Human–wildlife interactions in urban areas: a review of conflicts, benefits and opportunities

Abstract

7Wildlife has existed in urban areas since records began. However, the discipline of urban 8 ecology is relatively new and one that is undergoing rapid growth. All wildlife in urban areas 9 will interact with humans to some degree. With rates of urbanisation increasing globally, 10 there is a pressing need to understand the type and nature of human-wildlife interactions 11 within urban environments, to help manage, mitigate or even promote these interactions. 12Much research attention has focussed on the core topic of human-wildlife conflict. This 13 inherent bias in the literature is probably driven by the ease with which can be quantified 14 and assessed. Human-wildlife conflicts in terms of disease transmission, physical attack and 15property damage are important topics to understand, but conversely the benefits of human 16 interactions with wildlife are equally important, becoming increasingly recognised although 17 harder to quantify and generalise. Wildlife may contribute to the provision of ecosystem 18 services in urban areas, and some recent work has shown how interactions with wildlife can 19 provide a range of benefits to health and wellbeing. More research is needed to improve 20 understanding in this area, requiring wildlife biologists to work with other disciplines including 21 economics, public health, sociology, ethics, psychology and planning. There will always be a 22 need to control wildlife populations in certain urban situations to reduce human-wildlife 23 conflict. However, in an increasingly urbanised and resource-constrained world, we need to 24 learn how to manage the risks from wildlife in new ways, and to understand how to maximise 25 the diverse benefits that living with wildlife can bring. 26 27

Nature experience promotes preference for and willingness to coexist with wild animals among urban and suburban residents in Malaysia

“…In contrast, people tend to dislike invertebrates (other than butterflies), snakes, or pests such as mosquitoes or rats (Kaltenborn et al 2006;Soulsbury and White 2016), although the Japanese are known to have a higher appreciation for insects than cultures (Hogue 1987). However, few studies have documented public perceptions of and preferences for wild animals in Southeast Asia (however, cf.…”

Habitat selection by an avian top predator in the tropical megacity of Delhi: human activities and socio-religious practices as prey-facilitating tools

“…These urban exploiters are often alien invaders seen as 'nuisances to eradicate ' (e.g. Belant 1997;Brook et al 2003;Kurosawa et al 2003), but can also be native species that have co-existed with humans for millennia, and so are pre-adapted to urban conditions and appreciated for their cultural significance (reviews in Hosey and Melfi 2014;Soulsbury and White 2015). Studying these synanthropic species is important for several reasons.…”

Primates and its relationship with yellow fever

“…The beginning of urbanization with the accelerated increasing of the number of cities and consequently the population in the last centuries Hobbs 1 including the construction of highways, bridges, generated a constant destruction of the natural habitats of wild animals, in addition to deforestation and other ecological consequences as the increase of Arbovirus populations Czech et al 2 Vasconcelos et al 3 Grimm et al 4 since the human-wildlife conflict is as ancient as civilization Soulsbury & White, 5 Anand & Radhakrishna. 6 The proximity of some cities with forest or part of ancient ones and the preservation of some part of forests in parks and preservation areas in cities approximate humans to the wild animals, and the constant relationship between humans and urban vertebrate such as birds (sparrows, pigeons, crows), rats, skunks, bats, some primates, has generated some kind of ecological relation Markovchick-Nicholls 7 in which humans supply part or total feed to these animals Clucas & Marzluff.…”