Next Article in Journal
Understanding Students’ Acceptance and Usage Behaviors of Online Learning in Mandatory Contexts: A Three-Wave Longitudinal Study during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Previous Article in Journal
Research on the Load Transfer Law of Cross-Sections of Pile-Supported Reinforced Embankments Based on the Finite Element Method
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 13
10.3390/su14137833
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Patterns of Human–Brown Bear Conflict in the Urban Area of Brașov, Romania

by
Alina Cimpoca
and
Mircea Voiculescu
*
Department of Geography, Faculty of Chemistry, Biology and Geography, West University of Timişoara, 4 Bd. Vasile Pârvan, 300223 Timişoara, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(13), 7833; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137833
Submission received: 31 March 2022 / Revised: 1 June 2022 / Accepted: 21 June 2022 / Published: 27 June 2022
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Human–bear conflicts are increasing in number due to deforestation, urban expansion, tourism, and habitat invasion by humans. Our study was conducted in Brașov, a picturesque city in central Romania. Brașov is surrounded by forests and has significant tourist traffic, but also much uncollected garbage and many garbage containers, which attract brown bears. We recorded human–bear conflicts in four districts (Răcădău, the Historic Centre, Noua, and Gară) between 2004 and 2018, finding 55 cases in total, of which in 19 cases involving people, 4 people were killed and 32 were injured. In 36 cases, there were no human victims. We mapped the locations of human–bear conflicts and garbage containers, then analysed their space–time location and human victims in terms of behavioural factors. The altitudes at which brown bears were identified ranged from 580 to 790 m, whereas bears were found in the city at distances of between 100 and 2600 m from the forest. The highest frequency of human–bear conflicts occurred during summer and autumn, and the most common behavioural factor was human outdoor activities. This study provides an important background for understanding human–bear conflicts and will help local authorities develop effective strategies to reduce human–bear conflicts and mitigate risk.

1. Introduction

Today more than ever, large carnivores are living in a heavily anthropogenically modified landscape. This is the case for bears, and to a large extent, the brown bear [1,2,3].
All bear species are considered elements of megafauna and wild tourism [4,5] and a true flagship species [6,7,8], as demonstrated by the popularity of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) as a tourist attraction in the Arctic, and black bears (Ursus americanus) and brown bears (Ursus arctos) in North America and Europe, respectively [9,10,11,12,13].
The brown bear is the largest carnivore in Europe [14]. Historically, the brown bear has been present across all of Europe, except for the islands. Subsequently, with the increase in population numbers and the expansion of agriculture and forest clearance, the brown bear has disappeared from many countries [15,16]. On the other hand, in western and southern Europe, but also in the east and north, the brown bear has simply been exterminated in recent centuries to protect areas inhabited by humans and farm animals [15,16,17,18,19]. Subsequently, during the 20th century, the development of human settlements and roads, as well as mining and logging, led to a reduction in wild areas where bears lived, with a continuous loss of their habitats, and thus, an increase in the frequency of human–brown bear conflicts [20,21].
Brown bears are thought to be sensitive to human presence and activity [22] and generally avoid humans both spatially and temporally [23]. Today, brown bears populate many human-altered landscapes [1], largely coexisting with humans [3,24] and interacting with human activities and expanding tourism infrastructure. Studies in protected areas in Canada, Alaska, and Yellowstone National Park have shown that brown bears are attracted to garbage dumps, campsites, or residential areas [25,26,27,28]. In Europe, the context is different if we consider that there are few truly wild areas [11], noting high levels of human density, increased landscape fragmentation, and habitat alteration [29]. Perhaps also for this reason, brown bear habitats are much closer to human settlements than in North America [11,12], strongly influenced by activities such as tourism, forestry, hunting, and agriculture [30,31], but also by outdoor activities and inappropriate human behaviour [12,23].
As a result of the proximity created by these dense and concentrated environments, brown bears and humans are more likely to interact as each encroaches onto the habitat of the other [31]. At present, brown bear expansion and the existence of anthropogenic food sources are the main drivers of conflict in Europe [26,32,33].
Brown bears in Europe have experienced declines in numbers since the 1600s and 1700s, and dramatically decreased over the last 120 years, although in recent decades, some populations have slowly recovered [34,35]. It is considered that at present in Europe, due to changes in legislation, land use, public attitudes, and hunting regulations, populations of large carnivores, including brown bears, are showing stable and increasing population trends [36,37].
The bear population in Romania has evolved under the influence of the political and socio-economic context of the country. Brown bear populations were higher before the Second World War, declined after the Second World War, and subsequently increased slightly. In the 1960s, bear habitat occupied about 28,000 km [38], and in the 1970s, it had expanded to a total area of about 65,000 km2. By the late 1980s, about 8000 bears were recorded, with a density of 475 bears per hectare, which was well above Romania’s carrying capacity [38]. In 1987, a further reassessment of the carrying capacity was performed, which found that the country could support about 4860 bears. Currently, the Romanian brown bear population occupies an area of more than 69,000 km2 (30% of the country’s surface), at altitudes above 600 m, of which 93% are located in the Carpathians and 7% in the hilly areas [39], and is exhibiting increasing trends due to the protection measures applied according to EU laws [35]. Excluding Russia, Romania is currently home to about 40% of the European bear population and has a stable population of 6000 to 6500 bears [16,40], with a density of about 100–200 bears/1000 km2 [31].
In Romania, as well as in the post-Communist countries of Central Europe, based on the transformations in forest environments and their transition zones with agricultural and urban built-up areas, brown bear conflicts have been increasingly frequent [41,42]. In this context, studies have been carried out on brown bear behaviour and land use in the south-eastern Carpathians of Romania [39]; risk assessments in inhabited areas [43]; brown bear activity in traditional forest pastures in southern Transylvania [43]; biologically realistic annual growth rates; the integration of surveys and telemetry in estimating brown bear density in the Romanian Carpathians [44] and coexistence with brown bears [45] or landscape changes inducing human–wildlife interactions [41]; the use of social networks to develop a better understanding of human–wildlife interactions involving the brown bear in the Prahova Valley–Bucegi Mountains, Southern Carpathians [42]; or conservation issues in the Southern Carpathians, Romanian Carpathians [46].
The aim of our study was to highlight Brașov city, an area with summer and winter tourist activity, regarding the increase in conflicts between brown bears and humans. Therefore, we set the following objectives: (i) to determine the points of entry of brown bears into the city; (ii) to analyse the spatial distribution of conflicts between brown bears and humans; and (iii) to evaluate the types of interaction between brown bears and humans.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Brașov city is a major economic and tourist centre in Romania. It is an old medieval town dating back to 1252 [47]. It occupies an area of 267.3 km² and is located in the central part of Romania (Figure 1) at an altitude of 600 m.
The relief of Brașov city is made up of two main elements: Brașov Depression and Mount Tâmpa, which is 960 m high and made of limestone deposits, dominating the city by about 400 m [48].
Brașov has a temperate continental climate (7.6 °C mean annual air temperature, 600–700 mm mean annual precipitation), and is under the moist air influence from the Atlantic Ocean, and sometimes under excessive continental influences. The area surrounding Brașov is well forested, with deciduous species (Quecus robur, Q. petraea, and Fagus silvatica). About 206 ha of Mount Tâmpa’s surface was established as a natural reservation for flora, fauna (brown bear, wolf, and lynx), and landscape by Decree no. 949/1962, corresponding to IUCN Category IV. Today, the Mount Tâmpa Nature Reserve (MTNR) (ROSCI0120) is a site of community importance and part of the European Natura 2000 network. The MNTR forests consist of beech (Fagus sylvatica) on the northern and eastern slopes, pine (Pinus nigra) on the southern and northern slopes, and spruce (Picea abies) and larch plantations (Larix decidua) on the northern slopes [49]. As of 1 January 2019, Brașov had a population of 289,360 inhabitants [50]. Due to its high tourist potential and important tourist infrastructure, Brașov is a key area for annual tourist flows. Therefore, large quantities of uncollected garbage and garbage containers are present, which attract brown bears from the MTNR; Brașov has a problem with garbage-eating bears and is well known as ‘the city of the garbage brown bears’ [51,52]. The number of places where brown bears are present has increased, fuelling a brown-bear-viewing and, as happens elsewhere in the world, a brown-bear-feeding industry [12,53,54]. As a tourist attraction, brown bears can become a real brand for promotion in tourist infrastructure versus warning display panels (Figure 2).

2.2. Methods

Of the terms used in our study, human–bear conflict (HBC) is nuanced in terms of property damage and human injuries [26,55,56] in which the brown bear acts aggressively [28]. We were concerned with an urban area; therefore, we retained the following categories [26]: food, including garbage dumps, campgrounds, and residential areas; human injury, resulting in injured or killed persons; and aggressive behaviour towards pets [57].
We recorded all HBCs reported during the period of 2004–2018 according to sources of documentation used in other similar situations [54,58,59]: national and regional media, TV, press releases, and webpages. We believe that not all cases were reported because people became tolerant of brown bears and sometimes stopped reporting their presence in town. Therefore, we considered only those HBCs and attacks recorded whose locations could be correctly identified with an estimated maximum space error of about 100 m [54,60], and we excluded HBCs with incomplete or inaccurate localisations. Similarly, for HBC validation, we confirmed them with hunting fund managers, forest inspectors, the Emergency Situations Inspectorate in Brașov, and eyewitnesses. For each case, we recorded the following information [55,58,59,60]: year, month, day, and season; location of HBC and attack; composition, i.e., victim alone or in a group, child or adults; injuries or deaths; and human behaviour during the activities that could have triggered the attack.
The presence of brown bears in Brașov was first determined from the reduction in the forest fund and human invasion of brown bear habitats over time. The spatial modification map of the forest adjacent to the city was constructed using the ArcMap application. A 30 m resolution digital elevation model (DEM) derived from SPOT satellite images was used to delineate the spatial extent of the Brașov study area. Over the DEM, we overlapped the forest edge bordering Brașov city, digitised from 1950 Soviet maps (1:50,000) available from geospatial.org. To highlight the changes in the urban forest area, we used the CORINE land cover (CLC) dataset with a 100 m resolution, compiled by the European Environment Agency for 1990, 2006, and 2018. Above the created base, we overlapped the forest boundaries from CLC. We have also proposed the spatial analysis of brown bear presence in Brașov. We have shown both the points of HBC occurrence and the locations of garbage containers [60], circled with a 200–2400 m radius using the near and buffer functions of ArcMap. The locations of HBCs and killed or injured people were recorded using a Garmin GPS76CSx, and were then downloaded to the DEM. A flow chart of the applied methodology is presented in Figure 3.
Mean, standard deviation (SD), minimum range (min), and maximum range (max) values were used to describe the data. A linear relationship (Pearson’s correlation) of the distances between HBCs and the forest edge and garbage containers and the forest edge was observed.

3. Results

3.1. Decrease in Forest Areas

Over the past 68 years, between 1950 and 2018, the forest of Brașov city has lost important areas (Figure 4).
Through deforestation, the construction of residential districts, and the extension of tourist infrastructure, humans have encroached on brown bear habitat in the MTNR. This process has been well mapped out in four phases. In 1950, according to Soviet maps, 450 ha were deforested. Subsequently, according to CLC data for 1990, 2006, and 2018, 405, 398, and 394 ha disappeared, respectively. This has resulted in a total of 1647 ha of land area devoted to the expansion of economic activities and human habitat.

3.2. Identification, Mapping, and Spatial Analysis of HBCs and Garbage Containers in Brașov

In the 14 years from 2004 to 2018, there were 54 cases of HBCs (3.9 case/year, mean ± SD = 4.8 ± 4.6), involving 35 people being injured or killed (min = 1/year, max = 12/year) (Figure 5a). The penetration of brown bears into the city of Brașov occurs from the forest environment of the MTNR. The presence of HBCs can be traced within four districts: Răcădău (contact with the forest edge) with 23 HBCs (42.6%), the Historic Centre (contact with the forest edge) with 20 HBCs (37%), Noua (contact with the forest edge) with 8 HBCs (14.8%), and Gară (central part of Brașov) with 3 HBCs (5.6%). The highest brown bear presence was during the active summer season with 39.6% of the total, followed by the autumn, with 28.3% of the total, and then spring and winter, with 16.9% and 15.1%, respectively (Figure 5b).
The distances from the forest edge at which HBCs have been recorded varied. The altitude at which HBCs were identified ranged slightly from 580 m to 790 m (Table 1, Figure 6). The main cause of the presence of brown bears in Brașov is their search for food in garbage dumps, campgrounds, or residential areas, which led to our mapping of location of garbage containers. We identified 31 garbage containers located in three districts (Răcădău, the Historic Centre, and Noua). Garbage containers have a stable location at distances roughly equal to the HBC identification points to the forest edge. The altitudes of garbage containers were identified to range slightly, from 600 m to 650 m (see Table 1).
With the help of the buffer tool, we present the distance to the forest edge of each HBC and garbage container for each district (Figure 7).

3.3. HBC: People Killed or Injured, 2004–2018

In 19 recorded cases (34.5%), there were persons killed or injured. Of these, in 15 cases (78.9%), only injured persons were registered (n = 32), and in 4 cases (21.1%), 4 deaths were recorded. In 36 cases (65.5% of the total), there were no human victims, even if a person had interacted with the brown bear. In two cases, there were two dogs attacked by brown bears, one of which was killed. The number of recorded HBCs has increased dramatically over time. Most HBC cases were recorded during the past 2 years: 29 cases (52.7%) involving 7 people, 2 dead and 5 injured (36.8% of all persons killed and injured during the reporting period).
The situation differed by districts: in Răcădău, there were 22 cases recorded; in the Historic Centre, there were 19 cases; in Noua, there were 9 cases; and in Gară, there were 3 cases.
Depending on human behaviour, most HBC cases with human casualties (83.3% of all people involved, n = 30) were recorded during outdoor activities (4 killed and 26 injured), either in the MTNR interference zone in the city, within garbage dumpsites, or within the reserve, where brown bears found uncollected anthropic remains. In the city, there were only four cases of people injured, and there have been recorded cases of parents leaving children unattended who were injured, one case of a dog killed by a brown bear, and one case of an attacked dog.

4. Discussion

As one would expect, contemporary urban expansion and tourism practiced in natural landscapes affect the integrity, species composition, and wildlife behaviour [59], and have led to a recent increase in the prevalence of human–wildlife interactions [57,61,62]. Indeed, perhaps the most frequent cause for brown bears entering humanised spaces is determined by the search for food [45,63]. The primary cause of the presence of brown bears in the urban area of Brașov is the reduction in and fragmentation of natural habitats through deforestation. Deforestation was one of the issues confronting post-revolutionary Romania as the country sought to increase its urban expansion, tourism, and agriculture [9,64].
The deforestation and fragmentation of the forest are associated with the urban expansion of Brașov, the construction of roads and tourist paths, together with the increase in recreational activities in the MTNR area. The existence of this reservation and its large forest highlights the association of tourist interest with the increase in HBCs, as has been mentioned for other urban areas [58]. Large mountains and landscape forests near urban areas are generally used by brown bears and play an important role in the occurrence of HBCs [34,46,65]. The Southern Carpathians, where the MNTR is located, are fragmented by longitudinal and transverse valleys and depressions. Although it is mentioned that brown bears choose the easiest routes to save energy [18,66], the local geography of the MNTR is characterized by steep slopes (between 20.3° and 51.9°) with rocky [49] and rugged terrain, not very accessible to humans. This may also be the reason why brown bears, adapted to the local topography, enter the city of Brașov, and thus have a clear preference for steeply sloping and undulating, rugged terrain [67], as mentioned in the literature [68,69,70]. On the other hand, considering that most MNTR entry points into Brașov city are located on the northern and eastern exposures where biomass production would be higher due to wetter soil and competition for light [71], we can consider that this would facilitate the movement of brown bears up to the border with the urban area, beyond which they would find anthropogenic food sources. Most cases of HBC have been recorded in the districts of Răcădău and the Historic Centre, with brown bears leaving their forest habitat in search of food and interacting with humans. Perhaps not coincidentally, these neighbourhoods are in contact with areas of the MNTR forest where most deforestation has taken place. According to the testimony of a resident of Răcădău, the neighbourhood in which he lives had been occupied by significant forest areas that were cleared from 1990 to 2006.
The availability of anthropogenic food, however, attracts brown bears and influences their use of habitat, no matter whether we refer to urban or rural spaces [58,72]. Although the predisposition of brown bears to seek garbage dumps is lower in Europe than in North America or Asia, garbage dumps are the main anthropogenic food source for brown bears [60,73]. In our case, of the 31 containers, 26 (83.8%) are located near the forest in contact with the MTNR (8 on the forest edge and 3 inside the forest), the area of greatest interactions of brown bears with humans, as has been mentioned for other urban areas [22,60], with the rest (16.2%) in the city of Brașov (Figure 8).
These also form the primary points of entry for brown bears into the urban space of Brașov. In the case of three districts (Răcădău, Historic Centre, and Noua), there is a good, reasonable, and strong correlation between the distance between HBCs and the forest and between garbage containers and the forest (R2 = 0.504, R2 = 0.409, and R2 = 0.993), which shows that the brown bears find sufficient anthropogenic food in these locations, meaning that they do not need to look elsewhere in the city. Brown bear feeding periods occur in several stages, as has been supported by a series of papers [31,74]. Summer showed the highest rates of HBC, as has been mentioned for other urban areas [55,60,75]. The high presence of brown bears in Brașov during the summer and autumn is explained by the growth of human activity and tourist flows in recent years, but also by the existence of garbage dumps, garbage containers, and managed remnants, notably in or near the MTNR. Brașov city was visited by 629,132 tourists in 2017 and by 659,311 tourists in 2018 [38], which may help explain the large number of HBCs registered.
The high HBC values recorded during summer and autumn are synonymous with those produced in Europe [76] or in Russia [77], also being confirmed for Romania by other studies in inhabited areas [42,43]. In summer, during hyperphagia, food intake significantly increases for brown bears. Tourist activity is intense; tourists go out to terraces and restaurants, hiking, trekking, and picnicking. All these activities interact with bears that are looking for food. During autumn, the bears continue their feeding activity, preparing for winter. Amidst fewer tourism activities, the existence of anthropogenic resources such as garbage and forage, there is still a high level of HBC. Our results are reminiscent of those obtained in other studies carried out in Romania in other urban areas [42].
Although during the winter season, brown bears generally hibernate [55], and food intake is low [78], in Brașov, a rather high rate of HBC is recorded, due to the active presence of humans through winter tourism, the area being one of the main centres of winter tourism in Romania. Here, the ski season opens in the second half of December and closes at the end of March or in the beginning of April. Against this background and in the context of the implicit existence of rubbish bins and rubbish storage sites that attract brown bears, it is possible that current climate change trends may also lead to the earlier exit of bears from their dens in search of food [79].
In spring during hypophagia, brown bears are in the low feeding stage [35,80]. This period is difficult for brown bears considering the environmental conditions such as the remnants of snow, its depth and degree of cover, but also the landscape transformations [81]. It should be mentioned that the tourist activity is low, the ski season ends, winter sports practitioners leave Brașov, and terraces and restaurants close. Perhaps also because of this, the availability of litter as a food source for bears is reduced and the level of HBC is low, thus missing the interaction with humans and their activities.
We conducted the study starting in 2004 (because HBCs were poorly documented before that year) and ended in 2018, with the last three years being a high-frequency period of HBC and also being the best documented, using only national and regional media and websites. This confirms for Brașov the worldwide trend in HBC growth, which is well supported by research on both urban and rural areas [57] as a result of urbanisation and increased human–wildlife interactions. In most cases with victims of brown bear attacks, the person was alone (for 81.2% of the total cases, n = 17), which is similar to other urban areas [55]. Attacks on multiple people are more isolated, and in the fourteen years studied here, there was one case with one person killed and eleven injured, one case with six injured people, and one case with two injured people. Most of the world’s brown bear attacks on humans are generated by human behaviour during activities [12]. Thus, in Brașov, the highest frequency is found for outdoor activities, with 14 relevant cases if we consider the presence of the MTNR. This predictor is considered to be the highest incidence both in urban and rural areas [12,82]. Although, as mentioned in the literature [2,12,55], attacks on people in urban areas are rare and cause minor injuries, it should be mentioned that, in Brașov, out of the 36 people who interacted with the brown bears, 4 people were killed, and in 5 cases (13.9%), multiple people were injured and required hospitalisation. The people killed were recorded in August and October, which confirms the statement that brown bear attacks are rare during winter [55]. The injured people were recorded during the summer, spring, and autumn, as confirmed for Europe [12]. In two cases, a brown bear was involved in attacks on pet animals (dogs), possibly after having been harassed by the pets; ultimately, one of the pets was killed. Attacks were performed in the presence of adults during the summer, which is a common scenario [55,83]. There was one case in Brașov of parents leaving children unattended who were thus hurt, confirming that brown bears attacked considerably more adults than children [55]. In two situations, the brown bears were killed, one due to its aggression and the other out of concern that it was rabid. After the attack, the brown bears were shot for reasons of public safety or as a result of emergency situations [82,84].

5. Conclusions

Our study was conducted between 2004 and 2018, when the information obtained from various sources was numerous and rich in content. We explored HBCs in Brașov, one of the most important tourist mountain towns in Romania, and also a well-known hotspot in terms of HBCs [85]. On the other hand, the present study is a link of the whole HBC ensemble, which places Romania first in Europe in this respect [76].
The HBCs in this city were a result of the population dynamics of bears moving from the forest of the adjacent MTNR towards the city, on a background of deforestation and urban expansion and tourist infrastructure elements. As shown by Hipolito et al. [86], this may indicate the synergistic effect of the forest as a protective environment for bears and human presence.
General urban expansion, as well as so-called anthropogenic attractants, especially litter [73], create new stresses at the wildland–urban interface, and influence how brown bears adapt to urban changes. In this sense, HBCs without casualties followed by HBCs with injuries highlight the high frequency of brown bears on the outskirts of MNTR, but even in the city, with brown bears patrolling as far as the centre of Brașov in search of food. Our documentary sources have highlighted the presence of bears in all months of the year, predominantly in the spring, summer, and autumn seasons, when tourist activity is also very intense.
We consider that the analysis of brown bear entry points into the town from the MTNR through spatial scales such as buffers, but also different morphometric variables such as altitude, distance, and slope, have provided important results for the successful implementation of proactive brown bear management and spatial development of the town [87,88].
This can reduce HBCs and, more importantly, the number of casualties. On the other hand, HBC mitigation should remain closely linked to the reduction in available garbage and anthropogenic food sources and the existence of closed garbage containers, especially at entry points near residential areas, restaurants, and terraces, to make urban areas less attractive to brown bears [55]. From another point of view, it is necessary to improve the knowledge about brown bears, and especially the relationship between brown bears and the urban environment, in order to help develop educational actions for Brașov residents and tourists and to ensure the proper planning of urban and tourist expansion so as to avoid HBCs [55]. Simple warnings such as billboards are ineffective because HBCs occur all the time. Perhaps for this reason, local planners and managers need to consider the impact of development on wildlife and work together to reduce potential areas of conflict [89]. Mitigation efforts should focus on areas of MNTR forest in contact with the city of Brașov.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.V.; data acquisition, writing original draft, reviewing and editing, A.C. and M.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We want to thank all people of the profile institutions who provided us with the information about the brown bears. The authors are grateful to Ioan Mihai Pop from the Environmental Protection Agency Covasna County, Sfântu Gheorghe, Romania for its support and competent discussions. We would like to extend our thanks to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and the help of the handling editor.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Morales-Gonzalez, A.; Ruiz-Villar, H.; Ordiz, A.; Penteriani, V. Large carnivores living alongside humans: Brown bears in human-modified landscapes. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 22, e00937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Soulsbury, D.C.; White, L.C. Human-wildlife interactions in urban areas: A review of conflicts, benefits and opportunities. Wildl. Res. 2015, 42, 541–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Zarzo-Arias, A.; Delgado, M.M.; Ordiz, A.; Díaz-García, J.; Cañedo, D.; Gonzalez, M.A.; Romo, C.; Vázquez García, P.; Bombieri, G.; Bettega, C.; et al. Brown bear behaviour in human-modified landscapes: The case of the endangered Cantabrian population, NW Spain. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2018, 16, e00499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lemelin, H.R.; Maher, P. Nanuk of the Torngats: Human-Polar Bear Interactions in the Torngat Mountains National Park, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2009, 14, 152–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Skibins, C.J.; Hallo, C.J.; Sharp, L.J.; Robert, E.; Manning, E.R. Quantifying the Role of Viewing the Denali “Big 5” in Visitor Satisfaction and Awareness: Conservation Implications for Flagship Recognition and Resource Management. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2012, 17, 112–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Barua, M.; Root-Bernstein, M.; Ladle, R.J.; Jepson, P. Defining Flagship Uses is Critical for Flagship Selection: A Critique of the IUCN Climate Change Flagship Fleet. Ambio 2011, 40, 431–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Clucas, B.; McHugh, K.; Caro, T. Flagship species on covers of US conservation and nature magazines. Biodivers. Conserv. 2008, 17, 1517–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nawaz, A.M.; Swenson, E.J.; Zakaria, V. Pragmatic management increases a flagship species, the Himalayan brown bears, in Pakistan’s Deosai National Park. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 2230–2241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bouros, G. 2012 Wildlife—Watching Tourism of Romania and Its Impact on Species and Habitats. Int. J. Responsible Tour. 2012, 1, 23–38. [Google Scholar]
  10. Harding, L. What Good Is a Bear to Society? Soc. Anim. 2014, 22, 174–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kaczensky, P.; Huber, D.; Knauer, F.; Roth, H.; Wagner, A.; Kusak, J. Activity patterns of brown bears (Ursus arctos) in Slovenia and Croatia. J. Zool. 2006, 269, 474–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Penteriani, V.; Delgado, M.M.; Pinchera, F.; Naves, J.; Fernández-Gil, A.; Kojola, I.; Härkönen, S.; Norberg, N.; Frank, J.; Fedriani, M.J.; et al. Human behaviour can trigger large carnivore attacks in developed countries. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 20552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Penteriani, V.; López-Bao, V.J.; Bettega, C.; Dalerum, F.; Delgado, M.M.; Jerina, K.; Kojola, I.; Krofel, M.; Ordiz, A. Consequences of brown bear viewing tourism: A review. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 206, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Balčiauskas, L.; Ambarli, H.; Balčiauskiene, L.; Bagrade, G.; Kazlauskas, M.; Ozolinš, J.; Zlatanova, D.; Žunna, A. Love Off, Fear On? Brown Bear Acceptance by Teenagers in European Countries with Differing Population Statuses. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Trouwborst, A. Managing the carnivore comeback: International and EU species protection law and the return of lynx, wolf and bear to Western Europe. J. Environ. Law 2010, 22, 347–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Zedrosser, A.; Dahle, B.; Swenson, E.J.; Gerstl, N. Status and management of the brown bear in Europe. Ursus 2001, 12, 9–20. [Google Scholar]
  17. Huber, Đ.; Kusak, J.; Majić-Skrbinšek, A.; Majnarić, D.; Sindićić, M. A multidimensional approach to managing the European brown bear in Croatia. Ursus 2008, 19, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Martin, J.; Revilla, E.; Quenette, P.-Y.; Naves, J.; Allainé, D.; Swenson, E.J. Brown bear habitat suitability in the Pyrenees: Transferability across sites and linking scales to make the most of scarce data. J. Appl. Ecol. 2012, 49, 621–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Swenson, E.J.; Wabakken, P.; Sandegren, F.; Bjärvall, A.; Franzén, R.; Söderberg, A. The near extinction and recovery of brown bears in Scandinavia in relation to bear management policies of Norway and Sweden. Wildl. Biol. 1995, 1, 11–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kaczensky, P.; Knauer, F.; Krze, B.; Jonozovic, M.; Adamic, M.; Gossow, H. The impact of high speed, high volume traffic axes on brown bears in Slovenia. Biol. Conserv. 2003, 111, 191–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Oriol-Cotterill, A.; Valeix, M.; Frank, G.L.; Riginos, C.; Macdonald, W.D. Landscapes of Coexistence for terrestrial carnivores: The ecological consequences of being downgraded from ultimate to penultimate predator by humans. Oikos 2015, 124, 1263–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ordiz, A.; Støen, O.-G.; Delibes, M.; Swenson, E.J. Predators or prey? Spatio-temporal discrimination of human-derived risk by brown bears. Oecologia 2011, 166, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Støen, O.G.; Ordiz, A.; Evans, A.L.; Laske, T.G.; Kindberg, J.; Frobert, O.; Swenson, J.E.; Arnemo, J.M. Physiological evidence for a human-induced landscape of fear in brown bears (Ursus arctos). Physiol. Behav. 2015, 152, 244e–248e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Tosi, G.; Chirichella, R.; Zibordi, F.; Mustoni, A.; Giovannini, R.; Groff, C.; Zanind, M.; Apollonio, M. Brown bear reintroduction in the Southern Alps: To what extent are expectations being met? J. Nat. Conserv. 2015, 26, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bath, P.J.B.; Enck, W.J. Wildlife-Human Interactions in National Parks in Canada and the USA. Soc. Sci. Res. Rev. 2003, 4, 1–32. Available online: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/424 (accessed on 16 January 2022).
  26. Gunther, A.K.; Haroldson, A.M.; Frey, K.; Cain, L.S.; Copeland, J.; Schwartz, C.C. Grizzly bear-human conflicts in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, 1992–2000. Ursus 2004, 15, 10–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Peirce, N.K.; Van Daele, J.L. Use of a garbage dump by brown bears in Dillingham, Alaska. Ursus 2006, 17, 165–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Smith, S.T.; Herrero, S.; DeBruyn, D.T. Alaskan brown bears, humans, and habituation. Ursus 2005, 16, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zedrosser, A.; Steyaert, M.J.G.S.; Gossow, H.; Swenson, E.J. Brown bear conservation and the ghost of persecution past. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 2163–2170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rauer, G.; Kaczensky, P.; Knaue, F. Experiences with aversive conditioning of habituated brown bears in Austria and other European countries. Ursus 2003, 14, 215–224. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3873021 (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  31. Swenson, E.J.; Gerstl, N.; Dahle, B.; Zedrosser, A. Action Plan for the conservation of the Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) in Europe. Nat. Environ. 2000, 114, 1–69. [Google Scholar]
  32. Can, E.Ö.; D’Cruze, N.; Garshelis, L.D.; Beecham, J.; Macdonald, W.D. Resolving Human-Bear Conflict: A Global Survey of Countries, Experts, and Key Factors. Conserv. Lett. 2014, 7, 501–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wilson, M.S.; Madel, J.M.; Mattson, J.D.; Graham, M.J.; Burchfield, A.J.; Belsky, M.J. Natural landscape features, human-related attractants, and conflict hotspots: A spatial analysis of human–grizzly bear conflicts. Ursus 2005, 16, 117–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fernández, N.; Selva, N.; Yuste, C.; Okarma, H.; Jakubiec, Z. Brown bears at the edge: Modeling habitat constrains at the periphery of the Carpathian population. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 153, 134–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. García-Rodríguez, A.; Selva, N.; Zwijacz-Kozica, T.; Albrecht, J.; Lionnet, C.; Rioux, D.; Taberlet, P.; De Barb, M. The bear-berry connection: Ecological and management implications of brown bears’ food habits in a highly touristic protected area. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 264, 109376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kojola, I.; Hallikainen, V.; Heikkinen, S.; Nival, V. Has the sex-specific structure of Finland’s brown bear population changed during 21 years? Wildl. Biol. 2020, 18, 258–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Navarro, L.M.; Pereira, H.M. Rewilding Abandoned Landscapes in Europe. Ecosystems 2012, 15, 900–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Marin, D. LIFE 13 NAT/RO/001154 FOR BEAR Plan de Acţiune Pentru Conservarea Populaţiei de Urs Brun Din România; National Institute for Research and Development in Forestry (NIRDF) Marin Drăcea: Izvoru, Romania, 2018; 79p. [Google Scholar]
  39. Pop, M.I.; Sallay, A.; Bereczky, L.; Chiriac, S. Land use and behavioral patterns of brown bears in the South-Eastern Romanian Carpathian Mountains: A case study of relocated and rehabilitated individuals. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2012, 14, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Bautista, C.; Naves, J.; Revilla, E.; Fernández, N.; Albrecht, J.; Scharf, K.A.; Rigg, R.; Karamanlidis, A.A.; Jerina, K.; Huber, D.; et al. Patterns and correlates of claims for brown bear damage on a continental scale. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 54, 282–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Mustăţea, M.; Pătru-Stupariu, I. Using Landscape Change Analysis and Stakeholder Perspective to Identify Driving Forces of Human–Wildlife Interactions. Land 2021, 10, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pătru-Stupariu, I.; Niţă, A.; Mustăţea, M.; Alina Huzui-Stoiculescu, A.; Fürste, C. Using social network methodological approach to better understand human–wildlife interactions. Land Use Policy 2020, 99, 105009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pop, M.I.; Chiriac, S.; Bereczky, L.; Berde, L.; Sandu, M.R.; Szabo, S. Evaluarea Riscurilor Ridicate de Prezența Urșilor în Zonele Locuite. Metodologie Standard pentru Echipele de Evaluare a Riscului—Risk Assessment Team (RAT); Editura Green Steps: Brașov, Romania, 2013; p. 80. [Google Scholar]
  44. Popescu, D.V.; Iosif, R.; Pop, I.M.; Chiriac, S.; Bouroș, G.; Furnas, J.B. Integrating sign surveys and telemetry data for estimating brown bear (Ursus arctos) density in the Romanian Carpathians. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 7, 7134–7144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Stăncioiu, T.P.; Dutcă, I.; Bălăcescu, C.M.; Ungurean, V.S. Coexistence with Bears in Romania: A Local Community Perspective. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. García-Sánchez, M.P.; González-Ávila, S.; Solana-Gutiérrez, J.; Popa, M.; Jurj, R.; Ionescu, G.; Ionescu, O.; Fedorca, M.; Fedorca, A. Sex-specific connectivity modelling for brown bear conservation in the Carpathian Mountains. Landsc. Ecol. 2022, 37, 1311–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mihai, E.; Panaite, L. Depresiunea Brașov. In Geografia României, III, Carpații Românești și Depresiunea Transilvaniei; Oance, D., Velcea, V., Eds.; Editura Academiei Române: București, Romania, 1983; pp. 211–233. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ungureanu, D. Paleontological update of Dealul Melcilor (Brașov). Acta Palaeontol. Rom. 2008, 6, 375–384. [Google Scholar]
  49. Pop, G.O.; Danciu, M.; Rákosy, L.; Munteanu, V.A.; Stefănuţ, S.; Ionescu, T.D.; Simon, D.; Predoiu, G.; Andrei, A.; Vezeanu, C. Monografia Rezervaţiei Muntelui Tâmpa; Editura Universităţii Transilvania: Braşov, Romania, 2008; p. 130. [Google Scholar]
  50. National Institute of Statistics. Available online: http://statistici.insse.ro (accessed on 19 November 2021).
  51. Klenzendorf, A.S. Management of Brown Bears (Ursus arctos) in Europe. Ph.D. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic University, Blacksburg, VI, USA, 1997; p. 117. [Google Scholar]
  52. Klenzendorf, A.S.; Vaughan, R.M. An Overview of Brown Bear Management in Six European Countries. Ursus 1999, 11, 163–177. [Google Scholar]
  53. DeBruyn, T.D.; Smith, T.S.; Proffitt, K.; Partridge, S.; Drummer, T.D. Brown bear response to elevated viewing structures at Brooks River, Alaska. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2004, 32, 1132–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fortin, J.K.; Rode, K.D.; Hilderbrand, G.V.; Wilder, J.; Farley, S.; Jorgensen, C.; Marcot, B.G. Impacts of human recreation on brown bears (Ursus arctos): A review and new anagement tool. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0141983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bombieri, G.; Delgado, M.M.; Russo, F.L.; Garrote, J.P.; López-Bao, V.J.; Fedriani, M.J.; Penteriani, V. Patterns of wild carnivore attacks on humans in urban areas. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 17728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Beckmann, J.P.; Lackey, C.W.; Berger, J. Evaluation of deterrent techniques and dogs to alter behavior of “nuisance” black bears. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2004, 32, 1141–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Baruch-Mordo, S.; Breck, W.S.; Wilson, R.K.; David, M.; Theobald, M.D. Spatio temporal Distribution of Black Bear-Human Conflicts in Colorado, USA. J. Wildl. Manag. 2010, 72, 1853–1862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Merkle, A.J.; Krausman, R.P.; Decesare, J.N.; Jonkel, J.J. Predicting Spatial Distribution of Human–Black Bear Interactions in Urban Areas. J. Wildl. Manag. 2011, 75, 1121–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kretser, E.H.; Sullivan, J.P.; Knuth, A.B. Housing density as an indicator of spatial patterns of reported human-wildlife interactions in Northern New York. Lanscape Urban Plan. 2008, 84, 282–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Garshelis, L.D.; Baruch-Mordo, S.; Bryant, A.; Gunther, A.K.; Jerina, K. Is diversionary feeding an effective tool for reducing human–bear conflicts? Case studies from North America and Europe. Ursus 2017, 28, 31–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Whittaker, D.; Vaske, J.J.; Manfredo, J.M. Specificity and the Cognitive Hierarchy: Value Orientations and the Acceptability of Urban Wildlife Management Actions. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2006, 19, 515–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Graham, K.; Beckerman, A.P.; Thirgood, S. Human-predator-prey conflicts: Ecological correlates, prey losses and patterns of management. Biol. Conserv. 2005, 122, 159–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Knight, J. Making Wildlife Viewable: Habituation and Attraction. Soc. Anim. 2009, 17, 167–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Roellig, M.; Dorresteijn, I.; von Wehrden, H.; Hartel, T.; Fischer, J. Brown bear activity in traditional wood-pastures in Southern Transylvania, Romania. Ursus 2014, 25, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tammeleht, E.; Kull, A.; Pärna, K. Assessing the importance of protected areas in human-dominated lowland for brown bear (Ursus arctos) winter denning. Mamm. Res. 2020, 65, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nellemann, C.; Støen, O.-G.; Kindberg, J.; Swenson, E.J.; Vistnes, I.; Ericsson, G.; Katajisto, J.; Kaltenborn, P.B.; Martin, J.; Ordiz, A. Terrain use by an expanding brown bear population in relation to age, recreational resorts and human settlements. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 138, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Fedorca, A.; Russo, I.-R.M.; Ionescu, O.; Ionescu, G.; Popa, M.; Fedorca, M.; Curtu, L.A.; Sofetea, N.; Tabor, G.M.; Bruford, W.M. Inferring fne-scale spatial structure of the brown bear (Ursus arctos) population in the Carpathians prior to infrastructure development. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 9494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Eriksen, A.; Wabakken, P.; Maartmann, E.; Zimmermann, B. Den site selection by male brown bears at the population’s expansion front. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0202653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Petram, W.; Knauer, F.; Kaczensky, P. Human influence on the choice of winter dens by European brown bears in Slovenia. Biol. Conserv. 2004, 119, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sahlén, E.; Støen, O.-G.; Swenson, J.E. Brown bear den site concealment in relation to human activity in Sweden. Ursus 2011, 22, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ciucci, P.; Tosoni, E.; Domenico, G.D.; Quattrociocchi, F.; Boitani, L. Seasonal and annual variation in the food habits of Apennine brown bears, central Italy. J. Mammal. 2014, 95, 572–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Wilton, M.C.; Belant, L.J.; Beringer, J. Distribution of American black bear occurrences and human-bear incidents in Missouri. Ursus 2014, 25, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Elfström, M.; Zedrosser, A.; Støen, O.-G.; Swenson, E.J. Ultimate and proximate mechanisms underlying the occurrence of bears close to human settlements: Review and management implications. Mammal Rev. 2014, 44, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lewis, D.L.; Baruch-Mordo, S.; Wilson, K.R.; Breck, S.W.; Mao, S.J.; Broderick, J. Foraging ecology of black bears in urban environments: Guidance for human–bear conflict mitigation. Ecosphere 2015, 6, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lyons, J.A. Activity patterns of urban American black bears in the San Gabriel Mountains of southern California. Ursus 2005, 16, 255–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Bombieri, G.; Naves, J.; Penteriani, V.; Selva, N.; Fernandez-Gil, A.; Lopez-Bao, J.V.; Ambarli, H.; Bautista, C.; Bespalova, T.; Bobrov, V.; et al. Brown bear attacks on humans: A worldwide perspective. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 8573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kudrenko, S.; Ordiz, A.; Barysheva, S.L.; Baskin, L.; Swenson, J.E. Human injuries and fatalities caused by brown bears in Russia, 1932–2017. Wildl. Biol. 2020, 2020, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sergiel, A.; Barja, I.; Navarro-Castilla, Á.; Zwijacz-Kozica, T.; Selva, N. Losing seasonal patterns in a hibernating omnivore? Diet quality proxies and faecal cortisol metabolites in brown bears in areas with and without artificial feeding. PLoS ONE 2020, 12, e0242341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. González-Bernardo, E.; Russo, L.F.; Valderrábano, E.; Fernández, Á.; Penteriani, V. Denning in brown bears. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 10, 6844–6862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. de Angelis, D.; Huber, D.; Reljic, S.; Ciucci, P.; Kusak, J. Factors affecting the home range of Dinaric-Pindos brown bears. J. Mammal. 2021, 102, 481–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Coogan, S.C.P.; Coops, N.C.; Janz, D.M.; Cattet, M.R.L.; Kearney, S.P.; Stenhouse, G.; Nielsen, S.E. Towards grizzly bear population recovery in a modern landscape. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 56, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Conover, R.M. Why are so many people attacked by predators? Hum. Wildl. Confl. 2008, 2, 139–140. [Google Scholar]
  83. Vaske, J.J.; Don Carlos, W.A.; Bright, D.A. Judgments of responsibility in human-bear conflict. In Proceedings of the 9th Western Black Bear Workshop, NRA Whittington Center, Raton, NM, USA, 19–22 April 2006; pp. 35–40. [Google Scholar]
  84. Kojola, I.; Heikkinen, S. Problem brown bears Ursus arctos in Finland in relation to bear feeding for tourism purposes and the density of bears and humans. Wildl. Biol. 2012, 18, 258–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Cotovelea, A.; Ionescu, O.; Şofletea, N.; Ionescu, G.; Jurj, R.; Sîrbu, G.; Popa, M.; Fedorca, M.; Mariş, C.; Curtu, A.L. Testing the influence of habituation on genetic structure of brown bear (Ursus arctos). Ann. For. Res. 2015, 58, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Hipólito, D.; Reljić, S.; Rosalino, M.L.; Wilson, M.S.; Fonseca, C.; Huber, Đ. Brown bear damage: Patterns and hotspots in Croatia. Oryx 2018, 54, 511–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Piédallu, B.; Quenette, P.-Y.; Bombillon, N.; Gastineau, A.; Miquel, C.; Gimenez, O. Determinants and patterns of habitat use by the brown bear Ursus arctos in the French Pyrenees revealed by occupancy modelling. Oryx 2017, 53, 334–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Zarzo-Arias, A.; Penteriani, V.; Delgado, M.M.; Torre, P.; García-González, R.; Mateo-Sánchez, M.C.; Vázquez García, P.; Dalerum, F. Identifying potential areas of expansion for the endangered brown bear (Ursus arctos) population in the Cantabrian Mountains (NW Spain). PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0209972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. McFadden-Hiller, E.J.; Beyer Jr, E.D.; Belant, L.J. Spatial Distribution of Black Bear Incident Reports in Michigan. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0154474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 14 07833 g001 550
Figure 1. Geographic position of Brașov city.
Figure 1. Geographic position of Brașov city.
Sustainability 14 07833 g001
Sustainability 14 07833 g002 550
Figure 2. Promoting brown bears (photos by Cimpoca, A.).
Figure 2. Promoting brown bears (photos by Cimpoca, A.).
Sustainability 14 07833 g002
Sustainability 14 07833 g003 550
Figure 3. A flow chart of the methods (detailed in the text).
Figure 3. A flow chart of the methods (detailed in the text).
Sustainability 14 07833 g003
Sustainability 14 07833 g004 550
Figure 4. Stages of forest area reduction through deforestation between 1950 and 2018.
Figure 4. Stages of forest area reduction through deforestation between 1950 and 2018.
Sustainability 14 07833 g004
Sustainability 14 07833 g005 550
Figure 5. Temporal trends in HBCs: monthly, annual (a), and seasonal patterns (b).
Figure 5. Temporal trends in HBCs: monthly, annual (a), and seasonal patterns (b).
Sustainability 14 07833 g005
Sustainability 14 07833 g006 550
Figure 6. Altitude and distance from the forest edge where HBCs were located.
Figure 6. Altitude and distance from the forest edge where HBCs were located.
Sustainability 14 07833 g006
Sustainability 14 07833 g007 550
Figure 7. Locations of HBCs and of garbage containers were recorded with respect to distances to the forest edge (circles of 200–1200 m radius, at intervals of 200 m are shown).
Figure 7. Locations of HBCs and of garbage containers were recorded with respect to distances to the forest edge (circles of 200–1200 m radius, at intervals of 200 m are shown).
Sustainability 14 07833 g007
Sustainability 14 07833 g008 550
Figure 8. Secure garbage containers on the outskirts of the MNTR (a), secure garbage containers and garbage scattered in the Răcădău neighbourhood (b), unselected garbage scattered, (c) and garbage scattered in the forest of Mount Tâmpa (d). (Photos by Cimpoca, A.).
Figure 8. Secure garbage containers on the outskirts of the MNTR (a), secure garbage containers and garbage scattered in the Răcădău neighbourhood (b), unselected garbage scattered, (c) and garbage scattered in the forest of Mount Tâmpa (d). (Photos by Cimpoca, A.).
Sustainability 14 07833 g008
Table
Table 1. Spatial situation of HBCs and garbage containers.
Table 1. Spatial situation of HBCs and garbage containers.
Districts/Cases of HBCAltitude (m)Distances from the Forest Edge of HBC (m)
MinMeanMaxMean ± SDMinMeanMaxMean ± SD
Răcădău
Four located on the forest edge
Only one inside the forest		600641.8690634.6 ± 23100235.2700881.8 ± 437.5
Historic Centre
Four located on the forest edge
Five inside the forest		580659.4790635.7 ± 22.51002807001240 ± 520
Noua
Only one on the forest edge
Only one inside the forest		610635650612.5 ± 21.6100483.31000825 ± 352.6
Gară600633.3630610 ± 8.120002266.726002216.6 ± 271.8
Districts/Garbage ContainersAltitude (m)Distances from the Forest Edge of Garbage Containers (m)
Mean ± SDMinMeanMaxMean ± SD
Răcădău—13 (42%)
Five located on the forest edge		630634.6650634.6 ± 23100212.5300800 ± 429.6
Historic Centre—11 (35.5%)
Three located on the forest edge
Two inside the forest		600611650635.7 ± 22.5700840900457.1 ± 206
Noua—7 (22.5%)
Only one on the forest edge		610638.5650645.4 ± 49.71002405001363.6 ± 839.1
Gară—no garbage containers---- --
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cimpoca, A.; Voiculescu, M. Patterns of Human–Brown Bear Conflict in the Urban Area of Brașov, Romania. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7833. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137833

AMA Style

Cimpoca A, Voiculescu M. Patterns of Human–Brown Bear Conflict in the Urban Area of Brașov, Romania. Sustainability. 2022; 14(13):7833. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137833

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cimpoca, Alina, and Mircea Voiculescu. 2022. "Patterns of Human–Brown Bear Conflict in the Urban Area of Brașov, Romania" Sustainability 14, no. 13: 7833. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137833

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop