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的损害威胁着人与野生动物的共存。在集约管理的景观中，由野生动物损害引发的冲突往往会破坏保护工作，使得损害缓解与赔偿成为野生动物保护领域备受关注的议题。然而，大尺度下损害与索赔发生的内在机制仍未得到充分阐释。

本研究聚焦大陆尺度下棕熊（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2005-2012年间欧洲26个国家的赔偿方案相关信息，并分析了受偿索赔数量与以下五项因素的变异关系：(i) 棕熊种群数量；(ii) 森林可获取性；(iii) 人类土地利用；(iv) 管理实践；(v) 经济富裕程度指标。

欧洲多数国家采用基于损害核验的事后补偿方案，其中许多方案已实施超过30年。欧洲年均受偿的熊害索赔案件平均超过3200起。绝大多数索赔涉及家畜损害（59%），分布于棕熊的整个分布范围；其次为蜂箱损害（21%）与农业损害（17%），此类损害主要集中在地中海与东欧国家。

每只棕熊每年的平均受偿索赔数量从爱沙尼亚的0.1到挪威的8.5不等。这种差异不仅源于补偿方案的不同：在开展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。不过，观测到的受偿损害数量与棕熊种群数量并无关联。

研究总结与应用启示。补偿方案、管理实践与人类土地利用会影响棕熊损害索赔的数量，而棕熊种群数量则无此影响。若政策忽视这种复杂性，仅聚焦单一因素（如棕熊种群规模），或无法有效减少索赔案件。为提升政策有效性，应采用整合式方案，优先开展损害预防，并将落实预防措施作为支付赔偿的前提条件。此类整合式方案应将缓解工作聚焦于索赔风险更高的区域或种群。针对不同物种与大陆开展类似研究，可进一步加深我们对野生动物损害引发的冲突的认知。