Robin Rigg

Bio: Robin Rigg is an academic researcher from University of Ljubljana. The author has contributed to research in topics: Ursus & Population. The author has an hindex of 6, co-authored 10 publications receiving 1433 citations.

Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes

Abstract: The conservation of large carnivores is a formidable challenge for biodiversity conservation. Using a data set on the past and current status of brown bears (Ursus arctos), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), gray wolves (Canis lupus), and wolverines (Gulo gulo) in European countries, we show that roughly one-third of mainland Europe hosts at least one large carnivore species, with stable or increasing abundance in most cases in 21st-century records. The reasons for this overall conservation success include protective legislation, supportive public opinion, and a variety of practices making coexistence between large carnivores and people possible. The European situation reveals that large carnivores and people can share the same landscape.

Status, management and distribution of large carnivores – bear, lynx, wolf & wolverine – in Europe

Abstract: Large carnivores (bears Ursus arctos, wolves Canis lupus, lynx Lynx lynx and wolverines Gulo gulo) are among the most challenging group of species to maintain as large and continuous populations or to reintegrate back into the European landscape. Political, socioeconomic and society changes challenge past management approaches in some of the large populations. At the same time local improvements in habitat quality, the return of their prey species, public support and favourable legislation allow for the recovery of some small populations. Several of Europe’s large carnivore populations are large and robust, others are expanding, some small populations remain critically endangered and a few are declining. [ ] Large carnivores need very large areas and their conservation needs to be planned on very wide spatial scales that will often span many intra‐ and inter‐ national borders. Within these large scales conservation and management actions need to be coordinated. To facilitate coordination, a common understanding of the present day conservation status of large carnivores at national and population level is an important basis. [ ] The aim of this summary report is to provide an expert based update of the conservation status of all populations identified by the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE), available in the document “Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans for Large Carnivores” (Linnell et al. 2008) and/or in the various Species Online Information Systems (http://www.kora.ch/sp‐ois/ ; also see Appendix 1). [ ] However, methods used to monitor large carnivores vary and a direct comparison over time or among populations will never be possible at a continental scale. It is more realistic to have an insight into the general order of magnitude of the population, its trend and permanent range as the “currencies” for comparisons and assessments (see point 2). This summary also does not aim to replace the habitat directive reporting, but rather complement it. Discrepancies will likely occur due to different time periods covered and different agreements reached on common reporting criteria on a national level which has to deal with many more species. Furthermore, for several countries the most recent data or distribution map were not always available, yet. [ ] Changes in monitoring methods likely result in changing population estimates, even in stable populations. Improved and more costly methods may suddenly discover that previous estimates were too high, or may detect more individuals than previously assumed. Examples of both occur. Being aware of the change in methodology the expert assessment may still be “stable” for the population even if numbers listed in tables have changed. On the other hand, large scale “official” (government) estimates may be based on questionable or non‐transparent extrapolations that run contrary to data from reference areas within the country or similar regions from other countries. If the discrepancy is apparent, expert assessment needs to question official numbers. [ ] This summary does not aim at reviewing monitoring techniques. Examples of parameters and principles for monitoring large carnivores and some “good practice” examples have been previously compiled by the LCIE (http://www.lcie.org/Docs/LCIE%20IUCN/LCIE_PSS_m onitoring.pdf). Furthermore, references at the end of many country reports do provide ample examples of well documented and state of the art monitoring of large carnivores in Europe under a wide variety of different contexts.

Brown bear attacks on humans: a worldwide perspective

Abstract: The increasing trend of large carnivore attacks on humans not only raises human safety concerns but may also undermine large carnivore conservation efforts. Although rare, attacks by brown bears Ursus arctos are also on the rise and, although several studies have addressed this issue at local scales, information is lacking on a worldwide scale. Here, we investigated brown bear attacks (n = 664) on humans between 2000 and 2015 across most of the range inhabited by the species: North America (n = 183), Europe (n = 291), and East (n = 190). When the attacks occurred, half of the people were engaged in leisure activities and the main scenario was an encounter with a female with cubs. Attacks have increased significantly over time and were more frequent at high bear and low human population densities. There was no significant difference in the number of attacks between continents or between countries with different hunting practices. Understanding global patterns of bear attacks can help reduce dangerous encounters and, consequently, is crucial for informing wildlife managers and the public about appropriate measures to reduce this kind of conflicts in bear country.

Patterns and correlates of claims for brown bear damage on a continental scale

Abstract: Summary Wildlife damage to human property threatens human–wildlife coexistence. Conflicts arising from wildlife damage in intensively managed landscapes often undermine conservation efforts, making damage mitigation and compensation of special concern for wildlife conservation. However, the mechanisms underlying the occurrence of damage and claims at large scales are still poorly understood. Here, we investigated the patterns of damage caused by brown bears Ursus arctos and its ecological and socio-economic correlates at a continental scale. We compiled information about compensation schemes across 26 countries in Europe in 2005–2012 and analysed the variation in the number of compensated claims in relation to (i) bear abundance, (ii) forest availability, (iii) human land use, (iv) management practices and (v) indicators of economic wealth. Most European countries have a posteriori compensation schemes based on damage verification, which, in many cases, have operated for more than 30 years. On average, over 3200 claims of bear damage were compensated annually in Europe. The majority of claims were for damage to livestock (59%), distributed throughout the bear range, followed by damage to apiaries (21%) and agriculture (17%), mainly in Mediterranean and eastern European countries. The mean number of compensated claims per bear and year ranged from 0·1 in Estonia to 8·5 in Norway. This variation was not only due to the differences in compensation schemes; damage claims were less numerous in areas with supplementary feeding and with a high proportion of agricultural land. However, observed variation in compensated damage was not related to bear abundance. Synthesis and applications. Compensation schemes, management practices and human land use influence the number of claims for brown bear damage, while bear abundance does not. Policies that ignore this complexity and focus on a single factor, such as bear population size, may not be effective in reducing claims. To be effective, policies should be based on integrative schemes that prioritize damage prevention and make it a condition of payment of compensation that preventive measures are applied. Such integrative schemes should focus mitigation efforts in areas or populations where damage claims are more likely to occur. Similar studies using different species and continents might further improve our understanding of conflicts arising from wildlife damage.

Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes

Abstract: The conservation of large carnivores is a formidable challenge for biodiversity conservation. Using a data set on the past and current status of brown bears (Ursus arctos), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), gray wolves (Canis lupus), and wolverines (Gulo gulo) in European countries, we show that roughly one-third of mainland Europe hosts at least one large carnivore species, with stable or increasing abundance in most cases in 21st-century records. The reasons for this overall conservation success include protective legislation, supportive public opinion, and a variety of practices making coexistence between large carnivores and people possible. The European situation reveals that large carnivores and people can share the same landscape.

Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people

Abstract: How can we manage farmlands, forests, and rangelands to respond to the triple challenge of the Anthropocene-biodiversity loss, climate change, and unsustainable land use? When managed by using biodiversity-based techniques such as agroforestry, silvopasture, diversified farming, and ecosystem-based forest management, these socioeconomic systems can help maintain biodiversity and provide habitat connectivity, thereby complementing protected areas and providing greater resilience to climate change. Simultaneously, the use of these management techniques can improve yields and profitability more sustainably, enhancing livelihoods and food security. This approach to "working lands conservation" can create landscapes that work for nature and people. However, many socioeconomic challenges impede the uptake of biodiversity-based land management practices. Although improving voluntary incentives, market instruments, environmental regulations, and governance is essential to support working lands conservation, it is community action, social movements, and broad coalitions among citizens, businesses, nonprofits, and government agencies that have the power to transform how we manage land and protect the environment.

Biodiversity losses and conservation responses in the Anthropocene.

Abstract: Biodiversity is essential to human well-being, but people have been reducing biodiversity throughout human history. Loss of species and degradation of ecosystems are likely to further accelerate in the coming years. Our understanding of this crisis is now clear, and world leaders have pledged to avert it. Nonetheless, global goals to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss have mostly not been achieved. However, many examples of conservation success show that losses can be halted and even reversed. Building on these lessons to turn the tide of biodiversity loss will require bold and innovative action to transform historical relationships between human populations and nature.

Wild boar populations up, numbers of hunters down? A review of trends and implications for Europe.

Abstract: Across Europe, wild boar numbers increased in the 1960s-1970s but stabilised in the 1980s; recent evidence suggests that the numbers and impact of wild boar has grown steadily since the 1980s. As hunting is the main cause of mortality for this species, we reviewed wild boar hunting bags and hunter population trends in 18 European countries from 1982 to 2012. Hunting statistics and numbers of hunters were used as indicators of animal numbers and hunting pressure. The results confirmed that wild boar increased consistently throughout Europe, while the number of hunters remained relatively stable or declined in most countries. We conclude that recreational hunting is insufficient to limit wild boar population growth and that the relative impact of hunting on wild boar mortality had decreased. Other factors, such as mild winters, reforestation, intensification of crop production, supplementary feeding and compensatory population responses of wild boar to hunting pressure might also explain population growth. As populations continue to grow, more human-wild boar conflicts are expected unless this trend is reversed. New interdisciplinary approaches are urgently required to mitigate human-wild boar conflicts, which are otherwise destined to grow further.

Human–Wildlife Conflict and Coexistence

Abstract: Human interactions with wildlife are a defining experience of human existence. These interactions can be positive or negative. People compete with wildlife for food and resources, and have eradicated dangerous species; co-opted and domesticated valuable species; and applied a wide range of social, behavioral, and technical approaches to reduce negative interactions with wildlife. This conflict has led to the extinction and reduction of numerous species and uncountable human deaths and economic losses. Recent advances in our understanding of conflict have led to a growing number of positive conservation and coexistence outcomes. I summarize and synthesize factors that contribute to conflict, approaches that mitigate conflict and encourage coexistence, and emerging trends and debates. Fertile areas for scholarship include scale and complexity, models and scenarios, understanding generalizable patterns, expanding boundaries of what is considered conflict, using new tools and technologies, information sharing...