This article addresses the increasing concerns, incidents, and potential issues stemming from negative human-wildlife interactions. The article does a good job of addressing the effects that management can have on populations rather than allowing them to persist uncontacted and without interference. Acknowledging that fragmentation can occur because of human management is an important part of what the article talks about, as well as that certain management practices promote plastic vs genetic change and why either would be aimed for as a goal.

The authors’ findings show that behavioral shifts in animals are directly correlated to how human/animal interactions tend to play out in urban environments vs non-urban environments. Often, new behaviors and plastic changes are passed down through generations in urban environments because human interactions tend not to be lethal, whereas genetic changes are often passed down in non-urban environments so that populations can survive. In urban environments, nocturnality, problem-solving, increased tolerance, diet niche shifts, and fear responses are all behaviors that urban wildlife species show to have developed through time. 

Soci-economic factors have been shown to impact human attitudes and interactions regarding wildlife. Low-income communities tend not to have access to substantial green spaces, vegetation, and other environmental problems. Increased negative interactions occur more frequently because of the limited space available and can cause many issues like property damage and even increased health risks. Because of the compounded factors, lower-middle to lower class income families and communities tend to have a much more negative attitude towards urban wildlife and are far more likely to have negative interactions.

Management practice has a significant impact on the current and future generations of urban wildlife, as the type of control used on populations influences the behaviors and perceptions of the animals. For example, mass rodenticides are one of the few practices that wipe out entire populations and are for the benefit of both humans and wildlife. By keeping these otherwise exponentially growing populations at bay, negative attitudes towards urban wildlife more broadly can be positively influenced and perceived. Single target removals and translocations are other methods of protecting wildlife and humans, specifically for larger animals. Oftentimes, wildlife will changes their behaviors and/or traits as to not draw attention to themselves and avoid having to have these interactions with wildlife management.

Overall, this article effectively highlights causation and impacts on wildlife in urban settings and how attitudes towards wildlife can be impacted. I think that certain methods could have been further explored and in more detail but I believe that it is an effective and productive article regardless.