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.野生动物对人类财产造成的损害，威胁着人与野生动物的共存共生。在集约化管理的景观中，由野生动物损害引发的冲突往往会削弱保护工作，因此损害减缓与赔偿成为野生动物保护领域的重点关切议题。然而，大尺度下损害与索赔事件发生的内在机制仍未得到充分阐明。 本研究在大陆尺度下，探究了棕熊（Ursus arctos）造成的损害模式及其生态与社会经济关联因素。我们收集了2005至2012年间欧洲26个国家的赔偿方案相关信息，并分析了已赔付索赔数量与以下五项因素的变化关系：(i) 棕熊种群丰度，(ii) 森林可获得性，(iii) 人类土地利用方式，(iv) 管理实践，以及(v) 经济富裕程度指标。 多数欧洲国家采用基于损害核查的事后赔偿方案，其中多数方案已运行超过30年。欧洲每年平均有超过3200起熊类损害索赔获得赔付。大多数索赔涉及牲畜损害（59%），分布于棕熊的全部分布范围；其次为养蜂场损害（21%）与农业损害（17%），这类损害主要集中在地中海与东欧国家。每头棕熊每年的平均赔付索赔数从爱沙尼亚的0.1到挪威的8.5不等。这种差异不仅源于赔偿方案的不同；在开展棕熊补充投喂以及农业用地占比高的区域，损害索赔数量相对更少。但观测到的已赔付损害数量的差异与棕熊种群丰度并无关联。 综合与应用。赔偿方案、管理实践与人类土地利用方式会影响棕熊损害索赔的数量，而棕熊种群丰度则无此关联。若政策忽视这种复杂性，仅聚焦于棕熊种群规模等单一因素，则可能无法有效减少索赔事件。为实现有效管控，政策应基于综合方案，优先开展损害预防，并将落实预防措施作为赔付补偿的前提条件。这类综合方案应将减缓措施的实施重点放在损害索赔更易发生的区域或种群所在区域。针对不同物种与不同大陆开展类似研究，可进一步加深我们对野生动物损害引发的冲突的认知。