A landscape of overlapping risks for wolf-human conflict in Wisconsin, USA

Managing risk requires an adequate understanding of risk-factors that influence the likelihood of a particular event occurring in time and space. Risk maps can be valuable tools for natural resource managers, allowing them to better understand spatial characteristics of risk. Risk maps can also support risk-avoidance efforts by identifying which areas are relatively riskier than others. However, risks, such as human-carnivore conflict, can be diverse, multi-faceted, and overlapping in space. Yet, efforts to describe risk typically focus on only one aspect of risk. We examined wolf complaints investigated in Wisconsin, USA for the period of 1999-2011. We described the spatial patterns of four types of wolf-human conflict: livestock depredation, depredation on hunting hounds, depredation on non-hound dogs, and human health and safety concerns (HHSC). Using predictive landscape models and discriminant functions analysis, we visualized the landscape of risk as a continuous surface of overlapping risks. Each type of conflict had its own unique landscape signature; however, the probability of any type of conflict increased closer to the center of wolf pack territories and with increased forest cover. Hunting hound depredations tended to occur in areas considered to be highly suitable wolf habitat, while livestock depredations occurred more regularly in marginal wolf habitat. HHSC and non-hound dog depredations were less predictable spatially but tended to occur in areas with low housing density adjacent to large wildland areas. Similar to other research evaluating the risk of human-carnivore conflict, our data suggests that human-carnivore conflict is most likely to occur where humans or human property and large carnivores co-occur. However, identifying areas of co-occurrence is only marginally valuable from a conservation standpoint and could be described using spatially-explicit human and carnivore data without complex analytical approaches. These results challenge our traditional understanding of risk and the standard approach used in describing risk. We suggest that a more comprehensive understanding of the risk of human-carnivore conflict can be achieved by examining the spatial and non-spatial factors influencing risk within areas of co-occurrence and by describing the landscape of risk as a continuous surface of multiple overlapping risks.