Demographic and spatial variables associated with spending time in nature during COVID-19 lockdowns.

To stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (COVID-19) governments around the world implemented lockdowns restricting public travel. In the Australian state of Victoria, this included limiting permitted reasons for leaving home and restricting movements to within a 5 km radius of one's home. In 2020, we conducted a state-wide survey (N = 1024) of Victorians that coincided with a lockdown. We asked respondents where they had spent time in nature and how they perceived lockdowns affected the amount of time they spent in nature. We then considered demographic and spatial predictors of spending more or less time in nature. Women, younger people, and those living in areas with higher socio-economic status were likely to report spending more time in nature. Closer proximity of residents to parks and waterways and higher proportional area of native vegetation within a 1-km radius were also associated with more time in nature. Understanding how different groups were affected by restrictions on access to nature can help improve government management of crises like pandemics, including through urban planning for green space, supporting improved individual and societal resilience. We discuss the implications of our findings for improving access to nature during lockdowns as well as opportunities for a post-pandemic relationship with nature, particularly in urban settings.

Animal mortality during fire.

Earth's rapidly warming climate is propelling us towards an increasingly fire-prone future. Currently, knowledge of the extent and characteristics of animal mortality rates during fire remains rudimentary, hindering our ability to predict how animal populations may be impacted in the future. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a global systematic review of the direct effects of fire on animal mortality rates, based on studies that unequivocally determined the fate of animals during fire. From 31 studies spanning 1984-2020, we extracted data on the direct impacts of fire on the mortality of 31 species from 23 families. From these studies, there were 43 instances where direct effects were measured by reporting animal survival from pre- to post-fire. Most studies were conducted in North America (52%) and Oceania (42%), focused largely on mammals (53%) and reptiles (30%), and reported mostly on animal survival in planned (82%) and/or low severity (70%) fires. We found no studies from Asia, Europe or South America. Although there were insufficient data to conduct a formal meta-analysis, we tested the effect of fire type, fire severity, fire regime, animal body mass, ecological attributes and class on survival. Only fire severity affected animal mortality, with a higher proportion of animals being killed by high than low severity fires. Recent catastrophic fires across the globe have drawn attention to the plight of animals exposed to wildfire. Yet, our systematic review suggests that a relatively low proportion of animals (mean predicted mortality [95% CI] = 3% [1%-9%]) are killed during fire. However, our review also underscores how little we currently know about the direct effects of fire on animal mortality, and highlights the critical need to understand the effects of high severity fire on animal populations.

Representations of Free-Living and Unrestrained Dogs as an Emerging Public Health Issue in Australian Newspapers.

That dogs can live and breed as free-living animals contributes to public health risks including zoonotic transmission, dog bites, and compromising people's sense of safety in public spaces. In Australia, free-living dog populations are comprised of domestic dogs, dingoes, and dog-dingo hybrids, and are described using various terms (for example, stray or community), depending on social or geographic context. Urban expansion and regional migration mean that risks associated with contact between humans and free-living dogs are increasing. Public health authorities, local governments, and community organisations have called for transdisciplinary partnerships to address dog-related health risks with a sustainable long-term approach. Values pluralism and a lack of sustained community engagement in affected areas have meant that the outcome of such efforts to date has been mixed. To identify ideas in public circulation about the impact of unrestrained and free-living dogs on human health and well-being, and understand the framework through which these animals are problematised and solutions are proposed in public discourse, we systematically examined coverage of these issues in print media. Our analyses indicate that reporting in Australian newspapers tends to frame the public health impacts of free-living dogs as problems of public order requiring direct government action to re-establish control. The public health impacts of free-living dog populations in Australia have complex causes that intersect at the nexus between human and canine behaviour, agricultural and land management practices, local bylaws, and efforts to conserve ecological systems. Placing responsibility on governments limits opportunities for greater community involvement in developing integrated One Health approaches. Better-quality evidence of the impacts of dog populations on community health and well-being, and broad community support are needed to reshape public debates on animal control, which, ultimately, will promote more effective approaches to mitigate dog-related public health risks at the human-animal-environment interface.

What Is a Dingo? The Phenotypic Classification of Dingoes by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Residents in Northern Australia.

Dingo classification and management is complicated by hybridisation with domestic dogs. Northern Australia is a relatively high-risk zone for a rabies incursion, and in the event of an incursion, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who reside in this region would prioritise the protection of dingoes. Therefore, the classification of dingoes in this context is important. Twelve pictures of canids with features associated with both dingoes and domestic dogs from camera traps in the Northern Peninsula Area (NPA), northern Queensland, were shown to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rangers (n = 3), biosecurity officers (n = 2), environmental health workers (n = 2), and residents (n = 39) in the NPA. Nearly all pictures (10/12) were classified as dingo or domestic dog (none as hybrid) and two were inconclusive (no overall agreement). Dingoes were consistently identified as medium to large-framed dogs, with a long nose, pointed ears, narrow abdomen, a bushy or feathered tail, and smooth coats of a single base colour. Some hybrid features were acceptable, including sable coats, lack of white tail tip or feet, and curled tail. These findings are a preliminary guide for identifying canids in the NPA region for whom management might be controversial. Building on this approach via further consultation with residents is needed to inform rabies response policy. Our approach using locally acquired camera trap pictures could also be extended to other regions in which dingoes have value but their management is controversial.

Addressing inequality and intolerance in human-wildlife coexistence.

Millennia of human conflict with wildlife have built a culture of intolerance toward wildlife among some stakeholders. We explored 2 key obstacles to improved human-wildlife coexistence: coexistence inequality (how the costs and benefits of coexisting with wildlife are unequally shared) and intolerance. The costs of coexisting with wildlife are often disproportionately borne by the so-called global south and rural communities, and the benefits often flow to the global north and urban dwellers. Attitudes and behaviors toward wildlife (tolerance versus intolerance) vary with social and cultural norms. We suggest more empathetic advocacy is needed that, for example, promotes conservation while appropriately considering those who bear the costs of conflict with wildlife. To achieve more equitable cost-sharing, we suggest limiting the costs incurred by those most affected or by sharing those costs more widely. For example, we advocate for the development of improved wildlife compensation schemes, increasing the scale of rewilding efforts, and preventing wildlife-derived revenue leaching out of the local communities bearing the costs of coexistence.

Soluciones para la Desigualdad y la Intolerancia en la Coexistencia Humano - Fauna Resumen Los milenios de conflicto entre los humanos y la fauna han construido una cultura de intolerancia hacia la fauna entre algunos actores. Exploramos dos obstáculos importantes para la mejora de la coexistencia humano - fauna: la desigualdad de coexistencia (cómo los costos y los beneficios de la coexistencia con la fauna están compartidos de una manera desigual) y la intolerancia. Los costos de coexistir con la fauna generalmente están asumidos de manera desproporcional por las llamadas comunidades del sur global o rurales, y los beneficios de convivir con la fauna generalmente fluyen hacia el norte mundial y hacia los habitantes de zonas urbanas. Las actitudes y comportamientos hacia la fauna (tolerancia versus intolerancia) varían con las normas culturales y sociales. Sugerimos la necesidad de una defensa más empática que, por ejemplo, promueva la conservación a la vez que considera de manera apropiada a aquellos que asumen los costos del conflicto con la fauna. Para lograr costos compartidos más equitativos sugerimos limitar los costos incurridos por aquellos más afectados o compartir los costos de manera más amplia. Por ejemplo, abogamos por el desarrollo de esquemas mejorados de compensación de fauna, el incremento de la escala de los esfuerzos por el retorno a la vida silvestre y la prevención del secuestro de ingresos derivados de la fauna fuera de las comunidades locales que asumen los costos de la coexistencia.

Exploring nationality and social identity to explain attitudes toward conservation actions in the United States and Australia.

Understanding human attitudes toward wildlife management is critical to implementing effective conservation action and policy. Understanding the factors that shape public attitudes toward different wildlife management actions is limited, however, which can result in unpredictable public responses to interventions. We drew on comparisons between residents of 2 countries on separate continents to explore differences in attitudes toward wildlife management and determine factors important in shaping these attitudes. We surveyed representative publics via market research panels in Australia (n = 881 respondents) and the United States (n = 1287). We applied a social-identity approach and demography to identify factors that explained variance between responses about wildlife management. We compared responses between countries overall and within subgroups of respondents who strongly identified as environmentalists, animal rights activists, wildlife conservation advocates, and farmers. We created aggregate scores for the management-related response items per respondent and used regression analyses to identify the relative importance of country, identity, age, and gender in explaining variance between responses. These factors accounted for 15.3% of variance among responses. Australians overall were generally more accepting of lethal wildlife management actions than U.S. respondents. Differences in national attitudes reflected differences between United States and Australian wildlife management and policy, highlighting the importance of understanding social attitudes in shaping conservation policy. Identifying as a farmer followed by identifying as an animal rights activist most shaped attitudes toward wildlife management. Identity-related conflicts could be initiated or exacerbated by conservation interventions that fail to consider identity-related processes.

Exploración de la Nacionalidad y la Identidad Social para Explicar las Actitudes hacia las Acciones de Conservación en los Estados Unidos y en Australia Resumen El entendimiento de las actitudes humanas hacia el manejo de fauna es muy importante para la implementación efectiva de las acciones y las políticas de conservación. Sin embargo, la comprensión de los factores que forman las actitudes públicas hacia las diferentes acciones de manejo de fauna es limitada, lo que puede resultar en respuestas públicas impredecibles ante las intervenciones. Trabajamos con comparaciones entre residentes de dos países en continentes distintos para explorar las diferencias en actitudes hacia el manejo de fauna y para determinar los factores importantes que intervienen en la formación de estas actitudes. Encuestamos a ciudadanos representativos por medio de paneles de estudios de mercado en Australia (n = 881 respondientes) y en los Estados Unidos (n = 1287). Aplicamos una estrategia de identidad social y demografía para identificar los factores que explican la varianza entre las respuestas al manejo de fauna. Comparamos las respuestas entre ambos países en general y entre subgrupos de respondientes que se identificaron fervientemente como ambientalistas, activistas por los derechos de los animales, defensores de la conservación de fauna y agricultores. Creamos puntajes agregados por respondiente para las respuestas relacionadas al manejo y usamos análisis de regresión para identificar la importancia relativa del país, la identidad, la edad y el género para la explicación de la varianza entre las respuestas. Estos factores explicaron el 15.3% de la varianza entre las respuestas. Como generalidad, los australianos tuvieron una mayor aceptación de las acciones de manejo letal de fauna que los respondientes estadunidenses. Las diferencias en las actitudes nacionales reflejaron las diferencias entre las políticas y el manejo de fauna en los Estados Unidos y en Australia, lo que resalta la importancia del entendimiento de las actitudes sociales en la formación de políticas de conservación. La identidad que más influencia tuvo sobre las actitudes hacia el manejo de fauna fue la de agricultor, seguido de activista por los derechos de los animales. Los conflictos relacionados con la identidad podrían ser iniciados o agudizados por las intervenciones de conservación que omiten considerar los procesos relacionados con la identidad.

Taxonomic status of the Australian dingo: the case for Canis dingo Meyer, 1793.

The taxonomic status and systematic nomenclature of the Australian dingo remain contentious, resulting in decades of inconsistent applications in the scientific literature and in policy. Prompted by a recent publication calling for dingoes to be considered taxonomically as domestic dogs (Jackson et al. 2017, Zootaxa 4317, 201-224), we review the issues of the taxonomy applied to canids, and summarise the main differences between dingoes and other canids. We conclude that (1) the Australian dingo is a geographically isolated (allopatric) species from all other Canis, and is genetically, phenotypically, ecologically, and behaviourally distinct; and (2) the dingo appears largely devoid of many of the signs of domestication, including surviving largely as a wild animal in Australia for millennia. The case of defining dingo taxonomy provides a quintessential example of the disagreements between species concepts (e.g., biological, phylogenetic, ecological, morphological). Applying the biological species concept sensu stricto to the dingo as suggested by Jackson et al. (2017) and consistently across the Canidae would lead to an aggregation of all Canis populations, implying for example that dogs and wolves are the same species. Such an aggregation would have substantial implications for taxonomic clarity, biological research, and wildlife conservation. Any changes to the current nomen of the dingo (currently Canis dingo Meyer, 1793), must therefore offer a strong, evidence-based argument in favour of it being recognised as a subspecies of Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758, or as Canis familiaris Linnaeus, 1758, and a successful application to the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature - neither of which can be adequately supported. Although there are many species concepts, the sum of the evidence presented in this paper affirms the classification of the dingo as a distinct taxon, namely Canis dingo.

Carnivore conservation needs evidence-based livestock protection.

Carnivore predation on livestock often leads people to retaliate. Persecution by humans has contributed strongly to global endangerment of carnivores. Preventing livestock losses would help to achieve three goals common to many human societies: preserve nature, protect animal welfare, and safeguard human livelihoods. Between 2016 and 2018, four independent reviews evaluated >40 years of research on lethal and nonlethal interventions for reducing predation on livestock. From 114 studies, we find a striking conclusion: scarce quantitative comparisons of interventions and scarce comparisons against experimental controls preclude strong inference about the effectiveness of methods. For wise investment of public resources in protecting livestock and carnivores, evidence of effectiveness should be a prerequisite to policy making or large-scale funding of any method or, at a minimum, should be measured during implementation. An appropriate evidence base is needed, and we recommend a coalition of scientists and managers be formed to establish and encourage use of consistent standards in future experimental evaluations.

Managing conflict between large carnivores and livestock.

Large carnivores are persecuted globally because they threaten human industries and livelihoods. How this conflict is managed has consequences for the conservation of large carnivores and biodiversity more broadly. Mitigating human-predator conflict should be evidence-based and accommodate people's values while protecting carnivores. Despite much research into human and large-carnivore coexistence strategies, there have been few attempts to document the success of conflict-mitigation strategies on a global scale. We conducted a meta-analysis of global research on conflict mitigation related to large carnivores and humans. We focused on conflicts that arise from the threat large carnivores pose to livestock. We first used structured and unstructured searching to identify replicated studies that used before-after or control-impact design to measure change in livestock loss as a result of implementing a management intervention. We then extracted relevant data from these studies to calculate an overall effect size for each intervention type. Research effort and focus varied among continents and aligned with the histories and cultures that shaped livestock production and attitudes toward carnivores. Livestock guardian animals most effectively reduced livestock losses. Lethal control was the second most effective control, although its success varied the most, and guardian animals and lethal control did not differ significantly. Financial incentives have promoted tolerance of large carnivores in some settings and reduced retaliatory killings. We suggest coexistence strategies be location-specific, incorporate cultural values and environmental conditions, and be designed such that return on financial investment can be evaluated. Improved monitoring of mitigation measures is urgently required to promote effective evidence-based policy.