DOI: 10.5061/dryad.3xsj3txrc
title: Large carnivore distribution maps for Europe 2017 – 2022/23

description: Large carnivores have made a remarkable comeback in Europe during the last
 half century, and recovery is still ongoing in large parts of the
 continent (Andrén 2018; Boitani 2018; Boitani et al. 2022; Chapron et al.
 2014; Huber 2018; Ranc 2018; von Arx 2020). While this expansion can be
 celebrated as a huge conservation success, it also creates considerable
 challenges for coexistence in the multi-use landscapes of Europe (Linnell
 2013). Having a common understanding of the distribution, size and trends
 of large carnivore populations in Europe is one prerequisite for a
 knowledge-based dialogue in the often heated and highly politicized
 discussions about future scenarios of large carnivore conservation and
 management in Europe. Because of the scale at which large carnivores
 utilize the landscape it is essential to conduct periodic continental
 scale assessments of their status transcending sub-national and national
 borders. Assessments at this scale require harmonising diverse datasets
 that arise from different jurisdictions using different monitoring
 approaches. These shapefiles provides the best available overview of brown
 bear (Ursus arctos), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), wolf (Canis lupus), golden
 jackal (Canis aureus), and wolverine (Gulo gulo) distributions a
 continental scale.
description: <strong>2.1. Distribution mapping
 methods</strong> The mapping approach generally
 follows the methods described in (Chapron et al. 2014) and (Kaczensky et
 al. 2013). It updates the published Species Online Layers 2012-2016 for
 brown bear, Eurasian lynx, wolf, golden jackal, and wolverine (Kaczensky
 et al. 2021; Ranc et al. 2022) for the period 2017-2022/23. Large
 carnivore presence was mapped at a 10 x 10 km (ETRS89-LAEA Europe) grid
 scale. This grid is widely used for Habitat Directive reporting to the
 European Union (EU) and can be downloaded at:
 http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/eea-reference-grids-2. The map
 encompasses the continental EU countries plus Switzerland and Norway, and
 the EU candidate / potential candidate countries in the Balkan region, in
 addition to Ukraine and Turkey. For the two latter countries, only parts
 were included; for Ukraine only the Carpathian region (for this report
 Ukraine was artificially cut off and the straight line in the east does
 not represent the national border), and the European part of Turkey. For
 the 2012-2016 mapping, several countries were not or not fully (not for
 all species) included (Hungary, Montenegro, Turkey), so that no
 comparisons can be made of the updated carnivore distributions with those
 from the last mapping for these countries. Mapping large carnivores for
 this report had a two-fold goal:  
 Visualizing areas of large carnivore presence 
 Visualizing the variation in the underlying data
 quality <strong>2.1.1. Presence
 status </strong> We aimed to distinguish between
 two presence levels: Permanent = suggesting
 an established population which is reproducing, but also including cells
 with continuous presence in the absence of documented
 reproduction. Sporadic = suggesting only occasional
 presences of dispersers or lone individuals.  Where
 this distinction was not possible, but presence was confirmed, we used
 Undefined = presence confirmed, but not known if it is permanent or
 sporadic. “Permanent” is equivalent to the
 status of “Present regularly” (PRE) as used in Article 17 reporting to the
 Habitats Directive, while “Sporadic” corresponds to the status of
 “Occasional” (OCC) in the same system. It was not possible to
 systematically separate out the “Newly arrived” (ARR) category, although
 it may well apply to the many new jackal records throughout western and
 northern Europe. Finding a common harmonized definition that fits all
 monitoring circumstances is difficult and the distinction required expert
 assessment. Here are the most common scenarios that we have continued with
 from the previous 2012-2016 mapping cycles: 1)
 For <strong>countries where the known annual species distribution
 was monitored annually</strong>, the distinction between permanent
 and sporadic was primarily made based on how consistently the species was
 detected in a cell over the 5–7-year monitoring period:
 <strong>Permanent</strong> = presence
 confirmed in ≥ 3 years in the last 5 - 7 years OR reproduction confirmed
 at least once within the last 3 years 
 <strong>Sporadic (highly fluctuating presence)</strong> =
 presence confirmed in &lt;3 years in the last 5 years OR in
 &lt;50% of the time <br>2) For
 <strong>countries where the probability of species presence is
 modelled</strong> based on presence signs in combination with
 habitat parameters and distance rules, the distinction between permanent
 and sporadic can be made based on the modelled “probability of presence”
 value of a cell. As models used for different populations will vary in
 their approach, the cut-off values for permanent, sporadic, and absent
 were defined by the national/population level species experts.
 3) For <strong>countries where the total range is covered
 by rotating annual surveys of parts of the total area over a 5–7-year
 period</strong> (i.e. different sections are surveyed in different
 years such that the whole area is surveyed at least once during the
 cycle), other criteria need to be used such as: comparison to presence in
 a cell (or adjacent cells) during the previous survey cycle, or confirmed
 reproduction, or the presence of females, to delineate permanent presence
 from sporadic presence. However, where monitoring is too fragmented and
 infrequent so that no reasonable distinction between permanent and
 sporadic can be made, the category “undefined” was used.
 In general, telemetry data of long-distance dispersers out of the
 known range and once off documentation of individuals outside the known
 range were categorised as sporadic presence.
 <strong>2.1.2. Large carnivore signs used to map presence
 </strong> <em><strong>Large carnivore
 signs as a basis for mapping </strong></em>
 We used the following presence categories, which were derived
 from the SCALP criteria for lynx in the Alps (Molinari-Jobin et al. 2012),
 but supplemented with two additional data quality information
 categories: <strong>1. Confirmed presence
 signs</strong> 
 <strong>Category 1 (C1):</strong> “Hard facts”, verified and
 unchallenged large carnivore presence signs (e.g. dead animals, DNA,
 verified camera trap images); <strong>Category
 2 (C2):</strong> “Confirmed signs”, large carnivore presence signs
 controlled and confirmed by a large carnivore expert (e.g. trained member
 of the network), which requires documentation of large carnivore signs
 (e.g. tracks in the snow). We also had to include the
 category C1*, referring to C1 records which also include observations by
 trained or experienced personnel; it was not always possible to know if
 these observations also included non-documented records such as direct
 observations (which by the SCALP definitions do not quality as confirmed
 records). This is particularly true for the documentation of bear family
 groups or where monitoring was heavily based on hunters, foresters, and
 protected area wardens (e.g., Croatia, Slovakia, Ukraine).
 <strong>2. Extrapolated confirmed presence
 signs </strong> 
 <strong>Category “buffered”</strong>: Confirmed presence signs
 with a buffer around them, ideally based on well-documented/ published
 methods, and usually done to represent home ranges that are typically
 larger than 10 x 10 km in many parts of Europe (especially in the
 north). <strong>Category
 “modelled”:</strong> confirmed presence signs and modelling based on
 habitat suitability and/or proximity criteria ideally based on
 well-documented/published methods and explicit cut-off values.
 For areas of poor monitoring coverage or infrequent
 monitoring, we also included: <strong>3.
 Unconfirmed presence signs </strong> 
 <strong>Category 3 (C3)</strong>: Unconfirmed reports of
 category 2 large carnivore presence signs and all presence signs such as
 sightings and calls which, if not additionally documented, cannot be
 verified. <strong>Category
 “Soft”</strong>: Extrapolation of large carnivore presence based on
 interviews questionnaires, and media coverage from
 2017-2022/23, <strong>Category “Past
 presence”</strong>: Documented presence from the past (but no older
 than from 2010) and no indication that the situation has
 changed. 
 <br><em><strong>From signs to grid cell
 </strong></em> Ideally, GPS locations of
 large carnivore signs were intersected with the 10 x 10 km ETRS89-LAEA
 Europe grid. However, for some countries, data was collected at the
 spatial scale of hunting grounds (e.g., bear observations by hunters in
 eastern and south-eastern Europe). In this case the hunting grounds with
 large carnivore presence were intersected with the 10 x 10 km grid. Large
 carnivore presence was assumed for all cells intersecting the hunting
 ground (normally using a minimum intersection area in the range of
 &gt;10%). <strong>2.1.3. Data quality of
 large carnivore presence cells </strong> We aimed
 to present data quality information at the grid cell level, but for some
 datasets it was not feasible to do so, and data quality was provided at
 the scale of the entire, or parts of, the layer, and not the individual
 grid cells. For some datasets this resulted in a mix of cells based on
 confirmed and buffered, modelled or unconfirmed cells without spatially
 explicit information at the grid cell level. Consequently, the following
 final data quality categories were used: 
 <strong>Confirmed presence:</strong> based on C1 & C2
 signs, cases where C1 included unspecified “observations” were marked with
 a star (C1*) <strong>Extrapolated
 presence</strong>: cells which don’t have LC signs but are
 intersected by buffers or have a high probability of large carnivore
 presence based on documented modelling approaches. 
 <strong>Unconfirmed presence:</strong> cells with only C3
 signs, or cells with only data from prior to 2017, where presence is still
 assumed to persist. Where data was only
 available at the shape file level, we also used the following
 categories: Confirmed and extrapolated
 presence: mixed layer with buffered C1 & C2 signs and/or
 documented modelling approach, or when data was only available at the
 level of hunting grounds. Confirmed and unconfirmed
 presence: a mixed layer with C1-C3 signs; for these datasets it can be
 assumed that the majority are C1 and C2, but that documentation is not
 (readily) available - these data sources include hunter observations and
 some damage inspection data. 
 <strong>2.1.4. Populations</strong>
 Grid cells were assigned to populations based on the LCIE’s
 population approach (Linnell et al. 2008). Population delineation follows
 a combination of ecosystem boundaries, topography, different management
 regimes, distributional discontinuities and administrative units, selected
 to create practical and functional management units. Population borders
 were partly drawn out of convenience, roughly following topographic
 regions, natural or artificial barriers such as large rivers, and in some
 cases national borders to facilitate reporting. Ecological conditions and
 monitoring methods tend to be similar within populations. Populations are
 primarily based on where animals are detected, not where they have
 originated from (except for reintroduced populations). Hence even if the
 genetic origin of an individual was known (e.g., based on genetic
 analysis), the cell it shows up in will not represent the animal’s origin,
 but rather the population of the location at which it was detected. Cells
 in-between existing populations and geographic regions and single cells
 outside of existing populations were given the Status “Unassigned” - even
 if their genetic origin was known. An exception to this concerns lynx
 which derive from many reintroductions. Here we have used the origins as
 an additional factor in population separation. In the last cycle of large
 carnivore mapping for 2021-2016, we delineated 11 populations for lynx, 10
 for bears, 9 for wolves, 4 for golden jackals, and 2 for wolverines
 (Kaczensky et al. 2021, Ranc et al. 2022, Kaczensky et al.
 2024). <strong>2.1.5. Border cells
 </strong> Many populations occur along and across
 national borders and cells are shared by neighbouring countries. Only a
 few populations reported in a coordinated way for a crossborder region
 (e.g., for bears in the Pyrenees, lynx in the Alps, and all species in
 Norway & Sweden). Where large carnivore presence was detected in
 the same cell by neighboring countries, the cell with the “better
 information status” wins, following the rule: - Permanent &gt;
 Sporadic &gt; Undefined - Confirmed presence &gt; Confirmed and
 extrapolated presence &gt; Confirmed and unconfirmed presence &gt;
 Extrapolated presence &gt; Unconfirmed presence
 <strong>2.1.6. Time period </strong>
 The majority of the large carnivore presence layers cover the
 time period 2017-2022/23. But because monitoring conditions and logistics
 vary between countries, regions, and species, we documented the specific
 monitoring periods. Periods referring to 2022/23 usually mean that the
 species range or population estimates are reported at the end of winter in
 early 2023. However, the use of 2022 for the calendar year versus 2022/23
 for the biological/monitoring year was not consistently used and therefore
 2022/23 can mean: only the first part of 2023 is included, all of 2023 is
 included, or all or parts of 2023 and the first part of 2024 is included.
 For all countries that provided data deviating from the 2017 start and
 2022 or 2023 end date, we explicitly label the monitoring period on one
 map together with the range.
description: # Large carnivore distribution maps for Europe 2017 – 2022/23
 [https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.3xsj3txrc](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.3xsj3txrc) ## Description of the data and file structure The mapping approach generally follows the methods described in (Chapron et al. 2014) and (Kaczensky et al. 2013). It updates the published Species Online Layers 2012-2016 for brown bear, Eurasian lynx, wolf, golden jackal, and wolverine  (Kaczensky et al. 2021; Ranc et al. 2022) for the period 2017-2022/23. Large carnivore presence was mapped at a 10 x 10 km (ETRS89-LAEA Europe) grid scale. This grid is widely used for Habitat Directive reporting to the European Union (EU) and can be downloaded at: [http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/eea-reference-grids-2](http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/eea-reference-grids-2). The map encompasses the continental EU countries plus Switzerland and Norway, and the EU candidate / potential candidate countries in the Balkan region, in addition to Ukraine and Turkey. For the two latter countries, only parts were included; for Ukraine only the Carpathian region (for this report Ukraine was artificially cut off and the straight line in the east does not represent the national border), and the European part of Turkey (Fig. 1). For the 2012-2016 mapping, several countries were not or not fully (not for all species) included (Hungary, Montenegro, Turkey), so that no comparisons can be made of the updated carnivore distributions with those from the last mapping for these countries. Mapping large carnivores for this report had a two-fold goal: ·         Visualizing areas of large carnivore presence ·         Visualizing the variation in the underlying data quality ### Files and variables The files go together with the report: Large carnivore distribution maps and population updates 2017 – 2022/23.  Kaczensky, P., Ranc, N., Hatlauf, J., Payne, J.C. *et al.* 2024. Large carnivore distribution maps and population updates 2017 – 2022/23. Report to the European Comission under contract N° 09.0201/2023/907799/SER/ENV.D.3 “Support for Coexistence with Large Carnivores”, “B.4 Update of the distribution maps”. IUCN/SSC Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE) and Istituto di Ecologia Applicata (IEA). The shapefiles contain the 10x10 cells occupied by brown bear (*Ursus arctos*), Eurasian lynx (*Lynx lynx*), wolf (*Canis lupus*), golden jackal (*Canis aureus*), and wolverine (*Gulo gulo*) at the European scale. The metadata of the shape files contains the following information: | **Metadata table** | **Information provided** | | :----------------- | :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | FID | Unique identifier ID | | CELLCODE | 10x10 km ETRS89-LAEA (Lambert Azimuthal Equal Area) Europe grid ID | | EOFORIGIN | East coordinate in ETRS89-LAEA projection ([EPSG:3035](https://epsg.io/3035)) | | NOFORIGIN | North coordinate in ETRS89-LAEA projection ([EPSG:3035](https://epsg.io/3035)) | | COUNTRY | Country (in some cases large transboundary region) | | PERSON | Main person(s) who compiled and/or sent the map | | SPECIES | *Canis lupus*, *Canis aureus*, *Gulo gulo*, *Lynx lynx*, or *Ursus arctos* | | POPULATION | Species-specific population as defined by LCIE | | PRESENCE | Presence category: Undefined, Permanent, or Sporadic | | DATAQUAL | Data quality categories: see report Kaczensky et al. 2024 | | DATASOURCE | Short reference of data source – for details see Kaczensky et al. 2024 | | YEAR | Time period the data layer covers | | YRCOMPILED | Year the maps were compiled: 2024 | | COMPILERS | Kaczensky, Ranc, Hatlauf, Payne *et al.* 2024 for the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE) | #### File: Brown\_bear.zip **Description:** Shape files: Distribution of the brown bear in Europe 2017-2022/23. #### File: Eurasian\_lynx.zip **Description:** Shape files: Distribution of the Eurasian lynx in Europe 2017-2022/23. #### File: Golden\_jackal.zip **Description:** Shape files: Distribution of the Golden jackal in Europe 2017-2022/23. #### File: Wolf.zip **Description:** Shape files: Distribution of the wolf in Europe 2017-2022/23. #### File: Wolverine.zip **Description:** Shape files: Distribution of the wolverine in Europe 2017-2022/23. ## Code/software The shape files can be visualised with any Geographic Information System (GIS) software, such as ArcGIS, QGIS, and others. ## Access information Other publicly accessible locations of the data: * [https://www.lcie.org/Large-carnivores](https://www.lcie.org/Large-carnivores)  * [https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/habitats-directive/large-carnivores_en](https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/habitats-directive/large-carnivores_en)