As more people move to cities, interactions between humans and wildlife are becoming increasingly common. This is especially true for certain adaptable carnivores like coyotes and red foxes, which are highly skilled at navigating urban landscapes. While these animals may fascinate some city residents, they can also cause conflicts by preying on pets or behaving unpredictably around people. To manage these wildlife populations effectively, scientists are turning to citizen science—a method that involves everyday people contributing sightings and observations to help track and understand these animals.
A recent study conducted in Wichita, Kansas, offers insights into the benefits and limitations of using citizen science data compared to traditional motion-triggered camera traps. By gathering data from both sources, the researchers were able to assess how factors like proximity to roads, building density, neighbourhood income, and access to water impact where and how these animals are found within urban environments.
Comparing Citizen Science with Camera Traps
In this study, researchers set up 67 camera traps around Wichita while also encouraging residents to report sightings through a dedicated website advertised on social media. They found some notable differences between the types of data each method produced:
Red Foxes and Variables: The camera traps indicated that red fox sightings were not linked to any particular environmental factors like roads or building density. For coyotes, sightings were only lower in areas with dense buildings, which may suggest these animals prefer less crowded spaces when possible.
Human-Reported Sightings: Citizen science data showed different patterns. Sightings reported by people were more likely to occur near roads, in areas with moderate building density, and in higher-income neighbourhoods. This difference may reflect where people are most likely to notice and report wildlife, rather than an absolute preference of coyotes or foxes for these locations.
Active Times: Timing also played a role in sightings. People were more likely to spot these animals during dawn and dusk (crepuscular hours), while camera traps recorded most activity at night. This suggests that human activity patterns influence citizen science data, as people are less likely to be out during the late-night hours when these animals are most active.
Benefits of Advertising Citizen Science
Interestingly, advertising the citizen science project on social media not only increased participation from the public but also generated significant revenue. For every pound spent on ads, the wildlife agency received six times that amount in donations, highlighting a surprising financial benefit of engaging the community in wildlife monitoring.
What This Means for Urban Wildlife Management
This study demonstrates that while citizen science data can be different from data gathered through other scientific methods, it still has valuable applications. Citizen observations offer a real-time glimpse into where and when wildlife is most likely to interact with people in cities. They also provide a cost-effective way for agencies to gather data over a large area, potentially filling in gaps that camera traps or other traditional methods might miss. And as shown by this project, engaging the public in wildlife research can even lead to increased financial support for conservation efforts.
Summary
As cities continue to grow, the presence of adaptable species like coyotes and red foxes will likely become even more common. This study suggests that combining citizen science with traditional research methods can provide a fuller picture of urban wildlife behaviour, helping management agencies make better decisions about how to balance human-wildlife interactions. Through social media and community involvement, projects like this not only increase awareness but also give people a meaningful role in conservation efforts, creating a win-win for both urban wildlife and the humans who share space with them.
Source:
