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

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.