The carrot or the stick? Evaluation of education and enforcement as management tools for human-wildlife conflicts
-
Published source details
Baruch-Mordo S., Breck S.W., Wilson K.R. & Broderick J. (2011) The carrot or the stick? Evaluation of education and enforcement as management tools for human-wildlife conflicts. PLoS ONE, 6.
Published source details Baruch-Mordo S., Breck S.W., Wilson K.R. & Broderick J. (2011) The carrot or the stick? Evaluation of education and enforcement as management tools for human-wildlife conflicts. PLoS ONE, 6.
Actions
This study is summarised as evidence for the following.
| Action | Category | |
|---|---|---|
|
Issue enforcement notices to deter use of non bear-proof garbage dumpsters to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link |
 |
|
|
Use campaigns and public information to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats Action Link |
|
|
|
Provide education programmes to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats Action Link |
|
-
Issue enforcement notices to deter use of non bear-proof garbage dumpsters to reduce human-wildlife conflict
A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 2008 of four alleyways in business and residential areas in Colorado, USA (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2011) found that issuing enforcement notices requiring appropriate dumpster use did not reduce garbage accessibility to black bears Ursus americanus. Changes in the proportion of dumpsters violating legislation in alleyways where enhanced enforcement occurred (after enforcement: 20% of dumpsters; before: 42%) did not significantly differ from those in alleyways without enhanced enforcements (after: 24% of dumpsters; before: 49%). Similarly, there was no significant difference in changes in legislation compliance between individual dumpsters issued with enforcement notices (after issuing: 36% of dumpsters; before: 72%) and those not (after: 17% of dumpsters; before 36%). In treatment alleys (with 37 dumpsters) there were daily patrols. Twenty-two written notices were issued on 18 dumpsters and two verbal warnings were given. Two additional alleys (30 dumpsters) had continuing lower level of enforcement action. Pre- and post-treatment surveys took place between 1 July and 25 August 2008. Dumpsters were regarded as violating legislation if they were not bear-resistant or if food waste was otherwise accessible.
(Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)
-
Use campaigns and public information to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats
A randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 2007 in a residential area in Colorado, USA (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2011) found that displaying education signs about the danger of garbage to black bears Ursus americanus did not reduce the percentage of garbage containers that were not wildlife-resistant or wildlife-proof. The overall proportion of households using garbage containers that were not wildlife-resistant or wildlife-proof declined during the study. However, where signage was used, the trend in households not using wildlife-resistant garbage containers (after: 0–31%; before: 11–52%) did not differ from where signage was not used (after: 7–27%; before: 9–45%). Dumpsters were surveyed at 68 communal housing complexes. Thirty-four were randomly selected for placement of signs on dumpsters, warning of dangers of unsecured garbage to bears. Similarly, 42 construction sites were surveyed, with signage used at 22 of these. Dumpsters were surveyed in July –September 2007, for three weeks before and three weeks after installing signage. Violations were use of unsecured containers, unsecure dumpster storage outside kerbside collection times, garbage outside dumpsters and, on building sites, food waste in open dumpsters.
(Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)
-
Provide education programmes to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats
A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 2008 of a residential area in Colorado, USA (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2011) found that visiting properties to educate about the danger of garbage to black bears Ursus americanus did not increase use of wildlife-resistant dumpsters. Where educational visits were carried out, the trend in availability of garbage to wildlife (before visits: 13–15% of households; after visits: 16–26%) did not differ from those in neighbourhoods that were not visited (before visits: 9–15% of households; after: 16–17%). Similarly, there was no difference in use of bear-resistant containers between neighbourhoods that were visited (before visits: 11–17% of households; after: 16–23%) or not visited (before visits: 14–19% of households; after: 17–18%). In two neighbourhoods, 91% and 87% of residences were visited and residents were spoken to or had educational material delivered. Two further neighbourhoods, did not receiving any visits. Household garbage disposal facilities were surveyed in July–September 2008, before and after visits. Garbage was regarded as accessible if placed outside containers, or in non-bear-resistant containers.
(Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)
)_2023.JPG)
