Abstract Human-wildlife conflict is a major conservation concern worldwide that is projected to increase in frequency and intensity as urban centers expand. Urban residents can employ a number of nonlethal strategies to deter wildlife from their property and reduce conflict; however, some strategies may be more effective than others. We distributed an online questionnaire to residents in Tucson, Arizona, USA via neighborhood associations to (1) assess attitudes toward and conflict with three focal species: coyote ( Canis latrans ), bobcat ( Lynx rufus ), and collared peccary ( Pecari tajacu ), (2) identify which nonlethal deterrent strategies are most effective for each species, and (3) determine whether habitat fragmentation and degradation influence reported deterrence attempts. Despite the relatively high proportion of general complaints about these three species, we found that respondent attitudes toward each were largely positive. Likewise, a relatively small percentage of respondents reported attempts to deter each species from their property. We found that deterrent techniques used by residents varied in success depending on species, however, low sample sizes prevent a rigorous assessment of each technique’s efficacy. We did not find any relationship between proportion of deterrence attempts in respondent locations and percentage impervious surface cover, distance to nearest riparian corridor, or percentage impervious surface within the riparian corridor. Our results add to previous evidence that nonlethal strategies can be used to reduce human-wildlife conflict and show that such strategies may be successfully employed by urban residents. Our findings further highlight the importance of developing species-specific strategies that conform to the unique ecologies of each species.
Burnett et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: