https://doi.org/10.2193/2008-512

As the range of coyotes (Canis latrans) in northeastern regions of the United States increases, human-coyote interactions (HCI) have become a more prevalent issue in suburban and urban areas. The authors of this article focused their research of HCI in Westchester County, New York, distributing 6,000 surveys to students kindergarten to 12th grade. Each survey asked if the family members had seen or heard a coyote within the past 3 years: how many, at what time of day, and at what time of year? The students address was attached to these answers in order to geographically place them as data points. The sightings data was also compared to a rural-urban gradient based on the intensity of development (density of infrastructure/buildings). 

When considering the methodology of their sampling, it is important to consider that they employed a voluntary response method. Although the authors mentioned that over 1,500 responses from the households of the students gave a spectrum of land use types (rural, suburban, urban), this variability could have been accounted for better if they had used the documented reports of HCI from local police departments as their sampling frame and then chose their sample size from simple random sampling within each source of reports (stratified sampling). This would have decreased the possibility of response bias since there might be a confounding variable to consider when assessing who had taken the time to fill out the survey (perhaps those who had encountered a coyote more frequently were more likely to share their story than others).

The data was found to show the following trends: visual sightings increased closer to nighttime, most sightings were of solitary coyotes across seasons, encounters were most likely to be closer to forest and grassland land cover types and farther from medium to high intensity development. The collective findings were then used in conjunction with previous coyote sightings data to formulate a map of Westchester County, NY depicting the probability of coyote observation.

Having a map with the probability of human-coyote interactions can lead to more focused management techniques. Areas which are at high risk for encounters could have more educational outreach from local government agencies to minimize attracting coyotes (practices such as keeping pet food and garbage secure). Also, these areas could benefit from greater awareness of the presence of coyotes so that preventative measures and active engagement in environmental issues from residents could lead to a proactive mindset and willingness to share their space with a predator species. This article is also significant in the way that it highlights the use of citizen science to quantify human-wildlife interactions. Making use of residential viewpoints and modern technology can gather data at a more efficient rate than experimental study sites. This connection between citizen science and human-wildlife interactions in an urban setting can be seen in many other papers (https://doi.org/10.1071/WR10007 = citizen science and tagged urban wildlife, HTML  = citizen science and Tuscon Bird Count, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156425 = citizen science and birds/ butterflies.

Mowry, C., Wilson, L., & VonHoldt, B. (2021). Interface of Human/Wildlife Interactions: An 

Example of a Bold Coyote (Canis latrans) in Atlanta, GA, USA. Diversity, 13(8), 372. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13080372

Many animals have expanded upon their ranges in reaction to human expanion. Generalist species especially have spread across the continent. Coyotes are one of the best examples of this. They used to be contained in the more western part of the country, but during the 1900s they began to expand more east. They are now found throughout the entire country. With their increasing range and population, they have also grown more bold in urban areas. Coyotes tend to be more skittish, but that behavior can falter as they grow used to humans. They also have the ability to interbreed with other canine species, such as domestic dogs and wolves. This can lead to them obtaining attributes and behaviors of those species.

This paper follows a specific individual in Atlanta, Georgia. He is a melanistic coyote with a specific ancestry of 92.8% coyote, 5.5% domestic dog, and 1.7% gray wolf. Dogs and wolves posses a mutation that makes them more social, but it is rare in coyotes. 

The paper discusses how the extirpation of red wolves has increased the expansion of coyotes’ range. Deforestation, urbanization, and other human-caused impacts have increased the amount of edge area. For more generalist species, such as coyotes, this allowed them to expand their range. There were lots of interactions between the urban area of Atlanta and the coyote that was being studied. He was spotted during all times of the day, crossing highways, interacting with domesticated animals, and more.

They eventually captured the coyote, named Carmine, in February. He had been incredibly bold in the wild, but became more skittish once captured. He escaped his enclosure in May, and he immediately went to a nearby neighborhood and attempted to interact with a dog.

This coyote had been able to expertly navigate the urban landscape of Atlanta. He was uncharacteristically bold and social with dogs and expertly crossed major highways. Carmine was originally speculated to have a large portion of domestic dog genetic material due to how bold he was. However, the genetic results showed that he was only 5.5% dog. The urban landscape had created an area that supports these more bold behaviors.

Not all small meat eaters have the same attitudes or outlooks on life. This is especially true due the varying biodiversity and population growth. While the numbers of small carnivores in urban areas is very small, there are small carnivore like animals that inhabit urban areas. The growing human population is why we are seeing a lack of smaller carnivores. Just as the problem with other studies, the same conclusion was made in this study, humans are the problem and they are the ones that need to change. 

  The prediction is that, by 2030, urbanization will grow by about 1.2 million km^2 to accommodate growing populations. This prediction shows the desperate need for research and investigation into protecting wildlife despite urbanization. There have been a couple attempts made to get more knowledge on this subject; however, that was before 1970 when there were limited resources available. If research is done now, 50 years later, there is a greater chance to yield better results. Urbanization will not stop because the human population is growing very rapidly, instead, we need to support and help wildlife adapt to these changes.

The methods of this study were slightly shocking to me. Rather than researchers doing the “hard-work” themselves, they used published papers from other studies. They used a total of 643 published articles to establish evidence for the study. The earliest of these studies began in the 1900’s with the most recent being in 2021.  Due to this, there is no exact location where the study took place.

Results of this study appeared to be similar to other similar studies. The researchers in this particular study studied more of a logistical effect of urbanization on wildlife. Given this, studies up to 1991 only 34 of the 643 studies or about 5.3% focused on small carnivores living in urban areas.  This number has risen at an exponential rate and is now 389 out of 643 studies or 60.5%. All of these studies suggested there were dangers to small wildlife with urbanization, but concluded there was no real “fix.”

Streicher, Jarryd P., et al. “Not All Mammalian Small Carnivores Are Equal: A Global Review of the Research Effort in Urban Areas.” BioOne Complete, Southern African Wildlife Management Association, bioone.org/journals/african-journal-of-wildlife-research/volume-53/issue-1/056.053.0072/Not-All-Mammalian-Small-Carnivores-are-Equal–A-Global/10.3957/056.053.0072.full. Accessed 23 Sep. 2024. 

Kreling, S.E.S., Gaynor, K.M. and Coon, C.A.C. (2019), Roadkill distribution at the wildland-urban interface. Jour. Wild. Mgmt., 83: 1427-1436. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21692

As urbanization rapidly increases around the globe, the use of roads as prominent feature inthe wildland-urban interface has created an increase in wildlife- vehicle collisions. This article explores the spatial, temporal, and species-specific patterns of roadkill located along Interstate (I-280) in California. They also explored the impacts of land cover, fencing, lighting, and traffic on these areas and the associated species. This study aimed to learn more about wildlife movement in relevance to wildlife-vehicle collisions in an area with increasing urbanization.

The study area spanned over a 50km stretch of I-280 in the San Franciso Bay area in California. This are was chosen due its abundance of fast moving vehicles and its proximity to nearby residential development in San Francisco and Silicon Valley. The average amount of traffic that reaches I-280 in a day is an estimated 125,000 cars a day in some sections of the highway. The area to the east of the I-280 is heavily developed and bordered by 3 major cities with populations over >70,000. To the west of I-280, there are several wildland habitats that are important to several wildlife species such as coyote, black-tailed deer, and mountain lion.

To assess roadkill data, they used data from the Road Ecology Centers California Roadkill Observation System which relies on data from citizen science volunteers. They then used data from Google to categorize information on fencing and lighting. The study also looks at other factors such as season, moon phase, and land cover. They compared this data from the East side of I-280 and the West side of I-280.

The results of this study found that roadkill was present throughout the whole study site, but more common in the north. More raccoon roadkill observations were observed in the north while deer roadkill was observed more uniformly throughout the study site. For all individual species, traffic had a negative correlation with roadkill. There was no indirect relationship between moonlight and roadkill for any other species. Road kill was more common in areas with less developed land which could represent the species either being attracted to development, them retreating to wildlands, or a combination of the two.

I chose this article because urbanization is rapidly increasing in the United States and wildlife-vehicle collisions are becoming more common as a result of this urbanization. I thought this paper did a good job of exploring the different variables that could be explaining the wildlife-vehicle colllisons. I think this research is a good stepping stone for further species specific research that could be done on roadkill and wildlife-vehicle collisions in urban areas.

The research article that I have chosen to review investigates the impacts of solar energy development on urban wildlife species in the southwestern United States. Renewable energy developers are looking to turn public land into utility-scale solar farms that traditionally occupy at least one thousand acres of land. The Southwest United States is considered a hotspot for biodiversity and endangered species, which creates an interesting conflict between renewable energy development and impacts on wildlife. This region is attractive to developers because there is a lot of available dry land, and it is the area with the highest solar irradiance in the country.

This research article delves into the known and potential impacts that utility-scale solar has on wildlife, including habitat destruction and modification, wildlife mortality, dust and dust-suppression effects, off-site impacts, noise pollution, light pollution, fire effects, water consumption, and microclimate effects. I believe that the article does a thorough job at considering the environmental impacts of solar on urban wildlife in the area. Additionally, the article considers the construction and decommissioning of the solar farms and how these processes impact the surrounding wildlife. The results state that all energy production has social and environmental costs, which is why it is important to weigh the pros and cons of developing in a given area.

In order to advance this study, I believe that community impacts should be studied. Urban wildlife and green spaces hold a huge role in recreational activities for certain areas. This study fails to consider how solar plants could impact populations of wildlife that communities rely on. For example, if a solar plant has negative impacts on fish or deer, this could impact hunting in the area. Also, I believe that further research indicating specific species should be completed. Although the article discusses Aggasiz’s desert tortoise, I believe that the results would be more impactful if more species were selected and studied.

Overall, I chose this article because I am interested in sustainable energy development, and I believe that any and all types of development can impact wildlife. With developers wanting to be near cities and load centers, there will be an increase in interactions between these urban wildlife species that live near future energy centers. Developers must consider how their industrial development will impact species, and how to best mitigate these negative impacts.

Source: Lovich, J. E., & Ennen, J. R. (2011). Wildlife Conservation and Solar Energy Development in the Desert Southwest, United States. BioScience, 61(12), 982–992. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.12.8

Urban metabolism can be defined as the sum of the technical and socio-economic processes that occur in cities, resulting in growth, production of energy, and elimination of waste. This classification of urban environments encompasses quantifying outputs, inputs and storage of energy, nutrients, water, materials and wastes for an urban region. Although this article was written years ago, quantifying data varies temporally. I wanted to express my confusion about why the research varies. It was expressed that studies were made in the 1970s and interest dropped off in the 1980s. No further information was provided on the matter, so as the reader I am left with the question of why this happened. I am sure a further study could be conducted; my immediate thoughts were political conflicts or lack of funding as more research broke out in the 1990s.

When defining the urban metabolism factoring scale is of major concern. When factoring in such a matter, the author describes the review of two separate methodical approaches to the idea of urban metabolism. The two approaches being energy equivalence and the flow of resources. In particular, solar energy was the universal metric in the study as recognition of the variation in the quality of different forms of energy were made, while the mainstream of study being the flow of resources because it was more readily accessible and easily understandable when communicating with local government officials.

Research references across the globe were provided about urban metabolism. Some places including Hong Kong, London, Toronto, Phoenix, UK, Lisbon, Ireland, and BangKok. The author primarily focuses on a single application for urban metabolism, although still provides research on every application in which it was used. I felt that was an important thing to note as most articles would cut out the unnecessary information, but the reader can get ideas on other applications in this article. The author reviews the application in terms of all things encompassing sustainability. The terms include urban greenhouse gas accounting, urban design, sustainability reporting, and mathematical modeling for policy analysis. These are just the practical applications for urban planners.

There are four major urban activities: to reside and work, to clean, to transport and communicate, and to nourish and recover. There are four major components to urban metabolism: energy, food, water, and construction materials. These features can be taken into account when reconstructing cities. An example of this would be New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. This framework of thinking is being implemented within the industrial ecology community, which now focuses on urban and social metabolism. The author provides a list of several advantages of the application of urban metabolism framework. Some which include, accounts for inputs and outputs to the system, integrates social science and biophysical science/technology, and necessitates analysis of policy and technology outcomes with respect to sustainability goals.

This paper did a wonderful job at reviewing research on urban metabolism as a whole. The author referenced over 50 papers in total all pertaining to research on urban metabolism in different years. The author also starts off in the first couple paragraphs providing the reader with questions to ponder while learning about urban metabolisms research history. The author leads out with the idea that further work needs to be done and explains that an important future direction that needs to take place is more implementation to economic, social, and health indicators into the framework of the research. I could not agree more with that statement. When understanding the research that has been done these factors were lacking when understanding the urban metabolism as a whole.

Kennedy, C., et al. “The Study of Urban Metabolism and Its Applications to Urban Planning and Design.” Environmental Pollution, vol. 167, no. 8-9, Aug. 2012, p. 184–185, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2010.10.022.

Urban wildlife management is very tricky as people have many different levels of tolerance and attitudes towards wildlife. This paper addresses the complications with the idea of “the right place” to put an animal in relation to human society and the physical places it to which it “belongs.” To many people, pets belong in the city, livestock belong in the countryside, and wildlife belong in the wilderness. However, wildlife do not stick to strict boundaries, and many opportunistic generalists actually prefer city life. To gauge public opinion on wildlife placement in the city, this study asks residents of Munich, Germany where they want different species to occur.

To do this, researchers created flyers to describe the project and access to the online survey, and distributed it among houses and residential buildings. To me, this is one of the major limitations of the study. Doing surveys is always hard, as many of us have learned through statistics. I think it’s great that the survey is online and easily accessible; however, they distributed the flyers through handing them out on the street. I think this is a good way to get people’s immediate attention, but we all know how easy it is to ignore someone trying to give you something while you’re walking to class. Posted flyers could have been a way to mitigate this issue, so people could have voluntary interest. Multiple methods of outreach could also be beneficial. For example, people may be less likely to ignore a phone call or an email.

Survey participants were asked to share their demographics, relationship with nature, attitudes toward 32 different species, and where they wanted animals to occur. Demographics requested were age, gender, and highest finished education. I would be interested to see how socioeconomic status would affect opinions, but education level could possibly be used as a similar metric. The researchers chose generally recognizable species with a wide range of taxon. I think they chose a great group of animals, though I was surprised to see no large mammalian apex predators listed. Although this could be because they do not occur commonly in the city.

Since “nowhere” was rarely picked as a placement for these species, it shows that people do acknowledge that wildlife somewhat “belong” in the city. However, near the home was the least popular option for placement. With the abundance of yards and green space in residential areas, where does this leave the wildlife? If the wildlife are not to be allowed in the available greenspaces, then other areas in cities need to become available with resources and niche needs to divert wildlife away from the home. Overall, I think this was a very interesting study with a lot of insights into the effect of public opinion on urban wildlife management. These findings will be very beneficial for future urban planning, and the planning of outreach and public education initiatives about urban ecology.

Fabio S T Sweet, Anne Mimet, Md Noor Ullah Shumon, Leonie P Schirra, Julia Schäffler, Sophia C Haubitz, Peter Noack, Thomas E Hauck, Wolfgang W Weisser, There is a place for every animal, but not in my back yard: a survey on attitudes towards urban animals and where people want them to live, Journal of Urban Ecology, Volume 10, Issue 1, 2024, juae006, https://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juae006

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347223001689?ref=cra_js_challenge&fr=RR-1

Urbanization is the most rapid form of landscape transformation the world has ever seen. This expansion of urban areas forces wildlife to adjust their behavior in order to survive. One species that has had great success living around urban areas is the red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Recent viewpoints on these widespread carnivores may paint them as pests due to their opportunistic foraging habits. However, it is unknown whether urban adjusted foxes are in fact that much bolder and smarter than their rural counterparts, when foraging for food. This study aimed to answer this question and give better context for how we perceive urban red foxes.

This study was conducted across 200 locations in England and Scotland. Across these locations, food-related objects were deployed for fox interaction. There were 8 unique styles of objects that required problem-solving to access the food. Trail cameras were used to monitor fox behavior around the objects. A principal component analysis of urban and rural landscape variables was used to analyze the data. The researchers found that “urbanization was significantly and positively related to the likelihood of foxes touching, but not exploiting, the objects”. They concluded because of this that urban foxes are bolder, but not more innovative than their rural counterparts.

One thing I think this paper does really well is the methodological descriptions of the experiment. It is very clear on the variables and behaviors that count as acknowledgement and exploitation. It is also very strong in accounting for its own limitations. For example, six months after the initial testing, researchers revisited 30 sites and placed three different food samples without an object to act as a control for potential food preference. The methods are very thorough and numerous variables are taken into account. One variable the paper mentions they left out but I think would be very useful is the individuality of each fox. I think if individual foxes were differentiated it would have been very interesting to see if some foxes were more innovative than others. This would also make up for a potential data skew due to individuals displaying innovative behavior at multiple locations. 

The results section is also explained well but I do not agree with the outline of information. It starts with the results of the secondary food test and I think this would be better towards the end of the section after the broader results were discussed. The statistical analyses and principal component analysis sections are split by findings of the different variables. I think the flow would be maintained if these two sections followed one another because they discuss similar aspects of the study. 

The discussion is very thorough and organized in a fluid way. I really like the section citing similar studies that yielded varying results, it does a nice job of specifying just how nuanced and complex urban wildlife behavior is across species. It solidifies its point that foxes are likely not the “pests” they are sometimes viewed to be by people. Further research should follow individual foxes of varying characteristics such as age, size, sex, etc. This will allow researchers to better differentiate urban from rural foxes and to observe individual innovation.

Morton F.B, Gartner M, Norrie E, Haddou Y, Soulsbury C.D, Adaway K.A. 2023. Urban foxes are bolder but not more innovative than their rural conspecifics. Animal Behaviour 203:101–113.

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.