Mixed-methods research finds varying acceptance of human-wildlife conflict in Romania, suggesting targeted management strategies are essential.
Human-Wildlife conflict (HWC) presents a growing challenge for wildlife conservation, especially as species recover and reoccupy human-dominated landscapes, creating tensions between ecological goals and local livelihoods. Such conflicts are increasingly reported across Europe, including Romania, involving semi-aquatic species like the Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber L.) and Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra L.). Enhancing coexistence with wildlife through the integration of conflict mapping, stakeholder engagement, and spatial analysis into conservation planning is therefore essential for ensuring the long-term protection of conflict species. A mixed-methods approach was used, including structured surveys among stakeholders, standardized damage report collection from institutions, and expert field assessments of species activity. The results indicate that while most respondents recognize the legal protection of both species, a minority have experienced direct conflict, primarily with beavers through flooding and crop damage. Tolerance varied markedly among demographic groups: researchers and environmental agency staff were most accepting, whereas farmers and fish farm owners were the least accepting; respondents with no personal damage experience and those with university or post-secondary education also displayed significantly higher acceptance toward both species. Institutional reports confirmed multiple beaver-related damage sites, and through field validation, conflict forecast zones with spatial clustering in Harghita, Brașov, Covasna, and Sibiu counties were developed. These findings underscore the importance of conflict forecasting maps, understanding the coexistence dynamics and drivers of acceptance, and the need to maintain high acceptance levels toward the studied species. The developed maps can serve as a basis for targeted interventions, helping to balance ecological benefits with socioeconomic concerns.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gridan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: