DOI: 10.5061/dryad.4tmpg4fgk
title: Data from: How can we tackle interruptions to human-wildlife feeding management? Adding media campaigns to the wildlife manager’s toolbox

description: In recent years, wildlife managers have been seeking ways to reduce the
 occurrence of independent, recreational human-wildlife feeding
 interactions, which continue to gain global popularity and may have
 negative effects on the humans and wildlife involved. Current popular
 methods, such as signage and posters, have yielded mixed results and their
 application is often interrupted, though the effects of these
 interruptions on feeding levels are currently unknown. This has led to
 calls to both identify a management option that can be applied
 successfully from a distance and to determine whether this action may
 assist in recovering long-term programmes from the potential effects of
 interruptions. Marketing and media tools have been shown to successfully
 change human behaviours in conservation campaigns, flagging them as a
 potential tool that could be applied to human-wildlife feeding
 management.  Here, we performed a 4-year study using a wild
 fallow deer population in a popular urban green space as our model system.
 We tracked changes in human feeding behaviours across four different
 management stages. These included pre-management (stage 1), during
 traditional management (i.e. “don’t feed the deer” signage, stage 2),
 mid-interruption (i.e. COVID-19 pandemic, stage 3), and during the
 application of a structured media campaign (stage 4).  We found
 that feeding by visitors decreased during traditional management (stage
 2), but rapidly returned to pre-management levels during the interruption
 (stage 3) despite traditional controls still being in place. However, we
 discovered that feeding dropped significantly after the release of a media
 campaign (stage 4), despite the audience and conditions being unchanged.
 We also identified which imagery and educational messages resonated with
 viewers; information that can be applied to future campaigns in other
 locations. We, therefore, recommend that wildlife managers both
 investigate and be prepared for the negative effects that interruptions of
 any type (e.g. the recent COVID-19 pandemic, other interruptions to
 funding) may have on ongoing management campaigns of this ilk. We
 recommend that media campaigns be explored as a potential tool to reduce
 the occurrence of the unregulated feeding of wildlife by humans in these
 sites, thereby promoting better human-wildlife coexistence. 
description: A key thing to note initially is that this data was collected
 over 4 key stages based on the management activities currently in action,
 aiming to reduce human-deer feeding within the site. These stages occurred
 across 4 years (2018-2021), with each stage representing a summer
 collection (i.e. June-July) for a consecutive year. These stages included
 pre-management (Stage 1), introduction of internal controls such as
 signage, posters, and ranger patrols (Stage 2), interruption of management
 by Covid-19 (Stage 3), and release of a targeted media campaign across
 both traditional and social media (Stage 4). All areas
 of the Park that are open to the public were identified and divided into
 sectors. As fallow deer are naturally sexually segregated during the
 summer months, this was performed by splitting the Park into the area
 utilised by the males (eastern side of the Park) and the area utilised by
 the females (western side of the Park) as outlined by the Park rangers.
 Both the male and female areas were then subdivided into four sectors
 each, of roughly the same size and habitat type, resulting in a final
 total of eight sectors.  A stratified <em>a priori
 </em>schedule was then made to ensure that all sectors were sampled
 across all times of the day and days of the week, alternating between
 starting in a male area and female area sector each morning. This
 prevented pseudoreplication from occurring due to oversampling the same
 herds and areas repeatedly. All observation periods were scheduled during
 peak visiting hours within the Park (i.e. 8:30am to 5pm), when
 interactions were most likely to occur. If no deer were present in the
 assigned starting sector, then the sectors were walked systematically
 until a herd was found. A herd was defined as a group of 2+ individuals
 within 50m of each other and broadly within view of each other (i.e. they
 had to be a cooperative unit rather than separate groups that were unaware
 of each other due to barriers such as hills or thickets).
 When a herd was located, data collection was initiated. The herd
 size, the start time of the observation, and the location of the herd
 (recorded using a Garmin etrex 30 unit) were all immediately documented.
 Observations of the herd continued until the scheduled end time (which
 varied daily based on a stratified schedule to ensure that observations
 encompassed all times of the day on all days of the week for both the male
 and female sides of the Park) or until the herd diverged or merged with
 another herd or ran from the area, at which point we terminated the
 observation and began a new one. The new observation began on either the
 remaining herd present in that sector, a herd in that sector selected at
 random (if multiple herds were present), or else, if the sector had been
 vacated rapidly (i.e. the deer had run out of the sector and out of sight,
 often due to some disturbance), then the sectors were walked again until a
 new herd was located. The end time was noted anytime an observation was
 terminated. Every 15 minutes, the number of people
 within a 250-metre radius of the edge of the herd was documented. The
 number of those people that were exercising or walking a dog was also
 counted and later removed from the total number of people observed in each
 scan, providing us with a proxy for the number of visitors available to
 interact with the herd over the course of the observation. Whenever people
 approached to feed the deer, the number of people who attempted to feed
 was recorded. The herd location was also taken every 15 minutes. These GPS
 points were used to calculate a final mean location for each herd; i.e. a
 single GPS location point for that herd over the total observation
 period. Observations were non-invasive and conducted
 under research permit UCD AREC-E-18-28. Observers remained passive,
 maintained their distance, and did not interact with either the deer or
 the public. Full collection protocols can be found in Griffin et al.
 2022.