Human-Wildlife Conflict and Coexistence in Urban Environments

A special issue of Animals (ISSN 2076-2615). This special issue belongs to the section "Wildlife".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 July 2023) | Viewed by 7812

Special Issue Editor


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Urban and Regional Planning and Political Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
Interests: urban politics and public policy; economic development; animal welfare policy; local governance and management
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

This Special Issue of the journal Animals will focus on both conflict and coexistence in human–wildlife interactions in cities. “Wildlife” is broadly defined to include animals traditionally living in the wild such as coyotes, wolves, and moose; synanthropes that have long lived in urban areas with people such as rats, racoons, and pigeons; and typical companion animals that have been left to roam the streets such as feral cats and dogs. 

The putative divisions between human and animal, nature and urban, and the wild and the “civilized” simply do not exist in cities. Whether the result of urbanization spreading into formerly rural or undeveloped areas, deindustrialization causing urban areas to “green,” or the fact that animals have always shared cities, boundaries between human and nonhuman animals, even in highly urbanized areas, are porous, impermanent, and often contested. 

The presence of high numbers of animals and human concentrations in cities has implications for the health and welfare of both. Nonhuman animals can pass diseases and parasites to humans either directly through bites or simply via proximity. The human world brings cars, cruelty, crime related to dog fighting, and pressures for extermination that threaten the health and wellbeing of nonhuman animals. While humans and wildlife can clearly conflict in urban spaces, scholars have been deemphasizing such conflict in favor of tolerance and coexistence. Human–animal studies scholars are generating more inclusive multispecies perspectives that consider wild animals as social actors. Transspecies urban theorists argue for accommodating wild animals as urban citizens rather than as trespassers.

While certainly not exhaustive, some potential topics are listed below. Global comparisons would be particularly welcome. 

  • What are the implications of focusing on wild animals in urban areas in terms of a host of municipal functions such as infrastructure planning, ordinances, zoning, and use of greenspaces? How does the placement of human infrastructure such as roads, housing, golf courses, parks, and bus stops affect nonhuman animals and the relations between humans and animals?
  • If formerly wild animals such as wolves and coyotes are to be accommodated in cities, how are both animal and human safety to be protected?
  • What are the continuing health threats of human–wildlife interactions in cities?
  • If urban farming is promoted in cities, how is the likely increase in animals such as raccoons and rats to be addressed?
  • What is the impact of abandoned buildings on stray and feral dogs and cats? If such buildings are razed, how do the animals living in them react?
  • How can urban infrastructure be modified to increase the potential for positive human–animal interactions?
  • What would model ordinances regarding wildlife such as wolves or coyotes in cities look like? How can human safety and wild animal welfare be protected?
  • How have wild animals adapted over time to life in cities and to what extent do they differ from their non-urban counterparts?

Authors are encouraged to submit article proposals to the editor by 31 December 2022. These will be reviewed, and specific papers selected by 31 January 2023. The final articles will be due by 31 July 2023. Please send proposals along with contact information and a curriculum vita via email to: Laura A. Reese, School of Planning, Design and Construction, Michigan State University, reesela@msu.edu.

Prof. Dr. Laura A. Reese
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Animals is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • human–wildlife interactions
  • wildlife in urban areas
  • animals in cities

Published Papers (3 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review, Other

20 pages, 464 KiB  
Article
Urban Human–Coyote Conflicts: Assessing Friendliness as an Indicator of Coexistence
by Cameron T. Whitley, Melanie M. Bowers and Harriett Grantz
Animals 2023, 13(18), 2903; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13182903 - 13 Sep 2023
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1447
Abstract
Human–coyote sightings and interactions are becoming more frequent in urban areas across North and Central America. While many species have lost territory, the coyote range has expanded. Relatively recently, ecologists have coalesced around the idea that coexistence is the most promising avenue to [...] Read more.
Human–coyote sightings and interactions are becoming more frequent in urban areas across North and Central America. While many species have lost territory, the coyote range has expanded. Relatively recently, ecologists have coalesced around the idea that coexistence is the most promising avenue to reduce human–coyote conflict in urban areas. Despite this, calls for the eradication of coyotes continue. We apply and extend the theory of survival of the friendliest to evaluate how the media is framing coyotes and management strategies and what the implications of this framing might be. Through a content analysis of newspaper articles from three different urban areas in the US (Los Angeles, CA; Seattle, WA; and Boston, MA), from 2000 to 2022, we find that friendly language is used to promote coexistence, while unfriendly language (threat, hostile, unfriendly, and danger) is used to justify eradication. We also find considerable variation in the type of coverage and consistency with scientific consensus across cities, likely reflecting the cities’ varied histories and cultural understandings of the species. Given the media’s influence on the public’s views of coyotes and their support for management strategies, these findings suggest that the media plays a central role in shaping coyote–human relationships and management strategies. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Human-Wildlife Conflict and Coexistence in Urban Environments)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research, Other

24 pages, 2181 KiB  
Review
Benefits and Conflicts: A Systematic Review of Dog Park Design and Management Strategies
by Shuolei Chen, Zhuoran Wu, Ole Russell Sleipness and Hao Wang
Animals 2022, 12(17), 2251; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172251 - 31 Aug 2022
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 4485
Abstract
Dog ownership and dog walking brings various health benefits for urban dwellers, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, but trigger a number of controversies. Dog parks have become increasingly significant public resources in the pandemic to support these benefits while facing intense conflicts. To [...] Read more.
Dog ownership and dog walking brings various health benefits for urban dwellers, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, but trigger a number of controversies. Dog parks have become increasingly significant public resources in the pandemic to support these benefits while facing intense conflicts. To develop effective dog parks in urban settings, growing numbers of scholars have provided insights into the design and management strategies for addressing the benefits and conflicts. The objective of this study is to synthesize and analyze various aspects of dog park design and management and to assess identified strategies for enhancing their benefits while mitigating their drawbacks. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic study was conducted to synthesize the benefits, conflicts, and management strategies of dog parks, supported by Citespace. Benefits and conflicts in dog park design and management have been synthesized and organized according to their frequency of presence and the statistical results. We analyzed and assessed existing design and management strategies. Through this systematic study, we discovered the need obtain o po experimental evidence on effective dog park design and management to enhance their benefits while mitigating their sources of conflict and limitations in the intensity of park visitors’ physical activity in off-leash areas. Guidelines for the design and management strategies for effective dog parks were made to enhance their benefits while alleviating conflicts in the future development of sustainable dog parks that promote healthy relationships between canines and residents in urban built environments. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Human-Wildlife Conflict and Coexistence in Urban Environments)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Other

Jump to: Research, Review

16 pages, 240 KiB  
Commentary
The Life and Death of Freya the Walrus: Human and Wild Animal Interactions in the Anthropocene Era
by Abigail Levin and Sarah Vincent
Animals 2023, 13(17), 2788; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13172788 - 01 Sep 2023
Viewed by 844
Abstract
Freya the Walrus, who often climbed onto docked boats to sunbathe and frolic, was euthanized by the Norwegian Department of Fisheries in the Oslo fjord in August 2022, sparking international outrage and media attention. Since walruses are social animals, and since the Anthropocene [...] Read more.
Freya the Walrus, who often climbed onto docked boats to sunbathe and frolic, was euthanized by the Norwegian Department of Fisheries in the Oslo fjord in August 2022, sparking international outrage and media attention. Since walruses are social animals, and since the Anthropocene era of climate change has displaced animals from their Arctic homes, forcing them to migrate, we can expect more human–animal interactions at such places as marinas, where Freya met her end. This paper asks and attempts to answer how we can make such interactions just going forward? In cases such as Freya’s, we need to reconcile three competing interests: the animal’s interest in living a flourishing life as best they can in a changing climate; the public’s interest in a safe and fulfilling wildlife encounter with an animal they have come to know intimately enough to name and follow devotedly on social media; and interests in maintaining private property. Examining these interests through the philosophical lenses of co-sovereignty, capability, and individuality, however, will yield more just results for animals in similar situations of conflict and co-existence with humans in urban spaces. We argue that, going forward, state resources should be expended to safeguard the public from marina access if safety is a genuine concern, while private money should be spent by marinas to enact safe animal removal with a no-kill policy. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Human-Wildlife Conflict and Coexistence in Urban Environments)
Back to TopTop