Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 565

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 152 of the 152 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Human–wildlife interactions in urban areas: a review of conflicts, benefits and opportunities

Open access
Soulsbury, Carl D., White, Piran C. L.·2016·Wildlife Research

Abstract

Wildlife has existed in urban areas since records began. However, the discipline of urban ecology is relatively new and one that is undergoing rapid growth. All wildlife in urban areas will interact with humans to some degree. With rates of urbanisation increasing globally, there is a pressing need to understand the type and nature of human–wildlife interactions within urban environments, to help manage, mitigate or even promote these interactions. Much research attention has focussed on the core topic of human–wildlife conflict. This inherent bias in the literature is probably driven by the ease with which it can be quantified and assessed. Human–wildlife conflicts in terms of disease transmission, physical attack and property damage are important topics to understand. Equally, the benefits of human–wildlife interactions are becoming increasingly recognised, despite being harder to quantify and generalise. Wildlife may contribute to the provision of ecosystem services in urban areas, and some recent work has shown how interactions with wildlife can provide a range of benefits to health and wellbeing. More research is needed to improve understanding in this area, requiring wildlife biologists to work with other disciplines including economics, public health, sociology, ethics, psychology and planning. There will always be a need to control wildlife populations in certain urban situations to reduce human–wildlife conflict. However, in an increasingly urbanised and resource-constrained world, we need to learn how to manage the risks from wildlife in new ways, and to understand how to maximise the diverse benefits that living with wildlife can bring.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/wr14229

Cites

152 of 152 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 152 references

Cited by

See all 565

Metadata

Authors
Soulsbury, C. D., & White, P. C. L.
Venue
Wildlife Research
Published
2015-07-01
Volume
42
Issue
7
Pages
541-553
ISSN
  • 1035-3712 (ISSN-L)
  • 1448-5494
OpenAlex
W1866903916
Cited by
565
References
152
FWCI
15.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Human–wildlife interactions in urban areas: a review of conflicts, benefits and opportunities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1071/wr14229
The paper
Soulsbury, C. D., & White, P. C. L. (2016). Human–wildlife interactions in urban areas: a review of conflicts, benefits and opportunities. Wildlife Research. https://doi.org/10.1071/wr14229

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.