountered, whereas unpreferred species were those encountered frequently (rats, martens), as well as those encountered rarely (wild boar, coypus, raccoons). We also found a moderately positive correlation between the number of encounters with mammals and them being preferred by humans. Finally, some socio-demographic variables, particularly gender, garden access, and urbanity, are significantly related to human preferences. Based on our results, we propose tailoring wildlife management in residential areas to promote the positive attributes of preferred wildlife as biodiversity ambassadors, while also addressing ways to mitigate encounters and negative perceptions associated with unpreferred species.