Consequences of brown bear viewing tourism: A review

Penteriani, Vincenzo; López‐Bao, José Vicente; Bettega, Chiara; Dalerum, Fredrik; Delgado, María del Mar; Jerina, Klemen; Kojola, Ilpo; Krofel, Miha; Ordiz, Andrés

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.12.035

Cited by 121 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 101 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, physiological problems may be expected when supplementary food is not appropriate for bears (Penteriani et al. , ); bait for hunting may consist of high‐calorie foods, which can include high‐sugar foods, such as cookies, donuts, and candies (Kirby et al. ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This decision may have negative effects on individual health and on cubs learning food habits, if the artificial feeding sites are frequented by females with cubs (Penteriani et al. , ). In addition, feeding sites may artificially increase local bear density, lead to increased reproduction (Jerina et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An eventual reduction in the aversion to humans by large carnivores may potentially create a trap, where animals that often face non‐aggressive human presence in their immediate surroundings, as happens when bear populations are subjected to bear‐viewing activities (Penteriani et al. ), may face an increased mortality risk. Indeed, losing their fear of humans may lead to increased bear presence close to human settlements and infrastructures because of habituation, i.e.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, strategies for the management of ecotourism practices are urgently needed (see Penteriani et al. ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evolutionary and ecological traps for brown bears Ursus arctos in human‐modified landscapes

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1.Evolutionary traps, and their derivative, ecological traps, occur when animals make maladaptive decisions based on seemingly reliable environmental cues, and are important mechanistic explanations for declines in animal populations. 2. Despite the interest in large carnivore conservation in human-modified landscapes, the emergence of traps and their potential effects on the conservation of large carnivore populations has frequently been overlooked. 3. The brown bear Ursus arctos typifies the challenges facing large carnivore conservation and recent research has reported that this species can show maladaptive behaviours in human-modified landscapes. Here we review, describe and discuss scenarios recognised as evolutionary or ecological traps for brown bears, and propose possible trap scenarios and mechanisms that have the potential to affect the dynamics and viability of brown bear populations. 4. Six potential trap scenarios have been detected for brown bears in humanmodified landscapes: 1) food resources close to human settlements; 2) agricultural landscapes; 3) roads; 4) artificial feeding sites; 5) hunting by humans; and 6) other human activities. Because these traps are likely to be of contrasting relevance for different demographic segments of bear populations, we highlight the importance of evaluations of the relative demographic consequences of different trap types for wildlife management. We also suggest that traps may be behind the decreases in brown bear and other large carnivore populations in human-modified landscapes. Mammal Review ISSN 0305-1838 bs_bs_banner Brown bears and evolutionary and ecological traps V. Penteriani et al. Mammal Review 48 (2018) 180-193

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, strategies for the management of ecotourism practices are urgently needed (see Penteriani et al. ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evolutionary and ecological traps for brown bears Ursus arctos in human‐modified landscapes

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scientifically based or evaluated guidelines are available for royal penguins ( Eudyptes schlegeli ; Holmes et al 2005) and several species of waterbirds (Carney and Sydeman 1999, Schlacher et al 2013). Studies of flight initiation distances may also include recommendations for the management to minimize disturbance, such as for ungulates (Stankowich 2008), desert bighorn sheep ( Ovis canadensis nelsoni ; Papouchis et al 2001), brown bears ( Ursus arctos ; Penteriani et al 2017), and yellow‐bellied marmots ( Marmota flaviventris ; Li et al 2011). Even though flight initiation distance is somewhat consistent within species (Blumstein et al 2003), the level of disturbance deemed acceptable by wildlife managers may vary between populations of the same species depending on management objectives (Holmes et al 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Arctic Fox Responses to Tourism Activity

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the interest for nature-based tourism activities increases, it is important to provide evidence-based guidelines for wildlife-human interactions to minimize the disturbance caused to wildlife. In Fennoscandia, the endangered arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus) is subject to increasing tourism interest and some regions recommend a minimum approach distance of 300 m, but the guidelines have not been scientifically validated. We conducted experimental human approaches towards arctic fox den sites to study activity and behavioral changes in response to the approaching observer. The first arctic foxes hid when approached within 300 m, but many had increased their vigilance already at the start distance of 500 m. At approximately 200 m, the hiding probability increased rapidly at dens disturbed and undisturbed by tourism activities. Arctic foxes at disturbed dens allowed the observer to approach more closely before they increased their vigilance and before they hid compared to foxes at undisturbed dens. We confirm that a minimum distance of 300 m might be sufficient for most arctic foxes to refrain from hiding, but a longer distance would be required to avoid causing any disturbance. We recommend a minimum approach distance of ≥300 m to be implemented in all Fennoscandian regions inhabited by the arctic fox. © 2020 The Wildlife Society.KEY WORDS arctic fox, human disturbance, human-wildlife interaction, minimum approach distance, nature-based tourism, wildlife tourism.

show abstract