Coexistence with Bears in Romania: A Local Community Perspective

Abstract

In the modern context of the strict protection of large carnivores, the competition for resources between local community dwellers and these animals has become an important challenge for ensuring coexistence—the key for conservation success. To assess the perceptions of this intricate relationship, six local communities from Central Romania, located in areas with high-density brown bear (Ursus arctos L.) population and frequent conflicts, were investigated. A large proportion of the respondents (69%) showed various forms of intolerance (e.g., relocation, punishment, or killing) towards aggressive bears. However, the cognitive evaluation score derived from the level of interaction with bears showed a non-significant (p = 0.470) segregation by tolerance levels, suggesting that not only the tangible costs (direct damage) but rather the psychological costs of fear, danger, or risk are more important drivers of negative attitudes towards bears. Furthermore, the prevalent experienced emotions towards an inoffensive bear (fear, terror, and hate, which represent 73%) underline the general preference for living in “separate worlds”. This requires that bears should avoid humans and their settlements, a goal unlikely to be achieved under the current strict protection regime. Therefore, an alternative strategy that ensures mutual avoidance of the two players may be more appropriate for successful human–bear coexistence.

Using Landscape Change Analysis and Stakeholder Perspective to Identify Driving Forces of Human–Wildlife Interactions

“…The statistical model highlighted that after 1990, the most significant HWI driving forces perceived by locals are represented by two types of management practices, namely: (a) the conservation approach, which allows the increase of wildlife effectiveness and it is supported by active management and restrictive hunting legislation, followed by (b) the economic approach, characterised by a disturbing impact on wildlife natural behaviour, poor management practices of forest administration authorities (lack of food supply from forest rangers and illegal hunting) and rapidly increasing tourism generating habitat loss and wildlife habituation induced by artificial feeding. The conservation practices used to explain the increase of HWI were supported by Stăncioiu et al [19], who revealed that conflicts are a negative side effect of wildlife conservation which affects the coexistence between humans and animals. These conflicts could be prevented by controlling wildlife effectively through sustainable hunting.…”

“…By comparison to grey wolves, brown bears are bigger and more powerful. They do not always fear or avoid humans and they engage in conflicts much more frequently [19].…”

“…In Romania, studies were focused on assessing wildlife habitat requirements in human-dominated mountain landscapes [53,54]. The increasing HWI problem was usually handled through studies dedicated on describing conflict characteristics and human attitude towards large carnivores, especially brown bears [18,19], while few types of research focused on revealing and explaining potential triggering factors of HWI [21,55]. The conflict drivers of HWI phenomenon were usually attributed to legislation and connected management practices of forest administration institutions triggered by post-socialist changes [17,34], whereas the impact of landscape spatial changes due to capitalist economy and mass resource exploitation of natural resources on HWI magnitude and dynamics have been poorly linked.…”

“…The Carpathian Mountains are famous for the high rate of HWI, where large predatory mammals, especially brown bears, are by far the most controversial [17]. Several studies were assessed to better understand and manage brown bear conflicts from different perspectives, such as the typology of the relationship with humans in the protected areas of Harghita County [18], followed by the perception of locals regarding the coexistence with brown bears within settlements located in high brown bear density areas in Bras , ov and Covasna counties [19]. The importance of institutional collaboration for achieving coexistence between wildlife and humans has also been discussed [20].…”

Patterns of Human–Brown Bear Conflict in the Urban Area of Brașov, Romania

“…In Romania, as well as in the post-Communist countries of Central Europe, based on the transformations in forest environments and their transition zones with agricultural and urban built-up areas, brown bear conflicts have been increasingly frequent [41,42]. In this context, studies have been carried out on brown bear behaviour and land use in the south-eastern Carpathians of Romania [39]; risk assessments in inhabited areas [43]; brown bear activity in traditional forest pastures in southern Transylvania [43]; biologically realistic annual growth rates; the integration of surveys and telemetry in estimating brown bear density in the Romanian Carpathians [44] and coexistence with brown bears [45] or landscape changes inducing human-wildlife interactions [41]; the use of social networks to develop a better understanding of human-wildlife interactions involving the brown bear in the Prahova Valley-Bucegi Mountains, Southern Carpathians [42]; or conservation issues in the Southern Carpathians, Romanian Carpathians [46].…”