Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences, and Spatial Planning (FORMAS) and the Swedish Wildlife Damage Centre at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences provided funding for the project. JVLB was supported by a Ramon & Cajal research contract (RYC-2015-18932) from the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness.

Large carnivore conservation may be considered as successful in Sweden, as wolf (Canis lupus), lynx (Lynx lynx), brown bear (Ursus arctos), golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), and wolverine (Gulo gulo) populations have recovered from extinction or near extinction to viable populations during the last three decades. Particularly the wolf and lynx populations have returned at the cost of an increasing number of carnivore attacks on domestic livestock. To support coexistence between carnivores and livestock production, the Swedish authorities subsidise interventions to prevent or reduce the number of carnivore attacks. The most commonly used intervention is carnivore deterring fencing, and all livestock owners can apply for subsidies to build a fence. To receive reimbursement the fence must be approved by the authorities according to predefined criteria. An important part of any management aiming to be adaptive is evaluating interventions. In this paper we evaluate to what extent previously subsidised fences still meet the criteria 1-15 years after their approval. Of 296 fences that had received subsidies in the county of Värmland, 100 randomly selected fences were revisited in 2016. From this subsample 14% of the fences still met the initial criteria for subsidies. None of the fences that still fulfilled the criteria were more than 8 years old, whereas fences with identified failures occurred in all age groups. Of the 86 fences that failed to meet the criteria, construction failures were the most commonly occurring problem. Maintenance failures, wear and tear, only explain a minor part of the failures. To improve the quality of fencing, as well as the quality and longevity of the subsidies programme, there is a need for improved communication between authorities, and improved communication and support from the authorities to livestock producers before and during construction of fences, as well as more rigorous inspection when the fences are built.

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.

Research on large predator-prey interactions are often limited to the predators' primary prey, with the potential for prey switching in systems with multiple ungulate species rarely investigated. We evaluated wolf (Canis lupus) prey selection at two different spatial scales, i.e., inter- and intra-territorial, using data from 409 ungulate wolf-kills in an expanding wolf population in Scandinavia. This expansion includes a change from a one-prey into a two-prey system with variable densities of one large-sized ungulate; moose (Alces alces) and one small-sized ungulate; roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). Among wolf territories, the proportion of roe deer in wolf kills was related to both pack size and roe deer density, but not to moose density. Pairs of wolves killed a higher proportion of roe deer than did packs, and wolves switched to kill more roe deer as their density increased above a 1:1 ratio in relation to the availability of the two species. At the intra-territorial level, wolves again responded to changes in roe deer density in their prey selection whereas we found no effect of snow depth, time during winter, or other predator-related factors on the wolves' choice to kill moose or roe deer. Moose population density was only weakly related to intra-territorial prey selection. Our results show that the functional response of wolves on moose, the species hitherto considered as the main prey, was strongly dependent on the density of a smaller, alternative, ungulate prey. The impact of wolf predation on the prey species community is therefore likely to change with the composition of the multi-prey species community along with the geographical expansion of the wolf population.

Adaptive flyway management of superabundant geese is emerging as a strategy to reduce damage to agricultural crops and other ecosystem disservices, while also ensuring sustainable use and conservation objectives. Given the calls for intensified hunting as part of flyway management in Europe, we need to increase the understanding of structural, situational, and psychological factors important for goose hunting among hunters. Our survey data, retrieved in southern Sweden, showed a higher potential to intensify hunting among goose hunters than other hunters. In response to hypothetical policy instruments (including regulations, collaborative, and others), hunters declared a minor increase in their intention to hunt geese, with the greatest expected increase among goose hunters should the hunting season be extended. Situational factors (e.g., access to hunting grounds) were associated with goose hunting (frequency, bag size, and intention to increase hunting). In addition, controlled motivation (derived from external pressures or to avoid guilt) and more importantly autonomous motivation (due to hunting being enjoyable or valuable) were along with goose hunter identity positively associated with goose hunting. Hunters’ involvement in flyway management may be encouraged by using policy instruments to remove situational barriers and facilitate their autonomous motivation.

Background An important conservation challenge is to mitigate negative impacts that wild birds and mammals can have on human practices and livelihoods, and not least on agricultural crops. Technical interventions to limit the number and severity of damages are available, but evaluations of intervention effectiveness are usually limited in scope, and meta-analyses are rare. This protocol describes a systematic review that seeks to answer the following question: How effective are evaluated interventions in reducing damage from herbivorous wild birds and mammals on agricultural crops? Methods The literature searches are made in the databases Scopus and Zoological Record. The search string is based on a Population-Intervention-Comparator-Outcome (PICO) formatted research question, and search terms fall within five categories: Wildlife type (Population), Damage object (Population), Counteraction (Intervention), Evaluation (Comparator), and Damage (Outcome). Initial scoping searches informed amendment of the search string. A set of 19 benchmark articles were used to estimate the ability of the scoping search to capture relevant literature. To be eligible for inclusion in the review, original articles should study cases where settings of exposure to interventions (measures implemented to reduce damages on agricultural crops caused by terrestrial birds and mammals) are compared to a control setting without exposure to interventions. Eligible studies will be subject to data extraction, systematically documented in an Excel spreadsheet. Associated risk of bias will be critically appraised for the included articles according to seven criteria: 1. risk of confounding biases, 2. risk of post-intervention selection biases, 3. risk of misclassified comparison biases (observational studies only), 4. risk of performance biases (experimental studies only), 5. risk of detection biases, 6. risk of outcome reporting biases, and 7. risk of outcome assessment biases. The results will be reported in narrative and, if possible, quantitative syntheses. The quantitative synthesis will include a summary statistic calculated based on the data of each study and illustrated graphically in a forest plot. If possible, meta-regression analyses will be conducted.

Open access funding provided by Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. A.E. and J.F. were funded by the LIFE Wild Wolf project. J.V.L.B. was part of the Scientific Committee of the LIFE Wild Wolf and was funded by the Regional Government of Asturias (GRUPIN research grant), Grant/Award Number: IDI/2021/000075 and the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (TED2021-132519B-I00).

PurposeThis paper provides an analysis of the notion of dugnad (collective effort) in the context of the first weeks of the outbreak of COVID-19 in Norway. By appealing to people's sense of collective effort (dugnadsånd) Norwegian leaders successfully managed to coordinate the actions of the population and beat the outbreak.Design/methodology/approachThe argument builds on the pragmatic sociology associated with Boltanski and Thévenot and their “orders of worth”. Building on qualitative interview studies of the Norwegian middle and working classes a moral ideal type labelled “the socially responsible citizen” is identified.FindingsThe authors argue that dugnad is embedded in a moral repertoire of the socially responsible citizen that is indicative of a specific Norwegian welfare mentality and that is imperative for the sustainability and resilience of the Norwegian welfare model. This repertoire is found across social classes and has to be understood in light of the Norwegian welfare model and the role of civil society.Social implicationsThe analysis explains the societal impact of the appeal and endorsement of the notion of dugnad in the context of the outbreak of COVID-19.Originality/valueThe paper explores the roots and impact of a social phenomenon that has not been a matter for much sociological analysis.

Large carnivores elicit strong emotional reactions, which could influence consensus or social conflicts between persons promoting wildlife conservation and people who suffer from its negative consequences. Interventions to prevent carnivore attacks on domestic animals are intended to promote coexistence between people and carnivores, but could fail to mitigate fear and social conflicts if emotions and perspectives of intervention end users are not given careful consideration. We conducted focus group interviews with animal owners in Sweden and applied a framework of the appraisal theory of emotion to gain a nuanced understanding of their appraisal of intervention use. The analysis identified that appraisals occur at two different levels. The first process related to appraisals of carnivore presence and the second process related to appraisals of intervention use. The interventions can provide an opportunity to facilitate the animal owners’ coping with carnivore presence and thereby reduce their experienced anxiety of carnivore attacks. However, if animal owners are presented with interventions which they consider irrelevant, that have implications with which they cannot cope, or that are incongruent with the animal owners’ norms, then the promotion of interventions can also generate frustration and negative emotions. As such, interventions have the potential to either mitigate or undermine wildlife-related conflicts. In the wider context, taking the perspective of the individual becomes essential, and animal owners’ experiences and appraisals of intervention use must be acknowledged to allow development of social trust and empathetic dialog between stakeholders in the future.