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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

• anthropogenic food conditioning
• beliefs
• hazing
• risk perceptions
• self‐efficacy
• social trust